kdot column expert: pushing the envelope to … › conferences.k-state...kdot column expert:...
Post on 26-Jun-2020
10 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
Presentation Outline
• Introduction
• Objectives
• Software Historical Perspective
• Software Interface
• Benchmarks Against Experiments
• Software Walk Through
• 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
Presentation Outline
• Introduction
• Objectives
• Software Historical Perspective
• Software Interface
• Benchmarks Against Experiments
• Software Walk Through
• Conclusions
6
Software Historical Perspective
• Years of Development
2007-2015
• KDOT Vision and Support Team
Ken Hurst
John Jones
Calvin Reed
Loren Risch
7
Software Historical Perspective
• 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
Software Historical Perspective
• 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
Presentation Outline
• Introduction
• Objectives
• Software Historical Perspective
• Software Interface
• Benchmarks Against Experiments
• Software Walk Through
• Conclusions
10
Software Interface
11
1 2 3
4
5
Software Interface
12
Presentation Outline
• Introduction
• Objectives
• Software Historical Perspective
• Software Interface
• Benchmarks Against Experiments
• Software Walk Through
• 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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
16
Benchmarks Against Experiments
17
Benchmarks Against ExperimentsDiameter (H): 23.65 in
Clear Cover: 0.8 in
Longitudinal Steel: 16#8
Spiral Diameter: 0.394 in
Spiral Spacing: 1.97 in
F’c: 3.857 ksi
Fy: 43.5 ksi
Fyh: 43.5 ksi
Source: Predictions of Ultimate Behavior of Confined Columns
Subjected to Large Deformations
By: Apostolos Fafitis and Surendra P. Shah
• Case 2:
18
Benchmarks Against Experiments
19
Benchmarks Against Experiments
20
Diameter (H): 23.65 in
Clear Cover: 0.8 in
Longitudinal Steel: 16#8
Spiral Diameter: 0.394 in
Spiral Spacing: 2.76 in
F’c: 4.77 ksi
Fy: 43.5 ksi
Fyh: 61.3 ksi
Benchmarks Against Experiments
Source: Predictions of Ultimate Behavior of Confined Columns
Subjected to Large Deformations
By: Apostolos Fafitis and Surendra P. Shah
• Case 3:
21
Benchmarks Against Experiments
22
Benchmarks Against ExperimentsDiameter (H): 23.65 in
Clear Cover: 0.8 in
Longitudinal Steel: 16#8
Spiral Diameter: 0.63 in
Spiral Spacing: 2.95 in
F’c: 4.71 ksi
Fy: 43.5 ksi
Fyh: 40.6 ksi
Source: Predictions of Ultimate Behavior of Confined Columns
Subjected to Large Deformations
By: Apostolos Fafitis and Surendra P. Shah
• Case 4:
23
Benchmarks Against Experiments
24
Benchmarks Against ExperimentsDiameter (H): 16 in
Clear Cover: 0.512 in
Longitudinal Steel: 12#4
Spiral Diameter: 0.25 in
Spiral Spacing: 1.26 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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
26
Benchmarks Against ExperimentsDiameter (H): 7.87 in
Clear Cover: 0.43 in
Longitudinal Steel:18(0.236 in)
Spiral Diameter: 0.157 in
Spiral Spacing: 1.1 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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
28
Benchmarks Against ExperimentsDiameter (H): 19.68 in
Clear Cover: 0.98 in
Longitudinal Steel: 12#5
Spiral Diameter: 0.393 in
Spiral Spacing: 4.68 in
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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
30
Benchmarks Against ExperimentsDiameter (H): 19.68 in
Clear Cover: 0.98 in
Longitudinal Steel: 8#9
Spiral Diameter: 0.472 in
Spiral Spacing: 2.04 in
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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
32
Benchmarks Against Experiments
33
Benchmarks Against Experiments
34
Benchmarks Against Experiments
35
Benchmarks Against Experiments
36
Benchmarks Against Experiments
37
Benchmarks Against Experiments
38
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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.
Lateral Steel Diam. = 0.25 in.
fyh = 53.5 ksi.
Spacing = 4 in.
42
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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.
Lateral Steel Diam. = 0.25 in.
fyh = 53.5 ksi.
Spacing = 4 in.
44
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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.
Lateral Steel Diam. = 0.364 in.
fyh = 59.45 ksi.
Spacing = 1.97 in.
46
Benchmarks Against Experiments
47
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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.
Lateral Steel Diam. = 0.346 in.
fyh = 59.45 ksi.
Spacing = 1.97 in.
Confined columns under eccentric loading
Mural Saatcioglu. Amir Salamat amd Salim Razvi
48
Benchmarks Against Experiments
49
Benchmarks Against Experiments
50
Benchmarks Against Experiments
51
Benchmarks Against Experiments
52
Benchmarks Against Experiments
53
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
Memon M, Sheikh S. Seismic resistance of square concrete columns retrofitted with glass fiber-
reinforced polymer. ACI Struct J 2005;102(5):774–83.
f’c = 6.19 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 = 4
56
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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)
MS3
57
Benchmarks Against Experiments
Memon M, Sheikh S. Seismic resistance of square concrete columns retrofitted with glass fiber-
reinforced polymer. ACI Struct J 2005;102(5):774–83.
f’c = 6.28 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
58
Benchmarks Against Experiments
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Axi
al F
orc
e (
kip
)
Resultant Moment (kip.ft)
MS4
59
Benchmarks Against Experiments
Memon M, Sheikh S. Seismic resistance of square concrete columns retrofitted with glass fiber-
reinforced polymer. ACI Struct J 2005;102(5):774–83.
f’c = 6.34 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 = 1
60
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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)
MS5
61
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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
)
Resultant Moment (kip.ft)
HR1-a
63
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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
Lat. Steel Dia.= 0.31 in
Spacing = 5.91 in
Ef = 33350 ksi (CFRP)
εfu = 1.5%
tf = 0.005 in
n = 1
64
Benchmarks Against Experiments
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Axi
al F
orc
e (
kip
)
Resultant Moment (kip.ft)
HR2-a
65
Benchmarks Against Experiments
f’c = 2.76 ksi
fy = 63.66 ksi
fyt = 52.93 ksi
Long. Steel Dia.= 0.79 in
Lat. Steel Dia.= 0.39 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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Axi
al F
orc
e (
kip
)
Resultant Moment (kip.ft)
CS0
67
Benchmarks Against ExperimentsWang, 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.
f’c = 2.76 ksi
fy = 63.66 ksi
fyt = 52.93 ksi
Long. Steel Dia.= 0.79 in
Lat. Steel Dia.= 0.39 in
Spacing = 7.09 in
Ef = 2972.5 ksi (GFRP)
εfu = 2%
tf = 0.05 in
n = 2
68
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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
)
Resultant Moment (kip.ft)
CS2
69
Benchmarks Against ExperimentsWang, 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.
f’c = 2.76 ksi
fy = 63.66 ksi
fyt = 52.93 ksi
Long. Steel Dia.= 0.79 in
Lat. Steel Dia.= 0.39 in
Spacing = 7.09 in
Ef = 2972.5 ksi (GFRP)
εfu = 2%
tf = 0.05 in
n = 6
70
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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
)
Resultant Moment (kip.ft)
CS6
71
Benchmarks Against ExperimentsWang, 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.
f’c = 2.76 ksi
fy = 63.66 ksi
fyt = 52.93 ksi
Long. Steel Dia.= 0.79 in
Lat. Steel Dia.= 0.39 in
Spacing = 7.09 in
72
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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
)
Resultant Moment (kip.ft)
CR0
73
Benchmarks Against ExperimentsWang, 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.
f’c = 2.76 ksi
fy = 63.66 ksi
fyt = 52.93 ksi
Long. Steel Dia.= 0.79 in
Lat. Steel Dia.= 0.39 in
Spacing = 7.09 in
Ef = 2972.5 ksi (GFRP)
εfu = 2%
tf = 0.05 in
n = 2
74
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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
)
Resultant Moment (kip.ft)
CR2
75
Benchmarks Against ExperimentsWang, 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.
f’c = 2.76 ksi
fy = 63.66 ksi
fyt = 52.93 ksi
Long. Steel Dia.= 0.79 in
Lat. Steel Dia.= 0.39 in
Spacing = 7.09 in
Ef = 2972.5 ksi (GFRP)
εfu = 2%
tf = 0.05 in
n = 6
76
Benchmarks Against Experiments
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Axi
al F
orc
e (
kip
)
Resultant Moment (kip.ft)
CR6
77
Benchmarks Against Experiments
• 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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
• f’c = 3.857 ksi
• fy = 43.935 ksi
• fyt = 43.5 ksi
• Clear Cover = 0.79 in
• Spacing = 1.97 in
• Axial Force = 966.64 kip
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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
• f’c = 4.814 ksi
• fy = 54.09 ksi
• fyt = 45.24 ksi
• Clear Cover = 0.67 in
• Spacing = 2.56 in
• Axial Force = 85.42 kip
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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
• f’c = 4.67 ksi
• fy = 48.87 ksi
• fyt = 43.5 ksi
• Clear Cover = 0.51 in
• Spacing = 5.31 in
• Axial Force = 124.76 kip
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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
• f’c = 5.62ksi
• fy = 34.8 ksi
• fyt = 34.8 ksi
• Clear Cover = 1.3 in
• Spacing = 2.95 in
• Axial Force = 32.6 kip
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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
• f’c = 13.05 ksi
• fy = 60.755 ksi
• fyt = 60.9 ksi
• Clear Cover = 0.32 in
• Spacing = 1.97 in
• Axial Force = 415.88 kip
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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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
Response-2000 KDOT Column Expert Experiment
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)
Axial Force = 60 kip
Response-2000 KDOT Column Expert Experiment
86
Benchmarks Against Experiments
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)
Axial Force = 240 kip
Response-2000 KDOT Column Expert Experiment
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)
Axial Force = 360 kip
Response-2000 KDOT Column Expert Experiment
Presentation Outline
• Introduction
• Objectives
• Software Historical Perspective
• Software Interface
• Benchmarks Against Experiments
• Software Walk Through
• Conclusions
88
Presentation Outline
• Introduction
• Objectives
• Software Historical Perspective
• Software Interface
• Benchmarks Against Experiments
• Software Walk Through
• Conclusions
89
Conclusions
• What are we waiting for, let’s go ahead and use it
90
91
Thank you for Listening
top related