Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evaluation of Approximate Design Procedures For Biaxially Loaded Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Columns
Evaluation of Approximate Design Procedures For Biaxially Loaded Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Columns
(:J +
(:~ r 1.0
fJ a + 1r 1.0
/J a 0.5
log 0.5
a (3)
log f3
0.40
1111 /
r111
\\
(r r
"~: + ( :, = l.O
(4)
.\\'
~\\ '\. ~
0.00 \\\ '\. f'...,..
0.60 0.80 1.00
Equation (4) can be used for design but involves trial
p and adjustment, because a is a function of p, which
( C} Bars uniformly distributed along in tum can be detem1incd only after the amount of
the/our sides reinforcement has been determined. Thus one starts
(Cover ratio = 0.10)
with a trial section by assuming a value for fl
2.00 With an assumed starting jJ-value, the uruaxial
II
(J)= 1.0
bending moment capacity of the section is computed
I from Eq. (4). Next, the corresponding mechanical
L.I I
1.60 Q) = 0.8
reinforcement ratio, w, is read from the available
J . I uniaxial design charts [7]. In the third step the value
I/ \ Ol=0.6 of fJ corresponding to the most recently determined
I I/ I
mechanical reinforcement ratio (U and the design
1.20
/ J"'=OA
value of the internal nonnal load is read from the {3-n
Iii ~I/ I
1111 I /0)=~2 charts [I 0). Steps I, 2 and 3 arc repeated until two
n YI!!/ Q) ~ 00
consecutive values of ware sufficiently close to each
0.80
j {/// v other. The procedure normally requires few iterations
1j 11/J / (not more tha:n 3) and its application is demonstrated
//J I//' by the following two ex~mples:
Ill I
I/if I Example!
0.40
~,\\ .\ \
\\\ .\ " Gjven: - Geometry and material data
"'""-
\ ,\ \. hlb = 400/400 mm
0.00 ,.\\"- steel: S460
0.60 0.80 1.00 concrete: C30
p -Design action effects
(d) Bars 1miformlydistributed along N - 870k>l'
thefo11r sides
(Cover ratio = 0.20)
Mr = 195kNm
M, = 70knm
Figure 3 Biaxial bending design constant
= 13.6Mpa M 50*10 6
m = 0574
=0·
z
N 870 *10 3 : f cd hb 2
13 .60*400 3
n=--= = 0.40
f cd bh 13 .60 *400 2
Considering uniform distribution of reinforcement
19°5 *106 pattern with cover ratio of 0.1 and assuming initially
M >'
m
Y
=-~-
fed bh
2
13 .60 *400 3 = 0 .2240 /3= 0.65: '
1. /31 = 0.650~ a 1= 1.6090~
m 1 = 0.1792~Wt=0.382
M 70 *10 6
m = ' 0 0804 ii. f3i = 0.638~ a2 = 1.5423~
: f cd hb 2 13 .60 *400 3
= ·
m2 = 0.1814 ~ a>i = 0.390
Assuming four comer bars reinfor~ement pattern
with cover .ratio of 0.1 and assuming initially f3 = iii. th= 0.637~ a3 = 1.5370~
0.60: m3 = 0.1816 ~ a>.i = 0.395
i. /31 = 0.600~ a 1=.1.3569~
m1 = 0.2639 ~ Wt =0.370 :. m= 0.395 ~A,= 2149mm2
1i. /3i = 0.565~ a2 = 1.2141~
m2 = 0.2760 ~ a>i = 0.395
The e;xact value of co from Biaxial Chart No.12 [7] is
practically identical with this result.
th = 0.560-+ a 3 = 1.1955~
1
iii.
m3 = 0.2779 ~ a>.i = 0.400
The proximity of the approximation according to the
:. w= 0.4 ~A.= 2176mm 2 ACI to the more rigorous solution has been
investigated in detail [I 0) and found out that the
The valu~ of m from Biaxial Chart No. I [7] is exactly approxii:nations gave practically the same results as
identical to this value. the more rigorous solutions under wide variety ·of
parameters. Fig. 4 shows some of the results of the
Example2 investigations.
Given: - Geometry and material data
- Same as example 1
-Design action effects
N= 1740kN
My= 140kNm
M,=50kNm
Required: Amount ofReinforcement
Solution:
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.00
0.40 0.00 0.20 0.40
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40
0.00 0.20 0.40
0.40
0.40
0.20
E~act
0.20
ACI
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40
0.00 0.20 0.40
Exact
ACI
Figure 4 (a) Comparison of capacities of cross- Figure 4 (b) Comparison of capac1t1es of cross-
sections with bars concentrated at the sections with uniform distribution of bars
comers (cover ratio = 0.1) along the four faces (cover ration = 0.1)
C) Approximation According To CPllO concrete cover are also found to have significant
effects. Some of the results of the investigation are
BS8110 recommends the use of the approximate reproduced and shown in Fig.5 .
procedure svggested in CPI 10 which, like the ACI
uses simplified expression for the load contours. The
exponent et. in the interaction Eq. (2) is however
0.40
approximated quite simply using the expression
given by Eq. (5).
a (5)
0.20
a = ~( 2 + 5n )
l+w
(7)
Where: n N
0.20
fro Ac
A,fyd
OJ
Ac fed
0.00 - r
• In comparison, the approximation for biaxial (3] A. H. Allen, Reinforced Concrete Design to
moment capacity of cross-sections by the CPllO . - Simply Explained, Cement and
approximate interaction equation according to Concrete Association, 1974.
CPl 10 (2,3) gave results close to the more
rigorous solutions only at moderate load levels (4) Building Code Requirements for Structural
(n = 0.6, 0.8) and for reinforcement pattern with Concrete (ACl318-95] and Commentary
uniform distribution on all faces. Moreover the [ACl3 I 8R-95], American Concrete Institute,
approximation lies on the unsafe side, especially 1995.
at larger normal force levels.
[5] ACJ Design Hand Book, Design of Structural
+. The approximate method of design for biaxially Reinforced Concrete Elements in Accordance
loaded rectangular reinforced concrete colum1.1s with the Strength Design Method of ACl3 l 8-
according to EBCS-2 [ l] in which the biaxial 395, American Concrete Institute, 1997.
moments are converted in to equivalent uniaxial
bending moment is found to give mostly [6] Tragweke aus Beton, Stahlbeton und Spannbeton
conservative results. In very few cases slightly Teil l: Bemessung und Konstruktion, DIN l 045-
unsafe results with a maximum difference of - 1: 1997-02, DIN Deutsches Institut for
2.5% in the required amount of reinforcement Wormung, 1997.
are observed. In the majority of the cases
investigated, the amount of r~inforcement [7) G. Zerayohannes, EBCS-2: Part 2, Design Aids
obtained using the approximate method is greater for Reinforced Concrete Sections on the Basis.of
than that of the more rigorous solution, with an EBCS-2: Part l, Ministry of Works and Urban
average value for the percentage difference Ms Development, Addis Ababa, 1997.
of l 0% and 16%, for reinforcing bars
concentrated at the comers . and uniformly [8] B. Bressler, Design Criteria for Reinforced
distributed on all four sides of the cross-section Concrete Columns Under Axial Load and
respectively. Extreme values as high as 25% and Biaxial Bending, ACI Journal, vol.57, 1960.
32.5% are observed for the respective
arrangement of reinforcement. Such high [9] A. L. Parme, J. M. Nieves, A. Gouwens,
deviations are attributed to relatively higher Capacity of Reinforced Rectangular Columns
values of the coefficient y in table I, especially Subject to Biaxial Bending, ACI Journal,vol.63,
for n = 0.2 and 0.4. It is thus recommended that 1966.
the values of y as modified in table 2 be used in
lieu of the a- values recommended by EBCS-2 [ 1O] T. Desta, Evaluation of Approximate Methods
[ l). for the Design of Biaxially loaded Reinforced
Concrete Columns, Thesis presented to School
Table 2: of graduate Studies, Faculty of Technology,
Addis Ababa University, in partial fulfillment for
N 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 · 0.8 ~l.O
the master of Science in Civil Engineering, 1999.
0.60 0.65 0.75 0.70 0.60 0.50
[ 11] G. Zerayohannes, Biaxial Charts for Rectangular
REFERENCES Reinforced Concrete Columns in Accordance
with the Ethiopian Building Code EBCS-2: part
(I] EBCS-2: part 1, Structural Use of Concrete,
1, Zede: Journal of the Ethiopian Association of
Ministry of Works and Urban Development,
Engineers and Architects, 1998.
Addis Ababa, 1995.
[!2]W.F. Chen, The Civil Engineer Hand Book,
[2] C. E. Reynolds, J. C. Streedman, Examples of CRC Press, 1995.
the Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings to
BS8 I l 0, fourth edition, E & FN Spon, 1992.