Experimental research and post-earthquake reconnaissance have demonstrated that reinforced concrete columns with light or widely spaced transverse reinforcement are vulnerable to shear failure, and in turn, axial failure during earthquakes. Based on experimental data, failure surfaces have been used to define the onset of shear and axial failure for such columns. After the response of the column intersects the failure surface, the shear or axial strength of the column begins to degrade. This paper introduces a uniaxial material model that incorporates the failure surfaces and the subsequent strength degradation. When used in series with a beam-column element, the uniaxial material model can adequately capture the response of reinforced concrete columns during shear and axial load failure. The performance of the analytical model is compared with results from shake table tests.Key words: shear failure, axial failure, beam-column elements, failure surface, earthquakes, reinforced concrete, columns, collapse, structural analysis.

No abstract

Six months after the 4 September 2010 Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake, a Mw 6.2 Christchurch (Lyttelton) aftershock struck Christchurch on the 22 February 2011. This earthquake was centred approximately 10km south-east of the Christchurch CBD at a shallow depth of 5km, resulting in intense seismic shaking within the Christchurch central business district (CBD). Unlike the 4 Sept earthquake when limited-to-moderate damage was observed in engineered reinforced concrete (RC) buildings [35], in the 22 February event a high number of RC Buildings in the Christchurch CBD (16.2 % out of 833) were severely damaged. There were 182 fatalities, 135 of which were the unfortunate consequences of the complete collapse of two mid-rise RC buildings. This paper describes immediate observations of damage to RC buildings in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Some preliminary lessons are highlighted and discussed in light of the observed performance of the RC building stock. Damage statistics and typical damage patterns are presented for various configurations and lateral resisting systems. Data was collated predominantly from first-hand post-earthquake reconnaissance observations by the authors, complemented with detailed assessment of the structural drawings of critical buildings and the observed behaviour. Overall, the 22 February 2011 Mw 6.2 Christchurch earthquake was a particularly severe test for both modern seismically-designed and existing non-ductile RC buildings. The sequence of earthquakes since the 4 Sept 2010, particularly the 22 Feb event has confirmed old lessons and brought to life new critical ones, highlighting some urgent action required to remedy structural deficiencies in both existing and “modern” buildings. Given the major social and economic impact of the earthquakes to a country with strong seismic engineering tradition, no doubt some aspects of the seismic design will be improved based on the lessons from Christchurch. The bar needs to and can be raised, starting with a strong endorsement of new damage-resisting, whilst cost-efficient, technologies as well as the strict enforcement, including financial incentives, of active policies for the seismic retrofit of existing buildings at a national scale.

Existing reinforced concrete columns with light transverse reinforcement are vulnerable to shear failure during seismic response. Shear strength models, modeling the degradation of shear strength with increasing displacement ductility demand, have been widely used to evaluate the interstory drift capacity of such columns. The application of a shear strength model to determine the drift capacities for a database of 50 shear-critical columns demonstrates significant inaccuracies with such a method. An empirical drift capacity model based on the shear-critical column database provides a better estimate of the interstory drift at shear failure. The new drift capacity model identifies the most critical parameters affecting the drift capacity of shear-critical columns, namely, transverse reinforcement ratio, shear stress demand, and axial load ratio.