See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304621705

Influence of seismic reinforcing steel properties on flexural overstrength of

new designed RC beams

Conference Paper · September 2011

CITATIONS READS

3 124

3 authors, including:

Edoardo Cosenza Giuseppe Maddaloni

University of Naples Federico II Parthenope University of Naples
307 PUBLICATIONS   9,111 CITATIONS    59 PUBLICATIONS   1,043 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic behavior and numerical modelling of glazed curtain walls View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Edoardo Cosenza on 30 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Influence of seismic reinforcing steel properties on flexural
overstrength of new designed RC beams

Carmine Galasso and Edoardo Cosenza

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Giuseppe Maddaloni
Dipartimento per le Tecnologie, Università degli Studi di Napoli Parthenope, Naples, Italy.

Keywords: Reinforcing Steel · Capacity Design · Flexural Overstrength · New Italian Building Code

ABSTRACT
In order to assure an overall ductile structural behaviour, the reinforcing steel used in seismic design of reinforced
concrete (RC) structures must be characterized by some specific requirements given in many international codes,
such as Eurocode and the recently released new Italian Building Code.
The primary focus of this study is the statistical analysis of reinforcing steel properties based on about 600 material
test data. The considered datasets include a wide range of reinforcing steel bars (from 12 to 26 mm) coming from a
big structure realized in Naples (southern Italy). The obtained tests results were analyzed to determine the
appropriate cumulative distribution function for yield and ultimate strengths and other statistical parameters of
interest according to the codes. The comparison with previous tests confirmed that there is an improvement in
quality of materials and a reduction in strength variability, consistently with the recent findings of other
investigators.
Finally, considering realistic material models for both concrete and reinforcing steel and uncertainty in mechanical
models, members’ geometry and material properties (as obtained in this study for reinforcing steel), the probable
flexural strength of RC beams designed according to the new Italian Building Code (totally consistent with
Eurocode) and the accuracy of code’s requirements have been investigated, showing that code provisions seem not
conservative.

complete loss of resistance and the absence of

1 INTRODUCTION
The design of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings
to seismic action should provide the structure with an
adequate capacity to dissipate energy and an overall
ductile behavior. Ductility is an essential property of
structures responding inelastically during severe
shaking.
Seismic design of structures aims at ductility by
appropriately dimensioning and detailing regions
intended for energy dissipation (i.e. plastic hinges or
“critical regions”) under the design seismic action.
Moreover, a controlled inelastic response must be
achieved by preventing brittle failure modes (with a
certain safety margin) through capacity design of
members: ductile modes of failure (e.g. flexure) must
precede brittle failure modes (e.g. shear) with
sufficient reliability since brittle failure implies near-
adequate warning.
In other words, capacity design rules are
effectively used to obtain the hierarchy of resistance
of the various structural components and failure
modes necessary for ensuring a suitable plastic
mechanism and for avoiding brittle failure or other
undesirable failure mechanisms (e.g. concentration of
plastic hinges in columns of a single storey of a
multistorey building, shear failure of structural
elements, failure of beam-column joints, etc.).
Ductility in structural members can be actually
developed only if the constituent materials themselves
are ductile. In order to achieve an overall ductility of
the structure, appropriate concrete and steel qualities
must be adopted to ensure local ductility of cross-
sections (and then of elements).
The ability of reinforcing steel to sustain repeated
load cycles to high levels of plastic strain without
significant reduction in stress is the prime source of
ductility of RC structural members.
In particular, the steel used in critical regions of
primary seismic elements must have high uniform
plastic elongation (i.e., the strain at peak stress) to
ensure a minimum curvature ductility and flexural
deformation capacity; the tensile (i.e., maximum
stress) strength to yield strength ratio (i.e., the
hardening ratio) must be significantly higher than
unity.
However, the ultimate (i.e., tensile) strength of
steel must not exceed the yield strength by more than
a certain percentage (as clarified below); a low
variability of actual yield strength from the specified
nominal value is also a desirable characteristic of
reinforcing steel.
The desire for these properties stems from the
requirements of capacity design. For example, since
inelastic shear deformation of the beams does not
exhibit characteristics of energy dissipation, shear
strength at all sections in critical regions is designed
to be higher than the shear corresponding to maximum
probable flexural strength at the chosen plastic hinge
locations (Paulay and Priestley, 1992). If the
reinforcing steel exhibits early and rapid strain
hardening, the steel stress at a section with high
ductility may exceed the yield stress by an excessive
margin. Similarly, if the reinforcing steel of a specific
grade is subjected to a considerable variation in yield
strength, the actual flexural strength of a plastic hinge
may greatly exceed the nominal specified value or
steel may not yield before the concrete crushes. In all
the cases, the result is a need to adopt high
overstrength factors to protect against shear failures or
unexpected flexural hinging, i.e. to prevent the loss of
control in the hierarchy of resistance: the
indiscriminate provision of excess strength, which is
usually considered positive according to standard
design procedures, may adversely affect the non-
linear seismic behavior of a structural system.
The primary focus of this study is the statistical
analysis of reinforcing steel properties based on about
600 material test data. The considered datasets include
a wide range of reinforcing steel bars (from 12 to 26
mm) coming from a big structure realized in Naples
(southern Italy). The obtained tests results were
analyzed to determine the appropriate cumulative
distribution function for yield and ultimate strengths
and other statistical parameters which are important
for seismic design of RC structures. Furthermore, the
actual possibility to satisfy the codes requirements on
steel overstrength is investigated and discussed.
Finally, considering realistic material models for
both concrete and reinforcing steel and uncertainty in
mechanical models, members’ geometry and material
properties (as obtained in this study for reinforcing
steel), the probable flexural strength of RC beams
designed according to the new Italian Building Code
(NIBC, CS.LL.PP., 2008) and the accuracy of code’s
requirements on capacity design have been
investigated, showing that code provisions seem not
conservative.
2 CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REINFORCING
STEEL
As described above, ductility capacity of RC
structures is a function of inherent ductility of the
materials and of the configuration and detailing of
structural members.
Since concrete is inherently a brittle material,
ductility in cross-sections and, then, in structural
members, strongly depend on reinforcing steel (in
tension 1 ) properties, in terms of ultimate elongation
(su), yield (fy) and tensile (ft) strengths. Reinforcement
is generally characterized in the codes by its yield
strength.
The behavior of reinforcing steel may control the
response of reinforced concrete structural element
subjected to earthquake loading. Thus, it is necessary
to accurately control the characteristics of steel of
interest in seismic design.
The properties of reinforcement required for use
with Eurocode are given in Annex C of Eurocode 2
(EC2, CEN, 2004a); further requirements for use in
seismic design are given in Eurocode 8 (EC8, CEN,
2004b), e.g. in Sec. 5.4.1.1 and in Sec. 5.5.1.1.
Similarly, NIBC gives the properties of reinforcement
suitable for use with the code in its Sec. 11.3.2.
The values of material properties in the codes are
characteristic value; the maximum % of tests results
falling below (or above) the characteristic value is
given for each of the material properties.
According to both codes, for reinforcing steel of
class C 2 in the elements of the lateral-load-resisting
system of new buildings and for High Ductility Class
(DC H), the characteristic value of su should be at
least 7.5% (10-percentile); moreover, ft/fy (i.e. the
tensile to yield strength ratio) should be between 1.15
and 1.35 (10- and 90-percentiles respectively) and the
95-percentile (90- in the NIBC) of the actual yield
1
Precautions need to be taken also when steel is
subjected to compression, to ensure that premature buckling
does not interfere with the development of the desired large
inelastic strains in compression.
2
According to EC8, in critical regions of primary
seismic elements, reinforcing steel of class B or C with
characteristic (i.e., 5-percentile) yield strength between 400
and 600 MPa may be used. The NIBC allows the use of
B450C steel only (reinforcing steel of C class with
characteristic yield strength of 450 MPa and tensile strength
of 540 MPa). Moreover, according to both codes, only
ribbed bars have to be used as reinforcing steel in critical
regions of primary seismic element.
stress should not exceed the nominal yield strength Since there was no trend observed in the
(fy,nom) (i.e., the manufacturer-guaranteed relationship between the strength and the diameter of
characteristic yield strength) by more than 25%. the reinforcing bar, further subsets of data (i.e.,
Significant ductility in a structural member can be according to bars diameter) were not considered.
achieved only if inelastic strains can be developed
over a reasonable length of that member; the lower 3.1 Results and discussions
limit on ft/fy aims to avoid that inelastic strains are The determination of statistics and probability
restricted to a very small length of structural distributions of random variable describing material
members: the higher the value of ft/fy, the longer is the properties plays an important role in the development
zone of plasticization near the end of a member. of probabilistic-based design specifications.
The upper limits on ft/fy and fy/fy,nom aim at The empirical cumulative distribution functions
controlling flexural overstrength which results (CDFs) for fy and ft and for each dataset are plotted in
primarily from strain hardening of reinforcement at Figure 1; the statistical parameters (minimum,
high ductility levels and from variability of maximum and mean values, coefficient of variation,
reinforcement actual yield strength above the skewness, 5-percentile) for fy and ft are summarized in
specified nominal value, as discussed in the previous Table 2 and in Table 3 respectively.
section. The assessment of maximum feasible flexural
overstrength of sections is an important issue in the 1
capacity design of structures. 0.9
Steelwork no. 1
Steelwork no. 2
0.8 Steelwork no. 3
Empirical CDF
0.7 All data
3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
0.6
Rebars are available in different grades and 0.5
specifications that vary in yield strength, ultimate 0.4
tensile strength, chemical composition, and 0.3
percentage of elongation. 0.2
In this study, ribbed reinforcing bars 430 MPa 0.1
grade were investigated with bar diameters from 12 to 0
26 mm; the analyzed bars coming from a big hospital 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
fy [MPa]
currently under construction in Naples, the Ospedale
del Mare, the largest isolated seismic structure in
1
Europe (Di Sarno et al., 2011). Its plan is about 150 x Steelwork no. 1
0.9
150 square meters, the maximum height of the Steelwork no. 2
0.8 Steelwork no. 3
building is about 30 m; the structure has a seismic
Empirical CDF

0.7 All data

weight of about 100,000 tons. The seismic protection
system used consists of 327 circular, isolating rubber
bearings determining an equivalent period of the
structure of about 2s.
The statistical analysis was performed: (a)
considering all the 615 tests results together, (b)
dividing the tests results according to the steelworks
of origin 3 . A summary of the data sets in terms of
number of samples is given in Table 1.
Table 1. Reference database
Steelwork Sample size
1 192
2 159
3 264
3
The data on reinforcing steel used in this study were
obtained from different industries so they include the so-
called batch-to-batch variation, which is higher than the
within-test variation. The investigated data also include the
variation caused by different testing methods (data come
from different labs).
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
ft [MPa]
Figure 1. Empirical CDFs for fy (top) and ft (bottom)
Both the characteristic values (x0.05) and the
coefficients of variation (CoV, i.e., the ratio of the
standard deviation to the mean) of fy and ft obtained
from test data are rather uniform. The characteristic
values are widely larger than the nominal values
(equal to 430 MPa and 540 MPa for fy and ft
respectively); in addition, the CoVs for the different
group assume a very low value, confirming the high
level of standardization achieved today in the
manufacturing process of reinforcing steel bars.
Table 2. Statistical parameters for fy
Min Max Mean x0.05
Sample CoV Skewness
[MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa]
Steelwork no. 1 471 625 547 0.06 -0.22 485
Steelwork no. 2 485 622 547 0.06 0.41 497
Steelwork no. 3 468 627 550 0.06 0.09 508
ALL 468 627 548 0.06 0.08 494
Table 3. Statistical parameters for ft
Min Max Mean x0.05
Sample CoV Skewness
[MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa]
Steelwork no. 1 552 763 657 0.06 -0.14 589
Steelwork no. 2 561 737 654 0.06 0.13 599
Steelwork no. 3 566 759 659 0.06 0.13 601
ALL 552 763 657 0.06 0.03 598

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2. Comparison between empirical and theoretical CDFs

The bias factor for fy (i.e., the ratio between the
mean of the sample to the reported nominal value) for
all analyzed reinforcing bars is 1.27 assuming a
nominal value of 430 MPa (1.22 considering a
nominal value of 450 MPa, according to the NIBC)
while the CoV is 0.06. For comparison, the bias factor
for fy used in previous studies was 1.125 and CoV
0.10 (Ellingwood et al., 1982): there is an
improvement in quality of materials and a reduction in
strength variability. This conclusion is consistent with
the recent findings of other investigators in other
countries (e.g., Bartlett et al., 1996 for concrete
strength; Nowak et al., 2003 for both concrete and
steel strengths). Then, although the limitation to
reinforcement in Italy seems to restrict the
applicability of the results of the present study, data in
other countries behave similarly.
Finally, note that the examined samples are
characterized by values of the skewness coefficient
equal to about zero; this property indicates that
models (i.e. probability distributions) characterized by
symmetric PDF (e.g. the normal model) may be
suitable for fitting data empirical distribution, as
discussed below.
Table 4. Statistical parameters for su
Sample Min Max Mean CoV x0.10
Steelwork no. 1 20.9 61.9 27.1 0.20 22.4
Steelwork no. 2 20.4 35.2 26.3 0.10 21.8
Steelwork no. 3 20.4 35.2 26.6 0.10 22.9
ALL 20.4 61.9 26.7 0.20 22.4
Table 5. Statistical parameters for ft/fy
Sample Min Max Mean CoV x0.10 x0.90
Steelwork no. 1 1.12 1.28 1.20 0.03 1.15 1.24
Steelwork no. 2 1.12 1.25 1.20 0.02 1.16 1.23
Steelwork no. 3 1.13 1.28 1.20 0.03 1.16 1.24
ALL 1.12 1.28 1.20 0.03 1.16 1.24
Table 6. Statistical parameters for fy/fy,nom (fy,nom = 430 MPa)
Sample Min Max Mean CoV x0.05 x0.90
Steelwork no. 1 1.10 1.45 1.27 0.06 1.13 1.37
Steelwork no. 2 1.13 1.45 1.27 0.06 1.16 1.37
Steelwork no. 3 1.09 1.46 1.28 0.06 1.18 1.38
ALL 1.09 1.46 1.28 0.06 1.15 1.37

To this aim, Figure 2 shows the comparison The CoV of ft/fy ratio is very low and equal, for all
between the empirical distributions (solid line) and the groups, to 0.03 (i.e., about the half of the CoV values
theoretical (normal and lognormal) distributions for fy and ft, Table 2 and 3). The fact that the COV for
(dashed line) for fy (Figure 2a and Figure 2b) and ft the ratio ft/fy is very small indicates a strong linear
(Figure 2c and Figure 2d); empirical CDFs include all dependence between these two strengths, as
the available samples obtained from different sources confirmed by the value of the correlation coefficient
(reinforcing steel industries). equal to 0.90.
In each panel of Figure 2, the difference between
the empirical and the assumed theoretical distributions 1
Steelwork no. 1
is also reported (solid red line). Figure 2 shows that 0.9
Steelwork no. 2
there are no appreciable differences in the comparison 0.8 Steelwork no. 3
of experimental data and the two theoretical models,
Empirical CDF

0.7 All data

although the lognormal distribution is slightly favored 0.6
by this set of tests data. 0.5
The statistical parameters for su are summarized in 0.4
Table 4. The 10-percentile, x0.10, of actual 0.3
experimental steel ultimate strain is generally equal to 0.2
about 22% (i.e., about three time the required value by 0.1
codes), leading to cross section characterized always 0
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5
by concrete crushing and justifying the use of a f /f
t y
simplified elasto–idealplastic stress–strain diagram for
reinforcing steel with a horizontal top branch without
1
a strain limit, as recommended by modern codes (e.g., Steelwork no. 1
0.9
EC2 and NIBC). The very high values characterizing Steelwork no. 2
0.8
the statistics for su have a great (positive) impact on Steelwork no. 3
Empirical CDF

0.7 All data

the ultimate deformation of RC members and then on
0.6
their ductility. The value of the correlation coefficient
0.5
between fy and ft and su is equal to 0.1 in both cases
0.4
(the correlation coefficient is a measure of the strength
0.3
of the linear relationship between two variables).
0.2
The empirical CDFs for the ft/fy ratio are plotted in
Figure 3 (top); the different empirical distributions for 0.1
the different steelworks show a nearly identical 0
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5
appearance. This visual evidence is confirmed by the f f
y/ y,nom
statistical parameters reported in Table 5. Figure 3. Empirical CDFs for ft/fy (top) and fy/fy,nom (bottom)
Table 7. Outcome of surveys of steel used in seismic regions of Europe (adapted from Fardis, 2009)
Belgium. France,
Germany, Italy,
Spain,
Italy Luxembourg, UK This study
Portugal
Netherlands,
Portugal, Spain
f y ,nom [MPa] 400 430 500 500 430
Meand yield strength
496 478 571 552 548
[MPa]
 fy 
  1.335 1.19 1.23 1.165 1.37*
 f y , nom 
 0.95
Meand tensile
598 733 663 653 657
strength [MPa]
 fy 
  1.15 1.44 1.10 1.13 1.16
 f t 0.10
 fy 
 
f t 0.90
1.27 1.62 1.23 1.23 1.24

 su 0.10 9.6 9.7 8.6 9.7

*90%-fractile according to NIBC.

Table 8. Summary of resistance statistics and distributions.

Category Variable Bias CoV [%] Distribution
Material Concrete strength 1.05 10 Normal
Width of beam 1.10 4 Normal
Geometry Effective depth of beam 0.99 4 Normal
Reinforcement area 1.00 5 Normal
Model Experimental/Theoretical flexural capacity 1.01 10 Normal

As it is clear from Table 5, both the codes’
requirements on the lower limit (10-percentile, x0.10,
required for the ductility) and the upper limit (90-
percentile, x0.90, required for the hierarchy of
resistance) on ft/fy are satisfied.
The empirical CDFs for the fy/fy,nom ratio are plotted
in Figure 3 (bottom); the empirical distributions in the
figure clearly correspond to that ones in Figure 1
(top), less than a scale factor (in this case equal to 430
MPa).
The statistical parameters of fy/fy,nom were
established based on CDFs and are listed in Table 6
(assuming fy,nom = 430 MPa).
As described above, codes impose an upper limit
(90-percentile in the NIBC) to the actual to nominal
yield strength ratio; as it is clear from Table 6, codes’
requirement has never occurred 4 for any steelworks
(not even considering all the 615 tests together).
Considering a nominal yield stress of 450 MPa
(according to the NIBC for the steel B450C), the
empirical characteristic (10%) value of the actual to
nominal yield strength ratio is closer (i.e., 1.30) to the
value required by the codes.
4
EC8 refers to 95-percentile; obviously, also in this
case, the code’s requirement is not satisfied.
Finally, in Table 7 the statistical outcome of the
widest survey of ductile steels of the type used in the
seismic region of Europe is reported (Fardis, 2009);
that survey, carried out in the early 1990s, was the
basis for the current provisions on steel reinforcing
properties in EC8. For comparison purposes, the
results of this study are reported in the last column of
Table 7. The values in italics in Table 7 violate the
corresponding limit for the steel of DC H buildings.
As a general comment, it is possible to state again that
there is a remarkable improvement in quality of
materials and a reduction in strength variability.
4 ESTIMATION OF FLEXURAL
OVERSTRENGTH OF NIBC DESIGNED RC
BEAMS
The proportioning and detailing requirements for
buildings in seismic zones are intended to ensure that
inelastic response is ductile; as discussed above,
current seismic design pursue the control of inelastic
seismic response through capacity design i) to achieve
a strong-column/weak beam design that spreads
inelastic response over several stories and ii) to avoid
relatively brittle shear failure, in both beams and
columns. To this aim, international building codes
require that the sum of columns strengths exceeds the
sum of beams strengths at each beam-column of a
frame, with an amplification (overstrength) factor, Rd,
equal to 1.3 for DC H (for both EC8 and NIBC),
applied on the design values of the moment
resistances of beams. Shear failure is avoided
calculating the design shear forces based on
equilibrium assuming the critical regions develop
probable moment strength, i.e., their moment
resistances (at beams ends) again with an overstrength
factor, Rd equal to 1.2 for DC H. Then, the basis for
the design of structural members following the
capacity design process is the accurate estimation of
flexural overstrength of beams.
The estimation of flexural overstrength of RC
beams has to be necessarily expressed in probabilistic
terms because most, if not all, the factors possibly
determining moment resistance are uncertain despite
the values assumed in design; e.g., mechanical
models, members’ geometry and material properties,
as widely discussed in the previous sections.
In this section, to assess the probability distribution
of flexural overstrength for NIBC designed RC
beams, 144 cross sections are analyzed by (i)
considering two rectangular concrete geometry, i.e.,
30 cm x 50 cm (geometry 1) and 50 cm x 80 cm
(geometry 2), (ii) varying the geometric reinforcement
ratio in tension () between 0.3% and 2%, (iii)
considering two values of the geometric reinforcement
ratio in compression, ’, i.e., equal to 50% of the
reinforcement ratio in tension and the case of
symmetric reinforcement ( = ’) and (iv) considering
two stress–strain relationships for reinforcing steel,
i.e., elasto–idealplastic (i.e. with a horizontal top
branch without a strain limit) and elastoplastic with
hardening (hardening ratio equal to 1.35) to compute
the design flexural capacity, MRd, of each cross
section. Concrete and steel are characterized by fck =
25 MPa (characteristic compressive cylinder strength
of concrete) and fyk = 430 MPa (i.e., B450C type)
respectively. In this way, the assessment is general
and covers a large number of possible design
conditions according to NIBC provisions.
Monte Carlo sampling procedure is applied to
accomplish the overstrength assessment; for each
case-study cross section, 5·104 random generated
samples are obtained for the random variable
describing the bending capacity, MR based on strain
compatibility, internal forces equilibrium, the
controlling mode of failure and using an elastoplastic
with hardening stress-strain relationship (hardening
ratio equal to 1.35 again) for both steel in tension and
in compression and a parabola-rectangle diagram for
concrete under compression (see NIBC and EC2 for
details)5.
For steel properties, the results of the statistical
analysis discussed in Section 3 are used in Monte
Carlo simulation (Lognormal model is used for all the
random variables considered); a literature review
(Ellingwood et al., 1980; Galambos et al., 1982;
Nowak and Szerszen, 2003) was carried out to select
the statistical characterization for all the other random
design variable belonging to materials (i.e., concrete
strength), geometry (i.e., cross-sections dimensions
and reinforcement area) and models. The resulting
assumptions are summarized in Table 8; all
considered random variables were treated as
stochastically independent.
Geometry uncertainties account for the
heterogeneity in dimensions of the considered
structural element due to construction quality; model
uncertainties characterize heterogeneity in sectional
capacity estimation due to design equations and they
are generally measured comparing the flexural
capacity obtained in experimental tests with the
corresponding values obtained via analytical
formulations.
The other parameters which can cause an
uncertainty like ultimate strain of concrete and the
thickness of cover concrete are assumed to be
deterministic and equal to 0.0035 and 4 cm
respectively.
4.1 Results and discussion
Distribution of flexural overstrenght is assessed in
terms of the ratio between the distribution of MR,
obtained by using Monte Carlo simulation, and MRd
calculated on the basis of the ultimate design
assumption and by using materials partials safety
factor (1.5 for concrete and 1.15 for reinforcing steel)
according to NIBC.
Figures 4-5 show the MR/MRd ratios as a function
of the level of tensile reinforcement for the two case-
study geometry respectively; all the random generated
samples are plotted (solid grey lines). Lower 10%,
mean and upper 10% fractile of MR/MRd ratios,
obtained for all generated samples, are shown in the
same figures (see legend) together with the NIBC
value of overstrength factor (red dashed line). Results
obtained for the two different concrete geometry are
very close to each other.
It is evident that randomness in material and
section properties and tensile reinforcement ratio have
a significant effect on MR/MRd ratio.
5
To this aim, an ad hoc MATHWORKS-MATLAB®
script was developed by the authors.
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 4. Flexural overstrength in terms of MR/MRd ratio for geometry 1 cross section (a) elasto-idealplastic diagram for steel
(in MRd computation) and ’ = 0.50; (b) elastoplastic with hardening diagram for steel (in MRd computation) and ’ = 0.50;
(c) elasto-idealplastic diagram for steel (in MRd computation) and ’ = ; (d) elastoplastic with hardening diagram for steel (in
MRd computation) and ’ = .
The overstrength factor suggested by NIBC (and on the diameter and the minimum spacing of hoops
EC8), equal to 1.2, is always lower than mean MR/MRd strongly affect the design, more than the considered
ratio of sample beams for each tensile reinforcement design shear forces derived by capacity design rules.
ratio and for the two considered values of In this way, a large shear capacity overstrength is
compression reinforcement ratio. Only in the case of guaranteed, balancing the large flexural overstrength.
geometry 2 with symmetric reinforcement and by
using elastoplastic with hardening stress-strain
relationship (hardening ratio equal to 1.35) to compute 5 CONCLUSIONS
the design flexural capacity, MRd, the mean MR/MRd The ability of ductile structures to dissipate energy
ratio is very close to 1.2 for very high (and then not by postelastic deformations may be the most
very common in the practice) tensile reinforcement important factor to avoid collapse during the major
ratio. earthquakes. The fundamental source of ductility is
Then, code provisions seem not conservative and the ability of the constituent materials to sustain
not very accurate, although a constant increase in plastic strain without significant reduction of stress.
design flexural strength for the calculation of probable Both strength and ductility of RC structures
flexural strength of RC beams is a simple and depend to a large extent on certain proprieties of
practical way. reinforcing bars, properties controlled in practice by
It is worthy noting that a similar overstrength may codes specifications.
be expected for both shear capacity of beams and for In this paper, a statistical analysis has been carried
flexural capacity of columns, thus not widely out upon the reinforcing steel properties of interest in
influencing the ductile seismic response assured by seismic design of RC structures. A large database
capacity design procedures. Moreover, the design of (about 600 data) was gathered on the material
shear reinforcement is strongly influenced by the properties of reinforcing steel.
detailing rules for transverse reinforcement in critical
regions of beams; in other word, the codes provision
 (a)
(c)
Figure 5. Flexural overstrength in terms of MR/MRd ratio for geometry 2 cross section (a) elasto-idealplastic diagram for steel
(in MRd computation) and ’ = 0.50; (b) elastoplastic with hardening diagram for steel (in MRd computation) and ’ = 0.50;
(c) elasto-idealplastic diagram for steel (in MRd computation) and ’ = ; (d) elastoplastic with hardening diagram for steel (in
MRd computation) and ’ = .
The considered datasets include a wide range of
reinforcing steel bars (from 12 to 26 mm) coming
from a big structure realized in Naples (southern
Italy).
The obtained test results were analyzed to
determine the cumulative distribution functions and
other statistical parameters of interest in seismic
design of RC structures. The results of the statistical
analysis show that the probability model which best
captures the experimental data is the lognormal.
The NIBC and, in certain measure, the Eurocode,
make explicit reference to normal model, thus leading
to a usually penalizing evaluation of the characteristic
strength (5-percentile). In general, the comparison
with previous tests confirmed that there is an
improvement in quality of materials and a reduction in
strength variability, confirming the finding of other
similar studies.
Finally, estimation of probable flexural strength of
NIBC designed RC beams has been carried out by
using Monte Carlo simulation and considering
randomness in material, cross section geometry and
mechanical models. It is concluded that material and
cross section uncertainty and amount of reinforcement
have a significant effect on MR/MRd ratio and that
(b)
(d)
code provision seem not accurate to take this
significant effect into consideration.
REFERENCES
Bartlett, F.M., MacGregor, J.C. 1996. Statistical analysis of
the compressive strength of concrete in structures, ACI
Material Journal, 93(2): 158-168.
CEN, 2004a. European Committee for Standardization.
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures, Part 1.1:
general rules and rules for buildings.
CEN, 2004b. European Committee for Standardization.
Eurocode 8: Design provisions for earthquake
resistance of structures, Part 1.1: general rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings.
CS.LL.PP., 2008. DM 14 Gennaio 2008. Norme tecniche
per le costruzioni. Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica
Italiana, 29 (in Italian).
Di Sarno, L., Chioccarelli, E., Cosenza, E. 2011. Seismic
response analysis of an irregular base isolated building,
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, DOI:
10.1007/s10518-011-9267-1 (in press).
Ellingwood, B.R., MacGregor, J.G., Galambos, T.V.,
Cornell, C.A. 1982. Probability based load criteria:
Load factors and load combination, Journal of
Structural Division ASCE, 108:5.
Fardis, M.N. 2009. Seismic Design, Assessment and
Retrofitting of Concrete Buildings - Based on EN-
Eurocode 8. Springer.
Galambos, T.V., Ellingwood, B.R., MacGregor, J.G.,
Cornell, C.A. 1982. Probability based load criteria:
Assessment of current design practice, Journal of the
Structural Division ASCE, 108:5.
MacGregor, J.G.., Mirza, S.A., Ellingwood, B.R. 1983.
Statistical analysis of resistance of reinforced and
prestressed concrete members, Journal of the American
Concrete Institute, 80:3.
Mood, M.A., Graybill, F.A., Boes, D.C. 1974. Introduction
to the Theory of Statistics. 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill
Companies.
Nowak, A.S., Szerszen, M.M. 2003. Calibration of Design
Code for Buildings (ACI 318) Part 1: Statistical Models
for Resistance, ACI Structural Journal, 100(3): 377-
382.
Paulay, T., Priestley, M.J.N. 1992. Seismic design of
reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. John Wiley
And Sons Ltd.
Zureick, A.H., Bennett, R.M., Ellingwood, B.R. 2006.
Statistical Characterization of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Composite Material Properties for Structural Design,
Journal of Structural Engineering, 132:8.

View publication stats