ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 107-S60

Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Frame Members for

Seismic Analysis
by Ratnesh Kumar and Yogendra Singh

Effective stiffness assumption in the modeling of reinforced

concrete (RC) frame members is important for seismic design
because it directly affects the building periods and dynamic
response, particularly deflection and internal force distribution.
Different opinions about the magnitude and governing parameters
of effective stiffness persist in different national codes and literature.
In this paper, parameters governing the effective stiffness of RC
frame members are identified and their relative influence is determined
using the three-component approach. Based on parametric study,
lower-bound and upper-bound estimates of effective stiffness for
the normal range of parameters in RC frame buildings are
obtained and verified with experimental results. Various effective
stiffness relationships and equations available in literature are
also compared. Separate models for the effective stiffness of
normal-strength and high-strength concrete members are
proposed. The models can be used for the design of buildings Fig. 1—Comparison of measured effective stiffness ratio for
without excessive computational effort. 1.5 and 2.5% reinforcement.
Keywords: bar slip; curvature; effective stiffness; flexural stiffness; reinforced
concrete; shear deformation. strength, and reinforcement ratio is the most important
parameter controlling the effective stiffness ratio. Therefore,
INTRODUCTION in the present study, the authors first examined the variation
of effective stiffness ratio (EIeff/EcIg) with reinforcement
The reasonable estimation of the effective stiffness of
ratio ρ at different axial load ratios (P/Agfc′ ), using the test
reinforced concrete (RC) frame members has remained an
results from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
important issue for a long time. Under service-gravity
Center (PEER) Structural Performance Database9 where
loading, the cracking of RC frame members is relatively
EIeff is the effective stiffness of an RC member, Ec is the
minor; therefore, it is adequate to use any set of reasonable
stiffness assumptions.1 On the other hand, while analyzing modulus of elasticity of concrete, Ig is moment of inertia of
the RC frames for seismic loading, it is expected that most of gross section, P is axial load, Ag is gross cross-sectional area,
the members will either yield or will reach near yielding and and fc′ is compressive strength of concrete. A total of 68 test
thus the cracking will be significant; therefore, it is essential results for rectangular columns have been picked up from the
to use the realistic stiffness of members. The use of realistic database, out of which 45 test specimens have reinforcement
stiffness is also important because it directly affects the ratios of approximately 1.5% (ranging from 1.51 to 1.63%)
building periods and dynamic response, deflection and drift, and the other 23 test specimens have a reinforcement ratio of
and internal force distribution. approximately 2.5% (ranging from 2.43 to 2.47%) and are
plotted in Fig. 1 (refer to the Appendix* for details of the
Several opinions among researchers and various national
specimens). It can be observed that the scatter of effective
codes exist, not only about the magnitude of effective stiffness,
stiffness obtained from different test specimens with an
but also about the governing parameters. The variation of
almost equal reinforcement ratio is quite large and no
effective stiffness with design axial load has already been
distinct pattern of variation of effective stiffness with
recognized by different national codes and researchers;
respect to reinforcement ratio is obtained. This is because
however, there is no consensus about the other governing
the data used in Fig. 1 is obtained from tests on specimens
parameters. Parameters such as eccentricity ratio,2,3 reinforce-
with widely varying values of other parameters, such as yield
ment ratio3-6 (Mehanny et al.4 considered its effect through
strength and diameter of reinforcement, member length and
a transformed section), yield strength of longitudinal rein-
size, and concrete strength. As shown in another section, the
forcement,7,8 diameter of longitudinal bar,8 and shear
span2,8 have been identified to govern the effective stiffness
of RC frame members. Based on different combinations of * The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org in PDF format as an addendum
to the published paper. It is also available in hard copy from ACI headquarters for a
these governing parameters, different researchers have fee equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request.
proposed simplified equations to estimate the effective stiffness
of RC frame members. ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 5, September-October 2010.
MS No. S-2009-293 received August 26, 2009, and reviewed under Institute publication
Based on theoretical background and the observation that policies. Copyright © 2010, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
the yield curvature of a section remains constant, Priestley5 making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the July-August 2011
has pointed out that the stiffness is directly proportional to ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2011.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010 607


ACI member Ratnesh Kumar is a Research Scholar in the Department of Earthquake
Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India. He
received his bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Bangalore University,
Karntaka, India, and his Master of Technology in structural dynamics from the
Indian Institute of Technology. His research interests include modeling of reinforced
concrete structures, performance-based design, and seismic retrofitting.
Yogendra Singh is an Associate Professor of earthquake engineering at the Indian
Institute of Technology. He received his bachelors degree in civil engineering from the
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, and his Masters of Technology and PhD from
the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India. His research interests
include performance-based design, seismic evaluation and retrofitting of reinforced
concrete structures, and seismic risk assessment.
effect of these parameters is also significant enough, and
effective stiffness cannot be represented by reinforcement
ratio alone.
The empirical relations available in literature are either
based on a limited number of experimental results or on the
test results with widely varying parameters. It is therefore
important that the empirical studies should be supported by
theoretical understanding. There is wide consensus that the
stiffness values used for seismic analysis should consider the
level of cracking, bar slip, and shear deformations. Elwood
and Eberhard8,10 have presented a three-component
approach to analytically simulate the behavior of RC frame
members, considering flexural deformation, shear deformation,
and bar slip deformation.
This paper identifies different parameters affecting
effective stiffness and studies their relative influence using
the three-component approach. Based on the parametric
study, lower-bound and upper-bound estimates for effective
stiffness have been obtained and compared with the
experimental results compiled in the PEER Structural
Performance Database.9 Different stiffness relationships
available in the literature have been compared with the
obtained lower-bound and upper-bound estimates and new
relationships for normal- and high-strength concrete frame
members have been proposed. The relationships have been
developed to represent average conditions in the practical
range of building frame members to avoid the detailed
analysis of individual members.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Different national codes and literature provide widely
varying estimates and identify different governing parameters
for the effective stiffness of RC members to be used for
seismic analysis. In this paper, simplified models for normal-
strength and high-strength concrete have been proposed to
estimate the effective stiffness of RC frame members. The
models represent the average range of practical conditions in
buildings and are based on lower-bound and upper-bound
values estimated from parametric study and validated using
experimental results. The models will be helpful in design
and avoid excessive computational effort in the estimation of
effective stiffness of individual members.
2
MN L
EI eff = -------------
- (1)
6Δ y
where MN is the nominal flexural moment at a concrete
compressive strain of 0.004, L is length, and Δy is the yield
displacement of the member. The flexural moment MN can
be expressed in terms of dimensionless nominal moment
capacity5 (MDN) as
2
M N = M DN f c′BD (2)
where B is width and D is the depth of the member.
Assuming a uniform placement of reinforcement and
neglecting the effect of minor parameters such as cover
thickness, the dimensionless moment is a function of reinforce-
ment ratio, yield strength of longitudinal reinforcing bars,
concrete compressive strength, and axial load ratio. The
yield displacement (Δy) in Eq. (1) is the sum of displacements
due to flexure (Δflex), bar slip (Δslip), and shear (Δshear).
Further, the flexural displacement can be estimated10 as
2
L
Δ flex = -----φ y (3)
6
where φy is the yield curvature. Priestley5 has shown that the
dimensionless yield curvature (φDy = φy/(εy/D)) has more or
less a constant value (2.1 with approximately ± 10% variation
for rectangular sections). Considering this and substituting
modulus of elasticity of steel1 (Es = 2 × 1011 Pa [2.014 ×
105 psf]), Δflex can be expressed as
2
L f
Δ flex = C 1 ---------y (4)
D
where C1 is equal to 1.75 × 10–12 in SI units (1.738 × 10–6
in FPS units), and fy is the yield stress of longitudinal
reinforcing steel.
Displacement due to bar slip can be estimated8,11 as
Ld b f sφ y
Δ slip = -----------------
- (5)
8u
where db is the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcing bar,
fs is stress in tension reinforcement at yield of section, and u
is the average bond stress between longitudinal reinforcement
and concrete in the footing or beam. Using Eq. (3) and
assuming the average bond stress u = 1 × 103√fc′ Pa
(144√fc′ psf) prior to yield,12,13 the deformation due to bar
slip can be expressed in terms of flexural deformation as

IDENTIFICATION OF PARAMETERS GOVERNING d fs

EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS Δ slip = C 2 ----b- ---------Δ (6)
L f ′ flex
c
Based on extensive theoretical and experimental
investigations, Elwood and Eberhard8,10 have proposed a
three-component approach to determine effective stiffness where C2 is equal to 7.5 × 10–4 in SI units (5.208 × 10–3 in
(EIeff) of a column prior to yielding. They proposed the FPS units).
following expression10 for the effective stiffness of RC The displacement due to shear deformation in a member
columns under double-curvature bending under double curvature can be estimated10 as

608 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010

 2M N
Δ shear = -----------------
- (7)
( AG ) eff
where (AG)eff is effective shear rigidity. For a rectangular
section, 5/6 times the gross area can be considered11,14 as
effective shear area. Concrete shear modulus (G) depends on
the modulus of elasticity of concrete1 (Ec = 4.7 × 106√fc′ Pa
[6.84 × 105√fc′ psf]) and Poisson’s ratio of concrete. For
normalweight concrete, the value of Poisson’s ratio can be
taken as 0.25. Based on these assumptions, and using Eq. (2)
and (4), the displacement due to shear deformation can be
expressed as
2
M DN D f c′
Δ shear = C 3 -----------------
2
- ---------Δ flex
L fy
where C3 is equal to 7.295 × 105 in SI units (5.047 in FPS
units). Based on Eq. (1), (2), (4), (6), and (8), the effective
stiffness ratio (the ratio of effective stiffness to the gross
stiffness) can be expressed as
EI eff C 4 M DN α
----------- = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ec Ig ⎛ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛
db fs
⎜ 1 + ⎜ C 2 -------------⎟ + ⎜ C 3 ---------------------
⎝ ⎝ L f c′ ⎠ ⎝
where C4 is equal to 2.432 × 105 in SI units (1.682 in FPS
units), and α = √fc′ /fy. For low axial loads (with an axial load
ratio below 0.2), the stress in steel (fs) at the yield of section
is equal to the yield stress (fy) of steel. It reduces with an
increase in axial load ratio10 and becomes zero at an axial
load ratio beyond 0.5. Further, Eq. (9) has been derived
assuming the nondimensional yield curvature as constant,
according to Priestley.5 It will be shown later in this study,
however, that this assumption is valid only for low axial load
ratios (up to 0.4). Therefore, the values of C1, C2, C3, and C4,
as obtained previously, are valid only for low axial load
ratios. For higher axial loads, these values vary with the axial
load ratio; however, it will not affect the other parameters
in the equation. Further, it is to be noted that the main objective
of deriving Eq. (9) is to identify the governing parameters,
rather than using it for the direct computation of effective
stiffness. The equation shows that effective stiffness is a
complex function of various parameters. The parameters
affecting the effective stiffness ratio are reinforcement ratio
ρ, axial load ratio P/Agfc′ , member depth D, compressive
strength of concrete fc′ , yield stress of steel fy, diameter of
reinforcing bar db, and length of the member L.
In the following sections, the effect of the above-identified
parameters has been studied numerically and the extent of
variation in the effective stiffness ratio for the normal range
of parameters has been estimated.
PARAMETRIC STUDY
To study the effect of various parameters on the effective
stiffness ratio, the values of governing parameters have been
considered in the normal range for buildings. It is to be noted
that the range of parameters in bridges and other structures
may be quite different. This will affect the magnitude of
influence of individual parameters; however, the relative
influence and pattern of variation will remain the same. In
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010
Fig. 2—Variation of flexural and effective stiffness ratios
(8) with axial load ratio for different reinforcement ratios.
the following sections, the effect of various governing
parameters on flexural stiffness, and effective stiffness
considering the combined effect of flexure, bar slip, and
shear, has been studied using numerical analysis as per the
three-component model of Elwood and Eberhard.8,10
- (9) Effect of reinforcement ratio
2
⎞ ⎞ ACI 318-081 prescribes the limits of 0.01Ag and 0.08Ag for
M DN D α
-⎟ ⎟ minimum and maximum areas of longitudinal reinforcement,
L
2
⎠⎠ respectively, for noncomposite compression members. It
suggests that if the column bars are required to be lap
spliced, however, the reinforcement in members should not
usually exceed 4%. It is also common in design practice to
limit the reinforcement area up to 4% to avoid congestion.
For most of the tests on rectangular columns enlisted in the
PEER Structural Performance Database9 also, the reinforcement
ratio varies from 0.01 to 0.04. Therefore, four reinforcement
ratios, that is, 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, and 0.04, have been considered
in the present study while the remaining parameters have been
kept constant (B = D = 0.4 m [15.75 in.], fc′ = 40 MPa [5.8 ksi],
fy = 480 MPa [69.6 ksi], db = 22 mm [0.866 in.], and L = 3 m
[9.84 ft]). The variation of the ratio of flexural stiffness
(EIflex) and effective stiffness (EIeff ) to the gross section
stiffness (EcIg) (where EIflex is the stiffness obtained
considering flexural deformation only) with axial load ratio
P/Agfc′ is shown in Fig. 2. It can be clearly observed from the
figure that if other parameters are kept constant, the effective
stiffness ratio has strong dependence on the reinforcement
ratio. The effective stiffness increases with the increasing
reinforcement ratio for all of the axial load ratios. This effect
is well recognized in literature3-6,8 and is attributed5,6 to the
dependence of dimensionless moment capacity MDN and
hence the flexural stiffness on the reinforcement ratio.
Elwood and Eberhard8 have also shown that the normalized
flexural rigidity has direct dependence on the relative stiffness
of longitudinal reinforcement.
Figure 2 shows an interesting pattern of the variation of
effective stiffness ratio with the axial load ratio. The effec-
tive stiffness ratio first increases mildly with the axial load
ratio (up to 0.2) then increases rapidly and attains a peak at
the axial load ratio in the range of 0.6 to 0.8 and then
decreases. A similar pattern is also followed by the flexural
stiffness ratio. This variation can be better understood by
examining the variation of dimensionless moment capacity
MDN and dimensionless yield curvature φDy with axial load
ratio, as shown in Fig. 3. It is observed from the figure that
609
 both MDN and φDy first increase and then decrease with
increasing axial load ratio. As reported by Priestley,5 the
variation in φDy is relatively small for lower values of the
axial load ratio, and it can be treated as constant (2.1 ± 10%)
for an axial load ratio up to 0.4. For an axial load ratio
between 0.4 to 0.7, however, it varies significantly. The
influence of reinforcement ratio is much larger on moment
capacity than on the yield curvature, resulting in a signifi-
cantly increased stiffness for higher reinforcement ratio. At
zero axial load, the dimensionless moment increases by
more than 200%, whereas the increase in the dimensionless
curvature is only approximately 27% for a reinforcement
ratio increasing from 1 to 4%. The peak of MDN occurs at an
axial load ratio of approximately 0.5, whereas the peak of
Fig. 3—Variation of dimensionless moment capacity and φDy occurs at an axial load ratio of approximately 0.2. It can
dimensionless yield curvature with axial load ratio for be inferred from the observed variations of MDN and φDy
different reinforcement ratios. that the peak flexural rigidity (proportional to MDN/φDy)
occurs in the range of axial load ratio from 0.6 to 0.8.
The values of flexural stiffness ratio for an axial load ratio
Table 1—Contribution of Δflex, Δslip, and Δshear in ranging from 0 to 0.4, as obtained in the current study, match
total displacement for varying reinforcement ratio the values given by Priestley.5 However, the significant
contribution of bar slip in total displacement and hence its
Contribution in total displacement, % effect on the effective stiffness can be clearly observed from
P/Ag fc′ ρ = 0.01 ρ = 0.02 ρ = 0.03 ρ = 0.04 Fig. 2 and Table 1. It can also be seen that the effect of bar
Δflex 69.9 69.6 69.3 69.0 slip is not uniform for all axial load ratios, as the contribution
0 Δslip 29.2 29.0 28.9 28.8 of bar slip depends on the state of stress in reinforcing steel
Δshear 0.9 1.4 1.8 2.2 at the yield of section. It has been observed that the yielding
of section is governed by the yielding of steel only for a low
Δflex 69.6 69.4 69.1 68.9
axial load ratio (up to 0.2). For a higher axial load ratio, the
0.1 Δslip 29.1 29.0 28.8 28.7 tensile stress in steel reduces, and for an axial load ratio
Δshear 1.3 1.7 2.0 2.4 above 0.7, the steel is under compression; therefore, beyond
Δflex 69.4 69.2 69.0 68.8 this point, there is no contribution of bar slip in effective
Δslip
stiffness and the difference between flexural stiffness and
0.2 29.0 28.9 28.8 28.7
effective stiffness beyond this point is due to the effect of
Δshear 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 shear only.
Δflex 73.1 72.9 73.5 74.0 From Eq. (8) and (9), it can be seen that the contribution
0.3 Δslip 24.9 24.9 23.9 23.0 of shear in the total displacement is directly proportional to
Δshear 2.0 2.2 2.6 3.0 the moment capacity of the section. As for the present set of
Δflex
considered parameters, the maximum moment capacity of
80.8 79.6 79.2 78.1
the section is achieved for an axial load ratio of approximately
0.4 Δslip 16.4 17.5 17.6 18.5 0.5, the maximum shear displacement is also observed at an
Δshear 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.4 axial load ratio of approximately 0.5, and it decreases for
Δflex 87.2 85.8 84.4 83.6 higher axial load ratios. Its relative contribution in the total
0.5 Δslip 9.3 10.6 11.8 12.3
displacement, however, varies with reinforcement ratio and
attains a peak in the range of axial load ratio between 0.6
Δshear 3.5 3.6 3.8 4.1
and 0.8.
Δflex 93.0 91.3 89.1 87.6
0.6 Δslip 2.9 4.4 6.5 7.8 Effect of yield strength of steel
Δshear 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.6 There is a large variation in yield strength of reinforcing
Δflex 95.9 95.5 93.7 91.6 steel available in different parts of the world as is evident
Δslip
from the PEER Structural Performance Database.9 In the
0.7 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.4
present study, a representative range for the yield strength of
Δshear 4.1 4.5 4.8 5.0 reinforcing bars has been selected based on the tests enlisted
Δflex 96.4 95.9 95.3 94.8 in the PEER Structural Performance Database.9 In the PEER
0.8 Δslip 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Structural Performance Database,9 the yield strength of
Δshear 3.6 4.1 4.7 5.2
reinforcing bars used for rectangular columns varies from
318 to 587 MPa (46.12 to 85.14 ksi). Therefore, three values
Δflex 97.0 96.4 95.7 95.2
of yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement, that is, 380,
0.9 Δslip 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 480, and 580 MPa (55.1, 69.62, and 84.1 ksi) have been
Δshear 3.0 3.6 4.3 4.8 considered while the remaining parameters have been kept
Δflex 97.6 97.0 96.2 95.6 constant (B = D = 0.4 m [15.75 in.], fc′ = 40 MPa [5.8 ksi],
Δslip
ρ = 0.02, db = 22 mm [0.866 in.], and L = 3 m [9.84 ft]).
1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Figure 4 demonstrates a very interesting pattern of variation of
Δshear 2.4 3.0 3.8 4.4 flexural and effective stiffness with the axial load ratio for

610 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010

different yield strengths of steel. The grade of steel influences
the stiffness only up to an axial load ratio of 0.3, and for
higher axial load ratios, its effect on flexural stiffness as well
as on the effective stiffness is insignificant. Further, the
flexural stiffness of the section with a higher grade of steel
is lower than the section with a lower grade of steel. This is in
agreement with the observation made by Elwood and
Eberhard8 based on experimental results. This behavior can
be understood by examining the variation of moment capacity
and yield curvature with axial load ratio for different grades
of steel, as shown in Fig. 5. It can be observed that, as
expected, both moment capacity and yield curvature increase
with an increase in the yield strength of steel. Due to the
shifting of the neutral axis towards tension face, however, the
relative increase in curvature is larger—as compared to that in
the moment capacity—up to an axial load ratio of 0.2. The Fig. 4—Variation of flexural and effective stiffness ratios
pattern changes beyond this point, and the relative increase with axial load ratio for different yield strengths of longitudinal
in both moment capacity and yield curvature are equal for an reinforcement. (Note: fy in MPa; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.)
axial load ratio of more than 0.3. Actually, the moment and
curvature at first yield are independent of the grade of steel
for an axial load ratio beyond 0.3. It is to be noted that Fig. 5
shows MN and φy and not the moment and curvature at first
yield. The contribution of slip in the total displacement is
also independent of steel grade beyond this axial load ratio,
as the steel is not yielding.

Effect of diameter of longitudinal reinforcement

Various diameters of longitudinal reinforcement bars are
being used in RC construction worldwide. In the present
study, three diameters of reinforcing bar, that is, 16 mm, 22 mm,
and 32 mm (approximately No. 5, No. 7, and No. 10 of U.S.
imperial size) have been considered. These bar sizes have
been decided in such a way that the absolute number of bars
are obtained for the reinforcement ratios considered in the
Fig. 5—Variation of moment capacity and yield curvature
study. These bars have been distributed evenly to all four
with axial load ratio for different yield strengths of longitudinal
faces of the section. The remaining parameters have been
reinforcement. (Note: fy in MPa; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1kN-m =
kept constant (B = D = 0.4 m [15.75 in.], fc′ = 40 MPa [5.8 ksi],
0.751 ft-kips; 1/m = 0.0256/in.)
fy = 480 MPa [69.6 ksi], ρ = 0.02, and L = 3 m [9.84 ft]). It
can be seen from Fig. 6 that there is a slight increase in flexural
stiffness ratio with an increase in diameter; however, this
increase is due to the change in steel placement in the cross
section, which leads to an increase in strength. The
displacement due to bar slip increases with an increase in
diameter of reinforcing bar, as evident from Eq. (6). The
effect of increased bar slip due to an increase in diameter
offsets the effect of increase in strength, resulting in a marginal
reduction in effective stiffness ratio for an axial load ratio
less than 0.5. For an axial load ratio beyond 0.5, the contri-
bution of bar slip reduces significantly and a slight increase
in the effective stiffness ratio with bar diameter is observed.

Effect of member length

In the PEER Structural Performance Database,9 the height
of tested rectangular column specimens varies from as low
as 0.16 m (0.52 ft) to as high as 4.670 m (15.32 ft) (reported
in terms of equivalent cantilever height ranging from 80 to
2335 mm [0.26 to 7.66 ft]). In normal RC frame buildings,
however, the height of columns generally varies from 3 to 4 m
(9.84 to 13.12 ft). Beams having spans longer than 4 m
(13.12 ft) are possible; however, it will be shown later that
the effect of member lengths larger than 4 m (13.12 ft) is
negligible. Therefore, four different member lengths, that is,
1, 2, 3, and 4 m (3.28, 6.56, 9.84, and 13.12 ft) have been
considered for parametric study. The remaining parameters
Fig. 6—Variation of flexural and effective stiffness ratios
with axial load ratio for different diameters of longitudinal
reinforcing bars. (Note: db in mm; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
have been kept constant (B = D = 0.4 m [15.75 in.], fc′ = 40 MPa
[5.8 ksi], fy = 480 MPa [69.6 ksi], ρ = 0.02, and db = 22 mm
[0.866 in.]). Equation (9) shows that the contribution of slip
in the total deformation is inversely proportional to the
member length, whereas the contribution of shear is
inversely proportional to the square of the member length.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010 611

Fig. 7—Variation of flexural and effective stiffness ratios
with axial load ratio for different member lengths. (Note: L
in m; 1 m = 3.281 ft.)
Fig. 8—Variation of flexural and effective stiffness ratios
with axial load ratio for different depths of member (Note:
CS denotes cross-section size in m; 1 m = 39.37 in.)
Fig. 9—Variation of flexural and effective stiffness ratios
with axial load ratio for different compressive strengths of
concrete. (Note: fc′ in MPa; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.)
Members with smaller lengths have a much higher contribution
of bar slip as well as shear deformation. At a low axial load
ratio, the contribution of bar slip deformation in a 1 m (3.28 ft)
long member has been observed to be as high as 50% of the
total deformation. The contribution of shear deformation
increases with axial load ratio, and it reaches to more than
25% of total deformation at an axial load ratio of 0.6 in the
612
Fig. 10—Variation of flexural and effective stiffness with
axial load ratio for different compressive strengths of concrete.
(Note: fc′ in MPa; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 MN-m2 = 2.419 ×
103 kips-ft2.)
same member. For the normal length of columns (3 to 4 m
[9.84 to 13.12 ft]), however, the contribution of shear the
deformation is very small (less than 5%) and the maximum
bar slip deformation is approximately 25% of the total
deformation. Figure 7 shows the effect of member length on
effective stiffness ratio. As the member length increases, the
relative influence on effective stiffness diminishes rapidly,
and it can be inferred that the effective stiffness is practically
insensitive to member lengths beyond 4 m (13.12 ft).
Effect of member depth
To study the effect of depth of the member on effective
stiffness, three depths (D = 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 m [15.75, 23.62,
and 31.5 in.]) have been considered. The remaining parameters
have been kept constant (B = 0.4 m [15.75 in.], fc′ = 40 MPa
[5.8 ksi], fy = 480 MPa [69.6 ksi], ρ = 0.02, db = 22 mm
[0.866 in.], and L = 3 m [9.84 ft]). To maintain the same
reinforcement ratio, only the number of bars has been
changed, keeping the diameter constant. It can be observed
from Fig. 8 that the flexural stiffness is almost insensitive to
member depth at all axial load ratios. The effective stiffness
is also insensitive to member depth at a low axial load ratio.
At higher axial load ratios, however, the effect of member
depth on the effective stiffness ratio is clearly visible, and
this can be attributed to the increased contribution of shear
deformations as evident from Eq. (9).
Effect of concrete compressive strength
Considering the range of concrete compressive strength
used in tests listed in the PEER Structural Performance
Database,9 three values of fc′ , that is, 20, 40, and 80 MPa
(2.9, 5.8, and 11.6 ksi) have been considered for parametric
study, while keeping the remaining parameters constant (B =
D = 0.4 m [15.75 in.], fy = 480 MPa [69.6 ksi], ρ = 0.02, db =
22 mm [0.866 in.], and L = 3 m [9.84 ft]). The concrete
compressive strength has a complex effect on effective
stiffness, as shown in Fig. 9. In the range of the axial load
ratio between 0.4 and 0.7, the effective stiffness ratio
increases significantly with fc′ . This fact was also observed
by Elwood and Eberhard8 and Khuntia and Ghosh.3 Khuntia
and Ghosh3 have proposed different relationships for the
stiffness of normal- and high-strength concrete beams. In the
case of columns, the effect was “conservatively ignored.” At
low and high axial loads, however, the effect of fc′ is much
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010
Table 2—Variation in effective stiffness due to variation of different governing parameters*
Maximum variation in effective stiffness, %
Diameter of longitudinal Normal Compressive
P/Ag fc′ Reinforcement ratio Yield strength of steel reinforcement Member length member length Cross section strength of concrete
0 83.8 6.6 5.7 58.9 8.2 1.2 22.0
0.1 56.3 22.2 8.3 60.3 8.3 1.2 14.1
0.2 44.0 23.2 10.1 61.1 8.4 1.5 28.9
0.3 40.8 2.8 3.8 57.5 7.5 7.0 36.8
0.4 22.1 2.9 3.1 50.6 5.8 8.0 45.6
0.5 16.9 0.0 2.1 44.3 4.3 10.0 49.3
0.6 12.2 2.6 4.5 38.3 3.0 11.4 48.4
0.7 20.6 0.0 6.7 32.4 2.0 12.0 35.3
0.8 35.5 0.6 6.9 30.1 1.8 10.6 17.9
0.9 46.3 0.3 8.0 26.9 1.6 8.3 5.0
1 60.0 0.1 9.7 23.0 1.3 6.2 15.3
*
Reinforcement ratio is 0.01 to 0.04; yield strength of steel is 380 to 580 MPa (55.1 to 84.1 ksi); diameter of longitudinal reinforcement is 16 to 32 mm (0.63 to 1.26 in.); member
length is 1 to 4 m (3.28 to 13.12 ft); normal member length is 3 to 4 m (9.84 to 13.12 ft); member depth is 0.4 to 0.8 m (1.31 to 2.62 ft); and compressive strength of concrete is
20 to 80 MPa (2.9 to 11.6 ksi).

Table 3—Combinations of parameters selected for upper-bound and lower-bound estimates of effective
stiffness of normal- and high-strength concrete members
Compressive strength of concrete, fc′ , MPa (ksi)
Reinforcement Yield strength of Diameter of longitudinal Member length, Cross-sectional Normal-strength
Limits ratio steel, MPa (ksi) reinforcement, mm (in.) m (ft) dimension, m (ft) concrete High-strength concrete
B = 0.4 (1.31)
Lower bound 0.01 580 (84.1) 32 (1.26) 3 (9.84) D = 0.8 (2.62) 20 (2.9) 60 (8.7)

Upper bound 0.04 380 (55.1) 16 (0.63) 4 (13.12) B = 0.4 (1.31) 40 (5.8) 80 (11.6)
D = 0.4 (1.31)

smaller and opposite (that is, the effective stiffness ratio

EIeff/EcIg decreases with an increase in fc′ ). Figure 10 shows
the variation of flexural and effective stiffness with the axial
load ratio for different values of fc′ . At a low axial load, the
yielding of the section is governed by the yielding of steel;
therefore, the flexural and effective stiffness is relatively
insensitive to the variation in concrete strength. On the other
hand, the modulus of elasticity of concrete is proportional to
√fc′ and the stiffness of the gross cross section EcIg is
constant for all values of axial load ratio; therefore, the trend
of variation of effective stiffness is reversed at low axial load
ratios, as shown in Fig. 9. Also, at very high axial load ratios,
a similar trend has been observed; however, this range of
axial load is not of practical significance.
Fig. 11—Comparison of different models of effective stiffness
RELATIVE INFLUENCE OF with analytical and experimental estimates for normal-
DIFFERENT PARAMETERS strength concrete.
Table 2 summarizes the relative influence of different
governing parameters—identified previously—on the effective to low axial load ratios, whereas the member depth influences
stiffness ratio. It can be seen that three parameters, namely, the effective stiffness at higher axial load ratios.
reinforcement ratio, compressive strength of concrete, and
length of member have a significant influence on effective UPPER-BOUND AND LOWER-BOUND ESTIMATES
stiffness ratio. However, the member length below 3 m OF EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS
(9.84 ft) is not common and its influence beyond 4 m Based on the observations in the parametric study, lower-
(13.12 ft) is negligible. For beam members, and columns bound and upper-bound estimates of effective stiffness ratios
with a low axial load ratio, the reinforcement ratio is the for the normal range of parameters have been computed. As
most influential governing parameter. At higher axial load shown previously in the parametric study, the compressive
ratios, however, the compressive strength of concrete is the strength of concrete has a very significant effect on effective
most influential parameter governing the effective stiffness stiffness ratio. Therefore, separate estimates have been
ratio. The influence of the yield strength of steel, the diameter obtained for normal-strength and high-strength concrete.
of longitudinal steel, and the depth of the member is relatively The normal-strength concrete has been considered from 20 to
small. The influence of the yield strength of steel is limited 40 MPa (2.9 to 5.8 ksi) and the high-strength concrete has

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010 613


Fig. 12—Comparison of different models of effective stiffness
with analytical and experimental estimates for high-
strength concrete.
been considered from 60 to 80 MPa (8.7 to 11.6 ksi). The
combinations of governing parameters resulting in lower-bound
and upper-bound estimates are shown in Table 3. Figures 11 and
12 show the lower-bound and upper-bound effective stiffness
ratios for normal-strength concrete and high-strength
concrete, respectively. The effective stiffness based on
experimental results compiled in the PEER Structural
Performance Database9 for test specimens with parameters
within or close to the range shown in Table 3 have also been
obtained using the procedure described by Elwood and
Eberhard10 and plotted in the same figures. In the present
study, results of only those tests have been included, in
which no P-Δ correction is required. The details of the tests
considered in the study are given in the Appendix. For
normal-strength concrete, 38 test results with member properties
ranging between or close to the previously identified limits
are available. Similarly, for high-strength concrete, 25 test
results with member properties in the vicinity of the identified
range are available. It can be observed from the figures that
the experimental results are within the analytically estimated
lower and upper bounds.
COMPARISON OF EXISTING MODELS
ACI 318-081 suggests to use 0.35EcIg as effective stiffness
for flexural members (P < 0.1Agfc′ ) and 0.7EcIg for compression
members (P ≥ 0.1Agfc′ ). Alternatively, it recommends effective
stiffness equations proposed by Khuntia and Ghosh3 with the
minimum and maximum limits of 0.35EcIg and 0.875EcIg,
respectively, for compression members, and 0.25EcIg and
0.5EcIg, respectively, for flexural members. FEMA 35615
and ASCE 41-0616 suggest 0.5EcIg as the effective stiffness
for P ≤ 0.3Ag fc′ and 0.7EcIg for P ≥ 0.5Ag fc′ with linear
interpolation for intermediate values of axial load.
Elwood et al.17 have proposed an effective stiffness equal to
0.3EcIg for P ≤ 0.1Agfc′ and 0.7EcIg for P ≥ 0.5Agfc′ with
linear interpolation for intermediate values of the axial load.
Mehanny et al.4 and Elwood and Eberhard8 have also
proposed simplified equations to calculate effective stiffness.
All of these relationships are also plotted in Fig. 11 and 12,
along with the analytical and experimental results. In the
case of equations proposed by Mehanny et al.,4 Khuntia and
Ghosh3 (equations for columns with limits as per ACI 318-08),
and Elwood and Eberhard8 (simplified equation for design),
lower-bound and upper-bound estimates have been plotted
considering the combination of parameters shown in Table 3.
614
It is observed from the figures that for normal-strength
concrete, the effective stiffness prescribed by ACI 318-08 is
quite reasonable for flexural members and compression
members having an axial load ratio beyond 0.5; however, it
overestimates the effective stiffness for an axial load ratio
between 0.1 and 0.4. For high-strength concrete, ACI 318-08
guidelines are quite reasonable for flexural members but
overestimate the effective stiffness for an axial load ratio
between 0.1 and 0.3 and underestimate for an axial load ratio
beyond 0.5. FEMA 35615 and ASCE 41-0616 estimate the
effective stiffness values on a slightly higher side for low
axial loads, whereas for an axial load ratio beyond 0.3, the
estimates are quite reasonable for normal-strength concrete
members. In the case of high-strength concrete members,
FEMA 35615 and ASCE 41-0616 underestimate the effective
stiffness for an axial load ratio beyond 0.5. The effective
stiffness prescribed by Elwood et al.17 is the most reasonable
among all available guidelines for normal-strength concrete.
In the case of high-strength concrete, it is reasonable up to
the axial load ratio of 0.4 and underestimates the effective
stiffness for an axial load ratio beyond 0.5. The equation
proposed by Mehanny et al.4 largely overestimates the effective
stiffness for normal-strength concrete members; however,
for high-strength concrete, it is close to the analytically
obtained upper-bound estimates. The upper-bound estimates
of effective stiffness proposed by Khuntia and Ghosh3 for
columns (with limits as per ACI 318-08) are well within the
analytically obtained range and follow a similar variation
with the axial load ratio; however, the lower-bound estimates
from these equations at higher axial load ratios are below the
analytically obtained lower-bound estimates. The equations
proposed by Khuntia and Ghosh3 for beam members (not
shown in the figures) predict effective stiffness in good
agreement with the analytical results obtained in this study,
for normal- as well as high-strength concrete. The simplified
design equation proposed by Elwood and Eberhard8 predicts
reasonable estimates for high-strength concrete members.
For normal-strength concrete, however, it overestimates the
effective stiffness for an axial load ratio beyond 0.3.
PROPOSED MODELS
It can be seen from the aforementioned parametric study
that the effective stiffness of RC members is a complex
function of many parameters. It has also been shown that the
experimental results are within the range predicted by the
three-component model proposed by Elwood and Eberhard,8,10
and this model can be used to estimate the accurate values of
effective stiffness. However, it requires a number of parameters
and an elaborate analysis. The parameters such as reinforcement
ratio and diameter of bars are not known in the beginning of
design and it is not economically feasible18 for a design
engineer to perform a cumbersome analysis for a large
number of members in a real building. Therefore, simplified
relationships, without excessive computational effort and with
reasonable accuracy, are desirable for design. Two different
models for normal-strength concrete and high-strength concrete
members are proposed based on the parametric study to
represent the average range of parameters in realistic buildings.
The simplified model for effective stiffness of normal-
strength concrete flexural and compression members is
proposed as
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010
 P two different models for normal-strength and high-strength
for ----------- ≤ 0.2
⎛ 0.35 A g f c′
⎜ study to represent the average range of parameters in realistic
EI eff ⎜ P P ≤ 0.6
----------- = 0.175 + 0.875 ----------- for 0.2 ≤ ----------- (10)
Ec Ig ⎜ A g f c′ A g f c′
⎜ accurate analysis and in the case of nonconventional member
⎝ 0.7 P
for 0.6 ≤ -----------
A g f c′
Similarly, for high-strength concrete flexural and
compression members
P 2. Mirza, S. A., “Flexural Stiffness of Rectangular RC Columns,” ACI
for ----------- ≤ 0.1
⎛ 0.35 A g f c′
⎜
EI eff ⎜ P P
----------- = 0.24 + 1.1 ----------- for 0.1 ≤ ----------- ≤ 0.6
Ec Ig ⎜ A g f c′ A g f c′
⎜ 4. Mehanny, S. S. F.; Kuramoto, H.; and Deierlein, G. G., “Stiffness
⎝ 0.9 P Modeling of RC Beam-Column for Frame Analysis,” ACI Structural
for 0.6 ≤ -----------
A g f c′
Proposed relationships are based on average member
parameters in normal RC frame buildings. For a more accurate
analysis and in the case of nonconventional member parameters,
effective stiffness may be estimated analytically using the
three-component model proposed by Elwood and Eberhard.10
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Parameters governing the effective stiffness of RC
members have been identified using a theoretical analysis. A
parametric study has been performed to determine the relative
influence of different parameters on effective stiffness. It has
been observed that reinforcement ratio and compressive
strength of concrete have the most pronounced effect on the
effective stiffness of RC members. Effective stiffness is also
strongly influenced by member length in the case of short
members due to a relatively large contribution of shear and
bar slip in the total deformation. However, these effects
diminish with increasing length and effective stiffness is
relatively insensitive to member lengths beyond 4 m (13.12 ft).
The influence of the yield strength of steel, diameter of
longitudinal reinforcement, and depth of the member is
relatively small. The influence of the yield strength of steel
is limited to low axial load ratios, whereas the member depth
influences the effective stiffness at higher axial load ratios.
Based on the parametric study, lower-bound and upper-bound
estimates of effective stiffness for a normal range of member
parameters in RC frame buildings have been obtained.
Experimental results from the PEER Structural Performance
Database9 for the test specimen with the same range of
parameters have also been obtained and are found to be
within the analytical lower- and upper-bound estimates.
Various models available in literature and different codes
have been compared with the analytical and experimental
results and it has been observed that none of the available
models represent the average member conditions in normal
RC frame buildings at all of the axial load ratios. Therefore,
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010
concrete members are proposed based on the parametric
buildings. These models are expected to give reasonable
accuracy with minimum computational effort. For a more
parameters, effective stiffness may be estimated analytically
using the three-component approach.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 4, July-Aug. 1990, pp. 425-435.
3. Khuntia, M., and Ghosh, S. K., “Flexural Stiffness of Reinforced
Concrete Columns and Beams: Analytical Approach,” ACI Structural
(11) Journal, V. 101, No. 3, May-June 2004, pp. 351-363.
Journal, V. 98, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2001, pp. 215-225.
5. Priestley, M. J. N., “Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering,
Revisited,” The Ninth Mallet Milne Lecture, Rose School, Collegio Alessandro
Volta, Via Ferrata, Pavia, Italy, May 2003, 121 pp.
6. Priestley, M. J. N.; Calvi, G. M.; and Kowalsky, M. J., Displacement-
Based Seismic Design of Structures, first edition, IUSS Press, Italy, 2007,
720 pp.
7. NZS 3101: Part 2, “Concrete Structures Standard, Part 2—Commentary
on the Design of Concrete Structures,” Standards New Zealand,
Wellington, New Zealand, 2006, 646 pp.
8. Elwood, K. J., and Eberhard, M. O., “Effective Stiffness of Reinforced
Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 4, July-Aug.
2009, pp. 476-484.
9. Berry, M. P.; Parrish, M.; and Eberhard, M. O., “Peer Structural
Performance Database User’s Manual,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2004,
38 pp.
10. Elwood, K. J., and Eberhard, M. O., “Effective Stiffness of Reinforced
Concrete Columns,” PEER Research Digest, No. 2006-1, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley,
CA, 2006, 5 pp.
11. Elwood, K. J., and Moehle, J. P., “Shake Table Tests and Analytical
Studies on the Gravity Load Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Frames,”
PEER Report 2003/01, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2003, 346 pp.
12. Lehman, D. E., and Moehle, J. P., “Seismic Performance of Well
Confined Bridge Columns,” PEER Report 1998/01, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley,
CA, 1998, 316 pp.
13. Sezen, H., and Setzler, J., “Reinforcement Slip in Reinforced
Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 3, May-June
2008, pp. 280-289.
14. Sezen, H., “Seismic Behavior and Modeling of Reinforced Concrete
Building Columns,” PhD thesis, University of California-Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA, 2002, 324 pp.
15. FEMA 356, “Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Buildings,” FEMA Publication No. 356, prepared by the American
Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, DC, 2000, 518 pp.
16. ASCE 41-06, “Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,” ASCE/
SEI 41, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2007, 411 pp.
17. Elwood, K. J.; Matamoros, A.; Wallace, J. W.; Lehman, D. E.;
Heintz, J. A.; Mitchell, A.; Moore, M. T.; Valley, M. T.; Lowes, L. N.;
Comartin, C.; and Moehle, J. P., “Update of ASCE/SEI 41 Concrete Provisions,”
Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, V. 23, No. 3,
Aug. 2007, pp. 493-523.
18. MacGregor, G. J., “Design of Slender Concrete Columns—Revisited,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 3, May-June 1993, pp. 302-309.
615
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.