Teer} Dace Ductility of Reinforced Concreie Structures Synthesis Report and Individual Contributions rzCEB Bulletin d Information N° 242 Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Structures Par 1 Synthesis report from the Task Group 2.2 on "Ductility Requirements for Structural Concrete - Reinforcement’ in CEB Commission 2 Part 2 Individual contributions from members of the Task Group May 1998Acknowledgements ‘The Synthesis Report has been prepared, discussed and approved by CEB Task Group 2.2. It has been edited in Stuttgart by R. Eligehausen, A. Bigal-van Viiet and U. Mayer. Sections §.3 and 9.2-9.4 have been written by E. Cosenza and G. Mantredi, Section 5.5 by V. Sigrist and M, Alvarez and Section 5.6 by A. Bigaj-van Viiet and J. Walraven, ‘The following members and invited quests participated since 1992 actively In the TG's work: Convenor: Rolf Eligehausen (Germany) Jan Akkermann (Gormany) Guido Magenes (hal) Manuel Alvarez (Switzerland) Utz Mayer (Germany) Andrew Beeby (Unitod Kingdom) Steven McCabe USA) ‘Agnieszka Bigal-van Vliet (The: Julian Herranz Moreno (Spain) Helmut Bode ( Honorino Ortega (Spain) Eduardo Carvalho (Portugal) Marisa Pecce (thal) John Ciapson (United Kingdom) Manuel Pipa (Portugal) Eduardo Cosenza (tay) ‘Avraham Pisanty (Israo) Josef Eibl (Germany) Dieter Pommerening (Germany) Stefan Elz {Gormany) Wieland Ramm (Gormany) Eckhart Fabritus (Gormany) Ekkehard Richter (Germany) Asie Gerttse (Tho Notherlands) Keitetsu Rokugo (Wapan) Thore Hagberg (Norway) Salvatore Russo (tay) Gert Konig (Germany) Dieter Ruswurm (Germany) Peter Lenkel (Hungary) Viktor Sigrist (Switzerland) Javier Leon Gonzalez Stain) Enzo Siviero (tay) Giorgio Macchi (aly) Gunnar Sédertind (Swodon) Gaetano Manfredi (aly) Joost Walraven (Tho Netherlands) Between 1992 and 1998 the Task Group had well-attended meetings In Pavia (Febr. 1992), Palma de Mallorca (Sept. 1992), Naples (Apr. 1993), Les Diablerets (Sept. 1993), Venice (Dec. 1993), Tel Aviv (Apr. 1994), Dett (Mar. 1995), Stuttgart (Febr. 1996), Venice (Sept. 1996), Stuttgart (May 1997), Stuttgart (Febr. 1998). Presentations given during these meetings are listed in Appendix 1. I would like to thank all members and invited quests of CEB Task Group 2.2 for their intensive work. Stuttgart, March 1998 Roit Eligehausen ~ : Convenor of CEB Task Group 2.2 © Comité Euro-Ineemnational du Béton (CEB), 1998 ‘Atthough the Comité Euro-Intemational du Béton does its best to ensure that any information given is accurate, no liability or responsibilty of any kind (including liability for negligence) is accepted in this respect by the organization, its members, servants or agents. Al rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or ‘otherwise, without prior written permission. ISSN 0378-9489 ISBN 2-88394-039-8 First published 1998 by the Comité Euro-Internatlonal du Béton (CEB) Post address: Case Postale 88, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland Street address: Federa! Institute of Technology Lausanne EPFL, Département Génie Civil Tel (+41.21) 693 2747, Fax (441.21) 693 5884, E-mail ceb@epfl.ch Printed by Sprint-Druck, StuttgartPREFACE In 1987 it has been proposed by Eligehausen/Langer (1987) to base the allowable methods of static analysis of reinforced concrete structures on the ductility of the reinforcement and to classify the existing types of reinforcement into ductility classes. This proposal has been discussed extensively within CEB and ~ with some modifications — has been incorporated in the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 (993). Since 1987 numerous experimental and theoretical investigations have been performed to study the influence of several parameters on the non-linear behaviour of reinforced concrete members, in particular, the influence of bond and of the mechanical properties of reinforcing and prestressing steel. CEB Task Group 22 “Ductility-Reinforcemem” was formed to gather research results, synthesise them, judge their implication for the engineering, practice and propose improvements of the design standards. In 1993 Task Group 2.2 published the CEB Bulletin 218 containing individual papers on the subject, prepared by members of the group. This progress report was intended to intensify discussion within CEB of the topics related to ductility of reinforced concrete. Since then Task Group 2.2 has tried to summarise the available research results in order to formulate a common view on them and propose harmonised design provisions on relevant topics. This Bulletin consists of two parts. Part 1 of the Synthesis Report which summarises the research results, gives a harmonised view on the topic and proposals for design provisions. In general the provisions in the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 for classifying reinforcement according to its ductility and for the structural analysis are endorsed. Further research needs are identified. Part 2 of the Synthesis Report contains a number of individual contributions that refer to the research performed within the framework of Task Group 2.2 since 1993. itis hoped, that this Bulletin will be a well-suited basis for further research on ductility of reinforced concrete. Stuttgart, March 1998 Rolf Eligehausen Convenor of CEB Task Group 2.2CONTENTS page Part 1: Synthesis Report 1 Introduction 7 2 Reasons for ductility 8 3 Behaviour of statically indeterminate structures 10 4 Available rotation capacity 17 4.1 Reinforced concrete 7 4.2 Specific problems of prestressed members 44 5 Calculation models for available rotation capacity 49 5.1. Earlier models 49 5.2 Model Stuttgart 53 5.3. Model Naples 62 5.4 Model Datmstadt-Leipzig 65 5.5 Model Ziirich 70 5.6 Model Delft 80 5.7 Concluding remarks on calculation models 90 § Required rotation capacity 92 6.1 Major structural effects 92 6.2 Influence of overreinfarcement and steel overstrength 97 7 Allowable degree of moment redistribution 101 7.1. Moment redistribution in respect of ULS. 101 7.2 Moment redistribution in respect of SLS 108 8 — Ductility demand for equilibrium models 106 9 Concept of equivalent steel 109 9.1 Ductility of stee! 109 9.2. Introduction of equivalent steel concept 411 9.3 A chart of rotation capacity for equivalent steel 116 9.4 Proposal for new steel ductility classification 148 10 Proposed provisions in design standards 120 11 Research needs 124 11.1 Ductilty of reinforced concrete 124 11.2 Ductility demand for reinforcement in composite structures 125 11.3 Ductility demand in fire design 126 11.4 Ductility demand for earthquake design 127 12 Summary 128 References 130 Appendix 1: List of Presentations made during CEB TG meetingspage Part 2: Individual Contributions Round robin analysis of available rotation capacity of plastic hinges - evaluation Agnieszka Bigal-van Vile, Utz Mayer An equivalent steel index in the assessment of the ductility performances of the reinforcement Eduardo Cosenza, Carlo Greco, Gaetano Manfredi A new proposal for defining the ductility of concrete reinforcement steels by means of a single parameter Giuseppe Creazza, Salvatore Russo Cyclic tests of grade B400 and B500 tempcore bars Manuel Pipa, Andrea Vercest Experimental evaluation of rotation capacity of HPC beams Marisa Pecoe The influence of High Strength Concrete on ductility of RC deflected beams Marco Arduini, Salvatore Russo, Enzo Siviero. The influence of HSC on the rotation capacity of plastic regions in RC structural members Peter Langer Ductility requirements for redistribution of moments and a possible size effect Avraham Pisanty, Paul E. Regan Evaluation of the rotation capacity in RC beams including size effect Gaetano Mantredt Rotational behaviour of reinforced concrete corners and bond under lateral tension Joset Eibl, Jan Akkermann, Klaus Idda, Hugo-Nestor Lucero-Cimas Contribution of concrete between cracks at inelastic steel © strains and conclusions for the optimization of bond Rolf Eligehausen, Josko Ozbolt, Utz Mayer Tests on fixed end slabs and on continuous slabs over two spans under permanent loading reinforced with welded wire mesh olf Eiigehausen, Eckhart Fabritius, Renda Zhao Tests to investigate the influence of reinforcement parameters on rotation capacity ‘Andrew W. Beeby 143 157 174 ~ 183 197 211 225 237 247 259 275 ‘297 3091 Introduction Numerous researchers, task groups and scientific commissions are generating knowledge, continuously producing reports, full of techuival details with scientific reasoning. It becomes more and more difficult, even for the insiders, to have a broad and updated view of the whole area of interest. For a designer, however, itis important to know to what extent new scientific knowledge can be used for practical applications. Therefore it should be kept in mind that all the research activities should in the Jong term Jead to engineering applications and not only to state-of-the-art reports of the latest scientific and experimental achievements, With this consideration in mind CEB Task Group 2.2 produced this Report, On the one hand it shows the recent developments in research activities, partly by means of a harmonised general synthesis and partly by means of individual contributions. On the other hand it gives well founded recommendations to be implemented in the CEB-FIP Model Code and standards for design, with respect to the related topics of deformation capacity of reinforced concrete members and their ‘moment redistribution capacity. Finally some closely connected and still not fully explored fields of research are indicated. It is the intention of the authors to stimulate by this meass further studies of these subjects. “The scope of this Synthesis Report is timited to static and monotonic actions, including reverse and long term loading that takes place at service load level. Accordingly, design for dynamic and cyclic actions (inchiding seismic excitations) is the objective of CEB Task Group 32 Considering the current advance in the work of CEB Task Group 2.2 steuctural fire design is not ‘vovered in this Synthesis Report,2 Reasons for ductility During the 29th CEB Plenary Session in Les Diablerets in 1993 the Progress Report of CEB Task Group 2.2 ,Ductility - Reinforcement" has been presented. During the discussion G.Macchi reminded, that the history of structural concrete has its beginning in the lucky coincidence of the following facts: * complementary properties of steel and concrete * intuition of an engineer in exploiting of these properties * successful application of these intuitive technics in design and execution Not all of the properties of steel and concrete and their composite action are sufficiently known, however the available knowledge improves in time, This should support thé engineers intuition and lead to better models and applications. Yet, the properties of construction materials change as the technological development proceeds, With respect to reinforcing steel a lot has been done to improve its properties’ and quality. Positive aspects of this development are e.g. improved bond properties, increased’ strength, weldability and Jow tolerances. At the same time some less desired consequences of these improvements have to be accepted, in particular lower strain hardening and lower elongation of steel at failure. The simultaneous occurrence of these two negative effects results in lower ductility of reinforced concrete members due’ to the reduction of the length of plastic hinges by the less extended yield penetration as well as the lower ultimate steel strain capacity. Furthermore due to the good bond properties of ribbed bas, the average stain is much less than the strain ofthe steel in the crack leading to a further reduction of the rotation capacity of plastic hinges. ‘The implications of the use of high strength concrete should also be considered. Bond properties, essential in determining strains of the reinforcement embedded in concrete, are for high strength concrete different than in case of normal strength concrete. Increased brittleness of high strength concrete with respect to normal strength concrete may intensify some specific structural phenomena such as e.g. member size dependence. Furthermore, for high strength concrete different failure mechanisms can occur than in case of normal strength concrete, which miay significantly influence the rotation capacity of reinforced members. One should be aware of these problems, remembering that most of the experimental evidences come from tests carried out on old types of construction materials. Considering the empirical basis used to formulate the currently applied methods to judge ductility and estimate deformation capacity of reinforced concrete members, tests with presently used materials need to be evaluated to check the generality of the approaches used.9 Ductility of reinforced concrete members, however, is a basic requirement of various design approaches: Some of them seems ta loose their validity, if the response of the structure is not sufficiently ductile. It is worthwhile to summarise briely the common design procedures and point ‘out some engineering approaches Which can be used only witen the members are sufficiently ductile. ‘The plastic deformation capacity of reinforced member is indispensable for: + waming before failure of statically determinate and indeterminate structures by large deflections * linear elastic analysis (near analysis without moment redistribution, based on the uncracked section) which demands a certain rotation capacity in plastic areas, because the actual distribution of moments differs from the assumed distribution for elastic behaviour due to concrete cracking and the subsequent change in distribution of stiffness along the member axis * near elastic anajss with moment redistribution, which requires a rotation capacity in the plastic areas to allow for the assumed degree of redistribution * elasto-plastic analysis, which is based on the assumption of indefinite plasticity of the member * equilibrium methods which are valid only if compatibility of displacements can be achieved (eg, truss models, strut and tie models) ~ to apply these models the reinforcement need to be ductile enough to allow for the change from elastic stress distribution to that assumed by the models (particular demand of ductility on shear reinforcement) * resistance against imposed deformations (¢.g. due to temperature, support settlement, shrinkage, creep), which requires plastic adaptability of the structure to avoid unacceptable stresses, usually not calculated in detail * ability to withstand unforeseen local impact and accidental loading without collapse (robustness) * redistribution of internal forces in statically indeterminate structures under fire attack (Condition of fire resistance) ‘© energy dissipation under cyclic (e.g. seismic) loading * deformability of the rebars needed for bending of reinforcement ‘This broad range of situations in which the ductility of reinforced concrete members is needed shows the importance of the issue. In this respect it becomes clear that if one aims at safe design and is aware of the ongoing changes in the properties of construction materials, and in particular that of reinforcing steel, re-examination of the existing design rules in the light of most recent research results is more than justified, Moreover, requirements on the properties of reinforcing stee! are presently being harmonised and standardised in Europe. For this occasion it is necessary to state minimum requirements on ductility properties of reinforcing steel, resulting from the ductility demand of structural members.10 3 Behaviour of statically indeterminate structures Reinforced concrete structures show a pronounced non-linear behaviour with increasing actions, This non-linear behaviour influences the distribution of action effects in a statically indeterminate structure. In the following a continuous beam over several supports under uniformly distributed load is used to illustrate the typical behaviour of a statically indeterminate slender member spanned in one direction, Figure 3.1a shows the statical system, Figure 3.1b the deflected beam and Figure 3.1c the distribution of moments for an elastic behaviour (6 = 1.0) and in the case of redistribution of 50% of the support moment into the span (§ = 0.5). The redistribution factor 5 is given by: j= ee, 6) M ousic Where Magar and Mysse denote support moment after redistribution and support moment calculated according to the theory of elasticity, respectively. The degree of moment redistribution 7 [%] is defined as =(1-8)- 100 ‘uniformly eee AcE Is a) b) —5=1,0 —— 6-05 Figure 3.1 a) Continuous member over several supports under uniformly distributed load b) Deflection curve : ¢) Moment distribution according to the theory of elasticity (5 = 1.0) and with limited moment redistribution (6= 0.5) Figure 3.2 shows the development of the moment in the span and over the support as a function of the applied load. For small actions the member remains uncracked Up to the cracking moment the stiffness along the member length is almost constant (constant cross section assumed) and the moments are distributed according to the theory of elasticity. For a uniformly distributedaT Joad the moment over the support is higher than in the span. Therefore the beam will crack first over the support. After the cracking moment (Mz,) has been reached over the suppor, the lowered flexural stiffness after cracking causes a less rapid increase of the moment in this section with further increase of actions. To maintain the overall equilibrium, the moment in the span (stiffer section) srows faster. With further increasing load, however, also in this section cracking takes place (Mua). For further increase of actions, the distribution of the moments depends entirely on the stifiness distribution along the cracked member, In general, after cracking the stiffness will be approximately proportional to the corresponding reinforcement ratio, The difference in stiffness will determine which of the critical sections first attains the yield moment (M,,) Ifstrain hardening is neglected, no further increase of moment is predicted in this section with further increasing load. In reality, however, the moment over the support will increase, depending on the strain hardening ratio of reinforcing steel, as shown in schematic way in Figure 3.2. A plastic hinge develops and starts to rotate. load Myn Merit Meet Myr mid-span moment <—}—> support moment Figure 3.2 Development of moments in critical sections as a function of applied load To develop a collapse-mechanism, with further load increase a plastic hinge must form also in the span (Myr). For reasons of compatibility in the static system the rotation in the span @,» must be equal to the rotation over the support Qup (see Figure 3.1b). Therefore the hinge at the support ‘must have such a rotation capacity that the it does not fal, but deform so much without failure that alo the hinge in the span can be developed. ‘The stifiness along the member has a direct influence on the development of the rotations and the required rotation capacity of plastic hinges. In the cracked state this stiffness is dependent on the reinforcement ratio in the critical sections. This can be best illustrated comparing two cases, where due to different arrangement of reinforcement the stiffness ratios in the span and over the support12 are reverse, If a beam with rectangular cross-section over two (equal) spans under uniformly Aisuributed load is designed according to the theory of elasticity (B= 1.0) the rato of stifiness in the cracked state over the support to that in the span is almost 2 (see Figure 3.3 - left), while in the case of 8 =0.5 it amounts to about 0.5 (see Figure 3.3 - right). Note, that for reasons of simplicity the steel strain hardening is neglected in the diagrams shown in Figure 3.3, Moup A 5= 1,0 6= 0,5 Figure 3.3. Moment rotation parity in the span and over the support depending on the degree of moment redistribution for a beam with rectangular section, based on Maccht 1976 In the case of an elastic design, the support moment incveases faster than the moment in the span due to the stiffness difference and reaches frst the yield value, To reach the assumed failure oad, the reinforcement in the span has to yield as well and plastic rotation Oy (=AO'ng) is needed in the plastic hinge over the support. Therefore it should be strongly emphasised that even if the member is designed according to the theory of elasticity plastic rotation is needed in the hinge over the support to allow the formation of an presupposed collapse mechanism. In the second case the stftess ratios ae reverse, however due to the smaller area of reinforcement over the support this reinforcement will yeld at a lower Ioad level than that in the span. Therefore to reach the yield ‘moment in the span, a much larger plastic rotation 7, @AO"n9) is needed than in the first case. Experimental evidences support the above theoretical discussion (eg. Pisanty/Regan 1993, 1997, Bligehauser/Fabritius 1993). In Figure 3.4 the experimental SUP and selected results of a test performed on @ continuous slab over three supporis under four-point bending are given. Specimen 1.1, characterised by the same span and support reinforcement ratio of 0.3%, was designed for 8 = 0.715, that means a moment redistribution of = 28:5 %3 The relationship between moments in the span and over the support as a function of the rotation over the support curves show similar tendencies as described above (Figure 3.40). Until cracking the moments are distributed according to the theory of elasticity. After cracking over the middle support the moments in the spans increase faster than over the support, resulting in a ‘moment redistribution of about 20%. With increasing load the redistribution degree decreases because cracks also form in the spans. It amounts to about 15% when reaching the yield moment over the support. However, the redistribution due to cracking strongly depends on the type of statical systern, and may not always show the same patterns asin this example, as discussed in more detail below. SA som, 20m ae 20m, | T 7 T ' i ee aid 8 (FB) a) Fie waReD | 18am 40m | 40m jen moments KAM 9s wep enw toad PN] redstibuton|%] Trenacs teen ord anon os 0 ou, ciaamed ai 10s “\' Hone rieamed ae, Tex 70 Soe sSoinet ett ienrs 20 | 0 same noned 25 aay ‘4 L-T44 ; 2a A “ wl els aaimemee i / T y= sSsc8 = 15:49 ~ 498] : thi tocar a = f seam) i tayo =1088:A5=32064 5 tes0 72) 10 b) l Hes co Noein ° 20 os 4101S rotatlon Inti suppor area (ncad] Figure 3.4 Continuous slab over two spans after Eligehausen/Fabritius (1993) - Test 1.1 a) experimental set-up 4) load, span moment, support moment and redistribution degree 7) as a function of the rotation over the support14 ‘After the reinforcement over the support starts to yield a further redistribution of the support ‘moment takes place. When the maximum moment over the support is reached the load on the structure can stil be slightly increased, if the moment capacity in the spans has not been reached. However, the support moment will decrease, due to the fact that the reinforcement over the support reaches the descending branch of its stress-strain curve. The large moment redistribution at failure load is a result of the high deformation capacity of the support hinge beyond the maximum moment (post peak). As clearly visible in Figure 3.4c, even after the peak value of bending moment has been reached at the support there is stil a significant reserve of rotation capacity left. However, in paticular for small reinforcement ratios, this capacity is very much dependent on the post peale characteristics of the reinforcing steel. ‘The descending branch of the steel stress-strain diagram (and thus of the corresponding moment - curvature diagram) is generally not defined. For higher reinforcement ratios, where concrete failure is governing, rotation capacity beyond the maximum moment depends on the response of concrete under compression, In this respect creep of concrete in the compression zone for a sustained load at a level close to the peak value should be considered when estimating the risk of failure It has been extensively discussed by the members of CEB TG 2.2 whether it should be permitted to utilise the descending branch of the moment - rotation relationship in design Calvi/Canti/Macchi/Magenes (1990) proposed to use the descending branch up to 95% of the maximum moment or up to the first significant drop of moment (rupture of the first bar in case of steel failure), whichever gives a smaller value of plastic rotation. Recently Pecce (1997) suggested that for high strength concrete members the drop of moment due to the spalling of concrete cover in the compression zone is more suitable for defining the rotation capacity of the plastic hinges than the point where the maximum bending moment is reached. ‘According to the current design philosophy the Task Group considered it appropriate to use the descending branch of the moment-rotation diagram only as a safety margin e.g. to accommodate unintentional imposed deformations not taken into account in the design. The need to the limit size effect on rotation capacity, that may rise due to the possible size dependence of the descending branch of moment-rotation diagram, does also speak for neglecting any load increase due to the decreasing branch of the moment curvature relationship. Furthermore, it is reminded that the descending branch of stress-strain behaviour of reinforcement is not precisely rendered in standards. Hence, the plastic rotation capacity has been defined as the difference between the total rotation of the hinge at the level of the maximum moment and that at the onset of yielding of the reinforcement. This definition is applied in al following considerations,15 ‘As mentioned above, the total moment redistribution in statically indeterminate systems with linear members consists of two parts. The first part is related to the change of stiffness in the span and over the support due to different cracking. The second part is governed by the ductility of the reinforcement when passing the yield moment in the hinge, that occurs frst, With respect to the first part a strong influence of the statical system is to be expected. This has been experimentally demonstrated by Eligehausen/Zhao/Fabritius (1995) on the basis of test results of a fixed-end slab loaded by a concentrated load (Figure 3.5a). In this case theoretically no redistribution should take place before yielding of the reinforcement. The experimental results show a slight negative redistribution of the support moment at yielding of steel, which means that up to this stage the decrease of stiffness in the span was more pronounced than in the support area (Figure 3.5t). This is quite opposite to the case discussed above, where a moment redistribution of about 15% took place already before formation of plastic hinges due to different cracking over the support and in the span (Figure 3.4b). In tests of fixed-end slabs a very low redistribution is reached even at the level of the maximum support moment (Magpax = 2%). This is Hkely to be the effect of rather brittle reinforcement (hardening ratio fj /f, = 1.03 and strain at maximum stress € = 3%) and a small reinforcement ratio used (0.3% over the support and 0.55% in the span) With increasing load the support moment went into the descending branch and the redistribution continued to increase . ‘These test results show that, under otherwise constant conditions, the possible moment redistribution is closely related to the statical system under consideration and may significantly vary. eres A kl « ! = ke 35 6.1 08 oi 61 08 ot Moment itn} Leod PX)» 1%) 60 Rosas: Figure 3.5. Fixed end slabs, after Eligehausen/Zhao/Fabritius (1995) a) experimental set-up 5) load, field and support moments and redistribution degree as a function of the support rotation - Test DMR316 To take advantage of the phenomena discussed above for a statically indeterminate structure 4 linear analysis method followed by limited moment redistribution has been introduced end is commonly used in the design. There are several benefits of utilising moment redistribution, the following can be given as examples: «transfer of moments from the most stressed areas to the lesser stresses areas less reinforcement placed in the negative moment zones, thus reduced stresses in the compression zone of the section (in particular beneficial for narrow webs of T-sections) «savings of reinforcing steel, as there is no need to design for the full moments of the moment envelope obtained for different load arrangements, 7 reduction of congestion of bars over supports of continuous beams or slabs and therefore improving the conditions for attaining a good concrete quality in these critical areas «more freedom for the designer in arranging the reinforcement 7 ‘The redistribution of bending moments with respect to the distribution corresponding to an clastic caloulation at peak load is mainly controlled by the member ductility and therefore involves the evaluation of available and required rotation capacities of plastic hinges. The allowable degree of ‘moment redistribution results from the comparison of required and available rotation capacities of the plastic hinges necessary to develop a collapse-mechanism in a statically indeterminate: RC member, For this purpose a proper understanding of the importance of various structural and ‘material infuences for the assessment of both available and required rotation capacitis is required. In the following sections attention is given to the evaluation of results of various experimental investigations and analytical studies devoted to these topics.7 4 Available rotation capacity 4.1 Reinforced concrete ‘An extensive literature review (Cohn 1979) reveals the factors influence the redistribution of moments. It is clear that the most important parameter is the available rotation capacity of plastic hinges. This in tum depends on a number of material and structural factors. For linear members in bending these factors may be identified as follows: ‘* construction material dependent parameters mechanical properties of concrete in tension and compression, strength and ductility of reinforcing steel bond properties of reinforcement * member geometry dependent parameters shape of the section geometrical and mechanical reinforcement ratio percentage of transverse reinforcement (confinement) detailing of reinforcement (bar diameter and arrangement) slendemess ratio member size © statical system and loading dependent parameters statical system shear effects Ioading type (moment gradient, axial load) Joad application loading duration load repetition and cycling Evaluation of plastic rotation is thus a complex issue, mainly because of the interaction of the above mentioned influential factors, For instance bond behaviour of reinforcement will rely on concrete strength, bond characteristics of reinforcing bars, (active and passive) concrete confinement and reinforcement detailing. An equally long lst can be set up with regard to any other structural phenomenon, Due to the wide range and large variation of these factors (and - obviously - due to the inherent stochastic effects) experimental results show significant scatter of the measured values of rotation capacity. Consequently test results are rather difficult to compare and evahiate. The influence of some significant factors can be confirmed on the basis of empirical observations, The relative depth of the compression zone at faifure ( the ratio & = x/d ) can fairly ‘well represent the combined effects of stress-strain characteristics of the construction materials, the geometry of the cross-section and the amount of tensile and compressive reinforcement. Using & as18 the reference, the results of about 350 tests on beams performed in the 60's and 70's were compared by Siviero (1976) (Figure 4.1). In these tests very ductile reinforcing steel was used and in general failure of the members took place without steel rupture due to conerete crushing in the compression zone, Statistical evaluation of these data gave the basis for the estimation of the available rotation capacity, incorporated in MC 78. Note that for this comparison no account was taken of the specific characteristics of the members. Tests carried out on cantilevers, simply supported beams and continuous beams of different sizes, slendemess ratios, load arrangements, manufactured from conerete and reinforcing steel with different material characteristics were ‘compared. This can explain the large spread of the results. ey tnt eee] ee coeeee: ons me Figure 4.1 Plastic rotation capacity of concrete hinges versus relative depth of the neutral axis at failure, after Siviero (1976) (position of tke neutral axis x at failure computed ‘according to CEB-FIP 1970 recommendations, assuming maximum tensile strain in steel = 0.010 and idealising stress-strain diagram for concrete in compression by a second degree parabola up to 0.0020 extended by a straight line up to &. = 0.0035) Finally, it must be stressed that in general it is an oversimplification to relate the rotation capacity to & only. Moreover, the value of & strongly depends on the assumptions taken when calculating the position of the neutral axis at fae. Considering this, the mechanical reinforcement ratio @ Gndependent of the sectional analysis method) would be more preferable, proven that it incorporates the reinforcement in the compression zone and prestressing force as well The effective mechanical reinforcement ratio cb is defined 5 ar = sO witht19) the mechanical tensile reinforcement ratio 4.1) the mechanical compressive reinforcement ratio (42) where A, and A,” denote the cross-sectional area of tensile and, respectively, compressive reinforcement, f, and fe the yield stress of steel and the compressive strength of concrete, b and d the member width and, respectively, effective depth (when analysing T-sections the effective width of the flange should be taken into account). Figure 4.2 Flexural crack hinge (left) and shear crack hinge (right), after Bachmann (1970) Its possible to use systematic series of well defined tests to study selected influential factors and to quantify their influence on the rotation capacity, At first the shear effect on the deformations ina plastic hinge is discussed. From a number of experimental and theoretical studies (Dilger 1966, Bachmann 1967, 1970, Langer 1987, Sveinsor/Dilger 1991, Sigrist(Marti 1994) it can be conchided that, depending on the magnitude of the shear force in the critical region of the member, two significantly different types of plastic hinges can develop. The so-called flexural crack hinge ‘occurs in a member zone in which the bending moment is predominant (see Figure 4.2 - left), while the shear crack hinge develops in the member zone where in addition to a bending moment considerable shear force is acting (see Figure 4,2, - right). Contrary to flexural crack hinges, where plastic deformations may concentrate in a single or very few cracks so that their rotation capacity remains relatively low, shear crack hinges exhibit a significantly increased rotation capacity due to flexure-shear cracks, provided that the member possesses a sufficient shear capacity to avoid shear failure, This improvement of the behaviour of the hinge is achieved by the shift of the tensile force as a result of the inclination of the cracks, enlarging the length of the plastic hinge. The value of shear stress governs not only the transition20 from one type of plastic hinge to the other, but influences the value of rotation capacity for each type of plastic hinge as well rotation rotation [10° rad] 50 1 shear crack formation 40 - a 30 with: 1 shear crack formation f ae 2» : without \ flexural r— 1 40 berack | E51 je ‘shear crack hinge hinge '21) shear crack hinge \ hinge ; ack hings 1 ee 0 0 40 20 30 40 50 shi stress ear ultimate shear stress [Nimm’] Figure 4.3 Rotation as a function of the shear stress - qualitative relation after Bachmann (1967) (left) and quantitative relation by Langer (1987) calculated for reinforcement ratio p, = 1% (right) Bachmann (1967) noticed that in a flexural crack hinge the plastic deformations are concentrated into a smaller zone the greater the shear stress, causing a decrease of rotation capacity (Figure 4.3, lei), He suggested that the reduction of rotation capacity may depend on the reinforcement ratio. In case of a shear crack hinge the rotation capacity also decreases with increasing shear stress. However, if sufficient shear reinforcement is provided a strong reduction of the rotation capacity is observed only if a shear failure occurs due to conerete crushing in the web. Confinement of the compression zone by stirrups, which are placed in order to avoid shear failure, ensures larger strain in the compressed concrete and, therefore, a higher rotation capacity of the member. The effect of confinement on the rotation capacity is discussed in more detail in the following parts of this section. Results from the numerical study performed by Langer (1987) can be used to demonstrate the effect of member slendemess (and shear slendemess) on the development of shear cracks in the hinge area and, consequently, on the available plastic rotation. In Figure 4.4 the simulation results of a three point bending test are shown for a beam with rectangular cross-section, 1% tensile reinforcement and a sufficient amount of shear reinforcement to avoid the shear failure, The areas are indicated where exclusively shear or flexural cracks are expected (small and large slendemess2 ratios, respectively). In both ranges an increase of the rotation capacity with increase of member slenderness is found. However, in the transition zone from one ‘type of crack pattern to the other a significant drop in plastic rotation values is found, despite of slendeness increase. Hence, depending ‘on the slendemess ratio (or, more accurately, on the shear slendemess), different types of plastic hinges may develop and significantly different deformation capacity may be expected rotation [10° rad] 50 >> T ‘shear crack formation 40 30 4 20 - ~jxot 10 4 shear eacktinge | = | tonal wack inge ol. oo Os eared tig Otis Atte 3) slendemess ratio _V/h Figure 4.4 Rotation capacity as a function of member slendemess ratio h = Uh - simulations of member in three point bending with 1% tensile reinforcement (after Langer 1987) The above discussed phenomenon has important implications for modelling of hinge regions, since itis erucial for the outcome of the calculation whether only flexural cracks are considered or whether the shear eracks are also accounted for inthe model. This is demonstrated in Figure 4.4 as well as in Figure 4.5 (Tue/Qian/Pommerening (1996)). Tn the latter case the results of the Simulations of simply supported beams with a low shear ratio (ay/d=2, where a, denotes the distance from the support to the point load) are given for three types of reinforcing steel, Considering in one case the postive influence of inclined shear cracks and neglecting this in the other case. The favourable effect of assuming a shear crack hinge on the calculated values of rotation capacity is found in a wide range of reinforcement ratio. It is reminded that the obtained relation depends on a number of assumptions taken in the simulation e.g. inclination angle of shear cracks, section geometry). ‘The effect of section geometry has been numerically demonstrated by Sigrist (1995). Figure 4.6 shows that for values of the mechanical reinforcement ratio @ in the range where rupture of reinforcement prevails the box girder possesses higher plastic rotations than the slab with Feclangular cross-section, This is mainly attributed to the effect ofthe ratio between member height and crack spacing and to the inclination of the compression field struts. Contrary to relatively high effects of actions in girder webs, the nominal shear stresses in slabs are rather low, which causes22 differences in the distribution of tensile forces in the longitudinal reinforcement. To account for the different influence of shear on the tensile force Sigrist (1995) assumes in his simulations smaller inclination angle of the compression struts in case of box girder than in case of slabs. A very low angle value is used to simulate the membrane effect on the deformation capacity of a slab. plastic rotation (rad) / 1 25: ---- without inclined shear cracks — with inclined shear cracks + 0 005 Of O15 02 025 03 0.35 mechanical reinforcement ratio Oey Figure 4.5. Rotation capacity as a function of reinforcement ratio - simulations for three steel ductility classes (N, H and $ according Euracode No.2) with and without inclined shear cracking assumed (after Tue/Qian/Pommerening 1996) Of? {rad} 0.03 = 0.02 0.01 on 02 Figure 4.6 Influence of cross-section geometry on plastic rotation capacity (simulations for steel B according to MC90), after Sigrist 199523 However, the inclination of crack in the region of plastic hinge is not the only aspect of cracking that is important for development of plastic rotation, Apart from crack spacing and crack widths also crack location has an influence on the attained member deformation. Depending on the position of the cracks in presence of a moment gradient, the length of the bars where plastic deformations arise may significantly differ. Consequently the resulting rotation ccapacity of the member varies and a significant scatter may be observed due to the developed crack pattern. A similar conclusion comes from the investigation of Clarke (1990), who came with the hypothesis that since the ductility of the member depends on the number of developed cracks in the region of plastic hinge, which has to be an integral number, there tend to be step changes in the total plastic rotation achieved. Beeby (1994) suggested to distinguish between two failure modes: the so-called ductile failure with spread of cracking and the non-ductile failure with a single major crack at mid- span. In practice there is nearly an equal possibilty of developing a symmetrical crack pattem with and without a crack at mid-span. This can be seen from Figure 4.7, which shows two different ccrack pattems for the same specimen geomeiry, material strength, reinforcement ratio and bar type, which resulted in a meaningful difference in plastic hinge rotation (see Figure 4.19 for comparison). One should be aware of this effect when interpreting the results of tests or calculations, ee ea Ea). Figure 4.7 Plastic hinge with crack at the mid-span (test B.0.2.4) (left) and with no crack at the mid-span (test B.0.2.16) (right) after Bigaj (1998) If reference to the actual type of plastic hinge is done, the influence of various parameters on rotation capacity can be separately discussed. At first the effect of percentage of reinforcement is evaluated. Failure of a reinforced concrete member may take place due to nupture of the reinforcement or -if the deformation capacity of the reinforcing steel is sufciently high - as a result of concrete crushing. Depending on the mechanical characteristics of the materials and the shape of the cross-section a critical value of the geometrical reinforcement ratio p,, the mechanical reinforcement ratio @g or the corresponding ratio & = .x/d, can be determined that marks the transition from one to the other failure mode. In the range where rupture of reinforcement is ritical24 the ductility of the member is directly governed by the limited ductility of the steel, The strain capacity of the reinforcement is fully utilised in this case, On the contrary, if failure of the compression zone occurs the steel strains are lower than the strain capacity at rupture of the reinforcement. rotation @ [rad 10°] 120; 100 calculation — © test 80 a le es 40) feilurel of | failure of zo reinforcement —14—~ compressive zone o oO 02 04 06 0,8 1,0 1,2 percentage of reinforcement —_[%] Figure 4.8 Influence of percentage of reinforcement on the rotation capacity of reinforced concrete beams, test results after Eifler/Plauk (1974) and simulation results after Langer (1987) This qualitative description helps to interpret the relation between the reinforcement ratio and the rotation capacity of a plastic hinge shown in Figure 4.8, where results of the experimental investigation carried out by Eifler/Plauk (1974) are compared with simulations performed by Langer (1987). In the range indicated as failure of reinforcement the failure is caused by fracturing the bars, The rotation capacity decreases with decreasing reinforcement percentage, because fewer cracks are formed in the region of the plastic hinge and the contribution of concrete between cracks is significant. In the range indicated as failure of the compression zone the failure is caused by concrete crushing, In this case the maximum steel strain values at peak load decrease with increasing reinforcement percentage, resulting in a reduction of the rotation capacity. If failure is caused by crushing of the concrete the rotation capacity can be significantly increased by additional confinement in the compression zone. Note that the rotation capacity is litte influenced by concrete confinement if steel failure prevails, At this point the test results evaluated by Siviero (1976) (Figure 4.1) should be recalled. A major difference between the plastic rotation capacity derived from these old tests and that presented in Figure 4.8 is found in the range of low reinforcement ratios (small values of & = x/d). This can be explained by the prevailing failure mode, that changes due to the change in the steel25 deformation capacity from concrete crushing in case of tests evaluated by Siviero (1976) to steel rupture in case of tests reported by Eifler/Plauk (1974). Following from the qualification of plastic hinges, where the failure criterion is taken as a basis, evaluation of the construction material influence on the available rotation capacity can be performed. The ductility of reinforcing steel is the primary issue, in particular if the member fails due to steel rupture. As far as the properties of the reinforcing steel are concemed, there is enough information available on the variation of steel properties for different steel types and classes (ie. Rufywurm/Martin (1993)). To judge steel ductility usually two parameters are used, namely strain at maximum load €,, (in the following referred to as ultimate steel strain) and the tensile strength to yield stress ratio f,/f, (in the following called the steel hardening ratio). Additionally, in case of steel types with distinct yielding the length of the yield plateau is used as a further parameter. These properties are important in defining the performance of reinforcing bars with respect to deformation capacity of the structure, They are determined in standard tension tests of the reinforcement. The influence of these parameters on the deformation capacity of the structure, however, is difficult to separate, Therefore, considering the variation in steel properties, caution must be kept while comparing test results. To judge the effect of steel ductility on member deformation capacity a new parameter can be introduced, that combines the above mentioned characteristics. This is the topic of Chapter 9 and is treated in detail there. ‘The qualitative effect of the stress-strain characteristics of reinforcing steel on the rotation capacity of plastic hinges can be relatively simply demonstrated analytically. This is done in Figure 4.9, which is valid for a single span beam failing by rupture of reinforcement (after Langer 1987) When constant values of steel tensile strength f and of ultimate strain e, are assumed while different values of yield stress and, hence, of strain hardening ratio are used, the maximum section curvature and uhimate moment are almost independent of /-/f; (Figure 4.9b). On the contrary the length of the plastic zone, understood as the part of the member where plastic strains develop, directly depends on f; 4 and decreases with decreasing f; 4. Furthermore, in the post yield range algo the ratio between the mean steel strain and the steel strain at the crack decreases with decrease of ff, due to the reduced penetration of yielding along the embedded bar in the vicinity of the flexural crack (see Bigaj 1998, Eligehauser/Ozbolt/ Mayer 1997). This two effects contribute to the reduction of the plastic hinge rotation if the strain hardening ratio decreases, In case of constant steel tensile strength and hardening ratio but different values of the uhimate steel strain value the resulting length of the plastic zone is almost constant, independent on eq (Figure 4.9c). However, with increasing ultimate steel strain the maximum section curvature increases, resulting in an increase of the rotation capacity. The magnitude of both influences depends, among others, on the reinforcement ratio, For lower reinforcement ratios, where rupture of stee! prevails, both parameters are directly influential. For higher reinforcement ratios that lead to concrete failure, the rotation capacity wall increase with increasing hardening ratio because of the increase of the length of the plastic hinge, however, it will be almost independent on the ultimate strain value, because eis not utilised26 FE a) * 45 const 1 {lf # const My © {y= const ig © flim Ma ® ip | © Flt; ww fy # const + moment b) x ® x.@ °) curvature Figure 4.9 Influence of stress strain relationship of reinforcing steel on the rotation capacity of plastic hinges (after Langer 1987) Numerous experimental investigations support these theoretical considerations. Here the ‘moment - rotation curves obtained in tests of single span one-way slabs applied to three point bending are used as an example (EibV/Biihler 1991). In both tests referred to in Figure 4.10 cold worked steel was used and the hardening ratio value was constant, while the ultimate steel strains significantly differed. The increased elongation capacity of reinforcement resulted in higher total (and plastic) rotation. In Figure 4.11 another case is studied, where the ultimate strain value was Kept constant and the hardening ratio was varied (in both tests cold worked steel was applied). As expected, higher strain hardening ratio gave an increase of hinge rotation, hence, resulted in a more ductile response of the member.27 40 ha ia Ti moment M {kNr] 3 & z 3 é 2 a e s 0 001 0,02, 0,03 0,04 0,05 006 007 008 008 total rotation © [rad] Figure 4.10 Moment - rotation curves dependent on ductility parameters - test results for constant strain hardening ratio and variable ultimate steel strain, RPL2 and RPL6 after EibBithler (1991) 40 imate strain fully = 1.16, ff, = 1.08, moment M [kN] 0 0.01 0.02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 total rotation @ [rad] Figure 4.11 Moment - rotation curves dependent on ductility parameters - test results for constant ultimate steel strain and variable strain hardening ratio, RPLA and RPL6 after Eibl/Bidhler (1991) Results from a number of recent test programmes can be used to seek a correlation between steel ductility characteristics and the resulting member rotation capacity. Such an evaluation was performed by Beeby (1994), who compared data reported by Eifler/Plauk (1974), Calvi/Canti Macchi/Magenes (1990), Clarke (1990), EibVBiihler (1991), Bosco/Debernardi (1992) and Beeby