The 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation 2016 (ICEEDM-III 2016)

WRG: A Practical and Efficient Innovative Solution for

Seismic Resistant Concrete Structures
Tavio1* , Benny Kusuma2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology (ITS), Surabaya, Indonesia
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Paulus Christian University of Indonesia (UKIP), Makassar, Indonesia

*tavio_w@yahoo.com

Abstract
Confinement has become significant way to improve ductility of concrete structure member which is
very important in concrete earthquake resistant design. When a requirement of ductile-resistant
concrete structure member is provided by column concrete, then its performance should be supported
by strength effort in reducing the hazard of earthquake, in example, by introducing the welded grid
confinement. Welded grid steel has emerged as a very practical, efficient and effective way to confine
concrete columns in recent years. This innovative reinforcement, named prefabricated welded
reinforcement grids (WRG), is an alternative to the confining steel used in traditional reinforced
concrete for simple, faster, easier, efficient, saves cost, and more practical construction. This paper
presents the development of an innovative WRG-confinement design for square concrete columns.
The paper gives an overview of the results of monotonic axial compression and quasi-static cyclic
tests on square columns. As compared to the reinforced concrete column tied with traditional
rectangular hoops, the test results revealed that, with significant cost savings of the confinement
reinforcement, the WRG columns confined with the welded grid steels demonstrated excellent
capability in both strength and ductility. From the findings it is observed that applying this new
innovative technology can significantly improve seismic behavior of concrete columns.
Keywords: confinement, concrete columns, ductility, reinforcement, strength, Welded Reinforcement Grid
(WRG)

1. INTRODUCTION

Various experimental and analytical studies have shown that transverse reinforcement in columns
functions as follows: (1) holding longitudinal bars in position; (2) preventing longitudinal bars from
premature buckling; (3) providing shear strength for columns; (4) providing passive confinement for
core concrete; and (5) improving axial compressive strength and ductility of columns [1-12]. Square
columns are traditionally reinforced with rectangular hoops, and each hoop or crossties is formed
from a single steel bar with hook at both ends [13-15]. However, field experiences reveal that hoops
or crossties with a 135-degree bend are not easy to setup in the column, and the entire construction is
heavily relied on skilled labors that is time-consuming and costly.
The efficiency of the confinement generally depends on the geometry and the spacing of the
confinement steel [1,2,4]. As compared to the rectangular hoops, with or without crossties, the
circular spirals in the columns have been shown to be more effective in concrete confinement [16,17].
Furthermore, construction of stirrups is more laborious that leads to highly expensive operation.
Recently, an innovative welded reinforcement grid (WRG) confinement design for rectangular
reinforced concrete columns has been developed by Saatcioglu and Grira [18] and Tavio et al. [11],
typical examples of which are shown in Fig. 1. This development involved testing and evaluation of a
large number of square reinforced concrete columns in axial compression and lateral cyclic loadings.
Test results clearly verified that columns with WRG confinement design exhibit higher compressive
strength and ductility as compared to columns with conventional stirrup design. Therefore, it has a
potential application to earthquake-resistant structures. The results of this comprehensive research
will hopefully provide useful data for possible future code changes.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

2×2 grid, 2×2 grid, 3×3 grid, 3×3 grid, 3×3 grid,
4-bars 8-bars 4-bars 12-bars 20-bars

Fig. 1. WRG confinement configuration details developed by Saatcioglu and Grira [..] and Kusuma […]

2. COLUMNS SUBJECTED TO PURE AXIAL LOAD

Small sized all column specimens with 180 mm by 180 mm in cross section and 720 mm in length
served as test specimens. Forty-eight columns were tested under compressive concentric loading. Two
different concrete mixes designed with specified 28-day strengths of 35 and 60 MPa were used with
corresponding water-binder ratios of 0.52 and 0.33, respectively. Silica fume was used for strength 60
MPa to obtain high strength, workability, and reduction of fine particle segregation. The crushed stone
had a maximum diameter of 10 mm. A concrete slump approximately of 200 mm was used to ensure
that the concrete could be placed through the dense reinforcement cages.
Deformed steel bars were used for the longitudinal and lateral reinforcement, respectively. Tension
tests were performed on steel samples of each bar diameter and steel strength for each batch of steel
bars. The average yield strength values were determined from at least three tension tests. The yield
strength of the high-strength steel bars reinforcement is defined at an offset strain of 0.2%. All ties
were anchored with 135° bends extending 75 mm into the concrete core, which longer than the
minimal length of 6-bars diameter required by the ACI Code [13,14].
Figure 2 shows the geometry and reinforcement details for test specimens that were tested under
monotonic axial compression loading. To measure the strains within the specimens, electrical-
resistance strain gauges were glued to the vertical bars and the lateral reinforcement before casting the
concrete as shown in Fig. 2c. A set of grids/ties located at the mid-height of each specimen was
instrumented with strain gauges placed on two adjacent sides of each grid/tie of the chosen set. The
axial displacement of the specimens was recorded using four linear variable differential transformers
(LVDTs) located at each side of the specimen over a gauge length of 320 mm (Fig. 3a).
Figure 3 shows the setup of the small-size axial compression test of the short columns. A 5,000 kN
(500 metric ton) capacity hydraulic universal testing machine was used to apply the compressive
force. Steel collars were placed at the top and bottom of each specimen to provide additional
confinement in the end regions.
 Fig. 2. Geometry of a typical test specimen and reinforcement arrangement

Fig. 3. Experimental setup for axial compression tests

Fig. 4 shows the typical failure modes of the specimens with welded grid design and traditional
stirrup design. From the Fig. 4a, it is clearly seen that generally column specimen confined with 3  3
grid (9-cells) of WRG indicates that the mid-length of WRG’s side bars without longitudinal bars
located near the welded joint experience buckling towards the concrete core, whereas traditionally-
confined column specimen shows that the stirrups experience buckling outward (Fig. 4b). This is due
to the inner bars of WRG that hold the side bars from being pushed further outward resulting in
excessive lateral deformation of concrete core (Poisson’s ratio). The phenomenon applies to almost all
WRG-confined column specimens with only four longitudinal steel bars. This indicates that the mid-
length of WRG’s side bars without the support of additional longitudinal bars located at the sides of
the columns can still possess a very significant role in confining the concrete core compared with the
traditional stirrups. For specimens with WRG confinement design, the fracture of the welds of the
WRG steel followed by buckling of the longitudinal bars as can be seen in Fig. 4a. In addition, Fig. 4a
show the final concrete confined by the WRG was generally remained sound, which indicates that the
WRG provided satisfactory confinement effect to the WRG columns.

Fig. 4. Typical failure modes of compression test specimens

The stress-strain responses of concrete columns under axial compressive loading are shown in Fig.
5. The test results showed that the WRG designs provide significant contributions to concrete
confinement that enhances strength and ductility of the columns. The columns with 3×3 grids have
better ductility than the 2×2 grids columns.
90
8D13 & 12D10
80 r s = 3.2%
Grid 3 × 3 f' c = 43.4 MPa
70
Stress (MPa)

60

50
Grid 2 × 2
40

30
Ties
20

10

0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040
Strain (mm/mm)

Fig. 5. Stress-strain curves for columns confined with traditional ties and WRG.

3. QUASI-STATIC CYCLIC TESTING

With the promising performance of welded grids evidenced in monotonic static load tests,
investigation on the behavior of a cantilevered column of small size (180 mm × 180 mm × 1525 mm)
under a high level of axial load (0.4 f'c times the gross sectional area) and cyclic lateral loading was
carried out. The geometry of the specimens and corresponding test set-ups of the cantilever column
are shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively.
 Axial Loading 200 tf
t = 10
Top steel plate

D7 @ 25 mm Lateral
Loading 150
SL4
ST1 50 tf
SL1 ST3
SL2
ST2

SL3

850

1375
s ----- D7 @ 50 mm

600
PVC anchor bolt
sleeves
s 2

350
125 500 125
750 Wide 285 180 285

750 mm in mm

Fig. 6. Geometry and reinforcement arrangement of column specimens

Fig. 7. Experimental setup for quasi-static cyclic tests

The lateral cyclic excursions were applied in a displacement-control mode following the specified
deflection regime shown in Fig. 8 until the column collapsed under the constant axial load. Lateral
displacements were applied in reversed cyclic mode, three cycles at each deformation level (or each
drift ratio). Following initial three cycles at approximately 0.2 percent drift. The subsequent stages of
loading included three cycles at each of incrementally increasing drift level until a significant strength
drop was observed.
 Fig. 8. Loading history according to ACI 374.1-05 [19].

Two different type of transverse reinforcement were investigated in the study: i) welded
reinforcement grids (WRG) and ii) conventional rectilinear ties. The conventional ties columns were
designed to be companion to WRG columns. Comparisons of normalized moment-curvature envelope
(backbone) curves of columns confined with different types of reinforcement are shown in Fig. 9
derived from their hysteresis loops (Figs. 10). The moment-curvature response is of critical
importance because deformations concentrate at the critical sections within the plastic regions during
post-elastic loading and determine the column behavior.The all companion columns were tested under
constant axial compression, equal about 40 percent of their concentric capacities. Test results indicate,
generally the WRG column developed higher deformability than the ties columns. The test results
indicated that column with WRG showed a superior behavior compared to the companion columns.
1.6

1.4 HW4-8S80-0.4P
1.2 WRG
1.0
M /M ACI

0.8 HC2-8S80-0.4P
Crossties
0.6

0.4 s = 80 mm
rs = 2.0%
0.2 f 'c = 60 MPa
P/Po = 0.40
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Curvature (rad/km)

Fig. 9. Normalized moment-curvature envelope curves for columns confined with traditional ties and
WRG.
 Fig. 10. Hysteretic behaviors of columns confined with traditional ties and WRG.

Conventional columns confined with rectilinear ties and built from high strength concrete,
conforming to the spacing requirements of ACI 318M-14 [13], with volumetric ratios ranging
between 40 and 100 percent of that required by the code, showed ductile response even under high
axial compression of approximately 40 percent of nominal concentric capacity. These columns
developed lateral drifts of 2.2 to 3.5 percent prior to 20 percent degradation in moment resistance, and
1.8 to 2.8 percent drifts at 20 percent decay in lateral force resistance. If the columns are designed as
per the confinement provisions of ACI 318M-11 [14] or SNI 2847:2013 [15], they will be unsafe for
axial load equal to or greater than 40 percent of their axial nominal capacities or if high strength
concrete is used. This is due to the lack of confining steel provided according to the ACI 318M-11
[14] or SNI 2847:2013 [15] that is about 50 percent of that required by the ACI 318M-14 [13].

5. CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents an innovative application of welded grid confinements to WRG-columns with
rectangular cross-section. The innovative WRG-confinement design offers an attractive and superior
alternative solution to traditional stirrup confinement design for square concrete columns. The
laboratory tests have shown clearly that WRG-confinement design can provide effective confinement
with increased strength and ductility, and reduced congestion steel. The effectiveness of WRG in
improving the performance of columns can contribute to earthquake risk reduction in low to high
seismic risk zones, especially in developing countries where changes in construction habit cannot be
easily effected.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to all the research project members on
Innovative Development of WRG for Seismic-Resistant Structures. Their generous contributions are
deeply appreciated. All opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations in the paper are those
of the authors.

REFERENCES

[1] Sheikh, S. A.; and Uzumeri, S. M., “Strength and Ductility of Tied Concrete Columns,” Journal
of Structural Division, ASCE, V. 106, No. ST5, May 1980, pp. 1079-1101.
[2] Sheikh, S. A.; and Uzumeri, S. M., “Analytical Model for Concrete Confinement in Tied
Columns,” Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, V. 108, No. ST12, Dec. 1982, pp. 2703-2722.
[3] Moehle, J. P.; and Cavanagh, T., “Confinement Effectiveness of Crosstie in Reinforced
Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 111, No. 10, Oct. 1985, pp. 2105-2120.
[4] Mander, J. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., “Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined
Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, Aug. 1988, pp. 1804-1826.
[5] Saatcioglu, M.; and Razvi, S. R., “Strength and Ductility of Confined Concrete,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 118, No. 6, June 1992, pp. 1590-1607.
[6] Pantazopoulou, S. J., “Detailing for Reinforcement Stability in Reinforced Concrete Members,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 124, No. 6, June 1998, pp. 623-632.
[7] Kusuma, B.; and Tavio, “Unified Stress-Strain Model for Confined Columns of Any Concrete
and Steel Strengths,” Proceeding of the International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
Disaster Mitigation (ICEEDM08), 14-15 Apr. 2008, Jakarta, Indonesia, pp. 502-509.
[8] Kusuma, B.; and Tavio, “A Model of Confinement Effect on Stress-Strain Relation of
Reinforced Concrete Columns Confined with Welded Wire Fabric,” The 6th International
Conference of Asian Concrete Federation (ACF), 21-24 Sept. 2014, Seoul, Korea, pp. 599-605.
[9] Kusuma, B.; Tavio; and Suprobo, P., “Behavior of Columns Laterally Reinforced with Welded
Wire Mesh,” The 1st Makassar International Conference on Civil Engineering (MICCE): Future
Challenges in Infrastructure Technology to the Environmental Preservation, Civil Engineering
Department Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indonesia, 9-10 Mar. 2010, pp. 1-10.
[10] Kusuma, B.; Tavio; and Suprobo, P., “Behavior of Concentrically Loaded Welded Wire Fabric
Reinforced Concrete Columns with Varying Reinforcement Grids and Ratios,” International
Journal of ICT-aided Architecture and Civil Engineering, V. 2, No. 1, 2015, pp. 1-14.
[11] Tavio; Kusuma, B.; and Suprobo, P., “Experimental Behavior of Concrete Columns Confined by
Welded Wire Fabric as Transverse Reinforcement under Axial Compression,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 109, No. 3, May-June, 2012, pp. 339-347.
[12] Tavio; Suprobo, P.; and Kusuma, B., “Ductility of Confined Reinforced Concrete Columns with
Welded Reinforcement Grids,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Concrete
Construction: Excellence in Concrete Construction through Innovation, 9-10 Sept. 2008,
Kingston University, London, UK, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, A Balkema Book, pp.
339-344.
[13] ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318M-14 and
Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318RM-14),”
Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA, 2014, 519 pp.
[14] ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318M-11) and
Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2011, 503 pp.
[15] SNI Committee 2847, “Structural Concrete Requirements for Buildings (SNI 2847:2013),”
National Standardization Board (BSN), Jakarta, Indonesia, 2013 (in Indonesian), 255 pp.
[16] Shah, S. P.; Fafitis, A.; and Arnold, R., “Cyclic Loading of Spirally Reinforced Concrete,”
Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, V. 109, No. ST7, July 1983, pp. 1695-1710.
[17] Sheikh, S. A.; and Toklucu, M., “Reinforced Concrete Columns Confined by Circular Spirals and
Hoops,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1993, pp. 542-553.
[18] Saatcioglu, M.; and Grira M., “Confinement of Reinforced Concrete Columns with Welded
Reinforcement Grids”, ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1999, pp. 29-39.
[19] ACI Committee 374, “Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing and
Commentary (ACI 374.1-05),” Farmington Hills – Michigan 2005, 9 pp.