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

net/publication/303498580

Second-Order Effects on Seismic Response of Slender Bridge Columns

Article  in  Aci Structural Journal · July 2016

DOI: 10.14359/51688751

CITATIONS READS

2 430

4 authors, including:

Ata Babazadeh Pedro Silva

Rice University George Washington University
7 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS    66 PUBLICATIONS   651 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Derivation of Analytical Models for the Effects of Nonlinear Second-order P-δ Moments on the Inelastic Response of Slender Reinforced Concrete Columns View
project

Development of High Integrity Models for Simulating Seismic Damage in Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ata Babazadeh on 14 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 113-S63
Second-Order Effects on Seismic Response of Slender
Bridge Columns
by Rigoberto Burgueño, Ata Babazadeh, Lauren K. Fedak, and Pedro F. Silva
This paper presents and discusses, through an experimental inves-
tigation, the second-order effects of P-Δ and P-δ on the inelastic
seismic response of slender reinforced concrete (RC) bridge
columns. Two large-scale RC columns with an aspect ratio (shear
span to section width) of 12 were tested under quasi-static cyclic
loading. The destabilizing effect of P-Δ and the contribution of P-δ
to the growth of the plastic region were experimentally evaluated
by comparing primary and secondary moment gradients. Results
confirmed the destabilizing effect of P-Δ demands and showed
that the geometric second-order effects from P-δ led to a signifi-
cant increase in the extent of the plastic region (Lpr). Enhancing
the strength to compensate for the second-order effects proved to
be inadequate to improve the deformation capacity before insta-
bility as limited by current seismic design guidelines. Yet, the test
columns exhibited stable cyclic response beyond the conventional
stability limit indexes.
Keywords: bridge columns; P-D; plastic region; reinforced concrete;
second-order effects, slenderness; stability.
INTRODUCTION
Current analysis and design procedures for slender reinforced
concrete (RC) bridge columns with aspect ratios (shear
span length to section width or L/D) greater than 10 require
further investigation and reevaluation. This follows from the
relative lack of experimental evidence on their performance
because most of the test columns reported in the PEER struc-
tural performance database1 and a recent fib state-of-the-art
report2 have aspect ratios less than 7. However, slender RC
columns are commonly used in elevated highway intersec-
tions and consideration of soil-structure interaction effects
can modify the moment gradient demand on a column, thus
increasing the effective aspect ratio beyond that considered
in design. The response of slender columns at the global and
local levels is anticipated to differ from their shorter coun-
terparts due to the greater influence of global displacements
(P-Δ effects) and member deformations (P-δ effects). The
destabilizing effect caused by P-Δ moments at a global
level expedites failure of the column even before significant
material deterioration and damage occur. At the same time,
moments generated by P-δ effects reshape the distribution
of internal bending moment profiles along the column height
and leads to the spread of plasticity and damage to higher
sections of the column. Consideration of these second-order
effects on the seismic analysis of slender RC bridge columns
and their design implications have received limited attention
in the literature.
Early experimental studies on slender RC bridge columns
have been reported by Dodd.3 One sixth-scale column with
an aspect ratio of 10 and an axial load ratio of 0.4fcʹAg was
dynamically tested in a shake table. Results from this study
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2016
TECHNICAL PAPER
qualitatively demonstrated the effect of second-order effects
on the spread of the plastic region through visual observa-
tions of damage on cover concrete. Dodd3 also discussed
the global instability resulting from the slenderness of the
columns by studying the force-displacement response.
However, enhanced understanding of second-order effects on
the seismic response of slender RC columns needs a quantita-
tive evaluation at global and local levels with considerations
of current design practice, which generally adopts lower
axial load ratios. Lehman et al.4 reported more recent exper-
imental studies on half-scale slender RC columns designed
according to modern codes. The effect of increasing slen-
derness (up to 10) on the reduction of the strain limit state
for spalling of the cover concrete was reported. However,
effects from P-Δ and P-δ were not directly addressed. Hines
et al.5,6 studied local effects of shear cracking on the spread
of the plastic region in RC columns with aspect ratios up to
6, where shear has a more significant role than the second-
order effects. Columns with aspect ratios greater than 6 were
not considered in the noted study because shear effects are
inversely proportional to column aspect ratio.7 Thus, the
extent of the plastic region on slender columns (L/D > 6) in
which second-order effects govern remains underexplored.
Second-order effects on RC building columns are rela-
tively well-studied. Bae and Bayrak8 conducted experiments
on ultimate drift ratio of building columns. They reported
significant loss of drift capacity when the aspect ratio
increased from 5 to 7, the largest aspect ratio tested. This
was contrary to the fact that columns with high aspect ratios
are considered ductile members with adequate capacity
to deform before ultimate.9,10 Although Bae and Bayrak11
extended the results of their findings to columns with aspect
ratios up to 10 by proposing a new plastic hinge model that
considers slenderness, the derivation and calibration of their
model were based on experimental data from test columns
with lower aspect ratios. Barrera et al.12 tested RC building
columns with aspect ratios up to 15 and documented insta-
bility as the ultimate failure mode for slender columns. The
authors concluded that the ultimate displacement ductility,
as obtained from the instability limit of slender columns,
decreases with the longitudinal reinforcement ratio but does
not necessarily decrease with the aspect ratio.13 However,
they noted that further comment on the influence of slender-
ACI Structural Journal, V. 113, No. 4, July-August 2016.
MS No. S-2014-375.R3, doi: 10.14359/51688751, was received August 17, 2015,
and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2016, American
Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless
permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
author’s closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the
discussion is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
735
Table 1—Concrete and steel reinforcement material properties
Concrete properties
Test unit M121505 M123005
Average or standard deviation Average Standard deviation Average Standard deviation
fc’, MPa (ksi) 42.7 (6.2) 3.99 (0.579) 46.2 (6.7) 2.06 (0.298)
ft’, MPa (ksi) 3.16 (0.462) 0.117 (0.017) 3.37 (0.489) 0.110 (0.016)
Reinforcement properties
Test unit M121505 M123005
Reinforcement type Longitudinal Transverse Longitudinal Transverse
Diameter, mm (in.) 19.1 (0.75) 12.7 (0.5) 25.4 (1) 12.7 (0.5)
s, mm (in.) — 76.2 (3.0) — 76.2 (3.0)
fy, MPa (ksi) 455 (66) 469 (68) 486 (70.5) 469 (68)
fu, MPa (ksi) 689 (100) 689 (100) 738 (107) 689 (100)
εsu 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12

ness on deformation capacity of columns was not possible

due to limited experimental data on slender columns.
In this work, experimental tests on two large-scale RC
bridge columns with an aspect ratio of 12 were conducted
to study the P-Δ and P-δ effects on the structural perfor-
mance of slender columns. The destabilizing effect from P-Δ
moments was studied using stability indexes proposed in the
literature. The effect of nonlinear distribution of internal
bending moment profiles on the plastic region growth along
the columns’ height was also used to study the effect of P-δ
on the seismic response of slender bridge columns. Finally,
current seismic design methods for estimating the extent
of the plastic region and determining the stability limit of
slender columns were reevaluated with the new experi-
mental data.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
RC columns are commonly expected to possess higher
levels of deformation capacity as aspect ratio increases when
considering only material-related performance limit states.
However, the ability of a slender column to sustain large
deformations before becoming unstable has not been fully
investigated. This work contributes to this effort by providing
a quantitative assessment of P-Δ and P-δ effects on the
local (spread of plasticity) and global responses (stability)
of slender columns. Moreover, the presented experimental
results enhance the available database for the validation and
verification of analysis and design approaches for slender
RC bridge columns under seismic demands.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Test units
The study is based on the experimental testing of two half-
scale RC bridge columns with an aspect ratio (L/D) of 12.
The columns had a circular cross section with a diameter
of 610 mm (24 in.), were detailed to behave in a ductile
manner, and differed only in their longitudinal reinforcement
ratio ρsl, which was 1.5% for Column M121505 and 3% for
Column M123005. The columns’ identification tag includes
six digits, where the first two digits show the aspect ratio;
the two digits in the middle represent ρsl and the last two
Fig. 1—Reinforcement details for test columns. (Note:
Dimensions in inches; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
digits indicate the nominal axial load ratio P/fcʹAg. Geom-
etry and reinforcement details for the test units are shown
in Fig. 1(a). Concrete strength properties were evaluated
through standard testing and the compressive (fcʹ) and tensile
(ftʹ) strengths for both columns at the day of test are provided
in Table 1. Details on the reinforcement steel geometry (bar
size and spiral pitch s) and its properties (yield strength fy,
ultimate strength fu, and ultimate strain εsu) are also given
in Table 1, where the values are the average data from three
tensile tests for each of the reinforcing bar types.
Test setup
The columns were tested as freestanding cantilevers with a
footing affixed to the laboratory reaction floor, as depicted in
Fig. 2(a). Also shown in Fig. 2(b) is Column M123005 in its

736 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2016

deformed shape. A constant axial load P of 712 kN (160 kip),
corresponding to 0.05fcʹAg for a reference concrete strength
of 48 MPa (7 ksi), was applied to the columns throughout
the test. The axial load setup, as shown in Fig. 2(c), consisted
of two hydraulic jacks and high-strength steel rods reacting
against the column’s top block through a spandrel beam. The
two axial loading rods were anchored to the laboratory floor
at their lower end and were post-tensioned, thus leading to
a compressive axial force in the test column. Lateral loads
Feff and displacements Δ were applied to the test columns
by a horizontal servo-controlled actuator connected to the
loading block at top, as illustrated in Fig. 2(d).
Having a fixed end at the bottom and a moving end at
the top of the post-tensioning rods generated an axial load
that diverged from the vertical direction when the column
was laterally displaced. The inclination angle θ at most
reached 0.08 rad (4.6 degrees). The vertical component of
the inclined axial load Pcosθ, which represents the gravita-
tional force from the superstructure of a hypothetical bridge,
was thus almost identical to (0.3% smaller than) the applied
force. However, the inclined axial load generated a substan-
tial horizontal component Psinθ that could become as large
as 8% of the axial load. The effect of the inclined axial load
on the test results was considered and force measurements
were corrected as discussed later.
Table 2—Force and displacement values at
theoretical (first) and ideal yield
Test unit M121505 M123005
Fyʹ. kN (kip) 66.7 (15) 111 (25)
Δyʹ, mm (in.) 109 (4.3) 142 (5.6)
Fy, kN (kip) 71.6 (16.1) 119 (26.8)
Δy, mm (in.) 137 (5.4) 173 (6.8)
Fig. 2—Test setup for experiments as depicted by: (a) schematic representation of entire test setup; (b) Test Column M123005;
(c) axial load setup; and (d) lateral load setup.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2016
Test procedure
Tests were conducted quasi-statically following a fully
reversed cyclic loading pattern in two steps associated with
pre-yield and post-yield response regimes. The pre-yield
regime was intended to load the columns until reinforce-
ment yielding occurs for the first time. Four cycles were
applied under force control. The target forces were 25,
50, 75, and 100% of the first yield force Fyʹ, defined by
the lateral force that corresponds to the first yield moment
My′ at the base level, where My′ is the moment that causes
yielding on the extreme longitudinal reinforcing reinforcing
bar in tension. Values of My′ and Fyʹ were determined from
section moment-curvature analyses prior to the tests. During
the pre-yield tests, the yielding condition was monitored
by strain gauges attached to the extreme longitudinal rein-
forcing bars. The pre-yield regime was concluded once
yielding of the reinforcement was detected for the first time.
The top displacement at first yield Δy′ was recorded and used
to estimate the ideal yield displacement Δy. The ideal yield
displacement Δy was calculated according to Priestley et al.14
by Δy = Δy′ × Mn/My′, where Mn is the moment at which either
the extreme confined concrete fibers reached εc = –0.004 or
the extreme steel fiber in tension reached εs = 0.015, which-
ever occurred first. Displacement values Δ were normalized
by dividing by the ideal yield displacement Δy and termed
as displacement ductility (μΔ = Δ/Δy). Further progress of
the tests was guided and assessed in terms of displacement
ductility μΔ, such that μΔ = 1 corresponded to the ideal yield
displacement Δ = Δy, μΔ < 1 represented the pre-yield condi-
tion and μΔ > 1 indicated the post-yield responses.
The post-yield step of the tests was conducted in displace-
ment control with three cycles each at the displacement
ductility levels μΔ = 1, 1.5, 2, and 3 (3.5 for M121505). The
columns were not subjected to larger deformation levels
due to limitations on the actuator stroke (1016 mm [40 in.]),
737
which was enough to deform the test columns beyond the
current stability limits, as discussed later. The values of Fyʹ
and Δy that defined the target forces and displacements for
the loading protocol are listed in Table 2.

Instrumentation
The test columns were instrumented to measure average
flexural curvature and lateral deformation profiles along
the height. Flexural curvatures were monitored at 15 and
20 sections along the height of Columns M123005 and
M121505, respectively. At each section, a pair of vertically
oriented displacement transducers (DTs) that measured
extension and contraction at two extreme sides of the
columns was used. In addition to flexural curvatures, shear
deformations were experimentally evaluated by a set of
horizontal, vertical, and diagonal DTs attached to the side
of the test columns. Shear strains were experimentally
obtained following a method that can be found in the litera-
ture.15 Horizontal DTs were employed to measure the lateral
displacement and the deformed shape of the test columns at
seven sections along the columns’ length. The instrumenta-
tion layout of Column M121505 is illustrated in Fig. 1(b).
The servo-controlled hydraulic actuator, which was used
to apply lateral loads, was equipped with a load cell that
measured the applied lateral forces. Further, two load cells
were dedicated to measure the axial load transferred to the
column through the post-tensioned axial loading rods. The
rotation of the column at the top was recorded by an elec-
tronic clinometer. Yielding of the longitudinal and transverse
reinforcements was monitored through the strain gauges
attached to the reinforcing bars. Fig. 3—Extent of spalling region: (a) on Column M121505
at μΔ = 3.5; (b) on Column M123005 at μΔ = 3; and (c)
TEST OBSERVATIONS during the tests.
Different damage limit states were observed during the moment associated with the first yield limit state. Experi-
cyclic test. The onset of each damage state was linked to mental test data showed that the columns reached the first
engineering design parameters of displacement ductility μΔ yield limit at a force level close to that predicted from
and drift ratio Δ/L. The following describes the observed the moment-curvature analyses. Yet, the columns’ slender-
states of damage in the order of occurrence. ness led to high drift ratios at first yield: 1.6% and 2% for
Columns M121505 and M123005, respectively.
Tensile cracking
Tensile cracking first appeared on both test columns at a Initiation of spalling
load level equal to half that of their yielding limit (0.5Fyʹ). Spalling damage is generally understood as a major
At this stage, the extent of cracking along the height was damage to the cover concrete. Yet, defining the exact onset
3658 mm (12 ft) for both columns. Upon reaching μΔ = 1, of spalling in a test environment is somewhat subjective. In
tensile cracking reached 5486 mm (18 ft) and was as high this paper, a quantitative approach, which enables a consis-
as 6401 mm (21 ft) at the end of the tests. Governed by the tent evaluation of spalling damage in numerical models,16
spiral pitch, which was 76 mm (3 in.), cracks were uniformly was used. Using the definition by Hose et al.17 and Hose and
spaced at multiples of 76 mm (3 in.). The spacing between Seible,18 the initiation of spalling occurs when the size of
cracks was initially 152 mm (6 in.) but decreased to 76 mm the spalled region of the cover concrete reaches one-tenth
(3 in.) by the end of the test. the section diameter. Spalling initiated at μΔ values of 1.5
and 2 for Test Columns M121505 and M123005, respec-
First yielding tively. For both columns, spalling first appeared at the base
The onset of first yielding was defined as the first time level (next to the footing block). The drift ratios at initial
when the strain in the extreme longitudinal steel reinforcing spalling were 3.8% and 3.6% for Columns M121505 and
bar exceeded its yield strain in tension. Experimentally, M123005, respectively. In general, the column with higher
yielding of extreme longitudinal reinforcement was deter- longitudinal reinforcement (M123005) experienced spalling
mined from strain gauges at the base of the column (crit- at lower levels of displacement ductility and the damaged
ical section). Analytically, a sectional analysis using a region extended higher.
fiber-based approach was used to predict the curvature and

738 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2016

Fig. 4—P-Δ and P-δ effects on extent of plastic region Lpr along axially loaded cantilever columns.
Significant spalling
The onset of significant spalling was defined after Hose
et al.17 and Hose and Seible18 at the moment when the spalling
region’s size on the cover concrete exceeded one-half the
section diameter. Significant spalling was observed at μΔ = 2
for both test columns. The drift ratio associated with the onset
of significant spalling was 4.7% for M123005 and 3.8% for
M121505. The height of the spalled region at the maximum
imposed displacement (μΔ = 3 for M123005 and μΔ = 3.5 for
M121505) was 660 and 533 mm (26 and 21 in.) for Columns
M123005 and M121505, respectively. The observed damage
in both columns in terms of significant spalling at the end of
the tests is shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b). Further, the extent of
the spalling region on both sides of the test columns, which
was recorded during the test, is given in Fig. 3(c).
ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS
Experimental results that specifically address second-
order effects on the inelastic response of RC columns are
presented. Therefore, it is essential to discuss these second-
order effects of P-Δ and P-δ in advance. Also discussed prior
to presenting the experimental results is the concept of a
plastic region Lpr over which the inelastic response occurs.
Plastic hinge length Lp and plastic region length Lpr
Inelastic response of RC members is commonly assessed
using lumped plasticity models in which plastic deforma-
tions are assumed to occur along an equivalent plastic hinge
length Lp. The notion of a plastic hinge length is an abstract
analytical parameter that is meant to combine all sources of
inelastic deformations and provide an accurate estimate of
the resulting inelastic rotations. Experimental results from
the force-displacement response of RC members can be used
to suggest expressions for Lp that yield the maximum accu-
racy for the predicted inelastic rotations and displacement
regardless of the actual size of the plastic region.6
In contrast with the plastic hinge length Lp, the plastic region
length Lpr is the physical length of the actual plastic region
along the columns’ height.6 The plastic region represents a
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2016
column segment over which RC sections undergo significant
inelastic deformations. The moment-curvature response of
RC sections was used to identify the inelastic curvatures.
In this regard, the ideal yield curvature ϕy, which defines an
approximate bilinear moment-curvature response, was used.
The value of ϕy for the test sections was obtained according
to the method from Priestley et al.14 by extrapolating the line
between the origin and the conditions at first tensile yielding
of the extreme longitudinal reinforcement (ϕ′y, My′) to the
nominal yield moment Mn, as expressed by ϕy = ϕ′yMn/My′.
The plastic region length Lpr was thus determined from the
experimental measurements of curvatures along the height
of the test columns. In this paper, Lpr was measured from the
base level (interface between the column and its footing) to
the highest monitored section in which the yield curvature
was reached.
The plastic hinge length Lp is related to the plastic
region length Lpr; however, Lp is not directly proportional
to Lpr because the expressions for Lp combine the effect of
plastic region with other sources of inelastic deformations
to provide accurate predictions for the ultimate displace-
ments. Three major sources of inelastic deformations in RC
columns are moment gradient, strain penetration, and tension
shift, from which only the moment gradient portion of Lp is
directly proportional to Lpr. The length of the plastic region
Lpr is used throughout this paper to address the second-order
effects on the inelastic response of RC bridge columns.
Second-order effects of P-Δ and P-d
Lateral displacement Δ of the bridge column at the top
induces an additional moment demand P-Δ due to eccen-
tricity of the axial load. The P-Δ moment (PΔcosθ in the
case of a non-vertical P) is applied to the base independent
from the deformed shape of the column. Therefore, the effect
of P-Δ is typically considered by linearly increasing the
primary bending moment profile caused by the shear force,
as illustrated in Fig. 4(a) and 4(b), in which the axial load P
is shown inclined to be consistent with the test setup. The
second-order moment at the base level is accommodated by
the RC section’s capacity; thus, the effect reduces the actual
739
Fig. 5—Effect of P-Δ on force-displacement response of RC columns in terms of: (a) loss of strength; and (b) reduced stiffness.
shear force resisted by the column, leading to instability of
the element.
Besides the lateral displacement at the top, slender columns
also bend as illustrated in Fig. 4(c), where the parameters of Δ
and δ are depicted. δ is the normal distance between the actual
location of each section and the chord line of the column and
Δ is the horizontal distance of the chord line from the top of
the column. The axial load combined with the deformation of
the column perpendicular to its chord line δ creates member
second-order moments, referred to as P-δ effects. The P-δ
moments (Pδ) reshape the bending moment gradient and
lead to a nonlinear distribution with larger effects at midspan.
Nonlinear P-δ moments are expected to increase the spread
of inelastic region to elevations higher than predicted by a
linear distribution, as shown in Fig. 4(d). Although the base
moment demand is not directly affected by the P-δ moment,
extension of the inelastic region along the height of the
column increases the flexibility of the column, which in turn
leads to a larger lateral displacement at the top.
The destabilizing P-Δ effects on the force-deformation
response of columns leads to a decrease in the lateral load
bearing capacity of the element.19-23 A simple approach to
compensate for the P-Δ effect is to increase the member’s
strength. This concept is illustrated by means of a typical
force-displacement response in Fig. 5(a). An increase of the
base-moment capacity was recommended by Pettinga and
Priestley23 for RC and steel structures by 50 and 100% of
the P-Δ moment, respectively. The strength compensation
approach, however, is based on assumed (from numerical
modeling) yielding and degradation mechanisms, which
need further experimental validation. In addition to the loss
of strength, the destabilizing effect of P-Δ is also viewed
as a degradation of stiffness. A typical cyclic response of a
column with P-Δ effects is shown in Fig. 5(b). The response
is considered stable as long as the reloading stiffness K*s is
positive and greater than 5% of the initial stiffness Ki—that
is, upon complete unloading there exists a minimum stiff-
ness that resists further lateral displacements and generates
a resisting load.19 In this paper, the effects of P-Δ on the
stability of RC columns in terms of loss of strength and stiff-
ness are evaluated using experimental data.
Load-displacement response
Lateral force-displacement responses of the test columns
were obtained by measuring the displacements at the middle
740
of the top loading block and the force applied by the actu-
ator, or the effective force Feff. This should be distinguished
from the net shear force Fnet resisted by the column and
transmitted to the base because a portion of the force applied
by the actuator is used to counteract the horizontal compo-
nent of the axial force Psinθ. The measured effective force
Feff was thus modified according to the guidelines provided
by the PEER structural performance database manual24
to obtain the actual shear force Fnet acting on the column.
The force-displacement response of both columns in terms
of effective and net lateral forces is shown in Fig. 6. Also
shown is the columns’ loss of lateral load-resisting capacity
due to the additional P-Δ moment. It is worth noting that
the loss of strength, as obtained by PcosθΔ/L, is not strictly
linear with respect to Δ due to the interrelationship with θ.
Yet, the nonlinearity is too small to be visually appreciated
in the plots presented in Fig. 6. By comparing the strength
loss due to P-Δ effects in both columns, it can be seen that
the column with lower longitudinal reinforcement ratio
(M121505) was more affected.
Flexural curvature profiles
Flexural actions on the test columns were assessed by
determining section curvature demands along their height.
The flexural curvature of a segment was calculated from the
relative displacements measured between two sections at the
extreme tensile and compressive sides of the columns (refer
to Fig. 1(b)) and divided by the respective gauge length
to obtain average strains. The calculated strains at a given
elevation were then used to calculate the average flexural
curvature for the segment. Flexural curvatures along the
height of Column M121505 are shown in Fig. 7(a). It can
be seen that the measurements at the base are not consistent
with the rest because the fixed-end rotation of the column
caused by the strain-penetration (or bond-slip) effect is
included in the measurements for the curvatures. Therefore,
the curvature values at base level were eliminated from the
test data for further analyses.
Bending moment profiles
Results from fiber-based moment-curvature analyses
on the test columns were used to convert the experimental
curvature profiles to internal bending moment profiles.
The conversion was done by replacing curvatures with the
associated moment obtained from the section analyses. The
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2016
Fig. 6—Cyclic force-displacement responses.
Fig. 7—Profiles of post-yield: (a) curvature; and (b) moment along Column M121505.
bending moment profiles for Column M121505 are shown
in Fig. 7(b).
The test setups for the axial and lateral loads were
designed such that the applied forces go through the center
point of the loading block. Zero concentrated moment was
thus generated by the applied forces at the columns’ top,
which was defined as the center point of the loading block.
In addition, lack of any rotational constraint at top of the test
columns provided zero moment condition at the top end of
the columns. However, it is worth mentioning that lateral
displacements led to slight divergence of the applied forces
from the center point of the loading block. The non-zero
moment at top of the column MTop caused by the eccen-
tricity of the forces was estimated using the geometry of
the displaced and rotated loading block. It was found that
MTop is insignificantly small compared to the moments along
the height. For instance, MTop was at most 0.0065 times the
moment at the base MBase. Therefore, the assumption of zero
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2016
moment at top of the test columns does not adversely affect
the accuracy of the results presented herein. The moment
profiles were decomposed into their main contributors using
(Eq. (1))
M t = M p + M P -D + M P -d (1)
where Mt is the total moment at a section; and Mp is the
primary moment at a section, estimated by assuming a
linear distribution of moments by Mp = Fneth, where h is the
vertical distance of the section of interest from the top of the
column. MP-Δ is the secondary moment caused by P-Δ effects
and calculated by MP-Δ = PΔcosθ; and MP-δ is the internal
moment developed in each section due to the effect of P-δ,
given by MP-δ = Pδ.
The resulting profiles from the decomposition of the total
moments for Column M121505 are shown in Fig. 8(a) and
8(b) for μΔ levels of 1 and 3, respectively. It can be seen that
741
Fig. 8—Decomposed moment profiles for Column M121505.
Fig. 9—Experimental spread of plasticity.
at lower ductility demand, the existing moment at a section
of a column mainly comes from the primary moment.
Higher stiffness, which limits the column’s deformation, is
the reason that secondary effects show little impact on the
distribution of internal moments early on. In contrast, the
effect of secondary actions caused by P-Δ and P-δ is more
profound at μΔ = 3. At this deformation level a main portion
of the moment demand comes from the second-order effects.
Spread of plasticity
The extent of the plastic region at different displacement
ductility levels was obtained by determining the height at
742
which the flexural curvatures (Fig. 7(a)) or the moment
profile (Fig. 7(b)) exceeded the ideal yield curvature ϕy or
the ideal yield moment Mϕy. The experimental spread of
plasticity on the test columns is shown in Fig. 9 as a func-
tion of μΔ, which demonstrates the progress of the tests.
The plotted traces show an uneven growth of the plastic
region during the tests. These uneven trends are caused
in part by the random distribution of crack openings that
prevent uniform distribution of curvatures along the column
height. Also shown in Fig. 9 are traces for the spread of
plasticity obtained from the decomposed moment profiles.
Comparisons of the traces that correspond to cases with and
without P-δ show the substantial effect of P-δ on increasing
the plastic region height. Therefore, while the additional
moment caused by P-δ effects is only a small increase to
the moments, it can lead to a significant shift in inelastic
moments and curvatures. It is worth noting that the primary
moment by itself was not large enough to develop inelastic
demands. Therefore, no plastic region would be developed
in the columns if both P-Δ and P-δ effects were neglected.
The contribution of P-δ on the spread of plasticity can be
better appreciated by highlighting the amount of increased
plastic region length due to this effect as depicted in Fig. 10,
which shows the percentage increase in the plastic region
caused solely by consideration of the P-δ effect. The traces
start with a spike at approximately μΔ = 1, which occurs
because the spread of plasticity does not start simultaneously
for cases with and without P-δ consideration. Neglecting
the spike at the beginning of the diagram, which occurs
over a small range of μΔ, the test data shows a steady 20%
and 25% increase in the plastic region height for Columns
M123005 and M121505, respectively. It is worth noting
that the column with lower reinforcement ratio, M121505,
exhibits more sensitivity to the effect of P-δ on the spread
of plasticity.
Base moment demands
Plotting the bending moment demand at the column base,
where the internal moment is at its maximum, allows evalu-
ating the effect of secondary moments on structural stability.
The contribution of primary and secondary moments to the
total moment experienced at different levels of loading is
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2016
illustrated in Fig. 11 for the nearest section to the base, for
which experimental data was available (102 mm [4 in.]
above the base level). The results show that the P-Δ moment
makes a significant portion of the internal moment, partic-
ularly after yielding. This simply indicates the necessity of
considering the secondary effect to satisfy the general equi-
librium of the structure; otherwise, the base moment would
be underestimated. However, moments caused by member
deformation P-δ are very small at sections near the base. The
loss of moment capacity for resisting lateral loads is thus
caused mostly by the P-Δ moments.
Stability limit
In addition to conventional damage limit states that are
mostly related to the material properties, slender columns
have a limit that marks the onset of structural instability.
For a slender column, the stability limit may define the ulti-
mate response condition before significant material-related
damage is observed. Limits to stability have been proposed
in terms of a stability index θΔ by Priestley et al.,14 as given
in (Eq. (2))
θ D = P ( D + d ) / M D (2)
where MD is the base moment capacity. Priestley et al.21
recommended a limit of 0.3 to ensure stable cyclic response,
defined as a positive reloading stiffness.19 The stability
limit state enforced by θΔ ≤ 0.3 is depicted in Fig. 11 for
Fig. 10—Increase in spread of plasticity due to P-δ effect.
Fig. 11—Conventional stability limits and components of bending moment at closest monitored section to base level (102 mm
[4 in.] above base).
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2016
the test columns. Based on this index, the stability limit for
Column M123005 is μΔ = 3.0, while Column M121505, with
lower longitudinal steel reinforcement, reaches the stability
limit at μΔ = 2.3. It should be noted that both columns reach
the stability limit before material-based ultimate damage
limit states, such as bar buckling or core concrete crushing,
were reached.
The ACI Code25 also defines a stability limit for the effect
of secondary moments on RC columns. The limit is based on
the ratio of the total moment (including P-Δ and P-δ) to the
primary moment Mp and is required to be less than 1.4. The
resulting stability limits, which are also plotted in Fig. 11,
occur at μΔ values of 2.5 and 1.8 for Columns M123005 and
M121505, respectively. For both columns, the ACI stability
limit is more conservative than that proposed by Priestley et
al.21 Application of the ACI limit to the column with lower
longitudinal reinforcement (M121505) would limit defor-
mation capacity to a displacement ductility level before
observing significant spalling damage to the cover concrete.
Recent research on the stability of slender RC columns
has attempted to set new limits that extend the deforma-
bility of slender column beyond the aforementioned conven-
tional limits. Silva et al.22 explored the stability of slender
RC bridge columns through inelastic dynamic analyses and
proposed a new instability limit of 0.40. Application of the
aforementioned stability limit to the test columns of this
article predicts the onset of instability at μΔ values of 4.1
and 3.1 for Columns M123005 and M121505, respectively.
Barrera et al.12 proposed an alternative approach to deal with
the instabilities due to P-Δ moments. In this method, the
failure capacity of slender columns was defined at a point in
which the P-Δ moment exceeded the primary moment. By
implementing the method by Barrera et al.,12 the projected
drift capacity of Columns M123005 and M121505 was
found at displacement ductility levels of 5.4 and 3.6, respec-
tively. The inconsistency among different stability limits
indicates the necessity for further research.
IMPLICATIONS TO DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
Length of critical region for special detailing
Seismic design guidelines require special detailing and
enhanced confinement from transverse reinforcement in
the plastic regions of RC columns to ensure stable ductile
743
Fig. 12—Length of critical region for special detailing as average of two loading sides.
Fig. 13—Effect of increasing strength on force-displacement
response of slender columns.
response. The ACI Code25 specifies the length of the critical
region lo on columns of intermediate and special moment
frames to be the larger of: a) maximum dimension of the
cross section; b) one-sixth of the clear span; or c) 457 mm
(18 in.). Similarly, the AASHTO seismic design guidelines26
define a plastic region length Lpr as the largest value of: a)
1.5 times the dimension of the cross section in the bending
direction; b) the length of the region where the moment
demand exceeds 75% of the maximum plastic moment; or
c) the analytical plastic hinge length Lp. According to the
ACI Code, the length of the critical plastic region for the test
columns is governed by one-sixth of the span length, which
is 1.22 m (48 in.). This is equivalent to two times the section
diameter or 16.7% of the column length, which is conserva-
tive up to μΔ = 1.5. However, experimental results show that
the plastic region for both columns exceeds the proposed
length by ACI when μΔ is greater than 1.5, as depicted in
Fig. 12.
Use of AASHTO’s method to determine the length of
plastic region requires knowledge about the distribution
of bending moments along the column’s height. The limit
of 75% of the maximum moment is, to the authors’ under-
standing, meant to estimate the ideal yield moment of
the section. This limit was used in conjunction with two
internal moment profiles, in which the P-δ effect was either
included or ignored to obtain the length of the plastic region
according to AASHTO’s guidelines. When this method
744
resulted in values less than 1.5 times the dimension of the
section, 914 mm (36 in.), the first criterion by AASHTO was
the governing limit. The height of plastic region according
to AASHTO’s guidelines is also plotted in Fig. 12. An inset
in Fig. 12 also compares the yield moment estimated from
AASHTO (0.75Mu) to the ideal yield moment, Mϕy (moment
corresponding to the ideal yield curvature ϕy), which can be
seen to be more accurately estimated for Column M123005.
Therefore, AASHTO’s criteria provide a good estimate for
the spread of the plastic region in Column M123005. For
the column with lower longitudinal steel ratio (M121505),
yielding occurs at a moment less than 0.75Mu; therefore,
the plastic region height is underestimated. The results in
Fig. 12 also show that ignoring member deformations (P-δ
effects) leads to a lower estimate of the plastic region height.
Thus, an accurate estimate of the yield moment and consid-
eration of member deformations (P-δ effects) in deriving
the internal moment profile is required to adequately predict
the height of critical region in slender columns using the
AASHTO criteria.
Effect of increased strength
Increasing the strength of slender columns has been
suggested as a practical way to counteract against P-Δ
effects.14,23 The efficacy of this method was investigated by
comparing the force-displacement response of Columns
M121505 and M123005, where the latter had higher lateral
strength (as much as 160% of the maximum P-Δ effect.)
Therefore, Column M123005 was considered as a design
modification to Column M121505. Figure 13 illustrates the
force-displacement response of both columns as well as the
loss of strength due to P-Δ effects, shown by shaded areas. It
can be seen that the strength modification succeeds in terms of
providing extra strength to compensate for the loss of strength
due to P-Δ effect. However, providing extra strength had a
partial effect on enhancing the column’s stability because the
ductility capacity increased only by 0.7 if the stability indexes
proposed by Priestley et al.21 and ACI25 are used.
The effectiveness of increased strength on the stability of
slender columns can vary depending on the stability limit
index being used. For instance, use of the stability limits
proposed by Silva et al.22 and Barrera et al.12 extend the
displacement ductility capacity of the enhanced strength
column (M123005) by 1 and 1.6 units, respectively,
compared to Column M121505. Therefore, the effect of
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2016

Fig. 14—Ratio of reloading to initial lateral stiffness in
cyclic tests.
increased strength on improving the stability of RC columns
is more significant based on these recently developed criteria.
Stability of cyclic response
Through numerical modeling of cyclic response of RC
columns, Priestley et al.21 found that cyclic stability is
insured (K*s/Ki > 0.05) if the stability limit (Eq. (2)) is below
0.3. To further evaluate this stability limit index, the K*s/Ki
ratio was experimentally obtained for all loading cycles of
the test columns and results are plotted against displacement
ductility in Fig. 14. It can be seen that the reloading stiff-
ness remains above 10% of the initial stiffness. This would
imply that for Column M121505 the stability limit of 0.3
provided by Priestley et al.21 can be exceeded without losing
the cyclic stability. Comparing the results for both columns
reveals that there is no significant difference between the
rates of degrading stiffness at reloading cycles in spite of
dramatic difference in lateral strengths. This is another
evidence for the limited contribution of higher strength in
slender columns to overall stability.
CONCLUSIONS
The destabilizing effect of P-Δ on RC bridge columns
was confirmed from the experimental data of two half-scale
columns with an aspect ratio of 12. In addition, P-δ moments
were found to significantly alter the distribution of internal
moments leading to an increased height of the plastic region.
The slenderness ratios for the tested columns have not been
previously investigated. Accordingly, the following conclu-
sions are made:
1. The height of the plastic region can be underestimated
by up to 25% for slender columns if the effect of P-δ is
ignored in obtaining the internal bending moment profiles.
2. The maximum length of the plastic hinge region, as
defined by current seismic design guidelines from ACI and
AASHTO for ultimate response, was seen to be exceeded
shortly after inelastic actions started. For both columns
studied herein, the experimental plastic region exceeded
the limits required by design codes for special detailing at a
displacement ductility of 1.5.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2016
3. Application of currently used stability limit indexes to
columns with an aspect ratio of 12 restricted the displace-
ment ductility to values as low as 1.8, prior to the observa-
tion of significant damage—for example, in form of cover
concrete spalling. However, studying the reloading stiffness
from cyclic response showed satisfactory cyclic stability.
4. The experimental data considered herein showed that for
high slenderness ratios the approach of increasing strength
to account for P-Δ effects only leads to slight improvements
on stability.
AUTHOR BIOS
ACI member Rigoberto Burgueño is a Professor of structural engineering
at Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. He received his BS, MS,
and PhD, all in structural engineering, from the University of California,
La Jolla, San Diego, CA. He is a member of ACI Committees 341, Earth-
quake-Resistant Concrete Bridges, and 440, Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement. His research interests include structural mechanics and the
development of tailored materials for applications in mechanical devices
and structural systems.
Ata Babazadeh is a PhD Student in the Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering at Michigan State University. He received his BS and
MS in civil engineering from Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran,
Iran, and his MS in engineering mechanics from Michigan State Univer-
sity in 2008, 2011, and 2014, respectively. His research interests include
nonlinear analysis, three-dimensional finite element simulation, seismic
design of structural systems, and bridge engineering.
Lauren K. Fedak is a Structural Engineer at Harley Ellis Deveraux,
Southfield, MI. She received her BS and MS in civil engineering from Mich-
igan State University.
ACI member Pedro F. Silva is an Associate Professor of civil engineering
at George Washington University, Washington, DC. He received his BS and
MS in civil engineering from the University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA,
and his PhD in structural engineering from the University of California,
San Diego. He is a member of the ACI Committees 341, Earthquake-Resis-
tant Concrete Bridges, and 440, Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement.
His research interests include the development of design procedures for
civil structures to resist natural and manmade hazards.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This material is based upon a collaborative research project between the
George Washington University and Michigan State University supported by
the U.S. National Science Foundation under grant numbers CMS-1000797
and CMS-1000549. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommen-
dations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not neces-
sarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
REFERENCES
1. PEER, “PEER Structural Performance Database,” Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley,
CA, http://nisee.berkeley.edu/spd/. (last accessed July 2015)
2. CEB-FIP Bulletin 25, “Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Rein-
forced Concrete Buildings: State-of-the-Art Report,” Task Group 7.2, Inter-
national Federation for Structural Concrete (fib), 2003, 192 pp.
3. Dodd, L. L., “The Dynamic Behaviour of Reinforced-Concrete Bridge
Piers Subjected to New Zealand Seismicity,” PhD thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand,
1992, 460 pp.
4. Lehman, D.; Moehle, J.; Mahin, S.; Calderone, A.; and Henry, L., “Exper-
imental Evaluation of the Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete
Bridge Columns,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 130, No. 6,
2004, pp. 869-879. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:6(869)
5. Hines, E. M.; Dazio, A.; and Seible, F., “Structural Testing of New
East Bay Skyway Piers,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.
2006, pp. 103-112.
6. Hines, E. M.; Restrepo, J. I.; and Seible, F., “Force-Displacement
Characterization of Well-Confined Bridge Piers,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 101, No. 4, July-Aug. 2004, pp. 537-548.
7. Hines, E. M., “Seismic Performance of Hollow Rectangular Rein-
forced Concrete Bridge Piers with Confined Corner Elements,” PhD thesis,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 2002.
745
 8. Bae, S., and Bayrak, O., “Seismic Performance of Full-Scale Rein-
forced Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr. 2008, pp. 123-133.
9. Kowalsky, M., “Deformation Limit States for Circular Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Columns,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 126,
No. 8, 2000, pp. 869-878. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:8(869)
10. TRB-NCHRP Synthesis 440, “Performance-Based Seismic Bridge
Design,” National Cooperative Highway Reserach Program, Washington,
DC, 2013, 126 pp.
11. Bae, S., and Bayrak, O., “Plastic Hinge Length of Reinforced
Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 3, May-June 2008,
pp. 290-300.
12. Barrera, A. C.; Bonet, J. L.; Romero, M. L.; and Miguel, P. F., “Exper-
imental Tests of Slender Reinforced Concrete Columns under Combined
Axial Load and Lateral Force,” Engineering Structures, V. 33, No. 12,
2011, pp. 3676-3689. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.08.003
13. Barrera, A. C.; Bonet, J. L.; Romero, M. L.; and Fernández, M. A.,
“Ductility of Slender Reinforced Concrete Columns under Monotonic
Flexure and Constant Axial Load,” Engineering Structures, V. 40, July
2012, pp. 398-412. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.03.012
14. Priestley, M. J. N.; Calvi, G. M.; and Kowalsky, M. J., Displace-
ment-Based Seismic Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy, 2007,
721 pp.
15. Lehman, D. E., and Moehle, J. P., “Seismic Performance of
Well-Confined Concrete Bridge Columns,” PEER Report 1998/01,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2000, 295 pp.
16. Babazadeh, A.; Burgueño, R.; and Silva, P., “Use of 3D Finite-
Element Models for Predicting Intermediate Damage Limit States in RC
Bridge Columns,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 04015012,
2015, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001253
17. Hose, Y.; Silva, P.; and Seible, F., “Development of a Performance
Evaluation Database for Concrete Bridge Components and Systems under
746
View publication stats
Simulated Seismic Loads,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 16, No. 2, 2000,
pp. 413-442. doi: 10.1193/1.1586119
18. Hose, Y. D., and Seible, F., “Performance Evaluation Database
for Concrete Bridge Components and Systems under Simulated Seismic
Loads,” Research Report PEER 1999/11, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Department of Structural Engineering, University of Cali-
fornia, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, Nov. 1999, 111 pp.
19. MacRae, G. A.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Tao, J., “P-Δ Design in
Seismic Regions,” Report SSRP-93-05, Department of Applied Mechanics
and Engineering Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla,
CA, June 1993, 114 pp.
20. Paulay, T., and Priestley, J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete
and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1992, 768 pp.
21. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; and Calvi, G. M., Seismic Design and
Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996, 686 pp.
22. Silva, P. F.; Sangtarashha, A.; and Burgueño, R., “P-Delta Effects in
Limit State Design of Slender RC Bridge Columns,” 15th WCEE World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, Sept. 2012,
10 pp.
23. Pettinga, J. D., and Priestley, M. J. N., “Accounting for P-Delta
Effects in Structures When Using Direct Displacement-Based Design,”
14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, Oct.
2008, 8 pp.
24. Berry, M.; Parrish, M.; and Eberhard, M., “PEER Structural Perfor-
mance Database User’s Manual,” version 1.0, Pacific Earthquake Engi-
neering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA,
Jan. 2004, 38 pp.
25. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
26. AASHTO, “Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design,”
second edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC, 2011.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2016