Title:
Collapse Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Building Columns through Multi-Axis Hybrid Simulation
Author(s):
M. J. Hashemi, H.-H. Tsang, Y. Al-Ogaidi, J. L. Wilson, and R. Al-Mahaidi
Publication:
Structural Journal
Volume:
114
Issue:
2
Appears on pages(s):
437-449
Keywords:
axial load variation; collapse assessment; hybrid simulation; limited-ductility reinforced concrete buildings; ratcheting behavior
DOI:
10.14359/51689438
Date:
3/1/2017
Abstract:
One of the major challenges in collapse assessment of reinforced concrete (RC) structures has been the lack of realistic data obtained from reliable experimental loading protocols that are capable of accurately quantifying the reserve capacity of RC structures beyond the design level to the state of complete collapse. Until now, quasi-static (QS) symmetrically cyclic or monotonic tests with constant axial load have been commonly used, which are not adequate to accurately capture the actual response of a collapsing RC structure in real earthquake events. Hybrid simulation (HS) can be considered an attractive alternative to realistically simulate more complex boundary conditions and improve response prediction of a structure from elastic range to collapse. This paper presents a comparative experimental study on two identical, large-scale, limited-ductility RC columns that are tested to collapse through QS and HS, respectively. The RC columns serve as the first-story corner-column of a half-scale symmetrical five-byfive-bay five-story RC ordinary moment frame building structure. A state-of-the-art facility, referred to as a multi-axis substructure testing (MAST) system, is used that is capable of controlling all six-degrees-of-freedom (6-DOF) boundary conditions in mixed load and deformation modes. The load protocol in the QS test includes constant axial load combined with bidirectional lateral deformation reversals, while in the HS, more realistic boundary effects including fluctuation in axial load and the ratcheting behavior (that is, asymmetrical lateral deformation prior to collapse) are simulated. The hysteretic response behaviors obtained from the QS and HS tests are then used for calibrating the analytical models employed in a comparative collapse risk assessment. The results show that the improved interface boundary effects lead to significant changes in hysteretic response and the calibration parameters and, as a result, estimating the probability of collapse. This highlights that the credibility of collapse assessment results relies to a great extent on the application of correct boundary interface on RC columns.
Related References:
1. Sfakianakis, M. G., and Fardis, M. N., “Bounding Surface Model for Cyclic Biaxial Bending of RC Sections,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, V. 117, No. 12, 1991, pp. 2748-2769. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1991)117:12(2748)
2. Bonet, J. L.; Barros, M. H. F. M.; and Romero, M. L., “Comparative Study of Analytical and Numerical Algorithms for Designing Reinforced Concrete Sections under Biaxial Bending,” Computers & Structures, V. 84, No. 31-32, 2006, pp. 2184-2193. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2006.08.065
3. Rodrigues, H.; Furtado, A.; and Arêde, A., “Behavior of Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Columns under Biaxial Cyclic Loading and Variable Axial Loads,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 142, No. 1, 2016, p. 04015085 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001345
4. Lignos, D. G.; Krawinkler, H.; and Whittaker, A. S., “Prediction and Validation of Sidesway Collapse of Two Scale Models of a 4-Story Steel Moment Frame,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 40, No. 7, 2011, pp. 807-825. doi: 10.1002/eqe.1061
5. Ibarra, L. F., and Krawinkler, H., “Global Collapse of Frame Structures under Seismic Excitations,” The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2005.
6. Suzuki, Y., and Lignos, D., “Development of Loading Protocols for Experimental Testing of Steel Columns Subjected to Combined High Axial Load and Lateral Drift Demands Near Collapse,” 10th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering: Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering, AK, 2014.
7. Dupuis, M. R.; Best, T. D. D.; Elwood, K. J.; and Anderson, D. L., “Seismic Performance of Shear Wall Buildings with Gravity-Induced Lateral Demands,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 41, No. 4, 2014, pp. 323-332. doi: 10.1139/cjce-2012-0482
8. Krawinkler, H., “Loading Histories for Cyclic Tests in Support of Performance Assessment of Structural Components,” 3rd International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering. San Francisco, CA, 2009.
9. Mahin, S. A., and Shing, P. S. B., “Pseudodynamic Method for Seismic Testing,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 111, No. 7, 1985, pp. 1482-1503. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1985)111:7(1482)
10. Nakashima, M.; Kato, H.; and Takaoka, E., “Development of Real-Time Pseudo Dynamic Testing,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 21, No. 1, 1992, pp. 79-92. doi: 10.1002/eqe.4290210106
11. Hashemi, M. J., and Mosqueda, G., “Innovative Substructuring Technique for Hybrid Simulation of Multistory Buildings Through Collapse,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 43, No. 14, 2014, pp. 2059-2074. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2427
12. Del Carpio Ramos, M.; Mosqueda, G.; and Hashemi, M. J., “Large-Scale Hybrid Simulation of a Steel Moment Frame Building Structure through Collapse,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 2015. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001328
13. Hashemi, M. J.; Mosqueda, G.; Lignos, D. G.; Medina, R. A.; and Miranda, E., “Assessment of Numerical and Experimental Errors in Hybrid Simulation of Framed Structural Systems through Collapse,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, V. 20, No. 6, 2016, pp. 885-909. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2015.1110066
14. Schellenberg, A. H.; Mahin, S. A.; and Fenves, G. L., “Advanced Implementation of Hybrid Simulation,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2009.
15. Wang, T.; Mosqueda, G.; Jacobsen, A.; and Cortes-Delgado, M., “Performance Evaluation of a Distributed Hybrid Test Framework to Reproduce the Collapse Behavior of a Structure,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 41, No. 2, 2012, pp. 295-313. doi: 10.1002/eqe.1130
16. Hashemi, M. J.; Al-Mahaidi, R.; Kalfat, R.; and Burnett, G., “Development and Validation of Multi-Axis Substructure Testing System for Full-Scale Experiments,” Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 16, No. 4, Oct. 2015, pp. 302-315.
17. Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Interim Testing Protocols for Determining the Seismic Performance Characteristics of Structural and Nonstructural Components,” Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Washington, DC, 2007.
18. Wibowo, A.; Wilson, J. L.; Lam, N. T. K.; and Gad, E. F., “Drift Performance of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Columns,” Engineering Structures, V. 59, Feb, 2014, pp. 522-535. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.11.016
19. Stojadinovic, B.; Mosqueda, G.; and Mahin, S. A., “Event-Driven Control System for Geographically Distributed Hybrid Simulation,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 132, No. 1, 2006, pp. 68-77. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:1(68)
20. McKenna, F., “OpenSees: A Framework for Earthquake Engineering Simulation,” Computing in Science & Engineering, V. 13, No. 4, 2011, pp. 58-66. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.66
21. The MathWorks Inc, “MATLAB R2014b,” Natick, MA, 2014.
22. Scott, M. H., and Fenves, G. L., “Plastic Hinge Integration Methods for Force-Based Beam-Column Elements,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 132, No. 2, 2006, pp. 244-252. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:2(244)
23. Zhong, W., “Fast Hybrid Test System for Substructure Evaluation,” PhD dissertation, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 2005.
24. Ibarra, L. F.; Medina, R. A.; and Krawinkler, H., “Hysteretic Models that Incorporate Strength and Stiffness Deterioration,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 34, No. 12, 2005, pp. 1489-1511. doi: 10.1002/eqe.495
25. Haselton, C. B.; Liel, A. B.; Lange, S. T.; and Deierlein, G. G., “Beam-Column Element Model Calibrated for Predicting Flexural Response Leading to Global Collapse of RC Frame Buildings,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2008.
26. Schellenberg, A.; Huang, Y.; and Mahin, S. A., “Structural FE-Software Coupling through the Experimental Software Framework, OpenFresco,” Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Beijing, China, 2008.
27. Deierlein, G. G.; Reinhorn, A. M.; and Willford, M. R., “Nonlinear Structural Analysis for Seismic Design, A Guide for Practicing Engineers,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2010.
28. Lynn, A. C.; Moehle, J. P.; Mahin, S. A.; and Holmes, W. T., “Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Columns,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 12, No. 4, 1996, pp. 715-739. doi: 10.1193/1.1585907
29. Nakamura, T., and Yoshimura, M., “Gravity Load Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Columns with Brittle Failure Modes,” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, V. 1, No. 1, 2002, pp. 21-27. doi: 10.3130/jaabe.1.21
30. Sezen, H., “Seismic Response and Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Building Columns,” PhD dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2002.
31. PEER, “Structural Performance Database,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2013.
32. Porter, K.; Kennedy, R.; and Bachman, R., “Creating Fragility Functions for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 23, No. 2, 2007, pp. 471-489. doi: 10.1193/1.2720892
33. “International Building Code (IBC),” International Code Council (ICC), Country Club Hill, IL, 2012.
34. ASCE/SEI 7-10, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,” Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, 2010.