Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 9, No.

2, 205-220, June 2011 / Copyright © 2011 Japan Concrete Institute 205

Scientific paper

Inelastic Performance of High-Strength Concrete Bridge Columns under

Earthquake Loads
DaiJeong Seong1, TaeHoon Kim2, MyungSeok Oh3 and HyunMock Shin4

Received 4 March 2011 accepted 8 April 2011

Abstract
Despite its importance in the seismic performance of an overall structure, our understanding of the ductility capacity of
high-strength concrete (HSC) columns under various loading conditions is relatively limited compared to that of nor-
mal-strength concrete (NSC) columns. This study aims to evaluate the seismic performance of HSC columns through a
numerical analysis approach. Based on the smeared crack concept, the analysis model consisted of material models for
concrete and embedded reinforcement. The brittle behavior and smooth crack surfaces of HSC are some of its main
drawbacks in engineering practice. In the proposed models, the shear retention mechanism along the crack surface cor-
rectly considered the smooth crack surfaces of HSC, and the confining effect of the column core was taken into account
by modifying the concrete compressive model according to an appropriate confinement model for HSC. As part of the
investigation, five large-scale HSC columns were constructed and tested under simulated seismic loading. The proposed
numerical method was applied in predicting the seismic performance of various HSC columns tested in this research
program and obtained from other research in the literature. The analytically predicted hysteretic behavior, ductility level,
and failure mode of the columns showed reasonable agreement with experimental data.

1. Introduction der et al. 1988). However, HSC, which is more brittle,

Due to the gradual improvement of concrete technology,
high-strength concrete (HSC) is being widely used in
various practical applications. HSC offers many advan-
tages such as improved mechanical performance, dura-
bility, and resultant cost reduction (Nishiyama 2009).
However, most present design codes and recommenda-
tions are primarily based on experiments and engineer-
ing practices on structural members made of conven-
tional normal-strength concrete (NSC). Since HSC
tends to become more brittle than NSC, the potentially
less ductile behavior of HSC members and the applica-
bility of current confinement requirements to HSC col-
umns have been a major concern of structural engineers
in seismically active regions.
In the case of bridge piers, the deformation capacity
of the reinforced concrete (RC) column is essential for
developing sufficient ductility of the overall structure in
order to resist collapse under a severe earthquake. It is
well known that the adequate confinement of core con-
crete using transverse reinforcement significantly in-
creases the strength and ductility of RC columns (Man-
1 al. 2006), the authors numerically examined the effects
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Eng., Sungkyunkwan Univ., Suwon, Korea.
2
Principal Researcher, Const. Tech. Research Inst.,
Samsung Const. & Trad. Co., Seoul, Korea.
3
Managing Director, Bridge and Structure Team,
Seoyeong Eng. Co., Seoul, Korea.
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Eng.,
Sungkyunkwan Univ., Suwon, Korea.
E-mail: hmshin@skku.edu
requires a higher level of confinement to develop the
same energy absorption capacity for a given ductility
requirement. Although research and understanding
about HSC columns have increased significantly in re-
cent years (Xiao and Martirossyan 1998; Okamoto et al.
2004), the reliable evaluation of the seismic perform-
ance of HSC columns is still an evolving issue. Success-
ful numerical analysis can be utilized to study the seis-
mic performance of HSC columns under various load-
ing conditions and expand our understanding into areas
not being covered by test programs.
Many numerical studies have been conducted to ex-
amine the behavior of NSC columns under seismic load-
ing (Monti and Spacone 2000; Maekawa and An 2000;
Tsuchiya et al. 2007). However, a review of the litera-
ture indicates that comparatively fewer numerical inves-
tigations have addressed the behavior of HSC columns
under seismic loading (Xie et al. 1997; Konstantinidis et
al. 2007). In this study, the behavior of HSC columns
under flexure and shear dominant seismic loading con-
dition is numerically simulated. Since both the flexural
and shear performances of HSC columns are the main
concerns of this study, a two-dimensional plane element
is preferred. In earlier studies (Kim et al. 2005; Kim et
of fatigue damage and lap splices in longitudinal rein-
forcement on the performance of NSC columns under
seismic loading. This paper extends the material consti-
tutive models used in the previous research to take the
HSC material into account. The long-term goal of these
series of numerical studies is to provide an analysis pro-
gram for the performance assessment of RC bridge col-
umns in design. With the development of performance-
206 D. Seong, T. Kim, M. Oh and H. Shin / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 9, No. 2, 205-220, 2011
based engineering concepts, the evaluation of deform-
ability and damage control have become more explicit
design considerations. Practicing engineers require an
analytical method capable of predicting the deform-
ability of RC members under variable ductility demands
to achieve a given performance level. The aim of the
present study is to evaluate the seismic performance of
HSC bridge columns through simplified but rational
numerical analysis. This paper presents a theory and
formulations of two-dimensional orthotropic material
models for a material nonlinear finite element analysis
of HSC bridge columns subjected to combined axial and
cyclic inelastic lateral loads including reversed bending
moment.
2. Method of analysis
The analysis presented in this paper was carried out
using the nonlinear finite element program, RCAHEST,
developed by the authors (Kim et al. 2003a). The consti-
tutive laws of materials are expressed through space
averaging over a finite control volume. The reference
coordinates of the cracked RC are set to parallel and
normal to major smeared cracks. The overall stress of an
element is assumed to be the sum of the stresses con-
tributed by concrete and reinforcement in each direction.
The analysis models consist of a compression, tension
stiffening, and shear transfer model for concrete and a
model for embedded reinforcing steel. The bond interac-
tion between concrete and reinforcement is considered
in both the tension stiffening model for concrete and the
model for reinforcement. It has been demonstrated in an
earlier study (Kim et al. 2003b) that the above-
mentioned analysis model showed reasonable agree-
ment with experimental data in assessing the seismic
performance of NSC bridge columns.
As a successive study, newly developed material
models for HSC are incorporated into the previous
nonlinear finite element program to expand the applica-
bility of the analysis program. The behavior of HSC
differs from that of NSC in many aspects. In assessing
the seismic performance of an HSC column, characteris-
tics such as higher mechanical strength, more linear
response, higher modulus of elasticity, and decreased
ductility influence the overall performance of the col-
umn. The primary mechanical differences between HSC
and NSC could be taken into account in the analysis
model by modifying the stress-strain relationship of
concrete and the confinement effectiveness of lateral
reinforcement. The smoother failure surface of HSC,
where a crack travels directly through the aggregates,
weakens the shear transfer mechanism across the cracks.
The weakened shear-friction on the crack surface affects
nonlinear behavior after crack initiation, and the conse-
quence of this nonlinearity could be much more signifi-
cant in structures that fail in shear (Sato et al. 2004;
Toongoenthong and Maekawa 2004). The smoother
crack surface geometry of HSC has been considered in
the analysis model by modifying the shear transfer
model of cracked NSC.
For experimental verification of the proposed model,
the numerical predictions are compared with the behav-
iors of column specimens subjected to constant axial
compressive load and reversed cyclic flexure. The col-
umn specimens consist of five flexure-dominant col-
umns (40-60 MPa) tested by the authors and six shear-
dominant columns (76-86 MPa) tested by Xiao and
Martirossyan (1998).
3. Material models for reinforced high-
strength concrete
The nonlinear stress-strain relation of an RC in-plane
element is formulated based on the concept of space
averaging on the control volume. The cracks and rein-
forcing bars are idealized as being distributed over the
entire element. Although the local behavior of the
cracked RC is not uniform, in practical terms, it can be
treated as a continuum having quasi-uniform stress and
strain fields in a finite region. The material models aim
to describe the overall behavior of a structure rather
than a specific local behavior at an element level. In this
paper, the term ‘crack’ explicitly refers to the macro-
crack perpendicular to the principal tensile direction.
According to the cracking criteria, the analysis mod-
els are divided into models before and after crack initia-
tion. The local coordinate systems of reinforcing bars
are always assigned with respect to each bar axis, but
those of cracked concrete are determined according to
the current major crack plane. Once a smeared crack is
initiated, it is treated as fixed in a direction, and anisot-
ropy is introduced. As loading step proceeds, the princi-
pal direction of average stress can be changed, and the
consequent shear transfer model is involved in constitu-
tive law. Under a reversal cyclic or even more complex
multi-directional loading, additional cracks can generate
in different directions. Such additionally developed
Cracking
Un-cracked Criteria Cracked
Isotropic Orthotropic
Concrete
Equivalent stress-strain Specific stress-strain
Tension-stiffening model
Elasto-plastic-fracture
Shear transfer model
model
Reduced compression
model
Compressive Reinforcing Bar Tensile
Bilinear model
Bare bar model with bond
effect
Fig. 1 Outline of analysis model for reinforced high-
strength concrete.
 D. Seong, T. Kim, M. Oh and H. Shin / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 9, No. 2, 205-220, 2011 207

cracks are allowed only if the angle of crack to the ex- crete. Many researchers have suggested empirical or
isting crack is larger than 15°. In that case, the constitu- semi-empirical models to evaluate such confining effect
tive relation of concrete is formulated according to the of HSC. In this study, the model proposed by Sun and
major crack with the larger width. For simplicity, this Sakino (2000) is adopted in the analysis model as the
study assumes that the overall nonlinearity of cracked equivalent stress-strain relation for HSC. The Sun and
concrete is governed by one major crack, and the con- Sakino model expresses the normalized stress-strain
tributions to nonlinearity of other minor cracks are ig- relationship of confined and unconfined HSC as a func-
nored. tion of the cross-sectional shape, the arrangement of
reinforcement, and the material strength. Replacing the
3.1 Model for un-cracked concrete normalized terms with equivalent terms, the stress-strain
The material model for concrete prior to cracking is relation under a monotonic loading can be written as
based on the elasto-plastic fracture model (Maekawa follows.
and Okamura 1983), which is expressed as an equiva-
lent stress-strain relation. The equivalent stress σeq and A ⋅ εeq + ( B − 1) ⋅ εeq2
σeq = K (3)
equivalent strain εeq are normalized scalar indicators 1 + ( A − 2 ) ⋅ εeq + B ⋅ εeq2
representing the level of stress and strain in a plane
stress state, respectively, and defined as functions of Ec Ec
two-dimensional projections of three-dimensional in- A= = (4)
Esec K ⋅ f co '/ εco '
variants based on experimental results (Maekawa and
Okamura 1983).
( K − 1) ⋅ fco '
2 2
B = 1.5 − 0.017 f co '+ 1.6 (5)
⎛ 0.6 σ1 + σ 2 ⎞ ⎛ 1.3 σ1 − σ 2 ⎞ 23
σeq = ⎜ ⋅ ⎟ +⎜ ⋅ ⎟ (1)
⎝ f co ' 2 ⎠ ⎝ f co ' 2 ⎠ For a circular section:
2
2 2 ρh ⋅ f yh ⎛ s ⎞
⎛ 0.62 ε1 + ε 2 ⎞ ⎛ 0.98 ε1 − ε 2 ⎞ K = 1 + 2.05 ⎜1 − ⎟ (6a)
εeq = ⎜ ⋅ ⎟ +⎜ ⋅ ⎟ (2) f co ' ⎝ 2bc ⎠
⎝ εco ' 2 ⎠ ⎝ εco ' 2 ⎠
For a rectangular section:
where f co ' = compressive strength of concrete, σ1 and
σ 2 = principal stresses ( σ1 ≥ σ2 ), ε1 and ε 2 = prin- ρh ⋅ f yh ⎛ d h ⎞ ⎛ s ⎞
cipal strains ( ε1 ≥ ε 2 ), and εco ' = strain at peak strength K = 1 + 11.5 ⎜1 − ⎟ (6b)
of concrete. The unknown equivalent stress-strain rela- f co ' ⎜⎝ s ⎟⎠ ⎝ 2bc ⎠
tion is easily replaced by a uniaxial stress-strain curve,
where Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, ρh =
which can be expressed as a function of the plastic
volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement, f yh = yield
strains and loading history. Once the equivalent stress is
strength of transverse reinforcement, s = spacing of
obtained from a given deformation, the constitutive rela-
transverse reinforcement, bc = core dimension meas-
tion for un-cracked concrete can be established using
ured center-to-center of perimeter spiral or hoop, d h =
the isotropic and symmetry condition of the tangent
stiffness matrix.
In the case of the laterally confined core concrete, the
analysis model should properly consider the out-of- eq
plane stress, which is a shortcoming of two-dimensional K>1
analysis, triggered by the volumetric expansion of con-
1.0
( max, max)
K=1
dh

sl sl
bc bc p 1.0 max eq
Fig. 2 Column sections and parameters used in confine- Fig. 3 Equivalent stress-strain relation of un-cracked
ment model. concrete.
208 D. Seong, T. Kim, M. Oh and H. Shin / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 9, No. 2, 205-220, 2011
diameter of transverse reinforcement, and factor K , of
which the value is unity for unconfined concrete, repre-
sents the ratio of the compressive strength of confined
concrete f cc ' to that of unconfined concrete f co ' .
The hysteretic behavior under complex loading his-
tory is determined depending on the level of stiffness
degradation and permanent strain, which are expressed
as functions of the maximum equivalent strain εmax in
the analysis model. The reloading is assumed to follow
a linear path connecting the current point with the point
corresponding to εmax . Considering the energy dissipa-
tion under cyclic loading, the unloading path is ex-
pressed as a parabolic curve connecting the current
point to the point of equivalent plastic strain ε p .
20
ε p = εmax −
7
{1 − exp ( −0.35 εmax )}
3.2 Compression model for cracked concrete
After the initiation of the tensile crack, the concrete is
treated as an orthotropic material. The compressive
stiffness of cracked concrete is lower than that of un-
cracked concrete. Otherwise, the compression model at
this stage basically follows the same analysis strategy as
that for the un-cracked concrete. If all cracks have been
closed under reversal loading, the same model used in
the un-cracked routine is employed, coupling it to the
tension stiffening model. However, in the case of a di-
rection parallel to the currently active crack, due to the
stress release in the orthogonal direction, it is reasonable
to assume that each concrete strut between the smeared
cracks is in a uniaxial rather than multi-axial stress state.
In the analysis model, the compressive stress parallel to
the crack plane is evaluated without the equivalent
stress-strain concept or the confining effect. In addition,
considering the internal damage during crack progress,
the compressive stiffness in that direction is degraded
by a reduction factor decreasing linearly from 1.0 to 0.6
over the range 0.0012 ≤ εt ≤ 0.0044 (Okamura et al.
1987), where εt is the tensile strain in the direction
normal to the crack.
3.3 Tension stiffening model for cracked con-
crete and model for embedded reinforcement
Under the space averaging stress-strain relation, the
tension stiffening model of cracked concrete and the
model for reinforcement embedded in RC are closely
related. Plain concrete exhibits tension softening behav-
ior due to the strain localization on a single discrete
crack. Such a behavior in the stress-strain relation does
not reflect a material property, but rather a structural
property related to size effect. However, even after the
cracks are generated, the concrete in RC resists part of
the applied tensile force through the bond transfer at the
interface of the reinforcement and intact concrete be-
tween neighboring cracks. The average tensile stress-
strain relation of cracked concrete is formulated based
on the tension stiffening model proposed by Shima et al.
c: Average stress of concrete
ft
cr c
s: Average stress of reinforcement
fy
fy Average stress
of
c/ s reinforcement
alone
(7)
s
cr y y s
Fig. 4 Average tensile stress-strain relation of concrete
and reinforcement.
(1987). Based upon the idealization regarding uniformly
distributed cracks and reinforcements, the post-peak
tensile average stress of concrete is expressed as a func-
tion of cracking strain εcr and stiffening parameter c ,
the value of which is 0.4 for a deformed bar.
c
⎛ε ⎞
σ = f t ⎜ cr ⎟ (8)
⎝ εt ⎠
where f t = tensile strength of concrete. In this study,
including unloading and reloading curves, the same ten-
sile model employed in the NSC routine is adopted as
an average tensile stress-strain relation of HSC.
Regardless of the crack surface, the reinforcement has
its own coordinate system. If the stress-strain relation is
in an elastic range or the stress is compressive, the aver-
age stress-strain relation of embedded reinforcement can
be set equal to that of general reinforcing bars, making
the stiffness of RC higher than that of reinforcement
alone. However, if a smeared crack is initiated, the ten-
sile stress and strain of reinforcement tend to concen-
trate in the vicinity of the cracks, resulting in premature
yielding of embedded reinforcement. In the analysis
model, a bilinear path having a premature yielding point
is adopted as the outmost envelope of the tensile aver-
age stress-strain relation of embedded reinforcement.
The unloading and reloading paths of reinforcement are
based on the model proposed by Kato (1979). Further
details on the tensile model of concrete and reinforce-
ment are available in the references (Shin 1988; Oka-
mura and Maekawa 1991).
3.4 Shear transfer model for cracked concrete
As the principal axes of cracked concrete deviate from
 D. Seong, T. Kim, M. Oh and H. Shin / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 9, No. 2, 205-220, 2011 209

' NSC

= l ( )= 3 cos3 : HSC HSC

0.75 4
HSC ( max, max)
( ) = 1 cos : NSC
Rcon NSC 0.5 2

l = t l
( min , min )

= =
t
/2 0 /2

' Fig. 6 Contact density function and shear transfer model

At Idealized for HSC.
density
1. 0
Area = 1
unit area /2 0 /2
Ω(θ) =
5
6
{
⋅ exp −21 ⋅ ( θ / π )
2
} (10)

If we consider the more detailed behavior of the con-

Fig. 5 Contact density function - Idealization of single
crack surface.
the initial axes, the fixed crack approaches require a
shear transfer model at the crack interface. The shear
transfer model evaluates the transferred stress along the
crack surface according to both crack width ω and
shear displacement δ at the crack interface.
The shear transfer model is formulated based on the
contact density function, originally proposed by Li et al.
(1989), which idealizes a crack surface as a sum of
groups containing infinitesimal contact units with vari-
ous inclinations. Depending on the roughness of the
crack surface, the contact density function Ω ( θ ) repre-
sents the area density of contact units having an inclina-
tion of θ in unit projected area of the crack surface.
Integrating the local contact stress σ 'con of each contact
unit for given δ and ω , the transferred average shear
and compressive stress, τ and σ ' respectively, are
given as follows (Li et al. 1989).
tact surface, such as frictional stress, change of inclina-
tion, and permanent damage of contact unit, in modeling
the constitutive relation of local contact stress, a more
sophisticated shear transfer model can be obtained (Ge-
breyouhannes et al. 2008). However, such rigorous nu-
merical work is too expensive to be directly imple-
mented at the inner loop of nonlinear analysis. If we
assume rigid-perfectly plastic behavior of the contact
surfaces and monotonic shear loading condition where
the transferred stress at any contact unit increases mono-
tonically, the explicit solution of Eq. (9) can be obtained
analytically in a similar manner as that used in the origi-
nal shear transfer model (Li et al. 1989).
The integration of Eq. (10) yields a Gauss error func-
tion. When Eq. (10) is substituted into Eq. (9), the inte-
gration yields a more complex form. In this study, the
contact density function of HSC is proposed to be simi-
lar to Eq. (10) as follows.
3
Ω (θ) = ⋅ cos 3 θ (11)
4

τ=∫
π/ 2
σ 'con ( θ, δ, ω) ⋅ At ⋅ Ω ( θ ) ⋅ sin θ ⋅ d θ (9a) The proposed contact density function provides the
−π / 2 analytical solution of Eq. (9) and accuracy comparable
π/2
to Eq. (10). In term of area, the difference between Eq.
σ' = ∫ σ 'con ( θ, δ, ω) ⋅ At ⋅ Ω ( θ ) ⋅ cos θ ⋅ d θ (9b) (10) and Eq. (11) is approximately 8.7%. Using Eq. (11),
−π / 2
the explicit solution of Eq. (9) under monotonic shear
where At = area of crack surface per unit projected area loading can be obtained as a simpler form where the
of itself. Assuming elasto-perfectly plastic behavior of constitutive relation is expressed as a function of ratio
the contact surface, the numerical integration of Eq. (9) δ / ω , which is the same as the ratio of average strain
with properly divided contact unit provides a path- ϕ = γ / εt in the smeared crack concept. In the case of
dependent constitutive relation at the crack interface. hysteretic behavior, the unloading and reloading curves
Unlike the crack surface of NSC where the crack oc- are assumed to follow the same path expressed as a
curs at the aggregate-cement paste interface, the rela- simplified parabola. The average stresses transferred at
tively smooth crack surface of HSC reduces transferred the crack interface of HSC are as follows.
stress and degrades shear stiffness at the crack interface. 2
Bujadham and Maekawa (1992) conducted qualitative ⎛ ϕ2 ⎞
τ = 2.47 ( f co ')
1/ 3
studies on the shear transfer mechanisms in HSC cracks ⎜ 2 ⎟
(12a)
⎝ 1+ ϕ ⎠
and proposed a universal model for any arbitrary load-
ing path. Based on the experimental verifications, Bu- ⎧ ⎫
⎪ 3π 3 −1 5ϕ3 + 3ϕ ⎪
σ ' = 2.47 ( f co ')
1/ 3
jadham and Maekawa expressed the contact density ⎨ − cot ϕ − 2 ⎬
(12b)
function for HSC as follows ( θ in radian). ⎪⎩ 4 2 2 (1 + ϕ2 ) ⎭⎪
210 D. Seong, T. Kim, M. Oh and H. Shin / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 9, No. 2, 205-220, 2011

4. Experimental program 4.1 Description of specimen and testing proce-

Although the use of HSC has increased considerably in
the construction industry recently, most of the RC
bridge columns in Korea have been designed and con-
structed with concrete of relatively low or moderate
strength. As part of a research program on the behavior
of slender HSC columns in a mountainous region fi-
nanced by the Ministry of Land, Transport, and Mari-
time Affairs of Korea, five large-scale HSC columns
were constructed and tested under constant axial loads
corresponding to 10% of the column axial-load capacity
and a reversed cyclic flexure into the nonlinear range of
response. The target concrete strengths were 40 MPa
and 60 MPa. Although these strengths were relatively
moderate compared to the latest definition of HSC, in
Korea, concrete strengths over 40 MPa have been rela-
tively scarce in construction practices. The primary ex-
perimental parameters were the concrete strength and
the yield strength of confinement steel.
450
17@50=850
dure
The columns were designed in order to investigate the
applicability of the transverse reinforcement require-
ments specified by the seismic provisions of the current
Korean Highway Bridge Design (KHBD) code (2008)
to columns with high-strength materials. As shown in
Fig. 7, the specimens consisted of five 450 x 450 x 3800
mm columns built into a massive 2400 x 1200 x 7500
mm stub. The shear span and the cross-sectional dimen-
sion were chosen to represent the majority of columns
used in practice with a predominantly flexural mode of
behavior. The cyclic lateral forces were applied to the
tip of the specimens at 3.5 m from the base of the col-
umn with a force/displacement-controlled hydraulic
actuator.
In all the column specimens, the longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement of each specimen were main-
tained to be the same grade of steel bars. Reinforcing
cages were built using D13 (diameter db = 12.7 mm,
cross-sectional area As = 126.7 mm2) and D10 ( db =
9.53 mm, As = 71.3 mm2) deformed bars for longitudi-
nal and transverse reinforcement, respectively. No lon-
gitudinal reinforcement was lap spliced. Table 1 sum-

Hydraulic actuator 6@60=360

marizes the main variables for each specimen. Test
900

specimens are identified with the strength of concrete

6@60=360

and yield strength of reinforcements. Specimens in se-

450

A
ries S40 and S60 were made of concrete with a specified
strength of 40 and 60 MPa, respectively. Suffixes -300, -
400, and -500 represent the specified yield strengths of
22@100=2200

Unit: mm 450 reinforcement, which are 300 MPa (SD300), 400 MPa
6@60=360
3800

2270

(SD400), and 500 MPa (SD500), respectively.

3500

Three columns with 40 MPa concrete (S40-300, S40-

6@60=360

400, and S40-500) were reinforced with three different

450

B
grades of steel bars. For these column specimens, to
investigate the influence of the yield strength of rein-
forcement, the tie spacing was kept constant, but the tie
12@50

450
=600

configuration varied from A to B (Fig. 7). In all test

630

4@90=360
specimens, the transverse steel bars within the potential
plastic hinge region were spaced at 50 mm intervals,
4@90=360

while 100 mm tie spacing was used elsewhere. Also, to

750

450

C
prevent crushing of the concrete, extra ties were placed
200 500 1000 500 200 at the top of the column where the axial load was ap-
2400
plied. Each tie configuration was made of a peripheral
Fig. 7 Details of test specimens and tie configurations. hoop with 135˚ hooks and cross ties with a 135˚ hook at

Table 1 Details of test specimens.

Longitudinal steel Transverse steel Axial load
Concrete Tie
Test unit Yield strength Steel ratio Yield strength Steel ratio ratio
f co ' (MPa) configuration P / Ag fco '
f y (MPa) ρ g (%) f yh (MPa) ρh (%)
S40-300 41.4 353 1.5 343 3.96 A 0.1
S40-400 41.4 453 1.5 486 3.16 B 0.1
S40-500 41.4 608 1.5 500 3.16 B 0.1
S40-500R 41.4 608 1.0 500 2.38 C 0.1
S60-500 57.5 608 1.0 500 2.38 C 0.1
 D. Seong, T. Kim, M. Oh and H. Shin / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 9, No. 2, 205-220, 2011 211

one end and a 90˚ hook at the other end. Column S40-
500R had the same material properties as column S40-
500, but the longitudinal reinforcement ratio was re-
duced from 1.5% to 1.0%, for a nominal flexural
strength similar to that of column S40-300. The other
pair of columns considered was S40-500R and S60-500.
These columns were made of different strengths of con-
crete, but the amount, distribution, and yield strength of
reinforcement were identical. For all test columns ex-
cept column S60-500, the transverse reinforcements in
the potential hinge region conformed to the require-
ments specified by the seismic provisions of the current
KHBD code.
sbc f co ' ⎛ Ag ⎞ sb f '
Ash ≥ 0.3 ⎜ − 1⎟ or Ash ≥ 0.12 c co
f yh ⎝ Ach ⎠ f yh
ment, are presented in Table 1. Stress-strain relation-
ships for all steel types, representing the average result
of the sample tests, are shown in Fig. 8.
The test setup and loading arrangements are shown
schematically in Figs. 9 and 10. The tests began with
the application of axial load up to the desired level
0.1Ag f co ' . The axial compression in the columns was
applied through two hydraulic jacks and maintained
constant through re-adjusting during each test. The ap-
plied axial load was measured by a load cell. For each
specimen, eighteen electrical strain gages were placed
on the surfaces of longitudinal bars above and in the
stub. Four sets of ties directly above the stub were also
instrumented with sixteen electrical strain gages. The
(13)

where Ash = total cross-sectional area of rectangular

hoop reinforcement, Ag = gross area of section, and Hydraulic jacks
Ach = cross-sectional area of a column measured to the
±1000 kN
outside edges of transverse reinforcement. The con-
Actuator
finement of column S60-500 corresponds to 68% of the Strong frame
transverse reinforcement required by the current code.
Since the transverse reinforcement of all test columns is
dominated by the first requirement of Eq. (13), which is
identical to that of the ACI 318 code (2008), the afore-
mentioned details about transverse reinforcement also
conform to the requirements specified by the provisions
of the current ACI code. The seismic hazard level of Hinge
Column
Korea is low to moderate. According to the KHBD code
(2008), the acceleration coefficient in seismic zone 1 is
0.11 for the 500 years return period.
The specified 40 and 60 MPa strength concretes were
supplied by a local ready-mix concrete plant. The corre-
sponding water-cement ratios were 0.4 and 0.328, re- Fig. 9 Schematic view of test setup.
spectively. Silica fume, fly ash, and superplasticizer
were also used in all mixes to obtain high strength and
workability. The average concrete compressive
strengths attained at 28 days were 41.4 MPa (S40 series)
and 57.5 MPa (S60-500), respectively. Six types of steel
reinforcement, three different grades and two different
sizes for each grade, were used to construct the speci-
mens. The average values of yield strength, calculated
from at least three steel samples for each batch of ship-

Stress (MPa)
800
700
600
500
400
size D10 D13
300 grade
SD500
200 SD400
SD300
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Strain

Fig. 8 Steel stress-strain relationship. Fig. 10 Photograph of experimental setup.

212 D. Seong, T. Kim, M. Oh and H. Shin / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 9, No. 2, 205-220, 2011
lateral load was applied by a 1000 kN actuator con-
nected to the laboratory strong-wall. In the push direc-
tion, four linear variable displacement transducers
(LVDTs) were installed on the lateral face of the column
to measure the horizontal displacement along the height
of the specimen. The applied lateral load was monitored
by the load cell on the actuator, which was also
equipped with an LVDT to control the actuator under
displacement control. In addition, one LVDT was placed
at the stub to measure the relative horizontal displace-
ment of the base stub with respect to the laboratory floor.
The relative displacement of the base stub was negligi-
ble.
The lateral loading procedure used for all tests con-
sisted of cycles with increasing maximum displace-
ments under displacement control. Each cycle was re-
peated twice with a peak lateral displacement corre-
sponding to drift ratios of 0.5% (17.5 mm), 1% (35 mm),
2% (70 mm), and so on. During the loading cycles, the
yield displacement Δ y , defined as the point at which a
line secant to the real load-displacement curve at 75%
of maximum horizontal load reaches the maximum
horizontal load, was experimentally determined. In the
case of column S40-300, the peak lateral displacement
was applied up to a drift ratio of 6.7% (235 mm), which
was almost the maximum horizontal displacement al-
lowed by the test configuration, but the column still
sustained the applied loads, maintaining its load-
carrying capacity higher than 85.5%. Further response
of column specimen S40-300 could not be reported due
to the limitation of the test configuration. In subsequent
tests, a different loading procedure was used to ensure
the failure of the column. Except for column S40-300,
(a) At 1% drift (b) At 4% drift
Fig. 11 Progression of damage in column S40-400.
the load reversals in the push and pull directions were
symmetric only up to the drift ratio of 5%. Subsequently,
while the drift ratio in the pull direction was kept con-
stant at 5%, the drift ratio in the push direction for each
cycle was increased by 1% up to 8% by using a spe-
cially designed extender. The failure of the column was
defined as the point at which the remaining capacity of
the column has dropped below 80% of the peak load.
4.2 Test results: Observed over-all behavior
As expected, due to the low axial load level and high
aspect ratio, the failure mode for all specimens was
dominated by flexural effects. Initial cracking occurred
in the form of flexural cracks near the base at approxi-
mately 6 to 10 mm of tip deflection, corresponding to
approximately 0.25% lateral drift. Some vertical cracks
were observed in the corners of the specimen typically
at a drift ratio between 2% and 3%. In general, the
spalling of cover concrete on both extreme fibers was
initiated at a drift ratio of approximately 4%. As the
lateral force increased, the cover concrete continued to
spall and a plastic hinge was fully formed near the base.
Despite their differences in measured ductility, all
specimens exhibited good energy dissipation capabili-
ties up to certain drift levels and, except for column
S40-300, finally failed by buckling and fracture of the
longitudinal bars at a drift ratio of over 6%. Figure 11
illustrates the typical progression of the damage at dif-
ferent loading stages. Further details for each specimen
and the measured relationships between the applied lat-
eral force and the displacement at the point of applica-
tion of the force are shown in the following section with
the analytically predicted results.
(c) At 7% drift
 D. Seong, T. Kim, M. Oh and H. Shin / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 9, No. 2, 205-220, 2011
5. Nonlinear analysis of HSC columns
The proposed material models for HSC were applied in
the numerical simulation of test specimens, and the re-
sults from the numerical analysis were compared with
the test results. The target specimens were divided into
two groups. The first group includes the columns tested
in this research program, which have been dominated by
flexural effects. The second group consists of columns
tested by Xiao and Martirossyan (1998), which have
been tested under shear dominant loading conditions.
5.1 HSC columns subjected to a flexure domi-
nant loading condition
Similar to the earlier study for NSC (Kim et al. 2003b),
the finite element mesh for analysis consisted of three
different types of elements. The base stub and column
were modeled with two-dimensional 8-node plane stress
elements. Due to the local discontinuity at the junction
plane between the column and the base stub, 6-node
interface elements were used to connect two mesh com-
ponents with different thicknesses (Fig. 12).
The interface element consists of two initially over-
lapped line segments. Based on the discrete crack con-
cept, the constitutive equation of the interface element is
expressed as the relationship between stress and relative
displacement due to localized effects, such as the pull-
out of steel bars and the shear slip or penetration at the
junction plane. Further details about the interface ele-
600 mm
Linear
elastic
elements
3500 mm
3500 mm
y treated in a simplified manner. If the strain of concrete
x reaches ultimate strain εcu at a numerical integration
Interface
elements
0
Fig. 12 Finite element mesh and boundary conditions.
213
ment are available in the references (Kim et al. 2003a;
Maekawa et al. 2003). To prevent failure due to local
stress concentration, 8-node linear elastic elements with
a high value of Young’s modulus are used in the top
region of the column where the loads are directly ap-
plied. The constitutive relation of each element, except
for the linear elastic elements, adopts the material mod-
els for reinforced HSC described in the previous section.
In addition, the fatigue models for reinforcement and
concrete (Kim et al. 2005) are also applied in the analy-
sis. Since all columns are slender and have showed
flexure dominant behavior in the experiment, the shear
transfer model of HSC is not expected to play a major
role in the analysis.
In the case of well-confined concrete, the core con-
crete is in a relatively stable state until the yielding and
subsequent rupture of transverse reinforcement. How-
ever, in most cases, analytical determination of the
strain level of transverse bars is rather complicated. The
strain of transverse bars can be considered as the sum of
the general two-dimensional strain due to in-plane
stresses and the strain due to the volumetric expansion
of core concrete, which entirely depends on the con-
finement model and confinement effectiveness of the
column. Most confinement models do not provide a
means to determine the strain of transverse reinforce-
ment. Hence, the strains of embedded reinforcement
perpendicular to the column axis are not realistic in this
analysis, containing only part of the strain due to in-
plane stresses. The buckling of longitudinal bars may
affect the strength and ductility of HSC columns in the
presence of large inelastic deformation. There are some
cyclic constitutive models for reinforcing bars including
the effects of buckling (Gomes and Appleton 1997;
Dhakal and Maekawa 2002). The buckling is a local
response of the individual reinforcing bar with specific
unsupported length l and diameter db . However, in a
two-dimensional element based on the concept of space
averaging, the idealization regarding uniformly distrib-
uted reinforcements makes the buckling a more com-
plex problem. Although the strain of reinforcement at a
numerical integration point is available during the
analysis, this does not always means that there is a rein-
forcing bar with the same strain level. In the analysis
model, the buckling of longitudinal reinforcement is
point, the program assumes that the concrete loses its
load-carrying capacity, resulting in the embedded longi-
tudinal bar becoming exposed to the risk of lateral buck-
ling. Although the progress of buckling depends on the
boundary conditions and dimensions of individual steel
bars, the average stress-strain relations of the longitudi-
nal bars, after exceeding the stain εcu in compression,
is assumed to be instantly decreased to 20% of the ac-
tual compressive stress. Results from the numerical
analysis are compared to the test results in Figs. 13 and
14 for the lateral force-displacement hysteretic response.
214 D. Seong, T. Kim, M. Oh and H. Shin / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 9, No. 2, 205-220, 2011

150 150
drift = 3% 5% 6.7% 150 drift = 2% 4% 6% 8%
150
(a) ratio
(a) ratio
120 120

100
8% 100
90 90

60 60
50 50
Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)

30 30

0 0
0 0

S40-300 S40-500R
-50 g = 1. 5 -50
g = 1. 0
h = 3 . 96 h = 2 . 38

-100 test result -100 test result

analysis analysis
4% Initial buckling(analysis) drift Initial buckling (analysis)
8% 6.7% = 5% 3%
ratio
-150 -150
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
Lateral displacement (mm) Lateral displacement (mm)

150
150 drift = 4% 6% 8% 150
(b) ratio 150 drift = 2% 4% 6% 8%
(b) ratio
120
120
100
90 100
90

60
50 60
Lateral load (kN)

50
Lateral load (kN)

30
30

0
0 0
0

S40-400 S60-500
-50
g = 1. 5 -50 g = 1. 0

= 3 . 16 h = 2. 38
h

-100 test result

-100 test result
analysis
Initial buckling(analysis) analysis
drift drift
= 5% 3% Initial buckling (analysis)
ratio ratio = 5% 3%
-150
-150
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
Lateral displacement (mm)
Lateral displacement (mm)
150
150
(c) drift = 4% 6% 8% Fig. 14 Lateral load-displacement responses (a) S40-
ratio
120
500R; (b) S60-500.
100
90

60
50
els (Kim et al. 2005) calculate the cumulative damage
Lateral load (kN)

30
based on the maximum amplitude and the number of
0
0
cycles after each turning point. Hence, some of the col-
umns have shown initial buckling after peak lateral load
-50
S40-500 and strength degradation in the subsequent cycle. In
= 1. 5
such cases, the point of peak lateral load before the ana-
g

h = 3 . 16
lytically predicted buckling point is indicated as the
-100 test result
analysis
initial buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement. As
drift Initial buckling(analysis) mentioned previously, while the analysis result of col-
ratio = 5% 3%
-150 umn S40-300 is reported here up to the failure of the
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 column, the test response is presented only up to the
Lateral displacement (mm) drift ratio of 6.7% due to the limitation of the test con-
Fig. 13 Lateral load-displacement responses (a) S40-300; figuration. The seismic performance of the column is
(b) S40-400; (c) S40-500. quantified by the ultimate displacement ductility factor
μ Δu = Δ u / Δ y , where Δ u is the ultimate lateral dis-
placement of the column.
In the case of analysis, points corresponding to initial The lateral force-displacement responses of three col-
buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement are indicated umns with 40 MPa concrete but with different grades of
in the figures. Damage due to fatigue also affects the steel bars are presented in Fig. 13. All specimens were
buckling of longitudinal bars. The adopted fatigue mod- designed to have transverse reinforcement satisfying the
 D. Seong, T. Kim, M. Oh and H. Shin / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 9, No. 2, 205-220, 2011 215

Table 2 Summary of test and analysis results.

Test Analysis Ratio of analysis to test
Test unit Vmax Δy Δu μ Δu Vmax Δy Δu μ Δu
Vmax Δy Δu μ Δu
(kN) (mm) (mm) (Δu / Δy ) (kN) (mm) (mm) (Δ / Δ )
u y

S40-300 113.9 35.2 - - 109.4 33.4 258.1 7.73 0.96 0.95 - -

S40-400 135.8 48.8 223.2 4.57 125.4 42.6 244.7 5.74 0.92 0.87 1.10 1.26
S40-500 133.4 51.2 249.7 4.88 128.2 44.5 243.3 5.47 0.96 0.87 0.97 1.12
S40-500R 109.3 40.8 227.8 5.58 103.1 36.4 217.9 5.99 0.94 0.89 0.96 1.07
S60-500 126.8 36.7 187.4 5.11 119.7 34.7 186.8 5.38 0.94 0.95 1.00 1.05
Mean 0.94 0.91 1.01 1.13
Standard deviation 0.017 0.041 0.064 0.094

requirements of the current KHBD and ACI 318 codes
for seismic design. Despite the original intent of this
series of experiments, the influences of the yield
strength of reinforcement on the ductility of the column
is insignificant. Instead, it is more evident that the in-
crease of transverse reinforcement content ρh tends to
produce higher ductility. In both test and analysis,
slightly pinching tendencies in the hysteresis loops were
observed at the drift ratio of over 6%, where the degra-
dation of lateral force became significant. At this stage,
the plastic hinge was fully formed and pull-out of the
steel bar was observed near the base stub. Although, the
effects of imperfect anchorage are not accounted for in
the plane elements, the inelastic anchorage-zone re-
sponse is partially considered in the analysis by using
the interface element. Figure 14 shows the lateral force-
displacement responses of two columns with the same
reinforcement configurations and yield strengths but
different strengths of concrete. Both columns achieved
sufficient ductility with an ultimate displacement ductil-
ity factor exceeding 5.0, but the increase in concrete
strength results in the decreased capacity to sustain large
inelastic displacement. Slightly pinching tendencies in
the hysteretic loops were also observed at a large dis-
placement of over 6% drift ratio. As a counterpart of
column S40-300, column S40-500R was designed to
have reduced reinforcement contents with higher yield
strength, but to have approximately the same nominal
flexural strength as column S40-300. The amount of
transverse steel in each column represents 102.5% of
the transverse reinforcement required by the current
code. Both columns developed a stable response up to a
drift ratio of 4%, achieving a maximum lateral force of
approximately 110 kN. However, during the subsequent
cycles, column S40-500R exhibited a relatively rapid
decay of strength, achieving an ultimate displacement
ductility of 5.58, while column S40-300 behaved in a
more ductile manner by ensuring an ultimate displace-
ment larger than at least 235mm, which corresponds to a
displacement ductility of 6.67.
In the analysis, the failure modes of each column are
estimated by examining the damage patterns of the
analysis results with the aid of the damage index (Kim
et al. 2005) at the event of a significant drop of flexural
or axial load-carrying capacity. The damage index of an
element represents the quantitative level of damage
based on the analysis results such as crack width, shear
slip at crack surface, and the strain level of concrete and
reinforcement. In general, the numerically predicted
responses slightly underestimated the maximum lateral
force Vmax and the yield displacement Δ y . In succes-
sive inelastic cycles, the increase in compressive
stresses at the corner elements of the column section
initiated a gradual decay of load-carrying capacity. The
analysis showed varied results in predicting the occur-
rence of special events such as an incipient decrease of
lateral force, and yielding and buckling of longitudinal
bars. However, overall load-displacement envelopes
accord well with experimentally observed envelopes.
The analysis also indicates strength degradation due to
the fatigue damage during repeated cycles. As the ex-
periment, the analytically estimated failure modes of all
specimens were also dominated by flexural effects.
Sudden drops in the numerically predicted lateral force
were entirely due to the aforementioned assumption on
the buckling of steel bars. All columns analyzed here
experienced the similar pattern of a large flexural crack
that developed in the elements at the plastic hinge re-
gion and ultimately failed after fracture of the longitudi-
nal bars under tension, exhibiting acceptable ductile
behaviors. The summary of experimental and numerical
results is presented in Table 2.
5.2 HSC columns subjected to a shear domi-
nant loading condition
Xiao and Martirossyan (1998) tested six scaled HSC
column specimens with concrete strength ranging from
76 to 86 MPa. Mainly focusing on the behavior of col-
umns under a shear-dominant seismic loading condition,
their tests consisted of specimens designed with a rela-
tively low shear aspect ratio and high longitudinal steel
ratio, ensuring severe shear demands to be imposed on
each column. The main experimental variables were
axial load, longitudinal steel ratio, and volumetric ratio
of transverse reinforcement. Details of the specimen and
corresponding finite element mesh are shown in Fig. 15.
The lateral loading system of the test configuration
displaced the test specimen in a double cantilever condi-
tion with the inflection point occurring at the mid-height
of the specimen. In the case of analysis, only half of the
specimen, the symmetric part, is modeled and simulated
under a single cantilever loading condition with half of
216 D. Seong, T. Kim, M. Oh and H. Shin / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 9, No. 2, 205-220, 2011

Table 3 Details of test specimens (Xiao and Martirossyan 1998).

Longitudinal steel Transverse steel Axial load
Concrete
Test unit Yield strength Steel ratio Yield strength Steel ratio ratio
f co ' (MPa)
f y (MPa) ρ g (%) f yh (MPa) ρh (%) P / Ag f co '
HC4-8L19-T10-0.1P 76 510 3.52 510 3.67 0.1
HC4-8L19-T10-0.2P 76 510 3.52 510 3.67 0.2
HC4-8L16-T10-0.1P 86 510 2.48 510 3.67 0.1
HC4-8L16-T10-0.2P 86 510 2.48 510 3.67 0.2
HC4-8L16-T6-0.1P 86 510 2.48 449 1.63 0.1
HC4-8L16-T6-0.2P 86 510 2.48 449 1.63 0.2

254 mm 8 No.19 or
No.16 bars failure. Except for the cycles under force control, all
457 mm

subsequent cycles were repeated three times. Further

254 mm

No.10 or No.6
hoops and ties details of the experimental program are provided else-
where (Xiao and Martirossyan 1998). The experimental
nominal
diameter hoops and ties clear cover : 13 mm results are also available at the Pacific Earthquake En-
No.19 19.1 mm s = 51 mm y
No.16 15.9 mm gineering Research (PEER) Structural Performance Da-
1016 mm

x
No.10 9.5 mm
No.6 6.4 mm tabase (Berry et al. 2004).
Linear elastic The test results showed that: (1) despite the increased
508 mm

254 mm elements
No.19
Interface
shear demand, the failure mode of the columns confined
No.10 bars
hoops elements according to the current code was dominated by con-
crete crushing and longitudinal bar buckling within the
0

plastic hinge region, rather than shear failure; (2) the

457 mm

columns confined with 50% of the transverse rein-

1016 mm
Fig. 15 Details of test specimen and finite element mesh.
the actual lateral displacement. Table 3 summarizes the
main variables for each specimen. In all columns, the
transverse ties were spaced at 51 mm intervals. Each
specimen is identified by its longitudinal reinforcement
contents (8L19), the tie diameter (T10), and the axial-
load level (0.1P). For example, HC4-8L19-T10-0.1P
represents a column specimen reinforced with eight No.
19 longitudinal bars and No. 10 transverse ties, and sub-
jected to a constant axial-load corresponding to 10% of
the column axial-load capacity. The columns in T10-
series conformed to the transverse reinforcement re-
quirements specified by the seismic provisions of the
current ACI-318 code. On the other hand, the amounts
of transverse reinforcement for the T6-series were ap-
proximately 50% of that required by the current code.
Each specimen was subjected to symmetric lateral
loading cycles while maintaining constant axial loads.
The pattern of cyclic transverse loading was applied as
follows. A few force-controlled cycles with a peak force
increment of 44.5 kN were applied up to the theoreti-
cally estimated flexural strength Vif . The value of Δ y
was determined by equating the ratio of Vif to Δ y
with the ratio of measured lateral load to lateral dis-
placement at the first yield of longitudinal bars. Thereaf-
ter, loading cycles were carried out under displacement
control with a peak lateral displacement equal to 1, 1.5,
2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 times the established Δ y value up to
forcement required by the current code failed in shear
but developed an acceptable level of ductility when sub-
jected to an axial load equal to 10% of the column axial-
load capacity; and (3) the columns subjected to an axial-
load level of 20% and confined with 50% of the re-
quired transverse reinforcement failed in shear after
developing flexural yielding, exhibiting limited ductility.
Similar to the columns in the previous section, the
numerical simulation of six scaled HSC columns is con-
ducted using the proposed material models for rein-
forced HSC. As mentioned previously, due to the re-
striction in boundary and loading conditions, only part
of the specimen between the foundation and the inflec-
tion point is modeled and analyzed in a single cantilever
loading condition. Results from the numerical analysis
are compared to the test results in Figs. 16 and 17 for
the lateral force-displacement hysteretic response. In
these figures, specimens with the same material proper-
ties and reinforcement configurations but with different
axial load level are arranged in the same row.
In the case of columns designed to the current code
(Fig. 16), all columns failed under flexural effects and
the shear cracks formed in the concrete web were not as
significant as the flexural cracks in the plastic hinge
region. The analysis results for columns subjected to an
axial-load level of 10% (Figs. 16(a) and (c)) showed
reasonable accuracy in predicting the inelastic hysteretic
behavior of columns. Both analysis and experimental
results exhibited good hysteretic energy dissipation ca-
pacity, achieving an ultimate displacement ductility fac-
tor of μ Δu = 8.0. The columns lost their load-carrying
capacity during the second cycle at μ Δ = 8.0 due to the
buckling of compression longitudinal bars and the
 D. Seong, T. Kim, M. Oh and H. Shin / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 9, No. 2, 205-220, 2011 217

400 400
= 2 4 6 8 = 6 8
(a) HC4-8L19-T10-0.1P (b) HC4-8L19-T10-0.2P
300 300

200 200
Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)

100 100

0 0

-100 P = 0 . 1 Ag fco' -100 P = 0 . 2 A g fco'

g = 3. 52 g = 3 . 52
-200 h = 3 . 67 -200 h = 3 . 67

test result test result

-300 analysis -300 analysis
=8 Initial buckling (analysis) Initial buckling (analysis)
6 4 2 = 8 6
-400 -400
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Lateral displacement (mm) Lateral displacement (mm)

400 400
= 3 4 6 8 = 3 4 6 8
(c) HC4-8L16-T10-0.1P (d) HC4-8L16-T10-0.2P
300 300

200 200
Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)

100 100

0 0

-100 P = 0 . 1 Ag fco' -100

g = 2 . 48 P = 0 . 2 Ag fco'
g = 2 . 48
h = 3 . 67
-200 -200 h = 3 . 67

test result test result

-300 analysis -300
analysis
Initial buckling (analysis) Initial buckling (analysis)
= 8 6 4 3 = 6 4 3
-400 -400

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Lateral displacement (mm) Lateral displacement (mm)

Fig. 16 Lateral load-displacement responses of columns designed to current code.

crushing of concrete. Compared to that of the column experimental responses up to the first cycle at the ductil-
with No. 19 longitudinal bars (Fig. 16(a)), the hysteresis ity level of μ Δ = 4.0. During the subsequent cycles,
loops of the column with No. 16 bars (Fig. 16(c)) most of the concrete in the compression face of the
slightly pinched at a ductility level of over μ Δ = 6.0. cross section crushed simultaneously, resulting in exten-
Such a failure mode and slightly pinching tendency are sive buckling of longitudinal bars, which instantly re-
also well predicted in numerically evaluated responses. duced their load-carrying capacities to 20%.
However, when compared with the actual test results, In the case of columns designed with 50% required
the simulation results for columns subjected to an axial- transverse reinforcement (Fig. 17), the failure modes of
load level of 20% (Figs. 16 (b) and (d)) showed differ- both experiment and analysis were dominated by the
ent ultimate performances and failed in a different man- influence of shear. The column with a 10% axial-load
ner. The experimental results indicate that both columns level (Fig. 17(a)) was able to sustain its load-carrying
with 20% axial-load level developed a stable response capacity up to the second cycle at the ductility level of
up to a certain ductility level after the first yield of lon- μ Δ = 6.0 with no significant strength degradation, but
gitudinal bars and failed due to longitudinal rebar buck- thereafter failed due to the penetration of shear cracks
ling accompanied by crushing of concrete at a ductility through the core concrete. The analysis result also indi-
level of over μ Δ = 6.0. No significant buckling of the cated similar behavior. During the inelastic loading cy-
longitudinal bars was reported at a ductility level lower cles, relatively large inclined cracks were formed in the
than μ Δ = 6.0. On the other hand, these columns failed concrete web and the column failed by shear after com-
in a brittle, rather than a ductile manner, in the numeri- pleting the third cycle at the ductility level of μ Δ = 6.0.
cal simulations. The analysis results agreed well with Further analysis showed a sudden and significant drop
218 D. Seong, T. Kim, M. Oh and H. Shin / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 9, No. 2, 205-220, 2011

400 400
(a) HC4-8L16-T6-0.1P
= 2 4 6 = 2 3 4
(b) HC4-8L16-T6-0.2P
300 300

200 200
Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)

100 100

0 0

P = 0 . 1 Ag fco' P = 0 . 2 Ag fco'
-100 -100
g = 2 . 48 g = 2. 48
h = 1. 63 h = 1 . 63
-200 -200

test result
-300 analysis -300 test result
= 6 4 2 Initial buckling (analysis) analysis
= 4 3 2
-400 -400

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Lateral displacement (mm) Lateral displacement (mm)

Fig. 17 Lateral load-displacement responses of columns with 50% required transverse reinforcement.

Table 4 Summary of test and analysis results (Xiao and Martirossyan 1998).
Test Analysis Ratio of analysis to test
Test unit Vmax Δy Δu μ Δu Vmax Δy Δu μ Δu
Vmax Δy Δu μ Δu
(kN) (mm) (mm) ( Δu / Δy ) (kN) (mm) (mm) ( Δu / Δy )
HC4-8L19-T10-0.1P 328 5.7 42.7 7.5 317 6.2 40.0 6.5 0.97 1.09 0.94 0.86
HC4-8L19-T10-0.2P 387 5.0 37.9 7.6 373 5.5 27.8 5.1 0.96 1.10 0.73 0.67
HC4-8L16-T10-0.1P 269 4.7 37.6 8.0 272 5.2 37.6 7.2 1.01 1.11 1.00 0.90
HC4-8L16-T10-0.2P 327 5.9 35.9 6.1 335 5.3 25.9 4.9 1.02 0.90 0.72 0.80
HC4-8L16-T6-0.1P 273 5.1 30.6 6.0 259 5.9 30.6 5.2 0.95 1.16 1.00 0.86
HC4-8L16-T6-0.2P 324 5.4 18.8 3.5 307 5.1 21.4 4.2 0.95 0.94 1.14 1.20
Mean 0.98 1.05 0.92 0.88
Standard deviation 0.031 0.104 0.166 0.176

in the load-carrying capacity of the column due to the ducted by Xiao and Martirossyan (1998). A summary
severe shear displacement in the cracked elements. The and conclusions based on the experimental investiga-
columns with 20% axial-load level (Fig. 17(b)) exhib- tions and comparisons with numerical predictions are
ited very brittle behavior with large diagonal cracks in presented as follows:
the web zone of the column. The column suddenly lost 1. The material models for reinforced HSC consisted of
its load-carrying capacity during the first cycle at μ Δ = a compressive, tensile, and shear model for HSC con-
4.0 due to the penetration of shear cracks accompanied crete and a model for embedded reinforcing bars. The
by the rupture of the lateral hoops. The numerically pre- constitutive relation for confined HSC adopted a con-
dicted result also indicated similar behavior. It is inter- finement model proposed by Sun and Sakino (2000)
esting to note that although this column is included in and the mechanical characteristic related to the
the series of columns with a 20% axial-load level, it has smooth crack surface of HSC was reflected in the
failed by shear before any significant crushing of con- shear transfer model by modifying its contact density
crete as a consequence of a relatively low transverse function. Based on the smeared crack concept, each
steel ratio and imposed a severe shear demand. model was implied in an orthotropic plane stress fi-
nite element.
6. Conclusions 2. Five large-scale HSC columns were tested under a
flexure dominant loading condition to investigate the
The goal of this study is to analytically evaluate the applicability of transverse reinforcement require-
seismic performance of HSC columns. Five large-scale ments specified by the current Korean Highway
HSC columns were tested under constant axial load and Bridge Design code. All columns failed due to flex-
cyclic flexure. Proposed material models for HSC col- ural effects, achieving an ultimate ductility factor
umns were applied in numerical simulations of HSC ranging from 4.6 to 5.6. An increase in transverse re-
columns tested in this research and other research con- inforcement content was more beneficial than in-
 D. Seong, T. Kim, M. Oh and H. Shin / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 9, No. 2, 205-220, 2011
creasing the yield strength of the transverse rein-
forcement to the ductility of columns. Increasing the
compressive strength of concrete had an adverse ef-
fect on the achieved ductility level.
3. Numerical simulations of five large-scale HSC col-
umns successfully captured their hysteretic behaviors
compared with the test results. The numerically pre-
dicted failure mode of the column agreed well with
the experiment.
4. Numerical simulations of six scaled HSC columns
tested by Xiao and Martirossyan (1998) were con-
ducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed
material models under the shear dominant loading
condition. As the experiment indicated, the columns
confined with a transverse reinforcement satisfying
current ACI-318 code failed due to flexural effects,
while the columns confined with 50% of the required
transverse reinforcement failed due to shear. However,
when the provided transverse reinforcement was suf-
ficient, the columns subjected to an axial-load level
of 20% failed due to the premature crushing of the
concrete core, underestimating the actual ductile be-
havior.
5. Judging by the analysis of numerically predicted re-
sults, the currently proposed material models for HSC
columns evaluates the seismic performance of HSC
columns with reasonable accuracy. In most cases, the
predicted ultimate ductility factor and failure mode of
columns agreed well with the test results. However, it
should be pointed out that since the proposed analysis
method showed an underestimating tendency in
evaluating the ductility of columns subjected to an
axial-load level higher than 10%, the current method
is not recommended or should be used with caution
in such cases. This should be addressed in future
studies.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant (10CCTI-
A052540-03-000000) from the Ministry of Land, Trans-
port, and Maritime Affairs of Korea through the Core
Research Institute for Core Engineering Technology
Development of the Super Long Span Bridge R&D
Center at Seoul National University.
References
ACI Committee 318, (2008). “Building code
requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08)
and commentary.” Farmington Hills, Mich.:
American Concrete Institute.
Berry, M., Parrish, M. and Eberhard, M., (2004). “PEER
Structural performance database [online].” Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California, Berkeley. Available from:
<http://nisee.berkeley.edu/spd/> [Accessed 23 Feb
2011].
Bujadham, B. and Maekawa, K., (1992). “Qualitative
studies on mechanisms of stress transfer across cracks
219
in concrete.” Proceedings of JSCE, 451(V-17), 265-
275.
Dhakal, R. P. and Maekawa, K., (2002). “Path-
dependent cyclic stress-strain relationship of
reinforcing bar including buckling.” Engineering
Structures, 24(11), 1383-1396.
Gebreyouhannes, E., Kishi, T. and Maekawa, K., (2008).
“Shear fatigue response of cracked concrete
Interface.” Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology,
6(2), 365-376.
Gomes, A. and Appleton, J., (1997). “Nonlinear cyclic
stress-strain relationship of reinforcing bars including
buckling.” Engineering Structures, 19(10), 822-826.
Kato, B., (1979). “Mechanical properties of steel under
load cycles idealizing seismic actions.” AICAP-CEB
Symposium on Structural Concrete under Severe
Seismic Actions, Bulletin d’Information, (131), Rome,
7-27.
Kim, T. H., Kim, B. S., Chung, Y. S. and Shin, H. M.,
(2006). “Seismic performance assessment of
reinforced concrete bridge piers with lap splices.”
Engineering Structures, 28(6), 935-945.
Kim, T. H., Lee, K. M. Chung, Y. S. and Shin, H. M.,
(2005). “Seismic damage assessment of reinforced
concrete bridge columns.” Engineering Structures,
27(4), 576-592.
Kim, T. H., Lee, K. M., Yoon C. and Sin, H. M., (2003a).
“Inelastic behavior and ductility capacity of
reinforced concrete bridge piers under earthquake. I:
Theory and formulation.” Journal of Structural
Engineering, 129(9), 1199-1207.
Kim, T. H., Lee, K. M., Yoon C. and Sin, H. M.,
(2003b). “Inelastic behavior and ductility capacity of
reinforced concrete bridge piers under earthquake. II:
Numerical validation.” Journal of Structural
Engineering, 129(9), 1199-1207.
Konstantinidis, D. K., Kappos, A. J. and Izzuddin, B. A.,
(2007). “Analytical stress-strain model for high-
strength concrete members under cyclic loading.”
Journal of Structural Engineering, 133(4), 484-494.
Korean Society of Civil Engineers, (2008). “Highway
bridge design specifications and commentary.” Seoul:
Korean Society of Civil Engineers.
Li, B., Maekawa, K. and Okamura, H., (1989). “Contact
density model for stress transfer across crack in
concrete.” Journal of the Faculty of Engineering,
University of Tokyo, 40(1), 9-52.
Maekawa, K. and An, X., (2000). “Shear failure and
ductility of RC columns after yielding of main
reinforcement.” Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
65(2-3), 335-368.
Maekawa, K. and Okamura, H., (1983). “The
deformational behavior and constitutive equation of
concrete using elasto-plastic fracture model.” Journal
of the Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo,
37(2), 253-328.
Maekawa, K., Pimanmas, A., and Okamura, H. (2003).
“Nonlinear mechanics of reinforced concrete.”
220 D. Seong, T. Kim, M. Oh and H. Shin / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 9, No. 2, 205-220, 2011
London: Spon Press.
Mander, J. B., Priestly, M. J. N. and Park, R., (1988).
“Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete.”
Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8), 1804-1826.
Monti, G. and Spacone, E., (2000). “Reinforced
concrete fiber beam element with bond-slip.” Journal
of Structural Engineering, 126(6), 654-661.
Nishiyama, M., (2009). “Mechanical properties of
concrete and reinforcement–state-of-the-art report on
HSC and HSS in Japan–.” Journal of Advanced
Concrete Technology, 7(2), 157-182.
Okamoto, M., Sato, T., Tanimura, Y. and Kuroiwa, T.
(2004). “Experimental study on seismic performance
verification methods for RC members using high-
strength materials.” Journal of Advanced Concrete
Technology, 2(2), 223-231.
Okamura, H. and Maekawa, K. (1991). “Nonlinear
analysis and constitutive models of reinforced
concrete.” Tokyo: Gihodo-Shuppan Co.
Okamura, H., Maekawa, K. and Izumo, J., (1987). “RC
plate element subjected to cyclic loading.”
International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering, IABSE colloquium, (54), Lisbon, 575-
590.
Sato, Y., Tadokoro, T. and Ueda, T., (2004). “Diagonal
tensile failure mechanism of reinforced concrete
beams.” Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology,
2(3), 327-341.
Shima, H., Chou, L. and Okamura, H., (1987). “Micro
and macro models for bond behavior in reinforced
concrete.” Journal of the Faculty of Engineering,
University of Tokyo, 39(2), 133-194.
Shin, H. M., (1988). “Finite element analysis of
reinforced concrete members subjected to reversed
cyclic in-plane loadings.” Thesis (PhD), University of
Tokyo. (in Japanese).
Sun, Y. and Sakino, K., (2000). “A comprehensive
stress-strain model for high-strength concrete
confined by circular transverse reinforcement.”
Proceedings of the Sixth ASCCS International
Conference on Steel-Concrete Composite Structures,
University of Southern California, 1067-1074.
Toongoenthong, K. and Maekawa, K., (2004).
“Interaction of pre-induced damages along main
reinforcement and diagonal shear in RC members.”
Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 2(3), 431-
443.
Tsuchiya, S., Maekawa, K. and Kawashima, K., (2007).
“Three-dimensional cyclic behavior simulation of RC
columns under combined flexural moment and
torsion coupled with axial and shear.” Journal of
Advanced Concrete Technology, 5(3), 409-421.
Xiao, Y. and Martirossyan, A., (1998). “Seismic
performance of high-strength concrete columns.”
Journal of Structural Engineering, 124(3), 241-251.
Xie, J., Elwi, A. E. and Macgregor, J. G., (1996).
“Numerical investigation of eccentrically loaded
high-strength concrete tied columns.” ACI Structural
Journal, 93(4), 449-461.