ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 106-S45

TECHNICAL PAPER

Effective Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Columns
by Kenneth J. Elwood and Marc O. Eberhard
Existing and proposed models of the effective stiffness of reinforced concrete columns subjected to lateral loads are assessed using the experimental response of 329 concrete columns. Existing models appropriate for design applications tend to overestimate the measured effective stiffness and are unacceptably inaccurate, because they generally neglect the influence of anchorage slip on the effective stiffness of the column. A three-component model that explicitly accounts for deformations due to flexure, shear, and anchorage-slip is shown to provide a more accurate estimate of the measured effective stiffness for the database columns. This model is simplified by neglecting small terms and approximating the results of moment-curvature analysis to obtain an accurate and rational effective stiffness model appropriate for design applications. For this model, the ratio of the measured stiffness to the calculated stiffness had a mean and coefficient of variation of 1.02 and 22% for circular columns and 0.95 and 25% for rectangular columns.
Keywords: bond slip; column; flexural stiffness; lateral loads; reinforced concrete; yield.

code, NZS 3101-06 (NZS 2006), based on the commonly used recommendations by Paulay and Priestley (1992). ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee 318 2008) will be the first edition of ACI 318 to provide stiffness recommendations specifically for lateral-load analysis. These code procedures are convenient for preliminary analysis, because they can be implemented without performing a moment-curvature analysis and without knowing the details of the column reinforcement. Simple effective stiffness models for application in design have also been proposed by Mehanny et al. (2001) and Khuntia and Ghosh (2004). This paper uses data from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) Structural Performance Database, developed by the second author and his students (Berry et al. 2004), to assess the accuracy of these practical methodologies and to propose a new procedure. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE The assumed stiffness of a column dominates the results of linear and nonlinear analyses of buildings and bridges subjected to ground motions. Currently, most design professionals assume that the column effective stiffness is a fixed proportion (say 50 or 100%) of the gross-section stiffness. Using a database of 329 columns with rectangular and circular cross sections, this paper shows that existing procedures for estimating column stiffness are inaccurate. Based on simplifications of a three-component model, the paper proposes a new procedure that is more rational, practical, and accurate. The proposed procedure could be used immediately by design professionals, and it could be incorporated into design provisions, such as ASCE 41 (ASCE 2007a) or ACI 318 (ACI Committee 318 2008). DATABASE OF MEASURED EFFECTIVE STIFFNESSES The PEER Structural Performance Database (Berry et al. 2004) provided the data needed to evaluate the accuracy of various models of column stiffness. The database contains the cyclic force-deformation response, geometry, axial load, and material properties for more than 400 tests of reinforced concrete columns. A total of 366 of these columns were tested in cantilever, double-curvature, and double-cantilever configurations, which makes it possible to isolate the column’s stiffness/flexibility from other sources of flexibility, such as a flexible supporting beam. To limit the analyses to columns typical of practice, the axial load was limited to a maximum of 0.66Ag fc′, and the shear-span-to-depth ratio

INTRODUCTION The assumptions made in estimating the stiffnesses of structural members dominate the computed performance of a building or bridge subjected to earthquake ground motions. If these assumptions are used in a linear analysis, they control predictions of the period of the structure, the distribution of loads within the structure, and the deformation demands. The member stiffnesses also control the yield displacement, which in turn affects the displacement ductility demands calculated as part of a nonlinear analysis. The consequences of overestimating or underestimating the actual stiffnesses of structural members depend on the type of structural system and the response parameter of interest. For example, a low estimate of the effective stiffnesses of columns in a moment-resisting frame usually leads to a conservative (high) estimate of the displacement demands. In contrast, a low estimate of the effective stiffnesses for columns in a shear-wall building would lead the designer to unconservatively underestimate the elastic shear demands on the columns. The need for an accurate estimate of effective stiffnesses is even more crucial for time-history analyses, in which the peaks and valleys of the ground-motion response spectrum significantly influence the computed performance. To assist engineers in developing numerical models for the estimation of lateral deformation demands, most codes and standards provide recommendations for member effective stiffness. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 356 seismic rehabilitation guidelines (ASCE 2000) specify the most commonly used procedure for estimating column stiffness in the U.S. This procedure has been adopted into the Seismic Rehabilitation Standard, ASCE 41 (ASCE 2007a). It recently has been superseded by a new procedure specified in ASCE 41 Supplement 1 (ASCE 2007b), described in Elwood et al. (2007). A similar model is included in the commentary to the New Zealand concrete 476

ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 4, July-August 2009. MS No. S-2007-399.R1 received July 8, 2008, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2009, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the May-June 2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2010.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2009

For example.3Ag fc′ or fc′ above 60 MPa (8700 psi). Berkeley. 2—Effect of key parameters on measured effective stiffness.9 (13. shear failures).4 (all variables are defined in the Notation section). the effective stiffness was defined based on the point on the measured effective force-displacement envelope that corresponded to the calculated force at first yield.0) 1.060 0. 1(b)).6) 240 565 420 446 318 587 456 453 (34.4 (5.20 0.00 0. Both sets of column data have wide ranges of column parameters. FACI. and square cross sections with spiral transverse reinforcement (for brevity. Ffirst yield (Fig.6) –0.5 21.23 16 0.2) (65.09 (1. This statistic is a consequence of the limit on the aspect ratio.MaxiMini.3 (17.9) (3.1) 0.ACI member Kenneth J. For these columns. Marc O.71 (8.021 48 27 28 0. and a member of ACI Committee 374. Shear and Torsion. and for both sets of data.0) (61. The minimum.9) 0.27 (11. whichever came first. He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445.MaxiParameter mum mum Mean Median mum mum Mean Median a/D fc′. 477 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2009 .021 32 0. the strength of over 90% of the included columns was limited by their flexural strength. MPa (ksi) fy. 1. The circular columns also tend to have lower values for db /D when compared with the rectangular columns.005 12 0. mean. (1988) constitutive relationship for the concrete. Eberhard.10 0. the yield force was defined as the first point at which the tension reinforcement yielded or the maximum concrete strain reached a value of 0.7) (46. octagonal. Seismic Repair and Rehabilitation. was limited to a minimum of 1.2) (66.0 4.1) (7.6) 0.32 (3. and (b) columns that did not yield.0 (3.8) (82. Canada.002. (1996) and others. Seattle. Chicago.” respectively). Elwood is an Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia. 1(a)).30 (3. so the force at first yield was determined with a moment-curvature analysis.5 18. and median properties of the selected column databases are reported in Table 1.63 18 0.0) 7. The distribution of some parameters varies greatly between the two sets. 1—Definition of yield displacement and effective stiffness from test data for: (a) yielding columns. and his MSCE and PhD from the University of Illinois.99 0. maximum.2 36.0 37.5) 118. His research interests include the behavior and performance-based design of reinforced concrete structures under seismic loading. MPa (ksi) ρ D/db v ⁄ f c′ . Berkeley. He received his BS in civil engineering. Assuming the column is fixed against rotation at both ends and has a linear variation in curvature over the height of the column. and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 441. He is Chair of ACI Committee 369.7) 10. the circular column set includes fewer columns with axial loads above 0.0 34. CA. For each column.15 Fig. Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings. Table 1—Range of properties for database columns Circular columns Rectangular columns (108 specimens) (221 specimens) Mini. and materials science and engineering from the University of California.0) (64.1 0. whereas most of the rectangular columns were proportioned to reflect construction practice for buildings. BC. He received his PhD from the University of California.6 3.5 (5. Reinforced Concrete Columns. The selected specimens include 221 columns with rectangular cross sections with rectangular transverse reinforcement and 108 columns with circular. the envelope of the measured lateral load-displacement relationship was corrected for P-delta effects to give the effective lateral force envelope for each column.0 52.58 0. the effective stiffness was defined based on the point on the measured force-displacement envelope with an effective force equal to 0.6 3.2) (85.024 0.3) 0. Fig. The database does not include strain measurements. WA.3) 90. compared with the rectangular column dataset. these database subsets will be referred to as “rectangular columns” and “circular columns. defined as those whose maximum measured effective force Fmax was not at least 7% larger than the calculated force at first yield.3) 0.19 (2. IL.010 12 0. Berkeley. The yield displacement and effective stiffness of each column were determined as shown in Fig.024 0. Vancouver. is a Professor at the University of Washington.056 0. MPa (psi) P/Agfc′ 1.05 (0. which eliminated many shear-critical columns. These differences are consistent with the observation that many of the tests of circular columns were proportioned to represent typical bridge practice.7) 0.8Fmax (Fig. This definition could not be used for columns whose strength did not substantially exceed the yield force (for example. Adopting the same definition of yield used by Benzoni et al.0 4.1) (5.9 (2.6) 0. For approximately 90% of the columns. using a linear model for the steel and the Mander et al.

EIg.81 2.82 0. But none of these models are accurate.75 0. and the Paulay and Priestley (1992) recommendations also tend to overestimate the measured effective stiffness for the columns with low axial loads.24 0. 3—Measured effective stiffness from database compared with existing code models (ASCE 41-S1 = ASCE Supplement 1 [ASCE 2007b].8 36.68 0.69 0. (2001) Khuntai and Ghosh (2004) Minimum Maximum 0. all of which allow for interpolation between effective stiffness values at low and high axial loads.3 478 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2009 . Correlation coefficients for the rectangular and circular columns (Rr and Rc . The measured effective stiffness can exceed EIg because the effect of the longitudinal reinforcement on the transformed section is not accounted for when determining EIg. Option (b) overestimates the stiffness for columns with low axial loads and underestimates the stiffness for columns with high axial loads.004 is the calculated effective force on the column when the extreme concrete fiber reaches a maximum compressive strain of 0. The coefficient of variation for all of these models ranges from 35 to 58%.16 Rectangular columns (221 specimens) Maximum 1.7 41. Figure 2 demonstrates the influence of several key parameters on the measured effective stiffness.1 48. depending on the particular model and dataset. respectively) are also shown in Fig. the measured effective stiffness ranges from 10 to 122% of the gross-section stiffness (Table 2). particularly for the rectangular column dataset.43 1.25 0. The figure and table also include evaluations of the effective stiffness models from FEMA 356 (ASCE 2000).7 55. (b) 0.11 1. expressed as a fraction of the gross-section stiffness.22 1.” Figure 3 and Table 2 compare options (a) and (b) with the measured effective stiffnesses from the column databases.7EIg for compression members (P ≥ 0.8 Minimum 0.62 Coefficient of variation.59 0.53 0. Option (a) generally overestimates the effective stiffness for axial loads below 0. 1 for an equivalent cantilever of length a.76 0. The normalized effective stiffness increases most consistently with increasing axial-load ratio (P/Ag fc′) and aspect ratio (a/D).67 0. with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.5 58.the measured effective modulus of rigidity (for simplicity.56 0.1 44.13 0.33 0.1 41.1 39.34 0.19 0.27 0.1 48.19 0.68 0. and Δy is the displacement at yield according to Fig. referred to here as stiffness) can be defined as F 0. EVALUATION OF EXISTING MODELS The models implemented in many of the structural codes are similar in form to each other.79. The normalized effective stiffness also increases with increases in concrete compressive strength (fc′).91 0.42 1.78 0.65 0.26 0.95 1.95 1.29 2.37 0.1Ag fc′ ). Within the dataset.24 1.1Ag fc′) and 0.49 0.56 1. The FEMA 356 (ASCE 2000). % 55.83 0. ASCE 41 Supplement 1 (ASCE 2007b).74 1.64 0.62 Coefficient of variation. Table 2—Statistics for ratio of measured to calculated effective stiffness for existing effective stiffness models Circular columns (108 specimens) Model Gross section FEMA 356 ASCE 41 Supplement 1 ACI 318-08 (a) ACI 318-08 (b) Paulay and Priestley (1992) Mehanny et al.35EIg for flexural members (P < 0.004 a EI effmeas = -----------------3Δ y 3 (1) where F0. The normalized stiffness correlates only weakly with the normalized bar size and longitudinal reinforcement ratio.4Ag fc′.4 41.10 0. The normalized stiffness decreases with an increase in the ratio of the steel yield stress to concrete compressive strength (fy /fc′).61 0. ASCE 41 Supplement 1 (ASCE 2007b) provides the best average estimate of the measured effective stiffness (refer to Table 2).5EIg for all members. Of these existing procedures. Chapter 8 of ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee 318 2008) provides three options for approximating member stiffnesses for the determination of lateral deflection of building systems subjected to factored lateral loads: (a) 0.58 Mean 0.17 0.02 0.42 0.64 0.03 Mean 0.61 0.96 2. and Paulay and Priestley (1992).16 0.21 1.66 Median 0. As will be demonstrated in the following.21 1. this scatter can be Fig.3 37.56 0.68 Median 0.14 0.004.58 to 0. PP92 = Paulay and Priestley [1992]). % 58. 2.0 49.62 1.49 0.25 0. or (c) as determined by “a more detailed analysis considering the reduced stiffness of all members under the loading conditions.58 0.26 0.39 0.1 46.74 2.2 54.

this approach can provide a more accurate estimate of the measured effective stiffnesses of the database columns. accounting for the influence of longitudinal reinforcement and effective eccentricity of the axial load. For example. Using a computed moment-curvature relationship. tr = ( 0. Compared with the Mehanny model. shear. 1996. however. the effective flexural stiffness of the column EIflex can be determined based on the moment at first yield of the column. with and without slender columns. Mfirst yield.80 + 25ρ ) ( 1 – e ⁄ D – 0. the Khuntai and Ghosh model better predicts the average stiffness. Khuntai and Ghosh (2004) recommend an effective stiffness model for lateral-load analysis of reinforced concrete frames. Figure 5 compares the code-based models with the calculated flexural stiffnesses of the columns in the database expressed as a fraction of the gross-section stiffness (EIflex /EIg). but the coefficient of variation for the ratio of the measured to calculated effective stiffnesses exceeds 40% for the circular columns and exceeds 50% for the rectangular column dataset (Table 2). shear.4P b ) ≤ 0. 2(b). 3 and 5. The statistics reported in Table 2 indicate that the Mehanny model consistently overestimates the measured effective stiffnesses and has large coefficients of variation (38% for circular columns and 41% for rectangular columns). Mehanny et al. these models ignore the important dependence of the effective stiffness on the aspect ratio of the column. it would be preferable to develop a simple model. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2009 Fig. 5—Comparison of flexural stiffness with code models (ASCE 41-S1 = ASCE Supplement 1 [ASCE 2007b]. the models provide an adequate estimate of the flexural stiffness.attributed mainly to the fact that these procedures are based on consideration of expected flexural deformations. Priestley et al.0 (3) The effective stiffness from Eq. The moment-curvature response was determined for each column in the database based on plane-section analysis and using the concrete constitutive model by Mander et al. Rather than relying on purely statistical models. it is apparent that other sources of flexibility must be taken into account to accurately estimate the total effective stiffness. 4. whose form is based on the theoretical calculation of the yield displacement accounting for the flexibility due to flexure. (1988) and a linear constitutive model for steel. For many of the columns considered. 4—Definition of yield curvature and flexural stiffness (modulus of rigidity). ignore additional flexibility due to bar slip and shear deformations.5P ⁄ P o ) ≤ 1. Consequently. With the exception of ASCE 41 Supplement 1 (ASCE 2007b).1Ag fc′ ) EI effcalc ⁄ EI g = ( 0. all of the models considered were developed primarily to provide an estimate to the flexural effective stiffness (determined based on moment-curvature analyses) and. and bar slip. As shown in the following sections.4 + P ⁄ 2. Lehman and Moehle 1998. They propose the following equation for compression members (P > 0. 479 . PP92 = Paulay and Priestley [1992]). (3) is limited to greater than the effective stiffness for flexural members determined based on a similar model included in Khuntai and Ghosh (2004). Other effective stiffness models incorporating the influence of variables beyond axial load have been proposed in the literature. Comparing the results in Fig.9 (2) THREE-COMPONENT MODEL OF YIELD DISPLACEMENT Several researchers (Sozen 1974. and bar slip Δ y = Δ flex + Δ shear + Δ slip (4) Fig. evident in Fig. Berry and Eberhard 2007) have proposed estimating the yield displacement of an equivalent cantilever column of length a as the sum of the displacement components due to flexure. as shown in Fig. (2001) accounts for the influence of the longitudinal reinforcement by introducing a model based on the transformed moment of inertia and the balanced axial load EI effcalc ⁄ EI g. hence.

(7) and integrating the triangular strain diagram shown in Fig. As the shear cracking increases. hence. Δslip from Eq. 1992. 6—Deformations due to bar slip. c. it is expected that the displacement due to bar slip will increase with decreasing axial load. Nonetheless. as defined in Fig. the three components of deformation are combined into a single. isotropic material with a constant. This tension force Ts must be resisted by the bond stress u between the reinforcement and the footing or joint concrete. Lehman and Moehle 1998). 6. it is convenient to estimate the shear displacement of an equivalent cantilever column by idealizing the column as a homogeneous.004 Δ flex = ---. Noting from Fig. (9) by the ratio F0. ACI Committee 408 1979. (9) and (10) will vary depending on the axial load on the column. fs can be taken as equal to the yield stress.004 / Ffirst yield.φ y = ---. as shown in Fig. this contribution can be estimated by assuming that the effective shear modulus is equal to the gross-section. Alternately.6 f c ′ psi). the lateral displacement of an equivalent cantilever column of length a due to slip of the reinforcement at “first yield” can be expressed as follows ad b f s φ first yield Δ slip first yield = aθ slip first yield = ---------------------------------8u (9) where Av is the effective shear area of the column cross section (5/6 of the gross-section area of a rectangular column and 85% of the gross area of a circular column). equilibrium considerations lead to the following expression for the length of bar required to resist Ts db f s l = -------4u (7) (5) where M0. the yield displacement (and each of its components) is defined as the displacement at an effective force of F0. 1.In this section. Alsiwat and Saatcioglu 1992. the stress in the tension reinforcement. Moments at the ends of a reinforced concrete column tend to cause tension in the longitudinal reinforcing bars. isotropic elastic value (G = Ec /2. For the purpose of this study. This value of the effective shear modulus was selected to optimize the statistics for the effective stiffness model developed below (Eq.004 Δ shear = -------------A v G eff (6) Using Eq. (12)).004/Mfirst yield) = φfirst yield(F0. For columns with low axial loads. the average bond stress was taken as u = 0. the effective shear modulus Geff can be approximated as one half the elastic value for all levels of deformation. 4. 480 The average bond stress values recommended in the literature for elastic response range from u = 0. 4 that φy = φfirst yield (M0. Sozen et al. nondimensional equation. used in Eq.004/ Ffirst yield). The expected effects of concrete cracking suggest that the effective shear modulus should decrease as a function of the nominal principle tensile stress. the effective shear modulus reduces significantly. but it can be large (relative to others sources of deformation) for stocky columns with high levels of shear demand. Flexural deformations The calculated flexural curvatures in a reinforced concrete column can be integrated directly to estimate the column deformations attributable to flexure.------------3 3 EI flex 2 2 Bar slip deformations Slip of the reinforcing bars within the beam-column joints or foundations further increases the lateral displacements. (4) can be determined by multiplying Eq. Then. 6. hence. the contribution of flexural deformations to the displacement at yield can be estimated as follows aa .4). At first yield of the column. which can serve as the basis for the development of practical effective-stiffness models based on gross-section properties. and recognizing that (εs/c) is equal to the curvature at the section. If the bond stress is assumed to be constant. (8). Consequently.M 0. and φy is the yield curvature. the slip of the reinforcing bar δslip can be expressed as εs db fs δ slip = ------------8u (8) The rotation at the end of the column due to slip of the reinforcing bars θslip is given by the ratio of δslip to the distance from the reinforcement to the neutral axis. fy. Using Eq. As shown in Fig.5 f c ′ to 1. for application in engineering practice. fs . a similar model is developed based on the column datasets. The stress in the tension reinforcement will decrease as the axial load on the column increases.0 f c ′ MPa (u = 6 f c ′ to 12 f c ′ psi) (Otani and Sozen 1972. reaching zero when the depth of the neutral axis is equal to the effective depth of the column. This section derives an expression to estimate the lateral displacement of a column due to bar slip prior to yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement.004.004 is the flexural moment at a maximum concrete compressive strain of 0. the tension reinforcement will yield. Shear deformations The column deformation due to shear within the elastic range of response is small for most columns. For many applications. assuming a linear variation in curvature over the height of the column. reduced shear modulus M 0.8 f c ′ MPa (u = 9. the following expression for Δslip is derived ad b f s φ y Δ slip = ----------------8u (10) Fig. Before shear cracking.004. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2009 .

93 0. According to Eq.91 0. This normalized flexural rigidity varies Fig.02 Rectangular columns (221 specimens) Mean 0. α.= -------. it is convenient to use a single effective stiffness for a column element. (4) through (6) and (10) for Δy.94 Coefficient of variation.α --. % Minimum Maximum 1.68 1. shear deformations contribute less than 15% of the yield displacement for the columns in the database.45 0. the effective stiffness of the column element.63 0. Fig. (12) for the column databases. EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS MODELS FOR PRACTICE For many practical situations.64 0.04 1.--8 D a f y u 5 ⎝ D⎠ ⎝ a ⎠ G eff (12) According to this approach and neglecting shear deformations. (6)).. 4).63 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2009 481 .6 26.04 1.59 Mean 1. shear (Eq. can be taken as EIflex from a momentcurvature analysis (Fig. the ratio of the effective stiffness to the gross-section stiffness is proportional to the normalized flexural rigidity.--. The slip contribution ranged from 0% for columns with high where α =EIflex /EIg and rv is the radius of gyration of the column section in the direction of loading (r 2 = Ig/Av).5 Coefficient of Median variation.004 8u k slip = -------.-. The spring stiffness can be determined as 8u M 0.50 0.47 1.46 1. The models correspond to simplifications of Eq.6 26. and using moment-curvature analysis to compute α and fs /fy. Expressing EIeff calc as fraction of EIg and substituting Eq. (5)). For both the rectangular and circular columns.To capture the effect of bar slip within the linear range of response. it is possible to include rotational springs at the ends of the column elements to directly model the additional flexibility from the slip of the longitudinal bars.0 0.48 0.80 1.00 0. equal to one half the elastic value. 7—Contribution of calculated deformation components as function of axial load and aspect ratio. (1) can be expressed as a function of nondimensional parameters EI eff calc α ------------------. particularly those in which the column reinforcement has not yet been selected.92 0.95 Median 0.---.--.8 f c ′ MPa (u = 9. (12). The results shown in Fig. and bar slip (Eq. Fig.03 1.6 f c ′ psi).99 1. acting in series with the bond element.4 22.+ ----. α and fs /fy) are approximated and small terms are neglected. This section evaluates new models for effective stiffness that include the influence of bar slip.2 23. 7 also indicate that. depending on the level of axial load and the aspect ratio.-. 8—Comparison of calculated (Eq. (10)) varied consistently with the axial-load ratio and aspect ratio. the contributions of flexure (Eq.84 1.04 1. % 26.69 1. 7. Effective stiffness For engineering practice. it is preferable to use a version of Eq. Contribution of components to total yield displacement As shown in Fig. For an v average bond stress value of u = 0. the flexural mode of deformation contributed approximately 50 to 100% of the total deformation.5 22. (12) that does not require moment-curvature analysis.57 1.= ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------EI g d b D f s f y 18 ⎛ r v⎞ 2 ⎛ D⎞ 2 E c 3 1 + -.97 0.92 0.------------.EI flex d b fs φ y db fs (11) axial loads to approximately 40% for stocky columns with low axial loads.9 25. Geff .48 0.-------. Eq. (12)) and measured effective stiffnesses. 8 and Table 3 show the ratio of the measured effective stiffness to the effective stiffness determined using Eq. in which the results of moment-curvature analysis (that is. an effective shear modulus. Table 3—Statistics for ratio of measured to calculated effective stiffness for proposed models Circular columns (108 specimens) Model Equation (12) Equation (16) Equation (17) Equation (18) with average bar size Minimum Maximum 0. except for stocky columns with high axial loads.89 0.76 1. (12).00 21.

(P/AgEc)/εo.6% for rectangular columns and 1. The ratio αapprox /α (where α is determined from a moment-curvature analysis) has a mean and coefficient of variation of 0. (12).0 ≤ f s ⁄ f y approx = -. (15). ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2009 . Using Eq. and the effective stiffness can be approximated as 1. Alternately.23.= --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. 13 EI eff calc --------------------. the ratios ranged from 0.⎛ -------------------⎞ ≤ 1.59 to 1. 7). (14).– ----.⎜ -----------------------------------⎟ .0 ⎝ εo ⎠ (13) The form of Eq. For the complete database. Figure 9. 4). (13) was derived by simplifying (using the binomial theorem) an analytical solution for the moment of inertia of a generic cracked cross section with axial load. The coefficients in Eq.≤ 1. 482 The two coefficients in Eq. (16) provides similar levels of accuracy as Eq. Using Eq. (14) (instead of Eq. it is possible to approximate this ratio by taking advantage of its dependence on the level of axial load. α can be expressed in terms of the normalized initial strain due to the axial load. which compares the steel stress ratio determined based on moment-curvature analysis with the normalized initial strain (P/AgEc)/εo for the database columns.5% for circular columns. provides a model that does not require knowledge of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio without a significant decline in the model accuracy (refer to Table 3). (13). (18)) and measured effective stiffnesses. (13). the need for momentcurvature analysis can be eliminated.95 ± 14.3 ⎛ -------------------⎞ + ρn ≤ 1. by approximating the flexural rigidity with Eq. 9—Approximation for steel stress as function of axial load.7%.4% and 1.3 ⎛ ------------------c⎞ ≤ 1. Taking advantage of these relationships. (16) (1.04 ± 20. α can be approximated by substituting an average value of ρn of 0. As with α.5α approx_Eq. which results in the following relationship P ⁄ Ag E α approx = 0.5 and 110) were calibrated to compensate for the elimination of the shear term and to achieve a good match with the measured effective stiffness for the rectangular and circular column databases. Assuming a linear stress-strain relationship for the concrete and steel. this ratio ranged from a minimum of 0. Equation (13) provides a reliable substitute for moment-curvature analysis for a wide range of rectangular and circular columns.35 + 1. Equation (14).63.--. ρn. which is related to shear deformations and tends to be small (refer to Fig.04 ± 9. but also with the amount of longitudinal reinforcement.2 + 1. respectively. and by approximating the steel stress ratio with Eq. the mean and coefficient of variation for the rectangular and circular column databases are 0. the ratio of the steel stress at column yield to the yield stress of the steel (fs /fy) can also be calculated with moment-curvature analysis. indicates that the steel stress ratio can be approximated for both circular and rectangular columns as follows 4 10 P ⁄ A g E c 0. (13). whereas less accurate than Eq.0 3 3 ⎝ εo ⎠ (15) Equation (12) can be simplified by eliminating the third term in the denominator. 15⎠ (16) Fig. without requiring moment-curvature analysis. For all of the 329 rectangular and circular columns. 10—Comparison of calculated (Eq.0 ⎝ εo ⎠ (14) Fig.2 EI g fs ⎞ d b⎞ ⎛ D⎞ ⎛ 1 + 110 ⎛ ---.96 ± 10.15 into Eq. (13) were selected to provide the best possible estimate of the flexural rigidity determined from moment-curvature analysis (Fig.primarily with the level of axial load. (13)) to estimate α.⎝ D⎠ ⎝ a⎠ ⎝f y approx_Eq.0 and ≥ 0. provides a good estimate of the normalized flexural rigidity for cases where the longitudinal reinforcement ratio is not yet known. The normalized flexural rigidity can be approximated as P ⁄ Ag Ec α approx = 0.69 to a maximum of 1. and the relative stiffness of longitudinal reinforcement. If the reinforcement ratio has not yet been established. Eq. As shown in Table 3.

(18) can be estimated prior to design for a given application.2 EI g db D .004 moment at first yield (Fig.004 aFfirst yield = moment at first yield (Fig. the data shows no bias with respect to the longitudinal reinforcement ratio. For bridge columns.004 (Fig. 15⎠ (17) The procedure can be simplified further by expressing the axial load as a fraction of Ag fc′ and recalibrating the constants.97 ± 27% for rectangular columns and 1. (4) through (6) and 10). The existing models were generally based on establishing an estimate for the flexural rigidity and ignored the influence of bar slip and shear deformations. 4) modular ratio (Es/Ec) axial load (positive is compression) axial compression at balanced failure condition nominal axial load strength at zero eccentricity correlation coefficient for circular columns correlation coefficient for rectangular columns radius of gyration using shear area (rv2 = Ig /Av) tension force in one longitudinal bar (Fig. All of the models tend to overestimate the measured effective stiffness and resulted in coefficients of variation ranging from 35 to 58%. is more accurate than existing models. Based on the db/D values for the circular and rectangular column databases (Table 1).2 EI g fs ⎛ d b⎞ ⎛ D⎞ ⎛ -----------------------------------⎞ 1 + 110 ---. a trend that is reflected in many design guidelines and codes.⎞ ⎛ --. As shown in Table 3. the ratio of the measured effective stiffness to the calculated stiffness has a mean and ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2009 where the db /D can be approximated as 1/25 for bridge columns and 1/18 for building columns. 6) aF0. (18) and the recommended average values for db/D. According to this procedure.⎞ ⎛ --.= --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. This model.004 = moment at maximum compressive strain at 0. This paper presented a three-component model. which explicitly combines the effects of flexure. 2004).5% for rectangular columns and 1.04 ± 21% for the circular columns.1 + 110 ⎛ ---. 4) gross bending stiffness gross transformed bending stiffness eccentricity ratio = M0. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported in part by the Earthquake Engineering Research Centers Program of the National Science Foundation.1 + 110 ⎛ ---.45 + 2.02 ± 22. where higher axial loads and architectural constraints tend to result in larger bar sizes relative to the column dimension. the db /D term in Eq. 6) constant bond stress 483 . bar slip.5P ⁄ A g fc′ ---------------------. The data also show that EIeff /EIg decreases with decreasing span-to-depth ratio.004 Mfirst yield n P Pb Po Rc Rr rv Ts u = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = gross cross-sectional area of column total area of longitudinal reinforcement effective shear area of column cross section shear span moment at maximum concrete compressive strain of 0.≤ 1. The form of Eq. 1) effective lateral force at first yield (Fig. which results in the following relationship EI eff calc 0. and shear components of deformation. and by accounting for the effects of bar slip in terms of span-todepth ratio and axial-load ratio.= -------------------------------------------. Furthermore. under Award Number EEC-9701568 through the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) and Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada.≤ 1.0 and ≥ 0.⎜ . db /D can be taken as 1/25 for bridge columns and 1/18 for building columns.0 and ≥ 0. (18) provides accuracy statistics that are consistent with those found for the much more complex Eq.0% for the circular columns. Eq.] cylinders) longitudinal reinforcement steel stress at column fixed end longitudinal reinforcement yield stress effective shear modulus length over which bond stress acts (Fig. (18) properly accounts for the dependence of the effective stiffness on column axial load and aspect ratio. Implementation of the proposed model resulted in a mean and coefficient of variation for the ratio of the measured effective stiffness to the calculated stiffness of 0.0 and ≥ 0.⎟ ⎝ D⎠ ⎝ a⎠ ⎝f y approx_Eq. 14 --------------------. CONCLUSIONS The effective stiffnesses of 108 spiral-reinforced columns (with circular and octagonal cross sections) and 221 rectangular columns were estimated from data in the PEER Structural Performance Database (Berry et al. Figure 10 shows the ratio of the measured effective stiffness for the columns in the databases to the effective stiffness determined using Eq. (12).004 /PD effective force at maximum compressive strain of 0.004 aFfirst yield b c D db Ec Es EIeff meas EIflex EIg EIg. (18) is consistent with the theoretical formulation of effective stiffness based on Eq. Seven existing models for column effective stiffness were evaluated using the column databases.t e/D F0. (1)) effective flexural stiffness (Fig.45 + 2.2 EI g db D . the effective column stiffness at yield can be estimated as EI eff calc 0. For this model. (12) and the summation of deformation components (Eq. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of organizations cited here. For the purpose of design. this paper simplifies the threecomponent model.⎞ ⎝ D⎠ ⎝ a⎠ coefficient of variation of 0. particularly for low axial loads.≤ 1. NOTATION Ag Asl Av a aF0.5P ⁄ A g fc′ ---------------------. These data show that the normalized effective stiffness of the columns increases with increasing axial load. It provides a simple estimate of the effective stiffness without requiring a moment-curvature analysis or selection of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio.004 Ffirst yield Fmax fc′ fs fy Geff l M0. the longitudinal bars tend to be well distributed around the column cross section.EI eff calc 1. by introducing an approximation to moment-curvature analysis. resulting in a smaller db/D term compared with building columns. 10 suggests that Eq.5α approx_Eq. 4) width of rectangular column section distance from tension reinforcement to neutral axis diameter (circular column) or column depth in direction of loading (rectangular column) nominal diameter of longitudinal bars concrete modulus of elasticity reinforcing steel modulus of elasticity measured effective stiffness (Eq. The lack of trends in Fig. appropriate for implementation in design codes for concrete structures. 1) maximum measured effective force concrete compressive strength (150 x 300 mm [6 x 12 in.= -------------------------------------------. with little loss of accuracy.⎞ ⎝ D⎠ ⎝ a⎠ (18) (18) To avoid the prior selection of the size of the longitudinal bars. This model reproduces the trends observed in the data and it provides an accurate estimate of column stiffness.--.95 ± 25.

“Reinforcement Anchorage Slip under Monotonic Loading. V.” Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Current Issues Related to Nuclear Power Plant Structures. Urbana.. and Park. Sacramento. No. ASCE.. and Tang. Washington.” ASCE/SEI 41.” American Concrete Institute. K. Heintz. Orlando. M. S... Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. ACI Committee 408. D. and Eberhard. July. J. University of California-San Diego.. J. H...” Applied Mechanics in Earthquake Engineering. ASCE. www.. L. 63-98.washington. Priestley. V. 1996. John Wiley & Sons Inc. J. N. ASCE. University of CaliforniaBerkeley. American Society of Civil Engineers. Otani. ASCE. and Moehle. A. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.. T.. Mander. A. J. pp. 8. and Sozen. Mitchell. and Ghosh. “Hysteresis in Structural Elements.ce.. A. 23. “Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. G. M. 1.. 4) rotation at end of column due to slip of reinforcing bars (Fig. DC. E.. Elwood. A. pp. P. Lehman..v α Δslip Δflex Δshear Δslip = = = = = = Δslip first yield = Δy εo εs φy φfirst yield θslip ρ = = = = = = = maximum nominal shear stress (Fmax /Ag) normalized effective flexural stiffness = EIflex/EIg slip of longitudinal reinforcing bar (Fig.... Farmington Hills. American Society of Civil Engineers. Structural Systems Research. 8. 2. (5)) displacement at yield due to shear deformations (Fig. A.” Journal of Structural Engineering.. M.” SSRP 96/04. “Seismic Performance of Circular Reinforced Concrete Columns under Varying Axial Load. 493-523. Ohtaki.” Journal of Structural Engineering. Splice.. University of California-Berkeley. “Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete. Berkeley. H. G. 1992. C. 1992. 114. Sozen. 215-225. V. M. P. N. B. 2006. New Zealand. MI. 1998.002 in this study) longitudinal reinforcement steel strain at column fixed end curvature at yield (Fig. M. 2001.” Caltrans Seismic Research Workshop. M. 2007. E. Wallace. and Eberhard. O. Paulay. P.” Structural Research Series No. J. “Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. May-June. “Suggested Development. 6) displacement at yield due to flexural deformations (Eq.. 351-363.” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. D. NZS 3101:2006. “PEER Structural Performance Database User’s Manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1804-1826. (6)) displacement at yield due to bar-slip deformations (Eq. 2421-2438. Sozen. “Flexural Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Columns and Beams: Analytical Approach. P. IL. K. CA.. 7. and Kowalsky. M. No. F. G. J. N.. 2004. V.-Apr.” PEER-1998/01. (9)) displacement at yield (refer to Fig.. O. “Performance Modeling Strategies for Modern Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns. S. G. 1974. Kuramoto. No. 6) longitudinal reinforcement ratio (Asl /Ag) REFERENCES ACI Committee 318. S. V.. A. 12 pp.” Standards Association of New Zealand. “Yield Displacement of Circular Bridge Columns. Matamoros.edu/~peera1.. Nov. “Commentary on the Concrete Design Standard. J. P. Comartin. N. 44-46. 2007a.. CA.. Equipment and Piping.. M. Alsiwat. Berry.. 551 pp. and Saatcioglu. M.. 2000. J. M. 1) nominal strain at which concrete is assumed to yield (0. Mar.” ACI Structural Journal. T. W. Monteiro. G. 316 pp. 101. California Department of Transportation. Berkeley. “Seismic Performance of WellConfined Concrete Bridge Columns.” Earthquake Spectra. Priestley. 4) curvature at first yield (Fig. pp. pp. Aug. 3. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.” PEER-2007/07.. J. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. pp. Reston.. M. Sept.. CA. Lowes. F. 2004. V.. and Seible. “Behavior of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Frames during Earthquakes. 3. Ranzo. M. VA. V. J. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary. 1996.. “Stiffness Modeling of RC Beam-Columns for Frame Analysis. M. 118. P.. Mehanny.. 1988. Wellington.. “Update of ASCE/SEI 41 Concrete Provisions. pp. 1992. pp. Valley. No. 1972. M... M. 392. Berry.. J. N. 2008. Parrish.” ASCE/SEI 41. No. Priestley. CA. Benzoni. 2007b. and Moehle. R.. A. “Effects of Cracking and Age on Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Walls Resisting In-Plane Shear.” FEMA 356... and Priestley. Lehman. Supplement 1. 2007. 98. 1979. J. Part 2. 484 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2009 .. “Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. S. Reston.. Moore.. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Khuntia. La Jolla. 213 pp. No. J. T. FL. Benzoni. CA. M. 465 pp. T.” ACI Structural Journal. VA. and Deierlein. University of California-Berkeley. M. (10)) displacement at first yield due to bar-slip deformations (Eq. Berkeley. Moehle.. New York.” Concrete International. 9. and Standard Hook Provisions for Deformed Bars.. M.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful