Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1. Assumptions
(1) Program: BIAX2009 (2) Material models are described in Table 1, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. Table 1 Description of material models Model description Compression branch: Modified Kent & Park model (parameters have been calibrated)
Material
Model parameters
Unconfined Confined
Stress /psi
5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Strain
Fig. 1(a) Material model for concrete
0.2
0.1
0 0 0.0005 Strain
Fig. 1(b) Material model for concrete in tension
0.001
0.0015
60
40 20 0 0 0.03 0.06 Strain 0.09 0.12
Modified K&P model: Compressive yield strength of concrete, Width of concrete core measured to outside of hoops, Height of the concrete core measured to outside of the hoops, Diameter of the hoops, Center to center spacing of the hoops, Yield strength of transverse reinforcement, Cross sectional area of the hoops, Volume of hoop to volume of concrete core measured to outside of hoops Note: The effect of 1 additional tie is involved by adjusting
2. Problem (a)
(1) Two different models are built separately for i) before spalling; ii) at maximum compressive strain, as shown in Fig.3. i) An integral section with unconfined concrete material: assume that the confinement reinforcement will not take effect before the spalling of the cover concrete. The ultimate strain is chosen: cu=0.003. The result of this model is also utilized to compare the hand calculation in Problem (b) for four critical points. ii) Concrete core with confined concrete material. The cover concrete is assumed to have unconfined concrete material. The maximum compressive strain is chosen: cu=0.0088. In order to simulate the spalling of concrete cover, the unconfined concrete model is adjusted to decrease to zero after it reaches cu=0.0038, as shown in Fig. 4.
Model for unconfined cover concrete 6000 Stress /psi 4000 2000 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 Strain
D C
Force kips
1500 1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
B
1400
Moment k - ft
Fig. 5 Axial load Moment interaction curve for problem (a) (3) Discussion of the results 1) For point A (pure tension), the axial forces in the two models are the same. Explanation: ft = 0 after concrete cracks, therefore all the contribution is from reinforcement. y < s < sh=0.1, fs = fs = 60 ksi are the same for both models. 2) For point B (pure moment), moment at cu=0.0088 is bigger than that at cu=0.003. Explanation: due to the confinement, fs increases, the depth of neutral axis decreases, the moment arm of tension steel increases. Besides, the ultimate strain of concrete increases, the tension steel may begin to harden, the tension force also increases. Therefore, the moment is larger at cu=0.0088. 3) For point C (Balance point), the axial forces in the two models are nearly the same and the moment resistance at cu=0.003 is bigger than that at cu=0.0088. Explanation: in the hand calculation below, it is found that at balance point, both the tension steel and the compression steel yield. Therefore, the axial forces equal to the forces supplied by concrete (the force supplied by the compression steel equal to that supplied by the tension steel). . will be higher in confined model, but the height of the Whitney stress block will be smaller. Therefore, the axial forces in the two models are nearly the same. On the other hand, , because the cover concrete has spalling, the moment arm of the tension steel is smaller, the moment at cu=0.0088 is smaller than that at cu=0.003. 4) For point D The compression force in the model at cu=0.0088 is larger than that at cu=0.003.
Explanation: although the outer cover concrete has spalling, the strength of the confined concrete is much larger at cu=0.0088 than that of the unconfined concrete at cu=0.003.
3. Problem (b)
(1) The hand calculation is shown in the next page. (2) Discussion of the result 1) Assumptions As mentioned before, it is assumed that the confinement reinforcement will not take effect before the spalling of the cover concrete. The ultimate strain is chosen: cu=0.003. The result of model 1, whose whole section is of the unconfined concrete material, is utilized to compare the hand calculation for four critical points. 2) Results All the results from hand calculation are nearly the same as those from BIAX, except one case: pure tensile forces. The hand calculation is 1560 kips, while the result from BIAX model is 1450 kips. One reason may be that the stress-strain curve of the steel in BIAX has descending branch after peak stress, as shown in Fig.6.
4. Problem (c)
The assumptions are specified in the hand writing. Table 2 shows the curvature ductility calculated by model 1 and model 2. Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 show the curvature ductility at different axial load levels in model 1 and model 2. Discussion of the results: Both Model 1: cu=0.003 and Model 2: cu=0.0088 show that higher axial loads will result in a decreasing curvature ductility of the columns. The reason is present in the hand writing.
Table 2 Curvature ductility with respect to different axial loads in Model 1 and Model 2 Model 1: cu=0.003 Model 2: cu=0.0088 P (kips) y u = u/ y P (kips) y u = u/ y 0 0.148 1.750 11.8 0 0.148 2.669 18.0 0.25Pb=242 0.176 0.938 5.3 0.25Pb=265 0.172 1.737 10.1 0.5Pb=483 0.181 0.513 2.8 0.5Pb=530 0.193 1.277 6.6 0.75Pb=725 0.200 0.352 1.8 0.75Pb=795 0.207 1.022 4.9 Pb=967 0.220 0.270 1.2 Pb=1060 0.210 0.805 3.8
1400 1200
Moment k - ft
1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 0.5 1 Curvature 1/10^3 in 1.5 2 N=0 N=242k N=483k N=725k N-967k
0.5
2.5
5. Problem (d)
The result is shown in Fig. 9. When the slenderness ratio increases, the moment amplification coefficient increases. Therefore, the column is more prone to buckle at lower axial loads. When P=0, the columns will not buckle and all curves will converge at one point in the Moment-axis.
Force kips
1000 500 0 -500 0 -1000 -1500 -2000 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
6. Problem (e)
The result is shown in Fig. 10. Discussion of the results: (1) Columns under tensile axial loads will encounter diagonal cracking early. (For pure tension, Nu = 240 kips is small). (2) With the increase of axial load N, Vc increases, so as Mvc. However, when N increases, the curvature ductility will reduce. Therefore, approximate axial load should be determined to increase Vc and at the same time not decrease curvature ductility too much. (3) For N < 1400 kips for H=12 ft and N < 1200 kips for H=24 ft, column will undergo diagonal cracking prior to flexure failure. (4) After diagonal cracking happens, the shear resistance from Vs will take effect with Vc. (5) When a column is higher, it is more prone to have flexure failure. (Mvc + Mvs is large) (6) Transverse reinforcement #4@4 in the case of H=24 ft can result in flexural failure even when the Vc part is ignored.
Force kips
2000
2500
-1000 -2000