ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 107-S36

Performance of Reinforced Concrete Columns Designed

for Flexure under Severe Displacement Cycles
by Bora Acun and Haluk Sucuoglu
Twelve full-scale column specimens designed for pure flexure
failure were tested in this study. Two typical column designs were
employed in the tests representing substandard and codeconforming columns, respectively. The main variable in the experiments
was the imposed displacement history. The deformation-based
performance limits proposed for substandard columns by Eurocode 8
and ASCE/SEI 41 were found very conservative in view of the test
results, which may lead to misleading results in the seismic risk
assessment of existing substandard concrete structures. Eurocode 8
performance limits predicted the experimental performance of
code-conforming columns well, whereas ASCE/SEI 41 performance
limits appeared conservative in predicting the experimental
performance of column plastic hinges designed to fail in flexure
under moderate axial load levels. Analytical studies on single
degree of freedom (SDOF) structures representing flexural
column behavior revealed that the effect of displacement
history on the target drift demands of concrete structures is
significant under severe earthquake ground motions.
Keywords: column; drift demand; flexure; limit.

INTRODUCTION
Columns are the primary members of frame structures that
dominate the frame response during earthquakes. Most of
the building collapses in previous earthquakes resulted from
poor column performances. Column failures in buildings are
either due to insufficient shear resistance (shear failure) or
due to insufficient deformation capacity (flexure-shear and
flexure failure). A new generation of performance-based
seismic rehabilitation and design codes express the flexural
performance of column in terms of total or plastic rotation
capacity of the critical end regions, whereas shear failure is
strictly prohibited.1-3
Shear-flexure failure in columns starts with flexural
yielding; but as damage accumulates, failure mode turns into
shear due to inadequate seismic detailing. Inclined cracks
develop after the formation of flexural cracks because
maximum shear exceeds the shear at inclined cracking.
Limited deformation capacity of these columns has been
recognized accordingly in the performance-based codes
based on experimental research.4-8 The deformation
capacity of columns that undergo pure flexure failure are
related to the reinforcement detailing as well as the imposed
displacement history. Repeated number of large amplitude
cycles may lead to degradation in lateral strength and stiffness,
hence the exhaustion of deformation capacity of columns
responding in flexure. Although the effects of longitudinal
and lateral reinforcement on the deformation capacity of
columns are well understood under standard displacement
protocols, information on the effect of repeated severe
displacement cycles is limited. Iwasaki et al.9 tested bridge
piers, and Pujol et al.10 tested small-scale columns under
displacement reversals and investigated the effect of the
364

number of displacement cycles on column deformation

capacity. Columns in both of these tests developed inclined
cracking after flexural yielding. Bousias et al. 11 tested
12 cantilever columns designed for flexure under uniaxial
and biaxial bending with axial load subjected to different
load paths. Verderame et al.12 tested concrete columns with
smooth reinforcing bars and substandard detailing, and with
flexure dominant failure mode, to investigate the influence
of monotonic and cyclic loading on displacement capacity.
Twelve full-scale column specimens designed for pure
flexure failure were tested in this study under repeated large
displacement cycles. Two typical column designs were employed
in the tests where the first type represents substandard columns,
and the second type represents columns conforming to the
material and special seismic detailing standards of modern
concrete design codes,13 respectively. The axial load ratio
was constant in all specimens except one. The main variable
in the experiments was the imposed displacement histories.
Five initial cycles at different drift ratios were applied to nine
different specimens, respectively, and then followed by
cycles with increased drift amplitudes. Three specimens
were tested under variable drift amplitudes. Observed rotations at
the plastic hinge region are evaluated comparatively with the
limits proposed by ASCE/SEI 41 and Eurocode 8, and the
observed moment-rotation and lateral force-displacement
behavior are assessed in view of the modeling criteria in
ASCE/SEI 41.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The effect of displacement history on the deformation
response of concrete columns controlled by flexure is investigated
in this study. The results obtained are expected to improve the
displacement-based criteria developed for modeling and seismic
performance assessment of columns.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Test specimens
Two types of test specimens were designed for pure
flexure failure, and these designs were applied to two groups
of six specimens each. The first group of specimens was
constructed with plain bars and low-strength concrete (13 MPa
[1.88 ksi]). Lateral reinforcement was spaced at d/2 along
the entire column length with 90-degree hooks. This group
of specimens possesses the properties of substandard
concrete columns. The second group of column specimens
conforms to the modern code standards for seismic design. They
ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 3, May-June 2010.
MS No. S-2009-126 received April 27, 2009, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright 2010, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the March-April 2011
ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2010.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

Bora Acun is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Civil Engineering at the Middle
East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey. He received his BS from ukurova
University, Adana, Turkey, and his MS from Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
His research interests include design and behavior of concrete structures and
experimental testing.
Haluk Sucuoglu is a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at METU,
where he received his PhD. He is also the Coordinating Member of the Turkish Earthquake
Code Committee and Director of the Structural and Earthquake Engineering Laboratory at
METU. His research interests include earthquake engineering.

were constructed with 25 MPa (3.63 ksi) concrete, deformed bars,

and transverse reinforcement with 135-degree hooks. All
specimens were cast vertically. Details of Type 1 and Type 2
specimens are shown in Fig. 1, and their material properties are
given in Table 1. Vp/Vn ratios for the first and second group of
specimens were 0.32 and 0.20, respectively, indicating that flexure
failure was ensured for both groups of specimens.
Test setup and instrumentation
Specimens were placed and tested on a mat foundation and
fixed to the strong floor with post-tensioned bars. A steel
head was placed on top of the columns and lateral load was
applied by an actuator with hinges attached at both ends,
from the level of steel head. Two steel beams were placed on
either side of the specimen parallel to the loading direction
and a set of rollers was attached to the upper part of columns
in to prevent the out-of-plane movement of specimens.
Axial load was applied by a steel loading beam placed
horizontally on the steel head, perpendicular to the loading
direction. Two high-strength steel rods with hinges at
footing level were connected both to the steel loading beam
and mat foundation and load was applied by post-tensioning
of these rods. Axial load level was kept constant during the
tests. The general view of test setup is shown in Fig. 2.
The applied loads (lateral and axial) were measured by
using calibrated load cells. The response of test specimens
was measured with LVDTs placed at several levels of each
specimen. Four dial gauges were mounted on both sides of
each column at 350 mm (13.78 in.) level from the top of the
specimen footing. Sixteen strain gauges (12 on longitudinal

Fig. 1Details of: (a) Type 1; and (b) Type 2 column specimens.

and four on transverse bars) were installed on each specimen.

Nominal locations of instruments are shown in Fig. 3.
Testing program
The imposed displacement histories are shown in Table 2
for all specimens in terms of drift ratios. Note that the top
displacement amplitudes of 10, 18, 35, 50, 70 and 105 mm
(0.39, 0.70, 1.38, 1.97, 2.76 and 4.13 in.) in Table 2
correspond to the drift ratios of 0.005, 0.009, 0.018, 0.025,
0.035, and 0.052, respectively. The first number in the specimen
labels indicate the specimen number in each group, P or D
stands for plain or deformed bars, respectively; and the last
number is the approximate drift ratio (in percent) attained in
the first set of constant displacement cycles for nine
specimens. V identifies a variable displacement history for
three specimens where the cycle amplitudes follow a
different variation pattern compared to the other nine specimens.
Axial load level was kept constant at 0.2fc Ag for all specimens
except Specimen 3P3, where it was 0.4fc Ag.
TEST RESULTS
Deformation capacities of columns
The first set of test results was presented for the momentchord rotation relationships for the bottom ends of the

Fig. 2Test setup.

Fig. 3Instrumentation.

Table 1Material properties and reinforcement ratios of test specimens

Longitudinal reinforcement
Concrete compressive Yield strength fy , Ultimate strength
fu , MPa (ksi)
Specimen type strength fc , MPa (ksi)
MPa (ksi)

Transverse reinforcement

Reinforcement
ratio l , As /bwh

Yield strength fyw , Ultimate strength

fuw , MPa (ksi)
MPa (ksi)

Reinforcement
ratio t, Asw /bws

Type 1

13 (1.88)

315 (45.67)

448 (64.98)

0.01

368 (53.37)

487 (70.63)

0.0026

Type 2

25 (3.63)

454 (65.85)

604 (87.60)

0.01

469 (68.02)

685 (99.35)

0.0061

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

365

column specimens. Chord rotation at the bottom end was

equal to the drift angle, that is, top displacement divided by
the specimen height; and it represents total rotation of the
plastic hinge region including the elastic and plastic
components. The results are shown in Fig. 4 and 5 for the
Type 1 and Type 2 specimens, respectively. Analytical
moment-chord rotation relations calculated under monotonously increasing moments, obtained from moment-curvature
relations along the column height, are marked on each figure.
Plastic curvatures of the plastic hinge region at the column base
were converted to plastic rotations by assuming a plastic hinge
length in obtaining the analytical moment-chord rotation
relations.14 A picture of the plastic hinge region at the end of the
test is given at the inset of each moment-rotation diagram.
Three deformation limit states corresponding to yield rotation,
significant damage, and ultimate rotation capacity according
to Eurocode 8, and yield rotation, life safety, and collapse
prevention according to ASCE/SEI 41-Update,2 are marked
respectively on each diagram in both loading directions.
Eighty percent levels of the positive and negative yield
moments (0.8My) are also indicated on the vertical axis.
Type 1 specimens are classified as Condition (ii) by the
ASCE/SEI 41-Update,2 although flexure failure is ensured
by a low Vp /Vn ratio. The reason is the transverse reinforcement
with 90-degree hooks and spacing-depth ratio exceeding 0.5; it is
0.52 for Type 1 specimens. There are three more cases of
Condition (ii) in the ASCE/SEI 41-Update,2 where the two are for
flexure-shear failure and the third is for the lap spliced transverse
reinforcement. On the other hand, Eurocode 8 accounts for plain
longitudinal bars and transverse reinforcement with 90-degree
hooks in calculating the deformation-based performance levels of
concrete columns.15 The spacing-depth ratio is considered as a
variable parameter. The ultimate chord rotation values are defined
in Eurocode 8 by
v max ( 0.01; )
1
um = ------ 0.016 ( 0.3 ) ---------------------------------- f c
el
max ( 0.01; )

0.225

(1)

yw
f-----sx -
fc

0.35

L
-----v 25
h

( 1.25

100

where el is taken as 1 and the contribution of transverse

reinforcement with 90-degree hooks to the rotation capacity
of columns is also taken into account. Because the Type 1
specimens were constructed with smooth longitudinal bars
and inadequate transverse reinforcement detailing at the
plastic hinging zone, ultimate chord rotation values are
reduced by 0.575. Chord rotations for significant damage
limit state are taken as the 3/4 of the ultimate chord rotation
(near collapse) as indicated by Eurocode 8.
The results given in Fig. 4 reveal that the deformationbased performance limits proposed for nonconforming
columns by Eurocode 8 are more tolerant compared to
ASCE/SEI 41-Update.2 Nevertheless, both codes are very
conservative in setting the two related performance limits of
life safety (significant damage) and collapse prevention
(near collapse) in view of the test results. Type 1 specimens
exhibit total deformation capacities of at least twice of the
code acceptance criteria under severe displacement cycles,
yet they maintain more than 80% of their yield moment
capacities. The performance of Specimen 3P3 with an axial
load ratio of 0.4, however, conforms better with the code
performance criteria. Accordingly, it may be suggested that
nonconforming columns under moderate axial loads and
with ensured flexure failure mode have significantly larger
deformation capacities than those specified by the current
performance based seismic codes. This conclusion is also
confirmed by Verderame et al.12
Type 2 specimens are classified as Condition (i) by ASCE/
SEI 41-Update.2 Eurocode 8 accounts for the enhanced
seismic performance of these columns with deformed
longitudinal bars, low shear and axial force, and proper
confinement at the plastic hinge region in specifying their
deformation-based performance criteria. The same expression
for Type 1 specimens (Eq. (1)) is also used for Type 2

Table 2Displacement protocols imposed on test specimens

Specimens
Type 1
Cycle no.

IP2

2P3

3P3 No.4

Type 2

4P4

5P5

6PV1

1D2

2D3

3D4

4D5

5DV1

6DV2

35 (1.38) 50 (1.97) 50 (1.97) 70 (2.76) 105 (4.13) 10 (0.39) 35 (1.38) 50 (1.97)

70 (2.76) 105 (4.13) 10 (0.39) 17.5 (0.69)

35 (1.38) 50 (1.97) 50 (1.97) 70 (2.76) 105 (4.13) 10 (0.39) 35 (1.38) 50 (1.97)

70 (2.76) 105 (4.13) 10 (0.39) 17.5 (0.69)

35 (1.38) 50 (1.97) 50 (1.97) 70 (2.76) 105 (4.13) 10 (0.39) 35 (1.38) 50 (1.97)

70 (2.76) 105 (4.13) 10 (0.39) 17.5 (0.69)

35 (1.38) 50 (1.97) 50 (1.97) 70 (2.76) 105 (4.13) 50 (1.97) 35 (1.38) 50 (1.97)

70 (2.76) 105 (4.13) 50 (1.97) 35 (1.38)

35 (1.38) 50 (1.97) 50 (1.97) 70 (2.76) 105 (4.13) 50 (1.97) 35 (1.38) 50 (1.97)

70 (2.76) 105 (4.13) 50 (1.97) 35 (1.38)

35 (1.38) 70 (2.76) 70 (2.76) 105 (4.13) 70 (2.76) 50 (1.97) 35 (1.38) 50 (1.97) 105 (4.13) 70 (2.76) 50 (1.97) 35 (1.38)

35 (1.38) 70 (2.76) 70 (2.76) 105 (4.13) 70 (2.76) 35 (1.38) 35 (1.38) 50 (1.97) 105 (4.13) 70 (2.76) 35 (1.38) 50 (1.97)

8
9

70 (2.76)
Top
displacement 70 (2.76)
amplitude, 70 (2.76)
mm (in.)
70 (2.76)

70 (2.76) 70 (2.76) 105 (4.13) 70 (2.76) 35 (1.38) 70 (2.76) 70 (2.76) 105 (4.13) 70 (2.76) 35 (1.38) 50 (1.97)
70 (2.76) 70 (2.76) 105 (4.13) 70 (2.76) 35 (1.38) 70 (2.76) 70 (2.76)

70 (2.76) 35 (1.38) 50 (1.97)

70 (2.76) 70 (2.76) 105 (4.13) 70 (2.76) 70 (2.76) 70 (2.76) 70 (2.76)

70 (2.76) 70 (2.76) 70 (2.76)

105 (4.13)

70 (2.76) 70 (2.76) 70 (2.76)

70 (2.76) 70 (2.76)

12

70 (2.76) 105 (4.13)

70 (2.76) 70 (2.76) 70 (2.76)

70 (2.76) 70 (2.76)

13

105 (4.13) 105 (4.13)

35 (1.38) 105 (4.13) 105 (4.13)

35 (1.38) 105 (4.13)

35 (1.38) 105 (4.13)

10
11

14

35 (1.38) 105 (4.13) 105 (4.13)

15

35 (1.38) 105 (4.13) 105 (4.13)

35 (1.38) 105 (4.13)

16

105 (4.13)

105 (4.13)

17

105 (4.13)

105 (4.13)

18

105 (4.13)

105 (4.13)

366

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

specimens. No reduction for calculated ultimate chord

rotations is carried out, however, because the Type 2
column specimens were detailed according to seismic code
provisions. It is observed from Fig. 5 that the performance
limit states proposed by Eurocode 8 and ASCE/SEI 41 are
quite different in this case. Significant damage and ultimate
capacity deformation limits of Eurocode 8 are 27% and 39%
larger than the life safety and collapse prevention limits of
the ASCE/SEI 41, respectively, although these different
performance limit definitions in the two codes actually indicate
similar performance levels. The results presented in Fig. 5 confirm
the limit state predictions of Eurocode 8 but demonstrate that
ASCE/SEI 41 limit state definitions are too conservative for

such columns, even when the columns are subjected to

severe displacement cycles. Apparently, the deformation
capacities of columns conforming to modern design codes
that exhibit pure flexure behavior under low axial forces are
significantly larger than that permitted by ASCE/SEI 41.
Two parameters, a and b, are proposed in the ASCE/SEI 41
for modeling the plastic hinge behavior of flexural members,
where a is the plastic rotation at significant loss of plastic
rotation capacity and b is the plastic rotation at axial load
failure. These two parameters are mainly employed in the
nonlinear static analysis of concrete structures for
constructing the capacity curves. The moment-rotation envelope
relations obtained by employing the associated values of the

Fig. 4Moment-chord rotation relations for Type 1 column specimens.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

367

two parameters for Type 1 and Type 2 specimens are

calculated and compared with the results obtained from
the experiments in Fig. 6 and 7, respectively.
It can be observed from Fig. 6 and 7 that the plastic hinges of
both types of column specimens are capable of sustaining larger
plastic deformations before significant loss of plastic rotation
capacity. The modeling parameter a seems to be very conservative
for defining the rotation capacity of column plastic hinges when
the axial load ratio is approximately 0.20, whereas the suggested a
values may be more reasonable at higher axial loads.
Effect of displacement history on target
displacement demand
The column specimens reported herein can be considered
as cantilever structures carrying an assigned mass, which

possess the lateral force (base shear) versus lateral drift

relationship as obtained from the experiments. These
relationships are presented in Fig. 8 and 9 for the Type 1 and
Type 2 specimens, respectively. Eighty percent level of the
yield lateral force level is also marked for each specimen on
each figure. One specimen under an axial force ratio of 0.4 (3P3)
and two specimens subjected to large displacement reversals
at the initial cycles (5P5 and 4D5) were excluded from this
evaluation. The lateral force-lateral drift envelopes for the
first positive cycles of the Type 1 and Type 2 specimens were
also obtained and shown in Fig. 10(a) and (b), respectively. These
envelopes are connecting the peaks of the first positive cycles in
each stage of constant displacement cycles.
It is observed from Fig. 10 that all specimens in Type 1 and
Type 2 categories exhibited similar envelopes until they fall

Fig. 5Moment-chord rotation relations for Type 2 column specimens.

368

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

below the 80% Vmax level, regardless of the cyclic displacement

histories they are enveloping. The lateral strength of all specimens
falls below 80% of Vmax, approximately at the same drift
ratio of 0.035 or at the column drift of 70 mm (2.76 in.).
If the mean envelope curves in Fig. 10 are considered as
the capacity curves for the column structures, then the target
drift demands of each column structure can be calculated
through equivalent linearization procedure. The mean envelope
curves were replaced by bilinear capacity curves, as shown
in Fig. 11(a), by employing the equal energy approach. The
capacity curves for the Type 1 and Type 2 column structures
possessed similar ductility ratios of 5.2 and 4.9 at the drift
ratio of 0.035 and similar post-yield stiffness ratios of 0.043 and
0.048, respectively. A mass producing an initial elastic
period of T0 = 0.3 second was assigned to each column, and
the earthquake excitation was defined by the 5% damped
design spectrum, as shown in Fig. 11(b).
Two different approaches for equivalent linearization
were employed comparatively. The first one is the improved
procedure proposed in FEMA 440,16 where effective period
and effective damping were calculated iteratively from the
empirical equations based on strength degrading model,
whereas they were directly calculated from the experimental
data shown in Fig. 8 and 9 in the second approach. The iterative
solution for effective damping and effective period in the
first (FEMA 44016) approach converged at ductility ratios of
4.1 and 3.7 for the Type 1 and Type 2 specimens, respectively.
Effective damping in the second approach was based on the first
experimental cycles in Fig. 8 and 9, with drift amplitudes of 0.035.
If target drift calculated from equivalent linearization was different
from 0.035, however, then a correction procedure is introduced for
effective damping. Dissipated energy at this displacement cycle
was scaled according to the ratio of calculated target drift to 0.035.

It was assumed that each column structure reached its

target drift after completing a past displacement history at
lower drift values, as given in Table 2. Hence, effective
damping reflects the effect of displacement history on target
drift demand in the second approach. It can be noted from
Fig. 10 that displacement history does not have a significant
influence on the effective (peak to peak) stiffness. The results
of the first (analytical: FEMA 44016) and the second
(experimental) equivalent linearization approaches are
summarized in Table 3.
The column structures 4P4 and 3D4 attained the target drift
amplitudes of 0.031 and 0.029 in their first displacement cycles
during testing with in-cycle degradation; however, they did
not exhibit any cyclic degradation due to displacement
history effects. Accordingly, they possessed the highest

Fig. 8Experimental responses of Type 1 column specimens.

Fig. 6Comparison of responses of Type 1 specimens with

ASCE 41 modeling parameters.

Fig. 9Experimental responses of Type 2 column specimens.

Fig. 7Comparison of responses of Type 2 specimens with

ASCE 41 modeling parameters.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

Fig. 10Envelope curves for positive base shear-drift ratio

cycles of: (a) Type 1; and (b) Type 2 column specimens.
369

effective damping values, which lead to the lowest target

drift ratios of the experimental approach for the Type 1 and
Type 2 specimens. Target drift ratios for the other columns
were higher, reflecting reduced effective damping due to
cyclic degradation in energy dissipation capacity. On the
other hand, the FEMA 44016 approach does not properly
reflect the effect of displacement history. Effective damping
and effective period values obtained from the strength
degrading model of FEMA 44016 for the tested column
structures lead to unconservative estimation of the target
drift ratios compared to the experimental values. The target
drift ratios obtained with the experimental approach for the
column structures that undergo severe inelastic displacement
cycles before reaching the maximum drift were 40% larger
on average than those obtained with the FEMA 44016
approach. The stiffness degrading model employed in the
FEMA 44016 approach perhaps does not properly represent
the experimental in-cycle and cyclic degradation behavior of
the columns presented herein.
Limitations of test results and their implications
The test results presented herein have two limitations.
First, lateral loading is uniaxial; second, axial load is
constant. Bousias et al.11 observed strong coupling between
two bending directions that produced considerable reduction
in strength and stiffness compared to uniaxially tested
columns. Galal and Ghobarah17 analytically investigated the
effect of axial load variation and biaxial bending on lateral
deformation of columns by using plasticity theory. They
concluded that cycling of axial load causes reduction in
strength and energy dissipation capacity. Therefore, biaxial
bending and cyclic axial load patterns resulted in softer
columns with lower stiffness and smaller effective damping
Table 3Target drift ratios calculated with
equivalent linearization
Experimental

Type 1

Type 2

FEMA 440

Specimen

eff , %

Teff /T0

1P2

26.73

2.51

Target
Target
drift eff , % Teff /T0 drift
0.034

2P3

18.90

2.61

0.041

4P4

32.96

2.53

0.031

6PV1

25.48

2.64

0.037

1D2

24.50

2.46

0.034

2D3

22.49

2.55

0.037

3D4

33.86

2.43

0.029

5DV1

23.76

2.55

0.036

6DV2

23.69

2.60

0.037

20.97

1.77

0.027

CONCLUSIONS
Twelve full-scale column specimens designed for pure
flexure failure were tested in this study under repeated cyclic
displacement histories. Two typical column designs were
employed in the tests where Type 1 represents substandard
columns, and Type-2 represents columns conforming to the
modern concrete design codes, respectively. Axial load ratio
was 0.20 in all specimens except one. The main variable in
the experiments was the imposed displacement histories.
The deformation-based performance limits proposed for
nonconforming columns by Eurocode 8 were found more
tolerant compared to ASCE/SEI 41. Nevertheless, both
codes were very conservative in setting the rotation limits of
life safety (significant damage) and collapse prevention
(near collapse) in view of the test results. This conservatism
may lead to misleading results in the seismic risk assessment
of existing concrete structures. It should be noted, however,
that the nonconforming (Type 2) columns reported herein
have better detailing and construction quality compared to
the substandard columns in the existing structures that were
designed according to the old seismic codes.
It was observed that Eurocode 83 performance limits
conformed quite well to the experimental performance of
Type 2 columns, whereas ASCE/SEI 411 performance limits
appeared to be quite conservative in predicting the
experimental performance of column plastic hinges
designed to fail in pure flexure under moderate axial
load levels. A further update might be warranted to
reduce unnecessary conservatism.
The effect of displacement history on the capacity envelope
curves of concrete structures dominated by flexural column
behavior was observed to be insignificant from the experiments.
The effect of displacement history on the target drift demands of
these structures, however, was found significant under severe
earthquake ground motions. Realistic models simulating the
degradation behavior of columns under severe displacement
histories are required for the accurate calculation of drift
demands for both static pushover analysis and nonlinear time
history analysis.
NOTATION

20.65

1.70

0.026

Fig. 11(a) Bilinear capacity curves for Type 1 and Types 2

specimens; and (b) design spectrum for 5% damping and
reduced design spectrum for 21% damping.
370

compared to columns under uniaxial bending and constant

axial load. This phenomenon eventually leads to larger
displacement demands under strong ground motions with
long effective duration.

Ag
As
Asw
a
b
bw
fc
fu
fuw
fy
fyw
h
Lv
My
s
Teff
T0
Vmax
Vn
Vp

eff

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

gross-cross sectional area

cross-sectional area of longitudinal steel
cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement
plastic rotation at significant loss of plastic rotation capacity
plastic rotation at axial load failure
cross-sectional width
concrete cylinder compressive strength
ultimate strength of longitudinal reinforcement
ultimate strength of transverse reinforcement
yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement
yield strength of transverse reinforcement
depth of cross section
M/V, the moment/shear ratio at end section
yield moment
transverse reinforcement spacing
effective period
initial period
maximum shear force
nominal shear strength
plastic shear demand on column
confinement effectiveness factor
effective damping

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

el

um
d
l
sx
t
,

= factor, greater than 1.0 for primary, equal to 1.0 for secondary
seismic elements
= N/b h fc, where N is axial force, and b is width of compression zone
= total chord rotation capacity at ultimate
= steel ratio of diagonal reinforcement
= longitudinal reinforcement ratio
= ratio of transverse reinforcement parallel to direction of loading
= transverse reinforcement ratio
= mechanical reinforcement ratio of tension (including web reinforcement) and compression longitudinal reinforcements, respectively

REFERENCES
1. ASCE/SEI 41, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2007, 416 pp.
2. Elwood, J. K.; Matamoros, A. B.; Wallace, J. W.; Lehman, D. E.;
Heintz, J. A., Mitchell, A. D.; Moore, M. A.; Valley, M. T.; Lowes, M. T.;
Comartin, C. D. and Moehle, J. P., Update to ASCE/SEI 41 Concrete
Provisions, Earthquake Spectra, V. 23, No. 3, 2007, pp. 493-523.
3. BS EN 1998-3, Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake
ResistancePart 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings, Comit
Europen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2005, 89 pp.
4. Lynn, A. C.; Moehle, J. P.; Mahin, S. A.; and Holmes, W. T., Seismic
Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Columns, Earthquake
Spectra, V. 21, No. 4, 1996, pp. 715-739.
5. Sezen, H., and Moehle, J. P., Seismic Tests of Concrete Columns
with Light Transverse Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 103,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2006, pp. 842-849.
6. Yoshimura, M.; Takaine, Y.; and Nakamura, T., Axial Collapse of
Reinforced Concrete Columns, 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004, Paper No. 1699.
7. Ousalem, H.; Kabeyasawa, T.; and Tasai, A., Evaluation of Ultimate
Deformation Capacity at Axial Load Collapse of Reinforced Concrete
Columns, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,
BC, Canada, 2004, Paper No. 370.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

8. Zhu, L.; Elwood, K. J.; and Haukaas, T., Classification and Seismic
Safety Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Columns, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, V.133, No. 9, 2007, pp. 1316-1330.
9. Iwasaki, T.; Kawashima, K.; Hasegawa, K.; Koyama, T.; and Yoshida, T.,
Effect of Number of Loading Cycles and Loading Velocity of Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Piers, 19th Joint Meeting of the U.S.-Japan Panel on
Wind and Seismic Effects, UJNR, Tsukuba, 1987, pp. 225-238.
10. Pujol, S.; Sozen, M. A.; and Ramirez, J. A., Displacement History
Effects on Drift Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Columns, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 103, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2006, pp. 253-262.
11. Bousias, S. N.; Verzeletti, G.; Fardis, M. N.; and Guiterrez, E.,
Load-Path Effects in Column Biaxial Bending with Axial Force, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V.121, No. 5, 1995, pp. 596-605.
12. Verderame, G. M.; Fabbrocino, G.; and Manfredi, G., Seismic
Response of RC Columns with Smooth Reinforcement. Part II: Cyclic
Tests, Engineering Structures, V. 30, 2008, pp. 2289-2300.
13. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 430 pp.
14. Priestley, M. J. N.; Calvi, G. M.; and Kowalsky, M. J., DisplacementBased Seismic Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Foundazione
EUCENTRE, Pavia, 2007, 720 pp.
15. Fardis, M. N., and Kosmopoulos, A., Practical Implementation of
Seismic Assessment Method in Eurocode 8Part 3, with Linear or
Nonlinear Analysis and Deformation-Based Verification Using Empirical
Chord Rotation Capacity Expressions, Sixth National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, 2007, pp. 69-101.
16. FEMA 440, Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis
Procedures, Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project), Redwood
City, CA, 2005, 392 pp.
17. Galal, K. E., and Ghobarah, A., Flexural and Shear Hysteretic
Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Columns with Variable Axial Load,
Engineering Structures, V. 25, 2003, pp. 1353-1367.

371