In several current aseismic codes, the design of structures takes into account the so-called behavior factor, that is an estimator of the structure’s ability to undergo large post-yield cyclic deformations with an acceptable, relatively small reduction of its bearing capacity. Under given conditions of redundancy and regularity the behavior factor assumed in design can be translated into required curvature ductility factors at the section level [4.1], which are normally ensured by adequate layout and sufficient quantity of transverse confining reinforcement (closed hoops). Herein, a model is presented for the calculation of the required transverse reinforcement of columns to achieve a given curvature ductility, μ 1/r . In this model, the required transverse reinforcement is related to the main parameters that influence the curvature ductility, namely the normalized axial force, ν d , the mechanical characteristics of the materials, the transverse reinforcement arrangement, as well as the ratio between the column’s gross cross-sectional area A c and its confined part, A o .


Plastic Hinge Bond Stress Behavior Factor Code Provision Plastic Rotation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [4.1]
    Commission of the European Communities, 1993. Eurocode No. 8, Structures in Seismic Regions — Design. Part 1 — General and Building.Google Scholar
  2. [4.2]
    CEB-FIP Model Code, 1990. Thomas Telford, London, 437, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. [4.3]
    New Zealand Standard, 1982. Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Structures, NZS3101, Part 1.Google Scholar
  4. [4.4]
    Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N., 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [4.5]
    Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1. 1.Google Scholar
  6. [4.6]
    Bathe, K.J., Wilson, E.L., Petersson, F.E., 1973. SAP IV, A Structural Analysis Program for Static and Dynamic Response of Linear Systems, Report EERC 7311, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  7. [4.7]
    Kanaan, A.E. and Powell, G.H., 1973. DRAIN-2D, A General Purpose Computer Program for Dynamic Analysis of Inelastic Plane Structures, Report EERC 73–6 and 73–22, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  8. [4.8]
    Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J., 1975. Dynamics of Structures, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [4.9]
    Tassios, T.P. and Lefas, I.D., 1984. Concrete Ductility Due to Lateral Confinement, Scientific Papers, National Technical University, Vol. 8, No. 1–4, Athens.Google Scholar
  10. [4.10]
    Paulay, T. and Uzumeri, S., 1975. A critical review of the seismic design provisions for ductile shear walls of the Canadian Code and Commentary. Canadian Journal of Civil Eng., 2.Google Scholar
  11. [4.11]
    Priestley, M.J.N. and Park, R., 1984. Strength and ductility of bridge substructures. Bridge Design and Research Seminar, Auckland.Google Scholar
  12. [4.12]
    Steidle, P. and Schäfer, K., 1986. Trag-und Verformungsfähigkeit von Stützen bei großen Zwangsverschiebungen. Deutscher Ausschuß für Stahlbeton, Heft 376.Google Scholar
  13. [4.13]
    Wohlfahrt, R. and Koch, R., 1986. Versuche an Stützen mit Normalkraft und Zwangsverschiebungen. Deutscher Ausschuß für Stahlbeton, Heft 376.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. P. Tassios
    • 1
  1. 1.National Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations