Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Columns With Plain Longitudinal Reinforcing Bars
Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Columns With Plain Longitudinal Reinforcing Bars
Fig. 3—Hysteretic response of test specimens. (Note: Vu is flexural strength; Vn is nominal shear strength; PL1 is yielding of
longitudinal reinforcement; PL2 is maximum shear force attained; PL3 is shear failure, shear strength dropped by 20%; PL4
is axial failure; 1 mm = 0.04 in.)
Fig. 11—Effects of test parameters on energy dissipation capacity. (Note: 1 kNmm = 8.85 lps.in.)
strength of columns with an aspect ratio of 1.7 and wall-like in all specimens. This observation has been found in few
columns was increased by approximately 12%, while only studies18,20; however, it has not been considered in modern
a slight increment of approximately 5% was recorded in design and assessment codes.13,14 Therefore, in some
square columns with an aspect ratio of 2.4. It is understand- cases,17,18 the codes may provide unconservative predic-
able because the effect of axial force on shear strength is tions for the shear strength of RC columns. In summary,
reflected by an arch mechanism. This effect is reduced with axial force has minor effect on the shear strength of columns
an increment of shear span (aspect ratio). It also explains, with high aspect ratios. It also shows evidence that shear
as shown in Fig. 9(a), that shear strength increased with strength is beneficial from high axial force if the axial force
a decreasing aspect ratio. At the axial force ratio of 0.35, level is not greater than a certain ratio (P/fc′Ag = 0.35).
the highest normalized shear strength of 0.48 was found in This observation agrees with experimental and numerical
SW2, which was 9% higher than that of SR1. This value fell results of RC columns with deformed reinforcing bars in a
to 0.40 in SP2, and dropped to 0.30 in SP4. previous study.18
The contribution of axial force to shear strength was Initial stiffness—Initial stiffness is normally deter-
not significant when the test specimens were subjected to mined based on a point obtained from the measured force-
high levels of axial compression. It was shown that when displacement envelope with a shear force that is equal to the
the applied axial ratio force was increased from 0.35 to 0.5, theoretical yield force. This is defined as either the first yield
the normalized shear force increased by approximately 7% that occurs within the longitudinal reinforcement, or when
Notes: δm, δs, and δa are drift ratio at maximum shear force, shear failure, and axial failure, respectively; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 mm = 0.04 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
Comparisons of drift capacities failure tended to be similar on columns with both deformed
Generally, columns with deformed reinforcing bars devel- and plain reinforcing bars.
oped flexural yielding before reaching maximum shear
force, while columns with plain reinforcing bars reached Comparisons of energy dissipation capacity
shear strength before yielding of longitudinal reinforce- Energy dissipation corresponding to each performance
ment. Under lower applied axial force, plain longitudinal level of all specimens is tabulated in Table 2. Generally,
reinforcing bars resulted in more ductile response in RC energy dissipation in columns with plain reinforcing bars
columns. In particular, the specimen with plain reinforcing was significantly higher than that of columns with deformed
bars, SP1, reached maximum shear force at a drift ratio of reinforcing bars at all performance levels. At the point when
1.67%, while the specimen with deformed reinforcing bars, the maximum shear capacity was attained, the energy dissi-
SC-1.7-0.2, obtained maximum shear force at a drift ratio pated by square columns with plain reinforcing bars was
of 1.3%, which was 30% earlier. Similarly, with an aspect two times the energy dissipated by the square columns with
ratio of 2.4, the column with plain reinforcing bars (SP3) deformed reinforcing bars, but only a slight difference was
attained maximum shear force at the drift ratio approxi- found for rectangular section columns. The discrepancy in
mately 50% larger than that of the column with deformed energy dissipation by columns with deformed reinforcing
reinforcing bars (SC-2.4-0.2). When the applied axial force bars and columns with plain reinforcing bars was even
was increased to 0.35fc′Ag, the recorded drift ratios at the increased when loading to the shear failure stage. When
maximum shear force were almost identical in both columns axial compression failure occurred, although they failed
with plain reinforcing bars and columns with deformed rein- with the same failure mode, SR2 still dissipated an amount
forcing bars. The results were approximately 1.56% for SR1 of energy 50% higher than RC-1.7-0.5. In the other four
and RC-1.7-0.35, and 0.8% for SP2 and SC-1.7-0.35. When pairs, the observed failure mode changed, and the difference
applying high axial force, 0.5fc′Ag, the trend was reversed. was more remarkable. Energy dissipation was enhanced by
The columns with deformed reinforcing bars reached its 278, 154, 136, and 95% on columns with plain reinforcing
maximum shear force at a drift ratio equal to almost two bars SP1, SP3, SR1, and SP2, respectively.
times the corresponding drift ratio for columns with plain
reinforcing bar. COMPARISON WITH ASCE/SEI 41-06
The drift capacity at axial compression failure of columns In this part, the backbone curves obtained from the exper-
with plain reinforcing bars was significantly higher than imental results of all test specimens are compared with
those of columns with deformed reinforcing bars when the assessment results from the ASCE/SEI 41-06 guideline
applied axial force was lowest at 0.2fc′Ag. The results are models.13 According to ASCE/SEI 41-06, the force-dis-
tabulated in Table 2, which shows that for the short columns placement relationship follows the general trend, as shown
with an aspect ratio of 1.7, the column with plain rein- in Fig. A1 (Appendix A*) for RC columns with strengths
forcing bars, SP1, reached axial failure at 4.0% drift, while limited by its flexural strength. The shear capacity is normal-
the column with deformed reinforcing bars, SC-1.7-0.2, ized with respect to its yield force. The deformation indexes
reached axial failure at 1.82% drift. The columns, with an (a, b) are defined as flexural plastic hinge rations that depend
aspect ratio of 2.4, failed at a drift ratio of 4.1 and 2.8% for
the columns with plain reinforcing bars and deformed rein- *
The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org/publications in PDF format,
forcing bars, respectively. When the applied axial force level appended to the online version of the published paper. It is also available in hard copy
was higher than 0.35fc′Ag, the drift ratio at axial compression from ACI headquarters for a fee equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the
time of the request.
on column axial load, nominal shear stress, and details of when replacing the plain reinforcing bars by deformed longi-
columns. The index c is equal to 0.2. tudinal reinforcement. Moreover, previous experimental
The shear strength as defined in ASCE/SEI 41-06 is studies18 have shown that ASCE/SEI 41-06 provides good
given as estimations of shear strength for RC columns with deformed
reinforcing bars. Therefore, it is recommended to multiply a
Av f yt d 0.5 f ′ P modification factor km, km = 1.0 for columns with deformed
Vn = k + λk 1+ 0.8 Ag (MPa)
c
(1) longitudinal reinforcement, km = 0.70 for columns with
s M / Vd 0.5 fc′Ag
plain longitudinal reinforcement, to shear strength formula
(Eq. (1)) when evaluating shear strength for columns with
where k is a parameter to account for the effect of displace- plain reinforcing bars
ment ductility demand; k is taken as 1 for displacement
ductility less than 2, as 0.7 for displacement ductility more Av f yt d 0.5 f ′ P
Vn = kkm + λkkm 1+ 0.8 Ag (MPa)
c
than 6, and varies linearly for intermediate displacement M / Vd (2)
s 0.5 fc′Ag
ductility; M/Vd is the largest ratio of moment to shear times
effective depth, should not be taken greater than 4 or less
than 2; λ is equal to 1 for normalweight concrete; fyt is the Verifications from the current test and previous tests on
yield strength of transverse reinforcement; d is the distance columns with plain reinforcing bars are shown in Table
from the extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension A1 (Appendix A). The results demonstrate that the mean
reinforcement; s is the spacing of transverse reinforcement; difference between the modified shear strength formula and
Av is the total transverse reinforcement area within spacing results from 19 tests of columns with plain reinforcing bars
s; and P is the applied column axial load. It should be noted is almost 0%, with a 6.8% coefficient of variation. This is
that the shear strength equation of ASCE/SEI 41-06 comes an improvement compared with shear strength predictions
from a regression model on a database of 51 lightly rein- calculated by the ASCE/SEI 41-06 formula (Eq. (1)).
forced concrete columns,22 and does not employ the effect
of plain reinforcing bars. CONCLUSIONS
Figure A2 (Appendix A) and Table 3 compare the back- An experimental study was carried out on nine RC
bone curves of the test specimens with analytical predictions columns with plain longitudinal reinforcing bars under simu-
by the ASCE/SEI 41-06 provision. It is shown that ASCE/ lated gravity and seismic forces. The experimental results
SEI 41-06 significantly overestimates the initial stiffness were analyzed and compared with the test results of columns
of columns with plain reinforcing bars. The stiffness from with deformed reinforcing bars, also used to evaluate
the guidelines is not consistent, varying from three times to ASCE/SEI 41-06. The conclusions can be drawn as follows:
13 times higher than those from the test. In turn, however, 1. All columns with plain reinforcing bars failed with the
the drift at maximum shear force and at axial failure is development of vertical cracks forming along the longitu-
underestimated by ASCE/SEI 41-06. On the other hand, the dinal reinforcing bars located at mid-height of the column
shear strength recorded by the tests was consistently smaller sections. Vertical cracks developed earlier on columns
than estimated results from ASCE/SEI 41-06 by approxi- under a higher applied axial load. This type of crack did not
mately 30%. The comparison between tests on columns with produce significant shear deformation, and did not substan-
deformed reinforcing bars and plain reinforcing bars also tially affect the initial stiffness. Shear deformation of test
showed that shear strength could be improved by 20 to 30% specimens was then generally less than 10% of total defor-
c
8 A
Displacement
9
11
12
13
14
15 Fig. A2- Comparison between experimental backbone curves and ASCE/SEI 41-06 Models(13)
16 (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1mm = 0.04in)
1 Table A1-Modify shear strength equation of ASCE/SEI 41-06 for columns with plain rebars
Current Test
SP1-1.7-0.2 1200 350 350 29.8 475 300 56.5 125 0.129 730.1 238.3 303.1 212.1 0.79 1.12
SP2-1.7-0.35 1200 350 350 29.2 475 300 56.5 125 0.129 1252 263.2 354.0 247.8 0.74 1.06
SP3-2.4-0.2 1700 350 350 30.6 475 300 56.5 125 0.129 749.7 193.3 235.9 165.1 0.82 1.17
SP4-2.4-0.35 1700 350 350 28.7 475 300 56.5 125 0.129 1230 198.0 266.4 186.5 0.74 1.06
SR1-1.7-0.35 1700 250 490 23.3 509 440 56.5 125 0.092 999.0 263.0 357.5 250.2 0.74 1.05
SR2-1.7-0.5 1700 250 490 22.5 509 440 56.5 125 0.092 1378 278.0 389.6 272.7 0.71 1.02
SW1-1.4-0.2 1700 200 610 21.7 509 560 56.5 125 0.074 529.5 247.8 382.3 267.6 0.65 0.93
SW2-1.4-0.35 1700 200 610 20.2 509 560 56.5 125 0.074 862.5 266.0 423.1 296.2 0.63 0.90
SW3-1.4-0.5 1700 200 610 20.5 509 560 56.5 125 0.074 1250 289.0 471.1 329.8 0.61 0.88
Arani et al(9)
WOS-M 1500 250 250 23.9 370 200 100.5 200 0.201 224.1 49.8 88.4 61.9 0.56 0.80
WOS-C 1500 250 250 22.9 370 200 100.5 200 0.201 214.7 62.1 87.0 60.9 0.71 1.02
SOS-M 1500 250 250 24 370 200 100.5 200 0.201 225.0 65.0 88.5 62.0 0.73 1.05
HOS-C 1500 250 250 24.8 370 200 100.5 200 0.201 232.5 65.0 89.6 62.7 0.73 1.04
Yalcin et a(7)
L0C0 3200 200 400 16 360 350 100.5 300 0.084 352.0 77.0 92.3 64.6 0.83 1.19
L50C0 3200 200 400 17 360 350 100.5 300 0.084 374.0 75.0 94.4 66.1 0.79 1.14
Faella et a(21)
M5-S 3400 300 300 26.4 346 250 100.5 200 0.167 332.6 51.2 85.9 60.2 0.60 0.85
C3-S 3400 300 300 25.7 346 250 100.5 200 0.167 323.8 52.7 85.2 59.6 0.62 0.88
C16-S 3400 300 300 27.5 346 250 100.5 200 0.167 990.0 81.5 106.7 74.7 0.76 1.09
C18-S 3400 300 300 13.5 346 250 100.5 200 0.167 486.0 42.3 82.1 57.4 0.52 0.74
Ave 0.70 1.00
COV 0.097 0.068
2
3 (Note: 1kN = 0.225 kip; 1mm = 0.04in; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi)
4
5