AC esiia Title no, 94-S28 MSC Neel Axial Load Behavior of Large-Scale Spirally-Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Columns by Stephen Pessiki and Annette Pieroni The axial load behavior of large-scale spirallyreinforced concrete col suns was investigated. The 559 mm (22 in) diameter columns were designed according to ACI 318 Code requirements and tested in concentric ‘axial compression. The colunns were made with concrete compressive strengths ranging from about 34.5 MPa to 69 MPa (S ksi to 10 ki). The influence of concrete strength, longitudinal reinforcement, and spiral rein forcement siz/ptch onthe strength and duility ofthe columns was eval ‘ated. The higher strength concrete columns displayed less ducilty than the Tower strength concrete columns. Columns witha higher longitudinal rein forcement ratio were able to maintain peak resistance for a large displace ‘ment, but exhibited less ductility as compared 1 columns wit a relatively lower longitudinal reinforcemen ratio, For the coluns tested inthis stud «an increase inthe spiral size and pitch, while maintaining a constant vol ‘ume of spiral reinforcement, lead to.an increase in he column ductility. For the high-strength concrete columns, rst cracking ofthe cover concrete was observed at a lower load relative 1 the peak load as compared to the low-strength concrete columns, Two failure modes were observed inthe 8 specimens tested. The lower-strength concrete colunns exhibited a bulging ‘ype failure mode, and the higher strength concrete columns exhibited an Inclined failure plane. Keywords: columns; confined concrete; ductility; high-strength concrete spiral reinforcement INTRODUCTION ‘The concept of using spiral reinforcement to improve the strength and ductility of concrete columns is well under- stood. As the concrete in a column is compressed axially, it expands laterally. Spiral reinforcement acts to resist this lat- eral expansion, thereby subjecting the core conerete toa state Of multi-axial compression. In this state of multi-axial com- pression, both the deformation capacity and strength of the concrete are enhanced. ‘The present ACI 318 Code! approach to the design of spi- rally- reinforced concrete columns is to equate the loss of the strength associated with spalling of the cover concrete to the strength enhancement of the core provided by the spiral re- inforcement. The objective of the ACI approach isto provide a tougher and more ductile member. This approach was de- veloped for columns made with what today might be consid- ered low- or medium-strength concretes. However, the use 304 of high-strength conerete has become increasingly more popular, and little is known about the structural behavior of Much of the research upon which the present understand- ing of spirally-reinforced concrete columns is based was per- formed on columns made with low- to medium-strength concrete. More recent tests on columns made with high-strength conerete were made on small- or medi- um-scale specimens. These tests revealed possible short- comings in the toughness and ductility of these members This research explores the validity of these earlier studies through a program of large-scale testing. ACI Committee 363 High-Strength Concrete? has identified the ductility of high-strength concrete columns as a priority research need, BACKGROUND In this paper the following definitions are adopted: low-strength concretes have compressive strengths less than 41.4 MPa (6 ksi); medium-strength concretes have strengths that range from 41.4 to 55.2 MPa (6 to 8 ksi); and high-strength ‘concretes have strengths that exceed 55.2 MPa (8 ksi). ‘The concept of using spiral reinforcement in conerete col- umns was first introduced by Considere? in 1899, and the idea was explored by many engineers around the turn of the century. In 1928, Richart et al.* reported the results of tests rhade of 101 x 203 mm (4 x 8 in.) normal weight concrete cylinders loaded under the action of axial force and various intensities of lateral fluid pressure. They reported that the ax- ial strength and ductility of concrete increased with an in- ACI Sirutra Jara 94, No.3, MaySane 1997 ie Ag 1190 anid ir ine ybcwion pls. Cop eb era Cons It Al ips ere nding th mao ‘om wil be pbb i he Marh-Apal 1998 ACF Sica! Jura rected by ‘November 1987 ACI Structural Journa | / May-June 1997[ACT member Stephen Pessik ion Arson Professor of Cha Epncering ot Leigh University. He obtained hs undergraduate degree in Ci Enginering from Dretel University and his graduate derecs In Cll and Ensinomentl Engineering fom (Cornell University, His msearch actives include selande behavior of encrte ac Inne, behvior of hih-tength concrete columns, and nondesractive evaluation of ACI member Annet Peroni ivan engineer at D'Hy Engincering. Ske ote her ‘Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering at Pennslvania State University and a Mas ters Degre wth a concentration in stracaraleninecring ot Lehigh University. he work describe tis paper was performed as pat of her MS Hess research ‘crease in lateral fluid pressure. The following equation was presented to predict the axial compressive strength f, of a cylinder of unconfined strength ’,, under a lateral pressure Se fo PAA, a In a subsequent study, Richart et a5 tested 254 x 1016 mm (10 x 40 in.) spirally-reinforced normal weight concrete col- umn under axial compression. Concrete strengths ranged from 13.8 to 20.7 MPa (2 to 3 ksi). The compressive strength of the confined column was related to the lateral confine- ment stress produced by the spiral steel a: f= FA4lhs @ where fy is the lateral stress produced by the confining rein- forcement. This confinement stress is computed as: = 2A Sig)/Cds) 8 Where Ayp is the area ofthe spiral bar, fy is the stress in the spiral steel at maximum column load, and d_ and s are the outside diameter and pitch, respectively, of the spiral rein- forcement, Based on their results, Iyengar et al.° presented an equation, which can be written in the following form, to represent the increased strength in the core due to the pres- ence of spiral reinforcement: Sot PA 86f0-s/d,) @ Here the confining stress f;, computed assuming the spiral steel yields at the maximum column load, is multiplied by the term in parentheses which shows that the confinement becomes less effective as the spiral pitch increases. Essen- tially, the confinement becomes ineffective as the pitch of the spiral approaches the diameter of the core, The early studies on concrete confinement treated concrete strengths that did not exceed 34.5 MPa (5 ksi). The earliest re- ported tests of high-strength concrete confined by spiral rein- forcement were by Ahmad and Shah.’ Cylinders measuring 76 x 152 mm (3 x 6 in.) and 76 x 305 mm (3 x 12 in.) made with concrete strengths ranging from 20.7 to 69 MPa (3 to 10 ksi) ‘were tested in axial compression. Specimens were made with- out longitudinal reinforcement or concrete cover. Variables considered included concrete strength and spacing and yield strength ofthe spiral reinforcement. Martinez et al®® present ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1997 ed the results of an extensive study of spirally reinforced con- crete cylinders made with both normal weight and lightweight Jow-, medium-, and high-strength concretes, loaded in axial ‘compression. As with the Ahmad and Shah study, the Martinez ct al, study was made on small cylindrical specimens rather than on full-scale columns. Most of the tests were performed 6on 101 x 203 mm, 101 x 406 mm, and 127 x 610 mm (4x 8 in., 4x 16 in. and 5 x 24 in.) specimens without concrete cover. In addition, a series of tests was conducted on 152 x 610 mm (6x 24 in.) specimens with a protective cover. Concrete strengths ranged from 20.7 to 69 MPa (3 to 10 ksi). None of the speci- ‘mens contained longitudinal reinforcement. Strains in the spi- ral reinforcement were measured with strain gages. The ‘Ahmad and Shah and Martinez et al. studies were limited to tests of spirally confined cylinders without longitudinal rein- forcement. More recent work has included tests of tied and spi- rally- reinforced columns with compressive strengths up to 124 ‘MPa (18 ksi) and cross sections as large as 300 x 500 mm (11.8 x 19.7 in.) These more recent studies are summarized by Aziz- inamini et al.!° and Razvi and Saatcioglu.!! The following sec- tions summarize relevant findings of these earlier studies. Influence of concrete strength Based on confining stresses computed from measurements of the strain in spiral reinforcement, Martinez et al.°? found that the compressive strength of normal weight spirally-con- fined concrete columns could be computed as fe = O85f'.4 40.1 —s/d,) 6) which is similar to Eq. (4). Equation (5) was found to be valid for the entire range of concrete strengths considered in the study, including the high-strength conerete. Thus, the effec- tiveness of spiral reinforcement as a means of enhancing col- umn strength was not diminished for high-strength concrete. Saatcioglu and Razvi!? tested 250 x 250 mm (9.8 x 9.8 in.) tied columns ranging in concrete strength from 81 to 124 MPa (118 to 18.0 ksi). They found that a significantly higher volu- metric ratio of lateral reinforcement is required for high-strength concrete columns in order to achieve deforma- tions usually expected from normal-strength concrete columns, Bierkeli et al.'> tested 21 spirally-reinforced circulas col- umns 150 mm (5.9 in.) in diameter with concrete strengths ranging from 62.5 MPa (9.1 ksi) to 99.6 MPa (14.4 ksi). They reported no significant increase in column ductility for a 1.1 percent volumetric ratio of spiral reinforcement, but that 3.1 percent volumetric ratio did increase the column ductility. Galeota and Giametteo" tested 150 mm (5.9 in.) square columns with a conerete compressive strength of 65 MPa (9.4 ksi) and three different amounts of transverse ties. They found that the increase in compressive strength and ductility in the high-strength concrete was less than for lower strength concrete with the same degrees of confinement. Influence of longitudinal reinforcement Several studies have been performed to evaluate the role of longitudinal reinforcement on the ductility of high-strength concrete columns. Saatcioglu et al.'? found that as long as the longitudinal reinforcement was adequately 305distributed and laterally supported, a noticeable improve- ment in both the peak strength and ductility of high-strength concrete columns was obtained. Bierkeli etal? studied the effects of increasing the number of bars and increasing the bar diameter in two separate com- parisons. The test columns were 300 x 500 mm (11.8 x 19.7 in.) and ranged from 83.1 to 107.6 MPa (12 to 15.6 ksi). Spec- imens reinforced with 12 longitudinal bars were compared to specimens with 18 longitudinal bars. Bjerkeli et al. reported that columns reinforced with more bars sustained the ultimate load, whereas the axial load of the specimens with 12 longitu- inal bars decreased immediately after peak load, Itakura and Yagenji' tested 218 mm (8.6 in.) square col- ‘umns with a concrete compressive strength of 74 MPa (10.7 ksi) specimens with and without longitudinal reinforcement, The columns with longitudinal reinforcement exhibited a strength decrease at lower levels of strain as compared to columns without longitudinal reinforcement. Buckling of the Jongitudinal bars accompanied by fracture of the lateral rein- forcement at the locations of buckled longitudinal bars was reported as the primary cause of the decrease in strain capac- ity. Nagashima et al,'® reported on tests of 225 mm (8.86 in.) square columns with concrete strengths ranging from 59 MPa to 118 MPa (8.6 ksi o 17.1 ksi). No significant differ- ence in the strength and ductility for specimens reinforced with 12, 8, or 6 longitudinal bars was reported. Behavior beyond peak resistance ‘Ahmad and Shah reported that the slope of the post peak portion of the load deformation plot was steeper for columns ‘made with higher strength concrete as compared to columns made with lower strength concrete. Martinez et al.® reported that the high-strength conerete columns showed a rapid de- crease in load after the maximum load was obtained even when confined by high amounts of spiral reinforcement (above what would be required by the ACI 318 Code). In con- trast, the low-strength concrete columns displayed a great amount of deformation without significant decrease in loa. Behavior of concrete cover High-strength concrete columns have been reported to ex- hibit early failure of the concrete cover. Saatcioglu et al.!2 reported spalling of the cover concrete at approximately 70 percent of the unconfined concrete strength. Cover failure is ‘more pronounced in columns with closely spaced spiral rein- forcement because the reinforcement physically separates the cover concrete from the core conerete. Early failure of the cover concrete has been attributed to instability of the shell concrete at high compressive stresses. It has been sug- gested that while 0.854", may be accurate to determine the force in the core concrete, it overestimates the contribution of the shell (Razvi et al.!"), Failure modes ‘Three different modes of failure were observed in the tests reported by Martinez et al.**: 1.) bulging of the column at a location along its length followed by rupture of one or more spirals; 2.) excessive lateral bending of the column; 3.) for- mation of an inclined failure plane through the column, 306 ‘These three failure modes were found to be dependent upon many factors, most notably the concrete strength. In the tests of 152 x 610 mm (6 x 24 in.) columns made with protective cover, Martinez.etal.*? observed that the be- havior of low-strength conerete columns were characterized by a gradual spalling of the concrete shell, and a continued increase inthe strain in the spiral reinforcement. In contrast, the concrete covers of medium-strength concrete columns were observed to fail rather suddenly. For both the low- and medium-strength concrete columns, failure ultimately oc- curred in either mode 1 or mode 2, and both failure modes were gradual Under the action of axial compression, conerete covers in high-strength concrete columns were observed to fail in a rather sudden and brittle manner, similar to the medium strength conerete columns. As additional load was applied to these columns, failure was observed to occur in mode 3, the formation of an inclined plane through the column. Formation of a single failure plane was also observed by Bierkeli et al.!? and Nagashima et al. In tests by Nagashi- ma et al. all the specimens with concrete strengths greater than 98 MPa (14.2 ksi) had buckled longitudinal bars and fractured spirals which defined a diagonal failure plane, However, this failure mechanism has also been reported in columns with lower strength concrete. Mander et al.'” tested. 500 mm (19.7 in.) diameter columns with concrete compres- sive strengths of 28 MPa (4.0 ksi). They reported a “strongly defined diagonal failure plane” characteristic of columns with small amounts of spiral reinforcement (a volumetric ra- tio p, ess than 0.02). Columns with a volumetric ratio great- er than this lacked a well defined failure plane. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Objective ‘The objective of the research described in this paper was to study the behavior of large-scale, spirally-reinforced high- strength concrete columns subjected to concentric axial load, The experimental program was developed to evaluate the role of concrete compressive strength and reinforcement de- tails (longitudinal steel and spiral steel) on the strength and ductility of large-scale spirally-reinforced concrete columns. Test plan ‘A total of 8 column specimens were tested in this research. Each column is described in Table 1. The prefixes “L,” “M,” and “H” denote in a relative sense low, medium, and high concrete compressive strengths. All of the specimens were designed according to ACI 318 Code requirements for spiral reinforcement with nominal design material strengths. All columns measured 559 mm (22 in.) in diameter and 2235 mm (88 in.) in height. Concrete clear cover to the spiral re- inforcement was 38 mm (1.5 in.). As shown in Table 1, two different longitudinal reinforcement configurations were treated. The 8-#8 bars provided a p, equal to 1.65 percent and the 16-#9 bars provided a p; equal to 4.20 percent. Figure 1 shows the two column cross-sections treated in this study. The design yield strength for the longitudinal and spiral steel was 414 MPa (60 ksi). Specimens L1 and L2 were de- signed for a concrete compressive strength of 34.5 MPa (5 ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1997‘Table 1—Summary of reinforcement and material properties for each specimen ‘Spinal reinforcement Congitodinal reinforcement ‘Concrete arength, MPa | Fe 5, Pr Number | fr Pe | Weveured ‘Cored Specimen | Barsize | MPa | mm | percent | Barsize | ofbars | MPa | percent | faze Secre u B 490 4 132 o 16 ss | 420 | 379 362 2 2 490 4 132 o 8 465 tes | 379) 362 MI #5 si o 261 ® 6 35 | 420 SL9 a7 M2 as si 6 261 8 8 465 1s | 519 47 M3 4 496 4 259 o 8 465, ves | sto 447 i ws 337 ot 261 9 16 90 | 420 | 8a7 ora a 4s sa7 64 261 #8 8 405 tes | 887 ois 1B “ 476 259 ol 8 40s ves | 887 oid 2a = 1 6895 MP Ta ksi). Specimens M1, M2, and M3 were designed for a con- crete compressive strength of 69 MPa (10 ksi). Unfortunate- ly, the actual concrete strength for Specimens M1, M2, and M3 was about 25 percent lower than the intended d strength. For this study, these specimens are treated as dium” strength concrete specimens (M-Series). Three addi- tional specimens, HI, H2, and H3 were designed for a concrete strength of 69 MPa (10 ksi). ‘The test matrix was arranged to evaluate the influence of concrete compressive strength, longitudinal steel ratio, and spiral steel size/pitch upon the strength and ductility of high- strength concrete columns. Table 2 summarizes the speci- ‘mens which can be compared to evaluate the influence of the ‘main test variables. Three major comparisons can be made: 1,) the influence of conerete strength can be evaluated by comparing the specimens with similar longitudinal configu- rations (ie. the results of L1, MI, and H1, and the results of 12, M2, M3, H2, and H3); 2.) the influence of longitudinal steel ratio p; on column ductility fora given f’, and p, can be evaluated by comparing Specimens LI and L2, MI and M2, and HI and H2; 3.) the role of spiral steel size/pitch for a giv- en py, J’. and p, can be evaluated by comparing Specimens ‘M2 and M3 and Specimens H2 and H3. When comparing the results of these eight column tests, it must be kept in mind that the amount of spiral reinforcement provided for the ‘Table 2—Comparison of specimens to evaluate the influence of test variables "Tex variables 7] Concrete strength | Longitudinal steel, Spiral tet Pr fe ii Speci- [420 | 165 Medi Medi ‘men fpercentfpercent| Low |” m| High | Low |” m_ | High uf A c 22 Be ma D M2 B D F MS B D uA #2 B @ = @ E G ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1997 M-Series specimens is greater than that required by the ACI 318 Code because the actual concrete strength in this series ‘was lower than the design concrete strength, Column fabrication details Each coil of spiral reinforcement was comprised of one complete helical spiral, ie. without any lapped splices. Lon- gitudinal bars were wire tied to the spiral reinforcement to complete the cages. The spiral pitch was reduced at the ends of the cages to provide extra confinement in the end regions. Atone end the longitudinal bars were welded to a 914 x 914 x 19 mm (36 x 36 x °/, in.) steel base plate to provide stabil- ity during handling and concrete placement, Circular card- board forms were used. All columns were oriented in a vertical position during casting. Concrete was placed in 4 to 5 lifts and consolidated with an internal submersion vibrator ateach of the lifts. Three separate pours were made, one each for the L-, M-, and H-Series specimens. Ready-mixed con- crete was used in all cases. Test details and instrumentation All columns were tested in concentric compression in a 22.2 MN (5000 kip) capacity universal testing machine in Fritz Engineering Laboratory. Strain gages were used to ‘monitor strains in the longitudinal and spiral reinforcement, and displacement transducers were used to monitor column axial deformations. For instrumentation purposes, the total height of each column was divided into 5 regions comprised of two 280 mm (11 in.) regions at each end of the column, and three 559 mm (22 in.) regions in the middle. The cross section of each column was divided by two axes labeled north-south and east-west. Axial deformations were mea- sured over each of the 5 sections along the column height, Overall head travel of the test machine was also measured. The L- and M-Series specimens were tested with a total of 12 strain gages: 4 gages on longitudinal bars at column mid-height, 4 gages on the spiral at column mid-height, and the remaining 4 gages on the spiral distributed along the height of the column. The H- Series columns were tested with a total of 19 strain gages: 10 gages on 2 longitudinal bars (5 gages each bar) along the height of two bars on oppo- site faces of the column, and 9 gages on the spiral distributed along the height of the column. All instruments were record- 307ed using computer-based data acquisition boards. Additional details about the testing procedure and instrumentation are given in Reference 18, Material properties Table 1 summarizes the yield strengths of the longitudinal and spiral reinforcement. The yield strength of the longitudi- nal reinforcement was determined from tension tests. Ten- sion tests were also made on short lengths of spiral reinforcement that were cut and straightened from the coiled spiral. These tests were inconclusive, since the straightened bars did not exhibita well-defined yield point, and the results (of mill test reports from the reinforcement supplier were "used for the properties ofthe spirals Concrete compressive strengths were determined from compression tests on 3 types of specimens: wet-cured cylin- ders (f.2),field- cured cylinders (fig), and cores (fy) ‘The wet-cured cylinders were used to determine the 28-day compressive strengths of the different concrete mixtures. The field-cured cylinders and cores were intended to be ‘more representative of the actual conerete in the columns. ‘The average concrete compressive strengths of the Wet-cured, field-cured, and cored eylinders are presented in Table 1. Itis noted that significant differences exist between the strengths obtained from the 3 types of specimens, partic- ularly for the high-strength concrete specimens, ‘The 152 x 305 mm (6 x 12 in.) wet-cured and field-cured cylinders were made according to ASTM C-31. proce- dures, '° cast in plastic cylinder molds, covered with wet bur- lap and plastic sheeting for the frst 24 hours after casting, then stripped from their molds and placed in lime-saturated curing baths. The field-cured cylinders were stripped from their molds atthe same time the columns were stripped from their forms and were tested in compression at approximately the same age as the columns were tested, ‘The 152 x 305 mm (6 x 12 in.) core specimens were ex- tracted at several locations along the height from a plain con- ctete column that was cast along with each set of reinforced columns. Procedures as outlined by ASTM C-42"® were ap- proximately followed to extract these cores, The cores were cut from the column with an electric coring machine, and the ends ofthe cores were then saw cut o obtain smooth and par- allel ends. The cores were tested at approximately the same age as the columns were tested All the cylinders and cores were tested in compression in 3584 KN (800 kip) capacity displacement-controlled test- ing machine. The cylinders were capped with a sulfur mortar compound according to ASTM C-617"? specifications and tested according to ASTM C- 39.'8 A length to diameter cor- rection factor was applied to the cored cylinders when nec- essary. The correction factor for the normal-strength cored cylinders was based on ASTM C-42 provisions. These pro- Visions are for concrete strengths less than or equal to 41.4 MPa (6.0 ksi). The correction factor for the higher strength concretes was based on the results of a study by Bartlett et al Details are given in Reference 18, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figures 2(a) through (h) present graphs of axial load ver- sus total axial displacement for each column. All graphs are Plotted to the same seale which were determined by the col- lumns that experienced the largest axial load and displace- ‘ment. Each graph is annotated with the following symbols: LAY indicates yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement at {the location of strain gage number #; S#Y indicates yielding of the spiral reinforcement at the location of the spiral steel strain gage number #; SF# indicates a point in the test at which a spiral fracture was observed, where the # symbol in- dicates the number sequence in which the spirals fractured; Prac is the maximum load sustained by the column; FCR i dicates first observed cracking of cover concrete; and Aj, Asp, and Ags are displacements used to describe column due. ties and are discussed later in the paper. Table 3 summa- rizes the observed and predicted axial strength of each column. The observed strength of each column is Pygy- TWO bredicted strength values are presented for each column, P, and P core: Pe is based on the compressive strength of the day of test field-cured cylinders jeu and Peep is based on the compressive strength of the cored cylinders fo. The pre- dicted axial strengths are computed as p, Fechet Aah (6) P, a rove # fact Auf Acis the core area, and Ay, and f, are the area and yield stress ‘of the longitudinal reinforcement, respectively. Equation (5) is used to determine the compressive strength of the confined Table 3—Experimental results from each column test Poaw | Payee | Poa | Py Pre | Pred | a, | asm | ew Seecimen | MIN | MIN | Feo | MN | PoadPe| MN” | Per | mm | wen | mes | sr | is ty] 170 "1276 [082 | i230 [ase {i095 [oss] 43} a76 | axe} aay] oa 12 | 983 | 9s | og | o44 | 11 | 853 | 09 | 36 | 294° | 190 | gir | sr Mi] 1699 | ts97 [105 | r7a¢ [099 | tras] _ae7 | 24] a3] sia} 99s] oar Me | 1386 | 1283 | 108 | 1405 | 059 | 1020 | o7s | 64 | sos | soa | ser | ger Mj isso {| zao | iz | ito | ros | unio | 077 | 72 [| sox | aa | 208 | 200 | tas | 1s27 096 [2080 |~oas [1126 | 06s 10a] a3} ara] ant} a He] t3a2 | ts34 | ose | sas | on | soo | os | ss | siz | a2 | asr | acer Hs __[_is2i_ | sor | ror} is27 | os | 28 | om | 79 | aoa | om | sir | a93 008048 N= Tip 308 ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1997‘spiral reinforcement 89, #4, oF #5 38 mm (1.5 in) £8 #8 longitudinal spiralreinforcement #3 0F #5 38 mm (1.5 in) ‘lear cover 16 #9 longitudinal bars re) Fig. I—Two column cross-sections: (a) 8-#8 bar configura- tion; (b) 16-#9 bar configuration concrete fg. In computing the lateral confining stress in the core concrete f; (Eq. (3)], the spiral stress is taken as the yield stress. Figure 2 shows that the spirals yield in all cases prior to obtaining Pygy- Any contribution of the concrete cover to the predicted column strength is ignoted in predict- ing the axial load capacities, since it is assumed that the cov- er concrete has spalled away in the failure region and therefore carries no load when Pay is reached. This is con- sistent with the observations made during the tests. The val- ues of P, and Peeore are plotted as dashed lines on each oad-displacement graph in Fig. 2 Axial strength Table 3 compares the maximum axial load resisted by each specimen to the predicted capacities. It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from this table in part because of, ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1997 ‘Table 4—Comparison of ductility ratios with regard to test variables Test variable Specimens | Ror=Hsyiise] Ras = Bases LVI 133 140 Concrete strength eae Lame 167 1s Lam 139 179 DL 127 om Longitudinal ste ratio (ees percenvs2 perceno] M2MI 128 128 Hom 1 Lo7 ‘Spiral tet size/pitch | M2IM3 126 297 (64 mnvat mm) HOS 09s 1.66 the differences in compressive strengths of the cored cylin- ders as compared to the field-cured cylinders. To examine the results, itis useful to begin with the low-strength con- crete specimens LI and L2. For these specimens, the field-cured cylinder and the cored cylinder concrete com- pressive strength values were about the same. Thus, the two predicted values in Table 3 are about the same. Table 3 shows good agreement between the observed and predicted strengths of Specimen L2. The agreement of observed and predicted axial strengths for Specimen L1, while not as good as L2, is still reasonably close. ‘The low-strength concrete columns did not exhibit a strength generally higher than that predicted by Eqs. (6) and (7). Martinez et al.6° noted for their tests that the contribu- tion of the confined concrete to the ultimate strength of the column was higher than predicted by Eq. (5), because the cover conerete in these specimens did not completely spall away and was thus still effective in carrying some load at peak resistance. In the large-scale specimens tested in this study, however, the cover conerete appeared to be complete- ly ineffective in carrying any axial load at peak resistance ‘within the failure region. Equations (6) and (7) also gave reasonably good agree- ment between observed and predicted column axial strengths for the M-Series specimens. This is particularly true if feta is used to compute the contribution of the confined concrete fee the column axial capacity. If fe.core iS used to compute foe then Eq, (5) seems to under predict the strengths of the columns, ie. the equation is conservative. ‘An evaluation of whether Eq. (5) is appropriate for the H- Series specimens seems to depend somewhat on whether the concrete compressive strength is taken a3 foeid OF fecore: IF ‘oseia's used to predict f., then Eq. (6) is unconservative, as the ratio Pp,q/P, varies between 0.86 and 0.71. Better agree- ment is Obtained between the observed and predicted strengths if core iS used t0 compute fer Column ductility ‘Two definitions for column displacement ductility were adopted for this paper: 1.) ductility based on the displace- ‘ment at first spiral fracture; 2.) ductility based on the dis- placement at an axial load equal to 85 percent of Pyay- The two ductility values were calculated as a ratio between a ‘maximum displacement and an initial displacement corre- 309