See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292476965

Design of Concrete Columns to AS 3600-2001

Conference Paper September 2001

READS

34

2 authors:
Andrew Thomas Wheeler

Russell Q. Bridge

ABES Australia

Western Sydney University

48 PUBLICATIONS 83 CITATIONS

67 PUBLICATIONS 580 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Andrew Thomas Wheeler

Retrieved on: 17 April 2016

20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001

DESIGN OF CONCRETE COLUMNS TO AS 3600-2001

A. Wheeler and R.Q. Bridge
Centre for Construction Technology and Research, University of Western Sydney
Synopsis. Columns are an important structural element in reinforced concrete
structures. They are usually cast integrally with the framing concrete beams and slabs
although precast columns can be used in appropriate situations. They have to provide
resistance to both axial forces and bending moments generally resulting from load
applied to the floor beams and slabs. In the design procedure for columns, use is made
of the load-moment interaction diagrams which may be in the form of design charts or
generated by computer programs.
Important new design provisions have been included in a new edition of Australian
Standard AS 3600-2001, "Concrete Structures". Apart from improving the quality of
building construction, the new design provisions also allow designers to benefit
considerably from the move to high-strength 500 MPa reinforcing steels. The use of the
higher strength steels is of particular importance in the design of columns where the
predominant action to be resisted is axial force. Significant savings in steel can be
achieved leading to more economical solutions.
The new AS3600-2001 design provisions for columns take into account the change to
the higher strength steels. This paper presents the background to the changes and
includes important explanatory information. This will assist structural design engineers
to understand the engineering principles on which the design method is based and to
better realise the benefits that can be achieved through the use of the changes in
conjunction with the introduction of the high strength steels. These benefits are
highlighted through the presentation of a number of practical worked examples.
Examples of new improved design charts are also presented.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The introduction of the new Australian Concrete Structures Standard AS 3600-2001 [1]
and the corresponding introduction of 500 Grade reinforcing steel has resulted in a
number of significant changes in methods for calculating the ultimate strength of
members. While it may appear that the higher yield strength reinforcing steel can be
considered by substituting the yield stress (fsy) into the existing calculation methods, it
should be pointed out that these methods are based on a number of assumptions that are
dependent on material properties. Consequently, a number of changes were made to the
standard to enable design with the higher grade reinforcing steel.
In this paper the changes made in AS 3600-2001 for the determination of the column
ultimate strength are discussed. The first of the changes is in the calculation of the
ultimate compressive strength of a column. According to AS 3600-1994 [2] the ultimate
compressive strength of a column is calculated by applying a constant strain of 2000
micro-strain to the cross-section. At this strain it is assumed that the concrete stress is
equal to the cylinder strength fc and that the reinforcing steel is at yield. However,
AS 3600-2001 increases the applied strain to 2500 micro-strain to invoke the additional
strength of the higher yielding reinforcing steel.
The second significant change is in the determination of the balance point. When
considering the column in combined compression and bending, the capacity reduction
factor is dependent on whether bending or axial compression is dominant, as determined
1
Wheeler & Bridge

20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001

by the balance point. The values of this balance point are based on material properties
of the reinforcing. Consequently, they are altered with the introduction of higher grade
reinforcement.
Other significant changes with respect to columns discussed in this paper include
adjustment to the column stiffness when determining the buckling capacity, and the
increase in the maximum allowable concrete strength from 50 MPa to 65 MPa.
A design example is presented to demonstrate the economic benefits that may be
realised by utilising 500 grade reinforcement. Also presented is an improved Column
Design Chart that enables quick easy determination of reinforcement requirements for
standard columns.
2.0 CROSS-SECTIONAL STRENGTH
The cross-sectional strength of a member is dependent on a number of factors including
the size, relative configuration of the steel and concrete components and the material
properties of the both steel and concrete. While the size and layout of the cross-section
is critical in determining the capacity of a column, it is imperative that the stress-strain
relationships of both the steel and concrete be fully understood.
The common stress strain curve used for concrete is that defined by the Comite
Europeen de Beton [3]. Typical stress-strain curves for the current grades of concrete as
defined by AS 3600 [1] are shown in Figure 1. This Figure includes the 65 MPa
concrete as represented by the CEB curve. For all curves the strain corresponding to
maximum strength of the concrete occurs at a constant value of 0.0022. It should be
noted that the maximum strength of the concrete for determining strength of crosssections is taken as 0.85fc, accounting for effects of long term loading and other site
conditions.
70

65 MPa

60
50 MPa

Stress (MPa)

50

40 MPa

40

32 MPa

30

25 MPa

20
0.0022

10
0
0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

Strain

Figure 1 - Stress Strain Relationship for Concrete

For reinforcing steels, a bi-linear elastic-plastic stress-strain relationship is utilised for
design, as shown in Figure 2. For design purposes, the elastic modulus (Es) is taken as
200 000 MPa, the yield strength (fsy) is based on the grade of reinforcement and the
yield strain (sy) is a function of the yield strength and the elastic modulus.
2
Wheeler & Bridge

20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001

600

0.0025
0.002

400

300

0.0025

200
0.0020

Stress s (MPa)

500

100

0
0

0.001

0.002

Strain s

0.003

0.004

0.005

Figure 2 - Stress Strain Relationship for Reinforcing Steel

In determining the ultimate capacities of columns when subjected to either bending
and/or axial force a number of assumptions are usually made. These are:
1. Plan sections remain plane
2. Reinforcement is fully bonded to concrete
3. Tensile strength of concrete is ignored
4. Equilibrium and strain compatibility are satisfied
2.1

Axial Compression

The behaviour of a reinforced concrete cross-section subject to axial loading is easily

modelled by applying a uniform axial strain (a) to the cross-section. Using the stressstrain relationships for the steel (Figure 2) and concrete (Figure 1), the stress in each
material may be determined and the resulting axial force expressed as
N s As c Ac

The concrete stress (c) and steel stress (s) for the given strain (a) may be expressed as
c f ( a )

s min(200000 a , f sy )

From Figure 1 it is observed that the concrete stress strain relationship is non-linear with
the maximum strength of 0.85fc occurring at a strain of 0.0022 while the steel is linear
elastic to the yield strain (sy) at which point the stress remains constant at the yield
stress (fsy).
The ultimate strength (Nuo) of the cross-section in axial compression is determined by
increasing the axial strain a until the axial force N given in Eq. 1 reaches a maximum.
The strain corresponding to the ultimate axial strength Nuo is defined as uo.
When the yield strain of the reinforcing steel is less than or equal to the strain resulting
in a peak concrete load (o), it can be seen that the steel yields before the concrete has
3
Wheeler & Bridge

20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001

reached its maximum strength. Thus the ultimate axial strength Nou in compression is
simply given as:

N uo f sy As 0.85 f ' c Ac

For the 400 grade reinforcing bar this has been the case with a yield strain of sy = 0.002
which is less than the peak concrete strength strain o (=0.0022). This was reflected in
Clause 10.6.3 of AS 3600-1994 [2]. However, for steels with yield strains greater than
the strain o at peak concrete strength, such as the new 500 grade steels, the simplified
method as described in Eq. 4 is no longer valid. Consequently, to fully utilise the
additional strength from increasing the steel strength, AS 3600-2000 recommends that
the assumed applied axial strain is increased from 0.002 to 0.0025.
As shown in Figure 3, when a strain of 0.002 is applied to the cross-section, the
concrete stress is close to its peak stress but the stress in the steel is significantly below
the yield stress for a 500 grade steel. At a strain of 0.0025 (sy for 500 Grade steel) the
reinforcement stress has peaked. However the concrete has passed its peak stress and
some loss in the concrete strength is observed. Consequently, the ultimate strength as
defined by Eq. 4 will generally give overestimates for the column capacities. The
magnitude of the overestimation is dependent on the percentage of reinforcement and
the strength of concrete, with the difference of approximately 2 percent occurring in a
column with 3 percent steel and 50 MPa concrete. However, when long term effects are
considered these overestimations in ultimate strength are eliminated [4].
600

40
35

500

400
Concrete
300

25
20

Steel

15

200
10

0.0025

Steel Stress (MPa)

30

100

0
0

0.001

0.002

Concrete Stress (MPa)

31.6 MPa

0.003

0.004

0.005

0
0.006

Strain

Figure 3 Peak Stress and Strains

To accurately determine the short-term axial strength of a column cross-section it

should be noted that the ultimate strain (ou) at which the ultimate axial compressive
strength Nuo is achieved is dependent on the geometric properties and the shape of the
concrete stress-strain relationship. For section typically with high percentages of steel
the ultimate load is achieved when the steel yields. Thus the ultimate axial compressive
strength Nuo is expressed as

4
Wheeler & Bridge

20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001

N uo f sy As f ( sy ) Ac

For cross-sections with lower percentages of reinforcement, ultimate axial compressive

strength Nuo is reached before the steel yields. The steel remains elastic, with the axial
compressive strength N expressed as
N Es a As f ( a ) Ac

where Es is the elastic modulus of the reinforcing steel.

To determine the ultimate axial compressive strength Nuo, Eq. 6 is differentiated with
respect to strain a and equating to zero gives the condition for maximum axial
compressive strength Nuo where
d ( f ( a ))
dN
Es As
Ac 0
d a
d a

Eq. 7 may be solved analytically if the stress-strain relationship c = f(a) is in a closed

form solution and amenable to differentiation. Alternatively, Eq. 6 can be solved
numerically by varying a until a maximum value is obtained for Nuo
There is no prior way of knowing if the steel yields prior to or after reaching the
ultimate axial compressive strength. However, the value of Nuo from Equation 5 will be
less than or equal the value from Equation 6 and could be used conservatively for
design purposes. Alternative methods for determining an accurate value for Nuo using
charts has also been developed [4].
2.2

Combined Compression and Bending

cu
do

Axial Load

(M ul, N ul)
Pure Axial (N uo)

cu
cu

k ud

sy

k uod o

Balance Point (M ub,N u,)

Pure Moment (M uo)

Moment
Figure 4 - Load Moment Strength Interaction Curve

The capacity of a column cross-section depends on the eccentricity of the applied load,
with the load decreasing as the eccentricity increases. General practice is to represent an
eccentric load as an axial load and a moment equivalent to the product of the applied
axial load and the eccentricity. Consequently most design is done utilising the load
5
Wheeler & Bridge

20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001

moment strength interaction curve of the type shown in Figure 4. A detailed description
of the theory and methods used is beyond the scope of this paper but can be found in a
number of publications [5][6].
Three key points on the load-moment strength interaction diagram, as shown in Figure
4, are of particular interest and use to designers. While the new standard has adjusted
some of the assumptions in determining the ultimate squash load Nuo with respect to
applied strains, the ultimate strength in bending Muo still assumes that the strain cu on
the extreme compressive fibre is 0.003 [7]. At the so-called balanced point the
particular ultimate bending strength Mub and the corresponding ultimate axial
compression strength Nub are determined are determined for a particular depth of the
neutral axis (kuodo). At this point the value of kuo is such that this outermost layer of steel
has just reached yield at a strain of sy, and do is the depth from the extreme compressive
fibre to the centroid of the outermost layer of tensile reinforcement. This point is usually
at or close to the nose of the load moment interaction diagram.

cu
sy

kuodo

Figure 5 - Balance Point Strain Distribution

The strain distribution at the balance point is shown in Figure 5. From this figure the
required kuo at the balance point is determined and given by
kuo

cu
cu sy

In AS3600-1994, the normal type of bar reinforcement used in columns is 400Y with a
design yield stress fsy = 400 MPa and a yield strain sy = 0.002. The maximum
compressive strain cu in the concrete at ultimate strength is taken as 0.003. Using these
values in Eq. 8 gives a value of kuo = 0.6 which is the value that was used in AS36001994 (see definitions of Mub and Nub in Clause 1.7). For 500N grade steel with a design
yield stress fsy = 500 MPa and a yield strain sy = 0.0025, then Eq. 8 gives a value of
kuo = 0.545. Consequently, AS 3600-2001 specifies the value of kuo according to Eq. 8.
3.0 BUCKLING LOAD

When considering slender columns, AS 3600 uses a moment magnifier to take into
account the slenderness effects. The moment magnifier for a braced column b is given
in Clause 10.4.2 of AS 3600 as
b

km
1.0
1 N * Nc

where km is the coefficient is used to convert a column with unequal end moments, N* is
the applied axial load and Nc is the column buckling loads defined as

6
Wheeler & Bridge

20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001

2 EI
L2e

Nc

10

In determining the buckling load, the effective length Le is found using Clause 10.5.3 of
AS 3600-2001. However the stiffness EI of the column cross-section varies according to
the level of axial load and moment applied to the column. To simplify the design
process, the secant stiffness for the column, based on the stiffness of the column crosssection at the balance point (Mub, Nub) is utilised to define this stiffness [8, 9]. The
secant stiffness has been shown to be relative constant for a wide range of points
(Mu, Nu) [10]. The secant stiffness for a typical moment-curvature relationship at a
constant axial force equal to the balanced value Nub is shown in Figure 6.

M ub

Moment

N ub = Constant

Slope = EI

ub

Curvature

Figure 6 - Moment-Curvature Relationship for Constant Balanced Axial Force Nub

From this figure the secant stiffness EI at the balance point is expressed as
M ub
ub

EI

11

From the strain diagram shown in Figure 5 at the balance point, the curvature ub (slope
of the strain distribution) is given by
ub

cu
k uo d o

12

Substituting the value of kuo from Eq. 8 into Eq. 12 then substituting this value of ub
into Eq. 11 gives the secant stiffness EI
EI

M ub d o
cu sy

13

In AS3600-1994, the normal type of bar reinforcement used in columns is 400Y with a
design yield stress fsy = 400 MPa and a yield strain sy = 0.002, and the maximum
compressive strain cu in the concrete at ultimate strength is taken as 0.003. Using these
7
Wheeler & Bridge

20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001

values in Eq. 13 then

EI = 200doMub

14

When the same procedure is applied to 500N grade steel with a design yield stress fsy =
500 MPa and a yield strain sy = 0.0025, and taking the strain cu in the concrete at
ultimate strength as 0.003, then substitution into Eq. 13 gives the design value for EI as
EI = 182doMub

15

Finally the stiffness is corrected to account for creep due to sustained loading, a reduced
concrete elastic modulus, resulting in a column stiffness of
EI = 200do(Mub)/(1+d)

for 400 Grade

16

EI = 182do(Mub)/(1+d) for 500 Grade

17

where d is the creep factor and Mub is the design strength.

4.0 DESIGN EXAMPLE

To demonstrate how savings can be achieved by using the 500 grade reinforcement, a
typical design example is presented. For the case chosen a re-design of a 400 grade
column into 500 grade reinforcement is required. The column had external dimensions
of 450 x 700 mm, 50 MPa concrete, with the reinforcement consisting of 12Y36 bars
with a cover of 35 mm to reinforcement as shown in the insert in Figure 7.
The load-moment strength interaction diagram for the column using 400 grade
reinforcement is shown by the bold line in Figure 7. For this particular example three
alternatives using 500 grade reinforcement were determined.
The first was a simple substitution of 12N36 (500 grade) bars for the existing 12Y36
bars. This solution represented by the dash line results in a column with an increase of 5
percent in axial capacity and up to 20 percent increase in moment capacity.
The second alternative is to reduce the bar diameter and use 12N32 bars; this equates to
a reinforcement reduction of approximately 21 percent. As represented in Figure 7 by
the dash-dot-dot line, this alternative presents a load moment strength curve a little
lower than that of the original column with a decrease in axial capacity of
approximately 1 percent and decrease in moment capacity of 2 percent. If within the
tolerance of design, these variations may acceptable. Consequently a 21 percent saving
in steel may obtained.

8
Wheeler & Bridge

20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001

12000

50 MPa Concrete

Axial Strength N u (kN)

Cover 35 mm

12Y36

10000

400 Grade

12N36

8000

500 Grade

12N32
6000

10N36

500 Grade

500 Grade

450 x 700
4000

2000
12 bars

10 bars

0
0

500

1000

Moment Strength M u (kNm)

1500

Figure 7 Load-Moment Strength Interaction (Ast Equal)

The third alternative is to replace the 12Y36 bars with 10N36 bars in the configuration
shown in Figure 7. In this case the load moment strength curve, the dash-dot line,
closely represents the curve for the existing column design with a saving of 17 percent
of reinforcement realised. For the given example, the designer must also check the
design for bending in the y direction to ensure that it is also adequate.
5.0 COLUMN DESIGN CHARTS

To assist the designer in selecting the correct column based on design action effects, a
number of publications exist that enable quick selection of the correct percentages of
reinforcement using charts. A typical design chart is presented in Figure 8 for a
rectangular column reinforced equally on all four faces.
The design charts are generated using an advanced analysis method, with material
assumptions as specified by AS 3600-2001. The stress distributions in the concrete were
determined from the CEB stress strain relationship, with a maximum stress of 0.85f'c.
The reinforcing steel utilises a bi-linear relationship and a yield stress of 500MPa. The
balance moment Mub and corresponding axial load Nub were determined when
kuo = 0.545.

9
Wheeler & Bridge

20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001

40

Minimum eccentricity

gD

Nu/Ag (MPa)

30

20

Locus Nub,Mub

Mu/AgD (MPa)

10

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

1
0.0

0.03

0.0

0
0.0

10

12

Figure 8 Rectangular Column f'c = 40 MPa, g = 0.9

To determine the required percentage of steel the design action effects are taken and
non-dimensionlised using the depth and width of the cross section. These values are
then plotted on the chart and the corresponding percentage of steel determined. A series
of the charts for three general cross-sections may be found in the Guide to Reinforced
Concrete Design Booklet Cross-section Strength of columns [11].
6.0 CONCLUSIONS

With the introduction of the AS 3600 - 2001 and the ability to design using 500 grade
reinforcement, a number of subtle changes in the procedure for determining ultimate
strength and stiffness of column cross-sections have been introduced.
The changes with respect to columns include
Calculation of Nuo - The ultimate strength in compression Nuo shall be calculated by
assuming that the uniform concrete compressive stress in the concrete is equal to 0.85fc
and that the maximum strain in the steel and concrete is 0.0025.
Definition of kuo - The value of kuo for the determination of the balance point and
buckling stiffness is now dependent on the yield strength of the reinforcement as
defined by Eq. 8. This results in the value of kuo being equal to 0.6 and 0.545 for 400
grade and 500 grade reinforcement respectively. The column buckling loads also vary
with the reinforcement grade.

7.0 REFERENCES

1 Standards Australia, (2001), AS3600-2001 Concrete Structures, Standards

Australia, Sydney.
2 Standards Australia, (2001), AS 3600-1994 Concrete Structures, Standards
10
Wheeler & Bridge

20th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia 2001 (Concrete 2001),
Perth, Western Australia, 11 - 14 September 2001

Australia, Sydney.
3 CEB (1973), Deformability of Concrete Structures Basic Assumptions, Bulletin
DInformation No. 90, Comite Europeen du Beton.
4 Wheeler A. and Bridge R., (2001) Column Axial Compressive Strength and
AS 3600-2001, Proceedings, The Australasian Structural Engineering Conference,
Gold Coast 2001, pp. 359-366.
5 Bridge, R.Q. and Roderick, J.W. (1978), The Behaviour of Built-up Composite
Columns, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. ST7, July, pp.
1141-1155.
6 Wheeler A. T. and Bridge R. Q., (1993) Analysis of Cross-sections in Composite
Materials. Proceedings, Thirteenth Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of
Structures and Materials, Wollongong, Australia, University of Wollongong, pp 929937.
7 Bridge, R.Q. and Smith, R.G. (1984), The Ultimate Strain of Concrete, Civil
Engineering Transactions, IEAust, Vol. CE26, No. 3, pp. 153-160.
8 Smith, R.G and Bridge, R.Q. (1984) The Design of Concrete Columns, Top Tier
Design Methods in the Draft Unified Code, Lecture 2, Postgraduate Course Notes,
School of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of Sydney, pp. 2.1-2.95
9 Bridge, R.Q. (1986), Design of Columns, Short Course, Design of Reinforced
Concrete, School of Civil Engineering and Unisearch Ltd., University of New South
Wales, Lecture 8, pp. 8.1-8.36
10 Smith, R.G. and Bridge, R.Q. (1984), Slender Braced Reinforced and Prestressed
Concrete Columns A Comparative Study, Research Report No. 472 , School of
Civil and Mining Engineering, University of Sydney, April, 51p.
11 Bridge, R. and Wheeler A. (2000), Guide to Reinforced Concrete Design Crosssection Strength of Columns Part 1: AS 3600 Design, OneSteel Reinforcing,
Sydney.

11
Wheeler & Bridge