A Research Critique

on
‘Experimental Investigation on the Seismic Behavior and Damage States of
Reinforced High Strength Concrete Columns’
A. Taheri, A. Tasnimi, A. Moghadam

(2019)

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

From the initial interpretation of the study based on the title, it presents that the
study will focus primarily on High Strength Concrete (HSC), its seismic behavior and
damage states. However, on the introduction and review of related literature, HSC was
not defined. From this, it can be concluded that the study’s intended audience would be
the people who is well aware of the technicalities pertaining to HSC. The researchers
could have included the description of HSC, including its behavior, when subjected to
seismic motions, and compare it with the Normal Strength Concrete (NSC). Moreover,
even for the Civil Engineers, the commonly used type of concrete is the NSC. It would
give a better impact if the differences between HSC and NSC were discussed. The
readers will have a better understanding on the study if the main topic was properly and
thoroughly defined.

The review of related literature presents several related studies focusing on the
concrete’s axial capacity and how the different configurations of steel reinforcement will
affect the behavior of the HSC. It was discussed that several studies are being
conducted in order to improve the HSC’s existing behavior in terms of its seismic
adaptability. The researchers presented that in relation to their present study, several
other researchers conducted experimental investigation following ACI’s publication on
the guidelines for the HSC.

Problem Description
 Relative to the aforementioned efforts of the researchers to study the behavior of
HSC in terms of its seismic capacity, this research study aimed to investigate the cyclic
behavior and damage states versus the performance level of standard reinforced HSC
designed for Special Moment Frame (SMF) systems. The statement of the problem was
written as is. The statement demonstrates an unclear comparison, because it was not
specified as to what type of performance level the researchers intended to consider.
The cyclic behavior and damage states form part of the performance level of the
concrete, thus, the performance level that the researchers wanted was not clearly
defined as to what terms. In addition, the HSC will be compared to another HSC. A
better comparison would have been made to NSC, for a more diverse outcome, as well
as to display how high-strength this HSC really is, compared to the NSC.

On the other hand, it was defined that the research design would be
experimental investigation. The experimental specimens were made in accordance to
the specifications on the Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, which is
stated in ACI-318. The specimens will be subjected to axial compression load and cyclic
lateral displacements. The outcome of the experiment aims to identify the most
influential parameter, but the researchers did not clearly define the parameters that
were considered. Since this is an experimental setup, the variation in the independent
variables will greatly affect the outcome of the study. Nevertheless, the researchers
made a notation that observations were thoroughly addressed in the study.

Modeling, Results, Analysis, and Conclusion

The shape and dimensions of the experimental specimens are impressive. The
researchers accounted the beam-column connection, making a T-shape specimen and
extended the column size to the point of contraflexure. They also installed steel hinges
on both ends of the column, to simulate the point of contraflexure at the mid-height of
the column. Moreover, the researchers provided two types of reinforcement
configurations; however, it was not discussed why they made the variation and the
basis for it, since they established in the beginning that the specimens were made in
accordance with ACI specifications. The researchers made a summary table on the
properties and specifications of all the test specimens used. However, the labeling of
the specimens was not discussed, and it is quite difficult to understand and differentiate
the labeling.

On the other hand, the testing procedure of this study is highly technical. Many
types of tests and variations were being considered at the same time. In this procedure,
the specimens were subjected to a lot of observations, and these observations were
accounted using the incorporation of machines, attached to the test specimens. For
readers who do not have much knowledge on the types of test used, this study will be
difficult to comprehend.

In terms of the observation of damage progression on the test specimens, the

loading activities were done one at a time, each loading precedes another. The
development in the damages were clearly defined, both with documented definitions
and pictures. Thus, the damage levels were displayed precisely.

Based on the investigation into the progression of the damage in the test
specimens, the researchers concluded that HSC still exhibits instability in terms of
collapse. Thus, more studies are required to further study the behavior of the HSC.

Comments and Suggestions

The experimental procedure discussed in the study demonstrates a very

remarkable experimental procedure on the seismic behavior of high strength concrete.
However, the experimental specimens, as well as the setup, including testing, involves
many highly technical machines, which will make it difficult to continue, since it may
involve financial repercussions. The use of HSC proposes an impressive improvement
in the concrete construction. However, the complexity on terms of materials testing, as
demonstrated in this study, also presents a new issue, which pertains to the additional
costs and the availability of materials testing.