565

Background to seismic design provisions in CSA

A23.3–04 for high-strength concrete
Patrick Paultre and Denis Mitchell

Abstract: This paper presents the background experimental and analytical research that was carried out to develop the pro-
visions for the seismic design of high-strength concrete structures in the 2004 Canadian standard CSA A23.3–04. It is
noted that the 1994 Canadian standard CSA A23.3–94 limited the concrete compressive strength to 55 MPa for the seis-
mic design of nominally ductile and ductile structures, while the 1995 New Zealand Standard limited the concrete com-
pressive strength to 70 MPa. In contrast, the 2008 American Concrete Institute (ACI) code ACI 318M has no upper limit
on concrete strength, even for the seismic design of ductile structural elements. This tremendous variation in these limits
indicated that more experimental evidence was needed. This paper presents experimental results of reversed cyclic loading
tests on large-scale structural components as well as simulated seismic loading tests of a frame structure constructed with
high-strength concrete. The goal of this collaborative research program at the University of Sherbrooke and McGill Uni-
versity was to determine the seismic design and detailing requirements for high-strength concrete structures to achieve the
desired level of ductility and energy dissipation. The experimental programs include full-scale testing of the following: col-
umns subjected to a pure axial load (square and circular columns); columns subjected to flexure and axial loads; beam-col-
umn subassemblages (square and circular columns); coupling beams in coupled wall structures; shear walls and a two-
storey, three-dimensional frame structure. The results of the responses of the high-strength concrete structural specimens
are compared with the responses of companion specimens constructed with normal-strength concrete.
Key words: seismic design, high-strength concrete, columns, beams, joints, walls, coupled-walls, confinement, design re-
quirements, detailing.
Résumé : Cet article présente les recherches expérimentales et analytiques qui ont mené aux changements des règles de
dimensionnement parasismique des structures en béton à haute résistance dans l’édition 2004 de la norme CSA A23,3–04.
Notons que l’édition 1994 de la norme CSA A23,3–94 limitait la résistance en compression du béton à 55 MPa pour le di-
mensionnement parasismique des structures ductiles et nominalement ductiles, alors que la norme de la Nouvelle-Zélande
limitait la résistance en compression du béton à 70 MPa. Par contre, le code de l’American Concrete Institute n’a aucune
limite supérieure sur la résistance du béton, même pour le dimensionnement parasismique des pièces ductiles. Cette grande
variation dans les limites de résistance permise par les différents codes de construction des structures de béton est la
preuve que plus de résultats expérimentaux étaient nécessaires. Cet article présente les résultats expérimentaux des essais
cycliques par charges renversées effectués sur des composantes structurales à grande échelle et des simulations sismiques
effectuées sur un portique construit en béton à haute résistance. Les objectifs de cette recherche effectuée en collaboration
entre les universités de Sherbrooke et McGill étaient de déterminer les règles de dimensionnement et de ferraillage des
structures en béton à haute résistance assurant un niveau adéquat de ductilité et de dissipation d’énergie. Les programmes
expérimentaux incluaient les essais à l’échelle réelle des éléments suivants : des colonnes soumises à des charges axiales
(colonnes carrées et circulaires); des colonnes soumises à des essais de flexion-compression; des assemblages poutres-co-
lonnes (colonnes carrées et circulaires); des poutres de couplage de murs; des murs de cisaillement et un portique tridimen-
sionnel de deux étages. Les résultats des essais effectués sur ces éléments en béton à haute résistance sont comparés à
ceux obtenus des essais sur des éléments comparables en béton de résistance normale.
Mots-clés : dimensionnement parasismique, béton à haute performance, colonnes, poutres, joints, murs, murs couplés,
confinement, règles de dimensionnement, ferraillage.

Received 30 October 2007. Revision accepted 12 September 2008. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cjce.nrc.ca on
25 March 2009.
P. Paultre.1 Department of Civil Engineering, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC J1K 2R1, Canada.
D. Mitchell. Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 2K6, Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be received by the Editor until 31 August 2009.
1Corresponding author (e-mail: patrick.paultre@usherbrooke.ca).

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 36: 565–579 (2009) doi:10.1139/L08-110 Published by NRC Research Press
566 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 36, 2009

1. Introduction Fig. 1. Specimens tested under concentric compression (adapted

from Cusson and Paultre 1994).
The 1994 Canadian standard CSA A23.3 (CSA 1994) lim-
ited the use of the design equations to concrete compressive
strength up to 55 MPa for the seismic design of nominally
ductile and ductile concrete structures. This conservative
upper limit was chosen because of the brittle nature of the
failure of plain high-strength concrete (HSC) in compression
and because there was limited experimental data available
on HSC members subjected to reversed cyclic loading. It is
noted that the 2008 ACI code ACI 318M (ACI 2008) has no
upper limit on concrete strength and that the 1995 New Zea-
land standard NZS 3101 (NZS 1995) limits the compressive
strength to 70 MPa. This paper summarizes the results of
extensive experimental programs carried out at the Univer-
sity of Sherbrooke and McGill University to provide experi-
mental evidence and develop design equations for HSC
structures. The experimental research programs included
full-scale testing of HSC elements, including (i) columns
subjected to a pure axial load, (ii) columns subjected to flex-
ure and axial loads, (iii) beam-column subassemblages,
(iv) coupling beams, (v) shear walls, and (vi) a two-storey
frame building. Performance-based design equations and de-
tailing requirements are presented and validated with the ex-
perimental results.

2. Columns subjected to a pure axial load
A comprehensive series of tests was conducted to study
the behaviour of HSC columns confined by rectangular ties.
More than 60 columns (235 mm  235 mm  1400 mm
long) were tested under concentric compressive loading.
Test variables studied in this research program are the con-
crete compressive strength, the tie yield strength, the tie
configuration (Fig. 1), the lateral reinforcement ratio, the tie
spacing, the longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and the con-
crete cover dimensions. Four different concrete mixes de-
signed with specified 28-d compressive strengths of 60, 80,
100, and 120 MPa were used. Deformed steel bars (Grade
400) were used for the longitudinal reinforcement and two
different types of plain steel bars, with 400 and 800 MPa
yield stresses, were used for transverse reinforcement. More
details are given by Cusson and Paultre (1994).
High-strength concrete exhibits less lateral expansion
under axial compression than normal-strength concrete
(NSC) because of its higher modulus of elasticity and re-
duced micro-cracking. Consequently, the confining rein-
forcement comes into play at a later stage in the loading
and the efficiency of passive confinement of high-strength
concrete is reduced. Figure 2 illustrates the stress–strain
curves of the confined concrete for the equally-confined col-
umn specimens 6D ( fc0 ¼ 113:6 MPa), 5D ( fc0 ¼ 99:9 MPa),
7D ( fc0 ¼ 67:9 MPa), and 8D ( fc0 ¼ 55:6 MPa) along with
the stress–strain curves of the corresponding plain concrete
cylinders. Ratios of the confined concrete strength to the un-
confined strength are 1.31, 1.51, 1.74, and 1.92 and the cor-
responding ratios for toughness (areas under stress–strain
curves) are 8.54, 9.44, 9.91, and 15.67 MPa for specimens
6D, 5D, 7D, and 8D, respectively. The test results indicate
that significant strength and toughness enhancements can be
achieved when sufficient transverse reinforcement is pro-
vided. However, as evident from Fig. 2, greater strength
and toughness gains are observed for specimens made with
lower strength concrete.
In addition to these square columns, 15 circular columns
(305 mm diameter by 1600 mm long) were also tested under
concentric compression to determine the influence of HSC
(Da Silva 2000).
3. Columns subjected to flexure and axial
loads
Twelve square columns (305 mm  305 mm) with
2150 mm length and six 305 mm-diameter circular columns
were tested under constant axial load and reversed cyclic
flexure generated by lateral loading applied at the tip of the
cantilever columns, 2 m from the fixed base (Légeron and
Paultre 2000; Paultre et al. 2001, 2009). Four parameters
were investigated: concrete strength, volumetric ratio of
transverse reinforcement, yield strength of the transverse re-
inforcement, and level of axial compression. The level of
axial load is defined as the applied axial compressive load
divided by the concrete axial load capacity of the column,
Ag fc0 , where Ag is the gross concrete cross-sectional area and
fc0 is the concrete compressive strength.
Six of the square columns were tested to investigate the ef-
fects of two main parameters: the level of axial load and the
volumetric ratio of the confinement reinforcement (Légeron
and Paultre 2000). The specified concrete compressive
strength for these columns was 100 MPa and the columns
were subjected to levels of axial compression of 0.15, 0.25,
and 0.40 and these ratios were chosen to represent failure
strain conditions corresponding to yielding of the tension
reinforcement, balanced failure conditions, and crushing of
the concrete, respectively. To investigate the influence of
the volumetric ratio of confinement steel, the tie configura-
tion was kept constant and the spacing of ties varied from
60 to 130 mm. The 10M ties include a square peripheral

Published by NRC Research Press

Paultre and Mitchell
Fig. 2. Experimental stress–strain curves for different strength concretes (adapted from Cusson and Paultre 1994).
tie and a diamond shaped tie (see Fig. 3). The 130 mm tie
spacing corresponds to spacing of d/2, which is the maximum
spacing for shear reinforcement. The 60 mm tie spacing
represents the confinement required by the 1994 CSA
standard and the 2008 ACI code. Test specimens are identified
by concrete strength, tie configuration, tie spacing, and ax-
ial load level. Hence, C100B60N15 is a column with
100 MPa concrete, tie configuration B (see Fig. 1), spaced
at 60 mm, and subjected to an axial load level ratio of 0.15.
The influence of the axial load level is assessed with two
sets of three columns, each set having the same volumetric
ratio of confinement reinforcement. The first set of columns
(Figs. 3a, 3b and 3c) had 4.26% volumetric ratio of trans-
verse reinforcement and were made with concrete of compa-
rable strengths. They were subjected to axial load levels of
14% (Fig. 3a), 28% (Fig. 3b), and 39% (Fig. 3c). The speci-
men with the lowest axial load level (Fig. 3a) exhibited a
very ductile behaviour as well as an excellent capacity to
sustain large inelastic cyclic displacements. The displace-
ment ductility drops from 8.8 to 8.2 to 4.7 when the axial
load level increases from 14% to 28%–39%, respectively.
As can be seen in Fig. 3, the axial load level has a beneficial
effect on moment resisting capacity, but it has a negative in-
fluence on the inelastic behaviour of the column. The re-
sponses shown in Figs. 3d, 3e, and 3f correspond to the
second set of columns with a volumetric ratio of transverse
reinforcement of 1.96% and having similar concrete
strengths. They have been subjected to axial load levels of
14%, 26% and 39%, respectively. The transverse ties were
spaced at 130 mm. This figure shows the significant influ-
ence of the axial load level on the response. This study, to-
gether with the research carried out by Sheikh and Khoury
(1993), Sheikh et al. (1994), Azizinamini et al. (1994), Wat-
son and Park (1994), Li et al. (1994), Bayrak and Sheikh
(1998), Légeron and Paultre (2000), and Paultre et al.
(2001) indicate that the 2008 ACI code confinement require-
ments are unconservative for high levels of axial load and
are too conservative for low levels of axial load that are
common in many structures. It is evident that for HSC col-
umns the amount of confinement reinforcement must be re-
lated to the level of axial load. It is noted that the New
567
Zealand standard (NZS 1995), the AASHTO specifications
(AASHTO 2004) and the Canadian highway bridge design
code (CSA 2006) include the influence of axial load on the
required amount of confinement reinforcement. Comparisons
of the load–deflection responses (Figs. 3a with 3d, 3b with
3e, and 3c with 3f) illustrate the influence of the volumetric
ratio of confinement reinforcement. It is clear that as the
volumetric ratio increases the displacement ductility and en-
ergy dissipation increase.
Six HSC (target strength of 100 MPa) circular columns
tested at the University of Sherbrooke are identified by con-
crete strength (C100), spiral transverse reinforcement Grade
400 (S) or Grade 500 (SH), spiral pitch (37, 70, or 100 mm)
and the axial load level (N15). Hence, C100S37N15 repre-
sents a column made of 100 MPa concrete with spiral trans-
verse reinforcement having a pitch of 37 mm, and subjected
to a target axial load level of 15% of the concrete axial load
capacity. Figures 4a, 4b, and 4c illustrate the responses of
three columns reinforced with Grade 400 spirals and sub-
jected to 0.15, 0.25, and 0:40Ag fc0 , respectively. Figures 4d,
4e, and 4f show the responses of three columns, similar to
those shown in Figs. 4a, 4b, and 4c, except that they contain
Grade 500 transverse reinforcement with the same spacings
but with smaller diameter transverse reinforcement. With in-
creases in the amount of confinement reinforcement as the
axial load increases, all the columns were able to reach
about the same curvature ductility. These tests were con-
ducted while the code confinement expressions were being
developed and clearly show that by using a sufficient
amount of confinement reinforcement, the required ductility
can be achieved for wide range of axial load levels.
4. Confinement requirements of CSA
A23.3-04
A considerable amount of experimental research and ana-
lytical modelling of confinement effects on columns has
been carried out (Sheikh and Uzumeri 1980; Mander et al.
1988; Cusson and Paultre 1994; Sheikh et al. 1994; Saatcio-
glu and Razvi 1998; Saatcioglu and Baingo 1999; Légeron
and Paultre 2000; Paultre et al. 2001). There is considerable
Published by NRC Research Press
568 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 36, 2009

Fig. 3. Influence of an axial load level and amount of transverse reinforcement in high-strenghth concrete (HSC) square columns subjected
to flexure and axial load (adapted from Légeron and Paultre 2000).

evidence that, in addition to the influence of concrete com-
pressive strength, the amount, yield stress and arrangement
of the confining reinforcement, the effect of cover loss, the
influence of axial compressive load level and the number
and distribution of the vertical column bars are also impor-
tant parameters (Li et al. 1994; Sheikh et al. 1994; Légeron
and Paultre 2000).
Paultre et al. (2007) and Paultre and Légeron (2008) de-
veloped design expressions for the amount of confinement
reinforcement for columns in ductile and limited ductility

Published by NRC Research Press

Paultre and Mitchell 569

Fig. 4. Influence of amount of transverse reinforcement and axial load levels in high-strength concrete (HSC) circular columns subjected to
flexure and axial load (adapted from Paultre et al. 2009).

moment-resisting frame structures. These expressions are
performance based that depend on the curvature ductility de-
mand and account for the level of axial load, the transverse
reinforcement configuration, the spacing of the transverse
reinforcement, the concrete compressive strength, and yield
strength of the transverse reinforcement. These confinement
expressions formed the basis for the design expressions of
the 2004 CSA standard (CSA A23.3) and were derived to
provide a curvature ductility that was assumed to be four
times the displacement ‘‘ductility’’ (Park and Paulay 1975),

Published by NRC Research Press

570 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 36, 2009

that is, a curvature ductility of 16 for Rd equal to 4.0. For fc0 100
rectangular columns, the total effective area of transverse re- ½7 rs ¼ 0:4kp ¼ 0:4  0:48  440 ¼ 0:044
fyh
inforcement, Ash, in each of the principal directions of the
cross section within spacing, s, shall not be less than the The rs provided for this column was 0.040. This column
highest value required by the following equations: contained 91% of the confinement reinforcement required
Ag fc0 by the 2004 CSA standard. It is noted that the 2004 CSA
½1 Ash ¼ 0:2kn kp shc standard uses a stress block factor a1 that is considerably
Ach fyh lower than the equivalent factor of 0.85 in the 2008 ACI
and code for HSC. As the confinement expressions were cali-
brated based on the ACI stress block factor, the 2004 CSA
fc0 standard expressions are somewhat conservative for very
½2 Ash ¼ 0:09 shc
fyh high-strength concrete. The current CSA standard limits the
concrete compressive strength to 80 MPa.
where kn ¼ n‘ =ðn‘  2Þ, n‘ is the total number of longitudi-
nal bars in the column cross section that are laterally sup-
ported by the corners of hoops or by hooks of seismic 5. Beam–column subassemblages
crossties; kp = Pf /Po where Pf /Po is the ratio of the maxi- Figure 5 shows the geometry and reinforcement details
mum factored axial load for earthquake loading cases to the for two beam–slab–column subassemblages that were tested
nominal axial resistance at zero eccentricity; fc0 is the speci- under reversed cyclic loading. The design and detailing of
fied compressive strength of concrete; Ag is the gross area these subassemblages meet the seismic provisions of CSA
of section; Ach is the cross-sectional area of core of a struc- A23.3–94 (CSA 1994) and CSA A23.3–04 (CSA 2004) for
tural member measured from out-to-out of transverse rein- ductile moment-resisting frames. The columns contain ad-
forcement; fyh is the specified yield strength of hoop equate confinement reinforcement and are stronger than the
reinforcement (shall not be taken greater than 500 MPa); beams. The beams have closely spaced hoop reinforcement
and hc is the dimension of concrete core of rectangular sec- to avoid shear failures, to provide sufficient confinement,
tion measured perpendicular to the direction of the hoop and to prevent buckling of the longitudinal bars. The joints
bars to outside of peripheral hoop. The confinement expres- were also adequately confined and designed to resist the
sions used in the 2004 CSA standard for limited ductility shear resulting from beam hinging. Both specimens were de-
can be found in Paultre and Légeron (2008). signed for the same flexural capacity in the beams. Speci-
For circular columns, the volumetric ratio of circular hoop men R4 (Paultre et al. 1989) was designed and detailed for
reinforcement, rs, shall not be less than a concrete compressive strength of 30 MPa, resulting in a
400 mm wide by 600 mm deep beam section and a
fc0 450 mm 450 mm column. The 10M ( fy = 480 MPa) col-
½3 rs ¼ 0:4kp
fyh umn hoops consisted of square- and diamond-shaped hoops
that were spaced at 80 mm (Fig. 5a). Specimen R4H (Mar-
and quis 1997) was designed and detailed for a concrete com-
  0 pressive strength of 70 MPa, resulting in a 350 mm wide by
Ag f
½4 rs ¼ 0:45 1 c 600 mm deep beam section and a 350 mm  350 mm col-
Ac fyh umn. The 10M (higher strength fy = 648 MPa) column
where Ac is the area of core of spirally reinforced compres- hoops consisted of a peripheral square hoop together with
sion member measured to outside diameter of spiral. two rectangular hoops at 65 mm (Fig. 5b). The specimens
These design expressions account for the effects of tie had a 100 mm thick slab that was 1.9 m wide. Side beams
configuration, concrete strength, level of axial load, and the protruding from the exterior columns had dimensions of
yield strength of the transverse reinforcement. 400 mm  600 mm and 350 mm  600 mm for specimens
R4 and R4H, respectively.
It is of interest to compare the amount of confinement
provided in the circular columns with the amount required The specimens were tested with a constant column axial
by the 2004 CSA standard. For the case of column compressive load of 1076 kN. Reversed cyclic upward and
C100S37N40 (Fig. 4c), subjected to an axial compressive downward loading was applied at a location 2000 mm from
load of 2700 kN, the confinement term, kp, is the centre of the column. The column was pinned at the top
and the bottom to represent the points of contraflexure in the
Pf prototype structure. The actual average concrete strengths, at
½5 kp ¼ the time of testing, were 38.3 and 83.8 MPa for specimens
a1 fc0 ðAg  Ast Þ þ Ast fy
R4 and R4H, respectively. It is noted that the higher
strength concrete has resulted in slightly smaller beams, a
2700  103 significantly smaller column and a larger amount of confine-
kp ¼ 0 1
2 ment reinforcement in the columns.
p  300
½6 0:70  100@  1800A þ 1800  457 Figure 6 compares the load applied near the end of the
4 beam with the beam tip deflection responses for the two
¼ 0:48 subassemblages. Normal-strength concrete specimen R4 at-
tained maximum displacements of +123 mm and –75 mm,
Hence, the amount required by eq. [7] is corresponding to displacement ductilities greater than 10

Published by NRC Research Press

Paultre and Mitchell
Fig. 5. Ductile beam–slab–column subassemblages (a) Specimen
R4 designed with 30 MPa concrete (adapted from Paultre et al.
1989) and (b) Specimen R4H designed with 70 MPa concrete
(adapted from Marquis 1997).
under positive loading and exceeding 8 under negative load-
ing. These ductilities were limited during testing because of
the displacement limitations of the loading apparatus. Speci-
men R4H reached maximum displacements of +95 mm
and –80 mm, representing displacement ductilities of 7 and
10 in the positive and negative loading directions, respec-
tively. Both specimens exhibited significant flexural hinging
in the beams. The displacement ductility for specimen R4H
was limited because of the rupture of the slab bars. These
slab bars were cold-rolled 10M bars with limited ductility
571
Fig. 6. Load–deflection responses of specimens R4 (adapted from
Paultre et al. 1989) and R4H (adapted from Marquis 1997).
and strain hardening. All other reinforcement, except for the
column ties, was weldable grade, hot-rolled reinforcement,
as required by the CSA standard (CSA 2004). This test dem-
onstrates the fact that this more brittle reinforcement should
not be used for the flexural reinforcement of ductile ele-
ments.
An additional full-scale subassemblage (Koch 1998) with
a 400 mm diameter circular column containing spiral rein-
forcement and HSC (70 MPa), was also tested and demon-
strated an ability to reach a displacement ductility of 8.0.
The columns contained 8M–25M bars with 10M spirals at a
pitch of 100 mm in the plastic hinge regions and a pitch of
130 mm outside these regions. The spiral reinforcement had
a nominal yield stress of 500 MPa. The beam details were
similar to those shown in Fig. 5.
The measured curvature ductilities in the beams exceeded
11.0 and the drift ratios exceeded twice the maximum drift
ratio of 0.025 permitted by the National Building Code of
Canada (NBCC) (NRCC 2005).
Published by NRC Research Press
572 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 36, 2009

Fig. 7. Reversed cyclic loading setup for testing full-scale coupling beams (test by Lai 2002).

Fig. 8. Details of coupling beam specimens NR4 and MR4 (adapted from Bristowe et al. 1997).

6. Coupling beams
Figure 7 shows the setup for testing full-scale coupling
beams under reversed cyclic loading (Lai 2002). The wall
on the left is held fixed and the wall on the right is loaded
upwards and downwards to simulate the seismic effects on
the coupling beam. A series of full-scale ductile reinforced
concrete coupling beams were tested under reversed cyclic
loading to evaluate their seismic response (Bristowe et al.
1997). Figure 8 shows the dimensions and reinforcement de-
tails of the normal-strength concrete (30 MPa) specimen
NR4, with details corresponding to those required for a duc-
tility-related force modification factor, Rd, of 4.0. The clear
span of the beam was 1800 mm or four times the effective
depth, d, of the beam, to investigate the performance when
the minimum span-to-depth ratio permitted for convention-
ally reinforced beams is used. The shear design of the cou-
pling beam was based on the shear corresponding to the
probable moment resistance of the beam. The details for the

Published by NRC Research Press

Paultre and Mitchell 573

high-strength concrete (70 MPa) specimen MR4, were the Fig. 9. Shear force–deflection responses of specimens NR4 and
same as for specimen NR4 except for a reduction of the MR4 (adapted from Bristowe et al. 1997).
hoop spacing from 90 to 85 mm, because of the slightly
larger moment resistance and hence larger required shear
resistance (Fig. 8). These closely spaced hoops were
required over a length equal to 2d from the face of each
wall and hence were necessary over the entire length of the
coupling beams. The first hoop was located at a distance of
one-half of the hoop spacing from the face of the wall. The
10M and 25M bars had yield stresses of 428 and 433 MPa,
respectively. The top and bottom clear covers were 30 mm.
The coupling beam shear force versus relative end deflec-
tion responses of specimens NR4 and MR4 are compared in
Fig. 9. Also shown in this figure are the shears and deflec-
tions corresponding to general yielding and spalling of the
cover concrete. The initial cracking of the high-strength
specimen occurred at a higher applied load than the normal
strength specimen because of the higher tensile strength of
the concrete. The general yielding displacements were 15
and 13 mm for specimens NR4 and MR4, respectively. The
behaviour of each of these specimens was dominated by
flexural deformations up to a deflection of twice the deflec-
tion at general yielding, Dy. After this point, the influence of
shear was more evident in the response. The capacity of the
beam started to decay because of the sliding at the beam–
wall interface at a displacement of 59 mm (3.9Dy) for NR4
and 64 mm (4.9Dy) for MR4. This decay was due to consid-
erable spalling and shear sliding at the beam–wall interface
that eventually led to failure. The hoops in both specimens
did not show any signs of yielding. These experimental
results and other tests in this series on conventionally
reinforced coupling beams illustrated that both the ductility
and energy dissipation of HSC coupling beams are higher
than that of companion NSC coupling beams (Bristowe et
al. 1997). The shear corresponding to the nominal flexural
resistance, using measured material properties, were 302
and 314 kN for specimens NR4 and MR4, respectively. The
coupling beams were capable of achieving and maintaining
these load levels. Coupling beam NR4 achieved an inelastic
rotational capacity equal to (59 – 15)/1800 = 0.024.
Similarly, coupling beam MR4 achieved a inelastic
rotational capacity of 0.028. Both of these values exceed
the inelastic rotational capacity of 0.02 given in the CSA
standard for coupling beams without diagonal reinforcement.
loading applied at a distance of 3.75 m from the base.
Throughout the testing, a constant axial compressive load of
7. Shear walls 600 kN was applied. This load level corresponds to about
Figure 10 shows the setup for testing walls under reversed 9% and 4% of the nominal axial load capacity of NSC and
cyclic loading and axial load. A series of ductile walls were HSC walls, respectively. The shear design of the walls was
tested under reversed cyclic loading to evaluate their seismic based on the shear corresponding to the probable moment
response and to determine suitable confinement require- resistance of the wall.
ments. Figure 11 shows the geometry and reinforcement de- The wall-base shear versus tip-deflection responses of the
tails for the NSC (30 MPa) walls W1 and W3, designed and four walls are shown in Fig. 12. Table 1 compares the dis-
detailed corresponding to ductile shear walls with Rd of 3.5. placements at general yield, Dy, and the maximum displace-
The details for the high-strength concrete (70 MPa) walls ments, Du, reached without significant loss of strength in the
W2 and W4 were the same, except that the HSC walls have three cycles of reversed cyclic loading for the four walls
a smaller spacing of the transverse reinforcement (215 mm) tested. The peak load, Pu, of the HSC walls was on average
than that of NSC walls (250 mm) because of the slightly about 4% greater than the companion NSC walls. The duc-
higher expected flexural capacity (Fig. 11). The yield tilities were similar for the walls with the same amount of
stresses of the 10M and 20M bars were 460 and 458 MPa, confinement reinforcement, but increasing the amount of
respectively. The 4 m cantilever wall had the reversed cyclic confinement (hoop spacing, s, decreased from 100 to

Published by NRC Research Press

574 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 36, 2009

Fig. 10. Reversed cyclic loading setup for testing walls with axial loads (test by Chen 2005).

Fig. 11. Details of normal-strength concrete (NSC) and high-strength concrete (HSC) walls. (All dimensions in millimetres.)

60 mm) resulted in an increase in ductility of about 16%.
The inelastic rotational capacity, qic, was determined as
Du  Dy
½8 qic ¼
hw  ‘w =2
It is evident from Table 1 that qic for the specimens with
the same confinement, an increase in the concrete compres-
sive strength results in a reduction of the inelastic rotational
capacity. Also, an increase in the amount of confinement re-
sults in an increase in the inelastic rotational capacity. The
Canadian standard CSA A23.3-04 also limits the inelastic
rotational capacity to a value of 0.025, governed by the lim-
iting tensile strain in the reinforcement. Walls W1, W3, and
W4 had values qic that exceeded this limit. Wall 2 experi-
enced rupture of one of the outermost 20M longitudinal
bars during the third cycle of loading after reaching a value
of qic of 0.028.
The predicted shears corresponding to the nominal
flexural resistance at the base of the wall were 262 and
284 kN for the NSC and HSC walls, respectively. During
the reversed cyclic loading walls W1, W2, W3, and W4
reached peak loads of 266, 280, 272, and 289 kN and were
able to maintain these load levels. The design, detailing, and

Published by NRC Research Press

Paultre and Mitchell 575

Fig. 12. Base shear – tip deflection responses of normal-strength concrete (NSC) and high-strength concrete (HSC) walls (adapted from Liu
2004 and Chen 2005)

Table 1. Comparison of responses of normal-strength concrete (NSC) and high-

strength concrete (HSC) walls.

Wall fc0 (MPa) s (mm) Dy (mm) Du (mm) m qic (rad)

W1 33.1 100 25.5 111 4.4 0.027
W2 70.6 100 21.3 95.8 4.5 0.024
W3 28.4 60 24.4 108 5.2 0.032
W4 69.2 60 20.5 104 5.1 0.026

confinement requirements of the CSA A23.3–04 (CSA
2004) were adequate to ensure ductile performance.
8. Frame structure
Pseudo-dynamic testing followed by pushover testing of a
two-storey reinforced HSC building was carried out (Mous-
seau and Paultre 2008) to determine (i) the performance
under increasing seismic load intensities; (ii) the force mod-
ification factor suitable for this structure, designed and de-
tailed to exhibit moderate ductility; (iii) whether the
55 MPa compressive strength limit in the CSA Standard
A23.3–94 (CSA 1994) was too conservative; (iv) the
adequacy of the design and detailing requirements for
moderate ductility; and (v) provide experimental evidence
for predicting damage under different seismic excitations.
Figure 13 shows the two-storey building, with a 5-m bay
in the E-W direction, a 4-m bay in the N–S direction and a

Published by NRC Research Press

576
Fig. 13. Two-storey reinforced high-performance concrete building under pseudo-dynamic testing (adapted from Mousseau and Paultre
2008).
3-m storey height. The seismic design forces were in ac-
cordance with the 2005 NBCC (NRCC 2005) for a site lo-
cated in Montreal. The total weight used for the design was
759.4 kN. Complete details can be found in Mousseau and
Paultre (2008).
The moment-resisting frame structure was designed for
moderate ductility with the proposed change of seismic
force modification factor from R = 2.0 to Rd = 2.5 (NRC
2005; CSA 2004). The columns are all 300 mm  300 mm.
The two-way slab is 150 mm thick and is supported by
beams of 300 mm  300 mm. The specified concrete
strength was 70 MPa and the specified steel yield strength
was 400 MPa. Reinforcement details are given in Fig. 14.
The average concrete compressive strength at 28 d was
63 MPa. At the time of testing, the average compressive
strength had increased to 66 MPa. It is noted that at the
time of construction of the test specimen, the code clauses
were still being developed and while the current code re-
quires that the confinement be continued over the full height
of the first-storey columns, this confinement was only
placed near the ends of these columns. As the columns
were stronger than the beams, the confinement reinforce-
ment placed near the ends of the second-storey columns
would not be required.
The two-storey building was instrumented with strain
gauges on the reinforcing bars and displacement transducers
for the pseudo-dynamic tests. Pseudo-dynamic testing was
carried out, which involves an interactive closed-loop testing
procedure that simulates dynamic loading. The interactive
dynamic response is modelled by a computer program that
predicts the incremental displacements to be imposed on the
structure after receiving nonlinear force response feedback
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 36, 2009
from the actual structure. This process is carried out for the
duration of a particular input accelerogram.
Pseudo-dynamic (PSD) tests were carried out at low,
moderate, severe, and very severe seismic excitations. The
results are presented only for the severe excitations, more
informations can be found in Mousseau and Paultre (2008).
Two different PSD tests were carried out at severe seismic
excitations. The first test was done with the El Centro
ground motion scaled to peak ground acceleration (PGA) of
0.27g. The earthquake response of the structure, in terms of
storey displacement and base shear forces, is illustrated in
Fig. 15. The second test was done with the M7R70A1 accel-
erogram generated for Montreal and having a probability of
exceedance of 2% in 50 years (Atkinson and Beresnev
1998). This ground motion is compatible with the uniform
hazard spectra (UHS) used in the NBCC (NRC 2005;
Adams and Halchuk 2003). This time history was generated
for a moment magnitude 7.0 earthquake at a hypocentral
distance of 70 km.
For the El Centro excitation, maximum interstorey drifts
were 34.6 and 41.9 mm for the first and second storeys cor-
responding to drift ratios of 1.15% and 1.40%, respectively.
These values exceed the drift ratio allowed by the NBCC
2005 for post-disaster buildings. The maximum base shear
developed during the test was 165.1 kN, which is signifi-
cantly higher than the design base shear (99.8 kN). This se-
vere seismic excitation test caused the first measured
yielding of reinforcement steel at the bottom of the first
storey column where the strain reached 1.183y. At the time
of first yielding, the base shear was 144.4 kN. The structure
performed very well during the test. Existing cracks widened
with only a few new cracks developing. No spalling of the
cover was observed.
Published by NRC Research Press
Paultre and Mitchell
Fig. 14. Reinforcement details of beams and columns (adapted
from Mousseau and Paultre 2008).
For the second test with the M7R70A1 accelerogram gen-
erated for Montreal, the maximum interstorey drifts were
17.7 and 21.6 mm for the first and second storeys, respec-
tively. These values are less than the limits imposed by the
2005 NBCC for all types of structures. Furthermore, as
shown in Fig. 16, the maximum base shear developed was
only 76.3 kN, significantly lower than the design base shear
(99.8 kN). No new cracks appeared during this test. Meas-
ured displacements and storey shears were clearly lower
than those measured during the PSD test with the El Centro
ground motion scaled to 0.27g PGA, despite the fact that
maximum ground accelerations of these two seismic input
motions are almost identical. This result highlights that the
high frequency content of Eastern Canada earthquakes are
not critical for flexible structures. The building performed
577
Fig. 15. Time histories of first floor, roof displacements, and base
shear for El Centro earthquake north–south (N–S) component
scaled to peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.270g (adapted from
Mousseau and Paultre 2008).
well even under very severe seismic excitation (0.43g PGA
for El Centro accelerogram, corresponding to a 2% in
50 year probability of exceedance for Montreal) (Adams
and Halchuk 2003).
Figure 17 shows the push-over test results that was car-
ried out after the last very severe seismic-excitation PSD
test to verify the ultimate capacity of the structure, thereby
measuring its overstrength and ductility levels. The structure
was tested for incrementally increasing lateral loads having
the relative load distribution shown in the figure. This shape
was obtained from a combination of the lateral load distribu-
tions determined from modal analyses of the structures with
the 2005 NBCC design spectra. The maximum displacement
of the roof was 203 mm, and the maximum base shear was
238 kN. The overall yielding level was determined from a
bilinear idealization of the building response. The initial
stiffness was determined from the low-level pseudo-dynamic
test results, as shown in Fig. 17. The second segment of the
bilinear representation was determined from the push-over
test results. The roof displacement corresponding to global
yielding, Dy, is 56 mm resulting in a displacement ductility
of 3.6 (= 203/56). This ductility greatly exceeds the ductility
related force modification factor, Rd, of 2.5 in the 2005
NBCC. During the push-over test, the measured base shear
was equal to 226 kN at an interstorey drift equal to 0.02.
Published by NRC Research Press
578
Fig. 16. Time histories of first-floor, roof displacements, and base
shear for M7R70A1 time history scaled to peak ground acceleration
(PGA) of 0.271g (adapted from Mousseau and Paultre 2008).
Using this value of base shear, the overstrength factor can
be estimated as 2.26 (= 226/99.8), well above the over-
strength related force modification factor, Ro = 1.4. These
results indicate that this HSC frame structure performed
well up to this level of excitation with little damage.
The results from nonlinear dynamic analyses of two com-
panion six-storey frames structures, designed with normal-
strength (30 MPa) and high-strength (70 MPa) concrete,
were compared by Issa (1997). These structures were de-
signed for the same base shear and had the same exterior
column and beam dimensions as the NSC and HSC frame
subassemblages used in the experimental study shown in
Fig. 5. The interior columns of the NSC structure were
500 mm  500 mm and the interior HSC columns were 400
mm  400 mm. The smaller member sizes in the HSC struc-
ture resulted in larger predicted displacements and smaller
ductility demands than that of the companion NSC structure.
9. Conclusions
This paper highlights some of the important features con-
cerning the seismic behaviour of HSC structures. Tests per-
formed on axially loaded columns emphasized the need to
account for the spacing and configuration of the transverse
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 36, 2009
Fig. 17. Base shear–roof displacement response after for different
pseudo-dynamic (PSD) testing and push-over tests (adapted from
Mousseau and Paultre 2008).
reinforcement as well as the yield strength of the transverse
steel and concrete strength. Experiments on HSC columns,
subjected to axial load and bending, demonstrated the need
to consider axial load level in determining the required con-
finement to achieve different performance levels. The excel-
lent behaviour of properly designed and detailed beam–slab–
column subassemblages demonstrates that HSC can exhibit
the necessary ductile response. The use of HSC in coupling
beams can lead to slight increase in both strength and ductil-
ity, provided that the design and detailing requirements of
the CSA A23.3–04 standard are followed. Tests on NSC
and HSC walls with different levels of confinement in the
boundary elements demonstrated that HSC leads to slight in-
creases in stiffness and strength and that the displacement
ductility is related to the degree of confinement in the boun-
dary elements. Results obtained from pseudo-dynamic test-
ing of a full-scale two-storey HSC frame structure
demonstrate that HSC performs well under low medium and
high seismic events. The results obtained from this collabo-
rative research program and from other researchers provided
the necessary experimental and analytical evidence to raise
the limit on concrete compressive strength. While the exper-
imental evidence would permit a higher limit on the com-
pressive strength, the upper limit was increased from
55 MPa to a conservative limit of 80 MPa for seismic de-
sign based on the views of the members of the CSA A23.3–
04 Technical Committee.
10. Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support provided
by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
of Canada (NSERC) and the Fonds Québécois de la Re-
cherche sur la Nature et les Technologies (FQRNT). The au-
thors are grateful for the tremendous contrbutions made by
the graduate students at the Université de Sherbrooke and
McGill University in carrying out the experimental research
projects. The changes with respect to seismic design of
high-strength concrete elements in the CSA A23.3–04 stand-
ard would not have been possible without the guidance and
suggestions from the members of the A23.3 Technical Com-
mittee.
Published by NRC Research Press
Paultre and Mitchell 579

References Liu, H. 2004. Effect of concrete strength on the response of ductile

shear walls. M. Eng. Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering
AASHTO. 2004. LRFD bridge design specifications. 3rd ed. Amer-
and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal, Que.,
ican Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
102 p.
Washington, D.C.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R. 1988. Theoretical
ACI. 2008. Building code requirements for structural concrete and
stress-–strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural
commentary, ACI 318M–08. American Concrete Institute, Farm-
Engineering, 114(8): 1804–1826.
ington Hills, MI, 436 p.
Marquis, G.M. 1997. Effect of high-strength concrete on the seis-
Adams, J., and Halchuk, S. 2003. Fourth-generation seismic hazard
mic response of concrete frames. M. Eng. Thesis. Department
maps of Canada: Values for over 650 Canadian localities in-
of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University,
tended for the 2005 National Building Code of Canada. Earth-
Montreal, Que., 117 p.
quakes Canada, Geological Survey of Canada Open File 4459,
Mousseau, S., and Paultre, P. 2008. Seismic performance of a full-
Structural engineering series, Ottawa, Ont.
size two-storey reinforced high-performance concrete building:
Atkinson, G.M., and Beresnev, I.A. 1998. Compatible ground-mo-
Part I, Experimental study. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineer-
tion time histories for new national seismic hazard maps. Cana-
ing, 35: 832–848.
dian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25(2): 305–318.
NRCC. 2005. National Building Code of Canada 2005. National
Azizinamini, A., Baum Kuska, S.S., Brungardt, P., and Hatfield, E.
Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
1994. Seismic behavior of square high-strength concrete col-
NZS. 1995. Concrete structures standard, NZS 3101: Part 1. Stan-
umns. ACI Structural Journal, 91(3): 336–345.
dards New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. 256 p.
Bayrak, O., and Sheikh, S.A. 1998. Confinement reinforcement de-
Park, R., and Paulay, T. 1975. Reinforced concrete structures. John
sign consideration for ductile HSC columns. Journal of Struc-
Wiley & Sons, New York.
tural Engineering, 124(9): 999–1010. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
Paultre, P., Castele, D., Rattray, S., and Mitchell, D. 1989. Seismic
9445(1998)124:9(999).
response of reinforced concrete frame subassemblages - A cana-
Bristowe, S., Cook, W.D., and Mitchell, D. 1997. Influence of
dian code perspective. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
high-strength concrete on the seismic response of coupling
16: 627–649.
beams. Proceedings of CSCE Conference, Sherbrooke, Que.,
Paultre, P., Légeron, F., and Mongeau, D. 2001. Influence of con-
27–30 May 1997, Vol. 4, pp. 319–328.
crete strength and yield strength of ties on the behavior of high-
Chen, X.Y. 2005. Effect of confinement on the response of ductile
strength concrete columns. ACI Structural Journal, 98(4): 490–
shear walls. M. Eng. Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering
501.
and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal, Que.,
Paultre, P., Légeron, F., and Mitchell, D. 2007. Seismic design re-
116 p.
quirements for confinement in columns and walls. 9th Canadian
CSA. 1994. Design of concrete structures. Standard CSA-A23.3–
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Ottawa, Ont., 26–29
94. Canadian Standard Association, Rexdale, Ont.
June 2007.
CSA. 2004. Design of concrete structures. Standard CSA-A23.3–
Paultre, P., Eid, R., Robles, H.I., and Bouaanani, N. 2009. Seismic
04. Canadian Standard Association, Mississauga, Ont.
performance of circular high-strength concrete columns. ACI
CSA. 2006. Canadian highway bridge design code. Standard CSA-
Structural Journal, 106(4).
S6–06. Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, Ont.
Paultre, P., and Légeron, F. 2008. Confinement reinforcement de-
Cusson, D., and Paultre, P. 1994. High-strength concrete columns
sign for reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engi-
confined by rectangular ties. Journal of Structural Engineering,
neering, 134(5): 738–749. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)
120(3): 783–804. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)
134:5(738).
120:3(783).
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S.R. 1998. High-strength concrete col-
Da Silva, P. 2000. Effect of concrete strength on axial load re-
umns with square sections under concentric compression. Jour-
sponse of circular columns. M. Eng. Thesis. Department of Civil
nal of Structural Engineering, 124(12): 1438–1447. doi:10.1061/
Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Mon-
(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:12(1438).
treal, Que. 105 p.
Saatcioglu, M., and Baingo, D. 1999. Circular high-strength con-
Issa, H.B. 1997. Predicted non-linear responses of normal and high-
crete columns under simulated seismic loading. Journal of Struc-
strength reinforced concrete frames. M. Eng. Thesis. Department
tural Engineering, 125(3): 272–280. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University,
9445(1999)125:3(272).
Montreal, Que., 71 p.
Sheikh, S.A., and Uzumeri, S.M. 1980. Strength and ductility of
Koch, P.-A. 1998. Seismic response of high-strength concrete
tied concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engineering,
beam-column-slab specimens. M. Eng. Thesis. Department of
106(5): 1079–1102.
Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University,
Sheikh, S.A., and Khoury, S.S. 1993. Confined concrete columns
Montreal, Que., 146 p.
with stubs. ACI Structural Journal, 90(4): 414–431.
Lai, K. 2002. Use of structural steel diagonal reinforcement in cou-
Sheikh, S.A., Shah, D.V., and Khoury, S.S. 1994. Confinement of
pling beams. M. Eng. Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering
high-strength concrete columns. ACI Structural Journal, 91(1):
and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal, Que. 60 p.
100–111.
Légeron, F., and Paultre, P. 2000. Behavior of high-strength con-
Watson, S., and Park, R. 1994. Simulated seismic load tests on re-
crete columns under cyclic flexure and constant axial load. ACI
inforced concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engineering,
Structural Journal, 97(4): 591–601.
120(6): 1825–1849. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)
Li, B., Park, R., and Tanaka, H. 1994. Strength and ductility of re-
120:6(1825).
inforced concrete members and frames constructed using HSC.
Rep., 94–5, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Can-
terbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Published by NRC Research Press