43: Fardis
Otani Symposium 2003
DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF RC MEMBERS, AS CONTROLLED BY FLEXURE OR SHEAR
Michael N. Fardis and Dionysis E. Biskinis
Structures Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, Greece Email: fardis@upatras.gr
SUMMARY
A large database of monotonic and cyclic uniaxial test results is utilised to develop models for the deformation capacity of R/C members. The database covers beams, columns with rectangular or circular section, walls with rectangular, T or barbelled section, and hollow rectangular piers. Most of the tests in the database are up to specimen to failure, conventionally defined as a postpeak drop in lateral load resistance by at least 20%. One type of models developed for the chord rotation (or drift) capacity for flexurecontrolled failure is based on curvatures in the plastic hinge  at yielding and ultimate, calculated on the basis of first principles and of different confinement models at ultimate  and on expressions for the plastic hinge length empirically fitted to the data. Except for columns with circular section, the predictions of this type of models are characterised by unacceptably large scatter and, often, by significant bias. Purely empirical models, statistically fitted to the data, are found to offer better predictive capability for the flexure controlled chord rotation capacity of all types of members in the database with rectangular or quasirectangular section. For members under cyclic loading ultimately failing in shear after yielding in flexure, expressions of the familiar type are developed for the reduction of shear resistance with the chord rotation ductility ratio. These expressions, applicable over all types of members in the database, are characterised by low scatter for the prediction of shear resistance in terms of the postelastic cyclic displacements, but cannot be meaningfully inverted to give a shearcontrolled ductile deformation capacity. A model based on first principles with empirical corrections is also developed for the chord rotation (drift) at member yielding, as a tool for the models of deformation capacity as controlled by flexure or shear, as well as for the calculation of the secant stiffness of members at yielding.
1.
INTRODUCTION
Recent years have seen a large interest of the international earthquake engineering community in the quantification of the deformation capacity of R/C members. The emergence of procedures for seismic assessment of existing structures which entail member verifications explicitly in terms of deformations [ASCE, 2000 and 2001, Comité Européen de Normalisation, 2003a] and the forthcoming codification of the design of new structures directly on the basis of nonlinear analysis with explicit checks of member deformations [Comité Européen de Normalisation, 2003b], provide strong motivation for this interest. To support the effort of quantification of the deformation capacity of R/C members, the senior author of the paper and his coworkers have been assembling at the University of Patras over a period of almost ten years a databank of tests on R/C members. Early models for the deformations of R/C members at yielding and at flexurecontrolled failure under monotonic or cyclic loading have been developed on the basis of the databank and reported in [Panagiotakos and Fardis, 2001]. The results of more recent efforts, still on flexurecontrolled members, are included in [Federation Internationale du Beton, 2003a, 2003b]. The present paper represents a major stride in this ongoing effort, not only because the database has recently been reevaluated and increased in size by almost 50%, but mainly because it has been used also for the quantification of the resistance and deformation capacity of members which are controlled by shear.
511
Table 1 Database of member tests with measurement of deflection of shear span with respect to member axis at fixed end (chord rotation).
slip of long. bars from anchorage 
All tests 
All 

Load history and mode of failure 
beyond 
flexural 

flexural 
failures 

monotonic beyond 
cyclic beyond flexural yielding 
cyclic beyond 
yielding 

member type and crosssection 
flexural yielding 
shear yielding 
(16)=(6)+ 

yes 
no 
all 
flexural failures 
shear failures 
failure 
failure by web com pression 
(7)+ 

no 
flexural 
all 
no 
conforming detailing 
nonconform. detailing: 
web tension 
web com pression 
by web tension 
(10)+(11) 

failure 
failures 
failure 
all 
sliding 
+(12)+ (13) 
(17)= (5)+(10) 

(1) 
(2) 
(3) 
(4) 
(5) 
(6) 
(7) 
(8) 
(9) 
(10) 
(11) 
(12) 
(13) 
(14) 
(15) 
(16) 
(17) 

(a) 
Column  Circular 
160 
0 
160 
3 
0 
3 
39 
76 
0 
76 
44 
0 
0 
19 
0 
162 
76 

Column  Rectangular, 

(b) 
conventional reinf/ment (ρ=ρ΄, ρ _{v} ≥0, ρ _{d} =0, ν≥0) 
1080 
77 
1157 
4 
56 
60 
102 
727 
33 
760 
146 
0 
0 
47 
0 
1068 
816 

Column  Rectangular, 

(c) 
diagonally reinforced (ρ=ρ΄, ρ _{v} ≥0, ρ _{d} >0, ν≥0) 
59 
0 
59 
0 
4 
4 
3 
52 
0 
52 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
59 
56 

(d) 
Beam  Rectangular or T 
132 
149 
281 
0 
215 
215 
0 
52 
1 
53 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
268 
268 

(e)=(b)+ 
All beams or columns w/ rectang. web 
1271 
226 
1497 
4 
275 
279 
105 
831 
34 
865 
146 
0 
0 
47 
0 
1395 
1140 

(c)+(d) 

(f) 
Wall  Rectangular 
63 
0 
63 
0 
1 
1 
9 
46 
2 
48 
1 
1 
5 
0 
0 
65 
49 

(g) 
Wall  T or barbelled 
46 
0 
46 
2 
3 
5 
3 
9 
0 
9 
5 
26 
2 
0 
10 
50 
12 

(h)= 
Wall  All 
109 
0 
109 
2 
4 
6 
12 
57 
0 
57 
6 
27 
7 
0 
10 
115 
61 

(f)+(g) 

(i)= 
All columns, beams or walls w/ rectang. web 
1380 
226 
1606 
6 
279 
285 
117 
888 
34 
922 
152 
27 
7 
47 
10 
1510 
1201 

(e)+(h) 

(j) 
Pier  hollow rectangular 
36 
0 
36 
0 
0 
0 
8 
23 
3 
26 
11 
0 
0 
7 
0 
45 
26 

(k)= 
All 
members 
with 
1416 
226 
1642 
6 
279 
285 
125 
911 
37 
948 
163 
27 
7 
54 
10 
1555 
1227 
(i)+(j) 
rectangular web(s) 

(l) 
All tests 
1576 
226 
1802 
9 
279 
288 
164 
987 
37 
1024 
207 
27 
7 
73 
10 
1717 
1303 
43: Fardis
Otani Symposium 2003
2. THE DATABASE OF TEST RESULTS ON R/C MEMBERS
The databank of tests used in this paper comprises mainly specimens subjected to uniaxial transverse (i.e. lateral) loading with or without axial load  constant or varying. Of interest here are only specimens of that type. The main reason for assembling the database has been the development of models for the deformations that develop over the shear span, L _{s} , of R/C members fixed at the section of maximum moment. Therefore, the databank is limited mainly to tests which report the transverse deflection at, or near, the point of zeromoment with respect to the specimen axis at the section of maximum moment. Such tests are on simple or doublecantilever specimens, or on simplysupported beams loaded only at midspan. This deflection is used here in the form of drift (ratio or angle), θ, i.e. deflection divided by the distance from the point of measurement to the section of maximum moment. Normally this distance is equal to the shear span or a multiple of it, and then θ is also the chord rotation at the section of maximum moment. Table 1 gives the breakdown of this type of specimens in the databank, depending on the specimen geometry (beams, columns  with conventional or diagonal reinforcement , walls, or piers), type of loading (monotonic or cyclic), the mode of yielding or failure (due to flexure or shear, by web crushing or interface shear, etc.), and the occurrence or not of (bond) slippage of longitudinal bars from their anchorage zone beyond the section of maximum moment. Normally, in simple or doublecantilever specimens a certain amount of such slippage (pullout) takes place, producing a fixedend rotation that contributes to the deflection of the shear span. Due to symmetry, there is no such slippage in simply supported beam specimens loaded only at midspan, except when the load is applied through a bulky stub, long enough for rebar slippage to develop on both sides of the midspan.
Table 2 Database of member tests with measurements of curvatures
slip of 
load history and mode of failure 
All tests 
All 

longitudinal. 
monotonic 
cyclic beyond flexural yielding 
beyond 
flexural 

bars from 
beyond 
flexural failures 
flexural 
failures 

anchorage 
flexural 
yielding 

member type and cross section 
All 
yielding  
non 
non 
All 

yes 
no 
(3)= (1)+(2) 
all flexural failure 
failure 
conforming detailing 
conforming detailing 
(8)= (6)+(7) 
(9)= (4)+(5) +(8) 
(10)= (4)+(8) 

(1) 
(2) 
(3) 
(4) 
(5) 
(6) 
(7) 
(8) 
(9) 
(10) 

Column  Rectang 

(a) 
ular, conventional ly reinforced 
138 
36 
174 
49 
1 
70 
6 
76 
126 
125 

(b) 
Beam  Rectangular or T 
37 
162 
199 
181 
0 
6 
0 
6 
187 
187 

All 
beams 
or 

(c)= (a)+(b) 
columns rectangular web with 
175 
198 
373 
230 
1 
76 
6 
82 
313 
312 

(d) 
Wall  Rectangular 
5 
0 
5 
0 
0 
3 
2 
5 
5 
5 

Wall 
 
T 
or 

(e) 
barbelled 
7 
0 
7 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
1 
1 

(f)= 
Walls  All 
12 
0 
12 
0 
0 
4 
2 
6 
6 
6 

(d)+(e) 

(g)= 
All columns, beams and walls 
187 
198 
385 
230 
1 
80 
8 
88 
319 
318 

(c)+(f) 

Pier 
 
Hollow 

(h) 
rectangular 
14 
0 
14 
0 
0 
8 
0 
8 
8 
8 

(j)= 
All members 
201 
198 
399 
230 
1 
88 
8 
96 
327 
326 

(g)+(h) 
In some tests of the databank the relative rotation between the section of maximum moment and a nearby section within the plastic hinge region has been measured and translated into an average curvature, _{φ}_{,} of the plastic hinge region, including or not effects of reinforcement slippage from its anchorage beyond the
513
43: Fardis
Otani Symposium 2003
section of maximum moment (Table 2). Some of these tests are not included in Table 1, because deflections with respect to the specimen axis at the section of maximum moment were either not reported, or could not be derived from the measurements (e.g. in beams with loading other than at midspan alone).
Most of the tests in the databank were continued up to specimen ultimate conditions (failure), identified with a distinct change in the measured lateral forcedeformation response: in monotonic loading, with a noticeable drop of lateral force after the peak (at least 20% of the maximum resistance); in cycling loading, with a distinct reduction of the reloading slope, or of the area of the hysteresis loops, or of the peak force, compared to those of the preceding cycle(s), typically associated with a drop in resisting force greater than 20% of the maximum resistance.
Reinforcing steel in the tests has been classified into three grades. Most specimens have ductile hotrolled steel with hardening ratio, f _{t} /f _{y} , in the order of 1.5 and strain at peak stress, ε _{s}_{u} , around 15%. In European tests heattreated tempcore steel has been used after the early ‘90s, with a value of f _{t} /f _{y} around 1.2 and of ε _{s}_{u} of the order of 8%. In about 60 monotonically tested European specimens, brittle coldworked steel has been used, with a value of f _{t} /f _{y} about 1.1 and of ε _{s}_{u} around 4%.
Table 3 Mean*, median* and coef. of variation of ratio experimentaltopredicted values at yielding
# of 
coefficient 

Quantity 
data 
mean* 
median* 
of variation 
θ _{y}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{y}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{)} Beams, columns w/ rectangular section  w/o slip θ _{y}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{y}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{)} Beams, columns w/ rectangular section  w/ slip θ _{y}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{y}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{)} Beams, columns w/ rectangular section  All θ _{y}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{y}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{3}_{)} Walls (all w/ slip) θ _{y}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{y}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{4}_{)} Columns w/ circular section (all w/ slip) 
198 
1.05 
1.00 
29.5% 
1151 
1.05 
0.995 
40.0% 

1349 
1.05 
0.995 
38.6% 

145 
1.015 
0.99 
32.5% 

160 
1.05 
0.99 
33.4% 

ϕ _{y}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /ϕ _{y}_{,}_{p}_{r}_{e}_{d}_{.}_{}_{1}_{s}_{t}_{}_{p}_{r}_{i}_{n}_{c}_{i}_{p}_{l}_{e}_{s} Beams, columns w/ rect. section  w/o slip ϕ _{y}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /ϕ _{y}_{,}_{p}_{r}_{e}_{d}_{.}_{}_{1}_{s}_{t}_{}_{p}_{r}_{i}_{n}_{c}_{i}_{p}_{l}_{e}_{s} Beams, columns w/ rect. section  w/ slip ϕ _{y}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /ϕ _{y}_{,}_{p}_{r}_{e}_{d}_{.}_{}_{1}_{s}_{t}_{}_{p}_{r}_{i}_{n}_{c}_{i}_{p}_{l}_{e}_{s} Beams, columns w/ rect. section  All 
198 
1.325 
1.275 
29.3% 
175 
1.205 
1.06 
37.6% 

373 
1.27 
1.205 
33.4% 

M _{y}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /M _{y}_{,}_{p}_{r}_{e}_{d}_{.}_{}_{1}_{s}_{t}_{}_{p}_{r}_{i}_{n}_{c}_{i}_{p}_{l}_{e}_{s} Beams, columns & walls w/ rectangular section M y,exp /M y,pred.1stprinciples Columns w/ circular section 
1513 
1.025 
1.015 
16.2% 
181 
1.015 
1.005 
16.7% 

(M _{y} L _{s} /3θ _{y} ) _{e}_{x}_{p} /(M _{y} L _{s} /3θ _{y} ) _{p}_{r}_{e}_{d} Beams, columns & walls w/ rectan. section 
1412 
1.10 
1.035 
40.9% 
(M _{y} L _{s} /3θ _{y} ) _{e}_{x}_{p} /(M _{y} L _{s} /3θ _{y} ) _{p}_{r}_{e}_{d} Columns w/ circular section 
152 
1.07 
1.035 
31.2% 
^{*} 
If the coefficient of variation is high, the median is more representative of the average trend than the mean, as the median of the ratio predictedtoexperimental value is always the inverse of the median of the ratio experimentalto predicted value, whereas the mean of both ratios is typically greater than the median.
3. DRIFT (OR CHORD ROTATION) AT MEMBER YIELDING
The value of the chord rotation at yielding at the corresponding end of the member, θ _{y} , is important as the baseline for the plastic component of the ultimate chord rotation (plastic rotation capacity), as well as the normalizing factor of chord rotation (total or plastic component), whenever this latter is expressed as ductility ratio, µ _{θ} . More importantly, θ _{y} determines, through Eq.(1), the value of the secant stiffness of the shear span, L _{s} , at member yielding, often taken as the effective elastic stiffness in a bilinear force deformation model of the shear span under monotonic loading:
EI
eff
=
M L
y
s
3θ
y
(1)
where M _{y} is the yield moment in the bilinear Mθ model of the shear span.
The following expressions were derived from those tests in the databank with yielding in flexure:
For beams or columns with rectangular section:
514
43: Fardis
θ
y
=
φ
y
L 
s 
0.00275 
ε y 
0.2 d b 

3 
+ 
+ a 
sl 
( 
d 
− 
d 
') 
f
y
Otani Symposium 2003
(2)
For walls with rectangular, Tshaped, or Hshaped section, or for barbelled walls:
θ φ
y
=
y
L
ε
y
0.2 d
b
f
y
s
3
+
0.0025 + a
sl
(
d
−
d
')
For columns with circular crosssection:
(3)
θ =φ
y
y
L 
s 
0.002 
0.2 d 
b 
f y 

3 
+ 
+ φ a sl y 
(4)
If φ
over the shear span, the 1 ^{s}^{t} term in Eqs.(2)(4) is the contribution of flexural deformations to θ _{y} . The 2 ^{n}^{d} term represents the magnitude of shear deformations within the shear span at flexural yielding and has been found to be practically independent of any factor other than the type of member in Eqs.(2)(4). The 3 ^{r}^{d} term is the fixedend rotation due to bar pullout from the anchorage zone and does not appear in Eqs. (2)(4) when such pullout is not physically possible. In that case a _{s}_{l} =0 is used in Eqs. (2)(4) for the zero one variable a _{s}_{l} , whereas a _{s}_{l} =1 applies if such pullout is considered as possible. In the 3 ^{r}^{d} term, ε _{y} is the yield strain of the tension reinforcement, d or d’ denote the effective depth to the tension or to the compression reinforcement, respectively, d _{b} is the diameter of the tension reinforcement and f _{y} , f _{c} the yield stress of tension reinforcement and the compressive strength of concrete (both in MPa). The 3 ^{r}^{d} term
corresponds to a linear reduction of steel stress from f _{y} to zero over a development length deriving from a
or
denotes the yield curvature at the section of maximum moment and if the moment diagram is linear
y
mean bond stress of 0.625
(which is low in comparison to the ultimate bond stress of about 2
Θ y,pred (%)
(a) beams or columns; rectangular section, Eq.(2)
^{Θ} y,pred ^{(}^{%}^{)}
(b) walls; rectangular, T or H section, Eq.(3)
Θ y,pred (%)
(c) columns; circular section, Eq.(4)
Figure 1 Comparison of experimental chord rotations at yielding to values from Eqs.(2)(4)
The fit of Eqs.(2)(4) to the data is shown in Figure 1, while the statistics of the ratio of experimental to predicted values are given in Table 3. This fit corresponds to a yield curvature, φ _{y} , derived from first principles. More specifically, for rectangular or Tsections, φ _{y} is derived on the basis of the planesection hypothesis, of equilibrium, and of linear σε laws up to a steel strain of ε _{y} if section yielding is controlled by the tension reinforcement, or up to a concrete strain of 0.9f _{c} /E _{c} if it is controlled by the concrete in compression (see [Panagiotakos and Fardis, 2001] for expressions for φ _{y} ). Similar assumptions are employed for circular sections, except that the concrete σε law is taken parabolic up to a strain of 0.002 and recourse has to be made to an iterative algorithm [Biskinis et al, 2002].
Possibly due to the way in which experimental curvatures are derived from the relative rotations of two sections within the plastic hinge, the expressions developed for φ _{y} from first principles do not provide unbiased estimates of the yield curvature in the 373 tests where such curvatures were measured. This is clear from Figure 2 and from the fact that median ratios of experimentaltopredicted φ _{y} , listed in Table 3,
515
43: Fardis
Otani Symposium 2003
are well above 1.0 (interestingly, they are greater in the 198 tests in which measured curvatures were not affected by slippage of the rebars from the anchorage zone, than in the 175 tests where they were affected). Despite this discrepancy between measured values of φ _{y} and the ones calculated from first principles, a closer fit to the data is possible through expressions of the type Eqs.(2)(4) if these latter values are used instead of the empirical expressions: φ _{y} = _{2}_{.}_{1}_{ε} _{y} /d or φ _{y} = _{1}_{.}_{9}_{ε} _{y} /h which were found to provide an unbiased fit to the measured values of φ _{y} in the 373 tests, without a significantly increased scatter over that of the fundamental expressions for φ _{y} .
φ y,pred (1/m)
(a) beams and columns with rectangular section; no slip of longitudinal bars
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
φ y,pred (1/m)
(b) beams and columns with rectangular section; slip of longitudinal bars
Figure 2 Comparison of experimental curvatures at yielding to values calculated from 1 ^{s}^{t} principles
M y,pred (kNm)
(a) rectangular sections
M y,pred (kNm)
(b) columns with circular section
Figure 3 Comparison of experimental yield moments to values calculated from 1 ^{s}^{t} principles
To complete the picture regarding the application of Eq.(1) to estimate the secant stiffness of the shear span, L _{s} , at member yielding, the yield moment M _{y} calculated from first principles (with same assumptions and references mentioned above for the calculation of the yield curvature, φ _{y} ) is compared in Figure 3 to the experimental “yield moment”, taken as the moment at the corner of a bilinear Mθ curve fitted to the envelope of the measured Mθ response of the shear span. Statistics of the ratio of the experimental yield moment to the calculated value are listed in Table 3. The median value of this ratio exceeds 1.0, as the corner of the bilinear approximation to the experimental Mθ curve lags behind first
516
43: Fardis
Otani Symposium 2003
yielding of the tension reinforcement or strong nonlinearity of the extreme compression fibers. The difference is greater in circular sections, as there the experimental Mθ response curves down more gradually. So, for such sections the experimental value of M _{y} is compared in Figure 3 and in Table 3 to the average of M _{y} and of the theoretical ultimate moment, M _{u} , of the section, both computed (through iterations) on the basis of first principles as described in [Biskinis et al, 2002]. Statistics of the ratio of the experimental secant stiffness at member yielding to the value calculated from Eq.(1) on the basis of the yield moment M _{y} from first principles and the values of θ _{y} from Eqs.(2)(4) are also listed in Table 3. For members with rectangular or circular section, the experimental secant stiffness at member yielding is on average 25% or 30%, respectively, of that of the uncracked gross section; but its scatter about this latter values is far greater (around 70%) than about the value given by Eq.(1).
Table 4 Mean, median, coefficient of variation of ratio experimentaltopredicted values at ultimate
Quantity 
# of 
mean 
median 
coefficient 
data 
of variation 

ϕ u,exp /ϕ u,pred.1stprinciplesManderEq.(6) Monotonic loading  Rect. sections ϕ u,exp /ϕ u,pred.1stprinciplesPriestleyEq.(7) Monotonic loading  Rect. sections ϕ u,exp /ϕ u,pred.1stprinciplesCEB/FIPEq.(8) Monotonic loading  Rect. sections ϕ u,exp /ϕ u,pred.1stprinciplesproposed Eq.(11) Monotonic loading  Rect. sections 
230 
1.12 
0.995 
64.1% 
230 
1.055 
0.715 
97.7% 

230 
2.36 
1.97 
69% 

230 
1.09 
0.995 
56.5% 

ϕ u,exp /ϕ u,pred.1stprinciplesManderEq.(6) Cyclic loading  Rectangular sections ϕ u,exp /ϕ u,pred.1stprinciplesPriestleyEq.(7) Cyclic loading  Rectang. sections ϕ u,exp /ϕ u,pred.1stprinciplesCEB/FIPEq.(8) Cyclic loading  Rectang. sections ϕ u,exp /ϕ u,pred.1stprinciplesproposed Eq.(12) Cyclic loading  Rectang. sections 
89 
1.35 
1.13 
77.5% 
89 
0.955 
0.545 
130.5% 

89 
1.905 
1.53 
66.8% 

89 
1.28 
0.995 
69.5% 

θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{5}_{)} Cyclic. Conforming members w/ rect. web. Eq.(10),(12),(13) θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{5}_{)} Cyclic. Conforming beams, rect. columns. Eqs.(10),(12),(14) θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{5}_{)} Cyclic. Conforming circular columns. Eqs.(10),(12),(15) θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{5}_{)} Cyclic. Nonconform. rect. columns, walls Eqs.(10),(12),(16) 
888 
1.125 
1.005 
54.9% 
823 
1.10 
1.00 
53.7% 

76 
1.035 
1.00 
30.5% 

36 
0.995 
0.995 
39.4% 

θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{5}_{)} Monotonic. Beams, rectangular columns. Eqs.(10),(11),(17) θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{5}_{)} Monotonic. Beams, rectangular columns. Eqs.(10),(11),(18) 
276 
1.35 
1.005 
93% 
276 
1.36 
1.00 
94.1% 

θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{5}_{)} Cyclic. Conforming beams, rect. columns, walls. Eq.(8),(19) θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{5}_{)} Cyclic. Conforming beams, rectangular columns. Eq.(8),(20) θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{5}_{)} Cyclic. Conforming circular columns. Eqs.(8),(21) θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{5}_{)} Cyclic. Nonconforming rectang. columns, walls. Eq.(8),(22) 
888 
1.10 
0.995 
56.4% 
823 
1.09 
1.00 
52.5% 

76 
1.10 
0.995 
33.8% 

36 
1.12 
1.10 
41.4% 

θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{3}_{)} Cyclic. Conforming beams, rectan. columns, walls. Eq.(23) θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{3}_{)} Monotonic. Conform. beams, rect. columns, walls. Eq.(23) θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{3}_{)} Monotonic or cyclic. Conforming walls. Eq.(23) θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{3}_{)} Monotonic or cyclic. Conf. beams, columns, walls Eq.(23) θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{3}_{)} Cyclic. Nonconforming rectang. columns, walls. Eq.(23) 
880 
1.025 
0.995 
39.0% 
279 
1.095 
1.005 
55.4% 

59 
0.98 
0.995 
30.9% 

1159 
1.045 
1.00 
43.9% 

36 
0.855 
0.835 
34.8% 

θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{4}_{)} Cyclic. Conforming beams, rectan. columns, walls. Eq.(24) θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{4}_{)} Monotonic. Conform. beams, rect. columns, walls. Eq.(24) θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{4}_{)} Monotonic or cyclic. Conforming walls. Eq.(24) θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{4}_{)} Monotonic or cyclic. Conf. beams, columns, walls. Eq.(24) θ _{u}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /θ _{u}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{4}_{)} Cyclic. Nonconforming rectang. columns, walls. Eq.(24) 
880 
1.05 
1.00 
39.6% 
279 
1.135 
1.025 
54.4% 

59 
1.02 
1.005 
28.9% 

1159 
1.075 
1.00 
44.7% 

36 
0.875 
0.865 
34.2% 

V _{R}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /V _{R}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{5}_{)} Ductile shear. Columns with rectangular section. Eq.(25) V _{R}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /V _{R}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{5}_{)} Ductile shear. Columns with circular section. Eq.(25) V _{R}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /V _{R}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{5}_{)} Ductile shear. Walls with rectangular or Tsection. Eq.(25) V _{R}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /V _{R}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{5}_{)} Ductile shear. Piers with hollow rectang. section. Eq.(25) V _{R}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /V _{R}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{5}_{)} Ductile shear. Columns, walls or piers. Eq.(25) 
146 
0.995 
0.99 
15% 
45 
1.045 
1.005 
17.0% 

6 
0.99 
0.99 
5.7% 

11 
1.10 
0.995 
16.2% 

208 
1.01 
0.995 
15.6% 

V _{R}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /V _{R}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{6}_{)} Ductile shear. Columns with rectangular section. Eq.(26) V _{R}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /V _{R}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{6}_{)} Ductile shear. Columns with circular section. Eq.(26) V _{R}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /V _{R}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{6}_{)} Ductile shear. Walls with rectangular or Tsection, Eq.(26) V _{R}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /V _{R}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{6}_{)} Ductile shear. Piers with hollow rectang. section, Eq.(26) V _{R}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /V _{R}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{6}_{)} Ductile shear. Columns, walls or piers, Eq.(26) 
146 
1.00 
1.00 
13.5% 
45 
1.015 
0.975 
16.2% 

6 
1.08 
1.06 
12% 

11 
1.155 
1.05 
15.3% 

208 
1.015 
1.00 
14.6% 

V _{R}_{,}_{e}_{x}_{p} /V _{R}_{,}_{E}_{q}_{.}_{(}_{2}_{9}_{)} Web crushing. Walls with rectangular or Tsection, Eq.(29) 
37 
1.02 
1.00 
12.9% 
517
43: Fardis 
Otani Symposium 2003 

4. 
ULTIMATE DRIFT (OR CHORD ROTATION) FOR FLEXURECONTROLLED FAILURE 

4.1 
Introduction 
Specimens that failed after yielding in flexure were distinguished from those failing in shear before flexural yielding, on the basis of the following two criteria: (a) the reported behaviour before and at failure and (b) a comparison of the measured lateral resistance with the resistance derived from the value of the yield moment, M _{y} , calculated from first principles (taking into account the scatter exhibited in Figure 3). Specimens characterised in this way as yielding in flexure, were further categorised as ultimately failing in flexure or in shear on the basis of the reported experimental behaviour at failure. When the available information was incomplete, unclear or unconvincing, recourse was also made to comparisons of the measured ultimate deformation with the predictions of models such as those described in the rest of this paper for flexure or shearcontrolled ultimate behaviour.
4.2 Formulations based on curvatures and plastichinge length
If inelastic behaviour and failure is controlled by flexure, the familiar description of the plastic component of drift ratio (or chord rotation) over the shear span L _{s} as the product of the plastic component of (the ultimate) curvature, ϕ _{u} ϕ _{y} , and a plastichinge length, L _{p}_{l} , is very appealing:
θ
u
=
pl
θ θ
y
+
u
=
θ
y
+
(φ
u
−
φ
y
)
L pl
1
−
0.5
L
pl
L
s
(5)
Notwithstanding its mechanical and physical appeal, the real criterion for the value of Eq.(5) is its ability to predict the experimental ultimate drift ratio or chord rotation, θ _{u} . Empirical expressions for L _{p}_{l} needed to this end cannot be developed independently of the models used for the other variables entering into Eq.(5), namely for θ _{y} , ϕ _{u} andϕ _{y} . To maintain the apparent rationality of Eq.(5), priority should be given to models based on rational mechanics. For ϕ _{y} , the model based on first principles and outlined in Section 3 is a natural choice, despite the unsatisfactory agreement with “measured” values displayed in Figure 2.
The natural choice for ϕ _{u} is a model with similar basis as that for ϕ _{y} , namely the plane sections hypothesis and equilibrium, but with nonlinear σε laws. [Panagiotakos and Fardis, 2001] presented analytical expressions for ϕ _{u} for sections with rectangular compression zone, unsymmetric reinforcement concentrated at the two flanges and uniformly distributed (web) reinforcement inbetween. These expressions are based on: (a) a σε law for steel taken as elasticperfectly plastic for relatively low steel strains, such as those associated with section ultimate conditions due to crushing of the concrete, or elasticlinearly strainhardening from f _{y} at _{ε} _{y} to the ultimate strength f _{t} at strain ε _{s}_{u} , for the large steel strains typical of section failure due to steel rupture; (b) a σε law for concrete which is parabolic up to ultimate strength and horizontal thereafter up to the ultimate concrete strain. The expressions for _{ϕ} _{u} take into account spalling of the unconfined concrete cover and confinement of the concrete inside the hoops thereafter. The only important open parameter is the model to be used for the ultimate strength, f _{c}_{c} , the associated strain, ε _{c}_{o}_{,}_{c} and the ultimate strain of concrete, ε _{c}_{u}_{,}_{c} , as these are affected by confinement. The value of ϕ _{u} is sensitive mainly  if not only  to the ultimate strain of confined concrete, ε _{c}_{u}_{,}_{c} . The options considered for the confinement model are:
a) The original Mander model [Mander et al, 1988]. It comprises: (a) an increase of f _{c} and ε _{c}_{o} with confining pressure p, which is in good agreement with triaxial test results on confined concrete in concentric compression and (b) a concrete ultimate strain derived from a postulated conservation of strain energy, giving, if the σε law of concrete (confined or not) is taken as horizontal after ultimate strength:
ε =ε +ε
cu c
,
cu
su w
,
(
2
ρ
s
f
yw
/ f
cc
)
(6)
where ε _{c}_{u} may be taken equal to 0.004 and ε _{s}_{u}_{,}_{w} is the ultimate strain of transverse reinforcement.
b) The Mander model, with Eq.(6) as modified by Priestley [Paulay and Priestley, 1992]:
518
43: Fardis
ε =
cu c
,
0.004
+
1.4
ε
su w
,
(
2
ρ
s
f
yw
/ f
cc
)
Otani Symposium 2003
(7)
c) The model in CEB/FIP Model Code 90 [Comité Eurointernational du Beton, 1993]. This is the reference model in Europe for confinement, as it has been adopted in the 2003 version of Eurocode 2 (the European concrete design standard) and, therefore, by Eurocode 8 (the European seismic design standard) as well. This model provides for a more modest increase of f _{c} and ε _{c}_{o} with p, and for an ultimate strain ε _{c}_{u}_{,}_{c} of:
ε
cu c
,
= ε +
cu
0.2 p / f
c
=
0.0035
0.2
+ αρ
s
f
yw
/ f
c
(8)
where ρ _{s} is the transverse reinforcement ratio (minimum among the two transverse directions), f _{y}_{w} its yield stress and α the confinement effectiveness factor according to [Sheikh and Uzumeri, 1982]:
α
= 1 −
s
h
s
h
1 −
c
1 −
∑
b
2
i
2 b
2 h
c
6 b h
c
c
(9)
with s _{h} the centerline spacing of stirrups, b _{c} and h _{c} the dimensions of the confined core to the inside of the hoop and b _{i} the centerline spacing along the perimeter of the crosssection of those longitudinal bars (indexed by i) which are laterally restrained by a stirrup corner or by a crosstie.
d) The following expression for the strength of confined concrete, giving slightly lower strength enhancement than the Mander model:
f cc
= f 1 +
c
3.7
αρ
s
f
yw
f
c
0.87
along with the following variations of Eqs.(6) or (7):
ε
cu c
,
or
ε
cu c
,
=
=
0.004
0.004
+
+
0.6
1.5
ε
su w
,
ε
su w
,
(
2
(
2
ρ
s
f
yw
/ f
cc
)
αρ
s
f
yw
/ f
cc
)
(10)
(11)
(12)
As shown in Figure 4 and 5 and by the statistics of the ratio of experimental to predicted values in Table 4, in members with rectangular section confinement model option (d) and Eqs.(11) and (12) provide a better average fit to the measured values of ϕ _{u} in monotonic or cyclic tests, respectively, than the other three alternatives, and with less scatter. Alternative (a), with Eq.(6) derived from the original Mander model, provides almost the same average agreement as confinement model option (d), especially with monotonic data, albeit with significantly larger scatter.
Considering the comparison with test results as a vindication of confinement model (d) and of Eqs.(11) and (12) (whatever the value of the measured data may be, in view of the scatter and the uncertainty introduced by the gauge length), empirical expressions are derived for the plastic hinge length, L _{p}_{l} , to fit Eq.(5) to the data on ultimate chord rotation, θ _{u} , of all members failing in flexure, using the value of ϕ _{u} derived from first principles and confinement model option (d) above. The value of ϕ _{y} used in Eq.(5) is also the one derived from first principles. It was found that a better overall fit of Eq.(5) to the data on θ _{u} , is possible, if Eqs.(2)(4) are used for the chord at yielding, _{θ} _{y} , instead of their 1 ^{s}^{t} (flexural) term alone. It was also found that the same expression for L _{p}_{l} cannot fit both the monotonic and the cyclic data. Moreover, for cyclic loading different expressions are appropriate for members with or without detailing for earthquake resistance (often called “conforming” vs. “nonconforming” detailing, also in Tables 1 and 2). Expressions tried for L _{p}_{l} are linear combinations of the shear span, L _{s} , and/or of the section depth, h (or D in circular sections). A term proportional to the product of the diameter of the tension reinforcement, d _{b} , and its yield stress, f _{y} , is added, to account for the effect of slippage of the longitudinal reinforcement from its anchorage zone beyond the section of maximum moment. This term is multiplied with a _{s}_{l} , where a _{s}_{l} = 0 if such slippage is not physically possible, while a _{s}_{l} = 1 if it is. A term inversely proportional to
, as in the 3 ^{r}^{d} term of Eqs.(2)(4) for dependence on ultimate bond stress, is not to advantage.
519
43: Fardis
φ u,pred (1/m)
φ u,pred (1/m)
Otani Symposium 2003
Figure 4 Measured ultimate curvatures in monotonic or cyclic tests of members with rectangular section, compared to predictions derived from 1 ^{s}^{t} principles using various confinement models: (a) Mander model, Eq.(6); (b) Priestley model, Eq.(7); (c) CEB/FIP MC90, Eqs.(8),(9); (d) Eqs. (10)(12)
The expressions found to provide the best overall fit to _{θ} _{u} for members failing in flexure are:
For “conforming” beams, columns and walls with rectangular web, under cyclic loading (see Figure 5(a)):
L
pl cy Lh
,
,
=
0.026
L
s
+
0.13
h
+
a
sl
f
y
(
MPa
)
50
d
b
(13)
Alternative expression for “conforming” beams and columns with rectangular section (not for walls), under cyclic loading (see Figure 5(b)):
L
pl cy h
,
,
=
0.3
h
+
a
sl
y
MPa
60
f
(
)
d
b
(14)
For “conforming” columns with circular section, under cyclic loading (see Figure 6(a)):
L
pl cir cy
,
,
=
0.175
L
s
+
a
sl
f
y
(
MPa
)
80
d
b
520
(15)
43: Fardis
Otani Symposium 2003
^{Θ} u,pred ^{(}^{%}^{)}
(b)
Figure 5 Comparison of experimental ultimate chord rotations in cyclic tests to the predictions of Eq.(5) for confinement according to Eqs.(10),(12):
(a) “conforming” beams, columns or walls with rectangular section, plastic hinge length per Eq.(13); (b) “conforming” beams and columns with rectangular section, plastic hinge length from Eq.(14).
(a)
Θ u,pred (%)
^{Θ} u,pred ^{(}^{%}^{)}
Figure 6 Comparison of experimental ultimate chord rotation in cyclic tests of columns with circular section, with the predictions of Eq.(5):(a) for confinement according to Eqs.(10),(12) and plastic hinge length from Eq.(15); or (b) for confinement according to Eq.(8) and plastic hinge length from Eq.(21)
For “nonconforming” columns and walls with rectangular section, under cyclic loading (see Figure 7(a)):
L
pl old
,
=
0.025
L
s
+
0.125
h
+
a
sl
y
MPa
100
f
(
)
d
b
(16)
For beams and columns with rectangular section (not walls), “conforming” or not, under monotonic loading (see Figure 8(a)):
L
pl mo Lh
,
,
=
0.07
L
s
+
0.5
h
+
a
sl
f
y
(
MPa
)
40
d
b
or, as an almost equivalent alternative (see Figure 8(b)):
L
pl mo h
,
,
=
0.8
h
+
a
sl
f
y
(
MPa
)
32
d
b
521
(17)
(18)
43: Fardis
^{Θ} u,pred ^{(}^{%}^{)}
Otani Symposium 2003
Figure 7 Comparison of experimental ultimate chord rotation in cyclic tests of columns or walls with rectangular section and “nonconforming” detailing, with the predictions of Eq.(5):
(a) for confinement according to Eqs.(10),(12) and plastic hinge length from Eq.(16); (b) for confinement according to Eq.(8) and plastic hinge length from Eq.(22)
^{Θ} u,pred ^{(}^{%}^{)}
Figure 8 Comparison of experimental ultimate chord rotations in monotonic tests of beams or columns with rectangular section, “conforming” or not, to the predictions of Eq.(5) for confinement according to Eqs.(10),(11) and plastic hinge length from: (a) Eq.(17); or (b) Eq.(18).
Because option (c) (i.e. the model in CEB/FIP Model Code 90) is now the reference model in Europe for confinement  as it has been adopted in Eurocode 2 and, therefore, is the basis for Eurocode 8 as well  expressions parallel to the ones above are developed for L _{p}_{l} , for use in Eq.(5) along with the value of _{ϕ} _{u} derived from first principles and confinement option (c), including Eq.(8) for the ultimate strain.
For “conforming” beams, columns and walls with rectangular web, under cyclic loading (see Figure 9(a)):
L
pl CEB cy Lh
,
,
,
=
0.06
L
s
+
0.035
h
+
a
sl
f
y
(
MPa
)
25
d
b
(19)
Alternative for “conforming” beams and columns with rectangular section (not for walls), under cyclic
loading (see Figure 9(b)):
f
=
y
MPa<
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.