Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 490504

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic performance of lightly shear reinforced RC columns

Kyoung-Kyu Choi , Gia Toai Truong, Jong-Chan Kim
School of Architecture, Soongsil Univ., 369 Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 06978, South Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Previous experimental studies on reinforced concrete columns subjected to cyclic loading simulating
Received 18 April 2016 earthquake loading have shown that the columns with non-seismic details of transverse reinforcement
Revised 29 July 2016 are vulnerable to the cyclic loading. In this study, to investigate the behavioral characteristics of concrete
Accepted 31 July 2016
columns with light transverse reinforcement, ten half-scale specimens were fabricated and tested under
Available online 13 August 2016
repeated cyclic loading together with axial loading. The main test parameters included axial load level,
hook angle, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, transverse reinforcement ratio, and shear span to depth
Keywords:
ratio. The performances and characteristics of the test specimens were analyzed in terms of load-drift
Light shear reinforcement
Reinforced concrete columns
relationship, dissipated energy, damping ratio, strain profile, drift capacity, effective stiffness, and ductil-
Seismic performance ity. The test results showed that the axial load level is the major parameter affecting seismic performance
Drift capacity including the drift capacity. Based on the test results, the nonlinear modeling parameters for concrete
Nonlinear modeling parameters columns presented in ASCE 41-13 were investigated using fragility analysis.
Failure probability 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction According to Chois report [9], most buildings constructed in

Over the last several decades, a lot of concrete buildings have
been constructed in developing countries (e.g., Korea), but many
of the buildings do not satisfy the special requirements of current
seismic design codes. When such buildings are subjected to a high
level of seismic hazard (e.g., 10% or lower probability of excee-
dance in 50 years [13]), the non-seismic reinforcement details
might lead to severe damage of structural members or collapse
of entire buildings. In fact, in modern seismic design codes, the
concrete columns under seismic loading were required to be able
to sustain relatively large inelastic deformations without any
significant loss of load-carrying capacity. However, the concrete
columns having non-seismic configurations of transverse rein-
forcement could lead to inadequate concrete confinement and
the buckling of longitudinal rebars. This causes the reduction of
shear and flexural capacity, and deformation capacity of the col-
umns [48]. Therefore, existing buildings and structural members
not satisfying current seismic design codes must be rehabilitated
to ensure sufficient seismic performance. For effective and reliable
rehabilitation, an in-depth understanding of the behavioral charac-
teristics and seismic performance of the existing structural mem-
bers, which were designed without consideration of the current
seismic special requirements, is a prerequisite.
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kkchoi@ssu.ac.kr (K.-K. Choi).
Korea before 1988 were designed to resist mainly gravity loads;
thus, the concrete columns of these buildings are very vulnerable
in an earthquake because the columns are already subjected to
high levels of gravity load. In these buildings, the concrete columns
were found to have widely spaced hoops with hook angles of 90
degree [3], which could provide poor confinement of concrete
and thus low deformation ductility of the concrete columns when
subjected to lateral load. A number of experimental studies have
been carried out to evaluate the structural performance of rein-
forced concrete columns with low lateral confinement subjected
to seismic loading. Lam et al. [10] have tested nine square-
shaped column specimens under repeated cycles of lateral load
while keeping high axial load. In the test, two configurations of
the transverse reinforcement including 90 and 135 hooks were
examined. It was found that the use of 90 hooks for the transverse
reinforcement resulted in approximately 40% reduction in the drift
capacity compared to cases using 135 hooks. Meanwhile, Pham
et al. [11] tested seven light transverse RC concrete column speci-
mens with shear span to depth ratios of 1.7 and 2.4. From the test
results, the specimens with a/d = 1.7 showed higher initial stiffness
but lower energy dissipation than those with a/d = 2.4. In the study
by Brachmann et al. [12], tests of a number of column specimens
were carried out to investigate the influence of various compres-
sive strengths of concrete (from 22 MPa to 116 MPa) and yield
strengths of transverse reinforcement (from 255 MPa to
1262 MPa) on the drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns.
From the test results, increasing the concrete strength and the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.07.060
0141-0296/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 K.-K. Choi et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 490504
transverse rebars yield strength could significantly limit the drift
capacity of the columns. Wibowo et al. [13] investigated the effect
of axial load ratio (20% and 40%) and longitudinal reinforcement
ratio (0.56% and 1%) on the behavior of lightly reinforced columns,
of which the stirrups were located at a 300 mm spacing, corre-
sponding to a transverse reinforcement ratio of 0.0007. In the test
results, it was interesting that the lightly confined reinforced con-
crete presented considerably greater axial load-carrying capacity
than that predicted by the design code.
From the experimental studies mentioned above as well as a
number of other studies [1419], various seismic rehabilitation
techniques have been developed that are applicable to existing
concrete buildings under seismic loading. Representative retrofit
methods for strengthening the columns are as follows: steel jack-
eting [20,21], fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) wrapping [16,17,22],
and concrete jacketing [19,23] reinforced with various materials
of reinforcement (e.g., conventional rebars, welded wire mesh, spi-
ral rebars, etc.). Such retrofit methods were applied in the plastic
hinge regions only or in the entire range of the columns. Most of
the retrofit methods were found to be effective to enhance the
strength and ductility of the concrete columns. In addition, based
on the test results, seismic evaluation and retrofit design provi-
sions such as ASCE 41-13 [24] were established and verified. Gen-
erally, however, since such design provisions have been developed
based on test results of materials and reinforcement details unique
to particular regions or countries (e.g., USA), they may not reflect
the detail characteristics of existing buildings in other countries
(e.g., Korea).
Thus, in this study, ten half-scale reinforced concrete column
specimens with light shear reinforcement were designed following
the structural guidelines as the preceding building design code of
Korea [25], and were then tested under simulated seismic loading
to understand the seismic behaviors more accurately. The main
parameters of the test specimens were axial load level, hook angle,
longitudinal reinforcement ratio, transverse reinforcement ratio,
and shear span to depth ratio. The purpose of the test is to inves-
tigate the effects of various test parameters on the seismic perfor-
mance of concrete columns. In addition, based on the test results
and the database gathered by the PEER Center [26], the modeling
parameters for nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete columns
presented in ASCE 41-13 [24] were investigated by using fragility
analysis. The test results and investigation results could be used
to understand the structural behavior of the concrete columns
having light transverse reinforcement details under seismic load-
ing [27].
2. Experimental program
2.1. Test specimens
To investigate the seismic behaviors of the reinforced concrete
columns in the existing buildings constructed based on the preced-
ing Korea design code [25], ten reinforced concrete column speci-
mens with a scale factor of 1/2 were constructed. It is noted that
in the older buildings constructed during the 1970s and 1980s in
Korea, the transverse reinforcement spacing to the depth ratio (s/
d) was >0.5, the hook angle was 90, and the concrete strength
was about 1518 MPa [9]. For better understanding the way that
the buildings were designed in Korea through last several decades,
the Appendix A briefly introduces the history of seismic design
codes for buildings in Korea.
The geometries and reinforcement details of the test specimens
could be classified into two series as shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1.
The first series of the test specimens (NRC-16) had a transverse
reinforcement spacing to depth ratio (s/d) equal to 1.2 and a lower
491
longitudinal reinforcement ratio (1.06% or 1.51%), while the second
series of test specimens (NRC-710) had s/d equal to 0.6 and a
higher longitudinal reinforcement ratio (2.03%). The other test
parameters included the applied axial load level, hook angle, longi-
tudinal reinforcement ratio, transverse reinforcement ratio, and
shear span to depth ratio. In the case of the first series, the main
properties of the control specimen NRC-1 were as follows: column
height (L) was 1660 mm; the shear span (=L/2) to depth ratio (a/d)
was equal to 3.3; longitudinal reinforcing bars were D16 with a
diameter of 16 mm with a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of
ql = 1.06%; and transverse reinforcing bars were D10 with a hook
angle of 90 with a transverse reinforcement ratio of qv = 0.17%.
NRC-2 and NRC-3 differed from NRC-1 in the hook angle (135)
of transverse reinforcement and the ratio (ql = 1.51%) of longitudi-
nal reinforcement, respectively, while the other parameters were
almost the same. NRC-4 and NRC-5 differed from NRC-1 in the
0
applied axial load level (P=Ag f c ), which was 0.06 and 0.38, respec-
tively, and NRC-6 differed from NRC-1 in a/d (equal to 2.5).
In the case of the second series (NRC-7 to NRC-10), the speci-
mens had low s/d (equal to 0.6) and high longitudinal reinforce-
ment ratio (ql = 2.03%). NRC-7 was a control specimen in the
second series. NRC-8 differed from NRC-7 in the hook angle
(135), and NRC-9 and NRC-10 differed from NRC-7 in the applied
axial load level, which was 0.10 and 0.44, respectively. The top and
bottom concrete beam studs of all specimens were designed to
remain elastic during the loading time and were cast together with
the columns. It is noted that the chord rotation of the columns is
not significant since the beam studs are adequately stiff.
In this study, all specimens were designed to be failed in
flexure-shear mode based on the shear demand ratio (Vp/Vn), which
was specified in ASCE 41-13 [24]. In ASCE 41-13 [24], for
V p =V n 6 0:6, the failure of columns is assigned to flexure mode
corresponding to condition i; for 1:0 P V p =V n > 0:6, it is assigned
to flexure-shear mode corresponding to condition ii; and for
Vp/Vn > 1.0, it is assigned to shear mode corresponding to condition
iii, where Vp is the plastic shear demand and Vn is the shear
strength of reinforced concrete columns (evaluated as ACI 318-14
[53]). As shown in Table 2, the shear demand ratio (Vp/Vn) of all
specimens ranged from 0.63 to 0.96. The Appendix B presents
the evaluation of the shear strength capacity, plastic shear demand,
and shear demand ratio of the concrete columns.
2.2. Materials
0
In this test, a low compressive strength (f c  20 MPa) of con-
crete and yield strength (fy  300 MPa) of steel rebars was used
to investigate the structural characteristics of the existing build-
ings constructed during the 1970s and 1980s in Korea based on
the investigation results shown in a previous report [9]. A concrete
compressive test was carried out on the loading date of each spec-
imen prescribed by the test standard of KS F 2405 [28]. The average
compressive strengths for NRC-1NRC-6 specimens were 19.2 MPa
at the 31st day and 19.9 MPa at the 38th day, respectively, and
those for NRC-7NRC-10 specimens were 12.8 MPa at the 13th
day and 14.3 MPa at the 22th day, respectively. Fig. 2a shows the
typical stress-strain relationship of concrete acquired from the test.
The longitudinal strain corresponding to the maximum compres-
sive strength was 0.0018. In Fig. 2b, up to almost 60% of compres-
sive strength, a constant value of Poissons ratio of 0.2 was
maintained, but subsequently drastically increased due to the lat-
eral expansion of concrete [29].
Tensile tests of longitudinal and transverse rebars were also
performed according to the test standards of KS B 0802 [30] and
0814 [31]. The steel rebars denoted as D10, D16, D19, and D22
have diameters of 10, 16, 19, and 22 mm, respectively, and their
492 K.-K. Choi et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 490504

unit : mm

s = 300

s = 300
L = 1660 L = 1660
2460 s = 150
L = 1260

1200 1200 1200

(a) Elevation (NRC1 ~ 5) (b) Elevation (NRC6) (c) Elevation (NRC 7~10)
300 300 300 300 300

D16 Bar D19 Bar D22 Bar D22 Bar

D16 Bar
252 250 249
D10 Bar D10 Bar D10 Bar D10 Bar D10 Bar
300
90 hook 135 hook 90 hook 90 hook 135 hook

(d) Cross section (e) Cross section (f) Cross section (g) Cross section (h) Cross section
(NRC1, 4, 5, and 6) (NRC2) (NRC3) (NRC7, 9, and 10) (NRC8)

Fig. 1. Details of test specimens: (a) elevation (NRC-15); (b) elevation (NRC-6); (c) elevation (NRC-710); (d) cross section (NRC-1, 4, 5, and 6); (e) cross section (NRC-2); (f)
cross section (NRC-3); (g) cross section (NRC-7, 9, and 10); and (h) cross section (NRC-8).

Table 1
Main parameters of test specimens.

Specimens a/d s (mm) s/d qv (%) ql (%) Hook angle fc (MPa) P/(Agfc) fyla (MPa) fytb (MPa) Feature
NRC1 3.3 300 1.2 0.17 1.06 90 17.9 0.27 327.0 378.4 Control specimen
NRC2 3.3 300 1.2 0.17 1.06 135 18.3 0.26 327.0 378.4 Hook angle
NRC3 3.3 300 1.2 0.17 1.51 90 17.5 0.28 319.0 378.4 High ql
NRC4 3.3 300 1.2 0.17 1.06 90 19.5 0.06 327.0 378.4 Low axial force
NRC5 3.3 300 1.2 0.17 1.06 90 19.9 0.38 327.0 378.4 High axial force
NRC6 2.5 300 1.2 0.17 1.06 90 17.2 0.31 327.0 378.4 Low a/d
NRC7 3.3 150 0.6 0.34 2.03 90 12.7 0.31 350.2 310.1 Control specimen
NRC8 3.3 150 0.6 0.34 2.03 135 12.1 0.33 350.2 310.1 Hook angle
NRC9 3.3 150 0.6 0.34 2.03 90 13.0 0.10 350.2 310.1 Low axial force
NRC10 3.3 150 0.6 0.34 2.03 90 13.6 0.44 350.2 310.1 High axial force
a
Yield strength of longitudinal rebars.
b
Yield strength of transverse rebars.

specified yield strength is 300 MPa. Fig. 2c presents a typical
stress-strain relationship of steel rebars acquired from the test. In
the figure, the measured yield strengths of D16, D19, and D22
steel rebars were 327, 319, and 375 MPa, respectively, and the
corresponding yield strains were 0.0019, 0.0017, and 0.0018,
respectively. In contrast, the yield strength of D10, which was used
in NRC-1NRC-6, was 378 MPa, exceeding the specified yield
strength of 300 MPa. In the evaluation of the test results hereafter,
the material strengths measured from the test were used instead of
the specified strength of concrete and steel rebars.
 K.-K. Choi et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 490504 493

Table 2
Shear capacity and failure modes of test specimens.

Specimens Vna (MN) Vpb (MN) Vp/Vnc Failure modes

ASCE 41-13 [24] Test results
NRC-1 0.112 0.093 0.83 Flexure-sheard Flexure-sheare
NRC-2 0.110 0.093 0.85 Flexure-sheard Flexure-sheare
NRC-3 0.111 0.106 0.96 Flexure-sheard Flexure-sheare
NRC-4 0.097 0.061 0.63 Flexure-sheard Flexure-sheare
NRC-5 0.119 0.107 0.89 Flexure-sheard Sheare
NRC-6 0.114 0.095 0.83 Flexure-sheard Flexure-sheare
NRC-7 0.152 0.117 0.77 Flexure-sheard Flexure-sheare
NRC-8 0.153 0.114 0.75 Flexure-sheard Flexure-sheare
NRC-9 0.138 0.097 0.71 Flexure-sheard Flexure-sheare
NRC-10 0.161 0.113 0.71 Flexure-sheard Flexure-sheare
a
Shear strength predicted by ACI 318-14 [53].
b
Plastic shear demand.
c
Shear demand ratio of the columns [24].
d
Failure mode specified in ASCE 41-13 [24].
e
Failure mode observed from the test results.

25

20 t c
Strong
Stress (MPa)

15 wall
Axial
10 Longitudinal tensile actuator
strain, c Lateral
5 Transverse actuator
compressive strain, t
Test
0 specimen
-0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003
Strain
(a) Compressive test of concrete
Guide
1 frame

0.8 Strong floor
v (Poisson's ratio)

c
0.6 t t
=
0.4 c I

0.2
0.2

0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
/f c IV
III
(b) Poissons ratio
II
600

500

400
Stress (MPa)

t
300
D10 (NRC-1~6) ( fy = 378MPa)
200 D10 (NRC-7~10) ( fy = 310MPa)
D16 (NRC-1, 2, 4~6) ( fy = 327MPa)
100 D19 (NRC-3) ( fy = 319MPa)
D22 (NRC-7~10) ( fy = 375MPa)
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Strain
(c) Tensile test of steel rebars Axial actuator Fixity of
LVDTs Lateral actuator
specimens
Fig. 2. Material characteristics of concrete and steel: (a) compressive test of
concrete, (b) poissons ratio, and (c) tensile test of steel rebars. Fig. 3. Test setup.
494 K.-K. Choi et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 490504

5 2.3. Test setup

4
3 A double curvature test setup [32] was used to fix the rotation
of the two ends of the specimens. Fig. 3 shows a schematic drawing
2
Ductility (/ y)

and photos of the test setup. The specimens were mounted verti-
1
cally onto the loading steel frame. A guide frame was installed to
0 maintain the loading steel frame to be horizontal and to prevent
-1 0.5 lateral instability of the specimens during loading. The top of the
(1step) 1
-2 (2step) 2 column specimens were axially loaded through the loading steel
(3step) 3 frame by using a hydraulic actuator of 1000 kN capacity. In addi-
-3
(4step) 4 tion, the top part of the columns was subjected to lateral cyclic
-4
(5step) loading by another hydraulic actuator with a capacity of 1000 kN,
-5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 which was mounted to a strong wall.
Number of cycle In this study, the cyclic loading history conforming to ACI 374.2R-
13 [33] was used, as presented in Fig. 4. The lateral displacement
Fig. 4. Lateral displacement history based on ACI 374.2R-13 [33]. cycles were repeated twice with amplitudes of 0.5Dy, 1.0Dy, 2.0Dy,
3.0Dy, 4.0Dy, 5.0Dy, and so on until failure, where Dy is the yield dis-
placement evaluated assuming the effective stiffness of columns [34].
0
The axial load levels (P=Ag f c ) shown in Table 1 were evaluated con-
150 sidering the concrete strength measured from the test.
300 300 Strain gauges were attached to the column concrete, and longi-
150
tudinal and transverse rebars to measure concrete and steel
strains, respectively. Fig. 5 shows the arrangement of the concrete
300
and steel strain gauges. The strain gauges were attached in the
1260 regions considered to be plastic hinge zones. Two linear variable
displacement transducers (LVDTs) were installed at the top and
1660 1660
bottom concrete beam stubs to measure the lateral deformations
and slip of the specimens, respectively.
300
300 30 3. Experimental results
150
150 Fig. 6 shows the observed damage pattern at the end of testing.
230 80 Most specimens, except for NRC-5, showed yielding of longitudinal
Concrete gauges unit: mm steel rebars, concrete crushing, and final failure in flexure-shear
Steel gauges (longitudinal rebar) mode. Before flexural cracking (approximately at the drift ratio of
Steel gauges (transverse rebar)
0.25%), all column specimens showed elastic behavior. Immedi-
(a) Gauge arrangement (b) Gauge arrangement (c) Gauge arrangement
ately after flexural cracking, several thin inclined cracks occurred
(NRC1~5) (NRC6) (NRC7~10)
near the column ends. Then, the longitudinal rebars yielded at
Fig. 5. Arrangement of strain gauges attached on concrete and steel rebars: (a) the drift ratio of approximately 0.81.6%, and the applied lateral
gauge arrangement (NRC-15); (b) gauge arrangement (NRC-6); and (c) gauge load then began to decrease at the drift ratio of approximately
arrangement (NRC-710). 1.53%. With repeating loading cycles, inclined cracks significantly

Vertical cracks
C
B
I

Buckling
V

(d) NRC2

(b) NRC6

Concrete
crushing V

C I Inclined cracks
(c) NRC3 (a) NRC7 (e) NRC4
Fig. 6. Specimen failures at the end of testing: (a) NRC-7; (b) NRC-6; (c) NRC-3; (d) NRC-2; and (e) NRC-4.
 K.-K. Choi et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 490504 495

widened and the wide part of the concrete showed spalling. This Fig. 7a shows the load drift hysteretic relationship of a control
impairment was concentrated in the plastic hinge regions. Specif- specimen NRC-1. Under lateral load, initial cracks occurred at an
ically, for most specimens, the longitudinal rebars were buckled early drift ratio of 0.25%, and the longitudinal rebars yielded at
between the transverse rebars, and crushing and spalling of con- the drift ratio of 1.25%. Immediately after yielding of the rebars,
crete cover followed. NRC-5 showed crushing and spalling of the the inclined cracks significantly widened and the lateral resistance
concrete cover in the plastic hinge prior to yielding of longitudinal of the column began to decrease. Concrete was crushed at the drift
rebars, and failed in shear mode unlike the other specimens. In ratio of 2%, inducing obtrusive impairment of the column. The
NRC-6NRC-10, vertical cracks developed along longitudinal rein- sequence of the failure in the NRC-1 specimen was in the order
forcement, which is expected to cause significant loss of lateral of initial crack development, longitudinal rebar yielding, and con-
load resistance. crete crushing.
Fig. 7 shows the measured load-drift hysteretic relationships of Fig. 7d presents the load drift hysteretic relationship of NRC-4
0
NRC-1NRC-10 specimens. In this study, drift ratio (h) was defined specimen subjected to low level of axial load (P 0:06Ag f c ). The
as D/L, where D is the lateral displacement and L is the column figure shows that the strength was almost halved, but the defor-
height. It is noted that the lateral deformation of the column causes mation capacity significantly increased in comparison with NRC-
a secondary moment (P  D effect) [35], and thus the curves shown 1. No significant concrete crushing was observed though the initial
in Fig. 7 are the modified load drift hysteretic curves after consid- cracks occurred at the drift ratio of 0.25%. The longitudinal rebars
ering the P  D effect, which was determined based on the yielded at the drift ratio of 1%, and then the specimen retained
obtained test results. its strength almost up to the drift level of 4%.

150 150 150

(a) NRC1 (b) NRC2 (c) NRC3
300 mm 300 mm 300 mm
100 100 100
Lateral load (kN)

300 mm

300 mm
300 mm

D10@300 135 D10@300

50 50 D10@300 50
4D16 4D16 4D19
0 0 0
s/d = 1.2 s/d = 1.2 s/d =1.2
-50 a/d = 3.3 -50 a/d = 3.3 -50 a/d = 3.3
l = 0.88% l = 0.88% l = 1.22%
-100 P/(Agfc)= 0.27 -100 P/(Agfc)= 0.26 -100 P/(Agfc)= 0.28
Hook = 90 Hook = 135 Hook = 90
-150 -150 -150
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
150 150 150
(d) NRC4 (e) NRC5 (f) NRC6
300 mm 300 mm 300 mm
100 100 100
Lateral load (kN)

300 mm
300 mm

300 mm

D10@300 D10@300 D10@300

50 50 50 4D16
4D16 4D16
0 0 0
s/d = 1.2 s/d = 1.2 s/d = 1.2
-50 a/d = 3.3 -50 a/d = 3.3 -50 a/d = 2.5
l = 0.88% l = 0.88% l = 0.88%
-100 P/(Agfc)= 0.06 -100 P/(Agfc)= 0.38 -100 P/(Agfc)= 0.31
Hook = 90 Hook = 90 Hook = 90
-150 -150 -150
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
150 150 150
(g) NRC7 (h) NRC8 (i) NRC9
300 mm 300 mm 300 mm
100 100 100
300 mm

300 mm
300 mm

135
Lateral load (kN)

D10@150 D10@150 D10@150

50 4D22 50 50 4D22
4D22
0 0 0
s/d = 0.60 s/d = 0.60 s/d = 0.60
-50 a/d = 3.3 -50 a/d = 3.3 -50 a/d = 3.3
l = 1.73% l = 1.73% l = 1.73%
-100 P/(Agfc)= 0.31 -100 P/(Agfc)= 0.33 -100 P/(Agfc)= 0.10
Hook = 90 Hook = 135 Hook = 90
-150 -150 -150
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
150 Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)
(j) NRC10
300 mm
100
Lateral load (kN)

300 mm

D10@150 Initial cracking

50 4D22 Rebar yielding
0 Concrete crushing
Loss of s/d = 0.60
load resistance
Hoop buckling
-50 a/d = 3.3
l = 1.73%
Vertical crack
-100 P/(Agfc)= 0.44 Test terminated
Hook = 90
-150
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Drift ratio (%)

Fig. 7. Load-drift hysteretic relationship of test specimens.

496 K.-K. Choi et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 490504

200 200 200

NRC1 NRC9 NRC1
(P/(Ag fc)=0.27) (P/(Ag fc)=0.10) (90 hook)
Lateral load (kN)

100 100 100

NRC5 NRC4 NRC7
(P/(Ag fc)=0.38) (P/(Ag fc)=0.06) (P/(Ag fc)=0.31)
0 0 0
300 mm 300 mm 300 mm

300 mm

300 mm
300 mm
135
-100 D10@300 -100 D10@150 -100 D10@300
4D16 4D22 NRC2 4D16
NRC10 (135 hook)
(P/(Ag fc)=0.44)
-200 -200 -200
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)
(a) Axial load (NRC1, 4, and 5) (b) Axial load (NRC7, 9, and 10) (c) Hook angle (NRC1 and 2)

200 200 150

NRC6
NRC3 (a/d =2.5)
(l =1.51%) 100
Lateral load (kN)

100 100
50
NRC7
(90 hook)
0 0 0
300 mm 300 mm
NRC1
(l =1.06%) NRC1 a/d a/d

300 mm
-50
300 mm

135 D10@300 (a/d =3.3)

-100 D10@150 -100 = =
4D22 4D19 -100 3.3 2.5
NRC8
(135 hook)
-200 -200 -150
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)
(d) Hook angle (NRC7 and 8) (e) Longitudinal reinforcement (f) Shear span to depth ratio
(NRC1 and 3) (NRC1 and 6)

Fig. 8. Effects of test parameters on load-drift relationships.

NRC-5 specimen was subjected to a high level of axial load
0
(P 0:38Ag f c ). Fig. 7e shows the load-drift hysteretic relationship
of NRC-5 specimen. The initial inclined cracking occurred at a rel-
atively high drift ratio of 0.5%. Then, the concrete crushing
occurred at the drift ratio of 1%, and simultaneously the specimen
reached its peak load with continuing loading cycles. The longitu-
dinal rebars finally yielded at the drift ratio of 1.75%. The sequence
of the failure in the NRC-5 specimen was in the order of initial
crack development, concrete crushing, and longitudinal rebar
yielding. NRC-2, NRC-3, and NRC-6 showed almost the same
behaviors as that of NRC-1. This indicates that the hook angle, lon-
gitudinal reinforcement ratio, and shear span to depth ratio are
parameters that do not significantly affect the load-drift behavior
for the given test condition.
In cases of the second series, for a control specimen NRC-7
(Fig. 7g), the sequence of the failure was almost the same as that
of NRC-1 as follows: initial cracks appeared at the drift ratio of
0.4%, then longitudinal rebars were yielded at the drift ratio of
0.81%, and after that the concrete was crushed at the drift ratio
of 1.23%. In addition, NRC-7 showed vertical cracks immediately
before failure, which is expected to be due to the high ratio of lon-
gitudinal rebars causing concrete cracking between the rebars.
NRC-8 and NRC-10 showed almost the same behaviors as that of
NRC-7. In case of NRC-9 specimen, which was subjected to a low
level of axial load (Fig. 7i), showed similar behaviors to that of
NRC-4.
Judging from the observed behaviors of the test specimens,
most specimens, except for NRC-5, showed flexure-shear failure
mode as designed because the longitudinal reinforcing bars were
yielded before attaining the peak load. Unlike test plan, however,
specimen NRC-5 was failed in shear due to the inclined cracks
appeared in the plastic hinge before the longitudinal rebars were
yielded (see Table 2). The difference between the predicted failure
mode and observed failure mode of specimen NRC-5 was attribu-
ted to the fact that the wide space of transverse reinforcement
was not effective on confining the concrete and on resisting high
applied axial load; thus, lowered ductility and shear failure might
occur [3639].
Fig. 8a shows a comparison of load-drift envelop curves for col-
umns NRC-4, NRC-1, and NRC-5, which were subjected to different
0 0 0
axial load levels of 0:06Ag f c , 0:27Ag f c , and 0:38Ag f c , respectively. In
the figure, as the axial load increases, the peak load also increased;
the strengths of NRC-4, NRC-1, and NRC-5 were 69.14, 109.3, and
128.09 kN, respectively. In contrast, the deformation capacity of
the column showed the opposite results; as the axial load
increased, the deformation capacity decreased. From the test
results shown in Fig. 8b, the trend of the peak load and deforma-
tion capacity of these specimens matching with the level of axial
load were almost the same as those of NRC-4, NRC-1, and NRC-5.
In Fig. 8c and d, no significant difference was observed between
the two different hook angles (90 for NRC-1 and NRC-7 specimens,
and 135 for NRC-2 and NRC-8 specimens). This is because the stir-
rups were widely spaced and did not show significant strain
(Fig. 10d). Thus, the difference between the transverse reinforce-
ment hook angles did not considerably contribute to the shear
capacity of the column for the given test condition.
Fig. 8e presents the effect of longitudinal reinforcement ratio
(ql) on the lateral load-drift envelopes: NRC-1 with ql = 1.06%
and NRC-3 with ql = 1.51%. Both the strength and deformation
capacity of specimens increased with increasing longitudinal rein-
forcement ratio. Fig. 8f compares the effect of column height (or
shear span to depth ratio) on the load-drift curves for NRC-1 and
NRC-6 specimens. The figure shows that reducing the column
height increased the strength by about 25.53%, which indicates
that the flexural capacities for NRC-1 and NRC-6 were almost the
same: Mn = 181.5 kN m for NRC-1 and Mn = 176.6 kN m for NRC-6.
 K.-K. Choi et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 490504 497

50 0.25 50 0.25
NRC1 NRC1
Dissipated energy (kNm) NRC6 NRC4

Dissipated energy (kNm)

40 0.20 40 NRC5 0.20

Damping ratio
Damping ratio

Damping ratio
30 Damping ratio 0.15 30 0.15
Lateral load (kN)
Elastic
20 strain 0.10 20 0.10
energy (Es)
Deformation
10 Dissipated 0.05 10 0.05
Energy (mm)
energy dissipation
per cycle (Ed) Dissipated energy
0 0.00 0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)
(a) Effect of column height (b) Effect of axial load

50 0.25 50 0.25
NRC1 NRC1
NRC3 NRC2

Dissipated energy (kNm)

Dissipated energy (kNm)

40 0.20 40 0.20

Damping ratio
Damping ratio
30 Damping ratio 0.15 30 0.15
Damping ratio

20 0.10 20 0.10

10 0.05 10 0.05

Dissipated energy Dissipated energy

0 0.00 0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)
(c) Effect of longitudinal reinforcement ratio (d) Effect of hook angle

100 0.40 100 0.40

NRC7 NRC7
NRC9 NRC8
Dissipated energy (kNm)
Dissipated energy (kNm)

80 NRC10 80
0.30 0.30

Damping ratio
Damping ratio

60 60
Damping ratio Damping ratio 0.20
0.20
40 40

0.10 0.10
20 20

Dissipated energy Dissipated energy

0 0.00 0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)
(e) Effect of axial load (f) Effect of hook angle

Fig. 9. Effect of test parameters on dissipated energy and damping ratio.

4. Discussion of test results Fig. 9a shows the effect of the column height on the dissipated
energy. As shown in the figure, the shorter column (NRC-6)
This section presents the investigations based on the test results showed greater dissipated energy than the longer column
in various factors: dissipated energy, damping ratio, strain profiles, (NRC-1). The effect of the axial load level on dissipated energy is
drift capacity, stiffness, ductility, plastic rotation (a), and failure presented in Fig. 9b, showing that as the axial load increased, the
probabilities. dissipated energy also increased. However, Fig. 9e shows that
NRC-10 specimen with a high level of axial load (44%) exhibited
4.1. Dissipated energy and damping ratio less dissipated energy than that of NRC-7 (31%).
No significant effects of longitudinal reinforcement ratio and
Based on the hysteretic loops of the load-drift curves shown in hook angles on the dissipated energy were observed as shown in
Fig. 7, the dissipated energy of the columns was investigated. In Fig. 9c and d. The dissipated energy of NRC-3 and NRC-2 was
this study, the dissipated energy was evaluated as the areas almost the same as that of NRC-1. Fig. 9f shows that the dissipated
bounded by the hysteretic loops for each loading cycle. Fig. 9 energy of NRC-8 specimen with a hook angle of 135 was slightly
shows a comparison of dissipated energy for test specimens in less than that of NRC-7 specimen with a hook angle of 90, but
accordance with test parameters. the difference was not considerable.
498 K.-K. Choi et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 490504

P
150
NRC1 V (Positive)
100
Symmetric
Lateral load (kN)

50

0
Steel gauge at hoop
Crushing (ST41)
-50
300
-100
Yielding Bottom
-150 beam Concrete gauge Steel gauge at
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
(CC41) longitudinal rebar
Drift ratio (%) (LS44)
(a) Hysteric curve (V) (b) Test specimen (c) Section

150 150 150

Yield strain Yield strain
Data
missing
100 (D10 bar) 100 100 (D16 bar)
Lateral load (kN)
Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)

50 50 50
0 0 0
-50 -50 Crushing -50 Data
missing
-100 -100 -100
Yielding
-150 -150 -150
0 1 2 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Transverse rebar strain (104) Concrete strain (104) Longitudinal rebar strain (104)

(d) Lateral loadtransverse rebar (e) Lateral loadconcrete strain (f) Lateral loadlongitudinal rebar
strain: ST41 gauge: CC41 strain: LS44
Fig. 10. Strain profiles of concrete, longitudinal, and transverse steel rebars in a control specimen NRC-1.

In addition, the damping ratio (n), which is one of the important while the damping ratios of NRC-1 and NRC-4 were 0.14 and
indices to represent the dynamic response of the structures, is also 0.11, respectively. On the other hand, Fig. 9e, which shows the
presented in Fig. 9. n is defined as Ed/4pEs, where Ed is the dissi- damping ratio according to the axial load level, shows a different
pated energy per cycle, and Es is the elastic strain energy. In the trend and complex fluctuation compared to that in Fig. 9b.
cases of NRC-1NRC-6 specimens, the damping ratios were around Fig. 9c, d, and f shows that the use of high longitudinal rein-
0.15 at elastic state, and decreased to 0.080.12 at the drift level of forcement ratio and 135 hook angle reduced the damping ratio.
1%. However, with accumulating inelastic damage, the damping This is mainly because the high longitudinal reinforcement ratio
ratio then increased up to almost 0.2. Nikbakht et al. [40] also and 135 hook angle increased the elastic strain energy.
reported the same trend of the damping ratio of the reinforced con-
crete columns subjected to seismic loading. Fig. 9a shows that the 4.2. Strain profiles
NRC-6 specimen with low shear span to depth ratio produced less
damping ratio than that of NRC-1 specimen. In Fig. 9b, as the axial Strain profiles for concrete, longitudinal rebars, and transverse
load increased, the damping ratio also increased. At the drift ratio rebars were obtained from the test (Fig. 10). At the start, the strain
of 1.65%, the NRC-5 specimen exhibited a damping ratio of 0.22,
1.0
NRC4 (P/Ag f'c = 0.06)
Zero strain M NRC1 (P/Ag f'c = 0.27)
300 0.8
C Y NRC5 (P/Ag f'c = 0.38)
Compressive
250 strain 0.6
140.5mm
cu/h
Column depth (mm)

M Y C
Location (mm)

200
0.4

150 Initial strain

0.5y 0.2 M,Y Data missing
1y
100
3y
5y 0.0
50 0 1 2 3 4
Tensile strain Drift ratio (%)
cu: compression zone depth
0
h : column section depth (= 300 mm)
-0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003
M: Maximum load, Y: Rebar yielding, and C: Concrete crushing
Strain (mm/mm)
Fig. 12. Variation of the depth of the compression zone for specimens NRC-1, 4, and
Fig. 11. Variation of the depth of the compression zone in specimen NRC-1. 5.
 K.-K. Choi et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 490504 499

0.06 Table 4
NRC-9 Nonlinear modeling parameters presented in ASCE 41-13 [24] and those evaluated for
this study (NRC-110).
Drift capacity at failure, u

0.05
Conditions Modeling parameters
0.04 ASCE 41-13 [24] This study
M + 2
P
0
Ag f c
qv (%) p
V
0
aa ba a b
bd fc
0.03
b
0.0 0.0016 0.3 0.016 0.016 0.022 0.022b
0.02 0.1 0.0016 0.3 0.016 0.016 0.022c 0.022c
0.6 0.0016 0.3 0.005 0.005 0.005d 0.005d
M 0.7 0.0016 0.3 0.005 0.005 0.005e 0.005e
0.01
a
Values presented in ASCE 41-13 [24].
M 2 b
Values evaluated from the test results of specimens NRC-4 and NRC-9.
0.00 c
Values evaluated from the test results of specimens NRC-4, NRC-3, NRC-6, NRC-
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
7, and NRC-8.
P/Ag f'c d
Values evaluated from the test results of specimens NRC-1, NRC-2, and NRC-10.
e
Values evaluated from the test results of specimen NRC-5.
Study before 2000 [41~50] (d = 0.170.45m)
Sezen and Moehle [51] (d = 0.38m)
Lynn [52] (d = 0.38m)
This study (d = 0.25m) concrete crushing developed in the compression side. Before the
M : Average drift capacity concrete crushing, the longitudinal rebars yielded in the tension
: Standard deviation of drift capacity side (Fig. 10f). On the other hand, as shown in Fig. 10d, the defor-
mation of transverse rebar was relatively small in comparison with
Fig. 13. Effect of axial load level on drift ratio at failure in existing test results.
yield strain. Hence, the contribution of the transverse rebars to the
seismic capacity was not considerable.
Fig. 11 shows the variation of the depth of the compression
150 zone for NRC-1 specimen. In the figure, the neutral axis and the
b depth of the compression zone were simply determined by using
B a two strain data at the tension and compression longitudinal rein-
Lateral load (kN)

Vmax Nonlinear load-deformation curves C forcement. Generally, with increasing load, the neutral axis shifted
100 upwards and thus the depth of the compression zone reduced. The
0.8Vmax
0.75Vmax Extended final depth of the compression zone was 140.5 mm.
data Fig. 12 presents the variation of the depth of the compression
50 VB = Vmax zone in the specimens in response to different levels of axial load.
= u / y In the case of NRC-4 subjected to the axial load level of 0:06Ag f c ,
0
Ke
the ratio cu/h decreased from 1.00.1 immediately after loading,
A c but increased again up to 0.2 after the longitudinal rebars yielded
0
0 e 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 at the drift ratio of 1.7%. As shown in the figure, the effect of the
Drift ratio (%) axial load on the depth of the compression zone of columns is sig-
y
nificant; for example, the ratios of cu/h are 0.1 and 0.75 for the axial
u 0 0
load levels of 0:06Ag f c and 0:38Ag f c at the drift ratio of 1.4%.
Fig. 14. Nonlinear load-deformation curve of a control specimen NRC-1.
4.3. Drift capacity

of the transverse rebars was zero (Fig. 10d); meanwhile the longi- In this study, to investigate the drift capacity of the test speci-
tudinal rebars and concrete column were already in compressive mens, the drift capacity (hu) was defined at the point where the
deformation due to axial load (Fig. 10e and f). The initial strain of applied load dropped to below 80% of the peak load (refer to
the longitudinal rebars did not exactly match that of the concrete Fig. 14). Fig. 13 presents the drift capacity (hu) of the existing test
column, which is assumed to be due to measurement error. In specimens [4152] that failed in shear after flexural yielding. The
the lateral load-concrete strain curve (Fig. 10e), it can be seen that plots clearly show considerable variation of the drift capacity and
the concrete strain was non-symmetrical, which is attributed no single parameter could be directly correlated with the drift
to the existence of the axial load. At the drift ratio of 2.5%, the at shear failure; all parameters including the axial load level,

Table 3
Nonlinear deformation and stiffness obtained from test specimens.

Specimens In a positive direction In a negative direction

Ke (kN/mm) hy (%) hu (%) l a Ke (kN/mm) hy (%) hu (%) l a
NRC1 10.81 0.46 2.46 5.38 0.020 10.85 0.42 2.47 5.83 0.021
NRC2 9.13 0.52 2.47 4.78 0.020 11.80 0.42 2.46 5.85 0.020
NRC3 8.90 0.58 2.87 4.96 0.023 11.03 0.48 2.68 5.57 0.022
NRC4 7.81 0.38 4.37 11.64 0.040 7.59 0.40 4.37 10.93 0.040
NRC5 15.51 0.33 1.66 5.05 0.013 10.30 0.56 1.62 2.88 0.011
NRC6 16.48 0.38 2.51 6.67 0.021 14.06 0.45 2.31 5.13 0.019
NRC7 8.65 0.53 2.63 4.98 0.021 21.66 0.25 2.32 9.11 0.021
NRC8 8.87 0.53 3.07 5.80 0.025 10.57 0.55 2.68 4.91 0.021
NRC9 4.49 0.90 5.18 5.77 0.043 7.86 0.65 4.16 6.44 0.035
NRC10 8.98 0.52 2.63 5.02 0.021 17.88 0.36 2.68 7.54 0.023
Table 5

500
Geometries and material properties of test specimens used in fragility analysis method.

Investigators Specimens fc (MPa) b (mm) h (mm) asa (mm) ql fylb (MPa) qv fytc (MPa) s/d P
0
Ag f c
Vp
max
0
V p d,e a = huhyf ag a g
hu hy
bd f c V0

Soesianawati et al. No. 4 40 400 400 1600 0.0151 446 0.0010 255 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.75 0.029 0.008 0.38
Nagasaki HPRC1063 21.6 200 200 300 0.0127 371 0.0022 344 0.20 0.17 0.53 0.69 0.022 0.017 0.77
HPRC1932 21 200 200 300 0.0127 371 0.0038 344 0.11 0.35 0.69 0.60 0.013 0.016 1.23
Ohue et al. 2D16RS 32 200 200 400 0.0201 369 0.0015 316 0.28 0.14 0.46 0.91 0.011 0.024 2.18
Muguruma et al. BL1 115.8 200 200 500 0.038 399.6 0.0051 328.4 0.20 0.25 0.63 0.72 0.043 0.020 0.47
BH1 115.8 200 200 500 0.038 399.6 0.0051 792.3 0.20 0.25 0.64 0.60 0.057 0.020 0.35
Ono et al. CA025C 25.8 200 200 300 0.0213 361 0.0026 426 0.41 0.26 0.75 0.66 0.022 0.015 0.68
Sakai et al. B1 99.5 250 250 500 0.0243 379 0.0017 774 0.28 0.35 0.73 0.74 0.016 0.009 0.56
B2 99.5 250 250 500 0.0243 379 0.0025 774 0.19 0.35 0.76 0.61 0.036 0.012 0.33
B3 99.5 250 250 500 0.0243 379 0.0020 344 0.28 0.35 0.80 0.91 0.006 0.010 1.67
B4 99.5 250 250 500 0.0243 379 0.0017 1126 0.28 0.35 0.73 0.62 0.015 0.009 0.60
B5 99.5 250 250 500 0.0243 379 0.0017 774 0.14 0.35 0.71 0.74 0.006 0.009 1.50
B6 99.5 250 250 500 0.0243 379 0.0016 857 0.28 0.35 0.78 0.71 0.006 0.009 1.50
B7 99.5 250 250 500 0.0181 339 0.0017 774 0.15 0.35 0.71 0.75 0.007 0.009 1.29

K.-K. Choi et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 490504

Wight and Sozen No. 40.067 (East) 33.4 152.4 304.8 876.3 0.0245 496 0.0020 345 0.24 0.11 0.40 0.98 0.056 0.024 0.43
No. 40.067 (West) 33.4 152.4 304.8 876.3 0.0245 496 0.0020 345 0.24 0.11 0.40 0.98 0.056 0.024 0.43
No. 40.147 (East) 33.5 152.4 304.8 876.3 0.0245 496 0.0046 317 0.24 0.11 0.49 0.66 0.047 0.038 0.81
No. 40.147 (West) 33.5 152.4 304.8 876.3 0.0245 496 0.0046 317 0.24 0.11 0.49 0.66 0.050 0.038 0.76
No. 40.092 (East) 33.5 152.4 304.8 876.3 0.0245 496 0.0029 317 0.38 0.11 0.49 0.82 0.049 0.032 0.65
No. 40.092 (West) 33.5 152.4 304.8 876.3 0.0245 496 0.0029 317 0.38 0.11 0.48 0.82 0.047 0.031 0.66
Saatcioglu and Ozcebe U1 43.6 350 350 1000 0.0321 430 0.0010 470 0.49 0.00 0.36 0.88 0.039 0.019 0.49
U3 34.8 350 350 1000 0.0321 430 0.0019 470 0.25 0.14 0.42 0.64 0.037 0.024 0.65
Galeota et al. AB1 80.0 250 250 1140 0.0603 430 0.0017 430 0.74 0.20 0.35 0.84 0.027 0.018 0.67
AB2 80.0 250 250 1140 0.0603 579 0.0017 579 0.74 0.30 0.36 0.65 0.018 0.015 0.83
AB3 80.0 250 250 1140 0.0603 579 0.0017 579 0.74 0.30 0.37 0.65 0.017 0.015 0.88
AB4 80.0 250 250 1140 0.0603 579 0.0017 579 0.74 0.20 0.44 0.70 0.012 0.022 1.83
Wehbe et al. A1 27.2 380 610 2335 0.0222 448 0.0009 428 0.19 0.10 0.32 0.79 0.040 0.016 0.40
A2 27.2 380 610 2335 0.0222 448 0.0009 428 0.19 0.24 0.34 0.72 0.019 0.014 0.74
B1 28.1 380 610 2335 0.0222 448 0.0011 428 0.15 0.09 0.33 0.67 0.055 0.018 0.33
B2 28.1 380 610 2335 0.0222 448 0.0011 428 0.15 0.23 0.36 0.62 0.026 0.016 0.62
Xiao and Martirossyan HC48L19T100.1P 76.0 254 254 508 0.0355 510 0.0052 510 0.23 0.10 0.65 0.63 0.064 0.025 0.39
HC48L19T100.2P 76.0 254 254 508 0.0355 510 0.0052 510 0.23 0.20 0.75 0.71 0.052 0.022 0.42
HC48L16T60.1P 86.0 254 254 508 0.0246 510 0.0024 449 0.23 0.10 0.50 0.71 0.051 0.020 0.39
HC48L16T60.2P 86.0 254 254 508 0.0246 510 0.0024 449 0.23 0.19 0.59 0.83 0.032 0.017 0.53
Nosho et al. No. 1 40.6 279.4 279.4 2134 0.0101 407 0.0003 351 0.95 0.34 0.13 0.77 0.005 0.008 1.60
Pujol No. 1023N 33.7 152.4 304.8 685.8 0.0245 453 0.0017 410.9 0.29 0.08 0.48 0.96 0.011 0.028 2.55
No. 1023S 33.7 152.4 304.8 685.8 0.0245 453 0.0017 410.9 0.29 0.08 0.48 0.96 0.012 0.028 2.33
No. 1031.5N 32.1 152.4 304.8 685.8 0.0245 453 0.0035 410.9 0.14 0.09 0.49 0.68 0.021 0.035 1.67
No. 1033N 29.9 152.4 304.8 685.8 0.0245 453 0.0017 410.9 0.29 0.10 0.51 0.97 0.024 0.017 0.71
No. 1033S 29.9 152.4 304.8 685.8 0.0245 453 0.0017 410.9 0.29 0.10 0.51 0.97 0.022 0.017 0.77
No. 1032.25N 27.4 152.4 304.8 685.8 0.0245 453 0.0023 410.9 0.22 0.10 0.54 0.80 0.022 0.019 0.86
No. 1032.25S 27.4 152.4 304.8 685.8 0.0245 453 0.0023 410.9 0.22 0.10 0.54 0.80 0.022 0.019 0.86
No. 2033N 36.4 152.4 304.8 685.8 0.0245 453 0.0017 410.9 0.29 0.16 0.54 0.98 0.023 0.015 0.65
No. 1022.25N 34.9 152.4 304.8 685.8 0.0245 453 0.0023 410.9 0.22 0.08 0.47 0.80 0.013 0.029 2.23
No. 1022.25S 34.9 152.4 304.8 685.8 0.0245 453 0.0023 410.9 0.22 0.08 0.47 0.80 0.013 0.029 2.23
Bechtoula et al. D1N30 37.6 250 250 625 0.0243 461 0.0016 485 0.18 0.30 0.56 0.69 0.022 0.011 0.50
Takemura and Kawashima Test 1 (JSCE4) 35.9 400 400 1245 0.0158 363 0.0006 368 0.19 0.03 0.16 0.72 0.028 0.025 0.89
Test 2 (JSCE5) 35.7 400 400 1245 0.0158 363 0.0006 368 0.19 0.03 0.17 0.73 0.034 0.025 0.74
 K.-K. Choi et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 490504 501

transverse reinforcement ratio, spacing of the hoops, and aspect

ratio (or shear span to depth ratio) are expected to affect the drift
0.47

0.56
0.65
0.52

0.52

0.77
0.52
0.71

0.49
0.57
0.40
0.70

0.60
0.60

0.40

0.60
ratio at shear failure [4152]. In the figure, however, it is also obvi-
ous that the average drift ratio showed a decreasing trend with
0.025
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.016

0.011
0.015
0.015
0.021
0.012
0.010
increasing axial loads. The figure also shows that the results
acquired in this study were located within the range of M   2r
except for NRC-9, where M  is the average drift capacity of the test
data, and r is the standard deviation of drift capacity.
0.053
0.035

0.025
0.017
0.021

0.023

0.013
0.021
0.021
0.025
0.043
0.021
0.020

0.020
0.020

0.040

4.4. Modeling parameters: effective stiffness, ductility, and plastic

0.73
0.87
0.86
0.86
0.75
0.74
0.69
0.69

0.55
0.77
0.78
0.77
0.74
0.80
0.70

0.70
rotation

Based on the backbone curves acquired from the test results

0.18
0.56
0.56

0.59
0.65
0.34
0.34
0.37
0.21
0.38
0.45
0.46
0.49
0.42
0.51
0.60

(see Fig. 7), nonlinear load-deformation curves were established

for the application of the nonlinear load-deformation curves to
0.33
0.33
0.27
0.26
0.28
0.28
0.38
0.31
0.31
0.33

0.44
0.03

0.20
0.20

0.10
0.00

the performance-based design. Fig. 14 shows the established non-

linear load-deformation curve of a control specimen, NRC-1. In the
figure, the data of the backbone curve was linearly extended to 80%
0.19
0.25
0.29
0.43
0.23
0.34
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60

of the peak load to define the post failure behavior since the test
was terminated before it reached the point of 0.8Vmax. The failure
of specimens was defined at the point where the lateral load-
carrying capacity dropped to below 80% of the peak load. Based
378.4
378.4
378.4
378.4
378.4
378.4
310.1
310.1
310.1
310.1
368
455
364
364
364
364

on the nonlinear curve as shown in Fig. 14, Ke was defined as effec-

tive stiffness which was evaluated in the initial segment of the test
backbone curve; he [= 0.75Vmax/(KeL)] was defined as the drift ratio
0.0017
0.0017
0.0021
0.0021
0.0017
0.0017
0.0017
0.0017
0.0017
0.0017
0.0034
0.0034
0.0034
0.0034
0.0006
0.0010

at 0.75Vmax according to ASCE 41-13 [24] and Elwood and Moehle

[54]; and hy was defined as the yield drift ratio at Vmax. The yield
drift ratio of the columns was assumed to address the sum of the
displacements due to shear, flexure, and bar slip [55]. hu was
327.0
327.0
319.0
327.0
327.0
327.0
350.2
350.2
350.2
350.2
363
374
363
363
363
363

defined as ultimate drift ratio at specimen failure, where the lateral

load-carrying capacity dropped below 80% of the peak load
(0.8Vmax) [54] (Fig. 14). l was defined as drift ductility factor at
0.0158
0.0245
0.0253
0.0253
0.0253
0.0253

0.0127

0.0173
0.0173
0.0173
0.0173
0.0088
0.0088

0.0088
0.0088
0.0088

specimen failure [56] and was determined by the ratio between

the ultimate drift ratio at specimen failure and the yield drift ratio
(l = hu/hy). In addition, also in Fig. 14, a (=hu  hy) was defined as
the flexural plastic hinge rotation of the columns at significant loss
457.5
1245

830
830
830
830
830
630
830
830
830
830
400
400
400
400

of lateral load-carrying capacity [24]. The definition and determi-

nation process of the modeling parameters are presented in the
Appendix C.
Detailed results of nonlinear modeling parameters (Ke, hy, hu, l,
305
400

200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300

and a) for all specimens are presented in Table 3. In the positive

direction, the yield drift ratios of most specimens were around
V0 is the shear strength of the concrete columns defined in ASCE 41-13 [24].

0.5%, except for NRC-5 and NRC-9, of which the values were
305
400

200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300

0.33% and 0.9%, respectively; the ultimate drift ratios of most spec-
imens were around 2.5%, except for NRC-4, NRC-5, and NRC-9, of
which the values were 4.37%, 1.66%, and 0.9%, respectively. The
a is the plastic rotation parameter specified in ASCE 41-13 [24].

drift ductility factor of most specimens was around 5, except for

a is the plastic rotation parameter obtained from test results.
34.3
34.5

17.9
18.3
17.5
19.5
19.9
17.2
12.7
12.1

13.6
23.0
20.2
23.0
20.2

13.0

specimen NRC-4, of which the value was 11.64; similarly, the flex-
Vp is the plastic shear demand of the concrete columns.

ural plastic hinge rotation a was around 0.020 for most specimens
except for NRC-4, NRC-5, and NRC-9 specimens, of which the val-
ues were 0.040, 0.013, and 0.043, respectively. Meanwhile, the
fyl is the yield strength of longitudinal rebars.
Test 3 (JSCE6)

as is the shear span of the concrete columns.

effective stiffness showed variation from 4.49 to 16.48 kN/mm. In

fyt is the yield strength of transverse rebars.

the negative direction, the yield drift ratio, the ultimate drift ratio,
HT21/5

HT21/3
H21/5

H21/3

NRC10

the drift ductility factor, and the flexural plastic hinge rotation a of
NRC1
NRC2
NRC3
NRC4
NRC5
NRC6
NRC7
NRC8
NRC9
00U

most specimens showed almost the same trend as shown in the

positive direction, while the effective stiffness showed a different
trend.

4.5. Nonlinear modeling parameter of plastic rotation, a, and the

Ramirez and Jirsa

column failure probability

This study

The applicability of the nonlinear modeling parameters pre-

sented by ASCE 41-13 [24] to the evaluation of the RC columns
Esaki

designed as recommended by the preceding Korea design code

a

g
c
b

[25] was investigated. Table 4 shows the modeling parameters

502 K.-K. Choi et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 490504
1 obtained from the test results and recommended by ASCE 41-13
atest/aASCE
=1.0
0.8
0.6
Pf
PEER DB
0.4
PEER DB and
test results of
0.2 Pf=0.22 this study
0
0 1 2 3
atest/aASCE
Fig. 15. Fragility curves based on test results.
presented by ASCE 41-13 [24] and evaluated from the test results
in this study (see Appendix C explaining the determination of the
modeling parameters in this study). As can be seen in the Table,
0 findings are as follows:
for low axial load level (P=Ag f c  0:1), the modeling parameters
(a and b) in this study were determined to be 0.022 and 0.022,
respectively, which were greater than those specified in ASCE 41-
13 [24]; a and b were 0.016 and 0.016, respectively. In contrast,
0
for high axial load level (P=Ag f c  0:6), the modeling parameters
evaluated in this study and presented in ASCE 41-13 [24] were
almost the same; a and b were equal to 0.005 and 0.005, respec-
tively. It is noted that NRC-5 failed in brittle mode was also consid-
ered in the calculation.
Additional 54 EA test results obtained from PEER DB [26], clas-
sified as condition ii (flexure-shear failure), were used since the
test results of this study are not sufficient. Table 5 shows the
geometries and material properties of the test results including
PEER DB [26]. In the test data, the axial load level varied signifi-
cantly from 0.000.44, the transverse reinforcement ratios varied
from 0.03% to 0.52%, and the normalized design shear force varied
from 0.13 to 0.98; the modeling parameters evaluated from the
test results therefore also varied from 0.008 to 0.038 (Table 5).
Therefore, the modeling parameter (in this study, a) should not
be determined as a mean value; instead, the parameter needs to
be investigated and determined based on column failure probabil-
ity assessment.
In ASCE 41-13 [24], the nonlinear modeling parameters of RC
columns to simulate the nonlinear behavior were determined
based on the fragility analysis method to consider the column fail-
ure probability (Pf). As proposed in [24], the column failure proba-
bility value (Pf) to determine the modeling parameter a (see
Fig. 14) is recommended to be 15% or 35% when concrete columns
are in shear failure or flexure failure, respectively.
In this study, the column failure probabilities (Pf) of the model-
ing parameter a were evaluated according to the plastic deforma-
tion capacity a (= hu  hy) from the test results. As presented in
Fig. 15, the fragility curve was investigated by using a lognormal
distribution curve, which was expressed as Eq. (1):
 
1 atest
Pf U ln U1 Pf :ASCE
f aASCE
q
f 1n1 b2
where b is the coefficient of variation, atest and aASCE are the plastic
rotation values evaluated from the test results and proposed by
ASCE 41-13 [24], Pf and Pf.ASCE are the column failure probabilities
[24] (Pf.ASCE is equal 15% for shear failure and 35% for flexural fail-
ure), and U1 is the inverse standard normal cumulative distribu-
tion, with a zero mean and unit standard deviation. In the figure,
the average value of atest/aASCE was almost 1.0; the probability of
failure of the concrete columns (Pf) was therefore 22% as shown
in Fig. 15. This indicates that the failure probability of the concrete
columns using the modeling parameters proposed by ASCE 41-13
[24] for the test results is greater than the target failure probability
in shear failure (Pf.ASCE = 15%) [24]. With more data, the nonlinear
modeling parameters need to be confirmed and verified.
4
5. Conclusions
In this study, ten half-scale concrete column specimens with
light transverse reinforcement were fabricated and tested under
cyclic loading using double curvature test setup. The main param-
eters of this test are the applied axial load level, hook angle, longi-
tudinal reinforcement ratio, transverse reinforcement ratio, and
shear span to depth ratio. Based on the test results, the primary
1. All specimens, except for NRC-5, were observed to be failed in
flexure-shear mode as predicted based on the guidance speci-
fied in ASCE 41-13 [24]. While NRC-5 was failed in shear mode.
2. Enlarging the hook angle of the transverse reinforcing hoops of
concrete columns from 90 to 135 did not significantly
improve the peak load and deformation capacity, but slightly
lowered the dissipated energy and damping ratio. Specimen
NRC-2 with the hook angle of 135 showed 8.2% and 13.3%
reduction of the dissipated energy and damping ratio compared
to those of specimen NRC-1 with the hook angle of 90, at the
drift ratio of 2%. In specimens NRC-7 and NRC-8, the hook angle
presented almost the same trend of the dissipated energy and
damping ratio as observed in the specimens NRC-1 and NRC-
2. However, further research is necessary to make a general
conclusion.
3. In specimens NRC-1, NRC-4, and NRC-5, with increasing the
axial load level, the peak load of the concrete columns subjected
to lateral load increased up to approximately 63%, but their
deformation capacity decreased up to approximately 62%. In
specimens NRC-7, NRC-9, and NRC-10, the axial load level pre-
sented almost the same trend of the peak load and deformation
capacity.
4. In specimens NRC-1 and NRC-3, with increasing the longitudi-
nal reinforcement ratio from 1.06% (NRC-1) to 1.51% (NRC-3),
the peak load and deformation capacity increased up to 15.2%
and 16.7%, respectively, but the damping ratio decreased up
to 13.3% at the drift ratio of 2% while the dissipated energy
did not show any significant difference.
5. According to the results of fragility analysis using the existing
and above test results, the nonlinear modeling parameter a,
which is specified in ASCE 41-13 [24] for RC columns controlled
in flexure-shear failure, presented a higher failure probability
(Pf = 22%), exceeding that of Pf.ASCE = 15% recommended in ASCE
41-13 [24]. Further investigations to confirm the modeling
parameter might be necessary.
1
2
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the Basic Science Program
(2014R1A1A2053499) through the National Research Foundation
of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education.
 K.-K. Choi et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 490504 503

Appendix A. History of seismic design codes for buildings in B.2. Plastic shear demand of reinforced concrete columns
Korea
The plastic shear demand (Vp) of the reinforced concrete col-
The history of seismic design codes for buildings in Korea can be umns is evaluated as Eq. (A4):
briefly introduced as following:
2Mn
In Korea, the first seismic design code for buildings was estab- Vp A4
lished in 1988 by the Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) based
L  
b c
on ATC 3-06 [57]. In this code, seismic hazard was defined as an Mn As f yl d  1 A5
earthquake with a recurrence period of 500 years, effective peak 2
velocity-related acceleration (Cs) was used with a zone factor of where As is the area of longitudinal rebars and fyl is the yield
0.12 g or 0.08 g, and the design philosophy was based on the allow- strength of longitudinal rebars.
able stress approach.
In 2005, a new seismic design code, KBC 2005 [58], was devel-
oped following the framework of International Building Code (IBC) Appendix C. Nonlinear modeling curve and the parameter used
in 2000 [59]. The great improvement of the code was as follows: in ASCE 41-13 [24]
seismic hazard was defined as maximum considered earthquake
(MCE) with a recurrence period of 2500 years; a load factor for In concrete columns, most nonlinear deformations develop in
earthquakes was set to 1.0; structural response using earthquake the plastic hinge. Based on backbone curves acquired from the test,
spectrums (Sa and SD) was considered instead of soil acceleration; nonlinear modeling curves were recommended by ASCE 41-13 [24]
and most importantly, the design philosophy was changed into the to simulate the nonlinear behavior of concrete columns subjected
allowable strength approach. to seismic load (Fig. 16). In the figure, the main parameters repre-
senting nonlinear behaviors are the modeling parameters a and b,
where a is evaluated from the difference between the generalized
Appendix B. Shear design for reinforced concrete columns deformations at points B and C in Fig. 16, and b is evaluated from
the difference between the generalized deformations at points B
B.1. Shear strength capacity of reinforced concrete columns and E in Fig. 16. In ASCE 41-13 [24], the modeling parameters (a
0
and b) depend on the axial load level (P=Ag f c ), transverse reinforce-
The shear strength (Vn) of the reinforced concrete columns is q
0
evaluated as recommendation of ACI 318-14 [53] as Eq. (A1): ment ratio (qv), and normalized design shear force (V=bd f c ). In
the case of condition ii specified in ASCE 41-13 [24], the value of
Vn Vc Vs A1 modeling parameter b was defined to be equal to a for this test
condition.
where Vc is the shear strength provided by concrete (Eq. (A2)) and
Vs is the shear strength provided by transverse shear reinforcement
(Eq. (A3)). References
  q [1] Despeyroux J. The agadir earthquake of February 29th 1960  behavior of
1 P 0
Vc 1 bd f c A2 modern building during the earthquake. Civil Engineer, Escole Nationale des
6 14bh Ponts Chausses of Paris, Divisonal Delegate of the Bureau Securitas for North
Av f yt d Africa, vol. 1(5). p. 52141.
Vs A3 [2] Ward PL, Gibbs J, Harlow D, Arturo AQ. Aftershocks of the Managua, Nicaragua,
s earthquake and the tectonic significance of the Tiscapa fault. Bull Seismol Soc
Am 1974;64(4):101729.
where P is the axial load, b and h are the width and depth of cross [3] Nienhuys S. Reinforced concrete construction failures exposed by earthquake:
0 examples of design mistakes in reinforced concrete constructions. Reinf Concr
section of column, d is the effective depth, f c is the concrete com-
Construct Fail 2010:117.
pressive strength at the 28th day of concrete, Av is the area of trans- [4] Kang TH-K, Ha S-S, Choi D-U. Bar pullout tests and seismic tests of small-
verse rebars, fyt is the yield strength of transverse rebars, and s is the headed bars in beam-column joints. ACI Struct J 2010;107(1):3242.
[5] Han SW, Kee S-H, Park Y-M, Lee L-H, Kang TH-K. Hysteretic behavior of
space of transverse rebars.
exterior post-tensioned flat plate connections. Eng Struct 2006;28(4):198396.
[6] Foraboschi P. Shear strength computation of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with composite materials. Compos: Mech Comput Appl 2012;3
(3):22752.
Plastic rotation at which the lateral resistance [7] Cavagnis F, Ruiz MF, Muttoni A. Shear failures in reinforced concrete members
has degraded to 80% of the measured peak load without transverse reinforcement: an analysis of the critical shear crack
development on the basis of the test results. Eng Struct 2015;103:15773.
Q [8] Su J, Wang J, Bai Z, Wang W, Zhao D. Influence of reinforcement buckling on
g: Elastic rotation Plastic rotation the seismic performance of reinforced concrete columns. Eng Struct
Qy at axialload failure
2015;103:17488.
[9] Choi K-K. Experimental study on performances of reinforced concrete columns
b with low transverse reinforcement ratio subjected to simulating seismic load
Annual Report. Korea: Structural Performance Enhancement Research Center;
a 2015.
[10] Lam SSE, Wu B, Wong YL, Wang ZY, Liu ZQ, Li CS. Drift capacity of rectangular
1.0 C reinforced concrete columns with low lateral confinement and high-axial load.
B J Eng Struct, ASCE 2003;129(6):73342.
[11] Pham TP, Li B. Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete columns with light
transverse reinforcement under different lateral loading directions. ACI Struct J
2013;110(5):83343.
D E [12] Brachmann I, Browning J, Matamoros A. Relationships between drift and
confinement in reinforced concrete columns under cyclic loading. In: 13th
A world conference on earthquake engineering. B.C. (Canada): Vancouver; 2004.
g [13] Wibowo A, Wilson JL, Lam NTK, Gad EF. Drift performance of lightly reinforced
or concrete columns. Eng Struct 2014;59:52235.
[14] Carmona JR, Porras R, Ruiz YG. A fracture mechanics model to describe the
Fig. 16. General nonlinear loaddeformation curve for RC columns in ASCE 41-13 bulking behavior of lightly reinforced concrete columns. Eng Struct
[24]. 2013;49:58899.
504 K.-K. Choi et al. / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 490504
[15] Wehbe N, Saiidi M, Sanders D. Seismic performance of rectangular columns
with moderate confinement. ACI Struct J 1999;96(2):24858.
[16] Foraboschi P. Analytical model to predict the lifetime of concrete members
externally reinforced with FRP. Theoret Appl Fract Mech 2015;75(1):13745.
[17] Foraboschi P. Predictive multiscale model of delayed debonding for concrete
members with adhesively bonded with external reinforcement. Compos:
Mech Comput Appl 2012;3(4):30729.
[18] Sezen H, Moehle JP. Seismic tests of concrete columns with light transverse
reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2006;103(6):8429.
[19] Minafo G, Trapani FD, Amato G. Strength and ductility of RC jacketed columns:
a simplified analytical method. Eng Struct 2016;122:18495.
[20] Montuori R, Piluso V. Reinforced concrete columns strengthened with angles
and batterns subjected to eccentric load. Eng Struct 2009;31:53950.
[21] Sakino K, Sun Y. Steel jacketing for improvement of columns strength and
ductility. In: 12th world conference on earthquake engineering. Auckland,
New Zealand.
[22] Galal K, Arafa A, Ghobarah A. Retrofit of RC square short columns. Eng Struct
2005;27:80113.
[23] Minafo G. A practical approach for strength evaluation of RC columns
reinforced with RC jackets. Eng Struct 2015;85:1629.
[24] ASCE/SEI 41-13. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. American
Society of Civil Engineering; 2013.
[25] Architectural Institute of Korea. Reinforced concrete design code and
commentary; 1982. p. 340.
[26] Structural performance database, PEER Center. <http://www.ce.washington.
edu/~peera1/>.
[27] Foraboschi P. Modeling of collapse mechanisms of thin reinforced concrete
shells. J Struct Eng 1995;121(1):1527.
[28] KS F 2405. Standard test method for compressive strength of concrete. Korean
Standard Information Center; 2010.
[29] ACI 209.2R-08. Guide for modeling and calculating shrinkage and creep in
hardened concrete. ACI committee 209; 2008.
[30] KS B 0802. Method of tensile test for metallic materials. Korean Standard
Information Center; 2013.
[31] KS B 0802. Method of tensile test for metallic materials. Korean Standard
Information Center; 2001.
[32] Bae SJ, Bayrak O. Seismic performance of full-scale reinforced concrete
columns. ACI Struct J 2008;105(2):12333.
[33] ACI 374.2R-13. Guide for testing reinforced concrete structural elements under
slowly applied simulated seismic loads. ACI committee 374; 2013.
[34] Park R. Simulated seismic load tests on reinforced concrete elements and
structures. In: 10th world conference on earthquake engineering. Balkerna,
Rotterdam, Netherlands.
[35] Tremblay R, Lger P, Tu J. Inelastic seismic response of concrete shear walls
considering P delta effects. Can J Civil Eng 2001;28(4):64055.
[36] Seible F, Priestley N, Hegemier GA. Seismic retrofit of RC columns with
continuous carbon fiber jackets. J Compos Construct ASCE 1997;1(2):5262.
[37] Kato D, Zhuzhen L, Suga K, Nakamura Y. Effects of reinforcing details on axial
load capacity of R/C columns. In: 13th world conference on earthquake
engineering. Canada: Vancouver; 2004.
[38] Subramanian N. Design of confinement reinforcement for RC columns. Indian
Conc J 2011:19.
[39] Zhang Y, Wang Z. Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete shear walls
subjected to high axial loading. ACI Struct J 2000;97(5):73950.
[40] Nikbakht E, Rashid K, Hejazi F, Osman SA. A numeral study on seismic
response of self-centring precast segmental columns at different post-
tensioning forces. Latin Am J Solids Struct 2014;11(5):86483.
[41] Ohue M, Morimoto H, Fujii S, Morita S. The behavior of RC short columns
failing in splitting bond-shear under dynamic lateral loading. Trans Jpn Concr
Inst 1985;7:293300.
[42] Esaki F. Reinforcing effect of steel plate hoops on ductility of R/C square
columns. In: Proceedings of 11th world conference on earthquake engineering.
Oxford England. p. 196.
[43] Li X, Park R, Tanaka H. Effects of variations in axial load level on the strength
and ductility of reinforced concrete columns. Proceedings of Pacific conference
on earthquake engineering. New Zealand, vol. 1. p. 14758.
[44] Saatcioglu M, Ozcebe G. Response of reinforced concrete columns to simulated
seismic load. ACI Struct J 1989;86(1):312.
[45] Yalcin C. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing reinforced concrete bridge
columns. PhD Dessertation. Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Ottawa.
[46] Ikeda A. Report of the training institute for engineering
teachers. Japan: Yokohama National University; 1968.
[47] Umemura H, Endo T. Report by Umemura lab. Tokyo University; 1970.
[48] Kokusho S. Report by building research institute. Tsukuba (Japan): Building
Research Institute; 1964.
[49] Kokusho S, Fukuhara M. Report by Kokusho lab. Tokyo Industrial University;
1965.
[50] Wright JK, Sozen MA. Shear strength decay in reinforced concrete columns
subjected to large deflection reversals. Structural research series no 403,
University of Illinois, Urbana, America; 1973.
[51] Sezen H, Moehle JP. Seismic behavior of shearcritical reinforced concrete
building column. In: 7th US national conference on earthquake engineering,
Boston, Massachusetts, America.
[52] Lynn AC. Seismic evaluation of existing reinforced concrete building columns
PhD Thesis. Berkeley (America): University of California; 2001.
[53] ACI 318-14. Building code requirements for structure concrete (ACI 318-
14). Farmington Hills (Michigan, UAS): American Concrete Institute; 2014.
[54] Elwood KJ, Moehle JP. Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns with light
transverse reinforcement. Earthquake Spectra 2005;21(1):7189.
[55] Elwood KJ, Eberhard MO. Effective stiffness of reinforced concrete columns.
PEER research digest; 2006.
[56] Sezen H. Seismic response and modeling of lightly reinforced concrete
building columns PhD Dissertation. Berkeley (USA): Department of Civil and
Environment Engineering, University of California; 2002.
[57] Applied Technology Council. An Evaluation of a Response Spectrum Approach
to Seismic Design of Buildings. ATC Report, ATC 3-06; 1979.
[58] Architectural Institute of Korea. KBC 2005. Korean Building Code; 2005.
[59] International Code Council. IBC 2000. International Building Code; 2000.