Numerical Analysis of Structural Behavior and Damage Mechanisms in Shear-Deficient Reinforced Concrete Columns Retrofitted with RC Jacketing

Öz

Depreme dayanıklı tasarım ilkelerine uygun olarak betonarme kolonların tasarlanması ve inşaat sırasında doğru bir şekilde uygulanması, betonarme yapıların deprem performansını etkileyen önemli faktörlerdendir. Bu çalışma, 6 Şubat Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) depremleri sırasında betonarme yapıların kolonlarında gözlemlenen geniş çaplı hasarların temel nedenlerini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Analiz, ilk olarak gözlemlenen hasarları deprem mühendisliği ve yapısal mekanik açısından incelemektedir. Daha ayrıntılı bir inceleme yapmak amacıyla, temsil niteliğindeki bir betonarme bina modeli üzerinde sayısal analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Üç yapısal model dikkate alınmıştır: bir referans model ve güçlendirilmiş elemanlara sahip iki varyasyon. Referans modelinde C8/10 beton ve S220 donatı kullanılmış, enine donatı aralığı 300 mm olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu model için, kesme kuvveti kapasitesini aşan elemanlar için güçlendirme yöntemi olarak beton kaplama önerilmiştir. Kesme kapasitesi yetersiz kolonlar tespit edilerek, mantolama tekniği sırasıyla ilk olarak tek bir kolona ve ardından yapının tüm kolonlarına uygulanmıştır. Üç model arasındaki limit ve talep kesme kuvvetlerinin karşılaştırılması, betonarme kaplamanın yapısal elemanların kesme kuvveti kapasitesini önemli ölçüde artırdığını ve deprem performansını iyileştirmek için etkili bir çözüm sunduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Deprem
• enine donatı
• beton
• kolon
• kesme kuvveti
• mantolama

Numerical Analysis of Structural Behavior and Damage Mechanisms in Shear-Deficient Reinforced Concrete Columns Retrofitted with RC Jacketing

Abstract

Designing reinforced concrete columns in adherence to earthquake-resistant design principles and ensuring proper implementation during construction are crucial factors influencing the seismic performance of reinforced concrete structures. Following the extensive damage observed in columns of reinforced concrete buildings during the February 6th Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) earthquakes, this study aims to investigate the underlying causes of these failures. The analysis first examines the observed damages from the perspective of earthquake engineering and structural mechanics. To further investigate, numerical analyses were conducted using a representative reinforced concrete building model. Three structural models were considered: a reference model and two variations with strengthened elements. The reference model utilized C8/10 concrete with S220 reinforcement, with transverse reinforcement spacing of 300 mm. For this model, reinforced concrete jacketing was proposed as a strengthening method for elements exceeding their shear force capacity. Shear-deficient columns were identified, and the jacketing technique was applied incrementally—first to a single column and subsequently to all columns within the structure. Comparisons of the limit and demand shear forces across the three models demonstrated that reinforced concrete jacketing significantly enhanced the shear force capacity of the structural elements, providing an effective solution for improving seismic performance.

Keywords

• Earthquake
• transverse reinforcement
• concrete
• column
• shear force

Kaynakça

1. Harirchian E, Lahmer T, Buddhiraju S, Mohammad K, Mosavi A. Earthquake safety assessment of buildings through rapid visual screening. Buildings, 2020;10(3), 51.
2. Blagojević N, Brzev S, Petrović M, Borozan J, Bulajić B, Marinković M, et al. Residential building stock in Serbia: classification and vulnerability for seismic risk studies. Bulletin of earthquake engineering, 2023;21(9), 4315-4383.
3. Büyüksaraç A, Isik E, Harirchian E. A case study for the determination of seismic risk priorities in Van (Eastern Turkey). Earthquake and structures, 2021;20(4), 445-455.
4. Işık M, Işık E, Haricihian E. Application of IOS/Android rapid evaluation of post-earthquake damages in masonry buildings. Gazi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 2021;7(1), 36-50.
5. Kassem MM, Beddu S, Ooi JH, Tan CG, Mohamad El-Maissi A, Mohamed Nazri F. Assessment of seismic building vulnerability using rapid visual screening method through web-based application for Malaysia. Buildings, 2021;11(10), 485.
6. Khemis A, Athmani A, Ademović N. Rapid application of the RISK-UE LM2 method for the seismic vulnerability analysis of the Algerian masonry buildings. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 2024;18(5), 788-808.
7. Jain SK, Mitra K, Kumar M, Shah M. A proposed rapid visual screening procedure for seismic evaluation of RC-frame buildings in India. Earthquake Spectra, 2010;26(3), 709-729.
8. Bilgin H, Hadzima-Nyarko M, Işık E, Ozmen HB, Harirchian E. A comparative study on the seismic provisions of different codes for RC buildings. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, An Int'l Journal, 2022;83(2), 195-206.

9. Aynur S, Atalay HM. Comparative analysis of existing reinforced concrete buildings damaged at different levels during past earthquakes using rapid assessment methods. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2023;85, 793–808.
10. Başgöze A, Güncü A. Determining the regional disaster risk analysis of buildings in Erzincan. Građevinar 2023;75.03.257-272.
11. Nemutlu ÖF, Sarı A, Balun B. 06 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş Depremlerinde (Mw 7.7-Mw 7.6) Meydana Gelen Gerçek Can Kayıpları Ve Yapısal Hasar Değerlerinin Tahmin Edilen Değerler İle Karşılaştırılması. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 2023;23(5), 1222-1234.
12. Bektaş N, Kegyes-Brassai O. Enhancing seismic assessment and risk management of buildings: A neural network-based rapid visual screening method development. Engineering Structures, 2024;304, 117606.
13. Işık E, Hadzima-Nyarko M, Radu D, Bulajić B. Study on effectiveness of regional risk prioritisation in reinforced concrete structures after earthquakes. Applied Sciences, 2024;14(16), 6992.
14. Apostolaki S, Riga E, Pitilakis D. Rapid damage assessment effectiveness for the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Türkiye earthquake sequence. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2024;111, 104691.
15. Sezgin SK, Sakcalı GB, Özen S, Yıldırım E, Avcı E, Bayhan B, Çağlar N. Reconnaissance report on damage caused by the February 6, 2023, Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes in reinforced-concrete structures. Journal of Building Engineering, 2024;89, 109200.
16. Akar F, Işık E, Avcil F, Büyüksaraç A, Arkan E, İzol R. Geotechnical and structural damages caused by the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes in Gölbaşı (Adıyaman). Applied Sciences, 2024;14(5), 2165.
17. Işık E, Avcil F, Hadzima-Nyarko M, İzol R, Büyüksaraç A, Arkan E, et al. Seismic performance and failure mechanisms of reinforced concrete structures subject to the earthquakes in Türkiye. Sustainability, 2024;16(15), 6473.
18. Demir A, Celebi E, Ozturk H, Ozcan Z, Ozocak A, Bol E, et al. Destructive impact of successive high magnitude earthquakes occurred in Türkiye’s Kahramanmaraş on February 6, 2023. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2024;1-27.
19. İnce O. Structural damage assessment of reinforced concrete buildings in Adıyaman after Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) Earthquakes on 6 February 2023. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2024;156, 107799.
20. Avğın S, Köse MM, Özbek A. Damage assessment of structural and geotechnical damages in Kahramanmaraş during the February 6, 2023 earthquakes. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, 2024;57, 101811.
21. Saatcioglu, M., Mitchell, D., Tinawi, R., Gardner, N. J., Gillies, A. G., Ghobarah, A., ... & Lau, D. The August 17, 1999, Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquake damage to structures. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2001; 28(4), 715-737.
22. Doǧangün, A. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the May 1, 2003 Bingöl Earthquake in Turkey. Engineering Structures, 2004; 26(6), 841-856.
23. Taskin, B., Sezen, A., Tugsal, U. M., & Erken, A. The aftermath of 2011 Van earthquakes: evaluation of strong motion, geotechnical and structural issues. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2013; 11, 285-312.
24. Isik, E., Aydin, M. C., & Buyuksarac, A. (2020). 24 January 2020 Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake damages and determination of earthquake parameters in the region. Earthquakes and Structures, 19(2), 145-156.
25. Nemutlu, O. F., Balun, B., & Sari, A. Damage assessment of buildings after 24 January 2020 Elazığ-Sivrice earthquake. Earthquakes and Structures, 2021; 20(3), 325-335.
26. Binici B, Yakut A, Kadas K, Demirel O, Akpinar U, Canbolat A, et al. Performance of RC buildings after Kahramanmaraş earthquakes: lessons toward performance-based design. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2023; 22(4), 883-894.
27. Mertol HC, Tunç G, Akış T, Kantekin Y, Aydın İC. Investigation of RC buildings after 6 February 2023, Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye earthquakes. Buildings, 2023;13(7), 1789.
28. Karasin IB. Comparative analysis of the 2023 Pazarcık and Elbistan Earthquakes in Diyarbakır. Buildings, 2023;13(10), 2474.
29. Işık E, Avcil F, İzol R, Büyüksaraç A, Bilgin H, Harirchian E, Arkan, E. Field Reconnaissance and Earthquake Vulnerability of the RC Buildings in Adıyaman during 2023 Türkiye Earthquakes. Applied Sciences, 2024;14(7), 2860.
30. Ozturk M, Arslan MH, Korkmaz HH. Effect on RC buildings of 6 February 2023 Turkey earthquake doublets and new doctrines for seismic design. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2023;153, 107521.
31. Altunişik, A. C., Arslan, M. E., Kahya, V., Aslan, B., Sezdirmez, T., Dok, G., ... & Nas, M. (2023). Field observations and damage evaluation in reinforced concrete buildings after the February 6th, 2023, Kahramanmaraş–Türkiye Earthquakes. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, 17(06), 2350024.
32. Yuzbasi J. Post-Earthquake Damage Assessment: Field Observations and Recent Developments with Recommendations from the Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes in Türkiye on February 6th, 2023 (Pazarcık M7. 8 and Elbistan M7. 6). Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2024;1-26.
33. Altunişik AC, Arslan ME, Kahya V, Aslan B, Sezdirmez T, Dok G., et al. Field Observations and Damage Evaluation in Reinforced Concrete Buildings After the February 6th, 2023, Kahramanmaraş–Türkiye Earthquakes. Journal of Earthquake & Tsunami, 2023;17(6).
34. Jaiswal K, Hancilar U, Askan A, Erberik MA., Cakti E, Rao A, et al. A synopsis of rapid characterization and field-based performance assessment of RC structures from the M7. 8 Kahramanmaras earthquake sequence. In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts 2023; U44A-02.
35. Tunç G, Mertol HC, Akış T. Lessons learned from four recent Turkish earthquakes: Sivrice-Elazığ, Aegean Sea, and Dual Kahramanmaraş. Natural Hazards, 2024;1-33.
36. Balun, B. Developing a regression model for predicting the seismic input energy of rc buildings using 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake. Türk Doğa ve Fen Dergisi, 2024; 13(1), 142-151.
37. Kahya, V., Genç, A. F., Sunca, F., Roudane, B., Altunişik, A. C., Yilmaz, S., ... & Akgül, T. Evaluation of earthquake-related damages on masonry structures due to the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Türkiye earthquakes: A case study for Hatay Governorship Building. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2024; 156, 107855.
38. Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley & Sons: New York,1992.
39. Fardis MN. Seismic design, assessment and retrofitting of concrete buildings: based on EN-Eurocode 8 Berlin: Springer. 2009;8
40. Priestley MJN. Displacement-based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of earthquake engineering, 1997;1(01), 157-192.
41. Ozcan O, Binici B, Ozcebe G. Seismic strengthening of rectangular reinforced concrete columns using fiber reinforced polymers. Engineering Structures, 2021;32(4), 964-973.
42. Khalifa ES, Al-Tersawy SH. Experimental and analytical behavior of strengthened reinforced concrete columns with steel angles and strips. International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering (IJASE), 2024;6, 1-14.
43. Raza S, Khan MK, Menegon SJ, Tsang HH, Wilson JL. Strengthening and repair of reinforced concrete columns by jacketing: State-of-the-art review. Sustainability, 2019;11(11), 3208.
44. Gholampour A, Hassanli R, Mills JE, Vincent T, Kunieda M. Experimental investigation of the performance of concrete columns strengthened with fiber reinforced concrete jacket. Construction and Building Materials, 2019;194, 51-61.
45. Murugan K, Sengupta AK. Seismic performance of strengthened reinforced concrete columns. Structures, 2020;27,487-505.
46. Koteš P, Vavruš M, Jošt J, Prokop J. Strengthening of concrete column by using the wrapper layer of fibre reinforced concrete. Materials, 2020;13(23), 5432.
47. Sayed MA, Rashwan MM, Helmy ME. Experimental behavior of cracked reinforced concrete columns strengthened with reinforced concrete jacketing. Materials, 2020;13(12), 2832.
48. Naji A J, Al-Jelawy HM, Saadoon SA, Ejel AT. Rehabilitation and strengthening techniques for reinforced concrete columns. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2021;1895,1,012049.
49. Putra RR, Ono Y, Syah N, Cantika AA. Seismic performance evaluation of existing building in earthquake prone area based on seismic index and seismic demand method. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 2021;9(4), 1237-1245.
50. Maleknia M. Seismic reliability analysis for strengthening of reinforced-concrete hospital building with base isolation frames. Journal of Civil Engineering Researchers, 2022;4(3), 40.
51. Yin J, Tang D, Chen T, Yang Y, Ju L, Wan Y, et al. Seismic risk assessment and rehabilitation method of existing rcc structures using micro concrete. Civil Engineering Journal, 2023;9(12), 3008-3018.
52. Seismosoft. SeismoStruct 2023—A Computer Program for Static and Dynamic Nonlinear Analysis of Framed Structures. 2023. Available online: http://www.seismosoft.com (accessed on 5 January 2024).
53. Antoniou S, Pinho R. SeismoStruct–Seismic Analysis Program by Seismosoft. In Technical User Manuel; SeismoStruct: Pavia, Italy, 2003.
54. Bilgin H, Plaku B. (2024). Influence of Confined Concrete Models on the Seismic Response of RC Frames. Structural Durability & Health Monitoring, 2024;18(3),1-26.
55. Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering structures, 1998;20 (4),452–464.
56. Shendkar MR, Kontoni DPN, Işık E, Mandal S, Maiti PR, Harirchian E. Influence of Masonry Infill on Seismic Design Factors of Reinforced‐Concrete Buildings. Shock and Vibration, 2022;(1), 5521162.
57. Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 2002;31(3), 561-582.
58. Elnashai AS. Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications. Structural engineering and mechanics, 2001;12(1), 51-69.
59. Pinho, R. (2007). Using pushover analysis for assessment of buildings and bridges. In Advanced earthquake engineering analysis. Vienna, 2007;91-120
60. Papanikolaou VK, Elnashai AS, Pareja JF. (2006). Evaluation of conventional and adaptive pushover analysis II: Comparative results. Journal of earthquake engineering, 2006;10(01), 127-151.
61. Guo W, Hu Y, Liu H, Bu D. Seismic Performance Evaluation of Typical Piers of China’s High‐Speed Railway Bridge Line Using Pushover Analysis. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2019(1), 9514769.
62. EN 1998-3; Eurocode-8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings. European Committee for Standardization: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2005.