Smart TecHnologies & Advanced Knowledge in Earthquake Engineering

Organized by the Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc (ASEP)

November 14-16, 2019

Deterioration of Steel
Columns Subjected to
Seismic Loading

TRAN TUAN NAM, Dr.Eng.

HUTECH University of Technology, HCMC
Deputy Dean, Faculty of Civil Engineering
tt.nam@hutech.edu.vn

1
About speaker

Tran Tuan Nam

 Received Doctor degree from Tokyo Institute of
Technology (Tokyo Tech, Japan)
 Research experience: Center for Urban Earthquake
Engineering (Tokyo Tech), Structural Engineering
Research Center (Tokyo Tech).
 Current position: Deputy Dean, Faculty of Civil
Engineering, Hochiminh City University of
Technology (HUTECH, Vietnam).
 Research interests: Dynamics of Structures,
Nonlinear Structural Analysis, Steel Structures,
Energy-based Earthquake Engineering.
HO CHI MINH CITY

8
HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY (HUTECH)

9
Outline

1. Introduction about E-Defense shake-table

2. Collapse experiment on 4-story full-scale steel building

3. Soft-story collapse mechanism due to column deterioration

4. Analysis of two-directional column deterioration

5. Enery dissipation at collapse excitation level

10
10
E-Defense Shaking Table

E-Defense

11
11
E-Defense Shaking Table

E-Defense Test Project on Steel Structures

4-story Steel Bldg. 5-story Steel Bldg. 3-story Controlled Rocking

(Collapse Test) (Passive Controlled) Steel Frame
12
Full-scale Collapse Test using E-Defense

Pseudo acceleration (g)

 Specimen: Full-scale 4-Story Steel Building X-dir.
2 Y-dir.
 Input ground motion: Takatori acceleration
(Kobe earthquake 1995) various scale factors 1

 Shaking until collapse 0

0 0.5 1 1.5
Period (s)
13
Full-scale Collapse Test using E-Defense

Design-level Beyond design-level

Evaluate
performance Determine
- Structural Safety margin
against collapse
- Non-structural

14
Full-scale Collapse Test using E-Defense

Accelerometers Velocimeters Disp.transducers Strain gauges

97 ch. 10 ch. 246 ch. 588 ch.

Processing data

15
 Floor displacement

Floor acceleration
 Column

Base & Anchor bolt

17
 Beam
Panel zone

18
Video clip

19
20
2.5 Two-directional soft-story behavior

Absolute story displacement orbit (5.5 – 6.5s)

0.1 sec increment

Axes are scaled up 5 times

21
2.5 Two-directional soft-story behavior

Absolute story displacement (100% Takatori)

Structure Structure
0.1 sec increment Story Instability
Story
4 4 5.90s
5.90s
6.00s

3
6.00s
3 6.10s Y dir.
6.10s 6.20s
5.90s 5.90s
6.20s 6.30s
2 2
6.30s 6.40s
6.40s 6.50s
1 X dir. 6.50s
1

utotX (mm) utotY (mm)

0 0
400 200 0 utotX
-200(mm)
-400 -600 -800 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

0 -200 -400 -600 -800

Shake-table Shake-table

22
Local buckling and deterioration of first-story columns

Half
Cycle
cycle
(b)
(a)(c)

Collapse
rX (rad)
-0.04
rX (rad)
-0.08 6.1s 6.3s
-0.02 6.5s
5.9s
rY (rad) -0.04 Collapse
0 5.7s
0
0.02
rY (rad)
0.04
0.04 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04

Story drift orbit

1st-story deformation (100% Takatori)

23
23
Local buckling and deterioration of first-story columns

Video recorded at bottom of

column A2
(100% Takatori)

Two-directional column deteriorations

24
24
Local buckling and deterioration of first-story columns
• MY early reached to peak capacity and then deteriorated due to local buckling.
 Column bottom moment
• MX developed later but couldvs.not achievedrift
first-story high capacity as well as linear relation
ratio
Axialthe
 with force
increasing story drift rY because of the damage by local buckling.
(low-pass filtered)
Column B3 (100% Takatori)
• A similar situation repeated in the subsequent cycles (b) and (c).

25
25
Local buckling and deterioration of first-story columns

Column strength factor R

  
2
4  N  max  M X , M Y  3  min M X , M Y
2

R     

3  Ny  Mp 4 Mp 
 

Ny - yield axial strength

Mp - plastic moment in case of zero axial force

 R = 1 shows the interaction of N, MY, and MX at the yield

surface.
 If the column is stable, factor R should increase in
accordance with the increase of deformation.
Inoue I. Theory and design of steel structures (in Japanese), Kyoto University Press, 2003

26 26
Local buckling and deterioration of first-story columns

Column strength factor R

  
2
4  N  max  M X , M Y  3  min M X , M Y
2

R     

3  Ny  Mp 4 Mp 
 

Ny - yield axial strength

Mp - plastic moment in case of zero axial force

 When yielding occurs, if N increases, then moment

capacity decreases.
 Judgment of column deterioration due to local buckling
can be made whenever R reaches peak and then declines
Inoue I. Theory and design of steel structures (in Japanese), Kyoto University Press, 2003
while story deformation still increases. 27
27
 Local buckling and deterioration of first-story columns
100% Takatori

B1 B2 B3

A1 A2 A3
(rad)
0.06

A1
0.04 A2
A3
B1
B2
0.02 B3

0
6
Reductions of R
① ② ③
B2 (at 3.33 sec)
B3 (at 3.37 sec)

28 28
Local buckling and deterioration of first-story columns

Skeleton curve obtained from hysteretic loops

(adapted from Yamada et al, 2012)

Yamada, S., Ishida, T., and Shimada, Y. (2012) Hysteresis Model of RHS Columns
in the Deteriorating Range Governed by Local Buckling, Journal of Structural and
Construction Engineering, Transactions of AIJ, Vol.77, No.674, pp.627-636 (in
Japanese) 29
29
Local buckling and deterioration of first-story columns

N/Ny ≈ –0.2 to +0.0

(small compression)
B1 B2 B3

N/Ny ≈ –0.3 to +0.1

(moderate compression)

Skeleton curve obtained from hysteretic loops

(adapted from Yamada et al, 2012)

N/Ny ≈ –0.4 to +0.2

(large compression)

Yamada, S., Ishida, T., and Shimada, Y. (2012) Hysteresis Model of RHS Columns
in the Deteriorating Range Governed by Local Buckling, Journal of Structural and
Construction Engineering, Transactions of AIJ, Vol.77, No.674, pp.627-636 (in
Japanese)
30
Structural model and material property of multi-spring element

The multi-spring (MS) element that consists of springs

discretizing the cross section at each column end is used to
simulate the moment deterioration by local buckling.

31
Structural model and material property of multi-spring element

Dynamic analyses of Column axial force time-history

biaxial column bending
INPUT
with varying axial load
1st-story drift
(100% Takatori) ratio orbit

32
32
Energy input and dissipation at various shaking levels
relative floor velocity
floor lumped mass
n input acceleration
Earthquake input energy E in     u m u dt
i 1
i i g
two time-dependent quantities

40 20% Takatori α=1

40% Takatori α=1/2
Scaled input(a) X-direction
energy α2Ein 60% Takatori α=1/3
30
α2Ein (kNm)

α2Ein (kNm)
100% Takatori α=1/5

40 20
X direction 20% Takatori 40 Y direction
(a) X-direction 40% Takatori
60% Takatori (b) Y-direction
30 30
α2Ein (kNm)

α2Ein (kNm)
100% Takatori

20
10
20

10 10
0
0 0
2 3
2 4 5
3 6
4 2 3
5 4
6
5 6
t (s)
t (s) t (s)

33
33
Energy input and dissipation at various shaking levels
• 20-40% Takatori: α2Ein was almost similar, in both X and Y dir.
• 60% Takatori: α2Ein started to increase since yielding occurred.
• 100% Takatori: α2Ein nearly twice those in previous levels.

40 20% Takatori α=1

40% Takatori α=1/2
Scaled input(a) X-direction
energy α2Ein 60% Takatori α=1/3
30
α2Ein (kNm)

α2Ein (kNm)
100% Takatori α=1/5

40 20
X direction 20% Takatori 40 Y direction
(a) X-direction 40% TakatoriHalf cycle (c) Half cycle (c)
60% Takatori (b) Y-direction
30 30
α2Ein (kNm)

α2Ein (kNm)
100% Takatori
10 Cycle (a) Cycle (b) Cycle (a) Cycle (b)
20 20

10 10
0
0 0
2 3
2 4 5
3 6
4 2 3
5 4
6
5 6
t (s)
t (s) t (s)

34
34
Energy input and dissipation at various shaking levels
In the last half cycle (c), instantaneous input energy along Y direction increased
to a remarkable peak, similar for all excitation levels.

Scaled instantaneous input energy 40 20% Takatori

40% Takatori
100 100 (a) X-direction 60% Takatori
X direction
(c) X-direction 30
Y direction
(d) Y-direction

α2Ein (kNm)
α2[dEin/dt] (kNm/s)

100% Takatori

α2[dEin/dt] (kNm/s)
50 50
20

0 10 0

-50 0 -50
2 3 4 5 6 2 2 33 44 55 6 6
t (s) tt (s)
(s)

Scaled input energy α2Ein

100%
40
Takatori: during 20%
halfTakatori
cycle (c), 40
(b)YY-direction
(a) X-direction 40% Takatori
direction
input
30 energy increased100% rapidly
Takatori giving
60% Takatori
30
α2Ein (kNm)

α2Ein (kNm)

more
20 dissipating demand to the 20

deteriorated
10 frame, consequently 10
caused
0
extra large displacement. 0
2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6
t (s) t (s)
35
35
Energy dissipation at collapse excitation level

60% Takatori 100% Takatori

Qacc,Y (kN) Qacc,Y (kN)

1500 6.0s 1500
5.97s
6.0s

5.7s rY (rad) 5.7s

-0.02 0.03 -0.02 0.02 0.06
rY (rad)
∆E60 ∆E100= (1/0.6)2 ∆E60
-1500 -1500

Story shear vs. story drift ratio (1st story, Y dir.)

The 100% Takatori motion is 1/0.6 = 1.66 times the 60% Takatori motion
► its input energy should be 1.662 = 2.76 times (if the structure is elastic)

36
36
Energy dissipation at collapse excitation level
Scaled floor relative velocity
0.3 0.3
The building rapidly translated
(e)XX-direction
direction and
(f)Y collapsed toward Y dir.
direction
Y-direction
0.2 0.2
αu (m/s)

αu (m/s)
0.1 0.1
. 0
. 0

-0.1 -0.1

-0.2 -0.2
2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6
t (s) t (s)

Total earthquake input energy (100% Takatori) Larger response velocity and
1000 more vulnerable in Y-dir, although
X direction total input energies are almost
Ein (kNm)

equal in X- and Y-dir.

500
Y dir.
► Structural vulnerability cannot
t (s)
0
be simply predicted by total input
2 3 4 5 6 7 energy.

37
37
Energy dissipation at collapse excitation level
Accumulated energy dissipation at each story level

1000 E (kN.m) X direction 1000 E (kN.m) Y direction

Half cycle (c)
Half cycle (c)
800 800 4th Story
3rd Story
600 600 2nd Story
4th Story
1st Story
Cycle (b) 3rd Story
400 400
2nd Story
1st Story Cycle (b)
Cycle (a)
200 200
Cycle (a)

0 0
3.55s 4.65s 6.57s 3.55s 4.65s 6.57s

With the sudden increase of earthquake input energy in the Y direction during
the last half cycle (c), the rapidly dissipated energy was mostly concentrated in
the first story causing the soft-story collapse mechanism in the Y direction.

38
38
Concluding remarks

 Test results showed totally different deteriorating patterns amongst columns because
their axial force magnitudes differed considerably due to the column locations.
 The cycle-by-cycle shifting of the principal direction of biaxial bending moments
caused the initiating damage in one direction and consequently reducing the capacity
in the other direction.
 MS element can clarify the physics of accumulated column damage by characterizing
the complex three-dimensional deformation of the local buckling behavior based on
the approximate uniaxial stress-strain hysteretic relation of each spring. 39
 THANK YOU

TRAN TUAN NAM

Hochiminh City University of Technology (HUTECH, Vietnam)

The author acknowledges Prof. Kazuhiko Kasai, Prof. Satoshi Yamada (Tokyo Institute of Technology,
Japan), Dr. Bruce F. Maison (California, US), Prof. Motohide Tada (Osaka University, Japan) and Dr.
Yuko Shimada (Chiba University, Japan) for their enthusiastic technical support.
40