Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
The seismic performance of ultra-high-performance concrete–high-strength steel pier was studied using fiber elements,
which are capable to model accurately elastic–plastic behavior of members with fibers of different material constitutive
relations. For high-strength steel–ultra-high-performance concrete piers, the modified Kent–Park model was utilized to
describe the compressive stress–strain relations of ultra-high-performance concrete and high-strength steel-confined
ultra-high-performance concrete, respectively, by determining four key parameters. A finite element model was estab-
lished to simulate the hysteretic response; conduct parameter analysis including axial load ratio, longitudinal reinforce-
ment ratio, and transverse reinforcement ratio; and assess the maximum ground acceleration capacity based on inelastic
response spectra for high-strength steel–ultra-high-performance concrete piers. The conclusions are summarized that
modified Kent–Park model is proved to be effective due to experimental data. The calculated hysteretic curves of high-
strength steel–ultra-high-performance concrete piers show good agreement with the experimental results. Three para-
meters have evident effects on seismic performance of high-strength steel–ultra-high-performance concrete piers, which
indicates that various seismic demands can be achieved by reasonable parameter settings. Compared to nonlinear
dynamic analysis based on finite element model, the results provided by inelastic response spectra are less conservative
for short high-strength steel–ultra-high-performance concrete piers under high axial load ratio.
Keywords
Ultra-high-performance concrete, high-strength steel, seismic performance, confinement, stress–strain relations, fiber
elements, parameter analysis, inelastic response spectra, nonlinear dynamic analysis
Introduction
1
Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures,
For bridge engineering in seismic region, reinforced Ministry of Education, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
concrete (RC) piers are usually designed to be ductile 2
National Engineering Research Center for Prestressing, Southeast
components to absorb earthquake energy using lateral University, Nanjing, China
reinforcement. With development of society, exterior
Corresponding author:
loading including traffic loading becomes heavier, Jingquan Wang, National Engineering Research Center for Prestressing,
resulting in huger piers and larger lateral reinforcement, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China.
which is very uneconomical choice. With higher Email: wangjingquan@seu.edu.cn
Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
compressive strength, improved toughness, and Mohd Hisham.19 Using fiber elements, an FEM is
increased damage tolerance, ultra-high-performance established for HSS–UHPC piers based on OpenSees
concrete (UHPC) is more suitable for heavily loaded platform.20 8 HSS–UHPC piers tested are used to ver-
structural components than traditional concrete in seis- ify the FEM, which is utilized later to conduct para-
mic region.1–3 meter analysis on seismic behavior affected by axial
Over the last two decades, a number of studies force ratio, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and trans-
focused on the material properties of UHPC such as verse reinforcement ratio. Dependent on the FEM,
ductility, toughness, fracture energy, strain hardening, nonlinear dynamic analysis is used to assess maximum
and deformation capacity under both tension and com- ground acceleration capacities of HSS–UHPC piers
pression loading, which proves UHPC a promising due to inelastic response spectrum.
material for structural application.4,5 To take full
advantage of UHPC, high-strength steel (HSS) is a
good choice to work together. A series of pseudo-static
Material constitutive models
tests on HSS–UHPC piers under axial load were con- To establish FEM with fiber elements, reasonable uni-
ducted to study the seismic performances including axial constitutive models are required to reflect actual
energy dissipating capacity and deformation capacity.6–10 stress–strain relations of HSS, UHPC, and HSS-con-
But all researches aforementioned were based on the fined UHPC. For HSS, OpenSees platform provides
experimental results and the number of specimens is reinforcing steel material, which is based on the uniax-
very limited. To accelerate the application of HSS– ial steel model proposed by Chang and Mander21 and
UHPC piers in seismic zones, further researches includ- can consider the effect of plastic strain amplitude and
ing finite element model (FEM) are necessary. buckling. Moreover, reinforcing steel material gives
For FEM, compared to resultant section model, three parameters to reflect hysteretic laws incorporating
fiber elements can represent more accurately important degradation behavior with strain range and the number
aspects of structural response including the interaction of cycles. In this article, the three parameters were
of axial load and biaxial bending moment, confinement equal to the values suggested by Mazzoni et al.22 More
effect, and material softening behavior.11 As a result, information can be seen in Figure 1.22
the nonlinear seismic performance of RC members is Concrete 02 given by OpenSees platform is used
popularly researched with fiber elements derived from commonly to simulate unconfined or confined con-
divided sections integrated by concrete and reinforcing crete. For skeleton curves, the modified Kent–Park
steel fibers.12,13 Similar to RC members, modeling seis- model was used to describe compressive behavior of
mic behavior of HSS–UHPC piers with fiber elements unconfined or confined concrete.11,18 The model pro-
requires uniaxial constitutive laws referring to skeleton posed by Mohd Hisham19 was used to express tensile
curves and hysteretic laws of UHPC, and HSS-con- behavior and reflect tensile damage. The parameters
fined UHPC at first. required are shown in Figure 2.
Some attentions have been focused on uniaxial As seen in Figure 2, the tensile behavior of Concrete
stress–strain skeleton curves of UHPC, most of which 02 is simplified to a piecewise expression including two
are only used to predict bearing capacity of members linear functions.19 Due to the slope of the first linear
and cannot reflect the entire stress–strain curve includ- function equal to initial elastic modulus of the
ing post-peak zone.5,8,14–16 Compared to UHPC, only a
few trial researches have been conducted on uniaxial
stress–strain skeleton curves of HSS-confined UHPC.3,8
What is more, the uniaxial hysteretic laws of both
UHPC and HSS-confined UHPC have not been
reported so far.
For the monotonic envelope curves of confined or
unconfined concrete in compression, the modified
Kent–Park model, which was proposed by Kent and
Park17 and extended later by Scott et al.,18 is a good
choice to balance between simplicity and accuracy,
even though more accurate and complete models have
been published.12
In this article, the uniaxial compressive stress–strain
curves of UHPC and HSS-confined UHPC are
expressed in modified Kent–Park model. Other uniaxial
constitutive laws of UHPC and HSS-confined UHPC
are assumed to conform to the model proposed by Figure 1. Parameters of reinforcing steel material.
Wang et al. 3
Figure 4. Comparison of uniaxial compressive stress–strain Figure 5. Comparison of uniaxial compressive stress–strain
curves of UHPC to experimental data. curves of HSS-confined UHPC to experimental data.
As seen in Figure 3, when kE is equal to 0.85 or 0.7, scon, pk = lsh spk 1 + 1:8rw fyv =(lsh spk ) ð12Þ
the equivalent elastic modulus obtained by the modi-
fied Kent–Park model agrees well with the experimen- econ, 0 = e0 1 + 5rw fyv =(lsh spk ) ð13Þ
tal value. From equation (9), kE is closer to 1.0, spk is
closer to the accurate peak stress of UHPC, so where rw is the area ratio of transverse reinforcement
kE = 0.85 in this article is suggested to reflect the rea- to core UHPC and fyv is the yield strength of transverse
sonable peak stress and elastic modulus of UHPC in reinforcement.
the meantime. For general concrete, lrsspk is proposed Referring to general concrete, lcon,rs is suggested to
to be 0.2sB.23 To consider the effect of lsh and kE, lrs be 0.2.18 From the stress–strain curve obtained by
is suggested to be 0.30 conservatively. Sugano et al.,8 lcon,rsscon,pk and econ,20 can be calculated
From the stress–strain curve obtained by Sugano as follows
et al.,8 lrsspk and e20 can be calculated as follows
scon, pk (60, 000 econ, 20 )
lcon, rs scon, pk = ð14Þ
spk 60, 000 econ, 0
lrs spk = 0:65spk 0:0103 e20 0:65 ð10Þ
Ec
So econ,20 can be predicted as follows
So e20 can be predicted as follows
econ, 20 = 60, 000(1 lcon, rs ) + lcon, rs econ, 0 ð15Þ
(0:65 lrs )spk 0:65spk
e20 = + ð11Þ To verify the model of HSS-confined UHPC, trial
0:0103 Ec
values of three specimens are used to compare with the
Now, the results of the proposed model are com- results of the model in Figure 5. As seen in Figure 5,
pared to the experimental curves of four specimens in the theoretical results are in good agreement with test.
Figure 4. Because the modified Kent–Park model leads Sugano et al. offered detailed information of the above
to a little larger elastic modulus of UHPC than the three specimens.8
experimental results, good agreements can be obtained It is noted that the uniaxial hysteretic laws of both
on the whole. Detailed information of four specimens UHPC and HSS-confined UHPC have not been
can be provided by Sugano et al.8 reported so far. In this research, the above two types of
materials are assumed to conform to the hysteretic laws
Uniaxial compressive stress–strain relation of HSS- proposed by Mohd Hisham,19 which include the gra-
dual degradation of stiffness under unloading and
confined UHPC
reloading in compressive and tensile behavior.22 More
Similar to UHPC, HSS-confined UHPC based on the details can be given by Mohd Hisham.19
modified Kent–Park model is determined by four para-
meters including spk, e0, lrs, and e20. To make a distinc-
tion between UHPC and HSS-confined UHPC, spk, e0, FEM of HSS–UHPC piers using fiber
lrs, and e20 are marked as scon,pk, econ,0, lcon,rs, and elements
econ,20, respectively.
From former researches,8 the peak stress scon,pk and
Principle of fiber element model
respective strain econ,0 of HSS-confined UHPC can be In fiber element model, an element is divided into sev-
calculated as follows eral sections at integration points along the axial
Wang et al. 5
whether it is lateral force or ground motion. In plastic material models of UHPC and HSS-confined UHPC
hinge, the section is divided into many fibers represent- cannot consider the effect of steel fiber on compressive
ing cover UHPC, confined UHPC, and HSS, respec- behavior. But for HSS–UHPC piers with steel fiber, the
tively. Suitable number of fibers should be selected to FEM can be still reckoned to be effective.
balance between accuracy and efficiency. Here, the
cover UHPC part is divided into 176 fibers. At the
same time, the confined UHPC part is divided into 400 Parameter analysis based on FEM
fibers. A steel bar is expressed by a fiber alone.
Parameter analysis was conducted to study the influ-
Notably, two key parameters are necessary but have
ence of three parameters including h, rl, and transverse
not been reported for HSS–UHPC piers, which are the
length of plastic hinge region Lp and equivalent stiffness reinforcement ratio rw on seismic behavior which refers
of linear elastic region EIeff. So they have no choice but to damping ratio j, residual drift ratio, and ductility
to be determined referring to RC piers. factor m of HSS–UHPC piers subjected to cyclic lateral
Paulay and Priestley26 conducted a series of tests on loading and constant axial load. Cyclic loading with a
RC piers and gave the computational formula of Lp loading history was applied as specified in ACI 374.1-
05,28 as shown in Figure 10.
Lp = 0:08L + 0:022fy ds >0:044fy ds ð16Þ From the hysteretic responses, j in each cycle is cal-
culated as29
where L is the shear span length of the pier and fy and
ds are the yield strength and diameter of the longitudi- Eh
j= ð18Þ
nal reinforcement, respectively. 4pEe
From pseudo-static tests of RC piers, Berry et al.27
gave the expression of EIeff by regression analysis where Eh is the dissipated energy calculated from the
enclosed area within the hysteretic loops, and Ee is the
P L elastic energy calculated from the maximum displace-
EIeff = 0:15 + + 0:035 + 0:1rl Ec Ic 6Ec Ic ð17Þ
Ag s B h ment and peak load in each cycle, in Figure 11,
Ee = 0.5x1y1.29
where P is the axial force, Ag is the area of cross section, From Figure 12, ductility factor m is calculated as
h is the height of pier cross section, rl is the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio, and Ic is the inertia moment of pier um
m= ð19Þ
cross section provided by concrete. uy
03FM168 500 200 0.3 207 4f7.1 mm at 50 mm 1400 12f10 mm 729 18,700 2
03FM05 500 200 0.3 202 2f7.1 mm at 75 mm 1400 12f10 mm 729 18,700 2
03NF16 500 200 0.3 199 4f7.1 mm at 50 mm 1400 12f10 mm 729 18,700 0
06FM05 500 200 0.6 214 2f7.1 mm at 75 mm 1400 12f10 mm 729 18,700 2
06FM16 500 200 0.6 230 4f7.1 mm at 50 mm 1400 12f10 mm 729 18,700 2
06FM23 500 200 0.6 218 4f7.1 mm at 35 mm 1400 12f10 mm 729 18,700 2
Unit7029 560 280 0.3 171.3 3f7.1 mm at 35 mm 1361 8f19 mm 1201 18,800 1
Unit60310 500 250 0.6 206.8 4f6.4 mm at 40 mm 1403 12f13 mm 729 18,700 1
b: width of cross section; h= so/csB, so: axial stress; h: axial load ratio.
Wang et al. 7
Effects of axial load ratio and N-6. Other parameters were the same as the above
The effects of axial load ration were studied by six spe- standard specimen.
cimens, of which the axial load ratios were h = 0.1, In Figure 13, j of all specimens at the ultimate drift
ratio are over 15%. At the same drift ratio, when drift
h = 0.15, h = 0.25, h = 0.3, h = 0.4, and h = 0.55,
respectively, corresponding to N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4, N-5, ratio is less than 5%, j becomes smaller with h up to
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
0.25 and then rises. When drift ratio is over 5%, j In conclusion, for HSS–UHPC piers with less trans-
increases with h larger than 0.15. verse reinforcement, h should not be too large so that
As seen in Figure 14, at the same drift ratio, the resi- the piers have good ductility, excellent energy dissipat-
dual drift ratio decreases with h up to 0.15 and then ing capacity, and less residual deformation.
gets larger. Among all specimens, the residual drift ratio
of N-3 is the largest up to 3% that is over the limit 1% Effects of longitudinal reinforcement ratio
proposed by Japanese Road Association.30 L-1, L-2, L-3, L-4, and L-5 were configured by 12 long-
Figure 15 shows that m declines very rapidly in the itudinal reinforcements with different diameters which
form of exponential function with h up. When h is over were 18, 22, 25, 28, and 32 mm, respectively. Other
0.4, m is less than 4.0, meaning the pier cannot satisfy parameters were the same as the above standard
general ductility seismic requirement. specimen.
Wang et al. 9
Figure 16. Variation in damping ratio j relative to drift ratio Figure 19. Variation in damping ratio j relative to drift ratio
for different longitudinal reinforcement ratios. for different transverse reinforcement ratios.
Figure 17. Variation in residual drift ratio relative to drift ratio Figure 20. Variation in ductility factor relative to transverse
for different longitudinal reinforcement ratios. reinforcement ratios.
Figure 18. Variation in ductility factor relative to longitudinal Figure 21. Variation in residual drift ratio relative to drift ratio
reinforcement ratios. for different transverse reinforcement ratios.
Specimen Initial stiffness, Yield strength, Yield displacement, Maximum deflection, Ductility, m
k (kN/mm) Fy (kN) uy (mm) um (mm)
Table 3. Estimation of the maximum ground acceleration capacity due to inelastic response spectrum.
Tc# and Td# can be calculated as follows step, and near-fault ground motions with forward
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi directivity were selected to excite each piers in Table 4.
aV u_ g 2m 1 PGA of each ground motion was adjusted to 1.0 at
Tc0 = 2p ð23Þ
aA €ug m first, and FEM of each HSS–UHPC pier was subjected
to a series of excitations with gradually increasing
aD ug amplitudes starting from 0.05Acal by an increment of
Td 0 = 2p ð24Þ
aV u_ g 0.05Acal until failure of the pier. For example, 03FM16
8. The strength reduction factor Ry is calculated as could sustain the EL-Centro ground motion up to
follows 0.80Acal (PGA = 0.190g), but failed in 0.85Acal. So AOS
was deemed to be 0.190g. Other results are listed in
8 Table 4.
>
> 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Tn 6Ta0
>
> Acal and AOS obtained are compared in Figures 23 and
< 10:56( 2m 1 1)T n
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
R= p 1:32 0:32 2m 1 Ta0 Tn 6Tb0 ð25Þ
+ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 24. As seen in Figure 23, AOS/Acal can be regarded to be
>
> equal to 1 on the whole. But Acal becomes a little larger
>
> 2m 1 Tb0 Tn 6Tc0
: than AOS with Acal up in Figure 24, meaning the results
m Tn Tc0
of inelastic response spectra are not always conservative
9. From Ryfy = Acalm,32Acal of HSS–UHPC pier for short HSS–UHPC pier under heavy axial load.
can be predicted as follows Moreover, for all specimens, maximum ground
acceleration capacities excited by near-fault ground
Acal = motions with forward directivity are less than those
8 excited by other two types of ground motion; in other
> fy =m Tn 6Ta0
>
>
>
> Ry fy words, near-fault ground motions with forward direc-
>
> m½10:56(aA 1)Tn 0:32aA + 1:32 Ta0 Tn 6Tb0
>
> tivity are more subversive for HSS–UHPC piers which
>
> Tb0 Tn 6Tc0
< Ry fy =(maA )
>
ð26Þ have small shear length and are subjected to large axial
Ry fy Tn =(0:25paV m0 Tc0 Tn 6Td 0 load. This is probably because near-fault ground
>
>
>
> Ry fy Tn2 =(0:37p2 aD m) Td 0 Tn 6Te0 motions with forward directivity contain rich high-
>
>
>
> Ry fy Tn2 frequency components.
>
> Te0 Tn 6Tf 0
>
> 0:37p 2 (14:35T + 14:35a T + 1:43a )m
n D n D
:
Ry fy Tn2 =(0:37p2 m) Tn Tf 0
Conclusion
In the following calculation, j is assumed to be 5% This article utilized FEM based on OpenSees platform
conservatively. Table 3 lists Acal of each pier. to research seismic performance of HSS–UHPC piers.
The following conclusions can be drawn:
Prediction of maximum ground acceleration capacity (1) Two stress–strain models were proposed to
reflect well uniaxial compressive relations of
due to nonlinear dynamic analysis UHPC and HSS-confined UHPC based on
Three groups of ground motions including far-field modified Kent–Park model, compared with
ground motions, near-fault ground motions with fling trial data.
12 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Table 4. Estimation of the maximum ground acceleration capacity due to nonlinear dynamic analysis.
Ground motion 03FM16 03FM05 03NF16 06FM05 06FM16 06FM23 Unit702 Unit603
Far-field ground EL-Centro 0.190 0.168 0.229 0.101 0.090 0.104 0.322 0.099
motions BBD 0.213 0.190 0.219 0.072 0.078 0.089 0.315 0.119
KAU046 0.166 0.161 0.229 0.064 0.070 0.074 0.280 0.099
KCT 0.178 0.168 0.209 0.100 0.078 0.089 0.315 0.099
LCP 0.190 0.168 0.159 0.072 0.070 0.067 0.245 0.099
Average 0.187 0.171 0.209 0.082 0.077 0.085 0.295 0.103
Near-fault ground TCU052 0.178 0.190 0.169 0.077 0.078 0.074 0.245 0.107
motions with fling TCU065 0.308 0.307 0.299 0.096 0.123 0.148 0.400 0.162
step TCU068 0.213 0.204 0.180 0.083 0.090 0.096 0.263 0.126
TCU075 0.213 0.190 0.209 0.064 0.078 0.088 0.280 0.087
TCU087 0.154 0.153 0.149 0.056 0.066 0.074 0.228 0.087
Average 0.213 0.209 0.201 0.075 0.087 0.096 0.283 0.114
Near-fault ground Northridge-SCE 0.213 0.204 0.209 0.082 0.090 0.104 0.315 0.115
motions with TCU051 0.130 0.139 0.129 0.048 0.053 0.059 0.192 0.071
forward directivity TCU054 0.130 0.139 0.139 0.056 0.062 0.067 0.210 0.087
TCU082 0.154 0.139 0.149 0.056 0.062 0.059 0.228 0.087
TCU102 0.166 0.161 0.159 0.059 0.070 0.067 0.228 0.087
Average 0.159 0.156 0.157 0.060 0.067 0.071 0.235 0.089
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank their research group mem-
bers for their help to finish this article. Meantime, the authors
Figure 24. Comparison of maximum ground acceleration appreciate the University of California for developing the free
capacities resulting from two methods. OpenSees platform.
(2) An FEM of HSS–UHPC pier using fiber ele- Declaration of conflicting interests
ments was established based on OpenSees plat-
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
form, which can provide the hysteretic response respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
consistent with experimental data. article.
Wang et al. 13
28. ACI Committee. Acceptance criteria for moment frames h height of cross section
based on structural testing and commentary (ACI 374.1- Ic inertia moment of cross section
05). Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, k initial stiffness of piers
2006. kE modified factor considering the modulus
29. Priestley MJN, Seible F and Calvi GM. Seismic design of UHPC
and retrofit of bridges. New York: John Wiley & Sons, L shear span length of piers
1996. Lp length of plastic hinge region
30. Japanese Road Association. Design specifications of high- m mass equal to axial load
way bridges. Part V: seismic design. Tokyo, Japan: Japa-
P axial force
nese Road Association, 1996.
31. Zohrevand P and Mirmiran A. Seismic response of ultra-
Ry strength reduction factor
high performance concrete-filled FRP tube columns. J Tn natural period
Earthquake Eng 2013; 17: 155–170. ug peak ground displacement
32. Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures. 3rd ed., Upper Sad- u_ g peak ground velocity
dle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008. €ug peak ground acceleration
33. Newmark NM and Hall WJ. Earthquake spectra and um maximum displacement of piers
design, earthquake engineering. Berkeley, CA: Research uy yield displacement of piers
Institute, 1982.
ec strain of concrete
econ, 0 strain respective to peak stress for HSS-
Appendix 1 confined UHPC
Notation econ, 20 begin strain of resident strength for HSS-
confined UHPC
Acal maximum ground acceleration capacity et, u ultimate strain of UHPC
due to inelastic response spectra e0 strain respective to peak stress
Ag area of cross section e20 begin strain of resident strength
AOS maximum ground acceleration capacity h axial load ratio
due to results of FEM lcon, rs ratio of resident strength to peak stress for
b width of cross section HSS-confined UHPC
c cover thickness lrs ratio of resident strength to peak stress
ds diameter of longitudinal reinforcement lsh shape factor (assumed to be 0.85)
Ec equivalent elastic modulus of UHPC m ductility factor
Ee elastic energy j damping ratio
Eh dissipated energy rl longitudinal reinforcement ratio
EIeff equivalent stiffness of linear elastic region rsf , V amount of steel fiber (%)
Es initial elastic tangent modulus of rw transverse reinforcement ratio
reinforcing steel material sB cylinder compressive strength of UHPC
Esh tangent modulus at initial strain sc stress of concrete
hardening for reinforcing steel material scon, pk peak stress of confined UHPC
fy yield strength of longitudinal spk peak stress of concrete
reinforcement st, pk peak stress of UHPC
Fy yield strength of piers
fyv yield strength of transverse reinforcement