You are on page 1of 18

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 110-S56

On the Probable Moment Strength of Reinforced Concrete


Columns
by Jos I. Restrepo and Mario E. Rodriguez
The probable moment strength (or flexural overstrength, as it is
also known) 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. In ACI 318,
this strength is needed to capacity-design beams, columns of
special-moment frames, and columns not designated as part of
the seismic-resisting system. Supported on a column database,
this paper provides evidence that the current method prescribed
by ACI 318 to calculate this strength has a clear nonconservative
bias and explains the reasons for this. To improve predictability, the
authors propose a very simple, statistically calibrated mechanics
model for determining the probable moment strength of rectangular and circular columns. An extension of the concept is made for
computing the probable moment strength of rectangular columns
subjected to bending along the two principal axes.
Keywords: biaxial bending; capacity design; codes; confinement plastic
hinges; long-term concrete strength; probable moment strength; reinforced
concrete columns; seismic design.

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

Jos I. Restrepo, FACI, is a Professor of structural engineering at the University


of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA. He received his BS in civil engineering
from the Universidad de Medelln, Medelln, Colombia, and his PhD from the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 550, Precast Concrete Structures, and is also a past recipient of the Chester
Paul Siess Award for Excellence in Structural Research. His research interests include
reinforced and precast/prestressed concrete, particularly seismic design.
Mario E. Rodriguez, FACI, is a Professor of structural engineering at the Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico (UNAM), Mexico City, Mexico. He received his
BS in civil engineering from the Universidad Nacional de Ingeniera, Lima, Peru, and
his PhD from UNAM. He is a member of ACI Subcommittee 318-C, Safety, Serviceability, and Analysis. His research interests include seismic design and evaluation of
reinforced concrete structures.

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.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013

ratio of the volume of transverse reinforcement to the total


volume of core confined by this reinforcement and rs,ACI is
the amount of rs specified by ACI 318-11.5 Further examination of the test data shows that the ratio between the transverse reinforcement provided to that required by ACI 318 is
largely uncorrelated with the axial load ratio P/Ag fc, where
P is the test column axial load and Ag is the gross area of
the concrete section. This is statistically relevant because
the current provisions for confinement in ACI 318 are not
made a function of the axial load ratio, as they are in other
codes.1 A correlation of the confinement reinforcement with
the axial load ratio could have introduced a small bias in the
statistical analysis that will be described later in this paper.
The database has columns with a wide range of axial load
ratios P/Ag fc varying from near-zero axial load to P/Ag fc =
0.74. The rectangular column database has a fairly uniform
distribution to the axial load ratio. However, the circular
column database is somewhat biased because 53% of the
columns have axial load ratios P/Ag fc < 0.112. This is
largely because of the large number of tests conducted on
circular bridge columns.
The column database also contains other useful information (supplementary information for the rectangular and
circular columns is listed in Tables A-3 and A-4, respectively. Refer to Appendix A). The column aspect ratio
M/Vh, where M and V are the moment and shear at the
column end induced only by the applied lateral force, varies
between 2.2 and 6.9 for rectangular columns, while it varies
between 2 and 10 for circular columns.
It is also interesting to examine the drift ratio Qr,MAX when
columns listed in the database reached MMAX. Twenty-two out
of 35or 63%of the rectangular columns reached MMAX
at Qr,MAX 2%. A drift ratio Qr = 2% could be thought of as
a reasonable ratio for the demand in hinging columns during
the design earthquake. Except for one rectangular column,
the ratio between the moment resisted at the column base at
a drift ratio Qr = 2%, M2%, and MMAX was greater than 0.9 for
the remaining 12 columns. This column had M2%/MMAX =
0.88 at Qr = 2%, but by Qr = 4%, the moment of resistance
had reached 0.98MMAX. Contrary to the responses of the rectangular columns, only five out of the 30 circular columns
that is, 17%reached MMAX at Qr,MAX 2%. However, the
moment of resistance M2% of 23 circular columnsthat is,
77%was M2%/MMAX > 0.9 at Qr = 2%. Only two circular
columns displayed M2% < 0.9MMAX. By Qr = 4%, the moment
of resistance in these columns was at least 0.93MMAX. These
results indicate that if MMAX is not reached before Qr = 2%,
the moment of resistance M2% is only slightly smaller than
MMAX because little hardening occurs in the response of the
columns past Qr = 2%.
ACI 318-115 PROCEDURE FOR COMPUTING
PROBABLE MOMENT STRENGTH
This section presents a critical review of the provisions
contained in ACI 318-115 for calculating moment Mpr in
columns. To this end, moments Mcd were calculated with
the ACI 318 procedure for each column listed in the database. Values of Mcd rather than Mpr were computed because
strengths fc and fy were reported, thus resulting in the best
possible prediction of the ACI 318 procedure for MMAX.
Values of Mcd were calculated using a magnified yield
strength lh fy. Because fy was known, the 1.25 magnification
factor could not be used in the calculations because such a
factor already accounts for the measured-to-specified yield
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013

Fig. 1Ratio MMAX/Mcd computed as per ACI 318 versus


axial load ratio of all test columns.

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.

Fig. 4Effect of large-amplitude strain reversals in column


section.
ratio rl is the same, the columns have the same cross section,
and the location of the longitudinal reinforcement is practically identical. Furthermore, the transverse reinforcement
ratio provided in these columns is less than that required
by ACI 318. Figure 2 shows that the Mcd values computed
684

ALTERNATIVE APPROACH FOR CALCULATING


CREDIBLE MOMENT STRENGTH OF COLUMNS
Definitions and assumptions
This section presents a simple formulation to calculate the
credible moment strength of the critical section at the end of
a well-tied column, in which transverse reinforcement has
been detailed to prevent premature buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement. The formulation is equally applicable to
symmetrically reinforced rectangular and circular columns.
Figure 3 shows an elevation of a symmetrically circular
or rectangular reinforced concrete column bending about a
principal axis and subjected to an axial force P when MMAX
is attained. The internal forces shown at the lower end of the
column add to the moment of resistance that must balance
MMAX. When the moment of resistance is calculated with any
of the various flexure theories, this moment becomes Mcd.
Because of approximations made in this theory, the ratio
MMAX/Mcd = 1 should only be possible statistically when: 1)
the mean value in a large population nears 1; 2) the theory
displays negligible bias with respect to the main variables;
and 3) the dispersion is small.
In Fig. 3, Cs is the compressive force resisted by the layer
of longitudinal reinforcementmarked Bars Athat are
closest to the extreme fiber in compression; Ts is the tensile
force resisted by the layer of longitudinal reinforcement
marked Bars Bthat are closest to the extreme fiber in
tension; Ti is the force resisted by the entire inner column
longitudinal reinforcement (shown as Bars C); and Cc is
the force resisted by the concrete in compression. Force Cc
is located a distance xc from the extreme compressed fiber.
The first assumption made herein is that forces Cs and Ts are
equal and opposite, implying that, for equilibrium, force Cc =
P + Ti. Figure 4 shows a visual justification for this assumption. Figure 4(a) depicts the strain profiles for the service
load and two seismic load cases. These seismic load cases
indicate that the column has undergone one large curvature reversal. Figure 4(b) plots stress-strain relationships
that are consistent with the strain history experienced by
bars marked A and B. Low-amplitude curvature reversals causing strain reversals have been omitted from these
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013

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)

Equation (1) can also be presented in terms of the total


area of longitudinal reinforcement Ast and fy. Assume that all
the reinforcement hardens by ratio lh. Then, Eq. (1) becomes

1 x
1 x
M cd = l h Ast
f y h kg e + (1 2k ) c + Ph c (2a)
2 h
2 h

or in dimensionless form for rectangular columns


M cd
= l h r
bh 2
f
c

fy
1 xc
kg e + (1 2k ) 2 h

fc

P 1 xc

Ag
fc 2 h

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013

(2b)

and in dimensionless form for circular columns


M cd p
= l h r
h3
fc 4
+

fy
1 xc
kg e + (1 2k ) 2 h

fc
p P 1 xc

4 Ag
fc 2 h

(2c)

where k is the ratio of the area of column longitudinal


reinforcement in one of the extreme layers to Ast; and ge
is the ratio between the distance between the centroid of
the exterior layer of barsthat is, of Bars A and B in
Fig. 3to the column depth h.
Equation (2) in any of its forms has two independent and
additive terms, and each term has a clear physical meaning.
The first term is the moment contributed to by the reinforcement and the second term is the moment contribution due to
axial load.
The following paragraphs discuss the evaluation of ratios
k, ge, lh, and xc/h, which are unknown so far.
Ratio k depends entirely on the way the longitudinal
reinforcement is distributed in the section. In a model of a
column cross section, the distribution should be sufficiently
simple to allow a clear distinction between outer and inner
reinforcement layers. The Eight and Twelve Equivalent
Bar Modelswith three and four equivalent bars per side,
respectivelyare ideal models for columns of rectangular
section with longitudinal reinforcement distributed along
the faces. The values of ratio k for the Eight and Twelve
Equivalent Bar Rectangular Section Models are 3/8 and 1/3,
respectively. The Six and Eight Equivalent Bar Models with
values of ratio k equal to 1/3 and 1/4, respectively, are ideal
for columns of circular section.
Ratio ge is a function of the equivalent bar diameter dbe
of the model cross section; the concrete cover to the hoop,
cc; hoop diameter dbh; the type of section and equivalent bar
model used; and the column depth h. Ratio ge is given by
1

g e = z 1 dbe + 2 ( dbh + cc )
h

(3)

where
dbe = 2

rl Ag
pnb

(4)

and where nb is the number of bars in the model of the column


cross sectionthat is, nb is eight or 12 in a rectangular column
and six or eight in a circular column. Finally, z = 1 in rectangular columns and z = cos(p/nb) in circular columns.
The authors made use of the column database to determine ratios lh and xc/h. Following the work of Presland et
al.,16 it was assumed that ratio xc/h varies linearly with the
column axial load ratio. An error minimization procedure
for M MAX M cd M MAX was performed to obtain optimum
values for ratios lh and xc/h. This procedure was carried
out initially for the Eight Equivalent Bar Model for rectangular columns and the Six Equivalent Bar Model for circular
columns. Minimization resulted in lh = 1.15 for the rectan685

Fig. 5Histogram of moment ratio MMAX/Mcd with Mcd


computed from Eq. (2).
gular and circular columns and in the following two relationships for ratio xc/h
xc
P
= 0.34
+ 0.07
h
Ag
fc

(5a)

cover. For such extremes, ratio ge can reach values as low as


0.685 or as high as 0.874 when using the Eight Equivalent
Bar Model. In rectangular columns of typical dimensions and
average concrete cover and hoop diameter, ratio ge fluctuates
around 0.8 for the Eight Equivalent Bar Model. A sensitivity
study shows that when rl = 4%, fy / fc = 580/30, which can
be considered at the high end in most practical applications,
and when ratio P/Ag fc = 0.1, values of Mcd/bh2fc calculated
from Eq. 2(b) with the extreme values of ratio ge are only
0.9 and 1.06 times those obtained for ratio ge = 0.8, indicating little sensitivity. As expected, little sensitivity is also
calculated for circular columns. This suggests that Eq. (2)
can be simplified by incorporating an average ratio for ge
as a constant. As discussed previously, an average value for
ratio ge is 0.8 for a rectangular column idealized with the
Eight Equivalent Bar Model, and an average value for ratio
ge calculated for a circular column idealized with the Six
Equivalent Bar Model is 0.69. Equation (2) can be further
simplified if the values of ratio k obtained from the Eight
Equivalent Bar Rectangular Column Model (k = 3/8) and
for the Six Equivalent Bar Circular Column Model (k = 1/3)
and of ratio lh = 1.15 are also incorporated as constants. The
simplified equations are

for rectangular columns and


xc
P
= 0.32
+ 0.10
h
Ag
fc

(5b)

for circular columns.


Figure 5 plots histograms of the MMAX/Mcd ratios determined for the Mcd calculated with the Eight Equivalent Bar
Model for rectangular columns and for that calculated with
the Six Equivalent Bar Model for circular columns. The
distribution is normal in both cases. The median and mean
values calculated for the MMAX/Mcd ratios are 0.995 and
0.998 for rectangular columns and 0.992 and 1.003 for
circular columns, respectively. Very low coefficients of variation of 6.80% and 7.51%, which indicate little dispersion
from the mean, are found for the rectangular and circular
columns, respectively. This dispersion is comparable or even
lower than that reported by Mattock et al.26 in support of
the calibration of Whitneys stress block to calculate the
nominal moment strength of column sections in the development of the ultimate strength theory.
Model sensitivity
The MMAX/Mcd ratios were also computed for Mcd calculated with the Twelve Equivalent Bar Model for rectangular
columns and with the Eight Equivalent Bar Model for circular
columns (refer to Tables A-5 and A-6 in Appendix A for the
individual values of MMAX/Mcd for these two models and the
statistics). The MMAX/Mcd ratios and the median, mean, and
coefficients of variation are very similar to those computed
with the models with a fewer number of equivalent bars.
Moreover, residual analyses (not presented herein) of the
MMAX/Mcd ratios with P/Ag fc, with rl, and with strengths fc
and fy show excellent randomness. This indicates the appropriateness of the model calibrated.
Inspection of Eq. 2(b) shows that ratio Mcd/bh2 fc is most
sensitive to ratio ge when ratios rl and fy/ fc are high and
ratio P/Ag fc is low. Extreme values of ratio ge in rectangular
columns occur in small-sized columns with a large concrete
cover and in large-sized columns with the minimum concrete
686

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

for rectangular columns and


M cd
p
= 1.15 r
3
4
h f
c

fy
1 1 xc
0.23 + 3 2 h

fc

p P 1 xc

4 Ag
fc 2 h

(6b)

for circular columns, where ratio xc/h is given by Eq. 5(a) or


5(b), whichever is applicable.
Rectangular columns with bending along two
principal axes
The derivations made in the previous section for the
credible moment of rectangular columns apply only for
bending acting along one of the two principal axes only.
To the authors knowledge, only four reversed cyclic load
tests have been reported in the literature on square or
rectangular columns with bending applied along an axis
other than the principal. These tests are reported by Zahn
et al.27,28 Theoretical moment-curvature analysis, which
incorporated the strength enhancement due to the confinement of the transverse reinforcementalso carried out by
these researchersindicates that the difference between
the probable moment strength square columns tested along
the diagonal is only marginally smaller than the probable
moment strength of the same column if loaded along a
principal axis, except the extreme cases of concentric axial
tension of compression where no moment can be resisted.
Their experimental work also supported this finding. Such
a limited amount of test data suggests that the credible
moment strength along an axis can be obtained using the
load contour method of Bresler29 with the exponent set to
2that is, a circular load contour
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013

M cd , x M cd , y
=1
M
+
cd , xo M cd , yo

(7)

where Mcd,xo and Mcd,yo are the credible moment strengths


along the two principal axes. These moment strengths are
evaluated with either Eq. (2a) or (6a) or from the corresponding dimensionless forms. Moments Mcd,x and Mcd,y
are vector components along the two principal axes of
the skew-credible moment strength. For a square column,
Eq. (7) means that the credible moment strength is the same
along any axis of bending for a given axial load ratio. When
Eq. (7) is used to calculate Mcd with the Eight Equivalent
Bar Rectangular Section Model for the tests reported by
Zahn et al.,27,28 ratios MMAX/Mcd vary very narrowly between
0.98 and 1.01 (the relevant properties of these tests and the
corresponding MMAX/Mcd ratios are listed in Table A-7 in
Appendix A).
EQUATION FOR PROBABLE MOMENT STRENGTH
OF COLUMNS
Rectangular columns with bending along principal
axis and circular columns
The derivation and subsequent calibration of an equation
for calculating the credible moment strength for columns
with rectangular sections loaded along an arbitrary axis and
of circular columns can form the basis for the derivation of
an equation for computing the probable moment strength.
For a large population, the mean of the measured material
strengths fc and fy become f c and f y , respectively. Now, in
the evaluation of the probable moment strength, only the
specified values for fc and fy are known. Hence, relationships
between the mean and specified strengths are needed in the
development of an equation for Mpr. ACI 318-115 makes
1.25 = lh f y but provides no relationships for the concrete.
Here, the compressive strength of the concrete in a member
to the test cylinder strength is termed the hardening ratio
lco = f c/fc. Such a ratio captures: 1) the gain in strength that
occurs over time; and 2) the statistical variability inherent
in the batching plant and in construction. Part 1) of ratio lco
depends on numerous factors, such as the type of cement,
type and amount of cementitious materials present in the
mixture, water-cement ratio (w/c), and maturity of the
concrete.6,9,10 The authors note that ignoring an increase
in the concrete compressive strengththat is, assuming
lco = 1is unconservative in capacity design because the
probable moment strength (required to capacity-protect
other elements or protect the columns against various undesirable modes of failure) becomes underestimated.
A literature review found only three references reporting
the specified and long-term strength of concrete from a
structure or a field slab from which ratio lco could be calculated directly.7,11,30 Baweja et al.7 carried out comprehensive research into the compressive strength of aged in-place
concrete in 10 field slabs-on-ground. The concrete tested
was between 10 and 26 years old. Ratio lco ranged between
1.48 and 2.75. Scanlon and Mikhailovsky11 assessed the
strength of the concrete in a 34-year-old bridge. Using the
average strength of the concrete, ratio lco = 1.78. Billings
and Powell30 investigated the strength of the concrete of a
bridge that was nearly 30 years old. Using the mean strength
reported, ratio lco = 2.29. When the specified strength is made
equal to 0.87 times the measured 28-day strength, the data
reported by Atcin and Laplante10 on field slabs-on-ground
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013

Fig. 6Comparison of ratio lco predicted with Eq. (8) and


obtained from field tests.

gives lco = 1.64 on 4-year-old concrete and lco =1.72 on


6-year-old concrete. None of the concrete structures in the
aforementioned references contained silica fume.
Knowing that there are many factors that affect coefficient lco and given the significant scarcity of data, a
value for lco = 1.7 is recommended for normal-strength
concrete 10 years of age or older. Alternatively, ratio lco
can be made a function of time by modifying the strength
gain expression proposed by Freisleben and Pedersen.31 This
equation takes the following form
l co =

2.8
6

(8)

et +5

with the age of concrete t measured in years. Equation (8)


meets the minimum requirement in ACI 318-115 that at
28 days, the strength of the concrete obtained from field
measurements should not be less than 85% of the specified strength and that the maximum strength cannot exceed
2.8 times the specified strengtha value that is arbitrary
but seems reasonable. Figure 6 compares the values of
ratio lco computed with Eq. (8) and the available data.
Figure 6 shows that Eq. (8) gives a reasonable prediction
of ratio lco but, as expected, there is significant scatter
about the values predicted.
Building upon Eq. (6) and making the test axial load P equal
to the factored axial load Pu, the expression for Mpr becomes
M pr
2

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

for rectangular columns and


M pr

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)

for rectangular columns and


xc 0.32 Pu
=
+ 0.10
h
l co Ag fc

(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)

where Mpr,xo and Mpr,yo are the probable moment strengths


along the two principal axes. These moments are evaluated
with Eq. (9a), with ratio xc/h calculated using Eq. (10a).
688

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

= gross area of concrete section


= total cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement within
spacing s and perpendicular to dimension b
= amount of Ash specified by ACI 318
= total area of column longitudinal reinforcement
= cross-section width
= force resisted by concrete in compression
= compressive force resisted by layer of longitudinal reinforcement closest to extreme fiber in compression
= clear cover of reinforcement
= depth of neutral axis at moment Mn
= longitudinal bar diameter
= equivalent bar diameter
= hoop diameter
= specified concrete compressive strength
= expected concrete compressive strength
= measured concrete compressive strength
= measured ultimate tensile strength of steel reinforcement
= specified yield strength of reinforcement
= expected steel reinforcement yield strength
= measured steel reinforcement yield strength
= cross-section depth

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013

= moment at column end induced only by applied lateral force


= moment resisted at column base at drift ratio Qr = 2%
= credible moment strength
= component along x-axis of skew-credible moment strength
= credible moment strength along principal x-axis
= component along y-axis of skew-credible moment strength
= credible moment strength along principal y-axis
= ideal moment strength
= maximum moment strength
= nominal moment strength
= probable moment strength
= critical section probable moment strength
= component along x-axis of skew-probable moment strength
= probable moment strength along principal x-axis
= component along y-axis of skew-probable moment strength
= probable moment strength along principal y-axis
= number of equivalent bars in model of column cross section
= test axial force applied
= factored axial load
= center-to-center spacing of transverse reinforcement
= tensile force resisted by entire inner column longitudinal
reinforcement
Ts
= tensile force resisted by layer of longitudinal reinforcement
closest to extreme fiber in tension
t =
time in years
V
= shear at column end induced only by applied lateral force
xc
= distance from extreme compression fiber to point of application of force Cc
ge
= distance between centroid of exterior layer of bars divided
by column depth h
k
= ratio of area of column longitudinal reinforcement in one of
extreme layers to Ast
lc
= compressive overstrength factor
lco
= concrete strength-hardening factor
lh
= weighted average of overstrength caused by work and cyclic
hardening of entire reinforcement in section
lt
= tensile overstrength factor
Qr
= drift ratio
Qr,MAX = drift ratio at which column reaches its maximum moment of
resistance MMAX
rl
= longitudinal reinforcement ratio
rs
= ratio of volume of transverse reinforcement to total volume
of core confined by this reinforcement
rs,ACI
= ratio of volume of transverse reinforcement to total volume
of core confined by this reinforcement that is specified by
ACI 318
z
= coefficient for defining parameter ge
M
M2%
Mcd
Mcd,x
Mcd,xo
Mcd,y
Mcd,yo
Mi
MMAX
Mn
Mpr
Mpr

Mpr,x
Mpr,xo
Mpr,y
Mpr,yo
nb
P
Pu
s
Ti

REFERENCES

1. NZS 3101:2006, Concrete Structures Standard, Standards New


Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, 2006, 684 pp.
2. EN 1998-2:2003, Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake
ResistancePart 2: Bridges, European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels, Belgium, 2003.
3. AASHTO, AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
Bridge Design Specifications, third edition, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2004.
4. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1992,
744 pp.
5. ACI Committee 318, Building Concrete Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
6. Neville, A., Properties of Concrete, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, 1996, 846 pp.
7. Baweja, D.; Munn, R. L.; Roper, H.; and Sirivivatnanon, V., In Situ
Assessments of Long-Term Performance of Plain and Blended Cement
Concretes, Transactions of the Institution of Engineers, V. 34, No. 2, June
1992, pp. 115-127.
8. Washa, G. W., and Wendt, K. F., Fifty Year Properties of Concrete,
ACI Journal, V. 72, No. 1, Jan. 1975, pp. 20-28.
9. Al-Khaiat, H., and Fattuhi, N., Long-Term Strength Development
of Concrete in Arid Conditions, Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 23,
No. 4-5, Aug.-Oct. 2001, pp. 363-373.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013

10. Atcin, P. C., and Laplante, P., Long-Term Compressive Strength of


Silica-Fume Concrete, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE,
V. 2, No. 3, 1990, pp. 164-170.
11. Scanlon, A., and Mikhailovsky, L., Strength Evaluation of an
Existing Concrete Bridge Based on Core and Nondestructive Test Data,
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 14, 1987, pp. 145-154.
12. Park, R.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Gill, W. D., Ductility of SquareConfined Concrete Columns, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
V. 108, No. ST4, Apr. 1982, pp. 929-949.
13. Dodd, L. L., and Cooke, N., The Dynamic Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Piers Subjected to New Zealand Seismicity, Research
Report 92-4, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand, 1992, 460 pp.
14. Sato, Y.; Tanaka, H.; and Park, R., Reinforced Concrete Columns
with Mixed Grade Longitudinal Reinforcement, Research Report 93-7,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand, Aug. 1993, 115 pp.
15. Watson, S., and Park, R., Simulated Seismic Load Tests on
Reinforced Concrete Columns, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 120, No. 6, June 1994, pp. 1825-1849.
16. Presland, R.; Restrepo, J.; and Park, R., Seismic Performance of
Retrofitted Reinforced Concrete Bridge Piers, Research Report 2001-3,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand, 2001, 513 pp.
17. Bae, S., and Bayrak, O., Seismic Performance of Full-Scale
Reinforced Concrete Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr. 2008, pp. 123-133.
18. Ang, B. G.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Paulay, T., Seismic Shear
Strength of Circular Bridge Piers, Research Report 85-5, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand,
1985, 408 pp.
19. Mander, J.; Dutta, A.; and Goel, P., Capacity Design of Bridge Piers and
the Analysis of Overstrength, Technical Report MCEER-98-003, Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, State University
of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, June 1998, 102 pp.
20. Berry, M.; Parrish, M.; and Eberhard, M., Peer Structural Performance Database Users Manual (Version 1.0), Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA,
Jan. 2004, 38 pp.
21. Tsuno, K., Effect of Seismic Loading Patterns on Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Piers, masters thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, Nov. 1999, 201 pp.
22. Li, X., Reinforced Concrete Columns under Seismic Lateral Force
and Varying Axial Load, PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1994, 365 pp.
23. Satyarno, I., Concrete Columns Incorporating Mixed Ultra High
and Normal Strength Longitudinal Reinforcement, Research Report 93-1,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand, Jan. 1993, 151 pp.
24. Restrepo, J.; Seible, F.; Stephan, B.; and Schoettler, M., Seismic
Testing of Bridge Columns Incorporating High-Performance Materials,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-Aug. 2006, pp. 496-504.
25. ASTM A706/A706M-09b, Standard Specification for Low-Alloy
Steel Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009, 6 pp.
26. Mattock, A. H.; Kriz, L. B.; and Hognestad, E., Rectangular
Concrete Stress Distribution in Ultimate Strength Design, ACI Journal,
V. 57, No. 2, Feb. 1961, pp. 875-928.
27. Zahn, F. A.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., Strength and
Ductility of Square Reinforced Concrete Column Sections Subjected to
Biaxial Bending, ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1989,
pp. 123-131.
28. Zahn, F. A.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., Design of Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Columns for Strength and Ductility, Research Report 86-7,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand, Mar. 1986, 410 pp.
29. Bresler, B., Design Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Columns under
Axial Load and Biaxial Bending, ACI Journal, V. 57, No. 11, Nov. 1960,
pp. 481-490.
30. Billings, I. J., and Powell, A. J., Thorndon Overbridge Seismic
Assessment, Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on
Seismic Design and Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Bridges, R. Park,
ed., Queenstown, New Zealand, Aug. 1994, pp. 535-559.
31. Freisleben, H., and Pedersen, J., Curing of Concrete Structures, Durable Concrete Structures Design Guide. Issue 166 of Bulletin
dInformation, Comit Euro-International du Bton, second edition,
Thomas Telford Ltd., London, UK, 1989, 112 pp.

689

NOTES:

690

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013

ON THE PROBABLE MOMENT STRENGTH OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS

APPENDIX A

Relevant Properties of Columns

Table A-1. Relevant properties of rectangular test columns.


N Designation Ref.

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

Table A-2. Relevant properties of circular test columns.


N Designation Ref.

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

Table A-3. Supplementary rectangular column test data.


N Designation

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

Table A-4. Suplementary circular column test data.


N Designation

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'

approaches for rectangular columns.


Mmax
N Designation

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'

approaches for circular columns.

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%

Table A-7. Relevant data of diagonally tested rectangular test columns.


Test
Unit

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

You might also like