THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642

Published online 18 December 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal). DOI: 10.1002/tal.1275

Performance of RC columns with debonded bars subjected to cyclic

lateral loading

Damodaran Chitra Mitra*,† and Kochunaraya Rugmini Bindhu

Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala India

SUMMARY
Concrete columns with light confinement reinforcement subjected to cyclic lateral load exhibit brittle shear
failure along with flexural yielding of longitudinal steel reinforcement bars. The present study investigates
the effect of debonding of longitudinal bars on the performance of columns under lateral loading. Column
specimens were tested under quasi-static reverse cyclic lateral loading. A comparative study has been car-
ried out on the performance of columns with and without debonding using circular steel tubes of varying
lengths. Steel tubes were provided to the longitudinal reinforcement in the potential plastic hinge zone. It
is observed that the specimens with debonded reinforcement have significant enhancement in deformation
capacity, ductility and energy dissipation capacity than the specimens without it. The congestion of rein-
forcement at the joints can also be eliminated by reducing the confining reinforcement for these debonded
specimens. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 9 March 2015; Revised 28 September 2015; Accepted 15 November 2015

KEY WORDS: cyclic loading; debonding; ductility; energy dissipation; light confinement; reinforced concrete

1. INTRODUCTION

In earthquake-resistant building design, columns, the main structural elements should be particularly
ductile for moment resisting concrete frames. Such buildings sway back and forth during an earth-
quake and withstand earthquake effects with some damage, but without collapse. According to the
capacity design philosophy, beam hinging (while avoiding column hinging and joint shear failure) is
the most desirable failure mode to guarantee high-energy dissipation during earthquakes, through large
inelastic deformation, without overall strength degradation. The ductility of columns has an important
role in the safety of structures, such as, (a) to prevent nonstructural damage in frequent minor ground
shaking, (b) to prevent structural damage and minimize nonstructural damage in occasional moderate
ground shaking and (c) to avoid collapse or serious damage in rare major ground shaking. Three dam-
age states, namely, light, moderate and heavy, are employed when assigning damage to both structural
and nonstructural components. The failure of a column can affect the stability of the whole building,
whereas the failure of a beam causes a localized effect. Lack of ductility in columns has been blamed
for most of the serious damage to the major structures that occurred during recent earthquakes.
A large amount of confining reinforcement is required at critical regions like column ends and
beam–column joints to ensure enough inelastic deformation capacity as per the capacity design philos-
ophy. The restricted space available due to congested reinforcement at these regions makes it difficult
for free compaction and leads to porous and brittle concrete. In most of the critical sections where the
bending moment is very high, a plastic hinge is found to develop, and this ultimately results in the fail-
ure of the structural element. Hence, it is necessary to provide heavy ductile reinforcement in these

*Correspondence to: Damodaran Chitra Mitra, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Trivandrum,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695016, India.
†
E-mail: mitradc@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 PERFORMANCE OF RC COLUMNS WITH DEBONDED BARS 627

regions to take up the stresses. This heavy ductile detailing creates congestion of reinforcement in the
column ends/joint region. Congestion of reinforcement makes the placing of concrete difficult and
leads to weakening of these regions. The plastic hinge locations in the columns are also affected by
spalling of cover, and hence, the deformation capacity is reduced.
Studies conducted on Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECCs) show that debonding of fiber
from the matrix improves the strain hardening property of the composites (Li 2002). Previous studies
show that excessive strain localization near cantilever structural walls can be prevented by using steel
slides at plastic hinge regions (Dazio et al., 2008). Buckling restrained sections are generally used in
steel structures for improving their seismic behavior (SEAOC/AISC 2005). The debonded bars im-
prove the seismic performance, and hence, this technique can be adopted near column ends to improve
the performance of columns.
The main aim of the present study is to investigate the performance of column specimens having
debonded bars with reduced volume of confining reinforcement in the plastic hinge region under
reverse cyclic lateral loading. The performances of these specimens were compared with those of con-
ventional specimens prepared as per Indian standard codes IS 456: 2000 and IS 13920:1993. An inves-
tigation was conducted to verify whether the debonding technique would provide enough ductility to
the specimens so that the confining reinforcement, i.e., ties, can be minimized at the critical locations
and thereby eliminate the congestion of reinforcement in that area. The effect of length of the
debonding tube is studied by considering sleeves of varying lengths.

1.1. Literature review

In ductile structures, the earthquake-resistant design method permits the beam to develop plastic
hinges adjacent to beam–column connections. Plastic hinges are also found to develop in columns,
and they become the main source of energy dissipation. After flexural yielding has happened, the con-
crete portion will crush along the diagonal compressive strut region in the plastic hinge portion, which
causes a sudden failure of the column. Wight and Sozen (1975) tested 12 concrete column specimens
under a series of load reversals and observed the benefit of the axial load which delayed the decay in
strength and stiffness of columns under cyclic loading. The authors found that enough transverse rein-
forcement is needed for confining the core and hence to reduce the strength and stiffness loss.
Saatcioglu and Ozcebe (1989) tested full-scale columns under slowly applied lateral load reversals.
The authors concluded that selection of a proper confinement configuration is a more feasible approach
than reduction in hoop spacing alone to achieve the same level of ductility. Sakai and Sheik (1989)
presented a state-of-the-art report on concrete confinement defining the status of the problem and fu-
ture direction of work. Topics discussed include properties of confined concrete, behavior of confined
sections and columns including plastic hinge regions and a critical evaluation of the design code pro-
visions. The authors identified the research areas where the provisions in the codes need to be revised.
Azizinamini et al. (1992) conducted full-scale testing of columns with different transverse reinforce-
ment details and found that the flexural capacity of columns increased with axial load but ductility
reduced substantially. They found that a six-bar-diameter extension of hook is sufficient to produce ad-
equate displacement ductility. Their test results indicate that an increase in the amount of transverse
reinforcement improves the ductility. Sheikh and Khoury (1993) conducted experimental studies on
columns and found that the stub of a column enhanced its flexural strength by more than 20%. The
authors found that the increased effectiveness of the lateral support provided to the longitudinal bars
resulted in an increase in ductility and energy-absorbing capacity. Aycardi et al. (1994) tested gravity
load-designed column specimens under simulated seismic loading, with low-level and high-level axial
forces and with and without lap splices, representing interior and exterior columns at floor slab and
beam soffit levels. The failures of the columns were flexure dominated, resulting in buckling of column
reinforcement in the case of high axial loads and low-cycle fatigue of the longitudinal bars in the case
of low axial loads. Mo and Wang (2000) tested RC columns with various tie configurations by apply-
ing reverse cyclic lateral loading. They proposed transverse reinforcement configuration with alternate
ties to improve the seismic performance. Elwood and Moehle (2003) observed that the lateral displace-
ment or drift of a reinforced concrete (RC) column at axial failure was dependent upon and directly
proportional to the spacing of transverse reinforcement and the axial stress developed within the

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642
DOI: 10.1002/tal
628 D. C. MITRA AND K. R. BINDHU

column. Further, it was noted that the lateral drift experienced by a column at axial failure was depen-
dent upon and inversely proportional to the amount of axial load exerted on the column. The perfor-
mance of a column under seismic loading is also influenced by the secondary moment due to drift.
Turer (2004) made a case study and suggested that the diagonal tension crack at the upper end of a
column is due to a combination of inferior material quality, inadequate transverse reinforcement and
insufficient column confinement. Insufficient structural resistance combined with poor construction
quality and detailing causes catastrophic failure of structures. Sezen and Moehle (2004) studied the
existing shear strength models considering various parameters using data from other tests and pro-
posed a new model. The proposed model includes the contribution from concrete and transverse rein-
forcement, and it exhibited improved accuracy. Flores (2004) studied experimentally the behavior of
columns under seismic loading to understand the progression of damage and mechanisms causing col-
lapse in shear-critical RC columns. Based on the test results, the authors developed analytical models
to predict the drift capacity of columns. Lee et al. (2008) found that nominal concrete contribution to
shear resistance in the plastic hinge region decreased after flexural yielding of the column. Ho (2011) con-
ducted a nonlinear moment–curvature analysis to study the structural parameters affecting flexural ductility
of high-strength reinforced concrete columns. The author proposed a theoretical equation for designing the
high-strength reinforced concrete column and validated by experimental studies. Elmenshawi and Brown
(2012) conducted experiments in beam–column sub-assemblages to study the ductility and plastic rotational
capacity and found that the maximum concrete strength depended on bottom/top reinforcement ratio, trans-
verse reinforcement ratio in the plastic hinge region and shear span-to-depth ratio.
The above studies have shown that the lateral confinement provided to the column can improve its
hysteretic properties, stiffness degradation, energy absorption capacity and initial stiffness. But the
large amount of shear reinforcement in the form of hoops will lead to congestion in the structure near
the joints causing various construction defects.
An alternate method to improve the shear capacity and ductility is to change the bond condition in
the plastic hinge region. Various studies in this area have been carried out to unbond the reinforcement
with the concrete. Kawashima et al. (2001) carried out an experimental study by unbonding the bars
with plastic materials. The authors found that unbonding is an effective means to increase the ductility
capacity of columns by properly choosing the unbond length. Pandey and Mutsuyoshi (2005) con-
ducted experimental studies with bond-controlled reinforcements and found that to completely avoid
diagonal shear cracking, the entire length of the bar in the shear span must be unbonded, and then
the failure mode can be changed to flexure. Sakai et al. (2006) conducted experimental study on cir-
cular columns with unbonded bars and found that using unbonded reinforcement in a partially
prestressed RC column slightly increases maximum and residual displacements due to smaller flexural
strength. However, a larger prestressing force can reduce maximum and residual displacements.
Supaviriyakit and Pimanmas (2007) conducted experiments in beam–column joints and found that lit-
tle damage has occurred in the specimen with debonded bars. They also observed that the drop in the
load after the peak was gradual for a debonded specimen and that debonding reduced the joint shear
damage. Study on the performance of unbonded specimens by Pandey et al. (2008) revealed that
the hysteretic load-displacement behavior of the columns with unbonded reinforcements greatly dif-
fered from that of the ordinary ones. They proposed a restoring force model capable of capturing
the hysteretic behavior of unbounded columns. Fahmy et al. (2010) carried out studies on RC bridge
columns reinforced with ordinary steel bars, steel fiber composite bars and steel basalt fiber composite
bars. The authors found that a column reinforced with steel basalt fiber composite bars distinctly
outperformed its counterparts with better post-yield stiffness and drift capacity. Lukkunaprasit et al.
(2011) used the buckling restraining concept for reinforcement in concrete columns and found that
it effectively prevented buckling of bars resulting in a more ductile mode of failure. The drift capacities
and degraded concrete shear capacities were found to have increased significantly. Ruangrassamee
et al. (2012) conducted experiments by using rebar-restraining collar (RRC). The behavior was inves-
tigated under monotonic loading tests of reinforcing bars with RRCs and cyclic loading tests of two
reinforced concrete bridge columns with and without RRCs. From the monotonic loading test, it
was found that RRCs significantly improved the post-yielding behavior of longitudinal reinforcing
bars. The ductility and energy dissipation of longitudinal reinforcing bars with RRCs were signifi-
cantly higher than those of the bare bar.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 PERFORMANCE OF RC COLUMNS WITH DEBONDED BARS 629

Recent advancements in materials research like ECCs show that the debonding of fiber from the ma-
trix improves the strain-hardening properties of composites (Li 2002). Debonding of fibers in ECCs
allows the stretching of fiber, which is helpful for minimizing the crack width of multiple cracks. Stud-
ies have been conducted by Dazio et al. (2008) on shear walls with steel pipes slid on to the reinforce-
ment to ensure the formation of a suitable plastic hinge at the base of the cantilever. The study shows
that excessive strain localization can be prevented by using these steel slids. The authors reported that
the deformation capacity of walls can be adjusted by changing the length of the sleeves placed on the
longitudinal reinforcing bars. From the above studies, it is presumed that debonded bars will enhance
the seismic behavior of columns. The influence of debonded bars near the plastic hinge region in en-
hancing the shear strength of columns has not been mentioned in any international codes.
The experimental program studies the performance of specimens having debonded reinforcement
and less amount of transverse reinforcement at the plastic hinge region of the column. The study com-
pares the ductility, energy dissipation capacity, stiffness degradation and work damage indicator
(WDI) of shear-dominated RC columns with and without debonded reinforcement. The specimens
are subjected to quasi-static reverse cyclic lateral loading at the upper end of the column. The enhance-
ment in seismic performances of the column by providing debonded reinforcement at the critical re-
gion as an alternative to confining ties at the critical region is evaluated. The study also includes
comparison of the performance of the column specimens prepared as per the Indian standard code
IS 456:2000, the specimen designed as per IS 1893:2002 and detailed as per IS 13920:1993 and their
counterpart specimens with bond-controlled reinforcement.

2. TESTING PROGRAM

The specimens were decided considering the commonly used sections in the field. In order to fix the
dimensions of the column, an 11-story building located at Thiruvananthapuram, India (in seismic zone
III), as per IS 1893 (Part I): 2002 on medium soil was analyzed. An interior column was considered for
the design. The story height was 3.0 m. The cross-sectional dimension of the square column was
450 mm. M30 grade concrete and Fe 415 grade steel were used for design. The earthquake-resistant
design was carried out based on IS 1893 (Part I): 2002 and IS 13920:1993. The column was designed
and detailed as per IS 456:2000 and IS 13920:1993 and scaled down to one-third size. The column
specimens were prepared in the laboratory for experimental investigations.

2.1. Details of the specimen

Four specimens with concrete stub at the base were cast. The first specimen (C1) was prepared with
light confinement as per IS 456:2000 with lateral tie spacing of 100 mm, the second specimen (C2)
with ductile detailing as per IS 13920:1993, the third specimen (C3) with light confinement as per
IS 456:2000 with debonding of bars using a circular steel tube of 3/4th length of tie spacing at the po-
tential plastic hinge zone and the fourth specimen (C4) with light confinement as per IS 456:2000 with
circular steel tube of half the length of tie spacing at the potential plastic hinge zone.
All the columns had square shape with cross-sectional dimensions 150 × 150 mm and a height of
500 mm. The concrete mix of M30 using Ordinary Portland Cement (53 grade), coarse aggregates with
10-mm maximum size and fine aggregates passing through 4.75-mm IS sieve were used. The 28-day
compressive strength from cube test was 39.26 N/mm2. Four 10-mm-diameter steel bars were used as
main reinforcement, providing a reinforcement ratio of 1.4% of the gross cross-sectional area of the
specimen, and 3-mm-diameter steel bars were used as lateral ties. Designation and description of all
specimens are presented in Table 1. Reinforcement details of column specimens are shown in Figure 1.
For specimens C3 and C4, 21-mm-diameter circular steel tubes having thickness of 2.5 mm and length
of 75 mm and 50 mm as shown in Figure 2 were used to encase the longitudinal bars. The tubes were
inserted in the longitudinal bars at the potential plastic hinge zone, and cement grout was then filled
into the annular space between the steel bar and the tube. The spacing between the lateral ties was kept
at 100 mm. The steel mold used for casting specimens with the reinforcement cage of specimen C1 is

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642
DOI: 10.1002/tal
630 D. C. MITRA AND K. R. BINDHU

Table 1. Designation and description of specimen.

Specimen designation Lateral ties Debonding details
C1 Lateral ties with 3 mm Φ bars at 100 mm c/c —
C2 Lateral ties with 3 mm Φ bars at 15 mm c/c for 150 length; —
remaining length with 3 mm Φ bars at 100 mm c/c
C3 Lateral ties with 3 mm Φ bars at 100 mm c/c Circular steel tube 75 mm long
C4 Lateral ties with 3 mm Φ bars at 100 mm c/c Circular steel tube 50 mm long

Figure 1. Reinforcement detailing for column specimens.

shown in Figure 3. All the specimens were cast in the horizontal position inside a steel mold. Speci-
mens were demolded after 24 h and then cured by keeping them in water tank for 28 days.
In the present study, the concept of debonding of longitudinal flexural rebars was used in RC col-
umns for analyzing its enhancement in seismic performances. The C1 specimen is taken as control
specimen. The performance of other specimens was then compared with C1.

2.2. Experimental test setup, instrumentation and loading sequence

The specimens were tested in the 2000-kN capacity self-straining testing frame. A schematic diagram
of the experimental setup is shown in Figure 4. Loading was applied with a push and pull hydraulic
jack. The test setup in the laboratory is shown in Figure 5. A metallic collar was inserted at the tip
of the column through which the loading was applied. A base fixer plate is fixed at the bottom plate
of the testing frame. This support condition simulates the fixity condition of the column in the actual
field (which can be a beam–column joint or a foundation near to the section of maximum moment).
The displacement-controlled loading sequence with a quasi-static reverse cyclic loading as shown in

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 PERFORMANCE OF RC COLUMNS WITH DEBONDED BARS 631

Figure 2. Steel tube.

Figure 3. Mold and reinforcement for column specimen.

Figure. 6 consisted of drift-controlled mode with increments of 0.25% drift up to 1%, after which the
drift increments were 0.5%. Load values in a deflection-controlled loading setup were observed and
recorded. Horizontal displacement at the tip of the specimen is measured using linear variable differ-
ential transducer having a least count 0.01 mm, to arrive at the corresponding drift value.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The test results are presented as ultimate load capacity, crack pattern, load-deformation hysteresis
curves, energy dissipation capacity, WDI and displacement ductility. The observations during testing
and the results are briefly described in the following sections.

3.1. Ultimate load and deformation capacity

The values of ultimate load and deformation of specimens are tabulated in Table 2. The performance of
specimens C2 and C3 was more or less similar in nature. The load-carrying capacity of C2 is greater

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642
DOI: 10.1002/tal
632 D. C. MITRA AND K. R. BINDHU

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of experimental setup.

Figure 5. Experimental setup in the laboratory.

than that of C1 because of close spacing of the lateral ties, which resulted in better ductile behavior.
The close spacing of the ties prevented the buckling of the main steel reinforcement and enhanced
the shear carrying capacity of the specimen. Similar pattern was observed for C3 in which the
debonding technique prevented the buckling of the main bars and increased the shear carrying capac-
ity. The steel slits eliminated the transfer of vertical load from the steel to nearby concrete and hence
prevented the abrupt shear failure of concrete. When the debonding length was reduced, it was ob-
served that the performance is not up to the level of specimen C2. Specimen C2 carried 25% more load
than C1, whereas C3 carried only 21.5% more load than C1. Specimen C4 carried 3% less load than
C1. The ultimate load and deformation capacities are higher for specimen C3 when compared with C4.
From the results, it can be seen that C3 shows better performance than C4 when compared with the
control specimen C1.

3.2. Crack pattern

Initially, for all the specimens, fine flexural cracks were developed near the column base. As the testing
progressed, these cracks extended to all sides of the column as fine diagonal cracks, near the base, in-
dicating the formation of shear failure planes. During subsequent cycles of loading, these cracks wid-
ened actively, and diagonal cracks developed and extended to further portions of the column

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 PERFORMANCE OF RC COLUMNS WITH DEBONDED BARS 633

Figure 6. Loading history.

Table 2. Ultimate load deformation capacity of column specimen.

Specimen designation Ultimate load (kN) Ultimate displacement (mm)

C1 21.99 17.5
C2 27.49 25
C3 26.71 25
C4 21.31 20

specimens as shown in Figure 7. During testing, it was observed that there was no failure at the zone
where debonding of reinforcement has been provided. Plastic hinges were shifted above the debonding
zone for specimens C3 and C4 compared with the specimens C1 and C2. The steel sleeves prevented
the bonding between the reinforcement and the concrete. For the debonded specimens C3 and C4, di-
agonal cracks were seen just above and below the debonding zone, indicating that the provision of
debonding has enabled the reinforcement to take up greater stress, thereby avoiding the transfer of
stress to the concrete, thus eliminating the formation of cracks.

3.3. Hysteretic behavior of column specimens

The force-displacement hysteresis loops for all specimens are shown in Figures 8–11. These hysteresis
loops show the stiffness degradation and reduction in load-carrying capacity due to the cracking of
concrete and yielding of the steel reinforcement. The specimen C1 had the capacity to withstand cyclic
loading up to ninth cycle with a maximum drift capacity of 3.5%, whereas specimen C2 had the capac-
ity to withstand cyclic loading up to 12th cycle with the maximum drift capacity of 5%. Specimen C3
also carried cyclic loading up to 12th cycle with a maximum drift capacity of 5%, and specimen C4
went up to 10th cycle with a maximum drift capacity of 4%. Pinching effect was seen in the hysteresis
loop of all the specimens. The provision of debonding was found to delay the stiffness degradation and
enabled the specimen to carry greater load compared with the control specimen.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642
DOI: 10.1002/tal
634 D. C. MITRA AND K. R. BINDHU

Figure 7. Crack pattern in specimens.

3.4. Energy dissipation capacity of column specimens

Structures with higher energy dissipation characteristics are able to undergo stronger shaking and ex-
hibit better seismic response. The area enclosed by a hysteretic loop at a given cycle represents the en-
ergy dissipated by the specimen during that cycle (El-Amoury and Ghobarah 2002). The amount of
energy dissipation in each cycle is the difference between the absorbed energy under loading and
the released energy under unloading. The energy dissipated in each cycle for the test specimens is ob-
tained from Figures 8 to 11. The cumulative energy dissipation capacity of each specimen is tabulated
in Tab. 3. It was observed that the energy dissipation capacity was greater for specimen C2 compared
with other column specimens. Change in the energy dissipation capacity of specimens with displace-
ment is shown in Figure 12. Energy dissipated by specimens C2, C3 and C4 were 2.38, 2.34 and 1.24
times than that dissipated by the control specimen C1. During the initial stages of loading, all the spec-
imens exhibited almost similar energy dissipation capacity. Specimen C3 shows similar behavior as
that of C2. Specimens C2, C3 and C4 show an increase of 138%, 134% and 24% of energy dissipation
capacity with respect to the control specimen. Increased energy dissipation of C3 after seventh cycle
when compared with C1 is due to the increased ductility achieved by providing debonding to
reinforcement.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 PERFORMANCE OF RC COLUMNS WITH DEBONDED BARS 635

Figure 8. Hysteresis curve for specimen C1.

Figure 9. Hysteresis curve for specimen C2.

3.5. Stiffness degradation of column specimens

The stiffness of RC column specimens when subjected to cyclic lateral load decreases with the increas-
ing loading cycles due to flexural cracking of concrete and flexural yielding of the longitudinal rein-
forcement. When the load reversal is repeated, the loading stiffness in the next cycle becomes

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642
DOI: 10.1002/tal
636 D. C. MITRA AND K. R. BINDHU

Figure 10. Hysteresis curve for specimen C3.

Figure 11. Hysteresis curve for specimen C4.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 PERFORMANCE OF RC COLUMNS WITH DEBONDED BARS 637

Table 3. Energy dissipation capacity of the specimens.

Specimen designation Energy dissipated kNmm

C1 906.65
C2 2166.54
C3 2119.44
C4 1124.81

Figure 12. Variation of energy dissipated with displacement for all specimens.

noticeably lower than that in the preceding cycle. The reduction in stiffness could be attributed to the
formation of flexural cracks and also by the Bauschinger effect. The average peak-to-peak stiffness of a
complete cycle decreases with the preceding maximum displacement stiffness of the hysteresis curve
of the column specimen. The stiffness degradation refers to the decrease of secant stiffness of the spec-
imen with the increase of repeated cycles and displacement (Ren et al., 2015). The stiffness of the col-
umn specimen was approximated as the slope of the peak-to-peak line in each loading cycle. The
stiffness degradation rate is evaluated as given in Eq. (1).

k i1  k i
Vi ¼ (1)
Δi1  Δi

where ki and ki  1 are the stiffness of the column specimen at iΔy and (i  1)Δy displacement-controlled
loading, respectively, and Δi and Δi  1 are the displacements of the specimen at iΔy and (i  1)Δy
displacement-controlled loading, respectively.
Variation of stiffness with displacement for column specimens is plotted in Figure 13. It can be seen
from Figure 13 that the performance of C3 and C4 was better that of than C1. It is also evident that spec-
imen C3 performed almost similar to C2. Initial lateral stiffness of C3 and C4 was smaller than that of
C2. But after this initial stage, all the specimens demonstrated almost the same pattern of degradation.
During the push and pull loading cycle, the opening and closing of the cracks have led to stiffness deg-
radation in the specimens.

3.6. Work damage indicator of column specimens

To determine the residual capacity of structures, an index was proposed by Sheikh and Khoury (1993)
by incorporating a wide range of parameters. WDI of column specimen is an index indicated by a num-
ber as given in Eq. (2). It represents the toughness of the specimen. Parameters incorporated in WDI
are number of cycles of loading, stiffness, ductility, cyclic dissipated energy and stiffness degradation.
The WDIs relate to the energy absorbed in the section or the member.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642
DOI: 10.1002/tal
638 D. C. MITRA AND K. R. BINDHU

Figure 13. Stiffness degradation of all specimen.

  2
1 i¼m ki Δi
WDI ¼ ∑ wi (2)
Pmax Δ1 i¼1 k1 Δ1

where Pmax is the ultimate load taken by specimen, Δ1 is the displacement in the first cycle, Δi is the
displacement in the ith cycle, wi is the energy dissipated in the ith cycle, ki is the stiffness of specimen
in the ith cycle and k1 is the stiffness in the first cycle.
The WDI of the column specimens are tabulated in Table 4. The variation of WDI of column spec-
imens with displacement is plotted in Figure 14. It was observed that WDI values are almost same for
all specimens during initial stage of loading and remarkable differences are noticed after 6 cycles. WDI
is highest for specimen C2 followed by specimen C3. WDI for specimen C2 was found to be 8.1 times
higher than specimen C1. Similarly for specimen C3 and C4 it was 5.29 and 2.5 times higher respec-
tively than the control specimen C1.

Table 4. Work damage indicator.

Specimen designation Work damage indicator
C1 2.03
C2 16.37
C3 10.74
C4 5.07

Figure 14. Work damage indicator versus deflection.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 PERFORMANCE OF RC COLUMNS WITH DEBONDED BARS 639

3.7. Lateral load-displacement envelope curves

Envelope curves for lateral load-displacement relation of column specimens are plotted in Figure 15.
For the first three to four cycles, all the specimens show similar behavior. Specimens C1 and C4 were
able to withstand ultimate load to almost the same level. After the fifth cycle, specimen C3 showed
better performance by carrying 22% more load and sustaining more displacement than C4.

3.8. Displacement ductility

The displacement ductility is the ratio between the maximum and yield displacement for each speci-
men, determined from the load-displacement envelope curves (Calvi et al., 2002; Shannag and
Alhassan, 2005). In this method, the yield displacement is arrived from the line drawn between the or-
igin and the first crack load point on the envelope curve, and this line is extended to intersect the 80%
load capacity horizontal line. This point is assumed as the yield displacement. Displacement ductility
of column specimens is shown in Figure 16, and the maximum value of displacement ductility with
34.2% increase with respect to control specimen is obtained for column specimen C2. This is due to
the special confining reinforcement at the column end. Displacement ductility values for specimens
C3 and C4 were more than that of specimen C1. Specimens C3 and C4 have respectively 17.4%

Figure 15. Lateral load–deflection envelope curves.

Figure 16. Displacement ductility ratio of specimens.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642
DOI: 10.1002/tal
640 D. C. MITRA AND K. R. BINDHU

Figure 17. Difference in work damage indicator of C1 with other specimens.

Figure 18. Difference in work damage indicator of C2 with other specimens.

and 16.85% higher ductility than the control specimen. This shows the enhanced ductility of column
due to the debonded reinforcement. The slight reduction in ductility of specimen C4 than C3 is due
to the reduction in length of the sleeve.

3.9. Variation of work damage indicator with displacement

The variation of WDI for column specimens with displacement is plotted in Figures 17 and 18. From
Figure 17, it can be inferred that specimen C3 can sustain more damage than specimen C4 relative to
specimen C1. From Figure 18, it can be inferred that specimen C3 is having a damage index closer to
that of specimen C2. The WDI for specimens C3 and C4 is almost similar up to seventh cycle of
loading.

4. CONCLUSION

In this study, the performance of the RC column specimens with debonding steel casing is compared
with that of the conventional column specimens. The following conclusions are arrived at from this
study.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 PERFORMANCE OF RC COLUMNS WITH DEBONDED BARS 641

The seismic performance of RC columns is enhanced significantly by providing debonding casing

for reinforcement over the potential plastic hinge zone. All the different parameters like ductility, en-
ergy absorption capacity, ultimate load-carrying capacity, stiffness and WDI of RC columns with
debonding casing were enhanced considerably when compared with the control specimen.
The behavior of column with debonding casing having length of 3/4th of the spacing of ties yielded
seismic parameters much more closely to that of column with ductile detailing as per IS 13920:1993.
As the casing length is reduced, substantial reduction in the performance was noticed. Hence, the seis-
mic performances of the columns can be enhanced in an effective and simple way by providing
debonding casing, and thus, the congestion of reinforcement due to shear reinforcement at the joints
can be eliminated.
The debonding of reinforcement enhances the ductility of column specimens by 17% when compared
with control specimen. Thus, by providing debonded reinforcement to critical region of the column, the
structural inelastic deformation capacity can be improved without causing congestion of reinforcement.

5. LIST OF NOTATIONS

k1 the stiffness in the first cycle in the first loading cycle

ki  1 stiffness of the column specimen at (i  1)Δy displacement-controlled loading
ki stiffness of the column specimen at iΔy displacement-controlled loading
Pmax ultimate load taken by specimen
Vi stiffness degradation rate in the ith cycle
WDI work damage indicator of the column specimen
wi energy dissipated in the ith cycle
Δ1 the displacement in the first cycle
Δi  1 displacements of the specimen at (i  1)Δy displacement-controlled loading
Δi displacements of the specimen at iΔy displacement-controlled loading

REFERENCES
Aycardi LE, Mander JB, Reinhorn AM. 1994. Seismic resistance of reinforced concrete frames designed only for gravity loads:
experimental performance of sub assemblages. ACI Structural Journal 91: 552–563.
Azizinamini A, Corley WG, Johal LSP. 1992. Effect of transverse reinforcement on seismic performance of columns. ACI Struc-
tural Journal 89: 442–450.
Calvi GM, Magenes G, Pampanin S. 2002. Relevance of beam-column joint damage and collapse in RC frame assessment. Jour-
nal of EarthquakeEngineering 6(1): 75–100.
Dazio A, Buzzini D, Trub M. 2008. Nonlinear cyclic behavior of hybrid fiber concrete structural walls. Engineering Structures
30: 3141–3150.
El-Amoury T, Ghobarah A. 2002. Seismic rehabilitation of beam–column joint using GFRP sheets. Engineering Structures 24:
1397–1407.
Elmenshawi A, Brown T. 2012. Deformation capacity of ultra-high strength concrete flexural elements subjected to inelastic load
reversals. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 21(11): 777–799.
Elwood KJ, Moehle JP. 2003. Shake table tests and analytical studies on the gravity load collapse of reinforced concrete frames.
Report no. PEER 2003/01, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Fahmy MFM, Wu ZS, Wu G, Sun ZY. 2010. Post yield stiffnesses and residual deformations of RC bridge columns reinforced
with ordinary rebars and steel fiber composite bars. Journal of Engineering Structures 32: 2969–2983.
Flores LM. 2004. Performance of existing reinforced concrete columns under bi-directional shear and axial loading. research
report, 2004. University of California: Berkeley.
Ho JCM. 2011. Limited ductility design of reinforced concrete columns for tall buildings in low to moderate seismicity regions.
The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 20: 102–120.
IS 456. 2000. Indian standard plain and reinforced concrete code of practice. Bureau of Indian Standards: New Delhi, India.
IS 1893 (Part 1). 2002. Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Bureau of Indian Standards: New
Delhi, India.
IS 13920. 1993. Indian standard ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces. Bureau of Indian
Standards: New Delhi, India.
Kawashima K, Hosoiri SG, Sakai J. 2001. Effects of unbonding of main reinforcements at plastic hinge region on enhanced duc-
tility of reinforced concrete bridge columns. Structural and Earthquake Engineering 57: 45–64.
Lee JY, Kono S, Watanabe F, Cheong YG. 2008. Softening behavior of RC columns under cyclic loading. Proceedings of the
th
14 world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada: 12–17.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642
DOI: 10.1002/tal
642 D. C. MITRA AND K. R. BINDHU

Li VC. 2002. Advances in ECC research. ACI Special publication on Concrete Material Science to Application ACI SP 206–23:
373–400.
Lukkunaprasit P, Tangbunchoo T, Rodsin K. 2011. Enhancement of seismic performance of reinforced concrete columns with
buckling restrained reinforcement. Engineering Structures 33: 3311–3316.
Mo YL, Wang SJ. 2000. Seismic behavior of RC columns with various tie configurations. Journal of Structural Engineering
126: 1122–1130.
Pandey GR, Mutsuyoshi H. 2005. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete piers with bond controlled reinforcements. ACI
Structural Journal 102(2): 295–304.
Pandey GR, Mutsuyoshi H, Maki T. 2008. Seismic performance of bond controlled RC columns. Engineering Structures 30(9):
2538–2547.
Ren F, Zhou Y, Chen G, Liang J. 2015. Experimental study on seismic performance of concrete-filled steel tubular frame-shear
wall structure with buckling-resistant braces. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 24: 73–95.
Ruangrassamee A, Sawaroj A. 2012. Seismic enhancement of reinforced-concrete columns by rebar-restraining collars. Journal
of Earthquake and Tsunami 06(03): 1250015.
th
Sakai J, Jeong H, Mahin SA. 2006. Reinforced concrete bridge columns that re-center following earthquakes. Proceedings of 8
US national conference on earthquake engineering, Paper No. 1421.
Saatcioglu M, Ozcebe G. 1989. Response of reinforced concrete columns to simulated seismic loading. ACI Structural Journal
86: 3–12.
Sakai K, Sheik SA. 1989. What do we know about confinement in reinforced concrete columns? (A critical review of previous
work and code provisions). ACI Structural Journal 86(2): 192–207.
SEAOC/AISC. 2005. Recommended provisions for buckling-restrained braced frame. Structural Engineers Association of
California/. American Institute of Steel Construction.
Sezen H, Moehle JP. 2004. Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engineering
130(11): 1692–1073.
Shannag MJ, Alhassan MA. 2005. Seismic upgrade of interior beam–column subassemblages with high-performance fiber-
reinforced concrete jackets. ACI Structural Journal 102(1): 131–138.
Sheikh SA, Khoury SS. 1993. Confined concrete columns with Stubs. ACI structural Journal 90(4): 414–431.
Suparviriyakit T, Pimanmas A. 2007. Comparative performance of a substandard beam column joint with and without initial bond
between beam bars and concrete in the joint core. Thammasat International journal of science and Technology 12(1): 42–51.
st
Turer Akyuz. 2004. Building damage patterns in Bingo – Turkey after the May 1 , 2003 earthquake. Proceedings of 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.
Wight JK, Sozen MA. 1975. Strength decay of RC columns under shear reversals. Journal of Structural Engineering Division,
ASCE 101: 1053–1065.

AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES

Damodaran Chitra Mitra is an associate professor of Civil Engineering at College of Engineering,

Trivandrum, Kerala, India, and has been involved in the research of earthquake resistant structures.
He is a member of Indian Society of Technical Education.

Dr Kochunaraya Rugmini Bindhu is an associate professor of Civil Engineering at College of Engi-

neering, Trivandrum, Kerala, India. Her research interests include earthquake-resistant structural element
and concrete materials. She has published more than 60 papers in national and international journals/con-
ferences. She is a member of ISTE, ISET, ICI and IEI-India.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2016; 25: 626–642
DOI: 10.1002/tal