Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, computer-aided nonlinear analysis procedures Fig. 1—Structural layout of clinker preheater tower: (a) plan;
for reinforced concrete frame structures have progressed and (b) elevation.
toward becoming a practical tool for use by office engineers.
These procedures have found diverse applications, including mode, and any deficient members had to be verified. For
the strength and safety assessment of existing structures and analysis purposes, three software programs were used:
the performance assessment of planned structures. At the SAP2000® (CSI 2005), RUAUMOKO (Carr 2005), and
same time, research activity on the shear behavior of TEMPEST (Vecchio 1987; Vecchio and Collins 1988). The
reinforced concrete continues to contribute to current frame was modeled using only default options and models that
knowledge. Design code procedures are continually evolving were readily built into the programs, that is, default hinges and all
and generally becoming more stringent. This acknowledges default material behavior models. All three models were created
the fact that shear-critical structures fail in a brittle and using the same geometry, material, and support conditions.
catastrophic manner with little or no prior sign of The analyses were performed under monotonically
distress. Therefore, analysis methods that accurately increasing static story shear forces calculated by the linear
consider shear effects are essential for the safe and realistic dynamic response spectrum method.
assessment of strength and ductility of concrete structures. From these analyses, unacceptably different results were
Most currently available analysis tools, however, continue to obtained, as shown in Fig. 2. SAP2000 and RUAUMOKO
ignore shear-related mechanisms by default. The use of such predicted that the frame would fail in flexure, while
tools for practical applications, where the structure may be in TEMPEST predicted a sudden shear failure in some of the
fact shear-critical, can lead to dangerously unconservative beams. Large discrepancies were obtained in the ductility
estimates of both strength and ductility. predictions for the frame; SAP2000 predicted approximately
Consider, for example, the clinker plant preheater tower 5.6 times greater displacement for the peak load capacity
shown in Fig. 1. Designed according to ACI code specifications, than did TEMPEST. The highly ductile load-deflection
the tower was built in a seismic zone of Central America in prediction obtained from SAP2000 and RUAUMOKO
the late 1990s. Following its construction, subsequent design resulted from the assumption of purely flexural behavior. In
reviews revealed deficiencies in the amounts and details of other words, the influence of the shear-related mechanisms
the reinforcement provided in some of the beams and
columns. These deficiencies raised questions about the ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 1, January-February 2010.
expected performance of the building under its design earth- MS No. S-2008-382.R1 received November 24, 2008, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2010, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
quake, requiring a comprehensive reevaluation. More including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the November-
specifically, its load and displacement capacity, failure December 2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2010.
Ab
z = -------------
- (1)
st to
Fig. 4—Determination of tributary area for out-of-plane where Ab is the cross-sectional area of the out-of-plane
reinforcement. reinforcement, st is the spacing of the out-of-plane reinforcement
in the longitudinal (x) direction, and to is the distance, in
the transverse (y) direction, in which the out-of-plane reinforce-
ment is to be assigned.
The transverse reinforcement is assigned to the concrete
layers between the out-of-plane reinforcement, with the ratio
defined as follows
nA
t = --------------b- (2)
st b
The more scattered nature of these results should be The strength of beams containing little or no reinforcement is
expected since the post-peak ductility of shear-critical beams highly sensitive to such mechanisms as tension softening,
containing little or no shear reinforcement is largely tension stiffening, and aggregate interlock, all of which are
governed by mechanisms heavily dependent on the concrete directly related to the tensile strength of concrete. The tensile
tensile strength, itself a property prone to wide scatter. Three strength of concrete, however, is not constant relative to the
different failure modes were reported in the experimental compressive strength but varies with a number of parameters
study: diagonal tension failures for all three beams such as the volume of concrete, gradient of longitudinal
containing no shear reinforcement; shear-compression failures strain, and the presence of restrained shrinkage strains
for the intermediate-span beams containing shear reinforce- (Collins and Mitchell 1991). A lower-bound estimate of the
ment; and flexure-compression failures for the long-span beams tensile strength, given by Eq. (3) as recommended by CSA
containing shear reinforcement. For all twelve beams, these A23.3-04, was used for all analyses in this paper. Consequently,
failure modes were calculated accurately by the analyses. when analyzing a specimen with no or little reinforcement, more
scattered predictions should typically be anticipated.
A second series of beams examined was that tested by
Angelakos et al. (2001), involving 12 beams subjected to
monotonically increasing point loads applied at their f t = 0.33 f c (3)
midspans in a displacement-controlled mode. These beams
differed from the Vecchio and Shim (2004) beams in three The frame models for these beams consisted of six
important aspects: the beam cross sections were larger with members, taking advantage of symmetry to represent one-
1000 x 300 mm (39.4 x 11.8 in.) dimensions; the shear span- half of the beam length, as shown in Fig. 3. Sectional models
depth ratios were lower at 2.7; and the longitudinal rein- were created using approximately 40 concrete layers in the
forcement amounts were smaller with uneven distributions. same manner as the Vecchio and Shim (2004) beams. As recom-
With large cross sections and low transverse reinforcement mended by Angelakos et al. (2001), the maximum aggregate
ratios ranging from 0.0 to 0.08%, size effects, aggregate size used in the analyses was taken as zero for the beams
interlock, concrete post-cracking tensile stresses, and crack having concrete strengths greater than 65 MPa (9.4 ksi) (that
slip are expected to be significant mechanisms in the is, for Beams DB165, DB165M, DB180, and DB180M) as
behavior of these beams. Furthermore, with the lower shear cracks pass through, rather than going around the aggregate,
span-to-depth ratio, concrete direct strut action, which is causing aggregate interlock to be ineffective.
neglected in the sectional calculations of the proposed proce- As shown in Fig. 7, the peak load capacities of the beams
dure, will play a more significant role in the responses. Some were calculated reasonably well with a mean of 1.07 and a
of these beams were fabricated with high-strength COV of 16.7% for the calculated-to-observed strength ratio.
concrete, representing an additional challenge. The COV is somewhat higher than normally expected with
nonlinear analyses for the reasons noted previously. The A frame model of the structure was created using member
failure modes of all the beams were accurately calculated as lengths approximately equal to half of the cross section
diagonal-tension failures. For the specimens containing no depth, that is, 200 mm (7.9 in.). Because frame models are
shear reinforcement, the analytically determined failures typically based on centerline dimensions, stiffened end
occurred suddenly in the compression zone of Member 5, zones are normally used to account for the overlapping
similar in nature to the experimental behavior. For the beams portions of the beams and columns in the joint regions, as
containing shear reinforcement, the calculated responses shown with bold lines in Fig. 8(b). One way of achieving this
typically involved the failure of Member 2 with significantly is to increase both the longitudinal and transverse reinforce-
more diagonal cracking prior to the failures, as compared to ment amounts in the end zone members. Based on a limited
the beams containing no shear reinforcement. A diagonal- study, a multiplier of 1.5 or larger was found to perform satis-
tension failure mode was also observed in the experiments factorily for this purpose; a factor of 2 was used throughout
with diagonal cracks extending between the point load at the this study. The bolts used in the experiment to fix the base
midspan and the support. beam to the strong floor were represented by simple
supports. Six member types were used to create the
MODELING OF FRAMES sectional models of the beam, column, and base
The first frame specimen examined was that tested by members. An additional six member types were used for
Duong et al. (2007), involving the one-bay, two-story frame the stiffened end zone members. Typically, 30 concrete layers
shown in Fig. 8(a). The test frame was designed to imitate the were used, as shown in Fig. 8(c). Refer to Guner (2008) for the
details of the clinker preheater tower described previously, complete details of the sectional models.
reproducing the shear deficient characteristics of the In the experimental study, once significant shear damage
beams: the beams’ span-depth ratio, shear and longitudinal took place, the frame was unloaded to prevent total failure;
reinforcement amounts, and material strengths. The testing the frame was to be retrofitted and retested in the Phase B
of the frame was performed in two phases: Phase A for a program. Because a determination of the failure condition
single cycle, consisting of a forward and reverse loading, and was desired in this analytical assessment, however, the frame
Phase B, for a sequence of complete cycles after the frame was loaded to failure. As shown in Fig. 9, the frame’s
had been repaired with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) wrap. In maximum load capacity was calculated with good accuracy,
both phases, a monotonic lateral load was applied to the having a calculated-to-observed ratio of 1.06. The gradual
second-story beam in a displacement-controlled mode, while decrease in the lateral stiffness in the prepeak region was
two constant column loads were applied throughout the captured well. In addition, the lateral load levels causing the
testing to simulate the axial force effects of higher stories. first yielding of several reinforcement components were
the range of half of the cross section depth, that is, 200 mm
Fig. 12—Comparison of responses for Vecchio and Balopoulou (7.9 in.). Four member types were used to create sectional
(1990) frame. models of the beam, column, and base members. Three
additional member types were used in the stiffened end
As apparent from Fig. 11, the frame’s maximum load zones of these members. Concrete shrinkage strains of –0.5 ×
capacity was estimated with excellent accuracy, having a 10–3 were also applied to all members in the model,
calculated-to-observed ratio of 0.98. The lateral stiffness of reflecting the degree of shrinkage reported by Vecchio and
the frame was calculated with reasonable accuracy. Upon Balopoulou (1990).
entirely unloading the frame, the residual displacement was The analytically and experimentally obtained first-story
calculated with 14% overestimation. The total energy dissipated midspan load-deflection responses are compared in Fig. 12.
by the frame was calculated with high accuracy: 44.6 kNm
The experimental load-deflection response reported by
(32.9 kips-ft) compared to the experimental value of 44.4 kNm
Vecchio and Balopoulou (1990) was terminated well before
(32.7 kips-ft). The experimentally observed damage mode of
the failure of the frame for equipment safety reasons; hence,
the frame involved ductile plastic hinging of both beam ends
the stroke-deflection response for the complete test, as
(Beam 1N, 1S, 2N, and 2S) and both column bases (BN and
measured by the loading machine including the flexibility of
BS), including yielding of both the tension and compression
the machine, is also compared to the analytical load-deflection
reinforcement and some concrete crushing. The analytical
response in Fig. 12. The analytical load-deflection response
damage mode was mainly caused by the plastic hinging of
the column bases, including yielding of both tension and showed excellent agreement with the experimental response.
compression reinforcement and crushing of concrete, The frame’s strength, stiffness, and failure deflection, the
especially in the BS area. The first- and second-story beams latter being particularly important when calculating the
ends were calculated to be extensively damaged with crack frame’s ductility, were calculated accurately. The maximum
widths as high as 9.0 mm (0.35 in.) and tensile reinforcement flexural crack widths were also calculated with reasonable
strains reaching 47 × 10–3. The compression reinforcement accuracy, as shown in Table 2. The experimental failure
at the beam ends, however, did not yield but typically reached mode of the frame involved a combination of a flexural
80% of their yield strain in the analysis (Guner 2008). collapse mechanism (that is, a three-hinge mechanism
Of particular interest in the behavior of this frame is the formed at the ends and the midspan of the first-story beam)
influence of the second-order effects (that is, P- effects), and a final shear failure near the midspan of the first-story
which accounted for 12% of the total overturning moment beam. A similar failure mechanism was calculated
acting on this frame at ultimate. For illustrative purposes, the analytically with the plastic hinges forming under
analysis was repeated without considering geometric approximately 20% larger applied loads.
nonlinearity based on a small displacements assumption. Of particular interest in the behavior of this frame are the
As shown in Fig. 11, the net lateral load continued axial restraint effects caused by the columns, commonly
increasing with the increased lateral displacement, known as “membrane action.” Subjected to monotonic
causing an overestimation of the frame’s strength. Of loads, the first-story beam of the frame elongated due to the
another interest is the effect of shear deformations on the average tensile strains on the tension face being much larger
response of this frame. As a result of an investigation, the in magnitude than the compressive strains on the opposing
Vecchio and Emara (1992) concluded that shear deformations face. The columns, however, provided axial restraint and
contributed to the total deformations of this frame as much thus induced axial compression forces in the beam. The
as 20%, despite a predominantly flexural failure mode. accurate calculation of this second-order axial force is
The third frame investigated was that tested by Vecchio essential for the accurate simulation of the frame behavior
and Balopoulou (1990). This frame was almost identical to because the axial force can significantly increase the shear
the Vecchio and Emara (1992) frame shown in Fig. 10. The and flexural strength of the beam. To show the significance
only significant difference, other than the loading condition, of this effect, a first-order plastic analysis of the frame was
was that the top reinforcement was cut back to two No. 20 performed with a simple three-hinge mechanism assumed
bars in the central 500 mm (19.7 in.) length of the first-story for the first-story beam. For the applied midspan load Pu of
beam. The loading of this frame involved applying a mono- 380 kN (85.4 kips) and using a linear-elastic frame analysis,
tonically increasing vertical load in the center of the first- the axial force in the beam was determined as –12 kN (–2.7 kips),
story beam until the failure occurred. the shear force as 190 kN (42.7 kips), and the moment at the
Taking advantage of the symmetry of the test setup, only midspan as 190 kNm (140.1 kips-ft). A nonlinear sectional
one-half of the frame was modeled with member lengths in analysis was then performed, finding the shear and moment