Behavior of Rectangular Reinforced-Concrete Columns

under Biaxial Cyclic Loading and Variable Axial Loads

Hugo Rodrigues 1; André Furtado 2; and António Arêde 3

Abstract: The behavior of reinforced-concrete (RC) elements subjected to axial loading variation in conjunction with cyclic biaxial bending
is recognized as a very important research topic with a reduced number of experimental results available. Six full-scale RC rectangular
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

columns were tested and analyzed to study the effects of variable axial load on the hysteretic behavior of RC building columns under biaxial
horizontal loading. The experimental results are presented and discussed in terms of damage evolution, global hysteretic behavior, stiffness
degradation, columns’ capacity, and energy dissipation. The global findings revealed the significant effects of the axial load variation on the
hysteretic behavior of RC columns. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001345. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: RC column cyclic behavior; Biaxial testing; Variable axial load; Stiffness degradation; Ductility; Seismic effects.

Introduction strong conclusions about coupling behavior between biaxial

Several recent earthquakes have shown the need for investigation to
improve the safety of existing constructions (Bertero 1986; Pribadi
and Rildova 2008; Romªo et al. 2013; Vicente et al. 2010) and have
become an important source of information to help improve new
design methodologies, the evolution of codes, and in creating
guidelines for the assessment and retrofitting of existent structures.
The observations of the structural response of RC buildings
when subjected to earthquakes indicates that the majority of
column failures is due to high shear stresses, lack of concrete
confinement and bidirectional load effects not considered in the
design stage (Saatcioglu and Ozcebe 1989). It is clear that the
earthquake-related damage to reinforced-concrete (RC) elements,
is due to multiaxial excitation (Lejano 2007; Takizawa et al. 1976).
Variation in the axial load during an earthquake can drastically
change the strength, stiffness, and ultimate displacement capacity,
as well as all the hysteretic properties of an RC section. Such
variations can occur due to the vertical component of the seismic
load, or in the external columns of the bottom stories of RC frames,
due to the overturning moments. In fact, different authors have con-
cluded the variation in the axial load combined with the horizontal
cycle actions affect significantly the inelastic response of the col-
umns (Bonet et al. 2006; CEB 1996; Sfakianakis and Fardis 1991).
Due to testing difficulties, the number of RC columns tested
under bidirectional horizontal displacement with varying axial load
is much reduced and it is mainly associated with tests with constant
axial load. The lack of results do not allow the researcher to draw
1 coupling, cycling of the axial force below the balance load causes
Senior Lecturer, School of Technology and Management, Polytechnic
Institute of Leiria, Campus 2, Morro do Lena, Alto do Vieiro, Apartado,
4163-2411-901 Leiria, Portugal (corresponding author). E-mail: hugo.f
.rodrigues@ipleiria.pt
2
Researcher, Faculty of Engineering, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Structural Division, Univ. of Porto, R. Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto,
Portugal. E-mail: afurtado@fe.up.pt
3
Associated Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Dept. of Civil Engineer-
ing, Structural Division, Univ. of Porto, R. Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465
Porto, Portugal. E-mail: aarede@fe.up.pt
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 16, 2014; approved
on April 28, 2015; published online on June 17, 2015. Discussion period
open until November 17, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/04015085(8)/$25.00.
bending and the varying axial force (Rodrigues et al. 2013a).
In general, most research findings agree that the biaxial
transversal load cycles are responsible for increasing the strength
and stiffness degradation when compared to the uniaxial response.
In addition, the failure mechanism of RC columns is found to be
very dependent on the loading path/history and strongly affects the
ductile capacity of the columns. On the other hand, there is some
experimental evidence that plastic hinge-zone lengths tend to be
stable around theoretical values and are not strongly affected by
biaxial loading (Bousias et al. 1992; CEB 1996; Rodrigues et al.
2013, 2013).
The first reported results from Li et al. (CEB 1996) and Low and
Moehle (1987) evidence similar effects of axial load variations on
uniaxial and biaxial flexure. In particular, it was found that axial
load variation simultaneously with transverse forces and deforma-
tions leads to stiffness and strength increase, while the strength deg-
radation is larger for higher axial load and also decreases when the
axial load decreases.
The results obtained by Bousias et al. (1992, 1995) present a
strong coupling between the axial and transverse directions. For
the relatively low levels of compressive axial loads considered
therein, deflections induce an axial extension, which has a
magnitude roughly proportional to their resultant vector. For lower
compressive loads, the cycling of transverse forces or deflections
causes a gradual shortening in the axial direction under the axial
load alone, a ratcheting extension that rapidly turns into shortening
when failure is imminent. As a result of axial/lateral forces
a ratcheting increase in the deflection under constant transverse
force (Rodrigues et al. 2013a).
Bechtoula et al. (2005) found that the axial load intensity had a
small effect on the envelope curve of the second cycle of the load-
displacement plot for specimens under unidirectional horizontal
load with constant or variable axial load. Equivalent viscous damp-
ing increased for higher level of axial load, and columns under var-
iable axial load showed values similar to equivalent viscous
damping when compared with columns under constant axial load.
Rodrigues (2012), and Rodrigues et al. (2013a, b, 2012)
carried out an extensive experimental campaign of RC columns
subjected to horizontal biaxial load combined with constant axial
load and concluded that the biaxial load effect has an important

© ASCE 04015085-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. RC column specimen dimensions and reinforcement detailing:
(a) cross-sections details; (b) specimen dimensions and general scheme
of reinforcement layout
effect in the RC columns’ response. After this study, several
questions were raised, in particular regarding the effect of axial load
variation in columns under biaxial load.
As so, the main purpose of the present study, was performed to
investigate one of the lacunas identified in the previous studies and
is focused on the analysis of six RC columns subjected to the same
horizontal load conditions, like in the previous studies, but now
combined with variable axial load. Thus, the effect of axial load
variation will be evaluated along the paper in terms of damage evo-
lution, global hysteretic behavior, stiffness degradation, columns’
capacity, and energy dissipation. It will also perform some compar-
isons between the results obtained by Rodrigues (2012) and
Rodrigues et al. (2013b, c, 2012) with the same horizontal load
conditions but combined with constant axial force.
Experimental Procedure
Specimen Description and Experimental Setup
Six rectangular reinforced-concrete columns were constructed with
the same geometric characteristic and reinforcement detailing and
were cyclically tested for different loading paths. The column
specimens are 1.70 m high and are cast in strong square concrete
foundation blocks with dimensions 1.30×1.30 m2 in plan and
0.50 m high. The cross-section dimensions and the reinforcement
detailing are presented in Fig. 1. Four holes are drilled in the
foundation block to fix the specimen to the laboratory strong floor.
With the cantilever model, it is assumed that the inflection point of
Table 1. Specimen Specifications and Loading Characteristics
Horizontal displacement Geometry
Specimen path type (cm × cm) f cm (MPa)
PC01-N19 Uniaxial— strong 30 × 50 27.92
PC02-N20 Uniaxial—weak
PC12-N21 Rhombus
PC12-N22 45°
PC12-N23 Quadrangular
PC12-N24 Circular
© ASCE 04015085-2
J. Struct. Eng.
a 3.0 m in height column is located at its midheight (1.5 m), rep-
resenting the behavior of a column at the base of a typical building
when subjected to lateral demands induced by earthquakes. An
extra 0.20 m in height is added for attaching the actuator devices.
Details of the reinforcement are shown in Fig. 1, and the material
properties (concrete compressive ultimate strength (fc), the
reinforcement elastic modulus, yielding strength, ultimate strength,
and ultimate strain are summarized in Table 1.
Fig. 2(a) illustrates the general view of the experimental setup,
which includes a vertical 700 kN capacity actuator that was used to
apply the axial load and two horizontal independent actuators to
apply the lateral load paths on the columns (one with a capacity
of 500 kN with
150-mm stroke and the other with a capacity
of 200 kN and
100-mm stroke). Rhe reaction system for the three
actuators is composed of two steel reaction frames and a concrete
reaction wall form [Fig. 2(b)]. The column specimens and the
reaction frames were fixed to the strong floor of the laboratory with
prestressed steel bars to avoid sliding or overturning of the
specimen during testing or sliding of the reaction frame.
Since the axial load actuator remains in the same position during
the test while the column specimen laterally deflects, a sliding de-
vice is used (placed between the top column and the actuator),
which was built to minimize spurious friction effects. This device
(Fig. 3) is composed of two sliding steel plates that exist between
the top column section and the actuator. However, with the main
purpose of measuring these small friction forces, load cells in the
two horizontal directions were connected to the upper plate (that is
expected not to displace laterally), and the corresponding measured
forces were subtracted from the forces read by the load cells of the
horizontal actuators.
Loading Condition
To study the columns specimens’ response, lateral displacements
were imposed at the top of the column. Three cycles were repeated
for each lateral deformation demand level, steadily increasing de-
mand levels. This procedure was adopted for a better understanding
of the column’s behavior and will allow comparison between
different tests. It provides relevant information for the development
and calibration of numerical models. Internal cycles were consid-
ered with the same aim. The adopted load paths are summarized in
Fig. 4, and the following nominal peak displacement levels were
considered: 3, 5, 10, 4, 12, 15, 7, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50,
55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80 (in mm).
Prior to the tests with varying axial loading, the peak capacities,
the displacements, and the strengths corresponding to the first yield
were evaluated. With this information, the column’s axial load was
considered variable and proportional to the imposed lateral drift
applied until the yielding drift. In the biaxial tests, the axial load
variation is relative to the displacement observed in the strong di-
rection. Beyond the yielding point, the axial load was kept constant.
The initial axial load was set on 300 kN and variations of
150 kN
Initial N
f ys (MPa) f su (MPa) E (MPa) εsu (%) (kN)
575.6 682.8 195 980 22.04 300 (
150)
J. Struct. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
Fig. 2. Testing setup: (a) general view; (b) schematic layout (plan view)
were considered. The different specimen’s characteristics and
loading are presented in Table 1. A schematic representation of
the lateral loading pattern and axial loading condition is presented
in Fig. 5.
Experimental Results and Discussion
Damage Evolution
It is generally accepted that, when RC elements are subjected to
biaxial horizontal loading, the stiffness and strength deterioration
Fig. 3. General view of sliding device
© ASCE
Specimen
Reaction wall
Vertical Actuator
700kN
e
Actuator
m
fra
200kN with +/-100mm
n
io
ct
ea
lr
ee
St
Actuator
500kN with +/-150mm
Steel reaction frame
(b)
is intensified, and consequently, the damage evolution of the
element is increased or occurs for earlier demand levels when com-
pared with uniaxial loading conditions.
Aiming at a detailed observation of the damage evolution during
the cyclic loading within the present work testing campaign, each
test was stopped at the end of the last cycle of each displacement
level to highlight and register new cracks in the last cycle and/or the
evolution of existing ones. Visual observation of the damage
evolution during the tests yielded the information described in
the following paragraphs.
For each column tested, the drift corresponding to the typical
damage states, namely the beginning of the cracking, spalling of
the concrete cover, longitudinal reinforcement buckling, and the
first longitudinal bar fracture were identified. The conventional fail-
ure of the columns for a strength reduction of 20% relative to the
maximum strength, as adopted in Park et al. (1987) and Park and
Ang (1985), is also considered. From previous studies focused on
the effect of biaxial loading under constant axial load, it was clear
that the same damage state occurred for lower drift demands when
the columns are under biaxial loading (Rodrigues et al. 2013b).
To understand the influence of axial load variation combined
with biaxial loading in the damage evolution, the drift values
corresponding to each type of damage for all columns tested were
compared.
In Fig. 6, the drift corresponding to the beginning of the damage
observed for each of the different load paths (uniaxial and biaxial)
considering the axial load variation is compared. As expected and
already observed in previous studies (Rodrigues et al. 2013b;
Tsuno and Park 2004) each type of damage occurs earlier for
biaxial load paths than for uniaxial tests, i.e., for lower drift
demands (Fig. 6). However this effect is even more pronounced
with the presence of the axial load variation.
For the columns’ strong direction, comparing the drift demand
corresponding to each type of damage, the following can be stated:
04015085-3 J. Struct. Eng.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Y Y Y

45

X X X

Direction
Y Y Y
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

X X X

Rhombus Quadrangular Circular

Fig. 4. Type displacement paths

Fig. 5. Axial loading condition for tests under varying axial load

• As already reported, neither biaxial loading nor the effect of the
axial load variation changes the drift values for the concrete
cracking;
• Concrete spalling in biaxial with varying axial load tests
occurs for a drift in the range of 50–60% of that observed in
corresponding uniaxial tests; this effect is more pronounced
in the circular and quadrangular load paths;
• In biaxial tests, bar buckling occurs for a drift between 60% and
70% of that observed in uniaxial tests;
• In all cases, conventional failure occurs for drift demands close
to the corresponding drift values when buckling of reinforce-
ment steel bars is observed; and
• The combined effect of axial variation with biaxial loading can
lead to a reduction of 60% of the drift where each damage
state occurs in comparison with uniaxial tests under constant
axial load.
Force-Displacement Hysteric Behavior
For the study of the influence of the biaxial loads and axial load
variations in the behavior of RC columns, the measured drifts and
shear force paths (along the X and Y directions) are analyzed. In
Figs. 7 and 8 the shear-drift diagrams for the columns under vary-
ing axial loads and a summary of the main results are presented.
Additionally, along the discussion of the results, some comparisons
between the results obtained by Rodrigues (2012) and Rodrigues
et al. (2013a, b, 2012) with the same horizontal load conditions but
combined with constant axial force will also be performed. The
detailed experimental results about the columns under constant ax-
ial load can be found in detail in the bibliography (Rodrigues 2012;
Rodrigues et al. 2013a, b, 2012).
To evaluate the effect of biaxial load paths combined with axial
load variation the maximum envelopes of the shear-drift hysteresis

© ASCE 04015085-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Drift associated with each damage state for different horizontal
load paths with variable axial load conditions
Fig. 7. Shear-drift diagrams for columns under uniaxial horizontal load
path and axial load variation (PC01-N19 and PC02-N20)
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng.
curves were also analyzed and are presented in Fig. 9. From the
observation of the shear-drift curves, in the biaxial tests and in par-
ticular in the direction of the increase of the axial load, the plateau
tends to be shorter and the softening is more pronounced, i.e., a
more abrupt decay of the column strength is observed with increas-
ing lateral deformation demands. The initial column stiffness in
both directions isn’t significantly affected by the biaxial load path.
As expected, when comparing the maximum strength in one spe-
cific direction of the columns for each biaxial test against the cor-
responding uniaxial test, lower values were obtained for all biaxial
tests than uniaxial ones.
The biaxial loading under varying axial load induces about a
30–40% reduction of the maximum strength for the rectangular
columns in their weak direction, Y. The strength reduction in the
stronger direction, X, (around 12% for the rectangular columns) is
always lower than that observed in the corresponding test for
the weaker direction. This is consistent with the fact that, for
rectangular columns, the response in the strong direction was
found less affected by the damage previously installed in the weak
direction than the opposite. This fact is in accordance with
the observed maximum strength reduction in columns under
constant axial load (Rodrigues 2012; Rodrigues et al. 2013a, b,
2012), however intensified by the presence of the axial load
variation.
Columns’ Ultimate Ductility
The influence of the biaxial load path and the effect of the varying
axial load was also analyzed. Table 2 summarizes the maximum
ductility observed in each test. From previous studies, it was
already clear that biaxial load influence reduces the columns’ duc-
tility around 35% and could reach a maximum of 75% (Rodrigues
2012; Rodrigues et al. 2013a, b, 2012).
The influence of the axial load variation in the reduction of the
columns’ ductility is pronounced, as observed in the experimental
result (Table 2). In fact, in columns under varying axial load, the
maximum ductility reductions were found to be around 20% and
50%, respectively, in the weak (Y) and the strong (X) directions.
Among all the imposed biaxial load paths, the quadrangular and
diagonal are those that lead to larger reductions of the ultimate
ductility.
Stiffness Degradation
The evolution of stiffness degradation was evaluated by compar-
ing the peak-to-peak secant stiffness of the first cycle of each
imposed peak displacement in the positive direction. For the
columns under axial load, this corresponds to the increase of the
axial loading.
Fig. 10 shows the lateral peak-to-peak stiffness degradation for
each column and in each direction. From the analysis of the results,
the following can be concluded:
• Under constant axial load, the stiffness degradation evolution
follows a similar path for both uniaxial and biaxial demands
(Rodrigues 2012; Rodrigues et al. 2013a, b, 2012); however,
under varying axial load this variation is more pronounced in
the biaxial tests.
• Previous studies on the effect of the load path history in the
evolution of stiffness degradation have shown that the loading
path has no relevant influence in the stiffness degradation evo-
lution (Rodrigues 2012; Rodrigues et al. 2013a, b, 2012);
however, as observed in Fig. 10, when the axial load variation
is present, the differences are more pronounced. The rhombus
and the diagonal horizontal load paths, under varying axial
04015085-5 J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Shear-drift diagrams for columns under biaxial horizontal load path and axial load variation (PC12-N21 to PC12-N24)

load, show more pronounced stiffness degradation when
compared with the circular or quadrangular.
• Several authors state that columns with larger axial load found
increased strength degradation, which started for lower lateral
displacement amplitudes (Abrams 1987; Atalay and Penzien
1975); however, comparing the same load path, it is possible
to observe that the tested columns under varying axial load show
a smoother stiffness degradation when compared with the same
columns under constant axial load.
Energy Dissipation
The coupling between the two directions in RC elements under
biaxial loading have been studied in the past. Bousias et al. (1992,
1995) stated that this coupling increase in the hysteretic energy
dissipation is associated with the larger width of the hysteresis
loops in the transverse direction in the presence of a nonzero force
or deflection in the orthogonal direction (Rodrigues et al. 2012)
but is also related to the loading position and path length (Qiu
et al. 2002). In fact, Rodrigues et al. (2012) in a large experimen-
tal study has observed that biaxial loading introduces higher
energy dissipation than uniaxial loading and that it also depends
on the column’s geometry. For a specific imposed maximum drift,
the circular path was shown to be the most dissipative and the
quadrangular load path the less dissipative.
For the present study, the results in terms of evolution of
cumulative dissipated energy are presented in Fig. 11 for the
tests under varying axial load. For each displacement amplitude
level, the plotted value of dissipated energy corresponds to the
end of the third cycle. For the quadrangular load path and diago-
nal, the value of dissipated energy corresponds to the maximum
resultant displacement for each cycle. From the analysis of the
results, it can be concluded that the horizontal biaxial load paths
tend to induce larger amounts of dissipated energy than the cor-
responding uniaxial paths; however, this differences are not so
evident in the columns under varying axial load. In fact, under
varying axial load, the quadrangular and the diagonal horizontal
load paths present similar values of dissipated energy when
compared with the column tested under uniaxial load path. As
already observed by other authors (Rodrigues et al. 2012), the
dissipated energy evolution for the rhombus and circular load
paths are similar, although the circular load path induces higher
levels of energy dissipation (for constant or varying axial
load).

© ASCE 04015085-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Stiffness degradation for different load paths with variable
Fig. 9. Envelopes for columns under different load paths and axial load axial load
variation

Table 2. Summary of Test Results for Columns with Varying Axial Load PC01-N19 to PC12-N24
Specimen Loading direction Fmax (kN) Δy (mm) Fy (kN) μ ¼ Δu =Δy
PC01-N19 X þ 167.6 6.2 125.74 6.84
− 122.4 4.4 97.91 10.02
PC02-N20 Y þ 93.7 11.2 70.26 5.14
− 68.5 8.8 50.36 7.82
PC12-N21 X þ 170.8 5.3 101.4 5.66
− 126.8 5.3 95.1 5.85
Y þ 68.9 4.9 51.7 7.45
− 59.4 5.1 44.6 8.04
PC12-N22 X þ 140 12.8 105.0 2.42
− 101.4 7.5 76.1 4.27
Y þ 54.7 8.6 41.1 2.91
− 42.9 6.8 32.1 3.31
PC12-N23 X þ 154.3 5.3 122.2 4.43
− 110.6 10.2 91.2 2.50
Y þ 67.3 7.5 50.5 3.30
− 54.1 6.6 40.6 4.30
PC12-N24 X þ 158.7 5.3 119.0 4.9
− 104.4 5.3 85.9 6.0
Y þ 59.3 6.0 44.4 5.2
− 50.5 4.9 37.9 6.2

© ASCE 04015085-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 250
PC12-N19
PC12-N20
PB12-N21
200
dissipated energy (kN.m)
PB12-N22
Accumulative hysteresis
PB12-N23
PB12-N24
150
100
50
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0 Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1995)121:5(596), 596–605.
0 1 2 3 4 5
Maximum drift (%)
Fig. 11. Comparison of cumulative dissipated energy for columns with
different horizontal load paths (uniaxial and biaxial) and with variable
axial load
Summary and Conclusions
Six full-scale rectangular reinforced-concrete columns were tested
under different horizontal loading panthers (uniaxial and biaxial)
and with varying axial load. The experimental results show that
the axial load variation combined with biaxial horizontal loading
have significant effects on the nonlinear behavior and capacity of
the column.
Experimental results show that the initial stiffness is not
significantly affected by the biaxial load path combined with axial
load variation. These loading characteristics reduce the maximum
columns’ strength as well as the postyielding plateau, leading to
faster strength degradation and, naturally, to significant reduction
of the columns’ ultimate ductility.
It was observed that each damage state for the varying axial load
conditions occurred for lower drift demands than the corresponding
damage state for constant axial loading. The combined effect of axial
variation with biaxial loading leads to strong reductions (around
60%) of the drift where each damage state occurs. The stiffness deg-
radation is significantly affected by axial loading variations for the
different load paths; however, under varying axial load, the stiffness
degradation presents a smooth behavior when compared with
constant axial load. It was also observed, as previously stated, that
biaxial loading can introduce higher energy dissipation (circular,
rhombus, and cruciform load paths) than uniaxial loading; however,
this fact is not clearly observed in columns under varying axial load.
The research described in the present paper was focused on the
effects of variable axial load on hysteretic behavior of RC columns
under biaxial horizontal loading. The significant changes in the
response observed in terms of columns’ capacity, damage anticipa-
tion, stiffness and strength degradation, and energy dissipation sug-
gest that the axial loading effects combined with biaxial behavior
on columns where these two aspects can be expected, like building
corner columns, cannot be neglected.
References
Abrams, D. (1987). “Influence of axial force variation on flexural behavior
of reinforced concrete columns.” Struct. J., 84(3), 246–254.
Atalay, M. B., and Penzien, J. (1975). “The seismic behaviour of critical
regions of reinforced concrete components as influenced by moment,
© ASCE
shear and axial force.” Rep. No. UCB/EERC 75-19, Univ. of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Bechtoula, H., Kono, S., and Watanabe, F. (2005). “Experimental and ana-
lytical investigations of seismic performance of cantilever reinforced
concrete columns under varying transverse and axial loads.” J. Asian
Archit. Build. Eng., 4(2), 467–474.
Bertero, V. (1986). “Lessons learned from recent earthquakes and research
and implications for earthquake-resistente design of building structures
in the United States.” Earthquake Spectra, 2(4), 825–858.
Bonet, J. L., Barros, M. H. F. M., and Romero, M. L. (2006). “Comparative
study of analytical and numerical algorithms for designing reinforced
concrete sections under biaxial bending.” Comput. Struct., 84(31–32),
2184–2193.
Bousias, S. N., Verzeletti, G., Fardis, M. N., and Gutierrez, E. (1995).
“Load-path effects in column biaxial bending with axial force.” J. Eng.
Bousias, S. N., Verzelleti, G., Fardis, M. N., and Magonette, G. (1992).
“RC columns in cyclic biaxial bending and axial load.” 10th World
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, 3041–3046.
CEB (Comité Euro-International du Béton). (1996). “RC frames under
earthquake loading Lausanne.” FIB-international.
Lejano, B. A. (2007). “Investigation of biaxial bending of reinforced con-
crete columns through fiber method modeling.” J. Res. Sci. Comput.
Eng., 4(3), 61–73.
Low, S., and Moehle, J. P. (1987). “Experimental study of reinforced
concrete columns subject to multiaxial cyclic loading.” Rep. No UCB/
EERC 87-14, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Park, Y. J., Ang, A. H. S., and Wen, Y. K. (1987). “Damage-limiting
aseismic design of buildings.” Earthquake Spectra, 3(1), 1–26.
Park, Y. J., and Ang, H. S. (1985). “Seismic damage model for reinforced
concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1985)111:
4(722), 722–739.
Pribadi, K. S., and Rildova, D. K. (2008). “Learning from recent Indonesian
earthquakes: An overview to improve structural performance.” 14th
World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 8.
Qiu, F., Li, W., Pan, P., and Qian, J. (2002). “Experimental tests on RC col-
umns under biaxial quasi-static loading.” Eng. Struct., 24(4), 419–428.
Rodrigues, H. (2012). “Biaxial seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete
columns.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.
Rodrigues, H., Arêde, A., Varum, H., and Costa, A. (2013a). “Damage evo-
lution in reinforced concrete columns subjected to biaxial loading.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Vibr., 42(2), 239–259.
Rodrigues, H., Arêde, A., Varum, H., and Costa, A. (2013b). “Experimental
evaluation of rectangular reinforced concrete column behaviour under
biaxial cyclic loading.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 42(2), 239–259.
Rodrigues, H., Varum, H., Arêde, A., and Costa, A. (2012). “A comparative
analysis of energy dissipation and equivalent viscous damping of RC col-
umns subjected to uniaxial and biaxial loading.” Eng. Struct., 35, 149–164.
Rodrigues, H., Varum, H., Arêde, A., and Costa, A. (2013c). “Behaviour of
reinforced concrete column under biaxial cyclic loading—state of the
art.” Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng., 5(1), 4.
Romão, X., et al. (2013). “Field observations and interpretation of the
structural performance of constructions after the 11 May 2011 Lorca
earthquake.” Eng. Fail. Anal., 34, 670–692.
Saatcioglu, M., and Ozcebe, G. (1989). “Response of reinforced concrete
columns to simulated seismic loading.” ACI Struct. J., 86(1), 3–12.
Sfakianakis, M. G., and Fardis, M. N. (1991). “Bounding surface model for
cyclic biaxial bending of RC sections.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9399(1991)117:12(2748), 2748–2769.
Takizawa, H., and Aoyama, H. (1976). “Biaxial effects in modelling earth-
quake response of R/C structures.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 4(6),
523–552.
Tsuno, K., and Park, R. (2004). “Experimental study of reinforced concrete
bridge piers subjected to bi-directional quasi-static loading.” Struct.
Eng. Struct. JSCE, 21(1), 11s–26s.
Vicente, R., Rodrigues, H., Costa, A., Varum, H., and Silva, J. A. R. M. D.
(2010). “Masonry enclosure walls: Lessons learnt from the recent
Abruzzo earthquake.” Resultados da pesquisa14th European Conf.
On Earthquake Engineering, Ohrid, Macedonia.
04015085-8 J. Struct. Eng.
J. Struct. Eng.