The 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation 2016

(ICEEDM-III 2016)

Proposed Improvement to the Current Design and Method of

Concreting RC Column for Earthquake Resistant Buildings
Hadi R. Tanuwidjaja a, Euricky E. Tanuwidjajab, Grace K. Santosoc
a
President Director Haerte Widya Consulting Engineers
b
Structural Engineer Haerte Widya Consulting Engineers
c
Senior Lecturer Trisakti University, Jakarta

Abstract
Previous experiences in the design and observation of the construction of the several tall buildings in Indonesia
shows that some critical issues on the design and method of concreting reinforced concrete columns had to be
improved.

Potential defects at the part of RC column zones of 100 to 200 mm below the beam-column soffit were mostly
founded. The predicted causes of those defects was reviewed by conducting serial concrete compression tests on
the direct site core-samples.

Seismic-code requirements generally create problems of rebar congestion and difficulty on-site concreting . To
minimize concreting defects and eliminating the poor quality of workmanship, the proposed improvement of
the current design on the required steel confinement configuration, main bar re-arrangement and method of
concreting columns is specifically highlighted in this paper.

Selected actual design examples was taken out from our recent experiences on problem-solving of the several
lower story-columns defects that urgently needs for strengthening and retrofitting to meet and comply with the
current structural design requirements for earthquake resistant building in Indonesia .

Keywords: column, retrofitting, strengthening and improvement.

1. INTRODUCTION

Structural integrity of columns is very critical in any building particularly at the lower floors of
earthquake resistant buildings where most of the gravity working axial column loads had been in
full-services. Experiences in design and observation of construction several columns repairing and
retrofitting for several tall buildings in the city of Jakarta have shown some critical issues need to be
addressed if the columns had to meet the requirements for ductile performance in accordance to the
latest ACI code 318-2014. Recent observation and investigation among the buckled main
longitudinal column reinforcement as shown in Figure 1, concludes that extremely significant
reduction in the actual concrete compressive strength than the design strength occurred at the column
zones of 100 to 200 mm below the beam-column soffit.
`

Unfortunately the failures was always detected lately when the skeleton of the building was
approaching the completion i.e. when the column axial forces due to gravity loads almost in full-
services. This would create an extreme difficulty in repairing and retrofitting the columns.
The main causes of column failures can be identified as :
a. extreme under-strength concrete at the zones of 100-200 mm below beam-column soffit (figure
1a, b, c and d).

b. the understrength concrete compression because of poorly consolidated during concreting which
was apparently due to poor quality of workmanship during delivery (figure 1e, f).

c. the new special moment frames confinement requirement ACI 318-14 chapter 18.7 in particular
Pu
case of  0.30 for the earthquake resistant structures (figure 1g, h and i) requires more
f c' Ac
complexity and steel reinforcement congested arrangment which may induce the extreme difficulty
for concrete placement

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i)

Fig. 1. Column defects and failures
2. THE MAIN CAUSES OF DEFECTS
2.1 Reduction Concrete Strength at zones 100-200 mm below beam-column soffit
ACI 318-14 chapter 15.3 allows to have the concrete strength for slabs and beams of maximum 40 %
lower than the concrete strength of the columns below. For multi-story building construction in
most of Indonesian common construction sequences of concreting by first concrete placement for all
columns below each story which is being constructed up to the level of 100 to 200 mm below the
beam-concrete soffit as shown in figure 2a. The second stage of concreting then for the floor slabs
and beams which usually have lower concrete strength then the earlier concrete column strength
below. Figure 2b, illustrated the possibility of the major causes of these column defects
Whenever the slabs, beams falsework and rebar placements setting is completed then concreting the
floor slabs and beams started. Prior concreting the floor slabs and beams, the concrete pumping pipes
had to be wash-out from the residual concrete splatter through injected pressure of flushing water.
By nature water-flushing always flows to reach the lowest level which is the level of 100-200 mm
below the beam-column soffit as shown in figure 2a and b. The local authority restrictions not to
allow any concreting works activity before midnight render something difficult in the proper
construction site supervision. The very minimum construction site supervision on the cleaning process
prior concreting was believed that in these zones concrete splatter plus trashes, rubbish etc. would be
concentrated, accumulated and poured with fresh concrete therefore creates the weakest compressive
strength among other part of the whole column height at each floor. Longitudinal column
reinforcement buckling at lowest floor as shown in figure 1c and d proof due to very poor concrete
compressive strength at this area.

Min flush or 50 mm higher than beam soffit

fc slabs & beams

min
fc column/1.4

Potential defects

Proposed
Allow fc column higher up to max
1.4 x fc slabs & beams min fc future
Current practice ACI 318-2014 ch. 15.3 concreting

(a) 1st stage of column concreting (b) proposed method of 1st stage column
concreting
Fig. 2. Under strength concrete 100-200 mm below Beam-Column soffits

2.2 Poor consoldation and improper added water during delivery on site concreting
Most of ready mix truck drivers lack of understaning of the common adding the water during concrete
delivery on site often only for layman simple reasons i.e. to boost up the slump for ease of concreing
and speed up the delivery rates as the basis of raising the renumeration pay-roll. This fundamental
thought undoubtly to be the other cause of concrete strength reduction. Figure 1e , f and h indicated
due to the concrete strength drop at the some lower story columns which is highly supporting axial
forces almost in full-service of gravity loads therefore overstressing the logitudinal reinforcing bar
then started to buckle.

2.3 Congestion rebar longitudinal and transverse arrangment

Very minimum construction site supervision at the night-time concreting in addition to the more
stringent of the ACI 318-14 chapter 18.7.5.4 requirements for confinement (inclusive chapter
18.7.3.2) which requires more longitudinal reinforcing steel due to the application of capacity design
`

concept significantly impacted to columns at the lowest stories level where the axial ratio of
Pu / f c' Ag  0.30 involving the demand of steel-confinement volume content is relatively high.
Inevitably the main longitudinal and transverse rebars congestion inside the column and wall-pier
section creates more dificullty in concrete placement. Figures 1g, h and i proof this evidence of
having difficulty to consolidate the concrete results to the failure achievement of the standard-code
column performance due to very poor quality of wormanship.

2.4 Difficulty on determining the actual in-situ concrete compressive strength

For the purpose of design and check, strengthening and retrofitting, it is important to find the actual
column concrete compressive stress therefore this issue had to be critically and firstly determined.
The reality on site investigation often because of the steel reinforcement congestion almost
impossible to obtain more reliable coring samples which have diameter ≥ 100 mm without rebar
cutting either for longitudinal and transverse reinforcing bars. Improper conditions and smaller
diameter of concrete coring samples, sometimes mislead in the accuracy of obtaining the actual in-situ
compressive strength. This condition will make critical difficulty in the design and evaluation check
for repair and retroffiting the defected columns.

2.5. Restriction space for columns repair and retrofitting

Several cases of column failures practically occurred at the lower stories and are not detected at the
earlier stage of constrcution. This phenomena is understandable because these columns are supporting
axial compression forces which almost in full service of gravity loadings. The extra effort for repair
and retrofitting on-site of this defected column are compounded with the ongoing work progress for
the mechanical-electrical and architectural finishing works, therefore this will impact to have more
complexity that needs additional extra cost and extended project time for strengthening works.
Because most of architectural and finishing works had been fully completed the pre-preparation of
non-structural work at and around the joint must be carefully dismantled to accommodate temporary
steel structures. Figure 3 illustrated the complexity of having column defects that needs specific and
uncommon skill involving rare experiences due to the limited and restriction space for site works in
progress.

(a) temporary steel structure (b) BC enlargement (c) BC steel brackets

additional column rebars
(d) final retrofitting (e) large column retrofitting (f) enlarging column
Fig. 3. Repair and Reftroffiting Defected Columns
Repair and retrofitting column defects was demanding the extra high-cost for the additional structural
works and the possibility of time delay to the final completion of the overall building project.

3. TOWARD IMPROVEMENT ON THE COLOUMN DESIGN STRATEGY

Because column defects will initiate and possibility at the worst to be followed by total progressive
building colapse. Any effort of design and construction improvement to eliminate or minimize the
column defects shall be seriously taken.
Fundamentally to avoid the weakest concrete compressive strength area 100-200 mm below beam-
column soffit, it is compulsory to have the first stage of column concreting at least 50 mm higher than
the beam-column joint soffit as shown in figure 2b.
ACI 318-14 table 20.2.2.4a cleary specified the minimum requirements for nonprestressed deformed
reinforcement. For confinement purposes the maximum permitted value of yield strength steel
f yt  700 MPa could be used instead of normal yield strength value of  420 MPa, in this case the
use of prestressing wire is more preferable (see ACI 318-14 Table 20.3.2.2), because of having
smaller diameter, higher tensile strength and enable of having wider confinement steel spacings.
For most of columns at the lowest stories level where the axial ratio Pu / f c Ag  0.30 (approximatly
'

this corresponds to the point of balanced failure of column at the moment interaction diagram), will
cause a compression type of failure due to normal/axial load. This type of compression can be
expected and the flexural moment capacity will not significantly effected by the longitudinal rebar
arrangement. Figure 4a shows the conventional longitudinal steel arrangement at the perimeter of
column section. The moment interaction diagram as shown in Figure 4b for the proposed alternative
placement of small portion rebar arrangement (preferable at least 1/3) of the total longitudinal steel
towards the central of column section proof that the total flexural moment capacity of the column in
comparable is mostly the same as the conventional rebar arrangment. Figures 5b, c and d illustrated
the proposed design strategy for column rebar arrangment to eliminate rebar congestion due to wider
spacings for both longidtudinal and trasverse reinforcement ( s  125 mm).
Logically, only the perimeter rebars require the confinement reinforcement (the rebars at the center
of the column need not necessary to be confined), therefore based on this type of main rebars
arrangement the amount of computed confinement steel reinforcement could be reduced. However,
the bar arrangement has the practical advantage of making concreting much easier and this
minimizing the posibility of column defects. Moreover when in the future there is a case of any
doubt regarding the insitu concrete compressive strength for the column, the necessity to take coring
sample is relatively easier without any interruption of the necessity to have rebar cutting.
`

Any combination of load and exccentricity which has the axial ratio Pu / f c Ag  0.30 will cause a
'

tension failure due to flexural bending, indeed this type of failure will be significantly effected by
perimeter longitudinal steel reinforcement.
Demand/Capacity ratio
Concrete Grade : fc’ = 55MPa
full perimeter rebar arrangement = 0.81  OK
Required Capacity
proposed rebar arrangement = 0.81 OK
Pu= 76511 kN
Mux = 6397kN.m
Muy = 5274 kN.m

(a) full perimeter rebars arrangement (b) proposed rebar arrangment

Fig. 4. Column Moment interaction diagrams

Modified column rebars arrangement by slightly shifting 30 % rebars towards inside of the column
section , even though this choice does not change to the total area for main rebar but the
requirements for confinement steel areas could be reduced, therefore from the constructable point of
view this will allow to have the improvement in concreting performance by having wider colum
rebar spacings (> 125 mm) as shown in figure 5b, c and d in comparable to the compounded
complexity to the conventional rebar arrangment in figure 5a.

a. ACI 318-2014 fy=400 MPa b. ACI 318-2014 fy=500 MPa

conventional rebar arrangement

c. ACI 318-2014 fy=500 d. ACI 318-2014 ties PC wires

MPa fy=400 MPa

Fig. 5. Comparative study conventional and the proposed rebar column arrangement

For better improvement it is recommended that at least one-third of the total column rebar areas have
to be placed at the center of the column section as shown in figure 5b, c and d.
4. CONCLUSIONS

The recommendation to make the changes regarding concrete delivery and improvement in the
method of construction and design by having the proposed rebar arrangement for lower stories where
the axial ratio Pu / f c Ag  0.30 in compliance to successfully achievement for more stringent
'

confinement steel requirements of the latest code ACI 318-14 positively will allow in reduction of
more detailing complication for on site concreting therefore was considered improving the structural
column performance which is constructed in any location with high seismic risk.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express their gratitude to engineers Husin and Viktor of Haerte Widya
Consulting Engineers who prepared some of the selected photographs for this paper. The
unforgettable highly appreciation should be directed to the clients and contractors who gave us the
opportunity to make the project into reality.

REFERENCES

[1] American Concrete Institute, ACI 318-14 ; “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
and Commentary”; 520 pp.

[2] Badan Standarisasi Nasional Indonesia, SNI 2874-13; “Persyaratan Beton Struktural untuk
Bangunan Gedung,” 265 pp (Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete in Indonesian)

[3] Haerte Widya Consulting Engineers, “Selected Projects Documentation”