ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 107-S60

TECHNICAL PAPER

Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Frame Members for Seismic Analysis

by Ratnesh Kumar and Yogendra Singh
Effective stiffness assumption in the modeling of reinforced concrete (RC) frame members is important for seismic design because it directly affects the building periods and dynamic response, particularly deflection and internal force distribution. Different opinions about the magnitude and governing parameters of effective stiffness persist in different national codes and literature. In this paper, parameters governing the effective stiffness of RC frame members are identified and their relative influence is determined using the three-component approach. Based on parametric study, lower-bound and upper-bound estimates of effective stiffness for the normal range of parameters in RC frame buildings are obtained and verified with experimental results. Various effective stiffness relationships and equations available in literature are also compared. Separate models for the effective stiffness of normal-strength and high-strength concrete members are proposed. The models can be used for the design of buildings without excessive computational effort.
Keywords: bar slip; curvature; effective stiffness; flexural stiffness; reinforced concrete; shear deformation.

Fig. 1Comparison of measured effective stiffness ratio for 1.5 and 2.5% reinforcement. strength, and reinforcement ratio is the most important parameter controlling the effective stiffness ratio. Therefore, in the present study, the authors first examined the variation of effective stiffness ratio (EIeff/EcIg) with reinforcement ratio at different axial load ratios (P/Agfc ), using the test results from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) Structural Performance Database9 where EIeff is the effective stiffness of an RC member, Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete, Ig is moment of inertia of gross section, P is axial load, Ag is gross cross-sectional area, and fc is compressive strength of concrete. A total of 68 test results for rectangular columns have been picked up from the database, out of which 45 test specimens have reinforcement ratios of approximately 1.5% (ranging from 1.51 to 1.63%) and the other 23 test specimens have a reinforcement ratio of approximately 2.5% (ranging from 2.43 to 2.47%) and are plotted in Fig. 1 (refer to the Appendix* for details of the specimens). It can be observed that the scatter of effective stiffness obtained from different test specimens with an almost equal reinforcement ratio is quite large and no distinct pattern of variation of effective stiffness with respect to reinforcement ratio is obtained. This is because the data used in Fig. 1 is obtained from tests on specimens with widely varying values of other parameters, such as yield strength and diameter of reinforcement, member length and size, and concrete strength. As shown in another section, the
* The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org in PDF format as an addendum to the published paper. It is also available in hard copy from ACI headquarters for a fee equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request. ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 5, September-October 2010. MS No. S-2009-293 received August 26, 2009, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2010, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the July-August 2011 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2011.

INTRODUCTION The reasonable estimation of the effective stiffness of reinforced concrete (RC) frame members has remained an important issue for a long time. Under service-gravity loading, the cracking of RC frame members is relatively minor; therefore, it is adequate to use any set of reasonable stiffness assumptions.1 On the other hand, while analyzing the RC frames for seismic loading, it is expected that most of the members will either yield or will reach near yielding and thus the cracking will be significant; therefore, it is essential to use the realistic stiffness of members. The use of realistic stiffness is also important because it directly affects the building periods and dynamic response, deflection and drift, and internal force distribution. Several opinions among researchers and various national codes exist, not only about the magnitude of effective stiffness, but also about the governing parameters. The variation of effective stiffness with design axial load has already been recognized by different national codes and researchers; however, there is no consensus about the other governing parameters. Parameters such as eccentricity ratio,2,3 reinforcement ratio3-6 (Mehanny et al.4 considered its effect through a transformed section), yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement,7,8 diameter of longitudinal bar,8 and shear span2,8 have been identified to govern the effective stiffness of RC frame members. Based on different combinations of these governing parameters, different researchers have proposed simplified equations to estimate the effective stiffness of RC frame members. Based on theoretical background and the observation that the yield curvature of a section remains constant, Priestley5 has pointed out that the stiffness is directly proportional to ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010

607

ACI member Ratnesh Kumar is a Research Scholar in the Department of Earthquake Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India. He received his bachelors degree in civil engineering from Bangalore University, Karntaka, India, and his Master of Technology in structural dynamics from the Indian Institute of Technology. His research interests include modeling of reinforced concrete structures, performance-based design, and seismic retrofitting. Yogendra Singh is an Associate Professor of earthquake engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology. He received his bachelors degree in civil engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, and his Masters of Technology and PhD from the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India. His research interests include performance-based design, seismic evaluation and retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures, and seismic risk assessment.

MN L EI eff = ------------6 y

(1)

where MN is the nominal flexural moment at a concrete compressive strain of 0.004, L is length, and y is the yield displacement of the member. The flexural moment MN can be expressed in terms of dimensionless nominal moment capacity5 (MDN) as M N = M DN f cBD
2

(2)

effect of these parameters is also significant enough, and effective stiffness cannot be represented by reinforcement ratio alone. The empirical relations available in literature are either based on a limited number of experimental results or on the test results with widely varying parameters. It is therefore important that the empirical studies should be supported by theoretical understanding. There is wide consensus that the stiffness values used for seismic analysis should consider the level of cracking, bar slip, and shear deformations. Elwood and Eberhard8,10 have presented a three-component approach to analytically simulate the behavior of RC frame members, considering flexural deformation, shear deformation, and bar slip deformation. This paper identifies different parameters affecting effective stiffness and studies their relative influence using the three-component approach. Based on the parametric study, lower-bound and upper-bound estimates for effective stiffness have been obtained and compared with the experimental results compiled in the PEER Structural Performance Database.9 Different stiffness relationships available in the literature have been compared with the obtained lower-bound and upper-bound estimates and new relationships for normal- and high-strength concrete frame members have been proposed. The relationships have been developed to represent average conditions in the practical range of building frame members to avoid the detailed analysis of individual members. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Different national codes and literature provide widely varying estimates and identify different governing parameters for the effective stiffness of RC members to be used for seismic analysis. In this paper, simplified models for normalstrength and high-strength concrete have been proposed to estimate the effective stiffness of RC frame members. The models represent the average range of practical conditions in buildings and are based on lower-bound and upper-bound values estimated from parametric study and validated using experimental results. The models will be helpful in design and avoid excessive computational effort in the estimation of effective stiffness of individual members. IDENTIFICATION OF PARAMETERS GOVERNING EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS Based on extensive theoretical and experimental investigations, Elwood and Eberhard8,10 have proposed a three-component approach to determine effective stiffness (EIeff) of a column prior to yielding. They proposed the following expression10 for the effective stiffness of RC columns under double-curvature bending 608

where B is width and D is the depth of the member. Assuming a uniform placement of reinforcement and neglecting the effect of minor parameters such as cover thickness, the dimensionless moment is a function of reinforcement ratio, yield strength of longitudinal reinforcing bars, concrete compressive strength, and axial load ratio. The yield displacement (y) in Eq. (1) is the sum of displacements due to flexure (flex), bar slip (slip), and shear (shear). Further, the flexural displacement can be estimated10 as L flex = ---- y - 6
2

(3)

where y is the yield curvature. Priestley5 has shown that the dimensionless yield curvature (Dy = y/(y/D)) has more or less a constant value (2.1 with approximately 10% variation for rectangular sections). Considering this and substituting modulus of elasticity of steel1 (Es = 2 1011 Pa [2.014 105 psf]), flex can be expressed as L f flex = C 1 --------y D
2

(4)

where C1 is equal to 1.75 1012 in SI units (1.738 106 in FPS units), and fy is the yield stress of longitudinal reinforcing steel. Displacement due to bar slip can be estimated8,11 as Ld b f s y slip = ----------------8u (5)

where db is the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcing bar, fs is stress in tension reinforcement at yield of section, and u is the average bond stress between longitudinal reinforcement and concrete in the footing or beam. Using Eq. (3) and assuming the average bond stress u = 1 103fc Pa (144fc psf) prior to yield,12,13 the deformation due to bar slip can be expressed in terms of flexural deformation as db fs slip = C 2 ---- --------- flex L f c (6)

where C2 is equal to 7.5 104 in SI units (5.208 103 in FPS units). The displacement due to shear deformation in a member under double curvature can be estimated10 as ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010

2M N shear = ----------------( AG ) eff

(7)

where (AG)eff is effective shear rigidity. For a rectangular section, 5/6 times the gross area can be considered11,14 as effective shear area. Concrete shear modulus (G) depends on the modulus of elasticity of concrete1 (Ec = 4.7 106fc Pa [6.84 105fc psf]) and Poissons ratio of concrete. For normalweight concrete, the value of Poissons ratio can be taken as 0.25. Based on these assumptions, and using Eq. (2) and (4), the displacement due to shear deformation can be expressed as M DN D f c shear = C 3 ----------------- --------- flex 2 fy L
2

(8)

Fig. 2Variation of flexural and effective stiffness ratios with axial load ratio for different reinforcement ratios. the following sections, the effect of various governing parameters on flexural stiffness, and effective stiffness considering the combined effect of flexure, bar slip, and shear, has been studied using numerical analysis as per the three-component model of Elwood and Eberhard.8,10 Effect of reinforcement ratio ACI 318-081 prescribes the limits of 0.01Ag and 0.08Ag for minimum and maximum areas of longitudinal reinforcement, respectively, for noncomposite compression members. It suggests that if the column bars are required to be lap spliced, however, the reinforcement in members should not usually exceed 4%. It is also common in design practice to limit the reinforcement area up to 4% to avoid congestion. For most of the tests on rectangular columns enlisted in the PEER Structural Performance Database9 also, the reinforcement ratio varies from 0.01 to 0.04. Therefore, four reinforcement ratios, that is, 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, and 0.04, have been considered in the present study while the remaining parameters have been kept constant (B = D = 0.4 m [15.75 in.], fc = 40 MPa [5.8 ksi], fy = 480 MPa [69.6 ksi], db = 22 mm [0.866 in.], and L = 3 m [9.84 ft]). The variation of the ratio of flexural stiffness (EIflex) and effective stiffness (EIeff ) to the gross section stiffness (EcIg) (where EIflex is the stiffness obtained considering flexural deformation only) with axial load ratio P/Agfc is shown in Fig. 2. It can be clearly observed from the figure that if other parameters are kept constant, the effective stiffness ratio has strong dependence on the reinforcement ratio. The effective stiffness increases with the increasing reinforcement ratio for all of the axial load ratios. This effect is well recognized in literature3-6,8 and is attributed5,6 to the dependence of dimensionless moment capacity MDN and hence the flexural stiffness on the reinforcement ratio. Elwood and Eberhard8 have also shown that the normalized flexural rigidity has direct dependence on the relative stiffness of longitudinal reinforcement. Figure 2 shows an interesting pattern of the variation of effective stiffness ratio with the axial load ratio. The effective stiffness ratio first increases mildly with the axial load ratio (up to 0.2) then increases rapidly and attains a peak at the axial load ratio in the range of 0.6 to 0.8 and then decreases. A similar pattern is also followed by the flexural stiffness ratio. This variation can be better understood by examining the variation of dimensionless moment capacity MDN and dimensionless yield curvature Dy with axial load ratio, as shown in Fig. 3. It is observed from the figure that 609

where C3 is equal to 7.295 105 in SI units (5.047 in FPS units). Based on Eq. (1), (2), (4), (6), and (8), the effective stiffness ratio (the ratio of effective stiffness to the gross stiffness) can be expressed as C 4 M DN EI eff ---------- = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ec Ig M DN D 2 db fs 1 + C 2 ------------ + C 3 --------------------- 2 L f c L (9)

where C4 is equal to 2.432 105 in SI units (1.682 in FPS units), and = fc /fy. For low axial loads (with an axial load ratio below 0.2), the stress in steel (fs) at the yield of section is equal to the yield stress (fy) of steel. It reduces with an increase in axial load ratio10 and becomes zero at an axial load ratio beyond 0.5. Further, Eq. (9) has been derived assuming the nondimensional yield curvature as constant, according to Priestley.5 It will be shown later in this study, however, that this assumption is valid only for low axial load ratios (up to 0.4). Therefore, the values of C1, C2, C3, and C4, as obtained previously, are valid only for low axial load ratios. For higher axial loads, these values vary with the axial load ratio; however, it will not affect the other parameters in the equation. Further, it is to be noted that the main objective of deriving Eq. (9) is to identify the governing parameters, rather than using it for the direct computation of effective stiffness. The equation shows that effective stiffness is a complex function of various parameters. The parameters affecting the effective stiffness ratio are reinforcement ratio , axial load ratio P/Agfc , member depth D, compressive strength of concrete fc , yield stress of steel fy, diameter of reinforcing bar db, and length of the member L. In the following sections, the effect of the above-identified parameters has been studied numerically and the extent of variation in the effective stiffness ratio for the normal range of parameters has been estimated. PARAMETRIC STUDY To study the effect of various parameters on the effective stiffness ratio, the values of governing parameters have been considered in the normal range for buildings. It is to be noted that the range of parameters in bridges and other structures may be quite different. This will affect the magnitude of influence of individual parameters; however, the relative influence and pattern of variation will remain the same. In ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010

Fig. 3Variation of dimensionless moment capacity and dimensionless yield curvature with axial load ratio for different reinforcement ratios. Table 1Contribution of flex, slip, and shear in total displacement for varying reinforcement ratio
P/Ag fc flex 0 slip shear flex 0.1 slip shear flex 0.2 slip shear flex 0.3 slip shear flex 0.4 slip shear flex 0.5 slip shear flex 0.6 slip shear flex 0.7 slip shear flex 0.8 slip shear flex 0.9 slip shear flex 1 slip shear Contribution in total displacement, % = 0.01 = 0.02 = 0.03 = 0.04 69.9 29.2 0.9 69.6 29.1 1.3 69.4 29.0 1.6 73.1 24.9 2.0 80.8 16.4 2.8 87.2 9.3 3.5 93.0 2.9 4.1 95.9 0.0 4.1 96.4 0.0 3.6 97.0 0.0 3.0 97.6 0.0 2.4 69.6 29.0 1.4 69.4 29.0 1.7 69.2 28.9 1.9 72.9 24.9 2.2 79.6 17.5 2.9 85.8 10.6 3.6 91.3 4.4 4.3 95.5 0.0 4.5 95.9 0.0 4.1 96.4 0.0 3.6 97.0 0.0 3.0 69.3 28.9 1.8 69.1 28.8 2.0 69.0 28.8 2.2 73.5 23.9 2.6 79.2 17.6 3.2 84.4 11.8 3.8 89.1 6.5 4.4 93.7 1.6 4.8 95.3 0.0 4.7 95.7 0.0 4.3 96.2 0.0 3.8 69.0 28.8 2.2 68.9 28.7 2.4 68.8 28.7 2.5 74.0 23.0 3.0 78.1 18.5 3.4 83.6 12.3 4.1 87.6 7.8 4.6 91.6 3.4 5.0 94.8 0.0 5.2 95.2 0.0 4.8 95.6 0.0 4.4

both MDN and Dy first increase and then decrease with increasing axial load ratio. As reported by Priestley,5 the variation in Dy is relatively small for lower values of the axial load ratio, and it can be treated as constant (2.1 10%) for an axial load ratio up to 0.4. For an axial load ratio between 0.4 to 0.7, however, it varies significantly. The influence of reinforcement ratio is much larger on moment capacity than on the yield curvature, resulting in a significantly increased stiffness for higher reinforcement ratio. At zero axial load, the dimensionless moment increases by more than 200%, whereas the increase in the dimensionless curvature is only approximately 27% for a reinforcement ratio increasing from 1 to 4%. The peak of MDN occurs at an axial load ratio of approximately 0.5, whereas the peak of Dy occurs at an axial load ratio of approximately 0.2. It can be inferred from the observed variations of MDN and Dy that the peak flexural rigidity (proportional to MDN/Dy) occurs in the range of axial load ratio from 0.6 to 0.8. The values of flexural stiffness ratio for an axial load ratio ranging from 0 to 0.4, as obtained in the current study, match the values given by Priestley.5 However, the significant contribution of bar slip in total displacement and hence its effect on the effective stiffness can be clearly observed from Fig. 2 and Table 1. It can also be seen that the effect of bar slip is not uniform for all axial load ratios, as the contribution of bar slip depends on the state of stress in reinforcing steel at the yield of section. It has been observed that the yielding of section is governed by the yielding of steel only for a low axial load ratio (up to 0.2). For a higher axial load ratio, the tensile stress in steel reduces, and for an axial load ratio above 0.7, the steel is under compression; therefore, beyond this point, there is no contribution of bar slip in effective stiffness and the difference between flexural stiffness and effective stiffness beyond this point is due to the effect of shear only. From Eq. (8) and (9), it can be seen that the contribution of shear in the total displacement is directly proportional to the moment capacity of the section. As for the present set of considered parameters, the maximum moment capacity of the section is achieved for an axial load ratio of approximately 0.5, the maximum shear displacement is also observed at an axial load ratio of approximately 0.5, and it decreases for higher axial load ratios. Its relative contribution in the total displacement, however, varies with reinforcement ratio and attains a peak in the range of axial load ratio between 0.6 and 0.8. Effect of yield strength of steel There is a large variation in yield strength of reinforcing steel available in different parts of the world as is evident from the PEER Structural Performance Database.9 In the present study, a representative range for the yield strength of reinforcing bars has been selected based on the tests enlisted in the PEER Structural Performance Database.9 In the PEER Structural Performance Database,9 the yield strength of reinforcing bars used for rectangular columns varies from 318 to 587 MPa (46.12 to 85.14 ksi). Therefore, three values of yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement, that is, 380, 480, and 580 MPa (55.1, 69.62, and 84.1 ksi) have been considered while the remaining parameters have been kept constant (B = D = 0.4 m [15.75 in.], fc = 40 MPa [5.8 ksi], = 0.02, db = 22 mm [0.866 in.], and L = 3 m [9.84 ft]). Figure 4 demonstrates a very interesting pattern of variation of flexural and effective stiffness with the axial load ratio for ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010

610

different yield strengths of steel. The grade of steel influences the stiffness only up to an axial load ratio of 0.3, and for higher axial load ratios, its effect on flexural stiffness as well as on the effective stiffness is insignificant. Further, the flexural stiffness of the section with a higher grade of steel is lower than the section with a lower grade of steel. This is in agreement with the observation made by Elwood and Eberhard8 based on experimental results. This behavior can be understood by examining the variation of moment capacity and yield curvature with axial load ratio for different grades of steel, as shown in Fig. 5. It can be observed that, as expected, both moment capacity and yield curvature increase with an increase in the yield strength of steel. Due to the shifting of the neutral axis towards tension face, however, the relative increase in curvature is largeras compared to that in the moment capacityup to an axial load ratio of 0.2. The pattern changes beyond this point, and the relative increase in both moment capacity and yield curvature are equal for an axial load ratio of more than 0.3. Actually, the moment and curvature at first yield are independent of the grade of steel for an axial load ratio beyond 0.3. It is to be noted that Fig. 5 shows MN and y and not the moment and curvature at first yield. The contribution of slip in the total displacement is also independent of steel grade beyond this axial load ratio, as the steel is not yielding. Effect of diameter of longitudinal reinforcement Various diameters of longitudinal reinforcement bars are being used in RC construction worldwide. In the present study, three diameters of reinforcing bar, that is, 16 mm, 22 mm, and 32 mm (approximately No. 5, No. 7, and No. 10 of U.S. imperial size) have been considered. These bar sizes have been decided in such a way that the absolute number of bars are obtained for the reinforcement ratios considered in the study. These bars have been distributed evenly to all four faces of the section. The remaining parameters have been kept constant (B = D = 0.4 m [15.75 in.], fc = 40 MPa [5.8 ksi], fy = 480 MPa [69.6 ksi], = 0.02, and L = 3 m [9.84 ft]). It can be seen from Fig. 6 that there is a slight increase in flexural stiffness ratio with an increase in diameter; however, this increase is due to the change in steel placement in the cross section, which leads to an increase in strength. The displacement due to bar slip increases with an increase in diameter of reinforcing bar, as evident from Eq. (6). The effect of increased bar slip due to an increase in diameter offsets the effect of increase in strength, resulting in a marginal reduction in effective stiffness ratio for an axial load ratio less than 0.5. For an axial load ratio beyond 0.5, the contribution of bar slip reduces significantly and a slight increase in the effective stiffness ratio with bar diameter is observed. Effect of member length In the PEER Structural Performance Database,9 the height of tested rectangular column specimens varies from as low as 0.16 m (0.52 ft) to as high as 4.670 m (15.32 ft) (reported in terms of equivalent cantilever height ranging from 80 to 2335 mm [0.26 to 7.66 ft]). In normal RC frame buildings, however, the height of columns generally varies from 3 to 4 m (9.84 to 13.12 ft). Beams having spans longer than 4 m (13.12 ft) are possible; however, it will be shown later that the effect of member lengths larger than 4 m (13.12 ft) is negligible. Therefore, four different member lengths, that is, 1, 2, 3, and 4 m (3.28, 6.56, 9.84, and 13.12 ft) have been considered for parametric study. The remaining parameters ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010

Fig. 4Variation of flexural and effective stiffness ratios with axial load ratio for different yield strengths of longitudinal reinforcement. (Note: fy in MPa; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.)

Fig. 5Variation of moment capacity and yield curvature with axial load ratio for different yield strengths of longitudinal reinforcement. (Note: fy in MPa; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1kN-m = 0.751 ft-kips; 1/m = 0.0256/in.)

Fig. 6Variation of flexural and effective stiffness ratios with axial load ratio for different diameters of longitudinal reinforcing bars. (Note: db in mm; 1 mm = 0.039 in.) have been kept constant (B = D = 0.4 m [15.75 in.], fc = 40 MPa [5.8 ksi], fy = 480 MPa [69.6 ksi], = 0.02, and db = 22 mm [0.866 in.]). Equation (9) shows that the contribution of slip in the total deformation is inversely proportional to the member length, whereas the contribution of shear is inversely proportional to the square of the member length. 611

Fig. 7Variation of flexural and effective stiffness ratios with axial load ratio for different member lengths. (Note: L in m; 1 m = 3.281 ft.)

Fig. 10Variation of flexural and effective stiffness with axial load ratio for different compressive strengths of concrete. (Note: fc in MPa; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 MN-m2 = 2.419 103 kips-ft2.) same member. For the normal length of columns (3 to 4 m [9.84 to 13.12 ft]), however, the contribution of shear the deformation is very small (less than 5%) and the maximum bar slip deformation is approximately 25% of the total deformation. Figure 7 shows the effect of member length on effective stiffness ratio. As the member length increases, the relative influence on effective stiffness diminishes rapidly, and it can be inferred that the effective stiffness is practically insensitive to member lengths beyond 4 m (13.12 ft). Effect of member depth To study the effect of depth of the member on effective stiffness, three depths (D = 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 m [15.75, 23.62, and 31.5 in.]) have been considered. The remaining parameters have been kept constant (B = 0.4 m [15.75 in.], fc = 40 MPa [5.8 ksi], fy = 480 MPa [69.6 ksi], = 0.02, db = 22 mm [0.866 in.], and L = 3 m [9.84 ft]). To maintain the same reinforcement ratio, only the number of bars has been changed, keeping the diameter constant. It can be observed from Fig. 8 that the flexural stiffness is almost insensitive to member depth at all axial load ratios. The effective stiffness is also insensitive to member depth at a low axial load ratio. At higher axial load ratios, however, the effect of member depth on the effective stiffness ratio is clearly visible, and this can be attributed to the increased contribution of shear deformations as evident from Eq. (9). Effect of concrete compressive strength Considering the range of concrete compressive strength used in tests listed in the PEER Structural Performance Database,9 three values of fc , that is, 20, 40, and 80 MPa (2.9, 5.8, and 11.6 ksi) have been considered for parametric study, while keeping the remaining parameters constant (B = D = 0.4 m [15.75 in.], fy = 480 MPa [69.6 ksi], = 0.02, db = 22 mm [0.866 in.], and L = 3 m [9.84 ft]). The concrete compressive strength has a complex effect on effective stiffness, as shown in Fig. 9. In the range of the axial load ratio between 0.4 and 0.7, the effective stiffness ratio increases significantly with fc . This fact was also observed by Elwood and Eberhard8 and Khuntia and Ghosh.3 Khuntia and Ghosh3 have proposed different relationships for the stiffness of normal- and high-strength concrete beams. In the case of columns, the effect was conservatively ignored. At low and high axial loads, however, the effect of fc is much ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010

Fig. 8Variation of flexural and effective stiffness ratios with axial load ratio for different depths of member (Note: CS denotes cross-section size in m; 1 m = 39.37 in.)

Fig. 9Variation of flexural and effective stiffness ratios with axial load ratio for different compressive strengths of concrete. (Note: fc in MPa; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.) Members with smaller lengths have a much higher contribution of bar slip as well as shear deformation. At a low axial load ratio, the contribution of bar slip deformation in a 1 m (3.28 ft) long member has been observed to be as high as 50% of the total deformation. The contribution of shear deformation increases with axial load ratio, and it reaches to more than 25% of total deformation at an axial load ratio of 0.6 in the 612

Table 2Variation in effective stiffness due to variation of different governing parameters*

Maximum variation in effective stiffness, % Diameter of longitudinal P/Ag fc Reinforcement ratio Yield strength of steel reinforcement Member length 0 83.8 6.6 5.7 58.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
*

Normal member length 8.2 8.3 8.4 7.5 5.8 4.3 3.0 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.3

Cross section 1.2 1.2 1.5 7.0 8.0 10.0 11.4 12.0 10.6 8.3 6.2

Compressive strength of concrete 22.0 14.1 28.9 36.8 45.6 49.3 48.4 35.3 17.9 5.0 15.3

56.3 44.0 40.8 22.1 16.9 12.2 20.6 35.5 46.3 60.0

22.2 23.2 2.8 2.9 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.1

8.3 10.1 3.8 3.1 2.1 4.5 6.7 6.9 8.0 9.7

60.3 61.1 57.5 50.6 44.3 38.3 32.4 30.1 26.9 23.0

Reinforcement ratio is 0.01 to 0.04; yield strength of steel is 380 to 580 MPa (55.1 to 84.1 ksi); diameter of longitudinal reinforcement is 16 to 32 mm (0.63 to 1.26 in.); member length is 1 to 4 m (3.28 to 13.12 ft); normal member length is 3 to 4 m (9.84 to 13.12 ft); member depth is 0.4 to 0.8 m (1.31 to 2.62 ft); and compressive strength of concrete is 20 to 80 MPa (2.9 to 11.6 ksi).

Table 3Combinations of parameters selected for upper-bound and lower-bound estimates of effective stiffness of normal- and high-strength concrete members
Compressive strength of concrete, fc , MPa (ksi) Reinforcement Yield strength of Diameter of longitudinal Member length, Cross-sectional Normal-strength concrete Limits ratio steel, MPa (ksi) reinforcement, mm (in.) m (ft) dimension, m (ft) B = 0.4 (1.31) Lower bound 0.01 580 (84.1) 32 (1.26) 3 (9.84) 20 (2.9) D = 0.8 (2.62) B = 0.4 (1.31) Upper bound 0.04 380 (55.1) 16 (0.63) 4 (13.12) 40 (5.8) D = 0.4 (1.31) High-strength concrete 60 (8.7) 80 (11.6)

smaller and opposite (that is, the effective stiffness ratio EIeff/EcIg decreases with an increase in fc ). Figure 10 shows the variation of flexural and effective stiffness with the axial load ratio for different values of fc . At a low axial load, the yielding of the section is governed by the yielding of steel; therefore, the flexural and effective stiffness is relatively insensitive to the variation in concrete strength. On the other hand, the modulus of elasticity of concrete is proportional to fc and the stiffness of the gross cross section EcIg is constant for all values of axial load ratio; therefore, the trend of variation of effective stiffness is reversed at low axial load ratios, as shown in Fig. 9. Also, at very high axial load ratios, a similar trend has been observed; however, this range of axial load is not of practical significance. RELATIVE INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS Table 2 summarizes the relative influence of different governing parametersidentified previouslyon the effective stiffness ratio. It can be seen that three parameters, namely, reinforcement ratio, compressive strength of concrete, and length of member have a significant influence on effective stiffness ratio. However, the member length below 3 m (9.84 ft) is not common and its influence beyond 4 m (13.12 ft) is negligible. For beam members, and columns with a low axial load ratio, the reinforcement ratio is the most influential governing parameter. At higher axial load ratios, however, the compressive strength of concrete is the most influential parameter governing the effective stiffness ratio. The influence of the yield strength of steel, the diameter of longitudinal steel, and the depth of the member is relatively small. The influence of the yield strength of steel is limited ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010 Fig. 11Comparison of different models of effective stiffness with analytical and experimental estimates for normalstrength concrete. to low axial load ratios, whereas the member depth influences the effective stiffness at higher axial load ratios. UPPER-BOUND AND LOWER-BOUND ESTIMATES OF EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS Based on the observations in the parametric study, lowerbound and upper-bound estimates of effective stiffness ratios for the normal range of parameters have been computed. As shown previously in the parametric study, the compressive strength of concrete has a very significant effect on effective stiffness ratio. Therefore, separate estimates have been obtained for normal-strength and high-strength concrete. The normal-strength concrete has been considered from 20 to 40 MPa (2.9 to 5.8 ksi) and the high-strength concrete has 613

Fig. 12Comparison of different models of effective stiffness with analytical and experimental estimates for highstrength concrete. been considered from 60 to 80 MPa (8.7 to 11.6 ksi). The combinations of governing parameters resulting in lower-bound and upper-bound estimates are shown in Table 3. Figures 11 and 12 show the lower-bound and upper-bound effective stiffness ratios for normal-strength concrete and high-strength concrete, respectively. The effective stiffness based on experimental results compiled in the PEER Structural Performance Database9 for test specimens with parameters within or close to the range shown in Table 3 have also been obtained using the procedure described by Elwood and Eberhard10 and plotted in the same figures. In the present study, results of only those tests have been included, in which no P- correction is required. The details of the tests considered in the study are given in the Appendix. For normal-strength concrete, 38 test results with member properties ranging between or close to the previously identified limits are available. Similarly, for high-strength concrete, 25 test results with member properties in the vicinity of the identified range are available. It can be observed from the figures that the experimental results are within the analytically estimated lower and upper bounds. COMPARISON OF EXISTING MODELS ACI 318-081 suggests to use 0.35EcIg as effective stiffness for flexural members (P < 0.1Agfc ) and 0.7EcIg for compression members (P 0.1Agfc ). Alternatively, it recommends effective stiffness equations proposed by Khuntia and Ghosh3 with the minimum and maximum limits of 0.35EcIg and 0.875EcIg, respectively, for compression members, and 0.25EcIg and 0.5EcIg, respectively, for flexural members. FEMA 35615 and ASCE 41-0616 suggest 0.5EcIg as the effective stiffness for P 0.3Ag fc and 0.7EcIg for P 0.5Ag fc with linear interpolation for intermediate values of axial load. Elwood et al.17 have proposed an effective stiffness equal to 0.3EcIg for P 0.1Agfc and 0.7EcIg for P 0.5Agfc with linear interpolation for intermediate values of the axial load. Mehanny et al.4 and Elwood and Eberhard8 have also proposed simplified equations to calculate effective stiffness. All of these relationships are also plotted in Fig. 11 and 12, along with the analytical and experimental results. In the case of equations proposed by Mehanny et al.,4 Khuntia and Ghosh3 (equations for columns with limits as per ACI 318-08), and Elwood and Eberhard8 (simplified equation for design), lower-bound and upper-bound estimates have been plotted considering the combination of parameters shown in Table 3. 614

It is observed from the figures that for normal-strength concrete, the effective stiffness prescribed by ACI 318-08 is quite reasonable for flexural members and compression members having an axial load ratio beyond 0.5; however, it overestimates the effective stiffness for an axial load ratio between 0.1 and 0.4. For high-strength concrete, ACI 318-08 guidelines are quite reasonable for flexural members but overestimate the effective stiffness for an axial load ratio between 0.1 and 0.3 and underestimate for an axial load ratio beyond 0.5. FEMA 35615 and ASCE 41-0616 estimate the effective stiffness values on a slightly higher side for low axial loads, whereas for an axial load ratio beyond 0.3, the estimates are quite reasonable for normal-strength concrete members. In the case of high-strength concrete members, FEMA 35615 and ASCE 41-0616 underestimate the effective stiffness for an axial load ratio beyond 0.5. The effective stiffness prescribed by Elwood et al.17 is the most reasonable among all available guidelines for normal-strength concrete. In the case of high-strength concrete, it is reasonable up to the axial load ratio of 0.4 and underestimates the effective stiffness for an axial load ratio beyond 0.5. The equation proposed by Mehanny et al.4 largely overestimates the effective stiffness for normal-strength concrete members; however, for high-strength concrete, it is close to the analytically obtained upper-bound estimates. The upper-bound estimates of effective stiffness proposed by Khuntia and Ghosh3 for columns (with limits as per ACI 318-08) are well within the analytically obtained range and follow a similar variation with the axial load ratio; however, the lower-bound estimates from these equations at higher axial load ratios are below the analytically obtained lower-bound estimates. The equations proposed by Khuntia and Ghosh3 for beam members (not shown in the figures) predict effective stiffness in good agreement with the analytical results obtained in this study, for normal- as well as high-strength concrete. The simplified design equation proposed by Elwood and Eberhard8 predicts reasonable estimates for high-strength concrete members. For normal-strength concrete, however, it overestimates the effective stiffness for an axial load ratio beyond 0.3. PROPOSED MODELS It can be seen from the aforementioned parametric study that the effective stiffness of RC members is a complex function of many parameters. It has also been shown that the experimental results are within the range predicted by the three-component model proposed by Elwood and Eberhard,8,10 and this model can be used to estimate the accurate values of effective stiffness. However, it requires a number of parameters and an elaborate analysis. The parameters such as reinforcement ratio and diameter of bars are not known in the beginning of design and it is not economically feasible18 for a design engineer to perform a cumbersome analysis for a large number of members in a real building. Therefore, simplified relationships, without excessive computational effort and with reasonable accuracy, are desirable for design. Two different models for normal-strength concrete and high-strength concrete members are proposed based on the parametric study to represent the average range of parameters in realistic buildings. The simplified model for effective stiffness of normalstrength concrete flexural and compression members is proposed as ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010

0.35 EI eff P ---------- = 0.175 + 0.875 ----------A g f c Ec Ig 0.7

P for ----------- 0.2 A g f c P for 0.2 ----------- 0.6 (10) A g f c P for 0.6 ----------A g f c

two different models for normal-strength and high-strength concrete members are proposed based on the parametric study to represent the average range of parameters in realistic buildings. These models are expected to give reasonable accuracy with minimum computational effort. For a more accurate analysis and in the case of nonconventional member parameters, effective stiffness may be estimated analytically using the three-component approach. REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp. 2. Mirza, S. A., Flexural Stiffness of Rectangular RC Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 4, July-Aug. 1990, pp. 425-435. 3. Khuntia, M., and Ghosh, S. K., Flexural Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Columns and Beams: Analytical Approach, ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 3, May-June 2004, pp. 351-363. 4. Mehanny, S. S. F.; Kuramoto, H.; and Deierlein, G. G., Stiffness Modeling of RC Beam-Column for Frame Analysis, ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2001, pp. 215-225. 5. Priestley, M. J. N., Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited, The Ninth Mallet Milne Lecture, Rose School, Collegio Alessandro Volta, Via Ferrata, Pavia, Italy, May 2003, 121 pp. 6. Priestley, M. J. N.; Calvi, G. M.; and Kowalsky, M. J., DisplacementBased Seismic Design of Structures, first edition, IUSS Press, Italy, 2007, 720 pp. 7. NZS 3101: Part 2, Concrete Structures Standard, Part 2Commentary on the Design of Concrete Structures, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, 2006, 646 pp. 8. Elwood, K. J., and Eberhard, M. O., Effective Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 4, July-Aug. 2009, pp. 476-484. 9. Berry, M. P.; Parrish, M.; and Eberhard, M. O., Peer Structural Performance Database Users Manual, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2004, 38 pp. 10. Elwood, K. J., and Eberhard, M. O., Effective Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Columns, PEER Research Digest, No. 2006-1, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2006, 5 pp. 11. Elwood, K. J., and Moehle, J. P., Shake Table Tests and Analytical Studies on the Gravity Load Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Frames, PEER Report 2003/01, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2003, 346 pp. 12. Lehman, D. E., and Moehle, J. P., Seismic Performance of Well Confined Bridge Columns, PEER Report 1998/01, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1998, 316 pp. 13. Sezen, H., and Setzler, J., Reinforcement Slip in Reinforced Concrete Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 3, May-June 2008, pp. 280-289. 14. Sezen, H., Seismic Behavior and Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Building Columns, PhD thesis, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2002, 324 pp. 15. FEMA 356, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA Publication No. 356, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2000, 518 pp. 16. ASCE 41-06, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/ SEI 41, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2007, 411 pp. 17. Elwood, K. J.; Matamoros, A.; Wallace, J. W.; Lehman, D. E.; Heintz, J. A.; Mitchell, A.; Moore, M. T.; Valley, M. T.; Lowes, L. N.; Comartin, C.; and Moehle, J. P., Update of ASCE/SEI 41 Concrete Provisions, Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, V. 23, No. 3, Aug. 2007, pp. 493-523. 18. MacGregor, G. J., Design of Slender Concrete ColumnsRevisited, ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 3, May-June 1993, pp. 302-309.

Similarly, for high-strength concrete flexural and compression members P for ----------- 0.1 A g f c P for 0.1 ----------- 0.6 A g f c P for 0.6 ----------A g f c (11)

0.35 EI eff P ---------- = 0.24 + 1.1 ---------- A g f c Ec Ig 0.9

Proposed relationships are based on average member parameters in normal RC frame buildings. For a more accurate analysis and in the case of nonconventional member parameters, effective stiffness may be estimated analytically using the three-component model proposed by Elwood and Eberhard.10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Parameters governing the effective stiffness of RC members have been identified using a theoretical analysis. A parametric study has been performed to determine the relative influence of different parameters on effective stiffness. It has been observed that reinforcement ratio and compressive strength of concrete have the most pronounced effect on the effective stiffness of RC members. Effective stiffness is also strongly influenced by member length in the case of short members due to a relatively large contribution of shear and bar slip in the total deformation. However, these effects diminish with increasing length and effective stiffness is relatively insensitive to member lengths beyond 4 m (13.12 ft). The influence of the yield strength of steel, diameter of longitudinal reinforcement, and depth of the member is relatively small. The influence of the yield strength of steel is limited to low axial load ratios, whereas the member depth influences the effective stiffness at higher axial load ratios. Based on the parametric study, lower-bound and upper-bound estimates of effective stiffness for a normal range of member parameters in RC frame buildings have been obtained. Experimental results from the PEER Structural Performance Database9 for the test specimen with the same range of parameters have also been obtained and are found to be within the analytical lower- and upper-bound estimates. Various models available in literature and different codes have been compared with the analytical and experimental results and it has been observed that none of the available models represent the average member conditions in normal RC frame buildings at all of the axial load ratios. Therefore,

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010

615