Confined RC Section Analysis

Qingzhi Liu Dept. of Civil Engineering

1. Assumptions
(1) Program: Response2000 (2) Material models are described in Table 1, Figure 1 and Figure 2. Table 1 Description of material models Model description Compression branch: Hognestad model(RESPONSE)

Material

Model parameters

Normal strength concrete (Figure 1)

Tension branch: RESPONSE[1]: Before crack -- linear elastic After crack

Modified Kent & Park model Confined Concrete (Figure 1)

(Units: psi)

Mander model:

(Units: MPa) Determine fcc (The lateral confining stress is different in X and Y direction, so Changs approximate equation is utilized instead of looking into the figure in Manders paper) Changs expression:

Sheikh and Uzumeri model:

(Units: ksi)

Priestley model: Steel (Figure 2)

Note: concrete cover = 1.5

Material model of confined concrete

5000 4500 4000 3500 Unconfined-Hognestad Unconfined-Mkent&Park tran@10" tran@5" tran@5"+2ties tran@2.5" Mander Sheikh$Uzumeri

Stress /psi

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

-0.01

0 7E-17

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

Strain
Figure 1(a) Material model for confined concrete Explanation of the intersection of Unconfined-Hognaestad and tran@10 in the red circle: The descending branch of the Hognestad model is different from that of the Modified Kent & Park model. The descending slope of Hognestad model model is smoother.

0.3

Material model for concrete in tension

strength /ksi

0.2

NSC

0.1

0 0 0.0005 Strain
Figure 1(b) Material model for concrete in tension

0.001

0.0015

Material model for steel

120

Strength /ksi

100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.03 0.06 Strain 0.09 0.12 fy=60ksi

Figure 2 Material model for steel All the input parameters needed to determine the three confinement model are described in detail below. In different model, unit of the parameters may be different. 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: In case d), the effect of 2 additional ties is involved by adjusting

In case g), Kent & Park model cannot reflect the compression rebar, so the material model is the same as that in case c). Mander model: The unconfined concrete strength and corresponding strain, Tangent modulus of elasticity of the concrete, The secant modulus of elasticity of the concrete The compressive strength of the confined concrete The maximum concrete strain

Center to center spacing of the hoop, s=5 Clear vertical spacing between the hoop bars, s=5-0.375=4.625 Core dimension to centerlines of perimeter hoop in x-direction Core dimension to centerlines of perimeter hoop in y-direction Area of core of section enclosed by the center lines of the perimeter hoop Volume of longitudinal steel to volume of concrete core measured, A#9 =1 : The compression zone of the concrete is not the whole section, but it is reasonable and conservative. Correspondingly, volume of longitudinal steel will incorporate all the longitudinal steel to calculate , not just the compressive steel. Clear transverse spacing between longitudinal bars, #9 bar diameter is 1.125 Confinement effective coefficient : Mander model was originally designed for column, which did not have a large stress gradient and the compression zone is almost the whole section. However, when calculating curve, the stress gradient exists and the compression zone is changing and would not be the whole section. Therefore, it is hard to decide the effective confined area by choosing . After many trials, it was found that the model was comparable to the results from modified Kent & Park model and Sheikh & Uzumeri model when assuming the whole section was in compression. The parameters are: In compression zone in X-direction, In tension zone in X-direction, In Y-direction, Therefore, ( )( )

The comparison of the modified Kent & Park model, Sheikh & Uzumeri model and Mander model is shown in figure3. It is noted that the descending branch of Mander model is smoother due to its exponent form.

5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0

Material model of confined concrete

Unconfined Modified Kent&Park Mander Sheikh$Uzumeri

Stress /psi

0.01

0.02 Strain

0.03

0.04

Figure 3 Material model for concrete in compression Changs expression to determine fcc: The total area of transverse bars running in x-direction, The total area of transverse bars running in y-direction, Effective lateral confining pressure in x-direction Effective lateral confining pressure in y-direction Sheikh and Uzumeri model: B Center to center distance of the perimeter hoops, C Center to center spacing of the longitudinal bars, n The number of longitudinal bars, n=2 s The spacing of the hoops, s=5 The yield strength of the hoops The area of the concrete core, measure center to center of hoops Volume of hoop reinforcement to volume of concrete core

The slope of the descending branch of concrete Ratio of confined concrete strength to unconfined concrete strength The minimum concrete strain corresponding to the maximum concrete The maximum concrete strain corresponding to the maximum concrete The strain value corresponding to 0.85 of the maximum concrete stress The peak strain of unconfined concrete, typically

Note: When calculating , it was found that / and , which was not reasonable. Sheikh and Uzumeri model was built for a square column with uniformly distributed longtitudinal reinforcement, but in our case it was a rectangular section. It was decided to select a higer value of the dimension, that is, change B=10.625 to H=20.625, then > .

2. Calculation method
Two separate models are built, as shown in figure4. 1) An integral section with unconfined concrete material 2) Concrete core with confined concrete material. The cover concrete is assumed to have spall and is not included in the model. The two models are run separately. The curves obtained from the two models are combined when the strain of outer compression fiber in 1) is 0.0038. When , the curve in 1) is adopted, when , the curve in 2) is adopted.

3. Verification of calculation method

In order to verify the accuracy of the above calculation method, another approach three section model - is utilized. The three section model is shown in figure5. Case e), the cross section with transverse reinforcement with a spacing 2.5, is utilized to compare the results. curves obtained from the two methods are shown in figure6. Unconfined concrete

Unconfined concrete

Confined concrete

Confined concrete

Figure 4 Combined curve model

Figure 5 Three section model

Comparison of different approaches

500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 500

Moment in-kips

e_combined curve e_3section model

1000

1500

2000

Curvature /10^6 in
Figure 6 curves of the two approaches

From figure6, it is shown that the two curves fit well. The discrepancy depicted in the red circle is caused by the following reason: for combined curve method, moment resistance has a sudden drop due to the spalling of the outer concrete (the outer concrete is not included in the second run). But for three section model, the outer concrete will still function when the confined concrete starts to act, then its moment resistance has a more smooth transmission.

4. Table of results
The analysis results are shown in Table2. For the combined curve method, the initial stiffness and the crack stiffness are the same for case a) to e), because all of them adopts the same curve when . For case g) to i), the initial stiffness and the crack stiffness increase, because the extra compression steel increase the moment of inertia of the transformed section. Similarly, the yield moment and curvature are the same for case a) to e), because in the base case a), the tension steel yields before the outer concrete spalls. The same situation happens for case g) to i). Because the curve is combined at the point where outer concrete starts to spall, the maximum useable moment and curvature are the same in case a) to e) too. The maximum useable moment and curvature are the same in case g) to i) for the same reason. For simplicity, it is not listed in table2.

The maximum moment in the second section when is also listed. Therefore, My and y, Mmax and ,Mmax, Mmax2 , M max and max, are listed in table2. Table2 Results of sectional analysis NO a b c Case My (ft-k) y (in-6) Mmax (ft-k) ,Mmax (in-6) Mmax2 (ft-k) M, max (ft-k) max (in-6) = max/ y

Atran=0 & As=0 450 185 463 486 463 417 992 5.4 #3 Atran@10in 450 185 462 450 421 416 584 3.2 #3 Atran@5in 450 185 462 450 438 416 1125 6.1 #3 Atran@5in d 450 185 462 450 454 416 2054 11.1 + 2 ties e #3 Atran@2.5in 450 185 473 1800 473 425 3109 16.8 Atran=0 & f 466 180 521 1167 521 470 1655 9.2 As=2#9 #3 Atran@5in g 466 180 519 1505 519 468 2755 15.3 As=2#9 h Mander model 466 180 545 2425 545 545 3550 19.7 Sheikh-Uzemeri i 466 180 526 1771 526 511 2852 15.8 model Note: For case(h) and case (i) the moment resistance capacity of the section kept increasing. For simplicity, the last point in the RESPONSE output was chose to be M, max and max.

5. Plot of results
The analysis results are shown in Figure 7.

Moment - curvature curve for case (a) to (e)

600 500 Moment in-kips 400 300 200 100 0 0 1000 2000 Curvature /10^6 in 3000 Atran=0&A's=0 #3Atran@10in #3Atran@5in #3Atran@5in&2ties #3Atran@2.5in Atran=0&A's=2#9 #3Atran@5in&A's=2#9 Mandermodel Sheikh-Uzemri model

Figure 7 Moment-curvature curve for case(a) to case(i)

6. Discussion of the results

(1) The regain of moment resistance after the outer concrete spalls According to the column Mmax2 in Table2, with the spacing of the confinement rebar becomes smaller, the regained moment resistance increases, although the amount of increase is not large. In case b) to d), the increase of the compressive strength of the concrete, which is due to the confinement, is not enough to compensate the loss of moment resistance capacity due to the spalling of the outer concrete. The opposite happens in case e). Comparing c) and d), it is found that adding ties can help increase the confining effect. (2) The ductility of the section According to the column in Table2, with the spacing of the confinement rebar becomes smaller (compare case b, c and e), the ductility of the section has a large increase. Comparing c) and d), it is also found that adding ties can help increase the confining effect. In sum, the confinement can both increase the moment resistance capacity and ductility of the section. The increase in ductility is more prominent than that in moment resistance capacity. It is because the confinement has a more profound effect on the increase of ultimate strain than that of peak strength, which is shown in Figure 1a (Material model for confined concrete). (3) The combined effect of compression steel and confinement(both can increase the moment resistance and ductility of the section) i) Comparing the base case a) and f, the compression steel can both increase the moment resistance and the ductility of the section. Besides, it is obvious that adding compression steel is more effective than adding confinement in increasing the moment resistance. Explanation: Because the compression steel has two function: decrease the force in compression concrete, increase the moment arm of tension steel; postpone the spalling of the concrete and the tension steel may start hardening. However, the confinement cannot function until the concrete spalls in general. ii) Comparing the case e and f, it is found that adding confinement is more effective than adding compression steel in increasing the ductility of the section. Explanation: Because the failure of a proper reinforced section is controlled by the crushing of concrete. The compression steel can help postpone the crushing of concrete, but the confinement can essentially increase the ultimate strain of the concrete. (4) Comparison of Mander model with modified Kent & Park and Sheikh & Uzumeri As mentioned before, the descending branch of Mander model is smoother than the other two models, which utilize a linear descending branch. It is reflected in the case g to case i that Mmax and max are bigger in Mander model. In fact, Mander model cannot control the slope of the descending branch and is difficult in coping with the problem of high strength concrete and high strength confining reinforcement. Tsai proposes a similar but better stress-strain law to deal with this problem[2].

7. Figure of Problem 2
Figure 8 is load-deflection curve for simply supported beam. Figure 9 is for Cantilever beam with all the method. Because the result of Dilger method is far larger than the rest, figure 10 precludes it.

250 200 Force /kips 150 100 50 0 0

Simply supported beam

Actual M-fi Mattock and Corley

0.5

1.5

2.5

Deflection /in

Figure 8 Load-deflection curve for simply supported beam

250 200 Force /kips 150 100 50 0 0 2

Cantilever beam

Actual M-fi Mattock and Corley Priestley and Paulay

6 Deflection /in

10

Figure 9 Load-deflection curve for cantilever beam (include Dilger model)

250 200 Force /kips 150 100 50 0 0

Cantilever beam

Actual M-fi Mattock and Corley Priestley and Paulay 10 20 Deflection /in 30 40

Figure 10 Load-deflection curve for cantilever beam (exclude Dilger model) 8. Discussion Figure8 shows that the result calculated by actual curve is bigger than that by approximate Mattock and Corley method. The same situation happens in figure9 for the cantilever beam. Both of them take the effect of confinement reinforcement into account. Dig into the calculation process of the case simply supported beam. In actual curve method, the plastic hinge length is 21.6 and the is 0.00276. In Mattock and Corley method, the two numbers are 28.8(larger than 21.6) and 0.00152(smaller than 0.00276). Therefore, for the approximate method, the combo of and is important rather than single value of or . Figure9 shows that the effect of diagonal cracking. The length of plastic hinge increases from 10.8 to 18.27 due to the diagonal cracking, which is shown in the case Priestley and Paulay. Therefore, the ultimate deflection is much larger than that in the case Actual . Figure10 shows that the result from Dilger method seems not reasonable. It is because when the ratio loading length a is equal to shear length z, the plastic length coefficient is 0.1, which induces a very large plastic rotation angle (0.131rad) in the critical section. Besides, when d/2 is directly added to the expression to account for the effect of shear cracks, the plastic rotation angle is nearly doubled and the result is more doubtful.

Reference
[1] Sectional Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members. Evan C. Bentz. PhD thesis, University of Toronto,2009. [2] Seismic Energy Based Fatigue Damage Analysis of Bridge Columns: Part 1- Evaluation of Seismic Capacity. G.A. Chang and J.B. Mander. Technical Report NCEER-94-0006