RELIABILITY OF S H O R T AND S L E N D E R

REINFORCED-CONCRETE COLUMNS
By Sonia E. RuizI and J. Cipriano Aguilar2

ABSTRACT: Reliabilityindexes associated with typicalshort and slender columns

are evaluated. Designsare made in accordance with ACI 318-89and Mexico City
concrete design regulations. Loads associated with ACI 318-89 designs are taken
from ASCE 7-88. The Monte Carlo simulationtechnique is used for the analysis.
A general view of 13indexes relative to different limit states (obtained previously
by the first writer) is presented. The study is extended to 13 indexes relative to
slender columns. It is shown that slender columns subjected to loads with small
eccentricityratios present the highest [3-reliabilityvalues,with respect to other limit
states such as flexure, shear, and torsion. In all cases, RCDF-8713valuesare higher
than those associated with ACI 318-89. This is due to the followingreasons: (1)
The probabilitiesof exceedance of the maximumloads adopted for both codes are
drastically different; (2) the codes define the concrete strength with different re-
duction factors; and (3) load and strength factors differ for both regulations.

INTRODUCTION

In a previous paper (Ruiz 1993), a comparison was made of values of the

reliability index [3 associated with the limit states corresponding to flexure,
shear, and torsion; and to compression plus b e n d i n g of short columns, for
the ACI 318-89 and the Mexico City concrete design regulations RCDF-87.
Those results did not include the case of slender columns. The present
research deals with slender rectangular reinforced-concrete columns bent
in a single curvature, corresponding to nonsway frames u n d e r short-time
loads. Effects of creep and shrinkage are neglected. The present paper
follows the general guidelines set by Mirza and MacGregor (1989); however,
a quantitative evaluation of reliability index [3, associated with designs pro-
duced in accordance to A C I 318-89 and RCDF-87, is added. A C I 318-89 is
used in some cities in Mexico for the design of reinforced-concrete struc-
tures. The code is applied in c o n j u n c t i o n with load values specified in local
Mexican codes. Therefore, it is of interest, particularly for Mexican engi-
neers, to be informed about the reliability levels provided by both codes,
and about the methodology used to evaluate them.
The statistical characteristics assumed in the present paper for loads,
materials, and geometric properties, as well as for quality control, are typical
of Mexican construction (where standards are different from those used in
the United States).

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
Structural reliability is defined as the probability that a structure does not
fail or does not cease to adequately provide the service it was intended for.

~Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Inst. of Engrg., National Univ. of Mexico, Apdo Postal 70-
472, 04510 Mexico D.F., Mexico.
2Res. Asst., Dept. of Appl. Mech., Inst. of Engrg., UNAM.
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 1994. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
January 14, 1993. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
120, No. 6, June, 1994. 9 ISSN 0733-9445/94/0006-1850/$2.00 + $.25 per
page. Paper No. 5263.

1850
The reliability index 13 is a parameter related to the probability of failure.
In the present paper, 13 equals m,/~r,, where m, is the mean value of the
ratio In(R/S), and % is its standard deviation (Rosenblueth and Esteva
1971). Here R and S stand for structural resistance and load effect on the
structure, respectively. They are random variables that are simulated by
means of the Monte Carlo technique. For the numerical analysis the fol-
lowing steps are taken:

1. Mechanical and geometric nominal properties of the columns are se-

lected. (In the present paper, nominal parameters are denoted by *.)
2. The elementary variables that determine the resistance R and load S
at critical sections are taken as random. Resistance depends on concrete
strength fc, steel yield stress fy, beam width b, depth h, and cover r of the
sections. All of these variables are assumed to have Gaussian probability
density functions (Ellingwood 1977; Meli 1985). Column length and load
eccentricity are assumed to be deterministic. [A more rigorous analysis must
consider the eccentricity as a random variable, as done by Floris and Maz-
zucchelli (1991)]. Load effects S are due to dead loads W o , plus live loads
WL (50-year maximum).
3. Samples of size N column resistances Ri, i = 1, 2, . . . , N , are sim-
ulated via the Monte Carlo method, for a given number of eccentricities
and slenderness ratios. In the present study several trials were performed
with different numbers of simulations (N = 200, 400, 500, 700, 1,000, and
1,500). These studies led to the conclusion that the reliability indexes ob-
tained with 500, 1,000, and 1,500 simulations did not differ substantially.
As a consequence, the analyses were carried out using N = 500.
4. On the other hand, the design resistance Ra = + R* is calculated from
the nominal values previously established in accordance with the specifi-
cations of the two codes under study. Here, + denotes the strength-reduction
factor and R* the nominal resistance. It is assumed that the design of the
columns exactly meets the code specifications.
5. The design resistance Rd is made equal to the design load Sa.
6. The mean value S is obtained from the design value Sa by means of
the following expressions:
$_ S, Sd
- (1)
1 + 2Cs 1.4(1 + 2Cs)
Sd
= S, = 1.4rc + 1.7(1 - re) (2)
which correspon_d to the RCDF-87 and ACI 318-89, respectively, where rc
= ff'D/(ff'D + WL) is the load ratio, where I~D and ff'L = mean dead and
live loads; C, = coefficient of variation of S; and Sn = nominal value,
defined so as to correspond to a given probability of being exceeded during
the prescribed lifetime. The ratio between S and Sn depends on that prob-
ability. (This matter is addressed later.) Cs can be expressed as
2 2
C~ = C~ + rcCw~ + (1 - rc)CwL
2 2 (3)

where Ca, Cwo, and CwL = coefficients of variation of model uncertainty,

and dead and live loads, respectively. The following values are adopted for
both codes: Ca = 0.15, C w , = 0.08, and CwL = 0.30. As mentioned, in

1851
all cases, the statistical characteristics of loads and quality control are typical
of Mexican construction. In (1) and (2), the values 1.4 and 1.7 are associated
with the load factors specified in the codes under study. Load factors are
equal to 1.4 for dead and live loads in the latter code; and equal to 1.4 for
dead-load and 1.7 for live-load actions in U.S. regulations.
7. The loads S;, i = 1, 2, . . . , N are simulated.
8. The mean m,, and standard deviation ~ru of u~ are calculated from the
simulated values ul = ln(R;/Si), i = 1, 2, . . . , N. From these, 13 =
m , k r , is obtained.

RESISTANCE CONSIDERATIONS

The resistance of a column depends on its mechanical and geometric

characteristics, which also affect its transverse displacement. This can be
large for slender columns; however, it is often negligible for short members.
Such displacement diminishes the resistance of slender columns with respect
to elements without slenderness effects. On the other hand, a confined
column presents higher ductility than a similar unconfined element.
In the RCDF-87 code, a strength-reduction factor equal to + = 0.70 is
specified for so-called unconfined columns and elements failing in compres-
sion, and a factor of + = 0.80 for so-called confined members and elements
subjected to compression loads and failing in flexural tension. ACI 318-89
does not differentiate between unconfined and confined concrete members,
but rather it distingUishes between the reduction factors applied to spirally
reinforced columns (+ = 0.75), and those applied to other reinforced mem-
bers (+ = 0.70).
In the present paper, the term confined column for an element designed
in accordance with the Mexico City technical regulations for reinforced-
concrete structures (NTC-1987) applies to one satisfying the requirements
of section 5.3.4 (corresponding to hoop-reinforced columns), and an un-
confined column is one which does not satisfy those requirements. The first
group of members is comparable to tied columns designed in accordance
with AC1318-89, which must satisfy the requirements of section 7.10.5. The
present paper is limited to the study of this type of column. The analysis
of spirally reinforced columns is not covered.

Resistance of Unconfined Short Columns

The resistance of a short column may be obtained by force equilibrium
and deformation compatibility. For the aggregates used in Mexico City, the
following expression for the unit deformation Eo associated with the maxi-
mum in-situ compressive strength of unconfined concrete fco is adopted
(Mendoza 1983)
eo = 0.0033 + 3.97 x 10-8fco (4)
Here, fco is in kips. The following stress-strain ratio was used in the cal-
culation of the simulated values of the column resistance (Desayi and Krish-
nan 1964):
Ec
f~ = Eco [1 + (ec/~o) 2] (5)

where Eco = initial tangent modulus that is equal to 2fco/~co, and ~c rep-
resents the concrete strain.
1852
 ks fc

0.85 k s fc

0.30 k s fc

t t I
~cl Ec2 ~c85 E
FIG. 1. Stress-Strain Curve for Confined Concrete

Confinement Model
The contribution of the transverse reinforcement is taken into account
by means of the overresistance factor Ks (Sheikh and Uzumeri 1982). The
stress-strain relation for confined concrete (fc - e) assumed in the present
paper is shown in Fig. 1. Its main parameters are (Sheikh and Uzumeri
1982)
f~ = KJcp (6a)

Ks = 1 + - - - - ~ o 1 5 . - ~ 2 ) ~ 1 - ~-~ ~ (6b)

a ec = kAco (6c)
nc 2
k = 1 (6d)
5.5Aco
sc1 = 0.55K~f'(1 • 10 -6) (7a)

ec2 = 1 + 0.81 1 - 5 pf, 0.002 (7b)

c
ecss = 0 . 2 2 5 p , ~ + sc2 (7c)
s~3o = 0.30K, Lo (7d)
where f~p = strength of unconfined concrete in the column (in psi); f" =
cylinder strength of concrete (in psi); p = ratio of the volume of tie steel
to the volume of the core; f, = stress in the lateral steel (in psi); Po =
unconfined strength of the concrete core (in kips); Aco = concrete core
area; n = number of laterally supported longitudinal bars; c = distance
between those longitudinal bars; s = tie spacing (in inches); and B = core
size measured from center to center or perimeter tie (in inches).
The stress-strain fy-e relationship for the steel bars is shown in Fig. 2. Its
most significant parameters are given by (Park and Paulay 1975)
L = e,e,; e, < sy (8a)
f~ = fy; s, < e, < ~,h (8b)

1853
 fsfsut

fy~ I

Ey Esh Esu E

FIG,2. Stress-Strain
CurveforSteelBars
[m(G- ash) + 2
f" = fY L60(a, ash) + 2

+ (~, - a,~)(6o - m)]

Y(3-O-; u i ~ - ] ; a~h < as < a~,, (8c)

m = (f~.@)(30r + 1)2 - 60r - 1

15r2 (9a)

r = as, - ash (9b)

Parameters %, e~h, es,, fy andfs, are indicated in Fig. 2. Strain hardening
is taken into account. The modulus of elasticity of steel in compression is
assumed to be the same as that in tension.

Slenderness Effect
Two main criteria are normally used for the structural analysis of slender
columns: moment magnification and second-order analysis. The former is
generally adopted by design codes, including ACI 318-89 and RCDF-87.

Design Resistance
The amplified moment, used to calculate the design resistance in the
present paper, is given by
M c = [Cm/(1 - P,/qb, Pc)]Ma >- M 2 (10)
in which M2 = largest of the factored bending moments applied at the ends
of the slender column; P, = factored axial load acting on the column; Pc
= critical buckling strength of the column; Cm = equivalent uniform-mo-
ment diagram factor; and ~bs = stability resistance factor. In the present
paper, Cm = 1, since the members studied are assumed to be in single-
curvature bending in nonsway frames with equal moments applied at both
ends; +s is specified as 1 in RCDF-87, and is equal to the cross-sectional
resistance factor in ACI 318-89 (0.75-0.90).
1854
 RCDF-87
60 - - - - - ANSI-82

40
0
0
_I

20

I I I
2000 4000 6000
Influence area, ft 2
a) B e a m s

601 b RCDF-87
--.mANSI-82
"'-k
Q..
\
40 - \
"10
0
0
_.1
20

I I I
2000 4000 6000
Influence area, ft 2
b) Columns
FIG. 3. Code Loads for Offices: (a) Beams; (b) Columns

Limit States
The second-order analysis is based on the estimation of the column's
lateral deflections and second-order moments. These are added to the pri-
mary moments in order to calculate the amplified moments. A numerical
integration method to calculate the column's lateral deflections can be used;
however, it can result in a high computing cost. In the present paper, a
trial-and-error procedure (Newmark 1943) is used. For a column bending
in single curvature under equal end moments, a second-order parabola has
been suggested to represent its shape. The lateral deflection A is assumed
to occur at midheight of the column. This is given by
A,, = 12(4),, + 0.25+e)/10 (11)
where l = column height; and qb,, and +e = curvatures at midheight and
at the ends of the column. For a given eccentricity e and axial load P, the
1855
moment-curvature diagram is calculated and used to obtain the deflected
shape of the column (11) and the amplified moment M = P(e + 2~m). This
moment is compared with that obtained in the preceding iteration cycle,
until the calculated shape matches the moments and curvatures at the ends
and midheight of the column (Newmark 1943). Several iterations are re-
quired at each load level. The maximum moment in the column, the cor-
responding axial load, and the selected eccentricity define one point of the
interaction diagram of the slender column. This procedure is used in the
present paper to define the limit state for the analysis of column reliability.

LOAD CONSIDERATIONS
In the present study, the reliability associated with AC1318-89 and RCDF-
87 is examined. ACI 318-89 does not specify design loads; these are given
by the governing building code. It is assumed here that the live loads are
given by the ASCE 7-88 standard.
It is worth emphasizing the differences between ASCE 7-88 and RCDF-
87 specifications in connection with the lifetime exceedance probabilities of
the design live loads specified in those documents:
It has been shown (Chalk and Corotis 1980) that the mean of the lifetime
(50-years) maximum total live loads corresponds approximately to the ASCE
7-88 values.
On the other hand, RCDF-87 loads correspond to a fractile of about 0.9-
0.999 of the 50-year maximum load. For the special case of office loads
with influence areas of approximately 92.9-185.8 m 2 (1,000-2,000 sq. ft.),
the corresponding exceedance probability is approximately 2%.
The differences between exceedance probabilities assumed here for ASCE
7-88 and RCDF-87 are reflected in (1) and (2). The factor 1/(1 + 2C,) is
contained only in the first equation, whereas a value of unity appears in the
second. Figs. 3 ( a - b ) represent the comparison between the two code for-
mulations for office loads. Curves labeled RCDF-87 are the design values
from RCDF-1987. Since this code is based on a tributary area rather than
the influence area, two sets of curves are shown. For a column, the influence
area is four times the tributary area (McGuire and Cornell 1974). Curves
labeled ANSI-82 correspond to ASCE 7-88 design values.

ANALYSIS OF COLUMNS
Nominal cross sections of 400 mm • 400 mm (15.75 in. • 15.75 in.) and
400 mm x 800 mm (15.75 in. • 31.5 in.) are analyzed. The longitudinal
steel-reinforcement percentages pg of 1%, 3%, and 6% of the section area
are distributed along two and four bar layers. Normalized tie spacing is
taken equal to s/h* = 0.125, 0.20, and 0.25. The assumed eccentricities
divided by the nominal section depth e/h* are equal to 0, 0.001, 0.01, 0.015,
9 .0.1, 0.15, . . . , 7.5, 8.0 (see Figs. 5-8). Relative lengths of l/h* of 0,
.

10, and 15 are studied9 A total of 216 cases were analyzed. The statistical
characteristics of the columns analyzed are in Tables 1 and 2.
The geometric and material characteristics mentioned in Tables 1 and 2
represent the variabilities of Mexico City construction (Meli 1985).
The mean value and standard deviation of the concrete resistance that
appear in Table 2 correspond to concrete in the structure rather than to
cylinders.
In other papers (Mirza and MacGregor 1989; Mirza and Shrabek 1992),
the yield stress of the reinforcement bars was assumed to have a 13probability
1856
 TABLE 1. Geometric Characteristics of Columns Analyzed
Specified Standard
value Mean value deviation Probability
Variable [ram (in.)] [turn (in,)] [mr" (in,)] distribution
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
b 400 (15.75) 395.4 (15.56) 3.82 (0.1503) Normal
h 400 (15.75) 395.4 (15.56) 3.82 (0.1503) Normal
h 800 (31.50) 802.3 (31.58) 2.08 (0.0818) Normal
r 40 (1.57) 45.0 (1.77) 10.5 (0.4133) Normal

TABLE 2. Material Properties for Columns Analyzed

Specified Standard Probability
Variable value Mean value deviation distribution
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
f,. 2.84 ksi (19.58 MPa) 2.917 ksi (20.11 Mpa) 0.568ksi (3.91 MPa) Normal
f,. 59.72 ksi (411.75MPa) 66.54ksi (458.8 MPa) 6.38 ksi (44.04 MPa) Normal
f~, 102.2 ksi (743.90MPa) 107.9ksi (743.9 MPa) 10.65ksi (76.42 MPa) Normal
esh 0.01 0.01175 0.0024 Normal
e,,, 0.13 0.1375 0.0148 Normal

distribution. This has shown an influence on columns with high e/h* values
(Mirza and MacGregor 1989); however it does not influence the overall
slender beam-column strength. A normal distribution is assumed in the
present paper.
The influence of the following parameters on 13 is analyzed for each code:
load ratio re, slenderness ratio l/h*, concrete confinement of the elements,
longitudinal reinforcement pg, cross-sectional width/depth ratio b/h, number
of bar layers, and tie spacing s/h*.

INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS ON 13

Influence of Load Ratio rc
For both codes, results reveal that for larger load ratios the 13 index
increases. Fig. 4 shows this for a column with slenderness ratio l/h* = 10,
with 400 mm x 400 mm (15.75 in. x 15.75 in.) of cross section,_ and pg_=
3% distributed along four bar layers. 13 grows when rc = W o / ( W o + WL)
grows, because of the decreasing influence of the live-load uncertainty as
rc becomes larger. Also, in Fig. 4, 13 values are higher for RCDF-87 than
for A C I 318-89 designs. This difference is attributed to the following reasons:
(1) The specified live-load maximum value is such that it corresponds to a
much smaller exceedance probability for the Mexican code than for A S C E
7-88; (2) A C I 318-89 defines concrete strength asf'c, but the RCDF-87 norm
uses 0.8 f'c, in the design equation; and (3) differences in resistance and
load factors also contribute to the differences in 13 values.
For the analyses that follow, a fixed value of rc = 0.7 is adopted.

Influence of Slenderness Ratio l/h*

A comparison of the 13 values for l/h* ratios equal to 0, 10, and 15 is
presented in Fig. 5 which corresponds to confined columns, with cross sec-
tions of 400 mm x 400 mm (15.75 in. x 15.75 in.), pg = 6% distributed
along four bar layers, and designed in accordance with the RCDF-87 code
[Fig. 5(a)] and A C I 318-89 regulations [Fig. 5(b)]. Two zones, namely A
1857
 8

Balanced point
7 u.m Pure compression
~ Pure bending

9 - 9 ~ o

t 1 1 I
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0,9 1.0
re

FIG. 4. Influence of Load Ratio on Slender C o l u m n s ; l/h* = 10

and B, are identified in these and the following figures. The former cor-
responds to elements failing in compression, the latter to those subjected
to compression loads and failing in flexural tension. The boundary between
zones A and B corresponds to the balanced eccentricity. Fig. 5 shows that
the general trends of the curves corresponding to both codes are similar.
Both regulations give place to higher values of I~ indexes as the slenderness
ratio increases. In Fig. 5 it is shown that for each code, the reliabilities for
slender and short columns tend to be equal as the ratio e/h* increases (pure
bending).
Slenderness ratios l/h* of 10 and 0 give place to similar values of 13, except
in the interval 0.06 < e/h* < 2, where columns with l/h* = 10 have 13values
greater (approximately 0.4 13) than those with l/h* = O.

Influence of Concrete Confinement

In the RCDF-87 code, a strength-reduction factor of 0.7 is specified for
unconfined columns and elements failing in compression (zone A), and a
0.8 factor for confined elements, as well as for elements subjected to
compression loads and failing in flexural tension (.zone B). Results show
that for RCDF-87 designs of unconfined columns, the 13index corresponding
to zone A of an interaction diagram is about 4.8 < 13 < 5.8, and for zone
B about 4.7 < [3 < 5.1 (see Fig. 6). However, for confined columns, the 13
values associated with zone A are 0.5[3 times smaller than those for uncon-
fined elements. Indexes 13 for confined and unconfined RCDF-87 designs
are equal in zone B. Fig. 6 suggests that it is desirable to avoid the sudden
change in the value of 13 for unconfined columns in the border between
zones A and B. That sudden change implies having used in design a load-
reduction factor of 0.7 or 0.8 (depending on whether it is considered that
the element is in zone A or B). The balanced-failure point is not accurately
defined, since it is a function of uncertain variables (material properties).
Therefore, the change of the strength-reduction factors from one zone to
the other should not be as sharp as specified in RCDF-87, but smooth, as
proposed in AC1318-89. This type of change is recommended to be included
1858
 (a)
A B

EL __J" . .,~, .t,~%\ p,~

I/h*
- - 0
-----10
----15

2o.o01 0.0! 0.1 1 10

e/h ~
8
I/h" (b)
- - 0 A B
7 ~-~ I0 =- : :
D__ 15

,5 . . . . . ""'---- ~ , j A ~ r

,~ _ %/~.Z./.~,.r.-.-,.~\ /',..
.~..~ .~,.

2 , , ,I .... I , , ,I,,,,I , , , l , , I d , , ,I,,,

0.001 0.01 O. 1 1 I0
e lh*
FIG. 5. Effect of Slenderness Ratio //h* on Reliability Index 13 for Different Ec-
centricity Ratios e/h*: (a) RCDF-87 Designs; (b) ACI 318-89 Designs

in R C D F regulations in o r d e r to avoid sudden changes of ~ values at the

point connecting zones A and B.
Influence of Longitudinal Reinforcement
The influence of longitudinal steel ratio pg is studied for the columns
previously mentioned. Fig. 7 indicates that columns with pg = 3% p r o d u c e d
lower 13values than identical columns with 9g = 6%. This figure corresponds
to short unconfined columns with cross sections of 400 m m • 400 m m (15.75
in. • 15.75 in.), and pg = 3% and 6% distributed along four bar layers.
Fig. 7 shows that a change in pg from 0.03 to 0.06 gives place to an increment
of 0.4 in/3, especially for small e/h* values. Effects equivalent to these just
mentioned are r e p o r t e d by Mirza and M a c G r e g o r (1989),

1859
 7
A B
/3
6 RCDF

-. ~ o ~
~ . o ,~o
h l~./''~'"~'k,"~
*

- - Confined
Unconfined

2
-O.OOl 0,01 0.1 1 10
e/h*
FIG. 6. Effect of Confinement on 13 (RCDF-87 Designs) with Cross Sections of
400 mm x 800 mm (15.75 in, x 31.5 in.); pg = 3%; and l/h* = 10

Influence of Width/Depth Ratio b/h

This parameter shows a slightly greater influence on 13for slender columns
than for short ones. Columns with cross sections of 400 mm x 800 mm
(15.75 in. • 31.5 in.) present higher values of 13 (about 0.313) in zone A of
the interaction diagram than those with 400 mm x 400 mm (15.75 in. x
15.75 in.) sections. The inverse occurs for zone B of the interaction diagram.

Influence of Tie Spacing s/h*

The influence of the tie spacing on index 13, corresponding to (confined)
slender columns, is smaller than that arising from the slenderness ratio (Fig.
5) or the longitudinal reinforcement (Fig. 7, zone A). A change in the tie
spacing (s/h* = 0.125 to 0.25) gives place to a decrease of approximately
0.20 of [3, which can be observed in Fig. 8.

G E N E R A L V I E W OF 13 I N D E X E S F O R O T H E R LIMIT S T A T E S
A general view of the mean values of 13 for rc = 0.7, including those
corresponding to slender columns, is presented in Table 3. The values as-
sociated with flexure, shear, and torsion limit states were calculated and
discussed previously by the first writer (Ruiz 1993). The method of analysis
and the assumptions of the previous work are the same as those used in the
present paper. Therefore the t3 values obtained in that study and in the
present paper can be compared.
From Table 3, it is concluded that 13 indexes associated with slender
columns (I/h* = 15) are the highest. For small and intermediate e/h* values,
those indexes are higher than those corresponding to short columns (l/h*
= 0). For higher normalized eccentricities e/h*, f3 indexes get closer to those
associated to failure in bending. 13 values for shear and torsion should be
greater than for bending; nonetheless, the reverse is true for ACI 318-89 13
1860
 8
(a)

A B

. . . . . . .~,. ."k r,,.,"k

p,
- - 3 % A S
-----6% =

, , ,lJ,lll , i i]1111i i , ils,,il i J J l~t,

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
e/h*

P~ (b)
--3% A B
5 --'--6% = : =-

4 ~_ . . . . . . "~'~""-""J"/k..'~, .."..."k. ~...~.,

2 I I Ilfllll I I iltl,,I i , ~llLRII I , ,l~ll

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
e/h*
FIG. 7. Effect of Longitudinal Steel Ratio pg on [3 with C r o s s S e c t i o n s of 4 0 0 m m
x 400 rnm (15,75 in. x 15.75 in.; and i/h* = 0: (a) R C D F - 8 7 De s i g n s ; (b) A C l 318-
89 Designs

indexes. This has been already pointed out by Israel et al. (1987) and Ruiz
(1993).
Load factors intended to apply to all structural materials used in U.S.
building construction have been developed by Ellingwood et al. (1981) under
the sponsorship of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). For example,
they recommend load factors equal to 1.2 and 1.6 for dead and live loads,
instead of 1.4 and 1.7 as used in the present study (see ACI 318-89, section
9.2.1). Based on those load factors, values of resistance factors for concrete
design have been calculated (MacGregor 1983). The results show that those
safety factors give place to more consistent reliabilities for reinforced-con-
crete elements.
1861
 7 0.125 A = ~ =- B
0.20
6 0.25

3 - l/h*=O/

21 I I t IllItll ! I t lLllll r f I IPPI

0.01 (3.1 1 I0
e/h*
FIG. 8. Effect of Stirrup Spacing s/h* on Index [3 (AC1318-89 Designs) for Columns
with Slenderness Ratios of l/h* = 0 and 10

TABLE 3. Mean Values of 13 for rc = 0.7 [see Ruiz (1993)]. Compression Plus
Bending Limit State
RCDF-87
Confined Unconfined ACI 318-89
Column size e/h* column column tied column
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Short, l/h* = 0 0 5.80 5.10 4.30
Short, l/h* = 0 0.3 5.57 5.00 4.10
Short, I/h* = 0 2.0 5.03 5.00 3.90
Short, I/h * = 0 8.0 4.50 4.50 3.20
Slender, l/h* = 15 0 6.50 5.80 5.00
Slender, l/h* = 15 0.3 6.00 5.80 4.40
Slender, l/h* = 15 2.0 5.10 5.10 4.10
Slender, l/h* = 15 8.0 4.50 4.50 3.20
Note: For RCDF-87, flexure = 4.25; shear = 4.75 and torsion = 5.21. For ACI 318-
89, flexure = 3.20; shear = 3.00; and torsion = 2.80.

CONCLUSIONS

Values of the reliability index 13have been calculated for short and slender
columns, complying with A C I 318-89 and R C D F - 8 7 codes. From this study
the following conclusions were obtained.
The results reveal that the following parameters are significant for the
reliability evaluation of reinforced-concrete slender columns: load and slen-
derness ratios, longitudinal steel, and end eccentricity ratio. This is con-
sistent with results obtained by Mirza and MacGregor (1989) and Mirza and
Skrabek (1992).
13-index values corresponding to slender columns are the highest with

1862
respect to the following limit states: flexure, torsion, and shear of beams,
as well as compression plus bending of short columns (Table 3).
As expected, in all cases, RCDF-87 13 values are higher than those as-
sociated with A C I 318-89. There are three reasons for this.
The probabilities of exceedance of the maximum loads adopted for both
codes are drastically different. It seems advisable to check if the exceedance
probability specified in RCDF-87 is adequate. On the other hand, it is
believed that in many buildings in downtown Mexico City the live loads
significantly exceed those recommended by the code. This became evident
during the 1985 earthquake, when it was discovered that a large number of
the constructions damaged by the earthquake were loaded in excess of the
loads specified in RCDF-87 code. This fact makes advisable the adoption
of a low-exceedance probability in the Mexico City Code.
To evaluate the strength of the structural elements, A C I 318-89 defines
concrete strength as f'c, while RCDF-87 uses f* = 0.8f'c in the design equa-
tions. That is, the Mexican code provides higher protection against uncer-
tainties related to concrete properties and to quality control during its pro-
duction and placement, because this control is often poorer than is desirable.
Load factors and strength-reduction factors differ for both codes. This
also contributes to the differences in 13 values.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The writers wish to thank Santiago Loera for his valuable suggestions.
The manuscript review by L. Esteva is acknowledged. Comments offered
by R. Meli and R. G. Tremari are appreciated. This study was partially
financed by the D e p a r t m e n t of the Federal District, Mexico City under
grant DDF-UNAM-CA-016-91.

APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
"Building code requirements for reinforced concrete." (1989). ACI318-89, American
Concrete Institute (ACI), Detroit, Mich.
Chalk, P. L., and Corotis, R. B. (1980). "Probability model for design live loads."
J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 106(10), 2017-2033.
Desayi, P., and Krishnan, S. (1964). "Equation for the stress-strain curve of con-
crete." J. of the Am. Concrete Inst., 61(3), 345-350.
Ellingwood, B. (1977). "Statistical analysis of RC beam-column interaction." J.
Struct. Div., ASCE, 103(7), 1377-1388.
Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T. V., MacGregor, J. G., and Cornell, C. A. (1981).
"A probability-based load criterion for structural design." Civ. Engrg., ASCE,
51(7), 74-76.
Floris, C., and Mazzucchelli, A. (1991). "Reliability assessment of RC column under
stochastic stress." J. of Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 117(11), 3274-3292.
Israel, M., Ellingwood, B., and Corotis, R. (1987). "Reliability-based code for-
mulations for reinforced concrete buildings." J. ofStruct. Engrg., ASCE, 113(10),
2235-2252.
MacGregor, J. G. (1983). "Load and resistance factors for concrete design." ACI
J., Title No. 80-27, 279-287.
McGuire, R. K., and Cornell, C. A. (1974). "Live loads effects in office building."
J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 100(7), 1351-1366.
Meli, R. (1985). "Estudio estadistico de propiedades de materiales y estructuras de
concreto reforzado en el Distrito Federal." Res. Rep. Inst. of Engrg., National
University of Mexico, Mexico, D. F., (in Spanish).
Mendoza, C. J. (1983). "Propiedades mec~nicas de los concretos fabricados en el
Distrito Federal." Res. Rep., Inst. of Engrg., National University of Mexico,
Mexico, D. F. (in Spanish).
1863
"Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures." (1990). ASCE 7-88.
ASCE, New York, N.Y.
Mirza, S. A., and MacGregor, J. G. (1989). "Slenderness and strength reliability of
reinforced concrete columns." A C I Struct. J., 86(4), 428-438.
Mirza, S. A., and Skrabek, B. W. (1992). "Statistical analysis of slender composite
beam-column strength."./. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 118(5), 1312-1332.
Newmark, N. M. (1943). "Numerical procedure for computing deflections, moments
and buckling loads." Trans., ASCE, 108, 1161.
"Normas t6cnicas complementarias para disefio y construcci6n de estructuras de
concreto." (1987). Official Bull. of the Federal District Dept., No. 44, Mexico, D.
F., (in Spanish).
Park, R., and Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, N.Y.
"Reglamento de construcciones para el Distrito Federal." (1987). RCDF-87, Official
Bull. of the Federal District Dept., No. 9, Mexico D. F., (in Spanish).
Rosenblueth, E., and Esteva, L. (1971). "Reliability basis for some Mexican codes."
Probabilistic design of reinforced-concrete building. SP31 Special Publication,
American Concrete Institute (ACI), Detroit, Mich.
Ruiz, S. E. (1993). "Reliability associated to safety factors of the ACI 318-89 and
the Mexico City concrete design regulations." ACI Struct. J., 90(3), 262-268.
Sheik, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M. (1982). "Analytical model for concrete confinement
in tied columns." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 108(12), 2703-2722.

APPENDIX II. NOTATION

The following symbols are used in th& paper:

m co concrete core area;

B = beam width;
b1 = core size measured from center to center of perimeter tie;
C~)= coefficient of variation;
C = distance between laterally supported longitudinal bars;
E~o= initial tangent modulus of concrete;
e -- eccentricity of load;
L = concrete strength;
cylinder strength of concrete;
strength of unconfined concrete in columns;
~= stress of lateral steel;
steel yield stress;
h* = nominal depth of section;
Ks= overresistance factor;
l= column length;
M= resisting bending moment;
M~= largest of factored bending moments applied at ends of column;
n -~ number of laterally supported longitudinal bars;
p= resisting axial load;
eo= unconfined strength of concrete core;
R= resistance forces;
r -~ column cover;
rc load ratio;
S= load force;
S tie spacing;
w~= dead load;
w~= live load;
1864
 13 = reliability index;
Am = lateral deflection at midheight of column;
eo = strain associated to m a x i m u m compression strength of unconfined
concrete;
P -- ratio of volume of tie steel to volume of core;
P8 = steel reinforcement percentage; and
or() = standard deviation.

1865