SDTSB Xing 2016

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016;

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal). DOI: 10.1002/tal.1308
Cumulative seismic damage assessment of reinforced concrete

columns through cyclic and pseudo-dynamic tests
Guohua Xing1*, Osman E. Ozbulut2, Tuo Lei1 and Boquan Liu1

1
School of Civil Engineering, Changan University, Xian, China
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
SUMMARY
This paper presents the ndings of a systematic experimental study conducted to investigate cumulative
seismic damage in reinforced concrete columns. Fourteen identical large-scale concrete columns were fab-
ricated and tested to failure. Experimental tests were conducted in two phases. Phase I testing included
benchmark tests to characterize the monotonic force-deformation behavior and constant amplitude tests to
determine the low-cycle fatigue characteristics of typical exural columns. Phase II involved testing of con-
crete columns under a series of earthquakes of varying duration and magnitude. Low-cycle fatigue of the
longitudinal reinforcing bars and connement failure due to rupture of the conning hoops were the main
failure modes in phase I. Phase II tests also demonstrated the potential for low-cycle fatigue fracture of
the main longitudinal steel when the specimen was subjected to relatively larger displacement amplitudes.
A fatigue-based damage model is proposed based on the data obtained from the constant amplitude tests
of phase I. The damage prediction of the model is assessed by using the response of three specimens tested
in phase II and the data from the cyclic tests of six reinforced concrete columns reported in the literature.
Results show that the proposed fatigue-based damage model offers a reliable means of assessing seismic
structural performance. Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 6 December 2015; Revised 8 July 2016; Accepted 18 July 2016
KEY WORDS: seismic damage assessment; cyclic loading; displacement ductility; earthquake-resistant structures;
fatigue tests; reinforced concrete column
1. INTRODUCTION
Conventional seismic design of reinforced concrete structures relies on yielding of steel reinforcement
to dissipate energy while undergoing excessive deformations beyond the elastic limit. A certain
amount of damage is allowed by means of ductility demand to sustain large displacements without
resulting in the total collapse of the structure. However, a considerable disparity exists between the
levels of ductility predicted by the design code recommendations and actual values of ductility realized
during a seismic event (Rao et al., 1998). It is well known that the overall cumulative damage of a
structure primarily depends on the damage experienced by individual components. In particular, the
columns might be the most critical structural elements among all concrete members in earthquake-
resistant frame structures (Elwood and Moehle, 2005; Paulay and Priestley, 1992; Tran and Li,
2013). As an example, a number of reinforced concrete buildings collapsed or experienced signicant
damage due to insufcient capacity of columns during 2009 LAquila earthquake in Italy (Rodrigues
et al., 2013). Yet, modeling and predicting the seismic damage in concrete columns are challenging
due to the nature of earthquake loading, which includes several inelastic cycles at large deformations
together with numerous cycles with much smaller ductility demands (El-Bahy et al., 1999a).
*Correspondence to: Guohua Xing, School of Civil Engineering, Changan University, Xian, Shaanxi Province 710061,
China.
E-mail: luckly998@126.com
Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

G. XING ET AL.
A number of researchers have performed quasi-static cyclic loading tests to investigate the seismic
behavior of reinforced concrete columns (Elwood and Moehle, 2005; Hindi and Turechek, 2008;
Lgeron and Paultre, 2000; Li and Park, 2004; Pham and Li, 2013; Tran and Li, 2012; Watson and
Park, 1994; Xiao and Martirossyan, 1998; Xiao and Yun, 2002). The majority of these tests were con-
ducted to understand post-yield behavior of concrete columns under cyclic loads and to develop detail-
ing strategies to ensure satisfactory performance under these loads. As a result, these tests provided
pertinent information regarding the effects of various parameters such as concrete strength, axial load
magnitude, lateral loading directions, the presence of high shear and connement on the failure of con-
crete columns under cyclic loads. However, the correlation of observed behavior to damage was not
directly addressed.
Signicant damage in structures under seismic loads may develop not only because of a single max-
imum excursion but also due to repeated load cycles. Therefore, the consideration of low-cycle fatigue
effects turns out to be very important. Several damage models have been developed to quantify the cu-
mulative seismic damage in concrete elements under earthquake loads (Chai et al., 1995; El-Bahy
et al., 1999a; Karbassi et al., 2014; Kunnath et al., 1990; McCabe and Hall, 1989; Park et al., 1985;
Pereraa et al., 2000; Rao et al., 1998). Cumulative damage is mostly modeled either by considering
damage as a function of accumulated plastic deformations or by including a hysteretic energy term
in the damage model (Poljansek and Fajfar, 2008). Damage assessment is an important component
of performance-based design methodologies, which require the prediction of damage in various mem-
bers of a structure. However, systematic experimental programs where the applied loads, structural
variables and observed response are tailored to specically monitor, model and calibrate cumulative
seismic damage are limited (El-Bahy et al., 1999b).
In this paper, a new damage model that includes the effect of the low-cycle fatigue by means of
equivalent static displacement ductility is proposed for quantication of seismic damage in exural re-
inforced concrete columns. The proposed model attempts to transform the cyclic displacement ductil-
ity into a simple, well-dened, static displacement ductility value. Thus, the proposed damage model is
expressed as a combination of cyclic and static ductility ratios. Experimental results obtained in this
study and reported in the literature are used to verify the model. The model is straightforward and is
to be employed in design ofces.
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The experimental program consists of testing 14 large-scale rectangular reinforced concrete columns.
Since different failure modes may result in different critical damage parameters, only exural failure
modes are considered in this study. The primary test variables include the amplitude of the load, load
sequence and type of loading pattern. The tests are divided into two phases. Phase I testing consists of
benchmark tests on 11 specimens to characterize the fatigue behavior of the columns. In phase II, three
identical specimens are subjected to random displacement histories.
2.1. Design of column specimens

Fourteen column specimens were designed in accordance with the Chinese seismic design code
GB50011 (2001) to simulate typical columns of multistory buildings in seismic regions. The testing ma-
trix is shown in Tab. 1, and the specimen details are illustrated in Fig. 1. The columns were
200 250 mm in cross-section with a height of 2190 mm. The columns were reinforced with four
D22 bars, constituting a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 2.5%. All specimens were designed and
constructed with a 350-mm-long loading stub and a 300 300 mm square section in the middle of model
column. The loading stub was heavily reinforced to prevent any premature failure during testing.
The mechanical properties of steel bar and concrete used in all specimens are shown in Tab. 1. Ten-
sile tests were carried out on three coupon samples of the steel bars used in column specimens. For the
rst seven specimens, the longitudinal reinforcement was grade II reinforcing bars with average yield
strength of 411 MPa and ultimate strength of 577 MPa, and the transverse reinforcement was grade I
with average yield strength of 328 MPa and ultimate strength of 443 MPa. For the other seven
Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016;
DOI: 10.1002/tal
CUMULATIVE SEISMIC DAMAGE ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS
Table 1. Testing matrix.

Phase Specimen Longitudinal Transverse steel fc(MPa) Axial load ratio Loading pattern
steel for column P/Agfc (axial load)
potential plastic
hinge region
I CF1 4D22 D8@50 24.1 0.20 (241 kN) Monotonic
CF2 (fy = 411 MPa) (fy = 328 MPa) 26.3 0.20 (263 kN) Constant amplitude at 2y
CF3 28.2 0.20 (282 kN) Constant amplitude at 3y
CF4 30.3 0.20 (303 kN) Constant amplitude at 2.5y
CF7 29.6 0.20 (296 kN) Constant amplitude at 4y
I CF8 4D22 D8@50 29.7 0.20 (297 kN) 1y amplitude rst, 2y
(fy = 375 MPa) (fy = 305 MPa) amplitude subsequently
CF9 30.6 0.20 (306 kN) 2y amplitude rst, 1y
amplitude subsequently
II CF12 4D22 D8@50 36.5 0.20 (359 kN) EL Centro earthquake
CF13 (fy = 375 MPa) (fy = 305 MPa) 27.6 0.26 (359 kN) Articial earthquake
CF14 32.8 0.21 (359 kN) Tianjin earthquake
(1) Specimen name designation example: CF1 represents reinforced concrete exural testing model column 1, (2)
axial load ratio = P/(Agfc) and (3) nominal diameter = 22 mm for D22 bars, and 8 mm for D8 bars.
specimens, the longitudinal reinforcement was grade II reinforcing bars with average yield strength of
375 MPa and ultimate strength of 560 MPa, and the transverse reinforcement was grade I with average
yield strength of 305 MPa and ultimate strength of 409 MPa.
2.2. Test setup and instrumentation

The test setup was assembled from standard steel wide-anged sections. Lateral bracing was provided
in the direction of the applied load. Two steel beams were attached to the testing frame on either side of
the specimen parallel to the direction of loading to prevent any out-of-plane displacement during test-
ing. Rollers were attached to the column tip to allow relatively friction-free movement. The nal setup
with the specimen in place and the test apparatus, but without the out-of-plane support system, are
shown in Fig. 2.
The lateral displacement was applied by a servo-controlled 250 kN MTS hydraulic actuator with a
stroke of 250 mm. The imposed lateral displacement was measured with both the built-in displace-
ment transducer of the actuator and a linearly variable differential transducer. The load cell of the
actuator recorded the corresponding lateral force. The vertical load was applied using a 1000-kN
servo-controlled MTS actuator. The applied vertical load during testing was approximately constant
at 0.2 Agfc and recorded using the calibrated load cell of the actuator.
Finally, 20 strain gages were installed on each specimen: ten each on opposite longitudinal reinforc-
ing bars in the loading plane. The strain gages were installed at 300 mm from the tips of the loading
tube. These locations were based on estimates of the plastic hinge length of the specimen after yield-
ing. The strain gage readings were used to check the initiation of yielding and the spread of plasticity.
3. PHASE I: BENCHMARK AND CYCLIC TESTS
3.1. Loading procedure

During phase I testing, the lateral force was cycled under displacement control conditions. The rst
specimen (CF1) was tested under a monotonically increased lateral displacement up to failure of the
specimen. This benchmark test was conducted to develop the backbone force-deformation envelope
DOI: 10.1002/tal
G. XING ET AL.
Figure 1. Detail of specimens.
of the specimen. Some damage models use strength and deformation quantities derived from a mono-
tonic test to normalize and/or formulate damage expressions. Specimens CF2 to CF7 were tested to
obtain data for developing a fatigue life expression for the exural reinforced concrete members. Spec-
imen CF2 was subjected to constant amplitude cycles at a displacement amplitude corresponding to
two times yield displacement of model column (2y). Specimens CF3 to CF7 were loaded similarly
to specimen CF2 but at different displacement amplitudes, which are given in Tab. 1.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 2. Test setup and instrumentation.
The last four specimens (CF8CF11) in phase I were tested to investigate the effect of displacement
history on cumulative damage. Specimen CF8 was subjected to 1000 cycles at a displacement ampli-
tude corresponding to y before application of cycles at 2y. The displacement amplitudes imposed on
specimen CF9 were essentially the same as those applied to specimen CF8, but the sequence of events
was reversed. Specimen CF10 was subjected to three cycles at a displacement amplitude correspond-
ing to 2y before application of cycles at 3y. In contrast, specimen CF11 was subjected to cyclic loads
at a displacement amplitude corresponding to 3y before application of cycles at 2y.
3.2. Results
Eleven specimens (labeled CF1 to CF11) were tested in phase I to obtain relevant force-deformation
and low-cycle fatigue characteristics of the specimens. As will be shown later, these response param-
eters are critical to developing damage-based performance criteria. Records kept during testing include
information such as crack widths, concrete spalling, exposed reinforcement and buckling of steel bars,
which enable calibration of damage to visual observations in post-earthquake reconnaissance. The rup-
ture of conning hoops or fracture of longitudinal reinforcing bars was typically considered as the fail-
ure of the specimen. Other essential details such as necking of hoops or buckling of longitudinal bars
were also monitored. Tab. 2 summarizes the experimental results obtained for each specimen in phase
I.
For specimen CF1, the rst visible crack was observed at approximately 2 mm (drift ratio 0.18%)
lateral displacement. Thereafter, the cracking became extensive and crack widths increased steadily.
Spalling of the concrete cover was observed at approximately 10-mm (drift ratio 0.9%) lateral dis-
placement. The maximum lateral load reached 125 kN before additional displacement caused a gradual
DOI: 10.1002/tal
G. XING ET AL.
Table 2. Summary of experimental test results.

Specimen Lateral force Yield displacement Maximum displacement Number Cumulative
P (kN) y (mm) m (mm) of cycles dissipated
energy
push pull push pull push pull (kN.mm)
CF1 125 12.5 112.6 0.25
CF2 135 114 15.5 13.5 31.0 27.0 268 436.8
CF3 120 120 13.0 15.0 39.0 45.0 7.5 66.7
CF4 125 133 13.6 14.0 34.0 35.0 13 86.2
CF5 125 120 13.9 14.2 20.9 21.3 1048 1613.9
CF6 121 123 11.5 12.5 25.9 28.1 135 205.2
CF7 133 121 14.4 14.4 57.4 57.4 2 27.6
CF8 133 126 14.0 14.0 14.0(28.0) 14.0 (28.0) 1000 + 136 1202.9
CF9 112 117 13.5 13.0 27.0(13.5) 26.0 (13.0) 136 + 3200 2704.1
CF10 116 110 13.0 12.5 26.0(39.0) 25.0 (37.5) 193 + 6.5 338.9
CF11 116 117 12.3 11.5 36.9(24.6) 34.5 (23.0) 31 + 193 506.5
Number of cycles designation example: 1000 + 136 represents specimen subjected to 1000 cycles at a displace-
ment amplitude corresponding to y before the application of 136 cycles at 2y.
softening of the column stiffness. Two longitudinal bars showed signs of buckling as the lateral load
capacity of the specimen began to drop at approximately 30-mm (drift ratio 2.7%) lateral displacement.
Large exural cracks were observed after this point, and concrete crushing within the compression
zone caused ultimate collapse. The ultimate deection recorded was 112.6 mm (drift ratio 10.3%).
Fig. 3 shows the resulting force-deformation envelope of specimen CF1.
Specimens CF2 to CF7 were displaced directly to a constant lateral displacement and cycled at that
level. The damage progression for each specimen was almost the same. Generally, the low-cycle fa-
tigue behavior of the reinforced concrete columns can be characterized by three distinct stages: (a)
the initial stage with full participation of both conned core concrete and unconned cover concrete,
(b) stable behavior with deformation contributed primarily by yielding of longitudinal steel and
straining of conned core concrete and (c) nal failure. The recorded shear force versus lateral dis-
placement response history for specimens CF3, CF4, CF6 and CF7 are shown in Fig. 4.
Specimen CF8 was subjected to 1000 cycles at a displacement amplitude corresponding to y before
application of cycles at 2y. After 50 complete cycles at displacement amplitude y, no visible deteri-
oration of the specimen was observed. The maximum measured crack widths on either side were ap-
proximately 0.5 to 0.8 mm. Loading of the specimen continued at the same amplitude over a 2-day
period for 1000 cycles without any further visible damage. According to the loading sequence, the
Figure 3. Response of column to monotonic loading.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 4. (a) Response to constant amplitude cycling loading at 3y, (b) at 2.5y, (c) at 2.25y and (d)
at 4y.
constant displacement amplitude increased to 2y. Failure of the specimen occurred after 136 cycles,
following the rupture of a hoop approximately in the middle of the plastic hinge zone on the tension
side. The forcedisplacement response history for specimen CF8 is shown in Fig. 5.
Figure 5. Low-cyclic fatigue behavior of specimen CF8.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
G. XING ET AL.
In contrast, specimen CF9 was rst subjected to 136 cycles at a displacement amplitude 2y before
the application of cycles at y. No failure was observed upon the application of cyclic loads at 2y, and
the specimen was loaded at constant displacement amplitude of y until failure. However, loading of
the specimen continued over a 5-day period for 3200 cycles without any further visible damage. Since
one of the objectives of the test program was to evaluate different damage models, the cyclic loading
was stopped, and a monotonic load was applied until failure. This would provide information on re-
serve capacity that is crucial to many damage modeling theories.
The cumulative dissipated energy for specimen CF9 is more than twice as large as that for specimen
CF8 as can be seen in Tab. 2. The results obtained from specimens CF10 and CF11 are similar to those
discussed for specimens CF8 and CF9. It was noted that all the specimens terminated with exural fail-
ure modes. Furthermore, it was observed that the plastic hinge length depends not only on maximum
displacement amplitude but also on sequence of inelastic reversal. In particular, a larger hinge length
was present when the specimen was subjected to the largest displacement amplitude in initial cycles.
These observations are in agreement with the ndings of previous studies (Poljansek and Fajfar,
2008) and indicate that displacement history affects the response under cyclic loading. Specically,
column displacement capacity decreases with increasing number of cycles and amplitude of previous
cycles in the inelastic range of response. However, more investigations are needed to relate the effect
of displacement history to sustained damage.
4. FATIGUE LIFE RELATIONSHIP AND DAMAGE MODELING
In order to obtain a better understanding of the cumulative damage process, a fatigue life relationship
for the columns tested in this study is developed. The most widely used fatigue life equations are
adopted from the following form of the CofnManson expression (Cofn, 1954; Manson, 1954)
c
p f N 2f (1)
where p is the plastic strain amplitude, c and f are material constants to be determined from fatigue
testing and N2f is the number of complete cycles to failure. A similar relationship that is more applica-
ble to structural components was suggested by Krawinkler et al. (1954) as
c
N 2f C1 p (2)
where P is the plastic deformation and c and C are coefcients to be determined experimentally. By
taking displacement ductility as a model parameter to substitute for the plastic deformation, Eq. (2) can
be rewritten as follows:
N 2f C1 c (3)
where is the displacement ductility.The displacement ductility can be obtained as shown as follows
from Eq. (3):
1 1c
C c N 2f N 2f (4)
where and are parameters to be determined through curve tting. A similar equation was used to
describe the fatigue life of concrete-lled-tube circular bridge columns by Zhang et al. (2009).
Using the experimental test results of phase I, the parameters and are statistically determined
with a coefcient of correlation of 0.936, and the following equation is proposed to estimate the fatigue
life of reinforced concrete exural columns subjected to cyclic loading:
0:136
4:06 N 2f (5)
Fig. 6 shows the plot of the proposed fatigue life expression and experimental results. It can be seen
that experimental results lie reasonably close to the proposed fatigue life expression. This fatigue life
equation is employed to predict the damage sustained by a second series of columns subjected to
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 6. Fatigue life relationship for exural columns.
variable amplitude loading and is veried by comparison with the experimental results reported in the
literature in the next section.
The following expression can be written using Eq. (5):
i N i 0:136 4:06 j N 0:136
j (6)
where Ni and Nj are the numbers of complete cycles to failure under displacement ductility i and j,
respectively.
The displacement response of a structure subjected to an earthquake event can be recognized as a
random process composed of a series of different displacement amplitudes. Assuming that a reinforced
concrete column experienced ni cycles under displacement ductility i and also experienced nj cycles
under displacement ductility j, the damage for each case, Di and Dj, is given as follows using Miners
rule (Miner, 1945) of linear damage accumulation:
Di ni =N i and Dj nj =N j (7)
where Ni and Nj are the numbers of complete cycles to failure.

If the following condition is satised, we can conclude that ni cycles at ductility i will lead to the
same amount of damage as nj cycles at ductility j.
ni =N i nj =N j (8)
Two types of ductility referred to as monotonic plastic ductility mon and hysteretic plastic ductility
are considered in this study. The monotonic plastic ductility, mon, is the value of ductility at failure
under monotonic loading. The hysteretic plastic ductility, , is the plastic ductility that causes equiv-
alent damage over N cycles in the same manner as that depicted by the monotonic plastic ductility.
Using Eq. (6), Eq. (8) can be rewritten as
1=0:136
ni j =i nj (9)
Employing this expression, nj, the number of cycles for specimen under displacement ductility, j,
can be related to ni under displacement ductility i. Similarly, every cycle experienced by the specimen
under displacement ductility i can be related to the number of cycles under displacement ductility
mon. Therefore, the number of equivalent cycles N for a specimen can be calculated as

mon 1=0:136
N N mon (10)
i
where Nmon is the number of complete cycles to failure for the specimen under monotonic loading.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
G. XING ET AL.
The following expression can also be obtained from Eq. (6):
0:136
N mon N 0:136
mon (11)
Usually, Nmon = 1/4, therefore, Eq. (11) can be rewritten as follows:

0:136
4N mon (12)
in which the number of equivalent cycles N can be obtained from Eq. (10) by making a mathematical
1=0:136
transformation, and it equals to ni i .
mon
Finally, the proposed equation for damage index is as follows:
D m = (13)
where D is the damage index, is the hysteretic plastic ductility, which can be obtained from Eq. (12),
and m is the displacement ductility. The parameter m is calculated as the ratio of max to ymon,
where max is the maximum displacement of specimens subjected to earthquake-type loading and
ymon is the yield displacement of specimens subjected to monotonic loading. A damage index over
1.0 indicates the complete failure of the structural member. An important aspect of this model in eval-
uating damage is related to the consideration of displacement ductility as a damage parameter. A ow-
chart for employing the suggested model to evaluate the seismic damage of reinforced concrete column
is shown in Fig. 7.
In performance-based seismic design, damage indices are typically correlated with generic damage
states to quantify structural degradation sustained under earthquake loading (Park et al., 1987). Fragil-
ity curves, which give the probability of exceeding a damage state as a function of an engineering de-
mand parameter, are used to assess the damage to structural and non-structural components. It should
be noted that although the proposed damage index is a local damage indicator, the overall damage of a
building could be calculated as the suitable weighted average of the local damage indices (Hanganu
et al., 2002; Park et al., 1985; Saetta et al., 1999). In this study, ve damage states, labeled as A to
E, are suggested and shown in Tab. 3. The damage states dened here are insignicant, minor,
moderate, heavy and collapse.
Figure 7. Flowchart for evaluating the seismic damage of RC column.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Table 3. Damage states.

Level Insignicant/A Minor/B Moderate/C Heavy/D Collapse/E
Index 00.10 0.110.35 0.360.60 0.610.85 0.861.00
Visual Onset of Minor spalling; Excessive spalling; Spalling over full Buckling of main
observation hairline cracks no exposed exposed reinforcement hinge region; no reinforcement;
reinforcement buckling of rupture of transverse
longitudinal bars; reinforcement;
loss of horizontal crushing of core
bearing capacity concrete; loss of
vertical bearing
capacity
5. PHASE II: PSEUDO-DYNAMIC TESTS AND VERIFICATION
In this section, the damage model presented previously is veried by the experimental results of three
reinforced concrete columns tested under pseudo-dynamic loading. The model is further evaluated
using the test results of six reinforced concrete columns reported in the literature.
5.1. Pseudo-dynamic tests

The pseudo-dynamic test is a type of testing method where experimental tests and numerical simula-
tions are conducted simultaneously. In the pseudo-dynamic method, the ground motions as well as the
structures inertial and damping characteristic are specied numerically in a conventional dynamic
analysis. The governing equations of motion are numerically solved for incremental structural dis-
placements. However, the structures restoring force is directly measured from the damage specimen
as the test progresses. In this study, the pseudo-dynamic tests were conducted to evaluate the perfor-
mance of the concrete columns under earthquake loading. A four-bay, four-story reinforced concrete
planar frame building with rectangular columns as shown in Fig. 8 was adopted as the prototype struc-
ture for the tests. The building was seismically designed in accordance with the provisions of Chinese
seismic design code GB50011 (2001). The fundamental period of the structure is 0.80 s. A Rayleigh
damping with a 5% damping ratio for the rst two modes is assumed. One of the interior columns
of the rst story is selected as experimental component. Three specimens tested in phase II are labeled
as CF12 to CF14 and described in detail in Section 2. The lateral seismic load was applied to the test
specimens with a 250-kN MTS hydraulic actuator attached to a reaction frame. The material properties
assigned to analytical components were the same with those of the test specimens.
Figure 8. Reinforced concrete planar frame building.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
G. XING ET AL.
Fig. 9 shows acceleration time histories and acceleration response spectra of three input ground mo-
tion records, which are used in pseudo-dynamic test. Two historical records (1940 El Centro and 1976
Tianjin earthquakes) and one articial ground motion record are considered. Peak ground acceleration
of each record is scaled to 0.35 g. This intensity level is suggested by Chinese design code for time
history analysis of structures that are assumed to be located at an area with high seismic activity.
The Wilson- method was used for the numerical integration of the governing equations in the
pseudo-dynamic test. As in the case of the rst 11 specimens tested in phase I, all column tests reported
herein are performed under a constant axial force equal to 0.2 Agfc.
5.2. Results
The displacement time histories and recorded forcedisplacement behavior of three specimens are
shown in Figs. 1012. It is observed that all test specimens failed in the following sequence: cracking
Figure 9. Acceleration time histories and acceleration response spectra for (a) El Centro earthquake,
(b) articial earthquake and (c) Tianjin earthquake.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 10. Response of specimen CF12 under El Centro earthquake.
Figure 11. Response of specimen CF13 under articial earthquake.
Figure 12. Response of specimen CF14 under Tianjin earthquake.
and spalling of cover concrete, rupturing of the connement steel, crushing of the core concrete and
then buckling of the longitudinal steel.
During the testing of specimen CF12, the column reached the maximum displacement amplitude of
57.4 mm (drift ratio 5.2%) with an approximate ductility of 4.59. Since the specimen experienced sig-
nicant plastic behavior, the very next cycle resulted in large residual deformations, with which the
specimen could not restore to the original position. After several inelastic reversals, spalling of cover
concrete and explosion of reinforcement were observed rst followed by signicant load capacity
DOI: 10.1002/tal
G. XING ET AL.
reduction and the crush of the core concrete. The damage index is calculated to be 0.58 at the maxi-
mum displacement and 1.32 at failure. The results indicate that the specimen CF12 failed by the end
of the test due to the cumulative damage effect.
The maximum displacement amplitude and displacement ductility were observed to be 69.3 mm
(drift ratio 6.3%) and 5.54, respectively, for specimen CF13. For specimen CF14, the maximum dis-
placement amplitude and displacement ductility were 81.2 mm (drift ratio 7.4%) and 6.50, respec-
tively. Again, spalling of cover concrete and explosion of reinforcement were observed successively
followed by the crush of core concrete. The damage index at failure is calculated to be 1.36 and
1.18 for specimens CF13 and CF14, respectively. On the other hand, the damage index at maximum
displacement is found to be 0.72 and 0.84 for specimens CF13 and CF14, respectively. Tab. 4 summa-
rizes the experimental results obtained for each specimen. The damage indices calculated by using the
proposed damage model that account for the cumulative damage agree well with the test observations.
In particular, it can be seen that the calculated damage indices at failure for all the specimens were over
1.0, while they were less than 1.0 when calculated at maximum displacement. The results show that
failure of specimens under strong earthquakes may occur not only because of maximum deformation
experienced by the column but also due to the fatigue failure mechanism. Therefore, quantifying the
damage only as a function of the maximum amplitude of cyclic deformation without considering the
number of applied cycles does not produce satisfactory results for damage prediction.
5.3. Low cyclic reversed loading test

The proposed model for the seismic damage assessment of reinforced concrete columns is further ver-
ied by using the reliable experimental results reported in the literature. In particular, the experimental
results from the cyclic test of six full-scale rectangular column specimens, designed and detailed ac-
cording to Turkish earthquake code, are considered (Acun, 2010). The column cross-section dimen-
sions were 350 350 mm2, and their clear height was 1800 mm. The axial load ratio was 0.20 in all
specimens. The main variable in the experiments was the imposed displacement history. The mechan-
ical properties of materials as well as specimen details are given in Tab. 5.
Table 4. Summary of phase II test results.
Specimen Maximum Yield displacement Ductility ratio Damage index Damage index
displacement y (mm) = m/y at maximum at failure
m (mm) displacement
CF12 57.42 12.50 4.59 0.58 1.32
CF13 69.31 12.50 5.54 0.72 1.36
CF14 81.25 12.50 6.50 0.84 1.18
Table 5. Details of previous test data.

Specimen Longitudinal Transverse steel for fc (MPa) Axial load ratio Loading pattern
steel column potential P/Agfc (axial load)
plastic hinge region
1D2 8D14 D8@70 25.8 0.20 (638 kN) 35(7) + 70(5) + 105(3)
2D3 (fy = 454 MPa) (fy = 469 MPa) 25.9 0.20 (632 kN) 50(7) + 70(5) + 105(3)
3D4 27.6 0.20 (674 kN) 70(5) + 105(3)
4D5 24.6 0.20 (610 kN) 105(5) + 70(5)
5DV1 25.0 0.20 (608 kN) 10(3) + 50(3) + 35(3) +
70(3) + 35(3) + 50(3) +
105(3)
6DV2 25.3 0.26 (616 kN) 17.5(3) + 35(3) + 50(3) +
70(3) + 105(3)
Loading pattern example: 35(7) + 70(5) + 105(3) represents specimen subjected to seven cycles at a displacement
amplitude 35 mm before the application of ve cycles at 70 mm, nally subjected to three cycles at 105 mm.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Table 6. Damage observed in the experimental testing and predicted damage.
Specimen 1D2
Test cycle 1st 5th 9th 13th
Reported test observation Onset of cracks Minor spalling Exposed reinforcement Reinforcement buckling
Corresponding damage state Insignicant/A Minor/B Moderate/C Collapse/E
Calculated damage index 0.08 0.12 0.43 0.91
Predicted damage state Insignicant/A Minor/B Minor/B Collapse/E
Specimen 2D3
Predicted damage state Insignicant/A Minor/B Moderate/C Heavy/D
Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Specimen 3D4
Test cycle 1st 2nd 7th
Reported test observation Minor spalling Exposed reinforcement Reinforcement buckling
Corresponding damage state Minor/B Moderate/C Collapse/E
Calculated damage index 0.38 0.43 0.97
Predicted damage state Moderate/C Moderate/C Collapse/E
Specimen 4D5
Test cycle 1st 4th
Reported test observation Exposed reinforcement Reinforcement buckling
Corresponding damage state Moderate/C Collapse/E
Calculated damage index 0.79 1.05
Predicted damage state Heavy/D Collapse/E
Specimen 5DV1
Predicted damage state Insignicant/A Minor/B Moderate/C Collapse/E
Specimen 6DV2
Predicted damage state Insignicant/A Minor/B Moderate/C Collapse/E
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016;
G. XING ET AL.
Figure 13. Computed damage history of columns using proposed fatigue damage model for specimen
(a) 1D2, (b) 2D3, (c) 3D4, (d) 4D5, (e) 5DV1 and (f) 6DV2.
Using the values of equivalent (nnn) and maximum (m) displacement ductility, the damage index for
each case is computed from Eq. (13). The yield displacement and ultimate displacement of the speci-
men under monotonic loading are computed using the KSU_RC software (Asad, 2014), an open-access
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 14. Increments of damage index under each cycle for specimen (a) 1D2, (b) 2D3, (c) 3D4, (d)
4D5, (e) 5DV1 and (f) 6DV2.
software that can be used for moment curvature, force deection and axial force bending moment anal-
ysis for a reinforced concrete member under various loading conditions. Tab. 6 presents the experi-
mental observations at the end of particular cycles for each specimen reported in Acun (2010) and
DOI: 10.1002/tal
G. XING ET AL.
the calculated damage index and predicted damage state for the same test cycles based on the model
proposed in this study. Note that the experimental test observations are not discussed for each cycle
in Acun (2010) and limited to a few cycles for each specimen. However, Fig. 13 illustrates the damage
index and corresponding damage state predicted by the proposed model for each specimen at each cy-
cle. It can be seen from Tab. 6 that the computed damage is in reasonable agreement with test obser-
vations reported in Acun (2010). Also, the proposed model successfully predicts the complete damage
at the ultimate failure state of each specimen.
Fig. 14 shows the increase in damage index over each cycle for the tested specimens. It can be seen
that the larger the displacement a column is subjected to at each cycle, the higher the damage that re-
sults in the damage index. In general, for cycles at the same displacement amplitude, the test specimens
were damaged mostly due to the rst cycle and then the second cycle. It can be also seen that limited
damage was generated by the third cycle or the following cycles. Hence, it is essential to model the
damage index with at least two repeated cycles. For reinforced concrete members subjected to
earthquake-type loading, the damage caused by small displacement is somewhat negligible compared
with the cumulative damage resulting from larger displacement. Especially with respect to exural re-
inforced concrete columns, only larger displacements (greater than the yield displacement) are sug-
gested to take into account for the damage assessment.
6. CONCLUSIONS
This study explores the cumulative damage experienced by reinforced concrete columns subjected to
seismic loadings. Both cyclic tests with constant amplitude loads and pseudo-dynamic tests under
earthquake loads were performed. A fatigue-based damage model was proposed based on the results
of constant amplitude tests and veried using the results of pseudo-dynamic tests and reported results
in the literature. Based on the systematic experimental investigation of 14 large-scale reinforced con-
crete exural columns, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The low-cycle fatigue behavior of the reinforced concrete columns can be characterized by three
stages: (a) the initial stage with the full participation of both conned core concrete and unconned
cover concrete, (b) stable behavior with deformation contributed primarily by longitudinal steel
yielding and straining of conned core concrete and (c) nal failure.
2. Test results indicate that the damage experienced by reinforced concrete columns under cyclic load-
ing depends on not only the maximum displacement experienced by the column but also the dis-
placement history.
3. The empirical equations developed in this study can satisfactorily express the relationship between
displacement ductility and the number of complete cycles to failure for low-cycle fatigue life anal-
ysis of reinforced concrete exural columns.
4. There is a reasonably good correlation between the damage states observed in experimental tests
and those predicted by the proposed damage model. In particular, the proposed damage index pro-
vides a good estimate of damage at all stages of loading as compared with the observed damage.
5. It should be noted that the columns tested in this study had only four large diameter longitudinal
bars with no intermediate bars. In addition, the longitudinal bar diameter was large relative to the
column size, and the connement provided by the transverse tie might be limited compared with
a properly designed full-scale column. Therefore, a better seismic behavior can be observed in
full-scale reinforced concrete columns, and the damage model developed based on the test results
presented here might be somewhat conservative. Nevertheless, the developed model was shown
to be effective in predicting the cumulative seismic damage for the columns with a reinforcement
arrangement different from the columns tested in this study.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the nancial support from the National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China (No. 51578077), Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province (No. 2016JM5041,
2016KW-056), and Special Fund for Basic Scientic Research of Central Colleges (No.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
310828152017). The authors also would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their detailed and
insightful comments for improving the original manuscript.
REFERENCES
Acun B. 2010. Energy based seismic performance assessment of reinforced concrete columns. Ph.D. thesis Turkey: Middle East
Technical University.
Asad E. 2014. KSU_RC. Kansas State University. http://www.ce.ksu.edu/faculty/esmaeily/KSU_RC.htm. Accessed 26 June
2014.
Chai YH, Romstad KM, Bird SM. 1995. Energy-based linear damage model for high-intensity seismic loading. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 121(5): 857864.
Cofn LFJ. 1954. A study of effects of cyclic thermal stresses on ductile metal. Transactions of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers 76: 931950.
El-Bahy A, Kunnath SK, Stone WC, Taylor AW. 1999a. Cumulative seismic damage of circular bridge columns: variable
amplitude tests. ACI Structural Journal 96(5): 711719.
El-Bahy A, Kunnath SK, Taylor AW, Stone WC. 1999b. Cumulative seismic damage of circular bridge columns: benchmark and
constant amplitude tests. ACI Structural Journal 96(4): 633641.
Elwood KJ, Moehle JP. 2005. Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns with light transverse reinforcement. Earthquake
Spectra 21(1): 7189.
GB50011. 2001. Code for seismic design of buildings. China Architecture and Building Press: Beijing.
Hanganu AD, Oate E, Barbat AH. 2002. A nite element methodology for local/global damage evaluation in civil engineering
structures. Computers & Structures 80(20): 16671687.
Hindi R, Turechek W. 2008. Experimental behavior of circular concrete columns under reversed cyclic loading. Construction
and Building Materials 22(4): 684693.
Karbassi A, Mohebi B, Rezaee S, Lestuzzi P. 2014. Damage prediction for regular reinforced concrete buildings using the
decision tree algorithm. Computers & Structures 130: 4656.
Krawinkler H, Zohrei M, Lashkari-Irvani B, Coe N, Hadidi-Tamjed H. 1954. Recommendations for experimental studies on
seismic behavior of steel components and materials. JBEEC report 61.The John A Blume Earthqukae Engineering Center:
San Francisco, USA.
Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM, Park YJ. 1990. Analytical modeling of inelastic seismic response of R/C structures. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 116(4): 9961016.
Lgeron F, Paultre P. 2000. Behavior of high-strength concrete columns under cyclic exure and constant axial load. ACI
Structural Journal 97(4): 591601.
Li B, Park R. 2004. Conning reinforcement for high-strength concrete columns. ACI Structural Journal 101(3): 314324.
Manson SS. 1954. Behavior of materials under conditions of thermal stress. NACA report 1170. Lewis Flight Propulsion
Laboratory, Cleveland, USA.
McCabe SL, Hall WJ. 1989. Assessment of seismic structural damage. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 115(9):
21662183.
Miner MA. 1945. Cumulative damage in fatigue. Journal of Applied Mechanics, ASME 12(3): 159164.
Park YJ, Ang AHS, Wen YK. 1985. Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 111(4): 740757.
Park YJ, Ang AHS, Wen YK. 1987. Damage-limiting aseismic design of buildings. Earthquake Spectra 3(1): 126.
Paulay T, Priestley MJN. 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley & Sons, Inc: New
York.
Pereraa R, Carnicerob A, Alarcona E, Gomeza S. 2000. A fatigue damage model for seismic response of RC structures.
Computers & Structures 78: 293302.
Pham TP, Li B. 2013. Seismic behavior of RC columns with light transverse reinforcement under different loading directions.
ACI Structural Journal 110(5): 833844.
Poljansek K, Fajfar P. 2008. A new damage model for the seismic damage assessment of reinforced concrete frame structures. In
Proceedings of 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Rao PS, Sarma BS, Lakshmanan N, Stangenberg F. 1998. Damage model for reinforced concrete elements under cyclic loading.
ACI Material Journal 95(6): 682690.
Rodrigues H, Arde A, Varum H, Costa A. 2013. Damage evolution in reinforced concrete columns subjected to biaxial loading.
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 11(5): 15171540.
Saetta A, Scotta R, Vitaliani R. 1999. Coupled environmental-mechanical damage model of RC structures. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE 125(8): 930940.
Tran CTN, Li B. 2012. Initial stiffness of reinforced concrete columns with moderate aspect ratios. Advances in Structural
Engineering 15(2): 265276.
Tran CTN, Li B. 2013. Ultimate displacement of reinforced concrete columns with lightly transverse reinforcement. Journal of
Earthquake Engineering 17(2): 282300.
Watson S, Park R. 1994. Simulated seismic load tests on reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE
120(6): 18251849.
Xiao Y, Martirossyan A. 1998. Seismic performance of high-strength concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE 124(3): 241251.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
G. XING ET AL.
Xiao Y, Yun HW. 2002. Experimental studies on full-scale high-strength concrete columns. ACI Structural Journal 99(2):
199207.
Zhang GW, Xiao Y, Kunnath S. 2009. Low-cycle fatigue damage of circular concrete-lled-tube columns. ACI Structural Jour-
nal 106(2): 151159.
AUTHORS BIOGRAPHIES
Guohua Xing is an Associate Professor at School of Civil Engineering at Changan University, China.
He received his PhD degree from Changan University in 2010. His main area of research is in the
structural dynamic analysis and durability design of building structures and bridges.
Osman E. Ozbulut is an Assistant Professor at Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at

University of Virginia, USA. He received his PhD degree from Texas A&M University, USA, in 2010.
His research focuses on applying innovative materials, sensing technologies and interdisciplinary ex-
pertise to the development of resilient and sustainable civil infrastructure systems.
Tuo Lei is an Associate Professor at School of Civil Engineering at Changan University, China. He
received his PhD degree from Tongji University in 2011. His research interest is in the structural dy-
namic analysis and numerical simulations.
Boquan Liu is a Professor at School of Civil Engineering at Changan University, China. He is cur-
rently the vice president of Changan University. His research interest is in the earthquake engineering
and structural optimization.
DOI: 10.1002/tal

SDTSB Xing 2016

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SDTSB Xing 2016

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016;

Cumulative seismic damage assessment of reinforced concrete

Guohua Xing1*, Osman E. Ozbulut2, Tuo Lei1 and Boquan Liu1

Received 6 December 2015; Revised 8 July 2016; Accepted 18 July 2016

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2.1. Design of column specimens

Table 1. Testing matrix.

2.2. Test setup and instrumentation

3. PHASE I: BENCHMARK AND CYCLIC TESTS

3.1. Loading procedure

Figure 1. Detail of specimens.

Figure 2. Test setup and instrumentation.

Table 2. Summary of experimental test results.

Figure 3. Response of column to monotonic loading.

Figure 5. Low-cyclic fatigue behavior of specimen CF8.

4. FATIGUE LIFE RELATIONSHIP AND DAMAGE MODELING

Figure 6. Fatigue life relationship for exural columns.

where Ni and Nj are the numbers of complete cycles to failure.

The following expression can also be obtained from Eq. (6):

Usually, Nmon = 1/4, therefore, Eq. (11) can be rewritten as follows:

Finally, the proposed equation for damage index is as follows:

Figure 7. Flowchart for evaluating the seismic damage of RC column.

Table 3. Damage states.

5. PHASE II: PSEUDO-DYNAMIC TESTS AND VERIFICATION

5.1. Pseudo-dynamic tests

Figure 8. Reinforced concrete planar frame building.

Figure 10. Response of specimen CF12 under El Centro earthquake.

Figure 11. Response of specimen CF13 under articial earthquake.

Figure 12. Response of specimen CF14 under Tianjin earthquake.

5.3. Low cyclic reversed loading test

Table 4. Summary of phase II test results.

Table 5. Details of previous test data.

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Osman E. Ozbulut is an Assistant Professor at Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen