A New Design Procedure For Braced Reinforced High Strength Concrete Columns Under Uniaxial and Biaxial Compression

H. Mohy El-Din Afefy, Salah El-Din F. Taher and Salah El-Din E.
El-Metwally
A NEW DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR BRACED REINFORCED HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE COLUMNS UNDER UNIAXIAL AND BIAXIAL COMPRESSION
Hamdy Mohy El-Din Afefy
Structural Engineering Department Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University .E-mail:hamdyafefy@hotmail.com
*Salah El-Din Fahmy Taher

Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Egypt Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University
Salah El-Din E. El-Metwally

Structural Engineering Department Faculty of Engineering, El-Mansoura University, Egypt E-mail:selmetwally@excite.com
:
. . . . - . . . . .
:*Corresponding author E-mail: sftaher@yahoo.com

9002 ,72 Paper Received August 7, 2008; Paper Revised April 6, 2009; Paper Accepted May
9002 October
The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 34, Number 2B
943
H. Mohy El-Din Afefy, Salah El-Din F. Taher and Salah El-Din E. El-Metwally
ABSTRACT This paper presents a design procedure for braced high-strength reinforced concrete columns under the action of uni-axial and biaxial loading. The paper has two phases; the first phase represents the design procedure of such columns under the action of uniaxial bending, while the second phase shows the implementation of the design procedure on the columns under biaxial bending. Due to the lack of uniformity in the conceptual treatment of the upper slenderness limit for short columns in different codes and the unclear definition of the maximum slenderness limit for slender columns as well, a new approach has been presented. Proposed expressions for the flexural rigidity have been presented based on the mode of failure of such columns. In addition, the equivalent column concept has been implemented to reduce the uni-axially loaded column to an axially loaded one, hence, the upper slenderness limit for the short column condition can be checked properly. As a consequence, a design procedure for the uniaxially loaded column is presented using a strength interaction diagram. Furthermore, the adequacy of the proposed procedure for predicting the second order effect has been verified against the experimental results. The same proposed design procedure in the first phase has been implemented in each direction of the column cross-section then the load contour equation can be used to check the strength of such column under biaxial loading. Finally, two worked examples have been presented covering different curvature modes: single and double. The proposed design procedure shows its competence against the experimental test results and well-designed columns according to the provisions of the current codes as ECCS 203-2001 and ACI 318-05 for braced systems.
Key words: biaxial bending, codes, column, column design, equivalent column, interaction diagram, reinforced concrete
350
October 2009
A NEW DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR BRACED REINFORCED HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE COLUMNS UNDER UNIAXIAL AND BIAXIAL COMPRESSION
1. INTRODUCTION Over the last few decades, the development in material technology, especially with the availability of superplasticizers, led to the production of higher concrete strength grades [1]. Since then, a series of research studies have been conducted on the behavior of such concrete [26]. One application of high-strength concrete has been in the columns of buildings. A large number of studies have demonstrated the economy of using high-strength concrete in columns of high-rise buildings, as well as low to medium-rise buildings [7]. In addition to reducing column size and producing a more durable material, the use of high-strength concrete has been shown to be advantageous with regard to lateral stiffness and axial shortening. Another advantage cited in the use of high-strength concrete columns is the reduction in the cost of formwork. It has been argued that, when judging the strength of a column, it is not only a matter of ensuring that stresses in the member are kept below a certain specified value, but also of preventing the peculiar state of unstable equilibrium [8]. Buckling has become more of a problem in recent years since the use of high-strength material requires less material for load support-structures and components have become generally more slender and buckle-prone. As a result, the slenderness limits based on normal-strength concrete have to be reassessed to make use of the merits of high-strength concrete grades. This trend has continued throughout technological history. Attempts have been made to modify the theory of analysis of slender columns by introducing effects of inelastic behavior and large deformations. There are two important limits for the slenderness ratio, which are the upper slenderness limit for the short column and the maximum slenderness limit. The upper slenderness limit is the limit that when exceeded the column is considered a long column On the other hand, the maximum slenderness limit is stipulated to avoid carrying out second order analysis of the column, which is burdensome and more complicated [9]. Most of the slenderness limit expressions provided by codes are derived assuming a certain loss of the column bearing capacity due to the second order effect. Despite this common basis, and even though most relevant factors governing the behavior of slender columns are well identified, a lack of uniformity can be observed in the conceptual treatment of the upper slenderness limit for short columns in different codes [10]. On the other hand, not all the codes use the same parameters in their upper slenderness limit formulae. For instance, The American Concrete Institute Code ACI 318-05 [9] adopts an upper limit for short columns based on the end moment ratio, while the Canadian Code, CSA A23.3-04 [11], also includes the acting load on the column. On the other hand, The Egyptian Code of Practice, ECCS 203 2001 [12], adopts a fixed limit for the upper slenderness limit for the short column regardless of the end moments, the axial load level, or the concrete strength. Not surprisingly, large differences may be obtained when applying the above code provisions. Also, there are different values of the upper slenderness limit for braced and unbraced column conditions. In practice, many columns are subjected to bending about both major and minor axes simultaneously, especially the corner columns of buildings [13]. The equations given by strain compatibility and equilibrium can be used to analyze sections subjected to compression force in conjunction with biaxial bending. However, it is so difficult since a trial and adjustment procedure is necessary to find the inclination and depth of the neutral axis satisfying the equilibrium equations. The neutral axis is not usually perpendicular to the resultant eccentricity. In design, a section and reinforcement pattern could be assumed and the reinforcement area successively corrected until the section capacity approaches the required value. Therefore, the direct use of equations in the design of this problem is impracticable without the aid of computer programming. For high-strength concrete columns, the current codes of practice use the same design procedure based on normal-strength concrete, along with some modification of the equivalent rectangular stress block to take into account the different behavior of high-strength concrete. In the current research, a new methodology is proposed to design high-strength concrete columns in braced systems under the action of both uni-axial and biaxial bending. 2. UNI-AXIAL BENDING For given concrete column dimensions and reinforcement details, a design procedure that comprises the following criteria is presented: 1. 2. 3. 4. Flexural rigidity, EI Equivalent column length, H* Critical buckling load, Pcr Upper slenderness ratio for short column
October 2009
351
5.
Design moment, Mdesign
Each criterion is explained in detail in the subsections below. 2.1. Proposed Expression for the Flexural Rigidity Columns in braced reinforced concrete buildings can be found in two different modes of curvature: single curvature under the effect of either equal end eccentricity or under the effect of unequal end eccentricity, and double curvature as shown in Figure 1. The general curvature-displacement relationship can be defined by the following equation:
y '' 1 + ( y ' )2
32
(1)
where is the curvature and y ' , y '' are the first and the second derivatives of the displacement, respectively. The lateral deformation under the axial load is relatively small, so y ' is small and can be neglected. As a result, the curvature-displacement relationship becomes
= y ''
(2)
The flexural rigidity, EI, is considered the main quantity in any column analysis, especially in stability analysis and analysis of slender columns. It can be obtained as the slope of the relation curve between the moment and the curvature. In reality, the quantity of EI is constant in the elastic range and, therefore, presents no difficulties. On the other hand, the moment-curvature response is nonlinear in the inelastic range. In turn, the instantaneous bending rigidity should be used as shown in Figure 2.
Pu
M1
e1
H eo
Pu M1
e1
e0
M2
Pu
e2
M2 e 2 eo Pu
Single curvature
Double curvature
Figure 1. Different curvature modes for braced columns
352
October 2009
Moment, M
Mu My
Moment, M
P = Pb P Pb
M cr
Curvature,
u
EI
P Pb M
cr
Curvature,
(a) Key points of moment-curvature relationship
(b) Typical moment-curvature-thrust relationship
Figure 2. Characteristics of moment-curvature relationship
Figure 3 shows the relationship among moment, curvature, and axial load. It can be seen that it is too complicated to get an accurate flexural rigidity because it depends on the axial load level and the mode of failure of such column.
Load Curvature Moment

Point of maximum moment and curvature
Figure 3. Moment-curvature-thrust model [14]
The flexural rigidity is proposed to be calculated from the following equation:

EI = Mu
(3)
where M u and u change with the mode of failure. The curvature, u , is calculated from strain distribution over the cross section. Figure 4 shows the key points of the typical interaction diagram. A typical interaction diagram has two clearly differentiated zones, which correspond to brittle failure (compression controlled) as designated by Zone I, and ductile failure (tension controlled) as designated by Zone II. These are separated by the balanced failure as illustrated by point A. Balanced failure is that for which the ultimate concrete strain, cu , and the yield strain of the reinforcing steel, y , are simultaneously reached. For design purposes, the least flexural rigidity is preferably used for conservative design. For Zone I The least flexural rigidity occurs at the balanced condition, where the denominator (the curvature) becomes maximum curvature in which the ultimate concrete strain and the yield strain in steel are both simultaneously reached. As a consequence, the flexural rigidity for the compression controlled columns can be calculated as
October 2009
353
EI =
M ub
(4)
where M ub is the ultimate balanced moment, and b is the balanced curvature that can be calculated from the following equation
b =
cu + y
d
(5)
where cu is the concrete crushing strain and d is the effective depth of the column cross-section. That approach matches with the Australian Standards AS 3600 [14]. For Zone II The least flexural rigidity occurs at the pure moment condition where the denominator (the curvature) increases as the steel strain exceeds the yielding strain and the numerator (the moment) decreases. For design purposes, it is better to consider the moment and curvature corresponding to the acting load on the column. Therefore, the flexural rigidity can be calculated from the following expression:
EI = Mu
(6) (7)
cu + s
d
M u is the ultimate moment corresponding to the acting axial load, and s is the actual steel strain.
Load
(0, Puo )
e = emin
Compression failure region
Zone I
e = eb
A
(M ub , Pub )
Zone II
Tension failure region
(M uo ,0)
Moment
Figure 4. Typical strength interaction diagram
For the equivalent rectangular stress block parameters required for the analysis of the column cross section, the equivalent rectangular stress block model as given in [2] can be implemented where 1 and 1 are the equivalent
rectangular stress block parameters; 1 is the concrete cylinder strength reduction factor, and 1 is a factor relating depth of equivalent rectangular compressive strength block to neutral axis depth. Both parameters can be defined as follows:
1 = 0.85 for f c' 30MPa

1 = 0.85 0.0014 ( f c' 30 ) 0.72 for f c'
30MPa
(8) (9)
354
October 2009
1 = 0.85 for f c' 30MPa 1 = 0.85 0.0020 ( f c' 30 ) 0.67 for f c'
2.2. Equivalent Column Length, H*
30MPa
(10) (11)
Von Karman (1910) [8] was the first to recognize the fact that the deflected axis of any column can be represented by a portion of the column deflected shape of an axially loaded pin ended column. For a given beamcolumn with end moments, an equivalent column exists; that is, any column subjected to axial load and end moment with a given length can be replaced by another column that is subjected to axial load only but has another length which gives the same acting load effect as shown in Figure 5. El-Metwally [15] used the same approach to get the critical buckling length for columns and beam-columns along with their deflected profile for both single and double curvature cases. The deflected shape of the equivalent pin ended column, H*, can be represented by sinusoidal curve as in the following
e = eo sin
x
H*
(12)
where eo is the maximum deflection at the mid-height of the equivalent column that can be calculated as
e o = m H *2
(13)
and m can be calculated from Equation (5) and Equation (7) for compression-controlled section and tension-controlled section, respectively.
P* P
MA
R A H B R
MB P P*
Original beam-column under end moments and axial load with length H
P* A eA
H* H B eB P*
Equivalent column with length H* and subjected to axial load P*
Figure 5. Equivalent column concept
October 2009
355
This concept can be used to reduce an eccentrically loaded column to a concentrically loaded column with greater length, so the upper slenderness limit for short column can be checked for the equivalent column as follows:
H* b
(14)
where is the slenderness ratio and b represents the column side under consideration. If U p p e r , sh o rt , the second order effect can be neglected. If
U p p er , sh o rt , the second order has to be taken into consideration.
U p p er , sh o rt is the upper slenderness limit for short column condition.
First, the axial load on the equivalent column has to be calculated as the resultant of the axial load and the shear load resulting from the end moments. The end eccentricity can then be calculated as the division of the acting moment by the axial load of the equivalent column. Finally, the equivalent column length can be calculated using trial and error for a give column length and end eccentricities. 2.3. Critical Buckling Load, Pcr The critical buckling load shall be calculated from the following expression
Pcr =
2 ( EI )design
(H )
* 2
(15)
where H* is the equivalent column length and ( EI )design shall be calculated from either Equation (4) or Equation (6) according to the mode of failure of the column. It is worth mentioning that the critical buckling load has to be greater than the acting ultimate axial load to avoid any possibility of instability failure. 2.4. Upper Slenderness Limit for Short Column The most recent upper slenderness limit for short column had been presented by Mari and Hellesland [10]. That limit included the most important parameters governing the behavior of slender concrete columns, such as axial load level, first order end eccentricities, the ratio between permanent and total load, creep coefficient, the amount and distribution of reinforcement, and different loading paths such as constant eccentricity, constant moment, and constant axial load. For 10% loss of capacity, the following expressions had been proposed: For compression controlled
10 = 10.8 1.33
e2 0.7 C 2 + 0.4 + 3.4 ( 1) B h e2 h
(16)
where C= -0.3 in the constant eccentricity and constant moment cases, and C=0 in the constant axial load case, B=1, 0, and 1, respectively, in the same three cases (constant eccentricity, constant moment, and constant axial load), P = e1 e 2 , e1 and e2 are the minimum and maximum first order end eccentricity, respectively, and = ' u ( f c c )bt where c is the strength reduction factor of concrete, and b and t are the short and long cross-sectional dimension of the column, respectively. For tension controlled
10 = 10.8
e2 C 2 + 3.4 ( 1) B h e2 h
(17)
where C = 0.5 0.3 in the constant eccentricity and constant moment cases, and C=0 in the constant axial load case, B=1, 0, and 1, respectively, in the same three cases (constant eccentricity, constant moment and constant axial load). 2.5. Design Moment, Mdesign In case of calculated as
U p p er , sh o rt , the design moment, which takes into account the second order effect, can be
356
October 2009
M design = Pu * eo M 2
(18)
where Pu is the acting ultimate load, e o is the maximum deflection at the mid-height of the equivalent column, and M2 is the bigger end moment. To sum up, Figure 6 shows a flow chart of the design procedure.
3. BIAXIAL BENDING
The strength of columns under biaxial bending can be illustrated by interaction surfaces. By varying the inclination of the neutral axis for the section, it is possible to obtain a series of interaction diagrams at various angles to the major axes of the section. A complete set of diagrams for all angles will describe the interaction surface or the failure surface. The concept of using failure surface had been presented by Bresler, 1960 and Parme, 1963 [16]. The nominal ultimate strength of a section under biaxial bending and compression is a function of three variables, namely Pn, Mnx, and Mny, which may also be expressed in terms of the axial force Pn acting at eccentricities e y = M nx Pn and
e x = M ny Pn with respect to the x- and y-axes, respectively.
3.1. Load Contour Approach In this part, the load contour method has been implemented to check the adequacy of high-strength reinforced concrete columns under biaxial loading (refer to Figure 7). The key parameter of this approach is the interaction exponent called n . The values of that exponent are a function of concrete strength, amount and distribution of reinforcement, cross-section dimensions of the column, elastic properties of both steel and concrete, and angle of eccentricity. There are many approaches for estimating that exponent, such as the Bresler load contour method, the Parme load contour method, and those implemented in international standards as Australian Standard AS3600 and Canadian Standard CSA-A23.3-04.
October 2009
357
The following are known: Pu, M1, M2, b, t, H, As and material properties
Calculate the balanced load, Pub
If
(Tension controlled)
Pu
Pub
No
EI =
Mu
Yes
(Compression controlled)
EI =
M ub
Calculate the equivalent column length, H*
Calculate the critical buckling load, Pcr
Calculate the slenderness ratio, =
H b
If sh o rt
No Design for Pu, Mu
Yes Calculate Mdesign,

M design = Pu eo M 2
Design for Pu, Mdesign

Figure 6. Flow chart for design procedure of uni-axially loaded column
358
October 2009
Figure 7. Load contours for constant Pn on failure surface S3 (Bresler, 1960 [19])
More recently, Bajaj and Mendis [17] presented an efficient method to evaluate the biaxial exponent that covers a high-strength concrete range up to 100 MPa. It is also a modified method for the Bresler and Parme approaches. It showed good agreement with the experimental results. That approach can be summarized as described below. The load contour equation at a constant axial load
Pn can be represented by the following equation:

n
n M ny M nx + M noy M nox
=1
(19)
where M nx and M ny are the acting moments about x- and y- directions, respectively, and M nox and M noy are the uni-axial bending capacities about both directions, respectively. If
B1 = M ny M nx ,B2 = M nox M noy
(20)
An average value has been taken for B1 and B2 and called as follows:
B1 + B 2 2
log 0.5 , n = K na log
(21) (22)
na =
K is defined as
K = 1 for = 45o , = ( 0 15o ) and = (75o 90o ) K = 1.15 for = 30o or 60o
(23)
where
is the angle of eccentricity of the acting load.
In the current design procedure, the Bajaj and Mendis model has been adopted considering the limiting values for n as
1 n 2
(24)
October 2009
359
3.2. Proposed Design Procedure for Columns Under Biaxial Bending For given concrete dimensions and reinforcement details of a braced high-strength reinforced concrete column under biaxial bending, the procedure described below can be implemented to check the strength of that reinforced concrete section. This design procedure can be summarized as the following: 1. Calculate the flexural rigidities in both directions as explained in Part I, EIx, EIy. 2. Calculate the curvature at both directions, x , y .
* 3. Calculate the equivalent column lengths in both directions, H x* , H y .
4. Check the upper slenderness limits for short column conditions. 5. Calculate the design moments in both directions, M nx , M ny . 6. For a given ultimate load Pu, calculate the corresponding uni-axial moments in both directions, M ox , M oy . 7. Calculate the biaxial interaction exponent, n , from Equation (22) 8. Check the load contour equation , Equation (19) 4. VERIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED FLEXURAL RIGIDITY EXPRESSION There are two approaches in the International Standards for the calculations of the flexural rigidity. Those are the empirical expressions based on the concrete and steel moduli of elasticity and expressions based on the slope of the moment curvature relationship at a balanced condition. To check the accuracy of both approaches, a comparative study has been done to compare the expressions adopted in ACI 318-05, CSA A23.3-04, and the proposed expressions, taking into account the relevant material characteristics in each one as follows:
E c = 4734 f c'
(ACI 318-05)
(25)
The modulus of elasticity for concrete is defined as the slope of a line drawn from a stress of zero to a compressive stress of 0.45 f c' ,
E c = 4500 f c'
(CSA A23.3-04)
(26)
for concrete range f c' =20-40 MPa. The modulus of elasticity for concrete is taken as the average secant modulus for a stress of 0.4 f c' .
E s = 200 GPa and f y = 400 MPa for reinforcing steel.
For the proposed expressions, two values had been obtained: the upper limit that corresponds to the compression controlled column and the lower limit that corresponds to the tension controlled column at the pure moment conditions. 4.1. Case Studies Table 1 shows the studied cross-sections accompanied by their characteristics where the main parameters were concrete cross-section, reinforcement ratio of longitudinal steel, and the concrete cylinder strength. 13 concrete cross-sections had been used. Each one had two reinforcement ratios between 1% and 3%. The concrete cylinder strength was changed from 30 MPa to 50 MPa. A total of 78 study cases had been considered. In this part, the effect of long term loading is neglected, i.e., d is considered as zero. In addition, ACI 318-05 I and ACI 318-05 II represent the flexural rigidities calculated from Equation (27) and Equation (28), respectively. CSA-A23.3-04 I and CSA-A23.3-04 II represent the flexural rigidities calculated from Equation (27) and Equation (28), respectively, considering the relevant modulus of elasticity as calculated from Equation (25) and Equation (26).
EI = EI =
0.2E c I g + E s I se 1 + d 0.4E c I g 1 + d
(27) (28)
360
October 2009
where Ec and Es are the concrete and steel modulus of elasticity, respectively, and Ig and Isc are the second moment of inertia for the whole concrete section and reinforcing steel about the centroidal axis of the column cross-section, respectively. To compare the foregoing expressions for the flexural rigidities, all flexural rigidities had been normalized to
EI g where E, had been calculated from Equation (25).
Table 1. Characteristics of the Study Cases Section No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 b, mm 300 200 300 1000 400 300 500 400 300 200 200 300 150 500 200 300 1000 400 400 150 150 150 150 100 150 100 t, mm 300 300 400 1000 400 300 500 300 200 200 300 400 200 500 200 200 1000 300 400 150 200 100 100 150 150 150 As 6 14 6 12 6 16 16 28 8 16 6 16 8 20 6 16 6 12 4 12 6 14 6 20 4 12 8 25 4 14 6 14 16 38 6 20 8 22 4 12 4 14 4 11.3 4 12 4 11.3 4 14 4 12
s , %
1.03 1.13 1 0.98 1 1.33 1 1 1.13 1.13 1.54 1.57 1.5 1.57 1.54 1.54 1.81 1.57 1.9 2 2 2.67 3 2.67 2.74 3
Ig, mm4(x10 6) 675 450 1600 83333 2133.3 675 5208.3 900 200 133.3 450 1600 100 5208.3 133.3 200 83333 900 2133.3 42.2 100 12.5 12.5 28.13 42.2 28.13
Is,mm4 (x10 6) 9.6 7.1 24.5 1387 36.8 12.5 95.4 18.8 4.3 2.9 9.6 38.5 2.9 149 3.9 5.91 2558 29.4 69.8 1.6 3.94 0.5 0.55 1.4 2.22 1.63
Figure 8 shows comparisons among all studied expressions for the flexural rigidities at concrete cylinder strength of 30MPa, 40MPa, and 50MPa. It can be seen that the proposed expressions almost bounded both the American and Canadian values, which took the type of failure into account. The proposed expressions showed their rationality in application through introducing a range for the flexural rigidity according to the mode of failure.
October 2009
361
ACI 318-05 I ACI 318-05 II CSA-A23.3-04 I CSA-A23.3-04 II EI, Proposed for compression controlled (Upper limit) EI, Proposed for tension controlled (Lower limit) 0.7 Relative flexural rigidity with respect to EIg 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
f c' = 30MPa
Relative flexural rigidity with respect to EIg
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
f c' = 40 MPa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Section
Relative flexural rigidity with respect to EIg
f c' = 50 MPa
Figure 8. Comparisons among different approaches for the flexural rigidity expressions
5. VERIFICATION OF THE PREDICTED SECOND ORDER EFFECT AGAINST THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS To check the adequacy of the proposed procedure for estimating the second order effect, 20 constant curvature tested columns have been chosen out of the experimental work program carried out by Chuang and Kong (1997)[3]. The tested columns had concrete strength varied from 3196MPa and the slenderness ratio varied from 1531.7. The characters A, B, and C appearing in the specimen titles are the column groups, the numbers next to those characters represent the slenderness ratio, and the last numbers represent the end eccentricity ratio. Table 2 shows the characteristics of such specimens. The measured lateral deflections had been compared to the obtained maximum deflections calculated based on the equivalent column concept. In addition, those results had been compared to the estimated values by the Egyptian Code of Practice, ECCS 203-2001, calculated from the following equation:
b2 .b
2000
(29)
where is the additional lateral deflection due to the second order effect, b is the column side under consideration, and b is the slenderness ratio.
362
October 2009
Table 2. Characteristics of the Experimentally Tested Specimens by Chuang and Kong [3] Specimen A-15-0.25 A-17-0.25 A-18-0.25 A-19-0.25 A-15-0.50 A-17-0.50 A-18-0.50 A-19-0.50 B-17-0.25 B-17-0.50 B-18-0.50 B-19-0.50 C-27.5-0.50 C-30-0.50 C-31.7-0.50 HB-17-0.25 HB-18-0.25 HB-17-0.50 HB-18-0.50 HB-19-0.50
f cu , MPa
H, m 3 3.4 3.6 3.8 3 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.3 3.6 3.8 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.8
b, m 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
H/b 15 17 18 19 15 17 18 19 17 17 18 19 27.5 30 31.7 17 18 17 18 19
e/b 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50
31.1 38.2 32.8 32.3 33.0 40.3 32.7 30.3 37.2 38.6 42.5 45.0 42.6 41.5 43.7 96.2 94.8 94.1 95.9 96.1
Figure 9 shows comparisons among the three values: proposed method, experimental results, and estimated values according to the Egyptian code provisions.
100 90 80 Lateral deflection, m m 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
A - 0 .2 5 17 A - 0 .2 5 18 A - 0 .2 5 19 A - 0 .2 5 15 A - 0 .5 0 17 A - 0 .5 0 18 A - 0 .5 0 19 B - 0 .5 0 17 B - 0 .2 5 18 B - 0 .2 5 19 B - 0 .2 5 17 B - 0 .5 0 18 B - 0 .5 0 19 C - -0 . 27 5 0 . C - 5 -0 . 0 .3 2 5 C - 0 -0 . 31 25 . C - 7 -0 . 27 25 . C - 5 -0 . 0 .3 5 0 C - 0 -0 . 31 50 .7 0 .5 0
Specimen Calculated lateral deflection (Proposed procedure) Measured lateral deflection (Chuang and Kong, 1997) Additional lateral deflection (ECCS 203-2001)
Figure 9. Comparison among the experimentally recorded lateral deflections and the predicted lateral deflections using the proposed procedure and the additional lateral deflections according to the Egyptian Code of Practice, ECCS 203-2001
A-
15
October 2009
363
It can be seen that the estimated values are closer to the experimental results than those of the calculated values based on the Egyptian code provisions. In addition, the proposed procedure shows its rationality where with increasing the height of the columns the second order lateral deflections increase while, in some experimental results, the lateral deflections decrease, which are attributed to experimental errors. Table 3 shows the obtained equivalent column lengths and the comparison among the abovementioned approaches. It can be seen that the proposed procedure gives more accurate results compared to the estimated values by the Egyptian code, ECCS 2032001. In addition, the obtained lateral deflections seem to be more conservative for design purposes compared with the values of the Egyptian code. Table 3. Comparison Among the Recorded Lateral Deflections and Estimated Lateral Deflections According to the Proposed Procedure and the ECCS 203-2001 Provisions H, m Equivalent column H*,m 5.24 5.5 5.63 5.77 6.68 6.9 7.02 7.14 5.34 6.65 6.76 6.9 4.73 4.96 5.11 5.32 5.46 6.64 6.76 6.88 Average Coefficient of variation 6. VERIFICATION OF THE DESIGN PROCEDURE To verify the above-mentioned procedure, two examples had been worked out in detail covering single and double curvature modes and loading conditions. More details about such examples are presented in Appendices I and II. Example one is high-strength reinforced concrete fixed hinged ended braced column and is chosen from the experimental work program of the first author that had been conducted for that purpose. The column is CHIIUN specimen where the cross-section was 100 mm x 150 mm, and the longitudinal reinforcement composed of four bars of 11.3 mm each in diameter and yield strength of 400 MPa. The column height was 1900 mm. In addition, the column bent about the minor axis at 40 mm end eccentricity at the top hinged end so that the eccentricity at the lower fixed end was 20 mm. Figure 10 shows the test specimen under the test rig. More details about the test specimens and the experimental work program can be found elsewhere [18,19]. The failure characteristics of such column are as follows: f c' = 70.85MPa , Pu=292 kN, maximum lateral deflection at the failure zone = 12.7 mm. The comparison for that column is carried out using strength interaction diagram. The strength interaction diagram for the column section has been constructed along with the moment-load curve for the column at the failure zone making use of Figure 11. Example two represents a well-designed column section to support the given straining actions.
364 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 34, Number 2B October 2009
Specimen
e exp erimental ,
e proposed ,
mm 29 41 39 43 31 55 58 45 23 38 37 37 72 60 94 35 30 34 40 39
mm 30.69 38.9 43.15 47.84 31.13 39.9 44.82 49.81 42.7 43.77 48.56 54.78 71.04 84 92.94 42.79 47.74 44.55 49.82 55.2
e ECCS ,mm
e proposed e exp erimental
e ECCS e exp erimental
A-15-0.25 A-17-0.25 A-18-0.25 A-19-0.25 A-15-0.50 A-17-0.50 A-18-0.50 A-19-0.50 B-17-0.25 B-17-0.50 B-18-0.50 B-19-0.50 C-27.5-0.50 C-30-0.50 C-31.7-0.50 HB-17-0.25 HB-18-0.25 HB-17-0.50 HB-18-0.50 HB-19-0.50
3.0 3.4 3.6 3.8 3 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.3 3.6 3.8 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.8
22.5 28.9 32.4 36.1 22.5 28.9 32.4 36.1 28.9 28.9 32.4 36.1 27.225 32.4 36.1 28.9 32.4 28.9 32.4 36.1
1.058 0.949 1.106 1.113 1.004 0.725 0.773 1.107 1.857 1.152 1.312 1.481 0.987 1.4 0.989 1.223 1.591 1.31 1.246 1.415 1.19 0.23
0.776 0.705 0.831 0.84 0.726 0.525 0.559 0.802 1.257 0.761 0.876 0.976 0.378 0.54 0.384 0.826 1.08 0.85 0.81 0.926 0.771 0.282
Reaction Beam
Steel Assembly to prevent Lateral Displacement
Load Cell
Bungee Cable
LVDT
Main Frame's Column
LVDT
LVDT
Floor Slab, (1m thickness)
Figure 10. Test set up
Eccentricity, e
Height of Column
LVDT Stand
Specimen
efailure
M = P * (e failure + failure )
Failure location
(Based on test
failure
Eccentricity, e/2 Eccentricities corresponding to external loading Measured Lateral Deflection
Figure 11. Load eccentricity and the second order lateral deflection at the column failure zone
7. AN OVERVIEW ON THE DESIGN PROCEDURE To sum up, a parametric study has been presented to study the main criteria of the proposed design procedure. Different columns have been studied having square cross sections of 200 mm sides and reinforced with 4 bars of high tensile steel of 16 mm diameter with steel yield strength of 400 MPa. The main studied parameters are the concrete cylinder strength, the height of the columns, and the curvature mode. Three different concrete strengths have been considered: 30, 60, and 90 MPa, along with three different heights having three different curvature modes as shown in Figure 12.
October 2009
365
Figure 12. Studied curvature modes 7.1. An Overview of the Flexural Rigidity Two modes of failure of column have been considered: compression-controlled and tension-controlled. For the compression controlled, the flexural rigidity at the balanced condition is considered, while the moment and curvature corresponding to one half of the balanced load is considered for calculating the flexural rigidities of the tension-controlled. Table 4 shows the obtained flexural rigidities at different concrete strengths.
Table 4. Relative Flexural Rigidities to Those Calculated According to ACI 318-05 Provisions Tension controlled ( Pu = 0.5Pub ) Compression controlled ( Pu = Pub )
EI proposed, N.mm2
f c' = 30MPa
EI proposed EI ACI 31805

0.57
EI proposed, N.mm2 1.836*1012
EI proposed EI ACI 31805

1.33
0.790*1012
f c' = 60MPa
1.062*1012
0.54
2.628*1012
1.34
f c' = 90MPa
1.260*1012
0.53
3.312*1012
1.38
The above values have been compared to those calculated by the ACI 318-05 equation, Equation (28). The results of comparison are showed in Table 4. It can be seen that the tension-controlled sections gave lower values than that obtained from the ACI equation, while for the compression-controlled phase, the proposed expression gave higher values. It can be concluded that for both phases the effect of concrete grade on the ratio between the obtained flexural rigidities from the proposed expressions and those obtained from the ACI equation are small to some extent.
366
October 2009
7.2. An Overview of the Equivalent Column Length
Table 5 shows the relative values of the obtained equivalent column lengths compared to the actual lengths for different concrete strengths, heights, and curvature modes. It can be seen that the equivalent column length increases for compression-controlled columns compared to tension-controlled columns for the same column length and having the same curvature mode. In addition, with increasing column length, the equivalent column decreases for the same phase. Furthermore, the constant curvature mode gives the highest equivalent columns, while the double curvature mode gives the lowest equivalent columns for the same column height for the studied eccentricities. It is worth mentioning that the concrete strength has almost no effect on the equivalent column lengths. Table 5. Relative Values of the Equivalent Column Lengths to the Actual Lengths Tension controlled ( Pu = 0.5Pub ) H = 2m Constant curvature
f c' = 30MPa
Compression controlled ( Pu = Pub ) H = 2m 2.89 H = 4m 1.71 H = 6m 1.38
H = 4m 1.42
H = 6m 1.22
2.2
Single curvature Double curvature Constant curvature

f c' = 60MPa
2.02
1.34
1.17
2.68
1.58
1.3
2.01
1.15
1.06
2.55
1.35
1.13
2.19
1.42
1.21
2.89
1.71
1.38
Single curvature Double curvature Constant curvature Single curvature Double curvature
2.01
1.34
1.17
2.68
1.58
1.3
2.01
1.15
1.06
2.55
1.35
1.13
2.19
1.42
1.21
2.89
1.71
1.38
f c' = 90MPa
2.01
1.33
1.16
2.68
1.58
1.3
2.01
1.15
1.06
2.55
1.35
1.13
7.3. An Overview of the Second Order Effect Table 6 shows comparisons between the design moment as multipliers of the maximum first order moment, M2, taking into account the second order effect and those obtained from both the Egyptian Code of practice, ECCS 2032001, and the American Code, ACI 318-05. It can be noted that the proposed design method gives more conservative design moments than that obtained from both ECCS and ACI for all cases of the tension-controlled columns, while it gives less conservative design moments in some cases of the compression-controlled columns.
October 2009
367
Table 6. Comparison Between the Design Moments Obtained from the Proposed Method Against Those Obtained from the Egyptian Code of Practice, ECCS 203-2001, and the American Code, ACI 318-05 Tension controlled ( Pu = 0.5Pub ) H = 2m
Constant curvature
Compression controlled ( Pu = Pub ) H = 2m 1.04 0.97 1.01 1.01 1.77 1.77 1.04 0.90 1.01 0.97 1.77 1.77 1.04 0.89 1.01 0.95 1.77 1.77 H = 4m 1.10 0.52 1.08 0.55 1.03 0.80 1.10 -1.08 -1.03 -1.10 -1.08 -1.03 -H = 6m 1.13 -1.11 -1.05 -1.13 -1.11 -1.05 -1.13 -1.11 -1.05 --
H = 4m 1.48 1.46 1.51 1.61 1.45 1.45 1.49 1.21 1.52 1.34 1.46 1.46 1.49 1.14 1.52 1.25 1.46 1.46
H = 6m 1.71 0.82 1.74 0.95 1.82 1.58 1.71 -1.75 -1.84 -1.72 -1.75 -1.84 --
Mproposed /MECCS Mproposed /MACI Mproposed /MECCS Mproposed /MACI Mproposed /MECCS Mproposed /MACI Mproposed /MECCS Mproposed /MACI Mproposed /MECCS Mproposed /MACI Mproposed /MECCS Mproposed /MACI Mproposed /MECCS Mproposed /MACI Mproposed /MECCS Mproposed /MACI Mproposed /MECCS Mproposed /MACI
1.18 1.22 1.11 1.11 1.13 1.13 1.18 1.18 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.18 1.17 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12
90MPa
-- The actual compression force is greater that the critical buckling load for the ACI predictions
It is worth mentioning that in both types of column failure, the proposed design method gives more conservative design moments compared to those of the Egyptian Code of Practice, ECCS 203-2001. 8. CONCLUSIONS The proposed design procedure, which is limited to braced buildings, showed its application in the case of the availability of ready-made strength interaction diagrams for high-strength concretes. In addition, it shows its efficiency in verifying the column design under different loading conditions. Furthermore, it can be used to design most complicated columns having different boundary conditions with different curvature modes. Finally, the obtained design moments are more conservative than those obtained from the current Egyptian Code of practice. The generalization of the proposed methodology to include unbraced systems may be a subject of future study. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research presented in this paper is an extension of the Ph. D. thesis of the first author, Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Egypt, 2007.
368
Double curvature
Single curvature
Constant curvature
Double curvature
Single curvature
60MPa
Constant curvature
Double curvature
Single curvature
30MPa
October 2009
REFERENCES
[1] J. Foster and M. M. Attard, Experimental Tests on Eccentrically Loaded High Strength Concrete Columns, ACI Structural Journal, 94(3)(1997), pp. 295303. [2] E. Canbay, G. Ozcebe, and U. Ersoy, High Strength Concrete Columns Under Eccentric Load, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 132(7)(2006), pp. 10521060. [3] H. Chuang and F. K. Kong, Large Scale Tests on Slender Reinforced Concrete Columns , Journal of the Institution of the Structural Engineers, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 75(23-24)(1997), pp. 410416. [4] C. Claeson and K. Gylltoft, Slender High-Strength Concrete Columns Subjected to Eccentric Loading, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 124(3)(1998), pp. 233240. [5] H. P. Hong, Strength of Slender Reinforced Concrete Columns Under Biaxial Bending, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 127(7)(2001), pp. 758762. [6] S. Lee and J. Kim, The Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns Subjected to Axial Force and Biaxial Bending, Engineering Structures, Elsevier Science Ltd, 23(2000), pp. 15181528. [7] ACI-ASCE Committee 441, High-Strength Concrete Columns: State of the Art, ACI Structural Journal, 94(3)(1997), pp. 323335. [8] W. F. Chen and E. M. Lui, Structural Stability: Theory and Implementation, New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 1987, 483 pp. [9] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005, 430 pp. [10] R. Mari and J. Hellesland, Lower Slenderness Limits for Rectangular Concrete Columns, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 131(1)(2005), pp. 8595. [11] Canadian Standards Association, A23.3-04: Design of Concrete Structures, Fifth Edition, Canadian Standard Association, 178 Rexdale Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2004. [12] Housing and Building Research Center, The Egyptian Code for Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Structures, ECCS 203-2001, 2001, [13] S. I. Abdel-Sayed and N. J. Gardner, Design of Symmetric Square Slender Reinforced Concrete Columns Under Biaxially Eccentric Loads, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, SP 50-6, (1975), pp. 149164. [14] Center for Construction Technology Research, University of Western Sydney, Cross-Section Strength of Columns, Part 1: AS 3600 Design , Reinforced Concrete Building Series, Design Booklet RCB-3.1 (1), One Steel Reinforcing Pty Ltd and University of Western Sydney, (2000). [15] S. E. El-Metwally, Method of Segment Length for Instability Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Columns, ACI Structural Journal, 91(6)(1994), pp. 666677. [16] Wang and C. G. Salmon, Reinforced Concrete Design, Harper & Row, Publishers, Fourth Edition, New York, 1985. [17] S. Bajaj and P. Mendis, New Method to Evaluate the Biaxial Interaction Exponent for RC Columns, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 131(12)(2005), pp. 19261930. [18] H. M. Afefy, E. E. Etman, S. F. Taher, S. E. El-Metwally, and K. M. Sennah, , Behavior of Fixed-Hinged Ended Braced Reinforced Concrete Columns Under Biaxial Loading, in Proceedings of the 6th Alexandria International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, AICSGE6, Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Vol. II, April, (2007), pp. RC215-RC233. [19] H. M. Afefy, Experimental and Numerical Instability Analysis of High Strength Reinforced Concrete Systems, PhD thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt, 2007, 244 pp. [20] K. Kong and R. H. Evand, Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete, 2nd edition, Thomas Nelson Ltd, 1980.
October 2009
369
APPENDIX I Verification of the Design Procedure Against the Experimental Results Under Uniaxial Loading
182.7mm
Example 1( double curvature) CHIIUN specimen [19] Flexural rigidity
s'
N .A
1 = 0.85 0.0014 ( f c' 30 ) 0.72

1 = 0.85 0.0014 ( 70.85 30 ) = 0.793
1 = 0.85 0.0020 ( f c' 30 ) 0.67

1 = 0.85 0.0020 ( 70.85 30 ) = 0.7683
600 Cb = 600 + f y 600 d = 85 = 51mm ab = 1 *C b = 0.7683*51 = 39.18mm 600 + 400
s = y
s' = 0.003
c 15 ' = 0.0021 y (0.002) f s = f y c
C s' =80 kN
C c = 1 * f c' * a * b = 0.793* 70.85*39.18*150 = 330.19kN C s' = A s' f s' = 200 * 400 = 80000N = 80kN T = A s f y = 200 * 400 = 80000N = 80kN Pub = C c + C T = 330.19kN
' s
C c =330.2 kN
a=39.18 mm Plastic centriod
T=80 kN
Pu ( 292 ) Pub Tension controlled
EI =
Mu
where Mu is the acting moment at Pu=292 kN
s' = 0.003
c 15 c 15 ' f s = 600 c c
C c = 1 * f c' * a * b = 0.793* 70.85 * 0.768c *150 = 6472.4c T = A s f y = 200 * 400 = 80000N = 80kN Pu = C c + C s' T = 292kN
c 15 292 *1000 = 6472.4c + 200 * 600 80000 c c 2 39.09c 278.1 = 0 c = 45.24mm , a = 34.74
s' = 0.003
c 15 ' = 0.00201 y (0.002) f s = f y c
C c = 6472.4c = 292.8kN M u = 292.8* 0.03264 + 2 *80 * 0.035 = 15.16kN .m
b =
cu + y
d
0.003 + 0.002 = 0.0000588(1 / mm ) 85
370
October 2009
EI =
15.16 *106 = 2.58*1011 N .mm 2 0.0000588
Equivalent column length M2=11.68 kN.m, M1=5.84 kN.m (double curvature case) Reaction due to end moments, V =
M 1 + M 2 11.68 + 5.84 = = 9.22kN H 1.9
2
Axial load on the equivalent column, P * = Pu2 +V

e2 = M2 M 40mm , e1 = *1 20mm P* P
= 292.14kN
eo =
*(H *) 2
0.0000588H *2
= 0.000005957 H *2
*x e = eo sin H
e eo H* e2 e1 x2 x1 1900 mm H*
eo
x e1 = 0.000005957H *2 sin *1 = 20 (1) H x e 2 = 0.000005957 H *2 sin *2 = 40 (2) H x 1 + x 2 = 1900 (3)
180 H * 1 3357008 40 = 0.000005957 H *2 sin * 1900 sin H H *2 180
by trial and error H * = 2.616m , x 1 = 0.427m , x 2 = 1.473m

eo = 0.000005957 H *2 = 40.77 mm
The critical buckling load

Pcr =
(H
2 EI
2 * average
2 * 2.58 *1011
( 2616 )
= 372087N = 372kN
Pu
Check the upper slenderness limit for short column Consider the case of constant eccentricity and using Equation C = 0.5 = 0.088, B = 1,e 2 h = 0.4, = 0.5, = 0.412 upper ,short = 19.83 (17) for tension controlled,
= H * / b = 2.616 / 0.1 = 26.16 19.83 long column, consider the second order effect
October 2009
371
Design moment
M design = Pu eo M 2 M design = 292.14 * 40.77 /1000 = 11.91kN .m M2
Pu =292.14 kN, Mdesign = 11.91 kN.m For the verification, the strength interaction diagram had been constructed for the cross section as shown in Figure 13. The diagram also includes the load moment curves for tested specimen calculated at the actual failure zone along the column height as explained in Figure 11. Since the column has already failed under the given straining actions and the design strength does not reach the failure strength interaction diagram for the column section, the column failure can be attributed to the instability failure.
CHIIUN specimen
1000
ECCS 203-2001 CHIIUN
800
P , (kN)
600
400
200
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
M , (kN.m)
Figure 13: Comparison between experimental results and those obtained from the design procedure
372
October 2009
APPENDIX II Verification of the Design Procedure for Column Under Biaxial Loading Example 2 (single curvature) This example is a safe designed column taken from reference [20] Example 7.5-3. It is required to apply the proposed design procedure to check that column. Given: Column total height, H= 6.5 m Ultimate load, Pu = 2500 kN
M 2 x = 250kN .m , M 1x = 200kN .m
M 2 y = 120kN .m , M 1y = 100kN .m
A s = 3402mm 2
500 mm
A s = 2268mm 2
f cu = 40MPa
longitudinal steel is eight bars of 38 mm diameter,

f y = 410MPa
A s = 3402mm 2
400 mm
y-direction ( M2=250 kN.m, M1=200 kN.m) Flexural rigidity

cu cb = cu + y d 0.003 = * 450 = 267.3mm 410 0.003 + 200000 182.7mm
s 3
cb = 267.3mm
ab = 0.8cb = 0.8* 267.3 = 213.84mm
s 2 = 0.003* s 3 = 0.003*
17.3 = 0.000194 267.3 217.3 = 0.0024 267.3
s 2
N .A 182.7mm
y 0.00205 s1
Cs3
C c = 0.67 * f cu * a * b = 0.67 * 40 * 213.84 * 400 = 2292.4kN T s 1 = 3402 * 410 /1000 = 1394.82kN C s 2 = 0.000194 * 200000 * 2268/1000 = 88kN C s 3 = 3402 * 410 /1000 = 1394.82kN Pub = C c + C s 2 + C s 3 T s 1 = 2380.4kN Pu Compression controlled M ub = 2292.4 * 0.143 + 1394.82 * 0.200 * 2 = 885.92kN .m , Cc
Strain distribution
a = 213.84mm
Cs2
Plastic centroid N .A
b =
s + y
d M ub
0.003 + 0.00205 = 0.00001122 (1/ mm ) 450 T s1
EI =
885.92 *106 = 7.896 *1013 N .mm 2 0.00001122
October 2009
373
Equivalent column length
e eo
H*
e1 = 80mm x1 x2
6500mm
H*
x e = eo sin * H eo = b e2 = H *2
= 0.000001136H *2 ,
M2 M = 100mm , e1 = 1 = 80mm P P
x e1 = 0.000001136H *2 sin *1 = 80 (1) H x e 2 = 0.000001136H *2 sin *2 = 100 (2) H x 2 = x 1 + 6500 (3)
Using mathematical manipulation results in the following equation

180 H * 1 70422535 100 = 0.000001136H *2 sin * sin + 6500 *2 H 180 H
by trial and error H * = 11.34m , x 1 = 2.092m

eo = 0.000001136H *2 = 146.08mm

Pcr =
(H )
2 EI
* 2
2 * 7.896 *1013
(11340 )
= 6060114N = 6060kN
Pu o .k
Check the upper slenderness limit for short column Consider the case of constant eccentricity C = 0.3, B = 1,e 2 h = 0.4, = 0.5, = 0.56 upper ,short = 7.14 and for compression controlled,
= H * / b = 11.34 / 0.5 = 22.68 7.14 long column, consider the second order effect
M design = Pu eo M 2 M design = 2500 *146.08 /1000 = 365.2kN .m
374
October 2009
Mox at Pu=2500 kN
450 c 450 c s 1 = 0.003 f s 1 = 600 c c
182.7mm
s 3
s 2 = 0.003 s 3 = 0.003
c 250 c 250 f s 2 = 600 c c
c 50 c 50 f s 3 = 600 c c
s 2
N .A
C c = 0.67 * 40 * 0.8* c * 400 = 8576c
P = 2500kN
2500000 = C c + C s 2 + C s 3 T c 250 c 50 450 c 2500000 = 8576c + 2268 * 600 + 3402 * 600 * 3402 * 600 c c c
c 2 + 343.2c 158675.4 = 0 c = 262, a = 209.9mm
s1
s 1 = 0.0024 y f s 1 = 410MPa
s 2 = 0.000137 f s 2 = 27.5MPa s 3 = 0.00215 f s 3 = 410MPa

M u = M ox = 2246.9 * 0.145 + 410 *3402 * 200 * 2 *106 = 883.7 KN .m
x-direction ( M2=120 kN.m, M1=100 kN.m) Consider the same sequence as in y-direction (b=500 mm, t=400 mm)
cb = 207.0mm , ab = 166.3mm Cs3 a = 213.84mm
s 2 = 0.000114 , s 3 = 0.00227 y 0.00205

C c = 0.67 * f cu * a * b = 2228.4kN T s 1 = 3402 * 410 /1000 = 1394.82kN C s 2 = 0.000114 * 200000 * 2268 /1000 = 51.71kN C s 3 = 3402 * 410 /1000 = 1394.82kN Pub = C c + C s 2 + C s 3 T s 1 = 2280kN Pu Compression controlled M ub = 2228.4 * 0.117 + 1394.82 * 0.15 * 2 = 678.8kN .m , T s1 Cc Cs2
Plastic centroid N .A
b =
s + y
d M ub
0.003 + 0.00205 = 0.0000144 (1/ mm ) 350
EI =
678.8 *106 = 4.704 *1013 N .mm 2 0.0000144
October 2009
375
Equivalent column length
e1 = 40mm x1 x2
x e = eo sin * H
eo = b e2 = H *2
eo
e2 = 48mm
6500mm
H*
= 0.000001459H *2 ,
M2 M = 48mm , e1 = 1 = 40mm P P
x e1 = 0.000001459H *2 sin *1 = 40 (1) H x e 2 = 0.000001459H *2 sin *2 = 48 (2) H

x 2 = x 1 + 6500 (3)
180 H * 1 27416038.4 48 = 0.000001459H *2 sin * sin + 6500 *2 H 180 H
by trial and error H * = 8.753m , x 1 = 1.0196m

eo = 0.000001459H *2 = 111.8mm

Pcr =
(H )
2 EI
* 2
2 * 4.704 *1013
( 8753)
= 6059729N = 6060kN
Pu o .k
Check the upper slenderness limit for short column Consider the case of constant eccentricity C = 0.3, B = 1,e 2 h = 0.4, = 0.5, = 0.56 upper ,short = 7.14 and for compression controlled,
= H * / b = 8.753/ 0.4 = 21.88 7.14 long column, consider the second order effect
M design = Pu eo M 2 M design = 2500 *111.8 /1000 = 279.5kN .m
376
October 2009
Moy at Pu=2500 kN
s 1 = 0.003
350 c c
350 c f s 1 = 600 c
s 2 = 0.003 s 3 = 0.003
c 200 c 200 f s 2 = 600 c c
c = 0.003 s3
c 50 c 50 f s 3 = 600 c c
C c = 0.67 * 40 * 0.8 * c *500 = 10720c
P = 2500kN
2500000 = C c + C s 2 + C s 3 T
c 2 + 507.76c 149154.9 = 0 c = 208.3, a = 166.64mm
s2
N. A
s 1 = 0.00204 y f s 1 = 410MPa
s1
s 2 = 0.0001195 f s 2 = 23.9MPa s 3 = 0.0023 f s 3 = 410MPa

M u = M oy = 679KN .m
Check of column strength

B1 = M 279.5 M nx 365.2 = = 0.413, B 2 = ny = = 0.412 679 M nox 883.7 M noy
B 1 + B 2 0.413 + 0.412 = 0.4125 = 2 2

log 0.5 = 0.87 1 n = 1 log
na =
n M ny M nx + M noy M nox
= ( 0.413) + ( 0.412 ) = 0.825 1 safe
October 2009
377

A New Design Procedure For Braced Reinforced High Strength Concrete Columns Under Uniaxial and Biaxial Compression

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A New Design Procedure For Braced Reinforced High Strength Concrete Columns Under Uniaxial and Biaxial Compression

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

H. Mohy El-Din Afefy, Salah El-Din F. Taher and Salah El-Din E.

*Salah El-Din Fahmy Taher

Salah El-Din E. El-Metwally

:*Corresponding author E-mail: sftaher@yahoo.com

Design moment, Mdesign

Figure 1. Different curvature modes for braced columns

(a) Key points of moment-curvature relationship

(b) Typical moment-curvature-thrust relationship

Figure 2. Characteristics of moment-curvature relationship

Load Curvature Moment

Figure 3. Moment-curvature-thrust model [14]

The flexural rigidity is proposed to be calculated from the following equation:

Tension failure region

Figure 4. Typical strength interaction diagram

1 = 0.85 for f c' 30MPa

Equivalent column with length H* and subjected to axial load P*

Figure 5. Equivalent column concept

U p p er , sh o rt is the upper slenderness limit for short column condition.

e2 0.7 C 2 + 0.4 + 3.4 ( 1) B h e2 h

Calculate the balanced load, Pub

Calculate the equivalent column length, H*

Calculate the critical buckling load, Pcr

Calculate the slenderness ratio, =

No Design for Pu, Mu

Yes Calculate Mdesign,

Design for Pu, Mdesign

Pn can be represented by the following equation:

is the angle of eccentricity of the acting load.

Relative flexural rigidity with respect to EIg

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Section

Relative flexural rigidity with respect to EIg

H/b 15 17 18 19 15 17 18 19 17 17 18 19 27.5 30 31.7 17 18 17 18 19

e proposed e exp erimental

e ECCS e exp erimental

Steel Assembly to prevent Lateral Displacement

Main Frame's Column

Floor Slab, (1m thickness)

Figure 10. Test set up

Eccentricity, e/2 Eccentricities corresponding to external loading Measured Lateral Deflection

EI proposed EI ACI 31805

EI proposed, N.mm2 1.836*1012

EI proposed EI ACI 31805

7.2. An Overview of the Equivalent Column Length

Compression controlled ( Pu = Pub ) H = 2m 2.89 H = 4m 1.71 H = 6m 1.38

Single curvature Double curvature Constant curvature

Example 1( double curvature) CHIIUN specimen [19] Flexural rigidity

1 = 0.85 0.0014 ( f c' 30 ) 0.72

1 = 0.85 0.0020 ( f c' 30 ) 0.67

c 15 ' = 0.0021 y (0.002) f s = f y c

a=39.18 mm Plastic centriod

Pu ( 292 ) Pub Tension controlled

where Mu is the acting moment at Pu=292 kN

c 15 ' = 0.00201 y (0.002) f s = f y c

C c = 6472.4c = 292.8kN M u = 292.8* 0.03264 + 2 *80 * 0.035 = 15.16kN .m

0.003 + 0.002 = 0.0000588(1 / mm ) 85

15.16 *106 = 2.58*1011 N .mm 2 0.0000588

Axial load on the equivalent column, P * = Pu2 +V

x e1 = 0.000005957H *2 sin *1 = 20 (1) H x e 2 = 0.000005957 H *2 sin *2 = 40 (2) H x 1 + x 2 = 1900 (3)

180 H * 1 3357008 40 = 0.000005957 H *2 sin * 1900 sin H H *2 180

by trial and error H * = 2.616m , x 1 = 0.427m , x 2 = 1.473m

The critical buckling load

C c = 6472.4c = 292.8kN M u = 292.8* 0.03264 + 2 80 0.035 = 15.16kN .m

15.16 106 = 2.581011 N .mm 2 0.0000588

x e1 = 0.000005957H 2 sin 1 = 20 (1) H x e 2 = 0.000005957 H 2 sin 2 = 40 (2) H x 1 + x 2 = 1900 (3)

180 H * 1 3357008 40 = 0.000005957 H 2 sin 1900 sin H H *2 180

885.92 106 = 7.896 1013 N .mm 2 0.00001122

x e1 = 0.000001136H 2 sin 1 = 80 (1) H x e 2 = 0.000001136H 2 sin 2 = 100 (2) H x 2 = x 1 + 6500 (3)

678.8 106 = 4.704 1013 N .mm 2 0.0000144

x e1 = 0.000001459H 2 sin 1 = 40 (1) H x e 2 = 0.000001459H 2 sin 2 = 48 (2) H

180 H * 1 27416038.4 48 = 0.000001459H 2 sin sin + 6500 *2 H 180 H