Table 10-5.

Effective Stiffness Values

Component Flexural Rigidity Shear Rigidity Axial Rigidity

a
Beams—nonprestressed 0.3EcIg 0.4EcAw —
Beams—prestresseda EcIg 0.4EcAw —
Columns with compression caused by design 0.7EcIg 0.4EcAw EcAg
gravity loads ≥ 0.5 Ag fc′
Columns with compression caused by design 0.3EcIg 0.4EcAw EcAg (compression)
gravity loads ≤ 0.1Ag fc′ or with tension EsAs (tension)
Beam–column joints Refer to Section 10.4.2.2.1 EcAg
Flat slabs—nonprestressed Refer to Section 10.4.4.2 0.4EcAg —
Flat slabs—prestressed Refer to Section 10.4.4.2 0.4EcAg —
Walls-crackedb 0.5EcAg 0.4EcAw EcAg (compression)
EsAs (tension)
a
For T-beams, Ig can be taken as twice the value of Ig of the web alone. Otherwise, Ig should be based on the effective width as defined in Section 10.3.1.3.
For columns with axial compression falling between the limits provided, flexural rigidity should be determined by linear interpolation. If interpolation is
not performed, the more conservative effective stiffnesses should be used.
b
See Section 10.7.2.2.

design loading. Alternatively, effective stiffness values in Table permitted where nonlinear response does not occur in the com-
10-5 shall be permitted. ponent. The nonlinear load-deformation relation shall be based
on experimental evidence or taken from quantities specified in
C10.3.1.2.1 Linear Procedures The effective flexural rigidity
Sections 10.4 through 10.12. For the nonlinear static procedure
values in Table 10-5 for beams and columns account for the
(NSP), the generalized load-deformation relation shown in Fig.
additional flexibility from reinforcement slip within the beam–
10-1 or other curves defining behavior under monotonically
column joint or foundation before yielding. The values specified
increasing deformation shall be permitted. For the nonlinear
for columns were determined based on a database of 221 rect-
dynamic procedure (NDP), load-deformation relations shall
angular reinforced concrete column tests with axial loads less
define behavior under monotonically increasing lateral deforma-
than 0.67 Ag fc′ and shear span–depth ratios greater than 1.4.
tion and under multiple reversed deformation cycles as specified
Measured effective stiffnesses from the laboratory test data
in Section 10.3.2.1.
suggest that the effective flexural rigidity for low axial loads
The generalized load-deformation relation shown in Fig. 10-1
could be approximated as 0.2EIg; however, considering the
shall be described by linear response from A (unloaded compo-
scatter in the effective flexural rigidity and to avoid underesti-
nent) to an effective yield B, then a linear response at reduced
mating the shear demand on columns with low axial loads,
stiffness from point B to C, then sudden reduction in seismic
0.3EIg is recommended in Table 10-5 (Elwood et al. 2007). In
force resistance to point D, then response at reduced resistance
addition to axial load, the shear span–depth ratio of the column
to E, and final loss of resistance thereafter. The slope from point
influences the effective flexural rigidity. A more refined estimate
A to B shall be determined according to Section 10.3.1.2.1. The
of the effective flexural rigidity can be determined by calculating
slope from point B to C, ignoring effects of gravity loads acting
the displacement at yield caused by flexure, slip, and shear
through lateral displacements, shall be taken between zero and
(Elwood and Eberhard 2009).
10% of the initial slope, unless an alternate slope is justified by
The modeling recommendations for beam–column joints
experiment or analysis. Point C shall have an ordinate equal to
(Section 10.4.2.2.1) do not include the influence of reinforce-
the strength of the component and an abscissa equal to the defor-
ment slip. When the effective stiffness values for beams and
mation at which significant strength degradation begins. Repre-
columns from Table 10-5 are used in combination with the mod-
sentation of the load-deformation relation by points A, B, and C
eling recommendations for beam–column joints, the overall
only (rather than all points A–E) shall be permitted if the calcu-
stiffness is in close agreement with results from beam–column
lated response does not exceed point C. Numerical values for the
subassembly tests (Elwood et al. 2007).
points identified in Fig. 10-1 shall be as specified in Sections
The effect of reinforcement slip can be accounted for by
10.4.2.2.2 for beams, columns, and joints; 10.4.3.2.2 for post-
including rotational springs at the ends of the beam or column
tensioned beams; 10.4.4.2.2 for slab–column connections; and
elements (Saatcioglu et al. 1992). If this modeling option is
10.7.2.2 for shear walls, wall segments, and coupling beams.
selected, the effective flexural rigidity of the column element
Other load-deformation relations shall be permitted if justified
should reflect only the flexibility from flexural deformations.
by experimental evidence or analysis.
In this case, for axial loads less than 0.3 Ag fc′ , the effective flex-
ural rigidity can be estimated as 0.5EIg, with linear interpolation
C10.3.1.2.2 Nonlinear Procedures Typically, the response
to the value given in Table 10-5 for axial loads greater than
shown in Fig. 10-1 is associated with flexural response or tension
0.5 Ag fc′ .
response. In this case, the resistance at Q/Qy = 1.0 is the yield
Because of low bond stress between concrete and plain
value, and subsequent strain hardening accommodates strain
reinforcement without deformations, components with plain
hardening in the load-deformation relation as the member is
longitudinal reinforcement and axial loads less than 0.5 Ag fc′
deformed toward the expected strength. Where the response
may have lower effective flexural rigidity values than in
shown in Fig. 10-1 is associated with compression, the resistance
Table 10-5.
at Q/Qy = 1.0 typically is the value where concrete begins to
10.3.1.2.2 Nonlinear Procedures Where design actions are spall, and strain hardening in well confined sections may be
determined using the nonlinear procedures of Chapter 7, com- associated with strain hardening of the longitudinal reinforce-
ponent load-deformation response shall be represented by non- ment and an increase in strength from the confinement of con-
linear load-deformation relations. Linear relations shall be crete. Where the response shown in Fig. 10-1 is associated with

186 STANDARD 41-13