Advertisement

Effect of axial load and transverse reinforcements on the seismic performance of reinforced concrete columns

  • Mounir Ait BelkacemEmail author
  • Hakim Bechtoula
  • Nouredine Bourahla
  • Adel Ait Belkacem
Research Article
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of this research is to assess the seismic performance of reinforced concrete columns under different axial load and transverse reinforcement ratios. These two parameters are very important as for the ductility, strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation capacity for a given reinforced concrete column. Effects of variable axial load ratio and transverse reinforcement ratio on the seismic performance of reinforced concrete columns are thoroughly analyzed. The finite element computer program Seismo-Structure was used to perform the analysis of series of reinforced concrete columns tested by the second author and other researchers. In order to reflect the reality and grasp the actual behavior of the specimens, special attention was paid to select the models for concrete, confined concrete, and steel components. Good agreements were obtained between the experimental and the analytical results either for the lateral force-drift relationships or for the damage progress prediction at different stages of the loading.

Keywords

reinforced concrete columns axial load transverse reinforcement ductility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Sargin M, Ghosh S K, Handa V K. Effects of lateral reinforcement upon the strength and deformation properties of concrete. Magazine of Concrete Research, 1971, 23(75–76): 99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azizinamini A, Corley W G, Johal L S P. Effects of transverse reinforcement on seismic performance of columns. ACI Structural Journal, 1992, 89(4): 442–450Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute, 1983Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lynn A C, Moehle J P, Mahin S A, HolmesWT. Seismic evaluation of existing reinforced concrete building columns. Earthquake Spectra, 1996, 12(4): 715–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Skeikh S A, Khoury S S. Confined concrete columns with stubs. ACI Structural Journal, 1993, 90(4): 414–431Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute, 1989Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saatciolglu M, Ozcebe G. Response of reinforced concrete columns to simulated seismic loading. ACI Structural Journal, 1989, 86(1): 3–12Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wehbe N I, Saiidi M S, Sanders D H. Seismic performance of rectangular bridge columns with moderate confinement. ACI Structural Journal, 1999, 96(2): 248–259Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lam S S E, Wu B, Wong Y L, Wang Z Y, Liu Z Q, Li C S. Drift capacity of rectangular reinforced concrete columns with low lateral confinement. Structural Engineering, 2003, 129(6): 733–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xiao J, Zhang C. Seismic behavior of RC columns with circular: square and diamond sections. Construction & Building Materials, 2008, 22(5): 801–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seismosoft. SeismoStruct v7.0–A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures. 2014Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mo Y L,Wang S J. Seismic behavior of RC columns with various tie configurations. Structural Engineering, 2000, 126(10): 1122–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saatcioglu M, Grira M. Confinement of reinforced concrete columns with welded reinforcement grids. ACI Structural Journal, 1999, 96 (1): 29–39Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Watson, Soesianawati M T, Park R. Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames of Limited Ductility, Report 89–4. 1989Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soesianawati M T, Park R, Priestley M J N. Limited Ductility Design of Reinforced Concrete Columns, Report 86–10. 1986Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shibata A, SozenMA. Substitute-structuremethod for seismic design in R/C. Journal of the Structural Division, 1976, 102(S1): 1–18Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bechtoula H, Kono S, Watanabe F. Experimental and analytical investigation of seismic performance of cantilever reinforced concrete columns under varying transverse and axial loads. Journal of Asian Architecture & Building Engineering, 2005, 4(2): 467–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kono S, Bechtoula H, Sakashita M, Tanaka H, Watanabe F, Eberhard M O. Damage assessment of reinforced concrete columns under high axial loading. ACI Special Publication, 2006, 237(SP): 165–176Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Correia A A, Virtuoso F B E. Nonlinear Analysis of Space Frames, Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Computational Mechanics: Solids, Structures and Coupled Problems in Engineering. Lisbon, 2006Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Filippou F C, Fenves G L. Earthquake Engineering -From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fragiadakis M, Papadrakakis M. Modeling, analysis and reliability of seismically excited structures: computational issues. Computational Methods, 2008, 5(4): 483–511CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hellesland J, Scordelis A. Analysis of RC bridge columns under imposed deformations. In: Proceeding of the IABSE Colloquium. Delft, 1981, 545–559Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mari A, Scordelis A. Nonlinear Geometric Material and Time Dependent Analysis of Three Dimensional Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Frames. SESM Report 82–12. 1984Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spacone E, Ciampi V, Filippou F C. Mixed formulation of nonlinear beam finite element. Computers & Structures, 1996, 58(1): 71–83CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Neuenhofer A, Filippou F C. Evaluation of nonlinear frame finiteelement models. Structural Engineering, 1997, 123(7): 958–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Freitas J A T, Almeida J P M, Pereira E M B R. Non-conventional formulations for the finite element method. Computational Mechanics, 1999, 23(5–6): 488–501CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Alemdar B N, White D W. Displacement, flexibility, and mixed beam-column finite element formulations for distributed plasticity analysis. Structural Engineering, 2005, 131(12): 1811–1819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Calabrese A, Almeida J P, Pinho R. Numerical issues in distributed inelasticity modeling of RC frame elements for seismic analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2010, 14(S1): 38–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mpampatsikos V, Nascimbene R, Petrini L. A critical review of the RC frame existing building assessment procedure according to Eurocode 8 and Italian seismic code. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2008, 12(S1): 52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yassin M H M. Nonlinear analysis of prestressed concrete structures under monotonic and cyclic loads. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Berkeley: University of California, 1994Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Menegotto M, Pinto P E. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded R. C. plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending. In: International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering. Zurich: 1973, 15–22Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Filippou F C, Popov E P, Bertero V V. Effects of Bond Deterioration on Hysteretic Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Joints. Report EERC 83–19. 1983Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Monti G, Nuti C, Santini S. Cyrus-cyclic Response of Upgraded Sections. Report 96–2. 1996Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Prota A, de Cicco F, Cosenza E. Cyclic behavior of smooth steel reinforcing bars: experimental analysis and modeling issues. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2009, 13(4): 500–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Madas P. Advanced modeling of composite frames subjected to earthquake loading. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. London: University of London, 1993Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mander J B, Priestley MJ N, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Structural Engineering, 1988, 114(8): 1804–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Martínez-Rueda J E, Elnashai A S. Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Materials and Structures, 1997, 30(3): 139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Williams M S, Sexsmith R G. Seismic damage indices for concrete structures: A state-of-the-art review. Earthquake Spectra, 1995, 11 (2): 319–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Park Y J, Ang A H S. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. Structural Engineering, 1985, 111(4): 722–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mounir Ait Belkacem
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hakim Bechtoula
    • 1
  • Nouredine Bourahla
    • 2
  • Adel Ait Belkacem
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Earthquake EngineeringNational Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (C.G.S)AlgiersAlgeria
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, LGGC LaboratoryBlida 1-UniversityBlidaAlgeria
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringScience & Technology University (USTHB)AlgiersAlgeria

Personalised recommendations