Reinforced Concrete Frame Element with Bond Interfaces. I: Displacement-Based, Force-Based, and Mixed Formulations

Limkatanyu, Suchart; Spacone, Enrico

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2002)128:3(346)

Cited by 60 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Represents the element stiffness matrix, while Dq and R are vectors of displacement increments and residual forces, respectively; and L denotes the elements length (Limkatanyu and Spacone 2002).…”

Section: Stiffness (Displacement) Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Different Numerical Models of RC Elements for Predicting the Seismic Performance of Structures

Zendaoui

Kadid

2016

Int J Concr Struct Mater

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to provide guidelines for the numerical modeling of reinforced concrete (RC) frame elements in order to assess the seismic performance of structures. Several types of numerical models RC frame elements are available in nonlinear structural analysis packages. Since these numerical models are formulated based on different assumption and theories, the models accuracy, computing time, and applicability vary, which poses a great difficulty to practicing engineering and limits their confidence in the analysis resultants. In this study, the applicability of four representative numerical models of RC frame elements is evaluated through comparison with experimental results of four-storey bare frame available from European Laboratory for Structural Assessment. The accuracy of a numerical model is evaluated according to the top displacement, interstorey drift, Maximum storey shear, damage pattern and energy dissipation capacity of the frame structure. The results obtained allow a better understanding of the characteristics and potentialities of all procedures, helping the user to choose the best approach to perform nonlinear analysis.

show abstract

Section: Stiffness (Displacement) Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Replacing DD from the incremental version of Eq. (8) in the inverse from the constitutive relation DD = kDd, namely Dd(x) = k 21 DD(x), yields the incremental deformation field (Limkatanyu and Spacone 2002).…”

Section: Flexibility (Force) Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Different Numerical Models of RC Elements for Predicting the Seismic Performance of Structures

Zendaoui

Kadid

2016

Int J Concr Struct Mater

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reference to recent numerical work on this subject can be found in [19]. Among the available numerical tools for performing structural analysis, only a few (for example, CASTEM [24], OpenSees [25] and ATENA [11]) allow taking into account the bond-slip mechanism.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cyclic behavior of a two-span RC beam built with plain reinforcing bars

Fernandes

Melo²,

Varum³

et al. 2011

Per. Pol. Civil Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract1 Introduction A significant number of existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures in Europe prior to the enforcement of the modern seismic-oriented design philosophies. In fact, many were designed to withstand only gravity loads. Also, they are generally reinforced with plain bars that exhibit poor bond and need specific anchoring end details [14]. As a consequence of poor reinforcement details and absence of any capacity design principles, a significant lack of ductility at both the local and global levels is expected for these structures resulting in inadequate structural performance even under moderate seismic excitation [17,26]. Damages observed in recent severe earthquakes like, for example, the 2008 Sichuan-China, the 2009 L'Aquila-Italy, 2010 Port-au-Prince-Haiti and 2010 Chile earthquakes confirm the important source of risk that old RC structures represent the society, in both human and economic terms.The common causes of damage and collapse of RC structures due to earthquakes are usually associated to the following effects/mechanisms [30]: (i) stirrups/hoops, confinement and ductility; (ii) bond, anchorage and lap-splices and bond splitting; (iii) inadequate shear capacity and failure; (iv) inadequate flexural capacity and failure; (v) inadequate shear strength of the joints; (vi) influence of the infill masonry on the seismic response of structures; (vii) vertical and horizontal irregularities; (viii) effect of higher modes; (ix) strong-beam weak-column mechanism; and, (x) structural deficiencies due to architectural requirements.The sudden loss of concrete-steel bond is one of the sources of brittle failure in RC elements, and is reported to have been the cause of severe local damage and even collapse of many structures during earthquakes. Even if no anchorage failure occurs, the hysteretic behavior of RC structures, namely when subjected to alternate actions (like earthquakes), is highly dependent on the interaction between steel and concrete [6].Perfect bond between the steel reinforcing bars and the surrounding concrete is usually assumed in the analyses of RC structures, implying full compatibility between concrete and steel strains. However, this assumption is only valid for early loading stages and low strain levels. As the loads increases,

show abstract

“…Considerable effort has focused on validating and calibrating these models for axial-flexural behavior, [2][3][4][5][6] shear behavior, 7 anchorage/splice behavior, 8 and axial failure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavior, design, and modeling of structural walls and coupling beams — Lessons from recent laboratory tests and earthquakes

Wallace

2012

Int J Concr Struct Mater

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Observed wall damage in recent earthquakes in Chile and New Zealand, where modern building codes exist, exceeded expectations. In these earthquakes, structural wall damage included boundary crushing, reinforcement fracture, and global wall buckling. Recent laboratory tests also have demonstrated inadequate performance in some cases, indicating a need to review code provisions, identify shortcomings and make necessary revisions. Current modeling approaches used for slender structural walls adequately capture nonlinear flexural behavior; however, strength loss due to buckling of reinforcement and nonlinear and shear-flexure interaction are not adequately captured. Additional research is needed to address these issues. Recent tests of reinforced concrete coupling beams indicate that diagonally-reinforced beams detailed according to ACI 318-11 1 can sustain plastic rotations of about 6% prior to significant strength loss and that relatively simple modeling approaches in commercially available computer programs are capable of capturing the observed responses. Tests of conventionally-reinforced beams indicate less energy dissipation capacity and strength loss at approximately 4% rotation.

show abstract

Reinforced Concrete Frame Element with Bond Interfaces. I: Displacement-Based, Force-Based, and Mixed Formulations

Cited by 60 publications

References 6 publications

Comparison of Different Numerical Models of RC Elements for Predicting the Seismic Performance of Structures

Comparison of Different Numerical Models of RC Elements for Predicting the Seismic Performance of Structures

Cyclic behavior of a two-span RC beam built with plain reinforcing bars

Behavior, design, and modeling of structural walls and coupling beams — Lessons from recent laboratory tests and earthquakes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About