Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
The probable moment strength (or flexural overstrength,
as it is also termed by other codes1-3 and textbooks4) is the
theoretical maximum flexural strength that can be calculated
for the critical section of a member, with or without axial
load, subjected to bending in a given direction. The probable moment strength is needed to calculate design forces
to capacity protect any member where plastic hinges may
develop, particularly if the kinematics of the mechanism of
inelastic deformation indicates so. Examples of the former
are the bases of first-level columns in buildings and building
columns not designated as part of the seismic-resisting system
framing into strong beams. For instance, in ACI 318-11,5 the
probable moment strength is needed to calculate the design
shear forces of beams of special-moment frames. This is
done to capacity protect these members by reducing the
potential for shear failure during a rare but intense earthquake. Moreover, ACI 318-115 specifies that all columns of
special-moment frames in buildings and columns not designated as part of the seismic-resisting system be capacity
designed. Furthermore, this code specifies that when plastic
hinges will likely develop in columns, the design shear force
has to be determined using the column end probable moment
strengths, regardless of the shear forces obtained from the
structural analysis. Other codes1-3 have similar requirements.
In ACI 318, the probable moment strength is calculated
using a simplified theory for flexure, where an elasto-plastic
stress-strain relationship is assumed for the steel reinforcement, a rectangular stress block is assumed for concrete in
compression, and strain compatibility is enforced, accepting
the hypothesis that plain sections before bending remain
plane after bending. In this analysis, the yield strength of the
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013
reinforcement is made equal to 1.25fy, where fy is the specified yield strength of the reinforcement.
The ACI 318 approach does not account for the likely
increase in the concrete compressive strength over the specified strength in the computation of the probable moment
strength. The compressive strength of concrete batched,
delivered to a construction site, and placed in a member
following accepted quality control procedures should be
similar toif not greater thanthe specified strength at the
specified date, typically at 28 days. However, most concrete
types continue to gain significant strength over time,6-8 even
in a dry environment9 or in harsh environments subjected
to freezing-and-thawing cycles.10,11 The presence of passive
confinement, by way of closely spaced hoops, also causes an
additional strength increase. Moreover, the presence of an
elastic member, such as a footing or beam-column joint, at the
framing end of a member results in additional local concrete
strength gain.12-15 This is because this elastic element effectively confines the compressed concrete by preventing it
from expanding transversely. The greatest manifestation of
this local effect is the reduction in concrete cover spalling
at the member end and a shift of the critical section away
from the end.16,17 In lightly axially loaded columns, a significant increase in the concrete compressive strength has only
a minor influence on the probable moment strength. For this
reason, the increase in the concrete compressive strength
can be ignored in calculations. However, as the axial load
increases, the probable moment strength becomes more
sensitive to the compressive strength of the concrete. In the
context of capacity design, an underestimation of the probable moment strength can result in a reduction of the deformation capacity of a hinging column, as the intended ductile
mode of response may be hampered by the development of
another behavioral mode associated with reduced ductility.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
ACI 318-115 specifies that columns in special-moment
frames shall be capacity-designed. To achieve this objective
when hinging is likely to occur in the columns, this code
requires the computation of the probable moment strength at
the column ends. This paper shows that the current approach
in ACI 318 for computing the probable moment strength
has a clear nonconservative bias. To improve predictability,
the authors propose a very simple, statistically calibrated
mechanics model for determining the probable moment
ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 4, July-August 2013.
MS No. S-2011-270.R1 received August 29, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2013, American Concrete Institute. All rights
reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be
published in the May-June 2014 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received
by January 1, 2014.
681
strength of columns built with Grade 60 to 80 reinforcement and normal-strength concrete and covering the entire
range of axial compressive loads allowed by ACI 318. An
extension of the model is made for computing the probable
moment strength of biaxially loaded rectangular columns.
MOMENT STRENGTH DEFINITIONS
This paper uses the following six moment strength definitions: 1) nominal moment strength Mn calculated with the
simple flexure theory stated in ACI 318 using the specified
concrete compressive strength fc and the specified longitudinal steel reinforcement yield strength fy; 2) ideal moment
strength Mi calculated with the simple flexure theory stated
in ACI 318 using the mean concrete compressive strength
f c, which could account for the additional strength gained
through age, and the mean steel reinforcement yield strength
f y ; 3) probable moment strength Mpr, which is the maximum
moment of resistance that can be calculated at a column end.
Moment Mpr may be computed from one of several flexure
theories with mean strengths f c and f y and considering the
effect of work and cyclic hardening in the reinforcement; 4)
critical section probable moment strength Mpr, which is the
maximum moment of resistance that can be calculated at the
critical section of the column if away from the column end;
5) credible moment strength Mcd, which is the maximum
moment of resistance that can be calculated at a column end.
Moment Mcd may be determined from one of several flexure
theories with the measured concrete compressive strength
fc and the measured steel reinforcement yield strength fy
and considering the effect of work and cyclic hardening
in the reinforcement; and 6) maximum moment strength
MMAX, which is the maximum bending moment resisted at
a critical column end in a reversed cyclic load test. This
moment is computed accounting for bending induced by the
applied lateral force and the axial force when it induces the
P-Dmoment.
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS WORK
In 1985, Ang et al.18 compiled a database of rectangular
and circular columns tested at the University of Canterbury,
New Zealand, computed the MMAX/Mi ratios, and empirically fitted a relationship for Mpr/Mi that was then modified
by Paulay and Priestley4 for Mpr/Mn. In 1998, Mander et
al.19 performed a series of parametric monotonic momentcurvature analyses and obtained results that enabled the
development of Mpr/Mn charts, including credible upper
and lower bounds, for rectangular and circular columns and
derived approximate equations to calculate the axial loadmoment pairs.
In 2001, Presland et al.16 developed approximate solutions
in closed form for Mn and Mpr and calculated the differences
682
between Mpr and the values of MMAX collected in the database. Using a regression analysis, Presland et al.16 concluded
that the presence of an elastic member adjacent to the end of
a hinging column shifts the critical section of the column a
distance between 0.5 and 1.0 times the depth of the neutral
axis. They also proposed that Mpr should be calculated from
Mpr using a geometrical correction term to account for the
shift of the critical section away from the column end.
COLUMN DATABASE
The research work presented in this paper makes extensive use of the PEER column performance database.20 This
database was audited, corrected where appropriate, and also
enhanced with test data for rectangular columns14,17,21-23 and
circular columns.24 The database includes 35 rectangular
columns, which are all square but one, with a minimum
cross-section dimension of 350 mm (29.2 in.) and 30 columns
with circular or octagonal cross sections of depths greater
than 305 mm (12 in.), hereafter called circular columns (the
relevant properties of the rectangular and circular columns
are listed in Tables A-1 and A-2 found in Appendix A*).
All columns had the transverse reinforcement spaced at
maximum six times the longitudinal bar diameter, except
one rectangular column, whose transverse reinforcement
was 6.25 times the longitudinal bar diameter. These columns
were all tested quasi-statically with a reversed cyclic loading
protocol and under constant axial load. All columns developed flexural plastic hinges at an end adjacent to an elastic
member. The database contains a somewhat narrow range
of concrete strengths. For example, 66% of the rectangular
columns have 27.4 MPa fc 43.3 MPa (4.0 ksi fc
6.3 ksi) and two-thirds of the circular column sections have
28.2 MPa fc 38.1 MPa (4.1 ksi fc 5.5 ksi).
As far as the grade of the reinforcement in the database is concerned, 27% of the rectangular columns incorporate Grade 275 MPa (40 ksi) longitudinal reinforcement, 63% incorporate Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi), and 12%
incorporate Grade 500 (nominally 75 ksi) longitudinal
reinforcement. Of the circular columns, 23% incorporate
Grade 275 MPa (40 ksi) longitudinal reinforcement, 70%
incorporate Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) longitudinal reinforcement, and 7% incorporate Grade 500 (nominally 75 ksi)
longitudinal reinforcement. All Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi)
reinforcement meets the requirements set for ASTM A706/
A706M-09b25 reinforcement for the ultimate tensile strength
when this strength was reported.
The longitudinal reinforcement ratio rl of the rectangular
columns ranges between 1.3 and 3.3%. Seventy percent of
the rectangular columns have 1.5% rl 1.8%, which is
a rather narrow range, but the authors note that 12% of the
columns have rl 3.0%. In circular columns, ratio rl ranges
from 0.8 to 5.2%, 30% of the columns have a ratio 1.9%
rl 2.6%, and one-sixth have rl 3.0%. Sixty-six percent
of the rectangular columns in the database have Ash/Ash,ACI
< 1, where Ash is the total cross-sectional area of transverse
reinforcement within spacing s and perpendicular to dimension b in a rectangular column and Ash,ACI is the amount
of Ash specified by ACI 318-11.5 Only 30% of the circular
columns in the database have rs/rs,ACI < 1, where rs is the
*
The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org in PDF format as an addendum to
the published paper. It is also available in hard copy from ACI headquarters for a fee
equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request.
Fig. 2Comparison of axial load-credible moment interaction diagram computed using ACI 318 method with test data.
strength ratio. Thus, only an allowance for overstrength
caused by work and cyclic hardening had to be made. Calculations were made with lh fy, where factor lh accounts for
overstrength due to hardening in the steel only. For consistency, a value lh = 1.15 was used, which is the same value
derived for this factor in the following section through an
error minimization procedure. Figure 1 plots the MMAX/Mcd
ratios (Tables A-5 and A-6 in Appendix A list the individual
values of MMAX/Mcd calculated for rectangular and circular
columns, respectively) computed versus the axial load
ratio P/Ag fc. This plot shows a clear nonconservative bias
in the ACI 318 procedure. While this procedure results in a
very good prediction of MMAX of columns with axial loads
approaching zero, the prediction becomes poor as the axial
load increases, with values of MMAX being underestimated
for all columns with P/Ag fc 0.09. For example, the average
ratios MMAX/Mcd for the five test columns with axial load
ratios clustered at approximately 0.4 (refer to Fig. 1) is 1.29.
Another way to visualize the bias in the ACI 318 procedure is to plot points
P M
MAX
, 2
A f bh f
g c
c
for six rectangular test columns together with the credible
moment strength-axial load interaction diagram computed
using average values for the material strengths and assuming
lh = 1.15 (refer to Fig. 2). It just so happens that the six
test columns have very similar material strengths fc and fy,
683
with the ACI 318 procedure are less than the test column
values of MMAX for a given axial load ratio. In other words,
the ACI 318 procedure underestimates the values of MMAX.
Any underestimation of the value of MMAX by the procedure
cannot be attributed to significant moment gain in the test
columns caused by an increase in the concrete core compressive strength as a result of excessive confinement. The difference between Mcd and MMAX is largely due to the confinement of the concrete provided by the elastic reinforced
concrete element framing with the column at the region
where the maximum bending moment occurs, as pointed out
by others.12,16 Such a confinement effect is not captured by
the ACI 318 procedure. Moreover, it can be shown that when
Mcd is calculated with the ACI 318 procedure, the magnified yield strength of the reinforcement lh fy is not attained in
any of the layers if the columns are subjected to moderate or
high axial loads. In the particular example, no yielding of the
reinforcement is observed at a moderate axial load ratio of
0.3. Contrary to what is observed during computation with
the ACI 318 procedure, one would expect that at MMAX, the
longitudinal reinforcement in both extreme layers would be
strained well into the work-hardening region. This will be
discussed in more detail in the following section.
Fig. 3Applied and internal forces of resistance in symmetrically reinforced column.
figures for clarity. Under service load and after creep and
shrinkage have taken place, these bars remain well below
the yield point and most often in compression (refer to points
marked (1) in Fig. 4). The column section reaches its
maximum moment strength when Bars A and B experience hardeningrefer to points marked (3)after a large
earthquake-induced curvature reversal has occurred (refer to
points marked (2)). At points marked (3), the tensile and
compressive stresses in the extreme bars are comparatively
similar (refer to Fig. 4(b)), for which the compressive and
tensile steel reinforcement hardening factors lc and lt can
be assumed to be equal. The conceptual behavior described
previously and illustrated in Fig. 4 can be generalized for
various other neutral axis depths without altering the conclusion just reached. This finding is surprisingly different from
values calculated from a conventional flexure analysis and
even from the more sophisticated monotonic moment-curvature analyses, which are unable to capture the cyclic hardening phenomena. The second assumption made herein is
that force Ti (refer to Fig. 3) always acts in tension. This
assumption is strictly correct when the neutral axis depth
in the column is shallow. When the neutral axis depth
approaches or exceeds the column middepth, the resultant
force in these inner bars (shown in tension in Fig. 3) will
eventually become compressive. Consequently, the assumption made of force Ti always being in tension force will
evidently become erroneous and the probable moment given
by Eq. (2) will present a bias at high axial load ratios. An
analysis of the error, not presented in this paper, indicates
that Eq. (2) could overpredict the probable moment by less
than 10% when P/Ag fc 0.5. When the axial compressive
load ratio nears the limit imposed in ACI 318 for columns
with tie reinforcement, the probable moment could be overpredicted by as much as 27% when rl = 0.04, fy = 515 MPa
(75 ksi), and fc = 30 MPa (4.4 ksi). However, when rl 0.02,
fy = 414 MPa (60 ksi), and fc = 30 MPa (4.4 ksi), the probable moment is overpredicted by less than 13%.
Derivation and calibration
With the first assumption stated in the previous section
and in the ideal scenario that MMAX = Mcd moment equilibrium about Point R in Fig. 3 results in
h
M cd = Ts g e h + ( P + Ti ) xc
2
(1)
1 x
1 x
M cd = l h Ast
f y h kg e + (1 2k ) c + Ph c (2a)
2 h
2 h
fy
1 xc
kg e + (1 2k ) 2 h
fc
P 1 xc
Ag
fc 2 h
(2b)
fy
1 xc
kg e + (1 2k ) 2 h
fc
p P 1 xc
4 Ag
fc 2 h
(2c)
g e = z 1 dbe + 2 ( dbh + cc )
h
(3)
where
dbe = 2
rl Ag
pnb
(4)
(5a)
(5b)
M cd
= 1.15r
bh 2
f
c
fy
1 1 xc
P 1 xc
0.3 + 4 2 h + 2 h (6a)
fc
Ag fc
fy
1 1 xc
0.23 + 3 2 h
fc
p P 1 xc
4 Ag
fc 2 h
(6b)
M cd , x M cd , y
=1
M
+
cd , xo M cd , yo
(7)
2.8
6
(8)
et +5
bh fc
= 1.25r
fy
P 1 x
1 1 x
0.3 + c + u c (9a)
fc
4 2 h Ag fc 2 h
fy
p
1 1 x
= 1.25 r 0.23 + c
4
3 2 h
fc
h fc
3
p Pu 1 xc
4 Ag fc 2 h
(9b)
687
Fig. 7Factored axial load-probable moment strength interaction diagram indicating influence of ratio lco on probable
moment strength Mpr.
for circular columns, where ratio xc/h is obtained from
Eq. (5a) and (5b) by substituting fc with lco fc
xc 0.34 Pu
=
+ 0.07
h
l co Ag fc
(10a)
(10b)
for circular columns. Although Eq. (9a) and (9b) have been
checked against data of columns subjected to compression,
they could be used for predicting the probable moment
strengths of columns subjected to small axial tensionsay,
up to Pu/Ag fc = 0.05.
Figure 7 plots the axial load-probable moment strength
diagram calculated for a rectangular column using
Eq. (9a) for four reinforcement ratios and for ratio lco
varying from 1 to 2 at 0.25 intervals. The upper factored
axial load ratios shown in this figure are the maximum levels
allowed in ACI 318-115 for compression members with tie
reinforcement. It is evident in this figure that ratio lco has a
negligible effect in lightly loaded columns up to approximately Pu/Ag fc = 0.15. Above this axial load ratio, ratio lco
gradually becomes important. When the axial load limit is
reached, the ratio between the credible moment strengths
calculated with lco = 2 to that calculated with lco = 1 is at
least 1.25.
Rectangular columns with bending along two
principal axes
For rectangular columns with bending acting along an axis
different from the two principals, Mpr is found building upon
Eq. (7)
2
M pr , x M pr , y
+
=1
M pr , xo M pr , yo
(11)
CONCLUSIONS
1. This paper shows that the procedure specified by
ACI 318 to calculate the probable moment strength of
columns underestimates the maximum moment capacity
recorded in all tests of a database of rectangular and circular
columns with axial load ratios greater than 0.09. A reason
for the ACI 318 bias is the lack of the procedure to capture
the confinement provided by the elastic member that frames
to the column at the critical section. Another reason is
that for some moderate and high axial load ratios Pu/Ag fc
0.3 and when using Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) or higher,
the ACI 318 procedure is unable to capture the work and
cyclic hardening phenomena expected in the column longitudinal reinforcement. Calculations show that in such cases
and because of strain compatibility reasons, none of the
reinforcement actually yields when the axial load in the
column is at least moderate.
2. To improve predictability, the authors proposed a
very simple, statistically calibrated mechanics model for
determining the probable moment strength of rectangular
and circular columns. Statistical analysis of measured
maximum moment strengths and those calculated from the
proposed method give a very small dispersion and a mean
approaching unity.
3. An extension of the concept is made with the load
contour method proposed by Bresler29 for computing the
probable moment strength of rectangular columns subjected
to bending along the two principal axes.
4. A sensitivity analysis of the proposed method indicates that the gain in compressive strength of the concrete
over time has a negligible increase in the probable moment
strength of columns subjected to axial load levels less than
0.15. This strength increase becomes gradually more important as the axial load ratio in the column increases and can
reach at least 1.25 when the axial compressive load ratio is
at the limit of that permitted in ACI 318 for columns with
tie reinforcement. It is recommended that an allowance be
made for the concrete strength increase over time of 1.7fc in
capacity design calculations of columns.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge M. Torres, who helped with the
calibration of some of the equations presented in this paper; F. J. Crisafulli,
for his careful review; and the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful
and constructive comments.
Ag
Ash
Ash,ACI
Ast
b
Cc
Cs
cc
ci
db
dbe
dbh
fc
f c
fc
fsu
fy
fy
fy
h
NOTATION
REFERENCES
689
NOTES:
690
APPENDIX A
mm
mm
s
db
fc'
fy
MPa
MPa
fsu
P
Ash
Ash ,ACI fc' Ag
TP005
20
400
400
5.38
36.8
363.0
NR x
0.0166
0.23
0.027
TP001
20
400
400
5.38
35.9
363.0
NR
0.0166
0.23
0.027
TP006
20
400
400
5.38
35.9
363.0
NR
0.0166
0.23
0.027
TP002
20
400
400
5.38
35.7
363.0
NR
0.0166
0.23
0.027
TP003
20
400
400
5.38
34.3
363.0
NR
0.0166
0.24
0.029
TP004
20
400
400
5.38
33.2
363.0
NR
0.0166
0.25
0.030
TSUNO-1
21
550
550
5.00
30.7
306.0
1.43
0.0135
0.46
0.033
TANA90U5*
20
550
550
5.50
32.0
511.0
1.32
0.0125
0.80
0.100
0.100
TANA90U6*
20
550
550
5.50
32.0
511.0
1.32
0.0125
0.80
10
SOES86U1
20
400
400
5.31
46.5
446.0
1.57
0.0151
0.36
0.100
11
TANA90U9*
20
600
400
3.33
26.9
432.0
1.56
0.0188
1.51
0.100
12
SAATU6
20
350
350
2.60
37.3
437.0
NR
0.0327
1.00
0.131
13
TANA90U1
20
400
400
4.00
25.6
474.0
1.52
0.0157
1.02
0.200
14
ANG81U4
20
400
400
5.63
25.0
427.0
1.57
0.0151
1.22
0.210
15
GILL79S1
20
550
550
3.33
23.1
375.0
1.69
0.0179
0.83
0.260
16
LI-1
22
400
400
3.50
33.2
450.0
1.32
0.0157
1.51
0.289
17
SATO-1
14
400
400
4.00
59.8
442.0
1.33
0.0314
1.03
0.300
18
TANA90U7*
20
550
550
4.50
32.1
511.0
1.32
0.0125
0.98
0.300
19
TANA90U8*
20
550
550
4.50
32.1
511.0
1.32
0.0125
0.98
0.300
20
SOES86U2
20
400
400
4.88
44.0
446.0
1.57
0.0151
0.53
0.300
21
SOES86U3
20
400
400
5.69
44.0
446.0
1.57
0.0151
0.35
0.300
22
SOES86U4
20
400
400
5.88
40.0
446.0
1.57
0.0151
0.19
0.300
23
ANG81U3
20
400
400
6.25
23.6
427.0
1.57
0.0151
1.94
0.380
24
ZAHN86U8
20
400
400
5.75
40.1
440.0
1.53
0.0151
1.18
0.390
25
S17-3UT
17
440
440
5.40
43.4
496.0
1.28
0.0125
1.08
0.491
26
S24-2UT
17
610
610
4.30
43.4
503.0
1.32
0.0125
1.07
0.492
27
LI-4
22
400
400
2.75
35.7
460.0
1.41
0.0157
1.79
0.500
28
WAT89U5
20
400
400
5.06
41.0
474.0
1.34
0.0151
0.57
0.500
29
WAT89U6
20
400
400
6.00
40.0
474.0
1.34
0.0151
0.29
0.500
30
GILL79S4
20
550
550
2.58
23.5
375.0
1.69
0.0179
1.85
0.600
31
SATYARNO-3
23
400
400
4.00
50.0
497.0
1.30
0.0314
0.79
0.600
32
SATO-4
14
400
400
4.00
71.6
442.0
1.33
0.0314
0.86
0.600
33
WAT89U7
20
400
400
6.00
42.0
474.0
1.34
0.0151
0.87
0.700
34
WAT89U8
20
400
400
4.81
39.0
474.0
1.34
0.0151
0.63
0.700
35
WAT89U9
20
400
400
3.25
40.0
474.0
1.34
0.0151
1.69
0.700
P-Delta calculation modified from that reported in Ref. 20 to match original reference
mm = 0.0394 in.
1 MPa = 145 psi
x fsu not reported
s
db
hh
mm
fc'
fsu
MPa
fy
MPa
s
s ,ACI
f'A
c g
KOWALSKIU2
20
457
4.00
34.2
565.0
1.23
0.0207
0.91
KOWALSKIU1
20
457
4.00
32.7
565.0
1.23
0.0207
0.96
0.041
0.043
RES-U1
24
914
2.53
64.1
426.0
1.67
0.0254
0.85
0.063
NIST-F
20
1520
2.07
35.8
475.0
NR x
0.0200
1.46
0.069
NIST-S
20
1520
1.26
34.3
475.0
NR
0.0200
3.21
0.071
LEH1015*
20
610
2.00
31.0
462.0
1.36
0.0150
1.16
0.072
LEH407*
20
610
2.00
31.0
462.0
1.36
0.0075
1.16
0.072
LEH415*
20
610
2.00
31.0
462.0
1.36
0.0150
1.16
0.072
LEH430*
20
610
2.00
31.0
462.0
1.36
0.0303
1.16
0.072
10
LEH815*
20
610
2.00
31.0
462.0
1.36
0.0150
1.16
0.072
11
KUN97A7
20
305
2.00
32.8
448.0
1.54
0.0200
1.06
0.093
12
KUN97A8
20
305
2.00
32.8
448.0
1.54
0.0200
1.06
0.093
13
KUN97A9
20
305
2.00
32.5
448.0
1.54
0.0200
1.07
0.093
14
KUN97A10
20
305
2.00
27.0
448.0
1.54
0.0200
1.28
0.112
15
KUN97A11
20
305
2.00
27.0
448.0
1.54
0.0200
1.28
0.112
16
KUN97A12
20
305
2.00
27.0
448.0
1.54
0.0200
1.28
0.112
17
WONG90U1
20
400
3.75
38.0
423.0
1.36
0.0320
0.96
0.190
18
POT79N1
20
600
3.13
28.4
303.0
1.35
0.0256
0.67
0.239
19
KOW96FL3
20
457
4.78
38.6
477.0
NR
0.0362
0.74
0.281
20
VU98NH1
20
457
3.77
38.3
427.5
NR
0.0241
1.09
0.307
21
VU98NH6
20
457
2.11
35.0
486.2
NR
0.0521
3.22
0.333
22
POT79N5A
20
600
2.29
32.5
307.0
1.33
0.0256
1.93
0.368
23
WONG90U3
20
400
3.75
37.0
475.0
1.32
0.0320
0.98
0.390
24
POT79N4
20
600
2.92
32.9
303.0
1.35
0.0256
0.87
0.407
25
WAT89U10
20
400
5.25
40.0
474.0
1.34
0.0192
0.51
0.528
26
POT79N3
20
600
2.08
26.6
303.0
1.35
0.0243
1.07
0.572
27
ANG81U2
20
400
3.44
28.5
308.0
1.51
0.0256
1.28
0.589
28
ZAHN86U6
20
400
4.69
27.0
337.0
1.46
0.0243
1.66
0.613
29
POT79N5B
20
600
2.29
32.5
307.0
1.33
0.0256
1.93
0.737
30
WAT89U11
20
400
3.56
39.0
474.0
1.34
0.0192
1.09
0.739
P-Delta calculation modified from that reported in Ref. 20 to match original reference
mm = 0.0394 in.
1 MPa = 145 psi
x fsu not reported
M
Vh
c c +d bh
r ,MAX
mm
rad
M2%
MMAX
TP005
3.1
33.5
0.031
TP001
3.1
33.5
0.017
TP006
3.1
33.5
0.081
TP002
3.1
33.5
0.016
TP003
3.1
33.5
0.057
0.97
TP004
3.1
33.5
0.082
0.96
TSUNO-1
4.1
26.0
0.017
0.97
0.92
TANA90U5
3.0
52.0
0.044
0.93
TANA90U6
3.0
52.0
0.026
0.98
10
SOES86U1
4.0
20.0
0.061
0.97
11
TANA90U9
3.0
52.0
0.047
0.88
0.92
12
SAATU6
2.9
32.4
0.090
13
TANA90U1
4.0
52.0
0.019
14
ANG81U4
4.0
32.5
0.036
1.00
15
GILL79S1
2.2
50.0
0.028
1.00
16
LI-1
4.1
30.0
0.017
17
SATO-1
2.5
30.0
0.016
18
TANA90U7
3.0
52.0
0.050
19
TANA90U8
3.0
52.0
0.015
20
SO S86 2
SOES86U2
4.00
21
21.00
00.010
010
21
SOES86U3
4.0
20.0
0.009
22
SOES86U4
4.0
19.0
0.011
23
ANG81U3
4.0
36.5
0.013
24
ZAHN86U8
4.0
23.0
0.020
25
S17-3UT
6.9
36.5
0.022
26
S24-2UT
5.0
50.8
0.020
27
LI-4
4.1
30.0
0.016
28
WAT89U5
4.0
21.0
0.016
29
WAT89U6
4.0
19.0
0.011
30
GILL79S4
2.2
50.0
0.013
31
SATYARNO-3
4.0
27.4
0.011
32
SATO-4
2.5
30.0
0.018
33
WAT89U7
4.0
25.0
0.008
34
WAT89U8
4.0
21.0
0.008
35
WAT89U9
4.0
25.0
0.016
1 mm = 0.0394 in.
0.98
0.96
M
Vh
c c +d bh
r ,MAX
mm
rad
M2%
MMAX
KOWALSKIU2
5.3
22.2
0.061
0.90
KOWALSKIU1
5.3
22.2
0.045
0.94
RES-U1
3.2
67.7
0.057
0.92
NIST-F
6.0
74.6
0.054
0.92
NIST-S
3.0
79.4
0.047
0.88
LEH1015
10.0
28.6
0.030
0.91
LEH407
4.0
28.6
0.031
1.00
LEH415
4.0
28.6
0.051
0.98
LEH430
4.0
28.6
0.074
0.92
10
LEH815
8.0
28.6
0.092
0.91
11
KUN97A7
4.5
18.5
0.053
0.96
12
KUN97A8
4.5
18.5
0.053
0.94
13
KUN97A9
4.5
18.5
0.066
0.94
14
KUN97A10
4.5
18.5
0.044
0.94
15
KUN97A11
4.5
18.5
0.038
0.92
16
KUN97A12
4.5
18.5
0.038
0.97
17
WONG90U1
2.0
30.0
0.038
0.94
18
POT79N1
2.0
35.0
0.037
0.96
19
KOW96FL3
8.0
39.7
0.092
0.91
20
VU98NH1
2.0
34.3
0.038
0.99
21
VU98NH6
2.0
37.5
0.095
0.79
22
POT79N5A
2.0
44.0
0.023
0.99
23
WONG90U3
2.0
30.0
0.025
0.98
24
POT79N4
2.0
35.0
0.027
1.00
25
WAT89U10
4.0
25.0
0.020
1.00
26
POT79N3
2.0
35.0
0.012
27
ANG81U2
4.0
28.0
0.012
28
ZAHN86U6
4.0
28.0
0.019
29
POT79N5B
2.0
44.0
0.020
WAT89U11
4.0
27.0
0.013
30
1 mm = 0.0394 in.
Table A - 5. Ratios
M MAX
M
and MAX calculated using various
M cd
bh 2 fc'
f 'b h 2
c
ACI
8-bar model
Mmax
Mcd
Mmax
Mcd
12-bar model
Mmax
Mcd
TP005
0.087
0.98
0.781
1.01
0.791
1.00
TP001
0.084
0.92
0.781
0.95
0.791
0.94
TP006
0.098
1.07
0.781
1.10
0.791
1.09
TP002
0.083
0.91
0.781
0.93
0.791
0.92
TP003
0.090
0.94
0.781
0.97
0.791
0.96
TP004
0.093
0.94
0.781
0.97
0.791
0.96
TSUNO-1
0.082
0.99
0.859
1.02
0.868
1.02
TANA90U5
0.140
1.15
0.766
1.09
0.774
1.09
TANA90U6
0.135
1.11
0.766
1.05
0.774
1.04
10
SOES86U1
0.119
1.17
0.851
1.09
0.860
1.09
11
TANA90U9
0.188
1.04
0.782
1.07
0.790
1.06
12
SAATU6
0.214
1.13
0.743
0.99
0.756
0.98
13
TANA90U1
0.176
1.08
0.690
0.93
0.699
0.92
14
ANG81U4
G8 U
00.183
83
1.08
08
00.788
88
00.97
9
00.797
9
00.97
9
15
GILL79S1
0.219
1.12
0.765
1.03
0.775
1.03
16
LI-1
0.189
1.12
0.800
1.00
0.809
1.00
17
SATO-1
0.200
1.23
0.779
1.01
0.792
1.01
18
TANA90U7
0.200
1.32
0.766
1.09
0.774
1.10
19
TANA90U8
0.203
1.35
0.766
1.11
0.774
1.11
20
SOES86U2
0.171
1.15
0.846
1.01
0.855
1.02
21
SOES86U3
0.168
1.13
0.851
1.00
0.860
1.00
22
SOES86U4
0.181
1.17
0.856
1.02
0.865
1.03
23
ANG81U3
0.226
1.24
0.768
0.99
0.777
0.99
24
ZAHN86U8
0.169
1.12
0.836
0.89
0.845
0.90
25
S17-3UT
0.193
1.49
0.789
1.02
0.798
1.03
26
S24-2UT
0.176
1.34
0.789
0.93
0.797
0.94
27
LI-4
0.198
1.28
0.800
0.92
0.809
0.93
28
WAT89U5
0.204
1.41
0.846
0.99
0.855
1.00
29
WAT89U6
0.205
1.39
0.856
0.98
0.865
0.99
30
GILL79S4
0.229
1.41
0.765
0.92
0.775
0.94
31
SATYARNO-3
0.217
1.41
0.792
0.83
0.805
0.84
32
SATO-4
0.199
1.51
0.779
0.93
0.792
0.94
33
WAT89U7
0.199
1.76
0.826
0.97
0.835
0.99
34
WAT89U8
0.213
1.81
0.846
1.01
0.855
1.02
35
WAT89U9
0.235
2.04
0.826
1.13
0.835
Median
1.152
0.995
1.15
0.999
Mean
1.238
0.998
0.999
CoV
20.84%
6.80%
6.70%
Table A - 6. Ratios
M MAX
M
and MAX calculated using various
M cd
bh 2 fc'
N Designation
Mmax
f ' h3
c
ACI
Mmax
Mcd
6-bar model
8-bar model
Mmax
Mcd
Mmax
Mcd
KOWALSKIU2
0.120
1.10
0.731
0.941
0.787
0.927
KOWALSKIU1
0.119
1.05
0.731
0.895
0.787
0.881
RES_U1
0.088
1.26
0.681
1.205
0.735
1.193
NIST-F
0.108
1.11
0.731
0.987
0.787
0.980
NIST-S
0.125
1.25
0.726
1.106
0.781
1.097
LEH1015
0.085
0.95
0.742
0.878
0.797
0.876
LEH407
0.062
1.06
0.754
1.037
0.809
1.046
LEH415
0.099
1.11
0.742
1.021
0.797
1.018
LEH430
0.165
1.14
0.723
0.964
0.780
0.951
10
LEH815
0.105
1.18
0.742
1.082
0.797
1.079
11
KUN97A7
0.127
1.23
0.711
1.093
0.766
1.087
12
KUN97A8
0.115
1.11
0.711
0.991
0.766
0.986
13
KUN97A9
0.123
1.18
0.711
1.055
0.766
1.049
14
KUN97A10
0.147
1.21
0.711
1.052
0.766
1.048
15
KUN97A11
0.136
1.12
0.711
0.975
0.766
0.971
16
KUN97A12
0.141
1.17
0.711
1.014
0.766
1.009
17
WONG90U1
0.163
1.27
0.673
1.024
0.727
1.023
18
POT79N1
0.145
1.17
0.708
0.993
0.764
1.004
19
KOW96FL3
0.180
1.32
0.648
0.905
0.701
0.906
20
VU98NH1
0.146
1.26
0.681
0.950
0.734
0.963
21
VU98NH6
0.300
1.69
0.643
1.061
0.698
1.060
22
POT79N5A
0.150
1.26
0.682
0.981
0.736
0.998
23
WONG90U3
0.211
1.62
0.673
1.041
0.727
1.054
24
POT79N4
0.141
1.19
0.708
0.895
0.764
0.913
25
WAT89U10
0.156
1.58
0.709
0.957
0.763
0.977
26
POT79N3
0.163
1.37
0.710
0.918
0.765
0.937
27
ANG81U2
0.167
1.48
0.688
0.947
0.742
0.965
28
ZAHN86U6
0.185
1.58
0.690
1.011
0.744
1.030
29
POT79N5B
0.182
2.09
0.682
1.127
0.736
1.140
30
WAT89U11
0.700
0.983
0.754
0.996
0.158
2.00
Median
1.221
0.992
1.001
Mean
1.30
1.003
1.006
CoV
20.66%
7.51%
7.30%
fsu
fc'
fy
MPa
MPa
5.25
36.2
423.0
1.61*
0.0153
0.98
23.0
0.230
0.160
0.836
0.98
4.06
28.8
423.0
1.61
0.0153
1.59
23.0
0.430
0.217
0.836
0.99
400
4.50
32.3
423.0
1.61
0.0153
1.08
23.0
0.230
0.172
0.836
1.00
400
3.44
27.0
423.0
1.61
0.0153
1.70
23.0
0.420
0.227
0.836
1.01
Mean
0.994
mm
mm
400
400
400
400
400
400
* See Reference 28
1 mm = 0.0394 in.
1 MPa = 145 psi
s
db
Ash
Ash ,ACI
c c +d bh
'
fA
c g
Mmax
f 'b h 2
c
mm
8barmodel
Mmax
Mcd