Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics

doi:10.1166/jcsmd.2017.1118
Copyright © 2017 by American Scientific Publishers
All rights reserved. J. Coupled Syst. Multiscale Dyn.
Printed in the United States of America Vol. 5(1)/2330-152X/2017/038/013

Experiments on ductile and non-ductile reinforced

concrete frames under static and cyclic loading
K. Senthil1, ∗ , S. Rupali1 , and K. S. Satyanarayanan2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Jalandhar 144011, Punjab, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, SRM University, Kattankulathur 603203, Tamil Nadu, India

(Received: 15 April 2017. Accepted: 26 April 2017)

Research Article

ABSTRACT
The full range behavior ductile and non-ductile frames have been evaluated under monotonic and cyclic loading.
The one fourth scale Reinforced Concrete square frames are experimentally tested subjected to static cyclic
loading for three cases and monotonic loading for one case. The parameters are varied as method introducing
ductility to the frame by using conventional concrete, adding 1% of steel fibres by volume of concrete at hinging
zones and self-compacting concrete with fibres at hinging zones. The results compared with respect to initial
stiffness, degradation of stiffness, first cracking load, ultimate loads, degradation of load carrying capacity,
energy absorption and ductility factors characteristics. The behavior of frames tested under cyclic loading have
revealed that there is a positive trend in improvement of ductility of frames when fibrous concrete is used along
with self-compacting concrete. Also, the behavior of conventional reinforced concrete frame against monotonic
loading has been studied numerically using commercial finite element tool ABAQUS/Standard and compared
with the experiments are found in good agreement.

Keywords: Ductile and Non-Ductile Frame, Fibrous Concrete, Self-Compacting Concrete, Monotonic and
Cyclic Loading, Finite Element Analysis, Earthquake Engineering.
Section: Mathematical, Physical & Engineering Sciences

1. INTRODUCTION if the building structures were designed and detailed to be

In recent times it is witnessed that many people have been
killed during the occurrence of earthquakes. The loss of
life of people is not due to earthquake but, due to lack
of construction and detailing aspects to make the struc-
ture to behave in a ductile manner. In recent time this
has been proved by the destructive effects of earthquake
that has been experienced in the world which resulted in
the death of large number of people and rendered thou-
sands homeless. The scale of destruction would have been
very much reduced if the people in the buildings were
aware of collapse of the buildings and given sufficient
amount of time to vacate the place. In other words only
∗
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Email: urssenthil85@yahoo.co.in
ductile.
Lakshmipathy1 has carried out investigations on rein-
forced concrete sub-assemblies, elements and frames with
three different methods for improving ductility, namely,
use of conventional reinforcement as suggested by IS
code 13920:1993,2 provision of inclined bar reinforce-
ment at the joints and use of fibrous concrete at joints.
It was observed that the use of fibrous concrete at joints
improves the ductile behavior of frames to the maxi-
mum level. Anitha and Jaya3 investigated the effect of
self-compacting concrete in improving the ductility of
reinforced concrete frames. It was concluded that the self-
compacting concrete frame had more ductility than the
ordinary concrete frame. Said and Nehdi4 carried out
experiments on full scale beam column joint specimens

38 http://www.aspbs.com/jcsmd
 Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics
to compare the performance of normal concrete and
self-consolidated concrete (SCC). They concluded that
the SCC beam column joint specimen performed ade-
quately in terms of the mode failure and ductility require-
ments. Shatarat et al.5 conducted four different computer
programs to evaluate the seismic response of a simple
two-span highway bridge. The seismic response was eval-
uated using two force-based methods of analysis (response
spectrum and time-history) and two displacement-based
methods (capacity spectrum and inelastic demand spec-
trum. The experience gained by utilizing the computer
software revealed that some programs are well suited to
displacement-based analysis, both from the point-of-view
of being efficient and providing insight into the behav-
ior of plastic hinges. Mehmet and Hayri6 and Shatarat7
conducted pushover analysis of two highway bridges built
with little attention to seismic forces was performed in an
effort to evaluate the difference in global response pre-
dicted by using the user-defined nonlinear hinge properties
or automated hinge properties in the software SAP 2000.
The results demonstrated that user-defined hinge model
is capable of capturing the effect of local failure mecha-
nisms, in the plastic hinge region, on the global response
of the bridge; while the automated-hinge model cannot
capture this effect. Aslani and Natoori8 conducted ana-
lytical investigation for estimating the mechanical proper-
ties of Steel fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete and
steel fiber reinforced concrete since steel fibers improve
many of the properties of SCC elements including tensile
strength, toughness, energy absorption capacity and frac-
ture toughness. Kamal et al.9 conducted experiments to
evaluate the potential of self-compacting concrete (SCC)
mixes to develop bond strength. The results showed that
the bond strength was reduced due to Portland cement
replacement with dolomite powder. Also the test results
demonstrated inconsistent normalized bond strength in the
case of the larger diameter compared to the smaller one.
Ashtiani et al.10 studied six beam-column joint spec-
imens made of high-strength self-compacting concrete,
conventionally vibrated high-strength concrete, and nor-
mal strength conventionally vibrated concrete. These spec-
imens were designed, fabricated, and tested under reversed
cyclic loading. All specimens showed a relatively duc-
tile behavior as opposed to the general notion of brittle
failure in high-strength concrete. Ganesan et al.11 car-
ried out an experimental investigation to study the effect
of steel and hybrid fibres on the strength and behavior
of high performance concrete beam column joints sub-
jected to reverse cyclic loads. They found that the combi-
nation of steel fibres and polypropylene fibres gave better
performance with respect to energy dissipation capacity
and stiffness degradation than the other combinations. The
design recommendation, ACI-ASCE Committee12 stipu-
lates to provide reinforcement cage with closely spaced
vertical and horizontal reinforcement in the critical zones.
J. Coupled Syst. Multiscale Dyn., Vol. 5(1), 38–50 http://www.aspbs.com/jcsmd
But this results in congestion at the joints in real three
dimensional multi-storey frames where three or more
members at the joints, leading to construction difficul-
ties. Boudjellal et al.13 conducted experimental study on
a self-compacting polymer concrete called isobeton made
of polyurethane foam and expanded clay. Application of
the Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) and deter-
mining the toughness of two isobetons based on Bel-
gian and Italian clay, was conducted to determine the
stress intensity factor KIC and the rate of releasing energy
GIC. The material considered was tested under static and
dynamic loadings for two different samples with 100 ×
100 ×400 and 100 ×150 ×400 mm dimensions. The result
obtained by the application of the Linear Elastic Fracture
Mechanics (LEFM) shows that is optimistic and fulfilled
the physic-mechanical requirement of the study. Nima14
conducted an experimental and analytical study on nine
steel fibre reinforced concrete beam specimens to inves-
tigate the effect of fibers and to examine the ability of
steel fibers to replace transverse reinforcement under load
Research Article
reversal. The experimental and analytical result shows that
use of fibers results in several improvements in behavior,
including enhanced damage tolerance and post-peak duc-
tility. The result also shows that steel fibers can potentially
be used to allow for a reduction of transverse reinforce-
ment in beams. In addition, researchers have been working
on the structural performance in RC members with self-
compacting concrete under monotonic loads in the past
few years.15–23 The design recommendation2 stipulates
to provide reinforcement cage with closely spaced vertical
and horizontal reinforcement in the critical zones. But this
results in congestion at the joints in real three dimensional
multi-story frames where three or more members at the
joints, leading to construction difficulties.
Based on the literature survey, the beam column joints
in a reinforced concrete frame are found to be criti-
cal. To avoid damage in the joints, closely spaced stir-
rups called special confined reinforcement are provided.
So the congestion of reinforcements occurs, resulting in
poor compaction of concrete. This problem of placing
and compaction of concrete in beam column joints can
be solved if self-compacting concrete is used instead of
conventional concrete. Also, the review of existing lit-
erature shows that the addition of steel fibers enhances
concrete’s tensile resistance, crack control properties, duc-
tility and damage tolerance. Although several studies have
been conducted on the behavior of steel fibre reinforced
concrete beams subjected to monotonic loading, there is
limited research on the behavior of steel fibre reinforced
concrete beams under cyclic or reverse-cyclic loading.
In the present study the influence of different materials at
hinging zones of the frame in light of ductility of frames
has been studied. The behavior of one-fourth scale rein-
forced concrete frames investigated under static monotonic
and static cyclic loading and to measure ductility perfor-
mance of frames by adopting conventional reinforcement,
39
 Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics
fibre reinforcement in joint regions and self-compacting Table II. Mix proportions of the specimens.
concrete cum fibre reinforcement in joint regions, see
Description BFC BFF BFSF
Section 2. Also, the behavior of conventional non-ductile
reinforced concrete frame against monotonic loading has Mix proportion 1:0.63:1.56 1:0.63:1.56 –
W/C ratio 0.30 0.30 0.40
been studied numerically using commercial finite element
Cement 676.7 kg/m3 676.7 kg/m3 50%
tool ABAQUS/Standard, see Section 3. The deflection Fine aggregate 423 kg/m3 423 kg/m3 840 kg/m3
function of time was predicted using ABAQUS/Standard is Coarse aggregate 1058 kg/m3 1058 kg/m3 715 kg/m3
compared with the experimental results, see Section 4. The Steel 4 mm 4 mm 4 mm
behavior of ductile and non-ductile frames obtained exper- Fibre – 1% 1%
Fly ash – – 25%
imentally are compared with respect to initial stiffness, GGBS – – 20%
degradation of stiffness, first cracking load, ultimate loads, Micro silica – – 5%
degradation of load carrying capacity, energy absorption Super plasticizer – – 7.8 kg/m3
and ductility factors characteristics, see Section 5.

The mould was used for casting is arranged on a clean

2. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
flat and non-absorbent surface. The inner sides of the
The materials used in this work are tested to find their suit-
mould are well oiled to prevent mortar from sticking to
ability according to relevant standards.24–25 The results of
it. The reinforcement cage is placed inside the mould and
the investigations for cement, fine aggregate and course
cement mortar cover blocks are used to correct alignment
aggregate are presented in the Table I. The fibres are used
Research Article

of cage in the mould. The exact quantities of materials

in the present investigation are crimped steel fibres with for specimen are kept ready on another platform and the
length of 36 mm and diameter of 0.45 mm and their aspect concrete immediately after mixing is filled in three lay-
ratio is 80. The steel fibres are used 1% by volume of con- ers in the mould and compacted well by needle vibrator,
crete. Mix design is carried out for M40 grade concrete Figures 2(a)–(c). The frame and control specimen are kept
based on Indian Standard code.26 The self-compacting in the mould for one day. After 24 hours, the mould of
concrete mix for M40 grade is adopted from the work car- the frame is removed and control specimen is taken out
ried out in the laboratory. The mix proportions used in the of the mould. After finishing remold the designation are
present studies are shown in Table II. marked both on the frame and the control specimens for
The dimensions of frames are arrived by scaling the pro- future identification. After that all the frames except BFC2
totype frames down by one fourth ratio. The dimension of are cured under clean water in the curing tank for 14 days
the frame is shown in Figure 1(a) which is kept constant until they are taken out for testing while the frame BFC2
for specimens such as conventional bare frame with mono- cured only for 10 days.
tonic loading (BFC1), conventional bare frame with cyclic The specimen was wiped off its surface moisture and
loading (BFC2), bare frame with fibrous reinforced con- grit on the previous day of its testing date and it is
crete (BFF) and bare frame with self-compacting concrete white washed. After the white wash the surface was dried,
cum fibrous concrete (BFSF). Totally four frame have been the surface of the frame was marked with lines to study
prepared to study the effectiveness of method of improving the crack pattern. The points where the dial gauge read-
ductility of frames. Total four number of main reinforce- ings are to be taken are cleaned well and adhesive is
ment of 4 mm diameter was used and two numbers at applied over the frame surface to which L shaped alu-
tension face and two numbers at compression face. The minum plate was fixed. After that, the position of dial
shear renforcements of 4 mm diameter with two legged gauges for deflection measurement is shown in Figure 3(a).
stirrups has been provided, see Figures 1(b)–(d). The 0.01 mm accuracy dial gauges are used to observe
the displacement values. The vertical displacements are
observed by using dial gauges for displacement measure-
Table I. Properties of source materials.
ment. The 25 Tonnes capacity column testing frame and
Materials Tests on Experimental result 5 Tonnes capacity remote control hydraulic jack were
Cement Specific gravity 3.12
used. The frame is erected on the loading frame verti-
Normal consistency 30% cally and the frame is adjusted such that loading is through
Initial setting time 32 minutes the diagonal, see Figure 3(a). Dial gauges are fixed at
Compressive strength 29 N/mm2 position where displacement should be measured. Load
at 7 days is applied gradually through the head and hand oper-
Fine aggregate Specific gravity 2.86 ated hydraulic jack in increments and at each stage of
Fineness modulus 2.51
loading deflection of the frames are taken. The load is
Coarse aggregate Specific gravity 2.6
Fineness modulus 2.62 varied between the levels of first cracking load to the
maximum of ultimate load after the ultimate load of

40 http://www.aspbs.com/jcsmd J. Coupled Syst. Multiscale Dyn., Vol. 5(1), 38–50

 Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics
(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Research Article
Fig. 1. Schematics of (a) mould (b) reinforcement (c) cross section AA and (d) BB.

frame is reached. Five cycles of load repetitions are to
be adopted. The frames are loaded up to failure but, it
come on cyclic sequence, see Figure 3(b). The compres-
sive strength of the specimens was measured after the con-
crete cubes are cured under clean water in the curing tank
for 14 days. Here, along with each frames, three cubes of
size 150 × 150 × 150 mm are cast on the same day with the
same mix which is used in the corresponding frame. The
accompanied specimens are tested and cube compressive
strength is determined on the same day on which the corre-
sponding frames are tested and the results are tabulated in
Table III.

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 2. Picture of (a) concreting of frame (b) concreting of joints with fibres and (c) finished surface.

J. Coupled Syst. Multiscale Dyn., Vol. 5(1), 38–50 http://www.aspbs.com/jcsmd 41

 Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics
(a) (b)

Fig. 3. Specimens of (a) initial crack marking during test and (b) crack width increasing during the application of maximum load.
Research Article

Table III. Compressive strength of concrete by companion specimen strain localisation in the concrete. Under uniaxial compres-
test. sion, the response is linear until the value of initial com-
Individual compressive pressive strength, c0 . In the plastic region the response
strength, N/mm2 is typically characterized by strain hardening followed by
Frame Average compressive
designation Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 strength, N/mm2
strain softening beyond the ultimate stress, cu . When the
concrete specimen is unloaded from any point on the strain
BFC1 33.5 40.4 36.5 36.8 softening branch of the stress–strain curve, the unloading
BFC2 28.5 25.5 27.1 27.0
BFF 34.0 37.0 36.0 35.6
response is weakened. The elastic stiffness of the mate-
BFSF 37.0 29.0 32.6 33.0 rial appears to be degraded. The degradation of the elastic
stiffness is characterized by the tension and compression
damage variables, dt and dc respectively. The stress–strain
3. NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION relations under uniaxial tension and compression loading
The finite element model of the reinforced concrete frame are governed by the following expressions respectively.
was made using ABAQUS/CAE.27 The dimensions of the
t = 1 − dt E0 t − pl
t  (1)
concrete elements and reinforcement were modeled iden-
tical to that of experiments, Figure 1. The concrete as c = 1 − dc E0 c − pl
c  (2)
well as reinforcement was modeled as three dimensional
deformable body. The interaction between concrete and where the subscripts t and c refer to tension and com-
steel was modeled using the tie constraint option avail- pression respectively, pl pl
t and c are the equivalent plastic
able in ABAQUS/CAE wherein the concrete was assumed strains, and E0 is the elastic modulus of the undeformed
as host region and the steel as embedded region. In order concrete. The material properties of concrete are presented
to define the material behavior of concrete the Concrete in Ref. [28].
Damaged Plasticity model available in ABAQUS finite The material behavior of the steel reinforcement was
element code was employed. The model is based upon incorporated using the well known Johnson–Cook elasto-
the concept of isotropic damaged elasticity in conjunction viscoplastic material model29 that is capable of predict-
with isotropic tensile and compressive plasticity to repre- ing the flow and fracture behavior of the ductile materials.
sent the inelastic behaviour of concrete. The model can be It includes the effect of linear thermo-elasticity, yielding,
used for the analysis of reinforced concrete structures sub- plastic flow, isotropic strain hardening, strain rate harden-
jected to monotonic, cyclic and dynamic loading. Under ing, softening due to adiabatic heating and damage. The
uniaxial tension, the stress–strain response follows a linear static yield stress of the model is defined as;
elastic relationship until the value of failure stress (t0 
 0 = A + B¯pl  1−Tˆ m 
n
is reached. The failure stress corresponds to the onset of (3)
micro-cracking in the concrete. Beyond the failure stress
the formation of micro-cracks is represented macroscopi- Where ¯pl is equivalent plastic strain, A, B, n and m are
cally with a softening stress–strain response which induces material parameters measured at or below the transition

42 http://www.aspbs.com/jcsmd J. Coupled Syst. Multiscale Dyn., Vol. 5(1), 38–50

 Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics
temperature, T0 . The non-dimensional temperature Tˆ is 21
Displacement Vs Time
defined as; 18
⎡

Load and Displacement

Load Vs Time
0 for T < T0 15
⎢
Tˆ = ⎢
⎣ T − T0 /Tmelt − T0  for T0 ≤ T ≤ Tmelt (4) 12

1 for T > Tmelt 9

6
Where T is the current temperature, Tmelt is the melt-
ing point temperature and T0 is the transition temperature 3
defined as the one at or below which there is no tem- 0
perature dependence on the expression of the yield stress. 0 100 200 300
When T > Tmelt , the material melts down and behaves like Time, Sec
fluid and hence does not offer shear resistance i.e.,  0 = 0.
The Johnson-Cook strain rate dependence assumes; Fig. 5. Load–displacement profile of BFC1 specimens.
 
¯ =  ¯  T̂  R ˙
pl
0 pl
(5) Where
¯pl is an increment of the equivalent plastic strain,
¯f is the strain at failure, and the summation is per-
pl
 
1 formed over all the increments throughout the analysis.
x˙ = ˙0 exp
pl
R − 1 for ¯ ≥  0 (6)
The strain at failure ¯f is assumed to be dependent on a
pl
C

Research Article
non-dimensional plastic strain rate, ˙ /˙0 ; a dimension-
pl

Where ¯ is the yield stress at non zero strain rate, ˙ is

pl
equivalent plastic strain rate, ˙0 and C are the material
parameters measured at or below the transition tempera-
ture T0 ,  0 ¯pl  T̂  is the static yield stress and R˙  is
pl
the ratio of the yield stress at non zero strain rate to the
static yield stress. The equivalent von Mises yield stress is
less pressure-deviatoric stress ratio, m /¯ (where m is
the mean stress and ¯ is the equivalent von Mises stress)
and the non-dimensional temperature, T̂ , defined earlier in
the Johnson-Cook hardening model. The dependencies are
assumed to be separable and are of the form;
  

pl m ˙ pl ˆ m
therefore expressed as; ¯f    T  = D1 + D2 exp D3
¯ ¯

 ˙ pl 
 ˙ pl 


pl n
¯ = A + B¯  1 + C ln 1−Tˆ m  (7) × 1 + D4 ln

1 + D5Tˆ  (9)
˙0 ˙0
The Johnson and Cook29 extended the failure criterion where D1 −D5 are material parameters determined from
different mechanical test, ˙ is equivalent plastic strain
pl
proposed by Hancock and Mackenzie30 by incorporating
the effect of strain path, strain rate and temperature in the rate and ˙0 is a reference strain rate. The Johnson-Cook
fracture strain expression, in addition to stress triaxiality. properties of mild steel has been employed for predicting
The fracture criterion is based on the damage evolution the material behavior of mild steel reinforcement.31
wherein the damage of the material is assumed to occur The bottom of the specimens was restrained at periph-
when the damage parameter, , exceeds unity; ery with respect to all degree of freedom, see Figure 4(a).
  Both concrete and steel was modeled as C3D8R, 8-node

¯pl
= (8) linear brick with reduced integration and hourglass con-
¯pl
f trol, see Figures 4(b)–(c). The size of the concrete element
was 30 mm in the whole body of the concrete and the
(a) (b) (c)
total number of elements was 928. The size of the steel
element was 10 mm in the whole body of the concrete and
the total number of elements was 31866. The load versus
time as well as displacement versus time was assigned to
the specimen, see Figure 4(a) as obtained from the exper-
iment, see Figure 5. The concrete frame is loaded by the
displacement control in the vertical direction.

4. COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND

NUMERICAL RESULTS
Fig. 4. Geometry of (a) specimen (b) FE model of concrete and (c) The behavior of conventional reinforced concrete
FE model of steel reinforcement. frame against monotonic loading was studied using

J. Coupled Syst. Multiscale Dyn., Vol. 5(1), 38–50 http://www.aspbs.com/jcsmd 43

 Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics
(a) 20 (b) 20
Numerical results
Numerical results
Experimental results
Experimental results 16
16
Deflection (mm)

Load (KN)
12 12

8 8

4 4

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time (Sec) Time (Sec)

Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental and numerical results of (a) deflection versus time and (b) load versus time.

ABAQUS/Standard. The deflection function of time was
predicted using ABAQUS/CAE is compared with the
experimental results as shown in Figure 6(a). The pre-
dicted deflection versus time and experiments was found
Research Article
predicted load till the yield point was found insignificant
when compared to experimental results. The maximum
deviation of 20% in predicted load was observed after the
yield point. The predicted results may be improved by

in good agreement. Similarly, the predicted load corre- refining the mesh size in the FE model simulations. The
sponding time was shown in Figure 6(b). The deviation on deformed profile of conventional reinforced concrete frame

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 7. Deflection (m) of BFC1 specimen at (a) 40 (b) 80 (c) 120 (d) 200 (e) 240 and (f) 280 seconds time interval.

44 http://www.aspbs.com/jcsmd J. Coupled Syst. Multiscale Dyn., Vol. 5(1), 38–50

 Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 8. Picture showing plastic hinge at joints of (a) experimental and (b) numerical investigation of (c) complete specimens.

subjected to monotonic loading was shown in Figure 7.
The magnitude “U” is downward vertical displacement
is presented in “meter.” The maximum displacement was
observed at top and displacement contour was presented
against varying rate of time such as 40, 80, 120, 200,
240 and 280 seconds. Also, the frame is failed by for-
for improving ductility and without it. The experimental
results of the conventional and non-conventional frames
subjected to monotonic and cyclic loads are presented in
the following sections.
The behavior of the conventional bare frame (BFC1)
is discussed in terms of its load corresponding deflec-

Research Article
mation of four hinges was observed at the joints, see tion, ultimate and failure loads. The vertical deflections
Figure 8(a) and was predicted through numerical simula- recorded during the experiment at each load interval are
tions, see Figures 8(b) and (c). plotted against corresponding load and a graph as shown
in Figure 9(a). From this graph the initial stiffness of the
frame is calculated as 4.62 kN/mm. The progressive load-
5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSIONS ing of the frame has resulted in cracking of concrete at
The scheme of experimental work is aimed at quantifying load level of 6 kN at the corners of the frame. On further
the difference in the behavior of frames with provisions loading the cracks increased in their length and width at
(a) 14 (b) 10
12
8
10
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

8 6

6 4
4
2
2
BFC1 BFC2
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20
Deflection (mm) Deflection, mm

(c) 10 (d) 10

8 8
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

6 6

4 4

2 2
BFF BFSF
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

Fig. 9. Load versus displacement profile for (a) BFC1 (b) BFC2 (c) BFF and (d) BFSF specimens.

J. Coupled Syst. Multiscale Dyn., Vol. 5(1), 38–50 http://www.aspbs.com/jcsmd 45

 Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics
(a) (b)

(c)
Research Article

Fig. 10. Plot showing Initial stiffness, slope and ultimate load of (a) BFC2 (b) BFF and (c) BFSF specimens.

the same sections. The monotonic loading of the frame
from zero loads to ultimate load caused cracking of the
frame, the consequent loss of stiffness and failure to take
incremental load characterized by increased deflections
without increase in load carrying capacity. The ultimate
load is reached with formation of cracks at the four corners
of the frame at a load level of 12 kN.
A half cyclically loading sequence was carried out to
understand the post-yield behavior of conventional bare
frame, BFC2. The lower limit of loading is fixed to be the
first cracking load level of the frame, that is, 6 kN and the
upper limit is fixed to be the ultimate load of the frame,
i.e., 9 kN. The load versus deflection curve of the frame
observed to shed load as shown in Figure 9(b) and the
loading is discontinued when the frame has not been able
to support even its first cracking load. The ultimate load is
reached with formation of plastic hinges at the four corners
of the frame at a load level of 9.24 kN and failed at third
cycle.
The frame BFF is similar to the conventional bare frame
in terms of cross sectional dimension, reinforcement and
concrete mix used except for the fact that the frame is
7
6
Initial stiffness (kN/mm)

BFC2 is plotted in Figure 9(b) and the initial stiffness of 5

the frame is obtained as 5.0 kN/mm. The loading sequence
4
on the frame is varied between the first cracking load and
the ultimate load for five half cycles. The frame has been 3

2
Table IV. Comparison of initial stiffness.
1
Frame Initial stiffness, Ratio of initial stiffness of
designation kN/mm ductile frame to non-ductile frame 0
BFC1 BFC2 BFF BFSF
BFC1 4.62 –
BFC2 5.00 1.00 Type of frame
BFF 5.71 1.14
Fig. 11. Comparison of initial stiffness of ductile and non-ductile
BFSF 6.00 1.20
frames.

46 http://www.aspbs.com/jcsmd J. Coupled Syst. Multiscale Dyn., Vol. 5(1), 38–50

 Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics
Table V. Comparison of degeneration of stiffness. Table VI. Comparison of first crack load and ultimate load.

Number of cycles corresponding Number of cycles and maximum

stiffness kN/mm load on each cycle (kN)
First crack Ultimate
Frame Initial stiffness
designation kN/mm C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 Designation load (kN) load (kN) 1 2 3 4 5

BFC1 6.0 12.66 – – – – –

BFC1 4.62 – – – – –
BFC2 6.0 9.26 9.24 9.26 6.93 – –
BFC2 5.00 2.00 1.67 0.86 – –
BFF 6.5 9.11 9.11 8.02 7.94 7.30 –
BFF 5.71 3.02 2.67 2.71 1.23 –
BFSF 7.0 9.13 8.04 8.17 7.98 7.90 7.80
BFSF 6.00 1.25 1.20 1.09 0.94 1.10

cast with fibrous concrete 1% of steel fibre as a measure
to improve the tensile cracking strength of concrete. The
loading sequence is similar to that of conventional bare
frame, BFC2 described previously. The load versus deflec-
tion curve of the frame BFF is plotted in Figure 9(c) and
the initial stiffness of the frame is obtained as 5.71 kN/mm.
The significant drop in the ultimate load of the frame
on each consecutive cycle has been observed. The ulti-
mate load is reached with formation of plastic hinges at
comparison of the frames tested with respect to the above
parameters.
5.1. Initial Stiffness
The initial stiffness of the frames BFC2, BFF and BFSF
are presented in Table IV. The ratio of stiffness of ductile
to non-ductile frames indicates: There is 14.2% increase in
the initial stiffness value of fibrous concrete frame when
compared to that of conventional concrete frame. The use

the four corners of the frame at a load level of 9.11 kN
and failed at fourth cycle. The load corresponding deflec-
tion of the frame BFSF is plotted in Figure 9(d) and the
initial stiffness of the frame is obtained as 6.0 kN/mm.
The loading sequence on the frame is similar to that of
non-ductile frame BFC2. It is observed that the frame has
failed with formation of four hinges at corners and typical
hinge formation at the joints is shown in Figure 8(d). The
minimum shedding of ultimate load of the frame on each
consecutive cycle has been observed. The ultimate load is
reached with formation of plastic hinges at the four cor-
ners of the frame at a load level of 8.17 kN and failed
at fifth cycle. In order to evaluate the full range behav-
ior of ductile and non-ductile frames using two different
strategies of improving ductility the following behavioral
parameters are used such as initial stiffness, first crack-
ing load, ultimate load, degradation of stiffness, energy
absorption and degradation of load carrying capacity, see
Figures 10(a)–(c). The following sections bring out the
Research Article
of self-compacting concrete has resulted in 20% increase
in the initial stiffness of the fibrous concrete frame when
compared to conventional concrete frame. When the ratios
of initial stiffness of frames with fibrous self-compacting
concrete to frame with fibrous concrete, i.e., 6/571 =
105, is considered, the effect of self-compacting concrete
results in a marginal increase of 5% only in initial stiff-
ness, Figure 11.
5.2. Degeneration of Stiffness
The degeneration of stiffness has been measured by tak-
ing slopes for every cycle, see Figures 10(a)–(c). Fur-
ther the degradation of stiffness at first and final cycle
of each frame of loading is obtained, see Table V.
It is evident from Figure 12, that the rate of stiff-
ness reduction for the frame with self-compacting con-
crete fibre subject to cyclic loading is the lowest
10

3.5 8
Ultimate load kN

3
6
Stiffness kN/mm

2.5

2 4
1.5
2
1

0.5
0
0 C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 C4 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 C4 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 BFC2 BFF BFSF
BFC2 BFF BFSF
Type of frame C - Cycle
Type of frame C - Cycle 1, 2.. are No. of cycle
1, 2... No. of Cycle
Fig. 13. Comparison of degeneration of load carrying capacity of duc-
Fig. 12. Comparison of degeneration of stiffness of ductile frames. tile frames.

J. Coupled Syst. Multiscale Dyn., Vol. 5(1), 38–50 http://www.aspbs.com/jcsmd 47

 Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics
Table VII. Comparison of energy absorption of ductile and non-ductile specimens.

Ratio of energy absorption

Frame designation Type Energy absorption, Nmm of ductile frame to non-ductile frame

BFC2 Non ductile frame subjected to cyclic load 2520 1.00

BFF Ductile frame subjected to cyclic load 2930 1.16
BFSF Ductile frame subjected to cyclic load 4120 1.63

as shown below: BFC2 − [(2 − 086/2∗100 = 57%;
BFF − [(302 − 123/302∗100 = 60%; BFSF − [(125 −
11/125∗100 = 12%.
5.3. First Cracking and Ultimate Load
The first cracking load levels of the ductile and non-
ductile frames are compared in Table VI. The fibrous
concrete frame has an increased initial cracking load
level of 8.33% when compared to frame with conven-
tional concrete (BFC2). The comparison of initial cracking
load levels of fibrous self-compacting concrete frame and
Research Article
of addition of fibre with conventional concrete or SCC
does not influence of ultimate load capacity of frames.
5.4. Degeneration of Load Carrying Capacity
The ultimate load of the frames was found to be decreased
with increase in number of cycles, see Figure 13 which
signifies the following facts. The frame BFC2 is unable to
extend the cyclic loading beyond three cycle and the loss is
(924 − 693/924∗100 is 25% while the BFF and BFSF
frame extended upto four and five cycles then (911 −
73/911∗100 and (913 − 78/913∗100 is 20 and 15%

the conventional frame, i.e., 16.67% indicating twice the
increased efficiency of the fibres due to proper compaction
of concrete in withstanding higher levels of tensile stresses
than the fibres used with ordinary concrete.
The ultimate load of the frames with conventional con-
crete is obtained by using methods of plastic analysis and
the details of calculation are as discussed in the Section 3.
The comparison of first crack load and ultimate load of
frames is presented in Table VI. The frames BFC1 is sim-
ilar to the frame BFC2 except for the fact that the for-
mat is loaded monotonically and the latter is subjected to
cyclic load. However, the ultimate load capacity of BFC1
is higher i.e., 12.66 kN and that of BFC2 only 9 kN.
This can be attributed to the fact that the BFC1 has been
cured under water all the 14 days after casting whereas
the frame BFC2 has been cured only for first 10 days after
casting. This is also confirmed by the average values of
cube compressive strength of BFC1 and BFC2 is 36.8 and
27 N/mm2 respectively. Comparison of ratio of ultimate
load of ductile to non-ductile frames indicates that the use
4500
respectively. Therefore, the behavior of self-compacting
concrete cum fibres BFSF is highly preferable the amount
of load shedding is minimum even after five cycles.
5.5. Energy Absorption
The energy absorption characteristics of the ductile and
non-ductile frames are compared in Table VII. Based on
the values presented in Table VII, following observations
are made: The use of fibrous concrete in hinging zone of
the frame BFF as resulted in a slight increase of 16% in
the energy observation capacity when compared to non-
ductile frame, Figure 14. The ratio of the values of energy
absorption capacity of BFSF and BFC2 is 1.63. This indi-
cates the superior performance of fibres in combination
with self-compacting concrete.
5.6. Ductility Factor
Based on the ductility factor the degree of ductil-
ity of frames is calculated and shown in Figure 15.
45
40
35
Ductility factor

30
Energy absorption Nmm

3600
25
20
2700
15
1800 10
5
900 0
C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 C4 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
0 BFC2 BFF BFSF
BFC2 BFF BFSF
Type of frame C - Cycle
Type of frame 1, 2... No. of cycle

Fig. 14. Comparison of energy absorption of ductile frames. Fig. 15. Comparison of ductility factor of ductile frames.

48 http://www.aspbs.com/jcsmd J. Coupled Syst. Multiscale Dyn., Vol. 5(1), 38–50

 Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics
The deflection ductility factor defined as
/
y , where ABAQUS/Standard. The predicted displacement of non-
and
y is deflection at any load beyond yield ductile reinforced concrete frame (BFC1) against mono-
and deflection at yield load of the frame (0.575 mm)
respectively. The frame BFC2 has maximum duc-
tility factor at third cycle equal to 28.5 whereas
frames BFF has 40 and BFSF has 42.4. This sig-
nifies provision of fibrous concrete at joint increases
ductility factor by (40 − 2416/2416∗100 = 66% and
use of self-compacting concrete adds to efficiency of
fiber by improving the ductility further viz. (424 −
2416/2416∗100 = 76%.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The full range behavior ductile and non-ductile frames
have been evaluated under monotonic and cyclic loading.
To understand the post-yield behavior of structural ele-
ments, the limited number of specimens were studied with
M40 grade of concrete and the behavior of the frames
are compared with respect to initial stiffness, degrada-
tion of stiffness, first cracking load, ultimate loads, ductil-
ity factors, degradation of load carrying capacity, energy
absorption characteristics and the following conclusion are
drawn:
• The use of self-compacting concrete has resulted in 20%
increase in the initial stiffness of the fibrous concrete when
compared to BFC2 frame. The fibrous concrete frame BFF
has an increased initial cracking load of 8% when com-
pared to BFC2.
• The comparison of initial cracking load levels of
fibrous self-compacting concrete frame and the conven-
tional frame, 16% indicating twice the increased efficiency
of the fibers due to proper compaction of concrete in with-
standing higher levels of tensile stresses than the fibres
used with ordinary concrete.
• The ultimate load of ductile to non-ductile frames indi-
cates that the use of addition of fibre with conventional
concrete or SCC does not influence of ultimate load car-
rying capacity of frames.
• The energy absorption capacity of self-compacting con-
crete with fibres at hinging zone has resulted in increase
of 63% when compared to non-ductile frame. This indi-
cates the superior performance of fibres in combination
with self-compacting concrete.
• Ductility factor of fibrous concrete at joint increased
76% while the use of self-compacting concrete adds to
efficiency of fiber by improving the ductility factor to
66%. The frame BFC2 is unable to support the cyclic
loading beyond three cycles but the frame BFF and BFSF
frame went upto four and five cycles respectively. There-
fore, the behavior of BFSF is highly preferable since
the amount of load shedding is minimum even after five
cycles.
• The behavior of non-ductile reinforced concrete frame
(BFC1) against monotonic loading was studied using
J. Coupled Syst. Multiscale Dyn., Vol. 5(1), 38–50 http://www.aspbs.com/jcsmd
tonic loading was found in good agreement with the results
obtained from the experiments.
References and Notes
1. M. Lakshmipathy; Study on improving ductility behaviour of frames,
Proc. Nat. Seminar Futuristic Con. Const. Engg., Chennai, India
(2003), pp. 21–32.
2. IS 13920:1993 (Reaffirmed 2003); Ductile detailing of rein-
forced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India (2003), pp. 1–16, UDC
69.059.25(026):624.042.7.
3. D. N. Anitha and K. P. Jaya; Behaviour of reinforced concrete frames
with self compacting concrete under lateral cyclic loading, Proc Int.
Con. Recent Advances Con. Const. Tech. Chennai, India (2005),
pp. 275–285.
4. A. Said and M. Nehdi; Behavior of reinforced self-consolidating
concrete frames, Proc. ICE–Structures and Buildings (2007),
Vol. 160, pp. 95–104.
5. N. K. Shatarat, M. D. Symans, D. I. Mclean, and W. F. Cofer;
Research Article
Evaluation of displacement-based methods and computer software
for seismic analysis of highway bridges; Engg. Stru. 30, 1335
(2007).
6. I. Mehmet and B. O. Hayri; Effect of plastic hinge properties in non-
linear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings; Engg. Stru. 28, 1494
(2006).
7. N. K. Shatarat; Effect of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear anal-
ysis of highway bridges; Jordan J. Civil Engg. 6, 501 (2012).
8. F. Aslani and M. Natoori; Stress–strain relationships for steel fiber
reinforced self-compacting concrete; Struc. Engg. Mech. 46, 295
(2013).
9. M. M. Kamal, M. A. Safan, and M. A. Al-Gazzar; Steel–concrete
bond potentials in self-compacting concrete mixes incorporating
dolomite powder; Adv. Concrete Const. 1, 273 (2013).
10. M. S. Ashtiani, R. P. Dhakal, and A. N. Scott; Seismic performance
of high strength self-compacting concrete in reinforced concrete
beam column joints; J. Struct. Engg. 140, 1 (2014).
11. N. Ganesan, P. V. Indira, and M. V. Sabeena; Behaviour of hybrid
fibre reinforced concrete beam–column joints under reverse cyclic
loads; Mat. Design 54, 686 (2014).
12. ACI-ASCE Committee 352; Recommendations for design of beam
column connections in monolithic reinforced concrete structures
(ACI 352R-02), Farmington Hills, Mich., USA (2002), pp. 1–37.
13. K. Boudjellal, M. Bouabaz, and M. Belachia; Mechanical characteri-
zation of a self-compacting polymer concrete called isobeton; Struct.
Engg. Mech. 57, 2016 (2016).
14. A. Nima; Behavior of self-consolidating steel fiber reinforced con-
crete beams under reversed cyclic loading, Thesis, University of
Ottawa (2013).
15. A. A. A. Hassan, K. M. A. Hossain, and M. Lachemi; Behavior of
full-scale self-consolidating concrete beams in shear; Cement Con-
crete Comp. 30, 588 (2008).
16. M. Sonebi, A. K. Tamim, and P. J. M. Bartos; Performance and
cracking behavior of reinforced beams cast with self-consolidating
concrete; ACI Materials J. 100, 492 (2003).
17. P. Desnerck, G. Schutter, and L. Taerwe; Bond behaviour of reinforc-
ing bars in self-compacting concrete: Experimental determination by
using beam tests; Mat. Struct. 43, 53 (2010).
18. M. Valcuende and C. Parra; Bond behaviour of reinforcement
in self-compacting concretes; Const. Building Mat. 23, 162
(2009).
19. K. Senthil; Influence of interface thickness and pattern on the
behavior of in-filled frames, Master of Technology Dissertation
49
 Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics
Report, SRM University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India (2010),
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30217.24160.
20. K. Senthil; Study on the full range behavior of ductile and non-
ductile frames, Bachelor of Engineering Project report, SRM Engi-
neering College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India (2006), DOI: 10.13140/
RG.2.2.23506.35525.
21. K. Senthil, K. S. Satyanarayanan, and S. Rupali; Energy absorption
of fibrous self compacting reinforced concrete system; Adv. Concrete
Const. 4, 37 (2016).
22. K. Senthil, K. S. Satyanarayanan, and S. Rupali; Behavior of fibrous
reinforced concrete systems subjected to monotonic and cyclic
loading, The 10th Structural Engineering Convention, CSIR-SERC,
Chennai, India, December (2016), pp. 1566–1571.
23. K. Senthil, K. S. Satyanarayanan, and S. Rupali; Behavior of RC
frames under monotonic and cyclic loading, The 6th International
Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engi-
neering and Soil Dynamics, Missouri University of Science and
Technology, IIT Roorkee, India, August (2016).
24. IS 12269:1987 (reaffirmed 2004); Specifications for 53 grade ordi-
nary portland cement, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India
(2004), pp. 1–11, UDC 666.942.32.
Research Article
50 http://www.aspbs.com/jcsmd
25. IS 383:1970 (reaffirmed 2002); Specification for coarse and fine
aggregates from natural sources for concrete, Bureau of Indian Stan-
dards, New Delhi, India (2002), pp. 1–19, UDC 691.322.
26. IS 10262-1982 (reaffirmed 2004); Recommended guidelines for con-
crete mix design, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
UDC 666.972.1.031.1, (2004), pp. 1-21.
27. Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp.; Abaqus 6.14—Analysis User’s
Manual, Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp., Rhode Island, USA
(2014).
28. M. A. Iqbal, S. Rai, M. R. Sadique, and P. Bhargava; Numerical sim-
ulation of aircraft crash on nuclear containment structure; Nuclear
Engg. Design 243, 321 (2012).
29. G. R. Johnson and W. H. Cook; Fracture characteristics of three
metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures, and
pressures. Engg. Fracture Mech. 21, 31 (1985).
30. J. W. Hancock and A. C. Mackenzie; On the mechanisms of ductile
failure in high-strength steels subjected to multi-axial stress-states.
J. Mech. Phys. Solids 24, 147 (1976).
31. M. A. Iqbal, K. Senthil, P. Bhargava, and N. K. Gupta; The charac-
terization and ballistic evaluation of mild steel; Int. J. Impact Engg.
78, 98 (2015).
J. Coupled Syst. Multiscale Dyn., Vol. 5(1), 38–50