Engineering Structures 222 (2020) 111064

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Simulating behaviour of large reinforced concrete beam-column joints T

subject to ASR/DEF deterioration and influence of corrosion
Madhu M. Karthika, , John B. Manderb, Stefan Hurlebausb
⁎

a
Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Palakkad 678557, India
b
Zachry Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Texas A&M Univ., TX 77843-3136, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Large bridge structures that are subject to Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR) and Delayed Ettringite Formation (DEF)
Alkali silica reaction ASR are a major cause of concern; there is a need for understanding the internal deterioration mechanism and their
Delayed ettringite formation DEF prognosis. The Compatibility Strut-and-Tie Method (C-STM) is used to model the behaviour of experimentally
Force-deformation behaviour tested C-beam specimens subject to varying degrees of ASR/DEF deterioration as well as varying degrees of
Compatibility strut-and-Tie Method C-STM
associated corrosion of the rebars. The simulation accounts for age-modified cover and core concrete material
Corrosion
properties, and the resulting passive prestress effects on the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. An in-
crease in strength and stiffness of the specimens with an increase in the passive prestress effect is observed.
However, the energy absorption capacity of the heavily deteriorated specimen saw a 59% reduction. Post-peak
stress softening of the diagonal arch-strut successfully simulates the embrittlement and decrease in deformation
capacity of the most heavily deteriorated condition. Corrosion of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement
in the beam-column joint is found to decrease the load and deformation capacity by some 35%, and the energy
absorption by 86% after 60 years of rebar corrosion. The mode of failure for all the specimens is the crushing of
the diagonal concrete arch-strut in the beam-column joint. The progression of nonlinear events that lead to
failure of large beam-column joints that are affected by varying levels of ASR/DEF deterioration are successfully
tracked by the C-STM.

1. Introduction in Texas, United States.

Premature concrete deterioration caused by Alkali-Silica Reaction
(ASR) and/or Delayed Ettringite Formation (DEF) may compromise the
structural longevity of large reinforced concrete structural elements
such as bridge piers. To ensure ongoing safety and integrity of large
structural elements with significant disturbed (D-) regions, a thorough
understanding of their behaviour is essential. While the Strut-and-Tie
(SAT) approach that is recommended by design codes [1,2] leads to
conservative lower-bound solutions, SAT does not give any insight into
the long-term behaviour, and deformation and ductility of the structure.
Moreover, there are currently no widely used guidelines available to
assess the capacity and ductility of structures that are subject to dete-
rioration caused by ASR and/or DEF.
Experimental investigations were conducted to investigate the per-
formance of large-scale beam-column joints (C-beams) that were sub-
ject to deterioration by the combined mechanism of ASR and DEF [3,4].
These experimental studies were specifically designed to replicate ty-
pical bridge bents subject to ASR/DEF deterioration that currently exist
To better understand the overall behaviour and internal mechanics
of the experimental C-beam specimens that were subjected to ASR/DEF
deterioration, the displacement-based Compatibility Strut-and-Tie
Method (C-STM) [5] is used to simulate the results. In addition to force
equilibrium, the C-STM accounts for displacement compatibility, and
nonlinear material stress-strain constitutive relationships to simulate
the force-deformation behaviour of the structure. Both the truss and the
arch mechanism are considered to contribute to the combined flexure-
shear resistance of the structural member. Modifications are proposed
for the material properties to account for the deterioration of concrete
due to ASR/DEF.
2. Compatibility based Strut-and-Tie modelling
The genesis and historic developments of the compatibility-based
strut-and-tie approach are discussed in detail in Karthik et al. [5,6].
Researchers [5–9] have successfully used this approach to simulate the
force-deformation behaviour of structural elements. C-STM proposed by

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: madhu@iitpkd.ac.in (M.M. Karthik).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111064
Received 25 January 2020; Received in revised form 3 June 2020; Accepted 2 July 2020
Available online 28 July 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.M. Karthik, et al.
Fig. 1. (a) Reinforcement and cross-section details of C-beam specimen, (b) C-STM model for Specimen 1 without ASR/DEF deterioration, and (c) C-STM model for
Specimen 2, 3, and 4 with ASR/DEF deterioration.
Scott et al. [10] for the analysis of structural concrete members with
significant D-regions was used to analyse deep reinforced concrete bent-
caps [9]. The simulated force-deformation behaviour, internal strains
and the progression of the nonlinear mechanisms within the structure
compared well with the experimental results and observations. How-
ever, the effects of compression softening of the concrete struts could
not be directly accounted for in the proposed model. Post-analysis
strength checks had to be performed to identify the critical failure
mechanism. In addition, the force-controlled analysis could not ac-
commodate reverse cyclic loading or post-peak load (softening) effects.
These shortcomings were overcome by Karthik et al. [5] by in-
corporating the softened concrete compression model directly into C-
STM, and by implementing the model in displacement-control. There
was good agreement between the experimental and modelled force-
2
Engineering Structures 222 (2020) 111064
deformation and internal behaviour of large bent-caps and coupling
beams. The improvements to the C-STM enabled identification of the
load and corresponding deformation at failure, and also modelled the
behaviour under reversed cyclic loading well. The present study builds
upon this background.
In the following sections, the details of the experimental C-beam
specimens are briefly discussed. Next the modified material properties
that are considered to model the effects of ASR/DEF expansion in re-
inforced concrete are discussed. The C-STM approach is then used to
model the C-beam specimen without and with the effects of ASR/DEF
expansion. The force-deformation behaviour, internal strain behaviour,
and nonlinear mechanisms that lead to the failure of the specimen are
discussed and compared with the experimental results. Finally, the ef-
fects of reinforcement corrosion in the beam-column joint, on the
M.M. Karthik, et al. Engineering Structures 222 (2020) 111064

Table 1
Material properties, and summary of force deformation results from experimental test and C-STM analysis of C-beam specimens.
Specimen 1 (Undamaged Specimen 2 (Slight ASR/DEF Specimen 4 (Moderate ASR/ Specimen 3 (Heavy ASR/DEF
control specimen) deterioration) DEF deterioration) deterioration)

Material Properties fc (MPa) 37.2 38.6 27.6 40.9

ft (MPa) 2.07 1.60 – –
Ec (GPa) 28.9 29.4 24.9 30.3
Age at testing (months) 13 16 29 65

Experimental Results Expt

PYield (kN) 1957 1957 – –
Expt
PFailure (kN) 2108 2224 2237 2215
Expt 37.8 23.4 – –
Yield (mm)
Expt 42.9 49.3 55.1 19.6
Failure (mm)
µ = Expt Expt 1.13 2.11 – –
Failure / Yield

C-STM Analysis C STM

PFailure 2019 2157 2206 2150
Results C STM (mm) 49.6 53.6 55.4 19.4
Failure
C STM / P Expt
PFailure 0.96 0.97 0.99 0.97
Failure
C STM / Expt 1.16 1.09 1.01 0.97
Failure Failure

Note: PYield
Expt
Yield= experimental load and deformation at yield respectively; PFailure ,
, Expt Expt Expt
Failure= experimental load and deformation at failure; PFailure
C STM
, C STM
Failure = load and
deformation at failure from C-STM; µ= ductility factor.

Table 2
Strength reduction factor for cover concrete based on deteriorated condition.
Deteriorated Range of 1 values [11] Range of values (Eq. Default
condition (2)) values for

Undamaged 0 < 1 < 0.0012 =1 1

Slight 0.0012 < 1 < 0.006 0.55 < < 1 0.75
Moderate 0.006 < 1 < 0.016 0.30 < < 0.55 0.40
Heavy 1 > 0.016 < 0.30 0.30

behaviour of the C-beam are investigated.

3. Specimen details and experimental performance

Fig. 1a presents the cross-sectional details and reinforcement layout

of the experimental C-beam specimen [3,4]. The doubly reinforced end
of the C-beam specimen represents a straddle bent with both tension
and compression reinforcement, while the singly reinforced end re-
presents a cantilever bent with only tension reinforcement. The re-
inforcement layout was chosen to be representative of existing bridge
piers in which ASR/DEF deterioration has been observed. To represent
as-built reinforcement details, the transverse reinforcement in the
column was not extended into the joint region. To simulate the sus-
tained dead load of the girders acting on the bent, as shown in Fig. 1a,
post-tensioning load F was applied on the two beams.
A total of four C-beam specimens with the same geometry and re-
inforcement details were experimentally investigated. To promote both
ASR and DEF deterioration in the specimens, Type III cement with high
alkali content along with locally sourced course and fine aggregates
were used to manufacture concrete with a water/cement ratio of 0.48
[11]. Sodium hydroxide solution with known target density was added
to the concrete mix to accelerate ASR and DEF deterioration. An elec-
trical resistive wiring setup was used to increase the curing tempera- Fig. 2. (a) Stress-strain relation of softened concrete [5], and (b) modified
tures in excess of 77 °C to promote DEF. Even though all the four C- stress-strain model for steel to account for prestressing effects due to ASR/DEF
beam specimens had the same constituent materials, control Specimen expansion.
1 did not have any ASR/DEF induced damage, as the specimen was
cured indoors under constant temperature and humidity conditions. To respectively [11].
accelerate the effects of ASR/DEF in Specimens 2, 4 and 3, they were Table 1 presents the material properties on the day of each test.
conditioned outdoors and subjected to alternate wetting and drying During the destructive laboratory test that followed the deterioration
cycles for a period of nine months, two years, and five years respec- phase, the mode of failure in all the C-beam specimens was a sudden
tively. Thus, at the time of testing, the ASR/DEF induced damage was joint shear failure within the beam-column joint region. However, the
classified as slight, moderate and heavy in Specimens 2, 4, and 3

3
M.M. Karthik, et al. Engineering Structures 222 (2020) 111064

Table 3 concrete truss member has to be appropriately factored. The modified

Recommended prestress values in longitudinal and transverse reinforcement concrete strength (fc ,cov er ) is defined as:
based on extent of ASR/DEF damage.
fc ,cov er = fc (1)
Deteriorated Condition Prestressing stresses fps in
where fc = compressive strength of concrete; and = the strength re-
longitudinal reinforcement transverse reinforcement duction factor that is based on the extent of damage observed in cover
concrete, which may be determined from [10]:
Undamaged 0 0
Slight 0.3fy 0.5fyh 1
=
Moderate 0.5fy 1.0f yh 1 0.0012
1+
Heavy 1.1f y 1.25f yh
3 co (2)

where · are Macaulay brackets; 1= the principal tensile strain acting

Note: fy , fyh yield stress of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement respec-
perpendicular to the compression strut and co= strain corresponding to
tively.
peak unconfined concrete strength, typically 0.002. The value 0.0012
may be thought of as a cracking strain such that the concrete softens
Table 4 only for values when 1 > 0.0012.
Computation of cross-sectional areas of members in C-STM.
Based on field observations, Table 2 presents the range of strength
Member Steel Concrete reduction factor for cover concrete for different deteriorated condi-
tions [11]. The appropriate value of the strength reduction factor may
Tension Chord Area of tension reinforcement Ast bkd
be interpolated from Table 2 based on the measured transverse tensile
contributing to the tension chord
Compression Chord Area of compression reinforcement Asc bkd strains 1. In the absence of such direct measurements, the transverse
contributing to the compression chord tensile strains may be determined from the crack width strains in the
Transverse Tie Area of transverse reinforcement Asv (4cc + 2dh ) Nh s out-of-plane region, which is the ratio of the sum of crack widths to the
contributing to the transverse tie
overall width. It was previously shown that the crack width strains are
Concrete Arch – 0.375 bjd
cos approximately one-half that of the surface strains measured from the
Concrete Diagonal – 0.5(1 ) bjd demountable mechanical strain gauge points from the same region
Strut xi + tan2
[11]. Alternatively, in the absence of such measured transverse tensile
strains, the default strength reduction factor presented in Table 2 may
b= breadth of cross-section; cc= clear cover; dh= diameter of hoops; Nh= number
of hoops participating in the truss mechanism; s= spacing of hoops; jd= liver
be used. The appropriate deterioration condition may be chosen qua-
arm between centroid of tension and compression force; = angle of inclination litatively, by comparing the degree of damage with the visual guide-
of arch-strut with the horizontal; = arch breadth scalar = st [10]; lines presented in [11].
2
st + sv j cot
kd= depth to the neutral axis from extreme compression fibre, where
k = ( st + sc )2n2 + 2( st + sc d / d) n ( st + sc ) n ; st , sc , sv = reinforcement 4.2. Assessment of concrete core confinement
ratio of tension, compression, and hoops respectively; n= modular ratio = ratio
of Youngs modulus of steel to concrete; d, d = depth to centroid of tension and The swelling of core concrete caused by ASR/DEF expansion is
compression reinforcement respectively from the extreme compression fibre. constrained by the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, which in-
x i= normalized coordinate of the ith integration point = 0.423 and 0.577 for BH turn confines the core concrete. The confined concrete stress fcc can be
and AG (Fig. 1b) based on the single-point Gauss quadrature [10]; x i= 0.379 determined using the confinement ratio K ([12]; K = fcc / fco where fco =
and 0.621 for HD, IF (Fig. 1b); x i= 0.637 and 0.363 HE, JF (Fig. 1b) based on in-situ concrete strength). Any suitable confined concrete model, such
the two-point Gauss quadrature [18] and the actual location of the transverse as the one proposed by Karthik and Mander [13] may be used to re-
U-bars in the joints. present the stress-strain relation of confined concrete.

ultimate load capacity and the overall stiffness of all the deteriorated
specimens were greater than the control Specimen 1. While Specimens
1, 2, and 4 displayed similar ductile behaviour, the heavily deteriorated
Specimen 3 failed in a sudden brittle fashion immediately following the
attainment of the ultimate load. The load at yield and failure, and their
corresponding deformations are also reported in Table 1. Further de-
tails of the experimental performance, internal behaviour and post-
failure analysis are reported elsewhere [3,4].
4. Modified material properties to account for ASR/DEF
To account for the effects of ASR/DEF induced damage on the
structure into the C-STM analysis, it is important to appropriately
modify the constituent material properties. Based on visual inspection
and the discretion of the field engineer, the extent of damage on the
structure can be categorized as slight, moderate, and heavy damage
[11]. Details on how to modify the properties of concrete and reinfor-
cing steel based on the extent of ASR/DEF induced deterioration is
discussed below.
4.3. Compression softening of diagonal struts
Tensile strains acting normal to the compression struts cause com-
pression softening of the diagonal struts. To account for this effect, the
softened concrete model proposed by Karthik et al. [5] and depicted in
Fig. 2a may be used, where the softening coefficient is given as:
1
=
1 0.25( 1/ 2 ) (3)
where 1 and 2 are respectively the tensile and compressive strains
transverse to and along the diagonal strut. The softened confined model
presented in Fig. 2a, where the strain softening plateau extends to a
strain of co= 0.002, is applicable when the transverse ties effectively
confine the concrete core. However, in cases where the concrete core is
not effectively confined due to poor detailing or debonding of lateral
ties due to deterioration, the softened unconfined model with the re-
duced plateau is more appropriate.
4.4. Prestressing effect in reinforcement caused by concrete swelling

4.1. Deteriorated cover concrete properties The swelling of core concrete caused by ASR/DEF is constrained by
the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, which causes tensile
ASR/DEF deterioration causes extensive cracking of the cover con- strains in the reinforcing steel [4,14,15]. This in turn puts the concrete
crete. To model this effect into the C-STM, the concrete strength of each into a state of passive prestress. To account for the prestressing effects

4
M.M. Karthik, et al. Engineering Structures 222 (2020) 111064

Table 5
C-STM member cross-sectional areas and prestrains for the deteriorated C-beam specimens.
Member$ Specimen 2 Specimen 4 Specimen 3

2 2 2
Area (mm ) Prestrains Area (mm ) Prestrains Area (mm ) Prestrains

Steel Concrete Steel Concrete Steel Concrete

AB 5387 159,174 0.0018 5387 179,290 0.0044 5387 166,748 0.0079

BC 0.0016 0.0036 0.0065
CD 0.0017 0.0038 0.0076
DE 0.0020 0.0046 0.0104
EF 0.0028 0.0068 0.0181

GH 4053* 49,529* 0.0010 4053* 62,987* 0.0027 4053* 183,819* 0.0042

HI 1013† 51329† 0.0008 1013† 57813† 0.0021 1013† 166748† 0.0031
IJ 0.0010 0.0027 0.0043
JK 0.0016 0.0043 0.0088

BG 1523 104,516 0.0032 1523 104,516 0.0075 1523 104,516 0.0217

DI/EJ 252 34,839 0.0032 252 34,839 0.0075 252 34,839 0.0217

FK 6613 206,561 0.0018 6613 230,058 0.0044 6613 216,503 0.0057

KL 0.0014 0.0028 0.0034
LN/NP 0.0014 0.0025 0.0034

HM 2535 206,561 0.0014 230,058 0.0028 2535 216,503 0.0034

MO/OQ 0.0014 0.0025 0.0034

ML/ON 1523 57,114 0.0030 1523 57,114 0.0133 1523 57,114 0.0204

CH 2535 – 0.0018 2535 – 0.0044 2535 – 0.0057

AG – 69,677 – – 69,677 – – 69,677 –

BH – 74,477 – – 74,477 – – 74,477 –

AH – 156,974 – – 156,974 – – 156,974 –

DH – 50,619 – – 50,619 – – 50,619 –

EH – 46,277 – – 46,277 – – 46,277 –

FH – 190,916 – – 190,916 – – 190,916 –

FI – 52,226 – – 52,226 – – 52,226 –

FJ – 47,581 – – 47,581 – – 47,581 –

HL/MN/ OP – 96,774 – – 96,774 – – 96,774 –

Note: $ Member designation of C-STM members are shown in Fig. 1b.

* For the straddle bent (doubly reinforced).
†
For the cantilever bent (singly reinforced).

into the C-STM, the prestressing forces are evaluated based on the ex-
pansion strains. In the absence of measured data, the model for ASR/
DEF induced expansion strains proposed by Karthik et al. [16], and
later applied to the C-beam specimens [17] may be used to determine
the expansion strains.
In lieu of the suggested exhaustive expansion strain analysis to de-
termine the prestressing forces [16], Table 3 presents recommended
values that may be used for the prestress in the longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement depending on the extent of damage caused by
ASR/DEF. As shown in Fig. 2b, to account for the prestressing effects
into the C-STM analysis, appropriate modifications have to be con-
sidered for the stress-strain behaviour of the reinforcing steel.
5. C-STM model
Fig. 1b,c shows the geometry, and arrangement of the struts and ties
in the C-STM model of the C-beam specimen. The cantilever beams and
the beam-column joint of the C-beam specimen are, respectively,
modelled using the single-point Gauss quadrature model [10] and the
two-point Gauss model [18]. However, to better represent the layout of
the shear reinforcement provided in the form of U-bars in the beam-
column joint (Fig. 1a), the transverse ties DI and EJ (Fig. 1b) are aligned
along these U-bars. The tension chords in the beam (AC in Fig. 1b),
beam-column joint (CF in Fig. 1b), and the column (FP in Fig. 1a) are
comprised of the longitudinal tension steel and two sets of web dis-
tribution steel. The compression chords (GK for the beam and beam-
column joint, and HQ for the column) are comprised of the longitudinal
compression reinforcement in addition to the concrete strut. The con-
tribution of concrete towards the tension chord is also considered.
Table 4 presents the formulations used to calculate the cross-sectional
areas of the constituent members of the C-STM based on the re-
commendation by Scott et al. [10]. Table 5 presents the cross-sectional
areas of the struts, ties and arch members of the C-STM for the three
deteriorated C-beam specimens.
Fig. 1b shows the C-STM model for the control Specimen 1 without
ASR/DEF induced expansion. To enable two tests on the same spe-
cimen, Specimen 1 was tested in two phases [3], where one of the two
beams was protected by post-tensioning forces, while the other beam

5
M.M. Karthik, et al.
Fig. 3. Cracked reinforced concrete material properties. (a) diagonal web elements, (b) beam compression chord elements, and (c) tension stiffened elements.
was tested. As shown in Fig. 1b, this initial post-tension load is simu-
lated in the C-STM by applying a force PT along the tension chord of the
protected beam. Fig. 3 (row 2) shows the nonlinear concrete stress-
strain relations for the concrete struts and ties of the C-STM of Spe-
cimen 1. Note that in reality the centroid of the concrete compression
block and compression steel do not coincide. However, in the C-STM
the concrete compression chord is located at the centroid of the com-
pression steel. The transformation of the concrete stress block force is
appropriately accounted for by modifying the constitutive relation of
the concrete chord member [10] as shown in Fig. 3b.
Fig. 1c shows the C-STM model for C-beam specimen that is subject
to deterioration due to ASR/DEF expansion. While the topology of the
C-STM model is the same for the C-beam specimens without and with
ASR/DEF deterioration, the effects of ASR/DEF are accounted for by (a)
6
Engineering Structures 222 (2020) 111064
adopting the modified material properties into the C-STM analysis, and
(b) by considering the passive prestressing effects caused by swelling of
concrete, simulated by the prestressing forces applied along the long-
itudinal and transverse members as shown in Fig. 1c.
Rows 3, 4 and 5 of Fig. 3, respectively, show the nonlinear concrete
stress-strain relationships that were adopted for the concrete struts and
ties of deteriorated Specimen 2, 4 and 3. The strength reduction factor
recommended in Table 2 is adopted for the cover concrete, and the
confinement ratio K accounts for the confinement of the core concrete.
As an illustrative example, Table 6 presents the computation of the
confinement ratio of the beam and column of Specimen 3. Table 7
presents the confinement ratios calculated for the beam and column
region of all the C-beam specimens. Both the cover and core concrete
contribute to the area of the concrete struts. Therefore, the effective
M.M. Karthik, et al. Engineering Structures 222 (2020) 111064

Table 6
Illustrative example for computation of confinement ratio K for C-Beam Specimen 3.
Beam Column

fc (MPa) 40.9 40.9

kd (mm) 287 355
A cc (mm2) = dc Gbc (1 cc )
131,704 433,986
A e (mm2) = dc Gbc A shaded 80,204 317,950
k e = A e /A cc 0.609 0.732
flx (MPa) = k e (A sx f y /dc s) 1.22 1.74
fly (MPa) = ke (Asy f y /bc s) 1.14 1.38
Smallest confining stress ratio fly /fc 0.028 0.034
Largest confining stress ratio flx /fc 0.030 0.042
K = fcc / fc 1.20 1.25
Confined concrete strength Kfc (MPa) 49.1 51.1

All dimensions in mm

Note:
kd= depth to the neutral axis.
cc = volumetric ratio of longitudinal steel in the confined core.
Asx , Asy = total area of lateral reinforcement parallel to the horizontal and vertical axis respectively.
Ashaded = area of shaded region = wi2/6 , where wi= edge of the shaded portion between the longitudinal bars.
K is determined from the chart presented in Mander et al. [12] between the largest and smallest confining stress ratio.

Table 7 steel.
Confinement ratio and softening coefficient for the C-beam specimens. The C-STM model is executed in a commercially available structural
Specimen # (Deteriorated Confinement ratio K Softening coefficient for
analysis software SAP2000 [19]. Separate steel and concrete trusses are
condition) joint arch-strut defined for the steel ties, and concrete struts and ties. In addition, since
Beam Column there is no direct way of assessing the strains from SAP2000, a strain
indicator truss constituting of frame elements with unit axial stiffness
Specimen 1 (No damage) – – 0.44
Specimen 2 (Slight) 1.20 1.28 0.46
AE = 1 kN is modelled with the same configuration of the C-STM
Specimen 4 (Moderate) 1.28 1.35 0.64 shown in Fig. 1b,c. The force F in these members directly gives a
Specimen 3 (Heavy) 1.20 1.25 0.42 measure of the strains = F /AE . All corresponding nodes of the three
trusses are constrained equally to ensure compatibility.

constitutive relation as shown in rows 3–5 of Fig. 3a is calculated as a

weighted average, depending on the contribution of the cover and core
concrete to the area of the concrete strut. Table 7 also presents the
softening coefficients for the arch-strut in the beam-column region. The
softening coefficient is approximately 0.45 except for Specimen 4,
which showed a comparatively low compressive strength of concrete.
The concrete tensile strength for Specimen 4 and 3 is neglected in the C-
STM analysis, as these specimens were heavily cracked during the de-
terioration phase.
The prestress forces along the longitudinal and transverse C-STM
members is deduced from the expansion strains obtained from the ASR/
DEF expansion model [17]. Table 5 presents a summary of all the
prestrains in the longitudinal and transverse members of the C-STM for
the deteriorated C-beam specimens. The prestress forces to be applied
along the C-STM members are computed based on the prestrains and
the area of the steel tie. Fig. 4 shows a sample calculation of the pre-
strains and corresponding prestress force in the steel compression
member GK (Fig. 1b) of Specimen 3. The modified stress-strain relation
of the reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 2b, is adopted for the reinforcing
6. Strength and deformation capacity
Fig. 5a presents a comparison of the overall force-deformation re-
sults obtained from the C-STM analysis with the experimental results of
the C-beam specimens without (Specimen 1) and with (Specimens 2, 4,
and 3) varying levels of ASR/DEF deterioration. Inclusion of the con-
crete tension ties in the C-STM effectively captures the initial tension-
stiffening effect of control Specimen 1. In case of the deteriorated
specimens, modelling the passive prestressing effects and the modified
material properties into the C-STM effectively captures the behaviour of
the C-beam specimens affected by varying levels of ASR/DEF expan-
sion.
The use of the softened confined concrete model [5] presented in
Fig. 2a captures the behaviour of Specimens 1, 2, and 4 quite well.
However, from Fig. 5a it is evident that for heavily deteriorated C-beam
Specimen 3, the confined softened model over-estimates the ductility of
the specimen. However, the proposed softened unconfined model with
a reduced plateau shown in Fig. 2a shows good agreement between the
experimental observations and the simulated results using C-STM. The

7
M.M. Karthik, et al.
Fig. 4. Computation of prestrains in the longitudinal beam members (GK) of the C-STM model for Specimen 3.
use of the softened unconfined model for Specimen 3 can be justified
based on the experimental observations [4], where anchorage de-
bonding of the lateral U-bars in the beam-column joints was evident.
Therefore, it is quite evident that the lateral ties offered lower re-
sistance to the lateral expansion of concrete, which is appropriately
captured by the proposed softened unconfined model.
Also presented in Fig. 5a are horizontal lines that represent the load
at yield and nominal capacity of the specimens based on beam theory
and SAT approach. These analysis results do not give any indication
about the displacement at failure or the mode of failure of the structure.
7. Interrogation of internal strains
One of the major advantages of the C-STM approach is its ability to
model the internal strain behaviour, in addition to the overall force-
deformation behaviour. Figs. 6 and 7 present a comparison of the
modelled internal strains in the struts and ties of the C-STM, with ex-
perimentally measured strains obtained from internal strain gages (SG)
and concrete gages (KM), and the externally mounted linear variable
differential transducers (LVDT). The development of various nonlinear
events with increasing levels of applied loads are also shown in Figs. 6
and 7. In both the figures, tensile strains are positive and the event
numbers shown in parenthesis correspond to the sequence of formation
of nonlinear mechanisms in the specimen (corresponding to Fig. 5b),
and are discussed later. The instrument data used are indicated at the
8
Engineering Structures 222 (2020) 111064
bottom of each plot, and the location of these instruments are also
shown in the figures. The initial offset in the strain data in Figs. 6 and 7,
are due to the strains caused by expansion of concrete during the de-
terioration phase.
In Figs. 6 and 7, the onset of cracking along the longitudinal and
transverse members are indicated by events longitudinal cracking (LC)
and transverse cracking (TC). The elastic limit of concrete is identified
as concrete compression (CC) and concrete decompression (CD) refers
to the stage when the effects of the applied prestress are overcome by
the applied load, and the concrete strains become tensile (positive).
Steel yield (SY) occurs when the reinforcement attains the yield strain
of steel, and arch crushing (AC) refers to the crushing of concrete along
the diagonal arch in the beam column joint.
As shown in Fig. 7, for Specimen 3 the development of strains with
an increase in the applied load was mostly linear until the ultimate
load. This was owing to the extent of concrete expansion in Specimen 3,
which resulted in large prestress forces that the structure was subjected
to. Note that, the formation of rust on the surface of rebars led to de-
bonding of the strain gauges from the surface of the reinforcement. In
addition, the localized formation of ASR gel and the extensive cracking
caused by the expansion strains caused few of the embedded concrete
gauges to fail. Therefore, only limited data could be gathered from the
internal instrumentation for Specimen 3, as compared to the other three
specimens.
M.M. Karthik, et al.
Fig. 5. (a) Comparison of force-deformation behaviour from C-STM with experimental results [3,4], (b) computed sequence of nonlinear events.
8. Failure analysis
It is important to understand the mechanism behind the failure of
the C-beam specimens and identify any changes in the failure me-
chanism caused by the increasing levels of ASR/DEF deterioration.
Fig. 5b presents the progressive development of all nonlinear me-
chanisms along the load-displacement path of the four C-beam speci-
mens. The insets in Fig. 5b also shows the C-STM members along which
the nonlinear events occur.
In Fig. 5b, for Specimen 1 an initial change in stiffness in the force-
deformation behaviour occurred due to first cracking of concrete at
578 kN (Events 1–6), and a major change in stiffness occurred at 1958
kN due to yielding of longitudinal steel in the beam-column region
(Event 11). For slightly deteriorated Specimen 2, the initial change in
stiffness occurred at 1429 kN due to concrete cracking in the long-
itudinal members and yielding of the transverse hoops (Events 11–17).
A major change in stiffness occurred at 2021 kN due to yielding of
longitudinal reinforcement in the beam-column joint (Events 19–20).
9
Engineering Structures 222 (2020) 111064
However, for moderately and heavily deteriorated Specimens 4 and 3
respectively, the force-deformation behaviour remained mostly linear
until the major change in stiffness at 1975 kN, and 2081 kN respec-
tively. Both Specimens 4 and 3 were heavily cracked, and the re-
inforcement yielded during the deterioration phase itself, even before
the commencement of the laboratory testing. Therefore, these speci-
mens did not show any change in stiffness in the force-deformation
curve associated with concrete cracking or yielding of reinforcement.
The change in stiffness in Specimens 4 and 3 was attributed to de-
compression in the longitudinal concrete member in the beam and the
beam-column region (Events 7–8 for Specimen 4 and Events 4–5 for
Specimen 3), when the effects of the applied prestress are overcome by
the applied load.
ASR/DEF induced expansion cause the concrete core to swell.
However, the swelling of the core concrete is restrained by the long-
itudinal and transverse reinforcement, which in turn induces stresses in
the reinforcement. Owing to these stresses, few reinforcements in de-
teriorated Specimens 2, 3, and 4 yielded prior to the laboratory testing
M.M. Karthik, et al. Engineering Structures 222 (2020) 111064

Fig. 6. Comparison of concrete and steel internal nonlinear behaviour for C-beam specimens from experiment [3] and C-STM. (a) Specimen 1, (b) Specimen 2, and
(c) Specimen 4.

[4]. Similar observations are made from the C-STM analysis of the
deteriorated specimens (Event 1), where the number of steel ties subject
to yielding increases with the extent of severity of the deterioration.
However, as shown in Fig. 5b, irrespective of the extent of ASR/DEF
deterioration, the final mode of failure in all the specimens is the
crushing of the diagonal concrete arch-strut in the beam-column joint.
These modelled outcomes shown in Fig. 5b agree well with the ex-
perimental and visual observations made during the tests.
Based on observations after the experimental testing, it is tempting
to surmise that the failure of concrete in the Compression-Tension-

10
M.M. Karthik, et al.
Fig. 7. Comparison of concrete and steel internal nonlinear behaviour for C-
beam Specimen 3 from experiment [4] and C-STM (a) longitudinal beam, (b)
transverse beam, and (c) joint arch.
Tension (CTT) node led to the failure of the structure. To avoid any
delusions about the actual cause of failure of the C-beam specimens, the
internal strains are further studied. An in-depth forensic analysis into
the strains parallel to the arch-strut (and crack) and perpendicular to
the arch-strut in the beam and beam-column joint region, as shown in
Fig. 8, sheds some light into the actual cause of failure of the structure.
While the experimental strains in Fig. 8 are obtained from externally
mounted truss LVDTs that were aligned parallel and perpendicular to
the arch-strut, the strains from the C-STM analysis were obtained from
the strain indicator truss. A member in the strain indicator truss, that is
placed along (member FH in Fig. 1b) and perpendicular (CK in Fig. 1b,
not shown) to the diagonal arch-strut gives a measure of the strain
parallel and transverse to the arch-strut. It is evident from Fig. 8 that,
when compared to the beam region, significantly higher strains were
observed perpendicular to the arch-strut in the beam-column joint.
Tensile strains acting orthogonal to the compression struts caused
greater concrete softening of the diagonal arch in the beam-column
joint, which eventually resulted in the failure of the beam-column joint
and not the beam region of the specimens. Based on the force in the
concrete arch-strut in the beam-column region obtained from C-STM
and the cross-sectional area of the critical CTT node, the stress in the
node was found to be between 0.67 and 0.75 times the effective com-
pressive strength of concrete. This further shows that that the com-
pression strut was more critical compared to the CTT node.
11
Engineering Structures 222 (2020) 111064
The final sequence of events that led to the failure of the structure
may be postulated as follows. The softening of concrete in the diagonal
arch, caused the C-beam specimen to fail along the beam-column joint.
Consequently, there was significant out-of-plane dilation of concrete in
this region. However, since the hoops were lapped and not hooked
between the outer faces of the longitudinal steel, they did not offer
transverse confining action. This eventually led to the failure of the core
concrete near the CTT node region, and the unconfined cover concrete
crushed and spalled off.
In summary, it is evident that for C-beam specimens without and
with ASR/DEF deterioration, the failure mechanism was initiated by
the compression softening of the diagonal strut in the beam-column
joint. The failure of the CTT node was a secondary outcome following
the initial diagonal softening mechanism. The beam-column joint was
most critical, and the CTT node was the most critical node. The results
from the failure analysis are in keeping with the visually observed ex-
perimental behaviour presented in Fig. 9, where the beam-column joint
is overlaid with the C-STM truss and the arch members.
9. Discussion
By incorporating the modified material properties and by introdu-
cing the passive prestress forces in the reinforcement caused by ASR/
DEF expansion, the C-STM approach was able to simulate the overall
and internal behaviour of the C-beam specimens that were subject to
varying degrees of ASR/DEF deterioration. Fig. 10a,b summarizes and
compares the overall experimental and modelled force-deformation
behaviour of the four specimens. The initial displacement of the ex-
perimental results is offset based on the C-STM observations, as the
behaviour of the specimens during the initial prestressing process was
not captured accurately. With the proposed modifications, the increase
in strength and stiffness with an increase in the severity of ASR/DEF
induced deterioration was captured well. The decrease in ductility of
the heavily damaged Specimen 3 was also captured well with the sof-
tened unconfined concrete model.
Table 1 compares the ultimate load capacity and the corresponding
displacement of the four C-beam specimens obtained from C-STM with
the experiments results. From the ratio of C-STM to experimental ulti-
mate load capacity, it is evident that the ultimate load computed from
the C-STM is slightly conservative by not more than 4%. The dis-
placement at failure of the C-beam specimens obtained from the C-STM
also compare quite well with the experiments. These deviations may be
considered negligible, considering the extent of deterioration and the
complexity of the structure. The most important aspect of the C-STM is
its ability to predict the displacement at failure (and hence ductility) of
the structure, with reasonable accuracy.
However, some differences were observed between the C-STM and
the experimentally observed force-deformation behaviour, primarily
during the unloading and reloading cycle (Fig. 5a). This is attributed to
the partial opening/closing of cracks in the presence of shear de-
formations which leads to greater hysteresis in the experimental results.
However, this could not be modelled in the C-STM analysis, where
concrete crack opening/closing was crisp and tight.
Even though the simulated internal strains (Figs. 6–8) are not in
precise agreement with the measured reinforcement and concrete
strains, the observed trends are nevertheless indicative. These differ-
ences are likely due to the location of the strain gages that were possibly
located across cracks, thereby indicating localized strains rather than
average strains between the nodes of the structure. These observations
clearly indicate the overall capability of C-STM in simulating the
macro- and micro-level behaviour of structures affected by varying
degrees of ASR/DEF expansion.
The analysis was able to demystify the cause of failure of the C-
beam specimens. Transverse tensile softening of the main compression
diagonal arch-strut in the joint was found to be the trigger mechanism
that ultimately led to the collapse of each of the four C-beam specimens,
M.M. Karthik, et al.
Fig. 8. Comparison of strains parallel and perpendicular to crack in the beam-column joint and beam region. (a) Specimen 1, (b) Specimen 2, (c) Specimen 4, and (d)
Specimen 3.
irrespective of the extent of ASR/DEF induced damage.
Another important aspect of a structure is its ability to dissipate
energy. Table 8 presents the energy absorption capacity of the C-beam
specimens, which is the area under the force-deformation curve up to
peak load. Results from both the experimental and C-STM load-de-
formation curve are compared. The specimens with mild and moderate
ASR/DEF deterioration show an improvement in the energy absorption
capacity, when compared to the control Specimen 1 without dete-
rioration. However, the heavily deteriorated Specimen 3 experiences a
59% reduction in its energy absorption capacity, which is a major
concern especially for structure located in either an earthquake prone
region or a coastal region where deterioration may be more rapid.
Therefore, it is important that the bridge owners are not encouraged by
the short-term increase in the strength and stiffness of ASR/DEF dete-
riorated structures, and should be wary of the long-term prognosis of
the structure. Moreover, moisture ingress into the structure can lead to
corrosion of the reinforcement, which can further affect the load and
12
Engineering Structures 222 (2020) 111064
deformation capacity, and the energy dissipation characteristics of the
structure. The effects of varying degrees of corrosion in combination
with heavy deterioration due to ASR/DEF deterioration is discussed in
detail in what follows.
10. The ongoing effects of corrosion
Even though there were no external signs of reinforcement corro-
sion in the deteriorated C-beam specimens in terms of spalling of cover
concrete or rust stains on the surface of the specimens [11], the la-
boratory test observations of the heavily deteriorated Specimen 3 re-
vealed incipient corrosion of the longitudinal and transverse re-
inforcement, especially in the beam-column joint [4] where the largest
cracks were found. Although, the extent of corrosion at the end of the
five-year deterioration period was not sufficient to affect the load car-
rying capacity or the behaviour of the deteriorated C-beam specimen,
its prognosis for the future was unclear. Therefore, the effect of varying
M.M. Karthik, et al. Engineering Structures 222 (2020) 111064

Fig. 9. C-STM layout superimposed over beam- column joint of experimentally

tested [3,4] C-beam specimen.

degrees of rebar corrosion on the behaviour of the heavily deteriorated

C-beam Specimen 3 is analytically investigated using C-STM.
Earlier laboratory studies on the rate of corrosion of reinforcing bars
embedded within concrete show a wide variation in the measured va-
lues. A corrosion rate in the range of 17.3–77 μm/year was measured by
Al-Tayyib and Khan [20], while AI-Amoudi et al. [21] measured 38 μm/
year. Dinakar et al. [22] observed a rate of corrosion between
7.6–69 μm/year and 33–150 μm/year when the specimens made of
Ordinary Portland Cement were immersed in normal water and sea
water respectively. For the present investigation, an aggressive corro-
sion rate of 0.10 mm/year is assumed. This translates into a corrosion
rate of 0.05 mm/year for the experimental C-beam specimens, which
are approximately half-scale of the prototype structure considered. At
this rate of corrosion, the reduction in the rebar diameters at the end of
30, 60, and 90 years are respectively 3 mm, 6 mm, and 9 mm. This
translates to a loss in cross-sectional area of 42, 72 and 92% for the #4
(12.7 mm diameter) stirrups, and 22, 42 and 58% for the #8 (25.4 mm
diameter) longitudinal reinforcement at the end of 30, 60 and 90 years
of corrosion respectively. The effects of reinforcement corrosion were
considered only in the beam-column region as observed in the experi- Fig. 10. Comparison of overall force-deformation behaviour of C-beam speci-
mental study. In addition, the corrosion of reinforcement in this region mens from (a) experimental testing [3,4], with (b) C-STM; and (c) effects of
is likely to be most critical. ongoing corrosion on reserve capacity of heavily deteriorated Specimen 3.
Experimental studies on reinforcing steel that are artificially cor-
roded in the laboratory show severe decrease in the ultimate strains [30], based on tests on corroded reinforcement extracted from a forty-
[23–24]. It is also evident from previous studies that reinforcement year old deteriorated bridge, as a function of the percent loss in cross-
embedded in concrete exhibits severe pitting corrosion, and results in a sectional area is adopted in this study. Fig. 11 shows the percent re-
greater loss in the mechanical properties of the reinforcement [25–29] duction in ultimate strain as a function of loss in cross-sectional area of
as compared to uniformly corroded reinforcement. Tests on naturally the reinforcement, which is based on the data inferred from Palsson and
corroded reinforcement extracted from reinforced concrete structures Mirza [30].
shows severe reduction in the ultimate strain of the reinforcing steel Recent studies show that the bond strength between corroded
[30–32]. While few studies [31,32] report a reduction in the yield and longitudinal reinforcement and concrete is severely impacted when the
ultimate stress, Palsson and Mirza [30] did not find any significant loss confining stirrups are subject to corrosion [35–40]. The degradation of
in yield and ultimate stress. bond strength in confined concrete with corroded stirrups is a complex
Studies have shown that the shape of the residual cross-section has a phenomenon, with several ongoing experimental studies on laboratory
significant influence on the ductility of the corroded reinforcement scaled prism specimens. However, it is not known how to incorporate
[33,34]. The reduction in ultimate strain reported by Palsson and Mirza the effects of bond degradation into the C-STM analysis, and extensive

13
M.M. Karthik, et al. Engineering Structures 222 (2020) 111064

Table 8
Energy absorption capacity of C-Beam specimens without and with ASR/DEF deterioration and varying degrees of corrosion.
Condition of C-beam specimen Experiment C-STM C-STM
Experiment
Energy absorbed kNm Energy ratio Energy absorbed kNm Energy ratio

Specimen 1 – no deterioration 60.3 1.00 68.0 1.00 1.13

Specimen 2 – mild deterioration 76.4 1.27 88.3 1.30 1.16
Specimen 4 – moderate deterioration 84.1 1.40 90.6 1.33 1.08
Specimen 3 – heavy deterioration 24.8 0.41 23.9 0.35 0.96
Specimen 3 – heavy deterioration + 30 years of corrosion – – 13.0 0.19 –
Specimen 3 – heavy deterioration + 60 years of corrosion – – 9.6 0.14 –
Specimen 3 – heavy deterioration + 90 years of corrosion – – 7.6 0.11 –

that there is a significant reduction in both the ultimate load carrying

Fig. 11. Reduction in ultimate strain of steel reinforcement with reduction in
cross-sectional area (inferred from Palsson and Mirza [30]).
investigation and validation with experimental results on large struc-
tures are necessary. Therefore, in the present study, the effects of bond
deterioration due to corrosion are not included in the C-STM analysis.
To simulate the effects of reinforcement corrosion on the heavily
deteriorated C-beam specimen, the reduction in the cross-sectional area
of the reinforcement, the decrease in the prestress forces, and the effects
of corrosion on the ultimate strain of steel reinforcement (Fig. 11) are
incorporated into the C-STM. By maintaining similar slopes to the
modified stress-strain relation of steel reinforcement shown in Fig. 2b,
the ultimate strains are reduced based on the percentage of loss in cross-
sectional area observed in the reinforcing steel. Since the reinforcing
steel yielded during the deterioration phase prior to testing, no mod-
ifications are made to the yield stress. Due to ineffective confinement
offered by the corroded stirrups to the core concrete in the beam-
column joint, the confinement effects of concrete in this region is not
considered.
The C-STM model shown in Fig. 1c, with the updated cross-sectional
areas of the corroded reinforcement and material properties in the
beam-column region, is used to simulate the effects on ongoing corro-
sion. The prestress forces in the C-STM elements in the joint region are
capacity and the corresponding displacement of heavily deteriorated
Specimen 3 with varying degrees of corrosion. The reduction ranges
from some 18–52% in the ultimate load capacity and 28–38% in the
corresponding displacement with increasing levels of corrosion.
With an increase in the degree of corrosion, the core concrete is the
beam-column region is not effectively confined, thereby decreasing the
strength of the arch-strut. The mode of failure for all the corroded cases
considered is observed to be the crushing of concrete in the softened
diagonal compression strut within the beam-column joint, even before
the ultimate strain of the corroded reinforcing steel is achieved. This
observation is consistent with the experimentally (and analytically
modelled) behaviour for the heavily damaged C-beam Specimen 3 with
incipient corrosion. Due to heavy ASR/DEF deterioration, all re-
inforcement in the beam and the beam-column joint had yielded during
the deterioration phase, and corrosion further decreased the ultimate
load strength of the ties in the beam-column region. Therefore, upon
failure of the concrete diagonal strut in the beam-column joint, the
forces did not redistribute to the reinforcing ties, thereby resulting in a
sudden brittle failure immediately following the peak load capacity.
Table 8 presents the energy absorption capacity from C-STM for the
heavily deteriorated Specimen 3 without and with varying degrees of
corrosion. It is alarming that the energy ratio, which is the ratio of the
energy absorbed with respect to the control Specimen 1, is in the range
of 0.19–0.11 for the corroded specimen. This reduction can be expected
in a structure under aggressive coastal environment or when deicing
salts are used on the bridge. However, a structure that is located in a
less aggressive environment may take somewhat longer to reach this
state.
11. Summary and conclusions
To better understand the effects of ASR/DEF induced deterioration
on large reinforced concrete beam-column joints, the displacement-
based Compatibility Strut-and-Tie Method that incorporates equili-
brium, compatibility, and material constitutive laws was employed. The
major findings from the study are summarized below.

• By incorporating the properties of cracked cover concrete, confined

also modified based on the reduced cross-sectional area of the steel
reinforcement. Fig. 10c presents the load-deformation behaviour of the
core concrete, and passive prestress caused by ASR/DEF induced
heavily deteriorated Specimen 3 considering the effects of corrosion at
expansion strains in concrete, the C-STM could effectively simulate
the end of 30, 60, and 90 years. From Fig. 10c and Table 9, it is evident
the increase in strength and stiffness of specimens with increasing

Table 9
Effects of corrosion on the behaviour of heavily deteriorated C-beam Specimen 3.
Corrosion condition Ultimate load (P kN) Ultimate displacement (Δ mm) Reduction in

P (%) Δ (%) Mode of failure

Incipient corrosion 2150 19.4 – – Crushing of concrete diagonal arch in the beam-column joint
30 years of corrosion 1772 13.9 17.6 28.4
60 years of corrosion 1378 12.6 35.9 35.1
90 years of corrosion 1029 12.0 52.1 38.1

14
M.M. Karthik, et al.
levels of ASR/DEF deterioration. The overall force-deformation and
the internal behaviour of the structure without and with ASR/DEF
deterioration were also simulated quite well using the C-STM.
• By incorporating the softened unconfined concrete model for the
diagonal struts, the reduction in displacement capacity of the
heavily deteriorated specimen could be simulated.
• Experimental observations eluded to the failure of the CTT node in
the inner knee joint as the cause of failure of the C-beam specimens.
However, an investigation into the simulated internal strains and
progression of non-linear events showed that crushing of the sof-
tened concrete in the diagonal arch of the beam-column joint was
the cause of failure.
• Analysis of the simulated internal strains parallel and transverse to
the diagonal arch members clearly showed greater extent of com-
pression softening of the diagonal arch member in the beam-column
joint compared to the beam region. This explained the reason for the
compression softening failure of the concrete arch in the beam-
column joint.
•
The energy absorption capacity of the specimen subject to heavy
ASR/DEF deterioration was some 40% of that of the control spe-
cimen without deterioration.
•
Despite the strengthening and stiffening effects caused by increasing
levels of ASR/DEF deterioration, as observed in the experimental
tests and C-STM modelling, it is important to note that the ASR/DEF
induced cracks can lead to moisture ingress and rebar corrosion
which can negatively impact the strength and ductility of the
structure.
• C-STM simulations on the effects of varying degrees of rebar cor-
rosion showed a considerable reduction in the ultimate load, the
corresponding displacement, and the energy absorption capacity of
the heavily deteriorated C-beam specimen. A reduction of some 35%
in the ultimate load and displacement capacity, and 86% in the
energy absorption capacity of the heavily deteriorated specimen at
the end of 60 years, which is a typical design life of a bridge, is
particularly alarming.
• ASR/DEF induced expansion is of major concern to engineers, and
necessary monitoring and appropriate rehabilitation measures
should be taken to prevent premature failure of these structures.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Madhu M. Karthik: Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. John
B. Mander: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Investigation,
Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Project administration,
Funding acquisition. Stefan Hurlebaus: Validation, Investigation,
Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Project administration,
Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research was made possible through financial support from the
Texas Department of Transportation and Federal Highway
Administration (Grant No. 0-5997).
References
[1] AASHTO LRFD. Bridge design specifications and commentary, 5th Edition. Washington,
D.C., USA: American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials; 2010.
15
Engineering Structures 222 (2020) 111064
[2] ACI 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and
Commentary. Michigan, USA: American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills; 2014.
[3] Liu S-H, Bracci J, Mander J, Hurlebaus S. Performance of D-regions affected by alkali-
silica reaction: Experimental and analytical study. J Struct Eng 2017;143(9):04017109.
[4] Karthik M, Mander J, Hurlebaus S. Experimental behavior of large reinforced concrete
specimen with heavy ASR and DEF deterioration. J Struct Eng 2018; 144(8): 04018110-
1-10.
[5] Karthik M, Mander J, Hurlebaus S. Displacement-based compatibility strut-and-tie
method and application to monotonic and cyclic loading. J Struct Eng 2016; 142(6):
04016010-1-8.
[6] Karthik M. Experimental performance and modeling of ASR and DEF deteriorated
structural concrete bridges. Ph.D. Dissertation. College Station, TX: Texas A&M
University; 2015.
[7] Kim J, Mander J. Seismic detailing of reinforced concrete beam-column connections.
Struct Eng Mech 2000;10(6):589–601.
[8] To N, Sritharan S, Ingham J. Strut-and-Tie nonlinear cyclic analysis of concrete frames. J
Struct Eng 2009;135(10):1259–68.
[9] Scott R, Mander J, Bracci J. Compatibility strut-and-Tie Modeling: Part I
—Implementation. ACI Struct J 2012;109(5):645–53.
[10] Scott R, Mander J, Bracci J. Compatibility Strut-and-Tie Modeling: Part I—Formulation.
ACI Struct J 2012;109(5):635–44.
[11] Karthik M, Mander J, Hurlebaus S. Deterioration data of a large-scale reinforced concrete
specimen with severe ASR/DEF deterioration. Constr Build Mater 2016;124:20–30.
[12] Mander J, Priestley M, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J
Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[13] Karthik M, Mander J. Stress-block parameters for unconfined and confined concrete based
on a unified stress-strain model. J Struct Eng 2011;137(2):270–3.
[14] Ahmed T, Burley E, Rigden S. The static and fatigue strength of reinforced concrete beams
affected by alkali-silica reaction. ACI Struct J 1998;95(4):376–88.
[15] Multon S, Seignol JF, Toutlemonde F. Chemomechanical assessment of beams damaged
by alkali-silica reaction. J Mater Civ Eng 2006;18(4):500–9.
[16] Karthik M, Mander J, Hurlebaus S. ASR/DEF related expansion in structural concrete:
Model development and validation. Constr Build Mater 2016;128:238–47.
[17] Karthik M, Mander J, Hurlebaus S. Modeling ASR/DEF expansion strains in large re-
inforced concrete specimens. J Struct Eng 2018; 144(7): 04018085-1-11.
[18] Kim JH, Mander J. Influence of transverse reinforcement on elastic shear stiffness of
cracked concrete elements. Eng Struct 2007;29(8):1798–807.
[19] SAP2000 v17. SAP2000, Advanced 17.0.0. Berkeley, California, USA: Computers and
Structures, Inc.; 2014.
[20] AI-Tayyib AHJ, Khan MS. Corrosion rate measurements of reinforcing steel in concrete by
electrochemical techniques. ACI Mater J 1988, pp. 172–177.
[21] AI-Amoudi OSB, Rasheeduzzafar, Maslehuddin M, AI-Mana AI. Prediction of long-term
corrosion resistance of plain and blended cement concretes. ACI Mater J 1993; 90(6):
564–570.
[22] Dinakar P, Babu K, Santhanam M. Corrosion behaviour of blended cements in low and
medium strength concretes. Cem Concr Compos 2007;29:136–45.
[23] Apostolopoulos CA, Papadakis VG. Consequences of steel corrosion on the ductility
properties of reinforcement bar. Constr Build Mater 2008;22:2316–24.
[24] Imperatore S, Rinaldi Z, Drago C. Degradation relationships for the mechanical properties
of corroded steel rebars. Constr Build Mater 2017;148:219–30.
[25] Gonzalez JA, Andrade C, Alonso C, Feliu S. Comparison of rates of general corrosion and
maximum pitting penetration on concrete embedded steel reinforcement. Cem Concr Res
1995;25(2):257–64.
[26] Vidal T, Castel A, François R. Corrosion process and structural performance of a 17 year
old reinforced concrete beam stored in chloride environment. Cem Concr Res
2007;37:1551–61.
[27] Apostolopoulos CA, Demis S, Papadakis VG. Chloride-induced corrosion of steel re-
inforcement – Mechanical performance and pit depth analysis. Constr Build Mater
2013;38:139–46.
[28] Zhu W, François R, Coronelli D, Cleland D. Effect of corrosion of reinforcement on the
mechanical behaviour of highly corroded RC beams. Eng Struct 2013;56:544–54.
[29] François R, Khan I, Dang VH. Impact of corrosion on mechanical properties of steel
embedded in 27-year-old corroded reinforced concrete beams. Mater Struct
2013;46:899–910.
[30] Palsson R, Mirza MS. Mechanical response of corroded steel reinforcement of abandoned
concrete bridge. ACI Struct J 2002;99(2):157–62.
[31] Zhang W, Song X, Gu X, Li S. Tensile and fatigue behavior of corroded rebars. Constr
Build Mater 2012;34:409–17.
[32] Ou YC, Susanto YTT, Roh H. Tensile behavior of naturally and artificially corroded steel
bars. Constr Build Mater 2016;103:93–104.
[33] Zhu WJ, François R. Effect of corrosion pattern on the ductility of tensile reinforcement
extracted from a 26-year-old corroded beam. Adv Concr Constr 2013;1(2):121–36.
[34] Zhu W, François R. Experimental investigation of the relationships between residual
cross-section shapes and the ductility of corroded bars. Constr Build Mater
2014;69:335–45.
[35] Zhou H, Lu J, Xv X, Dong B, Xing F. Effects of stirrup corrosion on bond–slip performance
of reinforcing steel in concrete: an experimental study. Constr. Build. Mater
2015;93:257–66.
[36] Zhou HJ, Liang XB, Zhang XL, Lu JL, Xing F, Mei L. Variation and degradation of steel and
concrete bond performance with corroded stirrups. Constr Build Mater 2017;138:56–68.
[37] Lin H, Zhao Y, Yang J, Feng P, Ozˇbolt J, Ye H. Effects of the corrosion of main bar and
stirrups on the bond behavior of reinforcing steel bar. Constr Build Mater
2019;225:13–28.
[38] Coronelli D, Hanjari KZ, Lundgren K. Severely corroded RC with cover cracking. J Struct
Eng 2013;139(2).
[39] Hanjari KZ, Coronelli D, Lundgren K. Bond capacity of severely corroded bars with cor-
roded stirrups. Mag Concr Res 2011;63(12):953–68.
[40] Tondolo F. Bond behaviour with reinforcement corrosion. Constr Build Mater
2015;93:926–32.