Buildings 12 01603 v3

buildings
Article
Calibration of the Length of the Plastic Hinge for Numerical
Models of Reinforced Concrete Members
Francesca Barbagallo, Melina Bosco , Andrea Floridia * , Edoardo M. Marino, Dario Panarelli, Pier Paolo Rossi
and Nino Spinella
Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, 95125 Catania, Italy
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: A proper and computationally efficient numerical modeling of the nonlinear cyclic flexural
behavior of reinforced concrete members is crucial for the assessment of the seismic response of
RC framed structures. To mitigate the problem of damage localization and improve the stability of
the numerical model, force beam column elements with fiber cross-section and finite length hinges
located at the ends of the member are often used. In this case, the accuracy in the prediction of the
cyclic response is strictly dependent on the length assigned to the plastic hinge. In the past, several
authors have proposed formulations to evaluate this crucial parameter based on observations and
data from laboratory tests. Nevertheless, the values given by these expressions can differ significantly
from each other. In this paper, the optimal value for the length of the plastic hinge is calibrated by
comparison between laboratory and numerical test results. Laboratory tests are selected to identify
members that are representative of columns of existing reinforced concrete buildings. Based on the
optimal values of the plastic hinge length found for the selected set of laboratory tests, a simple
relation of the plastic hinge length has been proposed.
Keywords: reinforced concrete; concrete confinement; flexural behavior; modeling; plastic hinge
Citation: Barbagallo, F.; Bosco, M.;
Floridia, A.; Marino, E.M.; Panarelli,
D.; Rossi, P.P.; Spinella, N. Calibration
of the Length of the Plastic Hinge for 1. Introduction
Numerical Models of Reinforced
Numerical modeling of Reinforced Concrete (RC) members is a key factor for the
Concrete Members. Buildings 2022,
seismic assessment of the RC structures. To investigate the inelastic behavior of beams and
12, 1603. https://doi.org/10.3390/
columns, these members are usually modeled by means of one-dimensional concentrated
buildings12101603
or distributed plasticity elements. In modeling of framed structures, concentrated plasticity
Academic Editor: Silvia Costanzo models with plastic hinges of finite length are often preferred to distributed plasticity
Received: 8 September 2022
models to limit the damage localization problems and improve the computational efficiency.
Accepted: 26 September 2022
Concentrated plasticity elements have two plastic hinges at the ends and an elastic part
Published: 4 October 2022
in the middle. The geometry and the mechanical characterization of the plastic hinges, in
particular the length Lpl of the plastic hinges, are of outmost importance for the accuracy of
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
the response of RC members as they govern the load carrying and deformation capacities,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
as well as the energy dissipation of the member. In the past, several authors proposed
published maps and institutional affil-
formulations for the prediction of the length of the plastic hinge of RC members based on
iations.
laboratory tests. However, large discrepancies exist among the results of these formulations,
mainly because the inelastic behavior of materials is not discontinuous in real members
and because different criteria may be considered to identify the length of the plastic hinge.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
According to these formulations, several factors contribute to the value of Lpl , e.g.,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. the shear span of the member, the depth of the cross-section, the mechanical properties
This article is an open access article of concrete (e.g., compressive strength, elastic modulus, compressive fracture energy), the
distributed under the terms and geometric and mechanical properties of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcements
conditions of the Creative Commons (e.g., geometric percentage of steel bars and yield strength of steel), the effectiveness of
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// confinement in the volume of the plastic hinge, and the axial force and the shear force. This
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ makes the research for an analytical expression of the length of the plastic hinge an issue
4.0/). that is still open today.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101603 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 2 of 20
Most of the proposed formulations are empirical in nature and calibrated against data
obtained from laboratory experiments [1].
In 1956, Baker [2] elaborated a formula based on an experimental campaign consisting
of 94 tests on beams and columns. The main variables considered were the compressive
strength of concrete (f c ), the yield stress of the longitudinal rebars (f yl ), and the cross-
sectional area of the longitudinal reinforcements in tension and in compression and the
normalized axial force (i.e., the ratio of the axial force to the resisting axial force of concrete
in the cross-section). According to Baker, the value of Lpl can vary between 0.4 d and 2.4 d
(where d is the effective depth of the cross-section) in flexural members characterized by
usual values of the shear span ratio Lv /d.
Later, from 1964 to 1967, Mattock [3,4] drew up two proposals based on 37 exper-
imental tests on beams. In his experimental campaign, he took into account the com-
pressive strength of concrete (f c = 28 ÷ 41 MPa), the effective depth of the cross-section
(25.4 ÷ 50.8 cm), the shear span ratio Lv /d (2.75 ÷ 11), the yield strength of the longitudinal
reinforcement f yl (324÷414 MPa) and its geometric percentage (ρl = 1.0 ÷ 3.0%). The same
author stated that the spreading of the inelastic behavior along the element increases with
the ratio Lv /d.
In 1982, Park et al. [5] performed tests on four square-section columns with Lv /h = 2.0
(where h is the depth of the cross-section) and normalized axial force ν between 0.2 and 0.6.
The authors concluded that the normalized axial force does not play a significant role for
the determination of Lpl and proposed, for columns, the use of a single value of Lpl = 0.4 h.
In a similar way, from 1993 to 1998, Sheikh et al. [6–8] conducted other laboratory tests
(mostly characterized by high values of the normalized axial force) and observed that the
length of the plastic hinge Lpl was approximately equal to h.
In 1987, Priestley and Park [9] proposed a formula that depends on the length of
the element and on the diameter of the longitudinal rebars. Later, in 1992, Paulay and
Priestley [10] modified the previous equation to take into account the yield strength of steel.
They stated that Lpl = h/2 can generally be assumed for typical columns.
In 2001, Mendis [11] conducted laboratory tests on 13 simply-supported beams and
4 columns with low axial force. He concluded that Lpl increases with the shear span ratio
Lv /d and the geometric percentage of longitudinal reinforcement ρl , whereas it decreases
with the increase of the geometric percentage of the transverse reinforcement ρv . Based on
the tests on columns, Mendis stated that the length of the plastic hinge is not influenced by
the axial force.
In 2008, Bae and Bayrak [12] performed tests on four squared columns with Lv /h
ranging from 5 to 7 and normalized axial force ranging from 0.2 to 0.5. They proposed
a procedure to evaluate Lpl under conditions of purely flexural behavior of the element.
Through this procedure, validated on the tested columns, the authors performed a paramet-
ric analysis to establish that the parameters that mostly influenced Lpl are the normalized
axial force ν, the shear span ratio Lv /h and the geometric ratio of the longitudinal rein-
forcement ρl . In particular, according to Bae and Bayrak, the length Lpl increased with the
normalized axial force ν, the aspect ratio Lv /h and ρl .
More recently, Fardis et al. [13–15] proposed two empirical formulations of Lpl for
members with axial force, in the presence of monotonic and cyclic load conditions. The
proposed expressions primarily depended on the depth of the cross-section, the shear span
ratio and the normalized axial force.
Although there is some agreement between the conclusions of the research studies
aiming at the evaluation of the length of the plastic hinge (e.g., the influence of parameters
such as the shear span ratio Lv /h or the height of the section), there are still some contrasting
opinions regarding the influence of some parameters (e.g., the volumetric ratio of transverse
reinforcement is considered to be relevant only by Mendis [11]). In addition, some of the
parameters that are considered in the experiments (e.g., mechanical characteristics of
materials, normalized axial force) still do not appear in most formulas.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 3 of 20
In this scenario, a new formulation of Lpl is proposed here for columns that are com-
mon in existing RC framed buildings built in Italy between the 1970s and early 2000s. The
optimal length of the plastic hinge is derived from comparison between the cyclic response
of laboratory tests and results from numerical simulations. To this end, the authors have
first examined the formulations proposed in the literature for the numerical modeling
of materials and members. Based on this study, the authors have selected specified for-
mulations of the material and member models and proposed some modifications to the
usual simulation of concrete confinement. Second, a set of 33 experimental tests has been
collected among those available in the literature. The selected columns have rectangular
section and have failed in a flexural mode without slipping of the steel bars. Then, for each
test, the value of the plastic hinge length has been calibrated so that the response of the
numerical model be as close as possible to that of the laboratory test, in terms of energy
dissipation and aspect of the lateral force—lateral displacement plot. Based on the obtained
optimal values of the length of the plastic hinge, a relationship has been searched between
the optimal value of Lpl and the geometric and mechanical characteristics of the specimens.
The proposed relation is simple and reveals to be able to reproduce with satisfying accuracy
the results of the considered experimental tests. The validity of this relation is restricted to
the investigated ranges of the geometric and mechanical parameters and to the use of the
assumed models of materials and members.
2. Modeling of Materials
2.1. Concrete
The uniaxial response of unconfined and confined concretes is simulated by means of
the uniaxial material model “Concrete04” implemented in OpenSees [16]. Based on prelimi-
nary numerical tests conducted using others concrete material models (e.g., ConcreteCM), it
has been found that the material model Concrete04 represents a good compromise between
accuracy in the simulation of the cyclic response of concrete and numerical stability of
the model.
2.1.1. Unconfined Concrete

The monotonic response of unconfined concrete under negative axial strains (shorten-
ing) is equal to that proposed by Mander et al. [17]. The value of the compressive strength
f c is equal to the mean value reported by the authors of the laboratory tests, whereas the
modulus of elasticity is assumed equal to the value proposed by Chang and Mander [18]:
Ec = 8200 f c3/8 ( f c in MPa) (1)
The axial strain εc0 , corresponding to the peak compressive strength, is given by the
expression proposed by Chang and Mander [18]. It should be noted that the expression
reported below has been converted from the original formula (expressed in psi):
f c1/4
εc0 = ( f c in MPa) (2)
1153
Loading and unloading paths follow the rules proposed by Karsan and Jirsa [19], i.e.,
they are linear, but their slope decreases with the increase in the axial strain. The monotonic
response under positive axial strains (elongation) is described by an initially linear function
and by a nonlinear softening branch with a degradation exponential function. The loading
and unloading paths are linear with the slope equal to the secant stiffness at the point
where the unloading path takes place. The tensile strength f ct is evaluated as a function of
the compressive strength f c by means of the following relation:
f ct = 0.30( f c − 8)2/3 ( f c in MPa) (3)

Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 4 of 20
The above equation is recommended in Eurocode 2 [20] for concrete of strength

classes ≤C 50/60 and is adequate for the simulation of the cyclic response of the specimens
considered in this paper, as shown in successive sections. To ensure higher stability to
the numerical analyses, the ultimate compressive strain of the unconfined concrete εcu is
assumed to be fairly high and equal to 2%. This choice does not influence the accuracy of
the global response appreciably because the post-peak branch of the stress-strain law of the
unconfined concrete is rather steep and thus the compressive stress corresponding to high
values of strain is low.
2.1.2. Confined Concrete

The compressive strength of confined concrete f cc is evaluated according to the con-
finement model proposed by Chang and Mander [18,21] whereas the modulus of elasticity
Ecc is obtained by Equation (1) as a function of f cc . The slope of the softening branch of the
monotonic compressive response of the “Concrete04” material is strongly influenced by
the strain εcc0 corresponding to the peak compressive stress f cc . The strain εcc0 is calibrated
here so that the stress resulting from the “Concrete04” model at a strain of 3 εcc0 be equal
to the value f f suggested by Chang and Mander [18] for the same value of strain (see
Appendix A). The parameters related to the response in tension are equal to those assumed
for the unconfined concrete.
The ultimate compressive strain of confined concrete εccu is assumed equal to three
times the value that Priestley et al. [22] suggested on the basis of tests on members subjected
to axial force only. A similar increment was also proposed by Scott et al. [23] in members
subjected to combined axial force and bending moment in order to consider the strain
gradient in the cross-section. Therefore, the ultimate compressive strain assumed here for
confined concrete is
f y,st εsu

εccu = 3 · 0.004 + 1.4 ρvol,st (4)
f cc
where f y,st , εsu and ρvol,st are, respectively, the yield stress, the ultimate strain and the
volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement.
2.2. Steel
The uniaxial response of the steel bars has been modeled by means of the material
model “Reinforcing Steel” implemented in the program Opensees [16]. This model [17,24]
takes account of the Bauschinger effect and considers isotropic and kinematic hardening
of steel. In addition, the model allows the simulation of buckling [25,26] and fatigue
phenomena of steel rebars [27].
In the following numerical analyses, the modulus of elasticity is assumed equal to
210,000 MPa whereas the yield and ultimate stress (and the ultimate strain, if reported)
are obtained from the papers written by the authors of the laboratory tests. Strain and
tangent at initial strain hardening have been calibrated as a function of the main mechanical
characteristics of the steel bars. Isotropic hardening has been neglected owing to the
absence of data able to accurately define this effect in the considered experimental tests.
After an initial phase of the research in which buckling and fatigue of steel bars have
been considered, the authors have decided to neglect these phenomena in the examined
specimens in order to facilitate numerical convergence. It is the opinion of the authors that
consideration of buckling and fatigue may be important for the simulation of some tests
but that their implementation in existing material models needs further investigation to
produce general improvement in the accuracy of the response.
3. Modeling of the Cross-Section

This section provides details about the discretization of the cross-section in fibers. The
local reference system is such that the local x axis coincides with the longitudinal axis of
the element (global Y-axis) while the local axes y and z lie in the plane of the cross- section.
The orientation of the local y and z axes follows the right-hand rule and, in the present
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 5 of 20
numerical analyses, the local y axis is aligned according to the global X axis, but with
opposite direction.
The discretization of the cross-section in OpenSees [16] requires the identification of a
series of “homogeneous” areas which the same material is assigned to. The unconfined and
confined concrete areas are divided into rectangles and assigned through the coordinates of
two opposing vertices of the rectangles. The subdivision of the patch into fibers depends on
the size of the patch and must, in any case, take account of the relationship between desired
precision and computational burden. In addition, in the case of the present study, plane
models are analyzed. Owing to this, the patch has been subdivided into strips that are
parallel to the local z-axis and that have a width equal to that of the patch. In the following
numerical analyses, the side of the confined concrete area that is parallel to the applied
lateral force is divided into 50 strips. The side of the unconfined concrete areas that are
parallel to the lateral force are subdivided similarly to the confined concrete area, whereas
the side of the other unconfined concrete areas is divided into 10 strips. The longitudinal
reinforcing bars are considered concentrated in single points and characterized by the
cross-sectional area and barycentric coordinates. In addition, the cross-sectional areas of the
bars placed at the same distance from the neutral axis are, more conveniently, concentrated
in a single fiber.
4. Confinement of Concrete
When a RC member is subjected to uniaxial compression, the transverse reinforcement
(i.e., spirals, stirrups, ties) passively resists the lateral expansion of the concrete volume
that is inside the center line of the stirrups. This action results in some lateral compressive
stresses on the surface of that concrete volume, which produce an increase in the peak
compressive stress and in the ultimate strain of the material.
In this research study, the confinement mechanism is investigated with reference to
prismatic elements characterized by a rectangular cross-section and endowed with stirrups
and ties. Symbols adopted in this paper are shown in Figure 1. An orthogonal reference sys-
tem is considered on the cross-section which identifies direction 1 (vertical direction in the
figure) and direction 2 (horizontal direction in the figure). The maximum level of confine-
ment may be calculated assuming that stirrups have yielded, and the lateral compressive
stresses are uniformly distributed on the lateral surface of the concrete inside the center line
of the stirrups. This situation corresponds to a confinement effect caused by stirrup legs
with an extremely low spacing both in the cross-section and along the longitudinal axis
of the member (later referred to as “uniform” confinement). The magnitude of this lateral
compressive stress is, in general, different along the two orthogonal directions previously
named 1 and 2. The lateral compressive stresses, σl1 and σl2, along such directions are
given by the translation equilibrium between the lateral compressive force exerted by the
transverse reinforcement on concrete and the axial force in the transverse reinforcement
at yielding
σl1 = ρst,1 f y,st (5)
σl2 = ρst,2 f y,st (6)
where ρst,1 and ρst,2 are the volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement in the two
orthogonal directions
nb,1 nb,2
∑ Ast,i ∑ Ast,i
i =1 i =1
ρst,1 = ρst,2 = (7)
s hc s bc
Buildings2022,
Buildings 12, 1603
2022,12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20 6 of 20
Figure 1. Symbols
Figure usedused
1. Symbols for the
fordescription of the confinement
the description mechanism.
of the confinement mechanism.
In the above relations, nb,1 and nb,2 are the numbers of stirrups legs producing lateral
σ l2 =ρ st,2 f y,st (6)
compressive stresses in directions 1 and 2, respectively; Ast,i is the cross-sectional area of
where ρst,1 and
the single of are
legρst,2 thethe volumetric
stirrup ratio
(or tie); of the
bc and hctransverse reinforcement
are the distances in the
between thetwo or-
opposite legs of
thogonal directions
the stirrups, as reported in Figure 1.
n b,1 n b,2
4.1. Confinement Effectiveness Factor
In the case of stirrups
A ∑ st,i
iarranged
=1 with moderate
∑A st,i
(7)
i =1or high spacing (s > 5 cm), the con-
ρ st,1 = ρ st,2 =
finement effects are concentrated, s h c s b
in the plane of the transverse c reinforcement, close to
theInlongitudinal
the above relations, nb,1 and nb,2 are the numbers of stirrups legs producingor
bars blocked to the transverse movement by stirrups ties, as shown
lateral
in Figure 2a. Starting from these blocked points the lateral confinement
compressive stresses in directions 1 and 2, respectively; Ast,i is the cross-sectional area of stresses spread
the single leg of the stirrup (or tie); bc and hc are the distances between the opposite legs
towards the inside of the element, both in the plane of the transverse reinforcement and
ofalong
the stirrups, as reported in
the longitudinal axisFigure
of the1. member between two subsequent stirrups, as shown in
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Figure 2b. The three-dimensional spreading of the confinement stresses 7 of 20 defines an effec-
4.1. Confinement
tively confined Effectiveness Factor that is smaller than the prismatic volume enclosed by the
concrete volume
In the case
transverse of stirrups arranged
reinforcement. with moderate
The ratio betweenor hightwo
these spacing (s > 5 cm),
volumes the confine-
provides an index of the
ment effects
effectiveness are concentrated,
of confinement in the plane
called of the
“confinementtransverse reinforcement,
effectiveness
plane of the cross-section and along the longitudinal axis of the member, as shown in factor”close
(k e to
). the
Applying this
longitudinal bars blocked to the transverse movement by stirrups
Figure 2a,b. Even though a geometric description of the confined solid is possible, the
factor to the confinement stresses associated with a uniform or ties, as shown
confinement, in Fig-
the “effective”
ure
rigorous 2a. Starting
of thefrom
calculation
values of its these
volume
confinement blocked notpoints
isstresses theobtained.
lateral confinement
straightforward,
are particularly stresses
for complexspreadar-towards
the inside
rangements of the element,
of stirrups and ties.both in the plane estimate
A conservative of the transverse reinforcement
of this volume andby
is obtained along the
longitudinal axis of the member between
means of the approach introduced by Mander et fal. two subsequent stirrups, as shown in Figure 2b.
l1 [17]
= kand currently
e ρst,1 f y,st adopted by stand- (8)
The three-dimensional spreading of the confinement stresses defines
ards, by means of two partial confinement effectiveness factors, named αn and αs, that an effectively con-
fined
embody theconcrete
effects ofvolume that isinsmaller
confinement than
the plane thecross-section
offthe prismatic volume enclosed
and along by the trans-
the longitu-
l2 = ke ρst,2 f y,st (9)
dinalverse
axis ofreinforcement.
the member. The ratio between these two volumes provides an index of the effec-
tiveness of confinement called “confinement effectiveness factor” (ke). Applying this factor
to the confinement stresses associated with a uniform confinement, the “effective” values
of the confinement stresses are obtained.
f l1= k e ρ st,1 f y,st (8)
f l2= k e ρ st,2 f y,st (9)
To calculate ke, the evaluation of the effectively confined volume is necessary. In the
literature ([17,18,28]), it is commonly accepted that the lateral compressive stresses spread
from the blocked points following parabolic arcs with ending tangents at 45 ° both in the
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Confinement
Figure mechanismmechanism
2. Confinement in members with stirrups and
in members ties.stirrups
with (a) Spreading of the(a)
and ties. confine-
Spreading of the confine-
ment stresses in the plane of the transverse reinforcement and (b) along the longitudinal axis of
ment stresses in the plane of
the member between two subsequent stirrups the transverse reinforcement and (b) along the longitudinal axis of the
member between two subsequent stirrups.
The partial confinement effectiveness factor αn is calculated in the plane of the cross-
section and is the ratio of the area Ac,n that is effectively confined to the area enclosed by
the center line of the stirrups. The factor αs, instead, is calculated along the longitudinal
axis of the member and is the ratio of the effectively confined area to the area enclosed by
the center line of the longitudinal bars between two successive stirrups. The cross-sec-
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 7 of 20
To calculate ke , the evaluation of the effectively confined volume is necessary. In

the literature ([17,18,28]), it is commonly accepted that the lateral compressive stresses
spread from the blocked points following parabolic arcs with ending tangents at 45◦ both
in the plane of the cross-section and along the longitudinal axis of the member, as shown
in Figure 2a,b. Even though a geometric description of the confined solid is possible,
the rigorous calculation of its volume is not straightforward, particularly for complex
arrangements of stirrups and ties. A conservative estimate of this volume is obtained by
means of the approach introduced by Mander et al. [17] and currently adopted by standards,
by means of two partial confinement effectiveness factors, named αn and αs , that embody
the effects of confinement in the plane of the cross-section and along the longitudinal axis
of the member.
The partial confinement effectiveness factor αn is calculated in the plane of the cross-
section and is the ratio of the area Ac,n that is effectively confined to the area enclosed by
the center line of the stirrups. The factor αs , instead, is calculated along the longitudinal
axis of the member and is the ratio of the effectively confined area to the area enclosed by
the center line of the longitudinal bars between two successive stirrups. The cross-sectional
area of the effectively confined concrete Ae is obtained through the following relation as a
function of both αn and αs , i.e.,
Ae = αn αs Ac (10)
where Ac is the cross-sectional area of concrete inside the center line of stirrups. The area
Ae is considered constant along the longitudinal axis of the element (where spacing and
layout of the stirrups are constant).
To evaluate αn , let us consider the confinement stresses in the plane of the stirrups,
i.e., where the effectively confined area is maximum and calculate the area Ac,n subtended
by the parabolic arcs. If wi is the inner distance between two adjacent bars blocked by
stirrups, the area subtended by the single parabola is obtained through simple geometric
considerations: a parabola with a tangent at 45◦ has a maximum height equal to wi /4 and
an average height equal to 2/3 of the maximum height. The area subtended by the single
parabolic arc is therefore:
1
A p,i = w i2 (11)
6
The area Ac,n is obtained by subtracting the area subtended by the parabolic arcs from
the area enclosed by the center line of the stirrups:
nb1 −1 nb2 −1
1 2 1 2
Ac,n = bc hc − ∑ 6
w 1,i − ∑ w
6 2,i
(12)
i =1 i =1
where w1,i and w2,i are the distances between adjacent blocked bars in the two directions.
The partial confinement effectiveness factor αn is obtained dividing Ac,n by the area
enclosed by the center line of the stirrups, i.e.,
nb1 −1 nb2 −1
1 1
αn = 1 − ∑ 6 bc hc
2
w 1,i − ∑
6 bc h c
2
w 2,i (13)
i =1 i =1
To evaluate αs , let us consider the parabolic arcs between two subsequent stirrups
in the direction of the longitudinal axis. At a distance s0 /2 from the stirrups, where s0 is
the inner distance between two successive stirrups, the confined area reduces to the value
given by the following relation
s0 s0 s0 s0

Ac,s = bc − hc − = bc hc 1 − 1− (14)
2 2 2 bc 2 hc
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 8 of 20
Dividing the area Ac,s by the area enclosed by the centerline of the stirrups, the partial
confinement effectiveness factor αs is obtained:
s0 s0

αs = 1 − 1− (15)
2 bc 2 hc
This expression is the one proposed by Chang and Mander [18]. A similar expression
is reported in Eurocode 8 [29], where, however, the distances wi and s0 are measured from
the centroid of the bars and from the centerline of the stirrups, respectively.
4.2. Proposed Volume of Confined Concrete

The procedure set out in the previous section brings the effectively confined volume,
defined in three dimensions by the spreading of the confinement stresses, back to a prismatic
volume having cross-sectional area Ae , as described in Equation (10). To investigate
the effects of the simplifications reported in Eurocode 8 for the evaluation of this latter
cross-sectional area, Vulinovic et al. [30] have recently calculated the exact value of the
above effectively confined concrete volume starting from the geometrical assumptions
of Eurocode 8, i.e., assuming that the ends of the parabolic arcs are inclined at an angle
of 45◦ . The rigorous calculation was performed graphically by means of the software
Autocad. In particular, the external surface of the effectively confined volume was obtained
by translating the parabolic arcs that lie on a cross-section along the longitudinal axis of the
member on the parabolic arcs that go from one stirrup to another. The resulting volume
obtained by the rigorous calculation was assumed to be the “exact” volume of the effectively
confined concrete. Then, the “exact” confinement effectiveness factor was calculated as the
ratio of the exact volume of the effectively confined concrete to the volume of the concrete
inside the center lines of the stirrups. This exact value of the confinement effectiveness factor
was compared with the value of the confinement effectiveness factor calculated according
to Eurocode 8. The investigation was conducted on a series of columns with square
cross-section characterized by different arrangements of the transverse reinforcement.
The results showed that, in all the considered cases, the analytical evaluation per-
formed according to EC8 led to conservative evaluations of the confinement effectiveness
factor, i.e., the value of the confinement effectiveness factor determined by EC8 was al-
ways lower than the geometrically rigorous confinement effectiveness factor. Specifically,
the “exact” confinement effectiveness factor was, on the average, 32% higher than the
factor evaluated according to EC8. This proved that the simplifications that are usually
introduced for the evaluation of the confinement effectiveness factor led to a significant
underestimation of this factor.
In addition to these observations, it is important to keep in mind that the confinement
mechanism is based on the hypothesis that the confinement stresses spread towards the
interior of the member following parabolic arcs with tangents at 45◦ . To the knowledge
of the authors, this assumption was introduced by Sheikh and Uzumeri [28] without any
supporting experimental justification. In light of these considerations, the evaluation
of the confinement effectiveness factor with the method based on factors αn and αs de-
scribed above appears to be rather penalizing. In line with these conclusions, Ghersi [31]
suggested reducing the subtractive terms of the factor αn by 2/3 and thus proposed the
following relation:
s0 s0

0
α s = 1− 1− (16)
3 bc 3 hc
It should be noted that the calculation of the confinement effectiveness factor shown
above refers to the case of members subjected to axial force only and thus to members not in
a seismic condition. In fact, in the occurrence of earthquakes, columns are always subjected
to the combined action of axial force and bending moment and often are cracked because
of these internal forces. Beams can even be cracked because of the action of the sole effect
of gravity loads. In any case, cracking causes confinement conditions that are different
It should be noted that the calculation of the confinement effectiveness factor shown
above refers to the case of members subjected to axial force only and thus to members not
in a seismic condition. In fact, in the occurrence of earthquakes, columns are always sub-
jected to the combined action of axial force and bending moment and often are cracked
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 because of these internal forces. Beams can even be cracked because of the action of the 9 of 20
sole effect of gravity loads. In any case, cracking causes confinement conditions that are
different from those in uniformly compressed members. However, in the conventional
analysis of structures
from the confinement
those in uniformly compressed effectiveness
members. factor remains in
However, equalthe to the one deter-
conventional analysis
minedof assuming
structures thatthethe section is entirely
confinement and uniformly
effectiveness compressed.
factor remains equal to the one determined
More specifically,
assuming that theclose to the
section neutraland
is entirely axisuniformly
of the cross-section,
compressed. concrete subjected to
low positive strains
More offers anclose
specifically, efficient confinement
to the neutral axistoofthe theadjacent compressed
cross-section, concrete material,
subjected to
as shownlowin Figure strains
positive 3a. Thisoffers
is valid an for both columns
efficient confinement and beams. Beams, compressed
to the adjacent however, deserve material, as
a separate comment owing to their partial embedment in the slab. In fact, if the beam deserve
shown in Figure 3a. This is valid for both columns and beams. Beams, however, is
subjected to positive
a separate commentbending owing moment andpartial
to their the compressed
embedment part of the
in the cross-section
slab. In fact, if the falls
beam is
withinsubjected
the depthto ofpositive
the slab,bending
the concrete momentin theand
compressed part of part
the compressed the beamof thecross-section
cross-section falls
is confined
withinbythethedepth
slab. of Inthe
such cases,
slab, the aconcrete
less effective
in the confinement
compressed part action canbeam
of the occurcross-section
only on is
the upper side of
confined bythethe member,
slab. In such as shown
cases, ainless
Figure 3b [31].
effective If the bending
confinement actionmoment
can occur is only
neg-on the
ative, the
upperconcrete
side ofsubjected
the member, to low as positive
shown in longitudinal
Figure 3b [31]. strains provides
If the bending anmoment
efficientiscon-
negative,
finement at the level of the neutral axis; on the remaining sides of the cross-section the
the concrete subjected to low positive longitudinal strains provides an efficient confinement
confinement effectiveness
at the level of the neutral is governed
axis; on the byremaining
the presence sidesof of longitudinal
the cross-section barsthe that are
confinement
blocked to the lateral
effectiveness movement
is governed byby thestirrups
presence and
of ties. However,
longitudinal thethat
bars parabolic arcs on
are blocked thelateral
to the
left and right sides
movement byofstirrups
the beam andextend from the the
ties. However, longitudinal
parabolic bars in compression
arcs on the left and right to thesides of
intrados of the slab, and not from the longitudinal bars in compression to the longitudinal and
the beam extend from the longitudinal bars in compression to the intrados of the slab,
bars innot from the
tension. Thislongitudinal
determines abars in compression
lower height of the to the longitudinal
parabolic bars in tension.
arcs that develop on the This
determines a lower height of the parabolic arcs that develop
left and right sides of the cross-section, as shown in Figure 3c [31]. Referring to the case of on the left and right sides of
the cross-section, as shown in Figure 3c [31]. Referring to
columns, the authors note that the simulation of the response of the specimens on the basis the case of columns, the authors
note that the simulation of the response of the specimens
of the confinement effectiveness factors calculated according to Eurocode 8 has revealed on the basis of the confinement
effectiveness
the impossibility tofactors
reproducecalculated accordingaccuracy
with satisfying to Eurocode 8 has revealed
the response of some the members,
impossibility to
reproduce with satisfying accuracy the response of some members, particularly of those
particularly of those with low values of the volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforce-
with low values of the volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement, owing to the low
ment, owing to the low values of the corresponding confinement effectiveness factors.
values of the corresponding confinement effectiveness factors.
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3. Confined concrete in the plane of stirrups for (a) columns, (b) beams with positive bending
moment, and (c) beams with negative bending moment.
Based on the above considerations and to the evidence of the numerical simulations,
the authors propose here to use (for members subjected to combined axial force and
moderate-to-large bending moments) a diffusion angle of the confinement stresses lower
than 45◦ and such as to reduce the height of the parabolic arcs by 50%, compared with the
case with a tangent at 45◦ (the proposed angle is equal to 26.57◦ ). This means considering a
similar reduction for the subtractive terms that appear in the expressions of the coefficients
αn and αs , i.e.,
nb1 −1 nb2 −1
1 1
αn = 1 − 0.5 ∑ 2
w 1,i − 0.5 ∑ 2
w 2,i (17)
i =1
6 b h
c c i =1
6 bc hc
s0 s0

αs = 1 − 0.5 1 − 0.5 (18)
2 bc 2 hc
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 10 of 20
4.3. Application of Confinement to the Numerical Model

According to the approach proposed by Mander et al. [17], the properties of the
unconfined concrete are assigned to the concrete fibers that fall outside the center line
of the outermost stirrups, whereas those determined through the confinement model by
means of the effective confinement stresses [Equations (8) and (9)] are assigned to the fibers
inside the center line of the outermost stirrups. Thereby, the confinement effectiveness
coefficient affects the strength and ductility properties of the entire prismatic volume of
concrete inside the center line of the outermost stirrups.
To arrive at a simpler and more accurate description of the confinement mechanism in
the column, the authors propose here to apply the mechanical properties of the “uniformly”
confined concrete to a part of the concrete fibers that are inside the center line of the outer-
most stirrups and that are characterized by a total area equal to Ae [see Equation (10)]. This
approach is consistent with the geometric meaning of the confinement effectiveness factor.
Virtually, it would be possible to discretize the cross-section so as to reproduce the
spreading of the confinement stresses in the cross-section (Figure 4a). However, as resulting
from the numerical analyses, such a level of detail is not advantageous, also because of the
inevitable complications in the description of the concrete patches. The solution suggested
herein envisages the search for a rectangular perimeter of the “uniformly” confined concrete
which is obtained through an offset of the center line of the outermost stirrups (Figure 4b,c).
The distance from the proposed perimeter to the center line of the outermost stirrups is
defined as a function of a scale factor β and of the lengths bc and hc , as shown in Figure 4c.
The scale factor is obtained equating the area of the new rectangular patch of confined
concrete to the area of the rectangle defined by the center lines of the outermost stirrups
times the effectiveness confinement factor, i.e.,
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20
bc hc − 2βbc2 − 2βh2c + 4β2 bc hc = ke bc hc (19)
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4. Comparison
Figure between
4. Comparison methods
between for discretization
methods of the
for discretization ofcross-section: (a) expected
the cross-section: confined
(a) expected confined
area,area,
(b) modeling according to Mander et al. [17], (c) proposed modeling.
(b) modeling according to Mander et al. [17], (c) proposed modeling.
5. Modeling of Members
Reordering and solving the above equation for β leads to the following relation:
In this research study, the authors have
q used the forceBeamColumn element imple-
2
mented in OpenSees with the2“HingeRadau”
bc2 + h2c ± 4(integration
bc2 + h2c ) −rule.
16 bc2The
h2c (1choice
− ke )of using a model
β =
with concentrated plasticity instead of distributed plasticity is justified by the following(20)
8 bc hc
reasons: (1) In general, in the study of framed buildings in seismic situations, the for-
mation ofThe
plastic
signhinges is expected
corresponding at the
to the ends of
desired members
solution andone
is the is rare in the middle
for which, of the
if ke = 1, a β
member (e.g., beam) and (2) the adoption of a simpler model of a member implies greater
scale factor is equal to 0, i.e., the minus sign.
computational effectiveness, which translates into a greater numerical stability of the
model and higher processing rate.
The formulation of the element used for the analyses was proposed by Scott and Fen-
ves [32] (Modified Two-Point Gauss Radau) and considers a total of six integration points:
while the first and last points fall into the inelastic parts at the ends of the element, the
other four points fall into the central elastic section, as shown in Figure 5. The ending
sections have length equal to Lpl,i and Lpl,j. The elastic section is further divided into three
sub-sections of lengths equal to 3Lpl,i, L-4(Lpl,i+ Lpl,j), and 3Lpl,j, respectively. The weights
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 4. Comparison between methods for discretization of the cross-section: (a) expected confined
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 area, (b) modeling according to Mander et al. [17], (c) proposed modeling. 11 of 20
5. Modeling of Members
In
5. this research
Modeling of study,
Members the authors have used the forceBeamColumn element imple-
mented inIn OpenSees
this research with the “HingeRadau”
study, the authors have integrationused the rule. The choice of using
forceBeamColumn a modelimple-
element
with mented
concentrated plasticity instead of distributed plasticity
in OpenSees with the “HingeRadau” integration rule. The choice of using a model is justified by the following
reasons:
with(1) In general, plasticity
concentrated in the study insteadof framed buildings
of distributed in seismic
plasticity situations,
is justified by the thefollowing
for-
mation of plastic hinges is expected at the ends of members and
reasons: (1) In general, in the study of framed buildings in seismic situations, the formation is rare in the middle of a
member (e.g., beam) and (2) the adoption of a simpler model
of plastic hinges is expected at the ends of members and is rare in the middle of a member of a member implies greater
computational
(e.g., beam)effectiveness, which translates
and (2) the adoption of a simpler intomodel a greater
of a member numerical stability
implies greater of computa-
the
model and higher
tional processing
effectiveness, rate.
which translates into a greater numerical stability of the model and
The
higherformulation
processing ofrate.
the element used for the analyses was proposed by Scott and Fen-
ves [32] (Modified
The formulation of Gauss
Two-Point Radau)used
the element and considers
for the analyses a total ofwas six integration
proposed by points:
Scott and
whileFenves
the first and last points fall into the inelastic parts at
[32] (Modified Two-Point Gauss Radau) and considers a total of six integration the ends of the element, the
otherpoints:
four points
while fall the into the central
first and last points elasticfall section, as shownparts
into the inelastic in Figure 5. The
at the ends of ending
the element,
sections
the have
otherlength
four points to Linto
equalfall theLcentral
pl,i and pl,j. Theelastic
elasticsection,
section as is further
shown in divided
Figureinto three
5. The ending
sub-sections
sectionsof havelengths
length equal
equaltoto3LLpl,i
pl,i, L-4(L
and Lpl,i
pl,j+. LThe
pl,j ), and
elastic 3L ,
section
pl,j respectively.
is further The
divided weights
into three
corresponding
sub-sections to ofthelengths
integration
equalpoints
to 3Lpl,i1, andL-4(L6pl,i 0, ),x6and
(x+1 =Lpl,j = L)3L are
pl,j equal
, to L
respectively.pl,i and
The L ,
weights
pl,j
whereas the weightsto

corresponding corresponding
the integration to points
points 21 and and 56 (x (x21==8/30, xL6pl,i=, xL)5 =are
L-8/3
equalLpl,j)toare equal
Lpl,i and Lpl,j ,
to 3Lpl,i and 3Lthe
whereas pl,j, respectively.
weights corresponding to points 2 and 5 (x2 = 8/3 Lpl,i , x5 = L-8/3 Lpl,j ) are
equal to 3Lpl,i and 3Lpl,j , respectively.
Figure 5. ForceBeamColumn element with HingeRadau (Modified Two-Point Gauss-Radau) quadra-

Figure 5. ForceBeamColumn element with HingeRadau (Modified Two-Point Gauss-Radau) quad-
ture rule.
rature rule.
The formulation above was preferred to others since it allows the user to govern the
The formulation
localization above was
of damage preferred
in the to others
plastic hinge since
region byitsimply
allows adjusting
the user tothe
govern
valuestheof Lpl,i
localization of
and Lpl,j . damage in the plastic hinge region by simply adjusting the values of L pl,i
and Lpl,j. For more details on the formulation of the considered forceBeamColumn element, the
For moreare
readers details
invitedontothe formulation
refer of [32],
to reference the considered forceBeamColumn
as an exhaustive discussion ofelement,
the subject is
the readers are invited to refer
beyond the scope of this work. to reference [32], as an exhaustive discussion of the subject
is beyond the scope of this work.
6. Laboratory Tests
The considered laboratory tests have been selected from the database of the European
Union Seventh Framework Program [FP7/2007-2013] [33]. This database contains data on
hundreds of experiments divided by type of RC element (beams, columns and walls). The
available information includes (1) geometry of the cross-section, (2) size of the specimen and
configuration of the test setup, (3) cross-sectional area and arrangement of the longitudinal
and transverse reinforcements, (4) axial force, (5) mechanical properties of concrete and
steel, and (6) cyclic force-displacement data recorded during the laboratory test.
The selected specimens are representative of RC columns that are common in existing
buildings built between the 1970s and early 2000s. In particular, the authors have selected
tests conducted on columns (i.e., members with axial force and symmetric longitudinal
reinforcement) with a rectangular cross-section and failing in a flexural mode without
slippage of the steel bars. Some other filters were placed (with a few exceptions) on
material properties, loading conditions, and geometry. In particular, the compressive
strength of concrete f c is in the range from 18 to 48 MPa, the yielding strength of the
longitudinal bars f yl is in the range from 313 to 586 MPa, the shear span ratio Lv /h is in the
range from 3 to 7.6; the diameter of the bars is in the range from 14 mm to 20 mm and the
normalized axial force ν is in the range from 0 to 0.77.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 12 of 20
As a result, a total of 33 tests were selected from the following research: Bousias
et al. [34,35], Saatcioglu and Ozcebe [36], Saatcioglu and Grira [37], Sheikh and Khoury [38],
Kanda et al. [39], Ohno and Nishioka [40], Lukkunaprasit and Sittipunt [41], and Mata-
moros [42]. Table 1 summarizes the tests selected together with the main geometric and
mechanical characteristics of the specimens, including the geometric percentage of the
volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement ρvol ,st and the geometric ratio of the
longitudinal reinforcement ρs,tot .
Table 1. Main geometric and mechanical characteristics of the selected specimens.
fc f yl B H Lv /d ρs,tot ρvol,st N/Ac f c

ID
[MPa] [MPa] [mm] [mm] [-] [%] [%] [-]
Bousias et al. [34,35] US-0 18.30 560 250 500 3.42 0.81 0.40 0.38
Bousias et al. [34,35] CS-0 18.30 560 250 500 3.42 0.81 0.40 0.38
Bousias et al. [34,35] Q-0 27.00 313 250 250 7.62 0.99 0.52 0.44
Bousias et al. [34,35] Q-0L1 30.30 313 250 250 7.27 0.99 0.47 0.41
Bousias et al. [34,35] Q-0L2 30.30 313 250 250 7.27 0.99 0.47 0.42
Bousias et al. [34,35] Q-0L1a 28.10 313 250 250 7.27 0.99 0.47 0.63
Bousias et al. [34,35] Q-0L2a 28.10 313 250 250 7.27 0.99 0.47 0.57
Bousias et al. [34,35] Q-RCM 30.60 487 400 400 4.57 0.79 0.95 0.18
Saatcioglu and Grira [37] BG-1 34.00 456 350 350 5.45 1.95 0.99 0.43
Sheikh and Khoury [38] AS 18 32.80 508 305 305 6.82 2.45 2.64 0.77
Sheikh and Khoury [38] ES 13 32.60 508 305 305 6.82 2.45 1.67 0.76
Kanda et al. [39] 85PDC-1 24.80 374 250 250 3.69 1.62 1.09 0.12
Ohno and Nishioka [40] L1 24.80 362 400 400 4.57 1.42 0.78 0.03
Lukkunaprasit and Sittipunt [41] CF135/0.30 35.70 471 400 400 4.16 3.14 0.91 0.30
Lukkunaprasit and Sittipunt [41] CF135/0.37 30.50 475 400 400 4.16 3.14 0.91 0.37
Matamoros [42] C5-20N 48.30 586 203 203 4.14 1.93 3.04 0.14
Matamoros [42] C5-40N 38.10 572 203 203 3.70 1.93 2.40 0.36
Saatcioglu and Ozcebe [36] U3 34.80 430 350 350 3.28 3.21 1.42 0.14
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 13 of 20
7. Numerical Analyses
Each specimen is modeled as a 2D cantilever beam with a rotational spring at the
base. This latter component is added to reproduce the elastic rotational deformability at
the base of the specimen. The three degree of freedom numerical model consists of three
nodes connected by two elements i.e., one forceBeamColumn element and one zero-length
element. Nodes 1 and 2 have coordinates that coincide with the origin of the reference
system and node 3 has the abscissa equal to that of the nodes 1 and 2 and the ordinate equal
to the height of the specimen, measured from the base to the point of application of the
lateral force. All the degrees of freedom of node 1 are restrained. The zero-length element
connects nodes 1 and 2 while the forceBeamColumn element connects nodes 2 and 3. The
assigned zero-length element consists of three elastic springs. The stiffness of the material
assigned to the rotational spring is calibrated so that the slope of the initial part of the
simulated response matches the slope of the first part of the experimental response; the
stiffness of the elastic material assigned to the translational springs is very high to prevent
relative displacements between nodes 1 and 2. The value of the length of the plastic hinge
to be assigned to the fixed end of the forceBeamColumn element is calibrated to match
the response of the laboratory test. At the other end of the element a very small value
is assigned to le plastic hinge length (i.e., 1.0 cm). Both the inelastic and elastic sections
of the element are assigned a discretized fiber cross-section according to the criteria set
out in previous sections. Three materials are assigned to the fibers of the inelastic section:
two concrete materials (one for confined material and one for non-confined material)
and one steel material. The considered uniaxial material models are “Concrete04” and
“ReinforcingSteel”. The mechanical properties assigned to the materials in the inelastic
sections of the element have been discussed in previous sections. The concrete material
model assigned to the relevant fibers of the elastic section is characterized by the elastic
modulus of the unconfined concrete whereas the steel material model is characterized
by the elastic modulus of steel. Second order effects are not simulated as they had been
eliminated from the results of the laboratory tests [33].
The axial force is first applied to node 3 through a force control integration procedure.
Then, the cyclic test is reproduced by applying a displacement protocol at Node 3 in the
transverse direction, via a displacement control integration procedure. The displacement
story of the test that is to be reproduced is used as displacement protocol. The Krylov-
Newton integration algorithm is used. The “Norm Unbalance” test with tolerance set equal
to 5 × 10−3 is used to determine if convergence has been reached or not.
8. Optimal Length of the Plastic Hinge

The only data of the model that need to be calibrated are the stiffness of the rotational
spring at the base of the element and the length of the plastic hinge. The stiffness of
the rotational spring is first adjusted to match the stiffness of the specimen in the initial
phase of the laboratory test. Then, the length of the plastic hinge Lpl is modified until a
correspondence between the real and simulated responses is obtained.
The accuracy of the numerical simulation is preliminarily evaluated by comparing the
visual aspect of the lateral force-lateral displacement plots. Subsequently, the accuracy in
the prediction of the cumulated energy dissipated at each cycle of the loading protocol has
been determined by comparing the cumulated area subtended by the above plots. As an
example, the comparison between the laboratory test and numerical responses is reported
in Figure 6 for two values of length of plastic hinge (Lpl /h = 1.30 or 0.70) with reference
to the specimen US-0 tested by Bousias et al. [34]. In particular, the lateral load-lateral
displacement plots are reported on the left side of the figure while the energy cumulated-
lateral displacement plot is on the right side of the figure. The curve referring to the
laboratory test is shown by solid blue line while the curve referring to the numerical test
is shown by solid red line. As is evident, an erroneous evaluation of the length of the
plastic hinge (in this case 0.70) may cause significantly inaccurate evaluations of the flexural
response. In particular, the underestimation of the length of the plastic hinge causes higher
ence to the specimen US-0 tested by Bousias et al. [34]. In particular, the lateral load-lateral
displacement plots are reported on the left side of the figure while the energy cumulated-
lateral displacement plot is on the right side of the figure. The curve referring to the labor-
atory test is shown by solid blue line while the curve referring to the numerical test is
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603
shown by solid red line. As is evident, an erroneous evaluation of the length of the plastic
14 of 20
hinge (in this case 0.70) may cause significantly inaccurate evaluations of the flexural re-
sponse. In particular, the underestimation of the length of the plastic hinge causes higher
strains in the plastic hinge, and thus leads to overestimate severely the degradation of the
strains in the plastic hinge, and thus leads to overestimate severely the degradation of the
mechanical strength and stiffness of the column.
mechanical strength and stiffness of the column.
F 300
(kN) Bousias et al. 40
Ediss
Bousias et al.
Specimen US-0 (kNm) Specimen US-0
150 30
0 20
-150 10
Lpl/h=1.30 Lpl/h=1.30
-300 0
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 u (m)
0.06 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 u (m)
1.00
300 40
Ediss
F (kN) Bousias et al. Bousias et al.
Specimen US-0 (kNm) Specimen US-0
150 30
0 20
-150 10
Lpl/h=0.70 Lpl/h=0.70
-300 0
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 u (m)
0.06 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 u (m)
1.00
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure6.6.Comparison
Comparisonbetween
betweenresults
resultsofofthethelaboratory
laboratorytest
testUS−0
US−0andandnumerical
numericalresponses
responsesforfortwo
two
values
valuesofoflength
lengthofof
plastic hinge
plastic (Lpl(L/hpl=/h
hinge 1.30 or 0.70):
= 1.30 (a) lateral
or 0.70): load load
(a) lateral versus lateral
versus displacement,
lateral (b)
displacement,
energy subtended
(b) energy by cycles
subtended versus
by cycles versus cumulated
cumulated lateral displacement.
lateral displacement.Notes:
Notes:(blue line)
(blue line)laboratory
laboratory
test; (red line) numerical analysis.
test; (red line) numerical analysis.
The
Thelateral
lateralload,
load,lateral
lateraldisplacement
displacementplots
plotsreferring
referringtotosome
someofofthe theconsidered
consideredspec-
spec-
imens
imensand andtotothe
thenumerical
numericalanalyses
analysesperformed
performedwithwiththetheoptimal
optimallengthlengthofofthe
theplastic
plastic
hinge
hingeareareillustrated
illustratedininFigure
Figure7.7.The
Thenumerical
numericalsimulation
simulationofofthe thereal
realtests
testshighlights
highlightsthe
the
effectiveness
effectivenessofofthethe modeling
modeling and the numerical
numericalstability
stabilityofofthe
themodel.
model.InIngeneral,
general, once
once the
the length
length of of
thethe plastic
plastic hinge
hinge has
has been
been given
given a proper
a proper value,
value, thethe numerical
numerical model
model reveals
reveals the
the ability
ability to accurately
to accurately simulate
simulate thethe hysteretic
hysteretic cycles
cycles of experimental
of the the experimental teststests regardless
regardless of the
of the geometric, mechanical, and construction details of the single test. It should also be
geometric, mechanical, and construction details of the single test. It should also be noted
noted thatlaboratory
that the
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
the laboratory tests pushed
tests were were pushed up to displacements
up to displacements associated
associated with15
with chord chord
rotation
of 20
rotation
demands demands much than
much greater greater
the than the corresponding
corresponding ultimateEven
ultimate values. values. Evenconditions,
in these in these
conditions,
the proposed the numerical
proposed numerical
models showedmodels noshowed
signs ofno signs of numerical
numerical instability. instability.
F 400
(kN) Saatcioglu and Ozcebe 50
F (kN) Bousias et al.
Specimen U6 Specimen Q0
200 25
0 0
-200 -25
Lpl/h=1.00 Lpl/h=1.20
-400 -50
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 u (m)
0.10 -0.06 -0.03 0.00 0.03 u (m)
0.06
(a) (b)
F 400
(kN) F 200
(kN) Saatcioglu and Grira
Figure Lukkunaprasit
7. Cont. and Sit.
Specimen CF135/0.30 Specimen BG-3
200 100
0 0
-200 -100
Lpl/h=0.80 Lpl/h=0.90
-400 -200
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 u (m)
0.10 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 u (m)
0.20
0 0
-200 -25
Lpl/h=1.00 Lpl/h=1.20
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 -400 -50 15 of 20
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 u (m)
0.10 -0.06 -0.03 0.00 0.03 u (m)
0.06
(a) (b)
F 400
(kN) Lukkunaprasit and Sit. F 200
Specimen CF135/0.30 Specimen BG-3
200 100
0 0
-200 -100
Lpl/h=0.80 Lpl/h=0.90
-400 -200
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 u (m)
0.10 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 u (m)
0.20
(c) (d)
F 100
(kN) Kanda et al. F 200
(kN) Ohno and Nishioka
Specimen 85PDC-1 Specimen L2
50 100
0 0
-50 -100
Lpl/h=0.90 Lpl/h=1.20
-100 -200
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 u (m)
0.10 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 u (m)
0.10
(e) (f)
F 200
(kN) Bousias et al. F 300
Specimen CS 200 Specimen BG-2
100
100
0 0
-100
-100
-200
Lpl/h=1.40 Lpl/h=0.65
-200 -300
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 u (m)
0.10 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 u (m)
0.10
(g) (h)
Figure
Figure7.7.Comparison
Comparison between
between laboratory
laboratory tests andand
tests numerical analyses
numerical for the
analyses for specimen
the specimentested by
tested
(a) Saatcioglu and Ozcebe [36], (b) Bousias et al. [35], (c) Lukkunaprasit and Sittipunt
by (a) Saatcioglu and Ozcebe [36], (b) Bousias et al. [35], (c) Lukkunaprasit and Sittipunt [41], [41], (d)
Saatcioglu and Grira
(d) Saatcioglu [37], [37],
and Grira (e) Kanda et al. et
(e) Kanda [39],
al. (f) Ohno
[39], and Nishioka
(f) Ohno [40], (g)
and Nishioka Bousias
[40], et al. [34]
(g) Bousias et al.and
[34]
(h) Saatcioglu and Grira [37]; Notes: (blue line) laboratory test; (red line) numerical analysis.
and (h) Saatcioglu and Grira [37]; Notes: (blue line) laboratory test; (red line) numerical analysis.
9.9.Proposed
ProposedExpression
Expressionofofthe theLength
LengthofofthethePlastic
PlasticHinge
Hinge
ToTopropose
proposeaarelation
relationforforthe
thedetermination
determinationofofthe thelength
lengthofofthetheplastic
plastichinge,
hinge,the the
values
valuesofofLplLpl
obtained
obtained through
through calibration
calibrationhave been
have plotted
been as aas
plotted function of the
a function ofmain ge-
the main
ometric
geometricandand
mechanical
mechanical parameters
parametersof the
of specimens. First,First,
the specimens. the dependence
the dependence of Lplofon
Lplthe
on
normalized axial axial
the normalized force force
ν hasνbeen investigated.
has been Among
investigated. the selected
Among tests, the
the selected values
tests, of ν
the values
(0.0 0.77)÷vary
of ν÷ (0.0 0.77)invary
a wide
in a range of values
wide range and this
of values andshould be sufficient
this should to identify
be sufficient any
to identify
any possible dependence of Lpl on ν. However, the plot of the normalized length of the
plastic hinge Lpl /h versus ν, reported in Figure 8a, does not show a clear trend. Equally
dispersed are also the points that represent Lpl /h as a function of the shear span ratio LV /h
of the specimen, as shown in Figure 8b. The trend of Lpl /h as a function of the compressive
strength of the concrete f c seems to reveal an inverse proportionality relationship, as shown
in Figure 8c. However, the authors of the present paper believe that the values of the
compressive strength considered here, with a single exception, vary in a narrow range
(i.e., 18-40 MPa) and do not allow general and reliable conclusions. On the other hand, for
the considered specimens, Lpl /h does not show any appreciable trend as a function of the
yield strength of the longitudinal steel bars f yl , as shown in Figure 8d. Finally, the optimal
length of the plastic hinge Lpl /h is represented as a function of ρvol,st by blue circles in
9. In this case, an inverse proportionality relationship is evident between Lpl/h and ρvol,st.
In particular, for values of ρvol,st between 0.50% and 1.50%, the value of Lpl/h varies from a
maximum value of about 1.50 up to about 0.70. The value of Lpl/h remains almost constant
for ρvol,st greater than 2.00%. This trend is effectively interpreted through a power function
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 of the type: 16 of 20
L pl h =
a ρ vol,st
b +c (21)
where the9.values
Figure ofcase,
In this an inversea,proportionality
the coefficients b and c have been obtained through
relationship an optimization
is evident between Lpl /h and
procedure
ρvol,st . In particular, for values of ρvol,st between 0.50% and 1.50%, the value ofvalues
performed using the Excel Solver. Specifically, starting from tentative Lpl /h varies
a, b, and
of from c, the optimization
a maximum procedure
value of about searches
1.50 up to aboutfor0.70.
a combination
The valueof ofthe three
Lpl /h coeffi-almost
remains
cients which
constant forminimizes the sum
ρvol,st greater thanof the squares
2.00%. of the
This trend differencesinterpreted
is effectively between the optimal
through a power
values of Lpl/h and the predicted values. In order to consider more mathematical solutions,
function of the type:
the optimization procedure has been repeated Lpl /h = 20 times+with
a ρbvol,st c different tentative values. (21)
Based on the values of a, b, and c giving the optimal solutions, the following formula is
proposed:
where the values of the coefficients a, b and c have been obtained through an optimization
procedure performed using the Excel Solver. Specifically, starting from tentative values of
L pl=h 0.19searches
a, b, and c, the optimization procedure
0.35
ρ −vol,st for a combination of the three(22)
coefficients
which minimizes the sum of the squares of the differences between the optimal values
Coefficient “c” resulting from the optimization process was always negligible and
of Lpl /h and the predicted values. In order to consider more mathematical solutions, the
then has been assumed equal to zero in the proposed equation. Further, it has been chosen
optimization procedure has been repeated 20 times with different tentative values. Based
to limit the proposed value of Lpl/h to 1.40 from above and to 0.70 from below. These lim-
on the values of a, b, and c giving the optimal solutions, the following formula is proposed:
itations come into play for values of ρvol,st lower than 0.33% and greater than 2.41%, re-
spectively. Figure 9 shows the prediction of the optimal−0.35values of Lpl/h in the range of
Lpl /h = 0.19 ρvol,st (22)
values of ρvol,st of practical interest.
L1.6
pl/h L1.6
pl/h
1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
Buildings 2022,
Buildings 12, xx FOR
2022, 12, FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 17 of
17 of 20
20
0.0 0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 ν
1.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 Lv/h
8.00
(a) (b)
1.6 1.6
LL1.6/h
pl/h
pl LL1.6/h
pl/h
pl
1.2
1.2 1.2
1.2
0.8
0.8 0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4 0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
00 15
15 30
30 45
45 ffcc (MPa)
(MPa)
60
60 00 200
200 400
400 600 ffylyl (MPa)
600 (MPa)
800
800
(c)
(c) (d)
(d)
Figure
Figure
Figure8. Normalized
8. Normalized
8. Normalizedlength
length of the
of
length the plastic
of plastic hinge
hinge
the plastic versus
versus
hinge (a) normalized
(a)
versus normalized axial force,
axial
(a) normalized force, (b)
axial (b) shear
shear
force, span
(b)span
shear span
ratio,
ratio, (c)
(c) compressive
compressive strength
strength of
of concrete,
concrete, and
and (d)
(d) yield
yield strength
strength of
of longitudinal
longitudinal rebars.
rebars.
ratio, (c) compressive strength of concrete, and (d) yield strength of longitudinal rebars.
1.6
LL1.6/h
pl/h
pl
1.2
1.2
-0.35
-0.35
LLplpl/h
/h == 0.19
0.19 ρρvol,st
vol,st
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.33 %
≅≅ 0.33 % 2.41 %
≅≅ 2.41 %
0.0
0.0
00 11 22 33 ρρvol,st (%)
vol,st (%)
44
Figure
Figure 9. Normalized
9.
Figure Normalized length
length
9. Normalized of the
of
length the plastic
ofplastic hingehinge
hinge
the plastic versus
versus volumetric
volumetric
versus ratio of
ratio
volumetric of transverse
transverse
ratio reinforcement.
reinforcement.
of transverse reinforcement.
10. Conclusions
10. Conclusions
This paper
This paper deals
deals with
with the
the problem
problem ofof numerical
numerical modeling
modeling of
of members
members of of existing
existing
reinforced concrete
reinforced concrete buildings
buildings and
and specifically
specifically with
with two
two crucial
crucial aspects
aspects in
in modeling
modeling ofof re-
re-
inforced concrete
inforced concrete members:
members: (1)
(1) the
the application
application of
of the
the confinement
confinement model
model toto RC
RC members
members
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 17 of 20
Coefficient “c” resulting from the optimization process was always negligible and
then has been assumed equal to zero in the proposed equation. Further, it has been chosen
to limit the proposed value of Lpl /h to 1.40 from above and to 0.70 from below. These
limitations come into play for values of ρvol,st lower than 0.33% and greater than 2.41%,
respectively. Figure 9 shows the prediction of the optimal values of Lpl /h in the range of
values of ρvol,st of practical interest.
10. Conclusions
This paper deals with the problem of numerical modeling of members of existing
reinforced concrete buildings and specifically with two crucial aspects in modeling of
reinforced concrete members: (1) the application of the confinement model to RC members
and (2) the calibration of the length of the plastic hinge. Both issues have been treated to
achieve accuracy of response, numerical stability, and computational efficiency.
The proposed numerical model uses the element with concentrated plasticity pro-
posed by Scott and Fenves [32]. The uniaxial material model considered for concrete is
named “Concrete04” in Opensees whereas the uniaxial material model considered for the
longitudinal bars is named “ReinforcingSteel”.
The value of the plastic hinge length that leads to the best prediction of the cyclic
response of laboratory tests available in the literature has been determined. The examined
specimens are representative of reinforced concrete columns of existing buildings built
between the 1970s and early 2000s. In particular, the authors have selected tests conducted
on columns with rectangular cross-section and failing in a flexural mode without slipping
of steel bars. In most cases, the shear span ratio of the specimens is in the range from 3 to
6 and the normalized axial force is in the range from 0.2 to 0.4. The average compressive
strength of concrete is in the range from 20 to 40 MPa and the yielding strength of the
longitudinal bars is in the range from 350 to 500 MPa.
The main conclusions of the study are here reported:
- The confinement effectiveness factor calculated according to Eurocode 8 penalizes the
response of RC columns, particularly those with low values of the volumetric ratio of
the transverse reinforcement. The authors have proposed a less restrictive volume of
confined concrete, in addition to a fiber discretization technique that is consistent with
the geometric meaning of the confinement effectiveness factor.
- A simple relation has been proposed to calculate the optimum length of the plastic
hinge of the numerical element with concentrated plasticity. The optimum length of
the plastic hinge decreases with the increase of the volumetric ratio of the transverse
reinforcement and ranges from 0.7 to 1.4 times the depth of the cross-section.
The conclusions are drawn based on a set of specimens with moderate variation of the
geometric and mechanical properties of the materials in order to represent the response of
usual members of existing reinforced concrete buildings. A greater number of laboratory
tests will be considered in the future to extend the proposed modeling to a broader range
of the considered parameters.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.F.; methodology, F.B., M.B., A.F., E.M.M.; D.P.; P.P.R.;
N.S.; software, A.F.; D.P.; P.P.R.; validation, F.B., M.B., A.F., E.M.M.; D.P.; P.P.R.; N.S.; formal analysis,
F.B., M.B., A.F., E.M.M.; D.P.; P.P.R.; N.S.; investigation, F.B., M.B., A.F., E.M.M.; D.P.; P.P.R.; N.S.;
writing—original draft preparation, M.B., A.F., P.P.R.; writing—review and editing, F.B., M.B., A.F.,
E.M.M.; D.P.; P.P.R.; N.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the University of Catania within the research project “
DU.SO.CA.P.—Durabilità e SOstenibilità delle strutture in Cemento Armato e Precompresso”, the
research program “PIAno di inCEntivi per la RIcerca di Ateneo 2020/2022 (PIA.CE.RI.)—Starting
Grant—Linea di intervento 3”, the research project “Definizione e validazione di procedure di
progetto di interventi di adeguamento sismico di edifici in c.a mediante pareti oscillanti” and the
research project “PIAno di inCEntivi per la RIcerca di Ateneo 2020/2022 (PIA.CE.RI.)—Linea di
intervento 2.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 18 of 20
Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author, A.F., upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.
Appendix A Confinement Model

To account for the effects of confinement on the compressive strength and ductility of
concrete, the empirical expressions proposed by Mander et al. [18] (representing the failure
domain proposed by William and Warnke [21]) are used for this study and reported below.
The ratio K of the compressive strength of confined to unconfined concrete is:
f cc
K= = 1 + k1 x (A1)
fc
In the above equation, x is the normalized average confinement stress
σl1 + σl2
x= (A2)
2 fc
where σl1 and σl2 are the lateral compressive stresses along directions 1 and 2. In addition,
k1 is a coefficient depending on the failure domain, i.e.,

0.9
k1 = A 0.1 + (A3)
1+Bx
Coefficients A and B depend on the ratio γ between the confinement stresses in the
two orthogonal directions, i.e.,
A = 6.8886 − (0.6069 + 17.275 γ)e−4.989 γ (A4)
4.5
B= 5 −3.8939 γ ) − 0.1
−5 (A5)
A (0.9849 − 0.6306 e
where
σl1
γ= σl2 ≥ σl1 (A6)
σl2
The strain at peak stress is
εc c 0 = εc 0 ( 1 + k 2 x ) (A7)
where k2 is equal to 5k1 in the presence of transverse reinforcement with yield strength
lower than 400 MPa and is equal to 3k1 in all the other cases.
The stress f f corresponding to a strain equal to 3 εcc0 is
ff = fc c − ∆ fc c (A8)
The variation ∆f cc in the stress is given by the relation below

0.8
∆ f c c = K∆ f c + 0.2 (A9)
K5
where ∆f c is the strength drop at a deformation equal to 3 εc0 with respect to the peak stress
of the unconfined concrete.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 19 of 20
References
1. Park, R.; Paulay, T. Reinforced Concrete Structures; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1975.
2. Baker, A.L.L. Ultimate Load Theory Applied to Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames; Concrete Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 1956.
3. Mattock, A.H. Rotational Capacity of Hinging Region Reinforced Concrete Beams. In Proceedings of the 1964 International
Symposium on Flexural Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, Miami, FL, USA, 10–12 November 1964.
4. Mattock, A.H. Discussion of “Rotational Capacity of Hinging Regions in Reinforced Concrete Beams. J. Struct. Div. 1967, 93,
519–522. [CrossRef]
5. Park, R.; Priestley, M.J.N.; Gill, W.D. Ductility of Square-Confined Concrete Columns. J. Struct. Div. 1982, 108, 929–950. [CrossRef]
6. Sheikh, S.A.; Khoury, S.S. Confined Concrete Columns with Stubs. ACI Struct. J. 1993, 90, 414–431.
7. Sheikh, S.A.; Shah, D.V.; Khouri, S.S. Confinement of High-Strength Concrete Columns. ACI Struct. J. 1994, 91, 100–111.
8. Bayrak, O.; Sheikh, S.A. Confinement Reinforcement Design Considerations for Ductile HSC Columns. J. Struct. Eng. 1998, 124,
9. Priestley, M.J.N.; Park, R. Strength and Ductility of Concrete Bridge Columns Under Seismic Loading. ACI Struct. J. 1987,
84, 61–76.
10. Paulay, T.; Priestley, M.J.N. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1992.
11. Mendis, P. Plastic Hinge Lengths of Normal and High-Strength Concrete in Flexure. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2001, 4, 189–195. [CrossRef]
12. Bae, S.; Bayrak, O. Plastic Hinge Length of Reinforced Concrete Columns. ACI Struct. J. 2008, 105, 290–300.
13. Biskinis, D.; Fardis, M.N. Flexure-controlled Ultimate Deformations of Members with Continuos or Lap-spliced Bars. Struct.
Concr. 2010, 11, 93–108. [CrossRef]
14. Grammatikou, S.; Biskinis, D.; Fardis, M.N. Flexural Rotation Capacity models fitted to test results using different statistical
approaches. Int. Fed. Struct. Concr. 2017, 19, 608–624. [CrossRef]
15. Grammatikou, S.; Biskinis, D.; Fardis, M.N. Ultimate Strain Criteria for RC Members in Monotonic or Cyclic Flexure. J. Struct.
Eng. 2016, 142, 04016046. [CrossRef]
16. Mazzoni, S.; McKenna, F.; Scott, M.H.; Fenves, G.L. OpenSees Command Language Manual. Pac. Earthq. Eng. Res. (PEER) Cent.
2006, 264, 137–158.
17. Mander, J.B.; Priestley, M.J.N.; Park, R. Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete. J. Struct. Eng. 1988, 114,
1804–1826. [CrossRef]
18. Chang, G.A.; Mander, J.B. Seismic Energy Based Fatigue Damage Analysis of Bridge Columns: Part 1–Evaluation of Seismic Capacity;
NCEER: Buffalo, NY, USA, 1994.
19. Karsan, I.D.; Jirsa, J.O. Behavior of concrete under compressive loading. J. Struct. Div. 1969, 95, 2543–2564. [CrossRef]
20. CEN. EN 1992-1; EuroCode 2: Design of concrete structures–Part 1–1: General rules and rules for buildings. European Committee
for Standardization: Bruxelles, Belgium, 1993.
21. William, K.; Warnke, E. Constitutive Model for the Triaxial Behaviour of Concrete. In Proceedings of the International Association
for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Bergamo, Italy, 17–19 May 1975.
22. Priestley, M.J.N.; Seible, F.; Calvi, G.M. Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
23. Scott, B.D.; Park, R.; Priestley, M.J.N. Stress-strain Behavior of Concrete Confined by Overlapping Hoops at Low and High Strain
Rates. ACI Struct. J. 1982, 79, 13–27.
24. Dodd, L.; Restrepo-Posada, J. Model for Predicting Cyclic Behavior of Reinforcing Steel. J. Struct. Eng. 1995, 121, 433–445. [CrossRef]
25. Gomes, A.; Appleton, J. Nonlinear Cyclic Stress-Strain Relationship of Reinforcing Bars Including Buckling. Eng. Struct. 1997, 19,
26. Dhakal, R.; Maekawa, K. Modeling for Postyield Buckled of Reinforcement. J. Struct. Eng. 2002, 128, 1139–1147. [CrossRef]
27. Brown, J.; Kunnath, S.K. Low Cycle Fatigue Behavior of Longitudinal Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns; NCEER
Technical Report 00-0007; NCEER: Buffalo, NY, USA, 2000.
28. Sheikh, S.; Uzumeri, S.M. Strength and Ductility of Tied Concrete Columns. J. Struct. Div. 1980, 106, 1079–1102. [CrossRef]
29. CEN. EN 1998-1; EuroCode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance–Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for
buildings. European Committee for Standardization: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2004.
30. Vulinovic, M.; Milicevic, I.; Ignjatovic, I. The Design of Loal Ductility for Reinforced Concrete Elements by Eurocode 8–
Confinement Effectiveness Factor. Build. Mater. Struct. 2019, 62, 3–17.
31. Ghersi, A. Il Cemento Armato: Dalle Tensioni Ammissibili Agli Stati Limite, un Approccio Unitario, 2nd ed.; Dario Flaccovio Editor:
Palermo, Italy, 2010.
32. Scott, M.H.; Fenves, G.L. Plastic Hinge Integration Methods for Force-Based Beam-Column Elements. J. Struct. Eng. 2006, 132,
33. Perus, I.; Biskinis, D.; Fajfar, P.; Fardis, M.N.; Grammatikou, S.; Lignos, D.; Krawinkler, H. The SERIES Database of RC Elements.
In Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul, Turkey, 25–29 August 2014.
34. Bousias, S.N.; Triantafillou, T.C.; Fardis, M.N.; Spathis, L.; O’Regan, B.A. Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Retrofitting of Rectangular
Reinforced Concrete Columns with or without Corrosion. ACI Struct. J. 2004, 101, 512–520.
35. Bousias, S.; Spathis, L.; Fardis, M. Seismic Retrofitting of Columns with Lap Spliced Smooth Bars Through FRP of Concrete
Jackets. J. Earthq. Eng. 2007, 11, 653–674. [CrossRef]
36. Saatcioglu, M.; Ozcebe, G. Response of Reinforced Concrete Columns to Simulated Seismic Loading. ACI Struct. J. 1989, 86, 3–12.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1603 20 of 20
37. Saatcioglu, M.; Grira, M. Confinement of Reinforced Concrete Columns with Welded Reinforcements Grids. ACI Struct. J. 1999,
96, 29–39.
38. Sheikh, S.A.; Khoury, S.S. A Performance-Based Approach for the Design of Confining Steel in Tied Columns. ACI Struct. J. 1997,
94, 421–431.
39. Kanda, M.; Shirai, N.; Adachi, H.; Sato, T. Analytical Study on Elasto-Plastic Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Members.
Jpn. Concr. Inst. 1988, 10, 257–264.
40. Ohno, T.; Nishioka, T. An Experimental Study on Energy Absorption Capacity of Columns in Reinforced Concrete Structures. In
Proceedings of the JSCE, Structural Engineering/Earthquake Engineering, October 1984; Volume 1, pp. 137–147.
41. Lukkunaprasit, P.; Sittipunt, C. Ductility Enhancement of Moderately Confined Concrete Tied Columns with Hook-Clips. ACI
Struct. J. 2003, 100, 422–429.
42. Matamoros, A.B.; Sozen, M.A. Drift Limits of High-Strength Concrete Columns Subjected to Load Reversals. J. Struct. Eng. 2003,
129, 297–313. [CrossRef]

Buildings 12 01603 v3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buildings 12 01603 v3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buildings 12 01603 v3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

buildings

Buildings 2022, 12, 1603. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101603 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

2.1.1. Unconfined Concrete

Ec = 8200 f c3/8 ( f c in MPa) (1)

f ct = 0.30( f c − 8)2/3 ( f c in MPa) (3)

The above equation is recommended in Eurocode 2 [20] for concrete of strength

2.1.2. Confined Concrete

3. Modeling of the Cross-Section

f l1= k e ρ st,1 f y,st (8)

f l2= k e ρ st,2 f y,st (9)

To calculate ke , the evaluation of the effectively confined volume is necessary. In

4.2. Proposed Volume of Confined Concrete

(a) (b) (c)

4.3. Application of Confinement to the Numerical Model

(a) (b) (c)

whereas the weightsto

Figure 5. ForceBeamColumn element with HingeRadau (Modified Two-Point Gauss-Radau) quadra-

fc f yl B H Lv /d ρs,tot ρvol,st N/Ac f c

8. Optimal Length of the Plastic Hinge

Appendix A Confinement Model

In the above equation, x is the normalized average confinement stress

A = 6.8886 − (0.6069 + 17.275 γ)e−4.989 γ (A4)

The variation ∆f cc in the stress is given by the relation below

You might also like