PSI - Issue 77

Ercan Işik et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 77 (2026) 465 – 474

470

6

Ercan Işik et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2026) 000 – 000

Table 2. Comparison of demand and limit shear force ( kN ) values.

Φ8/100 Model I

Φ8/200 Model II

Φ8/300

Φ8/400

Φ8/500 Model V

Story

Column

Model III

Model IV

Demand

Limit

Demand

Limit 67.32 79.47 79.42 67.31 98.97

Demand

Limit 61.73 73.57 73.53 61.72

Demand

Limit 60.38 71.78 71.75 60.36

Demand

Limit 58,70 69,85 69,83 58,69

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9

85.20 95.03 95.00 85.18

83.26 94.28 94.24 83.25

80.49 92.56 92.53 80.48

79.49 91.42 91.40 79.49

109.55 111.07 111.06 109.55 110.72 110.10 110.13 110.71 110.70 113.68 113.68 110.70

117.16 119.23 119.21 117.16 115.42 117.49 117.52 115.43 118.24 122.56 122.55 118.24

102.87 103.05 102.97 102.88

124.29 131.21 131.16 124.29 117.83 126.30 126.34 117.84 126.25 134.00 133.99 126.25

105.58 108.78 108.70 105.60

124.94 133.57 133.52 124.95 117.33 127.18 127.22 117.34 126.59 135.82 135.82 126.59

102,91 108,87 108,79 102,93

104.28 104.19

98.99

102.96 100.69 100.79 102.97 100.47 112.31 112.30 100.47

99.00 97.63 97.72 99.03 99.55

97.84

96,09

S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16

107.01 107.10

103,00 103,06

No exceed

97.86

96,11

105.51 113.77 113.76 105.50

102,51 112,96 112,96 102,51

110.64 110.63

99.54

S1 S5 S9

No Exceed

66.31

65.15 94.58 92.81 91.16

66.95

62.46 92.21 89.53 89.00

101.64 102.32

98.23 99.19 95.27

106.69 105.05

107.06 104.46

No Exceed

S13

96.07

97.33

97.91

In RC columns, as the spacing of transverse reinforcement increases, the shear force limits that can be accommodated by the transverse reinforcement decrease. Consequently, it becomes much more likely that the limit values of shear forces will be exceeded. With the increase in the spacing of transverse reinforcement, the number of columns exceeding the shear force limit values has also increased. When the spacing of transverse reinforcement in columns exceeds the distances specified in regulations, it can lead to buckling of longitudinal reinforcement and brittle behavior of the core concrete. Structural analysis and field investigations indicate that transverse reinforcements must be applied with the precision outlined in earthquake regulations. However, it has been observed that in damaged columns, the spacing of transverse reinforcement is often well above the specified limits. In this part of the study, only the spacing of transverse reinforcement in columns has been chosen as a variable. Additionally, factors such as concrete strength, quality of reinforcement, and arrangement of reinforcement will directly influence potential damage. In this study, to assess the effects of transverse reinforcement conditions in columns, structural models have been created for the scenarios of different reinforcement diameters, a bending angle of 90º for the reinforcement, and the use of stirrups in the columns. The column cross-sections and descriptions of these models are presented in Table 3.