SHAKE TABLE TESTING OF BRIDGE REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS UNDER COMBINED ACTIONS Juan G. Arias Acosta, Graduate Student David H. Sanders, Professor and Project PI University of Nevada, Reno NEESR SG 53737 1.. INTRODUCTION During moderate to large earthquakes, reinforced concrete bridge columns (RCC) are subjected to combinations of actions and deformations, caused by spatially complex earthquake ground motions, structural configurations and the interaction between input and response characteristics. As a result, the seismic behavior of RCC will be seriously affected, and that in turn influences the performance of bridges as critical components of transportation systems. In addition, current analysis methods, behavior theories and design practices do not take into consideration the full range of interactions, due to the scarcity of experimental data and a lack of behavioral understanding. In order to address the complex behavior of bridge members under combined loadings and its impact on system response, a comprehensive project sponsored by the National Science Foundation was established in 26. This project includes researchers from six institutions, and the objectives are to develop a fundamental knowledge of the impact of combined actions on column performance and their implications on system response through analytical and experimental research. The work at UNR focuses on the development of refined analysis and shaking table tests of small scale models of bridge columns subjected to different levels of biaxial, torsion and vertical loads through real time earthquake motions. The performance of the specimens will be assessed in terms of strength, deformation, energy dissipation and failure mode. These results will be used to validate analytical tools, developing new inelastic models for RCC under combined loadings and to propose new design methodologies. Eight specimens will be tested on the shake table facility at UNR under bidirectional excitation. The first of these tests will be conducted on Friday June 5, 29. These tests are part of a small group project funded by NEESR SG 53737 under funding from NSF through NEHRP. Other institution involved in this project include: University of California, Los Angeles, University of Illinois, Champaign Urbana, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Washington University, St. Louis, University of Houston, and George Washington University. One specimen configuration will be circular, while the other will be a cross section with interlocking spirals. The first specimen tested will circular. 2.. CIRCULAR COLUMN C1 The circular column specimen was constructed using current bridge design details typical of bridges in California in accordance with the Seismic Design Criteria (CALTRANS, 26). The structural configuration selected was similar to previous columns tested at UNR (Laplace et al., 1999). The scaling factor selected was 1/3, therefore the diameter was 16 in. (46 mm) and the height 72 in. (183 mm) thus the aspect ratio was 4.5, which allows for flexural dominated behavior. The columns were reinforced with 2 No.4 (D13) deformed longitudinal bars, distributed uniformly around the perimeter and fully developed with 9 degree hooks in the footing. This resulted in a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 2%. The confinement consisted of a continuous spiral made from galvanized steel wire with a diameter of.25 in. (6.25 mm) and a pitch of 1.5
in. (38 mm). The clear cover was set to.75 in. (19 mm) and the resulting volumetric ratio of the spiral reinforcement was.92%. Details of the circular specimen are shown in Fig. 1. As can be shown in fig. 2. a concrete footing and top loading head were constructed to attach the specimen to the shake table and to connect the inertial mass system to the specimen, respectively. The design compressive strength of the concrete was set as 4.5 ksi (3 MPa), while the nominal yielding strength of the steel was 64 ksi (447 MPa) for deformed bars and 6 ksi (42 MPa) for steel wire. Table 1 shows the real properties of steel and concrete based on coupons and cylinders tests. The superstructure mass was defined as 8 kips (356 kn), which is equivalent to an axial load of 8% of Agf c. Fig 1. Circular Column C1 Steel Details
Fig 2. Circular Column C1 Footing and Top Head Details
Table 1: Material Properties Days Concrete Compressive Strength [psi] [MPa] Footing Column Footing Column 7 414 2914 29 2 14 4244 367 29 25 28 4818 441 33 28 Test (288) Steel Properties No.4 W5. [ksi] [MPa] [ksi] [MPa] Yield stress 65 448 58 4 Yield strain.23.23.24.24 Strain at hardening.75.75 N.A N.A Peak stress 13.3 712 78.5 541 Strain at peak.1146.115.126.126 Fracture stress 99.66 687 7.26 484 Fracture strain.157.151.1378.138 Table 2: Lateral Load Capacity of the Specimen Circular Columns P= Properties Radial Dir. y.34 My (kip in) 1566 u.584 Mu (kip in) 1973 8.29 Vu (kn) 122 Tcr (kip in) 23 Tu (kip in) 78 1 in = 25.4 mm
3.. INSTRUMENTATION The specimen was extensively instrumented to monitor the local and global response of the specimen. A total of 96 channels were used at selected locations to measure acceleration, lateral force and displacement, torsion, and curvature. Furthermore, strain gages were attached to the longitudinal and transverse steel to measure local deformations. Also, a series of sensors were placed inside the concrete to measure the variation in strains at different locations. 4.. BIDIRECTIONAL MASS RIG As part of the project a new inertial loading system was developed at UNR to test single cantilever type columns on shake table under biaxial excitations. The aim of the test setup is to have a supporting structure that carries safely the vertical component of the inertial mass (superstructure weight) but allows transfer the inertial forces from the structure to the specimen. A similar structure that allows dynamic excitation in one direction was developed at UNR ten years ago (Laplace, 1999). The new system is composed by a 3D four columns frame and a platform that sets on ball bearings located at the top of the columns. The platform is connected to the RCC specimen through links in two perpendicular directions, which transfer shear and torsion but not axial load (Fig. 3). Additional mass is set on the platform to simulate the weight of a portion of the bridge superstructure and this can be distributed in an asymmetric configuration to induce torsion in the system. In addition, a safety system was designed to catch the platform in the event of large displacements or specimen collapse. In the initial series of tests, only inertial loads will be included. The axial load will not be applied to the column. Axial load for bridge columns is typically less than.1f c Ag. Future tests will include axial load. 5.. ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION Analytical models were developed to anticipate the seismic performance of the specimens and to determine the appropriate input loadings to be used during the tests. Time history inelastic analysis has been performed using OpenSees. The biaxial flexural behavior of the columns was simulated using a lumped plasticity model throughout uniaxial fiber elements (element beam with hinges in OpenSees). The stress strain properties of the unconfined and confined concrete were simulated using the Mander s model. For that, the actual strength of the concrete measured from cylinders at 28 days was used. Likewise, the longitudinal reinforcing steel was idealized using the uniaxial steel material model developed by Chang and Mander. The actual stress strain backbone curve measured from coupons was used as the input parameter for the steel material model. A reduction factor of 2% the elastic torsional stiffness (GJ) was used to take in account the torsional cracking of the concrete in agreement with the Seismic Design Criteria (CALTRANS, 26). Also, the reinforcement slippage was included in the models in the form of additional rotation at the plastic hinge location. To estimate the lateral load and displacement capacities of the specimen moment curvature analysis were performed. Table 2 summarizes the capacities of the circular column. Once the capacity was estimated, a series of nonlinear time history analysis were conducted to select the input motion to be simulated in the shake table test.
Fig 3. Bidirectional Mass Rig
6.. GROUND MOTIONS The two horizontal components of the 1992 Petroglia earthquake (M=7.) at Cape Mendocino, California were used as the input motions. The earthquake records at the Cape Mendocino station were scaled to have a hazard level of 2% of exceedence in 5 years. The amplitude of the records was increased until the maximum capacity of the analytical model was achieved. Also, the time axis of the input motions was compressed to account for the specimen scale factor. It was determined that the record amplified by a factor of 1.4 will induce the maximum displacement ductility demand on the specimens without exceeding the shake table capacity. The maximum accelerations imposed in both horizontal directions were.8g and.95g, respectively (Fig 4). Petroglia at Mendocino PET Acceleration (g) 1..8.6.4.2..2.4.6.8 1. PET x.2 PET x.4 PET x.6 PET x.8 PET x 1. PET x 1.2 PET x 1.4 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 Time (s) Acceleration (g) 1..8.6.4.2..2.4.6.8 1. Petroglia at Mendocino PET9 PET x.2 PET x.4 PET x.6 PET x.8 PET x 1. PET x 1.2 PET x 1.4 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 Time (s) Fig 4. Acceleration Histories
7.. ANALYTICAL RESULTS Fig. 5 compares the displacement history and hysteresis (base shear displacement) curves for the models of a single column and the specimen with the inertial load system, without taking in consideration the axial load. From the figure is clear that the inertial loading system does not change the behavior of the specimen. Displacement history in X (Mendocinox1.4), EQ Biaxial Hysteretic behavior in X Displacement (in) 8 6 4 2 2 4 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 Time (s) 23 152 12 51 51 12 Displacement (mm) Base shear (Kip) Displacement (mm) 12 51 51 12 152 23 3 134 2 89 1 45 1 45 2 89 3 134 4 2 2 4 6 8 Base shear (kn) MR P Tendon PD SC+P Tendon+PD Displacement (in) Displacement history in Y (Mendocinox1.4), EQ Biaxial Hysteretic behavior in Y Displacement (in) 8 6 4 2 2 4 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 Time (s) 23 152 12 51 51 12 Displacement(mm) Base shear (Kip) Displacement (mm) 12 51 51 12 152 23 3 134 2 89 1 45 1 45 2 89 3 134 4 2 2 4 6 8 Base shear (kn) MR P Tendon PD SC+P Tendon+PD Displacement (in) Fig 5. Analytical Results 8.. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was founded by The National Science Foundation under Grant No.EMS 53737. The Assistance of Ian Buckle, Patrick Laplace, Chad Lyttle and the staff at the Large Scale Structural Laboratory at University of Nevada Reno is gratefully acknowledged.