Sie sind auf Seite 1von 84

UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING


Report Series in Structural and Earthquake Engineering

DEFORMATIONS OF CONCRETE MEMBERS


AT YIELDING AND ULTIMATE UNDER
MONOTONIC OR CYCLIC LOADING
(INCLUDING REPAIRED AND RETROFITTED
MEMBERS)

DIONYSIS BISKINIS, MICHAEL N. FARDIS

Report No. SEE 2009-01


January 2009

DEFORMATIONS OF CONCRETE MEMBERS


AT YIELDING AND ULTIMATE UNDER
MONOTONIC OR CYCLIC LOADING
(INCLUDING REPAIRED AND
RETROFITTED MEMBERS)
by

DIONYSIS BISKINIS
Post-Doctoral Researcher
And
MICHAEL N. FARDIS
Professor

The report is printed with the


financial support of the European Commission
under FP7 project A.C.E.S.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission.

Report No. SEE 2009-01


Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras
January 2009

ii

Abstract

Models are developed/calibrated for the moment, the chord rotation and the
secant stiffness at flexural yielding, as well as the ultimate deformation of beams,
rectangular columns or walls and members of T-, H-, U- or hollow rectangular section, on
the basis of a databank of tests on RC members with continuous bars. Simple criteria are
developed for the identification of adverse shear effects on the yield moment or the
ultimate deformation. The models for the moment and the chord rotation at flexural
yielding apply only to members whose yield moment is not reduced by shear effects. The
models developed employ simple, explicit expressions suitable for practical application,
without moment-curvature analysis. They are extended to members with bars lap-spliced
starting at the end section, as well as to those retrofitted with Fibre-Reinforced-Polymer
(FRP) or concrete jackets before or after pre-damage by cyclic loading. The effects of
biaxial loading on member yielding and ultimate deformation are examined.
The proposed models have been adopted in Part 3 of Eurocode 8 for the seismic
assessment and retrofitting of existing concrete buildings, or represent an advancement
over models proposed earlier by the authors and therein.

iii

iv

TableofContents
Abstract........................................................................................................................................................................... iii
1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

Deformations at flexural yielding of members with continuous bars............................................................ 5

2.1

Uniaxial yield moment and curvature of section with rectangular, T- or L- compression zone ............. 5

2.2

Fixed-end rotation due to pull-out of longitudinal bars from their anchorage beyond the end section

at uniaxial yielding................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.3

Chord rotation and secant stiffness to yield point in uniaxial flexure for members of rectangular, T-,

H-, U-, or hollow rectangular section ..................................................................................................................... 11


Yield moment, chord rotation and secant stiffness to yield point under biaxial flexure ....................... 15

2.4
3

Effect of lap-splicing of longitudinal bars in the plastic hinge zone on member flexure-controlled

yielding and secant stiffness to yield point ............................................................................................................. 17


3.1

Yield moment and curvature of section with rectangular, T- or L- compression zone ......................... 17

3.2

Chord rotation and effective stiffness at yielding...................................................................................... 20

Flexure-controlled ultimate deformations of members with continuous bars............................................ 23

4.1

Uniaxial ultimate curvature of members with rectangular compression zone ....................................... 23

4.2

Strains of steel and concrete at section ultimate curvature ...................................................................... 27

4.3

Fixed-end rotation due to pull-out of longitudinal bars from their anchorage beyond the end section

at member flexural failure ...................................................................................................................................... 30


4.4

Uniaxial ultimate chord rotation from curvatures and the plastic hinge length .................................... 31

4.5

Empirical uniaxial ultimate chord rotation ............................................................................................... 32

4.6

Flexure-controlled ultimate chord rotations in biaxial loading ............................................................... 37

Effect of lap-splicing of longitudinal bars in the plastic hinge zone on flexure-controlled ultimate

deformations............................................................................................................................................................. 38
6

Shear Strength after Flexural Yielding .......................................................................................................... 42

6.1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 42

6.2

Models of shear resistance in diagonal tension under inelastic cyclic deformations after flexural

yielding...................................................................................................................................................................... 43
7

RC-jacketing of columns ................................................................................................................................. 46

7.1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 46

7.2

Simple rules for the strength, the stiffness and the deformation capacity of jacketed members .......... 46

FRP-jacketing of columns ............................................................................................................................... 52

8.1

Seismic retrofitting with FRPs .................................................................................................................... 52

8.2

FRP-wrapped columns with continuous vertical bars .............................................................................. 52

8.2.1

Yield moment and effective stiffness to yield point .................................................................................. 52

8.2.2

Flexure-controlled deformation capacity ................................................................................................... 55

8.3

FRP-wrapped columns with ribbed (deformed) vertical bars lap-spliced in the plastic hinge region . 58

8.4

Cyclic shear resistance of FRP-wrapped columns .................................................................................... 61

Repaired concrete members............................................................................................................................ 64

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................. 67
NOTATION................................................................................................................................................................... 71

vi

Introduction

In performance-based seismic assessment and retrofitting of existing buildings [2], [11], as well as
in displacement-based seismic design, flexure-controlled components are checked by comparing
seismic deformation demands to corresponding limit deformations. This requires knowledge of the
deformations of flexure-controlled members at key points of their force-deformation response,
namely at yielding and ultimate conditions, in terms of the geometry and material properties of the
member and its reinforcement and axial load. Moreover, member seismic deformation demands to
be compared with deformation limits should be obtained using realistic effective stiffness values
for all members of the lateral load resisting system. The default stiffness values of current codes
for seismic design of new buildings overestimate member stiffness, to be on the safe-side for
force-based design; but they underestimate seismic deformation demands and are unsafe for
displacement-based evaluation or design.
In order to compare seismic deformation demands to corresponding limit deformations for
flexure-controlled members, member ultimate deformations should be known as a function of the
geometry and material properties of the member and its reinforcement, the axial load and the
detailing (lap-spliced bars, stirrups without 135o hooks, etc.). To define deformation limits for
target reliability levels, not only the mean value of ultimate deformation should be known, but also
its dispersion. Note that, members subjected to cyclic loading after yielding in flexure may
ultimately fail in shear, owing to shear strength degradation. This affects the member ultimate
deformation. So, the failure mode of a concrete member in cyclic loading, namely whether it is by
bending or in shear, and how this affects the value of the member ultimate deformation, is also a
very important parameter to be investigated.
It is still common in many parts of the world including Europes seismic areas to lapsplice all vertical bars of columns or walls at floor levels for convenience of bar fixing. Besides,
short lap splices in vertical members at floor level are a typical deficiency in existing substandard
construction all over the world.

The present report contributes to the current worldwide effort to improve our capability for
estimation of key deformation properties and the effective stiffness of RC members. Its
contributions are in the form of simple, practical models applying (sometimes with minor
variations) to those beams, rectangular columns or walls and members with T-, H-, U- or hollow
rectangular section and continuous or lap-spliced bars whose yield moment is not reduced by
shear effects. They are developed/calibrated using a large database of tests [8] of concrete
members. About 2500 uniaxial tests in the database are identified as free of adverse effects of
shear on yielding and utilised further in this paper. The breakdown of these tests and the range and
mean value of the main parameters of their specimens are summarised in Table 1.1. About 1620
tests of the database are identified to have flexural behaviour until failure. Table 1.2 gives the
breakdown of these tests and the range and mean value of the main parameters of these specimens.
Over 300 uniaxial tests are identified to fail in shear after flexural yielding and are utilized to
develop/calibrate models of shear strength degradation under cyclic loading.
Table 1.1: Range and mean of parameter values in the groups of specimens in the database, with
continuous or lapped bars, yielding in flexure
114 members with lap-spliced ribbed

2426 specimens with continuous bars

Parameter

rectangular beams rectangular walls: non-rectangular beams/columns:


or columns: 2084
min/max mean

effective depth, d (m)

bars

175

sections: 167

103

sections: 11

min/max mean min/max mean min/max mean

min/max

mean

0.072 / 2.3 0.28 0.535 / 2.9 1.2 0.18 / 3.1 1.28 0.072 / 0.72 0.34 0.415 / 1.125 0.67
0.6 / 5.55 1.95 0.6 / 8.33 2.46 2.75 / 8.4 4.72

shear-span-to-depth ratio, Ls/h

1 / 13

section aspect ratio, h/bw

0.2 / 4

1.3

4 / 30

11.6

fc (MPa)

9.6 / 118

37.2

18.7 / 86

36

Axial-load-ratio, N/Acfc

-0.05 / 0.9 0.125

0 / 0.35 0.057

transverse steel ratio, w (%)

0.02 / 3.54 0.62

0 / 2.18

1.6 / 3

2.75

4 / 12

6.25

20 / 102 41.8 16.7 / 40.8 27.5

22.5 / 38

28.2

0.1

0 / 0.19

0.07

0 / 0.5

0.07

0.2 / 2

0 / 0.4

1.2

0.64 0.1 / 2.09 0.59 0.045 / 0.92 0.36 0.175 / 0.56 0.265

total longitudinal steel ratio tot (%) 0.11 / 8.55 1.97 0.07 / 4.27 1.55 0.34 / 6.19 1.29 0.295 / 5.13 1.79
lapping-to-bar-diameter ratio lo/dbL

non-rectangular

15 / 50

34

0.78 / 1.1

0.95

20 / 60

30

Table 1.2: Range and mean of parameter values in the groups of specimens in the database, with
continuous or lapped bars, reaching ultimate deformation in flexure
1619 specimens with continuous bars

Parameter

1539 specimens detailed for earthquake resistance


1395 rectangular 88 rectangular
beams/columns:

walls:

92 members with lap-spliced ribbed


bars

80 rectangular

non-rectangular

columns with

81

11 non-rectangular

sections: 56

poor detailing

beams/columns:

sections

min/max mean min/max mean min/max mean min/max mean min/max mean min/max mean
effective depth, d (m)

0.085 / 2.3 0.29 0.62 / 2.625 1.265 0.18 / 3.1 1.26 0.072 / 1.680.363 0.072 / 0.72 0.33 0.415 / 1.125 0.67

shear-span-to-depth ratio, Ls/h

1 / 13

3.9

0.7 / 5.55 2.15 0.65 / 8.33 2.7

1.6 / 3

2.75

section aspect ratio, h/bw

0.2 / 4

1.3

4 / 28.3

9.85

4 / 12

6.25

fc (MPa)

9.6 / 118 37.2

22 / 57

34.8 20 / 102 41.7 10.6 / 67 34.6 16.7 / 40.8 28.1

22.5 / 38

28.2

axial-load-ratio, N/Acfc

-0.05 / 0.9 0.14

0 / 0.35

0.058

0 / 0.19

0.07

transverse steel ratio, w (%)

0.02 / 3.35 0.725

0 / 2.18

0.66 0.1 / 2.09 0.6 0.055 / 0.790.235 0.045 / 0.92 0.27 0.175 / 0.56 0.265

total longitudinal steel ratio

0.21 / 6.52 2.04 0.15 / 4.27 1.28 0.35 / 6.19 1.3 0.07 / 3.53 1.54 0.295 / 5.13 1.92

1.8 / 6.4

4.03 2.75 / 8.4 4.72

0.5 / 28.3 2.26

0 / 0.3 0.065 0 / 0.47

0.2

0.2 / 2
0 / 0.4

1.2
0.11

0.78 / 1.1

0.95

20 / 60

30

tot %
lapping-to-bar-diameter, lo/dbL

15 / 50

32

The most widely used retrofitting technique for concrete columns is jacketing of their full
storey height with reinforced concrete. Wrapping of their ends with fibre-reinforced polymers
(FRPs), is coming up as an overall cost-effective technique. Design of the retrofitting requires
knowledge of important properties of the retrofitted members, such as their cyclic lateral strength,
secant stiffness to yield point and cyclic deformation capacity, as a function of the parameters of
the retrofitting. The database of test results [8] includes also 57 concrete members with rectangular
section, retrofitted with reinforced concrete jacket and about 240 members retrofitted with FRP
jacket. Table 1.3 gives the breakdown of the FRP jacketed tests and the range and mean value of
the main parameters of these specimens. Utilization of test results for the retrofitted members,
yields in modifications of the proposed models for non-retrofitted members, so that behaviour of
retrofitted members can be quantified in a similar way. The application of FRP jacket to enhance
the flexural behaviour of a concrete member with deficient lap-splice length is also examined.
An additional dataset of 33 concrete members on the database includes test results of repaired
specimens. They are utilized to examine whether the original yield moment, effective stiffness to
yield-point and deformation capacity of a concrete member are re-instated by repair.

Table 1.3: Range and mean of parameter values in the groups of specimens in the database with
FRP jacket, with continuous or lapped bars.
Parameter

188 specimens with rectangular section

44 members with rectangular section

and continuous bars

and lap-spliced ribbed bars

min / max

mean

min / max

mean

effective depth, d (m)

0.17 / 0.72

0.30

0.18 / 0.72

0.41

shear-span-to-depth ratio, Ls/h

0.65 / 7.41

3.59

2 / 6.59

4.21

section aspect ratio, h/bw

0.33 / 2.6

1.11

1/2

1.52

fc (MPa)

10.6 / 90

32.02

13.7 / 55

31.53

Axial-load-ratio, N/Acfc

0 / 0.85

0.253

0 / 0.33

0.148

transverse steel ratio, w (%)

0.02 / 0.715

0.215

0.082 / 0.446

0.224

total longitudinal steel ratio tot (%)

0.814 / 7.6

2.103

0.814 / 3.9

1.89

geometric ratio of the FRP, f (%)

0.01 / 5.31

0.615

0.13 / 5.31

0.752

lapping-to-bar-diameter ratio lo/dbL

15 / 45

29.1

Deformations at flexural yielding of members with continuous bars

2.1

Uniaxial yield moment and curvature of section with rectangular, T- or L- compression


zone

To avoid a full moment-curvature analysis, expressions for the uniaxial yield moment, My, and
curvature, y, from plane section analysis and linear material - laws have been given in [19] for
sections with rectangular compression zone. They are extended here to T-, U- or L- compression
zones. The width and thickness of the compression flange are denoted as b and t, respectively and
the total width of the webs as bw; d is the sections effective depth; the tension and compression
reinforcement areas, As1, As2, are normalized by bd into ratios, 1, 2, respectively. Reinforcement
(almost) uniformly distributed between the tension and the compression bars, termed web
reinforcement, has area Asv and is normalized by bd into a ratio of v. The curvature at yielding of
the tension bars is:
y =

f y1

(2.1)

Es 1 y d

where fy1 is the yield stress of the tension reinforcement and y the neutral axis depth at yielding
(normalized to d):

y = 2 A 2 + 2B

1/ 2

(2.2)

with =Es/Ec denoting the ratio of elastic moduli and A, B being given by:
A=

b
bw

1 + 2 + v + N + 1 t b 1, B = b 1 + 2 '+ v (1 + ') + N + 1 t b 1 (2.3)

2
bdf y1 d b w
b w
bdf y1 2 d b w

where =d/d, with d denoting the distance of the center of the compression reinforcement from
the extreme compression fibres and the axial force, N, is taken positive for compression.
A section with high axial-load-ratio, N/Acfc, may exhibit apparent yielding owing to significant
nonlinearity of the concrete in compression before the tension steel yields. It can be modeled
simply by identifying it with exceedance of a certain strain at the extreme compression fibres, with
both steel and concrete considered elastic till then. In [19] tests of members with high axial load

led to the following value for this elastic strain limit of concrete in compression:

1.8 f c
Ec

(2.4)

Then apparent yielding of the member takes place at curvature:

y =

c
1.8 f c

y d Ec y d

(2.5)

where the neutral axis depth at yielding, y (normalized to d) is still given by Eq. (2.2) with A, B:
A=

b
bw

N 1 t b
b
1 + 2 + v
+

1, B =

c E s bd d bw
bw

(1 + ') 1 t

+
1 + 2 '+ v

2
2 d

b 1 (2.6)
w

The lower of the two values from Eqs. (2.1) or (2.5) is the yield curvature.
Equilibrium gives the yield moment:
2
y
= y Ec
2
bd

My

1+ ' y

2 3

bw bw

t
t t Es (1 ')

1 y 1 + y ' 2 + V (1 ') (2.7)

b + 1 b y 2d 1 2d 2d +
2
6

If the outcome of Eq. (2.2) is less than the ratio of the flange thickness to the effective depth,

y<t/d, the neutral axis falls within the flange and the compression zone is rectangular. Then Eqs.
(2.3), (2.6), (2.7) should be applied anew with bw=b, degenerating into the expressions in [19] for
rectangular sections.
The criterion used for the identification of flexural yielding without adverse effects of shear is
the closeness of the experimental yield moment to the value from Eqs. (2.1)-(2.7), independently
of any parameter that has to do with shear effects. About 2500 specimens in the database with
rectangular, T-, H-, U- or hollow rectangular section and continuous longitudinal bars meet this
criterion. The test-to-predicted yield moment ratio plotted in Fig. 2.1 vs relevant parameters
suggests the following criteria for no flexure-shear coupling at yielding:

Ls/h>3, or

2Ls/h3 and

(2.8a)
N<N1 or N>N2, or

(2.8b)

tot h
<1
(2.8c)
w 2 Ls
where Ls is the shear-span (M/V-ratio), N the axial load, tot=totfy/fc the total mechanical ratio of

Ls/h<2 and

longitudinal reinforcement and w=wfyw/fc that of transverse steel, and:


N1=0.5bhfc-As,totfy+wbwfyw[2Ls-(h-z)(tot-0.5v)/tot]

(2.9)

N2=0.5bhfc+As,totfy-wbwfyw[2Ls+(h-z)(tot-0.5v)/tot]

(2.10)

with z: internal lever arm. In the range of N between N1, N2 squat members with Ls/h<3 may
experience yielding of transverse steel and concrete diagonal compression failure before any of the
longitudinal reinforcement even yields.
Specimens meeting the criteria of Eqs. (2.8a) or (2.8b) are shown in Fig. 2.1(a) or 2.1(b),
respectively. Fig. 2.1(c) shows data violating only the 2nd condition of Eq. (2.8b); Fig. 2.1(d)
refers to very squat specimens meeting the 1st condition of Eq. (2.8c) and contrasts data meeting
its 2nd condition (i.e., with relatively light longitudinal reinforcement and heavy transverse one) to
those violating it. For about 2500 specimens in the database meeting Eqs. (2.8), rows 1-3 in Table
2.1 (at the end of Section 2) give statistics of the test-to-prediction ratio, while Fig. 2.2 compares
predictions to test data. Eq. (2.7) undershoots the experimental My because the latter is taken at the
corner of a bilinear force-deformation relation fitted to the measured response in primary loading
or to its envelope in cyclic. This point is slightly beyond yielding of the extreme tension steel or of
significant nonlinearity of the extreme compression fibres. Therefore, the theoretical yield
moment, My, and curvature, y, from Eqs. (2.1)-(2.7) should be multiplied by 1.025 for beams/
columns, or 1.0 for walls, or 1.065 for members with a compression flange wider that the web.
The value of y derived from the experimental yield moment by inverting Eq. (2.7) is
considered here as experimental yield curvature, y,exp. Simple empirical expressions can be
fitted to y,exp:
for beams/columns:

for rectangular walls:

for T-, U-, H- or hollow rectangular sections:

1.54 f y1
Es d
1.34 f y1
Es d
1.47 f y1
Es d

, or y
, or y
, or y

1.75 f y1
Es h
1.44 f y1
Es h
1.57 f y1
Es h

(2.11a)
(2.11b)
(2.11c)

Being empirical, Eqs. (2.11) predict y,exp with median test-to-prediction ratios of 1.0, but, as

they neglect important parameters, give larger coefficients of variation of test-to-predicted ratios
than Eqs. (2.1)-(2.6): 17.5%, 18.4%, 16.2% for the 1st version of Eq. (2.11a), (2.11b), (2.11c),
respectively, or 19.2%, 17.9%, 17.9% for the 2nd one.
In about 180 groups of specimens containing 2 to 9 (4 on average) nominally identical
specimens each, the intra-group variability of the measured My amounts to an average coefficient
of variation of 5%. This reflects test-to-test variability and the natural scatter of material properties
(e.g., of fy relative to means from few coupons, or of fc vis--vis the average from test cylinders) or
of geometric parameters (e.g., of d). The rest of the scatter is due to model uncertainty and
corresponds to coefficients of variation of the test-to-prediction ratio of My, y, from Eqs. (2.1)(2.7) about equal to the values in Table 2.1 (at the end of this Section) reduced by 1%. For the

1.75

1.75

1.5

1.5

My,exp/My,pred

My,exp/My,pred

prediction of y from Eqs. (2.11), it is about equal to the values quoted above minus 0.7%.

1.25
1
0.75

1.25
1
0.75

0.5

0.5

0.25

0.25

0
0

(tot/w)/(2Ls/h)

10

15

1.75

1.75

1.5

1.5

1.25
1
0.75

0.75

0.25

0.25

0
15

35

0.5

10

30

1.25

0.5

25

(b)
2

My,exp/My,pred

My,exp/My,pred

(a)
2

20

(tot/w)/(2Ls/h)

20

25

30

35

(tot/w)/(2Ls/h)

10

15

(tot/w)/(2Ls/h)

20

25

(d)
(c)
Fig. 2.1 Test-to-predicted yield moment vs (tot/ w)/(2Ls/h) in members with continuous bars
and: (a) Ls/h>3; (b) 2Ls/h3 and N<N1 or N>N2; (c) 2Ls/h3 and N1<N<N2; (d) Ls/h<2

30

4000
median: M y,exp =1.025M y,pred

My,exp (kNm)

3000

2000

1000

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

My,pred (kNm)

(a)
7500

median: M y,exp= My,pred

My,exp (kNm)

6000

4500

3000

1500

0
0

1500

3000

4500

6000

7500

8000

10000

My,pred (kNm)

(b)
10000

median: My,exp=1.065M y,pred

My,exp (kNm)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0

(c)

2000

4000

6000

My,pred (kNm)

Fig. 2.2. Experimental yield moment v predicted from Eq. (2.7) in members with continuous bars:
(a) rectangular beams or columns; (b) rectangular walls; (c) members with T-, H-, U- or hollow
9

rectangular section
2.2

Fixed-end rotation due to pull-out of longitudinal bars from their anchorage beyond
the end section at uniaxial yielding

Curvature is generally measured as relative rotation of nearby sections divided by their distance.
At the end section of the member measured relative rotations often include the fixed-endrotation of the end section due to slippage of longitudinal bars from their anchorage beyond that
section, slip. Rotations measured between the section of maximum moment and two different
nearby sections (i.e., with different gauge lengths) allow estimating the fixed-end rotation due to
bar slippage.
2.5
2.25

y,exp/ (y,1st-principles+y,due to slip)

2
1.75
1.5
1.25
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1.25

1.5

lgauge / h

Fig. 2.3. Yield curvature of members with continuous bars measured as relative rotation of two
sections including fixed-end rotation at the end section due to bar-pullout, divided by the sum of:
(a) the fixed-end rotation from Eq. (2.12) divided by the gauge length over which relative rotations
are measured, plus (b) the yield curvature from Eqs. (2.1)-(2.6).
The fixed-end rotation due to bar pull-out equals the slip from the anchorage zone divided by
the depth of the tension zone, (1-)d. Assuming that bond stresses are uniform over a length lb of
the tension bars beyond the end section, the stress increases linearly along lb from 0 to the bar
elastic stress at the end section of the member, s. Bar slippage from its anchorage equals
10

0.5slb/Es. The ratio s/Es to (1-)d is . The length lb is proportional to the force in the bar, Ass,
divided by its perimeter, dbL (i.e. to 0.25dbLs, where dbL is the mean tension bar diameter) and
inversely proportional to bond strength, i.e. to fc. At yielding of the end section we have: =y; if
we take the mean bond stress in MPa along lb equal to fc(MPa) (which is about 50% or 40% of
the ultimate bond stress in unconfined or confined concrete, respectively) and set for simplicity
s=fy (even when y is obtained from Eq. (2.5)), the fixed-end rotation of the end section at
yielding is:

y , slip =

y dbL f yl
8 fc

(fy, fc in MPa)

(2.12)

Fig. 2.3 suggests that yield curvatures, y,exp, measured as relative rotations of two sections,
often including the fixed-end rotation at the end section, agree well on average with the sum of:
(a) y,slip =y,slip/lgauge, with y,slip from Eq. (2.12) and lgauge denoting the gauge length over which
relative rotations are measured, plus (b) y from Eqs. (2.1)-(2.6). Besides, there is no systematic
effect of lg on this test-to-prediction ratio.

2.3

Chord rotation and secant stiffness to yield point in uniaxial flexure for members of
rectangular, T-, H-, U-, or hollow rectangular section

The overall deformation measure used here for a member is the chord rotation at each end, ,
defined as the angle between the normal to the end section and the chord connecting the member
ends at the members displaced position.
Tension stiffening is small in members with longitudinal reinforcement ratio as high as that
typical of members designed for earthquake resistance. Moreover, the bond along bars between
cracks degrades with cyclic loading. So, as under seismic loading a member has normally been
subjected to one or more elastic load cycles by the time its end section yields, the small effect of
concrete in tension on the overall flexural deformations of the member at yielding is negligible.
So, the curvature may be taken to vary linearly along the shear span, Ls, contributing to the chord

11

rotation at yielding of the end section, y, by yLs/3. Diagonal cracking (assumed here at 45o)
starting at the end section spreads yielding of the tension reinforcement till the point where the
first diagonal crack intersects this reinforcement, i.e., up to a distance from the end equal to the
internal lever arm, z (with z=d-d in beams, columns, or members with T-, H-, U- or hollow
rectangular section, z=0.8h in rectangular walls). This increases the part of y due to flexural
deformations from yLs/3 to about y(Ls+z)/3. The increase takes place only if flexural yielding at
the end section is preceded by diagonal cracking, i.e., if the shear force at diagonal cracking, VRc,
is less than that at flexural yielding of the end section, My/Ls.
The following expressions were fitted to the specimens meeting one of the criteria Eqs. (2.8):
Rectangular beam/columns:

y =y

Ls + aV z
h
+ 0.00141 + 1.5
3
Ls

+ a sl y , slip

(2.13a)

Walls and members with hollow rectangular section:


y =y

Ls + aV z
+ 0.0013 + a sl y , slip
3

(2.13b)

In the 3rd term of Eqs. (2.13) y,slip is the fixed-end rotation at yielding from Eq. (2.12) and asl a
zero-one variable: asl=1 if slippage of longitudinal bars from their development beyond the end
section is possible, or asl=0 otherwise. In the 1st term y is the theoretical yield curvature from Eqs.
(2.1)-(2.6) times the correction factor of 1.025, 1.0 or 1.065, for beams/columns, rectangular
walls, or members with T-, U-, H- or hollow rectangular section, respectively; av is a zero-one
variable: if VRc is the shear force at diagonal cracking (taken here equal to the shear resistance of
members without shear reinforcement in Eurocode 2 [12] and in the new fib Model Code [13]):
av=0, if VRc>My/Ls and av=1, otherwise. The 2nd term in Eqs. (2.13), attributed to shear
deformations along Ls, is purely empirical (from the fitting to the experimental data).
A fundamental simplification underlying the provisions of seismic design is that the global
inelastic response of the structure to monotonic lateral forces is bilinear, close to elastic-perfectlyplastic. Then, the stiffness used in the elastic analysis should correspond to the stiffness of the
elastic branch of such a bilinear global force-deformation response. In a bilinear uniaxial force12

deformation (e.g., M-) model of a member that attributes all deformations to flexure of the shear
span, the member effective elastic rigidity may be taken as the secant stiffness to yield point:
EI eff =

M y Ls

(2.14)

3 y

where My, y are the moment and chord rotation, respectively, at the yielding end of the shear
span.
Eqs. (2.12)-(2.14) - with minor variations in some coefficients - were adopted in Part 3 of
Eurocode 8 [11].
When the amount and layout of longitudinal reinforcement is known (as in an assessment of
existing structures), the theoretical effective stiffness may be obtained by using in Eq. (2.14) the
values of My and y from Eqs. (2.1)-(2.7) and (2.13), respectively. If the longitudinal
reinforcement has not been dimensioned yet (as in design of new structures), it is more convenient
to estimate the effective stiffness in terms of quantities already known at that stage. Statistical
analysis shows that such quantities affecting the ratio of the experimental EIeff to the uncracked
gross section stiffness, EIc, are: (a) the type of member (beam, column, wall, etc.); (b) the
possibility of slippage of bars from their anchorage beyond the end section; (c) the shear-span-todepth-ratio at the end of the member; and (d) the mean axial stress, N/Ac. The following empirical
effective stiffness has been fitted directly to test results:

L

EI eff = a EI (1 0.25a sl ) 0.8 + ln max s ;0.6 1 + 0.048 min
; 50MPa

Ac

EI c

(2.15)

where asl is the zero-one variable defined for the 3rd term of Eqs. (2.13) and:
aEI=0.108 for columns;
aEI=0.133 for beams;
aEI=0.165 for rectangular walls.
aEI=0.118 for members with T-, H-, U- or hollow rectangular section.
For the various types of specimens meeting the criteria of Eqs. (2.8) for flexural yielding
without effects of shear, rows 4-8 in Table 2.1 (at the end of this Section) give statistics of the test13

to-prediction ratio for the chord rotation at yielding and rows 9-14 of the ratio of the experimental
secant stiffness to yielding to the values from Eqs. (2.14) or (2.15). Natural and test-to-test
variability contribute to the scatter with a coefficient of variation of about 10% in practically
identical specimens. The rest of the scatter, due to model uncertainty, corresponds to coefficients
of variation equal to the values in Table 2.1 minus about 1.5%.
rectangular beams and columns
3.5

1.2

1.4

1.2

2.5
2
1.5

0.8
median:
y,exp =0.98y,pred

0.6

y,exp (%)

median:
y,exp =1.01y,pred

y,exp (%)

y,exp (%)

members with T-, H-, U- or


hollow rectangular section

rectangular walls

0.4

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.5
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

0.2

3.5

0.2

0.4

y,pred (%)

0.6

0.8

1.2

y,pred (%)

0.2

0.4

0.6

1.2

1.4

9000

1500
median:
(MyLs/3y)exp =1.01(MyLs/3y)pred

median:
(My Ls/3y ) exp=0.995(MyLs/3y)

median:
(MyLs/3y)exp =1.025(MyLs/3y)pred

7500

(MyLs/3y)exp (MNm2)

1200

400

300

200

100

(MyLs/3y)exp (MNm2)

500

900

600

300

100

200

300

400

500

600

6000

4500

3000

1500

(MyLs/3y)pred (MNm2)

300

600

900

1200

1500

1500

(MyLs/3y)pred (MNm2)

(d)

3000

4500

6000

7500

9000

(MyLs/3y)pred (MNm2)

(f)

(e)

600

9000
median:
(MyLs/3y)exp=EIpred

1500
median: (My Ls/3y )exp =0.995EIpred

500

median:
(My Ls /3y )exp =1.01EIpred

7500

400

300

200

100

(MyLs/3y)exp (MNm2)

1200

(MyLs/3y)exp (MNm2)

(MyLs/3y)exp (MNm2)

(c)

(b)

(a)

0.8

y,pred (%)

600

(MyLs/3y)exp (MNm2)

median:
y,exp=1.005y,pred

0.8

900

600

300

100

200

300

400

EIpred (MNm2)

(g)

500

600

4500

3000

1500

6000

300

600

900

EIpred (MNm2)

(h)

1200

1500

1500

3000

4500

6000

7500

EIpred (MNm2)

(i)

Fig. 2.4 Experimental vs. predicted chord rotation or secant stiffness at flexural yielding of
members with continuous bars: (a)-(c): chord rotation at yielding vs. Eqs. (2.13); (d)-(f): secant
stiffness at yielding vs. Eq. (2.14); (g)-(i): secant stiffness to yield point vs Eq. (2.15)

14

9000

Fig. 2.4 compares experimental to predicted chord rotations or secant stiffness at yield point
for the three major member groupings considered here. Witness in Figs. 2.4(a) and (b) the inability
of Eqs. (2.13a), (2.13b) to explain extreme (very low or very large) values of y for rectangular
beams, columns or walls and in Figs. 4(d) and (e) the downwards bias of Eq. (2.14) for the stiffest
among these types of elements. Table 2.1 (at the end of Section 2) shows that Eq. (2.15), being
purely empirical, provides a better mean fit to the data than Eq. (2.14). However, for other than
rectangular walls Eq. (2.15) has larger prediction scatter, as it neglects the effect of longitudinal
reinforcement. Moreover, its scope is limited to the range of parameter values in the database.
About 50 tests on members with continuous ribbed longitudinal bars and about 30 tests with
smooth ones, all without seismic detailing (i.e., with sparse ties without 135o hooks) show that My,
y and EIeff are not affected by poor detailing and can still be described by the models above.

2.4

Yield moment, chord rotation and secant stiffness to yield point under biaxial flexure

If yielding under biaxial loading is identified with the corner of a bilinear moment-chord rotation
envelope of the measured hysteresis loops in each direction of bending, the available bidirectional
tests on columns or walls suggest the following (see also rows 1-7 from the bottom in Table 2.1).
1. The experimental yield moments in the two directions of bending agree well on average
with the components of flexural resistance under biaxial loading computed from plane-section
analysis, elastic-perfectly plastic steel and parabolic - law for concrete up to fc and co=0.002
and horizontal thereafter, until a compressive strain of 0.0045 at one corner of the section.
2. With the uniaxial chord rotations at yielding, yy,uni, yz,uni, obtained from Eqs. (2.13), the
experimental chord rotation components at yielding, yy,exp, yz,exp, fall, by about 11% on
average, outside the interaction diagram:
2

yy ,exp yz ,exp

,
yy
uni

yz ,uni

= 1

(2.16)

3. Owing to 2 above, the experimental secant stiffness to yield point in each direction of
15

biaxial bending is on average about 11% less than the uniaxial theoretical effective stiffness
of Eq. (2.14). It exceeds also by about 7% the empirical stiffness from Eq. (2.15). These
differences are small and in view of their limited experimental support do not seem worth
taking into account in analysis.

Table 2.1: Statistics of test-to-predicted yield properties members with continuous bars
coefficient
No of
mean* median*
data
of variation
1 My,exp/My,Eq. (2.7) beams/columns - uniaxial loading
2084 1.045 1.025
16.3%
2 My,exp/My,Eq. (2.7) rectangular walls - uniaxial loading
175 0.995 0.995
15.5%
3 My,exp/My, Eq. (2.7) uniaxial T-, H-, U- or hollow rectangular sections
167 1.08 1.065
12.4%
4 y,exp/y,Eq. (2.13a) beams/columns uniaxial tests without bar slip
284 1.07 1.035
26.3%
5 y,exp/y,Eq. (2.13a) beams/columns - uniaxial tests with bar slip
1368 1.045 1.00
33.2%
6 y,exp/y,Eq. (2.13a) beams/columns all uniaxial tests
1652 1.05 1.01
32.0%
7 y,exp/y,Eq. (2.13b) rectangular walls (uniaxial, with bar slip)
164 0.99 0.96
37.9%
8 y,exp/y,Eq. (2.13b) T, H, U, hollow rectang. sections (uniaxial w/ bar slip) 152 1.35 1.005
29.4%
9 y,exp/y,Eq. (2.13b) walls and hollow piers
316 1.02 0.975
33.2%
10 (MyLs/3y)exp/(MyLs/3y)Eq. (2.14) beams/columns - uniaxial loading
1615 1.06 1.01
32.1%
11 (MyLs/3y)exp/EIeff Eq. (2.15) beams/columns - uniaxial loading
1615 1.06 1.01
35.9%
12 (MyLs/3y)exp/(MyLs/3y)Eq. (2.14) rectangular walls - uniaxial loading
164 1.16 1.025
51.3%
13 (MyLs/3y)exp/EIeff Eq. (2.15) rectangular walls - uniaxial loading
164 1.065 0.995
49.7%
14 (MyLs/3y)exp/(MyLs/3y)Eq. (2.14) T, H, U, hollow rect. sections - uniaxial 152 1.05 0.995
35.3%
15 (MyLs/3y)exp/EIeff Eq. (2.15) T, H, U, hollow rectang. sections uniaxial
152 1.09 1.00
42.3%
16 (MyLs/3y)exp/(MyLs/3y)Eq. (2.14) walls and hollow piers
316 1.105 1.01
44.0%
17 (MyLs/3y)exp/EIeff Eq. (2.15) walls and hollow piers
316 1.075 1.00
45.1%
18 Myy,exp/Myy,pred.-1st-principles - biaxial loading
35 1.00 0.99
11.6%
19 Myz,exp/Myz,pred.-1st-principles - biaxial loading
35 1.00 0.98
12.0%
20 SRSS of yy,exp/yy,Eq. (2.13) & yz,exp/yz,Eq. (2.13) - biaxial loading
34 1.16 1.11
21.9%
21 (MyyLs/3yy)exp/EIeff,y-Eq. (2.14) - biaxial loading
34 0.93 0.90
24.4%
22 (MyzLs/3yz)exp/EIeff,z-Eq. (2.14) - biaxial loading
34 0.93 0.87
23.9%
23 (MyyLs/3yy)exp/EIeff,y-Eq. (2.15) - biaxial loading
34 1.05 1.07
23.4%
24 (MyzLs/3yz)exp/EIeff,z-Eq. (2.15) - biaxial loading
34 1.08 1.07
26.2%
Test-to-prediction ratio

* If the sample size is large, the median is more representative of the average trend than the mean, for instance,
the median of the predicted-to-test ratio is always the inverse of the median of the test-to-predicted ratio,
whereas the mean of both ratios typically exceeds their median.

16

Effect of lap-splicing of longitudinal bars in the plastic hinge zone on


member flexure-controlled yielding and secant stiffness to yield point

3.1

Yield moment and curvature of section with rectangular, T- or L- compression zone

Beams/columns, rectangular walls or members with T-, H-, U- or hollow rectangular section and
continuous bars meeting the criteria of Eqs. (2.8) were found above to have an experimental My
that exceeds by an average factor of 1.025, 1.0, or 1.065, respectively, the value from Eqs. (2.1)(2.7). In Figs. 5(a), 6(a), which refer to members with longitudinal bars lap-spliced starting at the
end section, the points to the right of 1.0 on the horizontal axis have relatively long lap lengths.
The corresponding experimental My exceeds the value predicted considering the bars as
continuous by an average factor greater than the factors quoted above for members with
continuous bars. To make up for (at least part) of the difference, it is proposed to increase the
computed yield moment by including both bars in any pair of lapped compression bars as
compression reinforcement. In other words, end bearing of a compression bar stopping at the end
section against the very well confined concrete beyond that section is considered sufficient for the
build-up of a compressive stress in the bar almost as high as in its companion in the lap which
continues past the end section. Compatibility of longitudinal strains between these two bars and
the concrete surrounding them near the members end section contributes to this effect. As shown
in Figs. 5(b), 6(b), the experimental My of the points to the right of the value of 1.0 on the
horizontal axis compares then better with the value from Eqs. (2.1)-(2.7).
For the lapped tension bars, the maximum stress that one of them can develop, fsm, may be
taken from the model in [10], fitted to over 800 tests for anchorage or lap-splicing of ribbed bars
and adopted in the new fib Model Code [13]. According to it, for good bond conditions the
expected value of fsm at distance lo from its end is about the same in a single anchored bar or in one
lap-spliced with a parallel bar placed at a clear distance not exceeding 4dbL:
f sm l o
=
f smo d bL

0.55

fc

f co

0.25

d
min1; bo
d
bL

0.2

c
d
d
bL

17

1/ 3

c max

cd

0.1

p
fy
+ kK tr +
po

(3.1)

Where [10]:
fy : yield stress of the bar;
fsmo=51.2MPa;
dbL: bar diameter;
fco=20MPa;
dbo: 20mm;
cd=min [minc; a/2], limited between dbL and 3dbL;
cmax=max [maxc; a/2], with an upper limit of 5cd, where:

minc and maxc: the minimum and the maximum, respectively, clear cover of the bars,

a: clear distance between anchored bars or pairs of lapped bars;

K tr =

1 nl Ash
0.04
nb dbL sh

(3.2)

is the total cross-sectional area of reinforcement placed within length lo transverse to the axis
of the bar(s) and intersecting the potential splitting crack, divided by dbLlo; in Eq. (3.2):

nb: number of anchored bars or pairs of lapped bars within the plane of the potential
splitting crack, from the bar(s) to the concrete surface,

nlAsh/sh: total cross-sectional area of legs of transverse reinforcement crossing the splitting
crack, per unit length of the lapped or developed bar;

k: effectiveness factor, equal to k=0, except for:

k=10, if the transverse reinforcement is at right angles to the splitting plane;

k=5, if the potential splitting extends from the bar perpendicular to the surface and is
crossed at right angles by a transverse reinforcement placed within the cover (for clear
distance between developed bars or pairs of lapped bars less than three-times the cover);

p: active confining pressure normal to the axis of the developed or lapped bars, due to
external loading;
po=5MPa.

18

1.4

1.2

1.2

My,exp/My,pred

My,exp/My,pred

1.4

0.8
0.6
0.4
beams&columns

0.2

0.8
0.6
0.4
T,H,U or hollow rect.

0
0

0.5

f sm /f y

1.5

beams&columns

0.2

T,H,U or hollow rect.

2.5

0.5

f sm /f y

1.5

2.5

(b)

(a)

Fig. 3.1 Ratio of experimental My of members with lap-spliced bars to My predicted: (a) neglecting

the lap splicing; (b) considering the lap splices by counting fully both spliced compression bars
and using the steel stress from [10], [13] for the tension bars

Rows 1-3 in Table 3.1 (at the end of Section 3) list statistics of the ratio of the experimental My
to the value predicted taking into account the lap-splicing according to the above rules based on
[10], [13]. The median value appears to be satisfactory, but this is thanks to the data where fsm
according to [10], [13] is equal to fy. Fig. 3.1 shows how:
the ratio of experimental My to the value predicted neglecting the lap splicing (Fig. 3.1(a)), and
the ratio of the experimental My to the one predicted taking into account the lap splicing
according to the rules above (Fig. 3.1(b))
vary with the ratio of fsm according to [10], [13] to fy. The improvement in the prediction in Fig.
3.1(b) compared to Fig. 3.1(a) seems insufficient for short lappings and low values of fsm.
A simpler alternative to the use of fsm according to [10], [13], adopted already in Part 3 of
Eurocode 8 [11], is the following:

l
f sm = min1, o
l
oy ,min

fy

(3.3)

where:
loy ,min = 0.3dbL f y /

f c (fy, fc in MPa)

(3.4)

Eq. (3.4) implies that the lapped bars develop a uniform bond stress along the lapping equal to

19

fc/1.2 (MPa).
Eq. (3.3) has been proposed in [1], using though in lieu of loy,min the bar development length
according to ACI-318, which is in general longer than that from Eq. (3.4).
The statistics of the test-to-prediction ratio of My are listed in rows 4-6 of Table 3.1 (at the end
of Section 3), this time using Eqs. (3.3), (3.4), instead of Eq. (3.1). The ratio of experimental My to
the one predicted, first neglecting the lap splicing, Fig. 3.2(a), and then taking it into account
according to Eqs. (3.3), (3.4), Fig. 3.2(b), is plotted in Fig. 3.2 vs lo/loy,min. There is a marked

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.2

My,exp/My,pred

My,exp/My,pred

improvement in the prediction for low values of lo and My.

0.8
0.6
0.4
beams&columns

0.2

0.8
0.6
0.4
beams&columns

0.2

T,H,U or hollow rect.

T,H,U or hollow rect.

0.5

1.5

2.5

lo/loy,min

0.5

1.5

2.5

lo/loy,min

(b)
(a)
Fig. 3.2 Ratio of experimental My of members with lap-spliced bars to My predicted: (a) neglecting
the lap splicing; (b) considering the lap splices by counting fully both spliced compression bars
and using Eq. (3.3) for the tension bars

3.2

Chord rotation and effective stiffness at yielding

It is proposed here to calculate y still from Eqs. (2.13), but using in the 1st and the 3rd terms of the
right-hand-side a value of y consistent with that of My: with all bars in any pair of lapped
compression bars counted as compression reinforcement and the yield stress of lapped tension bars
reduced according either to Eqs. (3.1), (3.2) or to Eqs. (3.3), (3.4). Besides, the 2nd term in Eqs.
(2.13) is multiplied by the ratio of the My modified for the lap splicing, to the value of My outside
the lap splice. Moreover, to determine whether we have aV=1 in the 1st term of Eqs. (2.13), the
value of the end moment at the time diagonal cracking takes place, LsVRc, is compared to the a

20

1.8

1.8

1.6

1.6

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.2

y,exp/y,pred

y,exp/y,pred

value of My that accounts for the lap splice.

1
0.8
0.6
0.4

0.8
0.6
0.4

beams&columns

0.2

beams&columns

0.2

T,H,U or hollow rect.

T,H,U or hollow rect.

0.5

lo/loy,min

1.5

2.5

0.5

lo/loy,min

1.5

2.5

(a)
(b)
Fig. 3.3. Ratio of experimental chord rotation at yielding of members with lap-spliced bars to one
predicted: (a) neglecting the lap splicing; (b) considering the lap splices by counting fully both
spliced compression bars and using Eq. (3.3) for the tension bars

The statistics of the test-to-prediction ratio of y are listed in rows 7-9 or 10-12 of Table 3.1 (at
the end of Section 3), if Eqs. (3.1), (3.2) or Eqs. (3.3), (3.4), respectively, are used for the lapped
tension bars. Rows 13-15 and 16-18 in Table 3.1 list the corresponding statistics for the effective
stiffness from Eq. (2.14). The ratio of the experimental y to the one predicted is plotted vs
lo/loy,min in:
Fig. 3.3(a), neglecting the lap splicing, and
Fig. 3.3(b), taking it into account according to the rules above and using Eqs. (3.3), (3.4) for
the lapped tension bars.
Fig. 3.4 makes a similar presentation for the secant stiffness to yield point, first neglecting (Fig.
3.4(a)) and then considering (Fig. 3.4(b)) the effect of lap splicing as proposed above.
Interestingly, the secant stiffness to yield point in Fig. 3.4(a) computed neglecting the lap splice
compares at least as well with the experimental data as the value in Fig. 3.4(b) which considers it.
So, lap splicing does not seem to reduce the secant stiffness to yielding.
The coefficients of variation of the test-to-prediction ratios of all yield properties of members
with lap splices are smaller than their counterparts for members with continuous bars in Table 2.1

21

1.8

1.8

1.6

1.6

1.4

1.4

1.2

EIexp/EIpred

EIexp/EIpred

(at the end of Section 2), but this is mostly due to the much fewer data.

1
0.8
0.6

1.2
1
0.8
0.6

0.4

beams&columns

0.4

0.2

T,H,U or hollow rect.

0.2

beams&columns
T,H,U or hollow rect.

0.5

lo/loy,min

1.5

2.5

0.5

lo/loy,min

1.5

2.5

(b)
(a)
Fig. 3.4. Ratio of experimental stiffness to yield point of members with lap-spliced bars to value
from Eq. (2.14): (a) neglecting the lap splicing; (b) considering the lap splices by counting fully
both spliced compression bars and using Eq. (3.3) for the tension bars, etc.

Table 3.1: Statistics of test-to-predicted yield properties - members with lap-spliced bars
coefficient
No of
mean* median*
of variation
data
M
/
M
rectangular
columns

steel
stress
from
Eqs.
(3.1),
(3.2)
103
0.99
0.98
12.2%
1 y,exp y,1st principles
My,exp/My,1st principles rect. walls, T-, H-, U-, hollow rect. sections steel stress
11 0.98 0.985
8.9%
2 from Eqs. (3.1), (3.2)
114 0.99 0.98
12.0%
3 My,exp/My,1st principles all members steel stress from Eqs. (3.1), (3.2)
12.0%
4 My,exp/My,1st principles rectangular columns steel stress from Eqs. (3.3), (3.4) 103 1.00 0.985
10.3%
5 My,exp/My,1st principles rect. walls, T, H, U, hollow rect. sectionsEqs.(3.3)-(3.4) 11 1.02 1.02
114 1.00 0.995
11.8%
6 My,exp/My,1st principles all members steel stress from Eqs. (3.3), (3.4)
81 1.05 1.035
19.8%
7 y,exp/y,pred rectangular columns steel stress from Eqs. (3.1), (3.2)
y,exp/y,pred rect. walls, T-, H-, U-, hollow rect. sections steel stress from
11 0.965 0.98
25.7%
8 Eqs. (3.1), (3.2)
92 1.04 1.03
20.5%
9 y,exp/y,pred all members steel stress from Eqs. (3.1), (3.2)
81 1.06 1.045
19.1%
10 y,exp/y,pred rectangular columns steel stress from Eqs. (3.3), (3.4)
11 1.025 1.08
27.2%
11 y,exp/y,pred rect. walls, T-, H-, U-, hollow rect. sections Eqs. (3.3), (3.4)
92 1.055 1.05
20.0%
12 y,exp/y,pred all members steel stress from Eqs. (3.3), (3.4)
24.6%
13 (MyLs/3y)exp/(MyLs/3y)pred rect. columnssteel stress from Eqs. (3.1), (3.2) 81 0.985 0.96
(MyLs/3y)exp/(MyLs/3y)pred rect. walls, non-rectangular sections steel
11 1.07 1.00
24.7%
14 stress from Eqs. (3.1), (3.2)
24.6%
15 (MyLs/3y)exp/(MyLs/3y)pred all members steel stress from Eqs. (3.1), (3.2) 92 0.99 0.97
24.8%
16 (MyLs/3y)exp/(MyLs/3y)pred rect. columnssteel stress from Eqs. (3.3), (3.4) 81 0.98 0.955
25.7%
17 (MyLs/3y)exp/(MyLs/3y)pred rect. walls, non-rect. sections Eqs. (3.3), (3.4) 11 1.055 1.00
24.8%
18 (MyLs/3y)exp/(MyLs/3y)pred all members steel stress from Eqs. (3.3), (3.4) 92 0.99 0.955
Test-to-prediction ratio

See footnote of Table 2.1 (at the end of Section 2).

22

4
4.1

Flexure-controlled ultimate deformations of members with continuous bars


Uniaxial ultimate curvature of members with rectangular compression zone

The ultimate deformation of a RC section or member is conventionally identified with the postultimate strength point of the lateral load-deformation response where any increase in the imposed
deformations cannot increase the resisting force above 80% of ultimate strength. The so-defined
ultimate curvature, u, is calculated here explicitly without a full moment-curvature analysis.
Plane section analysis is carried out with the following nonlinear - laws:
-

For the concrete, the - law rises as a parabola until a strain co and stays then horizontal up to
a strain less or equal to the ultimate strain, cu. In the core of the section inside the stirrups the
values of co, cu and of the concrete strength increase thanks to confinement.

At the relatively low steel strains associated with section ultimate conditions due to concrete
crushing, reinforcing steel is taken as elastic-perfectly plastic. At the large strains typical of
failure due to steel rupture the steel is taken as elastic-linearly strain-hardening, from the yield
stress fy at the strain at the outset of strain-hardening, sh, to the ultimate strength ft at
elongation su. The tension- the compression- and the web-reinforcement in-between may have
different post-elastic properties, indexed by 1, 2 or v, respectively.
If failure is due to steel rupture at elongation su before concrete crushing u is:
su =

su

(1 su )d

(4.1)

where su is the neutral axis depth at such a failure (normalized to d). If the section fails by
crushing of the extreme concrete fibres while the neutral axis depth is cu (normalized to d), the
ultimate curvature is:
cu =

cu
cu d

(4.2)

Flow Chart 1 shows how su, cu are determined from Eqs. (4.8)-(4.10) below depending on
the value of the distance of the extreme tension or compression reinforcement to the concrete

23

surface, d (normalized to d as =d/d) with respect to the limits of Eqs. (4.3), (4.4) and of the
axial-load-ratio =N/bdfc relative to those of Eqs. (4.5)-(4.7). In these expressions: 1=1fy1/fc,
2=2fy2/fc, v=vfyv/fc, with 1, 2, v normalized to bd.
Unconfined full section Steel rupture
yes

no

' satisfies Eq.


(4.3)?
yes

<s,y2 - LHS
Eq. (4.5)?

yes

su from Eq. (4.9), MRc from


Eq. (4.14)

<s,c - RHS
Eq. (4.5)?

su from
Eq. (4.1)

no
yes
<s,c - RHS
Eq. (4.5)?

su from Eq. (4.8), MRc from

no

Eq. (4.15)

no

Unconfined full section Spalling of concrete cover


yes

< c,y1 - LHS


Eq. (4.7)?

no

' satisfies
Eq. (4.4)?
yes

yes

cu from Eq. (4.12), MRc,

<c,y2 - LHS
Eq. (4.6)?

from Eq. (4.16)

no

no

cu from Eq.

<c,y1 - RHS
Eq. (4.6)?

no

(4.11), MRc
from Eq.
(4.18)

no

< c,y2 - RHS


Eq. (4.7)?

yes

yes

cu from Eq. (4.10), MRc

cu from Eq. (4.13),


MRc from Eq. (4.19)

from Eq. (4.17)

Compute moment resistances:


MRc (of full, unspalled section) and
MRo (of confined core, after spalling of cover).
MRo< 0.8MRc?

yes

cu from
Eq. (4.2)

no

Ultimate curvature of confined core after spalling of concrete cover

Flow Chart 2

Flow Chart 1: Calculation of ultimate curvature for the full section before or at spalling of

concrete cover

24

Confined core after spalling of concrete cover.


Parameters are denoted by an asterisk and are computed with:
b, d, d replaced by geometric parameters of the core: bo, do, do;
N, 1, 2, v normalized to bodo, instead of bd;
- parameters of confined concrete, fcc, cc, used in lieu of fc, cu

Rupture of tension steel


yes

*<*s,y2
LHS Eq. (4.5)?

*su from Eq. (4.9),


MRo from Eq.
(4 14)

no
yes

*<*s,c
RHS Eq. (4.5)?

su from
Eq. (4.1)

*su from Eq. (4.8),


MRo from Eq.
(4 15)

no

Failure of compression zone (concrete)

yes

*<*c,y2 LHS Eq.

*cu from Eq.

(4.12), MRo
from Eq. (4.16)

no
no

*<*c,y1 RHS Eq.

*cu from Eq.


(4.11), MRo
from Eq.
(4 18)

cu from
Eq. (4.2)

yes

*cu from Eq. (4.10), MRo


from Eq. (4.17)

Flow Chart 2: Calculation of ultimate curvature for the confined core of the section after spalling

of concrete cover
'

'

' su + y 2 (1 ')
su1 + y 2
cu
cu

cu y 2

(4.3)

cu + su
cu y 2

(4.4)

cu + y1

co

1
f
v
3 + f t1
su1 y 2 + ( su1 shv ) 1 + tv
2
1

f y1 su1 + y 2
2
f yv

co

s , y 2 s ,c

1
f
v
3 + f t1
' ( su1 + cu ) ( su1 cu ) + ( su1 shv ) 1 + tv
2
1

+ su1
2
f y1 (1 ')( su1 + cu )
f
yv

(4.5)
25

v cu +
1 +
'
1 ' cu

2 1 +

2
((1 ' ) cu '
y2
2

cu

cu +

v
1 1

y2

cu co

1 + '

cu
y2

c, y 2

<

y2

(4.6)

cu 3
' +
cu + y 1

y1
y1

v 1 + '

' yv 1 '

(1 ')1 + co
3 su1

c , y1

<

c, y 2

y2

cu

3
cu + '
cu y 2


+ 1 + '+ 1 1 shv 1 + f tv

2 su1
f yv

f
1
+ 2 + 1 shv 1 + tv v

2 su1
f yv

v
f shv 3 yv su1 2
1 + co +

1 + tv 1 shv +
f yv
su1
su1
yv
3 su 2(1 ' )

2
f


f shv 3 yv

1 + + co + 1 t1 + 2 su1 +
' su1 +
1 + tv 1 shv +
3 su
f y1
y 2 (1 ' )
f yv
su1
su1
yv


f shv 3 yv

+ co + 1 tv + 2 ' su +
1 + tv 1 shv +
'2 su1 = 0
3 su
f yv
y 2 2(1 ' )
f yv
su1
su1
yv

cu =


cu yv
v
1 co
3 cu 2(1 ' ) cu yv

)2

(1 ')( + 1 2 ) + (1 + ') v

(1 ')1 co
3 cu

2 + 2 + 1

)2 2 +

(4.8)

(4.9)

(4.10)

+ 2 v

cu

v
+ cu 1 1 +
cu = 0 (4.11)

y1
1 ' yv
y1 2(1 ') yv

co 2 1 2

+
+
1

3 cu
y1 y 2 (1 ' ) yv

cu + yv

v
1 co +
3 cu 2(1 ' ) cu yv

(4.7)

co

f t1
2 + co
3 su
f y1

(1 ') + 1

c , y1

co

cu co
v
1+ '
3
+
cu
y1 ) 1 +
2 yv
1 ' cu + y 1

1 (1 ' ) cu
y1
'

su

y2

cu 1 + ' 2 + (1 + ' )

y1
y2
2(1 ' ) yv

cu = 0

(4.12)

cu
'
v '
+ 1 + cu 2
cu ' = 0 (4.13)
y 2 1 '
yv y 2 2(1 ') yv

If the concrete cover spalls before the tension reinforcement ruptures and the section has a
well-confined concrete core, the moment resistance of the confined core, Ro, may eventually
increase above 80% of the moment resistance of the unconfined full section, Rc. Then the section

26

reaches the ultimate condition in flexure after spalling. Flow Chart 2 applies then, with the
confined core taken as the section (its dimensions denoted by an asterisk) and with the properties
of the confined concrete, fcc, cc, used in lieu of fc, cu. (see next section for the values of these
properties). Rc and Ro may be computed from Eqs. (4.14)-(4.19) according to Flow Charts 1
and 2.
co 1
(1 ' ) ft1

' su1
+ co (1 ) +
(
)

1
+
=

1
2

4 su1
2 f y1
1 y2
bd2 fc

2 3 su1 2
MR

(4.14)

f
yv 2(1 ' ) shv
yv su1 ' 1 '

(1 )1 shv tv 1(1 )
1 +

1
(1 )
1 '+ 1
+

su1 3
6(1 ' )

su1
su1 yv 1 2
su1 f yv

= (1 ) co
bd f c
2 3 su1
MR
2

1
(1 ' )

f
+ co (1 ) +
1 t1 + 2 +
2

f y1
2
4 su1


1 (1 ) yv
+ ( ' )(1 )
3 su1
1 '

1 co
=

3 cu
bd f c
2
MR
2

yv

1 +
4(1 1 ) cu

(1 ' ) shv

+
1

4
su1

1 shv

6 1
su1

1
(1 1 )

1 cu
+ co +
1 + 2
2

4 cu
2
y2

1 1 + cu

yv

1 1 2 yv

1
1 +
3 3 cu


( ' )(1 ) 1 yv

3 cu

1
(1 ' )(1 + 2 )

+ co +
+
2

4 cu
2
1 1

1 co
=

3 cu
bd f c
2

(1 ' ) 1 cu
1

+ co +
1
+ 2 +

4 cu
2
y1

MR
2

yv
1 1
4(1 ' )
cu

cu
1 +

yv

1 co
=

2
3 cu
bd f c
2
MR

4.2

1
2 yv
'+ 1
3 cu
3

(1 ' ) cu
1

+ co +
2
4 cu
2

(4.16)

1 co
=

2
3 cu
bd f c
2
MR

(4.15)

f t1
(1 )

1
f

y1

(4.18)

(1 ) 1 + ( ' ) 2

y1
y2

(4.17)

(1 ' ) 2 cu
+

12
yv

(4.19)

Strains of steel and concrete at section ultimate curvature

The ultimate curvatures, u, calculated according to the previous section fits best test results at
flexure-controlled failure of members with rectangular compression zone if the material
parameters are chosen as follows:

27

The confined concrete strength, fcc, is taken according to the model in [18], which has been
adopted in Part 3 of Eurocode 8 [11]:
s f yw
f cc = f c (1 + K ) , K 3.7
fc

0.86

(4.20)

where s is the transverse reinforcement ratio (minimum among the two transverse directions), fyw
its yield stress and the confinement effectiveness factor according to [21]:

bi / 6
1
bo ho

= 1 h 1 h
2bo
2ho

(4.21)

with sh denoting the centreline spacing of stirrups, bo and ho the confined core dimensions to the
centreline of the hoop and bi the centreline spacing along the section perimeter of longitudinal bars
(indexed by i) engaged by a stirrup corner or a cross-tie. The strain at fcc is taken as [20]:
cc = co (1 + 5K )

(4.22)

with co =0.002 and K from Eq. (4.20). For fcc and cc according to these models, the free
parameters to fit the experimental values of u are the ultimate strains of steel, su, and of confined

0.018

0.018

0.016

0.016

0.014

0.014

0.012

0.012

0.01

cu,'exp'

cu,'exp'

or unconfined concrete, cu,c, all taken different for monotonic or cyclic loading.

0.008
0.006

0.01
0.008
0.006

0.004

0.004

0.002

0.002

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

yd (mm)

h (mm)

Fig. 4.1 Strain in extreme compression fibre corresponding to the experimental spalling curvature

of the section, compared to the predictions of: (a) Eq. (4.23); (b) Eq. (4.24)

The value of cu,c that provides the best fit to the data is shown in Fig. 4.1 and suggests a size
effect. Such an effect has indeed been observed experimentally in [5]. If ho, do, do are the depth,
effective depth and neutral axis depth, respectively, of the confined core (taken equal to those of
28

the full section for spalling of the extreme compression fibres) and w is the transverse steel ratio
in the direction of bending, the value of cu,c providing the best fit to the data is:
-

for cyclic loading:

for monotonic loading:

w f yw

+ 0.4
, or
f cc

cu ,c

10
= 0.0035 +
ho (mm)

cu ,c

1
= 0.0035 +
d o (mm)

cu ,c

10
= 0.0035 +
ho (mm)

cu ,c

1
= 0.0035 +
d o (mm)

3/ 2

+ 0.4

w f yw
f cc

, or

(4.23a)
(4.24a)

w f yw

+ 0.57
, or
f cc

3/ 2

+ 0.57

w f yw
f cc

(4.23b)
(4.24b)

The limits on su that provide the best fit to the data are:

for cyclic loading:

3
8

su ,cy = su ,no min al

(4.25)

7
(4.26a)
su ,no min al
12
1

(4.26b)
or more generally:
su ,mon = 1
ln N b ,tension su ,no min al
3

where su,nominal is the uniform elongation at tensile strength in the standard test of steel coupons

for monotonic loading:

su ,mon =

and Nb,tension the number of bars in the tension zone. The adverse effect of load cycling on steel
bars (surface cracking upon buckling, etc.) is the main reason for the large difference between
su,cy and su,nominal. By contrast, the prime reason for the - smaller, albeit significant - difference of
su,mon from su,nominal is statistical, similar to the size effect on strength. The 115 monotonic tests in
the database that failed by rupture of the tension steel had from 1 to 20 bars in the tension zone
and, unlike the cyclic tests, exhibit a statistically significant reduction of su at ultimate curvature
with increasing Nb,tension, as it is the minimum value of su among the bars that controls failure. The
functional form of Eq. (4.26b), namely the linearity in lnN, is derived according to [4] as the
mode (i.e., most likely value) in a Type-I extreme value probability distribution of the smallest su
in N bars, all a mean su value of su,nominal. The parameters of the linear dependence are then fitted
to the test data. There are 5 tension bars on average in the 115 monotonic tests with rupture of
tension reinforcement and indeed Eq. (4.26b) degenerates to (4.26a) for Nb,tension=5. The statistics
at rows 9 and 10 in Table 4.1 show that Eq. (4.26b) gives lower prediction scatter than Eq. (4.26a).
29

Table 4.1: Statistics of test-to-predicted ultimate curvatures in uniaxial tests of members with
continuous bars
No of
data
All uniaxial tests
474
Monotonic tests
269
Cyclic tests
205
Tests without slippage of bars from the anchorage zone
349
Tests with slippage of bars from the anchorage zone
125
Failure at spalling of the full section
65
Failure due to crushing of the confined core monotonic tests
105
Failure due to crushing of the confined core cyclic tests
81
Failure due to tension steel rupture monotonic tests,Eq. (4.26a) 115
Failure due to tension steel rupture monotonic tests,Eq. (4.26b) 115
Failure due to rupture of tension steel cyclic tests
108

u,exp/u,pred for different testing conditions and failure modes


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

4.3

mean* median*
1.105
1.125
1.08
1.135
1.03
1.135
1.08
1.175
1.13
1.09
1.04

0.995
1.01
0.985
0.995
0.98
0.925
1.02
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.01

coefficient of
variation
49.7%
53.2%
44.2%
50.4%
46.4%
55.5%
51.9%
52.6%
52.6%
44.8%
34.2%

See footnote of Table 2.1.

Fixed-end rotation due to pull-out of longitudinal bars from their anchorage beyond
the end section at member flexural failure

After yielding of the end section and until ultimate curvature takes place there, inelastic strains
penetrate into the anchorage zone of tension bars beyond the end section, increasing the fixedend rotation due to their slippage from that zone. These bars are considered fully anchored
beyond the yield-penetration-length. In 125 test results among those used here for the
derivation/calibration of the models for ultimate curvatures, relative rotations measured at
different gauge lengths include the fixed-end rotation due to slippage of bars from their anchorage
zone. On this basis, at the same time the material ultimate strains of Eqs. (4.23)-(4.26) were
derived, the additional fixed-end rotation between yielding and ultimate curvature was inferred
as:

cyclic loading:

u , slip = 5.5d bL u

(4.27a)

monotonic loading: u , slip = 9.5d bL u

(4.27b)

Eqs. (4.27) imply that the bars are perfectly-plastic along the yield-penetration-length. A slightly
better fit to the data is achieved if they are considered as linearly strain-hardening all along that
length. In that case u is replaced in Eqs. (4.27) by (y+u)/2 but the yield-penetration-length
30

increases to 10dybL or 16dybL for cyclic or monotonic loading, respectively.


The fixed-end rotation from Eqs. (4.27) has been removed from these 121 ultimate curvature
measurements before comparing with predictions in Fig. 4.2 or deriving the statistics in Table 4.1.
1.2
slip
no-slip

median: u,exp =u,pred

u,exp (1/m)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

u,pred (1/m)

Fig. 4.2 Experimental ultimate curvatures of members with continuous bars vs. prediction from

Eqs. (4.1)-(4.27) according to Flow Charts 1 and 2

4.4

Uniaxial ultimate chord rotation from curvatures and the plastic hinge length

The overall deformation measure used here for a member is the chord rotation at each end, , i.e.
the angle between the normal to the end section and the chord connecting the member ends at the
members displaced position. For flexure-controlled failure the plastic component of chord
rotation over the shear span Ls is often taken equal to the plastic component of the ultimate
curvature, u-y, times a plastic-hinge length, Lpl. Adding the fixed-end rotation due to bar
slippage from its anchorage beyond the member end, the ultimate chord rotation, u, is:

u = y + ( u y ) L pl 1

L pl
+ a sl u , slip
2 Ls

(4.28)

with asl=0 if slippage of longitudinal bars from the anchorage is not physically possible and asl=1
if it is. Expressions for Lpl depend on the models used for y, u,slip, u and y. Considering the
comparisons so far with experimental data as confirmation of the models proposed here for u,slip
31

and u and for y and y, the empirical expressions in Eqs. (4.29) were derived for Lpl by fitting
Eq. (4.28) to the uniaxial test data to flexure-controlled ultimate chord rotation, using there the
values of y and y from Eqs. (2.1)-(2.6) and (2.13), respectively, of u,slip from Eq. (4.27) and of

u from Eqs. (4.1)-(4.26) and Flow Charts 1 and 2:

For cyclic loading and proper detailing for earthquake resistance:


1
L
L pl ,cy = 0.2h 1 + min 9; s
3
h

For monotonic loading, regardless of detailing:

(4.29a)

L
L pl ,mon = h 1.1 + 0.04 min 9; s
h

(4.29b)

Rows 1-7 in Table 4.2 give statistics of the ratio of experimental ultimate chord rotations to
the so-predicted values and Fig. 4.3 compares experimental to predicted values. The variance of
the data about Eq. (4.28) is close to 80% of the total. So, a better alternative is pursued below.
40
Cyclic loading

12.5

median: u,exp =u,pred

median: u,exp =u,pred

30
5% f ractile:
u,exp=0.45 u,pred

7.5
5

u,exp (%)

10

u,exp (%)

Monotonic loading

35

25
20

5% f ractile:
u,exp=0.32 u,pred

15
10

2.5

beams & columns


rect. walls
non-rect. sections

0
0

2.5

7.5

10

beams & columns

rect. walls
non-rect. sections

12.5

u,pred (%)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

u,pred (%)

(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.3 Experimental ultimate chord rotations of members with continuous bars vs. predictions of
Eq. (4.28), using: (a) Eq. (4.29a) for cyclic loading; (b) Eq. (4.29b) for monotonic loading

4.5

Empirical uniaxial ultimate chord rotation

Three alternative empirical models, Eqs. (4.30), have been fitted to the ultimate chord rotation, u,
of members with proper detailing for earthquake resistance carried to flexure-controlled failure by

32

cyclic or monotonic loading. Eqs. (4.30a), (4.30b) are improvements of empirical models
proposed in [19] on the basis of a smaller database. Eqs. (4.30b), (4.30c) give the plastic
component of u, upl=u-y, with the elastic component, y, obtained from Eqs. (2.13):
max (0.01; 2 )
a

u = st (1 0.43acy )1 + sl (1 0.42 aw, r )1 aw, nr 0.3


fc
2

max (0.01; 1 )

( )

0.225

L
min 9; s
h

0.35

w f yw

f
25 c

1.25100 d

(4.30a)

upl = stpl (1 0.52acy )1 +

aw, nr
asl
(1 0.44aw, r )1
1.6
4

max(0.01;2 )

(0.25)

max(0.01;1 )

0.3

fc

f
0.35 w yw

Ls
f
0.2
25 c
min 9;

1.275100 d

(4.30b)

upl = sthbw(1 0.525acy )(1 + 0.6asl )1 0.052max1.5; min10;

1
3

max(0.01;2 )
h
Ls
(0.2)
max(0.01; ) min 9; h fc
bw

w f yw

0.2 f c
25
1.225100d

(4.30c)
where:
ast, aplst, ahbwst: coefficients for the type of steel: for ductile hot-rolled or heat-treated steel
ast=aplst=0.0185 and ahbwst=0.022; for cold-worked steel ast=0.0115, aplst=0.009, ahbwst=0.0095;
acy: zero-one variable for the type of loading, acy=0 for monotonic loading acy=1 for cyclic;
asl: zero-one variable for slip, defined already for Eq. (4.28);
aw,r: zero-one variable for rectangular walls, aw,r=1 for rectangular walls, aw,,r=0 otherwise;
aw,nr: zero-one variable for non-rectangular sections, aw,nr=1 for T-, H-, U- or hollow
rectangular section and aw,nr=0 for rectangular ones;
=N/bhfc with b: width of compression zone and N: axial force, positive for compression;
1=(1fy1+vfyv)/fc: total mechanical reinforcement ratio of tension and web longitudinal bars;
2=2fy2/fc: mechanical reinforcement ratio of the compression bars;
Ls/h=M/Vh: shear-span-to-depth ratio at the section of maximum moment;
: confinement effectiveness factor from Eq. (4.21)
w=Ash/bwsh: ratio of transverse steel parallel to the direction of the applied shear;
fyw: yield stress of transverse steel;
d: steel ratio of diagonal bars (if any) in each diagonal direction;
bw: width of one web, even in cross-sections with one or more parallel webs.

33

Table 4.2: Statistics of test-to-predicted flexure-controlled ultimate chord rotations


No of

Test-to-predicted ratio

data

mean median C.o.V

1 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.28), (4.29) all uniaxial tests with continuous bars

1395 1.075 1.00 50.7%

2 u,exp/u, Eqs. (4.28), (4.29b) monotonic uniaxial tests with continuous bars

299 1.18 1.005 66.8%

3 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.28), (4.29a) cyclic uniaxial tests for good detailing and continuous bars

1095 1.05 0.995 43.4%

4 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.28), (4.29) uniaxial tests with continuous bars, without bar slip

213 1.145 1.015 64.1%

5 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.28), (4.29) uniaxial tests with continuous bars, with bar slip

1181 1.055 0.99 46.8%

6 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.28),(4.29)uniaxial tests - rectangular walls with continuous bars, with bar slip 88
7 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.28), (4.29)uniaxial tests nonrectangular section, continuous bars and bar slip

1.24

1.08 51.1%

56 1.095 1.065 45.9%

8 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30a) all uniaxial tests with continuous bars

1395 1.045 0.99 42.2%

9 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30a) all monotonic uniaxial tests with continuous bars

299 1.14

10 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30a) all cyclic uniaxial tests with good detailing and continuous bars

1095 1.025 0.99 37.3%

11 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30a) all uniaxial tests w/ good detailing & continuous bars, without bar slip 213 1.10
12 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30a) all uniaxial tests w/ good detailing & continuous bars, with bar slip

1.00 53.3%
0.98 50.1%

1181 1.04 0.995 40.3%

13 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30a) uniaxial tests - rectangular walls with continuous bars, bar slip

88

0.97

14 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30a) uniaxial tests - non-rectang. sections & continuous bars, bar slip

56

0.98 0995 32.8%

0.99 35.9%

15 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30b) all uniaxial tests with continuous bars

1395 1.04

16 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30b) all monotonic uniaxial tests with continuous bars

299 1.13 0.995 53.5%

17 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30b) all cyclic uniaxial tests with good detailing and continuous bars

1095 1.02

0.99 42.1%
0.99 37.2%

18 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30b) all uniaxial tests w/ good detailing & continuous bars, without bar slip 213 1.115 0.99 50.3%
19 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30b) all uniaxial tests w/ good detailing & continuous bars, with bar slip

1181 1.03

0.99 40.0%

20 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30b) uniaxial tests - rectangular walls with continuous bars, bar slip

88 0.965 0.96 36.1%

21 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30b) uniaxial tests - non-rectang. sections & continuous bars, bar slip

56 0.965 0995 31.4%

22 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30c) all uniaxial tests with continuous bars

1395 1.055 0.995 42.5%

23 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30c) all monotonic uniaxial tests with continuous bars

299 1.15

1.01 53.0%

24 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30c) all cyclic uniaxial tests with good detailing and continuous bars

1095 1.03

0.99 38.0%

25 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30c) all uniaxial tests w/ good detailing & continuous bars, without bar slip 213 1.14

0.99 50.2%

26 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30c) all uniaxial tests w/ good detailing & continuous bars, with bar slip

1181 1.04 0.995 40.5%

27 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30c) uniaxial tests - rectangular walls with continuous bars, bar slip

88 0.955 0.96 39.9%

28 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.30c) uniaxial tests - non-rectang. sections & continuous bars, bar slip

56 1.095 1.07 28.4%

29 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.31a) cyclic uniaxial tests, continuous ribbed bars and poor detailing

48

1.04 1.005 30.6%

30 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.31b),(4.30b) cyclic uniaxial tests, continuous ribbed bars and poor detailing

48

1.00

0.99 31.8%

31 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.31b),(4.30c) cyclic uniaxial tests, continuous ribbed bars and poor detailing

48

1.01

1.01 30.2%

32 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.32),(4.31a) cyclic uniaxial tests, continuous smooth bars and poor detailing

32 1.035 1.015 34.5%

33 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.32),(4.31b),(4.30b)cyclic uniaxial tests, continuous smooth bars, poor detailing

32

34 u,exp/u,Eq. (4.32),(4.31b),(4.30c) cyclic uniaxial tests, continuous smooth bars, poor detailing

32 1.005 1.015 31.7%

35 SRSS of uy,exp/uy,Eqs. (4.28), (4.29) & uz,exp/uz,Eqs. (4.28), (4.29) continuous bars, biaxial tests

36

1.10

1.05 28.7%

36 SRSS of uy,exp/uy,Eq. (4.30a) and uz,exp/uz,Eq. (4.30a) continuous bars, biaxial tests

36

1.27

1.18 23.2%

37 SRSS of uy,exp/uy,Eq. (4.30b) and uz,exp/uz,Eq. (4.30b) continuous bars, biaxial tests

36

1.25

1.15 23.3%

38 SRSS of uy,exp/uy,Eq. (4.30c) and uz,exp/uz,Eq. (4.30c) continuous bars, biaxial tests

36

1.26

1.16 24.1%

39 u,exp/u,pred uniaxial with curvatures, pl. hinge length & Eq. (5.3) lapped ribbed bars

81

0.98

0.98 36.6%

40 u,exp/u,pred empirical Eq. (4.30b) and Eq. (5.4) uniaxial tests, lap-spliced ribbed bars

81

1.06 1.035 39.3%

41 u,exp/u,pred empirical Eq. (4.30c) and Eq. (5.4) uniaxial tests, lap-spliced ribbed bars

81 1.045 1.045 39.0%

42 u,exp/u,pred empirical Eq. (5.5) uniaxial tests, lap-spliced smooth bars

11

34

1.01

1.19

1.01 32.2%

1.03 33.4%

35

Cyclic loading

Monotonic loading

30

median: u,exp =u,pred

10

u,exp (%)

25

u,exp (%)

median: u,exp =u,pred

12.5

20
15

5% f ractile:
u,exp=0.35 u,pred

7.5

5% f ractile:
u,exp=0.5 u,pred

10
2.5

beams & columns

beams & columns


rect. walls

rect. walls

non-rect. sections

non-rect. sections

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

0
0

35

2.5

35
median: u,exp =u,pred

u,exp (%)

10

20
15

5% f ractile:
u,exp=0.38 u,pred

7.5

5% f ractile:
u,exp=0.52 u,pred

10
2.5

beams & columns

beams & columns

rect. walls

rect. walls

non-rect. sections

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

non-rect. sections

35

2.5

u,pred (%)

(b)

7.5

10

12.5

u,pred (%)

35

Cyclic loading

Monotonic loading

30

median: u,exp =u,pred

12.5

median: u,exp =u,pred

25

10

u,exp (%)

u,exp (%)

12.5

median: u,exp =u,pred

12.5

25

20
15

5% f ractile:
u,exp=0.38 u,pred

7.5

5% f ractile:
u,exp=0.51 u,pred

10

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

beams & columns

2.5

beams & columns


rect. walls
non-rect. sections

(c)

10

Cyclic loading

Monotonic loading

30

u,exp (%)

7.5

u,pred (%)

u,pred (%)

(a)

rect. walls
non-rect. sections

35

u,pred (%)

0
0

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

u,pred (%)

Fig. 4.4 Experimental ultimate chord rotation of members with continuous bars vs. predictions of:

35

(a) Eq. (4.30a); (b) Eq. (4.30b); (c) Eq. (4.30c)

Eqs. (4.30b) or (4.30c) can more readily be extended for lap-splicing of bars in the plastic hinge
region (chapter 5) and/or wrapping of the end(s) with FRP (chapter 8), which affect differently the
values of upl and y. Eq. (4.30c) distinguishes walls or members with T-, H-, U- or hollow
rectangular section via the slenderness ratio, h/bw, of the web. Fig. 4.4 and the statistics in rows 828 of Table 4.2 show that the three versions of Eqs. (4.30) provide practically the same accuracy
and much smaller scatter than Eqs. (4.28), (4.29). The variance of the monotonic and the cyclic
data with respect to Eqs. (4.30) is about 40% or 45% of their corresponding total variance.
9

9
median: u,exp =u,pred

median: u,exp =0.99u,pred

5
4

u,exp (%)

u,exp (%)

u,exp (%)

5
4

5
4

6
median: u,exp=1.01u,pred

4
3

u,exp (%)

u,exp (%)

median: u,exp=1.015u,pred

u,pred (%)

0
0

u,pred (%)

median: u,exp=1.015u,pred

(c)

(b)

(a)

u,pred (%)

u,pred (%)

u,pred (%)

u,exp (%)

median: u,exp =1.01u,pred

0
0

u,pred (%)

(d)
(e)
(f)
Fig. 4.5 Experimental cyclic ultimate chord rotations of members with poor detailing and (a)-(c)
ribbed or (d)-(f) smooth continuous bars bars, vs. predictions of: (a) Eq. (4.31a); (b) Eqs. (4.31b),
(4.30b); (c) Eqs. (4.31b), (4.30c); (d) Eqs. (4.32), (4.31a); (e) Eqs. (4.32), (4.31b) and (4.30b); (f)
Eqs. (4.32), (4.31b) and (4.30c)

About 50 tests of members with continuous ribbed longitudinal bars and about 30 tests with

36

smooth ones, all without seismic detailing (i.e., with sparse ties without 135o hooks) show that
poor detailing does not affect the flexure-controlled ultimate chord rotation for monotonic loading,
but it does for cyclic as follows:
Old-type members with ribbed bars, cyclic loading:

Old-type members with smooth bars, cyclic loading:

u = u,Eq. (4.30a)/1.2, or

(4.31a)

upl = uplEq. (4.30b) or (4.30c)/1.2

(4.31b)

u = 0.95u,Eq. (4.31)

(4.32)

Fig. 4.5 compares test results to the predictions of Eqs. (4.31), (4.32). The statistics of the testto-prediction ratio are given in rows 29-34 of Table 4.2.
Eqs. (4.30a), (4.30b) and (4.31) - with minor variations in some coefficients - have been
adopted in Part 3 of Eurocode 8 [11] for beams and rectangular columns or walls under cyclic
loading.

4.6

Flexure-controlled ultimate chord rotations in biaxial loading

The few available biaxial tests suggest that at ultimate deformation the chord rotation components
parallel to the sides of the cross-section, uy and uz, lie on average from 5% to 18% outside a
circular interaction diagram:
uy

uy ,uni

+ uz

uz ,uni

=1

(4.33)

uy,uni and uz,uni are the ultimate chord rotations under unidirectional bending parallel to the
section sides computed from Eqs. (4.28), (4.29) or via Eqs. (4.30). The statistics at rows 35-38 in
Table 4.2 suggest that the alternative uniaxial models are effectively equivalent for use in Eq.
(4.33). The smaller scatter compared to the uniaxial data is due to the fewer biaxial ones.

37

Effect of lap-splicing of longitudinal bars in the plastic hinge zone on


flexure-controlled ultimate deformations

Fig. 5.1 shows the ratio of the experimental plastic part of ultimate chord rotation, plu, to the value
from Eq. (4.30b), while Fig. 5.2 depicts the strain of the lapped tension bars at which the
experimental ultimate chord rotation is attained, normalized to their ultimate strain, su. It is shown
directly in Fig. 5.1 and indirectly in Fig. 5.2 that, if the lap length is relatively long, both
approaches underestimate the experimental ultimate chord rotation of members with lap-spliced
bars. To reflect this finding and account - at least partly - for this difference, it is proposed to
consider as compression reinforcement for ultimate curvatures or chord rotation models both bars
in any pair of lapped bars in the compression zone.
1.6
1.4

pl,exp /pl,th

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
beams & columns

0.2

T,H,U or hollow rect.

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

lo/lou,min

1.2

1.4

Fig. 5.1. Ratio of experimental plastic part of ultimate chord rotation, plu, of members with lap-

spliced bars to empirical prediction neglecting the lap splicing, compared to Eq. (5.4)

The scatter notwithstanding, Figs. 5.1 and 5.2 suggest that if the lap length, lo, is less than a
minimum lap length, lou,min, beyond which the ultimate chord rotation does not seem to be
adversely affected by the lap splice, both plu and the maximum usable tensile strain decrease with
decreasing lo. This minimum lapping is longer than that required for the member to develop its full
yield moment, loy,min, given by Eq. (3.4). It has also been found to be positively affected by

38

clamping of the lapped bars by transverse reinforcement, as:


l ou ,min =

d bL f y

1.05 + 14.5a l , s w yw f c

f c

(fy, fyw, fc in MPa)

(5.1)

where:
w: ratio of transverse reinforcement parallel to the plane of bending, and
al,s=(1-0.5sh/bo)(1-0.5sh/ho)nrestr/ntot

(5.2)

with sh, bo, ho as for Eq. (4.21) and:

ntot:

total number of lapped bars in the cross-section,

nrestr:

number of these bars which are engaged by a stirrup corner or a cross-tie.


1.2

su,"exp" /su,th

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
beams&columns

0.2

T,H,U or hollow rect.

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

lo/lou,min
Fig. 5.2. Ratio of strain in tension bars at which the experimental ultimate chord rotation of a

member with lap-spliced bars is attained to the ultimate bar strain, compared to Eq. (5.3)

The elastic component, y, of the ultimate chord rotation is modified according to Section 3.2
above, to account for the lap splicing. On the basis of Figs. 5.1 and 5.2, it is proposed here to
modify the plastic component of u as follows:
1. If Eqs. (4.28), (4.29) are used, only the calculation of curvatures is modified for the effect of
lap splicing. The yield curvature, y, is modified according to section 3.2 above. For u, both
lapped compression bars in any pair are included in the compression reinforcement. Moreover,

39

if lo is shorter than the value of lou,min from Eq. (5.1), the maximum elongation of the extreme
tension bars at ultimate conditions due to steel failure is reduced to the following limit value:

su ,l = 1.2

lo
l ou ,min

fy
l
0.2 su o

l ou ,min E s

(5.3)

with su from Eq. (4.25) for cyclic loading or (4.26) for monotonic and loy,min, lou,min given by
Eqs. (4.20) and (5.1) above. Everything else in this approach, namely Eqs. (4.1)-(4.29), still
apply.
2. If Eqs. (4.30b), (4.30c) are adopted, the plastic part of the ultimate chord rotation is estimated
as:
upl,ribbed

lapped bars

l
= min1, o
l ou ,min

pl
u

(5.4)

with plu calculated from Eqs. (4.30b) or (4.30c) as if the bars were continuous.
10

10
median: u,exp =u,pred

u,exp (%)

u,exp (%)

median: u,exp =1.045u,pred

2
beams & columns

beams & columns

T,H,U or hollow rect.

T,H,U or hollow rect.

0
0

u,pred (%)

10

u,pred (%)

10

(b)
(a)
Fig. 5.3. Experimental ultimate chord rotations of members with lap-spliced bars vs. predictions
of: (a) the empirical approach and Eq. (5.4); (b) the approach based on curvatures, the plastic
hinge length and Eq. (5.3)

Fig. 5.3 compares the data to the outcome of the option 1 (in Fig. 5.3(b)) or of option 2 (in Fig.
5.3(a)). Rows 39 to 41 in Table 4.2 give statistics of the corresponding test-to-prediction ratios.
Note that, although for members with continuous bars Eqs. (4.30) give lower prediction scatter
40

than Eqs. (4.28), (4.29), their extensions for lap-spliced bars are practically equivalent.
Eqs. (5.2) and (5.4) have been adopted in Part 3 of Eurocode 8 [11].
There are just 7 cyclic tests of columns without detailing for earthquake resistance and smooth
hooked bars lapped starting at the base (all with lo15dbL). They suggest the following
modification of Eq. (4.32) for the chord rotation at flexure-controlled failure:

u , smooth lapped

bars

10 + min o ; 40
dbL

=
u , Eq .(4.32)
50

The last row in Table 4.2 gives statistics of the corresponding test-to-prediction ratios.

41

(5.5)

6
6.1

Shear Strength after Flexural Yielding


Introduction

If it takes place before flexural yielding, ultimate failure of concrete members in shear occurs at
relatively low deformations and is considered as a brittle failure mode. Sometimes concrete
members that yield first in flexure, may ultimately fail under cyclic loading with their failure
mode showing strong and clear effects of shear. Notably inclined cracks increase in width and
extent with cycling despite the gradual drop of peak force resistance with load cycling; on the
other hand, phenomena which are normally associated with flexural failure, such as a single wide
crack transverse to the axis at the section of maximum moment, disintegration of the compression
zone and/or buckling of longitudinal bars next to the section of maximum moment, are not
pronounced. Close to a flexure-controlled ultimate condition, these latter phenomena are
dominant, sometimes leading to rupture of a longitudinal bar, whereas the width of any inclined
cracks that may have developed at the beginning decreases and such cracks may even disappear,
as the peak force resistance drops with load cycling after the flexure-controlled ultimate strength.
Failure in shear under cyclic loading, after initial flexural yielding is termed ductile shear failure
[14]. It is normally associated with diagonal tension and yielding of web reinforcement, rather
than by web crushing. It has by now prevailed to quantify this failure mode via a shear resistance
VR, (as this is controlled by web reinforcement according to the well-established Mrsch truss
analogy) that decreases with the (displacement) ductility ratio under cyclic loading [3], [14], [17].
As the number of available cyclic tests that led to ductile shear failure is not sufficient to support
development of an independent (statistical or mechanical) model for the deformation capacity of
concrete members as affected or controlled by shear, the present work also adopts the solid base of
the Mrsch analogy for shear, to describe in force terms a failure mode which is controlled by
deformations.

42

6.2

Models of shear resistance in diagonal tension under inelastic cyclic deformations after
flexural yielding

An earlier work [7] used a fairly large data set of columns with circular or rectangular section, and
of walls, ultimately failing by ductile shear under cyclic loading, to develop two models for the
shear resistance, VR, as a function of the plastic chord rotation (or displacement) ductility ratio,

pl, defined as the ratio of the post-elastic chord rotation at ductile shear failure, to the chord
rotation at yielding, y, as this is computed from Eqs. (2.13). In both models the effect of axial
force, N, on VR is accounted for through a separate term. That term represents the contribution to
shear resistance of the transverse to the member axis component of the compression strut between
the two ends of the member (as in [12], as well as in [14]). A 45o truss inclination is considered, as
in [17], because truss inclinations other than 45o are normally taken when only the web
reinforcement is considered to contribute to VR, (Vw term), without a separate concrete
contribution (Vc term).
VR =

hx
L
min(N , 0.55 Ac fc ) + 0.16 1 0.095 min 5, pl max(0.5, 100 tot ) 1 0.16 min 5, s fc Ac + Vw

2 Ls

(6.1a)

VR =

hx
L
min (N , 0.55 Ac f c ) + 1 0.05 min 5, pl 0.16 max( 0.5, 100 tot )1 0.16 min 5, s
2 Ls
h

(6.1b)

))

f c Ac + V w

where:
h:

depth of cross-section;

x:

compression zone depth;

N:

compressive axial force (positive, taken as zero for tension);

Ls/h=M/Vh: shear span ratio at member end;


Ac:

cross-section area, equal to bwd for cross-sections with rectangular web of width (thickness)

bw and structural depth d;


fc:

concrete strength (Pa);

tot: total longitudinal reinforcement ratio;


Vw:

contribution of transverse reinforcement to shear resistance, taken equal to:


43

Vw = w bw zf yw

(6.2)

where:
bw is the width (thickness) of the rectangular web,
w and fyw are the ratio and yield stress of transverse reinforcement, and
z is the internal lever arm (z = d-d1 in beams, columns and walls of barbelled, T- or H-shaped
section, z = 0.8h in rectangular walls),
In [7] Eqs. (6.1) were fitted to a database of 239 cyclic tests that led to ductile shear failure
after initial flexural yielding; this total included 53 tests on columns with circular section, 161
tests on columns or beams with square or rectangular section, 6 on walls and 19 on piers with
hollow or T-shaped section. As far as the fitting is concerned, Eqs. (6.1a) and (6.1b) are practically
equivalent: the ratio of experimental-to-predicted shear resistance had a median of 1.0 for both
models and a coefficient of variation of 15.1% for Eq. (6.1a) or 14.1% for (6.1b); Eq. (6.1b) also
had slightly better average agreement to the data for each one of the four types of members
(circular or rectangular columns, rectangular walls and non-rectangular walls or piers).
Since the earlier work the database of cyclic ductile shear failures after initial flexural
yielding has been enriched with 18 more tests on columns with circular section, 32 on rectangular
columns, 5 on rectangular walls and 12 more tests on non-rectangular walls. In the present report
Eqs. (6.1) are evaluated on the basis of the increased databank of beams and columns with
rectangular section and piers with hollow rectangular, T, H, or U section. More specifically, for
this type of members, 235 in total, statistics of the ratio of experimental-to-predicted shear
resistance are computed for the increased database, as follows:
For Eq. (6.1a): median and coefficient of variation of the ratio of experimental-to-predicted
shear resistance in the 235 tests equal to 0.985 and 15.05% respectively;
For Eq. (6.1b): median and coefficient of variation of the ratio of experimental-to-predicted
shear resistance in the 235 tests equal to 0.99 and 14.25% respectively.

44

Fig. 6.1 compares the predictions of Eqs. (6.1a), (6.1b) to the experimental values of shear

1000

1000

900

900

800

800

700

700

600

600

Vexp (kN)

Vexp (kN)

resistance in the 235 tests.

500
400

500
400

300

beams & columns

300

beams & columns

200

rectangular walls

200

rectangular walls

100

piers with T,H,U or hollow


rect. section

100

piers with T,H,U or hollow


rect. section

0
0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Vpred (kN)

Vpred (kN)

(a)
(b)
Fig. 6.1. Experimental vs. predicted shear strength for tests failed in shear due to diagonal tension;

(a) Eq. (6.1a); (b) Eq. (6.1b).

45

7
7.1

RC-jacketing of columns
Introduction

Jacketing a column is the most cost-effective way to enhance at the same time:
1. its flexural resistance (even converting a weak-column/strong-beam frame into a strongcolumn/weak-beam one),
2. its lateral stiffness,
3. its shear strength,
4. its deformation capacity and
5. anchorage and continuity of reinforcement in anchorage or splicing zones.
Being a composite member of two different concretes and two distinct cages of reinforcement
with different detailing and often different types of steel, a jacketed member seems fairly complex
and difficult to tackle in everyday retrofit design. The uncertain behaviour of the interface between
the old member and the jacket adds to this difficulty. To reduce this problem to a level of
simplicity consistent with the popularity of concrete jackets as an easy and low cost retrofitting
technique, simple rules are developed for the estimation of the yield moment, the yield drift, the
secant stiffness at incipient yielding and the flexure-controlled cyclic deformation capacity of
jacketed members. To this end data from 57 monotonic or cyclic tests (55 on columns and two on
walls) of members jacketed with concrete employing various bonding measures at the interface
between the old and the new concrete, have been used to express the properties of the jacketed
column in terms of the corresponding property of an equivalent monolithic member.

7.2

Simple rules for the strength, the stiffness and the deformation capacity of jacketed
members

The rules proposed here on the basis of the tests in the database use modification factors on the
properties of an equivalent monolithic member. The strength, the stiffness and the deformation
capacity of the equivalent monolithic member are determined according to the rules above and

46

to the additional considerations listed in Table 7.1. The idea behind assumptions A.3 and A.4 in
this Table is that, for common ratios of jacket thickness to depth of the jacketed section, it is
mainly the jacket that carries the full axial load at the critical end section and in the plastic hinge
of the column. Also, it is the jacket that mainly controls the shear resistance and the bond along
the longitudinal reinforcement of the jacket.
In the following, an asterisk is used to denote a calculated value for the jacketed member, as,
e.g., in My*, y*, u*. No asterisk is used (as, e.g., in My, y, upl) for values calculated for the
monolithic member according to the assumptions in Table 7.1 and chapters 2 and 4. Ratios of
experimental values of My, y and u for the 57 jacketed members in the database to the values of
My, y and u calculated for the monolithic member according to the assumptions in Table 7.1 and
chapters 2 and 4 are shown in Fig. 7.1. Note that in Fig. 7.1 (bottom) u,cal is taken equal to

y*+uplEq. (4.30), with y* = 1.05y,Eq. (2.13) being the overall best estimate of the chord rotation at
yielding for the jacketed member (with y from Eqs. (2.13)). With so defined y*, in Fig. 7.1 (3rd
figure from the top) the effective stiffness to yield point of the jacketed member is defined as:
EI*eff = My,calLs/3y*. The ratios My,exp/My,pred, y,exp/y,Eq. (2.13), EIexp/EI*eff and u,exp/u,cal are given
from top to bottom of Fig. 7.1 separately for different ways of connecting the jacket to the old
member and separately for those members which had been damaged by testing before they were
jacketed. Specimens in which the longitudinal reinforcement of the jacket did not continue beyond
the member end, or specimens with lap-spliced reinforcement in the original member, are
identified in Fig. 7.1 but otherwise lumped together with those tests where the vertical bars in the
original member were continuous. For tests that did not reach ultimate conditions and for the two
walls that failed in the unstrengthened part of their height, an arrow pointing up signifies an
experimental-to-predicted ratio greater than the plotted value.

47

Table 7.1 Assumptions for the properties of a monolithic member considered as "equivalent" to
the jacketed one
I. Flexural resistance and deformation capacity, deformations at flexural yielding

Case A:
Jacket longitudinal bars are anchored beyond the member end sections:
A1: Dimensions
External dimensions of the section are those of the jacket.
A2: Longitudinal
The tension and compression reinforcement are those of the jacket.
reinforcement
Longitudinal bars of the old member are considered at their actual
location between the tension and compression bars of the jacket:
they may supplement longitudinal bars of the jacket between the
tension and compression reinforcement and be included in a
uniform web reinforcement ratio between the tension and
compression bars
in walls the tension and compression reinforcement of the jacketed
member may include old vertical bars at the edges, as appropriate.
Lap splices in the intermediate old reinforcement may be neglected.
Differences in yield stress between the new and old longitudinal
reinforcement should be taken into account, in all cases.
A3: Concrete strength The fc value of the jacket applies over the full section of the monolithic
member; in the 3rd term of Eqs. (2.13) the fc value of the concrete into
which the longitudinal bars are anchored beyond the end section is
used.
A4: Axial load
The full axial load is taken to act on the jacketed column as a whole,
although it was originally applied to the old column alone.
A5: Transverse
Only the transverse reinforcement in the jacket is taken into account
reinforcement
for confinement.
Case B.
Jacket longitudinal reinforcement stops at the end section:
B1: Dimensions,
My and y (also in the 1st and 3rd term of Eqs. (2.13)) are calculated
longitudinal
using the cross-sectional dimensions, the longitudinal reinforcement
reinforcement,
and the fc value of the old member, neglecting any contribution from
concrete strength
the jacket.
The effect of lap splicing of the old bars is taken into account as in
chapters 3 and 5 for non-retrofitted members.
The section depth h in the 2nd term of Eqs. (2.13) is that of the jacket.
B2: Transverse
The deformation capacity, u, is calculated on the basis of the old
reinforcement
column alone, with the old column taken as confined by the jacket and
its transverse steel. The value of s = As/bws for Eqs. (4.30) is
determined using the value of As/s in the jacket and taking as bw the
width of the old column. The confinement effectiveness factor may be
taken s = 1.0.
II. Shear resistance
Shear resistance (including that without shear reinforcement, VR,c, for the determination of the
value of V in the 1st term of Eqs. (2.13)) and anything that has to do with shear is calculated
on the basis of the external dimensions and the transverse reinforcement of the jacket. The
contribution of the old transverse reinforcement may be considered only in walls, provided it
is well anchored into the (new) boundary elements.
The average value and standard-deviation estimates of the mean test-to-prediction ratios are
shown in Fig. 7.1 separately for the various groups of specimens representing different types of

48

jacket-to-old-member connection, with or without damage in the original column. Note that, the
distance of the sample average from a certain reference value (e.g. 1.0), normalised by the
standard-deviation of the mean is a criterion on whether the value of the property of the jacketed
member may be taken equal to that calculated for the monolithic member according to the
assumptions in Table 7.1 and Sections 2 and 4, times that reference value.
Fig. 7.1 supports the following rules for calculating the yield moment, the chord rotation at the
yield point and the ultimate chord rotation, My*, y*, u*, respectively, of the jacketed member, in
terms of the values My, y, upl calculated for the monolithic member according to Table 7.1 and
chapters 2 and 4:
1. For My*:
My* = My,pred

(7.1)

2. For y* (the main target being the stiffness at yield point, EI*eff = My,calLs/3y* with My* =
My,pred), irrespective of any pre-damage in the original column:

y* = 1.05y,Eq. (2.13)

(7.2)

(In [11] this rule has been adopted only for a roughened interface of the jacket to the old
concrete, with or without dowels, but the more conservative rule: y* = 1.2y,Eq. (2.13) has been
adopted [11] for no treatment of the interface, or dowels alone, or jacket bars connected to the
old ones via welded U-bars).
3. For u*:

u*= *y+uplEq. (4.30b)

(7.3)

Rules 1 to 3, supplemented with assumptions B1 and B2 in Table 7.1, apply also if the jacket
longitudinal bars stop at the end section of the member.
If no differentiation is made for the measure taken to enhance the shear transfer at the interface
of the old and the new concrete, the ratio of the experimental value to the prediction from rules 1
to 3 above has overall median value and coefficient-of-variation equal to 1.035 and 10.7%, 0.99
49

and 23.5%, 1.005 and 30.5%, and 1.145 and 19% for My, y, EIeff and u, respectively.
1.2

My,exp/ My,calc

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

continuous bars

smooth 15db laps

ribbed 15db laps

smooth 25db laps

ribbed 30db laps

ribbed 45db laps

non-anchored jacket bars

group average

st. dev. of group mean

0
1.8

1.6

y,exp/ y,calc

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4

Legend:
a: no treatment of
interface
b: no treatment, predamaged member,
c: welded U-bars,
d: dowels,
e: roughened interface,
f: roughened interface,
member pre-damaged,
g: U-bars and roughened
interface,
h: U-bars and roughened
interface, member predamaged,
i: dowels and roughened
interface,
j: dowels and roughened
interface, member predamaged,
k: monolithic member

0.2
0
2.5

2.25
2

EIexp/ EI*eff

1.75
1.5
1.25
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
1.6

1.2

pl

u,exp / ( *
y +u )

1.4

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Fig. 7.1 Experimental value for the RC-jacketed member divided to value calculated for the

monolithic member according to Table 7.1

50

Bonding measures at the interface of the jacket and the old member seem to have a statistically
significant effect only on the ultimate chord rotation, u. The proposed rules underestimate on
average the measured ultimate chord rotation, u,exp, for roughening and/or dowels at the interface
or for U-bars welded to the new and the old longitudinal bars. Even when no measure is taken to
improve the interface between the old and the new concrete or connect the two materials there, the
predictions undershoot the ultimate chord rotation of the jacketed member, but by less. So, it is
safe-sided for the ultimate chord rotation, u, to neglect the favourable effect of positive
connection measures at the interface of the old and the new concrete, underestimating its measured
value by 14.5% on average. No systematic positive effect of any connection measures on the yield
moment, My, and the effective stiffness, EIeff, has been found.
The values of My, y, EIeff and u predicted for the 57 jacketed specimens in the database as
My*, y*, EI*eff or u* above according to rules 1 to 3 above do not show a systematic bias with
respect to any of the following:
the ratio of fc of the jacket to that of the old member;
the ratio of the cross-sectional area of the jacket to that of the old member;
the ratio of the yield stress times the longitudinal reinforcement ratio in the jacket, to the same
product in the old member;
the axial load, normalised to either the product of the full cross-sectional area of the jacketed
section and of fc of the jacket, or to the actual compressive strength of the jacketed section; and
the ratio of the neutral axis depth at yielding to the thickness of the jacket.
The data do support assumptions A3 and A4 in Table 7.1, even when the compression zone
extends beyond the jacket, into the section of the old column.
The 57 jacketed specimens in the database did not show any shear distress at failure. This is
consistent with the fact that in all tests the shear resistance from Eqs. (6.1) was higher by at least
30% than the maximum applied shear force.

51

FRP-jacketing of columns

8.1

Seismic retrofitting with FRPs

Externally bonded Fibre Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) are used in seismic retrofitting in order to
enhance or improve:
i.

the deformation capacity of flexural plastic hinges (with the fibres along the perimeter of the
section and FRP wrapping all-along the plastic hinge);

ii.

deficient lap splices (with the fibres as in i and the FRP at least over the full lap length);

iii.

the shear resistance (with the fibres in the transverse direction where enhancement of shear
strength is pursued).

FRPs do not lend themselves for enhancement of flexural resistance against seismic actions even
when their fibres are in the longitudinal direction of the member, as they cannot easily be
continued into the joint beyond the member end where the seismic bending moment is maximum.

8.2

FRP-wrapped columns with continuous vertical bars

8.2.1 Yield moment and effective stiffness to yield point


Eqs. (2.1) - (2.7) can be applied also to members with FRP-wrapping of their end regions, but with
the following modifications:
In the calculation of the values of y and My of FRP-wrapped columns on the basis of 1st
principles, the unconfined concrete strength, fc, is replaced by the value fc* increased due to FRP
confinement according to [15],[16]:

(
(

min bx ; b y
f c*
= 1 + 3.3
max bx ; b y
fc

) 2 a
) f

f fu, f
fc

(8.1)

where:
bx and by are the cross-sectional dimensions of the section,
f is the geometric ratio of the FRP parallel to the direction of bending,
f is the effectiveness factor for confinement by FRP of a rectangular section having its corners
52

rounded to a radius R to apply the FRP:


a f =1

(bx 2 R ) 2 + (b y 2 R ) 2

(8.2)

3bx b y

fu,f is the effective strength of the FRP, taken according to [15],[16] as equal to:
fu,f = Ef(keffu,f)

(8.3)

where:
Ef and u,f are the FRPs Elastic modulus and failure strain, respectively,
keff is an FRP effectiveness factor, taken according to [15],[16] as equal to keff = 0.6 for
Carbon FRP (CFRP) or Glass FRP (GFRP); for Aramid FRP (AFRP) and FRPs with
polyacetal fibres the value of keff is taken here the same as for CFRP and GFRP (keff = 0.85
has been proposed in [15],[16] for AFRP on the basis of few test results).
The increase of concrete strength according to Eq. (8.1) is not sufficient to capture the
enhancement of yield moment due to the confinement by FRP: as shown in Fig. 8.1(a) and at the
1st row of statistics in Table 8.1 (at the end of Section 8), the value of My computed on the basis of
first principles is, on average, 6.5% less than the experimental value. So, when Eqs. (2.13) is
applied to members with FRP-wrapped ends using a value of y from 1st principles, a coefficient
of 1.065 should be applied on the 1st (flexural) term. The so-computed value of y is compared in
Fig. 8.1(b) to test results for not-pre-damaged columns wrapped with FRP.
The effective stiffness from Eq. (2.14) using the value of My from 1st principles and that of y
from Eq. (2.13), with the 1st term incorporating the factor 1.065 of the paragraph above, is
compared in Fig. 8.2 to experimental values. Table 8.1 gives also the statistics of the test-toprediction ratio for the effective stiffness at yielding for FRP-wrapped columns.
Fig. 8.1(b) and Table 8.1 (at the end of Section 8) show also the effect of serious previous
damage (from yielding to exceedance of ultimate deformation) before repair, FRP-wrapping and
re-testing. Such columns have also been included in the comparisons in Fig. 8.1(a) and in the 1st
row of statistics in Table 8.1, showing that repair of the damage and FRP-wrapping fully re53

instates the yield moment. However, Figs 8.1(b) and 8.2, as well as the 4th and 8th rows of statistics
in Table 8.1, suggest that, despite the repair and the FRP-wrapping, previous damage markedly
reduces the effective flexural stiffness to the yield point.

2500

median: My,exp =1.065My,pred

median (non-predamaged):
y,exp=0.965y,pred

2.5

2000

1500

y,exp (%)

My,exp (KNm)

1000

1.5

500

0.5

non-predamaged
predamaged

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0.5

1.5

2.5

y,pred (%)

My,pred (KNm)

(b)

(a)

Fig. 8.1 FRP-wrapped rectangular columns with continuous bars: (a) experimental yield moment v

prediction from 1st principles and Eqs. (8.1), (8.2); (b) experimental chord rotation at yielding v
prediction of Eq. (2.13)
350

median (non-predamaged):
EIexp=1.03EIpred

median (non-predamaged):
EIexp =1.03EIpred

300

EIexp (MNm2)

EIexp (MNm2)

250
200
150
100

non-predamaged
predamaged

non-predamaged
predamaged

50
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

EIpred (MNm2)

EIpred (MNm2)

(b)

(a)

Fig. 8.2 (a) Experimental stiffness to yield point of FRP-wrapped rectangular columns with

continuous bars, v effective stiffness from Eq. (2.14) with My from first principles and y from Eq.
(2.13); (b) detail of (a).

54

8.2.2 Flexure-controlled deformation capacity


As in Section 4.5, the ultimate chord rotation, u, can be expressed as the chord rotation at
yielding, y, computed as in Section 8.2.1, plus a plastic part, upl.
Two alternative types of model are proposed here for upl. In the first one, upl is taken equal to
the plastic component of the ultimate curvature, u-y, times a plastic-hinge length, Lpl, plus a
fixed-end rotation due to bar pull-out from the anchorage zone past the member end. A large
volume of data on flexure-controlled ultimate curvatures and chord rotations of rectangular
members without FRP-wrapping suggest a fixed-end rotation equal on average to a yield
penetration depth of 10 bar-diameters times the average of y and u (corresponding to linear
strain hardening of the bar along the yield penetration depth):
upl = a sl

(u + y )10d
2

bL

L pl

+ ( u y ) L pl 1
2 Ls

(8.4)

Empirical expressions for Lpl depend on the models used for y and u. The model used here for y
is the one used for Eqs. (2.1)(2.7), based on plane-section analysis and a strength of FRPconfined concrete, fc*, from Eq. (8.1). The model for u is also based on plane-section analysis as
explained in Section 4.1. For flexural failure in cyclic loading due to rupture of the extreme
tension bars it uses a limit strain, su, equal to 3/8 the steel uniform elongation at ultimate strength,
Eq. (4.25). The concrete - law is taken as parabolic-trapezoidal with ultimate strength from Eqs.
(8.1)-(8.3) [15],[16]. If the ultimate strain, cu*, is also taken according to [15],[16], the flexurecontrolled ultimate curvature and chord rotation of rectangular FRP-wrapped members is
considerably under-estimated. So, a different ultimate strain value has been fitted to these data:
2

cu

f fu , f

10
= 0.0035 +
+ 0.4a f min 0.5;
f c*
h (mm)

aeff , j

(8.5)

Eq. (8.5) is a modification/extension of Eq. (4.23), fitted to a very large database of nonwrapped members failing in flexure under cyclic loading. In Eq. (8.5) the section depth, h, is in
mm and f, af, fu,f were defined above via, or in conjunction with, Eqs. (8.1)-(8.3). The additional
55

parameter is another effectiveness factor for the FRP jacket, expressing that its effectiveness is not
proportional to the geometric ratio and stiffness of the FRP:

f f u, f
aeff , j = 0.51 min 0.5;

f c*

f f u, f
aeff , j = 0.31 min 0.5;

f c*

for AFRP

for CFRP, GFRP,

(8.6a)

(8.6b)

Note that, if the FRP provides relatively light confinement compared to the transverse
reinforcement, the end section may survive rupture of the FRP jacket and attain later a larger
ultimate curvature controlled by the confined concrete core inside the stirrups. In that case,
ultimate curvature can be calculated according to Section 4.1 for non-retrofitted members.
It has been proposed in [6], [8] and adopted in [11] to extend the empirical model for upl, Eq.
(4.30b), to members with FRP wrapping by including in the exponent of the 2nd term from the end
the effect of confinement by the FRP, adding to it the term aff ff,e, where f and af were defined
above via, or in conjunction with, Eqs. (8.1), (8.2), and ff,e, is the effective stress of the FRP:

f f , e = min ( f fu , nom ; u , f E f )1 min 0.5; 0.7 min ( f fu , nom ; u , f E f ) f


fc

(8.7)

with ffu,nom denoting the nominal strength of the FRP and u,f being a limit strain:

u,f = 0.015

for CFRP or AFRP;

u,f = 0.02

for GFRP.

It is proposed here to improve the extension of Eq. (4.30b) by adding to the exponent of the 2nd
term from the end of Eq. (4.30b) a term for the FRP symbolized by the left-hand-side of the
following expression and given by its right-hand-side:
f

af u
1 0.4 min1.0; min f fu,nom; u, f E f f

min
1
.
0
;
min
;
a
f
E

,
,
f
fu
nom
u
f
f
f
f c
f c
c f ,eff

(8.8)

with the limit strain always equal to u,f = 0.015. About the same fit to the tests is achieved if the
FRP-confinement term added to the exponent of the 2nd term from the end of Eq. (4.30b) is based
56

on the effective FRP strength in Eq. (8.3). This alternative, which is more consistent with the
confinement model in [15],[16], is:
af u

fc

f f u, f

= a f c f min 0.4;
fc
f ,eff

f f u, f

1 0.5 min 0.4;


fc

(8.9)

where cf = 1.8 for CFRP and cf = 0.8 for GFRP or AFRP.


The last term in each one of Eqs. (8.6), Eq. (8.7)-(8.9) reflects the experimentally documented
reduced effectiveness of larger amounts of FRP wrapping.
Figs. 8.3, 8.4 compare the predictions of the models for u (Eqs. (4.28), (8.1)-(8.6), or Eqs.
(2.13), (4.30b) with Eqs. (8.7), (8.8), or (8.9)) to the test results for FRP-wrapped columns to
which the models were fitted. Rows 10 to 13 in Table 8.1 (at the end of Section 8) refer to the testto-prediction ratios of u for specimens without pre-damage, rows 14 to 17 for pre-damaged ones
and rows 18 to 21 to all specimens, regardless of pre-damage. The results of Eqs. (4.28), (8.1)(8.6) show no evidence of an effect of pre-damage on ultimate chord rotation. Eqs. (8.7), (8.8), or
(8.9), by contrast, do suggest a reduction of u of about 10% due to pre-damage.
25

25
median: u,exp=1.085u,pred

20

20

15

15

u,exp(%)

u,exp(%)

median: u,exp=0.995u,pred

10

CFRP jacket

CFRP jacket
AFRP jacket
GFRP jacket
PAF jacket

0
0

10

15

u,pred (%)

20

10

AFRP jacket
GFRP jacket
PAF jacket

25

10

15

u,pred (%)

20

25

(b)

(a)

Fig. 8.3 Experimental ultimate chord rotation of FRP-wrapped rectangular columns with

continuous bars v predictions: (a) of model based on plastic hinge length, Eqs. (8.1)-(8.6) and
(4.28); (b) of empirical model, Eqs. (4.30b), (8.7).

57

25

25
median: u,exp=1.025u,pred

20

20

15

15

u,exp(%)

u,exp(%)

median: u,exp=1.035u,pred

10

10

CFRP jacket
5

CFRP jacket

AFRP jacket
GFRP jacket

AFRP jacket
GFRP jacket

PAF jacket

PAF jacket

0
0

10

15

u,pred (%)

20

25

(a)

10

15

u,pred (%)

20

25

(b)

Fig. 8.4 Experimental ultimate chord rotation of FRP-wrapped columns with continuous bars v

predictions of empirical model of Eqs. (2.13), (4.30b) and (a) (8.8); (b) (8.9).

8.3

FRP-wrapped columns with ribbed (deformed) vertical bars lap-spliced in the plastic
hinge region

All rules proposed in the present section have been developed and calibrated on the basis of
members with FRP wrapping applied over a length exceeding that of the lap. Accordingly, they
should be applied only when such wrapping extends over a length from the end of the member at
least, e.g., 125% of the lapping.
The available tests on rectangular RC members with ribbed (deformed) longitudinal bars
lapped starting at the section of maximum moment show that, in the calculation of the yield
curvature, y, (used in the 1st and the 3rd term in Eq. (2.13) for y), as well as of the yield moment,
My, and of the plastic part of the flexure-controlled ultimate chord rotation, upl, both bars in a pair
of lapped compressed bars should count in the compression reinforcement ratio. Moreover, if the
straight lap length, lo, is less than a minimum value loy,min, then y and My should be calculated
using as yield stress of the tension reinforcement the value of fy multiplied by lo/loy,min, while the
2nd term of the right-hand-side of Eq. (2.13) should be multiplied by the ratio of the value of My as
modified for the effect of lapping, to its value without it. If the length of the member where the lap
58

splicing takes place is fully wrapped by FRP, which in the presence for FRP, the value of loy,min is:
loy,min = 0.2dbLfy/fc

(fy, fc in MPa)

(8.10)

This rule is a modification of Eq. (3.3), derived from members with lap-spliced bars but no
FRP wrapping. Experimental values of My and of the effective stiffness from Eq. (2.14) for FRPwrapped columns with lap splices are compared in Fig. 8.5 to predictions with the effect of bar
lapping taken into account according to the above rule. Rows 2, 5 and 8 in Table 8.1 (at the end of
Section 8) refer to the test-to-prediction ratio of My, y and effective stiffness of such columns.

250

2000
median:
My,exp =1.085My,pred

1750

median:
EIexp =1.045EIpred

200

EIexp (MNm2)

M y,exp (kNm)

1500
1250
1000
750

150

100

500

50
250
0
0

250

500

750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000

My,pred (kNm)

50

100

150

200

250

EIpred (MNm2)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 8.5 Experimental: (a) yield moment and (b) effective stiffness of FRP-wrapped rectangular

columns with lap-spliced bars, compared to predictions from first principles and Eq. (2.14),
accounting for bar lap-splicing according to Sect. 8.3

Regarding the ultimate chord rotation of members with FRP wrapping of their lap-splice
length, it has been proposed in [8] and adopted in [11] to extend a rule fitted to a large number of
test results on rectangular columns with lap splices confined by the transverse reinforcement
alone. According to this proposal the value of upl from Eqs. (4.30b), (8.7) is modified as follows,
with lou,min from Eq. (8.12):
upl = (lo/lou,min)uplEqs. (4.30b),(8.7) , if lo < lou,min
59

(8.11)

At the same time, if lo is shorter than the value, loy,min, from Eq. (8.10), the first paragraph of the
present section is applied for the effect of bar splicing on y, to be added to upl from Eq. (8.11).
In [8] and [11] the minimum lap length beyond which the lapping does not adversely affect the
flexure-controlled ultimate deformation is:
l ou , min =

d bL f yL

f f f ,e

4
1.05 + 14.5
af

ntot
fc

(fyL, ff,e, ,fc in MPa)

fc

(8.12)

where f, af and ff,e were defined in conjunction with Eqs. (8.1), (8.2), (8.7) and ntot is the total
number of lapped longitudinal bars along the cross-section perimeter (the term 4/ntot is the fraction
of the total number of lap splices confined by the FRP, as in rectangular columns only the four
corner bars, are confined by the FRP wrapped around the corner). Fig. 8.6 compares predictions
with test results. Recent test results show that the value of u is slightly overestimated following
this approach. The predictions are here compared with 43 experimental results of u. The mean
value of experimental/predicted ratio is equal to 0.94.
Using a database of the 43 experimental results, it was here re-evaluated the correlation of the
various parameters affecting the ultimate chord rotation of an FRP-wrapped column lap-spliced in
the plastic hinge region. The minimum lap length beyond which the lapping does not adversely affect the
2

flexure-controlled ultimate deformation, lou,min, is rather affected by (4/ntot) instead of 4/ntot that was

suggested by Eq. (8.12). Following this, it is here proposed the following improvement of Eq.
(8.12):
l ou , min =

d bL f yL

1.05 + 14.5 4
n

tot

f u
a
fc

f ,eff

(fyL, fu, ,fc in MPa)

f
c

(8.13)

with (afu/fc)f,eff from Eq. (8.8). Evaluation of the 43 test results suggests also that in the case
where 4/ntot < 2/3, the FRP must be considered to improve the clamping of lap-splice, as suggested
by Eq. (8.13), but not to contribute in the enhancement of upl as calculated by Eq. (4.30b).
According to this, the value of upl to be used in right-hand side of Eq. (8.11), must be calculated
60

by Eq. (4.30b) without adding the contribution of the FRP to the exponent of the 2nd term from the
end of Eq. (4.30b). In the opposite case where 4/ntot 2/3, the term of the contribution of the FRP,
Eq. (8.8), should be added to the exponent, in the same way it is suggested in [8] and [11] in
conjunction with Eqs. (4.30b), (8.7), (8.11), (8.12) where the term affff,e is added regardless the
value of 4/ntot.
The statistics in rows 22 to 23 of Table 8.1 (at the end of Section 8) suggest that, the here
proposed model for calculating u of an FRP-wrapped column with lap-splice in the plastic hinge
region, Eqs. (2.13), (4.30b), (8.8), (8.10), (8.11), (8.13), improves the accuracy of the prediction of
u. Fig. 8.6 compares the predicted values to the experimental results.
10
9
8

median:
u,exp =1.03u,pred

u,exp (%)

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

10

u,pred (%)

Fig. 8.6 Experimental ultimate chord rotation of FRP-wrapped rectangular columns with lap-

spliced bars, compared to predictions from Eqs. (2.13), (4.30b), (8.8), (8.10), (8.11), (8.13).

8.4

Cyclic shear resistance of FRP-wrapped columns

It has been proposed in [8] and adopted in [11] to modify Eq. (6.1b) for the contribution of FRP
wrapping to the cyclic shear resistance of the plastic hinge, as:
V R , FRP =

hx
min ( N ; 0.55 Ac f c ) + 1 0.05 min 5; pl
2 Ls

Ls
0.16 max( 0.5;100 tot )1 0.16 min 5;
h

))

f c Ac + Vw + 0.5 f bw zE f u , f

61

(8.14a)

where Ef and u,f are the FRPs Elastic modulus and nominal failure strain and the factor 0.5
accounts for the linear reduction of the FRP stress over the section depth, from its full failure
value of Efu,f at the extreme tension fibre to zero at the neutral axis. For 10 tests of FRP-wrapped
columns that failed by diagonal tension under cyclic loading after flexural yielding, Fig. 8.7
depicts the test-to-prediction ratio for Eq. (8.14a), as a function of the chord rotation ductility
factor, = /y. Row 24 in Table 8.1 (at the end of Section 8) gives statistics of the ratio of
experimental-to-predicted resistance in diagonal tension, VR.
For consistency with Eq. (8.3) and the effective, average strength of the FRP all around the
column, fu,f = Ef(keffu,f) [15], [16], as well as owing to a slight downwards tendency of the data in
Fig. 8.7(a), the following alternative is depicted in Fig. 8.7(b):
V R , FRP =

hx
min ( N ; 0.55 Ac f c ) + 1 0.05 min 5; pl
2 Ls

Ls
0.16 max( 0.5;100 tot )1 0.16 min 5;
h

))

(8.14b)

f c Ac + V w + f bw zf u , f

It is clear from Fig. 8.8 and the statistics at the 2nd row from the bottom of Table 8.1, that the
improvement effected by Eq. (8.14b) is insignificant.

1.25

1.25

Vu,exp/ Vu,pred

1.5

Vu,exp/ V u,pred

1.5

0.75

0.75
0.5

0.5

0.25

0.25

0.5

1.5

2.5

ductility

3.5

4.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

ductility

3.5

4.5

(a)
(b)
Fig. 8.7 Ratio of experimental shear resistance of FRP-wrapped columns failing by diagonal
tension after flexural yielding to VR from: (a) Eq. (8.14a), (b) Eq. (8.14b).

62

Table 8.1 Mean*, median* and Coefficient of Variation of test-to-prediction ratios for FRPwrapped rectangular columns with continuous or lap-spliced vertical bars.
no tests mean* median*

Quantity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
*

My,exp/My,pred.-1st-principles
continuous bars
My,exp/My,pred.-1st-principles
lap-spliced bars
y,exp/y,Eq. (2.13)
no pre-damage, continuous bars
y,exp/y,Eq. (2.13)
pre-damaged members, continuous bars
y,exp/y,Eq. (2.13)
no pre-damage, lap-spliced bars
(MyLs/3y)exp/(EIeff)Eqs(2.13),(2.14) no pre-damage, continuous bars
(MyLs/3y)exp/(EIeff)Eqs(2.13),(2.14) pre-damage, continuous bars
(MyLs/3y)exp/(EIeff)Eqs(2.13),(2.14) no pre-damage, lap-spliced bars
u,exp/u,Eqs(8.1)-(8.3),(8.5),(8.6) continuous bars
u,exp/u,Eqs(2.13),(8.1)-(8.6)
no pre-damage, continuous bars
u,exp/u,Eqs(2.13),(4.30b),(8.7) no pre-damage, continuous bars
u,exp/u,Eqs(2.13),(4.30b),(8.8) no pre-damage, continuous bars
u,exp/u,Eqs(2.13),(4.30b),(8.9) no pre-damage, continuous bars
u,exp/u,Eqs(2.13),(8.1)-(8.6)
pre-damaged continuous bars
u,exp/u,Eqs(2.13),(4.30b),(8.7) pre-damaged continuous bars
u,exp/u,Eqs(2.13), (4.30b),(8.8) pre-damaged continuous bars
u,exp/u,Eqs(2.13), (4.30b),(8.9) pre-damaged continuous bars
u,exp/u,Eqs(2.13),(8.1)-(8.6)
continuous bars, all
u,exp/u,Eqs(2.13),(4.30b),(8.7) continuous bars, all
u,exp/u,Eqs(2.13), (4.30b),(8.8) continuous bars, all
u,exp/u,Eqs(2.13), (4.30b),(8.9) continuous bars, all
u,exp/u,Eqs. (2.13), (4.30b),(8.7),(8.10)-(8.12) no pre-damage, lap-spliced bars
u,exp/u,Eqs. .(2.13), (4.30b),(8.8),(8.10),(8.11),(8.13) no pre-damage, spliced bars
VR,exp/VR,Eq. (6.1b),(8.14a)
diagonal tension failure
VR,exp/VR,Eq. (6.1b),(8.14b)
diagonal tension failure

188
44
144
20
44
144
20
44
33
99
99
99
99
18
18
18
18
117
117
117
117
43
43
10
10

For large sample size the median reflects better the average trend than the mean.

63

1.065
1.08
1.07
1.555
1.06
1.05
0.70
1.05
1.04
1.075
1.125
1.07
1.06
0.995
0.96
0.94
0.925
1.065
1.10
1.05
1.04
0.91
1.06
1.01
0.99

1.065
1.085
0.965
1.455
1.05
1.03
0.66
1.045
1.01
0.995
1.09
1.05
1.02
0.985
0.93
0.925
0.935
0.995
1.08
1.025
1.01
0.94
1.03
1.045
1.025

Coefficient
of variation
19.3%
10.8%
37.7%
29.1%
17.3%
28.0%
22.1%
19.7%
27.5%
37.7%
31.6%
31.2%
31.3%
23.1%
23.1%
23.2%
25.4%
33.4%
31.2%
30.6%
31.0%
35.6%
20.4%
12.9%
14.1%

Repaired concrete members

An additional dataset of 33 concrete members (18 rectangular columns and 15 rectangular walls)
in the database includes test results on specimens repaired after testing and re-tested. Few (just
six) had been tested beyond yielding but with little damage, few others (five) had suffered more
serious damage, while most (22) were tested beyond conventionally defined ultimate deformation
(20% post-ultimate strength drop of lateral force resistance). Specimens were then repaired to
restore their original lateral resistance, effective stiffness and deformation capacity. The repair
methods used included epoxy grouting of cracks (in just 6 specimens), replacement with nonshrink mortar of disintegrated cover concrete (7 specimens) or cover and core concrete (9
specimens), cutting of buckled longitudinal bars and replacement with welding (9 specimens), etc.
The expressions in Sections 2 and 4 may be applied to the repaired member, assuming that the
strength of the repair concrete used in the plastic hinge (typically higher than that of the original
concrete) applies to the whole element. The test-to-prediction ratio for the yield moment, My, the
chord rotation at yielding, y, the secant stiffness to the yield-point and (for the repaired specimens
carried to flexural failure), u, have means, medians and coefficients of variation shown in Table
9.1.
Although based on limited data, the comparisons in Table 9.1 show that, even when carried
out as carefully as in a research lab, repair re-instates fully only the yield moment (and hence the
moment resistance), failing by 25-30% to recover the secant stiffness to the yield-point and the
deformation capacity. Interestingly, repaired walls exhibit much larger loss of stiffness than
repaired columns, but they fare a little better than columns at ultimate (although the difference is
statistically insignificant). Although the small sample size normally reduces the apparent scatter,
the dispersion of test results with respect to predictions is much larger than in virgin specimens,
even for the yield moment which is recovered well on average. Apparently, not only the repair
process and materials, but also the type and degree of the original damage, introduce significant
additional uncertainty.
64

Table 9.1: Mean*, median* and coefficient of variation of test-to-prediction ratios for repaired
concrete members
Coefficient
No of
mean* median*
of variation
data

Test-to-predicted ratio

columns with rectangular section


1 My,exp/My,pred.-1st-principles
walls (all with rectangular section)
2 My,exp/My,pred.-1st-principles
all tests
3 My,exp/My,pred.-1st-principles
columns with rectangular section
4 y,exp/y,Eq. (2.13a)
walls (all with rectangular section)
5 y,exp/y,Eq. (2.13b)
all tests
6 y,exp/y,Eq. (2.13b)

18
15
33

0.925
1.045
0.98

1.005
1.035
1.015

25.8%
26%
26.2%

18
15
33

1.215
1.65
1.41

1.265
1.665
1.27

23.8%
40.7%
38%

7 (MyLs/3y)exp/(EIeff)Eqs(2.13),(2.14) columns with rectangular section


8 (MyLs/3y)exp/(EIeff)Eqs(2.13),(2.14) walls (all with rectangular section)
9 (MyLs/3y)exp/(EIeff)Eqs(2.13),(2.14) all tests

18
15
33

0.78
0.745
0.765

0.79
0.535
0.725

32.4%
58.8%
45%

10 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.28),(4.29)
11 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.28),(4.29)
12 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.28),(4.29)

15
15
30

0.86
1.10
0.98

0.705
0.97
0.805

54%
58.6%
57.7%

13 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.30a) columns with rectangular section


14 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.30a) walls (all with rectangular section)
15 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.30a) all tests

15
15
30

0.725
0.61
0.67

0.675
0.70
0.69

32.6%
55%
43.6%

16 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.30b) columns with rectangular section


17 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.30b) walls (all with rectangular section)
18 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.30b) all tests

15
15
30

0.755
0.62
0.69

0.72
0.695
0.71

32.4%
58.6%
45.4%

19 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.30c) columns with rectangular section


20 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.30c) walls (all with rectangular section)
21 u,exp/u,Eqs. (4.30c) all tests

15
15
30

0.74
0.735
0.735

0.705
0.825
0.74

32.6%
52.8%
43.1%

columns with rectangular section


walls (all with rectangular section)
all tests

For large sample size the median reflects better the average trend than the mean.

65

REFERENCES
[1] ASCE. Prestandard for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Prepared by the American
Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA Report
356), Reston, VA, 2000.
[2] ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06 Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2007.
[3] Ascheim, MA Moehle JP "Shear Strength and Deformability of RC Bridge Columns Subjected
to Inelastic Cyclic Displacements", University of California, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Report UCB/EERC-92/04, Berkeley, CA, 1992.
[4] Benjamin JR, Cornell CA Probability, Statistics and Decision for Civil Engineers. McGraw
Hill, New York, N.Y., 1980.
[5] Bigaj A, Walraven JC Size effect on rotational capacity of plastic hinges in reinforced concrete
beams. CEB Bulletin d' Information No 218, Lausanne, 1993, pp. 7-23.
[6] Biskinis DE, Fardis MN Cyclic Strength and Deformation Capacity of RC Members,
Including Members Retrofitted for Earthquake Resistance, 5th International Ph.D Symposium
in Civil Engineering, Delft (NL), 2004, Balkema: 1125-1133.
[7] Biskinis DE, Roupakias, G, Fardis MN Degradation of Shear Strength of RC Members with
Inelastic Cyclic Displacements, ACI Structural Journal, vol. 101, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2004, pp.
773-783.
[8] Biskinis DE Resistance and Deformation Capacity of Concrete Members with or without
Retrofitting. Doctoral Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, University of Patras, Greece,
2007.
[9] Bousias SN, Biskinis DE, Fardis MN, Spathis L-A (2007) Strength, Stiffness and Cyclic
Deformation Capacity of Concrete Jacketed Members, ACI Structural Journal, vol. 104, No. 5,
Sept.-Oct. 2007, pp. 521-531.
[10] Eligehausen R, Lettow S Formulation of Application Rules for Lap Splices in the New fib

67

Model Code, Stuttgart, 2007.


[11] European Standard EN1998-3:2005 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake
resistance, Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings, Comite Europeen de
Normalisation, Brusells, 2005.
[12] European Standard EN1992-1-1: Eurocode 2 - Design of Concrete Structures - Part 1-1:
General Rules and Rules for Buildings, Comite Europeen de Normalisation, 2004, Brusells.
[13] fib SAG5. New Model Code First Draft, fib, Lausanne, 2009.
[14] Kowalsky M Priestley MJN "Improved Analytical Model for Shear Strength of Circular
Reinforced Concrete Columns in Seismic Regions" Structural Journal, American Concrete
Institute, Vol. 97, No. 3, 2000, pp.388-396.
[15] Lam L, Teng JG Design-oriented Stress-Strain Modle for FRP-Confined Concrete,
Construction and Building Materials, 17, 6 & 7, 2003, pp. 471-489.
[16] Lam L, Teng JG Design-oriented Stress-Strain Model for FRP-Confined Concrete in
Rectangular Columns, Journal of Reinforcing Plastics and Composites, 22, 13, 2003,
pp.1149-1186
[17] Moehle J, Lynn A, Elwood K, Sezen H "Gravity Load Collapse of Building Frames during
Earthquakes" 2nd US-Japan Workshop on Performance-based Design Methodology for
Reinforced Concrete Building Structures. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Richmond, CA, 2001.
[18] Newman K, Newman JB Failure Theories and Design Criteria for Smooth Concrete, in
Structure, Solid Mechanics and Engineering Design, (Teeni, ed.) J. Willey, New York, N.Y.,
1971.
[19] Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN Deformations of RC Members at Yielding and Ultimate,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98, No. 2, 2001, pp.135-148.
[20] Richart FE, Brandtzaeg A, Brown RL A study of the failure of concrete under combined
compressive stresses, Bulletin 185. Univ. of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station,

68

Champaign, ILL, 1928.


[21] Sheikh, SA, Uzumeri SM "Analytical Model for Concrete Confinement in Tied Columns",
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 108, ST12, 1982, pp.2703-2722.

69

NOTATION
a: clear distance between anchored bars or pairs of lapped bars
acy: zero-one variable for cyclic or monotonic loading for the ultimate chord rotation
eff,j: effectiveness factor of the FRP jacket
aEI: coefficient in empirical expression for EIeff
al,s: effectiveness factor of transverse reinforcement in confining lapped bars
As,tot: total cross-sectional area of longitudinal reinforcement
asl: zero-one variable for slip of longitudinal bars from their anchorage zone beyond end section
ast, aplst, ahbwst: coefficients for the type of steel in Eqs. (4.30) for the ultimate chord rotation
av: zero-one variable for diagonal cracking before flexural yielding of the end section
aw,r: zero-one variable for rectangular walls in Eqs. (4.30) for the ultimate chord rotation
aw,nr: zero-one variable for non-rectangular sections in Eqs. (4.30) for ultimate chord rotation
Ac: gross cross-sectional area of concrete member
b: width of compression zone
bo: width of confined concrete core to the hoop centreline
bi: centreline spacing along the section perimeter of longitudinal bars (indexed by i) engaged by a
stirrup corner or a cross-tie
bx and by: the cross-sectional dimensions of the section
bw: web width of the cross-section (both webs in U- or hollow rectangular sections)
c: clear cover of longitudinal bars
d: effective depth of cross-section
do: effective depth of confined concrete core to hoop centreline
d: distance of the center of compression reinforcement from extreme compression fibres
dbL: diameter of longitudinal reinforcement
Ec: Elastic modulus of concrete
Ef: Elastic modulus of the FRP

71

Es: Elastic modulus of steel


EIeff: member effective flexural rigidity, taken as its secant stiffness to yielding in a bilinear forcedeformation model
EIc: uncracked gross section stiffness
fc: unconfined compressive strength of concrete based on standard cylinder test
fcc: compressive strength of confined concrete
fsm: maximum possible tensile stress a lap-spliced bar can develop
ft: ultimate strength of reinforcing steel
fu,f : effective strength of the FRP
ff,e: effective stress of the FRP
ffu,nom: nominal strength of the FRP
fy: yield stress of longitudinal reinforcement (subscript 1 is for tension bars)
fyw: yield stress of transverse reinforcement
h: depth of cross section
ho: depth of confined concrete core to the hoop centreline
k: effectiveness factor of transverse bars for clamping anchored or lap-spliced bars
keff: FRP effectiveness factor, Eq. (8.3)
lgauge : gauge length over which relative rotations are measured
lo: lap length of longitudinal bars
loy,min: minimum required lap length for the member to develop its full yield moment
lou,min: minimum required lap length for a member to develop its full ultimate deformation as if its
bars were continuous
Lpl: plastic hinge length
Ls: shear span (=M/V at the member end)
Ls/h=M/Vh: shear span ratio at member end
R: moment resistance of RC section.

72

Ro: moment resistance of confined core of spalled section


Rc: moment resistance of unconfined full (unspalled) section
My: yield moment of cross section
My*: yield moment of jacketed member
My,exp: moment at the corner of a bilinear envelope of the monotonic or cyclic experimental forcedeformation response
My,pred: value of yield moment from plane section analysis with linear - material laws
nrestr: number of lapped longitudinal bars engaged by a stirrup corner or a cross-tie
ntot: total number of lapped longitudinal bars along the perimeter of the cross-section
Nb,tension: number of bars in the tension zone
N: axial force (positive for compression)
N1, N2: values of N delimiting brittle shear-controlled failure of squat column.
p: active confining pressure normal to axis of developed or lapped bar due to external loading
sh: spacing of transverse reinforcement
t: thickness of compression flange in a T-, L-, H- or U-section
VRc: shear force at diagonal cracking
x: compression zone depth;
z: internal lever arm
=Es/Ec: ratio of steel to concrete moduli

: confinement effectiveness factor


f: effectiveness factor for confinement by FRP of a rectangular section having its corners rounded
to a radius R to apply the FRP

=d/d
u,slip: fixed-end rotation due to bar slippage from the anchorage zone beyond the end section,
that takes place between yielding and the flexure-controlled ultimate deformation
c: strain at extreme compression fibre, beyond which section is considered to yield due to

73

concrete in compression

cu: ultimate strain of unconfined concrete


cu,c: ultimate strain of confined concrete.
y: yield strain of steel reinforcement
sh: steel strain at outset of strain-hardening
su: elongation of continuous steel bars when ultimate curvature is reached by steel rupture
su,cy: elongation of continuous steel bars when ultimate curvature under cyclic loading takes place
by steel rupture

su,mon: elongation of continuous steel bars when ultimate curvature under monotonic loading takes
place by steel rupture

su,l: elongation of lapped steel bars when ultimate curvature takes place by steel rupture in a
member with bars lap-spliced in the plastic hinge region

su,nominal: elongation at tensile strength in standard monotonic test of steel coupons


u,f: failure strain of the FRP

: chord rotation at a member end (angle between the normal to the end section and the chord
connecting the member ends at the members displaced position)

slip: fixed-end rotation due to bar slippage from anchorage zone beyond end section
u: flexure-controlled ultimate chord rotation (at 20% post-ultimate strength drop in lateral force
resistance).

u*: ultimate chord rotation (drift ratio) of jacketed member


upl: plastic part of the ultimate chord rotation
u,exp: experimental value of ultimate chord rotation

u,pred: predicted value of u


uy: y-axis component of the experimental ultimate chord rotation under biaxial loading
uz: z-axis component of the experimental ultimate chord rotation under biaxial loading

74

uy,uni: predicted value of u for uniaxial loading along the y-axis of the members section
uz,uni: predicted value of u for uniaxial loading along the z-axis of the members section
plu: plastic part of u in a member with continuous bars
plu,l: plastic part of u in a member with bars lap-spliced in the plastic hinge region

y: chord rotation at the corner of a bilinear envelope of the monotonic or cyclic force-deformation
response (at yielding)

y*: chord rotation (drift ratio) of jacketed member at yielding


y,exp: experimental value of y
y,pred: predicted value of y
y,slip: value of slip at member yielding
yy,exp: experimental chord rotation along member y-axis at yielding under biaxial loading
yz,exp: experimental chord rotation along member z-axis at yielding under biaxial loading
yy,uni: predicted value of y for uniaxial loading along member y-axis
yz,uni: predicted value of y for uniaxial loading along member z-axis
= /y: chord rotation ductility factor
: normalized axial load, N/bhfc
: neutral axis depth of cross-section, normalized to d
u: value of at ultimate curvature of the section
y: value of at yielding of the section
1=As1/bd: tension reinforcement ratio
2=As2/bd: compression reinforcement ratio
d: diagonal reinforcement ratio in diagonally reinforced members (ratio of cross-sectional area of
reinforcement along one diagonal to bd)
f: geometric ratio of the FRP parallel to the direction of bending

s: minimum transverse reinforcement ratio among the two transverse directions


75

tot=1+2+v: total longitudinal reinforcement ratio


v=Asv/bd: ratio of web longitudinal reinforcement , uniformly distributed between tension and
compression reinforcement

w=Ash/bsh: transverse reinforcement ratio


s: stress of tension bars at the end section of the member
: section curvature
u: section ultimate curvature (at 20% post-ultimate strength drop in lateral force resistance)
cu: value of u reached by failure of the compression zone
su: value of u reached by fracture of the tension reinforcement
y: section curvature at yielding

1: mechanical reinforcement ratio of tension longitudinal reinforcement, 1fy/fc


2: mechanical reinforcement ratio of compression reinforcement, 2fy/fc
tot=totfy/fc : total mechanical reinforcement ratio
w=wfyw/fc : mechanical transverse reinforcement ratio

76

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen