© All Rights Reserved

8 vues

© All Rights Reserved

- MOS assignment
- Strength of Materials
- Strength of Materials
- Design of Input Gear-shaft-exampler
- 2D2010 2 Reference
- Iast.lect04
- BC3-02DoubleBox
- 507 33 Powerpoint-slides Ch14 DRCS
- Strain EngineeringandElastic Efunda
- Experimental and Numerical Studies on Various Section Geometries for Inward Inversion
- mechanic of solid
- 3. Ovaling deformations of circular tunnels under seismic loading, an update on seismic design and analysis of underground structures.pdf
- som notes.doc
- Base-Isolation Design Practice in Japan Introduction to the Post-kobe Approach
- Energy Method
- thick plate shear deformation
- Simple Stress & Strain
- Isolated Footing.ce Review
- 4d0ff6a2-a3a2-4938-b80f-a4c468a71b1e
- Esercizi Nathan Quadrio

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 205

TO LATERAL LOADS

A Thesis

By

2010

Copyright by

2010

ABSTRACT

There is significantly large number of reinforced concrete buildings in the US and many

parts of the world that are not designed according to prevailing seismic code provisions.

These buildings are often characterized by low lateral displacement capacity and rapid

degradation of shear strength and hence are vulnerable to severe damage or even collapse

during strong ground motions. Typically, columns in such buildings have insufficient and

widely spaced transverse reinforcement and lack essential seismic reinforcement details.

These columns exhibit lack of strength and ductility in reverse cyclic loading and are

vulnerable to brittle shear failure and loss of axial load carrying capacity during strong

ground shaking. The need to assess their vulnerability to earthquake damage and hence

suggesting the desired level of retrofit requires evaluation of the expected behavior in

terms of strength and deformation capacity. This can be achieved by estimating the load-

deformation response considering all potential failure mechanisms associated with axial,

flexure and shear behavior. This study evaluates two different macro models to

investigate their capabilities to determine the lateral response. Based on the comparison

proposed. In the proposed procedure, flexural and shear deformations are determined

ii

compression softening factor. Likewise, shear deformations are calculated by employing

axial strain and shear stresses from axial-flexure model to consider the effect of flexural

mechanisms allows for accurate response estimation while decoupled flexural analysis

minimizes iterations within the analysis and make the process relatively simple and easy.

displacement due to reinforcement slip are calculated separately and added to flexural

components due to flexure, shear and reinforcement slip according to a set of rules based

on comparison of the column yield, flexural and shear strength. The comparison of the

predicted responses with experimental test data showed that proposed procedure performs

iii

Dedication

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the help of

many people. First and foremost, I would like to thank my adviser, Dr. Halil Sezen, for

his continuous support and endless patience throughout the years so far. Without his

guidance in our meetings and discussions, I would not have been able to complete my

research. I would like to acknowledge Professors Shive Chaturvedi and Dr. Ethan

I would like to thank my friends, colleagues and family members for their

unconditional support over the years. I also appreciate the support of my friend and

officemate Kyong Yun Yeau who has made the rough times manageable and the good

times memorable.

providing me this wonderful opportunity of graduate studies and supporting myself and

my family financially.

v

VITA

Military College of Engineering Risalpur,

Pakistan

Pakistan Army Corps of Engineers

The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

FIELDS OF STUDY

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract .. ii

Dedication... iv

Acknowledgments . v

Vita vi

List of Tables . x

List of Figures xi

Chapters:

1 INTRODUCTION . 1

1.1 Overview 1

1.2 Research Impetus ... 3

1.3 Research Objective 5

1.4 Organization ... 6

2.1 Introduction 11

2.2 Deformation Components... 12

2.2.1 Flexural Deformations.. 12

2.2.2 Reinforcement Slip Deformations. 15

2.2.3 Shear Deformations... 18

2.3 Total Response. 20

2.4 Shear Failure Due to High Displacement Ductility.. 24

2.5 Implementation of Displacement Component Model 25

2.5.1 Test Specimens and Material Properties.. 25

2.5.2 Material Constitutive Relationships.. 26

2.5.3 Comparison of Model and Test Results. 28

2.6 Conclusion 29

THEORY . 39

3.1 Introduction 39

3.2 Background. 41

3.3 Axial-Flexure Model... 42

3.3.1 Effect of Shear Deformations on Flexural Response.. 43

vii

Page

3.3.2 Axial Strain due to Flexure. 43

3.3.3 Flexural Deformations.... 45

3.4 Axial-Shear Model. 46

3.4.1 MCFT Constitutive Laws... 49

3.4.1.1 Concrete in Compression....... 50

3.4.1.2 Concrete in Tension.... 50

3.4.1.3 Reinforcement Stress-Strain Relationship... 51

3.4.2 Consideration of Local Cracks Conditions of Integration.. 53

3.4.3 Material Stiffness Formulations. 56

3.5 Development of Axial Shear Flexure Interaction Approach.. 58

3.5.1 Compatibility Conditions/Relationships. .. 59

3.5.2 Equilibrium Conditions/Relationships 60

3.5.3 Constitutive Laws... 61

3.5.4 Interactions Considered.............. 62

3.5.4.1 Interaction Strain Methodology.. 62

3.5.4.2 Concrete Compression Softening... 64

3.5.5 Stiffness Model in ASFI approach... 64

3.6 Conclusions. 65

4.1 Introduction.... 71

4.2 Response Estimation of Columns by ASFI approach. 72

4.2.1 Pullout Effect Consideration and Total Deformations... 73

4.2.2 Analytical Procedure for Implementation of ASFI

approach... 75

4.2.3 Solution Technique for Implementing analytical

Procedure 77

4.3 Implementation and Verification of ASFI approach... 80

4.3.1 Details of Test Specimens and Material Properties. 81

4.3.2 Constitutive Laws... 81

4.3.2.1 Constitutive Law for Concrete in Compression... 82

4.3.2.2 Constitutive Law for Concrete in Tension. 83

4.3.2.3 Constitutive Law for Reinforcements. 84

4.3.3 Flexural Deformation Model.. 85

4.3.4 Pullout Deformation Model 85

4.3.5 Buckling of Compression Bars and Post-Peak Analysis 86

4.4 Comparison of the Results...... 87

4.5 Summary and Conclusions. 87

ASFI APPROACH..... 99

5.1 Introduction. 99

5.2 Implementation of the Analytical Models.. 100

5.2.1 Test Specimens and Material Properties. 100

viii

Page

5.2.2 Material Constitutive Relationships 101

5.2.2.1 Concrete in Compression 101

5.5.2.2 Concrete in Tension 103

5.2.2.3 Reinforcing Steel ... 103

5.2.3 Flexural Deformation Model...... 104

5.2.4 Pullout Deformation Model.... 104

5.2.5 Buckling of Compression Bars... 105

5.3 Comparison of Predicted and Experimental Response... 105

5.3.1 Flexural Displacements... 106

5.3.2 Reinforcement Slip Displacements 108

5.3.3 Shear Displacements... 108

5.3.4 Total Response 112

5.3 Conclusions. 116

MODEL.. 130

6.1 Introduction. 130

6.2 Desired Characteristic of Proposed Analytical Procedure.. 131

6.3 Proposed Interaction Methodology. 135

6.3.1 Interaction of Concrete Compression Softening. 135

6.3.2 Interaction of Axial Strains. 139

6.4 Buckling of Compression Bars... 141

6.4.1 Dhakal and Maekawa (2002) Bar Buckling Model... 143

6.4.2 Potger et al. (2001) Bar Model... 144

6.4.3 Implementation of Bar Buckling Models... ... 146

6.4.4 Proposed Model for Buckling of Compression Bars...... 146

6.5 Flexural Analysis 147

6.6 Reinforcement Slip Deformation Model 148

6.7 Shear Deformations.... 148

6.8 Total/Combined Response . 151

6.8.1 Pre-Peak response... ... 152

6.8.2 Post-Peak Response. .. 152

6.9 Analytical Procedure and Solution Technique for Proposed

Model.. 153

6.10 Implementation of the Model and Comparison of Results. 160

6.11 Conclusion.. 161

7 CONCLUSION . 174

7.1 Summary 174

7.1.1 Component Models 175

7.1.2 Combined Model ... 177

7.2 Conclusions 177

7.3 Recommendations for Future Work .. 179

ix

Page

List of References . 181

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1 Olive View Hospital damaged in the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake

(Steinbrugge, K. V., NISEE).. 8

1.2 Failure of first story columns in the Olive View Hospital (Steinbrugge,

K. V., NISEE). 8

1.3 Imperial County Services Building damaged during the 1979 Imperial

Valley earthquake (Bertero, V. V., NISEE)... 9

earthquake (Nawed, K., eNKay Solutions). 9

concrete construction after 2005 Pakistan earthquake (EEC, Department

of Civil Engineering NWFP UET Peshawar). 10

2.6 Spring representation for total response model for fixed ended column 32

xii

Figure Page

2.9 Constitutive relationships for concrete in compression.. 34

3.4 (a) Membrane element subjected to in-plane stresses (b) Average strains

in-plane loading (c) Average strains in cracked concrete (d) Mohrs

circle for average strains. 68

(b) Cracked concrete in tension (c) Reinforcing Steel..... 68

xiii

Figure Page

4.7 Comparison of the results for Specimen-5 (Ousalem et al, 2005).. 93

xiv

Figure Page

5.18 Lateral load shear displacement relationship for Specimen-3. 125

(Specimen-1). 129

xv

Figure Page

6.15 Lateral load slip displacement relationship for Specimen-4 169

xvi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

parts of the world that are not designed according to modern seismic design provisions.

In the developed countries, these are the buildings which were constructed between

1930s and 1970s according to codes and standards available at the time. Even today, the

many developing countries that lag behind on seismic code developments continue to

design and build structures which do not have essential details deemed vital to withstand

large lateral loads. These buildings are often characterized by low lateral displacement

capacity and rapid degradation of shear strength and hence are vulnerable to severe

The reconnaissance of damage observed during the past earthquakes suggests that

poorly designed reinforced concrete columns are the most critical elements to sustain

insufficient and widely spaced transverse reinforcement with poor details such as 90-

degree end hooks and splicing of the longitudinal bars near the column ends, which are

the regions that typically experience the most inelastic deformations. Due to these

1

deficiencies, the columns may not have sufficient shear strength to develop the plastic

hinges at the ends. In addition, wide spacing of the ties does not provide good

confinement for the core concrete. As a result, the columns exhibit non-ductile behavior

concrete construction are shown in Figures 1.1 through 1.5. Figure 1.1 shows Olive View

Hospital building which was damaged in the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake. The

building sustained significant damage in almost all columns in the first story. Close up

views of the two columns in Figure 1.2 show severe shear damage to the columns. The

concrete is entirely crushed and the columns have virtually lost their ability to carry

lateral and axial loads. The Imperial County Services Building, as shown in Figure 1.3,

also suffered significant damage to its first-story columns during the Imperial Valley

core concrete, resulting in crushing of the concrete and buckling of the longitudinal

reinforcement.

Notice that both buildings in above examples suffered heavy structural damage

but did not collapse. In developing countries, in addition to the absence of requisite

seismic detailing, the quality of construction is also very poor. Resultantly, catastrophic

failure of the structures is observed after every major earthquake. For example, Pakistan

1.4). A reconnaissance team of structural engineers that inspected the damage after the

earthquake found that many of the buildings that collapsed or sustained severe damage

suffered from lack of seismic details, poor quality of construction, or both (Amjad et al.,

2

2005). The non-seismic details in collapsed or damaged buildings included insufficient

lap-lengths, improper location of the lap splicing and insufficient concrete confinement

due to large spacing of ties. The team also observed irregular configurations with

soft/weak story or captive columns, constructions without any engineering design and

poor quality of concrete and workmanship. Figures 1.5 shows several examples of these

deficiencies and damaged reinforced concrete buildings from the Pakistan 2005

earthquake.

columns have sufficient strength and deformation capacity to push inelastic action and

damage to the beams. Damage of the beams affects mainly the immediate surroundings

whereas the failure of a lower-story column can potentially lead to collapse of the

building. Current design codes require buildings to have details that ensure ductile

behavior to withstand high seismic activity. These details include closely spaced ties in

columns, with 135-degree end hooks. The large amount of transverse steel gives the

columns sufficient shear strength to resist lateral earthquake loads, and the closely spaced

ties keep the core concrete confined at high displacements. Similarly, 135-degree end

hooks perform much better and remain closed during cyclic loading as these are

embedded in the core concrete which remains intact due to good confinement.

The large numbers of reinforced concrete buildings that are not designed to

possible to retrofit an existing building to increase its strength and ductility to enhance its

3

performance during an earthquake. The need to assess their vulnerability to earthquake

damage and hence suggesting the desired level of retrofit requires evaluation of the

expected behavior in terms of strength and deformation capacity. This can be achieved by

columns, considering all potential failure mechanisms associated with axial, flexure and

shear behavior.

In addition to the retrofitting requirements, there are many situations where the

Even important existing buildings and planned future structures may require performance

While much is known about the behavior of reinforced concrete components and

systems, there are still areas that require further understanding. For a structure whose

evaluations have been studied well and design procedures are relatively well established.

However, for the structures whose behavior is affected by shear related mechanisms,

accurate modeling remains elusive with many available approaches and theories.

Understanding the fact that lateral deformation of a structure is mainly comprised of the

flexure and shear components, it must also be realized that these deformations do not

occur independently and these mechanisms interact with each other. Any analytical

procedure that aims to model overall lateral load-displacement relationship must take this

aspect into account. These are few issues that are the motivation for the research reported

here.

4

1.3 Research Objective

design codes. There are a number of studies investigating structural response of non-

approaches can predict structural behavior with good accuracy but employ very

amenable and are difficult to implement. Contrary, many approaches simplify the

most cases this is done at the cost of accuracy. Therefore, it is aimed in this study to

propose a suitable analytical procedure which can address critical issues in structural

In the research reported here, two of the available models will be examined and

analyzed for their applicability in terms of the accuracy of predicted responses and ease

computer programs and estimated responses for previously tested reinforced concrete

columns will be compared with test data. Based on the observations, an analytical

procedure will be proposed that can accurately predict monotonic lateral load-

displacement response of the reinforced concrete column subjected to lateral loading. The

predicted responses by the proposed procedure will be compared with experimental test

5

One of the models analyzed in this study, designated as displacement component

model, was developed by Setzler and Sezen (2005). The macro model was developed

based on the concept that a typical fixed-ended reinforced concrete column, when

deformation components is estimated separately and then simply added together to get

total pre-peak response. For post-peak analysis, the understudy column is classified into

one of the five categories based on comparison of its predicted shear and flexural strength

and then individual deformation components are combined together according to a set of

between axial, flexure and shear mechanisms in terms of concrete compression softening

and axial deformation while satisfying conditions on compatibility of average strains and

equilibrium of average stresses. For shear behavior, this model employs Modified

Compression Field theory (MCFT) which is considered very suitable approach for

1.4 Organization

This thesis is organized into seven chapters. The organization is based on the

investigation process implemented in this study. Chapter 2 presents the summary of the

6

displacement component model. The analytical procedure is implemented and predicted

responses for test specimens used in the original study are compared with test data to

in this model is a complex approach, analytical procedure and relevant details are

explained in detail. This chapter can serve as a good summary documentation on theory

approach are implemented and predicted responses for the test specimens used in the

original study are presented and compared with reported response to verify correct

response for a common set of test specimens to evaluate their capabilities in terms of

predicting peak strength, post peak response and ultimate deformations in Chapter 5. The

observations made in this chapter form the basis of the proposed analytical procedure. In

Chapter 6, the proposed procedure for response estimation is presented. This chapter

interaction between these mechanisms. Two of the available bar buckling models are

discusses conclusions drawn from this study, and suggests several areas of future

research.

7

Figure 1.1: Olive View Hospital damaged in the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake

(Steinbrugge, K. V., NISEE)

Figure 1.2: Failure of first story columns in the Olive View Hospital

(Steinbrugge, K. V., NISEE)

8

Figure 1.3: Imperial County Services Building damaged during the 1979 Imperial Valley

earthquake (Bertero, V. V., NISEE)

Figure 1.4: Collapsed reinforced concrete buildings during 2005 Pakistan earthquake

(Nawed, K., eNKay Solutions)

9

(a) Insufficient and improper lap splicing (b) Widely spaced transverse reinforcement

(c) Poor quality of the concrete (d) Weak column strong beam construction

(e) Shear failure of the column (f) Plastic hinge formation near column end

concrete construction after 2005 Pakistan earthquake

(EEC, Department of Civil Engineering NWFP UET Peshawar)

10

CHAPTER 2

2.1 Introduction

subjected to lateral loads, Setzler and Sezen (2008) developed a macro model based on

the concept that a typical fixed-ended reinforced concrete column, when subjected to

deformation components are estimated separately and then simply added together to get

total pre-peak response. For post-peak analysis, the understudy column is classified into

one of the five categories based on comparison of its predicted shear and flexural strength

and then individual deformation components are combined together according to a set of

estimating each component of lateral deformation are presented followed by the details of

total response model that outlines the rules for total response. The approach is

11

implemented in a computer program written in MATLAB (MathWorks, 2009) and the

results for response estimation are presented to verify correct implementation of the

model. The simulated lateral load-deformation responses of the test specimens shall be

can be determined after estimating lateral deformations resulting from flexural, bond slip

and shear mechanisms. In the procedure discussed in this chapter, these deformations are

calculated separately as per the details given below and then added together depending

upon dominant failure mode determined after comparing flexural and shear strength of

the columns.

For reinforced concrete elements subjected to bending moment and axial load,

performing section analysis on a fiber model in one-dimensional stress field. This is very

handy and reliable approach if realistic material constitutive relationships and actual

stress distribution across the depth of the cross-section are considered. In this approach,

the reinforced concrete cross-section is discritized into finite number of concrete and steel

fibers. Each of the fibers is idealized as a uniaxial element with its unique stress-strain

relationship. Bernoullis principle that plane section before bending remains plane after

bending is the main hypothesis in the analysis and implies that the longitudinal strain in

12

concrete and steel at any point in the cross section is proportional to its distance from

neutral axis resulting in linear strain distribution. Based upon the resulting strain profile,

stress distribution for concrete and reinforcing steel can be determined in accordance with

cross section, the moment capacity of the section is determined. The process is repeated

number of times by incrementing longitudinal stain until either the concrete or steel fails

Typically, fiber section analysis takes into account the enhancement in the

strength and ductility of the concrete due to confinement and ignores concrete behavior in

tension. Also, confined core concrete and unconfined cover concrete are configured

separately with their respective stress-strain relationships. It must also be noted that the

accuracy of the analysis is directly related to the ability of the constitutive material

models to simulate real material behaviors in the cross section and the level of

L

f ( x) xdx (2.1)

0

where x is the curvature distribution at distance x measured along column axis, and

L is the height of the column. This approach results into an accurate response as it

13

captures the non-linearity in actual curvature distribution up to the point corresponding to

the maximum moment capacity. However, after the peak has reached, the deformations

will continue to increase and this approach can no longer predict post-peak deflections, as

no direct relation exists between moment and curvature in this range. In the plastic hinge

method for computing flexural deformations, as shown in figure 2.2, a linear curvature

distribution is assumed in the elastic range and inelastic curvatures are lumped at the

column end over the plastic hinge length L p . Flexural displacements are calculated by

taking the moment of the areas of the curvature diagram about the column end. Unlike

force-based approach, plastic hinge model can predict post-peak flexural deformations

but overestimates the deflections in elastic range as it approximates the linear moment-

curvature integration up to yield point and plastic hinge method after yielding. The yield

point for the section is defined when the longitudinal steel first yields. Following

Lp

f f , y y L p a for y u (2.2)

2

where f , y is the flexural deflection at yielding calculated using the integration method,

for a cantilever column and L 2 for fixed ended column. The plastic hinge length L p is

14

taken 0.5h per the recommendations of Moehle (1992), whereas h is depth of cross-

section.

From the moments calculated as per the above-mentioned procedure, lateral load

Mp

Vp (2.3)

a

strain accumulates in the embedded length of the bar which causes the bar to extend or

slip relative to the concrete in which it is embedded. The same phenomenon is observed

tension face of the cross-section, being weak in tension, cracks at the early stage of

loading and becomes ineffective in anchoring the column to the base. Resultantly, the

reinforcing bars carry tensile loads from column to the anchoring concrete. The bond

stresses at concrete-steel interface in the anchoring concrete cause a tensile stress gradient

in the bars over their embedded length. The steel stresses vary from zero at the dead end

joint. The length of the bar over which these stresses are distributed, and eventually

transferred to concrete by the bond stresses, is called the development length. The

accumulation of the strain over the development length causes the extension of the bars

15

relative to the anchoring concrete. This extension is commonly known as reinforcement

slip and it leads to rigid-body rotation of the column, as shown in figure 2.1. This results

(Sezen, 2002).

calculated separately and added to the other deformation components, such as flexure and

through a model which was proposed Sezen and Moehle (2003) and further developed by

Sezen and Setzler (2008). The model, as shown in figure 2.3, approximates the bond

stress as bi-uniform function with different values for elastic and inelastic steel behavior,

which allows for the efficient computation of the reinforcement slip and eliminates the

need for the nested iteration loops that are required in some of the existing bond stress-

slip models. The value for the bond stress in the elastic range is taken as ub 1 f c

(MPa) based on a study by Sezen (2002) on 12 test columns. For the inelastic range, the

value for bond stress is adopted from the study by Lehman and Moehle (2000) as

ub 0.5 f c (MPa) where f c is concrete compressive strength. Slip at the loaded end of

the reinforcing bar can be calculated by integrating bi-linear strain distribution over the

16

ld ld

slip ( x)dx

0

(2.4)

where ld and ld' are development lengths for the elastic and inelastic portion of the bar,

respectively. As bond stresses are uniform in each range, strain distribution is bi-linear as

shown in figure 2.3. Integration of equation 2.3 yields following relations for extension or

s ld S y

slip

2

for (2.5)

y ld ( s y )l d

slip S y

2 2

where s is the strain at loaded end of the bar, and y is steel yield strain. The

f s db

ld

4ub

(2.6)

( f s f y )db

ld

4ub

where f s is stress at loaded end of the bar, f y is steel yield stress, and d b is diameter of

the longitudinal bar. The reinforcement slip is assumed to occur in tension bars only and

cause the rotation about the neutral axis. Hence, rotation caused due to reinforcement slip

slip

s (2.7)

d c

where d and c are the distances from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid of

the tension steel and the neutral axis, respectively. The lateral displacement due to slip at

17

the free end of a cantilever column can be calculated as the product of slip rotation s

s s L (2.8)

ignored in design and research due to their lack of complete understanding and being

reinforced concrete column, shear deformations are small as compared to the flexural

deformations and are often less than 10 percent of total deformations. Contrary, for a

reinforced concrete column not designed according to stricter seismic design provisions,

shear behavior could be the governing failure criterion. Shear deformations in such shear

critical reinforced concrete column could contribute large percentage towards total

is desired.

The basis of the shear model used in this analytical approach is the model

piecewise linear model defining key points in the lateral force-shear deformation

18

indirectly from Response-2000 by integrating shear strain distribution over the height of

L

v ( x)dx (2.9)

0

where x is the average shear strain over the cross-section at each location x along

the height L of the column, and v is the shear displacement. After the peak strength has

reached, the shear strength is assumed to remain constant at its peak value until the onset

of shear strength degradation. By modifying the equation proposed by Gerin and Adebar

(2004), the shear displacement at the onset of shear degradation v ,u can be calculated as

v

v ,u 4 12 n v ,n (2.10)

f c

determined from Response-2000. The peak strength Vpeak is the minimum of the shear

strength of the column Vn and shear force corresponding to the maximum moment

sustainable by the section Vp . After the shear degradation is initiated, shear strength

decreases linearly with increasing shear deformations to the point of axial load failure,

where lateral strength is assumed zero. The shear displacement at axial load failure v, f

is calculated as

19

where ALF is the total displacement at axial load failure, f , f and s , f are the flexural

and slip displacement at the point of axial load failure, respectively. The total

and Moehle (2005a), which is based on a shear friction model and an idealized shear

ALF 4 1 tan 2

(2.12)

L 100 s

tan P

A f d tan

sv yv c

where is the angle of the shear crack, P is the axial load, Asv is the area of transverse

steel with yield strength f yv at spacing s and d c is the depth of the core concrete,

according to the expected failure mode and classification of the column into categories as

In order to model the response of a structure subjected to lateral loading, all of the

three deformation components must be combined to predict total lateral deformation with

due regard to their interconnectedness. The procedure for total response models each of

flexure, slip and shear deformation by a spring subjected to the same force and the total

response is the sum of the responses of each spring as shown in figure 2.6. In this model,

each of the deformation components is simply added to obtain the total response up to the

peak strength of the column, defined as lesser of the strength from flexural and shear

20

model. However, for post-peak behavior, the column is classified into one of the five

categories based on a comparison of its shear, yield and flexural strength and rules are

specified for the combination of the deformation components for each category. Yield

strength Vy is defined as the lateral load corresponding to the first yielding of the tension

bars in the column whereas flexural strength Vp is the lateral load corresponding to the

peak moment sustainable by the column during flexural analysis. The shear strength of

the column Vn is calculated by the expression developed by Sezen and Moehle (2004) for

6 f

Vn k (Vc Vs ) k 0.80 A Asv f yv d

P

c

1 (2.13)

a 6 f c Ag s

g

displacement ductility which is the ratio of the maximum displacement to the yield

displacement.

strength determines expected column behavior. The peak response will be limited by the

lesser of the shear strength from shear model and the flexural strength ( Vp ), however post

shear). The classification system and rules governing the post peak response in each

category are described below and are illustrated in figure 2.7 and 2.8, respectively.

21

Category I. Vn V y

The shear strength is less than the yield strength and column fails in shear

while the flexural behavior remains elastic. The deformation at peak strength (i.e.,

shear strength) is the sum of deformations in each spring at the peak strength.

After the peak strength is reached, the shear behavior dominates the response. As

the shear strength degrades, the flexure and slip springs unload along their initial

responses. The post-peak deformation at any lateral load level is the sum of the

post-peak shear deformation and the pre-peak flexural and slip deformations

The shear strength is less than flexural strength and column fails in shear,

however inelastic flexural deformation occurring prior to shear failure affects the

increase after the peak shear strength is reached, but the flexure and shear springs

are locked at their peak strength values. The post-peak deformation is the sum of

flexural and shear deformations at peak strength and post-peak shear deformation.

The shear and flexural strengths are nearly identical. It is not possible to

predict conclusively which mechanism will govern the peak response. Shear and

22

load level is the sum of the post-peak flexure, slip, and shear deformations

The shear strength is greater than the flexural strength and the column may

potentially fail in the flexure, however inelastic shear deformations affect the

post-peak behavior and shear failure may occur as the displacements increase.

The deformation at peak strength is the sum of the deformations in each spring at

the peak strength. After the peak strength is reached, flexural and slip

deformations continue to increase according to their models, but the shear spring

is locked at its value at peak strength. The post-peak deformation at any lateral

load level is the sum of the post peak flexural and slip deformations

Category V. Vn 1.4V p

The shear strength is much greater than the flexural strength and column

fails in flexure while shear behavior remains elastic. The peak strength of the

column is the flexural strength calculated from the flexure model. If the column

to their models, while the shear spring unloads with an unloading stiffness equal

to its initial stiffness. The post-peak deformation at any lateral load level is the

sum of the post-peak flexural and slip deformations and the pre-peak shear

23

For category-I columns, f , f and s , f values to be used in equation 2.11 are

assumed zero. For the category-II columns, shear strength is lesser than flexural strength

and these values are taken as the flexural and slip deformations at the load equal to the

shear strength of the columns. For categories III, IV, and V specimens, f , f and s , f are

Moehle, 2004), which can cause shear failure in the columns that are initially dominated

can occur at higher displacements, can not be captured by simply combining three

approach to predict delayed shear failure. Elwood (2004) proposed that shear failure,

after occurrence of flexural yielding, will occur if the lateral response intersects the shear

failure surface imposed on the lateral load-total displacement behavior of the column.

The shear failure surface is defined by the empirical drift capacity model proposed by

SF 3 1 v 1 P 1

4 v (2.14)

L 100 500 f co 40 Ag f co 100

where SF is the drift at shear failure, v is the transverse reinforcement ratio, and v is

the nominal shear stress. f co and v have units of psi. The displacement at shear failure is

calculated according to above equation using the peak strength (Vp) in the model to

24

calculate the shear stress. If the total lateral response envelope exceeds the calculated

drift at shear failure, shear failure is assumed to have occurred. The model is modified to

degrade linearly from the point of shear failure to strength of zero at the displacement at

flexural, bar slip, shear and total response are calculated for four test columns tested by

Sezen (2002). These are the same test specimens, which were used by Setzler and Sezen

(2008) to develop their model and verify its response predictions. Details of the test

specimens, material constitutive relationships used for response estimation and response

subjected to unidirectional monotonic and cyclic lateral loading. The test specimens,

designated specimens-1 through -4, were designed with the details common in the

buildings that lack current seismic code requirements and represented lightly reinforced

columns that have shear and flexural strengths very close to each other. These tests

rendered very useful data in terms of experimental force-displacement responses for each

25

of the flexure, slip, and shear components individually, as well as for the overall

response.

These are 18 inch square columns with fixed ends at top and bottom having height

of 116 inches. The longitudinal reinforcement consists of eight No. 9 bars with clear

cover of 2 inches. No. 3 column ties with 90-degree end hooks were spaced at 12 in. over

the height of the column. Specimens-1 and -4 were subjected to a constant 150 kip axial

load, Specimen-2 was tested under a constant 600 kip axial load, and Specimen-3 had an

axial load varying from 600 kip in compression to 60 kip in tension to simulate the range

tested under unidirectional cyclic lateral loading, except for Specimen-4, which was

tested under monotonic loading. Average concrete strength was 3.077 psi with maximum

aggregate size of 1 inch. Yield strength of longitudinal and lateral steel was 59 and 69

ksi, respectively.

Same material constitutive laws for concrete and reinforcing steel are employed in

the analysis which were used by Setzler and Sezen (2008) for their proposed model. In

flexural section analysis, separate stress-strain relationships are employed for confined

core and unconfined cover concrete. For core concrete, constitutive laws in compression

are defined considering the effects of confinement on core concrete as per the

confinement model by Mander et al. (1988). However, in order to represent the expected

post-peak concrete behavior in shear critical columns, the descending branch is modeled

26

The pre-peak confined concrete compressive stress-strain relationship is defined

f cc r c cc

fc

r 1 c cc

r

f cc

cc co 1 5 1 for c cc (2.15)

f co

Ec

r

Ec Esec

where f cc is the peak confined concrete strength calculated according to Mander et al.

(1988), c is the concrete strain, cc is the concrete strain at peak stress for confined

concrete, co is the concrete strain at peak stress in unconfined concrete (taken here as

of the concrete and is equal to 57,000 fco (in psi units) for normal weight concrete, and

slope of the unloading branch and peak strength point ( cc , f cc ). The slope of the

descending leg is calculated from Roy and Sozen 50% strength point having strain as,

3 0.002 f co

50u (2.16)

f co 1000

For unconfined cover concrete, same set of above mentioned equations is used

except that f cc and cc ,wherever they appear, are replaced with f co and co . Stress-

strain relationships for confined and unconfined concrete are illustrated in figure 2.9.

27

The reinforcing steel behavior is modeled considering a linear elastic behavior, a

yield plateau, and a non-linear strain-hardening region, as per following set of equations.

f s Es s s y

f s f y s sh Es for y s sh (2.17)

p

f s f u ( f u f sh ) s sh sh s u

u sh

where Es is the elastic modulus of steel, s is the steel strain, and the subscripts y, sh, and

u refer to the yield point, the onset of strain hardening, and the ultimate stress,

respectively. p is the order of the curve that defines the strain-hardening region, and is

often taken as 2 for a parabolic curve. is a coefficient that defines the slope of the yield

plateau. For the columns tested by Sezen, these parameters were used to define the

u 0.23 , p 6 , E s 29,000 ksi. Steel stress-strain relationship used for this model is

Component and total responses for specimens-1 through -4, obtained after

implementing Setzler and Sezen (2008) approach, are presented in figure 2.11 to 2.14.

Predicted responses for flexural and slip deformations compare well with the

experimental data. Predicted shear responses follow the initial stiffness of the

strength degrades. For total responses also, generally good correlation with the

experimental data is obtained. It can be concluded that the model overall does a good job

28

in predicting lateral behavior of the columns. These results will be used subsequently for

2.6 Conclusion

Displacement component model by Setzler and Sezen (2008) has briefly been

concrete column to lateral loading being composed of flexural, bar slip and shear

mechanism. Structural response of four test specimen is calculated as per the prescribed

Comparison of predicted response and experimental data shows that the understudy

model has correctly been implemented and model performs well in evaluating lateral

29

Flexure deformation Slip deformation Shear deformation

y

x x

Lp L - Lp L

y y

30

F As f s

Reinforcing bar

Beam-column

interface

b' 0.5 fco fs s ld'

fy y

ld

b 1 fco

b fs s

31

Maximum

Maximum Beginning

Initiation of of shear

shear

strength point

degradation

( v ,n,V

, V peak )

strength point

( degradation

,V )

v,n peak

v,u peak

v,u peak

, V

load

Lateralload

lateral

Response-2000

Response 2000

Axialload

Axial loadfailure

failure

,0

(

,0) v,f

v, f

shear displacement

Shear displacement

V

Zero-length slip

rotation spring

Zero-length

shear spring

Flexural spring

L

s

Zero-length slip

rotation spring

V

s f v

Figure 2.6: Spring representation for total response model for fixed ended column

32

Cat. I

V Vy (yield strength)

Vp (flexural strength)

Cat. II

Equation 2.13

Eq. 7 (k=1.0)

Vn

Cat. III Cat. IV

Equation

Eq. 7 2.14

0.7*Vn

Cat. V

0

0 2 6

displacement ductility ()

Figure 2.7: Classification of the column and Lateral load displacement relationship

Category

Category V V Category III, IV, V

Category

Category

Category I,I,II,II,

III III

Category

Category I I III, IV, V

Lateral force

lateral force (V)

Category

Category IV IV Category II

Category II

Shear deformations

v Flexural or slip deformations

33

3500

Confined concrete

2500

Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Strain x 10

-3

100

90

80

70

60

Stress (ksi)

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15

Strain

34

80

Specimen - 1

60

40

20

-20

-40

Model

-80

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

100

Specimen - 2

Lateral force (kip)

50

-50

Test data

Model

-100

-0.9 -0.7 -0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1

1.12

80

Specimen - 3

60

Lateral force (kip)

40

20

-20

Model

-60

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

80

Specimen - 4

60

Lateral force (kip)

40

20

-20

-40

Model

-80

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Flexural Displacement (in)

35

80

Specimen - 1

60

40

20

-20

-40

Model

-80

-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5

100

Specimen - 2

Lateral force (kip)

50

-50

Test data

Model

-100

-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

80

Specimen - 3

60

Lateral force (kip)

40

20

-20

Model

-60

-2.5 -2.25 -2 -1.75 -1.5 -1.25 -1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

80

Specimen - 4

60

Lateral force (kip)

40

20

-20

-40

Model

-80

-1 0 1 2 3 4

Slip Displacement (in)

36

80

Specimen - 1

60

40

20

-20

-40

Model

-80

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

100

Specimen - 2

Lateral force (kip)

50

-50

Test data

Model

-100

-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

80

Specimen - 3

60

Lateral force (kip)

40

20

-20

Model

-60

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

80

Specimen - 4

60

Lateral force (kip)

40

20

-20

-40

Model

-80

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Shear displacement (in)

37

80

Specimen - 1

60

40

20

-20

-40

Model

-80

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

100

Specimen - 2

Lateral force (kip)

50

-50

Test data

Model

-100

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

80

Specimen - 3

60

Lateral force (kip)

40

20

-20

Model

-60

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

80

Specimen - 4

60

Lateral force (kip)

40

20

-20

-40

Model

-80

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Displacement (in.)

38

CHAPTER 3

3.1 Introduction

all failure mechanisms associated with axial, flexural and shear loadings. Traditionally,

the analytical process for response estimation is simplified by splitting the total structural

behavior into individual mechanisms of flexure and shear. The analyses for both

mechanisms are carried out individually and dominant failure mechanism is determined

section analysis. This is very convenient and accurate analytical tool for flexural

Likewise, most of the available models and theories for shear response are good for

evaluating shear behavior only and can not estimate flexural performance directly.

concrete element subjected to combined axial, flexure and shear loading, do not occur

39

independently. Any model that aims to capture total response must consider the

interaction between flexure and shear mechanisms. When the analyses for these

mechanisms are carried out independently, this aspect can not be taken care of due to the

inherent inability of the analytical procedure to perform good for the mechanism it has

interaction between axial, shear and flexural mechanisms. The approach is designated as

theory (MCFT). MCFT is one of the many available shear response approaches such as

truss models and empirical models, and is considered most suitable for determining shear

deformations of the reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear and normal stresses.

component models and development of the approach in generalized form for a reinforced

40

3.2 Background

column can accurately be estimated if flexural and shear deformations are evaluated

that flexural section analysis and MCFT are powerful assessment tools for the mechanism

originally developed for, and deal only with individual component of flexural and shear

deformations respectively. For MCFT, this statement is true in general, but efforts have

concrete element must be discritized into large number of biaxially loaded elements and

analyzed by conducting a non-linear finite element analysis. The concept of MCFT has

also been extended to sectional analysis approach elements loaded in combined axial,

shear and flexure loads by employing biaxially stressed elements as concrete fibers

approach (Vecchio and Collins 1988). By fixing the longitudinal strain in each concrete

fiber by corresponding section strain, concrete elements are analyzed individually for in-

plane stress field based on MCFT. The most recent implementation of this approach can

be seen in the computer program called Response-2000 (Bentz 2000). The application of

MCFT in finite element approach or sectional analysis approach in the way mentioned

above yields very reliable response but at the same times results in fastidious

Some studies have also been carried out to combine individual components of

shear and flexure by modeling them as springs in series. Shirai et al (2001) presented a

41

column into flexural and shear components and simulated these component deformations

by layered element model and in-plane shear element respectively. Setzler and Sezens

displacement component model (chapter 2) is also based on the same concept that total

of flexure, reinforcement slip and shear. Their study models these component

deformations as spring in series subjected to the same force and total response is

based on the comparison of the columns yield, flexural and shear strength. Although,

these models are simple for practical purposes and estimate response reasonably, they do

concrete element by employing standard flexural section analysis techniques. The section

cracked concrete are employed to consider the effect of shear deformations on flexural

concrete and is obtained from in-plane shear analysis of the flexural element, thus

42

performed independently. This aspect is described in detail in subsequent sections. The

procedure.

Sometimes, in order to simplify the calculations, section analysis with one stress

block is performed for simplified analysis and design. This is done by replacing actual

concrete stress distribution across the section by an equivalent rectangular stress block,

commonly known as whitney stress block. This allows the analysis to be performed with

much ease and simplicity and eliminates need of any iterative calculations required for

stress field can be employed as axial-flexure model in ASFI approach, provided that

analysis. Choice of the particular method depends on the required level of accuracy and

available amount of computational effort. In the analysis presented here, fiber section

relationships for the concrete in flexural analysis are usually derived from its response in

standard cylinder test. It must be recognized that the strain conditions for the concrete in

43

the web of a reinforced concrete beam or column subjected to shear differ significantly

from those in a cylinder test. The concrete in standard cylinder test is subjected to only

small tensile strains primarily due to Poissons effect, whereas, the concrete in diagonally

cracked web is subjected to very substantial tensile strains primarily due to shear. As a

result, the concrete in diagonally cracked web is weaker and softer than the concrete in a

softening, has been studied by Vecchio and Collins (1986) in their efforts to investigate

concrete panels subjected to in-plane stress conditions indicates that the principal

compressive stress in the concrete is not only a function of principal compressive strain

but also of the co-existing principal tensile strain, such that compressive strength and

stiffness of the concrete decrease as the tensile strains increase. The concrete

compression softening, as shown in Figure 3.1, is one of the interaction terms from axial-

fcsof fc (3.1)

defined as

44

1

1.0 (3.2)

0.8 0.34 c1

co

cylinder strength.

Axial strain due to flexure is another interaction term in ASFI approach that

due to flexure can only be determined from flexural section analysis, it is appropriate

here to mention the way it can be calculated. Average axial strain due to flexure xf

between two flexural sections can be determined as illustrated in Figure 3.2 based on

relative centroidal deformation between two sections assuming linear strain distribution.

1

l12

x

xf

l12

0

o2 o1

l12

dx o 2 o1

2

(3.3)

where o1 and o 2 are centroidal strains of two consecutive flexural sections and l12 is

plastic hinge model. In this method, elastic and inelastic curvatures are modeled

separately, and added together. A linear curvature distribution is assumed in the elastic

45

range, and the inelastic curvature is lumped at the column end over the plastic hinge

length. The conceptual illustration of the plastic hinge model for determining the flexural

Lin

1

f

Lin x ( x)dx

0

(3.4)

where, Lin is the distance from column end section to inflection point, L p is plastic hinge

normal and shear stresses. Vecchio and Collins (1986) developed the theory after

modifying previously proposed Compression Field Theory (Mithell and Collins 1974)

concrete and local stress conditions at crack. MCFT is essentially a smeared rotating

crack model in which cracked concrete is treated as a new orthotropic material with its

stress-strain relationships formulated in terms of average stresses and strains. The critical

46

that the tension in the concrete can be transmitted across the crack and shear stress on the

surface of the crack does not exceed maximum shear provided by the aggregate interlock.

Thus, load deformation response of the members loaded in shear can be estimated by

details of MCFT and its formulation can be found in number literature where it is

employed. In this section, only the aspects relevant to ASFI approach shall be presented.

Following assumptions form the basis of the theory and are adopted as such for

2. Stresses and strains can be considered in terms of average values when taken over

3. The concrete and reinforcing bars are perfectly bonded at the boundaries of the

4. Orientations of principal strains and principal stresses coincide with each other.

5. The longitudinal and transverse reinforcing bars are uniformly distributed over the

element.

9. Shear stresses in the reinforcement are negligible and hence are not considered in

equilibrium relationships.

47

Consider an orthogonally reinforced concrete membrane element as shown in

Figure 3.4a. The element consists of smeared reinforcement in longitudinal (x) and

transverse (y) directions, with the corresponding reinforcement ratios x and y . The

and a tensile cracking stress f cr . The elements edge planes are subjected to uniform

normal stresses f x , f y and shear stress xy . The deformation of the element is assumed

strain condition defined by two normal strains x and y and the shear strain xy as

shown in Figure 3.4b. From the Mohrs circle of the average strains (Figure 3.4c and

compressive strain c 2 and orientation of principal strain filed can be determined as:-

x y 1

y xy

2 2

c1 x (3.5)

2 2

x y 1

y xy

2 2

c2 x (3.6)

2 2

1 xy

p tan 1 (37)

2 x y

48

The inclination of the principal strain p as given by Equation 3.8 can either be

(crack angle) c depending upon the magnitude of normal strains x and y . Hence,

p t for x y

(3.8)

p c for x y

The principal tensile plan and principal compressive plane are 90 o apart, i.e.,

considered to make counterclockwise angle with positive x-axis. Hence, following these

If p t 0 c t 90o

If p t 0 c t 90o

(3.9)

If p c 0 t c 90o

If p c 0 t c 90o

relationships are required to link average stresses to average strains for concrete and

reinforcement in MCFT. Derivation of these laws, especially for the concrete, is one of

the important aspects in development of the theory and simulates cracked concrete

49

3.4.1.1 Concrete in Compression.

The constitutive laws for concrete in compression in MCFT have been derived by

cracked concrete. These laws consider reduction in compressive strength and stiffness of

concrete due to shear after softening the uniaxial response by compression softening

factor. The relationship for compressive concrete behavior in MCFT was suggested as,

2

f c 2 f co 2 c 2 c 2 (3.10)

co co

compressive strain and f c 2 is corresponding concrete stress. The term multiplied with

compression, often used for normal strength concrete. Although, this equation is

can theoretically be used as part of axial-shear model in ASFI approach; however, it must

The constitutive relationship for the concrete in tension was also developed by

Vecchio and Collins (1986) based on their reinforced concrete panel tests. The concrete

50

The relationship suggested prior to cracking i.e., 0 c1 cr is linearly elastic

f c1 Ec c1 (3.10)

After cracking, the concrete tensile stresses continue to exist due to bond

interaction between concrete and reinforcement and decrease as the principal concrete

tensile strains increase. This phenomenon is known as tension stiffening. The relationship

f cr

f c1 (3.12)

1 200 c1

For large reinforced concrete elements, this relationship is modified slightly to the

following expression

f cr

f c1 (3.13)

1 500 c1

51

theory, it is assumed that the axial stress in the reinforcement depends only on one strain

parameter, the axial strain in the reinforcement. The shear stress resisted by the

reinforcement on the plane normal to the reinforcement is zero. The relationship for

average axial stress f s and average strain s used in MCFT is shown in Figure 3.5c and

f sx Es sx f sxyield

(3.14)

f sy Es sy f syyield

f sxyield and f syyield are yield stress of the reinforcement in x and y directions,

respectively.

and concrete must match with the in plane strains in x and y -directions i.e., sx x

f sx Es x f sxyield

(3.15)

f sy Es y f syyield

reinforcement, other reinforcement relations allowing strain hardening can be used as part

52

3.4.2 Considerations of Local Cracks Conditions

Consideration of the local stress conditions at the cracks is another very important

ensure that the stresses can be transmitted across the cracks. The formulations

considering average stresses and strains do not capture local variations that may occur at

the cracks. For example, tensile stresses in the reinforcement will be higher than the

average at the cracks and lower than the average midway between the cracks. On the

other hand, the concrete tensile stresses will be zero at the crack and higher than the

average midway between the cracks. These local variations are important as the response

tension across the cracks or sliding shear failure along the cracks. To address these

possibilities, MCFT limits the local stresses at the cracks and the average concrete tensile

to the principal tensile stress direction and Figure 3.6b shows local stresses at the free

surface of the crack. At the free surface of the crack, the average concrete tensile stresses

reduce to zero. This causes reinforcement stresses to increase locally at the crack in order

to transmit tensile stresses across the crack. Hence, average concrete tensile stresses must

be limited to avoid failure of the reinforcement at the crack. Static equivalency of the

average and local stresses in the direction normal to the crack surface results in the

condition that limits the concrete average tensile stress to the following upper limit to

53

where, x and y are reinforcement ratio in x and y -directions respectively, f scrx and f scry

are local reinforcement stresses at crack, and nx and ny are the angles between the

normal to the crack and reinforcement in x and y directions, respectively. The values

for nx and ny are defined positive counterclockwise, as shown in Figure 3.6b, and may

be determined as

nx t

(3.17)

ny c

In MCFT, yielding of the reinforcement is the upper limit for local reinforcement

stresses at the crack and hence, the average concrete tensile stresses are limited to-

The terms in the parenthesis in above equation represent the reserve capacity of

the reinforcements to transmit concrete tensile stresses before they fail. Hence, Equation

3.18 may be modified by replacing local reinforcement stresses with specified failure

The other consideration of local stresses at the crack deals with the shear

stresses, which are present locally at the crack surface due to reinforcement crossing the

cracks at skew angles (Figure 3.6b). This consideration limits the local shear stresses at

the crack surface by the shear resistance provided by the aggregate interlock mechanism.

Static equivalency of the average and local stresses in the direction tangential to the crack

54

This local shear stress value at the crack must not exceed the shear strength

provided by the interface between the cement paste and the aggregate particles due to

f co

vci max (3.21)

0.31 24w /(a 16)

should be the average crack width over the crack surface and can be taken as product of

the principal tensile strain c1 and the average spacing of diagonal cracks in the direction

w c1Scr (3.22)

where,

1

Scr (3.23)

sin cos

S mx S my

S mx and S my in the above equation are the crack spacing that indicate crack control

properties and layout of the reinforcement and can be estimated from CEB-FIP Code as

follows,

Sx d

Smx 2(cx ) 0.25k1 bx

10 x

(3.24)

S d

Smy 2(c y ) 0.25k1 by

10 y

55

where cx , cy , and Sx are the parameters determined from the reinforcement layout as

shown in Figure 3.7. k1 is taken as 0.4 for the deformed bars and 0.8 for plain bars. d bx

and dby are longitudinal and transverse the bar diameters, respectively. S is center-to-

center spacing of the transverse reinforcement. The crack control characteristics of the

Smx 1.5 maximum distance from x-bars and Smy 1.5 maximum distance from y-bars .

The term in Equation 3.24 is inclination of the crack with respect to longitudinal axis

If Equation 3.20 is not satisfied i.e., the local shear stress on the crack exceeds the

shear resistance provided by the aggregate interlock mechanism, the average concrete

modifying existing linear elastic finite element routines based on secant stiffness

formulation provided realistic constitutive relations for concrete and reinforcement are

matrix D is required to relate stresses to the strains. The material stiffness matrix for a

linear elastic isotropic material in state of plane stress can be modified in a form that

56

depends on type of stiffness moduli used to reflect nonlinear behavior of reinforced

concrete according to appropriate set of constitutive laws. Using the same concept in

ASFI approach, the material stiffness matrix D for axial-shear element is determined

by first defining stiffness matrices for concrete and reinforcements with respect to their

respective principal material directions using secant moduli. The total stiffness matrix is

transformations to take into account the directional dependence of the materials. Hence,

D T Dc T T Dsi T

T T

(3.26)

i

where, D c is the concrete material stiffness matrix evaluated with respect to principal 1

and 2 axes system corresponding to the direction of the principal tensile strain and

Ec 2 0 0

D c 0 Ec1 0

(3.27)

0 Gc

0

where, Ec1 and Ec 2 are secant moduli for the concrete and relate to the stress-strain

f c1 fc 2 Ec1 Ec 2

Ec1 , Ec 2 , Gc (3.28)

c1 c2 Ec1 Ec 2

evaluated as follows,

i Esi 0 0

D si 0 0 0 i x, y (3.29)

0 0 0

57

where, E si is the secant moduli for the reinforcing steel and relate to the stress-strain

f sx f sy

Esx , Esy (3.30)

x y

The transformation matrix T Equation 3.26 will differ for each component and is given

by following expression

T sin 2 cos 2 cos sin (3.31)

2 cos sin 2 cos sin cos 2 sin 2

where, c for the concrete component, 0 and 90o for longitudinal and transverse

Having determined the material stiffness matrix D , it can then be used to relate

stresses f to strains

f D D f

1

or (3.32)

where,

fx x

f f y and y (3.33)

xy xy

The main objective of the ASFI approach is to couple axial-flexural and axial-

58

their interaction in terms of axial deformations and concrete compression strength

concrete column subjected to axial load, bending moment and shear force. Total axial

mechanism, total axial strain is combination of axial strains caused by axial mechanism

mechanism, axial strain is combination of axial strain due to axial mechanism xas and

axial strain caused by shear mechanism xs . Hence, total axial strain x of the column

between the two sections can be obtained by extracting xf from axial-flexural model and

x xas xs xf (3.34)

mechanisms in axial-shear and axial-flexural elements are equal to the axial strain due to

x xa xs xf (3.36)

59

Furthermore, the total lateral drift of a reinforced concrete column or beam

between two flexural sections is taken as summation of shear strain s and the flexural

drift ratio f .

s f (3.37)

analysis.

xf xs o

(3.38)

f s

where o is axial stress due to applied axial load and is resultant shear stress. Shear

1 M1 M 2

f

bd f l12

(3.39)

V

s

bd s

other flexural section, b is width of the cross-section, d f is the flexural depth of the

60

d f d afterwards. h is overall depth of the section, d is effective depth of the section,

V is applied lateral load, d s is shear depth of the section and can be taken as d s h until

Normal stress o due to applied axial load P in both axial-flexural and axial-shear

models is calculated as

P P

o (3.40)

Ai bh

where Ai equals the cross-sectional area of fiber i . Normal stress in the direction

y and z are neglected due to inexistence of lateral external forces along theses

directions.

y z 0 (3.41)

concrete and unconfined cover concrete are defined differently, constitutive law for the

compression stress fc'as and corresponding strain c' as can approximately be calculated as

f c'as

KAcon Auncon f , c' as

KAcon Auncon (3.42)

co co

A A

61

where A is gross cross-sectional area, Acon is area of confined core, Auncon is area of

concrete strength and concrete cylinder strength. This modification is not required if

confinement effect is applied only on post peak concrete response. In view of the

Axial deformation and concrete compression softening are two main interaction

increases shear crack width and principal tensile strain in the web resulting in lower shear

capacity for the element. As already mentioned, total axial strain in an element between

two sections is sum of axial strain caused by axial, shear and flexural mechanisms

i.e., x xa xs xf . Axial-shear model gives axial strain caused by axial and shear

mechanism xa xs . Therefore, in order to obtain total axial strain x , axial strain due to

flexure xf from axial-flexure model (determined from Equation 3.3) must be added to the

axial strains of axial-shear model. This can be done by simply adding flexibility

62

component of axial-shear model. The flexibility component for axial deformation due to

xf

f xf (3.43)

x

where, x is applied axial stress in longitudinal direction of the column. In case of the

beams or columns where axial load is zero, in order to avoid having an indefinite value in

Equation 3.43, a very small value must be considered for axial stress.

f 21 f 22 f 23 y y (3.44)

f

f33 xy

31 f32

xy

reinforcement. Axial strain due to flexure xf can be taken into account to axial-shear

model by adding flexibility component obtained from Equation 3.43 into Equation 3.44.

y direction (clamping stresses) are zero due to inexistence of lateral external force

along the column, i.e. y 0 . Hence, flexibility matrix for axial-shear-flexure element

63

f11 f xf f12 f13 o x xa xs xf

f 21 f 22 f 23 0 y (3.45)

f31 f32 f33 xy xy

xas xa .

However, unlike interaction of axial deformation from axial-flexural model and axial-

shear model, compression softening of axial-shear model is taken into account in axial-

mechanism (Equation 3.2) must be employed in flexural analysis to soften the uniaxial

springs in series as illustrated in Figure 3.9. Shear spring of axial-shear model with

Three axial springs, i.e., axial spring in axial-flexural model with stiffness k xf , axial

spring in axial-shear model with stiffness k xs , and axial spring of axial mechanism with

stiffness k xa are also in series. Flexural and shear stiffnesses can be determined based on

following expressions:-

64

f s

Kf , Ks (3.46)

f s

1 1 1

(3.47)

K K f K s

s f .

flexural models, in order to determine total axial stiffness k x , axial stiffness from axial-

defined for each axial spring individually based on its deformation, total axial stiffness

1 1 1 1

k x k xa k xs k xf (3.48)

k x x x where x xs xf xa

x

k xa , k xs x , k xf x (3.49)

xa xs xf

3.6 Conclusion

65

that consists of two models; axial-flexure and axial-shear model evaluating flexural and

techniques for axial-flexure response and MCFT for axial-shear response. Total response

at any load step is obtained by adding deformations from component models obtained by

equilibrium conditions.

66

c2

c2

f co c2

f co c2

c1 c2

c2

co c2

P

V M4

M3

Flexural Section 2 M2

Flexural Section 1 M1

Inflection Point Mo

-M1

-M2

-M3

-M4

o2

Flexural Section 2

M2 o2

Centroidal

l12

Axis

Flexural Section 1 h o1

M1

P

o1

Figure 3.2: Axial-Flexural model and determination of axial strain due to flexure

67

y

x x

Lin Lp Lin- Lp

y y

y

y

fy

xy y

c1 y

1

.5

x

xy

fx fx

2

c2

.5

xy x xy

x x

fy

(a) (b) (c)

2

y

y

xy / 2

2 1

2 c

x

x

c2

c1

(d)

Figure 3.4: (a) Membrane element subjected to in-plane stresses (b) Average strains

from in-plane loading (c) Average strains in cracked concrete

(d) Mohrs circle for average strains

68

fc2 f c1

2

f c 2 f co 2 c 2 c 2

f co co co f cr

Ec c1

f cr

1 200 c1

co c2 cr c1

(a) (b)

f si

f si Es si f yi

f yi

yi si

(c)

Figure 3.5: Average stress-strain relationship for

(a) Cracked concrete compression (b) Cracked concrete in tension (c) Reinforcing steel

y y

f sy f sy

ny

f c1 ci

fx 1 1

fx

f sx f sx

nx

2 2

xy x xy x

fy fy

(a) (b)

Figure 3.6: (a) Calculated average stresses (b) Local stresses at a crack

69

Cy

dby

Cx

c

Sx d bx

y y

1

90O

0O

x x

C

2

Figure 3.8: Coordinate transformation for concrete and steel material stiffness matrices

P

M2

V Axial-Shear Ks

Model

k xs

Kf

k xa Ks

Kx

Kf k xf

V

Axial-Flexural

M1

Model

P

Figure 3.9: Spring model for axial-shear-flexural element

70

CHAPTER 4

4.1 Introduction

The theory and conceptual development of ASFI approach were presented in the

previous chapter by explaining the details of its component models (axial-flexural and

and the details of the analytical models were derived in generalized form for a reinforced

concrete element between two subsequent flexural sections of the member, the approach

such as beams and columns. In addition to the models considered for axial, flexural and

the section of maximum moment must also be incorporated into the analysis for

In this chapter, the analytical procedure for implementation of ASFI approach for

Solution technique for implementing the analytical procedure is based on ASFI approach

71

and lateral load-lateral drift responses of previously tested columns are presented to

responses of the test specimens shall be used subsequently for discussion and

comparison.

between any two subsequent flexural sections of a reinforced concrete element could be

satisfied at any load level. Hence, this approach can principally be applied for response

the column, an axial-flexure element and an axial-shear element are considered for

modeling the element from its inflection point to one of the end sections. Conventional

flexural section analysis or fiber model approach, as described in Section 3.3, is applied

for modeling flexural behavior of the axial-flexure element and modified compression

theory as explained in Section 3.4 is employed for modeling axial-shear element. Given

the compatibility and equilibrium relationships, axial-flexure and axial-shear elements are

coupled into one-component model considering axial interaction and material constitutive

72

below is considered to account for deformation caused by reinforcement slip at the

reinforced concrete column subjected to bending moment due to rigid body rotation of

the column resulting from slip of longitudinal reinforcing bars out of foundation or beam-

column joint. Unlike flexural and shear deformations that occur along the length of the

column, pullout deformations occur at the end section(s). The mechanics of the pullout

deformations has been explained in detail in Section 2.2.2 and illustrated in Figures 2.1

and 4.5. Axial-flexure model (fiber section analysis) and axial-shear model (MCFT) can

not account for slip or pullout deformations, therefore these must be determined

separately and added to flexural and shear deformations for total response.

To account for pullout effects in total performance of the column, total lateral

drift is taken as sum of the flexural drift ratio, shear strain and pullout rotation Rpul . In

addition, centroidal strain due to pullout pul must also be added to the total axial

deformation of the column. End rotation and centroidal strain due to pullout are

column end, which is in series with springs of flexure, and shear mechanisms. Hence,

1 1 1 1

K K f K s K pul (4.1)

K

73

where,

f

K pul (4.2)

pul

s f pul (4.3)

1 1 1 1 1

k x k xa k xs k xf k xpul (4.4)

k x x x

where,

x

k xpul (4.5)

xpul

shear stress and f is shear stress in axial-flexure element, as defined in Section 3.5. In

pullout model, K pul is pullout stiffness, pul is pullout drift that equals Rpul and kxpul is

pullout axial stiffness. In Equation 4.4, k xa , k xs , k xf are axial stiffnesses of axial, shear,

Total axial and lateral deformations in ASFI approach are computed based on

axial-shear and pullout. Hence, total lateral drift ratio in Equations 4.3 is sum of shear

axial-flexure model and pullout rotation pul from pullout mode. Similarly, total axial

74

strain x tot in Equation 4.6 is sum of axial strain due to axial xa , shear xs , flexure xf

It must be noted that any of the available pullout models such as Otani and Sozen

(1972), Hawkins et al. (1982), Morita and Kaku (1984), Alsiwat and Saatcioglu (1992),

Lehman and Moehle (2000) and Setzler and Sezen (2008) etc can be used to determine

rotation and axial deformation due to reinforcement slip and include these effects in

overall response.

This section summarizes the procedure for estimating the response of laterally

inflection point to one of the end section. Perform flexural section analysis on end section

relationship of the concrete given by any of the appropriate constitutive law for uniaxial

concrete model for core and unconfined concrete model for the cover, and choice of

realistic constitutive material models have already been highlighted in Section 3.3

2. Perform axial section analysis at the inflection point and determine axial strain

due to applied axial load only xa considering same material constitutive laws employed

75

for flexural section analysis of the end section. Assuming a linear distribution of average

centroidal axial strain between end section and section at inflection point, axial strain due

lin

1 x

xf

lin

0

o xa

lin

dx 0.5 o xa (4.7)

where, lin is the length of the column between end section and inflection point, o is total

centroidal axial strain determined through flexural section analysis of the end section and

xa is the axial strain due to applied axial load only. It may be noted that xf is also the

average value of axial strains due to flexure only between at end section and section at

inflection point and considered constant over the entire length of the axial-flexure

element.

4. Consider an axial-shear element from inflection point to end section and apply

MCFT as explained in Section 3.4 and determine required material stiffness matrices

equilibrium conditions as per Section 3.5 and convert axial-flexure and axial-shear

approach as outlined in section 3.5.5 and use of Equation 4.8 relating stresses and strains

of ASFI element through material stiffness matrix. Also, include the effects of pullout

76

f D D f

1

or (4.8)

approach is presented. The procedure is iterative and outlines only the major steps

required for response estimation. This section summarizes the solution technique for

1. Define or input material properties and geometry. Decide on a sign convention for

2. Input axial load P . If there is no applied axial load, then consider a negligible

3. Select a small value of total drift ratio , such as 0.000001 , as a starting value.

values for each of them for the first iteration. These variables are axial centroidal strain at

the end section in the axial-flexure element ( oi ), curvature of the end section in axial-

average normal strain in y -direction for axial-shear element ( yi ) and average shear

77

6. Perform flexural section analysis at the end section of the axial-flexure element

strain oi 1 .

M

f (4.9)

Bd f lin

8. Perform axial section analysis at the inflection point and determine axial strain,

xa due to applied axial load only. Calculate axial strain due to flexure xf with Equation

appropriate models. Pullout deformations include pullout rotations pul and axial strain

10. Determine o , f xf , K f , and K pul from Equations 3.40, 3.43, 3.46, and 4.2

respectively.

11. Apply MCFT, as explained in Section 3.4 and follow following steps

78

b. Determine average steel stresses f sx and f sy corresponding to the

model (step 6). However, if in axial-flexure model cover and core concrete

the concrete can be transmitted across the crack and shear stress on the

surface of the crack does not exceed maximum shear provided by the

not satisfied and local shear stress at the surface of the crack exceeds shear

stiffnesses into global x and y -directions using Equation 3.26 and 2.31.

12. Invert total stiffness matrix D to get flexibility matrix f of Equation 3.44 and

79

13. Consider x o as per Equation 3.40, y 0 , and si from initial assumed

value in the iteration, and obtain s and K s using Equations 4.8 and 3.46. Then determine

14. Assume x o as per Equation 3.40, y 0 , and from step 13, and compute

xi 1 , yi 1 , and si 1 for the integration point using Equation 4.8. Determine f and

Kf

satisfactory convergence is achieved, then go to the next step otherwise repeat steps 5 to

16. Compute lateral load capacity of the column corresponding to the given total drift

18. Increment total drift ratio and repeat steps 4 to 17 until required response is

evaluated.

These analytical steps are summarized in a flow chart as shown in Figure 4.1.

results for a number of reinforced concrete test specimens. In order to implement the

80

lateral load-deformation responses of previously tested reinforced concrete columns are

estimated. The test specimens modeled in this study are the same which were originally

used by Mostafaei (2006) for verification of ASFI method. Calculated responses are

compared with experimental test data to verify correct implementation of the analytical

procedure of ASFI approach. While modeling test specimens, all efforts are made to use

the same data and models used in the original study and appropriate details are assumed

Five reinforced concrete columns tested by Ousalem et al. (2003) are analyzed in

this study. These columns were loaded under constant axial load of 540 kN and

unidirectional cyclic lateral loads. The columns were designed considering 1/3 scale of

actual sized column, representing columns located in the first story of a building with

moderate height. The columns were designed to fail in different failure mechanisms like

were fixed against rotations at top and the bottom. Geometric and material properties of

test specimens are presented in Table 4.1. The complete details of the tests and discussion

Same constitutive laws for concrete and reinforcements are used for both of the

axial-flexure and axial-shear models in ASFI approach. The material constitutive laws

81

used to model behavior of the test columns under consideration are presented in

following sections.

c

2

fc f p 2 c (4.10)

p p

f c f p 1 Z m c p (4.11)

where,

These are determined based on modified Kent and Park model for stress-strain

s f yh

K 1 (4.13)

f c'

0.5

Zm (4.14)

3 0.29 f co 3 h"

K co

145 f c' 1000 4

s

sh

82

where, s is ratio of the volume of rectangular steel hoops to volume of concrete core

measured to outside of the peripheral hoop, f yy is yield strength of the steel hoop, h " is

width of the concrete core measured to the outside peripheral hoop, sh is center to center

3.2.

about the final choice of the tensile concrete constitutive material model used for

discusses two models, one developed by Vecchio and Collins (1986) (the model used in

original MCFT, details of which are given in Section 3.4.1.2) and the other based on

model presented by Izumo (1992). Theoretically, any of the appropriate model can be

constitutive relationship for average concrete tensile stress-strain used in the originally

reported estimated responses is the one based on model by Izumo. The model is

f c1 Ec c1 (4.15)

83

where, Ec is modulus of elasticity of the concrete, cr is cracking strain corresponding to

f c1 f cr for cr c1 2 cr (4.17)

0.4

2

f c1 f cr cr for c1 2 cr (4.18)

c1

expressions.

f s Es s for s y

fs f y for y s sh (4.19)

s sh

fs f y +

u sh

f u fy for sh s u

where, E s modulus of elasticity of steel, f y and fu are yield and ultimate strengths of

steel, respectively, y , sh and u are yield strain, strain at onset of strain hardening and

84

4.3.3 Flexural Deformation Model

deformations by integrating curvatures along the length of the column. A linear curvature

distribution is assumed in the elastic range, and the inelastic curvature is lumped at the

column end over plastic hinge length. Plastic hinge length L p is taken equal to the height

of the column cross-section. Hence, flexural drift ratio can be determined as,

Lin

1

f

Lin x ( x)dx

0

(4.20)

Using Equation 4.20, flexural drift ratio before yielding, i.e., y can be calculated as,

1

f Lin (4.21)

3

1

Lin L p Lin 1 y Lin Lp

Lin

f x ( x)dx x ( x)dx x 2 dx xdx (4.22)

Lin 0

L Lin L L

in p

Lin L p in

0

In above equations, Lin is the distance from column end section to inflection

process of ASFI approach to model pullout deformations of test specimens. The pullout

85

model and reinforcement slip-strain relations are illustrated in Figure 4.5 and 4.6.

23

20 MPa

slip SD ' (4.23)

fc

slip

pul Rpul (4.24)

X

pul

eR 0

pul

(4.25)

Lin

mm, f c' is concrete compressive strength in MPa, pul is pullout drift ratio which equals

pullout rotation R pul , pul is centroidal strain due to pullout, Lin is the distance from the

end joint to the inflection point. Other parameters like slip , X and e are as shown in

Figure 4.5.

fibers adjacent to the reinforcement reach 30 % of the maximum concrete strength. After

reaching this stage, steel stresses are reduced linearly according to post-peak compression

It must also be noted that in post-peak analysis, pullout and shear stiffnesses are

kept constant at their least value during the analysis. In post-peak stage of the analysis,

only flexural stiffness is the main variable. Also, compression softening factor is used

86

with its calculated value until it start to increase. At this stage, it must then be kept

constant equal to its minimum value for rest of the analysis. In ASFI approach, axial

failure or gravity collapse is defined as the stage when equilibrium in vertical direction in

section analysis cannot be satisfied any more under the applied axial load. At this stage,

Lateral load-drift responses for specimens No 5, 12, 14, 15 and 16 are presented

in Figure 4.7 through 4.11. Comparison of the predicted response with experimental data

indicates that ASFI approach performs very well in evaluating structural performance of

all of the test columns. Predicted responses follow initial stiffness very well and peak

loads are estimated quite accurately. Estimated post-peak responses also compare well

calculated and actual behavior indicates that ASFI approach is effective displacement

based evaluation approach for response estimation of reinforced concrete columns. It can

also be concluded that the ASFI approach has correctly been implemented in the analysis

2009) and response of five columns is estimated based on ASFI approach. Comparison of

87

calculated total lateral load-total lateral drift responses of test specimens with their

experimental responses indicates that ASFI approach is an effective tool for response

estimation of columns to lateral loads. The results also show that the analytical procedure

and solution technique of ASFI approach has correctly been implemented in Matlab

computer program.

88

Input material properties and

geometrical dimensions

Specify initial/increment total lateral drift value

oi 1 , xa , f , f , pul , pul , f xf , K f , K pul

stiffness matrix D of axial-shear element.

flexibility matrix of axial-shear-flexure element by adding f xf to f11 term of f

integration point and then calculate f and i 1 for the flexural section

Kf

Deformation converged No

oi 1 ,i 1 , xi 1 , yi 1 , si 1

Output shear force and axial strain and calculate total load V bd s .

Increment drift ratio and repeat above steps until failure

Figure 4.1: Flow chart for implementation of ASFI approach for columns

89

35

Confined concrete

30 Unconfined concrete

Stress (Mpa) 25

20

15

10

0

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035

Strain

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

Stress (Mpa)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Strain x 10

-3

90

600

500

400

Stress (Mpa)

300

200

100

0

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

Strain

Rpul

pul slip

slip

X pul R pul

X

e

pul

e 0

pul

Lin

Figure 4.5: Rigid body rotation of column due to reinforcement slip or pullout

91

S Normalized slip

20MPa

slip S D

23

S

Sy

6 7 f u f y s sh

'

fc 2 100

S y 0.2 fu f y s sh

Sy

S s 6 3500 s

s

y sh

92

350

Reported response

Predicted response

300

250

Lateral force (kN)

200

150

100

50

0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Drift ratio

Figure 4.7: Comparison of the results for Specimen-5 (Ousalem et al, 2005)

93

300

Reported response

Predicted response

250

200

Lateral force (kN)

150

100

50

0

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045

Drift ratio

Figure 4.8: Comparison of the results for Specimen-12 (Ousalem et al, 2005)

94

350

Reported response

Predicted response

300

250

Lateral force (kN)

200

150

100

50

0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09

Drift ratio

Figure 4.9: Comparison of the results for Specimen-14 (Ousalem et al, 2005)

95

350

Reported response

250

Lateral force (kN)

200

150

100

50

0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Drift ratio

Figure 4.10: Comparison of the results for Specimen-15 (Ousalem et al, 2005)

96

400

Reported response

350 Predicted response

250

200

150

100

50

0

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045

Drift ratio

Figure 4.11: Comparison of the results for Specimen-16 (Ousalem et al, 2005)

97

bxh 2Lin sh g w fyx fyy fco

Specimen

(mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa)

b = Width of the column cross section; h = Height of the column cross section;

Lin = Length of the column from inflection point to end section; sh = Hoop spacing;

g = Longitudinal reinforcement ratio; w =Transverse reinforcement ratio;

fyx = Longitudinal reinforcement yield stress; fyy = Transverse reinforcement yield

stress; fco = Concrete compressive cylinder strength

98

CHAPTER 5

APPROACH

5.1 Introduction

approach, test specimens were modeled with material constitutive relationships and other

experimental responses indicated that both methods perform equally well despite

following quite different approaches for response estimation of respective set of test

to model the same set of specimens employing same material and deformation

limitations of displacement component model by Setzler and Sezen (2005) and ASFI

approach by Mostafaei and Kabeyasawa (2007). Both approaches are implemented for

same columns employing same set of models for material stress-strain relationships,

flexural and pullout deformations. This comparison forms the basis of the proposed

99

5.2 Implementation of the Analytical Models

outlined and response estimated for four columns (Sezen, 2002) is compared with

tested by Ousalem et al. (2003) based on ASFI approach are presented. Within

implementation of each of these approaches, same material models are employed which

were originally used in development and verification of the respective approaches. For

appropriate set of test specimens and material models are selected and employed for

Reinforced concrete columns tested by Sezen (2002) provide data for flexural,

This provides a unique opportunity to compare and evaluate capabilities of any of the

analytical model intending to predict overall response. Hence, columns by Sezen (2002)

are employed for estimation and comparison of responses by both approaches. Details of

these test specimens were presented in Section 2.5.1 and key features are repeated here

These columns, designated as Specimen-1 through -4, are fixed ended columns

with square cross-section of 18 inches and length of 116 inches. The columns have eight

No.9 bars as longitudinal reinforcement and transverse reinforcement of No.3 ties with

90- degree hooks at 12 inches center-to-center spacing. Specimen-1, 2 and 4 were tested

100

with constant axial load of 150, 600 and 150 kip, respectively. Specimen-3 was, however,

tested under varying axial load from 60 kip in tension to 600 kips in compression.

Specimen-4 was tested under monotonically increasing load after few initial cycles of

elastic loading.

All of the test specimens are modeled with average concrete compressive strength

of 3077 psi and maximum aggregate size of 1 inch. Yield strength of longitudinal and

stress-strain relationship for concrete in compression derived from Mander et al. (1988)

confined concrete model till peak, and slope of descending branch of Roy & and Sozen

(1964) model after peak (Figure 2.9). In ASFI approach, concrete compressive behavior

was modeled by modified Kent and Park model, 1982 (Figure 4.2). Theoretically, any of

behavior. In this comparison, Mander et al. (1988) model for confined and unconfined

concrete is employed for both analytical approaches. This model is presented below and

101

f cc r c cc

fc

r 1 c cc

r

f cc

cc co 1 5 1 (5.1)

f co

Ec f

r ; Ec 57, 000 f co ; Esec cc

Ec Esec cc

where f cc is the peak confined concrete strength, c is the concrete strain, cc is the

concrete strain at peak stress for confined concrete, co is the concrete strain at peak

cylinder strength (in psi units), Ec is the modulus of elasticity of the concrete for normal

from Equation 5.2, which is obtained by slightly modifying the maximum strain formula

cu 0.004 0.14 x y

f yy

(5.2)

f cc

dt2

x y (for square columns) (5.3)

2 sd c

by following equations

102

f co r1 c co

fc for c 2 co

r1 1 c co 1

r

(5.4)

Ec f

r1 ; Ec 57000 f co ; Esec co

Ec Esec co

After reaching the strain of 2 co , cover concrete is assumed to start spalling and

part of falling branch in the region where c 2 co is assumed to be a straight line which

reaches zero stress at spalling strain sp , taken equal to 0.006 in this study (Figure 5.1).

behavior for confined and unconfined concrete obtained from Equations 5.1 through 5.4

approach, concrete tensile stresses are considered in both axial-flexure and axial-shear

models. The model by Vecchio and Collins (1986) defines concrete behavior in tension

for ASFI approach. This model will be used in this study and is presented in Section

The reinforcing steel behavior in this study is modeled considering a linear elastic

behavior, a yield plateau, and a non-linear strain-hardening region, for both analytical

103

approaches. This model is defined in Section 2.5.2 and is illustrated in Figure 5.3. In

Setzler and Sezens model, same constitutive laws are used for steel behavior in tension

and compression. In ASFI approach, compressive steel behavior is not the same as tensile

steel behavior, and is modified to consider effect of compression bars buckling. After

reaching buckling strain, compressive steel stresses are reduced linearly according to

relationship for both of the analytical approaches. For ASFI approach, however, concrete

tensile stresses and compression softening factor are considered in the section analysis.

Flexural deformations are determined by plastic hinge model as defined in Section 4.3.3

and Figure 5.4. This model assumes a linear curvature distribution in elastic range and

inelastic curvatures are lumped at the column end over plastic hinge length L p . In

displacement component model, plastic hinge length is as one half of the section depth,

whereas ASFI approach considers this length equal to section depth. For comparison,

plastic hinge length is taken as one half of the section depth for calculating flexural

employing Sezen and Setzler (2008) model. This model has was explained in detail in

104

5.2.5 Buckling of Compression Bars

analysis after unconfined cover concrete fiber next to compression steel reaches

compression bars are then linearly reduced according to slope of post-peak confined

concrete stiffness. In this study, compression steel stresses were reduced as per the model

given in Figure 6.3. According to this model, compression stresses start to decrease when

unconfined cover concrete start to spall. When this happens, corresponding strain in the

relevant steel layer can be calculated from flexural strain distribution across the cross

section depth. This strain is sp as shown in the figure. This point can fall anywhere on

typical stress-strain relationship for steel depending upon the level of flexural strain. Steel

stresses follow their usual constitutive stress-strain relationship until strain reaches this

limit. Then compression stresses in reinforcement follow new path defined by line

joining peak stress point to residual strength point having slope m, which is the same for

descending branch of concrete compression strength. This model is used for modeling

compression steel behavior for in ASFI approach in this study. Displacement component

model by Setzler and Sezen does not consider the bar buckling effect and employs and

their respective analytical procedures for same set of test specimens with above-

105

mentioned material and deformation component models. The lateral load-displacement

relationships for component and total responses are presented and discussed as follows.

presented in Figures 5.5 through 5.8, respectively. For Specimen-1, both approaches

predict identical pre-peak response, which matches very well with the experimental data.

Peak load and deformation at peak load is also estimated very well by both approaches.

For post peak behavior, however, predicted responses are quite different. Post peak

response by ASFI approach closely follows stiffness of the actual response. The

Figure 5.6. Initially, both approaches predict similar responses but after reaching the

drops gradually till peak load which is slightly underestimated. Predicted response by

displacement component model follows experimental pre peak response well but slightly

overestimates the peak load in positive direction. Again, post peak responses by both

approaches are diverging shortly after peak is reached. However post-peak stiffness of

Displacement component model overestimates initial stiffness and peak strength; whereas

ASFI approach does a good job in capturing initial response and peak strength. For

106

Specimen-4, ASFI approach predicts actual response that follows experimental pre and

post peak responses very well, as shown in Figure 5.8. With displacement component

model, response until peak load is estimated almost exactly and then diverges with gentle

deformations indicates that displacement component model and ASFI approach predict

pre peak response almost identically. However, post peak responses differ significantly. It

employing common material constitutive laws, fiber section analysis procedures and

softening effect and buckling of compression bars are considered in ASFI approach. It

can be seen from Figure 5.9, that difference in moment-curvature relationship with and

without considering concrete tensile behavior in section analysis is not very significant.

Compression softening factor in ASFI approach for all of the specimens modeled was

calculated to be 1.00 for almost all of the loading steps. It means that increasing shear

deformations did not affect flexural performance and both approaches employed same

softening is illustrated in Figure 5.10. It can be seen that, this effect is not very significant

for the test specimens modeled in this chapter. If, however, compression-softening factor

has values less than 1.00, then its effect on moment-curvature relationship and softened

This implies that the only difference in near-peak and post-peak responses

107

buckling of compression bars in ASFI approach. The effect of buckling of compression

bars is highlighted in Figure 5.1. It can be seen that the response is softened considerably

at peak and post peak stage after considering compression bars buckling effect.

it can be concluded that ASFI approach does a relatively better job than displacement

component model in predicting pre peak response, peak load and post peak response in

flexure.

responses by displacement component model and ASFI approach and experimental data,

same conclusions are drawn as those of flexural deformations. Both approaches produce

almost identical response up until peak load and then diverge at post peak stage. Again,

this highlights the need for considering buckling of compression bars in the flexural

presented in Figures 5.16 through 5.19, respectively. For Specimen-1, both approaches

predict identical initial response that matches initial stiffness very well. Near the peak,

slightly better than response by ASFI approach, which continues with same initial

108

stiffness until peak load. Peak load is captured very well by ASFI approach but the

load is slightly overestimated and displacement at peak load is relatively closer to the

experimental value. Shear response by ASFI approach terminates at peak load and post

peak response is not captured, as it employs MCFT for estimating shear response. MCFT

being a force based approach has a limitation of predicting response till peak strength

only. The displacement component model does a fair good job in post peak response and

Predicted responses by both approaches are identical until observed peak and follows

experimental data perfectly. The peak load is predicted very well by ASFI approach and

accurately and ASFI approach underestimates it. This column experienced a brittle

flexural compression failure and did not show degrading shear behavior. Post peak

response by displacement component model showed the same trend. Both approaches

predict initial response for Specimen-3 reasonably that follows initial experimental

component model, but post peak response captures slope of degrading branch very well.

load is underestimated. Similar trends are observed for response estimated for Specimen-

component model, but peak strength is slightly overestimated. The degrading portion

109

seems to follow the data well, although the deformations are overestimated. Response

estimated by ASFI approach also matches pre peak stiffness well. The peak strength is

Response-2000 is basically a section analysis routine that incorporates shear effects in the

considered a stack of biaxially loaded concrete elements and longitudinal steel elements.

Each of the concrete elements is analyzed individually for in-plane stress field based on

MCFT and overall section equilibrium conditions are satisfied. This is very rigorous

Response 2000. Nevertheless, it produces realistic response especially for shear critical

delivers shear strain distribution along the length of the column for each load step. In

displacement component model, this shear strain distribution is copied manually and then

integrated over the length of the column to obtain shear deformation corresponding to

respective load step. As the analytical procedures adopted within Rsponse-2000 are very

deliberate and involved, a good correlation with experimental data is achieved for pre

peak shear response in displacement component model, as seen in the comparison of the

results.

On the other hand, ASFI approach also employs MCFT to estimate shear

deformations, but in a much simplified way than the analytical procedures adopted within

Response 2000. This is done by considering the column length between inflection point

110

and end section as a single shear element subjected to biaxial state of stresses, which are

assumed constant over the length of the element. The response of this element to average

shear and axial stresses is determined through MCFT satisfying compatibility and

equilibrium conditions described in Section 3.5. While evaluating shear response of the

column, average axial strain due to flexure is added to axial strain of axial-shear element.

This is a relatively simple procedure that can be implemented easily in hand calculations

and reasonably good response can be obtained in few steps. In Figures 5.16 through 5.19,

pre peak shear responses estimated by ASFI approach show satisfactory correlation with

experimental data.

Comparison of responses predicted by both approaches with test data shows that

curve slightly better than response estimated by ASFI approach. In view of the simplified

procedure employed within ASFI approach, minor loss of accuracy near the peak strength

at peak strength and does not show shear strength degradation with increasing shear

deformations. After reaching peak load, shear deformations in ASFI approach are

calculated from secant stiffness at peak strength, which is kept constant for post peak

strength is assumed to remain constant at its peak value until onset of shear degradation.

From this point, the response degrades linearly to the point of axial load failure, where

strength is zero and drift is calculated from the procedure explained in Section 2.2.3.

111

After comparing experimental data with predicted responses, it can be concluded

that shear response envelope of displacement component model is a better choice for post

peak analysis over ASFI approach, which does not give any information on shear strength

degradation.

Figure 5.20 shows the comparison of predicted and experimental lateral load-total

Moehle equation (Equation 2.13) is calculated to be 69.0 kips and flexural strength from

column is classified as category-III specimen, for which total displacement at any point in

the response is sum of flexural, slip and shear displacement at that load step (Section 2.3).

The initial response is predicted very well up to the peak strength. Peak strength and

deformation at peak load are captured almost exactly. The post peak response initially

follow the experimental response and then becomes flat and deformations are over-

predicted. Response predicted by ASFI approach follows experimental data and response

predicted by displacement component model closely for most of the pre peak response.

The peak strength is predicted well but deformation at peak load and post peak

model, this column has shear and flexural strengths of 92.0 and 72.0 kips, respectively,

thus classifying it into category-IV specimen. For this column, shear deformation is

112

frozen at its value at peak strength (flexural strength, 72.0 kips) and added to flexural and

slip displacements for post-peak response. Predicted response by this approach, slightly

overestimates pre peak stiffness and peak load in positive direction and follows post peak

also slightly overestimates pre peak response in positive direction and underestimates

peak strength in both directions. The deformations at peak load are, however captured

well. Post peak response in negative side follows observed response better than positive

5.22. pre peak response predicted by both approaches is identical and overestimates pre

at peak load is however, well captured by both methods. Post peak response by

displacement component model matches slope of the observed response, but ASFI

except that it was tested under monotonically increasing lateral load after few initial

elastic cycles. Comparison of shear and flexural strength classifies this column into

displacement component model follow the trend in experimental data but slightly

overestimates initial stiffness, peak strength and post peak response. Predicted response

by ASFI approach also overestimates initial stiffness and captures peak strength well.

113

Deformation at peak strength and post peak deformations are significantly

underestimated.

ASFI approach with each other and experimental test data shows very similar trends for

all of the modeled test specimens. Both approaches produce identical pre peak responses

that generally follow experimental data well. For post peak response, displacement

component model performs relatively better than ASFI approach and deformations are

slightly overestimated. Whereas, predicted post peak deformations by ASFI approach are

significantly underestimated.

It must be noted that the rules for combining deformation components for

response up to the peak are same in both approaches and flexural, bar slip and shear

deformations are simply added together to obtain total response. That is why predicted

pre peak responses by both of the approaches are identical for all test specimens as shown

above. For post peak analysis, the rules for combining deformation components are

peak deformations are obtained by combining flexural, bar slip and shear deformations

depending upon predicted failure mode according to set of rules explained in Section 2.3

and Figures 2.7 and 2.8. In ASFI approach, post peak response is calculated with constant

pullout and shear stiffnesses at the values corresponding to peak load and only axial-

flexural model continues until axial load failure. Reinforcement slip and shear

deformations are calculated from their respective constant secant stiffnesses, and are

added to flexural deformations at any load level in post peak state. Estimation of total

response in this way forces slip and shear deformations to decrease with degrading lateral

114

load capacity of the column. This is the reason that total post peak response by ASFI

equal to section depth while in displacement component model, it is taken as half of the

section depth. In order to compare response estimations by both approaches, same plastic

hinge length was employed and flexural deformations in this chapter were calculated with

plastic hinge length of one-half of the section depth. Figure 5.24 shows a comparison of

with plastic hinge length taken equal to section depth and half of the section depth. It can

clearly be seen that post peak response improves significantly when total deformations

are calculated with plastic hinge length equal to section depth. On the other hand, if

lateral load-flexural displacement relationships for the same specimen is analyzed (Figure

5.25), it is seen that post peak flexural response calculated with plastic hinge length of

one-half of section depth gives very good match with experimental data. This implies that

response estimation in ASFI approach by taking plastic hinge length equal to section

depth does predict a more accurate response and flexural deformations be calculated with

plastic hinge length equal to half of the section depth, as it conforms to behavior. Also, it

components in ASFI approach must be considered for total response in post peak state.

115

5.4 Conclusion

and Sezen (2005) and ASFI approach by Mostafaei and Kabeyasawa (2007) are presented

by modeling the behavior of same set of test specimens. A detailed discussion of the

results is carried out to get an insight into analytical procedures of both approaches.

Conclusions are drawn after comparison of predicted responses for each of the flexural,

slip, shear and total deformations with respective experimental data. Conclusions drawn

in this chapter will form the basis for a model proposed in the next chapter.

116

3500

Confined concrete

2000

1500

1000

500

0

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016

Strain

250

200

150

Stress (psi)

100

50

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Strain x 10

-3

117

100

90

80

70

60

Stress (ksi)

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15

Strain

y

x x

Lp L - Lp L

y y

118

80

60

40

Lateral load (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

-60

Setzler and Sezen

ASFI approach

-80

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Flexural displacement (in.)

80

60

40

20

Lateral force (kip)

-20

-40

-60

Test data

-80 Setzler and Sezen

ASFI approach

-100

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Flexural displacement (in.)

119

80

60

40

Lateral force (kip)

20

-20

Test data

-40

Setzler and Sezen

ASFI approach

-60

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Flexural displacement (in.)

80

60

40

Lateral force (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

-60

Setzler and Sezen

ASFI approach

-80

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Flexural displacement (in.)

120

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

M (k-in.)

2000

1500

Specimen-1 (without concrete tension)

500 Specimen-2 (with concrete tension)

Specimen-2 (without concrete tension)

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Curvature (1/in.) x 10

-3

4000

3500

3000

2500

Moment (k-in.)

2000

1500

1000

Specimen-1 (Setzler and Sezen)

Specimen-1 (ASFI approach)

500

Specimen-2 (Setzler and Sezen)

Specimen-2 (ASFI approach)

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Curvature (1/in.) x 10

-3

121

4500

4000

3500

2500

2000

1500

1000

Specimen-1 (without bar buckling)

0 Specimen-2 (with bar buckling)

Specimen-2 (without bar buckling)

-500

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Curvature (1/in.) x 10

-3

80

60

40

Lateral load (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

-60

Setzler and Sezen

ASFI appoach

-80

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Slip displacement (in.)

122

80

60

40

20

Lateral force (kip)

-20

-40

-60

Test data

-80 Setzler and Sezen

ASFI approach

-100

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Slip displacement (in.)

80

60

40

Lateral force (kip)

20

-20

Test data

-40

Setzler and Sezen

ASFI approach

-60

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Slip displacement (in.)

123

80

60

40

Lateral force (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

-60

Setzler and Sezen

ASFI approach

-80

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Slip displacement (in.)

80

Test data

60 Setzler and Sezen

ASFI approach

40

Lateral load (kip)

20

-20

-40

-60

-80

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Shear displacement (in.)

124

100

Test data

80

Setzler and Sezen

60 ASFI approach

20

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.5

Shear displacement (in.)

100

80

60

Lateral force (kip)

40

20

-20

Test data

-40

Setzler and Sezen

ASFI approach

-60

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Shear displacement (in.)

125

80

60

40

Lateral force (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

-60

Setzler and Sezen

ASFI approach

-80

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Shear displacement (in.)

80

60

40

Lateral load (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

-60

Setzler and Sezen

ASFI approach

-80

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Displacement (in.)

126

80

60

40

20

Lateral force (kip)

-20

-40

-60

Test data

-80 Setzler and Sezen

ASFI approach

-100

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Displacement (in.)

80

60

40

Lateral force (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

-60

Setzler and Sezen

ASFI approach

-80

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Displacement (in.)

127

80

60

40

-20

-40

Test data

-60

Setzler and Sezen

ASFI approach

-80

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Displacement (in.)

80

60

40

Lateral load (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

-60

Response with Lp=h/2

Response with Lp=h

-80

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Displacement (in.)

Figure 5.24: Effect of plastic hinge length on total response by ASFI approach

(Specimen-1)

128

80

60

40

Lateral load (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

-60

Response with Lp=h/2

Response with Lp=h

-80

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Flexural displacement (in.)

Figure 5.25: Effect of plastic hinge length on flexural response by ASFI approach

(Specimen-1)

129

CHAPTER 6

6.1 Introduction

approach were investigated and predicted responses were compared with experimental

test data. Based upon the observations made in the last chapter, a new analytical

proposed procedure retains features from both of the understudy approaches that help

improve response estimation and make analytical procedure relatively simple and easy to

implement.

combined together depending upon dominant failure mode to obtain total response. The

softening and axial deformation allows for accurate response estimation while decoupled

flexural analysis minimizes iterations within the analysis and make the process relatively

130

considering separate stress-strain relationships for reinforcing steel in tension and

compression.

and rules for total response estimation. In order to consider the possibility of compression

bars to buckling under high compressive strains, available steel buckling models are

evaluated and an appropriate model is recommended for use in the proposed model.

subjected to lateral loading, flexure and shear mechanisms interact with each other and

principal compressive stress in the concrete is not only the function of principal

compressive strain but also gets affected by the coexisting principal tensile strain in an

inverse proportion (Vecchio and Collins, 1986). It implies that the concrete subjected to

combined normal compressive and shear stresses is weaker in compression than the

concrete subjected to normal compressive stresses only. In the web of a laterally loaded

reinforced concrete column, the concrete is also subjected to shear stress in addition to

the normal stresses due to axial load and flexure. Due to applied shear stress, the concrete

cracks diagonally and becomes weaker and softer in axial compression. Similarly,

flexural deformations also influence shear behavior of the column. Axial deformation due

to flexure increase width of the shear crack on tension face and hence lower shear

131

Any analytical model that aims to capture total response of an element, such as

beam or column, must consider interaction between axial, flexure and shear mechanisms.

compressive strength of the concrete is ignored and concrete behavior is simulated by its

deformations on shear mechanism can also be accounted for by adding axial deformation

ASFI approach considers interaction between axial, flexure and shear mechanisms

as explained earlier in Chapters 3 and 4. The interaction procedure of the approach is re-

summarized here for easy reference. The ASFI approach employs cracked concrete

model (through MCFT analysis of shear element) and employing it into axial-flexure

model (through flexural section analysis) to lower uniaxial compressive stress of the

behavior, ASFI approach incorporates average centroidal axial strain from axial-flexure

model into axial-shear model. While these interactions are taken into consideration,

equilibrium of axial and shear stresses from axial-flexure and axial-shear models are

132

In previous chapter, the comparison between predicted responses by ASFI

approach and experimental test data was presented. For flexural deformations, predicted

responses (Figures 5.8 through 5.11) show a good correlation with experimental data

Similarly, predicted shear deformations up to peak load compares well with the observed

shear responses (Figures 5.16 through 5.19), indicating that procedure of axial strain

interaction between flexural and shear deformations and must be retained for the

employing compression softening factor from shear model to flexural analysis. For the

most likely that shear strains will not effect flexural deformations. The test specimens

modeled in the Chapter 5 exhibited flexure dominant response up to peak load. The

compression softening factor by ASFI approach was found to be 1.00, eliminating the

need to soften concrete compressive response in flexure. As a result, constitutive law for

133

compression softening factor for any column during the analysis by ASFI approach is

found less than 1.00, a significantly different flexural deformations shall be predicted by

It must also be noted that the interaction terms in ASFI approach couple axial-

flexure and axial-shear models with each other in such a way that the analysis for any of

factor from shear mechanism, coupling axial-shear model with axial-flexure. Similarly,

axial-shear analysis cannot be performed unless axial deformations due to flexure are

determined from axial-flexure mechanism. Thus, the analyses for both mechanisms must

be carried out simultaneously at each loading step. Due to coupling or interlocking of the

component model offers the advantage of conducting simple calculations that are easy to

implement. Hence, any analytical process that aims to consider interaction between

flexure and shear can be simplified significantly if analyses for both mechanisms can be

an effort is made in this study to propose a suitable analytical model that performs

134

decoupled flexural and shear analyses offering easy implementation while still

flexure and shear mechanisms in a manner that flexural section analysis can be performed

independent of shear analysis. Axial strain and shear stress determined from flexure

and shear analyses while considering interaction between them. If the effect of shear

without having the need to perform shear analysis prior to flexure analysis while still

axial strain due to flexure from flexure analysis, shear analysis can be carried out

considering the interaction of axial deformations. This will make overall analytical

process less complicated and will result in comparatively simple calculations. The effect

135

softening factor must be determined in a simplified way without performing full shear

approach, Mostafaei and Vecchio (2008) formulated a new model called Uniaxial Shear

Flexure Model (USFM) by eliminating complex iteration process of the shear model

employed within ASFI approach. In the new approach, single concrete stress block is

employed to represent concrete stress distribution across the cross section depth instead

of fiber section approach. In addition, the axial strain and principal tensile strain of the

element are determined based on average centroidal axial strains and average concrete

end sections. This simplifies the analytical process significantly and eliminates the

iteration process required for shear analysis in original ASFI approach. The complete

3.2, is a function of concrete principal tensile strain c1 of the element being analyzed. As

strain, it is adopted in the proposed procedure with minor modifications. The approach is

concrete strains from flexural section analysis and does not require a deliberate shear

analysis (MCFT) of the element. The procedure to determine principal tensile strain and

136

As already described in Section 3.3.1, compression softening factor , is defined

as

1

1.0 (6.1)

c1

0.8 0.34

co

maximum concrete cylinder strength. For an element considered between inflection point

and one of the end sections of the column, c1 can be determined according to MCFT

equation as follows

c1 x y 2 (6.2)

In above equation, x is average axial strain at the centroid for the element and is

obtained by averaging the values of centroidal axial stain at one of the end section o and

x

o xa (6.3)

2

Likewise 2 is concrete principal compressive strain for the element. Its value is

compressive force of the stress block at end section c and axial strain at the inflection

point xa . Hence,

2

c xa (6.4)

2

137

The other unknown quantity in Equation 6.2 is strain of the transverse

on MCFT as

y b2 c b (6.5)

where,

f c1

b 2

2 y Esy 2

c

x 2 fc1 fcx fc1 2

y Esy

f cx f x x f sx

analysis based on average centroidal strain, fc1 0.145 fco is concrete principal tensile

from Equation 6.3 and 2 is concrete principal compressive strains determined from

Equations 6.4.

compression softening factor is determined with the help of Equation 6.1 for a given

curvature. The concrete compressive stresses in flexural section analysis are then lowered

138

explained in Section 3.3.1 and Figure 3.1. In proposed procedure, compression softening

factor determined with this method is employed till peak flexural load and then a constant

proposed procedure incorporates axial strain and shear stress due to flexure into in-plane

analysis of the shear element. The proposed procedure is based on the axial strain

and shear mechanisms. In this procedure, interaction of axial strain is taken into account

plane stress-strain relationship of the shear element, shear deformations are determined.

For a fixed ended column subjected to lateral load, the procedure for axial deformation

The length of the column between inflection point and one of the end sections is

considered as a shear element subjected to constant normal stress due to applied axial

load and average shear stresses due to applied lateral load. Performing flexural analysis

on fiber model of the end section and axial model at the inflection point, average axial

strain due to flexure at the centroid of the section for the element can be determined with

following equation. These analyses are carried out incorporating compression softening

139

xf

o xa (6.6)

2

where o and xa are centroidal and axial strain at the column end section and inflection

point, respectively (Figure 6.1). The flexibility component for axial deformation due to

xf

f xf (6.7)

x

where, x is applied axial stress in longitudinal direction of the column and can be

determined by dividing applied axial load P by the area of the cross section

P

x (6.8)

bd

In above equation, b and d are width and depth of the cross section,

f 21 f 22 f 23 y y (6.9)

f

31 f 32 f 33 xy xy

where fij i, j 1, 2,3 are flexibility components of in plane shear model, x is normal

direction, and xy is shear strain. In the above equation, longitudinal axis of the shear

140

Axial strain due to flexure xf can be taken into account in the axial-shear model

by adding flexibility component obtained from Equation 6.7 into Equation 6.9.

f 21 f 22 f 23 y y (6.10)

f 31 f 32 f 33 xy xy

In above equation, stresses in transverse direction (clamping stresses) are zero due

to inexistence of lateral external force along the column, i.e., y 0 . In addition, the

applied shear stress xy of the element is taken from flexural section analysis as

M

xy (6.11)

Linbd

where M is the moment obtained from fiber section analysis of the end section and Lin

is length of the element, taken equal to half of the total length for fixed ended column. In

Equation 6.10, knowing the applied stresses, corresponding strains can be calculated. The

flexibility matrix is obtained by inverting material stiffness matrix of the shear element

(Figures 5.8 through 5.11) highlighted the need to consider reduction in stresses of the

compression bars due to possibility of their buckling, especially in post peak stage. The

post peak flexural response by ASFI approach compared well with the experimental

behavior for the modeled test specimens, indicating that bar buckling model employed is

effective in capturing the column behavior in flexure. The details of this model were

141

given in Section 5.2.5. In addition to the bar buckling model employed for response

estimation by ASFI approach in previous chapter, two other models are explored to see

their applicability and effectiveness in the analysis. Based upon the analysis results, one

The details on the bar buckling phenomenon, related aspects and proposed bar buckling

mainly due to axial, bending moment and shear forces. Reinforcing bars may experience

inelastic axial compression under severe loading and exhibit lateral deformation known

depends on a variety of factors such as, size and shape of the cross-section, the amount of

confinement to the section, thickness of the cover concrete, and stress-strain properties

for the steel and concrete (Potger et al. 2001). The tendency for the compressively loaded

steel bars to buckle and deflect outwards is initially resisted by the lateral restraint

provided by the surrounding cover concrete as well as the transverse steel ties or stirrups.

As the compressive loads increase and approach the section capacity, the concrete

surrounding the compressive bars carries large longitudinal compressive stress, and

eventually becomes prone to longitudinal cracking, and spalling. After the cover concrete

been studied under monotonic and cyclic loads (Monti and Nuti (1992), Rodriguez et al.

(1999), Suda et al. (1996), Gomes and Appleton (1997), and Dhakal and Maekawa

142

(2002)). These researchers developed steel constitutive relationships to take into account

deformation behavior.

In this study, two of the available bar buckling models are evaluated to assess

deformations shall be determined by employing these models for the four specimens

tested by Sezen (2002). After comparing predicted responses with test data, appropriate

the reinforcing bars by finite element microanalysis using fiber technique. Their model is

established, after which a constant negative stiffness equal to 0.02 Es is assumed until the

average steel stress becomes equal to the residual value of 0.2 f y . The intermediate point

fy L

* 5.5 2.3 y 7 y

100 db

(6.12)

f L *

* 1.1 0.016 y f s 0.2 f y

100 d

b

where f y is yield stress of longitudinal steel in MPa, L is length of the column which is

143

longitudinal bars, f s* is point wise stress on original curve corresponding to * , and is

a factor related to strain hardening region of steel stress-strain relationship. Its value is

1.00 for linear hardening bars and 0.75 for perfectly elastoplastic bars. In modeling test

specimens with non-linearly hardening bars, this factor was assumed 1.00 for

implementing this model in this study. After determining the intermediate point, stress-

* s y

f sl 1 1 * * f s for y s *

f s y

(6.13)

f sl * 0.02 Es s * 0.2 f y for s *

predetermined buckling strain, softening slope and stress degradation after modifying

some of the existing models (Kato et al. (1973), Meng et al. (1992), Nakatsuka et al.

(1999), Inoue and Shimizu (1988), Yamada et al. (1993)). The model is illustrated in

Figure 6.3. In this model, buckling and lateral displacement of the bar is assumed to

begin at a critical buckling strain lb indicated by point A in Figure 6.3. After buckling,

the compressive strain in the bar continues to increase and the stress is assumed to fall-off

144

is reached at point B. With further increases in compressive strain (past point B), the

by Nakatsuka et al. (1999). This relationship takes into account the effects on buckling

sh

strain due to lateral reinforcement spacing to confined core diameter ratio , confining

dc

where,

f1

0 ( sh d c ) 0.75

f 2 y f yy

2

f3 0.9 for corner bar (6.15)

0.18

for intermediate bar

110

-1 30 MPa f c 0 110 MPa

f4 fc0

0 f c 0 110 MPa

600

f5 0.5 102 f yy 400 MPa

f yy

145

The post-buckling slope is calculated with following relationship developed by

Inoue and Shimizu (1988). The second post-buckling slope is set at 0.005Es adopted

from the report by Yamada et al. (1993) for the buckling of steel plates.

1

lb 100 yx 1

1 500

2

(6.16)

sh

ir

where yx is yield strain of longitudinal bars, is 1.0 for corner bars and 0.5 for

Both of the above models and bar buckling model proposed in the previous

chapter are incorporated in flexural section analysis and flexural deformations are

relationships are compared with experimental responses in Figures 6.4 through 6.6.

Based on the comparison of the predicted and observed responses, the model

stresses of the longitudinal reinforcement to account for bar buckling phenomenon. This

It must be noted that diameter of the longitudinal bar and spacing of the transverse

reinforcement are important parameters that affect buckling of the compression bars

146

(Monti and Nuti 1992). Smaller diameter bars contained by widely spaced stirrups are

most likely to undergo lateral deformations and buckling much earlier during loading

history than larger diameter bars confined by closely spaced transverse reinforcement.

Therefore, in the proposed model to account for this fact, for stirrup spacing to bar

behavior of the reinforcement is similar to tensile behavior. For sh db ratio above 11.00,

the bars are considered to buckle as soon as reinforcement yields. For sh db ratios

between 5.00 and 11.00, post-buckling softening is considered soon after yielding by

described in Section 6.3.1 and buckling of compression bars as per procedure explained

in Section 6.4.4 are incorporated in the flexural analysis. Flexural section analysis also

enables to determine axial strain due to flexure xf and shear stress of the axial-flexure

Lateral displacements due to flexure are calculated by plastic hinge model with

the help of following equations. This model is already explained in Section 4.3.3 and

Figure 5.4.

147

1

f a2 for y

3

(6.17)

Lp

f y a 2 y L p a

1

for y u

3 2

where is curvature at column end, y is curvature at yield point, a is shear span equal

to length L of a cantilever column and half the length for a fixed ended column. The

are calculated using above mentioned procedure and are presented in Figures 6.8 through

6.11, respectively.

specimens were obtained by employing Sezen and Setzler (2008) bar slip model. The

predicted responses showed satisfactory correlation with experimental data (Figure 5.12

through 5.15). Hence, this model is adopted to calculate bar slip deformations in the

proposed procedure. This model is explained in detail in Section 2.2.2 and Figures 2.3,

2.4. The lateral load-slip displacement relationships for Specimens 1, 2, 3 and 4 are

calculated using above mentioned procedure and are presented in Figures 6.12 through

6.15, respectively.

It was shown in the previous chapter that shear response envelope of displacement

component model performs well in predicting shear behavior of the test specimens

148

(Figure 5.16 through 5.19). For pre-peak response, this shear model relies on shear strain

output from Response-2000 computer program. The user is required to input section

configuration, material properties and loading conditions to the program and run full

the peak load the cross section can sustain. At each load step, the program gives average

shear strain distribution along the length of the column. In order to obtain lateral load-

shear displacement response, the user is required to manually copy this shear strain

distribution at each load step and integrate it over the length of the column to get

corresponding shear displacement. This procedure is repeated for all load steps up to the

peak load, which makes the process very laborious and time consuming. Additionally, as

the load-displacement relationships for shear and flexure/bar slip mechanisms are

On the other hand, axial-shear model of ASFI approach adopts relatively simple

approach for shear response estimation with reasonably good accuracy. This procedure

enables the interaction of axial strains to capture effect of flexural deformation on shear

response only up to the peak load and does not predict shear strength degradation with

displacement component model that is able to predict post peak behavior up to the point

149

The proposed shear displacement model in this study retains the features from

ASFI approach and displacement component model that help estimate response

accurately and make analytical process simple and relatively easy to implement. In the

proposed shear model, shear displacements up to the peak shear load are calculated by in-

plane analysis of the shear element based on direct application of MCFT while adding

axial strain due to flexure to the total axial strain of the shear element. The post-peak

shear behavior is obtained by employing post peak shear response envelope of the

The procedure for application of MCFT was explained in Section 4.2.3. These

steps along with axial strain interaction methodology explained in Section 6.3.2 are

followed to obtain flexibility matrix in Equation 6.10. This equation is then solved with

applied normal stress due to axial load (Equation 6.8) and shear stress from axial-flexure

model (Equation 6.11) to obtain shear strains up to peak shear load. The shear strength is

then assumed to remain constant at its peak value until the point of shear strength

degradation. From this point, the response degrades linearly to the point of axial load

failure, where strength is zero. The shear failure point and axial load failure point are

The term peak shear load used above refers to point where pre-peak shear

response by MCFT terminates. This corresponds to the load step at which either shear

failure occurs or peak flexural strength reaches before shear failure. Hence, for the

columns failing in shear prior to experiencing flexural strength, peak shear load will be

the shear strength of the specimen. For the columns having higher shear strength than the

flexural strength, this point will give shear response at peak flexural strength.

150

As the shear analysis in the proposed procedure is performed at the same load

steps employed for flexure and bar slip deformations, lateral load-shear displacement

relationships are not required to be tailored to match the loading intervals of the

deformation components for post peak response. The proposed shear model also

gives control to the user on choice of material constitutive models and parameters to be

calculated using proposed shear procedure and are presented in Figures 6.16 through

6.19, respectively.

The total lateral response of a reinforced concrete column to the lateral load is

modeled as a set of springs in series (Figure 2.6). The lateral displacement components of

flexure, bar slip and shear are each modeled by a spring. Each spring is subjected to the

steps of appropriate size starting with a small initial value. First, flexural and bar slip

deformations are calculated and then shear response is evaluated at each load step. If at

any load step, shear failure does not occur, the value of shear strain is taken as shear

response at current load level and the shear analysis for the next step is carried out. This

procedure is repeated until either shear failure occurs or peak flexural strength is

151

achieved. The load corresponding to this stage is defined as peak strength. After reaching

the peak, the mechanism limiting the peak strength (flexure or shear) will dominate the

behavior.

simply adding deformation components due to flexure, bar slip and shear mechanism

The rules for combining deformation components for post peak responses in the

proposed procedure are taken from displacement component model. The procedure for

classification of the columns into categories is same as before except that the

determination of shear strength of the specimens is slightly different. It was shown in the

previous chapter that the procedure employed for post peak response in displacement

component model is much realistic and performs better than ASFI approach (Figures 5.20

through 5.23).

their shear, flexural and yield strength (Setzler, 2005). The yield strength Vy of the

column is defined as the lateral load corresponding to the first yielding of the tension bars

in flexural analysis. The flexural strength V p is the lateral load corresponding to the

peak moment sustainable by the column. The shear strength Vn for the columns failing

152

in shear prior to the reaching flexural strength or failing close to flexural strength is

determined from the proposed shear model in Section 6.7, in which peak shear load is

shear strength of the column. For other columns where peak shear load by proposed shear

model is equal to the flexural strength, Sezen and Moehle (2002) equation is employed to

determine shear strength Vn of the column. The determination of the shear strength

with this procedure minimizes the dependency of the component displacement model on

alternate mean of determining shear strength for classification purpose. The procedure for

combining deformations due to flexure, bar slip and shear are explained in Section 2.3

This section summarizes the procedure for estimating the response of laterally

1. Define or input material properties and geometry. Decide on a sign convention for

2. Input axial load P . If there is no applied axial load, then consider a negligible

value.

153

i. Assume location of the neutral axis c for the first iteration. An initial

h

value of c is good starting point, where h is overall section depth.

2

ii. Apply section analysis procedure at end section and inflection point and

resultant compressive force of the stress block at end section c , and axial

understanding.

Equations 6.5 and 6.2. The average value of concrete principal tensile

concrete compression stress of the stress block with the help of employed

behavior.

vi. Check for the section equilibrium at the end section. If equilibrium of

axial forces is not achieved, modify the assumed value for depth of the

154

6. Evaluate axial-flexure mechanism by performing flexural section analysis at the

ductility of the core concrete must be taken into account with the help of

on flexural performance.

155

equilibrium. When section equilibrium is achieved, calculate nominal

viii. Perform axial section analysis at the inflection point and determine axial

constitutive laws employed for flexural section analysis of the end section.

with the help of Equation 6.17. Plastic hinge length is taken equal to one

Section 6.6. Lateral displacement due to slip is added to flexural and shear

M by following equation

M

V (6.18)

Lin

xii. Increment curvature to next load step and repeat all steps until either

156

section, use constant compression softening factor corresponding to its

interaction of axial strains for the column element between end section and inflection

i. Start with the first load step from axial-flexural analysis explained above.

small values for each of them for the first iteration. These variables are

respectively.

157

v. Determine average principal tensile and compressive stresses in concrete

vi. Check local stress-strain conditions at cracks ensuring that the tension in

the concrete can be transmitted across the crack and shear stress on the

surface of the crack does not exceed maximum shear provided by the

not satisfied and local shear stress at the surface of the crack exceeds shear

vii. Determine secant moduli for concrete and reinforcements and assemble

stiffnesses into global x and y -directions using Equation 3.26 and 2.31.

viii. Invert total stiffness matrix D to get flexibility matrix f of Equation 6.9

158

ix. Consider x from Equation 6.8, y 0 , and flexural-shear stress xy from

step 6(vii) and solve Equation 6.10 for xi 1 , yi 1 , and si 1 for the

integration point.

response at current load level and go to the next load step. Otherwise,

iteration variables. For the next iteration, average of the initial assumed

values and calculated values in last step can be used for fast convergence.

xi. The above mentioned shear analysis steps are repeated for all load steps

x. After the peak shear load is reached, shear strength is then assumed to

remain constant at its peak value until the point of shear strength

degradation. From this point, the response degrades linearly to the point of

axial load failure, where strength is zero. The shear failure point and axial

6.8.

159

6.10 Implementation of the Model and Comparison of the Results

by employing same material constitutive laws as explained in the Chapter 5. The pre-

peak flexural and bar slip deformations are generally predicted well (Figures 6.8 through

6.11). The pre-peak shear stiffnesses and peak shear strengths are also captured well.

However, for total response estimation (Figure 6.20 through 6.23), it can be seen that

displacement component model, ASFI approach and proposed procedure, predict almost

identical responses before peak load. After the peak is reached, response predictions by

these models are quite different. ASFI approach generally underestimates post peak

responses for the test specimens. This is mainly due to shear and bar slip displacements

are calculated from constant secant stiffnesses, which follow straight-line path after the

responses. When the same columns were modeled by this approach in Chapter 2, very

good correlation was obtained between predicted and observed responses. In Chapter 2,

concrete that had steep descending slope. This was done to acknowledge the poor

confinement due to widely spaced ties. In this analysis, the concrete compressive

behavior is simulated by Mander et al. (1988) model for both loading and unloading

branches. The constitutive models employed in Chapter 2 and this study are presented in

Figure 6.24.

160

6.11 Conclusion

subjected to lateral loads. The procedure is based on the observations made in the

previous Chapter 5 after evaluating and analyzing displacement component model and

ASFI approach. The proposed procedure determines flexure, bar slip and shear

into the flexural analysis. The shear model evaluates the shear response of the column

response is evaluated by employing MCFT, and post peak shear response envelope from

displacement component model is adopted for predicting post peak shear behavior. All

deformation components i.e., flexural, bar slip and shear are added together to get total

response of the column. The total/combined peak response is limited by lesser of the

shear and flexural strength of the column and limiting mechanism governs the post peak

response. The proposed procedure employs relatively simple calculations for overall

response estimation and appears to perform better than displacement component model

161

Concrete stress block

at end section

P NA

End section V o

c

Centroidal

Lin Axis

Inflection Point

xa

x 2

Assumed distribution

h

of x and 2 over

Concrete stress block length of the element

at inflection point

Fixed-ended column

subjected to lateral load

b

h

Column cross section

fs

*

s , f s*

fy

,

* *

0.02 Es

0.2 f y

s

y

162

fs

f s ,lb A

f s , ps

s

y

80

60

40

Lateral force (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

Dhakal et al.

-60

Potger et al.

Proposed model

-80

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Flexural displacement (in.)

163

80

60

40

20

Lateral force (kip)

-20

-40

Dhakal et al.

-80 Potger et al.

Proposed model

-100

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Flexural displacement (in.)

80

60

40

Lateral force (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

Dhakal et al.

-60

Potger et al.

Proposed model

-80

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Flexural displacement (in.)

164

Figure 6.7: Proposed bar buckling model

80

60

40

Lateral load (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

-60

Setzler and Sezen

Proposed model

-80

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Flexural displacement (in.)

165

80

60

40

20

Lateral force (kip)

-20

-40

-60

Test data

-80 Setzler and Sezen

Proposed model

-100

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Flexural displacement (in.)

80

60

40

Lateral force (kip)

20

-20

Test data

-40

Setzler and Sezen

Proposed model

-60

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Flexural displacement (in.)

166

80

60

40

Lateral force (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

-60

Setzler and Sezen

Proposed model

-80

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Flexural displacement (in.)

80

60

40

Lateral load (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

-60

Setzler and Sezen

Proposed model

-80

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Slip displacement (in.)

167

80

60

40

20

Lateral force (kip)

-20

-40

-60

Test data

-80 Setzler and Sezen

Proposed model

-100

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Slip displacement (in.)

80

60

40

Lateral force (kip)

20

-20

Test data

-40

Setzler and Sezen

Proposed model

-60

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Slip displacement (in.)

168

80

60

40

Lateral force (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

-60

Setzler and Sezen

Proposed model

-80

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Slip displacement (in.)

80

Test data

60 Setzler and Sezen

ASFI approach

40 Propose model

Lateral load (kip)

20

-20

-40

-60

-80

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

Shear displacement (in.)

169

100

Test data

80 Setzler and Sezen

60 ASFI approach

Proposed model

Lateral force (kip) 40

20

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100

-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5

Shear displacement (in.)

100

80

60

40

Lateral force (kip)

20

-20

Setzler and Sezen

-60 ASFI approach

Proposed model

-80

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Shear displacement (in.)

170

80

60

20

-20

-40

Test data

Setzler and Sezen

-60

ASFI approach

Proposed model

-80

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Shear displacement (in.)

80

60

40

Lateral load (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

Setzler and Sezen

-60

ASFI approach

Proposed model

-80

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Displacement (in.)

171

80

60

40

20

Lateral force (kip)

-20

-40

Setzler and Sezen

-80 ASFI approach

Proposed model

-100

-5 -4.15 -3.3 -2.45 -1.6 -0.75 0.1 0.95 1.8 2.65 3.5 4.35 5

Displacement (in.)

80

60

40

Lateral force (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

Setzler and Sezen

-60

ASFI approach

Proposed model

-80

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Displacement (in.)

172

80

60

40

Lateral force (kip)

20

-20

-40

Test data

Setzler and Sezen

-60

ASFI approach

Proposed model

-80

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Displacement (in.)

4000

Mander confined concrete model

3500 Mander unconfined concrete model

Sezen confined concrete model

3000

Sezen unconfined concrete model

2500

Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02

Srain

173

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

7.1 Summary

The focus of this research was to suggest a suitable analytical procedure that can

many existing buildings not designed according to modern seismic design standards,

often have limited deformation capacity and are vulnerable to brittle shear failure during

earthquakes. Observed damage pattern after past earthquakes has shown that columns,

especially those in the first story, are often the most critical members in non-ductile

concrete buildings, and failure of columns can lead to structure collapse. The model

proposed here is intended for use in the analysis of existing buildings to determine the

required level of retrofit necessary for satisfactory seismic performance. The proposed

procedure can also be used for the properly designed existing and future planned

due to flexure, reinforcement slip and shear mechanisms. Theses deformations do not

occur independently and axial, flexure and shear mechanisms interact with each other.

174

For example, shear deformations tend to lower the compressive strength of the concrete

in the web of the column that affect flexural behavior. Likewise, flexural deformations

increase shear crack width and lower shear capacity of the column. In the proposed

procedure, flexural and shear deformations are determined while considering these

concrete behavior to account for shear deformations on flexural performance. After axial

strains and shear stresses are determined from flexural analysis, shear behavior is then

evaluated. The shear response estimation in the proposed procedure employs MCFT and

due to bar slip are calculated separately and added to flexural and shear displacements to

obtain total response. The rules for combining deformation components for total response

The flexural behavior in the proposed procedure was evaluated by fiber section

flexural behavior, cracked concrete behavior was considered in the section analysis. This

determined as per the suggested procedure that decouples flexural analysis from shear

easily. The concrete behavior in tension was also incorporated in the flexural analysis. In

175

order to consider the phenomenon of compression bar buckling, few of the bar buckling

models were analyzed and a procedure to incorporate this effect was suggested. After

were calculated with plastic hinge model by taking plastic hinge length equal to one-half

of the section depth. Comparison of the predicted flexural response with experimental

data showed that the proposed procedure performs well in estimating flexural

displacements.

The shear model in the proposed procedure employs MCFT and considers effect

of flexural deformations on shear strength. This was done by extracting axial strain due to

flexure only from flexural section analysis as per the procedures employed in ASFI

approach and incorporating it to the shear analysis. The normal and shear stress obtained

from axial-flexure analysis are employed as applied load for in-plane shear analysis of

the element. The response up to the peak load is determined with this procedure and then

post peak shear response envelope from displacement component model was employed to

determine points of shear and axial load failures. The shear model in the proposed

Response-2000 computer program for obtaining shear strain distribution. The comparison

of the predicted responses with experimental data indicated that axial strain interaction

methodology, shear response estimation by MCFT and post peak shear response envelope

separately by Setzler and Sezen (2008) bar slip model and were added to flexural and

176

7.1.2 Combined Model

three springs in series, one for each of the deformation components. The shear strength of

the column failing at or prior to reaching flexural strength was calculated using the shear

model of the proposed procedure. For the columns having higher shear strengths than the

flexural strength, shear strength was determined using 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 flexural strengths determined from the

flexural analysis to classify columns into one of five categories. The same rules employed

by displacement component model were used for classification of the columns into

categories. Peak load was defined as lesser of the load predicted by shear model and

flexure model. Up to the peak strength, the three deformation components were simply

added together to obtain total response. After the peak strength was reached, post peak

response was governed by dominant failure mechanism and rules for combining post

peak deformations from displacement component model were employed for obtaining

total response. The comparison of the predicted and observed responses indicated that

7.2 Conclusions

The interaction between flexure and shear deformations must be taken into

account to determine total response of the column to lateral load. The recommended

177

performance and procedure to calculate compression softening factor appeared to work

deformations accurately and independently while still considering the interaction with

shear mechanism.

Buckling of compression bars affect post peak behavior and hence must be

considered in the analysis. The procedure adopted in this research for incorporating this

bars, and the plastic hinge method of calculating flexural deformations worked well in

this research. These tools appear to be appropriate for use in both well reinforced and

The reinforcement slip model by Setzler and Sezen (2008) which utilizes a bi-

uniform bond stress over the embedded length of the bar, represented the experimental

slip behavior well and can be used to model the response with least complexity and good

accuracy.

The shear behavior of columns was predicted well by the shear model employed

member. The procedure to analyze shear behavior of the column while considering

interaction of axial strains and applied shear stresses from flexural model resulted in

fairly accurate response estimation and was simple to implement. Only little experimental

shear displacement data was available. More would be required to determine the

178

effectiveness of the model for a wider range of column types. The post-peak shear

total response by displacement component model are very effective in capturing observed

behaviors. Theses rules can be used for wide range of the columns failing in various

modes.

simple calculations to estimate component and total deformations. The procedure can be

columns exhibiting different failure modes such as flexural failure with very limited or no

shear effects, flexure and/or shear failure following the flexural yielding, and brittle shear

The research reported here presents a model for the monotonic lateral deformation

of lightly reinforced concrete columns subjected to lateral loads. However, there remains

The proposed model was used to predict the behavior of few test columns. While

general good agreement was shown between the test data and model, further comparisons

should be made to complete validation of the model over a wide range of column

properties.

179

Several areas warrant more experimental research to improve the knowledge base.

necessary. Most test data available stops before loss of axial capacity. More data would

help improve models for shear capacity and axial capacity; both of these are necessary

displacements. This would aid in improving the component models, which should lead to

The most significant area of research that remains is the modeling of the

hysteretic behavior of columns. Many hysteretic models for flexural deformations exist,

which should be applicable. Several shear models are available as well, however, these

would need to be evaluated in the context of lightly reinforced columns to determine their

applicability. These hysteretic models would need to be combined through a set of rules

to predict the overall cyclic lateral behavior of lightly reinforced concrete columns.

180

LIST OF 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

Structural Journal. V. 96, No. 1, Jan. 1999. pp. 68-78.

ACI Committee 318, 2002. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and

Commentary, ACI 318-02/318R-02. American Concrete Institute, Farmington

Hills, Mich., 2002. 443 pp.

ACI Committee 408, 1979. Suggested Development, Splice, and Standard Hook

Provisions for Deformed Bars in Tension, ACI 408.1R-79. American Concrete

Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1979. 3 pp.

Monotonic Loading, Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, V. 118, No. 9,

Sept. 1992. pp. 2421-2438.

Dissertation. University of Toronto, 2000. 310 pp.

Berry, M., Parrish, M., and Eberhard, M., 2004. PEER Structural Performance Database

Users Manual (Version 1.0). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,

University of California, Berkeley, Jan. 2004. 38 pp. http://nisee.berkeley.edu/

spd/performance_database_manual_1-0.pdf.

Chadwell, C. B. and Imbsen & Associates, 2004. XTRACT Cross Section Analysis

Software for Structural and Earthquake Engineering. http://www.imbsen.com/

xtract.html.

Chadwell, C. B. and Imbsen, R. A., 2004. XTRACT: A Tool for Axial Force-Ultimate

Curvature Interactions, Building on the Past, Securing the Future: Proceedings

of the 2004 Structures Congress. ASCE, Nashville, Tenn., May 2004. 9 pp.

181

Cho, J.-Y. and Pincheira, J. A., 2004. Nonlinear Modeling of RC Columns with Short

Lap Splices, Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake

Engineering. Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Aug. 2004. Paper No. 1506.

Ciampi, V., Eligehausen, R., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P., 1982. Analytical Model

for Concrete Anchorages of Reinforcing Bars Under Generalized Excitations,

Report No. UCB/EERC 82/23. Earthquake Engineering Research Center,

University of California, Berkeley, Nov. 1982. 111 pp.

Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., Shear and Torsion Design of Prestressed and Non-

Prestressed Concrete Beams, Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute, V.

25, No. 5, 1980, pp. 32-100.

Dhakal, P.R., and Maekawa K., Modeling for Postyield Buckling of Reinforcement

,Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, V. 129, No. 9, Sept. 2002 pp. 1139-

1147.

Engineering Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle.

http://nisee.berkeley.edu/spd. Accessed 1 Nov. 2005.

Eligehausen, R., Popov, E. P., and Bertero, V. V., 1983. Local Bond Stress-Slip

Relationship of a Deformed Bar Under Generalized Excitations, Report No.

UCB/EERC 83/23. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of

California, Berkeley, Oct. 1983. 169 pp.

Elwood, K. J., 2002. Shake Table Tests and Analytical Studies on the Gravity Load

Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Frames, Ph.D. Dissertation. University of

California, Berkeley, 2002. 419 pp.

Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. NRC Canada, Vol. 31, No. 5, Oct. 2004.

pp. 846-859.

Elwood, K. J. and Moehle, J. P., 2005a. Axial Capacity Model for Shear-Damaged

Columns, ACI Structural Journal. V. 102, No. 4, July 2005. pp. 578-587.

Columns with Light Transverse Reinforcement, Earthquake Spectra. EERI, V.

21, No. 1, Feb. 2005. pp. 71-89.

Filippou, F. C., Popov, E. P., and Bertero, V. V., 1983. Effects of Bond Deterioration

on Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Joints, Report No. UCB/EERC

83/19. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,

Berkeley, Aug. 1983. 184 pp.

182

Gerin, M. and Adebar, P., 2004. Accounting for Shear in Seismic Analysis of Concrete

Structures, Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake

Engineering. Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Aug. 2004. Paper No. 1747.

reinforcing bars including buckling, Engineering Structures, Vol. 19(10) 822-826.

Harajli, M. H., 2004. Comparison of Bond Strength of Steel Bars in Normal- and High-

Strength Concrete, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. ASCE, V. 16,

No. 4, Aug. 2004. pp. 365-374.

Hawkins, N. M., Lin, I. J., and Jeang, F. L., 1982. Local Bond Strength of Concrete for

Cyclic Reversed Loadings, Bond in Concrete. Applied Science Publishers,

London, 1982. pp. 151-161.

Inel, M. and Aschheim, M. A., 2002. Models for Estimating the Deformation Capacities

of Reinforced Concrete Columns, ECAS2002 International Symposium on

Structural and Earthquake Engineering. Middle East Technical University,

Ankara, Turkey, Oct. 2002.

Kent, D. C. and Park, R., 1971. Flexural Members with Confined Concrete, Journal of

the Structural Division. ASCE, V. 97, No. ST7, July 1971. pp. 1969-1990.

Lee, D. H., Choi, E., and Zi, G., 2005. Evaluation of earthquake deformation and

performance for RC bridge piers, Engineering Structures. Elsevier, V. 27, No.

10, Aug. 2005. pp. 1451-1464.

Lee, D. H. and Elnashai, A. S., 2001. Seismic Analysis of RC Bridge Columns with

Flexure-Shear Interaction, Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, V. 127,

No. 5, May 2001. pp. 546-553.

Concrete Bridge Columns, Report No. PEER-1998/01. Pacific Earthquake

Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Dec. 2000. 316

pp.

Lin, I. J. and Hawkins, N. M., 1982. Anchorage Characteristics for Reinforcing Bars for

Reversed Cyclic Loading, Report No. SM 82-1. Department of Civil

Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, June 1982. 326 pp.

Columns, Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, 2001. 308 pp.

183

Lynn, A. C., Moehle, J. P., Mahin, S. A., and Holmes, W. T., 1996. Seismic evaluation

of existing reinforced concrete building columns, Earthquake Spectra. EERI, V.

12, No. 4, Nov. 1996. pp. 715-739.

Mander, J. B., Priestley, J. N., and Park, R., 1988. Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for

Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, V. 114, No. 8,

Aug. 1988. pp. 1804-1825.

Marquez, J. L. G. and Jirsa, J. O., 1975. A Study of Hooked Bar Anchorages in Beam-

Column Joints, ACI Journal. V. 72, No. 5, May 1975. pp. 198-209.

McKenna, F., Fenves, G. L., and Scott, M. H., 2004. Open System for Earthquake

Engineering Simulation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,

University of California, Berkeley. http://opensees.berkeley.edu.

Melek, M., Wallace, J. W., and Conte, J. P., 2003. Experimental Assessment of

Columns with Short Lap Splices Subjected to Cyclic Loads, Report No. PEER

2003/04. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of

California, Berkeley, Apr. 2003. 176 pp.

Mo, Y. L. and Wang, S. J., 2000. Seismic Behavior of RC Columns with Various Tie

Configurations, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 126, No. 10, Oct.

2000. pp. 1122-1130.

Earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra. EERI, V. 8, No. 3, Aug. 1992. pp. 403-428.

Moehle, J. P., Elwood, K. J., and Sezen, H., 2002. Gravity Load Collapse of Building

Frames During Earthquakes, S. M. Uzumeri Symposium: Behavior and Design of

Concrete Structures for Seismic Performance, SP-197. American Concrete

Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002. pp. 215-238.

Monti, G. & Nuti, C., (1992), Non-linear Cyclic Behaviour of Reinforcing Bars Including

Buckling,Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118(12), 3269-3284.

Assessment of RC Columns, The First NEES/Defense Workshop on Collapse

Simulation of Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, University of California

Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif., July 2005, pp. 47-63.

Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Elements. PhD dissertation, Faculty of

184

Engineering, Architrave Department, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, 2006,

255.

Reinforced Concrete Columns. ACI Structural Journal, vol. 104, No.2, Mar-Apr

2007, pp. 218-226.

Mostafaei, H., and Vecchio, F. J. (2008). Uniaxial Shear-Flexure Model for Reinforced

Concrete Elements. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(9), 1538-

1547.

Reinforced Concrete Columns. ACI Structural Journal, 106(2), 187-195.

Reinforced Concrete Frame, Proceedings of the Eighth World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering. San Francisco, July 1984. pp. 477-484.

Earthquake Engineering Online Archive. Earthquake Engineering Research

Center, University of California, Berkeley. http://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary.

Accessed 25 Oct. 2005.

Ousalem, H.; Kabeyasawa, T.; Tasai, A.; and Iwamoto, J., Effect of Hysteretic

Reversals on Lateral and Axial Capacities of Reinforced Concrete Columns,

Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 25, No. 2, 2003, pp. 367-372.

Okamura, H., and Maekawa, K., Nonlinear Analysis and Constitutive Models of

Reinforced Concrete, Gihodo Shuppan Co., Ltd., 1991, 182 pp.

Otani, S. and Sozen, M. A., 1972. Behavior of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Frames

during Earthquakes, Structural Research Series No. 392. University of Illinois,

Urbana, 1972. 551 pp.

Ozcebe, G. and Saatcioglu, M., 1989. Hysteretic Shear Model for Reinforced Concrete

Members, Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, V. 115, No. 1, Jan. 1989.

pp. 132-148.

Park, R. and Paulay, T., 1975. Reinforced Concrete Structures. John Wiley & Sons,

Inc., New York, 1975.

Park, R.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Gill, W. D., Ductility of Square Confined Concrete

Columns, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, V. 108,No. 4, 1982, pp. 929-

950.

185

Patwardhan, C., 2005. Strength and Deformation Modeling of Reinforced Concrete

Columns, M.S. Thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 2005. 166

pp.

Pincheira, J. A., Dotiwala, F. S., and DSouza, J. T., 1999. Seismic Analysis of Older

Reinforced Concrete Columns, Earthquake Spectra. EERI, V. 15, No. 2, May

1999. pp. 245-272.

Pochanart, S. and Harmon, T., 1989. Bond-Slip Model for Generalized Excitation

Including Fatigue, ACI Materials Journal. V. 86, No. 5, Sept. 1989. pp. 465-

474.

Rodriguez, M.E., Botero, J.C. & Villa, J. (1999), Cyclic Stress-Strain Behaviour of

Reinforcing Steel Including Effect of Buckling, Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125(6), 605-612.

Potger, G.M., Kawano A., Griffith M.C., and Warner R.F., Dynamic Analysis of RC

Frames Including Buckling of Longitudinal Steel Reinforcement, Proceedings of

the NZSEE 2001 Conference. Paper No. 4.12.01

Symposium on Flexural Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete Proceedings.

Miami, Fla., Nov. 1964. pp. 213-235.

Saatcioglu, M., Alsiwat, J. M., and Ozcebe, G., 1992. Hysteretic Behavior of

Anchorage Slip in R/C Members, Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, V.

118, No. 9, Sept. 1992. pp. 2439-2458.

Simulated Seismic Loading, ACI Structural Journal. V. 86, No. 1, Jan. 1989.

pp. 3-12.

Sasani, M., 2004. Shear Strength and Deformation Capacity Models for RC Columns,

Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.

Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Aug. 2004. Paper No. 1838.

Sezen, H., 2002. Seismic Behavior and Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Building

Columns, Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, 2002. 324 pp.

Sezen, H., Whittaker, A. S., Elwood, K. J., and Mosalam, K. M., 2003. Performance of

Reinforced Concrete Buildings during the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey

Earthquake, and Seismic Design and Construction Practise in Turkey,

Engineering Structures. Elsevier, V. 25, No. 1, Jan. 2003. pp. 103-114.

186

Sezen, H. and Moehle, J. P., 2003. Bond-Slip Behavior of Reinforced Concrete

Members, fib-Symposium: Concrete Structures in Seismic Regions. CEB-FIP,

Athens, Greece, May 2003.

Sezen, H. and Moehle, J. P., 2004. Shear Strength Model for Lightly Reinforced

Concrete Columns, Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, V. 130, No. 11,

Nov. 2004. pp. 1692-1703.

Sezen, H., Moehle J.P. Seismic Tests of Concrete Columns with Light Transverse

Reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal 2006; 103 (6) 842-849.

Sezen H., and Setzler E.J. Reinforcement Slip in Reinforced Concrete Columns. ACI

Structural Journal. 2008; 105(3) 280-289

Soroushian, P. and Choi, K.-B., 1991. Analytical Evaluation of Straight Bar Anchorage

Design in Exterior Joints, ACI Structural Journal. V. 88, No. 2, Mar. 1991. pp.

161-168.

Soroushian, P., Obaseki, K., Nagi, M., and Rojas, M. C., 1988. Pullout Behavior of

Hooked Bars in Exterior Beam-Column Connections, ACI Structural Journal.

V. 85, No. 3, May 1988. pp. 269-276.

Setzler, E.J. Modeling the Behavior of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Columns Subjected

to Lateral Loads. M.S. Thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 2005.

Setzler, E.J., Sezen, H. Model for the Lateral Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns

Including Shear Deformations. Earthquake Spectra. 2008; 24(2) 493-511

Longitudinal Reinforcing Bars in Concrete Columns Subjected to Reverse Lateral

Loading, Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1996.

Ueda, T., Lin, I. J., and Hawkins, N. M., 1986. Beam Bar Anchorage in Exterior

Column-Beam Connections, ACI Journal. V. 83, No. 3, May 1986. pp. 412-

422.

Umehara, H. and Jirsa, J. O., 1984. Short Rectangular RC Columns under Bidirectional

Loadings, Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, V. 110, No. 3, Mar. 1984.

pp. 605-618.

Vecchio, F. J. and Collins, M. P., 1986. The Modified Compression-Field Theory for

Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI Journal. V. 83, No. 2,

Mar. 1986. pp. 219-231.

187

Vecchio, F. J. and Collins, M. P., 1988. Predicting the Response of Reinforced

Concrete Beams Subjected to Shear Using Modified Compression Field Theory,

ACI Structural Journal. V. 85, No. 3, May 1988. pp. 258-268.

ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1989, pp. 26-35.

Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., Predicting the Response of Reinforced Concrete

Beams Subjected to Shear Using Modified Compression Field Theory, ACI

Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 3, May-June 1988, pp. 258-268.

Wehbe, N. I., Saiidi, M. S., and Sanders, D. H., 1999. Seismic Performance of

Rectangular Bridge Columns with Moderate Confinement, ACI Structural

Journal. Vol. 96, No. 2, Mar. 1999. pp. 248-258.

Wight, J. K. and Sozen, M. A., 1975. Strength Decay of RC Columns under Shear

Reversals, Journal of the Structural Division. ASCE, V. 101, No. ST5, May

1975. pp. 1053-1065.

188

- MOS assignmentTransféré parcrossfirex30
- Strength of MaterialsTransféré parbalakalees
- Strength of MaterialsTransféré parDragoi Alex
- Design of Input Gear-shaft-examplerTransféré parGuru Prasad
- 2D2010 2 ReferenceTransféré parChitLay
- Iast.lect04Transféré parTakis Apostolides
- BC3-02DoubleBoxTransféré pardiarto trisnoyuwono
- 507 33 Powerpoint-slides Ch14 DRCSTransféré parArun Goyal
- Strain EngineeringandElastic EfundaTransféré parmaajidchishti
- mechanic of solidTransféré parThếBão
- 3. Ovaling deformations of circular tunnels under seismic loading, an update on seismic design and analysis of underground structures.pdfTransféré parnaim
- Base-Isolation Design Practice in Japan Introduction to the Post-kobe ApproachTransféré parSoheil Ramezani
- Experimental and Numerical Studies on Various Section Geometries for Inward InversionTransféré parIJSTR Research Publication
- som notes.docTransféré parMohammed Imran
- Energy MethodTransféré parZulfadhli Zainudin
- thick plate shear deformationTransféré parHasanain Almusawi
- Simple Stress & StrainTransféré parabhilash jana
- Isolated Footing.ce ReviewTransféré parCaare Felix
- 4d0ff6a2-a3a2-4938-b80f-a4c468a71b1eTransféré parSaid Djaballah
- Esercizi Nathan QuadrioTransféré parNathan Flex Quadrio
- Krb1fF2YcgoTransféré parZaryan Ijaz
- A Geometrically Nonlinear Shear Deformation for Composite ShellsTransféré parPınar Aydan Demirhan
- 8936075Transféré parharishram123456
- Ssrc05 Modes TalkTransféré parDaniela Mihaiela Boca
- WCEE2012_0954Transféré parcdestudos
- Refresher 3Transféré parLəonardo Sasing
- Propped Cantilever Beam Rectangular Section With Hinformation at a and bTransféré parNasarKhan
- Strain Based Buckling Onset Prediction v02Transféré parwydowaerdt
- Lezaj Stupa PitanjaTransféré pardmardetk
- Chapter 2Transféré parIman Satria

- Concrete Shear WallTransféré parninyoarl
- 11(2)0101.pdfTransféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- .Transféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- c7ddecd4138d5cc36a7f09ca289548240bf6Transféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- Rainflow Cycle Counting in Fatigue Analysis_rainflow_countingTransféré parapmapm
- Dynamic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Panels SubTransféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- Two-Direction Cracking Shear-Friction Membrane Model for Finite ETransféré parrahul vaish
- Analytical Confining Model of Square Reinforced CoTransféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- Jodai_Akira_201311_MASc_thesis.pdfTransféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- Vecchio_11330_3318Transféré parRammiris Man
- T000882.pdfTransféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- 2011-09-21 SyllabusTransféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- 2011-10-05 Section Analysis Program Response 2000Transféré paradc26
- 2011-09-21 SyllabusTransféré parPatrick Yu
- 2011-10-12 Assignment 3Transféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- 2011-09-28 Assignment 2Transféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- 2011-10-05 Example Using Response 2000Transféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- 2011-10-05 Example Using Response 2000Transféré parAndrei Ulmeanu
- 2011-09-28 GUIsTransféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- 剪力墙Transféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- 剪力墙.pdfTransféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- RegressãoTransféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- Introduction to Real Estate Financial Analysis Using Excel (a)Transféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- Chapter Detroit Hp 12c Class Flyer 0215Transféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- Book IntroductionTransféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- HSCConfinementModel_Saatcioglu y Razvi (1992)Transféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- 2Transféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- 2010_Lepage_Engineering-Structures.pdfTransféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- Bal Yuksel KaradoganTransféré parRory Cristian Cordero Rojo

- DocTransféré parSandro Iosava
- List of Common Signal Words in Academic Writing from AAC compiled by Elif DemirelTransféré parElif Demirel
- TheoryTransféré parAlex Alde
- marybeth langin resumeTransféré parapi-242137852
- TOBCTJ-2-156Transféré pargodzillafood
- Versa CoatTransféré parrichard_1219
- SAP S_4HANA MM Mindmap by Benedict YongTransféré partucu23456
- Environmental management planTransféré parEmmanuel
- Chapter 02Transféré parPsic. Ó. Bernardo Duarte B.
- Log RestoreTransféré parEmerson Hideki
- Abdul Razak Bin Datuk Abu Samah (Claimed asTransféré parChin Kuen Yei
- 5. Standards and QualityTransféré parramlakhan
- Inside Installations. Preservation and Presentation of Installation Art - AAVVTransféré parAnaLizethMataDelgado
- BSITTransféré parCarlo Francis Palma
- 4. Speech Production 33-40Transféré parRaden Maz Randy
- 7th Grade Ch8 ReteachingTransféré parksimmons82
- Archmodels Vol 90 (1)Transféré parAlejandra Ximena Melendez
- Coating Application in TextileTransféré parrehanabbaci
- MArch Design, XJTLU ArchitectureTransféré pararlav
- jurnal sterofomTransféré parFah Miyamura
- MHDTransféré parХардип Зинта
- Identity Disturbance in Borderline Personality DisorderTransféré parRestroom Chemistry
- Ethics-lectures-1-and-2-2012.pptTransféré parRina Decalan
- Drawing the Mind Into the Heart, by David BradshawTransféré parKeith Buhler
- Indian Private Agro-Investments in Zambia: A case studyTransféré parOxfam
- inventory_theory[1].pdfTransféré parelmarcomonal
- Ch1 Eng ProfessionTransféré parfaezahjalal
- AMS Technical Documentation.pdfTransféré parscribd7259
- Custom SES TREX Functionality Development in SAPTransféré parRicky Das
- Status and Trends of the Elephant Population in the Tsavo-Mkomazi EcosystemTransféré parJoan Giner