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

net/publication/245303489

High-Strength Concrete Columns Confined by

Rectangular Ties

Article  in  Journal of Structural Engineering · March 1994

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)120:3(783)

CITATIONS READS

199 1,940

2 authors:

Daniel Cusson Patrick Paultre

National Research Council Canada Université de Sherbrooke
126 PUBLICATIONS   1,279 CITATIONS    178 PUBLICATIONS   2,558 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Évaluation de la vulnérabilité sismique des ponts routiers au Québec réhabilités avec l’utilisation d’isolateurs
en caoutchouc naturel View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Cusson on 16 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 HIGH-STRENGTH C O N C R E T E C O L U M N S C O N F I N E D BY
RECTANGULARTIES
By Daniel Cusson I and Patrick Paultre, 2 Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: This paper presents an experimental study of the behavior of large-

scale high-strengthconcrete columns confined by rectangular ties under concentric
loading. Effects of key variables such as the concrete compressivestrength, the tie
yield strength, the tie configuration, the transverse reinforcement ratio, the tie
spacing, the longitudinal reinforcementratio, and the spalling of the concrete cover
are studied in this research program. The behavior of high-strength concrete col-
umns is characterized by the sudden separation of the concrete cover, leading to
a loss of axial capacity before the lateral confinementbecomes effective. After the
concrete is completelyspalled, important gains in strength, toughness, and ductility
are recorded for the concrete core of well-confined columns.

INTRODUCTION

The technology of high-strength concrete (HSC) has greatly improved

over the last decade. Higher compressive strength, greater modulus of elas-
ticity, and substantial savings resulting from the section reduction are all
properties of high-strength concrete that appeal to designers. Unfortunately,
present code provisions are often used without any additional precautions
for safety in construction projects involving high-strength concrete. More-
over, the parameters defining the requirements for lateral confining rein-
forcement in current codes are the results of tests done on reinforced con-
crete members with concrete compressive strengths lower than 40 MPa ( A C I
Committee 318, 1989). Therefore, current code requirements may not be
adequate nor safe for H S C members.
Confinement of normal-strength concrete by rectangular ties has been
extensively studied in recent years (Vallenas et al. 1977; Sheikh and Uzumeri
1980; Mander et al. 1988). It has been observed that columns with a good
distribution of longitudinal and lateral reinforcement provided in sufficient
quantity, as shown in Fig. l(b), possess great ductility and present significant
strength gain. Refined stress-strain models for confined concrete have also
been proposed. These models, based on test results from normal-strength
concrete columns, may not be adequate for concrete of much higher strength.
Published data on the performance of large scale (smallest dimension
larger than 200 ram) H S C tied columns are scarce (Bjerkeli 1992; Itakura
et al. 1992; Nagashima et aL 1992). It has been observed that ductility of
HSC columns can be improved by lateral confinement, although in a lesser
degree than normal-strength concrete columns. A C I Committee 363 (1987)
concluded that more data on the confinement of H S C tied columns are
needed.

1Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Que-

bec, Canada, JIK 2R1.
2prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 1994. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on December 23,
1992. ~This paper, is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 3,
March, 1994. 9 ISSN 0733-9445/94/0003-0783/$2.00 + $.25 per page. Paper
No. 5189.
783
 Effectively w
~ confined-
[ ~ concrete

L c:::;:to--. )

il

(a) (b)
FIG. 1. Effects of Tie Configuration and Spacing on Confined Concrete Core: (a)
Poor Tie Configuration with Large Tie Spacing; (b) Good Tie Configuration with
Small Tie Spacing

385 mra 1~_~_235

mm

~1~1 [ 1~zaSmm

Strain gage ~

FIG. 2. Overall Dimensions of Test Specimens and Instrumentation

TEST PROGRAM
This paper presents an experimental study of the behavior of large-scale
HSC columns confined by rectangular ties tested under concentric loading.
Twenty-seven large-scale columns (235 x 235 • 1400 mm) were tested
under compressive concentric loading. Fig. 2 shows details of the test spec-
imens and the four tie configurations used. Test variables studied in this
784
research program are: (1) The concrete compressive strength, f'; (2) the tie
yield strength,fyh; (3) the tie configuration, cfg; (4) the lateral reinforcement
ratio, Ph; (5) the tie spacing, s; (6) the longitudinal reinforcement ratio, pg;
and (7) the influence of concrete cover, coy.
Test specimens are identified with the number of the series and a letter
corresponding to the tie configuration used. Specimens in Series 1-5 are
made of concrete with a specified strength of 100 MPa. Each series contains
four specimens of tie configurations A, B, C, and D. Series 1 includes a
fifth specimen, 1D1, identical to specimen 1D, but without concrete cover.
Specimens in series 6, 7, and 8 are made of concrete with specified strengths
of 120, 80, and 60 MPa, respectively. Each of these series contains two
specimens with tie configurations B and D.
Table 1 shows the reinforcing steel properties and the unconfined concrete
strength for each specimen. Confinement efficiency can be evaluated by
making comparisons within 38 matched pairs of specimens with respect to
a particular variable, while all other test variables are equal or reasonably
so. The comparisons are listed in the last column of Table 1: the first symbol
represents the comparison specimen and the second, the test variable whose
efficiency is being studied.
Ratios of the amount of lateral reinforcement in the specimens to the
amol~nt of lateral reinforcement required by the ACI Code (Building 1989)
for seismic design ranged from 25% for the lowest confined specimen to
250% for the highest. The tie spacing and diameter requirements for lateral
support of the longitudinal reinforcement specified in the ACI Code for
seismic design are respected for all specimens except for those in series 3.
However, for the four specimens in series 3, a tie spacing of 100 mm is
adequate when seismic design is not a concern.
Column specimens were cast vertically. After 24 hours, the form was
removed and the specimens were submerged in a water tank in order to
obtain the 28-day specified concrete strength. The water-curing period lasted
two weeks, after which the specimens were left in the laboratory at ambient
temperature for two more weeks before testing.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Concrete
Four different concrete mixes designed with specified 28-day strengths of
60, 80, 100, and 120 MPa were produced in the Civil Engineering Labo-
ratories at the University of Sherbrooke. The corresponding water-binder
ratios were 0.50, 0.35, 0.25, and 0.24, respectively. Silica fume was used in
all mixes to obtain high strength, workability, and reduction of fine particle
segregation. The crushed stone had a maximum diameter of 10 mm. A
concrete slump of 200 mm was used to ensure that the concrete could be
placed through the dense reinforcement cages. The detailed concrete com-
position is presented elsewhere (Cusson and Paultre 1992).
For each batch of concrete, at least six 150 x 300-mm concrete cylinders
were tested under axial loading at 27, 28, or 29 days, which coincided with
the time of testing of the corresponding column specimens. At least three
cylinders were tested under a standard rate of loading (0.25 MPa/s) to
determine the average maximum strength of concrete, fc', given in Table 1.
In addition, at least three more cylinders were tested on a very rigid MTS
hydraulic press with deformation controlled capabilities. A very slow strain
rate (1.75 • 10-6/s) was used to determine the complete stress-strain curves
of concrete in compression.
785
 TABLE 1. Details of Test Specimens
Longitudinal Reinforcement Lateral Reinforcement
Concrete
pg fy dh s Oh fyh (f~)
Column nb and size a (%) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (%) (MPa) (MPa) Test variables
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
1A 4 No 20 2.2 406 9.5 50 2.8 410 95.4 2C-cfg
1B 4 No 15 + 4 No 10 2.2 450 7.9 50 3.4 392 95.4 2D-cfg
1C 12 No 10 2.2 450 7.9 50 3.6 392 95.4 1B-cfg
1D 12 No 10 2.2 450 7.9 50 4.8 392 100.4
1D1 12 No 10 3.2 b 450 7.9 50 4.8 392 100.4 1D-eov
2A 4 No 20 2.2 406 7.9 50 2.0 392 96.4 1A-ph
2B 4 No 15 -1- 4 No 10 2.2 450 6.4 50 2.2 414 96:4 1B-ph; 1A-cfg
2C 12 No 10 2.2 450 6.4 50 2.3 414 96.4 1C-ph; 2B-cfg
2D 12 No 10 2.2 450 6.4 50 3.1 414 96.4 1D-ph
3A 4 No 20 2.2 406 9.5 100 1.4 410 98.1 2A-s
-.q 3B 4 No 15 + 4 No 10 2.2 450 9.5 100 2.5 410 98.1 2B-s
CO 3C 12 No 10 2.2 450 9.5 100 2.6 410 98.1 2C-s; 3B-cfg
03 3D 12 No 10 2.2 450 9.5 100 3.5 410 98.1 2D-s
4A 4 No 25 3.6 420 9.5 50 2.8 410 93.1 1A-ps
4B 4 No 20 + 4 No 15 3.6 406, 450 7.9 50 3.4 392 93.1 1B-pg
4C 4 No 20 + 8 No 10 3.6 406, 450 7.9 50 3.6 392 93.1 1C-pg; 4B-efg
4D 4 No 20 + 8 No 10 3.6 406, 450 7.9 50 4.8 392 93.1 1D-pg
5A 4 No 25 3.6 420 9.5 50 2.8 705 99.9 4A-fyh
5B 4 No 20 + 4 No 15 3.6 406, 450 7.9 50 3.4 770 99.9 4B-fyh
5C 4 No 20 + 8 No 10 3.6 406, 450 7.9 50 3.6 770 99.9 4C-fyh; 5B-cfg
5D 4 No 20 + 8 No 10 3.6 406, 450 7.9 50 4.8 770 99.9 -4D-frh
6B 4 No 20 + 4 No 15 3.6 482, 436 9.5 50 4.9 715 115.9 6D-cfg
6D 4 No 20 + 8 No 10 3.6 482, 467 7.9 50 4.8 680 113.6 5D-f"
7B 4 No 20 + 4 No 15 3.6 ~ 482, 436 9.5 50 4.9 715 75.9 6B-f'; 7D-efg
7D 4 No 20 + 8 No 10 3.6 482, 467 7.9 50 4.8 680 67.9 (5D, 6D)-f"
8B 4 No 20 + 4 No 15 3.6 482, 436 9.5 50 4.9 715 52.6 (6B, 7B)-fc; 8D-cfg
8D 4 No 20 + 8 No 10 3.6 482, 467 7.9 50 4.8 680 55.6 (5D, 6D, 7D)-f"
aNo 10: d~ = 11.3 mm, No 15; db = 16.0 mm, No 20: db = 19.5 m m , No 25: db = 25.2 mm.
~Note that specimen 1D1 has no concrete cover.
 TABLE 2. Hardened Concrete Properties

(specified) (measured) Ec ecsou/ Asou

Column (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) eco ~csou ~co (MPa)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
IA, 1B, 1C 100 95.4 42,200 0.0029 0.0042 1.42 0.262
ID, 1D1 100 100.4 42,500 0.0030 0.0043 1.44 0.286
2A, 2B, 2C, 2D 100 96.4 42,900 0.0030 0.0043 1.45 0.275
3A, 3B, 3C, 3D 100 98.1 42,300 0.0030 0.0043 1.42 0.279
4A, 4B, 4C, 4D 100 93.1 42,400 0.0029 0.0042 1.43 0.256
5A, 5B, 5C, 5D 100 99.9 42,900 0.0030 0.0043 1.45 0.285
5B 120 115.9 45,300 0.0033 0.0041 1.25 0.286
5D 120 113.6 44,900 0.0033 0.0041 1.24 0.280
7B 80 75.9 40,100 0.0027 0.0050 1.83 0.267
7D 80 67.9 40,500 0.0026 0.0048 1.85 0.230
~B 60 52.6 35,500 0.0023 0.0053 2.28 0.206
~D 60 55.6 35,500 0.0023 0.0053 2.36 0.218

Table 2 presents the hardened concrete properties obtained from standard

cylinder tests. The strain, ecsov, corresponding to 0.5f" on the unloading
part of the stress-strain curve is defined as the useful compressive strain
limit for plain concrete. The ratio, ecsou/eco, is an indication of the ductility
of plain concrete. This ratio ranges from 1.24 for a 120-MPa concrete to
2.36 for a 60-MPa concrete and confirms the more brittle nature of high-
strength concrete. The area, Asov, under the stress-strain curve of plain
concrete is computed up to ecsou. This area represents the strain energy
absorbed up to the limiting strain and thus is an indication of the toughness
of plain concrete.
The concrete strength of large-scale columns tested under concentric
compression loading is generally lower than the concrete compressive strength
measured on standard 150 x 300-ram (6 • 12-in.) cylinder tests. The 0.85
reduction factor suggested by the A C I Code is mainly attributed to the
differences in size and shape of the reinforced concrete column and the
concrete cylinder. Compression tests were made on four 235 x 235 • 470-
mm plain concrete prisms and one unreinforced specimen. The average
prism and unreinforced specimen concrete strength was measured as 88%
of the average concrete cylinder strength. The commonly used ratio of 0.85
was then used for evaluating the concrete section capacity of the specimens
tested in this study.

Reinforcement
Deformed steel bars were used for the longitudinal reinforcement and
plain steel bars for lateral reinforcement. Tension tests were performed on
steel samples of each bar diameter and steel strength for each batch of steel
bars. The average values of fy are presented in Table 1 and were calculated
from at least three tension tests. The yield strength of the high-strength
lateral reinforcement is defined at an offset strain of 0.2%. All ties were
anchored with 135 ~ bends extending 75 m m into the concrete core, which
is longer than the minimal length of six-bar diameters required by the A C I
Code.

787
INSTRUMENTATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Reinforcement steel deformation was measured by electrical-resistance

strain gages glued to the steel bars. Two longitudinal steel bars were in-
strumented at their midlengths as shown in Fig. 2. A set of ties located at
the midheight of each specimen was instrumented with strain gages placed
on two adjacent sides of each tie of the chosen set, as shown in Fig. 2. The
axial displacement of the specimens was recorded using four linear variable
differential transformers (LVDTs) located at each corner of the specimens
and attached to a top and bottom steel collar clamped to the specimens to
give a gage length of 800 mm. The recorded strain data from the strain
gages and the four LVDTs, along with the corresponding axial load data
from the hydraulic press, were fed to a data-acquisition system and stored
on hard disk. In addition, the load-displacement curves of the specimens
from two diagonally opposed LVDTs were continuously recorded on a line
plotter.
Thin layers of sulfur were used as capping over the top and bottom ends
of each specimen to ensure parallelism of specimen end surfaces and uniform
distribution of the load during testing. To ensure that the failure would
occur in the instrumented region of the tested specimens, the tapered ends
of each tested specimen were further Confined with bolted boxes made from
13-mm-thick steel plates. The test specimens were placed in the press with
steel guides to ensure adequate alignment with the axis of the applied load.
The test specimens were loaded on a rigid hydraulic press with load-
controlled capabilities, having a maximum compressive load capacity of
6,700 kN (1,500,000 lb). Computer readings were taken at equal load in-
tervals up to the first peak. During the postpeak response of the specimen,
frequent readings were taken up to rupture. Fig. 3 shows a view of the test
setup during testing.

FIG. 3. Experimental Layout and Equipment

788
 FIG. 4. Appearance of Test Specimens at Different Loading Stages

TEST RESULTS
Fig. 4 shows the appearance of specimen 8D at different loading stages
and Fig. 5 depicts the appearance of all the specimens after testing. Fig. 6
illustrates the total load versus average strain obtained from the four LVDTs
for all the specimens tested.
The axial load sustained by the concrete was determined for each spec-
imen by subtracting the load sustained by the longitudinal bars from the
total load recorded during testing. The computation of the axial load sus-
tained by the longitudinal bars was based on their total cross-sectional area,
As,, and on the steel stress-strain curves obtained from tension tests.
During the ascending part of loading, confinement has little or no effect
and the concrete cover is visually free of cracks up to the first peak. This
peak corresponds to the load Pc1 when the concrete cover suddenly separates
[Fig. 4(a)]. At this load level, the stress in the transverse reinforcement is
generally lower than 50% of the yield stress. After that, the concrete axial
strength loses 10-15% of its maximum value due to the sudden spalling of
the concrete cover. At this stage, lateral concrete strain increases signifi-
cantly and, as a result, the passive confinement becomes very significant.
The concrete core gains strength, while the cover gradually disappears [Fig.
4(b)]. Generally, the load-strain curve for the specimen shows a strength
gain and reaches a second peak. This peak corresponds to the load Pc2
when the concrete core reaches its maximum stress [Fig. 4(c)]. At this load
level, the yield stress of the transverse reinforcement is reached only for
well-confined specimens, and steel stresses much lower than the tie yield
stress were recorded for poorly confined specimens.
The value of Pc2, at the second peak, may be lower or higher than the
value of Pc1, at the first peak, depending on the confinement efficiency of
the specimen as can be seen from Fig. 6. Very well confined specimens
(specimens 4D, 5D, 6B, 6D, 7B, 7D, 8B, and 8D) reached a maximum
load Pc2, with a reduced concrete section, greater than the measured load
Pca with the full concrete section. On the other hand, specimens with low
confinement (specimens 1A, 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B) did not show a well-
defined second peak; no significant strength gain due to confinement was
789
FIG. 5. Appearance of Test Specimens after Testing

790
FIG. 5. (Continued)

791
 6000 kips
(a)
1D 1200
~5000 IB IC
1000
4000
800
3000
600
1-
2000 400
!
8 lOOO 200
I
,oooI
-I I I I I I I I 0
0
6000 kips
(b)
1200
~5000

!
- 2A 2D
Z 2B 2C
1000
4000
800
3000
600
<
2000 400

8 lOOO 200

I I I I I I I I 0
0
kips
6000 i c )
1200
5000
z2~ 3h 1000
~"4000
800
-~ 3000
600
2000 400
=
1000 200

0 I I I L I I I I 0
Column Axial Strain,
FIG. 6. Total Load versus Axial Strain Curves for Test Specimens

792
 Column Axial Load, P (kN) Column Axial Load, P (kN) Column Axial Load, P (kN)

",4

D.
recorded. Finally, at the end of testing (see Fig. 5), some ties ruptured,
longitudinal bars buckled, and inclined shear sliding surfaces separated the
concrete core into two wedges, causing the axial strength to drop very
rapidly. The inclination of the shear sliding plane with the vertical axis varies
from 25 ~ for low-confined specimens to 45 ~ for highly confined specimens.
Fig. 7 shows the curves representing the axial load sustained by the con-
crete normalized with respect to: (1) The unconfined strength of the total
concrete cross section, Poc = 0.85f'Ac, where Ac = the total concrete cross
section (curve Pc/Poc in Fig. 7); and (2) the unconfined strength of the
concrete core section, Pocc = 0.85f'Acc, where Ace = the concrete core
area delineated by the centerline of the outer tie (curve Pc/Pocc in Fig. 7).
The actual response of the confined concrete, which is represented by the
large gray curve, is expected to be a combination of the two calculated
curves Pc/Poc and Pc/Pocc.
The response of the confined concrete coincides with the ascending part
of the lower curve (Pc/Poc) up to point A in Fig. 7, which corresponds to
the sudden spaUing of the concrete cover. When the concrete cover no
longer contributes to axial strength, the response of the confined concrete
coincides with the part of the higher curve (Pc/Pocc) that follows point B
in Fig. 7, when the concrete core begins to gain strength due to confinement
by the rectangular ties. The transition between points A and B of the
response of the confined concrete is estimated as a smooth curve. The
anticipated response of the confined concrete for specimen 1D is shown in
Fig. 7 along with the response of specimen 1D1, which is identical to spec-
imen 1D but without concrete cover. The response of the confined concrete
of specimen 1D, represented by the gray line, slightly underestimates the
recorded response of specimen 1D1. It is believed that the sudden loss of
the concrete cover of specimen 1D contributes to this difference.
Table 3 shows the experimental results obtained for each specimen. The
maximum axial load, Pma~, applied on each specimen during testing, varied
between 4,244 and 5,545 kN. These maximum loads are compared with
their corresponding axial strength computed according to the ACI Code as
Po = 0.85f'Ac + fyA,,. The ratio, PmJPo, ranges from 0.87 to 1.40 with

2.0
Q
c~ A : Onset of spalling of cover (Pc1//Poc) ~
% B : After spalling of cover
C : Crushing of core (Pca/P0cc) ID b1
o
].5
%
ID1 (Pc/Pocc) ~ ---[-
o
1.0

0.5 Poc = 0.85 f'c (bz - Ast)

r_)
0cc = 0.85 f'c (cz - Ast

~ 0.0 I

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0,04 0.05

Concrete Axial Strain, ~c
FIG. 7. Effect of Concrete Cover

794
 TABLE 3. Experimental Results
Axial Loads a i Axial Strains
P~o, Pc, Pc2
Column kN PmJPo kN Pcl/Poc kN Pc..zlPocc ecl ecl/•co EC2 EC2/ECO EC50C ecsocl~co ~AsoclAsov
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
1A 4,244 0.87 3,757 0.86 3,665 1.23 0.0029 0.99 0.0033 1.13 0.0054 1.85 1.24
1B 4,679 0.95 4,139 0.94 3,879 1.30 0.0025 0.86 0.0048 1.62 0.0119 4.04 3.24
1C 4,716 0.96 4,195 0.96 3,743 1.25 0.0022 0.74 0.0047 1.60 0.0114 3.87 2.86
1D 5,001 0.97 4,461 0.97 4,152 1:32 0.0029 0.96 0.0057 1.89 0.0145 4.84 3.87
1D1 5,136 1.39 -- -- 4,596 1.46 -- -- 0.0060 1.99 0.0180 5.99 5.25
2A 4,657 0.95 4,170 0.94 3,371 1.12 0.0029 0.97 0.0034 1.14 0.0053 1.78 1.06
2B 4,388 0.88 3,848 0.87 3,394 1.12 0.0023 0.76 0.0035 1.17 0.0061 2.05 1.37
2C 4,525 0.91 3,985 0.90 3,648 1.21 0.0025 0.84 0.0036 1.20 0.0064 2.13 1.53
2D 4,635 0.93 4,095 0.93 3,627 1.20 0.0025 0.83 0.0040 1.36 0.0105 3.51 2.50
3A 4,371 0.88 3,884 0.86 2,998 0.98 0.0028 0.92 0.0034 1.10 0.0052 1.72 0.97
.,4 3B 4,410 0.87 3,870 0.86 3,176 1.03 0.0028 0.91 0.0034 1.13 0.0057 1.88 1.15
r 3C 4,499 0.89 3,959 0.88 3,319 1.08 0.0025 0.82 0.0035 1.16 0.0059 1.92 1.27
01
3D 4,661 0.92 4,121 0.91 3,432 1.12 0.0027 0.87 0.0046 1.52 0.0078 2.56 1.86
4A 4,606 0.91 3,766 0.89 3,467 1.22 0.0026 0.88 0.0033 1.14 0.0060 2.04 1.47
4B 4,882 0.96 4,035 0.96 3,703 1.30 0.0026 0.90 0.0047 1.62 0.0132 4.53 3.46
4C 4,864 0.96 4,017 0.95 3,808 1.34 0.0028 0.95 0.0047 1.62 0.0135 4.63 3.65
4D 4,863 0.96 4,013 0.95 4,016 1.41 0.0027 0.94 0.0064 2.20 0.0201 6.89 6.02
5A 4,728 0.88 3,888 0.86 3,580 1.17 0.0026 0.88 0.0034 1.15 0.0100 3.34 2.09
5B 5,037 0.94 4,190 0.93 3,776 1.23 0.0028 0.93 0.0047 1.57 0.0144 4.82 3.68
5C 5,214 0.97 4,367 0.97 3,972 1.30 0.0028 0.93 0.0068 2.27 0.0154 5.16 4.39
5D 5,457 1.02 4,393 0.97 4,610 1.5t 0.0030 0.99 0.0097 3.23 0.0281 9.41 9.44
6B 5,395 0.87 4,280 0.82 4,416 1.24 0.0033 1.00 0.0096 2.95 0.0229 7.03 6.95
6D 5,545 0.91 4,196 0.82 4,556 1.31 0.0029~ 0.88 0.0089 2.71 0.0262 7.98 8.54
7B 4,954 1.14 3,443 1.00 3,849 1.66 0.0030 1.10 0.0156 5.71 0.0313 11.43 10.43
7D 4,701 1.17 3,058 1.00 3,615 1.74 0.0028 1.07 0.0155 5.95 0.0279 10.70 9.91
813 4,530 1.37 2,213 0.93 3,219 2.00 0.0034 1.45 0.0321 13.73 0.0459 19.63 16.66
8D 4,532 1.31 2,338 0.93 3,271 1.92 0.0032 1.43 0.0287 12.68 0.0455 20.15 15.67

"Po = 0.851"Ac + fyAs,; Poc = 0 . 8 5 f ' A c ; Pocc = 0.85f'Acc.

 a mean value of 0.99. The lower ratios are observed for specimens made
with higher strength concrete and low levels of confinement.
For each test specimen, Table 3 presents a comparison of the first peak
reached by the concrete load, Pc1, to the corresponding unconfined strength
of the total concrete cross section, Poo The ratio, PcJPoc, ranges from
0.82 to 1.00 with a mean value of 0.92. These low values are due to the
early separation of the concrete cover from the concrete core at high axial
loads, preventing the specimen from reaching its expected maximum load.
This is an indication that the dense reinforcement steel cage creates lon-
gitudinal weakness planes between the concrete core and the concrete cover.
This phenomenon is more evident when higher strength concrete is used.
It is important to note that if the reduction factor 0.85 was not used in
the calculation of Poc, the values of Pcl/Poc would range from 0.70 for
higher strength concretes to 0.85 for lower strength concretes. An interesting
similarity can be observed between these values and those suggested by the
Norwegian code for calculating the capacity of concrete sections (Norges
1989). While the ACI Code suggests a constant reduction factor of 0.85 for
the calculation of the effective strength of unconfined concrete, a reduction
factor varying with concrete compressive strength is suggested by the Nor-
wegian code. These values range from 0.655 for f'c = 94 MPa to 0.840 for
f'c = 20 MPa.
The strain, ecl, corresponding to Pc~, ranges from 0.0022 to 0.0034, as
reported in Table 3. In general, these values are slightly lower than the
strain at maximum stress, eco, for the corresponding unconfined concrete
cylinders. The ratio, ecJeco, ranges from 0.74 to 1.45 with a mean value
of 0.95. Lower ratios correspond to specimens made with high-strength
concrete. This is another indication that the concrete cover of HSC columns
cannot carry the load to the maximum expected values due to the presence
of weakness planes along the stirrups, causing the cover to spaU off pre-
maturely.
The presence of the concrete cover affects the behavior of HSC columns
significantly. It can be concluded that when evaluating the section capacity
of confined columns made with high-strength concrete, the concrete cover
should be neglected in terms of structural considerations, a n d only the
reduced area of concrete, Acc, delineated by the centerline of the outer tie,
should be considered to contribute to the total concrete axial strength. In
practice, the concrete cover should be kept as small as possible to lower
the loss of axial load capacity after spalling and should be considered only
as a protection against corrosion and fire for the steel reinforcement.
For each test specimen, Table 3 presents a comparison of the second
peak reached by the concrete load, Pc> to the corresponding unconfined
strength of the concrete core section, Pocc. The ratio, Pc2/Pocc, ranges
from 0.98 to 2.00. The higher ratios are observed for well-confined speci-
mens and decrease with increasing concrete strength. This clearly indicates
that when the concrete cover has completely spalled off, the maximum axial
strength of the confined section can be significantly improved by lateral
confinement. As can be seen in Table 3, in the case of a 50-MPa specimen,
the confined concrete strength can be twice as high as the unconfined strength,
if sufficient lateral reinforcement is provided.
The strain, ec2, corresponding to Pc2, when the confined concrete reaches
its maximum strength, ranges from 0.0033 to 0.0321. These strain values
are compared in Table 3 with the strain values, eco, at maximum stress
of the corresponding unconfined standard concrete cylinders. The ratio
796
EC2/ECOranges from 1.10 to 13.73. The higher ratios are observed for well-
confined specimens and decrease with increasing concrete strength. This
clearly shows that when the concrete cover has completely spalled off, a
very significant gain in deformation capability can be observed for effectively
confined columns.
The strain, ecsoc, corresponding to 50% of the maximum confined con-
crete strength on the descending branch of the stress-strain curve is defined
as the useful compressive strain limit for confined concrete. This limiting
strain was observed to be close to the concrete axial strain corresponding
to the first hoop fracture. Strain values of ~c5oc range from 0.0052 for low-
confined specimens to 0.0459 for well-confined specimens. The ratio, ~c5oc/
Eco, is an indication of the ductility of confined concrete. This ratio, ranging
from 1.72 for low-confined specimens to 20.15 for well-confined specimens,
clearly shows that excellent ductility can be achieved if sufficient lateral
reinforcement is provided. Moreover, the ratio, ecsoc/eco, from Table 3 for
the confined specimens, is 1.2 to 8.6 times larger than the ratio, ecsou/eco,
from Table 2 for the corresponding plain concrete cylinders.
The area, Asoc, under the stress-strain curve of confined concrete is com-
puted up to ~c5oc. This area shows the strain energy absorbed up to the
limiting strain and thus is an indication of the toughness of the confined
concrete. The area, Asoc, under the stress-strain curve of confined concrete
is compared in Table 3 to the area, Asou, under the stress-strain curve of
the corresponding unconfined concrete cylinder for each column specimen.
The ratio Asoc/Asou ranges from 0.97 to 16.66. As mentioned previously,
higher ratios are observed for well-confined specimens and decrease with
increasing concrete strength. The only specimen to possess no gain in tough-
ness (Asoc/Asov < 1.00) is specimen 3A. It has the poorest tie configuration
(only four longitudinal bars within a square tie), and a very large tie spacing
of 100 mm. This kind of detailing for lateral confinement should be avoided
in practice. Nevertheless, the ratio Asoc/Asou of the other specimens showed
that it is possible to obtain very ductile behavior from HSC tied columns.

EFFECT OF TEST VARIABLES ON BEHAVIOR OF

CONFINED CONCRETE

In order to study the effect of each variable on the behavior of the confined
concrete, the response curves of the confined concrete of the test specimens
are compared in Figs. 8 - 13, with respect to each of the following variables:
the concrete compressive strength, the tie yield strength, the tie configu-
ration, the volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement, the tie spacing,
and the volumetric ratio of the longitudinal reinforcement.

Concrete Compressive Strength

High-strength concrete exhibits less lateral expansion under axial
compression than normal-strength concrete due to its higher modulus of
elasticity and its lower internal microcracking. Consequently, the,confining
reinforcement comes into play later in the process and the efficiency of
passive confinement of high-strength concrete would be reduced. Fig. 8
illustrates the stress-strain curves of the confined concrete for the equally
confined specimens 6D, 5D, 7D, and 8D, along with the stress-strain curves
of the corresponding plain concrete cylinders. Strength gains of 1.31, 1.51,
1.74, and 1.92, and toughness gains of 8.54, 9.44, 9.91, and 15.67 were
obtained for specimens 6D, 5D, 7D, and 8D, with initial concrete strengths
797
 150 ksi
f'c : 113.6 MPa (cylinder) :
20
125 18
-r 5D (f'c:99.9 MPa) I~--~t
t6
tO0 !-. ~--~,.-"<"x_ S - 7D (f'c=67.9 MPa) -
14
6 MPa-
12
75 tO
cD 8
50
03 6
25 4
r
2
L)
0 0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Concrete Axial Strain, Ee
FIG. 8. Experimental Stress-Strain Curves for Different Strength Concretes

2.0
ir thoopyieldin0
fyh = 705, 770, 770, 770 MPa (5A-SD) A B
fyh = 4!0, 392, 392, 392 MPa (4A-4D)
g 1.5
cD|
1.0
.S

~ 0.5
i
~ 0.0
Concrete Axial Strain, ~e
FIG. 9. Effect of Tie Yield Strength

of 113.6, 99.9, 67.9, and 55.6 MPa, respectively. The test results indicate
that significant strength and toughness enhancements can be achieved when
lateral reinforcement is provided. However, greater strength and toughness
gains are observed for specimens made with lower-strength concrete.

Transverse Reinforcement Yield Strength

The yield strength of the confinement steel determines the upper limit
of the confining pressure applied to the concrete core. A higher confining
pressure applied to the concrete core would result in a better confinement
efficiency. Fig. 9 shows the response of four different pairs of specimens
from series 4 and 5 with tie configurations A, B, C, and D. In each pair,
specimens having different tie yield strengths, but with similar concrete
strengths and identical steel arrangements are compared. No increase in the
strength gain and low enhancements in the toughness gain are recorded
when the tie yield strength is increased from around 400 MPa for specimens
798
 20 9
" I : F i r s t ~
%
1.5

~ 1.0

0.5

~ 0.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Concrete Axial Strain, Ec
FIG. 10. Effect of Tie Configuration

2.0
o ix, l * First hoop yielding ~
"~ w Ph : 2.8, 3.4, 3.6, 4.8 % (1A-ID) A B
a, - - Ph = 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1% (2A-2D)
1.5

0.5

0.0 l
Concrete AxialStrain, Ec
FIG. 11. Effect of Amount of Transverse Reinforcement

4A, 4B, and 4C to more than 700 MPa for specimens 5A, 5B, and 5C. The
stress in the transverse reinforcement of specimens 5A and 5B, at maximum
strength of confined concrete, was measured as 28 and 52% of the tie yield
stress, as compared to 42 and 100% for specimens 4A and 4B, respectively.
The less than expected confinement efficiency in specimens with a higher
tie yield strength can be explained by the low stress level in the ties of the
less confined specimens of series 5 (5A, 5B). On the other hand, when the
tie yield strength is fully developed at the peak Strength of confined concrete,
increases in the strength gain of 7% and in toughness gain of 57% are
obtained when the tie yield strength is increased from 392 MPa for specimen
4D to 770 MPa for specimen 5D.

Tie Configuration
The tie configuration determines the effectively confined concrete area,
which increases with a better distribution of longitudinal bars around the
column concrete core, as shown in Fig. 1. The larger the effectively confined
799
 2.0
o
9 First hoop yielding D
% - - s = 50 mm (2A-~2D) A B
- - s = 100 mm (3A-3D)
1.5
ta~

ta~

1.0

o
r~
0.5

0.0
~176 /
Concrete Axial Strain, Ec

FIG. 12. Effect of Tie Spacing

t~
%
(D
2.0 /

1.5
"
--
First hoop yielding
P, : 3.6 % (4A-4D)
Pg -- 2.2 % (1A-1D)4D
AD@B
4C
%
1.0

(D 0.5

.00 l
0.0 !
Concrete Axial Strain, Ec
FIG. 13. Effect of Amount of Longitudinal Reinforcement

concrete area, the higher would be the confinement efficiency. Fig. 10

compares four pairs of equally confined specimens (1B-2D, 6B-6D, 7B-7D,
8B-8D) with tie configurations B (eight supported longitudinal bars) and D
(twelve supported longitudinal bars). The test results indicate that tie con-
figuration B is as effective as tie configuration D for enhancing the strength
and toughness of the confined concrete. Five other pairs of equally confined
specimens (1B-1C, 2B-2C, 3B-3C, 4B-4C, 5B-5C) with tie configuration B
(eight supported longitudinal bars) and C (12 supported longitudinal bars)
can be compared in Table 3. The test results indicate that tie configuration
B is as effective as tie configuration C for enhancing the strength, ductility
and toughness of the confined concrete. It is also noticed in Table 3 that
all specimens with tie configuration A showed the poorest behavior in terms
of strength, ductility, and toughness gains.
Amount of Transverse Reinforcement
The lateral confining pressure imposed on the concrete core is directly
related to the amount of lateral reinforcement. Thus, a larger confining
800
pressure applied on the concrete core would result in better confinement
efficiency. Fig. 11 illustrates the response of four different pairs of speci-
mens, and within each matched pair, two specimens differing only in their
ratios of lateral reinforcement are compared. Increases in strength gain
between 10 and 16% are obtained for pairs 2B-1B, and 2D-1D, and im-
portant enhancements in toughness gain between 55 and 136% are also
obtained for pairs 2B-1B, 2C-1C, and 2D-1D, when the ratio of the lateral
reinforcement is increased by about 50%. However, the comparison be-
tween specimens 2A and 1A, with tie configuration A, shows a 10% increase
in the strength gain and a low enhancement in toughness gain of 17%, when
the lateral reinforcement ratio is increased from 2.0 to 2.8%.

Tie Spacing
As shown in Fig. 1, a smaller tie spacing increases the confined concrete
area, resulting in higher confinement efficiency. In addition, tie spacing
controls the buckling of the longitudinal bars. Fig. 12 illustrates the response
of four different pairs of specimens, and within each matched pair, two
specimens differing only in their tie spacings are compared. The reduction
of the tie spacing, from 100 mm for specimens in series 3 to 50 mm for those
in series 2, results in increases of the strength gain ( 7 - 1 4 % ) and of toughness
gain ( 9 - 3 4 % ) in all four comparisons.

Amount of Longitudinal'Reinforcement
A larger amount of longitudinal bars, provided by a larger bar diameter,
would prevent premature buckling of longitudinal bars. Fig. 13 shows four
different pairs of specimens, and within each matched pair, two specimens
varying only in their ratios of longitudinal reinforcement are compared.
Pairs 1A-4A and IB-4B show no increase in the strength gain and a very
low enhancement in toughness gain when the longitudinal reinforcement
ratio is increased from 2.2% for specimens in series 1 to 3.6% for specimens
in series 4. On the other hand, pairs 1C-4C and 1D-4D, with a higher ratio
of transverse reinforcement than that of the two previous pairs, show good
enhancements in the strength gain (7%) and in toughness gain ( 2 8 - 5 6 % )
when the longitudinal reinforcement ratio is increased from 2.2 to 3.6%.

CONCLUSIONS
This research program has contributed to the fundamental understanding
of the complex mechanism of confinement of high-strength concrete columns
with rectangular ties. The following conclusions have been found.
The behavior of HSC columns is characterized by the sudden separation
of the concrete cover at the weakness planes created by the dense steel
cage. This early spalling of the concrete cover results in a loss of axial
capacity before any lateral confinement comes into effect. After the concrete
cover has completely spalled off, important gains in strength, ductility, and
toughness have been recorded for the concrete core of well-confined spec-
imens. This finding suggests that only the area of the concrete core should
be considered in calculating the axial compressive strength of HSC columns,
unless special care is taken to restrict the separation of the concrete cover.
The failure of HSC columns is characterized by the formation of inclined
shear sliding surfaces, separating the concrete core into two wedges. The
inclination of the shear sliding plane with the vertical axis Varies from 25~
for low-confined specimens to 45 ~ for highly confined specimens.
801
 It was observed that, despite the lower confinement efficiency of high-
strength concrete compared to lower strength concrete, large strength gain
and ductile behavior of confined HSC columns were obtained when ade-
quate detailing of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement was used. Im-
provements in strength of approximately 50 and 100%, and in ductility of
approximately 10 and 20 times greater than that of unconfined concrete
were recorded for well-confined specimens made with 99.9-MPa and 52.6-
MPa concretes, respectively.
The effects of six key variables were studied with respect to strength and
ductility gains. Increasing the concrete compressive strength results in an
important decrease of the gains in strength and toughness of confined con-
crete. Indeed, the concrete compressive strength is the test variable with
the most significant adverse effect on the stress-strain behavior of concrete.
On the other hand, increasing the transverse reinforcement ratio signifi-
cantly enhances the strength and toughness gains of the confined concrete.
The transverse reinforcement ratio is the test variable with the most im-
portant beneficial effect on the stress-strain behavior of concrete.
It has been found, for HSC columns confined with high-strength lateral
streel, that the tie yield strength was developed at the peak strength of
confined concrete only for well-confined concrete specimens. Steel stress
lower than the tie yield strength, measured at the maximum strength of
confined concrete, was observed for less confined concrete columns. Tlaus,
an increase of the tie yield strength would result in an enhancement of the
strength and toughness gains only for weU-confined specimens with large
ratios of lateral reinforcement. The test results also indicate that tie con-
figuration A is not effective in confining the concrete core and should not
be used when ductile behavior is required. On the other hand, the results
indicate that tie configurations B, C, and D are all effective in confining
the concrete core. The reduction of the tie spacing results in an increase of
the strength and toughness gains of confined concrete. The increase of the
longitudinal reinforcement ratio results in an enhancement of the strength
and toughness gains only for well-confined specimens with large ratios of
lateral reinforcement.
Some interactions between test variables were seen in this study. It was
observed that the performance of a variable, in contributing to the strength
and ductility of confined concrete, varies with the degree of confinement
provided by the other variables. Therefore, when analyzing the effect of an
isolated variable on the behavior of confined concrete, one should consider
this as showing only a partial effect. Indeed, some attention should also be
paid to the general effect of all the variables interacting together.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The financial assistance provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC) is gratefully acknowledged. The
testing was performed in the structural laboratories of the Department of
Civil Engineering at the University of Sherbr0oke. The technical assistance
was provided by L. Thibodeau and C. Reynolds. The support of Professor
P.-C. Aitcin and the Network of Centers of Excellence on High-Performance
Concrete is gratefully acknowledged. The concrete mixes were developed
by M. Lessard, Materials Engineer, and the cement was supplied by Lafarge
Canada and St. Lawrence Cement.
802
A P P E N D I X I. REFERENCES
Bjerkeli, L. (1992). "High-strength concrete S P l - - b e a m s and columns, report 1.3:
ductility of reinforced large scale rectangular columns." ReportNo. STF70A92122,
SINTEF Structural Engineering--FCB, Trondheim, Norway.
Building code requirements for reinforced concrete, ACI 318-89, and Commentary,
ACI 318R-89. (1989). American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich.
Cusson, D., and Paultre, P. (1992). "Behavior of high-strength concrete columns
confined by rectangular ties under concentric loading." Report No. SMS-9202,
Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.
Itakura, Y., and Yagenji, A. (1992). "Compressive test on high-strength R/C columns
and their analysis based on energy concept." Proc., Tenth World Conf. on Earth-
quake Engrg., Madrid, Spain, July 19-24, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Nether-
lands, Vol. 5, 2599-2602.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). "Observed stress-strain
behavior of confined concrete." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 114(8), 1827-1849.
Nagashima, T., Sugano, S., Kimura, H., and Ichikawa, A. (1992). "Monotonic axial
compression test on ultra-high strength concrete tied columns." Proc., Tenth World
Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Madrid, Spain, July 19-24, A. A. Balkema, Rot-
terdam, Netherlands, Vol. 5, 2983-2988.
Norges Byggstandardiseringsrad, N. B. R. (1989). Prosjektering av betongkonstruks-
joner Beregnings-og konstruksjonsregler (Concrete Structures Design Rules), NS
3473, Norges Standardiseringsforbund, Oslo, Norway.
"Research needs for high-strength concrete." (1987). ACI Mater. J., 84(6), 559-
561.
Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M. (1980). "Strength and ductility of tied concrete
columns." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 106(5), 1079-1102.
Vallenas, J., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P. (1977). "Concrete confined by rec-
tangular hoops and subjected to axial loads." Report No. UCB/EERC-77/13, Earth-
quake Engrg. Res. Ctr., University of California, Berkeley, Calif.

A P P E N D I X II. NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

A 5oc --- area under stress-strain curve of confined concrete up to ecs0c;

A 50u = area under stress-strain curve of unconfined concrete up to ecsou;
A t = total cross-sectional area of concrete;
A cc = cross-sectional area of concrete core b o u n d e d by centerline of
outer tie;
A st = total cross-sectional a r e a of longitudinal reinforcement;
b = side dimension of total concrete cross section;
c = side dimension of concrete core;
db = longitudinal steel b a r diameter;
dh = transverse steel b a r diameter;
Ec = modulus of elasticity of plain concrete;
fc = stress in concrete;
f" = compressive strength of plain concrete m e a s u r e d from 150 • 300-
m m cylinders;
fy
= yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement steel;
= yield strength of transverse reinforcement steel;
nb = n u m b e r of longitudinal steel bars;
P = axial load carried by column;
Pc = axial load carried by concrete;
Pc1 = axial load carried by concrete when concrete cover spaUs;
Pc2 = m a x i m u m axial load carried by confined concrete;

803
emax maximum axial load carried by column;
Po axial capacity of column cross section;
=
Poc = axial capacity of total concrete cross section;
eocc = axial capacity of concrete core;
S = center to center spacing between sets of ties;
E : axial strain;
axial strain in concrete;
ECO = axial strain in plain concrete corresponding to f'c;
EC1 : axial strain in column concrete corresponding to Pc1;
EC2 = axial strain in column concrete corresponding to Pc2;
EC50C = axial strain in confined concrete when load drops to 0.5Pc2;
EC50U = axial strain in unconfined concrete when stress drops to 0.5f'c;
volumetric ratio of longitudinal reinforcement in column cross
section; and
lgh - - volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement in concrete core.

804

View publication stats