Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 21372148

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Structural models of critical regions in old-type r.c. frames

with smooth rebars
Giovanni Fabbrocino
, Gerardo M. Verderame, Gaetano Manfredi, Edoardo Cosenza
Department of Structural Analysis and Design, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio, 21, 80125 Napoli, Italy
Received 19 February 2004; received in revised form 29 July 2004; accepted 29 July 2004

Abstract
Structural assessment of existing reinforced concrete constructions under gravity loads and seismic actions has a high social
and economical impact; actually in many European countries, most of the buildings dates back to 1960s and 1970s and cannot
ensure satisfactory seismic response, since many areas have been later classied as seismic or since design has been carried out
according to obsolete codes. These structures are generally reinforced with smooth bars that exhibit poor bond and need specic
anchoring end details. In the present paper, some key aspects of structural models of smooth reinforcement for old-type r.c.
frame analysis are reported. Results of experimental tests on smooth reinforcement and circular hook anchoring devices are also
used to discuss some aspects of behavioural models of beam to column critical regions.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Old-type r.c. structures; Seismic assessment; Smooth rebars; Bond; Anchorage details

1. Introduction
A large number of existing reinforced concrete buildings in Europe is located in seismic areas, and has been
designed according to obsolete seismic codes or taking
into consideration only gravity loads (GLD structures).
This circumstance makes very relevant the issue of
structural assessment in view of seismic strengthening
of existing structures. Actually, a strong eort has been
carried out in many countries to improve the reliability
of seismic design of new structures, resulting in an
increased knowledge of non-linear behaviour of concrete structures and cyclic response of members under
seismic actions.
This knowledge represents an essential background
for structural evaluation of existing structures, but
refers generally to concrete constructions reinforced
with deformed bars, so that inuence of smooth bars
on the non-linear response of members and critical
regions is not fully established. Some experimental
researches have been devoted to assess global perfor

Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +39-081-7683424.

E-mail address: giovanni.fabbrocino@unina.it (G. Fabbrocino).

0141-0296/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.07.018

mances of old-type structures [1], but local aspects, i.e.

bond, were not exhaustively investigated.
The latter are predominant critical regions, i.e. beam
to column joints, are considered, since complex mechanical interactions develop with very high gradients
due to mechanical actions applied at the connected end
sections, as sketched in Fig. 1, where stresses and
deformations on concrete panel and steel rebars are
separately reported.
Concrete panel mechanism is related to cracking of
concrete and arrangement of transverse reinforcement
in the joint region; while slippage of anchored

Fig. 1. Mechanisms governing the joint region deformation: panel

(a), bar slip (b).

2138

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 21372148

reinforcement is dependent on bond properties and

anchoring details and leads to a rotation of member
end section that is commonly addressed as xed-end
rotation.
The above-mentioned sources of deformation could
be generally neglected if structural analysis is aimed to
evaluate the ultimate strength capacity of r.c. frames
with deformed bars, but have a key role when drift
capacity is concerned, as conrmed by theoretical
experimental comparisons [2]. This circumstance is
clearly shown in Fig. 2, where numerical analyses
carried out on a r.c. frame have been devoted to point
out the eect of bond and xed-end rotation on base
shear coecient-top drift response. It is easy to recognise that xed-end rotation becomes predominant in
the frame response mainly when smooth rebars are
used. In this case, structural modelling becomes more
complex since bond of reinforcement and behaviour of
anchoring devices at rebar ends are essential to assess
structural performances of old-type constructions.
A critical review of available technical literature has
shown that the knowledge on plain bars behaviour and
in particular on bond and on mechanical response of
anchoring details is poor. In fact, many 50 years old
and even older experimental results on plain bars can
be found, but they are basically presented as reference
data for deformed bars; furthermore, their relevance
for present analyses is limited due to lack of technical

Fig. 2. Comparative results on eect of type of reinforcement on

drift capacity.

Fig. 3.

capabilities, since tests were carried out in force control

mode, missing large post-yielding phases and information about descending branches.
However, an attempt to model the response of
anchored rebars can be carried out referring to Fig. 3
that reports in detail the idealised force transfer mechanism governing the behaviour of the anchored reinforcing bar under tension. The latter can be divided into
two components, the straight region and the anchorage, represented by a circular hook. From a theoretical
point of view, the end anchorage results in a restraint
for the inner end of straight rebar, where two boundary conditions can be identied: free inner end of the
rebar, so that a slippage develops; rigid inner end with
zero rebar slip, leading to a pull-out force, Fhook, on
the anchoring device.
In the rst case, pull-out strength is due to bond
properties of smooth bars resulting in very low bar
strain compared to yielding level; in the second case,
high ratios between applied force and anchorage reaction can be reached, even 5060% of the applied tensile
force.
Behaviour of anchoring device obviously inuences
the strength and deformation response of the member
end sections. In fact, pull-out of smooth bars without
anchoring devices leads to the premature failure of the
member end section; conversely, rigid anchorage allows
the full development of exural strength and produces
the minimum value of slippage at the loaded end [3].
As a result, the actual stressslip response of an
anchored bar lays in the shaded area of Fig. 3; so the
key issue in a reliable modelling of r.c. frames for seismic assessment is the denition of the relationship
between the axial force applied on the anchorage and
the slippage of its loaded end in view of the development of a behavioural model of the anchored bar.
The present paper is aimed to discuss the main
aspects of the structural response of old-type r.c. members and critical regions detailed according to 1960s
practice, taking into account the inuence of bond
properties of hooked and straight bars. Behaviour of
anchored smooth bars is examined referring to basic

Stress vs. loaded end slip of anchored smooth bars.

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 21372148

properties of bond and response of bar end details used

in critical regions. The attention is focussed on circular
hooks and on their stressslip response under static
loads. This behaviour inuences the seismic capacity of
exterior and interior beam to column connections; in
the rst case, the main inuence on the xed-end
rotation response is given by the anchored rebar, which
is characterised by a global response, i.e. in terms of
stress vs. slip relation, dependent upon end detail
deformation. The results of experimental tests on
reinforcement local stressslip response are used to
analyse xed-end rotation of r.c. beams where smooth
rebars are provided.
When interior beam to column connections are concerned, the presence of continuous rebars plays a relevant role, so that rened modelling of the joint and of
the element end section are needed. In fact, smooth
reinforcement can lead to steel strains in the concrete
compression zone quite dierent from classical Bernoullis hypothesis. On this specic aspect, an overview
of the main numerical results will be given, pointing
out some key aspects of strength and ductility development in existing underdesigned r.c. frames under seismic loading condition.

2. Experimental results on straight and hooked

smooth bars
2.1. Bond of smooth bars
Bond of smooth bars has been investigated rstly by
modied beam tests [2] and then by pull-out tests,
properly modied in order to avoid compressive stresses on the concrete component. In fact, as shown in
Fig. 4b, the concrete specimens used for pull-out tests
are restrained by studs on lateral surfaces so that the
upper surface can t the stress conditions of cracked
concrete sections. Measurements of loaded and unloaded end have been taken; in this way, it has been

2139

recognised that the scatter between the two measures is

negligible if compared with similar tests on deformed
rebars. In Fig. 4a, some experimental results in terms
of mean bond stress vs. mean slip are shown. The
embedded length is 10 times the bar diameter. Results
of pull-out tests are similar to beam test one, a peak
bond stress of about 1.75 MPa at a mean slip of
0.18 mm has been reached. The comparison between
the MC 90 [4] bondslip relationships shows that the
experimental peak bond stress can be predicted using
good bond provisions, while residual stresses are well
tted referring to poor bond conditions. Cycles performed at a large slip level show the response of
smooth bars to reversal actions, activating a signicant
degradation of bond.
2.2. Stressslip relationship for circular hooks
As already mentioned, modelling of anchored bars
requires the knowledge of mechanical response of each
component: the straight smooth bar and the anchoring
detail. The latter generally depends on national codes
and/or practice, thus a comprehensive critical review
of former International codes, design manuals [5] and
design drawings referring to existing buildings has been
carried out in order to identify typical solutions. It has
v
been found that hooks with 180 opening angle can be
addressed as the most common anchoring solution
when smooth bars are concerned. Its geometry is
dened starting from the ratios Dh/U and Lst/U,
where Dh is the circular branch internal diameter, Lst is
the length of the straight end branch and U is the bar
diameter. Typical values of Dh/U and Lst/U ratios in
existing constructions are 5 and 3, respectively, and
have been used to dene the geometry of bar anchorages analysed from an experimental point of view, as
shown in Fig. 5b.
Pull-out type tests have been carried out to evaluate
the response in terms of force/stressslip relationship
of hooks; the tests have been designed in such a way

Fig. 4. Experimental results of pull-out tests on smooth bars.

2140

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 21372148

rebars and are given in terms of rhookshook relationship; three types of specimens are reported depending
on the cast direction: a-type, representative of top
beam reinforcement, b-type representative of column
footing zone, c-type representative of lower beam
reinforcement.
The main results of the tests can be summarised
referring to Fig. 5a as follows:
hook exhibits a very high initial stiness and then a
strongly non-linear behaviour even at low stress levels;
the stressslip response is not characterised at yielding
by the well-known plastic plateau of mild steel rebars;
this circumstance is due to the limited yielding spreading along the circular branch, so that yielding develops only in the straight unbonded region.
the slip increases as the stress increases due to strain
hardening, resulting in a progressive degradation of
anchorage stiness up to steel failure.

3. Theoretical stressslip formulation of 180

circular hooks

Fig. 5.

Stress vs. slip relationship of 180 smooth hooks.

that a direct measure of the slip at the end section of

the circular branch could be taken using a high performance wire potentiometer. The main investigated
parameters of the experimental analysis are the concrete cover thickness, the cast direction and the type of
loading (static or cyclic).
A detailed description of test setup and of experimental results is reported in Ref. [6]; in the following,
the main aspects of the experimental study will be
briey summarised. To this end, Fig. 5 gives an overview of experimental results and reports a picture of
the concrete specimen. The results refer to 12 mm

The denition of a theoretical stressslip relationship

has to be based on the main aspects of the experimental behaviour previously discussed. The evaluation
of experimental curve shapes and plot of functions
commonly used in literature to t similar phenomena,
i.e. bond [7], shear connectors in composite constructions [8], allow to recognise the basic requirements of a
theoretical formulation of stressslip relationship for
circular hooks: experimental curves are basically continuous, so a single curve formulation is reliable; ultimate stress and slip at bar failure can be used as basic
parameters of the theoretical formulation; the rst one
is an hexogen parameter, depending upon the steel
grade, the second one can be evaluated using a statistical analysis of available test results. It is easy to recognise that the constitutive law by Popov [9], proposed
for bond fulls the above requirements; in fact, it is
based on the following relation:



shook a
rhook s fu 
1
su
where rhook is the hook slip, shook is the hook stress at
bar failure, fu is the bar ultimate stress and a is a
dimensionless positive exponent that is generally lower
than 1.
Characterisation of theoretical formulation requires
the denition of two parameters, the ultimate hook slip
su and the exponent a, able to minimize the error function:
s
 exp
2
P
 snum
i
i1;n si
2
n1

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 21372148

where sexp
is the experimental value of hooks slip at a
i
num
is the numerical hook slip
given stress level, rexp
i ; si
stress level and
calculated according to (1) at the rexp
i
exp
nally n is the number of experimental data (sexp
i ;ri ).
In Fig. 6, the comparison between the experimental
curves and the optimal constitutive law is reported for
all the type of pull-out specimens; in particular, in
Fig. 6a, c and e, the shapes of the error function vs. the
experimental slips are plotted depending on the value
of exponent a. It is worth noting that the adopted
constitutive law is really able to t the experimental
behaviour. In Fig. 7, all the experimental curves are

Fig. 6.

2141

plotted and the optimal curve derived from the statistical analysis of all experimental data is reported.
Finally, Fig. 8 reports the constitutive laws evaluated
with reference to dierent type of specimens; it is worth
noting that hooks that are perpendicular to the cast
direction with the circular branch installed downward
(beam upper reinforcement) show a stier behaviour
respect to the remaining geometries, like vertical bars
(column reinforcement), horizontal hooks installed
upwards (lower beam reinforcement). The results of the
parameter optimisation is reported in Table 1, where
the values of a and of the slip, su, at the steel failure
are given.

Theoreticalexperimental comparison depending on the type of test.

2142

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 21372148

Fig. 7. Theoreticalexperimental comparison plotted for all tests.

4. External beam to column joints

The results discussed in the previous section can be
used to evaluate the behaviour of the beam to column
connection, with specic reference to the xed-end
rotation, that is the main source of deformation in the
case of external beam to column joint.
In particular, the already discussed distinct mechanical characterisation of the two components, Fig. 9a,
enables the development of a reliable numerical procedure to t stressslip relationship of anchored bars at
the jointelement interface section.
The calibration of numerical results has been carried
out with reference to a series of pull-out tests on fullbonded specimens are presented and discussed. The
test-setup is shown in Fig. 9b; the geometry of the
hook and of the rebar are the same of Fig. 5b, while
the length of the bonded straight region is 210 mm.
Two tests have been carried out in displacement control and measures of bar strain, applied load and slippage of the rebar located on the top surface of the
specimen have been taken. Fig. 9c shows the results of

two tests on 12 mm bars in terms of stressslip relationships.

It is easy to recognise that the mechanical response is
non-linear even for low stress levels with small slip
values in the elastic region. When yielding stress is
reached, a sudden increase of bar slip occurs exhibiting
a plastic plateau on the analogy with the plain rebar.
This remarks show that a degradation of bond occurs,
since plastic plateau can be only related to a yielding
spreading in the embedded region. In order to analyse
this specic aspect, some numerical simulations of the
anchored rebar are compared with experimental data.
Numerical results are obtained as follows:
1. stressslip relationship for hooked region is assumed
as discussed in Section 3; shape values a and su are
those evaluated for all specimens.
2. stressslip for bond comes from tting of experimental data.
Two calculated curves are reported; the rst one is
derived assuming a bond relation obtained from pullout tests with a constant residual stress (continuous
curve); the second one is characterised by a degradation of bond that starts as yielding takes place (dashed
curve).
The latter seems to t better experimental data. Further developments are needed in order to clarify some
aspects of the degradation mechanisms shown during
the tests. Anyhow, these results allow to discuss the

Table 1
Summary of optimised parameters of the theoretical stressslip law

Fig. 8. Theoretical formulation of stressslip relationships.

Reference test groups

su

(a)
(b)
(c)
All

0.30
0.25
0.37
0.30

4.10
3.10
4.00
3.90

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 21372148

2143

Fig. 9. Inuence of anchored rebar deformation on the external beam to column connection.

inuence of bond properties and hooked end details of

the rebars on the response in terms of moment
rotation at the end of the members. In fact, the knowledge of the constitutive relationship in terms of exural
behaviour of the member end section leads to the denition of a rational evaluation of the xed-end rotation
at the external beam to column joint. The denition of
the momentrotation relationship requires the calculation of the momentcurvature relation of the member
end section and the performances of anchored rebars;
in fact, the rst calculation can give the position of the
neutral axis and the stress acting on the rebars depending on the applied bending moment. As a result,
momentrotation curve of the end section depends on
local properties of anchored rebars.
Fig. 9d shows an example of such momentrotation
relationship. The curves are calculated assuming the
theoretical solutions of the anchored reinforcement discussed above and a rectangular cross-section 300 by
500 mm with 5 5U12 mm reinforcing bars, whose
mechanical properties are the one of pull-out test
rebars. The member end section exhibits a considerable
deformability that cannot be neglected; it is also shown
that the plastic plateau plays an important role
especially between yielding and strain hardening
initiation. This is a key issue of such modelling, since
due to material and specic GLD frames properties,

failure of members is generally due to concrete failure,

with reinforcement that is beyond the yielding strain,
but does not reach the strain hardening branch.

5. Interior beam to column joints

Structural response in terms of exural strength and
deformation of the member end sections at interior
beam to column joints depends basically on bond performances of reinforcement. In fact, rebars commonly
pass through the panel region and anchoring devices
are located at the end of the elements. This condition is
schematically reported in Fig. 10a, where the load condition of reinforcement is also represented. When seismic actions are concerned, longitudinal reinforcement
of members that cross the nodal region are subjected, if
Bernoullis hypothesis is fullled, to a pushpull loading condition (Fig. 10b). As a consequence, the resultant of forces acting on the rebar have to be transferred
by bond to surrounding concrete. This transfer action
results can be reduced be in the case of smooth rebars
and, as consequence, the strength and deformation
capacity of end member section at internal joints
decreases [10].
Assuming a constant distribution of bond stresses
along the rebar, the ratio between the stresses acting at

2144

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 21372148

Fig. 10. (a) Bond mechanism in interior beam to column joint. (b) Plot of the ratio r0s =rs depending on the stress applied on rebars under
tension.

the rebar ends is given by:

a

r0s
rs

1

4  sb
Ht
rs  U

where U is the bar diameter and the other symbols can

be identied referring to Fig. 10a.
Eq. (3) is plotted in Fig. 10b, that is dened
assuming a given ratio between the beam height and
the bar diameter, Ht/U and a uniform distribution of
bond stresses, sb. These curves are compared with the
relation r0s =rs obtained from a Bernoulli analysis, r0s
f rs ;Xc curve. The comparison between the abovementioned curves clearly shows that the Bernoulli
hypothesis can be fullled only at low stress levels;
increasing the tensile stress rs, the translational equilibrium of the bar under the bond stress is not satised.
The inuence of compressive stress on smooth
reinforcement passing through a nodal region can be
evaluated according to a cinematic model that removes
some usual assumptions on the deformation of members cross-section. In fact, it is assumed that strains of
concrete subjected to compressive stresses and of rebars
under tension lay on a straight line; this is the way the
curvature can be evaluated. Furthermore, it is assumed
that a slip at the rebarconcrete interface occurs and
that part of tensile stresses migrates to concrete in the
so-called eective area of the cross-section [11]. Equations that solve the problem are as follows:
. Equation of longitudinal equilibrium of the crosssection;

rc x;y  dA r0s x;y  A0s  rct  Aeff

Ac

 rs x;y  As Nz

section;

rc x;y  y  dA r0s x;y  A0s  d0 s  rct  Aeff

. Equation of global rotational equilibrium evaluated

with reference to the centroid of the gross cross-

Ac

 dct  rs x;y  As  ds Mz

Constitutive relationships have to be taken into

account to relate static and cinematic parameters of
materials (concrete under tension and compression,
reinforcement):
rs rs es

6a

rc rc ec

6b

r0s

6c

r0s e0s

rct rct ect

6d

Eqs. (4) and (5) exhibit four unknown strain ec, ect,
e0s and es. As a consequence, the relationship between
moment and curvature is not a one to one function,
but depends upon two variables, concrete in tension
strain, ect and reinforcement namely under compression
one, e0s ; both values are dependent on the interaction
phenomena (bond) that takes place in the r.c. member.
If post-cracking phase is concerned, stress acting in
the cross-section cracked concrete region fulls the following relationship ect 0. In this way one of the two
unknown parameters is given, but strain acting on the
reinforcing bar namely under compression, e0s , cannot
be still evaluated. However, referring to Fig. 11, the
above-mentioned bond mechanism acting on the rebars
passing through the nodal region enables the denition
of a one to one relationship with the stress acting on
the other bar end section, rs. In fact, the following
relationship can be written:
drs z
4
 sb z
dz
U

and has to be associated to the bondstress relationship:

sb sb s

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 21372148

2145

Fig. 11. Behavioural model of the cross-section at the elementconcrete panel interface.

If a rigid-perfectly plastic bondslip relationship is

assumed for smooth bars, a correlation between the
stresses at the ends of the passing through reinforcement, r0s and rs (or e0s and es), can be evaluated.
In the following, some results of numerical analyses
carried out on a r.c. cross-section depending on the
value of the stress r0s are presented. This stress varies
between the value calculated according to a conventional analysis (Bernoullis hypothesis) and the ultimate
tensile stress, fu, of the bar. In particular, attention is
focussed on main static and cinematic parameters of
the section, as moment and curvature both at ultimate
and yielding conditions.
Fig. 12a and b shows the MN interaction curves at
yielding and at ultimate state of failure in the region of
compression. They are dependent upon the stress level,
r0s , of the reinforcing bars namely under compression.
Four values of r0s are considered: Bernoulli reference
stress, zero, tensile yielding stress fy, ultimate tensile
stress, fu. Plots (a) and (b) show also the reference M
N interaction curve evaluated according to Bernoullis
hypothesis. If axial load N is given, both yielding and
ultimate bending moments change depending on the
stress r0s ; it is easy to recognise that the higher is the
stress in the rebars namely under compression, the
lower is the corresponding bending moment. Comparing data depending on r0s and the reference interaction
curve (Bernoulli), it can be observed that the scatter is
negligible for low axial loads, 10% of the ultimate Nu
or lower, but signicantly increases as the axial load
increases.
In summary, stress r0s acting on the reinforcing bars
namely under compression plays a relevant role in the
development of strength mechanisms of the cross-section, especially when high axial loads are concerned. A
reduction of about 30% of the exural resistance can
take place.
Similar plots are shown in Fig. 12c and d regarding
the curvature of the section at yielding, /y, and failure,
/u, respectively. The local ductility of the cross-section
given by the ratio /u//y is reported in Fig. 12e.
The progressive loss of compression of the rebars
leads to a slight increase of the curvature at yielding
compared with the one given by Bernoullis analysis;

the higher is the axial load the higher is the

scatter between the two above data. Conversely, tensile
stresses in the rebar lead to a reduction of the curvature at failure respect to the one after Bernoulli.
This scatter decreases as the axial load increases. A
similar trend can be recognised for the curvature at
failure.
In order to estimate the inuence of this phenomenon on the global response of a structural system,
a sample structural assembly is analysed; it is actually
interesting in all cases of regular structures, since its
response can be easily related to global displacement
capacity of the frame [12]; this is why it is also frequently used in many experimental studies.
The assembly is reported in Fig. 13b; for the sake of
simplicity, both geometry and applied forces are
assumed as symmetrical. The square columns are
300 mm wide; 3 3U12 rebars are provided.
Beams are rectangular 300 500 mm; 5 5U12 reinforcing bars are provided. Axial load applied on the
column is assumed constant and equal to 540 kN.
Three reinforcement arrangements are taken into
account:
(a) beam and column reinforcing rebars are anchored
in the nodal region using circular hooks;
(b) beam and column reinforcing rebars pass
through the nodal region;
(c) beam reinforcing rebars are anchored in the
nodal region and column reinforcing rebars pass
through the nodal region.
A non-linear analysis of the assembly is carried out
taking into account the concrete cracking and the distribution of yielding; pushover curves corresponding
to dierent reinforcement arrangement are plotted in
Fig. 13c.
In order to point out the contribution of local member ductility on global response of the assembly xedend rotation and panel deformation are neglected. The
latter contribution strongly increases when concrete
cracking occurs; this circumstance can be a priori
excluded due to dimensions and mechanical properties

2146

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 21372148

Fig. 12. Inuence of stress level r0s on main static and cinematic parameters of the section: (a) yielding moment, (b) ultimate moment, (c) yielding
curvature, (d) ultimate curvature, (e) cross-section schematic view, and (f) curvature ductility.

of material. Fragile shear failure of concurrent members can be excluded as well.

Strength and ductility of member end cross-sections
(beams and columns) are evaluated on the basis of two
distinct assumptions. Firstly, it is assumed that con-

crete and reinforcement strains are the same in compliance with Bernoullis analysis applied to r.c.
structures (dened full interaction), then slippage of
rebar respect to surrounding concrete is considered; the
latter condition is dened in the following partial

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 21372148

2147

Fig. 13. Representative r.c. frame assembly (a, b) and results of pushover analyses (c).

interaction. Table 2 summarises values of bending

moments, ultimate curvature and ductility of the crosssection depending on the above assumptions.
Three pushover analyses are carried out depending
on reference model and the reinforcement arrangement,
in particular:
1. conventional analysis for both end sections (arrangement a);
2. partial interaction for both end cross-sections
(arrangement b);
3. partial interaction for column and conventional
analysis for beam (arrangement c).

Fig. 13c shows pushover results for column shear

vs. drift. Analysis made according to the rst assumption (arrangement a) shows the maximum column
shear Vc 62:5 kN and maximum drift (1.32%) that
are related to the local failure of the beam end section.
Partial interaction between both interface sections
(beam and column) leads to a maximum column shear
that is not so dierent with respect to the one evaluated
according to assumption #1, but columns drift (0.80%)
is dramatically reduced. This result points out from a
global standpoint the deterioration of mechanical
properties of interface cross-sections due to partial
interaction that are more relevant in terms of ultimate

Table 2
Summary of results in terms of main static and cinematic parameters
Parameter
Beam

Column

My
Mu
/u
l/
My
Mu
/u
l/

(kN m)
(kN m)
(1/m)
(kN m)
(kN m)
(1/m)

Full interaction

Partial interaction

Scatter (%)

78.42
92.94
0.110
25.40
80.56
86.38
0.041
3.53

74.67
84.25
0.071
14.78
74.61
78.06
0.031
2.43

5
9
35
42
7
10
24
31

2148

G. Fabbrocino et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 21372148

curvature than in terms of ultimate bending moment. It

is worth noting that local failure is attained in the
jointbeam interface section due to the concrete failure
strain assumed as already mentioned equal to ecu
0:0035 for the sake of simplicity.
Analysis made according to the third assumption
(arrangement c) shows a response that is intermediate
between the preceding ones. In any case, it is actually
interesting since anchored rebars in the joint regions is
a reinforcement detailing commonly used in existing
buildings made of concrete reinforced with smooth
rebars. Anyhow, deterioration of mechanical properties
at the column interface section only leads to the
column failure rather than beam failure like in the
other two hypotheses, changing the failure mode of
the assembly.

6. Conclusions
The paper discusses some key issues in the seismic
assessment of old-type r.c. frames. In particular, the
attention has been focussed on the inuence of bond
performances of smooth rebars on ductility and
strength of critical regions, i.e. beam to column or base
column regions.
v
Pull-out tests on straight rebars and 180 circular
hooks have been briey described and a generalized
formulation, representing the response of the end
details, has been used to calibrate a model of an
anchored rebar generally used in external beam to column joint region.
The results show the relevant role of anchoring devices, but also of the straight region characterised by
poor bond performances especially in large post-yielding phase, as clearly shown by the experimental
numerical comparison.
If internal joint regions are concerned, experimental
background has been used to develop a behavioural
model of the joint, in particular of the connected member end sections: thus, the eects of distribution of
stresses along the rebars passing through the nodal
region on the global response of a cruciform subassemblage have been estimated.

Numerical results based on simplied, but reliable,

assumptions show that strength is less sensitive respect
to the ductility when the stress of reinforcement in
compression changes its value due to pushpull action
on the rebar.
Comparisons between conventional and enhanced
analyses show that partial interaction due to poor
bond of smooth rebars can reduce the ductility up to
40%. This eect has been also recognised at global
level.

References
[1] b Task Group 7.1. State of the Art Report. Seismic assessment
and retrot of reinforced concrete buildings. b Bulletin No. 24,
May 2003.
[2] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Verderame GM. Seismic assessment of
gravity load designed r.c. frames: critical issues in structural
modeling. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2002;6(1).
[3] Fabbrocino G, Verderame GM, Manfredi G. Experimental
behaviour of straight and hooked smooth bars in existing r.c.
buildings. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, London. 2002.
[4] CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. Design Code-Comite Euro-International du Beton 1991.
[5] Santarella L. Il cemento armatoLa tecnica e la statica.
Milano: Hoepli; 1937 [in Italian].
[6] Fabbrocino G, Verderame GM, Manfredi G, Cosenza E.
Experimental response and behavioural modelling of anchored
smooth bars in existing RC frames. Bond in concretefrom
research to standards, Budapest, 2002.
[7] Eligehausen R, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Local bondstress relationships of deformed bars under generalised excitations. UCB/
EERC 83, 23, 1983.
[8] Ollgard JG, Slutter RG, Fisher JW. Shear strength of stud
connectors in lightweight and normal weight concrete. AISC
Engineering Journal 1971;8(2):5564.
[9] Popov EP. Bond and anchorage of reinforcing bars under cyclic
loading. ACI Structural Journal 1984;81(4):3409.
[10] Hakuto S, Park R, Tanaka H. Eect of deterioration of bond of
beam bars passing through interior beamcolumn joints on exural strength and ductility. ACI Structural Journal 1999;96(5).
[11] Manfredi G, Fabbrocino G, Cosenza E. Modelling of steelconcrete composite beams under negative bending. ASCE Journal
Of Engineering Mechanics 1999;125(6) [ISSN 0733-9399].
[12] Bonacci JF, Wight JK. Displacement-based assessment of reinforced concrete frames in earthquakeMete A. Sozen Symposium. ACI Publication SP 162, 1996. p. 117133.