Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
net/publication/292476965
CITATIONS READS
0 3,992
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew Thomas Wheeler on 18 February 2016.
by the “balance point”. The values of this balance point are based on material properties
of the reinforcing. Consequently, they are altered with the introduction of higher grade
reinforcement.
Other significant changes with respect to columns discussed in this paper include
adjustment to the column stiffness when determining the buckling capacity, and the
increase in the maximum allowable concrete strength from 50 MPa to 65 MPa.
A design example is presented to demonstrate the economic benefits that may be
realised by utilising 500 grade reinforcement. Also presented is an improved “Column
Design Chart” that enables quick easy determination of reinforcement requirements for
standard columns.
2.0 CROSS-SECTIONAL STRENGTH
The cross-sectional strength of a member is dependent on a number of factors including
the size, relative configuration of the steel and concrete components and the material
properties of the both steel and concrete. While the size and layout of the cross-section
is critical in determining the capacity of a column, it is imperative that the stress-strain
relationships of both the steel and concrete be fully understood.
The common stress strain curve used for concrete is that defined by the Comite
Europeen de Beton [3]. Typical stress-strain curves for the current grades of concrete as
defined by AS 3600 [1] are shown in Figure 1. This Figure includes the 65 MPa
concrete as represented by the CEB curve. For all curves the strain corresponding to
maximum strength of the concrete occurs at a constant value of 0.0022. It should be
noted that the maximum strength of the concrete for determining strength of cross-
sections is taken as 0.85f’c, accounting for effects of long term loading and other site
conditions.
70
65 MPa
60
50 MPa
50
Stress (MPa)
40 MPa
40
32 MPa
30
25 MPa
20
10
0.0022
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
Strain
Figure 1 - Stress Strain Relationship for Concrete
For reinforcing steels, a bi-linear elastic-plastic stress-strain relationship is utilised for
design, as shown in Figure 2. For design purposes, the elastic modulus (Es) is taken as
200 000 MPa, the yield strength (fsy) is based on the grade of reinforcement and the
yield strain (sy) is a function of the yield strength and the elastic modulus.
2
Wheeler & Bridge
20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001
600
0.0025
500
0.002
400
Stress s (MPa)
300
200
0.0025
0.0020
100
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
Strain s
Figure 2 - Stress Strain Relationship for Reinforcing Steel
In determining the ultimate capacities of columns when subjected to either bending
and/or axial force a number of assumptions are usually made. These are:
1. Plan sections remain plane
2. Reinforcement is fully bonded to concrete
3. Tensile strength of concrete is ignored
4. Equilibrium and strain compatibility are satisfied
2.1 Axial Compression
The behaviour of a reinforced concrete cross-section subject to axial loading is easily
modelled by applying a uniform axial strain (a) to the cross-section. Using the stress-
strain relationships for the steel (Figure 2) and concrete (Figure 1), the stress in each
material may be determined and the resulting axial force expressed as
N s As c Ac 1
The concrete stress (c) and steel stress (s) for the given strain (a) may be expressed as
c f ( a ) 2
s min(200000 a , f sy ) 3
From Figure 1 it is observed that the concrete stress strain relationship is non-linear with
the maximum strength of 0.85f’c occurring at a strain of 0.0022 while the steel is linear
elastic to the yield strain (sy) at which point the stress remains constant at the yield
stress (fsy).
The ultimate strength (Nuo) of the cross-section in axial compression is determined by
increasing the axial strain a until the axial force N given in Eq. 1 reaches a maximum.
The strain corresponding to the ultimate axial strength Nuo is defined as uo.
When the yield strain of the reinforcing steel is less than or equal to the strain resulting
in a peak concrete load (o), it can be seen that the steel yields before the concrete has
3
Wheeler & Bridge
20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001
reached its maximum strength. Thus the ultimate axial strength Nou in compression is
simply given as:
N uo f sy As 0.85 f ' c Ac 4
For the 400 grade reinforcing bar this has been the case with a yield strain of sy = 0.002
which is less than the peak concrete strength strain o (=0.0022). This was reflected in
Clause 10.6.3 of AS 3600-1994 [2]. However, for steels with yield strains greater than
the strain o at peak concrete strength, such as the new 500 grade steels, the simplified
method as described in Eq. 4 is no longer valid. Consequently, to fully utilise the
additional strength from increasing the steel strength, AS 3600-2000 recommends that
the assumed applied axial strain is increased from 0.002 to 0.0025.
As shown in Figure 3, when a strain of 0.002 is applied to the cross-section, the
concrete stress is close to its peak stress but the stress in the steel is significantly below
the yield stress for a 500 grade steel. At a strain of 0.0025 (sy for 500 Grade steel) the
reinforcement stress has peaked. However the concrete has passed its peak stress and
some loss in the concrete strength is observed. Consequently, the ultimate strength as
defined by Eq. 4 will generally give overestimates for the column capacities. The
magnitude of the overestimation is dependent on the percentage of reinforcement and
the strength of concrete, with the difference of approximately 2 percent occurring in a
column with 3 percent steel and 50 MPa concrete. However, when long term effects are
considered these overestimations in ultimate strength are eliminated [4].
600 40
35
500
31.6 MPa
30
400
25
Concrete
300 20
Steel
15
200
10
0.0025
100
5
0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Strain
Figure 3 – Peak Stress and Strains
To accurately determine the short-term axial strength of a column cross-section it
should be noted that the ultimate strain (ou) at which the ultimate axial compressive
strength Nuo is achieved is dependent on the geometric properties and the shape of the
concrete stress-strain relationship. For section typically with high percentages of steel
the ultimate load is achieved when the steel yields. Thus the ultimate axial compressive
strength Nuo is expressed as
4
Wheeler & Bridge
20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001
N uo f sy As f ( sy ) Ac 5
cu
do
(M ul, N ul)
cu
k ud cu
sy k uod o
Moment
Figure 4 – - Load Moment Strength Interaction Curve
The capacity of a column cross-section depends on the eccentricity of the applied load,
with the load decreasing as the eccentricity increases. General practice is to represent an
eccentric load as an axial load and a moment equivalent to the product of the applied
axial load and the eccentricity. Consequently most design is done utilising the load
5
Wheeler & Bridge
20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001
moment strength interaction curve of the type shown in Figure 4. A detailed description
of the theory and methods used is beyond the scope of this paper but can be found in a
number of publications [5][6].
Three key points on the load-moment strength interaction diagram, as shown in Figure
4, are of particular interest and use to designers. While the new standard has adjusted
some of the assumptions in determining the ultimate squash load Nuo with respect to
applied strains, the ultimate strength in bending Muo still assumes that the strain cu on
the extreme compressive fibre is 0.003 [7]. At the so-called “balanced point” the
particular ultimate bending strength Mub and the corresponding ultimate axial
compression strength Nub are determined are determined for a particular depth of the
neutral axis (kuodo). At this point the value of kuo is such that this outermost layer of steel
has just reached yield at a strain of sy, and do is the depth from the extreme compressive
fibre to the centroid of the outermost layer of tensile reinforcement. This point is usually
at or close to the “nose” of the load moment interaction diagram.
cu
sy
kuodo
In AS3600-1994, the normal type of bar reinforcement used in columns is 400Y with a
design yield stress fsy = 400 MPa and a yield strain sy = 0.002. The maximum
compressive strain cu in the concrete at ultimate strength is taken as 0.003. Using these
values in Eq. 8 gives a value of kuo = 0.6 which is the value that was used in AS3600-
1994 (see definitions of Mub and Nub in Clause 1.7). For 500N grade steel with a design
yield stress fsy = 500 MPa and a yield strain sy = 0.0025, then Eq. 8 gives a value of
kuo = 0.545. Consequently, AS 3600-2001 specifies the value of kuo according to Eq. 8.
3.0 BUCKLING LOAD
When considering slender columns, AS 3600 uses a moment magnifier to take into
account the slenderness effects. The moment magnifier for a braced column b is given
in Clause 10.4.2 of AS 3600 as
km
b 1.0 9
1 N * Nc
where km is the coefficient is used to convert a column with unequal end moments, N* is
the applied axial load and Nc is the column buckling loads defined as
6
Wheeler & Bridge
20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001
2 EI
Nc 10
L2e
In determining the buckling load, the effective length Le is found using Clause 10.5.3 of
AS 3600-2001. However the stiffness EI of the column cross-section varies according to
the level of axial load and moment applied to the column. To simplify the design
process, the secant stiffness for the column, based on the stiffness of the column cross-
section at the balance point (Mub, Nub) is utilised to define this stiffness [8, 9]. The
secant stiffness has been shown to be relative constant for a wide range of points
(Mu, Nu) [10]. The secant stiffness for a typical moment-curvature relationship at a
constant axial force equal to the balanced value Nub is shown in Figure 6.
M ub
N ub = Constant
Moment
Slope = EI
ub
Curvature
Figure 6 - Moment-Curvature Relationship for Constant Balanced Axial Force Nub
From this figure the secant stiffness EI at the balance point is expressed as
M ub
EI 11
ub
From the strain diagram shown in Figure 5 at the balance point, the curvature ub (slope
of the strain distribution) is given by
cu
ub 12
k uo d o
Substituting the value of kuo from Eq. 8 into Eq. 12 then substituting this value of ub
into Eq. 11 gives the secant stiffness EI
M ub d o
EI 13
cu sy
In AS3600-1994, the normal type of bar reinforcement used in columns is 400Y with a
design yield stress fsy = 400 MPa and a yield strain sy = 0.002, and the maximum
compressive strain cu in the concrete at ultimate strength is taken as 0.003. Using these
7
Wheeler & Bridge
20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001
8
Wheeler & Bridge
20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001
12000
50 MPa Concrete
Cover 35 mm
10000 12Y36
400 Grade
12N32
6000 500 Grade 10N36
500 Grade
450 x 700
4000
2000
12 bars 10 bars
0
0 500 1000 1500
Moment Strength M u (kNm)
Figure 7 – Load-Moment Strength Interaction (Ast Equal)
The third alternative is to replace the 12Y36 bars with 10N36 bars in the configuration
shown in Figure 7. In this case the load moment strength curve, the dash-dot line,
closely represents the curve for the existing column design with a saving of 17 percent
of reinforcement realised. For the given example, the designer must also check the
design for bending in the y direction to ensure that it is also adequate.
5.0 COLUMN DESIGN CHARTS
To assist the designer in selecting the correct column based on design action effects, a
number of publications exist that enable quick selection of the correct percentages of
reinforcement using charts. A typical design chart is presented in Figure 8 for a
rectangular column reinforced equally on all four faces.
The design charts are generated using an advanced analysis method, with material
assumptions as specified by AS 3600-2001. The stress distributions in the concrete were
determined from the CEB stress strain relationship, with a maximum stress of 0.85f'c.
The reinforcing steel utilises a bi-linear relationship and a yield stress of 500MPa. The
balance moment Mub and corresponding axial load Nub were determined when
kuo = 0.545.
9
Wheeler & Bridge
20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001
40
Minimum eccentricity
gD D
30
Nu/Ag (MPa)
20
Locus Nub,Mub
10
0
0.0
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.07
0.06
1
2
0.0
0.0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Mu/AgD (MPa)
7.0 REFERENCES
1 Standards Australia, (2001), “AS3600-2001 – Concrete Structures”, Standards
Australia, Sydney.
2 Standards Australia, (2001), “AS 3600-1994 – Concrete Structures”, Standards
10
Wheeler & Bridge
20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001
Australia, Sydney.
3 CEB (1973), “Deformability of Concrete Structures – Basic Assumptions”, Bulletin
D’Information No. 90, Comite Europeen du Beton.
4 Wheeler A. and Bridge R., (2001) “Column Axial Compressive Strength and
AS 3600-2001”, Proceedings, The Australasian Structural Engineering Conference,
Gold Coast 2001, pp. 359-366.
5 Bridge, R.Q. and Roderick, J.W. (1978), “The Behaviour of Built-up Composite
Columns”, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. ST7, July, pp.
1141-1155.
6 Wheeler A. T. and Bridge R. Q., (1993) “Analysis of Cross-sections in Composite
Materials”. Proceedings, Thirteenth Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of
Structures and Materials, Wollongong, Australia, University of Wollongong, pp 929-
937.
7 Bridge, R.Q. and Smith, R.G. (1984), “The Ultimate Strain of Concrete”, Civil
Engineering Transactions, IEAust, Vol. CE26, No. 3, pp. 153-160.
8 Smith, R.G and Bridge, R.Q. (1984) “The Design of Concrete Columns”, Top Tier
Design Methods in the Draft Unified Code, Lecture 2, Postgraduate Course Notes,
School of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of Sydney, pp. 2.1-2.95
9 Bridge, R.Q. (1986), “Design of Columns”, Short Course, Design of Reinforced
Concrete, School of Civil Engineering and Unisearch Ltd., University of New South
Wales, Lecture 8, pp. 8.1-8.36
10 Smith, R.G. and Bridge, R.Q. (1984), “Slender Braced Reinforced and Prestressed
Concrete Columns – A Comparative Study”, Research Report No. 472 , School of
Civil and Mining Engineering, University of Sydney, April, 51p.
11 Bridge, R. and Wheeler A. (2000), “Guide to Reinforced Concrete Design – Cross-
section Strength of Columns – Part 1: AS 3600 Design”, OneSteel Reinforcing,
Sydney.
11
Wheeler & Bridge