Confined Column Analysis

Qingzhi Liu Dept. of Civil Engineering

1. Assumptions
(1) Program: BIAX2009
(2) Material models are described in Table 1, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.

Table 1 Description of material models

Material Model description Model parameters

Compression branch:
Modified Kent & Park model (parameters
have been calibrated)

Unconfined
concrete
(Fig. 1)
Tension branch:

Modified Kent & Park model

Confined
Concrete
(Fig. 1) √

Priestley model:

Steel
(Fig. 2)

Note: concrete cover = 1.5”

 Material model of confined concrete
7000
6000 Unconfined
5000

Stress /psi
4000 Confined
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Strain
Fig. 1(a) Material model for concrete

Material model for concrete in tension

0.3
strength /ksi

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015
Strain
Fig. 1(b) Material model for concrete in tension

Material model for steel

120
100
Strength /ksi

80
60
40
20
0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
Strain
Fig. 2 Material model for steel
 Modified K&P model:
Compressive yield strength of concrete,
Width of concrete core measured to outside of hoops,
Height of the concrete core measured to outside of the hoops,
Diameter of the hoops,
Center to center spacing of the hoops,
Yield strength of transverse reinforcement,
Cross sectional area of the hoops,
Volume of hoop to volume of concrete core measured to outside of hoops
Note:
The effect of 1 additional tie is involved by adjusting

2. Problem (a)
(1) Two different models are built separately for i) before spalling; ii) at “maximum
compressive strain”, as shown in Fig.3.
i) An integral section with unconfined concrete material: assume that the confinement
reinforcement will not take effect before the spalling of the cover concrete. The ultimate strain
is chosen: εcu=0.003. The result of this model is also utilized to compare the hand calculation in
Problem (b) for four critical points.
ii) Concrete core with confined concrete material. The cover concrete is assumed to have
unconfined concrete material. The “maximum compressive strain” is chosen: εcu=0.0088. In
order to simulate the spalling of concrete cover, the unconfined concrete model is adjusted to
decrease to zero after it reaches εcu=0.0038, as shown in Fig. 4.

Model for unconfined cover concrete

6000
Stress /psi

4000

2000

0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
Strain

Fig. 3 models for i) and ii) Fig. 4 Model for unconfined cover concrete
 (2) Results of problem (a) are shown in Fig. 4.

Axial load - Moment interaction curve

3500
3000 e=0.003

2500 e=0.0088
D
2000
1500 C
Force kips

1000
500
B
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
-500
-1000
-1500
A
-2000 Moment k - ft
Fig. 5 Axial load – Moment interaction curve for problem (a)

(3) Discussion of the results

1) For point A (pure tension), the axial forces in the two models are the same.
Explanation: ft = 0 after concrete cracks, therefore all the contribution is from
reinforcement. εy < εs < εsh=0.1, fs = f’s = 60 ksi are the same for both models.
2) For point B (pure moment), moment at εcu=0.0088 is bigger than that at εcu=0.003.
Explanation: due to the confinement, f’s increases, the depth of neutral axis decreases,
the moment arm of tension steel increases. Besides, the ultimate strain of concrete
increases, the tension steel may begin to harden, the tension force also increases.
Therefore, the moment is larger at εcu=0.0088.
3) For point C (Balance point), the axial forces in the two models are nearly the same and
the moment resistance at εcu=0.003 is bigger than that at εcu=0.0088.
Explanation: in the hand calculation below, it is found that at balance point, both the
tension steel and the compression steel yield. Therefore, the axial forces equal to the
forces supplied by concrete (the force supplied by the compression steel equal to that
supplied by the tension steel). . will be higher in confined
model, but the height of the Whitney stress block will be smaller. Therefore, the axial
forces in the two models are nearly the same.
On the other hand, , because the cover concrete has spalling, the moment arm of the
tension steel is smaller, the moment at εcu=0.0088 is smaller than that at εcu=0.003.
4) For point D
The compression force in the model at εcu=0.0088 is larger than that at εcu=0.003.
 Explanation: although the outer cover concrete has spalling, the strength of the
confined concrete is much larger at εcu=0.0088 than that of the unconfined concrete at
εcu=0.003.

3. Problem (b)
(1) The hand calculation is shown in the next page.
(2) Discussion of the result
1) Assumptions
As mentioned before, it is assumed that the confinement reinforcement will not take effect
before the spalling of the cover concrete. The ultimate strain is chosen: εcu=0.003. The result
of model 1, whose whole section is of the unconfined concrete material, is utilized to
compare the hand calculation for four critical points.
2) Results
All the results from hand calculation are nearly the same as those from BIAX, except one
case: pure tensile forces. The hand calculation is 1560 kips, while the result from BIAX model
is 1450 kips. One reason may be that the stress-strain curve of the steel in BIAX has
descending branch after peak stress, as shown in Fig.6.

Stress-strain curve for steel

120

100

80
Stress /ksi

60

40

20

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Strain

Fig. 6 Stress- strain curve for steel in BIAX

4. Problem (c)
The assumptions are specified in the hand writing.
Table 2 shows the curvature ductility calculated by model 1 and model 2.
Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 show the curvature ductility at different axial load levels in model 1 and model 2.
Discussion of the results:
Both Model 1: εcu=0.003 and Model 2: εcu=0.0088 show that higher axial loads will result in a
decreasing curvature ductility of the columns. The reason is present in the hand writing.
Table 2 Curvature ductility with respect to different axial loads in Model 1 and Model 2
Model 1: εcu=0.003 Model 2: εcu=0.0088
P (kips) øy øu µø= øu/ øy P (kips) øy øu µø= øu/ øy
0 0.148 1.750 11.8 0 0.148 2.669 18.0
0.25Pb=242 0.176 0.938 5.3 0.25Pb=265 0.172 1.737 10.1
0.5Pb=483 0.181 0.513 2.8 0.5Pb=530 0.193 1.277 6.6
0.75Pb=725 0.200 0.352 1.8 0.75Pb=795 0.207 1.022 4.9
Pb=967 0.220 0.270 1.2 Pb=1060 0.210 0.805 3.8

M - fi Curve @ different axial load level - ecu=0.003

1400

1200

1000
Moment k - ft

800
N=0
600 N=242k
400 N=483k
N=725k
200
N-967k
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Curvature 1/10^3 in

Fig. 7 M - fi Curve for Model 1

M - fi Curve @ different axial load level - ecu=0.0088

1600

1400

1200
Moment k - ft

1000

800
N=0
600 N=265k
N=530k
400
N=795k
200 N=1060k

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Curvature 1/10^3 in

Fig. 8 M - fi Curve for Model 2

5. Problem (d)
The result is shown in Fig. 9. When the slenderness ratio increases, the moment amplification
coefficient increases. Therefore, the column is more prone to buckle at lower axial loads. When
P=0, the columns will not buckle and all curves will converge at one point in the Moment-axis.

Axial load - Moment interaction curve

3500
3000 e=0.003
2500
e=0.0088
2000
1500 kL/r=40
Force kips

1000
kl/r=50
500
0
-500 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

-1000
-1500
-2000 Moment k - ft
Fig. 9 N – M curve related to the buckling of columns

6. Problem (e)
The result is shown in Fig. 10.
Discussion of the results:
(1) Columns under tensile axial loads will encounter diagonal cracking early.
(For pure tension, Nu = 240 kips is small).
(2) With the increase of axial load N, Vc increases, so as Mvc. However, when N increases, the
curvature ductility will reduce. Therefore, approximate axial load should be determined to
increase Vc and at the same time not decrease curvature ductility too much.
(3) For N < 1400 kips for H=12 ft and N < 1200 kips for H=24 ft, column will undergo diagonal
cracking prior to flexure failure.
(4) After diagonal cracking happens, the shear resistance from Vs will take effect with Vc.
(5) When a column is higher, it is more prone to have flexure failure. (Mvc + Mvs is large)
(6) Transverse reinforcement #4@4” in the case of H=24 ft can result in flexural failure even
when the Vc part is ignored.
 Axial load - Moment interaction curve
4000
e=0.003
3000 e=0.0088
Mvc(H=12ft)
2000
Mvc(H=24ft)
Force kips

Mvs(H=12ft)
1000
Mvs(H=24ft)

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

-1000

-2000 Moment k - ft
Fig. 10 N – M curve related to shear