KDOT COLUMN EXPERT: PUSHING THE ENVELOPE TO … › conferences.k-state...KDOT COLUMN EXPERT:...

KDOT COLUMN EXPERT: PUSHING THE ENVELOPE TO

EXTREME EVENTS

Hayder A. Rasheed, Ph.D., P.E., Fellow ASCE

Kansas State University

1

Presentation Outline

• Introduction

• Objectives

• Software Historical Perspective

• Software Interface

• Benchmarks Against Experiments

• Software Walk Through

• Conclusions

2

Introduction

• AASHTO LRFD extreme load event simulates truck impacts to bridge piers

• A 600 kip force applied at 0-15ᵒ, with respect to traffic direction, is specified

• No tools were available to assess the extreme ultimate capacity of bridge piers

3


• Introduction

• Objectives





• Conclusions

4

Objectives

• Develop software that can predict the extreme interaction envelop of circular and rectangular bridge piers

• Include different aspects like transverse steel and FRP confinement

• Help the bridge engineer assess the actual capacity of bridge piers in light of the extreme load event imposed

5


• Introduction

• Objectives





• Conclusions

6

Software Historical Perspective

• Years of Development

2007-2015

• KDOT Vision and Support Team

Ken Hurst

John Jones

Calvin Reed

Loren Risch

7


• KTRAN projects used to build the software

KSU-07-21 Circular Column: Confinement

KSU-10-06 Circular Column: FRP Confinement

and Rectangular Column: Phase 1

KSU-11-03 Rectangular Column: Phase 2

KSU-13-07 Rectangular Column: FRP Confinement

KSU-14-08 Circular Column: Shear-Flexure

Unfunded Rectangular Column: Shear-Flexure8


• K-State Development Team

Hayder Rasheed, Ph.D. P.E. F.ASCE (P.I.)

Ahmed Abd El Fattah, Ph.D., LEED AP, Developer

Ahmed Al-Rahmani, Ph.D., Developer

Alaaeldin Abouelleil, M.S., Developer

• Program versions released

Version 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 5.0, 5.1, 6.0, 7.0

9


• Introduction

• Objectives





• Conclusions

10

Software Interface

11

1 2 3

4

5

Software Interface

12

../ACI-SanAntonio-S09/release/TestClr.exe

../ACI-SanAntonio-S09/release/TestClr.exe


• Introduction

• Objectives





• Conclusions

13

Benchmarks Against Experiments

14

Diameter (H): 23.65 in

Clear Cover: 0.8 in

Longitudinal Steel: 16#8

Spiral Diameter: 0.394 in

Spiral Spacing: 2.95 in

F’c: 4.118 ksi

Fy: 43.5 ksi

Fyh: 43.5 ksi

• Case 1:

Source: Predictions of Ultimate Behavior of Confined Columns

Subjected to Large Deformations

By: Apostolos Fafitis and Surendra P. Shah

15


16


17

Benchmarks Against ExperimentsDiameter (H): 23.65 in

Clear Cover: 0.8 in




F’c: 3.857 ksi

Fy: 43.5 ksi

Fyh: 43.5 ksi




• Case 2:

18


19


20

Diameter (H): 23.65 in

Clear Cover: 0.8 in




F’c: 4.77 ksi

Fy: 43.5 ksi

Fyh: 61.3 ksi





• Case 3:

21


22


Clear Cover: 0.8 in




F’c: 4.71 ksi

Fy: 43.5 ksi

Fyh: 40.6 ksi




• Case 4:

23


24

Benchmarks Against ExperimentsDiameter (H): 16 in

Clear Cover: 0.512 in




F’c: 7.29 ksi

Fy: 71 ksi

Fyh: 68 ksi

Source: Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns Under Variable Axial

Loads.

By: Asad Esmaily and Yan Xiao

• Case 5:

25


26



Longitudinal Steel:18(0.236 in)



F’c: 5.7 ksi

Fy: 65.2 ksi

Fyh: 36.25 ksi

Source: Capacity of Circular Bridge Columns Subjected to Base

Excitation.

By: Lawrence L. Dodd and Nigel Cooke.

• Case 6:

27


28






F’c: 4.06 ksi

Fy: 42.78 ksi

Fyh: 46.4 ksi

Source: Observed Stress-Strain Behavior of Confined Concrete.

By: J. B. Mander, N. M. J. Priestley, and R. Park

• Case 7:

29


30






F’c: 4.49 ksi

Fy: 42.9 ksi

Fyh: 49.3 ksi

Source: Observed Stress-Strain Behavior of Confined Concrete.

By: J. B. Mander, N. M. J. Priestley, and R. Park

• Case 8:

31


32


33


34


35


36


37


38


39

Benchmarks Against ExperimentsA Study of combined bending and axial

load in reinforced concrete members

Eivind Hogenstad

Length = 10 in.

Width = 10 in.

Cover = 1.5 in.

Long. Steel = 8 bars with

area of 2.4 in2 each.

fy = 43.8 ksi.

fc = 5.1 ksi.

Lateral Steel Diam. = 0.25 in.

fyh = 61.6 ksi.

Spacing = 8 in.

40


41

Benchmarks Against ExperimentsDesign criteria for reinforced columns

under axial load and biaxial bending

Boris Bresler

Length = 8 in.

Width = 6 in.

Cover = 1.1875 in.

Long. Steel = 4 # 5 .

fy = 53.5 ksi.

fc = 3.7 ksi.


fyh = 53.5 ksi.

Spacing = 4 in.

42


43

Benchmarks Against ExperimentsDesign criteria for reinforced columns

under axial load and biaxial bending

Boris Bresler

Length = 8 in.

Width = 6 in.

Cover = 1.1875 in.

Long. Steel = 4 # 5 .

fy = 53.5 ksi.

fc = 4.0 ksi.


fyh = 53.5 ksi.

Spacing = 4 in.

44


45

Benchmarks Against ExperimentsConfined columns under eccentric loading

Murat Saatcioglu. Amir Salamat and Salim Razvi

Length = 8.27 in.

Width = 8.27 in.

Clear Cover = 0.5 in.

Long. Steel = 8 bars with area

of 0.155 in2 each.

fy = 75 ksi.

fc = 4.97 ksi.


fyh = 59.45 ksi.

Spacing = 1.97 in.

46


47


Length = 8.27 in.

Width = 8.27 in.

Clear Cover = 0.5 in.

Long. Steel = 12 bars with area

of 0.155 in2 each.

fy = 75 ksi.

fc = 4.96 ksi.


fyh = 59.45 ksi.

Spacing = 1.97 in.

Confined columns under eccentric loading

Mural Saatcioglu. Amir Salamat amd Salim Razvi

48


49


50


51


52


53


f’c = 6.16 ksi

fy = 67.425 ksi

fyt = 66.625 ksi

Long. Steel Dia. = 0.77 in

Lat. Steel = #3

Spacing = 11.8 in

Ef = 2864.33 ksi (GFRP)

εfu = 2.28%

tf = 0.05 in

n = 2

Memon M, Sheikh S. Seismic resistance of square concrete columns retrofitted with glass fiber-

reinforced polymer. ACI Struct J 2005;102(5):774–83.

54


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Axi

al F

orc

e (

kip

)

Resultant Moment (kip.ft)

MS2

55




f’c = 6.19 ksi

fy = 67.425 ksi

fyt = 66.625 ksi


Lat. Steel = #3

Spacing = 11.8 in

Ef = 2864.33 ksi (GFRP)

εfu = 2.28%

tf = 0.05 in

n = 4

56


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Axi

al F

orc

e (

kip

)


MS3

57




f’c = 6.28 ksi

fy = 67.425 ksi

fyt = 66.625 ksi


Lat. Steel = #3

Spacing = 11.8 in

Ef = 2864.33 ksi (GFRP)

εfu = 2.28%

tf = 0.05 in

n = 2

58


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Axi

al F

orc

e (

kip

)


MS4

59




f’c = 6.34 ksi

fy = 67.425 ksi

fyt = 66.625 ksi


Lat. Steel = #3

Spacing = 11.8 in

Ef = 2864.33 ksi (GFRP)

εfu = 2.28%

tf = 0.05 in

n = 1

60


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Axi

al F

orc

e (

kip

)


MS5

61


f’c = 2.94 ksi

fy = 77.5 ksi

fyt = 60 ksi

Long. Steel = 6 #4

Lat. Steel Dia.= 0.31 in

Spacing = 5.91 in

Harajli M, Rteil A. Effect of confinement using fiber-reinforced polymer or fiber-reinforced concrete on

seismic performance of gravity load-designed columns. ACI Struct J 2004;101(1):47–56.

62


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Axi

al F

orc

e (

kip

)


HR1-a

63


Harajli M, Rteil A. Effect of confinement using fiber-reinforced polymer or fiber-reinforced concrete on

seismic performance of gravity load-designed columns. ACI Struct J 2004;101(1):47–56.

f’c = 3.06 ksi

fy = 77.5 ksi

fyt = 60 ksi

Long. Steel = 6 #4


Spacing = 5.91 in

Ef = 33350 ksi (CFRP)

εfu = 1.5%

tf = 0.005 in

n = 1

64


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Axi

al F

orc

e (

kip

)


HR2-a

65


f’c = 2.76 ksi

fy = 63.66 ksi

fyt = 52.93 ksi

Long. Steel Dia.= 0.79 in


Spacing = 7.09 in

Wang, Y. C., and Hsu, K., (2007). “Design of FRP-wrapped reinforced concrete columns for enhancing axial load carrying

capacity.” Composite Structures, 82(1), 132-139.

66


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Axi

al F

orc

e (

kip

)


CS0

67

Benchmarks Against ExperimentsWang, Y. C., and Hsu, K., (2007). “Design of FRP-wrapped reinforced concrete columns for enhancing axial load carrying


f’c = 2.76 ksi

fy = 63.66 ksi

fyt = 52.93 ksi



Spacing = 7.09 in

Ef = 2972.5 ksi (GFRP)

εfu = 2%

tf = 0.05 in

n = 2

68


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Axi

al F

orc

e (

kip

)


CS2

69



f’c = 2.76 ksi

fy = 63.66 ksi

fyt = 52.93 ksi



Spacing = 7.09 in


εfu = 2%

tf = 0.05 in

n = 6

70


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Axi

al F

orc

e (

kip

)


CS6

71



f’c = 2.76 ksi

fy = 63.66 ksi

fyt = 52.93 ksi



Spacing = 7.09 in

72


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Axi

al F

orc

e (

kip

)


CR0

73



f’c = 2.76 ksi

fy = 63.66 ksi

fyt = 52.93 ksi



Spacing = 7.09 in


εfu = 2%

tf = 0.05 in

n = 2

74


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Axi

al F

orc

e (

kip

)


CR2

75



f’c = 2.76 ksi

fy = 63.66 ksi

fyt = 52.93 ksi



Spacing = 7.09 in


εfu = 2%

tf = 0.05 in

n = 6

76


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Axi

al F

orc

e (

kip

)


CR6

77


• f’c = 4.15 ksi

• fy = 53.07 ksi

• fyt = 53.36 ksi

• Clear Cover = 0.67 in

• Spacing = 1.97 in

• Axial Force = 48.33 kip

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

She

ar (

Kip

)

Moment (K.ft)

Arakawa et al. (1987) Unit 6

Proposed work

Failure

78


• f’c = 3.857 ksi

• fy = 43.935 ksi

• fyt = 43.5 ksi




0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

She

ar (

Kip

)

Moment (K.ft)

Ang et al. (1981) Unit 3

Proposed work

Failure

79


• f’c = 4.814 ksi

• fy = 54.09 ksi

• fyt = 45.24 ksi




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

She

ar (

Kip

)

Moment (K.ft)

Davey et al. (1975) Unit 1

Proposed work

Failure

80


• f’c = 4.67 ksi

• fy = 48.87 ksi

• fyt = 43.5 ksi




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 50 100 150 200

She

ar (

Kip

)

Moment (K.ft)

Zahn et al. (1986) No.5

Proposedwork

Failure

81


• f’c = 5.62ksi

• fy = 34.8 ksi

• fyt = 34.8 ksi




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 10 20 30 40 50

She

ar (

Kip

)

Moment (K.ft)

Petroviski et al. (1984) M1E1

Proposed work

Failure

82


• f’c = 13.05 ksi

• fy = 60.755 ksi

• fyt = 60.9 ksi




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

She

ar (

Kip

)

Moment (K.ft)

Saatcioglu et al. (1999) Unit RC9

Proposed work

Failure

83


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Shea

r (k

ip)

Moment (kip.ft)

Axial Force = 0 kip

Response-2000 KDOT Column Expert Experiment

Aboutaha, R. S., Engelhardt, M. D.; Jirsa, J. O., and Kreger, M. E., (1999). "Rehabilitation of shear

critical concrete columns by use of rectangular steel jackets." ACI Structural Journal 96(1): 68-78.

84


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Shea

r (k

ip)

Moment (kip.ft)

Axial Force = 30 kip


Pujol; S., (2002). Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns subjected to displacement reversals.

(Doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

85

Benchmarks Against ExperimentsPujol; S., (2002). Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns subjected to displacement reversals.

(Doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Shea

r (k

ip)

Moment (kip.ft)



86


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Shea

r (k

ip)

Moment (kip.ft)



Melek, M., and Wallace, J. W., (2004). "Cyclic behavior of columns with short lap splices", ACI

Structural Journal, 101(6), 802-811.

87

Benchmarks Against ExperimentsMelek, M., and Wallace, J. W., (2004). "Cyclic behavior of columns with short lap splices", ACI

Structural Journal, 101(6), 802-811.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Shea

r (k

ip)

Moment (kip.ft)




• Introduction

• Objectives





• Conclusions

88


• Introduction

• Objectives





• Conclusions

89

Conclusions

• What are we waiting for, let’s go ahead and use it

90

91

Thank you for Listening

KDOT COLUMN EXPERT: PUSHING THE ENVELOPE TO … › conferences.k-state...KDOT COLUMN EXPERT:...

Documents

Transcript of KDOT COLUMN EXPERT: PUSHING THE ENVELOPE TO … › conferences.k-state...KDOT COLUMN EXPERT:...