Proceedings of the

4th European Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and Complex Structures
26-27 August, Thessaloniki, Greece
Paper No. 45

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF AN IRREGULAR

THREE-STOREY FULL SCALE RC TEST STRUCTURE
WITH SUBSTANDARD DETAILS

S. J. PARDALOPOULOS
Civil Engineer, (AUTh), MSc (DUTh), Greece
spardalo@civil.duth.gr

GEORGIA E. THERMOU
PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering
Demokritus University of Thrace, Greece, gthermou@civil.duth.gr

STAVROULA J. PANTAZOPOULOU
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
Demokritus University of Thrace, Greece, pantaz@civil.duth.gr

ABSTRACT

Seismic assessment of a full scale 3-storey, irregular reinforced concrete structure that
was tested in the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) is presented
in the paper. The structure is representative of older design and construction practices
in Southern Europe, prior to the introduction of capacity design principles or modern
detailing. Parametric analyses where carried out to quantify the effect of plan
eccentricity with the various mechanisms of resistance throughout the frame system,
using the same ground motion records and PGA that were used in the actual tests.
Mechanisms considered are member effective stiffness, member flexure, member
shear, development capacity of anchorages and lap splices, and joint shear. Response
parameters considered are the time-histories of the trajectories of the Center of Mass
in the three floors, interstorey drift and floor twist. Also calculated are the time
histories of demand/supply ratios, i, for the various mechanisms of resistance.

INTRODUCTION

The inventory of reinforced concrete structures that qualify as old construction and
do not comply with modern requirements for earthquake resistance is vast throughout
the world. Those structures conform to a variety of earlier standards, as these evolved
through the years from the post world-war era to the 1980s and are referred to
collectively as substandard construction in the remainder of this paper. Typical
deficiencies include (a) lack of transverse reinforcement for confinement, (b) low
reinforcement ratios, (c) insufficient anchorage or lap-splice lengths of primary
reinforcement, (d) inadequate details in the anchorage of transverse reinforcement, (e)
low strength or substandard material qualities, exacerbating the effects of poor layout
and (f) lack of capacity-design considerations. Plan eccentricities encouraging
torsional response are frequently observed in a large number of substandard
reinforced concrete structures.

With the adjustment of the seismic coefficient to higher levels and the introduction of
increasingly more stringent requirements for earthquake resistant construction, a large
number of existing buildings are rendered non-conforming to various degrees. In this
regard, development of assessment methods to quantify the level of seismic protection
provided is a priority, especially when considering that the replacement cost of most
of these structures is prohibitively high. In the present paper a representative example
of old construction, built and tested under simulated seismic load in JRC on behalf of
the SPEAR project is used as a point of reference in evaluating the assessment tools
developed in the present study.

DESCRIPTION OF THE REFERENCE STRUCTURE

The reference building used in the present study is a full scale 3-storey, 2x2 bay,
irregular reinforced concrete structure that was tested to simulated strong ground
motions in the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA). The structure
is representative of older South European design and construction practice, prior to
the introduction of capacity design principles or modern detailing. The structure was
designed for gravity loads according to the former Hellenic Design Code (known as
the Royal Decree of 1954, valid up to 1985). Its structural configuration is typical
of engineered construction of the period (it includes indirect beam to beam supports,
plan eccentricities encouraging torsional response, weak-column/strong beam
connections, small column sizes, lack of necessary stirrup reinforcement in lap
regions and joints, and eccentric beam to column connections). Materials used are
typical for the early 70s. Infill walls and stairs are omitted in the structural model. A
typical floor plan is given in Fig. 1. Column sections are 250 mm square except for
C6 which is 750 mm by 250 mm. Floor heights are 3 m (o.c.), slab thickness is 150
mm, whereas beam height is 500 mm. Concrete had an average strength of 25 MPa,
whereas primary reinforcement used throughout was S400. Further details on the
structure and the test are given by Fardis [1], Negro et al [2] and Jeong et al [3].

As shown in Fig. 1 the floor plan has a generic eccentricity owing to the large
stiffness of column C6, the different span lengths, the eccentric beam-column (C3)
and beam-to-beam connection (B7 on B4) and setbacks [1]. The location of the Center
of Mass (CM) and the Center of Rotation (CR) is typical in all floors, given in Table-
1 and Fig. 1 with respect to a cartesian coordinate system that is centered on the
centroid of the cross section of column C8. From the radius (distance) between CR
and CM it is anticipated that torsional response will prevail, with the columns at the
North and the East of the structure likely to experience greater damage due to their
greater distance from CR. A range of values is given for the coordinates of CR owing
to the estimated effect of axial load on stiffness depending on the direction of the
overturning moment.
During the tests a series of simulated ground motions of increasing intensity were
applied through a pseudodynamic procedure. The basic accelerogram used was the
the Montenegro 1979 (Herceg Novi) ground motion, sequentially scaled upwards to
0.15g and 0.2g [3]. Hairline cracks owing to bar slip were observed on the face of all
connections (in both beams and columns). No diagonal or other flexural cracking was
observed in the beams. Damages were observed in the columns only, after
application of the 0.15g intensity ground motion. Hairline diagonal cracks in the
beam-column joint visible on the narrow side of column C6, and flexural cracks in all
columns at the top section exactly beneath the diaphragm were observed. The cracks
of column C6 increased in width with increasing intensity; flexural cracks in all other
columns developed into bond splitting cracks along the plastic hinge regions in the
upper portion of the columns, particularly so in the central column (C3) (Fig. 2).
0.7
3.0 5.0 1.0
B1 B2
C5 C1 C2

5.5 B11 B9 B7 6.0

CM
B3
B4 C4
C9 CR
C3
5.0 B12 B10 B8 4.0 Y

B6
Y B5
C6 C7 X
C8
X

Figure 1: a) Typical Plan (taken from [3]), b) Centers of mass and rotation

0.15g 0.20g

Figure 2: Column C3 of the 2nd storey after the 0.15g and 0.20g PGA tests

Table-1: CM and CR coordinates in every floor

CM Coordinates CR Coordinates
Storey
XM (m) YM (m) XR (m) YR (m)
1st 4.376 5.152 3.478-3.540 4.383-4.472
2nd 4.376 5.152 3.558-3.638 4.421-4.532
3rd 4.399 5.184 3.589-3.684 4.431-4.547
CAPACITY-PRIORITIZING OF FAILURE MODES

As in modern design, capacity prioritizing of strengths can be used to assess the likely
sequence of damage localization in a structural system [4]. For any individual
structural member failure is anticipated in the weakest link that develops in the static
system shown in Fig. 1. Thus, Vfail which represents the shear force developing in the
member at failure is the least supported by the flexural, degraded shear, degraded bar
anchorage and compression reinforcement upon attainment of instability [4]. In
capacity controlled members such as joints, assessment of the neighbouring members
is critical, because the force input to the joint depends upon the limiting strength of
the adjacent member, whereas calculations based on the nominal flexural strength
upon yielding of the tension reinforcement of beams and columns may prove
irrelevant. For example, the typical beam cross section of the reference structure had
212 and 412 (S400) smooth bars as top and bottom reinforcement respectively and
8/200 mm rectangular stirrups with 90o hooks for anchorage which however did not
continue inside the joint. Based on the classical joint shear model of ACI 318 [5], or
EC2 [6] this reinforcing pattern is assumed to input to the frame joint a force of 180
kN as shear; with the joint dimensions defined as 250mm(250mm-215mm), the
nominal shear input to the joint is 3.27 MPa (0.65fc). Note that in the absence of
shear reinforcement, failure of exterior joints is anticipated at a joint shear level of
0.29fc [7] whereas for interior joints this limit is increased to 0.42fc [8]; the above
limit is reduced to only 0.2fc for exterior joints where smooth primary reinforcement
is anchored with hooks [8]. Clearly, for the stress level associated with beam bar
yielding joint shear distress would necessarily develop; this was not observed in the
tests, supporting the conclusion that beam bars did not yield anywhere.

From among the alternative failure modes the flexural strength of the columns (for
axial load ranging between 0 and 600 kN), is bound between the limits of pure
flexural action and the balance point (flexure-dominant). For the square section
columns this is a range from 17 to 50 kN-m. This is in all cases below the flexural
strength of the typical beam, i.e., 73 kN-m. For flexure of column C6 (Nbal=2000kN)
the range is 52 kN-m to 175 kN-m (for weak axis bending) and 155 kN-m to 530 kN-
m (for bending about the strong axis). Gravity axial loads were estimated based on
the tributary areas of the floor slabs. The gravity axial loads for the columns of the
first floor were C1=230 kN, C2=235.5 kN, C3=386.3 kN, C4=351.3 kN, C5=104.3
kN, C6=226.0 kN, C7=153.4 kN, C8=96.8 kN, C9=173.5 kN. The values range from
95 to 385 kN, i.e., within the range considered in Fig. 3.

Therefore in all cases the square-section columns are more susceptible to flexural
failure as compared to the beams. When considering column yielding, the associated
joint shear input in the joints of the 250mm square columns ranges between 0.25 MPa
to 0.75 MPa (i.e., 0.05-0.15fc), which is below the lower bound associated with joint
cracking (this is evaluated from the gradient of column moments within the joint).
Thus, the nominal design sequence of failure in all square column connections in the
order of likely occurrence is: (1) column flexural yielding, (2) joint shear failure and
(3) beam flexural failure. Upon column yielding, the corresponding flexural moments
in the beams range between 23% and 68% of the yield values. This excludes column
C6, where column yielding is unlikely; in that case the likely sequence of failure is (1)
joint shear failure, (2) beam flexural yielding and (3) column flexural yielding. As
joint shear failure is estimated to occur under bending in the weak axis, due to the
short anchorage of the beam reinforcement, at a stress level of 0.2fc (smooth bars
anchored by hooks), the corresponding flexural moment is 0.2/0.65=30% of the yield
moment in the beams.

beam
N (kN) flexural
failure

(600, 50)
73 kN-m
M (kN-m)
Typical Column
(N-M) Interaction

Figure 3: Nominal N-M failure envelope for square-section columns

The sequence detailed above is based on the presumption of a robust flexural action
developing in the converging members. For this event to occur the internal forces
required to develop in order to equilibrate the estimated flexural strengths would need
to be sustained by the details in the anchorage and lap-splice regions of primary
reinforcement as well as by the mechanisms of shear action.

Evaluation of dependable shear strength

Column shear strength is evaluated considering the concrete and web steel
contributions, Vc and Vw. To calculate the web steel contribution the participation of
nst discrete stirrups intercepted by a diagonal shear crack is considered (Fig. 4). (The
actual inclination of the potential plane of sliding shear failure may actually exceed
the angle of 45o, however, for columns this is a conservative assumption):

Vw = Ast f st, i
n st (1)

where fst,i the stirrup stress of the i-th stirrup at the location of the crack. Inadequately
anchored stirrups cannot develop full yielding if the critical section where they cross
the crack is very near to their anchorage. Thus, fst,i=fy,stLb,i/0.7Lb, where Lb,i is the
available anchorage length of the ith tie measured from the point where it is
intercepted by the crack to the end hook, and Lb is the standard straight development
length for the bar diameter of the ties considered. For open or inadequately anchored
stirrups and usual section heights, the sum in Eq. 1 corresponds to 0.5nstAstfy,st, i.e.
only half the stirrups are effective.

With a stirrup spacing of 250 mm o.c. in all columns a diagonal crack may be
identified for the square columns whereby no stirrup is intercepted. For those
members Vw is zero (including column C6 in the direction parallel to the weak axis).
For column C6 in the direction parallel to its strong axis the web steel contribution is
estimated as 0.5nstAstfy,st, with nst=2, Ast=250mm2, and fy,st=400 MPa (nominal), thus,
Vw,C6=40 kN.

Figure 4: Potential plane of sliding shear failure

The concrete contribution is nonzero only if the normalized axial load is positive (so
as to assume that cracks remain closed in part of the cross section); its value, given by

d N
Vc = 0.5 f c' 1+ A g (MPa) (2)
Ls 0.5 f c' A g

ranges from Vco=0.088fcAg = 27.5 kN for square-section columns in pure flexure to

Vco=147.18 where =(1+ 0.87fc) = 5.35 for axially compressed columns at an
axial load corresponding to balanced failure (i.e. for Nbal=600 kN). Despite the
impressive range of values it is noteworthy that this source of strength is not fully
dependable under reversed lateral sway as it is owing to concrete alone. Degradation
models exist and predict a significant reduction of strength with increasing drift [9].
Nevertheless, based on the above calculations, in all cases the product of VRdLs
where Ls the column shear span (2.5m/2=1.25 m) exceeds the flexural moment
strength of the columns in the range of interest (from pure flexure to balanced failure
in Fig. 3), and thus no shear failure is anticipated in the square section columns for the
magnitude of applied loads, despite the poor reinforcement arrangement.

Evaluation of potential bar slip in the anchorage zones

Another critical issue is the development capacity of primary reinforcement given the
poorly confined lap splice and anchorage conditions. With the anchorage details
provided (hooks at the ends of beam primary reinforcement, which comprised smooth
bars) the joints could sustain only 0.2fc average shear stress. According to Calvi et
al. [10] redistribution of drift demands is expected to occur between the floor
immediately above and below a joint susceptible to bar slip. Owing to bond
degradation (e.g. here, with smooth bars), alternative equilibrium conditions are
expected to prevail in the connection than those determined from equilibrium when
assuming ideal bond conditions. After few cycles of inelastic lateral drift, bond
degradation may be so extensive that the bond capacity of the bars within the joint no
longer suffices to support reversal of stresses from one face of the joint to the next, as
required by equilibrium (i.e, tension on one face, compression in the other face). This
effectively reduces the dependable flexural strength. (Moment capacity of the affected
beam section equals that of a singly reinforced cross section subjected to simultaneous
axial compression that is equal to twice the amount of residual tension force carried
by the compression reinforcement, and having an effective area of tension steel
reduced from the actual amount by as much as the area of compression
reinforcement). In this case the connection becomes a source of flexibility for the
entire structure, impairing the total ductility and energy dissipation capacities of the
system as a whole [8].

Taking into account the frictional force concept to describe the mechanics of bond,
the force that may be supported by the anchorage through the beam-column joint of
vertical column bars may be evaluated from the compressive resultant in the
compression zone of the adjacent beam cross-section. Here the problem appears to be
in column reinforcing bar sections directly under the joint, having anchorage
arrangements as depicted in Fig. 5. Whereas ideal anchorage conditions are secured
by the hook in the bar segment above the joint, at the lower level, compressed
longitudinal column bars are actually in tension due to slip in the joint. Transverse
compression to the column bars occurs within the joint, over a segment db that
corresponds to the depth of compression zone of the adjacent beam. Hence, the
maximum frictional force that may develop along the column longitudinal bar within
the joint height equals:

N f = c d b (3)

where the coefficient of friction and c the average concrete compressive stress
within the compression depth of the beam cross section. To yield the bar by frictional
support only, Nf must exceed Fy=fy2/4. Thus, in general Nf is a fraction of Fy:

N f = Fy ; 1 (4)

Therefore, the corresponding bar force bellow the joint is Fy-Nf= fs 2 and the
residual bar stress is, fs= 2fy(1)=kfy. Coefficient k=1 assumes a range of
values depending on the bond conditions through the joint: for perfect bond
conditions k=-1; i.e. Nf would be compressive as required by equilibrium (this is not
attainable in the critical region below the joint). Complete elimination of bond
corresponds to k=1 (=0, and therefore =0 from Eq. 4, i.e., no bond is available).

From these derivations it follows that neglecting reinforcement slip in the analysis
may prove unconservative as it would lead to an erroneous distribution of flexural
moments in the frame. Note that a conventional frame analysis would estimate a
higher axial load in the column cross section below the joint (due to gravity of the
intervening floor), and thus the flexural strength would be enhanced. With the present
results it is concluded that the effectiveness of flexural reinforcement in column
sections below the joint is reduced substantially. The reduced moment capacity in
that location can be estimated given the axial load ratio and the force of compression
reinforcement Nf ([10], [11]); the estimated loss in flexural resistance of the affected
member cross section is in the order of 20-30%. With reference to the anticipated
failure sequence the above finding identifies the likely location of column flexural
failure as the cross section below the floor diaphragms.

Figure 5: Column bars anchored through the joint and terminating in hooks [10]

MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF SPEAR STRUCTURE

The required analyses for seismic-performance assessment of the SPEAR structure

were carried out using a nonlinear three-dimensional model of the building. The finite
element analysis program DRAIN-3DX [12] was used to perform the analyses for
seismic assessment. Members were modelled with elastic finite elements having
concentrated inelasticity at specific positions along their length. The beam-column
joints were modelled with rigid links. To model floor slabs as rigid diaphragms
diagonal links of high axial and flexural stiffness were used. The columns of the first
floor were considered fixed at the ground level.

Given the Youngs and Shear modulus for concrete, Ec and Gc, torsional and bending
inertias about the principal axes of the member cross-sections and sectional areas
were defined. Ec was calculated using concretes maximum compressive strength, fc,
as defined by experimental data of samples taken during the construction phase. The
initial tangent modulus of elasticity for unconfined concrete, Eco
(=2.15x104(fc/10)1/3), was reduced by 15% to account for the initial member cracking
[13]. Shear modulus, Gc(=Eco/[2(1+c)], was calculated from Eco and Poissons ratio,
c (=0.2).

The flexural inelastic deformations of columns were taken into account with the use
of P-M hinges, at the top and the bottom of each column. No P-M hinges were
considered for beam modeling. Each P-M hinge consists of concrete and steel fibers,
the behavior of which is defined by the material stress-strain envelope, -. The
plastic hinge length, along which the inelastic flexural deformations are integrated, is
taken equal to 0.5d with d the depth of the cross-section. This value is considered
representative for reinforced concrete members and provides a good estimate of
plastic hinge length. Reinforcement slip owing to bond was modeled with connection
hinges, which are inelastic rotational springs placed at member ends between the rigid
end zones and the ends of the elastic member. Connection hinges consist of steel
fibers in continuation of longitudinal reinforcement. A tri-linear stress-strain
envelope, -, representing slip properties was required as a response curve.

The vertical loads of the 3D model, taken equal to those applied on the test model,
were applied as point loads at the beam-column joints. As in the actual tests, the
acceleration record of Montenegro 1979 (Herceg Novi) ground motion was used in
the simulation, scaled at two levels of peak ground acceleration, 0.15g and 0.20g.

Parameters of the investigation

The lack of shear failure in the poorly reinforced members of the test structure was
puzzling considering the sparsity of stirrups. This event, as well as the actual location
of failure in the column top sections by anchorage failure and the pullout cracks in
beams and columns could be anticipated based on capacity-prioritizing of failure
modes as was illustrated in the preceding section. Yet, the question as to the
reliability of the predictions of detailed computer simulation involving step by step
time integration is an open issue. Clearly a range of estimated responses may be
obtained, some very far from the experimental evidence, depending on the
assumptions made in the simulation. In the present study, in order to reproduce
analytically the observed location and pattern of failure and bound the displacement
and drift demands, the effect of member effective stiffness on the total response of the
model was investigated through parametric analyses. In this regard, a variety of
combinations of behavioral mechanisms were tested (P-M hinges, connection hinges,
reduced member stiffnesses). In the present paper four benchmark cases are
presented, whereby the moment of inertia of columns and beams is taken as a fraction
of the geometric moment of inertia. The following scenarios have been applied:

1. Column and beam flexural stiffness equal to 100% of the gross-sectional

properties.
2. Column and beam flexural stiffness equal to 100% and 70% of the gross-sectional
properties, respectively.
3. Column and beam flexural stiffness equal to 100% and 50% of the gross-sectional
properties respectively.
4. Column bending moment of inertia equal to 60% of the gross-sectional property
except for the central column C3 where 80% of the reference uncracked values
were used instead, and the beam flexural stiffness equal to 40% of the gross-
sectional value [14].

The code name for each model is defined by three digits (Table-2). The first digit
refers to one of the four options outlined that reduce the flexural stiffness of columns
and beams from their reference, uncracked values. The second digit refers to
inclusion of connection hinges in modeling beams and/or columns and the third digit
to inclusion of P-M hinges in modeling columns. Hence, model 100 is the one with no
connection or P-M hinges anywhere whereas the column and beam flexural
stiffnesses are taken equal to the corresponding gross-sectional values.

Table-2: Definition of alternative analysis models

Variable Value Description

1 Ic,eff = Ic,gross , Ib,eff = Ib,gross
2 Ic,eff = Ic,gross , Ib,eff = 0.7Ib,gross
A 3 Ic,eff = Ic,gross , Ib,eff = 0.5Ib,gross
Ic,eff = 0.6Ic,gross except of C3 where Ic,eff = 0.8Ic,gross ,
4
Ib,eff = 0.4Ib,gross
0 No Connection Hinges
1 Connection Hinges only in columns
B
2 Connection Hinges only in beams
3 Connection Hinges in beams and columns
0 No P-M Hinges
C
1 P-M Hinges only in the columns

EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE

Storey displacements
Comparisons between displacement histories calculated from the models considered
and their recorded counterparts were used to gauge the predictive capability of the
models. It appears that the model closer to the test data is the one with connection
hinges at the end of the structural members and P-M hinges at column ends. A general
observation is that the displacement estimates of the analytical models are always
below the ones given by the test results, especially in the case of rotations. The
response history of the centre of mass (CM) of the 2nd storey is plotted for the two
levels of ground motion considered in Fig. 6 and 7. Comparing the response of
models 401, 410, 411, 430 and 431, it is observed that the response of model 431 is
relatively closer to the experimental data. The margin of difference between the
response of the various models and the experimental results is less significant in the
case of the 0.2g PGA. In general, connection hinges influence greatly the response of
the model frame.

Influence of effective stiffness

The influence of the alternative effective stiffness scenarios on the response of
SPEAR frame is depicted in Fig. 8, Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. The displacement response of
the CM of the 2nd storey in the X and Y direction as well as the time history of floor
twist is illustrated for ground motion level of 0.2g. The models examined in the plot
all have connection hinges to beams and columns, and P-M hinges to columns only
(131, 231, 331 and 431). Model 431 which corresponds to the definition of the
effective stiffness as given by the Hellenic Seismic Code [14] seems to produce
results that approximate best the response of the actual frame.
 6060 Test measured
Test Measured Disp.disp. 2nd Storey CM X-X Interstory Displacement
401
401 0.15g PGA
4040 410
410
411
411
Displacement (mm)

430
430
2020 431
431

00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-20
-20

-40
-40 Time (secs)

-60
-60

Figure 6: Comparison of interstory displacement at CM of the 2nd storey between test

data and various analytical models for 0.15g PGA

150
150 Test measured
Test Measured Disp.disp. 2nd Storey CM X-X Interstory Displacement
401
401 0.20g PGA
410
100
100 410
411
411
Displacement (mm)

430
430
431
5050 431

00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-50
-50
-100
-100 Time (secs)

-150
-150

Figure 7: Comparison of interstory displacement at CM of the 2nd storey between test

data and various analytical models for 0.20g PGA

Inadequacy coefficients
Time histories of demand versus supply ratios, i, were estimated for all strength
mechanisms of resistance throughout the frame system. These are referred to as
inadequacy coefficients and are calculated from the ratio of force demand to the
strength supply of the respective response mode. Mechanisms considered are,
member flexure, member shear, development capacity of anchorages and lap splices
and joint shear. All shear-related strength terms are evaluated using a properly
calibrated damage factor to reduce the nominal capacity with increasing ductility
demand. The i values facilitate the process of diagnostic identification of the
hierarchy of damage and the potential location and modes of failure throughout the
structure. In the present study inadequacy coefficients are estimated from:

M,i = M S,i / M R ,i ; V,i = VS,i / VR ,i ; red.

V,i = VS,i /(0.7 VR ,i ) ; Vj,i = VjS,i / VjR ,i (5)
 where MS,I, VS,I and VjS,i the absolute maximum flexural moment, member shear and
beam-column joint shear forces obtained from analysis. The reference strength values
in the denominator were calculated using: (a) Program Response 2000 [15] for the
flexural strength MR,I including the implications of shear; (b) the shear strength from
concrete and web steel contributions, and (c) ACI-ASCE 352 recommendations for
the joint shear demand VR,i and shear strength VjR,I [7].

The inadequacy coefficients were calculated for the central column C3 of the 2nd
storey since that was the element that developed the greatest extent and intensity of
damage (Fig. 11). Calculated values listed in Table-3 and Table-4 were calculated
for 0.15g and 0.20g PGA for all models; a large dispersion of results was seen
depending on the model type considered and the ground motion intensity. Time
histories of the inadequacy coefficients estimated with model 431 for the upper end of
column C3 in the 2nd storey are plotted in Fig. 11. According to the estimated
inadequacy indices for model 431, column C3 is not susceptible to any type of
damage at PGA 0.15g whereas in PGA 0.20g damage is expected in the joint region
in X-direction (Vj.x=1.11). From a strength point of view, no failure is anticipated in
the column, although the opposite was observed during the test (Fig. 2). Clearly the
estimated properties of connection hinges, which represent slip as a post-yield
phenomena of longitudinal reinforcement cannot practically account for the true rate
of strength degradation owing to the limited anchorage capacity of the beam column
joint. Whereas joint shear behavior is often represented through shear (distortional)
springs, this method would fall short of reproducing the actual mechanics of joint
contribution to drift in the present example. Note that in the type of structures
considered (smooth primary reinforcement, lack of stirrups), poor bond performance
dwarfs all other deformation modes in the joint, so although the frame becomes more
flexible due to poor joint behavior, joint shear failure is unlikely. An alternative
equilibrium state prevails, whereby the column critical sections loose part of their
effective flexural strengths owing to pullout of bars anchored in the joint. Unless the
computer model of the structure explicitly accounts for this type of behavior the
success of simulation is limited to the salient trends of performance and not the point
to point details.

150
150
Test measured
Test Measured Disp. disp.
2nd Storey CM X Displacement
131
131 0.20g PGA
100
100 231
231
Displacement (mm)

331
331
431
431
50
50

00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-50
-50

-100
-100 Time (secs)

-150
-150

Figure 8: Influence of effective stiffness on the response of the CM of the 2nd storey
in the displacements of X direction 0.20g PGA
 200
200 2nd Storey CM Y Displacement
Test measured
Test Measured Disp. disp.
131
131
0.20g PGA
150
150
231
231
Displacement (mm)

100
100 331
331
431
431
50
50

00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-50
-50

-100
-100
-150 Time (secs)
-150
-200
-200

Figure 9: Influence of effective stiffness on the response of the CM of the 2nd storey
in the displacements of Y direction 0.20g PGA

12
12
Test measured
Test Measured Rot. disp. 2nd Storey CM Rotation
10
10
131
131 0.20g PGA
88 231
231
Displacement (mm)

66 331
331

44 431
431

22
00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-2-2
-4
-4
-6-6
-8-8
-10
-10 Time (secs)
-12
-12

Figure 10: Influence of effective stiffness on the response of the CM of the 2nd storey
in the rotation 0.20g PGA

CONCLUSIONS

Capacity prioritizing of strengths was used as a tool in assessing performance and in

interpreting the failure sequence observed in the dynamic response of a full-scale
torsionally unbalanced building that was tested in the European Laboratory for
Structural Assessment (ELSA). As observed in the tests, capacity-prioritizing
illustrated that the critical sections were in the upper column plastic hinges
(immediately below the diaphragm levels) owing to inadequate anchorage of column
primary reinforcement through the joint. Consistent with the experimental reports,
the analysis procedure identified flexural bond-splitting type of failure in the
columns at these locations, and joint shear failure in the weak axis of column C6. The
simple conceptual approach was shown to be more effective to detailed 3-dimensional
finite element analysis of the structure under simulated ground motion as applied
during the tests. Time histories of internal forces normalized with respect to the
corresponding strengths were used in order to establish inadequacy coefficients for all
mechanisms of resistance, using a variety of alternative models of the test structure.
Results confirmed the observed pattern of behavior whereby excessive pullout
controlled the response of all members; however, enhanced modeling capabilities
would be required in order to reproduce the effect of bar pullout through the joints in
leading to alternative equilibrium states. Thus, although the analysis correctly
identified the joints as a likely point of failure initiation, it was unable to distinguish
between joint shear failure (which was not observed in the tests) and the observed
damage localization in the adjacent column plastic hinge owing to anchorage failure
of column bars through the joint.

2nd Storey C3 (Top) Inadequacy indices in Y direction

Model 431 0.15g PGA
1.0
i,y

0.8
Vj,y
0.6

0.4 My

0.2 Vy,red
Vy
Time (secs)
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
nd
2 Storey C3 (Top) Inadequacy indices in Y direction
Model 431 0.20g PGA
1.0

0.8 My

0.6
Vj,y
0.4 Vy,red
Vy
0.2
Time (secs)
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 11: Time histories for inadequacy indices for column C3 (Top) in Y direction
for 0.15g and 0.20g PGA - model 431
 Table-3: Inadequacy indices for column C3 2nd storey for 0.15g PGA

X-direction Y-direction
Model
M.x V.x V.redx Vj.x M.y V.y V.red.y Vj.y
100 1.90 0.85 1.22 2.32 1.19 0.85 1.22 2.89
101 1.20 0.43 0.61 1.11 0.83 0.29 0.42 2.73
110 0.48 0.18 0.26 0.88 0.26 0.10 0.14 1.32
111 0.91 0.34 0.48 0.71 0.41 0.15 0.22 1.66
120 1.30 0.47 0.68 2.66 1.45 0.54 0.77 2.15
121 0.84 0.31 0.44 1.06 1.33 0.46 0.66 1.12
130 0.57 0.22 0.31 1.01 0.50 0.19 0.27 1.40
131 0.70 0.27 0.38 0.74 0.42 0.16 0.23 1.17
200 1.85 0.95 1.36 2.13 1.14 0.84 1.20 2.71
201 1.05 0.38 0.55 1.11 0.73 0.26 0.38 1.61
210 0.50 0.19 0.27 0.82 0.37 0.14 0.20 1.81
211 0.61 0.22 0.32 0.63 0.71 0.27 0.38 2.11
220 1.37 0.86 1.23 2.68 1.47 0.89 1.27 2.12
221 1.18 0.40 0.58 0.99 1.44 0.47 0.67 1.08
230 0.49 0.18 0.26 0.96 0.43 0.16 0.23 1.27
231 0.52 0.20 0.28 0.80 0.39 0.15 0.21 1.04
300 1.74 0.97 1.39 1.85 1.31 0.86 1.23 2.58
301 1.03 0.37 0.53 1.03 1.17 0.41 0.59 1.57
310 0.48 0.18 0.26 0.80 0.29 0.11 0.15 1.23
311 0.53 0.20 0.29 0.80 0.39 0.15 0.21 1.37
320 1.30 0.74 1.06 2.25 1.56 0.58 0.82 1.94
321 0.90 0.34 0.48 1.00 1.21 0.43 0.61 1.13
330 0.48 0.18 0.26 0.90 0.43 0.16 0.23 1.19
331 0.44 0.17 0.24 0.74 0.41 0.15 0.22 0.99
400 2.13 1.56 2.23 1.99 1.24 0.57 0.81 2.49
401 1.15 0.41 0.59 0.76 0.92 0.33 0.47 1.83
410 0.59 0.22 0.32 0.86 0.46 0.18 0.25 1.57
411 0.89 0.35 0.49 0.81 0.42 0.16 0.23 1.16
420 1.46 0.53 0.76 1.93 1.39 0.52 0.74 1.76
421 0.87 0.32 0.46 0.87 1.13 0.42 0.60 1.15
430 0.76 0.29 0.41 0.91 0.46 0.17 0.25 1.27
431 0.96 0.36 0.51 0.99 0.63 0.24 0.34 0.81
 Table-4: Inadequacy indices for column C3 2nd storey for 0.20g PGA

X-direction Y-direction
Model
M.x V.x V.redx Vj.x M.y V.y V.red.y Vj.y
100 2.53 1.81 2.59 3.03 1.70 1.17 1.67 3.61
101 1.38 0.67 0.96 1.49 1.27 0.98 1.40 3.15
110 0.64 0.24 0.34 1.03 0.44 0.16 0.24 1.98
111 0.94 0.36 0.52 0.97 0.39 0.14 0.21 1.73
120 1.57 0.56 0.80 2.87 2.08 0.77 1.10 2.13
121 1.32 0.46 0.65 1.23 1.42 0.47 0.67 1.25
130 0.83 0.31 0.45 1.32 0.49 0.18 0.26 1.55
131 0.76 0.29 0.41 0.93 0.49 0.19 0.27 1.21
200 2.47 1.71 2.45 2.79 1.65 1.14 1.63 3.42
201 1.73 0.55 0.78 1.15 1.16 0.39 0.56 2.33
210 0.81 0.31 0.44 0.92 0.47 0.17 0.25 1.98
211 0.69 0.26 0.38 0.71 0.43 0.16 0.23 1.58
220 1.52 0.54 0.78 2.88 1.99 0.74 1.06 2.73
221 1.15 0.41 0.59 1.20 1.43 0.47 0.68 1.29
230 0.71 0.27 0.38 1.25 0.47 0.18 0.26 1.45
231 0.82 0.31 0.44 0.96 0.44 0.17 0.24 1.14
300 2.41 1.77 2.52 2.43 1.83 1.33 1.90 3.29
301 1.35 0.46 0.66 1.05 1.45 0.47 0.68 1.59
310 0.59 0.23 0.32 0.82 0.40 0.15 0.22 1.54
311 0.69 0.25 0.36 0.68 0.84 0.31 0.44 2.10
320 1.54 0.52 0.75 3.09 2.00 0.75 1.07 2.23
321 1.03 0.37 0.53 1.13 1.50 0.49 0.71 1.32
330 0.62 0.24 0.34 0.91 0.46 0.18 0.25 1.23
331 0.91 0.35 0.50 0.78 0.45 0.17 0.24 1.12
400 3.02 2.13 3.04 2.62 1.76 1.26 1.79 3.19
401 1.48 0.48 0.68 0.92 1.40 0.45 0.64 1.93
410 0.58 0.22 0.32 0.98 0.51 0.19 0.27 1.72
411 0.78 0.29 0.42 0.77 0.45 0.17 0.25 1.11
420 1.82 0.66 0.94 2.70 1.76 0.65 0.93 2.71
421 1.72 0.54 0.78 1.06 1.33 0.46 0.65 1.26
430 0.61 0.23 0.33 0.91 0.54 0.20 0.29 1.39
431 0.74 0.28 0.40 1.11 0.90 0.34 0.49 0.97

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding for this research was provided by the Hellenic Ministry of Education
and Religious Affairs (Graduate Scholarship HRAKLEITOS) and by the General
Secretariat for Research and Technology (Program ARISTION).
REFERENCES

[1] Fardis, M. N. (2002). Design of an Irregular Building for the SPEAR Project
- Description of the 3-Storey Structure University of Patras, Greece.
[2] Negro, P., Mola, E., Molina, F. J., and Magonette, G. E. (2004). Full-scale
PSD testing of a torsionally unbalanced three-storey non-seismic rc frame.,
Proc., 13th WCEE, Vancouver, Canada, Paper No 968.
[3] Jeong, S.-H. and Elnashai, A. S. (2004). Analytical assessment of an irregular
RC frame for full scale 3D test structure. Mid-America Earthquake Center
(MAE) Report, CD Release 04-03.
[4] Syntzirma, D. V., and Pantazopoulou, S. J. (2004). Deformation capacity of
R.C. members with brittle details under cyclic shear-flexure. ACI Fall
Convention, San Fransisco, Session on shear strength of R/C members under
seismic loading, Part II.
[5] ACI 318 (2002). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
CommentaryACI, Farmington Hills, MI., 442.
[6] Eurocode 2 (1991). Design of concrete structures., European Committee for
Standardization, ENV 1992-1-1:1991.
[7] ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (1985). Recommendations for design of beam-
column joints in monolithic R.C. structures, ACI Structural Journal, 82(3),
266-283.
[8] Pantazopoulou S.J. (2003). Chapter 4 in Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of
Reinforced Concrete Buildings. fib Bulletin No. 24, Case Postale 88,
CH1015, Lausane, Switzerland.
[9] Syntzirma, D. V., and Pantazopoulou, S. J. (2005). Drift capacity of R.C.
members with substandard details., Proc., fib Symposium Keep Concrete
Atttactive, Budapest, Hungary, 748-755.
[10] Calvi, G. M., Magenes, G. and Pampanin, S. (2002). Relevance of beam-
column joint damage and collapse in RC frame assessment., Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, 6(SI.1), 75-100.
[11] Hakuto S., Park R., and Tanaka, H. (1999). Effect of Deterioration on Bond
of Beam Bars Passing Through Interior Beam Column Joints on Flexural
Strength and Ductility, ACI Structural Journal, 96(5), 858-864.
[12] Prakash, Vipul; Powell, Graham H.; Campbell, Scott D. DRAIN-3DX: Base
Program Description and User Guide: Version 1.10.
[13] CEB-FIP Model Code (1990). Design Code - Comit Euro-International du
beton, Thomas Telford, London, 437.
[14] E.P.P.O. (Earthquake planning and protection organization), (2001). Hellenic
seismic design code 2000, EAK 2000, Ministry of environment planning and
public works, 257.
[15] Bentz, E. C. (2000). Sectional analysis of reinforced concrete members.
PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 187.