0 Up votes0 Down votes

13 views13 pagesStructural Engineering

Jan 27, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Structural Engineering

© All Rights Reserved

13 views

Structural Engineering

© All Rights Reserved

- Fault Lines
- Soul Harvest: The World Takes Sides
- Soul Harvest: The World Takes Sides
- Life As We Knew It
- The Hatching: A Novel
- Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded: August 27, 1883
- Krakatoa
- Pacific: Silicon Chips and Surfboards, Coral Reefs and Atom Bombs, Brutal Dictators, Fading Empires, and the Coming Collision of the World's Superpowers
- Pacific: Silicon Chips and Surfboards, Coral Reefs and Atom Bombs, Brutal Dictators, Fading Empires, and the Coming Collision of the World's Superpowers
- Introduction to Design of Building Structures
- Rogue Wave
- Aftershock
- Judgment of Paris: California vs. France and the Historic 1976 Paris Tasting That Revolutionized Wine
- Industrial Power Engineering Handbook
- The Dark Flood Rises: A Novel
- Imperfection
- Earthquake-Resistant Structures: Design, Build, and Retrofit
- The Gifted: A New Edition of Terri Blackstock's Classic Tale
- Cataclysm

You are on page 1of 13

Terry Y. P. Yuen, Asst.-Prof., Dr, Department of Civil Engineering, Bursa Orhangazi Üniversitesi, Yıldırım, Turkey

J. S. Kuang, Prof., Dr, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,

Hong Kong. Contact: cejkuang@ust.hk

DOI: 10.2749/101686617X14676303589273

all design codes implement the same

Protection of structural columns against severe damage is of most importance provision, for instance, New Zealand13

in the seismic design of RC structures. The seismic performance of reinforced and the American Concrete Institute

concrete (RC) columns can be improved by concrete conﬁnement in the plastic (ACI)14 codes do not explicitly pre-

hinge regions, where the required quantity of conﬁning reinforcement is inﬂu- scribe any limits for AFR. It should be

enced by the axial force ratio (AFR). Nevertheless, different design standards noted that the two latter codes do

have different treatments on the AFR effect in the ductility design of RC col- provide equations for evaluating the

umns. In this regard, this paper presents a scientiﬁc revisit, which is conjugated ultimate axial capacity of columns tak-

with a statistical analysis of 474 sets of experimental data, on the effect of ing into account the contribution of

AFR. It is found that the displacement and hysteretic dissipation capacities of both concrete and longitudinal rein-

the ﬂexure-critical RC columns can be signiﬁcantly reduced by increasing AFR, forcement, but it will result in a range

although the lateral strength shows a reversed trend. On the other hand, the of AFR that is generally less restrictive

displacement ductility of short columns is apparently not inﬂuenced by AFR, than the EC8 requirements.

yet the hysteretic dissipation capacity deteriorates under high AFR. The analyt-

In this regard, this paper revisits the

ical results also suggest that different AFR limits should be used for the design scientiﬁc background of the AFR

of slender and short columns due to different failure mechanisms. The pre- effects and attempts to establish its

sented work sheds light on the considerations of the AFR effect and setting a relationships with the drift capacity

suitable limit for controlling the seismic performance of RC columns. and strength of RC columns. The

Keywords: axial force ratio; reinforced concrete columns; design codes; ductil- AFR effects are studied with well-

ity; statistical analysis. established theoretical and empirical

models in conjunction with a compre-

hensive statistical analysis using

474 sets of experimental data of RC

Introduction hoops or ties in the critical or potential

columns. How the ductility detailing

plastic hinge regions, where spread

Catastrophic collapse of building of columns is related to AFR in sev-

yielding of reinforcement bars is likely

structures is always accompanied by eral prevailing design standards is also

to occur. The amount of conﬁning

failure of structural columns. Among reviewed and compared together with

reinforcement required for achieving

typical column failure mechanisms, the results of the statistical analysis.

speciﬁc ductility level is strongly

axial and shear failures are the most The work presented in this paper

dependent on the imposed axial com-

sheds light on the use and determina-

critical in leading to structural pression. High axial compression can

tion of a suitable limit of AFR for

instability.1–5 Protecting columns from lead to premature concrete crushing,

achieving target performances of RC

losing the load-carrying capacity is low-cycle fatigue and reinforcement

columns during earthquakes.

thus of most importance in the capac- buckling under cyclic loading, and

ity design of structures to withstand hence reduction in the ductility capac-

seismic effects.6 To this end, special ity. Therefore, the conﬁnement detail- Axial Compression Effects on

design and reinforcement detailing are ing requirement for RC columns is Drift Capacity and Strength

needed for reinforced concrete (RC) often set to be more stringent at higher

columns to avert severe strength and axial compression level in order to In modern seismic design approach,

stiffness degradation during earth- compensate for the reduced ductility potential plastic hinges or inelastic

quakes. Out of many ductile detailing capacity. regions in RC columns are conﬁned

methods, concrete conﬁnement in crit- by closely spaced hoop reinforcement

Eurocode 8 (Ref. [7]) stipulates the for two main purposes: (a) to increase

ical regions and axial compression lim- limits for normalised axial force—a

its are the most effective means for the ductility of the RC columns by

ratio of nominal axial stress to con- exerting lateral conﬁning pressure

RC columns to attain the required crete compressive strength of the onto the concrete core regions; and

ductility.4 Conﬁning reinforcement is section i.e. N=fc0 Ag —in the design of (b) to restraint buckling of longitudi-

provided through transverse closed

RC columns and walls based on the nal reinforcing bars. Brittle and non-

experimental work in Ref. [8] in spite ductile RC columns always contribute

Peer-reviewed by international ex- of the scattered results.9 Other modern to the seismic vulnerability of the

perts and accepted for publication

by SEI Editorial Board seismic design codes, e.g. Turkish structure. The most direct method to

Earthquake Code,10 Chinese Seismic improve the seismic performance of

Paper received: November 23, 2015 Code11 and Hong Kong RC Code,12 RC columns is by conﬁning the con-

Paper accepted: July 18, 2016 also stipulate upper limits on axial crete with steel hoops to achieve

higher rotational ductility in the plas- where s is the spacing of the hoops; bo

0:132Es dl εcu ζεy

tic hinges.4,15,16 However, as discussed and ho are the width and depth of the μΔ = 1 + − ð9Þ

ζαL c hc

above, axial compression can deprive conﬁned core (to the centreline of the

columns of the ductility provided by hoops); bi is the distance between con- where Es is the elastic modulus of steel

the conﬁning reinforcement. In this secutive bars laterally engaged by and αL = Ls/hc is the column aspect

section, numerical studies using hoops or cross-ties; Do is the diameter ratio. Once the depth of the natural

widely adopted analytical or empirical of conﬁned core (to the centreline of axis c is determined for the ultimate

models are performed to obtain the the hoops). The concrete strain εcc at fcc stress state prescribed by Eqs. (1) to

relationships between the AFR and and the crushing strain εcu are taken as: (4), the ultimate displacement and

column behaviour. Comparisons ductility capacity can be immediately

εcc = εc1 ½1 + 5ðfcc =fc − 1Þ ð4Þ

between the actual test and predicted calculated from Eqs. (8) and (9).

results will be presented in the latter εcu = 0:004 + 1:4ωv εsm fc =fcc ð5Þ The above analytical formulation is

section, which will reveal the perfor- valid generally for ﬂexure-critical col-

mance and possible limitations of respectively, where εcl is the strain at umns with aspect ratios greater than

these models. This brings up the need the peak stress of unconﬁned concrete,

3, below which shear deformation

for an AFR limit for routine engineer- ωv is mechanical conﬁning reinforce-

would have signiﬁcant inﬂuence on

ing design of columns, when more rig- ment ratio and εsm is rupture strain of

the behaviour of columns. For shear-

orous analysis is unavailable or not steel reinforcement. On the other

critical columns, the ultimate drift can

performed. hand, an apparent and instant effect

be estimated by an empirical equation

with higher axial compression reduces

The effect of AFR can be illustrated proposed by Ref. [19]:

the curvature ductility of the walls.4

by plotting the deformation and shear The curvature ductility can be evalu- Δu 1 v 1 P 3 1

capacity against AFR for the columns. ated as below:18 = 4ρs − pﬃﬃﬃﬃ − + ≥

The stress–strain envelope curve of Ls 40 fc 40 Ag fc 100 100

εcu hc

concrete assumes the classic Mander μϕ = ð6Þ ð10Þ

model15 as: ζεy c

where ρs is shear reinforcement ratio,

σc rη where ζ is a shape factor, which takes

= ð1Þ v is nominal shear stress, P is axial

fcc r −1 + η r a value of 2.1 for rectangular sections

and 2.25 for circular sections, and hc is force and Ag is the gross cross-sec-

tional area. The above equation

where σ c is the compressive stress cor- the column depth. Equation (6) shows

that the curvature ductility is inversely explicitly includes the effect of AFR

responding to the normalised com-

proportional to the depth of natural by the third term in the middle

pressive strain η = εc/εcc and r = Eci/

axis c. By the equilibrium of the exter- expression. According to Eq. (10),

(Eci − fcc/εcc). The peak conﬁned com-

nal and internal sectional forces, it even though axial compression can be

pressive strength fcc, the strain εcc at

can be readily shown that the depth beneﬁcial to the shear transfer across

the peak stress of conﬁned concrete

of natural axis c is a monotonic the cracked concrete sections, lower

and the ultimate crushing strain εcu in

increasing function of axial compres- ultimate drifts of shear-critical col-

the core regions are calculated by the

sion. Therefore, the curvature ductil- umns result in higher AFR as of

following equations:7,17

ity and the displacement ductility ﬂexure-critical columns.

decrease with increase of axial com-

aρs fyt 0:86 The nominal shear capacity vu of

fcc = fc ð1 + K Þ, K ≈ 3:7 ð2Þ pression. The plastic hinge length Lp

short columns can be evaluated by

fc for columns is calculated as follows:18

truss and arch mechanisms, such as

where fc is the compressive strength fc the AIJ shear strength model:20

of unconﬁned concrete; ρs is the trans- Lp = min 0:2 −1 , 0:08 Ls

fy qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

verse reinforcement ratio; fyt is the νu = jt ρs fyt cotϕc =hc + ðαs Þ2 + 1 −αs

yield strength of the transverse + 0:022fy dl ≥ 0:044fy dl ð7Þ

reinforcement; a is the conﬁnement × ð1− βÞκ fc =2 ð11Þ

where Ls is the length from the critical

effectiveness factor:

section to the point of contra-ﬂexure,

! fy is the yield strength (in MPa) of the where jt is the distance between the

s s X b2 top and bottom longitudinal bars, fyt is

a = 1− 1− 1− i longitudinal reinforcement and dl is

2bo 2ho n

6bo ho the longitudinal bar size. Shorter plas- the yield strength of the transverse

tic hinge lengths result in lower dis- reinforcement, ϕc is the angle of the

ðfor rectangular cross −sectionsÞ placement capacity and thus the lower compressive strut and β is calcu-

ð3aÞ bound in the Eq. (7) can be conserva- lated by:

tively assumed, i.e. Lp = 0.044fydl.

1 + cot2 ϕc ρs fyh

s 2 Using this lower bound value of plas- β= ð12Þ

a = 1− tic hinge length and Eq. (6), the ulti- κ fc

2Do

mate drift Δu/Ls and displacement

ðfor circular cross − sectionsÞ ð3bÞ ductility μΔ = Δu/Δy of ﬂexure-critical Here κ is the effectiveness factor for

RC columns can be calculated as: the compressive strength of concrete

struts, which is a function of plastic

s Δu εcu ξεy

a = 1− ðcircular cross ≥ ζεy αL =3 + 0:044fy dl − hinge rotation RP as follows:

2Do Ls c hc

−sections with spiral hoopsÞ ð3cÞ ð8Þ κ = 1:0 − 15Rp κ 0 ≥ 0:25κ0 ð13Þ

where κ 0 = 0.7 − fc/200. The ﬁrst term Ultimate Drift Capacity vs. AFR drop in ultimate drift becomes more

in Eq. (11) is the truss action compris- gradual as a result of the change of

To illustrate the effects of AFR

ing tension members of transverse rein- behaviour from tension failure to

depicted by Eqs. (8) and (10), the ulti-

forcement, and compression members compression failure. On the other

mate drifts of ﬂexure- and shear-critical hand, the model in Ref. [19] depicts a

of secondary concrete struts. The sec-

RC columns of aspect ratios αL respec- less rapid drop in ultimate drifts of

ond term is contributed by the arch

action of an inclined primary compres- tively equal to 4 and 2 are plotted shear columns until a constant level is

sion strut running across the whole against AFR for different amounts of reached in high AFR. It will be

member from the loading point to the conﬁning reinforcement as shown in demonstrated later that the drift

support. Despite the clear physical Fig. 1. The two columns have the same capacity vs. AFR relationships

implications, the AIJ shear strength cross-section dimensions of obtained above are generally consist-

model does not explicitly account for 500 × 500 mm. The longitudinal rein- ent with the actual behaviour.

the axial force effect. The axial force forcing ratio ρL is 2%, and the ratio of

effect can be demonstrated by the the yield strength of reinforcement to

Lateral Strength vs. AFR

shear strength model given in Ref. [21]: the concrete compressive strength fy/fc

is 16.7. The relationships of the lateral

" pﬃﬃﬃﬃsﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ #

0:4 fc P strength and AFR for ﬂexural and

νu = k ρs fyt + pﬃﬃﬃﬃ ð14Þ It is clearly shown that effectiveness shear columns are depicted by the

αL 0:5 fc Ag of conﬁnement to enhance the dis- plots of normalised shear strength

placement capacity is reduced by against AFR as shown in Fig. 2. The

where the value of the factor k is a increasing the AFR, revealing the lateral strength of ﬂexural columns is

function of displacement ductility as need of AFR limits to control the duc- calculated by moment-curvature anal-

follows: tility of RC columns. Furthermore, ysis using the stress–strain relation-

8 the ultimate drifts of ﬂexural columns, ships prescribed by Eqs. (1)–(4). For

< 1:0 μΔ < 2 failing in tension failure, decrease rap- shear columns, the normalized shear

k = -0:075μΔ + 1:15 2 ≤ μΔ < 6 ð15Þ idly over the low AFR region. Sub-

: strength is directly calculated by Eqs.

0:7 μΔ ≥ 6 jecting to higher AFR, the rate of (11) and (14). As shown in Fig. 2a,

(a) 12 (b) 6

!v = 0.00 !v = 0.00

L = 4 L = 2

Ultimate displacement ratio u/H (%)

10 !v = 0.05 5 !v = 0.05

500 mm 500 mm

fy /fc = 16.7 fy /fc = 16.7

!v = 0.10 !v = 0.10

L = 2% L = 2%

8 !v = 0.15 4 !v = 0.15

500 mm

!v = 0.20 500 mm

!v = 0.20

6 3

4 2

2 1

0 0

20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100

Axial compression ratio (%) Axial compression ratio (%)

F ig . 1: Effect of AFR on displacement capacity of RC columns: (a) ﬂexure-critical columns; (b) shear-critical columns

!v = 0.00 L = 2

Normalised lateral strength Pu/(fc0.5 Ag)

Normalised lateral strength Pu/(fc0.5 Ag)

L = 4 1.4

0.5 !v = 0.05 fy /fc = 16.7 500 mm

500 mm

fy /fc = 16.7

!v = 0.10 1.2 L = 2%

L = 2% )

!v = 0.15 Sezen

0.4 500 mm 0.20 ( 0.20 (AIJ)

500 mm !v = 0.20 1.0

ezen)

0.15 (S 0.15 (AIJ)

0.3 0.8 n)

Seze

0.10 ( 0.10 (AIJ)

0.6 )

Sezen

0.2 0.05 ( 0.05 (AIJ)

e n )

0.4 0.00 (Sez

0.00 (AIJ)

0.1

0.2

0 0

20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Axial compression ratio (%) Axial compression ratio (%)

F ig . 2: Effect of AFR on lateral strength of RC columns: (a) ﬂexure-critical columns; (b) shear-critical columns

the lateral strength–AFR relationship of the concrete cover at relatively low relationships. To this regard, compre-

of ﬂexural columns shows the typical displacement and subsequently hensive statistical analysis of the

behaviour of M–N interaction beha- increase the risk of buckling of the AFR effect is performed using availa-

viour. In low AFR region, where col- exposed longitudinal bars;22 (2) the ble experimental data presented in

umns fail by tension failure, the P-Δ effect exacerbated by compres- the Structural Performance Data-

moment capacity and the lateral sion can cause the phenomenon of base25 and some latest test results in

strength are enhanced by the increase “crawling” in the hysteretic behaviour Refs. [26–33].

of axial force. However, after the and abrupt drop in strength;4 (3) high

balanced-failure point, compression The gathered load–displacement data

stress level increases the risk of low

failure under compression dictates the are then analysed and, from the data,

cycle fatigue of the columns under

the yield displacement, ultimate dis-

column behaviour and further increase cyclic loading;23 and (4) axial com-

of AFR causes reduction in the lateral placement ratio (UDR) and displace-

pression can enhance-via acrh action -

strength. With higher amount of trans- ment ductility are evaluated following

the shear capacity of columns, in par-

verse conﬁning reinforcement pro- the deﬁnitions from Ref. [34]. It

ticular with low aspect ratios.24

vided, higher AFR is needed to cause should be noted that over 85% of col-

the balanced failure, implicating that Development of a concise analytical umn tests (49% spiral and 51% rec-

the better conﬁned columns fail in the relationship to describe the complete tangular) were conducted under AFR

ductile tension mode over a wider effect of AFR and its interaction below 0.4, whereas less than 7% of

range of AFR. In the case of shear-crit- with other variables is virtually impos- columns (24% spiral and 76% rectan-

ical columns, as shown in Fig. 2b, the sible. Therefore, the quantiﬁcation gular) were tested above AFR of 0.5

shear strength is directly proportional of the axial compression and the con- and only nine tests have the AFR

to the amount of transverse reinforce- ﬁnement detailing effect on RC col- above 0.6. The obtained empirical

ment provided as predicted by shear umns’ seismic performance has been relationships presented in this

models in both in AIJ [20] and relying on empirical or semi-empirical section can be used in prediction for

Ref. [21].

Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)

Nevertheless, the two models predict Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15)

different behaviours of shear strength (a) Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)

vs. AFR. Provided with a speciﬁc 12 Circular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)

Ultimate displacement ratio (u/Ls) (%)

the AIJ model predicts an almost con- 10

y = –0.0793*x0.7561 + 3.66: mean-fit for a!vL/3 < 0.05

stant value of shear strength over the

y = –0.3368*x0.5561 + 5.83: mean-fit for 0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15

full range of AFR. The reduction of y = –0.3737*x0.6197 + 7.86: mean-fit for a!vL/3 < 0.15

8

the plastic hinge rotation due to

increasing AFR is conducive to the

shear transfer by arch mechanism, 6

resulting in a very slight increase of

shear strength in the low AFR region. 4

On the contrary, AFR has greater

inﬂuence on the shear strength pre-

dicted by the model in Ref. [21], 2

which can be seen later that is a more

realistic representation of experimen- 0

tal results. Nevertheless, the AIJ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

model generally gives a conservative Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg)) (%)

estimation of the shear strength,

except for heavily reinforced columns (b) 12

Rectangular Col. (!v < 0.05)

subject to low AFR. Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž !v < 0.10)

Rectangular Col. (!v Ó 0.10)

Ultimate displacement ratio (u/Ls) (%)

Circular Col. (0.05 ž !v < 0.10)

Statistical Analysis of AFR Circular Col. (!v Ó 0.10)

Effect 8 y = –0.1202*x0.6512 + 2.69: mean-fit for !v < 0.05

y = –0.1505*x0.6862 + 4.08: mean-fit for 0.05 ž !v < 0.10

Based on the results of some well- y = –0.2003*x0.7062 + 5.60: mean-fit for !v < 0.10

6

known analytical models, the last

section has provided a general picture

on how the behaviours of ﬂexural and 4

shear columns are affected by AFR.

However, the inﬂuence of AFR on 2

the actual behaviour of RC columns is

more complicated than the analytical

results presented earlier. In addition 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

to reducing the curvature ductility, Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg)) (%)

other effects of axial compression are

summarised as follows: (1) high axial Fi g. 3: Relation between AFR and ultimate displacement ratio: (a) ﬂexure-critical

compression can lead to early spalling columns; (b) shear-critical columns

the seismic behaviour of columns sub- The relationships between displace- Grouping of columns by the parame-

ject to different levels of AFR. For ment ductility and ultimate displace- ter deﬁned in Eq. (16) is to isolate the

instance, in the displacement-based ment against AFR are plotted AFR effect on the displacement capa-

design, the UDR vs. AFR relationship respectively in Figs. 3a and 4a for cities of ﬂexural columns from other

can be used to check whether the ﬂexure-critical RC columns with dif- effects of effective concrete conﬁne-

required target inter-storey drift can ferent levels of conﬁnement aωV and ment and aspect ratio. It can be seen

be conﬁdently met by the ultimate dis- aspect ratios αL, which is charac- in Figs. 3a and 4a that the columns,

placement of the columns. terised by the following parameters: which are of same level, show similar

trends with respect to AFR.

Ultimate Displacement and Flexure critical columns

8 Resembling to the previous analytical

Displacement Ductility < aωv αL =3 < 0:05 ðLevel 1Þ results, there is a trend of declining

Displacement ductility and capacity of 0:05 ≤ aωV αL =3 < 0:15 ðLevel 2Þ displacement ductility and ultimate

:

RC columns are particularly important aωv αL =3 > 0:15 ðLevel 3Þ drift with increasing AFR. It can be

in determining the seismic perfor- ð17aÞ seen that below a relatively low level

mances and whether they can survive of AFR (≤20%), considerable RC col-

devastating earthquakes. It is generally Shear critical columns umns can achieve moderate to high

recognised that shear action dominates 8 ductility (μΔ > 4) even with low con-

over ﬂexural action for short or captive < ωv < 0:05 ðLevel 1Þ

ﬁnement and aspect ratio (aωvαL/

columns and they behave differently 0:05 ≤ ωV < 0:10 ðLevel 2Þ

: 3 < 0.05). The effect of conﬁnement

from ﬂexure-critical columns. Hence, it ωv > 0:10 ðLevel 3Þ on improving the structural perfor-

is plausible to further disaggregate the ð17bÞ mances is clearly demonstrated again

test data into two collective sets of

short (shear-critical) columns and non-

Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)

short (ﬂexure-critical) columns respec-

Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.05)

tively. Yet, there is still no consensus Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)

on the deﬁnition of short columns up to Circular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)

now, since there is no clear dividing (a) 14 Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15)

boundary to differentiate shear-critical Circular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)

columns from ﬂexure-critical columns.

Displacement ductility (u/y)

The shear span to depth ratio (Ls/hc, y = –0.1156*x0.715 + 6.71: mean-fit for 0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15

y = –0.1042*x0.810 + 8.23: mean-fit for a!vL/3 < 0.15

where Ls = M/V) provides a reasona- 10

ble ground for the classiﬁcation of

shear and ﬂexure-critical columns. 8

Generally, columns with high shear

span to depth ratio (Ls/hc > 3) fail in 6

ﬂexural mode, while the failure of col-

umns with low shear span to depth 4

ratio (Ls/hc ≤ 3) can be dictated by

shear or ﬂexure-shear coupling effect.

2

Nevertheless, the shear span to depth

ratio alone is not enough to distinguish 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

shear-critical columns. It was shown35 Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg)) (%)

that axial force and longitudinal and

transverse reinforcement ratios are also Rectangular Col. (!v < 0.05)

important in judging whether a squat Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž !v < 0.10)

column would fail in shear or ﬂexural Rectangular Col. (!v Ó 0.10)

mode. In this study, the shear-critical (b) 12 Circular Col. (!v < 0.05)

Circular Col. (0.05 ž !v < 0.10)

and ﬂexure-critical columns are 11

Circular Col. (!v Ó 0.10)

grouped according to the criteria pro- 10

Displacement ductility (u/y)

posed by Ref. [35] as follows: 9 y = –0.00351*x1.051 + 5.57: mean-fit for 0.05 ž !v < 0.10

y = –0.00181*x1.405 + 6.71: mean-fit for !v Ó 0.15

Flexure critical columns 8

8 7

> Ls =h > 3

<

2 ≤ Ls =h ≤ 3 and N < N1 or N > N2 6

>

: ωl h 5

Ls =h < 2 and <1

ωs 2Ls 4

ð16aÞ 3

2

Shear critical columns

8 1

< 2 ≤ Ls =h ≤ 3 and N1 < N < N2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

ωl h Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg)) (%)

: Ls =h < 2 and >1

ωs 2Ls

F i g. 4 : Relation between AFR and displacement ductility: (a) ﬂexure-critical columns;

ð16bÞ (b) shear-critical columns

in the two ﬁgures, where the ductility Figure 5 shows a comparison between Lateral Strength and Hysteretic

and in particular the ultimate dis- the experimental data and the calcu- Dissipation

placement can increase signiﬁcantly lated values from Eqs. (8) and (10)

Relationships between the shear

with higher conﬁnement. But at for ﬂexure-criterial columns and

strength normalized with respect to

higher AFR (>30%), the columns can shear-criterial columns respectively.

hardly maintain the same level of duc- As seen in Fig. 5a, there is a devia- fc0:5 Ag and AFR are plotted in Fig. 6.

tility as in under low AFR, and large tion between the theoretical values It can be noted that the lateral

amount of conﬁnement is needed in for the ultimate rift of ﬂexural col- strength of the columns increase with

order to achieve moderate to high umns, obtained from moment- lower aspect ratios, which is opposite

ductility and ultimate displacement. curvature analysis, and the experi- to the trend in the displacement

Above the AFR (>45%), the ultimate mental results. Such deviation could capacity and aspect ratio relation-

displacement (UDR) of most of the be caused by many factors, for ships. The parameter used to group

RC columns cannot be higher than instance, ﬂexural-shear interaction, the ﬂexure-critical columns as deﬁned

2% with respect to their clear height. bond-slip and buckling of compres- in Eq. (16a) is modiﬁed as follows:

sion bars. For shear columns (Fig. 5b),

The ultimate displacement–AFR and Flexure critical columns

the values calculated from the model

displacement ductility–AFR relations

in Ref. [19] show less deviation from 8

for the shear-critical columns are < 3aωv =αL < 0:05 ðLevel 1Þ

the experimental results, and in most 0:05 ≤ 3aωV =αL < 0:15 ðLevel 2Þ

shown in Figs. 3b and 4b respectively.

cases it can give conservative estima- :

Similar to the analytical results pre- 3aωv =αL > 0:15 ðLevel 3Þ

tions of the drift capacity of the

sented before, there is a similar trend ð18Þ

columns.

for non-short columns that the ulti-

mate drift and displacement ductility

are diminishing with increasing AFR, (a) 14 Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)

regardless of the amount of conﬁne- Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15)

ment reinforcement being provided. Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)

Measured ultimate displacement ratio

Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15)

short columns is less inﬂuenced by

10 Circular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)

AFR and shows a more graduate

y = 0.8836x: mean-fit

decline with increasing AFR.

8

The model in Ref. [19] sets a lower

bound for the ultimate displacement

6

ratio of shear columns to be 1%, but

it can be seen from Fig. 3b that some

columns have values as low as 0.71%. 4

It is therefore suggested that the

lower bound for ultimate displace- 2

ment ratio of shear columns should be

set at 0.7%. Furthermore, given the 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

dispersed results as shown in Fig. 4b,

Calculated ultimate displacement ratio

it is not quite possible to establish a

clear relationship between the dis- Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)

placement ductility and AFR. It Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15)

shows that the yield drift of shear col- Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)

(b)

umns is also signiﬁcantly dependent 8 Circular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)

on the axial force, which is contrary to Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15)

ﬂexural columns that their yield cur- 6 Circular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)

Measured ultimate displacement ratio

forcement as in Eq. (8). As discussed

before, the axial compression has both 5

adverse and beneﬁcial effects on the

4

shear-critical RC members. The bene-

ﬁts of axial compression become pre- 3

dominant for RC members with very

low aspect ratios. It was shown that 2

for very short RC walls with aspect

ratio less than 1.5, the trend for the 1

ultimate displacement–AFR relation-

ship is even completely reversed, due 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

to the fact that the shear transfer by

Calculated ultimate displacement ratio

arch action and sliding resistance of

cracks in the shear-critical RC mem- Fi g. 5: Comparison of calculated ultimate displacement ratio with experimental results

bers can be enhanced by axial (a) Eq. (7) for ﬂexure-critical columns; (b) Ref. [19] model for shear-critical columns

compression.36 (dotted lines represent the bounds of 90% conﬁdence interval)

The same grouping criteria deﬁned in displacement capacity and hysteretic strength of heavily reinforced columns.

Eq. (16a) are used for shear-critical dissipation, as shown later. Furthermore, less deviation is found

columns. Although the analytical in the Ref. [21] model as compared

Similarly, the numerical values of the

behaviour for ﬂexural columns (Fig. 2a) experimentally measured shear

with the AIJ model.

cannot be clearly observed in the sta- strength are compared with the calcu- Besides the displacement parameters,

tistical results as shown in Fig. 6a, the lated values based on moment- hysteretic dissipation capacity is also

predicted normalised shear strength is curvature analysis for ﬂexural columns, an important or even more suitable

restricted to the experimental results. and the AIJ and Ref. [21] models for parameter to evaluate the expected

Higher AFRs lead to higher ultimate shear columns. The comparisons are seismic performances of RC columns,

lateral strength and this trend is partic- shown in Fig. 7. As shown in Fig. 7a, a since it characterises the low-cycle

ularly noticeable for the short columns very accurate estimation of the lateral fatigue or cyclic strength and stiffness

Fig. 6b. This behaviour follows the strength of ﬂexural columns can be degradation effect. As seen in Fig. 8,

model given in Ref. [21] (Fig. 2b) obtained by simple moment curvature similar to the case of displacement,

rather than the AIJ model. Neverthe- analysis. For the shear columns, as the axial compression tends to deprive

less, such increase in lateral strength shown in Fig. 7b and c, both AIJ and the capacity of hysteretic dissipation

generally cannot compensate for the Ref. [21] models can give good estima- that can be achieved by the columns,

aforementioned adverse effect of the tions for lightly reinforced columns even though the lateral strength is

axial compression including lower but tend to underestimate the shear increased. As shown in Fig. 8a, in

order to attain high hysteretic dissipa-

tion at high level of AFR, large quan-

Rectangular Col. (a!v/(3L) < 0.05)

tity of conﬁnement reinforcement and

Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!v/(3L) < 0.15)

high aspect ratio (aωv/3 > 0.15) is

Rectangular Col. (a!v/(3L) < 0.15)

Circular Col. (a!v/(3L) < 0.05)

needed. Furthermore, despite greater

Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!v /(3L) < 0.15) lateral strength, total hysteretic dissi-

(a)

1.2 Circular Col. (a!v /(3L) < 0.15) pation generated by short-columns is

y = 0.00842*x0.7435 + 0.125: mean-fit for a!v/(3L) < 0.05 considerably less than the ﬂexure-

Normalised lateral strength (Vu/fc0.5Ag)

y = 0.00836*x0.6879 + 0.245: mean-fit for 0.05 ž a!v/(3L) < 0.15 critical columns under the same level

1 y = 0.04013*×0.4318 + 0.351: mean-fit for a!v/(3L) < 0.15 of AFR as seen in Fig. 8b. In other

words, shear-critical columns are

0.8 prone to low-cycle fatigue leading to

rapid drop in strength and stiffness

0.6 under seismic shaking. Therefore, a

limit on AFR is needed to legitimate

0.4

ductility design of RC columns,

although the AFR tends to enhance

the lateral strength and in some situa-

0.2

tions may be even beneﬁcial to the dis-

placement capacity of short columns.

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg)) (%) Effect of AFR in Code-Based

Rectangular Col. (!v < 0.05)

Design

Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž !v < 0.10)

It is well demonstrated that the axial

Rectangular Col. (!v Ó 0.10)

Circular Col. (!v < 0.05)

compression has signiﬁcant inﬂuence

Circular Col. (0.05 ž !v < 0.10) on the behaviour of the RC columns.

(b) In view of this, many modern RC

1.2 Circular Col. (!v Ó 0.10)

y = 0.00309*x1.0391 + 0.3046: mean-fit for !v < 0.05 design codes prescribe provisions for

Normalised lateral strength (Vu/fc0.5Ag)

y = 0.00285*x0.9653 + 0.4311: mean-fit for 0.05 ž !v < 0.10 conﬁnement detailing in relation with

1 y = 0.00571*x0.8645 + 0.5591: mean-fit for !v Ó 0.10 AFR, and some codes even stipulate

upper limits of the AFR. Although

0.8 the physical implication and motiva-

tion behind these provisions are the

0.6 same, some differences in the detailed

requirements exist among various

design codes.

0.4

AFR Limits

0.2

The stipulated limits on the AFRs in

various design codes are evaluated

0 closely with the statistical analysis, in

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg)) (%) relation to the ultimate displacement

ratio and AFR. For a standardised

F ig . 6: Relation between AFR and lateral strength: (a) ﬂexure-critical columns; (b) shear- comparison purpose, the AFRs

critical columns deﬁned by different design codes are

(a) Rectangular Col. (a!v/(L/3) < 0.05)

satisﬁed if the maximum inter-storey

1 drifts do not exceed 2% of storey

Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!v/(L/3) < 0.15)

Measured normalised lateral strength

0.9 Rectangular Col. (a!v/(L/3) Ó 0.15) height under the assumptions that the

0.8

Circular Col. (a!v/(L/3) < 0.05) reduction factor ν = 0.5 and the non-

Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!v/(L/3) < 0.15) structural elements do not interfere

0.7 Circular Col. (a!v/(L/3) Ó 0.15)

with the structural responses. In other

y = 1.0547x: mean-fit

0.6 words, the ultimate displacements of

structural columns should be greater

0.5

than 2% of its shear span Ls, consider-

0.4 ing the double curvature conﬁguration

0.3 of the laterally drifted columns. As seen

in Fig. 9a, EC8 provisions on AFR lim-

0.2

its can guarantee that the ultimate dis-

0.1 placement ratios of both ﬂexure- and

0 shear-critical columns would not be

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 lower than 2%, provided that column

Calculated normalised lateral strength hinges are properly detailed.

(b) The TEC 2007 and GB codes also

1.4 give reasonable limits on AFR. How-

Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)

Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15) ever, the New Zealand and ACI code

Measured normalised lateral strength

Circular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05) the axial force limits dependent on

1.0 Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15)

the longitudinal reinforcing ratio, and

Circular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)

are much less stringent in comparison

0.8 y = 0.8786x: mean-fit

with the EC8, TEC 2007 and GB

codes. In cases of heavily reinforced

0.6

RC columns (ρl ~ 4%), there is no

experimental data to support any pre-

0.4

dicted column behaviour. The Hong

Kong code’s limit on AFR, though

0.2

not explicitly stipulated, is also a little

0

far from a reasonable limit, where

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 only limited experimental data are

Calculated normalised lateral strength available in this high ACR region.

As shown in Fig. 9b, due to the brittle

(c)

1.4 Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15) nature of the shear-critical columns,

Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15) the ultimate displacement ratios are

Measured normalised lateral strength

1.2 Circular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05) much lower in comparison with the

Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15) ﬂexure-critical columns. The EC8

Circular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)

1.0 requirements can barely ensure that

y = 0.6380x: mean-fit

the 2% target ultimate displacement

0.8 can be satisﬁed. Generally, force-

based design or elastic design is

0.6 recommended by most of the seismic

design codes for shear-critical col-

0.4 umns. Nevertheless, if the shear-

critical columns are to be designed for

0.2 allowance of plastic deformation,

more restrictive limit on the AFR in

0 addition to sufﬁcient amount of con-

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Calculated normalised lateral strength ﬁning reinforcement have to be

employed. As observed from Fig. 9b,

Fi g. 7: Comparison of calculated normalised shear strength with experimental results AFR < 30% can be a suitable limit

(a) based on moment–curvature analysis for ﬂexural columns; (b) AIJ model for short for this purpose.

columns; (c) Ref. [21] model for short columns (dotted lines represent the bounds of

90% conﬁdence interval)

Extent of Critical Regions

ﬁrst re-normalised with respect to the critical columns are plotted together The foremost problem in ductile

speciﬁed or characteristic cylindrical with the AFR limits of different codes detailing for RC columns is the loca-

compressive strength of concrete fc0 . in Fig. 9a and b respectively. tion and the extension of the potential

The re-normalised limits are pre- plastic hinge regions, where conﬁning

sented in Table 1. The ultimate dis- EC8 speciﬁes the damage limitation reinforcement is to be provided.

placement ratio vs. AFR relationship requirement in the design of building Table 2 presents the code-stipulated

for ﬂexure-critical columns and shear- structures, which is deemed to be extent of critical regions or potential

(a)

250

Normalised hysteretic dissipation Ed /(Vyy)

200

Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)

Rectangular Col. (0.05 ≤ a!vL/3 < 0.15)

Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 ≥ 0.15)

150 Circular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)

Circular Col. (0.05 ≤ a!vL/3 < 0.15)

Circular Col. (a!vL/3 ≥ 0.15)

100

y = –0.3831*x0.957 + 50.58: mean-fit for a!vL/3 < 0.05

y = –0.2788*x1.169 + 78.27: mean-fit for 0.05 ≤ a!vL/3 < 0.15

y = –0.1545*x1.394 + 121.6: mean-fit for a!vL/3 ≥ 0.15

50

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg) (%)

(b)

250

Normalised hysteretic dissipation Ed /(Vyy)

200

Rectangular Col. (!v < 0.05)

Rectangular Col. (0.05 ≤ !v < 0.10)

150 Rectangular Col. (!v ≥ 0.10)

Circular Col. (!v < 0.05)

Circular Col. (0.05 ≤ !v < 0.10)

100 Circular Col. (!v ≥ 0.10)

y = –0.2318*x0.9243 + 23.82: mean-fit for !v < 0.05

y = –0.2752*x0.8784 + 31.47: mean-fit for 0.05 ≤ !v < 0.10

50 y = –0.2521*x0.8235 + 45.75: mean-fit for !v ≥ 0.10

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Axial force ratio N/(f´c Ag) (%)

F ig . 8: Relation between AFR and hysteretic dissipation: (a) ﬂexure-critical columns; (b) shear-critical columns

plastic hinges in the RC columns. The recent studies37–39 indicated that the

ð1:3 − ρt mÞ Ag fc0 No*

extent of critical regions required by plastic hinge length tends to increase ρv = max − 0:0084

2:4 Ac fyt fc0 Ag

New Zealand is the most stringent with axial force level, yet it was also

among the codes considered in this observed that the plastic hinge length

Ast fy 1

study. If the column is subjected to tends to stabilise and become insensi- or ðcircularÞ ð19aÞ

110d00 fyt db

axial compression above 0:5ϕ fc0 Ag , tive to the axial force level, when the

the required conﬁning length by displacement ductility μd of the col-

New Zealand is as high as three times umns exceeds 4.39 Therefore, most of Ash ð1:3 −ρt mÞ Ag fc0 No*

= max

the column depth. Similarly, the Hong the commonly adopted empirical for- sh h00 3:3 Ac fyt ϕ fc0 Ag

Kong code requirements also intro- mulas for plastic hinge length are X !

duce the axial force effect but the independent of axial load level.4 It is Ab fy 1

further noted that, within the typical −0:006 or ðrectangularÞ

maximum extent is relaxed to two 96fyt h00 db

times the column depth. For other allowable axial load limit, the plastic

design codes, the maximum critical hinge length would typically not ð19bÞ

region extent stipulated by EC8 is not exceed the column height hc,max.37

The ﬁrst terms in the two parenthe-

more than 1.5 times, and is just equal

sises in Eqs. (19a) and (19b) specify

to the column depth in TEC 2007, Conﬁnement Reinforcement

the reinforcement requirement for

ACI and GB.

Conﬁning reinforcement in forms of conﬁnement of the concrete core, and

The extent of critical regions pre- hoops, ties or spirals is to be provided are a function of AFR and longitudi-

scribed by the EC8, TEC 2007, ACI in the plastic hinge regions for con- nal reinforcement ratio. As discussed

and GB provisions does not rely on crete conﬁnement and buckling before, concrete subjected to higher

the induced axial force level in con- restraint of longitudinal reinforcement axial compression requires greater

trast with the New Zealand and Hong therein. In NZS 3101: 2006-A2, the amount of lateral conﬁning reinforce-

Kong codes. There is still controversy required quantify of hoop or tie rein- ment. On the other hand, laterally

over whether the plastic hinge length forcement in the ductile potential restrained longitudinal reinforcement

in RC columns is inﬂuenced by or plastic hinge regions (6.0 > μϕ > 3.0) can provide additional conﬁning

sensitive to the axial force level. Some is as follows: action to the encompassed concrete,

TEC

EC8 ACI 318-14 GB50011-2010 NZ 3101:2006 2007 HK*

No*

Po **

Deﬁnition of NED, EC Pu N C, C Ndmax N

fcd Ag fc Ag Nn, max ** fck Ag fcu Ag

axial force ratio

8 8

Upper limit(s) < 0:55 ðDCHÞ 0:80ϕ ðTiesÞ >

> 0:65 ðGrade IÞ 0.7ϕ 0.5 0.6

<

0:65 ðDCMÞ 0:85ϕ ðSpiralsÞ 0:75 ðGrade IIÞ

:

− ðDCLÞ >

> 0:85 ðGrade IIIÞ

:

0:90 ðGrade IVÞ

Dependent on × ○ × ○ × ×

longitudinal

reinforcement

Re-normalised NED, EC Pu N C, C No* Nd max N

fc’ Ag fc’ Ag fc’ Ag fc’ Ag fc’ Ag fc’ Ac

axial

compression

ratios limit with

respect to fc’

8 8

Re-normalised < 0:37 ðDCHÞ 0:80ϕ½ð0:85 + mÞρL + 0:85 ðTiesÞ > 0:37 ðGrade IÞ 0.7ϕ[(α1 + m)ρL 0.5 0.75

*** >

<

limit(s) with 0:43 ðDCMÞ 0:85ϕ½ð0:85 + mÞρL + 0:85 ðSpiralsÞ 0:42 ðGrade IIÞ + α1]***

:

respect to fc’ − ðDCLÞ >

> 0:48 ðGrade IIIÞ

:

0:51 ðGrade IVÞ

*Assumed limit not explicitly stipulated by HKCocrete2013.

**Po = (0.85fc0 (Ag − Ast) + fy Ast and Nn, max = (α1 fc0 (Ag − Ast) + fy Ast are the nominal axial strength of columns prescribed by ACI 318–14 and NZ

3101:2006 respectively.

***Limits in ACI and NZ are dependent on the values of strength reduction factor ϕ, longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρL, and steel yield strength to

concrete compressive strength ratio m = fy /fc0 . If the typical values of 0.85 and 14 are assumed for α1 and m respectively, the limits range from 0.51 to

0.86 corresponding to the allowable range of longitudinal reinforcement ratio (0.8–4%) with ϕ = 0.85 for NZ, and 0.52–0.91 (ties) and 0.60–1.04 (spir-

als) corresponding to the allowable range of longitudinal reinforcement ratio (1–6%) with ϕ = 0.65 (ties) or 0.75 (spirals) for ACI.52.

Ag f

conﬁning reinforcement. ρs ≥ max 0:45 −1 c , 0:12fc0 =fyt , codes is illustrated by two examples:

Ac fyt

(1) a circular column of 500 mm

Conﬁning reﬁnement is required by

Pu diameter transversely reinforced by

EC8 for all critical regions for DCH 0:35kf kn ðcircularÞ ð21aÞ a single hoop; (2) a rectangular col-

and critical regions at column bases fyt Ac

umn of 500 × 500 mm transversely

for DCM, and the required volumetric 0 reinforced by a compound hoop set

ratio of conﬁning hoops is calculated Ash Ag f

≥ max 0:3 −1 c , 0:09fc0 =fyt , consisting of a single rectangular

by Eq. (20). It can be seen that the sbc Ac fyt

hoop and two tie bars in each

quantity of hoop reinforcement orthogonal direction. The results are

required by EC8, is designed for con- Pu

0:2kf kn ðrectangularÞ ð21bÞ plotted in Fig. 10. The EC8 requires

crete conﬁnement only and it only fyt Ac

the greatest quantity of conﬁning

takes account of axial compression

reinforcement above AFR > 20%.

effect and hoop types without consid-

Since the limits of AFR stipulated

erations of bar diameters and other where the value of the factor kf and

in the New Zealand and ACI codes

geometry parameters. kn are concrete strength factor and

are higher than those stipulated in

conﬁnement effectiveness factor

NED, EC bc the EC 8, much heavier conﬁning

αωwd ≥ 30μϕ εsy, d −0:0035 respectively. The last terms in the

fcd Ag bo reinforcement may be needed for

above equations need to be consid-

circular columns at high axial com-

ð20Þ ered only when Pu > 0:3fc0 Ag . The

pression to fulﬁl the New Zealand

equations provided by TEC 2007 to

and ACI requirements. The GB and

The quantity of the hoop reinforce- calculate the amount of conﬁnement

New Zealand codes required similar

ment in the critical regions required reinforcement are similar to ACI as

quantity of conﬁning reinforcement

above, except that the last terms are

by the ACI code is given by but the GB required quantity

omitted and the coefﬁcient for the

Eqs. (21a) and (21b) for circular and becomes lesser than the

second term in Eq. (21) is taken as

rectangular column sections respec- New Zealand code for the rectangu-

0.075 instead of 0.09. Furthermore, in

tively. The conﬁnement detailing rules lar column. On the other hand, the

TEC 2007, only two-thirds of the

including the extent of conﬁned Hong Kong and TEC 2007 code

transverse reinforcement calculated

regions and the required conﬁning requirements are not inﬂuenced by

by the ordinary equations is required,

hoop quantity speciﬁed in the ACI the level of axial compression and

if AFR is less than 0.20.

code neither rely on axial compres- thus the required quantities of con-

sion induced nor the ductility The relationship between AFR and ﬁning reinforcement remain

demands on the columns. the quantity of conﬁning constant.

(a) y = –0.0793*x0.7561 + 3.66: mean-fit for a!vL/3 < 0.05 Conclusions

y= –0.3368*x0.5561 + 5.83: mean-fit for 0.05 ≤ a!vL/3 < 0.15

Structural columns, as a primary and

y = –0.3737*x0.6197 + 7.86: mean-fit for a!vL/3 ≥ 0.15

critical supporting member, should be

TEC HK properly designed and detailed such

EC8

12 that sufﬁcient structural ductility can

Ultimate displacement ratio (u/Ls) (%)

G8

be attained to prevent catastrophic

10 collapse of the whole building struc-

NZ ture. The ductility and energy dissipa-

8

ACI tion capacity of RC columns can be

Experimental data enhanced by conﬁning the core con-

not available crete in the plastic hinge regions with

6

hoop reinforcement, of which required

quantity is greatly inﬂuenced by the

4 level of axial force. Many modern seis-

mic design codes also stipulate upper

2 limits on AFR. Nevertheless, consid-

erable dissimilarities are found in dif-

0 ferent design codes in the treatments

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 of AFR effects for the design of RC

Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg) (%) columns. In view of this issue, the sci-

y= –0.1202*x0.6512 + 2.69: mean-fit for !v < 0.05 entiﬁc background of conﬁnement

(b)

y = –0.1505*x0.6862 + 4.08: mean-fit for 0.05 ≤ !v < 0.10

detailing for concrete structures is ﬁrst

revisited and a comprehensive statisti-

y = –0.2003*x0.7062 + 5.60: mean-fit for !v ≥ 0.10

cal analysis is conducted.

TEC HK

12 EC8 The statistical analysis reveals that the

ductility, ultimate displacement and

Ultimate displacement ratio (u/Ls) (%)

G8

hysteretic dissipation of the ﬂexure-

10

NZ

critical RC columns under cyclic load-

ACI

ing can be signiﬁcantly reduced by

8 increasing the AFR, although the lat-

Experimental data

not available eral strength vs. AFR relationship

6 shows a reverse trend. EC8 sets rea-

sonable limits to the AFR for RC col-

4 umns designed to different ductility

classes, yet different limits should be

2 used for slender and short columns as

they are controlled by completely dif-

ferent failure mechanisms. It is also

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 found that AFR is not much inﬂuen-

Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg) (%) tial to the displacement ductility of

short columns but reduce the ultimate

F ig . 9: Comparison of code speciﬁed AFR limits with experimental data: (a) ultimate drift ratio and hysteretic dissipation

displacement ratio of ﬂexure-critical columns vs. AFR; (b) ultimate displacement ratio of capacity of short columns.

shear-critical columns vs. AFR

8

EC8 < maxð1:5hc, max , 600 mm, 1=5lc Þ ðDCHÞ ×

maxðhc, max , 450 mm, 1=5lc Þ ðDCMÞ

:

hc, max ðDCLÞ

ACI318-14 max(hc,max, 1/6lo, 457 mm (18 inch)) ×

8

GB50011-2010 < maxðhc, max , 500 mm, 1=6lc Þ ðall columns endsÞ ×

1=3lo ðcolumns bases in the first storeyÞ

:

500 ðabove and below rigid ground surfacesÞ

8 *

NZ 3101:2006 < maxðhc , h0:8M Þ No ≤ 0:25ϕ fc’ Ag ○

maxð2:0hc , h0:7M Þ 0:25ϕ fc Ag < No ≤ 0:5ϕ fc’ Ag

’ *

:

maxð3:0hc , h0:6M Þ 0:5ϕ fc’ Ag < No* ≤ 0:7ϕ Nn, max

TEC 2007 max(hc,max, 1/6lo, 500 mm) ×

8

HK < maxðhc,max , h0:85M , 1=6lc Þ 0 < N= Ag fcu ≤ 0:1 ○

maxð1:5hc, max, h0:75M , 1=6lc Þ 0:1 < N=Ag fcu ≤ 0:3

:

maxð2:0hc, max, h0:65M , 1=6lc Þ 0:3 < N= Ag fcu ≤ 0:6

(a) 0.5 (b) 0.5

Mechanical volumetric ratio v fy/f'c

500 mm

0.4 0.4

fyAtx/(fc's h")

ACI

0.3 ACI

0.3 NZ (L = 0.8%)

NZ (L = 4%) EC8 (DCH)

EC8 (DCH)

GB (grade I) NZ (L = 4%)

GB (grade III & IV)

0.2 0.2

GB (grade I)

TEC 2007

GB (grade III & IV)

0.1 0.1

TEC 2007

HK

HK

0 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Axial force ratio N/(f'cAg) (%) Axial force ratio N/(f'cAg) (%)

Fi g. 10: Code-stipulated conﬁning reinforcement at various levels of AFR: (a) circular column; (b) rectangular column (assume

fy/fc0 = 10)

Acknowledgements of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake [22] Kappos A, & Penelis GG. Earthquake

Engineering, Acapulco, 1996. Resistant Concrete Structures CRC Press: Boca

The supports of the Hong Kong Research Raton, 1996.

[10] Turkish Earthquake Code. Speciﬁcation

Grand Council (HK-RGC) under grant num- for Buildings to be Built in Earthquake Regions. [23] Borg RC, Rossetto T, Varum H. Low cycle

ber 614011 and the Scientiﬁc and Technologi- Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Gov- fatigue tests of reinforced concrete columns and

_

cal Research Council of Turkey (TÜBITAK) ernment of the Republic of Turkey, 2007. joints, built with ribbed reinforcement and plain

under project number 214M236 are gratefully stirrups. Proceedings of the 15th World Confer-

[11] Ministry of Construction of the People’s

acknowledged. ence on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portu-

Republic of China. GB 50011–2010: Code for

Seismic Design of Buildings. China Architec- gal, 2012.

ture & Building Press: Beijing, 2010. [24] Priestley MJN, Verma R, & Xiao Y. Seis-

References [12] Government of the Hong Kong Special mic shear strength of reinforced concrete col-

Administrative Region – Buildings Department. umns. J. Struct. Eng. 1994; 120(8): 2310–2329.

[1] Browning J, Li YR, & Lynn A. Performance

Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete [25] Berry M, Parish M, Eberhard M. PEER

assessment for a reinforced concrete frame

2013. HKSAR-BD: Hong Kong, 2013. Structural Performance Database User’s Manual.

building. Earthq. Spectra 2000; 16(3): 541–555.

[13] Standards New Zealand. NZS 3101: Part PEER Research Report, Berkeley, CA: Univer-

[2] Henkhaus K, Ramirez J, Pujol S. Simultane- sity of California, 2004.

1:2006-A1&A2: Concrete Structure Standard-

ous shear and axial failures of reinforced con-

The Design of Concrete Structures Incorporating [26] Ahn J-M, & Shin S-W. An evaluation of

crete columns. Proceedings of the ATC & SEI

Amendment No.1 & 2. NZS: Wellington, 2006. ductility of high-strength reinforced concrete

2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic Per-

formance of Existing Buildings and Other Struc- [14] American Concrete Institute. ACI columns subjected to reversed cyclic loads

tures, San Francisco, CA, 2009. 318–14:2014: Building Code Requirements for under axial compression. Mag. Concrete Res.

Structural Concrete and Commentary ACI: 2007; 59(1): 29–44.

[3] Karaesmen E. Observations on the beha-

Farmington Hills, 2014. [27] Benavent-Climent A, Escolano-

viour of reinforced concrete framed buildings

during 22 May 1971 Bingol Earthquake. Pro- [15] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, & Park P. The- Margarit D, & Morillas L. Shake-table tests of a

ceedings of 5th World Conference on Earth- oretical stress-strain model for conﬁned con- reinforced concrete frame designed following

quake Engineering, Rome, Italy, 1974. crete. J. Struct. Eng. 1988; 114(8): 1804–1826. modern codes: seismic performance and dam-

age evaluation. Earthq. Eng. Struct. D 2014;

[4] Paulay T, & Priestley MJN. Seismic Design [16] Park P, Priestley MJN, & Gill WD. Ductil-

43(6): 791–810.

of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. ity of square conﬁned concrete columns.

John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1992. J. Struct. Eng. 1982; 108(4): 929–951. [28] Lee T-K, Chen C-C, Hwa K, & Pan ADE.

Performance of large reinforced concrete col-

[5] Verderame GM, De Luca F, Ricci P, & [17] Biskinis D, & Fardis MN. Flexure-

umns under axial compression loads. Proc. Inst.

Manfredi G. Preliminary analysis of a soft-storey controlled ultimate deformations of members

Civil Eng. Struct. B 2013; 167(5): 300–311.

mechanism after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. with continuous or lap-spliced bars. Struct. Con-

Earthq. Eng. Struct. D 2011; 40: 925–944. crete 2010; 11(2): 93–108. [29] Lee T-K, Chen C-C, Pan ADE, Hwa K, &

Ma MJL. Performance of large reinforced con-

[6] Park R. Ductile design approach for rein- [18] Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, &

crete columns under axial compression loads.

forced concrete frames. Earthq. Spectra 1986; Kowalsky MJ. Displacement-Based Seismic

Mag. Concrete Res. 2013; 65(8): 519–527.

2(3): 565–679. Design of Structures. IUSS Press: Pavia, 2007.

[30] Popa V, Cotofana D. Displacement capac-

[7] European Committee for Standardization [19] Elwood KJ, & Moehle JP. Drift capacity of

ity estimation for RC columns: comparison

(CEN). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for reinforced concrete columns with light transverse

between analytical and experimental results.

Earthquake Resistance. Part 1: General Rules, reinforcement. Earthq. Spectra 2005; 21(1): 71–89.

Proceedings of International Symposium on

Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. CEN: [20] Architectural Institute of Japan. AIJ Stand- Seismic Risk Reduction, The JICA Technical

Brussels, 2004. ard for Structural Calculation of Reinforced Cooperation Project in Romania, JICA Project,

[8] Chronopoulos MP, & Vinzileou E. Conﬁne- Concrete Structures. AIJ: Tokyo, 2010. Bucharest, 2007.

ment of RC columns. In European Seismic

[21] Sezen H. Seismic Response and Modeling [31] Rodrigues H, Arêde A, Varum H, &

Design Practice, Elnashai AS (ed) Balkema:

of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Building Costa AG. Experimental evaluation of rectangu-

Rotterdam, 1995: 341–348.

Columns, PhD Dissertation, Department of lar reinforced concrete column behaviour under

[9] Tassios TP. Advances in earthquake- Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univer- biaxial cyclic loading. Earthq. Eng. Struct. D

resistant design concrete structures. Proceedings sity of California, Berkeley, California, 2002. 2013; 42(2): 239–259.

[32] Shinha S, & Roy L. Fundamental tests of tory testing. Bull. N. Z. Natl. Soc. Earthq. Eng. [37] Bae S, & Bayrak O. Plastic hinge length of

reinforced concrete columns subjected to seis- 1989; 122(3): 155–166. reinforced concrete columns. ACI Struct. J.

mic loading. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Struct. B 2008; 105(3): 290–300.

[35] Biskinis D, & Fardis MN. Deformations at

2004; 157(3): 185–199.

ﬂexural yielding of members with continuous or [38] Légeron F, & Paultre P. Behavior of high-

[33] Thomson JH, & Wallace JW. Lateral load lao-spliced bars. Struct. Concrete 2010; 11(3): strength concrete columns under cyclic ﬂexure

behavior of reinforced concrete columns con- 127–138. and constant axial load. ACI Struct. J. 2000;

structed using high-strength materials. ACI 97(4): 591–601.

[36] Yuen YP, & Kuang JS. Effect of axial

Struct. J. 1994; 91(5): 605–615.

compression on ductility design of RC walls. [39] Priestley MJN, & Park R. Strength and

[34] Park R. Evaluation of ductility of struc- Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Struct. B 2015; 168(SB8): ductility of concrete bridge columns under seis-

tures and structural assemblages from labora- 554–569. mic loading. ACI Struct. J. 1987; 84(1): 61–76.

- analysis of scissor jackUploaded bydawit
- Strength of Materials_d4aUploaded byAntonette Badillo
- CIRIA C580 Embedded retaining walls.pdfUploaded byboris1516
- constructionUploaded byMurali Krishna Reddy Arikatla
- 268798Uploaded byBesian Sinani
- Performance Evolution of Tie Rod in Suspension System of Car Using Finite Element ApproachUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- DUCTILITY, STRENGTH AND STABILITY OF CONCRETEFILLED.pdfUploaded bysaeed-21
- Seismic Behavior and Design of Base Plates in Braced Frames_TIP_102.pdfUploaded byALEX MOLINA
- crosby owens final reportUploaded byapi-340992534
- Struktur Beton 2-P-Delta Effect [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded byBoy Firdaus
- Pin Bearing Behavior of Notched Pultruded PlateUploaded byYogesh Sutar
- Hysteretic Models for RC Columns.Uploaded byabhishekPhD
- Experimental and Numerical Assessment of a Special Joint Connection for Precast ColumnsUploaded bylucasgambi
- Seismic Provisions Handouts_4per_LandscapeUploaded byPaulo Mejia Trejo
- Solution of strength of materials problems.docUploaded byال قناص
- Solution of strength of materials problems.docUploaded bydragonsuni
- 1647-6193-1-SMUploaded byDavid Guardamino
- 77-06-650-506reballotUploaded byVinicius Gobbo
- IJNRD1704026.pdfUploaded byIlakkiya Dharmalingam
- 99-s45Uploaded byMarcel Steolea
- IDARC MANUAL.pdfUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- Cold Formed SectionsUploaded byFurnica Daniela
- CorbelUploaded byPrashant Dalvi
- C_CORE PRCI Extended Model PSI Rpt (1).pdfUploaded byMarioCaballero
- Rotational capacity of steel I-beams under fire conditions-Numerical SimulationUploaded byMehmed
- Flow chart: Element elastic design, uniform sections (rafter or column)Uploaded byAnonymous RrPSDPatRO
- baghdad ls dyna.pdfUploaded byAhmed Salim
- Étude paramétriqueUploaded byMohcene Boukhezar
- Cold-formed steel structures AS_NZS 4600-2005Uploaded bynickg1311
- Dynamic Properties of Geologic Specimens Subjected to Split-hopkinson Pressure Bar Compression Testing at the University of KentuckyUploaded byArmats Giarnelly

- Reduction of Early-Age Crack Risks in Concrete Walls by Using a New Casting TechniqueUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Influence of Modal Mass Participation in Damage Detection of Cable StructuresUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Structural Performances of Bridge Materials in the U.S. National Bridge Inventory 2013Uploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Reliability Analysis for Serviceability Limit State of Bridges Concerning Deflection CriteriaUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Design of Slender Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns Considering the Interaction between ColumnsUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Use of Timber on Multi-Storey BuildingUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Sustainable Structural EngineeringUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Eurocode 3 ActionsUploaded byKeeran Montag
- FIDIC DBO Contract Guide, 1st EditionUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Antiseismic BridgeUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Design of Movable BridgeUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Computerised Design of Box Girder Bridge Using Balanced Cantilever MethodUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Post-Tensioned Glass Beams for a 9 m Spannglass BridgeUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- BALANCED CANTILEVER STABILITYUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Finite Element Model Updating of Canonica Bridge Using Experimental Modal Data and Genetic AlgorithmUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Model Updating for the Selection of an Ancient Bridge Retrofitting Method in Almeria, SpainUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Procedures Used for Strengthening Pavia’s Cathedral, ItalyUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Long-Span Cable-Supported Bridges’ Performance Improvements in Extreme Winds: Five Case StudiesUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- "Educating Engineers to Create Good-looking Bridges” by Paul GauvreauUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Segmental Construction in the Cold: Bridging the Grand RiverUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Seismic Upgrading of the Mission BridgeUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Instrumentation and FE Analysis of a Large-Span Culvert Built under a Railway, in FinlandUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Eighteen Storey Hybrid Mass Timber Student Residence at the University of British ColumbiaUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Precast Beam–Column Connection Subjected to Cyclic and Dynamic LoadingsUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Weighting Assessment of Vulnerability Index Parameters for Reinforced Masonry StructuresUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Simplified Damage Plasticity Model for ConcreteUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- s22.pdfUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Edmonton’s New Walterdale BridgeUploaded byTeo Peng Keat

- BQ hostelUploaded byMishal Limbu
- 102_Sikabond NVUploaded bySatria_Lin_5344
- H27.pdfUploaded byHồ Thắng
- Testing of Concrete PolesUploaded byPubudu Rangana Ariyadasa
- Wp3_Fragility Functions of Elements at RiskUploaded byfoufou2003
- BAA 3223 Steel & Timber Design Final Exam PaperUploaded byAzil14
- How to Install Brazillian Wood DeckingUploaded byPaul Nguyen
- latestyearcoursefile nce043.docxUploaded byMohd Amir
- Fly brace DesignUploaded bykalpanaadhi
- 2 Frame Analysis Lateral LoadsUploaded byRacharla Narasimha Raju Varma
- Numerical analysis of displacements of a diaphragm wall.pdfUploaded byHenry Abraham
- Hydraulics EngineeringUploaded byHassan Tahir
- 1. Well PlanningUploaded byDaniel Enrique Serna Guevara
- Design of Beams and Other Flexural MembersUploaded bydan0427
- UG Geometric Design IUploaded byssriramiit
- ERRATA-166648Uploaded byRandy Camaclang
- Civil TemplatesUploaded byNirbhay Tiwary
- 4. Calculation of Wall Thickness MAWP API 5l x52 (Rev-2)Uploaded byYusepSúarði
- 1111Uploaded byArun S Das
- RCD Lecture 1Uploaded byMohsin
- A Computer Program for the Aerodynamic Design of Axisymmetric and Planar Nozzles for Supersonic and Hypersonic Wind TunnelsUploaded byBlackFoot
- GI for liquefactionUploaded byBandi Vidyaranya
- B.techCurriculum(3to8semesters)2016.Split and MergedUploaded byroshi478
- The Need for a Watertight Drainage SystemUploaded byHenry Turalde
- Pumps and CompressorsUploaded byozo
- ACI 229R-99Uploaded byJuan Daniel Rojas Palma
- 14_12-01-0051Uploaded byrkmallik
- Bawana Schedules 02-02-11Uploaded bySandeep Goud
- Modified Lecture Handout on Building Plumbing System Part 1Uploaded byAminur0331
- Concrete Pouring and Form Closure RequestUploaded byJefferson Fontanilla Ganado

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.