4 — Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforeed Concrete Building Columns Abraham C. Lynn, M.EERI, Jack P. Moehle, MERI, Stephen A. Mahin, M.EERI, and William T. Holmes, M-EERT Past earthquakes have emphasized the vulnerability of reinforced concrete columns having details typical of those built before the mid-1970"s. These columns are susceptible to axial-flexural, shear, and bond failures, which subsequently may lead to severe damage or collapse of the building. Research was undertaken to investigate the lateral and vertical load-resisting behavior of reinforced concrete columns typical of pre-1970’s construction. Eight full-scale specimens were constructed and were loaded with constant axial load and increasing cyclic lateral displacement increments until failure. Test data are presented and compared with behavior estimated by using various evaluation methods. INTRODUCTION Reinforced concrete (RC) columns in buildings constructed before the mid-1970’s have many characteristics that make them vulnerable to the effects of severe earthquake loading. Longitudinal reinforcement commonly is lap-spliced just above the floor level. The provided lap length and confinement by transverse reinforcement often are inadequate for ensuring that the reinforcement can develop and sustain the yield stress under earthquake loading. Column transverse reinforcement typically is poorly configured and widely spaced, resulting in inadequate confinement of the longitudinal reinforcement and column core for demands related to axial load, flexure, and shear. Furthermore, columns may be weaker than adjacent framing components, so that inelastic demands may concentrate in the columns under severe earthquake loading. The consequences of these inadequacies, ranging from severe damage to complete building collapse, are evident in the earthquake reconnaissance literature [Mochle: 1991]. Recognizing the deficiencies of older RC columns, building codes from around the mid- 1970's began to require column proportions and details that would increase the toughness of newly-constructed buildings. More recently, efforts have focused on techniques to improve the toughness of older existing columns, including techniques such as jacketing with reinforced concrete, steel, or composite jackets. Methodologies to evaluate the strength and toughness of older existing RC columns without rehabilitation are equally important. While research has been carried out on some representative columns, broad gaps in information ns (@Farthquake Spectra, Volume 12, No. 4, November 1996716 A.C. Lynn, J.P. Moehle, S.A. Mahin, and W.T. Holmes exist on how to evaluate some of the most commonly encountered conditions. The purpose of the research reported in this paper is to provide information on columns with typical vulnerable proportions and details. A total of eight full-scale columns were constructed and tested in the laboratory. The columns had widely-spaced perimeter hoops with 90-degree bends with or without intermediate hoops, and longitudinal reinforcement with or without short lap-splices. The columns were loaded with constant axial load at low and intermediate levels, and were subjected to lateral deformation cycles until the column was incapable of supporting lateral and vertical load. Failure modes included localized crushing of concrete, reinforcement buckling, lap-splice and flexural bond splitting, shear, and axial load collapse. Details of the tests and test results are reported. Conclusions are drawn that may be useful for the evaluation of columns in existing buildings. COLUMN DESCRIPTION The prototype column for the experimental program was drawn from surveys of RC buildings built before the 1970's, from review of applicable building codes, and from the counsel of experienced engineers. The survey, which included 15 West Coast buildings built from 1919 to 1971, revealed a broad range of proportions and details, with some aspects being more typical than others. On the basis of the survey, a single column geometry was selected that contained a variety of reinforcement details and two different levels of axial load. Figure 1 illustrates a typical column specimen configuration (with ties at 18 inches - see below). The columns were constructed at full scale. Clear height was 9 feet 8 inches and cross-sectional dimension was 18 inches square. Because the focus of this project was to study only the behavior of the column, the end beams were made relatively stiff and strong. Longitudinal steel was placed uniformly about the perimeter of the cross-section (Figure 2). Longitudinal bars were either #8 (1-inch nominal diameter) or #10 (1-1/4-inch nominal diameter), with clear cover of 2 inches. Three configurations of transverse reinforcing were used: (a) #3 (3/8-inch nominal diameter) hoops with 90-degree bends at a spacing of 18 inches, (b) #3 “diamond” ties with 90-degree bends at a spacing of 12 inches throughout the height, and (c) if a lap-splice was present #3 “diamond” ties with 90-degree bends at a spacing of 12 inches except tie spacing was reduced to 4 inches along the lap-splice. Three specimens had 20d, longitudinal bar lap-splices just above the top surface of the foundation block. Table 1 summarizes the test specimen details. Each specimen is designated by an alphanumeric name starting with a numeral, followed by 3 letters and a numeral (Figure 3). ‘The first numeral denotes the approximate percentage of longitudinal reinforcement with respect to the gross cross-sectional area (either “2” for 2% or “3” for 3%). The first letter denotes whether the longitudinal reinforcement is continuous (C) or spliced (S) just above the foundation block. The second letter denotes whether the axial load is light (L - correspondingSeismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Columns 717 to about 0.124), or moderate (M - corresponding to about 0.354,f".). (Note that specified concrete compressive strength of fc = 3000 psi was used to define the axial loads.) The third letter denotes whether regular hoop ties (H) or diamond ties (D) were used. The last numeral denotes the center-to-center spacing of the transverse reinforcement in inches. #3 ties @ 18" O.C. #8 or #10 longitudinal bars 9-8" \ 18" typical tie spacing | 20db Figure 1: Typical column test specimen note 90 degree hooks on column rebar note 90 degree hooks on column rebar #3 ties @ 18" O.C. #3 ties @ 12" O.C. <> position of spliced bars \e Q location of spliced bars direction of loading direction of loading column longitudinal steel column longitudinal steel Figure 2: Typical column cross-section with regular hoop tie (left) or diamond tie (right)718 A.C. Lynn, J.P. Moehle, S.A. Mahin, and W.T. Holmes Table 1: Test specimen materials and details Test | Batch | Specimen | f. | M, | de s 1 Series | Number | Designation | (ksi) | (fog) | (in.) | Cin.) (in.) (Oo) (2) (3) (4) | 6) | © @ (8) T 1 3cLuis | 3.71 [ 0.09 [1.25 [18 | nosplice Test Series] 2 2cLHIs_[ 480 | 0.07 | 1.00 | 18 | nosplice No.1 1 3sLHis_| 3.71 | 0.09 | 1.25 | 18 25 + 2 2SLH18 | 4.80 | 0.07 | 1.00 | 18 20 i 3 2CMHI8 | 3.70 | 0.28 | 1.00 [ 18 | nosplice Test Series| 4 3CMHI8 | 4.00 | 0.26 [1.25 [ 18 | no splice No.2 4 3cMD12 | 4.00 | 0.26 | 125 | 12 | nosplice tL 3 3sMD12_| 3.70 | 0.28 | 1.25 [12 25 “Hoop spacing was as noted except spacing was reduced to 4 inches along the lap-splice. 3CLH18 a long Spliced or Light or Hoop or Hoop reinforcing Continuous Moderate Diamond Spacing, long. reinf. axial load ties inches Figure 3: Specimen designation key The specimens were constructed in a horizontal position in two series of four specimens each. Within each series, two batches of concrete were used. Concrete design strength was 3000 psi, using a normal-weight aggregate having nominal maximum aggregate size of | inch. Actual concrete strengths, measured on 6-in. by 12-in. standard cylinders tested according to ASTM C 469, ranged from 3700 psi to 4800 psi. 109, ———- == 9,8 and 10 bers too tress, 8) — 10.8 bars | 20 acs ta 0 eee 0.1ceieenO) ‘Seal sain micros) Figure 4: Reinforcement stress-strain relationsSeismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Columns 719 All reinforcement within the column was deformed Grade 40 (longitudinal bars were specially-rolled), and reinforcement in the boundary beams was Grade 60. Tensile tests of sample bars gave an average yield stress of 48 ksi (#8 and #10 bars) and 58 ksi (#3 bars). Stress-strain relations, obtained from tests of samples of the same reinforcement used in the columns, are plotted in Figure 4. TEST SETUP AND PROCEDURE Figure 5 illustrates the loading assembly used to simulate the gravity and lateral loading conditions. The test specimen was post-tensioned to the laboratory strong floor, and axial load was applied with two 400-kip hydraulic actuators (“B” and “C” in Figure 5) attached between the top loading beam and the laboratory strong floor. Lateral load was supplied by a 500-kip actuator (“A” in Figure 5) attached horizontally between the loading frame and the reaction frame, with its loading axis passing through the column midheight. The load in each actuator was measured using in-line load cells. Actuators “B” and “C” were controlled with a force-control loop to maintain constant axial load in the column, and with a displacement- control loop to maintain zero rotation of the top beam, Actuator “A” was operated under displacement control. specimen location Figure 5: Loading assembly and specimen location For Test Series No. I (Table 1), the axial load was maintained at 0.12A,f"- (using the specified concrete compressive strength of 3000 psi). For Test Series No. 2, the axial load was maintained at 0.35A,f".. The uniaxial lateral loading was applied slowly in three-cycle increments at each displacement level. The displacement history was initially applied in fractions of the calculated yield displacement, 4,. Once the calculated yield displacement was reached, displacement control was applied in increments of the calculated yield displacement (that is, 4,, 24,, 34,, etc.) until failure occurred.720 A.C. Lynn, J.P. Moehle, S.A. Mahin, and W.T. Holmes Global deformations were measured from fixed reference points within the laboratory to various points on the specimen and loading assembly. Local deformations were measured using triangulated instrumentation measuring between instrumentation frames fastened to the column concrete (Figure 6). Strain gages were affixed to the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. Data were acquired centrally and stored using a personal computer and data acquisition system. face of top beam 18° |_— column 24" displacement measuring devices 7 atcach level on | instrumentation frame 1 — face of botiom beam N \ | Figure 6: Instrument locations for measurement of local deformations TEST RESULTS Test results for Specimen 3SLH18 are presented in detail, illustrating several aspects of the complex behavior of the test specimens. Test results from the other tests are presented in abbreviated form. For Specimen 3SLH18, initial cracking was horizontal, and began at the column ends at locations where flexural tension stresses would be expected to be largest. Following yielding, at a displacement of about 0.6 inches, vertical cracks began to appear on the faces perpendicular to the lateral loading direction along the lap-splices. At a displacement of about 1.20 inches an inclined crack began to form immediately above the lap-splices. As lateral displacements increased, a distributed set of inclined cracks developed (Figure 7). These apparently led to relatively rapid degradation of lateral load resistance, with a completeSeismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Columns 724 Joss of axial load-carrying capacity at a displacement of 3.6 inches (Figure 8). Extensive cracking and degradation of the concrete in the region of the splice were evident. C4 a o 4 see ‘splacement inches Figure 8: Load-displacement history722 A.C. Lynn, J.P. Moehle, §. A. Mahin, and W.T: Holmes Moment profiles at various points during the test were constructed from the measured external actions, including the effect of axial force acting through the lateral displacement (Figure 9). Ata displacement of 1.2 inches the nominal point of contraflexure (actually the point of zero moment) began to shift towards the base of the column, reflecting the degradation of flexural resistance at the base where the lap-splice was located. Longitudinal bar strains, plotted for the same points during the test (Figure 10), indicate that the bars at the base initially yielded at a displacement of about 0.6 inches, after which strains decreased until failure. 80. 60. height (inches) 0 ment (Ki ‘nome! 0 5000 specie" height (inches) ‘ ee 3 8 Figure 10: Longitudinal bar strain profiles The distribution of deformations over the height was resolved into shear and flexural components using the instrumentation shown in Figure 6. Figure 11 plots the distributions atSeismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Columns 723 discrete times for Specimen 3SLH18. Shear deformations were an increasingly significant portion of the total. Despite the relatively large shear distortions, the measured transverse bar strains were below the yield value throughout the test (Figure 12). ome flexural deformation wm shear and other deformation === displacement at top height (inches) ° oa 0 gaches) 15, men 4010" pation speci 05 "nt inches Secing§ Si 7°" Ota lap, oe Figure 11: Deformation profiles See height (inches) 8 8 SPecimen & ° Wsplacen’. a) sao Brain Figure 12: Transverse bar strain profiles Load-displacement relations for all eight specimens are presented in Figures 13 and 14, where loss of gravity load capacity is indicated by a heavy circle. Visible crack patterns indicated that shear was the dominant failure mode for all eight specimens. Specimens 2CLHIS and 2SLHI8 exhibited considerable flexural response before failure, reaching displacement ductility levels of 4.2 and 3.5, respectively. Those specimens with lap splices724 A.C. Lynn, J.P. Moehle, S.A. Mahin, and W-T. Holmes (3SLH18, 2SLH18 and 3SMD12) reached yield strain in the longitudinal bars at the lap splice. Specimens 3SLH18 and 2SLHI8 exhibited considerable degradation of the splice region, and shear failures of all three lap-spliced specimens occurred at or around the lap- splice. Specimens 3CMHI8 and 3CMDI12 failed in shear immediately or shortly after the longitudinal bars reached the yield strain. Specimen 2CMHI8 suddenly lost both lateral and axial load-carrying capacity immediately after yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement. Specimens 3CMH18, 3CMD12 and 3SMD12 exhibited vertical cracking at locations coincident with the locations of the longitudinal reinforcing bars Specimen 3CLH18 Specimen 2CLH18 50, 50] a g = 0 =o 3 8 -50 -50 5 0 5 5 O 5 displacement, (in.) displacement, (in.) Specimen 3SLH18 Specimen 2SLH18 50) eg z ° = 3 3 2 -50 5 0 5 5 oO 5 displacement, (in.) displacement, (in.) Figure 13: Load-displacement relations, Series 1 Columns (2) through (6) of Table 2 summarize key test results. In the table, the symbols represent: © (2) N,= axial load at the time of failure (3) V, = maximum shear force (4) M, = maximum moment resistance at either end of the specimen (5) A, = ultimate displacement (6) H,= displacement ductility at failureSeismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Columns 725 Ultimate displacement, 4,, is defined as the displacement at which the lateral force resistance (for the first cycle at a given displacement amplitude) drops below 20 percent of the peak measured strength. Displacement ductility, 11, is defined as the ratio of the ultimate displacement to the yield displacement. The yield displacement is the point at which yield strain, ey = 0.0016, is first measured in the longitudinal reinforcement. Columns (7) through (11) of Table 2 summarize values calculated in the following paragraphs. In the table the symbols represent: © (7) Macr= the moment capacity calculated using ACI 318-95 procedures © (8) is the ratio of M, to Macy © (9) Vacr= the nominal shear strength according to ACI 318-95 © (10) V, = the shear or corresponding to flexural yielding with flexural strength Macr or 2Macill, where I = the column clear height (11) is the ratio of V, to Vacr Specimen 2CMH18 Specimen 3CMH18 50) 50) g a =o 20 : 3s 3 3 50 -50) -2 0 2 “2 0 2 displacement, (in.) displacement, (in.) Specimen 30MD12 Specimen 3SMD12 50 50 g g =o =o 3 z 2 - -50| -50) -2 0 2 2 0 2 displacement, (in.) displacement, (in.) Figure 14: Load-displacement relations, Series 2726 A.C. Lynn, J.P, Moehle, S.A. Mahin, and W.T. Holmes Table 2: Summary of test results and analyses Specimen | Ne | Vu | Mu | dy | Ma | Macr | My | Vacr | Vp | V, Designation| (kips) | (kips) | (k-in.) | (in. kin.) qc, | (ips) | (ips) | ay 91Oo]O}] oO] @o]® ] ® |] © | ao jan 3cLHis [| 113 | 61 | 3966 | 12 | 16 | 4120] 096 | 49 | 71 [144 2ctHis [113 | 54 | 3280] 30 | 5.1 | 3020] 109 | 54 | 52 [096 3SLHis | 113 | 60 | 3673] 12 | 19 | 4120] 089 | 49 | 71 | 1.44 2astuis [| 3 | 52 | 4021 | 24 | 47 | 3020] 133 | 54 | 52 [096 2cmais | 340 [ 71 | 4498 | 1.2 | 18 | 3640 [1.24 | 61 | 63 [1.03 3cmuis | 340 | 76 [4296] 12 | 13 [4720] 091 | 63 | 81 [128 3cMDi2 | 340 | 80 | 4984 | 1.8 | 23 | 4720 | 1.06 | 79 | 81 | 1.02 3sMD12 | 340 [ 85 | 5226[ 18 | 20 | 4600[ 1.14 | 77 | 79 [1.03 Photos of specimens 3CLH18, 2CLH18, 2SLH18, 2CMH18, 3CMH18, 3CMD12 and 3SMD12 after the loss axial load capacity are shown in Figures 15 through 21 Figure 15: Specimen 3CLHI8 after loss of axial load capacity| Ayjovdvo peo] eIxe Jo sso] Joye STH IST uauloadg J] aINBty ——_—Ayroedeo peo} [PIXE Jo sso] JOYE BL HTOZ wautFadg :9] amndly 2 E 3 3 & % E = 3 2 & 6 3 5 * 2 2 £ | s 3 £ & 5 &A.C. Lynn, J.P. Moehle, $. A. Mahin, and W-T. Holmes 728 Ayoedes pro] eixe Jo sso] J8e BT HINDE waun1Dadg ainsi Auoedva pro peixe Jo s: 1 20e SIHINDZ Uowoads =g] ami729 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Columns Awordes pro} (e1xe Jo sso] aye TIGINSE Ueuttoeds, 11¢ aunsiy Aroedes peo| [exe Jo sso Jaye ZICINOE uauutsedg :9z aindty730 A.C. Lynn, J.P. Moehle, S. A. Mahin, and W.T. Holmes EVALUATION OF TEST RESULTS, Several mechanisms interact to influence the lateral load behavior of RC columns [Mahin 1988]. Although it is known that these mechanisms are interactive, such as degradation of shear transfer by aggregate interlock within plastic hinge regions, it is convenient for evaluation purposes to consider them separately. To the extent practicable, this latter approach is taken in the evaluation presented in the following paragraphs. The main actions of concer for most columns are those associated with bond, flexure, shear, and axial load. Figure 22 illustrates these actions schematically. Figures 22a and b illustrate familiar actions associated with shear and flexure. Flexural bond (Figure 22c) arises because of the variation of longitudinal reinforcement tension forces, which in turn is a consequence of the variation of flexural moment over height. Tension force is transferred from longitudinal bar to the adjacent bar at a lap-splice, resulting in bond stress at that location as well (Figure 22d). Loss of axial load capacity (Figure 22e), which may be influenced by degradation associated with concurrent flexure, shear, and other actions, is another action to consider in evaluating a column, Columns that may still be able to support axial load after loss of lateral strength and significant shortening of the height are not addressed. The following subsections evaluate the observed response of the test columns in terms of the critical actions described above. SP v, (b) e G e) i @ ) © @ © Figure 22: Failure modesSeismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Columns 731 Development of Reinforcement As noted previously, two types of bond action need to be considered. These are flexural bond and bond between lap-spliced bars. Flexural bond refers to the bond forces that develop between the longitudinal reinforcement and the surrounding concrete due to variation of flexural moment over the column height. Figure 22 displays the familiar actions on a column subjected to vertical and lateral loading. As the moment varies from a maximum at the ends to zero near midheight, the tension force in the longitudinal reinforcement in the flexural tension region ideally experiences a similar variation. The variation of tension force along the height causes bond stresses between the reinforcement and concrete, and may lead to splitting of the concrete. In extreme cases, bond failure will cause breakdown in flexural action of the column. Although not commonly checked for columns of moderate aspect ratio and longitudinal bar diameter, this action is particularly important for columns with relatively large-diameter longitudinal bars compared with the length, for small concrete cover, and for light transverse reinforcement. Lap-splices at the base of a column are another potential source of bond distress. Ata lap-splice, tension force from one reinforcing bar must be transferred to the adjacent bar over a length equal to the lap-splice length. This stress transfer may result in concrete splitting along the lap, eventually leading to lap-splice failure. This action is particularly important for columns with relatively short lap length compared with the bar diameter, for small concrete cover, and for light transverse reinforcement. ACI 318-95 presents procedures for determining the minimum required lengths for straight bar developments and for lap-splices in new construction. The required lap lengths in regions of high stress generally exceed the required development lengths, mainly to discourage use of laps in regions of high stress [ACI 408]. Tests demonstrate that strength for a given length of lap-splice is essentially the same as that for the same length of straight bar development [Orangun; 1977]. Therefore, for evaluation of existing splices it is appropriate to use equations for straight development length without code-specified modifications for lap-splices. As described in ACI 318-95, the development length for a vertically-oriented, uncoated bar in normal-weight aggregate concrete may be expressed as 3 f, 1 tes wy aK @ 4, where ly = development length in inches, f, = yield stress in psi of developed bar, f; = concrete compressive strength in psi, c = smaller of either the distance in inches from the center of the bar to the concrete surface or one-half the center-to-center spacing of the bars732 A.C. Lynn, J.P. Moehle, S.A. Mahin, and W.T. Holmes _ Ady being developed, K, ; dy = diameter in inches of bar being developed, A,, = total 1500sn cross-sectional area in inch? of all transverse reinforcement within the spacing s and crossing the potential plane of splitting, fy, = yield stress in psi of the transverse reinforcement, s = spacing of transverse reinforcement in inches, and n = number of bars being developed. Equation (1) contains an implicit factor of safety intended to ensure that the bar can develop not less than 1.25f,, where f, is the nominal yield stress of the developed bar. Equation (1) was used to evaluate adequacy of the bar developments in the test specimens. The value of f, was taken equal to the nominal value because of the implicit 1.25 factor mentioned in the preceding paragraph. All other material strengths were taken equal to measured values rather than nominal values. Table 3 compares provided lengths with lengths calculated on the basis of Equation (1). Two sets of data are presented, one for flexural bond and one for lap-splices. Table 3 Comparison of provided and calculated bond lengths Specimen | _ Flexural Bond Lengths Lap Splice Lengths Designation | Provided | Equation (I) | Provided | Equation (1) q Q) @) 4) () 3CLH18 58 23.7 = : 2CLH18 58 17.3 - - 3SLH18 58, 23.7 25 23.7 2SLHI8 58 173 20 17.3 2CMH18 58 19.7 = 7 3CMHI8 58, 22.9 : = 3CMDI2 58 22.9 7 E 3SMD12 58, 23.8 25 —e Columns (2) and (3) of Table 3 present data relevant for flexural bond. As suggested by Figure 22c, the provided length over which bond is available for flexural force transfer is half the column height, or $8 inches. This provided length significantly exceeds the required lengths ranging from 17 to 24 inches calculated according to Equation (1). Therefore, the longitudinal reinforcement is expected to be adequately bonded to develop the yield force. ‘As noted previously, all of the columns actually were able to develop the yield force. Signs of minor bond splitting that were evident for Specimens 3CMH18, 3CMD12, and 3SMD12 apparently did not suggest imminent loss of bond capacity. Columns (4) and (5) of Table 3 compare provided lap-splice lengths with lengths calculated according to Equation (1). Values are shown only for Specimens 3SLH18, 2SLHIB8, and 3SMD12, which had lap-splices. The provided lengths exceeded values calculated according to Equation (1), suggesting that the lap lengths should be sufficient to develop the yield stress. Strain gages indicated that this was the case. However, various forms of distress were observed following yielding. For Specimens 3SLHI8 and 2SLH18, having perimeter hoops with 18-inch spacing along the splice, the flexural strength at theSeismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Columns 733 spliced ends degraded following yield (Figure 9). Final failure of these two columns occurred at or around the lap-splice, with indications of bond splitting and shear distress (Figure 7) For Specimen 3SMD12, having five #3 diamond ties at 4-inch spacing along the splice, vertical cracking occurred along the lap-splice, but flexural strength did not degrade appreciably. Degradation of the splice strength in the columns with light transverse reinforcement is. consistent with findings from previous tests. Sustained post-yield strength requires both a minimum length of about 20 bar diameters and closely-spaced transverse reinforcement along the lap [Sivakumar; 1983]. The transverse reinforcement can be considered to produce a clamping force against the longitudinal reinforcement, thereby enabling force transfer through shear-friction, The total clamping force along a lap-splice can be expressed as A, f,, /s. where all terms are as defined previously. The total force to be transferred by the lapped bars is equal to A,f,, where Ay = total cross-sectional area of lap-spliced reinforcement and f, = actual yield stress of the longitudinal reinforcement. Therefore, the required area of transverse reinforcement to sustain post-yield strength of a lap-splice through shear friction is given by Equation (2). A, ‘A, (2) BU Sy where = friction coefficient, and all other terms are as defined previously. Assuming a friction coefficient equal to 1.0, Equation (2) requires A,,= 0.50 inch?, This compares with the provided value of 0.38 inch” in Specimen 3SMD12, the specimen with the most-closely spaced transverse reinforcement. Apparently, the smaller quantity of transverse reinforcement provided in Specimen 3SMD12, as compared with that required by Equation (2), was adequate for the demands imposed on Specimen 3SMD12. Equation (2) is recommended as a conservative approach. Flexural Strength As described in the preceding section, the longitudinal reinforcement did develop the nominal yield stress and sustain it for moderate post-yield strain levels for all of the test columns except Specimens 3SLH18 and 2SLH18. For these two columns, failure of the lap- splice is anticipated shortly following yield, leading to degradation of the moment strength at that end Columns (4), (7), and (8) of Table 2 compare measured and calculated moment strengths for the test specimens. Measured values, M,, are maximum moments measured during the tests; lap-splices should not influence values directly or significantly because maximum. ‘moments are measured at the end without the lap-splice. Calculated values, Macn were determined using procedures outlined in ACI 318-95, except actual measured reinforcement yield strengths and concrete compressive strengths were used in the calculations.734 A.C. Lynn, J.P. Moehle, S.A. Mahin, and W.T. Holmes Ratios of measured to calculated moment strengths range from 0.89 to 1.33, with a mean value of 1.08. Strain-hardening of longitudinal reinforcement, which might be expected to result in higher flexural overstrengths in ductile columns, plays a lesser role in the results of this test series because (a) reinforcement is Grade 40, with relatively long yield plateau, and (b) flexural response is curtailed by lap-splice failures, shear failures, and flexural compression zone failures owing to light transverse reinforcement. Still, itis important to realize that strengths were calculated on the basis of actual yield stress, which is equal to 1.2 times the nominal value. ACI 318-95 recommends to estimate the flexural strength for seismic design using 1.25 times the nominal value. Shear Strength All the test specimens in this test series apparently experienced shear failure, as was evident by inclined cracks of increasing distribution and width. In some cases, apparent shear failure occurred at or shortly after the onset of apparent flexural yielding. In other cases, shear failure occurred at displacements well beyond the displacement at which flexural yielding occurred. In some cases, shear failure appeared to have been initiated by lap-splice distress following yield. Columns (3), (9), and (10) of Table 2 compare measured shear strengths and shear strengths calculated using equations appearing in ACI 318-95. Specifically, the ACI shear strengths were calculated using the following equations. Ga) (3b) (3c) in which Vaci = V, = nominal shear strength according to ACI 318-95, V.= nominal contribution of concrete to shear strength, V; = nominal contribution of transverse reinforcement to shear strength, N, = compressive axial load in pounds, A, = gross cross- sectional area of column in square inches, f-' = concrete compressive strength in psi, by cross section width in inches, d = cross section effective depth in inches, A, = cross-sectional area in square inches of transverse reinforcement aligned in the direction of applied shear with spacing s in inches, and f, = yield stress in psi of transverse reinforcement. For the calculations presented here, measured material properties were used, and d was assumed to be equal to 0.8/, where hi is the section depth measured parallel to the applied shear. ‘As indicated in Column (10) of Table 2, Equation (3) provides a reasonably conservative estimate of shear strength for all the test columns. Values of the ratio of measured strength to calculated strength range from 0.95 to 1.24, with a mean value of 1.11.Seis ic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Columns 735 Some studies [Aschheim, 1992; Priestley, 1994] suggest that shear strength degrades with increasing displacement ductility demand. Shear strength degradation is credible considering the widening of cracks, yielding of reinforcement, and extreme compression strains placed on compression zones of members yielding in flexure. Figure 23 plots normalized shear strength as a function of displacement ductility demand. Normalized shear strength is equal to the ratio V,Vacr. Displacement ductility 1, is as defined previously. (See Table 2.) As shown in the figure, the data for this test series do not show a strong relation between shear strength and displacement ductility demand. 2 5 ° < > 1 . < 3 — 0.5 0 + tH + i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Displacement Ductility Figure 23: Normalized shear versus displacement ductility Deformability Common terminology in evaluation and rehabilitation of existing buildings refers to primary components and secondary components. Primary components are those components of a building (e.g., beams, columns, walls) that are relied on to sustain tributary gravity loads while simultaneously resisting lateral forces associated with the design earthquake loading. Secondary components are those components that are relied on only to sustain gravity loads while the building deforms under the design earthquake loading. Degradation of lateral load resistance is permitted for secondary components provided gravity load resistance is maintained. Given these two definitions, it is useful to separately define loss of lateral load resistance and loss of gravity load resistance.736 A.C. Lynn, J.P. Moehle, S.A. Mahin, and W.T. Holmes The likelihood for ductile lateral load response can be evaluated by comparing the shear strength with the shear corresponding to development of flexural strength. In the present analysis, the shear strength is taken equal to the quantity Vacr, which is defined by Equation (3). Flexural strength is taken equal to the quantity Mycr, which as described previously is the nominal strength defined by ACI 318-95 except concrete strength is taken equal to the measured value and reinforcement strength is taken equal to the measured yield value. The shear corresponding to development of Macy at both ends of the column is defined as V, = 2Macill, where 1 = the column clear height. Values of Vacr, Vp, and the ratio V,/Vacy are listed in Columns (9), (10), and (11) of Table 2. For values of V,/Vacy exceeding unity, shear failure would be expected before development of flexural strength, and displacement ductility capacity would therefore be expected to be low. For other values of V,/Vacr, some displacement ductility capacity would be expected. Figure 24 compares obtained displacement ductility capacity with the ratio V,/Vacy, confirming this expectation. wo * ° 2cMi{I8 @3CMHIS © @3SLHI8 = : Displacement ductility capacity 08 09 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 «17 Vp/VACI Figure 24: Displacement ductility capacity as a function of the shear demands. ‘The likelihood that gravity load can be maintained beyond the point where lateral load capacity is lost probably depends upon the nature of the lateral load failure, the column details, the level of axial load, and the lateral load history. If the failure is primarily in shear, and transverse reinforcement is light, disintegration of the core concrete is likely to result in rapid loss of gravity load capacity regardless of the gravity load level (Specimen 3CLH8 in Figure 13, and Specimens 2CMH18, 3CMH18, 3CMD12, and 3SMD12 in Figure 14). If a column has light axial load, and failure initiates in the lap-splices, the column may simplySeismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Columns 737 “hinge” at the splice, temporarily relieving shear demands, and leaving a column capable of sustaining gravity loads until splice failure degenerates to shear failure (Specimens 3SLH18 and 2SLH18 in Figure 13). Final loss of gravity load capacity in this case may occur at displacements exceeding the displacement at which significant lateral force degradation is recorded. Finally, if the response is primarily flexural, both gravity loads and lateral loads can be sustained to relatively large displacements (Specimen 2CLH18 in Figure 13). Additional studies are necessary to fully quantify this behavior. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Eight full-scale reinforced concrete columns were tested under gravity load and reversed cyclic lateral displacements in the laboratory. The columns had details typical of those found in pre-1970’s construction, including light transverse reinforcement and lap-splices at the bottom of the column. Materials were Grade 40 deformed reinforcement and normal-weight aggregate concrete with compression strength ranging between 3700 and 4800 psi. Gravity loads were either 0.12 f Ag or 0.35 f'Ag. Predominant response modes included flexure, shear failure, lap-splice failure, and gravity load collapse. The following conclusions were derived based on the test observations and analyses. The test columns were analyzed for flexural bond demands and found to have adequate development length according to equations appearing in current building codes. Although minor cracking occurred that apparently was associated with flexural bond, failure did not occur. Longitudinal reinforcement lap-splices having length equal to 20 times the longitudinal bar diameter were adequate to develop yield stress of 48 ksi. If the transverse reinforcement was light, the splice resistance degraded with increasing displacement amplitude following yielding, resulting in loss of moment capacity at the spliced end of the column. If transverse reinforcement was relatively heavy, the splice was capable of maintaining the yield force through increasing cycles of increasing displacement amplitude. In all cases, splitting cracks near the splices spread into the column, forming a network of inclined cracks, and eventually leading to shear failure. ‘Measured flexural and shear strengths were consistent with quantities calculated using procedures in ACI 318-95, The shear strength apparently was not strongly related to displacement ductility demand. Those columns that reached the calculated flexural strength before reaching the calculated shear strength exhibited relatively ductile response. Those that did not exhibited less ductile response. Loss of gravity load capacity occurred at or after significant loss of lateral force resistance. Where response was governed by shear, gravity load failure occurred soon after loss of lateral force resistance. Where response was initially governed by lap-splice deterioration, and gravity loads were light, gravity load resistance was maintained until738 A.C. Lynn, J.P. Moehle, S. A. Mahin, and W.T. Holmes eventual shear failure occurred. Where response was predominantly flexural, gravity load capacity was maintained to relatively large displacements. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The research reported in the paper was funded by Grant No. BCS-9120214 from the Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Program of the National Science Foundation. Dr. S. C. Liu was the cognizant program officer at NSF. The research was carried out as part of the NSF Repair and Rehabilitation Research Program, under the deft management of Professor James Jirsa of the University of Texas at Austin. The research was conducted in the research laboratories of the Earthquake Engineering Research Center of the University of California, Berkeley, NOTATION Ag = area of gross cross-section Avr = area of transverse reinforcing Ay = area of single transverse tie arger of cover or bar spacing ffective depth of section bar diameter teel yield strain ‘f'e= concrete compressive strength ‘fy = longitudinal steel yield stress ‘fe = transverse steel yield stress Kj, = see equation (1) 1 = clear height of column 14= development length 1, = lap splice length Macr= ACI calculated moment strength (otal area of lap-spliced reinforcement ‘M, = maximum measured moment n= number of developed bars axial load = actual tie spacing Vacr= ACI calculated shear strength Ve = concrete shear contribution jominal shear strength hear corresponding to Maci V, = steel shear contribution V, = maximum measured shear ultimate displacement ield displacement [1 limiting bond stress y= bond stress H,= displacement ductility REFERENCES [ACI 318-95) - Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary - ACI 318R-95, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 1995, {ACI 408] - Bond Stress - the State of the Art: reported by ACI Committee 408; Phil M. Ferguson, Chairman, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1966.Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Columns 739 [Aschheim; 1992] - Aschheim, M. A., and Moehle, J. P., “Shear Strength and Deformability of RC Bridge Columns Subjected to Inelastic Cyclic Displacements,” Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. UCB/EERC-92/04, March 1992, 93 pages. [Mahin; 1988] - Mahin, S. A., “Inelastic Behavior and Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Columns Under Multidirectional Seismic Excitations,” Proceedings of Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 2-9, 1988, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, Vol. VIII, pp. 519-530. [Orangun; 1977] - Orangun, C. O., Jirsa, J. O., and Breen, J. E., “A Reevaluation of Test Data on Development Length and Splices,” ACI Structural Journal, March 1977, pp. 114-122. [Priestley; 1994] - Priestley, M. J. N., Verma, R, and Xiao, Y, “Seismic Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Columns,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. ST8, August 1994, pp. 2310-29. [Moehle; 1991] - Moehle, J. P., and S. A. Mahin, “Observations on the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Buildings during Earthquakes,” ACI SP-127, Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures: Inelastic Response and Design, ed. S.K. Ghosh, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, pp. 67-89. [Sivakumar; 1983] - Sivakumar, B., Gergely, P., White, R. N., “Suggestions for the design of R/C lapped splices for seismic loading,” Concrete International, 5, 2, Feb. 1983, pp. 46- 50.