Engineering Structures 23 (2000) 1518–1528

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

The behavior of reinforced concrete columns subjected to axial

force and biaxial bending
a,* b
Jin-Keun Kim , Sang-Soon Lee
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Kusong 373-1, Yusong, Taejon, South Korea
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Kusong 373-1, Yusong, Taejon, South Korea

Received 27 January 1999; received in revised form 14 September 1999; accepted 16 September 1999

Abstract

When stress is beyond elastic limit or cracking occurs in a reinforced concrete member subjected to axial force and biaxial
bending, curvature about each principal axis of gross section may be influenced by axial force and bending moments about both
major and minor principal axes. It is mainly due to the translation and rotation of principal axes of the cross section after cracking.
In this study, a numerical method for predicting the behavior of reinforced concrete columns subjected to axial force and biaxial
bending is proposed considering curvature localization. To verify the proposed numerical method, a series of tests was also carried
out for 16 tied reinforced concrete columns with 100×100 mm square and 200×100 mm rectangular sections under various loading
conditions. The boundary conditions at both ends of the column were hinged and eccentricities (40 mm) were equal and of the
same directions. The angles between the direction of eccentricity and the major principal axis of gross section were 0°, 30°, 45°
for the square section and 0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 90° for the rectangular section.
A comparison between the numerical predictions and the test results shows good agreements in ultimate loads, axial force-lateral
deflection relations, and lateral deflection trajectories. It is also found, in this limited investigation, that ACI’s moment magnifier
method is conservative in both uniaxial and biaxial eccentric loading conditions.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Reinforced concrete column; Biaxial bending; Curvature localization; Cracking; Moment magnification factor

1. Introduction affected by bending moments about both major and

The inherent characteristic of quasi-brittle materials
such as concrete creates cracking when the material is
applied with external loading. Therefore, the failure
mechanism of a concrete column with multiple loading
conditions changes from an uncracked to a cracked con-
dition. In the uncracked condition, axial force and bend-
ing moment applied to the column will have no coupling
effects. However, in the cracked condition, axial force
applied at the centroid of gross section may have an
effect on curvature and bending moment about principal
axis of gross section may also have an effect on axial
strain at the sectional centroid. Furthermore, when
biaxial bending occurs in a reinforced concrete column,
curvature about each principal axis of gross section is
* Corresponding author. Tel: +82-42-869-3614; fax: +82-42-869-
3610.
E-mail address: kimjinkeun@cais.kaist.ac.kr (J.-K. Kim).
minor principal axes.
Short reinforced concrete columns subjected to biaxial
bending have received considerable attention. As a
result, there are several empirical and approximate
methods and design aids available for strength design of
short column [1–8]. A few studies [9–14] have also
emerged for the analysis of slender reinforced concrete
columns subjected to biaxial bending. Chan [9]
developed a filament beam element with a rectangular
cross section for the analysis of beam slab systems. Mari
[10] developed a similar element with arbitrary cross
section and applied the proposed method to predict the
behavior of reinforced concrete columns under biaxial
bending. Although unloading may take place at points
adjacent to the curvature localization zone, they could
not account for this phenomenon. Therefore, in this
study, a numerical method for predicting the behavior
of reinforced concrete columns subjected to axial force
and biaxial bending is proposed considering curvature
localization.

0141-0296/00/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 9 0 - 5
 J.-K. Kim, S.-S. Lee / Engineering Structures 23 (2000) 1518–1528 1519

There have been many experimental studies on
reinforced concrete columns, but they have mostly been
limited to columns under uniaxial bending. There are a
few tests about columns under biaxial bending in the
past [15–21]. However, only the behavior of columns
until ultimate load was measured in these tests. The post-
peak behavior is important for determining ductility and
energy absorption capacity. Thus, for the present study, a
series of tests was also carried out for 16 tied reinforced
concrete columns under various loading conditions and
the test results were compared with the results of
numerical analysis and ACI’s moment magnifier
method. Data from an investigator [16] was also used
for further evidence of the reliability of the proposed
numerical method.
2. Constitutive laws for materials
Fafitis and Shah’s model [22] was used for uniaxial
compressive stress–strain relationship of concrete and
Vebo and Ghali’s model [23] was used for tension of
concrete. To account for the loading history, Ottor and
Naaman’s model [24] was used for compression, and a
straight line passing through the origin was used for ten-
sion.
For a reinforcing bar, an elastic-perfectly plastic
stress–strain relationship in both compression and ten-
sion was adopted where the unloading and reloading
slopes were assumed to be that of the elastic part.
3. Finite element formulations
A space frame element considered in this study is a
straight bar of uniform cross section which is capable of
resisting axial force, shear forces and bending moments
about two principal axes in the plane of the gross cross
section as shown in Fig. 1(a). The column matrices of
nodal displacements and forces are d̃=(d1,d2,%d12)T and
f̃=(f1,f2,%f12)T, respectively, where T denotes matrix
transpose. The local coordinate axes x, h, z coincide
with the frame centroidal axis and the principal axes of
the gross cross section, respectively. It is assumed, in
this study, that the cross section remains plain and nor-
mal to deflection line, shear deformations are neglected,
and strain is small even though displacements and
rotations may be large. From the previously mentioned
assumptions, the strain-displacement relations of the
space frame element may be defined as
1
eξx⫽u⬘⫺hv⬙⫺␵w⬙⫹ ((v⬘)2⫹(w⬘)2) (1a)
2
eξh⫽⫺␵f⬘ (1b)
eξ␵⫽hf⬘ (1c)
eηh⫽e␵␵⫽eη␵⫽0 (1d)
in which u, v and w are displacements for x, h and z
directions, respectively, and f is twist angle. A superim-
posed prime indicates differentiation with respect to x.
u, v, w and f may be decomposed into shape functions
and nodal displacements d̃:
u⫽Ñud̃⫽(N1,0,0,0,0,0,N7,0,0,0,0,0)d̃ (2a)
v⫽Ñvd̃⫽(0,N2,0,0,0,N6,0,N8,0,0,0,N12)d̃ (2b)
w⫽Ñwd̃⫽(0,0,N3,0,N5,0,0,0,N9,0,N11,0)d̃ (2c)
f⫽Ñφd̃⫽(0,0,0,N4,0,0,0,00,N10,0,0)d̃ (2d)
in which N1=1⫺x/l, N2=1⫺3(x/l)2+2(x/l)3, N3=N2,
N4=N1, N5=l(⫺x/l+2(x/l)2⫺(x/l)3), N6=⫺N5, N7=x/l,
N8=3(x/l)2⫺2(x/l)3, N9=N8, N10=N7,
N11=l((x/l)2⫺(x/l)3), N12=⫺N11
Then, applying the virtual work principle, the force-
displacement relation of the space frame element is
obtained as follows
(K̃⫹PK̃G)d̃⫽f̃ (3)

Fig. 1. Notations for frame element and fiber model.

1520 J.-K. Kim, S.-S. Lee / Engineering Structures 23 (2000) 1518–1528

where enon, axial force applied at the centroid of gross section

may have an effect on curvature and bending moment
K̃⫽K̃0⫹K̃PM⫹K̃MM
may also have an effect on axial strain at the sectional

冕冋
centroid. In this case, the axial force and the bending
∂ÑTu ∂Ñu ∂2ÑTv ∂2Ñv ∂2ÑTw ∂2Ñw moments are coupled and K̃PM is not a zero matrix. For
K̃0⫽ E ⫹Eh2 2 ⫹E␵2 2
∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x 2
∂x ∂x2 reinforced concrete members subjected to axial force and
V
biaxial bending, as shown in Fig. 2(b), the principal axes
⫹G(h2⫹␵2)
∂x ∂x 册
∂ÑTf ∂Ñf
dV
of the reinforced concrete section may not only translate
but also rotate after cracking. Thus, the transverse
deflection along each principal axis is influenced by the

冕冋 冉 冊
bending moments about both major and minor principal
∂ÑTu ∂2Ñv ∂2ÑTv ∂Ñu
K̃PM⫽⫺ Eh ⫹ axes and K̃MM is not zero matrix in this case.
∂x ∂x2 ∂x2 ∂x
V

⫹E␵ 冉 ∂ÑTu ∂2Ñw ∂2ÑTw ∂Ñu

⫹
∂x ∂x2 ∂x2 ∂x 冊册
dV
4. Effect of element size and modification

As expected on the basis of previous experience with

冕 冉 冊
strain softening problems [25–29], the results of the
∂2ÑTv ∂2Ñw ∂2ÑTw ∂2∂Ñv finite element analysis in the softening range are found
K̃MM⫽ Eh␵ ⫹ dV
∂x2 ∂x2 ∂x2 ∂x2 to be highly sensitive to the chosen element size
V
(element size dependency). Fig. 3(a) shows the axial

冕冉 冊
l force-lateral deflection relations for the column SS0 (see
∂ÑTv ∂Ñv ∂ÑTw ∂Ñw Fig. 5 and Table 2) using different element size while
K̃G⫽ ⫹ dx
∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x the element size is kept uniform throughout the column.
0
As an element size decreases, a sharper postpeak drop

冕
P⫽ EeξxdA
A
in which E is the secant modulus of material, K̃ is a
material stiffness matrix, K̃G is a geometric stiffness
matrix, and P is the axial force applied at the centroid
of gross section. K̃PM represents a coupling effect
between axial force and bending moments, and K̃MM rep-
resents a coupling effect between bending moments
about major and minor principal axes.
For a member with symmetric section which is com-
posed of elastic materials, K̃PM and K̃MM are zero matr-
ices. However, reinforced concrete members are com-
posed of nonlinear and inelastic materials. When a stress
is beyond elastic limit or cracking occurs in a reinforced
concrete section subjected to axial force and uniaxial
bending, the principal axes of the cross section may
translate as shown in Fig. 2(a). Because of this phenom-
of the axial force is observed due to curvature localiz-
ation in the midheight of the column.
The reason is that, in the finite element analysis, fail-
ure does not occur within the length of the curvature
localization segment lp but occurs within the chosen
element size. Thus, the energy dissipation depends on
the chosen element size. Accordingly the strain and the
secant modulus of material need to be modified in order
to obtain consistent results. To illustrate this effect, con-
sider a frame element of length le(leⱖlp). If the curvature
localizes in the segment of length lp, then the remaining
segment of length (le⫺lp) undergoes unloading. We con-
sider a fiber in which the stress before and after curvature
localization is s1 and (s1+ds), respectively, as shown
in Fig. 4(a). The strain increases only in the curvature
localization segment lp of the fiber, while the strain
decreases in the remaining segment (le⫺lp). The mean
change of the strain de in the fiber can be expressed
as follows

Fig. 2. Principal axes of cross section after cracking.

 J.-K. Kim, S.-S. Lee / Engineering Structures 23 (2000) 1518–1528 1521

Fig. 3. Axial force-lateral deflection relations with different element size.

Fig. 4. Influence of curvature localization on the material strain softening properties.

ds ds lp ds (le−lp) s1+ds
de⫽ ⫽ ⫹ (4) Em⫽ (7)
Rt Rp le Ru le e1+de
in which Rp is slope of the line passing through two
points A and B, and Ru is slope of the line passing
Since slopes Rp and Ru vary according to ds as well
through two points A and B⬘. Solving for ds, Eq. (5)
can be obtained. as s1, dem is difficult to obtain. For simplicity, the tan-
gential values Rtp and Rtu at point A instead of Rp and Ru
ds⫽Rtde⫽Rpdem (5) can be used as follows

冉 冊
in which
−1

冉 冊
Rtp
Rt Rp −1 dem⫽le lp⫹ t (le⫺lp) de (8)
dem⫽ de⫽le lp⫹ (le⫺lp) de (6) Ru
Rp Ru

Fig. 4(b) shows that the stress (s1+ds) can be It is found from Fig. 3(b) that the results obtained by
obtained from the modified strain (e1+dem) and the orig- using the above modification technique are consistent.
inal stress–strain curve of concrete. The modified secant
modulus of concrete is obtained by
1522 J.-K. Kim, S.-S. Lee / Engineering Structures 23 (2000) 1518–1528
5. Solution algorithm
Since the axial load influences the moment-curvature
relation, there is no unique moment-curvature relation
for a column section. Obviously, it is necessary to trace
the stress–strain path independently at the various
locations of the given section. Fiber model is suitable
for this purpose. In this study, the cross section is div-
ided into n fibers as shown in Fig. 1(b), some of which
represent reinforcing bars.
Among various possible step-by-step algorithms, the
direct iteration method (iterative secant stiffness
algorithm) was adopted to search for a nonlinear sol-
ution, and the displacement control solution algorithm
was used to analyze the entire load-deflection diagram
including the postpeak softening. The algorithm is
briefly stated as follows
1. Read the input data on structural geometry and
material properties.
2. Loop on load steps (increase the controlled displace-
ment at each load step).
3. Store the values of nodal displacements and also store
maximum and minimum strains of all fibers, calcu-
lated up to the preceding load step.
4. Loop on the iterations for the present load step.
5. Calculate the strain at the center of each fiber in all
elements from nodal displacements in the preceding
iteration (for the first iteration, from the values
obtained in the preceding step). For each fiber, check
the unloading conditions. According to the stress–
strain relationship of concrete and steel, calculate the
stress and the secant modulus from the strain. Calcu-
late the axial force applied at each element. If curva-
tures localize in an element, modify secant modulus.
Using the secant modulus for the individual fibers,
calculate the stiffness matrix of each element and then
assemble the global stiffness matrix. Implement the
boundary conditions and solve the system of equilib-
rium equations by the displacement control method to
obtain new nodal displacements.
6. Check the convergence criterion. If the criterion is not
met, return to step 4 and repeat step 5 and 6.
7. Calculate the internal forces for each element and
print the results. Return to step 2 and start next
load step.
6. Tests of columns under uniaxial and biaxial
loading
The main purpose of this test was to verify the pro-
posed numerical method and to investigate the effects of
cracking on the behavior and ultimate load of reinforced
concrete columns subjected to axial force and biaxial
bending. In this test program, two factors were taken as
test variables: (1) the eccentricity angle and (2) the shape
of the column section. The eccentricity angle is defined
as the angle between the direction of eccentricity and
the major principal axis. The eccentricity angles were
0°, 30°, 45°, 60° and 90° for the rectangular section and
0°, 30° and 45° for the square section.
6.1. Material properties
The mix proportion is given in Table 1. Sixteen
batches were prepared and one column and six com-
panion cylinders of f100×200 mm were cast from each
batch. Three cylinders were used for compressive
strength and elastic modulus tests, and the others for
splitting tensile strength tests (Brazilian test). Therefore,
the values of compressive strength, splitting tensile
strength and elastic modulus listed in Table 1 were the
mean values of the test results of forty-eight cylinders.
The longitudinal reinforcement consisted of No. 3
deformed steel bars and the ties were made of f4.7 mm
plain steel bars. The mean yield strengths of No. 3
deformed steel bars and f4.7 mm plain steel bars were
436 MPa and 165 MPa, respectively.
6.2. Details of specimens
The columns were designed with a 200×100 mm rec-
tangular section (RS-series) and a 100×100 mm square
section (SS-series) as shown in Fig. 5. The longitudinal
steel ratio was 2.14% for the rectangular section and
2.85% for the square section. The length of column was
1200 mm and the thickness of steel end plate attached
on both ends of column was 50 mm. The spacing of the
ties was 100 mm but was reduced to 50 mm at both ends
of the column. The thickness of concrete cover measured
from the center of longitudinal reinforcement to the con-
crete surface was 23 mm.
The columns were cast in forms made of plywood and
were cured in 23±1°C water until testing. Before casting,
foil strain gauges were attached on the longitudinal rein-
forcing bar at the midheight of the columns as shown in
Fig. 5.
6.3. Instrumentation and testing procedure
A servo-controlled hydraulic machine of 2500 KN
(INSTRON 8506) was used and the rate of loading was
Table 1
Mix proportion and test results of concrete
Slump
Proportions (kg/m3) fsp (MPa) fc⬘ (MPa) Ec (MPa)
(cm)
C W S G
315 205 822 882 8 3.4 27 24300
 J.-K. Kim, S.-S. Lee / Engineering Structures 23 (2000) 1518–1528 1523

Fig. 5. Details of specimens and loading.

controlled by a constant rate of increment of vertical dis- 7. Test results and discussion
placement such that the peak load was reached in
approximately 20 minutes. To accurately apply the load 7.1. Length of curvature localization segment
to the specimen, the steel end plates were fixed on both
ends of column by bolts. The boundary conditions at To make sure the solution is reliable, the length of
both ends of the column were hinged and the end eccen- the curvature localization segment must be determined
tricities (e=40 mm) were equal and of the same direc- in advance. Fig. 7 shows the measured length of the cur-
tions as shown in Fig. 5. Each column was instrumented vature localization segment with eccentricity angle. The
with LVDTs, as shown in Fig. 6, to measure the lateral
deflections at the midheight of the column. The strains
of longitudinal reinforcing bars were also measured by
foil strain gauges imbedded at the midheight of column.

Fig. 6. LVDT details. Fig. 7. Length of curvature localization with eccentricity angle.
1524 J.-K. Kim, S.-S. Lee / Engineering Structures 23 (2000) 1518–1528
measured lengths of curvature localization segment
show a small difference in the case of SS-series, but a
large difference in the case of RS-series. The maximum
length of curvature localization segment in RS-series
occurs at ϑ=60°.
7.2. Behavior
All specimens failed in compression mode. Most of
the columns failed at the midheight of the column. How-
ever SS0-2 and RS30-1 failed near the haunch of the
column which might be due to an imperfect alignment
of loading instruments. Fig. 8 shows the measured and
predicted strains at longitudinal reinforcing bars. Nega-
tive values mean compressive strain and positive values
tensile strain.
Fig. 9 shows the measured and predicted axial force-
lateral deflection relations. The proposed numerical
method gives good predictions for axial force-lateral
deflection relations of columns subjected to axial force
and biaxial bending. If the coupling effect was not con-
sidered, the ultimate load could be overestimated and the
Fig. 8. Strains of longitudinal reinforcing bars.
trend of deflections could be greatly different from the
real behavior after cracking (shown in Fig. 10).
7.3. Slenderness effects
To consider slenderness effect, ACI 318-95 [30] rec-
ommends the moment magnification factor of
d⫽Cm/(1⫺Pu/0.75Pcr)ⱖ1 (9)
in which Cm is the end effect factor (Cm=1.0); Pu is the
factored axial load; Pcr(=π2EI/(klu)2) is the elastic buck-
ling load; k is the effective length factor; EI is the flex-
ural rigidity of column section. The value of EI shall be
taken as
EI⫽0.4EcIg/(1⫹bd) (10a)
EI⫽(0.2EcIg⫹EsIs)/(1⫹bd) (10b)
in which Ec and Es are the elastic modulus of concrete
and steel, respectively; Ig is the moment of inertia of
gross section and Is is the moment of inertia of reinforce-
ment about the centroidal axis of cross section; bd is the
 J.-K. Kim, S.-S. Lee / Engineering Structures 23 (2000) 1518–1528 1525

Fig. 9. Axial force-lateral deflection relations of columns.

Fig. 10. Influence of the interaction between bending moments in both major and minor principal axes.

concrete creep factor (bd=1.0). For biaxial bending, ACI In the last column of Table 2, the moment magnifi-
318-95 recommends that the moment magnification fac- cation factors based on the measured ultimate load and
tors be separately computed with respect to each princi- lateral deflections of column are presented. dη,ACI and
pal axis. dζ,ACI are the values determined according to Eqs. (9)
1526 J.-K. Kim, S.-S. Lee / Engineering Structures 23 (2000) 1518–1528

Table 2
Results of test and analysis

Specimen b×h (mm) ϑ Pu,t (kN)a Pu,a (kN)b Pu,t/Pu,a Lateral deflections at Moment magnification factor
ultimate load (mm)
About z axis About h axis
⌬η,t ⌬ζ,t dζ,tc dζ,ACId dη,tc dη,ACId

RS0-1 200×100 0° 204 200 1.02 15.6 - 1.39 1.41 - -

RS0-2 206 1.03 17.3 - 1.43 1.41 - -
RS30-1 30° 208 212 0.98 14.0 1.1 1.40 1.42 1.06 1.08
RS30-2 217 1.02 13.3 2.3 1.38 1.45 1.12 1.08
RS45-1 45° 266 235 1.13 9.6 2.5 1.34 1.61 1.09 1.10
RS45-2 239 1.02 11.3 2.8 1.40 1.51 1.10 1.09
RS60-1 60° 313 275 1.14 7.8 2.4 1.39 1.80 1.07 1.13
RS60-2 295 1.07 7.6 2.8 1.38 1.72 1.08 1.12
RS90-1 90° 418 403 1.04 - 4.8 - - 1.12 1.17
RS90-2 443 1.10 - 4.0 - - 1.10 1.19
SS0-1 100×100 0° 119 113 1.05 16.0 - 1.40 1.51 - -
SS0-2 126 1.11 18.1 - 1.45 1.56 - -
SS30-1 30° 112 103 1.09 10.0 6.6 1.29 1.47 1.33 1.47
SS30-2 104 1.01 10.4 6.5 1.30 1.42 1.33 1.42
SS45-1 45° 103 101 1.01 9.5 9.4 1.34 1.41 1.33 1.41
SS45-2 106 1.05 8.4 8.6 1.30 1.43 1.30 1.43

a
Pu measured ultimate load by test
b
Pu,a calculated ultimate load by analysis
c
δη,t=(eζ+⌬ζ,t)/eζ, δζ,t=(eη+⌬η,t)/eη, where eζ=e cosϑ and eη=e sinϑ
d
δη,ACI, δζ,ACI are determined according to Eqs. (8) and (9) with Pu,t

and (10a). dη,t and dζ,t are the moment magnification fac-
tors deduced from the measured lateral deflections.
dη,t⫽(eζ⫹⌬ζ,t)/eζ
dζ,t⫽(eη⫹⌬η,t)/eη
in which eζ=e cos ϑ, eη=e sin ϑ, e is the eccentricity,
and ⌬η,t and ⌬␵,t are the measured lateral deflections at
ultimate load along the h and ␵ directions, respectively.
Although the ACI’s moment magnification factors are
separately computed about each principal axis, it seems
that the ACI’s moment magnifier method is still con-
servative in biaxial loading conditions.
7.4. Ultimate load
A comparison between the measured and the predicted
ultimate loads is also given in Table 2 where Pu,t is the
measured ultimate load and Pu,a is the value calculated
by the proposed method. It is found that the proposed
numerical method predicts the ultimate load of columns
under biaxial bending in both rectangular and square sec-
tions fairly well.
The ultimate load of a column may be predicted from
biaxial interaction surface and ACI’s moment magnifi-
cation factors. The biaxial interaction surface was
obtained by using the equivalent rectangular stress block
in this study. It is found from Fig. 11 that the ultimate
loads (Pu,ACI) obtained from the biaxial interaction sur-
face and the ACI’s moment magnification factors, are
conservative for both rectangular and square sections.
8. Comparisons with other experimental results
(11a) Nine rectangular columns reported by Mavichak [16]
were selected for the comparison. The length of columns
(11b)
was 1829 mm and the boundary conditions of both ends
of columns were hinged. During the sequence of loading,
axial force was maintained at one of three different load
levels (0.2 P0, 0.35 P0, and 0.5 P0) while eccentricities
were increased gradually until failure. P0 is the ultimate
load of a short column under axial force.
Mavichak [16] presented biaxial moment-curvature
data. The secondary deflections are affected by the
chosen element size, and the ratio of biaxial moments
is also affected by the secondary deflections. Thus, the
moment-curvature relationship is affected by the chosen
element size. Since no data about curvature localization
length is available in the report, Mavichak columns of
RC-2 and RC-4 were analyzed for two different curva-
ture localization lengths. The moment curvature relation-
ships are found to be sensitive to chosen curvature local-
ization length. Deduced from Fig. 12, the curvature
localization length of two columns is about 500 mm.
Moment magnification factors are plotted against the
axial load ratio Pu,s/P0 in Fig. 13 in which Pu,s is axial
force sustained during the test. The comparisons between
moment magnification factors of the ACI Code and the
test results indicate that, with low axial force level, the
ACI’s moment magnification method gives some unsafe
values. The comparisons between moment magnification
factors of the ACI Code and numerical prediction indi-
 J.-K. Kim, S.-S. Lee / Engineering Structures 23 (2000) 1518–1528 1527

Fig. 11. Ultimate loads with eccentricity angle.

Fig. 12. Moment curvature relationship for Mavichak Specimens.

Fig. 13. Moment magnification factor for Mavichak Specimens.

1528 J.-K. Kim, S.-S. Lee / Engineering Structures 23 (2000) 1518–1528
cate that ACI’s moment magnification factor is overesti-
mated at high axial force level and underestimated at
low axial force level. From Fig. 13, it is also conclusive
that the coupling effect between bending moments on
the moment magnification factor is not significant at a
high axial force level.
9. Conclusions
A numerical method for predicting the behavior of
reinforced concrete columns subjected to axial force and
biaxial bending is proposed. The proposed method
accounted for the coupling effect between bending
moments about major and minor axes, in addition to the
coupling effect between axial force and bending
moment. If the coupling effect between bending
moments about major and minor axes was not con-
sidered, the ultimate load could be overestimated and
the trend of deflections could be very different from the
measured values after cracking.
The analytical results are found to be highly sensitive
to the chosen element size (element size dependency).
This problem can be overcome by modifying the strain
and the secant modulus of concrete for each fiber of the
element based on the length of curvature localization.
A comparison between the numerical predictions and
the experimental results shows good agreements in axial
force-lateral deflection relation, deflection trajectories
and ultimate loads of columns. Data from other investi-
gator was also used for further evidence of the reliability
of the proposed numerical method. The comparisons
between moment magnification factors of the ACI Code
and numerical prediction indicate that the ACI’s moment
magnification factor is overestimated at high axial force
level and underestimated at low axial force level in both
uniaxial and biaxial loading condition. It is also found
that the coupling effect between bending moments on
the moment magnification factor is not significant at high
axial force level.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial sup-
port to KOSEF (ERCeSTRESS).
References
[1] Bresler B. Design criteria for reinforced concrete columns under
axial load and biaxial bending. ACI Journal 1960;57(5):481–90.
[2] Meek JL. Ultimate strength of columns with biaxially eccentric
loads. ACI Journal 1963;57(8):1053–64.
[3] Pannell FN. Failure surfaces for members in compression and
biaxial bending. ACI Journal 1963;60(1):129–40.
[4] Parme AL, Nieves NJ, Gouwens A. Capacity of rectangular col-
umns subject to biaxial bending. ACI Journal 1966;63(9):911–22.
[5] Weber DC. Ultimate strength design charts for columns with
biaxial bending. ACI Journal 1966;63(11):1205–30.
[6] Hsu CT, Mirza SM. Structural concrete-biaxial bending and com-
pression. J Struct Div ASCE 1973;99(2):285–90.
[7] Rotter JM. Rapid exact inelastic biaxial analysis. J Struct Engng
1985;111(12):2659–74.
[8] Horowitz B. Design of columns subjected to biaxial bending. ACI
Struct J 1989;86(6):717–22.
[9] Chan EC. Nonlinear geometric, material and time dependent
analysis of reinforced concrete shells with edge beams. Report
UCB-SESM 82/8, University of California at Berkeley, USA,
1982.
[10] Mari A.R. Nonlinear geometric, material and time dependent
analysis of three dimensional reinforced and prestressed concrete
frames. Report UCB-SESM 84/12, University of California at
Berkeley, USA, 1984.
[11] Poston RW, Breen JE, Roesset JM. Analysis of nonprismatic or
hollow slender concrete bridge piers. ACI Journal
1985;82(4):731–9.
[12] El-Metwally SE, Chen WF. Nonlinear behavior of R/C frames.
Comput Struct J 1989;32(6):1203–9.
[13] Ulm FJ, Clement JL, Guggenberger J. Recent advances in 3D
non-linear FE-analysis of R/C and P/C Beam Structures, Proc.
ASCE Structures Congress XII. Atlanta, GA: New York,
1994:1427–33.
[14] Ahmad SH, Weerakoon SL. Model for behavior of slender
reinforced concrete columns under biaxial bending. ACI Struct J
1995;92(2):460–8.
[15] Drysdale RG. The behavior of slender reinforced concrete col-
umns subjected to sustained biaxial bending. PhD dissertation,
The University of Toronto, 1967.
[16] Mavichak V. Strength and stiffness of reinforced concrete col-
umns under biaxial bending. PhD dissertation, The University of
Texas, Austin, 1977.
[17] Wu H, Huggins MW. Size and sustained load effects in concrete
columns. J Struct Div ASCE 1977;103(3):493–506.
[18] Hsu CT. Channel-shaped reinforced concrete compression mem-
bers under biaxial bending. ACI Struct J 1987;84(2):201–11.
[19] Hsu CT. T-Shaped reinforced concrete members under biaxial
bending and axial compression. ACI Struct J 1989;86(4):460–8.
[20] Hsu CT. Biaxially loaded L-shaped reinforced concrete columns.
J Struct Engng ASCE 1985;111(12):2576–95.
[21] Zahn FA, Park R, Priestley MJN. Strength and ductility of square
reinforced concrete column sections subjected to biaxial bending.
ACI Struct J 1989;86(2):123–31.
[22] Fafitis A, Shah SP. Predictions of ultimate behavior of confined
columns subjected to large deformations. ACI Journal
1985;82(4):423–33.
[23] Vebo A, Ghali A. Moment-curvature relationship of reinforced
concrete slabs. J Struct Div ASCE 1977;113(3):515–31.
[24] Otter DE, Naaman AE. Model for response of concrete to random
compressive loads. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1989;115(11):2794–
809.
[25] de Borst R. Robustness in numerical computations of damage
evaluation in cohesive-frictional materials. Computer Assisted
Mech Engnng Sci 1997;4:27–54.
[26] Kim JK, Lee TG. Failure behavior of reinforced concrete frames
by the combined layered and nonlayered method. Comput Struct
1993;48(5):819–25.
[27] Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete structure II. New
York: ASCE, 1993.
[28] Bazant ZP, Pan J, Cabot GP. Softening in reinforced concrete
beams and frames. J Struct Engng ASCE 1987;113(12):2333–47.
[29] Bazant ZP. Instability, ductility and size effect in strain-softening
concrete. J Engng Mech ASCE 1976;102(2):331–4.
[30] ACI Committee 318, Building code requirements for reinforced
concrete (ACI 318-95). Detroit: ACI, 1995.