Revisiting The Effect of Axial Force Ratio On The Seismic Behaviour of RC Building Columns
Revisiting The Effect of Axial Force Ratio On The Seismic Behaviour of RC Building Columns
Revisiting The Effect of Axial Force Ratio On The Seismic Behaviour of RC Building Columns
(a) 12 (b) 6
!v = 0.00 !v = 0.00
L = 4 L = 2
Ultimate displacement ratio u/H (%)
10 !v = 0.05 5 !v = 0.05
500 mm 500 mm
fy /fc = 16.7 fy /fc = 16.7
!v = 0.10 !v = 0.10
L = 2% L = 2%
8 !v = 0.15 4 !v = 0.15
500 mm
!v = 0.20 500 mm
!v = 0.20
6 3
4 2
2 1
0 0
20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100
Axial compression ratio (%) Axial compression ratio (%)
F ig . 1: Effect of AFR on displacement capacity of RC columns: (a) flexure-critical columns; (b) shear-critical columns
L = 4 1.4
0.5 !v = 0.05 fy /fc = 16.7 500 mm
500 mm
fy /fc = 16.7
!v = 0.10 1.2 L = 2%
L = 2% )
!v = 0.15 Sezen
0.4 500 mm 0.20 ( 0.20 (AIJ)
500 mm !v = 0.20 1.0
ezen)
0.15 (S 0.15 (AIJ)
0.3 0.8 n)
Seze
0.10 ( 0.10 (AIJ)
0.6 )
Sezen
0.2 0.05 ( 0.05 (AIJ)
e n )
0.4 0.00 (Sez
0.00 (AIJ)
0.1
0.2
0 0
20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Axial compression ratio (%) Axial compression ratio (%)
F ig . 2: Effect of AFR on lateral strength of RC columns: (a) flexure-critical columns; (b) shear-critical columns
mode. In this study, the shear-critical (b) 12 Circular Col. (!v < 0.05)
Circular Col. (0.05 ž !v < 0.10)
and flexure-critical columns are 11
Circular Col. (!v Ó 0.10)
grouped according to the criteria pro- 10
Displacement ductility (u/y)
y = 0.00836*x0.6879 + 0.245: mean-fit for 0.05 ž a!v/(3L) < 0.15 critical columns under the same level
1 y = 0.04013*×0.4318 + 0.351: mean-fit for a!v/(3L) < 0.15 of AFR as seen in Fig. 8b. In other
words, shear-critical columns are
0.8 prone to low-cycle fatigue leading to
rapid drop in strength and stiffness
0.6 under seismic shaking. Therefore, a
limit on AFR is needed to legitimate
0.4
ductility design of RC columns,
although the AFR tends to enhance
the lateral strength and in some situa-
0.2
tions may be even beneficial to the dis-
placement capacity of short columns.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg)) (%) Effect of AFR in Code-Based
Rectangular Col. (!v < 0.05)
Design
Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž !v < 0.10)
It is well demonstrated that the axial
Rectangular Col. (!v Ó 0.10)
Circular Col. (!v < 0.05)
compression has significant influence
Circular Col. (0.05 ž !v < 0.10) on the behaviour of the RC columns.
(b) In view of this, many modern RC
1.2 Circular Col. (!v Ó 0.10)
y = 0.00309*x1.0391 + 0.3046: mean-fit for !v < 0.05 design codes prescribe provisions for
Normalised lateral strength (Vu/fc0.5Ag)
y = 0.00285*x0.9653 + 0.4311: mean-fit for 0.05 ž !v < 0.10 confinement detailing in relation with
1 y = 0.00571*x0.8645 + 0.5591: mean-fit for !v Ó 0.10 AFR, and some codes even stipulate
upper limits of the AFR. Although
0.8 the physical implication and motiva-
tion behind these provisions are the
0.6 same, some differences in the detailed
requirements exist among various
design codes.
0.4
AFR Limits
0.2
The stipulated limits on the AFRs in
various design codes are evaluated
0 closely with the statistical analysis, in
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg)) (%) relation to the ultimate displacement
ratio and AFR. For a standardised
F ig . 6: Relation between AFR and lateral strength: (a) flexure-critical columns; (b) shear- comparison purpose, the AFRs
critical columns defined by different design codes are
0.9 Rectangular Col. (a!v/(L/3) Ó 0.15) height under the assumptions that the
0.8
Circular Col. (a!v/(L/3) < 0.05) reduction factor ν = 0.5 and the non-
Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!v/(L/3) < 0.15) structural elements do not interfere
0.7 Circular Col. (a!v/(L/3) Ó 0.15)
with the structural responses. In other
y = 1.0547x: mean-fit
0.6 words, the ultimate displacements of
structural columns should be greater
0.5
than 2% of its shear span Ls, consider-
0.4 ing the double curvature configuration
0.3 of the laterally drifted columns. As seen
in Fig. 9a, EC8 provisions on AFR lim-
0.2
its can guarantee that the ultimate dis-
0.1 placement ratios of both flexure- and
0 shear-critical columns would not be
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 lower than 2%, provided that column
Calculated normalised lateral strength hinges are properly detailed.
(b) The TEC 2007 and GB codes also
1.4 give reasonable limits on AFR. How-
Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)
Rectangular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15) ever, the New Zealand and ACI code
Measured normalised lateral strength
1.2 Circular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05) much lower in comparison with the
Circular Col. (0.05 ž a!vL/3 < 0.15) flexure-critical columns. The EC8
Circular Col. (a!vL/3 Ó 0.15)
1.0 requirements can barely ensure that
y = 0.6380x: mean-fit
the 2% target ultimate displacement
0.8 can be satisfied. Generally, force-
based design or elastic design is
0.6 recommended by most of the seismic
design codes for shear-critical col-
0.4 umns. Nevertheless, if the shear-
critical columns are to be designed for
0.2 allowance of plastic deformation,
more restrictive limit on the AFR in
0 addition to sufficient amount of con-
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Calculated normalised lateral strength fining reinforcement have to be
employed. As observed from Fig. 9b,
Fi g. 7: Comparison of calculated normalised shear strength with experimental results AFR < 30% can be a suitable limit
(a) based on moment–curvature analysis for flexural columns; (b) AIJ model for short for this purpose.
columns; (c) Ref. [21] model for short columns (dotted lines represent the bounds of
90% confidence interval)
Extent of Critical Regions
first re-normalised with respect to the critical columns are plotted together The foremost problem in ductile
specified or characteristic cylindrical with the AFR limits of different codes detailing for RC columns is the loca-
compressive strength of concrete fc0 . in Fig. 9a and b respectively. tion and the extension of the potential
The re-normalised limits are pre- plastic hinge regions, where confining
sented in Table 1. The ultimate dis- EC8 specifies the damage limitation reinforcement is to be provided.
placement ratio vs. AFR relationship requirement in the design of building Table 2 presents the code-stipulated
for flexure-critical columns and shear- structures, which is deemed to be extent of critical regions or potential
200
Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)
Rectangular Col. (0.05 ≤ a!vL/3 < 0.15)
Rectangular Col. (a!vL/3 ≥ 0.15)
150 Circular Col. (a!vL/3 < 0.05)
Circular Col. (0.05 ≤ a!vL/3 < 0.15)
Circular Col. (a!vL/3 ≥ 0.15)
100
y = –0.3831*x0.957 + 50.58: mean-fit for a!vL/3 < 0.05
y = –0.2788*x1.169 + 78.27: mean-fit for 0.05 ≤ a!vL/3 < 0.15
y = –0.1545*x1.394 + 121.6: mean-fit for a!vL/3 ≥ 0.15
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg) (%)
(b)
250
Normalised hysteretic dissipation Ed /(Vyy)
200
Rectangular Col. (!v < 0.05)
Rectangular Col. (0.05 ≤ !v < 0.10)
150 Rectangular Col. (!v ≥ 0.10)
Circular Col. (!v < 0.05)
Circular Col. (0.05 ≤ !v < 0.10)
100 Circular Col. (!v ≥ 0.10)
y = –0.2318*x0.9243 + 23.82: mean-fit for !v < 0.05
y = –0.2752*x0.8784 + 31.47: mean-fit for 0.05 ≤ !v < 0.10
50 y = –0.2521*x0.8235 + 45.75: mean-fit for !v ≥ 0.10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Axial force ratio N/(f´c Ag) (%)
F ig . 8: Relation between AFR and hysteretic dissipation: (a) flexure-critical columns; (b) shear-critical columns
plastic hinges in the RC columns. The recent studies37–39 indicated that the
ð1:3 − ρt mÞ Ag fc0 No*
extent of critical regions required by plastic hinge length tends to increase ρv = max − 0:0084
2:4 Ac fyt fc0 Ag
New Zealand is the most stringent with axial force level, yet it was also
among the codes considered in this observed that the plastic hinge length
Ast fy 1
study. If the column is subjected to tends to stabilise and become insensi- or ðcircularÞ ð19aÞ
110d00 fyt db
axial compression above 0:5ϕ fc0 Ag , tive to the axial force level, when the
the required confining length by displacement ductility μd of the col-
New Zealand is as high as three times umns exceeds 4.39 Therefore, most of Ash ð1:3 −ρt mÞ Ag fc0 No*
= max
the column depth. Similarly, the Hong the commonly adopted empirical for- sh h00 3:3 Ac fyt ϕ fc0 Ag
Kong code requirements also intro- mulas for plastic hinge length are X !
duce the axial force effect but the independent of axial load level.4 It is Ab fy 1
further noted that, within the typical −0:006 or ðrectangularÞ
maximum extent is relaxed to two 96fyt h00 db
times the column depth. For other allowable axial load limit, the plastic
design codes, the maximum critical hinge length would typically not ð19bÞ
region extent stipulated by EC8 is not exceed the column height hc,max.37
The first terms in the two parenthe-
more than 1.5 times, and is just equal
sises in Eqs. (19a) and (19b) specify
to the column depth in TEC 2007, Confinement Reinforcement
the reinforcement requirement for
ACI and GB.
Confining reinforcement in forms of confinement of the concrete core, and
The extent of critical regions pre- hoops, ties or spirals is to be provided are a function of AFR and longitudi-
scribed by the EC8, TEC 2007, ACI in the plastic hinge regions for con- nal reinforcement ratio. As discussed
and GB provisions does not rely on crete confinement and buckling before, concrete subjected to higher
the induced axial force level in con- restraint of longitudinal reinforcement axial compression requires greater
trast with the New Zealand and Hong therein. In NZS 3101: 2006-A2, the amount of lateral confining reinforce-
Kong codes. There is still controversy required quantify of hoop or tie rein- ment. On the other hand, laterally
over whether the plastic hinge length forcement in the ductile potential restrained longitudinal reinforcement
in RC columns is influenced by or plastic hinge regions (6.0 > μϕ > 3.0) can provide additional confining
sensitive to the axial force level. Some is as follows: action to the encompassed concrete,
G8
be attained to prevent catastrophic
10 collapse of the whole building struc-
NZ ture. The ductility and energy dissipa-
8
ACI tion capacity of RC columns can be
Experimental data enhanced by confining the core con-
not available crete in the plastic hinge regions with
6
hoop reinforcement, of which required
quantity is greatly influenced by the
4 level of axial force. Many modern seis-
mic design codes also stipulate upper
2 limits on AFR. Nevertheless, consid-
erable dissimilarities are found in dif-
0 ferent design codes in the treatments
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 of AFR effects for the design of RC
Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg) (%) columns. In view of this issue, the sci-
y= –0.1202*x0.6512 + 2.69: mean-fit for !v < 0.05 entific background of confinement
(b)
y = –0.1505*x0.6862 + 4.08: mean-fit for 0.05 ≤ !v < 0.10
detailing for concrete structures is first
revisited and a comprehensive statisti-
y = –0.2003*x0.7062 + 5.60: mean-fit for !v ≥ 0.10
cal analysis is conducted.
TEC HK
12 EC8 The statistical analysis reveals that the
ductility, ultimate displacement and
Ultimate displacement ratio (u/Ls) (%)
G8
hysteretic dissipation of the flexure-
10
NZ
critical RC columns under cyclic load-
ACI
ing can be significantly reduced by
8 increasing the AFR, although the lat-
Experimental data
not available eral strength vs. AFR relationship
6 shows a reverse trend. EC8 sets rea-
sonable limits to the AFR for RC col-
4 umns designed to different ductility
classes, yet different limits should be
2 used for slender and short columns as
they are controlled by completely dif-
ferent failure mechanisms. It is also
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 found that AFR is not much influen-
Axial force ratio N/(f´cAg) (%) tial to the displacement ductility of
short columns but reduce the ultimate
F ig . 9: Comparison of code specified AFR limits with experimental data: (a) ultimate drift ratio and hysteretic dissipation
displacement ratio of flexure-critical columns vs. AFR; (b) ultimate displacement ratio of capacity of short columns.
shear-critical columns vs. AFR
fyAtx/(fc's h")
ACI
0.3 ACI
0.3 NZ (L = 0.8%)
NZ (L = 4%) EC8 (DCH)
EC8 (DCH)
GB (grade I) NZ (L = 4%)
GB (grade III & IV)
0.2 0.2
GB (grade I)
TEC 2007
GB (grade III & IV)
0.1 0.1
TEC 2007
HK
HK
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Axial force ratio N/(f'cAg) (%) Axial force ratio N/(f'cAg) (%)
Fi g. 10: Code-stipulated confining reinforcement at various levels of AFR: (a) circular column; (b) rectangular column (assume
fy/fc0 = 10)
Acknowledgements of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake [22] Kappos A, & Penelis GG. Earthquake
Engineering, Acapulco, 1996. Resistant Concrete Structures CRC Press: Boca
The supports of the Hong Kong Research Raton, 1996.
[10] Turkish Earthquake Code. Specification
Grand Council (HK-RGC) under grant num- for Buildings to be Built in Earthquake Regions. [23] Borg RC, Rossetto T, Varum H. Low cycle
ber 614011 and the Scientific and Technologi- Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Gov- fatigue tests of reinforced concrete columns and
_
cal Research Council of Turkey (TÜBITAK) ernment of the Republic of Turkey, 2007. joints, built with ribbed reinforcement and plain
under project number 214M236 are gratefully stirrups. Proceedings of the 15th World Confer-
[11] Ministry of Construction of the People’s
acknowledged. ence on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portu-
Republic of China. GB 50011–2010: Code for
Seismic Design of Buildings. China Architec- gal, 2012.
ture & Building Press: Beijing, 2010. [24] Priestley MJN, Verma R, & Xiao Y. Seis-
References [12] Government of the Hong Kong Special mic shear strength of reinforced concrete col-
Administrative Region – Buildings Department. umns. J. Struct. Eng. 1994; 120(8): 2310–2329.
[1] Browning J, Li YR, & Lynn A. Performance
Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete [25] Berry M, Parish M, Eberhard M. PEER
assessment for a reinforced concrete frame
2013. HKSAR-BD: Hong Kong, 2013. Structural Performance Database User’s Manual.
building. Earthq. Spectra 2000; 16(3): 541–555.
[13] Standards New Zealand. NZS 3101: Part PEER Research Report, Berkeley, CA: Univer-
[2] Henkhaus K, Ramirez J, Pujol S. Simultane- sity of California, 2004.
1:2006-A1&A2: Concrete Structure Standard-
ous shear and axial failures of reinforced con-
The Design of Concrete Structures Incorporating [26] Ahn J-M, & Shin S-W. An evaluation of
crete columns. Proceedings of the ATC & SEI
Amendment No.1 & 2. NZS: Wellington, 2006. ductility of high-strength reinforced concrete
2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic Per-
formance of Existing Buildings and Other Struc- [14] American Concrete Institute. ACI columns subjected to reversed cyclic loads
tures, San Francisco, CA, 2009. 318–14:2014: Building Code Requirements for under axial compression. Mag. Concrete Res.
Structural Concrete and Commentary ACI: 2007; 59(1): 29–44.
[3] Karaesmen E. Observations on the beha-
Farmington Hills, 2014. [27] Benavent-Climent A, Escolano-
viour of reinforced concrete framed buildings
during 22 May 1971 Bingol Earthquake. Pro- [15] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, & Park P. The- Margarit D, & Morillas L. Shake-table tests of a
ceedings of 5th World Conference on Earth- oretical stress-strain model for confined con- reinforced concrete frame designed following
quake Engineering, Rome, Italy, 1974. crete. J. Struct. Eng. 1988; 114(8): 1804–1826. modern codes: seismic performance and dam-
age evaluation. Earthq. Eng. Struct. D 2014;
[4] Paulay T, & Priestley MJN. Seismic Design [16] Park P, Priestley MJN, & Gill WD. Ductil-
43(6): 791–810.
of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. ity of square confined concrete columns.
John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1992. J. Struct. Eng. 1982; 108(4): 929–951. [28] Lee T-K, Chen C-C, Hwa K, & Pan ADE.
Performance of large reinforced concrete col-
[5] Verderame GM, De Luca F, Ricci P, & [17] Biskinis D, & Fardis MN. Flexure-
umns under axial compression loads. Proc. Inst.
Manfredi G. Preliminary analysis of a soft-storey controlled ultimate deformations of members
Civil Eng. Struct. B 2013; 167(5): 300–311.
mechanism after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. with continuous or lap-spliced bars. Struct. Con-
Earthq. Eng. Struct. D 2011; 40: 925–944. crete 2010; 11(2): 93–108. [29] Lee T-K, Chen C-C, Pan ADE, Hwa K, &
Ma MJL. Performance of large reinforced con-
[6] Park R. Ductile design approach for rein- [18] Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, &
crete columns under axial compression loads.
forced concrete frames. Earthq. Spectra 1986; Kowalsky MJ. Displacement-Based Seismic
Mag. Concrete Res. 2013; 65(8): 519–527.
2(3): 565–679. Design of Structures. IUSS Press: Pavia, 2007.
[30] Popa V, Cotofana D. Displacement capac-
[7] European Committee for Standardization [19] Elwood KJ, & Moehle JP. Drift capacity of
ity estimation for RC columns: comparison
(CEN). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for reinforced concrete columns with light transverse
between analytical and experimental results.
Earthquake Resistance. Part 1: General Rules, reinforcement. Earthq. Spectra 2005; 21(1): 71–89.
Proceedings of International Symposium on
Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. CEN: [20] Architectural Institute of Japan. AIJ Stand- Seismic Risk Reduction, The JICA Technical
Brussels, 2004. ard for Structural Calculation of Reinforced Cooperation Project in Romania, JICA Project,
[8] Chronopoulos MP, & Vinzileou E. Confine- Concrete Structures. AIJ: Tokyo, 2010. Bucharest, 2007.
ment of RC columns. In European Seismic
[21] Sezen H. Seismic Response and Modeling [31] Rodrigues H, Arêde A, Varum H, &
Design Practice, Elnashai AS (ed) Balkema:
of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Building Costa AG. Experimental evaluation of rectangu-
Rotterdam, 1995: 341–348.
Columns, PhD Dissertation, Department of lar reinforced concrete column behaviour under
[9] Tassios TP. Advances in earthquake- Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univer- biaxial cyclic loading. Earthq. Eng. Struct. D
resistant design concrete structures. Proceedings sity of California, Berkeley, California, 2002. 2013; 42(2): 239–259.