0 Up votes0 Down votes

10 views66 pagesITG43R_07

Oct 31, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

ITG43R_07

© All Rights Reserved

10 views

ITG43R_07

© All Rights Reserved

- Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future
- Seveneves: A Novel
- The Day the World Came to Town: 9/11 in Gander, Newfoundland
- Hidden Figures Young Readers' Edition
- The Right Stuff
- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race
- Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap...And Others Don't
- The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914
- Fault Lines
- The Last Second
- The Wright Brothers
- The Wright Brothers
- State of Fear
- State of Fear
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft's Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone

You are on page 1of 66

3R-07

Detailing for High-Strength Concrete in

Moderate to High Seismic Applications

and Other Contributors

Second Printing

December 2008

®

American Concrete Institute

Advancing concrete knowledge

in Moderate to High Seismic Applications

Copyright by the American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. All rights reserved. This material

may not be reproduced or copied, in whole or part, in any printed, mechanical, electronic, film, or other

distribution and storage media, without the written consent of ACI.

The technical committees responsible for ACI committee reports and standards strive to avoid ambiguities,

omissions, and errors in these documents. In spite of these efforts, the users of ACI documents occasionally

find information or requirements that may be subject to more than one interpretation or may be

incomplete or incorrect. Users who have suggestions for the improvement of ACI documents are

requested to contact ACI. Proper use of this document includes periodically checking for errata at

www.concrete.org/committees/errata.asp for the most up-to-date revisions.

ACI committee documents are intended for the use of individuals who are competent to evaluate the

significance and limitations of its content and recommendations and who will accept responsibility for the

application of the material it contains. Individuals who use this publication in any way assume all risk and

accept total responsibility for the application and use of this information.

All information in this publication is provided “as is” without warranty of any kind, either express or implied,

including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or

non-infringement.

ACI and its members disclaim liability for damages of any kind, including any special, indirect, incidental,

or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result

from the use of this publication.

It is the responsibility of the user of this document to establish health and safety practices appropriate to

the specific circumstances involved with its use. ACI does not make any representations with regard to

health and safety issues and the use of this document. The user must determine the applicability of all

regulatory limitations before applying the document and must comply with all applicable laws and regulations,

including but not limited to, United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) health

and safety standards.

Order information: ACI documents are available in print, by download, on CD-ROM, through electronic

subscription, or reprint and may be obtained by contacting ACI.

Most ACI standards and committee reports are gathered together in the annually revised ACI Manual of

Concrete Practice (MCP).

38800 Country Club Drive

Farmington Hills, MI 48331

U.S.A.

Phone: 248-848-3700

Fax: 248-848-3701

www.concrete.org

ISBN 978-0-87031-254-0

ACI ITG-4.3R-07

High-Strength Concrete in Moderate to

High Seismic Applications

Reported by ACI Innovation Task Group 4 and Other Contributors

S. K. Ghosh

Chair

Michael A. Caldarone Daniel C. Jansen Andrew W. Taylor

Other contributors

Dominic J. Kelly Andres Lepage Henry G. Russell

ACI ITG-4.3R presents a literature review on seismic design using high- limits on the specified yield strength of confinement reinforcement, strut

strength concrete. The document is organized in chapters addressing the factors, and provisions for the development of straight bars and hooks.

structural design of columns, beams, beam-column joints, and structural An accompanying standard, ITG-4.1, is written in mandatory language

walls made with high-strength concrete, and focuses on aspects most relevant in a format that can be adopted by local jurisdictions, and will allow building

for seismic design. Each chapter concludes with a series of recommended officials to approve the use of high-strength concrete on projects that are

modifications to ACI 318-05 based on the findings of the literature review. being constructed under the provisions of ACI 301, “Specifications for

The recommendations include proposals for the modification of the equiva- Structural Concrete,” and ACI 318, “Building Code Requirements for

lent rectangular stress block, equations to calculate the axial strength of Structural Concrete.”

columns subjected to concentric loading, column confinement requirements, ITG 4 has also developed another nonmandatory language document:

ITG-4.2R. It addresses materials and quality considerations and is the

supporting document for ITG-4.1.

ITG 4.3R-07, “Report on Structural Design and Detailing for

High-Strength Concrete in Moderate to High Seismic Applica-

tions,” presents a literature review on seismic design using high- Keywords: bond; confinement; drift; flexure; high-strength concrete; high-

strength concrete and provides recommendations for code yield-strength reinforcement; seismic application; shear; stress block; strut-

changes based on the tests reported in this literature. For and-tie.

example, column confinement recommendations are made on

the basis that a target design story drift ratio is 2.5%. CONTENTS

ACI 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete,” governs for the design and construction of buildings Chapter 1—Introduction, p. ITG-4.3R-2

and is applicable for designs using high-strength concrete in 1.1—Background

moderate to high seismic applications. ITG 4.3R-07 does not 1.2—Scope

supersede ACI 318.

Users of ITG 4.3R-07 should not infer that the recommendations

it contains are future ACI 318 Code requirements. Chapter 2—Notation, p. ITG-4.3R-4

Issued: December 18, 2008.

Chapter 3—Definitions, p. ITG-4.3R-7

ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Standard Practices, and Chapter 4—Design for flexural and axial loads

Commentaries are intended for guidance in planning, using equivalent rectangular stress block,

designing, executing, and inspecting construction. This

document is intended for the use of individuals who are p. ITG-4.3R-7

competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of its 4.1—Parameters of equivalent rectangular stress block

content and recommendations and who will accept 4.2—Stress intensity factor α1

responsibility for the application of the material it contains. 4.3—Stress block depth parameter β1

The American Concrete Institute disclaims any and all

responsibility for the stated principles. The Institute shall not 4.4—Stress block area α1

be liable for any loss or damage arising therefrom.

Reference to this document shall not be made in contract ACI ITG-4.3R-07 was published and became effective August 2007.

documents. If items found in this document are desired by the Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute.

Architect/Engineer to be a part of the contract documents, they All rights reserved including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any

means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by electronic or

shall be restated in mandatory language for incorporation by mechanical device, printed, written, or oral, or recording for sound or visual reproduction

the Architect/Engineer. or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in writing

is obtained from the copyright proprietors.

ITG-4.3R-1

ITG-4.3R-2 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

4.6—Axial strength of high-strength concrete columns 9.1—Boundary element requirements

4.7—Comparison of different proposals for rectangular 9.2—Shear strength of walls with low aspect ratios

stress block 9.3—Minimum tensile reinforcement requirements in walls

4.8—Recommendations 9.4—Recommendations

Chapter 5—Confinement requirements for beams ACI 318-05, p. ITG-4.3R-53

and columns, p. ITG-4.3R-19 10.1—Proposed modifications to equivalent rectangular

5.1—Constitutive models for confined concrete

stress block

5.2—Previous research and general observations 10.2—Proposed modifications related to confinement of

5.3—Equations to determine amount of confinement potential plastic hinge regions

reinforcement required in columns 10.3—Proposed modifications related to bond and develop-

5.4—Definition of limiting drift ratio on basis of expected ment of reinforcement

drift demand 10.4—Proposed modifications related to strut-and-tie

5.5—Use of high-yield-strength reinforcement for models

confinement

5.6—Maximum hoop spacing requirements for columns Acknowledgments, p. ITG-4.3R-56

5.7—Confinement requirements for high-strength concrete

beams Chapter 11—Cited references, p. ITG-4.3R-56

5.8—Maximum hoop spacing requirements for high-

strength concrete beams CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION

1.1—Background

5.9—Recommendations The origin of ACI Innovation Task Group (ITG) 4, High-

Strength Concrete for Seismic Applications, can be traced

Chapter 6—Shear strength of reinforced concrete back to the International Conference of Building Officials

flexural members, p. ITG-4.3R-35 (ICBO) (now International Code Council [ICC]) Evaluation

6.1—Shear strength of flexural members without shear Report ER-5536, “Seismic Design Utilizing High-Strength

reinforcement Concrete” (ICBO 2001). Evaluation Reports (ER) are issued

6.2—Effect of compressive strength on inclined cracking by Evaluation Service subsidiaries of model code groups. An

load of flexural members ER essentially states that although a particular method,

6.3—Effect of compressive strength on flexural members process, or product is not specifically addressed by a particular

with intermediate to high amounts of transverse edition of a certain model code, it is in compliance with the

reinforcement requirements of that particular edition of that model code.

6.4—Shear strength of members with low shear span- ER-5536 (ICBO 2001), first issued in April 2001, was

depth ratios generated by Englekirk Systems Development Inc. for the

6.5—Calculation of shear strength of members subjected seismic design of moment-resisting frame elements using

to seismic loading high-strength concrete. High-strength concrete was defined

6.6—Use of high-strength transverse reinforcement as “normalweight concrete with a design compressive

6.7—Recommendations strength greater than 6000 psi (41 MPa) and up to a

maximum of 12,000 psi (83 MPa).” It was based on research

Chapter 7—Development length/splices, carried out at the University of Southern California and the

p. ITG-4.3R-44 University of California at San Diego to support building

7.1—Design equations for development length of bars in construction in Southern California using concrete with

high-strength concrete compressive strengths greater than 6000 psi (41 MPa).

7.2—Design equations for development length of hooked The Portland Cement Association performed a review* of

bars in high-strength concrete ER-5536 and brought up several concerns that focused on

7.3—Recommendations inconsistencies between the evaluation report and existing

industry documents in two primary areas: material and

Chapter 8—Design of beam-column joints, structural. Despite those concerns, it was evident that the

p. ITG-4.3R-48 evaluation report had been created because quality assurance

8.1—Confinement requirements for beam-column joints and design provisions were needed by local jurisdictions, such

8.2—Shear strength of exterior joints as the City of Los Angeles, to allow the use of high-strength

8.3—Shear strength of interior joints concrete without undue restrictions. ACI has assumed a

8.4—Effect of transverse reinforcement on joint shear proactive role in the development of such provisions with the

strength goal of creating a document that can be adopted nationwide.

8.5—Development length requirements for beam-column

joints

*

8.6—Recommendations Unpublished report available from PCA, Skokie, Ill., Aug. 2001.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-3

ACI considered its own Committee 363, High Strength SPC or SDC C is also referred to as the “intermediate”

Concrete, to be the best choice to address the materials and category. Similarly, SPC D and E or SDC D, E, and F are

quality aspects of the document, while ACI Subcommittee referred to as “high” categories. The terminology “moderate

318-H, Structural Concrete Building Code—Seismic to high seismic applications,” however, is used throughout

Provisions, was considered the best choice to address the this document.

seismic detailing aspects. Because 318-H is a subcommittee

of a code-writing body, the development of a technical 1.2—Scope

document of this kind is not part of its intended mission. In This document addresses the material and design consider-

addition, producing a document through a technical ations when using normalweight concretes having specified

committee can be a lengthy process. Based on these limita- compressive strengths of 6000 psi (41 MPa) or greater in

tions, a request was made to form an ITG that would have the structures designed for moderate to high seismic applications.

advantage of following a shorter timeline to completion. In Irrespective of seismic zone, SPC, or SDC, this document is

response to the request, the Technical Activities Committee also applicable to normalweight high-strength concrete in

(TAC) of ACI approved the formation of ITG 4 and estab- intermediate or special moment frames and intermediate or

lished its mission. The mission was to develop an ACI docu- special structural walls as defined in ACI 318-05 (ACI

ment that addressed the application of high-strength concrete Committee 318 2005).

in structures located in areas of moderate and high seismicity. The term “high-strength concrete,” as defined by ACI 363R-92

The document was intended to cover structural design, mate- (ACI Committee 363 1992), refers to concrete having a spec-

rial properties, construction procedures, and quality-control ified compressive strength for design of 6000 psi (41 MPa) or

measures. It was to contain language in a format that allowed greater. The 6000 psi (41 MPa) threshold that was chosen for

building officials to approve the use of high-strength concrete this document is similar to that adopted by ACI Committee 363.

in projects being constructed under the provisions of ACI 301-05, Even though high-strength concrete is defined based on a

“Specifications for Structural Concrete,” and ACI 318, threshold compressive strength, the concept of high strength

“Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.” is relative. The limit at which concrete is considered to be

The concept of “moderate to high seismic applications,” high strength depends largely on the location in which it is

stated in the mission of the document, dates back to when being used. In some regions, structures are routinely designed

U.S. seismic codes divided the country into seismic zones. with concrete having specified compressive strengths of

These seismic zones were defined as regions in which 12,000 psi (83 MPa) or higher, whereas in other regions,

seismic ground motion on rock, corresponding to a certain concrete with a much lower specified compressive strength is

probability of occurrence, remained within certain ranges. considered high strength. Essentially, the strength threshold

Present-day seismic codes (ASCE/SEI 2006) follow a at which concrete is considered high strength depends on

different approach to characterizing a seismic hazard. Given regional factors, such as the characteristics and availability

that public safety is a primary code objective, and that not all of raw materials, production capabilities, testing capabilities,

buildings in a given seismic zone are equally crucial to and experience of the ready mixed concrete supplier.

public safety, a new mechanism for triggering seismic ITG-4 produced three documents: ITG-4.1 is a reference

design requirements and restrictions, called the seismic specification that can be cited in the project specifications;

performance category (SPC), was developed. The SPC ITG-4.2R addresses materials and quality considerations that

classification includes not only the seismicity at the site, but are the basis for the ITG-4.1 specification; and ITG-4.3R, this

also the occupancy of the structure. document, addresses structural design and detailing. Certain

Recognizing that building performance during a seismic modifications of ACI 318 requirements are proposed in

event depends not only on the severity of bedrock acceleration, Chapter 10 of ITG-4.3R.

but also on the type of soil that a structure is founded on, From a materials perspective, there are few differences

seismic design criteria in more recent seismic codes are between the properties of high-strength concrete used in

based on seismic design categories (SDC). The SDC is a seismic applications and those of high-strength concrete

function of location, building occupancy, and soil type. used in nonseismic applications; therefore, the information

The TAC Technology Transfer Committee (TTTC)-estab- presented in ITG-4.1 and ITG-4.2R is generally applicable to

lished mission of ITG 4 was interpreted to mean that the all high-strength concrete. When special considerations are

Task Group was to address the application of high-strength warranted due to seismic applications, they are addressed

concrete in structures that are: specifically. Unlike ITG-4.1 and ITG-4.2R, most of the

• Located in Seismic Zones 2, 3, or 4 of the “Uniform material contained in ITG-4.3R is specific to seismic

Building Code” (ICBO 1997); or applications of high-strength concrete structural members.

• Assigned to SDC C, D, or E of “The BOCA National The information in Chapters 4 through 9 of this document

Building Code” (BOCA 1993 and subsequent editions) is presented in a report format. Chapter 10 contains

or the “Standard Building Code” (SBCCI 1994); or suggested modifications to design and detailing requirements

• SDC C, D, E, or F of the “International Building Code” in ACI 318-05.

(IBC 2003) or the National Fire Protection Association Some topics, such as compressive stress block and

(NFPA) NFPA 5000 “Building Construction and Safety confinement of beam-columns, are more developed than others

Code” (2003). because there is significantly more literature available on these

ITG-4.3R-4 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

topics. For all topics, an attempt was made to be as thorough as bw = web width or diameter of circular section, in.

possible in summarizing the most relevant information (mm)

pertaining to the design of members with high-strength c = distance from extreme compression fiber to

concrete. For topics with limited information in the litera- neutral axis, in. (mm)

ture, however, recommendations were made with the intent c′ = cmin + db /2 = spacing or cover dimension, in.

of preventing potentially unsafe design. (mm)

c1 = dimension of rectangular or equivalent rectan-

CHAPTER 2—NOTATION gular column, capital, or bracket measured in

Ab,max = cross-sectional area of largest bar being direction of span for which moments are being

developed or spliced, in.2 (mm2) determined, in. (mm)

Acc = cross-sectional area of structural member c2 = dimension of rectangular or equivalent rectan-

measured center-to-center of transverse gular column, capital, or bracket measured in

reinforcement, in.2 (mm2) direction perpendicular to c1, in. (mm)

Ach = cross-sectional area of structural member cb = smaller of: a) distance from center of bar or

measured out-to-out of transverse reinforcement, wire to nearest concrete surface; or b) one-half

in.2 (mm2) center-to-center spacing of bars or wires being

Acv = gross area of concrete section bounded by web developed, in. (mm)

thickness and length of section in direction of cc = clear cover of reinforcement, in. (mm)

shear force considered, in.2 (mm2) ccb = least distance from surface or reinforcement to

Ag = gross area of concrete section, in.2 (mm2). For tension face, in. (mm)

hollow section, Ag is area of concrete only and

cmax = maximum of ccb and cs , in. (mm)

does not include area of void(s)

cmin = minimum cover used in expressions for bond

Ash = total cross-sectional area of transverse reinforce-

strength of bars not confined by transverse

ment (including crossties) within spacing s and

reinforcement. Smaller of ccb and cs, in. (mm)

perpendicular to dimension bc , in.2 (mm2)

cp = ρvr · fyt /fc′ = volumetric confinement index

Asp = cross-sectional area of transverse reinforce-

cs = minimum of cso and (csi + 0.25) in. [(csi + 6.35)

ment crossing potential plane of splitting of

mm], in. (mm)

bars being developed or spliced, in.2 (mm2)

csfw = flexural stress index for structural wall that

Ast = total area of nonprestressed longitudinal

represents measure of ratio of neutral axis

reinforcement (bars or steel shapes), in.2 (mm2)

depth to length of wall, in. (mm)

Asv = total area of vertical reinforcement in structural

csi = one-half of clear spacing between bars, in. (mm)

wall, in.2 (mm2)

Aswb = total area of vertical reinforcement in boundary cso = clear side concrete cover for reinforcing bar,

element of structural wall, in.2 (mm2) in. (mm)

Asww = total area of vertical reinforcement in web of DRlim = (Δlim /hcol ) = limiting drift ratio

structural wall, excluding the boundary d = distance from extreme compression fiber to

elements, in. 2 (mm2) centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement,

Ate = sum of areas of tie legs used to provide lateral in. (mm)

support against buckling for longitudinal bars db = nominal diameter of bar, wire, or prestressing

of column, in.2 (mm2) strand, in. (mm)

Atr = total cross-sectional area of all transverse ds = nominal diameter of bar used as transverse

reinforcement within spacing s that crosses reinforcement, in. (mm)

potential plane of splitting through reinforcement E = load effects of earthquake or related internal

being developed, in.2 (mm2) moments and forces

Av = area of shear reinforcement with spacing s, in.2 EEp = [(Mcalc – Mexp)/Mexp] × 100 = parameter used

(mm2) to characterize accuracy of nominal moment

Aw = gross cross-sectional area of structural wall, strength of column

in.2 (mm2) Es = modulus of elasticity of reinforcement and

av = shear span, equal to distance from center of structural steel, psi (MPa)

concentrated load to either: a) face of support for fc′ = specified compressive strength of concrete, psi

continuous or cantilever members; or b) center of (MPa)

support for simply supported members, in. ′

fco = in-place strength of unconfined concrete in

(mm) columns, psi (MPa) (often assumed as 0.85fc′ )

b = width of compression face of member, in. (mm) fp = P/Ag fc′ = axial load ratio

bc = cross-sectional dimension of column core fpc = P/Ach fc′ = axial load ratio based on area of

measured center-to-center of outer legs of confined core

transverse reinforcement comprising area Ash, fs = calculated tensile stress in reinforcement at

in. (mm) service loads, psi (MPa)

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-5

ft,l = stress imposed on concrete by compression ld = development length in tension of deformed bar,

field associated with reinforcement oriented in deformed wire, plain or deformed welded wire

direction parallel to flexural reinforcement reinforcement, or pretensioned strand, in. (mm)

located at edge of compression field, psi (MPa) ldh = development length in tension of deformed

ft,t = stress imposed on concrete by compression bar or deformed wire with standard hook,

field associated with reinforcement oriented in measured from critical section to outside end of

direction perpendicular to flexural reinforcement hook, in. (mm)

located at edge of compression field, psi (MPa) lo = length, measured from joint face along axis of

fu = maximum tensile stress that can be developed structural member, over which special transverse

in bar with 90-degree hook, psi (MPa) reinforcement must be provided, in. (mm)

fyl = specified yield strength of longitudinal reinforce- lw = length of entire wall or length of segment of wall

ment, psi (MPa) considered in direction of shear force, in. (mm)

fyt = specified yield strength of transverse reinforce- M = maximum unfactored moment due to service

ment, psi (MPa) loads, including P-Δ effects, in.-lb (N-mm)

fyt,l = specified yield strength of transverse reinforce- Mexp = measured flexural strength of column, in.-lb

ment oriented parallel to flexural reinforcement (N-mm)

located at edge of uniform compression field, Mncol = nominal flexural strength of column, in.-lb

psi (MPa) (N-mm)

fyt,t = specified yield strength of transverse reinforce- m = fyl /0.85fc′ = ratio of nominal yield strength of

ment oriented perpendicular to flexural longitudinal reinforcement to nominal strength

reinforcement located at edge of uniform of concrete in column

compression field, psi (MPa) n = number of bars being spliced or developed in

h′′ = core dimension perpendicular to transverse plane of splitting

reinforcement providing confinement measured nL = number of legs of reinforcement in hoops and ties

to outside of hoops, in. (mm) P = unfactored axial load, lb (N)

ha = tie depth, in. (mm) Po = nominal axial strength at zero eccentricity, lb (N)

hcol = clear column height, in. (mm) s = center-to-center spacing of items, such as longi-

hw = height of entire wall from base to top or height tudinal reinforcement, transverse reinforcement,

of segment of wall considered, in. (mm) prestressing tendons, wires, or anchors, in. (mm)

hx = maximum center-to-center horizontal spacing so = center-to-center spacing of transverse reinforce-

of crossties or hoop legs on all faces of column, ment within length lo, in. (mm)

in. (mm) Tb = total bond force of developed or spliced bar,

j = ratio of internal lever arm to effective depth of lb (N)

beam Ts = steel contribution to total bond force, additional

Ktr = (Atr fyt /1500sn) = transverse reinforcement bond strength provided by transverse steel, lb (N)

index (refer to ACI 318-05, Section 12.2.3) td = term representing effect of bar size on Ts

Ktr′ = (0.5tdAtr /sn)fc′ 1/2 = transverse reinforcement V = maximum unfactored shear force at service

index for Committee 408 development length loads, including P-Δ effects, lb (N)

expression, in. (mm) Va = nominal shear strength provided by strut

k1 = ratio of average to maximum stress in spanning between load point and support in

compression zone of flexural member reinforced concrete members with shear span-

k2 = ratio of distance from extreme compression depth ratios below 2.5, lb (N)

fiber to location of compression reaction to Vall = allowable shear force under service loads, lb (N)

distance from extreme compression fiber to Vc = nominal shear strength provided by the concrete,

location of neutral axis in flexural member lb (N)

k3 = ratio of maximum stress in compression zone Vn = nominal shear strength, lb (N)

of flexural member to cylinder strength Vs = nominal shear strength provided by shear

kcc = cover factor in calculation of development reinforcement, lb (N)

length of hooked bars Vt,l = nominal shear strength provided by uniform

kd = development length factor in calculation of compression field associated with transverse

development length of hooked bars reinforcement oriented parallel to flexural

kj = development length and lever arm factor in calcu- reinforcement located at edge of compression

lation of development length of hooked bars field, lb (N)

ks = transverse reinforcement bar diameter factor Vt,t = nominal shear strength provided by uniform

for calculation of development length of hooked compression field associated with transverse

bars reinforcement oriented perpendicular to flexural

lb = dimension of loading plate or support in axial reinforcement located at edge of compression

direction of member, in. (mm) field, lb (N)

ITG-4.3R-6 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

vc,all = allowable shear stress in concrete εo = strain in concrete when it reaches peak stress

wst = strut width, in. (mm) εs = strain demand on reinforcement

α1 = factor relating magnitude of uniform stress in εy = strain in reinforcement at yield

equivalent rectangular compressive stress block φ = strength reduction factor

to specified compressive strength of concrete φlim = limiting curvature of reinforced concrete wall

αc = coefficient defining relative contribution of φu = curvature at limit state of reinforced concrete

concrete to nominal wall shear strength section

αl = angle between struts and flexural reinforcement φy = curvature at yielding of flexural reinforcement

for a compression field associated with of reinforced concrete section

transverse reinforcement oriented in direction γvj = joint shear coefficient

parallel to flexural reinforcement λp = factor to account for effect of axial load ratio

αsh = 1 ≤ 4/[(M/Vd) +1] ≤ 2 = factor to account for on strength of compression field subjected to

effect of shear span-depth ratio on allowable repeated load reversals into nonlinear range of

shear stress carried by concrete response

αst = smallest angle between strut and ties that it μΔ = (Δlim /Δyield) = displacement ductility ratio

intersects at its nodes θp = expected rotation in plastic hinge region of

αt = angle between struts and flexural reinforcement flexural member, radians

for compression field associated with transverse ρarea = ratio of area of distributed transverse reinforce-

reinforcement oriented in direction perpendicular ment Ash to gross area of concrete perpendicular

to flexural reinforcement to that reinforcement in members with rectilinear

β1 = factor relating depth of equivalent rectangular and circular transverse reinforcement

compressive stress block to neutral axis depth ρl = ratio of area of distributed longitudinal reinforce-

βfc = factor to account for effect of concrete ment to gross concrete area perpendicular to

compressive strength on effective compressive that reinforcement

strength of concrete in strut ρs = ratio of volume of spiral reinforcement to total

βnl,strut = factor to account for effect of repeated load volume of core confined by spiral (measured

reversals into nonlinear range of response on out-to-out of spirals)

effective compressive strength of concrete in strut ρt = ratio of area of distributed transverse reinforce-

βnl,truss = factor to account for effect of repeated load ment to gross concrete area perpendicular to

reversals into nonlinear range of response on that reinforcement

shear strength associated with compression field ρtc = Ash /bcs = ratio of area of distributed transverse

βs = factor to account for effect of cracking and reinforcement Ash to area of core perpendicular

confining reinforcement on effective to that transverse reinforcement

compressive strength of concrete in strut ρt,l = ratio of area of distributed reinforcement

βsc = factor to account for effect of load reversals, oriented in direction parallel to flexural reinforce-

concrete compressive strength, confining ment of compression field to gross concrete area

reinforcement, and cracking on effective perpendicular to that reinforcement

compressive strength of concrete in strut ρt,t = ratio of area of distributed reinforcement

βta = factor to account for effect of interaction oriented in direction perpendicular to flexural

between truss and arch mechanisms on effective reinforcement of compression field to gross

compressive strength of concrete in strut concrete area perpendicular to that reinforcement

βαt = factor to account for effect of angle of inclination ρvol = ratio of volume of rectilinear or circular

of strut αs on effective compressive strength of transverse reinforcement to volume of core

concrete in strut confined by that transverse reinforcement

χ1 = ratio of mean concrete compressive stress ρvr = ratio of volume of rectilinear transverse

corresponding to maximum axial load resisted reinforcement to volume of core confined by

by concentrically loaded column to specified that transverse reinforcement

compressive strength of concrete ρwt = ratio of total area of vertical reinforcement to

Δlim = lateral drift corresponding to 20% reduction in gross area of structural wall

lateral resistance, in. (mm) ωc = 0.1(cmax/cmin) + 0.9 ≤ 1.25 = factor to account

Δyield = lateral drift corresponding to yielding of for ratio of maximum to minimum cover on

longitudinal reinforcement, in. (mm) development length of straight bar

δu = design displacement, in. (mm) ψe = factor used to modify development length

ε1 = principal tensile strain in strut based on reinforcement coating

εcu = maximum strain at extreme compression fiber ψs = factor used to modify development length

at onset of crushing of concrete based on reinforcement size

εlim = concrete strain at extreme compression fiber ψt = factor used to modify development length

corresponding to limit state being considered based on reinforcement location

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-7

area transverse reinforcement ratio—ratio of the area for engineers to avoid proportioning columns with high axial

of transverse reinforcement crossed by a plane perpendicular load demands, such as lower-story columns in tall buildings,

to the legs of the transverse reinforcement to the area of lower-story columns in narrow moment-resisting frames,

reinforced concrete along that plane. and columns supporting the ends of discontinuous walls. For

axial load ratio—ratio of axial load to the product of these elements, the shape of the stress block may have a

compressive strength of concrete and the gross area of significant effect on the estimated strength. The stress block

concrete cross section. for members with high-strength concrete is also a concern in

confinement index—product of transverse reinforcement moderate seismic applications. In these cases, structures are

ratio (either by area or by volume) and the yield strength of proportioned for seismic events that impose lower force and

the transverse reinforcement, divided by the compressive deformation demands than high seismic applications, allowing

strength of concrete. the use of more slender columns.

curvature ductility ratio—ratio of mean curvature at The accuracy of the stress block is of concern in earth-

failure in the plastic hinge length to curvature at the onset of quake-resistant design because overestimating the flexural

section yielding. In the case of reinforced concrete columns, strength of columns leads to overestimating the ratios of

the majority of researchers referenced in this document column-to-beam moment strengths, which increases the

define failure as a 20% reduction in lateral load resistance. probability of hinging in the columns due to the development

displacement ductility ratio—ratio of displacement at of a strong beam-weak column mechanism.

failure to displacement at the onset of member yielding. In Although the stress-strain characteristics of high-strength

the case of reinforced concrete columns, the majority of concrete are different from those of normal-strength

researchers referenced in this document define failure as a concrete, there is no well-defined compressive strength

20% reduction in lateral load resistance. boundary between the two; there is instead a gradual change

ductility—ability of a reinforced concrete member to with increasing concrete strengths (ACI Innovation Task

maintain its strength when subjected to repeated load reversals Group 4 2006). The ascending branch of the stress-strain

beyond the linear range of response. relationship is steeper for higher-strength concretes, indicating

interstory drift—relative lateral displacement between higher elastic modulus. It changes from approximately a

two adjacent stories of a building imposed by the design second-order parabola for concretes within the normal-

earthquake. strength range to almost a straight line as the strength

interstory drift ratio—ratio of interstory drift to story approaches 18,000 psi (124 MPa), which may be considered

height. as the limit for high-strength concrete made with ordinary

killed steel—steel made by completely removing or tying limestone aggregates. The strain at peak concrete stress, εo,

up the oxygen in the liquid steel through the addition of increases with strength as well, varying approximately

elements such as aluminum or silicon before the ingot between 0.0015 and 0.0025 for 3000 to 15,000 psi (21 and

solidifies, with the objective of achieving maximum uniformity 103 MPa) concrete, respectively. Failure becomes more sudden

in the steel. and brittle as the concrete strength increases and unloading

limiting drift—drift corresponding to a 20% reduction in beyond the peak becomes more rapid. In summary, concrete

lateral load resistance of a reinforced concrete member subjected becomes more rigid and more brittle with increasing strength.

to load reversals with increasing maximum displacements. Several researchers developed constitutive models for the

limiting drift ratio—ratio of limiting drift to column stress-strain relationship of concrete that are applicable to

height. high-strength concrete with proper adjustments to the

limiting strain—maximum strain at the extreme concrete governing parameters (Popovics 1973; Yong et al. 1988;

compression fiber of a flexural member at the onset of Hsu and Hsu 1994; Azizinamini et al. 1994; Cusson and

concrete crushing, εcu. Paultre 1995). Expressions applicable specifically to high-

strength concrete have also been developed (Martinez et al.

volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio—ratio of the

1984; Fafitis and Shah 1985; Bjerkeli et al. 1990; Muguruma

volume of transverse reinforcement confining the concrete

and Watanabe 1990; Li 1994).

core of a potential plastic hinge region to the volume of

concrete inside the confined core. Members subjected to uniform compression attain their

maximum strength when concrete reaches a strain level

corresponding to peak stress, εo. Under a strain gradient,

CHAPTER 4—DESIGN FOR FLEXURAL

AND AXIAL LOADS USING EQUIVALENT maximum strength is attained at an extreme compressive

RECTANGULAR STRESS BLOCK fiber strain higher than that at peak stress, εlim (Hognestad

It is common practice for structures assigned to a high 1951). This value changes with the geometric shape of the

Seismic Design Category (SDC) to proportion the majority compression zone, and may also vary significantly with

of the structural elements of the lateral force-resisting system concrete strength and confinement. After the limiting strain

so that the axial load demand remains below the balanced has been established, the sectional strength can be computed

axial load. For these elements, variations in the shape of the by evaluating internal forces, including the compressive

stress block related to the compressive strength of the force in the concrete. The magnitude of the compressive

concrete do not have a significant effect on the calculated force in the concrete can be established by relying on the

ITG-4.3R-8 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

and by calculating the stresses corresponding to the strains in

the compression zone from the stress-strain relationship.

Because it is cumbersome to use a nonlinear stress-strain

relationship, ACI 318-05 provides an equivalent stress block

for ease in design calculations. This stress block is derived

such that both the area under the actual nonlinear stress

distribution (force) and the centroid of this area (point of

application of force) correspond to those of the stress block

as closely as possible. The stress block adopted by ACI 318-05

is of rectangular geometry. Other equivalent stress blocks

with various different shapes, such as triangular and trape-

zoidal, have been proposed in the literature. A historical

review of this topic has been presented by Hognestad (1951).

stress block Fig. 4.2—Variation of k2 with concrete strength (Ozbakkaloglu

The column design provisions of ACI 318-05 are based on and Saatcioglu 2004).

an extensive column investigation conducted jointly by the

University of Illinois, Lehigh University, and ACI. The rectangular stress block for high-strength concrete. They

initial results of the study were published in 1931 (Slater and reported average values of k2 = 0.381 (β1 = 0.762) and k1k3

Lyse 1931a,b), with a more comprehensive follow-up report = 0.647 (α1 = 0.849) from tests of C-shaped specimens

in 1934 (Richart and Brown 1934). Subsequently, (column specimens in which axial load and bending are

Hognestad (1951) conducted a large number of column tests induced by applying a load eccentrically at both ends) by

and developed the parameters for a rectangular stress block. several researchers, in which compressive strengths varied

Figure 4.1 shows the parameters that define the equivalent from 8400 to 14,400 psi (58 to 99 MPa). The aforementioned

rectangular stress block according to ACI 318-05. A parabolic values are very close to those corresponding to a parabolic

stress distribution, shown in Fig. 4.1(b), results in values of distribution. Specimens with higher strengths tested by

k2 = 0.375 (β1 = 0.75) and k1 = 0.67 (α1 = 0.9k3). A linear Ibrahim and MacGregor (1994, 1996a), with concrete

stress distribution yields values of k2 = 0.333 (β1 = 0.667) compressive strengths ranging between 17,600 and 18,600 psi

and k1 = 0.50 (α1 = 0.75k3). ACI 318-05 stipulates that the (121 to 128 MPa), had values of k2 = 0.347 (β1 = 0.694) and

average stress factor α1 is not sensitive to compressive strength k1k3 = 0.524 (α1 = 0.755), close to those corresponding to a

and remains constant at 0.85, while the β1 factor decreases linear distribution. Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004)

from 0.85 (k1k3 = 0.723) for a compressive strength of 4000 summarized the variation of experimentally obtained values

psi (28 MPa) to 0.65 (k1k3 = 0.553) for a compressive for k2 and the product k1k3 with concrete compressive

strength of 8000 psi (55 MPa). According to ACI 318-05, the strength. They also presented a comparison with various

strain at the extreme compression fiber in the concrete at the design expressions, including those of ACI 318-05 and CSA

onset of crushing is 0.003 (Fig. 4.1(a)). A23.3-94 (Canadian Standards Association 1994). These are

Fasching and French (1998) presented a summary of shown in Fig. 4.2 and 4.3 and indicate a gradual reduction in

several proposals for modifying the parameters of the equivalent k2 and k1k3 with increasing concrete strength.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-9

single parameter in the formulation of an equivalent rectan-

gular stress block, researchers in the past identified the

values for k3 separately. The parameter k3 represents the

ratio of the in-place strength of concrete in a structural

member to the compressive strength measured using standard

cylinder tests. Saatcioglu et al. (1998) reported values of the

k3 factor for high-strength concrete measured by several

researchers for unconfined concrete members subjected to

concentric loading. Two 10 in. (250 mm) square columns

with compressive strengths of 11,700 and 17,600 psi (81 and

121 MPa), tested by Saatcioglu and Razvi (1998), had k3

factors of 0.89 and 0.92, respectively. The average value

reported by Cusson and Paultre (1994) was 0.88 for columns Fig. 4.3—Variation of k1k3 with concrete strength

with compressive strengths of 14,500 psi (100 MPa). Tests by (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004).

Yong et al. (1988) indicated values of 0.87 and 0.97 for

compressive strengths of 12,100 and 13,600 psi (83 and

94 MPa), respectively. Sun and Sakino (1994) obtained

0.01f c′

values of 0.93 and 0.91 for compressive strengths of 7500 α 1 = 0.85 – ---------------

- ≥ 0.67 ( fc′ in psi) (4-2)

and 19,000 psi (52 and 131 MPa), respectively. Saatcioglu 1000

and Razvi (1998) indicated that similar values of k3 were

obtained under eccentric loading. α 1 = 0.85 – 0.0015f c′ ≥ 0.67 ( fc′ in MPa)

Other tests performed to measure the value of k3 include

those by Ibrahim and MacGregor (1994, 1996b), Kaar et al. Park et al. (1998) described the background considerations

(1977), Schade (1992), and Swartz et al. (1985). The afore- of the NZS 3101:1995 design provisions (Standards Associ-

mentioned series of tests resulted in average k3 values of ation of New Zealand 1995) regarding the shape of the

0.91, 1.00, 0.93, and 0.98, respectively. Ibrahim and equivalent rectangular stress block, which is very similar to

MacGregor (1994, 1996b) reported mean k3 values of 0.932 that used in ACI 318-05. As stated previously, for a linear

for specimens with concrete compressive strengths between stress distribution, the equivalent rectangular stress block has

8400 and 14,400 psi (58 and 99 MPa), and 0.919 for speci- values of k2 = 0.333 (β1 = 0.667) and k1 = 0.5 (α1 = 0.75k3). The

mens with higher compressive strengths ranging between following expression for the stress factor is used in the New

17,600 and 18,600 psi (121 and 128 MPa). Zealand Standard, which is close to that corresponding to a

linear stress distribution for high-strength concrete

4.2—Stress intensity factor α1

According to Fasching and French (1998), experimental α1 = 0.85, for fc′ ≤ 8000 psi (55 MPa) (4-3)

results show that the nominal strength of beams calculated

using the stress intensity factor α1 of ACI 318-05 is conser- 0.0275 ( f c′ – 8000 )

α1 = 0.85 – -----------------------------------

- ≥ 0.75 for fc′ > 8000 (fc′ in psi) (4-4)

vative for high-strength concrete. Data reported by Kaar et 1000

al. (1977) had a mean value of α1 = 1.0, and the data reported

by Swartz et al. (1985) had a mean value of α1 = 0.96. α1 = 0.85 – 0.004(fc′ – 55) ≥ 0.75 for fc′ > 55( fc′ in MPa)

Azizinamini et al. (1994) investigated columns subjected

tests of concentrically and eccentrically loaded high-strength

to axial load and flexure, and observed that the ACI 318-05

concrete columns and developed an expression for α1. They

equivalent stress block resulted in conservative estimates of

found lower stress intensity factors in concentrically loaded

strength for columns with normal-strength concrete, while it

columns, which resulted in the following expression for the

overestimated the strength of columns with high-strength

stress intensity factor

concrete. Based on this observation, they recommended

maintaining the value of α1 = 0.85 for fc′ ≤ 10,000 psi (69 MPa)

0.00862f c′ and changing it for fc′ > 10,000 psi (69 MPa) using the

α 1 = 0.85 – ------------------------

- ≥ 0.725 ( fc′ in psi) (4-1)

1000 following expression

0.50 ( f c′ – 10,000 )

α 1 = 0.85 – 0.00125f c′ ≥ 0.725 ( fc′ in MPa) α1 = 0.85 – -------------------------------------------

- ≥ 0.60 for fc′ > 10,000 (fc′ in psi) (4-5)

1000

The equation by Ibrahim and MacGregor was used as the α1 = 0.85 – 0.00725(fc′ – 69) ≥ 0.60 for fc′ > 69 (fc′ in MPa)

basis for the Canadian Standard CSA A23.3-94 (Canadian

Standards Association 1994), where the value of the stress Bae and Bayrak (2003) developed a proposal based on

intensity factor is stress-strain relationships for high-strength concrete. The

ITG-4.3R-10 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

MacGregor (1994), who proposed the following expression

for β1

0.0172f c′

β 1 = 0.95 – ---------------------

- ≥ 0.70 ( fc′ in psi) (4-8)

1000

similar to the equation adopted in CSA A23.3-94 (Canadian

Standards Association 1994)

0.0172f c′

β 1 = 0.97 – ---------------------

- ≥ 0.67 ( fc′ in psi) (4-9)

1000

Fig. 4.4—Comparison of proposed expressions for stress

intensity factor α1.

β 1 = 0.97 – 0.0025f c′ ≥ 0.67 ( fc′ in MPa)

stress intensity factor α1 was derived by finding the total area The stress block depth parameter recommended by Park

underneath the theoretical stress-strain curve. According to (1998), and subsequently adopted in NZS 3101:1995 design

Bae and Bayrak (2003) provisions (Standards Association of New Zealand 1995),

has the same definition as the depth parameter β1 in ACI

α1 = 0.85 – 2.75 × 10–5(fc′ – 10,000), 0.67 ≤ α1 ≤ 0.85 (fc′ in psi) (4-6) 318-05. Similarly, Azizinamini et al. (1994) recommended

no change to the definition of β1 used in ACI 318-05. In

α1 = 0.85 – 0.004(fc′ – 70), 0.67 ≤ α1 ≤ 0.85 (fc′ in MPa)

effect, these authors implied that changing the location of the

equivalent force Cc (Fig. 4.1) relative to the extreme

Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) developed a rectan- compression fiber has a negligible effect on the nominal

gular stress block for high-strength and normal-strength moment strength because the term (1/2)β1c is small in

concretes based on a large volume of experimental data and an comparison to the moment arm jd = (d – [1/2]β1c). In

analytical stress-strain relationship. They suggested varying columns with small eccentricities, the precision of β1 will

α1 with concrete compressive strength to reflect the change in have a more significant influence on the moment arm and,

the shape of the stress-strain relationship. Accordingly consequently, on the nominal moment strength. The overall

effect of reducing the stress intensity factor α1 while

maintaining the parameter β1 similar to that in ACI 318-05

α1 = 0.85 – (fc′ – 4000) × 10–5, 0.72 ≤ α1 ≤ 0.85 (fc′ in psi) (4-7)

is that a larger neutral axis depth is calculated for a given

amount of reinforcement and axial load, reducing the lever

α1 = 0.85 – 0.0014( fc′ – 30), 0.72 ≤ α1 ≤ 0.85 (fc′ in MPa)

arm and the nominal moment strength of the section.

A comparison of the ACI 318-05 stress intensity factor α1 Bae and Bayrak (2003) suggested the following expression

and the aforementioned recommended changes for the stress for the parameter β1 by finding the location of the compression

intensity factor is shown in Fig. 4.4. resultant for the theoretical stress-strain curve

4.3—Stress block depth parameter β1 β1 = 0.85 – 2.75 × 10–5(fc′ – 4000), 0.67 ≤ β1 ≤ 0.85 (fc′ in psi) (4-10)

The parameter β1 defines the ratio of the depth of the

equivalent rectangular stress block to that of the neutral axis. β1 = 0.85 – 0.004(fc′ – 30), 0.67 ≤ β1 ≤ 0.85 (fc′ in MPa)

For a constant value of the stress intensity factor α1, the

effect of assuming a theoretical value of β1 smaller than the

Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) recommended a

actual value is that the calculated lever arm is increased,

gradual change in β1 starting at 4000 psi (28 MPa) to reflect

resulting in unconservative estimates of the moment strength.

the variation in internal lever arm with the changing shape of

Fasching and French (1998) evaluated the ACI 318-95

the stress-strain relationship of concrete. Their recommended

expression (same as in ACI 318-05) for factor β1 using

relationship for β1 is

experimental results reported by Ibrahim and MacGregor

(1994), Kaar et al. (1977), and Swartz et al. (1985). Fasching

and French concluded that the ACI 318 expression for β1 β1 = 0.85 – 1.3 × 10–5(fc′ – 4000), 0.67 ≤ β1 ≤ 0.85 (fc′ in psi) (4-11)

underestimated the experimentally observed values in the

data set used for the evaluation. β1 = 0.85 – 0.020(fc′ – 30), 0.67 ≤ β1 ≤ 0.85 (fc′ in MPa)

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-11

block depth factor β1.

parameter β1 and the aforementioned recommended changes

to the depth parameter are shown in Fig. 4.5.

The product α1β1 is an indication of the area of the stress

block. Fasching and French (1998), using the data from

Ibrahim and MacGregor (1994), Kaar et al. (1977), and

Swartz et al. (1985), showed that the product α1β1 decreased

with increasing compressive strength. The decrease was

approximately linear from a value of 0.75 for 6000 psi

(41 MPa) to 0.5 for 18,000 psi (124 MPa). The provisions in Fig. 4.6—Cover spalling strains for high-strength concrete

ACI 318-05 include a steeper descent in the product α1β1 columns (Bae and Bayrak 2003).

from 4000 to 8000 psi (28 to 55 MPa) than results from stress

block parameters proposed by several authors for high-strength

concrete (Bae and Bayrak 2003; Ibrahim and MacGregor strength, and should be taken as 0.003. The majority of

1997; Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004). Fasching and design provisions and proposals presented (Ibrahim and

French (1998) indicated that the steeper descent in the MacGregor 1994; Standards Association of New Zealand

product α1β1 resulted in underestimating the area of the 1995; Azizinamini et al. 1994; Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu

compression block for specimens with concrete compressive 2004) adopt the same limiting strain of 0.003 as ACI 318-05,

strengths up to 14,000 psi (97 MPa), and overestimating the whereas CSA A23.3-94 adopts a limiting strain of 0.0035.

area of the compression block for specimens with concrete Fasching and French (1998) indicated that past research on

compressive strengths of 18,000 psi (124 MPa). For concrete the magnitude of εcu for high-strength concrete resulted in

compressive strengths on the order of 18,000 psi (124 MPa), mixed conclusions, with some researchers indicating that the

the inferred values of the coefficients α1 and β1 were similar limiting strain increases with compressive strength, and others

to those corresponding to a linear stress distribution. indicating that it decreases. A review of test data by Fasching

and French showed that the limiting strain was more sensi-

4.5—Limiting strain εcu tive to the type of aggregate than the concrete compressive

The limiting strain at the extreme compression fiber at the strength, with limiting strains ranging between 0.002 and

onset of concrete crushing, εcu, is a significant parameter for 0.005 for compressive strengths greater than 8000 psi (55 MPa).

calculating the nominal moment strength of columns Average values for each type of aggregate were all above 0.003,

because it defines the strains throughout the cross section, and the average for all types of aggregate was 0.0033.

particularly the strains in the longitudinal reinforcement. Bae and Bayrak (2003) suggested adopting a lower value

Calculated strains have a direct effect on the calculated of εcu due to observed spalling at lower strains in highly

stresses in the longitudinal reinforcement and also on the confined high-strength concrete columns (Fig. 4.6). They

magnitude of the strength reduction factor φ. ACI 318-05 proposed using a limiting strain of 0.0025 for concrete

indicates that the magnitude of the strain at the extreme compressive strengths greater than 8000 psi (55 MPa), and

compression fiber εcu is independent of compressive 0.003 for lower compressive strengths.

ITG-4.3R-12 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

according to various design codes and authors.

the crushing strain under uniform compression, εo, increases

with increasing concrete strength, the crushing strain under

strain gradient, εcu , decreases with increasing concrete

strength because of the brittleness of high-strength concretes.

Based on moment-curvature analyses of columns under

different levels of axial compression, the researchers

concluded that εcu varied between 0.0036 and 0.0027 for

4000 to 18,000 psi (28 and 124 MPa) concretes, respectively.

This is shown in Fig. 4.7. The same researchers, however,

also concluded that the variation in εcu did not appreciably Fig. 4.8—Instability of cover concrete under concentric

affect sectional strength calculations, and hence recommended compression (Saatcioglu and Razvi 1998). The bottom

the use of a constant average value of εcu = 0.003 for photograph shows section of the cover that spalled off

members under strain gradient. during the tests.

4.6—Axial strength of high-strength indicated in Section 4.1. Researchers found that the coefficient

concrete columns k3 for high-strength concrete varied between 0.87 and 0.97

The design expression used in ACI 318-05 to calculate the based on concentrically tested columns (Yong et al. 1988;

strength of concentrically loaded columns, similar in form to Sun and Sakino 1993; Cusson and Paultre 1994; Saatcioglu and

Eq. (4-12), is based on an extensive column investigation Razvi 1998). A similar variation was obtained from column

that was conducted jointly by the University of Illinois tests under eccentric loading (Kaar et al. 1977; Swartz et al.

(Richart and Brown 1934), Lehigh University (Slater and 1985; Schade 1992; Ibrahim and MacGregor 1994,1996b).

Lyse 1931a,b), and ACI. One of the main conclusions of this Having reviewed the previous experimental data,

research was that it was possible to express the strength of Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) concluded that k3 = 0.9

columns subjected to concentric loading in a simple form, provides a reasonable estimate for the ratio of concrete

consisting of contributions from: 1) concrete at peak stress; strength in a structural member to that determined by standard

and 2) longitudinal steel at yield cylinder tests.

In spite of the favorable in-place strength of high-strength

Po = 0.85fc′ (Ag – Ast) + Ast fy (4-12) concrete, experimentally recorded column strengths have been

shown to be below the computed values based on Eq. (4-12)

The concrete contribution is based on the in-place strength unless the columns are confined by properly designed

and the net area of concrete, including the cover. The in- transverse reinforcement. The strain data recorded by

place strength of concrete is assumed to be 85% of the Saatcioglu and Razvi (1998) during their tests of high-

cylinder strength. The reduction in strength is attributed to strength concrete columns indicated that premature spalling

the differences in size, shape, and concrete casting practice of cover concrete occurred in most columns before the

between a standard cylinder and an actual column. This ratio development of strains associated with concrete crushing.

of in-place strength to cylinder strength, defined as the coef- This observation, combined with visual observations of

ficient k3 in Section 4.1, is one of the parameters necessary cover spalling during tests, as shown in Fig. 4.8, suggests

to define the rectangular stress block. Experimental data are that the cover concrete in high-strength concrete columns

available for in-place strength of high-strength concrete, as suffers stability failure rather than crushing.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-13

of closely spaced longitudinal and transverse steel, forming

a mesh of reinforcement, produced a natural plane of separation

between the cover and the core. The separation along this

plane was triggered by high compressive stresses associated

with high-strength concrete as well as the differences in

mechanical properties of core and cover concretes (Richart

et al. 1929; Roy and Sozen 1963). Columns tested by Rangan

et al. (1991) and some of the columns tested by Yong et al.

(1988) contained widely spaced transverse reinforcement of

low volumetric ratio, without a sufficient mesh of reinforcement

to separate the cover from the core. These columns were able

to develop unconfined column strengths Po calculated using

Eq. (4-12). Columns tested by Itakura and Yagenji (1992)

without any cover consistently showed higher strengths than

those computed on the basis of gross cross-sectional area and Fig. 4.9—Variation of k3k4 with concrete compressive

unconfined concrete because they did not suffer strength loss strength (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004).

due to cover spalling. Columns that were sufficiently

confined to offset the effects of cover spalling consistently

developed higher strengths than Po. The group that

contained an insufficient volumetric ratio of closely spaced

transverse reinforcement, however, could not sustain

strengths computed on the basis of total cross-sectional area

and unconfined concrete strength.

According to Saatcioglu and Razvi (1998), given the

unfavorable circumstances described previously, the premature

spalling of cover concrete could lead to reduced strength of

concentrically loaded high-strength concrete columns relative

to those predicted by Eq. (4-12). The effect of premature

cover spalling was introduced into Eq. (4-12) by

Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) through a coefficient k4

by defining the in-place strength of concrete as k3k4 fc′

instead of k3 fc′ , where k3 = 0.85. Figure 4.9 shows the

variation of the product k3k4 with concrete strength obtained

from a large volume of test data. The test data also included Fig. 4.10—Variation of k3k4 with core-to-gross area ratio

moderately confined columns for which high values of the (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004).

product were obtained. The strength loss associated with

cover spalling is a function of the area of unconfined cover

concrete. For this reason, this effect can be quantified in taken less than 0.6, irrespective of its actual value, in

terms of the ratio of core area to gross area (Ac /Ag) of the assessing the premature cover spalling effect.

column. As this ratio decreases (cover thickness increases), The test data in Fig. 4.9 and 4.10 were further examined

the strength loss increases. Figure 4.10 illustrates the variation after removing confined column data and grouping them on

of the product k3k4 with respect to the Ac /Ag ratio. The product the basis of concrete strength (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu

k3k4 in Figure 4.10 indicates the degree of premature loss of 2004). A regression analysis was conducted to find an

strength in high-strength concrete columns as a function of expression for the coefficient k4. The researchers suggested

concrete compressive strength and the Ac /Ag ratio. This prema- the following expressions for computing concentric axial

ture spalling effect can be quite significant in small-scale test strength of high-strength concrete columns

columns with thin covers (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004).

Po = k3k4 fc′ (Ag – Ast) + Ast fy (4-13)

Because the stability of the cover improves as the cover

thickness increases, columns with thick covers are less likely

to be susceptible to premature spalling than those with thin k3 = 0.90 (4-14)

covers. Given the difficulties associated with testing large-

scale columns with very high concrete compressive A

k4 = γc + (1 – γc) -----c ≤ 0.95 (4-15)

strengths under concentric compression, there is a paucity of Ag

experimental results for large-scale high-strength concrete

columns with thick concrete covers. For this reason, it was

A

suggested by Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) that, until -----c ≥ 0.6 (4-16)

more data become available, the ratio Ac /Ag should not be Ag

ITG-4.3R-14 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

f c′

γc = 1.1 – ---------------

- ≤ 0.8 (fc′ in psi) (4-17)

20,000

f c′

- ≤ 0.8 (fc′ in MPa)

γc = 1.1 – --------

138

(124 MPa) concrete and Ac /Ag = 0.6, which is 28% below

the 0.85 value suggested by ACI 318-05 for normal-strength

concrete columns, as reproduced in Eq. (4-12). Instead of

detailed computation of the coefficient k4, as outlined

previously, a conservative, but simple, approach was

recommended for convenience in design by Ozbakkaloglu

and Saatcioglu (2004). They suggested that the product k3k4

be taken as 0.85 for fc′ of up to 6000 psi (41 MPa), and be

reduced by 0.017 for every 1000 psi (6.9 MPa) increase over

6000 psi (41 MPa), up to 18,000 psi (124 MPa). The

researchers identified the premature cover spalling as a Fig. 4.11—Comparison of stress block parameters α1 and

phenomenon that is prevalent in concentrically loaded high- β1 inferred from experimental results and various expressions

strength concrete columns. For columns subjected to bending proposed for high-strength concrete (Bae and Bayrak 2003).

and axial load, Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) indicated

that the critical compression side of the cover would deform

anticipated that the proposed modifications to the stress

toward the core concrete, which would restrain the cover

block would have a small effect on the nominal moment

against buckling.

strength of beams. Fasching and French (1998) recommended

Park et al. (1998) indicated that the axial strength of

that the stress block should be modified to avoid uncon-

columns subjected to compression is

servative estimates of column strength.

Bae and Bayrak (2003) compared the measured strengths

Po = χ1 fc′ (Ag – Ast) + fy Ast (4-18) of 224 columns with the strengths calculated using the ACI

318-05 rectangular stress block and other stress blocks

They pointed out that the k3 values that have been outlined in this review (Fig. 4.11 and 4.12). Figure 4.11

measured under concentric compression are greater than the shows the variation of the factors α1 and β1, and the product

value of χ1 in the NZS 3101:1995 provisions (Standards α1β1 proposed by several investigators with respect to

Association of New Zealand 1995) and, as a result, the concrete compressive strength.

nominal axial strength calculated using that standard is To estimate the accuracy of moment and axial strengths,

conservative. Azizinamini et al. (1994) proposed calculating Bae and Bayrak (2003) developed two different error indicators.

the axial strength of columns in the same manner as NZS They defined the error based on the experimental axial force

3101:1995 by using Eq. (4-18). The premature spalling of EEp as the ratio of the difference between the nominal and

cover concrete was recognized by CSA A23.3-94 (Cana- experimental moment strengths to experimental moment

dian Standards Association 1994), and Eq. (4-18) was strength (Fig. 4.12). EEp is calculated as

adopted with the stress intensity factor χ1 decreasing as a

function of concrete strength, reducing to 0.67 for 18,000 psi M ncol – M ex p

(124 MPa) concrete. - × 100

EE p = -------------------------------- (4-19)

M ex p

4.7—Comparison of different proposals

for rectangular stress block A negative EEp value implies that the calculated strength

Fasching and French (1998) carried out a comparison was below the measured value, and consequently, the estimate

between the measured flexural strengths of beam members was conservative.

and those calculated according to different stress block The second error indicator was based on the experimental

proposals for high-strength concrete. They found a slightly eccentricity (Bae and Bayrak 2003). Based on both error

higher level of conservatism for the stress block proposals indicators, Bae and Bayrak concluded that estimates using

for high-strength concrete that they evaluated compared with the equivalent rectangular stress block of ACI 318-05

the stress block defined in ACI 318-05. The New Zealand became increasingly unconservative with increasing

and Canadian proposals resulted in nearly identical average compressive strength, particularly with concrete strengths

ratios of experimental-to-calculated strengths of 1.25, while exceeding 10,000 psi (69 MPa).

the stress block of ACI 318-05 resulted in an average ratio of The stress blocks proposed by Ibrahim and MacGregor

1.21. Because the depth of the compression zone in beams is (1997), Park et al. (1998), Standards Association of New

small compared with the depth of the member, it was Zealand (1995), and Bae and Bayrak (2003) all produced

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-15

Fig. 4.12—Error parameter EEp in estimates of column strength (Bae and Bayrak 2003).

similar levels of conservatism for all levels of concrete strength. Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu are identical for columns with

The model proposed by Azizinamini et al. (1994) increasingly a concrete compressive strength of 4000 psi (28 MPa), whereas

underestimated the column strengths for concrete compressive the equivalent rectangular stress blocks recommended by

strengths beyond 13,000 psi (90 MPa). Bae and Bayrak noted CSA A23.3 and Ibrahim and MacGregor produce slightly

that the data they used lacked a significant number of test lower estimates of strength than ACI 318-05. As concrete

results with high axial loads (small eccentricities). When strength increased, Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu concluded

axial loads are high, the different models provide significantly that the ACI 318-05 stress block lead to overestimating

different predictions. They also noted that in seismic column strengths obtained from test results. Ozbakkaloglu

applications, the concern is not with high axial loads, but and Saatcioglu indicated that the magnitude of the overestima-

with relatively low axial loads (high eccentricities). tion was very significant for a column with a concrete

Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) compared column compressive strength of 17,400 psi (120 MPa). For this same

interaction diagrams based on the rectangular stress blocks column, the rectangular stress blocks proposed by Ibrahim

of ACI 318-05, CSA A23.3-94, and those proposed by and MacGregor and Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu produced

Ibrahim and MacGregor (1997) and Ozbakkaloglu and similar interaction diagrams, and the CSA A23.3 stress block

Saatcioglu (2004). resulted in a more conservative estimate of strength. The fact

The comparisons, shown in Fig. 4.13, indicate that the that the results obtained using the rectangular stress block in

interaction diagrams generated by the equivalent rectangular CSA A23.3 were consistently more conservative was attributed

stress block of ACI 318-05 and that proposed by to the use of a lower stress intensity factor α1.

ITG-4.3R-16 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

with different concrete strengths (Ozbakkaloglu and

Saatcioglu 2004) (Ac /Ag = 0.7; ρ = 1.33%; b = h =

11.81 in. [300 mm]).

comparisons of interaction diagrams drawn on the basis of

their proposed stress block and that of ACI 318-02 (ACI

Committee 318 2002) (which is the same used in ACI 318-05)

for columns tested by Lloyd and Rangan (1996), Ibrahim and

MacGregor (1994, 1997), and Foster and Attard (1997),

under different levels of end eccentricity (Fig. 4.14).

They concluded that the stress block of ACI 318-05 over-

estimated column axial and moment strengths, resulting in

unsafe strength values for columns with concrete strengths in

excess of 10,000 psi (69 MPa), whereas their proposed stress

block (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004) provided very

good agreement with experimental strength values.

A parametric study was carried out as part of this report to Fig. 4.14—Comparison of computed interaction diagrams

provide further insight into the differences among various with test data (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004).

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-17

Table 4.1—Summary of parameters α1 and β1 defining different rectangular stress blocks investigated in

parametric study

Concrete compressive strength, psi (MPa) 4000 (28) 6000 (41) 8000 (55) 10,000 (69) 12,000 (83) 15,000 (103)

Equivalent rectangular stress block parameter α1 β1 α1 β1 α1 β1 α1 β1 α1 β1 α1 β1

ACI 318-05 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.75 0.85 0.65 0.85 0.65 0.85 0.65 0.85 0.65

Ibrahim and MacGregor (1997) 0.82 0.88 0.80 0.85 0.78 0.81 0.76 0.78 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.70

Park et al. (1998) 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.75 0.85 0.65 0.80 0.65 0.75 0.65 0.75 0.65

Aziznamini et al. (1994) 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.75 0.85 0.65 0.85 0.65 0.75 0.65 0.60 0.65

with and without strength reduction factors φ, to compare the

ACI 318-05 stress block with the proposals by Ibrahim and

MacGregor (1997), Park et al. (1998), and Azizinamini et al.

(1994). The column cross section that was analyzed is shown

in Fig. 4.15, with the bending moment about the Y-Y axis.

The column was analyzed for steel ratios of 1 and 2.5% and

for concrete compressive strengths of 4000, 6000, 8000,

10,000, 12,000, and 15,000 psi (28, 41, 55, 69, 83, and 103

MPa). The stress block parameters for the compared models

are given in Table 4.1, and the results of the parametric study

are given in Fig. 4.16.

From Fig. 4.16 and Table 4.1, it can be seen that for concrete

compressive strengths of 4000, 6000, and 8000 psi (28, 41,

and 55 MPa), the only model that resulted in estimates of

strength that were noticeably different from those obtained

with the ACI 318-05 stress block was that proposed by

Ibrahim and MacGregor (1997). Fig. 4.15—Column cross section used in parametric study.

The Ibrahim and MacGregor (1997) model resulted in

progressively smaller estimates of nominal strength as columns calculated with the ACI 318-05 stress block may be

concrete compressive strength increased, which indicates unconservative for compressive strengths greater than

that their model was the most conservative in this range. For approximately 12,000 psi (83 MPa).

a concrete compressive strength of 10,000 psi (69 MPa), the Two consequences of overestimating the flexural

ACI 318-05 stress block and that proposed by Azizinamini strengths of columns are that the shear demand on the

et al. (1994) produced similar results, whereas the proposals column calculated on the basis of the probable flexural strength

by Ibrahim and MacGregor (1997) and Park et al. (1998) is overestimated and that the ratio of column-to-beam

produced more conservative estimates of strength. For a moment strengths is overestimated. Overestimating the

concrete compressive strength of 12,000 psi (83 MPa), the shear demand is conservative because it leads to a higher

models by Park et al. and Azizinamini et al. have identical amount of transverse reinforcement. Conversely, overesti-

stress block parameters. Consequently, strength estimates mating the ratio of column-to-beam moment strengths has a

obtained with these two models were identical, and approx- negative effect because it increases the probability of hinging in

imately the same as the nominal strength calculated using the the columns. ACI 318-05 requires a minimum ratio of

model by Ibrahim and MacGregor. Finally, for a concrete column-to-beam moment strengths of 1.2. Overestimating

compressive strength of 15,000 psi (103 MPa), the models column flexural strength decreases that ratio, and may even

by Ibrahim and MacGregor and Park et al. yielded similar result in a strong beam-weak column mechanism.

results, and were slightly more conservative than the Because experimental results showed that the equivalent

equivalent rectangular stress block of ACI 318-05. The rectangular stress block of ACI 318-05 is appropriate for

model by Azizinamini et al. (1994) resulted in significantly normal-strength concrete, a recommendation was developed

lower estimates of strength than the other models. focusing on columns with compressive strengths greater

than 8000 psi (55 MPa). This was done by suggesting a stress

4.8—Recommendations block with a variable stress intensity factor α1 for concrete

It is apparent from a review of the available literature that compressive strengths greater than 8000 psi (55 MPa).

when the equivalent rectangular stress block of ACI 318-05 Accordingly, in inch-pound units, it is recommended that:

is used for members with axial loads above that corre- “factor α1 shall be taken as 0.85 for concrete strengths fc′ up

sponding to balanced failure and high-strength concrete, the to and including 8000 psi. For strengths above 8000 psi, α1

ratio of nominal-to-experimental column strength decreases shall be reduced continuously at a rate of 0.015 for each 1000

as the axial load increases. Experimental results (Fig. 4.12(a)) psi of strength in excess of 8000 psi, but α1 shall not be taken

indicate that the nominal moment and axial strengths of less than 0.70.” In SI units, the recommendation is that:

ITG-4.3R-18 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

well as with the results of sample tests on columns using

concrete strengths of up to 18,000 psi (124 MPa).

The strength intensity factor α1 is also recommended to

calculate the strength of columns subjected to concentric

loading. The similarities in the values of α1 and the coefficient

that defines the in-place strength of concrete in columns

under concentric compression χ1 makes it possible to use the

same value in computing column concentric strength Po for

convenience in design. The recommendations translate into

Eq. (4-20) and (4-21) for spirally reinforced and tied

columns, respectively

Fig. 4.17—Comparisons of column interaction diagrams

and test data (fc′ = 10,440 psi [72 MPa], 7.8 x 11.8 in. (200 φPn,max = 0.85φ[χ1 fc′ (Ag – Ast) + fy Ast] (4-20)

x 300 mm), ρ = 1.3%, Ac /Ag = 0.6).

φPn,max = 0.80φ[χ1 fc′ (Ag – Ast) + fy Ast] (4-21)

“factor α1 shall be taken as 0.85 for concrete strengths fc′ up

to and including 55 MPa. For strengths above 55 MPa, α1 Accordingly, in inch-pound units, it is recommended that:

shall be reduced continuously at a rate of 0.0022 for each “factor χ1 shall be taken as 0.85 for concrete strengths fc′ up

6.9 MPa of strength in excess of 55 MPa, but α1 shall not be to and including 8000 psi. For strengths above 8000 psi, χ1

taken less than 0.70.” shall be reduced continuously at a rate of 0.015 for each 1000 psi

A number of revisions to ACI 318-05 are proposed in of strength in excess of 8000 psi, but χ1 shall not be taken

Chapter 10 of this document. less than 0.70.” In SI units, the recommendation is that:

The parameter β1, which defines the depth of the stress block, “factor χ1 shall be taken as 0.85 for concrete strengths fc′ up

was not changed. Figures 4.17 to 4.20 show the correlation of to and including 55 MPa. For strengths above 55 MPa, χ1

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-19

of strength for columns with normal-strength concrete. For

this reason, the stress block parameters proposed by the

committee were selected so that there would be no change in

the stress block parameters of ACI 318-05 for columns with

normal-strength concrete.

FOR BEAMS AND COLUMNS

The increased strength and enhanced performance of high-

strength concrete are advantageous features for structural

applications. The increasing brittleness of concrete with

higher compressive strength is a major concern for seismic

Fig. 4.18—Comparison of column interaction diagrams and

test data (fc′ = 14,000 psi [97 MPa], 6.9 x 6.9 in. (175 x applications, however, where toughness under repeated load

175 mm), ρ = 1.3%, Ac /Ag = 0.84). reversals is of paramount importance. For this reason, proper

confinement of concrete is essential for the safe use of high-

strength concrete in moderate to high seismic applications.

This chapter addresses concrete confinement for beam and

column elements. In Chapter 21 of ACI 318-05, which

includes seismic design provisions, columns are defined as

members with an axial load ratio (Pu/ fc′ Ag) greater than 0.1.

The same definition is adopted throughout this document to

differentiate between beams and columns. Constitutive

models for confined concrete, salient features of previous

research, and design recommendations are provided in the

following sections.

Several researchers have indicated that constitutive models

Fig. 4.19—Comparison of column interaction diagrams and developed for normal-strength concrete do not offer a good

test data (fc′ = 18,270 psi [126 MPa], 7.9 x 11.8 in. (200 x representation of the behavior of high-strength concrete,

300 mm), ρ = 1.3%, Ac /Ag = 0.60). especially in the case of columns, where the characteristics of

the constitutive model have the highest impact on the calculated

response. Therefore, previously developed constitutive

models have been modified to reflect the differences in

behavior, and a number of additional analytical models have

been developed specifically for high-strength concrete.

Ahmad and Shah (1982), Martinez et al. (1984), and

Fafitis and Shah (1985) were among the first to develop

models for high-strength confined concrete based on tests of

spirally reinforced small cylinders. These models incorporate

the effect of confinement through a lateral confining pressure

that develops under hoop tension. The models were shown to

produce good correlations with tests of spirally confined

Fig. 4.20—Observed stress intensity factors for concentrically circular cylinders for concrete strengths of up to 12,000 psi

loaded columns.

(83 MPa).

Yong et al. (1988) developed a model based on small-scale

shall be reduced continuously at a rate of 0.0022 for each square column tests with concrete strengths ranging between

MPa of strength in excess of 55 MPa, but χ1 shall not be 12,000 and 13,600 psi (83 and 94 MPa). Their approach was

taken less than 0.70.” similar to that originally proposed by Sargin et al. (1971) for

Figure 4.20 provides a comparison of the aforementioned normal-strength concrete. Azizinamini et al. (1994) subse-

recommendations with experimental data and the nominal quently modified the model on the basis of large-scale

strengths calculated using the provisions in ACI 318-05. The column tests under reversed cyclic loading.

proposed parameters α1, β1, and χ1 were selected based on Bjerkeli et al. (1990) proposed a generalized model for

what was deemed an acceptable level of conservatism in the normalweight and lightweight aggregate confined concretes

judgment of the committee. Another factor considered by the with compressive strengths of up to 13,000 and 10,000 psi (90

committee in selecting the aforementioned parameters was and 69 MPa), respectively. Their model is applicable to elements

that there is no experimental evidence to suggest that the with circular, square, and rectangular section geometry.

ITG-4.3R-20 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

A number of confinement models were developed in Japan of ACI 318-05 if the axial load demand on the columns is

based on experimental results from the New RC project below 0.2fc′ Ag (approximately 1/2 of the balanced axial

(Mugurama and Watanabe 1990; Mugurama et al. 1991, load). Even at these low levels of axial load, Matamoros and

1993; Nagashima et al. 1992). Sozen (2003) observed that the degradation of the confined

Cusson and Paultre (1994) proposed a model based on core, as indicated by the strain demand in the lateral reinforce-

tests of large-scale high-strength concrete columns. Their ment, increased more rapidly with drift for higher values of

model uses the effectively confined core area concept that axial load. Xiao and Martirossyan (1998) and Matamoros

was originally proposed by Sheikh and Uzumeri (1982) and and Sozen (2003) observed a similar trend with increasing

modified by Mander et al. (1988). These researchers later compressive strength.

improved their model by introducing an iterative procedure A study on the properties of high-strength concrete

to compute the strain in transverse confinement reinforcement members (Bjerkeli et al. 1990) concluded that properly

(Cusson and Paultre 1995). confined columns can have ductile behavior and sustain

Li (1994) developed a constitutive model for confined large axial strains. The variables of the study were the

concrete that covered a wide range of concrete compressive compressive strength of the concrete, with values of 9400,

strengths between 4000 and 19,000 psi (28 and 131 MPa). 13,800, and 16,700 psi (65, 95, and 115 MPa), and the shape

The model was quite comprehensive and elaborate, incorpo- of the specimen, with circular and rectangular sectional

rating several parameters to reflect the effects of confinement. shapes included. Concrete compressive strengths reported in

Razvi and Saatcioglu (1999) developed a generalized this study were measured using 4 in. (102 mm) cubes. Small-

confinement model on the basis of the equivalent uniform scale specimens (6 x 6 in. [152 x 152 mm] rectangular

lateral pressure concept that they proposed earlier for columns and 6 in. [152 mm] diameter circular columns) were

confinement of normal-strength concrete (Saatcioglu and subjected to eccentrically applied monotonic loading. Both

Razvi 1992). The model covers a wide range of concrete the effectiveness of confinement and the ultimate strain

compressive strengths between 3000 and 19,000 psi (21 and under concentric loading decreased with increases in

131 MPa), and incorporates the effects of different reinforce- concrete strength. According to the authors, specimens with

ment geometry and arrangement while also incorporating the a volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio (defined as the

effect of high-strength transverse reinforcement. ratio of the volume of transverse reinforcement to the core

volume confined by the transverse reinforcement) ρvr of

5.2—Previous research and general observations 1.1% resulted in inadequate ductility, while the behavior of

One of the most challenging aspects about interpreting specimens with ρvr of 3.1% was satisfactory. Circular

results from beam and column studies found in the literature columns with transverse reinforcement in the form of spirals

is that there are differences among the loading protocols, showed larger values of maximum stress and strain at peak

loading configurations, scale, and failure criteria used by stress than rectangular columns with similar volumetric

different researchers. These differences are such that P-Δ ratios of hoop reinforcement. The difference between the

effects, reported shear strengths, and drifts at failure are not two increased with the amount of transverse reinforcement.

directly comparable in some instances (Brachmann et al. In the set of specimens with ρvr of 1.1%, the ratio of strain at

2004a,b). In spite of these differences, there are some well- peak stress for the confined case to strain at peak stress for

established common trends that have been observed about the the unconfined case was approximately 1.1 for the rectangular

behavior of beams and columns with high-strength concrete. column with hoops and 1.25 for the circular column with

The ductile behavior of high-strength concrete beams is spiral reinforcement. The ratio of peak stress for the confined

well documented in several experimental studies found in case to peak stress for the unconfined case was approxi-

the literature. Based on a series of beam tests conducted at mately 0.85 for the rectangular column with hoops and 0.9

Cornell University, Nilson (1985) observed that although the for the circular column with spiral reinforcement. In the set

ultimate compressive strain was smaller for high-strength of specimens with ρvr of 3.1%, the ratio of strain at peak

concrete, section and member displacement ductilities were stress for the confined case to strain at peak stress for the

larger than in normal-strength concrete elements. Nilson also unconfined case was approximately 1.9 for the rectangular

observed that spiral reinforcement was less effective in high- column with hoops and 3.5 for the circular column with

strength concrete columns subjected to axial compression, spiral reinforcement. The ratio of peak stress for the confined

resulting in a smaller displacement ductility. case to peak stress for the unconfined case was approximately

A study on the flexural ductility of high-strength concrete 1.05 for the rectangular column with hoops and 1.55 for the

beams (Shin et al. 1990) indicated that ductility ratios circular column with spiral reinforcement.

increased with concrete strength for specimens with similar Razvi and Saatcioglu (1994) conducted an investigation

amounts of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. This on the strength and deformability of high-strength concrete

was observed for both monotonic and cyclic loading. columns based on the results of 250 tests by various

Several researchers (Xiao and Yun 1998; Azizinamini et researchers. They concluded that the volume of reinforcement

al. 1994; Matamoros and Sozen 2003) have shown, based on required for proper confinement of high-strength columns

tests of columns subjected to cyclic loading under constant may be reduced with the use of high-strength steel as transverse

axial load, that drift ratios exceeding 3% can be reached with reinforcement, particularly for high axial loads. They indicated

detailing conforming to the existing provisions in Chapter 21 that the use of high-strength steel did not improve

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-21

behavior when low axial loads were present. They also before reaching the crushing strength of unconfined

observed that column deformability decreased with concrete. This was attributed to the stability failure of the

increasing axial compression. A specimen tested under cover shell under high compressive stresses when a mesh of

axial tension showed improved deformability compared reinforcement, consisting of longitudinal bars and closely

with specimens loaded in compression. spaced transverse reinforcement, separated the cover from

Saatcioglu et al. (1998) reviewed the effect of confinement the core. Similar conclusions were obtained by Razvi and

on concentrically loaded columns tested by several different Saatcioglu (1999), who tested 21 large-scale, circular, high-

investigators. They concluded that the strength of confined strength concrete columns under concentric compression.

concrete increased with the amount of confinement indepen- Lipien and Saatcioglu (1997) and Saatcioglu and Baingo

dently of unconfined compressive strength. They also (1999) reported test results of large-scale square and circular

observed that for a similar percent increase in strength, columns, respectively, under constant axial compression and

higher confinement pressure is required for high-strength incrementally increasing lateral deformation reversals. The

concrete than for normal-strength concrete. They indicated level of axial compression varied between 22 and 43% of the

that values for the confinement index (defined as the product column strength under concentric loading Po , and the concrete

of the volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio and the strength varied between approximately 9000 and 14,000 psi

yield strength of the transverse reinforcement divided by the (62 and 97 MPa). The researchers reported that a minimum

compressive strength of the concrete) recommended in the of 5% drift capacity can be attained in circular columns if the

literature to ensure ductile behavior under concentric loading volumetric ratio of spiral reinforcement is at least equal to

ranged between 0.15 and 0.30. The distribution and spacing 0.17fc′ /fyt and the limit on the yield strength of transverse

of the transverse reinforcement is another important parameter reinforcement is increased to 145,000 psi (1000 MPa). The same

that affects behavior. Although high-strength reinforcement requirements produced approximately 8% lateral drift when

may be used to decrease the volumetric transverse reinforcement the level of axial compression was reduced from 0.43Po to

ratio, the effectiveness of the confining reinforcement 0.22Po. It was further concluded that individual circular ties,

decreases as spacing increases. Saatcioglu et al. (1998) with 90-degree hooks well anchored into the core concrete,

indicated that the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement performed as well as continuous spiral reinforcement having

may not be reached for columns in which the volumetric the same material properties. Similar observations were made

reinforcement ratio, the axial load, or both, is low. for square columns with overlapping hoops and crossties.

Kato et al. (1998) reviewed tests carried out in Japan on Sheikh et al. (1994) tested four 12 in. (305 mm) square

91 square columns and 59 circular columns under concentric columns with concrete strengths of approximately 8000 psi

loading. The compressive strength of the concrete in the (55 MPa) under constant axial compression and lateral

specimens ranged between 4000 and 19,000 psi (28 and moment reversals. The level of axial compression ranged

131 MPa), while the yield strength of the transverse reinforce- between 0.59Po and 0.62Po. Sheikh et al. (1994) reported

ment ranged between 25,000 and 198,000 psi (172 and displacement ductility ratios (at a 20% reduction in lateral

1365 MPa). Their conclusions were similar to those by resistance) for the high-strength concrete columns ranging

Saatcioglu et al. (1998). They indicated that the maximum between 2.0 and 5.4 for specimens with volumetric

stress increase in the columns was independent of the confinement indexes ranging between 0.16 and 0.36. The

compressive strength and proportional to the strength of the corresponding curvature ductility ratios ranged between 5

transverse reinforcement. An upper limit of 100,000 psi and 17. It was concluded that the required amount of

(690 MPa) on the strength of the transverse reinforcement confinement reinforcement was proportional to concrete

was suggested because calculations using the concrete models strength. The improvement in column ductility appeared to be

derived from the tests suggested that the reinforcement might proportional to the amount of confinement steel.

not be effective beyond that point. In addition, they concluded Azizinamini et al. (1993, 1994) tested nine 12 in. (305 mm)

that increasing the spacing of the transverse reinforcement by square columns under 0.20Po, 0.30Po, and 0.40Po. The

using high-strength reinforcement increased the probability of specimens consisted of a central stub representing the joint

failure due to buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement. region of a frame, with two columns extending outward.

Saatcioglu and Razvi (1998) tested 26 large-scale high- Lateral loads were applied at the center of the stub while the

strength concrete columns with a square cross section under columns were subjected to a constant axial load. The transverse

concentric compression. The concrete compressive strength reinforcement had yield strengths of 60 and 120 ksi (414 and

used varied between 8700 and 17,400 psi (60 and 120 MPa). 827 MPa), with volumetric confinement indexes ranging

The researchers investigated the effects of various confinement between 0.13 and 0.37. The concrete compressive strengths

parameters, including the use of high-grade transverse ranged between 3800 and 15,000 psi (26 and 103 MPa).

reinforcement. It was concluded that the lateral pressure Azizinamini et al. (1994) reported that the maximum drift

required to confine high-strength concrete columns can be ratios, defined by the authors as the maximum drift ratio at

achieved by using high-strength transverse reinforcement. It which test columns were capable of withstanding two

was cautioned, however, that this may not be achieved unless complete cycles of horizontal displacement, ranged between

a sufficiently high volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement 3.0 and 5.1%. The test data indicated that an increase in

is used. The researchers further reported premature spalling concrete strength did not necessarily result in reductions in

of cover concrete under concentric loading that was observed the column displacement ductility ratio. Reducing the

ITG-4.3R-22 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

spacing of the ties, however, resulted in larger ductility Sakaguchi et al. (1990) reported test results from eight

ratios. When comparing the behavior of specimens with high-strength concrete columns with compressive strengths

similar amounts of transverse reinforcement and different of 11,200 and 13,600 psi (77 and 94 MPa) and a shear span-

yield strengths, Azizinamini et al. (1994) concluded that depth ratio of 1.1. The specimens consisted of columns with

increasing the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement rigid blocks at the top and bottom. The bottom block was

had no significant effect on the maximum drift ratio. They attached to the reaction floor, while the top block was used

also expressed concern that, because of buckling of the to apply the lateral and vertical loads. The column specimens

longitudinal reinforcement, increasing the spacing between were deformed in double curvature. All specimens had trans-

hoops while increasing the yield strength of the transverse verse reinforcement with a yield strength of 200,000 psi

reinforcement to achieve a similar confinement index would (1379 MPa). The variables of the study were the amount of

not be fully effective. Test results from two specimens with transverse reinforcement, with volumetric confinement

1-5/8 and 2-5/8 in. (41 and 67 mm) hoop spacing and transverse indexes ranging between 0 and 0.27, and the axial load ratio,

reinforcement yield strengths of 71 and 109 ksi (490 and which was set to 0, 0.2, or 0.4. The majority of the columns were

752 MPa), respectively, showed that the specimen with the tested with an axial load ratio of 0.4. Because the main thrust of

closer hoop spacing and lower yield strength had a higher the study was to investigate the shear strength of the columns,

maximum drift ratio (3.3%) than the specimen with the no limiting drift values were reported. Sakaguchi et al. (1990)

higher yield strength and larger stirrup spacing (2.4%). They concluded that in specimens with very light amounts of trans-

attributed the difference in behavior to premature buckling verse reinforcement, a shear slip failure occurred soon after the

of the longitudinal reinforcement observed in the specimen formation of an inclined crack. In specimens with intermediate

with the larger stirrup spacing. and high amounts of transverse reinforcement, shear strength

Thomsen and Wallace (1994) tested twelve 6 in. (152 mm) increased with the amount of reinforcement. They indicated that

square column specimens with a concrete compressive a relatively high amount of transverse reinforcement was

strength of approximately 12,000 psi (83 MPa). The specimens needed to maintain ductile behavior after the formation of

consisted of cantilever columns with a foundation block that inclined cracks in light of the low shear span-depth ratio.

was anchored to the reaction floor. The axial and lateral loads Muguruma and Watanabe (1990) tested eight specimens,

were applied at the free end of the cantilever. Test variables varying the transverse reinforcement yield strength between

were the spacing and configuration of the transverse reinforce- 48,000 and 115,000 psi (331 and 793 MPa) while maintaining

ment, the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement (115 a constant volumetric ratio ρvr of 1.6%. The specimens

and 185 ksi [793 and 1276 MPa]), and the axial load ratio (0, consisted of a central stub with two columns extending

0.1, and 0.2). Measurements indicated that the longitudinal outward. The lateral load was applied at the center of the

reinforcement started to yield at a drift ratio of 1%. Shear and stub, deforming the specimens in single curvature, while the

flexural strengths deteriorated at drift ratios exceeding 2%, axial load was maintained constant. Four tests were

and severe damage occurred at drift ratios higher than 4%. conducted on specimens with a concrete compressive

The longitudinal reinforcement buckled in specimens with strength of 12,400 psi (85 MPa) at axial load ratios fp of 0.4

axial load ratios of 0.2 and at drift ratios greater than 4%. The and 0.6. For these specimens, the limiting drift ratio, defined

main conclusion of the study by Thomsen and Wallace was as the drift ratio attained without a significant loss in

that high-strength reinforcement may be used effectively to strength, ranged between 1.5 and 10%. There was a strong

confine high-strength concrete. correlation among the limiting drift ratio, axial load, and the

A significant amount of experimental data from columns yield strength of the transverse reinforcement. The limiting

with axial load ratios fp = P/fc′ Ag exceeding 0.3 is available drift ratio decreased as the axial load ratio increased.

from an extensive study on the behavior of concrete Increasing the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement

members with high-strength materials sponsored by the had the opposite effect. The limiting drift ratio increased by

Ministry of Construction in Japan (Aoyama et al. 1990). a factor as high as 3 when the yield strength of the transverse

Because the maximum number of stories in high-rise buildings reinforcement was increased from 48,000 to 115,000 psi

is limited by concrete strength, Japanese engineers believe (331 and 793 MPa). The two specimens with a volumetric

that strengths higher than 6000 psi (41 MPa) would be essential confinement index cp (defined as ρvr fyt /fc′ ) of 0.06 had

to the construction of buildings taller than 30 stories. limiting drift ratios of 6.0% for fp = 0.4 and 1.5% for fp =

Tests conducted in Japan focused on columns subjected to 0.63. When the volumetric reinforcement index was

axial load ratios above 0.3 (Aoyama et al. 1990; Sakaguchi increased to 0.15 through the use of high-strength transverse

et al. 1990; Muguruma and Watanabe 1990; Sugano et al. reinforcement, the limiting drift ratio increased to over 10%

1990; Kimura et al. 1995; Hibi et al. 1991). These tests for fp = 0.4 and 4.5% for fp = 0.63. The remaining four spec-

showed a strong correlation among axial load, amount of imens had a concrete compressive strength of 16,800 psi

confinement, and the drift capacity (drift limit) of columns. (116 MPa) and were tested at axial load ratios of 0.25 and

A large amount of transverse reinforcement was required to 0.41. Limiting drift ratios for these specimens varied

obtain ductile behavior in columns subjected to axial loads between 3.0 and 8.5%. A volumetric confinement index of

greater than the balanced load. Japanese researchers 0.05 was sufficient to attain a limiting drift ratio of 3.0% for

addressed this problem by incorporating high-strength steel an axial load ratio of 0.41. The authors concluded it was

as transverse reinforcement. possible to achieve a high ductility ratio in columns with

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-23

transverse reinforcement. confinement reinforcement required in columns

A research program, motivated by the need to use high- Section 21.4.4 of ACI 318-05 specifies the minimum

strength materials in high-rise structures, was carried out in amount of transverse reinforcement for confining the core

Tokyo. It comprised a first series of eight column tests and concrete and providing lateral support to the longitudinal

10 beam tests (Sugano et al. 1990), and a second series of five reinforcement in columns subjected to cyclic loading.

column tests (Kimura et al. 1995). The specimens each Equation (21-2) in ACI 318-05 specifies the minimum

consisted of a column with rigid blocks at the top and bottom. volumetric ratio of spiral or circular hoop reinforcement for

The specimens were deformed in double curvature while the circular columns as

axial load was maintained constant. The first test series showed

excellent behavior for column specimens with an axial load ρs = 0.12fc′/fyt ACI 318 Eq. (21-2)

ratio of 0.3, which achieved limiting drift ratios of 4%. The

limiting drift ratio increased in proportion to the yield strength For rectangular columns, the minimum amount of reinforce-

of the transverse reinforcement normalized by the concrete ment required by ACI 318-05 is given by Eq. (21-3) and (21-4)

compressive strength. The authors suggested a minimum

confinement index of 0.10 to achieve limiting drift ratios of f c′ ⎛ A g

- -------- – 1⎞

Ash = 0.3sbc ---- ACI 318 Eq. (21-3)

2% at an axial load ratio of 0.6. The beams that were tested f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠

had span-depth ratios of 1.5, concrete compressive strengths

ranging from 5800 to 12,000 psi (40 to 83 MPa), longitudinal

reinforcement ratios of 1.9 and 2.9%, transverse reinforce- f c′

Ash = 0.09sbc ----

- ACI 318 Eq. (21-4)

ment with yield strengths of 44.3, 114.6, and 197 ksi (305, f yt

790, and 1358 MPa), and confinement indexes ranging from

0.08 to 0.36. Beams with high confinement indexes (above ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-3), controls when the ratio of gross

0.15) had limiting drift ratios above 5%; the limiting drift ratio area Ag to area of the confined core Ach is greater than 1.3.

was not very sensitive to the amount of transverse reinforce- As a result, ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-3), is likely to control for

ment or concrete compressive strength. The second series in small columns. These requirements were developed to

the study concluded that the ductility of high-strength concrete ensure that the strength of the confined core would be sufficient

columns was strongly affected by both the level of axial to compensate for the loss in axial strength that occurs when

compression and the yield strength of the transverse reinforce- the concrete in the exterior shell of the column spalls off.

ment. The authors stated that the yield strength of the trans- ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-2) and (21-4), imply that the confining

verse reinforcement normalized by the compressive strength stress provided by rectangular hoops is less effective than

of the concrete was an appropriate index to evaluate ductility. that provided by a similar volume of spiral reinforcement. A

A series of five tests at the University of Tokyo focused on comparison between the volumetric reinforcement ratio

column behavior after flexural yielding (Hibi et al. 1991). required to confine a similar volume of concrete in a circular

The specimens each consisted of a column with rigid blocks column with spiral reinforcement, according to ACI 318-05,

at the top and bottom. The specimens were deformed in Eq. (21-2), and a rectangular column with rectangular hoops,

double curvature while the axial load was maintained according to Eq. (21-4), indicates that spiral reinforcement is

constant. The columns had axial load ratios of 0.30 and 0.45, considered to be approximately 50% more effective than

and a shear span-depth ratio of 1.5. The amount and the hoop reinforcement. The commentary in ACI 318-05 indicates

strength of the transverse reinforcement were varied, while that, although the strength and ductility of columns are

the quantity ρt fyt was maintained approximately constant. affected by the amount of axial load, the axial loads and

The tests showed a strong correlation between toughness and deformation demands during an earthquake are not known

axial load. The behavior of specimens with an axial load with sufficient accuracy to justify the calculation of the

ratio of 0.3 was very ductile, achieving limiting drift ratios amount of transverse reinforcement as a function of these

exceeding 4%. Specimens with higher axial loads failed in parameters.

shear, with limiting drift ratios on the order of 3.5%. At drift Experimental results (Matamoros and Sozen 2003) have

ratios below 2%, the University of Tokyo tests indicated that shown that the amount of transverse reinforcement required

the shear component of the lateral deflection within the by ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-2) to (21-4), will result in limiting

plastic hinge region was similar for all specimens, regardless drift ratios exceeding 3% for concrete compressive strengths

of axial load. It must be pointed out, however, that none of up to 10,000 psi (69 MPa) and axial load ratios below

the specimens reached yielding of the transverse reinforcement, 0.2fc′ Ag. The main concerns about ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-2) to

thus limiting the degradation of the confined core within the (21-4), are whether they provide sufficient transverse

plastic hinge region. reinforcement to properly confine high-strength columns

All of these test results showed that beams and columns with axial loads greater than the balanced failure load, and

made with high-strength concrete can be used safely in that they require excessive amounts of transverse reinforcement

seismic design for a wide range of axial loads, provided that for members with lower axial load, leading to congestion of

an adequate amount of transverse reinforcement is provided reinforcement and concrete placement problems. Another

to confine the core concrete. concern, brought to attention by Bayrak and Sheikh (1998),

ITG-4.3R-24 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

is that in the case of high-strength concrete members, the ρlm ≤ 0.4 (5-5)

amount of transverse reinforcement required for proper

confinement will create a plane of weakness that may lead to fyt ≤ 116,000 psi (800 MPa) (5-6)

loss of the shell of the column before an axial strain of 0.003

is attained.

fc′ ≤ 10,000 psi (69 MPa) (5-7)

Confinement provisions in the New Zealand concrete

design standard NZS 3101:1995 recognize the effect of axial

load on column behavior. In potential plastic hinge regions, For rectangular-shaped transverse reinforcement, the

when hoop reinforcement is used, the design standard center-to-center spacing in potential plastic hinge regions

requires that the total area of transverse bars Ash in each of should not exceed the smaller of 1/4 of the smaller dimension

the transverse directions within spacing s should not be less of the cross section, or six longitudinal bar diameters. The

than that given by the following three equations spacing between adjacent hoop legs or crossties should not

exceed 8 in. (203 mm), or 1/4 of the dimension of the section

parallel to the direction of the spacing.

A sh 1.3 – ρ l m⎞ A g f c′ P

- = ⎛ ----------------------

------- -------- ----- --------------- (5-1) The previous equations were based on the results of

sh″ ⎝ 3.3 ⎠ A ch f yt φf c′ A g theoretical cyclic moment-curvature analyses (Park et al.

1998) for compressive strengths up to 5800 psi (40 MPa).

A sh = ∑ Ate (5-2) According to Park et al., analyses by Li (1994) showed that

the equations can be projected to columns with concrete

compressive strengths up to 14,500 psi (100 MPa) provided

The area of a tie leg Ate required to tie the longitudinal bars that the maximum value of yield strength of the transverse

reliant on it is defined as reinforcement used in the calculations is limited to 116,000 psi

(800 MPa).

A st f yl Li and Park (2004) carried out a parametric study to verify

A te = 10 -----------

-s (Ast in in.2, s in in.) (5-3)

f yt whether the provisions for confining reinforcement in ACI

318-05 and NZS 3101:1995 were applicable to high-strength

concrete columns. They investigated the effect of several

1 A st f yl s

A te = ------ -----------

- --------- (Ast in mm2, s in mm) parameters on the available strength and curvature ductility

16 f yt 100

of plastic hinge regions of columns. The parameters investi-

gated by Li and Park were concrete compressive strength,

where axial load level, yield strength of the transverse reinforcement,

ρl = Ast /Ag = longitudinal reinforcement ratio; volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement, percentage of

Ast = total area of nonprestressed longitudinal reinforce- longitudinal reinforcement, and ratio of the area of the

ment (bars or shapes); confined core to the total area of the cross section. They

m = fyl /0.85fc′ ; performed a series of cyclic moment-curvature analyses

Ag = gross area of concrete section; based on stress-strain relationships previously derived for

Ach = cross-sectional area of structural member measured high-strength concrete to develop a set of design equations

out-to-out of the transverse reinforcement; relating the amount of transverse reinforcement to the curva-

s = center-to-center spacing of hoop sets; ture ductility ratio.

h′′ = core dimension perpendicular to transverse Li and Park (2004) found that concrete compressive

reinforcement providing confinement measured strength and the ratio of the area of confined core to area of

to outside of hoops; the cross section had a considerable influence on the quantity

fyl = specified yield strength of longitudinal reinforce- of confining reinforcement needed to achieve a given

ment; ductility ratio. They also found that the required amount of

transverse reinforcement needed to achieve a given curvature

fyt = specified yield strength of transverse reinforce-

ductility ratio increased significantly as the axial load ratio

ment;

increased, and that the amount of transverse reinforcement

fc′ = specified compressive strength of concrete;

increased as the percentage of longitudinal reinforcement

P = unfactored axial load; increased. They adopted a curvature ductility ratio of 20 as

φ = strength reduction factor, defined in this case as indicative of adequate column toughness. They stated that a

0.85 if plastic hinging can occur, or 1.0 otherwise; curvature ductility ratio of 20 was likely to result in displacement

ΣAte = sum of areas of legs required to tie the longitudinal ductility ratios for the overall structure on the order of 4 to 6.

bars; and They also suggested a curvature ductility ratio of at least 10

ΣAb = sum of areas of longitudinal bars tied to the hoop for frames where limited ductility would be sufficient.

for lateral support. Li and Park (2004) found that the expressions in ACI 318-05

The following limits apply produced columns with adequate toughness for low levels of

axial load, but were unconservative for high levels of axial

Ag/Ach ≤ 1.2 (5-4) load. Within the data set used in their study, there were four

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-25

strength reinforcement ( fyt < 72,500 psi [ fyt < 500 MPa])

that contained 200, 138, 180, and 167% of the confining trans- η = 91 – 0.1fc′ (fc′ in MPa)

verse reinforcement required by ACI 318-05. These columns

achieved curvature ductility ratios of 17, 14, 21, and 14, For columns confined by circular high-yield-strength

respectively—all below or very close to the limit of 20 that reinforcement, they proposed

they suggested as a performance criterion.

It was concluded by Li and Park (2004) that the amount of

A sh A g ( φ u ⁄ φ y – 55ρ l m + 25 ) f c′ P u

confining reinforcement required by ACI 318-05 was ------- = -------

- ----------------------------------------------------- ----- --------------- (5-16)

inadequate to achieve curvature ductility ratios of 10 under sb c A ch 79 f yt φf c′ A g

high axial loads.

Li and Park proposed the following expression for the In Eq. (5-8) to (5-16), the following limitations apply

amount of confinement needed for columns with rectilinear

normal-yield-strength ( fyt < 72,500 psi [ fyt < 500 MPa]) ρ i 0.85f c′

reinforcement --------------------- ≤ 0.4 (5-17)

f yt

A sh A ( φ u ⁄ φ y – 33ρ l m + 22 ) f c′ P u

------- = -------g- ----------------------------------------------------

- ----- --------------- (5-8) Ag

sb c A ch η f yt φf c′ A g - ≤ 1.5

------- (5-18)

A ch

where

and the specified yield strength fyt is limited to

η = 117 when fc′ < 10,000 psi (70 MPa) (5-9)

fyt ≤ 130,500 psi (900 MPa) (5-19)

and

According to Li and Park (2004), the proposed equations

f c′ ⎞ 2f c′ estimated, with reasonable accuracy, the curvature ductility

η = ⎛ ------------ - + 539.4 when fc′≥ 10,000 (fc′ in psi) (5-10)

- – --------- ratio of 56 high-strength concrete columns reported in the

⎝ 648.6⎠ 15.2

literature.

Due to the emphasis placed on performance-based design,

η = 0.05(fc′ )2 – 9.54fc′ + 539.4 when fc′ ≥ 70(fc′ in MPa) more recent studies focus on quantifying the relationship

between limiting drift (or ductility ratio), axial load, and the

For columns confined by circular normal-yield-strength amount of confinement. Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002)

steel, they proposed the following developed a procedure to estimate the amount of transverse

reinforcement needed to sustain a given drift demand in

A sh A ( φ u ⁄ φ y – 33ρ l m + 22 ) f c ′ P u columns subjected to cyclic loading. Their procedure was

- = κ ------g- ----------------------------------------------------

------ - ----- --------------- – 0.006 (5-11)

sb c A ch 111 f yt φf c ′A g derived based on nonlinear static analyses, using a computer

program that incorporated analytical models for concrete

where confinement, steel strain-hardening, bar buckling, formation

and progression of plastic hinging, and anchorage slip. They

κ = 1.1 when fc′ < 11,600 psi (80 MPa) (5-12) indicated that their computer program was verified extensively

against a large volume of column test data. They proposed

and the following expression for the transverse reinforcement

area ratio ρtc needed to attain a given limiting drift ratio

κ = 1.0 when fc′ ≥ 11,600 psi (80 MPa) (5-13) under a specified level of axial load

f c′ ⎛ A g

- -------- – 1⎞ ----------- -----δ

For columns confined by rectilinear high-yield-strength 1 P

ρ tc = 14 ---- (5-20)

reinforcement (fyt ≥ 72,500 psi [ fyt ≥ 500 MPa]), they f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠ k P o

ve

proposed the following

where

A sh A g ( φ u ⁄ φ y – 30ρ l m + 22 ) f c′ P u

------- = -------

- ----------------------------------------------------- ----- --------------- (5-14)

sb c A ch η f yt φf c′ A g 2

bc

k ve = 0.15 ------- (5-21)

where sh x

f c′ P

η = 91 – -----------

- ( fc′ in psi) (5-15) ----- ≥ 0.2 (5-22)

1450 Po

ITG-4.3R-26 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

load calculated in accordance with ACI 318-05, or the axial

force associated with the formation of probable moment

resistances at the ends of the framing beams dictated by

capacity design requirements. The capacity reduction factor

may be taken as 0.9 to reflect the improved ductility in the

column due to effects of confinement.

Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002), based on a comparison of

their proposed equations with those in ACI 318-05 (Fig. 5.1),

concluded that ACI 318-05 provisions result in overly

conservative requirements for spiral columns and some

rectangular columns subjected to low levels of axial loads.

They also concluded that ACI 318-05 requirements can be

unsafe when the axial load level is above approximately 40% of

the column strength under concentric loading Po , particularly for

columns with inefficient arrangements of transverse reinforce-

Fig. 5.1—Comparison of confinement steel requirements to ment. Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002) pointed out that, unlike their

proposal by Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002). proposed equations, the New Zealand specification does not

include an efficiency parameter for the arrangement of

transverse reinforcement, resulting in overly conservative designs

Ag

- – 1 ≥ 0.3

------- (5-23) for columns with superior arrangements of reinforcement.

A ch Brachmann et al. (2004a,b) reviewed test results from 184

rectangular columns subjected to shear reversals under

The transverse area ratio ρtc in each cross-sectional direction constant axial load with axial load ratios ranging from 0 to

is computed as the ratio of total transverse steel in each direction 0.7. The database used by Brachmann et al. included tests

divided by the concrete area defined by core dimension bc carried out in Japan with high-strength concrete and high

times the vertical spacing of the transverse reinforcement s. axial load ratios. The equation proposed by Brachmann et al.

The core dimension is defined as the center-to-center was derived by analyzing the effect of confinement on the

dimension of the perimeter tie, hoop, or spiral perpendicular limiting drift ratio of members without axial load. The effect

to the confinement reinforcement under consideration. In of the axial load ratio on the effectiveness of confinement

Eq. (5-21), bc /s is the ratio of core dimension to vertical was determined by grouping test results according to the

spacing of the transverse reinforcement, and bc /hx is the ratio level of axial load and comparing the estimated drift ratio

of core dimension to the center-to-center distance between with that of members without axial load. This is illustrated in

laterally supported longitudinal reinforcement. The coefficient Fig. 5.2, which shows that increasing the level of axial load

kve reflects the efficiency of reinforcement arrangement as a results in a decrease of the limiting drift ratio. Brachmann et

function of the spacing of the transverse reinforcement along al. (2004b) proposed the following relationship between drift

the column height and the distance between laterally supported limit, axial load, and amount of confinement, as an alternative

longitudinal bars. A value kve = 1.0 represents the most efficient to Eq. (21-4) of ACI 318-05

arrangement of closely spaced circular hoops with anchored

hooks and spirals. The P/Po ratio defines the level of axial load ζDR lim ⎞ 2 f c′

relative to column concentric capacity Po, and δ defines the drift ρ tr = ⎛ -------------------- ----- (5-25)

⎝ 1 – 1.1f p⎠ f yt

ratio as relative column displacement divided by column height.

Ag and Ach are cross-sectional areas based on gross sectional

where the value for the coefficient ζ is given in Table 5.1.

dimensions and core dimensions, respectively.

The term ρtr refers to the transverse reinforcement ratio,

Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002) indicated that because the

which may be expressed in terms of the volumetric or area

story drift ratio is limited to 2.0 to 2.5% by current building

transverse reinforcement ratio, depending on the value of ζ.

codes, Eq. (5-20) can be simplified for use in high seismic

Brachman et al. (2004b) recommended modifying Eq. (5-25)

applications by assuming a permissible drift ratio of 2.5%

by replacing the axial load ratio fp by the core axial load ratio

and replacing the ratio P/Po by Pu /φPo in Eq. (5-20) and (5-22).

fpc to assure adequate confinement of the core for columns

This results in Eq. (5-24) with the limits specified as in

with thick cover

Eq. (5-22) and (5-23)

ζDR lim ⎞ 2 f c′

f c′ ⎛ A g ρ tr = ⎛ ----------------------

- ----- (5-26)

- -------- – 1⎞ ----------- ----- ⎝ 1 – 0.8f pc⎠ f yt

1 P

ρ tc = 0.35 ---- (5-24)

f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠ k P 0

ve

where fpc = P/fc′ Ach. The previous equations were calibrated

Pu is the maximum axial compressive force that can so that the probability of overestimating the limiting drift in

possibly be applied on the column during a strong earth- a column with the amount of transverse reinforcement

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-27

design Eq. (5-25) and (5-26)

Transverse Coefficient ζ, Coefficient ζ, square and

reinforcement ratio ρtr circular sections rectangular sections

ρvr 10 12

ρt 6 8

Transverse Coefficient γ,

Type of seismic reinforcement Coefficient γ, square and rectangular

application ratio ρtr circular columns columns

ρvr 0.15 0.18

Moderate

ρt 0.09 0.12

ρvr 0.25 0.30

High Fig. 5.2—Effect of axial load on column limiting drift ratio

ρt 0.15 0.20 (Brachmann et al. 2004a).

15% (one standard deviation from the mean). A comparison of

measured and calculated limiting drift ratios is presented in

Fig. 5.3. Because the equation relates the amount of confinement

to the limiting drift ratio of a column, it can be used by

designers seeking different levels of performance or expected

drift demands.

Recommendations for design for different levels of

seismic applications can be derived by specifying suitable

values for the limiting drift ratio. According to Brachmann et

al. (2004a), yielding of the specimens occurred at a drift ratio

of approximately 1%. Consequently, the difference between

the specified limiting drift ratio and a drift ratio of 1% is an

indication of the capability of a column to deform in the Fig. 5.3—Measured and calculated limiting drift ratio limit

inelastic range of response without significant loss in lateral versus volumetric confinement index cp = ρvpfyt /fc′ according

resistance. Prescriptive confinement requirements for to Eq. (5-26).

regions of moderate and high seismic applications can be

established by conservatively assuming limiting drift ratios

of 1.5 and 2.5%. The resulting design expression for the two Test data in the study by Brachmann et al. (2004a,b) had

different definitions of the transverse reinforcement ratio is compressive strengths ranging from 3000 to 17,000 psi (21

to 117 MPa); uniform factors of safety for columns were

obtained throughout the range of compressive strengths.

γ 2f ′

ρ tr = ⎛ -----------------------⎞ ----

c

- (5-27)

⎝ 1 – 0.8f pc⎠ f yt 5.4—Definition of limiting drift ratio on basis of

expected drift demand

The seismic design provisions in ASCE/SEI 7-05 (ASCE/

where the values of γ are given in Table 5.2. SEI 2006) require in Section 12.12 that beams and columns

Equation (5-27) requires the same amount of transverse of moment-resisting frames be proportioned for stiffness so

reinforcement as ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-4), in rectangular that the interstory drift demand generated by the design

columns of special moment frames with a core axial load earthquake forces is limited to 2.0% of story height for

ratio fpc of 0.4. In the case of circular columns, the same standard-occupancy buildings (Seismic Occupancy Category

amount of transverse reinforcement is required at a core axial III). The design earthquake is defined in Section 11.4.4 of

load ratio fpc of 0.35. For a rectangular column with two ASCE/SEI 7-05 as that with a seismic demand equal to 2/3

symmetric layers of reinforcement, an axial load ratio of 0.4 of the seismic demand corresponding to the maximum

corresponds approximately to the balanced failure condition. considered earthquake (MCE), which has a 2% probability

The study by Brachmann et al. (2004a and b) was based on of being exceeded in a period of 50 years. There is a proba-

data from rectangular columns. Equations (21-2) and (21-4) bility that the drift demands experienced during the life cycle

of ACI 318-05 imply that the effectiveness of rectangular of a standard occupancy structure may exceed the 2% limit

hoops is approximately 2/3 that of spiral reinforcement. established in ASCE/SEI 7-05.

Brachmann et al. (2004b) based their recommendation for Drift demand can be greater than that computed in accor-

circular columns on a similar assumption. dance with Sections 12.8.6 and 12.9.2 of ASCE/SEI 7-05

ITG-4.3R-28 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

because of the drift computation procedure that is implemented and the amount of transverse reinforcement used to confine

in ASCE/SEI 7-05. The most frequently used drift computation the concrete has been the point in the hysteresis curve

procedure in ASCE/SEI 7-05 (Section 12.8.6) involves an corresponding to a 20% reduction in the maximum lateral

elastic analysis of the building structure using design-level load that was measured. If the performance of a frame

earthquake forces. The design-level earthquake forces expected in the MCE is considered, the amount of confinement

specified in Section 12.8.3 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 are obtained must be adequate to achieve collapse prevention at drift

from an elastic design response spectrum that produces a demands approximately 50% greater than the 2% interstory

seismic response coefficient Cs (Section 12.8.1), which is drift limit established in Section 12.12 of ASCE/SEI 7-05.

inversely proportional to the response modification factor R. Experimental results from columns tested to axial load

Because proportioning the strength of the structure on the failure at the University of California (Lynn 2001; Sezen

basis of reduced earthquake forces does not reduce the drift 2002) show that specimens with significantly less transverse

demands (Shimazaki and Sozen 1984; Shimazaki 1988; reinforcement than that specified by the proposals summarized

Lepage 1997; Browning 2001; Matamoros et al. 2003), the in Section 5.3 were able to sustain drift demands before axial

reduced displacement demands computed based on the load failure exceeding 3.5% of the story height. It must be

forces specified in Section 12.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-05, with the noted, however, that all columns tested by Lynn (2001) and

inclusion of the coefficient R must be adjusted to obtain Sezen (2002) were made with normal-strength concrete and

reasonable estimates of the displacement demands caused by that there were no references found addressing the axial load

the design earthquake. This is accomplished in Sections failure of columns with high-strength concrete.

12.8.6 and 12.9.2 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 through the use of the

deflection amplification factor Cd. Current values of R and 5.5—Use of high-yield-strength reinforcement

Cd specified in Table 12.2-1 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 for special for confinement

reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames are 8 and 5.5, Because the amount of confinement required in columns is

respectively. There is a significant body of research based on proportional to the compressive strength of the concrete,

nonlinear analyses of reinforced concrete frames and physical congestion problems arise in potential plastic hinge regions

tests of small-scale specimens in earthquake simulators of columns with high-strength concrete, particularly in the

showing that these two factors are approximately equal for beam-column joints. Conversely, the amount of required

special reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames if the confinement reinforcement is inversely proportional to the

stiffnesses of the frames used in the linear analysis are yield strength of the reinforcement, which presents the possi-

calculated on the basis of cracked section properties (Shibata bility of decreasing the volume of transverse reinforcement,

and Sozen 1976; Shimazaki and Sozen 1984; Lepage 1997; thereby relieving congestion.

Browning 2001; Matamoros et al. 2004). Consequently, drift Several studies done at the University of Ottawa have

demands in special moment-resisting frames calculated investigated the use of high-strength reinforcement for the

using the R and Cd factors specified in Table 12.2-1 of confinement of high-strength concrete columns (Saatcioglu

ASCE/SEI 7-05 may underestimate the drift demand associated and Razvi 1998; Razvi and Saatcioglu 1999; Lipien and

with the design earthquake by as much as 45%. Saatcioglu 1997; Saatcioglu and Baingo 1999; Saatcioglu

Also, as hinges form in columns, the nonlinear response and Razvi 2002). The researchers tested a total of 66 nearly

tends to concentrate drift demands in the stories between full-size circular and square columns, with concrete strengths

plastic hinges in columns rather than distributing them ranging between 8700 and 18,000 psi (60 and 124 MPa), under

evenly over the height of a building, as an elastic analysis either monotonically increasing concentric compression or a

would indicate. In special reinforced concrete moment constant compression accompanied by incrementally

frames, however, the strong column-weak beam provision increasing lateral deformation reversals. Three different

guards against plastic hinges within columns from being grades of transverse reinforcement were used, with yield

close to one another, that is, plastic mechanisms over only a strengths of 60,000, 83,000, and 145,000 psi (414, 572, and

few stories, where large drifts are concentrated. 1000 MPa). The researchers concluded that, given the right

One of the criteria that must be considered in establishing combination of parameters, transverse reinforcement with

a limiting drift for the purpose of determining the amount of yield strengths up to 145,000 psi (1000 MPa) can be effective

confinement in columns is the performance objective in confining high-strength concrete columns, increasing the

outlined by design codes. The general goals of the code column lateral drift ratio up to a minimum of 5% in heavily

provisions, though not specifically stated, are to provide life loaded columns (0.43Po) and 8% in lightly loaded columns

safety in the design-level earthquake and collapse prevention (0.22Po). The researchers focused on finding how much of

for the MCE (BSSC 2004). The amount of confinement is the additional strength available in transverse reinforcement

primarily determined by the need for providing life safety in with higher nominal yield strengths could be mobilized by a

the design earthquake while considering collapse prevention relatively brittle material like high-strength concrete before

in the MCE. The drift demand from the MCE may be as high significant strength degradation. They observed that the

as 50% greater than the drift demand from the design-level effectiveness of transverse reinforcement increased with

earthquake. confinement efficiency, the volumetric ratio of steel, and the

The most common failure criterion adopted by researchers level of axial compression. The efficiency of confinement is

investigating the relationship between column performance improved by selecting a superior reinforcement arrangement,

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-29

either in the form of circular hoops or spirals, where hoop When the level of axial compression dropped to 0.22Po, the

tension results in uniform confinement pressure, or by stress in spirals did not exceed approximately 110,000 psi

selecting well-distributed longitudinal reinforcement laterally (758 MPa). Steel with 90 ksi (621 MPa) yield strength was

supported by perimeter and overlapping hoops, crossties, or effective in all columns tested. Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002)

both. According to the researchers, a square column with recommended a limit of 110 ksi (758 MPa) on the yield

12 longitudinal bars in which each bar is supported by the strength of transverse reinforcement for confinement design

corner of a hoop or the hook of a crosstie provides an when column axial compression is at least 20% of its strength

example of a superior arrangement, while a square column under concentric loading, and 90 ksi (621 MPa) otherwise.

with four corner bars tied by perimeter hoops exemplifies a Otani et al. (1998) and Otani (1995) described the use of

poor reinforcement arrangement for rectilinear reinforcement. high-strength reinforcement in the seismic design guidelines

Similarly, the spacing of transverse reinforcement along the for high-rise reinforced concrete buildings in Japan.

column height affects the efficiency of confinement quite According to Otani (1995), high yield strength is normally

significantly. It was shown that a spacing of 1/4 of the

attained by heat treatment of hot-rolled, chemically

smaller cross-sectional dimension was adequate to provide

controlled killed steel. The chemical composition of the

sufficient confinement efficiency, with reductions in efficiency

reinforcing steel must be carefully controlled to develop

occurring as the spacing approached 1/2 of the smaller

large elongations at fracture, especially when welding is

cross-sectional dimension. The confinement efficiency was

used to splice closed hoops and stirrups. Shear reinforcement

quantified empirically by Razvi and Saatcioglu (1999).

is provided in the form of rectangular hoops and stirrups with

Accordingly, the confinement efficiency parameter kve

135-degree hooks, circular or rectangular spirals, supplementary

equals 1.0 for closely spaced circular hoops or spirals, and can

ties with 135- or 90-degree hooks, or welded closed hoops

be computed by Eq. (5-24) for rectilinear reinforcement.

and stirrups. The yield strength is defined by the 0.2%

Tests of columns under concentric compression indicated permanent offset. The fracture strain is measured over a

that square columns with 12,000 to 18,000 psi (83 to 124 MPa) gauge length of eight times the nominal bar diameter, and

concrete and confinement efficiency parameter kve ≥ 0.5 must not be less than 0.05 at any region of the bar, including

experienced yielding of transverse reinforcement with yield sections where bars have been connected through welding.

strength of 145 ksi (1000 MPa) when the volumetric ratio of Four types of high-yield-strength bars were developed in

reinforcement was approximately 2%. Circular columns Japan as part of the New RC project for use as transverse

with similar properties required a smaller volumetric ratio of reinforcement, with yield strengths ranging from 99,000 to

1.3% to trigger the yielding of 145 ksi (1000 MPa) reinforcement 185,000 psi (683 to 1276 MPa). These are: 1) UHY685;

when spiral reinforcement (kve = 1.0) was used. The yielding 2) KSS785; 3) SPR785; and 4) SBPD1275/1420 steel bars.

of high-strength transverse reinforcement was recorded at or

Grade 685 steel bars—Mechanical characteristics of

immediately after column strength, often just before the

UHY685 reinforcement (Hokuetsu Metal Co. 1990) are:

onset of significant strength degradation. The following

a) minimum yield strength of 99,000 psi (683 MPa); b) minimum

expression was suggested by Razvi and Saatcioglu (1999)

tensile strength of 128,000 psi (883 MPa); and c) minimum

for the computation of transverse steel stress at or shortly after

the attainment of strength under concentric compression fracture strain of 0.10. The nominal diameters of these bars

are 0.35, 0.39, 0.50, and 0.63 in. (9.00, 9.53, 12.7, and

15.9 mm), which give nominal cross-sectional areas of 0.10,

⎛ k ve ρ tc ⎞ 0.11, 0.20, and 0.31 in.2 (63.6, 71.3, 126.7, and 198.6

-⎟ ≤ f

f s = E s ⎜ 0.0025 + 0.213 ------------- (5-28) mm2), respectively (Otani 1995). According to Otani et al.

⎝ ′ ⎠ yt

f co

(1998), a second type of Grade 685 reinforcement

(USD685B) was developed for use as longitudinal reinforce-

where ρtc is the area ratio of transverse reinforcement; fco ′ is ment in plastic hinge regions. The yield strength of

the in-place strength of unconfined concrete in the column in USD685B reinforcement must range between 99,000 and

psi (often taken as 0.85fc′ ); and Es is the modulus of elasticity 110,000 psi (683 and 758 MPa), and the ratio of yield

of reinforcing steel. strength to tensile strength must be less than or equal to 0.8.

According to Razvi and Saatcioglu (2002), the upper limit This type of reinforcement must have a strain of at least

on the yield strength of steel may be taken as 200,000 psi 0.014 at the upper-bound yield stress of 110,000 psi (758 MPa)

(1379 MPa) because this was the maximum yield strength of to ensure an adequate yield plateau.

transverse reinforcement used (Nagashima et al. 1992) in the KSS785 steel bars—Mechanical characteristics of

high-strength concrete column tests evaluated. KSS785 reinforcement (Kobe Steel Ltd. 1989; Sumitomo

The level of axial load was found to be another parameter Electrical Industries Ltd. 1989; Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd.

that affects the effectiveness of high-strength transverse 1989) are: a) minimum yield strength of 114,000 psi (786 MPa);

reinforcement for columns subjected to lateral loading b) minimum tensile strength of 135,000 psi (931 MPa); and

(Saatcioglu and Baingo 1999). Spirals with 145 ksi (1000 MPa) c) minimum fracture strain of 0.08. Nominal diameters of these

yield strength developed their tensile strength in columns bars are 0.24, 0.31, 0.38, and 0.50 in. (6.35, 7.94, 9.53, and

with 18,000 psi (124 MPa) concrete before significant 12.7 mm), which give nominal cross-sectional areas of 0.05,

strength decay, when the level of axial load was 0.43Po. 0.08, 0.11, and 0.20 in.2 (31.7, 49.5, 71.3, and 126.7 mm2).

ITG-4.3R-30 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

strength of the longitudinal reinforcement to 102,000 psi

(703 MPa) and the concrete compressive strength to 8700 psi

(60 MPa). The maximum yield strength of the transverse rein-

forcement allowed by the document is 189,000 psi (1303 MPa).

The database used in the study by Brachmann et al.

(2004a,b) had specimens with transverse reinforcement

yield strengths ranging between 37,000 and 183,000 psi (255

and 1262 MPa), and volumetric transverse reinforcement

ratios ranging from 0.17 to 6.64%. Because specimens with

transverse reinforcement with yield strengths of 180,000 psi

(1241 MPa) had significantly lower test/calculated ratios,

they recommended establishing an upper limit of 120,000 psi

(827 MPa) on the yield strength of the transverse reinforce-

ment. The ratio of measured to calculated limiting drift ratio

Fig. 5.4—Ratio of measured to calculated limiting drift according to the equation proposed by Brachmann et al.

ratio versus yield strength of the transverse reinforcement (2004b) versus the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement

according to Eq. (5-26). (Note: Yield strength of transverse is shown in Fig. 5.4, where the yield strength of transverse

reinforcement was limited to 120,000 psi [827 MPa] in the

reinforcement was limited to 120,000 psi (827 MPa) in the

calculation of the limiting drift ratio regardless of the actual

yield strength.) calculation of the limiting drift ratio regardless of the actual

yield strength. The broken line in Fig. 5.4 represents a linear

regression between the ratio of measured to calculated drift

SPR785 steel bars—Mechanical characteristics of SPR785 (computed limiting the yield strength of the reinforcement to

reinforcement (Tokyo Steel Co. 1994) are: a) minimum 120,000 psi [827 MPa]) and the actual yield strength of the

yield strength of 114,000 psi (786 MPa); b) minimum tensile reinforcement.

strength of 135,000 psi (931 MPa); and c) minimum fracture The suggestion by Brachmann et al. (2004a,b) to limit the

strain of 0.10. Nominal diameters of these bars are 0.38, yield strength of the transverse reinforcement to 120,000 psi

0.50, and 0.63 in. (9.53, 12.7, and 15.9 mm), which give (827 MPa) is consistent with the observations by Saatcioglu

nominal cross-sectional areas of 0.11, 0.20, and 0.31 in.2 et al. (1998) and Kato et al. (1998) that the effective

(71.3, 126.7, and 198.6 mm2), respectively. confining pressure decreases and the probability of buckling

SBPD1275/1420 steel bars—Two producers (Neutren Co. of the longitudinal reinforcement increases with increasing

Ltd. 1985; Kawasake Steel Techno-wire Co. 1990) manu- hoop spacing. Similarly, the NZS 3101 design provision

facture Type D SBPD(N/L) 1275/1420 bars conforming to establishes an upper limit of 116,000 psi (800 MPa) for the

the requirements of the Japanese Standards Association nominal yield strength of the transverse reinforcement.

(1994) JIS G 3137, “Small Size-Deformed Steel Bars for

Prestressed Concrete,” which requires: a) a minimum yield 5.6—Maximum hoop spacing requirements

strength of 185,000 psi (1276 MPa); b) a minimum tensile for columns

strength of 206,000 psi (1420 MPa); and c) a minimum Section 21.4.4.2 of ACI 318-05 allows a maximum

fracture strain of 0.05. The JIS G 3137 specification was spacing of transverse reinforcement in regions of potential

instituted following the establishment of ISO 6934 (1991) plastic hinging of 1/4 of the minimum member dimension,

(Steel for the Prestressing of Concrete; Part 3: Quenched and six times the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement, and

Tempered Wire; and Part 5: Hot-Rolled Steel Bars with or 4 in. (102 mm). The 4 in. (102 mm) spacing requirement may

without Subsequent Processing), but the JIS requires more be increased linearly up to 6 in. (152 mm) as the spacing of

rigorous control of the chemical composition of the steel. crossties or legs of overlapping hoops decreases from 14 to

Furthermore, the amount of impurities in SBPD1275/1420 8 in. (356 to 203 mm). The ICBO ER-5536 document (2001)

high-strength shear reinforcement is controlled more rigorously suggests that the maximum spacing of hoops within plastic

than required by the JIS G 3137 specification. The minimum hinge regions should be 5 in. (127 mm). The rationale for this

strain at fracture is set to 0.07 because the bars are normally provision stems from the fact that in the experimental

bent either 90 or 135 degrees at the corners and ends. research used as the basis for the aforementioned document

Nominal bar diameters available are 0.25, 0.28, 0.35, 0.42, (C4 Committee 2000), satisfactory behavior was observed in

and 0.50 in. (6.4, 7.1, 9.0, 10.7, and 12.7 mm), which corre- specimens with a maximum hoop spacing of 6 in. (152 mm).

spond to nominal cross-sectional areas of 0.05, 0.06, 0.10, 0.14, Englekirk and Pourzanjani indicate in the C4 report (2000),

and 0.19 in.2 (30, 40, 64, 90, and 125 mm2), respectively. however, that test results by Azizinamini et al. (1994)

Otani et al. (1998) described the guidelines for the design contradict this observation. In specimens with an axial load

of high-rise structures using high-strength materials devel- ratio of 0.2 and concrete compressive strength of approximately

oped as part of the research initiative sponsored by the 14,500 psi (100 MPa), Azizinamini et al. observed that the

Ministry of Construction in Japan (Japan Institute of mode of failure changed from yielding of the transverse

Construction Engineering 1993). According to Otani et al. reinforcement to buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-31

as the hoop spacing was increased from 1.62 in. (41 mm)

(which represents a hoop spacing of d/6.6, 2.2 longitudinal

bar diameters, and 4.32 transverse bar diameters) to 2.62 in.

(67 mm) (which represents a hoop spacing of d/4.1, 3.5

longitudinal bar diameters, and seven transverse bar diameters),

and the strength of the transverse reinforcement from 60,000

to 120,000 psi (414 to 827 MPa). The database used by

Brachmann et al. (2004a,b) had columns with hoop spacing

ranging between 1 and 17 in. (25 to 432 mm). When specimens

with concrete compressive strengths of 5000 psi (34 MPa) or

above only were considered, however, the majority of the

data had a maximum hoop spacing below 4 in. (102 mm).

The data do not show a decrease in the factor of safety with

increased spacing, and two specimens with hoop spacings of

approximately 10 in. (254 mm) showed adequate performance.

On this limited basis, there seems to be no conclusive Fig. 5.5—Limiting drift ratio versus confinement index cp

experimental evidence justifying the reduction in maximum for beam specimens in database used by Brachmann et al.

hoop spacing from 6 to 5 in. (152 to 127 mm), although the (2004a).

paucity of experimental data with maximum hoop spacing

above 4 in. (102 mm) is a concern.

increases in displacement ductility. Ghosh and Saatcioglu

(1994) attributed the low deformability of the beams with

5.7—Confinement requirements for high-strength

lower amounts of transverse reinforcement to the lack of

concrete beams

The only confinement requirements for concrete in plastic confinement of the concrete in the compression zone.

hinge regions of beams established in ACI 318-05 are in Brachmann et al. (2004a) proposed an equation for the

terms of the maximum spacing allowed between hoops. minimum amount of transverse reinforcement for adequate

confinement of reinforced concrete beams based on experi-

Unlike in the case of ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-2) to (21-4), for

mental results. For members without axial load, the

columns, there are no equations that set the minimum

minimum amount of confining reinforcement is given by

amount of transverse reinforcement that must be used in

beams. Such a lack of requirement is of some concern for

2f ′ f c′

high-strength concrete beams because test results previously ρ vr = ( 12DR lim ) ----c- ≥ 0.12 ----

- (5-30)

summarized show that the limiting drift ratio of beams is f yt f yt

proportional to the volumetric confinement index cp (Fig. 5.5).

The data in Fig. 5.5 indicate that to maintain a level of Equation (5-30) was calibrated so that the probability of

deformability, the product of ρvr fyt must increase with the overestimating the limiting drift in a beam with the amount

concrete compressive strength. of transverse reinforcement provided in accordance to

Ghosh and Saatcioglu (1994) summarized test results from Eq. (5-30) would be 15% for the data set used (one standard

high-strength concrete beams under monotonic and cyclic deviation from the mean). Figure 5.5 shows the measured

loading by several researchers. Based on tests by Fajardo and limiting drift ratios and those calculated with Eq. (5-30) for

Pastor (Pastor et al. 1984) under monotonic loading, they 62 specimens with fp ≤ 0.1, and concrete compressive

concluded that the addition of lateral tie steel increases the strengths ranging from 3000 to 15,000 psi (21 to 103 MPa).

displacement ductility of beams provided that the volumetric The average ratio of measured to calculated drift was 1.6,

confinement index is greater than 0.11. The definition of the with a coefficient of variation of 0.26. Based on the sample

volumetric confinement index used by Ghosh and Saatcioglu, of 62 specimens considered, the probability of underestimating

however, included the effects of the compression reinforcement the limiting drift of beam elements with Eq. (5-30) was

approximately 10%.

Equation (5-30) requires a higher amount of transverse

f

cp = (ρvr + ρ′) ----yt- (5-29) reinforcement for high-strength concrete beams than that

f c′ calculated using the current ACI 318-05 approach of propor-

tioning the transverse reinforcement to resist, in most prac-

A volumetric confinement index of 0.11, calculated as tical circumstances, 100% of the shear demand (ACI 318-05,

defined in Eq. (5-29), corresponded to a displacement Section 21.3.4.2). A comparison based on assumptions of a

ductility of approximately 3. For beams with volumetric span length to beam depth ratio of 10, an effective depth

confinement indexes below 0.11, increasing the volumetric equal to 90% of the beam height, a width-height ratio of the

confinement index in the plastic hinge region resulted in core equal to 2, and a limiting drift ratio of 2% indicates that

small increases in displacement ductility. In cases where the the amount of reinforcement would increase by a factor of

volumetric confinement index exceeded 0.11, increasing the approximately 0.2fc′ /ρl fyl , where ρl is the longitudinal

volumetric confinement index resulted in significant reinforcement ratio and fyl is the yield strength of the longitu-

ITG-4.3R-32 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

dinal reinforcement. The difference is most significant for for high-strength concrete beams

lightly reinforced beams. For beams with normal-strength According to Section 21.3.3.2 of ACI 318-05, the

concrete, the amount of transverse reinforcement would be maximum hoop spacing in flexural members of special

approximately the same as required by the current code, moment frames must not exceed d/4, eight times the diameter

while in the case of beams with high-strength concrete, the of the smallest longitudinal bar, 24 times the diameter of the

amount of transverse reinforcement would increase by as hoop bars, and 12 in. (305 mm). A similar spacing requirement

much as a factor of 4. Before a code change is implemented, is established in Section 21.12.4.2 of ACI 318-05 for beams

such an increase in the amount of transverse reinforcement of intermediate moment frames. Although the upper limit for

should be justified on the basis of experimental evidence the hoop spacing is 12 in. (305 mm), it is important to note

showing inadequate performance of high-strength concrete that the requirements related to bar size and d/4 are likely to

beams under cyclic loading. result in significantly smaller upper limits on spacing.

Experimental research on column collapse indicates that Consequently, the 12 in. (305 mm) spacing limit is not the

vertical load-carrying capacity is lost soon after the lateral controlling criterion for most practical cases. For instance, a

load-carrying capacity has degraded to zero (Yoshimura and cross section with an effective depth of 24 in. (610 mm), No. 7

Nakamura 2002; Elwood and Moehle 2005), and that the longitudinal bars, and No. 3 hoops would have a maximum

lateral drift at axial failure decreases with axial load. Elwood hoop spacing of 6 in. (152 mm), significantly lower than the

(2002) and Elwood and Moehle (2005) developed a model nominal 12 in. (305 mm) limit established by ACI 318-05.

consistent with the observation from experimental research The ICBO ER-5536 document (2001) proposed an upper

that the drift ratio at axial failure is inversely proportional to limit of 5 in. (127 mm) for the stirrup spacing in beams,

the axial load demand. From this research, it follows that the which implies a significant reduction from the 12 in. (305 mm)

risk of catastrophic failure at drifts slightly higher than the limit currently adopted in ACI 318-05. The paucity of

limiting drift ratio (defined as that corresponding to a 20% experimental results from beams with hoop spacing larger

reduction in strength) decreases as the amount of axial load than 4 in. (102 mm) is a concern in determining whether the

on the member decreases. For this reason, it is reasonable to reduction from 12 to 5 in. (305 to 127 mm) is justified.

adopt a lower margin of safety for proportioning the amount The high-strength concrete beams tested by Pastor et al.

of transverse reinforcement needed to reach a target limiting (1984) that provided the basis for the study by Ghosh and

drift ratio in beams than in columns. Brachmann et al. Saatcioglu (1994) had stirrup spacing ranging from 3 to 12 in.

(2004a) provided expressions with various probabilities of (76 to 305 mm). The width of the test region ranged between

overestimating the limiting drift ratio. The expression 6.56 and 7.38 in. (167 to 187 mm), and the depth was

corresponding to the mean response (such that the probability approximately 12 in. (305 mm). Beams with a hoop spacing

of overestimating the limiting drift ratio in a beam with the of 12 in. (305 mm) exhibited the worst performance, with

amount of transverse reinforcement provided in accordance ductility ratios on the order of 2 or 3. All beams with a stirrup

to Eq. (5-31) would be 50%) is given by spacing of 6 in. (152 mm) or less exhibited displacement

ductilities higher than 4. This observation raises concerns

about the 12 in. (305 mm) spacing limit adopted by ACI 318-05

2f ′ f′

ρ vr = ( 8DR lim ) ----c- ≥ 0.12 ----c- (5-31) particularly because these beams were not subjected to the

f yt f yt

deterioration of the core that would occur under load

reversals. The conclusions by Ghosh and Saatcioglu (1994)

Because the volume of transverse reinforcement required about the effects of confinement also seem to indicate that there

by Eq. (5-31) is 44% of that required by Eq. (5-30), the is no compelling reason to have different procedures to

amount of transverse reinforcement required in beams is determine the amounts of confinement in beams and columns.

closer to that calculated using the approach in ACI 318-05.

A comparison based on assumptions of a span length to 5.9—Recommendations

beam depth ratio of 10, an effective depth equal to 90% of There are several recommendations deemed necessary for

the beam height, a width-height ratio of the core equal to 2, proper confinement of sections with high-strength concrete.

and a limiting drift ratio of 2% indicates that the amount of Research by Brachman et al. (2004a,b), and Saatcioglu and

reinforcement would increase by a factor of approximately Razvi (2002) has indicated that the current provisions for

0.09fc′ /ρl fyl where ρl is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio confinement in ACI 318-05, even though the effect of axial

and fyl is the yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement. load is neglected, result in sufficient amounts of confinement

In this case, the amount of transverse reinforcement required to achieve limiting drift ratios of at least 2% in most cases.

by Eq. (5-31) in lightly reinforced beams (ρl = 0.01) would The main disadvantage of the current provisions is that the

range between approximately 1/2 the amount currently safety afforded is not uniform for all columns, and the

required by ACI 318-05 for beams with normal-strength amount of transverse reinforcement required in members

concrete and two times the amount calculated using ACI 318-05 with lower levels of axial load is overly conservative.

for beams with high-strength concrete. Although excessive conservatism does not pose a safety

concern, it creates significant congestion problems that

5.8—Maximum hoop spacing requirements hinder the use of high-strength concrete.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-33

Experimental research shows that a viable alternative to columns with circular geometry shall be in the

reduce congestion in plastic hinge regions is the use of high- form of spirals or hoops, for which kve = 1.0. Rein-

strength transverse reinforcement. There is consensus among forcement for columns with rectangular geometry

researchers that there should be an upper limit to the nominal shall be provided in the form of single or overlap-

yield strength of the transverse reinforcement used for ping hoops. Crossties of the same bar size and

confinement purposes of approximately 120 ksi (827 MPa). spacing as the hoops shall be permitted. Each end

The experimental data that were reviewed did not of the crosstie shall engage a peripheral longitu-

substantiate the need to reduce the maximum hoop spacing dinal reinforcing bar. Consecutive crossties shall

in beams or columns. Although there was a greater concern be alternated end for end along the longitudinal

in the case of beams because the upper limit for hoop spacing reinforcement. The parameter kve for rectangular

established by ACI 318-05 is 12 in. (305 mm), a closer hoop reinforcement shall be determined by Eq. (5-35)

review shows that spacing limits in terms of the diameter of

the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement should be 0.15b

adequate to prevent buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement. k ve = ---------------c ≤ 1.0 (5-35)

sh x

Research results and experimental evidence indicate that the

amount of confinement afforded by the current spacing limits

should be sufficient to achieve drift ratios (approximately (c)If the thickness of the concrete outside the

similar to the rotation of the plastic hinge in units of radians) confining transverse reinforcement exceeds 4 in.,

on the order of 0.02 without catastrophic failure. For these additional transverse reinforcement shall be

reasons, it was deemed unnecessary to introduce confinement provided at a spacing not exceeding 12 in.

requirements for beams with high-strength concrete. Concrete cover on the additional reinforcement

The following recommended modifications to ACI 318-05, shall not exceed 4 in.

presented in greater detail in Chapter 10 of this document, In SI units:

are made for adequate confinement of high-strength concrete • The use of transverse reinforcement with a specified

columns in special moment frames (SMF). The basis for the yield strength of up to 830 MPa should be allowed to

proposed equations is the approach by Saatcioglu and Razvi meet the confinement requirements for high-strength

(2002), with some minor conservative modifications to concrete columns. The yield strength of the reinforce-

simplify their use. ment can be measured by the offset method of ASTM A

In inch-pound units: 370 using 0.2% permanent offset.

• The use of transverse reinforcement with a specified • Transverse reinforcement required as follows in (a)

yield strength of up to 120,000 psi shall be allowed to through (c) shall be provided unless a larger amount is

meet the confinement requirements for high-strength required by ACI 318M-05, Sections 21.4.3.2 or 21.4.5:

concrete columns. The yield strength of the reinforce- (a)The area ratio of transverse reinforcement shall not

ment can be measured by the offset method of ASTM A be less than that required by Eq. (5-36)

370 using 0.2% permanent offset.

• Transverse reinforcement required as follows in (a) f c′ ⎛ A g 1 Pu

- -------- – 1⎞ ----------- -----------

ρ t = 0.35 ---- (5-36)

through (c) shall be provided unless a larger amount is f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠ k A g f c′

ve

required by ACI 318-05, Sections 21.4.3.2 or 21.4.5:

(a)The area ratio of transverse reinforcement shall not

be less than that required by Eq. (5-32) where

f c′ ⎛ A g 1 Pu Ag

- -------- – 1⎞ ----------- -----------

ρ t = 0.35 ---- (5-32) - – 1 ≥ 0.3

------- (5-37)

⎝

f yt A ch ⎠ k A g f c′

A ch

ve

and

where

Pu

Ag

- – 1 ≥ 0.3 ----------- ≥ 0.2 (5-38)

-------

A ch

(5-33) A g f c′

or rectangular geometry. Reinforcement for

columns with circular geometry shall be in the

Pu

----------- ≥ 0.2 (5-34) form of spirals or hoops, for which kve =1.0. Rein-

A g f c′ forcement for columns with rectangular geometry

shall be provided in the form of single or overlap-

(b)Transverse reinforcement shall have either circular ping hoops. Crossties of the same bar size and

or rectangular geometry. Reinforcement for spacing as the hoops shall be permitted. Each end

ITG-4.3R-34 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

of the crosstie shall engage a peripheral longitudinal intermediate moment frames must be proportioned so that

reinforcing bar. Consecutive crossties shall be alter- drift ratios are kept below 1.5%. This assumption is consistent

nated end for end along the longitudinal reinforce- with the fact that the R factor for the IMF traditionally has

ment. The parameter kve for rectangular hoop been set by building codes to approximately 60 to 75% of

reinforcement shall be determined by Eq. (5-39). that for a SMF. For example, according to ASCE 7-05, the R

factor for an IMF is 5, while that for a SMF is 8. If the R

0.15b factor is taken as a measure of the ductility demands

k ve = ---------------c ≤ 1.0 (5-39) (including inherent overstrength) and it is assumed that the

sh x maximum nonlinear displacement is approximately equal to

the maximum displacement of a linear system (Shimazaki

(c)If the thickness of the concrete outside the 1988; Lepage 1997; Browning 2001) (implying that Cd ≈ R),

confining transverse reinforcement exceeds 100 mm, the difference in R factors implies that the SMF is expected

additional transverse reinforcement shall be to experience nearly 8/5 (or 1.6 times) as much plastic rotation

provided at a spacing not exceeding 300 mm. demands as the IMF. Lower plastic rotation demands imply

Concrete cover on the additional reinforcement lower strain demands on the concrete and a reduction in the

shall not exceed 100 mm. amount of confinement reinforcement required. This reduction

The term hx is defined as the maximum horizontal spacing is indirectly recognized in these recommendations by using

of hoop or crosstie legs perpendicular to bc , in. 1.5% drift ratio instead of 2.5% when deriving the requirements

Section 21.12.3 of ACI 318-05 requires that the design for confinement reinforcement for the IMF. To further

shear strength φVn of beams and columns of intermediate simplify the calculation, a value of kve = 0.5 is adopted for

moment frames be no less than: a) the sum of the shear asso- columns with rectilinear transverse reinforcement. Considering

ciated with development of nominal moment strengths of the that a value of kve = 1.0 is used in columns with spiral reinforce-

member at each restrained end of the clear span and the shear ment, this assumption implies that the rectilinear confining

calculated for factored gravity loads; and b) the maximum reinforcement arrangement being used is 71% as effective as

shear obtained from design load combinations that include that of spiral reinforcement.

E, with E assumed to be twice that prescribed by the The following changes to ACI 318-05 are recommended

governing code for earthquake-resistant design. for columns of IMFs. In inch-pound units:

If the dimensions of a column are maintained constant, the • The use of transverse reinforcement with a specified

ratio of axial load demand to balanced failure load decreases yield strength of up to 120,000 psi shall be allowed to

as concrete compressive strength in the column increases. meet the confinement requirements for high-strength

Under the current design provisions in Section 21.12.3 of concrete columns. The yield strength of the reinforce-

ACI 318-05, the amount of transverse reinforcement ment can be measured by the offset method of ASTM A

increases with the nominal flexural strength of columns, 370 using 0.2% permanent offset;

which decreases as the ratio of axial load to balanced load • For columns with concrete compressive strength greater

decreases (assuming that the column is not compression than 8000 psi and rectilinear transverse reinforcement, the

controlled). For this reason, it is possible that the amount of area ratio of transverse reinforcement shall not be less

transverse reinforcement required by the aforementioned than that required by Eq. (5-40)

provision be similar or even less for columns with high-

strength concrete than it is for columns with similar dimensions f c′ ⎛ A g Pu

made with normal-strength concrete. This is inconsistent - -------- – 1⎞ -----------

ρ c = 0.3 ---- (5-40)

⎝

f yt A ch ⎠ A g f c′

with the conclusions from the literature review presented in

Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of this report, which indicate that the

amount of confinement needed for ductile behavior in columns where

increases with increasing concrete compressive strength.

To prevent the sudden failure of columns with high- Ag

- – 1 ≥ 0.3

------- (5-41)

strength concrete in intermediate moment frames (IMF), it is A ch

recommended that a minimum amount of confinement

reinforcement be added to the provisions in the code. The and

confinement reinforcement requirement for IMF columns in

ITG-4.3R is based on a design expression developed by

Pu

Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002), and modified by ACI ITG 4 to ----------- ≥ 0.2 (5-42)

facilitate its use for design. One of the key assumptions A g f c′

adopted by ACI ITG-4 in deriving this requirement is that a

20% reduction in lateral strength at a drift ratio of 1.5% • For columns with concrete compressive strength

corresponds to a tolerable level of damage for intermediate greater than 8000 psi and transverse reinforcement in

moment frames. This criterion is related to the level of the form of circular hoops or spirals, the area ratio of

damage deemed reasonable for this type of a lateral-force- transverse reinforcement shall not be less than that

resisting system, and should not be interpreted to mean that required by Eq. (5-43)

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-35

f ′ Ag Pu Pu

ρ c = 0.2 ----c- ⎛ -------

- – 1⎞ ----------- (5-43) ----------- ≥ 0.2 (5-51)

f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠ A g f c′ A g f c′

REINFORCED CONCRETE FLEXURAL MEMBERS

In flexural members made with high-strength concrete,

Ag

- – 1 ≥ 0.3

------- (5-44) the strength of the paste is similar to or higher than that of the

A ch aggregates. As a result, cracks tend to propagate through the

aggregates and have a smoother surface than in normal-

and strength concrete (ACI Committee 363 1992). A smoother

crack surface reduces the effect of aggregate interlock on

Pu shear strength, which theoretically implies a reduction in the

----------- ≥ 0.2 (5-45) concrete component of the total shear strength.

A g f c′

The effect of compressive strength on the shear force

carried by the transverse reinforcement can be analyzed

In SI units: using a variable angle truss model (Fig. 6.1). The equilib-

• The use of transverse reinforcement with a specified rium equations for a variable angle truss model with a

yield strength of up to 830 MPa should be allowed to uniform compression field (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee

meet the confinement requirements for high-strength 445 1998) indicate that the average shear stress carried by

concrete columns. The yield strength of the reinforce- the truss mechanism is given by

ment can be measured by the offset method of ASTM A

370 using 0.2% permanent offset;

Vs Av fs j 1

• For columns with concrete compressive strength greater v s = --------

- = ----------

- ------------- (6-1)

than 55 MPa and rectilinear transverse reinforcement, the bw d b w s tan α t

area ratio of transverse reinforcement shall not be less

than that required by the following equation where j is the ratio of internal lever arm (the distance

between the tension force in the reinforcement and the

f c′ ⎛ A g Pu compression force carried by the concrete) to the effective

- -------- – 1⎞ -----------

ρ c = 0.3 ---- (5-46) depth, and αt is the angle of inclination of the compressive

f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠ A g f c′

strut. Equation (6-1) shows that if all other parameters in a

beam remain constant, the shear stress carried by the truss

where mechanism increases as the angle of inclination of the strut

αt decreases. The same model indicates that the compressive

Ag stress in the struts of the compression field fc is given by

- – 1 ≥ 0.3

------- (5-47)

A ch

vs

f c = --------------------------

- (6-2)

and cos α t sin α t

----------- ≥ 0.2 (5-48)

A g f c′ increases as the average shear stress vs increases and the

angle of inclination of the struts αt decreases. These two

• For columns with concrete compressive strength equations show that, on the basis of a variable angle truss

greater than 55 MPa and transverse reinforcement in model, it should be expected that if concrete strength

the form of circular hoops or spirals, the area ratio of increases, a truss mechanism with a shallower angle of

transverse reinforcement shall not be less than that inclination of the struts can be developed due to the higher

required by the following equation

f c′ ⎛ A g Pu

- -------- – 1⎞ -----------

ρ c = 0.2 ---- (5-49)

⎝

f yt A ch ⎠ A g f c′

where

Ag

- – 1 ≥ 0.3

------- (5-50)

A ch

Fig. 6.1—Variable angle truss model with uniform compression

and field.

ITG-4.3R-36 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Fig. 6.2—Effect of different parameters on test/estimate ratios for shear strength using

ACI 318-05 Eq. (11-3). Data set compiled by Reineck et al. (2003). (Note: The calculated

ACI shear strengths did not consider the limit of 100 psi (8.3 MPa) on the term f c′ . The

dashed line in each figure represents linear regression best fit of the data.)

V c = ⎛ 1.9 f c′ + 2500ρ w --------

V u d⎞

- b w d ≥ 3.5 f c′ b w d ( f c′ in psi )

in the strut angle leads to an increase in the shear force ⎝ Mu ⎠

ACI 318 Eq. (11-5)

carried by the reinforcement, increasing the effectiveness of

V c = ⎛ 0.16 f c′ + 17.2ρ w --------

V u d⎞

- b w d ≥ 0.29 f c′ b w d ( f c′ in MPa )

the transverse reinforcement. ⎝ Mu ⎠

After inclined cracking occurs, the force carried by the

concrete is expected to decrease with increasing compressive Test results presented in Fig. 6.2 and 6.3 are from the data-

strength due to reduced aggregate interlock. The opposite base of shear tests developed by Reineck et al. (2003).

occurs with the force carried by the reinforcement through

Although the figures indicate that there is no bias with

the truss mechanism, which is expected to increase due to the

respect to the compressive strength of concrete, they show a

higher strength of the concrete in the struts of the web. Conse-

quently, one of the most significant concerns in calculating the significant problem for members with light amounts of

shear strength of members with high-strength concrete is longitudinal reinforcement.

preventing the sudden failure of members with relatively small Collins and Kuchma (1999), Nilson (1994), Ahmad et al.

amounts of transverse reinforcement, for which the maximum (1986), and Ahmad and Lue (1987) point out that this

shear force that can be carried by the truss mechanism is problem is of most significance for lightly reinforced slender

similar to or smaller than the shear force corresponding to beams with high-strength concrete. Figures 6.2 and 6.3 also

inclined cracking. In members with high amounts of transverse show that the shear strength of members without transverse

reinforcement, theory suggests that the reduction in the shear reinforcement may be affected by the effective depth of the

force carried by the concrete is offset by an increase in the member (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445 1998). Although

effectiveness of the transverse reinforcement. there is considerable debate about the proper model to quantify

the effect of size (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445 1998),

6.1—Shear strength of flexural members without Collins et al. (1993) stated that tests of high-strength

shear reinforcement

Figures 6.2 and 6.3 show the effects of different parameters concrete beams conducted by Kuchma et al. (1997) showed

on the test/calculated ratio obtained with Eq. (11-3) and (11-5) that this effect is not significant if longitudinal reinforcement

of ACI 318-05 for nonprestressed beams without transverse is distributed throughout the depth of the member. The report

reinforcement by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445 (1998) summarizes

several equations that have been proposed to more accurately

V c = 2 f c′ b w d (f c′ in psi) reflect the effects of compressive strength, longitudinal

ACI 318 Eq. (11-3) reinforcement ratio, and effective depth on shear strength of

V c = 0.17 f c′ b w d (f c′ in MPa) members without transverse reinforcement.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-37

Fig. 6.3—Effect of different parameters on test/estimate ratios for shear strength using

ACI 318-05 Eq. (11-5). Data set compiled by Reineck et al. (2003). (Note: The calculated

ACI shear strengths did not consider the limit of 100 psi (8.3 MPa) on the term f c′ . The

dashed line in each figure represents linear regression best fit of the data.)

In seismic design, most flexural members are required to nominal shear stress of 50 psi (0.34 MPa), multiplied by the

have transverse reinforcement and thus the effect of size is factor fc′ /5000 ≤ 3, fc′ in psi ( fc′ /35 ≤ 3 [fc′ in MPa]), was

not a significant concern. Members in which transverse provided to prevent sudden shear failures at the onset of

reinforcement is not used are primarily slabs and footings, inclined cracking. The use of the factor fc′ /5000 ≤ 3 resulted

and it is unlikely that such members with large effective in a step-wise increase in the amount of transverse reinforce-

depths and high-strength concrete would be used in high ment with compressive strength, requiring that the product

seismic applications. of the transverse reinforcement ratio and the yield strength of

the transverse reinforcement (ρt fyt) be at least 50 psi (0.34 MPa)

6.2—Effect of compressive strength on inclined for concrete compressive strengths below 10,000 psi (69 MPa),

cracking load of flexural members and double that amount (ρt fyt = 100 psi [0.69 MPa]) for

ACI 318-89 (ACI Committee 318 1989) placed an upper concrete compressive strengths slightly higher than 10,000 psi

limit of 100 psi (8.3 MPa) on the term f c′ for calculating (69 MPa). The amount of transverse reinforcement increased

the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams, joists, and linearly with compressive strength up to a maximum ρt fyt of

slabs. This upper limit was based on experimental results 150 psi (1.03 MPa) for a concrete compressive strength of

(Mphonde and Frantz 1984; Elzanaty et al. 1986), which 15,000 psi (103 MPa). Experimental results by Roller and

indicated that the ratio of measured to calculated inclined Russell (1990) showed that the amount of transverse reinforce-

cracking load in beams increased with the compressive strength ment that resulted in a nominal shear stress of 150 psi

of concrete at a lower rate than indicated by Eq. (11-3) or (1.03 MPa) was barely sufficient to ensure a safe estimate of

(11-5) of ACI 318-89. Similar behavior was observed in a strength using the ACI 318-89 equation for shear strength

study on the shear strength of high-strength concrete beams (Fig. 6.4). Based on experimental results by several authors

without transverse reinforcement by Thorenfeldt and (Johnson and Ramirez 1989; Ozcebe et al. 1999; Hofbeck et

Drangsholt (1990). The inclined cracking load remained al. 1969; Mattock et al. 1976; Walraven et al. 1987; Roller

almost constant in spite of an increase in compressive and Russell 1990), a new form of ACI 318, Eq. (11-13), was

strength from 11,300 to 14,200 psi (78 to 98 MPa). introduced in ACI 318-02 to estimate the minimum amount

These and other test results raised concerns about the shear of transverse reinforcement in beams, with the goals of

strength of high-strength concrete flexural members with increasing the safety of the estimates and eliminating the

small amounts of transverse reinforcement. ACI 318-89 steep increase that occurred at a concrete compressive

allowed the limit of 100 psi (8.3 MPa) on the term f c′ to be strength of 10,000 psi (69 MPa). The minimum amount of

exceeded if transverse reinforcement sufficient to carry a transverse reinforcement is given by

ITG-4.3R-38 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

shear strength of the beams with 10,500 psi (72 MPa)

concrete in the study by Roller and Russell (1990) was not

very sensitive to the nominal strength provided by the trans-

verse reinforcement, while the opposite was true for the

beams with 18,200 psi (125 MPa) concrete. While providing

vs = 50 psi (0.34 MPa) resulted in an adequate estimate of

strength for beams with a concrete compressive strength of

10,500 psi (72 MPa), the same amount resulted in an uncon-

servative estimate of strength for the beams with concrete

compressive strengths of 17,400 and 18,200 psi (120 and

125 MPa). In both cases, tests showed that a minimum vs of

approximately 150 psi (1.03 MPa) would have been necessary

to obtain a strength above the nominal value given by Eq. (11-5)

of ACI 318-83.

Fig. 6.4—Ratio of measured to nominal strength versus span-depth ratios

calculated shear strength provided by truss mechanism for A series of tests was conducted in Japan to investigate the

beams with high-strength concrete tested by Roller and shear strength of high-strength concrete members

Russell (1990).

(Sakaguchi et al. 1990). The series included six beams with

shear span-depth ratios ranging between 1 and 1.14, and

bw s different amounts of transverse reinforcement. The purpose

A v, min = 0.75 f c′ -------

- (f c ′ in psi) of the tests was to determine the inclined cracking load and

f yt

ACI 318 Eq. (11-13) ultimate shear strength of the beams. Concrete compressive

bw s strength was maintained constant at approximately 13,000 psi

A v, min = 0.062 f c′ -------

- (f c ′ in MPa)

f yt (90 MPa). The principal variable was the product ρt fyt , where ρt

is the transverse reinforcement ratio defined as ρt = Av /bws and

6.3—Effect of compressive strength on flexural fyt is the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement.

members with intermediate to high amounts of According to the truss model adopted in ACI 318-05, the

transverse reinforcement product ρt fyt represents the average shear stress carried by

The 10 beams tested by Roller and Russell (1990)

the reinforcement in slender beams (ρt fyt = vs = Vs /bwd),

included three different groups, with concrete compressive

that, in the tests by Sakaguchi et al. (1990) ranged from 0 to

strengths of 10,500, 17,400, and 18,200 psi (72, 120, and

1150 psi (7.9 MPa). In beams with ρt fyt lower than 260 psi

125 MPa). There were five beams with compressive

(1.8 MPa) (ρt fyt /fc′ = 2%), inclined cracking propagated

strengths of 17,400 psi (120 MPa), for which the design shear

rapidly, leading to a sudden shear failure. In specimens with

stress vs (equal to the product of the transverse reinforcement

ρt fyt of 725 and 1145 psi (5 and 7.9 MPa) (ρt fyt /fc′ higher than

ratio ρt and the yield strength of the hoops fyt) carried by the

5.5%), both the shear and longitudinal reinforcement yielded

truss mechanism ranged from 0.3 f c′ to 8.9 f c′ (psi)

before failure at a load considerably exceeding the inclined

(0.025 f c′ to 0.74 f c′ [MPa]). The beam with the lightest

cracking strength. The conclusions from the study by

amount of transverse reinforcement (vs = 0.3 f c′ (psi) [vs =

0.025 f c′ (MPa)]) had a shear strength below the nominal Sakaguchi et al. (1990), based on tests of deep beams, differ

value calculated according to the provisions of ACI 318-83 from those by Roller and Russell (1990). Sakaguchi et al.

(ACI Committee 318 1983). The remaining four beams focused on the amount of transverse reinforcement needed to

(Fig. 6.4), with compressive strengths of 17,400 psi (120 MPa), preclude failure at the onset of inclined cracking and achieve

had measured shear strengths above the nominal values Vn yielding of the transverse reinforcement before failure. They

calculated using ACI 318, Eq. (11-6) (Vc term), and ACI found that for beams with a compressive strength of approxi-

318, Eq. (11-17) (Vs term), of the ACI 318-83. Although for mately 13,000 psi (90 MPa), the amount of transverse rein-

these four beams the ratio of measured to nominal strength forcement needed to develop a truss mechanism and prevent

decreased with the amount of transverse reinforcement, the sudden failure after inclined cracking was approximately vs

tests were within the range allowed by ACI 318, which places = ρt fyt = 260 psi (1.8 MPa) (5.2 times 50 psi), which corre-

an upper limit of vs = 8 f c′ (psi) (vs = 0.66 f c′ [MPa]), on sponds to 2.3 f c′ (psi) (0.19 f c′ [MPa]) significantly

the nominal shear strength attributed to the truss mechanism. higher than the ρt fyt = 0.75 f c′ (psi) (0.06 f c′ [MPa])

The two remaining series of tests, with compressive required by ACI 318-05 for flexural members.

strengths of 10,500 and 18,200 psi (72 and 125 MPa), were The study by Sakaguchi et al. (1990) raises concerns about

primarily aimed at determining the minimum amount of the behavior of members with low shear span-depth ratios

transverse reinforcement needed to prevent sudden failures subjected to cyclic loading. ACI 318-05 requires that such

after inclined cracking. members be proportioned using nonlinear analysis or in

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-39

β s = ---------- (f c ′ in psi)

provisions for the use of strut-and-tie models. 3 f ′

c

Strut-and-tie models are a methodology for member (6-5)

1.7

design that can be applied to different types of structural β s = ---------- (f c ′ in MPa)

members, including deep beams and structural walls. 3 f ′

c

Although Chapter 6 of this document addresses shear design

and Chapter 8 addresses the design of structural walls, some Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006) defined the strut

of the reference material presented in this chapter about the strength as the product of factors related to the compressive

behavior and design of members with low shear span-depth strength of the concrete (βfc), the angle of inclination of the

ratios is based on studies of deep beams and walls. Such strut (βαt), and, in the case of members in which the strut

material is included in this chapter only when it is relevant to interacts with a truss mechanism, an additional factor (βta).

the topic of strut-and-tie models. The strut factor is defined as

Little reference material is available on the use of strut-

and-tie models for the seismic design of deep beams made βs = βfcβαtβta (6-6)

with high-strength concrete. The Architectural Institute of

Japan (AIJ) seismic design guideline (1994) includes a The work by Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006) on

design procedure for beams that is based on the superposition of members with low shear span-depth ratios was calibrated

two different strut-and-tie models. The AIJ model is inconsistent using experimental data from deep beams and structural

walls with concrete compressive strengths ranging from

with the provisions in Appendix A of ACI 318-05. The AIJ

2200 to 20,300 psi (15 to 140 MPa). Von Ramin developed

procedure includes two reduction factors applied to the

a base expression for the strut factor using experimental

compressive strength of the concrete struts that Appendix A

results from elements subjected to monotonic loading. The

of ACI 318-05 does not include. effect of load reversals was later introduced by comparing

The first factor was originally proposed by Nielsen (1999) the base factors for the monotonic loading case to reduced

and was developed based on test results from beams with values of strength of columns and walls subjected to

uniform stress fields subjected to monotonic loading. It is a repeated load reversals into the nonlinear range of response.

function of the compressive strength of the concrete, and it Following this methodology, Von Ramin and Matamoros

decreases linearly as the compressive strength increases (2004, 2006) proposed the following expressions for the

compressive strength factor

f c′

β s = 0.7 – ---------------

- (f c ′ in psi) β fc = 0.85 – f c′ ⁄ 36,200 ≥ 0.5 (f c ′ in psi)

29,000 (6-7)

(6-3)

f c′ β fc = 0.85 – 0.004f c′ ≥ 0.5 (f c ′ in MPa)

β s = 0.7 – --------

- (f c ′ in MPa)

200

They proposed the following expression for the strut angle

The second factor is a function of the amount of rotation factor in members without transverse reinforcement

θp expected in a plastic hinge region of a flexural member. It

1

is given by β αt = ---------------------------------

- (6-8)

3

1 + 0.1cot α st

βsc = (1 – 15θp)βs ≥ 0.25βs (6-4)

and in members with transverse reinforcement

Aoyama (1993) carried out a comparison of measured and

calculated shear strengths for beams and columns subjected 4.6

β αt = -----------------------------------------

5

- (6-9)

to cyclic loading following the procedure in the 1988 Japa- 6.5 + 0.13cot α st

nese design guideline. He concluded that the method in the

Japanese guideline resulted in accurate estimates of the where αst is the angle of inclination of the strut with the main

reduced shear strength of both beams and columns subjected longitudinal tie (Fig. 6.5), that in the case of structural walls,

to cyclic loading with various shear span-depth ratios. He is oriented in the vertical direction. Von Ramin and Matamoros

indicated, however, that the method did not perform well for (2006) indicated that the angle of inclination of the main

members with high-strength concrete. Further research at strut in members with low shear span-depth ratios may be

Kyoto University showed that the performance of the approximated as

method was improved by adopting the strut factor proposed

in the draft of the CEB-FIP model code (Comité Euro-Interna- cotαst = av /d (6-10)

tional du Béton 1988), which is proportional to the reciprocal

of the cubic root of the compressive strength of concrete For members with low shear span depth-ratios in which a

(Watanabe and Kabeyasawa 1998) truss mechanism is superimposed on a strut (Fig. 6.5), Von

ITG-4.3R-40 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

(1991), and implemented in the seismic design guidelines of

the Architectural Institute of Japan (1994).

Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006) suggested the

following limits for the angle of inclination of the struts of

the compression fields

and

cot α

walls as defined by Von Ramin and Matamoros (2006). cotαt ≤ --------------st- (Fig. 6.5(b)) (6-15)

2

Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006) indicated that the

strength of the strut must be reduced to reflect interaction They also suggested a lower limit of 30 degrees for both

with the tie. Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006) angles. The strength provided by the two orthogonal truss

proposed the following expression for the interaction factor mechanisms is given by

β ta = --------------------------------------------------------

2

(6-11)

(β s f c′ ) – f t, t f t, l

and

where ft,l and ft,t are the stresses imposed on the concrete by

Vt,t = ρt,t fyt,t b · jd · tanαt (Fig. 6.5(a)) (6-17)

the compression fields associated with reinforcement

oriented in directions parallel to and perpendicular to the

main longitudinal tie. These stresses are calculated based on The nominal shear strength of members with low shear

the assumption of a uniform compression field (Von Ramin span-depth ratios is calculated as

and Matamoros 2006) as

Vn + Va + Vt,t + Vt,l (6-18)

ρ t, t f yt, t

f t, t = ----------------

2

(6-12) where Va is the component of the shear strength resulting

sin α t

from arch-action. The term Va was defined on the basis of the

strength of a strut spanning from load point to support as

and

Va = βs fc′ wstbsinαst (6-19)

ρ t, l f yt, l

f t, l = ----------------

2

(6-13)

cos α l where wst is the strut width, and b is the width of the structural

member. Based on the geometric configuration of the node,

where ρt,t is the transverse reinforcement ratio for the transverse the width of the strut w is given by

reinforcement oriented perpendicular to the main longitudinal

tie, fyt,t is the specified yield strength of the transverse wst = hacosαst lbsinαst (6-20)

reinforcement oriented perpendicular to the main longitudinal

tie, ρt,l is the transverse reinforcement ratio for the transverse with ha = 2cb = twice the cover of the longitudinal reinforce-

reinforcement oriented in the direction parallel to the main ment and lb is the dimension of the loading plate or support

longitudinal tie, fyt,l is the specified yield strength of the in the axial direction of the member.

reinforcement oriented parallel to the main longitudinal tie, In the case of squat walls in which designers include the

αt is the angle between the main longitudinal tie (which is strength provided by the transverse reinforcement, contrary

oriented in the vertical direction in the case of structural to expectations, Eq. (6-11) will result in a significant reduction

walls) and the struts of the compression field induced by the in the calculated strength of the strut. In structural walls with

transverse reinforcement oriented perpendicular to the main those characteristics, the amount of transverse reinforcement

longitudinal tie (Fig. 6.5), and αl is the angle between the needed to avoid a reduction in shear strength after inclined

main longitudinal tie and the struts of the compression field cracking is very large. A larger nominal shear strength may

induced by the transverse reinforcement oriented parallel to be obtained by neglecting the effect of the transverse reinforce-

the main longitudinal tie. ment in the calculation of the strength of the wall, which is

Equation (6-11) originates from a lower bound plasticity consistent with the behavior observed in tests. In those cases,

solution of a strut-and-tie model proposed by Nielsen (1999). although the amount of transverse reinforcement does not

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-41

affect the nominal shear strength, a minimum amount of where ε1 is the principal tensile strain in the strut. Based on

reinforcement should be provided as dictated by ACI 318-05. strain compatibility, the principal tensile strain is expressed

Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006) indicated that, as a function of the strain in the tie εs as

for walls with well-confined boundary elements, Eq. (6-18)

resulted in conservative estimates of strength, and that a ε1 = εs + (εs + 0.002)/tan2αst (6-27)

better estimate of the shear strength is obtained by adding the

shear strength of the boundary element, calculated as if it The strain in the tie εs is usually taken as the yield strain of

were a compression member. the reinforcement εy.

Based on test results from columns and beams subjected to A modification of Eq. (6-26) was later proposed by

load reversals, Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004) suggested Vecchio et al. (1994) for high-strength concrete with

the following expression for the reduction in the strength of compressive strength ranging up to 10,400 psi (72 MPa)

the strut as a result of repeated load reversals into the

nonlinear range of response 1

β s = ----------------------------- (6-28)

ε

0.9 + 0.27 ----1

8DR lim ε0

β nl, strut = 1 – ----------------------------------------

- (6-21)

( ρ t f yt ⁄ f c ′ ) + 0.01

6.5—Calculation of shear strength of members

The strut factor in members subjected to repeated load subjected to seismic loading

reversals into the nonlinear range of response is given by Current provisions in Section 21.3.4 of ACI 318-05 for

proportioning the amount of transverse reinforcement in

beams (flexural members) of special moment frames require

βsc = βnl,strut βs (6-22)

that the design shear force be calculated on the basis of

opposing probable flexural strengths at the joint faces and

Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004) indicated that the the factored tributary gravity load along the span. The shear

strength of the truss mechanism should be reduced as well by strength must be calculated according to the procedures

the following factor outlined in Chapter 11 of ACI 318-05, which were calibrated

based on tests of members subjected to monotonic loading.

1 The effect of repeated shear reversals is accounted for in that

β nl, truss = ----------------------------------------------- (6-23) the term related to the contribution of the concrete, Vc , must be

λp

1 + 1.5 ⋅ DR lim ⋅ 6 neglected if the earthquake-induced shear is 1/2 or more of the

design shear force and the axial force is less than Ag fc′ /20.

where Additional requirements for the amount of transverse

reinforcement are given in Section 21.3.3 of ACI 318-05,

which limits the maximum hoop spacing to the smallest of d/4,

λ p = 1 + 2 · (P/Ag fc′ )0.35 (6-24)

eight times the diameter of the smallest longitudinal bar, 24

times the diameter of the hoop bar, and 12 in. (305 mm).

Warwick and Foster (1993) also noted the effect of A similar two-tier approach is used to determine the

compressive strength and shear span-depth ratio on the strut amount of transverse reinforcement in columns (members

factor. They proposed the following strut factor expression subjected to bending and axial load) of special moment frames.

for concrete compressive strengths ranging between 2900 The shear demand must be calculated on the basis of the

and 14,500 psi (20 and 100 MPa) probable moment strengths at the joints and the amount of

reinforcement required for shear strength must be calculated in

f c′ a a 2 accordance with Chapter 11 of ACI 318-05. As in the case of

- – 0.72 ⎛ -----v⎞ + 0.18 ⎛ -----v⎞ ( f c′ in psi)

β s = 1.25 – --------------- beams, the term related to the contribution of the concrete, Vc ,

72,500 ⎝ d⎠ ⎝ d⎠

(6-25) must be neglected if the earthquake-induced shear is 1/2 or

f c′ a a 2

β s = 1.25 – --------- – 0.72 ⎛ -----⎞ + 0.18 ⎛ -----⎞ ( f c′in MPa)

v v more of the design shear force and the axial force is less than

500 ⎝ d⎠ ⎝ d⎠ Ag fc′ /20. For the majority of practical design cases, the term Vc

does not have to be neglected in columns because the axial force

The CSA Standard adopts a strut factor that considers the is not less than Ag fc′ /20. Moreover, the shear strength of a

strain compatibility of the struts and the strain softening of column increases as the compressive axial load on it increases.

the diagonally cracked concrete. The expression for the strut In addition, designers must verify that the amount of transverse

reinforcement provided is greater than that required by Eq. (21-3)

factor is

or (21-4) of ACI 318-05. These two equations specify the

amount of transverse reinforcement for adequate confinement

1

β s = ---------------------------- (6-26) of the column core under cyclic loading. The latter criterion

0.8 + 170ε 1 controls for most practical situations.

ITG-4.3R-42 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

reinforcement an upper limit of 0.006 for long-term loads and

The use of high-strength transverse reinforcement is 0.008 for short-term loads).

advantageous for column confinement. This topic is The allowable shear stress in the concrete is given by the

addressed in detail in Chapter 5 of this report. Section 11.5.2 minimum of fc′ /30 and 70 + fc′ /100 (psi) ( fc′ /30 and 0.5

of ACI 318-05 limits the yield strength of shear reinforce- + fc′ /100 [MPa]) for normalweight concrete under long-term

ment to a maximum of 60,000 psi (414 MPa), which is loading. For short-term loading, the allowable stress is

increased to 80,000 psi (552 MPa) in the case of welded increased by a factor of 1.5. For lightweight-aggregate

deformed wire reinforcement. It is stated in the commentary concrete, a reduction factor of 0.9 must be applied. The

to the code that this provision is intended to limit the width maximum allowable tensile stress in the shear reinforcement

of inclined cracks at service-load levels. is limited by the Japanese Design Standard to 28,500 psi

Otani (1995) described the approach followed by the (197 MPa) under long-term loads and 85,400 psi (589 MPa)

Japanese code for shear design using high-yield-strength under short-term loads. The reasons for establishing an upper

transverse reinforcement. The objective of the Japanese limit on the allowable tensile stress include: 1) serviceability

Standard is to limit the width of shear cracks under long-term concerns; and 2) experimental evidence from beams with

loads to an acceptable value, particularly in the case of high-strength transverse reinforcement tested in Japan

columns, and to provide a safe estimate of strength (5% failure showing that yielding of the transverse reinforcement was

ratio on the basis of 1200 test data) for short-term loads. not reached at shear failure.

In the case of beams subjected to long-term loading, the

maximum allowable shear force is given by 6.7—Recommendations

Based on the body of research that was reviewed, there are

Vall = bj[αshvc,all + 0.5fyt(ρt – 0.002)] (6-29) no specific recommendations deemed necessary for the

design of slender high-strength concrete members for shear.

For columns subjected to long-term loading, the allowable The modification to Eq. (11-13) of ACI 318-05 to make the

shear force is given by minimum amount of reinforcement a function of the

compressive strength of concrete provides an adequate solution

Vall = bjαsh fyt (6-30) to prevent sudden shear failures after inclined cracking in

members with light amounts of transverse reinforcement.

In the case of beams under short-term service loads, the A study by Sakaguchi et al. (1990) raises concerns about

allowable shear force is given by the behavior of members with low shear span-depth ratios

subjected to cyclic loading. There is evidence (Sakaguchi et

Vall = bj[αshvc,all + 0.5fyt(ρt – 0.001)] (6-31) al. 1990; Kabeyasawa and Hiraishi 1998; Von Ramin and

Matamoros 2004, 2006) that the application of the strut

For columns subjected to short-term service loads, the factors specified in Appendix A of ACI 318-05 to the design

allowable shear force is given by of high-strength concrete members may be unconservative

because these factors were calibrated based on test results of

Vall = bj[vc,all + 0.5fyt(ρt – 0.001)] (6-32) elements loaded monotonically to failure.

In elements subjected to load reversals, concrete may

alternate between states of tension and compression due to

where

changes in the direction of loading. If the element remains in

the elastic range of response, the width of the cracks that

4

αsh = 1 ≤ ------------------------- ≤ 2 (6-33) form while concrete is subjected to tensile strains is not large

M ⁄ Vd + 1 enough to cause severe damage, and the use of strut factors

derived for the monotonic loading case is acceptable. This

where type of behavior was observed in tests of deep beams

vc, all = allowable shear stress in concrete; subjected to load reversals conducted by Uribe and Alcocer

M = maximum moment in the member due to (2001) in which failure took place prior to significant

service loads; inelastic deformations in the flexural reinforcement (peak

V = maximum shear force in the member due to recorded strains in the flexural reinforcement at failure were

service loads (at the same location as M); on the order of 1%).

b = width of compression face of member; When elements undergo excursions into the inelastic

j = ratio of internal lever arm to effective depth of range of response, crack widths are significantly larger than

beam (under bending, j = 7/8d); those observed in the linear range of response due to larger

d = distance from extreme compression fiber to deformations associated with yielding of the reinforcement.

centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement; If concrete is not properly confined, this type of behavior

and leads to rapid degradation of strength. Furthermore, in some

ρt = ratio of area of distributed transverse reinforce- instances, the compression force may not be sufficient to

ment to gross concrete area perpendicular to fully close cracks formed while concrete and reinforcement

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-43

reduced strength for concrete in the struts, or may render

struts ineffective due to changes in the load path in the

element. To address the aforementioned problems caused by

load reversals into the inelastic range of response, several

proposals in the literature suggest that it is necessary to

adjust strut factors for monotonic loading when using them

for seismic design. Uribe and Alcocer (2001) indicated that

procedures for seismic design using strut-and-tie models

should account for the reduction in strength of the concrete

in the struts as well as potential reductions in bond strength

due to load reversals. They also suggested that proper

detailing should include the use of closely spaced hoops to

limit the width of the cracks under tension, and to provide

confinement to concrete in the struts. Expressions for the

reduction in strength with inelastic deformations are

presented in the Japanese Design Code (AIJ 1994) and by

Von Ramin and Matamoros (2006). In the Japanese Design

Code (AIJ 1994), the capacity of struts is reduced as a function Fig. 6.6—Comparison between strut factors proposed and

of the plastic rotation, while in the proposal developed by that in Appendix A for ACI 318-05 for bottle-shaped struts

without transverse reinforcement.

Von Ramin and Matamoros (2006), the reduction in strength

is a function of deformation demand, amount of confining

reinforcement, and the axial stress on the element.

Because the strut factors in Appendix A of ACI 318-05 do A comparison between the proposed strut factor and that

not account for the effects of load reversals, the committee corresponding to bottle-shaped struts in Appendix A of ACI

recommends that they only be used to proportion elements 318-05 is presented in Fig. 6.6. As shown in Fig. 6.6, when the

intended to remain elastic for the design earthquake. angle of inclination of the strut is 35 degrees, the proposed strut

Specific recommendations for the design of members with factor becomes equal to that in ACI 318-05 at a concrete

low shear span-depth ratios using strut-and-tie models are compressive strength of approximately 7000 psi (48 MPa).

presented in the following. In the case of bottle-shaped For struts with uniform cross-sectional area over their

struts, a recommendation is made based on the strut factors length, the stress conditions are very similar to those in the

suggested by Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006). compression zone of members subjected to flexure and axial

These factors were calibrated using deep beams and walls, load. For this reason, it is recommended that the strut factor

and adjusted to account for the 0.85 factor included in Eq. (A-3) be similar to the α1 factor defined of Section 4.8 of this

of Appendix A of ACI 318-05: report, adjusted for the 0.85 factor in ACI 318, Eq. (A-3). In

inch-pound units, it is recommended that: “for struts with

βs = βfcβαt ≤ 0.6 (6-34) uniform cross-sectional area over their length, the factor βs

shall be taken as 1.0 for concrete strengths fc′ up to and

including 8000 psi. For strengths above 8000 psi, βs shall be

where reduced continuously at a rate of 0.02 for each 1000 psi of

strength in excess of 8000 psi, but βs shall not be taken less

βfc = 1 – fc′ /30,000 ≥ 0.6 ( fc′ in psi) (6-35) than 0.80.” In SI units, the recommendation is that: “for

struts with uniform cross-sectional area over their length, the

βfc = 1 – 0.005 fc′ ≥ 0.6 ( fc′ in MPa) factor βs shall be taken as 1.0 for concrete strengths fc′ up to

and including 55 MPa. For strengths above 55 MPa, βs shall

be reduced continuously at a rate of 0.003 for each MPa of

1

β αt = ---------------------------------

3

- (6-36) strength in excess of 55 MPa, but βs shall not be taken less

1 + 0.1cot α st than 0.80.”

Because research on the effect of repeated load reversals

where αst is the angle of inclination of the strut with respect into the nonlinear range of response on strut factors is at an

to the main tie. early stage, it is recommended that the use of strut-and-tie

models be limited to design of members where significant

In the case of members subjected to point loads with single

degradation of strength under load reversals into the

struts running between the load and reaction points, the angle

nonlinear range is not expected to take place.

of inclination of the strut may be approximated as

Recommendations about the amount of transverse reinforce-

ment needed for proper confinement of the concrete under

a nonlinear deformations are addressed in Chapter 5 of this

cos α st = -----v (6-37)

d report.

ITG-4.3R-44 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

CHAPTER 7—DEVELOPMENT LENGTH/SPLICES reinforcement in the splice region (McCabe 1998; Zuo and

According to ACI 318-05, the development length of Darwin 2000; Azizinamini et al. 1993). In high-strength

deformed bars or deformed wires in tension may be calculated concrete members without transverse reinforcement, there is

according to the following requirements. For cases in which: a greater tendency for the cracks to propagate through the

1) the clear spacing of the bars being developed or spliced is

aggregate, resulting in smoother failure surfaces than those

not less than db, the cover is not less than db, and the stirrups

found in normal-strength concrete (McCabe 1998). When

or ties throughout ld or the splice length are not less than the

the critical failure stress is reached, there is only limited

code minimum; or 2) the clear spacing of the bars being

developed or spliced is not less than 2db and the cover is not redistribution of stresses and, as a result, failure tends to be

less than db more sudden and brittle in nature than in normal-strength

concrete. Zuo and Darwin (2000) observed brittle failures in

l fy ψt ψe λ high-strength concrete without significant damage to the

- for No. 6 and smaller bars (f c′ and f y in psi)

----d- = ------------------

db 25 f c′ concrete at the interface between the bar and the concrete.

(7-1) Azizinamini et al. (1999b) also indicated that the strength

l 12f y ψ t ψ e λ

- for No. 6 and smaller bars (f c′ and f y in MPa)

----d- = -------------------------

db 25 f c′ of specimens without transverse reinforcement cannot be

estimated with much accuracy because there are significant

l fy ψt ψe λ variations in measured strength for similar specimens.

- for No. 7 and larger bars (f c′ and f y in psi)

----d- = ------------------

db 20 f c′ McCabe (1998) stated that in members without transverse

(7-2) reinforcement, the maximum stress before splitting

l 3f y ψ t ψ e λ

- for No. 7 and larger bars (f c′ and f y in MPa)

----d- = ----------------------

db 5 f c′ failure is related to the fracture properties of the concrete,

and not solely to the compressive strength. Because the

For cases not meeting the aforementioned spacing, cover, fracture energy does not increase proportionally to the square

and confinement criteria root of the compressive strength, design expressions based on

the square root function may be unconservative for

l 3f y ψ t ψ e λ compressive strengths greater than 10,000 psi (69 MPa)

- for No. 6 and smaller bars (f c′ and f y in psi)

----d- = ----------------------

db 50 f c′ (McCabe 1998). Zuo and Darwin (2000) proposed a relation-

(7-3)

l 18f y ψ t ψ e λ ship between bond force and compressive strength to the

- for No. 6 and smaller bars (f c′ and f y in MPa)

----d- = -------------------------

db 25 f c′ 1/4 power based on a statistical study of monotonic tests

of beams without transverse reinforcement and with

l 3f y ψ t ψ e λ concrete compressive strengths up to 16,000 psi (110 MPa). It

- for No. 7 and larger bars (f c′ and f y in psi)

----d- = ----------------------

db 40 f c′ has also been suggested that the lower water-cementitious

(7-4)

l 9f y ψ t ψ e λ material ratios of high-strength concrete result in less bleeding

- for No. 7 and larger bars (f c′ and f y in MPa)

----d- = ----------------------

db 10 f c′ and sedimentation, which makes the top bar effect less

significant than in normal-strength concrete (Fujii et al.

Alternatively, the development length of deformed bars or 1998; Azizinamini et al. 1999b).

deformed wires in tension may be calculated with a more

complex equation: ACI 318 Eq. (12-1) 7.1—Design equations for development length of

bars in high-strength concrete

l fy ψt ψe ψs λ

3- -------- Design equations applicable to high-strength concrete

----d- = ----- - ----------------------- (f c′ and f y in psi)

db 40 f c′ ⎛ c b + K tr⎞ have been proposed in ACI 408R-03, based on the statistical

------------------

⎝ db ⎠

ACI 318 Eq. (12-1) analysis by Zuo and Darwin (2000). It is proposed in the ACI

l fy ψt ψe ψs λ

9- -------- Committee 408 report that Eq. (12-1) of ACI 318-05 be

----d- = ----- - ----------------------- (f c′ and f y in MPa)

db 10 f c′ ⎛ c b + K tr⎞

------------------

⎝ db ⎠

replaced by the following

fy

⎛ -----------

in which the term (cb + Ktr)/db ≤ 2.5. The development – 2210ω⎞ ψ t ψ e λ

ld ⎝f ′ 1 ⁄ 4 ⎠

length calculated with any of the previous formulas must be ----- = -------------------------------------------------------- (f c′ and f y in psi)

c

db c′ω + K tr′ ⎞

not less than 12 in. (305 mm). 70 ⎛ ----------------------- -

⎝ db ⎠

Due to a lack of test data on bars embedded in high- (7-5)

42f y

⎛ ----------- – 2210ω⎞ ψ t ψ e λ

strength concrete, ACI 318-05 places an upper limit of 100 psi ⎝f ′ 1 ⁄ 4 ⎠

ld

(8.3 MPa) on the term f c′ in the previous equations. This c

- (f c′ and f y in MPa)

----- = -------------------------------------------------------

db c′ω + K tr′ ⎞

limit does not allow designers to take advantage of any 70 ⎛ ----------------------- -

⎝ db ⎠

increase in bond strength associated with increases in

concrete compressive strength beyond 10,000 psi (69 MPa).

Research on bond of reinforcement in high-strength where

concrete has shown that there is a significant difference

between the behavior of members with and without transverse c′ = cmin + 0.5db (7-6)

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-45

ω = 0.1 ---------

- + 0.9 ≤ 1.25 (7-7) and the total bond force is given by

c min

Tb = ⎛ 2177t d ------

A sp

- + 66⎞ f c′

1⁄4

(Tb in lb, td in in., Asp in in.2, and fc′ in psi) (7-13)

Ktr′ = (0.5tdAtr/sn) f c′ (td in inches, Atr in in.2, and fc′ in psi) (7-8) ⎝ n ⎠

Ktr′ = (6.25tdAtr /sn) f c′ (td in mm, Atr in mm2, and fc′ in MPa) t d A sp

Tb = ⎛ --------

- ------- + 1⎞ f c′ (Tb in kN, td in mm, Asp in mm2, and fc′ in MPa)

1⁄4

⎝ 500 n ⎠

td = 0.78db + 0.22 (db in inches) (7-9) where Tb is the bond force, Asp is the cross-sectional area of

transverse reinforcement crossing the potential plane of

td = 0.03db + 0.22 (db in mm) splitting along the length of splice, n is the number of bars

being spliced, and fc′ is the specified compressive strength.

and This equation was used to estimate the amount of transverse

reinforcement required to achieve an increase in bond

(c′ω + Ktr′ )/db ≤ 4.0 (7-10) strength proportional to the square root of the compressive

strength. For test data with a concrete compressive strength

The simplified expressions provided in Section 12.2.2 of of 15,000 psi (103 MPa), the amount of transverse reinforce-

ACI 318-05 are proposed to be replaced by the following: for ment needed to obtain a safe estimate of the development

cases in which 1) the clear spacing of the bars being developed length of a No. 8 (No. 25) bar with the ACI 318 equations

or spliced is not less than db, the cover is not less than db, and was approximately

the stirrups or ties throughout ld provide a value of Ktr′ /db ≥ 0.5;

or 2) the clear spacing of the bars being developed or spliced is Asp = 0.5nAb,max (7-14)

not less 2db, and the cover is not less than db

where n is the number of bars being spliced. A linear adjustment

l fy was proposed to estimate the amount of transverse reinforce-

----d- = ⎛ --------------------

- – 20⎞ ψ t ψ e λ (f c′ and f y in psi)

db ⎝ 105f ′ 1 ⁄ 4 ⎠ ment required for members with concrete compressive

c

(7-11) strengths other than 15,000 psi (103 MPa) and higher than

l 0.4f y

----d- = ⎛ ----------- – 20⎞ ψ t ψ e λ (f c′ and f y in MPa)

db ⎝f ′ 1 ⁄ 4 ⎠ 10,000 psi (69 MPa)

c

For cases not meeting the aforementioned spacing, cover, (7-15)

A sp = 0.5nA b, max ( f c′ ⁄ 100 ), f c′ ≥ 69 (f c′ in MPa)

and confinement criteria

----d- = ⎛ -----------------

l fy

- – 30⎞ ψ t ψ e λ (f c′ and f y in psi) with concrete compressive strengths of up to 16,000 psi

db ⎝ 70f ′ 1 ⁄ 4 ⎠

c

(7-12) (110 MPa).

----d- = ⎛ -----------

l 0.6f y

– 30⎞ ψ t ψ e λ (f c′ and f y in MPa) Additional requirements are that the maximum spacing of

db ⎝f ′ 1 ⁄ 4 ⎠

c

stirrups in the longitudinal direction not exceed 12 in.

(305 mm), a minimum of three stirrups be used through the

The use of transverse reinforcement significantly changes length of the splice, and that the bar size for the stirrups be at

behavior (Azizinamini et al. 1999b), because the confinement least No. 3 (No. 10). The proposal by Azizinamini et al.

provided by the transverse reinforcement restrains the (1999a) requires that the development length be calculated

development of splitting cracks. Furthermore, the behavior using the equations in Sections 12.2.2 or 12.2.3 of ACI 318-05

becomes significantly more ductile. Zuo and Darwin (2000) assuming a value of Ktr = 0. Because the current restriction in

showed the significant effect of transverse reinforcement on the code applies to concrete compressive strengths greater

bond strength. Their study showed that the best fit between than 10,000 psi (69 MPa), the amount of transverse reinforce-

bond force and compressive strength for members with ment proposed previously would be required when the

transverse reinforcement was obtained for a power coefficient compressive strength exceeds that threshold. The main

of 3/4 compared with a coefficient of 1/4 for members advantage of the procedure proposed by Azizinamini et al.

without transverse reinforcement. (1999a) is that it does not require adopting new equations for

An alternative design procedure was proposed by Azizinamini development length. There may, however, be additional cost

et al. (1999a). Rather than introducing new design equations, if additional transverse reinforcement is required.

the procedure relies on a minimum amount of transverse

reinforcement over the splice region to take advantage of the 7.2—Design equations for development length of

concrete compressive strength and improve the ductility of hooked bars in high-strength concrete

the splices (Azizinamini et al. 1999a). The approach There is little experimental data on the behavior of hooked

proposed by Azizinamini et al. is based on an analysis of test bars in high-strength concrete. Fujii et al. (1998) summarized

results by Darwin et al. (1996), which concluded that the research on hooked bars in exterior joints carried out in Japan

ITG-4.3R-46 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

as part of the research program on high-strength materials. ldh = development length in tension of deformed bar

Compressive strength of concrete in the specimens tested as or deformed wire with standard hook, measured

part of the study ranged from 5800 to 17,400 psi (40 to from critical section to outside end of hook;

120 MPa). All specimens in the testing program failed due j = ratio of internal lever arm to effective depth of

to splitting of the side cover (cover to the side of the bar). the beam section at the column face; and

Fujii et al. (1998) indicated that bond force was proportional ds = nominal diameter of bar used as transverse

to the cubic root of the compressive strength rather than the reinforcement (positioned at the hook).

square root of fc′ . Increasing side cover led to increases in The configuration of the hook must satisfy the requirements

strength up to a cover of six bar diameters. The maximum of ACI 318-05.

stress developed in specimens with closely spaced bars (bar

spacings ranging between two and 15 bar diameters) was 7.3—Recommendations

approximately 75% of that observed in bars spaced farther Research in bond and development of reinforcement

apart than 30 bar diameters. The maximum stress increased (McCabe 1998) indicates that design expressions based on

in proportion to the development length up to a development the square root of the compressive strength of the concrete

length of 16 bar diameters, after which the observed increase may be unconservative for compressive strengths greater

in maximum stress was negligible. The maximum bar stress than 10,000 psi (69 MPa). Research by Azizinamini et al.

also increased proportionally to the ratio of development (1993, 1999b) and Zuo and Darwin (2000) showed that the

length to the lever arm between the tension and the compression two main alternatives to correcting this problem were to

resultants in the beam. Finally, the maximum stress in the bar increase the development length or to add transverse reinforce-

was found to increase with the amount of transverse reinforce- ment. The main advantage of the latter approach is that it

ment. The increase was proportional to the ratio Asp fyt /s, where improves the behavior of the spliced or developed bars

Asp is the cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement because failure is significantly more ductile. This is particularly

crossing the potential splitting plane, fyt is the yield strength advantageous in seismic design.

of the transverse reinforcement, and s is the spacing. The Zuo and Darwin (2000) proposed a relationship between

increase was approximately linear, with a maximum of 40% bond force and compressive strength to the 1/4 power based

for an Asp fyt /s ratio of 3350 lb/in. (0.59 kN/mm). on a statistical study of monotonic tests of beams without

Fujii et al. (1998) proposed the following expression for transverse reinforcement and with concrete compressive

the maximum tensile stress that can be developed in a bar strengths up to 16,000 psi (110 MPa). Their study concluded

with 90-degree hook that the best fit between bond force and compressive strength

for members with transverse reinforcement was obtained for

fu = 4000kcc kj kd ks(fc′ )0.4 ( fu and fc′ in psi) (7-16) compressive strength raised to the power of 3/4, compared

with the compressive strength raised to the power of 1/4 for

members without transverse reinforcement.

fu = 200kcc kj kd ks(fc′ )0.4 ( fu and fc′ in MPa) Because ductile behavior is preferable in earthquake-resistant

design, it was decided that the use of transverse reinforcement

where kcc is the cover factor, kj and kd are development would be the preferable of the two alternatives. Therefore,

length factors, and ks is the transverse reinforcement factor. the recommendation by Azizinamini et al. (1999a) was

The factors are as follows adopted as the basis for the proposed addition to Chapter 21

of ACI 318-05. Consistent with the approach adopted in ACI

0.1c 318-05, the design recommendation adopted by the

k cc = 0.43 + ---------- (7-17) committee did not include any limitations to its applicability

db

related to use of epoxy coating. It is important to note,

however, that the recommendation by Azizinamini et al.

0.5l dh (1999a) was based primarily on test results from uncoated

k j = 0.8 + -------------

- (1 ≤ kj ≤ 4) (7-18)

jd bar splices in elements with concrete compressive strength of

up to 16,000 psi (110 MPa). At the time the recommendation

l dh was adopted by the committee, there was a paucity of

- + 0.54 ≤ 1.0

k d = 0.038 ----- (7-19) experimental results from splices of epoxy-coated bars with

db

transverse reinforcement in elements with high-strength

concrete, and from uncoated and epoxy-coated bars terminated

2 using standard hooks in high-strength concrete.

0.46d

k s = 0.7 + ---------------s- ≤ 1.0 (7-20) The proposed recommendation is stated in the following:

2

db

In inch-pound units:

where Lap splices of flexural reinforcement shall be permitted

cc = clear cover of reinforcement (side cover in this only if hoop or spiral reinforcement is provided over the lap

case) to the outermost anchored bar; length. When the value of f c′ exceeds 100 psi, ld shall be

db = nominal diameter of the anchored bar; calculated from either 12.2.2 or 12.2.3 with Ktr = 0, and

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-47

splitting shall be provided over the tension splice length with

a minimum total cross-sectional area Asp given by ACI 318,

Eq. (21-AA).

the plane of splitting.

Maximum spacing of the transverse reinforcement

enclosing the lapped bars shall not exceed d/4 or 4 in., and

the minimum hoop or spiral bar size shall be No. 3. Lap

splices shall not be used

(a) within joints;

(b) within a distance of twice the member depth from the

face of the joint; and Fig. 7.1—Proposed modification for development length of

(c) where analysis indicates flexural yielding is caused by hooks.

inelastic lateral displacements of the frame.

strengths above 10,000 psi (69 MPa). While the term f c′

In SI units: has an upper limit of 100 psi (8.3 MPa) in Chapter 12 of ACI

Lap splices of flexural reinforcement shall be permitted 318-05, there is no such limit on Chapter 21. Given that no

only if hoop or spiral reinforcement is provided over the lap literature was found evaluating the use of the current ACI

length. When the value of f c′ exceeds 25/3 MPa, ld shall provisions for the development length of hooked bars in

be calculated from either 12.2.2 or 12.2.3 with Ktr = 0, and members with high-strength concrete, a modification to

transverse reinforcement crossing the potential plane of Eq. (21-6) of ACI 318-05 is proposed in this report to reduce

splitting shall be provided over the tension splice length with the likelihood of unconservative estimates. The proposed

a minimum total cross-sectional area Asp as given by ACI modification is as follows:

318M, Eq. (21-AA).

In inch-pound units:

Asp = 0.5nAb,max(fc′ /100) ACI 318M Eq. (21-AA) 21.5.4.1 The development length ldh for a bar with a

standard 90-degree hook in normalweight aggregate

where n is the number of bars or wires being spliced along concrete shall not be less than the largest of 8db, 6 in., or the

the plane of splitting. lengths required by ACI 318 Eq. (21-6) and (21-BB)

Maximum spacing of the transverse reinforcement

enclosing the lapped bars shall not exceed d/4 or 100 mm, fy db

ldh = ---------------

- ACI 318 Eq. (21-6)

and the minimum hoop or spiral bar size shall be No. 10. Lap 65 f c′

splices shall not be used

(a) within the joints; fy db

(b) within a distance of twice the member depth from the ldh = --------------------------

- ACI 318 Eq. (21-BB)

1⁄4

face of the joint; and 650 ( f c′ )

(c) where analysis indicates flexural yielding is caused by

inelastic lateral displacements of the frame. for bar sizes No. 3 through 11.

Conclusions from Zuo and Darwin (2000) for splices are In SI units:

consistent with those by Fujii et al. (1998) for hooked bars. 21.5.4.1 The development length ldh for a bar with a

Fujii et al. (1998) summarized research on hooked bars in standard 90 degree hook in normalweight aggregate

exterior joints carried out in Japan as part of the research concrete shall not be less than the largest of 8db, 150 mm, or

program on high-strength materials. Concrete compressive the lengths required by ACI 318M Eq. (21-6) and (21-BB)

strengths of the specimens tested as part of the study ranged

from 5800 to 17,400 psi (40 to 120 MPa). All specimens in 12f y d b

ldh = ---------------

- (ACI Eq. (21-6))

the testing program failed due to splitting of the side cover 65 f c′

(cover to the side of the bar). Fujii et al. concluded that bond

force was proportional to the cubic root of the compressive

42f y d b

strength rather than the square root of fc′ . ldh = --------------------------

- ACI 318M Eq. (21-BB)

1⁄4

It is a concern that the current equation for the development 650 ( f c′ )

length of hooked bars in tension of ACI 318-05 (Eq. (21-6))

may result in unconservative estimates for compressive for bar sizes No. 10 through 36.

ITG-4.3R-48 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

modification for development length of hooks.

ment lengths as given by ACI 318-05 (Fig. 7.1) for concrete

compressive strengths up to 10,000 psi (69 MPa). For

strengths greater than 10,000 psi (69 MPa), the development

length of a hooked bar ldh increases in proportion to the

fourth root of the compressive strength, resulting in an

increase in development length (Fig. 7.2) that varies from 0

at 10,000 psi (69 MPa) to approximately 20% at 20,000 psi

(138 MPa).

The provisions for the design of joints in ACI 318-05 Fig. 8.1—Joint shear stress.

require that the horizontal shear stress in the joint be

compared with the nominal shear strength (Fig. 8.1), which required in potential plastic hinge regions of columns, unless

is calculated as the joint is confined by structural members on all four sides.

For rectangular columns, the amount of transverse reinforce-

Vn = γvj f c′ Aj ( fc′ in psi) (8-1) ment through the joint must be at least

Ag f c′ f c′

Vn = γvj f c′ Aj ( fc′ in MPa) (add factor 1/12 in equation) A sh = 0.3 ⎛ -------

- – 1⎞ sb ----

- ≥ 0.09sb c ----

- (8-2)

⎝ A ch ⎠ c f yt f yt

where Aj is the effective cross-sectional area within a joint in

a plane parallel to the plane of reinforcement generating Vertical spacing of transverse reinforcement within the

shear in the joint, and γvj is a constant equal to 20, 15, or 12 length lo, near the top and bottom of columns, may not

for joints confined on all four faces (typically interior joints), exceed 1/4 of the minimum column dimension, six times the

joints confined on three faces or two opposite faces (typi- diameter of column longitudinal bars, and the longitudinal

cally exterior joints), and all other (typically corner) joints, spacing so. These criteria result in hoop spacing generally in

respectively. A column face is considered confined if a beam the range of 4 to 6 in. (102 and 152 mm). This requirement

frames into it and the beam is wide enough to cover 3/4 of is similar to that included in the design provisions developed

the column face. by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (2002).

The horizontal shear force in the joint must be calculated In the case of joints that are confined by structural

based on the assumption that the stress in the flexural tensile members framing into all four sides of the joint, with each

reinforcement of the beams framing into the joint is 1.25fy member having a width of at least 3/4 of the column width,

(Fig. 8.1). Section 21.5.2.2 of ACI 318-05 requires a minimum of 1/2

the amount of reinforcement in Eq. (8-2), and a maximum

8.1—Confinement requirements for hoop spacing of 6 in. (152 mm).

beam-column joints The aforementioned requirements apply to joints of

For special moment-resisting frames, ACI 318-05 requires special moment frames only. There are no specific code

the same amount of transverse hoop reinforcement as that requirements for joints of frames that are not part of the

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-49

lateral force-resisting system of a building assigned to depth to beam bar diameter in these two tests were 13.6 and

Seismic Category D or higher. Such joints and joints of inter- 15.7, below the limit of 20 specified by the design provisions

mediate moment frames must comply with Section 7.10.4 of of ACI 318-05 and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (2002).

ACI 318-05 in the case of spirally reinforced columns, and The average ratio of measured to calculated strength was

Section 7.10.5 in the case of tied columns. 1.31 for the entire group of exterior joint tests, and the

Section 7.10.5.2 requires that vertical spacing of ties shall average joint shear coefficient γvj was 20.8 compared with

not exceed 16 longitudinal bar diameters, 48 tie bar or wire the value of 15 given in ACI 318-05 and the design provisions

diameters, or the least dimension of the compression of Committee 352.

member. Section 7.10.5.4 requires that ties complying with Of the 22 specimens evaluated, the majority did not

the aforementioned limitation must be provided at no more comply with the code requirements for exterior connections,

than 1/2 of a tie spacing below the lowest horizontal reinforce- namely that there should be a minimum of two beams on

ment in slab or drop panel above. It also requires that ties opposite sides of the column with widths of at least 75% of

must be located vertically not more than 1/2 of a tie spacing the column width. The strict interpretation of this requirement

above the top of footing or slab in any story. Where beams would have led to classifying the specimens as corner

or brackets frame from four directions into a column, connections and adopting a shear coefficient γvj of 12.

termination of ties not more than 3 in. (76 mm) below the Noguchi et al. (1998) presented an overview of experimental

lowest reinforcement in the shallowest of such beams or research on connections in Japan. The total number of

brackets is permitted. specimens with concrete compressive strength over 8700 psi

Section 7.10.4.6 requires that spirals in a spirally reinforced (60 MPa) was 110, with 76 simulating interior connections,

column must extend from the top of the footing or slab to the and 28 specimens simulating exterior joints without trans-

level of the lowest horizontal reinforcement in members verse beams.

supported above. Noguchi et al. (1998) concluded that the provisions for

Section 7.10.4.7 requires that where beams or brackets do calculating joint shear strength in ACI 318-89 (same as those

not frame into all sides of a column, ties must extend above in ACI 318-05) provided conservative results for the tests

termination of the spiral to the bottom of the slab or drop carried out in Japan. The mean value of the joint shear

panel. No maximum spacing for such ties is specified. strength measured experimentally was approximately

Within the regions of potential plastic hinging at the ends proportional to the compressive strength raised to the power

of columns of intermediate moment frames, nonspiral trans- 0.72. The ACI provisions, which assume that joint shear

verse reinforcement must be in the form of hoops and must strength increases with the square root of the compressive

be provided at a spacing not to exceed: a) eight times the strength, resulted in a safe lower-bound estimate of strength.

diameter of the smallest longitudinal bar; b) 24 times the

diameter of the hoop bar; c) 1/2 of the smallest cross- 8.3—Shear strength of interior joints

sectional dimension of column; and d) 12 in. (305 mm). The Saqan and Kreger (1998) had only four test results from

only requirement concerning transverse joint reinforcement, specimens simulating interior joints. All specimens

however, is in Section 21.12.5.5, which requires such rein- sustained joint shear strengths higher than the nominal

forcement to conform to Section 11.11.2. That section values calculated according to ACI 318-05, despite having

requires transverse reinforcement having a minimum cross- lower amounts of transverse reinforcement than dictated by

sectional area equal to 0.75 f c′ c2s/fyt ≥ 50c2s/fyt (0.063 for ACI 318-05 and the design provisions of Committee 352,

fc′ in MPa) to be provided over a depth not less than that of and despite not meeting the requirement that beams extend

the deepest framing member. Ghosh et al. (1995) recom- over at least 75% of the width of all column faces. They

mended that the column end transverse reinforcement, as concluded that on the limited basis of these four tests, the

required by Section 21.12.5.2, be continued through joints of design provisions for joint shear strength in ACI 318-05 and

intermediate moment frames, irrespective of whether they those proposed by Committee 352 provided safe estimates of

are confined or unconfined. strength for concrete compressive strengths of up to 15,000 psi

(103 MPa). The evaluation of test results by Noguchi et al.

8.2—Shear strength of exterior joints (1998) also led to the conclusion that the ACI design provisions

Saqan and Kreger (1998) evaluated test results from 26 yielded conservative estimates of strength for concrete

beam-column connections tested in Japan and the U.S. with compressive strengths up to 17,400 psi (120 MPa).

concrete compressive strengths ranging from 6000 to

15,500 psi (41 to 107 MPa). The maximum joint shear was 8.4—Effect of transverse reinforcement on

calculated based on the story shears in the specimens at drift joint shear strength

ratios of 2%. The amount of transverse reinforcement in the exterior

In the case of exterior joints, only two of the 22 specimens joint specimens reviewed by Saqan and Kreger (1998)

considered by Saqan and Kreger (1998) had shear strengths ranged from 0.07 to 2.02 times the amount required by

less than those calculated per ACI 318-05. Saqan and Kreger ACI 318-05. They found no discernible correlation between

(1998) attributed the lower strengths observed in the two joint shear strength or mode of failure and the amount of

specimens to high bond stresses that degraded the shear transverse reinforcement. Of the 22 specimens evaluated by

strength of the joints prematurely. The ratios of column Saqan and Kreger, only five had an amount of transverse

ITG-4.3R-50 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

reinforcement higher than required by ACI 318-05. The continues to increase for slip values larger than the peak

remaining specimens had an average amount of reinforcement values during the previous cycles. The evaluation of test

that was 47% of the minimum required, and had joint shear results by Zhu and Jirsa (1983) resulted in the smaller values

strengths that were 42% higher than the calculated nominal now used in ACI 318-05. More recent tests, however,

strength. Based on this, Saqan and Kreger indicated that the support the earlier observations and indicate that the current

amount of transverse reinforcement in the joint could be design criteria will not prevent bond slip, even in the earliest

reduced for joints with high-strength concrete, although the stages of cyclic loading, and that significant bond slip will

effect of axial load should be assessed before such a reduction occur even under more stringent requirements than those in

is put in place. ACI 318-05 (Quintero-Febres and Wight 2001; Joint ACI-

Noguchi et al. (1998) concluded that transverse reinforcement ASCE Committee 352 2002).

was marginally effective in increasing joint shear strength, Development length requirements for beam-column joints

and that the effect of transverse reinforcement on joint shear differ significantly among the ACI 318-05 (ACI Committee

strength was not sensitive to concrete compressive strength. 318 2005), the AIJ Design Guideline (AIJ 1994), and the

They also found that the effect of transverse reinforcement NZS 3101 (Standards Association of New Zealand 1995).

was slightly more significant for exterior joints than for While the minimum column dimension requirement in

interior joints. ACI 318-05 is insensitive to material properties, design

Although experimental results showed that beam-column provisions in the AIJ Design Guideline (AIJ 1994) and in

joints with low amounts of transverse reinforcement were NZS 3101 establish the ratio of bar diameter to column depth

able to attain shear strengths comparable with those of well- as a function of the square root of the concrete compressive

reinforced joints, one important additional consideration is strength and the yield strength of the reinforcement. The

that the same cannot be concluded about the toughness of the philosophy behind this requirement is that bond deterioration

joints. The term “toughness” in this case refers to how can cause significant loss in the capacity of the connection to

sustainable the peak shear strength was upon further load dissipate energy (pinching behavior). Noguchi et al. (1998),

reversals up to similar or greater joint distortions (Joint ACI- based on the tests of beam-column joints with concrete

ASCE Committee 352 2002). Noguchi et al. (1998) compressive strengths greater than 8700 psi (60 MPa)

concluded that the plastic deformation capacity and the carried out in Japan as part of the New RC project, concluded

ductility of joints were enhanced by transverse reinforce- that specimens with high-strength concrete and high-

ment in a manner consistent with the behavior of joints with strength reinforcement demonstrated significantly reduced

normal-strength concrete. ability to dissipate energy compared with beam-column

joints made with normal-strength concrete. They indicated

8.5—Development length requirements for that while specimens that met the Japanese design guideline

beam-column joints had adequate behavior, it is not clear if a less stringent

ACI 318-05 criteria for the design of interior beam- requirement such as that of ACI 318-05 would be sufficient

column joints in special moment frames subjected to seismic for adequate toughness under cyclic loading. They

loading include the requirement that the column dimension concluded that further evaluation of the Japanese design

parallel to the beam reinforcement must be no less than 20 times guideline was needed for high-strength materials.

the diameter of the largest longitudinal bar for normalweight

concrete nor 26 times the bar diameter for lightweight 8.6—Recommendations

concrete. These criteria are based on an evaluation of test Because research indicates that the equations for calculating

results (Zhu and Jirsa 1983) for beam-column joints made the shear strength of joints are conservative for high-strength

with normal-strength concrete subjected to load reversals. Zhu concrete, no change to the code provisions is recommended.

and Jirsa (1983) concluded that the ratios of column width to There are significant differences in the provisions for the

bar diameter of 20 to 22 were appropriate to avoid bond ratio of column dimension parallel to the beam reinforcement to

damage at an interstory drift of 3%. the diameter of the largest longitudinal beam bar (which

The slip of bars in beam-column joints under load reversals effectively defines the minimum interior column dimension)

plays an important role in the ability of reinforced concrete between ACI 318-05 and both the AIJ Design Guideline

frames to resist seismic loading (Durrani and Wight 1982; (1994) and NZS 3101 (Standards Association of New

Zhu and Jirsa 1983; Ciampi et al. 1982). Based on push-pull Zealand 1995). ACI 318-05 requires significantly smaller

tests of bars embedded in beam-column joints with normal- column dimensions for joints with high-strength concrete.

strength concrete, Ciampi et al. (1982) found that to limit Although there is consensus in the literature that the

bond damage under cyclic loading, anchorage lengths minimum column dimension specified in ACI 318-05 is not

between 25 and 30 bar diameters and between 35 and 40 bar sufficient to prevent slip of the reinforcement, this situation

diameters were necessary for Grade 40 and 60 (280 and is not specific to high-strength concrete. The main difficulty

420 MPa) deformed bars, respectively. The criteria used to faced by the ITG was that there were no references found

define satisfactory performance were: 1) that the bond evaluating the minimum column dimension specified in

damage be limited to the end region of the embedment ACI 318-05 when high-strength concrete was used. Although

length; 2) that the hysteretic loops of the anchored bar there is experimental evidence from research carried out in

remain stable; and 3) that the strength of the anchorage Japan that the toughness of joints subjected to repeated load

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-51

reversals decreases with increasing compressive strength, the From research by Wallace and Moehle (1992), the

research conducted in Japan was aimed at evaluating the perfor- following expression was proposed for the limiting curvature

mance of joints proportioned according to the Japanese design

provisions. For that reason, no consensus was found on how to δ

1

φlim = ---

modify the ACI 318-05 provisions to account for this effect. - 0.0025 ( l w – 0.5h w ) + 2 -----u- (9-3)

lw hw

Seismic design of structural walls is covered in Section 21.7 Because the first term within the square brackets is small

of ACI 318-05. For walls with low aspect ratios, the primary compared with the second, it can be conservatively

design consideration is shear strength. According to ACI neglected to calculate the depth of the neutral axis

318-05, the nominal shear strength of walls is given by

ε lim lw lw

- = --------------

c = -------- - = --------------

- (9-4)

Vn = Acv(αc f c′ + ρt fy) φ lim 2δ u δ

ACI 318 Eq. (21-7) --------------- 600 -----u-

ε lim h w hw

where the coefficient αc = 3.0 for hw /lw ≤ 1.5, 2.0 for hw /lw

≥ 2.0, (fc′ and fy in psi) where the coefficient αc = 0.25 for The previous expression was derived by assuming a

hw /lw ≤ 1.5, 0.17 for hw /lw ≥ 2.0, (fc′ and fy in MPa) and limiting strain of 0.003 and rounding the term 2/0.003 = 667

varies linearly in between. down to 600. The design expression implemented in ACI

318-05 is thus intended to require special boundary elements

The minimum amount of web reinforcement required by

if the strain in the extreme compression fiber of a wall

the code is ρl = ρt = 0.0025, with a maximum spacing

exceeds 0.003 for the design drift demand. In the current

between bars of 18 in. (457 mm).

design procedure, the limiting strain is independent of the

In slender walls, the flexural behavior of the walls is most concrete compressive strength. A limiting strain of 0.003 has

important. The minimum amount of longitudinal reinforcement been shown to be a safe limit for normal-strength concrete

is specified to prevent premature failure due to rupture of the (Wallace 1998). The main concern in applying this provision

reinforcement. The significance of this problem is greater for to high-strength concrete walls is whether a limiting strain of

walls made with high-strength concrete because the depth of 0.003 remains a safe value as the concrete compressive

the neutral axis decreases and the strain demand in the strength increases.

reinforcement increases with compressive strength.

Wallace (1998) suggests that a similar limiting strain for

Another mode of failure that the code intends to prevent, normal-and high-strength concrete can be adopted, although

or at least postpone, through the use of special boundary greater conservatism may be prudent for high-strength

elements at the edges of structural walls is crushing of the concrete given the relatively brittle behavior of unconfined

concrete in the compression zone due to flexural demands. high-strength concrete.

According to ACI 318-05, compression zones shall be

As previously stated in Section 4.5, Fasching and French

reinforced with special boundary elements in areas where

(1998) indicate that opinions about the limiting strain for

high-strength concrete are varied. The test data set they

lw compiled had limiting strains ranging from 0.002 and 0.005,

c ≥ ----------------------------

-, δ ⁄ h ≥ 0.007 (9-1)

600 ( δ u ⁄ h w ) u w with an average value of 0.0033. Average values for data sets

with the same type of aggregate were all above 0.003.

where c corresponds to the largest neutral axis depth calculated Bae and Bayrak (2003) suggested adopting a lower

for the factored axial force and nominal moment strength, limiting strain due to observed spalling at lower strains in

consistent with the design displacement δu , in. These highly confined high-strength concrete columns. They

elements allow proper confinement and ductile behavior of attribute the premature spalling observed in these columns to

the compression zone. Due to the amount of transverse the existence of a failure plane created by closely spaced hoops.

reinforcement required, however, the use of boundary Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) proposed, on the

elements significantly increases the cost of the walls. basis of moment-curvature analyses, that the limiting

concrete strain be linearly reduced from 0.0036 for 4000 psi

9.1—Boundary element requirements (28 MPa) concrete to 0.0027 for 18,000 psi (124 MPa)

The equation to determine whether boundary elements are concrete. Their analysis consisted of finding the maximum

required stems from establishing a limiting strain demand moment resistance and the corresponding extreme compression

εlim that the wall can sustain without special confinement, fiber strain from a series of moment-curvature diagrams.

such that They concluded that although the optimal values of flexural

strength were obtained by varying the limiting strain as

proposed, the calculated flexural strength was not very

ε lim

c = --------

- (9-2) sensitive to the limiting strain, and recommended adopting a

φ lim constant value of 0.003.

ITG-4.3R-52 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Saatcioglu and Razvi (1998) observed premature spalling Specimens with lower amounts of web reinforcement failed

of cover concrete in most of the concentrically loaded after yielding of that reinforcement, and their strength was

columns that they tested, prior to the development of strains safely estimated by the Japanese seismic design guideline. In

associated with concrete crushing. Similar to Bae and specimens with high amounts of transverse reinforcement,

Bayrak (2003), they attributed the premature spalling in failure occurred due to crushing of the web concrete before

these columns to a stability failure caused by a failure plane yielding of the web reinforcement, and their strength was

induced by the presence of closely spaced longitudinal and overestimated by the Japanese design guideline. The Japanese

transverse steel. Furthermore, they indicated that this guideline is based on a strut-and-tie approach in which the

problem was not observed in columns with widely spaced total strength is the sum of the strength contributions from

transverse reinforcement tested by Rangan et al. (1991) and truss and arch action. The procedure is based on estimating

Yong et al. (1988). the demand on the concrete placed by the truss mechanism,

and whatever capacity is left, if any, is assigned to the direct

9.2—Shear strength of walls with low aspect ratios strut mechanism. Kabeyasawa and Hiraishi (1998) also

Tests of low-rise walls with high-strength concrete carried indicated that although the walls designed to fail in flexure

out in North America are scarce. Wallace (1998) performed were able to sustain deformations past the yield point of the

an analysis comparing the strength estimated using the shear

flexural reinforcement, the energy dissipated, as indicated by

design equation in ACI 318-05 with test results of low-rise

the hysteresis loops, was relatively low. They indicated that

walls made of high-strength concrete carried out in Japan.

equivalent damping coefficients for the high-strength

The analysis by Wallace showed that the ratio of measured

concrete walls were on the order of 5 to 8%, while these

to estimated strength decreased with the ratio ρn fy/fc′ . The

values for normal-strength walls are considerably higher, on

strength of several specimens with ρn fy/fc′ ≥ 0.08 was over-

estimated using the ACI 318 equation. He carried out a the order of 20%. In addition, the hysteresis loops exhibited

second comparison using a design procedure proposed by pinching behavior.

Wood (1990). According to Wood, the shear strength of the

walls is given by 9.3—Minimum tensile reinforcement requirements

in walls

Failure of lightly reinforced structural walls may occur, in

Vn = Asv fy/4 (9-5)

some instances at relatively low levels of drift, due to fracture

of the tensile reinforcement (Wood 1989). A documented

10 f c′ Acv ≥ Vn ≥ 6 f c′ Acv ( fc′ in psi) (9-6) case of this type of failure occurred in an eight-story structural

wall building that suffered severe damage and fracture of the

tensile reinforcement near the base of the structural walls

0.83 f c′ Acv ≥ Vn ≥ 0.5 f c′ Acv ( fc′ in MPa) during the 1985 Chilean earthquake (Wood 1989).

According to Wood, the damaged walls had calculated tensile

where Asv is the total area of vertical reinforcement, and Acv strains in the boundary reinforcement that were twice the

is the area of the wall bounded by the web thickness and the measured fracture strain of the reinforcement.

wall length. Wallace found that for the high-strength walls This problem can be exacerbated by the use of high-

with different amounts of vertical reinforcement tested in strength concrete because the depth of the compression zone

Japan, the equation proposed by Wood provided a uniform needed to equilibrate the force in the tensile reinforcement is

ratio of measured to calculated shear strength. The average considerably less than in walls with normal-strength concrete.

ratio of measured to calculated strength was 1.76, with a

Based on results from 37 structural wall tests, Wood

coefficient of variation of 20%. Wallace also showed that for

high-strength concrete walls, shear strength was not sensitive to proposed two different criteria that may be used to determine

the amount of web reinforcement, and suggested using a the vulnerability of walls to failure due to fracture of the

shear strength of 9 f c′ Acv (in psi) (0.75 f c′ Acv [in MPa]) tensile reinforcement. The first criterion uses the calculated

as a safe lower bound. steel strain in the extreme layer of reinforcement at the

Kabeyasawa and Hiraishi (1998) presented a summary of nominal flexural strength of the cross section as an index

21 tests on high-strength concrete walls conducted in Japan, value. Because there were several walls within the set with

with compressive strengths ranging from 8700 to 17,400 psi calculated steel strains greater than 5% that failed in shear,

(60 to 120 MPa). The parameters of the experimental however, Wood concluded that the calculated steel strain

program were the concrete compressive strength, the trans- cannot be used as the sole criterion for determining the

verse and longitudinal reinforcement ratios, the axial load, susceptibility of a wall to fracture of the reinforcement.

the type of boundary element, and the shear span-depth ratio. It was observed that of the subset of 24 walls with a shear

Six of the specimens were designed to reach flexural stress index greater than 0.75, 20 failed in shear, and of the

yielding before shear failure. 13 walls that developed a shear stress index less than 0.75,

Specimens designed to fail in shear had different amounts 12 failed in flexure. The shear stress index was defined by

of web reinforcement. All shear-critical specimens failed Wood as vmax /vn , where vmax is the maximum shear stress

due to crushing of the concrete in the web of the wall. demand on the wall and

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-53

vn = 2 f c′ + ρn fy ≤ 8 f c′ (psi) (9-7) flexural strength. The former is not a concern in the case of

end regions of walls without boundary elements, while the

latter is not a concern because the limiting strain of the

vn = f c′ /6 + ρn fy ≤ 2 f c′ /3 (MPa) concrete is not likely to have a significant effect on the

calculated flexural strength of slender walls.

Within the subset of walls with shear stress indexes below One area of concern is the behavior of walls with very light

0.75, Wood observed that 10 of the 12 walls with total amounts of longitudinal reinforcement. A simple procedure

vertical reinforcement ratios ρwt less than 1% were susceptible was proposed by Wood to prevent wall failure due to fracture

to fracture of the tensile reinforcement. Fracture of the of the tension reinforcement.

reinforcement was observed in walls with calculated steel In the case of walls with low aspect ratios, the study by

strains in the extreme layer of reinforcement as low as 2.5%. Wallace (1998) showed that shear strength equations in ACI

A limit of 4% was proposed as a reasonable boundary for 318-05 become less conservative as the amount of transverse

identifying walls that are likely to fail due to fracture of the reinforcement increases in walls with high-strength

reinforcement. concrete. For high amounts of transverse reinforcement, the

The second criterion is based on the flexural stress index equation for shear strength in ACI 318-05 was found to be

cfsw, which is representative of the ratio of neutral axis depth unconservative. One viable option to obtain a uniform level

to wall length, and is given by of safety is to adopt the equations proposed by Wood. The

main disadvantage of this option is that the level of conser-

vatism was found to be quite large for high-strength

ρ wt f yl + P ⁄ A w

c fsw = ---------------------------------

- (9-8) concrete. Another alternative is to recommend the use of

f c′ strut-and-tie models following the recommendations presented

in Chapter 6.

where The study by Wallace indicated that the current ACI

procedure was unconservative for several high-strength

A swb + A sww concrete walls with ρn fy /fc′ ≥ 0.08. These cases, however,

ρ wt = ----------------------------

- (9-9) are rare in earthquake-resistant construction. This concern

Aw

may be addressed with an addition to the commentary to

ACI 318-05, Section 21.7.4, indicating that the current

where

design equations may yield unconservative estimates of

ρwt = total vertical reinforcement ratio of the wall; shear strength for high-strength concrete walls with high

Aw = gross area of the wall; amounts of transverse reinforcement.

Aswb = area of vertical reinforcement in the boundary

element of the wall (the participation of the CHAPTER 10—LIST OF PROPOSED

steel in the compression boundary element is MODIFICATIONS TO ACI 318-05

ignored in the formulation because it was One of the main goals of this report was to present a series

assumed that the neutral axis depth is small); of recommendations for the use of high-strength concrete in

Asww = total area of vertical reinforcement in the web seismic design. The main purpose of the literature review

of the wall, excluding boundary elements; and presented in the previous chapters on structural design was

P = axial load on the wall, with a positive value to identify specific sections of ACI 318-05 that should be

representing a compressive force. revised to allow for the use of high-strength concrete in

Wood noted that of the 27 specimens in which the main seismic design. Although some of the changes that were

reinforcement did not fracture, 26 had flexural stress indexes proposed were intended to facilitate a smooth transition

greater than 15%, and suggested that structural walls suscep- between normal- and high-strength concrete, the majority of

tible to fracture of the tensile reinforcement are those with a them specifically address structural design using high-

flexural stress index below 15%. strength concrete.

Both of the two requirements proposed by Wood may be The following are specific modifications to ACI 318-05

interpreted as prescribing a minimum amount of tensile intended for the safe use of high-strength concrete in seismic

reinforcement in structural walls. design. Section numbers are noted where applicable. SI units

are not repeated in this Chapter for clarity. See previous

9.4—Recommendations chapters for SI equivalents.

The literature survey indicates that design provisions for

the detailing of boundary elements in slender walls in ACI 10.1—Proposed modifications to equivalent

318-05 are adequate for high-strength concrete, and no rectangular stress block

significant change is necessary. The technical references in The following changes are proposed to the equivalent

which a lower limiting compressive strain was suggested for rectangular stress in ACI 318-05.

high-strength concrete columns attributed the need for a Changes and additions to Section 2.1—

lower limiting strain to the existence of a failure plane α1 = factor relating magnitude of uniform stress in

caused by closely spaced ties, or to an overestimation of the the equivalent rectangular compressive stress

ITG-4.3R-54 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

concrete as defined in 10.2.7.2, Chapter 10. confinement of potential plastic hinge regions

β1 = factor relating depth of equivalent rectangular Addition to Section 2.1—

compressive stress block to neutral axis depth, kve = confinement efficiency factor. See Eq. (21-YY)

see 10.2.7.3 10.2.7.4, Chapters 10, 18, Changes to Section 21.2.5—

Appendix B 21.2.5 Reinforcement in members resisting earthquake-

χ1 = factor relating mean concrete compressive induced forces—Reinforcement resisting earthquake-

stress at axial load failure of concentrically induced flexural and axial forces in frame members and in

loaded columns to specified compressive structural wall boundary elements shall comply with ASTM

strength of concrete as defined in 10.3.6.4, A 706. ASTM A 615 Grades 40 and 60 (280 and 420 MPa)

Chapter 10. reinforcement shall be permitted in these members if:

Changes to Section 10.2.7— (a) The actual yield strength based on mill tests does not

10.2.7.1 Concrete stress of 0.85 α1fc′ shall be assumed exceed fy by more than 18,000 psi (retests shall not exceed

uniformly distributed over an equivalent compression zone this value by more than an additional 3000 psi); and

bounded by edges of the cross section and a straight line (b) The ratio of the actual tensile strength to the actual

located parallel to the neutral axis at a distance a = β1c from yield strength is not less than 1.25

the fiber of maximum compressive strain. The value of fyt for transverse reinforcement including

10.2.7.2 For fc′ between 2500 and 8000 psi, α1 shall be spiral reinforcement shall not exceed 60,000 psi. The use of

taken as 0.85. For fc′ above 8000 psi, α1 shall be reduced transverse reinforcement with a specified yield strength not

linearly at a rate of 0.015 for each 1000 psi of strength in exceeding 120,000 psi shall be permitted when required to

excess of 8000 psi, but α1 shall not be taken less than 0.70. meet the confinement requirements given by Eq. (21-XX).

The yield strength of the reinforcement shall be measured by

10.2.7.2 10.2.7.3 Distance from the fiber of maximum

the offset method of ASTM A 370 using 0.2% permanent

strain to the neutral axis, c, shall be measured in a direction

offset. The requirement of Section 3.5.3.2 shall be inappli-

perpendicular to that axis.

cable to such high-strength transverse reinforcement.

10.2.7.3 10.2.7.4 For fc′ between 2500 and 4000 psi, β1

Replace Section 21.4.4.1 with the following—

shall be taken as 0.85. For fc′ above 4000 psi, β1 shall be

21.4.4.1 Transverse reinforcement as required in (a)

reduced linearly at a rate of 0.05 for each 1000 psi of strength

through (c) shall be provided unless a larger amount is

in excess of 4000 psi, but β1 shall not be taken less than 0.65.

required by 21.4.3.2 or 21.4.5.

Changes to Section 10.3.6—

(a) The area ratio of transverse reinforcement shall not be

10.3.6.1 For nonprestressed members with spiral less than that required by Eq. (21-XX)

reinforcement conforming to 7.10.4 or composite members

conforming to 10.16, or confined columns conforming to

f c′ ⎛ A g 1 Pu

21.4.4.1 through 21.4.4.3 for the full height of the column - -------- – 1⎞ ----------- -----------

ρ t = 0.35 ---- (21-XX)

f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠ k A g f c′

ve

φPn,max = 0.85φ[0.85fc′ (Ag – Ast ) + fyAst] (10-1)

where Ag /Ach – 1 ≥ 0.3, and Pu /Ag fc′ ≥ 0.2.

φPn,max = 0.85φ[χ1fc′ (Ag – Ast ) + fyAst] (10-1) (b) Transverse reinforcement shall have either circular or

rectangular geometry. Reinforcement for columns with

10.3.6.2 For nonprestressed members with tie reinforcement circular geometry shall be in the form of spirals or hoops, for

conforming to 7.10.5 which kve = 1.0. Reinforcement for columns with rectangular

geometry shall be provided in the form of single or overlapping

φPn,max = 0.80φ[0.85fc′ (Ag – Ast ) + fyAst] (10-2) hoops. Crossties of the same bar size and spacing as the

hoops shall be permitted. Each end of the crosstie shall

engage a peripheral longitudinal reinforcing bar. Consecutive

φPn,max = 0.80φ[χ1fc′ (Ag – Ast ) + fyAst] (10-2)

crossties shall be alternated end for end along the longitudinal

reinforcement. The parameter kve for rectangular hoop

10.3.6.3 For prestressed members, design axial strength reinforcement shall be determined by Eq. (21-YY)

φPn shall not be taken greater than 0.85 (for members with

spiral reinforcement) or 0.80 (for members with tie rein- 0.15b

forcement) of the design axial strength at zero eccentricity k ve = ---------------c ≤ 1.0 (21-YY)

φPo calculated assuming concrete stress of χ1fc′ uniformly sh x

distributed across the entire depth of the section.

10.3.6.4 For fc′ between 2500 and 8000 psi, χ1 shall (c) If the thickness of the concrete outside the confining

be taken as 0.85. For fc′ above 8000 psi, χ1 shall be transverse reinforcement exceeds 4 in., additional transverse

reduced linearly at a rate of 0.015 for each 1000 psi of reinforcement shall be provided at a spacing not exceeding

strength in excess of 8000 psi, but χ1 shall not be taken 12 in. Concrete cover on the additional reinforcement shall

less than 0.70. not exceed 4 in.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-55

Changes to Section 21.12.5— with a minimum total cross-sectional area Asp given by

21.12.5.1 Columns shall be spirally reinforced in accor- Eq. (21-AA)

dance with 7.10.4 or shall conform to 21.12.5.2 through

21.12.5.421.12.5.5. Section 21.12.5.521.12.5.6 shall apply Asp = 0.5nAb,max(fc′ /15,000) (21-AA)

to all columns.

21.12.5.2 At both ends of the member, hoops shall be where n is the number of bars or wires being spliced along

provided at spacing so over a length lo measured from the the plane of splitting.

joint face. Spacing so shall not exceed the smallest of (a), (b), Maximum spacing of the transverse reinforcement

(c), and (d): (a) eight times the diameter of the smallest enclosing the lapped bars shall not exceed d/4 or 4 in., and

longitudinal bar enclosed; (b) 24 times the diameter of the hoop the minimum hoop or spiral bar size shall be No. 3. Lap

bar; (c) 1/2 of the smallest cross-sectional dimension of the splices shall not be used:

frame member; (d) 12 in. length lo shall not be less than the (a) within the joints;

largest of (e), (f), and (g); (e) 1/6 of the clear span of the

(b) within a distance of twice the member depth from the

member; (f) maximum cross-sectional dimension of the

face of the joint; and

member; and (g) 18 in.

(c) where analysis indicates flexural yielding is caused by

21.12.5.3 For members in which the specified concrete

inelastic lateral displacements of the frame.

compressive strength is greater than 8000 psi, transverse

21.4.3.2 Mechanical splices shall conform to 21.2.6, and

reinforcement as required in (a) and (b) shall be provided at

welded splices shall conform to 21.2.7. Lap splices shall be

both ends of the member over a length lo measured from the

permitted only within the center half of the member length.

joint face.

Lap splices shall be designed as tension lap splices in accor-

(a) Members with transverse reinforcement with rectilinear

dance with 21.3.2.3, and shall be enclosed with transverse

geometry shall not be less than that required by Eq. (21-ZZ)

reinforcement conforming to 21.4.4.2 and 21.4.4.3 and the

maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement in lap splices

f ′ Ag Pu

ρ t = 0.3 ----c- ⎛ -------

- – 1⎞ ----------- (21-ZZ) shall be as given by 21.4.4.2. The transverse reinforcement

f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠ A g f c′ also shall conform to 21.4.4.3.

21.5.4.1 The development length ldh for a bar with a

(b) Members with transverse reinforcement with circular standard 90-degree hook in normalweight aggregate

geometry shall not be less than that required by Eq. (21-WW) concrete shall not be less than the largest of 8db, 6 in., and

the lengths required by Eq. (21-6) and (21-BB)

f c′ ⎛ A g Pu

- -------- – 1⎞ -----------

ρ t = 0.2 ---- (21-WW)

f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠ A g f c′ fy db

l dh = ---------------

- (21-6)

65 f c′

where Ag /Ach – 1 ≥ 0.3, and Pu /Ag fc′ ≥ 0.2.

21.12.5.321.12.5.4 The first hoop shall be located not fy db

l dh = ---------------------

- (21-BB)

more than so/2 from the joint face. 1⁄4

650f c′

21.12.5.421.12.5.5 Outside the length lo, spacing of

transverse reinforcement shall conform to 7.10 and 11.5.5.1. for bar sizes No. 3 through 11.

21.12.5.521.12.5.6 Joint transverse reinforcement shall

21.7.2.3 Reinforcement in structural walls shall be

conform to 11.11.2.

developed or spliced for fy in tension in accordance with

Chapter 12, except:

10.3—Proposed modifications related to bond and

development of reinforcement (a) The effective depth of the member referenced in

Additions to Section 2.1— 12.10.3 shall be permitted to be 0.8lw for walls;

Asp = total cross-sectional area of all transverse (b) The requirements of 12.11, 12.12, and 12.13 need not

reinforcement that is within the splice or devel- be satisfied;

opment length and that crosses the potential (c) At locations where yielding of longitudinal reinforce-

plane of splitting through the reinforcement ment is likely to occur as a result of lateral displacements,

being spliced or developed, in.2 development lengths of longitudinal reinforcement shall be

Ab,max = cross-sectional area of largest bar being spliced 1.25 times the values calculated for fy in tension. When the

or developed, in.2 value of f c′ exceeds 100 psi, transverse reinforcement with

Changes to Chapter 21— a minimum total cross-sectional area Asp as given by Eq. (21-AA)

21.3.2.3 Lap splices of flexural reinforcement shall be shall be provided over the development or splice length;

permitted only if hoop or spiral reinforcement is provided (d) Mechanical splices of reinforcement shall conform to

over the lap length. When the value of f c′ exceeds 100 psi, 21.2.6, and welded splices of reinforcement shall conform to

ld shall be calculated using either 12.2.2 or 12.2.3 with Ktr = 21.2.7; and

0, and transverse reinforcement crossing the potential plane (e) When the value of f c′ exceeds 100 psi, ld shall be

of splitting shall be provided over the tension splice length calculated with Ktr = 0.

ITG-4.3R-56 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

reinforcement of boundary elements shall conform to 21.2.6 Thanks are due to the Carpenters Contractors Cooperation

and 21.2.7. Lap splices shall be designed as tension lap Committee, Inc., of Los Angeles, Calif., for sponsoring

splices in accordance with 21.3.2.3, except that the Innovation Task Group 4 and to Joseph C. Sanders for acting

maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement shall be as as liaison with that group. The members of ITG 4 are

given by 21.4.4.2 and the transverse reinforcement shall also indebted to the following individuals for their review of

conform to 21.4.4.3. portions of this document and for their constructive

Addition to Section 2.1— comments: R. J. Frosch, M. E. Kreger, D. A. Kuchma, J. M.

αst = smallest angle of inclination of a strut with LaFave, J. A. Ramirez, J. W. Wallace, and S. L. Wood. O.

respect to the ties that it intersects in both of its Bayrak is owed many thanks for his input related to stress

nodes block parameters. M. Saatcioglu made numerous contributions

related to stress block parameters and column confinement,

βfc = factor to account for the effect of concrete

which are gratefully acknowledged.

compressive strength on the effective

compressive strength of concrete in a strut

CHAPTER 11—CITED REFERENCES

βαt = factor to account for the effect of the angle of Abrams, D. P., 1987, “Influence of Axial Force Variations

inclination of the strut αst on the effective on Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns,” ACI

compressive strength of concrete in a strut Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 3, May-June, pp. 246-254.

ACI Committee 301, 2005, “Specifications for Structural

10.4—Proposed modifications related to Concrete (ACI 301-05),” American Concrete Institute,

strut-and-tie models Farmington Hills, Mich., 49 pp.

Changes to Appendix A—

ACI Committee 318, 1983, “Building Code Requirements

A.3.2 The effective compressive strength of the concrete for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-83),” American Concrete

fce in a strut shall be taken as Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 155 pp.

ACI Committee 318, 1989, “Building Code Requirements

fce = 0.85βs fc′ (A-3) for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-89) and Commentary

(318R-89),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,

A.3.2.1 For a strut of uniform cross-sectional area over its Mich., 347 pp.

length βs= 1.0: for fc′ between 2500 and 8000 psi, βs shall be ACI Committee 318, 2002, “Building Code Requirements

taken as 1.0; for fc′ above 8000 psi, βs shall be reduced for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary

linearly at a rate of 0.02 for each 1000 psi of strength in (318R-02),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,

excess of 8000 psi, but βs shall not be taken less than 0.80. Mich., 443 pp.

A.3.2.2 For struts located such that the width of the ACI Committee 318, 2005, “Building Code Requirements

midsection of the strut is larger than the width at the nodes for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary

(bottle-shaped struts): (318R-05),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,

(a) with reinforcement satisfying A.3.3, βs = 0.75; and Mich., 430 pp.

(b) without reinforcement satisfying A.3.3, βs = 0.6 shall ACI Committee 363, 1992, “Report on High-Strength

be taken as the smaller of: (a) 0.6λ; and (b) the product of Concrete (ACI 363R-92),” American Concrete Institute,

βfcβαt , where Farmington Hills, Mich., 56 pp.

βfc = 1 – fc′ /30,000, but βfc shall not be taken less than ACI Committee 408, 2003, “Bond and Development of

0.60. Straight Reinforcing Bars in Tension (ACI 408R-03),” Amer-

ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 49 pp.

ACI Innovation Task Group 4, 2006, “Materials and

1

β αt = ---------------------------------- Quality Considerations for High-Strength Concrete in

3

1 + 0.1cot α st Moderate to High Seismic Applications (ITG-4.2R-06),”

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 26 pp.

and λ is given in 11.7.4.3. Ahmad, S. H.; Khaloo, A. R.; and Poveda, A., 1986,

In the case of members subjected to point loads with single “Shear Capacity of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete

struts connecting the load and reaction point, the angle of Beams,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-

inclination of the strut may be approximated as Apr., pp. 297-305.

Ahmad, S. H., and Lue, D. M., 1987, “Flexure-Shear Inter-

action of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beams,” ACI

a

cot α s = -----v Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 330-341.

d Ahmad, S. H., and Shah, S., 1982, “Stress-Strain Curves

of Concrete Confined by Spiral Reinforcement,” ACI

A.3.2.3 For struts in tension members, or the tension JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 79, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 484-490.

flanges of members, βs = 0.40 Aoyama, H., 1993, “Design Philosophy for Shear in

A.3.2.4 For all other cases, βs = 0.60 Earthquake Resistance in Japan,” Earthquake Resistance

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-57

of Reinforced Concrete Structures, A Volume Honoring Brachmann, I.; Browning, J.; and Matamoros, A., 2004b,

Hiroyuki Aoyama, University of Tokyo, pp. 407-418. “Relationship Between Drift and Confinement in Reinforced

Aoyama, H.; Murota, T.; Hiraishi, H.; and Bessho, S., Concrete Columns Under Cyclic Loading,” Proceedings,

1990, “Outline of the Japanese National Project on 13th World Conference in Earthquake Engineering,

Advanced Reinforced Concrete Buildings with High- Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 15 pp.

Strength and High-Quality Materials,” Proceedings of the Browning, J., 2001, “Proportioning of Earthquake-

Second International Symposium on High Strength Concrete, Resistant RC Building Structures,” Journal of Structural

SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed., American Concrete Institute, Engineering, ASCE, V. 127, No. 2, pp. 145-151.

Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 21-32. BSSC, 2004, “NEHRP Recommended Provisions for New

Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ), 1994, “Design for Buildings and Other Structures Part 2: Commentary (FEMA

Earthquake Resistant Reinforced Concrete Buildings Based 450),” 2003 Edition, Building Seismic Safety Council,

on Ultimate Strength Concept, with Commentary,” 337 pp. National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.

ASCE/SEI, 2006, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings

C4 Committee, 2000, “High Strength Concrete Research,”

and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-05),” Structural Engi-

Carpenters/Contractors Cooperation Committee, Inc., Los

neering Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers,

Angeles, Calif.

Reston, Va., 424 pp.

Canadian Standards Association, 1994, “Design of

Azizinamini, A.; Baum Kuska, S.; Brungardt, P.; and

Concrete Structures for Buildings (CAN3-A23.3-94),”

Hatfield, E., 1994, “Seismic Behavior of Square High-

Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.

Strength Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91,

No. 3, May-June, pp. 336-345. Ciampi, V.; Eligehausen, R.; Bertero, V. V.; and Popov,

Azizinamini, A.; Darwin, D.; Eligehausen, R.; Pavel, R.; E. P., 1982, “Analytical Model for Deformed Bar Bond

and Ghosh, S. K., 1999a, “Proposed Modifications to ACI Under Generalized Excitations,” UCB/EERC Report No. 82/

318-95 Tension Development and Lap Splice for High- 23, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of

Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 6, California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.

Nov.-Dec., pp. 922-926. Collins, M., and Kuchma, D., 1999, “How Safe Are Our

Azizinamini, A.; Pavel, R.; Hatfield, E.; and Ghosh, S. K., Large, Lightly Reinforced Concrete Beams, Slabs, and

1999b, “Behavior of Lap-Spliced Reinforcing Bars Footings?” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 4, July-Aug.,

Embedded in High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural pp. 482-490.

Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 826-835. Collins, M. P.; Mitchell, D.; and MacGregor, J. G., 1993,

Azizinamini, A.; Stark, M.; Roller, J. J.; and Ghosh, S. K., “Structural Design Considerations for High-Strength Concrete,”

1993, “Bond Performance of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in Concrete International, V. 15, No. 5, May, pp. 27-34.

High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, Comité Euro-International du Béton (CEB), 1988, “CEB-FIP

No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 554-561. Model Code 1990—First Predraft (1988),” Bulletin d’Infor-

Bae, S., and Bayrak, O., 2003, “Stress Block Parameters mation No. 190a/190b, Lausanne, Switzerland.

for High-Strength Concrete Members,” ACI Structural Comité Euro-International du Béton (CEB), 1993, “CEB-FIP

Journal, V. 100, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 626-636. Model Code 1990,” Bulletin d’Information No. 213/214,

Bassapa, R. H., and Rangan, B. V., 1995, “Strength of Lausanne, Switzerland.

High Strength Concrete Columns under Eccentric Compres-

Cusson, D., and Paultre, P., 1994, “High-Strength Concrete

sion,” Research Report No. 2/95, School of Civil Engi-

Columns Confined by Rectangular Ties,” Journal of Struc-

neering, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.

tural Engineering, ASCE, V. 120, No. 3, pp. 783-804.

Bayrak, O., 1999, “Seismic Performance of Rectilinearly

Cusson, D., and Paultre, P., 1995, “Stress-Strain Model for

Confined High Strength Concrete Columns,” PhD dissertation,

Confined High-Strength Concrete,” Journal of Structural

University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Engineering, ASCE, V. 121, No. 3, pp. 468-477.

Bayrak, O., and Sheikh, S., 1998, “Confinement Reinforce-

ment Design Considerations for Ductile HSC Columns,” Darwin, D.; Zuo, J.; Tholen, M. L.; and Idun, E. K., 1996,

Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 124, No. 9, pp. 999-1010. “Development Length Criteria for Conventional and High

Bjerkeli, L.; Tomaszewicz, A.; and Jensen A. A., 1990, Relative Rib Area Reinforcing Bars,” ACI Structural

“Deformation Properties and Ductility of High Strength Journal, V. 93, No. 3, May-June, pp. 347-359.

Concrete,” Proceedings, Second International Symposium Durrani, A. J., and Wight, J. K., 1982, “Experimental and

on High-Strength Concrete, SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed., Amer- Analytical Study of Internal Beam to Column Connections

ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 215-238. Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Loading,” Report No. UMEE

BOCA, 1993, “The BOCA National Building Code,” 82R3, Department of Civil Engineering, University of

Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Mich., Ann Arbor, Mich., 275 pp.

Country Club Hills, Ill. Elwood, K., 2002, “Shake Table Tests and Analytical

Brachmann, I.; Browning, J.; and Matamoros, A., 2004a, Studies on the Gravity Load Collapse of Reinforced

“Drift-Dependent Confinement Requirements for Rein- Concrete Frames,” PhD dissertation, Department of Civil

forced Concrete Columns under Cyclic Loading,” ACI and Environmental Engineering, University of California at

Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 669-677. Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.

ITG-4.3R-58 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Elwood, K., and Moehle, J., 2005, “Axial Capacity Model for Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta,

Shear-Damaged Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 197 pp.

No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 578-587. Ibrahim, H., and MacGregor, J., 1996a, “Tests of Eccentri-

Elzanaty, A. H.; Nilson, A. H.; and Slate, F. O., 1986, cally Loaded High-Strength Concrete Columns,” ACI

“Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using High- Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 585-594.

Strength Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Ibrahim, H., and MacGregor, J., 1996b, “Flexural Behavior

Mar.-Apr. pp. 290-296. of Laterally Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Sections,”

Fafitis, A., and Shah, S. P., 1985, “Lateral Reinforcement ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 674-684.

for High Strength Concrete Columns,” High Strength Ibrahim, H., and MacGregor, J., 1997, “Modification of

Concrete, SP-87, H. G. Russell, ed., American Concrete the ACI Rectangular Stress Block for High-Strength

Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 213-232. Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.,

Fasching, C. J., and French, C. E., 1998, “Effect of High- pp. 40-48.

Strength Concrete (HSC) on Flexural Members,” High- ICBO, 1997, Uniform Building Code, Whittier, Calif.

Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French ICBO, 2001, “Seismic Design Utilizing High-Strength

and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farm- Concrete,” ICBO ER-5536, ICBO Evaluation Service Inc.,

ington Hills, Mich., pp. 137-178. Whittier, Calif., http://www.icces.org/reports/pdf_files/

Foster, S. J., and Attard, M. M., 1997, “Experimental Tests UBC/5536.pdf

on Eccentrically Loaded High-Strength Concrete Columns,” ISO, 1991, “Steels for the Reinforcement and Prestressing

ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 3, May-June, pp. 295-303. of Concrete,” Standard 6934-4:1991.

Fujii, S.; Noguchi, H.; and Morita, S., 1998, “Bond and Itakura, Y., and Yagenji, A., 1992, “Compressive Test on

Anchorage of Reinforcement in High-Strength Concrete,” High-Strength R/C Columns and Their Analysis Based on

High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. Energy Concept,” Proceedings of 10th World Conference on

French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, pp. 2599-2602.

Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 23-43. Japan Institute of Construction Engineering, Design

Ghosh, S. K.; Domel, A. W.; and Fanella, D. A., 1995, Guidelines Committee, 1993, “New RC Structural Design

Design of Concrete Buildings for Earthquake & Wind Forces, Guidelines and Commentary,” Annual Report of New RC

2nd Edition, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Ill. Project. (in Japanese)

Ghosh, S. K., and Saatcioglu, M., 1994, “Ductility and Japanese Standards Association, 1994, “Small Size-

Seismic Behavior,” High Performance Concrete: Properties Deformed Steel Bars for Prestressed Concrete,” JIS G

and Applications, S. P. Shah and S. H. Ahmad, eds., 3137:1994.

McGraw Hill, 388 pp. Johnson, M. K., and Ramirez, J. A., 1989, “Minimum

Hibi, J.; Mihara, Y.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama H., 1991, Amount of Shear Reinforcement in High-Strength Concrete

“Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns Using High Members,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 4, July-Aug.,

Strength Concrete after Flexural Yielding,” Transactions of pp. 376-382.

the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 13, 1991, pp. 395-402. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, 2002, “Recommenda-

Hofbeck, J. A; Ibrahim, I. O.; and Mattock, A. H., 1969, tions for Design of Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic

“Shear Transfer in Reinforced Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL , Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352R-02),” American

Proceedings V. 66, No. 2, Feb., pp. 119-128. Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 40 pp.

Hognestad, E., 1951, “A Study of Combined Bending and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, 1998, “Recent

Axial Load in Reinforced Concrete Members,” Bulletin Approaches to Shear Design of Structural Concrete,” Journal

Series No. 399, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment of Structural Engineering, V. 124, No. 12, pp. 1375-1417.

Station, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Kaar, P.; Hanson, N.; and Capell, H., 1977, “Stress-Strain

Urbana, Ill., 128 pp. Characteristics of High-Strength Concrete,” Report

Hognestad, E.; Hanson, N. W.; and McHenry, D., 1955, RD051.01D, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Ill.

“Concrete Stress Distribution in Ultimate Strength Design,” Kabeyasawa, T., and Hiraishi, H., 1998, “Tests and Analyses

ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 52, pp. 455-479. of High-Strength Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls in

Hokuetsu Metal Co., 1990, “Design and Construction Japan,” High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176,

Guidelines for Reinforced Concrete Beams and Columns C. W. French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete

using High-Strength Shear Reinforcement UHY Hoops.” (in Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 281-310.

Japanese) Kato, D., 1991, “Stress-Strain Behaviors of Square

Hsu, L. S., and Hsu, C. T., 1994, “Complete Stress-Strain Confined Reinforced Concrete Columns,” Journal of

Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Under Compression,” Structural and Construction Engineering, No. 422, pp. 65-74.

Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 46, No. 169, pp. 301-312. Kato, D., and Wakatsuki, K., 1992, “Effects of Hoop Ties

IBC, 2003, “International Building Code 2003,” published on the Stress-Strain Relation of Square Confined R/C

in cooperation by BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI, International Columns,” Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual

Code Council, Falls Church, Va., 632 pp. Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, pp. 645-646.

Ibrahim, H., and MacGregor, J., 1994, “Flexural Behavior Kato, D.; Watanabe, F.; Nishiyama, M.; and Sato, H.,

of High-Strength Concrete Columns,” Report No. 196, 1998, “Confined Concrete with High-Strength Materials,”

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-59

High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. Matamoros, A.; Garcia, L. E.; Browning, J.; and Lepage,

French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, A., 2004, “The Flat-Rate Design Method for Low- and

Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 85-104. Medium-Rise Reinforced Concrete Structures,” ACI Struc-

Kawasake Steel Techno-wire Co., 1990, “Design and tural Journal, V. 101, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 435-446.

Construction Guidelines of Reinforced Concrete Members Matamoros, A., and Sozen, M., 2003, “Drift Limits of

using High-Strength Shear Reinforcement River Bon.” (in High-Strength Concrete Columns Subjected to Load

Japanese) Reversals,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 129,

Kimura, H.; Sugano, S.; and Nagashima, T., 1995, “Study No. 3, pp. 297-313.

of Flexural Strength and Ductility of R/C Columns Using Mattock, A. H.; Li, W. K.; and Wang, T. C., 1976, “Shear

High Strength Concrete,” Takenaka Technical Research Transfer in Lightweight Reinforced Concrete,” PCI Journal,

Report No. 51, pp. 161-178. V. 21, No. 1, pp. 20-39.

Kuchma, D.; Vegh, P.; Simionopoulous, K.; Stannik, B.; McCabe, S., 1998, “Bond and Development of Steel Rein-

and Collins, M. P., 1997, “The Influence of Concrete Strength, forcement in High-Strength Concrete—An Overview,”

Distribution of Longitudinal Reinforcement, and Member High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W.

Size, on the Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams,” French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute,

Bulletin d’Information No. 237, Lausanne Switzerland. Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 1-21.

Kobe Steel Ltd., 1989, “Design and Construction Guide- Mphonde, A. G., and Frantz, G. C., 1984, “Shear Tests of

lines for Reinforced Concrete Beams and Columns using High- and Low-Strength Concrete Beams without Stir-

High-Strength Shear Reinforcement D-Hoops.” (in Japanese) rups,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 81, No. 4, July-Aug.,

Lepage, A., 1997, “A Method for Drift-Control in Earth- pp. 350-357.

quake-Resistant Design of Reinforced Concrete Building Mugumura, H.; Nishiyama, M.; Watanabe, F.; and

Structures,” PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana- Tanaka, H., 1991, “Ductile Behavior of High-Strength

Champaign, Urbana, Ill. Concrete Columns Confined by High-Strength Transverse

Reinforcement,” Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Concrete

Legeron, F., and Paultre, P., 2000, “Behavior of High-

Structures and Innovations in Design, SP-128, V. M.

Strength Concrete Columns under Cyclic Flexure and

Malhotra, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington

Constant Axial Load,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 4,

Hills, Mich., pp. 877-891.

July-Aug., pp. 591-601.

Muguruma, H.; Nishiyama, M.; and Watanabe, F., 1993,

Li, B., 1994, “Strength and Ductility of Reinforced

“Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete with a Wide-Range of

Concrete Members and Frames Constructed Using High

Compressive Strength,” Proceedings, Symposium on High-

Strength Concrete,” Research Report 94-5, Department of

Strength Concrete, Norway, pp. 314-321.

Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,

Muguruma, H., and Watanabe, F., 1990, “Ductility

New Zealand.

Improvement of High-Strength Concrete Columns with

Li, B., and Park, R., 2004, “Confining Reinforcement for

Lateral Confinement,” Proceedings, Second International

High-Strength Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural Journal,

Symposium on High-Strength Concrete, SP-121, W. T.

V. 101, No. 3, May-June, pp. 314-324.

Hester, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,

Lipien, W., and Saatcioglu, M., 1997, “Tests of Square Mich., pp. 47-60.

High-Strength Concrete Columns Under Reversed Cyclic Nagashima, T.; Sugano, S.; Kimura, H.; and Ichikawa, A.,

Loading,” Research Report No. OCEERC 97-11, Ottawa 1992, “Monotonic Axial Compression Test on Ultra-High-

Carleton Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University Strength Concrete Tied Columns,” Proceedings, 10th World

of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 184 pp. Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain,

Lloyd, N., and Rangan, B., 1996, “Studies on High- pp. 2983-2988.

Strength Concrete Columns under Eccentric Compression,” National Fire Protection Association, 2003, “NFPA

ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 631-638. 5000—NFPA Building Construction and Safety Code,”

Lynn, A. C., 2001, “Seismic Evaluation of Existing Rein- Quincy, Mass., 540 pp.

forced Concrete Building Columns,” PhD dissertation, Nedderman, H., 1973, “Flexural Stress Distribution in

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Very High Strength Concrete,” MASc Thesis, Department

University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif. of Civil Engineering, University of Texas, Arlington, Tex.

Mander, J.; Priestley, N.; and Park, R., 1988, “Theoretical Neutren Co. Ltd., 1985, “Design Standard Using High

Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete,” Journal of Struc- Tensile Steel ULBON as Shear Reinforcement in Reinforced

tural Engineering, ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, pp. 1804-1826. Concrete Beams and Columns.”

Martinez, S.; Nilson, A.; and Slate, F., 1984, “Spirally Nielsen, M. P., 1999, “Limit Analysis and Concrete Plas-

Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Columns,” ACI ticity,” New Directions in Civil Engineering, 2nd Edition,

JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 81, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 431-442. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 908 pp.

Matamoros, A.; Browning, J.; and Luft, M., 2003, “Eval- Nilson, A., 1985, “Design Implications of Current

uation of Simple Methods for Estimating Drift of Reinforced Research on High-Strength Concrete,” High-Strength

Concrete Buildings Subjected to Earthquakes,” Earthquake Concrete, SP-87, H. G. Russell, ed., American Concrete

Spectra, V. 19, No. 4, pp. 839-861. Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 85-118.

ITG-4.3R-60 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Nilson, A., 1994, “Structural Members,” High Perfor- SP-128, V. M. Malhotra, ed., American Concrete Institute,

mance Concrete: Properties and Applications, S. P. Shah Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 851-862.

and S. H. Ahmad, eds., McGraw-Hill. Razvi, S., and Saatcioglu, M., 1994, “Strength and

Nishiyama, M.; Fukushima, I.; Watanabe, F.; and Mugu- Deformability of Confined High-Strength Concrete

ruma, H., 1993, “Axial Loading Tests on High-Strength Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 6, Nov.-Dec.,

Concrete Prisms Confined by Ordinary and High-Strength pp. 678-687.

Steel,” Proceedings of the Symposium on High-Strength Razvi, S., and Saatcioglu, M., 1999, “Circular High-Strength

Concrete, Norway, pp. 322-329. Concrete Columns under Concentric Compression,” ACI

Noguchi, H.; Fujii, S.; and Teraoka, M., 1998, “Shear Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 817-825.

Strength of Beam-Column Joints with High-Strength Reineck, K.; Kuchma, D.; Sim, K.; and Marx, S., 2003,

Materials,” High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, “Shear Database for Reinforced Concrete Members without

SP-176, C. W. French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Shear Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2,

Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 329-356. Mar.-Apr., pp. 240-249.

Otani, S., 1995, “Use of High-Strength Lateral Reinforcement Richart, F. E.; Brandtzaeg, A.; and Brown, R. L., 1929,

in Japanese RC Construction,” Proceedings, Samsung “The Failure of Plain and Spirally Reinforced Concrete in

Forum on Tall Buildings, Seoul, Korea. Compression,” Bulletin No. 190, University of Illinois Engi-

Otani, S.; Teshigawara, M.; Murakami, M.; and Okada, T., neering Experiment Station, Urbana, Ill., 74 pp.

1998, “New RC Design Guidelines for High-Rise Reinforced Richart, F. E., and Brown, R. L., 1934, “An Investigation of

Concrete Buildings using High-Strength Materials,” High- Reinforced Concrete Columns,” Bulletin No. 267, University of

Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana, Ill., 91 pp.

and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, Roller, J. J., and Russell, H. G., 1990, “Shear Strength of

Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 405-417. High-Strength Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement,”

Ozbakkaloglu, T., and Saatcioglu, M., 2004, “Rectangular ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 191-198.

Stress Block for High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural Roy, H. E. H., and Sozen, M. A., 1963, “A Model to Simu-

Journal, V. 101, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 475-483. late the Response of Concrete to Multi-Axial Loading,”

Ozcebe, G.; Ersoy, U.; and Tankut, T., 1999, “Evaluation Structural Research Series No. 268, Department of Civil

of Minimum Shear Reinforcement Requirements for Higher Engineering, University of Illinois.

Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 3, Saatcioglu, M., and Baingo, D., 1999, “Circular High-

May-June, pp. 361-368. Strength Concrete Columns Under Simulated Seismic

Ozden, S., 1992, “Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Loading,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 125,

under Strain Gradient,” MA thesis, University of Toronto, No. 3, pp. 272-280.

Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Saatcioglu, M., and Ozcebe, G., 1989, “Response of

Park, R., 1998, “Design and Behavior of RC Columns Reinforced Concrete Columns to Simulated Seismic Loading,”

Incorporating High-Strength Materials,” Concrete Inter- ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 3-12.

national, V. 20, No. 11, Nov., pp. 55-62. Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S., 1992, “Strength and

Park, R., and Priestley, M. J. N., 1982, “Ductility of Ductility of Confined Concrete,” Journal of Structural

Square-Confined Concrete Columns,” Journal of the Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 118, No. 6, pp. 1590-1607.

Division, ASCE, V. 108, No. 4, pp. 929-950. Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S., 1998, “High-Strength

Park, R.; Tanaka, H.; and Li, B., 1998, “Flexural Strength Concrete Columns with Square Sections under Concentric

and Ductility of High-Strength Concrete Columns,” High- Compression,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,

Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French V. 124, No. 12, pp. 1438-1447.

and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farm- Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S., 2002, “Displacement-Based

ington Hills, Mich., pp. 237-257. Design of Reinforced Concrete Columns for Confinement,”

Pastor, J.; Nilson, A.; and Slate, F., 1984, “Behavior of ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 3-11.

High-Strength Concrete Beams,” Research Report No. 84-3, Saatcioglu, M., Paultre, P.; and Ghosh, S. K., 1998,

Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, “Confinement of High-Strength Concrete,” High-Strength

Ithaca, N.Y. Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French and

Popovics, S., 1973, “Analytical Approach to Complete M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington

Stress-Strain Curves,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 3, Hills, Mich., pp. 105-136.

No. 5, pp. 583-599. Sakaguchi, N.; Yamanobe, K.; Kitada, Y.; Kawachi, T.;

Quintero-Febres, C. G., and Wight, J. K., 2001, “Experi- and Koda, S., 1990, “Shear Strength of High-Strength

mental Study of Reinforced Concrete Interior Wide Beam- Concrete Members,” Proceedings of the Second International

Column Connections Subjected to Lateral Loading,” ACI Symposium on High-Strength Concrete, SP-121, W. T.

Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 572-582. Hester, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,

Rangan, B. V.; Saunders, P.; and Seng, E., 1991, “Design Mich., pp. 155-178.

of High-Strength Concrete Columns,” Evaluation and Reha- Sakai, Y.; Hibi, J.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama, H., 1990,

bilitation of Concrete Structures and Innovations in Design, “Experimental Study of Flexural Behavior of Reinforced

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-61

Concrete Columns Using High Strength Concrete,” Trans- Concrete,” Proceedings of the Second International Sympo-

actions of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 12, pp. 323-330. sium on High-Strength Concrete, SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed.,

Saqan, E. I., and Kreger, M. E., 1998, “Evaluation of U.S. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.,

Shear Strength Provisions for Design of Beam-Column pp. 61-87.

Connections Constructed with High-Strength Concrete,” Sumitomo Electrical Industries Ltd., 1989, “Design and

High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. Construction Guidelines for Reinforced Concrete Beams and

French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, Columns using High-Strength Shear Reinforcement Sumi-

Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 311-328. Hoops.” (in Japanese)

Sargin, M.; Ghosh, S. K.; and Handa, V., 1971, “Effect of Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd., 1989, “Design and

Lateral Reinforcement Upon the Strength and Deformation Construction Guidelines for Reinforced Concrete Beams

Properties of Concrete,” Magazine of Concrete Research, and Columns using High-Strength Shear Reinforcement

V. 23, No. 75-76, pp. 99-110. D-Hoops.” (in Japanese)

SBCCI, 1994, “Standard Building Code,” Southern Sun, Y. P., and Sakino, K., 1993, “Ductility Improvement

Building Code Congress, Birmingham, Ala. of Reinforced Concrete Columns with High-Strength

Schade, J. E., 1992, “Flexural Concrete Stress in High Materials,” Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute,

Strength Concrete Columns,” MASc thesis, Department of V. 15, pp. 455-462.

Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Sun, Y. P., and Sakino, K., 1994, “Effect of Confinement

Canada, 156 pp. of Transverse Reinforcement on the Axial Behavior of

Sezen, H., 2002, “Seismic Response and Modeling of Concrete,” Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 16,

Reinforced Concrete Building Columns,” PhD dissertation, No. 2, pp. 449-454.

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Swartz, S.; Nikaeen, A.; Babu, H.; Periyakaruppan, N.;

University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif. and Refai, T., 1985, “Structural Bending Properties of

Sheikh, S.; Shah, D.; and Khoury, S., 1994, “Confinement Higher Strength Concrete,” High Strength Concrete, SP-87,

of High-Strength Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural H. G. Russell, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington

Journal, V. 91, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 100-111. Hills, Mich., 288 pp.

Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M., 1982, “Analytical Model

Thomsen, J., and Wallace, J., 1994, “Lateral Load

for Concrete Confinement in Tied Columns,” Journal of Struc-

Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns Constructed

tural Engineering, ASCE, V. 108, No. 5, pp. 2703-2723.

Using High-Strength Materials,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91,

Shibata, A., and Sozen, M., 1976, “Substitute-Structure

No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 605-615.

Method for Seismic Design in Reinforced Concrete,”

Thorenfeldt, E., and Drangsholt, G., 1990, “Shear

Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, V. 102, No. ST3,

Capacity of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beams,”

pp. 1-18.

Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on

Shimazaki, K., 1988, “Strong Ground Motion Drift and

High-Strength Concrete, SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed., American

Base Shear Strength Coefficient for R/C Structures,”

Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 129-154.

Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan, pp. 165-170. Tokyo Steel Co., 1994, “Design and Construction Guide-

Shimazaki, K., and Sozen, M., 1984, “Seismic Drift of lines for Reinforced Concrete Beams and Columns using

Reinforced Concrete Structures,” Technical Research High-Strength Shear Reinforcement SPR785.” (in Japanese)

Report of Hazama-Gumi Ltd., pp. 145-166. Uribe, C., and Alcocer, S., 2001, “Comportamiento de

Shin, S. W.; Kamara, M.; and Ghosh, S. K., 1990, “Flexural Vigas Peraltadas Diseñadas con el Modelo de Puntales y

Ductility, Strength Prediction, and Hysteretic Behavior of Tensores,” Informe Técnico CI/EIG-1012001, Centro

Ultra-High-Strength Concrete Members,” Proceedings of Nacional de Prevención de Desastres, México, 248 pp. (in

the Second International Symposium on High-Strength Spanish)

Concrete, SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed., American Concrete Vecchio, F.; Collins, M.; and Aspiotis, J., 1994, “High-

Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 239-264. Strength Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI Struc-

Slater, W., and Lyse, I., 1931a, “Progress Report on tural Journal, V. 91, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 423-433.

Column Tests at Lehigh University,” ACI JOURNAL, Von Ramin, M., and Matamoros, A., 2004, “Shear

Proceedings V. 2, No. 6, June, pp. 677-730. Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members Subjected to

Slater, W., and Lyse, I., 1931b, “Progress Report on Monotonic and Cyclic Loads,” SM Report No. 72, University

Column Tests at Lehigh University,” ACI JOURNAL, of Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence, Kans., 517 pp.

Proceedings V. 2, No. 7, July, pp. 791-835. Von Ramin, M., and Matamoros, A. B., 2006, “Shear

Standards Association of New Zealand, 1995, “Concrete Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members Subjected to

Design Standard, NZS 3101:1995, Part 1” and “Commen- Monotonic Loads,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 1,

tary on the Concrete Design Standard, NZS 3101:1995, Part Jan.-Feb., pp. 83-92.

2,” Wellington, New Zealand. Wahidi, S. A., 1995, “Strength and Behavior of Rein-

Sugano, S.; Nagashima, T.; Kimura, H.; Tamura, A.; and forced Concrete Columns Made from High Performance

Ichikawa, A., 1990, “Experimental Studies on Seismic Materials,” PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin,

Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Members of High Strength Austin, Tex., 299 pp.

ITG-4.3R-62 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Wallace, J. W., 1998, “Behavior and Design of High- Wood, S. L., 1990, “Shear Strength of Low-Rise Reinforced

Strength RC Walls,” High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Concrete Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 1, Jan.-

Regions, SP-176, C. W. French and M. E. Kreger, eds., Amer- Feb., pp. 99-107.

ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 259-279. Wood, S.L., 1989, “Minimum Tensile Reinforcement

Wallace, J. W., and Moehle, J. P., 1992, “Ductility and Requirements in Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 5,

Detailing Requirements of Bearing Wall Buildings,” Sept.-Oct., pp. 582-591.

Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 118, No. 6, Xiao, Y., and Martirossyan, A., 1998, “Seismic Performance

of High-Strength Concrete Columns,” Journal of Structural

pp. 1625-1644.

Engineering, ASCE, V. 124, No. 3, Mar., pp. 241-251.

Walraven, J.; Frenay, J.; and Pruijssers, A., 1987, “Influence

Xiao, Y., and Yun, H., 1998, “Full-Scale Experimental

of Concrete Strength and Load History on the Shear Friction Studies on High-Strength Concrete Short Columns,”

Capacity of Concrete Members,” PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 1, Report No. USC-SERP 98/05, University of Southern

Jan.-Feb., pp. 66-84. California, 97 pp.

Warwick, W. B., and Foster, S. J., 1993, “Investigation Yong, Y. K.; Nour, M. G.; and Nawy, E. G., 1988,

into the Efficiency Factor Used in Non-Flexural Reinforced “Behavior of Laterally Confined High-Strength Concrete

Concrete Member Design,” UNICIV Report No. R-320, under Axial Loads,” Journal of Structural Engineering,

School of Civil Engineering, University of South Wales, ASCE, V. 114, No. 2, pp. 332-351.

Kensington. Yoshimura, M., and Nakamura, T., 2002, “Axial Collapse

Watanabe, F., and Ichinose, T., 1991, “Strength and of Reinforced Concrete Short Columns,” Proceedings of the

Ductility Design of RC Members Subjected to Combined Fourth U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earth-

Bending and Shear,” Preliminary Proceedings, International quake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete

Workshop on Concrete Shear in Earthquakes, University of Building Structures, Toba, Japan, Report No. PEER-2002/21,

Houston, Houston, Tex., pp. IV4-1 to IV4-10. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University

of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif., Oct., pp. 187-198.

Watanabe, F., and Kabeyasawa, T., 1998, “Shear Strength

Zhu, S., and Jirsa, J. O., 1983, “A Study of Bond Deterio-

of RC Members with High-Strength Concrete,” High-

ration in Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints,”

Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French PMFSEL Report No. 83-1, Phil M. Ferguson Structural

and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farm- Engineering Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin,

ington Hills, Mich., pp. 379-396. Austin, Tex., July, 69 pp.

Watanabe, F., and Muguruma, H., 1988, “Toward the Zuo, J., and Darwin, D., 2000, “Splice Strength of

Ductility Design of Concrete Members (Overview of Conventional and High Relative Rib Area Bars in Normal

Researches in Kyoto University),” Proceedings of Pacific and High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97,

Concrete Conference, New Zealand, pp. 89-100. No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 630-641.

®

American Concrete Institute

Advancing concrete knowledge

As ACI begins its second century of advancing concrete knowledge, its original chartered purpose

remains “to provide a comradeship in finding the best ways to do concrete work of all kinds and in

spreading knowledge.” In keeping with this purpose, ACI supports the following activities:

· Technical committees that produce consensus reports, guides, specifications, and codes.

· Periodicals: the ACI Structural Journal and the ACI Materials Journal, and Concrete International.

Benefits of membership include a subscription to Concrete International and to an ACI Journal. ACI

members receive discounts of up to 40% on all ACI products and services, including documents, seminars

and convention registration fees.

As a member of ACI, you join thousands of practitioners and professionals worldwide who share a

commitment to maintain the highest industry standards for concrete technology, construction, and

practices. In addition, ACI chapters provide opportunities for interaction of professionals and practitioners

at a local level.

38800 Country Club Drive

Farmington Hills, MI 48331

U.S.A.

Phone: 248-848-3700

Fax: 248-848-3701

www.concrete.org

Report on Structural Design and Detailing for High-Strength

Concrete in Moderate to High Seismic Applications

was founded in 1904 as a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to public

service and representing the user interest in the field of concrete. ACI gathers and

distributes information on the improvement of design, construction and

maintenance of concrete products and structures. The work of ACI is conducted by

individual ACI members and through volunteer committees composed of both

members and non-members.

which assures all participants the right to have their views considered. Committee

activities include the development of building codes and specifications; analysis of

research and development results; presentation of construction and repair

techniques; and education.

There are no educational or employment requirements. ACI’s membership is

composed of engineers, architects, scientists, contractors, educators, and

representatives from a variety of companies and organizations.

specific areas of interest. For more information, contact ACI.

www.concrete.org

®

American Concrete Institute

Advancing concrete knowledge

- 318-11.pdfUploaded byMIKHA2014
- One Steel ReoDataUploaded bypete0980
- Is 16172 2014 Reinforcement Couplers.pdf'Uploaded byVipin Kumar Parashar
- Types of Ties Used in Building Construction, Their Design and UsesUploaded byNaveen Bansal
- Composite ColumnUploaded byMd Mukul Miah
- Concrete StrengthUploaded byJournalNX - a Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal
- 1208-2360-1-SMUploaded byejvdh
- MQ45934.pdfUploaded bySuresh GS
- Precast concrete connections with embedded steel mebersUploaded bybaharfka7423
- Superfix Catalogue 2003Uploaded byDidin Dwi Kristanto
- C-90-1323-008_Rev 0Uploaded byajmain
- C-90-1323-010_Rev 0Uploaded byajmain
- postlab1Uploaded byIana Leyno
- Development of Automated Curing System for Mass Concrete 1Uploaded byFebiola Stephani
- Ms 146-2014 Cidb Final Haji SabrudinUploaded byA Ip Kar Mun
- A615A615M-15_Standard_Specification_for_Deformed_and_Plain_Carbon-Steel_Bars_for_Concrete_Reinforcement.pdfUploaded byahmad naji
- plastic hingesUploaded byBala Subramanian
- Chap 10 1 Bond & AnchorageUploaded byErnest Navarro
- COMPDYN_2019_fin_01052019Uploaded byGeorge Markou
- Wirand Technical NoteUploaded byWayne Ng
- Encased Composite Column in Axial CompressionUploaded byboone37
- Static Constitutive Relations for ConcreteUploaded bybadrul79
- DBR - Week 1Uploaded byPraveen Koshy
- RAMP Staadpro Output FileUploaded byravi4paper
- shotcrete.Uploaded byLloyd R. Ponce
- Reporte EstructuralUploaded byjoanvar1
- Designing Composite Beam With Hollow Core Slab to EC4Uploaded byKew Mun Seng
- Conc Notes S05Uploaded bySusána Sgf
- Abstract 1Uploaded byNomees India
- STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS & DESIGN OF RESTURANT (WORKED EXAMPLE)Uploaded byKaji Kajienthan

- A Fatigue Primer for Structural EngineersUploaded byv
- 530_5301Uploaded bymaciel
- The Masonry Society, American Concrete Institute, Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE-Building Code Requirements and Specification for Masonry Structures-Joint Publication of the Masonry SocietyUploaded byThan Ratha
- ISO5457Uploaded byfle92
- soules (1).pdfUploaded byDaniel Alfredo Cruz Pineda

- PS-17-free-fall-concrete.pdfUploaded byconcretemad
- Presentation Rumah KedahUploaded bysyafikalzahraqi
- ConduitUploaded byObaidur Rehman
- Lixi Profiler Presentation-MSAUploaded bySankaran Muthukumar
- Pacific Hf ValvesUploaded byRob Carolus
- Lightning CalculationsUploaded bybuntysurat
- HPC Bridge Views SummaryUploaded byChan Kin Cheung
- 20 k Flange DesignUploaded bytheboodler
- Yamaha T135 Service Manual CoolingUploaded byRaditya Erlangga
- -Plumbing Engineering and Design Handbook of Tables-American Society of Plumbing Engineers (ASPE) (2008)Uploaded byeskandar66
- mechanicsUploaded byElla Rey
- Design of Machine ElementsUploaded byRocky Nair
- VP Standby Spec_amendments_2010-Final Project Management and Claim for Highway and RoadUploaded byzhangj5
- Iso Floor BergvikUploaded bycokiaa
- 233150738-Ampang-Park-Shopping-Mall.pdfUploaded byPreeti Verma
- Tetra ManualUploaded bywww.everything4less.com
- Bellimo b222 Lf24 s UsUploaded byGamo42
- PILE CAP 10 PILEUploaded byShashankSingh
- Termo IsolationUploaded byBerti
- 521 InstallUploaded bymejmak
- Fuller Chemistry Handbook, Mr. Bokaian's CopyUploaded byMohsen Ardestani
- oteva 70 ENUploaded byluca
- Building Construction ReportUploaded bySurayyn Selvan
- Rainwater CasestudyUploaded byMajeeth Abdul
- Microsoft Word - Arcangel SantiagoUploaded byarcangelumass
- Rsw SystemUploaded byAngel Basurto Giler
- ID FANUploaded byKarthi Keyan
- Report Artifical LiftUploaded byAli Waqas
- Bimbar InflatableUploaded byMelissa Morgan
- Fasteners for PlywoodUploaded byfordesign

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.