ENERGY BASED METHODOLOGY FOR DUCTILE DESIGN OF

CONCRETE COLUMNS
By A. Dutta1 and J. B. Mander,2 Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: Potential plastic hinge zones in confined concrete columns require that sufficient transverse rein-
forcement be provided to avert undesirable failure modes and to ensure dependable inelastic (ductile) behavior
in earthquakes. Conventional code-based approaches for detailing confining reinforcement are founded on the
premise of preserving axial load before and after spalling of the cover concrete. Such formulations account for
neither the cyclic actions nor the duration effects of ground motions. This paper derives the amount of transverse
reinforcement necessary so that hoop fracture and fatigue fracture of the longitudinal bars coincide for critical
earthquake motions. An energy-based approach coupled with notions of low cycle fatigue are used for this
purpose.

INTRODUCTION • Bond failure of the lap-splice zone at the end of the

The seismic design philosophy currently followed in the
United States and many other earthquake-prone countries re-
lies on controlling damage through energy dissipation. Ductil-
ity based design assumes earthquake loads to be significantly
greater than the available strength capacity of the given struc-
tural system and its critical elements. Thus, it is not surprising
that inelastic behavior and damage was observed in structural
components resisting lateral loads in recent catastrophic seis-
mic events such as Mexico City 1985, Loma Prieta 1989,
Northridge 1994, and the Great Hanshin (Kobe) 1995 earth-
quake.
Conventional seismic design uses loads from deamplified
elastic spectra along with special ductile detailing. Although,
in reinforced concrete frame design, plastic hinges are nor-
mally expected to form in the beams (the so called ‘‘strong
column-weak beam’’ philosophy), column plastic hinges at the
base are required to complete the plastic deformation mecha-
nism. For bridge structures, it is neither feasible nor desirable
to locate the plastic hinges in the superstructure. Thus, unless
seismic isolation or some form of passive energy dissipator is
employed, plastic hinging in the columns tends to be the pri-
mary source of energy dissipation. Therefore, proper care
should be taken in detailing potential plastic hinge zones. The
potential plastic hinge zones of confined concrete columns re-
quire that sufficient transverse reinforcement be provided to
avert undesirable failure modes and to ensure dependable in-
elastic (ductile) behavior in earthquakes. Conventional code-
based approaches for detailing confining reinforcement are
founded on the premise of preserving axial load before and
after spalling of the cover concrete (Park and Paulay 1975).
Such formulations account for neither the cyclic actions nor
the duration effects of ground motions.
Based on numerous experimental studies, it can be observed
that failure in a reinforced concrete beam-column can arise in
the form of the following modes:
1. Shear or flexure-shear failure of the column outside po-
tential plastic hinge zone
2. Failure of the connections by one of the following:
1
Lead Engr., EQE Int., 28 Second St., 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA
94105. E-mail: ad@eqe.com
2
Res. Prof., Dept. of Civ., Struct. and Envir. Engrg., State Univ. of
New York at Buffalo, 230 Ketter Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260.
Note. Associate Editor: Joseph Bracci. Discussion open until May 1,
2002. To extend the closing date one month, a written request must be
filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on October 14, 1999;
revised May 29, 2001. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 12, December, 2001. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9445/01/0012-1374–1381/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 22061.
1374 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001
columns
• Anchorage-bond failure within the connection
• Joint shear failure adjacent to the column
3. Premature concrete failure due to lack of confinement
4. Failure of the confined core concrete due to buckling of
the longitudinal reinforcing bars
5. Fracture of the transverse hoop reinforcement (leading to
failure modes 1–3)
6. Failure due to low cycle fatigue of the longitudinal re-
inforcement
Each of the above mentioned failure modes can be averted, or
at least delayed, with proper reinforcement detailing: by pro-
viding sufficient anchorage to the longitudinal reinforcement
and sufficient transverse reinforcement. However, in the limit,
it is the final two failure modes (5 and 6, as listed above) that
govern the design. Fatigue failure of the longitudinal reinforce-
ment cannot be avoided; thus, sufficient transverse steel should
be provided to ensure transverse hoop fracture does not occur.
The subject of this paper is to derive the amount of transverse
reinforcement necessary so that the hoop fracture and low cy-
cle fatigue of the longitudinal bars (failure modes 5 and 6)
coincide for critical earthquake motions. For this purpose, an
energy-based approach coupled with notions of low cycle fa-
tigue is used. Hence, expressions for both seismic analysis and
design are proposed. A critical comparison is then made with
present codes of practice. Full details of the hoop fracture-
longitudinal bar fatigue modes of failure, presented herein, to-
gether with other companion failure modes such as longitu-
dinal bar buckling and shear failure may be found elsewhere
(Dutta and Mander 1998).
Fatigue Life Leading to Hoop Fracture
The object of this section is to derive from first principles
a fatigue-life relationship and to validate this with results from
experiments. In an analogous form to the well-known Manson-
Coffin (1953) fatigue-life equation, an expression can be writ-
ten that relates the plastic curvature (␾p or ␾pD in dimension-
less form, where D is the overall member depth) with the
number of cycles (Nc) of loading to failure:
␾p D = ⌰⬘hoop(2Nc)c (1)
where ⌰⬘hoop = fatigue-rotation coefficient; and c = fatigue ex-
ponent. Note that 2Nc = number of reversals to failure. When
plotted in a log-log plot, (1) takes the form shown in Fig. 1.
In the same figure, analogous expressions for low cycle fatigue
and longitudinal bar buckling are also plotted. The figure
shows that the composite surface for a reinforced concrete col-
umn dominated by flexure is typically bounded by three failure
 It is presumed that the additional ductility available from
confined concrete sections can be attributed to the strain en-
ergy stored in the transverse reinforcement. Hence, by equat-
ing the internal energy absorption capacity (IWD) of the sec-
tion to the external work done on the section (EWD) by the
imposed cyclic loads, it is possible to write the well-known
plastic work expression
IWD = EWD (2)
Each side of this equation will be expanded upon in what
follows.
Internal work done on the critical section—that is, the sec-
tion’s capacity to sustain plastic damage—is defined as the
sum of the energy absorption capacity of the constituent ma-
terials, steel (Ush) and concrete (Uco); thus

FIG. 1. Fatigue Plots for Confined Concrete Columns IWD = Ush ⫹ Uco (3)
where Ush = energy absorption capacity of the transverse steel
boundaries. A good design should aim at lifting the boundaries until fracture, given by

冕
of bar-buckling and hoop fracture above the one for low cycle εsf
fatigue. If that is the case, then failure will always be governed
Ush = ␳s Acc fs dε = ␳s AccUsf (4)
by bar fatigue. This can easily be achieved by tightening the 0
spacing of the transverse steel and/or providing more lateral
steel. Typical design curves that follow this principle are plot- where ␳s = volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement;
ted in Fig. 2. In that figure, curves for circular and rectangular Acc = area of the core concrete; and Usf = area under the stress
sections are plotted along adjacent vertical columns. The first strain curve of the transverse reinforcement until fracture strain
plot along each column shows the design curves for 1% lon- (εsf) and is equal to the integral in the above equation. Ac-
gitudinal reinforcement ratio. The next plot shows a simplified cording to Mander et al. (1988a), this may be taken as Usf =
version of the above curves contrasted with currently used 100 MJ/m3 for normal grade (typically Grade 40 and Grade
design expressions. This is discussed in detail later in the pa- 60) reinforcing bars.
per. The energy required to fail an equivalent unconfined con-
For the purpose of developing the fatigue based design crete column is given by

冕
curves, an energy approach will be adopted herein. This ap- εcu
proach is based on an extension of the energy balance theory
Uco = Ag fc dε = 0.008f ⬘A
c g (5)
proposed by Mander et al. (1988a). In that theory, the predic- 0
tion of first hoop fracture was derived for concentrically
loaded confined concrete columns and validated against near in which Ag = gross area of the concrete section and the in-
full-size high speed concentric axial compression experiments tegral denoting the area under the stress-strain curve of un-
(Mander et al. 1988b). The fatigue theory developed herein is confined concrete is assumed to be equal to 0.008f ⬘c for typical
for sections that are loaded under combined axial load and concrete, where f ⬘c = unconfined compression strength of con-
cyclic flexure. crete.

FIG. 2. Typical Fatigue Based Design Curves for Circular and Rectangular Concrete Columns

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001 / 1375

 Assuming that, at large curvatures, the cover concrete either
spalls and/or becomes ineffective, and normalizing the internal
energy absorption capacity by f ⬘A
uex = 冋冉0.5 ⫹
c⬙
D⬙ 冊 ␳t fy
f ⬘c
⫹ 0.8
Ccc
f ⬘A
c g
册 c⬙ D⬙ ␾p D
D⬙ D 4
(2Nc) (10)
c g, one obtains
where ␳t = Ast /Ag = ratio of the total longitudinal steel to the
uin =
IWD
f ⬘A
c g
= 冉
0.008 ⫹ ␳s
Usf
f ⬘c 冊 Acc
Ag
(6)
gross area of the concrete section.
For circular sections, when c⬙ < 0.5D⬙, the concrete com-
pression force ratio can be conveniently expressed in the fol-
External work done results from the force actions of the lowing form:

冉 冊
neighboring concrete and longitudinal reinforcement trying to 1.38
bulge out at the critical section. This may be expressed as Ccc c⬙ Acc
= 1.32␣c ␤c K (11)
f ⬘A
c g D⬙ Ag
EWD = Us ⫹ Ucc (7)
in which ␣c = stress block factor denoting the ‘‘average’’ stress
where Us = work done by the compression steel; and Ucc = across the stress block; and K = confined strength ratio, both
work done by the concrete in compression. defined later. Verification of (11) is given in Dutta and Mander
Consider the circular column section in Fig. 3. It is assumed (1998).
that the available strain energy is consumed during cyclic load- It is possible to provide a fatigue-life equation in the form
ing by the concrete and the steel doing plastic work in cyclic of (1) by substituting (11) into (10) and equating with (6); thus
compression. The plastic work done by the steel and the con- ⫺1
crete is obtained by multiplying the forces in the compression ␾p D = ⌰circ
hoop(2Nc) (12)
steel and concrete by the appropriate plastic strain. Further, where the fatigue-rotation coefficient (⌰ circ
) is given by
hoop
assuming that, in a circular section, one quarter of the total
steel is lumped at both ends of the pitch circle diameter and 0.008 ⫹ ␳sUsf /f ⬘c

冋冉 冊 冉冊 册
the rest is distributed in a thin rectangular strip of depth (D⬙ ⌰circ
hoop = 1.38 (13)
c⬙ c⬙ ␳t fy D c⬙ D⬙
⫺ d ⬙), the external work done can be expressed in terms of 0.5 ⫹ ⫹ ␣cK
4D⬙ D⬙ f ⬘c D⬙ D⬙ D
the sum of the plastic work done on each load reversal as

冋 册
The neutral axis depth ratio (c⬙/D⬙) can be obtained from
Us c⬙ c⬙ D⬙ force equilibrium across the section. For a circular section, it
= 0.25 ⫹ 0.5 Ast fy (␾p D) (8)

冉 冊
2Nc D⬙ 2D⬙ D can be shown that

冉 冊
and 0.725
1 ⫺ 2c⬙/D⬙

冋 册
Pe fy
⫹ 0.5␳t
Ucc 1 ⫺ ␩c c⬙ D⬙ f ⬘A f ⬘c 1 ⫺ 2d ⬙/D⬙
= ␩c ⫹ Ccc (1 ⫺ 0.6␤c ) (␾p D) (9) c⬙ c g

2Nc Nc D⬙ D = (14)
D⬙ Acc
1.32␣cK
in which Ast = total longitudinal steel area; fy = yield strength Ag
of the longitudinal steel; Ccc = core concrete compression
force; ␤c = stress block depth factor; and ␩c = efficiency factor where the stress block factor is found to be related to the
to account for the reduced area of the concrete stress-strain volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement by the relation
curve after the first reversal. Note that in (9) the concrete com-
pression force (Ccc) is assumed to act at a distance 0.6␤cc⬙
from the outermost edge of the confined concrete core.
␣c = 0.667 冉 1 ⫹ ␳s
fyh
f ⬘c
冊 (15)

To simplify and reduce some nonlinearity in (9), it is as-
sumed that ␩c = 0.33 and Nc = 4. This is based on a statistical
observation of specimens that have failed due to fracture of
transverse hoops. An average value of Nc = 4 was observed
for the tests in the ensemble. Thus, the term in square brackets
in (9) equals 0.5. Also, ␤c ⬇ 1.0 is assumed for most practical
purposes.
in which fyh = yield strength of the lateral reinforcement; and
␳s = volumetric ratio of transverse steel with respect to the
core. This equation is based on a reanalysis of confined stress
block parameters undertaken previously by Mander et al.
(1984).
The confined strength ratio K, is defined by the well-known
expression derived by Mander et al. (1988a):

冑
Combining (8) and (9) and dividing throughout by f ⬘A c g
gives the normalized work done (uex) on the section over Nc f ⬘cc f ⬘l f ⬘l
K= = ⫺1.254 ⫹ 2.254 1 ⫹ 7.94 ⫺2 (16)
cycles of loading at a plastic curvature amplitude of (␾p): f⬘ f ⬘c f ⬘c

FIG. 3. Illustrative Cross Section of Circular Column

1376 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001

where f ⬘l = effective confining stress provided by the transverse test results, Mander and Cheng (1995) have shown that the
reinforcement at yield. equation can be rewritten in terms of total displacements (or
The fatigue-rotation coefficient (⌰circ
hoop) given by (13) is for ductilities) as
circular column sections with longitudinal steel evenly distrib-
uted around the perimeter. Again using energy concepts, a sim- Nc = C␮2⌬ (22)
ilar fatigue-rotation coefficient can be derived for rectangular where ␮⌬ = reference displacement ductility factor for constant
sections (⌰rect
hoop) and can be shown to be amplitude loading; and C = a constant.
0.008 ⫹ ␳sUsf /f ⬘c Thus, to determine the effective number of constant ampli-

冋冉 冊 册
⌰rect
hoop = tude cycles for a variable amplitude displacement history,
c⬙ c⬙ ␳t fy D⬙ Ag c⬙ D⬙ Miner’s rule can be utilized as follows [see Mander et al.
1 ⫺ ␥ ⫹ 2␥ ⫹ ␣cK
4D⬙ D⬙ f ⬘c D Acc D⬙ D (1995) for proof ]:

(17)
where ␥ = reinforcing steel configuration factor, which denotes
the proportion of total reinforcing steel area that exists in each
of the two sides of the member. Specific cases are as follows:
1. Square columns with reinforcing steel placed symmetri-
cally around the perimeter ␥ = 0.5
2. Beam sections with distinct top and bottom reinforce-
ment ␥ = 0.0
3. Rectangular wall or column sections with two layers of
steel running parallel to the long sides; for strong axis
bending ␥ = 1.0 and weak axis bending ␥ = 0.0
The neutral axis depth ratio for rectangular sections can be
obtained from force equilibrium as
冘冉 冊
2
␮i
Neff = (23)
i ␮⌬
where ␮i = displacement ductility factor for the ith cycle of
loading.
Fig. 4 plots the foregoing fatigue-life theory as compared
with column cyclic loading test results, where hoop fracture
was the reported failure mode by the experimental researcher.
FATIGUE LIFE OF LONGITUDINAL REINFORCING
BARS
This section develops a fatigue-life expression for the failure
of longitudinal reinforcement at a column section. In a recent
study on the fatigue behavior of reinforcing steel, Mander et
al. (1994) showed that the plastic strain amplitude (εap) can be

c⬙
Pe
f ⬘A
c g
⫹ 冉 ␥␳t fy / f ⬘c
1 ⫺ 2d ⬙/D⬙
冊 given in terms of the fatigue life (Nf cycles to failure) by the
relation

冉 冊
= (18) εap = 0.08(2Nf)⫺0.5 (24)
D⬙ Acc 1 ⫺ 2␥␳t fy / f ⬘c
␣cK ⫹ The data also show that in terms of the total strain amplitude,
Ag 1 ⫺ 2d ⬙/D⬙
a simple Koh and Stephens (1991) type relation may be used:
and the corresponding stress block parameter given by
εa = 0.08(2Nf)⫺0.333

冉 冊
(25)
fyh
␣c = 0.625 1 ⫹ ␳s (19) where 2Nf = number of reversals to the appearance of first
f ⬘c
fatigue crack; εa = total strain; and εap = plastic strain at the
level of reinforcing bar.
Validation of Fatigue-Life Theory It is possible to transform the low cycle fatigue behavior of
It is customary to plot the fatigue-life equations that have a individual reinforcing bars into familiar fatigue-life expres-
similar form to (12) on a log-log graph. This theoretical equa- sions for concrete columns. Consider the strain diagram shown
tion can now be compared with actual experimental results. in Fig. 3. Through geometry, an equation can be derived which
For reinforced concrete members, however, it is necessary to relates the total plastic strain range (εap) with the dimensionless
transform experimental plastic displacements of entire mem- plastic curvature of the section (␾p D):
bers into plastic curvatures at the critical section utilizing the D⬘
moment-area theorems. This can be done as follows for can- εap = ␾p (26)
2
tilever members:
where D⬘ = pitch circle diameter of the longitudinal bars in a
2(␮⌬ ⫺ 1)⌬y

冉 冊 冋冉 冊 册
␾pD = 2 (20)
Lp 2L
⫺D
D Lp /D
where ␮⌬ = maximum displacement ductility factor; ⌬y = yield
displacement; L = lever arm of the cantilever column; and Lp
= equivalent plastic hinge length given by
Lp = 0.08L ⫹ 4,400εy db
where εy = yield strain; and db = diameter of the longitudinal
reinforcement. This equation is a generalized form of the ex-
pression suggested by Paulay and Priestley (1992).
When interpreting experimental test results that are com-
monly conducted at increasing displacement ductility ampli-
tudes (e.g., ⫾2, ⫾4, ⫾6 ⭈ ⭈ ⭈ ⫾␮⌬) it is necessary to determine
the equivalent number of cycles at the maximum ductility am-
plitude. The Palmgren-Miner (1945) linear damage accumu-
lation rule is appropriate for this purpose. If the fatigue ex-
ponent of (2) is c = ⫺1 for plastic displacements, then from
circular section or merely the distance between the outer layers
of steel in a rectangular section. Substituting (26) into (24)
and normalizing with respect to the overall member depth D,
one can obtain a plastic curvature-fatigue expression in the
customary fatigue-life form
D⬘
␾p D = 0.16 (2Nf)⫺0.5 (27)
D
(21)
The above relationship was extensively validated against test
results by Dutta (1995) and Mander and Cheng (1995).
EVALUATION OF SEISMIC DEMAND
Deterministic methods of analysis are necessary to assess
the energy demand imposed on reinforced concrete structures
by earthquakes. This depends on the duration and magnitude
of the event. A hysteretic macro model calibrated against the
actual behavior of concrete columns via a fiber element micro
model analysis (Chang and Mander 1994) as well as experi-
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001 / 1377
FIG. 4. Comparison of Experimental Results and Theoretical Expression for Fatigue Life Corresponding to Transverse Hoop Fracture in Concrete
Columns
ments on near-full size and model structures was used to rep-
resent the single degree of freedom idealization of a structural
system. By utilizing a well calibrated macro model that is rep-
resentative of overall behavior of a structural system, it is pos-
sible to obtain a reliable prediction of the seismic energy de-
mands on that system.
Analysis of Energy Demand
According to Uang and Bertero (1990), the total absolute
energy at any instant of time is given by
Ei = Ek ⫹ Es ⫹ E␰ ⫹ Eh (28)
where Ek = absolute kinetic energy; Es = strain energy; E␰ =
absorbed viscous damping energy; and Eh = hysteretic energy
absorbed by the structure, which can be found by numerically
integrating the nonlinear force-displacement history over the
duration of the event. The magnitude of this hysteretic energy
absorption for a given structure depends on its natural period
of vibration (T) and the force (strength) reduction factor R␮ =
Cd /Cc.
A more convenient way to express hysteretic energy ab-
sorption demand is to determine the equivalent number of
equi-amplitude displacement cycles. To overcome the fact that
materials and elements may degrade in strength on cycling, in
this study the average energy absorption per cycle over four
constant amplitude cycles was chosen to define the energy
absorbed by one cycle, Eloop. Thus, the effective number of
cycles is defined as the ratio of the total energy absorbed in
the variable amplitude seismic response to the energy absorbed
by one cycle at an effective displacement amplitude (Xeff); thus
Eh
Nc = (29)
Eloop
1378 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001
The previous equation relating cyclic loading history to dis-
placements can be restated as
冘冉 冊
2
xi
Nc = (30)
Xeff
It is important to note that this formulation assumes a sym-
metric (equal positive and negative amplitude) loading history.
Real earthquake time histories are not necessarily symmetric;
thus, in order to obtain an effective displacement amplitude
(Xeff), an approach suggested by Chang and Mander (1994) is
proposed. For a general displacement response history, the
standard deviation of the inelastic response history can readily
be computed, from which the effective amplitude can be de-
fined as
Xeff = 兹3xSTD ⫹ ⌬y (31)
where ⌬y = yield displacement; and xSTD = standard deviation
of the plastic displacements. It was shown by Chang and Man-
der (1994) that the equivalent cyclic demand is largely inde-
pendent of the force reduction factor R␮. Fig. 5 shows the
cyclic loading spectra for several earthquake motions force
reduction factor of R␮ = 6. It is evident that the range of cycles
follows a trend between earthquakes that is quite consistent.
For design purposes, it is proposed that an envelope spectra
be adopted as follows:
Nc = 7T ⫺1/3 (32a)
but
4 ⱕ Nc ⱕ 20 (32b)
where T = period of the structure. This equation defines the
seismic fatigue demand.
 of concrete is seldom an issue. Therefore, a protracted design
for confinement should ideally be avoided. This necessitates
the development of simpler more easy-to-use explicit formu-
lation that can still capture the essence of the problem without
being unduly complex.
By simplifying the foregoing analysis and assuming the cy-
clic demand (Nc) is in the range of 10–20 cycles, the following
form of an explicit design equation is proposed:

冋冉 冊冉 冊 册
2 2
f ⬘c Pe fy Ag
␳s = 0.008 ⌸ ⫹ ␳t ⫺1 (36)
Usf f ⬘A
c g f ⬘c Acc
where for circular sections ⌸ = 12 and for rectangular sections
⌸ = 15.

State of the Art in Confinement Design

FIG. 5. Effective Number of Inelastic Cycles
By balancing this seismic fatigue demand against the afore-
mentioned fatigue capacity it is possible to define certain de-
sign limit states. This is discussed in the following.
The importance of concrete confinement of achieving high
ductility has been understood by the code committees for a
long period of time. Design equations that stipulate the pro-
vision of lateral reinforcement in the form of spirals has been
in the ACI code as

DESIGN EQUATIONS FOR CONFINEMENT ␳s ⱖ 0.45 冉 Ag

Acc
⫺1 冊 f ⬘c
fyh
(37)

The fatigue equations developed so far can be used for eval-
uation purposes of a particular section with a known volu-
metric ratio of transverse steel. Conversely, they can be used
as design equations if the plastic curvature demand is known.
Following the principles of capacity design, the only unavoid-
able failure mode in a reinforced concrete column is the failure
due to low cycle fatigue of the longitudinal steel. If the ca-
pacity of the section is set to the ultimate capacity obtainable
before longitudinal bar fracture occurs, the same fatigue equa-
tions can be used to predict the volumetric ratio of transverse
steel. In other words, this would ensure that the capacity of
the section based on hoop fracture will be higher than that
based on bar fracture. In the most general form the volumetric
ratio of transverse steel can be expressed as
0.008f ⬘c
␳s = [⌿兹Nc ⫺ 1]
Usf
where ⌿ is a factor that depends on section, hoop type, and
effectiveness. For circular sections, as an example, equations
of the type shown above can be obtained by equating (12) to
(27) and thus
where Ag = gross column area; Acc = area of core of spirally
reinforced concrete member measured to outside diameter of
spiral; f c⬘ = unconfined compression strength of concrete; and
fyh = specified yield strength of spiral reinforcement not greater
than 414 MPa (60 ksi). This equation is based on the notion
of preserving the axial load compression capacity of a confined
concrete column before and after spalling of the cover concrete
(Park and Paulay 1975).
Special provisions for structures in seismically active areas
also require that the volumetric ratio of spiral or circular hoop
reinforcement ␳s shall not be less than
f ⬘c
␳s ⱖ 0.12 (38)
fyh
Subsequently, in the ATC 32 bridge design recommendations
(33)
for CALTRANS, (37) and (38) were modified to account for
axial load effects.
Researchers in New Zealand have long been dealing with
the problem of concrete confinement. Theoretical work on this
subject was commenced by Mander et al. (1984, 1988a,b),
and, in a follow up to that work, Zahn et al. (1986) proposed

⌿circ =
7D c⬙ D⬙
D⬙ ⫺ 2d ⬙ D⬙ D 冋冉 0.5 ⫹ 冊
c⬙
D⬙
␳t fy Ag
f ⬘c Acc
a design approach that was based on moment-curvature anal-
yses. Consequently, Watson et al. (1994) proposed design
equations for transverse reinforcement that suggested that duc-

冉冊册 tility can be improved by increasing the longitudinal reinforce-

1.38
c⬙
⫹ ␣cK ment. This is contrary to earlier findings of Mander et al.
D⬙ (34) (1984, 1988a,b) and subsequent recommendations of ATC-32
Similarly, for rectangular sections (ATC 1996). Mander et al. (1984, 1988a,b) showed that ad-
ditional longitudinal reinforcement places additional internal
7D c⬙ D⬙ energy demands on the core concrete; this must be restrained
⌿rect =
D⬙ ⫺ 2d ⬙ D⬙ D by hoop steel with greater energy absorption capacity. How-

冋冉 冊 册
ever, simplified expresssions based on the Watson et al. (1994)
c⬙ ␳t fy Ag c⬙ and Zahn et al. (1986) approach have been adopted by the
⭈ 1 ⫺ ␥ ⫹ 2␥ ⫹ ␣cK
D⬙ f ⬘c Acc D⬙ (35) 1995 edition of the New Zealand concrete design code (NZS
3101).
In (34) and (35), the ratio c⬙/D⬙ is determined from (14) and
(18), respectively. Also, the number of cycles Nc in (33) can Comparison
be obtained from (32) to appropriately reflect the period and
hence the stiffness of the structure. A comparison of the confinement requirements previously
The procedure described above represents a thorough ana- proposed by AASHTO (1994), ACI (1995), NZS 3101 (1995),
lytical approach for developing design curves. However, it and ATC-32 (1996) with the energy based approach proposed
lacks appeal due to apparent complexity of the calculations herein is given in Fig. 2. Graphs are plotted for f ⬘c = 30 MPa,
involved. Also, with reference to typical bridge columns where fyh = fy = 414 MPa. The ratio of the gross to the core area of
the axial loads are generally low (Pe ⱕ 0.2f ⬘A
c g), confinement concrete is taken as 1.23. It is evident that, for low axial loads
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001 / 1379
and low longitudinal steel volumes, the contemporary methods Mander, J. B., and Cheng, C. T. (1995). ‘‘Renewable hinge detailing for
are in reasonable agreement. It can also be observed that the bridge columns.’’ Proc., Pacific Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Austra-
lian Earthquake Engineering Society, Parkville, Australia.
ATC 32 recommendations are also quite generous at low axial Mander, J. B., Panthaki, F. D., and Kasalanati, A. (1994). ‘‘Low cycle
load levels. The reason for this could be prevention of buck- fatigue behavior of reinforcing steel.’’ J. Mat. in Civ. Engrg., ASCE,
ling of the longitudinal reinforcement. Conversely, for high 6(4), 453–468.
axial loads and high steel volumes, where there are consider- Mander, J. B., Pekcan, G., and Chen, S. S. (1995). ‘‘Low-cycle variable
able energy demands on the confined core concrete, the pro- amplitude fatigue modeling of top-and-seat angle connections.’’ Engrg.
posed formulation requires considerably more reinforcement J., 32(2).
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1984). ‘‘Seismic design
than the existing ACI/AASHTO provisions. This is necessary of bridge piers.’’ Res. Rep. 84-2, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of
if flexural ductility is to be maintained rather than axial load Canterbury, Christchurch, N.Z.
capacity. As mentioned previously, the NZS 3101 (1995) rec- Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988a). ‘‘Theoretical
ommendations do not agree with any other design method for stress strain model for confined concrete.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE,
high longitudinal steel contents. The use of this method is not 114(8), 1804–1826.
recommended, as the underlying assumptions are considered Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988b). ‘‘Observed stress
strain behavior of confined concrete.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 114(8),
to be fundamentally flawed. 1827–1849.
Manson, S. S. (1953). ‘‘Behavior of metals under conditions of thermal
CONCLUDING REMARKS stress.’’ Proc., Heat Transfer Symp., University of Michigan Engineer-
ing Research Institute, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Seismic design of reinforced concrete structures aims at Miner, M. A. (1945). ‘‘Cumulative damage in fatigue.’’ Trans. ASME, 67.
achieving ductile response, which is characterized by the struc- Park, R., and Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced concrete structures, Wiley,
ture’s ability to undergo large cyclic inelastic displacements New York.
without significant loss in the load carrying capacity. Since the Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced
inception of capacity design, ductility has been presumed as concrete and masonry structures, Wiley, New York.
the principal criterion for design. However, for ductility, Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Xiao, Y., and Verma, R. (1994a). ‘‘Steel
jacketed retrofitting of reinforced concrete bridge columns for enhanced
whether it be explicitly or implicitly incorporated into design shear strength. Part I: Theoretical considerations and test design.’’ ACI
requirements, the influence of a ground shaking duration is not Struct. J., 91(4).
considered. The duration effect is important in inelastic design, Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Xiao, Y., and Verma, R. (1994b). ‘‘Steel
as the cumulative effects of ductility and energy absorption jacketed retrofitting of reinforced concrete bridge columns for enhanced
may lead to premature failure even at modest ductility de- shear strength. Part II: Test results and comparison with theory.’’ ACI
mands. As an alternative to ductility based design, energy may Struct. J., 91(5).
Uang, C. M., and Bertero, V. V. (1990). ‘‘Evaluation of seismic energy
be used as the basis for developing design paradigms. Energy- in structures.’’ Earthquake Engrg. and Struct. Dyn., 19.
based methods coupled with notions of low-cycle fatigue can Watson, S., Zahn, F. A., and Park, R. (1994). ‘‘Simulated seismic load
be used to derive confinement expressions that ensure the final tests on reinforced concrete columns.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 120(6),
failure mode is through longitudinal bar fracture, which is gen- 1825–1849.
erally considered unavoidable. Yuk, L. W. (1990). ‘‘Squat circular bridge piers under multi-directional
seismic attack.’’ PhD thesis, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of Can-
terbury, Christchurch, N.Z.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Zahn, F. A. (1986). ‘‘Design of reinforced concrete bridge columns for
This research was sponsored by MCEER through a contract with the strength and ductility.’’ Res. Rep. 86-7, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University
FHWA on the seismic vulnerability of new highway construction; this of Canterbury, Christchurch, N.Z.
support is gratefully acknowledged.
NOTATION
REFERENCES
The following symbols are used in this paper:
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). (1994). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 1st Acc = area of core concrete;
Ed., Washington, D.C. Ag = gross cross-sectional area;
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (1995). ‘‘Building code requirements Ast = total area of longitudinal steel;
for reinforced concrete.’’ ACI-318-95, Detroit. Ccc = concrete compression force considering core
Ang, B. G., Priestley, M. J. N., and Paulay, T. (1989). ‘‘Seismic shear
strength of circular reinforced concrete columns.’’ ACI Struct. J., 86(1).
dimensions;
Applied Technology Council (ATC). (1996). ‘‘Improved seismic design c = fatigue exponent;
criteria for California bridges: Provisional recommendations.’’ ATC-32, c⬙ = neutral axis depth measured from centerline
Redwood City, Calif. of transverse steel;
Aycardi, L. E., Mander, J. B., and Reinhorn, A. M. (1994). ‘‘Seismic D = overall depth of section;
resistance of reinforced concrete frame structures designed only for D⬘ = distance between furthest longitudinal rein-
gravity loads: Experimental performance of subassemblages.’’ ACI forcements (pitch circle diameter);
Struct. J., 91(5). D⬙ = overall depth of section measured from cen-
Chai, Y. H., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F. (1991). ‘‘A seismic retrofit terline of transverse steel;
of circular bridge columns for enhanced bridge performance.’’ ACI
Struct. J., 88(5).
d⬙ = distance from centerline of transverse steel
Chang, G. A., and Mander, J. B. (1994). ‘‘Seismic energy based fatigue to c.g. of nearest longitudinal steel;
damage analysis of bridge columns. Part II: Evaluation of seismic de- db = diameter of longitudinal steel;
mand.’’ Tech. Rep. NCEER-94-0013, Nat. Ctr. for Earthquake Engrg. Eh = hysteretic energy;
Res., State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y. Ek = kinetic energy;
Dutta, A. (1995). ‘‘Fatigue analysis of non-ductile concrete columns.’’ Eloop = average area inside hysteresis loop cycled to
MS thesis, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., State University of New York at Buf- displacement;
falo, Buffalo, N.Y. Es = strain energy;
Dutta, A., and Mander, J. B. (1998). ‘‘Capacity design and fatigue anal- Et = total energy;
ysis of confined concrete columns.’’ Tech. Rep. MCEER-98-0007, Mul-
tidisciplinary Ctr. for Earthquake Engrg. Res., State University of New
E␰ = damping energy;
York at Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y. f c⬘ = unconfined compression strength of con-
Koh, S. K., and Stephen, R. I. (1991). ‘‘Mean stress effects on low-cycle crete;
fatigue for a high strength steel.’’ Fatigue Fracture of Engrg. Mat. and f l⬘ = effective confinement stress exerted by
Struct., 14(4). transverse reinforcement at yield;

1380 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001

 fy = yield strength of longitudinal steel; Xeff = effective displacement;
fyh = yield strength of transverse steel; xi = ith displacement;
K = f ⬘cc / f ⬘c = confinement coefficient; xSTD = standard deviation of displacement;
L = lever arm of cantilever column; ␣c, ␤c = stress block factors for core concrete;
Lp = plastic hinge length; ␥ = reinforcing steel configuration factor;
Nc = number of cycles to concrete failure—note, ⌬y = yield displacement;
2Nc = number of reversals to concrete fail- εa = total strain amplitude of longitudinal rein-
ure; forcement;
Neff = effective number of cycles; εap = plastic strain amplitude of longitudinal re-
Nf = number of cycles to failure—note, 2Nf = inforcement;
number of reversals to failure; εy = yield strain of longitudinal steel;
Pe = applied axial load;
␩c = efficiency factor to account for degradation
R␮ = Cd /Cc = strength reduction factor (ratio of
of concrete stress strain curve due to cy-
seismic demand to capacity);
T = time period; cling;
Ucc = work done by concrete in compression; ⌰⬘hoop, ⌰circ
hoop, ⌰hoop
rect
= fatigue rotation coefficients;
Uco = energy absorption capacity of concrete; ␮i = ith displacement ductility factor;
Us = work done by compression steel; ␮⌬ = maximum displacement ductility factor;
Usf = area under stress-strain curve of steel from ⌸ = parameter used in simplified design expres-
zero to fracture strain; sions;
Ush = energy absorption capacity of transverse ␳s = volumetric ratio of transverse reinforce-
steel until fracture; ment;
uex = normalized external work; ␾p = plastic curvature; and
uin = normalized internal work; ⌿, ⌿circ, ⌿rect = parameter in detailed design expression.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001 / 1381