HKIE Transactions

ISSN: 1023-697X (Print) 2326-3733 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/thie20

Ductility design of RC columns. Part 1:

consideration of axial compression ratio

Terry Y P Yuen, J S Kuang & Don Y B Ho

To cite this article: Terry Y P Yuen, J S Kuang & Don Y B Ho (2016) Ductility design of RC
columns. Part 1: consideration of axial compression ratio, HKIE Transactions, 23:4, 230-244,
DOI: 10.1080/1023697X.2016.1232179

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1023697X.2016.1232179

Published online: 16 Dec 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 17

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=thie20

Download by: [University of Newcastle, Australia] Date: 10 January 2017, At: 18:59
HKIE TRANSACTIONS, 2016
VOL. 23, NO. 4, 230–244
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1023697X.2016.1232179

Ductility design of RC columns. Part 1: consideration of axial compression ratio

Terry Y P Yuena, † , J S Kuangb and Don Y B Hoc
a Department of Civil Engineering, Bursa Orhangazi University, Bursa, Turkey; b Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China; c Structural Group, Ove Arup & Partners Hong
Kong Ltd, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

To evaluate and quantify the effect of the axial compression ratio (ACR) on the seismic perfor- Received 15 March 2016
mance of reinforced concrete (RC) columns, studies of analytical relationships between the axial Accepted 14 July 2016
compression and the mechanical behaviour of RC columns were conducted, followed by a com- KEYWORDS
prehensive statistical analysis with 474 sets of experimental data. Stipulated limits on the ACR Column; axial compression
and their evaluation methods in various design codes of practice in the world were analysed ratio; ductility; reinforced
and compared. Based on the findings of the research, the development of new provisions on the concrete; seismic design;
ACR for the seismic design of RC columns is presented on a scientific basis. The limiting values statistical analysis
of column ACR which can be stipulated in the developing design code of structures for seismic
resistance in Hong Kong are recommended.

Introduction magnification and overstrength actions, is greater than

0.85, 0.75 and 0.65 times the moment at the end of the
Hong Kong has been classified as a region of moderate
member, respectively; lo is the column clear height at
seismicity and there is a raising concern over the seis-
the floor; and fcu is the characteristic cube strength of
mic resistant capability of the non-seismically designed
concrete under uniaxial compression at 28 days. Appar-
buildings in the region. In 2004, based on the New
ently, columns with high ACR beyond the specified
Zealand concrete code (NZS 3101:1995) [1], the Hong
upper range, i.e. N/(Ag fcu ) > 0.6 are not allowed. How-
Kong concrete code (HKConcrete2004) [2] introduced
ever, the HK concrete codes including the latest version
similar provisions with some modifications on the con-
(HKConcrete2013) [3] do not explicitly stipulate the
finement detailing for the critical regions in reinforced
upper limits for ACR.
concrete (RC) columns under three different ranges of
It can be seen that different concrete design codes
the axial compression ratio (ACR). ACR is defined as
in different counties have different provisions on the
a ratio of nominal axial stress to concrete compressive
confinement detailing and the ACR limits. This raises
strength of the section, i.e. N/(fc Ag ). The extent of criti-
another question that whether those ductility detail-
cal zone required to be confined by hoop reinforcement
ing requirements for columns, which were originally
in columns [2] are:
introduced for high seismic areas in New Zealand, are
⎧ actually suitable for and adaptable in the moderately
⎪
⎪ max(hc,max or h0.85M or 1/6lo )
⎪
⎪ seismic environment in Hong Kong. In view of this
⎪
⎪ (0 < N/(Ag fcu ) ≤ 0.1)
⎪
⎪ issue, this paper revisits the scientific background of
⎪
⎪
⎨max(1.5h axial compression effect on the structural behaviour
c,max or h0.75M or 1/6lo )
ly = , (1) of RC columns, complemented with a statistical study
⎪
⎪ (0.1 < N/(Ag fcu ) ≤ 0.3)
⎪
⎪ for quantification of the ACR effects on the deforma-
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ max(2.0hc,max or h0.65M or 1/6lo ) tion behaviour and lateral strength. Different provisions
⎪
⎪
⎩ in modern design standards on the ACR limits are
(0.3 < N/(Ag fcu ) ≤ 0.6)
then thoroughly discussed and compared. The results
where N is the design ultimate axial force under crit- presented in this paper can shed light on finding the
ical load combinations; hc,max is the greater dimen- most appropriate ductility detailing methods and a suit-
sion of the cross-section; h0.85M , h0.75M and h0.65M are able ACR limit for controlling the performance of RC
the lengths from the joint to the cross-section where columns to use in the developing design code of struc-
the design moment, with the account of dynamic tures for seismic resistance in Hong Kong.

CONTACT Terry Y P Yuen terryyyp@connect.ust.hk

† The author was 35 years old or younger at the time of his/her paper submission.

© 2016 The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers


Theoretical background
Catastrophic collapse of building structures is always
a consequence of structural columns failure. Hence,
protecting columns from losing the load-carrying
capacity is the most crucial part in the capacity design
framework for structures to withstand seismic effects.
There are a number of detailing methods for enhancing
the ductility of RC columns, out of which the confine-
ment detailing in critical regions and axial compression
limits are the most common and effective methods [4].
Confining reinforcement in the form of transverse
closed hoops or ties are provided in the critical or
potential plastic hinge regions of RC columns for two
major purposes: (1) to increase the local ductility capac-
ity of RC columns by imposing lateral confining pres-
sure on the core regions to restrain the dilation and
increase the crushing strength and ultimate strain of the
damaged concrete materials; and (2) to prevent buck-
ling of longitudinal reinforcing bars. The confined con-
crete in the columns can have higher ductility capacity
and stable energy dissipation under reverse cyclic load-
ing. But at the same time, the ductility capacity of RC
columns can be deprived by high axial compression,
as it can prompt concrete crushing and reinforcement
buckling. The required amount of confining reinforce-
ment is often much higher for the columns subject to
high axial compression in order to compensate for the
reduced ductility capacity [4]. Many modern seismic
design codes also stipulate the upper limits on ACR
[5–7], because under the high axial compression, fur-
ther increase of the confining reinforcement amount
may no longer be effective in enhancing the mem-
ber ductility. Nevertheless, different design codes have
different provisions on the confinement detailing and
axial compression limits, in spite of the same theoretical
background.
It should be noted that a structure composed of
highly ductile members does not imply the structure
itself can also attain the same level of high ductility
globally. This is because the distribution of ductility
or deformation demand in the members is dictated by
the global configurations or structural system. Irregular
structures such as transfer structures, structures with
strongly coupled lateral-torsional vibration modes, set-
back buildings, etc, often impose excessive deformation
demand on only few members, which can be hardly
HKIE TRANSACTIONS 231
span-to-depth ratio of αL = Ls /hc > 3, flexural failure
occurs before shear failure; while for short columns
with a ratio of αL ≤ 3, shear failure occurs before
flexural failure with either mode of diagonal tension or
diagonal compression failure [5]. Assuming the lower
bound value of plastic hinge length Lp = 0.044 fy dl [9],
the ultimate drift u of the flexural columns, of which
behaviour is controlled by flexural deformation, can be
directly calculated by the moment-curvature analysis
that gives [9]:
 
u εcu ξ εy
≥ ζ εy αL /3 + 0.044fy dl − , (2)
Ls c hc
where Ls is the length from the critical section to the
point of contra-flexure; ζ is a shape factor, which takes
a value of 2.1 for rectangular sections and 2.25 for circu-
lar sections; εy is the yield strain of steel reinforcement;
fy is the yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement; dl
is the longitudinal bar size; c is the depth of neutral axis;
and hc is the column depth. Equation (2) shows that
the ultimate drift of columns monotonically decreases
with the increase in the depth of neutral axis c. By equi-
librating the external and internal sectional forces, it
can be readily shown that the depth of neutral axis c is
a monotonic increasing function of axial compression.
The lateral strength is:

1 c
vu = − σc b(x) · (d − c + x)dx
Ag Ls 0

+ min(fy sgn(εsi ), Es εsi ) · yi · Ai , (3)
i
where sgn is the sign function: sgn(a) = 1 if a ≥ 0 and
sgn (a) = −1 if a < 0; b(x) is the width of the section
at height x from the bottom reinforcement; and εsi is
the steel strain of the i th longitudinal reinforcing steel
bar of area Ai located at yi from the level of bottom
reinforcement. The first term in the above equation is
the concrete stress σc contribution, which can be eval-
uated by direct integration of the stress-strain curve or
equivalent stress block method. The second term is the
contribution from the steel reinforcement.
For shear columns, the behaviour of which is con-
trolled by shear deformation, the ultimate drift can be
estimated by the following empirical equation [10]:
u 1 v 1 N 3 1
accommodated by typical ductility detailing methods,
and thus should be avoided.
Axial compression effects on displacement
capacity and strength
High axial compression causes early crushing of con-
crete and leads to low displacement capacity [8]. It can
be illustrated by considering the displacement capaci-
ties of RC columns under different axial compression
levels. In general, for slender columns with a shear
= 4ρw −  − + ≥ , (4)
Ls 40 fc 40 Ag fc 100 100
where ρw is the transverse reinforcement ratio Aw /(bs),
where Aw is the cross-sectional area of transverse rein-
forcement parallel to the applied lateral load, s is the
spacing of the transverse reinforcement and b is the
column width; v is the nominal shear stress; Ag is the
gross cross-sectional area; and fc is the measured com-
pressive cylinder strength of unconfined concrete. The
above equation explicitly includes the effect of the ACR
by the third term in the middle expression. According
232 T. Y. P. YUEN ET AL.
to this equation, lower ultimate drifts of shear columns
result in higher ACR as of flexural columns, though it is
also recognised that axial compression can increase the
friction on the cracked surfaces. The positive effect of
axial compression on the shear strength of RC columns
is reflected in the Sezen model [11]:
reinforcement. The second term is the shear resis-
tance due to the arching action in the concrete, which
is increased with the axial compression and becomes
more prominent for columns with low shear-span to
depth ratio αL . Figures 1(a) and 1(b) illustrate the ACR
effects on the ultimate drifts depicted by Equations (2)
   and (4) for flexural and shear columns with different
0.4 fc N mechanical volumetric ratios of transverse reinforce-
vu = k ρw fyw +  , (5)
αL 0.5 fc Ag ment ωw , defined as:
where fyw is the yield strength of the transverse rein- ωw = ρs fyw /fc , (7)
forcement; and the value of the factor k is a function of
displacement ductility μ , given by: where ρs is the volumetric ratio of transverse confining
⎧ steel.
⎪
⎨1.0 μ < 2 The mechanical volumetric ratio can be used to
k = −0.075μ + 1.15 2 ≤ μ < 6 . (6) quantify the concrete confinement effect on the con-
⎪
⎩
0.7 μ ≥ 6 fined compressive strength fcc as follows [12,13]:
 
The first term in Equation (5) reflects the shear aρw,min fyw 0.86
fcc = fc (1 + K), K ≈ 3.7 , (8)
resistance due to the truss action of the transverse fc

Figure 1. Ultimate displacement ratios (UDRs) of RC columns: (a) ACR vs UDR of flexural columns; (b) ACR vs UDR of shear columns; (c)
calculated results (Equation (2)) vs experimental results of flexural columns; and (d) calculated results (Equation (4)) vs experimental
results of shear columns (dotted-lines represent the bounds of 90% confidence interval).
 HKIE TRANSACTIONS 233

where ρw,min is the minimum transverse reinforce- achieve higher crushing strain as [12]:
ment ratios in the two transverse directions; and
a is the confinement effectiveness factor evaluated εccu = εcu + 0.5aρs fyw /fcc , (10)
as:
where εcu is the crushing strain of the unconfined con-
  
b2
 crete. Similarly, the ACR effects on lateral strength
s s i
a= 1− 1− 1− for flexural and shear columns are illustrated in Fig-
2bo 2ho n
6bo ho ures 2(a) and 2(b), respectively.
(for rectangular cross-sections), (9a) The performance of the analytical models are eval-
 2 uated by comparing the calculated results against the
s experimental data presented in Structural Performance
a= 1− (for circular cross-sections), (9b)
2Do Database [14], established by The Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center (PEER) and the Univer-
where s is the spacing of hoops; bo and ho are the width sity of Washington. The test data are divided into two
and depth of the confined core (to the centreline of collective sets of shear columns and flexural columns,
hoops); bi is the distance between consecutive bars lat- respectively.
erally engaged by hoops or cross ties; and Do is the There is still no consensus on the definition of shear
diameter of confined core (to the centreline of hoops). columns up to now, since there is no clear dividing
Concrete confined with hoop reinforcement can also boundary to distinguish shear columns from flexural

Figure 2. Normalised lateral strength (NLS) of RC columns: (a) ACR vs NLS of flexural columns; (b) ACR vs NLS of shear columns; (c)
calculated results (Equation (3)) vs experimental results of flexural columns; and (d) calculated results vs experimental results of shear
columns (Equation (5)) (dotted-lines represent the bounds of 90% confidence interval).
234 T. Y. P. YUEN ET AL.

⎧
columns. The shear span-to-depth ratio provides a ⎨2 ≤ αL ≤ 3 and N1 < N < N2
reasonable ground for the classification of shear and Shear columns ωl 1 ,
flexural columns. Generally, columns with a high shear ⎩αL < 2 and >1
ωw 2αL
span-to-depth ratio ( > 3) would fail in flexural mode, (11b)
while the failure of columns with low shear span-to-
depth ratio ( ≤ 3) can be dictated by the shear or flexure- in which N1 and N2 are defined as follows:
shear coupling effect. Nevertheless, the shear span-to-
depth ratio alone is not enough to distinguish shear N1 = 0.5Ag fc − ρl Ag fy + ρw bw fyt
columns. It was shown that axial force and longitudi-
× [2Ls − (hc − z)(ρl − 0.5ρv )/ρl ], (12a)
nal and transverse reinforcement ratios are also impor-
tant in determining whether a short column would N2 = 0.5Ag fc + ρl Ag fy − ρw bw fyt
fail in a shear or flexural mode. In this study, the × [2Ls − (hc − z)(ρl − 0.5ρv )/ρl ], (12b)
shear and flexural columns are grouped according to
the criteria proposed by Biskinis and Fardis [15] as where ωl = ρl fy /fc is the total mechanical ratio of
follows: longitudinal reinforcement; ρl is the total longitudinal
⎧ reinforcement ratio; z is internal lever arm; ρv is the web
⎪
⎪ αL > 3 longitudinal reinforcement ratio. For squat columns
⎨
Flexural columns 2 ≤ αL ≤3 and N <N1 or N >N2 , (2 ≤ αL ≤ 3) loaded with axial force N between N1 and
⎪
⎪ ωl 1 N2 , significant shear-flexural coupling may occur and
⎩αL < 2 and <1
ωw 2αL lead to the diagonal compression failure before flexural
(11a) yielding takes place [15].

Figure 3. UDR vs ACR of flexural columns: (a) all columns; (b) level 1 columns; (c) level 2 columns; and (d) level 3 columns (grouping
of columns is shown in Equation (13a)).
 HKIE TRANSACTIONS 235

The comparisons of the calculated and test results
are shown in the Figures 1(c) and 1(d) for ultimate
displacement drifts, and Figures 2(c) and 2(d) for lat-
eral strength, respectively. The solid lines in the figures
denote the mean-fit of the measured values against the
predicted values. The dotted-lines bound the 90% con-
fidence interval of the estimation. It can be seen that
the effectiveness of confinement in enhancing the dis-
placement capacity is reduced by increasing the ACR,
revealing the need of the ACR limits to control the duc-
tility of RC columns. Furthermore, the ultimate drifts
of flexural columns, of which the failure mechanisms is
controlled by tensile yielding of longitudinal reinforce-
ment, decrease rapidly with the increase of the ACR
over the low ACR region as shown in Figure 3(a). Sub-
ject to the higher ACR, the rate of drop in ultimate
drift becomes more gradual as a result of the change
of behaviour from tension failure to compression fail-
ure. On the other hand, the Elwood and Moehle model
[10] depicts a less rapid drop in ultimate drifts of shear
columns until a constant level is reached in the high
ACR (Figure 1(b)).
As shown in Figure 2(a), the lateral strength-
ACR relationship of flexural columns shows the typ-
ical behaviour of M-N interaction behaviour. In the
low ACR region, where columns fail by tension fail-
ure, the moment capacity and the lateral strength are
enhanced by the increase of axial force. However, after
the balanced-failure point, compression-failure dic-
tates the column behaviour and further increase of
the ACR causes reduction in lateral strength. With
higher amount of transverse confining reinforcement
provided, higher ACR is needed to cause the balanced-
failure, implying that the better confined columns fail in
the ductile tension mode over a wider range of ACR. In
the case of shear columns, as shown in Figure 2(b), the
shear strength is directly proportional to the amount of
transverse reinforcement provided as predicted by the
Sezen shear model [11]. On the other hand, the ACR
also has an influence on the shear strength, which can
be seen later that it is a realistic representation of exper-
imental results. As shown in Figure 2(c), a very accurate
estimation of the lateral strength of flexural columns
can be obtained by simple moment curvature analy-
sis. For the shear columns, as shown in Figure 2(d),
the Sezen model [11] can give good estimations for
lightly reinforced columns but tended to overestimate
the shear strength of heavily reinforced columns.
The actual effects of axial compression on RC
columns are more complicated and difficult to model
accurately. Beside the reduction of curvature ductil-
ity, other typical effects of high axial compression are
(1) leading to early spalling of the concrete cover at
a relatively low displacement, which in turn increases
the buckling risk of the exposed longitudinal bars [16];
(2) exacerbating the P- effect on the columns in
particular the slender ones, which is characterised by
the “crawling” phenomenon occurring in the hysteretic
behaviour and leading to collapse [8]; and (3) increas-
ing the risk of low cycle fatigue of the columns under
seismic motions [17]. In view of the adverse impacts
of high axial compression, many modern design codes
relate the required quantity of confining reinforcement
with axial compression level and some even stipulate
the upper limits of axial compression.
Statistical analysis of the axial force effect
Besides the confinement detailing and axial compres-
sion, RC column behaviour can be influenced by many
other factors, for instance the aspect ratio, anchorage,
loading pattern, etc, of which interaction with concrete
confinement and axial load effect further complicate
the situation. In view of this complication behaviour,
the quantification of the concrete confinement and axial
compression effects have been very much dependent
on experimental data and this has normally served
as a basis for developing code provisions for practi-
cal design.
A statistical analysis is conducted with a large
database of 474 experimental data sets of RC columns,
which is composed of those experimental data pre-
sented in the Structural Performance Database [14],
and also some latest test results [18–22]. The yield
displacement, ultimate displacement and displacement
ductility of the test load-displacement curves are eval-
uated following the definitions by Park [23]. To have
a consistent analysis, all reported concrete compres-
sive strengths are renormalised to the specified cylinder
strength fc . The statistical parameters of the essential
properties of the columns in the database are shown
in Table 1.

Table 1. Statistical parameters of the column properties in the database.

Property Mean Standard deviation Min/Max 50th percentile 80th percentile
ACR (%) 21.3 17.7 0.0/80.0 17.5 35.0
Specified cylinder strength fc (MPa) 46.09 25.27 16/118 34.43 72.11
Aspect ratio α L 3.40 1.68 0.9/10 3 4.70
Column depth hc (mm) 359.1 161.8 80/1829 305 457.2
Effective mechanical transverse reinforcement ratio aρs fyw /fc 0.0939 0.0842 0/0.3817 0.0770 0.1738
Mechanical longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρl fy /fc 0.233 0.096 0.062/0.40 0.221 0.338
UDR (%) 3.79 2.23 0.613/11.95 3.21 5.60
Displacement ductility μ 6.57 2.67 1.40/11.97 6.34 9.29
NLS Vu /(fc0.5 Ag ) 0.3661 0.2019 0.0624/1.17 0.3098 0.5364
236 T. Y. P. YUEN ET AL.

It is noted that over 80% column tests (49% spi- With the use of the parameter defined in Equation
ral and 51% rectangular) were conducted under the (13), low ductility or non-seismically detailed columns,
ACR below 0.4, while less than 7% columns (24% as denoted by the data points in red, can be effectively
spiral and 76% rectangular) were tested above the separated from those seismically detailed columns, as
ACR 0.5, and only very scarce data have the ACR denoted by the data points in blue and green:
above 0.6. Hence, without the support of large num-
ber of experimental data, there is a high uncertainty aωw αL /3 < 0.05 (Level 1)
in the seismic behaviour of RC columns subjected to 0.05 ≤ aωw αL /3 < 0.15 (Level 2)
a high ACR. To be shown later, most of the design aωw αL /3 ≥ 0.15 (Level 3)
codes stipulate values not more than 0.6 for the lim-
its of the ACR in the RC column design. Further- for flexural columns in UDR analysis, (13a)
more, as per the criteria given in Equation (11), 156 ωw < 0.10 (Level 1)
shear columns and 318 flexural columns are identi-
0.10 ≤ ωw < 0.20 (Level 2)
fied from the database. Excluding those columns fail-
ing in anchorage or shear failure due to insufficient ωw ≥ 0.20 (Level 3)
splicing, columns with conforming transverse rein- for shear columns in UDR analysis. (13b)
forcement (seismically detailed) or conforming trans-
verse reinforcement (non-seismically detailed) are both Grouping of the columns can also isolate the
included in the statistical analysis. ACR effect on the displacement capacities of flexural

Figure 4. UDR vs ACR of shear columns: (a) all columns; (b) level 1 columns; (c) level 2 columns; and (d) level 3 columns (grouping of
columns is shown in Equation (13b)).

columns from other effects of effective concrete con-
finement and aspect ratio. As shown in Figures 3(a)
and 4(a) later, the columns, which fall on the same level,
show similar trends with respect to the ACR.
Ultimate displacement capacity
Displacement capacity is particularly important in
determining the seismic performance and collapse
probability of RC columns in devastating earthquakes.
In this regard, the relationships between ultimate dis-
placement ratio (UDR) against the ACR for the tested
circular and rectangular RC columns are plotted in Fig-
ures 3 and 4, respectively for flexural RC columns with
different levels of effective concrete confinement and
aspect ratios. The solid curves in Figures 3 and 4 are the
mean-fit curves to the series of data points. The two fig-
ures show how the axial compression and confinement
influence the displacement capacities of RC columns.
Figure 5. NLS vs ACR of flexural columns: (a) all columns; (b) level 1 columns; (c) level 2 columns; and (d) level 3 columns (grouping
of columns is shown in Equation (14)).
HKIE TRANSACTIONS 237
There is a trend of deteriorating displacement ductil-
ity and capacity with an increase of axial compression.
It can be seen that below a relatively low level of ACR
( ≤ 20%), a considerable number of flexural columns
can achieve moderate to high UDR ( > 6%). And the
effect of confinement on improving the structural per-
formances is clearly demonstrated again, where the
ductility and in particular the ultimate displacement
can increase significantly with higher confinement. But
at the higher ACR ( > 30%), the columns can hardly
maintain the same level of ductility as in under the
low ACR. Above an ACR of 40%, the UDRs of most
columns cannot even be higher than 2%.
There is a similar trend for shear columns that the
UDRs are diminishing with increasing ACR. The UDR
of short columns is less influenced by the ACR and
shows a more gradual decline with increasing ACR
when compared with the case in flexural columns. The
Elwood and Moehle model [10] sets a lower bound for
the UDR of shear columns as 1%, but it can be seen
238 T. Y. P. YUEN ET AL.
from Figure 4(a) that some columns have values of as
low as 0.71%. Hence, the lower bound for the UDR of
shear columns should be set at 0.7% instead. It is known
that the axial compression also has beneficial effects on
the shear columns, which is more predominant for RC
members with very low aspect ratios. It was shown by
Yuen and Kuang [24] for very short RC walls with an
aspect ratio less than 1.5, the trend for the UDR vs ACR
relationship is even reversed, due to the fact that the
shear transfer by the arch action and sliding resistance
of cracks in the shear RC members can be enhanced by
axial compression.
Lateral strength
Relationships between the normalised lateral strength
(NLS) with respect to fc0.5 Ag , which is an empirical mea-
sure of the shear resistance of the section due to the
concrete contribution, and ACR are plotted in Figure 5
Figure 6. NLS vs ACR of shear columns: (a) all columns; (b) level 1 columns; (c) level 2 columns; and (d) level 3 columns (grouping of
columns is shown in Equation (13b)).
for flexural columns. It is noted that the lateral strength
of columns increase with lower aspect ratios, which is
the opposite to the trend in the displacement capacity
and aspect ratio relationships. The parameter used to
group the flexural columns as defined in Equation (13a)
is modified as follows:
3aωv /αL < 0.05 (Level 1)
0.05 ≤ 3aωv /αL < 0.15 (Level 2) (14)
3aωv /αL > 0.15 (Level 3)
for flexural columns in NLS analysis.
As shown in Figure 5, the calculated NLS by the
moment-curvature analysis (Equation (3)) is bounded
below the average experimental results, i.e. Vu /fc0.5 Ag =
0.16 − 0.2 when the ACR is less than 40%. A higher
amount of confining reinforcement does not signif-
icantly increase the lateral strength of the flexural

columns. This is because the lateral strength of flex-
ural columns is largely dependent on the amount of
longitudinal reinforcement and slenderness. Confining
reinforcement primarily enhances the crushing strain
of concrete by typically more than 40% to 300% at most
[8,13], while the confined compressive strength can be
increased by only 20%-60%.
The NLS vs ACR relationship for shear columns is
plotted in Figure 6. The same grouping criteria defined
in Equation (13b) are used for shear columns in the
lateral strength statistical analysis.
As shown in Figure 6, higher ACRs lead to a notice-
able increase in the lateral strength of short columns.
High axial compression can enhance the friction on
the shear crack surfaces, which in turn enhances the
overall lateral strength of the short columns controlled
by shear deformation. The Sezen model [11] can pre-
dict this behaviour correctly (Figure 4(b)). With greater
amount of confining reinforcement, the lateral strength
of the shear columns is also noticeably higher. Never-
theless, such increase in lateral strength generally can-
not compensate for the adverse effect of the reduction in
the displacement capacity, which generally dictates the
collapse probability of buildings under seismic loading.
Summary
As demonstrated from the analytical and statistical
analyses, the displacement capacity of both flexural and
shear columns decreases with the increase in ACR.
In the low ACR region, tension yielding of column
reinforcement occurs before crushing of the concrete.
High ductility and ultimate displacement can be eas-
ily achieved for columns with proper and adequate
amount of confining reinforcement. However, in the
high ACR region, compression failure of columns may
occur, thus leading to a lower displacement capacity.
The reduction in the displacement capacity is not eas-
ily compensated for by providing a higher amount of
confining reinforcement. On the contrary, the lateral
strength increases with the increase in ACR, which
is more noticeable for shear columns. Such strength
enhancement mainly arises from the increased friction
on the crack faces under a higher normal compressive
stress. Nevertheless, a higher lateral strength cannot
ensure favourable seismic performance of the columns
particularly under strong earthquakes, but having suf-
ficient displacement capacity is more critical [8].
Code provisions on the ACR limits
It has been demonstrated that the axial compression
has significant influence to the ductility capacity of
RC columns. In view of this, some of the modern
RC design codes concerning seismic effect have stip-
ulated the upper ACR limits that the columns can-
not exceed under seismic design load combinations.
HKIE TRANSACTIONS 239
Although the physical implication and motivation are
the same, differences exist in the relevant provisions
of different design codes. To examine the rational-
ity and appropriateness of different provisions, this
section presents a comprehensive comparison and dis-
cussion on the provisions on ductile detailing meth-
ods for RC columns in the following design codes:
New Zealand concrete code (NZS 3101:1995&2006-
A1&A2) [1,7], HKConcrete2013 [3], Chinese seismic
code (GB 50011–2010) [6], Eurocode 8 (EN 1998–1:
2004) [5], and ACI concrete code (ACI 318–14) [25].
New Zealand concrete code (NZS
3101:1995&2006-A1&A2)
The New Zealand (NZ) code explicitly stipulates the
upper limit for the design axial force as:
No∗ ≤ 0.7φNn,max = 0.7φα1 fc (Ag − Ast ) + 0.7φfy Ast ,
(15)
where No∗ is the design axial force derived from over-
strength considerations. Under earthquake action, the
load combination for evaluation of No∗ is = E + G +
ψE Q, where E is the earthquake load, G is the per-
manent (dead) load, Q is the imposed (live) load. ψE
is the combination factor for imposed load for earth-
quake scenario, which can be taken as 0.3 in most cases
including imposed load for domestic and office floors
and should be taken as 0.6 for loads from storage. For
non-seismic design, the column axial force limit is loos-
ened to 0.85Nn,max . It can be seen that the NZ code
takes in full consideration of capacity design princi-
ples and methodology [8], that both the overstrength
actions and dynamic modification effect are accounted
in the ductile detailing and design of RC columns as
well as other members.
Hong Kong structural concrete code 2013
(HKConcrete2013)
Following NZS 3101:1995, the HKConcrete2004 [2]
also introduced similar ductility detailing provisions
with some modifications for various RC members but
excluded walls until the 2013 version, of which ductil-
ity detailing requirements for walls follow the Chinese
seismic code instead (GB 50011–2010). The extent of
critical zone specified in HKConcrete2013 is given by
Equation (1).
The upper range 0.3 < N/(Ag fcu ) ≤ 0.6 specified in
the last case of Equation (1) leads to the following
design axial force limit:
N ≤ 0.6Ag fcu , (16)
where N is the design ultimate axial force. Since seismic
load has not been considered in the HK code, all possi-
ble load combinations are used for the calculation of N,
for instances, 1.4(1.0)G + 1.6(0.0)Q, and 1.2(1.0)G +
1.2(0.0)Q + 1.2W, where W is the wind load and the
240 T. Y. P. YUEN ET AL.
values in the bracket are used while the effects are bene-
ficial. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the HK code
does not explicitly stipulate such limit as in the NZ code.
Furthermore, the functional form of this apparent limit,
which is only dependent on the axial concrete compres-
sive resistance, is also very different from the NZ code’s
upper limit as given by Equation (15). This was resulted
in inconsistency when compared with the other pro-
visions (Clause 6.2.1.4, HKConcrete2013). Hence, this
limit may have not been properly and appropriately
defined.
Chinese seismic design code (GB 50011–2010)
Unlike the NZ code limits the design axial force in
terms of the nominal axial load compressive strength
Nn,max , the Chinese seismic design code (GB code)
stipulates the upper limits of the ACRs, in which the
axial compression is normalised by the concrete uni-
axial compressive strength times the sectional area, for
typical RC columns with αv ≥ 2 and concrete grade less
than C60 in regular frame as follows:
⎧
⎪ analysis of the seismic design situation (i.e. Gk +
⎪
⎪ 0.65 (Grade I)
⎪
⎨ i ψE,i Qki + E, in which E is the seismic action and
NC,C 0.75 (Grade II)
≤ , (17)
fc,GB Ag ⎪
⎪ 0.85 (Grade III)
⎪
⎪
⎩0.90 (Grade IV)
where NC,C is the factored axial force for  the column
(load combination = 1.3E + 1.2(Gk + i rdi Qki )),
where rdi is the combination coefficient (≤ 1) for
variable action i (Table 5.1.3, GB 50010–2010) due to
representative gravity load and seismic action E. If the
representative gravity action is beneficial to the mem-
ber, the corresponding coefficient should take a value
not larger than 1.0; and fc,GB is the design axial strength
of the concrete under uniaxial compression at 28 days
≈ fc /1.78. Grades I-IV in Equation (17) denote the
structural grades, according to which the RC members
are designed and detailed. The most stringent detailing
requirements are imposed on Grade I structures and
the members are detailed to high ductility, while the
requirements are most relaxed for Grade IV structures
and the members would have low ductility. For regions
of moderate seismicity including Hong Kong, the struc-
tures should be designed and detailed in accordance
with the rules for Grade II or III structures.
The limits for columns in wall-frame, wall-slab col-
umn, core wall-frame and tube in tube structures are
loosened to 0.75, 0.85, 0.90 and 0.95 for Grades I, II,
III and IV structures, respectively; whilst the limits for
transfer columns supporting walls in Grades I and II
structures are tightened to 0.6 and 0.7, respectively. The
above limits of the ACR shall be further reduced by 0.05
for columns with αL < 2, nevertheless, the limits can
also be loosened and increased by 0.15 at most, if special
detailing methods are applied according to the notes
given in Table 6.3.7, GB 50011–2010. But in no case,
the ACR of columns should exceed 1.05. It is noted that
the axial force in Equation (17) is calculated from the
representative gravity action, instead of ultimate grav-
ity action as in the HK concrete code, expected to be
experienced by the structure during earthquakes and
the multiplying factor 1.2 takes account of the addi-
tional axial force incurred by unforeseen and excluded
actions on the columns.
Eurocode 8 (EN 1998–1:2004)
Eurocode 8 (EC8) stipulates the upper limits of
the ACRs (normalised axial force) for ductile walls
designed for the ductility class moderate (DCM) and
ductility class high (DCH), but no restrictions for the
ductility class low (DCL) as follows:
⎧
⎪0.55 (DCH)
NED,EC ⎨
≤ 0.65 (DCM) , (18)
fcd Ag ⎪
⎩
− (DCL)
where NED,EC is the design axial force from the

ψE,i is the combination coefficient (≤ 1) for variable
action Qki (Cl. 4.2.4, BS EN 1998–1:2004; Table A1.1,
EN 1990:2002)); and fcd is the design (factored with
safety factor 1.5) cylinder strength of concrete under
uniaxial compression at 28 days, which approximately
equals 0.8 times the corresponding cube strength. The
denominator in Equation (18) takes similar form as that
in GB code (Equation (17)), but it is noted that cylinder
strength is used in RC designs with EC8.
American concrete code (ACI 318–14)
The American concrete code (ACI code) does not stip-
ulate limits on the ACRs for different RC members.
Nevertheless, the axial compression is limited by the
nominal axial compressive strength of columns as in the
non-seismic design, but its dependency on the amount
of longitudinal reinforcement generates a wide range of
“effective” ACR limits as shown later.
Summary
The stipulated limits on the ACRs in various design
codes are compared to the statistical analysis presented
before, which has related the displacement capacity and
the ACR. Since the denominators in the ACRs defined
by various design codes are generally different, they are
firstly re-normalised with respect to the specified cylin-
drical compressive strength of concrete fc as presented
in Table 2, and the renormalised limits are plotted
together with the statistical data in Figure 7.
Figure 7(a) presents the plot of displacement duc-
tility μ of flexural columns against the ACR, while
 HKIE TRANSACTIONS 241

Table 2. Codes provisions on the ACR limits for RC column design.

NZ (1) HK GB 50011 EC8 ACI
(2) No∗ N NC,C NED,EC (2) Pu
Definition of ACR
φNn,max fcu Ag fc,GB Ag fcd Ac Po
⎧
⎪ 0.65 (Gr I) ⎧
⎪
⎪ ⎪ 
⎨0.75 (Gr II) ⎨0.55 (DCH)
0.80φ (Ties)
Upper limit(s) 0.7 0.6 0.65 (DCM) (3)
⎪0.85
⎪ (Gr III) ⎪
⎩− 0.85φ (Spirals)
⎪
⎩0.90 (DCL)
(Gr IV)

Dependent on longitudinal ◦ × × × ◦
reinforcement
Seismic load combination ◦(2) × ◦ ◦ ◦
No∗ N NC,C NED,EC Pu
Renormalised ACR limit(s) vs fc
fc Ag fc Ag fc Ag fc Ag fc Ag
⎧
⎪ 0.37 (Gr I) ⎧
⎪
⎪ ⎪ 
⎨ 0.42 (Gr II) ⎨0.37 (DCH)
0.80φ[ (0.85 + m)ρL + 0.85] (Ties)
Renormalised limit(s) (4) 0.7φ[ (α + m)ρ + α ] 0.75 0.43 (DCM) (4)
1 L 1
⎪
⎪ 0.48 (Gr III) ⎪
⎩− 0.85φ[ (0.85 + m)ρL + 0.85] (Spirals)
⎪
⎩0.51 (DCL)
(Gr IV)
Notes: (1) Assumed limit not explicitly stipulated by HKConcrete2013.
(2) P = 0.85 f  (A – A ) + f A and N 
o c g st y st n,max = α 1 fc (Ag – Ast ) + fy Ast are the nominal axial strength of columns specified by ACI 318–14 and NZ
3101:2006, respectively.
(3) The ACI limits are typical axial load-and-resistance design requirement and have no additional requirements for seismically designed columns.
(4) Limits in ACI and NZ are dependent on the values of strength reduction factor φ, longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρ and steel yield strength to
L
concrete compressive strength ratio m = fy /fc . If the typical values of 0.85 and 14 are assumed for α 1 and m, respectively, the limits are ranged
from 0.51–0.86 corresponding to the allowable range of longitudinal reinforcement ratio (0.8%–4%) with φ = 0.85 for NZ, and 0.52–0.91 (Ties) and
0.60–1.04 (Spirals) corresponding to the allowable range of longitudinal reinforcement ratio (1%–6%) with φ = 0.65 (Ties) or 0.75 (Spirals) for ACI.

Figure 7(b) presents the plot of UDR of shear columns
against the ACR. Two different types of plots are used
because, unlike flexural columns, the displacement
ductility or the yield drift of shear columns is difficult
to define properly and the UDR is thus more widely
accepted to represent their structural performances.
On the other hand, the upper bounds of the NZ and
ACI codes’ limits and the HK code’s apparent limit
on the ACR, though not explicitly stipulated, are a bit
way off from a reasonable limit, since there is very little
test data to determine the column behaviour in such a
high ACR regime. It is noted that the HK code requires
critical load combinations with other load cases, such
as wind, to determine the axial compression in the
ratio; hence, the value of the axial compression may be
larger in gravity or wind-controlled structures than the
value induced by seismic action, but controlling the col-
umn ductility through the ACR limit is generally not
required in the wind load design. Consideration of only
seismic action in the ACR calculation should suffice,
otherwise, wasting of materials could be resulted.
To present catastrophic collapse of buildings during
earthquakes, EC8 [5] specifies the damage limitation
requirement, which is deemed to be satisfied if the
maximum inelastic interstorey dr does not exceed the
following limit:
dr ≤ λhs /v,
where λ is a factor reflecting the effect of non-structural
elements such as infills; hs is the storey height; and
v is the reduction factor which takes into account
the lower return period of the seismic action consid-
ered. The recommended values of v by EC8 are 0.4
for importance classes III and IV structures and 0.5
for importance classes I and II structures, respectively.
The maximum inelastic interstorey should be evalu-
ated by the nonlinear analysis or multiplying the elastic
interstorey drifts de evaluated in linear analysis with
the displacement behaviour factor qd , i.e. dr = qd de .
The displacement behaviour factor qd can be taken
as the same value of the behaviour factor q, which is
dependent on the structural system and ductility of the
structures [5].
If it is assumed that v = 0.4 and the non-structural
elements do not interfere with the structural responses,
then λ can take on value 0.01 and the corresponding
inelastic interstorey drift limit is:
dr ≤ 0.025hs . (20)
Most of the prevailing seismic design codes includ-
ing Chinese seismic code [6], New Zealand earth-
quake code [26], and FEMA 356 [27], have the simi-
lar requirement on inelastic interstorey drift limit. In
other words, the ultimate displacements of structural
columns should not be less than 2.5% of its shear span
Ls . As seen in Figure 7(a), EC8 provisions on the ACR
limits can guarantee the UDRs of both flexure- and
(19) shear columns would not be lower than 2.5%, provided
that column hinges are properly detailed. Neverthe-
less, for shear columns (Figure 7(b)), due to the brit-
tle nature, the UDRs are much lower in comparison
with the flexural columns. The EC8 requirements can
242 T. Y. P. YUEN ET AL.
Figure 7. Codes specified ACR limits: (a) UDR of flexural columns; and (b) UDR of shear columns.
barely ensure that the 2.5% target ultimate displace-
ment can be satisfied. Actually, force-based design or
elastic design is generally recommended by most of the
seismic design codes for shear columns. If the shear
columns are to be designed for allowance of plastic
deformation, the ACR limit should be more restric-
tive and sufficient amount of confining reinforcement
should be provided. As observed from Figure 7(b), ACR
< 40% may be a suitable limit for this purpose.
In hybrid wall-frame structures, the dynamic
moment demands on columns can be significantly
reduced due to the controlled deflection shape of the
systems by the walls and smaller responses of frame to
higher modes of vibration [8]. If over 65% of the lateral
load is being resisted by the wall elements in a hybrid
wall-frame structure, it can be considered as an equiva-
lent wall system as per the EC8 classification [5]. In that
case, the behaviour factor q can be reduced by a factor
of 1.3 for multi-storey and multi-bay systems. And the
limit of column drifts, as evaluated by Equation (20),
can be reduced from 2.5% (Equation (20)) to about
2.0% of storey height.
Recommendations for provisions on ductility
detailing of RC columns in Hong Kong’s
moderate seismic situation
On the basis of the above theoretical and statistical
analysis, recommendations are made for the devel-
opment of new provisions on axial force limits in
the design code of structures for seismic resistance
in Hong Kong.
(1) As per the collapse prevention requirement for
RC structures in a moderate seismic region, the ulti-
mate displacement of the columns should not be less
than 2.5% of the column height, i.e. 0.025hs . If the
columns are detailed to moderate ductility, based on
the results obtained from Figure 7(a), a suitable ACR
limit for typical flexural columns in pure rigid-frame

structures can be taken as:
N tial plastic hinge regions with hoop reinforcement. The

≤ 0.50 for flexural columns in
fc Ag
moment-resisting frames. (21a)
For hybrid wall-frame structures with over 65% of
the total lateral load being resisted by the wall elements,
the required ultimate displacement of columns can be
reduced to 2% of column height. Hence, the above limit
can be relaxed to:
N sions on the ACR limits stipulated in various design
≤ 0.60 for flexural columns in hybrid
fc Ag
wall-frames. (21b)
Furthermore, given the evidently poor seismic per-
formances, shear columns should be avoided. If shear
columns are inevitable, the ultimate drift capacity shall
not be less than 2.5% of the column height. According
to Figure 7(b), the ACR limit should be tightened up to:
N though the lateral strength can be also enhanced by
≤ 0.40 for shear columns. (21c)
fc Ag
The proposed design recommendations given by
Equations (21a), (21b) and (21c) have shown excellent
consistency with the findings of the investigations into
the behaviour of RC columns under high axial loading
[28]. This earliest known research included the tests of
69 RC columns, which were also archived in the PEER
database [14] and this study, under different levels of
axial compression load conducted in Japan.
(2) Rewriting Equation (21) in terms of characteris-
tic cube strength by taking fc = 0.8fcu and rounding-off
gives:
N
≤ 0.40 for flexural columns in
fcu Ag
moment-resisting frames, (22a)
N Dr Terry Y P Yuen is an Assistant Pro-
≤ 0.50 for flexural columns in
fcu Ag
hybrid frames, (22b)
N versity, Turkey. His research interests
≤ 0.30 for shear columns. (22c)
fcu Ag
To reflect the fact that the limits are needed to pre-
serve structural ductility in seismic or exceptional load
cases, it is recommended that combinations with repre-
sentative gravity action under extreme loading situation
shall be used instead of ultimate gravity load in the
calculation of the axial force in Equation (21) or (22).
Conclusions
Structural columns, as a primary and critical load-
carrying member, should be designed and detailed to
sufficient structural ductility in order to reduce the
risk of the catastrophic collapse of the whole struc-
ture. In the modern seismic design paradigm, the duc-
tility and energy dissipation capacity of RC columns
HKIE TRANSACTIONS 243
are enhanced by concrete confinement in the poten-
required quantity of confining reinforcement is largely
dependent on the level of axial compression induced
onto the columns. The effectiveness of typical detail-
ing for concrete confinement is often deteriorates with
an increase of axial compression and therefore, many
modern seismic design codes also stipulate upper limits
on the ACR.
Nevertheless, there are dissimilarities in the provi-
codes. In view of this issue, this paper revisited the sci-
entific background of axial compression effect on con-
crete structures, and then presented a comprehensive
statistical analysis using the 474 experimental data sets
of various types of RC columns. It was found that the
ultimate displacement of the RC columns under cyclic
loading can be enhanced by the quantity of confin-
ing reinforcement but reduced by increasing the ACR,
axial compression.
Further to the statistical analysis, a critical compar-
ison of the provisions on the ACR limits stipulated in
different modern reinforced concrete design codes of
practice in the world was provided. Finally, design rec-
ommendations were made for the development of new
provisions on axial force limits in the design code of
structures for seismic resistance in Hong Kong.
Funding
The supports of the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong
under [grant number 614011] and the Scientific and Tech-
nological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) under
[project number 214M236] are gratefully acknowledged.
Notes on contributors
fessor in the Department of Civil Engi-
neering at the Bursa Orhangazi Uni-
include seismic analysis and engineer-
ing of building and bridge structures,
theoretical and computational mechan-
ics of materials, reinforced concrete and
masonry structures and tall building structures. Dr Yuen is
the recipient of the 2014 Thomas Telford Premium from the
Institution of Civil Engineers in the UK, presented for the best
paper on engineering and computational mechanics.
Ir Prof J S Kuang, Ph.D., CEng, FICE,
FIStructE, FHKIE, is a Professor of
Civil Engineering at The Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology.
His research and teaching activities are
mainly in seismic engineering, with
emphasis on seismic analysis and design
of concrete structures, seismic vulner-
ability assessment of tall buildings, and computational
mechanics and simulation in structural engineering.
244 T. Y. P. YUEN ET AL.
Ir Prof Kuang’s awards include the Thomas Telford Premium
and the T K Hsieh Award from the Institution of Civil Engi-
neers in the UK, and the HKIE Best Transactions Paper Prize
from The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE).
Ir Dr Don Y B Ho, Ph.D., MPhil, CEng,
RPE, MIStructE, MHKIE, is a Structural
Engineer of the Ove Arup & Partners
Hong Kong Ltd. He is specialised in the
design of seismic and dynamic sensi-
tive structures for projects around the
East Asia Region. His research interests
include seismic design and behaviour of
concrete structures, seismic vulnerability of assessment of tall
buildings, and design of irregular structural systems. Ir Dr
Ho has received the HKIE Transactions Prize in 2007 for his
contributions.
References
[1] Standards New Zealand (SNZ). Concrete structure
standard-the design of concrete structures (NZS 3101:
Part 1:1995). Wellington, New Zealand: SNZ; 1995.
[2] Buildings Department (HKBD). Code of practice for
structural use of concrete 2004. Hong Kong: The
HKSAR Government; 2004.
[3] Buildings Department (HKBD). Code of practice for
structural use of concrete 2013. Hong Kong: The
HKSAR Government; 2013.
[4] Park R. Ductile design approach for reinforced concrete
frames. Earthq Spectra. 1986;2:565–619.
[5] CEN. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake
resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and
rules for buildings (EN 1998–1:2004). Brussels: Euro-
pean Committee for Standardization; 2004.
[6] National Standard of the People’s Republic of China.
Code for seismic design of buildings (GB 50011-2010).
Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press; 2010.
[7] Standards New Zealand (SNZ). Concrete structure
standard-the design of concrete structures incorporat-
ing amendment No. 1 & 2 (NZS 3101:Part 1:2006-
A1&A2). Wellington, New Zealand: SNZ; 2006.
[8] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced
concrete and masonry buildings. New York: John Wiley
& Sons; 1992.
[9] Priestley M, Calvi G, Kowalsky M. Displacement-based
seismic design of structures. Pavia, Italy: IUSS Press;
2007.
[10] Elwood KJ, Moehle JP. Dynamic collapse analysis for
a reinforced concrete frame sustaining shear and axial
failures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2008;37:991–1012.
[11] Sezen H. Seismic response and modeling of lightly
reinforced concrete building columns. Berkeley (CA):
University of California; 2002.
[12] CEN. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake
resistance – Part 3: assessment and retrofitting of
buildings (EN 1998-3). Brussels: European Committee
for Standardization; 2005.
[13] Biskinis D, Fardis M. Flexure-controlled ultimate defor-
mations of members with continuous or lap-spliced
bars. Struct Concr. 2010;11:93–108.
[14] Berry M, Parrish M, Eberhard M. PEER structural
performance database user’s manual. PEER research
report. Berkeley (CA): University of California;
2004.
[15] Biskinis DE, Fardis MN. Deformations at flexural yield-
ing of members with continious or lap-spliced bars.
Struct Concr. 2010;11:127–138.
[16] Kappos A, Penelis G. Earthquake resistant concrete
structures. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1996.
[17] Borg RC, Rossetto T. Low cycle fatigue tests of rein-
forced concrete columns and joints, built with ribbed
reinforcement and plain stirrups. 15th World Conf.
Earthq Eng Lisbon Port. 2012.
[18] Ahn JM, Shin SW. An evaluation of ductility of
high-strength reinforced concrete columns subjected
to reverse cyclic loads under axial compression. Mag
Concr Res. 2007;59:29–44.
[19] Rodrigues H, Arêde A, Varum H, et al. Experimen-
tal evaluation of rectangular reinforced concrete col-
umn behaviour under biaxial cyclic loading. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn. 2013;42:239–259.
[20] Kim T, Kim Y, Shin HM. Seismic performance assess-
ment of reinforced concrete bridge columns under
variable axial load. Mag Concr Res. 2007;59:
87–96.
[21] Sinha S, Roy L. Fundamental tests of reinforced concrete
columns subjected to seismic loading. Proc ICE – Struct
Build. 2004;157:185–199.
[22] Lee TK, Chen CC, Pan ADE, et al. Experimental evalu-
ation of large circular RC columns under pure compres-
sion. Struct Concr. 2013;14:60–68.
[23] Park R. Evaluation of ductility of structures and struc-
tural assemblages from laboratory testing. Bull New
Zeal Soc Earthq Eng. 1989;22:155–166.
[24] Yuen YP, Kuang JS. Effect of axial compression on duc-
tility design of RC walls. Proc. ICE – Struct Build.
2015;168:554–569.
[25] American Concrete Institute. Building code require-
ments for structural concrete (ACI 318–14) and com-
mentary. Farmington Hills (MI): ACI; 2014.
[26] Standards New Zealand (SNZ). Structural design
actions, Part 5: earthquake actions—New Zealand.
Code and supplement. NZS 1170.5 SUPP 1:2004.
Wellington, New Zealand: SNZ; 2004.
[27] ASCE. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 356). Washington
(DC): Building Seismic Safety Council, Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency; 2000.
[28] Zhu X, Sato T, Jiang W, et al. Behavior of reinforced
concrete column under high axial load. Proc 9th World
Conf Earthq Eng. 1988. p. 353–358.