Revisiting the Effect of Axial Force Ratio on the Seismic

Behaviour of RC Building Columns

Terry Y. P. Yuen, Asst.-Prof., Dr, Department of Civil Engineering, Bursa Orhangazi Üniversitesi, Yıldırım, Turkey
J. S. Kuang, Prof., Dr, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,
Hong Kong. Contact: cejkuang@ust.hk
DOI: 10.2749/101686617X14676303589273

Abstract force ratio (AFR). Nevertheless, not

all design codes implement the same
Protection of structural columns against severe damage is of most importance provision, for instance, New Zealand13
in the seismic design of RC structures. The seismic performance of reinforced and the American Concrete Institute
concrete (RC) columns can be improved by concrete confinement in the plastic (ACI)14 codes do not explicitly pre-
hinge regions, where the required quantity of confining reinforcement is influ- scribe any limits for AFR. It should be
enced by the axial force ratio (AFR). Nevertheless, different design standards noted that the two latter codes do
have different treatments on the AFR effect in the ductility design of RC col- provide equations for evaluating the
umns. In this regard, this paper presents a scientific revisit, which is conjugated ultimate axial capacity of columns tak-
with a statistical analysis of 474 sets of experimental data, on the effect of ing into account the contribution of
AFR. It is found that the displacement and hysteretic dissipation capacities of both concrete and longitudinal rein-
the flexure-critical RC columns can be significantly reduced by increasing AFR, forcement, but it will result in a range
although the lateral strength shows a reversed trend. On the other hand, the of AFR that is generally less restrictive
displacement ductility of short columns is apparently not influenced by AFR, than the EC8 requirements.
yet the hysteretic dissipation capacity deteriorates under high AFR. The analyt-
In this regard, this paper revisits the
ical results also suggest that different AFR limits should be used for the design scientific background of the AFR
of slender and short columns due to different failure mechanisms. The pre- effects and attempts to establish its
sented work sheds light on the considerations of the AFR effect and setting a relationships with the drift capacity
suitable limit for controlling the seismic performance of RC columns. and strength of RC columns. The
Keywords: axial force ratio; reinforced concrete columns; design codes; ductil- AFR effects are studied with well-
ity; statistical analysis. established theoretical and empirical
models in conjunction with a compre-
hensive statistical analysis using
474 sets of experimental data of RC
Introduction hoops or ties in the critical or potential
columns. How the ductility detailing
plastic hinge regions, where spread
Catastrophic collapse of building of columns is related to AFR in sev-
yielding of reinforcement bars is likely
structures is always accompanied by eral prevailing design standards is also
to occur. The amount of confining
failure of structural columns. Among reviewed and compared together with
reinforcement required for achieving
typical column failure mechanisms, the results of the statistical analysis.
specific ductility level is strongly
axial and shear failures are the most The work presented in this paper
dependent on the imposed axial com-
sheds light on the use and determina-
critical in leading to structural pression. High axial compression can
tion of a suitable limit of AFR for
instability.1–5 Protecting columns from lead to premature concrete crushing,
achieving target performances of RC
losing the load-carrying capacity is low-cycle fatigue and reinforcement
columns during earthquakes.
thus of most importance in the capac- buckling under cyclic loading, and
ity design of structures to withstand hence reduction in the ductility capac-
seismic effects.6 To this end, special ity. Therefore, the confinement detail- Axial Compression Effects on
design and reinforcement detailing are ing requirement for RC columns is Drift Capacity and Strength
needed for reinforced concrete (RC) often set to be more stringent at higher
columns to avert severe strength and axial compression level in order to In modern seismic design approach,
stiffness degradation during earth- compensate for the reduced ductility potential plastic hinges or inelastic
quakes. Out of many ductile detailing capacity. regions in RC columns are confined
methods, concrete confinement in crit- by closely spaced hoop reinforcement
Eurocode 8 (Ref. [7]) stipulates the for two main purposes: (a) to increase
ical regions and axial compression lim- limits for normalised axial force—a
its are the most effective means for the ductility of the RC columns by
ratio of nominal axial stress to con- exerting lateral confining pressure
RC columns to attain the required crete compressive strength of the onto the concrete core regions; and
ductility.4 Confining reinforcement is section i.e. N=fc0 Ag —in the design of (b) to restraint buckling of longitudi-
provided through transverse closed
RC columns and walls based on the nal reinforcing bars. Brittle and non-
experimental work in Ref. [8] in spite ductile RC columns always contribute
Peer-reviewed by international ex- of the scattered results.9 Other modern to the seismic vulnerability of the
perts and accepted for publication
by SEI Editorial Board seismic design codes, e.g. Turkish structure. The most direct method to
Earthquake Code,10 Chinese Seismic improve the seismic performance of
Paper received: November 23, 2015 Code11 and Hong Kong RC Code,12 RC columns is by confining the con-
Paper accepted: July 18, 2016 also stipulate upper limits on axial crete with steel hoops to achieve

88 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017

higher rotational ductility in the plas-
tic hinges.4,15,16 However, as discussed
above, axial compression can deprive
columns of the ductility provided by
the confining reinforcement. In this
section, numerical studies using
widely adopted analytical or empirical
models are performed to obtain the
relationships between the AFR and
column behaviour. Comparisons
between the actual test and predicted
results will be presented in the latter
section, which will reveal the perfor-
mance and possible limitations of
these models. This brings up the need
for an AFR limit for routine engineer-
ing design of columns, when more rig-
orous analysis is unavailable or not
performed.
The effect of AFR can be illustrated
by plotting the deformation and shear
capacity against AFR for the columns.
The stress–strain envelope curve of
concrete assumes the classic Mander
model15 as:
σc rη
= ð1Þ
fcc r −1 + η r
where σ c is the compressive stress cor-
responding to the normalised com-
pressive strain η = εc/εcc and r = Eci/
(Eci − fcc/εcc). The peak confined com-
pressive strength fcc, the strain εcc at
the peak stress of confined concrete
and the ultimate crushing strain εcu in
the core regions are calculated by the
following equations:7,17


aρs fyt 0:86
fcc = fc ð1 + K Þ, K ≈ 3:7 ð2Þ
fc
where fc is the compressive strength
of unconfined concrete; ρs is the trans-
verse reinforcement ratio; fyt is the
yield strength of the transverse
reinforcement; a is the confinement
effectiveness factor:


 !
s s X b2
a = 1− 1− 1− i longitudinal reinforcement and dl is
2bo 2ho n
6bo ho
ðfor rectangular cross −sectionsÞ
ð3aÞ


s 2
a = 1−
2Do
ðfor circular cross − sectionsÞ ð3bÞ


s Δu
a = 1− ðcircular cross
2Do
−sections with spiral hoopsÞ ð3cÞ
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017
where s is the spacing of the hoops; bo
and ho are the width and depth of the
confined core (to the centreline of the
hoops); bi is the distance between con-
secutive bars laterally engaged by
hoops or cross-ties; Do is the diameter
of confined core (to the centreline of
the hoops). The concrete strain εcc at fcc
and the crushing strain εcu are taken as:
εcc = εc1 ½1 + 5ðfcc =fc − 1Þ ð4Þ
εcu = 0:004 + 1:4ωv εsm fc =fcc ð5Þ
respectively, where εcl is the strain at
the peak stress of unconfined concrete,
ωv is mechanical confining reinforce-
ment ratio and εsm is rupture strain of
steel reinforcement. On the other
hand, an apparent and instant effect
with higher axial compression reduces
the curvature ductility of the walls.4
The curvature ductility can be evalu-
ated as below:18
εcu hc
μϕ = ð6Þ
ζεy c
where ζ is a shape factor, which takes
a value of 2.1 for rectangular sections
and 2.25 for circular sections, and hc is
the column depth. Equation (6) shows
that the curvature ductility is inversely
proportional to the depth of natural
axis c. By the equilibrium of the exter-
nal and internal sectional forces, it
can be readily shown that the depth
of natural axis c is a monotonic
increasing function of axial compres-
sion. Therefore, the curvature ductil-
ity and the displacement ductility
decrease with increase of axial com-
pression. The plastic hinge length Lp
for columns is calculated as follows:18

 
fc
Lp = min 0:2 −1 , 0:08 Ls
fy
+ 0:022fy dl ≥ 0:044fy dl ð7Þ
where Ls is the length from the critical
section to the point of contra-flexure,
fy is the yield strength (in MPa) of the
the longitudinal bar size. Shorter plas-
tic hinge lengths result in lower dis-
placement capacity and thus the lower
bound in the Eq. (7) can be conserva-
tively assumed, i.e. Lp = 0.044fydl.
Using this lower bound value of plas-
tic hinge length and Eq. (6), the ulti-
mate drift Δu/Ls and displacement
ductility μΔ = Δu/Δy of flexure-critical
RC columns can be calculated as:


εcu ξεy
≥ ζεy αL =3 + 0:044fy dl − hinge rotation RP as follows:
Ls c hc
ð8Þ


0:132Es dl εcu ζεy
μΔ = 1 + − ð9Þ
ζαL c hc
where Es is the elastic modulus of steel
and αL = Ls/hc is the column aspect
ratio. Once the depth of the natural
axis c is determined for the ultimate
stress state prescribed by Eqs. (1) to
(4), the ultimate displacement and
ductility capacity can be immediately
calculated from Eqs. (8) and (9).
The above analytical formulation is
valid generally for flexure-critical col-
umns with aspect ratios greater than
3, below which shear deformation
would have significant influence on
the behaviour of columns. For shear-
critical columns, the ultimate drift can
be estimated by an empirical equation
proposed by Ref. [19]:
Δu 1 v 1 P 3 1
= 4ρs − pffiffiffiffi − + ≥
Ls 40 fc 40 Ag fc 100 100
ð10Þ
where ρs is shear reinforcement ratio,
v is nominal shear stress, P is axial
force and Ag is the gross cross-sec-
tional area. The above equation
explicitly includes the effect of AFR
by the third term in the middle
expression. According to Eq. (10),
even though axial compression can be
beneficial to the shear transfer across
the cracked concrete sections, lower
ultimate drifts of shear-critical col-
umns result in higher AFR as of
flexure-critical columns.
The nominal shear capacity vu of
short columns can be evaluated by
truss and arch mechanisms, such as
the AIJ shear strength model:20

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
νu = jt ρs fyt ⁢cot⁡ϕc =hc + ðαs Þ2 + 1 −αs
× ð1− βÞκ fc =2 ð11Þ
where jt is the distance between the
top and bottom longitudinal bars, fyt is
the yield strength of the transverse
reinforcement, ϕc is the angle of the
compressive strut and β is calcu-
lated by:
 
1 + cot2 ϕc ρs fyh
β= ð12Þ
κ fc
Here κ is the effectiveness factor for
the compressive strength of concrete
struts, which is a function of plastic
 
κ = 1:0 − 15Rp κ 0 ≥ 0:25κ0 ð13Þ
Scientific Paper 89
where κ 0 = 0.7 − fc/200. The first term
in Eq. (11) is the truss action compris-
ing tension members of transverse rein-
forcement, and compression members
of secondary concrete struts. The sec-
ond term is contributed by the arch
action of an inclined primary compres-
sion strut running across the whole
member from the loading point to the
support. Despite the clear physical
implications, the AIJ shear strength
model does not explicitly account for
the axial force effect. The axial force
effect can be demonstrated by the
shear strength model given in Ref. [21]:
" pffiffiffiffisffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi #
0:4 fc P strength and AFR for flexural and
νu = k ρs fyt + pffiffiffiffi
αL 0:5 fc Ag
where the value of the factor k is a
function of displacement ductility as
follows:
8 the ultimate drifts of flexural columns,
< 1:0 μΔ < 2
k = -0:075μΔ + 1:15 2 ≤ μΔ < 6 ð15Þ
: strength is directly calculated by Eqs.
0:7 μΔ ≥ 6
Ultimate Drift Capacity vs. AFR drop in ultimate drift becomes more
gradual as a result of the change of
To illustrate the effects of AFR
behaviour from tension failure to
depicted by Eqs. (8) and (10), the ulti-
compression failure. On the other
mate drifts of flexure- and shear-critical hand, the model in Ref. [19] depicts a
RC columns of aspect ratios αL respec- less rapid drop in ultimate drifts of
tively equal to 4 and 2 are plotted shear columns until a constant level is
against AFR for different amounts of reached in high AFR. It will be
confining reinforcement as shown in demonstrated later that the drift
Fig. 1. The two columns have the same capacity vs. AFR relationships
cross-section dimensions of obtained above are generally consist-
500 × 500 mm. The longitudinal rein- ent with the actual behaviour.
forcing ratio ρL is 2%, and the ratio of
the yield strength of reinforcement to
Lateral Strength vs. AFR
the concrete compressive strength fy/fc
is 16.7. The relationships of the lateral
ð14Þ It is clearly shown that effectiveness shear columns are depicted by the
of confinement to enhance the dis- plots of normalised shear strength
placement capacity is reduced by against AFR as shown in Fig. 2. The
increasing the AFR, revealing the lateral strength of flexural columns is
need of AFR limits to control the duc- calculated by moment-curvature anal-
tility of RC columns. Furthermore, ysis using the stress–strain relation-
ships prescribed by Eqs. (1)–(4). For
failing in tension failure, decrease rap- shear columns, the normalized shear
idly over the low AFR region. Sub-
jecting to higher AFR, the rate of (11) and (14). As shown in Fig. 2a,

(a) 12 (b) 6
!v = 0.00 !v = 0.00
L = 4 L = 2
Ultimate displacement ratio u/H (%)

Ultimate displacement ratio u/H (%)

10 !v = 0.05 5 !v = 0.05
500 mm 500 mm
fy /fc = 16.7 fy /fc = 16.7
!v = 0.10 !v = 0.10
L = 2% L = 2%
8 !v = 0.15 4 !v = 0.15
500 mm
!v = 0.20 500 mm
!v = 0.20

6 3

4 2

2 1

0 0
20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100
Axial compression ratio (%) Axial compression ratio (%)

F ig . 1: Effect of AFR on displacement capacity of RC columns: (a) flexure-critical columns; (b) shear-critical columns

(a) 0.6 (b) 1.6

!v = 0.00 L = 2
Normalised lateral strength Pu/(fc0.5 Ag)
Normalised lateral strength Pu/(fc0.5 Ag)

L = 4 1.4
0.5 !v = 0.05 fy /fc = 16.7 500 mm
500 mm
fy /fc = 16.7
!v = 0.10 1.2 L = 2%
L = 2% )
!v = 0.15 Sezen
0.4 500 mm 0.20 ( 0.20 (AIJ)
500 mm !v = 0.20 1.0
ezen)
0.15 (S 0.15 (AIJ)
0.3 0.8 n)
Seze
0.10 ( 0.10 (AIJ)
0.6 )
Sezen
0.2 0.05 ( 0.05 (AIJ)
e n )
0.4 0.00 (Sez
0.00 (AIJ)
0.1
0.2

0 0
20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Axial compression ratio (%) Axial compression ratio (%)

F ig . 2: Effect of AFR on lateral strength of RC columns: (a) flexure-critical columns; (b) shear-critical columns

90 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017

the lateral strength–AFR relationship
of flexural columns shows the typical
behaviour of M–N interaction beha-
viour. In low AFR region, where col-
umns fail by tension failure, the
moment capacity and the lateral
strength are enhanced by the increase
of axial force. However, after the
balanced-failure point, compression
failure under compression dictates the
column behaviour and further increase
of AFR causes reduction in the lateral
strength. With higher amount of trans-
verse confining reinforcement pro-
vided, higher AFR is needed to cause
the balanced failure, implicating that
the better confined columns fail in the
ductile tension mode over a wider
range of AFR. In the case of shear-crit-
ical columns, as shown in Fig. 2b, the
shear strength is directly proportional
to the amount of transverse reinforce-
ment provided as predicted by shear
models in both in AIJ [20] and
Ref. [21].
Nevertheless, the two models predict
different behaviours of shear strength
vs. AFR. Provided with a specific
amount of transverse reinforcement,
the AIJ model predicts an almost con-
stant value of shear strength over the
full range of AFR. The reduction of
the plastic hinge rotation due to
increasing AFR is conducive to the
shear transfer by arch mechanism,
resulting in a very slight increase of
shear strength in the low AFR region.
On the contrary, AFR has greater
influence on the shear strength pre-
dicted by the model in Ref. [21],
which can be seen later that is a more
realistic representation of experimen-
tal results. Nevertheless, the AIJ
model generally gives a conservative
estimation of the shear strength,
except for heavily reinforced columns
subject to low AFR.
Statistical Analysis of AFR
Effect
Based on the results of some well-
known analytical models, the last
section has provided a general picture
on how the behaviours of flexural and
shear columns are affected by AFR.
However, the influence of AFR on
the actual behaviour of RC columns is
more complicated than the analytical
results presented earlier. In addition
to reducing the curvature ductility,
other effects of axial compression are
summarised as follows: (1) high axial
compression can lead to early spalling
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017
of the concrete cover at relatively low
displacement and subsequently
increase the risk of buckling of the
exposed longitudinal bars;22 (2) the
P-Δ effect exacerbated by compres-
sion can cause the phenomenon of
“crawling” in the hysteretic behaviour
and abrupt drop in strength;4 (3) high
stress level increases the risk of low
cycle fatigue of the columns under
cyclic loading;23 and (4) axial com-
pression can enhance-via acrh action -
the shear capacity of columns, in par-
ticular with low aspect ratios.24
Development of a concise analytical
relationship to describe the complete
effect of AFR and its interaction
with other variables is virtually impos-
sible. Therefore, the quantification
of the axial compression and the con-
finement detailing effect on RC col-
umns’ seismic performance has been
relying on empirical or semi-empirical
(a)
12
Ultimate displacement ratio (u/Ls) (%)
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 10
(b) 12
Ultimate displacement ratio (u/Ls) (%)
10
8 y = –0.1202*x0.6512 + 2.69: mean-fit for !v < 0.05
6
4
2
0
0 10
Fi g. 3: Relation between AFR and ultimate displacement ratio: (a) flexure-critical
columns; (b) shear-critical columns
relationships. To this regard, compre-
hensive statistical analysis of the
AFR effect is performed using availa-
ble experimental data presented in
the Structural Performance Data-
base25 and some latest test results in
Refs. [26–33].
The gathered load–displacement data
are then analysed and, from the data,
the yield displacement, ultimate dis-
placement ratio (UDR) and displace-
ment ductility are evaluated following
the definitions from Ref. [34]. It
should be noted that over 85% of col-
umn tests (49% spiral and 51% rec-
tangular) were conducted under AFR
below 0.4, whereas less than 7% of
columns (24% spiral and 76% rectan-
gular) were tested above AFR of 0.5
and only nine tests have the AFR
above 0.6. The obtained empirical
relationships presented in this
section can be used in prediction for
Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)
Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15)
Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)
Circular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)
Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15)
Circular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)
y = –0.0793*x0.7561 + 3.66: mean-fit for a!vL/3 < 0.05
y = –0.3368*x0.5561 + 5.83: mean-fit for 0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15
y = –0.3737*x0.6197 + 7.86: mean-fit for a!vL/3 < 0.15
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg)) (%)
Rectangular Col. (!v < 0.05)
Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž !v < 0.10)
Rectangular Col. (!v Ó 0.10)
Circular Col. (!v < 0.05)
Circular Col. (0.05 ž !v < 0.10)
Circular Col. (!v Ó 0.10)
y = –0.1505*x0.6862 + 4.08: mean-fit for 0.05 ž !v < 0.10
y = –0.2003*x0.7062 + 5.60: mean-fit for !v < 0.10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg)) (%)
Scientific Paper 91
the seismic behaviour of columns sub-
ject to different levels of AFR. For
instance, in the displacement-based
design, the UDR vs. AFR relationship
can be used to check whether the
required target inter-storey drift can
be confidently met by the ultimate dis-
placement of the columns.
Ultimate Displacement and
Displacement Ductility
Displacement ductility and capacity of
RC columns are particularly important
in determining the seismic perfor-
mances and whether they can survive
devastating earthquakes. It is generally
recognised that shear action dominates
over flexural action for short or captive
columns and they behave differently
from flexure-critical columns. Hence, it
is plausible to further disaggregate the
test data into two collective sets of
short (shear-critical) columns and non-
short (flexure-critical) columns respec-
tively. Yet, there is still no consensus
on the definition of short columns up to
now, since there is no clear dividing
boundary to differentiate shear-critical
columns from flexure-critical columns.
The shear span to depth ratio (Ls/hc,
where Ls = M/V) provides a reasona-
ble ground for the classification of
shear and flexure-critical columns.
Generally, columns with high shear
span to depth ratio (Ls/hc > 3) fail in
flexural mode, while the failure of col-
umns with low shear span to depth
ratio (Ls/hc ≤ 3) can be dictated by
shear or flexure-shear coupling effect.
Nevertheless, the shear span to depth
ratio alone is not enough to distinguish
shear-critical columns. It was shown35
that axial force and longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement ratios are also
important in judging whether a squat
column would fail in shear or flexural
mode. In this study, the shear-critical
and flexure-critical columns are
grouped according to the criteria pro-
posed by Ref. [35] as follows:
Flexure critical columns
8 7
> Ls =h > 3
<
2 ≤ Ls =h ≤ 3 and N < N1 or N > N2
>
: ωl h
Ls =h < 2 and <1
ωs 2Ls
ð16aÞ
Shear critical columns
8 1
< 2 ≤ Ls =h ≤ 3 and N1 < N < N2
ωl h
: Ls =h < 2 and >1
ωs 2Ls
ð16bÞ
92 Scientific Paper
The relationships between displace- Grouping of columns by the parame-
ment ductility and ultimate displace- ter defined in Eq. (16) is to isolate the
ment against AFR are plotted AFR effect on the displacement capa-
respectively in Figs. 3a and 4a for cities of flexural columns from other
flexure-critical RC columns with dif- effects of effective concrete confine-
ferent levels of confinement aωV and ment and aspect ratio. It can be seen
aspect ratios αL, which is charac- in Figs. 3a and 4a that the columns,
terised by the following parameters: which are of same level, show similar
trends with respect to AFR.
Flexure critical columns
8 Resembling to the previous analytical
< aωv αL =3 < 0:05 ðLevel 1Þ results, there is a trend of declining
0:05 ≤ aωV αL =3 < 0:15 ðLevel 2Þ displacement ductility and ultimate
:
aωv αL =3 > 0:15 ðLevel 3Þ drift with increasing AFR. It can be
ð17aÞ seen that below a relatively low level
of AFR (≤20%), considerable RC col-
Shear critical columns umns can achieve moderate to high
8 ductility (μΔ > 4) even with low con-
< ωv < 0:05 ðLevel 1Þ
finement and aspect ratio (aωvαL/
0:05 ≤ ωV < 0:10 ðLevel 2Þ
: 3 < 0.05). The effect of confinement
ωv > 0:10 ðLevel 3Þ on improving the structural perfor-
ð17bÞ mances is clearly demonstrated again
Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)
Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.05)
Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)
Circular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)
(a) 14 Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15)
Circular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)
Displacement ductility (u/y)
12 y = –0.0148*x1.088 + 4.76: mean-fit for a!vL/3 < 0.05
y = –0.1156*x0.715 + 6.71: mean-fit for 0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15
y = –0.1042*x0.810 + 8.23: mean-fit for a!vL/3 < 0.15
10
8
6
4
2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg)) (%)
Rectangular Col. (!v < 0.05)
Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž !v < 0.10)
Rectangular Col. (!v Ó 0.10)
(b) 12 Circular Col. (!v < 0.05)
Circular Col. (0.05 ž !v < 0.10)
11
Circular Col. (!v Ó 0.10)
10
Displacement ductility (u/y)
y = –0.00097*x1.114 + 4.06: mean-fit for !v < 0.05
9 y = –0.00351*x1.051 + 5.57: mean-fit for 0.05 ž !v < 0.10
y = –0.00181*x1.405 + 6.71: mean-fit for !v Ó 0.15
8
6
5
4
3
2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg)) (%)
F i g. 4 : Relation between AFR and displacement ductility: (a) flexure-critical columns;
(b) shear-critical columns
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017
in the two figures, where the ductility
and in particular the ultimate dis-
placement can increase significantly
with higher confinement. But at
higher AFR (>30%), the columns can
hardly maintain the same level of duc-
tility as in under low AFR, and large
amount of confinement is needed in
order to achieve moderate to high
ductility and ultimate displacement.
Above the AFR (>45%), the ultimate
displacement (UDR) of most of the
RC columns cannot be higher than
2% with respect to their clear height.
The ultimate displacement–AFR and
displacement ductility–AFR relations
for the shear-critical columns are
shown in Figs. 3b and 4b respectively.
Similar to the analytical results pre-
sented before, there is a similar trend
for non-short columns that the ulti-
mate drift and displacement ductility
are diminishing with increasing AFR,
regardless of the amount of confine-
ment reinforcement being provided.
Nevertheless, the ultimate drift of
short columns is less influenced by
AFR and shows a more graduate
decline with increasing AFR.
The model in Ref. [19] sets a lower
bound for the ultimate displacement
ratio of shear columns to be 1%, but
it can be seen from Fig. 3b that some
columns have values as low as 0.71%.
It is therefore suggested that the
lower bound for ultimate displace-
ment ratio of shear columns should be
set at 0.7%. Furthermore, given the
dispersed results as shown in Fig. 4b,
it is not quite possible to establish a
clear relationship between the dis-
placement ductility and AFR. It
shows that the yield drift of shear col-
umns is also significantly dependent
on the axial force, which is contrary to
flexural columns that their yield cur-
vature is mainly dependent on the
yield strain of the longitudinal rein-
forcement as in Eq. (8). As discussed
before, the axial compression has both
adverse and beneficial effects on the
shear-critical RC members. The bene-
fits of axial compression become pre-
dominant for RC members with very
low aspect ratios. It was shown that
for very short RC walls with aspect
ratio less than 1.5, the trend for the
ultimate displacement–AFR relation-
ship is even completely reversed, due
to the fact that the shear transfer by
arch action and sliding resistance of
cracks in the shear-critical RC mem-
bers can be enhanced by axial
compression.36
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017
Figure 5 shows a comparison between Lateral Strength and Hysteretic
the experimental data and the calcu- Dissipation
lated values from Eqs. (8) and (10)
Relationships between the shear
for flexure-criterial columns and
strength normalized with respect to
shear-criterial columns respectively.
As seen in Fig. 5a, there is a devia- fc0:5 Ag and AFR are plotted in Fig. 6.
tion between the theoretical values It can be noted that the lateral
for the ultimate rift of flexural col- strength of the columns increase with
umns, obtained from moment- lower aspect ratios, which is opposite
curvature analysis, and the experi- to the trend in the displacement
mental results. Such deviation could capacity and aspect ratio relation-
be caused by many factors, for ships. The parameter used to group
instance, flexural-shear interaction, the flexure-critical columns as defined
bond-slip and buckling of compres- in Eq. (16a) is modified as follows:
sion bars. For shear columns (Fig. 5b),
Flexure critical columns
the values calculated from the model
in Ref. [19] show less deviation from 8
< 3aωv =αL < 0:05 ðLevel 1Þ
the experimental results, and in most 0:05 ≤ 3aωV =αL < 0:15 ðLevel 2Þ
cases it can give conservative estima- :
3aωv =αL > 0:15 ðLevel 3Þ
tions of the drift capacity of the
ð18Þ
columns.
(a) 14 Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)
Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15)
Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)
Measured ultimate displacement ratio
12 Circular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)
Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15)
10 Circular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)
y = 0.8836x: mean-fit
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Calculated ultimate displacement ratio
Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)
Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15)
Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)
(b)
8 Circular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)
Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15)
6 Circular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)
Measured ultimate displacement ratio
y = 1.037x: mean-fit
5
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Calculated ultimate displacement ratio
Fi g. 5: Comparison of calculated ultimate displacement ratio with experimental results
(a) Eq. (7) for flexure-critical columns; (b) Ref. [19] model for shear-critical columns
(dotted lines represent the bounds of 90% confidence interval)
Scientific Paper 93
The same grouping criteria defined in
Eq. (16a) are used for shear-critical
columns. Although the analytical
behaviour for flexural columns (Fig. 2a)
cannot be clearly observed in the sta-
tistical results as shown in Fig. 6a, the
predicted normalised shear strength is
restricted to the experimental results.
Higher AFRs lead to higher ultimate
lateral strength and this trend is partic-
ularly noticeable for the short columns
Fig. 6b. This behaviour follows the
model given in Ref. [21] (Fig. 2b)
rather than the AIJ model. Neverthe-
less, such increase in lateral strength
generally cannot compensate for the
aforementioned adverse effect of the
axial compression including lower
(a)
1.2
Normalised lateral strength (Vu/fc0.5Ag)
displacement capacity and hysteretic
dissipation, as shown later.
Similarly, the numerical values of the
experimentally measured shear
strength are compared with the calcu-
lated values based on moment-
curvature analysis for flexural columns,
and the AIJ and Ref. [21] models for
shear columns. The comparisons are
shown in Fig. 7. As shown in Fig. 7a, a
very accurate estimation of the lateral
strength of flexural columns can be
obtained by simple moment curvature
analysis. For the shear columns, as
shown in Fig. 7b and c, both AIJ and
Ref. [21] models can give good estima-
tions for lightly reinforced columns
but tend to underestimate the shear
Rectangular Col. (a!v/(3L) < 0.05)
Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!v/(3L) < 0.15)
Rectangular Col. (a!v/(3L) < 0.15)
Circular Col. (a!v/(3L) < 0.05)
Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!v /(3L) < 0.15)
Circular Col. (a!v /(3L) < 0.15)
y = 0.00842*x0.7435 + 0.125: mean-fit for a!v/(3L) < 0.05
strength of heavily reinforced columns.
Furthermore, less deviation is found
in the Ref. [21] model as compared
with the AIJ model.
Besides the displacement parameters,
hysteretic dissipation capacity is also
an important or even more suitable
parameter to evaluate the expected
seismic performances of RC columns,
since it characterises the low-cycle
fatigue or cyclic strength and stiffness
degradation effect. As seen in Fig. 8,
similar to the case of displacement,
the axial compression tends to deprive
the capacity of hysteretic dissipation
that can be achieved by the columns,
even though the lateral strength is
increased. As shown in Fig. 8a, in
order to attain high hysteretic dissipa-
tion at high level of AFR, large quan-
tity of confinement reinforcement and
high aspect ratio (aωv/3 > 0.15) is
needed. Furthermore, despite greater
lateral strength, total hysteretic dissi-
pation generated by short-columns is
considerably less than the flexure-

y = 0.00836*x0.6879 + 0.245: mean-fit for 0.05 ž a!v/(3L) < 0.15 critical columns under the same level
1 y = 0.04013*×0.4318 + 0.351: mean-fit for a!v/(3L) < 0.15 of AFR as seen in Fig. 8b. In other
words, shear-critical columns are
0.8 prone to low-cycle fatigue leading to
rapid drop in strength and stiffness
0.6 under seismic shaking. Therefore, a
limit on AFR is needed to legitimate
0.4
ductility design of RC columns,
although the AFR tends to enhance
the lateral strength and in some situa-
0.2
tions may be even beneficial to the dis-
placement capacity of short columns.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg)) (%) Effect of AFR in Code-Based
Rectangular Col. (!v < 0.05)
Design
Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž !v < 0.10)
It is well demonstrated that the axial
Rectangular Col. (!v Ó 0.10)
Circular Col. (!v < 0.05)
compression has significant influence
Circular Col. (0.05 ž !v < 0.10) on the behaviour of the RC columns.
(b) In view of this, many modern RC
1.2 Circular Col. (!v Ó 0.10)
y = 0.00309*x1.0391 + 0.3046: mean-fit for !v < 0.05 design codes prescribe provisions for
Normalised lateral strength (Vu/fc0.5Ag)

y = 0.00285*x0.9653 + 0.4311: mean-fit for 0.05 ž !v < 0.10 confinement detailing in relation with
1 y = 0.00571*x0.8645 + 0.5591: mean-fit for !v Ó 0.10 AFR, and some codes even stipulate
upper limits of the AFR. Although
0.8 the physical implication and motiva-
tion behind these provisions are the
0.6 same, some differences in the detailed
requirements exist among various
design codes.
0.4
AFR Limits
0.2
The stipulated limits on the AFRs in
various design codes are evaluated
0 closely with the statistical analysis, in
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg)) (%) relation to the ultimate displacement
ratio and AFR. For a standardised
F ig . 6: Relation between AFR and lateral strength: (a) flexure-critical columns; (b) shear- comparison purpose, the AFRs
critical columns defined by different design codes are

94 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017

(a) Rectangular Col. (a!v/(L/3) < 0.05)
satisfied if the maximum inter-storey
1 drifts do not exceed 2% of storey
Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!v/(L/3) < 0.15)
Measured normalised lateral strength

0.9 Rectangular Col. (a!v/(L/3) Ó 0.15) height under the assumptions that the
0.8
Circular Col. (a!v/(L/3) < 0.05) reduction factor ν = 0.5 and the non-
Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!v/(L/3) < 0.15) structural elements do not interfere
0.7 Circular Col. (a!v/(L/3) Ó 0.15)
with the structural responses. In other
y = 1.0547x: mean-fit
0.6 words, the ultimate displacements of
structural columns should be greater
0.5
than 2% of its shear span Ls, consider-
0.4 ing the double curvature configuration
0.3 of the laterally drifted columns. As seen
in Fig. 9a, EC8 provisions on AFR lim-
0.2
its can guarantee that the ultimate dis-
0.1 placement ratios of both flexure- and
0 shear-critical columns would not be
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 lower than 2%, provided that column
Calculated normalised lateral strength hinges are properly detailed.
(b) The TEC 2007 and GB codes also
1.4 give reasonable limits on AFR. How-
Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)
Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15) ever, the New Zealand and ACI code
Measured normalised lateral strength

1.2 Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15) requirements result in a large range of

Circular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05) the axial force limits dependent on
1.0 Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15)
the longitudinal reinforcing ratio, and
Circular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)
are much less stringent in comparison
0.8 y = 0.8786x: mean-fit
with the EC8, TEC 2007 and GB
codes. In cases of heavily reinforced
0.6
RC columns (ρl ~ 4%), there is no
experimental data to support any pre-
0.4
dicted column behaviour. The Hong
Kong code’s limit on AFR, though
0.2
not explicitly stipulated, is also a little
0
far from a reasonable limit, where
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 only limited experimental data are
Calculated normalised lateral strength available in this high ACR region.

Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)

As shown in Fig. 9b, due to the brittle
(c)
1.4 Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15) nature of the shear-critical columns,
Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15) the ultimate displacement ratios are
Measured normalised lateral strength

1.2 Circular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)
Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15)
Circular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)
1.0
y = 0.6380x: mean-fit
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 addition to sufficient amount of con-
0 0.2 0.4
Calculated normalised lateral strength
Fi g. 7: Comparison of calculated normalised shear strength with experimental results
(a) based on moment–curvature analysis for flexural columns; (b) AIJ model for short
columns; (c) Ref. [21] model for short columns (dotted lines represent the bounds of
90% confidence interval)
first re-normalised with respect to the
specified or characteristic cylindrical
compressive strength of concrete fc0 .
The re-normalised limits are pre-
sented in Table 1. The ultimate dis-
placement ratio vs. AFR relationship
for flexure-critical columns and shear-
0.6 0.8 1 1.2
critical columns are plotted together
with the AFR limits of different codes
in Fig. 9a and b respectively.
EC8 specifies the damage limitation
requirement in the design of building
structures, which is deemed to be
much lower in comparison with the
flexure-critical columns. The EC8
requirements can barely ensure that
the 2% target ultimate displacement
can be satisfied. Generally, force-
based design or elastic design is
recommended by most of the seismic
design codes for shear-critical col-
umns. Nevertheless, if the shear-
critical columns are to be designed for
allowance of plastic deformation,
more restrictive limit on the AFR in
1.4
fining reinforcement have to be
employed. As observed from Fig. 9b,
AFR < 30% can be a suitable limit
for this purpose.
Extent of Critical Regions
The foremost problem in ductile
detailing for RC columns is the loca-
tion and the extension of the potential
plastic hinge regions, where confining
reinforcement is to be provided.
Table 2 presents the code-stipulated
extent of critical regions or potential

Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017 Scientific Paper 95

 (a)
250
Normalised hysteretic dissipation Ed /(Vyy)

200
Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)
Rectangular Col. (0.05 ≤ a!vL/3 < 0.15)
Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 ≥ 0.15)
150 Circular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)
Circular Col. (0.05 ≤ a!vL/3 < 0.15)
Circular Col. (a!vL/3 ≥ 0.15)
100
y = –0.3831*x0.957 + 50.58: mean-fit for a!vL/3 < 0.05
y = –0.2788*x1.169 + 78.27: mean-fit for 0.05 ≤ a!vL/3 < 0.15
y = –0.1545*x1.394 + 121.6: mean-fit for a!vL/3 ≥ 0.15
50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg) (%)

(b)
250
Normalised hysteretic dissipation Ed /(Vyy)

200
Rectangular Col. (!v < 0.05)
Rectangular Col. (0.05 ≤ !v < 0.10)
150 Rectangular Col. (!v ≥ 0.10)
Circular Col. (!v < 0.05)
Circular Col. (0.05 ≤ !v < 0.10)
100 Circular Col. (!v ≥ 0.10)
y = –0.2318*x0.9243 + 23.82: mean-fit for !v < 0.05
y = –0.2752*x0.8784 + 31.47: mean-fit for 0.05 ≤ !v < 0.10
50 y = –0.2521*x0.8235 + 45.75: mean-fit for !v ≥ 0.10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Axial force ratio N/(f´c Ag) (%)

F ig . 8: Relation between AFR and hysteretic dissipation: (a) flexure-critical columns; (b) shear-critical columns

plastic hinges in the RC columns. The recent studies37–39 indicated that the

ð1:3 − ρt mÞ Ag fc0 No*
extent of critical regions required by plastic hinge length tends to increase ρv = max − 0:0084
2:4 Ac fyt fc0 Ag
New Zealand is the most stringent with axial force level, yet it was also
among the codes considered in this observed that the plastic hinge length 
Ast fy 1
study. If the column is subjected to tends to stabilise and become insensi- or ðcircularÞ ð19aÞ
110d00 fyt db
axial compression above 0:5ϕ fc0 Ag , tive to the axial force level, when the
the required confining length by displacement ductility μd of the col-

New Zealand is as high as three times umns exceeds 4.39 Therefore, most of Ash ð1:3 −ρt mÞ Ag fc0 No*
= max
the column depth. Similarly, the Hong the commonly adopted empirical for- sh h00 3:3 Ac fyt ϕ fc0 Ag
Kong code requirements also intro- mulas for plastic hinge length are X !
duce the axial force effect but the independent of axial load level.4 It is Ab fy 1
further noted that, within the typical −0:006 or ðrectangularÞ
maximum extent is relaxed to two 96fyt h00 db
times the column depth. For other allowable axial load limit, the plastic
design codes, the maximum critical hinge length would typically not ð19bÞ
region extent stipulated by EC8 is not exceed the column height hc,max.37
The first terms in the two parenthe-
more than 1.5 times, and is just equal
sises in Eqs. (19a) and (19b) specify
to the column depth in TEC 2007, Confinement Reinforcement
the reinforcement requirement for
ACI and GB.
Confining reinforcement in forms of confinement of the concrete core, and
The extent of critical regions pre- hoops, ties or spirals is to be provided are a function of AFR and longitudi-
scribed by the EC8, TEC 2007, ACI in the plastic hinge regions for con- nal reinforcement ratio. As discussed
and GB provisions does not rely on crete confinement and buckling before, concrete subjected to higher
the induced axial force level in con- restraint of longitudinal reinforcement axial compression requires greater
trast with the New Zealand and Hong therein. In NZS 3101: 2006-A2, the amount of lateral confining reinforce-
Kong codes. There is still controversy required quantify of hoop or tie rein- ment. On the other hand, laterally
over whether the plastic hinge length forcement in the ductile potential restrained longitudinal reinforcement
in RC columns is influenced by or plastic hinge regions (6.0 > μϕ > 3.0) can provide additional confining
sensitive to the axial force level. Some is as follows: action to the encompassed concrete,

96 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017

 TEC
EC8 ACI 318-14 GB50011-2010 NZ 3101:2006 2007 HK*
No*
Po **
Definition of NED, EC Pu N C, C Nd⁢max N
fcd Ag fc Ag Nn, max ** fck Ag fcu Ag
axial force ratio
8 8
Upper limit(s) < 0:55 ðDCHÞ 0:80ϕ ðTiesÞ >
> 0:65 ðGrade IÞ 0.7ϕ 0.5 0.6
<
0:65 ðDCMÞ 0:85ϕ ðSpiralsÞ 0:75 ðGrade IIÞ
:
− ðDCLÞ >
> 0:85 ðGrade IIIÞ
:
0:90 ðGrade IVÞ
Dependent on × ○ × ○ × ×
longitudinal
reinforcement
Re-normalised NED, EC Pu N C, C No* Nd max N
fc’ Ag fc’ Ag fc’ Ag fc’ Ag fc’ Ag fc’ Ac
axial
compression
ratios limit with
respect to fc’
8 8
Re-normalised < 0:37 ðDCHÞ 0:80ϕ½ð0:85 + mÞρL + 0:85 ðTiesÞ > 0:37 ðGrade IÞ 0.7ϕ[(α1 + m)ρL 0.5 0.75
*** >
<
limit(s) with 0:43 ðDCMÞ 0:85ϕ½ð0:85 + mÞρL + 0:85 ðSpiralsÞ 0:42 ðGrade IIÞ + α1]***
:
respect to fc’ − ðDCLÞ >
> 0:48 ðGrade IIIÞ
:
0:51 ðGrade IVÞ
*Assumed limit not explicitly stipulated by HKCocrete2013.
**Po = (0.85fc0 (Ag − Ast) + fy Ast and Nn, max = (α1 fc0 (Ag − Ast) + fy Ast are the nominal axial strength of columns prescribed by ACI 318–14 and NZ
3101:2006 respectively.
***Limits in ACI and NZ are dependent on the values of strength reduction factor ϕ, longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρL, and steel yield strength to
concrete compressive strength ratio m = fy /fc0 . If the typical values of 0.85 and 14 are assumed for α1 and m respectively, the limits range from 0.51 to
0.86 corresponding to the allowable range of longitudinal reinforcement ratio (0.8–4%) with ϕ = 0.85 for NZ, and 0.52–0.91 (ties) and 0.60–1.04 (spir-
als) corresponding to the allowable range of longitudinal reinforcement ratio (1–6%) with ϕ = 0.65 (ties) or 0.75 (spirals) for ACI.52.

Table 1: Comparison of code provisions on axial force ratios for RC columns

thus reducing the required amount of 
 0 reinforcement required by different

confining reinforcement.
Confining refinement is required by
EC8 for all critical regions for DCH
and critical regions at column bases
for DCM, and the required volumetric
ratio of confining hoops is calculated
by Eq. (20). It can be seen that the
quantity of hoop reinforcement
required by EC8, is designed for con-
crete confinement only and it only
takes account of axial compression
effect and hoop types without consid-
erations of bar diameters and other
geometry parameters.
NED, EC bc
αωwd ≥ 30μϕ εsy, d −0:0035
fcd Ag bo
ð20Þ
The quantity of the hoop reinforce-
ment in the critical regions required
by the ACI code is given by
Eqs. (21a) and (21b) for circular and
rectangular column sections respec-
tively. The confinement detailing rules
including the extent of confined
regions and the required confining
hoop quantity specified in the ACI
code neither rely on axial compres-
sion induced nor the ductility
demands on the columns.
Ag f
ρs ≥ max 0:45 −1 c , 0:12fc0 =fyt , codes is illustrated by two examples:
Ac fyt
 (1) a circular column of 500 mm
Pu diameter transversely reinforced by
0:35kf kn ðcircularÞ ð21aÞ a single hoop; (2) a rectangular col-
fyt Ac
umn of 500 × 500 mm transversely

 0 reinforced by a compound hoop set
Ash Ag f
≥ max 0:3 −1 c , 0:09fc0 =fyt , consisting of a single rectangular
sbc Ac fyt
hoop and two tie bars in each
 orthogonal direction. The results are
Pu
0:2kf kn ðrectangularÞ ð21bÞ plotted in Fig. 10. The EC8 requires
fyt Ac
the greatest quantity of confining
reinforcement above AFR > 20%.
Since the limits of AFR stipulated
where the value of the factor kf and
in the New Zealand and ACI codes
kn are concrete strength factor and
are higher than those stipulated in
confinement effectiveness factor
the EC 8, much heavier confining
respectively. The last terms in the
reinforcement may be needed for
above equations need to be consid-
circular columns at high axial com-
ered only when Pu > 0:3fc0 Ag . The
pression to fulfil the New Zealand
equations provided by TEC 2007 to
and ACI requirements. The GB and
calculate the amount of confinement
New Zealand codes required similar
reinforcement are similar to ACI as
quantity of confining reinforcement
above, except that the last terms are
but the GB required quantity
omitted and the coefficient for the
becomes lesser than the
second term in Eq. (21) is taken as
New Zealand code for the rectangu-
0.075 instead of 0.09. Furthermore, in
lar column. On the other hand, the
TEC 2007, only two-thirds of the
Hong Kong and TEC 2007 code
transverse reinforcement calculated
requirements are not influenced by
by the ordinary equations is required,
the level of axial compression and
if AFR is less than 0.20.
thus the required quantities of con-
The relationship between AFR and fining reinforcement remain
the quantity of confining constant.

Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017 Scientific Paper 97

 (a) y = –0.0793*x0.7561 + 3.66: mean-fit for a!vL/3 < 0.05 Conclusions
y= –0.3368*x0.5561 + 5.83: mean-fit for 0.05 ≤ a!vL/3 < 0.15
Structural columns, as a primary and
y = –0.3737*x0.6197 + 7.86: mean-fit for a!vL/3 ≥ 0.15
critical supporting member, should be
TEC HK properly designed and detailed such
EC8
12 that sufficient structural ductility can
Ultimate displacement ratio (u/Ls) (%)

G8
be attained to prevent catastrophic
10 collapse of the whole building struc-
NZ ture. The ductility and energy dissipa-
8
ACI tion capacity of RC columns can be
Experimental data enhanced by confining the core con-
not available crete in the plastic hinge regions with
6
hoop reinforcement, of which required
quantity is greatly influenced by the
4 level of axial force. Many modern seis-
mic design codes also stipulate upper
2 limits on AFR. Nevertheless, consid-
erable dissimilarities are found in dif-
0 ferent design codes in the treatments
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 of AFR effects for the design of RC
Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg) (%) columns. In view of this issue, the sci-
y= –0.1202*x0.6512 + 2.69: mean-fit for !v < 0.05 entific background of confinement
(b)
y = –0.1505*x0.6862 + 4.08: mean-fit for 0.05 ≤ !v < 0.10
detailing for concrete structures is first
revisited and a comprehensive statisti-
y = –0.2003*x0.7062 + 5.60: mean-fit for !v ≥ 0.10
cal analysis is conducted.
TEC HK
12 EC8 The statistical analysis reveals that the
ductility, ultimate displacement and
Ultimate displacement ratio (u/Ls) (%)

G8
hysteretic dissipation of the flexure-
10
NZ
critical RC columns under cyclic load-
ACI
ing can be significantly reduced by
8 increasing the AFR, although the lat-
Experimental data
not available eral strength vs. AFR relationship
6 shows a reverse trend. EC8 sets rea-
sonable limits to the AFR for RC col-
4 umns designed to different ductility
classes, yet different limits should be
2 used for slender and short columns as
they are controlled by completely dif-
ferent failure mechanisms. It is also
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 found that AFR is not much influen-
Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg) (%) tial to the displacement ductility of
short columns but reduce the ultimate
F ig . 9: Comparison of code specified AFR limits with experimental data: (a) ultimate drift ratio and hysteretic dissipation
displacement ratio of flexure-critical columns vs. AFR; (b) ultimate displacement ratio of capacity of short columns.
shear-critical columns vs. AFR

Code Extents of Critical Regions ly Axial Force Effect

8
EC8 < maxð1:5hc, max , 600 mm, 1=5lc Þ ðDCHÞ ×
maxðhc, max , 450 mm, 1=5lc Þ ðDCMÞ
:
hc, max ðDCLÞ
ACI318-14 max(hc,max, 1/6lo, 457 mm (18 inch)) ×
8
GB50011-2010 < maxðhc, max , 500 mm, 1=6lc Þ ðall columns endsÞ ×
1=3lo ðcolumns bases in the first storeyÞ
:
500 ðabove and below rigid ground surfacesÞ
8  * 
NZ 3101:2006 < maxðhc , h0:8M Þ  No ≤ 0:25ϕ fc’ Ag  ○
maxð2:0hc , h0:7M Þ  0:25ϕ fc Ag < No ≤ 0:5ϕ fc’ Ag 
’ *
:
maxð3:0hc , h0:6M Þ 0:5ϕ fc’ Ag < No* ≤ 0:7ϕ Nn, max
TEC 2007 max(hc,max, 1/6lo, 500 mm) ×
8    
HK < maxðhc,max , h0:85M , 1=6lc Þ  0 < N= Ag fcu ≤ 0:1  ○
maxð1:5hc, max, h0:75M , 1=6lc Þ 0:1 < N=Ag fcu  ≤ 0:3
:
maxð2:0hc, max, h0:65M , 1=6lc Þ 0:3 < N= Ag fcu ≤ 0:6

Table 2: Comparisons of codes provisions on extents of critical regions in RC columns

98 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017

 (a) 0.5
Mechanical volumetric ratio v fy/f'c
0.4
500 mm
0.3
EC8 (DCH)
0.2
0.1
0 0
0 20
Axial force ratio N/(f'cAg) (%)
Fi g. 10: Code-stipulated confining reinforcement at various levels of AFR: (a) circular column; (b) rectangular column (assume
fy/fc0 = 10)
Acknowledgements
The supports of the Hong Kong Research
Grand Council (HK-RGC) under grant num-
ber 614011 and the Scientific and Technologi-
_
cal Research Council of Turkey (TÜBITAK)
under project number 214M236 are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
[1] Browning J, Li YR, & Lynn A. Performance
assessment for a reinforced concrete frame
building. Earthq. Spectra 2000; 16(3): 541–555.
[2] Henkhaus K, Ramirez J, Pujol S. Simultane-
ous shear and axial failures of reinforced con-
crete columns. Proceedings of the ATC & SEI
2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic Per-
formance of Existing Buildings and Other Struc-
tures, San Francisco, CA, 2009.
[3] Karaesmen E. Observations on the beha-
viour of reinforced concrete framed buildings
during 22 May 1971 Bingol Earthquake. Pro-
ceedings of 5th World Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, Rome, Italy, 1974.
[4] Paulay T, & Priestley MJN. Seismic Design
of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings.
John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1992.
[5] Verderame GM, De Luca F, Ricci P, &
Manfredi G. Preliminary analysis of a soft-storey
mechanism after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake.
Earthq. Eng. Struct. D 2011; 40: 925–944.
[6] Park R. Ductile design approach for rein-
forced concrete frames. Earthq. Spectra 1986;
2(3): 565–679.
[7] European Committee for Standardization
(CEN). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for
Earthquake Resistance. Part 1: General Rules,
Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. CEN:
Brussels, 2004.
[8] Chronopoulos MP, & Vinzileou E. Confine-
ment of RC columns. In European Seismic
Design Practice, Elnashai AS (ed) Balkema:
Rotterdam, 1995: 341–348.
[9] Tassios TP. Advances in earthquake-
resistant design concrete structures. Proceedings
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017
(b)
Mechanical reinforcement ratio
0.4
NZ (L = 0.8%)
fyAtx/(fc's h")
ACI
0.3
NZ (L = 4%)
GB (grade I)
GB (grade III & IV)
0.2
TEC 2007
0.1
HK
40 60 80 100
of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Acapulco, 1996.
[10] Turkish Earthquake Code. Specification
for Buildings to be Built in Earthquake Regions.
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Gov-
ernment of the Republic of Turkey, 2007.
[11] Ministry of Construction of the People’s
Republic of China. GB 50011–2010: Code for
Seismic Design of Buildings. China Architec-
ture & Building Press: Beijing, 2010.
[12] Government of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region – Buildings Department.
Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete
2013. HKSAR-BD: Hong Kong, 2013.
[13] Standards New Zealand. NZS 3101: Part
1:2006-A1&A2: Concrete Structure Standard-
The Design of Concrete Structures Incorporating
Amendment No.1 & 2. NZS: Wellington, 2006.
[14] American Concrete Institute. ACI
318–14:2014: Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete and Commentary ACI:
Farmington Hills, 2014.
[15] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, & Park P. The-
oretical stress-strain model for confined con-
crete. J. Struct. Eng. 1988; 114(8): 1804–1826.
[16] Park P, Priestley MJN, & Gill WD. Ductil-
ity of square confined concrete columns.
J. Struct. Eng. 1982; 108(4): 929–951.
[17] Biskinis D, & Fardis MN. Flexure-
controlled ultimate deformations of members
with continuous or lap-spliced bars. Struct. Con-
crete 2010; 11(2): 93–108.
[18] Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, &
Kowalsky MJ. Displacement-Based Seismic
Design of Structures. IUSS Press: Pavia, 2007.
[19] Elwood KJ, & Moehle JP. Drift capacity of
reinforced concrete columns with light transverse
reinforcement. Earthq. Spectra 2005; 21(1): 71–89.
[20] Architectural Institute of Japan. AIJ Stand-
ard for Structural Calculation of Reinforced
Concrete Structures. AIJ: Tokyo, 2010.
[21] Sezen H. Seismic Response and Modeling
of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Building
Columns, PhD Dissertation, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley, California, 2002.
0.5
500 mm
500 mm
ACI
NZ (L = 0.8%)
EC8 (DCH)
NZ (L = 4%)
GB (grade I)
GB (grade III & IV)
TEC 2007
HK
0 20 40 60 80 100
Axial force ratio N/(f'cAg) (%)
[22] Kappos A, & Penelis GG. Earthquake
Resistant Concrete Structures CRC Press: Boca
Raton, 1996.
[23] Borg RC, Rossetto T, Varum H. Low cycle
fatigue tests of reinforced concrete columns and
joints, built with ribbed reinforcement and plain
stirrups. Proceedings of the 15th World Confer-
ence on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portu-
gal, 2012.
[24] Priestley MJN, Verma R, & Xiao Y. Seis-
mic shear strength of reinforced concrete col-
umns. J. Struct. Eng. 1994; 120(8): 2310–2329.
[25] Berry M, Parish M, Eberhard M. PEER
Structural Performance Database User’s Manual.
PEER Research Report, Berkeley, CA: Univer-
sity of California, 2004.
[26] Ahn J-M, & Shin S-W. An evaluation of
ductility of high-strength reinforced concrete
columns subjected to reversed cyclic loads
under axial compression. Mag. Concrete Res.
2007; 59(1): 29–44.
[27] Benavent-Climent A, Escolano-
Margarit D, & Morillas L. Shake-table tests of a
reinforced concrete frame designed following
modern codes: seismic performance and dam-
age evaluation. Earthq. Eng. Struct. D 2014;
43(6): 791–810.
[28] Lee T-K, Chen C-C, Hwa K, & Pan ADE.
Performance of large reinforced concrete col-
umns under axial compression loads. Proc. Inst.
Civil Eng. Struct. B 2013; 167(5): 300–311.
[29] Lee T-K, Chen C-C, Pan ADE, Hwa K, &
Ma MJL. Performance of large reinforced con-
crete columns under axial compression loads.
Mag. Concrete Res. 2013; 65(8): 519–527.
[30] Popa V, Cotofana D. Displacement capac-
ity estimation for RC columns: comparison
between analytical and experimental results.
Proceedings of International Symposium on
Seismic Risk Reduction, The JICA Technical
Cooperation Project in Romania, JICA Project,
Bucharest, 2007.
[31] Rodrigues H, Arêde A, Varum H, &
Costa AG. Experimental evaluation of rectangu-
lar reinforced concrete column behaviour under
biaxial cyclic loading. Earthq. Eng. Struct. D
2013; 42(2): 239–259.
Scientific Paper 99
[32] Shinha S, & Roy L. Fundamental tests of
reinforced concrete columns subjected to seis-
mic loading. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Struct. B
2004; 157(3): 185–199.
[33] Thomson JH, & Wallace JW. Lateral load
behavior of reinforced concrete columns con-
structed using high-strength materials. ACI
Struct. J. 1994; 91(5): 605–615.
[34] Park R. Evaluation of ductility of struc-
tures and structural assemblages from labora-
100 Scientific Paper
tory testing. Bull. N. Z. Natl. Soc. Earthq. Eng.
1989; 122(3): 155–166.
[35] Biskinis D, & Fardis MN. Deformations at
flexural yielding of members with continuous or
lao-spliced bars. Struct. Concrete 2010; 11(3):
127–138.
[36] Yuen YP, & Kuang JS. Effect of axial
compression on ductility design of RC walls.
Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Struct. B 2015; 168(SB8):
554–569.
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017
[37] Bae S, & Bayrak O. Plastic hinge length of
reinforced concrete columns. ACI Struct. J.
2008; 105(3): 290–300.
[38] Légeron F, & Paultre P. Behavior of high-
strength concrete columns under cyclic flexure
and constant axial load. ACI Struct. J. 2000;
97(4): 591–601.
[39] Priestley MJN, & Park R. Strength and
ductility of concrete bridge columns under seis-
mic loading. ACI Struct. J. 1987; 84(1): 61–76.