Struct Multidisc Optim (2009) 39:153–170

DOI 10.1007/s00158-008-0318-4

INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION

Optimum RC column reinforcement considering

multiple load combinations
Ho Jung Lee · Mark Aschheim ·
Enrique Hernández-Montes ·
Luisa María Gil-Martín

Received: 29 October 2007 / Revised: 8 August 2008 / Accepted: 7 September 2008 / Published online: 17 October 2008
© Springer-Verlag 2008

Abstract A general method is proposed to determine Notation

optimal reinforcement distributions for rectangular
reinforced concrete column sections subjected to multi- Ag gross area of the cross section
ple combinations of axial load and moment. The design As area of bottom reinforcement
problem is formulated as a general constrained nonlin- A′s area of top reinforcement
ear optimization problem and is solved both mathemat- b width of the cross section
ically and graphically. Ultimate strength and strength C a value at the coordinate axes, As and A′s
reduction factors are evaluated using ACI code provi- c depth of the neutral axis
sions. The method provides a simple approach to deter- Cc compressive force carried by concrete
mine optimal reinforcement under multiple loading Cs compressive force carried by top reinforcement
combinations. The use of optimal reinforcement rather d distance from the centroid of the bottom rein-
than conventional (symmetric) distributions of rein- forcement to the upper fiber
forcement can lower construction costs and environ- dt distance from the centroid of the bottom rein-
mental impacts. forcement to the upper fiber
d′ distance from the centroid of the top reinforce-
Keywords Concrete column · Nonlinear constraints · ment to the upper fiber
Optimization · Multiple load combinations e eccentricity of axial load
fc′ specified compressive strength of concrete
fs tensile stress in the bottom reinforcement
fs′ compressive stress in the top reinforcement
fy specified yield strength of the reinforcement
H. J. Lee (B)
SC Solutions, Inc., 1261 Oakmead Parkway, h height of the cross section
Sunnyvale, CA, USA M moment
e-mail: hlee@scsolutions.com Mu factored moment
Mn nominal moment
M. Aschheim
Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, P axial load
Santa Clara, CA, USA Pu factored axial load
e-mail: maschheim@scu.edu Pn nominal axial load
Ts tensile force carried by bottom reinforcement
E. Hernández-Montes · L. M. Gil-Martín
University of Granada, Campus de Fuentenueva, β1 rectangular stress block coefficient, defined in
18072 Granada, Spain Section 10.2.7.3 of ACI 318
E. Hernández-Montes γ ratio of distance between centroids of outer rows
e-mail: emontes@ugr.es of bars and cross section thickness
L. M. Gil-Martín εc strain at the upper fiber
e-mail: mlgil@ugr.es εs tensile strain in extreme bottom reinforcement
154
εt tensile strain in extreme bottom reinforcement
εs′ compressive strain in top reinforcement
φ strength reduction factor
1 Introduction
Uniaxial P–M interaction diagrams have become
widely used for determining column reinforcement
since their original presentation by Whitney and Cohen
(1956). P–M interaction diagrams allow the amount of
reinforcement to be determined to provide sufficient
strength to resist one or more combination of axial load
(P) and moment (M). A symmetric pattern of rein-
forcement is typically used to generate the P–M inter-
action diagrams, and is most suitable where symmetric
values of moment (+M and −M) occur in combination
with any particular axial load. However, some column-
type members may be subjected to asymmetric load-
ing, such as edge and corner columns of buildings,
bridge columns having C-bent configurations, the walls
of box culverts, and piers supporting retaining walls.
For such members, optimal reinforcement can signifi-
cantly reduce the amount of longitudinal reinforcement
(Hernández-Montes et al. 2005).
Karihaloo and his coworkers have given significant
attention to the optimal design of reinforced concrete
structures. Kanagasundaram and Karihaloo (1990,
1991a, b) used sequential linear programming and
sequential convex programming to address minimum-
cost design of multi-span beams and columns consid-
ering stability, strength, serviceability, durability and
fire resistance. Adamu et al. (1994) used an indi-
rect minimization technique based on continuum-type
optimality criteria for the design of a reinforced con-
crete propped cantilever beam. Necessary conditions
for cost minimality were derived by applying the cal-
culus of variations to an augmented Lagrangian, con-
sidering maximum deflection, flexure, and shear as
constraints. Adamu and Karihaloo (1995c) applied this
method to reinforced concrete beams with prismatic
segments, because continuous variation of the cross-
section over the domain is not practical. Adamu and
Karihaloo (1994a, b) also developed a procedure for
optimal design based on discretized continuum-type
optimality criteria, since direct and indirect methods
based on continuum-type optimality criteria are not
efficient for large, complex, structural systems. Adamu
and Karihaloo (1995a, b) then applied the discretized
continuum-type optimality criteria-based method to
the minimum cost design of RC frames. Convention-
ally reinforced columns under both uniaxial bending
actions and under biaxial bending actions were inves-
H.J. Lee et al.
tigated. They showed that the discretized continuum-
type optimality criteria-based methods are particularly
efficient for the design of large RC frames.
Despite these theoretical advances, in practice, de-
sign typically precedes using an iterative design ap-
proach, generally emphasizing analysis to establish that
the ultimate strength of a section with known rein-
forcement is adequate, rather than solving directly for
the reinforcement required to provide a section with
adequate strength. Hernández-Montes et al. (2005)
reformulated the sectional design problem to deter-
mine the required reinforcement directly as a func-
tion of the neutral axis location, for given axial load
and moment. Consideration of all possible neutral axis
locations allows the solution having the least amount of
total reinforcement to be selected; the results are easily
visualized by plotting the amounts of reinforcement as
a function of the neutral axis depth on a “Reinforce-
ment Sizing Diagram.” Such a solution is valid for the
prescribed combination of axial load and moment, but
may not satisfy other combinations of axial load and
moment that may occur under other load combinations.
The present paper extends the previous study by
Hernández-Montes et al. (2005) to consider optimal
reinforcement under multiple combinations of axial
load and moment. A general approach to determining
optimal reinforcement for multiple combinations of
axial load and moment is proposed. ACI code provi-
sions (2005) are used to determine ultimate strengths.
Sources of nonlinearity in the constraints of the opti-
mization problem include the strength reduction factor,
the stress–strain relationship of reinforcement, and the
concrete compressive stress block as defined in the ACI
code provisions.
The problem is solved using a simple graphical
approach that makes use of “Load Combination
Reinforcement Diagrams” and using a formal con-
strained nonlinear optimization formulation which can
be solved using functions available in MATLAB
(2006). Both solution approaches are shown to be
effective. Savings in reinforcement can be significant,
especially for the column subjected to multiple loading
combinations.
2 Design assumptions in the ACI code provisions
Assumptions used in the analysis of a rectangular cross
section under combined flexure and axial load are illus-
trated in Fig. 1. The required cross-sectional areas of
top and bottom reinforcement are determined to pro-
vide adequate ultimate strength in accordance with
current ACI 318 design code provisions. Positive axial
RC column reinforcement considering multiple load combinations 155

Fig. 1 Strain and stress εc=0.003

diagrams for ultimate fc = 0.85—f’c
strength analysis per As ' d' ε ′s β 1c fs Cs
ACI 318 c β 1c Cc
h 2
2 M
h d P

As εs fs Ts
Stress Free body
b Strain
diagram
(a) (b) (c) (d)

load and moment are illustrated, where axial load is compressive force carried by the concrete, Cc , is deter-
positive in compression and moment is positive if the mined as
top fiber is compressed relative to the bottom fiber.
Cc = 0.85 fc′ (β1c ) (b )
¡ ¢
These terms and sign conventions are consistent with (1)
the conventional analysis for the sectional design of a
reinforced concrete member. where b = the width of the cross section. Since it was
According to the provisions of ACI 318, the ulti- assumed that top reinforcement is within the compres-
mate strength of the cross section is determined for sion zone (β 1 c > d′ ), the stress assigned to the rectangu-
an extreme fiber compressive strain of 0.003 using lar concrete block should not be counted in determining
Bernoulli’s hypothesis that plane sections remain plane. the force carried by the top steel, Cs . Hence,
The concrete contribution in compression is simplified
Cs = fs′ − 0.85 fc′ A′s
¡ ¢¡ ¢
using the Whitney stress block, for which a stress of (2)
0.85 fc′ is present over the width of the section and over
a depth of β 1 c from the top of the section where fc′ is where A′s = the cross-sectional area of top reinforce-
concrete compressive strength, β 1 is a factor relating ment located at a distance d′ from the top of the sec-
the depth of equivalent rectangular compressive stress tion. Based on the strain, εs′ , obtained by using similar
block to neutral axis depth, c. The strains εs and εs′ rep- triangles, the top reinforcement stress, fs′ , can be deter-
resent the strains in the bottom and top reinforcement, mined as
respectively, and are considered positive for tension
fs′ = (Es ) εs′ = (Es ) 0.003 1−d′ c if 0 ≤ εs′ ≤ f y Es
¡ ¢ ¡ ¡ ± ¢¢ ±
in the bottom reinforcement and compression in the
if εs′ ≥ f y Es
±
top reinforcement. These strains can be determined = fy
by similar triangles as a function of the neutral axis (3)
depth, c (Fig. 1b). The steel reinforcement is considered
to have elastic–plastic behavior. In the elastic range, where f y = the specified yield strength of the reinforce-
the reinforcement stress, fs or fs′ is determined by the ment. The stresses fc′ and fs′ are considered positive in
product of the elastic modulus, Es , and the reinforce- compression, as are the corresponding stress resultants
ment strain. This assumption allows the reinforcement Cc and Cs . Since β 1 c was assumed to be greater than
stresses to be determined as a function of the neutral d′ , εs′ becomes positive for the example selected in this
axis depth, c. In the plastic range, the reinforcement study.
stress is considered to be equal to the specified yield The force carried by the bottom steel, Ts , can be
strength of the reinforcement. determined as
The internal stress resultants Cc , Cs , and Ts can
be determined as the product of the stresses and the Ts = ( fs ) (As ) (4)
corresponding areas. Since this study focuses on the
combined effect of flexure and axial load, it is assumed where As = the cross-sectional area of bottom rein-
that the compression zone, β 1 c, is greater than d′ and forcement located at a distance d from the top of
less than d. Based on the Whitney stress block, the the section. Based on the strain, εs , obtained by using
156 H.J. Lee et al.

similar triangles, the bottom reinforcement stress, fs , Where the net tensile strain exceeds 0.005, the section is
can be determined as classified as tension-controlled. In this zone, the bottom
¡ ¡ ± ¢¢ ± reinforcement yields and a higher strength reduction
fs = (Es ) (εs ) = (Es ) 0.003 d c−1 if 0 ≤ εs ≤ f y Es factor, equal to 0.9, is specified. For the intermediate
= fy
±
if εs ≥ f y Es strains, the strength reduction factor is determined by
linear interpolation.
(5)

The bottom reinforcement stress, fs , is considered
to be positive in tension, as is the corresponding stress
resultant, Ts . Since c was assumed to be less than d, εs
becomes positive for the example selected in this study.
In a well designed beam, the internal stress resul-
tants, Cc , Cs , and Ts equilibrate the applied axial load,
P, and moment, M.
In ultimate± strength design,±a design solution is to en-
sure that Pu φ ≤ Pn and Mu φ ≤ Mn where the sub-
script u represents a factored load effect, the subscript
n represents a nominal strength, and φ is a strength
reduction factor. A unified strength reduction factor, φ,
is specified in the ACI 318 (2002, 2005) code provisions.
As shown in Fig. 2, the strength reduction factor varies
with the net tensile strain of the bottom reinforcement.
Where the net tensile strain is less than 0.002, the
section is classified as compression-controlled. In this
zone, the stress of the bottom reinforcement is in the
elastic range and thus a lower strength reduction factor
of 0.65 is specified for a rectangular (non-spiral) section.
3 Graphical solutions for individual load combinations
Before presenting a general nonlinear optimization for-
mulation of the column design, a graphical approach
is illustrated for the purpose of showing the charac-
teristics of the column design problem using the ACI
code provisions. To illustrate a graphical approach, the
design of a column section shown in Fig. 3 is selected
for the optimal design study under multiple load com-
binations. The cross section dimensions are 457 mm ×
457 mm (18 in. × 18 in.) The reinforcing position is
assumed to be given by γ = 0.75. The concrete com-
pressive strength is fc′ = 27.6 MPa (4 ksi) and the spec-
ified yield strength of reinforcement is f y = 414 MPa
(60 ksi).
The load combinations considered for the optimal
design of the column are as follows:
± ±
1. Load case 1: Pu ± Ag fc′ = 0.1, Mu ± Ag fc′ h = 0.2
2. Load case 2: Pu Ag fc′ = 0.3, Mu Ag fc′ h = 0.23

Fig. 2 Variation of φ with (B)

φ (A)
net tensile strain εt and c / dt
for Grade 60 reinforcement
and for prestressing steel φ = 0.7 + (ε t _ 0.002)(50)
(ACI 318 2002 and 2005)

0.90

250
Spiral φ = 0.65 + (ε t _ 0.002)( )
0.70 3

Other
0.65

Compression Transition Tension

controlled controlled

ε t = 0.002 ε t = 0.005
c / d t = 0.6 c / d t = 0.375
c
Interpolation on :
dt
1 5 1 5
Spiral: φ = 0.70 + 0.15( − ) Other: φ = 0.65 + 0.20( − )
c / dt 3 c / dt 3
RC column reinforcement considering multiple load combinations
b = h = 457 mm (18 in.), γ = 0.75
h rately as the sum of moments about the centroid of the
h centroid of the bottom reinforcement. By doing this,
As
As'
b fs (d − d′ )
e Pu Mu=Pue
Fig. 3 Section dimensions of the column selected for the optimal
design study
±
3. Load case 3: Pu ± Ag fc′ = 0.35, M±
± ′
u Ag fc h = 0.27
′ ′
4. Load case 4: Pu Ag fc = 0.4, Mu Ag fc h = 0.15
where Ag is the gross section area of the column sec-
tion. In the column design of civil structures, it is
assumed that the column is subjected to one load
combination at a time. Therefore, the adequacy of the
column should be established independently for each
load combination.
To investigate the influence of the strength reduction
factor on design, two specifications for the strength re-
duction factor were used. One is the strength reduction
factor specification in the Chapter 9 of the ACI 318
(2002 and 2005) code provisions. The second assumes
the strength reduction factor is equal to unity, in ef-
fect± resulting in design
± for specified nominal strengths
′ ′
Pn ± Ag fc and Mn ±Ag fc h rather than ultimate strengths
Pu Ag fc′ and Mu Ag fc′ h.
Hernández-Montes et al. (2005) proposed a new
approach to design in which the reinforcement areas,
As and A′s , required to provide nominal strengths Pn
and Mn are determined as a function of the neutral
axis depth, c. For each value of c, the two equations
of equilibrium can be solved directly for the two steel
areas required for a given Pn and Mn . The solution
corresponding to a neutral axis depth that minimizes
the total reinforcement area for a given axial load
and moment can be identified using the Reinforcement
157
Sizing Diagram. The reinforcement sizing diagram can
be obtained by formulating equilibrium equations sepa-
top reinforcement and the sum of moments about the
the following uncoupled equations for As and A′s are
obtained.
³ ´
Mu Pu
¡h ¢ β1 c
φ
− φ 2
− d′ − C c d′ − 2
As ≥ (6)
³ ´
Mu Pu β1 c
d − h2 − Cc d −
¡ ¢
φ
− φ 2
A′s ≥ (7)
fs′ (d − d′ )
Before analyzing the optimal design solution under
multiple load combinations, the reinforcement sizing
diagrams for each load combination were obtained, to
provide a baseline comparison to the design solution
obtained for multiple loading combinations.
¡
For Load¢ Combination 1 Pu /Ag fc′ = 0.1, Mu /
Ag fc′ h = 0.2 , reinforcement sizing diagram variations
with the strength reduction factor specification are
shown in Fig. 4. The symmetric design does not produce
the optimal design solution for either of the strength
reduction factor specifications. In this particular case,
the optimal design obtained using the ACI code speci-
fication for the strength reduction factor is close to the
symmetric design, while the optimal design obtained
using an invariant strength reduction factor differs
significantly from the symmetric design solution. The
strength reduction factor specified in the ACI code
provisions tends to promote tension-controlled designs,
which are considered more desirable because of their
enhanced ductility. The required reinforcement amount
is sensitive to the strength reduction factor and the
value c/d. Since the reinforcement sizing diaphragm is
represented explicitly terms of c/d, a designer can es-
tablish the range of solutions (in terms of c/d) for which
the design is controlled by tension
¡ or compression.
′ ′
For
¢ Load Combination 2 Pu /Ag fc = 0.3,Mu /Ag fc h =
0.23 , reinforcement sizing diagrams are shown for the
two strength reduction factor specifications in Fig. 5.
For each strength reduction factor specification, the
symmetric design is not an optimal solution. In this
case, the invariant strength reduction factor produces
an optimal solution close to the symmetric design, while
the ACI code specification produces an optimal design
solution that differs significantly from the symmetric
design solution. Again, the ACI specification for the
strength reduction factor tends to produce an optimal
solution that is tension-controlled, while the symmetric
158 H.J. Lee et al.

Fig. 4 Reinforcement sizing Reinforcement Sizing Diagram - Load Case 1

diagram for the load case (Pu/Agf'c=0.1, Mu/Agf'ch=0.2)
of Pu /Ag fc′ = 0.1 and 20000 31
Mu /Ag fc′ h = 0.2
As
As'
As+As'
15000 Optimal solution under multiple load cases 23.25

Steel Area, mm 2

Steel Area, in 2
10000 Optimal 15.5
solution

Symmetric
5000 solution 7.75

Tension- Compression-
controlled (A) (B)
0 controlled 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Normalized Neutral Axis Depth, c/d
(a) Strength reduction factor based on the ACI code provisions

Reinforcement Sizing Diagram - Load Case 1

(Pu/Agf'c=0.1, Mu/Agf'ch=0.2)
20000 31
As
As'
As+As'
15000 Optimal solution under multiple load cases 23.25
2
Steel Area, mm

Steel Area, in 2
10000 15.5

Optimal
solution
Symmetric
5000 7.75
solution

Tension- (B) Compression-

controlled (A) controlled
0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Normalized Neutral Axis Depth, c/d

(b) Invariant strength reduction factor (φ=1.0)

solution produces a compression-controlled condition
for the ACI specification of the strength reduction
factor. Hence, the symmetric design does not always
produce a favorable failure mode. A designer can ef-
ficiently use reinforcement sizing diagrams to obtain
a desirable design solution by considering the load
combination and desired mode of failure together with
the strength reduction factor specification.
¡
For Load ¢Combination 3 Pu /Ag fc′ = 0.35, Mu /
Ag fc′ h = 0.27 , reinforcement sizing diagrams are pro-
vided in Fig. 6 for the two specifications of strength
reduction factor. Design patterns observed for Load
Combination 3 are similar to those of Load Combi-
nation 2. In this case, an invariant strength reduction
factor produces an optimal solution very close to the
symmetric design, while the ACI strength reduction
RC column reinforcement considering multiple load combinations 159

Fig. 5 Reinforcement sizing Reinforcement Sizing Diagram - Load Case 2

diagram for the load case
(Pu/Agf'c=0.3, Mu/Agf'ch=0.23)
of Pu /Ag fc′ = 0.3 and 20000 31
Mu /Ag fc′ h = 0.23 As
As '
As +A s '
Optimal solution under multiple load cases
15000 23. 25

Steel Area, mm2

Steel Area, in 2
Optimal
10000 solution 15. 5
Symmetric
solution

5000 7.75

Tension- Compression-
(A) (B) controlled
0 controlled 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Normalized Neutral Axis Depth, c/d
(a) Strength reduction factor based on the ACI code provisions

Reinforcement Sizing Diagram - Load Case 2

(Pu/Agf'c=0.3, Mu/Agf'ch=0.23)
20000 31
As
As '
As +A s '
15000 Optimal solution under multiple load cases 23.25
2
Steel Area, mm

2
Steel Area, in
10000 15.5
Optimal
Symmetric solution
solution

5000 7.75

Tension- Compression-
controlled (A) (B) controlled
0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Normalized Neutral Axis Depth, c/d

(b) Invariant strength reduction factor (φ=1.0)

factor produces an optimal design solution that dif-
fers significantly from the symmetric design solution.
As in the previous cases, the ACI strength reduction
factor produces an optimal solution that is considered
a tension-controlled design. The symmetric design so-
lution produces a compression-controlled condition.
Thus, based on ductility considerations, the optimal
design solution is more desirable than the symmetric
design because it is more ductile. The optimal de-
sign solution determined using an invariant strength
reduction factor produces a compression-controlled
design in this case. ¡
For Load ¢ Combination 4 Pu /Ag fc′ = 0.4, Mu /
Ag fc′ h = 0.15 , reinforcement sizing diagrams are
shown in Fig. 7 for each strength reduction factor spec-
ification. In this case, the invariant strength reduction
factor produces an optimal design solution close to the
symmetric design, for which the entire section is in com-
pression. In contrast, the optimal design obtained using
the ACI code specification for φ produces an optimal
160 H.J. Lee et al.

Fig. 6 Reinforcement sizing Reinforcement Sizing Diagram - Load Case 3

diagram for the load case (Pu/Agf'c=0.35, Mu/Agf'ch=0.27)
of Pu /Ag fc′ = 0.35 and 20000 31
Mu /Ag fc′ h = 0.27 As
As'
As+As'
Optimal solution under multiple load cases
15000 23.25

Steel Area, mm 2

Steel Area, in 2
Optimal
solution Symmetric
10000 solution 15.5

5000 7.75

Tension- Compression-
controlled
(A) (B) controlled
0 0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Normalized Neutral Axis Depth, c/d
(a) Strength reduction factor based on the ACI code provisions

Reinforcement Sizing Diagram - Load Case 3

(Pu/Agf'c=0.35, Mu/Agf'ch=0.27)
20000 31
As
As'
As+As'
15000 Optimal solution under multiple load cases 23.25
2
Steel Area, mm

Steel Area, in 2
Optimal
10000 solution 15.5

Symmetric
5000 solution 7.75

Tension- Compression-
controlled
(A) (B) controlled
0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Normalized Neutral Axis Depth, c/d

(b) Invariant strength reduction factor (φ=1.0)

design solution for which the bottom reinforcement,
if present, would be in tension; however, the required
area of bottom reinforcement is zero.
4 Graphical solutions for multiple load combinations
The preceding section identified optimal solutions for
each load combination considered individually. Where
multiple load combinations must be considered, the
optimal solution may deviate from an optimal solution
obtained for any individual load combination. This sec-
tion presents a graphical implementation of a linear
programming technique to determine the optimal rein-
forcement for a section required to resist two or more
load combinations. The optimal solution must provide
adequate strength to resist any of the load combinations
taken individually. Both the ACI 318 strength reduc-
tion factor and an invariant strength reduction fac-
tor of 1.0 are considered. The four load combinations
RC column reinforcement considering multiple load combinations 161

Fig. 7 Reinforcement sizing Reinforcement Sizing Diagram - Load Case 4

diagram for the load case
(Pu/Agf'c=0.4, Mu/Agf'ch=0.15)
of Pu /Ag fc′ = 0.4 and 16000 24.8
Mu /Ag fc′ h = 0.15
As
As '
As +A s '
Optimal solution under multiple load cases
12000 18.6

Steel Area, mm 2

Steel Area, in 2
8000 Symmetric 12.4
solution
Optimal
solution
4000 6.2

Tension-
controlled (A) (B) Compression-
controlled
0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Normalized Neutral Axis Depth, c/d
(a) Strength reduction factor based on the ACI code provisions

Reinforcement Sizing Diagram - Load Case 4

(Pu/Agf'c=0.4, Mu/Agf'ch=0.15)
16000 24.8
As
As '
As +A s '
12000 Optimal solution under multiple load cases 18.6
2

Steel Area, in 2
Steel Area, mm

Tension- Compression-
controlled
(A) (B)
8000 controlled 12.4

Optimal
4000 6.2
solution

Symmetric
solution
0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Normalized Neutral Axis Depth, c/d

(b) Invariant strength reduction factor ( φ=1.0)

considered in previous section constitute the multiple
load combinations.
The optimal design solution for multiple load com-
binations can be obtained graphically using a new di-
agram. This diagram, termed a “Load Combination
Reinforcement Diagram” (LCRD) plots reinforcement
solutions in a two-dimensional space defined by the
coordinates As and A′s . Each solution can be viewed
as having been obtained for a different value of neutral
axis depth, c; alternatively, the equilibrium equations
can be solved to yield A′s , as a function of As (by
removing c). The LCRD allows a design engineer to
easily determine an optimal design solution from the
feasible solutions plotted on a LCRD.
The feasible solution region based on the ACI 318
strength reduction factor is indicated on the load com-
bination reinforcement diagram in Fig. 8. The feasible
solution region is determined by the boundaries of
162 H.J. Lee et al.

Fig. 8 Feasible design Load Case 1 (Pu/Agf'c=0.1, Mu/Agf'ch=0.2)

solution region on the Load Load Case 2 (Pu/Agf'c=0.3, Mu/Agf'ch=0.23)
Feasible solution region Load Case 3 (Pu/Agf'c=0.35, Mu/Agf'ch=0.27)
Combination Reinforcement As (in2) Load Case 4 (Pu/Agf'c=0.4, Mu/Agf'ch=0.15)
Diagram and an optimal
0 3.1 6.2 9.3 12.4 15.5 18.6 21.7
design solution and a 14000 21.7
symmetric design solution
under multiple load
As = A's
combinations with the 12000 18.6
strength reduction factor in
the ACI code provisions
10000 15.5
Optimal design
solution
8000 Symmetric 12.4
As' (mm )

As' (in )
2

2
design solution

6000 9.3

4000 6.2

2000 3.1

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
As (mm 2)

Loading Combinations 1 and 3. In this case, a design shown in Fig. 8. The line As + A′s = C, where C = a
solution within this feasible solution region automati- constant, has intercepts (0, C) and (C, 0). Thus, the
cally satisfies Load Combinations 2 and 4. An optimal optimal solution can be found by increasing C from 0
design solution and a symmetric design solution are also to the point that the line intersects the feasible solution

Fig. 9 Feasible design Load Case 1 (Pu/Agf'c=0.1, Mu/Agf'ch=0.2)

solution region on the Load Load Case 2 (Pu/Agf'c=0.3, Mu/Agf'ch=0.23)
Feasible solution region Load Case 3 (Pu/Agf'c=0.35, Mu/Agf'ch=0.27)
Combination Reinforcement As (in 2) Load Case 4 (Pu/Agf'c=0.4, Mu/Agf'ch=0.15)
Diagram and an optimal 0 1.55 3.1 4.65 6.2 7.75 9.3 10.85
design solution and a 7000 10.85
symmetric design solution
under multiple load
combinations with the As = A's
6000 9.3
invariant strength reduction
factor of 1.0
5000 7.75

4000 6.2
As' (mm )

As' (in )
2

Optimal solution close to the

symmetric design solution
3000 4.65

2000 3.1

1000 1.55

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
As (mm 2)
RC column reinforcement considering multiple load combinations 163

region. In this case, the optimal design solution occurs
at the common point of the boundaries of Load-
ing Combinations 1 and 3. In this case, the opti-
mal reinforcement solution requires As = 3,245 mm2
(5.03 in.2 ), A′s = 6,052 mm2 (9.38 in.2 ), and a total re-
inforcement area of As + A′s = 9,297 mm2 (14.41 in.2 ).
The line As = A′s is a diagonal line emanating from
the origin. The line represents symmetric reinforce-
ment, and the symmetric reinforcement solution is ob-
tained where this diagonal line intersects the feasible
solution region. In this case, the minimum symmetric
reinforcement solution is determined only by Load-
ing Combination 3. The symmetric reinforcement so-
lution requires As + A′s = 6,935 mm2 (10.75 in.2 ), with

Fig. 10 P–M interaction P-M Interaction Diagram

diagrams of the optimally 1.0
designed section under
multiple load combinations 0.8

0.6 φPn,max

0.4

0.2
φPn/(Agf'c)

0.0
-0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6
Load Case 1 (Pu/Agf'c=0.1, Mu/Agf'ch=0.2)
Load Case 2 (Pu/Agf'c=0.3, Mu/Agf'ch=0.23)
-0.8 Load Case 3 (Pu/Agf'c=0.35, Mu/Agf'ch=0.27)
Load Case 4 (Pu/Agf'c=0.4, Mu/Agf'ch=0.15)
-1.0
φ Mn/(Agf'ch)

(a) Strength reduction factor based on the ACI code provisions

P-M Interaction Diagram
1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8 Pn,max

0.6
Pn/(Agf'c)

0.4

0.2

0.0
-0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
-0.2

-0.4
Load Case 1 (Pu/Agf'c=0.1, Mu/Agf'ch=0.2)

-0.6 Load Case 2 (Pu/Agf'c=0.3, Mu/Agf'ch=0.23)

Load Case 3 (Pu/Agf'c=0.35, Mu/Agf'ch=0.27)
-0.8 Load Case 4 (Pu/Agf'c=0.4, Mu/Agf'ch=0.15)

Mn/(Agf'ch)

(b) Invariant strength reduction factor (φ =1.0)

164
total reinforcement area of As + A′s = 13, 870 mm2
(21.50 in.2 ). The symmetric design solution requires
49.2% more reinforcement than the optimal design
solution.
The feasible solution region obtained for an invari-
ant strength reduction factor (equal to 1.0) is shown on
the load combination reinforcement diagram in Fig. 9.
The boundary curves of each loading case are smoother
than those based on the ACI 318 strength reduction fac-
tor because the nonlinearity due to the strength reduc-
tion factor is removed in this case. The feasible solution
region is determined by the boundaries of Load Com-
binations 1 and 3. A design solution within this feasible
solution region automatically satisfies Load Combina-
tions 2 and 4. An optimal design solution is indicated
in Fig. 9. The optimal design solution occurs at the
boundary of Loading Combination 3. The boundary of
Load Combination 1 is not involved in determining the
optimal design solution. For this case, the optimal rein-
forcement solution requires As = 3,206 mm2 (4.97 in.2 ),
A′s = 3,129 mm2 (4.85 in.2 ) and a total reinforcement
area of As + A′s = 6,335 mm2 (9.82 in.2 ). The sym-
metric design solution is very close to the optimal
design solution. The symmetric reinforcement solution
requires As = A′s = 3, 174 mm2 (4.92 in.2 ) and a total
reinforcement area of As = A′s = 6,348 mm2 (9.84 in.2 ).
These optimal design solutions, considering multiple
loading combinations, are indicated on the reinforce-
ment sizing diagrams determined for each single load
case in Figs. 4–7. As expected, the optimal design so-
lution under multiple load combinations using the ACI
strength reduction factor lies on the boundary of Load
Combinations 1 and 3 and lies above the boundary
of Load Combinations 2 and 4. The optimal design
solution under multiple load combinations using the
invariant strength reduction factor lies on the boundary
of Load Combination 3 and lies above the boundary of
the other load combinations. In these cases, the optimal
design solution under multiple load combinations does
not coincide with the optimal design solution under any
single load combination and requires significantly more
reinforcement than is required for some of the single
load combination cases.
A P − M interaction diagram of the section designed
using the optimal solution for multiple load combina-
tions is shown in Fig. 10. For the ACI strength reduction
factor, the optimal solution was determined by the
boundary of Load Combinations 1 and 3. Hence, Load
Combinations 1 and 3 plot on the boundary of the P −
M interaction diagram. As expected, Load Combina-
tions 2 and 4 plot within the P − M interaction diagram.
For the invariant strength reduction factor, the optimal
H.J. Lee et al.
solution was determined by only Load Combination 3.
Hence, Load Combination 3 plots on the boundary
of the P − M interaction diagram. The conventional
design approach might lead to a condition with all load
combinations plotting within the P − M interaction di-
agram, or at most one load combination plotting at the
boundary of the P − M interaction diagram, in general.
Load combination reinforcement diagrams can help
to visually establish the optimal solution under multiple
load combinations, while hand calculations and approx-
imations required in conventional iterative design
approaches may produce a more conservative design,
especially for sections subjected to multiple load com-
binations. In order to make the procedure amenable to
algorithmic implementation, a mathematical formula-
tion for the preceding optimal design problem is devel-
oped in the following.
5 Mathematical formulation for optimal design
under multiple load combinations
A conventional approach to the design of a reinforced
concrete section is to apply equilibrium equations to
evaluate the nominal strengths Pn and Mn for a given
neutral axis depth, material properties, and reinforce-
ment areas As and A′s . By considering different neutral
axis depths, the entire P − M interaction surface is
constructed. Because this approach requires a prede-
termined pattern of reinforcement (ratios or amounts
of As and A′s ) it is not generally possible to find the
optimal amounts (and ratios) of As and A′s to minimize
the total reinforcement of As + A′s .
The mathematical formulation to determine optimal
reinforcement for the design of a reinforced concrete
section under multiple load combinations is developed
as follows. Optimization techniques are used to find a
set of design parameters, x = {x (1) , x (2) , . . . , x (n)},
that can be defined as optimal. A general constrained
minimization problem can be stated as
Minimize f (x) (8)
x
subject to equality constraints, Ceq(x) = 0, inequality
constraints, C(x) ≤ 0, and bounds a ≤ b ≤ b, where x
is the vector of length n design parameters, f (x) is the
objective function, which returns a scalar value, and the
vector functions Ceq(x) and C(x) contain the values
of the equality and inequality constraints evaluated at
x and return a vector of lengths i and j, respectively.
RC column reinforcement considering multiple load combinations 165

The vectors a and b are lower bound and upper bound constraints and lower bound and upper bound values
values of the design parameters x, respectively. can be stated as follows for each domain:
When specialized to the present problem,
1. Domain I
• The objective function is simply As + A′s , and thus
Pui 0.9 − 0.85 fc′ β1 b x (i + 2) + f y x (1)
±
is linear.
− 0.003Es − 0.85 fc′
¡
• Due to the asymmetry of the interaction± diagram
with respect to P and M, for which Mu φ ≤ Mn at
− 0.003Es d′ x (i + 2) x (2) = 0
± ¢
(9)
a given Pn = Pu / φ (but the converse is not true),
equilibrium constraints are established as follows:
±
Pn = Pu / φ (an equality constraint) and Mu φ ≤ Mui 0.9−0.85 fc′ β1 b x (i + 2) h 2−β1 x(i + 2) 2
± ¡ ± ± ¢
Mn (an inequality constraint).
+ f y d − h 2 x (1) − 0.003Es −0.85 fc′
¡ ± ¢ ¡

The stress in the reinforcement and the strength − 0.003Es d′ x (i+2) h 2−d′ x (2) ≤ 0
± ¢¡ ± ¢
(10)
reduction factor are nonlinear functions of the neutral
axis depth, c. The location of the internal concrete
stress resultant Cc also varies with the neutral axis x (1) ≥ 0, x (2) ≥ 0, d′ β1 ≤ x (i+2) ≤ 3d 8
± ±
(11)
depth, c. Therefore, the constraints are nonlinear. Due
to the nonlinear constraints, the problem is a nonlinear 2. Domain II
optimization problem and a solution may be obtained
Pui 0.233 + 0.25d x (i + 2) −0.85 fc′ β1 b x (i + 2)
±¡ ± ¢
by considering solution intervals over the neutral axis
+ f y x (1) − 0.003Es − 0.85 fc′
¡
depth c. Four intervals, or domains, are considered:
− 0.003Es d′ x(i + 2) x(2) = 0
± ± ± ¢
1) Domain I: d′ β1 ≤ c< 3d 8. In this domain, the
φ = 0.9 and the ± bottom reinforcement
±¡ is yielding. ¢ (12)
2) Domain II: 3d 8 ≤ c < .003Es d′ 0.003Es − f y .
In this domain, the φ = 0.233 + 0.25d/c(based on
Mui
±¡ ± ¢
the φ = 0.65 + (εt − 0.002) (250 / 3) in Fig. 2), and 0.233 + 0.25d x (i + 2)
the bottom reinforcement is yielding.
¡ ¢ − 0.85 fc′ β1 b x (i + 2) h 2 − β1 x (i + 2) 2
¡ ± ± ¢
3) Domain III: 0.003Es d′ / 0.003Es − f y ≤ c <
+ f y d − h 2 x (1) − 0.003Es − 0.85 fc′
¡ ± ¢ ¡
0.003Es d/( f y + 0.003Es ). In this domain, φ =
0.233 + 0.25d / c, and both the top and bottom − 0.003Es d′ x (i + 2) h 2 − d′ x (2) ≤ 0 (13)
± ¢¡ ± ¢
reinforcement are yielding.
±¡ ¢
4) Domain IV: 0.003Es d f y + 0.003Es ≤ c ≤ d. In ±
this domain, φ = 0.65, and the top reinforcement is x (1) ≥ 0, x (2) ≥ 0, 3d 8 ≤ x (i + 2)
yielding.
≤ 0.003Es d′ 0.003Es − f y
±¡ ¢
(14)
′
The domain with c < d /β1 and the domain with c > d 3. Domain III
are excluded in this study. These domains represent
Pui 0.233+0.25d x (i+2) −0.85 fc′ β1 b x (i+2)
±¡ ± ¢
the column under the compression or tension dominant
loading condition. For such condition, column design
+ f y x (1) − f y − 0.85 fc′ x (2) = 0
¡ ¢
(15)
problems are trivial. Therefore, the optimization for-
mulation presented in this study does not include such
condition for simplicity, although the formulation can Mui
±¡ ± ¢
0.233 + 0.25d x (i + 2)
be extended to consider such conditions.
− 0.85 fc′ β1 b x (i + 2) h 2 − β1 x (i + 2) 2
¡ ± ± ¢
A set of design parameters in the optimization
problem can be defined as x = {As , A′s , c1 , c2 ,. . . ,
¡ ± ¢
+ f y d−h 2 x (1)
cm }, where x(1) = As , x(2) = A′s , x(3) = c1 , x(m + 2) =
− f y −0.85 fc′ h 2−d′ x (2) ≤ 0
¡ ¢¡ ± ¢
(16)
cm , ci = the neutral axis depth under the i-th load com-
bination, and m = the number of multiple load com-
bination. The objective function f (x) can be stated as x (1) ≥ 0, x (2) ≥ 0, 0.003Es d′ 0.003Es − f y
±¡ ¢
x(1) + x(2) and our goal is to minimize f (x). For the i-th ±¡ ¢
load condition, Pui and Mui , the equality and inequality ≤ x (i + 2) ≤ 0.003Es d f y 0.003Es (17)
166 H.J. Lee et al.

4. Domain IV Pu4 0.65 − 0.85 fc′ β1 b x (6)

±

Pui 0.65 − 0.85 fc′ β1 b x (i + 2)

± ¡ ± ¢
+ 0.003Es d x (6) − 0.003Es x (1)
¡ ± ¢
+ 0.003Es d x (i + 2) − 0.003Es x (1) − f y − 0.85 fc′ x (2) = 0
¡ ¢
(24)
− f y − 0.85 fc′ x (2) = 0
¡ ¢
(18)
4. Inequality constraints

Mui 0.65
±
Mu1 0.9 − 0.85 fc′ β1 b x (3) h 2 − β1 x (3) 2
± ¡ ± ± ¢

− 0.85 fc′ β1 b x (i + 2) h 2 − β1 x (i + 2) 2
¡ ± ± ¢
+ f y d − h 2 x (1) − 0.003Es − 0.85 fc′
¡ ± ¢ ¡
¡ ± ¢¡ ± ¢
+ 0.003Es d x (i + 2) − 0.003Es d−h 2 x (1) − 0.003Es d′ x (3) h 2 − d′ x (2) ≤ 0
± ¢¡ ± ¢
(25)
− f y − 0.85 fc′ h 2 − d′ x (2) ≤ 0
¡ ¢¡ ± ¢
(19)
Mu2
±¡ ± ¢
0.233 + 0.25d x (4)
±¡ ¢
z (1) ≥ 0, x (2) ≥ 0, 0.003Es d f y + 0.003Es − 0.85 fc′ β1 b x (4) h 2 − β1 x (4) 2
¡ ± ± ¢

≤ x (i + 2) ≤ d (20) + f y d − h 2 x (1) − 0.003Es − 0.85 fc′

¡ ± ¢ ¡

All four domains must be considered for each load − 0.003Es d′ x (4) h 2 − d′ x (2) ≤ 0
± ¢¡ ± ¢
(26)
combination. Hence, an optimal design solution must
be found among the 4m combinations of domains under
Mu3
±¡ ± ¢
multiple loading combinations. Note that the optimal 0.233 + 0.25d x (5)
solution for multiple load combinations need not cor- − 0.85 fc′ β1 b x (5) h 2 − β1 x (5) 2
¡ ± ± ¢
respond to a neutral axis depth for which the optimal ¡ ± ¢
solution is found for any one load combination indi- + f y d − h 2 x (1)
vidually. By using four loops, the minimum amount − f y − 0.85 fc′ h 2 − d′ x (2) ≤ 0
¡ ¢¡ ± ¢
(27)
of As + A′s is searched among the 4m combinations
of domains. To illustrate further, one possible domain
Mu4 0.65 − 0.85 fc′ β1 b x (6) h 2 − β1 x (6) 2
± ¡ ± ± ¢
combination among the 4m combinations of domains is
the combination with Load Combination 1 in Domain I, ¡ ± ¢¡ ± ¢
+ 0.003Es d x (6) − 0.003Es d − h 2 x (1)
Load Combination 2 in Domain II, Load Combination
− f y − 0.85 fc′ h 2 − d′ x (2) ≤ 0
¡ ¢¡ ± ¢
3 in Domain III, and Load Combination 4 in Domain (28)
IV. For this particular combination, the optimization
problem can be stated as 5. Lower and upper bounds

1. Design parameters x = {As , A′s , c1 , c2 , c3 , c4 }, x (1) ≥ 0, x (2) ≥ 0, d′ β1 ≤ x (3) ≤ 3d 8

± ±
(29)
x(1) = As , x(2) = A′s , x(3) = c1 , x(4) = c2 , x(5) = c3 ,
x(6) = c4
3d 8 ≤ x (4) ≤ 0.003Es d′ 0.003Es − f y
± ±¡ ¢
2. Objective function f (x)= x(1) + x(2) (30)
3. Equality constraints
0.003Es d′
±¡ ¢
Pu1 0.9 − 0.85 fc′ β1 b x (3) + f y x (1) 0.003Es − f y ≤ x (5)
±
±¡ ¢
− 0.003Es − 0.85 fc′ − 0.003Es d′ x (3) x (2) = 0 ≤ 0.003Es d f y + 0.003Es (31)
¡ ± ¢

(21) ±¡ ¢
0.003Es d f y + 0.003Es ≤ x (6) ≤ d (32)

Pu2 0.233 + 0.25d x (4) − 0.85 fc′ β1 b x (4)

±¡ ± ¢

The optimal solution under this particular domain

+ f y x (1)− 0.003Es −0.85 fc′
¡
combination is compared with the solutions under the
− 0.003Es d′ x (4) x (2) = 0
± ¢
(22) other possible domain combinations. In other words,
the minimum total reinforcement area, As + A′s , for
each solution is determined for the 4m combinations of
Pu3 0.233 + 0.25d x (5) − 0.85 fc′ β1 b x (5)
±¡ ± ¢
domains, and the smallest of these minima we retained
+ f y x (1) − f y − 0.85 fc′ x (2) = 0
¡ ¢
(23) as the optimal solution.
RC column reinforcement considering multiple load combinations 167

12000 Table 2 Output history information for the case with a starting
point x0 = [2,000, 2,000, 108.63, 108.63, 167.08, 318.41]
Objective function value (mm2)

10000 Iteration F-count f (x) Maximum constraint Directional

violation derivative
8000 0 7 4,000 3.47E+08
1 14 9,051.3 1.65E+08 5050
6000 2 21 9,508.99 2.04E+07 458
3 28 9,551.21 4.35E+05 42.2
4000 4 35 9,539.13 2.22E+03 −12.1
5 42 9,265.7 2.06E+06 −273
2000 Starting point of x(1)=0.0 and x(2)=0.0 6 49 9,296.96 3.13E+03 31.3
Starting point of x(1)=2000 and x(2)=2000 7 56 9,296.97 1.16E−02 0.00549
0 8 63 9,296.97 1.19E−07 1.06E−08
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-count = cumulative number of function evaluations, f (x) =
Iteration number function value at current point
(a) Convergence plot of objective function

7.E+08 optimization) of the function fmincon was used in this

Starting point of x(1)=0.0 and x(2)=0.0 study. This algorithm uses a sequential quadratic pro-
Maximum constraint violation

6.E+08
Starting point of x(1)=2000 and x(2)=2000 gramming method, wherein a quadratic programming
5.E+08

4.E+08 Reinforcement Amount

7000
Design parameter value (mm )
2

3.E+08
6000

2.E+08
5000

1.E+08 4000

0.E+00 3000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2000
Iteration number
(b) Convergence plot of constraint function 1000 x(1)
x(2)
Fig. 11 Convergence plots of objective and constraint functions 0
against iteration numbers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Iteration number
(a) Design parameters related to reinforcement amount
The solution of this constrained nonlinear optimiza-
tion can be obtained easily using the MATLAB func- Neutral Axis Location
400
tion fmincon. The standard algorithm (medium-scale x(3)
Design parameter value (mm)

x(4)
x(5)
300 x(6)
Table 1 Output history information for the case with a starting
point x0 = [0, 0, 108.63, 108.63, 167.08, 318.41]
Iteration F-count f (x) Maximum constraint Directional 200
violation derivative
0 7 0 6.16E+08
1 14 8,297.79 5.13E+08 8,300 100
2 21 9,382.46 1.45E+08 1,080
3 28 9,443.04 2.22E+07 60.6
4 35 9,467.05 6.11E+05 24 0
5 42 9,462.55 1.29E+03 −4.51 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
6 49 9,282.62 9.47E+05 −180 Iteration number
7 56 9,296.96 6.70E+02 14.3
8 63 9,296.97 5.07E−04 0.00131 (b) Design parameters related to neutral axis location
9 70 9,296.97 5.96E−08 3.94E−10
Fig. 12 Convergence plots of design parameters against iteration
F-count = cumulative number of function evaluations, f (x) = numbers for the case with starting point x0 = [0, 0, 108.63, 108.63,
function value at current point 167.08, 318.41]
168 H.J. Lee et al.

Reinforcement Amount
7000
objective and constraint functions are convex functions,
then the Kuhn–Tucker equations are both necessary
Design parameter value (mm )
2

6000 and sufficient for a global solution point (MATLAB

5000 2006). As shown in Fig. 8, the constraint functions are
not convex and thus the function fmincon might only
4000
give local solutions in specific cases.
3000 The solution of design parameters from the MAT-
LAB optimization for the case with the ACI strength
2000
reduction factor is x = {As , A′s , c1 , c2 , c3 , c4 } = {3,244.83,
x(1)
1000 6,052.13, 89.42, 139.09, 166.92, 253.58}. This solution
x(2)
0
was found in the combination with Load Combination
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 in Domain I, Load Combination 2 in Domain I, Load
Iteration number Combination 3 in Domain II, and Load Combination 4
(a) Design parameters related to reinforcement amount in Domain IV. This solution is a global solution point
Neutral Axis Location
of this particular problem as shown from the graphical
400 solution of Fig. 8. The same solution was obtained
x(3)
using two different starting points; each starting point
Design parameter value (mm)

300
200
100
0
0 1
(b) Design parameters related to neutral axis location
Fig. 13 Convergence plots of design parameters against iteration
numbers for the case with starting point x0 = [2,000, 2,000, 108.63,
108.63, 167.08, 318.41]
subproblem is solved and an estimate of the Hessian
of the Lagrangian is updated at each iteration, using
the BFGS formula (MATLAB 2006). The standard
algorithm uses a solution to the Kuhn–Tucker (KT)
equations to ensure optimality. If the problem is a
so-called convex programming problem, that is, the
x(4)
x(5) was an infeasible point. One is simply the case with
x(6)
As = A′s = 0 and the other is the case with As = A′s =
2,000. The initial neutral axis value used with these
starting points was the median of the lower and up-
per bound values used in the domain partition. Both
of the starting points converged to the same optimal
solution as shown in Fig. 11. The optimization was
terminated with the condition that first order optimality
measures were satisfied to the specified tolerance and
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 maximum constraint violation was less than the speci-
Iteration number fied tolerance. Output history information is presented
in Tables 1 and 2. Since the case with the start point
As = A′s = 2,000 is closer to the optimal solution, it
requires fewer numerical iterations and function eval-
uations. Convergence plots of design parameter values
against iteration numbers are presented in Figs. 12 and
13. Three iterations provide a good approximation of
the optimal solution. Search directions corresponding
to the sequence of points computed by fmincon are
presented in Tables 3 and 4. As the number of iterations
increases, search directions show less change.
For the case with the invariant strength reduction
factor of 1.0, three divisions of domains in terms of the
neutral axis depth are necessary because the strength

Table 3 Search directions Iteration x (1) x (2) x (3) x (4) x (5) x (6)
corresponding to the
sequence of points 0
computed by fmincon for 1 2.84E+03 5.46E+03 −6.58E+01 7.48E+01 −3.72E+01 −1.15E+02
the case with a starting point 2 3.75E+02 7.09E+02 2.66E+01 −5.61E+01 2.74E+01 4.50E+01
x0 = [0, 0, 108.63, 108.63, 3 2.12E+01 3.93E+01 1.57E+01 8.70E+00 −2.31E−02 2.14E+00
167.08, 318.41] 4 9.93E+00 1.41E+01 3.26E+00 2.97E−01 −1.36E−01 −8.78E−02
5 4.31E−01 −4.94E+00 1.22E−01 8.65E−02 2.81E−01 9.69E−02
6 1.11E+00 −1.81E+02 9.55E−01 2.88E+00 9.46E+00 3.30E+00
7 −3.65E−02 1.44E+01 −5.05E−02 −1.59E−01 −2.17E−02 −2.41E−01
8 1.98E−04 1.12E−03 1.06E−04 2.86E−04 1.04E−05 1.11E−04
9 3.52E−10 4.18E−11 8.24E−11 2.93E−10 1.84E−11 2.78E−11
RC column reinforcement considering multiple load combinations 169

Table 4 Search directions Iteration x (1) x (2) x (3) x (4) x (5) x (6)
corresponding to the
sequence of points computed 0
by fmincon for the case with a 1 1.12E+03 3.93E+03 −4.04E+01 4.54E+01 −4.78E+00 −8.57E+01
starting point x0 = [2,000, 2 1.09E+02 3.48E+02 1.69E+01 −2.07E+01 −9.40E+00 1.62E+01
2,000, 108.63, 108.63, 167.08, 3 1.06E+01 3.16E+01 2.86E+00 1.60E+00 8.56E−02 −5.52E−02
318.41] 4 3.72E−01 −1.25E+01 1.30E−01 2.05E−01 6.14E−01 2.31E−01
5 1.61E+00 −2.75E+02 1.41E+00 4.27E+00 1.34E+01 4.98E+00
6 −7.76E−02 3.13E+01 −1.09E−01 −3.40E−01 −4.06E−02 −5.23E−01
7 9.25E−04 4.56E−03 4.98E−04 1.34E−03 4.88E−05 5.36E−04
8 9.06E−09 1.59E−09 1.87E−09 6.55E−09 4.80E−10 6.72E−10

reduction factor is not involved in the domain divisions.
This modification is easy and thus is not presented in
this paper. The solution of design parameters from the
MATLAB optimization for the case with the invariant
strength reduction factor of 1.0 is x = {As , A′s , c1 ,
c2 , c3 , c4 } = {3,238.77, 3,077.41, 115.72, 205.09, 236.73,
249.70}. The results are almost identical to the graphical
solutions of the preceding section. Minor differences
results from the numerical precision of the assumed
neutral axis depth values in the graphical solutions.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the general nonlin-
ear optimization formulation works for column design.
In the formulation presented, the domains are es-
tablished presuming± that the neutral axis depth, c, is
greater than d′ β1 and less than d. It is trivial to include
additional domains to extend the approach to cover
all possible neutral axis depths. Since the column de-
sign problem is trivial for domains beyond this range
(because the column is mainly subjected to axial load
(compression or tension), a design check for these situ-
ations can be easily done separately.
6 Conclusions
In this study, the optimal design problem of a rein-
forced concrete column section under multiple load
combinations was investigated. Due to nonlinearity in
the strength reduction factor, the stress–strain rela-
tionship of reinforcement, and design formulations for
the compression force carried by concrete, the opti-
mal design problem was formulated as a constrained
nonlinear optimization problem. A general approach to
obtain the optimal design solution of the column under
multiple combinations of axial load and moment was
proposed in this study. In addition, a graphical method
to obtain the optimal design solution under multiple
load combinations was also illustrated. The following
is a summary of results from this study:
• Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI
Optimal design solutions generally do not coin-
cide with the symmetric design solution; the op-
timal solution depends on the strength reduction
factor specification and the loading combination.
Thus, it is desirable to consider strength reduction
factor variation, loading combination, and control
of failure mode to improve design solutions. This
can be done effectively using Reinforcement Sizing
Diagrams.
• Reinforcement Sizing Diagrams can help a designer
to explicitly control the failure mode of the section;
• The Load Combination Reinforcement Diagram
was developed for determining optimal design so-
lutions for the examples with multiple load com-
binations. The feasible design solution zone under
multiple load combinations was explicitly repre-
sented on the Load Combination Reinforcement
Diagram. The Load Combination Reinforcement
Diagrams were effective for determining optimal
reinforcement solutions. Hence, an optimized de-
sign solution under multiple loading combinations
may be determined using Load Combination Rein-
forcement Diagrams.
• A mathematical formulation for the optimization
problem was presented and was shown to pro-
vide results that match those determined using the
graphical approach of the Load Combination Rein-
forcement Diagram.
• Since the feasible solution region for multiple load
combinations can be determined by more than
one load combination, the solution generally does
not coincide with the optimal design solution for
any one load combination. Generally, the optimal
design solution under multiple load combinations
requires more reinforcement than that under any
individual load combination.
References
ACI 318 (2002) Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary. ACI Committee 318, American
ACI 318 (2005) Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary. ACI Committee 318, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI
170
Adamu A, Karihaloo BL (1994a) Minimum cost design of RC
beams using DCOC Part I: beams with freely-varying cross-
sections. Struct Optim 7:237–251
Adamu A, Karihaloo BL (1994b) Minimum cost design of RC
beams using DCOC Part II: beams with uniform cross-
sections. Struct Optim 7:252–259
Adamu A, Karihaloo BL (1995a) Minimum cost design of RC
frames using the DCOC method Part I: columns under uni-
axial bending actions. Struct Optim 10:16–32
Adamu A, Karihaloo BL (1995b) Minimum cost design of RC
frames using the DCOC method Part II: columns under
biaxial bending actions. Struct Optim 10:33–39
Adamu A, Karihaloo BL (1995c) Minimum cost design of RC
beams with segmentation using continuum-type optimality
criteria. Struct Optim 9:220–235
Adamu A, Karihaloo BL, Rozvany GIN (1994) Minimum cost
design of reinforced concrete beams using continuum-type
optimality criteria. Struct Optim 7:91–102
H.J. Lee et al.
Hernández-Montes E, Gil-Martín LM, Aschheim M (2005) The
design of concrete members subjected to uniaxial bending
and compression using reinforcement sizing diagrams. ACI
Struct J 102(1):150–158
Kanagasundaram S, Karihaloo BL (1990) Minimum cost
design of reinforced concrete structures. Struct Optim 2:
173–184
Kanagasundaram S, Karihaloo BL (1991a) Minimum-cost rein-
forced concrete beams and columns. Comput Struct 41(3):
509–518
Kanagasundaram S, Karihaloo BL (1991b) Minimum-cost de-
sign of reinforced concrete structures. Comput Struct 41(6):
1357–1364
MATLAB R2006a (2006) Optimization toolbox 3 user’s guide.
The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA
Whitney CS, Cohen E (1956) Guide for ultimate strength
design of reinforced concrete. ACI J 28(5):445–490; Nov.
(Proceedings V. 53)