See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249872895

The Captive and Short-Column Effects

Article  in  Earthquake Spectra · February 2005

DOI: 10.1193/1.1856533

CITATIONS READS

36 2,201

2 authors:

Teresa Guevara-Perez Luis E. Garcı ́a

21 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS   
Los Andes University (Colombia)
1 PUBLICATION   36 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Teresa Guevara-Perez on 25 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA
The Professional Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

CONTENTS
VOLUME 21 • NUMBER 1 • FEBRUARY 2005

MANUSCRIPTS
Nonlinear Site Amplification as Function of 30 m Shear Wave 1
Velocity
Yoojoong Choi and Jonathan P. Stewart
Educational Reconnaissance of the Area Affected by the 1999 31
Chi-Chi Earthquake—Three Years Later
Constantin Christopoulos, Diego Lopez Garcia, and Keh-Chyuan Tsai
Spatial Distribution of Damage Caused by the 1999 Earthquakes 53
in Turkey
C. Dönmez and S. Pujol
Drift Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Columns with Light 71
Transverse Reinforcement
Kenneth J. Elwood and Jack P. Moehle
TREMOR: A Wireless MEMS Accelerograph for Dense Arrays 91
John R. Evans, Robert H. Hamstra, Jr., Christoph Kündig,
Patrick Camina, and John A. Rogers
Extension of Modal Pushover Analysis to Compute Member 125
Forces
Rakesh K. Goel and Anil K. Chopra
The Captive- and Short-Column Effects 141
L. Teresa Guevara and Luis E. Garcı́a
Shear-Wave Velocity of Surficial Geologic Sediments in 161
Northern California: Statistical Distributions and Depth
Dependence
Thomas L. Holzer, Michael J. Bennett, Thomas E. Noce, and
John C. Tinsley, III
Retesting of Liquefaction/Nonliquefaction Case Histories in the 179
Imperial Valley
Robb E. S. Moss, Brian D. Collins, and Daniel H. Whang

iii
 A Design-Oriented Approach to Strength Distribution in 197
Single-Story Asymmetric Systems with Elements Having
Strength-Dependent Stiffness
Bujar Myslimaj and Wai K. Tso
Evolution of Design Code Requirements 213
for Exterior Elements and Connections
Brian J. Sielaff, Richard J. Nielsen, and Edwin R. Schmeckpeper
Aseismic Roof Isolation System Built with Steel Oval 225
Elements: Exploratory Study
Roberto Villaverde, Manuel Aguirre, and Charles Hamilton
An Alternative Approach to Characterize Nonlinear Site 243
Effects
Ray Ruichong Zhang, Stephen Hartzell, Jianwen Liang, and Yuxian Hu

DISCUSSION
Discussion of ‘‘Evaluation of Modal and FEMA Pushover 275
Analyses: SAC Buildings’’ by Rakesh K. Goel and
Anil K. Chopra
Bruce F. Maison
Response to ‘‘Discussion of ‘Evaluation of Modal and FEMA 277
Pushover Analyses: SAC Buildings’ ’’ by Bruce Maison
Rakesh K. Goel and Anil K. Chopra

BOOK REVIEW
Living on an Active Earth: Perspectives on Earthquake Science 281
Reviewed by Robert R. Youngs

ERRATUM 283

COVER: The instrumental-intensity ShakeMap for the 3 September 2000 Yountville, California,
earthquake (ML5.1; star, epicenter), with contributing stations color coded by network. High-
resolution networks are shown in orange for NCSN and NSMP; dark and light blue for CGS and
BDSN; green for PG&E; and open triangles for other networks. The six magenta triangles
clustered in Oakland, east of San Francisco, are a demonstration network for a family of
lower-cost, robust, 16-bit ‘‘TREMOR’’ instruments described in Evans et al., pp. 91–124.

iv
The Captive- and Short-Column Effects

L. Teresa Guevara,a) M.EERI, and Luis E. Garcı́a,b) M.EERI

Captive-column and short-column conditions are a significant source of

serious earthquake damage. These conditions originate in the architectural
design of the building. For this reason, this paper first presents the architec-
tural reasons why these conditions occur and explains in nontechnical lan-
guage their detrimental effect on building response. The effects are presented
from a multidisciplinary perspective—engineering, architecture, and
construction—because their solution can only be achieved by an integrated
approach to building design that recognizes the interaction of these three dis-
ciplines. The accidental modification to the original structural configuration
leading to a captive column by restricting its freedom to deform laterally due
to the presence of nonstructural elements that partially confine it is presented.
The case of short columns subjected to earthquake effects is also discussed.
Examples of damage due to these effects in numerous earthquakes are
presented, and the architectural decisions leading to captive and short
columns are reviewed. The structural explanation of the behavior is
discussed. Experimental research related to short and captive columns is
presented. Recommendations to handle this type of problem are given.
[DOI: 10.1193/1.1856533]

INTRODUCTION
Earthquake damage reports, with few exceptions worldwide, present numerous cases
of captive-column effect. Although the problem shows itself as damage to the column,
the cause usually rests with nonstructural elements imposing a pattern of response to the
earthquake motions different from the expected behavior of the column by itself without
the nonstructural elements. The root of the problem of this mode of response is associ-
ated with each of the professionals involved in defining the location, dimensions, and
structural properties of a column, each of them looking at it from their own professional
perspective.
Generally, the problem originates in the architectural design of the building. The best
solution to the problem is to ensure that architectural designers and construction con-
tractors understand the problem and avoid creating the condition.
Contractors need to understand the problem because frequently the condition is cre-
ated after the building is occupied, when contractors add partial height walls between
columns at the request of a building owner without the input of an architect or engineer.

a)
Director, Proyectos V&G Consulting Architects, Caracas, Venezuela, and Guest Associate Professor, Facultad
de Arquitectura y Urbanismo, Universidad Central de Venezuela (FAU-UCV); tguevarap@hotmail.com
b)
Professor of Civil Engineering, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia, and Partner, Proyectos y
Diseños Ltda. Consulting Engineers, Bogotá, Colombia; lugarcia@uniandes.edu.co

141
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 21, No. 1, pages 141–160, February 2005; © 2005, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
142 L. T. GUEVARA AND L. E. GARCı́A

Figure 1. Restriction to the lateral displacement of a column creating a captive-column effect.

For these reasons this paper begins with a nontechnical explanation of the effects of
these conditions and shows many examples of consequent damage. Engineers can use
these examples to explain to architects, contractors, and owners the dangers of creating
such conditions. The remainder of the paper provides the results of analytical and ex-
perimental research that provides a solid basis for why these conditions should be
avoided.
Captive- and short-column conditions can also be caused by initial design errors in
the detailed configuration of structural elements. The conditions are more frequently
caused by interaction of structural and nonstructural elements that has not been taken
into account in the analysis and design of the structure, or by later insertion of nonstruc-
tural elements between columns that create the conditions. The term ‘‘non-intentional-
structural element’’ (Guevara 1989) was coined precisely to describe this situation.
Harmful response can only be avoided by separating the nonstructural elements from
the structure or by taking into account the interaction in the analysis and design of the
building.

CAPTIVE-COLUMN EFFECT AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT CAUSE IT

The captive-column effect is caused by a non-intended modification to the original
structural configuration of the column that restricts the ability of the column to deform
laterally by partially confining it with building components. The column is kept
‘‘captive’’ by these components and only a fraction of its height can deform laterally,
corresponding to the ‘‘free’’ portion; thus the term captive column. Figure 1 shows
this situation.
Frequently during analysis, the structural engineer does not take into consideration
the effect of the nonstructural elements in the response of structure. In most cases the
analysis and design of the column is performed using the total clear height of the col-
umn because it is common to act on the assumption that the structure is free to sway
laterally without interacting with the nonstructural elements. The apparently inoffensive
character of the nonstructural elements causes this common error in judgment, leading
to unexpected and undesirable effects, as illustrated in Figures 2 to 3.
THE CAPTIVE- AND SHORT-COLUMN EFFECTS 143

Figure 2. Typical captive-column failure.

Architectural decisions based on functional or aesthetic aspects are the most com-
mon reasons for the creation of captive columns.
The need for incorporating openings to the walls of a building in order to provide
natural lighting and ventilation leads to partial lateral confinement along the height of
the column by rigid elements, such as internal partitions, facades, retaining walls, and
other elements. The column ends up having adjoining walls in all its height, except in
the upper part where the opening is located. The length of the column that would be free
to deform laterally is reduced from the vertical floor to ceiling distance to just barely the
height of the opening, as shown in Figures 2 and 3.

Location of High, Narrow Windows on Tall Windowsills

Openings above the line of sight are used when there is a perceived need to provide
lighting and ventilation while restricting visibility from one space to the other. This type
of configuration is often found in school classrooms, storerooms, rest rooms, doctors’
consulting rooms, and so on. In these cases, the nonstructural walls are higher than the

Figure 3. Column damage due to captive-column effect in the Armenia, Colombia, 25 January
1999 earthquake. (Photo courtesy of Omar Darı́o Cardona)
144 L. T. GUEVARA AND L. E. GARCı́A

Figure 4. School. (Photo courtesy of FEDE: Fundación de Edificaciones y Dotaciones

Educacionales)

height generally allowed for normal windowsills, and in order to comply with ventilation
and lighting regulations the high windows extend from column to column (see Figures 4
and 5).
Although the strength of the nonstructural masonry walls may be lower than the
strength of the column, in many cases, under lateral deformations, the resulting ‘‘non-
structural’’ walls are sufficiently stiff to affect the column behavior. The confinement
provided by the nonstructural walls to the lower part of the column is so effective that
usually damage to the short upper section of the column occurs before the confining wall
fails.
Figure 6 shows how, when the captive column fails, the beams and the slab displace
laterally in relation to their original position, while the windows have disappeared with

Figure 5. Warehouse in Caracas, Venezuela. (Photo by L. T. Guevara)

THE CAPTIVE- AND SHORT-COLUMN EFFECTS 145

Figure 6. Column damage due to captive-column effect, Valentı́n Valiente School, Cariaco,
Venezuela, 9 July 1997 earthquake. (Photo by L. T. Guevara)

the slab now resting on the ‘‘non-intentional structural walls.’’ Figure 7 shows how, in
the same school, the outer column of the corner frame deformed but did not collapse
because it was not laterally restrained by the walls.
Figures 8 to 10 show captive-column effect in the building of ‘‘Empresas Públicas de
Pereira,’’ Colombia, produced by the 23 November 1979 earthquake.
Figure 10 illustrates an inner view of an undamaged captive column shown at the left
edge of Figure 8. This column was subjected to the same lateral displacements but

Figure 7. Damage in corner of Valentı́n Valiente School, Cariaco, Venezuela, 9 July 1997 earth-
quake. (Photo courtesy of FUNVISIS: Fundación Venezolana de Investigaciones Sismológicas)
146 L. T. GUEVARA AND L. E. GARCı́A

Figure 8. Column damage due to captive-column effect in Pereira. (Photo by Luis E. Garcı́a)

did not fail. In this specific case, the reason was that columns shown in Figures 8 and 9
were restrained by solid brick walls while the column in Figure 10 was restrained by
walls built using much weaker clay tile block that failed at the interface without affect-
ing the column. The captive-column effect was present only where the glass block failed.

Open Corridors in Building Complexes

A partial confinement of the clear height of the column is also common in housing
complexes built during the 1950s in numerous countries. In this type of building, the
configuration that followed the architectural trend of the Modern Movement (Interna-
tional Style), the corridors are left open to the façade. Instead of employing light, trans-
parent handrails, heavy and stiff partial-height parapets were used, thus forming a
captive-column configuration (see Figures 11 and 12).
Figure 12 shows column failures due to captive-column effect in an external corridor
of a housing complex with the same configuration as the building in the previous figure.
THE CAPTIVE- AND SHORT-COLUMN EFFECTS 147

Figure 9. Details from the inside of damage due to captive-column effect in the upper part of
the building. (Photo by Luis E. Garcı́a)

Figure 10. Undamaged column restrained by walls using much weaker clay tile. (Photo by
Luis E. Garcı́a)
148 L. T. GUEVARA AND L. E. GARCı́A

Figure 11. Undamaged typical large-scale housing building of the Modern Movement (Inter-
national Style) by the Banco Obrero, in Venezuela, very similar to the damaged one in Mexico
City, Figure 12. (Photo by L. T. Guevara)

Buildings on Sloping Grounds

The captive-column effect is also produced in structures built on sloping ground
where columns supporting the first-story slab end up having varying clear heights, as
shown in Figures 13 and 14.

Partially Buried Basements

The captive-column effect is present also when partially buried basements are em-
ployed. The common practice is to use retaining walls with the columns embedded in
them up to the street level, with only a small part of the height of the column continuing
up to the next story slab. These openings provide ventilation and natural lighting to the
basement, as shown in Figures 15 and 16.

SHORT-COLUMN EFFECT AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT CAUSE IT

Framing at mid-height of the column of horizontal structural elements such as slabs,
beams, and girders divides the column in two segments, thus producing the short-
column case. Although the terms captive column and short column have been used in-
terchangeably in the literature, the reasons that cause them are completely different. In
THE CAPTIVE- AND SHORT-COLUMN EFFECTS 149

Figure 12. Damage in housing complex in the Mexico City 18 September 1985 earthquake.
(Photo courtesy of Bay Area Regional Earthquake Preparedness Project)

the former case, as explained before, the column is affected by the presence of adjoining
nonstructural elements. In the latter case the column is made shorter than neighboring
columns by horizontal structural elements, such as beams, girders, stairway landing
slabs, and ramps, that frame at mid-height of the column, as shown in Figures 17 and 18.
Other possibilities of short-column adverse configuration appear in frames located at
the transition in split-level structures where the frame has beams located at half the usual
vertical clear height in order to support slabs at alternating sides. Short columns are also

Figure 13. Captive-column effect in a building on sloping terrain.

150 L. T. GUEVARA AND L. E. GARCı́A

Figure 14. Building collapse caused by failure of the shortest first-story columns in a sloping
terrain location in the Popayán, Colombia, 31 March 1983, earthquake. The columns were re-
strained by the sill of store windows. (Photo courtesy of Omar Darı́o Cardona)

caused by having a story of the structure with all columns much shorter than neighbor-
ing stories. This situation appears at the foundation, where foundation grade beams in-
terconnect columns above the footing, leaving a gap between the grade beam and the
footing. A variant of this case of short columns is present when atypical clear height
floors are employed for sanitary or mechanical reasons. Figure 19 shows the vulnerabil-
ity of this configuration in the 10 October 1980 El-Asnam, Algeria, earthquake. Numer-
ous buildings had a one-meter crawl space under the first floor called a ‘‘sanitary story’’
to install plumbing and provide ventilation under the first-floor slab. This configuration
converts into short columns all columns of the frame at the sanitary story level, resulting
in numerous buildings’ losing this story by failure of all columns.

Figure 15. Captive column caused by ventilation openings in a partially buried basement.
THE CAPTIVE- AND SHORT-COLUMN EFFECTS 151

Figure 16. Damage to captive column in the Armenia, Colombia, 25 January 1999 earthquake.
(Photo by L. T. Guevara)

ASSOCIATED STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR

In the most common case of captive-column effect when the column is restrained by
adjoined nonstructural walls, column and walls interact, restricting the lateral deforma-
tion of the column. The upper free column segment is then responsible for accepting the
deformation that the full height of the columns was designed to sustain. To acquire some
insight on the captive-column effect from the structural perspective, we can divide the
effects on the frame—and its columns—into those caused by gravity loads and those
caused by lateral forces. The deformations of the frame elements vary in shape and mag-
nitude, as shown schematically in Figure 20 for gravity loads and lateral forces. The
ends of a column in a frame subjected only to gravity load (Figure 20a) remain basically
plumb, unless the frame is extremely irregular. In the case of lateral load (Figure 20b),
the upper end of the column displaces horizontally with respect to the lower end a dis-
tance denominated story drift (⌬).

Figure 17. Short column created by a stairway landing.

152 L. T. GUEVARA AND L. E. GARCı́A

Figure 18. Short-column damage caused by a stairway landing in the Popayán, Colombia, 31
March 1983 earthquake. (Photo by Luis E. Garcı́a)

The order of magnitude of the column lateral deformations is significantly less for
gravity loads than for lateral load. In a schematic and simplified manner, Figure 21
shows the deformations (␦) with respect to the original position of the undeformed col-
umn, the internal forces of the element—flexural moment M, axial force P, and shear
force V—and the moment diagrams for both cases of gravity loads and lateral forces.
In the column that is part of a frame subjected only to gravity loads, Figure 21a, the
lateral deformations of the column depend only on the magnitude of the applied mo-
ments and the flexural stiffness of the column (␦ ⫽␦e). For the column belonging to a
frame subjected to lateral forces (Figure 21b), the lateral deformations of the column de-
pend on the sum of two factors (␦ ⫽␦e⫹␦d): the first one (␦e) relates in the same fashion

Figure 19. Damage to short columns created by sanitary story in the El-Asnam, Algeria, earth-
quake of 10 October 1980. (Photo courtesy of V. V. Bertero)
THE CAPTIVE- AND SHORT-COLUMN EFFECTS 153

Figure 20. Frame element deformations.

to the flexural moments and the stiffness of the column, while the second one (␦d) de-
pends directly on the story drift (⌬). The story drift is a function of the stiffness of the
story and the structure, the geometry of the frame, the mass of the structure, and the
earthquake motion. The individual column flexural stiffness plays a minor role in the
order of magnitude of the story drift. Technical literature is rich in procedures for ob-
taining the internal forces and the general deformations of the frame for both cases.
The relationship between the internal flexural moments that act at the column ends
and the shear force associated with them can easily be obtained through the application
of equilibrium principle and disregarding the P-Delta effect that may be significant for
large lateral deformations:

Ma⫹Mb
V⫽ . (1)
h
Thus, the shear force V corresponds to the algebraic sum of the moments at the ends

Figure 21. Column internal forces, deformations, and moment diagram.

154 L. T. GUEVARA AND L. E. GARCı́A

of the column (Ma⫹Mb), divided by its clear height h. In the captive column, due to the
presence of a restraining element external to it, the clear height is significantly reduced,
increasing the shear force in inverse proportion. To give an idea of the order of magni-
tude involved, for a typical 2.5-m-story clear height the presence of 2-m-tall nonstruc-
tural walls creating a 0.5 m opening in the upper part will form a lateral restriction that
will increase fivefold (2.5/0.5⫽5) the shear force that the column has to resist as
compared to the shear force computed for the column without the nonstructural wall
restriction.
The sad lesson, learned again and again in every earthquake, is that the relatively
rigid nonstructural element has the power to control the shear force the column must
resist! If this is the case, the first question that comes to mind is why doesn’t the captive-
column effect cause problems in the gravity load cases? In reality the problem is there,
but since the magnitude of the flexural moments is small, the lateral deflections of the
column are also small, and only in extreme cases does the column feel the restriction
imposed by the nonstructural wall; the problem is minor, if it exists at all. This is not the
case under lateral load where the flexural moments are large, the corresponding lateral
deflections are also large—mainly because they are controlled by the story drift—and
the presence of the nonstructural wall is felt by the column from the onset of the lateral
deformation inducing the extremely large shear forces that produce the observed column
failures.
With regard to reinforced concrete structures subjected to strong earthquake motion
effects, one of the premises of modern earthquake resistant design philosophy is to let
the structure respond in the nonlinear range at levels well beyond the deformations that
will cause yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement of the elements. This response in
the inelastic range produces an energy dissipation through flexure that diverts part of the
energy that induces vibration in the structure, thus allowing the structure to survive the
earthquake motions without having the full strength that would be required if the energy
dissipation did not occur. For this dissipation of energy to occur, two fundamental pre-
mises must be observed, among others:
• The concrete must be able to accept strains well beyond the values that will
cause failure of the material under normal circumstances. This is achieved by
ample use of confining transverse reinforcement at critical locations within the
structural elements, and
• The structural element should not fail in shear before the energy dissipation
takes place. This is achieved by the adequate use of transverse shear reinforce-
ment along the full length of the element.
In order to warrant compliance of the second premise, modern earthquake resistant
design codes require that the design shear force (Ve) of the element should be obtained
from the use of the probable flexural moment strengths (Mpr) at the ends of the element.
The probable moment strengths must be obtained, in turn, employing the actual longi-
tudinal reinforcement area at the faces of the element, a yield strength for the reinforcing
steel equivalent to 1.25 times the nominal yield strength, and a strength reduction factor
(␾) equal to one. The design shear force (Ve) is then obtained using Equation 1 and the
appropriate values, as described in Equation 2:
THE CAPTIVE- AND SHORT-COLUMN EFFECTS 155

共Mpr兲a⫹共Mpr兲b
Ve⫽ . (2)
h
The above-described procedure tries to avoid the existence of structural elements that
would fail in shear before reaching the capacity to dissipate energy in flexure. Unfortu-
nately, the existence of captive columns caused by nonstructural elements not taken into
account by the structural engineer when applying Equation 2 defeats the whole purpose
of this procedure. The value of h to be employed in Equation 2 must be consistent with
the actual deformation restraints applied by the structural and nonstructural elements.
Now, turning our attention to the captive-column cases described previously where
horizontal structural elements frame into the column at mid-height or columns are made
shorter by sloping ground, the same principles just described can be employed. The flex-
ural stiffness of a column is inversely proportional to its clear height. As the clear height
is halved (in reality it is made even less than half due to the depth of the horizontal
framing element), the lateral stiffness of the column increases in inverse proportion.
When the lateral force story shear is distributed to all columns in the same floor, shorter
columns will be called upon to resist a larger portion of the story shear than normal
height columns. Although most frame-analysis procedures detect this shear difference,
the shear strength required for the column responding in the nonlinear range must be
determined from the probable flexural strength at the ends of the column as described by
Equation 2. This means that the shear forces obtained from analysis have no relation
whatsoever to the required shear strength, and if the shear design of the column is made
using the analysis results, the shorter portion of the captive column will be extremely
vulnerable under earthquake motions. This vulnerability exists in all captive columns de-
signed under codes enacted before the shear-related-to-flexural-strength requirement was
introduced.
The fact that the shear strength of the element should be computed from the flexural
strength at its ends was first proposed by Blume et al. (1961). It was introduced in Ap-
pendix A of the ACI-318 code in the 1971 issue (ACI Comm. 318 1971) and was
adopted by the Uniform Building Code in 1973 (ICBO 1973). Based on this, any captive
column designed and built before the mid 1970s would be suspect of being vulnerable in
shear, and this explains the disproportionate number of cases of captive-column failures
observed during earthquakes in old buildings and structures not built following modern
seismic codes. This situation can also be present even in more recent structures built
following modern codes, where interaction with nonstructural elements was not taken
into account in design or when stiff nonstructural elements are introduced by the owner
or occupant without assessing its potential harmful effect.

EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH ON SHORT AND CAPTIVE COLUMNS

The number of experimental research projects on short and captive columns does not
correspond to the number of times the problem is observed in the field during earth-
quakes and to how widespread the problem is in general. The reason behind this is re-
lated to the fact that actual solutions from the structural point of view are of dubious
156 L. T. GUEVARA AND L. E. GARCı́A

effectiveness and the general approach has always been to term it as an architectural
problem that can be solved through proper education of the architectural community at
large.
Nevertheless, before trying to propose solutions that only highlight the ‘‘interface’’
root of the matter, it is important to have a feeling of the behavior of the short and cap-
tive column as observed in experimental tests. Two research programs are worth describ-
ing within this context. The authors make no claim of giving an exhaustive listing of all
the published research on the problem, and describe the following experimental pro-
grams solely as paths toward finding an understanding of the problem.

Tests at the University of Texas at Austin

During the 1980s at the University of Texas at Austin, a series of experimental re-
search programs designed to establish the parameters that control the behavior of struc-
tural short columns were conducted. The aim of the research project was to establish
design parameters that could warrant an appropriate behavior of the column when sub-
jected to earthquake imposed loads. The experimental program and the main conclusions
obtained are described in Mayurama et al. (1984), Umehara and Jirsa (1984), and Wood-
ward and Jirsa (1984). Several short columns were tested under imposed lateral cyclic
deformations. The main conclusions that can be derived from this experimental program
are as follows:
• When the behavior of short columns with no axial load were compared with
short columns with axial loads below the balanced axial load, it was found that
the axial load increased the stiffness and the lateral load strength of the column.
On the other hand, this axial load increased the strength degradation for cyclic
loading once the maximum lateral load resistance was reached.
• When comparing cyclic test with monotonic tests, the strength of the column
under cyclic loads decreased once the maximum lateral load resistance was
reached.
• When comparing columns with different transverse reinforcing spacing (65 to
300 mm), shear strength was found to be insensitive to the transverse reinforce-
ment spacing and depended solely on the shear strength of the concrete alone.
This factor, by itself, could explain the brittleness of these elements during
earthquakes.
• It was practically impossible to obtain a stable flexural inelastic response of the
columns, and all of them exhibited hysteretic unstable responses. Columns with
less longitudinal reinforcements exhibited a better response than those with
greater longitudinal reinforcing ratios.
The results of this research project show that short-column construction should be
avoided at all costs, and that any effort in trying to solve the problem by additional trans-
verse reinforcement is not warranted, just confirming the fact that the solution is to avoid
the captive column or short column, not to try to tame it. A confirmation of the findings
at the University of Texas had been observed during the 12 June 1978 Miyagi-ken Oki
earthquake in Japan. Nonstructural but monolithically cast concrete walls restrained the
THE CAPTIVE- AND SHORT-COLUMN EFFECTS 157

Figure 22. Damage observed in Railway High School during the Miyagi-Ken Oki, Japan, 12
June 1978 earthquake. (Photo courtesy of Shunsuke Otani, University of Tokyo)

deformation of a slender reinforced concrete column and caused the lateral deformation
to concentrate in a short length as shown in Figure 22. The column had transverse rein-
forcement as required by the then current code.

Test at the Universidad de los Andes at Bogotá, Colombia

In 1994 J. C. Pineda performed experimental tests, at the Structures Laboratory of
the Universidad de los Andes in Bogotá, Colombia, trying to reproduce captive-column
failures in 1:3 scale models (Pineda 1994). In total, three models were tested. Figure 23
shows the captive-column failure observed in Model 1.
The other two models were used to test captive-column solution schemes. The solu-
tion schemes were aimed at finding solutions from the nonstructural element point of
view by adding wall elements that would close the opening near the column, as shown in
Figure 24. Figure 25 shows the final state of cracking for model 2.

Figure 23. Model 1: captive-column failure in a 1:3 scale model. (Photo courtesy of Juan
Carlos Pineda, Universidad de los Andes)
158 L. T. GUEVARA AND L. E. GARCı́A

Figure 24. Model 2: tests to captive-column solution model. (Photo courtesy of Juan Carlos
Pineda, Universidad de los Andes)

The conclusions of the project indicated a way to avoid captive-column failures only
for those cases where the frame containing the captive column is able to control the lat-
eral deformations of the whole structure. The proposed solution was simply defending
the column with the addition of masonry inserts at both sides of the column, closing the
gap that causes the captive-column effect and allowing the compression strut in the ma-
sonry wall to travel along the masonry wall plane, thus diverting away the critical shear
force from the reinforced concrete column. The proposed recommendation derived from
these concepts was to add masonry inserts with a horizontal length of twice the gap
opening that produces the captive-column problem, with the masonry covering the
whole height of the column. It was also recommended that the wall should be checked
for the imposed loads to guarantee that it will not fail along the compression strut, and
the columns should be able to resist the forces imposed by the strut at the corners of the
panel.

Figure 25. Model 2: cracking state of columns in a captive-column solution model. (Photo
courtesy of Juan Carlos Pineda, Universidad de los Andes)
THE CAPTIVE- AND SHORT-COLUMN EFFECTS 159

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Historically, the more damaging effect of interaction of reinforced concrete frames
with nonstructural elements has been the captive-column effect. This type of wall ar-
rangement is common in educational buildings or other buildings where the window is
provided for lighting/ventilation purposes only. This situation introduces large shear
stresses, when the structure is subjected to lateral forces that are not accounted for in the
standard frame design procedures.
The best solution for captive columns is to avoid the problem. Any type of nonstruc-
tural element that could hinder the free deformation capacity of a vertical structural el-
ement should be located in a different acting plane than the structural element, or must
be separated from the structural element by appropriate joints. When the isolation option
is adopted, the designer should guarantee the out-of-plane lateral stability of the wall.
For split-level buildings, in order to circumvent the short-column effect, the architect
should avoid locating a frame at the vertical plane where the transition between levels
occurs. For buildings on slopes, special care should be exercised to locate the sloping
retaining walls in such a way that no captive-column effects are induced. Where stiff
nonstructural walls are still employed, these walls should be separated from the struc-
ture, and in no case can they be interrupted before reaching the full height of the ad-
joining columns.
The architect must study carefully the use of nonstructural components in order to
avoid unwelcome interaction with the structure of the building. The structural designer
should address the influence of masonry infill walls in the lateral force behavior of the
structure, either by taking them into account in the design process or by a separation gap
from the column. If a separation gap is provided, then appropriate measures should be
taken to warrant the out-of-plane stability of the masonry when subjected to lateral
forces from wind or earthquake.
The requirements for obtaining a remodeling permit from a construction authority
should provide prescriptions for the owner, the architect, and the contractor on what to
do when a captive-column effect is present in a project for remodeling a building.
The ‘‘Essential Requirements for Reinforced Concrete Buildings’’ document (ACI
et al. 2002) developed under an agreement between the American Concrete Institute, the
Colombian Institute for Technical Standards and Certification, and the Colombian Asso-
ciation for Earthquake Engineering provides some recommendations regarding the two
alternative corrective measures discussed.

REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), Instituto Colombiano de Normas Técnicas y Certificación
(Icontec), and Asociación Colombiana de Ingenierı́a Sı́smica (AIS), 2002. Essential Re-
quirements for Reinforced Concrete Buildings, International Publication Series 1, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 246 pp.
Blume, J. A., Newmark, N. M., and L. H. Corning, 1961. Design of Multistory Reinforced Con-
crete Buildings for Earthquake Motions, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 318 pp.
 160 L. T. GUEVARA AND L. E. GARCı́A

Committee 318, American Concrete Institute (ACI), 1971. Building Code Requirements for
Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-71), Detroit, MI, 102 pp.
Guevara, L. T., 1989. Architectural Considerations in the Design of Earthquake-Resistant
Buildings: Influence of Floor-Plan Shape on the Response of Medium-Rise Housing to
Earthquakes, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Architecture, University of California, Ber-
keley, p. 38.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1973. Uniform Building Code, Whittier,
CA, 704 pp.
Mayurama, K., Ramı́rez, H., and Jirsa, J., 1984. Short reinforced concrete columns under bi-
lateral load histories, J. Struct. Eng. 110 (1), 120–137, January.
Pineda, J. C., 1994. Ensayos Experimentales Sobre Control de Columnas Cortas (in Spanish),
Proyecto de Grado IC-94-II-26, Advisor: L. E. Garcı́a, Departamento de Ingenierı́a Civil,
Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia, 43 pp.
Umehara, H., and Jirsa, J., 1984. Short rectangular reinforced concrete columns under bidirec-
tional loading, J. Struct. Eng. 110 (3), 605–618, March.
Woodward, K., and Jirsa, J., 1984. Influence of reinforcement on reinforced concrete short col-
umn lateral resistance, J. Struct. Eng. 110 (1), 90–104, January.
(Received 17 November 2003; accepted 25 May 2004)

View publication stats