Chapter 4

columns: 2nd order moments in

sway and non-sway frames
Introduction
 The more general terms compression members and members
subjected to combined axial loads and bending are used to refer to
columns, walls, and members in concrete trusses and frames.
These may be vertical, inclined, or horizontal. A column is a
special case of a compression member that is vertical.

 Carries load from beams and slabs down to the foundation and
may also resist bending moment due to continuity of structure and
loading eccentricity

 EC2 Clause 5.3.1(7):

 Cross section dimensions (h  4b)
 Height is at least 3 times the section depth
Introduction
 Longitudinal bars should have a diameter of not less than min = 8mm

 The total amount of longitudinal reinforcement should not be less

than As,min and not higher than As,max

 at least one bar should be placed at each corner. The number of longitudinal bars in a circular
column should not be less than four.
Columns in seismic regions
• columns require special detailing
to resist the shear forces and
repeated cyclic loading from the
EQ. In seismic regions the ties are
heavier and much more closely
spaced

• Occasionally, when high strength

and/or ductility are required, the
bars are placed in a circle, and the
ties are replaced by a bar bent
into a helix or a spiral, with a pitch
from 35 to 85 mm.
tied and spiral columns
 This lateral expansion is especially
pronounced at stresses in excess
of 70% of the cylinder strength
and is restrained by the spirals

 An element taken out of the core

(see fig) is subjected to triaxial
compression which increases the
strength of concrete: f1=fc’+2.1f2.
tied and spiral columns
 As the maximum load is reached, vertical
cracks and crushing develop in the
concrete shell outside the ties or spiral,
and this concrete spalls off.

 In a tied column, the capacity of the core

that remains is less than the load on the
column. The concrete core is crushed,
and the reinforcements buckles outward
b/n ties. This occurs suddenly, w/o
warning, in a brittle manner.

 The spiral column can undergo large

deformations, eventually reaching a 2nd
maximum load, when the spirals yield
and the column finally collapses.
tied and spiral columns
 Both columns are in the
same building and have
undergone the same
deformations. The tied
column has failed
completely, while the
spiral column, although
badly damaged, is still
supporting a load

 Had the column been

detailed according to
ACI Section 21.4, the
column would have
performed much better.
Classification of Columns
• Stability effects must be
considered in the design
of compression members.
If the moments induced
by slenderness effects
weaken a column
appreciably, it is referred
to as a slender column.
Effective length of isolated members
General background: when is a column slender ?
 A column is qualified as “slender”, which
implies that second order effects should
be taken into account, if   lim. The
limit value is defined as:
Short Columns -Bending with/without Axial Load
Concrete and reinforcing steel – stress – strain relation

Concrete Reinforcing bar

Uniaxial interaction diagram
Mathematical Development
Identification of Domains
Identification of Domains
Identification of Domains
Identification of Domains
Geometric Imperfection
Simplified methods of Eurocode 2 for second order
analysis of slender reinforced concrete columns
 The design of reinforced concrete slender columns requires the
consideration of;
• material non-linearity – nonlinear behavior of concrete, cracking, yielding,…
• geometric non-linearities - arises from the need to verify the equilibrium in the deformed structure

 First order moments - Bending moments in the initial undeformed configuration of

the column axis
 Second order moments - The additional moments caused by deformations

 When the column is slender and the second order effects are very important, it is necessary to
perform a complete non-linear analysis

 In cases of columns in usual buildings, it is allowed to adopt simplified

methods without the need of this complex non-linear analysis
Simplified methods of Eurocode 2 for second order
analysis of slender RC columns
 ES EN 1992 adopts two simplified methods for second order analysis of
slender reinforced concrete columns:
• a method based on nominal stiffness –(EC2: Clause 5.8.7)

 similar to the moment magnification procedure adopts by ACI Building Code

 used for both isolated members and whole structures

• a method based on nominal curvature – (EC2: Clause 5.8.8)

 simplified method recommended by CEB FIP Model Code

 mainly suitable for isolated members

 In both methods, when the column is subjected to different first order end
moments M01 and M02, an equivalent constant first order moment M0e is adopted.
Method based on nominal stiffness
 The total design moment Md, including second order moment, is given by;
=
ψ1 is the magnification factor
M0e is the equivalent first order moment including the effects of imperfections

 According EC2, ψ1 may be expressed as;

=1+
−1

 is a factor that depends on distribution of the moments = 2/C0

Nd is the design axial load
Ncr is the buckling load based on nominal stiffness EI

c0 is a coefficient which depends on the distribution of first order moment (for instance, c0 = 8 for a
constant first order moment, c0 = 9.6 for a parabolic and 12 for a symmetric triangular distribution etc.)
 Method based on nominal stiffness
 For a constant cross section the buckling load, is given by;

le is the effective length

.
= + = , GPa E = 1.2
1+

Fig. The case of rectangular section with symmetrical reinforcement = - in MPa

20

= ≤ 0.20 ν relative axial force and λ slenderness ratio

170

φ∞= final creep coefficient; M0qp= first order bending moment in quasi-
= permanent load combination (serviceability limit states); M0e= first order
bending moment in design load combination (ultimate limit states)
Method based on nominal stiffness
 Considering the expressions of Ic and Is given in Fig. (SPS)

ℎ
= +3 1−2
1+ 12

= 12/ℎ

 The buckling load given can be written as

= +3 1−2 ℎ
1+
 A simplified alternative for EI

0.3
= Prior information on the amount of reinforcement is not necessary
1 + 0.5
Method based on nominal stiffness - Interpretation
 The magnification factor ψ1 increases when the
relative axial force ν increases.

 On the other hand, it decreases by increasing

reinforcement ratio ρ.

 The magnification factor ψ1 is independent of the

first order moment M0e.

 The magnification factor ψ1 increases very rapidly when

the load Nd approaches the buckling load Ncr
Method based on nominal curvature
Method based on nominal curvature

 The bending moment on the column follows from:

Magnification factors for the two simplified methods of EC2

 magnification factor ψ2 decreases with increase

of the relative first order eccentricity e1/h.

 The magnification factor ψ1 is independent of

e1/h.

 the magnification factor ψ2 increases with the

increase of the reinforcement ratio ρ, unlike
what happens with the factor ψ1.

 there is a clear contradiction between these

two simplified methods.

In CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 the creep effects are

introduced as an additional eccentricity ec given by
• By finding two distinct methods suggested in the same design
code, the engineer chooses the one that seems most
convenient, imagining that they provide similar design solutions.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. On the contrary, the two
methods give very different results.
Example
Example
Example
Example
Example
Design Procedure
General-Stability Problem
 One can not avoid stability
problems when dealing with
compression members in
general

 Has 2nd order analysis

anything to do with stability
analysis of compression
members?

 RC columns can be checked

for stability only through 2nd
order analysis
General-Stability Problem
 In 1st order theory equations of Stability problems with or w/o Bifurcation
equilibrium are formulated on the of Equilibrium
undeformed structure
 Strictly speaking not accurate,
P
because the conditions of
equilibrium are actually satisfied on
the deformed structure Pcr
 Thus columns are Pcr
analyzed/designed using 2nd order
theory meaning the conditions of
equilibrium are formulated on
the deformed structure w
Testing the State of Equilibrium
If P/M = 0 within
the interaction
diagram, it implies
that the neutral state
of equilibrium is
reached. The column
as a whole is at the
verge of becoming
unstable
M-N-Kappa Interaction diagram
Code Provision-EBCS-2:1995 (cont’d)
• 4.4 Design example- The standard column
• -to be able to compare the results maintain design eccentricity
at 140 mm, i.e. since
• -ea = le/300 = 9000/300 = 30 mm 1st order eccentricity eo =
140-30 = 110 mm
• 1st order moment MSdI = 996.6*0.14 = 139.94 kNm
•  Sd=139.94*106/(13.6*3503)=0.24 and Sd =
999.68*103/(13.6*3502) = 0.6   = 0.37 bal=0.267 Mbal =
155.7 kNm
• k2 = MSd/Mbal = 139.94/155.7 = 0.9
• (1/R)=0.9*(5/315)*10-3 = 14.29*10-6
Code Provision-EBCS-2:1995 (cont’d)
• For  = Le/i = 9000/(0.289*350) = 89>35
•  k1 = 1
•  e2= (1.0*(9000)2/10)*(14.29*10-6)=115.7 mm
•  SIGNIFICANT
•  etot = ee+ea+e2=110+30+115.7=255.7mm
• MSd = 999.6*103*255.7=255.6 kNm
Code Provision-EBCS-2:1995 (cont’d)
•  Sd=255.6*106/(13.6*3503)=0.438
• =0.88  bal=0.478 Mbal=278.7 kNm
•  k2 = MSd/Mbal = 255.6/278.7 = 0.92
• (1/R)=0.92*(5/315)*10-3 = 14.60*10-6
•  e2=1.0*(9000)2/10*(14.60*10-6)=118.3 mm
•  etot = ee+ea+e2=110+30+118.3=258.3mm
Code Provision-EBCS-2:1995 (cont’d)
• MSd = 999.6*103*258.3=258.2 kNm
•  Sd=258.2*106/(13.6*3503)=0.44
• =0.9  bal=0.48 Mbal=279.9 kNm
•  k2 = MSd/Mbal = 258.2/279.9 = 0.92
•  iteration stopped
Code Provision-EBCS-2:1995 (cont’d)
• 4.5 Observation
• According to the rigorous 2nd order analysis the column
reinforced with  = 1.0 was found to withstand the applied load
without the critical section quite reaching the ultimate or the
column becoming unstable indicating that the reinforcement
could still be reduced
• Design based on EBCS-2 provisions yielded  = 0.9 in very good
agreement with the rigorous method
Code Provision-EBCS-2:1995 (cont’d)
• 4.6 Creep
• Creep is allowed by multiplying curvature for short term loading
by (1+d). Where d = MDL/MSd
• The curvatures at the selected sections in the rigorous analysis
are to be increased to account for creep
• It is plausible that columns may reach the ULS (material and/or
stability) as a result of creep.
Second Order Theory-Sway
Frames
Part II
Statics of Sway Frames
• An unbraced frame is one that depends
on moments in the columns to resist
lateral loads and lateral deflections (see
fig.)
(Mtop + Mbot) = HL + (P)
• Both cols deflect the same amount 
 It is not possible to consider columns
independently of each other in an unbraced
(sway) frame-first difference
• Previous code does not make any
distinction b/n braced and unbraced
columns in this regard
 Statics of Sway Frames(cont’d)
• The maximum loads occur at the ends of the
column.
• Moment diagrams due to lateral loads and
due to P- are directly additive-the second
difference.
• Code formula for the equivalent
eccentricity, ee does not apply for sway
columns. Previous code does not make
any distinction with this regard either
P- Analysis
• Second order analysis in sway frames w/o rigorous
consideration of material non-linearity as a result
of non-linear constitutive material laws and
cracking

• Non-linearity is approximately taken in to account

by reducing the stiffness of the columns and
beams
Methods for Second-Order Analysis(Approximate)
• Iterative P- analysis for sway frames

• Direct P- analysis for sway frames (refer

Mac Gregor) (Reading assignment?)

• Computer programs that carry out second-

order analysis
 Iterative P- analysis for sway frames
• Hj = (Pi)*i/li – (Pj)*j/lj (See fig)

• Where Hj=sway force at jth floor

• Pi=total gravity load in the ith story (lower story)

• Pj=total gravity load in the jth story (upper story)

• li and lj=respective story heights

• i and j = respective story drifts

• Sway forces are added to the applied loads at

each floor level and the structure is reanalyzed
giving new  s and so on
Calculation of Sway Forces
• Recalling that story shear equals story moment divided by story
height
•  story shear as a result of P moments equals (Pi)i/li
Example-Iterative P- Analysis for Sway Frames

1000 kN 1000 kN


100
b/h = 300/400 H

5m b/h = 300/300

5m
Example-Iterative P- Analysis for Sway Frames (cont’d)

• 1=0.12995 m (MI = 250 kNm at the joints)

• H1= (P)*/l=(1000+1000)*0.12995/5=51.98kN

• 100+51.98=151.98 2=0.1975increase in
deflection=52%

• H2= (P)*/l=(1000+1000)*0.1975/5=79kN 
3=0.2326117.8%

• H3= (P)*/l=(1000+1000)*0.23261/5=100.34kN 
4=0.2603411.9%
Example-Iterative P- Analysis for Sway Frames (cont’d)

• H4=(P)*/l=(1000+1000)*0.26034/5=104.136 kN 
5=0.265281.9% < 5% iteration may be stopped

• H5=P*/l=(1000+1000)*0.26528/5=106.112kN

• Internal design moments at the joints with;

 H=100+106.112=206.112 kN now include 2nd order effects and

the magnitudes are 515.28kNm each.

• (NB: story shear = 100kN)

Sway or Non-Sway Based on Code Provisions
Sway or Non-sway Based on Code Provisions-
Example Frame (cont’d)
1500 1500 kN 1500
kN kN
100 kN Beam : (b/h =
400/600)
P P P 5.0 m Col. : (b/h =
100 400/400)
kN P = 1500`kN
P P P 5.0 m
100
kN
5.0 m

6.0 m 6.0 m
Sway or Non-sway Based on Code Provisions (cont’d)

• 1st order vs. 2nd order analysis gave the following story moments
500 vs. 548.39 kNm in the uppermost story;

1000 vs. 1202.18 in the intermediate story, and

1500 vs. 1868.07 in the lowermost story;

 9.7%, 20.2%, and 24.5%  uppermost floor is non-sway, while

the others are sway according to EC-2
Sway or Non-sway Based on Code Provisions(cont’d)
N = 4500 kN, 9000 kN, 13500 kN

Story drift  = 9.71mm,21.38 mm,81.87mm

Story shear H = 100 kN, 200kN, 300kN

(N/HL)top = 4500*0.00971/(100*5)=0.0874  0.1 non-sway

(N/HL)int=9000*0.02138/(200*5)=0.19242 sway

(N/HL)bot=13500*0.08187/(300*5)=0.73683 sway (as a matter of

fact unstable)- The example need to be revised – the calculation afterwards is purely
mathematical and is not practically feasible.
Software Application for the Analysis of the Sway Frame
Example
• Imperfection is considered by giving the frame an initial sway
imperfection according to EBCS 2  tan = L/120
•  top = 0.125m
•  int = 0.083m
•  bot = 0.042m
Software Application for the Analysis of the Sway Frame
Example(cont’d)
• Story shear: Vtop = 4500(0.125-0.083)/5=37.8kN
• Vint = 9000(0.083-0.042)/5=73.8kN
• Vbot = 13500(0.042)/5=113.4kN
•  Equivalent horizontal loadings: Htop = 37.8kN
• Hint = 73.8-37.8 = 36 kN
• Hbot = 113.4-73.8 = 39.6kN
• However frame- example is analyzed w/o imperfection
Software Application for the Analysis of the Sway Frame
Example(cont’d)

1500 1500 kN 1500

kN kN
137.8 kN

P P P 5.0 m Col. : (b/h =

136 kN 400/400)
P = 1500`kN
P P P 5.0 m
139.6 kN

5.0 m

6.0 m 6.0 m

System and loading including initial imperfection