ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 110-S56
On the Probable Moment Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Columns
by José I. Restrepo and Mario E. Rodriguez
The probable moment strength (or flexural overstrength, as it is
also known) is the theoretical maximum flexural strength that can
be calculated for the critical section of a member, with or without
axial load, subjected to bending in a given direction. In ACI 318,
this strength is needed to capacity-design beams, columns of
special-moment frames, and columns not designated as part of
the seismic-resisting system. Supported on a column database,
this paper provides evidence that the current method prescribed
by ACI 318 to calculate this strength has a clear nonconservative
bias and explains the reasons for this. To improve predictability, the
authors propose a very simple, statistically calibrated mechanics
model for determining the probable moment strength of rectan-
gular and circular columns. An extension of the concept is made for
computing the probable moment strength of rectangular columns
subjected to bending along the two principal axes.
Keywords: biaxial bending; capacity design; codes; confinement plastic
hinges; long-term concrete strength; probable moment strength; reinforced
concrete columns; seismic design.
INTRODUCTION
The probable moment strength (or flexural overstrength,
as it is also termed by other codes1-3 and textbooks4) is the
theoretical maximum flexural strength that can be calculated
for the critical section of a member, with or without axial
load, subjected to bending in a given direction. The prob-
able moment strength is needed to calculate design forces
to capacity protect any member where plastic hinges may
develop, particularly if the kinematics of the mechanism of
inelastic deformation indicates so. Examples of the former
are the bases of first-level columns in buildings and building
columns not designated as part of the seismic-resisting system
framing into strong beams. For instance, in ACI 318-11,5 the
probable moment strength is needed to calculate the design
shear forces of beams of special-moment frames. This is
done to capacity protect these members by reducing the
potential for shear failure during a rare but intense earth-
quake. Moreover, ACI 318-115 specifies that all columns of
special-moment frames in buildings and columns not desig-
nated as part of the seismic-resisting system be capacity
designed. Furthermore, this code specifies that when plastic
hinges will likely develop in columns, the design shear force
has to be determined using the column end probable moment
strengths, regardless of the shear forces obtained from the
structural analysis. Other codes1-3 have similar requirements.
In ACI 318, the probable moment strength is calculated
using a simplified theory for flexure, where an elasto-plastic
stress-strain relationship is assumed for the steel reinforce-
ment, a rectangular stress block is assumed for concrete in
compression, and strain compatibility is enforced, accepting
the hypothesis that plain sections before bending remain
plane after bending. In this analysis, the yield strength of the
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013
TECHNICAL PAPER
reinforcement is made equal to 1.25fy, where fy is the speci-
fied yield strength of the reinforcement.
The ACI 318 approach does not account for the likely
increase in the concrete compressive strength over the speci-
fied strength in the computation of the probable moment
strength. The compressive strength of concrete batched,
delivered to a construction site, and placed in a member
following accepted quality control procedures should be
similar to—if not greater than—the specified strength at the
specified date, typically at 28 days. However, most concrete
types continue to gain significant strength over time,6-8 even
in a dry environment9 or in harsh environments subjected
to freezing-and-thawing cycles.10,11 The presence of passive
confinement, by way of closely spaced hoops, also causes an
additional strength increase. Moreover, the presence of an
elastic member, such as a footing or beam-column joint, at the
framing end of a member results in additional local concrete
strength gain.12-15 This is because this elastic element effec-
tively confines the compressed concrete by preventing it
from expanding transversely. The greatest manifestation of
this local effect is the reduction in concrete cover spalling
at the member end and a shift of the critical section away
from the end.16,17 In lightly axially loaded columns, a signifi-
cant increase in the concrete compressive strength has only
a minor influence on the probable moment strength. For this
reason, the increase in the concrete compressive strength
can be ignored in calculations. However, as the axial load
increases, the probable moment strength becomes more
sensitive to the compressive strength of the concrete. In the
context of capacity design, an underestimation of the prob-
able moment strength can result in a reduction of the defor-
mation capacity of a hinging column, as the intended ductile
mode of response may be hampered by the development of
another behavioral mode associated with reduced ductility.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
ACI 318-115 specifies that columns in special-moment
frames shall be capacity-designed. To achieve this objective
when hinging is likely to occur in the columns, this code
requires the computation of the probable moment strength at
the column ends. This paper shows that the current approach
in ACI 318 for computing the probable moment strength
has a clear nonconservative bias. To improve predictability,
the authors propose a very simple, statistically calibrated
mechanics model for determining the probable moment
ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 4, July-August 2013.
MS No. S-2011-270.R1 received August 29, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2013, 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 May-June 2014 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received
by January 1, 2014.
681
José I. Restrepo, FACI, is a Professor of structural engineering at the University
of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA. He received his BS in civil engineering
from the Universidad de Medellín, Medellín, Colombia, and his PhD from the Univer-
sity of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 550, Precast Concrete Structures, and is also a past recipient of the Chester
Paul Siess Award for Excellence in Structural Research. His research interests include
reinforced and precast/prestressed concrete, particularly seismic design.
Mario E. Rodriguez, FACI, is a Professor of structural engineering at the Univer-
sidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico City, Mexico. He received his
BS in civil engineering from the Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería, Lima, Peru, and
his PhD from UNAM. He is a member of ACI Subcommittee 318-C, Safety, Service-
ability, and Analysis. His research interests include seismic design and evaluation of
reinforced concrete structures.
strength of columns built with Grade 60 to 80 reinforce-
ment and normal-strength concrete and covering the entire
range of axial compressive loads allowed by ACI 318. An
extension of the model is made for computing the probable
moment strength of biaxially loaded rectangular columns.
MOMENT STRENGTH DEFINITIONS
This paper uses the following six moment strength defini-
tions: 1) nominal moment strength Mn calculated with the
simple flexure theory stated in ACI 318 using the specified
concrete compressive strength fc′ and the specified longitu-
dinal steel reinforcement yield strength fy; 2) ideal moment
strength Mi calculated with the simple flexure theory stated
in ACI 318 using the mean concrete compressive strength
f c′, which could account for the additional strength gained
through age, and the mean steel reinforcement yield strength
f y ; 3) probable moment strength Mpr, which is the maximum
moment of resistance that can be calculated at a column end.
Moment Mpr may be computed from one of several flexure
theories with mean strengths f c′ and f y and considering the
effect of work and cyclic hardening in the reinforcement; 4)
critical section probable moment strength M′pr, which is the
maximum moment of resistance that can be calculated at the
critical section of the column if away from the column end;
5) credible moment strength Mcd, which is the maximum
moment of resistance that can be calculated at a column end.
Moment Mcd may be determined from one of several flexure
theories with the measured concrete compressive strength
fˆc′ and the measured steel reinforcement yield strength fˆy
and considering the effect of work and cyclic hardening
in the reinforcement; and 6) maximum moment strength
MMAX, which is the maximum bending moment resisted at
a critical column end in a reversed cyclic load test. This
moment is computed accounting for bending induced by the
applied lateral force and the axial force when it induces the
P-D moment.
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS WORK
In 1985, Ang et al.18 compiled a database of rectangular
and circular columns tested at the University of Canterbury,
New Zealand, computed the MMAX/Mi ratios, and empiri-
cally fitted a relationship for Mpr/Mi that was then modified
by Paulay and Priestley4 for Mpr/Mn. In 1998, Mander et
al.19 performed a series of parametric monotonic moment-
curvature analyses and obtained results that enabled the
development of Mpr/Mn charts, including credible upper
and lower bounds, for rectangular and circular columns and
derived approximate equations to calculate the axial load-
moment pairs.
In 2001, Presland et al.16 developed approximate solutions
in closed form for Mn and M′pr and calculated the differences
682
between M′pr and the values of MMAX collected in the data-
base. Using a regression analysis, Presland et al.16 concluded
that the presence of an elastic member adjacent to the end of
a hinging column shifts the critical section of the column a
distance between 0.5 and 1.0 times the depth of the neutral
axis. They also proposed that Mpr should be calculated from
M′pr using a geometrical correction term to account for the
shift of the critical section away from the column end.
COLUMN DATABASE
The research work presented in this paper makes exten-
sive use of the PEER column performance database.20 This
database was audited, corrected where appropriate, and also
enhanced with test data for rectangular columns14,17,21-23 and
circular columns.24 The database includes 35 rectangular
columns, which are all square but one, with a minimum
cross-section dimension of 350 mm (29.2 in.) and 30 columns
with circular or octagonal cross sections of depths greater
than 305 mm (12 in.), hereafter called “circular columns” (the
relevant properties of the rectangular and circular columns
are listed in Tables A-1 and A-2 found in Appendix A*).
All columns had the transverse reinforcement spaced at
maximum six times the longitudinal bar diameter, except
one rectangular column, whose transverse reinforcement
was 6.25 times the longitudinal bar diameter. These columns
were all tested quasi-statically with a reversed cyclic loading
protocol and under constant axial load. All columns devel-
oped flexural plastic hinges at an end adjacent to an elastic
member. The database contains a somewhat narrow range
of concrete strengths. For example, 66% of the rectangular
columns have 27.4 MPa ≤ fˆc′ ≤ 43.3 MPa (4.0 ksi ≤ fˆc′ ≤
6.3 ksi) and two-thirds of the circular column sections have
28.2 MPa ≤ fˆc′ ≤ 38.1 MPa (4.1 ksi ≤ fˆc′ ≤ 5.5 ksi).
As far as the grade of the reinforcement in the data-
base is concerned, 27% of the rectangular columns incor-
porate Grade 275 MPa (40 ksi) longitudinal reinforce-
ment, 63% incorporate Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi), and 12%
incorporate Grade 500 (nominally 75 ksi) longitudinal
reinforcement. Of the circular columns, 23% incorporate
Grade 275 MPa (40 ksi) longitudinal reinforcement, 70%
incorporate Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) longitudinal reinforce-
ment, and 7% incorporate Grade 500 (nominally 75 ksi)
longitudinal reinforcement. All Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi)
reinforcement meets the requirements set for ASTM A706/
A706M-09b25 reinforcement for the ultimate tensile strength
when this strength was reported.
The longitudinal reinforcement ratio rl of the rectangular
columns ranges between 1.3 and 3.3%. Seventy percent of
the rectangular columns have 1.5% ≤ rl ≤ 1.8%, which is
a rather narrow range, but the authors note that 12% of the
columns have rl ≥ 3.0%. In circular columns, ratio rl ranges
from 0.8 to 5.2%, 30% of the columns have a ratio 1.9% ≤
rl ≤ 2.6%, and one-sixth have rl ≥ 3.0%. Sixty-six percent
of the rectangular columns in the database have Ash/Ash,ACI
< 1, where Ash is the total cross-sectional area of transverse
reinforcement within spacing s and perpendicular to dimen-
sion b in a rectangular column and Ash,ACI is the amount
of Ash specified by ACI 318-11.5 Only 30% of the circular
columns in the database have rs/rs,ACI < 1, where rs is the
*
The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org in PDF format as an addendum to
the published paper. It is also available in hard copy from ACI headquarters for a fee
equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013
ratio of the volume of transverse reinforcement to the total
volume of core confined by this reinforcement and rs,ACI is
the amount of rs specified by ACI 318-11.5 Further examina-
tion of the test data shows that the ratio between the trans-
verse reinforcement provided to that required by ACI 318 is
largely uncorrelated with the axial load ratio P/Ag fˆc′, where
P is the test column axial load and Ag is the gross area of
the concrete section. This is statistically relevant because
the current provisions for confinement in ACI 318 are not
made a function of the axial load ratio, as they are in other
codes.1 A correlation of the confinement reinforcement with
the axial load ratio could have introduced a small bias in the
statistical analysis that will be described later in this paper.
The database has columns with a wide range of axial load Fig. 1—Ratio MMAX/Mcd computed as per ACI 318 versus
ratios P/Ag fˆc′ varying from near-zero axial load to P/Ag fˆc′ = axial load ratio of all test columns.
0.74. The rectangular column database has a fairly uniform
distribution to the axial load ratio. However, the circular
column database is somewhat biased because 53% of the
columns have axial load ratios P/Ag fˆc′ < 0.112. This is
largely because of the large number of tests conducted on
circular bridge columns.
The column database also contains other useful informa-
tion (supplementary information for the rectangular and
circular columns is listed in Tables A-3 and A-4, respec-
tively. Refer to Appendix A). The column aspect ratio
M/Vh, where M and V are the moment and shear at the
column end induced only by the applied lateral force, varies
between 2.2 and 6.9 for rectangular columns, while it varies
between 2 and 10 for circular columns.
It is also interesting to examine the drift ratio Qr,MAX when
columns listed in the database reached MMAX. Twenty-two out
of 35—or 63%—of the rectangular columns reached MMAX Fig. 2—Comparison of axial load-credible moment interac-
at Qr,MAX ≤ 2%. A drift ratio Qr = 2% could be thought of as tion diagram computed using ACI 318 method with test data.
a reasonable ratio for the demand in hinging columns during
the design earthquake. Except for one rectangular column, strength ratio. Thus, only an allowance for overstrength
caused by work and cyclic hardening had to be made. Calcu-
the ratio between the moment resisted at the column base at
lations were made with lh fˆy, where factor lh accounts for
a drift ratio Qr = 2%, M2%, and MMAX was greater than 0.9 for
overstrength due to hardening in the steel only. For consis-
the remaining 12 columns. This column had M2%/MMAX =
tency, a value lh = 1.15 was used, which is the same value
0.88 at Qr = 2%, but by Qr = 4%, the moment of resistance
derived for this factor in the following section through an
had reached 0.98MMAX. Contrary to the responses of the rect-
error minimization procedure. Figure 1 plots the MMAX/Mcd
angular columns, only five out of the 30 circular columns—
ratios (Tables A-5 and A-6 in Appendix A list the individual
that is, 17%—reached MMAX at Qr,MAX ≤ 2%. However, the
values of MMAX/Mcd calculated for rectangular and circular
moment of resistance M2% of 23 circular columns—that is,
columns, respectively) computed versus the axial load
77%—was M2%/MMAX > 0.9 at Qr = 2%. Only two circular
ratio P/Ag fˆc′. This plot shows a clear nonconservative bias
columns displayed M2% < 0.9MMAX. By Qr = 4%, the moment in the ACI 318 procedure. While this procedure results in a
of resistance in these columns was at least 0.93MMAX. These very good prediction of MMAX of columns with axial loads
results indicate that if MMAX is not reached before Qr = 2%, approaching zero, the prediction becomes poor as the axial
the moment of resistance M2% is only slightly smaller than load increases, with values of MMAX being underestimated
MMAX because little hardening occurs in the response of the for all columns with P/Ag fˆc′ ≥ 0.09. For example, the average
columns past Qr = 2%. ratios MMAX/Mcd for the five test columns with axial load
ratios clustered at approximately 0.4 (refer to Fig. 1) is 1.29.
ACI 318-115 PROCEDURE FOR COMPUTING Another way to visualize the bias in the ACI 318 proce-
PROBABLE MOMENT STRENGTH
dure is to plot points
This section presents a critical review of the provisions
contained in ACI 318-115 for calculating moment Mpr in
columns. To this end, moments Mcd were calculated with  P M 
  , 2
MAX
the ACI 318 procedure for each column listed in the data-  A f ′ bh f ′ 
base. Values of Mcd rather than Mpr were computed because g c c

strengths fˆc′ and fˆy were reported, thus resulting in the best
possible prediction of the ACI 318 procedure for MMAX.
Values of Mcd were calculated using a magnified yield
strength lh fˆy. Because fˆy was known, the 1.25 magnification
factor could not be used in the calculations because such a
factor already accounts for the measured-to-specified yield
for six rectangular test columns together with the credible
moment strength-axial load interaction diagram computed
using average values for the material strengths and assuming
lh = 1.15 (refer to Fig. 2). It just so happens that the six
test columns have very similar material strengths fc′ and fˆy,

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013 683


Fig. 3—Applied and internal forces of resistance in symmet-
rically reinforced column.
Fig. 4—Effect of large-amplitude strain reversals in column
section.
ratio rl is the same, the columns have the same cross section,
and the location of the longitudinal reinforcement is prac-
tically identical. Furthermore, the transverse reinforcement
ratio provided in these columns is less than that required
by ACI 318. Figure 2 shows that the Mcd values computed
684
with the ACI 318 procedure are less than the test column
values of MMAX for a given axial load ratio. In other words,
the ACI 318 procedure underestimates the values of MMAX.
Any underestimation of the value of MMAX by the procedure
cannot be attributed to significant moment gain in the test
columns caused by an increase in the concrete core compres-
sive strength as a result of excessive confinement. The differ-
ence between Mcd and MMAX is largely due to the confine-
ment of the concrete provided by the elastic reinforced
concrete element framing with the column at the region
where the maximum bending moment occurs, as pointed out
by others.12,16 Such a confinement effect is not captured by
the ACI 318 procedure. Moreover, it can be shown that when
Mcd is calculated with the ACI 318 procedure, the magni-
fied yield strength of the reinforcement lh fˆy is not attained in
any of the layers if the columns are subjected to moderate or
high axial loads. In the particular example, no yielding of the
reinforcement is observed at a moderate axial load ratio of
0.3. Contrary to what is observed during computation with
the ACI 318 procedure, one would expect that at MMAX, the
longitudinal reinforcement in both extreme layers would be
strained well into the work-hardening region. This will be
discussed in more detail in the following section.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH FOR CALCULATING
CREDIBLE MOMENT STRENGTH OF COLUMNS
Definitions and assumptions
This section presents a simple formulation to calculate the
credible moment strength of the critical section at the end of
a well-tied column, in which transverse reinforcement has
been detailed to prevent premature buckling of the longitu-
dinal reinforcement. The formulation is equally applicable to
symmetrically reinforced rectangular and circular columns.
Figure 3 shows an elevation of a symmetrically circular
or rectangular reinforced concrete column bending about a
principal axis and subjected to an axial force P when MMAX
is attained. The internal forces shown at the lower end of the
column add to the moment of resistance that must balance
MMAX. When the moment of resistance is calculated with any
of the various flexure theories, this moment becomes Mcd.
Because of approximations made in this theory, the ratio
MMAX/Mcd = 1 should only be possible statistically when: 1)
the mean value in a large population nears 1; 2) the theory
displays negligible bias with respect to the main variables;
and 3) the dispersion is small.
In Fig. 3, Cs is the compressive force resisted by the layer
of longitudinal reinforcement—marked Bars “A”—that are
closest to the extreme fiber in compression; Ts is the tensile
force resisted by the layer of longitudinal reinforcement—
marked Bars “B”—that are closest to the extreme fiber in
tension; Ti is the force resisted by the entire inner column
longitudinal reinforcement (shown as Bars “C”); and Cc is
the force resisted by the concrete in compression. Force Cc
is located a distance xc from the extreme compressed fiber.
The first assumption made herein is that forces Cs and Ts are
equal and opposite, implying that, for equilibrium, force Cc =
P + Ti. Figure 4 shows a visual justification for this assump-
tion. Figure 4(a) depicts the strain profiles for the service
load and two seismic load cases. These seismic load cases
indicate that the column has undergone one large curva-
ture reversal. Figure 4(b) plots stress-strain relationships
that are consistent with the strain history experienced by
bars marked “A” and “B.” Low-amplitude curvature rever-
sals causing strain reversals have been omitted from these
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013
figures for clarity. Under service load and after creep and
shrinkage have taken place, these bars remain well below
the yield point and most often in compression (refer to points
marked “(1)” in Fig. 4). The column section reaches its
maximum moment strength when Bars “A” and “B” experi-
ence hardening—refer to points marked “(3)”—after a large
earthquake-induced curvature reversal has occurred (refer to
points marked “(2)”). At points marked “(3),” the tensile and
compressive stresses in the extreme bars are comparatively
similar (refer to Fig. 4(b)), for which the compressive and
tensile steel reinforcement hardening factors lc and lt can
be assumed to be equal. The conceptual behavior described
previously and illustrated in Fig. 4 can be generalized for
various other neutral axis depths without altering the conclu-
sion just reached. This finding is surprisingly different from
values calculated from a conventional flexure analysis and
even from the more sophisticated monotonic moment-curva-
ture analyses, which are unable to capture the cyclic hard-
ening phenomena. The second assumption made herein is
that force Ti (refer to Fig. 3) always acts in tension. This
assumption is strictly correct when the neutral axis depth
in the column is shallow. When the neutral axis depth
approaches or exceeds the column middepth, the resultant
force in these inner bars (shown in tension in Fig. 3) will
eventually become compressive. Consequently, the assump-
tion made of force Ti always being in tension force will
evidently become erroneous and the probable moment given
by Eq. (2) will present a bias at high axial load ratios. An
analysis of the error, not presented in this paper, indicates
that Eq. (2) could overpredict the probable moment by less
than 10% when P/Ag fc′ ≤ 0.5. When the axial compressive
load ratio nears the limit imposed in ACI 318 for columns
with tie reinforcement, the probable moment could be over-
predicted by as much as 27% when rl = 0.04, fy = 515 MPa
(75 ksi), and fc′ = 30 MPa (4.4 ksi). However, when rl ≤ 0.02,
fy = 414 MPa (60 ksi), and fc′ = 30 MPa (4.4 ksi), the prob-
able moment is overpredicted by less than 13%.
Derivation and calibration
With the first assumption stated in the previous section
and in the ideal scenario that MMAX = Mcd moment equilib-
rium about Point R in Fig. 3 results in
h 
M cd = Ts g e h + ( P + Ti )  − xc  (1)
2 
Equation (1) can also be presented in terms of the total
area of longitudinal reinforcement Ast and fˆy. Assume that all
the reinforcement hardens by ratio lh. Then, Eq. (1) becomes
  1 x  1 x 
M cd = l h Ast 
f y h  kg e + (1 − 2k )  − c   + Ph  − c  (2a)
  2 h  2 h 
or in dimensionless form for rectangular columns
 column axial load ratio. An error minimization procedure
M cd fy   1 xc  
= l h r  kg e + (1 − 2k )  2 − h  
bh 2 
f′
c

fc′
(2b)
P  1 xc 
+  − 
Ag 
fc′  2 h 
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013
and in dimensionless form for circular columns

fy 
M cd p  1 xc  
= l h r  kg e + (1 − 2k )  2 − h  
h3 
fc′ 4 
fc′
(2c)
p P  1 xc 
+  − 
4 Ag 
fc′  2 h 
where k is the ratio of the area of column longitudinal
reinforcement in one of the extreme layers to Ast; and ge
is the ratio between the distance between the centroid of
the exterior layer of bars—that is, of Bars “A” and “B” in
Fig. 3—to the column depth h.
Equation (2) in any of its forms has two independent and
additive terms, and each term has a clear physical meaning.
The first term is the moment contributed to by the reinforce-
ment and the second term is the moment contribution due to
axial load.
The following paragraphs discuss the evaluation of ratios
k, ge, lh, and xc/h, which are unknown so far.
Ratio k depends entirely on the way the longitudinal
reinforcement is distributed in the section. In a model of a
column cross section, the distribution should be sufficiently
simple to allow a clear distinction between outer and inner
reinforcement layers. The Eight and Twelve Equivalent
Bar Models—with three and four equivalent bars per side,
respectively—are ideal models for columns of rectangular
section with longitudinal reinforcement distributed along
the faces. The values of ratio k for the Eight and Twelve
Equivalent Bar Rectangular Section Models are 3/8 and 1/3,
respectively. The Six and Eight Equivalent Bar Models with
values of ratio k equal to 1/3 and 1/4, respectively, are ideal
for columns of circular section.
Ratio ge is a function of the equivalent bar diameter dbe
of the model cross section; the concrete cover to the hoop,
cc; hoop diameter dbh; the type of section and equivalent bar
model used; and the column depth h. Ratio ge is given by
 1 
g e = z 1 −  dbe + 2 ( dbh + cc )   (3)
 h 
where
rl Ag
dbe = 2 (4)
pnb
and where nb is the number of bars in the model of the column
cross section—that is, nb is eight or 12 in a rectangular column
and six or eight in a circular column. Finally, z = 1 in rectan-
gular columns and z = cos(p/nb) in circular columns.
The authors made use of the column database to deter-
mine ratios lh and xc/h. Following the work of Presland et
al.,16 it was assumed that ratio xc/h varies linearly with the
for M MAX − M cd M MAX was performed to obtain optimum
values for ratios lh and xc/h. This procedure was carried
out initially for the Eight Equivalent Bar Model for rectan-
gular columns and the Six Equivalent Bar Model for circular
columns. Minimization resulted in lh = 1.15 for the rectan-
685

Fig. 5—Histogram of moment ratio MMAX/Mcd with Mcd
computed from Eq. (2).
gular and circular columns and in the following two relation-
ships for ratio xc/h
xc P
= 0.34 + 0.07 (5a)
h Ag 
fc′
for rectangular columns and
xc
P
= 0.32 + 0.10 (5b)
Ag 
h fc′
for circular columns.
Figure 5 plots histograms of the MMAX/Mcd ratios deter-
mined for the Mcd calculated with the Eight Equivalent Bar
Model for rectangular columns and for that calculated with
the Six Equivalent Bar Model for circular columns. The
distribution is normal in both cases. The median and mean
values calculated for the MMAX/Mcd ratios are 0.995 and
0.998 for rectangular columns and 0.992 and 1.003 for
circular columns, respectively. Very low coefficients of vari-
ation of 6.80% and 7.51%, which indicate little dispersion
from the mean, are found for the rectangular and circular
columns, respectively. This dispersion is comparable or even
lower than that reported by Mattock et al.26 in support of
the calibration of Whitney’s stress block to calculate the
nominal moment strength of column sections in the develop-
ment of the ultimate strength theory.
Model sensitivity
The MMAX/Mcd ratios were also computed for Mcd calcu-
lated with the Twelve Equivalent Bar Model for rectangular
columns and with the Eight Equivalent Bar Model for circular
columns (refer to Tables A-5 and A-6 in Appendix A for the
individual values of MMAX/Mcd for these two models and the
statistics). The MMAX/Mcd ratios and the median, mean, and
coefficients of variation are very similar to those computed
with the models with a fewer number of equivalent bars.
Moreover, residual analyses (not presented herein) of the
MMAX/Mcd ratios with P/Ag fˆc′, with rl, and with strengths fˆc′
and fˆy show excellent randomness. This indicates the appro-
priateness of the model calibrated.
Inspection of Eq. 2(b) shows that ratio Mcd/bh2 fˆc′ is most
sensitive to ratio ge when ratios rl and fˆy/ fˆc′ are high and
ratio P/Ag fˆc′ is low. Extreme values of ratio ge in rectangular
columns occur in small-sized columns with a large concrete
cover and in large-sized columns with the minimum concrete
686
cover. For such extremes, ratio ge can reach values as low as
0.685 or as high as 0.874 when using the Eight Equivalent
Bar Model. In rectangular columns of typical dimensions and
average concrete cover and hoop diameter, ratio ge fluctuates
around 0.8 for the Eight Equivalent Bar Model. A sensitivity
study shows that when rl = 4%, fˆy / fˆc′ = 580/30, which can
be considered at the high end in most practical applications,
and when ratio P/Ag fˆc′ = 0.1, values of Mcd/bh2fˆc′ calculated
from Eq. 2(b) with the extreme values of ratio ge are only
0.9 and 1.06 times those obtained for ratio ge = 0.8, indi-
cating little sensitivity. As expected, little sensitivity is also
calculated for circular columns. This suggests that Eq. (2)
can be simplified by incorporating an average ratio for ge
as a constant. As discussed previously, an average value for
ratio ge is 0.8 for a rectangular column idealized with the
Eight Equivalent Bar Model, and an average value for ratio
ge calculated for a circular column idealized with the Six
Equivalent Bar Model is 0.69. Equation (2) can be further
simplified if the values of ratio k obtained from the Eight
Equivalent Bar Rectangular Column Model (k = 3/8) and
for the Six Equivalent Bar Circular Column Model (k = 1/3)
and of ratio lh = 1.15 are also incorporated as constants. The
simplified equations are

fy 
M cd 1  1 xc   P  1 xc 
= 1.15r  0.3 + 4  2 − h   +   2 − h  (6a)
bh 2  
f′ fc′ Ag fc′
c
for rectangular columns and

fy 
M cd p 1  1 xc  
3
= 1.15 r  0.23 + 3  2 − h  
h f′ 4 
fc′
c
(6b)
p P  1 xc 
+  − 
4 Ag 
fc′  2 h 
for circular columns, where ratio xc/h is given by Eq. 5(a) or
5(b), whichever is applicable.
Rectangular columns with bending along two
principal axes
The derivations made in the previous section for the
credible moment of rectangular columns apply only for
bending acting along one of the two principal axes only.
To the authors’ knowledge, only four reversed cyclic load
tests have been reported in the literature on square or
rectangular columns with bending applied along an axis
other than the principal. These tests are reported by Zahn
et al.27,28 Theoretical moment-curvature analysis, which
incorporated the strength enhancement due to the confine-
ment of the transverse reinforcement—also carried out by
these researchers—indicates that the difference between
the probable moment strength square columns tested along
the diagonal is only marginally smaller than the probable
moment strength of the same column if loaded along a
principal axis, except the extreme cases of concentric axial
tension of compression where no moment can be resisted.
Their experimental work also supported this finding. Such
a limited amount of test data suggests that the credible
moment strength along an axis can be obtained using the
load contour method of Bresler29 with the exponent set to
2—that is, a circular load contour
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013
 2 2
 M cd , x   M cd , y 
M  +  =1 (7)
 cd , xo   M cd , yo 

where Mcd,xo and Mcd,yo are the credible moment strengths

along the two principal axes. These moment strengths are
evaluated with either Eq. (2a) or (6a) or from the corre-
sponding dimensionless forms. Moments Mcd,x and Mcd,y
are vector components along the two principal axes of
the skew-credible moment strength. For a square column,
Eq. (7) means that the credible moment strength is the same
along any axis of bending for a given axial load ratio. When
Eq. (7) is used to calculate Mcd with the Eight Equivalent
Bar Rectangular Section Model for the tests reported by
Zahn et al.,27,28 ratios MMAX/Mcd vary very narrowly between
0.98 and 1.01 (the relevant properties of these tests and the
corresponding MMAX/Mcd ratios are listed in Table A-7 in
Appendix A). Fig. 6—Comparison of ratio lco predicted with Eq. (8) and
obtained from field tests.
EQUATION FOR PROBABLE MOMENT STRENGTH
OF COLUMNS
Rectangular columns with bending along principal
axis and circular columns
The derivation and subsequent calibration of an equation gives lco = 1.64 on 4-year-old concrete and lco =1.72 on
for calculating the credible moment strength for columns 6-year-old concrete. None of the concrete structures in the
with rectangular sections loaded along an arbitrary axis and aforementioned references contained silica fume.
of circular columns can form the basis for the derivation of Knowing that there are many factors that affect coef-
an equation for computing the probable moment strength. ficient lco and given the significant scarcity of data, a
For a large population, the mean of the measured material value for lco = 1.7 is recommended for normal-strength
strengths fˆc′ and fˆy become f c′ and f y , respectively. Now, in
concrete 10 years of age or older. Alternatively, ratio lco
the evaluation of the probable moment strength, only the
can be made a function of time by modifying the strength
specified values for fc′ and fy are known. Hence, relationships
gain expression proposed by Freisleben and Pedersen.31 This
between the mean and specified strengths are needed in the
development of an equation for Mpr. ACI 318-115 makes equation takes the following form
1.25 = lh f y but provides no relationships for the concrete.
Here, the compressive strength of the concrete in a member 2.8
l co = (8)
to the test cylinder strength is termed the hardening ratio 6

lco = f c′/fc′. Such a ratio captures: 1) the gain in strength that et +5

occurs over time; and 2) the statistical variability inherent with the age of concrete t measured in years. Equation (8)
in the batching plant and in construction. Part 1) of ratio lco meets the minimum requirement in ACI 318-115 that at
depends on numerous factors, such as the type of cement, 28 days, the strength of the concrete obtained from field
type and amount of cementitious materials present in the measurements should not be less than 85% of the speci-
mixture, water-cement ratio (w/c), and maturity of the fied strength and that the maximum strength cannot exceed
concrete.6,9,10 The authors note that ignoring an increase 2.8 times the specified strength—a value that is arbitrary
in the concrete compressive strength—that is, assuming but seems reasonable. Figure 6 compares the values of
lco = 1—is unconservative in capacity design because the ratio lco computed with Eq. (8) and the available data.
probable moment strength (required to capacity-protect Figure 6 shows that Eq. (8) gives a reasonable prediction
other elements or protect the columns against various unde- of ratio lco but, as expected, there is significant scatter
sirable modes of failure) becomes underestimated. about the values predicted.
A literature review found only three references reporting Building upon Eq. (6) and making the test axial load P equal
the specified and long-term strength of concrete from a to the factored axial load Pu, the expression for Mpr becomes
structure or a field slab from which ratio lco could be calcu-
lated directly.7,11,30 Baweja et al.7 carried out comprehen-
M pr fy  1  1 x  P 1 x 
sive research into the compressive strength of aged in-place = 1.25r 0.3 +  − c   + u  − c  (9a)
concrete in 10 field slabs-on-ground. The concrete tested bh fc′
2 
fc′  4 2 h  Ag fc′  2 h 
 
was between 10 and 26 years old. Ratio lco ranged between
1.48 and 2.75. Scanlon and Mikhailovsky11 assessed the for rectangular columns and
strength of the concrete in a 34-year-old bridge. Using the
average strength of the concrete, ratio lco = 1.78. Billings
and Powell30 investigated the strength of the concrete of a M pr p fy  1  1 x 
= 1.25 r  0.23 +  − c  
bridge that was nearly 30 years old. Using the mean strength h fc′
3
4 fc′  3  2 h 
reported, ratio lco = 2.29. When the specified strength is made (9b)
equal to 0.87 times the measured 28-day strength, the data p Pu  1 xc 
+ −
reported by Aïtcin and Laplante10 on field slabs-on-ground 4 Ag fc′  2 h 

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013 687


Fig. 7—Factored axial load-probable moment strength inter-
action diagram indicating influence of ratio lco on probable
moment strength Mpr.
for circular columns, where ratio xc/h is obtained from
Eq. (5a) and (5b) by substituting fˆc′ with lco fc′
xc 0.34 Pu
= + 0.07 (10a)
h l co Ag fc′
for rectangular columns and
xc 0.32 Pu
= + 0.10 (10b)
h l co Ag fc′
for circular columns. Although Eq. (9a) and (9b) have been
checked against data of columns subjected to compression,
they could be used for predicting the probable moment
strengths of columns subjected to small axial tension—say,
up to Pu/Ag fc′ = –0.05.
Figure 7 plots the axial load-probable moment strength
diagram calculated for a rectangular column using
Eq. (9a) for four reinforcement ratios and for ratio lco
varying from 1 to 2 at 0.25 intervals. The upper factored
axial load ratios shown in this figure are the maximum levels
allowed in ACI 318-115 for compression members with tie
reinforcement. It is evident in this figure that ratio lco has a
negligible effect in lightly loaded columns up to approxi-
mately Pu/Ag fc′ = 0.15. Above this axial load ratio, ratio lco
gradually becomes important. When the axial load limit is
reached, the ratio between the credible moment strengths
calculated with lco = 2 to that calculated with lco = 1 is at
least 1.25.
Rectangular columns with bending along two
principal axes
For rectangular columns with bending acting along an axis
different from the two principals, Mpr is found building upon
Eq. (7)
2 2
 M pr , x   M pr , y 
  +  =1 (11)
 M pr , xo   M pr , yo 
where Mpr,xo and Mpr,yo are the probable moment strengths
along the two principal axes. These moments are evaluated
with Eq. (9a), with ratio xc/h calculated using Eq. (10a).
688
CONCLUSIONS
1. This paper shows that the procedure specified by
ACI 318 to calculate the probable moment strength of
columns underestimates the maximum moment capacity
recorded in all tests of a database of rectangular and circular
columns with axial load ratios greater than 0.09. A reason
for the ACI 318 bias is the lack of the procedure to capture
the confinement provided by the elastic member that frames
to the column at the critical section. Another reason is
that for some moderate and high axial load ratios Pu/Ag fc′
≥ 0.3 and when using Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) or higher,
the ACI 318 procedure is unable to capture the work and
cyclic hardening phenomena expected in the column longi-
tudinal reinforcement. Calculations show that in such cases
and because of strain compatibility reasons, none of the
reinforcement actually yields when the axial load in the
column is at least moderate.
2. To improve predictability, the authors proposed a
very simple, statistically calibrated mechanics model for
determining the probable moment strength of rectangular
and circular columns. Statistical analysis of measured
maximum moment strengths and those calculated from the
proposed method give a very small dispersion and a mean
approaching unity.
3. An extension of the concept is made with the load
contour method proposed by Bresler29 for computing the
probable moment strength of rectangular columns subjected
to bending along the two principal axes.
4. A sensitivity analysis of the proposed method indi-
cates that the gain in compressive strength of the concrete
over time has a negligible increase in the probable moment
strength of columns subjected to axial load levels less than
0.15. This strength increase becomes gradually more impor-
tant as the axial load ratio in the column increases and can
reach at least 1.25 when the axial compressive load ratio is
at the limit of that permitted in ACI 318 for columns with
tie reinforcement. It is recommended that an allowance be
made for the concrete strength increase over time of 1.7fc′ in
capacity design calculations of columns.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge M. Torres, who helped with the
calibration of some of the equations presented in this paper; F. J. Crisafulli,
for his careful review; and the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful
and constructive comments.
NOTATION
Ag = gross area of concrete section
Ash = total cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement within
spacing s and perpendicular to dimension b
Ash,ACI = amount of Ash specified by ACI 318
Ast = total area of column longitudinal reinforcement
b = cross-section width
Cc = force resisted by concrete in compression
Cs = compressive force resisted by layer of longitudinal reinforce-
ment closest to extreme fiber in compression
cc = clear cover of reinforcement
ci = depth of neutral axis at moment Mn
db = longitudinal bar diameter
dbe = equivalent bar diameter
dbh = hoop diameter
fc′ = specified concrete compressive strength
f c′ = expected concrete compressive strength
fˆc′ = measured concrete compressive strength
f̂su = measured ultimate tensile strength of steel reinforcement
fy = specified yield strength of reinforcement
fy = expected steel reinforcement yield strength
f̂y = measured steel reinforcement yield strength
h = cross-section depth
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013
M = moment at column end induced only by applied lateral force 10. Aïtcin, P. C., and Laplante, P., “Long-Term Compressive Strength of
M2% = moment resisted at column base at drift ratio Qr = 2% Silica-Fume Concrete,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE,
Mcd = credible moment strength V. 2, No. 3, 1990, pp. 164-170.
Mcd,x = component along x-axis of skew-credible moment strength 11. Scanlon, A., and Mikhailovsky, L., “Strength Evaluation of an
Mcd,xo = credible moment strength along principal x-axis Existing Concrete Bridge Based on Core and Nondestructive Test Data,”
Mcd,y = component along y-axis of skew-credible moment strength Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 14, 1987, pp. 145-154.
Mcd,yo = credible moment strength along principal y-axis 12. Park, R.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Gill, W. D., “Ductility of Square-
Mi = ideal moment strength Confined Concrete Columns,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
MMAX = maximum moment strength V. 108, No. ST4, Apr. 1982, pp. 929-949.
Mn = nominal moment strength 13. Dodd, L. L., and Cooke, N., “The Dynamic Behavior of Reinforced
Mpr = probable moment strength Concrete Bridge Piers Subjected to New Zealand Seismicity,” Research
Mpr′ = critical section probable moment strength Report 92-4, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury,
Mpr,x = component along x-axis of skew-probable moment strength Christchurch, New Zealand, 1992, 460 pp.
14. Sato, Y.; Tanaka, H.; and Park, R., “Reinforced Concrete Columns
Mpr,xo = probable moment strength along principal x-axis
with Mixed Grade Longitudinal Reinforcement,” Research Report 93-7,
Mpr,y = component along y-axis of skew-probable moment strength
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
Mpr,yo = probable moment strength along principal y-axis
New Zealand, Aug. 1993, 115 pp.
nb = number of equivalent bars in model of column cross section 15. Watson, S., and Park, R., “Simulated Seismic Load Tests on
P = test axial force applied Reinforced Concrete Columns,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Pu = factored axial load V. 120, No. 6, June 1994, pp. 1825-1849.
s = center-to-center spacing of transverse reinforcement 16. Presland, R.; Restrepo, J.; and Park, R., “Seismic Performance of
Ti = tensile force resisted by entire inner column longitudinal Retrofitted Reinforced Concrete Bridge Piers,” Research Report 2001-3,
reinforcement Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
Ts = tensile force resisted by layer of longitudinal reinforcement New Zealand, 2001, 513 pp.
closest to extreme fiber in tension 17. Bae, S., and Bayrak, O., “Seismic Performance of Full-Scale
t = time in years Reinforced Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 2,
V = shear at column end induced only by applied lateral force Mar.-Apr. 2008, pp. 123-133.
xc = distance from extreme compression fiber to point of applica- 18. Ang, B. G.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Paulay, T., “Seismic Shear
tion of force Cc Strength of Circular Bridge Piers,” Research Report 85-5, Department of
ge = distance between centroid of exterior layer of bars divided Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand,
by column depth h 1985, 408 pp.
k = ratio of area of column longitudinal reinforcement in one of 19. Mander, J.; Dutta, A.; and Goel, P., “Capacity Design of Bridge Piers and
extreme layers to Ast the Analysis of Overstrength,” Technical Report MCEER-98-003, Depart-
lc = compressive overstrength factor ment of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, State University
lco = concrete strength-hardening factor of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, June 1998, 102 pp.
lh = weighted average of overstrength caused by work and cyclic 20. Berry, M.; Parrish, M.; and Eberhard, M., “Peer Structural Perfor-
hardening of entire reinforcement in section mance Database User’s Manual (Version 1.0),” Pacific Earthquake Engi-
lt = tensile overstrength factor neering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA,
Qr = drift ratio Jan. 2004, 38 pp.
Qr,MAX = drift ratio at which column reaches its maximum moment of 21. Tsuno, K., “Effect of Seismic Loading Patterns on Reinforced
resistance MMAX Concrete Bridge Piers,” master’s thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
rl = longitudinal reinforcement ratio University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, Nov. 1999, 201 pp.
22. Li, X., “Reinforced Concrete Columns under Seismic Lateral Force
rs = ratio of volume of transverse reinforcement to total volume
and Varying Axial Load,” PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
of core confined by this reinforcement
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1994, 365 pp.
rs,ACI = ratio of volume of transverse reinforcement to total volume
23. Satyarno, I., “Concrete Columns Incorporating Mixed Ultra High
of core confined by this reinforcement that is specified by and Normal Strength Longitudinal Reinforcement,” Research Report 93-1,
ACI 318 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
z = coefficient for defining parameter ge New Zealand, Jan. 1993, 151 pp.
24. Restrepo, J.; Seible, F.; Stephan, B.; and Schoettler, M., “Seismic
REFERENCES Testing of Bridge Columns Incorporating High-Performance Materials,”
1. NZS 3101:2006, “Concrete Structures Standard,” Standards New ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-Aug. 2006, pp. 496-504.
Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, 2006, 684 pp. 25. ASTM A706/A706M-09b, “Standard Specification for Low-Alloy
2. EN 1998-2:2003, “Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Steel Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM Inter-
Resistance—Part 2: Bridges,” European Committee for Standardization, national, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009, 6 pp.
Brussels, Belgium, 2003. 26. Mattock, A. H.; Kriz, L. B.; and Hognestad, E., “Rectangular
3. AASHTO, “AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Concrete Stress Distribution in Ultimate Strength Design,” ACI Journal,
Bridge Design Specifications,” third edition, American Association of State V. 57, No. 2, Feb. 1961, pp. 875-928.
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2004. 27. Zahn, F. A.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., “Strength and
4. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced Ductility of Square Reinforced Concrete Column Sections Subjected to
Biaxial Bending,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1989,
Concrete Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1992,
pp. 123-131.
744 pp.
28. Zahn, F. A.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., “Design of Reinforced
5. ACI Committee 318, “Building Concrete Requirements for Structural
Concrete Bridge Columns for Strength and Ductility,” Research Report 86-7,
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp. New Zealand, Mar. 1986, 410 pp.
6. Neville, A., Properties of Concrete, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New 29. Bresler, B., “Design Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Columns under
York, 1996, 846 pp. Axial Load and Biaxial Bending,” ACI Journal, V. 57, No. 11, Nov. 1960,
7. Baweja, D.; Munn, R. L.; Roper, H.; and Sirivivatnanon, V., “In Situ pp. 481-490.
Assessments of Long-Term Performance of Plain and Blended Cement 30. Billings, I. J., and Powell, A. J., “Thorndon Overbridge Seismic
Concretes,” Transactions of the Institution of Engineers, V. 34, No. 2, June Assessment,” Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on
1992, pp. 115-127. Seismic Design and Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Bridges, R. Park,
8. Washa, G. W., and Wendt, K. F., “Fifty Year Properties of Concrete,” ed., Queenstown, New Zealand, Aug. 1994, pp. 535-559.
ACI Journal, V. 72, No. 1, Jan. 1975, pp. 20-28. 31. Freisleben, H., and Pedersen, J., “Curing of Concrete Struc-
9. Al-Khaiat, H., and Fattuhi, N., “Long-Term Strength Development tures,” Durable Concrete Structures Design Guide. Issue 166 of Bulletin
of Concrete in Arid Conditions,” Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 23, d’Information, Comité Euro-International du Béton, second edition,
No. 4-5, Aug.-Oct. 2001, pp. 363-373. Thomas Telford Ltd., London, UK, 1989, 112 pp.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013 689

 NOTES:

690 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2013

ON THE PROBABLE MOMENT STRENGTH OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS

APPENDIX A

Relevant Properties of Columns

 Table A-1. Relevant properties of rectangular test columns.

ℓ
  
fsu Ash P
N° Designation Ref. h b s fc' fy
db 
f Ash ,ACI fc' Ag
y
mm † mm † MPa ‡ MPa ‡
1 TP005 20 400 400 5.38 36.8 363.0 NR x 0.0166 0.23 0.027
2 TP001 20 400 400 5.38 35.9 363.0 NR 0.0166 0.23 0.027
3 TP006 20 400 400 5.38 35.9 363.0 NR 0.0166 0.23 0.027
4 TP002 20 400 400 5.38 35.7 363.0 NR 0.0166 0.23 0.027
5 TP003 20 400 400 5.38 34.3 363.0 NR 0.0166 0.24 0.029
6 TP004 20 400 400 5.38 33.2 363.0 NR 0.0166 0.25 0.030
7 TSUNO-1 21 550 550 5.00 30.7 306.0 1.43 0.0135 0.46 0.033
8 TANA90U5* 20 550 550 5.50 32.0 511.0 1.32 0.0125 0.80 0.100
9 TANA90U6* 20 550 550 5.50 32.0 511.0 1.32 0.0125 0.80 0.100
10 SOES86U1 20 400 400 5.31 46.5 446.0 1.57 0.0151 0.36 0.100
11 TANA90U9* 20 600 400 3.33 26.9 432.0 1.56 0.0188 1.51 0.100
12 SAATU6 20 350 350 2.60 37.3 437.0 NR 0.0327 1.00 0.131
13 TANA90U1 20 400 400 4.00 25.6 474.0 1.52 0.0157 1.02 0.200
14 ANG81U4 20 400 400 5.63 25.0 427.0 1.57 0.0151 1.22 0.210
15 GILL79S1 20 550 550 3.33 23.1 375.0 1.69 0.0179 0.83 0.260
16 LI-1 22 400 400 3.50 33.2 450.0 1.32 0.0157 1.51 0.289
17 SATO-1 14 400 400 4.00 59.8 442.0 1.33 0.0314 1.03 0.300
18 TANA90U7* 20 550 550 4.50 32.1 511.0 1.32 0.0125 0.98 0.300
19 TANA90U8* 20 550 550 4.50 32.1 511.0 1.32 0.0125 0.98 0.300
20 SOES86U2 20 400 400 4.88 44.0 446.0 1.57 0.0151 0.53 0.300
21 SOES86U3 20 400 400 5.69 44.0 446.0 1.57 0.0151 0.35 0.300
22 SOES86U4 20 400 400 5.88 40.0 446.0 1.57 0.0151 0.19 0.300
23 ANG81U3 20 400 400 6.25 23.6 427.0 1.57 0.0151 1.94 0.380
24 ZAHN86U8 20 400 400 5.75 40.1 440.0 1.53 0.0151 1.18 0.390
25 S17-3UT 17 440 440 5.40 43.4 496.0 1.28 0.0125 1.08 0.491
26 S24-2UT 17 610 610 4.30 43.4 503.0 1.32 0.0125 1.07 0.492
27 LI-4 22 400 400 2.75 35.7 460.0 1.41 0.0157 1.79 0.500
28 WAT89U5 20 400 400 5.06 41.0 474.0 1.34 0.0151 0.57 0.500
29 WAT89U6 20 400 400 6.00 40.0 474.0 1.34 0.0151 0.29 0.500
30 GILL79S4 20 550 550 2.58 23.5 375.0 1.69 0.0179 1.85 0.600
31 SATYARNO-3 23 400 400 4.00 50.0 497.0 1.30 0.0314 0.79 0.600
32 SATO-4 14 400 400 4.00 71.6 442.0 1.33 0.0314 0.86 0.600
33 WAT89U7 20 400 400 6.00 42.0 474.0 1.34 0.0151 0.87 0.700
34 WAT89U8 20 400 400 4.81 39.0 474.0 1.34 0.0151 0.63 0.700
35 WAT89U9 20 400 400 3.25 40.0 474.0 1.34 0.0151 1.69 0.700
* P-Delta calculation modified from that reported in Ref. 20 to match original reference
† mm = 0.0394 in.
‡ 1 MPa = 145 psi
x fsu not reported
 Table A-2. Relevant properties of circular test columns.

  
ℓ
s P
 s ,ACI
s fc' fsu
N° Designation Ref. hh fy 
db 
f f'A
c g
y
† ‡ ‡
mm MPa MPa
1 KOWALSKIU2 20 457 4.00 34.2 565.0 1.23 0.0207 0.91 0.041
2 KOWALSKIU1 20 457 4.00 32.7 565.0 1.23 0.0207 0.96 0.043
3 RES-U1 24 914 2.53 64.1 426.0 1.67 0.0254 0.85 0.063
4 NIST-F 20 1520 2.07 35.8 475.0 NR x 0.0200 1.46 0.069
5 NIST-S 20 1520 1.26 34.3 475.0 NR 0.0200 3.21 0.071
6 LEH1015* 20 610 2.00 31.0 462.0 1.36 0.0150 1.16 0.072
7 LEH407* 20 610 2.00 31.0 462.0 1.36 0.0075 1.16 0.072
8 LEH415* 20 610 2.00 31.0 462.0 1.36 0.0150 1.16 0.072
9 LEH430* 20 610 2.00 31.0 462.0 1.36 0.0303 1.16 0.072
10 LEH815* 20 610 2.00 31.0 462.0 1.36 0.0150 1.16 0.072
11 KUN97A7 20 305 2.00 32.8 448.0 1.54 0.0200 1.06 0.093
12 KUN97A8 20 305 2.00 32.8 448.0 1.54 0.0200 1.06 0.093
13 KUN97A9 20 305 2.00 32.5 448.0 1.54 0.0200 1.07 0.093
14 KUN97A10 20 305 2.00 27.0 448.0 1.54 0.0200 1.28 0.112
15 KUN97A11 20 305 2.00 27.0 448.0 1.54 0.0200 1.28 0.112
16 KUN97A12 20 305 2.00 27.0 448.0 1.54 0.0200 1.28 0.112
17 WONG90U1 20 400 3.75 38.0 423.0 1.36 0.0320 0.96 0.190
18 POT79N1 20 600 3.13 28.4 303.0 1.35 0.0256 0.67 0.239
19 KOW96FL3 20 457 4.78 38.6 477.0 NR 0.0362 0.74 0.281
20 VU98NH1 20 457 3.77 38.3 427.5 NR 0.0241 1.09 0.307
21 VU98NH6 20 457 2.11 35.0 486.2 NR 0.0521 3.22 0.333
22 POT79N5A 20 600 2.29 32.5 307.0 1.33 0.0256 1.93 0.368
23 WONG90U3 20 400 3.75 37.0 475.0 1.32 0.0320 0.98 0.390
24 POT79N4 20 600 2.92 32.9 303.0 1.35 0.0256 0.87 0.407
25 WAT89U10 20 400 5.25 40.0 474.0 1.34 0.0192 0.51 0.528
26 POT79N3 20 600 2.08 26.6 303.0 1.35 0.0243 1.07 0.572
27 ANG81U2 20 400 3.44 28.5 308.0 1.51 0.0256 1.28 0.589
28 ZAHN86U6 20 400 4.69 27.0 337.0 1.46 0.0243 1.66 0.613
29 POT79N5B 20 600 2.29 32.5 307.0 1.33 0.0256 1.93 0.737
30 WAT89U11 20 400 3.56 39.0 474.0 1.34 0.0192 1.09 0.739
* P-Delta calculation modified from that reported in Ref. 20 to match original reference
† mm = 0.0394 in.
‡ 1 MPa = 145 psi
x fsu not reported
Table A-3. Supplementary rectangular column test data.

r ,MAX
M M2%
N° Designation c c +d bh
Vh MMAX

mm † rad
1 TP005 3.1 33.5 0.031 0.97
2 TP001 3.1 33.5 0.017
3 TP006 3.1 33.5 0.081 0.92
4 TP002 3.1 33.5 0.016
5 TP003 3.1 33.5 0.057 0.97
6 TP004 3.1 33.5 0.082 0.96
7 TSUNO-1 4.1 26.0 0.017
8 TANA90U5 3.0 52.0 0.044 0.93
9 TANA90U6 3.0 52.0 0.026 0.98
10 SOES86U1 4.0 20.0 0.061 0.97
11 TANA90U9 3.0 52.0 0.047 0.88
12 SAATU6 2.9 32.4 0.090 0.92
13 TANA90U1 4.0 52.0 0.019
14 ANG81U4 4.0 32.5 0.036 1.00
15 GILL79S1 2.2 50.0 0.028 1.00
16 LI-1 4.1 30.0 0.017
17 SATO-1 2.5 30.0 0.016
18 TANA90U7 3.0 52.0 0.050 0.98
19 TANA90U8 3.0 52.0 0.015
20 SO S86 2
SOES86U2 4.00 21
21.00 00.010
010
21 SOES86U3 4.0 20.0 0.009
22 SOES86U4 4.0 19.0 0.011
23 ANG81U3 4.0 36.5 0.013
24 ZAHN86U8 4.0 23.0 0.020
25 S17-3UT 6.9 36.5 0.022 0.96
26 S24-2UT 5.0 50.8 0.020
27 LI-4 4.1 30.0 0.016
28 WAT89U5 4.0 21.0 0.016
29 WAT89U6 4.0 19.0 0.011
30 GILL79S4 2.2 50.0 0.013
31 SATYARNO-3 4.0 27.4 0.011
32 SATO-4 2.5 30.0 0.018
33 WAT89U7 4.0 25.0 0.008
34 WAT89U8 4.0 21.0 0.008
35 WAT89U9 4.0 25.0 0.016
† 1 mm = 0.0394 in.
Table A-4. Suplementary circular column test data.

r ,MAX
M M2%
N° Designation c c +d bh
Vh MMAX

mm † rad
1 KOWALSKIU2 5.3 22.2 0.061 0.90
2 KOWALSKIU1 5.3 22.2 0.045 0.94
3 RES-U1 3.2 67.7 0.057 0.92
4 NIST-F 6.0 74.6 0.054 0.92
5 NIST-S 3.0 79.4 0.047 0.88
6 LEH1015 10.0 28.6 0.030 0.91
7 LEH407 4.0 28.6 0.031 1.00
8 LEH415 4.0 28.6 0.051 0.98
9 LEH430 4.0 28.6 0.074 0.92
10 LEH815 8.0 28.6 0.092 0.91
11 KUN97A7 4.5 18.5 0.053 0.96
12 KUN97A8 4.5 18.5 0.053 0.94
13 KUN97A9 4.5 18.5 0.066 0.94
14 KUN97A10 4.5 18.5 0.044 0.94
15 KUN97A11 4.5 18.5 0.038 0.92
16 KUN97A12 4.5 18.5 0.038 0.97
17 WONG90U1 2.0 30.0 0.038 0.94
18 POT79N1 2.0 35.0 0.037 0.96
19 KOW96FL3 8.0 39.7 0.092 0.91
20 VU98NH1 2.0 34.3 0.038 0.99
21 VU98NH6 2.0 37.5 0.095 0.79
22 POT79N5A 2.0 44.0 0.023 0.99
23 WONG90U3 2.0 30.0 0.025 0.98
24 POT79N4 2.0 35.0 0.027 1.00
25 WAT89U10 4.0 25.0 0.020 1.00
26 POT79N3 2.0 35.0 0.012
27 ANG81U2 4.0 28.0 0.012
28 ZAHN86U6 4.0 28.0 0.019
29 POT79N5B 2.0 44.0 0.020
30 WAT89U11 4.0 27.0 0.013
† 1 mm = 0.0394 in.
 M MAX M
Table A - 5. Ratios and MAX calculated using various
bh 2 fc' M cd
approaches for rectangular columns.

ACI 8-bar model 12-bar model

Mmax
N° Designation

e e
f 'b h 2
c
Mmax Mmax Mmax
Mcd Mcd Mcd
1 TP005 0.087 0.98 0.781 1.01 0.791 1.00
2 TP001 0.084 0.92 0.781 0.95 0.791 0.94
3 TP006 0.098 1.07 0.781 1.10 0.791 1.09
4 TP002 0.083 0.91 0.781 0.93 0.791 0.92
5 TP003 0.090 0.94 0.781 0.97 0.791 0.96
6 TP004 0.093 0.94 0.781 0.97 0.791 0.96
7 TSUNO-1 0.082 0.99 0.859 1.02 0.868 1.02
8 TANA90U5 0.140 1.15 0.766 1.09 0.774 1.09
9 TANA90U6 0.135 1.11 0.766 1.05 0.774 1.04
10 SOES86U1 0.119 1.17 0.851 1.09 0.860 1.09
11 TANA90U9 0.188 1.04 0.782 1.07 0.790 1.06
12 SAATU6 0.214 1.13 0.743 0.99 0.756 0.98
13 TANA90U1 0.176 1.08 0.690 0.93 0.699 0.92
14 ANG81U4
G8 U 00.183
83 1.08
08 00.788
88 00.97
9 00.797
9 00.97
9
15 GILL79S1 0.219 1.12 0.765 1.03 0.775 1.03
16 LI-1 0.189 1.12 0.800 1.00 0.809 1.00
17 SATO-1 0.200 1.23 0.779 1.01 0.792 1.01
18 TANA90U7 0.200 1.32 0.766 1.09 0.774 1.10
19 TANA90U8 0.203 1.35 0.766 1.11 0.774 1.11
20 SOES86U2 0.171 1.15 0.846 1.01 0.855 1.02
21 SOES86U3 0.168 1.13 0.851 1.00 0.860 1.00
22 SOES86U4 0.181 1.17 0.856 1.02 0.865 1.03
23 ANG81U3 0.226 1.24 0.768 0.99 0.777 0.99
24 ZAHN86U8 0.169 1.12 0.836 0.89 0.845 0.90
25 S17-3UT 0.193 1.49 0.789 1.02 0.798 1.03
26 S24-2UT 0.176 1.34 0.789 0.93 0.797 0.94
27 LI-4 0.198 1.28 0.800 0.92 0.809 0.93
28 WAT89U5 0.204 1.41 0.846 0.99 0.855 1.00
29 WAT89U6 0.205 1.39 0.856 0.98 0.865 0.99
30 GILL79S4 0.229 1.41 0.765 0.92 0.775 0.94
31 SATYARNO-3 0.217 1.41 0.792 0.83 0.805 0.84
32 SATO-4 0.199 1.51 0.779 0.93 0.792 0.94
33 WAT89U7 0.199 1.76 0.826 0.97 0.835 0.99
34 WAT89U8 0.213 1.81 0.846 1.01 0.855 1.02
35 WAT89U9 0.235 2.04 0.826 1.13 0.835 1.15
Median 1.152 0.995 0.999
Mean 1.238 0.998 0.999
CoV 20.84% 6.80% 6.70%
 M MAX M
Table A - 6. Ratios and MAX calculated using various
bh 2 fc' M cd
approaches for circular columns.

ACI 6-bar model 8-bar model

Mmax
N° Designation

e e
f ' h3
c
Mmax Mmax Mmax
Mcd Mcd Mcd
1 KOWALSKIU2 0.120 1.10 0.731 0.941 0.787 0.927
2 KOWALSKIU1 0.119 1.05 0.731 0.895 0.787 0.881
3 RES_U1 0.088 1.26 0.681 1.205 0.735 1.193
4 NIST-F 0.108 1.11 0.731 0.987 0.787 0.980
5 NIST-S 0.125 1.25 0.726 1.106 0.781 1.097
6 LEH1015 0.085 0.95 0.742 0.878 0.797 0.876
7 LEH407 0.062 1.06 0.754 1.037 0.809 1.046
8 LEH415 0.099 1.11 0.742 1.021 0.797 1.018
9 LEH430 0.165 1.14 0.723 0.964 0.780 0.951
10 LEH815 0.105 1.18 0.742 1.082 0.797 1.079
11 KUN97A7 0.127 1.23 0.711 1.093 0.766 1.087
12 KUN97A8 0.115 1.11 0.711 0.991 0.766 0.986
13 KUN97A9 0.123 1.18 0.711 1.055 0.766 1.049
14 KUN97A10 0.147 1.21 0.711 1.052 0.766 1.048
15 KUN97A11 0.136 1.12 0.711 0.975 0.766 0.971
16 KUN97A12 0.141 1.17 0.711 1.014 0.766 1.009
17 WONG90U1 0.163 1.27 0.673 1.024 0.727 1.023
18 POT79N1 0.145 1.17 0.708 0.993 0.764 1.004
19 KOW96FL3 0.180 1.32 0.648 0.905 0.701 0.906
20 VU98NH1 0.146 1.26 0.681 0.950 0.734 0.963
21 VU98NH6 0.300 1.69 0.643 1.061 0.698 1.060
22 POT79N5A 0.150 1.26 0.682 0.981 0.736 0.998
23 WONG90U3 0.211 1.62 0.673 1.041 0.727 1.054
24 POT79N4 0.141 1.19 0.708 0.895 0.764 0.913
25 WAT89U10 0.156 1.58 0.709 0.957 0.763 0.977
26 POT79N3 0.163 1.37 0.710 0.918 0.765 0.937
27 ANG81U2 0.167 1.48 0.688 0.947 0.742 0.965
28 ZAHN86U6 0.185 1.58 0.690 1.011 0.744 1.030
29 POT79N5B 0.182 2.09 0.682 1.127 0.736 1.140
30 WAT89U11 0.158 2.00 0.700 0.983 0.754 0.996
Median 1.221 0.992 1.001
Mean 1.30 1.003 1.006
CoV 20.66% 7.51% 7.30%
 Table A-7. Relevant data of diagonally tested rectangular test columns.

ℓ
Test   
fsu Ash P Mmax
s

e
h b fc' fy c c +d bh

8‐bar model
Unit
db 
f Ash ,ACI '
fA f 'b h 2
y c g c Mmax
mm † mm † MPa ‡ MPa ‡ mm †
Mcd
1 400 400 5.25 36.2 423.0 1.61* 0.0153 0.98 23.0 0.230 0.160 0.836 0.98
2 400 400 4.06 28.8 423.0 1.61 0.0153 1.59 23.0 0.430 0.217 0.836 0.99
3 400 400 4.50 32.3 423.0 1.61 0.0153 1.08 23.0 0.230 0.172 0.836 1.00
4 400 400 3.44 27.0 423.0 1.61 0.0153 1.70 23.0 0.420 0.227 0.836 1.01
* See Reference 28 Mean 0.994
† 1 mm = 0.0394 in.
‡ 1 MPa = 145 psi