You are on page 1of 66

ACI ITG-4.

3R-07

Report on Structural Design and


Detailing for High-Strength Concrete in
Moderate to High Seismic Applications

Reported by ACI Innovation Task Group 4


and Other Contributors
Second Printing
December 2008
®
American Concrete Institute
Advancing concrete knowledge

Report on Structural Design and Detailing for High-Strength Concrete


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).

American Concrete Institute


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

Report on Structural Design and Detailing for


High-Strength Concrete in Moderate to
High Seismic Applications
Reported by ACI Innovation Task Group 4 and Other Contributors

ACI Innovation Task Group 4


S. K. Ghosh
Chair

Joseph M. Bracci D. Kirk Harman Adolfo Matamoros


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

4.5—Limiting strain εcu Chapter 9—Design of structural walls, p. ITG-4.3R-51


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 10—List of proposed modifications to


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

CHAPTER 3—DEFINITIONS strength. There are instances, however, in which it is difficult


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

Fig. 4.1—Parameters for rectangular stress block.

assumption that plane sections remain plane after bending


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).

4.1—Parameters of equivalent rectangular


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

While the product of the terms k1 and k3 is often used as a


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)

Ibrahim and MacGregor (1994,1996a) conducted extensive


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

A similar conclusion was derived by Ibrahim and


MacGregor (1994), who proposed the following expression
for β1

0.0172f c′
β 1 = 0.95 – ---------------------
- ≥ 0.70 ( fc′ in psi) (4-8)
1000

β 1 = 0.95 – 0.0025f c′ ≥ 0.70 ( fc′ in MPa)

The previous equation served as the basis for and is very


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

Fig. 4.5—Comparison of proposed expressions for stress


block depth factor β1.

A comparison of the ACI 318-05 stress block depth


parameter β1 and the aforementioned recommended changes
to the depth parameter are shown in Fig. 4.5.

4.4—Stress block area α1β1


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

Fig. 4.7—Variation of ultimate strain with concrete strength


according to various design codes and authors.

Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) reported that, while


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

Saatcioglu and Razvi (1998) hypothesized that the presence


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

The product k3k4 can be as low as 0.61 for 18,000 psi


(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

Fig. 4.13—Comparison of interaction diagrams for columns


with different concrete strengths (Ozbakkaloglu and
Saatcioglu 2004) (Ac /Ag = 0.7; ρ = 1.33%; b = h =
11.81 in. [300 mm]).

Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) also provided


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

proposals. Column interaction diagrams were calculated,


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

Fig. 4.16—Column strength interaction diagrams comparing different stress blocks.

the proposed stress block with those proposed by others, as


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

parameters in ACI 318-05 result in unconservative estimates


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.

CHAPTER 5—CONFINEMENT REQUIREMENTS


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.

5.1—Constitutive models for confined concrete


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

high-strength concrete through the use of high-strength 5.3—Equations to determine amount of


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

high-strength concrete columns with rectilinear normal- and


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

quake. This quantity may be computed as the factored axial


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

Table 5.1—Values of coefficient ζ for proposed


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

Table 5.2—Values of coefficient γ for Eq. (5-27)


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).

provided in accordance with the previous equations would be


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

(1998), these seismic design guidelines limit the yield


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′

and (b)Transverse reinforcement shall have either circular


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′

where CHAPTER 6—SHEAR STRENGTH OF


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

Pu The average compressive stress acting on the struts


----------- ≥ 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.)

capacity of the struts. Equation (6-1) shows that a reduction


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

As observed in Fig. 6.4, the ratio of measured to nominal


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.

6.4—Shear strength of members with low shear


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

accordance with Appendix A of the Code, which outlines 9


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

A similar approach was proposed by Watanabe and Ichinose


(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

cotαl ≤ 2cosαst (Fig. 6.5(a)) (6-14)

and

Fig. 6.5—Strut and compression field angles for structural


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 s f c′ – f t, t ) (β s f c′ – f t, l ) Vt,l = ρt,l fyt,l b · a · tan2αl (Fig. 6.5(a)) (6-16)


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

6.6—Use of high-strength transverse that reinforcement (the nominal value of ρt has


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

were subjected to tension. These effects may result in


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

c max relationship between the amount of transverse reinforcement


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

A sp = 0.5nA b, max ( f c′ ⁄ 15,000 ), f c′ ≥ 10,000 (f c′ in psi)


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

Equation (7-15) was calibrated on the basis of experiments


----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

transverse reinforcement crossing the potential plane of


splitting shall be provided over the tension splice length with
a minimum total cross-sectional area Asp given by ACI 318,
Eq. (21-AA).

Asp = 0.5nAb,max(fc′ /15,000) ACI 318 Eq. (21-AA)

where n is the number of bars or wires being spliced along


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

Fig. 7.2—Percentage change in ldh according to proposed


modification for development length of hooks.

The proposed modification results in the same develop-


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).

CHAPTER 8—DESIGN OF BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS


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

CHAPTER 9—DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL WALLS


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

block to specified compressive strength of 10.2—Proposed modifications related to


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

21.7.6.6 Mechanical and welded splices of longitudinal Acknowledgments


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.

· Spring and fall conventions to facilitate the work of its committees.

· Educational seminars that disseminate reliable information on concrete.

· Certification programs for personnel employed within the concrete industry.

· Student programs such as scholarships, internships, and competitions.

· Sponsoring and co-sponsoring international conferences and symposia.

· Formal coordination with several international concrete related societies.

· 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.

American Concrete Institute


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

The AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE


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.

The committees, as well as ACI as a whole, operate under a consensus format,


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.

Individuals interested in the activities of ACI are encouraged to become a member.


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.

Members are encouraged to participate in committee activities that relate to their


specific areas of interest. For more information, contact ACI.

www.concrete.org

®
American Concrete Institute
Advancing concrete knowledge