Bull Earthquake Eng

DOI 10.1007/s10518-010-9190-x
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER
Ultimate chord rotation of RC columns with smooth
bars: some considerations about EC8 prescriptions
Gerardo M. Verderame Paolo Ricci
Gaetano Manfredi Edoardo Cosenza
Received: 30 July 2009 / Accepted: 8 May 2010
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Abstract Current code prescriptions allow to evaluate the ultimate rotational capacity
from hybrid (mechanical-empirical) or empirical formulations, for reinforced concrete (RC)
members with ribbed bars and seismically detailed. These formulations can be extended
to non-conforming elements, including members with smooth bars, by means of correction
coefcients calibrated on experimental data. These coefcients imply a reduction in the defor-
mation capacity, which increases if lapping of longitudinal bars is present. The reliability
of empirically calibrated coefcients directly depends on the extension of the experimental
database, that is, on the number of available tests. The experimental campaign carried out
at the University of Naples on 16 real-scale columns with smooth bars allows to extend
the experimental database for this typology. Experimental results highlight that rotational
capacity of columns with smooth bars is rather large, even higher than the capacity of similar
columns reinforced with ribbed bars. This is basically due to the increase in deformability
caused by the xed-end rotation mechanism, particularly exalted when bond capacities are
low. Therefore, also based on these results, new correction coefcients are proposed.
Keywords Seismic assessment Existing RC building Non-conforming
Ultimate capacity Smooth bars Lapping
1 Introduction
The present European technical regulations (CEN 2005) allow to determine the seismic
capacity of existing reinforced concrete (RC) buildings by means of non-linear analysis
methodologies. The use of such methods of analysis, however, requires knowledge of the real
post-elastic rotational capacities of each element of the construction (beams, columns) both
in monotonic eld, for non-linear static analysis, and in cyclic eld, for non-linear dynamic
analysis. In monotonic eld, a series of parameters (yielding, peak resistance, ultimate state)
G. M. Verderame (B) P. Ricci G. Manfredi E. Cosenza
Department of Structural Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21,
80125 Naples, Italy
e-mail: verderam@unina.it
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
has to be dened, in order to dene the response curve of the element. In cyclic eld, hyster-
etic rules and strength and stiffness degradation models have to be dened; they significantly
inuence the assessment of ultimate rotational capacity. Nevertheless, these rules are not easy
to dene, due to the number of geometrical and mechanical parameters and to the uncertain-
ties involved. For example, the type of loading inuences in a not negligible way the response
of the RC element. Most of the code prescriptions only dene the deformation capacity at
the elastic limit (yielding) and at ultimate (collapse); therefore, based on these prescriptions,
it is not possible to completely dene the strength degradation of the monotonic envelope,
nor the hysteretic behaviour through appropriate rules.
Generally, deformation at yielding is evaluated as a chord rotation, accounting for dif-
ferent contributions corresponding to bending, shear and xed-end rotation deformation
mechanisms.
The rotational capacity is generally evaluated referring to a xed strength decay (20%)
respect to the peak resistance, evaluated on the force-displacement envelope curve. It is clear
that this definition is strongly inuenced by the maximum resistance condition, as well as
the post-peak degradation, monotonic or cyclic. It is difcult to dene a relationship between
the element parameters and the rotational capacity, due to the complex phenomena inu-
encing the post-elastic deformation behaviour and to the natural variability affecting these
phenomena. The code, consistently with the methodologies developed in literature, proposes
two main approaches: a mechanical-empirical approach, based on plastic hinge length con-
cept, and a purely empirical approach. In the present study these approaches are described
in Sect. 2, together with their background theory. Literature proposals for the evaluation of
ultimate capacity of RC elements are also presented (e.g. Panagiotakos and Fardis 2001;
Rossetto 2002; Lam et al. 2003; Perus et al. 2006; Perus and Fajfar 2007; Haselton and
Deierlein 2007; Fardis 2007; Zhu et al. 2007); development of empirically calibrated expres-
sions is allowed by experimental databases, made available by authors (Panagiotakos and
Fardis 2001; Berry et al. 2004) that collected results of experimental tests carried out by
many others.
In this study, referring to the purely empirical formulation proposed in (CEN 2005), the
applicability of this formulation to non-conforming elements with smooth bars is evaluated.
In particular, experimental data for the assessment of deformation capacity of RC elements
with smooth bars are presented in Sect. 3. Based on these data, in Sect. 4 correction coef-
cients applied to the code formulation for elements with smooth bars, with or without lapping
of longitudinal reinforcement, are proposed.
2 Evaluation of ultimate chord rotation
In this section, the theoretical background of current European code (CEN 2005) formulas
for the ultimate rotational capacity of RC members is presented. Principles and methodol-
ogies standing behind the two main approaches to the assessment of this value (mechan-
ical and empirical) are introduced. Further explanation of equation parameters introduced
herein is not reported for the sake of brevity; it is available in code or in reference literature
works.
2.1 Code formulas (EC8 part 3.3)
Eurocode 8Part 3 at section A.3.2.2 (Limit state of near collapse) provides expressions
for the evaluation of ultimate element capacity of RC elements. The value of total chord
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
rotation capacity under cyclic loading, following a mechanical approach, is given by [EC8
Eq. (A.1)]:

um
=
1

el
0.016
_
0.30

_
_
max
_
0.01;

_
max (0.01; )
f
c
_
0.225 _
L
V
h
_
0.35
25
_

sx
f
yw
f
c
_
_
1.25
100
d
_
(1)
where

el
, equal to 1.5 for primary seismic elements and to 1.0 for secondary seismic
elements, is meant to convert mean values of chord rotation to mean-minus-one-standard-
deviation ones. The code also provides another expression for the evaluation of the plastic
part of the ultimate chord rotation [EC8Eq. (A.3)]:

pl
um
=
um

y
=
1

el
0.0145
_
0.25

_
_
max
_
0.01;

_
max (0.01; )
_
0.3
f
0.2
c
_
L
V
h
_
0.35
25
_

sx
f
yw
f
c
_
_
1.275
100
d
_
(2)
To evaluate the total chord rotation, the plastic part calculated according to this formula
should be added to the rotation at yielding [EC8Eq. (A.10)].
The values of chord rotation calculated according to (1) and (2) apply to elements with
ribbed bars, seismically detailed and without lapping of longitudinal bars in the vicinity of
the end region where yielding is expected (plastic hinge region).
The correction coefcient applied to members with ribbed bars without seismic detailing
is equal to 0.825 for both formulas. If the longitudinal ribbed bars are lapped, expressions
(1) and (2) should be applied doubling the mechanical compression reinforcement ratio (

).
Moreover, if the lap length is less than the minimum value l
ou,min
:
l
ou,min
= d
bL
f
yL
/
__
1.05 + 14.5
1

sx
f
yw
f
c
_
_
f
c
_
(3)
another reduction factor equal to (l
o
/l
ou,min
) should be applied, calibrated only for expression
(2), that is only for the plastic part of chord rotation. Corrections applied to the chord rotation
at yielding are given at section A.3.2.4(3) of the code; they are omitted here for the sake of
brevity.
In elements with smooth bars the chord rotation evaluated according to (1) should be mul-
tiplied by 0.575, while the plastic part of chord rotation given by (2) should be multiplied by
to 0.375. Its worth noting that both coefcients already include the reduction factor equal to
0.825, accounting for the lack of seismic detailing. If longitudinal bars are lapped in members
with smooth bars, another coefcient has to be adopted, depending on the lap length (l
o
) and
the shear span (L
V
). For total chord rotation, it is given by:
0.0025 [180 + min(50, l
o
/d
bL
)] (1 l
o
/L
V
) (4)
while for the only plastic part it is:
0.0035 [60 + min(50, l
o
/d
bL
)] (1 l
o
/L
V
) (5)
Moreover, shear span in expressions (1) and (2) should be reduced by the lap length l
o
,
assuming that the ultimate condition is controlled by the region right after the end of the lap.
Adocument has beenpresented(Corrigenda toEN1998-3Document CEN/TC250/SC
8/N437A (CEN 2009)) changing some provisions of Eurocode 8part 3 (CEN 2005), also
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
including prescriptions about ultimate deformation capacity of members with smooth bars,
which have been illustrated herein. The coefcients 0.575 and 0.375, applied to Eqs. 1 and
2 for elements with smooth bars, have been changed into 0.80 and 0.75, respectively. In
both cases, these coefcients already include the reduction factor accounting for the lack
of seismic detailing, which has been changed from 0.825 to (1/1.20 =0.833). Formulations
(4) and (5), for elements with lapping of longitudinal smooth bars, have been significantly
changed, too. Expression (4), applied to total ultimate chord rotation, has been replaced by:
0.019 [10 + min(40, l
o
/d
bL
)] (4a)
Expression (5), applied to the plastic part of ultimate chord rotation, has been replaced by:
0.019 min(40, l
o
/d
bL
) (5a)
In these cases, coefcients do not include the reduction factor accounting for the lack of
seismic detailingequal to 1/1.20which has to be applied.
The deformation capacity of elements with smooth barsevaluated by means of coef-
cients applied to Eq. 1 or 2according to (CEN 2009) is higher than previously prescribed
by (CEN 2005).
In the following, both the formulations given in draft 2005 of Eurocode 8part 3 and the
later proposed changes will be reported. They will by referred to as (CEN 2005) and (CEN
2009), respectively.
The ultimate rotation may also be calculated following an equivalent mechanical approach
through the evaluation of the plastic ultimate section curvature (
u

y
), assumed to be con-
stant over the plastic hinge length L
pl
, which is empirically calibrated. Hence, the ultimate
rotational capacity may be evaluated according to [EC8Eq. (A.4)]:

um
=
1

el
_

y
+ (
u

y
)L
pl
_
1 0.5
L
pl
L
V
__
(6)
Section curvatures at ultimate
u
and at yielding
y
are calculated based on the rst prin-
ciples, with the constitutive relationships given by Eurocode 2 (CEN 2004). If the concrete
connement model given in 3.1.9 in Eurocode 2 is assumed, the plastic hinge length is equal
to [EC8Eq. (A.5)]:
L
pl
= 0.10L
V
+ 0.17h + 0.24
d
bL
f
y

f
c
(7)
If the connement model proposed by Eurocode 8part 3 is adopted, better representing the
effects of connement under cyclic loading, the plastic hinge length is given by:
L
pl
=
L
V
30
+ 0.20h + 0.11
d
bL
f
y

f
c
(8)
For expressions (7) and (8) no correction factor accounting for the above mentioned decien-
cies is given. Therefore, they should only be applied to members with ribbed bars, seismically
detailed and without lapping of longitudinal bars.
2.2 Mechanical approach: background theory
Froma phenomenological standpoint, the plastic hinge region can be identied with the zone
of the element where yielding of reinforcement and concrete crushing take place. The plas-
tic hinge length used in the evaluation of the element rotational capacity is, instead, purely
conventional. It only represents the length over which ultimate section curvature, assumed
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
to be constant, is integrated, following an equivalent bending approach, to calculate the
effective chord rotation including shear and xed-end rotation contributions to the overall
deformability of the member; the curvature is calculated based on Bernoullis plane section
assumption.
The plastic hinge length can not be evaluated based on a purely mechanical approach. As
a matter of fact, based on section equilibrium conditions and full-interaction hypothesis, in
a post-peak phase the curvature should increase only at the base section of the element (zero
length hinge problem) (Daniell et al. 2008; Haskett et al. 2009). Moreover, a purely mechani-
cal approach, leading to the evaluation of exural deformability, would not account for other
deformation mechanisms such as shear deformability and slippage of reinforcing bars from
the connection element. These contributions are not negligible at all. Shear mechanisms may
contribute in the overall post-elastic member deformability up to 30% (Fenwick and Megget
1993), whilst the end rotation due to the slippage of reinforcing bars may contribute up to
40% (Sezen 2002).
Therefore, researchers over years have empirically calibrated the plastic hinge length
over which theoretical ultimate section curvature is integrated, aiming at achieving the best
agreement with experimental values of ultimate chord rotation.
Following this approach, rotational capacity of an element may be expressed as:

u
=
y
+ (
u

y
)L
pl
(9)
where the plastic hinge length L
pl
is made up of three terms, corresponding to different
deformation mechanisms:
L
pl
= L
pl,ex
+ L
pl,shear
+ L
pl,slip
(10)
Table 1 reports main formulations that have been proposed over years, starting from the rst
fundamental work by Baker (1956). These expressions show that the shear span L
V
and
the section depth h are the major variables inuencing the plastic hinge length, while the
term corresponding to xed-end rotation is generally proportional to diameter and yielding
strength of longitudinal reinforcement bars. First proposed formulations are mainly calibrated
based on experimental tests on beam elements, therefore the xed-end rotation contribution
is not clearly evaluated. In recent formulations, calibrated also on column elements, this
contribution is clearly represented instead.
Moreover, in (9) the ultimate condition is given in terms of curvature
u
, depending,
based on plane section hypothesis, on steel or concrete failure. Nevertheless, the evaluation
of ultimate curvature is not easy or univocal, due to the inuence of some aspects as concrete
connement, spalling of the concrete cover or buckling of compressive reinforcing bars. For
example, the use of different connement models may significantly inuence the determi-
nation of the ultimate curvature, therefore the plastic hinge length can assume very different
values.
The plastic hinge formulation proposed in Panagiotakos and Fardis (2001) is the most
interesting among the expressions presented in literature. It is based on an extensive experi-
mental database, which will be discussed in the next paragraph.
The ultimate chord rotation is given by:

u
=

y
L
V
3
+ (
u

y
)L
pl
_
1 0.5
L
pl
L
V
_
(11)
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
Table 1 Empirically derived
plastic hinge lengths
Reference Plastic hinge length (L
pl
)
Baker (1956) k
1
k
2
k
3
(z/d)
1/4
d
Mattock
(1964)
d
2

_
1 +
_
1.14
_
z
d
1
_
_
1
_
qq

q
b
_
_
d
16.2
__
Corley (1966)
d
2
+ 0.2
z

d
Mattock
(1967)
d
2
+ 0.05z
Park et al.
(1982)
0.4h
Priestley and
Park (1987)
0.08L
v
+ 6d
b
Paulay and
Priestley
(1992)
0.08L
v
+ 0.022d
b
f
y
Panagiotakos
and Fardis
(2001)
0.12L
v
+ 0.014
sl
d
b
f
y
for cyclic loading
0.18L
v
+ 0.021
sl
d
b
f
y
for monotonic loading
Fardis (2007) 0.09L
v
+ 0.2h for cyclic loading
0.04L
v
+ 1.2h for monotonic loading
and the plastic hinge length L
pl
is given as a linear function of shear span L
V
(bending
contribution) and of the product (f
y
d
bL
) (xed-end contribution):
L
pl
= L
V
+ (f
y
d
bL
) (12)
Coefcients and are derived from a regression analysis on experimental data; they are
equal, respectively, to 0.12 and to 0.0014 for cyclic tests and to 0.18 and 0.0021 for monotonic
ones. The ultimate curvature
u
is evaluated accounting both for the concrete connement
and for the spalling of the concrete cover. In particular, for cyclic tests the mean and median
of the experimental-to-predicted ratio for expression (11), using (12), are equal to 1.23 and
0.99, respectively, with a C.o.V. of 83%; while for monotonic tests the mean and median are
equal to 1.37 and 1.01, respectively, with a C.o.V. of 94%.
The last plastic hinge expression proposed by Fardis (2007), based on a more extensive
experimental database, is depending not on the shear span L
V
but also on the height h of the
section. Moreover, the xed-end rotation contribution is evaluated with a separate term:

u
=
y
+ (
u,slip

y,slip
) + (
u

y
)L
pl
_
1 0.5
L
pl
L
V
_
(13)
with:
L
pl
= 0.09L
V
+ 0.20h (14)
where:
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng

y
=

y
L
V
3
+ 0.0013
_
1 + 1.5
h
L
V
_
+

y
d
bL
f
y
8

f
c
(15)

y,slip
=

y
d
bL
f
y
8

f
c
(16)

u,slip
=

u
d
bL
f
y
16

f
c
(17)
The use of the illustrated relationships, together with the connement model showed in the
same work, leads to an experimental-to-predicted ratio with mean and median, on a database
of 1307 experimental tests, equal to 1.105 and 0.994, respectively, with a C.o.V. of 53.6%.
Expressions (11) e (13), although providing a different evaluation of the xed-end contri-
bution, present the same control variables of the code expression (6), which directly shows, in
the calculation of plastic hinge length, the dependence on all the above mentioned parameters.
2.3 Empirical approach: background theory
Formulas for the evaluation of rotational capacity can also be obtained with a totally empirical
approach, based on experimental data, with pure numerical regression analyses.
In Haselton and Deierlein (2007), based on 255 experimental tests from PEER database
(Berry et al. 2004), empirical expressions for characteristic parameters of a RCelement model
(e.g. stiffness, rotation capacity, etc.), also including cyclic behaviour. These parameters are
chosen according to the model proposed in Ibarra et al. (2005). Empirical expressions for the
ultimate deformation capacity are also proposed in Rossetto (2002) and Zhu et al. (2007).
This kind of formulations can also be derived from a small number of experimental data,
when a specic typology of RC element is investigated. In Lam et al. (2003), based on a
few number of experimental tests, expressions for the assessment of deformation capacity of
rectangular RC columns with low lateral connement and high-axial load are proposed.
A different approach is proposed in Perus et al. (2006); Perus and Fajfar (2007). Authors
elaborate a method for the prediction of exural deformation capacity, but also of the whole
force-drift envelope, by means of CAE method (a special type of multi-dimensional non-
parametric regression) applied to a subset of Fardis and PEER databases. This method shows
a better prediction capacity compared to EC8 formulations.
Among the different empirical expressions proposed in literature, the expression proposed
in Panagiotakos and Fardis (2001) represents a reference for the above illustrated code formu-
las (CEN 2005). This experimental database consists in 633 cyclic tests and 242 monotonic
tests on beams, columns and walls, which do not present brittle failure mechanisms. The
relationship is a linear regression of the logarithm of
u
on the control variables or their loga-
rithms, without coupling. Only control variables which turn out to be statistically significant
for the prediction of
u
are retained. Separate regression analyses for monotonic tests and
for cyclic ones are performed. To obtain a more representative experimental database, with
particular regard to members with unsymmetric reinforcement well represented in mono-
tonic tests, another regression analysis on all 875 tests is performed, leading to the following
expression:

u
=
st

cyc

_
1 +

sl
2.3
_ _
1

wall
3
_
(0.20

)
_
max
_
0.01;

_
max (0.01; )
f
c
_
0.275 _
L
V
h
_
0.45
1.1
_
100
sx
f
yw
f
c
_
(1.30
100
d
) (18)
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
The ratio between the experimental ultimate rotation and the numerical value provided by
(18) has mean equal to 1.06, median equal to 1.00 and C.o.V. of 47%.
During years, together with the extension of the experimental database, the coefcients
in this expression have been slightly modied. The last proposal, given in Fardis (2007), is
based on 1,307 monotonic and cyclic tests:

u
=
st
(1 0.43
cyc
)
_
1 +

sl
2
_
_
1
3
8

wall
_
(0.30

)
_
max
_
0.01;

_
max (0.01; )
f
c
_
0.225 _
L
V
h
_
0.35
25
_

sx
f
yw
f
c
_
(1.25
100
d
) (19)
The mean value of the ratio between the experimental ultimate rotation and the numerical
value provided by (19) is 1.05, the median is equal to 0.995 and the C.o.V. is of 42.8%. The
comparison between the coefcients of variation clearly shows the better prediction capacity
of (19), due to the growth of experimental knowledge state.
In the same work, a regression analysis for the only plastic part is also presented, which
was already proposed in (CEB-FIB 2003) based on 1,100 experimental tests. The expression
is:

pl
u
=
pl
st
(1 0.52
cyc
)
_
1 +

sl
1.6
_
(1 0.4
wall
)
(0.25

)
_
max
_
0.01;

_
max (0.01; )
_
0.30
f
0.20
c
_
L
V
h
_
0.35
25
_

sx
f
yw
f
c
_
(1.275
100
d
) (20)
The mean value of the ratio between the experimental ultimate rotation and the corresponding
numerical prediction is 1.05, the median is equal to 0.995 and the C.o.V. is of 42.7%, against
the 47% in the rst proposal (see Eq. 18).
Expressions (1) and (2) proposed in EC8 almost perfectly agree with (19) and (20), assum-
ing
cyc
= 1 (cyclic loading),
sl
= 1 (with slip),
wall
= 0 (only beams and columns) and

st
=
pl
st
= 0.0185 (hot-rolled ductile steel).
Consistently with the characteristic of tests included in the experimental database, the pro-
posed expressions for the ultimate rotational capacity should be applied only to members with
ribbed bars, with seismic detailing and without lapping of longitudinal bars in the vicinity
of plastic hinge region, that is, to members which are not representative of existing build-
ings. Authors dene correction coefcients allowing to extend the use of these expressions
to members with different characteristics. These coefcients are calibrated to counterbal-
ance the mean error evaluated through the comparison between values from expressions (19)
and (20) and results of experimental tests on non-conforming members, not included in the
original (primary) database.
This approach, certainly approximated, is necessary because of the small number of exper-
imental data for these members. Because of the low number of these data, it seems to be
allowed to suppose that their inclusion in the database would have not led to any significant
change in the regression expression. Moreover, applying the primary expression to members
of different typologies, only using a multiplicative coefcient, is the same as postulating that
the ultimate rotation depends on the control parameters by the same way, independently of
the specic characteristics of considered elements. Nevertheless, the assumed methodology
seems to be the only one that can be followed, due to the fewexperimental data nowavailable
for this kind of elements. A higher reliability can be obtained only by extending the experi-
mental database, so that a wider range of loading conditions and geometrical and mechanical
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
Table 2 Correction factors for non-detailed members
Element type Correction factor # of data MeanMedian
C.o.V. (corrected
data)
Reference
w/o seismic detailing
and w/ continuous
ribbed bars
0.85 27 () (1.00)
()
Panagiotakos et al.
(2002); CEB-FIB
(2003)
0.825 42 (1.00)(1.005)
(33.6%)
Biskinis and Fardis
(2004); CEN (2005)
w/o seismic detailing
w/ hooked smooth
bars and w/ or w/o
lap-splicing over
plastic-hinge length
0.015
(10+min (40; l
o
/d
b
))
15 (1.07)(0.975)
(32%)
Fardis (2006)
w/o seismic detailing
w/ hooked smooth
bars and w/ or w/o
lap-splicing over
plastic-hinge length
1/1.20 0.019
(10+min (40; l
o
/d
b
))
()()
()
CEN (2009)
characteristics can be covered. In Table 2 correction coefcients and the extension of the
corresponding experimental databases used for calibrations are reported.
2.4 Critical review
The expressions for the ultimate rotational capacity, as clearly shown in the previous
paragraphs, are necessarily calibrated on experimental data, due to the complex nature of
mechanisms affecting the post-elastic behaviour of RC members and their interaction.
Both the approaches presented in literature and in Code are characterized by high values
of the coefcient of variation of the experimental-to-predicted capacity ratio.
The high C.o.V. affecting expressions (19) and (20)or (1) and (2)is not only due to
the natural experimental variability, but also to the difculty in completely modelling with
a simple formulation the interaction between the complex phenomena inuencing the post-
elastic deformation behaviour of RCelement. Panagiotakos and Fardis in (2001), based on the
analysis of subgroups of tests, homogenous for geometrical and mechanical characteristics
and for loading conditions, quantify the C.o.V. associated with the only natural variability in
12.5%.
The limited prediction capacity of these expressions is also due to impossibility of intro-
ducing in the control variables some parameters which certainly affect the rotational capacity.
The major among these parameters is the load path, that is, the energy dissipated in hyster-
etic cycles. This aspect has been experimentally investigated by Pujol et al. (2006), who
analyzed the inuence of displacement history on the decay of element resistance capacity.
The experimental tests showthat, given equal the geometrical and mechanical characteristics
and the applied axial load (that is, all the input parameters of code and literature regression
formulations), it is possible to predetermine the value of element chord rotation correspond-
ing to a conventional drop of 20% of peak resistance, by imposing a given load path (see
Fig. 1).
Panagiotakos and Fardis, in the above mentioned work, try to explicitly account for the
effect of cyclic loading by another regression, where the type of loading is evaluated with a
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
Fig. 1 Inuence of displacement
history on ultimate chord rotation
(Pujol et al. 2006)
variable expressing the equivalent number of inelastic imposed cycles (

|
i
|
u
), instead of
the coefcient (
cyc
). Nevertheless, contrary to expectations, the inclusion of this parameter
makes worse the prediction capacity of the formulation. The C.o.V. of the ratio between the
experimental and the predicted value, in fact, increases up to 51%. On the other hand, the
usual structural modelling approaches do not allow to introduce the dissipated energy in
the control variables.
A critical analysis of expressions (19) and (20), based on mechanical considerations
regarding the absence of a direct relationship between the median estimation of the ulti-
mate rotation and some parameters that certainly inuence the member capacity, seems to
be without foundation. Due to the purely statistical nature of the expression, in fact, the
retaining of these variables turns out to be not significant because of their strong corre-
lation with other parameters, already present in the formulation (Panagiotakos and Fardis
2001).
Its worth noting that the higher coefcient of variation affecting the hybrid mechani-
cal-empirical formulation (plastic hinge length) with respect to the purely empirical one is
probably related to the difculty in expressing the ultimate rotation as a function of element
characteristics based on a statistical regression analysis restrained to a mechanical relation-
ship.
3 Deformation capacity of RC members with smooth bars
Smooth reinforcing bars have been widely used in the construction of European RC build-
ings. In Italy and in the whole Mediterranean area their use was widely spread up to 1970s,
in north-American countries and in New Zealand constructions with smooth bars are present
until 1950. The wide spreading of RC buildings with smooth bars among existing buildings
can be deduced if it is considered that 50% of Italian existing buildings has been constructed
between earliest 1940s and latest 1970s, when RC structures with smooth bars were the
prevailing construction typology.
The correct evaluation of deformation capacity of RC elements has to account for the
effective bond capacities between reinforcing bars and the surrounding concrete. For mem-
bers with smooth bars, low bond capacities directly inuence the three main deformation
mechanisms: bending, shear and xed-end rotation.
As shown by experimental evidence, the scarce capacities of load transfer between the
reinforcing bars and the surrounding concrete makes the deformation contribution associ-
ated with the xed-end rotation effect very important. This contribution, in fact, due to the
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
cyclic and post-elastic decay of bond capacities, may represent up to (8090)% of overall
deformability of the element (Verderame et al. 2008a, b).
Bond capacities also inuence the development of cracks along the element. A lower
number of wider cracks is observed when bond decreases. This greatly inuences both shear
and bending deformability, reducing the former and increasing the latter.
Therefore, formulations able to provide a reliable assessment of ultimate deformation
capacity of elements with smooth bars are of a particular interest for assessment of existing
buildings.
The ultimate rotational capacities for members with smooth bars, according to code, as
already shown at paragraph 2.1, is evaluated by applying a correction coefcient, based on
experimental data, to the capacity formulations calibrated on members with ribbed bars and
seismically detailed.
Most of literature data about the experimental behaviour of RC elements comes from
test executed on members with ribbed bars. During last years, the need for a reliable
assessment of seismic capacity of existing structures has produced an increasing number
of experimental campaigns aimed at the study of behaviour of non-conforming elements.
In the following, experimental results of columns with smooth bars, including recent tests
carried out in the laboratory of the Department of Structural Engineering at the Univer-
sity of Naples Federico II, in the research project ReLUIS-DPC 2005-2008 Linea 2, are
introduced.
Based on these data, it will be possible to extend the experimental database for the cali-
bration of correction coefcients applied to the regression relationships for the evaluation of
ultimate rotational capacity of members with smooth bars.
Tested columns with lapping of longitudinal reinforcement are included in this database
only if hooks are provided at the end of lapped bars. Literature offers experimental data
on members without this anchorage detail (Ilki et al. 2004; Yalcin et al. 2008); in these
cases, brittle lap splice failures are present. Therefore, in the following these data will not be
considered.
3.1 Bousias et al. database (2005)
According to (CEB-FIB 2006), coefcients proposed in (CEN 2005), which have been
reported at 2.1, are calibrated on very few experimental tests. The correction factor pro-
posed by code (CEN 2005), applied both when lapping of longitudinal reinforcement is
present and when it is not, has been evaluated based on experimental results from tests car-
ried out at the University of Patras (Bousias et al. 2004, 2005). Experimental tests are six
in all (Bousias et al. 2005): in two cases there is no lapping of longitudinal reinforcement
(l
o
= 100d
bL
), while in the remaining four cases longitudinal bars are lapped: l
o
=15d
bL
in
twospecimens andl
o
=25d
bL
inthe other two. Transverse sectionis squared(250250) mm
2
and ratio (L
V
/h) is equal to 6.4; axial load level varies between 0.41 and 0.44; concrete
compressive strength f
c
is included between 27.0 and 30.3 MPa, and yield strength of lon-
gitudinal reinforcement f
y
is equal to 313 MPa. In Fig. 2, for each couple of testswith
l
o
= 15, 25, 100d
bL
the experimental force-displacement relationship of a representative
specimen is reported.
Table 3 reports, for each test, the ratio between the experimental ultimate rotation and
the value obtained by (2). The ratio between the experimental value of the ultimate rotation
and the theoretical value, obtained by (2) and multiplied by the code correction coefcient,
evaluated for all tests, has mean equal to 1.07 and median equal to 0.975, with a C.o.V. of
32.1%.
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
Fig. 2 Force-displacement relationship of column with a l
o
= 15d
bL
, b l
o
= 25d
bL
, c l
o
= 100d
bL
reported
in Bousias et al. (2004)
Table 3 Ratios between
experimental ultimate rotations
and corresponding theoretical
values from Bousias et al. (2005)
n Test Reference Loading l
o
/d
bL

u,exp
/
u
1 Bousias et al. (2005) Cyclic 15 0.33
2 Cyclic 15 0.62
3 Cyclic 25 0.39
4 Cyclic 25 0.41
5 Cyclic 100 0.58
6 Cyclic 100 0.60
3.2 Fardis database (2006)
Expression proposed in Fardis (2006), reported in Table 2, are, instead, based on 15 exper-
imental tests, including the original Bousias database, see Table 4. In particular, 9 of these
tests without lapping (l
o
/d
bL
= 100) and 6 with a lap length l
o
varying between 15, 25 and 40
times the diameter d
bL
of longitudinal reinforcing bars. 5 of the 9 newintroduced teststests
#1115 in Table 4come from the University of Naples (Verderame et al. 2008b).
In Table 4 the ratios between the experimental values of the ultimate rotation and the values
obtained by (2) are reported. Figure 3 shows, for each experimental test, the ratio between
the experimental ultimate rotation and the corresponding theoretical value (
u,exp
/
u
) and
the correction coefcient proposed in (Fardis 2006).
The comparison between the correction coefcient given by CEN (2005) and the one pro-
posed in Fardis (2006) shows the considerable conservativeness of the prescription proposed
by Eurocode 8. As a matter of fact, the ultimate rotation of members with smooth bars and
without lapping of longitudinal reinforcement, according to this coefcient, is equal to 0.75
times the ultimate rotation of members with ribbed bars and seismically detailed, given by
(2), while prescriptions of CEN (2005) suggest a correction factor equal to 0.575. It is to be
noted that the widening of the database by adding further experimental results from columns
with lapping of longitudinal reinforcement makes lower the reduction of the ultimate rota-
tion, compared to the code prescriptions (CEN 2005). The ratio between the experimental
value of the ultimate rotation
u,exp
and the corresponding theoretical value, obtained by (2)
and multiplied by the correction coefcient proposed by Fardis, evaluated on all tests in the
experimental database, has mean equal to 1.07 and median equal to 0.975, with a C.o.V. of
32.1%.
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
Table 4 Ratios between
experimental ultimate rotations
and corresponding theoretical
values used for the correction
coefcient proposed in Fardis
(2006)
n Test Reference Loading l
o
/d
bL

u,exp
/
u
1 Fardis (2006) Cyclic 15 0.33
2 Cyclic 15 0.62
3 Cyclic 25 0.39
4 Cyclic 25 0.41
5 Cyclic 100 0.58
6 Cyclic 100 0.60
7 Cyclic 100 0.54
8 Cyclic 100 0.74
9 Cyclic 100 0.83
10 Cyclic 100 1.25
11 Cyclic 40 1.26
12 Cyclic 40 0.83
13 Cyclic 100 1.21
14 Cyclic 100 1.13
15 Cyclic 100 0.81
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

u,exp
/
u
lap length, l
o
/d
bL
# 15 tests
0.015[10+min(40,l
o
/d
bL
)]
Fig. 3 Correction coefcient proposed by Fardis (2006)
Correction coefcients reported in CEN (2009) are very similar to the ones proposed in
Fardis (2006). For members with continuous longitudinal bars, they are equal to 0.80 and
0.75, respectively. If longitudinal bars are lapped, Eq. 4a proposed by CEN(2009), multiplied
by the coefcient 1/1.20 accounting for the lack of seismic detailing, is almost equal to the
expression 0.015 [10 + min(40, l
o
/d
bL
)] given by Fardis (2006).
3.3 University of Salerno database
In Faella et al. (2008) results of four experimental tests on columns with smooth bars, carried
out at the University of Salerno, are reported. Three of these tests are cyclic and one is mono-
tonic; in all of these tests longitudinal reinforcement is lapped. Transverse section is squared
(300 300) mm
2
and ratio (L
V
/h) is equal to 5.67; axial load level varies between 0.14
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
Table 5 Geometrical and mechanical characteristics of tested elements from Faella et al. (2008)
n test Reference L
V
/h l
o
/d
bL
Reinforcement Loading
u,exp[10%]

u,exp[20%]
[%] [%]
a
1 Faella et al.
(2008)
5.67 0.14 43 Smooth Monotonic 8.80
2 5.67 0.14 43 Smooth Cyclic 3.62 3.89
3 5.67 0.40 43 Smooth Cyclic 3.06 3.21
4 5.67 0.40 43 Smooth Cyclic 2.47 3.11
a
Cyclic ultimate chord rotations corresponding to a strength decay equal to 20% of peak resistance were
evaluated and provided by the authors
Fig. 4 Force-displacement relationship of column a C3-S, b C16-S, c C18-S reported in Faella et al. (2008)
and 0.40; concrete compressive strength f
c
is included between 13.5 and 27.5 MPa, and yield
strength of longitudinal reinforcement f
y
is equal to 346 MPa. Lap length of longitudinal
bars is equal to 43 times the bars diameter.
Table 5 reports the main geometrical and mechanical parameters of tested specimens and
corresponding ultimate chord rotations
u,exp
, evaluated for a 10 and 20% decay of the peak
resistance; Fig. 4 shows the experimental force-displacement response of cyclic tests.
3.4 University of Naples database (20052009)
In recent times, in the Department of Structural Engineering at the University of Naples
Federico II, a great attention has been addressed to the experimental study of members with
smooth bars, both through test aimed at the characterization of bond capacities in cyclic
(Verderame et al. 2009a, b) and post-elastic eld and through tests on real-scale column
elements under monotonic and cyclic loading.
In the rst phase of the experimental activity 6 monotonic tests and 6 cyclic ones
(Fabbrocino et al. 2005; Verderame et al. 2008a, b) have been performed, on elements
with square section (300 300) mm
2
, for different values of the applied axial load
( = 0.12 0.24). In this phase particular attention has been addressed to the detail of
longitudinal bars, by executing tests on elements without lapping of longitudinal bars at the
base of the element and on elements with a lap length l
o
equal to 40 times the diameter d
bL
of
longitudinal bars. In Table 6 the main parameters of twelve tested columns and correspond-
ing ultimate chord rotations
u,exp
, corresponding to a 20% decay of the peak resistance, are
reported.
Experimental results show that rotational capacity in cyclic eld is strongly inuenced by
axial load level ; as a matter of fact, as this parameter doubles from 0.12 to 0.24 rotational
capacity decreases about by 45%, see Fig. 5a. Moreover, with regard to cyclic tests, columns
with lapping of longitudinal bars equal to l
o
= 40d
bL
show a rotational capacity, on average,
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
Table 6 Geometrical and mechanical characteristics of tested elements from Verderame et al. (2008a, b) and
Di Ludovico et al. (2010)
n Test Reference B [mm] L
V
/h
l
[%] l
o
/d
bL
Reinforcement Loading
u,exp
[%]
1 Verderame et al.
(2008a, b)
300 5.23 0.12 0.8 40 smooth Cyclic
a
6.23
2 300 5.23 0.12 0.8 40 Smooth Cyclic
a
5.82
3 300 5.23 0.12 0.8 100 Smooth Cyclic
a
6.49
4 300 5.23 0.24 0.8 40 Smooth Cyclic
a
3.72
5 300 5.23 0.24 0.8 100 Smooth Cyclic
a
3.81
6 300 5.23 0.24 0.8 100 Smooth Cyclic
a
2.77
7 300 5.23 0.12 0.8 40 Smooth Monotonic
b
7.90
8 300 5.23 0.12 0.8 40 Smooth Monotonic
b
7.40
9 300 5.23 0.12 0.8 100 Smooth Monotonic
b
11.00
10 300 5.23 0.12 0.8 100 Smooth Monotonic
b
9.40
11 300 5.23 0.24 0.8 40 Smooth Monotonic
b
7.87
12 300 5.23 0.24 0.8 100 Smooth Monotonic
b
4.97
13 Di Ludovico et al.
(2010)
300 5.00 0.20 1.0 100 Smooth Monotonic 8.53
14 300 5.00 0.20 1.0 100 Smooth Cyclic 5.43
15 300 3.00 0.10 0.9 100 Smooth Cyclic 5.27
16 500 5.00 0.10 0.9 100 Smooth Cyclic 6.23
17 300 5.00 0.20 1.0 100 Ribbed Monotonic 6.86
18 300 5.00 0.20 1.0 100 Ribbed Cyclic 3.87
19 300 3.00 0.10 0.9 100 Ribbed Cyclic 3.65
20 500 5.00 0.10 0.9 100 Ribbed Cyclic 4.66
a
Ultimate chord rotations have been evaluated for a strength decay equal to 20% of peak resistance, whilst
values reported in Verderame et al. (2008b) have been evaluated for a strength decay equal to 15%
b
Ultimate chord rotations have been evaluated for a strength decay equal to 20% of peak resistance by means
of a linear extrapolation along the softening branch of monotonic response reported in Verderame et al. (2008a)
equal to columns with continuous reinforcement (l
o
= 100d
bL
), independently of the axial
load level, see Fig. 5b.
The second phase of the experimental campaign (Di Ludovico et al. 2010) is focused on the
comparison between rotational capacity and deformation mechanisms of RC elements with
smooth and ribbed bars. In particular, (4 +4) tests have been executed on elements equal for
the geometry of the transverse section, the geometric ratio of longitudinal and transverse rein-
forcement, the axial load level and the load path, varying the geometry of the transverse sec-
tion. Columns have three different transverse sections(300300) mm
2
, (300500) mm
2
and (500 300) mm
2
corresponding to a (L
V
/h) ratio equal to 5.0 and 3.0, respectively.
Yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement f
y
is equal to 330 and 505 MPa for smooth and
ribbed bars, respectively. Concrete compressive strength f
c
varies between 17.9 and 22.0
MPa.
Characteristics of tested elements are reported in Table 6, where the ultimate drift corre-
sponding to 20% decay of peak resistance is also given.
Experimental results conrm a rather large rotational capacity of columns with smooth
bars, already highlighted during the previous experimental campaign. Moreover, each of these
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
normalized axial load,

u,exp
[%]
l
o
= 100d
bL
l
o
= 40d
bL
cyclic tests
(a)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
lap length, l
o
/d
bL
cyclic tests
= 0.12
= 0.24

u,exp
[%]
(b)
Fig. 5 Experimental results from Verderame et al. (2008a, b): ultimate cyclic chord rotation versus axial load
level (a) and lap length (b)
Fig. 6 Experimental results from
Di Ludovico et al. (2010):
ultimate cyclic chord rotation
versus the type of reinforcement
(smooth or ribbed)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
smooth ribbed

u,exp
[%]
reinforcement type
mon (= 0.2 - L
V
/h=5)
cyc (= 0.2 - L
V
/h=5)
cyc (= 0.1 - L
V
/h=3)
cyc (= 0.1 - L
V
/h=5)
columns has regularly shown a higher rotational capacity compared with the corresponding
column with ribbed bars, see Fig. 6: ultimate rotations of columns with ribbed bars are lower
by 18 and 28% compared to corresponding columns with smooth bars, for monotonic and
cyclic loading, respectively. This is certainly due to the higher weight of the deformation
mechanism given by the slippage of longitudinal bars from the foundation element when
reinforcement is smooth.
4 Calibration of correction factor
The correction coefcient applied to code expressions for the ultimate rotation of members
with smooth bars is calibrated, based on experimental data introduced in Sect. 3.
The correction coefcient will be calibrated according to the methodology already illus-
trated at 2.3, with regard to the following expression:

u
=
y
+
pl
u
(21)
where
pl
u
is evaluated according to Eq. 2, with

el
= 1.
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
Fig. 7 Ratio between cyclic and
monotonic rotational capacities
versus the axial load level from
Verderame et al. (2008a, b) and
Di Ludovico et al. (2010)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
(
u,cyc
/
u,mon
)
normalized axial load,
0.57 ribbed bars
(Fardis, 2007)
0.69 smooth bars
smooth bars
ribbed bars
The considered database is made up only of cyclic tests. As a matter of fact, ultimate
rotational capacity given by code prescriptions (CEN 2005) is meant to be cyclic. Monotonic
tests could be included in the database for the calibration of correction coefcient only by
means of a coefcient accounting for the type of loading, as
cyc
, applied to the expression
of the ultimate rotation. On the other hand, this would be the same as postulating that the
reduction in rotational capacity due to cyclic loading, evaluated by this coefcient, is, on
average, not depending on bond capacities. As a matter of fact, this coefcient, as previously
illustrated, is calibrated on a database made up of members with ribbed bars; therefore, the
evaluation of the correction coefcient should be executed supposing that the reduction given
by
cyc
can also be extended to members with smooth bars.
Nevertheless, rst experimental results highlight that the reduction in rotational capacity
due to cyclic loading is lower for columns with smooth bars compared to columns with ribbed
bars; this is shown, in particular, by test results from the University of Naples (Verderame
et al. 2008a, b; Di Ludovico et al. 2010). Figure 7 reports the ratio (
u,cyc
/
u,mon
) between
cyclic and monotonic experimental ultimate rotations for each possible couple of tests, given
equal the axial load level, the longitudinal reinforcement detail (with or without lapping) and
the geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the elements, versus the axial load level .
The reduction in cyclic rotational capacity clearly increases as the axial load level increases.
However, the ratio (
u,cyc
/
u,mon
) has a mean equal to 0.69 with a C.o.V. =0.17 for columns
with smooth bars, independently of the axial load level and the longitudinal reinforcement
detail. On the contrary, the average value of ratio (
u,cyc
/
u,mon
), for columns with ribbed
bars and seismically detailed, is equal to 0.57 as indicated in Fardis (2007); it is to be noted
that this value is conrmed by the only couple of tests characterized by ribbed longitudinal
reinforcement.
Therefore, due to the uncertainties related to the inclusion of monotonic tests, the cor-
rection coefcient will now be calibrated based on the only cyclic tests. Hence, elements
included in the database are: six columns from Bousias database, ve columns added in
Fardis database, except the tests carried out at the University of Naples, three columns from
the University of Salerno and, nally, nine columns tested at the University of Naples.
Table 7 reports the description of the database, including the lap length and the
ratio between the experimental ultimate rotation and the corresponding theoretical value
(
u,exp
/
u
), according to (21); Figure 8 shows the ratio (
u,exp
/
u
) versus the lap length
l
o
/d
bL
.
The ratio (
u,exp
/
u
) for members without lapping of longitudinal bars (conventionally
reported as l
o
/d
bL
= 100) has mean equal to 1.03 and median equal to 0.98, with a C.o.V. =
0.39. Therefore, based on the experimental tests, expression (21) shows a very good agree-
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
Table 7 Ratios between
experimental ultimate rotations
and corresponding theoretical
values
n Test Reference Loading l
o
/d
bL

u,exp
/
u
1 Bousias et al. (2005) Cyclic 15 0.33
2 Cyclic 15 0.62
3 Cyclic 25 0.39
4 Cyclic 25 0.41
5 Cyclic 100 0.58
6 Cyclic 100 0.60
7 Fardis (2006) Cyclic 100 0.54
8 Cyclic 100 0.74
9 Cyclic 100 0.83
10 Cyclic 100 1.25
11 Faella et al. (2008) Cyclic 43 0.77
12 Cyclic 43 0.79
13 Cyclic 43 0.85
14 Verderame et al.
(2008b)
Cyclic 40 1.26
15 Cyclic 40 0.83
16 Cyclic 40 0.60
17 Cyclic 100 1.21
18 Cyclic 100 1.13
19 Cyclic 100 0.81
20 Di Ludovico et al.
(2010)
Cyclic 100 1.41
21 Cyclic 100 1.42
22 Cyclic 100 1.76
Fig. 8 Ratio
u,exp
/
u
versus
lap length l
o
/d
bL
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

u,exp
/
u
lap length, l
o
/d
bL
# 22 tests
ment with the cyclic rotational capacity of elements with smooth bars without lapping of
longitudinal reinforcement.
The use of expression (21) for members with lapping of longitudinal bars overestimates
even more the experimental rotational capacity; in fact, the ratio (
u,exp
/
u
) for members
with lapping of longitudinal bars has mean equal to 0.69 and median equal to 0.69, with
a C.o.V. =0.41. With regard to members with lapping of longitudinal bars, a linear regres-
sion performed on the ratio (
u,exp
/
u
) gives the following expression for the correction
coefcient:
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
Fig. 9 Proposed correction
factor
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

u,exp
/
u
lap length, l
o
/d
bL
# 22 tests
0.020min(50,l
o
/d
bL
)
1
= 0.020(l
o
/d
bL
) (22)
The ratio
u,exp
/(
1

u
) has mean equal to 1.07 and median equal to 0.93, with a C.o.V. =
0.38.
Based on mean and median values shown by columns with continuous longitudinal rein-
forcement, it is possible to provide one expression for the correction coefcient, both for
elements with and without lapping of longitudinal bars:

= 0.020 min(50, l
o
/d
bL
) (23)
The ratio
u,exp
/(

u
), calculated on all tests in the experimental database, has mean equal
to 1.06, median equal to 0.96 and a C.o.V. = 0.38 while for members without lapping of
longitudinal bars it has mean equal to 1.03 and median equal to 0.98, with a C.o.V. = 0.39.
Figure 9 reports the ratio between the experimental ultimate rotation and the correspond-
ing theoretical value (
u,exp
/
u
), together with the proposed correction coefcient given by
(23), applied to (21).
It is possible to compare the proposed coefcient, evaluated on 22 tests, with the coef-
cient proposed by Fardis (2006), evaluated on 15 tests, with the coefcient given by CEN
(2005), evaluated on 6 tests, and with the update to CEN (2005) proposed by CEN (2009).
The correction coefcient suggested in Fardis (2006) is not far from the proposed coefcient
given by (22) for members with lapping of longitudinal reinforcement.
On the other hand, the coefcient adopted by CEN (2005) shows a considerable con-
servativeness. According to this prescription, the ultimate rotation of members with a lap
length equal to l
o
has to be evaluated based on the assumption that the ultimate condition
is controlled by the region right after the end of the lap. Hence, expression (21) should be
multiplied by expression (4). In this coefcient, a further reduction in the ultimate rotation is
given by the term (1 l
o
/L
V
), expressing a reduction in the shear span L
V
by the lap length
l
o
. Moreover, shear span should be reduced by the lap length also in expressions (2).
With regard to members without lapping of longitudinal bars, based on the proposed cor-
rection coefcient the ultimate rotational capacity of members with smooth bars is equal to
that of members with ribbed bars and seismically detailed. On the contrary, according to the
expression proposed in Fardis (2006), the ratio between the former and the latter is equal to
0.75, whilst code prescriptions (CEN 2005) suggest 0.575.
Expression proposed in CEN(2009), as previously noted, is very similar to the expression
given by Fardis (2006).
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
Fig. 10 Comparison between the
proposed correction coefcient
and the ones reported in CEN
(2005), Fardis (2006) and CEN
(2009)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

u,exp
/
u
lap length, l
o
/d
bL
# 22 tests
(CEN, 2005)
proposed (Eq.23)
(Fardis, 2006)
(CEN, 2009)
Figure 10 shows a comparison between different correction coefcients applied to (21); it
is to be noted that the coefcient given by (CEN 2005) is represented not taking into account
the shear span reduction.
4.1 Discussion of results
The extension of the experimental database allowed to re-calibrate the correction coefcients
applied to the assessment of the ultimate rotational capacity of elements with smooth bars,
with or without lapping of longitudinal reinforcement.
The expression of correction coefcient proposed herein highlights the conservativeness
of EC8 (CEN 2005) proposal, which is based on very few experimental tests. Moreover, EC8
assumes that, when lapping of longitudinal reinforcement is present, the ultimate condition
is controlled by the region right after the end of the lap, so that the shear span and, therefore,
the rotational capacity are further reduced. This assumption is not conrmed by the exper-
imental results reported in Verderame et al. (2008a, b) and Di Ludovico et al. (2010); the
highest plastic demand, in fact, always concentrates at the base section of the element.
The changes in correction coefcients proposed by CEN (2009)probably based on the
proposal of Fardis (2006)result in a less conservative and more reliable evaluation of
ultimate deformation capacity of members with smooth bars.
Despite the difculties in the choice of the most reliable expression for the correction
coefcient, recent experimental results clearly highlight the higher rotational capacity of
members with smooth bars with compared to members with ribbed bars, equal for structural
characteristics and details. As a matter of fact, the comparison between the ultimate rotations
of the elements fromthe experimental campaign reported in Di Ludovico et al. (2010), briey
illustrated at 3.4, highlights that the capacity of members with smooth bars are higher, on
average, by 35% compared with the corresponding members with ribbed bars (see Table 6).
From a mechanical standpoint, the higher ultimate rotational capacity of columns with
smooth bars may be explained by the comparison between two opposite mechanisms: the
increase in deformability caused by the xed-end rotation mechanism, particularly exalted
due to the low bond capacities; on the other hand, the higher degradation of global resistance
due to the increase in deformation demand on concrete in compression, localized at the base
of the element and associated with the concentrated rotation (rocking effect). According to
experimental evidence, the former seems to prevail on the latter, leading to an overall increase
of ultimate rotational capacity compared with members with higher bond capacities.
Nevertheless, the post-elastic development of a high slippage, concentrated in a low num-
ber of wide cracks, represents not only a source of deformability but also a permanent damage
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
for the RC element (Verderame et al. 2008b). Moreover, the higher inuence of xed-end
rotation mechanism on behaviour of elements with smooth bars, compared to elements with
ribbed bars, also leads to a decrease in the energy dissipation capacity. As a matter of fact,
RC members with smooth bars tested under cyclic loading reported in Di Ludovico et al.
(2010), at the same displacement demand, show a dissipated energy about 30% lower, on
average, than the energy dissipated by the corresponding members with ribbed bars, equal for
geometrical characteristics and applied axial load. This issue should be carefully considered,
since it could potentially lead to an underestimate of the seismic demand.
Further conservatism should be addressed to the assessment of seismic capacity of mem-
bers with smooth bars because of the particularly high uncertainties involved in modelling
their deformation mechanisms. This is due, for example, to the difculties in evaluating the
inuence of rocking effect and to the high variability affecting bond capacities (Verderame
et al. 2009a, b), also inuenced by possible corrosion (Fardis 2006).
Finally, the absence of an effective anchorage of reinforcing bars by means of end hooks
may limit the deformation capacity (Yalcin et al. 2008) and in some cases the strength (Ilki
et al. 2004) of the element.
5 Conclusions
In this work, the theoretical background of code formulas for the assessment of ultimate
rotational capacity of RC members has been presented. Most recent literature contributions
have been illustrated, together with advantages and deciencies of the approaches to the
calibration of these relationships.
Special attention has been addressed to the calibration of correction coefcients applied
to the assessment of ultimate rotational capacity of non-conforming elements, with emphasis
on members with smooth bars. Main conclusions drawn form this work are:
The evaluation of post-elastic deformation capacity of RC elements may only be based
on experimental data; any mechanical approach would not allow to evaluate accurately
the complex interaction phenomena inuencing the deformability of the element.
The reliability of regression expressions proposed in literature, some of which have been
adopted by code, is a direct result of the extension and the correct sorting of the database.
The estimate of rotational capacity of non-conforming elements is strongly inuenced by
the low number of experimental data related to these typologies.
Recent experimental tests on columns with smooth bars, carried out at the University of
Naples, allow to extend the database used for the calibration of correction coefcients
applied to the assessment of these elements, with or without lapping of longitudinal
reinforcement.
The re-calibration of correction coefcients, even within the limits of the adopted meth-
odology, allows to highlight the conservativeness of code prescriptions for elements with
smooth bars; this is conrmed by the experimental evidence, showing that the ultimate
rotation of elements with smooth bars is higher compared with elements with ribbed bars,
on average, by 35%, given equal the structural characteristics and details.
Nevertheless, the high deformation capacity of elements with smooth bars is mainly due
to the xed end rotation mechanism, given by the slippage of longitudinal bars. The
nature of this mechanism leads to lower dissipation capacity compared to elements with
ribbed bars, as experimentally demonstrated. Moreover, slippage represents a permanent
damage for the RC element.
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
Special attention should be addressed to the high uncertainties affecting the deformation
mechanisms of elements with smooth bars. This is due, for example, to the difculties in
evaluating the inuence of rocking effect, bond capacities and anchorage conditions on
the seismic response of these elements.
Acknowledgments This work has been developed under the research program of ReLUISRete dei Lab-
oratori Universitari di Ingegneria Sismica, with the nancial support of the Italian Department of Civil
ProtectionExecutive Project 20052008. The Authors wish to thank the Reviewers for their valuable and
useful comments, which allowed to improve this paper.
References
Baker ALL (1956) Ultimate load theory applied to the design of reinforced and prestressed concrete frames.
Concrete Publications Ltd, London
Berry M, Parrish M, Eberhard M (2004) PEER structural performance database: users manual (version 1.0).
Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley
Biskinis DE, Fardis MN(2004) Cyclic strength and deformation capacity of RCmembers, including members
retrotted for earthquake resistance. In: Proceedings of the 5th international Ph.D. symposium in civil
engineering. Delft, Balkema, pp 11251133
Bousias SN, Fardis MN, Biskinis D (2005) Retrotting of RC columns with decient lap splices. In: Proceed-
ings of the b symposium keep concrete attractive. Budapest, Hungary, 2325 May, pp 885890
Bousias SN, Spathis AL, Fardis MN (2004) Seismic retrotting of columns with lap-splices via RC jackets.
In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering. Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 16. Paper No.
1937
CEB-FIB (2003) Seismic assessment and retrot of reinforced concrete buildings. CEB-FIB Bulletin no. 24.
International federation for structural concrete, task group 7.1.
CEB-FIB (2006) Retrotting of concrete structures by externally bonded FRPs, with emphasis on seismic
applications. CEB-FIB Bulletin No. 35. International federation for structural concrete
CEN (2004) European standard EN1992-1-1. Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures Part 1-1: general
rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels
CEN (2005) European standard EN1998-3. Eurocode 8: design provisions for earthquake resistance of struc-
tures Part 3: assessment and retrotting of buildings. European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels
CEN (2009) Corrigenda to EN 1998-3, document CEN/TC250/SC8/N437A. European Committee for Stan-
dardisation, Brussels
Corley WG (1966) Rotational capacity of reinforced concrete beams. J Struct Div ASCE 92(ST5):121146
Daniell JE, Oehlers DJ, Grifth MC, Mohamed Ali MS, Ozbakkaloglu T (2008) The softening rotation of
reinforced concrete members. Eng Struct 30(11):31593166
Di Ludovico M, Verderame GM, Prota A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E (2010) Experimental investigation on
non-conforming RC columns with plain and deformed bars. ACI Struct J (submitted)
Fabbrocino G, Verderame GM, Manfredi G(2005) Rotation capacity of old type RCcolumns. In: Proceedings
of the b symposium keep concrete attractive. Budapest, Hungary, May 2325, pp 891896
Faella C, Napoli A, Realfonzo R (2008) Cyclic exural behavior of FRP-conned concrete columns under
high axial loading. In: Proceedings of the ReLUIS congress Valutazione e riduzione della vulnerabilit
sismica di edici esistenti in c.a.. Rome, Italy, May 2930, pp 510520
Fang C, Gylltoft K, Lundgren K, Plos M (2006) Effect of corrosion on bond in reinforced concrete under
cyclic loading. Cement Concrete Res 36(3):548555
Fardis MN (2006) Design rules for FRP retrotting according to Eurocode 8 and their background. Lecture
to Fib Course 2006 Retrotting of concrete structures through externally bonded FRPs with emphasis
on seismic applications, Mexico
Fardis MN (2007) LESSLOSSrisk mitigation for earthquakes and landslides. Guidelines for displacement-
based design of buildings and bridges. Report No. 5/2007. IUSS Press, Pavia
Fenwick RC, Megget LM (1993) Elongation and load deection characteristics of reinforced concrete mem-
bers containing plastic hinges. Bull NZ Soc Earthq Eng 26(1):2841
Haselton CB, Deierlein GG (2007) Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment-
frame buildings. PEERReport No. 2007/08. Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California, Berkeley
1 3
Bull Earthquake Eng
Haskett M, Oehlers DJ, Mohamed Ali MS, Wu C (2009) Rigid body momentrotation mechanism for rein-
forced concrete beam hinges. Eng Struct 31(5):10321041
Ibarra FL, Medina RA, Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deteri-
oration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(12):14891511
Ilki A, Tezcan A, Koc V, Kumbasar N (2004) Seismic retrot of non-ductile rectangular reinforced concrete
columns by CFRP jacketing. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering. Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada, August 16. Paper No. 2236
LamSSE, Wu B, Wong YL, Wang ZY, Liu ZQ, Li CS (2003) Drift capacity of rectangular reinforced concrete
columns with low lateral connement and high-axial load. ASCE J Struct Eng 129(6):733742
Mattock AH (1967) Discussion of rotational capacity of hinging regions in reinforced concrete beams. ASCE
J Struct Div 93(ST2):519522
Mattock AH (1964) Rotational capacity of hinging regions in reinforced concrete beams. Flexural mechanics
of reinforced concrete, SP-12, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills
Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2001) Deformation of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate.
ACI Struct J 98(2):135148
Panagiotakos TB, Kosmopoulos AJ, Fardis MN (2002) Displacement-based seismic assessment and retrot
of reinforced concrete buildings. In: Proceedings of the 1st b congress, Osaka, Japan, October 1319,
pp 269278
Park R, Priestley MJN, Gill WD (1982) Ductility of square-conned concrete columns. J Struct Div ASCE
108(ST4):929950
Paulay T, Priestley MJN (1992) Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. Wiley,
New York
Perus I, Fajfar P (2007) Prediction of the force-drift envelope for RC columns in exure by the CAE method.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(15):23452363
Perus I, Poljansek K, Fajfar P (2006) Flexural deformation capacity of rectangular RC columns determined
by the CAE method. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(12):14531470
Priestley MJN, Park R (1987) Strength and ductility of concrete bridge columns under seismic loading. ACI
Struct J 84(1):6176
Pujol S, Sozen MA, Ramirez JA (2006) Displacement history effects on drift capacity of reinforced concrete
columns. ACI Struct J 103(2):253262
Rossetto T (2002) Prediction of deformation capacity of non-seismically designed reinforced concrete mem-
bers. In: Proceedings of the 7th U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, Boston, July 2125
Sezen H (2002) Seismic behavior and modeling of reinforced concrete building columns. PhD Dissertation,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California
Verderame GM, Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G (2008a) Seismic response of RC columns with smooth reinforce-
ment. Part I: monotonic tests. Eng Struct 30(9):22772288
Verderame GM, Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G (2008b) Seismic response of RC columns with smooth reinforce-
ment. Part II: cyclic tests. Eng Struct 30(9):22892300
Verderame GM, Ricci P, De Carlo G, Manfredi G (2009a) Cyclic bond behaviour of plain bars. Part I: exper-
imental investigation. Construct Build Mat 23(12):34993511
Verderame GM, De Carlo G, Ricci P, Fabbrocino G (2009b) Cyclic bond behaviour of plain bars. Part II:
analytical investigation. Construct Build Mat 23(12):35123522
Yalcin C, Kaya O, Sinangil M (2008) Seismic retrotting of R/C columns having plain rebars using CFRP
sheets for improved strength and ductility. Construct Build Mat 22(3):295307
Zhu L, Elwood KJ, Haukaas T (2007) Classication and seismic safety evaluation of existing reinforced
concrete columns. ASCE J Struct Eng 133(9):13161330
1 3