Engineering Structures 131 (2017) 311–323

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Cyclic behavior of concrete columns reinforced with partially unbonded

hybrid
Adam I. Ibrahim, Gang Wu ⇑, Zeyang Sun, Haoran Cui
Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures of the Ministry of Education, Southeast Univ., Nanjing 210096, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents experimental and numerical results of concrete columns reinforced by longitudinal
Received 8 June 2016 steel basalt fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composite bars (SBFCB) and lateral stirrups steel-wire basalt
Revised 31 October 2016 FRP (BFRP) composite stirrups (SWBFCS). The main parameter is the un-bonded length of the SBFCB and
Accepted 1 November 2016
concrete in the column base. Both SBFCBs and SWBFCSs consisting of inner steel bars or wires hybrid with
Available online 14 November 2016
outer BFRP. The axial compressive loading test of concrete cylinders confined by SWBFCS demonstrated
the effective confinement of this new kind of stirrup. Moreover, in this paper, the bond relationship
Keywords:
between the concrete and the SBFCBs was measured in three bridge columns. One column was utilized
Concrete column
Basalt FRP
as a reference, and the other two with un-bonded lengths of 150 mm and 300 mm, covering the plastic
Un-bond length hinge region above the column base. The hysteretic behavior, energy dissipation capacity, residual dis-
Hybrid stirrup placements, and curvatures of the three columns were analyzed. The results show that the maximum
Curvature distribution load of the proposed specimen with a 300 mm un-bonded length is increased by 15.8%, and the residual
displacement was 9% smaller than that of the of the control specimen because of the un-bond length
between concrete and SBFCB.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Bond-slip is one of the factors controlling the failure mechanism
of reinforced concrete structures when exposed to severe cyclic
loadings, such as those built in seismic zones. In addition, it has
an important effect in structures built with normal reinforcing
bars. Sakai et al. [1] conducted tests of circular RC columns to eval-
uate the use of un-bonded tendons and longitudinal reinforced
bars to reduce residual displacements in RC bridges after earth-
quakes. In addition, their test results showed decreased damage,
with residual displacements reduced to less than 10% of the yield
displacement even for repetitions of the maximum acceleration
[1]. Experimental study on bridge columns reinforced with differ-
ent lengths of unbonded rebar’s located in the plastic hinge zone
was investigated [2]. It was reported that the failure of the concrete
column was much lower in the unbonded column than reference
column, and the measured strain on unbonded rebar was less than
that on the reinforcement of ordinary column. According to the
aforementioned study, the author has revealed the importance of
reducing steel-to-concrete bond to alleviate the located damage
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: adam.ishag@yahoo.com (A.I. Ibrahim), g.wu@seu.edu.cn
(G. Wu), sunzeyang@seu.edu.cn (Z. Sun), seucuihaoran@163.com (H. Cui).
in the plastic hinge zone [2,3]. Moreover, the effect of monotonic
and cyclic behavior was studied numerically for unbonded post-
tensioned concrete bridge piers [4]. From the cyclic results they
reported that, the specimens with a higher section of unbonded
posttensioning have lower residual displacements and lower
energy dissipation. Another study was conducted in cantilever con-
crete columns reinforced with fiber-reinforced composite
unbonded bars [5]. In these study, the unbonded segment was
embedded in plastic hinging regions. It was found that the speci-
mens with unbonded post-tension had the minimal amount of
residual displacements and dissipated more of hysteretic energy
and increase the equivalent viscous damping ratio than conven-
tional reinforced concrete columns [6]. In addition, an experimen-
tal study on the seismic behavior of concrete bridge columns
reinforced with unbonded post-tensioned concrete was conducted
[7]. Four large-scale columns was tested under lateral cyclic load-
ing. The test results showed that the proposed unbonded length
possessed good drift capacities and enhance the strength and duc-
tility. Moreover, unbonded bars was used in numerous research in
form of pre-and-post tensioned concrete to enhance the perfor-
mance of structures [8–10]. Some of these researchers they used
the hybrid fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) and steel tendons as a
reinforcement to improve the member behavior [11–14]. On the
other hand, there was several approaches for reducing the residual

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.11.002
0141-0296/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
312 A.I. Ibrahim et al. / Engineering Structures 131 (2017) 311–323
displacement of bridge columns have been proposed. They include
the application of un-bonded tendons of pre-stressed concrete at
column bases [4,15], using hybrid reinforcement material with
glass fiber-reinforced polymers (GFRPs) and ordinary steel bars
[16] and highly ductile materials at column bases [17]. In addition,
the GFRP-reinforced RC columns have compression behavior simi-
lar to that of steel but with fewer contributions of FRP longitudinal
bars to strength capacity [18–20]. Previous studies conducted by
Kawashima et al. showed that an increase in flexural strength con-
tributes to decreased residual displacement of the piers after the
earthquake [21]. Additionally, they found that a degradation of
flexural strength and displacement ductility capacity occurs under
bilateral loading. Recently, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) has been
used widely in concrete structures [22–27]. Several studies were
conducted on reinforced concrete (RC) columns using FRP to
improve the strength, shear, bond, and ductility behavior of RC col-
umns subjected to axial and cyclic loads [28–33]. The FRP bars
are characterized by many advantages over conventional steel
bars, including density and tensile strength greater than steel,
and corrosion resistance even in aggressive chemical environments
[34–36].
Wu et al. proposed steel–fiber composite bars (SFCB) as a new
technique to be used in structural members because of the
advantages of the mechanical and physical properties of both of
FRP and steel. SFCBs were suitable for the control of post-yield
stiffness and residual displacement when used to reinforce RC
bridge columns [37,38]. Furthermore, the fiber properties have a
significant effect on the post-yield stiffness; the RC columns
reinforced with SFCB demonstrated a larger drift capacity before
the rupture of the basalt-fiber reinforced polymer (BFRP) than
specimens reinforced with steel carbon fiber composite bars
[39]. Sun et al. conducted experimental and nonlinear dynamic
analyses on RC columns and reported that the SFCBs reduced
the residual deformation of reinforced concrete columns, which
is an indicator to evaluate the post-earthquake recoverability of
bridges. Consequently, the residual deformation is significantly
(a)
Inner steel
wires Outer fiber
(b)
Fig. 1. Reinforcement details: (a) SBFCB bars; (b) BFHS spiral.
correlated with the peak ground velocity (PGV) and decreases
with an increasing post-yield stiffness ratio [40]. In addition, SFCB
columns exhibited better ductility and higher post-earthquake
reparability compared with ordinary RC columns [41,42].
Although the relationship between FRP and concrete has been
studied as part of a pullout test, the bond effect in a seismic zone
between concrete and SBFCB bars considering the effect of the bar
on plastic hinge is still lacking. The RC bridge investigated in this
research has concrete columns reinforced with SBFCB bars and
stirrups with un-bonded plastic hinge zones. SBFCB consists of
35% basalt fiber added to the outside of 65% steel bars and as a
replacement of 35% of the longitudinal ordinary steel bars. In
addition, eight BFRP bars with a diameter of 10 mm are added
adjacent to the SBFCB reinforcement to enhance the RC column.
Moreover, 22.5% BFRP and 77.7% wires are used as the spiral.
Fig. 1 shows a schematic design of the SBFCB for the proposed
bars, which comprises steel and BFRP and wire with BFRP
composite. In addition, a column reinforced with SBFCB and
SWBFCS and fully bonded with concrete is used as a control
column. The main advantage of this paper is the use of a BFRP
hybrid with steel reinforcement to control residual displacement
with a corresponding lateral displacement.
The main objective of this paper is to assess the use of hybrid
steel-BFRP RC columns and investigate their seismic behavior
through the proposed un-bonded length based on experimental
tests, which is verified with numerical simulations. Both the exper-
imental and simulation analyses were subjected to axial and
reverse cyclic loads to obtain the column response for load-
displacement relationship, residual displacement, energy dissipa-
tion capacity, and hysteretic behavior.
2. Material properties
The elastic modulus and yield/ultimate stresses of the reinforc-
ing steel, SBFCB and spiral are presented in Table 1. The SBFCB
Inner Steel bar Steel ribs
Winding
fiber
Longitudinal
Longitudinal fiber
fiber and
resin ribs
 A.I. Ibrahim et al. / Engineering Structures 131 (2017) 311–323 313

reinforcement consist of steel with 10 mm diameter composite
with 34 bundles of BFRP and epoxy resin. In addition, the SWBFCS
consist of ten steel wires with 0.4 mm diameter hybrid with 18
bundle of BFRP and epoxy resin as shown in Fig. 1. The compressive
strength of the concrete was determined at the age of 28 days to be
43 MPa, and it was 55 MPa on the day of the column test. The
SWBFCS spiral’s yield strength is measured to be 417.7 MPa. The
elastic modulus EI , post-yield stiffness EII , yield stress f y , ultimate
stress f u and elongation rate Eu for all materials are the average val-
ues obtained from tension tests. The anchorage lengths for SBFCB
and other FRP materials are performed 350 mm from the bar ends,
and the length of the test section is 40
d, where d is the bar diam-
eter according to ACI 440.3R-04 [43]; reinforcement details are
reported in Table 2.

Table 1
Mechanical properties.

Bar type D (mm) EI (GPa) EII (GPa) fy (MPa) fu (MPa) Eu (%)

SBFCB 12.4 147.31 13.75 384.1 644.2 2.30
SWBFCS 6.0 41.21 – 417.7 835.4 1.82
BFRP bar 10 66.83 – – 1697.0 2.52
Steel 10 210.0 – 572.0 680.6 13.43

Table 2
Test and reinforcement detail.

Design concept Labels Longitudinal reinforcement Confinement type Un-bonded length (mm) BFRP bars no.
Type Reinforcement
Control column S10B35 SBFCB 12£12.4 SWBFCS – 8£10
Parameters study SBU150 SBFCB 12£12.4 SWBFCS 150 8£10
SBU300 SBFCB 12£12.4 SWBFCS 300 8£10

500

Lateral Force
400

400

SBFCB SBFHS @40 mm

50
1000

300

A′ A
800

H′ H
BFRP H
H′
A A
80 20 80

G′ G A-A G′ G
60 60
Unbonded

Strain gauge
length

F′ F F′ F
300
Unbonded

60 60
length

E′ E E′ E
150

60 60
D′ D D′ D
40 40
40 40
C′ C C′ C
40 40
B′ B B′ B
40 40
A′ A A′ A
500

Strain Strain
gauge gauge

1200

Fig. 2. Schematic details of the un-bonded length of RC bridge columns (units in mm).
314 A.I. Ibrahim et al. / Engineering Structures 131 (2017) 311–323

2.1. Experimental program

Three cantilever columns with a 300 mm diameter, longitudi- 80 4Δ

70
nally reinforced with SBFCBs and lateral confinement SWBFCSs, 60 3Δ
were built and tested under constant axial and cyclic–lateral load- 50
ing. All specimens were cast in one stage. Two of these specimens 40 2Δ

Lateral force (kN)

30
were un-bonded, and one specimen was bonded between the 20 1Δ
SBFCB and concrete. All specimens were reinforced with SWBFCS 10
circular hoops with constant spaces of 40 mm in the plastic hinge 0 0
-10 time
zone and 60 mm above the plastic hinge. The specimens during the -20 -1Δ
0
test were subjected to a constant axial load based on 12% of Ag
f c , -30
0 -40 -2Δ
where Ag is the cross-sectional area of the column, and f c is the -50
concrete compressive strength at 28 days. Fig. 2 shows a schematic -60 -3Δ
-70
detail of two RC columns for the proposed system, which consists -80 -4Δ
3 times 3 times 3 times 3 times
of two types: a column with an un-bonded length of 150 mm, and
Force control Displacement control
a column with an un-bonded length of 300 mm. The un-bonded
lengths were connected with the column base at the top bars. Fig. 4. Lateral force-displacement history.

3. Test setup and measurement
Linear variable differential transformers (LVDT) were attached
at middle of the column heads to measure the top displacement.
Load cell sensors were added to the machine actuator to control
the column head displacements and record extra lateral cyclic
loads. Eight gauge transducers were attached to the columns. Four
gauges were mounted on each side and connected to the column
bases to measure the longitudinal strains, crack widths and curva-
tures. In addition, electrical resistance strain gauges were attached
to the (SBFCB) longitudinal bars located in the load direction to
measure the longitudinal strains of FRP and strain penetrations.
Fig. 3 illustrates the schematic diagram and locations of measure-
ment instruments installed on the column. The lateral cyclic load
was transferred by a hydraulic actuator fixed on a strong wall.
The load was applied to the specimen through the steel plate.
One side of the plate was tied to the actuator, and the other side
was fitted to the column head through four strong bolts; the lateral
loading was applied to the specimens gradually in the cases of pull
and push. The axial load was applied using a hydraulic jack on the
column head, connected with a (post-tension) rod and fixed under
the column base. Each specimen was loaded axially to 365 kN cal-
culated from 12% of its axial strength and was kept constant until
the end of the test. The lateral cyclic loads were divided into stages.
In the elastic stage, the tests were started by loads with ±10 kN and
were increased at a constant rate by ±10 kN at each load step until
the specimen yield. This was followed by the maximum load stage,
in which the tests were controlled by displacement that was
obtained from the yield point and applied three times until the
end of the test, as shown in Fig. 4.
4. Analytical bond-slip models
The Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(OpenSees) was used in this paper to conduct the analysis of the
proposed study. The Bond_SP01 material is used to represent the
force-slip response of a rotational spring anchored in the first joint
column footing. A zero-length element represents the force-
deformation properties of a beam–column element by defining a
fictitious element connecting two coincident nodes with the sec-
tion element. Zhao et al. proposed the bond-slip model used in

Jack

Load cell
Actuator
WALL

LVDT
Displacement
Transducer

Jack

Push Pull

STRONG FLOOR

Fig. 3. Test setup.

 A.I. Ibrahim et al. / Engineering Structures 131 (2017) 311–323 315

Axial
load

Lateral
load Node k

F kh
SBFCB bar
τd
Beam- u0
Height Column u1 u
Element BFRP bar u0 uL

L
Zero-
Node j
Length
Element Node i

(a) (b)
Fig. 5. Overview of the specimen element model: (a) Section element; (b) FRP bond-slip model.

Drift (%) Drift (%)

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
150 150
fc' 55 MPa Utimate point
UL 150 mm
Ultimate point
(Drift ratio: 5%) (Drift ratio: 5.4%)
fy 101.1 kN f c' 55 MPa
100 fmax 122 kN 100 fy 98.8 kN
fu 103 kN fmax 122.6 kN
fu
Lateral Force (kN)

50 50 104.13 kN
Longitudinal steel fracture
Lateral Force (kN)

(Drift ratio: 5.4%) Longitudinal steel fracture

(Drift ratio: 5.4%)
0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100

(a) S10B35 (b) SBU150

-150 -150
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
150 150
UL 300 mm fc' 55 MPa
f c' fy 100.63 kN
55 MPa
100 100 fmax 123 kN
fy 98.8 kN
fmax fu 104.6 kN
133 kN
fu 115 kN
Lateral Force (kN)

50 50
Lateral Force (kN)

Longitudinal steel fracture

(Drift ratio: 5.4%)
0 0
Ultimate point
(Drift ratio: 5.4%)
-50 -50

-100 -100

(c) SBU300 (d) Simulation

-150 -150
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 6. Force-displacement hysteretic curves for specimen’s: (a) S10B35; (b) SBU150; (c) SBU300; and (d) Numerical Analysis.
316 A.I. Ibrahim et al. / Engineering Structures 131 (2017) 311–323

the bar’s element analysis [44]. To model the fixed-end rotation The confined concrete material was considered by using the consti-
must be placed at the intersection point between the flexural tutive model proposed by Mander et al. [45]. The SBFCB and
member and adjoining member that representing the footing as SWBFCS had different surface ribs than the ordinary steel bar,
illustrated in Fig. 5a. Also a duplicate node is required between and the strain–penetration effect of the SBFCB reinforcement was
adjoining concrete element and fiber-based beam-column element different from that of steel bars. ReinforcingSteel models were
as shown in Fig. 5a. As shown in Fig. 5a, the degree of freedom of a selected to represent the SBFCB reinforcement of the specimens,
node j must be constrained to node i to avoid the sliding of the which is based on Chang et al. for the uniaxial steel model with iso-
beam-column element when subjected to lateral loads because tropic strain hardening [46]. The material in steel model was col-
the shear resistance is not included in the zero-length section ele- lected from mechanical test as shown in Table 1. The BFRP
ment. In addition, the authors of this model found that the defor- reinforcements were modeled using elastic material (uniax-
mation at the column head caused by the partial pullout effect (a ialMaterial Elastic) predefined in OpenSees. For BFRP bars, the rup-
strain penetration) of the steel bar, which was totally anchored ture strain is 0.025 mm/mm, and the modulus of elasticity of
in the column footing, was approximately 35% of the total defor- 44 GPa was used. The axial load in the simulation was set to
0
mation of a flexural controlled column. The analysis specimens 365 kN, which is equivalent to an axial load ratio capacity Ag
f c
were idealized by eight nodes and seven beam-column elements. of 12%, whereas the lateral cyclic load was the same as in the test
The first element were located between node i and node j and rep- load steps as shown in Fig. 4. Based on the Zhao model, the rebar
resented the zero length element, which were modeled using (ele- slip at the member interface under yield stress Sy is described as
ment zeroLengthSection) with rotational springs to express the 0 11=alpha
bond-slip. The next five elements represent the column elevation
B db q fy
and were analyzed using (element dispBeamColumn). In addition, sy ¼ 2:54@ ffiffiffiffi ð2alpha þ 1ÞC
A þ 0:34 ð1Þ
this part includes the first node, which represented the column 8437 f 0
c
base; it was fixed against movement and rotation, as shown in
Fig. 5a. Concrete01 models were selected to represent the concrete where db is the rebar diameter (mm); f y is the yield strength of the
0
behavior. The 55 MPa was used for unconfined concrete material. reinforcement steel (MPa); f c is the concrete compressive strength

Drift (%) Drift (%)

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
150 150

120 120

90 90

60 60
Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

30 30

0 0

-30 -30

-60 -60

-90 -90
S10B35 SBU150
-120 -120
Simulation Simulation
(a) (b)
-150 -150
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
Drift (%)
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
150

120

90

60
Lateral Force (kN)

30

-30

-60

-90
SBU300
-120
Simulation
(b)
-150
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 7. Comparison between numerical analysis and experimental test results.

 A.I. Ibrahim et al. / Engineering Structures 131 (2017) 311–323 317

(MPa); and alpha is the is parameter used in the local bond-slip rela-
tion and is taken to be 0.4. In addition, Eq. (1) was used to represent
the steel rebar’s slip only. For BFRP rebar the bond-slip was mod-
eled linearly along the longitudinal bar using Eq. (2) as shown in
Fig. 5b, and the bond stress-slip relationship was elastic-perfectly
plastic [47].
x
uðxÞ ¼ u0 þ ðuL  u0 Þ
L
where u0 and uL is bar-end displacements; and x is the position
along the rebar (Fig. 5b). Accordingly, the specimens SBU150 and
SBU300 was simulated by assuming initial slippage (1.5Sy, 3Sy)
respectively.
5. Test results and discussion
5.1. Lateral force–displacement
Fig. 6 shows the lateral force–displacement hysteretic curves
for the RC bridge column reinforced with SWBFCS and SBFCB. Spec-
imen S10B35, with a full bond, at end of the test showed a load
capacity of 98.5 kN with a corresponding displacement of
48.7 mm, which were lower than those of the other specimens
(Fig. 6a). The specimen SBU150 presented the second largest
force–displacement measurement of 102 kN and 54.3 mm, respec-
tively, less than that of SBU300 by 11.3% (Fig. 6b). Specimen
SBU300, reinforced with 65% steel and 35% basalt, had a
133 kN/38.7 mm force–displacement characteristic, larger than
those of specimens S10B35 and SBU150 (Fig. 6c). In addition,
specimen SBU300 showed higher strength and ductility with stable
hysteretic loops than the other two specimens. The hysteretic
Drift (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5
160
140
120
100
Force (kN)
force–displacement obtained from the analysis shows good
agreement compared with the test results as shown in Fig. 7.
Furthermore, the envelope curve for lateral force–displacement
was created by calculating the average hysteresis curves of each
column using the absolute value of peak forces with corresponding
displacements until failure. The force–displacement envelopes for
all specimens are shown in Fig. 8, and the ultimate force with
ð2Þ displacement in the envelopes was defined as 85% of the maximum
force. In the case of specimen SBU300, the load did not drop below
86% of the maximum force. The elastic stiffness (k1) of the ideal-
ized curve was represented by the line starting from zero passing
through the yielding point on an envelope curve; the idealized
post-yield stiffness (k2) is defined as line starting from the yield
points and intersecting with the envelope at the maximum load
point. The specimen’s ultimate ductility was defined as the ratio
between the displacement at the ultimate force and the yield–
displacement in the idealized curves, as shown in Table 3. From
this table, we can see that the specimen with bars of un-bonded
length of 300 mm have the maximum ductility compared with
the other two specimens. Therefore, the proposed method in this
study has a distinctive influence on concrete and can be exploited
in structure’s members.
5.2. Test failure mode observations
The failure mode was characterized by the presence of horizon-
tal cracks distributed both around and along the specimens’ sur-
face, and the inclined cracks were located on both sides of the
column in the opposite direction of the loading. Specimen
S10B35 failed at a relatively low displacement compared with
specimens reinforced with SBFCB with un-bonded length. Speci-
mens S10B35, SBU150, and SBU300 first failed at displacements
of 24 mm, 27 mm, and 36 mm, respectively. It appears that with
larger un-bonded length of 300 mm, specimen SBU300 showed
6 the large load capacity than a specimen SBU150 in same displace-
ment. This can be attributed to the fact that the un-bonded length
developed in specimen SBU300 led to an increase in the reinforce-
k2 ment stiffness. As seen from Fig. 9, the failure shape in the speci-
mens with un-bonded lengths of 150 mm and 300 mm indicates
that the bars in these specimens did not have a bond with the con-
crete—unlike specimen S10B35, which indicates large damage due
to bonding between concrete and SBFCB bars as presented in

Fig. 9a. Additionally, it should be noted that this specimen was

80 enhanced with SBFCB and SWBFCS reinforcement, which had a sig-
nificant effect on shear and ductility. All specimens generally failed
60 by flexure under cyclic loading (Fig. 9), caused by bar buckling,
which led to reinforcement failure. The specimens’ yielding was
40 S10B35 recorded at displacements of 10 mm and 10.6 mm in specimens
fmax SBU150 S10B35 and SBU150, respectively, and drift ratios of 1.0% were
20 SBU300
measured at this stage. As illustrated in Fig. 9b, heavy failure was
fu Simulation
k1 concentrated on the lower third of the column covering a height
0 of 180 mm. The specimen SBU150 has less damage compared with
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
S10B35 as shown in Fig. 9d. Fig. 9f shows that specimen SBU300
Displacement (mm) was recorded lower flexural failure than the other two specimens,
and the damage was located at a column height of 90 mm. The
Fig. 8. Average Force-displacement envelop curve.
BFRP and outer SWBFCS spiral ruptured, the SBFCB buckled, and

Table 3
Response parameters of tested columns.

Specimen Yield Ultimate Ductility l k1 (kN/mm) k2 (kN/mm) k2

k1

Dy (mm) f y (kN) f max (kN) Du (mm)

S10B35 10.0 101.10 103.70 46 4.60 10.11 5 0.49

SBU150 10.6 98.80 104.13 53 5.00 9.32 4.4 0.47
SBU300 10.4 96.35 115.00 55 5.30 9.26 3.5 0.38
318 A.I. Ibrahim et al. / Engineering Structures 131 (2017) 311–323

(a) Distributed crack of specimen (b) Steel bars buckling of specimen

S10B35 S10B35

(c) Distributed crack of specimen (d) SBFCB buckling and BFRP rupture
SBU150 of specimen SBU150

(e) Distributed crack of specimen (f) SBFCB buckling and BFRP rupture
SBU300 of specimen SBU300
Fig. 9. Failure mode’s comparison of bond and un-bond specimens at the end of the test.
 A.I. Ibrahim et al. / Engineering Structures 131 (2017) 311–323 319

the concrete cover spalled; all of this was concentrated in the plas- 140
tic hinge region. Fig. 9 shows the final damage state for all col- 120
umns. The cover concrete began to spall 30–50 mm above the 100
column bases during the 36 mm displacement for both specimens. 80
60
5.3. Residual displacement 40
Steel Bar
20

Force (kN)
BFRP Bar
Residual displacement is the index used to assess the concrete 0
columns required for reparability; when it is small, the structure -20 F BFRP bar
Steel bar
features better reparability. In addition, when it is equal to zero, -40
the structure does not require repair (elastic stage). The recover- -60
ability limit standard used in this paper (at column height 1%) -80
was determined by the Japan seismic resistance code [48]. The -100
residual displacement is the average value of maximum displace- ε
-120
ment in pull and push loads measured from the force- -140
unloading strain

displacement curve with the corresponding average displacement -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
of unloading when applying force is equal zero. Specimen Strain (με)
S10B35 is the first column reach the repair limit with total dis-
placement of 32.8 mm as illustrated in Fig. 10. The residual dis- Fig. 11. Strain profile for specimens reinforced with steel and BFRP bar.

placement of simulated specimens is located between columns

S10B35 and SBU150 and is identical with specimen S10B35 at a
displacement of 30 mm. Furthermore, the simulated curve was
intersected with the test result of specimen SBU150 when the dis-
Lateral Force
placement was smaller than 25.6 mm. Fig. 10 shows that the resid-
ual displacement of specimen SBU300 is approximately 102.8% Pi+1
that of specimen SBU150 when the column has a recoverability
Cycle i
limit of 1%. In addition, specimen SBU150 has a 6.7% higher dis-
placement than specimen S10B35 and a 2.8% lower displacement
than specimen SBU300. Accordingly, specimen SBU300 can achieve
a higher load–deformation capacity within the allowable recover- ∆i-1
B A Ee
ability limit than the other specimens. Therefore, the specimens ∆i+1 Displacement
reinforced with SBFCB and SWBFCS, and with fully bonded and
un-bonded length, were characterized as having the best seismic
performance and greatest deformation capacity based on the
recoverability limit. This performance is due to elongation rate of ED
BFRP as shown in Fig. 11 [41]. Pi-1

5.4. Dissipated energy and equivalent viscous damping ratio

Fig. 12. Curve for calculating the equivalent viscous damping ratio and energy
dissipation.
5.4.1. Cumulative dissipated energy
Dissipated energy is an important index used to define the
influence of the structure in dissipating the energy of an earth-
quake. In earthquake events, structures often fail owing to the accumulation of diminutive deflections rather than a single sizably
voluminous deformation. Energy dissipation is defined by calcu-
lated areas of the hysteretic lateral force–displacement curves of
Drift (%)
the RC columns up to the end of the test. The cumulative dissipated
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
25 energy of all specimens by each loading cycle was calculated by Eq.
(3) and Fig. 12. As shown in Fig. 13a, all the specimens has the
same initial cumulative dissipated energy until a displacement
19.7%
20 10% 18.3 mm and then differ from each other. Up to a drift of 2.7%,
Residual displacement (mm)

the specimens with un-bonded lengths of 150 mm and 300 mm

had nearly the same cumulative dissipated energy of approxi-
15 mately 2730 kN mm; moreover, at this drift, the simulated speci-
46.5%
men results were identical with the test results. However, the
simulation specimen increased in the cumulative dissipated
Recoverability limit
10 energy compared with test specimens SBU150, SBU300 and
2.8% S10B35 by approximately 24.3% at drift 5.4%, 27.2% at drift 5.4%,
6.7%
and 34.5% at drift 4.9%, respectively. Although the specimen
5 S10B35 S10B35 is less than the un-bonded specimens by 8.7% but it has
SBU150
acceptable energy dissipation as shown in Fig. 13a. Furthermore,
SBU300
Simulation the BFRP added to reinforcing steel in the SBFCB column had stable
0 post-yield stiffness, which gives the RC column significant influ-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 ence on dissipated energy.
Displacement (mm)
ðPm Þi ðDmax Þi
ðEe Þi ¼ ð3Þ
Fig. 10. Residual displacement comparisons. 2
320 A.I. Ibrahim et al. / Engineering Structures 131 (2017) 311–323

Drift (%) Drift (%)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
9000 25

8000

20
7000
2.3% 7.7%
6000 21.2%

Viscous Daming (%)

26.7%
14.7%
Energy (kN-mm)

15
5000 23.3%

4000
10
3000

2000
S10B35 5 S10B35
SBUL150 SBUL150
1000 SBUL300 SBUL300
(a) Simulation (b) Simulation

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 13. Specimen’s response of: (a) energy dissipations; and (b) viscous damping ratio.

400 400
S10B35 Push Pull μ 0.1% SBU150 Push Pull μ 0.1%
μ 0.2% μ 0.2%
350 μ 0.3% 350 μ 0.3%
μ 0.4% μ 0.4%
μ 0.5% μ 0.5%
μ 0.6% μ 0.6%
Column height (mm)

Column height (mm)

300 300
μ 0.7% μ 0.7%
μ 0.8% μ 0.8%
250 μ 1.6% 250 μ 1.6%
μ 2.4% μ 2.4%
μ 3.2% μ 3.2%
μ 4.0% μ 4.0%
200 200
μ 4.8% μ 4.8%

150 150

100 100

-0.0003 -0.0002 -0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 -0.0003 -0.0002 -0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003
Curvature (1/mm)
400 Curvature (1/mm)
SBU300 Push Pull μ 0.1%
μ 0.2%
350 μ 0.3%
μ 0.4%
μ 0.5%
300 μ 0.6%
Column height (mm)

μ 0.7%
μ 0.8%
250 μ 1.6%
μ 2.4%
μ 3.2%
200 μ 4.0%
μ 4.8%

150

100

-0.00024 -0.00016 -0.00008 0.00000 0.00008 0.00016 0.00024

Curvature (1/mm)

Fig. 14. Curvature profile of specimens: (a) S10B35; (b) SBU150; and (c) SBU300.

where ðEe Þi is the elastic dissipated elastic energy given by the jðPiþ1 Þj þ jðPi1 Þj
ðPm Þi ¼ ; and ð4Þ
area of the force-displacement curve obtained from the hysteretic 2
cyclic loops; ðP m Þi and ðDmax Þi is the average maximum load and Diþ1 þ Di1
ðDmax Þi ¼ ; ð5Þ
displacement for each cycle; and given by 2
 A.I. Ibrahim et al. / Engineering Structures 131 (2017) 311–323 321

where Piþ1 and Pi1 is the push and pull load in cycle i cycle; and and 14.7% at 5.4% drift at the end of the test. Consequently, speci-
Di is maximum displacement in cycle i as shown in Fig. 12. men S10B35 reinforced by SBFCB bars with a full bond between
bars and concrete had a 14.5% reduction in the damping ratio but
5.5. Equivalent viscous damping ratio has a significant influence on the damping behavior owing to the
FRP that was added to the reinforcing bars, as shown in Fig. 13b.
The equivalent viscous damping ratio is an index used to show
the damage level affecting the structure during inelastic excur-
5.6. Curvature and concrete strains
sions. Fig. 13b shows the equivalent viscous damping (neq), which
was calculated by Eq. (6) for each cyclic loading set [49].
The curvature located in the plastic hinge region was calculated
Ei based on the deformation measured by the transducer gauge
neq ¼ % ð6Þ
4pðEe Þi mounted on the side of the RC column, where the plastic behavior
is expected to occur. The average concrete strain on the opposite
where neq is the damping ratio, Ei is the dissipated energy in cycle i sides of each column was calculated as the vertical displacement
calculated from the hysteresis loops, and ðEe Þi is the elastic dissi- measured by the PI transducers divided by the PI length. The aver-
pated energy stored by an equivalent linear system Eq. (3). age curvature was then calculated as the absolute value of the dif-
Fig. 13b shows the relationship between the calculated damp- ference between two strains on opposite sides of the RC column,
ing ratio and the drift of the bonded and un-bonded specimens. divided by the distance between these two strains. Moreover, eight
The initial damping ratios for specimens SBU150 and SBU300 are segments were used—four on each side—to measure the curvature.
similar to that of specimen S10B35, but after 1.2% drift, the control The curvature results for a selected specific location of RC columns
specimen is increased by 4.4% vs. SBU300. The comparison results subjected to the maximum and minimum peak values of a combi-
of column S10B35 with the un-bonded specimens showed a nation of axial and cyclic loading are shown in Fig. 14. As shown in
decrease in f by 8.13% at a drift of 27.3%. In addition, the difference Fig. 14, the measured curvature for the specimens has differed
between column SBU150 and control column SBU300 (Fig. 13-b) from each column especially in the plastic hinge zone. In addition,
indicates that the damping ratio decreases by 4% at 4.8% drift large curvature values were recorded at the base of the RC col-

150 125 150

100
100 100
75

50
50 50
25
Force (kN)

Force (kN)
Force (kN)

0 0 0

-25
-50 -50
-50
Strain at gauge (F) Strain at gauge (D) Strain at gauge (C)
-75
-100 -100
-100
(a) S10B35 (b) SBU150 (c) SBU150
-150 -125 -150
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

SBFCB bar strain (με) SBFCB bar strain (με) SBFCB bar strain (με)

100 150 150

75
100 100

50

50 50
25
Force (kN)

Force (kN)

Force (kN)

0 0 0

-25
-50 -50

-50 Strain at gauge (E) Strain at gauge (E') Strain at gauge (C)
-100 -100
-75

(d) SBU300 (e) SBU300 (f) SBU300

-100 -150 -150
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

SBFCB bar strain (με) SBFCB bar strain (με) SBFCB bar strain (με)

150 150 100

75
100 100

50

50 50
25
Force (kN)

Force (kN)

Force (kN)

0 0 0

-25
-50 -50

-50
Strain at gauge (A) Strain at gauge (C)
-100 -100
Strain at gauge (B)
-75

(g) SBU300 (h) SBU300 (i) SBU300

-150 -150 -100
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

BFRP bar strain (με) BFRP bar strain (με) BFRP bar strain (με)

Fig. 15. Load versus bar strain of the specimens.

322 A.I. Ibrahim et al. / Engineering Structures 131 (2017) 311–323
umns, where the moments were large and induced extensive non-
linear deformation. This curvature is concentrated at the plastic
hinge zone, where visible damage occurred—bar buckling, concrete
cracks and cover spalling.
5.7. SBFCB and BFRP reinforcement strain
The strain distribution in the plastic hinge region of the RC col-
umns was measured using the strain gauges mounted on the
SBFCBs and BFRP bar’s longitudinal reinforcement. The strain was
distributed as follows: three sections were considered inside the
column base with spaces of 40 mm to measure FRP strain penetra-
tion into the base; five strains above the column base with dis-
tances of 40 mm and 60 mm for two strains located at the top.
Some strain gauge data were lost during the tests because of gauge
failure or unreliable measurements caused by highly localized
strains in SBFCB bars. The yielding strains of longitudinal SBFCB
and BFRP are 2300 le and 2450 le, respectively, measured during
the test. For both specimens, the yielding strain in the SBFCB lon-
gitudinal reinforcement was recorded at a drift of 0.8% to 1.1%;
during this drift, 2 bars in SBU150 and SBU300 showed strain val-
ues in the final strain of BFRP before rupture. Strain gauges
attached to the SBFCB bars 40 mm below the surface of the column
footing showed yielding after drift of 1.3% and 1.2% in SBU150 and
SBU300, respectively. After drift of 0.95%, the yielding was dis-
tributed along the plastic hinge region. Fig. 14 shows the variation
of the measured force versus strain along the height of the speci-
mens with the un-bonded length. These figures show that higher
strains of un-bonded length were recorded in the proximity of
the RC column base (from 60 to 180 mm) compared with other
locations along the height. In addition, the values of strain in
excess of the yielding were recorded 20 mm inside the base
(Fig. 15f). From the test results, the relationship between the outer
BFRP strain and elongation of SBFCB was linearly proportional
(Fig. 15i). In addition, the stiffness of the specimens decreased after
the yielding of ordinary steel bars located inside the SBFCB,
whereas the strain of the outer BFRP is observed to be increasing.
6. Conclusions
An experimental and analytical study was conducted to investi-
gate the bond behavior of SBFCB and SWBFCS reinforced concrete
bridge columns subjected to axial and cyclic loading. Both SBFCB
and SWBFCS reinforcements consist of BFRP composite with steel
and wires. Through this research, the following conclusions were
established.
(1) The specimen SBFCB with un-bonded length of 300 mm had
a substantially nonlinear decrease in the residual
deformation.
(2) The bond failures between SBFCB bars and concrete were
due to the failure of the concrete and delaminated BFRP sur-
face from the outer resin of the SBFCB.
(3) To assess the cumulative damage from the results of the
earthquake cyclic analysis and analyze the reinforcing SBFCB
bars during this event, the penetration of SBFCB strains into
concrete near the crack was included.
(4) The proposed model has an increase in the lateral stiffness
owing to initial cracking; a displacement-controlled beam-
column element in OpenSees was found to be the best rep-
resentation of the SBFCB RC columns.
(5) Un-bonded length is used in the paper to represent the flex-
ibility in the lateral response of the SBFCB due to slip rota-
tions at the column–footing interface. From two methods
of analysis, the hysteretic material was determined by
experiment to calculate the strain penetration at the section,
and the Bond_SP01 material in OpenSees was used to local
the bond-slip in SBFCB because it considers the actual slip-
page of individual bars. Both methods showed similar
results for SBFCB bridge columns under axial and cyclic
loading.
(6) The viscous damping ratio of the RC columns was approxi-
mately 5% at the recoverability limit; larger values of the
damping ratio resulted from displacement at high levels of
deformation up to 17% because damping is implicitly consid-
ered in the material models. However, yielding resulted in
increased capacity of the RC columns because the post-
yield stiffness of SBFCB increased lateral displacements by
more than 29 mm, which led the specimens to have stable
stiffness.
(7) The tests carried out in this paper clearly show that the
SBFCB and SBFBS reinforced concrete bridge columns
increase the ductility and energy dissipation and reduce
the damage to concrete. Finally, the test results were satis-
factorily compared with the theoretical model (OpenSees)
including gains in strength and ductility.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge financial support from the National
Basic Research Program of China (grant no. 2012CB026200) and
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos.
51408126 and 51525801).
References
[1] Sakai J, Jeong H, Mahin SA. Reinforced concrete bridge columns that re-center
following earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the 8th US national conference on
earthquake engineering. Citeseer; 2006.
[2] Kawashima K et al. Effect of unbonding of main reinforcements at plastic hinge
region for enhancing ductility of reinforced concrete bridge columns. Doboku
Gakkai Ronbunshu 2001;2001(689):45–64.
[3] Pandey GR, Mutsuyoshi H, Maki T. Seismic performance of bond controlled RC
columns. Eng Struct 2008;30(9):2538–47.
[4] Kwan W-P, Billington SL. Unbonded posttensioned concrete bridge piers. I:
monotonic and cyclic analyses. J Bridge Eng 2003;8(2):92–101.
[5] Billington S, Yoon J. Cyclic response of unbonded posttensioned precast
columns with ductile fiber-reinforced concrete. J Bridge Eng 2004;9
(4):353–63.
[6] Roh H et al. Effect of yielding level and post-yielding stiffness ratio of ED bars
on seismic performance of PT rocking bridge piers. Eng Struct
2014;81:454–63.
[7] Ou Y-C et al. Large-scale experimental study of precast segmental unbonded
posttensioned concrete bridge columns for seismic regions. J Struct Eng
2009;136(3):255–64.
[8] Du JS et al. Deflection of unbonded partially prestressed concrete continuous
beams. Eng Struct 2016;118:89–96.
[9] Turmo J, Ramos G, Aparicio AC. FEM modelling of unbonded post-tensioned
segmental beams with dry joints. Eng Struct 2006;28(13):1852–63.
[10] Akiyama M et al. Flexural test of precast high-strength reinforced concrete pile
prestressed with unbonded bars arranged at the center of the cross-section.
Eng Struct 2012;34:259–70.
[11] Lou T, Lopes SMR, Lopes AV. Response of continuous concrete beams internally
prestressed with unbonded FRP and steel tendons. Compos Struct
2016;154:92–105.
[12] Ellobody E, Bailey CG. Modelling of unbonded post-tensioned concrete slabs
under fire conditions. Fire Saf J 2009;44(2):159–67.
[13] Mazaheripour H et al. Deflection and cracking behavior of SFRSCC beams
reinforced with hybrid prestressed GFRP and steel reinforcements. Eng Struct
2016;125:546–65.
[14] Au FTK, Du JS. Deformability of concrete beams with unbonded FRP tendons.
Eng Struct 2008;30(12):3764–70.
[15] Iemura H, Takahashi Y, Sogabe N. Two-level seismic design method using post-
yield stiffness and its application to unbonded bar reinforced concrete piers.
Struct Eng/Earthquake Eng 2006;23(1):109S–16S.
[16] Deitz D, Harik I, Gesund H. Physical properties of glass fiber reinforced
polymer rebars in compression. J Compos Constr 2003;7(4):363–6.
[17] Billington SL, Yoon J. Cyclic response of unbonded posttensioned precast
columns with ductile fiber-reinforced concrete. J Bridge Eng 2004;9
(4):353–63.
 A.I. Ibrahim et al. / Engineering Structures 131 (2017) 311–323
[18] Choo CC, Harik IE, Gesund H. Strength of rectangular concrete columns
reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer bars. ACI Struct J 2006;103(3):452.
[19] De Luca A, Matta F, Nanni A. Behavior of full-scale glass fiber-reinforced
polymer reinforced concrete columns under axial load. ACI Struct J 2010;107
(5):589.
[20] Lotfy EM. Behavior of reinforced concrete short columns with Fiber Reinforced
polymers bars. Int J Civil Struct Eng 2010;1(3):545.
[21] Kawashima K, Watanabe G, Hayakawa R. Seismic performance of RC bridge
columns subjected to bilateral excitation. In: Proc. 35th joint meeting, panel
on wind and seismic effects, Japan: Tsukuba Science City.
[22] Jin L, Li D, Du X. Mechanical behavior and size effect of moderate high-strength
RC columns under monotonic and cyclic axial compression. Eng Struct
2016;124:269–85.
[23] Lo SH et al. Finite element analysis of axially loaded FRP-confined rectangular
concrete columns. Eng Struct 2015;100:253–63.
[24] Ozcan O, Binici B, Ozcebe G. Seismic strengthening of rectangular reinforced
concrete columns using fiber reinforced polymers. Eng Struct 2010;32
(4):964–73.
[25] Punurai W et al. Biaxially loaded RC slender columns strengthened by CFRP
composite fabrics. Eng Struct 2013;46:311–21.
[26] Shirmohammadi F, Esmaeily A, Kiaeipour Z. Stress–strain model for circular
concrete columns confined by FRP and conventional lateral steel. Eng Struct
2015;84:395–405.
[27] Wei H et al. Experimental study on partially deteriorated strength concrete
columns confined with CFRP. Eng Struct 2009;31(10):2495–505.
[28] Barros JAO et al. Near surface mounted CFRP strips for the flexural
strengthening of RC columns: experimental and numerical research. Eng
Struct 2008;30(12):3412–25.
[29] Dong CX, Kwan AKH, Ho JCM. Axial and lateral stress-strain model for
concrete-filled steel tubes with FRP jackets. Eng Struct 2016;126:365–78.
[30] Kwan AKH, Dong CX, Ho JCM. Axial and lateral stress–strain model for FRP
confined concrete. Eng Struct 2015;99:285–95.
[31] Parghi A, Alam MS. Seismic behavior of deficient reinforced concrete bridge
piers confined with FRP – a fractional factorial analysis. Eng Struct
2016;126:531–46.
[32] Qasrawi Y, Heffernan PJ, Fam A. Dynamic behaviour of concrete filled FRP
tubes subjected to impact loading. Eng Struct 2015;100:212–25.
[33] Youssf O, ElGawady MA, Mills JE. Displacement and plastic hinge length of
FRP-confined circular reinforced concrete columns. Eng Struct
2015;101:465–76.
323
[34] Adam I et al. Compressive behavior of concrete cylinders confined by steel-
BFRP hybrid stirrup (SBHS). In: The12th international symposium on fiber
reinforced polymers for reinforced concrete structures (FRPRCS-12) & the 5th
Asia-Pacific conference on fiber reinforced polymer in structure (APFIS-2015)
(Nanjing-China).
[35] Benmokrane B et al. Designing and testing of concrete bridge decks reinforced
with glass FRP bars. J Bridge Eng 2006;11(2):217–29.
[36] Rizkalla S, Hassan T, Hassan N. Design recommendations for the use of FRP for
reinforcement and strengthening of concrete structures. Prog Struct Mat Eng
2003;5(1):16–28.
[37] Wu G, Lü Z, Wu Z. Strength and ductility of concrete cylinders confined with
FRP composites. Constr Build Mater 2006;20(3):134–48.
[38] Wu G et al. Mechanical properties of steel-FRP composite bar under uniaxial
and cyclic tensile loads. J Mater Civ Eng 2010;22(10):1056–66.
[39] Fahmy MF et al. Post-yield stiffnesses and residual deformations of RC bridge
columns reinforced with ordinary rebars and steel fiber composite bars. Eng
Struct 2010;32(9):2969–83.
[40] Sun Z-Y et al. Nonlinear behavior and simulation of concrete columns
reinforced by steel-FRP composite bars. J Bridge Eng 2014;19(2):220–34.
[41] Sun Z-Y et al. Seismic behavior of concrete columns reinforced by steel-FRP
composite bars. J Compos Constr 2011;15(5):696–706.
[42] Wu G et al. Mechanical properties of steel-FRP composite bars (SFCBs) and
performance of SFCB reinforced concrete structures. Adv Struct Eng 2012;15
(4):625–36.
[43] ACI C. Guide test methods for fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) for reinforcing
or strengthening concrete structures/reported by ACI commitee 440. In: ACI
440.3R-04. Detroit: American Concrete Institute; 2004.
[44] Zhao J, Sritharan S. Modeling of strain penetration effects in fiber-based
analysis of reinforced concrete structures. ACI Struct J 2007;104(2).
[45] Mander JB, Priestley MJ, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[46] Chang G, Mander JB. Seismic energy based fatigue damage analysis of bridge
columns: Part 1: evaluation of seismic capacity Technical Report. US National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research; 1994.
[47] Braga F et al. Modified steel bar model incorporating bond-slip for seismic
assessment of concrete structures. J Struct Eng 2012;138(11):1342–50.
[48] JSCE. Earthquake resistant design codes in Japan. Earthquake Engineering
Committee. Tokyo: Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE); 2000.
[49] Chopra AK. In: Hall WJ, editor. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications
to earthquake engineering, vol. 4. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2007.