ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 107-S38
Nonlinear Analysis of Cross Sections under Axial Load and
Biaxial Bending
by Marco Di Ludovico, Gian Piero Lignola, Andrea Prota, and Edoardo Cosenza
The paper presents a method and an integration procedure
specifically targeting the analysis of cross sections under biaxial
bending and axial load, whatever the shape—including internal
voids—and made of different materials (for example, concrete)
internally or externally reinforced by mild steel, prestressing
tendons, and fiber-reinforced polymers. Surface integration of
meshed cross sections allows moment-curvature relationships to
be computed using nonlinear constitutive relationships (also with
softening) and three-dimensional (3D) interaction domains P-Mx-My
to be drawn. Iteration procedures and convergence criteria are
herein proposed to rapidly solve the highly nonlinear problem.
Numerical tests showed fast convergence of the algorithm and
good agreement with experimental results elsewhere; comparisons
between the numerical outcomes and the simplified expressions
available in the literature have been performed to point out the
current limits of the available codes’ formulas.
Keywords: biaxial bending; cross section; nonlinear; moment-curvature;
three-dimensional interaction domain.
INTRODUCTION
The study of axially loaded members under biaxial
bending is of particular interest in the case of structures
subjected to earthquake motion. In such cases, the presence
of biaxial bending moments reduces the cross section
capacity both in terms of strength and ductility, usually
evaluated only under uniaxial loads. The current seismic
codes, however, allow cross sections to be designed under
biaxial bending by analyzing such sections as subjected to
two uniaxial bendings and axial loads acting separately.
In particular, FEMA 356 1 and Italian seismic guideline
D.M. 14/01/20082 provide simplified equations to
approximate the effective three-dimensional (3D) failure
surface, P-Mx-My; Eurocode 83 suggests treating biaxial
bending by carrying out the checks separately in each direction,
with the uniaxial flexural strength reduced by 30%.
These are some of the several approximate methods that
have been proposed in recent decades. The use of simplified
approaches is unsafe in some cases and cannot give any
information about fundamental properties (that is, cracking
and yielding point and curvature ductility) of the cross
section. They are generally justified by the difficulty in
manually computing the cross section capacity under biaxial
bending and axial load. Such computation requires the
integration of stresses associated with strain-based failure
criteria that can be numerically performed by discretizing the
cross section and iteratively locating the neutral axis depth.
Thus, an appropriate numerical integration procedure that
can be implemented in a computer analysis program,
providing a fast and reliable tool to perform fiber analysis of
cross sections under axial load and biaxial bending, has been
proposed in this study.
390
TECHNICAL PAPER
The proposed computation method specifically focuses on
the analysis of regular or irregular shaped cross sections (for
example, made of concrete) internally or externally reinforced
by mild steel (reinforced concrete [RC]) and prestressing
tendons (prestressed concrete [PC]) as well as by fiber-reinforced
polymers (FRP). The developed algorithm provides the
moment-curvature diagrams for cross sections subjected to
axial load and biaxial bending using linear and nonlinear
stress-strain relationships, also with softening. Moreover, it
allows cross sections to be designed and/or checked by
determining the ultimate flexural moments Mx-My given a
constant axial load P and orientation angle β of the resultant
moment; the Mx-My domain for a given axial load and,
consequently, the 3D failure domain can be plotted.
A review of the literature’s methods and a description of
the proposed numerical method, along with model validation
by comparison with results found elsewhere, are outlined in
the following sections.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This study deals with reliable and rapid nonlinear analyses
in terms of strength and deformability of cross sections of
regular or irregular shape and made of different materials. The
provided algorithm is intended as a tool, adopting robust
procedures, well suited to study RC cross sections under axial
load and biaxial bending (for example, seismic actions). In
particular, the procedure may be used to assess the main
characteristics of the nonlinear behavior of cross sections,
namely, cracking, yielding point, flexural strength, ultimate
curvature, moment-curvature relationship also with softening,
curvature ductility, and 3D interaction domains P-Mx-My).
The results provided by the developed procedure have
been compared to experimental results on symmetric and
irregular cross sections available in the literature. Comparisons
between the numerical results and the simplified expressions
available in the literature indicate the current limits of the
available codes’ formulas.
REVIEW OF LITERATURES’ METHODS
The design and/or check procedures to analyze cross
sections under biaxial load are iterative and require the integration
of the stress field over the cross section at each step. To avoid
such a time-consuming procedure, several simplified methods
were previously developed to provide an approximate
analytical expression for the failure surface. One of these,
the load contour (LC) method, was provided by Bresler,4
ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 4, July-August 2010.
MS No. S-2008-222.R5 received September 25, 2009, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2010, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the May-June
2011 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2011.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010

Marco Di Ludovico is an Assistant Professor of structural engineering at the University
of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy, where he received his PhD in seismic risk. His
research interests include nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete structures, seismic
strengthening of reinforced concrete structures using advanced materials, strengthening
of prestressed concrete bridge members using composites and analysis of reinforced
concrete members subjected to axial load, and biaxial bending.
Gian Piero Lignola is an Assistant Professor of structural engineering at the
University of Naples Federico II, where he received his PhD in seismic risk. His
research interests include numerical modeling and strengthening of concrete and
masonry structures with advanced materials.
Andrea Prota is an Assistant Professor of structural engineering at the University of
Naples Federico II. He received his MS in civil engineering from the University of
Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, and his PhD in structural engineering from the University
of Naples Federico II. His research interests include the seismic behavior of reinforced
concrete and masonry structures, the use of advanced materials for new construction,
and the retrofit of existing structures using innovative techniques.
Edoardo Cosenza is a Full Professor of structural engineering at the University of
Naples Federico II. His research interests include seismic engineering, steel-concrete
composite structures, and composite materials for construction.
who proposed to approximate the failure surface by using the
following expression
α1 α2
Mx ⎞
⎛ -------- M
- + ⎛ --------y-⎞ =1 (1)
⎝ M x0⎠ ⎝ M y0⎠
where Mx and My are the effective moments under biaxial
bending; Mx0 and My0 are the nominal uniaxial bending
moments about the x- and y-axis, respectively, under the applied
load P; and parameters α1 and α2 depend on the mechanical and
geometrical properties of the cross section and on the applied
axial load. This expression provides two-dimensional (2D)
slices of the 3D failure surface in the P-Mx-My space. The
reliability of this approximate failure surface (Eq. (1)) is
strongly related to the definition of exponents α1 and α2;
Bresler4 suggested using the same value for both exponents, for
rectangular or square columns, ranging between 1.15 and 1.55.
An expression for α was also proposed in the 1988 Australian
Standard AS 36005 to better approximate the failure surface
1.7P
α = 0.7 + ------------- with 1 ≤ α ≤ 2 (2)
0.6P o
where P and Po represent the applied axial load under biaxial
eccentricity and the axial compression strength of the cross
section, respectively.
Moreover, Hsu6 proposed to adopt the LC method by
using a value of 1.5 for both α1 and α2 and to add another
term to Eq. (1) to take the ratio between the nominal axial
load and the balanced strain axial load directly into account
P – P b ⎞ ⎛ M x ⎞ 1.5 ⎛ M y ⎞ 1.5
⎛ -----------------
- + --------- + --------- =1 (3)
⎝ P o – P b⎠ ⎝ M bx⎠ ⎝ M by⎠
where Pb is the axial load strength at the balanced strain
condition under biaxial bending and Mbx and Mby are the
uniaxial bending moments for balanced strain condition
about the x- and y-axis, respectively, under the applied axial
load P. A variant of the LC method was implemented by
Parme et al.,7 assuming only α1 = α2 = 1 and adding some
multiplication factors, as shown in the following expressions
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010
M x ⎞ ⎛ M y ⎞ ⎛ 1 – β⎞
⎛ -------- M M
- + --------- ------------ – 1 = 0 if ⎛ --------x-⎞ > ⎛ --------y-⎞ (4a)
⎝ M x0⎠ ⎝ M y0⎠ ⎝ β ⎠ ⎝ M x0⎠ ⎝ M y0⎠
M x ⎞ ⎛ 1 – β⎞ ⎛ M y ⎞
⎛ -------- M M
- ------------ + --------- – 1 = 0 if ⎛ --------x-⎞ ≤ ⎛ --------y-⎞
(4b)
⎝ M x0⎠ ⎝ β ⎠ ⎝ M y0⎠ ⎝ M x0⎠ ⎝ M y0⎠
where β is a coefficient ranging between 0.5 and 1 depending on
the mechanical and geometrical properties of the cross section.
By using a value equal to 1 for α1 and α2, the LC method
provides a pyramidal failure surface that is very conservative in
most cases. Ghersi and Muratore8 provided simplified and
conservative equations to determine uniaxial bending strength
for rectangular cross sections and, in the case of axial load and
biaxial bending, they suggested using the LC method with α1 =
α2 = 1.4 to 1.5, where Mx0 and My0 are computed by using the
simple expressions provided by the authors. Moreover,
Eurocode 29 and Monti and Alessandri10 provide simple
expressions to calibrate α1 = α2 to be used in the LC method as
a function of the normalized axial load v = P/Po to approximate
the effective moments under biaxial bending.
A different approximate method—the reciprocal load
(RL) method—was also proposed by Bresler.4 In this
method, reported also in the commentary of ACI 318-05,11
the failure surface is interpolated by secant planes defined by
three points on the failure surface for uniaxial bending
1 1 1 1
--- = ----- + ----- – ----- (5)
P Px Py Po
where Px and Py are the axial strength under uniaxial
moments about the x- and y-axis, respectively.
The shape of the approximate interaction surface obtained
by Eq. (5) was confirmed by test results conducted on square
columns subjected to combined axial load and biaxial
bending with constant eccentricity by Ramamurthy.12 On
the other hand, Silva et al.13 showed that such a procedure
provides a too conservative approximation in most cases and
is not convenient from a computational point of view
because for every loading case, it requires calculating Px and
Py for given eccentricities ey and ex. Moreover, Wang and
Hong14 noted that, in the case of RC columns with high-
strength concrete, the method can lead to unsatisfactory results.
In addition to the LC and RL methods, alternative failure
criteria have also been widely proposed: Sussekind15 used a
numerical method to determine a few points on the failure surface
for prismatic RC elements under combined axial load and biaxial
bending; Hulse and Mosley16 and Spiegel and Limbrunner17
provided numerical techniques to compute the capacity of an RC
member subjected to axial load and biaxial bending; a new
failure criterion was proposed by Silva et al.13 in which it was
assumed that the failure surface can be approximated by a
given closed convex surface; and Bonet et al.18 provided an
analytical equation based on the definition of the failure surface
by means of two directrix curves and generatrix curves.
Many researchers have proposed design equations and
calculation algorithms to account for the materials’
nonlinear behavior. Kawakami et al.19 presented a complete
algorithm for the analysis of RC members, including the
effect of both mild steel and prestressed reinforcement; but
their procedure is difficult to implement in a computer
program. An incremental model for the force-deformation
behavior of RC cross sections and members under 3D
391

Fig. 1—Constitutive laws implemented in algorithm.
Fig. 2—(a) Variable axial load with constant eccentricity;
and (b) constant axial load with variable eccentricity.
Fig. 3—Compression and biaxial bending in cross section.
generalized load or deformation histories, including cyclic
loading up to ultimate deformation, was performed by
Bousias et al.20 A method based on the fiber model concept
and computer graphics was proposed by Sfakianakis21 to
study RC cross sections with regular or irregular shapes; this
method requires time-consuming calculations but does not
include any iteration and, hence, overcomes convergence
problems. A new methodology, implemented in a multi-module
program, was performed by Consolazio et al.22 for the
calculation of moment-curvature diagrams in the case of
concrete cross sections of regular or irregular shape under
axial load and biaxial bending while De Vivo and Rosati23
proposed two algorithms by adopting a secant strategy for
the solution of nonlinear equilibrium equations. Cedolin et al.24
proposed a method based on isoparametric discretization of
the cross section along with a gauss-legendre integration
scheme to also account for curved boundary. Finally,
Furlong et al.25 surveyed the various methods, both equation
and computer based, proposed in the literature.
PROPOSED NUMERICAL PROCEDURE
A numerical procedure is presented based on cross section
discretization into rectangular elements. The analytical
procedure can account for regular or irregular cross section
geometry and material properties, and it can provide
moment-curvature behavior at cross section level to simulate
the load-deformation relationship of structural members
392
under axial load and biaxial bending. For the sake of
simplicity, in the following sections, the procedure will be
illustrated in the case of reinforced concrete cross sections.
Procedure assumptions
The analysis invokes the following assumptions: 1) plane
sections remain plane (classical Bernoulli-Navier hypothesis);
2) the longitudinal stress in a fiber element is dependent only
on the longitudinal strain; 3) perfect bond is assumed at the
interfaces between concrete and steel and/or FRP reinforcing
bars or laminates; and 4) loading and deformation of the
cross section are assumed to take place monotonically.
Cross-section behavior under cyclic loading conditions is
not directly considered, but it could be addressed by
implementing modified material stress-strain relationships.
Linear and nonlinear, also with softening, stress-strain
relationships (constitutive laws) can be considered to
perform the analysis. To date, the three constitutive laws
reported in Fig. 1 have been implemented and tested (consti-
tutive law No. 3 is based on the model by Mander et al.26).
Procedure strategy
Two analysis cases, briefly shown in Fig. 2, were considered
to explain the procedure strategy. In the first case (Fig. 2(a)),
an axial load is applied on the cross section with a given
eccentricity; this axial load increases up to failure with
constant eccentricity. In this case, the load path is on a plane
parallel to the P axis and the My /Mx ratio is constant. In the
second case (Fig. 2(b)), the axial load value Pi is constant
and combined with increasing bending moments (for
example, a pier with constant axial load and seismic-type
lateral shear force on top); the failure occurs when the load
path, in a constant Pi plane, reaches the limit surface
(maximum bending moments). In this case, the procedure
allows the limit values of the eccentricities to be determined.
The procedure described herein refers to the latter case,
whereas the former case can also be solved after plotting the
entire 3D interaction domain.
The given axial load Pext remains constant during the load
process; and the direction of the horizontal load, or the
application point, remains on the line defined by the centroid
(or any other reference point) of the gross concrete cross
section and a given orientation angle βext (refer to Fig. 3).
The value of βext is the orientation angle of the resultant
moment with respect to the horizontal axis x. Flexural
moments computed by the algorithm, including those used to
plot moment-curvature diagrams, are computed with
respect to the concrete gross section centroid (or any other
reference point).
Cross section discretization
Any regular or irregular concrete cross section should be
defined by a closed polygonal boundary with straight
segments (refer to Fig. 4); linear segments represent the
exterior and interior (if any hole is included) boundaries of
the cross section. If the cross section has curved boundaries,
it can be approximated using a set of straight segments. The
cross section is then meshed into small rectangles, and the
relevant material is assigned to each discrete element.
This procedure calls for particular attention to the order of
the vertices: the vertices of the exterior boundary should be
numbered counterclockwise, whereas those of the interior
boundaries, if any, should be numbered clockwise (refer to
Fig. 4).
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010

Fig. 4—Vertex numeration: exterior boundary counter
clockwise, interior boundaries clockwise.
The smallest rectangle area enveloping the full cross
section is identified considering maximum and minimum
coordinates of vertices: xmin, xmax and ymin, ymax (refer to
Fig. 5). To divide the cross section into nd × md fiber
elements, a grid with horizontal spacing of xel = (xmax – xmin)/
nd and vertical spacing of yel = (ymax – ymin)/md is defined.
If the centroid of an element (defined by its two coordinates,
abscissa and ordinate) lies inside the boundary of the cross
section and is made by material k, then the element material
k multiplier θk is set to 1. This means it belongs to the cross
section, and it is active in the calculation; otherwise, θk is set
to 0 (inactive). For this purpose, any centroid is considered
inside the polygonal closed envelope (defining the cross
section also with some inside voids) if the sum of the angles
defined by the centroid and two consecutive vertices of the
envelope is equal to 360 degrees.
Once the concrete cross section is discretized into small areas,
each small area is assumed to have a constant strain and stress and
the integration of the stress field can be performed by adopting the
midpoint sampling rule, assuming that the integrand function is
linear over the rectangular areas. For the sake of simplicity, this
simple integration scheme was selected rather than Newton-
Cotes formulas, Simpson’s rule, or Gauss quadrature, which
could also be more accurate with a smaller mesh division.
Similarly to finite element modeling, the accuracy of integration
schemes depends on the resolution of the mesh; therefore, a
general rule valid for any case cannot be provided. For instance,
a mesh division of nd × md = 14 × 14 has been found to be
appropriate in the case of the L-shaped cross section analyzed in
the following sections (convergence with a percent difference
smaller than 1%, which is satisfactory in engineering practice).
The diameters of the internal reinforcements (that is, steel
or FRP bars) are assumed to be negligible when compared to
the cross section dimensions (meshing procedures such as
those used for the concrete cross section are unnecessary).
The strain level in the reinforcement is equal to that
computed at its centerline and is assumed to be equal to the
concrete strain at the same distance from the neutral axis
(that is, perfect bond). To avoid double counting the area
occupied by reinforcement, particularly significant in cross
sections with a large quantity of reinforcement, however, the
stress in the concrete is subtracted from the stress in the
reinforcement, both evaluated at the same position and for
the same strain. Therefore, the stress in each material is
computed based on the relevant constitutive law. The width
of the external reinforcements (that is, FRP laminates) is
assumed to be negligible when compared to the cross section
dimensions so that their centerlines are considered around
the cross section contour and meshed as segments; the strain
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010
Fig. 5—Grid spacing and cross section discretization.
Fig. 6—Geometry and mechanical properties matrix.
values are evaluated in each segment centroid (lumped area).
It is suggested to be consistent with mesh divisions and
element size adopted for concrete cross sections.
Iterative procedure description
For a given neutral axis depth and inclination, one step of
the iterative procedure is illustrated as follows. Once the
coordinates and material multipliers of each concrete fiber or
reinforcement element are known, the perpendicular
distance of each of them from a given neutral axis can be
determined. The neutral axis is characterized by two parameters:
a point on the plane of the cross section and an angle. It is
important to define a direction on the neutral axis because
the perpendicular oriented distance of the elements is used to
evaluate the strain in the elements.
The points at the same perpendicular distance d from the
neutral axis have the same strain equal to a given curvature
in the direction normal to that neutral axis multiplied by d. In
the sign convention, the fibers on the same semi-plane of the
externally applied axial load resultant should have the same
strain sign as the external load (that is, if compressions are
assumed to be positive, then the compression axial load and
compressive strains will be positive). Once the strain field is
known, the stresses in each fiber can be determined using the
appropriate constitutive law of the materials concerned.
Particular care must be taken in prestressing elements; the
value of strain to account for is the sum of the effective prestrain
in the tendon (prior to bending loading and after losses have
been accounted for) and the increase in strain caused by
cross section curvature induced by bending loads.
Abscissa and ordinate of the centroid of each element,
material multiplier, perpendicular distance from neutral axis,
strain and stresses can be stored in a 3D matrix (refer to Fig. 6).
Each element of the bidimensional nd × md matrix (layer)
represents a fiber of the concrete cross section, whereas each
layer (third coordinate of the matrix) contains specific
information about that fiber (for example, the strain and
stress). This matrix can be adopted for spread-sheet
393
 n rein nd ⋅ md n rein

My = ∫ θ ⋅ σ x dA + ∑ σ j ⋅ A j ⋅ x j
grid
= ∑ θi ⋅ σi ⋅ Ai ⋅ xi + ∑ σj ⋅ Aj ⋅ xj (8)
j=1 i=1 j=1

nd ⋅ md n rein

= ∑ Ni ⋅ xi + ∑ σj ⋅ Aj ⋅ xj
i=1 j=1

and then transported to the centroid of the cross section (or

any other reference point) Mx,g and My,g. Finally the internal
orientation angle is computed as βint = –(My,g/Mx,g).

Convergence criteria
In the case of axial load and bending along the principal
axes of the section, only a nonlinear equation has to be
solved to account for equilibrium. The internal obtained
stress field, integrated over the cross section domain Pint
associated to a given neutral axis depth and curvature, must
be equal to (that is in equilibrium with) external acting force
Pext. This problem is generally nonlinear in the post-elastic
range and can be solved by changing the neutral axis depth
iteratively until equilibrium is found. Usually the convergence
criteria concerns axial load P: |Pint – Pext| ≤ tolerance. The
final result is found if the gap between external axial force
and the internal obtained axial load is less than a given
tolerance value (for example, a percentage of Pext).
In the case of axial load and biaxial bending, such a
procedure is not sufficient; a system of two nonlinear
equations has to be solved simultaneously to account for
equilibrium and external orientation angle βext. The
convergence criterion for the second coupled nonlinear
equation concerns the internal and external orientation
Fig. 7—Flowchart of double iteration procedure. angles: |βint – βext| ≤ tolerance. This problem is nonlinear
with respect to both neutral axis depth and orientation angle;
it involves the simultaneous convergence with two criteria.
It can be solved in a double-nested iterative process: inner—
calculations. Moreover, separate tables can be defined for for a given neutral axis inclination, the neutral axis depth is
each type of reinforcement (internal or external). changed until the internal obtained stress field is in equilibrium
At this stage, the internal axial force Pint can be computed, with Pext; outer—the neutral axis inclination is changed until
adopting the midpoint sampling rule, as the integral of the the internal bending moments has the same orientation
internal stress field over the cross section angle, βint as the external applied bending moment βext.
In other words, the internal obtained stress field, integrated
n rein nd ⋅ md n rein
over the cross section domain, must be in equilibrium with
Pext. for each value of the neutral axis inclination angle. At
P int = ∫ θ ⋅ σ dA + ∑ σj ⋅ Aj = ∑ θi ⋅ σi ⋅ Ai + ∑ σj ⋅ Aj (6)
this stage, the inner iteration process gives a value βint,
grid j=1 i=1 j=1
whereas the outer iteration involves the neutral axis
nd ⋅ md n rein inclination: it is changed until βint approximates βext. A
= ∑ Ni + ∑ σj ⋅ Aj flowchart of the proposed procedure is depicted in Fig. 7.
i=1 j=1 Due to the high nonlinearity of the problem, an optimal
strategy has to be chosen to have a fast convergence and
A constant stress σi is considered inside an active (θi ≠ 0) rapidly solve the nonlinear problem.
fiber, whether concrete or reinforcement, equal to the value The convergence problem must be brought into the standard
at the centroid of the element; Ni is the axial force resultant form f(x) = 0, (that is, Pext – Pint(x) = 0 where x is the neutral
in a meshed element, Ni = θi Aiσi. The integral is approximated axis depth). A method for solving f(x) = 0 has at least two
by a sum over the entire active concrete elements and all the parts: an iteration and a convergence test. The iteration
nrein reinforcement elements, thereby accounting for the generates trial values of the solution and the test indicates
contributions of each material. when to stop iterating.
Similarly, the internal bending moments around origin To solve the axial equilibrium, a linear interpolation
system axes x and y are evaluated method can be adopted.27 This method simply relies on the
fact that, between any pair of points (a,b) that give opposite
n rein nd ⋅ md n rein signs to a continuous function f(x), there must be a zero of
Mx = ∫ θ ⋅ σ y dA + ∑ σ j ⋅ A j ⋅ y j = ∑ θi ⋅ σi ⋅ Ai ⋅ yi + ∑ σj ⋅ Aj ⋅ yj (7) f(x). A closer estimate of the zero is taken by linear interpolating
grid j=1 i=1 j=1 the values of the function in the two bounds of the interval
nd ⋅ md n rein (a,b), adopting a straight line or chord, connecting f(a) and
= f(b) with a slope φ = (f(b) – f(a))/(b – a) and crossing the x-axis
∑ Ni ⋅ yi + ∑ σj ⋅ Aj ⋅ yj
i=1 j=1 in the new estimate of the root xnew = a – (f(a))/φ; this value

394 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010

Fig. 8—Limit strain line to evaluate first two trials in linear
interpolation method.
replaces bound a or b if f(xnew) has the same sign as f(a) or
f(b), respectively, and allows iteration with a new slope φnew.
The first two bounds of the interval a,b can be estimated
according to two particular positions of the neutral axis
corresponding to two limit lines tangent to the cross section
(refer to Fig. 8); the entire cross section is not compressed due
to the first limit line (Fig. 8(a)), while the entire cross section
is compressed due to the second limit line (Fig. 8(b)). As the
proposed method is a bracketing method, the neutral axis
position is supposed to be in between two bounds where the
function changes sign. If f(a) and f(b) have the same sign, the
method can be adopted to find a new bound (a, xnew) or (xnew, b),
where the function changes its sign and the chord slope is
equal to φ = (f(a) – f(xnew))/(a – xnew) or φ = (f(xnew) – f(b))/
(xnew – b). At this stage, to have a faster convergence, the
secant method was adopted (refer to Fig. 9). This is a variation
of Newton’s method that avoids computing φ at each step and
does not break down if φ ≈ 0 in a trial, because it uses the
constant slope φ.
To solve the orientation angle problem (|βint – βext| ≤
tolerance), it is instead always possible to adopt bracketing
methods directly because the solution domain is smaller than
180 degrees, in the sense that the neutral axis assumes the
same position (with opposite direction) when it is rotated by
an angle of 180 degrees. Hence, the solution can be found in a
limited domain. Once it is ensured that the interval contains a
root, several procedures exist that are guaranteed to converge.
In this section, a strategy to speed up convergence is shown.
The first trial value of the neutral axis inclination angle can
be that perpendicular to the orientation angle βext (refer to
Fig. 3). The solution is then supposed to be close to this value
and a method for locating closer estimates of the root is to
scan the entire domain by small increments and to observe
the steps in which a change of sign in the function occurs.
This signals that the function crosses the root within the
particular step. At this stage, the bisection method can be
adopted; it divides the interval of search by two and always
retains that half of the search interval in which the change of
sign has occurred, using midpoint to replace whichever
interval limit has the same sign. After each iteration, the
bounds containing a root decrease by a factor of two. Thus,
the maximum number of iterations n = log2 ψo/τ required to
achieve a given tolerance τ in the solution is known in
advance, where ψo is the size of the initially bracketing
interval (that is, ψo is not greater than 180 degrees).
The number of iterations is strictly related to cross section
type and materials constitutive laws. It is emphasized,
however, that in the case of asymmetric cross sections, the
average number of iterations is usually smaller than 30.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010
Fig. 9—Secant method for axial equilibrium.
Moment-curvature diagram
To evaluate the moment-curvature relationship, the strain
in the most compressed element of concrete mesh can be
increased from an initial strain ε0 to an ultimate value εu; ε0
is evaluated under pure compression, and then a fixed-length
increment ε of strain is adopted until ultimate strain in
concrete is attained. If the axial load level is high, then ε0
would be high and close to the ultimate strain so that a small
bending capacity and curvature can be expected.
This procedure can account for the debonding of FRP
reinforcement or the rupture of prestressed tendons or bars,
automatically if the constitutive laws are considered as a step
function (stress goes to zero when ultimate or debonding strain
is attained). This leads to automatic exclusion of the contribution
of failed material in the cross section stress integration.
The curvature is evaluated as the ratio between the strain
in a point and the distance of that point from the actual
neutral axis. It is also possible to evaluate the curvature
component along preferred reference axes.
Note that the cracking moment can be evaluated by
imposing the strain corresponding to tensile strength in the
tensile concrete fiber furthermost from the neutral axis.
Similarly, the yielding moment can be computed by
imposing the strain corresponding to steel yielding in the
tensile reinforcement element furthest from the neutral axis.
As an example, the moment-curvature diagrams obtained
by considering two different constitutive concrete laws with
reference to an asymmetric L-shaped RC cross section (refer
to Fig. 10(a)) reinforced by four 0.47 in. (12 mm) diameter
bars (characterized by an elastic-plastic stress-strain curve
with yielding strength equal to fy = 40,320 psi [278 MPa])
and three plies of uniaxial carbon laminates (CFRP) placed
on the top width (thickness of laminates tf = 0.006 in./ply
[0.16 mm/ply], Young’s modulus of Ef = 56,565 ksi [390 GPa],
ultimate [debonding] strain of εfu = 6.1‰) are reported in
Fig. 10(b). The diagram is computed by considering the
previously defined curvature, by assuming an axial load
equal to P = 95.7 kips (426 kN) corresponding to v = P/Po =
P/(Acon fc′ + As fy) = 0.3 (where Acon is the gross cross section
area, fc′ is the concrete compressive strength, and As is the
total reinforcement area) and an orientation angle βext =
0 degrees. In particular, Curve A of Fig. 10(b) refers to a
parabolic-rectangular concrete stress-strain relationship
(fc′ = 1926 psi [13.28 MPa] and ultimate axial strain equal to
3.5‰), whereas Curve B refers to a concrete stress-strain
relationship characterized by softening (secant modulus of
395

Fig. 10—(a) L-shaped cross section; and (b) moment-curvature
diagrams. (Note: Dimensions in mm, 1 mm = 0.0394 in.;
1 kNm = 0.74 kip-ft; 1 m = 3.28 ft.)
Fig. 11—(a) Two-dimensional Mx-My domains related to cross
section of Fig. 10(a); and (b) normalized axial load versus ultimate
curvature. (Note: 1 kNm = 0.74 kip-ft; 1 m = 3.28 ft.)
the softening branch Ec2 = –1284 ksi [8853 MPa] and ultimate
strain εcu = 3.5‰).
Interaction diagram plot
It is possible to avoid convergence to a given orientation
angle because ultimate flexural moment is evaluated for
different load orientation angles; only axial equilibrium is
needed, assuming that flexural capacity is attained corresponding
to the ultimate curvature. The ultimate curvature computation
involves the following steps: 1) given a neutral axis depth and
orientation angle, the element furthest from the neutral axis is
determined for each material and the corresponding ultimate
value of strain is considered; 2) the ultimate curvature for each
material is evaluated dividing ultimate strain by the perpendicular
distance of the corresponding material from the neutral axis;
and 3) the ultimate curvature value is taken as equal to the
smallest curvature previously evaluated, such that one material
(or more at the same time) fails.
In the case of softening constitutive laws, the problem is
highly nonlinear and the value of curvature corresponding to
maximum flexural capacity cannot be known a priori
because it is smaller than the ultimate curvature. This means
that maximum flexural moment is not achieved when ultimate
strain is attained in one of the materials involved. To overcome
this pitfall, the maximum moment is computed as the
maximum moment value in the moment-curvature diagram.
Once the axial load Pext is defined, because the axial
equilibrium procedure is repeated for different values of
neutral axis inclination angles instead of the flexural moment
resultant orientation angle, the second convergence iterative
procedure is skipped. This procedure allows a slice of the 3D
interaction domain to be designed for a given axial load. The
396
same procedure has to be repeated for different values of
external axial load values to plot the 3D interaction domain.
With reference to the cross section reported in Fig. 10(a),
the 2D Mx-My domains for different axial load ratios (ν = P/ P0)
are reported in Fig. 11(a). Finally, Fig. 11(b) shows the
relationship between the axial load ratio versus the ultimate
curvature, χu, in the case of load orientation angle βext = 0
degrees. From this diagram, the ultimate capacity in terms of
curvature can be calculated straightforwardly for each
assigned axial load in the case of biaxial bending.
COMPARISON BETWEEN NUMERICAL AND
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The results obtained by using the implemented calculation
algorithm have been compared with experimental results
obtained on square RC cross sections,6,12 rectangular RC
cross sections,4,12 and a typical prestressed cross section.28
Tables 1 through 3 summarize for square, rectangular, and a
typical prestressed cross section, respectively, both input
data in terms of geometrical cross section dimensions (web
width b and depth h and flange width B and depth s)
geometrical reinforcement ratio ρg; steel yielding strength
fy; concrete compressive strength fc′ ; eccentricities ex and ey;
axial load Pext; and experimental and theoretical results in
terms of ultimate moments about the x-axis, Mx, and the y-axis,
My. In the theoretical calculations, constitutive laws No. 2 and
No. 1 of Fig. 1 were adopted for concrete and steel,
respectively. In particular, εI = 0.002, εII = 0.0035, and EI =
0 were assumed in constitutive law No. 2 and EI = 210,000 MPa
(30,460 ksi), εI = fy /EI, EII = EIII = 0, εII = εIII = 6.75% in
constitutive law No. 1. Linear elastic constitutive model was
adopted for FRP.
In the last column of Tables 1 through 3, the ratio between
experimental and theoretical results is also reported.
Although the comparison can be affected by considerable
uncertainty related to the effective material properties and
test setup, in every case a good correlation was found. In
particular, for the square members, Table 1 shows that the
average percentage theoretical overestimation and under-
estimation for each experimental set of tests are smaller than
6%. The average moments ratio MEXP/MTHEOR, computed
on all tests analyzed, was the same about the x- and y-axis
(that is, 1.01), with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.09.
The same good correlation was found with reference to the
rectangular cross sections where the average percentage
theoretical overestimation and underestimation for each
experimental set of tests are smaller than 4%. Also in this
case, the total average ratio between MEXP/MTHEOR was
very close to 1 (1.03 for moments about the x-axis, Mx and
0.99 for moments about the y-axis, Mx) with SD ranging
between 0.07 and 0.09 (refer to Table 2).
The correlation with reference to typical prestressed cross
sections is presented in Table 3. The original cross section is
made of two different concretes (slab and girder, respectively)
and two different steels (mild reinforcement and prestressing
strands, respectively) as is common in bridges. Three different
configurations were analyzed: S-1 is without external FRP
reinforcement; S-2 is slightly damaged (strands No. 1 and No. 2
lost) and reinforced by using two plies of CFRP laminates
(tf = 0.0129 in. [0.330 mm]); and S-3 is heavily damaged
(strands No. 1 through 4 lost) and reinforced by using three
plies of CFRP laminates (tf = 0.0195 in. [0.495 mm]). Details
about the experimental program can be found in Di
Ludovico et al.28 The comparison between theoretical
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010
Table 1—Experimental theoretical comparison on square cross sections
MX, kNm MY, kNm Δ = MEXP./MTHEOR. Average SD
ex, ey,
Reference Specimen b, mm ρg, % fy, MPa fc′,MPa mm mm Pext., kN EXP. THEOR EXP. THEOR MX MY MX MY MX MY
U1 102 2.81 503.34 26.93 64 89 42.70 2.71 2.60 3.80 3.64 1.04 1.04
U2 102 2.81 503.34 26.24 76 89 38.70 2.95 2.88 3.44 3.37 1.02 1.02
U3 102 2.81 503.34 26.85 89 89 35.59 3.16 3.15 3.16 3.15 1.00 1.00
1.06 1.05 0.12 0.12
U4 102 2.81 503.34 26.41 51 51 63.61 3.23 3.24 3.23 3.24 1.00 1.00
U5 102 2.81 503.34 25.62 13 140 48.04 0.61 0.47 6.71 5.20 1.30 1.29
Hsu6 U6 102 2.81 503.34 26.86 13 178 27.76 0.35 0.36 4.94 5.07 0.97 0.97
H1 108 4.87 306.83 24.44 76 51 61.83 4.71 4.82 3.14 3.21 0.98 0.98
H2 108 4.87 306.83 26.78 93 57 52.49 4.33 4.93 3.00 3.42 0.88 0.88 0.94 0.94 0.05 0.05
H3 108 4.87 306.83 29.15 64 76 60.50 3.84 3.99 4.61 4.78 0.96 0.96
S1 102 2.75 306.83 22.06 25 38 93.41 2.37 2.55 3.56 3.78 0.93 0.94
0.95 0.95 0.03 0.02
S2 102 2.75 306.83 28.24 25 38 110.32 2.80 2.89 4.20 4.34 0.97 0.97
B1 203 3.88 322.62 29.17 21 79 628.97 13.23 13.15 49.38 48.73 1.01 1.01
B2 203 3.88 322.62 25.75 19 47 771.77 14.98 14.89 36.23 36.15 1.01 1.00
B3 203 3.88 322.62 33.51 51 88 533.79 27.12 25.56 46.97 44.33 1.06 1.06
B4 203 3.88 322.62 31.96 64 110 395.89 25.14 24.11 43.54 41.87 1.04 1.04
Ramanurthy12 1.01 1.01 0.08 0.08
B5 203 3.88 322.62 19.34 36 36 598.29 21.49 25.68 21.49 25.54 .084 0.84
B6 203 3.88 322.62 27.55 65 65 500.42 32.36 32.65 32.36 32.65 0.99 0.99
B7 203 3.88 322.62 29.48 72 72 515.99 37.07 33.92 37.07 33.92 1.09 1.09
B8 203 3.88 322.62 34.13 102 102 369.74 37.57 34.81 37.57 34.81 1.08 1.08
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145.04 psi; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 kNm = 0.74 kip-ft. Total average 1.03 0.99
Total SD 0.09 0.07

Table 2—Experimental theoretical comparison on rectangular cross sections

Δ = MEXP./
MX, kNm MY, kNm MTHEOR. Average SD
b × h,
Reference Specimen mm x mm ρg, % fy, MPa fc′,MPa ex, mm ey,mm Pext., kN EXP. THEOR EXP. THEOR MX MY MX MY MX MY
B5 152 x 203 2.6 368.88 22.06 76 102 142.3 14.37 14.47 10.81 10.85 0.99 1.00
B6 152 x 203 2.6 368.88 25.51 152 203 75.62 15.37 14.98 11.52 11.30 1.03 1.02
Bresler4 1.02 1.02 0.02 0.04
B7 152 x 203 2.6 368.88 24.13 152 102 93.41 9.49 9.21 14.23 13.78 1.03 1.03
B8 152 x 203 2.6 368.88 24.82 76 203 106.8 21.69 21.26 8.13 7.92 1.02 1.03
D1 152 x 229 4.6 322.62 31.65 25 38 785.1 19.92 20.45 29.04 29.86 0.97 0.97
D2 152 x 229 4.6 322.62 25.44 56 84 400.3 22.31 20.35 31.78 33.84 1.10 0.94
D3 152 x 229 4.6 322.62 24.45 76 114 311.4 23.66 21.07 32.09 35.53 1.12 0.90
Ramamurthy12 1.04 0.96 0.11 0.09
D4 152 x 229 4.6 322.62 25.13 32 32 680.6 22 23.13 23.08 22.00 0.95 1.05
D5 152 x 229 4.6 322.62 30.90 81 81 378.1 30.56 25.55 25.6 30.56 1.20 0.84
D6 152 x 229 4.6 322.62 23.89 79 46 400.3 31.7 34.83 19.77 18.3 0.91 1.08
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145.04 psi; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 kNm = 0.74 kip-ft. Total average 1.03 0.99
Total SD 0.09 0.07

Table 3—Experimental theoretical comparison on typical prestressed cross section

(reinforced with CFRP laminates)
MX, kNm
Reference Specimen Specimen geometry and material properties ex, mm ey, mm Pext., kN EXP. THEOR. Δ = MEXP./MTHEOR.

S-1 64 60 893 1216 1044 1.16

S-2 38 189 748 1281 1179 1.09

Di Ludovico et al.28

S-3 55 53 601 1123 1104 1.02

Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145.04 psi; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 kNm = 0.74 kip-ft. Total average 1.09
Total SD 0.07

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010 397

Fig. 12—(a) Square cross section: two-dimensional Mx-My
domains (ν = 0.2); and (b) percentage of errors between
proposed procedure and simplified expressions in terms of
Mx and My. (Note: 1 kNm = 0.74 kip-ft.)
Fig. 13—Rectangular cross section: (a) two-dimensional
Mx-My domains (ν = 0.2); and (b) percentage of errors
between proposed procedure and simplified expressions in
terms of Mx and My. (Note: 1 kNm = 0.74 kip-ft.)
predictions and experimental results shows an average
percentage theoretical underestimation of experimental results
of 9% (refer to Table 3).
COMPARISON BETWEEN THEORETICAL
PROCEDURE AND SIMPLIFIED
EXPRESSIONS IN LITERATURE
In this section, a simple case study is investigated to
compare the theoretical results provided by the proposed
theoretical procedure, in terms of effective resisting
moments Mx and My under biaxial bending and axial load,
and those obtained by using the main simplified expressions
applied by various authors or reported in the codes. In
particular, one square cross section (side b = 11.81 in. [300 mm]
and concrete cover c = 1.57 in. [40 mm]) and one rectangular
cross section (width b = 11.81 in. [300 mm], depth h = 19.69 in.
[500 mm] and concrete cover c = 1.57 in. [40 mm]) were
analyzed. Reinforcement was made of eight 14 mm (0.55 in.)
diameter bars and twelve 16 mm (0.62 in.) diameter bars,
respectively, (elastic-plastic stress-strain relationship with
yielding strength equal to fy = 56,753 psi [391.3 MPa]). It
was a design example so that design values according to
Eurocode 29 for concrete were adopted (fc′ = αcc ⋅ fck/γc with
γc = 1.5 and αcc = 0.85, that is, Italian National Annex). A
parabolic-rectangular concrete stress-strain relationship
was considered (characteristic cylindrical compressive
strength of fck = 3626 psi [25 MPa], design strength fc′ =
2055 psi [14.17 MPa], and ultimate axial strain equal to
3.5‰). In Fig. 12(a) and 13(a), the 2D Mx-My domains for
an axial load ratio ν = 0.2 (P = 79.0 kips [351.4 kN] and P =
137.9 kips [613.8 kN], respectively) obtained by using the
398
Fig. 14—Square cross section: (a) comparison between α
derived from proposed method and simplified expressions;
and (b) percentage of errors between proposed procedure
and simplified expressions.
Fig. 15—Rectangular cross section: (a) comparison
between α derived from proposed method and simplified
expressions; and (b) percentage of errors between proposed
method and simplified expressions.
proposed fiber integration procedure and the commonly used
simplified expressions provided by Eurocode 8,3 Hsu6
(Eq. (3)), Parme et al.7 (Eq. (4) with β = 0.578 and β = 0.581,
respectively, according to the graph in Reference 7),
Bresler,4 and ACI 318-0511 (Eq. (5), RL method) are reported
for the square and the rectangular cross section, respectively.
Figures 12(b) and 13(b) show the percentage effective
resisting moments Mx and My errors obtained by using
such simplified expressions versus the orientation angle β
(–90 degrees ≤ 0 degrees due to the cross section
symmetry about the x- and y-axes). Such figures clearly
show that the minimum errors are provided by the RL
method (Eq. (5))4,11 and Eq. (4)7 that supply effective
resisting moments very close to those obtained by the
proposed fiber algorithm (percentage underestimation less
than 5% and 10%, respectively). In the range 10 to 15% is
the underestimation of resisting moments computed by using
Eq. (3), which increases up to 30% by using the equations
provided by Eurocode 8.3 Moreover, the latter method also
provides unsafe predictions in the range of 40 degrees ≤ β ≤
50 degrees and 25 degrees ≤ β ≤ 35 degrees, in the case of
square or rectangular cross section, respectively.
With reference to the simplified expressions based on the
calibration of parameter α1 = α2 = α in the LC method (that
is, AS 3600,5 according to Eq. (2); Ghersi et al.,8 with α = 1.5;
Eurocode 29; and Monti and Alessandri10). Figures 14(a) and
15(a) show the α values to be used in the LC method to
obtain the same moments provided by the proposed fiber
algorithm for different axial load ratios ν. In Fig. 14(b) and
15(b), the percentage difference between α values derived
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010
by the proposed method and by the existing simplified
expressions are reported.
Figures 14 and 15 show that, especially for 0.1 ≤ ν ≤ 0.4
(typical normalized axial load in columns of existing structures),
the most accurate results are provided by Monti and
Alessandri.10 Rather good predictions are also provided by
using a fixed value of α = 1.5, even if in some cases slightly
unsafe resisting moments can be computed. On the other
hand, the α-ν relationships provided by Eurocode 29 and
AS 36005 are less accurate; in particular, the former appear
to be too conservative and the latter unsafe in most cases.
CONCLUSIONS
An integration procedure was implemented to analyze
cross sections of regular or irregular shapes (for example,
made by concrete) internally or externally reinforced by mild
steel and prestressing tendons as well as by FRP. The
calculation procedure, based on cross section discretization,
allows ultimate moments to be determined under combined
axial load and biaxial bending. The construction of the Mx-My
domain for a given axial load (hence, the complete 3D failure
domain) and moment-curvature diagrams, taking into
account linear and nonlinear material constitutive relationships,
also with softening, can be computed. To give an idea about
the algorithm processing speed, it is highlighted that an
entire 3D failure domain can be evaluated in a few hundred
iterations, that is, in a few seconds (less than 1 minute), with
a computation time compatible with engineering practice and
current hardware computing performance.
Reliability of the calculation procedure was assessed by
both numerical analyses and experimental versus theoretical
comparisons with reference to a large number of experimental
data available from the scientific literature. All numerical
analyses showed fast convergence of the algorithm and in
every case a good correlation emerged. Comparison between
the numerical results provided by the theoretical procedure
and the main existing simplified expressions highlighted the
benefits and limitations of these expressions frequently
recalled in design code formulas. Such formulas, either
based on the 2D domain construction or on the definition of
coefficient α, lead to different degrees of accuracy and are
not conservative at all in some cases.
The calculation procedure was implemented in free down-
loadable software from the following Web site: http://
www.reluis.it (area: design, software, biaxial).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The analyses were developed within the activities of University Network
of Seismic Engineering Laboratories—ReLUIS for the research program
funded by the Department of Civil Protection—Progetto Esecutivo 2005-2008.
The authors would like to thank I. Iovinella for his undergraduate thesis on
the research topic presented in the paper and for his collaboration in the
development of the related numerical analyses.
REFERENCES
1. FEMA 356, “NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings,” Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2000.
2. Infrastructure Department, “Guidelines for Constructions,” Supplement
to Ordinario, N .30 alla G.U. n.29 del 4/2/2008, 428 pp. (in Italian)
3. EN 1998-1, “Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance,
Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings,” Dec.
2003, Brussels, Belgium, 232 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2010
4. Bresler, B., “Design Criteria for Reinforced Columns under Axial
Load and Biaxial Bending,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 37, No. 5, Nov.
1960, pp. 481-490.
5. AS 3600-1988, “Concrete Structures,” Standards Association of
Australia, North Sydney, NSW, Australia, 1988, 105 pp.
6. Hsu, C. T. T., “Analysis and Design of Square and Rectangular
Columns by Equation of Failure Surface,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 85,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1988, pp. 167-179.
7. Parme, A.; Nieves, J. M.; and Gouwens, A., “Capacity of Reinforced
Rectangular Columns Subjected to Biaxial Bending,” ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 63, No. 9, Sept. 1966, pp. 911-923.
8. Ghersi, A., and Muratore, M., “Verifica e Progetto allo Stato Limite
Ultimo di Pilastri in c.a. a Sezione Rettangolare: Un Metodo Semplificato,”
Ingegneria Sismica, V. XXI, No. 3, Sept.-Dec. 2004, pp. 41-49. (In Italian)
9. EN 1992-1-1, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1-1:
General Rules and Rules for Buildings,” Dec. 2004, Brussels, Belgium,
274 pp.
10. Monti, G., and Alessandri, S., “Assessment of RC Columns under
Combined Biaxial Bending and Axial Load,” Proceedings of the 2nd
International Congress, fib, Paper 10-8, Naples, Italy, 2006. (CD-ROM)
11. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 430 pp.
12. Ramamurthy, L. N., “Investigation of the Ultimate Strength of Square
and Rectangular Columns under Biaxially Eccentric Loads,” Reinforced
Concrete Columns, SP-13, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 1966, pp. 263-298.
13. Silva, M. A.; Swan, C. C.; Arora, J. S.; and Brasil, R. M. L. R. F.,
“Failure Criterion for RC Members under Biaxial Bending and Axial Load,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 127, No. 8, 2001, pp. 922-929.
14. Wang, W., and Hong, H. P., “Appraisal of Reciprocal Load Method
for Reinforced Concrete Columns of Normal and High Strength Concrete,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 128, No. 11, 2002, pp. 1480-1486.
15. Sussekind, J. C., “Curso de Concreto,” Editora Globo, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, 1989, 376 pp. (in Portuguese)
16. Hulse, R., and Mosley, W. H., Reinforced Concrete Design by
Computer, Macmillan Education Ltd., New York, 1986, 390 pp.
17. Spiegel, L., and Limbrunner, G. F., Reinforced Concrete Design,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1988, 516 pp.
18. Bonet, J. L.; Miguel, P. F.; Fernandez, M. A.; and Romero, M. L.,
“Analytical Approach to Failure Surfaces in Reinforced Concrete Sections
Subjected to Axial Loads and Biaxial Bending,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 130, No. 12, Dec. 2004, pp. 2006-2015.
19. Kawakami, M. T.; Kagaya, M.; and Hirata, M., “Limit States of
Cracking and Ultimate Strength of Arbitrary Concrete Sections under
Biaxial Loading,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 2, Mar. 1985,
pp. 203-212.
20. Bousias, S. N.; Panagiotakos, T. B.; and Fardis, M. N., “Modelling of
RC Members under Cyclic Biaxial Flexure and Axial Force,” Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, V. 6, No. 2, 1996, pp. 711-725.
21. Sfakianakis, M. G., “Biaxial Bending with Axial Force of Reinforced,
Composite and Repaired Concrete Section of Arbitrary Shape by Fiber
Model and Computer Graphics,” Advanced in Engineering Software, V. 33,
2002, pp. 227-242.
22. Consolazio, G. R.; Fung, J.; and Ansley, M., “M-φ-P Diagrams for
Concrete Sections under Biaxial Flexure and Axial Compression,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2004, pp. 114-123.
23. De Vivo, L., and Rosati, L., “Ultimate Strength Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Sections Subject to Axial Force and Biaxial Bending,” Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, V. 166, 1998, pp. 261-287.
24. Cedolin, L.; Cusatis, G.; Eccheli, S.; and Roveda, M., “Capacity of
Rectangular Cross Sections under Biaxial Eccentric Loads,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 105, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2008, pp. 215-224.
25. Furlong, R. W.; Cheng-Tzu, T. H.; and Mirza, S. A.; “Analysis and
Design of Concrete Columns for Biaxial Bending-Overview,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 101, No. 3, May-June 2004, pp. 413-423.
26. Mander, J. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., “Theoretical Stress-
Strain Model for Confined Concrete,” Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, V. 114, 1988, pp. 1804-1826.
27. Chapra, S. C., and Canale, R. P., Numerical Methods for Engineers,
fourth edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2001, 925 pp.
28. Di Ludovico, M.; Nanni, A.; Prota, A.; and Cosenza, E., “Repair of
Bridge Girders with Composites: Experimental and Analytical Validation,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2005, pp. 639-648.
399