Next Article in Journal
Effects of the Whole-Body Vibration and Auriculotherapy on the Functionality of Knee Osteoarthritis Individuals
Next Article in Special Issue
Seismic Behavior of Steel Plate-Concrete Shear Walls with Holes
Previous Article in Journal
Feature Interaction in Terms of Prediction Performance
Previous Article in Special Issue
Development of an ANN-Based Lumped Plasticity Model of RC Columns Using Historical Pseudo-Static Cyclic Test Data

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9(23), 5193; https://doi.org/10.3390/app9235193

Article
Calibration Factor for ASCE 41-17 Modeling Parameters for Stocky Rectangular RC Columns
1
Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Korea
2
Department of Architectural Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 15 October 2019 / Accepted: 26 November 2019 / Published: 29 November 2019

Abstract

:

Featured Application

Calibration factor for ASCE 41-17 modeling parameters of stocky columns.

Abstract

Existing old reinforced concrete (RC) buildings could be vulnerable to large earthquake events. Most columns in such buildings have insufficient reinforcement details, which may experience failure during an early loading stage. The failure of columns may lead to partial or complete collapse of entire building systems. To prepare for an adequate retrofit plan for columns, it is necessary to simulate the cyclic behavior of columns using a numerical model with adequate values of constituent modeling parameters. The nonlinear component modeling parameters are specified in ASCE 41-17. However, the experiments on stocky RC columns suggest that ASCE 41-17 nonlinear component modeling parameters do not reflect the RC column behavior adequately. To accurately simulate the nonlinear load–deformation responses of stocky RC columns with low span-to-depth ratio, this study proposes a calibration factor for ASCE 41-17 RC column modeling parameters. For this purpose, this study collected test data of 47 stocky column specimens. Based on the test data, empirical equations including the calibration factor for modeling parameters “a” and “b” in ASCE 41-17 were proposed. The accuracy of the proposed equation was verified by comparing the measured and calculated envelope curves.
Keywords:
columns; cyclic behavior; low height-to-depth ratio; modeling parameters; calibration

1. Introduction

Reinforced concrete (RC) buildings not designed according to modern seismic design codes can be vulnerable to collapse during earthquakes [1]. Postearthquake researches indicated that columns are one of the most critical structural components in seismically active regions due to their nonductile reinforcement details [2,3,4,5,6]. Deficiencies such as lack of confinement due to widely spaced transverse reinforcement [1], ineffective anchorage length, and insufficient development length [7,8,9,10,11] can cause premature shear failure in RC columns [12,13], thus leading to rapid lateral strength degradation [14] or even collapse [15,16,17,18]. To understand the seismic behavior of such columns under earthquakes and to propose an adequate retrofit scheme, the seismic capacity of RC columns with nonseismic reinforcement details should be estimated.
To predict the seismic capacity of such RC columns with acceptable accuracy, an accurate backbone curve is required, which defines the lateral load–deformation capacity of a structural component. An extensive amount of research has been carried out on developing backbone curves of RC columns [14,15,19,20,21,22]. The nonlinear load–deformation relation proposed by ASCE 41-17 [23] (as noted hereafter as ASCE 41-17) is most widely used in the fields. This standard is provided to conduct seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing building by the American Society of Civil Engineer (ASCE), which includes performance objectives and seismic hazards, Tiers 1–3 seismic performance evaluation procedures, and retrofit.
Due to the importance of this standard, it has been continuously revised since its first release to provide a better accuracy in estimating nonlinear load–deformation response of structural components.
Ghannoum and Matamoros [24] proposed equations for RC columns to calculate modeling parameters to construct a backbone curve, instead of using fixed values used in the previous standard [25]. These equations are shown in ASCE 41-17, which lead to better estimation of modeling parameters compared with those in the previous standard. Accurate estimation of modeling parameters is a key factor in seismic performance evaluation [26] by selecting input seismic ground motions [27].
However, the deformation parameters suggested in ASCE 41-17 do not consider height-to-depth ratios, which can significantly alter the column behavior [19,28]. For RC members with a height-to-depth ratio lower than 2 (as noted hereafter as stocky columns), their cyclic behavior is always dominated by shear [5,29,30]. Therefore, shear deformation induced by shear cracking expansion can be significant [31,32]. When the ASCE 41-17 modeling parameter equations are applied to columns with low height-to-depth ratios (stocky columns), the estimation error between measured and estimated values may become significant.
In order to better estimate the load–deformation response of stocky RC columns, this study proposes a calibration factor for the equations of deformation modeling parameters provided in ASCE 41-17. For this purpose, the values of deformation parameters for 47 rectangular RC columns with low height-to-depth ratios are extracted. To minimize the difference between measured values and those predicted by the ASCE 41-17 equations, the calibration factor was estimated for individual column specimens. Then, the empirical equations including the calibration factor are proposed from regression analyses.

2. Backbone Curve for RC Columns in ASCE 41-17

In ASCE 41-17, an idealized nonlinear load–deformation relation for a structural component is provided to represent a generalized backbone curve, as shown in Figure 1. In Figure 1, V and V y are the column shear force and the column yield shear strength, respectively, and θ is the drift ratio; a and b are the parameters representing plastic drift ratios, for cases when a strength degradation begins and the shear force drops to the point “D”, respectively.
The generalized load–deformation relation consists of a linear portion and a nonlinear portion. The linear portion corresponds to the segment between points A and B, which can be determined using the effective stiffness of a structural component. In ASCE 41-17, equations are given to calculate the effective stiffness for various structural components. For RC columns, the proposed equations to calculate the effective stiffness are summarized in Table 1, where E c is the modulus of elasticity of concrete, I g is the moment of inertia of the concrete gross section, A w is the summation of the net horizontal cross-sectional area for concrete in the direction of loading, and A g is the gross sectional area of the column.
The nonlinear portion is governed by two deformation parameters, that is, modeling parameters a and b . For rectangular RC columns, parameter a can be calculated using Equation (1):
a A S C E = 0.042 0.043 P A g f c + 0.63 ρ t 0.023 V y V 0 0 ,
where P is the axial compressive load applied on the column section, f c is the concrete compressive strength, ρ t is the ratio of the area of distributed transverse reinforcement to the concrete gross area perpendicular to that reinforcement, and V y is the yield shear strength of the column. The column shear strength V 0 is calculated from Equation (2) provided in ASCE 41-17 for RC columns:
V 0 = [ A v f y t d s + ( 6 f c a v / h 1 + P 6 A g f c ) 0.8 A g ] ,
where a V / h is the height-to-depth ratio of the column; k n l is 1.0 for a displacement ductility demand ( μ ) less than or equal to 2 and 0.7 for   μ 6, where μ is calculated as θ / θ y and θ y is the yield drift ratio as shown in Figure 2. For μ between 2 and 6, k n l is estimated using interpolation.
The load–deformation response representing a reduced resistance is predicted using modeling parameter b , which is calculated using Equation (3):
b A S C E = 0.5 5 + P 0.8 A g f c 1 ρ t f c f y t 0.01 a A S C E ,
where f y t is the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement and modeling parameter b must be greater than or equal to modeling parameter a .

3. Estimating the Values of Modeling Parameters from the Measured Cyclic Curves

The modeling parameters a and b were extracted from the first-cyclic envelope curve of RC columns. The first-cycle envelope curve can be constructed by connecting each point of the peak displacements during the first cycle of each increment of loading (or deformation) [23,33]. Figure 2. illustrates the extraction of the modeling parameters a and b .
In Figure 2, the values for the maximum shear strength V y are identical to the maximum ordinate values of the first-cycle envelope. Yield drift ratio θ y was obtained according to the procedure proposed by Sezen et al. [2]. A secant line is projected from the origin to the intersection point on the first-cycle envelope curve and a horizontal line at 0.7 V y . The secant line was extended, until it reached the horizontal line drawn at V y . Then, θ y is the abscissa of the intersection of these two lines.
Drift ratio θ u is a lateral drift ratio, at which a significant (more than or equal to 20%) lateral resistance degradation from V y occurs. In ASCE 41-17, θ f is defined as a lateral drift ratio at axial failure. However, due to the scarcity of column specimens tested up to the onset of axial failure [24,34], θ f is defined as a lateral drift ratio, when the lateral strength decreases to 25% of V y .
The values of modeling parameters a and b can be calculated using Equations (4) and (5), respectively:
a = θ u θ y ,
b = θ f θ y .

4. Stocky RC Column Database

The PEER Structural Performance Database provides the test data of 246 rectangular RC columns. Among them, only 47 columns have section-to-depth ratios less than or equal to 2.0. Only a limited number of cyclic tests were conducted for stock columns. In this study, 47 rectangular RC column test specimens with height-to-depth ratios ( a v / h ) less than or equal to 2.0 (stocky columns) were collected from the PEER Structural Performance Database [35]. All the 47 specimens experienced a strength drop by more than 20%.
The ranges of important parameters are summarized below:
Height-to-depth ratio1.0 ≤ a v / h ≤ 2.0
Section width (mm)160 ≤ b ≤ 500
Section height (mm)160 ≤ h ≤ 914
Center-to-center spacing of a transverse reinforcement (mm)20 ≤ s ≤ 406
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio (%)1.27 ≤ ρ l ≤ 6.94
Transverse reinforcement ratio (%)0.08 ≤ ρ t ≤ 1.64
Measured compressive strength of concrete14 ≤ f c ≤ 118
Measured yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement323 ≤ f y l ≤ 510
Measured yield strength of transverse reinforcement258 ≤ f y t ≤ 1424
Axial load ratio (%)0 ≤ ν ≤ 80.1; v = P / ( A g f c )
To estimate the error between the measured and calculated values of the modeling parameters, absolute relative errors ( A R E s ) were calculated using Equation (6):
A R E = | M P m e a s M P A S C E M P m e a s | ,
where M P m e a s is the measured modeling parameter value for a and b extracted from the first-cycle envelope curve and M P A S C E is the parameter value for a and b calculated using Equations (1) and (3), respectively.
Figure 3 shows the relationship of the calculated A R E and the shear span-to-section height ratio ( a v / h ), in which 246 specimens with a v / h ranging from 1 to 7.3 were included. The test data for these specimens were also obtained from the PEER Structural Performance Database [35]. The solid and dashed lines in Figure 3 represent the mean A R E values obtained from the moving windows analyses. With an increase in a v / h , the mean values of A R E for parameters a   and   b [ μ A R E ( a ) , μ A R E ( b ) ] generally decrease. In the case of a v / h ≥ 2.0, μ A R E ( a ) and μ A R E ( b ) approach approximately 0.5 and 0.3, respectively. However, with the decrease in a v / h within the range of a v / h less than 2.0, μ A R E ( a ) and μ A R E ( b ) increase sharply, which indicates that the errors associated with the ASCE 41-17 equations for parameters a and b become more significant. Thus, it is necessary to propose a calibration factor for Equations (1) and (3) for columns with a v / h 2.0.

5. Regression Analysis

The original equations of ASCE 41-17 do not include the influence of a height-to-depth ratio; however, it was revealed in the previous section that there was a considerable amount of error in the modeling parameter predictive equation proposed by ASCE 41-17 when the height-to-depth ratio was lower than 2.0. For this reason, a calibration factor was proposed to minimize error.
Linear regression was used to introduce a calibration factor for the modeling parameter predictive equation of ASCE 41-17 to calculate more accurately the values of parameters a and b . The measured modeling parameters extracted from the first-cycle envelope curve is shown in Table 2.
To propose an empirical calibration factor, various candidate predictor variables frequently used in the past research [14,22,52,53,54,55] were considered. Considered candidate predictor variables include: longitudinal reinforcement ratio ( ρ l ), transverse reinforcement ratio ( ρ t ), axial load ratio ( v = P / ( f c A g ) ), measured concrete compressive strength ( f c ), column shear span ( a v ), height-to-depth ratio ( a v / h ), ratio of a transverse bar spacing to a column depth ( s / h ), ratio of a strength contribution of longitudinal reinforcements to that of concrete ( f y l A s l / f c A g ), ratio of a strength contribution of concrete axial strength to that of transverse reinforcements ( f c A g / f y t A s t ).
Among the candidate variables listed above, only the statistically significant variables used to predict the deformation parameters were selected. To determine the statistically significant variables, a linear stepwise regression analysis [56] was used. A candidate variable is considered to be statistically significant, when the p-value is less than 5%. The p -value is used for measuring the plausibility of a null hypothesis. Typically, in regression analysis, a null hypothesis is rejected if the p -value is less than 0.05.
As a result of the regression analysis, the obtained equation for parameter a was written as:
a f i t = a A S C E + ( 1 47.78 1 57.49 1 a v / h + f y l 1988.07 c u n i t ) ,
where c u n i t is 6.89 when using the unit of MPa and 1.00 when using the unit of ksi.
As discussed in the previous section, height-to-depth ratio a v / h was found to be a significant predictor variable.
The equation obtained for parameter b was described as:
b f i t = b A S C E + ( 1 12.56 1 703.39 ρ l ) a f i t .
In the proposed equations (Equations (7) and (8)), three variables were considered ( a v / h ,   ρ l , and f y l ). It was reported that RC member behavior is affected significantly by a v / h [1,2,3,4,5,6,57]. RC columns with lower a v / h are more likely to fail in shear. Past studies [7,8,9] also reported that the dowel action of longitudinal reinforcements significantly affects the load–deformation responses of stocky structural components; thus, ρ l and f y l selected from the stepwise regression analyses can be physically meaningful variables.
The significant predictor variable for both modeling parameters a and b was related to the longitudinal reinforcement, that is, the measured yield strength of a longitudinal reinforcement f y l and the longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρ l . Past literatures [58,59,60] also revealed that dowel action of longitudinal reinforcements can have significant impact on load–deformation response of relatively stocky structural components.
As discussed in the previous section, due to the scarcity of column specimens tested to the onset of axial failure, Equation (8) was proposed for column specimens experiencing a 75% lateral resistance degradation in Table 2, which corresponded to the 15 RC column specimens.

6. Validation of the Proposed Calibration Factor

Figure 4 shows the accuracy of the calculated values of modeling parameters a and b with respect to the corresponding measured values. As shown in Figure 4, the calculated values of parameters a and b by applying the calibration factor proposed by this study match the corresponding measured values more accurately than those obtained without applying the calibration factor. The errors associated with parameters a and b were calculated using Equation (6).
The values of Error associated with the calculated values of parameter a without applying the proposed calibration factor is 87.7%, whereas that by applying the calibration factor is 41.4%. Similar results were obtained for parameter b .
Envelope curves were plotted for specimens, which were obtained using the ASCE 41-17 equations for parameters a and b with and without the proposed calibrating factor applied. Figure 5 show the envelope curves and the measured cyclic curves for the specimens No.4, C1, C8, and N27-C. It was observed that the envelope curves obtained with the proposed calibration factor match the measured cyclic curves more accurately than those obtained without the calibration factor. Similar observations were obtained for the other specimens listed in Table 2, which were not included in this paper due to page limitations.

7. Conclusions

In this study, a database of 47 stocky RC columns was used to extract the modeling parameters for constructing column envelope curves. The extracted values were then compared with the modeling parameters values calculated using the ASCE 41-17 equations. The comparison results showed that the error between the measured values and the values calculated with the ASCE 41-17 equations was significant for the columns with height-to-depth ratios ( a v / h ) less than 2.0. In this study, a calibration factor was proposed for RC columns with a v / h less than 2.0 to improve the accuracy of the values of modeling parameters a and b calculated from the ASCE 41-17 equations. The following conclusion can be drawn.
1.
The ASCE 41-17 equations for deformation modeling parameters produce erroneous predictions for stocky RC columns, because these equations do not consider the effect of a v / h of RC columns. The application of the proposed calibration factor significantly improved the accuracy of the calculated values of modeling parameters a and b for columns with a v / h less than 2.0.
2.
After applying the calibration factor to the ASCE 41-17 equations, errors in the calculated values of modeling parameters a and b significantly decreased. For parameter a , the error reduced from 87.7% to 41.4%, and for parameter b , the error reduced from 71.1% to 42.3%.
3.
The envelope curves for the stocky RC columns were accurately constructed using the modeling parameters with the proposed calibration factor, which match the measured cyclic curves.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.W.H.; methodology, C.S.L.; investigation, C.S.L., M.A.P.Z., K.L.; writing of the original draft preparation, S.W.H., M.A.P.Z.; writing of review and editing, S.W.H.; visualization, C.S.L.; supervision, S.W.H.; project administration, S.W.H.

Funding

This research was funded by the Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement (grant number 19CTAP-C152179-01).

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by a grant from the Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology (19CTAP-C152179-01). The valuable comments of four anonymous reviewers are greatly appreciated.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Lynn, A.C.; Moehle, J.P.; Mahin, S.A.; Holmes, W.T. Seismic evaluation of existing reinforced concrete building columns. Earthq. Spectra 1996, 12, 715–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sezen, H.; Whittaker, A.S.; Elwood, K.J.; Mosalam, K.M. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and seismic design and construction practise in Turkey. Eng. Struct. 2003, 25, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Humar, J.M.; Lau, D.; Pierre, J.-R. Performance of buildings during the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2001, 28, 979–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kam, W.Y.; Pampanin, S.; Dhakal, R.; Gavin, H.P.; Roeder, C. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings in the September 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake. Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 2010, 43, 340–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Galal, K.; Arafa, A.; Ghobarah, A. Retrofit of RC square short columns. Eng. Struct. 2005, 27, 801–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Liel, A.B.; Haselton, C.B.; Deierlein, G.G. Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. II: Comparative assessment of nonductile and ductile moment frames. J. Struct. Eng. 2011, 137, 492–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lee, C.S.; Han, S.W. Cyclic behaviour of lightly-reinforced concrete columns with short lap splices subjected to unidirectional and bidirectional loadings. Eng. Struct. 2019, 189, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Harries, K.A.; Ricles, J.M.; Pessiki, S.; Sause, R. Seismic retrofit of lap splices in nonductile columns using CFRP jackets. ACI Struct. J. 2006, 103, 874–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Melek, M.; Wallace, J. Performance of columns with short lap splices. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–6 August 2004. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cho, J.-Y.; Pincheira, J.A. Nonlinear modeling of RC columns with short lap splices. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–6 August 2004. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kim, C.-G.; Park, H.-G.; Eom, T.-S. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete columns with lap splices in plastic hinge region. ACI Struct. J. 2018, 115, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sezen, H.; Moehle, J.P. Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete columns. J. Struct. Eng. 2004, 130, 1692–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sezen, H.; Moehle, J.R. Seismic tests of concrete columns with light transverse reinforcement. ACI Struct. J. 2006, 103, 842–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Elwood, K.J.; Moehle, J.P. Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns with light transverse reinforcement. Earthq. Spectra 2005, 21, 71–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Elwood, K.J.; Moehle, J.P. Axial capacity model for shear-damaged columns. ACI Struct. J. 2005, 102, 578–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Baradaran Shoraka, M.; Elwood, K.J. Mechanical model for non ductile reinforced concrete columns. J. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 17, 937–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Elwood, K.J.; Moehle, J.P. Dynamic collapse analysis for a reinforced concrete frame sustaining shear and axial failures. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2008, 37, 991–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moehle, J.P.; Mahin, S.A. Observations on the behavior of reinforced concrete buildings during earthquakes. ACI Symp. Publ. 1991, 127, 67–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Haselton, C.B.; Liel, A.B.; Taylor-Lange, S.C.; Deierlein, G.G. Calibration of model to simulate response of reinforced concrete beam-columns to collapse. ACI Struct. J. 2016, 113, 1141–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sezen, H.; Chowdhury, T. Hysteretic model for reinforced concrete columns including the effect of shear and axial load failure. J. Struct. Eng. 2009, 135, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ghannoum, W.M.; Moehle, J.P. Rotation-based shear failure model for lightly confined RC columns. J. Struct. Eng. 2012, 138, 1267–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Elwood, K.J.; Eberhard, M.O. Effective stiffness of reinforced concrete columns. ACI Struct. J. 2009, 106, 476–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. ASCE 41-17. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ghannoum, W.M.; Matamoros, A.B. Nonlinear modeling parameters and acceptance criteria for concrete columns. ACI Spec. Publ. 2014, 297, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  25. ASCE 41-13. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wen, Y.K.; Collins, K.R.; Han, S.W.; Elwood, K.J. Dual-level designs of buildings under seismic loads. Struct. Saf. 1996, 18, 195–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lee, L.H.; Lee, H.H.; Han, S.W. Method of selecting design earthquake ground motions for tall buildings. Struct. Des. Tall Build. 2000, 9, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Elwood, K.J.; Matamoros, A.B.; Wallace, J.W.; Lehman, D.E.; Heintz, J.A.; Mitchell, A.D.; Moore, M.A.; Valley, M.T.; Lowes, L.N.; Comartin, C.D.; et al. Update to ASCE/SEI 41 concrete provisions. Earthq. Spectra 2007, 23, 493–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhou, X.; Satoh, T.; Jiang, W.; Ono, A.; Shimizu, Y. Behavior of reinforced concrete short column under high axial load. Trans. Jpn. Concr. Inst. 1987, 9, 541–548. [Google Scholar]
  30. Han, S.W.; Lee, C.S.; Shin, M.; Lee, K. Cyclic performance of precast coupling beams with bundled diagonal reinforcement. Eng. Struct. 2015, 93, 142–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chen, Z.; Ding, Y.; Shi, Y.; Li, Z. A vertical isolation device with variable stiffness for long-span spatial structures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 123, 543–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Moretti, M.; Tassios, T.P. Behaviour of short columns subjected to cyclic shear displacements: Experimental results. Eng. Struct. 2007, 29, 2018–2029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. FEMA P440A. Effects of Strength and Stiffness Degradation on Seismic Response; 440A; Department of Homeland Security: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  34. Berry, M.P.; Eberhard, M.O. Performance Models for Flexural Damage in Reinforced Concrete Columns; Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  35. Berry, M.; Parrish, M.; Eberhard, M. PEER Structural Performance Database User’s Manual; University of California, Berkeley: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  36. Aboutaha, R.S.; Engelhardt, M.D.; Jirsa, J.O.; Kreger, M.E. Rehabilitation of shear critical concrete columns by use of rectangular steel jackets. ACI Struct. J. 1999, 96, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Amitsu, S.; Shirai, N.; Adachi, H.; Ono, A. Deformation of reinforced concrete column with high or fluctuating axial force. Trans. Jpn. Concr. Inst. 1991, 13, 355–362. [Google Scholar]
  38. Esaki, F. Reinforcing effect of steel plate hoops on ductility of R/C square columns. In Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 23–28 June 1996. [Google Scholar]
  39. Iwasaki, T.; Kawasima, K.; Hagiwara, R.; Koyama, T.; Yoshida, T. Experimental Investigation on Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Pier Columns; Public Works Research Institute: Tsukuba, Japan, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nagasaka, T. Effectiveness of steel fiber as web reinforcement in reinforced concrete columns. Trans. Jpn. Concr. Inst. 1982, 4, 493–500. [Google Scholar]
  41. Nakamura, T.; Yoshimura, M. Gravity load collapse of reinforced concrete columns with brittle failure modes. J. Asian Arch. Build. Eng. 2002, 1, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ohue, M.; Morimoto, H.; Fujii, S.; Morita, S. The behavior of RC short columns failing in splitting bond-shear under dynamic lateral loading. Trans. Jpn. Concr. Inst. 1985, 7, 293–300. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ono, A.; Shirai, N.; Adachi, H.; Sakamaki, Y. Elasto-plastic behavior of reinforced concrete column with fluctuating axial force. Trans. Jpn. Concr. Inst. 1989, 11, 239–246. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ousalem, H.; Kabeyasawa, T.; Tasai, A.; Ohsugi, Y. Experimental study on seismic behavior of reinforced concrete columns under constant and variable axial loadings. In Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, Tsukuba, Japan, June 2002. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ousalem, H.; Kabeyasawa, T.; Tasai, A. Effect of hysteretic reversals on lateral and axial capacities of reinforced concrete columns. In Proceedings of the Fifth U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Structures, Hakone, Japan, 10–11 September 2003. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sakai, Y.; Hibi, J.; Otani, S.; Aoyama, H. Experimental study on flexural behavior of reinforced concrete columns using high-strength concrete. Trans. Jpn. Concr. Inst. 1990, 12, 323–330. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sugano, S. Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete columns which used ultra-high-strength concrete. In Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 23–28 June 1996. [Google Scholar]
  48. Umehara, H.; Jirsa, J.O. Shear Strength and Deterioration of Short Reinforced Concrete Columns Under Cyclic Deformations; PMFSEL Report No. 82-3; University of Texas at Austin: Austin, TX, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  49. Xiao, Y.; Martirossyan, A. Seismic performance of high-strength concrete columns. J. Struct. Eng. 1998, 124, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Takaine, Y.; Yoshimura, M.; Nakamura, T. Collapse drift of reinforced concrete columns. J. Struct. Constr. Eng. (Trans. AIJ) 2003, 68, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yoshimura, K.; Kikcuri, K.; Kuroki, M. Seismic shear strengthening method for existing R/C short columns. ACI Spec. Publ. 1991, 128, 1065–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. LeBorgne, M.R.; Ghannoum, W.M. Calibrated analytical element for lateral-strength degradation of reinforced concrete columns. Eng. Struct. 2014, 81, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Han, S.W.; Koh, H.; Lee, C.S. Accurate and efficient simulation of cyclic behavior of diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams. Earthq. Spectra 2019, 35, 361–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lee, C.S.; Han, S.W. Computationally effective and accurate simulation of cyclic behaviour of old reinforced concrete columns. Eng. Struct. 2018, 173, 892–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Elwood, K.J. Modelling failures in existing reinforced concrete columns. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2004, 31, 846–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chatterjee, S.; Hadi, A.S. Regression Analysis by Example, 4th ed.; Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Shin, M.; Gwon, S.-W.; Lee, K.; Han, S.W.; Jo, Y.W. Effectiveness of high performance fiber-reinforced cement composites in slender coupling beams. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 68, 476–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Barney, G.B.; Shiu, K.N.; Rabbat, B.G.; Fiorato, A.E.; Russell, H.G.; Corley, W.G. Behavior of Coupling Beams Under Load Reversals (RD068.01B); Portland Cement Association: Skokie, IL, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  59. Breña, S.F.; Ihtiyar, O. Performance of conventionally reinforced coupling beams subjected to cyclic loading. J. Struct. Eng. 2011, 137, 665–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ding, R.; Tao, M.-X.; Nie, J.-G.; Mo, Y.L. Shear deformation and sliding-based fiber beam-column model for seismic analysis of reinforced concrete coupling beams. J. Struct. Eng. 2016, 142, 04016032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Generalized load–deformation relation.
Figure 1. Generalized load–deformation relation.
Applsci 09 05193 g001
Figure 2. Measured modeling parameters from a measured first-cycle envelope.
Figure 2. Measured modeling parameters from a measured first-cycle envelope.
Applsci 09 05193 g002
Figure 3. Absolute relative error ( A R E ) between the measured and ASCE modeling parameters.
Figure 3. Absolute relative error ( A R E ) between the measured and ASCE modeling parameters.
Applsci 09 05193 g003
Figure 4. Accuracies of the calculated values of modeling parameter a by applying the proposed calibration factor (a) and without applying the proposed calibration factor (b). Accuracies of the calculated values of modeling parameter b by applying the proposed calibration factor (c) and without applying the proposed calibration factor (d).
Figure 4. Accuracies of the calculated values of modeling parameter a by applying the proposed calibration factor (a) and without applying the proposed calibration factor (b). Accuracies of the calculated values of modeling parameter b by applying the proposed calibration factor (c) and without applying the proposed calibration factor (d).
Applsci 09 05193 g004
Figure 5. Predicted envelope curves and measured cyclic curves.
Figure 5. Predicted envelope curves and measured cyclic curves.
Applsci 09 05193 g005
Table 1. Effective stiffness equations proposed by ASCE 41-17.
Table 1. Effective stiffness equations proposed by ASCE 41-17.
ComponentFlexural RigidityShear RigidityAxial Rigidity
Columns with compression caused by design gravity loads 0.7 E c E I g 0.4 E c E A w E c E A g
Columns with compression caused by design gravity loads or with tension 0.3 E c E I g 0.4 E c E A w 0.4 E c E A g
Table 2. Physical properties and measured deformation parameters of the selected specimens.
Table 2. Physical properties and measured deformation parameters of the selected specimens.
No.ID a v / h b
(mm)
h
(mm)
s
(mm)
ρ l
(%)
ρ t
(%)
f c
(MPa)
f y t
(MPa)
a m e a s
(%)
b m e a s
(%)
Reference
1SC91.334579144061.880.08164000.36-[36]
2CB060C1.16278278522.750.78464140.50-[37]
3H-2-1_32.00200200402.650.71233641.51-[38]
4H-2-1_52.00200200502.650.57233641.96-
5HT-2-1_32.00200200602.650.71203642.03-
6HT-2-1_52.00200200752.650.57203641.99-
7I182.005005002542.120.20332581.64-[39]
8I212.005005002542.120.20322580.98-
9HPRC10-631.50200200351.270.68223441.33-[40]
10HPRC19-321.50200200201.271.19213441.15-
11N-18M1.503003001002.680.21273800.6210.16[41]
12N-27C1.503003001002.680.21273800.573.00
13N-27M1.503003001002.680.21273800.944.70
142D16RS2.00200200502.010.48323162.85-[42]
154D13RS2.00200200502.650.48303161.00-
16CA025C1.50200200702.130.81264262.10-[43]
17CA060C1.50200200702.130.81264260.81-
18C11.503003001601.690.08145870.462.33[44]
19C121.50300300751.690.28183841.218.15
20C41.50300300751.690.28145871.085.57
21C81.50300300751.690.28183840.742.21
22D11.00300300501.690.42283980.733.96[45]
23D111.503003001502.250.14283980.661.89
24D121.503003001502.250.14283980.691.98
25D141.50300300502.250.42263981.4917.98
26D161.00300300501.690.42263980.758.45
27B32.00250250602.430.631003441.11-[46]
28B42.00250250602.430.5210011262.34-
29B52.00250250302.431.051007741.18-
30B62.00250250602.430.521008571.32-
31B72.00250250301.810.521007740.54-
32UC15H2.00225225451.861.2711814241.40-[47]
33UC15L2.00225225451.861.2711814242.36-
34UC20H2.00225225351.861.6311814242.30-
35UC20L2.00225225351.861.6311814242.93-
36CUS1.11230410893.010.55354140.69-[48]
37CUW1.98410230893.010.15354141.21-
38UM2072.002002001001.990.28183240.81-
39HC4-8L16-T10-0.2P2.00254254512.461.64865105.84-[49]
40No.12.003003001002.680.19313920.64-[50]
41No.32.003003002002.680.09313920.558.00
42No.42.003003001002.680.19313920.621.95
43BE1.001751751102.420.29333120.282.01[51]
44CE1.001751751102.420.29263120.28-
45LE1.00175175206.941.62423220.77-
46104-081.00160160402.220.61205590.56-[29]
47204-082.00160160402.220.61215591.10-
Back to TopTop