Grammatikou - Models of Flexural Controlled Strength

Bull Earthquake Eng (2018) 16:341–375
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0202-y
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER
Models of the flexure-controlled strength, stiffness

and cyclic deformation capacity of rectangular RC
columns with smooth bars, including lap-splicing
and FRP jackets
Sofia Grammatikou1 • Michael N. Fardis1 • Dionysis Biskinis1
Received: 14 February 2017 / Accepted: 23 July 2017 / Published online: 4 August 2017
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017
Abstract Cyclic tests of single concrete columns with smooth (plain) bars are not rep-
resentative of building columns with lap splices at floor levels and story-long starter bars.
Column specimens with fixity at top and bottom resemble building columns best, but few
of those tested so far had smooth bars and even then without bar lap-splicing at floor level
or FRP jackets at column ends. Empirical models based on single-column tests, especially
the numerous ones with cantilever-type specimens, cannot be readily extended to columns
with smooth bars in real-life buildings. Physical models of the Strut-and-Tie type are
developed and are validated or calibrated through comparisons with laboratory tests. Their
scope includes anchorage and splicing of bars with either 180 hooks or straight ends. Once
validated, they are adapted to real-life multistory rectangular RC columns with smooth
bars, in order to obtain the column properties of interest: the chord rotation at yielding and
the cyclic ultimate chord rotation, with or without FRP jacketing. Different expressions
apply to the top and bottom end of a column in a story, but a single one is used to estimate
the column’s effective stiffness. Empirical alternatives fitted to the single-element test
results have slightly less scatter than physical models, but caution is needed for their
application to columns of real buildings. Simulations of the 3D seismic response of a plan
wise asymmetric full size building, tested pseudo-dynamically before or after retrofitting
all columns with FRPs or just two of them with RC jackets, provide certain confidence in
the extension of the physical models for the estimation of the stiffness and ultimate
deformation of columns with smooth bars in real-life buildings.
Keywords Concrete columns Cyclic loading Deformation capacity Plain

bars RC columns Seismic testing Smooth bars Stiffness Ultimate
deformation
& Michael N. Fardis

fardis@upatras.gr
1
Civil Engineering Department, University of Patras, P.O. Box 1424, Patras 26504, Greece
123
342 Bull Earthquake Eng (2018) 16:341–375
1 Introduction
Smooth (plain) bars are ubiquitous in older concrete buildings, especially in Europe and a
major part of Asia. Nevertheless, until recently there was no experimental information
concerning their effects on the behavior of concrete members under seismic or even cyclic
loading. The reason is that, in the heyday of smooth bars, design practice and codes paid
little attention to earthquake resistance. Indeed, in the parts of the word where the earliest
seismic testing took place, smooth bars were either not used anymore or on the wane;
experimental campaigns focused on new construction with ribbed (deformed) bars. Con-
cerning columns in particular, their perceived role at the time was to support gravity loads;
their resistance to lateral loads was of little interest. Tests on concrete columns with
smooth bars were carried out relatively recently, thanks to the increased interest in the
seismic evaluation of older buildings. It is characteristic that the relevant US standard
(ASCE 2007) says nothing specific about members with smooth bars, while the rules for
them in the relevant Eurocode (CEN 2005) were based on a handful of tests, and had to be
amended shortly after (CEN 2009). In the light of the new data available since then, even
the revised rules need a major overhaul; their amendment was indeed proposed by
Verderame et al. (2010).
Seismic assessment of existing structures is nowadays displacement-based: members
are verified by comparing (safe-sided estimates of) cyclic deformation capacities to the
corresponding demands due to the earthquake. To do this, the engineer needs simple means
to calculate deformation capacities, and practical methods to estimate seismic deformation
demands. Deformation measures used in these local verifications should be easy to extract
from analysis results, and at the same time constitute meaningful indicators of failure or
not of the member. Strains are almost meaningless as indicators of loss of member
resistance; moreover, strains predicted from analysis are very model-dependent. In con-
trast, chord rotations of member ends—total or the plastic part—correlate well in capacity
terms with local damage and loss of resistance; in terms of inelastic demands, robust
estimates of chord rotations may be obtained rather easily, even by linear elastic analysis
(Panagiotakos and Fardis 1999; Kosmopoulos and Fardis 2007). However, the value of the
elastic stiffness used for members holds the key to a relatively accurate estimation of
member chord rotation demands. A strong—and hence rare—earthquake will find concrete
members already cracked due to gravity loads and restraints on thermal and drying
shrinkage and will drive them past yielding. So, a seismic response analysis should use as
elastic stiffness the secant one to the (apparent) yield point in a bilinear approximation of
the envelope to the moment-chord rotation response in cyclic loading (Fig. 1b). This paper
proposes simple rules for the estimation of (a) this stiffness, termed ‘‘effective stiffness’’
and denoted by EIeff, from the moment, My, and the chord rotation, hy, at yielding of a
member end, and (b) of the ultimate chord rotation, hu, identified with the point beyond
which resistance cannot rise above 80% of its peak value during the test (Fig. 1).
Bond of smooth bars to concrete is poor and degrades fast with load reversals. More-
over, normally smooth bars rely on hooks for anchorage and splicing. As a result, columns
with smooth bars respond to cyclic lateral loading differently from members with ribbed
bars. In fact, their behavior is simpler and lends itself to descriptions based on ‘‘physical’’
models. Such models are developed here and are verified/calibrated on the basis of tests by
Acun and Sucuoglu (2010), Arani et al. (2013a, b, 2014), Azuma et al. (1994), Bousias
et al. (2004, 2007), Bournas et al. (2009), Cox (1941), Di Ludovico et al. (2012, 2013),
Fabbrocino et al. (2005, 2006), Faella et al. (2007), Hassan (2011), Ilki et al. (2004, 2009),
Lash (1953), Marefat et al. (2009), Melo et al. (2014), Mylrea (1934), Napoli et al. (2013),
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2018) 16:341–375 343
Fig. 1 a Moment-deflection loops and 20%-drop criterion for the ultimate deformation; b envelope to
moment-deformation loops in the form of an elastic-perfectly plastic law with residual strength
Ozcan et al. (2008, 2009), Pandey and Mutsuyoshi (2005), Pham and Li (2014), Realfonzo
and Napoli (2009), Slater and Lyse (1930), Verderame et al. (2002, 2008a, b), Yalcin et al.
(2008), Yamada (1958). The models are adapted then to the geometry and detailing of
columns in multistory buildings and are used to derive general rules for the chord rotation
at yielding, the effective stiffness and the cyclic ultimate chord rotation of the column top
or bottom, with or without FRP jacketing.
2 Yield properties of simple rectangular specimens with continuous bars
2.1 Yield moment and chord rotation at yielding of cantilever or double

cantilever specimens
The yield moment, My, of single or double cantilever (Fig. 2a, b) specimens with con-
tinuous smooth bars was computed by section analysis, for elastic materials and yielding of
the tension bars as yield criterion. Expressions from Panagiotakos and Fardis (2001),
Biskinis and Fardis (2010a) were used to this end. The exercise was repeated for cantilever
columns with continuous bars and a jacket of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) around the
region where a plastic hinge forms. Note that the FRP jacket impacts the calculated yield
moment via the concrete Modulus, which is derived from the enhanced—due to con-
finement by the FRP—strength of concrete (Biskinis and Fardis 2013).
Computed values are compared in Fig. 3a, b to ‘‘experimental’’ yield moments, taken at
the corner of an elastic-perfectly plastic relationship fitted to the loops on the basis of an
equal-deformation-energy criterion (i.e., for the same area under the elastic-perfectly
plastic line or the envelope to the loops). Statistics of the test-to-prediction ratio for these
types of specimens with continuous bars are listed in rows 1 and 2 of Table 1. These
statistics and the comparisons in Fig. 3a, b suggest that section analysis may be used to
estimate the yield moment of simple specimens with continuous smooth bars, despite the
poor bond of such bars to concrete, which renders doubtful the plane section hypothesis at
the section of maximum moment.
The chord rotation at the point of maximum moment in a specimen is the angle between
the tangent to the axis at that point and the chord connecting it to the point of zero moment
along the axis; in a cantilever, it is the deflection at the tip divided by the length of the
cantilever. Its value at yielding is estimated from the Strut-and-Tie models shown in
123
Fig. 2 Specimens with smooth bars: distribution of steel stress along the bars at yielding of the most critical
section and Strut-and-Tie models for a cantilever column with continuous bars; b double cantilever beam
with continuous bars; c cantilever column with lap-spliced hooked bars; d double-fixity column with
continuous bars; e double cantilever beam with lap-spliced straight bars
Fig. 2a or b, which are governed by the anchorage of the ends of the smooth bars and the
(poor) bond situation all along the bar.
The bond strength (in MPa) of vertical smooth bars, or horizontal ones in the lower half
of a member’s depth in the direction of casting, is given by (CEN 1994) as equal to
0.36Hfc(MPa), a value that is consistent with more recent pull-out tests on smooth bars
without artificial roughening of their surface (Feldman and Bartlett 2005). A very low slip
between the bar and the surrounding concrete is sufficient for the bond strength to be
reached; after that peak, the bond stress decays gradually with increasing slip to a very low
residual value. Simple calculations show that at the point in time the specimens in the
present database yield, the tension bars are past their bond strength point on both sides of
123
Fig. 3 Experimental versus computed yield moment of: a cantilever or double cantilever specimens
without FRP jacket; b the same but with FRP jackets (continuous line for continuous bars, broken for
lapped); c columns with double fixity and continuous bars; d cantilever or double cantilever specimens with
straight-ends (continuous line without FRPs, broken: with FRPs)
the section of maximum moment. A linear variation of the stress of these bars is assumed
then between their yield stress, fy, at the section where the moment attains its yield value
and the end of the bar. If there is a standard hook there, according to the fib Model Code
2010 (fib2012) the maximum stress that the bar can develop ahead of the hook, fo, is 60
times its bond strength:
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi
fo ðMPaÞ ¼ 60 0:36 f c ðMPaÞ ¼ 22 f c ðMPaÞ ð1Þ
At yielding of a cantilever specimen, the stress in the tension bars is taken to drop
linearly, from fy at the section where the moment attains its maximum value, to fc,t at the tip
of the cantilever (where index c is for ‘‘column’’ and t for ‘‘top’’ or ‘‘tip’’). At the point
along the entire length of the tension bars which does not move (i.e., on the axis of
symmetry of the double cantilever of Fig. 2b, or at the end of the bar in the footing in
Fig. 2a) the stress is denoted by fc,b (with index b standing for ‘‘base’’ or ‘‘bottom’’). At a
standard hook fc,b or fc,t is equal to fo from Eq. (1); at a straight end, it is equal to zero. The
123
Table 1 Statistics of test-to-prediction ratio for the yield moment of simple specimens
Basis for prediction—type of specimen # Mean* Median* CoV
Tests %
1 My,exp/My Biskinis and Fardis (2010a, b)—single/double 104 1.00 0.99* 14.7
cantilevers with continuous bars
2 My,exp/My Biskinis and Fardis (2010a, b)—single cantilever, 18 0.95* 0.92 14.1
continuous bars, FRP wraps
3 My,exp/My Biskinis and Fardis (2010a, b)—double fixity columns 10 (0.74) (0.72) 10.7
with continuous bars
4 My,exp/My, Eqs. (4),(5)—double fixity columns with continuous 10 1.07* 1.06 14.5
bars
5 My,exp/My Biskinis and Fardis (2010a, b)—single cantilevers, lap- 28 1.00 0.99* 14.9
spliced hooked bars
6 My,exp/My Biskinis and Fardis (2010a, b)—single cantilever, 10 1.02* 0.95 18.2
lapped bars, FRP wraps
7 My,exp/My Biskinis and Fardis (2010a, b), Eq. (7)—sgle/dble 20 0.98 0.97* 16.6
cantilever, lapped straight bars
8 My,exp/My Biskinis and Fardis (2010a, b), Eq. (7)—sgle cantilever, 4 0.99* 0.92 31.4
lapped straight bars, FRP
* Values in bold represent the average trend: the mean for small samples, the median for larger ones
elongation of the tension bars till they yield at the section of maximum moment in Fig. 2a
or b produces a fixed-end-rotation at that section equal to:
fy ðLs þ lb Þ þ fc;b lb þ fc;t Ls
hy;continuous;cantilever ¼ ð2Þ
2Es z
where Es is the elastic modulus of steel and z the distance between the tension and the
compression reinforcement; lb is the length of the tension bars between the point along
their entire length which does not move (i.e., on the axis of symmetry of the double
cantilever of Fig. 2b, or at the end of the bar in the footing in Fig. 2a) and the section
where the moment attains its maximum value; so, the double cantilever specimen of
Fig. 2b has lb = a and fc,b = fy. Neglecting shortening of concrete struts, Eq. (2) gives the
chord rotation at yielding of single or double cantilever specimens in Fig. 2a, b.
Figure 4a, b compares the values from Eq. (2) with the ‘‘experimental’’ ones, i.e., those
at the corner of the elastic-perfectly-plastic approximation of the envelope of the moment-
chord rotation loops. Statistics of the test-to-prediction ratio for this type of specimens with
continuous bars are listed in rows 1 and 2 of Table 2. This comparison and the values of
these statistics confirm Eq. (2) as a simple tool for the estimation of the chord rotation at
yielding of simple or double cantilever columns with continuous smooth bars.
2.2 Yield moment and chord rotation at yielding of column specimens fixed
at top and bottom
Single cantilever columns of the type depicted in Fig. 2a and symmetric beams (or double
cantilevers) like the one shown in Fig. 2b are convenient for testing, but do not represent
the behavior of full-story columns: the strut axis in a simple Strut-and-Tie model of a full-
story column fixed at top and bottom crosses the section of (about) zero moment at its mid-
123
Fig. 4 Experimental chord rotation at yielding versus computed from strut-and-tie model: a cantilever or
double cantilever specimens without FRP jacket (continuous line for continuous bars, broken for lapped);
b the same, with FRP jacket; c columns with double fixity and continuous bars; d cantilever or double
cantilever specimens with straight-ends (continuous line: without FRP, broken: with FRP)
point (Fig. 2d) and not at the centroid of the tension reinforcement. Moreover, for skew-
symmetry of the geometry and the loading, the stresses in the reinforcement of the two
opposite sides of the column are mirror images of each other with respect to the center of
the column’s section at mid-height. If the strut’s shortening is neglected, the chord rotation
at yielding of the symmetric double-fixity column of Fig. 2d is equal to the fixed-end-
rotation of each end section due to elongation of the vertical bars:

fy þ fo H þ 2lb
hy;continuous;double fixity ¼ ð3Þ
2Es z
The outcome of Eq. (3) is double that of Eq. (2) for a single cantilever of the type
shown in Fig. 2a, with a length half of that of the double-fixity column.
Figure 4c contrasts values from Eq. (3) to measured chord rotations at yielding of
double-fixity columns with continuous bars. Table 2 lists in row 3 statistics of the ratio of
123
Table 2 Statistics of test-to-prediction ratio for chord rotation at yielding (* see footnote of Table 1)
Tests %
1 hy,exp/hy, Eq. (2)—single or double cantilever with continuous 86 0.97 0.97* 29.1
bars
2 hy,exp/hy, Eqs. (2)—single cantilevers, continuous bars, FRP 18 1.01* 0.98 29.7
wrapping
3 hy,exp/hy, Eq. (3)—double fixity columns with continuous bars 10 1.10* 1.02 16.2
4 hy,exp/hy, Eqs. (9), (10)—single cantilevers, lap-spliced hooked 28 0.86 0.82* 35.1
bars
5 hy,exp/hy, Eqs. (9), (10)—single cantilevers, lap-spliced hooked 10 0.99* 0.93 17.9
bars, FRPs
6 hy,exp/hy, Eqs. (7), (8), (11)—single/double cantilevers, lapped 20 1.03 0.98* 40.9
straight bars
7 hy,exp/hy, Eqs. (7), (8), (11)—single cantilevers, lapped straight 4 1.00* 0.97 12.9
bars, FRPs
the two quantities. Figure 4c and the statistics confirm Eq. (3) and a Strut-and-Tie model
per Fig. 2d for this specimen type.
Moment equilibrium gives for the yield moment and the moment resistance of the
unspalled section:

My MR fc;b þ fc;to H z ð1 nÞn
¼ ¼ xtot 1 þ ð4Þ
bd2 fc bd 2 fc 2fy H þ lb 4d 2 1 þ ðz=H Þ2
where xtot = qtotfy/fc = As,totfy/(bdfc); the dimensionless neutral axis depth, n = x/d, may
be estimated from vertical force equilibrium, assuming that the strut’s compressive stress
equals the concrete strength:
z 2
Hð1 þ ðfc;b þ fc;t Þ=2fy Þ=2 þ lb
n ¼ m þ xtot 1þ ð5Þ
H þ lb H
Experimental yield moments of doubly fixed columns with continuous smooth bars are
compared in Fig. 3c with the values calculated from Eq. (4) and (5). Statistics of the ratio
of these two quantities are listed in row 4 of Table 1. This comparison and these statistics
confirm that Eqs. (4) and (5) are superior to the blind application of section analysis for the
estimation of the yield moment of doubly fixed columns with continuous smooth bars. As
demonstrated by the statistics in row 3 of Table 1, section analysis seriously overestimates
the yield moment of this type of column.
2.3 Secant stiffness to the yield point
A prime use of the chord rotation at yielding is for the calculation of the effective elastic
stiffness of the shear span, Ls = M/V, as (Panagiotakos and Fardis 2001; Biskinis and
Fardis 2010a, b; CEN 2005):
123
My Ls
EIeff ¼ ð6aÞ
hy 3
Equation (6a) applies over a shear span Ls of constant shear force, starting at the section
where the moment and the chord rotation related through this effective stiffness apply and
ending at a point of inflection. If, between the point of inflection and the section where the
moment and the chord rotation related through the effective stiffness are defined, we first
have a length Ls of constant shear and then a length a where the shear force is zero (in the
present case, one half of the central part of the double cantilever of Fig. 2b till the axis of
symmetry), then the chord rotation at the end of this length is related to the moment at the
same point through the following effective stiffness:
My Ls þ 3a=4
EIeff ¼ ð6bÞ
hy 3
This is the effective stiffness to be used over the entire length Ls?a, relating the
moment to the chord rotation at the same point, as if the shear force were constant over the
length Ls?a.
By using in Eq. (6) the values of yield moment from section analysis and the chord
rotation at yielding from Eq. (2), one finds the effective stiffness of the single or double
cantilevers with continuous bars, with or without an FRP jacket around the region of high
moments. The so-computed values are compared in Fig. 5a, b, d to the ‘‘experimental’’
stiffness, derived by using in Eq. (6) the ‘‘experimental’’ yield moment and chord rotation
at yielding.
A similar exercise for the double-fixity columns, with yield moments from Eqs. (4) and
(5) and chord rotation at yielding from Eq. (3), is depicted in Fig. 5c.
Rows 1–3 of Table 3 list statistics of the test-to-prediction ratio for the groups of
specimens dealt with in this section.
3 Yield properties of simple specimens with bars lap-spliced in a region

of large moments
3.1 Effect of lap-splicing on the yield moment of simple specimens
The normal construction practice of multi-story building columns, especially in those

regions of the world where smooth bars were used till recently, was to fix the vertical bars
at floor levels and to lap-splice them with the top end of the bars of the underlying column.
So, lap-splicing of smooth bars in a length of the member where the seismic bending
moments are high, and indeed starting from a section where the moment attains its
maximum value, is of prime interest.
Tests invariably show the yield moment of sections crossed by lap-spliced longitudinal
bars, or at the very end of the lap-splice, to exceed that of a similar section crossed by
continuous bars, provided that the lapping is long enough for any two lapped tension bars
to work together as a single, seamlessly continuous bar. A good part of this flexural
overstrength is taken into account if both bars in a pair of lap-spliced compression bars are
taken into account in the compression reinforcement ratio (Biskinis and Fardis 2010a).
Lap-splicing the hooked ends of smooth bars over a length lo [ 10db (the minimum
lapping found in tests) seems sufficient for the transfer of their full yield force in tension.
123
Fig. 5 Experimental versus computed effective stiffness of: a cantilever or double cantilever specimens
without FRP jacket (continuous line for continuous bars, broken for lapped); b ibid with FRP jacket;
c columns with double fixity and continuous bars; d cantilever or double cantilever specimens with straight-
ends (continuous line: without FRPs, broken: with FRPs)
So, the yield moment and curvature, My, and /y, of a cantilever specimen with such lap-
spliced bars (Fig. 2c) may be found as for continuous bars, except that both bars in a pair of
lap-spliced compression bars count as compression reinforcement. The so-computed yield
moments are compared in Fig. 3a, b to experimental ones of cantilever specimens with lap-
spliced hooked bars, with or without an FRP jacket around the length of the specimen
where the lap-splicing takes place. Statistics of the associated test-to-prediction ratios are
listed in rows 5 and 6 of Table 1. These comparisons and statistics confirm the proposed
calculation approach.
There are no test results on doubly-fixed columns of the type shown in Fig. 2d (i.e., with
their smooth bars lap-spliced at the base). A full-story column with lap-spliced bars at the
base is treated in a later Section in the context of multi-story columns.
According to past or even current codes of some countries, smooth bars may be lap-
spliced without hooks. So, straight ends of the columns’ vertical bars were, or still are,
routinely lap-spliced at floor levels. The yield moment of so-detailed single or double
cantilever specimens is on average captured well by section analysis with elastic material
123
Table 3 Statistics of test-to-prediction ratio of secant-yield-point stiffness (* see footnote of Table 1)

Tests %
1 EIexp/EIeff, Eqs. (2), (6)—single/double cantilever with 86 1.13 1.08* 35.6

continuous bars
2 EIexp/EIeff, Eqs. (2), (6)—single/double cantilever, continuous 18 1.00* 0.99 26.5
bars, FRPs
3 EIexp/EIeff, Eqs. (3)–(6)—double fixity and continuous bars 10 1.01* 0.98 29.1
4 EIexp/EIeff, Eqs. (9), (10)—single cantilevers with lap-spliced 28 1.23 1.20* 25.4
hooked bars
5 EIexp/EIeff, Eqs. (9), (10)—single cantilevers, lap-spliced 10 1.04* 1.04 15.5
hooked bars, FRPs
6 EIy,exp/EIy, Eqs. (7), (8), (11)—single/double cantilevers, lapped 20 1.10 0.98* 46.6
straight bars
7 EIy,exp/EIy, Eqs. (7), (8), (11)—single cantilevers, lapped 4 0.97* 0.95 18.2
straight bars, FRPs
laws, if both bars in a pair of spliced compression bars count fully as compression rein-
forcement and the yield stress of vertical tension bars is taken as:

feff ¼ min 1; lo =loy;min fy ð7Þ
where
pffiffiffiffi
loy;min ¼ 0:5db fy ðMPaÞ= fc ðMPaÞ ð8Þ
The result of Eq. (8) is about 40% longer than the anchorage length of straight smooth
bars derived from their bond strength per (CEN 1994).
Row 7 of Table 1 lists statistics of the test-to-prediction ratio for the so-computed yield
moment; Fig. 3d compares individual test results to computed yield moments.
The few available tests on specimens with an FRP jacket added around the length of the
member where straight ends of bars were lapped show very little impact of the jacket on
the yield properties of the member. So, Eqs. (7) and (8) may be taken to apply regardless of
the presence of an FRP jacket. The last row of Table 1 and the data in Fig. 3d support this
assumption.
3.2 Effect of lap-splicing on the chord rotation at yielding of simple

rectangular specimens
When the single cantilever specimen shown in Fig. 2c yields at the section where the
moment is maximum, the tension bars crossing it develop there a stress which is denoted
by feff; this stress is equal to fy if these bars have hooks at both ends, or is given by Eqs. (7),
(8) if at least one of these ends is straight. The end of these starter bars which is embedded
in the specimen has a stress denoted by fs,t, while the stress at the bar end embedded in the
base is denoted by fs,b; like fc,b and fc,t, these stresses are equal to zero if the starter bars
have straight ends, or are given by Eq. (1) if there is a hook there. The embedment length
of starter bars in the specimen—i.e., the lapping—is denoted by lo; the one inside the base
is denoted by lb. The elongation of a starter bar at yielding of the section of maximum
moment is equal to [(feff ? fs,t)lo ? (feff ? fs,b)lb]/(2Es) and shows as fixed-end-rotation at
123
the section of maximum moment. The specimen stays uncracked at the section where the
lap splice ends, if the maximum tensile stress there does not exceed the tensile strength of
concrete, fct:
2
lo N As1 z lo lo bh
1 My \ fct þ þ 1þ3 feff 1 þ fc;t ð9aÞ
Ls bh bh h Ls Ls 6
As1 denotes in Eq. (9a) the entire cross-sectional area of tension bars (one bar per pair of
lapped bars). The last term in brackets on the right-hand side is the compressive normal
stress at the extreme fibers due to the reaction to the force in the tie, which is applied on the
section at an eccentricity of z/2. If Eq. (9a) is met, then the chord rotation at yielding is:
feff ðlo þ lb Þ þ fs;b lb þ fs;t lo
hy;lap;single cantilever ¼ ð10aÞ
2Es z
By contrast, if Eq. (9a) is not met, a crack opens up at the section where the lap-splice
ends. The elongation of the main bars of the specimen produces there a rotation equal to
[(feff ? fc,t)Ls - (feff - fc,b)lo]/(2zEs), which is multiplied by (1 - lo/Ls) to be converted
into chord rotation at the section of maximum moment. By adding to the angle from
Eq. (10a) the fixed-end-rotation at this latter section, we obtain the final chord rotation
there at yielding, as Eq. (10b). So, if:
2
lo N As1 z lo lo bh
1 My fct þ þ 1þ3 feff 1 þ fc;t ð9bÞ
Ls bh bh h Ls Ls 6
then

feff lo þ lb þ 1 Llos ðLs lo Þ þ fc;b lo þ fc;t Ls 1 Llos þ fs;b lb þ fs;t lo
hy;lap;single cantilever ¼
2Es z
ð10bÞ
In the double cantilever of Fig. 2e the bar stress at the tip of the specimen is denoted by
fc,t; the one at the end of the lap splice by fc,b. The chord rotation at effective yielding in the
central section is:
feff ðLs þ 2a þ lo =2Þ þ fc;b lo =2 þ fc;t Ls
hy;lap;double cantilever ¼ ð11Þ
2Es z
Chord rotations at yielding computed according to the present Section are compared in
Fig. 4a, b, d to experimental ones of cantilever columns with lap-spliced bars, with hooked
or straight ends, with or without FRP wrapping of the lap-splice region. Statistics of the
associated test-to-prediction ratios are listed in rows 4–7 of Table 2. These comparisons
and the statistics confirm the proposed calculation approach.
The few tests with an FRP jacket added around the region of the specimen where
straight bar-ends were lapped confirm that the chord rotation at yielding may be estimated
neglecting the effect of an FRP jacket. The last row of Table 2 and the data in Fig. 4d
support this provisional conclusion.
123
3.3 Effective stiffness of simple rectangular specimens with lap-spliced

smooth bars
Using in Eq. (6) the values of the yield moment and of the chord rotation at yielding
computed from Sects. 3.1 and 3.2, respectively, one finds the effective stiffness of the
specimens with lap-spliced smooth bars, hooked or with straight ends, with or without an
FRP jacket around the lap-splice region. The so-computed values are compared in Fig. 5a,
c, d to the experimental stiffness, derived by using in Eq. (6) the experimental yield
moment and chord rotation at yielding. Statistics of the test-to-prediction ratio for these
groups of test specimens are listed in rows 4–7 of Table 3.
4 Flexure-controlled ultimate chord rotation of single-story columns

in cyclic loading
4.1 Single-story rectangular columns with continuous smooth bars
Section analysis has been found to give a good average estimate of the yield moment at the
base of a cantilever (see Table 1). So, it is assumed to apply also in the estimation of the
ultimate curvature, /u, and the corresponding—normalized to d—neutral axis depth, nu, of
the unspalled base section (i.e., neglecting confinement after spalling). The extreme
compression fiber strain at ultimate curvature is then computed as /unud. The strain at mid-
depth of the compression zone is /unud/2. The width of the Strut and its mean concrete
stress and strain are assumed to stay constant all along the Strut to the end of the Tie which
models the tension bars. Shortening of the Strut gives the third term in the expression
below for the ultimate chord rotation of the single cantilever column in Fig. 2a:

hu;continous;single cantilever ¼ hy;continous;cantilever þ /u /y ðamax maxðLs ; lb Þ þ amin minðLs ; lb ÞÞ

/ n d Ls z
þ u u þ
2 z Ls
ð12Þ
where the first term on the right-hand side is given by Eq. (2).
Before addressing coefficients amax and amin, a few words are necessary concerning the
calculation of the yield curvature, /y, the ultimate curvature, /u, and the neutral axis depth,
nu, corresponding to /u. They are computed from section analysis of the end section, using:
• for /y, linear elastic material laws till the tension steel yields, and
• for /u and nu, the simple nonlinear material laws allowed in ultimate limit state design
of reinforced concrete sections (bilinear or elastic-perfectly plastic for steel, parabolic-
rectangular for unconfined concrete).
The ultimate curvature, /u, in a plastic hinge not wrapped in FRP may be taken to occur
when one of the following ultimate strains is reached, whichever is reached first (Gram-
matikou et al. 2016):
• for the tension bars:
esu ¼ 0:4esu;nom ð13Þ
• for the unconfined concrete of the cover:
123
0:0035 ecu ¼ ð18:5=hðmmÞÞ2 0:01 ð14Þ

where esu,nom is the uniform elongation at tensile strength in a standard steel bar test and
h the depth of the unspalled section.
Flowcharts and expressions for the calculation of /u and nu are given in (Grammatikou
et al. 2016).
The second term in Eq. (12) is a plastic hinge length where the inelastic excursion of the
tension bars is assumed to take place.
Assuming that the top and bottom ends of the double-fixity column shown in Fig. 2d
have identical reinforcement and axial load, the ultimate chord rotation of these two ends is
the same and equal to:
hu;continous;double fixity ¼ hy;continous;double
fixity
H H
þ /u /y amax max ; lb þ amin min ; lb
2 2
/u nu d H z
þ þ ð15Þ
2 z H
The following parameter values were fitted to the experimental ultimate chord rotations
of single cantilever columns with continuous smooth bars and will be used in the rest of the
paper:
amax ¼ 0:08; amin ¼ 0:6 ð16Þ
Rows 1 and 2 in Table 4 list statistics of the test-to-prediction ratio for the cyclic
ultimate chord rotation. Figure 6a, c compares individual test results to the predictions of
Eqs. (12)–(16).
Table 4 Statistics of test-to-prediction ratio of cyclic ultimate chord rotation (*cf footnote in Table 1)
Tests %
1 hu,exp/hu, Eqs. (1), (12)–(15)—single cantilever columns with 56 1.01 1.00* 45.8
continuous bars
2 hu,exp/hu, Eqs. (2), (13)–(16)—double fixity columns with 10 0.98* 0.99 13.9
continuous bars
3 hu,exp/hu Eqs. (9), (10), (12)–(15), (18), (19)—cantilevers, lap- 21 1.16 1.04* 42.9
spliced hooked bars
4 hu,exp/hu, Eq. (1), (22)–(25)—single cantilevers, continuous bars 14 0.97* 1.03 45.0
and FRPs
5 hu,exp/hu, Eqs. (9), (23)–(27)—single cantilevers, lapped hooked 9 1.01* 0.95 22.2
bars and FRP
6 hu,exp/hu, Eqs. (9), (10), (12)–(15), (18), (20)—single cantilevers 19 1.00 1.05* 44.6
lapped straight bars
7 hu,exp/hu, Eqs. (9), (10), (26), (28)—single cantilever, lapped 4 0.93* 0.93 24.1
straight bars, FRPs
123
Fig. 6 Experimental versus strut-and-tie cyclic ultimate chord rotation of: a cantilever or double cantilever
specimens without FRP jacket (continuous line for continuous bars, broken for lapped); b the same with
FRP jacket; (c) columns with double fixity and continuous bars; d cantilever or double cantilever specimens
with straight-ends, with or without FRP wrapping (continuous line: without FRPs, broken: with FRPs)
There are no cyclic tests to failure of double-cantilever specimens like those of Fig. 2b,
against which a model can be validated/calibrated. However, a natural extension of
Eq. (14) for that case is:

/ n d Ls z
hu;continous;double cantilever ¼ hy;continous; cantilever þ /u /y ðamax Ls þ aÞ þ u u þ
2 z Ls
ð17Þ
4.2 Single-story columns with lap-spliced bars
If hooked ends of smooth bars are lapped at the base of a column as in Fig. 2c over a length
lo C 10db, Eq. (12) is modified to:
123
hu;lap; cantilever ¼ hy;lap;cantilever

/u nu d Ls z
þ alap /u /y ðamax maxðLs ; lb Þ þ amin minðLs ; lb ÞÞ þ þ
2 z Ls
ð18Þ
where

lo
alap ¼ alap;hooked ¼ min 1; ð19Þ
50db
In Eq. (18) the neutral axis depth at ultimate, nu, and the curvatures at yield and ultimate
conditions, /y, /u, are computed according to Sect. 4.1, except that both bars in a pair of
lapped compression bars count as compression reinforcement (Biskinis and Fardis
2010a, b; Grammatikou et al. 2016).
If straight ends of tension bars are lapped without hooks, then for lappings shorter than
about 25db they lose their resistance abruptly, right after the stress in the bars reaches the
value given by Eqs. (7), (8). However, long lappings are quite effective. The available test
results suggest that Eq. (18) applies to this case as well, but with:

lo
alap ¼ alap;straight ¼ max 0; min 1; 1 ð20Þ
25db
Equation (20) implies that laps with straight ends are equally effective as continuous
bars when the lapping is over 50db (i.e., at the same limit set for laps with hooked bars).
However, at half that value they cause complete loss of the member’s plastic deformation
capacity.
Rows 3 and 6 in Table 4 list statistics of the test-to-prediction ratio for the cyclic
ultimate chord rotation of cantilever columns with lap-splicing of hooked or straight bar
ends, respectively. Figure 6a, d compares test results to predictions of Eqs. (12)–(15), (18)
and (19) or (20), respectively.
4.3 Effect of FRP wraps on a single-story column with smooth bars,

continuous or lap-spliced
Equation (12), proposed above for the ultimate chord rotation of cantilever columns, is
modified to reflect the higher ultimate strain of the extreme compression fibers over the
length, Lf, of the FRP wrapping:
hu;continuous;cantilever;FRP ¼ hy;continuous;cantilever

þ uu uy ðamax maxðLs ; lb Þ þ amin minðLs ; lb ÞÞ

1 Lf Lf Ls z
þ uu nu d 1 þ uu;c nu;c d þ ð21Þ
2 Ls Ls z Ls
In Eq. (21) /u,c and nu,c are the ultimate curvature and the corresponding neutral axis
depth of the section with FRP wrapping. Shey apply within the length Lf; outside Lf the
values /u and nu of the section without FRP wrapping are used. According to Gram-
matikou et al. (2017a), in FRP-confined members /u,c takes place if one of the following
ultimate strains is reached (whichever comes first):
• for the tension bars:
123
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
esu ¼ 0:6esu;nom 1 0:15 lnðNb;tension Þ ð22Þ
• for the FRP-confined concrete:

ecu;c ¼ ecu þ af bf min 0:5; qf ð0:6eu;f Ef Þ=fc 1 min 0:5; qf ð0:6eu;f Ef Þ=fc ð23Þ
where
• ecu is obtained from Eq. (14), using as h the depth of the full section;
• coefficient af may be taken as follows:
ðh 2RÞ2 þðb 2RÞ2
af ¼ 1 ð24Þ
3bh
with R the radius of the (chamfered) corners of the section and b, h its sides;
• bf = 0.115 for Carbon or Glass FRP (CFRP or GFRP), bf = 0.1 for Aramid FRP
(AFRP).
If a column in double fixity (Fig. 2d) has the same reinforcement, axial force and FRP
wrapping at its top and bottom ends, Eq. (21) with Ls = H/2 is modified to:
hu;continous;doublefixity;FRP ¼ hy;continous;doublefixity

H H
þ /u /y amax max ; lb þ amin min ; lb
2 2
1 Lf Lf H z
þ /u nu d þ /u;c nu;c d þ ð25Þ
2 H H z H
The effect of an FRP jacket around a length Lf of the column which exceeds the lapping,
lo, of hooked bar ends at the base of a cantilever column may be taken into account as
follows:

hu;lap;cantilever;FRP ¼ hy;lap;cantilever þ alap;FRP /u /y ðamax maxðLs ; lb Þ þ amin minðLs ; lb ÞÞ

1 Lf Lf Ls z
þ /u nu d 1 þ /u;c nu;c d þ
2 Ls Ls z Ls
ð26Þ
where
alap;FRP ¼ ahooked
lap;FRP
lo
¼ min 1; 1 þ 300 minð0:05; qf Ef =Ec Þ 0:1 minð0:05; qf Ef =Ec Þ
50db
ð27Þ
Rows 4 and 5 of Table 4 list statistics of the test-to-prediction ratio for Eqs. (21)–(24)
and (22)–(24), (26), (27), respectively. Figure 6a, b compare individual test results to
predictions.
If the straight ends of the smooth bars are lapped at the base of the column, FRP
wrapping of the lap-splice region has almost no effect on the column’s cyclic deformation
capacity, as expressed by Eqs. (18) and (20). Therefore, Eq. (26) applies to this case too,
but with Eq. (27) replaced as follows:
123

lo
alap;FRP ¼ alap;straight ¼ max 0; min 1; 1 ð28Þ
25db
The statistics in the last row of Table 4 and the comparison of individual test results to
the predictions of Eqs. (26) and (28) in Fig. 6d refer to this particular case.
5 Empirical estimation of flexure-controlled cyclic ultimate chord-

rotation of single rectangular columns with smooth bars by analogy
to columns with ribbed bars
The simple strut-and-tie model is physically appealing and on average agrees well with test
results, albeit sometimes with notable scatter and occasionally with a lack of fit. It is
tempting, therefore, to try to adapt to columns with smooth bars models developed for
members with ribbed (deformed) bars. The model used here as the basis is the one chosen
in the revision of CEN (2005, 2009) among the five empirical models proposed in
Grammatikou et al. (2017b) for members with section consisting of rectangular parts:

14

max ð0:01; x0 Þ 1 Ls 0:35 max aqsfcfyw ; ðaqfu
fc Þf
hu ¼ hy þ hpl m
u ¼ hy þ 0:0121ð1 þ 0:7asl Þð0:2 Þ ðminð50; fc ðMPaÞÞÞ10 min 9; 24
max ð0:01; xtot x0 Þ h
ð29Þ
where
• asl: zero-one index for slip of tension bars from an anchorage zone beyond the member
end; asl = 0 if bars are physically restrained from slipping, asl=1 if they are not.
• m = N/bhfc, with b: width of the compression zone and N: axial force, positive for
compression;
• xtot = Rqfy/fc, x0 = q0 fy0 /fc: mechanical ratio of all longitudinal bars, and of the
compression reinforcement, respectively;
• Ls/h = M/Vh: shear-span-to-depth ratio at the section of maximum moment;
• fyw and qs = Ash/bwsh: yield stress and ratio of transverse steel parallel to the applied
shear;
• a: confinement effectiveness factor for steel ties, which may be taken as follows:
X
2
a ¼ ð1 0:5sh =bo Þð1 0:5sh =ho Þ 1 bi =ð6bo ho Þ ð30Þ
where bo, ho: confined core dimensions to the centerline of the perimeter tie; bi: spacing of
centers of adjacent bars (index: i) restrained by a tie-corner or hook, sh: centerline spacing
of ties;
• (aqfu/f
c)f: confinement
term
due to FRP wrapping

(if there
is one):

aqfu 0:6eu;f Ef qf 0:6eu;f Ef qf
¼ af cf min 0:4; 1 0:5min 0:4; ð31Þ
fc f fc fc
where
• the confinement effectiveness factor, af, is given by Eq. (24);
• cf = 1.9 for CFRP, cf=0.9 for AFRP and cf = 1.15 for GFRP;
• Ef denotes the Elastic Modulus of FRP, qf its ratio parallel to the direction of the
applied lateral loading, and eu,f its limit strain, equal to 1.5% for CFRP or AFRP and
2% for GFRP
123
In this section the cyclic ultimate chord rotation of columns with smooth bars is
expressed as :
hu;continuous bars ¼ hy;continuous bars þ 0:74hpl
u Eq:ð29Þ ð32Þ
hu;continuous bars;FRP ¼ hy;continuous bars þ 0:9hpl

u Eq:ð29Þ ð33Þ
hu;lapped hooked bars ¼ hy;lap þ 0:74apl pl

lap hooked hu Eq:ð29Þ ð34Þ
hu;lapped straight bars ¼ hy;lap þ apl pl

lap straight hu Eq:ð29Þ ð35Þ
In these expressions hy,continuous bars and hy,lap are the chord rotations at yielding from
Sects. 2 and 3, respectively; apl pl
lap hooked and alap straight are given by the following
expressions:

pl lo
alap hooked ¼ min 1; 1 þ 400 minð0:05; qf Ef =Ec Þ 0:1 minð0:05; qf Ef =Ec Þ
50db
ð36Þ

lo 2
apl
lap straight ¼ max 0; min 1; ð37Þ
30db 3
Equation (36) with qf = 0 covers the case without FRP jacket.

Table 5 lists statistics of the test-to-prediction ratio for Eqs. (29)–(37), and Fig. 7
contrasts individual test results to the empirical predictions of these expressions. In most
cases the empirical approach outperforms the physical model in terms of scatter or lack of
fit.
There are not enough data to support a specific dependence of the modification factor in
Eq. (37) on the quantity and properties of the FRP. The present data just show an—albeit
very small—influence of any FRP wrapping on straight lappings between 20db and 25db,
whereas the physical model predicts no plastic deformation capacity for lappings less than
25db, no matter the type of FRP jacket.
Table 5 Statistics of test-to-empirical-prediction ratio for ultimate chord rotation (* see Table 1)
Basis for prediction—type of specimen # Mean* Median* cov
Tests %
hu,exp/hu, Eqs. (1), (32)—cantilever columns, continuous bars 56 1.03 0.99 35.4
hu,exp/hu,Eqs. (2), (32)—double fixity columns, continuous bars 10 0.93 0.98 14.5
hu,exp/hu Eqs. (9), (10), (34), (36)—cantilever, lap-spliced hooked 21 1.12 1.00 45.3
bars
hu,exp/hu, Eq. (1), (33)—cantilevers, continuous bars, FRP wraps 14 0.99 1.03 37.0
hu,exp/hu, Eqs. (9), (10), (34), (36)—cantilever, lapped hooked bars, 9 1.00 0.91 32.0
FRPs
hu,exp/hu, Eqs. (7), (8), (18), (20), (35), (37)—cantilever, lapped 19 0.87 1.05 49.8
straight bars
hu,exp/hu, Eqs. (7), (8), (18), (20), (35), (37)—as above, with FRP 4 1.03 0.92 22.5
123
Fig. 7 Experimental versus empirical cyclic ultimate chord rotation: a cantilever columns without FRP
jacket (continuous line for continuous bars, broken for lapped); b the same for FRP jacket; c column
specimens with double fixity and continuous bars; d cantilever or double cantilever specimens with straight-
ends, with FRP wraps or not (continuous line: without FRPs, broken: with FRPs)
Table 6 lists the correlation coefficients of the natural logarithm of ‘‘errors’’ of the
empirical models, Eqs. (32)–(37) and the physical models of Eqs. (12)–(28). The closer to
1.0 these coefficients are, the more similar are the outcomes of these two different sets of
models in any particular case; moreover, as these two sets have very different basis and
nothing in common except for hy, correlation coefficients close to 1.0 imply that the scatter
of each model is more due to experimental dispersion than to the model itself (‘‘model
uncertainty’’).
Indeed, the values of the ‘‘true’’ coefficient of variation of test-to-prediction ratios
estimated from the correlation coefficients between the prediction errors following
(Grammatikou et al. 2017b) and listed at the last two columns of Table 6, are much smaller
than those in the last column of Tables 4 or 5.
123
Table 6 Correlation coefficient of the errors of physical ultimate chord rotation models, Eqs. (12)–(28),
and empirical ones, Eqs. (32)–(37) for groups of at least 20 specimens
Case Empirical model Physical model Corr. coef. ‘‘True’’ CoV test-
equations equations of errors model-ratio (%)
Physical Empirical
model model
Cantilever columns, (1), (32) (1), (12)–(15) 0.77 27.9 5.1

cont. bars
Lap-spliced hooked (9), (10), (34), (36) (9), (10), (12)–(15), 0.815 15.7 20.7
bars (18), (19)
Lap-spliced straight (7), (8), (18), (20), (7), (8), (18), (20), 0.893 8.3 19.4
bar ends (35), (37) (35), (37)
6 Multi-story rectangular columns with smooth bars lap-spliced at floor

levels
6.1 Properties at yielding
The vertical bars of multi-story building columns are fixed at floor levels; they are lap-
spliced there with the top end of the bars of the underlying column, as in Fig. 8a. Tension
dominates throughout the length of each bar. Figure 8a depicts the assumed distribution of
bar stresses at the instant when the columns reach their yield moments at the top and
bottom of two successive stories. This distribution is similar to that assumed in the double-
fixity column (see Fig. 2d) and is presumed to be verified by the comparisons of the
resulting predictions of yield moments and chord rotation at yielding with the outcomes of
the available tests on single-story columns (see Sects. 2, 3). Figure 8b depicts the
Fig. 8 Multi-story column with smooth bars lap-spliced at floor levels, at incipient yielding: a assumed
heightwise distribution of bar tensile stresses in two successive stories; b the same, ground story and top
story; c schematic of deformed shape
123
distribution of steel stresses at the upper- and lowermost stories and in starter bars
embedded in the foundation. For generality, the yield stress and the stresses at the top and
bottom ends of the bars, indexed by y, ot and ob, respectively, are taken to be different at
each story, and are indexed accordingly; index 0 is used for the starter bars. Hi denotes the
total height of story i, hb,i the beam depth at the top of story i and zi the internal lever arm
of a column in that story; lo,i is the lapping of vertical bars at the base of column i.
The chord rotation at the top and bottom end of a column in story i at yielding of the
corresponding end section is estimated from the Strut-and-Tie model. Assuming the dis-
tribution of steel stresses shown in Fig. 8 and neglecting the effect of the shortening of the
concrete Strut, we obtain:

Hi fy;i þ fob;i þ hb;i fot;i fob;i þ lo;iþ1 fy;i þ fot;i
hy;top;i ¼ ð38aÞ
2Es zi

Hi1 fy;i1 þ fob;i1 þ lo;i fy;i1 þ fot;i1
hy;bot;i ¼ ð38bÞ
2Es zi
So, the chord rotations at column ends at yielding, and hence the story drift at yielding,
is about the same in all the columns of a story which have the same depth. If the lap length
varies from column to column, their drift at yielding is affected, but very weakly.
In the special case of the top story (Fig. 8b), indexed by i = m, the value lo,i?1 = 0 should
be used in Eq. (38a). In another special case, at the connection of the column to the
foundation (Fig. 8b), indexed here by 0 if i = 1 at the lowermost story, the embedment
depth of the starter bars in the foundation, denoted by lb,0 in Fig. 8b, should be used in
Eq. (38b) instead of Hi-1.
If a single-valued effective stiffness is to be attributed to column story i, its value may
be taken as:

My;top; i My;bot;i Hi hb;i
EIeff ¼ þ ð39Þ
hy;top;i hy;bot;i 12
6.2 Flexure-controlled cyclic ultimate chord rotations
The extension of the Strut-and-Tie model to the full column in story i gives for the ultimate
chord rotation at the top and bottom of the column (see Fig. 8):

Hi hb;i
hu;top;i ¼ hy;top;i þ /u;i /y;i amax þ amin lo;iþ1 þ hb;i
2
/u;i nu;i di Hi hb;i zi
þ þ ð40aÞ
2 zi Hi hb;i

Hi1 þ hb;i1
hu;bot;i ¼ hy;bot;i þ alap;i /u;i1 /y;i1 amax þ amin lo;i
2
ð40bÞ
/u;i1 nu;i1 di Hi hb;i zi
þ þ
2 zi Hi hb;i
Equations (41a), (41b) give the reduction due to lap-splicing, for lapped bars with hooks
or straight:
• ends with hooks:
123

lo;i
alap;i ¼ min 1; ð41aÞ
50db;i1
• straight ends:

lo;i
alap;i ¼ max 0; min 1; 1 ð41bÞ
25db;i1
In Eq. (40a) /y,i, /u,i and nu,i are computed using the geometry, reinforcement and axial
force of column i, whereas in Eq. (40b) /y,i-1, /u,i-1 and nu,i-1 are calculated using the
geometry and the axial force of column i and the reinforcement of column i - 1, taking
into account the effects of the lap splice; db,i is the diameter of the bars in column i, and
db,i-1 that of the column i - 1 bars.
If FRP jackets of length Lf cover each end region of column i, the ultimate chord
rotations there are:

Hi hb;i
hu;top;i;FRP ¼ hu;top;i; þ /u;i /y;i amax þ amin lo;iþ1 þ hb;i
2
1 Lf Lf Hi hb;i zi
þ /u;i nu;i di þ /u;c;i nu;c;i di þ
2 Hi hb;i Hi hb;i zi Hi hb;i
ð42aÞ
0 1
Hi1 þ hb;i1
/u;i1 /y;i1 amax þ amin lo;i
B 2 C
B C
B C
B 1 L f C
hu;bot;i;FRP ¼ hy;bot;i; þ alap;FRP;i B
B þ / n
u;i1 u;i1 id C
C
B 2 Hi hb;i C
B C
@ Lf Hi hb;i zi A
þ /u;c;i1 nu;c;i1 di þ
Hi hb;i zi Hi hb;i
ð42bÞ
If the lapped bars have hooks at their ends, then:

lo;i
alap;FRP;i ¼ min 1; 1 þ 300minð0:05; qf Ef =Ec Þi 0:1 minð0:05; qf Ef =Ec Þi
50db;i1
ð43aÞ
If they have straight ends (cf. Eq. 41b):

lo;i
alap;FRP;i ¼ max 0; min 1; 1 ð43bÞ
25db;i1
At the top of the uppermost story (indexed by i = m) lo,i?1 = 0 should be used in

Eqs. (40a), (42a). At the bottom of the lowermost story (i = 1) Eq. (40b) is replaced by the
following:
123
hu;bot;1 ¼ hy;bot;1

þ alap;1 /u;0 /y;0 amax maxðlo;1 ; lb;0 Þ þ amin minðlo;1 ; lb;0 Þ
ð44Þ

/u;0 nu;0 d1 H1 hb;1 z1
þ þ
2 z1 H1 hb;1
Equation (42b) is modified in a similar manner.
7 Application to the PsD test of the 3-story torsionally imbalanced

SPEAR building
The torsionally imbalanced 3-story building tested at full scale at the ELSA facility of the
JRC in Ispra (IT) within research project SPEAR (Fardis and Negro 2005) is the ideal
ground to test the stiffness and cyclic chord rotation capacity models highlighted in Sect. 6.
The test building was designed according to standard practice and codes of the 1950 s in
Greece (Kosmopoulos et al. 2003). It is about 10 by 10 m in plan and has eight 250-mm-
square columns with four 12 mm smooth bars and a ninth one with a 750 by 250 mm
section and ten 12 mm smooth bars (Fig. 9a). These bars are lap-spliced at floor levels,
with a standard 180 hook and 400 mm lapping. The building was subjected to Pseudo-
dynamic (PsD) testing under a two-component seismic excitation produced by modifying
the Herzegnovi record of the Montenegro (1979) earthquake to fit the Eurocode 8 spectrum
of type 1 for soil category C. It was tested:
• unretrofitted, with the ground motions applied first scaled to a Peak Ground Acceler-
ation (PGA) of 0.15 g and then repeated scaled to 0.2 g without repair of the damage
inflicted by the first test;
Fig. 9 Geometry of 3-story SPEAR test structure (Kosmopoulos et al. 2003): a framing plan of as-built or
FRP-retrofitted structure; b location and size of the two RC-jacketed columns
123
• with the column ends repaired and wrapped in two plies of GFRP; the ground motions
were first applied scaled to a PGA of 0.2 g and repeated scaled to 0.3 g without repair
of the new damage;
• with the torsional imbalance mitigated by adding concrete jackets around the central
columns of the two adjacent ‘‘flexible’’ sides (i.e., those furthest away from the central
column, see Fig. 9b), to a larger size of 400 mm square with 16 mm ribbed (deformed)
bars at corners and mid-side and a 8 mm perimeter tie at 100 mm centers; the FRPs
were removed from all columns before new PsD tests with the ground motions scaled
to a PGA of 0.2 g and repeated scaled to 0.3 g.
The PsD tests and their results are described elsewhere (Fardis and Negro 2005),
alongside modeling and analytical simulations. In this paper the tests are simulated using
as a basis a lumped-inelasticity nonlinear model of the building described in Kosmopoulos
and Fardis (2004, 2007). Nonlinear modeling and response history analyses herein differ
from those in the past as follows:
• A single response history analysis was carried out for the sequence of tests, with the
motions of each test applied shortly after the previous ones. Note that the lumped-
inelasticity model used for members reflects stiffness degradation with inelastic cyclic
deformations, but neglects strength decay due to damage or failure of the member. So,
the response in one test is affected through its initial conditions by the whole previous
history of tests, but not by the damage inflicted by them.
• The effective stiffness of the columns was determined according to Sect. 6. The
condition of members after each test was assessed by comparing the peak chord
rotation demand in each member during the test to the corresponding ultimate chord
rotation from Sects. 5 and 6.
• Energy dissipation was modeled through a combination of Grammatikou et al. (2017c):
• Rayleigh viscous damping, with damping ratio 9% of critical specified at the
periods of the first predominantly translational mode of the building in the two
horizontal directions, and
• hysteretic energy dissipation in members, produced by the multilinear, modified-
Takeda hysteresis law shown in Fig. 10, with parameter a taken equal to 0.56.
Viscous damping ratio equal to 9% of the critical value is an average value derived from
the energy dissipation during the pre-yield cycles in several hundreds of tests of RC
Fig. 10 Multi-linear modified-

Takeda hysteresis law used for
plastic hinges at member ends
123
members; it is included because, till yielding, the members are modeled as linear-elastic,
with no hysteretic damping. The value a = 0.56 used for the parameter of the modified-
Takeda model corresponds to the shear-span-ratio, reinforcement ratio and average axial
load ratio of the columns; it has been fitted to values of hysteretic damping derived from
hundreds of tests as a function of ductility ratio, assuming that viscous damping acts in
parallel to the hysteretic, at the ratio of 9% determined from pre-yield cycles (Gram-
matikou et al. 2017c). If a value of 5% had been used for the viscous damping ratio,
parameter a of the modified-Takeda model would had been equal to 0.43; however, this
combination underpredicts the floor displacements (Grammatikou et al. 2017c).
Figures 11, 12 and 13 compare the experimental displacement histories at the floor mass
centers to the computed ones in the sequence of tests. The analysis captures the overall
waveform of the response and its dominant period, confirming the estimation of the column
effective stiffness. Except near the late phase of the most damaging tests (the 0.2 g tests of
the unretrofitted and the FRP-retrofitted building and the terminal test with the two RC-
jacketed columns), the peaks of calculated displacements normally exceed those of mea-
sured ones. The larger magnitude of experimental displacement peaks in the late phase of
damaging tests is due to strength loss, which is neglected in the model; it is often
accompanied by a marked lengthening of the effective period of vibration, which is also
not captured by the model. The larger calculated displacement peaks during the rest of the
response, alongside the slower decay of the vibratory motion towards the end of each test,
may imply that damping was even larger than the value of 9% used.
In every test columns suffered much larger damage than beams; extensive visible
cracking in the beams indicated yielding of the reinforcement. Damage sustained by the
columns of the unretrofitted building during its PsD tests at PGAs of 0.15 and 0.2 g ranged
from light to moderate; the worst damage observed is shown in Fig. 14a. The FRP was
intact after the PsD tests of the retrofitted building, but masked the damage to the concrete
which was revealed when the FRP jackets were removed for the final testing with RC
jackets added around the central columns of the adjacent ‘‘flexible’’ sides of the building.
The two PsD tests carried out on this latter configuration produced heavy damage to the
seven un-retrofitted (but repaired) columns - see Fig. 14b for a prime example. In fact, the
0.3 g test ended prematurely, for fear of column failure and collapse (see top row in
Figs. 11, 12, 13).
The distribution and the severity of the damage observed after each test are consistent
with the computed damage patterns in Figs. 15 and 16. These figures show the maximum
value of the ratio of chord-rotation demand at a column end to the corresponding capacity
(‘‘damage ratio’’).
The damage ratios on the left-hand side of Figs. 15 and 16 use as capacity the value of
ultimate chord rotation from Sect. 6, i.e., the one based on the physical models of Sect. 4.
Those on the right-hand-side use as capacity the ultimate chord-rotation from Eqs. (32)–
(37), i.e., the empirical formulation. Witness the large difference between the outcomes of
the two versions of the damage ratio: the empirical approach produces markedly larger
damage ratios, whereas the physical one gives a picture much closer to the observed
damage. Although the two approaches give similar results for the ‘‘standard’’ types of
specimens depicted in Fig. 2, their predictions for ‘‘real-life’’ columns in actual buildings
may be quite apart from each other, owing to the dubious extension of the empirical
formulation from the ‘‘standard’’ specimen geometry to that of columns which are con-
tinuous across floors. For columns of this latter type, the extension of physical models
according to Sect. 6.2 seems to be closer to reality, whereas the empirical expressions,
Eqs. (32)–(37), seem to give safe-sided results.
123
Fig. 11 3rd floor displacement histories in sequence of PsD tests of SPEAR building (bottom to top)
123
Fig. 12 2nd floor displacement histories in sequence of PsD tests of SPEAR building (bottom to top)
123
Fig. 13 1st floor displacement histories in sequence of PsD tests of SPEAR building (bottom to top)
123
Fig. 14 Examples of worst damage in SPEAR tests: a, b unretrofitted building, 0.2 g PGA; c, d as-built
structure with RC jackets added to two outer columns to correct the torsional imbalance, 0.3 g PGA
Fig. 15 Column damage ratio (demand-to-capacity) of unretrofitted SPEAR structure with capacities (left)
from physical model of Sect. 6; (right) from the empirical expressions, Eqs. (32)–(37)
123
Fig. 16 Column damage ratio of retrofitted SPEAR test structure; capacities: (left) from physical model,
Sect. 6; (right) from empirical expressions, Eqs. (32)–(37) (for color code see Fig. 15)
123
8 Conclusions
Cyclic tests on single concrete columns with smooth (plain) bars do not seem to be
representative of full columns with this type of bars in buildings with more than one story.
At the base of a real-life column in a story, over-one-story-long starter bars from the
underlying story are lap-spliced with the bars of the column, which are fixed at the top
surface of the slab and extend well into the overlying story, serving as its starter bars.
Slippage all-along the over-one-story-long starter bars contributes to the interstory drift a
fixed-end-rotation at the top or bottom section of such a column which is much larger than
that of a cantilever column’s base section due to slippage along the short anchorage of bars
in the specimen’s base.
The single-story tests which come closest to columns in multistory buildings are those
with fixity of the specimen at both top and bottom. However, the literature has very few
such tests, which do not cover the common cases of bar lap-splicing at floor level or FRP
jacketing of the column ends. For these reasons, empirical models fitted to single-column
tests, and especially to the numerous tests on cantilever-type specimens, cannot be con-
fidently extended to columns of real-life buildings; physical models are much more
meaningful for such purposes.
The physical models adopted in this paper are of the Strut-and-Tie type. After being
validated or calibrated through comparisons with laboratory tests, these models were
adapted for application to real-life multi-story columns. For such columns the models give:
• the chord rotation at yielding, via Eq. (38);
• the cyclic ultimate chord rotation through Eqs. (40), (41)—or (44) at the base of the
bottom story.
• the cyclic ultimate chord rotation if there are FRP jackets, via Eqs. (42), (43).
These outcomes come in sets of two: version (a) applies to the top end of a column’s
story and (b) to the bottom one. A column’s effective stiffness is necessarily single-valued,
as expressed by Eq. (39).
The yield moment and the effective stiffness are not adversely affected by lap-splicing
of bars with hooks at their ends. The same applies to the cyclic deformation capacity,
provided that the lapping is at least 50-bar-diameters long. Below that length limit, the
yield moment and the plastic part of the cyclic deformation capacity decrease, almost in
proportion to the reduction of the lapping. The limit lapping decreases if an FRP jacket is
placed around the lap-splice region; the stronger and thicker the FRP is, the larger the
reduction.
The physical models cover also the odd, yet very common in some countries, practice of
lap-splicing the straight ends of smooth bars. Provided that the lapping is long, this type of
detail is surprisingly effective regarding the yield moment and the effective stiffness, and
to a certain extent the cyclic deformation capacity. Lap lengths of at least 50 bar diameters
seem to be almost equally effective regardless of whether bar ends are hooked or straight.
However, the effectiveness of laps of straight ends drops almost to zero at about 25 bar
diameters and seems to be insensitive to FRP wraps.
Empirical alternatives to the physical models of ultimate chord rotation, Eqs. (32)–(37),
were fitted to the single-element test results. They have, in general, less scatter or lack of fit
than physical models, and give similar predictions for individual tests as the latter, sug-
gesting that the scatter of test results with respect to model predictions is more due to
experimental reasons than to model uncertainty. However, application of both the physical
123
and the empirical models to the estimation of the ultimate chord rotation of the column
ends in a real-life three-story building subjected to multiple bi-directional PsD (Pseudo-
dynamic) tests has shown significant differences in the predictions of the two types of
models; the physical ones capture better the experimental manifestation of damage,
whereas the empirical models seem to err on the safe-side. The waveforms and the
dominant periods of the experimental response were found to be in good agreement with
the calculated response, confirming the procedure developed and proposed in this paper for
the estimation of the effective stiffness of members with smooth bars.
Acknowledgements The research leading to these results received funding from the General Secretariat for
Research and Technology, through Grant ERC-12 of the Operational Program ‘‘Education and lifelong
learning’’, co-funded by the European Union (European Social Fund) and national resources.
References
Acun B, Sucuoglu H (2010) Performance of reinforced concrete columns designed for flexure under severe
displacement cycles. ACI Struct J 107(3):364–371
Arani KK, Marefat MS, Amrollahi-Biucky A, Khanmohammadi M (2013a) Experimental seismic evalua-
tion of old concrete columns reinforced by plain bars. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 22(3):267–290
Arani KK, Marefat MS, Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Manfredi G (2013b) Hysteretic cyclic response of
concrete columns reinforced with smooth bars. Bull Earthq Eng 11(6):2033–2053
Arani KK, Di Ludovico M, Marefat MS, Prota A, Manfredi G (2014) Lateral response evaluation of old type
reinforced concrete columns with smooth bars. ACI Struct J 111(4):827
ASCE (2007) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 41-06. American Soc.
Civil Eng, Reston
Azuma K, Katori K, Hayashi S (1994) Behavior of reinforced concrete beam with spliced main bars in
flexure hinge area subjected to shear force. Trans Jpn Concr Inst 16:467–474
Biskinis D, Fardis MN (2010a) Deformations at flexural yielding of members with continuous or lap-spliced
bars. Struct Concr 11(3):127–138
Biskinis D, Fardis MN (2010b) Flexure-controlled ultimate deformations of members with continuous or
lap-spliced bars. Struct Concr 11(2):93–108
Biskinis D, Fardis MN (2013) Models for FRP-wrapped rectangular RC columns with continuous or lap-
spliced bars under cyclic lateral loading. Eng Struct 57:199–212
Bournas DA, Triantafillou TC, Zygouris K, Stavropoulos F (2009) Textile-reinforced mortar versus FRP
jacketing in seismic retrofitting of RC columns with continuous or lap-spliced deformed bars.
J Compos Constr 13(5):360–371
Bousias S, Spathis AL, Fardis MN (2004) Seismic retrofitting of columns with lap-splices through CFRP
jackets. In: Proceedings of 13th world conference earthquake. engineering. Paper 765, Vancouver, BC
Bousias S, Spathis AL, Fardis MN (2007) Seismic retrofitting of columns with lap spliced smooth bars
through FRP or concrete jackets. J Earthq Eng 11(5):653–674
CEN (1994) European prestandard ENV 1992-1-1:1994: Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures. Part 1-1:
General and buildings. Comite Europeen de Normalisation. Brussels
CEN (2005) European standard EN 1998-3:2005: Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance.
Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. Comite Europeen de Normalisation, Brussels
CEN (2009) European standard EN 1998-3:2005 Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance.
Assessment and retrofitting of buildings—corrigenda. Document CEN/TC250/SC8/ N437A, Comite
Europeen de Normalisation. Brussels
Cox KC (1941) Tests of reinforced concrete beams with recommendations for attaining balanced design.
J Am Concr Inst 38(1):65–80
Di Ludovico M, Verderame GM, Prota A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E (2012) Experimental behavior of
nonconforming RC columns with plain bars under constant axial load and biaxial bending. J Struct Eng
ASCE 139(6):897–914
Di Ludovico M, Verderame GM, Prota A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E (2013) Cyclic behavior of nonconforming
full-scale RC columns. J Struct Eng 140(5):04013107
Fabbrocino G, Verderame GM, Manfredi G, Cosenza E (2005) Rotation capacity of old type RC columns.
In: Proceedings of the fib symposium keep concrete attractive, Budapest
123
Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G, Prota A, Verderame GM (2006) Seismic capacity of as-built and retrofitted old
type RC columns. In: Proceedings of the 8th national conference on earthquake engineering. San
Francisco, CA, paper 1685
Faella C, Napoli A, Realfonzo R, Rizzano G (2007) On the available ductility of r/c columns strengthened
with FRP systems: experimental vs numerical evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 8th FRPRCS, Patras
Fardis MN, Negro P (2005) SPEAR: seismic performance assessment and rehabilitation. international
workshop, Ispra(IT), ISBN 92-894-9923-0, Office of Official Publications of the European Unions,
Luxembourg, 304p
Feldman LR, Bartlett FM (2005) Bond strength variability in pullout specimens with plain reinforcement.
ACI Struct J 102(6):860–867
fib (2012) Model code 2010. Bull. 65/66, Federation Internationale du Beton, Lausanne
Grammatikou S, Biskinis D, Fardis MN (2016) Ultimate strain criteria for RC Members in monotonic or
cyclic flexure. ASCE J Struct Eng 142(9):04016046
Grammatikou S, Biskinis D, Fardis MN (2017a) Effective stiffness and ultimate deformation of flexure-
controlled RC members, including the effects of load cycling, FRP jackets and lap-splicing of lon-
gitudinal bars. ASCE J Struct Eng (submitted)
Grammatikou S, Biskinis D, Fardis MN (2017b) Flexural rotation capacity models fitted to test results using
different statistical approaches. Struct Concr. doi:10.1002/suco.201600238
Grammatikou S, Fardis MN, Biskinis D (2017c) Modelling hysteretic damping in reinforced concrete
members and structures Earthq Eng & Struct Dyn (submitted)
Hassan N (2011) Splice tests of plain steel bars in concrete. M.Sc. thesis. Department of Civil and Geo-
logical Engineering. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon
Ilki A, Tezcan A, Koc V, Kumbasar N (2004) Seismic retrofit of non-ductile rectangular reinforced concrete
columns by CFRP jacketing. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, 16. Vancouver, BC
Ilki A, Demir C, Bedirhanoglu I, Kumbasar N (2009) Seismic retrofit of brittle and low strength RC columns
using fiber reinforced polymer and cementitious composites. Adv Struct Eng 12(3):325–347
Kosmopoulos A, Fardis MN (2004) Seismic testing of 3-story full-scale torsionally unbalanced RC struc-
ture: pre-test predictions, design and analyses of retrofitting, Proc. 5th Intern. Ph.D. symposium in Civil
Engineering, Delft, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1115–1123
Kosmopoulos A, Fardis MN (2007) Estimation of inelastic seismic deformations in asymmetric multistory
RC buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(9):1209–1234
Kosmopoulos A, Bousias SN, Fardis MN (2003) Design and pre-test assessment of 3-storey torsionally-
unbalanced RC test structure. Paper 123. In: Proceedings of fib symposium: ‘‘Concrete Structures in
Seismic Regions’’, Athens
Lash SD (1953) Ultimate strength and cracking resistance of lightly reinforced beams. J Am Concr Inst
49(2):573–582
Marefat MS, Hassanzadeh Shirazi SM, Rostamshirazi R, Khanmohammadi M (2009) Cyclic response of
concrete beams reinforced by plain bars. J Earthq Eng 13(4):463–481
Melo J, Varum H, Rossetto T (2014) Experimental response of RC elements built with plain reinforcing
bars. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on earthquake engineering & seismology,
Istanbul
Mylrea TD (1934) Tests of reinforced concrete T-beams. J Am Concr Inst 30(5):448–464
Napoli A, Perri F, Realfonzo R, Pinilla JR (2013) Seismic performance of RC columns strengthened with
SFRP systems: experimental study. In: Proceedings of the 11th FRPRCS Guimarães
Ozcan O, Binici B, Ozcebe G (2008) Improving seismic performance of deficient reinforced concrete
columns using carbon fiber-reinforced polymers Eng. Struct. 30(6):1632–1646
Ozcan O, Binici B, Ozcebe G (2009) Seismic strengthening of rectangular RC columns with CFRPs. In:
Proceedings of the 9th FRPRCS, Sydney
Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (1999) Estimation of inelastic deformation demands in multistory RC
buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28:501–528
Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2001) Deformations of RC members at yielding and ultimate. ACI Struct J
98(2):135–148
Pandey GR, Mutsuyoshi H (2005) Seismic performance of reinforced concrete piers with bond-controlled
reinforcements. ACI Struct J 102(2):295
Pham TP, Li B (2014) Seismic performance of reinforced concrete columns with plain longitudinal rein-
forcing bars. ACI Struct J 111(3):561–572
Realfonzo R, Napoli A (2009) Cyclic behavior of RC columns strengthened by FRP and steel devices.
J Struct Eng ASCE 135(10):1164–1176
Slater WA, Lyse INGE (1930) Compressive strength of concrete in flexure as determined from tests of
reinforced beams. J Am Concr Inst 26:831–874
123
Verderame GM, Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G (2002) Valutazione sperimentale della capacita rotazionale di
colonne in ca con barre lisce. Atti del 15 Congresso CTE Bari
Verderame GM, Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G (2008a) Seismic response of RC columns with smooth rein-
forcement. Part I: monotonic tests. Eng Struct 30(9):2277–2288
Verderame GM, Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G (2008b) Seismic response of RC columns with smooth rein-
forcement. Part II: Cyclic tests. Eng Struct 30(9):2289–2300
Verderame GM, Ricci P, Manfredi G, Cosenza E (2010) Ultimate chord rotation of RC columns with
smooth bars: some considerations about EC8 prescriptions. Bull Earthq Eng 8(6):1351–1373
Yalcin C, Kaya O, Sinangil M (2008) Seismic retrofitting of R/C columns having plain rebars using CFRP
sheets for improved strength and ductility. Constr Build Mater 22(3):295–307
Yamada M (1958) Drehfaehigkeit plastischer Gelenke in Stahlbetonbalken. Beton-und Stahlbetonbau H
4:85–91
123

Grammatikou - Models of Flexural Controlled Strength

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grammatikou - Models of Flexural Controlled Strength

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bull Earthquake Eng (2018) 16:341–375

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Models of the flexure-controlled strength, stiffness

Sofia Grammatikou1 • Michael N. Fardis1 • Dionysis Biskinis1

Keywords Concrete columns Cyclic loading Deformation capacity Plain

& Michael N. Fardis

2 Yield properties of simple rectangular specimens with continuous bars

2.1 Yield moment and chord rotation at yielding of cantilever or double

2.3 Secant stiffness to the yield point

3 Yield properties of simple specimens with bars lap-spliced in a region

3.1 Effect of lap-splicing on the yield moment of simple specimens

The normal construction practice of multi-story building columns, especially in those

Table 3 Statistics of test-to-prediction ratio of secant-yield-point stiffness (* see footnote of Table 1)

1 EIexp/EIeff, Eqs. (2), (6)—single/double cantilever with 86 1.13 1.08* 35.6

3.2 Effect of lap-splicing on the chord rotation at yielding of simple

3.3 Effective stiffness of simple rectangular specimens with lap-spliced

4 Flexure-controlled ultimate chord rotation of single-story columns

4.1 Single-story rectangular columns with continuous smooth bars

• for the unconfined concrete of the cover:

0:0035  ecu ¼ ð18:5=hðmmÞÞ2  0:01 ð14Þ

4.2 Single-story columns with lap-spliced bars

hu;lap; cantilever ¼ hy;lap;cantilever

4.3 Effect of FRP wraps on a single-story column with smooth bars,

• for the FRP-confined concrete:

5 Empirical estimation of flexure-controlled cyclic ultimate chord-

hu;continuous bars;FRP ¼ hy;continuous bars þ 0:9hpl

hu;lapped hooked bars ¼ hy;lap þ 0:74apl pl

hu;lapped straight bars ¼ hy;lap þ apl pl

Equation (36) with qf = 0 covers the case without FRP jacket.

Cantilever columns, (1), (32) (1), (12)–(15) 0.77 27.9 5.1

6 Multi-story rectangular columns with smooth bars lap-spliced at floor

6.1 Properties at yielding

6.2 Flexure-controlled cyclic ultimate chord rotations

If the lapped bars have hooks at their ends, then:

If they have straight ends (cf. Eq. 41b):

At the top of the uppermost story (indexed by i = m) lo,i?1 = 0 should be used in

Equation (42b) is modified in a similar manner.

7 Application to the PsD test of the 3-story torsionally imbalanced

Fig. 10 Multi-linear modified-

You might also like

0:0035 ecu ¼ ð18:5=hðmmÞÞ2 0:01 ð14Þ