See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228838083

Practical Performance Model for Bar Buckling

Article in Journal of Structural Engineering · July 2005

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:7(1060)

CITATIONS READS
122 288

2 authors:

Michael Berry Marc Olivier Eberhard

Montana State University University of Washington Seattle
29 PUBLICATIONS 989 CITATIONS 101 PUBLICATIONS 2,468 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

OSU Hinsdale Wave Research Lab Experimentation View project

NEESR: Seismic Resilience of Pre-Tensioned Bridge Bents View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marc Olivier Eberhard on 28 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Practical Performance Model for Bar Buckling
Michael P. Berry1 and Marc O. Eberhard2

Abstract: A practical model has been developed to predict, for a given level of lateral deformation, the likelihood that longitudinal bars
in a reinforced concrete column will have begun to buckle. Three relationships linking plastic rotation, drift ratio, and displacement
ductility with the onset of bar buckling were derived based on the results of plastic-hinge analysis, moment-curvature analysis, and the
expected influence of the confinement reinforcement. These relationships, which account for the effective confinement ratio, axial-load
ratio, aspect ratio, and longitudinal bar diameter, were calibrated using observations of bar buckling from cyclic tests of 62 rectangular-
reinforced and 42 spiral-reinforced concrete columns. A version of the drift ratio relationship is proposed for earthquake engineering
applications. The ratios of the measured displacements at bar buckling to the displacements calculated with the proposed model had a
mean of 1.01 and a coefficient of variation of 25% for rectangular-reinforced concrete columns. The corresponding mean and coefficient
of variation for spiral-reinforced columns were 0.97 and 24%, respectively.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2005兲131:7共1060兲
CE Database subject headings: Bars; Buckling; Deformation; Concrete columns; Displacement; Ductility.

Introduction redistribution from the longitudinal bar to the surrounding con-

crete, as the bar stiffness reduces. Bayrak and Sheikh 共2001兲 con-
To implement performance-based earthquake engineering, it is sidered the pressure exerted directly on the longitudinal reinforce-
necessary to relate deformation demands placed on structural ment by the expanding concrete core. Dhakal and Maekawa
components with the probability of reaching specific levels of 共2002兲 estimated the buckling length of the longitudinal rein-
damage. The onset of buckling of longitudinal bars in reinforced forcement, accounting for the interaction between concrete cover
concrete columns is a key damage state 共Fig. 1兲 because unlike spalling and bar buckling.
less severe levels of flexural damage, bar buckling requires exten- Other studies have considered the effects of cycling on the
sive repairs 共Lehman et al. 2001兲, significantly reduces the struc- longitudinal reinforcement. For example, Monti and Nuti 共1992兲;
ture’s functionality 共Eberhard 2000兲, and has clear implications Gomes and Appleton 共1997兲; and Rodriguez et al. 共1999兲 mod-
for structural safety. This paper proposes a procedure, intended eled the cyclic, stress-strain response of an isolated reinforcing
for earthquake engineering practice, that links lateral deformation bar, including the effects of bar buckling 共neglecting the influence
demands on reinforced concrete columns with the likelihood that of the concrete and transverse reinforcement兲. Moyer and Kow-
longitudinal bars will have begun to buckle. alsky 共2001兲 concluded that models of bar buckling should con-
Numerous approaches have been proposed to model the insta- sider the full deformation history to account for tension strain
bility of longitudinal bars in reinforced concrete columns. Early growth 共associated with cyclic inelastic deformations兲 in the lon-
models used small-deformation, Euler buckling theory to model a gitudinal reinforcement. Hose 共2001兲 developed models of bar
reinforcing bar subjected to uniaxial, monotonic compression, re- buckling based on the assumption that buckling cannot occur
strained laterally by elastic ties 共Bresler and Gilbert 1961; Scrib- under cyclic loading while the concrete cracks are closed.
ner 1986; Papia and Russo 1989兲. More recent models have con- These studies, among others, suggest that a comprehensive
sidered various details of the complex interaction between the model of bar buckling in seismic applications would account for
the variable length over which bars can buckle, the moment gra-
concrete cover, concrete core, confining reinforcement, and lon-
dient along the column length, the complex, strain-dependent in-
gitudinal bars. For example, Pantazopoulou 共1998兲 accounted for
teraction between the concrete cover, concrete core, transverse
the effect of core expansion on tie stiffness and modeled the load
ties, and longitudinal reinforcement, and the full, cyclic deforma-
1
tion history of the column. Each model provides valuable insight
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental into key factors that contribute to bar instability, but a complete
Engineering, Univ. of Washington, Box 352700, Seattle, WA 98195.
model of bar buckling has not yet been developed.
E-mail: [email protected]
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Washington, Box 352700, Seattle, WA 98195. E-mail:
[email protected] Formulation of Deformation Relationships
Note. Associate Editor: Rob Y. H. Chai. Discussion open until
December 1, 2005. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual
A practical model, calibrated with numerous observations of bar
papers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must
be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper
buckling during lateral, cyclic tests of reinforced concrete col-
was submitted for review and possible publication on October 16, 2003; umns, is needed for earthquake engineering applications. This
approved on September 7, 2004. This paper is part of the Journal of section combines plastic-hinge analysis with approximations for
Structural Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 7, July 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN the column yield displacement, plastic curvature, buckling strain,
0733-9445/2005/7-1060–1070/$25.00. and plastic-hinge length to develop three relationships linking

1060 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005

 If L p / 2 Ⰶ L and longitudinal bar buckling is assumed to occur
after column yielding, the displacement at the onset of bar buck-
ling can be expressed as
⌬bb = ⌬y + ␾ p−bbL pL 共2兲
where ␾ p−bb⫽plastic curvature at the onset of bar buckling. The
following sections present approximations for three terms in Eq.
共2兲, namely ⌬y , ␾ p−bb, and L p.

Column Yield Displacement

Priestley et al. 共1996兲 proposed an approximation for the yield
curvature of a reinforced concrete column, based on the column
depth and the yield strain of the tension reinforcement 共␧y兲.
␧y
␾y ⬵ ␭ 共3兲
D
where ␭ = 2.45 for spiral-reinforced columns and 2.14 for
rectangular-reinforced columns. Assuming that the moment-
curvature relationship is linear up to the column yield point, the
yield displacement can be approximated as
␾ yL2 ␭ L2 ␭ L2
Fig. 1. Typical buckling of longitudinal bar in a spiral-reinforced ⌬y ⬵ ⬵ ␧y = fy 共4兲
3 3 D 3Es D
column
where Es and f y⫽elastic modulus and yield stress of the longitu-
dinal reinforcement, respectively. For simplicity, Eq. 共4兲 neglects
plastic rotation, drift ratio, and displacement ductility with the the effects of shear deformation and strain penetration.
onset of bar buckling.
Plastic Curvature
Plastic-Hinge Analysis Based on axial equilibrium requirements for a reinforced concrete
According to plastic-hinge analysis, the total displacement, ⌬, of cross section, Berry 共2003兲 showed that the location of the neutral
a reinforced concrete member deformed beyond the yield dis- axis depends mainly on the level of axial load, and to a lesser
placement can be decomposed into two parts, the response up to extent, on the amount of longitudinal reinforcement. Berry 共2003兲
the yield displacement, ⌬y, and the plastic deformation, ⌬ p. The found that the normalized plastic curvature 共␾ p_norm = ␾ p_nD / ␧n兲
plastic deformation is assumed to result from the rigid-body ro- at a given extreme compression fiber strain 共␧n兲 can be approxi-
tation of the member around the center of a plastic hinge near the mated with the following equation:
base of the column. For simplicity, the curvature in the plastic ␾ p_nD G0
hinge is assumed to be constant 共␾ p = ␾ − ␾y兲 over an equivalent = 共5兲
␧n P
plastic-hinge length, L p, as shown in Fig. 2. The plastic rotation, 1 + G1
␪ p, can then be expressed as ␾ pL p, and the total tip deflection is Ag f c⬘
where D⫽column depth; P⫽axial load; Ag⫽gross area of the
⌬ = ⌬y + ␪ p共L − L p/2兲 = ⌬y + 共␾ pL p兲共L − L p/2兲 共1兲
cross section; and f ⬘c ⫽compressive strength of the concrete. G0
where L⫽distance from the column base to the point of con- and G1⫽parameters that depend on the level of strain. For ex-
traflexure. ample, at a maximum strain of ␧n = 0.004, G0 and G1 can be taken
as 5.3 and 9.4, respectively.
The normalized plastic curvatures 共computed with moment-
curvature analysis兲 for a compressive strain of ␧n = 0.004 are com-
pared with curvatures calculated with Eq. 共5兲 in Fig. 3 for 288
flexure-dominant columns 共www.ce.washington.edu/~peeral兲.
The columns were classified as flexure-dominant as defined in
Berry and Eberhard 共2004兲. The ratios of the plastic curvatures
calculated with moment-curvature analysis to the plastic curva-
tures calculated with Eq. 共5兲 had a mean of 1.0 with a coefficient
of variation of 18%. According to Berry 共2003兲 this equation can
also be used to approximate the relationship between the strain at
the onset of bar buckling 共␧bb兲 with the curvature at the onset of
bar buckling 共␾ p_bb兲.
The strain ␧bb is influenced by the transverse reinforcement,
which confines the concrete core and tends to restrain the longi-
tudinal bars from buckling. A common measurement of the effec-
Fig. 2. Plastic-hinge analysis tiveness of the transverse reinforcement is the effective confine-

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005 / 1061

 Fig. 4. Definition of displacement preceding the onset of bar
buckling

Fig. 3. Evaluation of approximation for plastic curvature = 1 / 20, ␤ = 1 / 2, and ␰ = 0. In the Priestley et al. 共1996兲 model,
␣ = 0.08, ␤ = 0, and ␰ = 0.022 共f y in MPa兲, with an upper limit on
L p of 0.044f ydb.
ment ratio, defined as ␳eff = ␳s f ys / f ⬘c , where ␳s⫽volumetric The deformation relationships derived in this section adopt the
transverse reinforcement ratio; f ys⫽yield stress of transverse re- general form of Eq. 共8兲, in which ␣ , ␤, and ␰ are unknown con-
inforcement; and f ⬘c ⫽concrete compressive strength. For ex- stants. The column length is included in Eq. 共8兲 to account for the
ample, Saatcioglu and Razvi 共1994兲 found that axial strain duc- moment gradient along the length of the cantilever, and the col-
tility capacity was approximately constant for a given effective umn depth is included to account for the influence of shear on the
confinement ratio. size of the plastic region. The longitudinal bar properties are in-
For development of the proposed deformation relationships, cluded to account for additional rotation at the plastic-hinge re-
the buckling strain is assumed to vary linearly as a function of the sulting from strain penetration of the longitudinal reinforcement
effective confinement ratio, as follows into the supporting element.
␧bb = ␹0共1 + ␹1␳eff兲 共6兲
Deformations at Bar Buckling
where ␹0 and ␹1⫽constants. The parameter ␹1 is expected to be
larger for spiral-reinforced columns because spiral reinforcement Three commonly used engineering demand parameters 共plastic
is more effective than rectangular reinforcement at confining the rotation, drift ratio, and displacement ductility兲 can be approxi-
core and longitudinal reinforcement. This relationship is similar mated by combining plastic-hinge analysis with the approxima-
to the relationship that Pantazopoulou 共1998兲 proposed for 20% tions of yield displacement, plastic curvature, and plastic-hinge
reduction in flexural strength. In this formulation the transverse length. By substituting the approximations for plastic curvature
confinement spacing, s, is taken into account by its effect on ␳s. 共7兲 and plastic-hinge length 共8兲 into the definition of plastic rota-
By substituting Eq. 共6兲 into Eq. 共5兲 and combining constants, tion 共␪ p = ␾ pL p兲, the plastic rotation at the onset of bar buckling
the plastic curvature at the onset of bar buckling can be approxi- can be expressed as
mated with

冉 冊冉 冊
冢 冣
−1
␩0 1 + ␩1␳eff P L f ydb
␾ p_bb ⬵ 共7兲 ␪ p_bb = C0共1 + C1␳eff兲 1 + C2 1 + C3 + C4
D P Ag f ⬘c D D
1 + ␩2
Ag f c⬘ 共9兲
where ␩0 , ␩1, and ␩2⫽constants.
The five constants in Eq. 共9兲 共C0 , … , C4兲 are combinations of the
constants included in Eqs. 共5兲 and 共7兲. By substituting Eqs. 共4兲
Plastic-Hinge Length and 共9兲 into Eq. 共2兲, and dividing by the column length, the drift
Numerous models have been proposed to estimate the plastic- ratio at the onset of bar buckling can be expressed as follows:
hinge length of structural members 共Sawyer 1964; Corley 1966;
Mattock 1967; Priestley and Park 1987; Priestley et al. 1996兲. In
many of these models, the expression for the plastic-hinge length
⌬bb
L
=
␭ L
f y + C0共1 + C1␳eff兲 1 + C2
3Es D
P
冉
Ag f ⬘c
冊 −1

冉 冊
is proportional to the column length, L, column depth, D, and the
L f ydb
longitudinal reinforcement properties, as in the following equa- ⫻ 1 + C3 + C4 共10兲
tion: D D

L p = ␣L + ␤D + ␰f ydb 共8兲
If Eq. 共10兲 is divided by the yield displacement and multiplied by
where db⫽bar diameter of the tension reinforcement. For ex- the column length, the displacement ductility at the onset of bar
ample, in the equation developed by Mattock 共1967兲, ␣ buckling can be expressed as

1062 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005

Table 1. Maximum Deformations Preceding Bar Buckling in Rectangular-Reinforced Columns
⌬bb ⌬bb / L fy
Reference Designation 共mm兲 ␪ p_bb 共%兲 ⌬bb / ⌬y L/D ␳eff P / f cA g db / D 共MPa兲
Ghee et al. 共1981兲 No. 3 50.0 0.028 3.1 5.2 4.0 0.39 0.38 0.04 427
Ghee et al. 共1981兲 No. 4 58.0 0.031 3.6 4.8 4.0 0.25 0.21 0.04 427
Soesianawati et al. 共1986兲 No. 1 78.4 0.047 4.9 7.6 4.0 0.07 0.10 0.04 446
Soesianawati et al. 共1986兲 No. 2 68.4 0.041 4.3 7.5 4.0 0.10 0.30 0.04 446
Soesianawati et al. 共1986兲 No. 3 44.9 0.025 2.8 5.1 4.0 0.07 0.30 0.04 446
Soesianawati et al. 共1986兲 No. 4 41.0 0.024 2.8 4.6 4.0 0.04 0.30 0.04 446
Zahn et al. 共1986兲 No. 7 71.0 0.044 4.7 6.3 4.0 0.27 0.22 0.04 440
Zahn et al. 共1986兲 No. 8 50.0 0.037 4.0 6.3 4.0 0.24 0.39 0.04 440
Tanaka and Park 共1990兲 No. 1 120.0 0.074 7.5 8.7 4.0 0.33 0.20 0.05 474
Tanaka and Park 共1990兲 No. 2 87.2 0.052 5.5 6.7 4.0 0.33 0.20 0.05 474
Tanaka and Park 共1990兲 No. 3 59.0 0.033 3.7 5.2 4.0 0.33 0.20 0.05 474
Tanaka and Park 共1990兲 No. 4 80.0 0.047 5.0 6.5 4.0 0.33 0.20 0.05 474
Tanaka and Park 共1990兲 No. 5 73.8 0.041 4.5 5.4 3.0 0.17 0.10 0.04 511
Tanaka and Park 共1990兲 No. 6 67.2 0.038 4.1 5.6 3.0 0.17 0.10 0.04 511
Tanaka and Park 共1990兲 No. 7 82.4 0.049 5.0 8.5 3.0 0.21 0.30 0.04 511
Tanaka and Park 共1990兲 No. 8 78.0 0.047 4.7 9.3 3.0 0.21 0.30 0.04 511
Park and Paulay 共1990兲 No. 9 84.0 0.046 4.7 7.8 3.0 0.31 0.10 0.04 432
Atalay and Penzien 共1975兲 6S1 40.7 0.014 2.4 2.1 5.5 0.11 0.18 0.07 429
Wehbe et al. 共1998兲 A1 122.0 0.046 5.2 5.2 3.8 0.10 0.10 0.03 448
Wehbe et al. 共1998兲 A2 102.0 0.037 4.4 4.6 3.8 0.10 0.24 0.03 448
Wehbe et al. 共1998兲 B2 128.0 0.047 5.5 4.8 3.8 0.13 0.23 0.03 448
Xiao and Martirossyan 共1998兲 HC48L19T10-0.1P 47.0 0.107 9.3 7.6 2.0 0.23 0.10 0.08 510
Xiao and Martirossyan 共1998兲 HC48L19T10-0.2P 40.0 0.091 7.9 7.6 2.0 0.23 0.20 0.08 510
Xiao and Martirossyan 共1998兲 HC48L16T10-0.1P 37.0 0.080 7.3 7.1 2.0 0.20 0.10 0.06 510
Xiao and Martirossyan 共1998兲 HC48L16T10-0.2P 35.0 0.072 6.9 5.6 2.0 0.20 0.19 0.06 510
Bayrak and Sheikh 共1996兲 ES-1HT 48.5 0.018 2.5 5.6 6.0 0.18 0.50 0.06 454
Bayrak and Sheikh 共1996兲 AS-2HT 95.1 0.039 5.0 9.5 6.0 0.20 0.36 0.06 454
Bayrak and Sheikh 共1996兲 AS-3HT 62.6 0.025 3.3 7.4 6.0 0.20 0.50 0.06 454
Bayrak and Sheikh 共1996兲 AS-4HT 78.5 0.033 4.4 6.6 6.0 0.29 0.50 0.06 454
Bayrak and Sheikh 共1996兲 AS-6HT 73.3 0.028 3.8 5.6 6.0 0.27 0.46 0.06 454
Bayrak and Sheikh 共1996兲 AS-7HT 31.0 0.014 2.3 3.3 6.0 0.13 0.45 0.06 454
Bayrak and Sheikh 共1996兲 ES-8HT 26.6 0.014 2.0 4.4 6.0 0.17 0.47 0.06 454
Saatcioglu and Grira 共1999兲 BG2 82.3 0.049 5.0 8.5 4.7 0.49 0.43 0.06 456
Saatcioglu and Grira 共1999兲 BG4 65.8 0.037 4.0 6.0 4.7 0.24 0.46 0.06 456
Saatcioglu and Grira 共1999兲 BG5 115.2 0.068 7.0 8.4 4.7 0.49 0.46 0.06 456
Saatcioglu and Grira 共1999兲 BG8 115.2 0.064 7.0 5.6 4.7 0.24 0.23 0.06 456
Saatcioglu and Grira 共1999兲 BG9 65.8 0.036 4.0 5.3 4.7 0.24 0.46 0.05 428
Thomsen and Wallace 共1994兲 A3 23.9 0.056 5.4 9.2 3.9 0.13 0.20 0.06 517
Thomsen and Wallace 共1994兲 D1 47.8 0.047 4.9 6.3 3.9 0.21 0.20 0.06 476
Thomsen and Wallace 共1994兲 D2 35.8 0.046 4.9 5.7 3.9 0.15 0.20 0.06 476
Thomsen and Wallace 共1994兲 D3 35.8 0.045 4.9 5.2 3.9 0.16 0.20 0.06 476
Xiao and Yun 共2002兲 No. FHC1-0.2 142.2 0.082 8.0 9.6 3.5 0.19 0.20 0.07 375
Xiao and Yun 共2002兲 No. FHC2-0.34 71.1 0.038 4.0 6.4 3.5 0.19 0.33 0.07 375
Xiao and Yun 共2002兲 No. FHC3-0.22 106.7 0.060 6.0 7.7 3.5 0.18 0.22 0.07 375
Xiao and Yun 共2002兲 No. FHC4-0.33 71.1 0.038 4.0 6.3 3.5 0.18 0.32 0.07 375
Xiao and Yun 共2002兲 No. FHC5-0.2 106.7 0.060 6.0 7.6 3.5 0.12 0.20 0.07 427
Xiao and Yun 共2002兲 No. FHC6-0.2 106.7 0.059 6.0 6.7 3.5 0.15 0.20 0.07 427
Bayrak 共1998兲 RS- 9HT 128.6 0.051 6.7 7.6 5.3 0.25 0.34 0.06 446
Bayrak 共1998兲 RS-10HT 85.9 0.034 4.5 7.0 5.3 0.25 0.50 0.06 446
Bayrak 共1998兲 RS-12HT 82.9 0.031 4.3 6.0 5.3 0.13 0.34 0.06 446
Bayrak 共1998兲 RS-13HT 89.8 0.034 4.7 6.1 5.3 0.16 0.35 0.06 440
Bayrak 共1998兲 RS-14HT 62.6 0.016 3.2 2.4 5.3 0.16 0.46 0.06 440
Bayrak 共1998兲 RS-15HT 117.9 0.041 6.0 4.5 5.3 0.22 0.36 0.06 474
Bayrak 共1998兲 RS-16HT 79.8 0.026 4.1 3.7 5.3 0.15 0.37 0.06 474
Bayrak 共1998兲 RS-17HT 106.7 0.036 5.4 4.0 5.3 0.33 0.34 0.06 474

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005 / 1063

Table 1. 共Continued.兲
⌬bb ⌬bb / L fy
Reference Designation 共mm兲 ␪ p_bb 共%兲 ⌬bb / ⌬y L/D ␳eff P / f cA g db / D 共MPa兲
Bayrak 共1998兲 RS-18HT 64.5 0.022 3.3 4.2 5.3 0.33 0.50 0.06 474
Bayrak 共1998兲 RS-19HT 121.7 0.049 6.3 8.1 5.3 0.64 0.53 0.06 474
Bayrak 共1998兲 RS-20HT 66.0 0.021 3.4 3.4 5.3 0.34 0.34 0.06 474
Bayrak 共1998兲 WRS-21HT 67.2 0.018 3.4 2.6 7.4 0.19 0.47 0.08 474
Bayrak 共1998兲 WRS-22HT 126.9 0.044 6.5 4.3 7.4 0.19 0.31 0.08 474
Bayrak 共1998兲 WRS-23HT 122.5 0.042 6.3 4.3 7.4 0.25 0.33 0.08 474
Bayrak 共1998兲 WRS-24HT 87.0 0.029 4.5 3.7 7.4 0.25 0.50 0.08 511
Statistics Mean 76.8 0.043 4.8 6.0 4.5 0.22 0.30 0.06 458
Standard deviation 30.0 0.019 1.5 1.8 1.3 0.11 0.13 0.01 34
COV 0.39 0.44 0.33 0.30 0.29 0.48 0.42 0.24 0.07
Minimum 23.9 0.014 2.0 2.1 2.0 0.04 0.10 0.03 375
Maximum 142.2 0.107 9.3 9.6 7.4 0.64 0.53 0.08 517

⌬bb
⌬y
=1+
3Es
␭f y
冉
C0共1 + C1␳eff兲 1 + C2
P
Ag f ⬘c
冊 −1 umns兲 and Fig. 6 共spiral-reinforced columns兲 show the variation
of the drift ratio at the onset of bar buckling as a function of key

冉 冊
column properties. To isolate the effect of each property, the da-
1 1 f ydb tabase was organized into families, in which all columns in a
⫻ + C3 + C4 共11兲
L/D L/D D family had similar properties except for the property being stud-
ied. These families are connected with lines in Figs. 5 and 6. It
should be noted that the families do not take into consideration
The constants in Eqs. 共9兲, 共10兲, and 共11兲 can be evaluated from variations in the displacement history imposed on each column.
experimental observations of bar buckling. As expected from Eq. 共10兲, the drift ratio at the onset of longitu-
dinal bar buckling decreases with an increase in P / Ag f ⬘c , and in-
creases with an increase in ␳eff , f ydb / D, and L / D.
Column Performance Database

To calibrate models of column behavior, the results of 467 cyclic, Calibration of Column Deformation Relationships
lateral-load tests of reinforced concrete columns were assembled
in a database, which is available on the World Wide Web at The column database was used to calibrate the column deforma-
www.ce.washington.edu/˜peera1 and http://peer.berkeley.edu/. tion relationships. Specifically, the values of the unknown con-
For each test, the database provides the column geometry, mate- stants 共C0 , … , C4兲 in Eqs. 共9兲, 共10兲, and 共11兲 were determined
rial properties, reinforcement details, loading configuration, a ref- such that 共1兲 the ratios of the measured damage displacements
erence, and test results. The test results provided include the digi- 共from the column database兲 to the calculated damage displace-
tal force-displacement history for the column 共or in a few cases,
ments had a mean value equal to 1.0; and 共2兲 the coefficient of
the force-displacement envelope兲, as well as the maximum col-
variation 共COV兲 of the ratios was minimized. The resulting values
umn deflection imposed before reaching various damage states,
of the constants for each measure of column deformation are
including the onset of bar buckling, ⌬bb. The definition of ⌬bb is
provided in Table 3, along with statistical measures of the accu-
illustrated in Fig. 4.
racy of the resulting equations. The objective functions 关共9兲–共11兲兴
To calibrate Eqs. 共9兲, 共10兲, and 共11兲, the tests were screened
according to the following criteria: 共1兲 the column needed to be used in the regression analyses contained a number of local
flexure-critical, as defined by Berry and Eberhard 共2004兲; 共2兲 the minima with similar magnitudes. As a result one cannot directly
aspect ratio had to exceed 1.9; 共3兲 the longitudinal reinforcement compare the values of C0 , … , C4 among the three equations and
had to be continuous 共unspliced兲; and 共4兲 the displacement pre- two column types. The COVs of the ratios of measured displace-
ceding bar buckling had to be documented. For the 62 ments to calculated displacements are similar for plastic rotation,
rectangular-reinforced and 42 spiral-reinforced column tests that drift ratio, and displacement ductility, ranging from 20 to 29%,
met the screening criteria, Tables 1 and 2 provide values of the depending on the particular measure of deformation, and depend-
maximum deformations preceding the onset of bar buckling, as ing on whether the columns were reinforced with spirals or rect-
well as key column properties. The mean values of the plastic angular ties.
rotations, drift ratios, and displacement ductilities for the Berry and Eberhard 共2003兲 showed that the accuracies of the
rectangular-reinforced columns were 0.043, 4.8%, and 6.0, re- estimates of ⌬bb calculated with Eqs. 共9兲, 共10兲, and 共11兲 can be
spectively. The corresponding mean values for the spiral- increased slightly by using more complex models of bar buckling.
reinforced columns were 0.060, 6.6%, and 6.8, respectively. However, the increases in accuracy did not justify the added com-
The experimental data support the general form of Eqs. 共9兲, plexity. Some of the scatter in the values of ⌬bb / ⌬bb_calc likely
共10兲, and 共11兲. For example, Fig. 5 共rectangular-reinforced col- arises from the influence of repeated deformation cycling

1064 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005

Table 2. Maximum Deformations Preceding Bar Buckling in Spiral-Reinforced Columns
⌬bb ⌬bb / L fy
Reference Designation 共mm兲 ␪ p_bb 共%兲 ⌬bb / ⌬y L/D ␳eff P / f cA g db / D 共MPa兲
Davey 共1975兲 No. 1 96.8 0.03 4.8 3.7 5.5 0.04 0.06 0.04 373
Davey 共1975兲 No. 2 70.5 0.04 3.5 8.0 3.5 0.04 0.05 0.04 371
Davey 共1975兲 No. 3 157.4 0.04 7.9 3.8 6.5 0.04 0.05 0.04 373
Ghee et al. 共1981兲 No. 1 60.0 0.03 3.8 6.9 4.0 0.09 0.20 0.04 308
Ghee et al. 共1981兲 No. 2 50.0 0.03 3.1 5.8 4.0 0.15 0.56 0.04 308
Zahn et al. 共1986兲 No. 5 45.6 0.02 2.9 4.8 4.0 0.09 0.13 0.04 337
Watson 共1989兲 No 11 36.3 0.02 2.3 5.9 4.0 0.13 0.70 0.04 474
Wong et al. 共1990兲 No. 1 41.4 0.05 5.2 7.1 2.0 0.11 0.19 0.04 423
Wong et al. 共1990兲 No. 3 28.8 0.04 3.6 6.8 2.0 0.11 0.39 0.04 475
Stone and Cheok 共1989兲 Flexure 538.0 0.05 5.9 4.9 6.0 0.09 0.07 0.03 475
Stone and Cheok 共1989兲 Shear 285.0 0.06 6.2 6.9 3.0 0.19 0.07 0.03 475
Cheok and Stone 共1986兲 N1 82.5 0.11 11.0 11.2 3.0 0.26 0.10 0.03 446
Cheok and Stone 共1986兲 N2 46.6 0.06 6.2 7.6 3.0 0.27 0.21 0.03 446
Cheok and Stone 共1986兲 N3 110.6 0.07 7.4 6.9 6.0 0.13 0.10 0.03 446
Cheok and Stone 共1986兲 N4 53.3 0.07 7.1 11.0 3.0 0.25 0.10 0.03 446
Cheok and Stone 共1986兲 N5 52.2 0.07 7.0 8.3 3.0 0.26 0.20 0.03 446
Cheok and Stone 共1986兲 N6 71.5 0.04 4.8 5.0 6.0 0.14 0.10 0.03 446
Kunnath et al. 共1997兲 No. A2 64.5 0.04 4.7 4.7 4.5 0.14 0.09 0.03 448
Kunnath et al. 共1997兲 No. A7 80.0 0.05 5.8 7.2 4.5 0.13 0.09 0.03 448
Kunnath et al. 共1997兲 No. A8 80.0 0.05 5.8 5.2 4.5 0.13 0.09 0.03 448
Kunnath et al. 共1997兲 No. A9 63.0 0.04 4.6 5.3 4.5 0.13 0.09 0.03 448
Kunnath et al. 共1997兲 No. A10 90.7 0.06 6.6 7.5 4.5 0.15 0.10 0.03 448
Kunnath et al. 共1997兲 No. A12 81.0 0.05 5.9 7.2 4.5 0.15 0.10 0.03 448
Hose et al. 共1997兲 No. SRPH1 320.0 0.08 8.7 8.1 6.0 0.09 0.15 0.04 455
Vu et al. 共1998兲 No. NH3 50.0 0.06 5.5 8.3 2.0 0.12 0.15 0.03 428
Kowalsky et al. 共1999兲 No. FL3 340.0 0.08 9.3 5.7 8.0 0.11 0.28 0.03 477
Lehman and Moehle 共2000兲 No. 415 129.0 0.05 5.3 7.4 4.0 0.14 0.07 0.03 462
Lehman and Moehle 共2000兲 No. 815 445.0 0.08 9.1 6.9 8.0 0.14 0.07 0.03 462
Lehman and Moehle 共2000兲 No. 1015 635.0 0.09 10.4 5.8 10.0 0.14 0.07 0.03 462
Lehman and Moehle 共2000兲 No. 407 127.0 0.05 5.2 9.7 4.0 0.14 0.07 0.03 462
Lehman and Moehle 共2000兲 No. 430 178.0 0.07 7.3 6.8 4.0 0.14 0.07 0.03 462
Calderone et al. 共2000兲 No. 328 133.0 0.07 7.3 9.0 3.0 0.16 0.09 0.03 441
Calderone et al. 共2000兲 No. 828 600.0 0.11 12.3 7.3 8.0 0.16 0.09 0.03 441
Calderone et al. 共2000兲 No. 1028 889.0 0.13 14.6 9.4 10.0 0.16 0.09 0.03 441
Saatcioglu and Baingo 共1999兲 No. RC6 68.4 0.04 4.2 6.4 6.6 0.08 0.42 0.06 419
Nelson 共2000兲 Col2 56.6 0.03 3.7 6.3 3.0 0.01 0.11 0.03 455
Henry and Mahin 共1999兲 No. 415p 127.0 0.04 5.2 5.0 4.0 0.11 0.12 0.03 462
Henry and Mahin 共1999兲 No. 415s 127.0 0.05 5.2 5.4 4.0 0.06 0.06 0.03 462
Moyer and Kowalsky 共2002兲 No. 1 149.9 0.05 6.1 4.0 5.3 0.12 0.04 0.04 565
Moyer and Kowalsky 共2002兲 No. 2 261.6 0.10 10.7 6.4 5.3 0.12 0.04 0.04 565
Moyer and Kowalsky 共2002兲 No. 3 261.9 0.10 10.7 7.2 5.3 0.13 0.04 0.04 565
Moyer and Kowalsky 共2002兲 No. 4 297.2 0.12 12.2 7.4 5.3 0.12 0.04 0.04 565
Statistics Mean 178.1 0.060 6.6 6.8 4.8 0.13 0.14 0.03 448
Standard deviation 191.2 0.027 2.8 1.7 1.9 0.06 0.14 0.01 57
COV 1.07 0.45 0.43 0.26 0.40 0.43 0.98 0.22 0.13
Minimum 28.82 0.021 2.3 3.7 2.0 0.01 0.04 0.03 308
Maximum 889.00 0.134 14.6 11.2 10.0 0.27 0.70 0.06 565

共Kunnath et al. 1997; Ranf et al. 2003兲. In addition, the identifi- displacement between 25 and 50 mm had been imposed on the
cation of the onset of bar buckling is subjective and may vary column.
among observers. The typical practice of imposing a series of
successively increasing cycles to discrete levels of deformation
leads to further scatter. For example, consider Fig. 4, in which bar Practical Implementation
buckling is identified to occur after an imposed displacement of
50 mm. The bars did not buckle at a displacement of 25 mm, but The accuracies of the deformation relationships based on plastic
it is impossible to know whether the bars would have buckled if a rotation 共9兲, drift ratio 共10兲, and displacement ductility 共11兲 were

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005 / 1065

Fig. 5. Drift ratio at bar buckling for rectangular-reinforced columns Fig. 6. Drift ratio at bar buckling for spiral-reinforced columns

similar. Since it is easiest to compute the drift ratio 共drift ratio can tion, the accuracy did not vary consistently with the ratio of the
be calculated without estimating the yield displacement, an esti- confinement spacing to the bar diameter 共s / db兲. Although the data
mate that introduces further error兲 practical recommendations available did not document the buckling mode, this slenderness
were developed based on the drift ratio relationship. For practical ratio would be expected to be significant for bar buckling between
implementation, the following relationship, a simpler version of two adjacent hoops or spirals. Since little data are available for
Eq. 共10兲, is proposed to approximate the drift ratio at the onset of large values of s / db , ke_bb should be taken as 0.0 for columns
bar buckling in reinforced concrete columns. with s / db exceeding 6. The accuracy of Eq. 共12兲 with the limit on
s / db is similar to that of Eq. 共10兲. The mean and coefficient of
⌬bb_calc
L
冉
共%兲 = 3.25 1 + ke_bb␳eff
db
D
冊冉 1−
P
Ag f ⬘c
冊冉 1+
L
10D
冊 variation for ⌬bb / ⌬bb_calc calculated using Eq. 共12兲 were 1.01 and
25% for rectangular-reinforced columns, and 0.97 and 24% for
spiral-reinforced columns.
共12兲
The form of Eq. 共12兲 is consistent with the expected behavior
where ke_bb = 40 for rectangular-reinforced columns and 150 for of reinforced concrete columns. The effective confinement ratio,
spiral-reinforced columns. The form of Eq. 共12兲 was obtained ␳eff, accounts for the restraint against bar buckling that the trans-
from Eq. 共10兲 by combining the transverse and longitudinal rein- verse reinforcement provides. The values of ke_bb for spiral- and
forcement properties controlling the onset of bar buckling into a rectangular-reinforced columns differ because spiral reinforce-
new parameter, ␳effdb / D, fixing the exponents of Eq. 共10兲 to 1.0, ment is more effective than rectangular ties at confining the core
and forcing the coefficients of Eq. 共10兲 to be the same for spiral and the longitudinal reinforcement. The normalized bar diameter,
and rectangular-reinforced columns, except for the coefficient db / D, reflects the increased stability of larger bars and the influ-
multiplying ␳eff. ence of strain penetration into the column base. The axial-load
Berry 共2003兲 showed that the accuracy of Eq. 共12兲 does not ratio term is consistent with the results of moment-curvature
vary significantly with the axial-load ratio, aspect ratio, effective analysis, which indicate that, for the same maximum compression
confinement ratio, and longitudinal reinforcement ratio. In addi- strain, columns with higher axial loads have lower curvatures.

Table 3. Results of Regression Analyses

Coefficients Statistics of ⌬bb / ⌬calc

Column deformation Column type C0 C1 C2 C3 C4 Minimum Maximum Mean Coefficient of variation

␪ p_bb 共9兲 Rectangular-reinforced 0.019 1.650 1.797 0.012 0.072 0.40 1.61 1.00 0.25
Spiral-reinforced 0.006 7.190 3.129 0.651 0.227 0.60 1.39 1.00 0.20
⌬bb / L 共10兲 Rectangular-reinforced 1.472 1.326 1.875 0.288 0.078 0.37 1.63 1.00 0.26
Spiral-reinforced 0.309 5.740 2.810 1.764 0.469 0.58 1.46 1.00 0.22
⌬bb / ⌬y 共11兲 Rectangular-reinforced 0.014 1.277 0.273 0.237 −0.001 0.43 1.83 1.00 0.29
Spiral-reinforced 0.005 4.534 1.302 1.010 0.032 0.60 1.50 1.00 0.22

1066 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005

 Fig. 8. Implications for evaluation of spiral-reinforced columns:
共P / Agf ⬘c = 30% , L / D = 4 , D / db = 14兲

ing drift ratio and decreases with increasing amount of confine-

ment reinforcement. The figure was generated 共using a normal
CDF兲 for spiral-reinforced columns with an axial-load ratio of
30%, an aspect ratio of 4, and db / D = 1 / 14. Similar plots can be
generated for other column types and other models of statistical
distribution 共e.g., lognormal兲.
Fig. 7. Fragility curves for onset of bar buckling: 共a兲 rectangular To design new columns, the column deformation demand, as-
reinforced columns and 共b兲 spiral-reinforced columns pect ratio, and axial-load ratio are known and the acceptable prob-
ability of bar buckling is specified. For a specified probability of
bar buckling, the target ⌬demand / ⌬bb_calc can be estimated from the
The span-to-depth ratio, L / D, affects the drift ratio at bar buck- fragility curves. Rearranging Eq. 共12兲, the transverse reinforce-
ling by increasing the normalized yield displacement and the ment can be proportioned as follows:
length of the plastic hinge, as shown in Eq. 共10兲.
To estimate the likelihood of bar buckling, Eq. 共12兲 can be
combined with fragility curves, such as those shown in Fig. 7.
This figure shows the cumulative probability of bar buckling as a
function of ⌬bb / ⌬bb_calc for the database, as well as the corre-
sponding normal cumulative distribution functions 共CDF兲 and the
lognormal CDF. The normal CDF approximates the column data
better than the lognormal CDF. However, the normal distribution
may cause problems if applied at extremely low levels of prob-
ability because it yields negative values of ⌬bb / ⌬bb_calc, which
have no meaningful physical interpretation.
To apply Eq. 共12兲 in practice, it is necessary to assume that the
database is representative of the general population of
rectangular- and spiral-reinforced columns. To evaluate existing
columns, the displacement demand, ⌬demand, is estimated based on
an analysis of the full structure. The estimated displacement at bar
buckling, ⌬bb_calc, is then calculated with Eq. 共12兲 based on the
known column properties. The probability that a longitudinal bar
will have buckled at or before that displacement demand is then
evaluated from the appropriate fragility curve 共CDF兲 shown in
Fig. 7. For example, if ⌬demand / ⌬bb_calc is equal to 2 / 3 for a spiral-
reinforced concrete column, the probability that a bar will have
begun to buckle at or before the displacement demand is 10%.
The implications of applying the proposed evaluation proce-
dure to reinforced concrete columns can be seen in Fig. 8, which Fig. 9. Implications for design of spiral-reinforced columns: 10%
shows that the probability of bar buckling increases with increas- probability of onset of buckling 共L / D = 4 , D / db = 14兲

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005 / 1067

 冢 冊 冣
⌬demand Support of this work was provided primarily by the Earthquake

冉 冊
共%兲 Engineering Research Centers Program of the National Science
⌬demand

冉 冊 冉
L target Foundation, under Award Number EEC-9701568 through the Pa-
D ⌬bb_calc cific Earthquake Engineering Research Center 共PEER兲.

冊冉
␳eff = −1 共13兲
ke_bbdb P L
3.25 1 − 1+
Ag f ⬘c 10D
Fig. 9 shows the implications of using Eq. 共13兲 to proportion the
Notation
confinement reinforcement in a spiral-reinforced column. Fig. 9
The following symbols are used in this paper:
was developed for a buckling probability of 10%, which corre-
sponds to ⌬demand / ⌬bb_calc = 2 / 3 共Fig. 7兲. The confinement require- Ag ⫽ gross area of column cross section;
ments increase as drift ratio and axial load increase, and in some C0 , … , C4 ⫽ parameters used in deformation
cases, the required confinement to prevent bar buckling exceeds approximations;
the spiral requirements for earthquake-resistant construction 共Eq. D ⫽ column depth;
21-2兲 of the American Concrete Institute Building Code Require- db ⫽ bar diameter of longitudinal reinforcement;
ments for Structural Concrete 共ACI 2002兲. Similar figures can be Es ⫽ elastic modulus of longitudinal reinforcement;
generated for other column types and target probabilities of buck- f ⬘c ⫽ compressive strength of concrete;
ling. f y ⫽ yield stress of longitudinal reinforcement;
f ys ⫽ yield stress of transverse reinforcement;
G0 , G1 ⫽ parameters used in approximation of
normalized plastic curvature;
Conclusions
ke_bb ⫽ transverse reinforcement coefficient;
L ⫽ distance from the column base to the point of
The assembled database made it possible to develop a procedure
contraflexure;
to estimate the likelihood of longitudinal bar buckling in flexure-
L p ⫽ plastic hinge length;
dominant reinforced concrete columns based on imposed column
P ⫽ column axial load;
deformation.
␣ , ␤ , ␰ ⫽ parameters used in plastic hinge
The coefficients of variation of the ratio of the measured dis-
approximation;
placement to the calculated displacement at the onset of bar buck-
⌬ ⫽ total column displacement;
ling 共⌬bb / ⌬bb_calc兲 were similar for the relationships based on
⌬bb ⫽ column displacement at the onset of bar
plastic rotation, drift ratio, and displacement ductility. A modified
buckling;
version of the derived drift ratio relationship is proposed for
⌬bb_calc ⫽ calculated column displacement at the onset
earthquake-engineering applications.
of bar buckling;

冉 冊冉 冊冉 冊
⌬demand ⫽ expected column displacement demand;
⌬bb_calc db P L ⌬ p ⫽ plastic displacement of column;
共%兲 = 3.25 1 + ke_bb␳eff 1− 1+
L D Ag f c⬘ 10D ⌬y ⫽ yield displacement of column;
共14兲 ␧bb ⫽ maximum compressive strain at the onset of
bar buckling;
where ke_bb = 40 for rectangular-reinforced columns and 150 for ␧n ⫽ maximum compressive strain in concrete;
spiral-reinforced columns; ␳eff = ␳s f ys / f ⬘c , ␳s⫽volumetric trans- ␧y ⫽ yield strain of the tension reinforcement;
verse reinforcement ratio; f ys⫽yield stress of the transverse rein- ␩0 , … , ␩2 ⫽ parameters used in plastic curvature
forcement; db⫽diameter of the longitudinal reinforcing steel; approximation;
P⫽axial load, Ag⫽gross area of the cross section; f c⬘⫽concrete ␪ p ⫽ plastic rotation;
compressive strength; L⫽distance from the column base to the ␭ ⫽ parameter for yield curvature approximation;
point of contraflexure; and D⫽column depth. Because little data ␳eff ⫽ effective confinement ratio;
were available for large values of s / db , ke_bb should be taken as ␳s ⫽ volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio;
0.0 for columns in which s / db exceeds 6. ␪ p ⫽ plastic curvature;
The mean value of ⌬bb / ⌬bb_calc obtained with Eq. 共14兲 with the ␾ p_bb ⫽ plastic curvature at the onset of longitudinal
limit on s / db was 1.01 with a coefficient of variation of 25% for bar buckling;
rectangular columns and 0.97 with a coefficient of variation of ␾ p_n ⫽ plastic curvature at maximum compressive
24% for spiral-reinforced columns. The accuracy improves strain ␧n;
slightly if a more complex expression is used, but the increase in ␾ p_norm ⫽ normalized plastic curvature; and
accuracy does not justify the increased complexity. By solving ␹1 , ␹1 ⫽ parameters used in buckling strain
Eq. 共14兲 for the effective confinement ratio, it is also possible to approximation.
proportion the confinement reinforcement for new columns based
on the column properties, the expected column deformation, and
the target probability of bar buckling. References

American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共2002兲. “Building code requirements

for structural concrete.” ACI 318-02, Detroit.
Acknowledgments Atalay, M. B., and Penzien, J. 共1975兲. “The seismic behavior of critical
regions of reinforced concrete components as influenced by moment,
The writers thank Amit Mookerjee and Myles Parrish, who as- shear and axial force.” Rep. No. EERC 75-19, Univ. of California,
sembled much of the column data as part of their MSCE research. Berkeley, Calif.

1068 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005

Bayrak, O. 共1998兲. “Seismic performance of rectilinearly confined high Research Center Rep. 1998/01, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
strength concrete columns.” Doctoral Dissertation, Dept. of Civil En- Mattock, A. H. 共1967兲. “Discussion of ‘Rotational capacity of reinforced
gineering, Univ. of Toronto, Canada. concrete beams,’ by W. G. Corley.” J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 93共2兲, 519–
Bayrak, O., and Sheikh, S. 共1996兲. “Confinement steel requirements for 522.
high strength concrete columns.” Proc., 11th World Conf. on Earth- Monti, G., and Nuti, C. 共1992兲. “Nonlinear cyclic behavior of reinforcing
quake Engineering, Aculpulco, Mexico, Paper No. 463. bars including buckling.” J. Struct. Eng., 118共12兲, 3268–3284.
Bayrak, O., and Sheikh, S. 共2001兲. “Plastic hinge analysis.” J. Struct. Moyer, M., and Kowalsky, M. 共2001兲. “Influence of tension strain on
Eng., 127共9兲, 1092–1100. buckling of reinforcement in RC bridge columns.” Dept. of Civil En-
Berry, M. P. 共2003兲. “Estimating flexural damage in reinforced concrete gineering, North Carolina State Univ. , Raleigh, N.C.
columns.” Master’s thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engi- Nelson, J. M. 共2000兲. “Damage model calibration for reinforced concrete
neering, Univ. of Washington, Seattle. columns.” Master’s thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engi-
Berry, M. P., and Eberhard, M. O. 共2003兲. “Performance models for flex- neering, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
ural damage in reinforced concrete columns.” Pacific Earthquake En- Pantazopoulou, S. J. 共1998兲. “Detailing for reinforcement stability in re-
gineering Research Center Report 2003, Univ. of California, Berke- inforced concrete members.” J. Struct. Eng., 124共6兲, 623–632.
ley, Calif. Papia, M., and Russo, G. 共1989兲. “Compressive concrete strain at buck-
Berry, M. P., and Eberhard, M. O. 共2004兲 “PEER structural performance ling of longitudinal reinforcement.” J. Struct. Eng., 115共2兲, 382–397.
database user’s manual.” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Park, R., and Paulay, T. 共1990兲. “Use of interlocking spirals for transverse
Center Report 2004 具www.ce.washington.edu/~peeral典, Univ. of Cali- reinforcement in bridge columns.” Strength and ductility of concrete
fornia, Berkeley, Calif. substructures of bridges, RRU (Road Research Unit) Bulletin 84, 1,
Bresler, B., and Gilbert, P. H. 共1961兲. “Tie requirements for reinforced 77–92.
concrete columns.” ACI J., 58共5兲, 555–570. Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. 共1987兲. “Strength and ductility of con-
Calderone, A. J., Lehman, D. E., and Moehle, J. P. 共2000兲. “Behavior of crete bridge columns under seismic loading.” ACI Struct. J., 84共1兲,
reinforced concrete bridge columns having varying aspect ratios and 61–76.
varying lengths of confinement.” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Re- Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. 共1996兲. Seismic design
search Center Rep. 2000/08, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif. and retrofit of bridges, Wiley, New York.
Cheok, G. S., and Stone, W. C. 共1986兲. “Behavior of 1 / 6-scale model Ranf, R. T., Nelson, J., Price, Z., Eberhard, M. O., and Stanton, J. F.
bridge columns subjected to cycle inelastic loading.” NBSIR 86-3494, 共2003兲. “Accumulation of flexural damage in lightly reinforced con-
U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, crete columns.” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Re-
Md. port PEER-2003, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Corley, W. G. 共1966兲. “Rotational capacity of reinforced concrete Rodriguez, M., Botero, J., and Villa, J. 共1999兲. “Cyclic stress-strain be-
beams.” J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 92共5兲, 121–146. havior of reinforcing steel including effect of buckling.” J. Struct.
Davey, B. E. 共1975兲. “Reinforced concrete bridge piers under seismic Eng., 125共6兲, 605–612.
loading.” Master of Engineering Report, Civil Engineering Dept., Saatcioglu, M., and Baingo, D. 共1999兲. “Circular high-strength concrete
Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. columns under simulated seismic loading.” J. Struct. Eng., 125共3兲,
Dhakal, R., and Maekawa, K. 共2002兲. “Reinforcement stability and frac- 272–280.
ture of cover concrete in reinforced concrete members.” J. Struct. Saatcioglu, M., and Grira, M. 共1999兲. “Confinement of reinforced con-
Eng., 128共10兲, 1253–1262. crete columns with welded reinforcement grids.” ACI Struct. J.,
Eberhard, M. O. 共2000兲. “Consequences of bridge damage on functional- 96共1兲, 29–39.
ity.” Proc., PEER Invitational Workshop on Performance-Based En- Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. R. 共1994兲. “Behavior of high strength col-
gineering Concepts for Bridges, Palo Alto, Calif. umns subjected to axial load.” Proc., 5th National Conf. on Earth-
Ghee, A. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. 共1981兲. “Ductility of rein- quake Engineering Research Inst., 2, Oakland, Calif.
forced concrete bridge piers under seismic loading.” Rep. 81-3, Dept. Sawyer, H. A. 共1964兲. “Design of concrete frames for two failure states.”
of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Proc., Int. Symposium on the Flexural Mechanics of Reinforced Con-
Zealand. crete, ASCE-ACI, Miami, 405–431.
Gomes, A., and Appleton, J. 共1997兲. “Nonlinear cyclic stress-strain rela- Scribner, C. F. 共1986兲. “Reinforcement buckling in reinforced concrete
tionship of reinforcing bars including buckling.” Eng. Struct., 19共10兲, flexural members.” ACI J., 83共6兲, 966–973.
822–826. Soesianawati, M. T., Park, R., and Priestley, M. J. N. 共1986兲. “Limited
Henry, L., and Mahin, S. A. 共1999兲. “Study of buckling of longitudinal ductility design of reinforced concrete columns.” Rep. 86-10, Dept. of
bars in reinforced concrete bridge columns.” Report to the California Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Dept. of Transportation. Stone, W. C., and Cheok, G. S. 共1989兲. “Inelastic behavior of full-scale
Hose, Y. D. 共2001兲. “Seismic performance and failure behavior of plastic bridge columns subjected to cyclic loading.” NIST Building Science
hinge regions in flexural bridge columns.” PhD dissertation, Dept. of Series 166, U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Structural Engineering, Univ. of California, San Diego. Gaithersburg, Md.
Hose, Y. D., Seible, F., and Priestley, M. J. N. 共1997兲. “Strategic reloca- Tanaka, H., and Park, R. 共1990兲. “Effect of lateral confining reinforce-
tion of plastic hinges in bridge columns.” Structural Systems Research ment on the ductile behavior of reinforced concrete columns.” Rep.
Project, 97/05, University of California, San Diego. 90-2, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch,
Kowalsky, M. J., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F. 共1999兲. “Shear and New Zealand.
flexural behavior of lightweight concrete bridge columns in seismic Thomsen, J., and Wallace, J. 共1994兲. “Lateral load behavior of reinforced
regions.” ACI Struct. J., 96共1兲, 136–148. concrete columns constructed using high-strength materials.” ACI
Kunnath, S., El-Bahy, A., Taylor, A., and Stone, W. 共1997兲. “Cumulative Struct. J., 91共5兲, 605–615.
seismic damage of reinforced concrete bridge piers.” Technical Rep. Vu, N. D., Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Benzoni, G. 共1998兲. “Seis-
NCEER-97-0006, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Re- mic response of well confined circular reinforced concrete columns
search, Buffalo, N.Y. with low aspect ratios.” Proc., 5th Caltrans Seismic Research Work-
Lehman, D. E., Gookin, S. E., Nacamuli, A. M., and Moehle, J. P. 共2001兲. shop, Sacramento, Calif.
“Repair of earthquake-damaged bridge columns.” ACI Struct. J., Watson, S. 共1989兲. “Design of reinforced concrete frames of limited duc-
98共2兲, 233–242. tility.” Rep. 89-4, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury,
Lehman, D. E., and Moehle, J. P. 共2000兲. “Seismic performance of well- Christchurch, New Zealand.
confined concrete bridge columns.” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Wehbe, N., and Saiidi, M. S., and Sanders, D. 共1998兲. “Confinement of

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005 / 1069

 rectangular bridge columns for moderate seismic areas.” National Xiao, Y., and Martirossyan, A. 共1998兲. “Seismic performance of high-
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) Bulletin, strength concrete columns.” J. Struct. Eng., 124共3兲, 241–251.
12共1兲. Xiao, Y., and Yun, H. W. 共2002兲. “Experimental studies on full-scale
Wong, Y. L., Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. 共1990兲. “Squat circular high-strength concrete columns.” ACI Struct. J., 99共2兲, 199–207.
bridge piers under multi-directional seismic attack.” Rep. 90-4, Dept. Zahn, F. A., Park, R., and Priestley, M. J. N. 共1986兲. “Design of rein-
of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New forced bridge columns for strength and ductility.”Rep. 86-7, Dept. of
Zealand. Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

1070 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005

View publication stats