Anda di halaman 1dari 14

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title No. 112-S47

Seismic Performance of Concrete Columns with Innovative


Seven- and Eleven-Spiral Reinforcement
by Yu-Chen Ou, Si-Huy Ngo, Hwasung Roh, Samuel Y. Yin, Jui-Chen Wang, and Ping-Hsiung Wang
This research proposes innovative seven- and 11-spiral transverse
reinforcement to replace two- and six-spiral reinforcement, respectively, to decrease spiral size to address the issue of spiral fabrication in large columns. Moreover, this research proposes using large
reinforcing bars or H-shaped steel as longitudinal reinforcement
to reduce the potential of reinforcing bar cage failure. The objectives of this research were to investigate the seismic performance
of seven- and 11-spiral columns and the effect of using large reinforcing bars and H-shape steel as longitudinal reinforcement. Cyclic
tests of columns showed that seven- and 11-spiral columns, even with
less amounts of transverse reinforcement, exhibited higher ductility
capacities than tied columns. The use of H-shaped steel as longitudinal reinforcement increased ductility and energy dissipation of the
column. Among ACI 318, Caltrans BDS, and Caltrans SDC methods
to estimate probable moment strength, only the Caltrans SDC method
produced conservative results for all columns examined.
Keywords: columns; confinement; cyclic; ductility; multi-spiral; seismic;
transverse reinforcement.

INTRODUCTION
The use of two-spiral transverse reinforcement in oblongshaped concrete columns (Fig. 1(a)) has been an advantageous option compared with conventional tie reinforcement
due to inherent superior confinement of spiral reinforcement
than tie reinforcement.1-5 Tests conducted by Tanaka and
Park1 showed that an oblong two-spiral column had seismic
performance similar to that of the rectangular-tied benchmark
column, although the transverse reinforcement of the former
was only approximately 50% of the latter. Tests carried out in
Japan4 showed that oblong two-spiral columns designed with
transverse reinforcement 22 to 59% of the rectangular-tied
benchmark column had similar seismic performance to the
benchmark column. Wu et al.5 found that oblong two-spiral
columns with transverse reinforcement 43% of that of oblongtied columns had similar strength, ductility, and energy dissipation to the tied columns. The California Department of
Transportation Bridge Design Specifications (Caltrans BDS
2003)6 and Seismic Design Criteria (Caltrans SDC 2010)7
include provisions for the design of two-spiral columns.
Due to superior seismic performance of two-spiral
columns, innovative spiral reinforcement schemes have
been developed for other cross-sectional shapes. For
instance, innovative five-spiral reinforcement8 and six-spiral
reinforcement5 have been developed for square columns
(Fig. 1(b)) and rectangular columns (Fig. 1(c)), respectively.
Cyclic tests indicated that five- and six-spiral columns with
less transverse reinforcement performed similarly or better
than tied columns. Yin et al.8 pointed out that the cost of
confinement design by five-spiral reinforcement for an
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2015

11-story apartment project in Taiwan is only 59% of that by


conventional tie reinforcement. The use of five-spiral reinforcement reduces the material cost by 43%. Moreover, it
reduces the labor cost for reinforcing bar cage assembling
by 33% due to automation in the production of five-spiral
reinforcement. This also decreases the construction time.
When columns are large (for example, large bridge
columns), the size of the spiral in two-spiral reinforcement
and the size of large spiral in six-spiral reinforcement can
exceed the capacities of common bending machines, making
their fabrication difficult. Innovative seven-spiral reinforcement (Fig. 1(d)) and 11-spiral reinforcement (Fig. 1(e)) are
proposed in this research to replace two- and six-spiral reinforcement, respectively, to resolve difficulty. In seven-spiral
reinforcement, each spiral is interlocked with at least two other
spirals. The interlocking mechanism has been validated by
cyclic tests of shear-critical columns.9 Tests also showed that
seven-spiral columns had similar or better shear performance
with even less amounts of transverse reinforcement than tied
columns. Eleven-spiral reinforcement is seven-spiral reinforcement with four additional small corner spirals to confine
corner concretethe same used in five- and six-spiral reinforcement. The first objective of this research was to examine
the seismic performance of seven- and 11-spiral columns with
transverse reinforcement satisfying the shear and confinement
requirements of Caltrans codes6,7 and the MOTC 2008 code.10
The second objective of this research was to investigate the
effect of using large reinforcing bars or H-shaped steel as
longitudinal reinforcement on the seismic performance of
seven-spiral columns. The use of such longitudinal reinforcement can reduce the potential of reinforcing bar cage collapse
during construction of large, tall columns.11
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Two- and six-spiral transverse reinforcement has been
developed in previous studies for oblong and rectangular
columns, respectively. However, when columns are large,
the size of the spiral in two- and six-spiral reinforcement can
exceed the capacities of common bending machines. Moreover, the potential of reinforcing bar cage failure increases
with increasing column height. This research proposes
seven- and 11-spiral reinforcement to replace two- and
six-spiral reinforcement, respectively, to address the issue of
ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 5, September-October 2015.
MS No. S-2014-134.R1, doi: 10.14359/51687706, received October 28, 2014, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2015, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journals date if the discussion
is received within four months of the papers print publication.

579

spiral fabrication in large columns. Moreover, this research


proposes the use of large reinforcing bars or H-shaped steel
as longitudinal reinforcement to reduce the potential of reinforcing bar cage failure.

Fig. 1(a) Two-spiral reinforcement; (b) five-spiral reinforcement; (c) six-spiral reinforcement; (d) seven-spiral
reinforcement; and (e) 11-spiral reinforcement.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Column design
Figure 2 shows the cross-sectional design of all columns.
Figure 3 shows the geometry and dimension of all columns.
The scale factor of all columns was 1/3. Tables 1 and 2 list
the material properties and reinforcement amount design
parameters, respectively. Nomenclature of the columns is
as follows: D and C denote oblong and rectangular cross
sections, respectively; T and M denote tie and multi-spiral
transverse reinforcement, respectively; R and H denote the
use of deformed bars and H-shaped steel as longitudinal rein-

Fig. 2Cross-sectional design for columns: (a) DTR1; (b) DMR1; (c) DMR2; (d) DMH; (e) CTR1; and (f) CMR1. (Note:
1mm= 0.0394 in.).
580

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2015

forcement, respectively; and the numbers following R1 and


2refer to small and large longitudinal bars, respectively.
Six columns were tested, including four oblong columns
and two rectangular columns. The four oblong columns
were designed to have similar flexural strength and so did
the two rectangular columns. For the oblong columns, one
was designed with conventional tie transverse reinforcement
(DTR1, Fig. 2(a)) and three were designed with innovative seven-spiral reinforcement (DMR1, DMR2, and DMH
shown in Fig. 2(b), (c), and (d), respectively). Column
DMR1 used the same type of longitudinal reinforcement
as column DTR1. The effect of seven-spiral reinforcement
could be evaluated by comparing columns DMR1 and DTR1.

Fig. 3Geometry and dimension of all columns. (Note:


Dimensions in mm (in.).)

Columns DMR2 and DMH used large reinforcing bars


and H-shaped steel as longitudinal reinforcement, respectively. The effect of such longitudinal reinforcement on
column behavior could be evaluated by comparing the two
columns with Column DMR1. Note that the yield strength
of H-shaped steel was lower than that of longitudinal bars in
the other oblong columns (Table 1). Thus, the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio in Column DMH was higher than those
of the other oblong columns (Table2). For the two rectangular columns, one was designed with conventional tie reinforcement (CTR1, Fig. 2(e)) and the other with 11-spiral
reinforcement (CMR1, Fig. 2(f)). The effect of 11-spiral
reinforcement on column behavior could be evaluated by
comparing the two rectangular columns.
The required amount of transverse reinforcement in this
study was governed by code-required confinement rather
than code-required shear strength. Equations (1) and (2),
and Eq. (3) and (4) are confinement equations for spiral and
tied columns, respectively, in Caltrans BDS.6 Equations(1)
and (5), and (3) and (6) are confinement equations for spiral
and tied columns, respectively, in the MOTC 2008.10 Equations (1) and (3) are intended to ensure that spalling of cover
concrete does not reduce axial load strength of the column.12
Equations (2), (4), (5), and (6) are intended to ensure adequate
curvature capacity in yielding regions.6,12 The difference
between Eq. (2) and (4) used in Caltrans BDS6 and Eq. (5)
and (6) used in MOTC 2008 is that the former considers the
effect of axial load while the latter does not. The columns in
this research were designed with the amounts of transverse
reinforcement satisfying both Caltrans BDS and MOTC
2008. Table 2 lists the amounts of transverse reinforcement
required by Caltrans BDS and MOTC 2008 and the provided
amounts for all columns. When calculating the code-re-

Table 1Material properties


Concrete
Column

Cross section

fc, MPa fca, MPa


(ksi)
(ksi)
48.2
(6.99)

DTR1

DMR1

56.0
(8.12)

DMR2

47.1
(6.83)
34.3
(4.97)

DMH

45.5
(6.60)

CTR1

47.0
(6.82)

CMR1

45.5
(6.60)

Transverse reinforcement

Longitudinal reinforcement

Size @ spacing
mm, (in.)

fy, MPa fya, MPa fua, MPa


(ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi)

D12@75
(D18@2.95)

581
(84.2)

614
(89.0)

Quantity size,
mm (in.)

fy, MPa
(ksi)

fya, MPa
(ksi)

fua, MPa
(ksi)

469 (68.0)

675 (97.9)

6-D36
(6-No. 11)

484 (70.2)

680 (98.6)

12-D19
(12-No. 6)

469 (68.0)

690 (100)

379 (55.0)

510 (74.0)

469 (68.0)

675 (97.9)

18-D25
(18-No. 8)
412 (59.7)

270-D8@60
(10.63-D8@ 2.36)

648
(94.0)

673
(97.6)

490
(71.1)

6H-shaped steel 343 (49.7)


D12@75
(D18@2.95)
Large: 270D8@60
(10.63-D8@2.36)
Small: 200-D8@60
(7.87-D8@2.36)

581
(84.2)

648
(94.0)

614
(89.0)

673
(97.6)

22-D25
(22-No. 8)

412 (59.7)

Notes: H-shaped steel is 100 x 100 x 6 x 8 mm ( b f x d x tw x t f ); 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2015

581

Table 2Amount of reinforcement


Amount of transverse reinforcement kgf/m (lbf/ft) (volumetric ratio)

Column type

Cross section

Volumetric ratio
of longitudinal
reinforcement

Required

Provided

MOTC10

Caltrans BDS6

Total

Detailing requirement

DTR1

2.05%

68.03 (45.73)
(2.31%)

48.52 (32.61)
(1.65%)

80.36 (54.01)
(2.73%)

16.00 (10.75)
(0.54%)

DMR1
DMR2
DMH

2.05%
2.13%
2.95%

39.69
(26.68)
(1.59%)

39.69
(26.68)
(1.59%)

39.05
(26.25)
(1.57%)

0.0

CTR1

2.14%

69.03 (46.40)
(2.01%)

47.40 (31.86)
(1.38%)

73.60 (49.47)
(2.14%)

11.35 (7.63)
(0.33%)

CMR1

2.14%

40.67 (27.34)
(1.30%)

40.67 (27.34)
(1.30%)

55.58 (37.36)
(1.78%)

0.0

Fig. 4Reinforcing bar cages for columns: (a) DTR1; (b) DMR1; (c) DMR2; and (d) DMH.
quired amount of transverse reinforcement for seven- and
11-spiral reinforcement, the volumetric ratio of each spiral
was designed not less than that required by Eq.(1), (2), and
(5). The Ac in Eq. (1) is the area enclosed by the outside
edges of the spirals.
The required amount of transverse reinforcement in
Table 2 for tied columns included detailing requirements,
such as hook anchorage, which was not required in spiral
reinforcement. The transverse reinforcement provided
exceeded the required amount due to the use of standard
reinforcement sizes and detailing requirements (only in tie
reinforcement). Design results (Table 2) showed transverse
reinforcement of oblong seven-spiral columns was only
49% of the oblong tied column and the rectangular 11-spiral
column was 75% of the rectangular tied column. Detailing

582

requirements contributed to 20% and 16% of the amounts


of transverse reinforcement for oblong and rectangular tied
columns, respectively. Figure 4 shows reinforcing bar cages
of four oblong columns during fabrication.

rs = 0.45

f c Ag
1 (Caltrans BDS and MOTC) (1)
f yt Ac

f c
1.25 Pe
(Caltrans BDS)
0.5 +

f yt
f cAg

(2)

f c Ag
1 (Caltrans BDS and MOTC)
f yt Ac

(3)

rs = 0.12

Ash = 0.3st hc

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2015

Fig. 5Test setup: (a) setup illustration; and (b) photograph.

Fig. 6Lateral force-drift relationships for columns: (a) DTR1; (b) DMR1; (c) DMR2; (d) DMH; (e) CTR1; and (f) CMR1.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2015

583

Table 3Characteristics of lateral force-drift relationships


Column

Cross section

Idealized yield drift, %

Peak load, kN (kip)

Ultimate drift, %

Displacement ductility

DTR1

1.08

764 (171.9)

8.02

7.40

DMR1

0.96

748 (168.3)

8.32

8.71

DMR2

0.94

745 (167.6)

8.34

8.87

DMH

0.85

693 (155.9)

9.43

11.09

CTR1

1.19

941 (211.7)

7.23

6.10

CMR1

1.33

1019 (229.3)

8.70

6.54

Ash = 0.12 st hc

f c
1.25Pe
(Caltrans BDS) (4)
0.5 +

f yt
f cAg

f
rs = 0.12 c (MOTC)
f yt
Ash = 0.12 st hc

f c
(MOTC)
f yt

(5)

(6)

Test setup and loading protocol


All columns were tested under single-curvature lateral
cyclic loading along the weak direction of their cross section
(Fig. 5). Lateral cyclic loading was applied using two
hydraulic actuators with displacement control to drift levels
of 0.25%, 0.375%, 0.5%, 0.75%, 1%, 1.5%, 2%,
3%, 4%, 6%, 8%, and 10%.13 The drift was defined
as lateral displacement at the midheight of the block on the
column top divided by the height from the midheight of
the block to the column base (2100 mm [82.7 in.]). Each
drift level was repeated three times to examine stiffness and
strength degradation within a drift level. An axial load ratio
of 10% of concrete compressive strength times column gross
cross-sectional area was applied to each column by two
hydraulic jacks and maintained constant throughout testing.
The reaction force to each hydraulic jack was provided by
a high-strength rod connected to a hinge anchored on the
strong floor. This axial loading system tilted as the column
deformed laterally during testing, leading an additional
moment at the column base. The effect of this additional
moment was removed from the measured lateral force using
the following equations (illustrated in Fig. 5(a))


584

M = FL + M P D = FL + P cos q D P sin q L (7)

F = F +

M PD

L

(8)

Note that the lateral force presented hereafter is the modified lateral force, F .
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Lateral force-drift responses
Figure 6 shows lateral force-drift plots for all columns.
Significant events are indicated in the plots: idealized yield,
cover concrete spalling, first fracture of transverse and longitudinal reinforcement, and ultimate point. The ultimate point
was defined as the point in the envelope of the measured
cyclic response corresponding to a 20% decrease in lateral
force from the peak load. The lateral force-drift curves were
idealized by a bilinear relationship based on the FEMA 35614
idealized force-displacement procedure. The idealized forcedisplacement response includes two line segments: 1) the first
line segment passes through the actual envelope response at
approximately 60% of the force at the idealized yield point;
and 2) the second segment ends at the ultimate point. The
idealized yield point was selected so that areas below actual
and idealized curves were similar. Ductility was calculated by
dividing ultimate drift by idealized yield drift. Table 3 lists the
characteristics of the lateral force-drift relationships. Figure7
shows the photographs of all columns at the end of testing.
The photograph of the short side of Column DTR1 was not
taken, and hence is not shown in Fig. 7. Figure 8 shows a close
view of the plastic hinge regions of the seven- and 11-spiral
columns, revealing damage details of the columns.
All columns showed ductile flexural-dominated behavior
(Fig. 6 to 7). The ductility capacity of the columns ranged
from 6.10 to 11.09 (Table 3). The two oblong seven-spiral
columns with deformed bars as longitudinal reinforcement
(DMR1 and DMR2) had similar strength and ductility
(Table 3). These two columns had in average 19% higher
ductility than the oblong tied column (DTR1), although the
transverse reinforcement of the former was only 49% of that
of the latter (Table 2). This finding demonstrates superior
performance of seven-spiral reinforcement to conventional
tie reinforcement. The oblong seven-spiral column with
H-shaped steel as longitudinal reinforcement (DMH) had a
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2015

Fig. 7End of testing for columns: (a) long side of DTR1; (b) short side of CTR1; (c) long side of CTR1; (d) short side of
DMR1; (e) long side of DMR1; (f) short side of DMR2; (g) long side of DMR2; (h) short side of DMH; (i) long side of DMH;
(j) short side of CMR1; and (k) long side of CMR1.
significantly greater ductility (on average 26%) than those
with deformed bars as longitudinal reinforcement (DMR1
and DMR2) (Table 3). This is attributed to the better buckling
resistance of H-shaped steel than deformed bars and the extra
confinement effect provided by the flange of H-shaped steel.
The failure of the seven-spiral columns with deformed
bars as longitudinal reinforcement (DMR1 and DMR2) was
initiated due to strong pushing force from buckling of longitudinal reinforcement, which eventually led to fracture of
spirals and fracture of longitudinal reinforcement itself. As
the diameter of longitudinal bars increased, final buckling
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2015

length increased (Fig. 8(a) and (b)), increasing the extent of


spiral fracture. The failure of the column with H-shaped steel
(DMH) was also initiated by buckling of the H-shaped steel
flange beside cover concrete. However, the restraint from
both the H-shaped steel web and the spiral was able to localize
the buckling of the flange within approximately the vertical
spacing of the spiral (Fig. 8(c)). Note that the H-shaped
steel satisfies the seismically compact requirementno
spirals fractured. This, together with the extra confinement
effect from the flange of the H-shaped steel, means the core
concrete was mostly preserved and Column DMH had much
585

Fig. 8Close view of plastic hinge regions for multi-spiral columns: (a) DMR1; (b) DMR2; (c) DMH; and (d) CMR1.

Fig. 9Comparison of equivalent damping ratios of: (a) oblong columns; and (b) rectangular columns.
greater ductility than the columns with deformed bars. The
column with H-shaped steel (DMH) failed eventually due to
flange fracture. The lower strength of this column (DMH)
than the columns with deformed bars is attributed to a lower
ratio of tensile strength to yield strength (Table 1). The failure
mechanism of the oblong tied column (DTR1) was similar
to the oblong seven-spiral columns with deformed bars as
longitudinal reinforcement (DMR1 and DMR2).
The rectangular 11-spiral column (CMR1) exhibited a 7%
higher ductility than the corresponding tied column (CTR1).
The transverse reinforcement of the spiral column was 75%
of the tied column. The failure mechanism of the rectangular
11-spiral column (Fig. 8(d)) resembled that of the oblong
seven-spiral columns with deformed bars as longitudinal
reinforcement (DMR1 and DMR2). The rectangular tied
column failed without any fracture of tie reinforcement.
However, several hooks popped out at testing end (Fig. 7(b)
586

and (c)). Thus, the tie reinforcement was not fully mobilized
to confine concrete and longitudinal reinforcement.
No signs of separation of spirals were observed in all
oblong and rectangular spiral columns because no longitudinal cracks were observed on the sides of the columns
(Fig.7(d), (f), (h), and (j)). This finding indicates that spirals
were effectively interlocked.
Equivalent viscous damping
To evaluate the energy dissipation capacity of the columns,
the equivalent viscous damping ratio was calculated for each
column by Eq. (9)15 and is shown in Fig. 9.

x eq =

ED

2K eff D 2p

(9)

Among the oblong spiral columns, the column with


H-shaped steel (DMH) had the highest energy dissipation,
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2015

Fig. 10Curvature ductility for columns: (a) DMR1; (b) DMR2; (c) DMH; (d) CTR1; and (e) CMR1.
followed by Column DMR2 (large longitudinal bars) and then
by Column DMR1 (Fig. 9(a)). The H-shaped steel and large
longitudinal bars had higher buckling resistance and hence
resulted in higher energy dissipation. The better confinement
of the H-shaped steel to core concrete further increased energy
dissipation. The oblong tied column (DTR1) showed energy
dissipation capacity that degraded earlier than the oblong
spiral column (DMR1). A similar finding was obtained for
rectangular columns (Fig. 9(b)). The spiral reinforcement
appeared to provide better restraint to buckling of longitudinal reinforcement and better confinement to core concrete
than the tie reinforcement and hence better preserved the
energy dissipation capacity of the column at high drifts.
Curvature ductility distribution
To evaluate the distribution of section rotations along the
height of the column, curvature ductility distribution was
calculated for Columns DMR1, DMR2, DMH, CTR1, and
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2015

CMR1 and is shown in Fig. 10. The curvature distribution


of the oblong tied column (DTR1) was not calculated due
to malfunction of the rotational gauge at the column base.
The curvature ductility was defined as the curvature divided
by the yield curvature. The curvature was calculated from
rotations, which were measured by inclinometers. The yield
curvature was defined as the curvature corresponding to the
idealized yield point. The two oblong seven-spiral columns
with deformed bars as longitudinal reinforcement had
similar curvature ductility distributions (Fig. 10(a) and (b)).
The column with H-shaped steel had a curvature ductility
distribution that concentrated toward the column base. As
stated, this is because H-shaped steel had higher buckling
resistance and provided more effective confinement to core
concrete than deformed bars, hence reducing the extent of
core concrete damage. This is also evident from a smaller
area of concrete spalling in the H-shaped column (Fig. 7(h)
and (i)) than in oblong deformed-bar columns (Fig. 7(d)
587

Table 4Flexural strengths and curvature ductility


Mmax, kNm
(kipft)

M max
MVn _ SDC

M max
Mn

M max
M p _ ACI

M max
M p _ BDS

M max
M p _ SDC

mf _ u

m f _ 4%

m f _ 6%

DTR1

1604 (1184)

0.22

1.17

1.14

1.00

0.91

19

NA

NA

DMR1

1570 (1159)

0.30

1.23

1.23

1.07

0.98

19

27

29

DMR2

1564 (1154)

0.31

1.14

1.15

1.00

0.91

17

29

38

DMH

1456 (1075)

0.29

1.02

1.02

0.89

0.90

21

56

NA

CTR1

1978 (1460)

0.29

1.13

1.09

0.97

0.85

23

13

18

CMR1

2140 (1579)

0.32

1.23

1.17

1.05

0.96

25

18

25

Column

Cross
section

Note: NA is data not available.

through (g)). The curvature ductility distribution of the


rectangular tied column (Fig. 10(d)) showed more curvature spreading toward the column top than the rectangular
11-spiral column (Fig. 10(e)). This again shows the higher
capability of the 11-spiral reinforcement to confine concrete
and limit the extent of damage than the tie reinforcement.
NOMINAL MOMENT STRENGTH AND MAXIMUM
PROBABLE MOMENT STRENGTH FOR
CAPACITYDESIGN
Nominal moment strength
The ratios of measured moment at the column base, Mmax
(average of positive and negative drift loading), to moment
corresponding to shear strength and various moment
strengths were calculated for each column and are listed in
Table 4. The fourth column of Table 4 lists the values of
Mmax/MVn_SDC, where MVn_SDC is the moment corresponding
to nominal shear strength calculated based on the Caltrans
SDC method7 and actual material strengths. The values
ranged from 0.22 to 0.32, indicating flexural failure of all
columns. The fifth column of Table 4 lists the values of
Mmax/Mn. The Mn is nominal moment strength and was calculated based on actual material strengths. The tensile strength
of concrete was neglected and the ultimate strain was
assumed equal to 0.003. Steel reinforcement was modeled
using the elastic perfectly plastic stress-strain relationship.
The ratios of Mmax/Mn exceeded 1.0 for all columns. The
oblong seven-spiral column DMR1 and the rectangular
11-spiral column CMR1 had 5.1 and 8.8% higher overstrength (Mmax/Mn) than the tied columns DTR1 and CTR1,
respectively, likely due to the superior confinement effect of
multi-spiral reinforcement, leading to higher overstrength.
Seven-spiral column DMR2 had 7.3% lower overstrength
than seven-spiral column DMR1. This is likely due to the
reduced bond effect associated with the large-diameter bars
used in Column DMR2. Seven-spiral column DMH had
the lowest overstrength, 17.1% lower than Column DMR1,
588

likely due to the lower ratio of tensile strength to yield


strength of H-shaped steel (Table 1) and lower bond than
deformed bars.
Maximum probable moment strength
As mentioned, the superior confinement characteristics of
multi-spiral columns increased overstrength. Therefore, it is
important to examine methods to estimate maximum probable
moment strength used for capacity design, such as for foundation design and shear design. Three methods were examined in this research: ACI 318-11,12 Caltrans BDS,6 and the
Caltrans SDC7 method, which are denoted as Mp_ACI, Mp_BDS,
and Mp_SDC, respectively. These methods have very different
approaches to calculate maximum probable moment strength.
In the calculation of Mp_ACI, the same assumptions as those
for Mn were used except that yield strength of longitudinal
reinforcement was assumed to be 1.25 times specified yield
strength, and specified concrete compressive strength was
used. A comparison of Mmax with Mp_ACI shows that the
ACI318-1112 method was not conservative for all columns
(sixth column in Table 4). The ACI 318.1112 method in
average underestimated Mmax by 11%. The degree of nonconservatism was higher in multi-spiral columns (for example,
DMR1 and CMR1) than tied columns (DTR1 and CTR1).
The Mp_BDS was defined as 1.3 times nominal moment
strength for a well-confined section with an axial load below
nominal axial load strength at the balanced strain condition,
which is the case for columns examined herein. The nominal
moment strength was calculated based on specified material
properties. A comparison of Mp_BDS with Mmax shows better
results than the ACI 318-1112 method (seventh column in
Table 4). The Caltrans BDS method yielded conservative
estimate for all tied columns. However, it did not provide
a conservative estimate for multi-spiral columns with
deformed bars as longitudinal reinforcement, in which the
Caltrans BDS method in average underestimated Mmax by 4%.
The Caltrans BDS could not fully capture the overstrength
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2015

effect in multi-spiral columns due to superior confinement


of multi-spiral reinforcement. It generated a conservative
estimate for the multi-spiral column with H-shaped steel
as longitudinal reinforcement. This is attributed to the low
overstrength of H-shaped steel, as mentioned.
The calculation of Mp_SDC involved the use of more realistic material models than the other two methods. Momentcurvature analysis was conducted. In the analysis, reinforcement steel was modeled using a stress-strain relationship
considering strain-hardening behavior. Actual yield and tensile
strengths (Table 1) were used and ultimate tensile strain was
reduced, as suggested in the Caltrans SDC method. Concrete
was modeled with actual concrete compressive strength
(Table 1). Core and cover concrete were modeled using
confined and unconfined concrete models,16 respectively. The
moment-curvature curve was idealized with a bilinear elastic
perfectly plastic response. The moment corresponding to the
yield of the bilinear response was defined as plastic moment
strength. The Mp_SDC was defined as 1.2 times the plastic
moment strength.
A key issue in the Caltrans SDC method was to determine
lateral confining pressure by multi-spiral reinforcement in
confined concrete modeling. A multi-spiral reinforcement
contains regions confined by one spiral and overlapping
regions confined by more than one spirals. For regions
confined by one spiral, confining pressure, f1, can be calculated from equilibrium (Fig. 11(a)).
2V1 sin a1 = f1ds

(10)

V1 = Asp1 f yh1 sin b1

(11)

From Fig. 11(a)


d /2
d
sin a1 =
=
D1 / 2 D1

f1 =

2 Asp1 f yh1 sin b1


D1 s

(12)

(13)

When one more spiral is added to form an overlapping region,


confining pressure f12, due to the combined action of the two
spirals can be derived again by force equilibrium (Fig. 11(b)).

2V1 sin a1 + 2V2 sin a 2 = f12 ds

(14)

Following a similar derivation, f12 can be acquired.


2 Asp1 f yh1 sin b1 sin a1 + 2 Asp 2 f yh 2 sin b 2 sin a 2 = f12 ds

2 Asp1 f yh1 sin b1

(15)

d
d
+ 2 Asp 2 f yh 2 sin b 2
= f12 ds (16)
D1
D2

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2015

f12 =

2 Asp1 f yh1 sin b1


D1 s

2 Asp 2 f yh 2 sin b 2
D2 s

(17)

The first and second terms on the right side of Eq. (17) are
confining pressure only by spiral 1 and that only by spiral2,
respectively. This means confining pressure in the overlapping region by two spirals is simply the sum of confining
pressure from each of the two spirals separately.

f12 = f1 + f 2

(18)

Using a similar procedure, it can be shown that if a region


is confined by n spirals; confining pressure in the region is
equal to the sum of confining pressure from each of the n
spirals separately.

By substituting Eq. (11) and (12) into Eq. (10), confining


pressure by one spiral can be obtained.

Fig. 11Confining pressure due to: (a) one spiral; and


(b)two spirals.

f12...n = f1 + f 2 + ... + f n

(19)

With the aforementioned models for confining pressure,


the stress-strain relationship for any confined region in
multi-spiral columns can be determined by the Mander
etal.16 model. Concrete modeling for seven-spiral columns
consisted of an unconfined concrete model for cover
concrete, and a confined concrete model for regions enclosed
by one spiral and that for regions where two spirals overlap.
For the 11-spiral column, in addition to confined concrete
models for regions enclosed by one spiral and by two spirals,
concrete modeling also included a confined concrete model
for overlapping regions enclosed by three spirals.
The Caltrans SDC method yielded conservative results for
all columns (eighth column in Table 4). The exceptionally low
Mmax/Mp_SDC value for the rectangular tied column indicates that
overstrength of the rectangular tied column was much lower
than predicted. This again reveals lower effectiveness of rectangular tie reinforcement for confining concrete than spiral reinforcement. The higher overstrength of the oblong tied column
than the rectangular tied column is because the two side regions
of the oblong tied column were confined by semicircular ties,
which provided better confinement than rectilinear ties.

589

Ultimate curvature ductility


The ultimate curvature ductility _u for each column was
calculated by the moment-curvature analysis used to determine Mp_SDC as discussed previously and is listed in the ninth
column of Table 4. The 10th and 11th columns of Table 4 list
the measured curvature ductility at 4% drift (_4%) and 6%
drift (_6%), respectively, from the column base (Fig. 10). A
comparison of _u with _6%, or _4% if _6% was not available, shows that for the spiral columns, the measured curvature
ductility was equal to or larger than the analytical curvature
ductility. Note that the measured curvature ductility included
the slip of longitudinal reinforcement out of the foundation,
which was not considered in the analytical curvature ductility.
Conversely, the rectangular tied column (CTR1) showed
measured curvature ductility 22% lower than the analytical
curvature ductility. This suggests that the analytical curvature
ductility was not conservative for the rectangular tied column.
CONCLUSIONS
Four oblong and two rectangular concrete columns were
tested under lateral cyclic loading. Innovative seven- and
11-spiral transverse reinforcement schemes were examined
and compared with conventional tie reinforcement. The
main conclusions are summarized as follows.
1. All columns exhibited ductile flexural-dominated
behavior. The oblong seven-spiral columns with deformed
bars as longitudinal reinforcement (DMR1 and DMR2) had
on average 19% higher ductility than the oblong tied column
(DTR1), although the transverse reinforcement of the former
was only 49% of the latter. The rectangular 11-spiral column
(CMR1) had a 7% higher ductility than the rectangular tied
column (CTR1), even though the transverse reinforcement
of the former was 75% of that of the latter.
2. The seven-spiral column with H-shaped steel as longitudinal reinforcement (DMH) had higher energy dissipation and
in average 26% higher ductility than the other seven-spiral
columns. This is attributed to the higher buckling resistance of
the H-shaped steel than the deformed bars and extra confinement effect of the flange of the H-shaped steel on core concrete.
3. When longitudinal deformed bars were the same size,
the oblong seven-spiral column (DMR1) and rectangular
11-spiral column (CMR1) had 5.1% and 8.8% higher overstrength than the tied columns (DTR1 and CTR1), respectively. The use of large longitudinal deformed bars (DMR2)
and H-shaped steel (DMH) reduced overstrength by 7.3%
and 17.1%, respectively, as compared with Column DMR1.
4. For maximum probable moment strength for capacity
design, the ACI 318 method produced nonconservative
results for all columns (in average 11% lower). The Caltrans
BDS method provided conservative results for tied columns,
but yielded nonconservative results for multi-spiral columns
with deformed bars as longitudinal reinforcement (in
average 4% lower). The Caltrans SDC method, by using
more realistic steel and concrete stress-strain relationships,
gave conservative estimates for all columns.
AUTHOR BIOS

Yu-Chen Ou is a Professor of civil and construction engineering at


National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
He received his PhD from the University at Buffalo, the State University

590

of New York, Buffalo, NY. He is the Vice President of the Taiwan Chapter
ACI. His research interests include reinforced concrete structures and
earthquake engineering.
Si-Huy Ngo is a Lecturer of civil engineering at Hong Duc University,
Thanhhoa, Vietnam, and a PhD Student of civil and construction engineering at National Taiwan University of Science and Technology. He
received his MS from National Taiwan University of Science and Technology. His research interests include reinforced concrete structures and
prefabrication construction technology.
Hwasung Roh is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, South Korea. He received
his PhD from the University at Buffalo, the State University of New York, in
2007. His research interests include nonlinear inelastic reinforced concrete
frame structural analysis, seismic design and performance evaluation, and
bridge deck vibration.
Samuel Y. Yin is the CEO and Chief R&D Officer of Ruentex Group in
Taiwan. He is Past President of the Taiwan Concrete Institute and an
Adjunct Professor of civil engineering at National Taiwan University. His
research interests include integration of construction systems, precise planning of prefabrication construction methods, fast precast construction technology, and innovation for reinforcing bar processing and assembly.
Jui-Chen Wang is an Assistant Vice President at Ruentex Engineering&
Construction Co., Ltd. He received his PhD in civil engineering from
National Taiwan University. He specializes in prefabrication construction
technologies, including bridge piers and building systems.
Ping-Hsiung Wang is an Assistant Technologist at National Center for
Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, and a PhD Student
of civil engineering at National Taiwan University. He received his MS
from National Taiwan University. His research interests include reinforced
concrete structures and precast concrete structures

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank CECI Engineering Consultants, Inc.,


Taiwan, and National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering
(NCREE), Taiwan for their financial support. Also, the third author (H.Roh)
appreciates a partial financial support from the Basic Science Research
Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded
by the Ministry of Education (Grant No. 2015-R1D1A3A01-020017).

Ac

NOTATION

area of core concrete measured to outside edges of transverse reinforcement


Ag
= gross area of cross section
Ash
= total cross-sectional area of tie reinforcement within
sections having dimensions of st and hc
Asp1, Asp2 = cross-sectional areas of Spirals 1 and 2, respectively
D1, D2
= diameters of Spirals 1 and 2, respectively
d
= dimension between two cutting points for free body
diagram as shown in Fig. 11
ED
= energy dissipation per cycle or area of hysteresis loop
F
= measured lateral force
F
= modified lateral force
Fp, Fn
= forces at Dp and Dn, respectively
f1, f2
= confining pressures provided by Spirals 1 and 2, respectively
f12
= confining pressure in overlapping region of Spirals 1 and 2
f12...n
= confining pressure in overlapping region of n spirals
fc, fca
= specified and actual compressive concrete strengths, respectively
fn
= confining pressure provided by spiral n
fua
= actual steel tensile strength
fy, fya
= specified and actual steel yield strengths, respectively
fyh1, fyh2 = yield strengths of Spirals 1 and 2, respectively
fyt
= specified yield strength of transverse reinforcement
hc
= column core dimension measured to outside edges of transverse reinforcement
Keff
= effective stiffness and defined as (Fp Fn)/(p n)
L, L
= lengths as defined in Fig. 5(a)
M
= total moment at column base
Mmax
= measured maximum moment
Mn
= nominal moment strength
MP D
= moment due to effect of P-
Mp_ACI
= maximum probable moment strength based on ACI 318
Mp_BDS
= maximum probable moment strength based on
CaltransBDS

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2015

Mp_SDC = maximum probable moment strength based on Caltrans SDC


MVn_SDC = moment corresponding to nominal shear strength calculated
based on Caltrans SDC method
P
= axial load
Pe
= design axial load
s
= spiral pitch
st
= vertical spacing of transverse reinforcement
V1, V2 = resisting forces provided by Spirals 1 and 2, respectively
a1, a2 = angles as shown in Fig. 11
b1, b2
= angles as shown in Fig. 11
D
= lateral displacement at midheight of block on column top
D
= displacement as defined in Fig. 5(a)
Dp, Dn = maximum positive and negative displacements of loop,
respectively
mf_4%
= measured curvature ductility at 4% drift from column base
mf_6%
= measured curvature ductility at 6% drift from column base
mf_u
= analytical curvature ductility at ultimate condition
q
= angle as shown in Fig. 5(a)
rs
= ratio of volume of spiral reinforcement to total volume of
core concrete based on out-to-out of spirals
xeq
= equivalent viscous damping ratio

REFERENCES

1. Tanaka, H., and Park, R., Seismic Design and Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Columns with Interlocking Spirals, ACI Structural Journal,
V.90, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1993, pp. 192-203.
2. Correal, J. F.; Saiidi, M. S.; Sanders, D.; and El-Azazy, S., Shake
Table Studies of Bridge Columns with Double Interlocking Spirals, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-Aug. 2007, pp. 393-401.
3. McLean, D. I., and Buckingham, G. C., Seismic Performance of Bridge
Columns with Interlocking Spiral Reinforcement, Report No. WA-RD
357.1, Washington State Transportation Center, Seattle, WA, 1994, 41 pp.
4. Igase, Y.; Nomura, K.; Kuroiwa, T.; and Miyagi, T., Seismic Performance and Construction Method of Bridge Columns with Interlocking
Spiral/Hoop Reinforcement, Concrete Journal, V. 40, No. 2, Feb. 2002,
pp. 37-46. doi: (in Japanese)10.3151/coj1975.40.2_37
5. Wu, T.-L.; Ou, Y.-C.; and Yin, S. Y. L.; Wang, J.-C.; Wang, P.-H.;
and Ngo, S.-H., Behavior of Oblong and Rectangular Bridge Columns

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2015

with Conventional Tie and Multi-Spiral Transverse Reinforcement


under Combined Axial and Flexural Loads, Journal of the Chinese
Institute of Engineers, V. 36, No. 8, Dec. 2013, pp. 980-993. doi:
10.1080/02533839.2012.747047
6. California Department of Transportation, Bridge Design Specifications, Engineering Service Center, Earthquake Engineering Branch, Sacramento, CA, Sept. 2003, pp. 8-1 to 8-58.
7. California Department of Transportation, Seismic Design Criteria
Version 1.6, Engineering Service Center, Earthquake Engineering Branch,
Sacramento, CA, Nov. 2010, 160 pp.
8. Yin, S. Y. L.; Wu, T. L.; Liu, T. C.; Sheikh, S. A.; and Wang, R., Interlocking Spiral Confinement for Rectangular Columns, Concrete International, V. 33, No. 12, Dec. 2011, pp. 38-45.
9. Ou, Y. C.; Ngo, S. H.; Yin, S. Y.; Wang, J. C.; and Wang, P. H., Shear
Behavior of Oblong Bridge Columns with Innovative Seven-Spiral Transverse Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 6, Nov.-Dec.
2014, pp. 1339-1349.
10. MOTC, 2008, Seismic Bridge Design Specifications, Ministry of
Transportation and Communications, Taiwan, 2008. (in Chinese)
11. Builes-Mejia, J. C., and Itani, A., Stability of Bridge Column Rebar
Cages during Construction, Report No. CCEER-10-7, University of
Nevada, Reno, Reno, Nevada, 2010, 236 pp.
12. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
13. ACI Committee 374, Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames
Based on Structural Testing and Commentary (ACI 374.1-05), American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 9 pp.
14. FEMA 356, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2000, 518 pp.
15. Chopra, A. K., Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1995, 729 pp.
16. Mander, J. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., Theoretical
Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, 1988, pp. 1804-1826. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)

591

NOTES:

592

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2015

Anda mungkin juga menyukai