Non Linear Analysis of RC Column PDF

Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Columns
Subjected to Combined Effects of Axial and Blast-induced

Transverse Loads
Prepared by
Mohamed Gamal Abdel-Wahab
1 Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Columns Subjected to Combined Effects of Axial and Blast-induced Traverse Loads 3/19/2018
1. Introduction
 Scaled distance (Z)
𝑅
𝑍 = 1/3
𝑊
• Z < 1.2 near field explosions
• Z ≥ 1.2 far field explosions
Reflected pressure
(Pr)
Charge weight
(W)
Barriers, Fence
Stand-off distance
(R)
Introduction
• Why blast
1. Introduction
World Trade Centre towers in New York City before and after explosion (dailymail 2016).
1. Introduction
Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, June 1996: before and after the bombing (Jébrak, 2014).
1. Introduction
Bomb attack on Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, 1995: before and after the attack (Osteraas 2006)
1. Introduction
• Why RC column!
The failure of RC column (main load-bearing structural element) may lead to total (partial) progressive collapse
in structural buildings.
1. Introduction (Main problem)
• Previous Standards have estimated the out-of-plane behavior of one-
way bending elements by utilizing E-SDOF system ignoring for RC
columns the effect of axial load. This presentation focuses on
analytically evaluating the response of RC columns under the both
effects of axial and lateral loads (blast
B loads).
A C
8
C
Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Columns Subjected to Combined Effects of Axial and Blast-induced Traverse Loads 3/19/2018
2. Analytical Model (Material Modeling)
Canadian (CSA S850-12) standard established numerical equations to determine the
dynamic design strength as follow:
𝑆𝐷 = 𝑆𝐼𝐹 ∗ 𝐷𝐼𝐹 ∗ 𝑆𝑆
Where, B
𝑆𝐷 : is the dynamic design strength
𝑆𝐼𝐹 : is the strength increase factor
𝐷𝐼𝐹 : is the dynamic increase factor
𝑆𝑆 : is the specific material static strength
A C
9
C
 Strength Increase Factor (SIF ):
1. The followed design concept is (the reduced theoretical load carrying capacity of
elements < the magnified applied load combination). So, one must use the
recommended magnification load factors and strength reduction factor to meet
structural integrity requirements imposed by the applied loads. Consequently,
the actual strength of materials supplied for using in construction will almost
exceed this value.
2. Concrete compressive strength is typically tested at the age of 28 days; however,
over time, concrete keeps gaining strength.
Material Property SIF
A
Concrete compressive strength 1.1
C
Yield strength of reinforcing steel 1.1
Ultimate strength of reinforcing steel 1.0
Yield strength of structural steel 1.1
10
C
 Dynamic Increase Factor “ Strain Rate Effect” (DIF ):
Stress-strain curves of grade 40 concrete at different strain rates (Ngo et al. 2007)
Stress-strain curves of grade 40 concrete at different strain rates (Ngo et al. 2007)
Very high Very high

Explosions Occur Milliseconds Produce pressure and temperature
30,000 Mpa 4,000º C
Difference in loading velocity between different types of loading, the values are
obtained in relation to static load
• Near field explosions:
• Far field explosions:

Material Property DIF
Concrete compressive strength 1.2
Yield strength of reinforcing steel 1.2
Ultimate strength of reinforcing steel 1.1
2. Analytical Model Divide the section into a number of fibers
perpendicular to the axis of loading
• Moment-Curvature Subroutine
Select an extreme fiber compression strain,
Fiber decomposition analysis staring with the lowest value (εc=0.0005)
Assume the neutral axis location
Calculate concrete and steel strain, stress,

and force at the center of each layer
Apply bisection method to adjust the neutral
axis location
Calculate the moment and curvature
Update the concrete fiber compression

strain
Continue incrementing the concrete fiber

Cross-section Strain Stress compression strain until the ultimate value is
reached
2. Analytical Modeling
Column Load
Propagation of deflected shape

Length Profile
Resistance Support [1] Elastic

Function Condition
Flexural Plastic
Rigidity Moment
[2] Elastic-Plastic
[3] Plastic
• Resistance-Function Subroutine
 The software program SAP 2000 is used to develop the out-of-plane resistance-functions for the
RC columns considering both axial lateral loads utilizing pushover analysis.
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
Load (kN)
2,000 SAP
1,500
ASCE
1,000
500
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Mid-Span Deflection (m)
Comparison between resistance function of RC column 0.3x0.9 m with a height of 4.5m and μ=2%
• Resistance-Function Subroutine
12,000
10,000
8,000
Load (kN)
6,000
SAP
4,000
ASCE
2,000
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Comparison between resistance function of RC column 0.3x1.2 m with a height of 4.5m and μ=2%
P
Elastic, elastic-plastic, and plastic deformations for RC column 0.3x0.9m with a height of 3m
700
D1 (m) 600 P2
0.0057
D2 (m) 500 K3
0.018 P1 K2
Load (KN)
K1 (N/m) 5.73E+07 400
K2 (N/m) 1.43E+07 300 SAP
K3 (N/m) 7.00E+05 200 K1 Tri-Linear Simulation
P1 (N) 4.30E+05 100
P2 (N) D1 D2
5.80E+05 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
• Load-Prediction Subroutine
 Charge weight (W)
 Stand-off distance (R)
 Simplified equations in CSA S580 standard
3
𝑍 = 𝑅Τ 𝑊
𝑧 = ln 𝑍
𝑥 = 𝑐𝑜 + 𝑐1 𝑧 + 𝑐2 𝑧 2 + 𝑐3 𝑧 3
𝑋 = ln 𝑥 Pr
Wave parameter c0 c1 c2 c3
X
Ir
Reflected Pressure 9.7457 -4.7276 1.1734 -0.1337
tr
Reflected impulse 6.7853 -1.3466 0.1010 -0.0112 Simplified pressure-time variation
For far-field explosions
2. Analytical Modeling Pr Z ≥ 1.2 m/kg 1/3
Blast load = uniformly
• Load-Prediction Subroutine lateral pressure
Ir
Reflected pressure (Pr)
Reflected impulse (Ir) tr
Blast duration 𝑡𝑟 = 2 𝐼𝑟 Τ𝑃𝑟
𝑡 L
Forcing load: 𝑃(𝑡) = 𝐹𝑃𝑟 1 − 𝑡𝑟
where, 𝐹𝑃𝑟 = 𝑃𝑟 𝐴𝑒 Pr
𝐴𝑒 = 𝑏 ∗ 𝐿
t
b
• Nonlinear-Analytical Subroutine
 Solve E-SDOF system using Newmark’s method to estimate the column response (time vs
displacement curve)
α Pu P(t)
ሶ 𝐹𝑠(𝑢) = 𝑃(𝑡)
𝐾𝐿𝑀 𝑀𝑢ሷ + 𝐶 𝑢 +
𝐾𝐿𝑀 = 𝐾𝑀 Τ𝐾𝐿
During blast
M
𝐾𝐿𝑀 𝑀𝑢ሷ + 𝐹𝑠(𝑢) = 𝑃(𝑡) Blast
Using transformation factors
load u
After blast
K C
ሶ 𝐹𝑠(𝑢) = 0
𝐾𝐿𝑀 𝑀𝑢ሷ + 𝐶 𝑢 +
Strain range Load-mass factor KLM
Elastic 0.77
Elastic-Plastic 0.78
Plastic 0.68
Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Columns Subjected
23 3/19/2018
to Combined Effects of Axial and Blast-induced Traverse Loads
umax
2. Analytical Modeling θmax
• Damage-Assessment Subroutine
 Maximum support rotation
𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2 𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 Τ𝐿
 Maximum mid-span deflection
Damage Limits
Superficial Moderate Heavy Hazardous
A B1 C D1
Hairline 0.5 mm Spalling Damage
cracks cracks cover core
B2 D2
Full yield Rnf. bars
1.5 mm cracks
3. Parametric Study Results
• Test matrix
 Five fixed-fixed RC columns with widths 30 cm and depths varies from 30 to 120 cm (aspect ratio
varies from 1/3 to 4.0).
 Two different heights 3.0 and 4.5m (slenderness ratio varies from 2.5 to 15).
 Six axial load ratio (α ) varies from 0 to 1.25 of ultimate axial load [ECP 203-2007].
 Two charge weights of 2000 and 1500 kg with scaled distance of 1.2 and 1.3 m/kg1/3 .
3. Parametric Study Results (Effect of axial load level)
• Moment-curvature relationship for RC column with a cross-section of 0.3x0.3 m
250
200 a=0%
Moment (kN.m)
a = 25 %
150
a = 50 %
100 a = 75 %
a = 100 %
50 a = 125 %
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Curvature (1/m)
• Resistance-function relationship for RC column with a cross-section of 0.9x0.3 m (i.e., aspect ratio
= 1/3) and a height of 3m.
3,000
2,500
a=0%
Load (kN)
2,000
a = 25 %
1,500 a = 50 %
a = 75 %
1,000
a = 100 %
500 a = 125 %
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Mid Span Deflection (mm)
= 1) and a height of 3m.
800
600
a=0%
Load (kN)
a = 25 %
400
a = 50 %
a = 75 %
200
a = 100 %
a = 125 %
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
3,500
3,000
2,500
a=0%
Load ((kN)
2,000
a = 25 %
1,500 a = 50 %
1,000 a = 75 %
a = 100 %
500
a = 125 %
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
8,000
7,000
6,000
Load (kN)
5,000 a=0%
4,000 a = 25 %
3,000 a = 50 %
2,000 a = 75 %
1,000 a = 100 %
a = 125 %
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

16,000
14,000
12,000 a=0%
Load (kN)
10,000 a = 25 %
8,000 a = 50 %
6,000 a = 75 %
4,000 a = 100 %
2,000 a = 125 %
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
• Support rotation of RC column with a cross-section of 0.9x0.3 m and a height of 3m due to the
explosion of 2000 kg charge weight at typical standoff distance of 15m.
5.000
4.000
Support Rotation (degree)
3.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
-1.000 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
-2.000 Time (sec)
-3.000
-4.000 a=0% a = 25 % a = 50 %
a = 75 % a = 100 % a = 125 %
explosion of 2000 kg charge weight at typical standoff distance of 15m.
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
-1.00 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
-2.00
-3.00 Time (sec)
-4.00
-5.00 a=0% a = 25 % a = 50 %
a = 75 % a = 100 % a = 125 %
explosion of 2000 kg charge weight at typical standoff distance 15m.
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
-0.001
-0.100 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.009 0.011 0.013 0.015
-0.200
-0.300 Time (sec)
-0.400
-0.500 a=0% a = 25 % a = 50 %
a = 75 % a = 100 % a = 125 %
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
-0.050
Time (sec)
-0.100
-0.150 a=0% a = 25 % a = 50 %
a = 75 % a = 100 % a = 125 %
0.080
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.000
-0.020 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
-0.040
Time (sec)
-0.060
-0.080 a=0% a = 25 % a = 50 %
a = 75 % a = 100 % a = 125 %
3. Parametric Study Results (Effect of column depth)
• Moment-curvature relationship
2,000
1,800
0.3m x 0.3m
1,600
Moment (kN.m)
1,400 0.3m x 0.6m

1,200 0.3m x 0.9m
1,000
0.3m x 1.2m
800
600
400
200
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Curvature (1/m)
• Resistance-function relationship (at a height of 3m)
12,000
10,000
Load (kN)
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
• Support rotation under the impact of 2000kg charge weight at typical stand-off distance of 15m
(at a height of 3m and no axial load is applied) on the support rotation
4.000 0.3m x 0.3m

3.000 0.3m x 0.6m
0.3m x 0.9m
2.000
0.3m x 1.2m
1.000
0.000
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
-1.000
-2.000
-3.000 Time (sec)
-4.000
3. Parametric Study Results (Effect of column width)
400
350
Moment (kN.m)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Curvature (1/m)
1,800
1,600
Load (kN)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
5.000
4.000 0.3m x 0.3m
3.000
2.000 0.9m x 0.3m
1.000
0.000
-1.000 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
-2.000
Time (sec)
-3.000
-4.000
3. Parametric Study Results (Effect of column orientation)
1,200
1,000
Moment (kN.m)
800
600
400
200
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Curvature (1/m)
6,000
5,000
Load (kN)
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
5.000
4.000
3.000 0.3m x 0.9m

2.000
0.9m x 0.3m
1.000
0.000
-1.000 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
-2.000 Time (sec)
-3.000
-4.000
3. Parametric Study Results (Effect of column height)
• Resistance-function relationship (at a cross-section of 0.3x0.3 m and no axial load is applied)
700
600
500
Load (KN)
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
3. Parametric Study Results (Effect of column height)
• Support rotation (at a cross-section of 0.3m x 0.3m and no axial load is applied)
6.000
L = 3.0 m
4.000 L = 4.5 m
2.000
0.000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-2.000
-4.000 Time (sec)
-6.000
3. Parametric Study Results (Effect of charge weight)
• Effect of changing charge weight on the support rotation for RC column cross-section of
0.3m x 0.3m with a height of 3m and no axial load is applied
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
-1.00 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
-2.00
-3.00 W = 2000 kg
-4.00 Time (sec) W = 1500 kg
3. Parametric Study Results (damage assessment)
• Failure assessment of RC column with a cross-section of 0.3m x0.6m and a height of 4.5m
under the impact of 2000kg charge weight at typical stand-off distance of 15m
1.8
Max. Support Rotation
1.6
Support Rotation, q (degree)
1.4 Superficial Damage

1.2
Moderate Damage B1
1.0
0.8 Moderate Damage B2
0.6 Heavy Damage
0.4
0.2 Hazardous Damage D1
0.0 Hazardous Damage D2
0 25 50 75 100 125
Axial Load Level, a
4. Case Study
• Assessment of progressive collapse for a generic three-dimensional reinforced concrete building was carried
out under the influence of two different blast scenarios utilizing sudden column loss approach.
4. Case Study
• The first threat scenario
4. Case Study
• The first threat scenario
4. Case Study
• The second threat scenario
4. Case Study
• The second threat scenario
5. Conclusion
Effect of axial load level
lateral resistance for lateral resistance for

increase the
column with aspect ratio < 1 column with aspect ratio > 1
resisting moment
Increasing axial at (Pu ≥ 75%) < lateral at any level of Pu> lateral
up to 100% Pu
resistance at (Pu= 0) resistance at (Pu= 0)
load level
(W =2000kg,
L=3m) decrease θmax up to it is recommended to consider the enhancement in lateral
a certain value varies behavior of RC columns (with aspect ratio more than one)
from 75% till 100% Pu conversely, higher precautions must be considered during
due to the buckling analysis RC columns with aspect ratios less than one
phenomenon under the impact of lateral loads
5. Conclusion
Effect of aspect ratio
typically increase increase the resisting improve greatly column’s

the column depth moment of inertia lateral properties
Increasing aspect
ratio 0.3 to 0.6m 0.6 to 0.9m
(L= 3m- Pu = 0 lateral resistance increases 4 times lateral resistance increases 2.2 times
- W= 2000kg) support rotation decreases 7.5 times support rotation decreases 3 times
0.9 to 1.2m it is recommended to increase the

lateral resistance increases 1.9 times exterior column's aspect ratio that
support rotation decreases 2.14 times are typically more vulnerable to
blast loads
5. Conclusion
Effect of column width
Increasing column
width (0.3 to 0.9m)
(L= 3m, Pu = 0, increase the resisting increase the lateral increase support
moment 2.75 times resistance 2.7 times rotation 1.1 times
W= 2000kg)
Effect of column orientation

Changing column
orientation from
0.9 x 0.3m to 0.3x 0.9m increase the resisting increase the lateral decrease support
(L= 3m, Pu = 0 moment 3 times resistance 3.3 times rotation 26 times
,W= 2000kg)
5. Conclusion
Effect of column height
Increasing column
height from 3.0 to 4.5m increase support
(0.3x0.3m, Pu = 0, increase the slenderness decrease the lateral
rotation 1.5 times
ratio from 10 to 15 resistance 1.5 times
W= 2000kg) (W = 2000kg, Pu = 0)
Effect of charge weight

Increasing charge weight
from 1500 to 2000kg increase the max. mid-span
increase the max. support
(0.3x0.3m, L= 3m, Pu = 0) deflection from 6.1 cm to 8.8 cm
rotation 1.5 times
5. Conclusion
Progressive collapse
Case study buildings designed to only resist vertical loads may not able to resist blast loads
and therefore may expose to partial (total) progressive collapse.
References
• Due to the increasing in terrorist attacks and in order to mitigate the impact of
blast damaged, a list of national codes, standards, and researches were developed
such as:
Modern Protective Dynamics of
CSA S850-12 ASCE 59-11 UFC 3-340-02 Structures Structures
Thanks

Non Linear Analysis of RC Column PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Non Linear Analysis of RC Column PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Columns

Subjected to Combined Effects of Axial and Blast-induced

Very high Very high

• Far field explosions:

Assume the neutral axis location

Calculate concrete and steel strain, stress,

Calculate the moment and curvature

Update the concrete fiber compression

Continue incrementing the concrete fiber

Propagation of deflected shape

Resistance Support [1] Elastic

Reflected impulse (Ir) tr

Blast duration 𝑡𝑟 = 2 𝐼𝑟 Τ𝑃𝑟

Superficial Moderate Heavy Hazardous

varies from 1/3 to 4.0).

Mid-Span Deflection (m)

1,400 0.3m x 0.6m

4.000 0.3m x 0.3m

3.000 0.3m x 0.9m

-4.000 Time (sec)

1.4 Superficial Damage

lateral resistance for lateral resistance for

typically increase increase the resisting improve greatly column’s

0.9 to 1.2m it is recommended to increase the

Effect of column orientation

Effect of charge weight

You might also like