Enhancement of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Columns with BucklingRestrained Reinforcement

Lukkunaprasit, P.
Department of Civil
Engineering,
Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok, Thailand
[email protected]
Dr. P. Lukkunaprasit is Head of
the Center of Excellence in
Earthquake Engineering and
Vibration at Chulalonkorn
University, Thailand.

Tangbunchoo, T.
Department of Civil
Engineering,
Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok, Thailand
[email protected]

Rodsin, K.
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
Technology, King
Mongkuts University of
Technology North
Bangkok
Bangkok, Thailand
[email protected]

Summary
Reinforced concrete columns with light confinement prevalent in developing countries
exhibit low ductility, especially when buckling of longitudinal rebars takes place. Undesirable
abrupt shear failure is generally triggered as a result. This study applies the buckling
restraining concept widely used in seismic resistant steel structures to reinforcing bars. Two
reinforced concrete columns 270mm x 300mm in cross section with a height of 1200 mm and
minimum (non-seismic) transverse reinforcement were tested under cyclic lateral loading.
Buckling-restrained reinforcement (BRR) was provided over the tie spacing above the lowest
tie in the column. The specimens were cyclically loaded in the horizontal direction under a
constant axial load ratios of 20% and 40% based on nominal compressive capacity of the
section. The buckling-restraining casing effectively prevented buckling of slender vertical
bars (length/diameter ratio of 18) under a significantly high axial load level, resulting in a
more ductile mode of failure with evident formation of plastic hinge at the base of the
column. At gravity load collapse, the drift capacities of the specimen were substantially
increased compared to their counterparts without casings. An important finding from the tests
is that the degraded concrete shear capacity reported in the literature without distinction of
longitudinal bar buckling can be significantly underestimated especially at displacement
ductility close to gravity load collapse.
Keywords: seismic performance, gravity load collapse, reinforced column tests, light
confinement, longitudinal bar buckling, buckling-restrained reinforcement, degraded concrete
shear capacity.

1.Introduction
Reinforced concrete (RC) columns with light longitudinal and transverse reinforcement are
prevalent in existing low rise buildings in regions of low or even moderate seismicity,
especially in developing countries. These structures are vulnerable to damage or even
collapse in the event of a strong earthquake. Unfortunately, research work on lightly
reinforced concrete columns is quite limited. RC columns with light transverse steel
subjected to cyclic lateral load exhibit rapid loss of lateral load resistance soon after attaining
the peak capacity. Shear mode of failure often prevails with small drift capacity [1],[2].
Under moderate to high axial load ratios, longitudinal bars tend to buckle, with the
consequence of abrupt shear failure as reported by Ari et al.[3]. Sezen and Moehle [4] earlier
reported that for columns with light axial load, shear failure would be triggered due to
apparent strength degradation after development of the flexural strength whereas columns
with high axial load would suffer abrupt shear compression failure.

It was speculated that preventing longitudinal bar buckling would greatly enhance the seismic
performance of RC columns since it reduces the transfer of gravity load from the steel to
concrete, thereby reducing the shear on the diagonal crack plane. Buckling restraining casings
were provided over the potential plastic hinge zone in a RC specimen cyclically loaded in the
horizontal direction. Performances of RC columns with and without casings are compared.

2.Performance of control columns without buckling-restraining casing

The specimens S2 and S3 tested by Ari et al. [3] serve as the control specimens. The columns,
270mm300mm in cross section, were reinforced with four 16 mm Grade 400 MPa
longitudinal steel bars. Hoop ties, 6 mm in diameter, were provided at 300mm spacing
corresponding to a transverse reinforcement ratio H of 0.0007. The nominal concrete
compressive strength fc' was 20 MPa. The column was loaded in single curvature under cyclic
loading with the lateral load applied at a height of 1200 mm from the base. A constant axial
load of 20% the axial load capacity based on fc'Ag was applied to specimen S2, while that for
S3 was 40%.
The specimens exhibited flexure dominated inelastic behavior with well distributed flexural
cracks up to the peak strength at about 1.5??% and 1.0% drifts for specimens S2 (20% axial load
ratio) and S3 (40% axial load ratio), respectively. 1.0 %. Soon after the peak load, previously
developed vertical cracks widened, indicating impending vertical bar buckling. The drift
capacity was .. % with sustainable lateral load capacity of ..% of the peak value for
S2. The corresponding values are1.25% drift and 98 % of the peak capacity, respectively.
Note that these drifts are very close to those at peak loads. At impending failure upon visible
longitudinal bars buckling (at % and 1.5% drifts for S2 and S3, respectively), vertical bars
buckled in the potential buckling zone near the base followed by an abrupt transfer of the
force carried by steel to the concrete core with a consequence of significant increase in shear
along the cracked shear plane. This triggered an abrupt shear failure (due to deterioration of
cyclic shear resistance) and loss of gravity load capacity, which resulted in a sharp drop in the
descending branch of the envelope curve. Furthemore, the failure shear plane cut through the
concrete core at roughly 45 in between the ties. Thus, practically no shear resistance was
provided by the transverse reinforcement at the failed section.
Based on the test results, it is natural to speculate that the performance of such columns
would be enhanced should the longitudinal bars be prevented from buckling. If such is the
case, the drift capacity would also be improved.

3.Buckling restrained reinforcement

An attempt has been made earlier by Ruangrassamee and .[5] to develop a device
to prevent rebars from buckling using rebar-restraining collars, which were tightfitted to encase the rebars without any unbonding material separating them.
However, in this investigation, the
concept of buckling restrained brace
successfully used in steel structures for
enhancing seismic performance of
steel buildings was adopted. In our
pioneer study, 28 mm steel tubes with
4mm-thickness were used to encase
the 16 mm longitudinal bars. The
deformed bars were coated with
silicone to a practically smooth surface
and subsequently wrapped with
plumbers tape. Non-shrink grout was
Fig. 1: Compressive stress-strain relationships of
16mm diameter bar with and without casing.

then injected into the void between the wrapping and the steel casing. The stressstrain relationships of the steel bar with and without casing under compressive
loading are shown in Fig. 1. The length of the bars between the grips was 300 mm.
For BRR, the length of the casing was 250mm. As expected, right after peak load,
the capacity of the bare steel bar sharply drops due to bar buckling. In contrast, the
buckling-restrained reinforcing bar could sustain almost constant load after yielding
since the lateral restraint provided by the casing prevents the bar from buckling.
Interestingly, even at a large axial strain of 4%, BRR could sustain a stress as high
as 90% of the peak value.

4. Test specimens
The specimens, designated by SC1and SC2, were practically identical to S3 and S2, in
dimensions and reinforcement details, respectively, except for the concrete compressive
strengths and provision of BRR. Due to some prior mistake in quality control, the contractor
Table 1 Details of Column Specimen
Main
Specime
V
Reinforcem
n
ent.
S2
1.0 %
4Y16
S3
1.0 %
4Y16
SC1
1.0 %
4Y16
SC2
1.0 %
4Y16

Ties
(@mm)

0.07 %
0.07 %
0.07 %
0.07 %

R6@300
R6@300
R6@300
R6@300

Axial
load
ratio
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.2

fc
(MPa)

remark

21.0
18.4
27.7
28.9

With BRR
With BRR

Notation : V is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio; axial load ratio is the ratio of the applied axial load to
axial load-carrying capacity based on fc' and gross concrete area

Fig. 2: (a) Geometry and reinforcement

details of column specimens.

(b) Buckling-restrained reinforcement (BRR).

TANATE TO PUT DIMENSIONS

somehow modified their mix design which resulted in about 40% increase in concrete
strength over the specified value of 20 MPa. As for the reinforcement, buckling restraining
casings were provided over the critical failure zone as previously experienced by specimens
S2 and S3, i.e. over the lowest tie spacing of 300mm. Details are presented in Table 1 and
Figure 2.

4.Test set up
Figure 3 shows the test setup. The testing frame with the unique feature of maintaining the
verticality of the axial load was developed by Wanitchai and Rodsin. The axial load was

applied by means of a vertical hydraulic jack constrained to move horizontally on guided

rollers, thereby ensuring verticality of the axial load. The lateral load was applied using an
actuator with 1000 kN capacity. During testing, special care was taken to ensure that the axial
load was maintained constant to within 10% of the initial load.
The flexural, and shear components of the drifts as well as the axial displacement of the
columns were measured using linear variable displacement transducers (??) (LVDTs).
However, only drifts will be reported in this preliminary study.
The displacement controlled loading sequence
consisted of drift-controlled mode with two
increments of 0.125% drift followed by
increments of 0.25% up to 2% drift, after which
the drift increments were 0.5%. Two cycles of
loading were repeated in each drift ratio to ensure
that stable response could be maintained. The test
was performed until the vertical load capacity
was practically lost.

Fig.3: Test setup.

5.Experimental results
Figure 4 shows the hysteretic loop of specimens SC1 and SC2 together with S3 and S2 for
comparison. Specimens SC1 and SC2 with BRRs experienced relatively less cracking than
their counterparts at the same drift ratio as illustrated in Fig. 5. As expected, the bucklingrestraining casing effectively prevented buckling of rebars in the zone reinforced with BRR.
Specimens SC1 and SC2 could sustain the gravity load with stable hysteretic loops past the
peak load with relatively more gradual drop in capacity as evident in the envelope curves
depicted in Fig. 6. While specimen S2 and S3 could not sustain lateral load of 80% of the
peak load at % drift, their counterparts with BRRs could still sustain the lateral load
resistance at this level with a drift of about 1.7% and %, respectively. Prior to gravity load
collapse, the drift capacity of specimen SC1 was 1.75%, a 40% increase compared to the
specimen without casing. The improvement was much greater for specimen SC2 (under an
axial load ratio of 0.2) which sustained the gravity load up to a drift of 4.5% whereas the
specimen without BRR reached gravity load collapse at 2% drift.
An investigation of the strains in the longitudinal rebars reveals that, soon after the peak
loads, they reached compression yield strain at about % and % drift ratios for specimens
SC1 and SC2, respectively (see Fig. ). Interestingly, the rebars in their counterparts S3 and
S2 buckled soon after reaching the compressive yield strain. This clearly confirms that the
rebars in the specimens with buckling-restrained casings would have buckled if they were
bare bars, with subsequent abrupt failure not far from those drift levels.
DR. KITTIPOOM, I THINK IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE TO ADD FIGS SHOWING
AXIAL COMPRESSION STRAINS VS DRIFTS (BUT HOW GOOD ARE THE data?? IF
YES, SHOW ONLY ONE PLOT TO SAE SPACE)

(a)

(b)

Figure (a) Specimen S2 at 2% drift, (b) specimen S3 at 1.5% drift

yield strain

(c) compressive strain in the longitudinal rebars of the specimens S2, S3, SC1 and SC2
versus lateral drift.

Figures 7 and 8 show the modes of failure of all specimens for comparison. Clearly, the
specimens without BRR failed in an undesirable shear mode of failure, whereas the ones with
BRRs could develop plastic hinges at the bases of the columns. However, splitting as well as
shear distress in SC1 and SC2 also prevailed at impending collapse, but failure was more
gradual than the case without BRRs. It should be noted that the tie spacing/diameter ratio of
the vertical rebars was well over 18, and yet BRRs worked effectively and remained
practically straight without buckling even under a significantly high axial load ratio of 40%
(see Fig. 8 (c)).
It is important to note that shear degradation models in the literature do not take into account
the influence of longitudinal bar buckling, and hence they could much underestimate the
actual shear capacity of concrete near impending collapse. This is because previous
researchers did not have an effective way to separate the effect of bar buckling, nor were they
able to prevent buckling from taking place for a given reinforcement configuration in slender
longitudinal bars. As depicted in lateral load - deflection envelope curves shown Fig., due
to bar buckling, the shear capacity of specimen S3 at 1.5% drift dropped to almost zero, and it
would naturally be reported as total loss of shear capacity at this drift level. However, at this
drift, specimen SC1, the counterpart of S3 with (almost) the same column configurations
except for the provision of buckling-restrained casings and a somewhat difference in concrete
compressive strength, could still sustain a lateral load of more than 90% the peak shear
capacity. Thus, BRR makes it possible evaluation of actual concrete shear capacity without
interference of longitudinal bar buckling. This could be a significant factor to consider in
investigation of shear capacity of concrete.
Thus, the actual post-peak concrete shear capacity in the absence of longitudinal bar buckling
is significantly higher than the case with bar buckling taking place.
It should be noted that this could not be achieved by increasing the size of the longitudinal
reinforcement, or providing more confinement steel. Doing so would alter the reinforcement
configuration, which definitely affects the concrete shear capacity.

(a) Specimen S3

(b) Specimen SC1

Fig. 4: Hysteretic curve of specimen a) S3; b) SC1; c) S2;d) SC2. show displ in % drifts.

a) Specimen S3(note sign of impending

collapse)

b) Specimen SC1

Fig. 5: Comparison of damage at same drift ratio of 1.5%(cycle 1) - a) specimen S3; b)

specimen SC1.
Comparison of damage at same drift of 2.0 % - a) Specimen S2 at incipient of gravity load
collapse; b) Specimen SC2

Fig. 6:Normalized envelope curves of specimens Fig.7:Specimen S3 at loss of gravity load

S2,S3(without BRR) and SC1,SC2 (with BRR). capacity note buckling of rebar.
.

An important clue from the tests is that the deteriorated concrete shear capacity reported in
the literature without distinction of longitudinal bar buckling can be significantly
underestimated especially at displacement ductility close to gravity load collapse.

Specimen SC2 a) at 4.5% drift with sustainable gravity load; b) at 5% drift with loss of gravity load
capacity

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 8: Specimen SC1 a) at 1.75% drift with sustainable gravity load; b) at 2% drift with
loss of gravity load capacity note no buckling of BRR as evident from c).

6.Conclusions
The buckling-restrained reinforcement developed has demonstrated its potential in preventing
buckling of slender vertical bars (length/diameter ratio of 18) under a significantly high axial
load level in the column specimen tested. This resulted in a more ductile mode of failure with
evident formation of plastic hinge at the base of the column. At gravity load collapse, the drift
capacity of the specimen was 1.75%, a 40% increase compared to its counterpart without
casing. Clearly more extensive experiments are needed to fully investigate the effectiveness
of BRR over a wide range of applications.

Buckling of longitudinal bars with large tie spacing (L/db >18 !) leads to an abrupt
transfer of axial load from the steel bars to the concrete, thereby triggering shear
failure due to deterioration of concrete shear strength during cyclic loading.
Shear failure can be deferred or even eliminated when BRR is provided in the critical
zone to prevent bar buckling.
For the specimens tested, BRR enhances significantly the drift capacity at gravity load
collapse as well as the degraded shear capacity of concrete.
Past concrete shear strength degradation models without accounting for longitudinal
bar buckling can be in error, especially for lightly reinforced columns. Thus,
For columns with bar buckling taking place, Sezen-Moehle model for shear capacity
degradation

much over-estimates the capacity close to impending gravity load

collapse. However, it gives good prediction of deterioration rate when buckling is

prevented. IN NEXT PAPER!!

7.Acknowlegements

The authors are grateful for the funding from the Commission on Higher
Education, Ministry of Education and Chulalongkorn University.

8.References
[1] LYNN A.C., MOEHLE J.P., MAHIN S.A., and HOLMES W.T., Seismic Evaluation of
Existing Reinforced Concrete Columns, Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, V.12, No.4, Nov.1996, p.715-739.
[2] SEZEN H., and MOEHLE J.P, Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete
columns, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 130(11), 2004, p. 1692-1703.
[3]
WIBOWO A., WILSON J.L., FARDIPOUR M., LAM N.T.K., RODSIN K.,
LUKKUNAPRASIT P., and GAD E.F., Seismic Performance Assessment of Lightly
Reinforced Concrete Column, The 21st Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of
Structures and Materials, Dec. 2010.
[4] SEZEN H., and MOEHLE J.P, Seismic tests of concrete columns with light transverse
reinforcement, ACI Journal, 103(6), 2006, p. 842-849.
[5] RUANGRASSAMEE A., and SAWAROJ A., Seismic Enhancement of ReinforcedConcrete Columns by Rebar-Restraining Collars, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 2010, under review.
[6] PRIESTLEY M.J.N., VERMA R., and XIAO Y., Seismic shear strength of reinforced
concrete column. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 120(8), 1994, p.23102329.
[7]
FEMA-273, NEHRP guideline for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Federal
Emergency Management Agency. Washington DC, USA. 1997.