ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 102-S19
Flexural Behavior of Confined High-Strength
Concrete Columns
by Teng-Hooi Tan and Ngoc-Ba Nguyen
An experimental investigation of 30 plain and reinforced concrete
column specimens with 200 mm square sections is presented. The
specimens were tested under different loading schemes: concentric
compression, eccentric compression with a fixed neutral axis position,
and eccentric compression with a constant eccentricity. The main
variables are concrete strength, ranging from 46 to 101 MPa, and
confinement reinforcement with a volumetric ratio ranging from
0.7 to 2.4%. A new equivalent rectangular stress block needing
only one parameter is proposed. A large volume of published test
data with a wide range of concrete strengths was used to examine
this rectangular stress block and that of the ACI code. The result
shows that this new equivalent rectangular stress block is suitable
for both normal- and high-strength concrete.
Keywords: high-strength concrete; stress; test.
INTRODUCTION
High-strength concrete (HSC) with compressive strength
exceeding 50 MPa has been increasingly used in various
parts of the world. As a result, many studies have been
conducted on HSC members in the last two decades. One of
the main objectives of such studies is to investigate the
validity of design codes, which are primarily empirical and
are developed based on experimental studies on normal-
strength concrete (NSC) to the case of HSC.
Figure 1 illustrates the flexural stress distribution of
concrete at ultimate condition. In strength computation, this
stress block can be represented by three parameters: k1, k2,
and k3. k1 is the ratio of the average stress over the compres-
sion area to the maximum compressive stress; k2 is the ratio
of the distance between the extreme fiber and the resultant
force of the stress block to the distance between that fiber to
the neutral axis; and k3 is the ratio of the maximum compres-
sive stress to the cylinder strength. These parameters can be
obtained from experiments as follows
f β1 leads to a greater lever arm that can overestimate the
k1k3 = ----0-
f c′
m HSC. While studies on HSC beams4-6 reported that the ACI
k2 = 1 – -----0-
f0
where f0 = Pc /bc; m0 = Mc/bc2; fc′ is the cylinder strength of
concrete; b is the width of the cross section; c is the neutral
axis depth; and Pc and Mc are the total load and total moment
about the neutral axis, respectively.
In practical design, the flexural stress distribution of
concrete can be approximated as an equivalent rectangular
stress block (ERSB) as shown in Fig. 1. The relationship
between the two parameters α1 and β1 of the ERSB and the
198
TECHNICAL PAPER
Fig. 1—Concrete stress block parameters.
stress block parameters k1, k2, and k3 can be expressed by the
following equations
β1 = 2k2 (3)
α1β1 = k1k3 (4)
In ACI 318-02,1 the two parameters α1 and β1 were origi-
nally derived by Mattock, Kriz, and Hognestad2 based on
tests of C-shaped specimens with concrete strengths ranging
up to 52.5 MPa.3 The first parameter α1 = 0.85 has been
incorporated in the ACI code from the provision in 1963, but
the second parameter β1 has been revised to cope with higher
concrete strength. In the current code, β1 is equal to 0.85 for
concrete with cylinder strength of up to 30 MPa and is
reduced at a constant rate of 0.08 for each 10 MPa of strength
in excess of 30 MPa. The parameter β1 is not to be taken less
than 0.65.
The modification of ERSB parameters for HSC based on
test results of HSC specimens.3 For simplicity, the α1 parameter
was kept constant, thus β1 was reduced with the increase of
concrete strength. The lower bound value of β1 = 0.65,
however, is not realistic because it should not be smaller than
0.67. The latter corresponds to the case of a linear stress-strain
relationship for concrete. More importantly, a lower value of
(1)
moment capacity of the section for the same α1.3
Reports from experimental studies give different opinions
on the validity of the current ACI stress block parameters to
(2)
318-89 provisions give a good estimation of flexural strength
of HSC, some results from tests on HSC columns7-9 gave
lower strengths than predicted values calculated using the
code. Several modifications of the ACI rectangular stress
block for HSC have been proposed;7,10,11 nonetheless, the
ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 2, March-April 2005.
MS No. 03-199 received June 2, 2003, and reviewed under Institute publication poli-
cies. Copyright © 2005, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the January-February
2006 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by September 1, 2005.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005
Teng-Hooi Tan is an associate professor in the School of Civil and Structural Engineering
at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His research interests include confined
concrete, concrete under triaxial stress states, and repair of concrete structures.

Ngoc-Ba Nguyen is a PhD candidate in the School of Civil and Structural Engineering
at Nanyang Technological University. His research interests include confined concrete
and flexural behavior of reinforced concrete structures.

ERSB parameters of the ACI code still remained as specified

in ACI 318-77.3
Although a large number of experimental studies on HSC
have been conducted, only few investigations8,12-15 provided
data on the flexural distribution as well as compression stress
block parameters of HSC. Most of the existing data was
obtained from plain concrete specimens or reinforced
concrete specimens with low confinement reinforcement
ratios. To the authors’ knowledge, test data of only four well-
confined specimens with the volumetric ratio of lateral
reinforcement greater than 0.012 have been obtained to Fig. 2—Details of test specimens.
date.8 Moreover, there was only one eccentric test from
Ibrahim and MacGregor8 providing the stress block parameters
of HSC, although a number of tests of HSC columns under
constant eccentricity have been carried out.
It is the objective of this paper to investigate the flexural
behavior of HSC and the effect of confinement in HSC
columns loaded in flexure. In this paper, the results of 30
plain and reinforced concrete column specimens with
compressive strengths ranging from 46 to 101 MPa are
reported. The specimens were tested under different loading
schemes: concentric compression, eccentric compression with
a fixed neutral axis position, and eccentric compression with
a constant eccentricity. Stress block parameters obtained in
this experiment are used in combination with previous test
results to calibrate a new rectangular stress block formula
that is applicable for concrete strength up to 100 MPa.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This paper reports an experimental investigation on the
flexural behavior of HSC. The main purpose of this study is
to investigate the effect of confinement from lateral rein-
forcement to the flexural capacity of HSC and the applica-
bility of the ERSB of the ACI code to HSC sections. A
simple one-parameter ERSB is proposed. Its validity and
suitability is determined using data from this experiment and
previous studies. A comparison of this stress block with that
of the ACI code is also made.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Test specimens
All 30 column specimens were the same size: 200 x 200 x
800 mm. Three different strengths of concrete with target
strengths of 40, 70, and 90 MPa were used in the study.
Concrete cover to the surface of the lateral reinforcement
was 15 mm. Longitudinal reinforcing bars of eight T10
(deformed bar with 10 mm nominal diameter) were used for
all reinforced concrete specimens. The specimens were
grouped into five series representing different arrangements
of confinement reinforcement as shown in Fig. 2. Series A
consists of specimens with plain concrete in the midheight
region. Specimens in Series B and C have the same configu-
ration of lateral reinforcement but with different spacings of
50 and 100 mm, respectively. Series D and E have only
perimeter ties with spacings of 28 and 100 mm, respectively.
The only specimen in Series D was used to compare with the
specimens in Series B, as they all have the same volumetric
Fig. 3—External confinement for high-strength concrete
specimens.
ratio of lateral reinforcement. Details of the specimens are
tabulated in Table 1.
The two ends of all specimens, including the plain concrete
ones, were heavily reinforced with six 16 mm-diameter bars
welded to 20 mm-thick steel plates. Each steel plate facilitated
the fixing of the specimen to the loading rig, and more ties
were put in the end regions. This measure was very effective
for specimens with 40 MPa concrete, as all of them failed in
the midregion. The test of a HSC specimen, S90-B-N1,
however, revealed that cover spalling did not only occur at the
midheight but also appeared at the ends of the specimens.
Hence, to prevent premature cover spalling at such locations,
external confinement as shown in Fig. 3 was used for the
remaining HSC specimens. As a result, spalling did not occur
at the top and bottom ends of these HSC specimens.
All specimens were cast horizontally to minimize the
variation of concrete strength. One hour after casting, the
exposed surface of concrete was covered and sealed with
plastic sheets. Approximately 48 h after casting, all the
plastic sheets and molds were removed and the concrete
surface was covered with damp Hessian sacks for 3 weeks.
After this period, the specimens were kept in a sheltered
area. There were no cracks on the surfaces of any specimens
prior to testing.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005 199

Table 1—Details of test specimens
Lateral reinforcement
Cylinder strength fc′ , Longitudinal Volumetric
No. Specimen Width b, mm Height h, mm MPa reinforcement Type Spacing, mm ratio Eccentricity, mm
1 S40-A-N2 205 200 46.5 — — — —
2 S40-A-N3 200 200 48.3 — — — —
3 S40-B-N3 200 200 48.3 Eight T10 R6-N 50 0.024
4 S40-B-N4 202 198 49.0 Eight T10 R6-N 50 0.024
5 S40-B-N5 200 200 49.0 Eight T10 R6-N 50 0.024
6 S40-C-N1 200 198 45.5 Eight T10 R6-N 100 0.012
7 S40-D-N2 200 200 48.3 Eight T10 R6-N 28 0.024
8 S70-A-N 205 200 71.4 — — — — Varying
eccentricity
9 S70-B-N1 200 200 69.3 Eight T10 R6-N 50 0.024
10 S70-B-N2 200 200 76.1 Eight T10 R6-N 50 0.024 Neutral axis
position is fixed
11 S70-C-N 202 198 69.3 Eight T10 R6-N 100 0.012
12 S90-B-N 200 200 89.5 Eight T10 R6-H 50 0.024
13 S90-B-N1 200 200 89.5 Eight T10 R6-H 50 0.024
14 S90-B-N2 200 200 100.6 Eight T10 R6-H 50 0.024
15 S90-E-N1 200 200 95.1 Eight T10 R6-H 100 0.007
16 S90-E-N2 200 200 92.4 Eight T10 R6-H 100 0.007
17 S90-E-N3 202 200 100.6 Eight T10 R6-H 100 0.007
18 S-40-A-E0 200 200 48.3 — — — — 0
19 S-40-B-E0 203 200 48.3 Eight T10 R6-N 50 0.024 0
20 S70-A-E0 200 198 71.4 — — — — 0
21 S70-B-E0 200 200 73.2 Eight T10 R6-N 50 0.024 0
22 S90-B-E0 198 200 100.6 Eight T10 R6-H 50 0.024 0
23 S40-B-E20/2 200 200 49.0 Eight T10 R6-N 50 0.024 20
24 S40-B-E40/1 200 200 49.0 Eight T10 R6-N 50 0.024 40
25 S40-B-E40/2 200 200 49.0 Eight T10 R6-N 50 0.024 40
26 S40-B-E60/1 201 202 49.0 Eight T10 R6-N 50 0.024 60
27 S40-B-E60/2 203 200 49.0 Eight T10 R6-N 50 0.024 60
28 S70-B-E20 202 198 76.1 Eight T10 R6-N 50 0.024 20
29 S70-B-E40 200 200 76.1 Eight T10 R6-N 50 0.024 40
30 S70-B-E60 205 200 76.1 Eight T10 R6-N 50 0.024 60

Table 2—Properties of reinforcement
Nominal Yield Ultimate Modulus of
Steel type diameter, mm strength, MPa strength, MPa elasticity, GPa
R6-N 6 455.0 510.1
R6-H 6 636.0 676.5
T10 10 594.7 673.1
Material properties
Two batches of concrete with target strengths of 40 and
70 MPa were provided by concrete suppliers, but the 90 MPa
batch was made in the laboratory. Silica fume and a high-
range water-reducing admixture were used in producing the
HSCs. The coarse aggregate of the HSCs was crushed
granite with a maximum size of 10 mm.
Three 150 x 300 mm cylinders were made for each
specimen from the same batch of concrete. All cylinders were
cured in the same way as the specimens. The top and bottom
faces of each cylinder were ground on a lathe before testing.
For most specimens, the concrete strengths were determined
from tests of cylinders on the days the specimens were tested.
For the other specimens that were tested at the age of more
than 100 days, the cylinder tests were taken for groups of
specimens cast in the same batch and tested within a few days.
Longitudinal reinforcement was T10 bars with an effective
cross-sectional area of 74.5 mm2. Two types of lateral
reinforcement—R6-N and R6-H—were used. They were made
of 6 mm-diameter wire with different yield strengths. The yield
strength and modulus of elasticity of each type of reinforcing
steel were determined from tensile tests of three samples and
204 averaged. The typical stress-strain curves of the reinforcement
201 are shown in Fig. 4. Results are given in Table 2.
201
Instrumentation
The arrangement of the loading system for the eccentric
tests and major instrumentation is shown in Fig. 5. For the
tests with a fixed neutral axis position, the primary load P1
was applied using a 5 MN servo-hydraulic testing machine.
The secondary load P2 was applied using a manually operated
hydraulic jack. For the tests with constant eccentricities and
concentric tests, only load P1 from the testing machine was used.
The longitudinal deformations of the specimens were
measured by using two pairs of linear variable differential
transformers (LVDTs) on opposite sides of the specimen in
the bending plane. Two 10 mm stroke LVDTs were used to
measure the most compressive fiber deformation, while for
the opposite face, a pair of 5 mm stroke LVDTs were
employed. The LVDTs were mounted on a pair of threaded
steel rods embedded in the test specimen. The distance
between two steel rods, which were equidistant from the
midheight of the specimen, was 200 mm. The longitudinal
strain at each surface of concrete was then calculated by
extrapolating the readings from each pair of LVDTs.

200 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005

Fig. 4—Typical stress-strain curves of reinforcement.

Five 25 mm LVDTs were used to measure the lateral

displacements at equal distances along the height of the
specimen.

Test procedure (a)

Three different loading programs—concentric compression,
eccentric compression with a fixed neutral axis position, and
load with a constant eccentricity—were used in the study. A
thin layer of grout was applied at the top and bottom of the
specimen to ensure good contact with the loading system.
For eccentric tests, the specimens were bolted to the loading
system using four M18 (18 mm diameter) high-strength steel
bolts at each end.
Tests were done in a 5 MN testing machine using
displacement control. A preload of 100 kN was applied to
the test specimen and was held while all of the bolts were
tightened. After the specimen had been checked to ensure
proper positioning, it was unloaded, and zero readings were
recorded. The tests started with a constant movement of the
test machine crosshead of 0.1 and 0.05 mm/min for the
concentric and eccentric tests, respectively. For the eccentric
tests with a fixed neutral axis position, the strain at one face
of the specimen (the left-hand side in Fig. 5(a)) was monitored (b)
and maintained at zero by manually adjusting the load from
the hydraulic jack. The tests were stopped when any of the Fig. 5—Test setup and instrumentation for eccentric tests:
following conditions were met: the specimens failed (a) for loading with fixed neutral axis position; and (b) for
completely; the LVDTs on the compression side reached full loading with constant eccentricity.
scale; or the load from the hydraulic jack reached zero for the
fixed neutral axis position tests. The second and third
conditions were met only at very large deformations of some Specimens tested with fixed neutral axis position
well-confined specimens after the peak loads were reached. For NSC Specimens S40-A-N2 and S40-A-N3, cracks
appeared gradually on the compression face of the specimens
in the midheight region. The P2 load reached maximum
GENERAL BEHAVIOR OF SPECIMENS when the first crack was visible, then it decreased while the
Results of the fixed neutral axis position tests are tabulated P1 load continued to increase until the severe cracking and
in Table 3. Test results of other specimens are given in Table 4. spalling of concrete in the midheight region caused it to
The moments given in Table 3 were taken about the neutral decrease. For HSC Specimen S70-A-N, it was not possible
axis, including the secondary moments due to the lateral to maintain the neutral axis position after the spalling of
displacement of the specimens. concrete began.
The stress block parameters of concrete k1, k3, and k2 were The reinforced concrete specimens showed a more
calculated from the test data using Eq. (1) and (2) after complicated behavior, as can be seen in Fig. 6. Before the
subtracting the contribution of the longitudinal reinforcement cover spalling began, the curves of the moments about the
from the applied loads and moments. The values for each neutral axis versus the strains at the maximum compressive
specimen given in Table 3 were evaluated at the maximum fiber are similar to the ascending part of the curves of plain
moment about the neutral axis carried by the concrete before concrete specimens with comparatively higher compressive
spalling of the concrete cover. All the values of compressive strains near the first peak. The spalling of concrete cover
strain, lateral displacement, and stress block parameters given occurred more gently for NSC specimens than HSC specimens.
in Table 4 were evaluated at the maximum load. During this process, the concrete cover lost its load-carrying

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005 201

Table 3—Test results of specimens test with fixed neutral axis position
First peak Second peak Stress block parameters
Specimen fc′ , MPa Strain, mm/mm Load, kN Moment,* kN.m Strain, mm/mm Load, kN Moment,* kN.m k1k3 k2
S40-A-N2 46.5 0.00293 1320.2 161.63 — — — 0.69 0.40
S40-A-N3 48.3 0.00288 1260.5 155.66 — — — 0.65 0.38
S40-B-N3 48.3 0.00398 1666.2 203.89 0.01365 1948.7 207.82 0.76 0.40
S40-B-N4 49.0 0.00373 1603.3 194.82 0.02184 2118.0 213.98 0.72 0.39
S40-B-N5 49.0 0.00334 1643.9 210.09 0.01634 2203.9 234.46 0.75 0.37
S40-C-N1 45.5 0.00507 1712.7 202.25 — — — 0.83 0.41
S40-D-N2 48.3 0.00409 1736.1 212.15 0.01110 1977.1 213.73 0.80 0.40
Mean 47.8 0.00372 1563.3 191.50 0.01573 2061.9 217.50 0.74 0.39
S70-A-N 71.4 0.00302 1573.9 200.17 — — — 0.54 0.38
S70-B-N1 69.3 0.00414 1722.4 212.56 0.01829 2259.5 222.86 0.55 0.39
S70-B-N2 76.1 0.00441 1987.9 245.09 0.01085 2432.2 248.35 0.59 0.39
S70-C-N 69.3 0.00423 1805.3 218.31 — — — 0.58 0.40
Mean 71.5 0.00395 1772.4 219.03 0.01457 2345.9 235.61 0.57 0.39
S90-B-N 89.5 0.00379 2247.4 269.06 0.00965 3106.7 309.35 0.57 0.41
S90-B-N1 89.5 0.00317 1670.9 216.36 0.01590 2617.7 264.58 0.42 0.36
S90-B-N2 100.6 0.00306 1938.6 251.46 0.01129 3163.7 314.70 0.44 0.36
S90-E-N1 95.1 0.00309 2031.3 257.24 0.00442 2319.1 274.23 0.49 0.37
S90-E-N2 92.4 0.00325 2102.1 268.85 0.00412 2197.7 269.48 0.52 0.37
S90-E-N3 100.6 0.00301 2258.6 299.49 — — — 0.52 0.34
Mean 94.6 0.00323 2041.5 260.41 0.00908 2681.0 286.47 0.49 0.37
*
Moment computed about neutral axis at midheight of test region, not centroidal axis.

Table 4—Test results of specimens tested under

concentric and eccentric compression
Stress block
Compressive Lateral parameters
fc′ , Maximum strain, displace-
Specimen MPa load, kN mm/mm ment, mm 1k3 k k2
S40-B-E20/2 49.0 1708.5 0.00387 1.74 0.84 0.44
S40-B-E40/1 49.0 1399.9 0.00417 2.51 0.77 0.37
S40-B-E40/2 49.0 1392.0 0.00391 2.88 0.85 0.41
S40-B-E60/1 49.0 984.6 0.00369 3.07 0.71 0.35 Fig. 6—Moment/moment at first peak versus strain at
S40-B-E60/2 49.0 967.3 0.00396 3.31 0.77 0.41 maximum compressive fiber.
Mean 49.0 — 0.00392 — 0.79 0.40
S70-B-E20 76.1 2074.6 0.00379 2.80 0.55 0.35
configuration, was less ductile than the latter. It could
S70-B-E40 76.1 1556.6 0.00373 3.27 0.57 0.36 achieve a second peak moment in the third stage. After
S70-B-E60 76.1 1075.3 0.00348 3.87 0.57 0.39 reaching the second peak, which was approximately the
Mean 76.1 — 0.00367 — 0.56 0.37 same value as the first one, the moment decreased quickly,
S40-A-E0 48.3 1716.4 0.00236 — 0.89 — as can be seen from Fig. 6. This confirms that the tie config-
S40-B-E0 48.3 2421.8 0.00273 — 1.08 — uration with only perimeter ties is less effective in confining
S70-A-E0 71.4 2256.6 0.00318 — 0.80 — the concrete core.16
S70-B-E0 73.2 2799.0 0.00283 — 0.85 — High-yield-strength steel (HYSS) reinforcement is very
S90-B-E0 100.6 3523.6 0.00266 — 0.82 — effective in confining HSC. The ratios of the second peak
moment over those at the first peak of the three specimens
(S90-B-N, S90-B-N1, and S90-B-N2) that used HYSS as
capacity, but in a well-confined specimen, this loss was confining reinforcement were higher than those of other
compensated for by the increase in the capacity of the specimens confined with normal-yield-strength steel.
confined core due to the confinement effect from transverse Specimens of Series E had the lowest volumetric ratio of ties
reinforcement. compared with those in the other series. Nonetheless, with
The confinement has a significant effect on the behavior of HYSS ties, both Specimens S90-E-N1 and S90-E-N2 had
the specimens after the commencement of cover spalling. second peak moments that were higher than the first peaks.
For all specimens in Series B, which had the highest volumetric Unlike other specimens, these peaks were recorded shortly
ratio of confinement reinforcement, the moments about the after the first peak and immediately followed by a sudden
neutral axis achieved a second peak in this stage that was drop of moment when large pieces of concrete cover fell off.
higher than the one in the first stage. On the other hand, the
confinement in the specimens of Series C was not enough to Specimens tested under concentric and
produce a second peak. constant eccentricity
Specimen S40-D-N2, with the same volumetric ratio of The failure of the plain concrete specimens under concentric
ties as those of Series B but with different tie spacing and loading was very brittle. Only a very short descending branch

202 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005

of the stress-strain curve was recorded from NSC Specimen
S40-A-E0. HSC Specimen S70-A-E0 failed abruptly after
reaching maximum load, with large pieces of concrete
thrown apart. On the other hand, the failure of reinforced
concrete specimens from Series B was very ductile because
these specimens were well confined. The commencement of
concrete cover spalling was marked by a drop in the applied
load, but all three specimens could sustain more than 80% of
the maximum load until an axial strain of 0.008 mm/mm.
Figure 7 shows the stress-strain curves of concrete for all
specimens under concentric loads. The stresses were
normalized with respect to the maximum stress. In general,
the ascending portion of plain concrete and reinforced
concrete specimens with the same concrete strength are Fig. 7—Stress/maximum stress versus strain curves of
similar to each other. The gradient of the ascending portion concrete of specimens under concentric compression.
of HSC specimens is steeper than that of NSC specimens.
All specimens tested under constant eccentricity failed in
compression mode, that is, crushing of concrete at the
compression face before the tensile reinforcement reached
yield. Figure 8 shows the normalized load versus the
maximum compressive strain curves obtained from specimens
under constant eccentricity. The strains at maximum loads of
all the specimens were approximately the same regardless of
concrete strength and eccentricity. The crushing of concrete
cover in the compression face produced a short and steep
portion at the beginning of the descending branch of each
curve. The percentage loss of the load carried by the concrete
cover of HSC specimens was higher than that of the NSC
ones. In general, the slopes of all curves after the concrete
cover loss are quite similar, although none of the specimens
could achieve a second peak load. Fig. 8—Normalized load versus maximum compressive
strain of columns under eccentric compression.
Effects of test variables to stress block parameters
The most significant variable that affected the values of loads for specimens tested under constant eccentricity or
the stress block parameters k1, k3, and k2 is the strength of corresponding to the first peak moments about the neutral
concrete. Table 3 and 4 show that the values of k1k3 reduce axis for specimens tested under fixed neutral axis position,
remarkably with the increase of concrete strength. This were higher than the value of 0.003 limited by the ACI code.
finding is consistent with those reported elsewhere.13,17 The On the other hand, the values of strain at maximum load of
effect of concrete strength on the parameter k2 in this all specimens tested under concentric load were lower than
experiment, however, was not as significant as that of k1k3. 0.003 except for plain concrete Specimen S70-A-E0.
Specimens with lower-strength concrete have slightly higher
values of k2 than higher-strength concrete specimens. Other EQUIVALENT RECTANGULAR STRESS
variables did not result in any clear effect to this parameter. BLOCK PARAMETERS
Although the confinement can significantly improve the Published test data on stress block parameters of concrete
postpeak behavior of the reinforced concrete columns, its under flexure were included in a database to calibrate a new
effect on the values of k1k3 was less significant than the ERSB. For flexural design of concrete, it is important to
effect of concrete strength. For specimens in the same group evaluate the β1 parameter and the product α1β1. The former
of concrete strength, the values of k1k3 obtained from plain is needed to determine the location of the resultant force,
concrete specimens were less than from reinforced concrete while the latter is used to evaluate the intensity of the stress
ones, but those values obtained from less-confined specimens block of concrete in compression. From the existing test
were higher than their well-confined counterparts. values k1, k2, and k3, the values of β1 and α1β1 were
The stress block parameters obtained from specimens with computed using Eq. (3) and (4). The results are depicted in
similar concrete strengths and tested with different eccen- Fig. 9 and 10.
tricities shown in Table 4 show that the effect of strain The ACI equivalent rectangular stress block parameters
gradient on these parameters is insignificant. With reference to are also plotted in the figures. Figure 9 shows that the β1
the values of stress block parameters obtained from those values of the ACI code are lower than the experimental data,
specimens similar in concrete strength and confinement rein- which means the code overestimates the distance from the
forcement but tested with a fixed neutral axis position (given resultant force to the neutral axis position. The trend of
in Table 3), it suggests that the testing method had no obvious experimental values of α1β1, as shown in Fig. 10, suggests
effect to the stress block parameters of concrete under flexure. that the constant value of α1β1 of the code for concrete
Nevertheless, the values of k1k3 were higher for specimens strength exceeding 55 MPa tends to give a less conservative
under concentric tests than those under eccentric tests. prediction of the load-carrying capacity of HSC.
The experimental values of ultimate compressive strain of For a more representative prediction, both parameters α1
concrete under flexure, taken corresponding to the maximum and β1 can be determined from fitting the experimental values

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005 203

Fig. 9—Calibration of β1 values.
Fig. 10—Calibration of α1β1 values.
Fig. 11—Interaction diagram for rectangular reinforced
concrete sections.
to the data, and will still be accurate and safe to be used in
design. As mentioned previously, a lower value of β1, hence a
longer lever arm, may lead to an overestimation of the
moment capacity of the section. Therefore, it was decided that
the parameter β1 should be kept close to the experimental
values, while the product α1β1 should be chosen smaller than
the test values. For simplicity, linear expressions for β1 and
α1β1 were chosen for regression analysis of test data in the
range of concrete compressive strengths of up to 102 MPa
because data beyond this range shows a different trend. The
results suggest that only one linear equation is enough to
represent both α1 and β1 in this range
α1 = β1 = 0.9 – 0.002fc′ ; fc′ < 100 MPa (5)
For concrete compressive strengths higher than 100 MPa,
α1 and β1 may be taken to be equal to 0.7. It is recommended
that more experimental studies on concrete compressive
strength higher than 100 MPa be conducted to verify the
values of α1 and β1 for this range.
204
Fig. 12—Comparison between experimental and predicted
loads using ACI rectangular stress block.
Fig. 13—Comparison between experimental and predicted
loads using proposed rectangular stress block.
Data for 354 reinforced and plain concrete columns tested
under a combination of axial load and uniaxial bending
moment were used to verify the applicability of the proposed
rectangular stress block and that of the current ACI code.1
The parameters from each rectangular stress block were used
to generate the interaction diagrams for the tested columns.
The predicted strength of each column is defined as the inter-
section point between the line from the origin to the test point
and the interaction diagram; that is, both the points have the
same slope with the horizontal axis. The error between the
predicted strength and the experimental value δ is expressed
as the percentage of the predicted value, as shown in Fig. 11.
The stress-strain relationship of longitudinal reinforcement
in compression as well as in tension is assumed to be a
bilinear curve with a linear segment connecting the origin
and the yield point followed by a horizontal line from the
yield point to infinity.
Figure 12 shows the variation of the error δ with the
concrete compressive strength as calculated using the ACI
rectangular stress block. In general, the code is not conservative
for most concrete strengths, and it is worse with higher
concrete strengths. The code overpredicted the strength of
155 columns that accounted for 44% of the total number of
columns. The mean value of δ was 2.4%, with a coefficient
of variation (COV) of 0.127.
The values of δ calculated using the proposed rectangular
stress block parameters are depicted in Fig. 13. There is a
significant improvement in terms of conservativeness as the
values of δ calculated from HSC columns have been moved
toward the positive side compared with the results in Fig. 12.
This produces a consistent conservativeness throughout the
whole range of concrete strength under consideration. Only 90
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005
columns (25% of total columns) had lower strengths than
predicted. The mean value of δ was 8.8%, with a COV of 0.113.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Test results of 30 plain and reinforced concrete column
specimens under different loading schemes were reported.
The specimens had different concrete strengths and volumetric
ratios of lateral reinforcement. Stress block parameters obtained
from this experiment were used with published data to calibrate
a new equivalent rectangular stress block that has only one
parameter. Test data of columns under eccentric loading were
used to examine this stress block and the ACI stress block.
The following conclusions can be drawn from this
investigation:
1. The confinement from lateral reinforcement improved
the flexural strength and ductility of reinforced concrete
columns. In well-confined specimens tested with a fixed
neutral axis position, the maximum flexural strength could
be attained when the specimens underwent a very large
deformation after spalling of concrete cover;
2. The effect of configuration of lateral reinforcement was
significant to the flexural behavior of confined concrete. A
combination of perimeter ties and diagonal ties was more
effective than perimeter ties only;
3. Confinement reinforcement made of HYSS was more
effective than that made of lower-yield-strength steel in
confining HSC members;
4. The strength of concrete has the most significant effect
on the flexural stress block parameters. The effect of
confinement is less significant. The loading method and
strain gradient had no obvious effect to these parameters;
5. The allowable compressive strain of concrete under
flexure, as specified in the ACI code, was a lower-bound
value for the measured strains of reinforced concrete specimens
tested under eccentric loading. All reinforced concrete
specimens tested under concentric compression and some
plain concrete specimens gave lower values than the code
value; and
6. The proposed rectangular stress block is a simplified
version of that in the current ACI version. The conservativeness
of this stress block is consistent for both NSC and HSC,
while the ACI stress block is not conservative for HSC.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The experimental work in this paper was carried out at the Construction
Laboratory at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, and is supported
by the MINDEF-NTU Joint Applied R&D Cooperation Program. This
financial support and the assistance of the laboratory technicians are
gratefully acknowledged.
NOTATION
b = width of compression zone
c = depth of neutral axis
f0 = average concrete stress over compression area
fc′ = cylinder compressive strength of concrete
k1 = ratio of average stress over compression area to maximum
compressive stress
k2 = ratio of distance between extreme fiber and resultant force of
stress block to distance between that fiber to neutral axis
k3 = ratio of maximum compressive stress to cylinder strength
Mc = applied moment about neutral axis
m0 = modified moment term
Pc = applied load
α1 = ratio of stress in rectangular stress block to cylinder strength
β1 = ratio of depth of rectangular stress block to depth of neutral axis
δ = ratio defined in Fig. 11
εu = ultimate compressive strain of concrete
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2005
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318M-02) and Commentary (318RM-02),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, 443 pp.
2. Mattock, A. H.; Kriz, L. B.; and Hognestad, E., “Rectangular Concrete
Stress Distribution in Ultimate Strength Design,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
V. 57, No. 8, Aug. 1961, pp. 875-928.
3. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 441, “High-Strength Concrete Columns:
State of the Art,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 3, May-June 1997,
pp. 323-335.
4. Alca, N.; Alexander, S. D. B.; and MacGregor, J. G., “Effect of Size
on Flexural Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Beams,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 94, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1997, pp. 59-67.
5. Shin, S. W.; Ghosh, S. K.; and Moreno, J., “Flexural Ductility of
Ultra-High-Strength Concrete Members,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86,
No. 4, July-Aug. 1989, pp. 394-400.
6. Lin, C.-H., and Lee, F.-S., “Ductility of High-Performance Concrete
Beams with High-Strength Lateral Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 98, No. 4, July-Aug. 2001, pp. 600-608.
7. Azizinamini, A.; Kuska, S. S. B.; Brungardt, P.; and Hatfield, E.,
“Seismic Behavior of Square High-Strength Concrete Columns,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 3, May-June 1994, pp. 336-345.
8. Ibrahim, H. H. H., and MacGregor, J. G., “Flexural Behavior of
Laterally Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Sections,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1996, pp. 674-684.
9. Foster, S., and Attard, M. M., “Experimental Tests on Eccentrically
Loaded High-Strength Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 94,
No. 3, May-June 1997, pp. 295-303.
10. Ibrahim, H. H. H., and MacGregor, J. G., “Modification of the ACI
Rectangular Stress Block for High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 94, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1997, pp. 40-48.
11. Attard, M. M., and Stewart, M. G., “Two Parameter Stress Block for
High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 3, May-June
1998, pp. 305-317.
12. Hognestad, E.; Hanson, N. W.; and McHenry, D., “Concrete Stress
Distribution in Ultimate Strength Design,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 52,
1955, pp. 455-479.
13. Kaar, P. H.; Hanson, N. W.; and Capell, H. T., “Stress-Strain Charac-
teristics of High-Strength Concrete,” Douglas McHenry International Sym-
posium on Concrete and Concrete Structures, SP-55, B. Bresler, ed.,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1978, pp. 161-185.
14. Swartz, S. E.; Nikaeen, A.; Babu, H. D. N.; Periyakaruppan, N.; and
Refai, T. M. E., “Structural Bending Properties of Higher Strength Concrete,”
High Strength Concrete, SP-87, H. G. Russell, ed., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1985, pp. 147-178.
15. Schade, J. E., “Flexural Concrete Stress in High Strength Concrete
Columns,” MSc thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Sept. 1992, 156 pp.
16. Cusson, D., and Paultre, P., “High Strength Concrete Columns Confined
by Rectangular Ties,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 120,
No. 3, 1994, pp. 783-804.
17. Ibrahim, H. H. H., and MacGregor, J. G., “Test of Eccentrically
Loaded High-Strength Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 93,
No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1996, pp. 585-594.
18. Hognestad, E., “A Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load in
Reinforced Concrete Members,” Bulletin No. 339, University of Illinois
Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana, Ill., Nov. 1951, 128 pp.
19. Foster, S., and Attard, M. M., “Ductility and Strength in HSC
Columns,” High-Strength Concrete, ASCE, 1999, pp. 201-214.
20. Attard, M. M., and Foster, S. J., “The Effect of Cover on the Strength
of High Strength Concrete Columns,” 5th International Symposium on the
Utilization of High Strength/High Performance Concrete, Sanderfjord,
Norway, June 1999, pp. 127-136.
21. Lee, J. H., and Son, H. S., “Failure and Strength of High-Strength
Concrete Columns Subjected to Eccentric Loads,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2000, pp. 75-85.
22. Setty, R. H. B, and Rangan, B. V., “Strength of High Strength Columns
under Eccentric Compression,” Research Report, Curtin University of
Technology, Aug. 1995, 102 pp.
23. Lloyd, N. A., and Rangan, B. V., “Studies on High-Strength Concrete
Columns under Eccentric Compression,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 93,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1996, pp. 631-638.
24. Sundararaj, P., “High-Strength Concrete Columns under Eccentric
Load,” MASc thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1991, 261 pp.
205