13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Vancouver, B.C., Canada

August 1-6, 2004
Paper No. 1444

SMART DESIGN OF RC COLUMN SUBJECTED TO EARTHQUAKE

LOAD
Dr. A. S. Pant1, B.G. Birajdar2, A.R. Torase3.

SUMMARY

This paper presents a multifaceted criteria for design of column subjected to earthquake loading. In all
229 columns sections are designed as per IS 456:2000 for a particular action of loads. Overall
performance of all sections is evaluated based on different attributes viz. strength reduction factor,
buffer capacity, cost and weight. From the studies, it is observed that there no unique design that
satisfies all parameters simultaneously. A section that performs well in terms of cost and weight may
yet fail in terms of buffer capacity and strength reduction factor. A smart section is identified whose
overall performance in all the attributes is uniformly consistent.

1. INTRODUCTION

For gravity loading other than earthquake or wind loads, a traditional method of design of structures
involves satisfactory performance of structure at two levels i.e. serviceability and failure criteria as per
prevailing codal provisions. The estimation of gravity design loads on structure is possible with fair
degree of accuracy and structures designed for this load have been found to perform well without
damage and maintain the deflection below the acceptable level.

When a structure is subjected to an earthquake ground motion, the design philosophy demands
multiple performance levels of structure which are expected to be achieved. At present, design level
strengths prescribed in seismic codes are typically lower than the lateral strength required in the event
of severe earthquake ground motion. Hence, for tackling this situation a buffer shall be built in the
design so that extra reserve strength is available over and above that prescribed by normal approach.
Under these circumstances, it is essential to have a systematic approach of design in which
dimensions and geometry of a section are decided to meet the actual performance objective at any
instant.

Hence, design of a section/structure is considered more as a creative art than a routine exercise just to
confirm to the design codal provisions, with using certain basic equations.

1 Prof. & Head, Deptt. of Applied Mechanics, Govt. College of Engineering, Pune -(India) email: pantavinash@hotmail.com
2 Asst. Professor, Deptt. of Applied Mechanics, Govt. College of Engineering, Pune -(India) email: birajdar@indiatimes.com
3 P.G. Student, Deptt. of Applied Mechanics, Govt. College of Engineering, Pune -(India) email : archatorase@yahoo.co.in
 2. MOTIVATION OF STUDY

The present design methodology is based on certain inadequate assumptions made in estimation of
loads (e.g. seismic/wind) and the strength of material. In case of seismic design, a fraction of actual
seismic load which may occur during the earthquake is considered. This leads to some uncertainty
about the real margin of safety and performance of structure during the earthquake excitation.
With usual design procedure, many probable sections could be possible that meet functional, strength
and related codal provisions. However, selection of a critical section, satisfying the variety of
requirements related to performance of the structure under different conditions in its lifetime is an un-
attempted work.

Economy in design depends upon the precise estimation of loads, properties of material used,
geometry of section and its performance attributes. Hence, there is a need to identify the “Best
Section” among the several possible options available, solely based on performance of the section.

3. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE

The use of “Smartness” in the design of a structure is an emerging field. It is still in its infant stage of
development gaining importance largely due to unanticipated loads from nature ( like, earthquake)
and man made causes. (e.g. blast). With the progress in this field, the ultimate benefit will be the
improved safety of structure against natural hazard with desired level of economy.
The specific objectives of this work are,
i) Design of maximum number of possible sections based on codal provisions for a given
set of actions.
ii) Selection of the best section based on multifunctional requirements related to satisfactory
performance.

4. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR COLUMN SECTION

In the present study a column of 3.0 m effective length and design axial load (Pu)=2250 kN and
design bending moment (Mu) = 120kN-m is considered as a data derived from analysis of a typical
multistoried building subjected to critical combination of gravity plus earthquake loads as per Indian
standard codes.

The other parameters to generate multiple design options are, grade of concrete (M20, M25, M30), grade
of steel (Fe415, Fe500), geometry of section (square, rectangular and circular) with varying percentage
of longitudinal steel (0.8% to 4%). The cost of steel is considered as Rs. 24 per kg and, the cost of
concrete grade M20, M25 and M30 is taken as Rs.2500/m3, 2700/m3 and 2900/m3, respectively. Design
of column is based on limit state method mentioned in the IS 456:2000 (1) & SP 16:1986 (3) and,
ductile detailing is carried out as per IS 13920:1993 (2) .

One of the most important design parameters is the strength reduction factor (R) (7). This factor
depends upon displacement ductility (4), time period, overstrength and redundancy of the structure.
The ductility factor in the present investigation has been evaluated using Miranda model (5) by
considering rock foundation and assuming fundamental time period equal to 0.80 seconds. This
ductility factor with overstrength and redundancy factor is used for evaluating the strength reduction
factor R.

5. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
For the given data, total of 229 different sections were obtained, out of these the properties of only 20
design sections are listed in Table No 5.1,
 Table 5.1: Section Properties and normalized Values of Column Section
Buffer Normalized values
(pt) Strength
%steel Total reductio
Sr bxD provide Mu Weigh Cost in n factor
(7)
No (mm) d Pu kN kN-m t in kN Rs. R Pu Mu Weight Cost R
1 350x550 0.86 7.8 27.05 14.43 3292.15 10.03 25.87 69.99 53.76 91.61 97.43
2 250x700 0.84 5 28.625 13.12 3565.23 9.99 16.58 74.07 59.14 84.59 97.01
3 350x600 0.89 2.667 26 15.75 3505.25 9.67 8.846 67.27 49.28 86.04 93.95
4 550Dia 1.55 27.72 38.646 17.81 4367.3 9.35 91.97 100 43.56 69.05 90.81
5 300x600 0.82 0.8 14.75 13.5 3260.49 9.81 2.65 38.16 57.50 92.49 95.31
6 300x500 1.72 2 3.125 11.25 3602.89 9.70 6.63 8.08 69.00 83.70 94.24
7 450x450 0.84 5.3 13.906 15.18 3234.94 10.13 17.58 35.98 51.11 93.23 98.39
8 230x750 1.09 5.8 13.203 12.93 3969.65 10.25 19.24 34.16 60.00 75.97 99.50
9 400x400 1.53 0.267 0.8 12 3288.96 10.10 0.88 2.07 64.68 91.69 98.06
10 400x500 0.82 8 8.75 15 3241.63 10.00 26.54 22.64 51.75 93.03 97.14
11 375x500 0.88 5 4.29 14.06 3148.78 9.96 4.14 9.03 73.60 80.60 96.90
12 350x450 1.50 1.85 4.54 11.81 3304.49 9.80 6.13 11.74 65.71 91.26 95.20
13 300x500 1.57 2 2.18 11.25 3343.17 9.70 6.63 5.66 69.00 90.21 94.24
14 550 Dia 1.23 2.17 5.37 17.81 3767.89 8.79 7.22 13.89 43.56 80.04 85.37
15 450 Dia 2.10 5.3 13.90 11.92 3558.66 8.65 17.58 35.98 65.07 84.74 83.99
16 375x375 3.30 2.5 14.25 10.54 3725.93 8.64 8.29 36.89 73.60 80.94 83.90
17 375x400 3.24 1.33 14 11.25 4118.35 8.80 4.42 36.22 69.00 73.23 85.42
18 400x450 0.92 0.8 5.3 13.5 3015.94 9.80 2.65 13.71 57.50 100 95.22
19 230x450 4.09 2.12 0.13 7.76 4163.92 8.92 7.03 0.35 100 72.43 86.58
20 300x750 0.87 4 1.25 16.87 5269.76 10.30 13.27 3.23 46.00 57.23 100

From the table the following observations are made .

From Strength reduction factor criteria: Section 300x750 mm (pt=0.87), is found to perform
the best.

From Buffer capacity: Circular section 550 mm (pt=1.55), diameter is the best section.

400x450mm(pt=0.922) is found to be the most economical section.

From weight criteria: 230x450mm(pt=4) is the most competent.

From the results it is seen that the sections which exhibit better performance say in strength reduction
factor(R) or buffer do not show good performance in cost or weight. Therefore, it is felt that the
selection of a section based on single criteria would not be appropriate. Hence, to get overall good
performance in all attributes, a multifaceted criteria with varying importance attached to each
parameter should be adopted.

6.PARAMETERS FOR SMART DESIGN

For a certain action of given condition of load, multiple sections can be generated in design. Each
section posses certain qualities. Few sections may perform well in terms of cost while others in terms
of weight, buffer and strength reduction factor. Hence, the overall performance of each section in a
certain attribute is higher whereas in other is less. The section which performs consistently better in
all the attributes i.e. taking an advantage of each quality to its fullest level is a section which can be
defined as ‘Smart Section’ (6).

Design philosophy demand varying weightages to be associated with different attributes. For
example, design of structure against seismic forces demands highest weightage to the attribute
strength reduction factor. In a generated design set of sections, the section that perform quite high in
strength reduction factor may not be equally good in other attributes viz. buffer, cost and weight.
Similarly, the most effective designed section arrived at on the basis of least cost and weight may
have little or no buffer and low strength reduction factor. Therefore the selection of smart section is to
be based on a uniformly good performance in all the attributes.

In the present study, four different parameters viz. strength reduction (R), Buffer capacity (B),
Cost(C) and Weight (W) of the sections are considered.
To study overall performance of the setion and to arrive at the most acceptable section the following
steps are involved:
1. To begin with, the strength reduction factor (R) is assigned a maximum weighage of 70%;the
other three attributes being equally weighed at 10%. This is denoted as R70 performance.
2. In the next stage; the R factor is assigned a lower weightage of 55%; the other three attributes
being equally weighed at 15%. This is denoted as R55 performance.
3. Similarly performance for R factor having weightage 40% and 10% is denoted as R40 and R10
respectively.
4. The above steps are repeated for the next attributes “Buffer Capacity” which yield four
different performances B70, B55, B40 and B10, respectively.
5. Similar exercise is carried out for the remaining two attributes “Cost(C) and Weight (W)”
leading to four different performances for cost (C70,C55,C40, & C10) and four different
performances for weight (W70,W55,W40 and W10).
6. The performance in each of the four attributes, by assigning varying weightages is shown in
Table 6.1 and Table 6.2.

Table 6.1 : Overall performance in term of R factor and Buffer.

R factor performance Buffer performance
Sr (pt) %
bxD
No steel R70 R55 R40 R10 B70 B55 B40 B10
mm
1 350x550 0.86 88.65 84.27 79.88 71.11 65.71 68.97 72.23 78.76
2 250x700 0.84 88.39 84.08 79.77 71.15 66.84 69.71 72.58 78.33
3 350x600 0.89 84.79 80.21 75.63 66.47 61.39 64.61 67.83 74.27
4 550 dia 1.55 84.83 81.84 78.84 72.86 90.34 85.51 80.68 71.03
5 300x600 0.82 84.82 79.58 74.33 63.84 46.27 53.88 61.48 76.70
6 300x500 1.72 82.02 75.90 69.79 57.57 30.15 41.33 52.51 74.86
7 450x450 0.84 86.44 80.46 74.48 62.52 46.17 53.62 61.06 75.95
8 230x750 1.09 86.28 79.67 73.06 59.83 44.77 51.99 59.22 73.67
9 400x400 1.53 84.46 77.66 70.85 57.25 26.68 39.14 51.59 76.51
10 400x500 0.82 84.97 78.88 72.80 60.62 41.64 50.00 58.35 75.07
11 375x500 0.88 84.18 77.91 71.65 59.12 34.47 44.77 55.08 75.69
12 350x450 1.50 83.37 77.45 71.53 59.70 32.43 43.49 54.56 76.68
13 300x500 1.57 82.51 76.64 70.78 59.05 29.70 41.44 53.18 76.65
14 550 dia 1.23 75.39 70.31 65.23 55.06 26.44 37.68 48.91 71.38
15 450 dia 2.10 76.90 73.36 69.82 62.73 45.28 52.28 59.28 73.27
16 375x375 3.30 77.22 73.89 70.55 63.88 45.14 52.50 59.86 74.57
17 375x400 3.24 76.97 72.75 68.52 60.08 43.46 50.41 57.35 71.25
18 400x450 0.92 83.53 77.68 71.84 60.15 33.16 44.10 55.05 76.94
19 230x450 4.09 78.30 74.15 70.01 61.72 29.02 41.30 53.59 78.15
20 300x750 0.87 81.20 71.80 62.40 43.61 26.49 35.33 44.17 61.85
 Table 6.2 : Overall performance in term of Cost and Weight.
Cost Weight
Sr bxD (pt)
No. mm % steel C70 C55 C40 C10 W70 W55 W40 W10

1 350x550 0.86 85.16 81.94 78.72 72.27 62.45 66.80 71.15 79.84
2 250x700 0.84 80.94 79.11 77.28 73.63 65.67 68.93 72.19 78.72
3 350x600 0.89 80.04 77.05 74.05 68.06 57.99 62.34 66.70 75.41
4 550 dia 1.55 71.77 73.13 74.49 77.21 56.48 62.94 69.39 82.31
5 300x600 0.82 83.13 78.45 73.77 64.41 62.13 64.45 66.77 71.41
6 300x500 1.72 75.70 71.69 67.69 59.68 66.87 65.81 64.75 62.62
7 450x450 0.84 83.34 78.39 73.45 63.56 58.06 61.54 65.02 71.98
8 230x750 1.09 72.16 70.26 68.35 64.54 62.58 63.87 65.16 67.74
9 400x400 1.53 80.64 75.11 69.58 58.52 64.43 64.30 64.18 63.93
10 400x500 0.82 82.50 77.24 71.97 61.45 57.73 60.72 63.72 69.70
11 375x500 0.88 83.62 77.54 71.46 59.30 58.35 59.93 61.51 64.67
12 350x450 1.50 81.01 75.88 70.75 60.49 64.66 64.14 63.62 62.57
13 300x500 1.57 80.09 75.03 69.97 59.86 67.36 66.55 65.73 64.10
14 550 dia 1.23 70.14 65.19 60.24 50.34 48.25 50.60 52.94 57.63
15 450 dia 2.10 77.36 73.66 69.97 62.58 65.55 65.79 66.03 66.51
16 375x375 3.30 75.45 72.71 69.96 64.47 71.04 69.77 68.49 65.94
17 375x400 3.24 69.66 67.87 66.09 62.52 67.12 66.18 65.24 63.36
18 400x450 0.92 86.39 79.59 72.79 59.19 60.56 62.09 63.63 66.69
19 230x450 4.09 69.80 68.49 67.18 64.55 86.34 79.52 72.69 59.04
20 300x750 0.87 55.54 54.69 53.85 52.16 48.80 50.20 51.60 54.41

7. DISSUSSION
7.1 Overall Performance in terms of Strength Reduction Factor: (R)
The performance of the section in terms of strength reduction factor (R), is presented in table 6.1 and
plotted in graph 6.1. It is observed that for consistently good performance in this attribute, the section
350x550 mm (pt=0.86), stands out first, whereas 250x700 mm(pt=0.84) is also found to perform
equally well. The next best section is the circular section having diameter 550mm(pt=1.55).
It is of significant interest to note that the section 300x750mm(pt=0.87), which has maximum strength
reduction value (refer table 5.1), does not perform consistently well in combination with other
attributes of importance. Its overall performance is about 91% of the best section 350x550 mm
(pt=0.86).

7.2 Overall Performance in terms of Buffer Capacity: (B)

Table 6.1and graph 6.2 show the overall performance of section in terms of buffer. It is observed that
the circular section 550mm dia. ( pt=1.55) which is highest in buffer amongst 229 designed sections,
also performs consistently well in B70, B55, and B40. However, for B10 two different sections 350x550
mm (pt=0.86) and 250x700 mm (pt=0.84) are dominant.
Of significant importance is the fact that the best section observed in terms of strength reduction
factor, 350x550 mm (pt=0.86) and 250x700 mm(pt=0.84) are found to have overall performance
varying from72 to 90% of that of the circular section 550mm(pt=1.55); which incidentally is the
second best section in strength reduction factor (R) category.

7.3 Overall Performance in terms of Cost and Weight: (C &W)

From Table 6.2 and graph 6.3, it is observed that the section 400x450 mm (pt=0.92) is the lowest in
cost (also the lowest among the 229 designed sections). Its overall performance in terms of cost is not
consistent over the different weightages considered.
However, the section 350x550 mm(pt=0.86) is found to perform consistently well in varying
weightage to cost. This indicates that the section arrived at from the lowest cost criteria is not
necessarily economical from structural point of view.
The section 230x450 mm (pt =4.00)is having least weight (refer table 5.1) and its performance in
weight criteria is also good. Its all-round performance in terms of strength reduction factor is about
87% of the best section considered in that category. However, its performance in terms of buffer is
poor which varies from 32 to 90% of that of the best section over the varied range of importance
factor.

8. CHOICE OF SMART SECTION

From the various designed sections considered for their consistently good performance in different
attributes viz Strength reduction factor, Buffer capacity, Cost and Weight, the best performing section
in each attributes is shown below:
1.Section 350x550mm (pt=0.86):

Best in strength reduction factor
Second best in Buffer capacity

Best in cost
Second best in Weight.

2. Circular section,550 mm dia. (pt=1.55)

Second best in R factor.
Low performance in cost and

Best in Buffer weight.
3. Section 250x700mm (pt=0.84)

Best in strength reduction factor.
Placed 3rd /4th in cost and weight

Second best in buffer.
Based on above observations, it can be concluded that considering consistent overall performance in
strength reduction factor and buffer, a circular section 550mm dia (pt=1.55) is the best section.
However, for uniformly good performance in all the attributes i.e. strength reduction factor, buffer,
cost and weight, two sections are prominent. These are 350x550 mm (pt=0.86) and 250x700mm
(pt=0.84). In view of above, considering cost components as one of the important parameter, the
section 350 x 550 mm (pt=0.86) is the smart section.

9. CONCLUSION

Current design methodology of seismic design is confined to failure criteria based on strength of
section and indirectly a ductility criterion is satisfied. This approach does not give realistic behavior
of structure when subjected to seismic excitation. The structure or its component shall be assessed for
its qualities under different performance level. The section should be such that it should have overall
consistent performance in all attributes. In the present investigation, a detailed study has been carried
out to identify the best column section, performing good in different attributes viz. strength reduction
factor, buffer capacity, cost and weight. Generally, it is observed that certain section found good in
one attribute, may not be consistently well in other attributes. Therefore, a multifaceted criterion for
selection of best section should be adopted to arrive structurally economical design

8. REFERENCES

1.IS 456:2000-Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standard, 2000.
2 IS 13920:1993-Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures subjected to Seismic forces-
Code of Practice.
3 SP 16: 1980 Design Aids For Reinforced Concrete to IS: 456-1978
4.M.J.N Priestley and R.Park “Strength and Ductility of Concrete Bridge Columns Under Seismic
Loading” ACI Structural Journal, No 84-S8, Jan-Feb1987.
5.Eduardo Miranda “Site-Dependant Strength-Reduction Factors”, ASCE Vol.119 No.12 Dec 1993.
6 V.T.Badrinarayanan et al., “Design Smartness for tackling unanticipated loads” Proceedings of
ISSS- SPIE 2002,International Conference on Smart Materials Structures and Systems, Dec-2002.
7. Andrew Whitteker et al., “Seismic response Modification factor” ASCE Vol 125 No 4 April 1999.
100

90

80

70

60
350*550
50
250*700
40

350*600
30

20 550

10 300*600

0
300*500
70% 55% 40% 10%

450*450
Graph no. 6.1 ; Overall performance in terms of R factor

230*750

400*400

100 400*500

90 375*500

80 350*450

300*500
70

550
60

450
50

375*375
40

375*400
30

400*450
20

230*450
10

300*750
0
70% 55% 40% 10%

Graph no. 6.2; Overall performance in terms of Buffer

100

90
350*550
80
250*700
70
350*600
60
550
50
300*600
40
300*500
30
450*450
20
230*750
10
400*400
0
70% 55% 40% 10% 400*500
Graph 6.3 Overall performance in terms of Cost
375*500

350*450

300*500
100
550
90
450
80
375*375
70
375*400

60
400*450

50
230*450

40
300*750

30

20

10

0
70% 55% 40% 10%
Graph 6.4Overall performance in terms of Weight