1tese Sobre Coluna WWF

THESIS
BEHAVIOR OF CONFINED COLUMN UNDER UNI-AXIAL

LOADING BY WELDED WIRE REINFORCEMENT
WORACHET PIMTHAWEEPOL
GRADUATE SCHOOL, KASETSART UNIVERSITY

2007
THESIS

WORACHET PIMTHAWEEPOL
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil Engineering)
Graduate School, Kasetsart University
2007
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research would never have succeeded without the help and support from
many people who contributed to the structuring of this work. The author would like to
express appreciation to all.
The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to his advisor Dr.Trakool

Aramraks and his committee Dr.Prasert Suwanwitaya and Dr.Suneerat Kusalasai for
their useful and valuable guidance and suggestions.
Grateful thank to his parents and friends who have continuously given the best
support of all kinds and inspired him with affection.
Worachet Pimthaweepol
March 2007
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
LIST OF TABLES ii
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii
INTRODUCTION 1
LITERATURE REVIEWS 3
MATERIAL AND METHOD 16
RESULT AND DISCUSSION 21
CONCLUSION 36
LITERATURE CITED 38
APPENDIX 40
APPENDIX A Materials Testing 41
APPENDIX B Theoretical and Calculation of Axial Force and
Deformation 47
APPENDIX C Experimental Result 52
APPENDIX D Materials Preparation 57
APPENDIX E Material and Equipment 68
ii
1 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Detail of reinforced concrete column test specimens 18

2 Test result of concrete compressive strength for
column specimens 21
3 Effect of confined column by transverse reinforcement 25
4 Comparison of Stress between WWR and RB 30
5 Axial compression force from experimental and theoretical 31
Appendix Table
A1 Compressive strength of concrete samples 42

A2 Tensile strength of Round bar, RB6 (SR24) 43
A3 Tensile strength of Round bar, RB9 (SR24) 44
A4 Tensile strength of Round bar, DB12 (SD30) 45
A5 Tensile strength of Welded wire reinforcement, CDR6 46
iii
2 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Reinforcement arrangements and geometric properties of column

(a) Cross section and (b) Elevation 6
2 Effect of tie arrangement on moment – curvature relationship 7
3 Confined pressure resulting from different reinforcement
arrangement 9
4 Confined – concrete model proposed by Saatcioglu and
Rezvi (1992) 10
5 Uniaxial Compressive Stress – Strain Curve 11
6 ε1
(A) Definition of
ε0
(B) Ductility – Brittle Behavior as function of volumetric Ratio
of WWR and Spacing – to – Width 13
7 Confined concrete stress – strain curve 14
8 Comparisons of axial load and volumetric of FRP and steel
confined concrete 15
9 Cross section of concrete specimens 17
10 Detail section of specimens 19
11 Column testing setup 20
12 Test set-up 22
13 CDR6/2(7.5) showing clear signs of covering failure 23
14 Theoretical relationship between axial force and axial
deformation of test specimen 24
15 Comparison between axial force and deformation of column
confined by round bar 6mm (RB6) with spacing 7.5 cm and 10 cm. 26
confined by welded wire reinforcement 6mm (CDR6) with
spacing 7.5 cm and 10 cm. 27
iv
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont’d)
Figure Page

confined by CDR6/2(7.5) and RB6(7.5) 28
confined by CDR6/1(10), CDR6/2(10) and RB6 (10) 29
19 Tiny crack occurring at 70-80% of peak load (No Tie bar column) 32
20 Column exploded after reaching ultimate load (No Tie bar column) 33
21 Tiny crack occurring at 70-80% of peak load (RB6(7.5)) 33
22 Covering crack (RB6(7.5)) 34
23 Covering spalling at ultimate load (RB6(7.5)) 34
24 Failure of welded wire reinforcement (CDR6/2(10)) 35
Appendix Figure
A1 Stress and strain curve of Round bar RB6mm

(Average from 3 samples) 43
A2 Stress and strain curve of Round bar RB9mm
A3 Stress and strain curve of Deformed bar DB12mm
A4 Stress and strain curve of Welded wire reinforcement CDR6
B1 Relationship between stress and strain of confined column by
Saatcioglu’s method 50
C1 Relationship between axial force and axial deformation of
column confined by RB6(7.5) 53
column confined by RB6(10.0) 53
v
Appendix Figure Page

column confined by CDR6/2(7.5) 54
column confined by Plain column (No Tie) 55
column confined by RB6(7.5), RB(10.0), CDR6/2(7.5),
CDR6/1(10.0), CDR6/2(10.0), No Tie 56
D1 Transverse reinforcement used for testing 58
D2 Transverse reinforcement RB6(7.5) 58
D3 Transverse reinforcement RB6(10) 59
D4 Transverse reinforcement CDR6/2(10) 59
D5 Transverse reinforcement CDR6/1(10) and No Tie 60
D6 Strain gages type KC-60-120-A1-11L1M&R 60
D7 Strain gages installed 61
D8 Connectivity check 61
D9 Standard cylindrical mold 62
D10 Preparation of formwork 62
D11 Materials preparation 63
D12 Mixing concrete 63
D13 Casting concrete 64
D14 Concrete cast in formwork 64
D15 Concrete cast in cylindrical mold 65
D16 Preparation for LDVT 65
D17 Curing 66
vi
Appendix Figure Page
D18 Capped with sulfur compound 66

D19 Cylindrical specimens for compressive test 67
E1 Material and Equipment no.1 69
E8 Tidal crack 73
E9 Visible crack 74
E10 Final stage 75
vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Ag = Gross area of section
Ast = Total area of longitudinal reinforcement
Ash = Area of transverse reinforcement
bc = Width of column (m.)
cm = Centimeter
CDR = Column confined by welded wire reinforcement
D = Width of specimen
Ec = Young’s modulus of concrete
Es = Young’s modulus of steel
E sl = Young’s modulus of the wires
ε0 = Axial strain of plain concrete column
ε1 = Axial strain of reinforced concrete column
f c' = Compressive strength of concrete cylinder (kg/cm2)
f cc' = Strength of concrete subjected to lateral pressure (kg/cm2)
f co' = Unconfined concrete strength in members (Mpa)
f cp = The peak stress of the reinforced specimen
f co = The peak stress of the plain specimen
fy = Specified yield strength of nonprestressed reinforcement
f yh = Yield strength of transverse reinforcement
fl = Average lateral confinement pressure (MPa)
FRP = Fiber - reinforced polymer

kg = Kilogram
k1 = Coefficients of lateral pressure
k2 = Coefficients of confined column

m = Meter
ρ = Volumetric ratio of WWF
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Cont’d)
Pc = Compressive force of concrete cylinder

Pny = Normalized axial load at yielding point
Pnu = Normalized axial load at ultimate point
RB = Round bar
s = Longitudinal spacing of transverse reinforcement (m.)
s1 = Spacing of Longitudinal reinforcement (m.)
WWR = Welded wire reinforcement
Δy = Deformation at yielding point
Δu = Deformation at ultimate point

1

INTRODUCTION
Columns are vertical compression members of structural frame intended to

support the load-carrying beams. They transmit loads from upper floors to the lower
levels then to foundation. Since columns are compression elements, failure of one
column in critical location can cause the progressive collapse of the structure.
To design reinforced concrete column, the structural designer must consider

strength and ductility of column. In seismic zone, ductility of column is required to
resist earthquake force. To design low-rise concrete building under earthquake force
the design computation must follow specification of transverse reinforcement for
seismic-resistant. Many researches indicate that confinement of the core concrete by
transverse reinforcement can increase strength and ductility of reinforced concrete
column.
For the past ten years, cold-drawn steel wire has been used instead of typical
transverse reinforcement known as Welded Wire Reinforcement (WWR). WWR
offers a highly practical and cost-efficiency alternative to traditional reinforcement.
Experimental research was conducted to investigate WWR as transverse

reinforcement and indicated that WWR can be used effectively as reinforced
confinement, providing more ductility and improvement of the structural performance
of column and also advantages such as being prefabricated and incurring less labor
cost during construction.
2
Objectives
1. To study behavior of rectangular reinforced concrete columns under

uni-axial loading confined by welded wire reinforcement (WWR) as transverse tie
reinforcement.
2. To study the effect of the spacing of transverse tie reinforcement on

strength and ductility of reinforced concrete columns.
3. To compare the behavior of strength and ductility of reinforced concrete

columns confined by WWR with those confined by round bar.
Scope of Research
Test specimens in this study are the rectangular reinforced concrete columns,
sizing 15cm. x 15cm. x 100cm. The concrete compressive strength is 320 kg/cm2
(cylinder). The specimen will be tested by uni-axial load until ultimate load capacity
is reached.
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Structural column failure is of major significance in terms of economic as well

as human loss. Thus extreme care needs to be taken in column design, with higher
reserve strength than in the case of beams and other horizontal structural elements,
particularly since compression failure provides little visual warning.
Strength design of members for axial loads shall be based on assumptions given
below and on satisfaction of applicable conditions of equilibrium and compatibility of
strains
1. Maximum usable strain at extreme concrete compression fiber shall be

assumed equal to 0.003.
2. The tensile resistance of the concrete is negligible.
3. Linear strain distribution exists across the thickness of column.
4. Strain in steel and concrete are the same.
Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-02); maximum

concentric load capacity of the short column can be obtained by.
PO = 0.85 f c' (Ag − Ast ) + Ast f y (1)
Where
PO = Nominal axial load strength at zero eccentricity
f c' = Specified compressive strength of concrete
Ag = Gross area of section
Ast = Total area of longitudinal reinforcement
f y = Specified yield strength of nonprestressed reinforcement

4
It is well – known that confined concrete behaves differently from unconfined

concrete. Concrete confined in two orthogonal directions has a higher compressive
strength in the third direction than unconfined concrete. The compressive stress-strain
behavior is also much more ductile with a sustainable post-peak load carrying
capacity. This property of concrete is especially relevant in column where axial
compression is pre dominant.
In such cases, confinement to the concrete is provided by lateral steel ties.

Studies of the effects of tie on column confinement in circular and rectangular column
span over more than 70 year.
ACI Committee 105 (1930) concluded lateral ties are used to hold the vertical
bars in position and providing lateral support, do not contribute to the strength, as
indicated by column studies that present tie requirement which are conservative for
ordinary columns with grade 40 reinforcement, but may not be conservative for column
with high – strength reinforcement, with large or bundled bars.
The characteristics of confined concrete have been researched extensively

during the last two decades, and the primary parameters of confinement have been
identified both experimentally and analytically.
Blume et al. (1961) studied relationship between axial force & moment and
axial force & curvature. The result showed ductility of column when subjected to axial
force, ductility was reduced due to axial force. Transverse reinforcement is used to hold
the vertical bars in position and resisted to shear force in column.
Richart (1929) studied confinement of concrete by lateral pressure from liquid.

The result from experimental showed lateral pressure has effect on ability of
compressive strength of concrete column. Therefore he proposed equation to predict
stress in concrete when subjected to lateral pressure.
5
f cc' = f c' + 4.1 f 1 (2)
Where
f cc' = Strength of concrete subjected to lateral pressure (kg/cm2)
f c' = Compressive strength of concrete cylinder (kg/cm2)
f1 = Lateral pressure (kg/cm2)
Richart (1933) concluded the result in testing concrete column under axial
load by studying the effect of size, creep, shrinkage of concrete by varied compressive
strength in range 140 – 150 kg/cm2 and longitudinal reinforcement around 1.5 – 6
percent of section. Compressive strength of this column was calculated from strength
of concrete, longitudinal reinforcement and confinement from transverse reinforcement.
The capacity of column that used spiral transverse reinforcement, has efficiency in
resisting lateral force more than ties transverse reinforcement.
Chan (1955) studied behavior of transverse reinforcement and compared

between spiral transverse reinforcement and tie transverse reinforcement. The results
show that tie transverse reinforcement can be used with confined concrete but has
efficiency quite lower than spiral transverse reinforcement around 50% in case of
equal volumetric longitudinal reinforcement. Continuity has more effect to transverse
reinforcement, because more lateral displacement. The proposed formula for
predicted lateral pressure from confinement is as below.
fl =
∑ RA sh f yh
R = 0.50 (3)
bc s
Where
f1 = Lateral pressure
Ash = Area of transverse reinforcement
f yh = yield strength of transverse reinforcement
bc = Width of column
s = Longitudinal spacing of transverse reinforcement

6
Razvi and Saatcioglu (1989) studied welded wire fabric (WWF) for use in
concrete column. They tested 34 small columns with 160x120 mm section reinforced
with conventional ties and WWF wrapped around columns, under concentric
compression. They are concluded that it’s very favorable but practical difficulties
existed in placing WWF in columns, especially when 135ْ hook ties were used.
Furthermore, wrapping WWF around a column would require overlap of WWF,
which means more material and more construction labor.
Saatcioglu et al. (1995) studied behavior of column under eccentric loading,

test on rectangular sections by 3 types of transverse reinforcement. The test
parameters included the arrangement, spacing and volumetric ratio of confinement
reinforcement, shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Reinforcement Arrangements and Geometric Properties of Column:

(a) Cross Section; (b) Elevation
Source: Saatcioglu (1995)
7
Figure 2 Effect of tie arrangement on Moment-Curvature relationship

The results show extremely ductility behavior, developing inelastic

displacement exceeding 4% of the drift ratio without a significant loss of strength.
Those with a low volumetric ratio and wide spacing of transverse steel developed
strength decay immediately after the peak load.
The confined-concrete model proposed by Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992) was

used to conduct the analysis. The model is based on the computation of confinement
pressure developed from the materials and geometric properties of column. The
following equations describe the model, shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
1 /(1+ 2 K )
⎡ ⎛ ε ⎞ ⎛ ε ⎞2 ⎤
f c = f cc ⎢2⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ ⎥
'
≤ f cc' (4)
⎢⎣ ⎝ ε 1 ⎠ ⎝ ε 1 ⎠ ⎥⎦
f cc' = f co + k1 k 2 f l ; k1 = 6.7( f le )
−0.17
; f le = k 2 f l (5)
⎛b ⎞⎛ bc ⎞⎛ 1 ⎞
⎟⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ≤ 1.0 ; k1 = 0.67( f le )
−.017
k 2 = 0.26 ⎜⎜ c (6)
⎝s ⎠⎝ sl ⎠⎝ f l ⎠
8
fl =
∑A f
s yt sin α
f co' = 0.85 f c' (7)
sbc
ε1 = ε 01 (1 + 5K )
k1 f le
K= (8)
f co
ε 85 = 260 ρε1 + ε 0.85 ρ= ∑A s

(9)
s (bcx + bcy )
Where
f cc' = Confined concrete strength in members (MPa)
f co' = Unconfined concrete strength in members (MPa)

Ash = Area of transverse reinforcement (mm2)
f yh = Yield strength of transverse reinforcement
bc = Width of column (m.)

9
Figure 3 Confinement pressure resulting from different reinforcement arrangement

10
Figure 4 Confined-concrete model proposed by Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992)

Grira and Saatcioglu (1996) studied behavior of column under seismic

conditions. Thus, the axial compression was fixed at 20% and 40% of the expected
peak compressive strength and columns were loaded laterally in cycles that simulated
the lateral drift experienced by columns during an earthquake. The result concluded
most favorable to the use of WWF as a replacement for transverse ties, for increased
ductility and strength of concrete columns.
Mau et al. (1998) studied behavior of small-column confined by WWF. They

investigated the complete uni-axial load – deformation history beyond the ultimate
compressive strength, albeit with smaller specimens and smaller wire size. The results
concluded that compressive strength of the welded wire reinforced concrete
composite in the range of parameter tested, showed the increase in strength could be
as high as 40 % and the most dominant factor in strength enhancement was the
longitudinal spacing of the WWF when small spacing – to width ratio (S/D) when
small enough would increase in volumetric ration of WWF leading to the increase of
strength. The different type did not seem to have much effect.
11
Figure 5 Uniaxial Compressive Stress-Strain Curve

Source: Mau et al. (1998)
They provided the formula to predict confined stress provided by WWF to the
concrete as below.
f cp ρE sl ⎛ S ⎞
= 1+ 2 ⎜1 − ⎟ (10)
f co f co ⎝ D ⎠
Where
f cp = The peak compressive stress of reinforced column
f co = Average compressive strength of plain concrete column
S = Longitudinal spacing of WWF

12
⎛ S⎞
The expression ⎜1 − ⎟ is to represent the effect of spacing in reducing the
⎝ D⎠
effective confining stress in concrete column.
⎛ε ⎞
Ductility index ⎜⎜ 1 ⎟⎟ , expressed as a strain ratio, is suggested. It gives the
⎝ε0 ⎠
maximum axial strain at which load equal to the plain concrete strength can still be
sustained. The demarcation value of this index is 8; larger than values signify ductility
behavior. The volumetric ratio and S/D ratio is suggested as the boundary that
separates the ductility region from the brittle region. They were proposed formula for
separated ductile and brittle as below.
S
ρ = 15 ~ 20 (11)
D
Where
ε 0 = Axial strain of plain concrete column
ε 1 = Axial strain of reinforced concrete column
13
(A) (B)
Figure 6 (A) Definition of ε1 / ε0

(B) Ductile-Brittle Behavior as function of volumetric Ratio of WWR and
Spacing-to-Width
Source: Mau et al. (1998)
Binici (2005) concluded stress-strain behavior of confined concrete, strength

and ductility of concrete are highly dependent on the level of confinement provided
by the lateral reinforcement. Models for describing axial stress-strain behavior of steel
confined concrete have been developed on basis of an extensive database of
experimental research. In these models the ultimate strength and stress-strain have
been adjusted as a function of confinement provided by the lateral reinforcement ratio
and uniaxial compressive strength.
14
Figure 7 Confined concrete stress-strain curve.

Source: Binici (2005)
The model used to compare behavior of FRP and steel confined having a
uniaxial compressive strength, initial stiffness and ultimate strengths of steel and FRP
confined concrete are similar, but the overall behaviors are different. In axial
direction, the stress-strain response for FRP confined concrete was bilinear but for
steel confined concrete, it was non linear at first then an almost perfectly plastic
response. The concrete strength and lateral reinforcement ratio are the two most
important factors affecting the descending region of stress-strain curves for steel
confined concrete. The yield strength of steel is found to affect only the ultimate
strength.
15
Figure 8 Comparisons of axial and volumetric of FRP and steel confined concrete.
Source: Binici (2005)
16
MATERIALS AND METHOD
Material and Equipment
Material
1. Concrete
The target compressive strength of concrete for column was 320 kg/cm2.
The maximum size of coarse aggregate was 10mm. (3/8in.), since the smallest
longitudinal spacing of WWR was only 7.50 cm. The fine aggregate was natural river
sand. The cement was type I Portland cement and the water cement ratio was 0.60
without admixtures. The mix proportion of cement : water : coarse aggregate : fine
aggregate in 0.14 m3 is 45:96:118:27 by weight, expressed in kilogram. As described
subsequently, the specimens were cast in six different batches for each of eighteen
specimens, resulting in a total 6 batches. For each batch, three standard cylinders were
also cast and tested in compression at the time the specimen were tested according to
ASTM 14 C192, typically around 28 days. The average compressive strength, fc ' of
the three cylinders are given in Table2.
2. Steel reinforcement
2.1 Deformed bars (12 mm diameter grade SD 30) were used for
longitudinal reinforcement and tested according to ASTM A370.
2.2 Round bars (6 mm diameter grade SR 24) were used for transverse
reinforcement and tested according to ASTM A370.
2.3 Welded wire reinforcements (6 mm diameter) were used for

transverse reinforcement and tested according to ASTM A185.
3. Steel formwork
17
Equipment
1. PC Computer
2. Load Cell capacity 100 Tons
3. Data logger
4. Strain gauges
5. Standard Cylindrical Molds Ø 15cm. x 30cm.
6. Universal Testing Machine
7. Bearing Plate size 20cm x 20cm x 0.30 cm. thickness with ball bearing Ø20cm.
8. LDVT and electrical transducer
9. Concrete mixing machine
10. Digital Camera
Experimental Research
The experimental research consisted of 18 square columns with different

parameters of confinement. Specimen would be tested under concentric uniaxial
compression to failure, the cross section of specimens were 0.15m x 0.15m and height
0.75 m. Figure 9 shows two different types of transverse reinforcement used while the
compressive strength of concrete was 320 kg/cm2 (cylinder) at 28 days.
15 cm 15 cm 15 cm
2.5 cm
2.5 cm 2.5 cm
15 cm 15 cm
15 cm
4-DB 12mm. 4-DB 12mm. 4-DB 12mm.

RB 6mm. @10cm. Stirrup CDR6/2 stirrup No Tie bar
Figure 9 Cross section of column specimens

18
Table 1 Detail of reinforced concrete column test specimens
Specimen Type of tie Grid Longitudinal Number of Remark

Designation bar Number spacing Specimens
(cm.)
RB6(7.5) RB6 2x2 7.5 3
Strain
RB6(10) RB6 2x2 10 3
gages
CDR6/2(7.5) CDR6 2x2 7.5 3
CDR6/1(10) CDR6 1x1 10 3
Strain
CDR6/2(10) CDR6 2x2 10 3
gages
No Tie bar - - - 3
Remark: RB6 is round bar diameter 6mm with 2 grids and CDR6/2 is welded wire
reinforcement diameter 6mm with 2 grids.
Specimen preparation
1. Round bar diameter 6mm can be bent up to requirement. Welded wire

reinforcement can not be bent normally, therefore electric welding is used to weld and
built up the section as required.
2. Longitudinal reinforcement and transverse tie bar are built up as required

then strain gages are installed at transverse reinforcement at middle of column to
investigate the strain of transverse reinforcement during testing.
3. Six sets of steel formwork are used to cast the specimens in a single
concrete batch. Each form consisted of three chambers for three equal-size specimens
to be cast horizontally with an open surface on top.
4. Placing concrete in formwork. Vibration for compaction is required after

placing and concrete will be touched up on surface for smoothness.
19
5. After concrete setup of about 1 day the formwork is taken off and
specimens are cured by spraying water then all specimens are covered by fabric or
plastic sheets.
6. Strain gages are tested by electrical resistance (Ohm meter) after taking off
formwork.
15 cm.
18.8 cm. RB 9 @5.0 cm.
Position for installing

strain gages
75 cm. 37.5 cm. RB6, CDR6

Spacing referred to Table 1
18.7 cm. RB 9 @5.0 cm.
Figure 10 Detail section of specimen
Testing
After the specimen has been cured for about 28 days, it is ready for testing
uni-axial compression.
1. Set up specimens on the Universal machine, put steel plate size 15x15x2.5
cm together with ball bearing at both ends for simulated pin support at the end of
column.
20
2. Set up LDVT with transducer for measurement over all axial deformation
at the middle of height of columns and connect to PC Computer.
3. After setting up the specimen and all instruments as required then apply
compression force to specimen slower and observe behavior of each stage of column.
The test is stopped only when the axial stress, after reaching a peak value much
earlier, has decreased to small fraction of the ultimate capacity.
Load Cell 100 tons
LDVT transducer
Strain gauge’s wire
Computer & Data logger
Figure 11 Column testing setup

21
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
1. Mechanical Properties of Material
Compressive strength of concrete cylinders at 28 days were mixed for casting

the reinforced concrete column specimens as shown in Table 2
Table 2 Test result of concrete compressive strength for column specimens
Compressive Force (kg) Average

Average Strength
Specimen Sample Sample Sample Pc
(ksc)
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 (kg)
RB6(7.5) 44,350 49,400 48,800 47,517 269
RB6(10) 42,930 48,120 43,760 44,937 254
CDR6/2(7.5) 50,890 42,590 44,170 45,883 260
CDR6/2(10) 47,480 52,400 50,650 50,177 284
CDR6/1(10) 57,730 63,070 54,080 58,293 330
No Tie bar 62,750 63,280 63,400 63,143 357
Because the results of compressive strength for column specimens were

different, this will affect the comparison of ultimate strength of concrete column.
Therefore the axial force of column test in Appendix C shall be normalized by
dividing these forces by the concrete cylinder, Pc in Table 2.
Tensile strength of round bars, RB6, RB9 and deformed bars, DB12 and
Welded Wire Reinforcement, CDR6 were shown in Appendix Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5
respectively.
22
2. Test Observation and Data Analysis
The effect of confinement of WWR is discussed here with respect to two

variables: volumetric ratio of WWR and longitudinal spacing.
The axial stress and strain were calculated by dividing the load by the nominal
cross-section of concrete column. The strain values were derived from the average of
the two LDVT readings. At about 70 – 80% of the peak values, tiny cracks at the
surface of both ends of the column began to appear as shown in Figure 21. The peak
stress was reached when one or more surfaces of the column showed clearly covering
failure. Sometimes with the sound of fracture then strength decreased earlier after
ultimate load was reached.
The strain gages inside the column were used to indicate lateral strain of
transverse reinforcement so that the lateral pressure due to confinement was induced
by transverse reinforcement.
Figure 12 Test set-up

23
Figure 13 CDR6/2(7.5) showing clear signs of covering failure

24
3. The effect of confined column by transverse reinforcement
The value of Pny , Pnu and ∆ y , ∆ u can be found by relationship between
normalized axial force and deformation of specimens (Figure 14). The straight line
had been drawn to parallel with the part of curve that seem to linear, intersect of
straight line with normalized axial force and deformation curve will be yield point,
Pny and ∆ y were found. Pnu , ∆ u were found at maximum normalized axial force.
There is no universally accepted ductility for concrete column under uni-axial

compression load. Mau (1998) suggested that by inspecting the normalized axial force
and deformation curves, the ratio of ∆ u / ∆ y can be shown as ability of ductility of
column after its yield.
Comparison of ∆ u / ∆ y had been observed, ductility of each specimens was
compared by the ratio of ∆ u / ∆ y .
Average value for Pny and ∆ y of each specimens are listed in Table 3.
Normalized Axial Force
Pnu
Pny
Axial Deformation
∆y ∆u
Figure 14 Theoretical relationships between normalized axial force and deformation

of test specimen
Source: Satjapan (2004)
25
Table 3 Effect of confined column by transverse reinforcement
Normalized
Axial Deformation
Specimen ρ sh Axial Force ∆u
(%) Yield Ultimate Yield Ultimate ∆y
( Pny ) ( Pnu ) (∆y ) ( ∆u )
RB6(7.5) 0.90 0.90 1.12 0.195 0.350 1.79

CDR6/2(7.5) 0.90 0.89 1.05 0.210 0.380 1.81
RB6(10) 0.68 0.92 1.06 0.180 0.290 1.61
CDR6/1(10) 0.45 0.73 0.88 0.210 0.330 1.57
CDR6/2(10) 0.68 0.90 1.01 0.220 0.360 1.64
No Tie bar - - 0.79 0.24
3.1 Ductility of column due to spacing of transverse reinforcement.
3.1.1 Refer Table 3, RB6 (7.5) has ∆ u / ∆ y =1.79 and Pnu = 1.12 and
RB6 (10) has ∆ u / ∆ y =1.61 and Pnu = 1.06. It is concluded that RB6 (7.5) has
ductility slightly greater than RB6(10). Figure 15, showed force and deformation of
confined column by round bar with different spacing.
26
1.20
1.12
1.10
1.06
1.00
0.92
0.90
0.90
RB6(7.5)
0.80 RB6(10)
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.18 0.195 0.29 0.35
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
Axial Deformation (mm)
Figure 15 Comparison between normalized axial force and deformation of column

confined by Round bar 6mm (RB6) with spacing 7.5 cm and 10 cm
3.1.2 Confined column by welded wire reinforcement 6mm (CDR6).

Regarding to Table 3, CDR6 can be separated into 3 groups CDR6/2(7.5),
CDR6/1(10), CDR6/2(10) according to number of grids and longitudinal spacing.
CDR6/2(7.5) has ∆ u / ∆ y = 1.81 and Pnu = 1.06 greater than other two groups that
means it is more ductile than another group as well. CDR6/1(10) has only ∆ u / ∆ y = 1.37
and Pnu = 0.88 which has minimum ductility of groups. Figure 16, shows force and
deformation of confined column by welded wire reinforcement with different
longitudinal spacing.
27
1.20
1.10
1.05
1.00 1.01
0.90
0.88 0.89 CDR6/2(7.5)
0.80 CDR6/1(10)
0.73 CDR6/2(10)
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.21 0.22 0.34 0.37 0.38
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55

confined by welded wire reinforcement 6mm (CDR6) with spacing 7.5 cm
and 10 cm
Longitudinal spacing of transverse reinforcement has more effect to strength

and ductility of confined column. Columns which have shortened longitudinal spacing
shall harden and are more ductile than longer longitudinal spacing. The effect of
different grid types is significant. 2x2 grids have results which seem to be better than
only one grid.
3.2 Comparison between round bar and welded wire reinforcement as

transverse reinforcement
Confined column by round bar and welded wire reinforcement were

separated into two groups as per volumetric ratio of WWR. First group ρ sh = 0.90
28
consists of CDR6/2(7.5), RB6 (7.5). Second group ρ sh = 0.68 consists of RB6 (10),
CDR6/2(10) and ρ sh = 0.45 for CDR6/1(10).
3.2.1 First group ρ sh = 0.90, CDR6/2(7.5) and RB6 (7.5) has ∆ u / ∆ y = 1.81
and 1.79 respectively that means CDR6/2(7.5) has ductility slightly greater than RB6
(7.5) and when compared with axial force, RB(7.5) has capacity of axial force a little
bit greater than CDR6/2 (7.5) as shown in Figure 17 due to the effect of compressive
strength of concrete.
1.20
1.12
1.10 1.06
1.00
0.92
0.90
0.88 CDR6/2(7.5)
0.80 RB6(7.5)
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.195 0.21 0.35 0.380
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55

confined by CDR6/2(7.5) and RB6 (7.5)
3.2.2 Second group ρ sh = 0.68 consists of CDR6/2(10.0) and RB6 (10.0)
has ∆ u / ∆ y = 1.64 and 1.61 respectively that means CDR6/2(10.) has ductility equal
to RB6 (10) when compared with CDR6/1(7.5) which has ∆ u / ∆ y = 1.57, it seems
lowest. Because it has only ρ sh = 0.45, volumetric ratio is confirmed as having on

confined column in terms of ductility. The effect of confinement by welded wire
reinforcement can be increased ductility of column. In Figure 18, shows the axial
29
force and axial deformation of confined column by CDR6/1(10), CDR6/2(10) and

RB6 (10).
1.20
1.10
1.06
1.01
1.00
0.92
0.90 CDR6/1(10)
0.88 RB6(10)
0.80
0.75 CDR6/2(10)
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.18 0.21 0.22 0.29 0.33 0.36
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
Figure 18 Comparison between normalized axial force of column confined by

CDR6/1(10), CDR6/2(10) and RB6 (10)
Confined column by conventional round bar seems to have strength slightly

greater than column confined by welded wire reinforcement. But if considering
ductility of column, CDR6 has ductility slightly greater than RB6 therefore it can be
concluded that CDR6 and RB6 have efficiency to confined column and provide
strength and ductility which are not different.
30
4. The efficiency between welded wire reinforcement and round bar
The tensile stress – strain characteristic were tested according to ASTM

standard, ASTM A185-94 for WWR and ASTM A370 – 94 for round bar.
Welded Wire Reinforcement (WWR), three coupons were tested for each wire
configuration, their average stress – strain curves which are shown in Figure A4. The
dimension of the wires and the young’s modulus and yielding stress are listed in
Appendix Table A5. ASTM A185-94 calls for the determination of yielding stress at
fixed strain of 0.02% offset. This method was used to determine the yielding stress.
Round bars (RB) were tested according to ASTM A370 – 94. Three samples
were selected for tensile test. The average stress – strain curves are shown in Figure
A1.
Table 4 Comparison of stress between WWR and RB
Type of Specimens Yield stress Ultimate stress Elongation

ksc ksc (%)
CDR6 5,633 6,324 3.20
RB6 3,114 4,445 34.57
From Table 4 it can be concluded that welded wire reinforcement has higher
tensile strength than round bar but elongation is very small when compared with round
bar.
From experimental results, the efficiency of welded wire reinforcement and

round bar used as transverse reinforcements in reinforced concrete columns are
slightly different in term of strength and ductility. Welded wire reinforcement may be
used instead of conventional round bar as transverse reinforcement, because it can be
prepared in factory before being installed to column which may reduce time for
construction and labor.
31
5. Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical Results
Analysis of confined column under uni-axial loading by transverse

reinforcement was compared to results from experimental.
Table 5 Axial compression force from experimental and theoretical results
ρ sh f cc' / f co' f cc' / f co' Normalized f cc' / f co'

Specimen (%) Saatcioglu S.T. Mau Axial force Experimental
Pnu
CDR6/2(7.5) 0.90 1.291 1.396 1.05 1.329

RB6(7.5) 0.90 1.220 1.383 1.12 1.417
CDR6/2(10) 0.68 1.210 1.183 1.01 1.278
RB6(10) 0.68 1.183 1.204 1.06 1.329
CDR6/1(10) 0.45 1.180 1.104 0.88 1.113
No Tie bar - - - 0.79
5.1 The experimental results were greater than theoretical average results
around 6.1% and it can be concluded that the results from confined theory can be used
to calculate capacity of confined column by transverse reinforcement. The value of
f cc' / f co' showed the relationship between maximum compression of column confined
by transverse reinforcement and no tie bar column.
5.2 The results calculated by S.T. Mau correlate closely to results from
experiment, because they were calculated by considering the ratio of longitudinal
spacing with depth of column (S/D) and volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement
which are important variables for confined column. S/D ratio is to represent the effect
of spacing in reducing the effective confining stress. For Saatcioglu theory, concrete
covering was assumed to spall and remained only core of concrete but in the
experimental, peak stress was reached before the spalling of covering.
32
6. Mode of Failure
The mode of failure of all specimens confined by transverse reinforcement are

not different, starting from tiny crack at around 70 – 80% of peak load and after that
covering of specimens were break and spalled from core of concrete column. The
ultimate load was reached at this stage.
No Tie columns are different from column that is confined by transverse

reinforcement. After column reached ultimate load, covering of column exploded by
confined pressure because transverse reinforcement was not provided.
Figure 19 Tiny crack occurriing at 70 – 80 % of peak load (No Tie bar column)
33
Figure 20 Column exploded after reaching ultimate load (No Tie bar column)
Figure 21 Tiny cracks occurring at 70 – 80 % of peak load (RB6(7.5))

34
Figure 22 Covering crack (RB6(7.5))
Figure 23 Covering spalling at ultimate load RB6(7.5)

35
Figure 24 Failure of welded wire reinforcement (CDR6/2(10))

36
CONCLUSIONS
1. All test specimens of confined column under uni-axial load by welded

wire reinforcement (WWR) as transverse tie reinforcement showed small cracks at
70% - 80% of ultimate load and appear at the both ends of the column due to
maximum bearing stress at the end, although special transverse reinforcements were
provided to protect cracking from maximum bearing stress. After that, the axial force
and deformation curve became more non-linear. When one or more surfaces of the
column showed clear signs of covering failures, the column still carried more load due
to effect of confinement. Ultimate load was reached when one or both of concrete and
transverse reinforcements failed.
2. The most dominant factor in strength of confined column was the

longitudinal spacing of the transverse reinforcement. When the spacing to width ratio
(S/D) decreased volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement increased and strength of
confined column increased.
3. Comparison of welded wire reinforcement and round bar as transverse

reinforcement with equal longitudinal spacing indicated that CDR and RB specimens
were able to withstand the same uni-axial load and ductility.
4. Ductility of confined column by WWR reinforcement and RB, expressed

as a deformation ratio, was suggested. It gives the maximum deformation at rupture
compared to deformation at yielding point. Because in yielding region, axial force and
axial deformation are in proportion and slightly deformed after yielding region, stress
and strain are not in linear and will increase in deformation rapidly until rupture.
37
5. The experimental results were greater than theoretical results around 6.1%
and it concluded that the results of confined theory by S.T. Mau can be used to
calculate the ultimate capacity of column confined by transverse reinforcement.
38
LITERATURE CITED
ACI Committee 318. 2002. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced

Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-02/ACI 318R-02).
American Concrete Institute, Detroit.
Baris, B. 2005. “An analysis model for stress-strain behavior of confined concrete”.
Engineering Structures 27(2005): 1040-1051.
Chan, W. L. 1995. “The Ultimate strength and deformation of plastic hinges in

reinforced concrete frame works”. Mag. Concrete Res. 7(21): 121-132.
Kappos, A. J., M. K. Chryssanthopoulos and C. Dymiotis. 1999. “Uncertainty

analysis of strength and ductility of confined reinforced concrete members”.
Engineering Structures 21(1999): 195-208.
Lim, H. J. and C. I. Liao. 2004. “Compressive strength of reinforced concrete

column confined by composite materials”. Composite Structures
65(2004): 239-250.
Luccioni, B. M. and V. C. Rougier. 2005. “Plastic damage approach for confined

concrete”. Computer & Structurals 83(2005): 2238-2256.
Mau, S. T., J. Holland and L. Hong. 1998. “Small – Column Compression test on
Concrete Confined by WWF”. Journal of Structural Division ASCE
124(3): 252-261.
Razvi, S. R. and M. Saatciglu. 1989. “Confinement of Reinforced Concrete Column

with Welded Wire Fabric”. ACI Structural Journal 86(5): 615-623.
Richart, F. E. 1933. “Reinforced concrete column investigation tentative”.

Final Report of committee 105. ACI Structural Journal 86(5): 615-623.
39
Richart, F. E., A. Brandtzaege and R. L. Brown. 1929. The failure of plain and
spirally reinforced column in compression. 1st. ed. Univ. llinois Eng. Exp.
Sta. Bull No.190. 120 p.
Saatciglu, M. and M. Grira. 1999. “Confinement of Reinforcement Concrete Column

with Welded Reinforcement Gride”. ACI Structure Journal 96(1): 29-39.
Saatciglu, M., A. H. Salamat and S. R. Razi. 1992. “Strength and Ductility of

Confined Concrete”. ACI Structure Journal 118(6): 1590-1607.
Saatciglu, M., A. H. Salamat and S. R. Razi.. 1995. “Confined Columns under

Eccentric Loading”. Journal of Structure Division ASCE 121(11): 1547-1556.
Samphan, K. 1988. Behavior of confined column by rectangular transverse

reinforcement. Thesis for Master of Engineering (Civil Engineering),
Kasetsart University.
Satjapan, L. 2004. Behavior of confined column under eccentric loading by

welded wire reinforcement. Thesis for Master of Engineering
(Civil Engineering), Kasetsart University.
Yalcin, C. and M. Saatciglu. 2000. “Inelastic analysis of reinforced concrete

columns”. Computer & Structures 77(2000): 539-555.
40
APPENDIX
41
Appendix A
Materials Testing
42
Appendix Table A1 Compressive Strength of concrete samples.
Compressive Force (kg) Average

Average Strength
Specimens Sample Sample Sample Pc
(ksc)
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 (kg)
RB6(7.5) 44,350 49,400 48,800 47,517 269
RB6(10) 42,930 48,120 43,760 44,937 254
CDR6/2(7.5) 50,890 42,590 44,170 45,883 260
CDR6/2(10) 47,480 52,400 50,650 50,177 284
CDR6(10) 57,730 63,070 54,080 58,293 330
No Tie bar 62,750 63,280 63,400 63,143 357
Remark: Pc is average compressive force of concrete cylinder
43
Appendix Table A2 Tensile strength of round bar, RB6 (SR24)
No of Yield load Ultimate Yield Ultimate Young’s Modulus

specimens (kg) load (kg) strength Strength (ksc)
(ksc) (ksc)
1 737 1,040 3,102 4,377 1.90 x 106
2 758 1,103 3,190 4,642 2.13 x 106
3 725 1,026 3,051 4,318 1.86 x 106
Average 740 1,056 3,114 4,445 1.97 x 106
Stress-Strain Diagram
5000
4500
4000
3500
Stress (ksc.)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014
Strain
Appendix Figure A1 Stress and strain curve of round bar RB6mm.

(Average from 3 samples)
44
Appendix Table A3 Tensile strength of round bar, RB9 (SR24)

(ksc) (ksc)
1 5,315 6,766 3,160 4,023 1.62 x 106
2 5,024 7,114 2,987 4,230 1.91 x 106
3 5,207 6,956 3,096 4,136 1.83 x 106
Average 5,182 6,945 3,081 4,130 1.78 x 106
4500
4000
3500
3000
Stress (ksc.)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014
Strain
Appendix Figure A2 Stress and strain curve of round bar RB9mm.

45
Appendix Table A4 Tensile strength of deformed bar, DB12 (SD30)

(ksc) (ksc)
1 3,080 4,048 3,240 4,259 1.98 x 106
2 3,150 4,130 3,314 4,345 2.03 x 106
3 3,000 4,015 3,156 4,224 1.93 x 106
Average 3,076 4,064 3,236 4,276 1.98 x 106
4500
4000
3500
3000
Stress (ksc.)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014
Strain
DB12
Appendix Figure A3 Stress and strain curve of deformed bar DB12mm.

46
Appendix Table A5 Tensile strength of welded wire reinforcement, CDR6

(ksc) (ksc)
1 1,577 1,817 5,580 6,217 2.04 x 106
2 1,611 1,930 5,700 6,604 2.05 x 106
3 1,588 1,798 5,620 6,152 1.98 x 106
Average 1,592 1,848 5,633 6,324 2.02 x 106
7000
6000 5,633
5000
Stress (ksc.)
4000
3000
2000
1000
Yield strength at 0.20% offset
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014
Strain
WWR6
Appendix Figure A4 Stress and strain curve of welded wire reinforcement CDR6
47
Appendix B
Theoretical and calculation of axial force and deformation
48
1. Analysis of confinement concrete column by Saatcioglu Method
2.1 Lateral force of confined column can be predicted from Equation (4) to
(9) by Saatcioglu.
h = 15cm
4-DB 12mm.
b = 15cm Ast CDR6/2(7.5) Stirrup @7.5 cm.
1 /(1+ 2 K )
⎡ ⎛ ε ⎞ ⎛ ε ⎞2 ⎤
f c = f cc ⎢2⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ ⎥
'
≤ f cc'
⎢⎣ ⎝ ε 1 ⎠ ⎝ ε 1 ⎠ ⎥⎦
f cc' = f co + k a f le ; k1 = 6.7( f le )
−0.17
; f le = k 2 f l
⎛b ⎞⎛ bc ⎞⎛ 1 ⎞
k 2 = 0.26 ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ≤ 1.0
⎝s ⎠⎝ sl ⎠⎝ f l ⎠
fl =
∑A f s yt sin α
f co' = 0.85 f c'
sbc
ε1 = ε 01 (1 + 5K )
k1 f le
K=
f co
ε 85 = 260 ρε1 + ε 0.85 ρ= ∑A s
s (bcx + bcy )
Where
f cc' = Confined concrete strength in member (MPa)
f co' = Unconfined concrete strength in members (Mpa)

49

Ash = Area of transverse reinforcement (cm2)
= 0.283 mm2
f yh = yield strength of transverse reinforcement
= 5,633 ksc.
bc = Width of column (cm.)
= 8.8 cm.
= 0.075 m.
= 0.076 m.
fc’ = 293 ksc.
Esh = 2.02x106 ksc.
Ec = 15210 f c ' = 2.60x105 ksc.
Substitution all of data to above equation yield
fl =
∑A f s yt sin α
= (4x0.283)(5633)/((7.5)(8.8)) = 96.61 ksc or 9.477 MPa
sbc
f co' = 0.85 f c' = 0.85(260) = 221 ksc. = 21.68 MPa
⎛b ⎞⎛ bc ⎞⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 0.088 ⎞⎛ 0.088 ⎞⎛ 1 ⎞
k 2 = 0.26 ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ≤ 1.0 = 0.26 ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ = 0.098
⎝s ⎠⎝ sl ⎠⎝ f l ⎠ ⎝ 0.075 ⎠⎝ 0.076 ⎠⎝ 9.477 ⎠
k1 = 6.7(k 2 f l )
−0.17
= 6.7((0.098)(9.477))-0.17 = 6.784
f cc' = f co' + k1 k 2 f l = 21.68 + ((6.784)(0.098)(9.477)) = 27.98 MPa = 285.22 ksc.
Thus f cc' = 1.25 f co' Yield strain of transverse reinforcement = fyh/Esh = 0.00278
Poisson’s ratio μ = 0.15
Thus strain in concrete = (fyh/Esh)/ μ = 0.01859
and strain at 0.85 fc’ = 0.85 fc’/Ec = 0.85(260)/2.60x105 = 0.00085
50
300
0.00278, 285.22
250
0.00085, 221
200
Stress (ksc)
150
100
50
0 0, 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
Strain (cm/cm)
Appendix Figure B1 Relationship between stress and strain of confined column by

Saatcioglu’s method
As’fy
Cc
Pcore
As’fy
Equilibrium condition External force = Internal force
Pcore = f cc' Acore + Ast f y
Pcore = (285.22)(8.8 x 8.8) + (3.801 x 3,236)

Pcore = 34,388 kg.
f cc'
= 285.22 / 221 = 1.29
f co'
Maximum Axial force for core of column confined by CDR6/2(7.5) by Saatcioglu’s
method
51
2. Analysis of confinement concrete column by Mau, Holland and Hong
They provided the formula to predict confined stress provided by WWF to the
concrete as below.
f cp ρE sl ⎛ S ⎞
= 1+ 2 ⎜1 − ⎟ (10)
f co f co ⎝ D ⎠
Where
f cp = The peak compressive stress of reinforced column
f co = Average compressive strength of plain concrete column

= 45,883 kg
= 7.5 cm.
D = Width of test column
= 15 cm.
= 0.009
= 2.02 x 106 ksc
f cp 0.009 x 2.02 x10 6 ⎛ 7.50 ⎞

= 1+ 2 ⎜1 − ⎟
f co 45,883 ⎝ 15.0 ⎠
f cp
= 1.396
f co
f cp = 1.396 x 45,883 = 64,052 kg.
Maximum force for reinforced column confined by WWR6/2(7.5) = 64,052 kg.
⎛ S⎞
The expression ⎜1 − ⎟ is to represent the effect of spacing in reducing the
⎝ D⎠
effective confining stress in concrete column.
52
Appendix C
Experimental Results
53
80,000
70,000
60,000 Sample No.1

Sample No.2
Sample No.3
50,000
Axial Force (kg)
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
Appendix Figure C1 Relationship between axial force and axial deformation of

concrete column confined by RB6 (7.5)
80,000
70,000
60,000
Sample No.1
Axial Force (kg)
50,000 Sample No.2

Sample No.3
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55

concrete column confined by RB6 (10.0)
54
80,000
70,000
60,000 Sample No.1

Sample No.2
Sample No.3
50,000
Axial Force (kg)
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55

concrete column confined by CDR6/2 (7.5)
80,000
70,000
Sample No.1
60,000 Sample No. 2
Sample No.3
Axial Force (kg)
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55

55
80,000
70,000
60,000 Sample No.1

Sample No.2
Sample No.3
50,000
Axial Force (kg)
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55

60,000
50,000
40,000
Axial Force (kg)
Sample No.1
30,000 Sample No.2
Sample No.3
20,000
10,000
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
Appendix Figure C6 Relationship between axial force and axial deformation of No

Tie bar concrete column
56
80,000
70,000
60,000
CDR6_2_7.5
RB6_7.5
50,000
CDR6_10
Axial Force (kg)
RB6(10)
40,000 CDR6_2_10
NO TIE
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55

concrete column confined by RB6 (7.5), RB6 (10),
CDR6/2(7.5), CDR6/1(10), CDR6/2(10), No Tie
57
Appendix D
Materials preparation
58
Specimen preparation
1. Preparation of transverse reinforcement
Appendix Figure D1 Transverse reinforcements are used for testing.
2. Preparation of reinforcement bar
Appendix Figure D2 Transverse reinforcements bar, RB6(7.5)

59
Appendix Figure D3 Transverse reinforcement bar, RB6(10)
Appendix Figure D4 Transverse reinforcement bar, CDR6/2(10)

60
Appendix Figure D5 Transverse reinforcement bar, CDR6/1(10) and No Tie
3. Strain gage type KC-60-120A1-11L1M2R
Appendix Figure D6 Strain gage’s package

61
4. Strain gages are installed to transverse reinforcement
Appendix Figure D7 Strain gages installed
5. Connectivity check
Appendix Figure D8 Connectivity check

62
6. Prepare standard cylinder mold
Appendix Figure D9 Standard cylindrical mold
7. Specimens ready for casting concrete
Appendix Figure D10 Preparation of formwork

63
8. Prepare materials
Appendix Figure D11 Materials preparation
9. Mixing machine
Appendix Figure D12 Mixing concrete

64
10. Casting concrete and vibration
Appendix Figure D13 Casting concrete
11. Concrete cast in formwork
Appendix Figure D14 Concrete cast in formwork

65
12. Concretes were cast in standard molds
Appendix Figure D15 Concrete cast in standard molds
13. Removed formwork and preparing for LDVT
Appendix Figure D16 Preparation for LDVT

66
13. Curing
Appendix Figure D17 Curing
14. The both ends of specimens were capped with sulfur compound
Appendix Figure D18 Capped with sulfur compound

67
15. The both ends of specimens were capped with sulfur compound
Appendix Figure D19 Cylindrical specimens for compressive test

68
Appendix E
Material and Equipment
69
Material and Equipments for Experiment
1. Set up instruments and specimen
Appendix Figure E1 Material and Equipment no.1
2. Personal computer for data record

70
3. Data logger
4. Transducer

71
5. Set up LDVT
6. Set up dial gage for steel tensile test

72

73
7. Around 60 – 80 % of peak load will occur tidal crack
Appendix Figure E8 Tidal crack

74
8. Failure surface made visible.
Appendix Figure E9 Visible crack

75
9. Failure surface was made visible by removing the loose cover of concrete
Appendix Figure E10 Final stage

1tese Sobre Coluna WWF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1tese Sobre Coluna WWF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THESIS

BEHAVIOR OF CONFINED COLUMN UNDER UNI-AXIAL

GRADUATE SCHOOL, KASETSART UNIVERSITY

BEHAVIOR OF CONFINED COLUMN UNDER UNI-AXIAL

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to his advisor Dr.Trakool

1 Detail of reinforced concrete column test specimens 18

A1 Compressive strength of concrete samples 42

1 Reinforcement arrangements and geometric properties of column

LIST OF FIGURES (Cont’d)

17 Comparison between axial force and deformation of column

A1 Stress and strain curve of Round bar RB6mm

LIST OF FIGURES (Cont’d)

Appendix Figure Page

C3 Relationship between axial force and axial deformation of

LIST OF FIGURES (Cont’d)

Appendix Figure Page

D18 Capped with sulfur compound 66

Ag = Gross area of section

Ast = Total area of longitudinal reinforcement

Ash = Area of transverse reinforcement

bc = Width of column (m.)

Es = Young’s modulus of steel

E sl = Young’s modulus of the wires

ε0 = Axial strain of plain concrete column

ε1 = Axial strain of reinforced concrete column

f c' = Compressive strength of concrete cylinder (kg/cm2)

f cc' = Strength of concrete subjected to lateral pressure (kg/cm2)

f co' = Unconfined concrete strength in members (Mpa)

f cp = The peak stress of the reinforced specimen

f co = The peak stress of the plain specimen

fy = Specified yield strength of nonprestressed reinforcement

f yh = Yield strength of transverse reinforcement

fl = Average lateral confinement pressure (MPa)

FRP = Fiber - reinforced polymer

k2 = Coefficients of confined column

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Cont’d)

Pc = Compressive force of concrete cylinder

Pnu = Normalized axial load at ultimate point

Δu = Deformation at ultimate point

BEHAVIOR OF CONFINED COLUMN UNDER UNI-AXIAL

Columns are vertical compression members of structural frame intended to

To design reinforced concrete column, the structural designer must consider

Experimental research was conducted to investigate WWR as transverse

1. To study behavior of rectangular reinforced concrete columns under

2. To study the effect of the spacing of transverse tie reinforcement on

3. To compare the behavior of strength and ductility of reinforced concrete

Structural column failure is of major significance in terms of economic as well

1. Maximum usable strain at extreme concrete compression fiber shall be

2. The tensile resistance of the concrete is negligible.

3. Linear strain distribution exists across the thickness of column.

4. Strain in steel and concrete are the same.

Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-02); maximum

PO = 0.85 f c' (Ag − Ast ) + Ast f y (1)

f c' = Specified compressive strength of concrete

Ag = Gross area of section

Ast = Total area of longitudinal reinforcement

f y = Specified yield strength of nonprestressed reinforcement

It is well – known that confined concrete behaves differently from unconfined

In such cases, confinement to the concrete is provided by lateral steel ties.

The characteristics of confined concrete have been researched extensively

Richart (1929) studied confinement of concrete by lateral pressure from liquid.