96 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Karthikeyan K Palanisamy

American Code for Structural Design

- ACI 314 Design Aid-11.pdf
- Civil Eng Practicals List
- Temp Effect on Ordinary Concrete-lit Review
- Pile Shaft Design for Abut
- filec52d9cc690ec4977ad2b656895fb9e5c
- Seismic-Detailing-of-Concrete-Buildings.pdf
- ETAG-001-Annex-B 07-11-13
- TESTING OF HIGH STRENGTH STEEL-CONCRETE COMPOSITE STUB COLUMNS UNDER UNIAXIAL LOAD.
- Seismic Detailing of Concrete Buildings
- Concrete
- ACI 421.3R-15 Guide to Design of Reinforced Two-Way Slab Systems
- Replacement of Sand by the Mixture of M-Sand and Plastic Pellets (PP) as Fine Aggregate in Concrete
- SK ASCE
- Ground Bearing Slab
- 2 1 1 a aerospacematerialsinvestigation by javier prieto
- Very-High-Strength Concretes for Use in Blast- And Penetration
- Anchorage to Concrete
- Concrete 1
- Residual Strength of Blast Damaged Reinforced Concrete Colu Mns
- 1-s2.0-S1687404814000121-main.pdf

Anda di halaman 1dari 66

3R-07

Detailing for High-Strength Concrete in

Moderate to High Seismic Applications

and Other Contributors

First Printing

September 2007

Advancing concrete knowledge

in Moderate to High Seismic Applications

Copyright by the American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. All rights reserved. This material

may not be reproduced or copied, in whole or part, in any printed, mechanical, electronic, film, or other

distribution and storage media, without the written consent of ACI.

The technical committees responsible for ACI committee reports and standards strive to avoid ambiguities,

omissions, and errors in these documents. In spite of these efforts, the users of ACI documents occasionally

find information or requirements that may be subject to more than one interpretation or may be

incomplete or incorrect. Users who have suggestions for the improvement of ACI documents are

requested to contact ACI. Proper use of this document includes periodically checking for errata at

www.concrete.org/committees/errata.asp for the most up-to-date revisions.

ACI committee documents are intended for the use of individuals who are competent to evaluate the

significance and limitations of its content and recommendations and who will accept responsibility for the

application of the material it contains. Individuals who use this publication in any way assume all risk and

accept total responsibility for the application and use of this information.

All information in this publication is provided as is without warranty of any kind, either express or implied,

including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or

non-infringement.

ACI and its members disclaim liability for damages of any kind, including any special, indirect, incidental,

or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result

from the use of this publication.

It is the responsibility of the user of this document to establish health and safety practices appropriate to

the specific circumstances involved with its use. ACI does not make any representations with regard to

health and safety issues and the use of this document. The user must determine the applicability of all

regulatory limitations before applying the document and must comply with all applicable laws and regulations,

including but not limited to, United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) health

and safety standards.

Order information: ACI documents are available in print, by download, on CD-ROM, through electronic

subscription, or reprint and may be obtained by contacting ACI.

Most ACI standards and committee reports are gathered together in the annually revised ACI Manual of

Concrete Practice (MCP).

American Concrete Institute

38800 Country Club Drive

Farmington Hills, MI 48331

U.S.A.

Phone:

248-848-3700

Fax:

248-848-3701

www.concrete.org

ISBN 978-0-87031-254-0

ACI ITG-4.3R-07

High-Strength Concrete in Moderate to

High Seismic Applications

Reported by ACI Innovation Task Group 4 and Other Contributors

ACI Innovation Task Group 4

S. K. Ghosh

Chair

Joseph M. Bracci

D. Kirk Harman

Adolfo Matamoros

Michael A. Caldarone

Daniel C. Jansen

Andrew W. Taylor

Other contributors

Dominic J. Kelly

Andres Lepage

ACI ITG-4.3R presents a literature review on seismic design using highstrength concrete. The document is organized in chapters addressing the

structural design of columns, beams, beam-column joints, and structural

walls made with high-strength concrete, and focuses on aspects most relevant

for seismic design. Each chapter concludes with a series of recommended

modifications to ACI 318-05 based on the findings of the literature review.

The recommendations include proposals for the modification of the equivalent rectangular stress block, equations to calculate the axial strength of

columns subjected to concentric loading, column confinement requirements,

limits on the specified yield strength of confinement reinforcement, strut

factors, and provisions for the development of straight bars and hooks.

An accompanying standard, ITG-4.1, is written in mandatory language

in a format that can be adopted by local jurisdictions, and will allow building

officials to approve the use of high-strength concrete on projects that are

being constructed under the provisions of ACI 301, Specifications for

Structural Concrete, and ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for

Structural Concrete.

ITG 4 has also developed another nonmandatory language document:

ITG-4.2R. It addresses materials and quality considerations and is

the supporting document for ITG-4.1.

Keywords: bond; confinement; drift; flexure; high-strength concrete; highyield-strength reinforcement; seismic application; shear; stress block; strutand-tie.

Commentaries are intended for guidance in planning,

designing, executing, and inspecting construction. This

document is intended for the use of individuals who are

competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of its

content and recommendations and who will accept

responsibility for the application of the material it contains.

The American Concrete Institute disclaims any and all

responsibility for the stated principles. The Institute shall not

be liable for any loss or damage arising therefrom.

Reference to this document shall not be made in contract

documents. If items found in this document are desired by the

Architect/Engineer to be a part of the contract documents, they

shall be restated in mandatory language for incorporation by

the Architect/Engineer.

Henry G. Russell

CONTENTS

Chapter 1Introduction, p. ITG-4.3R-2

1.1Background

1.2Scope

Chapter 2Notation, p. ITG-4.3R-4

Chapter 3Definitions, p. ITG-4.3R-7

Chapter 4Design for flexural and axial loads

using equivalent rectangular stress block,

p. ITG-4.3R-7

4.1Parameters of equivalent rectangular stress block

4.2Stress intensity factor 1

4.3Stress block depth parameter 1

4.4Stress block area 1

4.5Limiting strain cu

4.6Axial strength of high-strength concrete columns

4.7Comparison of different proposals for rectangular

stress block

4.8Recommendations

Chapter 5Confinement requirements for beams

and columns, p. ITG-4.3R-19

5.1Constitutive models for confined concrete

5.2Previous research and general observations

5.3Equations to determine amount of confinement

reinforcement required in columns

ACI ITG-4.3R-07 was published and became effective August 2007.

Copyright 2007, American Concrete Institute.

All rights reserved including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any

means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by electronic or

mechanical device, printed, written, or oral, or recording for sound or visual reproduction

or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in writing

is obtained from the copyright proprietors.

ITG-4.3R-1

ITG-4.3R-2

drift demand

5.5Use of high-yield-strength reinforcement for

confinement

5.6Maximum hoop spacing requirements for columns

5.7Confinement requirements for high-strength concrete

beams

5.8Maximum hoop spacing requirements for highstrength concrete beams

5.9Recommendations

Chapter 6Shear strength of reinforced concrete

flexural members, p. ITG-4.3R-35

6.1Shear strength of flexural members without shear

reinforcement

6.2Effect of compressive strength on inclined cracking

load of flexural members

6.3Effect of compressive strength on flexural members

with intermediate to high amounts of transverse

reinforcement

6.4Shear strength of members with low shear spandepth ratios

6.5Calculation of shear strength of members subjected

to seismic loading

6.6Use of high-strength transverse reinforcement

6.7Recommendations

Chapter 7Development length/splices,

p. ITG-4.3R-44

7.1Design equations for development length of bars in

high-strength concrete

7.2Design equations for development length of hooked

bars in high-strength concrete

7.3Recommendations

Chapter 8Design of beam-column joints,

p. ITG-4.3R-48

8.1Confinement requirements for beam-column joints

8.2Shear strength of exterior joints

8.3Shear strength of interior joints

8.4Effect of transverse reinforcement on joint shear

strength

8.5Development length requirements for beam-column

joints

8.6Recommendations

Chapter 9Design of structural walls, p. ITG-4.3R-51

9.1Boundary element requirements

9.2Shear strength of walls with low aspect ratios

9.3Minimum tensile reinforcement requirements in walls

9.4Recommendations

Chapter 10List of proposed modifications to

ACI 318-05, p. ITG-4.3R-53

10.1Proposed modifications to equivalent rectangular

stress block

10.2Proposed modifications related to confinement of

potential plastic hinge regions

10.4Proposed modifications related to strut-and-tie

models

Acknowledgments, p. ITG-4.3R-56

Chapter 11Cited references, p. ITG-4.3R-56

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION

1.1Background

The origin of ACI Innovation Task Group (ITG) 4, HighStrength Concrete for Seismic Applications, can be traced

back to the International Conference of Building Officials

(ICBO) (now International Code Council [ICC]) Evaluation

Report ER-5536, Seismic Design Utilizing High-Strength

Concrete (ICBO 2001). Evaluation Reports (ER) are issued

by Evaluation Service subsidiaries of model code groups. An

ER essentially states that although a particular method,

process, or product is not specifically addressed by a particular

edition of a certain model code, it is in compliance with the

requirements of that particular edition of that model code.

ER-5536 (ICBO 2001), first issued in April 2001, was

generated by Englekirk Systems Development Inc. for the

seismic design of moment-resisting frame elements using

high-strength concrete. High-strength concrete was defined

as normalweight concrete with a design compressive

strength greater than 6000 psi (41 MPa) and up to a

maximum of 12,000 psi (83 MPa). It was based on research

carried out at the University of Southern California and the

University of California at San Diego to support building

construction in Southern California using concrete with

compressive strengths greater than 6000 psi (41 MPa).

The Portland Cement Association performed a review* of

ER-5536 and brought up several concerns that focused on

inconsistencies between the evaluation report and existing

industry documents in two primary areas: material and

structural. Despite those concerns, it was evident that the

evaluation report had been created because quality assurance

and design provisions were needed by local jurisdictions, such

as the City of Los Angeles, to allow the use of high-strength

concrete without undue restrictions. ACI has assumed a

proactive role in the development of such provisions with the

goal of creating a document that can be adopted nationwide.

ACI considered its own Committee 363, High Strength

Concrete, to be the best choice to address the materials and

quality aspects of the document, while ACI Subcommittee

318-H, Structural Concrete Building CodeSeismic

Provisions, was considered the best choice to address the

seismic detailing aspects. Because 318-H is a subcommittee

of a code-writing body, the development of a technical

document of this kind is not part of its intended mission. In

addition, producing a document through a technical

committee can be a lengthy process. Based on these limitations,

a request was made to form an ITG that would have the

advantage of following a shorter timeline to completion. In

*

(TAC) of ACI approved the formation of ITG 4 and established its mission. The mission was to develop an ACI

document that addressed the application of high-strength

concrete in structures located in areas of moderate and high

seismicity. The document was intended to cover structural

design, material properties, construction procedures, and

quality-control measures. It was to contain language in a format

that allowed building officials to approve the use of highstrength concrete in projects being constructed under the

provisions of ACI 301-05, Specifications for Structural

Concrete, and ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for

Structural Concrete.

The concept of moderate to high seismic applications,

stated in the mission of the document, dates back to when

U.S. seismic codes divided the country into seismic zones.

These seismic zones were defined as regions in which

seismic ground motion on rock, corresponding to a certain

probability of occurrence, remained within certain ranges.

Present-day seismic codes (ASCE/SEI 2006) follow a

different approach to characterizing a seismic hazard. Given

that public safety is a primary code objective, and that not all

buildings in a given seismic zone are equally crucial to

public safety, a new mechanism for triggering seismic

design requirements and restrictions, called the seismic

performance category (SPC), was developed. The SPC

classification includes not only the seismicity at the site, but

also the occupancy of the structure.

Recognizing that building performance during a seismic

event depends not only on the severity of bedrock acceleration,

but also on the type of soil that a structure is founded on,

seismic design criteria in more recent seismic codes are

based on seismic design categories (SDC). The SDC is a

function of location, building occupancy, and soil type.

The TAC Technology Transfer Committee (TTTC)-established mission of ITG 4 was interpreted to mean that the

Task Group was to address the application of high-strength

concrete in structures that are:

Located in Seismic Zones 2, 3, or 4 of the Uniform

Building Code (ICBO 1997); or

Assigned to SDC C, D, or E of The BOCA National

Building Code (BOCA 1993 and subsequent editions)

or the Standard Building Code (SBCCI 1994); or

SDC C, D, E, or F of the International Building Code

(IBC 2003) or the National Fire Protection Association

(NFPA) NFPA 5000 Building Construction and Safety

Code (2003).

SPC or SDC C is also referred to as the intermediate

category. Similarly, SPC D and E or SDC D, E, and F are

referred to as high categories. The terminology moderate

to high seismic applications, however, is used throughout

this document.

1.2Scope

This document addresses the material and design considerations when using normalweight concretes having specified

compressive strengths of 6000 psi (41 MPa) or greater in

structures designed for moderate to high seismic applications.

ITG-4.3R-3

also applicable to normalweight high-strength concrete in

intermediate or special moment frames and intermediate or

special structural walls as defined in ACI 318-05 (ACI

Committee 318 2005).

The term high-strength concrete, as defined by ACI 363R-92

(ACI Committee 363 1992), refers to concrete having a specified compressive strength for design of 6000 psi (41 MPa) or

greater. The 6000 psi (41 MPa) threshold that was chosen for

this document is similar to that adopted by ACI Committee 363.

Even though high-strength concrete is defined based on a

threshold compressive strength, the concept of high strength

is relative. The limit at which concrete is considered to be

high strength depends largely on the location in which it is

being used. In some regions, structures are routinely designed

with concrete having specified compressive strengths of

12,000 psi (83 MPa) or higher, whereas in other regions,

concrete with a much lower specified compressive strength is

considered high strength. Essentially, the strength threshold

at which concrete is considered high strength depends on

regional factors, such as the characteristics and availability

of raw materials, production capabilities, testing capabilities,

and experience of the ready mixed concrete supplier.

ITG-4 produced three documents: ITG-4.1 is a reference

specification that can be cited in the project specifications;

ITG-4.2R addresses materials and quality considerations that

are the basis for the ITG-4.1 specification; and ITG-4.3R, this

document, addresses structural design and detailing. Certain

modifications of ACI 318 requirements are proposed in

Chapter 10 of ITG-4.3R.

From a materials perspective, there are few differences

between the properties of high-strength concrete used in

seismic applications and those of high-strength concrete

used in nonseismic applications; therefore, the information

presented in ITG-4.1 and ITG-4.2R is generally applicable to

all high-strength concrete. When special considerations are

warranted due to seismic applications, they are addressed

specifically. Unlike ITG-4.1 and ITG-4.2R, most of the

material contained in ITG-4.3R is specific to seismic

applications of high-strength concrete structural members.

The information in Chapters 4 through 9 of this document

is presented in a report format. Chapter 10 contains

suggested modifications to design and detailing requirements

in ACI 318-05.

Some topics, such as compressive stress block and

confinement of beam-columns, are more developed than others

because there is significantly more literature available on these

topics. For all topics, an attempt was made to be as thorough as

possible in summarizing the most relevant information

pertaining to the design of members with high-strength

concrete. For topics with limited information in the literature, however, recommendations were made with the intent

of preventing potentially unsafe design.

ITG-4.3R-4

Ab,max

Acc

Ach

Acv

Ag

Ash

Asp

Ast

Asv

Aswb

Asww

Ate

Atr

Av

Aw

av

b

bc

=

=

bw

CHAPTER 2NOTATION

cross-sectional area of largest bar being

developed or spliced, in.2 (mm2)

cross-sectional area of structural member

measured center-to-center of transverse

reinforcement, in.2 (mm2)

cross-sectional area of structural member

measured out-to-out of transverse reinforcement,

in.2 (mm2)

gross area of concrete section bounded by web

thickness and length of section in direction of

shear force considered, in.2 (mm2)

gross area of concrete section, in.2 (mm2). For

hollow section, Ag is area of concrete only and

does not include area of void(s)

total cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement (including crossties) within spacing s and

perpendicular to dimension bc , in.2 (mm2)

cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement crossing potential plane of splitting of

bars being developed or spliced, in.2 (mm2)

total area of nonprestressed longitudinal

reinforcement (bars or steel shapes), in.2 (mm2)

total area of vertical reinforcement in structural

wall, in.2 (mm2)

total area of vertical reinforcement in boundary

element of structural wall, in.2 (mm2)

total area of vertical reinforcement in web of

structural wall, excluding the boundary

elements, in. 2 (mm2)

sum of areas of tie legs used to provide lateral

support against buckling for longitudinal bars

of column, in.2 (mm2)

total cross-sectional area of all transverse

reinforcement within spacing s that crosses

potential plane of splitting through reinforcement

being developed, in.2 (mm2)

area of shear reinforcement with spacing s, in.2

(mm2)

gross cross-sectional area of structural wall,

in.2 (mm2)

shear span, equal to distance from center of

concentrated load to either: a) face of support for

continuous or cantilever members; or b) center of

support for simply supported members, in.

(mm)

width of compression face of member, in. (mm)

cross-sectional dimension of column core

measured center-to-center of outer legs of

transverse reinforcement comprising area Ash,

in. (mm)

web width or diameter of circular section, in.

(mm)

distance from extreme compression fiber to

neutral axis, in. (mm)

cmin + db /2 = spacing or cover dimension, in.

(mm)

c1

c2

cb

cc

ccb

=

=

cmax

cmin

=

=

cp

cs

=

=

csfw

csi

cso

=

=

DRlim

d

=

=

db

ds

EEp

Es

fc

fco

fp

fpc

=

=

fs

ft,l

ft,t

direction of span for which moments are being

determined, in. (mm)

dimension of rectangular or equivalent rectangular column, capital, or bracket measured in

direction perpendicular to c1, in. (mm)

smaller of: a) distance from center of bar or

wire to nearest concrete surface; or b) one-half

center-to-center spacing of bars or wires being

developed, in. (mm)

clear cover of reinforcement, in. (mm)

least distance from surface or reinforcement to

tension face, in. (mm)

maximum of ccb and cs , in. (mm)

minimum cover used in expressions for bond

strength of bars not confined by transverse

reinforcement. Smaller of ccb and cs, in. (mm)

vr fyt /fc = volumetric confinement index

minimum of cso and (csi + 0.25) in. [(csi + 6.35)

mm], in. (mm)

flexural stress index for structural wall that

represents measure of ratio of neutral axis

depth to length of wall, in. (mm)

one-half of clear spacing between bars, in. (mm)

clear side concrete cover for reinforcing bar,

in. (mm)

(lim /hcol ) = limiting drift ratio

distance from extreme compression fiber to

centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement,

in. (mm)

nominal diameter of bar, wire, or prestressing

strand, in. (mm)

nominal diameter of bar used as transverse

reinforcement, in. (mm)

load effects of earthquake or related internal

moments and forces

[(Mcalc Mexp)/Mexp] 100 = parameter used

to characterize accuracy of nominal moment

strength of column

modulus of elasticity of reinforcement and

structural steel, psi (MPa)

specified compressive strength of concrete, psi

(MPa)

in-place strength of unconfined concrete in

columns, psi (MPa) (often assumed as 0.85fc )

P/Ag fc = axial load ratio

P/Ach fc = axial load ratio based on area of

confined core

calculated tensile stress in reinforcement at

service loads, psi (MPa)

stress imposed on concrete by compression

field associated with reinforcement oriented in

direction parallel to flexural reinforcement

located at edge of compression field, psi (MPa)

stress imposed on concrete by compression

field associated with reinforcement oriented in

fu

fyl

fyt

fyt,l

fyt,t

ha

hcol

hw

=

=

=

hx

Ktr

Ktr

k1

k2

k3

kcc

kd

kj

ks

lb

ld

ldh

located at edge of compression field, psi (MPa)

maximum tensile stress that can be developed

in bar with 90-degree hook, psi (MPa)

specified yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement, psi (MPa)

specified yield strength of transverse reinforcement, psi (MPa)

specified yield strength of transverse reinforcement oriented parallel to flexural reinforcement

located at edge of uniform compression field,

psi (MPa)

specified yield strength of transverse reinforcement oriented perpendicular to flexural

reinforcement located at edge of uniform

compression field, psi (MPa)

core dimension perpendicular to transverse

reinforcement providing confinement measured

to outside of hoops, in. (mm)

tie depth, in. (mm)

clear column height, in. (mm)

height of entire wall from base to top or height

of segment of wall considered, in. (mm)

maximum center-to-center horizontal spacing

of crossties or hoop legs on all faces of column,

in. (mm)

ratio of internal lever arm to effective depth of

beam

(Atr fyt /1500sn) = transverse reinforcement

index (refer to ACI 318-05, Section 12.2.3)

(0.5tdAtr /sn)fc 1/2 = transverse reinforcement

index for Committee 408 development length

expression, in. (mm)

ratio of average to maximum stress in

compression zone of flexural member

ratio of distance from extreme compression

fiber to location of compression reaction to

distance from extreme compression fiber to

location of neutral axis in flexural member

ratio of maximum stress in compression zone

of flexural member to cylinder strength

cover factor in calculation of development

length of hooked bars

development length factor in calculation of

development length of hooked bars

development length and lever arm factor in calculation of development length of hooked bars

transverse reinforcement bar diameter factor

for calculation of development length of hooked

bars

dimension of loading plate or support in axial

direction of member, in. (mm)

development length in tension of deformed bar,

deformed wire, plain or deformed welded wire

reinforcement, or pretensioned strand, in. (mm)

development length in tension of deformed

bar or deformed wire with standard hook,

lo

lw

Mexp

Mncol

nL

P

Po

s

=

=

=

=

so

Tb

Ts

td

V

=

=

Va

Vall

Vc

=

=

Vn

Vs

=

=

Vt,l

Vt,t

vc,all

wst

1

=

=

=

ITG-4.3R-5

hook, in. (mm)

length, measured from joint face along axis of

structural member, over which special transverse

reinforcement must be provided, in. (mm)

length of entire wall or length of segment of wall

considered in direction of shear force, in. (mm)

maximum unfactored moment due to service

loads, including P- effects, in.-lb (N-mm)

measured flexural strength of column, in.-lb

(N-mm)

nominal flexural strength of column, in.-lb

(N-mm)

fyl /0.85fc = ratio of nominal yield strength of

longitudinal reinforcement to nominal strength

of concrete in column

number of bars being spliced or developed in

plane of splitting

number of legs of reinforcement in hoops and ties

unfactored axial load, lb (N)

nominal axial strength at zero eccentricity, lb (N)

center-to-center spacing of items, such as longitudinal reinforcement, transverse reinforcement,

prestressing tendons, wires, or anchors, in. (mm)

center-to-center spacing of transverse reinforcement within length lo, in. (mm)

total bond force of developed or spliced bar,

lb (N)

steel contribution to total bond force, additional

bond strength provided by transverse steel, lb (N)

term representing effect of bar size on Ts

maximum unfactored shear force at service

loads, including P- effects, lb (N)

nominal shear strength provided by strut

spanning between load point and support in

reinforced concrete members with shear spandepth ratios below 2.5, lb (N)

allowable shear force under service loads, lb (N)

nominal shear strength provided by the concrete,

lb (N)

nominal shear strength, lb (N)

nominal shear strength provided by shear

reinforcement, lb (N)

nominal shear strength provided by uniform

compression field associated with transverse

reinforcement oriented parallel to flexural

reinforcement located at edge of compression

field, lb (N)

nominal shear strength provided by uniform

compression field associated with transverse

reinforcement oriented perpendicular to flexural

reinforcement located at edge of compression

field, lb (N)

allowable shear stress in concrete

strut width, in. (mm)

factor relating magnitude of uniform stress in

equivalent rectangular compressive stress

ITG-4.3R-6

sh

st

fc

nl,strut =

nl,truss =

s

sc

ta

lim

yield

u

1

cu

=

=

=

lim

o

s

y

=

=

=

concrete

coefficient defining relative contribution of

concrete to nominal wall shear strength

angle between struts and flexural reinforcement

for a compression field associated with

transverse reinforcement oriented in direction

parallel to flexural reinforcement

1 4/[(M/Vd) +1] 2 = factor to account for

effect of shear span-depth ratio on allowable

shear stress carried by concrete

smallest angle between strut and ties that it

intersects at its nodes

angle between struts and flexural reinforcement

for compression field associated with transverse

reinforcement oriented in direction perpendicular

to flexural reinforcement

factor relating depth of equivalent rectangular

compressive stress block to neutral axis depth

factor to account for effect of concrete

compressive strength on effective compressive

strength of concrete in strut

factor to account for effect of repeated load

reversals into nonlinear range of response on

effective compressive strength of concrete in strut

factor to account for effect of repeated load

reversals into nonlinear range of response on

shear strength associated with compression field

factor to account for effect of cracking and

confining reinforcement on effective

compressive strength of concrete in strut

factor to account for effect of load reversals,

concrete compressive strength, confining

reinforcement, and cracking on effective

compressive strength of concrete in strut

factor to account for effect of interaction

between truss and arch mechanisms on effective

compressive strength of concrete in strut

factor to account for effect of angle of inclination

of strut s on effective compressive strength of

concrete in strut

ratio of mean concrete compressive stress

corresponding to maximum axial load resisted

by concentrically loaded column to specified

compressive strength of concrete

lateral drift corresponding to 20% reduction in

lateral resistance, in. (mm)

lateral drift corresponding to yielding of

longitudinal reinforcement, in. (mm)

design displacement, in. (mm)

principal tensile strain in strut

maximum strain at extreme compression fiber

at onset of crushing of concrete

concrete strain at extreme compression fiber

corresponding to limit state being considered

strain in concrete when it reaches peak stress

strain demand on reinforcement

strain in reinforcement at yield

lim

u

=

=

=

vj

p

=

=

=

=

area

tc

t,l

t,t

vol

vr

wt

limiting curvature of reinforced concrete wall

curvature at limit state of reinforced concrete

section

curvature at yielding of flexural reinforcement

of reinforced concrete section

joint shear coefficient

factor to account for effect of axial load ratio

on strength of compression field subjected to

repeated load reversals into nonlinear range of

response

(lim /yield) = displacement ductility ratio

expected rotation in plastic hinge region of

flexural member, radians

ratio of area of distributed transverse reinforcement Ash to gross area of concrete perpendicular

to that reinforcement in members with rectilinear

and circular transverse reinforcement

ratio of area of distributed longitudinal reinforcement to gross concrete area perpendicular to

that reinforcement

ratio of volume of spiral reinforcement to total

volume of core confined by spiral (measured

out-to-out of spirals)

ratio of area of distributed transverse reinforcement to gross concrete area perpendicular to

that reinforcement

Ash /bcs = ratio of area of distributed transverse

reinforcement Ash to area of core perpendicular

to that transverse reinforcement

ratio of area of distributed reinforcement

oriented in direction parallel to flexural reinforcement of compression field to gross concrete area

perpendicular to that reinforcement

ratio of area of distributed reinforcement

oriented in direction perpendicular to flexural

reinforcement of compression field to gross

concrete area perpendicular to that reinforcement

ratio of volume of rectilinear or circular

transverse reinforcement to volume of core

confined by that transverse reinforcement

ratio of volume of rectilinear transverse

reinforcement to volume of core confined by

that transverse reinforcement

ratio of total area of vertical reinforcement to

gross area of structural wall

0.1(cmax/cmin) + 0.9 1.25 = factor to account

for ratio of maximum to minimum cover on

development length of straight bar

factor used to modify development length

based on reinforcement coating

factor used to modify development length

based on reinforcement size

factor used to modify development length

based on reinforcement location

CHAPTER 3DEFINITIONS

area transverse reinforcement ratioratio of the area

of transverse reinforcement crossed by a plane perpendicular

to the legs of the transverse reinforcement to the area of

reinforced concrete along that plane.

axial load ratioratio of axial load to the product of

compressive strength of concrete and the gross area of

concrete cross section.

confinement indexproduct of transverse reinforcement

ratio (either by area or by volume) and the yield strength of

the transverse reinforcement, divided by the compressive

strength of concrete.

curvature ductility ratioratio of mean curvature at

failure in the plastic hinge length to curvature at the onset of

section yielding. In the case of reinforced concrete columns,

the majority of researchers referenced in this document

define failure as a 20% reduction in lateral load resistance.

displacement ductility ratioratio of displacement at

failure to displacement at the onset of member yielding. In

the case of reinforced concrete columns, the majority of

researchers referenced in this document define failure as a

20% reduction in lateral load resistance.

ductilityability of a reinforced concrete member to

maintain its strength when subjected to repeated load reversals

beyond the linear range of response.

interstory driftrelative lateral displacement between

two adjacent stories of a building imposed by the design

earthquake.

interstory drift ratioratio of interstory drift to story

height.

killed steelsteel made by completely removing or tying

up the oxygen in the liquid steel through the addition of

elements such as aluminum or silicon before the ingot

solidifies, with the objective of achieving maximum uniformity

in the steel.

limiting driftdrift corresponding to a 20% reduction in

lateral load resistance of a reinforced concrete member subjected

to load reversals with increasing maximum displacements.

limiting drift ratioratio of limiting drift to column

height.

limiting strainmaximum strain at the extreme concrete

compression fiber of a flexural member at the onset of

concrete crushing, cu.

volumetric transverse reinforcement ratioratio of the

volume of transverse reinforcement confining the concrete

core of a potential plastic hinge region to the volume of

concrete inside the confined core.

CHAPTER 4DESIGN FOR FLEXURAL

AND AXIAL LOADS USING EQUIVALENT

RECTANGULAR STRESS BLOCK

It is common practice for structures assigned to a high

Seismic Design Category (SDC) to proportion the majority

of the structural elements of the lateral force-resisting system

so that the axial load demand remains below the balanced

axial load. For these elements, variations in the shape of the

stress block related to the compressive strength of the

concrete do not have a significant effect on the calculated

ITG-4.3R-7

for engineers to avoid proportioning columns with high axial

load demands, such as lower-story columns in tall buildings,

lower-story columns in narrow moment-resisting frames,

and columns supporting the ends of discontinuous walls. For

these elements, the shape of the stress block may have a

significant effect on the estimated strength. The stress block

for members with high-strength concrete is also a concern in

moderate seismic applications. In these cases, structures are

proportioned for seismic events that impose lower force and

deformation demands than high seismic applications, allowing

the use of more slender columns.

The accuracy of the stress block is of concern in earthquake-resistant design because overestimating the flexural

strength of columns leads to overestimating the ratios of

column-to-beam moment strengths, which increases the

probability of hinging in the columns due to the development

of a strong beam-weak column mechanism.

Although the stress-strain characteristics of high-strength

concrete are different from those of normal-strength

concrete, there is no well-defined compressive strength

boundary between the two; there is instead a gradual change

with increasing concrete strengths (ACI Innovation Task

Group 4 2006). The ascending branch of the stress-strain

relationship is steeper for higher-strength concretes, indicating

higher elastic modulus. It changes from approximately a

second-order parabola for concretes within the normalstrength range to almost a straight line as the strength

approaches 18,000 psi (124 MPa), which may be considered

as the limit for high-strength concrete made with ordinary

limestone aggregates. The strain at peak concrete stress, o,

increases with strength as well, varying approximately

between 0.0015 and 0.0025 for 3000 to 15,000 psi (21 and

103 MPa) concrete, respectively. Failure becomes more sudden

and brittle as the concrete strength increases and unloading

beyond the peak becomes more rapid. In summary, concrete

becomes more rigid and more brittle with increasing strength.

Several researchers developed constitutive models for the

stress-strain relationship of concrete that are applicable to

high-strength concrete with proper adjustments to the

governing parameters (Popovics 1973; Yong et al. 1988;

Hsu and Hsu 1994; Azizinamini et al. 1994; Cusson and

Paultre 1995). Expressions applicable specifically to highstrength concrete have also been developed (Martinez et al.

1984; Fafitis and Shah 1985; Bjerkeli et al. 1990; Muguruma

and Watanabe 1990; Li 1994).

Members subjected to uniform compression attain their

maximum strength when concrete reaches a strain level

corresponding to peak stress, o. Under a strain gradient,

maximum strength is attained at an extreme compressive

fiber strain higher than that at peak stress, lim (Hognestad

1951). This value changes with the geometric shape of the

compression zone, and may also vary significantly with

concrete strength and confinement. After the limiting strain

has been established, the sectional strength can be computed

by evaluating internal forces, including the compressive

force in the concrete. The magnitude of the compressive

force in the concrete can be established by relying on the

ITG-4.3R-8

assumption that plane sections remain plane after bending

and by calculating the stresses corresponding to the strains in

the compression zone from the stress-strain relationship.

Because it is cumbersome to use a nonlinear stress-strain

relationship, ACI 318-05 provides an equivalent stress block

for ease in design calculations. This stress block is derived

such that both the area under the actual nonlinear stress

distribution (force) and the centroid of this area (point of

application of force) correspond to those of the stress block

as closely as possible. The stress block adopted by ACI 318-05

is of rectangular geometry. Other equivalent stress blocks

with various different shapes, such as triangular and trapezoidal, have been proposed in the literature. A historical

review of this topic has been presented by Hognestad (1951).

4.1Parameters of equivalent rectangular

stress block

The column design provisions of ACI 318-05 are based on

an extensive column investigation conducted jointly by the

University of Illinois, Lehigh University, and ACI. The

initial results of the study were published in 1931 (Slater and

Lyse 1931a,b), with a more comprehensive follow-up report

in 1934 (Richart and Brown 1934). Subsequently,

Hognestad (1951) conducted a large number of column tests

and developed the parameters for a rectangular stress block.

Figure 4.1 shows the parameters that define the equivalent

rectangular stress block according to ACI 318-05. A parabolic

stress distribution, shown in Fig. 4.1(b), results in values of

k2 = 0.375 (1 = 0.75) and k1 = 0.67 (1 = 0.9k3). A linear

stress distribution yields values of k2 = 0.333 (1 = 0.667)

and k1 = 0.50 (1 = 0.75k3). ACI 318-05 stipulates that the

average stress factor 1 is not sensitive to compressive strength

and remains constant at 0.85, while the 1 factor decreases

from 0.85 (k1k3 = 0.723) for a compressive strength of 4000

psi (28 MPa) to 0.65 (k1k3 = 0.553) for a compressive

strength of 8000 psi (55 MPa). According to ACI 318-05, the

strain at the extreme compression fiber in the concrete at the

onset of crushing is 0.003 (Fig. 4.1(a)).

Fasching and French (1998) presented a summary of

several proposals for modifying the parameters of the equivalent

and Saatcioglu 2004).

rectangular stress block for high-strength concrete. They

reported average values of k2 = 0.381 (1 = 0.762) and k1k3

= 0.647 (1 = 0.849) from tests of C-shaped specimens

(column specimens in which axial load and bending are

induced by applying a load eccentrically at both ends) by

several researchers, in which compressive strengths varied

from 8400 to 14,400 psi (58 to 99 MPa). The aforementioned

values are very close to those corresponding to a parabolic

distribution. Specimens with higher strengths tested by

Ibrahim and MacGregor (1994, 1996a), with concrete

compressive strengths ranging between 17,600 and 18,600 psi

(121 to 128 MPa), had values of k2 = 0.347 (1 = 0.694) and

k1k3 = 0.524 (1 = 0.755), close to those corresponding to a

linear distribution. Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004)

summarized the variation of experimentally obtained values

for k2 and the product k1k3 with concrete compressive

strength. They also presented a comparison with various

design expressions, including those of ACI 318-05 and CSA

A23.3-94 (Canadian Standards Association 1994). These are

shown in Fig. 4.2 and 4.3 and indicate a gradual reduction in

k2 and k1k3 with increasing concrete strength.

single parameter in the formulation of an equivalent rectangular stress block, researchers in the past identified the

values for k3 separately. The parameter k3 represents the

ratio of the in-place strength of concrete in a structural

member to the compressive strength measured using standard

cylinder tests. Saatcioglu et al. (1998) reported values of the

k3 factor for high-strength concrete measured by several

researchers for unconfined concrete members subjected to

concentric loading. Two 10 in. (250 mm) square columns

with compressive strengths of 11,700 and 17,600 psi (81 and

121 MPa), tested by Saatcioglu and Razvi (1998), had k3

factors of 0.89 and 0.92, respectively. The average value

reported by Cusson and Paultre (1994) was 0.88 for columns

with compressive strengths of 14,500 psi (100 MPa). Tests by

Yong et al. (1988) indicated values of 0.87 and 0.97 for

compressive strengths of 12,100 and 13,600 psi (83 and

94 MPa), respectively. Sun and Sakino (1994) obtained

values of 0.93 and 0.91 for compressive strengths of 7500

and 19,000 psi (52 and 131 MPa), respectively. Saatcioglu

and Razvi (1998) indicated that similar values of k3 were

obtained under eccentric loading.

Other tests performed to measure the value of k3 include

those by Ibrahim and MacGregor (1994, 1996b), Kaar et al.

(1977), Schade (1992), and Swartz et al. (1985). The aforementioned series of tests resulted in average k3 values of

0.91, 1.00, 0.93, and 0.98, respectively. Ibrahim and

MacGregor (1994, 1996b) reported mean k3 values of 0.932

for specimens with concrete compressive strengths between

8400 and 14,400 psi (58 and 99 MPa), and 0.919 for specimens with higher compressive strengths ranging between

17,600 and 18,600 psi (121 and 128 MPa).

4.2Stress intensity factor 1

According to Fasching and French (1998), experimental

results show that the nominal strength of beams calculated

using the stress intensity factor 1 of ACI 318-05 is conservative for high-strength concrete. Data reported by Kaar et

al. (1977) had a mean value of 1 = 1.0, and the data reported

by Swartz et al. (1985) had a mean value of 1 = 0.96.

Ibrahim and MacGregor (1994,1996a) conducted extensive

tests of concentrically and eccentrically loaded high-strength

concrete columns and developed an expression for 1. They

found lower stress intensity factors in concentrically loaded

columns, which resulted in the following expression for the

stress intensity factor

0.00862f c

1 = 0.85 ------------------------ 0.725

1000

1 = 0.85 0.00125f c 0.725

( fc in psi)

(4-1)

( fc in MPa)

basis for the Canadian Standard CSA A23.3-94 (Canadian

Standards Association 1994), where the value of the stress

intensity factor is

ITG-4.3R-9

(Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004).

0.01f c

1 = 0.85 --------------- 0.67

1000

1 = 0.85 0.0015f c 0.67

( fc in psi)

(4-2)

( fc in MPa)

of the NZS 3101:1995 design provisions (Standards Association of New Zealand 1995) regarding the shape of the

equivalent rectangular stress block, which is very similar to

that used in ACI 318-05. As stated previously, for a linear

stress distribution, the equivalent rectangular stress block has

values of k2 = 0.333 (1 = 0.667) and k1 = 0.5 (1 = 0.75k3). The

following expression for the stress factor is used in the New

Zealand Standard, which is close to that corresponding to a

linear stress distribution for high-strength concrete

1 = 0.85, for fc 8000 psi (55 MPa)

(4-3)

0.0275 ( f c 8000 )

1 = 0.85 ----------------------------------- 0.75 for fc > 8000 (fc in psi)

1000

(4-4)

to axial load and flexure, and observed that the ACI 318-05

equivalent stress block resulted in conservative estimates of

strength for columns with normal-strength concrete, while it

overestimated the strength of columns with high-strength

concrete. Based on this observation, they recommended

maintaining the value of 1 = 0.85 for fc 10,000 psi (69 MPa)

and changing it for fc > 10,000 psi (69 MPa) using the

following expression

0.50 ( f c 10,000 )

1 = 0.85 ------------------------------------------- 0.60 for fc > 10,000 (fc in psi)

1000

(4-5)

stress-strain relationships for high-strength concrete. The

ITG-4.3R-10

MacGregor (1994), who proposed the following expression

for 1

0.0172f c

1 = 0.95 --------------------- 0.70

1000

1 = 0.95 0.0025f c 0.70

( fc in psi)

(4-8)

( fc in MPa)

similar to the equation adopted in CSA A23.3-94 (Canadian

Standards Association 1994)

0.0172f c

1 = 0.97 --------------------- 0.67

1000

Fig. 4.4Comparison of proposed expressions for stress

intensity factor 1.

stress intensity factor 1 was derived by finding the total area

underneath the theoretical stress-strain curve. According to

Bae and Bayrak (2003)

1 = 0.85 2.75 105(fc 10,000), 0.67 1 0.85 (fc in psi)

(4-6)

Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) developed a rectangular stress block for high-strength and normal-strength

concretes based on a large volume of experimental data and an

analytical stress-strain relationship. They suggested varying

1 with concrete compressive strength to reflect the change in

the shape of the stress-strain relationship. Accordingly

1 = 0.85 (fc 4000) 105, 0.72 1 0.85 (fc in psi)

(4-7)

and the aforementioned recommended changes for the stress

intensity factor is shown in Fig. 4.4.

4.3Stress block depth parameter 1

The parameter 1 defines the ratio of the depth of the

equivalent rectangular stress block to that of the neutral axis.

For a constant value of the stress intensity factor 1, the

effect of assuming a theoretical value of 1 smaller than the

actual value is that the calculated lever arm is increased,

resulting in unconservative estimates of the moment strength.

Fasching and French (1998) evaluated the ACI 318-95

expression (same as in ACI 318-05) for factor 1 using

experimental results reported by Ibrahim and MacGregor

(1994), Kaar et al. (1977), and Swartz et al. (1985). Fasching

and French concluded that the ACI 318 expression for 1

underestimated the experimentally observed values in the

data set used for the evaluation.

( fc in psi)

(4-9)

( fc in MPa)

(1998), and subsequently adopted in NZS 3101:1995 design

provisions (Standards Association of New Zealand 1995),

has the same definition as the depth parameter 1 in ACI

318-05. Similarly, Azizinamini et al. (1994) recommended

no change to the definition of 1 used in ACI 318-05. In

effect, these authors implied that changing the location of the

equivalent force Cc (Fig. 4.1) relative to the extreme

compression fiber has a negligible effect on the nominal

moment strength because the term (1/2)1c is small in

comparison to the moment arm jd = (d [1/2]1c). In

columns with small eccentricities, the precision of 1 will

have a more significant influence on the moment arm and,

consequently, on the nominal moment strength. The overall

effect of reducing the stress intensity factor 1 while

maintaining the parameter 1 similar to that in ACI 318-05

is that a larger neutral axis depth is calculated for a given

amount of reinforcement and axial load, reducing the lever

arm and the nominal moment strength of the section.

Bae and Bayrak (2003) suggested the following expression

for the parameter 1 by finding the location of the compression

resultant for the theoretical stress-strain curve

1 = 0.85 2.75 105(fc 4000), 0.67 1 0.85 (fc in psi)

(4-10)

gradual change in 1 starting at 4000 psi (28 MPa) to reflect

the variation in internal lever arm with the changing shape of

the stress-strain relationship of concrete. Their recommended

relationship for 1 is

1 = 0.85 1.3 105(fc 4000), 0.67 1 0.85 (fc in psi)

(4-11)

ITG-4.3R-11

block depth factor 1.

A comparison of the ACI 318-05 stress block depth

parameter 1 and the aforementioned recommended changes

to the depth parameter are shown in Fig. 4.5.

4.4Stress block area 11

The product 11 is an indication of the area of the stress

block. Fasching and French (1998), using the data from

Ibrahim and MacGregor (1994), Kaar et al. (1977), and

Swartz et al. (1985), showed that the product 11 decreased

with increasing compressive strength. The decrease was

approximately linear from a value of 0.75 for 6000 psi

(41 MPa) to 0.5 for 18,000 psi (124 MPa). The provisions in

ACI 318-05 include a steeper descent in the product 11

from 4000 to 8000 psi (28 to 55 MPa) than results from stress

block parameters proposed by several authors for high-strength

concrete (Bae and Bayrak 2003; Ibrahim and MacGregor

1997; Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004). Fasching and

French (1998) indicated that the steeper descent in the

product 11 resulted in underestimating the area of the

compression block for specimens with concrete compressive

strengths up to 14,000 psi (97 MPa), and overestimating the

area of the compression block for specimens with concrete

compressive strengths of 18,000 psi (124 MPa). For concrete

compressive strengths on the order of 18,000 psi (124 MPa),

the inferred values of the coefficients 1 and 1 were similar

to those corresponding to a linear stress distribution.

4.5Limiting strain cu

The limiting strain at the extreme compression fiber at the

onset of concrete crushing, cu, is a significant parameter for

calculating the nominal moment strength of columns

because it defines the strains throughout the cross section,

particularly the strains in the longitudinal reinforcement.

Calculated strains have a direct effect on the calculated

stresses in the longitudinal reinforcement and also on the

magnitude of the strength reduction factor . ACI 318-05

indicates that the magnitude of the strain at the extreme

compression fiber cu is independent of compressive

columns (Bae and Bayrak 2003).

design provisions and proposals presented (Ibrahim and

MacGregor 1994; Standards Association of New Zealand

1995; Azizinamini et al. 1994; Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu

2004) adopt the same limiting strain of 0.003 as ACI 318-05,

whereas CSA A23.3-94 adopts a limiting strain of 0.0035.

Fasching and French (1998) indicated that past research on

the magnitude of cu for high-strength concrete resulted in

mixed conclusions, with some researchers indicating that the

limiting strain increases with compressive strength, and others

indicating that it decreases. A review of test data by Fasching

and French showed that the limiting strain was more sensitive to the type of aggregate than the concrete compressive

strength, with limiting strains ranging between 0.002 and

0.005 for compressive strengths greater than 8000 psi (55 MPa).

Average values for each type of aggregate were all above 0.003,

and the average for all types of aggregate was 0.0033.

Bae and Bayrak (2003) suggested adopting a lower value

of cu due to observed spalling at lower strains in highly

confined high-strength concrete columns (Fig. 4.6). They

proposed using a limiting strain of 0.0025 for concrete

compressive strengths greater than 8000 psi (55 MPa), and

0.003 for lower compressive strengths.

ITG-4.3R-12

according to various design codes and authors.

Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) reported that, while

the crushing strain under uniform compression, o, increases

with increasing concrete strength, the crushing strain under

strain gradient, cu , decreases with increasing concrete

strength because of the brittleness of high-strength concretes.

Based on moment-curvature analyses of columns under

different levels of axial compression, the researchers

concluded that cu varied between 0.0036 and 0.0027 for

4000 to 18,000 psi (28 and 124 MPa) concretes, respectively.

This is shown in Fig. 4.7. The same researchers, however,

also concluded that the variation in cu did not appreciably

affect sectional strength calculations, and hence recommended

the use of a constant average value of cu = 0.003 for

members under strain gradient.

4.6Axial strength of high-strength

concrete columns

The design expression used in ACI 318-05 to calculate the

strength of concentrically loaded columns, similar in form to

Eq. (4-12), is based on an extensive column investigation

that was conducted jointly by the University of Illinois

(Richart and Brown 1934), Lehigh University (Slater and

Lyse 1931a,b), and ACI. One of the main conclusions of this

research was that it was possible to express the strength of

columns subjected to concentric loading in a simple form,

consisting of contributions from: 1) concrete at peak stress;

and 2) longitudinal steel at yield

Po = 0.85fc (Ag Ast) + Ast fy

(4-12)

and the net area of concrete, including the cover. The inplace strength of concrete is assumed to be 85% of the

cylinder strength. The reduction in strength is attributed to

the differences in size, shape, and concrete casting practice

between a standard cylinder and an actual column. This ratio

of in-place strength to cylinder strength, defined as the coefficient k3 in Section 4.1, is one of the parameters necessary

to define the rectangular stress block. Experimental data are

available for in-place strength of high-strength concrete, as

compression (Saatcioglu and Razvi 1998). The bottom

photograph shows section of the cover that spalled off

during the tests.

indicated in Section 4.1. Researchers found that the coefficient

k3 for high-strength concrete varied between 0.87 and 0.97

based on concentrically tested columns (Yong et al. 1988;

Sun and Sakino 1993; Cusson and Paultre 1994; Saatcioglu and

Razvi 1998). A similar variation was obtained from column

tests under eccentric loading (Kaar et al. 1977; Swartz et al.

1985; Schade 1992; Ibrahim and MacGregor 1994,1996b).

Having reviewed the previous experimental data,

Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) concluded that k3 = 0.9

provides a reasonable estimate for the ratio of concrete

strength in a structural member to that determined by standard

cylinder tests.

In spite of the favorable in-place strength of high-strength

concrete, experimentally recorded column strengths have been

shown to be below the computed values based on Eq. (4-12)

unless the columns are confined by properly designed

transverse reinforcement. The strain data recorded by

Saatcioglu and Razvi (1998) during their tests of highstrength concrete columns indicated that premature spalling

of cover concrete occurred in most columns before the

development of strains associated with concrete crushing.

This observation, combined with visual observations of

cover spalling during tests, as shown in Fig. 4.8, suggests

that the cover concrete in high-strength concrete columns

suffers stability failure rather than crushing.

of closely spaced longitudinal and transverse steel, forming

a mesh of reinforcement, produced a natural plane of separation

between the cover and the core. The separation along this

plane was triggered by high compressive stresses associated

with high-strength concrete as well as the differences in

mechanical properties of core and cover concretes (Richart

et al. 1929; Roy and Sozen 1963). Columns tested by Rangan

et al. (1991) and some of the columns tested by Yong et al.

(1988) contained widely spaced transverse reinforcement of

low volumetric ratio, without a sufficient mesh of reinforcement

to separate the cover from the core. These columns were able

to develop unconfined column strengths Po calculated using

Eq. (4-12). Columns tested by Itakura and Yagenji (1992)

without any cover consistently showed higher strengths than

those computed on the basis of gross cross-sectional area and

unconfined concrete because they did not suffer strength loss

due to cover spalling. Columns that were sufficiently

confined to offset the effects of cover spalling consistently

developed higher strengths than Po. The group that

contained an insufficient volumetric ratio of closely spaced

transverse reinforcement, however, could not sustain

strengths computed on the basis of total cross-sectional area

and unconfined concrete strength.

According to Saatcioglu and Razvi (1998), given the

unfavorable circumstances described previously, the premature

spalling of cover concrete could lead to reduced strength of

concentrically loaded high-strength concrete columns relative

to those predicted by Eq. (4-12). The effect of premature

cover spalling was introduced into Eq. (4-12) by

Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) through a coefficient k4

by defining the in-place strength of concrete as k3k4 fc

instead of k3 fc , where k3 = 0.85. Figure 4.9 shows the

variation of the product k3k4 with concrete strength obtained

from a large volume of test data. The test data also included

moderately confined columns for which high values of the

product were obtained. The strength loss associated with

cover spalling is a function of the area of unconfined cover

concrete. For this reason, this effect can be quantified in

terms of the ratio of core area to gross area (Ac /Ag) of the

column. As this ratio decreases (cover thickness increases),

the strength loss increases. Figure 4.10 illustrates the variation

of the product k3k4 with respect to the Ac /Ag ratio. The product

k3k4 in Figure 4.10 indicates the degree of premature loss of

strength in high-strength concrete columns as a function of

concrete compressive strength and the Ac /Ag ratio. This premature spalling effect can be quite significant in small-scale test

columns with thin covers (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004).

Because the stability of the cover improves as the cover

thickness increases, columns with thick covers are less likely

to be susceptible to premature spalling than those with thin

covers. Given the difficulties associated with testing largescale columns with very high concrete compressive

strengths under concentric compression, there is a paucity of

experimental results for large-scale high-strength concrete

columns with thick concrete covers. For this reason, it was

suggested by Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) that, until

more data become available, the ratio Ac /Ag should not be

ITG-4.3R-13

strength (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004).

(Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004).

taken less than 0.6, irrespective of its actual value, in

assessing the premature cover spalling effect.

The test data in Fig. 4.9 and 4.10 were further examined

after removing confined column data and grouping them on

the basis of concrete strength (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu

2004). A regression analysis was conducted to find an

expression for the coefficient k4. The researchers suggested

the following expressions for computing concentric axial

strength of high-strength concrete columns

Po = k3k4 fc (Ag Ast) + Ast fy

(4-13)

k3 = 0.90

(4-14)

A

k4 = c + (1 c) -----c 0.95

Ag

(4-15)

A

-----c 0.6

Ag

(4-16)

ITG-4.3R-14

f c

c = 1.1 --------------- 0.8 (fc in psi)

20,000

(4-17)

f c

- 0.8 (fc in MPa)

c = 1.1 -------138

The product k3k4 can be as low as 0.61 for 18,000 psi

(124 MPa) concrete and Ac /Ag = 0.6, which is 28% below

the 0.85 value suggested by ACI 318-05 for normal-strength

concrete columns, as reproduced in Eq. (4-12). Instead of

detailed computation of the coefficient k4, as outlined

previously, a conservative, but simple, approach was

recommended for convenience in design by Ozbakkaloglu

and Saatcioglu (2004). They suggested that the product k3k4

be taken as 0.85 for fc of up to 6000 psi (41 MPa), and be

reduced by 0.017 for every 1000 psi (6.9 MPa) increase over

6000 psi (41 MPa), up to 18,000 psi (124 MPa). The

researchers identified the premature cover spalling as a

phenomenon that is prevalent in concentrically loaded highstrength concrete columns. For columns subjected to bending

and axial load, Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) indicated

that the critical compression side of the cover would deform

toward the core concrete, which would restrain the cover

against buckling.

Park et al. (1998) indicated that the axial strength of

columns subjected to compression is

Po = 1 fc (Ag Ast) + fy Ast

(4-18)

measured under concentric compression are greater than the

value of 1 in the NZS 3101:1995 provisions (Standards

Association of New Zealand 1995) and, as a result, the

nominal axial strength calculated using that standard is

conservative. Azizinamini et al. (1994) proposed calculating

the axial strength of columns in the same manner as NZS

3101:1995 by using Eq. (4-18). The premature spalling of

cover concrete was recognized by CSA A23.3-94 (Canadian Standards Association 1994), and Eq. (4-18) was

adopted with the stress intensity factor 1 decreasing as a

function of concrete strength, reducing to 0.67 for 18,000 psi

(124 MPa) concrete.

4.7Comparison of different proposals

for rectangular stress block

Fasching and French (1998) carried out a comparison

between the measured flexural strengths of beam members

and those calculated according to different stress block

proposals for high-strength concrete. They found a slightly

higher level of conservatism for the stress block proposals

for high-strength concrete that they evaluated compared with

the stress block defined in ACI 318-05. The New Zealand

and Canadian proposals resulted in nearly identical average

ratios of experimental-to-calculated strengths of 1.25, while

the stress block of ACI 318-05 resulted in an average ratio of

1.21. Because the depth of the compression zone in beams is

small compared with the depth of the member, it was

1 inferred from experimental results and various expressions

proposed for high-strength concrete (Bae and Bayrak 2003).

anticipated that the proposed modifications to the stress

block would have a small effect on the nominal moment

strength of beams. Fasching and French (1998) recommended

that the stress block should be modified to avoid unconservative estimates of column strength.

Bae and Bayrak (2003) compared the measured strengths

of 224 columns with the strengths calculated using the ACI

318-05 rectangular stress block and other stress blocks

outlined in this review (Fig. 4.11 and 4.12). Figure 4.11

shows the variation of the factors 1 and 1, and the product

11 proposed by several investigators with respect to

concrete compressive strength.

To estimate the accuracy of moment and axial strengths,

Bae and Bayrak (2003) developed two different error indicators.

They defined the error based on the experimental axial force

EEp as the ratio of the difference between the nominal and

experimental moment strengths to experimental moment

strength (Fig. 4.12). EEp is calculated as

M ncol M ex p

EE p = -------------------------------- 100

M ex p

(4-19)

was below the measured value, and consequently, the estimate

was conservative.

The second error indicator was based on the experimental

eccentricity (Bae and Bayrak 2003). Based on both error

indicators, Bae and Bayrak concluded that estimates using

the equivalent rectangular stress block of ACI 318-05

became increasingly unconservative with increasing

compressive strength, particularly with concrete strengths

exceeding 10,000 psi (69 MPa).

The stress blocks proposed by Ibrahim and MacGregor

(1997), Park et al. (1998), Standards Association of New

Zealand (1995), and Bae and Bayrak (2003) all produced

ITG-4.3R-15

Fig. 4.12Error parameter EEp in estimates of column strength (Bae and Bayrak 2003).

similar levels of conservatism for all levels of concrete strength.

The model proposed by Azizinamini et al. (1994) increasingly

underestimated the column strengths for concrete compressive

strengths beyond 13,000 psi (90 MPa). Bae and Bayrak noted

that the data they used lacked a significant number of test

results with high axial loads (small eccentricities). When

axial loads are high, the different models provide significantly

different predictions. They also noted that in seismic

applications, the concern is not with high axial loads, but

with relatively low axial loads (high eccentricities).

Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) compared column

interaction diagrams based on the rectangular stress blocks

of ACI 318-05, CSA A23.3-94, and those proposed by

Ibrahim and MacGregor (1997) and Ozbakkaloglu and

Saatcioglu (2004).

The comparisons, shown in Fig. 4.13, indicate that the

interaction diagrams generated by the equivalent rectangular

stress block of ACI 318-05 and that proposed by

a concrete compressive strength of 4000 psi (28 MPa), whereas

the equivalent rectangular stress blocks recommended by

CSA A23.3 and Ibrahim and MacGregor produce slightly

lower estimates of strength than ACI 318-05. As concrete

strength increased, Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu concluded

that the ACI 318-05 stress block lead to overestimating

column strengths obtained from test results. Ozbakkaloglu

and Saatcioglu indicated that the magnitude of the overestimation was very significant for a column with a concrete

compressive strength of 17,400 psi (120 MPa). For this same

column, the rectangular stress blocks proposed by Ibrahim

and MacGregor and Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu produced

similar interaction diagrams, and the CSA A23.3 stress block

resulted in a more conservative estimate of strength. The fact

that the results obtained using the rectangular stress block in

CSA A23.3 were consistently more conservative was attributed

to the use of a lower stress intensity factor 1.

ITG-4.3R-16

with different concrete strengths (Ozbakkaloglu and

Saatcioglu 2004) (Ac /Ag = 0.7; = 1.33%; b = h =

11.81 in. [300 mm]).

Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) also provided

comparisons of interaction diagrams drawn on the basis of

their proposed stress block and that of ACI 318-02 (ACI

Committee 318 2002) (which is the same used in ACI 318-05)

for columns tested by Lloyd and Rangan (1996), Ibrahim and

MacGregor (1994, 1997), and Foster and Attard (1997),

under different levels of end eccentricity (Fig. 4.14).

They concluded that the stress block of ACI 318-05 overestimated column axial and moment strengths, resulting in

unsafe strength values for columns with concrete strengths in

excess of 10,000 psi (69 MPa), whereas their proposed stress

block (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004) provided very

good agreement with experimental strength values.

A parametric study was carried out as part of this report to

provide further insight into the differences among various

with test data (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004).

ITG-4.3R-17

Table 4.1Summary of parameters 1 and 1 defining different rectangular stress blocks investigated in

parametric study

Concrete compressive strength, psi (MPa)

Equivalent rectangular stress block parameter

4000 (28)

1

1

6000 (41)

1

1

8000 (55)

1

1

10,000 (69)

1

1

12,000 (83)

1

1

15,000 (103)

1

1

ACI 318-05

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.75

0.85

0.65

0.85

0.65

0.85

0.65

0.85

0.65

Park et al. (1998)

0.82

0.85

0.88

0.85

0.80

0.85

0.85

0.75

0.78

0.85

0.81

0.65

0.76

0.80

0.78

0.65

0.75

0.75

0.74

0.65

0.73

0.75

0.70

0.65

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.75

0.85

0.65

0.85

0.65

0.75

0.65

0.60

0.65

with and without strength reduction factors , to compare the

ACI 318-05 stress block with the proposals by Ibrahim and

MacGregor (1997), Park et al. (1998), and Azizinamini et al.

(1994). The column cross section that was analyzed is shown

in Fig. 4.15, with the bending moment about the Y-Y axis.

The column was analyzed for steel ratios of 1 and 2.5% and

for concrete compressive strengths of 4000, 6000, 8000,

10,000, 12,000, and 15,000 psi (28, 41, 55, 69, 83, and 103

MPa). The stress block parameters for the compared models

are given in Table 4.1, and the results of the parametric study

are given in Fig. 4.16.

From Fig. 4.16 and Table 4.1, it can be seen that for concrete

compressive strengths of 4000, 6000, and 8000 psi (28, 41,

and 55 MPa), the only model that resulted in estimates of

strength that were noticeably different from those obtained

with the ACI 318-05 stress block was that proposed by

Ibrahim and MacGregor (1997).

The Ibrahim and MacGregor (1997) model resulted in

progressively smaller estimates of nominal strength as

concrete compressive strength increased, which indicates

that their model was the most conservative in this range. For

a concrete compressive strength of 10,000 psi (69 MPa), the

ACI 318-05 stress block and that proposed by Azizinamini

et al. (1994) produced similar results, whereas the proposals

by Ibrahim and MacGregor (1997) and Park et al. (1998)

produced more conservative estimates of strength. For a

concrete compressive strength of 12,000 psi (83 MPa), the

models by Park et al. and Azizinamini et al. have identical

stress block parameters. Consequently, strength estimates

obtained with these two models were identical, and approximately the same as the nominal strength calculated using the

model by Ibrahim and MacGregor. Finally, for a concrete

compressive strength of 15,000 psi (103 MPa), the models

by Ibrahim and MacGregor and Park et al. yielded similar

results, and were slightly more conservative than the

equivalent rectangular stress block of ACI 318-05. The

model by Azizinamini et al. (1994) resulted in significantly

lower estimates of strength than the other models.

4.8Recommendations

It is apparent from a review of the available literature that

when the equivalent rectangular stress block of ACI 318-05

is used for members with axial loads above that corresponding to balanced failure and high-strength concrete, the

ratio of nominal-to-experimental column strength decreases

as the axial load increases. Experimental results (Fig. 4.12(a))

indicate that the nominal moment and axial strengths of

columns calculated with the ACI 318-05 stress block may be

unconservative for compressive strengths greater than

approximately 12,000 psi (83 MPa).

Two consequences of overestimating the flexural

strengths of columns are that the shear demand on the

column calculated on the basis of the probable flexural strength

is overestimated and that the ratio of column-to-beam

moment strengths is overestimated. Overestimating the

shear demand is conservative because it leads to a higher

amount of transverse reinforcement. Conversely, overestimating the ratio of column-to-beam moment strengths has a

negative effect because it increases the probability of hinging in

the columns. ACI 318-05 requires a minimum ratio of

column-to-beam moment strengths of 1.2. Overestimating

column flexural strength decreases that ratio, and may even

result in a strong beam-weak column mechanism.

Because experimental results showed that the equivalent

rectangular stress block of ACI 318-05 is appropriate for

normal-strength concrete, a recommendation was developed

focusing on columns with compressive strengths greater

than 8000 psi (55 MPa). This was done by suggesting a stress

block with a variable stress intensity factor 1 for concrete

compressive strengths greater than 8000 psi (55 MPa).

Accordingly, in inch-pound units, it is recommended that:

factor 1 shall be taken as 0.85 for concrete strengths fc up

to and including 8000 psi. For strengths above 8000 psi, 1

shall be reduced continuously at a rate of 0.015 for each 1000

psi of strength in excess of 8000 psi, but 1 shall not be taken

less than 0.70. In SI units, the recommendation is that:

ITG-4.3R-18

the proposed stress block with those proposed by others, as

well as with the results of sample tests on columns using

concrete strengths of up to 18,000 psi (124 MPa).

The strength intensity factor 1 is also recommended to

calculate the strength of columns subjected to concentric

loading. The similarities in the values of 1 and the coefficient

that defines the in-place strength of concrete in columns

under concentric compression 1 makes it possible to use the

same value in computing column concentric strength Po for

convenience in design. The recommendations translate into

Eq. (4-20) and (4-21) for spirally reinforced and tied

columns, respectively

Fig. 4.17Comparisons of column interaction diagrams

and test data (fc = 10,440 psi [72 MPa], 7.8 x 11.8 in. (200

x 300 mm), = 1.3%, Ac /Ag = 0.6).

factor 1 shall be taken as 0.85 for concrete strengths fc up

to and including 55 MPa. For strengths above 55 MPa, 1

shall be reduced continuously at a rate of 0.0022 for each

6.9 MPa of strength in excess of 55 MPa, but 1 shall not be

taken less than 0.70.

A number of revisions to ACI 318-05 are proposed in

Chapter 10 of this document.

The parameter 1, which defines the depth of the stress block,

was not changed. Figures 4.17 to 4.20 show the correlation of

(4-20)

(4-21)

factor 1 shall be taken as 0.85 for concrete strengths fc up

to and including 8000 psi. For strengths above 8000 psi, 1

shall be reduced continuously at a rate of 0.015 for each 1000 psi

of strength in excess of 8000 psi, but 1 shall not be taken

less than 0.70. In SI units, the recommendation is that:

factor 1 shall be taken as 0.85 for concrete strengths fc up

to and including 55 MPa. For strengths above 55 MPa, 1

ITG-4.3R-19

of strength for columns with normal-strength concrete. For

this reason, the stress block parameters proposed by the

committee were selected so that there would be no change in

the stress block parameters of ACI 318-05 for columns with

normal-strength concrete.

test data (fc = 14,000 psi [97 MPa], 6.9 x 6.9 in. (175 x

175 mm), = 1.3%, Ac /Ag = 0.84).

test data (fc = 18,270 psi [126 MPa], 7.9 x 11.8 in. (200 x

300 mm), = 1.3%, Ac /Ag = 0.60).

loaded columns.

shall be reduced continuously at a rate of 0.0022 for each

MPa of strength in excess of 55 MPa, but 1 shall not be

taken less than 0.70.

Figure 4.20 provides a comparison of the aforementioned

recommendations with experimental data and the nominal

strengths calculated using the provisions in ACI 318-05. The

proposed parameters 1, 1, and 1 were selected based on

what was deemed an acceptable level of conservatism in the

judgment of the committee. Another factor considered by the

committee in selecting the aforementioned parameters was

that there is no experimental evidence to suggest that the

FOR BEAMS AND COLUMNS

The increased strength and enhanced performance of highstrength concrete are advantageous features for structural

applications. The increasing brittleness of concrete with

higher compressive strength is a major concern for seismic

applications, however, where toughness under repeated load

reversals is of paramount importance. For this reason, proper

confinement of concrete is essential for the safe use of highstrength concrete in moderate to high seismic applications.

This chapter addresses concrete confinement for beam and

column elements. In Chapter 21 of ACI 318-05, which

includes seismic design provisions, columns are defined as

members with an axial load ratio (Pu/ fc Ag) greater than 0.1.

The same definition is adopted throughout this document to

differentiate between beams and columns. Constitutive

models for confined concrete, salient features of previous

research, and design recommendations are provided in the

following sections.

5.1Constitutive models for confined concrete

Several researchers have indicated that constitutive models

developed for normal-strength concrete do not offer a good

representation of the behavior of high-strength concrete,

especially in the case of columns, where the characteristics of

the constitutive model have the highest impact on the calculated

response. Therefore, previously developed constitutive

models have been modified to reflect the differences in

behavior, and a number of additional analytical models have

been developed specifically for high-strength concrete.

Ahmad and Shah (1982), Martinez et al. (1984), and

Fafitis and Shah (1985) were among the first to develop

models for high-strength confined concrete based on tests of

spirally reinforced small cylinders. These models incorporate

the effect of confinement through a lateral confining pressure

that develops under hoop tension. The models were shown to

produce good correlations with tests of spirally confined

circular cylinders for concrete strengths of up to 12,000 psi

(83 MPa).

Yong et al. (1988) developed a model based on small-scale

square column tests with concrete strengths ranging between

12,000 and 13,600 psi (83 and 94 MPa). Their approach was

similar to that originally proposed by Sargin et al. (1971) for

normal-strength concrete. Azizinamini et al. (1994) subsequently modified the model on the basis of large-scale

column tests under reversed cyclic loading.

Bjerkeli et al. (1990) proposed a generalized model for

normalweight and lightweight aggregate confined concretes

with compressive strengths of up to 13,000 and 10,000 psi (90

and 69 MPa), respectively. Their model is applicable to elements

with circular, square, and rectangular section geometry.

ITG-4.3R-20

based on experimental results from the New RC project

(Mugurama and Watanabe 1990; Mugurama et al. 1991,

1993; Nagashima et al. 1992).

Cusson and Paultre (1994) proposed a model based on

tests of large-scale high-strength concrete columns. Their

model uses the effectively confined core area concept that

was originally proposed by Sheikh and Uzumeri (1982) and

modified by Mander et al. (1988). These researchers later

improved their model by introducing an iterative procedure

to compute the strain in transverse confinement reinforcement

(Cusson and Paultre 1995).

Li (1994) developed a constitutive model for confined

concrete that covered a wide range of concrete compressive

strengths between 4000 and 19,000 psi (28 and 131 MPa).

The model was quite comprehensive and elaborate, incorporating several parameters to reflect the effects of confinement.

Razvi and Saatcioglu (1999) developed a generalized

confinement model on the basis of the equivalent uniform

lateral pressure concept that they proposed earlier for

confinement of normal-strength concrete (Saatcioglu and

Razvi 1992). The model covers a wide range of concrete

compressive strengths between 3000 and 19,000 psi (21 and

131 MPa), and incorporates the effects of different reinforcement geometry and arrangement while also incorporating the

effect of high-strength transverse reinforcement.

5.2Previous research and general observations

One of the most challenging aspects about interpreting

results from beam and column studies found in the literature

is that there are differences among the loading protocols,

loading configurations, scale, and failure criteria used by

different researchers. These differences are such that P-

effects, reported shear strengths, and drifts at failure are not

directly comparable in some instances (Brachmann et al.

2004a,b). In spite of these differences, there are some wellestablished common trends that have been observed about the

behavior of beams and columns with high-strength concrete.

The ductile behavior of high-strength concrete beams is

well documented in several experimental studies found in

the literature. Based on a series of beam tests conducted at

Cornell University, Nilson (1985) observed that although the

ultimate compressive strain was smaller for high-strength

concrete, section and member displacement ductilities were

larger than in normal-strength concrete elements. Nilson also

observed that spiral reinforcement was less effective in highstrength concrete columns subjected to axial compression,

resulting in a smaller displacement ductility.

A study on the flexural ductility of high-strength concrete

beams (Shin et al. 1990) indicated that ductility ratios

increased with concrete strength for specimens with similar

amounts of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. This

was observed for both monotonic and cyclic loading.

Several researchers (Xiao and Yun 1998; Azizinamini et

al. 1994; Matamoros and Sozen 2003) have shown, based on

tests of columns subjected to cyclic loading under constant

axial load, that drift ratios exceeding 3% can be reached with

detailing conforming to the existing provisions in Chapter 21

below 0.2fc Ag (approximately 1/2 of the balanced axial

load). Even at these low levels of axial load, Matamoros and

Sozen (2003) observed that the degradation of the confined

core, as indicated by the strain demand in the lateral reinforcement, increased more rapidly with drift for higher values of

axial load. Xiao and Martirossyan (1998) and Matamoros

and Sozen (2003) observed a similar trend with increasing

compressive strength.

A study on the properties of high-strength concrete

members (Bjerkeli et al. 1990) concluded that properly

confined columns can have ductile behavior and sustain

large axial strains. The variables of the study were the

compressive strength of the concrete, with values of 9400,

13,800, and 16,700 psi (65, 95, and 115 MPa), and the shape

of the specimen, with circular and rectangular sectional

shapes included. Concrete compressive strengths reported in

this study were measured using 4 in. (102 mm) cubes. Smallscale specimens (6 x 6 in. [152 x 152 mm] rectangular

columns and 6 in. [152 mm] diameter circular columns) were

subjected to eccentrically applied monotonic loading. Both

the effectiveness of confinement and the ultimate strain

under concentric loading decreased with increases in

concrete strength. According to the authors, specimens with

a volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio (defined as the

ratio of the volume of transverse reinforcement to the core

volume confined by the transverse reinforcement) vr of

1.1% resulted in inadequate ductility, while the behavior of

specimens with vr of 3.1% was satisfactory. Circular

columns with transverse reinforcement in the form of spirals

showed larger values of maximum stress and strain at peak

stress than rectangular columns with similar volumetric

ratios of hoop reinforcement. The difference between the

two increased with the amount of transverse reinforcement.

In the set of specimens with vr of 1.1%, the ratio of strain at

peak stress for the confined case to strain at peak stress for

the unconfined case was approximately 1.1 for the rectangular

column with hoops and 1.25 for the circular column with

spiral reinforcement. The ratio of peak stress for the confined

case to peak stress for the unconfined case was approximately 0.85 for the rectangular column with hoops and 0.9

for the circular column with spiral reinforcement. In the set

of specimens with vr of 3.1%, the ratio of strain at peak

stress for the confined case to strain at peak stress for the

unconfined case was approximately 1.9 for the rectangular

column with hoops and 3.5 for the circular column with

spiral reinforcement. The ratio of peak stress for the confined

case to peak stress for the unconfined case was approximately

1.05 for the rectangular column with hoops and 1.55 for the

circular column with spiral reinforcement.

Razvi and Saatcioglu (1994) conducted an investigation

on the strength and deformability of high-strength concrete

columns based on the results of 250 tests by various

researchers. They concluded that the volume of reinforcement

required for proper confinement of high-strength columns

may be reduced with the use of high-strength steel as transverse

reinforcement, particularly for high axial loads. They indicated

that the use of high-strength steel did not improve

observed that column deformability decreased with

increasing axial compression. A specimen tested under

axial tension showed improved deformability compared

with specimens loaded in compression.

Saatcioglu et al. (1998) reviewed the effect of confinement

on concentrically loaded columns tested by several different

investigators. They concluded that the strength of confined

concrete increased with the amount of confinement independently of unconfined compressive strength. They also

observed that for a similar percent increase in strength,

higher confinement pressure is required for high-strength

concrete than for normal-strength concrete. They indicated

that values for the confinement index (defined as the product

of the volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio and the

yield strength of the transverse reinforcement divided by the

compressive strength of the concrete) recommended in the

literature to ensure ductile behavior under concentric loading

ranged between 0.15 and 0.30. The distribution and spacing

of the transverse reinforcement is another important parameter

that affects behavior. Although high-strength reinforcement

may be used to decrease the volumetric transverse reinforcement

ratio, the effectiveness of the confining reinforcement

decreases as spacing increases. Saatcioglu et al. (1998)

indicated that the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement

may not be reached for columns in which the volumetric

reinforcement ratio, the axial load, or both, is low.

Kato et al. (1998) reviewed tests carried out in Japan on

91 square columns and 59 circular columns under concentric

loading. The compressive strength of the concrete in the

specimens ranged between 4000 and 19,000 psi (28 and

131 MPa), while the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement ranged between 25,000 and 198,000 psi (172 and

1365 MPa). Their conclusions were similar to those by

Saatcioglu et al. (1998). They indicated that the maximum

stress increase in the columns was independent of the

compressive strength and proportional to the strength of the

transverse reinforcement. An upper limit of 100,000 psi

(690 MPa) on the strength of the transverse reinforcement

was suggested because calculations using the concrete models

derived from the tests suggested that the reinforcement might

not be effective beyond that point. In addition, they concluded

that increasing the spacing of the transverse reinforcement by

using high-strength reinforcement increased the probability of

failure due to buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement.

Saatcioglu and Razvi (1998) tested 26 large-scale highstrength concrete columns with a square cross section under

concentric compression. The concrete compressive strength

used varied between 8700 and 17,400 psi (60 and 120 MPa).

The researchers investigated the effects of various confinement

parameters, including the use of high-grade transverse

reinforcement. It was concluded that the lateral pressure

required to confine high-strength concrete columns can be

achieved by using high-strength transverse reinforcement. It

was cautioned, however, that this may not be achieved unless

a sufficiently high volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement

is used. The researchers further reported premature spalling

of cover concrete under concentric loading that was observed

ITG-4.3R-21

concrete. This was attributed to the stability failure of the

cover shell under high compressive stresses when a mesh of

reinforcement, consisting of longitudinal bars and closely

spaced transverse reinforcement, separated the cover from

the core. Similar conclusions were obtained by Razvi and

Saatcioglu (1999), who tested 21 large-scale, circular, highstrength concrete columns under concentric compression.

Lipien and Saatcioglu (1997) and Saatcioglu and Baingo

(1999) reported test results of large-scale square and circular

columns, respectively, under constant axial compression and

incrementally increasing lateral deformation reversals. The

level of axial compression varied between 22 and 43% of the

column strength under concentric loading Po , and the concrete

strength varied between approximately 9000 and 14,000 psi

(62 and 97 MPa). The researchers reported that a minimum

of 5% drift capacity can be attained in circular columns if the

volumetric ratio of spiral reinforcement is at least equal to

0.17fc /fyt and the limit on the yield strength of transverse

reinforcement is increased to 145,000 psi (1000 MPa). The same

requirements produced approximately 8% lateral drift when

the level of axial compression was reduced from 0.43Po to

0.22Po. It was further concluded that individual circular ties,

with 90-degree hooks well anchored into the core concrete,

performed as well as continuous spiral reinforcement having

the same material properties. Similar observations were made

for square columns with overlapping hoops and crossties.

Sheikh et al. (1994) tested four 12 in. (305 mm) square

columns with concrete strengths of approximately 8000 psi

(55 MPa) under constant axial compression and lateral

moment reversals. The level of axial compression ranged

between 0.59Po and 0.62Po. Sheikh et al. (1994) reported

displacement ductility ratios (at a 20% reduction in lateral

resistance) for the high-strength concrete columns ranging

between 2.0 and 5.4 for specimens with volumetric

confinement indexes ranging between 0.16 and 0.36. The

corresponding curvature ductility ratios ranged between 5

and 17. It was concluded that the required amount of

confinement reinforcement was proportional to concrete

strength. The improvement in column ductility appeared to be

proportional to the amount of confinement steel.

Azizinamini et al. (1993, 1994) tested nine 12 in. (305 mm)

square columns under 0.20Po, 0.30Po, and 0.40Po. The

specimens consisted of a central stub representing the joint

region of a frame, with two columns extending outward.

Lateral loads were applied at the center of the stub while the

columns were subjected to a constant axial load. The transverse

reinforcement had yield strengths of 60 and 120 ksi (414 and

827 MPa), with volumetric confinement indexes ranging

between 0.13 and 0.37. The concrete compressive strengths

ranged between 3800 and 15,000 psi (26 and 103 MPa).

Azizinamini et al. (1994) reported that the maximum drift

ratios, defined by the authors as the maximum drift ratio at

which test columns were capable of withstanding two

complete cycles of horizontal displacement, ranged between

3.0 and 5.1%. The test data indicated that an increase in

concrete strength did not necessarily result in reductions in

the column displacement ductility ratio. Reducing the

ITG-4.3R-22

ratios. When comparing the behavior of specimens with

similar amounts of transverse reinforcement and different

yield strengths, Azizinamini et al. (1994) concluded that

increasing the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement

had no significant effect on the maximum drift ratio. They

also expressed concern that, because of buckling of the

longitudinal reinforcement, increasing the spacing between

hoops while increasing the yield strength of the transverse

reinforcement to achieve a similar confinement index would

not be fully effective. Test results from two specimens with

1-5/8 and 2-5/8 in. (41 and 67 mm) hoop spacing and transverse

reinforcement yield strengths of 71 and 109 ksi (490 and

752 MPa), respectively, showed that the specimen with the

closer hoop spacing and lower yield strength had a higher

maximum drift ratio (3.3%) than the specimen with the

higher yield strength and larger stirrup spacing (2.4%). They

attributed the difference in behavior to premature buckling

of the longitudinal reinforcement observed in the specimen

with the larger stirrup spacing.

Thomsen and Wallace (1994) tested twelve 6 in. (152 mm)

square column specimens with a concrete compressive

strength of approximately 12,000 psi (83 MPa). The specimens

consisted of cantilever columns with a foundation block that

was anchored to the reaction floor. The axial and lateral loads

were applied at the free end of the cantilever. Test variables

were the spacing and configuration of the transverse reinforcement, the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement (115

and 185 ksi [793 and 1276 MPa]), and the axial load ratio (0,

0.1, and 0.2). Measurements indicated that the longitudinal

reinforcement started to yield at a drift ratio of 1%. Shear and

flexural strengths deteriorated at drift ratios exceeding 2%,

and severe damage occurred at drift ratios higher than 4%.

The longitudinal reinforcement buckled in specimens with

axial load ratios of 0.2 and at drift ratios greater than 4%. The

main conclusion of the study by Thomsen and Wallace was

that high-strength reinforcement may be used effectively to

confine high-strength concrete.

A significant amount of experimental data from columns

with axial load ratios fp = P/fc Ag exceeding 0.3 is available

from an extensive study on the behavior of concrete

members with high-strength materials sponsored by the

Ministry of Construction in Japan (Aoyama et al. 1990).

Because the maximum number of stories in high-rise buildings

is limited by concrete strength, Japanese engineers believe

that strengths higher than 6000 psi (41 MPa) would be essential

to the construction of buildings taller than 30 stories.

Tests conducted in Japan focused on columns subjected to

axial load ratios above 0.3 (Aoyama et al. 1990; Sakaguchi

et al. 1990; Muguruma and Watanabe 1990; Sugano et al.

1990; Kimura et al. 1995; Hibi et al. 1991). These tests

showed a strong correlation among axial load, amount of

confinement, and the drift capacity (drift limit) of columns.

A large amount of transverse reinforcement was required to

obtain ductile behavior in columns subjected to axial loads

greater than the balanced load. Japanese researchers

addressed this problem by incorporating high-strength steel

as transverse reinforcement.

high-strength concrete columns with compressive strengths

of 11,200 and 13,600 psi (77 and 94 MPa) and a shear spandepth ratio of 1.1. The specimens consisted of columns with

rigid blocks at the top and bottom. The bottom block was

attached to the reaction floor, while the top block was used

to apply the lateral and vertical loads. The column specimens

were deformed in double curvature. All specimens had transverse reinforcement with a yield strength of 200,000 psi

(1379 MPa). The variables of the study were the amount of

transverse reinforcement, with volumetric confinement

indexes ranging between 0 and 0.27, and the axial load ratio,

which was set to 0, 0.2, or 0.4. The majority of the columns were

tested with an axial load ratio of 0.4. Because the main thrust of

the study was to investigate the shear strength of the columns,

no limiting drift values were reported. Sakaguchi et al. (1990)

concluded that in specimens with very light amounts of transverse reinforcement, a shear slip failure occurred soon after the

formation of an inclined crack. In specimens with intermediate

and high amounts of transverse reinforcement, shear strength

increased with the amount of reinforcement. They indicated that

a relatively high amount of transverse reinforcement was

needed to maintain ductile behavior after the formation of

inclined cracks in light of the low shear span-depth ratio.

Muguruma and Watanabe (1990) tested eight specimens,

varying the transverse reinforcement yield strength between

48,000 and 115,000 psi (331 and 793 MPa) while maintaining

a constant volumetric ratio vr of 1.6%. The specimens

consisted of a central stub with two columns extending

outward. The lateral load was applied at the center of the

stub, deforming the specimens in single curvature, while the

axial load was maintained constant. Four tests were

conducted on specimens with a concrete compressive

strength of 12,400 psi (85 MPa) at axial load ratios fp of 0.4

and 0.6. For these specimens, the limiting drift ratio, defined

as the drift ratio attained without a significant loss in

strength, ranged between 1.5 and 10%. There was a strong

correlation among the limiting drift ratio, axial load, and the

yield strength of the transverse reinforcement. The limiting

drift ratio decreased as the axial load ratio increased.

Increasing the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement

had the opposite effect. The limiting drift ratio increased by

a factor as high as 3 when the yield strength of the transverse

reinforcement was increased from 48,000 to 115,000 psi

(331 and 793 MPa). The two specimens with a volumetric

confinement index cp (defined as vr fyt /fc ) of 0.06 had

limiting drift ratios of 6.0% for fp = 0.4 and 1.5% for fp =

0.63. When the volumetric reinforcement index was

increased to 0.15 through the use of high-strength transverse

reinforcement, the limiting drift ratio increased to over 10%

for fp = 0.4 and 4.5% for fp = 0.63. The remaining four specimens had a concrete compressive strength of 16,800 psi

(116 MPa) and were tested at axial load ratios of 0.25 and

0.41. Limiting drift ratios for these specimens varied

between 3.0 and 8.5%. A volumetric confinement index of

0.05 was sufficient to attain a limiting drift ratio of 3.0% for

an axial load ratio of 0.41. The authors concluded it was

possible to achieve a high ductility ratio in columns with

transverse reinforcement.

A research program, motivated by the need to use highstrength materials in high-rise structures, was carried out in

Tokyo. It comprised a first series of eight column tests and

10 beam tests (Sugano et al. 1990), and a second series of five

column tests (Kimura et al. 1995). The specimens each

consisted of a column with rigid blocks at the top and bottom.

The specimens were deformed in double curvature while the

axial load was maintained constant. The first test series showed

excellent behavior for column specimens with an axial load

ratio of 0.3, which achieved limiting drift ratios of 4%. The

limiting drift ratio increased in proportion to the yield strength

of the transverse reinforcement normalized by the concrete

compressive strength. The authors suggested a minimum

confinement index of 0.10 to achieve limiting drift ratios of

2% at an axial load ratio of 0.6. The beams that were tested

had span-depth ratios of 1.5, concrete compressive strengths

ranging from 5800 to 12,000 psi (40 to 83 MPa), longitudinal

reinforcement ratios of 1.9 and 2.9%, transverse reinforcement with yield strengths of 44.3, 114.6, and 197 ksi (305,

790, and 1358 MPa), and confinement indexes ranging from

0.08 to 0.36. Beams with high confinement indexes (above

0.15) had limiting drift ratios above 5%; the limiting drift ratio

was not very sensitive to the amount of transverse reinforcement or concrete compressive strength. The second series in

the study concluded that the ductility of high-strength concrete

columns was strongly affected by both the level of axial

compression and the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement. The authors stated that the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement normalized by the compressive strength

of the concrete was an appropriate index to evaluate ductility.

A series of five tests at the University of Tokyo focused on

column behavior after flexural yielding (Hibi et al. 1991).

The specimens each consisted of a column with rigid blocks

at the top and bottom. The specimens were deformed in

double curvature while the axial load was maintained

constant. The columns had axial load ratios of 0.30 and 0.45,

and a shear span-depth ratio of 1.5. The amount and the

strength of the transverse reinforcement were varied, while

the quantity t fyt was maintained approximately constant.

The tests showed a strong correlation between toughness and

axial load. The behavior of specimens with an axial load

ratio of 0.3 was very ductile, achieving limiting drift ratios

exceeding 4%. Specimens with higher axial loads failed in

shear, with limiting drift ratios on the order of 3.5%. At drift

ratios below 2%, the University of Tokyo tests indicated that

the shear component of the lateral deflection within the

plastic hinge region was similar for all specimens, regardless

of axial load. It must be pointed out, however, that none of

the specimens reached yielding of the transverse reinforcement,

thus limiting the degradation of the confined core within the

plastic hinge region.

All of these test results showed that beams and columns

made with high-strength concrete can be used safely in

seismic design for a wide range of axial loads, provided that

an adequate amount of transverse reinforcement is provided

to confine the core concrete.

ITG-4.3R-23

confinement reinforcement required in columns

Section 21.4.4 of ACI 318-05 specifies the minimum

amount of transverse reinforcement for confining the core

concrete and providing lateral support to the longitudinal

reinforcement in columns subjected to cyclic loading.

Equation (21-2) in ACI 318-05 specifies the minimum

volumetric ratio of spiral or circular hoop reinforcement for

circular columns as

s = 0.12fc/fyt

For rectangular columns, the minimum amount of reinforcement required by ACI 318-05 is given by Eq. (21-3) and (21-4)

f c A g

Ash = 0.3sbc ---- -------- 1

f yt A ch

f c

Ash = 0.09sbc ---f yt

area Ag to area of the confined core Ach is greater than 1.3.

As a result, ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-3), is likely to control for

small columns. These requirements were developed to

ensure that the strength of the confined core would be sufficient

to compensate for the loss in axial strength that occurs when

the concrete in the exterior shell of the column spalls off.

ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-2) and (21-4), imply that the confining

stress provided by rectangular hoops is less effective than

that provided by a similar volume of spiral reinforcement. A

comparison between the volumetric reinforcement ratio

required to confine a similar volume of concrete in a circular

column with spiral reinforcement, according to ACI 318-05,

Eq. (21-2), and a rectangular column with rectangular hoops,

according to Eq. (21-4), indicates that spiral reinforcement is

considered to be approximately 50% more effective than

hoop reinforcement. The commentary in ACI 318-05 indicates

that, although the strength and ductility of columns are

affected by the amount of axial load, the axial loads and

deformation demands during an earthquake are not known

with sufficient accuracy to justify the calculation of the

amount of transverse reinforcement as a function of these

parameters.

Experimental results (Matamoros and Sozen 2003) have

shown that the amount of transverse reinforcement required

by ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-2) to (21-4), will result in limiting

drift ratios exceeding 3% for concrete compressive strengths

up to 10,000 psi (69 MPa) and axial load ratios below

0.2fc Ag. The main concerns about ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-2) to

(21-4), are whether they provide sufficient transverse

reinforcement to properly confine high-strength columns

with axial loads greater than the balanced failure load, and

that they require excessive amounts of transverse reinforcement

for members with lower axial load, leading to congestion of

reinforcement and concrete placement problems. Another

concern, brought to attention by Bayrak and Sheikh (1998),

ITG-4.3R-24

amount of transverse reinforcement required for proper

confinement will create a plane of weakness that may lead to

loss of the shell of the column before an axial strain of 0.003

is attained.

Confinement provisions in the New Zealand concrete

design standard NZS 3101:1995 recognize the effect of axial

load on column behavior. In potential plastic hinge regions,

when hoop reinforcement is used, the design standard

requires that the total area of transverse bars Ash in each of

the transverse directions within spacing s should not be less

than that given by the following three equations

1.3 l m A g f c P

A sh

-------- ----- --------------------- = ---------------------

sh

3.3 A ch f yt f c A g

A sh =

Ate

(5-1)

(5-2)

The area of a tie leg Ate required to tie the longitudinal bars

reliant on it is defined as

A st f yl

A te = 10 -----------s

f yt

1 A st f yl s

A te = ------ ----------- --------16 f yt 100

(5-3)

where

=

l

Ast =

total area of nonprestressed longitudinal reinforcement (bars or shapes);

m

= fyl /0.85fc ;

Ag = gross area of concrete section;

Ach = cross-sectional area of structural member measured

out-to-out of the transverse reinforcement;

s

= center-to-center spacing of hoop sets;

h = core dimension perpendicular to transverse

reinforcement providing confinement measured

to outside of hoops;

= specified yield strength of longitudinal reinforcefyl

ment;

fyt

= specified yield strength of transverse reinforcement;

= specified compressive strength of concrete;

fc

P

= unfactored axial load;

0.85 if plastic hinging can occur, or 1.0 otherwise;

Ate = sum of areas of legs required to tie the longitudinal

bars; and

Ab = sum of areas of longitudinal bars tied to the hoop

for lateral support.

The following limits apply

Ag/Ach 1.2

(5-4)

lm 0.4

(5-5)

(5-6)

(5-7)

center-to-center spacing in potential plastic hinge regions

should not exceed the smaller of 1/4 of the smaller dimension

of the cross section, or six longitudinal bar diameters. The

spacing between adjacent hoop legs or crossties should not

exceed 8 in. (203 mm), or 1/4 of the dimension of the section

parallel to the direction of the spacing.

The previous equations were based on the results of

theoretical cyclic moment-curvature analyses (Park et al.

1998) for compressive strengths up to 5800 psi (40 MPa).

According to Park et al., analyses by Li (1994) showed that

the equations can be projected to columns with concrete

compressive strengths up to 14,500 psi (100 MPa) provided

that the maximum value of yield strength of the transverse

reinforcement used in the calculations is limited to 116,000 psi

(800 MPa).

Li and Park (2004) carried out a parametric study to verify

whether the provisions for confining reinforcement in ACI

318-05 and NZS 3101:1995 were applicable to high-strength

concrete columns. They investigated the effect of several

parameters on the available strength and curvature ductility

of plastic hinge regions of columns. The parameters investigated by Li and Park were concrete compressive strength,

axial load level, yield strength of the transverse reinforcement,

volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement, percentage of

longitudinal reinforcement, and ratio of the area of the

confined core to the total area of the cross section. They

performed a series of cyclic moment-curvature analyses

based on stress-strain relationships previously derived for

high-strength concrete to develop a set of design equations

relating the amount of transverse reinforcement to the curvature ductility ratio.

Li and Park (2004) found that concrete compressive

strength and the ratio of the area of confined core to area of

the cross section had a considerable influence on the quantity

of confining reinforcement needed to achieve a given

ductility ratio. They also found that the required amount of

transverse reinforcement needed to achieve a given curvature

ductility ratio increased significantly as the axial load ratio

increased, and that the amount of transverse reinforcement

increased as the percentage of longitudinal reinforcement

increased. They adopted a curvature ductility ratio of 20 as

indicative of adequate column toughness. They stated that a

curvature ductility ratio of 20 was likely to result in displacement

ductility ratios for the overall structure on the order of 4 to 6.

They also suggested a curvature ductility ratio of at least 10

for frames where limited ductility would be sufficient.

Li and Park (2004) found that the expressions in ACI 318-05

produced columns with adequate toughness for low levels of

axial load, but were unconservative for high levels of axial

load. Within the data set used in their study, there were four

high-strength concrete columns with rectilinear normalstrength reinforcement ( fyt < 72,500 psi [ fyt < 500 MPa])

that contained 200, 138, 180, and 167% of the confining transverse reinforcement required by ACI 318-05. These columns

achieved curvature ductility ratios of 17, 14, 21, and 14,

respectivelyall below or very close to the limit of 20 that

they suggested as a performance criterion.

It was concluded by Li and Park (2004) that the amount of

confining reinforcement required by ACI 318-05 was

inadequate to achieve curvature ductility ratios of 10 under

high axial loads.

Li and Park proposed the following expression for the

amount of confinement needed for columns with rectilinear

normal-yield-strength ( fyt < 72,500 psi [ fyt < 500 MPa])

reinforcement

A sh

A ( u y 33 l m + 22 ) f c P u

------- = -------g- ---------------------------------------------------- ----- --------------sb c

A ch

f yt f c A g

f c

= 91 ----------1450

(5-15)

and

= 91 0.1fc

(fc in MPa)

reinforcement, they proposed

A sh

A g ( u y 55 l m + 25 ) f c P u

------- = ------- ----------------------------------------------------- ----- --------------sb c

A ch

79

f yt f c A g

(5-16)

(5-8)

where

= 117 when fc < 10,000 psi (70 MPa)

( fc in psi)

ITG-4.3R-25

(5-9)

i 0.85f c

--------------------- 0.4

f yt

(5-17)

Ag

------- 1.5

A ch

(5-18)

and

f c 2 f c

= ------------ ---------- + 539.4 when fc 10,000 (fc in

648.6

15.2

psi)

(5-10)

For columns confined by circular normal-yield-strength

steel, they proposed the following

A sh

A ( u y 33 l m + 22 ) f c P u

------ = ------g- ---------------------------------------------------- ----- --------------- 0.006

sb c

A ch

111

f yt f c A g

(5-11)

where

= 1.1 when fc < 11,600 psi (80 MPa)

(5-12)

(5-13)

and

estimated, with reasonable accuracy, the curvature ductility

ratio of 56 high-strength concrete columns reported in the

literature.

Due to the emphasis placed on performance-based design,

more recent studies focus on quantifying the relationship

between limiting drift (or ductility ratio), axial load, and the

amount of confinement. Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002)

developed a procedure to estimate the amount of transverse

reinforcement needed to sustain a given drift demand in

columns subjected to cyclic loading. Their procedure was

derived based on nonlinear static analyses, using a computer

program that incorporated analytical models for concrete

confinement, steel strain-hardening, bar buckling, formation

and progression of plastic hinging, and anchorage slip. They

indicated that their computer program was verified extensively

against a large volume of column test data. They proposed

the following expression for the transverse reinforcement

area ratio tc needed to attain a given limiting drift ratio

under a specified level of axial load

f c A g

1 - -----

P

tc = 14 ---- -------- 1 ---------f yt A ch k P o

reinforcement (fyt 72,500 psi [ fyt 500 MPa]), they

proposed the following

A sh

A g ( u y 30 l m + 22 ) f c P u

------- = ------- ----------------------------------------------------- ----- --------------sb c

A ch

f yt f c A g

where

(5-19)

(5-20)

ve

where

(5-14)

2

bc

k ve = 0.15 ------sh x

(5-21)

ITG-4.3R-26

proposal by Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002).

P

----- 0.2

Po

(5-22)

Ag

------- 1 0.3

A ch

(5-23)

is computed as the ratio of total transverse steel in each direction

divided by the concrete area defined by core dimension bc

times the vertical spacing of the transverse reinforcement s.

The core dimension is defined as the center-to-center

dimension of the perimeter tie, hoop, or spiral perpendicular

to the confinement reinforcement under consideration. In

Eq. (5-21), bc /s is the ratio of core dimension to vertical

spacing of the transverse reinforcement, and bc /hx is the ratio

of core dimension to the center-to-center distance between

laterally supported longitudinal reinforcement. The coefficient

kve reflects the efficiency of reinforcement arrangement as a

function of the spacing of the transverse reinforcement along

the column height and the distance between laterally supported

longitudinal bars. A value kve = 1.0 represents the most efficient

arrangement of closely spaced circular hoops with anchored

hooks and spirals. The P/Po ratio defines the level of axial load

relative to column concentric capacity Po, and defines the drift

ratio as relative column displacement divided by column height.

Ag and Ach are cross-sectional areas based on gross sectional

dimensions and core dimensions, respectively.

Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002) indicated that because the

story drift ratio is limited to 2.0 to 2.5% by current building

codes, Eq. (5-20) can be simplified for use in high seismic

applications by assuming a permissible drift ratio of 2.5%

and replacing the ratio P/Po by Pu /Po in Eq. (5-20) and (5-22).

This results in Eq. (5-24) with the limits specified as in

Eq. (5-22) and (5-23)

f c A g

1 P

tc = 0.35 ---- -------- 1 ----------- ----f yt A ch k P 0

ve

(5-24)

possibly be applied on the column during a strong earthquake. This quantity may be computed as the factored axial

load calculated in accordance with ACI 318-05, or the axial

force associated with the formation of probable moment

resistances at the ends of the framing beams dictated by

capacity design requirements. The capacity reduction factor

may be taken as 0.9 to reflect the improved ductility in the

column due to effects of confinement.

Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002), based on a comparison of

their proposed equations with those in ACI 318-05 (Fig. 5.1),

concluded that ACI 318-05 provisions result in overly

conservative requirements for spiral columns and some

rectangular columns subjected to low levels of axial loads.

They also concluded that ACI 318-05 requirements can be

unsafe when the axial load level is above approximately 40% of

the column strength under concentric loading Po , particularly for

columns with inefficient arrangements of transverse reinforcement. Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002) pointed out that, unlike their

proposed equations, the New Zealand specification does not

include an efficiency parameter for the arrangement of

transverse reinforcement, resulting in overly conservative designs

for columns with superior arrangements of reinforcement.

Brachmann et al. (2004a,b) reviewed test results from 184

rectangular columns subjected to shear reversals under

constant axial load with axial load ratios ranging from 0 to

0.7. The database used by Brachmann et al. included tests

carried out in Japan with high-strength concrete and high

axial load ratios. The equation proposed by Brachmann et al.

was derived by analyzing the effect of confinement on the

limiting drift ratio of members without axial load. The effect

of the axial load ratio on the effectiveness of confinement

was determined by grouping test results according to the

level of axial load and comparing the estimated drift ratio

with that of members without axial load. This is illustrated in

Fig. 5.2, which shows that increasing the level of axial load

results in a decrease of the limiting drift ratio. Brachmann et

al. (2004b) proposed the following relationship between drift

limit, axial load, and amount of confinement, as an alternative

to Eq. (21-4) of ACI 318-05

DR lim 2 f c

tr = ----------------------- 1 1.1f p f yt

(5-25)

The term tr refers to the transverse reinforcement ratio,

which may be expressed in terms of the volumetric or area

transverse reinforcement ratio, depending on the value of .

Brachman et al. (2004b) recommended modifying Eq. (5-25)

by replacing the axial load ratio fp by the core axial load ratio

fpc to assure adequate confinement of the core for columns

with thick cover

DR lim 2 f c

tr = ---------------------- ---- 1 0.8f pc f yt

(5-26)

ITG-4.3R-27

design Eq. (5-25) and (5-26)

Transverse

reinforcement ratio tr

Coefficient ,

circular sections

rectangular sections

vr

10

12

Transverse

Coefficient ,

Type of seismic reinforcement Coefficient , square and rectangular

ratio tr

application

circular columns

columns

Moderate

High

vr

0.15

0.18

0.09

0.12

vr

0.25

0.30

0.15

0.20

(Brachmann et al. 2004a).

so that the probability of overestimating the limiting drift in

a column with the amount of transverse reinforcement

provided in accordance with the previous equations would be

15% (one standard deviation from the mean). A comparison of

measured and calculated limiting drift ratios is presented in

Fig. 5.3. Because the equation relates the amount of confinement

to the limiting drift ratio of a column, it can be used by

designers seeking different levels of performance or expected

drift demands.

Recommendations for design for different levels of

seismic applications can be derived by specifying suitable

values for the limiting drift ratio. According to Brachmann et

al. (2004a), yielding of the specimens occurred at a drift ratio

of approximately 1%. Consequently, the difference between

the specified limiting drift ratio and a drift ratio of 1% is an

indication of the capability of a column to deform in the

inelastic range of response without significant loss in lateral

resistance. Prescriptive confinement requirements for

regions of moderate and high seismic applications can be

established by conservatively assuming limiting drift ratios

of 1.5 and 2.5%. The resulting design expression for the two

different definitions of the transverse reinforcement ratio is

2f

c

tr = ----------------------- --- 1 0.8f pc f yt

(5-27)

Equation (5-27) requires the same amount of transverse

reinforcement as ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-4), in rectangular

columns of special moment frames with a core axial load

ratio fpc of 0.4. In the case of circular columns, the same

amount of transverse reinforcement is required at a core axial

load ratio fpc of 0.35. For a rectangular column with two

symmetric layers of reinforcement, an axial load ratio of 0.4

corresponds approximately to the balanced failure condition.

The study by Brachmann et al. (2004a and b) was based on

data from rectangular columns. Equations (21-2) and (21-4)

of ACI 318-05 imply that the effectiveness of rectangular

hoops is approximately 2/3 that of spiral reinforcement.

versus volumetric confinement index cp = vpfyt /fc according

to Eq. (5-26).

Brachmann et al. (2004b) based their recommendation for

circular columns on a similar assumption.

Test data in the study by Brachmann et al. (2004a,b) had

compressive strengths ranging from 3000 to 17,000 psi (21

to 117 MPa); uniform factors of safety for columns were

obtained throughout the range of compressive strengths.

5.4Definition of limiting drift ratio on basis of

expected drift demand

The seismic design provisions in ASCE/SEI 7-05 (ASCE/

SEI 2006) require in Section 12.12 that beams and columns

of moment-resisting frames be proportioned for stiffness so

that the interstory drift demand generated by the design

earthquake forces is limited to 2.0% of story height for

standard-occupancy buildings (Seismic Occupancy Category

III). The design earthquake is defined in Section 11.4.4 of

ASCE/SEI 7-05 as that with a seismic demand equal to 2/3

of the seismic demand corresponding to the maximum

considered earthquake (MCE), which has a 2% probability

of being exceeded in a period of 50 years. There is a probability that the drift demands experienced during the life cycle

of a standard occupancy structure may exceed the 2% limit

established in ASCE/SEI 7-05.

ITG-4.3R-28

Drift demand can be greater than that computed in accordance with Sections 12.8.6 and 12.9.2 of ASCE/SEI 7-05

because of the drift computation procedure that is implemented

in ASCE/SEI 7-05. The most frequently used drift computation

procedure in ASCE/SEI 7-05 (Section 12.8.6) involves an

elastic analysis of the building structure using design-level

earthquake forces. The design-level earthquake forces

specified in Section 12.8.3 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 are obtained

from an elastic design response spectrum that produces a

seismic response coefficient Cs (Section 12.8.1), which is

inversely proportional to the response modification factor R.

Because proportioning the strength of the structure on the

basis of reduced earthquake forces does not reduce the drift

demands (Shimazaki and Sozen 1984; Shimazaki 1988;

Lepage 1997; Browning 2001; Matamoros et al. 2003), the

reduced displacement demands computed based on the

forces specified in Section 12.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-05, with the

inclusion of the coefficient R must be adjusted to obtain

reasonable estimates of the displacement demands caused by

the design earthquake. This is accomplished in Sections

12.8.6 and 12.9.2 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 through the use of the

deflection amplification factor Cd. Current values of R and

Cd specified in Table 12.2-1 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 for special

reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames are 8 and 5.5,

respectively. There is a significant body of research based on

nonlinear analyses of reinforced concrete frames and physical

tests of small-scale specimens in earthquake simulators

showing that these two factors are approximately equal for

special reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames if the

stiffnesses of the frames used in the linear analysis are

calculated on the basis of cracked section properties (Shibata

and Sozen 1976; Shimazaki and Sozen 1984; Lepage 1997;

Browning 2001; Matamoros et al. 2004). Consequently, drift

demands in special moment-resisting frames calculated

using the R and Cd factors specified in Table 12.2-1 of

ASCE/SEI 7-05 may underestimate the drift demand associated

with the design earthquake by as much as 45%.

Also, as hinges form in columns, the nonlinear response

tends to concentrate drift demands in the stories between

plastic hinges in columns rather than distributing them

evenly over the height of a building, as an elastic analysis

would indicate. In special reinforced concrete moment

frames, however, the strong column-weak beam provision

guards against plastic hinges within columns from being

close to one another, that is, plastic mechanisms over only a

few stories, where large drifts are concentrated.

One of the criteria that must be considered in establishing

a limiting drift for the purpose of determining the amount of

confinement in columns is the performance objective

outlined by design codes. The general goals of the code

provisions, though not specifically stated, are to provide life

safety in the design-level earthquake and collapse prevention

for the MCE (BSSC 2004). The amount of confinement is

primarily determined by the need for providing life safety in

the design earthquake while considering collapse prevention

in the MCE. The drift demand from the MCE may be as high

as 50% greater than the drift demand from the design-level

earthquake.

investigating the relationship between column performance

and the amount of transverse reinforcement used to confine

the concrete has been the point in the hysteresis curve

corresponding to a 20% reduction in the maximum lateral

load that was measured. If the performance of a frame

expected in the MCE is considered, the amount of confinement

must be adequate to achieve collapse prevention at drift

demands approximately 50% greater than the 2% interstory

drift limit established in Section 12.12 of ASCE/SEI 7-05.

Experimental results from columns tested to axial load

failure at the University of California (Lynn 2001; Sezen

2002) show that specimens with significantly less transverse

reinforcement than that specified by the proposals summarized

in Section 5.3 were able to sustain drift demands before axial

load failure exceeding 3.5% of the story height. It must be

noted, however, that all columns tested by Lynn (2001) and

Sezen (2002) were made with normal-strength concrete and

that there were no references found addressing the axial load

failure of columns with high-strength concrete.

5.5Use of high-yield-strength reinforcement

for confinement

Because the amount of confinement required in columns is

proportional to the compressive strength of the concrete,

congestion problems arise in potential plastic hinge regions

of columns with high-strength concrete, particularly in the

beam-column joints. Conversely, the amount of required

confinement reinforcement is inversely proportional to the

yield strength of the reinforcement, which presents the possibility of decreasing the volume of transverse reinforcement,

thereby relieving congestion.

Several studies done at the University of Ottawa have

investigated the use of high-strength reinforcement for the

confinement of high-strength concrete columns (Saatcioglu

and Razvi 1998; Razvi and Saatcioglu 1999; Lipien and

Saatcioglu 1997; Saatcioglu and Baingo 1999; Saatcioglu

and Razvi 2002). The researchers tested a total of 66 nearly

full-size circular and square columns, with concrete strengths

ranging between 8700 and 18,000 psi (60 and 124 MPa), under

either monotonically increasing concentric compression or a

constant compression accompanied by incrementally

increasing lateral deformation reversals. Three different

grades of transverse reinforcement were used, with yield

strengths of 60,000, 83,000, and 145,000 psi (414, 572, and

1000 MPa). The researchers concluded that, given the right

combination of parameters, transverse reinforcement with

yield strengths up to 145,000 psi (1000 MPa) can be effective

in confining high-strength concrete columns, increasing the

column lateral drift ratio up to a minimum of 5% in heavily

loaded columns (0.43Po) and 8% in lightly loaded columns

(0.22Po). The researchers focused on finding how much of

the additional strength available in transverse reinforcement

with higher nominal yield strengths could be mobilized by a

relatively brittle material like high-strength concrete before

significant strength degradation. They observed that the

effectiveness of transverse reinforcement increased with

confinement efficiency, the volumetric ratio of steel, and the

improved by selecting a superior reinforcement arrangement,

either in the form of circular hoops or spirals, where hoop

tension results in uniform confinement pressure, or by

selecting well-distributed longitudinal reinforcement laterally

supported by perimeter and overlapping hoops, crossties, or

both. According to the researchers, a square column with

12 longitudinal bars in which each bar is supported by the

corner of a hoop or the hook of a crosstie provides an

example of a superior arrangement, while a square column

with four corner bars tied by perimeter hoops exemplifies a

poor reinforcement arrangement for rectilinear reinforcement.

Similarly, the spacing of transverse reinforcement along the

column height affects the efficiency of confinement quite

significantly. It was shown that a spacing of 1/4 of the

smaller cross-sectional dimension was adequate to provide

sufficient confinement efficiency, with reductions in efficiency

occurring as the spacing approached 1/2 of the smaller

cross-sectional dimension. The confinement efficiency was

quantified empirically by Razvi and Saatcioglu (1999).

Accordingly, the confinement efficiency parameter kve

equals 1.0 for closely spaced circular hoops or spirals, and can

be computed by Eq. (5-24) for rectilinear reinforcement.

Tests of columns under concentric compression indicated

that square columns with 12,000 to 18,000 psi (83 to 124 MPa)

concrete and confinement efficiency parameter kve 0.5

experienced yielding of transverse reinforcement with yield

strength of 145 ksi (1000 MPa) when the volumetric ratio of

reinforcement was approximately 2%. Circular columns

with similar properties required a smaller volumetric ratio of

1.3% to trigger the yielding of 145 ksi (1000 MPa) reinforcement

when spiral reinforcement (kve = 1.0) was used. The yielding

of high-strength transverse reinforcement was recorded at or

immediately after column strength, often just before the

onset of significant strength degradation. The following

expression was suggested by Razvi and Saatcioglu (1999)

for the computation of transverse steel stress at or shortly after

the attainment of strength under concentric compression

k ve tc

f s = E s 0.0025 + 0.213 ------------- f

f co

yt

(5-28)

is

the in-place strength of unconfined concrete in the column in

psi (often taken as 0.85fc ); and Es is the modulus of elasticity

of reinforcing steel.

According to Razvi and Saatcioglu (2002), the upper limit

on the yield strength of steel may be taken as 200,000 psi

(1379 MPa) because this was the maximum yield strength of

transverse reinforcement used (Nagashima et al. 1992) in the

high-strength concrete column tests evaluated.

The level of axial load was found to be another parameter

that affects the effectiveness of high-strength transverse

reinforcement for columns subjected to lateral loading

(Saatcioglu and Baingo 1999). Spirals with 145 ksi (1000 MPa)

yield strength developed their tensile strength in columns

ITG-4.3R-29

strength decay, when the level of axial load was 0.43Po.

When the level of axial compression dropped to 0.22Po, the

stress in spirals did not exceed approximately 110,000 psi

(758 MPa). Steel with 90 ksi (621 MPa) yield strength was

effective in all columns tested. Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002)

recommended a limit of 110 ksi (758 MPa) on the yield

strength of transverse reinforcement for confinement design

when column axial compression is at least 20% of its strength

under concentric loading, and 90 ksi (621 MPa) otherwise.

Otani et al. (1998) and Otani (1995) described the use of

high-strength reinforcement in the seismic design guidelines

for high-rise reinforced concrete buildings in Japan.

According to Otani (1995), high yield strength is normally

attained by heat treatment of hot-rolled, chemically

controlled killed steel. The chemical composition of the

reinforcing steel must be carefully controlled to develop

large elongations at fracture, especially when welding is

used to splice closed hoops and stirrups. Shear reinforcement

is provided in the form of rectangular hoops and stirrups with

135-degree hooks, circular or rectangular spirals, supplementary

ties with 135- or 90-degree hooks, or welded closed hoops

and stirrups. The yield strength is defined by the 0.2%

permanent offset. The fracture strain is measured over a

gauge length of eight times the nominal bar diameter, and

must not be less than 0.05 at any region of the bar, including

sections where bars have been connected through welding.

Four types of high-yield-strength bars were developed in

Japan as part of the New RC project for use as transverse

reinforcement, with yield strengths ranging from 99,000 to

185,000 psi (683 to 1276 MPa). These are: 1) UHY685;

2) KSS785; 3) SPR785; and 4) SBPD1275/1420 steel bars.

Grade 685 steel barsMechanical characteristics of

UHY685 reinforcement (Hokuetsu Metal Co. 1990) are:

a) minimum yield strength of 99,000 psi (683 MPa); b) minimum

tensile strength of 128,000 psi (883 MPa); and c) minimum

fracture strain of 0.10. The nominal diameters of these bars

are 0.35, 0.39, 0.50, and 0.63 in. (9.00, 9.53, 12.7, and

15.9 mm), which give nominal cross-sectional areas of 0.10,

0.11, 0.20, and 0.31 in.2 (63.6, 71.3, 126.7, and 198.6

mm2), respectively (Otani 1995). According to Otani et al.

(1998), a second type of Grade 685 reinforcement

(USD685B) was developed for use as longitudinal reinforcement in plastic hinge regions. The yield strength of

USD685B reinforcement must range between 99,000 and

110,000 psi (683 and 758 MPa), and the ratio of yield

strength to tensile strength must be less than or equal to 0.8.

This type of reinforcement must have a strain of at least

0.014 at the upper-bound yield stress of 110,000 psi (758 MPa)

to ensure an adequate yield plateau.

KSS785 steel barsMechanical characteristics of

KSS785 reinforcement (Kobe Steel Ltd. 1989; Sumitomo

Electrical Industries Ltd. 1989; Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd.

1989) are: a) minimum yield strength of 114,000 psi (786 MPa);

b) minimum tensile strength of 135,000 psi (931 MPa); and

c) minimum fracture strain of 0.08. Nominal diameters of these

bars are 0.24, 0.31, 0.38, and 0.50 in. (6.35, 7.94, 9.53, and

ITG-4.3R-30

ratio versus yield strength of the transverse reinforcement

according to Eq. (5-26). (Note: Yield strength of transverse

reinforcement was limited to 120,000 psi [827 MPa] in the

calculation of the limiting drift ratio regardless of the actual

yield strength.)

12.7 mm), which give nominal cross-sectional areas of 0.05,

0.08, 0.11, and 0.20 in.2 (31.7, 49.5, 71.3, and 126.7 mm2).

SPR785 steel barsMechanical characteristics of SPR785

reinforcement (Tokyo Steel Co. 1994) are: a) minimum

yield strength of 114,000 psi (786 MPa); b) minimum tensile

strength of 135,000 psi (931 MPa); and c) minimum fracture

strain of 0.10. Nominal diameters of these bars are 0.38,

0.50, and 0.63 in. (9.53, 12.7, and 15.9 mm), which give

nominal cross-sectional areas of 0.11, 0.20, and 0.31 in.2

(71.3, 126.7, and 198.6 mm2), respectively.

SBPD1275/1420 steel barsTwo producers (Neutren Co.

Ltd. 1985; Kawasake Steel Techno-wire Co. 1990) manufacture Type D SBPD(N/L) 1275/1420 bars conforming to

the requirements of the Japanese Standards Association

(1994) JIS G 3137, Small Size-Deformed Steel Bars for

Prestressed Concrete, which requires: a) a minimum yield

strength of 185,000 psi (1276 MPa); b) a minimum tensile

strength of 206,000 psi (1420 MPa); and c) a minimum

fracture strain of 0.05. The JIS G 3137 specification was

instituted following the establishment of ISO 6934 (1991)

(Steel for the Prestressing of Concrete; Part 3: Quenched and

Tempered Wire; and Part 5: Hot-Rolled Steel Bars with or

without Subsequent Processing), but the JIS requires more

rigorous control of the chemical composition of the steel.

Furthermore, the amount of impurities in SBPD1275/1420

high-strength shear reinforcement is controlled more rigorously

than required by the JIS G 3137 specification. The minimum

strain at fracture is set to 0.07 because the bars are normally

bent either 90 or 135 degrees at the corners and ends.

Nominal bar diameters available are 0.25, 0.28, 0.35, 0.42,

and 0.50 in. (6.4, 7.1, 9.0, 10.7, and 12.7 mm), which correspond to nominal cross-sectional areas of 0.05, 0.06, 0.10, 0.14,

and 0.19 in.2 (30, 40, 64, 90, and 125 mm2), respectively.

Otani et al. (1998) described the guidelines for the design

of high-rise structures using high-strength materials developed as part of the research initiative sponsored by the

Construction Engineering 1993). According to Otani et al.

(1998), these seismic design guidelines limit the yield

strength of the longitudinal reinforcement to 102,000 psi

(703 MPa) and the concrete compressive strength to 8700 psi

(60 MPa). The maximum yield strength of the transverse reinforcement allowed by the document is 189,000 psi (1303 MPa).

The database used in the study by Brachmann et al.

(2004a,b) had specimens with transverse reinforcement

yield strengths ranging between 37,000 and 183,000 psi (255

and 1262 MPa), and volumetric transverse reinforcement

ratios ranging from 0.17 to 6.64%. Because specimens with

transverse reinforcement with yield strengths of 180,000 psi

(1241 MPa) had significantly lower test/calculated ratios,

they recommended establishing an upper limit of 120,000 psi

(827 MPa) on the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement. The ratio of measured to calculated limiting drift ratio

according to the equation proposed by Brachmann et al.

(2004b) versus the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement

is shown in Fig. 5.4, where the yield strength of transverse

reinforcement was limited to 120,000 psi (827 MPa) in the

calculation of the limiting drift ratio regardless of the actual

yield strength. The broken line in Fig. 5.4 represents a linear

regression between the ratio of measured to calculated drift

(computed limiting the yield strength of the reinforcement to

120,000 psi [827 MPa]) and the actual yield strength of the

reinforcement.

The suggestion by Brachmann et al. (2004a,b) to limit the

yield strength of the transverse reinforcement to 120,000 psi

(827 MPa) is consistent with the observations by Saatcioglu

et al. (1998) and Kato et al. (1998) that the effective

confining pressure decreases and the probability of buckling

of the longitudinal reinforcement increases with increasing

hoop spacing. Similarly, the NZS 3101 design provision

establishes an upper limit of 116,000 psi (800 MPa) for the

nominal yield strength of the transverse reinforcement.

5.6Maximum hoop spacing requirements

for columns

Section 21.4.4.2 of ACI 318-05 allows a maximum

spacing of transverse reinforcement in regions of potential

plastic hinging of 1/4 of the minimum member dimension,

six times the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement, and

4 in. (102 mm). The 4 in. (102 mm) spacing requirement may

be increased linearly up to 6 in. (152 mm) as the spacing of

crossties or legs of overlapping hoops decreases from 14 to

8 in. (356 to 203 mm). The ICBO ER-5536 document (2001)

suggests that the maximum spacing of hoops within plastic

hinge regions should be 5 in. (127 mm). The rationale for this

provision stems from the fact that in the experimental

research used as the basis for the aforementioned document

(C4 Committee 2000), satisfactory behavior was observed in

specimens with a maximum hoop spacing of 6 in. (152 mm).

Englekirk and Pourzanjani indicate in the C4 report (2000),

however, that test results by Azizinamini et al. (1994)

contradict this observation. In specimens with an axial load

ratio of 0.2 and concrete compressive strength of approximately

14,500 psi (100 MPa), Azizinamini et al. observed that the

reinforcement to buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement

as the hoop spacing was increased from 1.62 in. (41 mm)

(which represents a hoop spacing of d/6.6, 2.2 longitudinal

bar diameters, and 4.32 transverse bar diameters) to 2.62 in.

(67 mm) (which represents a hoop spacing of d/4.1, 3.5

longitudinal bar diameters, and seven transverse bar diameters),

and the strength of the transverse reinforcement from 60,000

to 120,000 psi (414 to 827 MPa). The database used by

Brachmann et al. (2004a,b) had columns with hoop spacing

ranging between 1 and 17 in. (25 to 432 mm). When specimens

with concrete compressive strengths of 5000 psi (34 MPa) or

above only were considered, however, the majority of the

data had a maximum hoop spacing below 4 in. (102 mm).

The data do not show a decrease in the factor of safety with

increased spacing, and two specimens with hoop spacings of

approximately 10 in. (254 mm) showed adequate performance.

On this limited basis, there seems to be no conclusive

experimental evidence justifying the reduction in maximum

hoop spacing from 6 to 5 in. (152 to 127 mm), although the

paucity of experimental data with maximum hoop spacing

above 4 in. (102 mm) is a concern.

5.7Confinement requirements for high-strength

concrete beams

The only confinement requirements for concrete in plastic

hinge regions of beams established in ACI 318-05 are in

terms of the maximum spacing allowed between hoops.

Unlike in the case of ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-2) to (21-4), for

columns, there are no equations that set the minimum

amount of transverse reinforcement that must be used in

beams. Such a lack of requirement is of some concern for

high-strength concrete beams because test results previously

summarized show that the limiting drift ratio of beams is

proportional to the volumetric confinement index cp (Fig. 5.5).

The data in Fig. 5.5 indicate that to maintain a level of

deformability, the product of vr fyt must increase with the

concrete compressive strength.

Ghosh and Saatcioglu (1994) summarized test results from

high-strength concrete beams under monotonic and cyclic

loading by several researchers. Based on tests by Fajardo and

Pastor (Pastor et al. 1984) under monotonic loading, they

concluded that the addition of lateral tie steel increases the

displacement ductility of beams provided that the volumetric

confinement index is greater than 0.11. The definition of the

volumetric confinement index used by Ghosh and Saatcioglu,

however, included the effects of the compression reinforcement

f

cp = (vr + ) ----ytf c

(5-29)

defined in Eq. (5-29), corresponded to a displacement

ductility of approximately 3. For beams with volumetric

confinement indexes below 0.11, increasing the volumetric

confinement index in the plastic hinge region resulted in

small increases in displacement ductility. In cases where the

ITG-4.3R-31

for beam specimens in database used by Brachmann et al.

(2004a).

volumetric confinement index exceeded 0.11, increasing the

volumetric confinement index resulted in significant

increases in displacement ductility. Ghosh and Saatcioglu

(1994) attributed the low deformability of the beams with

lower amounts of transverse reinforcement to the lack of

confinement of the concrete in the compression zone.

Brachmann et al. (2004a) proposed an equation for the

minimum amount of transverse reinforcement for adequate

confinement of reinforced concrete beams based on experimental results. For members without axial load, the

minimum amount of confining reinforcement is given by

f c

2f

vr = ( 12DR lim ) ----c- 0.12 ---f yt

f yt

(5-30)

overestimating the limiting drift in a beam with the amount

of transverse reinforcement provided in accordance to

Eq. (5-30) would be 15% for the data set used (one standard

deviation from the mean). Figure 5.5 shows the measured

limiting drift ratios and those calculated with Eq. (5-30) for

62 specimens with fp 0.1, and concrete compressive

strengths ranging from 3000 to 15,000 psi (21 to 103 MPa).

The average ratio of measured to calculated drift was 1.6,

with a coefficient of variation of 0.26. Based on the sample

of 62 specimens considered, the probability of underestimating

the limiting drift of beam elements with Eq. (5-30) was

approximately 10%.

Equation (5-30) requires a higher amount of transverse

reinforcement for high-strength concrete beams than that

calculated using the current ACI 318-05 approach of proportioning the transverse reinforcement to resist, in most practical circumstances, 100% of the shear demand (ACI 318-05,

Section 21.3.4.2). A comparison based on assumptions of a

span length to beam depth ratio of 10, an effective depth

equal to 90% of the beam height, a width-height ratio of the

core equal to 2, and a limiting drift ratio of 2% indicates that

the amount of reinforcement would increase by a factor of

ITG-4.3R-32

reinforcement ratio and fyl is the yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement. The difference is most significant for

lightly reinforced beams. For beams with normal-strength

concrete, the amount of transverse reinforcement would be

approximately the same as required by the current code,

while in the case of beams with high-strength concrete, the

amount of transverse reinforcement would increase by as

much as a factor of 4. Before a code change is implemented,

such an increase in the amount of transverse reinforcement

should be justified on the basis of experimental evidence

showing inadequate performance of high-strength concrete

beams under cyclic loading.

Experimental research on column collapse indicates that

vertical load-carrying capacity is lost soon after the lateral

load-carrying capacity has degraded to zero (Yoshimura and

Nakamura 2002; Elwood and Moehle 2005), and that the

lateral drift at axial failure decreases with axial load. Elwood

(2002) and Elwood and Moehle (2005) developed a model

consistent with the observation from experimental research

that the drift ratio at axial failure is inversely proportional to

the axial load demand. From this research, it follows that the

risk of catastrophic failure at drifts slightly higher than the

limiting drift ratio (defined as that corresponding to a 20%

reduction in strength) decreases as the amount of axial load

on the member decreases. For this reason, it is reasonable to

adopt a lower margin of safety for proportioning the amount

of transverse reinforcement needed to reach a target limiting

drift ratio in beams than in columns. Brachmann et al.

(2004a) provided expressions with various probabilities of

overestimating the limiting drift ratio. The expression

corresponding to the mean response (such that the probability

of overestimating the limiting drift ratio in a beam with the

amount of transverse reinforcement provided in accordance

to Eq. (5-31) would be 50%) is given by

f

2f

vr = ( 8DR lim ) ----c- 0.12 ----cf yt

f yt

(5-31)

by Eq. (5-31) is 44% of that required by Eq. (5-30), the

amount of transverse reinforcement required in beams is

closer to that calculated using the approach in ACI 318-05.

A comparison based on assumptions of a span length to

beam depth ratio of 10, an effective depth equal to 90% of

the beam height, a width-height ratio of the core equal to 2,

and a limiting drift ratio of 2% indicates that the amount of

reinforcement would increase by a factor of approximately

0.09fc /l fyl where l is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio

and fyl is the yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement.

In this case, the amount of transverse reinforcement required

by Eq. (5-31) in lightly reinforced beams (l = 0.01) would

range between approximately 1/2 the amount currently

required by ACI 318-05 for beams with normal-strength

concrete and two times the amount calculated using ACI 318-05

for beams with high-strength concrete.

for high-strength concrete beams

According to Section 21.3.3.2 of ACI 318-05, the

maximum hoop spacing in flexural members of special

moment frames must not exceed d/4, eight times the diameter

of the smallest longitudinal bar, 24 times the diameter of the

hoop bars, and 12 in. (305 mm). A similar spacing requirement

is established in Section 21.12.4.2 of ACI 318-05 for beams

of intermediate moment frames. Although the upper limit for

the hoop spacing is 12 in. (305 mm), it is important to note

that the requirements related to bar size and d/4 are likely to

result in significantly smaller upper limits on spacing.

Consequently, the 12 in. (305 mm) spacing limit is not the

controlling criterion for most practical cases. For instance, a

cross section with an effective depth of 24 in. (610 mm), No. 7

longitudinal bars, and No. 3 hoops would have a maximum

hoop spacing of 6 in. (152 mm), significantly lower than the

nominal 12 in. (305 mm) limit established by ACI 318-05.

The ICBO ER-5536 document (2001) proposed an upper

limit of 5 in. (127 mm) for the stirrup spacing in beams,

which implies a significant reduction from the 12 in. (305 mm)

limit currently adopted in ACI 318-05. The paucity of

experimental results from beams with hoop spacing larger

than 4 in. (102 mm) is a concern in determining whether the

reduction from 12 to 5 in. (305 to 127 mm) is justified.

The high-strength concrete beams tested by Pastor et al.

(1984) that provided the basis for the study by Ghosh and

Saatcioglu (1994) had stirrup spacing ranging from 3 to 12 in.

(76 to 305 mm). The width of the test region ranged between

6.56 and 7.38 in. (167 to 187 mm), and the depth was

approximately 12 in. (305 mm). Beams with a hoop spacing

of 12 in. (305 mm) exhibited the worst performance, with

ductility ratios on the order of 2 or 3. All beams with a stirrup

spacing of 6 in. (152 mm) or less exhibited displacement

ductilities higher than 4. This observation raises concerns

about the 12 in. (305 mm) spacing limit adopted by ACI 318-05

particularly because these beams were not subjected to the

deterioration of the core that would occur under load

reversals. The conclusions by Ghosh and Saatcioglu (1994)

about the effects of confinement also seem to indicate that there

is no compelling reason to have different procedures to

determine the amounts of confinement in beams and columns.

5.9Recommendations

There are several recommendations deemed necessary for

proper confinement of sections with high-strength concrete.

Research by Brachman et al. (2004a,b), and Saatcioglu and

Razvi (2002) has indicated that the current provisions for

confinement in ACI 318-05, even though the effect of axial

load is neglected, result in sufficient amounts of confinement

to achieve limiting drift ratios of at least 2% in most cases.

The main disadvantage of the current provisions is that the

safety afforded is not uniform for all columns, and the

amount of transverse reinforcement required in members

with lower levels of axial load is overly conservative.

Although excessive conservatism does not pose a safety

concern, it creates significant congestion problems that

hinder the use of high-strength concrete.

reduce congestion in plastic hinge regions is the use of highstrength transverse reinforcement. There is consensus among

researchers that there should be an upper limit to the nominal

yield strength of the transverse reinforcement used for

confinement purposes of approximately 120 ksi (827 MPa).

The experimental data that were reviewed did not

substantiate the need to reduce the maximum hoop spacing

in beams or columns. Although there was a greater concern

in the case of beams because the upper limit for hoop spacing

established by ACI 318-05 is 12 in. (305 mm), a closer

review shows that spacing limits in terms of the diameter of

the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement should be

adequate to prevent buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement.

Research results and experimental evidence indicate that the

amount of confinement afforded by the current spacing limits

should be sufficient to achieve drift ratios (approximately

similar to the rotation of the plastic hinge in units of radians)

on the order of 0.02 without catastrophic failure. For these

reasons, it was deemed unnecessary to introduce confinement

requirements for beams with high-strength concrete.

The following recommended modifications to ACI 318-05,

presented in greater detail in Chapter 10 of this document,

are made for adequate confinement of high-strength concrete

columns in special moment frames (SMF). The basis for the

proposed equations is the approach by Saatcioglu and Razvi

(2002), with some minor conservative modifications to

simplify their use.

In inch-pound units:

The use of transverse reinforcement with a specified

yield strength of up to 120,000 psi shall be allowed to

meet the confinement requirements for high-strength

concrete columns. The yield strength of the reinforcement can be measured by the offset method of ASTM A

370 using 0.2% permanent offset.

Transverse reinforcement required as follows in (a)

through (c) shall be provided unless a larger amount is

required by ACI 318-05, Sections 21.4.3.2 or 21.4.5:

(a)The area ratio of transverse reinforcement shall not

be less than that required by Eq. (5-32)

f c A g

1 Pu

t = 0.35 ---- -------- 1 ----------- ----------

f yt A ch

k A g f c

ITG-4.3R-33

form of spirals or hoops, for which kve = 1.0. Reinforcement for columns with rectangular geometry

shall be provided in the form of single or overlapping hoops. Crossties of the same bar size and

spacing as the hoops shall be permitted. Each end

of the crosstie shall engage a peripheral longitudinal reinforcing bar. Consecutive crossties shall

be alternated end for end along the longitudinal

reinforcement. The parameter kve for rectangular

hoop reinforcement shall be determined by Eq. (5-35)

0.15b

k ve = ---------------c 1.0

sh x

(5-35)

confining transverse reinforcement exceeds 4 in.,

additional transverse reinforcement shall be

provided at a spacing not exceeding 12 in.

Concrete cover on the additional reinforcement

shall not exceed 4 in.

In SI units:

The use of transverse reinforcement with a specified

yield strength of up to 830 MPa should be allowed to

meet the confinement requirements for high-strength

concrete columns. The yield strength of the reinforcement can be measured by the offset method of ASTM A

370 using 0.2% permanent offset.

Transverse reinforcement required as follows in (a)

through (c) shall be provided unless a larger amount is

required by ACI 318M-05, Sections 21.4.3.2 or 21.4.5:

(a)The area ratio of transverse reinforcement shall not

be less than that required by Eq. (5-36)

f c A g

1 Pu

t = 0.35 ---- -------- 1 ----------- ----------f yt A ch k A g f c

ve

(5-36)

where

(5-32)

ve

Ag

------- 1 0.3

A ch

(5-37)

Pu

0.2

----------A g f c

(5-38)

and

where

Ag

------- 1 0.3

A ch

(5-33)

and

Pu

0.2

----------A g f c

(5-34)

or rectangular geometry. Reinforcement for

or rectangular geometry. Reinforcement for

columns with circular geometry shall be in the

form of spirals or hoops, for which kve =1.0. Reinforcement for columns with rectangular geometry

shall be provided in the form of single or overlapping hoops. Crossties of the same bar size and

spacing as the hoops shall be permitted. Each end

ITG-4.3R-34

reinforcing bar. Consecutive crossties shall be alternated end for end along the longitudinal reinforcement. The parameter kve for rectangular hoop

reinforcement shall be determined by Eq. (5-39).

0.15b

k ve = ---------------c 1.0

sh x

(5-39)

confining transverse reinforcement exceeds 100 mm,

additional transverse reinforcement shall be

provided at a spacing not exceeding 300 mm.

Concrete cover on the additional reinforcement

shall not exceed 100 mm.

The term hx is defined as the maximum horizontal spacing

of hoop or crosstie legs perpendicular to bc , in.

Section 21.12.3 of ACI 318-05 requires that the design

shear strength Vn of beams and columns of intermediate

moment frames be no less than: a) the sum of the shear associated with development of nominal moment strengths of the

member at each restrained end of the clear span and the shear

calculated for factored gravity loads; and b) the maximum

shear obtained from design load combinations that include

E, with E assumed to be twice that prescribed by the

governing code for earthquake-resistant design.

If the dimensions of a column are maintained constant, the

ratio of axial load demand to balanced failure load decreases

as concrete compressive strength in the column increases.

Under the current design provisions in Section 21.12.3 of

ACI 318-05, the amount of transverse reinforcement

increases with the nominal flexural strength of columns,

which decreases as the ratio of axial load to balanced load

decreases (assuming that the column is not compression

controlled). For this reason, it is possible that the amount of

transverse reinforcement required by the aforementioned

provision be similar or even less for columns with highstrength concrete than it is for columns with similar dimensions

made with normal-strength concrete. This is inconsistent

with the conclusions from the literature review presented in

Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of this report, which indicate that the

amount of confinement needed for ductile behavior in columns

increases with increasing concrete compressive strength.

To prevent the sudden failure of columns with highstrength concrete in intermediate moment frames (IMF), it is

recommended that a minimum amount of confinement

reinforcement be added to the provisions in the code. The

confinement reinforcement requirement for IMF columns in

ITG-4.3R is based on a design expression developed by

Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002), and modified by ACI ITG 4 to

facilitate its use for design. One of the key assumptions

adopted by ACI ITG-4 in deriving this requirement is that a

20% reduction in lateral strength at a drift ratio of 1.5%

corresponds to a tolerable level of damage for intermediate

moment frames. This criterion is related to the level of

damage deemed reasonable for this type of a lateral-forceresisting system, and should not be interpreted to mean that

drift ratios are kept below 1.5%. This assumption is consistent

with the fact that the R factor for the IMF traditionally has

been set by building codes to approximately 60 to 75% of

that for a SMF. For example, according to ASCE 7-05, the R

factor for an IMF is 5, while that for a SMF is 8. If the R

factor is taken as a measure of the ductility demands

(including inherent overstrength) and it is assumed that the

maximum nonlinear displacement is approximately equal to

the maximum displacement of a linear system (Shimazaki

1988; Lepage 1997; Browning 2001) (implying that Cd R),

the difference in R factors implies that the SMF is expected

to experience nearly 8/5 (or 1.6 times) as much plastic rotation

demands as the IMF. Lower plastic rotation demands imply

lower strain demands on the concrete and a reduction in the

amount of confinement reinforcement required. This reduction

is indirectly recognized in these recommendations by using

1.5% drift ratio instead of 2.5% when deriving the requirements

for confinement reinforcement for the IMF. To further

simplify the calculation, a value of kve = 0.5 is adopted for

columns with rectilinear transverse reinforcement. Considering

that a value of kve = 1.0 is used in columns with spiral reinforcement, this assumption implies that the rectilinear confining

reinforcement arrangement being used is 71% as effective as

that of spiral reinforcement.

The following changes to ACI 318-05 are recommended

for columns of IMFs. In inch-pound units:

The use of transverse reinforcement with a specified

yield strength of up to 120,000 psi shall be allowed to

meet the confinement requirements for high-strength

concrete columns. The yield strength of the reinforcement can be measured by the offset method of ASTM A

370 using 0.2% permanent offset;

For columns with concrete compressive strength greater

than 8000 psi and rectilinear transverse reinforcement, the

area ratio of transverse reinforcement shall not be less

than that required by Eq. (5-40)

f c A g

Pu

c = 0.3 ---- -------- 1 ----------

A g f c

f yt A ch

(5-40)

Ag

------- 1 0.3

A ch

(5-41)

Pu

0.2

----------A g f c

(5-42)

where

and

greater than 8000 psi and transverse reinforcement in

the form of circular hoops or spirals, the area ratio of

transverse reinforcement shall not be less than that

required by Eq. (5-43)

f Ag

Pu

c = 0.2 ----c- ------- 1 ----------f yt A ch A g f c

(5-43)

where

Ag

------- 1 0.3

A ch

(5-44)

Pu

0.2

----------A g f c

(5-45)

and

In SI units:

The use of transverse reinforcement with a specified

yield strength of up to 830 MPa should be allowed to

meet the confinement requirements for high-strength

concrete columns. The yield strength of the reinforcement can be measured by the offset method of ASTM A

370 using 0.2% permanent offset;

For columns with concrete compressive strength greater

than 55 MPa and rectilinear transverse reinforcement, the

area ratio of transverse reinforcement shall not be less

than that required by the following equation

f c A g

Pu

c = 0.3 ---- -------- 1 ----------f yt A ch A g f c

(5-46)

Ag

------- 1 0.3

A ch

(5-47)

where

Pu

0.2

----------A g f c

(5-48)

greater than 55 MPa and transverse reinforcement in

the form of circular hoops or spirals, the area ratio of

transverse reinforcement shall not be less than that

required by the following equation

f c A g

Pu

c = 0.2 ---- -------- 1 ----------

A g f c

f yt A ch

(5-49)

Ag

------- 1 0.3

A ch

(5-50)

(5-51)

REINFORCED CONCRETE FLEXURAL MEMBERS

In flexural members made with high-strength concrete,

the strength of the paste is similar to or higher than that of the

aggregates. As a result, cracks tend to propagate through the

aggregates and have a smoother surface than in normalstrength concrete (ACI Committee 363 1992). A smoother

crack surface reduces the effect of aggregate interlock on

shear strength, which theoretically implies a reduction in the

concrete component of the total shear strength.

The effect of compressive strength on the shear force

carried by the transverse reinforcement can be analyzed

using a variable angle truss model (Fig. 6.1). The equilibrium equations for a variable angle truss model with a

uniform compression field (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee

445 1998) indicate that the average shear stress carried by

the truss mechanism is given by

Vs

Av fs j 1

v s = -------- = ---------- ------------bw d

b w s tan t

(6-1)

between the tension force in the reinforcement and the

compression force carried by the concrete) to the effective

depth, and t is the angle of inclination of the compressive

strut. Equation (6-1) shows that if all other parameters in a

beam remain constant, the shear stress carried by the truss

mechanism increases as the angle of inclination of the strut

t decreases. The same model indicates that the compressive

stress in the struts of the compression field fc is given by

vs

f c = -------------------------cos t sin t

and

Pu

0.2

----------A g f c

ITG-4.3R-35

(6-2)

increases as the average shear stress vs increases and the

angle of inclination of the struts t decreases. These two

equations show that, on the basis of a variable angle truss

model, it should be expected that if concrete strength

increases, a truss mechanism with a shallower angle of

inclination of the struts can be developed due to the higher

where

and

field.

ITG-4.3R-36

Fig. 6.2Effect of different parameters on test/estimate ratios for shear strength using

ACI 318-05 Eq. (11-3). Data set compiled by Reineck et al. (2003). (Note: The calculated

ACI shear strengths did not consider the limit of 100 psi (8.3 MPa) on the term f c . The

dashed line in each figure represents linear regression best fit of the data.)

capacity of the struts. Equation (6-1) shows that a reduction

in the strut angle leads to an increase in the shear force

carried by the reinforcement, increasing the effectiveness of

the transverse reinforcement.

After inclined cracking occurs, the force carried by the

concrete is expected to decrease with increasing compressive

strength due to reduced aggregate interlock. The opposite

occurs with the force carried by the reinforcement through

the truss mechanism, which is expected to increase due to the

higher strength of the concrete in the struts of the web. Consequently, one of the most significant concerns in calculating the

shear strength of members with high-strength concrete is

preventing the sudden failure of members with relatively small

amounts of transverse reinforcement, for which the maximum

shear force that can be carried by the truss mechanism is

similar to or smaller than the shear force corresponding to

inclined cracking. In members with high amounts of transverse

reinforcement, theory suggests that the reduction in the shear

force carried by the concrete is offset by an increase in the

effectiveness of the transverse reinforcement.

6.1Shear strength of flexural members without

shear reinforcement

Figures 6.2 and 6.3 show the effects of different parameters

on the test/calculated ratio obtained with Eq. (11-3) and (11-5)

of ACI 318-05 for nonprestressed beams without transverse

reinforcement

V c = 2 f c b w d

V c = 0.17 f c b w d

(f c in psi)

(f c in MPa)

V u d

V c = 1.9 f c + 2500 w -------- b w d 3.5 f c b w d ( f c in psi )

Mu

V u d

- b w d 0.29 f c b w d ( f c in MPa )

V c = 0.16 f c + 17.2 w -------

Mu

Test results presented in Fig. 6.2 and 6.3 are from the database of shear tests developed by Reineck et al. (2003).

Although the figures indicate that there is no bias with

respect to the compressive strength of concrete, they show a

significant problem for members with light amounts of

longitudinal reinforcement.

Collins and Kuchma (1999), Nilson (1994), Ahmad et al.

(1986), and Ahmad and Lue (1987) point out that this

problem is of most significance for lightly reinforced slender

beams with high-strength concrete. Figures 6.2 and 6.3 also

show that the shear strength of members without transverse

reinforcement may be affected by the effective depth of the

member (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445 1998). Although

there is considerable debate about the proper model to quantify

the effect of size (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445 1998),

Collins et al. (1993) stated that tests of high-strength

concrete beams conducted by Kuchma et al. (1997) showed

that this effect is not significant if longitudinal reinforcement

is distributed throughout the depth of the member. The report

by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445 (1998) summarizes

several equations that have been proposed to more accurately

reflect the effects of compressive strength, longitudinal

reinforcement ratio, and effective depth on shear strength of

members without transverse reinforcement.

ITG-4.3R-37

Fig. 6.3Effect of different parameters on test/estimate ratios for shear strength using

ACI 318-05 Eq. (11-5). Data set compiled by Reineck et al. (2003). (Note: The calculated

ACI shear strengths did not consider the limit of 100 psi (8.3 MPa) on the term f c . The

dashed line in each figure represents linear regression best fit of the data.)

have transverse reinforcement and thus the effect of size is

not a significant concern. Members in which transverse

reinforcement is not used are primarily slabs and footings,

and it is unlikely that such members with large effective

depths and high-strength concrete would be used in high

seismic applications.

6.2Effect of compressive strength on inclined

cracking load of flexural members

ACI 318-89 (ACI Committee 318 1989) placed an upper

limit of 100 psi (8.3 MPa) on the term f c for calculating

the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams, joists, and

slabs. This upper limit was based on experimental results

(Mphonde and Frantz 1984; Elzanaty et al. 1986), which

indicated that the ratio of measured to calculated inclined

cracking load in beams increased with the compressive strength

of concrete at a lower rate than indicated by Eq. (11-3) or

(11-5) of ACI 318-89. Similar behavior was observed in a

study on the shear strength of high-strength concrete beams

without transverse reinforcement by Thorenfeldt and

Drangsholt (1990). The inclined cracking load remained

almost constant in spite of an increase in compressive

strength from 11,300 to 14,200 psi (78 to 98 MPa).

These and other test results raised concerns about the shear

strength of high-strength concrete flexural members with

small amounts of transverse reinforcement. ACI 318-89

allowed the limit of 100 psi (8.3 MPa) on the term f c to be

exceeded if transverse reinforcement sufficient to carry a

factor fc /5000 3, fc in psi ( fc /35 3 [fc in MPa]), was

provided to prevent sudden shear failures at the onset of

inclined cracking. The use of the factor fc /5000 3 resulted

in a step-wise increase in the amount of transverse reinforcement with compressive strength, requiring that the product

of the transverse reinforcement ratio and the yield strength of

the transverse reinforcement (t fyt) be at least 50 psi (0.34 MPa)

for concrete compressive strengths below 10,000 psi (69 MPa),

and double that amount (t fyt = 100 psi [0.69 MPa]) for

concrete compressive strengths slightly higher than 10,000 psi

(69 MPa). The amount of transverse reinforcement increased

linearly with compressive strength up to a maximum t fyt of

150 psi (1.03 MPa) for a concrete compressive strength of

15,000 psi (103 MPa). Experimental results by Roller and

Russell (1990) showed that the amount of transverse reinforcement that resulted in a nominal shear stress of 150 psi

(1.03 MPa) was barely sufficient to ensure a safe estimate of

strength using the ACI 318-89 equation for shear strength

(Fig. 6.4). Based on experimental results by several authors

(Johnson and Ramirez 1989; Ozcebe et al. 1999; Hofbeck et

al. 1969; Mattock et al. 1976; Walraven et al. 1987; Roller

and Russell 1990), a new form of ACI 318, Eq. (11-13), was

introduced in ACI 318-02 to estimate the minimum amount

of transverse reinforcement in beams, with the goals of

increasing the safety of the estimates and eliminating the

steep increase that occurred at a concrete compressive

strength of 10,000 psi (69 MPa). The minimum amount of

transverse reinforcement is given by

ITG-4.3R-38

shear strength of the beams with 10,500 psi (72 MPa)

concrete in the study by Roller and Russell (1990) was not

very sensitive to the nominal strength provided by the transverse reinforcement, while the opposite was true for the

beams with 18,200 psi (125 MPa) concrete. While providing

vs = 50 psi (0.34 MPa) resulted in an adequate estimate of

strength for beams with a concrete compressive strength of

10,500 psi (72 MPa), the same amount resulted in an unconservative estimate of strength for the beams with concrete

compressive strengths of 17,400 and 18,200 psi (120 and

125 MPa). In both cases, tests showed that a minimum vs of

approximately 150 psi (1.03 MPa) would have been necessary

to obtain a strength above the nominal value given by Eq. (11-5)

of ACI 318-83.

calculated shear strength provided by truss mechanism for

beams with high-strength concrete tested by Roller and

Russell (1990).

bw s

A v, min = 0.75 f c ------f yt

A v, min

bw s

= 0.062 f c ------f yt

(f c in psi)

ACI 318 Eq. (11-13)

(f c in MPa)

members with intermediate to high amounts of

transverse reinforcement

The 10 beams tested by Roller and Russell (1990)

included three different groups, with concrete compressive

strengths of 10,500, 17,400, and 18,200 psi (72, 120, and

125 MPa). There were five beams with compressive

strengths of 17,400 psi (120 MPa), for which the design shear

stress vs (equal to the product of the transverse reinforcement

ratio t and the yield strength of the hoops fyt) carried by the

truss mechanism ranged from 0.3 f c to 8.9 f c (psi)

(0.025 f c to 0.74 f c [MPa]). The beam with the lightest

amount of transverse reinforcement (vs = 0.3 f c (psi) [vs =

0.025 f c (MPa)]) had a shear strength below the nominal

value calculated according to the provisions of ACI 318-83

(ACI Committee 318 1983). The remaining four beams

(Fig. 6.4), with compressive strengths of 17,400 psi (120 MPa),

had measured shear strengths above the nominal values Vn

calculated using ACI 318, Eq. (11-6) (Vc term), and ACI

318, Eq. (11-17) (Vs term), of the ACI 318-83. Although for

these four beams the ratio of measured to nominal strength

decreased with the amount of transverse reinforcement, the

tests were within the range allowed by ACI 318, which places

an upper limit of vs = 8 f c (psi) (vs = 0.66 f c [MPa]), on

the nominal shear strength attributed to the truss mechanism.

The two remaining series of tests, with compressive

strengths of 10,500 and 18,200 psi (72 and 125 MPa), were

primarily aimed at determining the minimum amount of

transverse reinforcement needed to prevent sudden failures

after inclined cracking.

span-depth ratios

A series of tests was conducted in Japan to investigate the

shear strength of high-strength concrete members

(Sakaguchi et al. 1990). The series included six beams with

shear span-depth ratios ranging between 1 and 1.14, and

different amounts of transverse reinforcement. The purpose

of the tests was to determine the inclined cracking load and

ultimate shear strength of the beams. Concrete compressive

strength was maintained constant at approximately 13,000 psi

(90 MPa). The principal variable was the product t fyt , where t

is the transverse reinforcement ratio defined as t = Av /bws and

fyt is the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement.

According to the truss model adopted in ACI 318-05, the

product t fyt represents the average shear stress carried by

the reinforcement in slender beams (t fyt = vs = Vs /bwd),

that, in the tests by Sakaguchi et al. (1990) ranged from 0 to

1150 psi (7.9 MPa). In beams with t fyt lower than 260 psi

(1.8 MPa) (t fyt /fc = 2%), inclined cracking propagated

rapidly, leading to a sudden shear failure. In specimens with

t fyt of 725 and 1145 psi (5 and 7.9 MPa) (t fyt /fc higher than

5.5%), both the shear and longitudinal reinforcement yielded

before failure at a load considerably exceeding the inclined

cracking strength. The conclusions from the study by

Sakaguchi et al. (1990), based on tests of deep beams, differ

from those by Roller and Russell (1990). Sakaguchi et al.

focused on the amount of transverse reinforcement needed to

preclude failure at the onset of inclined cracking and achieve

yielding of the transverse reinforcement before failure. They

found that for beams with a compressive strength of approximately 13,000 psi (90 MPa), the amount of transverse reinforcement needed to develop a truss mechanism and prevent

sudden failure after inclined cracking was approximately vs

= t fyt = 260 psi (1.8 MPa) (5.2 times 50 psi), which corresponds to 2.3 f c (psi) (0.19 f c [MPa]) significantly

higher than the t fyt = 0.75 f c (psi) (0.06 f c [MPa])

required by ACI 318-05 for flexural members.

The study by Sakaguchi et al. (1990) raises concerns about

the behavior of members with low shear span-depth ratios

subjected to cyclic loading. ACI 318-05 requires that such

members be proportioned using nonlinear analysis or in

provisions for the use of strut-and-tie models.

Strut-and-tie models are a methodology for member

design that can be applied to different types of structural

members, including deep beams and structural walls.

Although Chapter 6 of this document addresses shear design

and Chapter 8 addresses the design of structural walls, some

of the reference material presented in this chapter about the

behavior and design of members with low shear span-depth

ratios is based on studies of deep beams and walls. Such

material is included in this chapter only when it is relevant to

the topic of strut-and-tie models.

Little reference material is available on the use of strutand-tie models for the seismic design of deep beams made

with high-strength concrete. The Architectural Institute of

Japan (AIJ) seismic design guideline (1994) includes a

design procedure for beams that is based on the superposition of

two different strut-and-tie models. The AIJ model is inconsistent

with the provisions in Appendix A of ACI 318-05. The AIJ

procedure includes two reduction factors applied to the

compressive strength of the concrete struts that Appendix A

of ACI 318-05 does not include.

The first factor was originally proposed by Nielsen (1999)

and was developed based on test results from beams with

uniform stress fields subjected to monotonic loading. It is a

function of the compressive strength of the concrete, and it

decreases linearly as the compressive strength increases

f c

s = 0.7 --------------29,000

f c

s = 0.7 -------200

(f c in psi)

(6-3)

(f c in MPa)

p expected in a plastic hinge region of a flexural member. It

is given by

sc = (1 15p)s 0.25s

9

s = ---------3 f

c

1.7

s = ---------3 f

c

ITG-4.3R-39

(f c in psi)

(6-5)

(f c in MPa)

strength as the product of factors related to the compressive

strength of the concrete (fc), the angle of inclination of the

strut (t), and, in the case of members in which the strut

interacts with a truss mechanism, an additional factor (ta).

The strut factor is defined as

s = fctta

(6-6)

members with low shear span-depth ratios was calibrated

using experimental data from deep beams and structural

walls with concrete compressive strengths ranging from

2200 to 20,300 psi (15 to 140 MPa). Von Ramin developed

a base expression for the strut factor using experimental

results from elements subjected to monotonic loading. The

effect of load reversals was later introduced by comparing

the base factors for the monotonic loading case to reduced

values of strength of columns and walls subjected to

repeated load reversals into the nonlinear range of response.

Following this methodology, Von Ramin and Matamoros

(2004, 2006) proposed the following expressions for the

compressive strength factor

fc = 0.85 f c 36,200 0.5

fc = 0.85 0.004f c 0.5

(f c in psi)

(f c in MPa)

(6-7)

factor in members without transverse reinforcement

1

t = --------------------------------3

1 + 0.1cot st

(6-8)

(6-4)

and in members with transverse reinforcement

calculated shear strengths for beams and columns subjected

to cyclic loading following the procedure in the 1988 Japanese design guideline. He concluded that the method in the

Japanese guideline resulted in accurate estimates of the

reduced shear strength of both beams and columns subjected

to cyclic loading with various shear span-depth ratios. He

indicated, however, that the method did not perform well for

members with high-strength concrete. Further research at

Kyoto University showed that the performance of the

method was improved by adopting the strut factor proposed

in the draft of the CEB-FIP model code (Comit Euro-International du Bton 1988), which is proportional to the reciprocal

of the cubic root of the compressive strength of concrete

(Watanabe and Kabeyasawa 1998)

4.6

t = ----------------------------------------5

6.5 + 0.13cot st

(6-9)

longitudinal tie (Fig. 6.5), that in the case of structural walls,

is oriented in the vertical direction. Von Ramin and Matamoros

(2006) indicated that the angle of inclination of the main

strut in members with low shear span-depth ratios may be

approximated as

cotst = av /d

(6-10)

truss mechanism is superimposed on a strut (Fig. 6.5), Von

ITG-4.3R-40

(1991), and implemented in the seismic design guidelines of

the Architectural Institute of Japan (1994).

Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006) suggested the

following limits for the angle of inclination of the struts of

the compression fields

cotl 2cosst

(Fig. 6.5(a))

(6-14)

cot

cott --------------st2

(Fig. 6.5(b))

(6-15)

and

Fig. 6.5Strut and compression field angles for structural

walls as defined by Von Ramin and Matamoros (2006).

Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006) indicated that the

strength of the strut must be reduced to reflect interaction

with the tie. Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006)

proposed the following expression for the interaction factor

( s f c f t, t ) ( s f c f t, l )

ta = -------------------------------------------------------2

( s f c ) f t, t f t, l

angles. The strength provided by the two orthogonal truss

mechanisms is given by

(6-11)

(Fig. 6.5(a))

(6-16)

(Fig. 6.5(a))

(6-17)

and

where ft,l and ft,t are the stresses imposed on the concrete by

the compression fields associated with reinforcement

oriented in directions parallel to and perpendicular to the

main longitudinal tie. These stresses are calculated based on

the assumption of a uniform compression field (Von Ramin

and Matamoros 2006) as

span-depth ratios is calculated as

Vn + Va + Vt,t + Vt,l

t, t f yt, t

f t, t = ---------------2

sin t

(6-12)

(6-18)

from arch-action. The term Va was defined on the basis of the

strength of a strut spanning from load point to support as

and

f t, l

t, l f yt, l

= ---------------2

cos l

Va = s fc wstbsinst

(6-19)

(6-13)

reinforcement oriented perpendicular to the main longitudinal

tie, fyt,t is the specified yield strength of the transverse

reinforcement oriented perpendicular to the main longitudinal

tie, t,l is the transverse reinforcement ratio for the transverse

reinforcement oriented in the direction parallel to the main

longitudinal tie, fyt,l is the specified yield strength of the

reinforcement oriented parallel to the main longitudinal tie,

t is the angle between the main longitudinal tie (which is

oriented in the vertical direction in the case of structural

walls) and the struts of the compression field induced by the

transverse reinforcement oriented perpendicular to the main

longitudinal tie (Fig. 6.5), and l is the angle between the

main longitudinal tie and the struts of the compression field

induced by the transverse reinforcement oriented parallel to

the main longitudinal tie.

Equation (6-11) originates from a lower bound plasticity

solution of a strut-and-tie model proposed by Nielsen (1999).

where wst is the strut width, and b is the width of the structural

member. Based on the geometric configuration of the node,

the width of the strut w is given by

wst = hacosst lbsinst

(6-20)

with ha = 2cb = twice the cover of the longitudinal reinforcement and lb is the dimension of the loading plate or support

in the axial direction of the member.

In the case of squat walls in which designers include the

strength provided by the transverse reinforcement, contrary

to expectations, Eq. (6-11) will result in a significant reduction

in the calculated strength of the strut. In structural walls with

those characteristics, the amount of transverse reinforcement

needed to avoid a reduction in shear strength after inclined

cracking is very large. A larger nominal shear strength may

be obtained by neglecting the effect of the transverse reinforcement in the calculation of the strength of the wall, which is

consistent with the behavior observed in tests. In those cases,

although the amount of transverse reinforcement does not

reinforcement should be provided as dictated by ACI 318-05.

Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006) indicated that,

for walls with well-confined boundary elements, Eq. (6-18)

resulted in conservative estimates of strength, and that a

better estimate of the shear strength is obtained by adding the

shear strength of the boundary element, calculated as if it

were a compression member.

Based on test results from columns and beams subjected to

load reversals, Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004) suggested

the following expression for the reduction in the strength of

the strut as a result of repeated load reversals into the

nonlinear range of response

8DR lim

nl, strut = 1 ---------------------------------------( t f yt f c ) + 0.01

(6-21)

reversals into the nonlinear range of response is given by

sc = nl,strut s

(6-22)

strength of the truss mechanism should be reduced as well by

the following factor

1

nl, truss = ----------------------------------------------p

1 + 1.5 DR lim 6

(6-23)

p = 1 + 2 (P/Ag fc )0.35

(6-24)

where

compressive strength and shear span-depth ratio on the strut

factor. They proposed the following strut factor expression

for concrete compressive strengths ranging between 2900

and 14,500 psi (20 and 100 MPa)

f c

a 2

a

s = 1.25 --------------- 0.72 -----v + 0.18 -----v ( f c in psi)

d

d

72,500

(6-25)

2

f c

a

a

v

v

s = 1.25 --------- 0.72 ----- + 0.18 ----- ( f cin MPa)

d

d

500

The CSA Standard adopts a strut factor that considers the

strain compatibility of the struts and the strain softening of

the diagonally cracked concrete. The expression for the strut

factor is

1

s = ---------------------------0.8 + 170 1

(6-26)

ITG-4.3R-41

strain compatibility, the principal tensile strain is expressed

as a function of the strain in the tie s as

1 = s + (s + 0.002)/tan2st

(6-27)

the reinforcement y.

A modification of Eq. (6-26) was later proposed by

Vecchio et al. (1994) for high-strength concrete with

compressive strength ranging up to 10,400 psi (72 MPa)

1

s = ----------------------------

0.9 + 0.27 ----1

0

(6-28)

subjected to seismic loading

Current provisions in Section 21.3.4 of ACI 318-05 for

proportioning the amount of transverse reinforcement in

beams (flexural members) of special moment frames require

that the design shear force be calculated on the basis of

opposing probable flexural strengths at the joint faces and

the factored tributary gravity load along the span. The shear

strength must be calculated according to the procedures

outlined in Chapter 11 of ACI 318-05, which were calibrated

based on tests of members subjected to monotonic loading.

The effect of repeated shear reversals is accounted for in that

the term related to the contribution of the concrete, Vc , must be

neglected if the earthquake-induced shear is 1/2 or more of the

design shear force and the axial force is less than Ag fc /20.

Additional requirements for the amount of transverse

reinforcement are given in Section 21.3.3 of ACI 318-05,

which limits the maximum hoop spacing to the smallest of d/4,

eight times the diameter of the smallest longitudinal bar, 24

times the diameter of the hoop bar, and 12 in. (305 mm).

A similar two-tier approach is used to determine the

amount of transverse reinforcement in columns (members

subjected to bending and axial load) of special moment frames.

The shear demand must be calculated on the basis of the

probable moment strengths at the joints and the amount of

reinforcement required for shear strength must be calculated in

accordance with Chapter 11 of ACI 318-05. As in the case of

beams, the term related to the contribution of the concrete, Vc ,

must be neglected if the earthquake-induced shear is 1/2 or

more of the design shear force and the axial force is less than

Ag fc /20. For the majority of practical design cases, the term Vc

does not have to be neglected in columns because the axial force

is not less than Ag fc /20. Moreover, the shear strength of a

column increases as the compressive axial load on it increases.

In addition, designers must verify that the amount of transverse

reinforcement provided is greater than that required by Eq. (21-3)

or (21-4) of ACI 318-05. These two equations specify the

amount of transverse reinforcement for adequate confinement

of the column core under cyclic loading. The latter criterion

controls for most practical situations.

ITG-4.3R-42

reinforcement

The use of high-strength transverse reinforcement is

advantageous for column confinement. This topic is

addressed in detail in Chapter 5 of this report. Section 11.5.2

of ACI 318-05 limits the yield strength of shear reinforcement to a maximum of 60,000 psi (414 MPa), which is

increased to 80,000 psi (552 MPa) in the case of welded

deformed wire reinforcement. It is stated in the commentary

to the code that this provision is intended to limit the width

of inclined cracks at service-load levels.

Otani (1995) described the approach followed by the

Japanese code for shear design using high-yield-strength

transverse reinforcement. The objective of the Japanese

Standard is to limit the width of shear cracks under long-term

loads to an acceptable value, particularly in the case of

columns, and to provide a safe estimate of strength (5% failure

ratio on the basis of 1200 test data) for short-term loads.

In the case of beams subjected to long-term loading, the

maximum allowable shear force is given by

Vall = bj[shvc,all + 0.5fyt(t 0.002)]

(6-29)

shear force is given by

Vall = bjsh fyt

(6-30)

allowable shear force is given by

Vall = bj[shvc,all + 0.5fyt(t 0.001)]

(6-31)

allowable shear force is given by

Vall = bj[vc,all + 0.5fyt(t 0.001)]

(6-32)

4

sh = 1 ------------------------- 2

M Vd + 1

(6-33)

where

where

vc, all

M

=

=

b

j

=

=

maximum moment in the member due to

service loads;

maximum shear force in the member due to

service loads (at the same location as M);

width of compression face of member;

ratio of internal lever arm to effective depth of

beam (under bending, j = 7/8d);

distance from extreme compression fiber to

centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement;

and

ratio of area of distributed transverse reinforcement to gross concrete area perpendicular to

an upper limit of 0.006 for long-term loads and

0.008 for short-term loads).

The allowable shear stress in the concrete is given by the

minimum of fc /30 and 70 + fc /100 (psi) ( fc /30 and 0.5

+ fc /100 [MPa]) for normalweight concrete under long-term

loading. For short-term loading, the allowable stress is

increased by a factor of 1.5. For lightweight-aggregate

concrete, a reduction factor of 0.9 must be applied. The

maximum allowable tensile stress in the shear reinforcement

is limited by the Japanese Design Standard to 28,500 psi

(197 MPa) under long-term loads and 85,400 psi (589 MPa)

under short-term loads. The reasons for establishing an upper

limit on the allowable tensile stress include: 1) serviceability

concerns; and 2) experimental evidence from beams with

high-strength transverse reinforcement tested in Japan

showing that yielding of the transverse reinforcement was

not reached at shear failure.

6.7Recommendations

Based on the body of research that was reviewed, there are

no specific recommendations deemed necessary for the

design of slender high-strength concrete members for shear.

The modification to Eq. (11-13) of ACI 318-05 to make the

minimum amount of reinforcement a function of the

compressive strength of concrete provides an adequate solution

to prevent sudden shear failures after inclined cracking in

members with light amounts of transverse reinforcement.

A study by Sakaguchi et al. (1990) raises concerns about

the behavior of members with low shear span-depth ratios

subjected to cyclic loading. There is evidence (Sakaguchi et

al. 1990; Kabeyasawa and Hiraishi 1998; Von Ramin and

Matamoros 2004, 2006) that the application of the strut

factors specified in Appendix A of ACI 318-05 to the design

of high-strength concrete members may be unconservative

because these factors were calibrated based on test results of

elements loaded monotonically to failure.

In elements subjected to load reversals, concrete may

alternate between states of tension and compression due to

changes in the direction of loading. If the element remains in

the elastic range of response, the width of the cracks that

form while concrete is subjected to tensile strains is not large

enough to cause severe damage, and the use of strut factors

derived for the monotonic loading case is acceptable. This

type of behavior was observed in tests of deep beams

subjected to load reversals conducted by Uribe and Alcocer

(2001) in which failure took place prior to significant

inelastic deformations in the flexural reinforcement (peak

recorded strains in the flexural reinforcement at failure were

on the order of 1%).

When elements undergo excursions into the inelastic

range of response, crack widths are significantly larger than

those observed in the linear range of response due to larger

deformations associated with yielding of the reinforcement.

If concrete is not properly confined, this type of behavior

leads to rapid degradation of strength. Furthermore, in some

instances, the compression force may not be sufficient to

fully close cracks formed while concrete and reinforcement

reduced strength for concrete in the struts, or may render

struts ineffective due to changes in the load path in the

element. To address the aforementioned problems caused by

load reversals into the inelastic range of response, several

proposals in the literature suggest that it is necessary to

adjust strut factors for monotonic loading when using them

for seismic design. Uribe and Alcocer (2001) indicated that

procedures for seismic design using strut-and-tie models

should account for the reduction in strength of the concrete

in the struts as well as potential reductions in bond strength

due to load reversals. They also suggested that proper

detailing should include the use of closely spaced hoops to

limit the width of the cracks under tension, and to provide

confinement to concrete in the struts. Expressions for the

reduction in strength with inelastic deformations are

presented in the Japanese Design Code (AIJ 1994) and by

Von Ramin and Matamoros (2006). In the Japanese Design

Code (AIJ 1994), the capacity of struts is reduced as a function

of the plastic rotation, while in the proposal developed by

Von Ramin and Matamoros (2006), the reduction in strength

is a function of deformation demand, amount of confining

reinforcement, and the axial stress on the element.

Because the strut factors in Appendix A of ACI 318-05 do

not account for the effects of load reversals, the committee

recommends that they only be used to proportion elements

intended to remain elastic for the design earthquake.

Specific recommendations for the design of members with

low shear span-depth ratios using strut-and-tie models are

presented in the following. In the case of bottle-shaped

struts, a recommendation is made based on the strut factors

suggested by Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006).

These factors were calibrated using deep beams and walls,

and adjusted to account for the 0.85 factor included in Eq. (A-3)

of Appendix A of ACI 318-05:

s = fct 0.6

(6-34)

where

fc = 1 fc /30,000 0.6

( fc in psi)

fc = 1 0.005 fc 0.6

1

t = --------------------------------3

1 + 0.1cot st

(6-35)

( fc in MPa)

(6-36)

to the main tie.

In the case of members subjected to point loads with single

struts running between the load and reaction points, the angle

of inclination of the strut may be approximated as

a

cos st = -----v

d

(6-37)

ITG-4.3R-43

that in Appendix A for ACI 318-05 for bottle-shaped struts

without transverse reinforcement.

corresponding to bottle-shaped struts in Appendix A of ACI

318-05 is presented in Fig. 6.6. As shown in Fig. 6.6, when the

angle of inclination of the strut is 35 degrees, the proposed strut

factor becomes equal to that in ACI 318-05 at a concrete

compressive strength of approximately 7000 psi (48 MPa).

For struts with uniform cross-sectional area over their

length, the stress conditions are very similar to those in the

compression zone of members subjected to flexure and axial

load. For this reason, it is recommended that the strut factor

be similar to the 1 factor defined of Section 4.8 of this

report, adjusted for the 0.85 factor in ACI 318, Eq. (A-3). In

inch-pound units, it is recommended that: for struts with

uniform cross-sectional area over their length, the factor s

shall be taken as 1.0 for concrete strengths fc up to and

including 8000 psi. For strengths above 8000 psi, s shall be

reduced continuously at a rate of 0.02 for each 1000 psi of

strength in excess of 8000 psi, but s shall not be taken less

than 0.80. In SI units, the recommendation is that: for

struts with uniform cross-sectional area over their length, the

factor s shall be taken as 1.0 for concrete strengths fc up to

and including 55 MPa. For strengths above 55 MPa, s shall

be reduced continuously at a rate of 0.003 for each MPa of

strength in excess of 55 MPa, but s shall not be taken less

than 0.80.

Because research on the effect of repeated load reversals

into the nonlinear range of response on strut factors is at an

early stage, it is recommended that the use of strut-and-tie

models be limited to design of members where significant

degradation of strength under load reversals into the

nonlinear range is not expected to take place.

Recommendations about the amount of transverse reinforcement needed for proper confinement of the concrete under

nonlinear deformations are addressed in Chapter 5 of this

report.

ITG-4.3R-44

According to ACI 318-05, the development length of

deformed bars or deformed wires in tension may be calculated

according to the following requirements. For cases in which:

1) the clear spacing of the bars being developed or spliced is

not less than db, the cover is not less than db, and the stirrups

or ties throughout ld or the splice length are not less than the

code minimum; or 2) the clear spacing of the bars being

developed or spliced is not less than 2db and the cover is not

less than db

l

fy t e

- for No. 6 and smaller bars (f c and f y in psi)

----d- = -----------------db

25 f c

l

12f y t e

----d- = ------------------------- for No. 6 and smaller bars (f c and f y in MPa)

db

25 f c

l

fy t e

----d- = ------------------ for No. 7 and larger bars (f c and f y in psi)

db

20 f c

3f y t e

l

- for No. 7 and larger bars (f c and f y in MPa)

----d- = ---------------------db

5 f c

(7-1)

(7-2)

and confinement criteria

l

3f y t e

----d- = ---------------------- for No. 6 and smaller bars (f c and f y in psi)

db

50 f c

18f y t e

l

- for No. 6 and smaller bars (f c and f y in MPa)

----d- = ------------------------db

25 f c

l

3f y t e

----d- = ---------------------- for No. 7 and larger bars (f c and f y in psi)

db

40 f c

9f y t e

l

- for No. 7 and larger bars (f c and f y in MPa)

----d- = ---------------------db

10 f c

(7-3)

(7-4)

deformed wires in tension may be calculated with a more

complex equation: ACI 318 Eq. (12-1)

l

fy t e s

3- -------- ----------------------- (f c and f y in psi)

----d- = ----40 f c c b + K tr

db

----------------- db

l

fy t e s

9- -------- ----------------------- (f c and f y in MPa)

----d- = ----db

10 f c c b + K tr

----------------- db

length calculated with any of the previous formulas must be

not less than 12 in. (305 mm).

Due to a lack of test data on bars embedded in highstrength concrete, ACI 318-05 places an upper limit of 100 psi

(8.3 MPa) on the term f c in the previous equations. This

limit does not allow designers to take advantage of any

increase in bond strength associated with increases in

concrete compressive strength beyond 10,000 psi (69 MPa).

Research on bond of reinforcement in high-strength

concrete has shown that there is a significant difference

between the behavior of members with and without transverse

Darwin 2000; Azizinamini et al. 1993). In high-strength

concrete members without transverse reinforcement, there is

a greater tendency for the cracks to propagate through the

aggregate, resulting in smoother failure surfaces than those

found in normal-strength concrete (McCabe 1998). When

the critical failure stress is reached, there is only limited

redistribution of stresses and, as a result, failure tends to be

more sudden and brittle in nature than in normal-strength

concrete. Zuo and Darwin (2000) observed brittle failures in

high-strength concrete without significant damage to the

concrete at the interface between the bar and the concrete.

Azizinamini et al. (1999b) also indicated that the strength

of specimens without transverse reinforcement cannot be

estimated with much accuracy because there are significant

variations in measured strength for similar specimens.

McCabe (1998) stated that in members without transverse

reinforcement, the maximum stress before splitting

failure is related to the fracture properties of the concrete,

and not solely to the compressive strength. Because the

fracture energy does not increase proportionally to the square

root of the compressive strength, design expressions based on

the square root function may be unconservative for

compressive strengths greater than 10,000 psi (69 MPa)

(McCabe 1998). Zuo and Darwin (2000) proposed a relationship between bond force and compressive strength to the

1/4 power based on a statistical study of monotonic tests

of beams without transverse reinforcement and with

concrete compressive strengths up to 16,000 psi (110 MPa). It

has also been suggested that the lower water-cementitious

material ratios of high-strength concrete result in less bleeding

and sedimentation, which makes the top bar effect less

significant than in normal-strength concrete (Fujii et al.

1998; Azizinamini et al. 1999b).

7.1Design equations for development length of

bars in high-strength concrete

Design equations applicable to high-strength concrete

have been proposed in ACI 408R-03, based on the statistical

analysis by Zuo and Darwin (2000). It is proposed in the ACI

Committee 408 report that Eq. (12-1) of ACI 318-05 be

replaced by the following

fy

---------- 2210 t e

f 1 4

ld

c

----- = -------------------------------------------------------- (f c and f y in psi)

db

c + K tr

70 ----------------------

db

42f y

---------- 2210 t e

f 1 4

ld

c

----- = ------------------------------------------------------- (f c and f y in MPa)

db

c + K tr

70 ----------------------

db

(7-5)

where

c = cmin + 0.5db

(7-6)

ITG-4.3R-45

c max

= 0.1 --------- + 0.9 1.25

c min

(7-7)

and the total bond force is given by

(7-8)

A sp

14

- + 66 f c

Tb = 2177t d -----(Tb in lb, td in in., Asp in in.2, and fc in

(7-13)

psi)

Ktr = (6.25tdAtr /sn)

2

td = 0.78db + 0.22

(db in inches)

td = 0.03db + 0.22

(db in mm)

(7-9)

and

(c + Ktr )/db 4.0

(7-10)

ACI 318-05 are proposed to be replaced by the following: for

cases in which 1) the clear spacing of the bars being developed

or spliced is not less than db, the cover is not less than db, and

the stirrups or ties throughout ld provide a value of Ktr /db 0.5;

or 2) the clear spacing of the bars being developed or spliced is

not less 2db, and the cover is not less than db

l

fy

----d- = -------------------- 20 t e (f c and f y in psi)

105f 1 4

db

c

l

0.4f y

----d- = ---------- 20 t e (f c and f y in MPa)

f 1 4

db

c

(7-11)

and confinement criteria

l

fy

----d- = ----------------- 30 t e (f c and f y in psi)

70f 1 4

db

c

l

0.6f y

----d- = ---------- 30 t e (f c and f y in MPa)

f 1 4

db

c

(7-12)

behavior (Azizinamini et al. 1999b), because the confinement

provided by the transverse reinforcement restrains the

development of splitting cracks. Furthermore, the behavior

becomes significantly more ductile. Zuo and Darwin (2000)

showed the significant effect of transverse reinforcement on

bond strength. Their study showed that the best fit between

bond force and compressive strength for members with

transverse reinforcement was obtained for a power coefficient

of 3/4 compared with a coefficient of 1/4 for members

without transverse reinforcement.

An alternative design procedure was proposed by Azizinamini

et al. (1999a). Rather than introducing new design equations,

the procedure relies on a minimum amount of transverse

reinforcement over the splice region to take advantage of the

concrete compressive strength and improve the ductility of

the splices (Azizinamini et al. 1999a). The approach

proposed by Azizinamini et al. is based on an analysis of test

results by Darwin et al. (1996), which concluded that the

t d A sp

14

Tb = -------- + 1 f c (Tb in kN, td in mm, Asp in mm2, and fc in MPa)

500- -----n

transverse reinforcement crossing the potential plane of

splitting along the length of splice, n is the number of bars

being spliced, and fc is the specified compressive strength.

This equation was used to estimate the amount of transverse

reinforcement required to achieve an increase in bond

strength proportional to the square root of the compressive

strength. For test data with a concrete compressive strength

of 15,000 psi (103 MPa), the amount of transverse reinforcement needed to obtain a safe estimate of the development

length of a No. 8 (No. 25) bar with the ACI 318 equations

was approximately

Asp = 0.5nAb,max

(7-14)

was proposed to estimate the amount of transverse reinforcement required for members with concrete compressive

strengths other than 15,000 psi (103 MPa) and higher than

10,000 psi (69 MPa)

A sp = 0.5nA b, max ( f c 15,000 ), f c 10,000 (f c in psi)

A sp = 0.5nA b, max ( f c 100 ), f c 69 (f c in MPa)

(7-15)

with concrete compressive strengths of up to 16,000 psi

(110 MPa).

Additional requirements are that the maximum spacing of

stirrups in the longitudinal direction not exceed 12 in.

(305 mm), a minimum of three stirrups be used through the

length of the splice, and that the bar size for the stirrups be at

least No. 3 (No. 10). The proposal by Azizinamini et al.

(1999a) requires that the development length be calculated

using the equations in Sections 12.2.2 or 12.2.3 of ACI 318-05

assuming a value of Ktr = 0. Because the current restriction in

the code applies to concrete compressive strengths greater

than 10,000 psi (69 MPa), the amount of transverse reinforcement proposed previously would be required when the

compressive strength exceeds that threshold. The main

advantage of the procedure proposed by Azizinamini et al.

(1999a) is that it does not require adopting new equations for

development length. There may, however, be additional cost

if additional transverse reinforcement is required.

7.2Design equations for development length of

hooked bars in high-strength concrete

There is little experimental data on the behavior of hooked

bars in high-strength concrete. Fujii et al. (1998) summarized

ITG-4.3R-46

as part of the research program on high-strength materials.

Compressive strength of concrete in the specimens tested as

part of the study ranged from 5800 to 17,400 psi (40 to

120 MPa). All specimens in the testing program failed due

to splitting of the side cover (cover to the side of the bar).

Fujii et al. (1998) indicated that bond force was proportional

to the cubic root of the compressive strength rather than the

square root of fc . Increasing side cover led to increases in

strength up to a cover of six bar diameters. The maximum

stress developed in specimens with closely spaced bars (bar

spacings ranging between two and 15 bar diameters) was

approximately 75% of that observed in bars spaced farther

apart than 30 bar diameters. The maximum stress increased

in proportion to the development length up to a development

length of 16 bar diameters, after which the observed increase

in maximum stress was negligible. The maximum bar stress

also increased proportionally to the ratio of development

length to the lever arm between the tension and the compression

resultants in the beam. Finally, the maximum stress in the bar

was found to increase with the amount of transverse reinforcement. The increase was proportional to the ratio Asp fyt /s, where

Asp is the cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement

crossing the potential splitting plane, fyt is the yield strength

of the transverse reinforcement, and s is the spacing. The

increase was approximately linear, with a maximum of 40%

for an Asp fyt /s ratio of 3350 lb/in. (0.59 kN/mm).

Fujii et al. (1998) proposed the following expression for

the maximum tensile stress that can be developed in a bar

with 90-degree hook

(7-20)

case) to the outermost anchored bar;

In inch-pound units:

Lap splices of flexural reinforcement shall be permitted

only if hoop or spiral reinforcement is provided over the lap

length. When the value of f c exceeds 100 psi, ld shall be

(7-16)

where kcc is the cover factor, kj and kd are development

length factors, and ks is the transverse reinforcement factor.

The factors are as follows

0.1c

k cc = 0.43 + ---------db

0.5l dh

k j = 0.8 + ------------jd

(1 kj 4)

l dh

k d = 0.038 ----- + 0.54 1.0

db

(7-17)

(7-18)

(7-19)

0.46d s

k s = 0.7 + --------------- 1.0

2

db

=

=

7.3Recommendations

Research in bond and development of reinforcement

(McCabe 1998) indicates that design expressions based on

the square root of the compressive strength of the concrete

may be unconservative for compressive strengths greater

than 10,000 psi (69 MPa). Research by Azizinamini et al.

(1993, 1999b) and Zuo and Darwin (2000) showed that the

two main alternatives to correcting this problem were to

increase the development length or to add transverse reinforcement. The main advantage of the latter approach is that it

improves the behavior of the spliced or developed bars

because failure is significantly more ductile. This is particularly

advantageous in seismic design.

Zuo and Darwin (2000) proposed a relationship between

bond force and compressive strength to the 1/4 power based

on a statistical study of monotonic tests of beams without

transverse reinforcement and with concrete compressive

strengths up to 16,000 psi (110 MPa). Their study concluded

that the best fit between bond force and compressive strength

for members with transverse reinforcement was obtained for

compressive strength raised to the power of 3/4, compared

with the compressive strength raised to the power of 1/4 for

members without transverse reinforcement.

Because ductile behavior is preferable in earthquake-resistant

design, it was decided that the use of transverse reinforcement

would be the preferable of the two alternatives. Therefore,

the recommendation by Azizinamini et al. (1999a) was

adopted as the basis for the proposed addition to Chapter 21

of ACI 318-05. Consistent with the approach adopted in ACI

318-05, the design recommendation adopted by the

committee did not include any limitations to its applicability

related to use of epoxy coating. It is important to note,

however, that the recommendation by Azizinamini et al.

(1999a) was based primarily on test results from uncoated

bar splices in elements with concrete compressive strength of

up to 16,000 psi (110 MPa). At the time the recommendation

was adopted by the committee, there was a paucity of

experimental results from splices of epoxy-coated bars with

transverse reinforcement in elements with high-strength

concrete, and from uncoated and epoxy-coated bars terminated

using standard hooks in high-strength concrete.

The proposed recommendation is stated in the following:

where

cc

development length in tension of deformed bar

or deformed wire with standard hook, measured

from critical section to outside end of hook;

j

= ratio of internal lever arm to effective depth of

the beam section at the column face; and

= nominal diameter of bar used as transverse

ds

reinforcement (positioned at the hook).

The configuration of the hook must satisfy the requirements

of ACI 318-05.

db

ldh

ITG-4.3R-47

transverse reinforcement crossing the potential plane of

splitting shall be provided over the tension splice length with

a minimum total cross-sectional area Asp given by ACI 318,

Eq. (21-AA).

Asp = 0.5nAb,max(fc /15,000)

the plane of splitting.

Maximum spacing of the transverse reinforcement

enclosing the lapped bars shall not exceed d/4 or 4 in., and

the minimum hoop or spiral bar size shall be No. 3. Lap

splices shall not be used

(a) within joints;

(b) within a distance of twice the member depth from the

face of the joint; and

(c) where analysis indicates flexural yielding is caused by

inelastic lateral displacements of the frame.

In SI units:

Lap splices of flexural reinforcement shall be permitted

only if hoop or spiral reinforcement is provided over the lap

length. When the value of f c exceeds 25/3 MPa, ld shall

be calculated from either 12.2.2 or 12.2.3 with Ktr = 0, and

transverse reinforcement crossing the potential plane of

splitting shall be provided over the tension splice length with

a minimum total cross-sectional area Asp as given by ACI

318M, Eq. (21-AA).

Asp = 0.5nAb,max(fc /100)

the plane of splitting.

Maximum spacing of the transverse reinforcement

enclosing the lapped bars shall not exceed d/4 or 100 mm,

and the minimum hoop or spiral bar size shall be No. 10. Lap

splices shall not be used

(a) within the joints;

(b) within a distance of twice the member depth from the

face of the joint; and

(c) where analysis indicates flexural yielding is caused by

inelastic lateral displacements of the frame.

Conclusions from Zuo and Darwin (2000) for splices are

consistent with those by Fujii et al. (1998) for hooked bars.

Fujii et al. (1998) summarized research on hooked bars in

exterior joints carried out in Japan as part of the research

program on high-strength materials. Concrete compressive

strengths of the specimens tested as part of the study ranged

from 5800 to 17,400 psi (40 to 120 MPa). All specimens in

the testing program failed due to splitting of the side cover

(cover to the side of the bar). Fujii et al. concluded that bond

force was proportional to the cubic root of the compressive

strength rather than the square root of fc .

It is a concern that the current equation for the development

length of hooked bars in tension of ACI 318-05 (Eq. (21-6))

hooks.

may result in unconservative estimates for compressive

strengths above 10,000 psi (69 MPa). While the term f c

has an upper limit of 100 psi (8.3 MPa) in Chapter 12 of ACI

318-05, there is no such limit on Chapter 21. Given that no

literature was found evaluating the use of the current ACI

provisions for the development length of hooked bars in

members with high-strength concrete, a modification to

Eq. (21-6) of ACI 318-05 is proposed in this report to reduce

the likelihood of unconservative estimates. The proposed

modification is as follows:

In inch-pound units:

21.5.4.1 The development length ldh for a bar with a

standard 90-degree hook in normalweight aggregate

concrete shall not be less than the largest of 8db, 6 in., or the

lengths required by ACI 318 Eq. (21-6) and (21-BB)

fy db

ldh = --------------65 f c

fy db

ldh = -------------------------14

650 ( f c )

In SI units:

21.5.4.1 The development length ldh for a bar with a

standard 90 degree hook in normalweight aggregate

concrete shall not be less than the largest of 8db, 150 mm, or

the lengths required by ACI 318M Eq. (21-6) and (21-BB)

12f y d b

ldh = --------------65 f c

42f y d b

ldh = -------------------------14

650 ( f c )

for bar sizes No. 10 through 36.

ITG-4.3R-48

modification for development length of hooks.

The proposed modification results in the same development lengths as given by ACI 318-05 (Fig. 7.1) for concrete

compressive strengths up to 10,000 psi (69 MPa). For

strengths greater than 10,000 psi (69 MPa), the development

length of a hooked bar ldh increases in proportion to the

fourth root of the compressive strength, resulting in an

increase in development length (Fig. 7.2) that varies from 0

at 10,000 psi (69 MPa) to approximately 20% at 20,000 psi

(138 MPa).

CHAPTER 8DESIGN OF BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS

The provisions for the design of joints in ACI 318-05

require that the horizontal shear stress in the joint be

compared with the nominal shear strength (Fig. 8.1), which

is calculated as

Vn = vj f c Aj

Vn = vj f c Aj

( fc in psi)

(8-1)

a plane parallel to the plane of reinforcement generating

shear in the joint, and vj is a constant equal to 20, 15, or 12

for joints confined on all four faces (typically interior joints),

joints confined on three faces or two opposite faces (typically exterior joints), and all other (typically corner) joints,

respectively. A column face is considered confined if a beam

frames into it and the beam is wide enough to cover 3/4 of

the column face.

The horizontal shear force in the joint must be calculated

based on the assumption that the stress in the flexural tensile

reinforcement of the beams framing into the joint is 1.25fy

(Fig. 8.1).

8.1Confinement requirements for

beam-column joints

For special moment-resisting frames, ACI 318-05 requires

the same amount of transverse hoop reinforcement as that

required in potential plastic hinge regions of columns, unless

the joint is confined by structural members on all four sides.

For rectangular columns, the amount of transverse reinforcement through the joint must be at least

f c

f c

Ag

A sh = 0.3 ------- 1 sb ---- 0.09sb c --- A ch c f yt

f yt

(8-2)

length lo, near the top and bottom of columns, may not

exceed 1/4 of the minimum column dimension, six times the

diameter of column longitudinal bars, and the longitudinal

spacing so. These criteria result in hoop spacing generally in

the range of 4 to 6 in. (102 and 152 mm). This requirement

is similar to that included in the design provisions developed

by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (2002).

In the case of joints that are confined by structural

members framing into all four sides of the joint, with each

member having a width of at least 3/4 of the column width,

Section 21.5.2.2 of ACI 318-05 requires a minimum of 1/2

the amount of reinforcement in Eq. (8-2), and a maximum

hoop spacing of 6 in. (152 mm).

The aforementioned requirements apply to joints of

special moment frames only. There are no specific code

requirements for joints of frames that are not part of the

Seismic Category D or higher. Such joints and joints of intermediate moment frames must comply with Section 7.10.4 of

ACI 318-05 in the case of spirally reinforced columns, and

Section 7.10.5 in the case of tied columns.

Section 7.10.5.2 requires that vertical spacing of ties shall

not exceed 16 longitudinal bar diameters, 48 tie bar or wire

diameters, or the least dimension of the compression

member. Section 7.10.5.4 requires that ties complying with

the aforementioned limitation must be provided at no more

than 1/2 of a tie spacing below the lowest horizontal reinforcement in slab or drop panel above. It also requires that ties

must be located vertically not more than 1/2 of a tie spacing

above the top of footing or slab in any story. Where beams

or brackets frame from four directions into a column,

termination of ties not more than 3 in. (76 mm) below the

lowest reinforcement in the shallowest of such beams or

brackets is permitted.

Section 7.10.4.6 requires that spirals in a spirally reinforced

column must extend from the top of the footing or slab to the

level of the lowest horizontal reinforcement in members

supported above.

Section 7.10.4.7 requires that where beams or brackets do

not frame into all sides of a column, ties must extend above

termination of the spiral to the bottom of the slab or drop

panel. No maximum spacing for such ties is specified.

Within the regions of potential plastic hinging at the ends

of columns of intermediate moment frames, nonspiral transverse reinforcement must be in the form of hoops and must

be provided at a spacing not to exceed: a) eight times the

diameter of the smallest longitudinal bar; b) 24 times the

diameter of the hoop bar; c) 1/2 of the smallest crosssectional dimension of column; and d) 12 in. (305 mm). The

only requirement concerning transverse joint reinforcement,

however, is in Section 21.12.5.5, which requires such reinforcement to conform to Section 11.11.2. That section

requires transverse reinforcement having a minimum crosssectional area equal to 0.75 f c c2s/fyt 50c2s/fyt (0.063 for

fc in MPa) to be provided over a depth not less than that of

the deepest framing member. Ghosh et al. (1995) recommended that the column end transverse reinforcement, as

required by Section 21.12.5.2, be continued through joints of

intermediate moment frames, irrespective of whether they

are confined or unconfined.

8.2Shear strength of exterior joints

Saqan and Kreger (1998) evaluated test results from 26

beam-column connections tested in Japan and the U.S. with

concrete compressive strengths ranging from 6000 to

15,500 psi (41 to 107 MPa). The maximum joint shear was

calculated based on the story shears in the specimens at drift

ratios of 2%.

In the case of exterior joints, only two of the 22 specimens

considered by Saqan and Kreger (1998) had shear strengths

less than those calculated per ACI 318-05. Saqan and Kreger

(1998) attributed the lower strengths observed in the two

specimens to high bond stresses that degraded the shear

strength of the joints prematurely. The ratios of column

ITG-4.3R-49

depth to beam bar diameter in these two tests were 13.6 and

15.7, below the limit of 20 specified by the design provisions

of ACI 318-05 and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (2002).

The average ratio of measured to calculated strength was

1.31 for the entire group of exterior joint tests, and the

average joint shear coefficient vj was 20.8 compared with

the value of 15 given in ACI 318-05 and the design provisions

of Committee 352.

Of the 22 specimens evaluated, the majority did not

comply with the code requirements for exterior connections,

namely that there should be a minimum of two beams on

opposite sides of the column with widths of at least 75% of

the column width. The strict interpretation of this requirement

would have led to classifying the specimens as corner

connections and adopting a shear coefficient vj of 12.

Noguchi et al. (1998) presented an overview of experimental

research on connections in Japan. The total number of

specimens with concrete compressive strength over 8700 psi

(60 MPa) was 110, with 76 simulating interior connections,

and 28 specimens simulating exterior joints without transverse beams.

Noguchi et al. (1998) concluded that the provisions for

calculating joint shear strength in ACI 318-89 (same as those

in ACI 318-05) provided conservative results for the tests

carried out in Japan. The mean value of the joint shear

strength measured experimentally was approximately

proportional to the compressive strength raised to the power

0.72. The ACI provisions, which assume that joint shear

strength increases with the square root of the compressive

strength, resulted in a safe lower-bound estimate of strength.

8.3Shear strength of interior joints

Saqan and Kreger (1998) had only four test results from

specimens simulating interior joints. All specimens

sustained joint shear strengths higher than the nominal

values calculated according to ACI 318-05, despite having

lower amounts of transverse reinforcement than dictated by

ACI 318-05 and the design provisions of Committee 352,

and despite not meeting the requirement that beams extend

over at least 75% of the width of all column faces. They

concluded that on the limited basis of these four tests, the

design provisions for joint shear strength in ACI 318-05 and

those proposed by Committee 352 provided safe estimates of

strength for concrete compressive strengths of up to 15,000 psi

(103 MPa). The evaluation of test results by Noguchi et al.

(1998) also led to the conclusion that the ACI design provisions

yielded conservative estimates of strength for concrete

compressive strengths up to 17,400 psi (120 MPa).

8.4Effect of transverse reinforcement on

joint shear strength

The amount of transverse reinforcement in the exterior

joint specimens reviewed by Saqan and Kreger (1998)

ranged from 0.07 to 2.02 times the amount required by

ACI 318-05. They found no discernible correlation between

joint shear strength or mode of failure and the amount of

transverse reinforcement. Of the 22 specimens evaluated by

Saqan and Kreger, only five had an amount of transverse

ITG-4.3R-50

remaining specimens had an average amount of reinforcement

that was 47% of the minimum required, and had joint shear

strengths that were 42% higher than the calculated nominal

strength. Based on this, Saqan and Kreger indicated that the

amount of transverse reinforcement in the joint could be

reduced for joints with high-strength concrete, although the

effect of axial load should be assessed before such a reduction

is put in place.

Noguchi et al. (1998) concluded that transverse reinforcement

was marginally effective in increasing joint shear strength,

and that the effect of transverse reinforcement on joint shear

strength was not sensitive to concrete compressive strength.

They also found that the effect of transverse reinforcement

was slightly more significant for exterior joints than for

interior joints.

Although experimental results showed that beam-column

joints with low amounts of transverse reinforcement were

able to attain shear strengths comparable with those of wellreinforced joints, one important additional consideration is

that the same cannot be concluded about the toughness of the

joints. The term toughness in this case refers to how

sustainable the peak shear strength was upon further load

reversals up to similar or greater joint distortions (Joint ACIASCE Committee 352 2002). Noguchi et al. (1998)

concluded that the plastic deformation capacity and the

ductility of joints were enhanced by transverse reinforcement in a manner consistent with the behavior of joints with

normal-strength concrete.

8.5Development length requirements for

beam-column joints

ACI 318-05 criteria for the design of interior beamcolumn joints in special moment frames subjected to seismic

loading include the requirement that the column dimension

parallel to the beam reinforcement must be no less than 20 times

the diameter of the largest longitudinal bar for normalweight

concrete nor 26 times the bar diameter for lightweight

concrete. These criteria are based on an evaluation of test

results (Zhu and Jirsa 1983) for beam-column joints made

with normal-strength concrete subjected to load reversals. Zhu

and Jirsa (1983) concluded that the ratios of column width to

bar diameter of 20 to 22 were appropriate to avoid bond

damage at an interstory drift of 3%.

The slip of bars in beam-column joints under load reversals

plays an important role in the ability of reinforced concrete

frames to resist seismic loading (Durrani and Wight 1982;

Zhu and Jirsa 1983; Ciampi et al. 1982). Based on push-pull

tests of bars embedded in beam-column joints with normalstrength concrete, Ciampi et al. (1982) found that to limit

bond damage under cyclic loading, anchorage lengths

between 25 and 30 bar diameters and between 35 and 40 bar

diameters were necessary for Grade 40 and 60 (280 and

420 MPa) deformed bars, respectively. The criteria used to

define satisfactory performance were: 1) that the bond

damage be limited to the end region of the embedment

length; 2) that the hysteretic loops of the anchored bar

remain stable; and 3) that the strength of the anchorage

values during the previous cycles. The evaluation of test

results by Zhu and Jirsa (1983) resulted in the smaller values

now used in ACI 318-05. More recent tests, however,

support the earlier observations and indicate that the current

design criteria will not prevent bond slip, even in the earliest

stages of cyclic loading, and that significant bond slip will

occur even under more stringent requirements than those in

ACI 318-05 (Quintero-Febres and Wight 2001; Joint ACIASCE Committee 352 2002).

Development length requirements for beam-column joints

differ significantly among the ACI 318-05 (ACI Committee

318 2005), the AIJ Design Guideline (AIJ 1994), and the

NZS 3101 (Standards Association of New Zealand 1995).

While the minimum column dimension requirement in

ACI 318-05 is insensitive to material properties, design

provisions in the AIJ Design Guideline (AIJ 1994) and in

NZS 3101 establish the ratio of bar diameter to column depth

as a function of the square root of the concrete compressive

strength and the yield strength of the reinforcement. The

philosophy behind this requirement is that bond deterioration

can cause significant loss in the capacity of the connection to

dissipate energy (pinching behavior). Noguchi et al. (1998),

based on the tests of beam-column joints with concrete

compressive strengths greater than 8700 psi (60 MPa)

carried out in Japan as part of the New RC project, concluded

that specimens with high-strength concrete and highstrength reinforcement demonstrated significantly reduced

ability to dissipate energy compared with beam-column

joints made with normal-strength concrete. They indicated

that while specimens that met the Japanese design guideline

had adequate behavior, it is not clear if a less stringent

requirement such as that of ACI 318-05 would be sufficient

for adequate toughness under cyclic loading. They

concluded that further evaluation of the Japanese design

guideline was needed for high-strength materials.

8.6Recommendations

Because research indicates that the equations for calculating

the shear strength of joints are conservative for high-strength

concrete, no change to the code provisions is recommended.

There are significant differences in the provisions for the

ratio of column dimension parallel to the beam reinforcement to

the diameter of the largest longitudinal beam bar (which

effectively defines the minimum interior column dimension)

between ACI 318-05 and both the AIJ Design Guideline

(1994) and NZS 3101 (Standards Association of New

Zealand 1995). ACI 318-05 requires significantly smaller

column dimensions for joints with high-strength concrete.

Although there is consensus in the literature that the

minimum column dimension specified in ACI 318-05 is not

sufficient to prevent slip of the reinforcement, this situation

is not specific to high-strength concrete. The main difficulty

faced by the ITG was that there were no references found

evaluating the minimum column dimension specified in

ACI 318-05 when high-strength concrete was used. Although

there is experimental evidence from research carried out in

Japan that the toughness of joints subjected to repeated load

research conducted in Japan was aimed at evaluating the performance of joints proportioned according to the Japanese design

provisions. For that reason, no consensus was found on how to

modify the ACI 318-05 provisions to account for this effect.

CHAPTER 9DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL WALLS

Seismic design of structural walls is covered in Section 21.7

of ACI 318-05. For walls with low aspect ratios, the primary

design consideration is shear strength. According to ACI

318-05, the nominal shear strength of walls is given by

Vn = Acv(c f c + t fy)

where the coefficient c = 3.0 for hw /lw 1.5, 2.0 for hw /lw

2.0, (fc and fy in psi) where the coefficient c = 0.25 for

hw /lw 1.5, 0.17 for hw /lw 2.0, (fc and fy in MPa) and

varies linearly in between.

The minimum amount of web reinforcement required by

the code is l = t = 0.0025, with a maximum spacing

between bars of 18 in. (457 mm).

In slender walls, the flexural behavior of the walls is most

important. The minimum amount of longitudinal reinforcement

is specified to prevent premature failure due to rupture of the

reinforcement. The significance of this problem is greater for

walls made with high-strength concrete because the depth of

the neutral axis decreases and the strain demand in the

reinforcement increases with compressive strength.

Another mode of failure that the code intends to prevent,

or at least postpone, through the use of special boundary

elements at the edges of structural walls is crushing of the

concrete in the compression zone due to flexural demands.

According to ACI 318-05, compression zones shall be

reinforced with special boundary elements in areas where

lw

c ----------------------------, h 0.007

600 ( u h w ) u w

(9-1)

for the factored axial force and nominal moment strength,

consistent with the design displacement u , in. These

elements allow proper confinement and ductile behavior of

the compression zone. Due to the amount of transverse

reinforcement required, however, the use of boundary

elements significantly increases the cost of the walls.

9.1Boundary element requirements

The equation to determine whether boundary elements are

required stems from establishing a limiting strain demand

lim that the wall can sustain without special confinement,

such that

lim

c = ------- lim

(9-2)

ITG-4.3R-51

following expression was proposed for the limiting curvature

1

lim = --- 0.0025 ( l w 0.5h w ) + 2 -----ulw

hw

(9-3)

compared with the second, it can be conservatively

neglected to calculate the depth of the neutral axis

lim

lw

lw

- = -------------c = -------- = ------------- lim

2 u

hw

(9-4)

limiting strain of 0.003 and rounding the term 2/0.003 = 667

down to 600. The design expression implemented in ACI

318-05 is thus intended to require special boundary elements

if the strain in the extreme compression fiber of a wall

exceeds 0.003 for the design drift demand. In the current

design procedure, the limiting strain is independent of the

concrete compressive strength. A limiting strain of 0.003 has

been shown to be a safe limit for normal-strength concrete

(Wallace 1998). The main concern in applying this provision

to high-strength concrete walls is whether a limiting strain of

0.003 remains a safe value as the concrete compressive

strength increases.

Wallace (1998) suggests that a similar limiting strain for

normal-and high-strength concrete can be adopted, although

greater conservatism may be prudent for high-strength

concrete given the relatively brittle behavior of unconfined

high-strength concrete.

As previously stated in Section 4.5, Fasching and French

(1998) indicate that opinions about the limiting strain for

high-strength concrete are varied. The test data set they

compiled had limiting strains ranging from 0.002 and 0.005,

with an average value of 0.0033. Average values for data sets

with the same type of aggregate were all above 0.003.

Bae and Bayrak (2003) suggested adopting a lower

limiting strain due to observed spalling at lower strains in

highly confined high-strength concrete columns. They

attribute the premature spalling observed in these columns to

the existence of a failure plane created by closely spaced hoops.

Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) proposed, on the

basis of moment-curvature analyses, that the limiting

concrete strain be linearly reduced from 0.0036 for 4000 psi

(28 MPa) concrete to 0.0027 for 18,000 psi (124 MPa)

concrete. Their analysis consisted of finding the maximum

moment resistance and the corresponding extreme compression

fiber strain from a series of moment-curvature diagrams.

They concluded that although the optimal values of flexural

strength were obtained by varying the limiting strain as

proposed, the calculated flexural strength was not very

sensitive to the limiting strain, and recommended adopting a

constant value of 0.003.

ITG-4.3R-52

of cover concrete in most of the concentrically loaded

columns that they tested, prior to the development of strains

associated with concrete crushing. Similar to Bae and

Bayrak (2003), they attributed the premature spalling in

these columns to a stability failure caused by a failure plane

induced by the presence of closely spaced longitudinal and

transverse steel. Furthermore, they indicated that this

problem was not observed in columns with widely spaced

transverse reinforcement tested by Rangan et al. (1991) and

Yong et al. (1988).

9.2Shear strength of walls with low aspect ratios

Tests of low-rise walls with high-strength concrete carried

out in North America are scarce. Wallace (1998) performed

an analysis comparing the strength estimated using the shear

design equation in ACI 318-05 with test results of low-rise

walls made of high-strength concrete carried out in Japan.

The analysis by Wallace showed that the ratio of measured

to estimated strength decreased with the ratio n fy/fc . The

strength of several specimens with n fy/fc 0.08 was overestimated using the ACI 318 equation. He carried out a

second comparison using a design procedure proposed by

Wood (1990). According to Wood, the shear strength of the

walls is given by

Vn = Asv fy/4

10 f c Acv Vn 6 f c Acv

(9-5)

( fc in psi)

(9-6)

( fc in MPa)

is the area of the wall bounded by the web thickness and the

wall length. Wallace found that for the high-strength walls

with different amounts of vertical reinforcement tested in

Japan, the equation proposed by Wood provided a uniform

ratio of measured to calculated shear strength. The average

ratio of measured to calculated strength was 1.76, with a

coefficient of variation of 20%. Wallace also showed that for

high-strength concrete walls, shear strength was not sensitive to

the amount of web reinforcement, and suggested using a

shear strength of 9 f c Acv (in psi) (0.75 f c Acv [in MPa])

as a safe lower bound.

Kabeyasawa and Hiraishi (1998) presented a summary of

21 tests on high-strength concrete walls conducted in Japan,

with compressive strengths ranging from 8700 to 17,400 psi

(60 to 120 MPa). The parameters of the experimental

program were the concrete compressive strength, the transverse and longitudinal reinforcement ratios, the axial load,

the type of boundary element, and the shear span-depth ratio.

Six of the specimens were designed to reach flexural

yielding before shear failure.

Specimens designed to fail in shear had different amounts

of web reinforcement. All shear-critical specimens failed

due to crushing of the concrete in the web of the wall.

after yielding of that reinforcement, and their strength was

safely estimated by the Japanese seismic design guideline. In

specimens with high amounts of transverse reinforcement,

failure occurred due to crushing of the web concrete before

yielding of the web reinforcement, and their strength was

overestimated by the Japanese design guideline. The Japanese

guideline is based on a strut-and-tie approach in which the

total strength is the sum of the strength contributions from

truss and arch action. The procedure is based on estimating

the demand on the concrete placed by the truss mechanism,

and whatever capacity is left, if any, is assigned to the direct

strut mechanism. Kabeyasawa and Hiraishi (1998) also

indicated that although the walls designed to fail in flexure

were able to sustain deformations past the yield point of the

flexural reinforcement, the energy dissipated, as indicated by

the hysteresis loops, was relatively low. They indicated that

equivalent damping coefficients for the high-strength

concrete walls were on the order of 5 to 8%, while these

values for normal-strength walls are considerably higher, on

the order of 20%. In addition, the hysteresis loops exhibited

pinching behavior.

9.3Minimum tensile reinforcement requirements

in walls

Failure of lightly reinforced structural walls may occur, in

some instances at relatively low levels of drift, due to fracture

of the tensile reinforcement (Wood 1989). A documented

case of this type of failure occurred in an eight-story structural

wall building that suffered severe damage and fracture of the

tensile reinforcement near the base of the structural walls

during the 1985 Chilean earthquake (Wood 1989).

According to Wood, the damaged walls had calculated tensile

strains in the boundary reinforcement that were twice the

measured fracture strain of the reinforcement.

This problem can be exacerbated by the use of highstrength concrete because the depth of the compression zone

needed to equilibrate the force in the tensile reinforcement is

considerably less than in walls with normal-strength concrete.

Based on results from 37 structural wall tests, Wood

proposed two different criteria that may be used to determine

the vulnerability of walls to failure due to fracture of the

tensile reinforcement. The first criterion uses the calculated

steel strain in the extreme layer of reinforcement at the

nominal flexural strength of the cross section as an index

value. Because there were several walls within the set with

calculated steel strains greater than 5% that failed in shear,

however, Wood concluded that the calculated steel strain

cannot be used as the sole criterion for determining the

susceptibility of a wall to fracture of the reinforcement.

It was observed that of the subset of 24 walls with a shear

stress index greater than 0.75, 20 failed in shear, and of the

13 walls that developed a shear stress index less than 0.75,

12 failed in flexure. The shear stress index was defined by

Wood as vmax /vn , where vmax is the maximum shear stress

demand on the wall and

vn = 2 f c + n fy 8 f c (psi)

vn =

(9-7)

f c /6 + n fy 2 f c /3 (MPa)

0.75, Wood observed that 10 of the 12 walls with total

vertical reinforcement ratios wt less than 1% were susceptible

to fracture of the tensile reinforcement. Fracture of the

reinforcement was observed in walls with calculated steel

strains in the extreme layer of reinforcement as low as 2.5%.

A limit of 4% was proposed as a reasonable boundary for

identifying walls that are likely to fail due to fracture of the

reinforcement.

The second criterion is based on the flexural stress index

cfsw, which is representative of the ratio of neutral axis depth

to wall length, and is given by

wt f yl + P A w

c fsw = --------------------------------f c

(9-8)

A swb + A sww

wt = ---------------------------Aw

(9-9)

where

where

wt

Aw

Aswb

=

=

=

gross area of the wall;

area of vertical reinforcement in the boundary

element of the wall (the participation of the

steel in the compression boundary element is

ignored in the formulation because it was

assumed that the neutral axis depth is small);

Asww

= total area of vertical reinforcement in the web

of the wall, excluding boundary elements; and

P

= axial load on the wall, with a positive value

representing a compressive force.

Wood noted that of the 27 specimens in which the main

reinforcement did not fracture, 26 had flexural stress indexes

greater than 15%, and suggested that structural walls susceptible to fracture of the tensile reinforcement are those with a

flexural stress index below 15%.

Both of the two requirements proposed by Wood may be

interpreted as prescribing a minimum amount of tensile

reinforcement in structural walls.

9.4Recommendations

The literature survey indicates that design provisions for

the detailing of boundary elements in slender walls in ACI

318-05 are adequate for high-strength concrete, and no

significant change is necessary. The technical references in

which a lower limiting compressive strain was suggested for

high-strength concrete columns attributed the need for a

lower limiting strain to the existence of a failure plane

caused by closely spaced ties, or to an overestimation of the

ITG-4.3R-53

end regions of walls without boundary elements, while the

latter is not a concern because the limiting strain of the

concrete is not likely to have a significant effect on the

calculated flexural strength of slender walls.

One area of concern is the behavior of walls with very light

amounts of longitudinal reinforcement. A simple procedure

was proposed by Wood to prevent wall failure due to fracture

of the tension reinforcement.

In the case of walls with low aspect ratios, the study by

Wallace (1998) showed that shear strength equations in ACI

318-05 become less conservative as the amount of transverse

reinforcement increases in walls with high-strength

concrete. For high amounts of transverse reinforcement, the

equation for shear strength in ACI 318-05 was found to be

unconservative. One viable option to obtain a uniform level

of safety is to adopt the equations proposed by Wood. The

main disadvantage of this option is that the level of conservatism was found to be quite large for high-strength

concrete. Another alternative is to recommend the use of

strut-and-tie models following the recommendations presented

in Chapter 6.

The study by Wallace indicated that the current ACI

procedure was unconservative for several high-strength

concrete walls with n fy /fc 0.08. These cases, however,

are rare in earthquake-resistant construction. This concern

may be addressed with an addition to the commentary to

ACI 318-05, Section 21.7.4, indicating that the current

design equations may yield unconservative estimates of

shear strength for high-strength concrete walls with high

amounts of transverse reinforcement.

CHAPTER 10LIST OF PROPOSED

MODIFICATIONS TO ACI 318-05

One of the main goals of this report was to present a series

of recommendations for the use of high-strength concrete in

seismic design. The main purpose of the literature review

presented in the previous chapters on structural design was

to identify specific sections of ACI 318-05 that should be

revised to allow for the use of high-strength concrete in

seismic design. Although some of the changes that were

proposed were intended to facilitate a smooth transition

between normal- and high-strength concrete, the majority of

them specifically address structural design using highstrength concrete.

The following are specific modifications to ACI 318-05

intended for the safe use of high-strength concrete in seismic

design. Section numbers are noted where applicable. SI units

are not repeated in this Chapter for clarity. See previous

chapters for SI equivalents.

10.1Proposed modifications to equivalent

rectangular stress block

The following changes are proposed to the equivalent

rectangular stress in ACI 318-05.

Changes and additions to Section 2.1

1

= factor relating magnitude of uniform stress in

the equivalent rectangular compressive stress

ITG-4.3R-54

concrete as defined in 10.2.7.2, Chapter 10.

1

= factor relating depth of equivalent rectangular

compressive stress block to neutral axis depth,

see 10.2.7.3 10.2.7.4, Chapters 10, 18,

Appendix B

= factor relating mean concrete compressive

1

stress at axial load failure of concentrically

loaded columns to specified compressive

strength of concrete as defined in 10.3.6.4,

Chapter 10.

Changes to Section 10.2.7

10.2.7.1 Concrete stress of 0.85 1fc shall be assumed

uniformly distributed over an equivalent compression zone

bounded by edges of the cross section and a straight line

located parallel to the neutral axis at a distance a = 1c from

the fiber of maximum compressive strain.

10.2.7.2 For fc between 2500 and 8000 psi, 1 shall be

taken as 0.85. For fc above 8000 psi, 1 shall be reduced

linearly at a rate of 0.015 for each 1000 psi of strength in

excess of 8000 psi, but 1 shall not be taken less than 0.70.

10.2.7.2 10.2.7.3 Distance from the fiber of maximum

strain to the neutral axis, c, shall be measured in a direction

perpendicular to that axis.

10.2.7.3 10.2.7.4 For fc between 2500 and 4000 psi, 1

shall be taken as 0.85. For fc above 4000 psi, 1 shall be

reduced linearly at a rate of 0.05 for each 1000 psi of strength

in excess of 4000 psi, but 1 shall not be taken less than 0.65.

Changes to Section 10.3.6

10.3.6.1 For nonprestressed members with spiral

reinforcement conforming to 7.10.4 or composite members

conforming to 10.16, or confined columns conforming to

21.4.4.1 through 21.4.4.3 for the full height of the column

Pn,max = 0.85[0.85fc (Ag Ast ) + fyAst]

(10-1)

(10-1)

conforming to 7.10.5

Pn,max = 0.80[0.85fc (Ag Ast ) + fyAst]

(10-2)

(10-2)

Pn shall not be taken greater than 0.85 (for members with

spiral reinforcement) or 0.80 (for members with tie reinforcement) of the design axial strength at zero eccentricity

Po calculated assuming concrete stress of 1fc uniformly

distributed across the entire depth of the section.

10.3.6.4 For fc between 2500 and 8000 psi, 1 shall

be taken as 0.85. For fc above 8000 psi, 1 shall be

reduced linearly at a rate of 0.015 for each 1000 psi of

strength in excess of 8000 psi, but 1 shall not be taken

less than 0.70.

confinement of potential plastic hinge regions

Addition to Section 2.1

= confinement efficiency factor. See Eq. (21-YY)

kve

Changes to Section 21.2.5

21.2.5 Reinforcement in members resisting earthquakeinduced forcesReinforcement resisting earthquakeinduced flexural and axial forces in frame members and in

structural wall boundary elements shall comply with ASTM

A 706. ASTM A 615 Grades 40 and 60 (280 and 420 MPa)

reinforcement shall be permitted in these members if:

(a) The actual yield strength based on mill tests does not

exceed fy by more than 18,000 psi (retests shall not exceed

this value by more than an additional 3000 psi); and

(b) The ratio of the actual tensile strength to the actual

yield strength is not less than 1.25

The value of fyt for transverse reinforcement including

spiral reinforcement shall not exceed 60,000 psi. The use of

transverse reinforcement with a specified yield strength not

exceeding 120,000 psi shall be permitted when required to

meet the confinement requirements given by Eq. (21-XX).

The yield strength of the reinforcement shall be measured by

the offset method of ASTM A 370 using 0.2% permanent

offset. The requirement of Section 3.5.3.2 shall be inapplicable to such high-strength transverse reinforcement.

Replace Section 21.4.4.1 with the following

21.4.4.1 Transverse reinforcement as required in (a)

through (c) shall be provided unless a larger amount is

required by 21.4.3.2 or 21.4.5.

(a) The area ratio of transverse reinforcement shall not be

less than that required by Eq. (21-XX)

f c A g

1 Pu

t = 0.35 ---- -------- 1 ----------- ----------f yt A ch k A g f c

ve

(21-XX)

(b) Transverse reinforcement shall have either circular or

rectangular geometry. Reinforcement for columns with

circular geometry shall be in the form of spirals or hoops, for

which kve = 1.0. Reinforcement for columns with rectangular

geometry shall be provided in the form of single or overlapping

hoops. Crossties of the same bar size and spacing as the

hoops shall be permitted. Each end of the crosstie shall

engage a peripheral longitudinal reinforcing bar. Consecutive

crossties shall be alternated end for end along the longitudinal

reinforcement. The parameter kve for rectangular hoop

reinforcement shall be determined by Eq. (21-YY)

0.15b

k ve = ---------------c 1.0

sh x

(21-YY)

transverse reinforcement exceeds 4 in., additional transverse

reinforcement shall be provided at a spacing not exceeding

12 in. Concrete cover on the additional reinforcement shall

not exceed 4 in.

21.12.5.1 Columns shall be spirally reinforced in accordance with 7.10.4 or shall conform to 21.12.5.2 through

21.12.5.421.12.5.5. Section 21.12.5.521.12.5.6 shall apply

to all columns.

21.12.5.2 At both ends of the member, hoops shall be

provided at spacing so over a length lo measured from the

joint face. Spacing so shall not exceed the smallest of (a), (b),

(c), and (d): (a) eight times the diameter of the smallest

longitudinal bar enclosed; (b) 24 times the diameter of the hoop

bar; (c) 1/2 of the smallest cross-sectional dimension of the

frame member; (d) 12 in. length lo shall not be less than the

largest of (e), (f), and (g); (e) 1/6 of the clear span of the

member; (f) maximum cross-sectional dimension of the

member; and (g) 18 in.

21.12.5.3 For members in which the specified concrete

compressive strength is greater than 8000 psi, transverse

reinforcement as required in (a) and (b) shall be provided at

both ends of the member over a length lo measured from the

joint face.

(a) Members with transverse reinforcement with rectilinear

geometry shall not be less than that required by Eq. (21-ZZ)

f Ag

Pu

t = 0.3 ----c- ------- 1 ----------f yt A ch A g f c

(21-ZZ)

geometry shall not be less than that required by Eq. (21-WW)

f c A g

Pu

t = 0.2 ---- -------- 1 ----------f yt A ch A g f c

(21-WW)

21.12.5.321.12.5.4 The first hoop shall be located not

more than so/2 from the joint face.

21.12.5.421.12.5.5 Outside the length lo, spacing of

transverse reinforcement shall conform to 7.10 and 11.5.5.1.

21.12.5.521.12.5.6 Joint transverse reinforcement shall

conform to 11.11.2.

10.3Proposed modifications related to bond and

development of reinforcement

Additions to Section 2.1

= total cross-sectional area of all transverse

Asp

reinforcement that is within the splice or development length and that crosses the potential

plane of splitting through the reinforcement

being spliced or developed, in.2

Ab,max = cross-sectional area of largest bar being spliced

or developed, in.2

Changes to Chapter 21

21.3.2.3 Lap splices of flexural reinforcement shall be

permitted only if hoop or spiral reinforcement is provided

over the lap length. When the value of f c exceeds 100 psi,

ld shall be calculated using either 12.2.2 or 12.2.3 with Ktr =

0, and transverse reinforcement crossing the potential plane

of splitting shall be provided over the tension splice length

ITG-4.3R-55

Eq. (21-AA)

Asp = 0.5nAb,max(fc /15,000)

(21-AA)

the plane of splitting.

Maximum spacing of the transverse reinforcement

enclosing the lapped bars shall not exceed d/4 or 4 in., and

the minimum hoop or spiral bar size shall be No. 3. Lap

splices shall not be used:

(a) within the joints;

(b) within a distance of twice the member depth from the

face of the joint; and

(c) where analysis indicates flexural yielding is caused by

inelastic lateral displacements of the frame.

21.4.3.2 Mechanical splices shall conform to 21.2.6, and

welded splices shall conform to 21.2.7. Lap splices shall be

permitted only within the center half of the member length.

Lap splices shall be designed as tension lap splices in accordance with 21.3.2.3, and shall be enclosed with transverse

reinforcement conforming to 21.4.4.2 and 21.4.4.3 and the

maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement in lap splices

shall be as given by 21.4.4.2. The transverse reinforcement

also shall conform to 21.4.4.3.

21.5.4.1 The development length ldh for a bar with a

standard 90-degree hook in normalweight aggregate

concrete shall not be less than the largest of 8db, 6 in., and

the lengths required by Eq. (21-6) and (21-BB)

fy db

l dh = --------------65 f c

(21-6)

fy db

l dh = --------------------14

650f c

(21-BB)

21.7.2.3 Reinforcement in structural walls shall be

developed or spliced for fy in tension in accordance with

Chapter 12, except:

(a) The effective depth of the member referenced in

12.10.3 shall be permitted to be 0.8lw for walls;

(b) The requirements of 12.11, 12.12, and 12.13 need not

be satisfied;

(c) At locations where yielding of longitudinal reinforcement is likely to occur as a result of lateral displacements,

development lengths of longitudinal reinforcement shall be

1.25 times the values calculated for fy in tension. When the

value of f c exceeds 100 psi, transverse reinforcement with

a minimum total cross-sectional area Asp as given by Eq. (21-AA)

shall be provided over the development or splice length;

(d) Mechanical splices of reinforcement shall conform to

21.2.6, and welded splices of reinforcement shall conform to

21.2.7; and

(e) When the value of f c exceeds 100 psi, ld shall be

calculated with Ktr = 0.

ITG-4.3R-56

reinforcement of boundary elements shall conform to 21.2.6

and 21.2.7. Lap splices shall be designed as tension lap

splices in accordance with 21.3.2.3, except that the

maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement shall be as

given by 21.4.4.2 and the transverse reinforcement shall also

conform to 21.4.4.3.

Addition to Section 2.1

= smallest angle of inclination of a strut with

st

respect to the ties that it intersects in both of its

nodes

fc

= factor to account for the effect of concrete

compressive strength on the effective

compressive strength of concrete in a strut

t

= factor to account for the effect of the angle of

inclination of the strut st on the effective

compressive strength of concrete in a strut

10.4Proposed modifications related to

strut-and-tie models

Changes to Appendix A

A.3.2 The effective compressive strength of the concrete

fce in a strut shall be taken as

fce = 0.85s fc

(A-3)

length s= 1.0: for fc between 2500 and 8000 psi, s shall be

taken as 1.0; for fc above 8000 psi, s shall be reduced

linearly at a rate of 0.02 for each 1000 psi of strength in

excess of 8000 psi, but s shall not be taken less than 0.80.

A.3.2.2 For struts located such that the width of the

midsection of the strut is larger than the width at the nodes

(bottle-shaped struts):

(a) with reinforcement satisfying A.3.3, s = 0.75; and

(b) without reinforcement satisfying A.3.3, s = 0.6 shall

be taken as the smaller of: (a) 0.6; and (b) the product of

fct , where

fc = 1 fc /30,000, but fc shall not be taken less than

0.60.

1

t = ---------------------------------3

1 + 0.1cot st

and is given in 11.7.4.3.

In the case of members subjected to point loads with single

struts connecting the load and reaction point, the angle of

inclination of the strut may be approximated as

a

cot s = -----v

d

A.3.2.3 For struts in tension members, or the tension

flanges of members, s = 0.40

A.3.2.4 For all other cases, s = 0.60

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to the Carpenters Contractors Cooperation

Committee, Inc., of Los Angeles, Calif., for sponsoring

Innovation Task Group 4 and to Joseph C. Sanders for acting

as liaison with that group. The members of ITG 4 are

indebted to the following individuals for their review of

portions of this document and for their constructive

comments: R. J. Frosch, M. E. Kreger, D. A. Kuchma, J. M.

LaFave, J. A. Ramirez, J. W. Wallace, and S. L. Wood. O.

Bayrak is owed many thanks for his input related to stress

block parameters. M. Saatcioglu made numerous contributions

related to stress block parameters and column confinement,

which are gratefully acknowledged.

CHAPTER 11CITED REFERENCES

Abrams, D. P., 1987, Influence of Axial Force Variations

on Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns, ACI

Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 3, May-June, pp. 246-254.

ACI Committee 301, 2005, Specifications for Structural

Concrete (ACI 301-05), American Concrete Institute,

Farmington Hills, Mich., 49 pp.

ACI Committee 318, 1983, Building Code Requirements

for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-83), American Concrete

Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 155 pp.

ACI Committee 318, 1989, Building Code Requirements

for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-89) and Commentary

(318R-89), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,

Mich., 347 pp.

ACI Committee 318, 2002, Building Code Requirements

for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary

(318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,

Mich., 443 pp.

ACI Committee 318, 2005, Building Code Requirements

for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary

(318R-05), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,

Mich., 430 pp.

ACI Committee 363, 1992, Report on High-Strength

Concrete (ACI 363R-92), American Concrete Institute,

Farmington Hills, Mich., 56 pp.

ACI Committee 408, 2003, Bond and Development of

Straight Reinforcing Bars in Tension (ACI 408R-03), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 49 pp.

ACI Innovation Task Group 4, 2006, Materials and

Quality Considerations for High-Strength Concrete in

Moderate to High Seismic Applications (ITG-4.2R-06),

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 26 pp.

Ahmad, S. H.; Khaloo, A. R.; and Poveda, A., 1986,

Shear Capacity of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete

Beams, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.Apr., pp. 297-305.

Ahmad, S. H., and Lue, D. M., 1987, Flexure-Shear Interaction of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beams, ACI

Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 330-341.

Ahmad, S. H., and Shah, S., 1982, Stress-Strain Curves

of Concrete Confined by Spiral Reinforcement, ACI

JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 79, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 484-490.

Aoyama, H., 1993, Design Philosophy for Shear in

Earthquake Resistance in Japan, Earthquake Resistance

Hiroyuki Aoyama, University of Tokyo, pp. 407-418.

Aoyama, H.; Murota, T.; Hiraishi, H.; and Bessho, S.,

1990, Outline of the Japanese National Project on

Advanced Reinforced Concrete Buildings with HighStrength and High-Quality Materials, Proceedings of the

Second International Symposium on High Strength Concrete,

SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed., American Concrete Institute,

Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 21-32.

Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ), 1994, Design for

Earthquake Resistant Reinforced Concrete Buildings Based

on Ultimate Strength Concept, with Commentary, 337 pp.

ASCE/SEI, 2006, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings

and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-05), Structural Engineering Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers,

Reston, Va., 424 pp.

Azizinamini, A.; Baum Kuska, S.; Brungardt, P.; and

Hatfield, E., 1994, Seismic Behavior of Square HighStrength Concrete Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V. 91,

No. 3, May-June, pp. 336-345.

Azizinamini, A.; Darwin, D.; Eligehausen, R.; Pavel, R.;

and Ghosh, S. K., 1999a, Proposed Modifications to ACI

318-95 Tension Development and Lap Splice for HighStrength Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 6,

Nov.-Dec., pp. 922-926.

Azizinamini, A.; Pavel, R.; Hatfield, E.; and Ghosh, S. K.,

1999b, Behavior of Lap-Spliced Reinforcing Bars

Embedded in High-Strength Concrete, ACI Structural

Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 826-835.

Azizinamini, A.; Stark, M.; Roller, J. J.; and Ghosh, S. K.,

1993, Bond Performance of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in

High-Strength Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 90,

No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 554-561.

Bae, S., and Bayrak, O., 2003, Stress Block Parameters

for High-Strength Concrete Members, ACI Structural

Journal, V. 100, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 626-636.

Bassapa, R. H., and Rangan, B. V., 1995, Strength of

High Strength Concrete Columns under Eccentric Compression, Research Report No. 2/95, School of Civil Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.

Bayrak, O., 1999, Seismic Performance of Rectilinearly

Confined High Strength Concrete Columns, PhD dissertation,

University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Bayrak, O., and Sheikh, S., 1998, Confinement Reinforcement Design Considerations for Ductile HSC Columns,

Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 124, No. 9, pp. 999-1010.

Bjerkeli, L.; Tomaszewicz, A.; and Jensen A. A., 1990,

Deformation Properties and Ductility of High Strength

Concrete, Proceedings, Second International Symposium

on High-Strength Concrete, SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 215-238.

BOCA, 1993, The BOCA National Building Code,

Building Officials and Code Administrators International,

Country Club Hills, Ill.

Brachmann, I.; Browning, J.; and Matamoros, A., 2004a,

Drift-Dependent Confinement Requirements for Reinforced Concrete Columns under Cyclic Loading, ACI

Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 669-677.

ITG-4.3R-57

Relationship Between Drift and Confinement in Reinforced

Concrete Columns Under Cyclic Loading, Proceedings,

13th World Conference in Earthquake Engineering,

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 15 pp.

Browning, J., 2001, Proportioning of EarthquakeResistant RC Building Structures, Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE, V. 127, No. 2, pp. 145-151.

BSSC, 2004, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for New

Buildings and Other Structures Part 2: Commentary (FEMA

450), 2003 Edition, Building Seismic Safety Council,

National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.

C4 Committee, 2000, High Strength Concrete Research,

Carpenters/Contractors Cooperation Committee, Inc., Los

Angeles, Calif.

Canadian Standards Association, 1994, Design of

Concrete Structures for Buildings (CAN3-A23.3-94),

Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.

Ciampi, V.; Eligehausen, R.; Bertero, V. V.; and Popov,

E. P., 1982, Analytical Model for Deformed Bar Bond

Under Generalized Excitations, UCB/EERC Report No. 82/

23, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of

California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.

Collins, M., and Kuchma, D., 1999, How Safe Are Our

Large, Lightly Reinforced Concrete Beams, Slabs, and

Footings? ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 4, July-Aug.,

pp. 482-490.

Collins, M. P.; Mitchell, D.; and MacGregor, J. G., 1993,

Structural Design Considerations for High-Strength Concrete,

Concrete International, V. 15, No. 5, May, pp. 27-34.

Comit Euro-International du Bton (CEB), 1988, CEB-FIP

Model Code 1990First Predraft (1988), Bulletin dInformation No. 190a/190b, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Comit Euro-International du Bton (CEB), 1993, CEB-FIP

Model Code 1990, Bulletin dInformation No. 213/214,

Lausanne, Switzerland.

Cusson, D., and Paultre, P., 1994, High-Strength Concrete

Columns Confined by Rectangular Ties, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 120, No. 3, pp. 783-804.

Cusson, D., and Paultre, P., 1995, Stress-Strain Model for

Confined High-Strength Concrete, Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE, V. 121, No. 3, pp. 468-477.

Darwin, D.; Zuo, J.; Tholen, M. L.; and Idun, E. K., 1996,

Development Length Criteria for Conventional and High

Relative Rib Area Reinforcing Bars, ACI Structural

Journal, V. 93, No. 3, May-June, pp. 347-359.

Durrani, A. J., and Wight, J. K., 1982, Experimental and

Analytical Study of Internal Beam to Column Connections

Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Loading, Report No. UMEE

82R3, Department of Civil Engineering, University of

Mich., Ann Arbor, Mich., 275 pp.

Elwood, K., 2002, Shake Table Tests and Analytical

Studies on the Gravity Load Collapse of Reinforced

Concrete Frames, PhD dissertation, Department of Civil

and Environmental Engineering, University of California at

Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.

ITG-4.3R-58

Elwood, K., and Moehle, J., 2005, Axial Capacity Model for

Shear-Damaged Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V. 102,

No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 578-587.

Elzanaty, A. H.; Nilson, A. H.; and Slate, F. O., 1986,

Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using HighStrength Concrete, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2,

Mar.-Apr. pp. 290-296.

Fafitis, A., and Shah, S. P., 1985, Lateral Reinforcement

for High Strength Concrete Columns, High Strength

Concrete, SP-87, H. G. Russell, ed., American Concrete

Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 213-232.

Fasching, C. J., and French, C. E., 1998, Effect of HighStrength Concrete (HSC) on Flexural Members, HighStrength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French

and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 137-178.

Foster, S. J., and Attard, M. M., 1997, Experimental Tests

on Eccentrically Loaded High-Strength Concrete Columns,

ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 3, May-June, pp. 295-303.

Fujii, S.; Noguchi, H.; and Morita, S., 1998, Bond and

Anchorage of Reinforcement in High-Strength Concrete,

High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W.

French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute,

Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 23-43.

Ghosh, S. K.; Domel, A. W.; and Fanella, D. A., 1995,

Design of Concrete Buildings for Earthquake & Wind Forces,

2nd Edition, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Ill.

Ghosh, S. K., and Saatcioglu, M., 1994, Ductility and

Seismic Behavior, High Performance Concrete: Properties

and Applications, S. P. Shah and S. H. Ahmad, eds.,

McGraw Hill, 388 pp.

Hibi, J.; Mihara, Y.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama H., 1991,

Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns Using High

Strength Concrete after Flexural Yielding, Transactions of

the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 13, 1991, pp. 395-402.

Hofbeck, J. A; Ibrahim, I. O.; and Mattock, A. H., 1969,

Shear Transfer in Reinforced Concrete, ACI JOURNAL ,

Proceedings V. 66, No. 2, Feb., pp. 119-128.

Hognestad, E., 1951, A Study of Combined Bending and

Axial Load in Reinforced Concrete Members, Bulletin

Series No. 399, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment

Station, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,

Urbana, Ill., 128 pp.

Hognestad, E.; Hanson, N. W.; and McHenry, D., 1955,

Concrete Stress Distribution in Ultimate Strength Design,

ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 52, pp. 455-479.

Hokuetsu Metal Co., 1990, Design and Construction

Guidelines for Reinforced Concrete Beams and Columns

using High-Strength Shear Reinforcement UHY Hoops. (in

Japanese)

Hsu, L. S., and Hsu, C. T., 1994, Complete Stress-Strain

Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Under Compression,

Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 46, No. 169, pp. 301-312.

IBC, 2003, International Building Code 2003, published

in cooperation by BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI, International

Code Council, Falls Church, Va., 632 pp.

Ibrahim, H., and MacGregor, J., 1994, Flexural Behavior

of High-Strength Concrete Columns, Report No. 196,

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 197 pp.

Ibrahim, H., and MacGregor, J., 1996a, Tests of Eccentrically Loaded High-Strength Concrete Columns, ACI

Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 585-594.

Ibrahim, H., and MacGregor, J., 1996b, Flexural Behavior

of Laterally Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Sections,

ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 674-684.

Ibrahim, H., and MacGregor, J., 1997, Modification of

the ACI Rectangular Stress Block for High-Strength

Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.,

pp. 40-48.

ICBO, 1997, Uniform Building Code, Whittier, Calif.

ICBO, 2001, Seismic Design Utilizing High-Strength

Concrete, ICBO ER-5536, ICBO Evaluation Service Inc.,

Whittier, Calif., http://www.icces.org/reports/pdf_files/

UBC/5536.pdf

ISO, 1991, Steels for the Reinforcement and Prestressing

of Concrete, Standard 6934-4:1991.

Itakura, Y., and Yagenji, A., 1992, Compressive Test on

High-Strength R/C Columns and Their Analysis Based on

Energy Concept, Proceedings of 10th World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, pp. 2599-2602.

Japan Institute of Construction Engineering, Design

Guidelines Committee, 1993, New RC Structural Design

Guidelines and Commentary, Annual Report of New RC

Project. (in Japanese)

Japanese Standards Association, 1994, Small SizeDeformed Steel Bars for Prestressed Concrete, JIS G

3137:1994.

Johnson, M. K., and Ramirez, J. A., 1989, Minimum

Amount of Shear Reinforcement in High-Strength Concrete

Members, ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 4, July-Aug.,

pp. 376-382.

Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, 2002, Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic

Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352R-02), American

Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 40 pp.

Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, 1998, Recent

Approaches to Shear Design of Structural Concrete, Journal

of Structural Engineering, V. 124, No. 12, pp. 1375-1417.

Kaar, P.; Hanson, N.; and Capell, H., 1977, Stress-Strain

Characteristics of High-Strength Concrete, Report

RD051.01D, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Ill.

Kabeyasawa, T., and Hiraishi, H., 1998, Tests and Analyses

of High-Strength Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls in

Japan, High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176,

C. W. French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete

Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 281-310.

Kato, D., 1991, Stress-Strain Behaviors of Square

Confined Reinforced Concrete Columns, Journal of

Structural and Construction Engineering, No. 422, pp. 65-74.

Kato, D., and Wakatsuki, K., 1992, Effects of Hoop Ties

on the Stress-Strain Relation of Square Confined R/C

Columns, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual

Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, pp. 645-646.

Kato, D.; Watanabe, F.; Nishiyama, M.; and Sato, H.,

1998, Confined Concrete with High-Strength Materials,

French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute,

Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 85-104.

Kawasake Steel Techno-wire Co., 1990, Design and

Construction Guidelines of Reinforced Concrete Members

using High-Strength Shear Reinforcement River Bon. (in

Japanese)

Kimura, H.; Sugano, S.; and Nagashima, T., 1995, Study

of Flexural Strength and Ductility of R/C Columns Using

High Strength Concrete, Takenaka Technical Research

Report No. 51, pp. 161-178.

Kuchma, D.; Vegh, P.; Simionopoulous, K.; Stannik, B.;

and Collins, M. P., 1997, The Influence of Concrete Strength,

Distribution of Longitudinal Reinforcement, and Member

Size, on the Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams,

Bulletin dInformation No. 237, Lausanne Switzerland.

Kobe Steel Ltd., 1989, Design and Construction Guidelines for Reinforced Concrete Beams and Columns using

High-Strength Shear Reinforcement D-Hoops. (in Japanese)

Lepage, A., 1997, A Method for Drift-Control in Earthquake-Resistant Design of Reinforced Concrete Building

Structures, PhD thesis, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Urbana, Ill.

Legeron, F., and Paultre, P., 2000, Behavior of HighStrength Concrete Columns under Cyclic Flexure and

Constant Axial Load, ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 4,

July-Aug., pp. 591-601.

Li, B., 1994, Strength and Ductility of Reinforced

Concrete Members and Frames Constructed Using High

Strength Concrete, Research Report 94-5, Department of

Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,

New Zealand.

Li, B., and Park, R., 2004, Confining Reinforcement for

High-Strength Concrete Columns, ACI Structural Journal,

V. 101, No. 3, May-June, pp. 314-324.

Lipien, W., and Saatcioglu, M., 1997, Tests of Square

High-Strength Concrete Columns Under Reversed Cyclic

Loading, Research Report No. OCEERC 97-11, Ottawa

Carleton Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University

of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 184 pp.

Lloyd, N., and Rangan, B., 1996, Studies on HighStrength Concrete Columns under Eccentric Compression,

ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 631-638.

Lynn, A. C., 2001, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Columns, PhD dissertation,

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.

Mander, J.; Priestley, N.; and Park, R., 1988, Theoretical

Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, pp. 1804-1826.

Martinez, S.; Nilson, A.; and Slate, F., 1984, Spirally

Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Columns, ACI

JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 81, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 431-442.

Matamoros, A.; Browning, J.; and Luft, M., 2003, Evaluation of Simple Methods for Estimating Drift of Reinforced

Concrete Buildings Subjected to Earthquakes, Earthquake

Spectra, V. 19, No. 4, pp. 839-861.

ITG-4.3R-59

A., 2004, The Flat-Rate Design Method for Low- and

Medium-Rise Reinforced Concrete Structures, ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 435-446.

Matamoros, A., and Sozen, M., 2003, Drift Limits of

High-Strength Concrete Columns Subjected to Load

Reversals, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 129,

No. 3, pp. 297-313.

Mattock, A. H.; Li, W. K.; and Wang, T. C., 1976, Shear

Transfer in Lightweight Reinforced Concrete, PCI Journal,

V. 21, No. 1, pp. 20-39.

McCabe, S., 1998, Bond and Development of Steel Reinforcement in High-Strength ConcreteAn Overview,

High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W.

French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute,

Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 1-21.

Mphonde, A. G., and Frantz, G. C., 1984, Shear Tests of

High- and Low-Strength Concrete Beams without Stirrups, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 81, No. 4, July-Aug.,

pp. 350-357.

Mugumura, H.; Nishiyama, M.; Watanabe, F.; and

Tanaka, H., 1991, Ductile Behavior of High-Strength

Concrete Columns Confined by High-Strength Transverse

Reinforcement, Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Concrete

Structures and Innovations in Design, SP-128, V. M.

Malhotra, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington

Hills, Mich., pp. 877-891.

Muguruma, H.; Nishiyama, M.; and Watanabe, F., 1993,

Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete with a Wide-Range of

Compressive Strength, Proceedings, Symposium on HighStrength Concrete, Norway, pp. 314-321.

Muguruma, H., and Watanabe, F., 1990, Ductility

Improvement of High-Strength Concrete Columns with

Lateral Confinement, Proceedings, Second International

Symposium on High-Strength Concrete, SP-121, W. T.

Hester, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,

Mich., pp. 47-60.

Nagashima, T.; Sugano, S.; Kimura, H.; and Ichikawa, A.,

1992, Monotonic Axial Compression Test on Ultra-HighStrength Concrete Tied Columns, Proceedings, 10th World

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain,

pp. 2983-2988.

National Fire Protection Association, 2003, NFPA

5000NFPA Building Construction and Safety Code,

Quincy, Mass., 540 pp.

Nedderman, H., 1973, Flexural Stress Distribution in

Very High Strength Concrete, MASc Thesis, Department

of Civil Engineering, University of Texas, Arlington, Tex.

Neutren Co. Ltd., 1985, Design Standard Using High

Tensile Steel ULBON as Shear Reinforcement in Reinforced

Concrete Beams and Columns.

Nielsen, M. P., 1999, Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity, New Directions in Civil Engineering, 2nd Edition,

CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 908 pp.

Nilson, A., 1985, Design Implications of Current

Research on High-Strength Concrete, High-Strength

Concrete, SP-87, H. G. Russell, ed., American Concrete

Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 85-118.

ITG-4.3R-60

Nilson, A., 1994, Structural Members, High Performance Concrete: Properties and Applications, S. P. Shah

and S. H. Ahmad, eds., McGraw-Hill.

Nishiyama, M.; Fukushima, I.; Watanabe, F.; and Muguruma, H., 1993, Axial Loading Tests on High-Strength

Concrete Prisms Confined by Ordinary and High-Strength

Steel, Proceedings of the Symposium on High-Strength

Concrete, Norway, pp. 322-329.

Noguchi, H.; Fujii, S.; and Teraoka, M., 1998, Shear

Strength of Beam-Column Joints with High-Strength

Materials, High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions,

SP-176, C. W. French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American

Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 329-356.

Otani, S., 1995, Use of High-Strength Lateral Reinforcement

in Japanese RC Construction, Proceedings, Samsung

Forum on Tall Buildings, Seoul, Korea.

Otani, S.; Teshigawara, M.; Murakami, M.; and Okada, T.,

1998, New RC Design Guidelines for High-Rise Reinforced

Concrete Buildings using High-Strength Materials, HighStrength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French

and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute,

Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 405-417.

Ozbakkaloglu, T., and Saatcioglu, M., 2004, Rectangular

Stress Block for High-Strength Concrete, ACI Structural

Journal, V. 101, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 475-483.

Ozcebe, G.; Ersoy, U.; and Tankut, T., 1999, Evaluation

of Minimum Shear Reinforcement Requirements for Higher

Strength Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 3,

May-June, pp. 361-368.

Ozden, S., 1992, Behavior of High-Strength Concrete

under Strain Gradient, MA thesis, University of Toronto,

Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Park, R., 1998, Design and Behavior of RC Columns

Incorporating High-Strength Materials, Concrete International, V. 20, No. 11, Nov., pp. 55-62.

Park, R., and Priestley, M. J. N., 1982, Ductility of

Square-Confined Concrete Columns, Journal of the Structural

Division, ASCE, V. 108, No. 4, pp. 929-950.

Park, R.; Tanaka, H.; and Li, B., 1998, Flexural Strength

and Ductility of High-Strength Concrete Columns, HighStrength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French

and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 237-257.

Pastor, J.; Nilson, A.; and Slate, F., 1984, Behavior of

High-Strength Concrete Beams, Research Report No. 84-3,

Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell University,

Ithaca, N.Y.

Popovics, S., 1973, Analytical Approach to Complete

Stress-Strain Curves, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 3,

No. 5, pp. 583-599.

Quintero-Febres, C. G., and Wight, J. K., 2001, Experimental Study of Reinforced Concrete Interior Wide BeamColumn Connections Subjected to Lateral Loading, ACI

Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 572-582.

Rangan, B. V.; Saunders, P.; and Seng, E., 1991, Design

of High-Strength Concrete Columns, Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures and Innovations in Design,

Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 851-862.

Razvi, S., and Saatcioglu, M., 1994, Strength and

Deformability of Confined High-Strength Concrete

Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 6, Nov.-Dec.,

pp. 678-687.

Razvi, S., and Saatcioglu, M., 1999, Circular High-Strength

Concrete Columns under Concentric Compression, ACI

Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 817-825.

Reineck, K.; Kuchma, D.; Sim, K.; and Marx, S., 2003,

Shear Database for Reinforced Concrete Members without

Shear Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2,

Mar.-Apr., pp. 240-249.

Richart, F. E.; Brandtzaeg, A.; and Brown, R. L., 1929,

The Failure of Plain and Spirally Reinforced Concrete in

Compression, Bulletin No. 190, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana, Ill., 74 pp.

Richart, F. E., and Brown, R. L., 1934, An Investigation of

Reinforced Concrete Columns, Bulletin No. 267, University of

Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana, Ill., 91 pp.

Roller, J. J., and Russell, H. G., 1990, Shear Strength of

High-Strength Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement,

ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 191-198.

Roy, H. E. H., and Sozen, M. A., 1963, A Model to Simulate the Response of Concrete to Multi-Axial Loading,

Structural Research Series No. 268, Department of Civil

Engineering, University of Illinois.

Saatcioglu, M., and Baingo, D., 1999, Circular HighStrength Concrete Columns Under Simulated Seismic

Loading, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 125,

No. 3, pp. 272-280.

Saatcioglu, M., and Ozcebe, G., 1989, Response of

Reinforced Concrete Columns to Simulated Seismic Loading,

ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 3-12.

Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S., 1992, Strength and

Ductility of Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE, V. 118, No. 6, pp. 1590-1607.

Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S., 1998, High-Strength

Concrete Columns with Square Sections under Concentric

Compression, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,

V. 124, No. 12, pp. 1438-1447.

Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S., 2002, Displacement-Based

Design of Reinforced Concrete Columns for Confinement,

ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 3-11.

Saatcioglu, M., Paultre, P.; and Ghosh, S. K., 1998,

Confinement of High-Strength Concrete, High-Strength

Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French and

M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington

Hills, Mich., pp. 105-136.

Sakaguchi, N.; Yamanobe, K.; Kitada, Y.; Kawachi, T.;

and Koda, S., 1990, Shear Strength of High-Strength

Concrete Members, Proceedings of the Second International

Symposium on High-Strength Concrete, SP-121, W. T.

Hester, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,

Mich., pp. 155-178.

Sakai, Y.; Hibi, J.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama, H., 1990,

Experimental Study of Flexural Behavior of Reinforced

Concrete Columns Using High Strength Concrete, Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 12, pp. 323-330.

Saqan, E. I., and Kreger, M. E., 1998, Evaluation of U.S.

Shear Strength Provisions for Design of Beam-Column

Connections Constructed with High-Strength Concrete,

High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W.

French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute,

Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 311-328.

Sargin, M.; Ghosh, S. K.; and Handa, V., 1971, Effect of

Lateral Reinforcement Upon the Strength and Deformation

Properties of Concrete, Magazine of Concrete Research,

V. 23, No. 75-76, pp. 99-110.

SBCCI, 1994, Standard Building Code, Southern

Building Code Congress, Birmingham, Ala.

Schade, J. E., 1992, Flexural Concrete Stress in High

Strength Concrete Columns, MASc thesis, Department of

Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta,

Canada, 156 pp.

Sezen, H., 2002, Seismic Response and Modeling of

Reinforced Concrete Building Columns, PhD dissertation,

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.

Sheikh, S.; Shah, D.; and Khoury, S., 1994, Confinement

of High-Strength Concrete Columns, ACI Structural

Journal, V. 91, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 100-111.

Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M., 1982, Analytical Model

for Concrete Confinement in Tied Columns, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 108, No. 5, pp. 2703-2723.

Shibata, A., and Sozen, M., 1976, Substitute-Structure

Method for Seismic Design in Reinforced Concrete,

Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, V. 102, No. ST3,

pp. 1-18.

Shimazaki, K., 1988, Strong Ground Motion Drift and

Base Shear Strength Coefficient for R/C Structures,

Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan, pp. 165-170.

Shimazaki, K., and Sozen, M., 1984, Seismic Drift of

Reinforced Concrete Structures, Technical Research

Report of Hazama-Gumi Ltd., pp. 145-166.

Shin, S. W.; Kamara, M.; and Ghosh, S. K., 1990, Flexural

Ductility, Strength Prediction, and Hysteretic Behavior of

Ultra-High-Strength Concrete Members, Proceedings of

the Second International Symposium on High-Strength

Concrete, SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed., American Concrete

Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 239-264.

Slater, W., and Lyse, I., 1931a, Progress Report on

Column Tests at Lehigh University, ACI JOURNAL,

Proceedings V. 2, No. 6, June, pp. 677-730.

Slater, W., and Lyse, I., 1931b, Progress Report on

Column Tests at Lehigh University, ACI JOURNAL,

Proceedings V. 2, No. 7, July, pp. 791-835.

Standards Association of New Zealand, 1995, Concrete

Design Standard, NZS 3101:1995, Part 1 and Commentary on the Concrete Design Standard, NZS 3101:1995, Part

2, Wellington, New Zealand.

Sugano, S.; Nagashima, T.; Kimura, H.; Tamura, A.; and

Ichikawa, A., 1990, Experimental Studies on Seismic

Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Members of High Strength

ITG-4.3R-61

Concrete, Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on High-Strength Concrete, SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed.,

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.,

pp. 61-87.

Sumitomo Electrical Industries Ltd., 1989, Design and

Construction Guidelines for Reinforced Concrete Beams and

Columns using High-Strength Shear Reinforcement SumiHoops. (in Japanese)

Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd., 1989, Design and

Construction Guidelines for Reinforced Concrete Beams

and Columns using High-Strength Shear Reinforcement

D-Hoops. (in Japanese)

Sun, Y. P., and Sakino, K., 1993, Ductility Improvement

of Reinforced Concrete Columns with High-Strength

Materials, Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute,

V. 15, pp. 455-462.

Sun, Y. P., and Sakino, K., 1994, Effect of Confinement

of Transverse Reinforcement on the Axial Behavior of

Concrete, Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 16,

No. 2, pp. 449-454.

Swartz, S.; Nikaeen, A.; Babu, H.; Periyakaruppan, N.;

and Refai, T., 1985, Structural Bending Properties of

Higher Strength Concrete, High Strength Concrete, SP-87,

H. G. Russell, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington

Hills, Mich., 288 pp.

Thomsen, J., and Wallace, J., 1994, Lateral Load

Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns Constructed

Using High-Strength Materials, ACI Structural Journal, V. 91,

No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 605-615.

Thorenfeldt, E., and Drangsholt, G., 1990, Shear

Capacity of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beams,

Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on

High-Strength Concrete, SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed., American

Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 129-154.

Tokyo Steel Co., 1994, Design and Construction Guidelines for Reinforced Concrete Beams and Columns using

High-Strength Shear Reinforcement SPR785. (in Japanese)

Uribe, C., and Alcocer, S., 2001, Comportamiento de

Vigas Peraltadas Diseadas con el Modelo de Puntales y

Tensores, Informe Tcnico CI/EIG-1012001, Centro

Nacional de Prevencin de Desastres, Mxico, 248 pp. (in

Spanish)

Vecchio, F.; Collins, M.; and Aspiotis, J., 1994, HighStrength Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 423-433.

Von Ramin, M., and Matamoros, A., 2004, Shear

Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members Subjected to

Monotonic and Cyclic Loads, SM Report No. 72, University

of Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence, Kans., 517 pp.

Von Ramin, M., and Matamoros, A. B., 2006, Shear

Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members Subjected to

Monotonic Loads, ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 1,

Jan.-Feb., pp. 83-92.

Wahidi, S. A., 1995, Strength and Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns Made from High Performance

Materials, PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin,

Austin, Tex., 299 pp.

ITG-4.3R-62

Wallace, J. W., 1998, Behavior and Design of HighStrength RC Walls, High-Strength Concrete in Seismic

Regions, SP-176, C. W. French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 259-279.

Wallace, J. W., and Moehle, J. P., 1992, Ductility and

Detailing Requirements of Bearing Wall Buildings,

Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 118, No. 6,

pp. 1625-1644.

Walraven, J.; Frenay, J.; and Pruijssers, A., 1987, Influence

of Concrete Strength and Load History on the Shear Friction

Capacity of Concrete Members, PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 1,

Jan.-Feb., pp. 66-84.

Warwick, W. B., and Foster, S. J., 1993, Investigation

into the Efficiency Factor Used in Non-Flexural Reinforced

Concrete Member Design, UNICIV Report No. R-320,

School of Civil Engineering, University of South Wales,

Kensington.

Watanabe, F., and Ichinose, T., 1991, Strength and

Ductility Design of RC Members Subjected to Combined

Bending and Shear, Preliminary Proceedings, International

Workshop on Concrete Shear in Earthquakes, University of

Houston, Houston, Tex., pp. IV4-1 to IV4-10.

Watanabe, F., and Kabeyasawa, T., 1998, Shear Strength

of RC Members with High-Strength Concrete, HighStrength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French

and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 379-396.

Watanabe, F., and Muguruma, H., 1988, Toward the

Ductility Design of Concrete Members (Overview of

Researches in Kyoto University), Proceedings of Pacific

Concrete Conference, New Zealand, pp. 89-100.

Concrete Walls, ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 1, Jan.Feb., pp. 99-107.

Wood, S.L., 1989, Minimum Tensile Reinforcement

Requirements in Walls, ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 5,

Sept.-Oct., pp. 582-591.

Xiao, Y., and Martirossyan, A., 1998, Seismic Performance

of High-Strength Concrete Columns, Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE, V. 124, No. 3, Mar., pp. 241-251.

Xiao, Y., and Yun, H., 1998, Full-Scale Experimental

Studies on High-Strength Concrete Short Columns,

Report No. USC-SERP 98/05, University of Southern

California, 97 pp.

Yong, Y. K.; Nour, M. G.; and Nawy, E. G., 1988,

Behavior of Laterally Confined High-Strength Concrete

under Axial Loads, Journal of Structural Engineering,

ASCE, V. 114, No. 2, pp. 332-351.

Yoshimura, M., and Nakamura, T., 2002, Axial Collapse

of Reinforced Concrete Short Columns, Proceedings of the

Fourth U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete

Building Structures, Toba, Japan, Report No. PEER-2002/21,

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University

of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif., Oct., pp. 187-198.

Zhu, S., and Jirsa, J. O., 1983, A Study of Bond Deterioration in Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints,

PMFSEL Report No. 83-1, Phil M. Ferguson Structural

Engineering Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin,

Austin, Tex., July, 69 pp.

Zuo, J., and Darwin, D., 2000, Splice Strength of

Conventional and High Relative Rib Area Bars in Normal

and High-Strength Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 97,

No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 630-641.

Advancing concrete knowledge

As ACI begins its second century of advancing concrete knowledge, its original chartered purpose

remains to provide a comradeship in finding the best ways to do concrete work of all kinds and in

spreading knowledge. In keeping with this purpose, ACI supports the following activities:

Technical committees that produce consensus reports, guides, specifications, and codes.

Spring and fall conventions to facilitate the work of its committees.

Educational seminars that disseminate reliable information on concrete.

Certification programs for personnel employed within the concrete industry.

Student programs such as scholarships, internships, and competitions.

Sponsoring and co-sponsoring international conferences and symposia.

Formal coordination with several international concrete related societies.

Periodicals: the ACI Structural Journal and the ACI Materials Journal, and Concrete International.

Benefits of membership include a subscription to Concrete International and to an ACI Journal. ACI

members receive discounts of up to 40% on all ACI products and services, including documents, seminars

and convention registration fees.

As a member of ACI, you join thousands of practitioners and professionals worldwide who share a

commitment to maintain the highest industry standards for concrete technology, construction, and

practices. In addition, ACI chapters provide opportunities for interaction of professionals and practitioners

at a local level.

38800 Country Club Drive

Farmington Hills, MI 48331

U.S.A.

Phone:

248-848-3700

Fax:

248-848-3701

www.concrete.org

Concrete in Moderate to High Seismic Applications

was founded in 1904 as a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to public

service and representing the user interest in the field of concrete. ACI gathers and

distributes information on the improvement of design, construction and

maintenance of concrete products and structures. The work of ACI is conducted by

individual ACI members and through volunteer committees composed of both

members and non-members.

The committees, as well as ACI as a whole, operate under a consensus format,

which assures all participants the right to have their views considered. Committee

activities include the development of building codes and specifications; analysis of

research and development results; presentation of construction and repair

techniques; and education.

Individuals interested in the activities of ACI are encouraged to become a member.

There are no educational or employment requirements. ACIs membership is

composed of engineers, architects, scientists, contractors, educators, and

representatives from a variety of companies and organizations.

Members are encouraged to participate in committee activities that relate to their

specific areas of interest. For more information, contact ACI.

www.concrete.org

Advancing concrete knowledge

- ACI 314 Design Aid-11.pdfDiunggah olehASQ
- Civil Eng Practicals ListDiunggah olehnaeem
- Temp Effect on Ordinary Concrete-lit ReviewDiunggah olehRadhaAnanthalekshmi
- Pile Shaft Design for AbutDiunggah olehjatin sharma
- filec52d9cc690ec4977ad2b656895fb9e5cDiunggah olehsajjaduet
- Seismic-Detailing-of-Concrete-Buildings.pdfDiunggah olehAtiq R. Rafi
- ETAG-001-Annex-B 07-11-13Diunggah olehjoellasquite
- TESTING OF HIGH STRENGTH STEEL-CONCRETE COMPOSITE STUB COLUMNS UNDER UNIAXIAL LOAD.Diunggah olehIJAR Journal
- Seismic Detailing of Concrete BuildingsDiunggah olehFatiha Zelmat
- ConcreteDiunggah olehanisha2007
- ACI 421.3R-15 Guide to Design of Reinforced Two-Way Slab SystemsDiunggah olehfarhadam
- Replacement of Sand by the Mixture of M-Sand and Plastic Pellets (PP) as Fine Aggregate in ConcreteDiunggah olehGRD Journals
- SK ASCEDiunggah olehM Refaat Fath
- Ground Bearing SlabDiunggah olehliverpoolengineer
- 2 1 1 a aerospacematerialsinvestigation by javier prietoDiunggah olehapi-268997163
- Very-High-Strength Concretes for Use in Blast- And PenetrationDiunggah olehKhader Abu-dagga
- Anchorage to ConcreteDiunggah olehmakakk
- Concrete 1Diunggah olehbemd_ali6990
- Residual Strength of Blast Damaged Reinforced Concrete Colu MnsDiunggah olehjack
- 1-s2.0-S1687404814000121-main.pdfDiunggah olehMostfa Seham
- Project on Partial Replacement of Cement With Marble PowderDiunggah olehyudhishkarthick
- Factors That Influence the Tensile StrengthDiunggah olehOvidiu Gal
- 561-570Diunggah olehvooby
- JMMCE20110700003_24523880Diunggah olehOraclaBi
- Lecture 06 - Di PriscoDiunggah olehJose Leonardo Quintero Güell
- lab 6Diunggah olehNazrul Aidil
- 6Diunggah olehMalith De Silva
- dsfdfsadsfgbvxvcbvcbvcbcvbcvbertg34Diunggah olehHei Kwong
- Ghosh 1991Diunggah olehelnaqa176
- 2014 Global Civil EngineeringDiunggah olehGita Geofani

- Iot Paper Ieee Format.docxDiunggah olehKarthikeyan K Palanisamy
- Cera Sanitarywares Cata Cum PricelistDiunggah olehKarthikeyan K Palanisamy
- Essco_catalogue With Sanitaryware and HwsDiunggah olehKarthikeyan K Palanisamy
- Psg Final PaperDiunggah olehKarthikeyan K Palanisamy
- Model ByeLaws of Housing Cooperative SocietiesDiunggah olehbluedremz

- Fisher Cat12 s2Diunggah olehbmallouh
- B Spline Msc+ThesisDiunggah olehJishan Ahmed
- f201710061507292398.pdfDiunggah olehKaushik Sengupta
- Normal Numbers Are NormalDiunggah olehJosé Luis Gómez Ramírez
- Levi Montalcini-Vida NobelDiunggah olehAndrés Russo
- AstrologiaDiunggah olehLair Amaro
- Formal Report 1 Expt 7 Chem 26.1Diunggah olehFranz Valencia
- voltage flicker.pptxDiunggah olehAnonymous xaeuoo4
- A Fiber Beam-Column Element for Circular Concrete Filled Steel Tube Under TorsionDiunggah olehhanlampham
- Fatigue in Repeated-sprint Exercise is Related to Muscle PowerDiunggah olehAndrés Castillo
- 11th Physics - Unit 3,4 Question Paper 2 - TamilNadu TN State Board English Medium - Brainkart.comDiunggah olehBrainKart Com
- New Microsoft Word Document (2)bhgtyrDiunggah olehanon_189627883
- megadeslizamentos_amzonas.pdfDiunggah olehLuiz Fernando
- 02 Nuclear PropertiesDiunggah olehMuhammad Sohil
- Ultimate Load Capacity of Circular Hollow Sections Filled With HiDiunggah olehpatricklim1982
- AlOmranDiunggah olehshahbazdg
- Design and Analysis of Thick Walled Cylinders With HolesDiunggah olehKeryn Pelled-Feldman
- 6a Amino AcidsDiunggah olehKamal Jaoni
- Methods for Measuring Acoustic Power of an Ultrasonic Neurosurgical DeviceDiunggah olehSunil Tyagi
- Chemical Reactor ControlDiunggah olehJetulio Jetulino
- ASME B31.1-2016 Power Piping_opt 42Diunggah olehJason Thompson
- Metal comformingDiunggah olehgermanehulech
- Heisler-Graphics.pdfDiunggah olehPedro Augusto Soares
- Extractions Training Rev 3Diunggah olehMark Reinhardt
- 5.pdfDiunggah olehKunalTelgote
- worksheet5-obstacledetection2013Diunggah olehapi-239713598
- Vessel Design RefDiunggah olehrogel_gana
- ModernPhysicsBurnsCh08.pdfDiunggah olehbaig79
- 2017_09_science_sp_sa2_02_quesDiunggah olehJahnavi Patil
- A106 Grade B Carbon Steel Pipes - Pressure and Temperature RatingsDiunggah olehबिपन गुलेरिया