Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 569–581

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Evaluation and comparison of ultimate deformation limits for RC columns MARK

b,⁎
Muhammed Alperen Özdemir , İlker Kazaz a
, Suat Gökhan Özkaya c

a
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Iğdır University, 76000 Iğdır, Turkey
b
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Erzurum Technical University, 25050 Erzurum, Turkey
c
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Ardahan University, 75000 Ardahan, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The ultimate deformation capacity assigned to structural elements of reinforced concrete structures is an es-
RC column sential parameter in the determination of their structural performance especially under seismic attack. Various
Performance limit ultimate deformation capacity limits were proposed for RC columns in the previous studies and were accom-
Strain limit modated in the current building codes. However, the reliability of the existing deformation limits is still a matter
Rotation limit
of considerable debate. This study mainly focuses on the evaluation of the accuracy of the existing damage limits
Ultimate deformation
and aims to develop a new definition with a higher reliability in comparison to the existing limits. In this
Performance assessment
purpose, the study was composed of four major steps. Firstly, the existing building codes, standards, regulations
and previous studies were reviewed and evaluated in terms of ultimate deformation criteria for RC columns.
Secondly, actually tested sixty-nine RC columns were selected from PEER Structural Performance Database and
were numerically modelled by using finite element method. The selected RC columns have different dimensions,
aspect ratios, concrete and steel strength, longitudinal and transverse reinforcement amounts and axial load
ratio. Third stage includes the comparison of the results obtained from the experimentally verified numerical
models with the existing ultimate deformation limits to reveal the shortcomings of existing criteria. The nu-
merical modelling facilitated the consistent comparison of strains and curvatures that are rarely available and
difficult to measure in tests. A new concrete compressive strain prediction equation was proposed to determine
the ultimate deformation capacity of rectangular RC columns. It was concluded that there is need for further
comprehensive analytical and experimental studies on deformation limits of reinforced concrete columns.

1. Introduction
Predicting the deformation capacity of reinforced concrete beams,
columns and walls is vital for a thorough seismic evaluation of existing
or new buildings in performance based earthquake engineering. The
ability to remain without significant loss of load-carrying capacity of
reinforced concrete (RC) structural members under seismic loads is a
necessary criteria for life safety. Understanding the behavior of col-
umns, which are the primary components of structure, is important for
the evaluation of entire structural system. Although behavior of RC
columns is well understood and researched, the problem of determi-
nation of the ultimate deformation capacity of RC columns under
seismic loads is not fully resolved.
There are code and performance based expressions that are re-
commended for estimating the ultimate deformation capacity of RC
columns. Codes and previous studies specifies deformation limits for RC
columns in terms of rotation angle (θ) [1–4], strain (ε) [5–7] and drift
ratio at shear failure (δ) [8]. The local strains are convenient
deformation measures when fiber models are used to estimate inelastic
seismic deformation demands in concrete members in nonlinear ana-
lysis. However, a limited number of column test results were used for
verifying these expressions and limit states specified at the codes,
especially which are based on strain criteria. Acun and Sucuoğlu [9]
conducted twelve full-scale column tests to evaluate performance limits
and they found that proposed deformation limits in Eurocode-8 [1] and
ASCE/SEI 41 [2] are very conservative. Bae and Bayrak [10] found
similar results for drift capacity of RC columns. Due to the effort, time
spent and limitations of the test set-ups, limited tests were conducted on
large-scale RC columns with different design parameters, such as con-
finement, concrete strength, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, axial
load ratio and cross sectional dimensions. In addition, test results of
columns with similar properties tested by different researchers indicate
different drift capacities. Therefore, proposed expressions and accep-
tance criteria in seismic action for RC columns need a deeper in-
vestigation using more extensive and consistent column databases to
improve limit state definitions and their corresponding values.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: m.alperen.ozdemir@igdir.edu.tr (M.A. Özdemir), ilkerkazaz@erzurum.edu.tr (İ. Kazaz), suatgokhanozkaya@ardahan.edu.tr (S.G. Özkaya).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.10.050
Received 15 June 2017; Received in revised form 17 September 2017; Accepted 18 October 2017
0141-0296/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.A. Özdemir et al.
Analytical studies can be conducted to minimize the dispersion and
discrepancy among the tests related to experimental uncertainties by
doing large number of analyses from a single hand using reliable
models.
Evaluation of these code limits and proposed equations by analyzing
large number of column database using a well-calibrated finite element
model is easier and more feasible than conducting experiments in to-
day’s technology. In recent decades, the problem of accuracy in the
analysis is further reduced by the developments in the field of model-
ling. Previously, Kazaz et al. [11–13] evaluated deformation limits for
reinforced concrete shear walls by using nonlinear finite element pro-
cedures (FEM). They proposed reliable and improved prediction equa-
tions for the deformation capacity of shear walls. Using a similar ana-
lytical framework, this study utilizes a verified modelling tool to
investigate the deformation measures defined in terms of plastic rota-
tion, curvature and local concrete and steel strains at the cover and core
fiber of RC columns of which test results were collected from the ex-
isting literature.
In this study, sixty-nine experimental column studies that were se-
lected from PEER Structural Performance Database [16] were analyzed
with finite element method. To conduct a comprehensive study of
column behavior, finite element models of tested columns were gen-
erated to estimate the local moment-curvature (strains, rotations as
well) and global lateral load-displacement behavior. In addition,
crushing and spalling of concrete cover, bond failure, buckling of
compression bars, strain profile, strain of outer fiber of confined con-
crete were evaluated at ultimate limit state. The adequacy of de-
formation limits specified by codes and researchers were investigated
and the reliability of previously proposed equations was evaluated.
2. Current regulations and previous studies
2.1. Turkish Seismic Code (TSC 2007 and TSC-Draft 2016) limit states
The Turkish Seismic Code (TSC 2007, [5]) specifies limits for
structures to be built in disaster areas that are applicable both to newly
constructed buildings and to existing buildings. The Turkish Seismic
Code, when compared with equivalent codes, recognizes the use of the
concrete and steel strain values as damage limit instead of rotation
angle or drift ratio.
Concrete and steel strain limits at the fibers of cross section are
given in Eqs. (1)–(3).
For Minimum Damage Limit(MD); (εcu)MD = 0.0035; (εs )MD = 0.010
For Safety Limit(SL); (εcg )SL = 0.0035 + 0.01(ρs / ρsm ) ⩽ 0.0135; (εs )SL
= 0.040
For Collapse Limit(CL); (εcg )CL = 0.004 + 0.014(ρs / ρsm ) ⩽ 0.018;
(εs )CL = 0.060
In Eqs. (1)–(3), εcu is concrete strain at the outer fiber of the cross
section, εcg is concrete strain at the outer fiber of the confined core, εs is
longitudinal reinforcement strain, ρs is volumetric ratio of transverse
reinforcement that exists in the cross section and arranged as “special
seismic hoops and cross-ties”, ρsm is volumetric ratio of the transverse
reinforcement necessary to exist in the section as required by the code.
The plastic hinge length to relate the local strains to section plastic
rotation is recommended as 0.5h in TSC.
TSC-Draft [6] utilizes the same expressions given in Eqs. (1)–(3) in
the calculation of strain limits. However, for taking into account the
aggravating effect of high shear force on ductility of RC members, strain
limit is multiplied by an emprical reduction factor (ϕ), which depends
on the member shear stress ratio v = Ve /(bw dfctm) . The theoretical shear
cracking strength of concrete taken as approximately 0.65fctm according
Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 569–581
Ve
v
bw df ctm
Fig. 1. Reduction factor (ϕ)-shear stress ratio (ν) relation.
to idealized shear cracking model where the shear crack in a member is
assumed to be inclined at 45°. Here Ve is shear force demand on column,
bw is width of cross section, d is effective section height and fctm is
tensile strength of concrete. The reduction factor is plotted in Fig. 1.
2.2. ASCE/SEI 41-13 plastic rotation limits
ASCE/SEI 41 [2] is commonly used throughout the US and inter-
nationally for the seismic assessment and retrofit of existing concrete
buildings. Recently, the concrete provisions of ASCE/SEI 41 were up-
dated to better reflect the observed performance of concrete compo-
nents from quasi-static cyclic tests [14]. These updates were in-
corporated in the latest release of the seismic rehabilitation standard,
ASCE/SEI 41.
The discrete plastic rotation limits defined in terms of axial load
ratio (P/Agfc), volumetric ratio of the confinement (transverse) re-
inforcement (ρs) and normalized shear stress in ASCE/SEI 41 [2] are
expressed with continuous functions using the same variables as given
in Table 1 for easy calculation of the defined limits. The failure modes
depend on transverse reinforcement condition and shear capacity ratio.
To determine probable failure mode of column Table 2 is recommended
in ASCE/SEI 41. In Table 2, Vo is the shear strength of column member
without modification factor for flexural ductility according to Eq. (10-3)
in ASCE/SEI 41 and Vp is the shear force at the development of the
flexural capacity of a concrete element.
2.3. Eurocode 8 Part-3 (CEN, 2005) limits
According to CEN [1] the limit states are based on total chord ro-
tation capacity of beams, columns and walls. The chord rotation is the
(1) angle between the tangent to the axis at the yielding end and the chord
connecting that end with the end of shear span at the point of contra
flexure. The chord rotation is also equal to the element drift ratio,
(2) which is the deflection at the end of the shear span divided by the
length.
The value of the total chord rotation capacity (elastic plus inelastic
(3) part) at ultimate (Near Collapse, NC), θu, of concrete members under
cyclic loading is calculated from the following expression:
0.225 f yw
1 max(0.01;ω′) ⎤ ⎛min ⎛9; L v ⎞ ⎞
0.35
(αρsx )
θu = 0.016(0.3v ) ⎡ fc 25 fc
γel ⎢
⎣ max(0.01;ω) ⎥ ⎦ ⎝ ⎝ h ⎠⎠
(1.25100ρd ) (4)
where γel is equal to 1.5 for primary seismic elements and to 1.0 for
secondary seismic elements, h is the depth of cross-section, Lv = M/V is
the ratio of moment/shear at the end section, ν = N / bhfc (b width of
compression zone, N axial force positive for compression), ω' and ω are
reinforcement ratio of the longitudinal compression (including the web
reinforcement) and tension reinforcement, fc, fyw are the concrete
compressive strength (MPa) and the stirrup yield strength (MPa),
ρsx = Asx / bw sh is ratio of transverse steel parallel to the direction x of
loading (sh = stirrup spacing), ρd is the steel ratio of diagonal
570
M.A. Özdemir et al. Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 569–581

Table 1
Ultimate plastic rotation angle equations and failure modes.

Failure Modes Ultimate Plastic Rotation Angle (rad)

Condition i (Flexure Failure) P ⎞

0.0292−0.047 ⎛ + 1.625(ρs )
⎝ Ag fc′ ⎠
Condition ii (Flexure-Shear Failure where yielding is expected before shear failure) P ⎞ V
0.016 + 2.8636ρ−(4.5455ρs + 0.00117) ⎛ + (0.3636ρ−0.00202) ⎛⎜ ⎞⎟
⎝ Ag fc′ ⎠ ⎝ bw d fc′
⎠
Condition iii (Shear Failure) P ⎞
0.00678−0.013 ⎛ + 1.5454ρs
⎝ Ag fc′ ⎠

Table 2 α is confinement effectiveness factor, ρd is ratio of diagonal reinforce-

Transverse Reinforcement Details: Condition to be used for columns in Table 1 (adapted ment.
from ASCE/SEI 41 [2]).
In their study Grammatikou et al. [7] claim that the code limits are
Shear Capacity Ratio Transverse Reinforcement Details not safe and very general. They investigated the analytical relation
between moment and curvature to estimate strains in the bars and the
ACI 318 Closed Other (Including Lap- extreme concrete fibers of section. They derived strain limit formula for
Conforming Hoops with Spliced Transverse extreme fiber of concrete and steel bars as written in Eq. (7). They
Seismic Details 90-Degree Reinforcement)
concluded that strains depend on geometric features of the section. In
with 135-Degree Hooks
Hooks addition, they found that rebar size has an effect on ultimate strain of
concrete and confined concrete; number of bars in tension and com-
Vp/ Vo ⩽ 0.6 ia ii ii pression zone has effect on ultimate steel strain. They proposed the
1.0 ⩾ Vp/ Vo > 0.6 ii ii iii following expression for the ultimate strain of confined concrete
Vp/ Vo > 1.0 iii iii iii
f yw
a
To qualify for condition i, a column should have Av / b w s ⩾ 0.002 and s / d ⩽ 0.5 within εcu = 0.0035 + 0.04 αρs
fc′ (7)
flexural plastic hinge region. Otherwise, the column is assigned to condition ii.

Elwood and Moehle [15] re-evaluated 50 laboratory column tests

reinforcement (if any), in each diagonal direction, α is the confinement
effectiveness factor.
In addition, CEN [1] states a deformation limit for concrete ultimate
strain of the extreme fiber of the cross section. The expression for ul-
timate strain of the compression zone reads as
αρs f yw
εcm = 0.004 + 0.5
fcc
where fcc is the confined concrete strength.
Examples of other deformation limits for existing RC columns are
Panagiotakos and Fardis [3], Elwood and Moehle [8], Haselton et al.
[4] and Grammatikou et al. [7]. Panagiotakos and Fardis [3] stated an
equation, which is based on acceptance criteria in CEN [1], to calculate
deformation limit as chord rotation of RC columns. Elwood and Moehle
[8] provided a formula to estimate column drift ratio at shear and axial
load failure. Haselton et al. [4] worked on a database of 255 quasi-static
cyclic column tests and they recommended an expression to calculate
plastic rotation capacity of RC columns. Recently Grammatikou et al.
[7] used 168 experimental data to propose an equation to determine
deformation limits based on outer fiber strain of column. These studies
are summarized shortly next for complete evaluation of existing limits.
Panagiotakos and Fardis [3] studied on a comprehensive set of ex-
perimental tests results to reveal deformation behavior of RC members.
They reported that conventional section models predict curvature at
yield satisfactorily, yet ultimate curvature results display significant
scatter. For this reason, alternative expression for ultimate chord rota-
tion capacity (θu) given in Eq. (6) was proposed,
0.275
a max(0.01;ω2) ⎤
θum = ast acyc ⎛1 + sl ⎞ a wall (0.2v) ⎡ fc′
⎝ 2.3 ⎠ ⎢
⎣ max(0.01;ω1) ⎥ ⎦
(1.1100αωwx )(1.3 ρd )
where ast is coefficient for the steel of longitudinal bars, acyc is coeffi-
cient for the type of loading, asl is coefficient for the bond-slip, awall is
coefficient for wall, ν = N/Acf‘c is axial load ratio, ω1, ω2 are re-
inforcement ratios, fc is uniaxial concrete strength (MPa), Ls/h = M/Vh
is shear span ratio at the member end, ωwx = (Asx/bwsh)fyw/f′c is me-
chanical ratio of transverse steel parallel to the direction (x) of loading,
with low transverse reinforcement ratio (ρs < 0.007). As a result of
their study, a drift capacity model based on experimental results was
proposed. The following relationship estimates drift ratio at shear
failure:
3 1 v 1 P 1
δs = + 4ρs − − ⩾
100 40 fc′ 40 Ag fc′ 100 (8)
(5)
where ρs is transverse steel ratio, v is nominal shear stress, fc′ is concrete
compressive strength, P is the axial load on the column, and Ag is the
gross cross-sectional area, δs drift at shear failure.
Haselton et al. [4] used 255 column test results to create empirical
equation that predicts deformation capacity. In their study, statistically
significant design parameters were determined and correlation between
plastic rotation and design parameters were identified. They proposed
the following equation.
θcap,pl = 0.12(1 + 0.55asl )(0.16)v (0.02 + 40ρsh )0.43 (0.54)0.01cunits fc′ (0.66)0.1sn (2.27)10.0ρ
(9)
where asl is a bond-slip indicator (asl = 1 where bond-slip is possible), ν
is the axial load ratio, ρsh is the area ratio of transverse reinforcement in
the plastic hinge region spacing, sn is a rebar buckling coefficient
((s / db)(cunits f y /100)0.5 ), s is stirrup spacing, db is the longitudinal rebar
diameter, fy is the yield strength of the longitudinal rebar, and cunits is a
units conversion variable that equals 1.0 when f′c and fy are in MPa
units and 6.9 for ksi units.
3. Methodology and parametric study
L 0.45
⎛ s⎞
⎝h⎠ 3.1. Experimental database
(6)
The column dataset used in this study were taken from PEER
Structural Performance Database User’s Manual [16] and related pub-
lications. Table 3 identifies the names as referred in original studies and
dimensions of 69 column specimens used in this study to evaluate de-
formation capacities of rectangular RC columns. Material and geo-
metric features of each experimentally evaluated rectangular RC
column tests and their measured values such as Δy, Vmax, Δu, and failure

571
M.A. Özdemir et al. Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 569–581

Table 3
Dimensions and summary of test results for specimens selected from PEER Structural Performance Database [16]

No Test Series h (mm) b (mm) L (mm) P/Po fyt (Mpa) fc (Mpa) Δy (mm) Δu (mm) Vmax (kN) Failure type

1 Tanaka and Park [39], No. 5 550 550 1650 0.1 325 32 13.55 74.30 386 F
2 Tanaka and Park [39], No. 6 550 550 1650 0.1 325 32 11.96 111.77 409 F
3 Tanaka and Park [39], No. 7 550 550 1650 0.057 325 32.1 9.68 82.81 588 F
4 Park and Paulay [40], No. 9 600 400 1784 0.1 305 26.9 10.71 105.11 393 F
5 Ohno and Nishioka [31], L1 400 400 1600 0.032 325 24.8 9.49 81.39 119 F
6 Ohno and Nishioka [31], L2 400 400 1600 0.032 325 24.8 9.05 85.92 111 F
7 Imai and Yamamoto [38], No. 1 500 400 825 0.07 336 27.1 4.20 18.61 471 SF
8 Saatcioglu and Ozcebe [29], U1 350 350 1000 0 470 43.6 14.00 69.20 295 F
9 Saatcioglu and Ozcebe [29], U3 350 350 1000 0.14 470 34.8 20.78 51.10 267 F
10 Saatcioglu and Ozcebe [29], U4 350 350 1000 0.15 470 32 13.08 89.40 326 F
11 Saatcioglu and Ozcebe [29], U6 350 350 1000 0.13 425 37.3 13.56 87.34 343 F
12 Saatcioglu and Ozcebe [29], U7 350 350 1000 0.13 425 39 13.61 87.60 342 F
13 Wehbe et al. [42], A1 610 380 2335 0.1 428 27.2 23.60 122.09 368 F
14 Wehbe et al. [42], A2 610 380 2335 0.24 428 27.2 22.00 101.42 400 F
15 Wehbe et al. [42], B1 610 380 2335 0.09 428 28.1 27.30 160.52 380 F
16 Wehbe et al. [42], B2 610 380 2335 0.23 428 28.1 26.86 129.50 424 F
17 Lynn et al. [43], 3CLH18 457.2 457.2 1473 0.09 400 27 9.47 23.10 277 SF
18 Lynn et al. [43], 2CLH18 457.2 457.2 1473 0.07 400 33.1 8.40 46.20 241 SF
19 Lynn et al. [43], 2CMH18 457.2 457.2 1473 0.28 400 25.5 4.48 15.50 306 SF
20 Lynn et al. [43], 3CMH18 457.2 457.2 1473 0.26 400 27.6 7.90 15.40 328 SF
21 Lynn et al. [43], 3CMD12 457.2 457.2 1473 0.26 400 27.6 6.39 25.70 355 SF
22 Lynn et al. [43], 3SLH18 457.2 457.2 1473 0.089 400 26.9 7.90 22.80 270 SF
23 Lynn et al. [43], 2SLH18 457.2 457.2 1473 0.073 400 33.1 7.18 31.30 229 SF
24 Lynn et al. [43], 3SMD12 457.2 457.2 1473 0.284 400 25.5 7.84 24.70 367 SF
25 Xiao and Martirossyan [44], HC4-8L19-T10-0.1P 254 254 508 0.1 510 76 6.20 47.80 324 F
26 Xiao and Martirossyan [44], HC4-8L19-T10-0.2P 254 254 508 0.2 510 76 5.30 39.80 378 F
27 Xiao and Martirossyan [44], HC4-8L16-T10-0.1P 254 254 508 0.096 510 86 5.20 36.50 275 F
28 Xiao and Martirossyan [44], HC4-8L16-T10-0.2P 254 254 508 0.192 510 86 6.20 35.00 319 F
29 Nosho et al. [41], No. 1 279.4 279.4 2134 0.339 351 40.6 11.30 34.70 55 F
30 Bayrak and Sheikh [34], ES-1HT 305 305 1842 0.5 463 72.1 9.50 42.30 136 F
31 Bayrak and Sheikh [34], AS-2HT 305 305 1842 0.36 542 71.7 11.30 45.30 149 F
32 Bayrak and Sheikh [34], AS-3HT 305 305 1842 0.5 542 71.8 9.30 33.90 144 F
33 Bayrak and Sheikh [34], AS-4HT 305 305 1842 0.5 463 71.9 14.00 42.00 139 F
34 Bayrak and Sheikh [34], AS-5HT 305 305 1842 0.45 463 101.8 5.67 29.70 182 F
35 Bayrak and Sheikh [34], AS-6HT 305 305 1842 0.46 463 101.9 14.20 28.30 170 F
36 Bayrak and Sheikh [34], AS-7HT 305 305 1842 0.45 542 102 14.60 23.10 159 F
37 Bayrak and Sheikh [34], ES-8HT 305 305 1842 0.47 463 102.2 9.60 29.40 178 F
38 Saatcioglu and Grira [35], BG-1 350 350 1645 0.428 570 34 9.99 33.00 195 F
39 Saatcioglu and Grira [35], BG-2 350 350 1645 0.428 570 34 9.64 50.01 186 F
40 Saatcioglu and Grira [35], BG-3 350 350 1645 0.2 570 34 15.40 116.02 164 F
41 Saatcioglu and Grira [35], BG-4 350 350 1645 0.462 570 34 11.01 50.00 204 F
42 Saatcioglu and Grira [35], BG-5 350 350 1645 0.462 570 34 13.76 99.52 204 F
43 Saatcioglu and Grira [35], BG-6 350 350 1645 0.456 570 34 11.31 81.51 222 F
44 Saatcioglu and Grira [35], BG-7 350 350 1645 0.462 580 34 11.97 99.52 209 F
45 Saatcioglu and Grira [35], BG-8 350 350 1645 0.231 580 34 20.66 118.00 198 F
46 Mo and Wang [45],C1-1 400 400 1400 0.113 460 24.9 14.95 82.28 250 F
47 Mo and Wang [45],C1-2 400 400 1400 0.158 460 26.7 14.79 96.57 268 F
48 Mo and Wang [45],C1-3 400 400 1400 0.216 460 26.1 14.87 88.10 305 F
49 Mo and Wang [45],C2-1 400 400 1400 0.111 460 25.3 16.71 98.02 248 F
50 Mo and Wang [45],C2-2 400 400 1400 0.156 460 27.1 15.62 101.84 261 F
51 Mo and Wang [45],C2-3 400 400 1400 0.21 460 26.8 13.45 77.00 310 F
52 Mo and Wang [45],C3-1 400 400 1400 0.107 460 26.38 17.91 101.59 235 F
53 Mo and Wang [45],C3-2 400 400 1400 0.154 460 27.48 17.89 104.21 260 F
54 Mo and Wang [45],C3-3 400 400 1400 0.209 460 26.9 15.43 120.00 300 F
55 Sezen and Moehle [48], No. 1 457.2 457.2 1473 0.151 476 21.1 12.80 40.41 303 SF
56 Sezen and Moehle [48], No. 2 457.2 457.2 1473 0.605 476 21.1 7.44 27.53 300 SF
57 Sezen and Moehle [48], No. 4 457.2 457.2 1473 0.152 476 21 14.00 38.57 295 SF
58 Bechtoula, Kono, Arai and Watanabe [46], L1D60 600 600 1200 0.567 524 39.2 4.50 35.12 1239 F
59 Bechtoula, Kono, Arai and Watanabe [46], L1N60 600 600 1200 0.567 524 39.2 3.50 31.27 1339 F
60 Bechtoula, Kono, Arai and Watanabe [46], L1N6B 560 560 1200 0.594 524 32.2 2.88 36.25 1200 F
61 Takemura and Kawashima, [47], Test 3 (JSCE-6) 400 400 1245 0.029 368 34.3 5.80 74.18 153 F
62 Takemura and Kawashima, [47], Test 6 (JSCE-9) 400 400 1245 0.027 368 35.9 6.40 105.73 171 F
63 Xiao & Yun [36], No. FHC1-0.2 510 510 1778 0.2 445 64.1 14.80 106.78 724 F
64 Xiao & Yun [36], No. FHC2-0.34 510 510 1778 0.333 445 62.1 11.10 72.32 804 F
65 Xiao & Yun [36], No. FHC3-0.22 510 510 1778 0.225 524 62.1 13.80 106.68 724 F
66 Xiao & Yun [36], No. FHC4-0.33 510 510 1778 0.324 525 62.1 11.40 71.18 797 F
67 Xiao & Yun [36], No. FHC5-0.2 510 510 1778 0.2 445 64.1 14.10 53.32 712 F
68 Xiao & Yun [36], No. FHC6-0.2 510 510 1778 0.2 524 64.1 16.00 72.00 704 F
69 Bayrak & Sheikh [34], No. RS-11HT 350 250 1842 0.51 542 70.8 9.25 86.50 190 F

h: Column Depth, b: Column Width, P/Po = Axial Load Ratio, fyt = Yield stress of transverse reinforcement, fc = Characteristic compressive strength of concrete, Δy = The nominal
displacement at yield, Δu = The maximum recorded column deflections prior to observing a particular level of damage, Vmax = The maximum recorded lateral force. F: Flexural failure,
SF: Shear-Flexure failure.

572
M.A. Özdemir et al.
type information were given in Table 3. Chord rotation (θu = Δu/L) and
chord rotation at yield (θy = Δy/L) values were calculated by using
these measurements.
Most of the selected test specimens experienced flexure-critical
failure whereas only 12 of 69 specimen failed in flexure-shear critical
mode [16]. No column in the dataset failed under shear-critical mode.
The selected columns satisfy the following criteria: column aspect ratio
as 1.65 < L/h < 7.63; concrete compression strength as
21 < fc < 102 MPa; longitudinal and transverse reinforcement nom-
inal yield stress, fy and fyw, in the range of 300–580 MPa; longitudinal
reinforcement ratio, 0.01 < ρ < 0.036; transverse reinforcement
ratio, 0.00082 < ρs < 0.032 and axial load ratio, 0 < P/Po < 0.6.
So, this database covering wide range of column properties may be
assumed to represent the flexure-controlled columns’ behavior ade-
quately.
3.2. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and validation
Finite element modelling strategy adopted in this study does not
require any special handling of shear or flexure type behaviors to have
good estimations of experimental behavior. The purpose of the finite
element models used in this study is not to revive the complete response
or all physical phenomenon (cover spalling, crushing, buckling) of an
actual test, but is rather to mimic or imitate the observed behavior with
an acceptable margin of error.
Response of tested columns was calculated using nonlinear finite
element analysis program ANSYS [17]. The general modelling strategy
and calculation of deformation measures are illustrated in Fig. 2. This
study follows the general rules of validated modelling strategy for
which the detailed description of material models for concrete and steel
can be found in Kazaz et al. [11–13,18]. These studies include extensive
verification examples of reinforced concrete specimens tested under
dynamic and cycling loading conditions. The effect of cycling loading
was accounted by using material models that incorporates such de-
gradation effects. The uniaxial confined concrete stress-strain curve is
calculated according to Saatcioglu and Razvi [19] model using the
geometric and material properties of the columns. Willam-Warnke [20]
concrete failure surface model was combined together with multilinear
kinematic work hardening plasticity (MKIN) that is based on the
Fig. 2. Finite element model of RC column specimen tested by Ohno and Nishioka [31] displaying the necessary components of deformation calculations.
573
Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 569–581
uniaxial concrete stress-strain curve to model the concrete multiaxial
stress behavior. The TSC [5] steel constitutive model was used to model
the response of the longitudinal reinforcement. The bar buckling model
proposed by Dhakal and Maekawa [21] was used to model the buckling
behavior of longitudinal steel under compression. It was realized that
bond-slip might be a significant deformation component on force-de-
formation relation of columns so that Eligehousen et al. [22] bond-slip
model was added to FE models.
In nonlinear analysis of RC, a shear transfer coefficient must be
assumed. For closed cracks (βc), the coefficient is assumed to be 0.8,
whereas for open cracks (βt) it should be in the suggested range of
0.05–0.5, rather than 0.0, to prevent numerical difficulties. In this
study, a value of 0.05 was used, which resulted in acceptably accurate
predictions [18].
SOLID65 utilized in the finite-element analysis is a basic brick ele-
ment with eight nodes and three translational degrees of freedom at
each node. When the softening property after peak response is used in
constitutive models, the finite-element solutions are known to have
spurious sensitivity to the mesh size and to have difficulty in conver-
ging. Element has extra shapes functions capability, yet this function
leads to strain localization problems in the softening region. Without
extra shape functions, to overcome localization and shear locking
problems, section must be discretized with sufficient number of ele-
ments in bending direction. The optimum mesh density in each finite
element model was determined by performing sensitivity analysis using
different mesh sizes. Then, lateral displacement-shear force response
from finite element analyses were compared with experimental results.
As a rule of thumb, it was determined that for column and beam ele-
ments dividing core section to 5–6 elements along the depth and aiming
for an element aspect ratio close to 1 yields reasonable estimation of the
experimentally measured response. One element thickness is used for
cover concrete.
All type of reinforcement in the model was modelled with LINK180.
LINK180 is a 3-D uniaxial tension-compression element with three de-
grees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z
directions.
Lateral and axial loads were applied as in the experimental set-ups.
Lateral displacement was applied to upper middle nodes of the columns
and axial loads were applied as distributed at the tip surface of the
M.A. Özdemir et al.
column. Large deflection effects were considered wherever required.
Each analysis of test specimens was performed under monotonic static
loads.
The rotation (θ) at the base of the columns were calculated using the
axial elongation Δt at the tension side and shortening Δc at the com-
pression side of the column section. These displacements (Δt and Δc)
were taken over the plastic hinge length assumed to be Lp = h/2 from
base and then divided by the column clear section depth (ho = h-2.cc,
where cc is the clear cover) to obtain the base rotation angle (θ) of
column. Curvature of section (ϕ), ultimate average strains at core
(εcu,ave) and cover (εcu,ave_cover) fibers of concrete and tension steel
(εsu,ave) over Lp length are calculated as displayed in Fig. 2.
The “plastic hinge length, Lp” is actually a reference length to obtain
the base rotation of the column, not really the “plastic zone length, Lpz”,
which might be different in all models, as it results from the spread of
plastic steel strains in the model. Eight different widely accepted and
used plastic hinge formulations [23–28] were evaluated in comparison
to the calculated plastic hinge length taken as 0.5Lpz assuming linear
distribution of the curvatures within the plastic zone. The results are
plotted in Fig. 3. It is seen that the simple 0.5h formula yields reason-
able estimation of the plastic zone length. In order to keep the proce-
dure as simple as possible although complicated analyses were carried
out here, a “representative average ultimate strain” was associated with
the ultimate damage state although it is not the “actual” value, yet
correlating with the “actual average strain” over h/2 length at the base
of column. By this way, it is aimed to obtain reasonable estimations of
the ultimate deformation capacity of the member using direct section
based moment-curvature analysis.
Fig. 4(a) displays the experimental load-deformation curve for a
typical tested column by Saatcioglu and Ozcebe [29] and FEA analysis
results. It is also shown in Fig. 4(a) that the bond-slip has a significant
effect on the element flexural rigidity, deformation and load capacity.
Additionally, potential failure conditions such as bar buckling, crushing
of cover concrete were evaluated at ultimate deformation point.
Fig. 4(b) displays the comparison of moment-curvature graphs from
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and Section Analysis (SA). SA does not
consider bar buckling, bond-slip, high strength concrete and size effects
in the calculation of column behavior. The result of this comparison is
Lp(Model)
db f sy
Lp Lv h Lp d d
fc
Lp(Model)
Lp
Lp L db f sy
Lp(FEA) Lp(FEA)
Fig. 3. Comparison of eight different widely accepted and used plastic hinge formulations with the calculated plastic hinge length that was taken as 0.5Lpz assuming linear distribution of
the curvatures within the plastic zone.
Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 569–581
that the conventional finite element and the section analysis may
overestimate deformation capacity of RC columns when bond-slip
failure is not accounted in the analysis.
In all the analyses, the ultimate deformation point was determined
on the basis of one of the criteria defined as the point, where strength
drops abruptly or degrades to 85% of the ultimate strength on the load-
deformation curve, or the steel strain at the tension side exceeds εs=0.1
or the reinforcing bars at the compression side buckles (accompanied
by significant crushing of concrete). Fig. 5(a) and (c) display that there
is a good agreement between calculated (FEA) and experimental (EXP)
ultimate tip displacements (Δu) and base shear force (Vmax) of the
columns.
The yield displacement was calculated according to the method
based on an equivalent yield curvature obtained from bilinearization of
the moment-curvature curve [30]. The curvatures are calculated ac-
cording to Fig. 2 over h/2 height at the base. The bilinear curve is
obtained by drawing the first line from origin to the point on the curve
where the reinforcement yields for the first time, and extending up to
the nominal yield moment (EIy = My/ϕy). The nominal yield moment
(MNy) is defined as the moment where the extreme fiber strain in
compression reaches 0.004 or the extreme strain in tension reaches
0.015, whichever occurs first. The nominal moment closely approx-
imates the global yield moment. The second line connects the first line
at the top to the ultimate point on the moment-curvature curve. The
nominal yield curvature becomes ϕNy = MNy/EIy. The displacement at
this nominal curvature is adopted as the yield displacement. As shown
in Fig. 5(b) and (d) respectively, there are some differences between
experimental and FEA responses for tip displacement at yield (Δy) and
plastic rotation (θp) that is calculated as the ratio of plastic tip dis-
placement to the column length, (Δu − Δy)/L. This observation can be
attributed to the fact that the procedure depends on the flexural re-
sponse (moment-curvature curve), so it may give slightly smaller yield
displacement than the global yield observed on the experimental load-
deformation curve ignoring the shear deformations. Fig. 5(b) also dis-
plays the global yield displacements (blue circles) observed directly on
the force-deformation curve. The latter correlates better with experi-
mental values. The other reasons are in general FEA yields slightly
stiffer response than the experimental ones which may be attributed to
L
Lp d L Lp h
d
Lp h
P As
Lp L h
Po Ag
h
Lp(FEA) Lp(FEA)
574
M.A. Özdemir et al. Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 569–581

Fig. 4. (a) Comparison of force-displacement curves of experimental, finite element and section analyses results, (b) moment-rotation relationships obtained from SA and FEA.

Fig. 5. Comparison of experimental and FEA results: (a) ultimate tip displacement; (b) tip displacement at yield (the blue empty circles displays the apparent yield displacement on the
load-deformation curve, the filled circles are calculated according to Priestley et al. [30]); (c) maximum base shear force; (d) plastic rotation.

stiffer base fixity, inadequacy of modelling of bond slip, base rotation,
etc. The comparisons given in Fig. 5 validate the finite element models’
ability to represent the experimental study. When the FEA results are
compared with the experimental data, the agreement seems to be ac-
ceptable for relying on FEA results.
Fig. 6 shows calculated strain, curvature and rotation profiles for a
typical column tested by Ohno and Nishioka [31]. Strain profiles of
columns were obtained at the ultimate deformation. The local strains
over column length were calculated from each element nodal dis-
placements, i.e. element strains are displayed in Fig. 6. Curvature and
rotation diagrams were generated from strain profiles. Also, maximum
local concrete strains (εcu,max) and curvature (ϕmax) at core were taken

h h

h/2 h/2

Fig. 6. Calculated (a) strain, (b) curvature, and (c) rotation profiles of a test specimen by Ohno and Nishioka [31]

575
M.A. Özdemir et al.
Fig. 7. Comparison of curvatures and average strains (εave) calculated over Lp region and from strain profile (εmax) in the core zone.
from strain profiles. As it is seen, the plastic region extends over a
length approximately equal to column section height h. Strain pene-
tration in the tension side can be also observed in Fig. 6(a). Although
only displayed for a single column in Fig. 6, severely damaged plastic
region covers a length slightly greater than column section height h in
majority of columns.
The measurement of strain, curvature and rotation in experiments is
a crucial issue for reliable comparison of experimental results among
different studies. The location for strain gage installation or the lvdt
gage length for displacement measurements affects the reported results
significantly. To shed more light on this issue the strains calculated
pointwise as element maximum and as average over a region equal to
h/2 on the column length calculated from FE analyses were compared
for each deformation measure in Fig. 7. Fig. 7(a) and (c) shows that
there are small differences between the maximum and average values of
curvature and steel strains. However, concrete core maximum (εcu,max)
and average strains (εcu,ave) have significant differences and compres-
sive strains calculated at the cover outer fiber (εcu,ave_cover) are sig-
nificantly larger than the strains from core outer fiber (εcu,ave) as dis-
played in Fig. 7(d).
3.3. Relating FEA and section analyses
The load-deformation responses of 69 columns were calculated by
using conventional section analysis (SA) in combination with plastic
hinge method to establish correlation between FEA and SA results, since
the use of nonlinear finite element method might not be well suited for
engineers in practice due to its complication. A modified version of
CUMBIA [32], which is a reinforced concrete section analysis MATLAB
code, was used for calculating moment-curvature response of columns.
However, as mentioned before SA does not consider bar buckling, bond-
slip, high strength concrete and size effects in the calculation of column
behavior.
Fig. 8 compares concrete and steel strains from section and finite
element analyses at the same ultimate curvature determined on the
576
Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 569–581
basis of finite element analyses results. SA strain values were compared
with average strains over Lp from FEA results. As seen in Fig. 8, there is
a good agreement between the FEA and SA strains. It can be concluded
that the strain calculated over h/2 gage length can be a used to evaluate
the structural damage, although it is not the actual strain as discussed in
Fig. 7(b).
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Evaluation of code and previously proposed limits
ASCE/SEI 41 specify the plastic rotation limits for RC members. As
shown in Fig. 9(a), comparison of calculated rotations and code plastic
rotation limits reveals that ultimate plastic rotation limits of ASCE/SEI
41 corresponding to significant loss of lateral-force capacity provides
mostly conservative estimations. Ludovico et al. [33] and Acun and
Sucuoğlu [9] reached same result in their study on nonconforming RC
columns. However, for the columns, which have axial load ratios
greater than 0.45 and made of high strength concrete (HSC, fc
∼70–102 MPa), ASCE/SEI 41 limits remains on the unsafe side, espe-
cially observed in Bayrak and Sheikh [23] tests as displayed in Fig. 9(a).
Haselton et al. [4] proposed Eq. (9) to determine deformation ca-
pacity of columns based on plastic rotation angle. Fig. 9(b) displays that
the equation provides improved and more adequate estimations of the
stated limits in ASCE/SEI 41 [2], although the variability of the model
error is still big (R2 = 0.56). On the other hand, proposed equation
yields inadequate estimations for columns made of HSC, have aspect
ratio greater than six, transverse reinforcement diameter greater than
15 mm and have axial load ratio greater than 0.45 in a similar manner
to ASCE/SEI 41. These nonconforming column tests were conducted by
Saatcioglu and Grira [35], Saatcioglu and Ozcebe [29], Xiao and Yun
[36] and Bayrak and Sheikh [37].
Fig. 9 also displays the comparison of model estimations against the
experimental ultimate plastic rotations (blue-empty circles). Similar
trends observed for the comparisons of the model estimations against
Fig. 8. Comparison of ultimate strains from FEA and SA at the same
ultimate curvature (a) concrete ultimate strains and (b) steel ultimate
strains.
M.A. Özdemir et al.
the FEA based strain limits and experimental limits supports the relia-
bility of the acceptance of FEA results as a basis for this study as also
validated in Figs.4 and 5.
CEN [1] and Panagiotakos and Fardis [3] suggest deformation ca-
pacity limits for beams, columns and walls based on the total chord
rotation. Panagiotakos and Fardis proposed an equation after ex-
amining 878 RC structural element tests. Moreover, CEN states de-
formation limits similar to Panagiotakos and Fardis. As seen
Fig. 10(a), 73% of RC column specimens are on the unsafe side con-
cerning the chord rotation angle when CEN limit states were con-
sidered. The equation proposed in Panagiotakos and Fardis yields in-
significant improvement compared to CEN and just 36% of the columns
are at safe region as shown in Fig. 10(b). The deflection at the tip of the
column divided by column height defines the drift ratio which can be
interpreted as total chord rotation also. Although the drift ratio ex-
pression given in Eq. (8) yields more conservative rotation estimations
for majority of columns when compared to other definitions, it remains
incapable of giving good correlation against actual values as displayed
in Fig. 10(c).
Another approach for predicting deformation capacity of RC col-
umns is using the concrete and steel strains as deformation criteria. As
mentioned before, TSC [5,6] and CEN [1] set strain limits for structural
RC members. Recently, Grammatikou et al. [7] proposed ultimate
strains and comparing estimations computed from these strains with
experimental ultimate curvatures, stated that the proposed expression
exhibit much less scatter than those obtained from arbitrary ultimate
strains specified in the mentioned codes. They also stated that these
code predictions are, in general, unsafe. Fig. 11(a) compares the cal-
culated core outer fiber strains with TSC-Draft [6] requirements. It is
concluded that 39% of specimens, which are subjected to high axial
load and have aspect ratio greater than 6, are at the unsafe zone when
code limits compared with calculated strain values. Moreover, concrete
strain capacity of columns are significantly underestimated. As seen
Fig. 11(b) CEN predicts the ultimate strain capacity of nearly half of the
Fig. 10. Comparison of total chord rotation limits from (a) CEN [1], Eq. (4), (b) Panagiotakos and Fardis [3], Eq. (6) and (c) Elwood and Moehle [8], drift ratio using Eq. (8) with FEA
results.
577
Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 569–581
Fig. 9. Comparison of calculated and proposed plastic rotation capa-
cities: (a) ASCE/SEI 41 limits; (b) Eq. (9) proposed by Haselton et al.
[4]. The blue-empty circles are the model estimations plotted against
the experimental plastic rotations at the horizontal axis.
column database on the unsafe side. Fig. 11(c) shows that when ex-
treme concrete fiber strain of compression zone given by Eq. (7) were
evaluated by using calculated strain values, majority of column speci-
mens (83%) are in the safe zone. However, the problem for estimating
deformation capacity of columns under high axial load level and with
high aspect ratio still persists (P/Agfc > 0.45 and L/h > 6).
4.2. Relationship of column design parameters with deformation criteria
Scatter plots in Fig. 12 display the relation between the deformation
measures at ultimate damage state and column design parameters such
as the transverse reinforcement ratio, column aspect ratio, axial load
ratio and concrete compressive strength. These column design para-
meters are used to calculate column deformation capacities in codes
and proposed equations. As seen in Fig. 12, when transverse re-
inforcement ratio, column compression strength and axial load ratio are
increased, the deformation capacities of RC columns decrease. This The
best correlation, although the relationship is not very strong, between
the design parameters and the deformation capacities were observed for
column aspect ratio, which is also related to the shear stress on column,
and axial load ratio. The confinement reinforcement ratio does not
display the expected correlation trend due to high values attained by
this parameter, since above a threshold value the confinement effect
cannot be distinguished on the column response where other effects
become more dominant.
It is well- known that level of confinement has an important role in
determining deformation capacity of RC members. It is seen in the first
column of Fig. 12 that for transverse reinforcement ratio (ρs) less than
0.007, ρs has an apparent effect on the concrete strain capacity. How-
ever, in the cases where ρs greater than 0.007, no correlation can be
observed between the ρs and deformation capacity of columns. For in-
stance, a 500 × 500 mm column with 10 mm diameter bars at 100 mm
spacing providing four stirrup legs in the considered direction as con-
finement reinforcement has a confinement ratio of 0.007 and is
M.A. Özdemir et al.
Fig. 11. Comparison between concrete strains of FEA and proposed limits: (a) Eq. (3), TSC-Draft [6]; (b) Eq. (5), CEN [1]; (c) Eq. (7), Grammatikou et al. [7].
considered as well confined column according to codes [5,6]. Nearly
half of the columns used in this study have transverse reinforcement
ratio more than 0.007 and because of that ρs become an insignificant
regression variable when high values is attained by this parameter.
Aspect ratio (L/h) and axial load ratio (P/Po) have a negative effect
on the deformation capacity. Column axial load ratio, confinement ratio
and aspect ratio are found to be the parameters that correlates best with
the deformation capacities for studied column set.
Previous studies and this study show that rotation and curvature are
more reliable and stable deformation criteria than column external fiber
strains when Figs. 9–11 are compared among each other. Second and
third columns of Fig. 12 shows that the strongest correlation between
the parameters (axial load and aspect ratio) and the deformation
measures is achieved for curvature and rotation as also mentioned in
the discussion of existing limits given above. The trends in Fig. 12
displays that steel tensile strains can be estimated satisfactorily. It is
also concluded that recently proposed equations increased accuracy of
compressive strain estimations, yet the equations caps the limits for
large values. Another result of this study is that the calculated force-
displacement curves matches perfectly with conforming confinement
column tests under low-to-moderate axial load ratio.
4.3. Empirical expression for ultimate concrete strain
It was displayed that the existing relations for plastic rotation yields
conservative and satisfactory prediction of damage limits in perfor-
mance assessment of RC columns. On the other side, there is still a room
for further improvement for strain limits. Regression analysis used to
develop an improved expression for ultimate concrete strains.
Confinement effectiveness factor, transverse reinforcement ratio, con-
crete compressive strength, longitudinal reinforcement yield strength
and aspect ratio are important parameters in predicting the deforma-
tion capacity of members.
Confinement effect on concrete ultimate compressive strain is re-
flected in Fig. 13(a) and an expression for concrete strain was derived
on the basis of confinement effect. The dataset was organized graphi-
cally to reflect the effect of different parameters on the ultimate com-
pressive strain capacity of reinforced concrete columns. As clearly seen
in Fig. 13(a), the ultimate strain capacity increases with increasing
transverse reinforcement ratio up to 0.007. After this value the ultimate
strain capacity seemed to be capped and when ρs > 0.007 the ultimate
strain capacity displays considerable variation depending on other
parameters. To perform detailed analysis of other coexisting conditions
and discard possible interactions that leads to such observation the data
is grouped according to ultimate strain value in the ρs > 0.007 range.
In the ρs < 0.007 range (36 specimens) the average concrete
strength is 29.5 MPa with 43.6 MPa maximum. The average column
aspect ratio (L/h) is 3.58 with standard deviation of 0.9 and only one
data point has an aspect ratio 7.64 in this region. Excluding this value
(Specimen No. 29) from dataset reduces the standard deviation to 0.6.
578
Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 569–581
The average axial load ratio is 0.18 with standard deviation of 0.137. As
outliers, if specimens No38, 41, 44, 56 are excluded, the mean and
standard deviation for axial load ratio becomes 0.14 and 0.0085 re-
spectively. So, the properties of columns in this range can be sum-
marized as made of normal strength concrete, under low to moderate
axial load ratios (P/Po < 0.25) and have medium aspect ratios, L/
h ∼ 3.5.
It was also seen that the confinement effectiveness factor α is a good
parameter to estimate the concrete compressive strain capacity in
ρs < 0.007. From the regression analysis, the coefficient of determi-
nation R2 of the trendline of α-εcu is 0.79 compared to 0.66 of ρs-εcu
trendline. This parameter besides including the transverse reinforce-
ment spacing s, also reflects the effect of distance between longitudinal
rebars on the confinement effectiveness, especially when the transverse
reinforcement ratio is low. In ρs < 0.007 region, α takes values between
0.19 and 0.83.
In the ρs > 0.007 range the properties of data in each group is
summarized in Table 4. According to this table increasing concrete
strength in the high strength concrete range, increasing axial load and
increasing column aspect ratio leads to decrease in the deformation
capacity of columns. Although Group I attains slightly higher values for
axial load ratio and concrete strength values compared to ρs < 0.007
range, it displays similar deformation characteristics, but the strain
capacity is limited to 0.03 approximately. The primary reason of re-
duced strain capacity between Group I and II is seem to be increased
concrete strength. When Group II and III is compared it is seen that both
aspect ratio and axial load ratio increases leading to reduced strain
capacities. Among the column properties, only L/h displays a consistent
trend with strain values in all the groups. In ρs > 0.007 region, con-
finement effectiveness factor α takes values between 0.61 and 0.82,
covering a narrow range.
Alternative equation for predicting ultimate compressive strain of
extreme fiber of reinforced concrete section is given by Eq. (10). The
form of Eq. (7) was adopted for the proposed equation for predicting
concrete strain capacity depending on the observed trends for
ρs < 0.007. For ρs > 0.007 since the best parameter seen to be the
column aspect ratio, an expression is derived based on this parameter.
Inclusion of concrete strength and axial load ratio did not make any
improvement over the estimation capacity of the basic equation. Pre-
dictions are compared with FEM results in Fig. 13(b). The results show
a clear dispersion around the mean trends. The errors in prediction
normalized with respect to actual values (εcu_Eq-εcu_ave)/εcu_ave display
nearly equal dispersion on both sides of the mean trend. The predictions
deviate from the actual values by 23% and 18% in average on the
overestimation and the underestimation sides, respectively. If the pre-
dicted values reduced by Cc = 0.80 (default value is 1.0 giving mean
prediction), Eq. (10) can be used as lower bound codified performance
assessment limits.
M.A. Özdemir et al. Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 569–581

Fig. 12. Scatter plots showing trends between different deformation measures and column design parameters.

⎧Cc (0.0035 + 0.11 αρs f yw reinforcement, α is the confinement effectiveness factor, L and h is the
) for ρs ⩽ 0.007 ⎫
εcu = fc < 0.035 distance from critical section to point of contra-flexure and section
⎨ ⎬ depth of the column, respectively.
⎩ Cc (0.0675e−0.355L / h) for ρs > 0.007 ⎭ (10)

where fc and fyw are the concrete compressive strength (in MPa) and the
stirrup yield strength (in MPa), ρs is volumetric ratio of transverse

579
M.A. Özdemir et al.
Fig. 13. (a) Effect of transverse reinforcement ratio on concrete strain; (b) comparison of calculated and estimated concrete strains using Eq. (10).
Table 4
Mean and standard deviation (μ ± σ) of different column parameters for ρs > 0.007
range.
εcu
Group No L/h P/Po fc (MPa)
I (13 specimen) 2.8 ± 0.65 0.27 ± 0.18 46.5 ± 19.9 0.0293 ± 0.0052
II (7 specimen) 3.25 ± 1.0 0.22 ± 0.14 65 ± 15.5 0.0170 ± 0.003
III (13 specimen) 5.45 ± 0.92 0.43 ± 0.12 66 ± 18.5 0.0084 ± 0.0029
5. Conclusion
Besides traditionally used plastic rotation limits, local deformation
measures like strain and curvature began to gain acceptance as per-
formance criteria due to developments in the computational field
especially owing to nonlinear modelling with fiber-based elements.
There are various studies investigating the predictability and reliability
of these measures as damage limit mainly employing statistical eva-
luation of experimental data. However, the strains and curvatures are
rarely available from experiments impeding thorough evaluation of
strain-based criteria. This study using nonlinear finite element model-
ling strategy investigates deformation measures calculated on 69 ex-
perimental column specimens. Depending on the results of investiga-
tion, the following conclusions were derived,
• The finite element modelling strategy used in this study yields sa-
tisfactory estimations of the peak experimental results. The models
predicted the lateral load capacity with a minor dispersion (R-
squared 0.99). The regression model for ultimate drift gives 0.80
variance while for plastic rotation this value is 0.77.
• The plastic zone over the column length extends over a region ap-
proximately slightly higher than the column depth h. The plastic
hinge length taken as h/2 yields acceptable estimations of plastic
rotations and tip displacements.
• Another important conclusion is in regards to the determination of
strains in experimental and analytical studies. The actual strains
calculated or measured at a single point or on a very limited region
is obviously greater than the average values of strains calculated
over a larger region. The average core outer fiber concrete strains
are approximately 1.3 times higher than the pointwise maximum
values at the same location. The difference between the core and
cover average strains is εcu,ave_cover = 1.17εcu,ave. Variation of strain
in different locations and lengths exhibits the need of using con-
sistent length in analyses and experiments in order to directly
compare the results.
• Comparison of average steel and concrete strains from finite element
analyses calculated over plastic hinge length (h/2) and section
analyses yields very close correlation between the results of both
analyses (R-squared displaying the variance equals 0.92 and 0.98 for
580
Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 569–581
concrete and steel strains, respectively). The use of gage length h/2
in analyses and for measurement in tests is recommended for direct
interpretation of the experimentally determined section deformation
capacity with section analysis.
•
In general, plastic rotation appear to be more stable and predictable
parameter than the concrete ultimate strain. Calculated results are
mostly conservative in terms of plastic rotation limits as re-
commended in ASCE/SEI 41 [2] and by Eq. (9) [7] except columns
under high axial load and made of high strength concrete. Haselton
et al.’s [7] proposal significantly improve ASCE/SEI 41 limit defi-
nitions, yet also increasing the variability and possibility of esti-
mating the plastic rotation capacity on the unsafe side. Their
equation provides a larger room for the plastic rotation at the
capped region for ASCE/SEI 41. Chord rotation angle limits sug-
gested by CEN (Eq. (4)) and Eq. (6) [3] are ineligible to determine
deformation capacity of columns.
• TSC-Draft, CEN and Grammatikou et al. [7] set deformation limits in
respect of concrete strain for RC columns. Expression of Gramma-
tikou et al. [7] given in Eq. (7) is the most accurate one, but for
columns under high axial load, having large aspect ratio and made
of high strength concrete the estimations need to be improved.
• Investigating the effect of different design parameters on the column
deformation capacity revealed that the volumetric ratio of the
confinement reinforcement when become greater than 0.007 lose to
correlate with the increased ductility capacity. Factors such as the
applied loading regime, axial load level and distinct brittle behavior
of high strength concrete may be accountable for this observation,
nevertheless the existence of large amount of confinement re-
inforcement should not be interpreted as the indication of high
ductility capacity of the member. The column aspect ratio L/h found
to be the most effective parameter correlating with the compressive
strain capacity in the high confinement range.
• It is clearly seen that the damage limit expressions in existing reg-
ulations and previous studies partially satisfy the need for being a
reliable deformation measure as a damage limit. Based on a form
similar to the Eq. (7) proposed by Grammatikou et al. [7] a concrete
core ultimate strain prediction equation is developed to assess the
structural performance of the RC columns. It is observed that the
new formula is highly efficient when compared to existing strain
equations and proposed formula can be used as a code performance
assessment limit using a reduction factor of 0.8.
As a concluding remark, the authors of this study think that the
experimental studies are indispensable to the understanding of the
behavior of reinforced concrete members. On the other hand, compu-
tational methods may produce considerable insight to the behavior of
structural elements where it is difficult to measure local response and
enables obtaining results that are more consistent among themselves by
conducting large amount of analyses using several variables.
M.A. Özdemir et al. Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 569–581

Acknowledgements [23] Corley WG. Rotational capacity of reinforced concrete beams. J Struct Div, ASCE
1966;92(ST5):121–46.
[24] Mattock AH. Rotational capacity of hinging regions in reinforced concrete beams.
This research is supported financially by Turkish National Science Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute; 1964;SP-12:143–81.
Foundation, TUBITAK Project No: 113M442. [25] Park R, Priestley MJ, Gill WD. Ductility of square confined concrete columns. J
Struct Div, ASCE 1982;108(ST4):929–50.
[26] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
References buildings. New York: John Wiley and Sons NY, USA; 1992.
[27] Bayrak O, Sheikh SA. Confinement reinforcement design considerations for ductile
HSC columns. J Struct Eng 1998;124(9):999–1010.
[1] CEN (European Committee for Standardization). Design of structures for earthquake
[28] Bae S, Bayrak O. Plastic hinge length of reinforced concrete columns. ACI Struct J
resistance. Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. Eurocode 8, EN 1998-3.
2008;105(3):290–300.
Brussels: Comite Europeen de Normalisation; 2005.
[29] Saatcioglu M, Ozcebe G. Response of reinforced concrete columns to simulated
[2] ASCE. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. ASCE/SEI 41–13; 2013,
seismic loading. ACI Struct J 1989;86(1):3–12.
Reston, VA.
[30] Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ. Displacement-based seismic design of
[3] Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN. Deformations of RC members at yielding and ultimate.
structures. Pavia, Italy: IUSS Press; 2007.
ACI Struct J 2001;98(2):135–48.
[31] Ohno T, Nishioka T. An experimental study on energy absorption capacity of col-
[4] Haselton CB, Liel AB, Taylor LS, Deierlein GG. Beam-column element model cali-
umns in reinforced concrete structures. Proc JSCE, Struct Eng/Earthquake Eng JSCE
brated for predicting flexural response leading to global collapse of RC frame
1984;1(2):23–33.
buildings. PEER Rep. No. 2007/03. Berkeley: Pacific Engineering Research Center,
[32] Montejo LA. Set of codes for the analysis of reinforced concrete members Ph.D.
Univ. of California; 2008.
dissertation Raleigh, NC: Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental
[5] TSC. Turkish seismic design code for buildings: Specification for structures to be
Engineering, North Carolina State Univ.; 2007.
built in disaster areas. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara, Turkey,
[33] Ludovico DM, Verderame G, Prota A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Cyclic behavior of
2007.
nonconforming full-scale RC columns. J Struct Eng 2014;140(5):04013107.
[6] TSC-Draft. Turkish seismic design code for buildings. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of
[34] Bayrak O, Sheikh, S. Confinement steel requirements for high strength concrete
Public Works and Settlement; 2016.
columns. In: Proc., 11th World Conf. on earthquake engineering, Aculpulco,
[7] Grammatikou S, Biskinis D, Fardis MN. Ultimate strain criteria for RC members in
Mexico, Paper No. 463; 1996.
monotonic or cyclic flexure. J Struct Eng 2016;142(9). 04016046-1-13.
[35] Saatcioglu M, Grira M. Confinement of reinforced concrete columns with welded
[8] Elwood KJ, Moehle JP. Idealized backbone model for existing reinforced concrete
reinforcement grids. ACI Struct J 1999;96(1):29–39.
columns and comparisons with FEMA 356 criteria. Struct Des Tall Spec Build
[36] Xiao Y, Yun HW. Experimental studies on full-scale high-strength concrete columns.
2006;15(5):553–69.
ACI Struct J 2002;99(2):199–207.
[9] Acun B, Sucuoğlu H. Performance of reinforced concrete columns designed for
[37] Bayrak O, Sheikh S. Design of rectangular HSC columns for ductility. Special Publ
flexure under severe displacement cycles. ACI Struct J 2010;107(3):364–71.
ACI Struct J 2003;213:61–82.
[10] Bae S, Bayrak O. Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns. ACI Struct J
[38] Imai H, Yamamoto Y. A study on causes of earthquake damage of izumi high school
2009;106(4):405–15.
due to miyagi-ken-oki earthquake in 1978. Trans Japan Concr Inst 1986;8:405–18.
[11] Kazaz İ. Analytical study on plastic hinge length of structural walls. J Struct Eng
[39] Tanaka H, Park R. Effect of lateral confining reinforcement on the ductile behavior
2013;139(11):1938–50.
of reinforced concrete columns. Rep. 90-2. Christchurch, New Zealand: Dept. of
[12] Kazaz İ, Gülkan P, Yakut A. Deformation limits for structural walls with confined
Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury; 1990.
boundaries. Earthq Spectra 2012;28(3):1019–46.
[40] Park R, Paulay T. Use of interlocking spirals for transverse reinforcement in bridge
[13] Kazaz İ, Gülkan P, Yakut A. Performance limits for structural walls: an analytical
columns. Strength and ductility of concrete substructures of bridges, RRU (Road
perspective. Eng Str 2012;43:105–19.
Research Unit). Bulletin 1990;84(10):77–92.
[14] Elwood KJ, Matamoros AB, Wallace JW, Lehman DE, Heintz JA, Mitchell AD, et al.
[41] Nosho K, Stanton J, MacRae G. Retrofit of rectangular reinforced concrete columns
Update to ASCE/SE 41 concrete provisions. Earthq Spectra 2007;23(3):493–523.
using tonen forca tow sheet carbon fiber wrapping. Rep. No. SGEM 96-2.
[15] Elwood KJ, Moehle JP. Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns with light
Washington: Department of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Washington, SE; 1996.
transverse reinforcement. Earthq Spectra 2005;21(1):71–89.
[42] Wehbe N, Saiidi MS, Sanders D. Confinement of rectangular bridge columns for
[16] Berry M, Parrish M, Eberhard M. PEER Structural performance database user’s
moderate seismic areas. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
manual. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California;
(NCEER) Bulletin 1998;12(1).
2004.
[43] Lynn AC, Moehle JP, Mahin SA, Holmes WT. Seismic evaluation of existing re-
[17] ANSYS 14.5 [Computer software]. Canonsburg, PA, Ansys.
inforced concrete building columns. Earthq Spec 1996;12(4):715–39.
[18] Kazaz I. Dynamic characteristics and performance assessment of reinforced concrete
[44] Xiao Y, Martirossyan A. Seismic performance of high strength concrete columns. J
structural walls Ph.D. Thesis Ankara, Turkey: Civil Engineering Dept., Middle East
Struct Eng 1998;124(3):241–51.
Technical University; 2010.
[45] Mo YL, Wang SJ. Seismic behavior of RC columns with various tie configurations. J
[19] Saatcioglu M, Razvi SR. Strength and ductility of confined concrete. J Struct Eng
Struct Eng 2000;126(10):1122–30.
(ASCE) 1992;118(6):1590–607.
[46] Arai Y, Hakim B, Kono S, Watanabe F. Damage assessment of reinforced concrete
[20] Willam KJ, Warnke ED. Constitutive model for the triaxial behavior of concrete. Int
columns under high axial loading. ACI Special Publ 2006;237:165–76.
Assoc Bridge Struct Eng Proc 1975;19:174–203.
[47] Takemura H, Kawashima K. Effect of loading hysteresis on ductility capacity of
[21] Dhakal RP, Maekawa K. Modeling for postyield buckling of reinforcement. J Struct
bridge piers. J Struct Eng 1997;43A:849–58. [in Japanese].
Eng (ASCE) 2002;128(9):1139–47.
[48] Sezen H, Moehle J. Strength and deformation capacity of RC columns with limited
[22] Eligehausen R, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Local bond stress-slip relationships of de-
ductility. In: Proc., 13th WCEE, Vancouver, Canada; 2004.
formed bars under generalized excitations. Rep. No. UCB/EERC 83–23. Berkeley,
CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California; 1983.

581