July-Nov.

2014

CE 5630
ADVANCED THEORY & DESIGN OF
CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Module 8
Design of Compression Members
Devdas Menon
Professor, Dept of Civil Engg
IIT Madras
 DESIGN OF COMPRESSION MEMBERS
CLASSIFICATION OF COLUMNS BASED ON TYPE OF TRANSVERSE
REINFORCEMENT

tie spiral

longitudinal
bars

(a) tied column (b) spiral column

structural
steel section

(c) composite column

Tied, spiral and composite

CLASSIFICATION OF COLUMNS BASED ON TYPE OF LOADING
ex = Mx/P
P e = M/P P ey = My/P P

centroidal axis

ELEVATION
Dx
D
X
CROSS ey
Dy Y Y
SECTION
e
ex
X

(a) (b) (c)

axial loading loading with loading with
(concentric) uniaxial eccentricities biaxial eccentricities

Different loading situations in columns

CLASSIFICATION OF COLUMNS BASED ON SLENDERNESS RATIOS
Short columns
Slender (or long) columns

ESTIMATION OF EFFECTIVE LENGTH OF A COLUMN

The effective length, le is defined as the length of a hinged-ended column

whose elastic critical load is the same as the theoretical critical load of the
framed member under consideration
It follows that the effective length of a column for a given plane of bending
is the length between the theoretical points of inflection in the buckled
configuration of the column in that plane.
The effective length depends on the unsupported length l (i.e., distance
between lateral connections, or actual length in case of a cantilever) and the
boundary conditions at the column ends introduced by connecting beams
and other framing members. An expression for le may be obtained as
le= kl
where k is the effective length ratio (i.e., the ratio of effective length
to the unsupported length — also known as effective length factor)
whose value depends on the degrees of rotational and/or
translational restraints at the column ends

UNSUPPORTED LENGTH

The Code (Cl. 25.1.3) defines the ‘unsupported length’ l of a column

explicitly for various types of constructions
In conventional framed construction, l is to be taken as the clear
distance between the floor and the shallower beam framing into the
columns in each direction at the next higher floor level
When a column is framed in any direction by beams of different
depths on either side, then the unsupported length (with respect to
buckling about a perpendicular axis) shall be considered,
conservatively, with reference to the shallower beam
For a rectangular column section (width Dy  depth Dx), we may use the
terms, lex = kx lx and ley = ky ly to denote the effective lengths referring to
buckling about the major and minor axes respectively, where lx and ly
denote the corresponding unsupported lengths and kx and ky denote the
corresponding effective length factors

x x
Dx (a) plan
Major axis
Dy Dy  Dx
Minor axis Iy  Ix
y

upper floor

slenderness ratios:
k xl x k yl y
,
Dx Dy

lx
ly

top of lower floor (b) section at x-x

Dy
EFFECTIVE LENGTH (IDEALISED BOUNDARY CONDITIONS)
P

P P P

le = 0.7l
le = l l
le = 0.5l l le = kl

P P 0.5 < k < 1.0

P
P

(a) (b) (c) (d)

both ends one end rotationally both ends both ends partially
rotationally fixed fixed, the other free rotationally free restrained
(rotational)
 EFFECTIVE LENGTHS OF COLUMNS BRACED AGAINST SIDEWAY

Code recommended values of k

columns braced against sideway:
•both ends ‘fixed’ rotationally : 0.65 (instead of 0.5)
•one end ‘fixed’ and the other ‘pinned’ : 0.80 (instead of 0.7)
•both ends ‘free’ rotationally (‘pinned’) : 1.00
columns unbraced against sideway:
•both ends ‘fixed’ rotationally : 1.20 (instead of 1.0)
•one end ‘fixed’ and the other ‘partially fixed’ : 1.50
•one end ‘fixed’ and the other free : 2.00
 P

P P
P

0.5l

le = kl
l le =  l
l

le = 2l
le = l

P P
P
P

(c) 1<k<
(a) both ends
both ends rotationally free
rotationally fixed (d)
both ends partially
restrained
(b) (rotational)
one end rotationally
fixed, the other free

Effective lengths of columns unbraced against sideway

 USE OF CODE CHARTS
Charts are given in Fig. 26 and Fig. 27 of the Code for determining the
effective length ratios of braced columns and unbraced columns
respectively, in terms of coefficients 1 and 2 which represent the degrees
of rotational freedom at the top and bottom ends of the column

where the notation jt denotes that the

summation is to be done for the
members framing into the top joint (in
case of 1) or the bottom joint (in case
of 2)

The increased beam stiffness for unbraced columns, compared to braced

columns, is attributable to the fact that in the case of the latter (braced), the
beams are bent in single curvature, whereas in the case of the former, the
beams are bent in double curvature, in the buckled configuration
The limiting values  = 0 and  = 1 represent ‘fully fixed’ and ‘fully hinged’
conditions respectively.
11
EXAMPLE 13.1
The framing plan of a multi-storeyed building is shown in Fig. Assume that all the columns
have a size 300 mm × 400 mm; the longitudinal beams (global X-direction) have a size
250 mm × 600 mm and the transverse beams (global Y-direction) have a size 250 mm ×
400 mm as shown. The storey height hs = 3.5 m. For a column in a typical lower floor of the
building, determine the effective lengths lex and ley with respect to the local x- and y- axes
(major and minor), as shown in Fig. For the purpose of estimating the total axial loads on the
columns in the storey, assume a total distributed load of 35 kN/m2 from all the floors above
(combined). Also assume M 25 grade concrete for the columns and M 20 grade concrete for
the beams.
6.0 × 3 = 18.0 m

300 × 400
250 × 600

Y
4.0 m × 3 250 × 400 X
= 12.0 m

A A

TYPICAL FRAMING PLAN

(a)

300
600 400
y 250
3500
400
x x ly = 2900 300 lx = 3100

y 600

LOCAL AXES OF SECTION A – A

COLUMN
(b)
17
 DESIGN STRENGTH OF AXIALLY LOADED SHORT COLUMNS
The maximum compressive strain in concrete under axial loading at the limit
state of collapse in compression is specified as c = 0.002 by the Code
(Cl. 39.1a).

The Code requires all columns to be designed for ‘minimum eccentricities’ in

loading

The calculated minimum eccentricity (in any plane) does not exceed 0.05
times the lateral dimension (in the plane considered), the Code (Cl. 39.3)
permits the use of the following simplified formula, obtained by reducing
Puo by approximately 10 percent
 ec plastic centroid
geometric (at ultimate loads)
centroid

SECTION

As1 As2 As3 As4 xi Asi

Po Po
c
(axial strain)

STRESS
Cs1 Cs2 Cs3 Cs4 (fsc – fcc)Asi
RESULTANTS
fcc fcc
Cs =  Csi Cc = fcc Ac fcc Ag
= fsc Asc
(a) symmetrically (b) unsymmetrically
reinforced reinforced

Axial loading on short columns

 EXAMPLE 13.3
Design the reinforcement in a column of size 450 mm  600 mm,
subject to an axial load of 2000 kN under service dead and live loads.
The column has an unsupported length of 3.0m and is braced against
sideway in both directions. Use M 20 concrete and Fe 415 steel
600
4–25  (at corners)

4–20  (at middle

(clear cover to 450 of each face)
ties = 40 mm)
8  TIES @ 300 c/c
(staggered)
23
24
EXAMPLE 13.4
Design the reinforcement in a spiral column of 400 mm diameter
subjected to a factored load of 1500 kN. The column has an
unsupported length of 3.4 m and is braced against sideway. Use M 25
concrete and Fe 415 steel.

6  spiral @ 28 c/c pitch

(clear cover = 40 mm
over spiral)
6–16 
M 25
400 Fe 415

28 mm

6  spiral

6–16 
 clear cover
to links spiral
 300  40 mm
ties

longitudinal
bar
(a) (b)

common
closed tie
 300

(c) (d)

 75 mm  75 mm
 48 t

closed
tie
open
(cross)
ties
(e) (f)

Some code recommendation for detailing in columns

 Puo B E spiral
columns
A C
D

tied columns
axial
load
Po

o axial shortening

Behaviour of axially loaded tied and spiral columns

Based on experimental findings , the Code (Cl. 39.4) permits a 5%

increase in strength beyond Puo, provided the following requirement
is satisfied by the spiral reinforcement:
Uniaxially Eccentrically loaded short columns
Pu
e = Mu/Pu Pu
Mu

ELEVATION

D
D

highly
compressed e = eb 5 e=
edge
y xu, b tension
c, min 4 xu, min
3 e = eD compression
2
e=0 cu = 0.002
1 PIVOT
xu = 
cu = 0.0035
3D/7
xu = D

xu > D
CROSS SECTION STRAIN PROFILES
 D highly D
centroidal compressed centroidal
axis edge axis
d d d d
least
compressed
edge
b
COLUMN
SECTION

neutral ith row of steel Asi

yi yi
axis (total area = Asi)
xu xu
neutral
axis

FAILURE
si si
STRAIN
PROFILE 0.002
PIVOT
cu
cu = 0.0035 3D/7 0.0035
D/14
Csi STRESS Csi
RESULTANT
S

0.447fck 0.447fck

Cc Cc
x
x
(a) xu  D (b) xu > D
 Pu

Puo 1
~
Puo 1
2
DESIGN INTERACTION CURVE
3 (Pu = PuR, Mu = MuR )
e = emin

e=0 1
e
e = eD e < eb  „compression failure‟

„balanced failure‟ 4
Pub
e = eb
e > eb  „tension failure‟
5
Mu = Pu e
e= Muo Mub

xu solved iteratively
EXAMPLE 13.5
For the column section shown in Fig., determine the design strength
components corresponding to the condition of ‘balanced failure’.
Assume M 25 concrete and Fe 415 steel. Consider loading eccentricity
with respect to the major axis alone. Assume 8  ties and 40 mm clear
cover. 500
40
(a)
M 25
300 column
8  ties Fe 415
section

6–25 

PuR

60.5 MuR,x 60.5

highly compressed
edge (b)

i=1
i=2 i=3
yi

xu, b
(c)
s1 = y s2 balanced strain
s3 cu = 0.0035 profile

Cs1 Cs2 Cs3

0.447fck (d)
Cc stress resultants
0.416xu
32
33
EXAMPLE 13.6
For the column section shown in Fig., determine the design strength
components corresponding to a neutral axis location given by xu/D =1.2.
Consider loading eccentricity with respect to the major axis alone.
500

(a)
6–25 
300
column
8  ties section
M 25
60.5 60.5 Fe 415
189.5 189.5
Pu
Mux

(b)

xu = 600
D = 500
(c)
s1 cu = 0.00311 ultimate
s2
s3 strain
profile
Cs1 Cs2 Cs3
0.447fck (d)
stress
Cc x resultants
35
36
37
EXAMPLE 13.7
For the column section shown in Fig., determine the design strength
components and corresponding eccentricity of loading with respect to the
minor axis alone, for the limiting condition of ‘no tension’ in the section

300

6–25 

minor axis (a)

500 M 25
column
Fe 415
section
8  ties

60.5 60.5
PuR
MuR,x
highly compressed
(b)
edge

i=1
i=2
yi
(c)
failure strain
s1 cu = 0.0035 profile (xu = D)
s2

Cs1 Cs2
(d)
stress resultants
Cc
0.416D
39
40
EXAMPLE 13.8
For the H-shaped column section shown in Fig., determine the design strength
components corresponding to a neutral axis location given by xu/D = 0.75.
Consider loading eccentricity with respect to the major axis alone. Assume M 30
concrete and Fe 415 steel 100
D = 400
200 100

6–20 
(a)
column
300 100 section
M 30
Fe 415

50 PuR 50
MuR,x

As1 = 942 mm2 As2 = 942 mm2 (b)

y1 = – 100 y2 = +100

xu = 300
(c)
s1 50 cu = 0.0035 ultimate strain
s2 profile

Cs1 Cs2

Cc1 Cc2
3xu /7 = 128.6 (d)
> 100 stress resultants
100

100 area 2

100 area 1

200 100
EXAMPLE 13.9
For a column section shown in example 13.5, construct the design interaction
curve for axial compression combined with uniaxial bending about the major
axis. Hence, investigate the safety of the column section under the following
factored load effects:
(i) Pu = 2275 kN, Mux = 46.4 kNm (maximum axial compression);
(ii) Pu = 1105 kN, Mux = 125 kNm (maximum eccentricity).
xu, min /D = 0.284
Muo, x = 199.8 kNm

Interaction diagram
DESIGN CHARTS (FOR UNIAXIAL ECCENTRIC COMPRESSION) IN SP : 16

1. Rectangular sections with

reinforcement distributed equally on
two sides (Charts 27 – 38): the ‘two
sides’ refer to the sides parallel to the
axis of bending; there are no inner
rows of bars, and each outer row has
an area of 0.5As , this includes the
simple 4–bar configuration; As being
the total area of steel;

bending axis
D/2 D/2

NO
INNER b
0.5As 0.5As
ROWS

d d

(a) rectangular section with

“reinforcement distributed equally on two sides”
DESIGN CHARTS (FOR UNIAXIAL ECCENTRIC COMPRESSION) IN SP : 16

2. Rectangular sections with

reinforcement distributed equally on
four sides (Charts 39 – 50): two outer
rows (with area 0.3As each) and four
inner rows (with area 0.1As each)
have been considered in the
calculations; however, bending axis the use of
these Charts D/2
canD/2 be extended,
without significant error,NO
INNER b
to cases of
not less 0.5A than two
s
ROWS
0.5A
inner rows (with a
s

minimum area 0.3As in each outer

d d

row). (a) rectangular section with

“reinforcement distributed equally on two sides”

bending axis
D/2 D/2

min. 0.3As in each

AT LEAST TWO outermost row
b
INNER ROWS

d
d

(b) rectangular section with

“reinforcement distributed equally on all sides”

bending axis
 D/2 D/2

DESIGN CHARTS (FOR UNIAXIAL ECCENTRIC COMPRESSION) IN SP : 16

NO
INNER b
0.5As 0.5As
ROWS

3. Circular column sections

d d

(Charts 51 – 62): the Charts are

(a) rectangular section with
“reinforcement distributed equally on two sides”

applicable forbending circular

axis sections
with at D/2least six D/2
bars (of equal
diameter)
b
uniformly
AT LEAST TWO
spaced
min. 0.3A in each
outermost
s
row
INNER ROWS
circumferentially.
d
d

(b) rectangular section with

“reinforcement distributed equally on all sides”

bending axis

AT LEAST 6 BARS
(EQUAL DIA)

(c) circular column section

Corresponding to each of the above three cases, there are as many as 12 Charts
available — covering the 3 grades of steel (Fe 250, Fe 415, Fe 500), with 4 values of
d’/D ratio for each grade (viz., d’/D = 0.05, .0.10, 0.15, 0.20). For intermediate
values of d’/D, linear interpolation may be done. Each of the 12 Charts of SP : 16
covers a family of non-dimensional design interaction curves with p/fck values
ranging from 0.0 to 0.26.
 If bars of equal diameter are used, this is equivalent to using 20 bars. While
actually providing reinforcement to conform to As computed using these Charts,
some adjustments may be called for in practice. Providing a greater proportion of
reinforcement (more than 0.3As) on the outermost rows is on the safer side.
EXAMPLE 13.12
Using the design aids given in SP : 16, design the longitudinal reinforcement in a
rectangular reinforced concrete column of size 300 mm × 600 mm subjected to a
factored load of 1400 kN and a factored moment of 280 kNm with respect to the
major axis. Assume M 20 concrete and Fe 415 steel.
600 (nominal cover M 20
40 mm) Fe 415

300 8  ties @ 200 c/c

(staggered)

2–28  2–28 
4–22 
EXAMPLE 13.13
Referring to the column section shown in example 13.12, investigate the safety
of the column section under uniaxial eccentric compression with respect to the
minor axis, considering Pu = 1400 kN and Muy = 200 kNm. If the section is
unsafe, suggest suitable modifications to the reinforcement provided.
52
SHORT COLUMNS WITH BIAXIAL ECCENTRICITIES

Mu  M u2x  M u2y
Pu
Y resultant
Muy axis of Pu
Muy
bending
X X
Mux  Mux 1 2
neutral axis
MuR,y
Y

PuR
possible MuR,x
(a) Y s1
neutral axis
Y
bending 3 4
axis
axis of Cs1 s2
X X bending
Pu
tension
ex s3
ey x x Cs2
Y
 e
ex s4
Cs3
e  e x2  e y2 ey compression
cu
Cs4
(b) Cc
resultant axis Y
(c) failure
of bending strains
neutral axis stress
resultants

(d)
Pu
INTERACTION SURFACE FOR A BIAXIALLY LOADED COLUMN
Y

y
X X
Pu

x ex
ey
Pu
Puo

MuR,y
PuR

MuR,x  Muy1

Mux1
load
contour

0
Muy = Pu ey

Mu  Mux
2
 Muy
2

Mux = Pu ex
Code Procedure for Design of Biaxially Loaded Columns
The simplified method adopted by the Code (Cl. 39.6) is based on Bresler’s
formulation [Ref. 13.14] for the ‘load contour’

0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Mux/Mux1

0

n
0.25
n = 1.0
2.0

0.50

1.0
0.75
n n
 Mux   Muy  Pu/Puz
    
 1
 Mux1   Muy1 
1.00 0 0.2 0.8 1.0
n = 2.0

Muy/Muy1
(a) (b)
CODE PROCEDURE
1. Given Pu, Mux, Muy, verify that the eccentricities ex = Mux/Pu and ey =
Muy/Pu are not less than the corresponding minimum eccentricities.
2. Assume a trial section for the column.
3. Determine Mux1 and Muy1, corresponding to the given Pu (using
appropriate design aids). Ensure that Mux1 and Muy1 are
significantly greater than Mux and Muy respectively; otherwise,
suitably redesign the section †
4. Determine Puz, and hence n.
5. Check the adequacy of the section [Eq. 13.38]; if necessary, redesign
the section and check again.
†This is usually achieved by increasing the percentage of
reinforcement and/or improving the grade of concrete; the dimensions
may also be increased, if required.
EXAMPLE 13.15
A corner column (400 mm × 400 mm), located in the lowermost storey of a
system of braced frames, is subjected to factored loads: Pu = 1300 kN,
Mux=190 kNm and Muy = 110 kNm. The unsupported length of the column is
3.5m. Design the reinforcement in the column, assuming M 25 concrete and
Fe 415 steel.
RC RECTANGULAR COLUMN SECTIONS UNDER BIAXIAL
ECCENTRIC COMPRESSION

Reference: S. Srinivasan
and Devdas Menon, RC
rectangular column
sections under biaxial
eccentric compression –
an improved design
recommendation, Journal
of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 29, No. 4, pp 205-211
and January-March 2003
 DESIGN OF SLENDER COLUMNS
P Pmax Pe P OA  short column
(material failure)
OB  long column
(material failure)
 M = P(e+)
l/2 Ps e OC  very long column
A
Ps (instability failure)
max P1 e
B
e Mmax P1
l 1 P11
e
P2 interaction
C
(failure)
curve
primary
moment 0 M
P–moment
P

(a) (b) (c)

Variation of Mmax with P is nonlinear, with Mmax increasing at a faster rate as P

increases. The axial thrust P effectively reduces the flexural stiffness of the
column, and in the case of a very slender column, the flexural stiffness can be
effectively reduced to zero (dP/dM = 0), resulting in an instability (buckling)
failure.
In the case of a very short column, the flexural stiffness is so high that the
lateral deflection Δ is negligibly small, consequently, the P- Δ moment is
negligible, and the primary moment Mpr alone is of significance.
 BRACED SLENDER COLUMNS: MEMBER STABILITY EFFECT
P P
M2 M2 M2 M2

max

max P2 P2

P1
l P1
2
1

2
1
M1 M1
M1 M1
P P

(a) single curvature (b) double curvature

A ‘braced column’ is one which is not subject to sidesway, i.e., there is no

significant relative lateral displacement between the top and bottom ends
of the column.
The primary moments M1 and M2 that are applied at the two ends of the
column are determined from a ‘first-order’ structural analysis
The column may be bent in single curvature or double curvature, depending
on the directions of M1 and M2. The notations M1 and M2 generally refer to
the smaller and larger column end moments, and the ratio M1/M2 is
considered positive if the column is bent in single curvature, and negative if it
is bent in double curvature.
The chances of a given slenderness resulting in a peak design
moment larger than M2 fall off significantly as the ratio M1/M2 drops
below about +0.5 and approaches the limit of –1.0
The possible amplification in bending moment (over the primary
moment M2) on account of lateral displacements (relative to the
chord joining the column ends) is termed as member stability effect.

The ACI Code [Ref. 13.1] recommends that slenderness effects

may be ignored (i.e., the column may be designed as a ‘short
column’) if, for a braced column,

where le is the effective length and r the radius of gyration. Thus, the
slenderness ratio (le/r) limit for short columns lies in the range 22–34
in single curvature and 34–46 in double curvature.
 UNBRACED SLENDER COLUMN: LATERAL DRIFT EFFECT
An ‘unbraced column’ is one which is subject to sideway (or ‘lateral drift’),
i.e., there is significant lateral displacement between the top and bottom
ends of the column. The lateral drift may occur due to the action of lateral
loads, or due to gravity loads when the loading or the frame is asymmetric.
The additional moments at the column ends caused by the action of the
vertical load acting on the deflected configuration of the unbraced column is
termed the lateral drift effect. P

P

2H
B
„rigid‟ beam 

(a) sway frame

 P
P
Mo PB M1
H H
B B
B lateral
drift
point of inflection effect

H total
member primary
P stability
A effect
H Mo
A M2 PA
P

(b) swayed (c) forces (d) moments

column
Generally, for unbraced columns, the moments at the column
ends are maximum, and these are due to the primary moments
enhanced by the lateral drift effect alone.
The moment amplification possible due to lateral drift effect in
an unbraced column is generally much more than that due to
member stability effect in a braced column. Further, the effective
length of an unbraced column is much more than that of a braced
column with the same unsupported length. Hence, columns in
unbraced frames are weaker than similar columns in braced
frames.
 SECOND-ORDER STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF SLENDER COLUMN
STRUCTURES

The Code (Cl. 39.7) broadly recommends that when slender columns are
involved in a reinforced concrete structure, a detailed ‘second-order’
structural analysis should be carried out to determine the bending
moments and axial forces for which the slender columns are to be
designed. Indeed, such a rigorous analysis is particularly desirable for
slender columns in unbraced frames. Such analysis must take into account
all slenderness effects, viz. the influence of column and frame deflections
on moments, effects of axial loads and effects of sustained loads. Realistic
moment-curvature relationships should be made use of.

The principle of superposition is not valid in second-order analysis, and

for this reason, the load effects due to different load combinations cannot
be obtained by an algebraic summing up (with appropriate load factors);
each load combination should be investigated separately. This requires
substantial computational effort.
 CODE PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN OF SLENDER COLUMNS
In routine design practice, only first-order structural analysis (based on the
linear elastic theory and undeflected frame geometry) is performed, as second-
order analysis is computationally difficult and laborious. In recognition of this,
the Code recommends highly simplified procedures for the design of slender
columns, which either attempt to predict the increase in moments (over primary
moments), or, equivalently, the reduction in strength, due to slenderness effects.

STRENGTH REDUCTION COEFFICIENT METHOD

This is a highly simplified procedure, which is given in the Code for the working
stress method of design. According to this procedure (B-3.3 of the Code) the
permissible stresses in concrete and steel are reduced by multiplication with a
strength reduction coefficient Cr, given by: where d is the least lateral dimension
of the column (or diameter of the core
in a spiral column)
It is recommended in the Explanatory Handbook to the Code that instead of
applying the strength reduction factor Cr to the ‘permissible stresses’, this factor
may be directly applied to the load-carrying capacity estimated for a
corresponding short column. Furthermore, it may be noted that although this
method has been prescribed for WSM, it can be extended to the limit state
method (LSM) for the case of axial loading (without primary bending moments).
 ADDITIONAL MOMENT METHOD
The method prescribed by the Code (Cl. 39.7.1) for slender column design by
the limit state method is the ‘additional moment method’
According to this method, every slender column should be designed for biaxial
eccentricities which include the P– moment (“additional moment”) components
eax  Max/Pu and eay  May/Pu :

An alternative method called the ‘moment magnification method’ is adopted

by the ACI and Canadian codes.
1 = M/EI
8 max

M l2

1

l/2 2

max max 2, max

l P
12 max

max max l2
2 <  < 1

M
DEFLECTION CURVATURE

(a) (b) case 1 (c) case 2

In the basic formulation, the P– effect in a braced slender column with
pin-joined ends is considered. The ‘additional eccentricity’ ea is equal to
max, which is a function of the curvatures to which the column is subjected.
If the maximum curvature (at mid-height) is denoted as max, it can be shown
that max lies between maxl2/12 and maxl2/8, the former limit corresponding
to a linearly varying curvature (with zero at the pin joints and a maximum of
max at mid height) and the latter corresponding to a constant curvature
along the column height

Taking an average value,

ea = max  max l2/10

Failure of the column at the ultimate limit state is expected to occur at

the section corresponding to max
 DETERMINATION OF CURVATURE FROM FAILURE STRAIN
PROFILE
e + max
Pu Assuming that cu = 0.0035 and s = 0.002† , d’ 0.1D
and further assuming (rather conservatively) that
the additional moment comprises about 80 percent
of the total moment,

d D  d
  ( cu   st ) ( D  d  )
st

cu

†This approximately corresponding to the ‘balanced failure’ condition, whereby

st = y at the cracked section. For deflection calculations, the mean steel strain
should be considered, including the effect of ‘tension stiffening’
The height l has been replaced by the effective length le to extend the
application of the formulation to the various boundary conditions (other
than the pinned-end condition) that occur in practical columns including
unbraced columns. It is reported that the use of above expressions has
been validated with reference to a large number of experimental tests

ea/D ratio increases with the square of the slenderness ratio le/D; ea/D
has a minimum value of 0.072 for le/D =12 (transition between ‘short
column’ and ‘slender column’) and a maximum value of 0.450 for le/D = 30
(recommended limit for unbraced columns) and 1.800 for le/D = 60 (braced
column).
The derivation assumes that the column is braced and bent symmetrically
in single curvature: some modification is required when the primary
moments applied at the column ends are unequal and/or of different signs:
Mu = 0.4M1 + 0.6M2  0.4M2

Further, it is assumed that the axial load level corresponds approximately

to the ‘balanced failure’ condition Pu = Pub; modification for axial load levels
is required
For Pu > Pub, the failure mode is one of ‘compression failure’, and the
corresponding e/D ratio is low. The additional moments Max, May may be
reduced by multiplying factors defined as:
where Puz is the maximum ‘pure compression’ strength of the column and Pub,x and Pub,y
correspond to the axial strength corresponding to balanced failure with respect to
bending about the major axis and minor axis respectively. Pub from the interaction
curve corresponding to a design tensile stress of fyd = 0.87 fy in the outermost layer of
steel.
It can be seen that k varies linearly from zero (for Pu = Puz) to unity (for Pu = Pub) and is a
highly simplified formula.

In the case of unbraced columns, the lateral drift effect (hitherto not considered)
needs to be included. An approximate way of accounting for this is by assuming
that the additional moment Ma acts at the column end where the maximum
primary moment M2 is operational. Hence, for design purposes, the total moment
may be taken as:

† It is inadvisable to apply the reduction factor k for unbraced columns.

 MEMBERS WITH AXIAL TENSION AND BENDING

Tu  Cu
xu  xu , purebending
 cu  0.0035
 st   y
Pu 0( )  0.87 f y Ast
78
EXAMPLE 13.19

For the column section shown in Fig., determine the

design tensile strength when no bending moment is acting
on the section. Assume M 25 concrete and Fe 415 steel.
Assume 8 ф ties and 40 mm clear cover.

79
80
EXAMPLE 13.20
For the column section shown in Fig., determine the design
strength components corresponding to an axial force
(tensile) applied at an eccentricity of 300 mm with respect to
the major axis. Assume M 25 concrete and Fe 415 steel.
Assume 8  ties and 40 mm clear cover.

81
82
83
84
85
86
 AXIAL TENSION AND SLENDERNESS EFFECTS

In the case of bending with axial compression, the

slenderness of the member is important because of the P – Δ
effect, where the compressive force P interacting with lateral
deflection Δ causes increase in the primary moments.

The tensile axial force will straighten the member and P – Δ

effect will only reduce the primary moment.

As such, slenderness is not a factor in members with axial

tension and there is no distinction for such a member as short
or long.

87
 Axial Tension with Biaxial Bending

The Pu - Mu interaction diagram on the tension side is very

nearly linear

Under biaxial bending with axial tension, the interaction

surface may be taken as the linear extension of the trace
on the X-Y plane of the interaction surface to the point
with co-ordinates (0, 0, – Pu0(-)).

The interaction surface will be conical (inverted)

The interaction surface on the tension side will be a plane

represented by

88
 CONCRETE WALLS
Reading Assignment

89
Thank you