Crack Width-Based Fragility Curves For Repairabili

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2021) 19:6081–6111
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01218-6
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Crack width‑based fragility curves for repairability

of substandard beam‑column joints
Özgür Yurdakul1 · Ciro Del Vecchio2 · Marco Di Ludovico3 · Ladislav Routil1 ·

Özgür Avşar4
Received: 13 September 2020 / Accepted: 30 August 2021 / Published online: 10 September 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021
Abstract
Post-earthquake observations have outlined the poor seismic performance of substandard
reinforced concrete (RC) beam-column joints in existing buildings. They often exhibit sig-
nificant cracking even under moderate intensity earthquakes, compromising the seismic
performance of the entire building. This makes the quantification of their residual capac-
ity and the definition of reliable repairability thresholds critical. Different approaches are
available in the literature to establish the repairability of RC joints. However, a simple
crack width-based criterion is required for practitioners during in-situ inspections. This
study deals with the definition of crack width-based fragility curves relying on numerical
analyses. Those are carried out by using the validated finite element (FE) models, being
capable of reproducing the initiation and development of cracks in RC joints. To this end,
the uncertainties in material properties, influencing the seismic performance of structural
components, are accounted for different joints. In particular, experimentally validated FE
models are evolved to stochastic level by generating random variables of material proper-
ties with the stratified sampling scheme. Fragility curves representing a certain level of
probability of exceeding the defined crack width at the joint back, joint core, and beam-
to-joint interface are developed. An application of the proposed methodology for in-situ
inspections is also presented, and the results of in-situ measurements of residual crack
width from real buildings damaged by recent earthquakes are used for the validation.
Keywords Repairability · Fragility · Joint · Substandard · Residual crack · Existing

buildings
1 Introduction
Existing reinforced concrete buildings designed and constructed with non-confirming

detailing per modern/current seismic codes are vulnerable to seismic actions. Structural
deficiencies mainly arising from poor material properties, insufficient or no transverse
reinforcement at the beam-column joint (BCJ) panel, and improper anchor length/detail,
* Özgür Yurdakul
ozgur.yurdakul@upce.cz
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
6082 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2021) 19:6081–6111
among others (soft story, inadequate detailing in plastic hinge region) may result in dev-
astating brittle failures. Those may also suffer from poor energy dissipation, and sudden
strength and stiffness degradation. Such an unfavorable seismic behavior obviously com-
promises the structural integrity of the whole system even under moderate seismic actions.
Therefore, the experimental performance of deficient joints has attracted considerable
research interest (Hassan 2011; Del Vecchio et al. 2014b, 2018; Yurdakul and Avşar 2016;
Pohoryles et al. 2018; Yurdakul et al. 2018b). Recent studies also take advantage of the
current development of computer-aided nonlinear analysis, which calibrated/validated
and then used as a tool to replicate the response of beam-column joints under multiaxial
complex stress field (Kulkarni et al. 2008; Haach et al. 2008; Del Vecchio et al. 2016;
Najafgholipour et al. 2017; Yurdakul et al. 2019a; Shayanfar et al. 2019). Indeed, reproduc-
ing the nonlinear behavior of substandard joints in the finite element (FE) environment is
quite challenging due to the combination of different nonlinear effects (e.g., shear failure
of the joint panel, slip of beam longitudinal reinforcements, flexure-shear interaction in the
members framing into the joint). Difficulties arise even more in predicting the effect of the
uncertainties in the material parameters on the response quantities such as capacity, crack
width, and pattern (Rimkus et al. 2020). To do so, refined and validated numerical models
can be combined with the stochastic approach, considering the effect of uncertainties at the
material level on the shear response of RC members (Yurdakul et al. 2019b, 2020b). More
realistic response quantities such as capacity and crack pattern can be then obtained. Note
that, depending on the damage level, RC buildings and their structural components that
exhibited moderate to severe structural damage after the earthquakes should be repaired
or demolished. Here, moderate damage refers to remarkable wide cracks, concrete cover
spalling, local concrete crushing, and reinforcement yielding while severe damage is asso-
ciated with to bar buckling, remarkable concrete crushing, very large cracks in structural
elements (FEMA P58 2018; Marder et al. 2020). Moreover, different codes, guidelines, or
scientific studies address the definition of the joint damage level, and indication of repair-
ability and related costs (ESM 98 1998; JBDPA 2001; fib Bulletin No. 25 2003; European
Commission & Joint Research Centre 2007; Pantelides et al. 2002; Cardone 2016; HAZUS
MR4 2003; FEMA 306 1998; FEMA P58 2018). Effective repair solutions consisting of
the crack filling (e.g., by epoxy resin injection) and patching of concrete are available for
shear critical joints (FEMA 306 1998; FEMA P58 2018; Cuevas and Pampanin 2017;
Marder et al. 2018). The structural members could be repairable even after excessive
cracks are developed by combining the repair of crack with other repair methods or more
advanced strengthening interventions; i.e., using composite materials (Engindeniz 2008;
Yurdakul and Avsar 2015; Kalogeropoulos et al. 2016; Samad et al. 2017; Faleschini et al.
2019; Yurdakul et al. 2019b). However, if the joint capacity is significantly compromised,
massive reconstruction and intrusive repair procedures may lead to relatively high direct
and indirect costs. This proves the significance of a reliable crack width-based repairability
threshold for beam-column joints.
Although the drift-based fragility curves are available in the literature (Pagni and Lowes
2006; Cardone 2016), the fragility curves based on residual crack width, which can be
easily quantified in post-earthquake inspections, are currently needed. This study aims at
developing fragility curves of residual crack width by using nonlinear probabilistic FE
analyses. To this end, the experimental tests on beam-column joints with different geome-
tries and reinforcement details are selected from the literature. The experimental responses
are used to validate deterministic numerical models, developed in the refined FE environ-
ment and being capable of reproducing the crack pattern. Then, those are evolved to the
stochastic level. For the given probability of failure pf, the crack width-based repairability
13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2021) 19:6081–6111 6083
thresholds are proposed. In general, the heavy damage at structural members, partial col-
lapse, loss of stability are the indicators of failure (ESM 98 1998; FEMA P58 2018). On
the other hand, here the probability of failure pf refers to repairability thresholds. They can
be used to determine the repairability of joints during post-earthquake in-situ inspections.
2 Repairability of RC beam‑column joints
A comprehensive literature review of codes, standards, guidelines, and relevant scientific

studies (ESM 98 1998; JBDPA 2001; fib Bulletin No. 25 2003; European Commission &
Joint Research Centre 2007; Pantelides et al. 2002; Cardone 2016; HAZUS MR4 2003;
FEMA 306 1998; FEMA P58 2018; Pagni and Lowes 2006) for the reparability threshold
is summarized in Table 1. The damage state in RC components is defined by the level of
damage, DL, characterizing the severity and extent of the macroscopic damage at the RC
members or building (ESM 98 1998; JBDPA 2001; fib Bulletin No. 25 2003; European
Commission & Joint Research Centre 2007; Pantelides et al. 2002; Cardone 2016; HAZUS
MR4 2003; FEMA 306 1998; FEMA P58 2018; Pagni and Lowes 2006). According to
recognized literature (FEMA 306 1998; European Commission & Joint Research Centre
2007; FEMA P58 2018), the damage indicators are classified into five groups. Then, the
corresponding damage classification belonging to available codes, guidelines, or relevant
studies are paired with identical damage levels. It is worth noting that the association of the
damage classification to a specific damage level may have significant differences depend-
ing on the considered reference document. An extensive overview of available literature on
damage classification is conducted to select the most reliable damage classification to be
employed in the derivation of fragility functions. The qualitative definitions of damage lev-
els indicated in Table 1 (FEMA 306 1998; European Commission & Joint Research Centre
2007; FEMA P58 2018) are as follows:
• Damage Level 1 (DL1) represents the negligible to slight damage (e.g., cosmetic dam-
age) on the RC member with hairline cracks. Finishing work is required for structural
members. Pantelides et al. (2002) refer to at most 0.05 mm width for hairline cracks
at the joints. Besides, the recognized literature defines cracks greater than 0.2 mm as
non-hairline cracks (JBDPA 2001; Marder et al. 2020). Overall, the crack widths up to
0.05 mm are considered as hairline cracks (Pantelides et al. 2002).
• Damage Level 2 (DL2) corresponds to the slight structural damage. The intensity of
damage is light and visible cracking of concrete can be observed on structural mem-
bers. The crack widths are wide enough for epoxy injection (0.2–1.0 mm) (JBDPA
2001; European Commission & Joint Research Centre 2007; Cardone 2016; Yurdakul
et al. 2021b) with no further repair action;
• Damage Level 3 (DL3) is associated with the apparent macroscopic damage at RC
components. They are graded as moderately damaged, and the building is uninhabit-
able. The wide cracks, onset of concrete spalling, and local concrete crushing are
expected at the DL3. The capacity and stiffness of the component can be restored by
proper repair action (i.e., epoxy injection and concrete patching). DL3 is, therefore,
considered as the threshold for the economic feasibility of repair according to FEMA
P58 (2018) and fib Bulletin No. 25 (2003);
• Damage Level 4 (DL4) indicates the heavy damage at members. Severe shear/flexural
damage or even partial collapse of a few members could be encountered. The repair
13
Table 1 Summary of damage levels and corresponding repair actions
6084
Dam- Notes EMS 98 FEMA 306 JBDPA (2001) (columns fib Bulletin No.25 AeDES (European FEMA P58 (2018) Pantelides et al. Cardone (2016) (for Pagni and HAZUS
age (1998) (1998) (for and walls) (2003) Commission and (2002b) (for exte- exterior joints) Lowes MR4 (2003)
level (building shear walls) Joint Research Building Non- rior joints) (2006) (for pre-code
13
level) Centre 2007) level conforming frames)
(DS for BCJ weak
residual joint
capac-
ity)
DL1 Definition Grade 1: Null damage Visible narrow cracks on Cosmetic (No struc- D0: No damage DS0 Cosmetic First yielding Null damage DM0-1 None
Negli- concrete surface tural damage) (no
gible to structural
slight damage)
dam-
age (no
structural
damage)
Imposed
drift
Residual
drift
Maximum < 0.05 mm
crack
width
Residual < 0.2 mm < 1.0 mm
crack
width
Notes on Repair of Surface
repair- finishing finishing
ability
DL2 Definition Grade 2: Minor Visible clear cracks on Onset of cracking D1: Slight damage DS1 DS0 Onset of joint Light cracking at joint DM3-5 Slight
Moderate concrete surface due to lateral cracking or interface structural
damage effects damage
(slight
structural
damage)
Imposed 0.40%
drift
Residual 0.2%
drift

Table 1 (continued)
(DS for BCJ weak
residual joint
capac-
ity)
Maximum < 0.5 mm
crack
width
Residual Cracks in < 1.6 mm > 0.2 mm < 1.0 mm > 1.0 mm < 3.0 mm < 0.5 mm (col- < 0.5 mm < 1.0–1.5 mm < 0.5 mm Hairline
crack columns umns) < 1.0 mm cracks
width and (beams) within
beams of joints
frames
Notes on Epoxy injection Epoxy injec- Epoxy injection Epoxy
repair- tion injection
ability
DL3 Definition Grade 3: Moderate Remarkable wide cracks, D2-D3 medium- DS2 DS1 Joint shear mecha- Onset of concrete DM6-8 Moderate
Substan- local concrete crushing severe damage nism spalling structural
tial to damage
heavy
damage
(moderate
struct.
damage)
Imposed 1.75% 0.60%
drift
Residual 0.5%
drift
Maximum
crack
width
Residual Cracks in < 3.2 mm > 1.0 mm < 2.0 mm < 3.0 mm < 2 mm (joints) < 1.5 mm < 1.0 mm > 3.0 mm < 5.0 mm Extent of Larger shear
crack columns concrete cracks and
width and beam- spalling spalling
column and
joints crushing
6085
13
6086
13
(DS for BCJ weak
residual joint
capac-
ity)
Notes on Too wide for epoxy Threshold Replacement of spalled Patching

repair- injection for concrete
ability economic
feasibility
of repair
DL4 Definition Grade 4: Heavy Remarkable crush of Crushing and D4-D5—very DS3 Spalling of Spalling of concrete Onset of concrete DM9-11 Extensive
Very concrete spalling of heavy damage concrete crushing structural
heavy concrete and/or collapse damage
damage
(heavy
structural
damage)
Imposed 2.25% 1.60%
drift
Residual 1–2% 1%
drift
Maximum
crack
width
Residual Large > 3.2 mm > 2.0 mm > 2.5 mm < 7.6 mm Spalling of Shear/bond
crack cracks in < 9.5 mm more than failure,
width structural 80% of partial
elements the joint collapse
surface
concrete

(DS for BCJ weak
residual joint
capac-
ity)
Notes on Collapse Repair Repair may

repair- of a few may not be
ability columns not be eco-
economically
nomi- feasible
cally
feasi-
ble
Remove and Remove and
recast replace
concrete damaged
portions concrete
DL5 Definition Grade 5: Extreme Visible settlement and/or Null DS4 Concrete Total loss of gravity DM12 Complete
Destruc- leaning of the building core structural
tion (very crushing damage
heavy
structural
damage)
Imposed 3.22% 4.00%
drift
Residual 1–4%
drift
Maximum
crack
width
Residual Cracks in core concrete 25.4 mm
crack
width
6087
13
6088
13
(DS for BCJ weak
residual joint
capac-
ity)
Notes on Collapse of Repair Repair may

repair- ground may not be
ability floor or not be eco-
parts of economically
buildings nomi- feasible
cally
feasi-
ble
Joint Loss of frame stability
replace-
ment

Fig. 1 Flowchart of adopted methodology
13
Table 2 Details of experimental tests selected for the model validation

Specimen
Properties EJ-R (Yurdakul and Avşar 2016) T_C3 (Del Vecchio et al. 2014a)
Beam Cross-Section (mm) 250 × 500 300 × 500

Column Cross-Section (mm) 250 × 500 300 × 300
Beam Reinforcement 5ɸ18 5ɸ16
5ɸ18 3ɸ16
ɸ10/100 ɸ8/200
Column Reinforcement 4ɸ18 2ɸ16
4ɸ18 2ɸ16
ɸ10/150 ɸ8/200
Axial Load Ratio (N/Acfc) 0.1 0.2
Application of Displacement Loading to the column end Loading to the beam end
Loading Protocol 1 repetition per cycle 3 repetitions per cycle
Failure Mode Shear cracking at joint core, slip of Joint shear failure
longitudinal reinforcement, and flexural Shear cracking at joint core and
cracking at beam-to-joint interface concrete wedge spalling
action may not be economically feasible as it requires a massive reconstruction and

intrusive repair procedures;
• Damage Level 5 (DL5) denotes the very heavy damage at RC members and the incipi-
ent collapse of the structure. Severe damage at members, concrete crushing, reinforce-
ment buckling, significant reduction at member resistance, leaning of the building, and
loss of Fstability are expected in this damage level. Realizing a repair is very difficult,
time demanding, costly, and not practical.
The repair action should be taken for the structural member, which is supposed to be
serviceable after reaching the deformation limit of serviceability (and its corresponding
crack width). Moreover, it should not be beyond economical repair (DL3). According to
FEMA P58 (2018), the threshold for the economic feasibility of repair is specified when
the ratio of repair cost to replacement cost is about 0.5. Considering the fragility and con-
sequence functions available in the FEMA P58 (2018), and Pagni and Lowes (2006) for
substandard beam-column joints with the weak joint response, the cost of repairing in
FEMA P58 (2018) (i.e., Damage State 1 (DS1) and DL3 in Table 1) is about 50% of the
total replacement cost of the joint. Thus, DL3 can be identified as the threshold for the
economic feasibility of repair. Once DL3 is assumed as the reparability threshold, indica-
tors for the detection of damage from numerical analysis and in-situ inspections should be
identified. The residual crack width can be useful for the detection of the damage during
post-earthquake reconnaissance. However, the available literature studies reported different
residual crack widths at DL3 ranging between 1.0 mm and 5.0 mm (see Table 1). The wide
range of variation in the residual crack width for the definition of DL3 makes a reliable
identification of the damage state difficult and further studies are needed to better identify
the residual crack width associated to DL3.
A probabilistic-based residual drift estimation is used in this study to simply identify the
damage level by numerical studies. According to the suggestion of the FEMA P58 (2018),
13
Beam to Joint
Joint Panel Joint Back Joint Core
Interface
Crack Width
Joint Back
Joint Core
Beam to Joint
Interface
Fig. 2 Crack measurement locations
the residual drift ratio of 0.5% is used to identify the DL3. Numerical analyses are con-
ducted, and the crack pattern of the joint panel is closely monitored to have more precise
indications of the crack width associated to DL3. Therefore, the fragility curves of residual
cracks at the residual drift of 0.5% are intended to develop in this study.
3 Methodology
The adopted methodology relies on numerical analyses of substandard beam-column joints

to estimate the crack width at different residual drift demands to develop crack width-based
fragility functions for the repairability threshold. The adopted approach starts from the
model validation against the experimental result, and then it is extended to a stochastic
level to account for uncertainties in the material properties. The geometrical variability is
considered by applying the methodology in different specimens. The full methodology is
schematically depicted in Fig. 1.
The experimental performance of RC joints with different geometries and reinforcement
details, but with mutual design principle (i.e., non-seismically designed joints) are first
collected from two different testing programs conducted by the authors: specimen EJ-R
from Yurdakul and Avşar (2016) and specimen T_C3 from Del Vecchio et al. (2014a). The
selected specimens do not comply with the requirements of current and former earthquake
codes (TEC 1975; CEN 2004; MIT 2018; TBEC 2018). They belong to structural systems
designed with common pre-1970s construction practices such as poor-quality concrete (see
Table 4), no or inadequate transverse reinforcement at member and joint level. The selected
specimens are different in the geometry and type of steel used, emulating geometrical
variability (Table 2). The specimen EJ_R has smooth reinforcement bars while specimen
T_C3 has deformed bars. They showed different failure modes characterized by the slip
of longitudinal reinforcement, and cracking at joint core and beam-to-joint interface for
EJ_R, rather than marked diagonal cracking at the joint and concrete wedge spalling for
T_C3 specimen. More details on the testing program and experimental results can be found
in previous studies (Del Vecchio et al. 2014a; Yurdakul and Avşar 2016). The selected
experimental programs are used to validate the numerical models. The details regarding
the validation of the proposed numerical models against the experimental results are pre-
sented by Yurdakul et al. (2020a). The adopted stochastic procedure is also discussed by
Yurdakul et al. (2020b) which deals with the sensitivity of numerical modeling parameters
of CFRP strengthened joints. The model validation in terms of capacity is also included
in these papers. The numerical model accurately produced the cracking response. Overall,
13
Fig. 3 Reinforcing scheme a EJ_R b T-C3
the premature failure of the joints with excessive shear cracks is accurately reproduced in
ATENA (2017) software.
The computational stochastic mechanics are employed to determine the residual crack
widths of each sample for the development of fragility curves. The inherent uncertainties
at the material level are characterized by the nonlinear probabilistic FE analyses. To this
end, experimentally validated numerical models are combined with the stochastic sampling
technique, turning out FE analyses with randomized material parameters. The prominent
material parameters are randomized by a Monte Carlo-type stratified sampling technique,
which is Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) (Novák et al. 2015). The LHS reduces the num-
ber of simulations in the sampling process, saving considerable computational time and
effort (Mencik 2016). The solutions of numerical models with the randomized parameters
provide the variable crack widths at target residual drifts and set of load-drift curves. The
sensitivity of the randomized material parameters on the ultimate capacity and residual
crack width is measured. The uncertainty analysis revealed the variability at residual crack
width, arising from inherent uncertainties at prominent material parameters. Finally, the
gathered information from the stochastic analysis is used to develop the fragility curves for
residual crack widths at the joint back, core, and beam-joint interface.
3.1 Numerical model
The numerical models are developed to estimate the residual crack width at three different
locations of joint (i.e., joint back, joint core, and beam to joint interface; see Fig. 2). The
refined numerical models, which were generated in ATENA Science (ATENA Program
Documentation, Part 8. 2015) finite element (FE) software, are implemented to observe
the progress of crack developments, its patterns, and global hysteretic response. CC3D-
NonLinCementitious2, which is a fracture-plastic concrete model, is used to combine
13
50
40
30
20
Lateral Load (kN)
10
0 Imposed drift 1.0%
-10
-20
-30
Numerical
-40 EJ-R
-50
-5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Drift Ratio (%)
Imposed drift 1.5%

(a)
50
40
30 Imposed drift 1.3%
20
Lateral Load (kN)
10
0
-10
-20
-30
Numerical
-40 T_C3
-50
-2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Drift Ratio (%)
Imposed drift 1.5%

(b)
Fig. 4 Exhibited performance of a EJ-R b T_C3s
constitutive models for tensile (fracturing) and compressive behavior (ATENA Program
Documentation, Part 1 2014). The longitudinal bars are modeled explicitly. The actual
geometry with the hooked ends in the joint panels is modeled. Particular care should be
13
Table 3 Comparison of crack widths

T_C3 EJ-R
Peak Drift (%) Maximum Crack Width at Peak Peak Drift (%) Maximum Crack Width at
Drift (mm) Peak Drift (mm)
Experiment Numeric Experiment Numeric
0.50 0.67 0.39 0.50 0.60 0.50

0.75 1.53 1.16 0.75 0.95 1.20
1.10 2.48 2.61 1.00 1.00 1.29
1.30 4.47 4.99 1.50 1.50 1.82
1.50 8.67 6.87 2.00 2.10 2.16
2.40 N.A 11.14 3.00 N.A 2.76
taken in meshing the regions around the curved geometries of the hooks. In this case, the
polyline, and mesh at points features are used (ATENA Program Documentation Part 4–9
2016). It is also worth mentioning that the interaction between reinforcing bar and sur-
rounding concrete in the EJ_R specimen is taken into account by defining bond stress-
slip behavior defined according to Model Code 2010 (Fib 2010). A nonlinear increase in
the bond stress with the increasing slip is followed by constant bond stress after a specific
value of 0.1 mm slip. A perfect bond is assumed in modeling T_C3 specimen due to the
presence of deformed bars. The smeared reinforcement approach is adopted to define shear
reinforcement in the brittle material. Discrete modeling of shear reinforcement has also
been investigated by authors in Yurdakul et al. (2018a). While the response at the initial
loading steps is very similar to the model with the smeared reinforcements, the discrete
modeling of stirrups significantly underestimates the strength capacity at the peak since
the cracks took place between the stirrups (Yurdakul et al. 2018a). On the other hand, it is
observed that the performances of these two modeling strategies (i.e., discrete modeling of
stirrups and stirrups in smeared manner) are very similar in the case of pure bond failure
(Yurdakul et al. 2021a). The modeling approach, the constitutive law of the materials, and
its parameters suitable for application to substandard beam-column joints (see elevation
and cross-section details in Fig. 3), modeling accuracy and effectiveness in reproducing
the experimental behavior, are discussed in detail in Yurdakul et al (2020a). In this paper,
the model accuracy in terms of local and global behavior was discussed. The numerical
models are capable of capturing the experimental hysteretic behavior of both specimens
(EJ-R with smooth bars and T_C3 with deformed bars) accurately, see Fig. 4. The reli-
ability of the proposed deterministic numerical models is satisfactory in terms of repro-
ducing the peak and post-peak response including the sudden strength and stiffness deg-
radation. The model accuracy at cracking response is more important for constructing the
crack width-based fragility curves. The cracking response should, therefore, match well
with the experimental response since the development of fragility curve for residual crack
width is targeted. More detailed information is herein provided for cracking response. The
tensile behavior of the concrete could be analyzed as an uncracked and cracked response.
In the uncracked response, it is assumed that there are no discrete cracks (except microc-
racks in the fracture process zone). However, the post-elastic response of the specimens is
highly affected by severe cracks, which is henceforth referred to as the cracked response.
The cracking response in ATENA software is detected by the Rankine Criterion (Rankine
13
1857). It assumes that the failure (e.g., cracking) occurs when the concrete material reaches
its tensile strength. A simplified basis for modeling the behavior of the brittle material is
proposed regardless of the effect of the other principal stresses (ATENA Program Docu-
mentation, Part 1 2014). After detection of crack, the exponential softening-based relation-
ship between the stress in the finite element and crack width is defined following Hordijk
(1991). The stress in the crack is not completely released in the heavily reinforced members
due to the strength and stiffness provided by the reinforcing bar. It is usually assumed that
there is residual stress in the member. Therefore, the descending branch does not diminish
to zero, but remains at constant tensile stress after a specific value of its strength is reached.
It is specified as 40% of the tensile strength of the concrete fct in Model Code 2010 (Fib
2010). For this reason, the tensile softening behavior was modified accordingly for the
heavily reinforced RC members. The numerical models also account for the shear retention.
The amount of crack opening significantly influences the shear behavior of the member.
With the increasing strain, which is normal to crack in the case of fixed crack theory, the
shear modulus G should be reduced in the cracked member. This phenomenon depends not
only on the crack width but also on the transverse reinforcement ratio since the reinforce-
ment provides an additional strength. In the cracked member, a reduction in the shear stiff-
ness, proposed by Kolmar (1986), is employed as follows. A relation in a form of Gauss’s
function is adopted to describe the reduction of compressive strength in the cracked con-
crete. The parameters are derived from the experimental data reported in Kollegger and
Mehlhorn (1988), which also includes the test data of Vecchio and Collins (1986) (ATENA
Program Documentation, Part 1 2014). Due to the incapability of predicting the residual
drift of a specimen subjected to imposed cyclic displacement history, the residual drifts of
the two cycles closer to 0.5% (threshold value for obtaining the residual crack widths) are
about 0.35% and 0.75% in both specimens (i.e., those were monitored residual drifts during
the experiments). Their corresponding imposed drift ratios were 1.0% and 1.5% for EJ-R
specimen, and 1.3% and 1.5% for T_C3, respectively. The comparison between numerical
and experimental performance is done for cracking response at the imposed drifts for three
different locations at joints where the fragility curves are developed (Fig. 2). Moreover, the
model accuracy is compared by not only hysteretic response but also crack width at peak
drift. The measured crack widths (i.e., obtained from elongation of diagonal displacement
transducers or visual inspection) is compared with the estimated values from the numerical
analysis. A close matching in terms of the crack widths is observed, see Table 3. This is to
account for the different failure modes that may characterize a joint panel, namely concrete
wedge spalling, joint shear failure or joint flexural-shear failure, or bond failure with flex-
ural splitting cracks.
The joint back and beam to joint interface cracking are accurately reproduced by the
numerical model of EJ-R. The inclined shear cracks at the joint core are also captured suc-
cessfully (Fig. 4b). The vertical splitting crack at the joint back, which ended-up with con-
crete wedge spalling at the joint back, and excessive shear cracks at the joint are simulated
well by the FE model of T_C3 (Fig. 4b). Moreover, the severe damage at the beam to
joint interface is reproduced with reasonable accuracy. The numerical models are capable
of simulating the cracking response in various aspects (i.e., crack location, crack pattern,
crack width at imposed drift, residual crack width, and crack opening/closing).
13
6096
13
Table 4 Concrete as random parameters with correlation coefficients
Parameter Mean Value µ Coefficient of Vari- Distribution
ation Cv
Concrete Elastic Modulus, Ec (MPa) 4700√fc (ACI 318 2019) 0.10 Lognormal
Tensile Strength, fct (MPa) 0.30fc2/3 (Fib 2010) 0.30 Lognormal
Compressive Strength, fc (MPa) 16.50 (T_C3) 8.05 (EJ-R) 0.15 Lognormal
Fracture Energy, Gf (N/m) 73fct0.18 (Fib 2010) 0.25 Weibull
Compressive Strain, εco (mm/mm) fc/E (Van Mier 1986) 0.15 Lognormal
Plastic Displacement, wd (m) Linear (Duran et al. 2017) 0.10 Lognormal
Correlation Coefficients
Ec fc fct Gf εco
Ec 1 0.70 0.60 0.40 0.90
fc 1 0.70 0.50 0.90
fct SYM 1 0.80 0.60
Gf 1 0.50
εco 1

Table 5 Reinforcing steel as random parameters with correlation coefficients

Parameter Mean Value µ Coef- Distribution
ficient of
Variation
Cv
Reinforcing Steel Elastic Modulus, Es (GPa) 195.8 (T_C3) 190.9 (EJ-R) 0.07 Lognormal
Yield Strength, fy (MPa) 470 (T_C3) 295.5 (EJ-R) 0.07 Lognormal
Ultimate Strength, fu 600 (T_C3) 437.5 (EJ-R) 0.07 Lognormal
(MPa)
Ultimate Strain, εu (mm/ 0.20 (T_C3) 0.21 (EJ-R) 0.07 Normal
mm)
Correlation Coefficients
Es fy fu εu
Es 1 0 0 0
fy 1 0.75 0.45
fu SYM 1 0.60
εu 1
75 75
60 60
45 45
30 30
Lateral Load (kN)
Lateral Load (kN)
15 15
0 0
-15 -15
-30 -30
-45 Stochastic -45
-60 -60
EJ-R
-75 -75
-5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Drift Ratio (%) Drift Ratio (%)
(a)
60 60
45 45
30 30
Lateral Load (kN)
Lateral Load (kN)
15 15
0 0
-15 -15
-30 Stochastic -30
-45 -45
T_C3
-60 -60
-2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
(b)
Fig. 5 Hysteretic response and envelope curve of hysteresis loops a EJ-R b T_C3
13
1.0 1.0
Canonical Correlation
0.8 0.8
0.6 fc 0.6 fc
fct fct
0.4 Gf 0.4 Gf
fy fy
0.2 0.2
fu fu
0.0 0.0
0.35
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.10
0.25
0.30
1.50
2.00
3.00
4.00
0.60
1.35
0.30
0.80
1.00
1.50
2.50
(a) (b)
Fig. 6 Sensitivity measures of the material properties on peak strength at each imposed drift a EJ-R b T_C3
3.2 Stochastic analysis
The computational stochastic mechanics, combining the numerical analysis with the sto-
chastic sampling technique, is used to simulate the randomness at the material level. The
randomness in the mechanical properties of concrete and reinforcing steel (i.e., input
variables) is considered by generating statistical stratified samples of parameters listed in
Tables 4 and 5. The variability of strength-related parameters in concrete is considered to
account for inherent uncertainties. This can be commonly found in existing RC buildings in
the Mediterranean area (Bal et al. 2008). The variability in the steel bar is less pronounced
than concrete (Akyüz and Uyan 1992). Random samples considering the random variables
with the given distribution functions are generated by the LHS, having the advantage of
reducing the number of simulations in the sampling process, saving considerable computa-
tional time and effort (Mencik 2016). The statistical correlation among prominent material
parameters (see Tables 4 and 5) is considered by the simulated annealing method in FReET
software (2015) during randomization. The distribution functions and correlations among
material parameters are obtained from experimental observations, Pukl et al. (2016), fib
Bulletin No.22 (2003), and JCSS (2000). The numerical solutions with randomized mate-
rial parameters are then provided. Namely, statistical samples are the input material param-
eters of numerical solutions, resulting in a set of load-drift ratio curves (i.e., stochastic
bundle) and different cracking responses.
The sensitivity of the material parameters on the response variables (i.e., capacity and
residual crack width) is measured by Canonical correlation analysis (Hotelling 1936). The
set of input parameters with a higher correlation coefficient produces a high impact on the
global response. On the other hand, the correlation coefficient close to zero shows less cor-
relation between the set of input and output variables. The uncertainty analysis on residual
crack width is performed by the basic statistical parameters (e.g., mean value, standard
deviation, and cumulative density function (CDF)). The fragility curves of residual crack
widths are developed by the gathered information on the statistical analysis. Those are
obtained for three locations on the joint panel such as the joint back, core, and beam-joint
interface. Note that, the stochastic analysis provides the randomness arising from inherent
uncertainties at prominent material parameters. The geometrical variability is considered
13
Joint Back Joint Core Beam-Joint Interface

1.0 1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8 0.8
fc fc fc
0.6 0.6 0.6
fct fct fct
0.4 Gf 0.4 Gf 0.4 Gf
fy fy fy
0.2 fu 0.2 fu 0.2 fu
0.0 0.0 0.0

0.35 0.75 0.35 0.75 0.35 0.75
Residual Drift Ratio (%) Residual Drift Ratio (%) Residual Drift Ratio (%)
(a)
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8 0.8

fc fc fc
0.6 0.6 0.6
fct fct fct
0.4 Gf 0.4 Gf 0.4 Gf
fy fy fy
0.2 fu 0.2 fu 0.2 fu
0.0 0.0 0.0

0.35 0.75 0.35 0.75 0.35 0.75
Residual Drift Ratio (%) Residual Drift Ratio (%) Residual Drift Ratio (%)
(b)
Fig. 7 Sensitivity of material properties on cracking response a EJ-R b T_C3
by performing individual stochastic FE analyses on selected beam-column joint specimens

with substandard configurations.
4 Results and discussion
The randomization of material parameters remarkably affects the nonlinear response of the
RC joints as clearly shown in Fig. 5. Both the cyclic response and the peak-to-peak enve-
lope are clearly sensitive to the variability of material properties. The narrower variabil-
ity in the early stage of loading became wider (i.e., higher dispersion) in the subsequent
drift levels. The high scatter in the material parameters (i.e., concrete mechanical proper-
ties) affecting the post-elastic behavior caused larger variability in the post-yield hysteretic
response of EJ-R.
The experimental results of T_C3 are within the boundaries of the set of load-drift
curves (Fig. 5b). On the other hand, the pinching effect, especially at large drift demand,
does not match well with the experimental result (Fig. 5b), resulting in an overestima-
tion of energy dissipation. A possible explanation for this mismatching might be the large
residual deformation in the longitudinal steel reinforcements due to the local yielding of
reinforcing steel and the absence of the bond-slip response. This causes the strain compat-
ibility between steel and concrete across a large shear crack in the joint panel. Indeed, a
large strain in the reinforcing bar is observed across the crack. Thus, the response of the
FE models at the last imposed drift (i.e., 3%) is not considered in this study. Note that, the
target residual drift ratio of 0.5% is selected for feasible repair actions, as aforementioned
in Sect. 2. The exhibited residual drifts of T_C3 specimen are either below (0.35% on aver-
age) or beyond (0.75% on average) the residual drift of 0.5%. Note that, 0.35% and 0.75%
are the residual drifts monitored during the cyclic response and closer to 0.5%. Their
13
1 1
0.8 0.8
Cumulative Probability
0.6 0.6
Joint Back
Resisual Crack
Resisual Crack
0.4 Width at 0.75% 0.4 Width at 0.75%
Drift-Joint Back Drift-Joint Back
0.2 0.2
Resisual Crack Resisual Crack
Width at 0.35% Width at 0.35%
Drift-Joint Back Drift-Joint Back
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Residual Crack Width (mm) Residual Crack Width (mm)
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
Joint Core
Resisual Crack
Resisual Crack Width at 0.75%
0.4 Width at 0.75% 0.4
Drift-Joint Core
Drift-Joint Core
0.2
0.2 Resisual Crack Resisual Crack
Drift-Joint Core Drift-Joint Core
0
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Residual Crack Width (mm)
Residual Crack Width (mm)
1 1
0.8 0.8
Beam-Joint Interface
0.6 0.6

0.4 Width at 0.75% 0.4 Width at 0.75%
Drift-Interface Drift-Interface
0.2 0.2
Drift-Interface Drift-Interface
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Residual Crack Width (mm) Residual Crack Width (mm)
(a) (b)
Fig. 8 Fragility curves for residual crack widths a EJ-R b T_C3
corresponding imposed peak drift ratios were 1.3% and 1.5%, respectively. Therefore, the
lower accuracy at imposed drifts greater than 1.5% does not influence the reliability of the
results. To have insights on the influence of the variability of the different material proper-
ties, a sensitivity analysis is needed as well.
4.1 Sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis is performed to check the reliability of the adopted numerical
modeling at the stochastic level. The sensitivity of the considered variables (i.e., material
properties) on the beam-column joint capacity, expressed in terms of the peak strength
and residual crack width at each cycle, is determined by Canonical correlation analysis
(Hotelling 1936). The joint shear strength is usually proportioned to √fc (Priestley 1997),
where fc is concrete compressive strength. This represents the effect of concrete mechani-
cal properties on the shear critical joints. To this end, the capacity at each imposed drift is
expected to be sensitive to concrete mechanical properties. Therefore, the concrete-related
parameters such as concrete tensile strength fct, compressive strength fc, and fracture energy
13
Gf contribute to the peak strength of both specimens (e.g., EJ-R and T_C3) remarkably
(Fig. 6a and b). Indeed, the Canonical correlation coefficient of concrete tensile strength fct
decreased at a progressively slower rate by increasing the drift level. On the contrary, that
of compressive strength fc increased, which could be attributed to the development of the
diagonal compression strut mechanism perpendicular to the tension tie at the joint panel.
Due to the dominating shear response of the unreinforced joint panel, the material param-
eters related to internal steel longitudinal reinforcement have almost negligible effects on
the global response of EJ_R specimen and minor effects on the T_C3 specimen.
The sensitivity of material properties on the residual crack width is depicted in Fig. 7a,
b. Although 0.5% residual drift was selected as the threshold value for the repairability
level, the residual drifts of the investigated specimens obtained from FE analyses are
either below (0.35%) or beyond (0.75%) the residual drift of 0.5%. Thus, the sensitivity
of material properties on cracking response is compared for the residual drifts of 0.35%
and 0.75% in Fig. 7. The relative impact of concrete mechanical properties (e.g., concrete
tensile strength fct, compressive strength fc, and fracture energy Gf) is more prominent on
the cracking response of joint with plain round bars (e.g., specimen EJ-R) than on joint
T_C3 with deformed bars, where there is no transverse reinforcement in the joint panel of
both specimens. This is because fct is the most dominant material property in the cracking
behavior of EJ-R, where the slip of plain round bars prevents the contribution of reinforce-
ment properties in the cyclic response. On the other hand, the slip phenomenon is less in
T_C3 owing to the deformed bars. Thus, the involvement of reinforcement properties in
the cyclic response is more evident compared to the concrete properties of T_C3. Indeed,
the correlation coefficient of the steel yielding fy, and ultimate stress of steel fu on the crack
width of EJ-R specimen ranges between 0.01 and 0.26, while the range is between 0.05 and
0.56 for T_C3 specimen.
4.2 Fragility curves of residual crack width
The attainment of the repairability threshold is assumed to occur when the deformation
of the member exceeds the specified residual drift. As mentioned in Sect. 2, DL3 (i.e., the
macroscopic damage at RC components) is considered as the threshold for the feasibility of
repair economically. A residual drift ratio of 0.5% specified in FEMA P58 (2018) is associ-
ated with DL3. It is assumed that an intensive repair solution could be required if the joint
attains a certain level of crack width at 0.5% residual drift level since it is not serviceable
beyond that limit. Therefore, the fragility curves are intended to be developed for the resid-
ual drift of 0.5%. On the other hand, the residual drifts obtained from numerical analysis
of the reference specimens are either below (0.35%) or beyond (0.75%) the residual drift
of 0.5%. Thus, the fragility curves of residual crack width are developed for the residual
drifts of 0.35% and 0.75%. At this stage, the linear interpolation of crack width measures is
not performed to avoid the manipulation of the data that is in the non-linear range. Indeed,
considering the non-linear response of the joint, this may lead to significant errors. Since
the cracking response is different at specific locations of the joint such as the joint back,
joint core, and beam to joint interface, individual fragility curves are provided for each
specific joint location (see Fig. 8a and b). The fragility curves are generated by a lognor-
mal distribution. Chi-square and Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests are performed to measure the
goodness of the fit. They are satisfied with a confidence level of 95%. Note that the devel-
oped fragility curves are representative of the exterior joints in the Mediterranean area,
considering the most common construction practices. The extension of the results of this
13
6102
13
Table 6 Summary of fragility curves
Joint Imposed Strength at Residual Crack location Residual Crack Width
Drift (%) Imposed Drift Drift (%)
(kN) Median (mm) Dispersion βd Fractile (mm) β = 1.5
CEN 1990
16% 84% (2002) (mm)
EJ-R (with smooth bars) 1.0 40.80 0.35 Joint back 0.61 0.37 0.46 0.82 0.35
Joint core 0.61 0.19 0.51 0.72 0.44
Interface 0.96 0.14 0.85 1.65 0.78
1.5 47.70 0.75 Joint back 1.31 0.28 1.04 1.65 0.84
Joint core 1.17 0.13 1.04 1.32 0.96
Interface 1.92 0.15 1.11 2.22 1.54
T_C3 (with deformed bars) 1.3 43.94 0.35 Joint back 12.73 0.13 11.23 14.42 10.3
Joint core 4.68 0.12 4.17 5.26 3.74
Interface 2.69 0.24 2.11 3.42 1.65
1.5 42.47 0.75 Joint back 17.30 0.12 15.49 19.32 14.45
Joint core 6.45 0.17 5.28 7.85 4.97
Interface 5.40 0.25 4.24 6.79 3.35

(a)
(b)
Fig. 9 Peak drift/residual crack width correlation a EJ-R b T_C3
study to other joint types (e.g., interior joints) relying on the different resisting mechanisms
is not recommended. Besides, the indicators for the detection of damage from numerical
analysis and in-situ inspections are valid for DL3 (see Table 1), which is supposed to be a
feasible threshold value for the repair. The effect of geometrical and material variabilities is
considerable on the fragility curves. In the case of outliers in the geometry or material, the
results should be interpreted carefully.
The influence of reinforcing type (i.e., smooth bar in EJ-R specimen, and deformed bar
in T_C3 specimen) and crack location can be clearly observed in the fragility curves. The
difference between damage development and localization at different joint locations is sub-
stantial. The specimen EJ-R is more fragile than T_C3 as the residual crack widths corre-
sponding to the same probability of failure are less in EJ-R than T_C3 (Fig. 8a and b). This
could be attributed to the difference in the bond-slip mechanism as the crack spacing and
pattern are sensitive to bond-slip response (Chen and Baker 2003). The joint back and joint
core are more fragile than the beam to joint interface in EJ-R joint since lower crack widths
are computed for those at the same probability. On the other hand, for the T_C3 specimen,
the joint back is less fragile compared to the joint core and beam to joint interface which is
also associated with the resulting damage localization.
For the given probability, the crack width limit to take repair action can be obtained
from Fig. 8a and b. The statistical characteristics of lognormally distributed residual cracks
at residual drifts of 0.35% and 0.75% are presented in Table 6. In particular, the median,
dispersion (in terms of Coefficient of Variation Cv), 16th and 84th percentile, and residual
crack at a certain probability of failure are included. The dispersion in the crack width
is rather high, indicating that the uncertainties in the material parameters have a remark-
able impact on cracking response. The median value of residual crack width at 0.35%
residual drift ranges between 0.61 mm and 0.96 mm for EJ-R specimen. Those at 0.75%
residual drift ranges between 1.17 and 1.92 mm (Table 6). The exhibited performance of
T_C3 is rather different, resulting in larger crack widths due to the high bond associated
13
6104
13
Table 7 Repairability threshold
Damage State Definition Comments on Repair- Target Residual Drift (%) Residual Crack Width Joint Type Residual Crack Width (mm)
ability for DL3 (mm)
Median at 0.5% β = 1.5 CEN
Residual Drift 1990 (2002)
DL3 Moderate Damage Repairability Threshold 0.5 > 1 and < 5 Large Vari- Smooth Bars Joint Back 0.87 0.53
ability (Table 1) Joint Core 0.82 0.64
Interface 1.32 1.07
Mean 1.00 0.75
Deformed Bars Joint Back Replace Concrete Cover
Joint Core 5.34 4.20
Interface 3.71 2.29
Mean 4.53 3.25

Fig. 10 In-situ application of the proposed fragility curves for decision making on joint repairability (a) in-
situ inspection on damaged beam-column joint after the 2009 L’Aquila Earthquake (Italy) (b) close-up on
the joint panel cracking at 0.5% residual drift (c) use of the proposed fragility functions (d) comparison of
the measured crack width with the proposed repairability threshold at the joint core
to deformed bars. The median value of residual crack width is between 2.69–12.73 mm
and 5.40–17.30 mm at 0.35% and 0.75% residual drifts, respectively. Note that the higher
values of residual crack width, indeed, correspond to the wedge splitting failure at the joint
back in reality even though the value is obtained numerically.
The probability of failure pf can be also limited to a specific value at a serviceability
limit state, defined in CEN 1990 (2002). The structural member (i.e., beam-column joint
in this study) cannot be fully serviceable after reaching its serviceability limit state, requir-
ing a repair action. Therefore, the repairability threshold value can be set as the residual
crack at the serviceability limit state. The reliability index β and the corresponding failure
probability pf related to irreversible serviceability limit state for the period of 50 years in
RC2 type structures are 1.5 and 6.7E-02, respectively (CEN 1990 2002). In the case of
joints with smooth bars (e.g., EJ-R), the crack width for exceeding that failure probability
is approximated to 0.35–0.78 mm and 0.84–1.54 mm at 0.35% and 0.75% residual drift
levels, respectively (Table 6). For the specimen with deformed bars (e.g., T_C3), the result-
ing values are rather high, varying between 1.65 and 14.45 mm. As mentioned before, for
the higher residual crack widths observed at the joint back, the concrete cover replacement
could be required.
The peak drift-residual crack width correlation is also obtained. Figure 9 exhibits the
variation of maximum residual crack widths with respect to peak drift demands. When the
maximum residual crack width in the joint back is considered, it is seen that the scatter in
the data is much more pronounced for the 30 samples of T_C3 specimen and the trend is
poor for the 30 samples of EJ-R specimen. However, when the joint core and beam-to-joint
interface are considered for both test specimens, the scatter in the data is acceptable and
there is an increasing trend in the maximum residual crack widths with the increasing peak
drift demands.
13
Fig. 11 Residual cracks at the beam-column joint of moderately damaged RC buildings after the Elazığ-
Sivrice (in Eastern Turkey) Earthquake
5 Applicability and validation
An application to a case study building damaged during the L’Aquila Earthquake is per-
formed to show the applicability of the proposed crack width-based fragility curves. The
selected case-building belongs to the wide database of existing RC buildings, which have
severely damaged structural and non-structural components [E-rated buildings according to
the AeDES form (European Commission & Joint Research Centre 2007)]. The structural
system consisted of lateral resisting frames designed to resist moderate seismic actions but
with smooth internal reinforcements and without joint stirrups. Two beam-column joints
were extracted from this building and tested in a laboratory environment. More details on
the building and laboratory testing can be found in Del Vecchio et al. (2018). The results
in terms of the crack width at the residual drift of 0.5% are here used to validate the pro-
posed repairability threshold. In particular, the experimental result is compared with the
proposed fragility functions and the repairability threshold. The residual crack width at
0.5% reported in Table 7 is obtained as the linear interpolation of the numerical obser-
vations reported in Table 6 for 0.35% and 0.75% drift. Although employing linear inter-
polation is a strong assumption, it is made here for the sake of clearness and simplicity
only to show the applicability of the proposed procedure. More accurate predictions can be
obtained comparing the results with the fragility functions and threshold limits suggested
in Table 6 or Fig. 8a. The mean residual crack width values given in Table 7 for joint types
with smooth bars and deformed bars are 1.00 mm and 4.53 mm, respectively. These values
are in between the upper and lower bounds of the threshold residual crack width values
specified for DL-3 in various standards and previous studies, in which it varies between
1.00 mm to 5.00 mm as presented in Table 1. In many cases, the cracking mechanism can
13
occur simultaneously. The most critical case for the most unfavorable situation should
be taken into account when using the developed fragility curves. Then, the repairability
threshold can be obtained. All these cracks are related to the cracking mechanism at the
joint. The developed fragility curves and their corresponding median values can be used
for identifying the repairability of the shear critical joint subassemblies provided that other
failures interest the other structural components.
Figure 10a–d shows the use of the proposed reparability threshold for in-situ inspec-
tion in the aftermath of an earthquake event. In this case, the residual crack width at the
joint core is estimated by using the results of the experimental test (i.e., the elongation of
the diagonal LVDT at the residual drift of 0.5%, see Fig. 10b) instead of a direct meas-
ure as can be done in-situ. A crack width of about 0.30 mm is detected. Comparing this
crack width at the joint core with fragility functions developed for joint subassemblies with
smooth bars (see Fig. 10c) the probability of exceeding the residual drift of 0.35% is close
to 0. This remarks the repairability of the cracked joint. More direct but less accurate feed-
back can be obtained comparing the observed crack width with the proposed repairability
threshold in Table 7 (see Fig. 10d). The same conclusion can be drawn for the observed
crack of 0.30 mm, being lower than the repairability threshold of 0.64 mm according to
CEN 1990 (2002) probability of failure (yellow dot in Fig. 10d). It can be repairable with
simple epoxy resin injection and patching of the concrete surface.
The field reconnaissance after the Elazığ-Sivrice (in Eastern Turkey) Earthquake with
the Mw of 6.8 occurred on January 24th, 2020 showed a certain level of beam-joint damage.
The substandard joints without any transverse reinforcement in the joint panel constructed
from low-strength concrete and plain round bars exhibited poor performance. Since the
required bond interaction between concrete and plain round bar is not provided, the beam-
column joint damage is generally initiated with the flexural cracks at the beam-joint inter-
face, being the most fragile component at the joint panel. The measured residual crack
width at the beam to joint interface of moderately damaged buildings (partly attributable to
DS3), requiring a structural repair, ranges between 0.70 mm and 1.40 mm, see Fig. 11. The
residual crack width computed for the beam to joint interface at 0.5% is 1.32 mm (median)
and 1.07 mm (CEN 1990 (2002)). The initiated cracks were also extended to the joint core,
which was measured around 0.40 mm in a moderately damaged building (Fig. 11). The
measured value is lower than the median value of crack width at joint core (0.82 mm). That
of CEN 1990 (2002) probability of failure is 0.64 mm, which well approximates the meas-
ured value.
6 Conclusion
Residual crack width-based fragility curves are developed for shear critical beam-column
joints of substandard RC buildings constructed according to the old design practice. Uncer-
tainties arising from material properties are considered by using a computational stochas-
tic mechanic approach. The experimentally validated deterministic numerical models are
developed for substandard beam-column joints. The selected specimens are different in the
geometry and type of reinforcing steel (i.e., deformed and smooth bars). Both specimens
have no stirrups in the joint panel. The randomness in the prominent material parameters
is simulated by combining the stochastic sampling technique (i.e., LHS) with nonlinear FE
solutions, resulting in a set of load-drift curves and different crack widths. The Canoni-
cal correlation coefficient between material parameters and response variables (i.e., lateral
13
load capacity and cracking response) is evaluated to outline the level of significance of the
contribution of concrete and reinforcement mechanical parameters on the global response.
The following conclusions can be drawn:
• The residual crack width-based fragility curves can be easily implemented for the quick
assessment of the reparability as it is a quantified parameter in post-earthquake inspec-
tions.
• The threshold limit of residual crack width for repairability in the specimen with the
smooth bars is significantly lower than the one with the deformed bars. In other words,
the serviceability limit for the specimens having smooth bars can be attained with much
less residual crack width compared to the specimens with deformed bars. The resulting
damage localization and crack pattern are sensitive to the type of reinforcement.
• The difference in crack development and localization at different joint locations is sub-
stantial. The joint back and joint core are more fragile than the beam to joint interface
in the joint with smooth bars since lower crack widths are computed for those at the
same probability. On the other hand, the joint back is less fragile compared to the joint
core and beam to joint interface for the specimen with deformed bars.
• The median value of cracks for the repairability threshold for the joints with smooth
bars at 0.5% drift ratio can be estimated as 0.87 mm, 0.82 mm, and 1.32 mm for the
joint back, joint core, and beam to joint interface, respectively. Those related to the
deformed bars are 5.34 and 3.71 mm for the joint core and interface, respectively. For
the certain probability of failure at the serviceability limit state, the values are rather
low.
• The sensitivity measures show the high influence of concrete mechanical properties on
the capacity. The cracking response is also sensitive to concrete mechanical properties
for the joint with smooth bars. On the other hand, the mechanical interlock provided by
the reinforcing steel changed the crack localization and pattern, resulting in medium
sensitivity on reinforcing steel properties.
• In-situ measurements of residual crack width on real buildings damaged during recent
earthquakes demonstrates the reliability of the proposed crack width-based reparability
threshold. It can be easily employed during the in-situ inspection in the aftermath of
earthquake events to assess the feasibility of the repair of substandard beam-column
joints.
Acknowledgements This study has been accomplished with the support of the Educational and Research
Centre in Transport, Faculty of Transport Engineering, University of Pardubice.
Data availability Some or all data, models, or codes that support the findings of this study are available from
the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
ACI 318 (2019) Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary (aci 318m-11), USA:
American Concrete Institute
Akyüz S, Uyan M (1992) A study on the concrete steel bars used in Turkey [In Turkish]. Tech J Turkish
Chamber Civ Eng 35:497–508
ATENA (2017) Software for nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete structures, Cervenka Consulting,
http://www.cervenka.cz/
13
ATENA Program Documentation, Part 1 (2014) Atena theory manual, Cervenka Consulting, http://www.
cervenka.cz/
ATENA Program Documentation, Part 8. (2015) User’s manuel for ATENA-GID interface
ATENA Program Documentation Part 4-9 (2016) ATENA Science – GiD Strengthening of concrete struc-
tures, Step by step guide for modelling strengthening with ATENA and GiD, http://www.cervenka.cz/
Bal İE, Crowley H, Pinho R, Gülay FG (2008) Detailed assessment of structural characteristics of Turkish
RC building stock for loss assessment models. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:914–932. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.005
Cardone D (2016) Fragility curves and loss functions for RC structural components with smooth rebars.
Earthq Struct 10:1181–1212
CEN (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules
for buildings. EN1998–1. Brussels, Belgium: Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN)
CEN (2002) Basis of structural design. EN1990. Brussels, Belgium: Comité Européen de Normalisation
(CEN)
Chen G, Baker G (2003) Influence of bond slip on crack spacing in numerical modeling of reinforced con-
crete. J Struct Eng 129:1514–1521. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:11(1514)
Cuevas A, Pampanin S (2017) Post-seismic capacity of damaged and repaired reinforced concrete plastic
hinges extracted from a real building. In: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Confer-
ence, Wellington, New Zelland, pp. 12
Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M, Balsamo A et al (2014a) Experimental investigation of exterior RC beam-
column joints retrofitted with FRP systems. ASCE J Compos Constr 18:1–13
Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M, Balsamo A et al (2014b) Experimental investigation of exterior RC beam-
column joints retrofitted with FRP systems. J Compos Constr 18:04014002. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000459
Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M, Balsamo A, Prota A (2018) Seismic retrofit of real beam-column joints
using fiber-reinforced cement composites. J Struct Eng 144:04018026. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0001999
Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Manfredi G (2016) Modelling beam-column joints and FRP
strengthening in the seismic performance assessment of RC existing frames. Compos Struct 142:107–
116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.01.077
Duran B, Tunaboyu O, Avşar Ö (2017) Determination of elasticity modulus of low strength concrete and its
effect on the risk assessment results by DSVB. J Fac Eng Archit Gazi Univ 32:253–264
Engindeniz M (2008) Repair and strengthening of pre-1970 reinforced concrete corner beam-column joints
using CFRP composites. Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia, USA.
ESM 98 (1998) European Macroseismic Scale (EMS)
European Commission & Joint Research Centre (2007) Field Manual for post-earthquake damage and safety
assessment and short-term countermeasures (AeDES), Institute for the Protection and Security of the
Citizen, Joint Research Centre, European Commission
Faleschini F, Gonzalez-Libreros J, Zanini MA et al (2019) Repair of severely-damaged RC exterior beam-
column joints with FRP and FRCM composites. Compos Struct 207:352–363. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compstruct.2018.09.059
FEMA 306 (1998) Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings: basic proce-
dures manual (FEMA 306), Federal Emergency Management Agency, USA
FEMA P58 (2018) Seismic performance assessment of buildings (FEMA P58), Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency, USA
Fib (2010) Model code for concrete structures. Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib), Berlin: Ernst, Wil-
helm & Sohn
Fib Bulletin No. 22 (2003) Monitoring and safety evaluation of existing concrete structures. Fédération
Internationale du Béton (fib), Lausanne, Switzerland
Fib Bulletin No. 25 (2003) Displacement-based seismic design of reinforced concrete buildings. State-of-art
report. Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib). Lausanne, Switzerland
Haach VG, Debs LHDCE, A, Khalil El Debs M, (2008) Evaluation of the influence of the column axial load
on the behavior of monotonically loaded R/C exterior beam–column joints through numerical simula-
tions. Eng Struct 30:965–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.06.005
Hassan WM (2011) Analytical and experimental assessment of seismic vulnerability of beam-column joints
without transverse reinforcement in concrete buildings. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berke-
ley, USA
HAZUS MR4 (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology. Earthquake Model (HAZUS MH. MR4)
Technical Manual. Department of Homeland Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response Direc-
torate, FEMA
13
Hordijk DA (1991) Local approach to fatigue of concrete. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology,
Netherlands
Hotelling H (1936) Relations between two sets of variates. Biometrika 28:321–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/
2333955
JBDPA (2001) Guideline for post-earthquake damage evaluation and rehabilitation, The Japan Building
Disaster Prevention Association (JBDPA), Japan
Joint Committee on Structural Safety (2000) Probabilistic model code, Part 3: Material properties. https://
www.jcss-lc.org/
Kalogeropoulos GI, Tsonos A-DG, Konstandinidis D, Tsetines S (2016) Pre-earthquake and post-earth-
quake retrofitting of poorly detailed exterior RC beam-to-column joints. Eng Struct 109:1–15. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.11.009
Kollegger J, Mehlhorn G (1988) Experimentelle und analytische untersuchungen zur aufstellung eines mate-
rialmodels für gerissene stahlbetonscheiben (in German), Nr.6 Forschungsbericht, Massivbau, Gesa-
mthochschule Kassel
Kolmar W (1986) Beschreibung der kraftübertragung über risse in nichtlinearen finite- element-berechnun-
gen von stahlbetontragwerken (in German). Dissertation, T.H. Darmstadt
Kulkarni SA, Li B, Yip WK (2008) Finite element analysis of precast hybrid-steel concrete connections
under cyclic loading. J Constr Steel Res 64:190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2007.05.002
Marder K, Elwood KJ, Motter CJ, Clifton GC (2020) Post-earthquake assessment of moderately damaged
reinforced concrete plastic hinges. Earthq Spectra 36:299–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019
878192
Marder K, Sarrafzadeh M, Elwood K (2018) Effectiveness of repair via epoxy injection of earthquake dam-
aged reinforced concrete beam elements. In: 17th U.S.-Japan-New Zealand Workshop on the Improve-
ment of Structural Engineering and Resilience, pp. 8
Mencik J (2016) Latin hypercube sampling, Concise reliability for engineers, IntechOpen, DOI: https://doi.
org/10.5772/62370. Available from: https://www.intechopen.com/books/concise-reliability-for-engin
eers/latin-hypercube-sampling
MIT (2018) Aggiornamento delle, Norme tecniche per le costruzioni, (in Italian). Supplemento ordinario n.
8 alla Gazzetta uiciale del 20–2–2018. Rome, Italy
Najafgholipour MA, Dehghan SM, Dooshabi A, Niroomandi A (2017) Finite element analysis of reinforced
concrete beam-column connections with governing joint shear failure mode. Latin Am J Solids Struct
14:1200–1225. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-78253682
Novák D, Vořechovský M, Rusina R (2015) FReET v.1.5 – program documentation. User´s and Theory
Guides. http://www.freet.cz. Brno/Červenka Consulting, Czech Republic
Pagni CA, Lowes LN (2006) Fragility functions for older reinforced concrete beam-column joints. Earthq
Spectra 22:215–238. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2163365
Pantelides CP, Hansen J, Nadauld JD, Reaveley LD (2002) Assessment of reinforced concrete building exte-
rior joints with substandard details. Technical Report PEER 2002–18, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center (PEER), University of California, Berkeley, CA
Pohoryles DA, Melo J, Rossetto T et al (2018) Experimental comparison of novel CFRP retrofit schemes for
realistic full-scale RC beam–column joints. J Compos Constr 22:18. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000865
Priestley MJN (1997) Displacement-based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete buildings. J Earth-
quake Eng 1:157–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469708962365
Pukl R, Sajdlova T, Routil L et al. (2016) Case study ‒ Nonlinear reliability analysis of a concrete bridge.
In: Maintenance, monitoring, safety, risk and resilience of bridges and bridge networks: proceedings
of the 8th international conference on bridge maintenance, safety and management (IABMAS2016)
Rankine W (1857) On the stability of loose earth. Philos Trans R Soc Lond. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.
1857.0003
Rimkus A, Cervenka V, Gribniak V, Cervenka J (2020) Uncertainty of the smeared crack model applied to
RC beams. Eng Fract Mech. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.107088
Samad AA, Noorwirdawati A, Mohamad N et al (2017) Shear strengthening and shear Repair of 2-Span
continuous RC beams with CFRP strips. J Compos Constr 21:04016099. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000756
Shayanfar J, Hemmati A, Bengar HA (2019) A simplified numerical model to simulate RC beam–column
joints collapse. Bull Earthquake Eng 17:803–844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0472-z
TBEC (2018) Turkish Building Earthquake Code, Specification for structures to be built in disaster areas.
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement Government of Republic of Turkey, Turkey
TEC (1975) Turkish Earthquake Code, Specification for structures to be built in disaster areas. Turkey:
Turkish Goverment Ministry of Reconstruction and Resettlement
13
Van Mier JGM (1986) Multiaxial strain-softening of concrete, Part I: fracture. Materials and Structures,
RILEM 19
Vecchio FJ, Collins MP (1986) Modified compression-field theory for reinforced concrete beams subjected
to shear. ACI J 83:219–231
Yurdakul Ö, Avşar Ö (2016) Strengthening of substandard reinforced concrete beam-column joints by exter-
nal post-tension rods. Eng Struct 107:9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.11.004
Yurdakul O, Avsar O (2015) Structural repairing of damaged reinforced concrete beam-column assemblies
with CFRPs. Struct Eng Mech 54:521–543. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2015.54.3.521
Yurdakul Ö, Balaban E, Artagan SS, Routil L (2021a) Stochastic assessment of bond-slip behavior of plain round
bars in low strength concrete. Eng Struct 229:111658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111658
Yurdakul O, Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M et al. (2019a) Sensitivity of cyclic response of substandard
beam-column joints to material properties. In: Computational methods in structural dynamics and
earthquake engineering (COMPDYN 2019), Crete, Greece
Yurdakul Ö, Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M, Avsar Ö (2020a) Numerical simulation of substandard beam-
column joints with different failure mechanisms. Struct Concr. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201900003
Yurdakul Ö, Del Vecchio C, Ludovico MD, Avsar O (2018a) Comparison of refined numerical modeling for
substandard beam-column joints. In: 16th European Conference on Earthquake Enginering (16ECEE),
Thessaloniki, Greece
Yurdakul Ö, Duran B, Tunaboyu O, Avşar Ö (2021b) Field reconnaissance on seismic performance of RC
buildings after the January 24, 2020 Elazığ-Sivrice earthquake. Nat Hazards 105:859–887. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11069-020-04340-x
Yurdakul Ö, Tunaboyu O, Avşar Ö (2018b) Retrofit of non-seismically designed beam-column joints by
post-tensioned superelastic shape memory alloy bars. Bull Earthq Eng 16:5279–5307. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10518-018-0323-y
Yurdakul Ö, Tunaboyu O, Routil L, Avşar Ö (2019b) Stochastic-based nonlinear numerical modeling of
shear critical RC beam repaired with bonded CFRP sheets. J Compos Constr 23:04019042. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000966
Yurdakul Ö, Tunaboyu O, Routil L, Avşar Ö (2020b) Parameter sensitivity of CFRP retrofitted substandard
joints by stochastic computational mechanics. Compos Struct 238:112003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruct.2020.112003
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Authors and Affiliations
Özgür Yurdakul1 · Ciro Del Vecchio2 · Marco Di Ludovico3 · Ladislav Routil1 ·

Özgür Avşar4
Ciro Del Vecchio
cdelvecchio@unisannio.it
Marco Di Ludovico
diludovi@unina.it
Ladislav Routil
ladislav.routil@upce.cz
Özgür Avşar
ozguravsar@eskisehir.edu.tr
1
Department of Transport Structures, Faculty of Transport Engineering, University of Pardubice,
Pardubice, Czech Republic
2
Department of Engineering, University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy
3
Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Napoli Federico II,
Napoli, Italy
4
Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Eskişehir Technical University, Eskişehir,
Turkey
13
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com

Crack Width-Based Fragility Curves For Repairabili

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

Crack Width-Based Fragility Curves For Repairabili

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2021) 19:6081–6111

Crack width‑based fragility curves for repairability

Özgür Yurdakul1 · Ciro Del Vecchio2 · Marco Di Ludovico3 · Ladislav Routil1 ·

Keywords Repairability · Fragility · Joint · Substandard · Residual crack · Existing

Existing reinforced concrete buildings designed and constructed with non-confirming

2 Repairability of RC beam‑column joints

A comprehensive literature review of codes, standards, guidelines, and relevant scientific

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Notes on Too wide for epoxy Threshold Replacement of spalled Patching

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Notes on Collapse Repair Repair may

Notes on Collapse of Repair Repair may

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Fig. 1 Flowchart of adopted methodology

Table 2 Details of experimental tests selected for the model validation

Beam Cross-Section (mm) 250 × 500 300 × 500

action may not be economically feasible as it requires a massive reconstruction and

Fig. 2 Crack measurement locations

The adopted methodology relies on numerical analyses of substandard beam-column joints

Fig. 3 Reinforcing scheme a EJ_R b T-C3

Imposed drift 1.5%

Imposed drift 1.5%

Table 3 Comparison of crack widths

0.50 0.67 0.39 0.50 0.60 0.50

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Table 5 Reinforcing steel as random parameters with correlation coefficients

Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

-30 Stochastic -30

Joint Back Joint Core Beam-Joint Interface

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.0 0.0 0.0

by performing individual stochastic FE analyses on selected beam-column joint specimens

Resisual Crack Resisual Crack

4.2 Fragility curves of residual crack width

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Authors and Affiliations

Özgür Yurdakul1 · Ciro Del Vecchio2 · Marco Di Ludovico3 · Ladislav Routil1 ·

You might also like

2 Repairability of RC beam‑column joints

Fig. 1 Flowchart of adopted methodology

Table 2 Details of experimental tests selected for the model validation

Fig. 2 Crack measurement locations

Fig. 3 Reinforcing scheme a EJ_R b T-C3

Table 3 Comparison of crack widths

Table 5 Reinforcing steel as random parameters with correlation coefficients

4.2 Fragility curves of residual crack width