0 Up votes0 Down votes

9 views11 pagesAntiseismic+Structural+Engineering

Jan 13, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Antiseismic+Structural+Engineering

© All Rights Reserved

9 views

Antiseismic+Structural+Engineering

© All Rights Reserved

- Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future
- The Day the World Came to Town: 9/11 in Gander, Newfoundland
- Seveneves: A Novel
- Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap...And Others Don't
- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race
- Hidden Figures Young Readers' Edition
- Hidden Figures Young Readers' Edition
- The Right Stuff
- The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914
- The Wright Brothers
- The Wright Brothers
- The Last Second
- Life in a Medieval Castle
- Fault Lines
- State of Fear
- State of Fear
- Elevator Pitch: A Novel
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The Great Bridge: The Epic Story of the Building of the Brooklyn Bridge

You are on page 1of 11

Superstructure Joint

F. Kope, M.Sc., M. ASCE, AICPS

Antiseismic Structural Engineering, Bucuresti, Romania

kope@antiseismic.com

C. Onofrei, M.Sc., M. AISC, AICPS

Antiseismic Structural Engineering, Bucuresti, Romania

onofrei@antiseismic.com

P. Olteanu, M.Sc., M. AICPS

Antiseismic Structural Engineering, Bucuresti, Romania

paul@antiseismic.com

Abstract

This paper addresses the slab prestressing influence against the base columns and their foundations along the

structural joint. This situation is usually encountered in structures with no structural joint in the foundation but

only the superstructure, and the slabs are done using prestressed concrete. Two models were considered in

order to assess this influence. The first one is employed for a general analysis of the structure (several single

storey frames chained together) in order to obtain the displacement based loadings, and the second one is used

for the local analysis of the foundation and its tributary columns using the imposed displacement determined

during the previous phase.

Introduction

Two models were developed in order to assess this influence.

1.

2.

The first model was employed to evaluate the overall behaviour of a complete chain of R/C frames

of adjacent building divisions along the same prestressing path. Each frame consists of the crossshape columns and their tributary beams acting jointly with afferent slab. The cross-sectional area of

the beam was calculated with respect to half of each adjacent span (considered only for the

prestressing deformation purpose) while its flexural stiffness was included in the model using only the

active flange of the slab available on both sides of the concrete beam (roughly considered equal to

quarter of span).

a.

The concrete beams and columns were included in the model using beam elements having

restrained the out of plane associated degrees of freedom;

b.

The soil structure interaction was considered by means of uncoupled spring elements

applied for each of the in-plane associated degree of freedom (two translations and one

rotation). The stiffnesses of these springs were calculated based on references [1] and [2].

c.

The elasticity modulus for concrete beams and columns was considered E=30000MPa.

d.

Two reciprocal counteracting forces were applied at both ends of each slab segment. These

forces render the presstresing action.

The second model represents a local analysis of a joint T-shaped column and its corresponding

footing. The purpose of this model was to evaluate the stress state and actual deflections developed

in the column and foundation.

a.

The beam connection was neglected due to its lower influence upon column behaviour

(small beam-to-column stiffness ratio)

b.

Only a quarter of the assembly (meaning half of a joint T-shape column and half of the

common foundation) was effectively included in the model along with appropriate

boundary conditions, this approach was possible due to symmetric loading (imposed

displacements applied to the top of the columns concurrently in opposite directions) and

geometrical conditions.

c.

The load was applied by means of imposed displacement of 2.65mm to all column nodes

located at slab level. The value of imposed displacement was taken from the analysis of the

first model.

The model was generated using 8-nodes solid elements mapped to both column and

foundation concrete while the reinforcement was modelled using 2-node truss elements.

d.

The response of column and foundation were obtained using a nonlinear concrete model

(which is a hypoelastic model based on a nonlinear uniaxial stress-strain relation that is

generalized to take biaxial and triaxial stress conditions into account and that it models

tensile failure (i.e. cracking) and compression failure (i.e. crushing) by failure envelopes). The

smeared crack approach was adopted for tensile failure modelling, i.e. the cracked concrete

is treated as a continuum. Moreover, the post-failure behaviour including strain-softening

conditions is modelled.

e.

The behaviour of the reinforcement was obtained by applying a bilinear plastic material with

von Mises yield condition.

f.

The soil structure interaction was included in the model through contact analysis performed

against a simplified assumed bounding media.

g.

The analysis was done using autostep incremental conditions. The selfweight of the

structure was applied prior to starting the prestressing through imposed displacement, in

order to achieve a proper phasing of the loading conditions.

h.

This second model was developed using SOLVIA [4] computer program (Swedish version

of Automatic Dynamic Incremental Nonlinear Analysis ADINA), which can be employed

very effective for nonlinear contact and physical analyses.

One important simplification considered in developing of both models was the assumption that under the

prescribed load level the soil is expected to behave almost linear-elastic which obviously is not entirely true

but for the purpose of this analysis is considered sufficiently accurate (the state of the art practice requires to

model the nonlinear properties of the foundation element to reflect the possibility of soil yielding, sliding or

uplift as well as inelastic structural behaviour where appropriate).

The first model was employed in a simple parametric analysis, whose purpose was to determine the influence

of variable soil stiffness on the distribution of deflections of structure subjected to the post-tensioning forces.

This investigation was necessary to establish if there is any situation that might lead to the relaxation of

prestressing induced forces in the joint column-foundation system.

We expect the response of soil mainly in the range of low strains (because the soil deformations induced by

prestressing are very low) therefore a larger shear modulus is expected. However, this analysis treats both the

case of small and large soil strains by considering their associated shear modulus.

The uncoupled spring stiffnesses are calculated using the following equations as per ASCE-FEMA356 [1]:

Translation along x-axis K x,sur =

GB

3.4

GB L

3.4

2 B

0.65

+ 1.2

0.65

+ 0.4

L

+ 0.8

B

(1)

(2)

GB

L

1.55

1

B

0.75

+ 0.8

GB3 L

0.4 + 0.1

1 B

(4)

+ 0.034

(5)

2.45

L

Rocking about z-axis K zz,surface = GB3 0.53 + 0.51

B

(6)

GB3

L

0.47

1

B

(3)

2.4

0.4

D

hd(B + L)

Translation along x-axis x = 1 + 0.21

1 + 1.6

B

BL2

(7)

(8)

2/3

1 D

B

d(B + L)

Translation along z-axis z = 1 +

2 + 2.6 1 + 0.32

L

BL

21 B

(9)

d

Rocking about y-axis yy = 1 + 1.4

L

d 2d d

1 +

B

B D

0.6

0.2

1.9

0.6

d d

1.5 + 3.7

L D

B d

Rocking about z-axis zz = 1 + 2.6 1 +

L B

(10)

(11)

0.9

(12)

d = height of effective sidewall contact (may be less than total foundation height)

h = depth to centroid of effective sidewall contact

(13)

Results

The following Tables presents the results for analyses conducted on model 1

Table 1. Soil spring parameters

Rock

Stiff

soil

Soft soil

Type of

soil

Springs

Units

F1

Inner foundation

F2

Joint

foundation

F3

Perimeter

foundation

kx

[tf/m]

13200

13800

13700

11000

kz

[tf/m]

11900

12700

12500

4400

[tf m/rad]

173800

205400

199300

0.25

kx

[tf/m]

39500

41500

41100

33000

kz

[tf/m]

35700

38100

37400

13200

[tf m/rad]

521300

616000

598000

0.25

kx

[tf/m]

1315400

1384700

1368400

1100000

kz

[tf/m]

1188500

1269000

1247400

440000

[tf m/rad]

17375600

20541110

1993370

0.25

Analysis

/Soil type

Validation

/Soft soil 2)

Soft soil 3)

Stiff soil 3)

Rock 3)

NOTE:

1.

2.

3.

Results

Units

Node a

Node b

Node c

Node d

Displ. 1)

[mm]

-0.16/0/-0.16

-6.06/-2.48/-3.58

Shear F

[tf]

4.53

34.0

Displ. 1)

[mm]

2/0/2

-3.57/ -0.92/-2.65

-0.27/-0.91/-0.67

-6.16/-2.52/-3.64

Shear F.

[tf]

140,0

122,0

109,0

35,0

Displ. 1)

[mm]

2.43/0/2.43

-2.93/-0.32/-2.61

1.34/-0.30/1.64

-4.33/-1.47/-2.86

Shear F.

[tf]

170

156,5

143,6

60,3

Displ. 1)

[mm]

2.45

-.45

2.44

-2.47

Shear F.

[tf]

172

172

172

168

(absolute displacement on top of column) / (absolute displacement at foundation level) / (relative displacement)

only the one division is prestressed

all divisions are subject to prestressing forces. only the soil type differs

Z

X

Figure 2. Deflected shape and Shear Forces on columns for soft soil analysis. one divisions

prestressed

Z

X

Z

X

Figure 3. Deflected shape and Shear Forces on columns for soft soil analysis. all divisions prestressed

Z

X

Figure 4. Displacements and Shear Forces on columns for stiff soil analysis

Z

X

Figure 5. Displacements and Shear Forces on columns for rock soil analysis

The analysis has shown that the maximum relative top deflection of the joint column remains almost

unchanged irrespective of soil conditions i.e. ~2.6mm. This displacement is used as input data for the second

model employed to evaluate the stress state within the joint column-foundation system.

The second model was also built for a simple nonlinear analysis of local response of the joint columnfoundation-soil system. The purpose was to determine the actual distribution of sectional forces within

foundation/column and also the influence of appropriate modelling of distributed soil action upon foundation

(note that the first model was set up for a uncoupled, single node model of soil; the geotechnical components

represent the stiffness in each of the independent degrees of displacement freedom).

1.

The cracking distribution is given in Figure 6. The crack pattern exhibit formation of diagonal cracks

in the stem of the T-shape column, also a more significant cracking occurs in foundation. Note that

the compressive stress level does not reach the crushing limit state at any point

2.

The principal stresses of structural concrete are shown in Figure 7. The maximum concrete

compressive stress is 12MPa. (Note that all values provided in figures are given in Mp-m, i.e. 1

kilopond 1kp=10N, 1Mp=1tf. For example 1Mp/m2 = 10-2MPa). The maximum tensile stress has no

relevance for it represents only a measure of the cracking state in the structure although the

maximum tensile stress diagram has significance in terms of cracking location.

3.

Figure 8 provides the concrete stress state in the upper part of the foundation nearby the joint. The

compressive stress located at bottom of foundation is quite low 3.7MPa which basically shows

that the foundation response at joint is quite far from the plane cross section assumption.

4.

Figure 9 shows the stress level in the upper layer of reinforcement of foundation. This stress in

significant 300MPa and was attained only in the rebars located nearby the column, this happened

because the stress transfer from concrete to reinforcement occurred early due to immediate cracking

of foundation.

5.

The column concrete stress state is provided in Figure 10. This Figure shows that the maximum

compressive stress of 12MPa occurs on the tip of the T-shape column stem, and is extremely

localized. This value represents almost half of the capable compressive strength (note the median

compressive strength was considered 26MPa). Although this value is obviously not critical, it

diminishes significantly the available margin for the forthcoming loading involving flexural capacity.

6.

The reinforcement stress is given in Figure 11. The longitudinal reinforcement stress is low (70MPa)

and not of a concern, but the stress in the hoop rebars are considerable (almost 150MPa). This force

occurs due to shear force encountered in the column, this is located at the change of shear stiffness

from the core concrete column (1.2mx1.2m) to the stem of the T-shaped.

7.

The soil-structure-interaction was modelled by means of a contact analysis of the structure with an

assumed bounding media. The distribution of pressures on the bottom side of the foundation is

presented in Figure 12.

8.

The development of the shear force during incremental imposed displacement is given in Figure 13.

This shear force represents half of the total value due to the modelling of only half of a T-shaped

column. The total shear force at 2.6mm displacement is approximately 2x65=130Mp.

Shear cracking

Figure 7. Concrete principal stresses (maximum tensile principal stress - left / maximum

compressive principal stress - right)

Tensile stress

Crack state

Figure 8. Foundation Concrete Stress state Stress and Strain evolution against top displacement at

the upper side of foundation near the joint.

Transfer

force

concrete to rebar.

from

top side of foundation

Figure 9. Foundation top layer reinforcement stress evolution during incremental prestressing

displacement

Figure 10. Column concrete stress state - stress evolution during incremental prestressing

displacement

Longitudinal

reinforcement

Transfer stress

from cracked

concrete to the

longit. rebar

Hoop

reinforcement

Transfer

stress from

cracked

concrete to the

hoop rebar

Figure 11. Column reinforcement stress state - stress evolution during incremental prestressing

displacement

Aprox. 1.5mm

The column

shear force is

almost

unchanged

within this

range

(due to

concrete

cracking)

2.6mm

Figure 13. Column shear force (due to symmetry conditions this represents half of the total value)

10

Conclusions

The prestressing induced forces (like thermal loads) are self-limiting loads. This ability basically guarantees that

the prestressing induced forces cannot exceed a certain level they can only tend to relax themselves if

structural boundary conditions (such as restraints, anchors, various supports or other geotechnical conditions)

are changing as a response to these forces. This means that for a regular yielding system (either by structure

itself or by its boundary) no structural collapse occurs the system yields and accommodates the loading up to

equilibrium. Having this mentioned, it became clear that the allowable level for the remaining external forces

depends of the remanent prestressing induced stresses.

Another beneficial effect from prestressing point of view is redistribution of forces due to the concrete

cracking and the rocking/translation of foundation. The presstresing force driven out by column-foundationsoil mechanism in case of stiff soil is considerable larger than the case of soft soil in conjunction with presence

of concrete cracks.

The cracks of joint foundations cannot be closed once opened due to presstresing. The cracks can close (or

the concrete may even have been uncracked) if one of the following two limiting cases occurs:

a.

(from the entire chain of frames subject to prestressing) at top of its T-shaped column.

b.

The cracks of central foundation-column system can close (or may not even have been

opened) if foundation-column system is strong enough to withstand the post-tensioning

with or without the aid of additional selfweight of upper storeys but in such case the

prestressing shortening displacements would be significantly diminished for the central

division. Therefore, the desired level of prestressing might not be attained in case of central

division. Simply put, the prestressing level is directly related to the shortening displacements

encountered at both ends of the slab segment hence, for a given post-tensioning forces

the degree of prestressing might not be reached if these displacements are inhibited by a

strong soil-foundation-column system.

In reality none of these limiting cases (3a or 3b) occurs but more probable a combination of the two (as our

analyses illustrated), either way this for certain will not lead to structural collapse under deadweight combined

with a low seismic event. Hence, there is not much concern about structural collapse following a low-tomoderate seismic event, but more for the effectiveness of the overall infrastructural system in case that a major

seismic event would occurs. We consider that it is more a matter of the amount of residual stresses embedded

in the substructure due to slab presstresing, which in the most optimistic evaluation represents at least 35-45

percent of the allowable margin/capacity for the joint foundation-column system.

Our assessment shown out that in case of prestressing of a single division, the remanent stresses are low

enough to be ignored. To some extent, even in case of two adjacent divisions the residual stresses might not be

significant (considering a combined effect of rocking of perimeter foundation along with occurrence of low

intensity cracking of joint column-foundation system) yet it is recommended to provide a structural joint in

the foundation.

References:

1.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of

buildings. FEMA-356. November 2000

2.

Applied Technology Council Seismic Evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. ATC-40. California

Seismic Safety Commission. November 1996.

3.

SOLVIA Engineering AB SOLVIA Finite Element System version 03 Computer Program. 1987-2006.

Trefasgatan 3, SE-721, Sweden.

4.

SOLVIA Engineering AB The concrete material model in SOLVIA. Solvia Report. August 1995.

5.

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute PCI Design Handbook Precast and Prestressed Concrete. 6th

Edition. MNL 120-04, 2004.

11

- PT BuildingsUploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- Prestressed _ Solved ExamplesUploaded bySofya Sa
- Determination of Design Moments in Bridges Constructed WithUploaded byRaquel Pardal
- Bhavior of Bolted Column Beams ConnectionUploaded bysantino_gentile2893
- 116712601 Prestressed ConcreteUploaded byBlenteș Ionuț Virgil
- Bridge~1Uploaded bymohammed_fathelbab
- AGBT06-18 Guide to Bridge Technology Part 6 Bridge ConstructionUploaded byyas
- Aalami-reprintUploaded byneve08
- SjIwMTMzMzg=Uploaded byAnantPawar
- PTI TerminologyUploaded bySerhat Demirkol
- Bridge BearingsUploaded byshivani
- 130129-Journal Reprint-Bondy-Two-Way PT Slabs With Bonded TendonsUploaded byAnonymous ELujOV3
- Aci GuidesUploaded bylijiabinbin
- NoteUploaded byNadeem Hassoon
- Experimental ProblemUploaded bysanjusamson
- 04-2-TS_vOL-II_,Sec-IV,_FQP_R1.pdfUploaded bysanjeevchhabra
- What Are the Methods of Concrete Crack RepairUploaded bysadanand
- Ssl Pt Manual 2011 ExternalUploaded bykmabd
- BDM_copyUploaded byDannyChacon
- Parametric Study of Composite Steel Concrete Beams With External PrestressingUploaded byCivilEngineeringDiyala
- 2164 Prestressed Concrete StructuresUploaded byGggddd
- 17011 d 2026Uploaded byIkoka Rider
- Adapt Selection Guide FAQUploaded byGhaith Al-Hourani
- presentation_0.pptxUploaded byCahyadi Setiawan
- Single Lane BridgesUploaded byhsword7
- BrCnsInsSc7Uploaded byAli Zamanzadeh
- WikiEngineer __ Structural __ Concrete Column Interaction DiagramsUploaded bycalderonlucho
- ACI 10_08Uploaded bycorneliortiz
- Perrys_Chemical_Engineers_Handbook_9_th.pdfUploaded byYayan Indrayani
- Computational analysis of the interfacial bonding between feed-powder particles and the substrate in the cold-gas dynamic-spray processUploaded byStellina Zola

- Calc Armare Dt7Uploaded byDiana Vînaga
- Caracter is Tic i LeUploaded byDiana Vînaga
- IncarcariUploaded byDiana Vînaga
- 202 - Topsoil SalvagingUploaded byDiana Vînaga
- Norme Deviz W3 - Semnalizari Si Centralizari FeroviareUploaded bybabuliu
- Norme Deviz RpC - Reparatii ConstructiiUploaded byDiana Vînaga
- Paving Specs ListUploaded byDiana Vînaga
- Caier Sarcini - Structura MetalicaUploaded byDiana Vînaga
- [Architecture eBook] Richard Meier Architect, Vol 3 (1992-1998), Rizzoli, 1999_dg2005Uploaded byDiana Vînaga
- Detail Praxis - Timber ConstructionUploaded byaajz
- Introduction to Finite Element MethodUploaded byPrithviraj Daga
- Proiect SaveUploaded byDiana Vînaga
- Design Guidance for Strengthening Concrete Structures Using Fiber Composite Materials (2000)Uploaded byDiana Vînaga
- Strengthening of Rc Beams With Timber-frp Composite SystemUploaded byDiana Vînaga

- 2016 Gate Official (1)Uploaded byPrakash Chandra
- Ch 4 Financing DecisionsUploaded byAnkur Aggarwal
- Models of CommunicationUploaded byTrisha Ray
- ENGR_ECE_BSComputerEngUploaded byzroom28
- flassessUploaded byboporo
- A Comparative Study of Centroid-Based and Naïve Bayes Classifiers for Document CategorizationUploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- deUploaded byMark Jayson Contreras
- AbstractUploaded byBrix Laurence Abanilla
- ME 63-Lecture 2-AY 20112012Uploaded byAngel Edora
- BSC_PART_IIUploaded byAbhi Singh
- Sampa VideoUploaded bymilan979
- solutions1-12-1eUploaded byMario Zamora
- Vladislav Kotov, Detlev Reiter and Andrey S. Kukushkin- Numerical study of the ITER divertor plasma with the B2-EIRENE code packageUploaded byMsdsx
- ASTM E797 Pulso EcoUploaded bying.chemical
- AMJ Style GuideUploaded bypsmouse
- report.docxUploaded byErsin Seçkin
- Batch SettlingUploaded byJ Gustavo Lopez
- HIMANSHU.docxUploaded byBhaba Sankar
- Market ConcentrationUploaded byErthia
- Quantum Information Theory TutorialUploaded byMark M. Wilde
- Energy Input Effect on Morphology and Microstructure of Selective Laser MeltingUploaded byMuhammad Ahsan Saleem
- CS1354 GMUploaded byGovindaraju Mariyappan
- HW 9 SolutionsUploaded byDickySsiekumpaiIlusiounis
- 42Uploaded byVince Bagsit Policarpio
- (H)OjeLuza Press Release-UKUploaded byMargarida Sardinha
- Plastic Theory of Bending - Materials - Engineering Reference with Worked Examples.pdfUploaded byLK AnhDung
- scipy-refUploaded byfsbalto
- SEC Math 1 Teachers GuideUploaded byJay Vincent Hernandez
- Chemistry Acids and BasesUploaded bymzunl25476
- Xu RongUploaded bytran_huy1984

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.