Comparison of available shear strength models for non-conforming reinforced concrete columns

•In-depth analysis of eight shear strength capacity models available in literature.•Comparison with a unique database of 180 experimental tests of non-conforming RC columns failed in shear.•Meaningful statistics to assess the model performances for different categories of RC columns.•Suggestions for...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Engineering structures 2017-10, Vol.148, p.312-327
Hauptverfasser: Del Vecchio, Ciro, Del Zoppo, Marta, Di Ludovico, Marco, Verderame, Gerardo Mario, Prota, Andrea
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 327
container_issue
container_start_page 312
container_title Engineering structures
container_volume 148
creator Del Vecchio, Ciro
Del Zoppo, Marta
Di Ludovico, Marco
Verderame, Gerardo Mario
Prota, Andrea
description •In-depth analysis of eight shear strength capacity models available in literature.•Comparison with a unique database of 180 experimental tests of non-conforming RC columns failed in shear.•Meaningful statistics to assess the model performances for different categories of RC columns.•Suggestions for the model applicability have been provided.•Corrective factors have been calibrated to allow the use of the selected models with specific levels of safety. Field surveys in the aftermath of major seismic events, laboratory tests and numerical studies outlined that existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures are likely to exhibit premature shear failures. However, a proper quantification of the shear capacity of existing members with seismic details non-conforming to current seismic code is still a challenging task. Several models based on mechanical approaches or experimental observations are available in literature, current standards and guidelines. Nevertheless, the lack of a widely accepted theory often results in the use of old formulations, mainly developed for design purposes, to assess the shear strength of non-conforming RC members. This study investigates the available shear strength formulations. Eight capacity models commonly adopted in the current practice and worldwide standards or guidelines have been assessed comparing the model predictions with a unique database of 180 experimental tests properly selected to be representative of non-conforming RC members. Members with rectangular or circular cross-section, different aspect ratio (i.e. slender or squat) and shear or flexure-shear failure mode have been investigated. Meaningful statistics have been used to quantify the accuracy and the level of safety of each formulation. Several criticisms in the use of the available formulations are herein outlined. Suggestions for the model applicability have been provided in order to drive the reader to select the most appropriate shear strength formulation for assessment purposes. Finally, corrective factors have been calibrated to allow the use of the selected models with specific levels of safety.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.06.045
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1956485839</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S014102961631608X</els_id><sourcerecordid>1956485839</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-e4ad2189d0120cf5b5542a0e35f64dfa7e5524299bb8f0251a0e42c10829e2283</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE9LAzEQxYMoWKufwYDnXSfZZDd7LMV_IHjRmxDS7GybspvUZFvw25tS8eppHjNv3jA_Qm4ZlAxYfb8t0a_TFPd2KjmwpoS6BCHPyIyppiqailfnZAZMsAJ4W1-Sq5S2AMCVghn5XIZxZ6JLwdPQU3MwbjCrAWnaoIk05-b0aUPH0OGQaB8i9cEXNvgsR-fXNKI7aosdzV0bccIshv3o0zW56M2Q8Oa3zsnH48P78rl4fXt6WS5eC1uJaipQmI4z1XbAONherqQU3ABWsq9F15sGpeSCt-1qpXrgkuWZ4JaB4i1yrqo5uTvl7mL42mOa9Dbso88nNWtlLZRUVZtdzcllY0gpYq930Y0mfmsG-ohSb_UfSn1EqaHWGWXeXJw2MwI8OIw6WYc-v-wiZm8X3L8ZP9wlgo0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1956485839</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of available shear strength models for non-conforming reinforced concrete columns</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Del Vecchio, Ciro ; Del Zoppo, Marta ; Di Ludovico, Marco ; Verderame, Gerardo Mario ; Prota, Andrea</creator><creatorcontrib>Del Vecchio, Ciro ; Del Zoppo, Marta ; Di Ludovico, Marco ; Verderame, Gerardo Mario ; Prota, Andrea</creatorcontrib><description>•In-depth analysis of eight shear strength capacity models available in literature.•Comparison with a unique database of 180 experimental tests of non-conforming RC columns failed in shear.•Meaningful statistics to assess the model performances for different categories of RC columns.•Suggestions for the model applicability have been provided.•Corrective factors have been calibrated to allow the use of the selected models with specific levels of safety. Field surveys in the aftermath of major seismic events, laboratory tests and numerical studies outlined that existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures are likely to exhibit premature shear failures. However, a proper quantification of the shear capacity of existing members with seismic details non-conforming to current seismic code is still a challenging task. Several models based on mechanical approaches or experimental observations are available in literature, current standards and guidelines. Nevertheless, the lack of a widely accepted theory often results in the use of old formulations, mainly developed for design purposes, to assess the shear strength of non-conforming RC members. This study investigates the available shear strength formulations. Eight capacity models commonly adopted in the current practice and worldwide standards or guidelines have been assessed comparing the model predictions with a unique database of 180 experimental tests properly selected to be representative of non-conforming RC members. Members with rectangular or circular cross-section, different aspect ratio (i.e. slender or squat) and shear or flexure-shear failure mode have been investigated. Meaningful statistics have been used to quantify the accuracy and the level of safety of each formulation. Several criticisms in the use of the available formulations are herein outlined. Suggestions for the model applicability have been provided in order to drive the reader to select the most appropriate shear strength formulation for assessment purposes. Finally, corrective factors have been calibrated to allow the use of the selected models with specific levels of safety.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0141-0296</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-7323</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.06.045</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Aspect ratio ; Code formulations ; Columns (structural) ; Existing members ; Flexing ; Formulations ; Guidelines ; Laboratory tests ; Mathematical analysis ; Mathematical models ; Model Code ; Non-conforming ; Reinforced concrete ; Safety ; Seismic activity ; Seismic assessment ; Seismic engineering ; Shear strength</subject><ispartof>Engineering structures, 2017-10, Vol.148, p.312-327</ispartof><rights>2017 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier BV Oct 1, 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-e4ad2189d0120cf5b5542a0e35f64dfa7e5524299bb8f0251a0e42c10829e2283</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-e4ad2189d0120cf5b5542a0e35f64dfa7e5524299bb8f0251a0e42c10829e2283</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.06.045$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,45974</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Del Vecchio, Ciro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Del Zoppo, Marta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Di Ludovico, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verderame, Gerardo Mario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prota, Andrea</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of available shear strength models for non-conforming reinforced concrete columns</title><title>Engineering structures</title><description>•In-depth analysis of eight shear strength capacity models available in literature.•Comparison with a unique database of 180 experimental tests of non-conforming RC columns failed in shear.•Meaningful statistics to assess the model performances for different categories of RC columns.•Suggestions for the model applicability have been provided.•Corrective factors have been calibrated to allow the use of the selected models with specific levels of safety. Field surveys in the aftermath of major seismic events, laboratory tests and numerical studies outlined that existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures are likely to exhibit premature shear failures. However, a proper quantification of the shear capacity of existing members with seismic details non-conforming to current seismic code is still a challenging task. Several models based on mechanical approaches or experimental observations are available in literature, current standards and guidelines. Nevertheless, the lack of a widely accepted theory often results in the use of old formulations, mainly developed for design purposes, to assess the shear strength of non-conforming RC members. This study investigates the available shear strength formulations. Eight capacity models commonly adopted in the current practice and worldwide standards or guidelines have been assessed comparing the model predictions with a unique database of 180 experimental tests properly selected to be representative of non-conforming RC members. Members with rectangular or circular cross-section, different aspect ratio (i.e. slender or squat) and shear or flexure-shear failure mode have been investigated. Meaningful statistics have been used to quantify the accuracy and the level of safety of each formulation. Several criticisms in the use of the available formulations are herein outlined. Suggestions for the model applicability have been provided in order to drive the reader to select the most appropriate shear strength formulation for assessment purposes. Finally, corrective factors have been calibrated to allow the use of the selected models with specific levels of safety.</description><subject>Aspect ratio</subject><subject>Code formulations</subject><subject>Columns (structural)</subject><subject>Existing members</subject><subject>Flexing</subject><subject>Formulations</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>Laboratory tests</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Model Code</subject><subject>Non-conforming</subject><subject>Reinforced concrete</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Seismic activity</subject><subject>Seismic assessment</subject><subject>Seismic engineering</subject><subject>Shear strength</subject><issn>0141-0296</issn><issn>1873-7323</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkE9LAzEQxYMoWKufwYDnXSfZZDd7LMV_IHjRmxDS7GybspvUZFvw25tS8eppHjNv3jA_Qm4ZlAxYfb8t0a_TFPd2KjmwpoS6BCHPyIyppiqailfnZAZMsAJ4W1-Sq5S2AMCVghn5XIZxZ6JLwdPQU3MwbjCrAWnaoIk05-b0aUPH0OGQaB8i9cEXNvgsR-fXNKI7aosdzV0bccIshv3o0zW56M2Q8Oa3zsnH48P78rl4fXt6WS5eC1uJaipQmI4z1XbAONherqQU3ABWsq9F15sGpeSCt-1qpXrgkuWZ4JaB4i1yrqo5uTvl7mL42mOa9Dbso88nNWtlLZRUVZtdzcllY0gpYq930Y0mfmsG-ohSb_UfSn1EqaHWGWXeXJw2MwI8OIw6WYc-v-wiZm8X3L8ZP9wlgo0</recordid><startdate>20171001</startdate><enddate>20171001</enddate><creator>Del Vecchio, Ciro</creator><creator>Del Zoppo, Marta</creator><creator>Di Ludovico, Marco</creator><creator>Verderame, Gerardo Mario</creator><creator>Prota, Andrea</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171001</creationdate><title>Comparison of available shear strength models for non-conforming reinforced concrete columns</title><author>Del Vecchio, Ciro ; Del Zoppo, Marta ; Di Ludovico, Marco ; Verderame, Gerardo Mario ; Prota, Andrea</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-e4ad2189d0120cf5b5542a0e35f64dfa7e5524299bb8f0251a0e42c10829e2283</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Aspect ratio</topic><topic>Code formulations</topic><topic>Columns (structural)</topic><topic>Existing members</topic><topic>Flexing</topic><topic>Formulations</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>Laboratory tests</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Model Code</topic><topic>Non-conforming</topic><topic>Reinforced concrete</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Seismic activity</topic><topic>Seismic assessment</topic><topic>Seismic engineering</topic><topic>Shear strength</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Del Vecchio, Ciro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Del Zoppo, Marta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Di Ludovico, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verderame, Gerardo Mario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prota, Andrea</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Engineering structures</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Del Vecchio, Ciro</au><au>Del Zoppo, Marta</au><au>Di Ludovico, Marco</au><au>Verderame, Gerardo Mario</au><au>Prota, Andrea</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of available shear strength models for non-conforming reinforced concrete columns</atitle><jtitle>Engineering structures</jtitle><date>2017-10-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>148</volume><spage>312</spage><epage>327</epage><pages>312-327</pages><issn>0141-0296</issn><eissn>1873-7323</eissn><abstract>•In-depth analysis of eight shear strength capacity models available in literature.•Comparison with a unique database of 180 experimental tests of non-conforming RC columns failed in shear.•Meaningful statistics to assess the model performances for different categories of RC columns.•Suggestions for the model applicability have been provided.•Corrective factors have been calibrated to allow the use of the selected models with specific levels of safety. Field surveys in the aftermath of major seismic events, laboratory tests and numerical studies outlined that existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures are likely to exhibit premature shear failures. However, a proper quantification of the shear capacity of existing members with seismic details non-conforming to current seismic code is still a challenging task. Several models based on mechanical approaches or experimental observations are available in literature, current standards and guidelines. Nevertheless, the lack of a widely accepted theory often results in the use of old formulations, mainly developed for design purposes, to assess the shear strength of non-conforming RC members. This study investigates the available shear strength formulations. Eight capacity models commonly adopted in the current practice and worldwide standards or guidelines have been assessed comparing the model predictions with a unique database of 180 experimental tests properly selected to be representative of non-conforming RC members. Members with rectangular or circular cross-section, different aspect ratio (i.e. slender or squat) and shear or flexure-shear failure mode have been investigated. Meaningful statistics have been used to quantify the accuracy and the level of safety of each formulation. Several criticisms in the use of the available formulations are herein outlined. Suggestions for the model applicability have been provided in order to drive the reader to select the most appropriate shear strength formulation for assessment purposes. Finally, corrective factors have been calibrated to allow the use of the selected models with specific levels of safety.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.06.045</doi><tpages>16</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0141-0296
ispartof Engineering structures, 2017-10, Vol.148, p.312-327
issn 0141-0296
1873-7323
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1956485839
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Aspect ratio
Code formulations
Columns (structural)
Existing members
Flexing
Formulations
Guidelines
Laboratory tests
Mathematical analysis
Mathematical models
Model Code
Non-conforming
Reinforced concrete
Safety
Seismic activity
Seismic assessment
Seismic engineering
Shear strength
title Comparison of available shear strength models for non-conforming reinforced concrete columns
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T06%3A50%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20available%20shear%20strength%20models%20for%20non-conforming%20reinforced%20concrete%20columns&rft.jtitle=Engineering%20structures&rft.au=Del%20Vecchio,%20Ciro&rft.date=2017-10-01&rft.volume=148&rft.spage=312&rft.epage=327&rft.pages=312-327&rft.issn=0141-0296&rft.eissn=1873-7323&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.06.045&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1956485839%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1956485839&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S014102961631608X&rfr_iscdi=true