Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
An important consideration in reinforced concrete design
that can be added to the requirements of strength and serviceability is ductility, especially in areas requiring design for
seismic loading. This is because the present philosophy of
codes for seismic loading is to design structures to resist only
relatively moderate earthquakes elastically. In the case of a
severe earthquake, reliance is placed on the availability of
sufficient ductility after yielding to enable a structure to
survive without collapse. Hence, recommendations for
seismic design can be justified only if the structure has sufficient ductility to absorb and dissipate energy by postelastic
deformations when subjected to several cycles of loading
well into the yield range.
Various considerations have indicated that some plastic
hinging of columns must be accepted as inevitable during a
very large earthquake because seismic loading that acts
simultaneously in the directions of both principal axes of the
building and the presence of points of contraflexure near the
ends of columns will result in high bending moments in
columns. To prevent plastic hinges in columns would require
columns that are much stronger than the beams. Also, the
presence of walls and unintentional strength variations of
members could lead to column hinging. Thus, the potential
plastic hinge zones of columns should be capable of
ductile behavior.
404
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Ductility of columns is directly related to the transverse
steel content and the design of columns, particularly in earthquake prone areas, is never complete until the steel is
provided in adequate quantities and spacing. However, the
current ACI Code approach for the determination of special
transverse steel is based on a philosophy of maintaining the
axial load strength of the column after spalling of the cover
concrete. This procedure does not address the problem of
ductility directly and does not relate ductility requirements to
the required plastic rotation capacities of eccentrically
loaded column sections. The moment-curvature relationship
provides a measure of the plastic rotation capacity of
sections and an approach based on insuring a satisfactory
moment- curvature relationship could form a rational basis
for detailing columns for ductility.
The approach is applicable to circular or square columns
confined by the use of spiral transverse reinforcement. Rectangular columns, on the other hand, are normally designed
using isolated stirrups so that any study of the effect of
confinement on strength and ductility requires a different
treatment of the subject matter.
DEFINITION OF DUCTILITY
The ductility of plastic hinges in reinforced concrete
members depends mainly on the shape of the moment-curvature relations of the sections, since ductility may be defined
as the ability to undergo deformations without a substantial
reduction in the flexural capacity of the member. The
ductility of a section is normally expressed as the curvature ductility factor u /y , where y is the curvature when
the reinforcement in tension first reaches the yield strength
and u is the ultimate curvature when the concrete compression strain reaches a specified limiting value (see Fig. 1).
A measure of the ductility of structures with regard to
seismic loading is the displacement ductility factor defined
as u/y, where u is the lateral deflection at the end of the
postelastic range and y is the lateral deflection at first yield.
Typical values for the displacement ductility factor may
ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 4, July-August 1996.
Received July 22, 1994, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 1996, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of
copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the May-June 1997 ACI Structural Journal if received
by January 1, 1997.
(1)
f c
0.12 ----f yh
(2)
where
Ac =
(3)
f
1.25P
s = 0.12 -----c- 0.5 + ----------------e
f yh
f c A g
(4)
yh
and
7.94 f
f
fcc
= f co
1.254 + 2.254 1 + ---------------l 2 -------l-
f
co
co
(5)
(6)
where
Es = modulus of elasticity of steel
Region BC
y s sh
fs = fy
Region CD
(7)
sh s su
m ( s sh ) + 2 ( s sh ) ( 60 m )
- + -------------------------------------------f s = f y ------------------------------------2
60 ( s sh ) + 2
2 ( 30r + 1 )
(8)
where
2
( f su f y ) ( 30r + 1 ) 60r 1
m = ------------------------------------------------------------------2
15r
(9)
r = su sh
(10)
(11)
(12)
P = Cc +
fsi Asi
(13)
i=1
(14)
i=1
(15)
407
t , e/D
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.5
0.015
0.01125
0.01
0.01
1.0
0.025
0.015
0.01
2.0
0.025
0.025
0.02
3.0
4.0
*
*
*
*
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.02
0.025
Ultimate curvature requirement could not be met with reasonable amount of transverse steel.
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.5
1.0
0.0125
0.0087
0.0075
0.0075
0.0075
0.025
0.0075
0.0075
0.0075
2.0
3.0
0.025
0.025
0.0085
0.0125
0.0075
0.0075
0.0075
0.0075
4.0
0.025
0.015
0.0075
0.0075
Ultimate curvature requirement could not be met with reasonable amount of transverse steel.
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.5
0.016
0.01
0.01
0.0087
0.0075
1.0
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.009
0.0075
2.0
0.0115
0.01
0.009
0.0075
3.0
0.015
0.011
0.01
0.0075
4.0
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.0075
Fig. 10Transverse reinforcement ratio versus eccentricity-todiameter ratio curve (D = 400 mm).
Ultimate curvature requirement could not be met with reasonable amount of transverse steel.
(16)
( D = 400 mm )
(18)
( D = 500 mm )
e
e
f ---- = 0.7 + 0.3 ----
D
D
( D = 600 mm )
(20)
(17)
(19)
(21)
D
c
yh
(22)
=
=
=
=
=
0.0394 in.
3.28 ft
l3.5 104in.2
145.0 psi
0.225 kip-force
NOTATION
Ac
Ag
Asi
c
Cc
D
e
Es
fc
f cc
f co
f l
fs
fsu
fy
fyh
m
M
Mu
My
Pe
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
r
S
s
Xc
u
y
c
cc
cm
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
410
co
cu
=
=
s
sh
sp
=
=
=
su
s
=
=
=
t
=
u =
=
y
u/y =
REFERENCES
1. Park, R., and Ruitong, D., Ductility of Doubly Reinforced Concrete
Beam Sections, ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 24, Mar.-Apr. 1988, pp.
217-225.
2. Park, R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 1975, 769 pp.
3. Park, R., and Sampson, R. A., Ductility of Reinforced Concrete
Column Sections in Seismic Design, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 69, No.
9, Sept. 1972, pp. 543-551.
4. Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural Engineers Association of California, San Francisco, CA, 1980.
5. Draft Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Structures, Standards
Association of New Zealand, Wellington, 1978.
6. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (318M-89) and Commentary (318RM-89), American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, 1989, 353 pp.
7. Priestley, M. J. N.; Park, R.; and Pontangaroa, R. T., Ductility of Spirally
Confined Concrete Columns, Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, V. 107, No. ST1, Jan. 1981, pp. 181-202.
8. Mander, J. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., Theoretical Stress-Strain
Model for Confined Concrete, Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, Aug. 1988, pp. 1804-1826.
9. Popovics, S., Numerical Approach to the Complete Stress-Strain Curves
for Concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 3, No. 5, 1973, pp. 583-599.
10. William, K. J., and Warnke, E. P., Constitutive Model for the Triaxial
Behavior of Concrete, Proceedings of the International Association for Bridge
and Structural Engineering, V. 19, 1975, pp. 1-30.
11. Burns, N. H., and Siess, C. P., Load-Deformation Characteristics of
Beam-Column Connections in Reinforced Concrete, Structural Research
Series No. 234, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Jan.
1962, 261 pp.
12. Kent, D. C., Inelastic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Members with
Cyclic Loadings, PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealand, 1969, 264 pp.
13. Deeb, N. A. A., Ductility of Eccentrically Loaded Spirally Confined
Reinforced Concrete Columns, dissertation, University of Jordan, Amman,
Jordan, 137 pp.
411