CJBAS Vol.

(01) - September - Issue 02 (2013) 77-87

Performance Assessment of Some Reinforced Concrete Buildings under Construction: The

Case of North Cyprus
Hakan Yalciner1,, Khaled H. Marar2
1

Erzincan University, Department of Civil Engineering, Erzincan, TURKEY

European University of Lefke, Department of Civil Engineering, Lefke, Mersin 10, TURKEY

Keywords:

Construction faults;
linear performance
analyses;
honeycombing;
corrosion

Abstract
The main objective of this study was to assess and identify general construction faults
and to investigate the effects of construction faults on the linear performance levels of
reinforced concrete buildings. For doing this, observed two common construction faults
(i.e., corrosion and honeycombing) were considered to be used in linear performance
analyses. Finite element method was used to model the honeycombing at the columnbeam joints. The effects of corrosion on the performance levels were ensured by
reducing the cross-sectional area of reinforcement bars and reduced concrete
compressive strength as a function of corrosion rate. Thus, two different construction
faults on the levels of structural performance were discussed and compared. The results
showed that the effects of honeycombing on performance levels of reinforced concrete
building with linear performance analyses was more dramatic when it was compared
with the results of damage building due to corrosion having a moderate to high
corrosion threshold.

1. Introduction
On September 1985, a major earthquake with magnitude 8.1 on the Richter scale occurred along the
Pacific coast of Mexico which caused extensive destruction and over 10,000 deaths in Mexico City
were recorded. Another major earthquake was occurred in Turkey, on August 17th and the other one
on November 12th, 1999 with magnitudes of 7.4 and 7.2 on Richter scale, respectively. According
to official reports this earthquake caused deaths of about 15,000 people and collapsed of 133,683
buildings [1]. Each earthquake consequences were due to not considering lessons learned. In this
study thirty existing reinforced concrete (RC) buildings were assessed and common problems
identified from the randomly selected constructions in the city of Gazimagusa in North Cyprus.
Observed two common construction faults (i.e., corrosion and honeycombing) were used to perform
linear performance analyses. Previous study done by Yalciner et al. [2] performed nonlinear timehistory analyses for 20 ground motion records to investigate the three different (the loss of the cross
sectional area of the reinforcement bars, the reduction of the concrete compressive strength and the
bondslip relationship) effects of corrosion on seismic performance levels. Developed time

Corresponding Author (Email: hakan.yalciner@emu.edu.tr

77

Hakan Yalciner and Khaled H. Marar CJBAS Vol. (01)-September Issue 02 (2013) 77-87
dependent corrosion model by Yalciner et al.
[2] showed that there were strong
relationships between the reinforcement slip
due to corrosion in concrete and the roof drift
ratio of the RC buildings. In contrast to
previous study done by Yalciner et al. [2], in
this study particularly two effects of corrosion
(the loss of the cross sectional area of the

reinforcement bars, the reduction of the

concrete compressive strength) were taken
into account to perform linear performance
analyses. The reduction in the concrete
compressive strength due to corrosion was
calculated by using developed expression by
Yalciner et al. [2], as given Eq. 1 below.

2bft
4d s (t )

b f b0 nbars

(1 ) /(a / b) (1 )(b / a ) E
ef
c
c

Where bf is the width increased by corrosion

cracking, b0 is the section width in the virgin
state, nbars is the number of the bars in the top
layer (compressed bars), ft is the tensile
strength of concrete, c is the Poissons ratio
of concrete and Eef is the effective elastic
modulus of concrete. In Equation 1, a and b
were explained by the developed thick wall
model by Baant [3]. It should be noted, in
this study linear performance analysis was
performed based on the developed model by
Sucuoglu [4], thus slippage of reinforcement
where bond strength is a function of corrosion
rate was not taken into account. The effects of
honeycombing at the column-beam joints
were modeled based on the developed finite
element modeling (FEM) by Yang et al. [5].
In that study Yang et al. [5] basically used the
developed micropolar elasticity theory by
Eringen [6].

(1)

buildings. Figure 1 shows the assessed one of

the RC buildings.

Figure 1. An under construction RC

building

2. Assessment of reinforced concrete

buildings under construction
This stage involves the general construction
faults from the selected RC buildings under
construction. The assessed buildings were
located in Gazimagusa city and the distance
of the buildings from the Mediterranean sea
was approximately 1 Km which affects the
level of corrosion potential of the existing

Figure 2. Honeycombing at columns.

The common and observed construction faults
were mainly honeycombing at column-beam
joints. Formation of honeycombing generally
depends on pouring, compacting of concrete
and particularly vibration time. The time of
the vibration plays an important role during

78

Hakan Yalciner and Khaled H. Marar CJBAS Vol. (01)-September Issue 02 (2013) 77-87
placing of concrete. If the time of the
vibration exceeds more than required, the
coarse aggregates settle down and fine
aggregates rise up which affects the mix
design of the concrete. In this study, each
floor of the existing buildings under
construction had honeycombing problems
which reduces the required strength of
column design as it shown in Figure 2. More
than half of the column-beam joint regions
had honeycombing problems which also
decreases the maximum shear force that a
joint can resist. Honeycombing also causes
corrosion of reinforcement as it is shown in
Figure 3.
Because of corrosion the
performance level of structures decreases with
time due to different effects. These effects
could be a reduction in the cross sectional
area of the reinforcement bars, internal cracks
in structural members, reduction in the
concrete
strength,
additional
lateral
displacement due to slipping and cracking of
the concrete cover due to the expansion of
corrosion products [2].

Figure 4. An under construction RC

building.
Figure 4 shows the another assessed RC
building from Gazimagusa. For the assessed
building again more than half of the columnbeam joint regions (see Figure 7) had
honeycombing problems. Another mainly
faced construction faults was cold joint
problems (see Figure 6). The general reason
of this problem has been occurred due to the
wrong application and inadequate formworks.
As it can be seen from Figure 6, the upper end
of the column has the same color of the beam
which represents that the concrete was not
placed at the same time for the related
column. These cold joints are the reasons to
decrease the maximum shear force that the
joint can resist during earthquakes.

Figure 3. Sign of corrosion

Figure 5. Sign of honeycombing [7].

79

Hakan Yalciner and Khaled H. Marar CJBAS Vol. (01)-September Issue 02 (2013) 77-87

Figure 8. Inadequate cover materials.

Figure 6. Cold joints at column- beam
regions.

For the assessed building in Figure 4, another

common investigated problem was again
corrosion as shown in Figure 7. The main
reason of corrosion was to not use adequate
cover materials. Beside of buildings which
were under construction, twenty existing RC
buildings were also assessed and common
construction faults were identified. Figures 810 illustrate some cracks that occurred on the
surface of the columns due to corrosion which
might be due to the reason of using
inadequate cover material during the
construction process.

Figure 9. Sign of corrosion.

Figure 10. Cracked concrete due to

corrosion.
As shown in Figure 10, spalling of concrete
occurred due to volumetric expansion by
corrosion. As a consequence of volumetric
expansion, the concrete strength decreases as
a function of crack width, where the loss of
ductility of the columns is inevitable under
seismic loading [2].

Figure 7. Sign of corrosion.

80

Hakan Yalciner and Khaled H. Marar CJBAS Vol. (01)-September Issue 02 (2013) 77-87
In the method of Sucuoglu [4], four
performance
levels
(i.e,
immediate
occupancy, life safety, collapse prevention
and collapse) were defined based on their
damage limits. In the study of Sucuoglu [4],
immediate occupancy (IO) performance level
was defined when not more than 10% of
beams are in the significant damage state
whereas all other structural members are in
the minimum damage state. Life safety (LS)
performance level was defined when not more
than 20% of beams and some columns are in
the extreme damage state whereas all other
structural members are in the minimum or
significant damage states. Collapse prevention
(CP) performance level was defined when not
more than 20% of beams and some columns
are in the collapsed state whereas all other
structural members are in the minimum,
significant or extreme damage states.
Collapse performance level was defined when
the building fails to satisfy any performance
levels of IO, LS and CP.

3. Linear performance assessment of a

RC building
In this stage linear performance assessment
was performed based on the described
procedure by Sucuoglu [4]. Sucuoglu [4]
defined the damaged limits of structural
members with their damage states. Sucuoglu
[4] stated that if the demand to capacity ratio
at a potentially yielding frame member end or
a masonry infill strut exceeds the demand to
capacity ratio limit specified for a
performance limit state, then that member
performance is declared unacceptable.
Otherwise it is acceptable [4]. Table 1 below
shows the defined limit states based on the
demand to capacity ratio (r). In Table 1, N is
the axial force calculated under simultaneous
action of vertical loads, Ac is the gross
sectional area of column, fc is the compressive
strength of concrete, fct is the tensile strength
of concrete, Ve is the shear force taken into
account for the calculation of transverse
reinforcement of column, bw is the width of
beam web, and d is the effective beam height.

Table 1. Demand/capacity ratios for reinforced concrete columns (r) [4]

Ductile Columns

N
AC f c
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4

Confinement
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Non Conforming
Non Conforming
Non Conforming
Non Conforming
Brittle Columns

Ve
bw df ct
0.65
1.30
0.65
1.30
0.65
1.30
0.65
1.30

Damage Limit
Minimum
Safety
Collapse
damage limit damage limit damage limit
3
2.5
2
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1

6
5
4
3
3.5
2.5
2
1.5
1

8
6
6
5
5
3.5
3
2
1

shown in Figure 11. The remodeled building

was a randomly selected dormitory building
having a four story. Existing static drawings
were used for the remodeling of RC building.
For the structural assessment, building

4. Results of modeled RC building under

the effects of corrosion and
honeycombing
In this study an existing RC building was
remodeled. The remodeled RC building is

81

Hakan Yalciner and Khaled H. Marar CJBAS Vol. (01)-September Issue 02 (2013) 77-87
importance factor (I) was taken as 1.4,
building behaviour factor was taken as 7,
effective ground acceleration coefficient was
taken as 0.3g according to the TEQ 2007 [8].
The soil used in this study was sampled from
the existing building from the depth of 4.5 m
under the ground. The physical properties of
this soil were summarized in Table 2. Soil
type was classified as soil D according to the
unified soil classification system (USCS). The
two
effects
of
construction
faults,
honeycombing
and
corrosion
of
reinforcement bars were applied and

performed, respectively by using finite

element method. Figure 12 and 13 show the
application of honeycombing at the columnbeam joints, respectively based on the
developed FEM by Yang et al. [5]. The
results of linear performance analyses of an
existing building (undamaged) based on
applied four different earthquake loads from
the selected columns are given in Table 3.
Tables 4 and 5 give the results of linear
performance analyses of damage building due
to honeycombing and corrosion, respectively.

Table 2. Physical properties of soil for existing building

Soil characteristics
Soil D
Insitu dry density(gr /cm3)
1.32
Liquid limit, LL (%)
53.22
Insitu water content (%)
22.27
Plastic limit, PL (%)
21.4
Shrinkage limit, SL (%)
14.78
Plasticity index, PI
28.37
Percentage of clay (%)
55
Specific gravity of solids
2.43
Percentage of silt (%)
28
Percentage of sand (%)
3
Optimum water content (%)
26
Maximum dry density(gr/cm3)
1.42

Figure 11. Modelling of a RC building.

82

Hakan Yalciner and Khaled H. Marar CJBAS Vol. (01)-September Issue 02 (2013) 77-87

Honeycombing

Honeycombing

Figure 12. FEM for honeycombing at the middle point of a column.

Table 3. Existing building - Demand/capacity ratios for reinforced concrete columns (r)
Column

Load

N/Acfc

Ve/bwdfct

MN

GV

GC

+EX
0.07
0.46
0.45
3
6
8
-EX
0.07
0.46
0.45
3
6
8
S11M
+EY
0.06
0.08
0.43
3
6
8
-EY
0.06
0.07
0.43
3
6
8
+EX
0.09
0.41
0.50
3
6
8
-EX
0.09
0.41
0.50
3
6
8
S11A
+EY
0.10
0.04
0.62
2.98
5.98
7.97
-EY
0.10
0.04
0.62
2.98
5.98
7.97
+EX
0.07
0.47
0.33
3
6
8
-EX
0.07
0.47
0.33
3
6
8
S11E
+EY
0.06
0.38
0.98
3
6
8
-EY
0.06
0.38
0.98
3
6
8
+EX
0.07
0.42
0.30
3
6
8
-EX
0.07
0.42
0.30
3
6
8
S11G
+EY
0.04
0.35
1.14
3
6
8
-EY
0.04
0.35
1.15
3
6
8
+EX
0.04
0.33
0.19
3
6
8
-EX
0.04
0.33
0.19
3
6
8
S11I
+EY
0.03
0.33
1.31
3
6
8
-EY
0.03
0.33
1.31
3
6
8
*MN: Minimum damage limit, GV: Safety damage limit, GC: Collapse limit.

83

Damage
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum

Damage
reason
-

Hakan Yalciner and Khaled H. Marar CJBAS Vol. (01)-September Issue 02 (2013) 77-87

Honeycombing

Figure 13. FEM for honeycombing at the column-beam joints.

Table 4. Damaged building (Honey combing) - Demand/capacity ratios for reinforced

concrete columns (r)
Column

S11M

S11A

S11E

S11G

S11I

Load

N/Acfc

Ve/bwdfct

MN

GV

GC

Damage

+EX
-EX
+EY
-EY
+EX
-EX
+EY
-EY
+EX
-EX
+EY
-EY
+EX
-EX
+EY
-EY
+EX
-EX
+EY
-EY

1.72
1.72
1.68
1.68
2.02
1.98
1.83
1.83
1.75
1.72
1.13
1.13
1.75
1.70
0.87
0.87
1.34
1.34
0.76
0.76

0.37
0.37
0.08
0.10
0.21
0.21
0.10
0.10
0.17
0.17
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.19
0.19
0.14
0.14
0.18
0.18

1.27
1.27
1.01
1.01
1.52
1.56
2.09
2.04
1.54
1.58
2.73
2.82
1.36
1.42
3.11
3.19
0.66
0.66
3.36
3.40

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Collapse
Collapse
Collapse
Collapse
Collapse
Collapse
Collapse
Collapse
Collapse
Collapse
Collapse
Collapse
Collapse
Collapse
Collapse
Collapse
Minimum
Minimum
Collapse
Collapse

84

Damage
reason
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1
r>1

Hakan Yalciner and Khaled H. Marar CJBAS Vol. (01)-September Issue 02 (2013) 77-87
Table 5. Damaged building (Corrosion) - Demand/capacity ratios for reinforced concrete
columns (r)
Column

S11M

S11A

S11C

S11E

S11G

S11I

S11J

S12G

S12I

S12A

Load

N/Acfc

Ve/bwdfct

MN

GV

GC

Damage

Damage reason

+EX
-EX
+EY
-EY
+EX
-EX
+EY
-EY
+EX
-EX
+EY
-EY
+EX
-EX
+EY
-EY
+EX
-EX
+EY
-EY
+EX
-EX
+EY
-EY
+EX
-EX
+EY
-EY
+EX
-EX
+EY
-EY
+EX
-EX
+EY
-EY
+EX
-EX
+EY
-EY

0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.11
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.16
0.16
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06

0.51
0.51
0.09
0.08
0.45
0.45
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.36
0.35
035
0.52
0.52
0.39
0.39
0.46
0.46
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.38
0.35
0.35
0.37
0.37
0.29
0.30
0.24
0.23
0.08
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.35
0.35
0.25
0.25
0.16
0.16

0.002
0.002
0.006
0.006
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.006
0.006
0.003
0.003
0.006
0.006
0.003
0.003
0.006
0.006
0.003
0.003
0.006
0.006
0.003
0.003
0.008
0.008
0.003
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.006
0.003
0.003
0.006
0.006

27.12

0.46
0.46
0.44
0.44
0.50
0.50
0.62
0.62
0.29
0.29
0.99
0.99
0.34
0.34
1.02
1.03
0.31
0.31
1.19
1.20
0.19
0.19
1.36
1.36
0.30
0.30
0.31
0.31
0.44
0.44
0.82
0.82
0.34
0.34
1.37
1.34
0.85
0.85
0.43
0.43

3
3
3
3
2.97
2.97
2.91
2.91
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.90
2.90
2.98
2.98
2.80
2.80
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

8
8
8
8
7.94
7.94
7.83
7.83
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7.79
7.79
7.96
7.96
7.61
7.61
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum

4.47
16.03
1.44
35.86
76.76
40.64
70.42
36.01
65.91
29.10
73.59
29.17
22.87
8.94
2.82
0.33
23.95
7.76
5.03

The result of linear performance analyses

showed that if the assessed building was
constructed based on the expected
construction design standards, the linear

performance analyses of building were

immediate
occupancy
where
the
demand/capacity ratios of reinforced concrete
columns were minimized as given in Table 2.

85

Hakan Yalciner and Khaled H. Marar CJBAS Vol. (01)-September Issue 02 (2013) 77-87
However, the performance level of the
assessed building due to honeycombing was
collapse as given in Table 4. As shown in
Table 4, the demand/capacity ratios of
reinforced concrete columns were greater one.
Because of honeycombing where the capacity
of shear force particularly transverse
reinforcement of the column was reduced due
to honeycombing. Developed FEM by Yang
et al. [5] was based on the negative Poissons
ratio for the modelling of honeycombing.
Thus, honeycombing directly effected the
capacity of columns gained by the
compressive strength of concrete. The results
of linear performance level of the assessed
building due to corrosion was more optimistic
when it was compared with the damage
building due to honeycombing. It should be
noted that in this study, moderate to high (0.51 A/cm2) thresholds of corrosion was
assumed based on the given limits by Song
and Saraswathy [9]. The performance level of
damaged building due to corrosion was life
safety based on linear performance analyses.
Of course, different corrosion rates would
give different performance levels, but this was
not a case for the present study. In Table 5,
the damage limits for the selected columns
were minimum. In the case of corroded RC
building, only 6 columns out of 280 columns
have evident damage limits where not more
than 20% of beams and some columns were
in the extreme damage state.

to honeycombing when it was compared with

the building damage due to corrosion within
the moderate corrosion level. It should be
noted that this study was based on linear
performance analysis. Therefore, further
studies are also required by considering
plastic hinge deformation by using non-linear
analyses. Thus, modified moment-curvature
relationships might provide to take into
account the slippage of reinforcement bars in
the case of corroded RC structures.

5. Conclusions
In this study main construction faults were
shared from existing RC buildings to be
useful in research literature. General
construction faults were modeled by using
FEM methods. Demand/capacity ratios for
reinforced concrete columns were compared
based on the damage occurred due to
honeycombing and corrosion. The results
clearly indicated that the performance level of
the assessed building was more affected due

[4] Sucuoglu H.: The Turkish seismic

rehabilitation code. in Proceeding of the
First European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering and Seismology. Geneva,
Switzerland, Joint Event of the 13th
European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering & the 30th General Assembly
of
the
European
Seismological
Commission, 318 (2006).

References
[1] GESS Reconnaissance Team 1999, The
November 12, 1999, Turkey, Earthquake,
Preliminary Reports of the TurkeyU.S.
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
Reconnaissance
Team,
(http://gees.usc.edu/GEES/RecentEQ/Turk
eyDuzce/Reports /Tunnel/tunnel.htm), Jan.
22, (2008).
[2] Yalciner H., Sensoy S., Eren O.: Timedependent seismic performance assessment
of a single-degree-of-freedom frame
subject to corrosion. Engineering Failure
Analysis, 19, 109-122 (2012).
DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2011.09.010
[3] Bazant Z. P.: Physical model for steel
corrosion in concrete sea structures-application. Journal of the structural
division, 105, (1979).

86

Hakan Yalciner and Khaled H. Marar CJBAS Vol. (01)-September Issue 02 (2013) 77-87
[5] Yang D. U., Lee S., Huang F. Y.:
Geometric effects on micropolar elastic
honeycomb structure with negative
Poisson's ratio using the finite element
method. Finite Elements in Analysis and
Design, 39, 187-205 (2003).
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-874X(02)00066-5

the
furture
5th
ARCHENG-2008
international architecture and engineering
symposiums, 27-28 November, 81-86
(2008).
[8] Ministry of Public Works and Settlement,
Government of Republic of Turkey,
Specifications for Structures to be Built in
Disaster Areas Earthquake Disaster
Prevention, 35-38 (2007).

[6] Eringen A. C., Suhubi E. S.: Nonlinear

theory of simple micro-elastic solidsI.
International Journal of Engineering
Science, 2, 189-203 (1964).
DOI: 10.1016/0020-7225(64)90004-7

[9] Song H.-W., Saraswathy V.: Corrosion

Monitoring of Reinforced Concrete
Structures-A Review. International Journal
of Electrochemical Science, 2, 1-28
(2007).

[7] Yalciner H., Yardimci T., Jacketing of

column-beam joints: A case study of an
existing RC building in TRNC, Creating

87