Professional Documents
Culture Documents
267
Scientific paper
Abstract
An experimental study was carried out to investigate the behavior of high strength concrete short columns confined by
circular spirals and square ties under monotonically increasing concentric compression. The test variables included
volumetric ratio, spacing and yield strength of transverse reinforcement, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, lateral steel
configuration, shape of cross section and concrete compressive strength. The effects of these variables on the uniaxial
behavior of high strength concrete columns are presented and discussed The results indicate that more confinement is
required in columns of high strength concrete than in columns of low strength concrete to achieve the desired post-peak
deformability. The behavior of high strength concrete columns is characterized by the sudden spalling of concrete cover,
leading to a loss of axial capacity. A comparative study of existing confinement models of high strength concrete columns was also conducted to assess their capabilities of predicting the actual test behavior. To this end, the stress-strain
curves of the specimens tested in the present study were compared with the ones predicted by the various models. It is
shown that Legeron & Paultre (2003) model estimates the actual experimental curves more closely as compared to the
other models employed in the study.
1. Introduction
Inelastic deformability of reinforced concrete columns is
essential for overall stability of structures in order to
sustain strong earthquakes. Deformability of columns
can be achieved through proper confinement of the core
concrete. It is now well documented that the desired ductility can be attained in case of normal strength concrete
columns by providing well-detailed lateral confinement
reinforcement (Richart et al. 1928; Sheikh & Uzmeri
1980; Park et al. 1982; Mander et al. 1988). However,
the gradual development of concrete technology has
promoted the use of high strength concrete owing to its
wide range of advantages over normal strength concrete
and as a result, concrete strengths much higher than
60Mpa have gained acceptance in the construction industry. The high strength concrete is significantly more
brittle than conventional normal strength concrete. While,
existing code provisions for minimum amount of confinement reinforcement are based on experiences with
normal strength concrete, questions have been asked as
to whether similar amount of confinement is suitable for
high strength concrete columns (Razvi & Saatcioglu
1994; Pessiki & Pieroni 1997; Foster 2001).
The few studies carried out on confinement of high
2. Experimental program
2.1 Test specimens
A total of 44 high strength concrete columns, 600 mm in
length, were tested under
concentric compression.
They included 18 tie confined 150 mm square specimens
and equal numbers of spiral confined 150 mm diameter
circular section columns. The remaining 8 columns were
prepared as 4 square and 4 circular plain (unconfined)
concrete specimens to establish the properties of unconfined concrete and thereby to get comparison of in place
strength of concrete with standard cylinder compressive
strength. To properly investigate the behavior of high
strength concrete columns, the specimens were cast and
268
U.K. Sharma, P. Bhargava and S.K. Kaushik / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 2, 267-281, 2005
tested in duplicate for each case in order to get the average of two results thus making 22 independent column
designs. All the details regarding the various column
specimens are illustrated in Table 1 and Fig. 1. Most of
the results reported here in this study are the averages of
two tests with a few exceptions of SG, SC, CH and SF
columns where duplicate results could not be taken due
to the following reasons. One of the SG specimens failed
rather more suddenly compared to the other and all the
measuring instruments like LVDTs and strain gauges got
dislodged and further readings after peak could not be
taken. In case of one of the CH specimens the top end
concrete cover of the column got crushed and the loads
came directly on the end steel collars which got damaged and therefore the test was stopped. Whereas one of
the results of each of SC and SF specimens were rejected
due to the reason that in spite of exercising extra care to
avoid any eccentric loading of the specimens, these columns seemed to suffer from this problem as evidenced
by their considerable tilting and entire spalling on one
side only.
The specimens were cast in total eleven sets. Each set
consisted of two duplicate circular and two duplicate
square columns of one design. For example two specimens of CA and SA each were cast in one set. The columns were designed to investigate the parameters of
confinement, including volumetric ratio and spacing of
transverse reinforcement, yield strength of transverse
reinforcement, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and lateral steel configuration in addition to shape of cross section and concrete compressive strength. Concrete cover
of 10 mm was provided in all the confined specimens. A
concrete cover of 15 mm was also provided between the
ends of the longitudinal bars and the top and bottom sur-
150 mm
End Region
250 mm
LVDT
Gauge Length
600 mm
Square Column
150mm
6 Nos
8mm dia.
6 Nos
12mm dia.
150mm
150 mm
4 Nos
12 mm
dia.
150 mm
150mm
Cover 10mm
Cover 10 mm
600 mm
150 mm
End Region
Cover 10mm
Cover 10mm
8 Nos
12 mm dia.
150 mm
150 mm
150 mm
Circular Column
Fig. 1 Details of column specimens, reinforcement arrangement and location of strain gauges.
269
U.K. Sharma, P. Bhargava and S.K. Kaushik / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 2, 267-281, 2005
Circular
Square
f 'c
Longitudinal Reinforcement
Number &
l
fy
Diameter, mm
%
MPa
6 No 8
1.70 412
Diameter
mm
Transverse Reinforcement
s
Arrangement
s
mm
%
A
50
3.3
f yh
ke s f yh / f 'c
MPa
412
0.186
CA
MPa
62.20
CB
62.80
6 No 8
1.70
412
75
2.2
412
0.107
CC
61.85
6 No 8
1.70
412
50
3.3
520
0.236
CD
63.35
6 No12
3.84
395
50
3.3
412
0.189
CPL
61.90
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
CE
82.50
6 No 8
1.70
412
30
5.5
412
0.256
CF
81.75
6 No 8
1.70
412
50
3.3
412
0.141
CG
83.15
6 No 8
1.70
412
75
2.2
412
0.081
CH
81.80
6 No 8
1.70
412
50
3.3
520
0.178
CI
82.55
6 No12
3.84
395
50
3.3
412
0.145
CPH
82.25
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
SA
62.20
4 No12
2.01
395
50
3.3
412
0.0984
SB
62.80
4 No12
2.01
395
75
2.2
412
0.0505
SC
61.85
4 No12
2.01
395
50
3.3
520
0.1248
SD
63.35
8 No12
4.02
395
50
5.62
412
0.2303
SPL
61.90
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
SE
82.50
4 No12
2.01
395
30
5.5
412
0.1483
SF
81.75
4 No12
2.01
395
50
3.3
412
0.0748
SG
83.15
4 No12
2.01
395
75
2.2
412
0.0381
SH
81.80
4 No12
2.01
395
50
3.3
520
0.0944
SI
82.55
8 No12
4.02
395
50
5.62
412
0.1767
SPH
82.25
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
270
U.K. Sharma, P. Bhargava and S.K. Kaushik / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 2, 267-281, 2005
800
8 m m ( f y h = 5 2 0 M P a , y h = 0 .0 0 2 6 )
700
Stress (MPa)
600
500
8 m m ( f y h = 4 12 M P a , y h = 0 .0 0 2 4 )
400
300
12 m m ( f y = 3 9 5 M P a , y = 0 .0 0 2 3 )
200
100
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Strain (m m /m m )
Mix
Cement
Kg/m3
Water
Kg/m3
Coarse
Aggregate
Kg/m3
Sand
Kg/m3
Silica
Fume
Kg/m3
Superplasticizer
Kg/m3
Mix 1
545
169
1105
700
--
5.45
28 Days
Cylinder
Compressive
Strength*
f c ' , MPa
58.03
Mix 2
600
168
1055
625
50
7.5
76.80
* Average of 5 Specimens.
28 Days
Cube Compressive
Strength*
f ck , MPa
68.40
87.50
0.06
271
U.K. Sharma, P. Bhargava and S.K. Kaushik / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 2, 267-281, 2005
3. Observed behavior
(a)
(a)
(b(b))
(c)
(c)
Axial Loads
Pmax/Po Pc,
Pc/Poc
kN
1.063 986 1.074
1.006 947 1.021
1.106 1024 1.115
1.049 973 1.063
1.035 --1.03
1263 1.04
0.972 1175 0.973
0.980 1206 0.982
0.992 1202 0.995
0.956 1111 0.932
1.062 --0.992 1155 0.990
1.005 1185 1.006
0.977 1133 0.977
1.069 1268 1.090
1.046
--0.951 1463 0.946
0.937 1433 0.935
0.995 1551 0.995
0.946 1446 0.943
0.971 1461 0.964
1.070
---
Pcc,
kN
978
796
1011
967
-1262
1069
964
1117
1032
-985
917
1042
1268
-1399
1220
1122
1304
1403
--
Pcc/Pocc
1.624
1.309
1.687
1.630
-1.581
1.351
1.199
1.410
1.335
-1.290
1.189
1.372
1.683
-1.382
1.216
1.10
1.30
1.43
--
c
0.00248
0.00236
0.00241
0.00235
0.00232
0.00228
0.00231
0.00250
0.00240
0.00235
0.00256
0.00232
0.00235
0.00224
0.00263
0.00237
0.00228
0.0022
0.0025
0.00232
0.00252
0.00260
Axial Strains
cc/co c50c
c/co
cc
1.068
1.017
1.038
1.013
1.00
0.890
0.902
0.976
0.937
0.917
1.00
0.978
0.991
0.945
1.109
1.00
0.876
0.846
0.961
0.892
0.969
1.00
0.00596
0.00357
0.00813
0.00638
-0.0074
0.0046
0.0034
0.0050
0.00564
-0.00386
0.00312
0.00427
0.00713
-0.0051
0.00344
0.00285
0.00361
0.0063
--
2.568
1.538
3.504
2.75
-2.891
1.797
1.328
1.953
2.203
-1.628
1.316
1.801
3.008
-1.961
1.323
1.096
1.388
2.423
--
0.0278
0.0110
0.0323
0.0291
-0.0298
0.0148
0.0080
0.0155
0.018
-0.011
0.0055
0.014
0.032
-0.014
0.0064
0.0042
0.0098
0.021
--
c50c/co
11.98
4.741
13.92
12.54
-11.65
5.781
3.12
6.051
7.031
-4.641
2.320
5.907
13.50
-5.384
2.461
1.615
3.769
8.076
--
I10
fhcc
MPa
7.8
7.2
8.58
8.3
-8.8
7.6
5.56
7.64
8.4
-6.63
4.32
6.72
8.4
-6.44
4.54
3.38
5.05
7.86
--
412
*
520
412
-412
*
274
458
394
-394
*
420
412
-395
336
*
*
412
--
272
U.K. Sharma, P. Bhargava and S.K. Kaushik / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 2, 267-281, 2005
The second peak was observed for many circular columns CA, CC, CD, CE, CH and CI, and a few square
columns SA, SD, SE and SI which have better efficiently
1.2
1
CB
0.8
CD
CC
CA
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
1.2
1
CF
0.8
CH
CG
CI
CE
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
Fig. 5 (a) & (b) Column axial load versus axial strain
curves (circular columns).
1.2
1
SA
SD
SC
SB
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
SE
SG
SF
0.8
SI
SH
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Fig.6 (a) and (b) Column axial load versus axial strain
curves (square columns).
4. Test results
The columns were analyzed to obtain the stress-strain
curves of confined concrete, as suggested by Sheikh &
Uzumeri (1980) and Cusson & Paultre (1994). The concrete contribution Pc at a certain deformation was determined by subtracting the contribution of longitudinal
steel from the applied load P. The load carried by the
longitudinal steel was determined from the stress-strain
curves obtained from the tension test. In computing the
load carried by the longitudinal steel, the strain hardening regions of the curves were assumed to be a straight
line that resulted in a maximum error of less than 5% in
the computed concrete force. The concrete contribution
curves were nondimensionalized with respect to gross
concrete area force Poc and core concrete area force Pocc
273
U.K. Sharma, P. Bhargava and S.K. Kaushik / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 2, 267-281, 2005
(1)
(2)
(3)
P c /P occ
1.8
1.6
1.4
Behavior of
confined concrete
1.2
P c /P oc
0.8
A : B eginning o f spalling
B : A fter spalling o f co ver
C : M aximum co nfined stress and beginning o f
0.6
0.4
0.2
co re crushing.
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
plastic material I10 = 10, while for a perfectly elasticbrittle material I10 = 1. The I10 values were computed for
all the specimens of the study and the same are given in
Table 3.
274
U.K. Sharma, P. Bhargava and S.K. Kaushik / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 2, 267-281, 2005
1.6
1.4
Pc/Poc, Pc/Pocc
1.8
CD
63.35 MPa
CB
62.80 MPa
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
CF
81.75 MPa
0.4
0.2
CI
82.55 MPa
CG
83.15 MPa
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Axial Strain
Axial
Strain (mm/mm)
(m m /m m )
(a)
(a)
1.8
1.6
SD
63.35 M Pa
1.4
SA
62.20 M Pa
1.2
SB
62.80 M Pa
1
0.8
SI
82.55 M Pa
0.6
0.4
SF
81.75 M Pa
0.2
0
0
S G 8 3 .15 M P a
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Axial Strain (m m /m m )
(b)
Fig. 8 Effect of concrete strength on the behavior of confined concrete: (a) Circular columns & (b) Square columns.
2
1.6
SE
s = 30 mm
s = 5 .5 %
1.4
1.2
1
CE
s = 30 mm
s = 5 .5 %
1.8
SF
s = 50 mm
s = 3 .3 %
0.8
0.6
0.4
CG
s = 75 mm
s = 2 .2 %
0.2
0
0
0.01
CF
s = 50 mm
s = 3 .3 %
0.02
SG, s = 75 mm
s = 2 .2 %
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
1.8
CC
1.6
f yh = 520 MPa
1.2
0.07
SC
SH
f y h = 520 MPa
f yh = 520 MPa
1
0.8
CA
f yh = 412 MPa
0.6
0.4
SA
CF
0.2
CH
f yh = 520 M Pa
1.4
f y h = 412 MPa
f y h = 412 MPa
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
SF
f yh = 412 MPa
0
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
Axial Strain (m m /m m )
0.12
275
U.K. Sharma, P. Bhargava and S.K. Kaushik / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 2, 267-281, 2005
1.6
1.4
1.2
SI
1
0.8
SE
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Axial Strain (m m /m m )
1.6
CD
l = 3.84
1.4
1.2
CI
l = 3.84 %
CA
l = 1.7 %
0.8
0.6
0.4
CF
0.2
l = 1.7 %
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Axial Strain (m m /m m )
1.6
1.4
CC
1.2
CE
1
0.8
SC
0.6
SE
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Axial Strain (m m /m m )
U.K. Sharma, P. Bhargava and S.K. Kaushik / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 2, 267-281, 2005
s f yh / f ' c 0.18
s f yh / f ' c 0.6(
(4)
Ag
Ac
1)
(5)
In Fig. 14, the I10 ductility index for all the specimens
is plotted against the effective confinement parameter k e s f yh / f ' c . The ke for both spirally confined circular columns and tie confined square columns was
computed using the procedure suggested by Mander et al
(1988). The computed values of confinement index
k e s f yh / f ' c for the various confined specimens are
given in Table 1. In a few columns (CG, SB, SF and SG)
tested in this study, a faster rate of strength decay was
observed after peak. For these columns, an actual value
of I10 ductility could not be obtained. Therefore, for such
cases average values of I10 were calculated by obtaining
the upper and lower bounds (Foster & Attard 2001). A
best fit relationship between I10 and k e s f yh / f ' c was
found from the plot and is given by:
I 10 = 2.89 ln(1000k e s f yh / f ' c ) 0.45
(6)
(7)
276
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
10
30
100
U.K. Sharma, P. Bhargava and S.K. Kaushik / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 2, 267-281, 2005
277
U.K. Sharma, P. Bhargava and S.K. Kaushik / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 2, 267-281, 2005
100
Experimental.
Li
80
Stress (MPa)
themselves and a number of other researchers. The concrete compressive strengths ranged from 20 to 140 MPa
and tie yield strengths ranged from 300 to 1400 MPa.
The model incorporates almost all the parameters of confinement. The stress strain relationship was basically
same as proposed by Cusson and Paultre (1995), but the
parameters of the model were recalibrated on the basis
of large number of test data collected by the authors.
A critical review of the above models indicate that
most of them have limited validity in terms of concrete
strengths, column geometry, transverse reinforcement
yield strength and loading conditions. With the exception
of the models proposed by Razvi & Saatcioglu (1999);
Legeron & Paultre (2003); Li et al. (1994) and Bjerkli et
al. (1990), which cover both circular and rectilinear sections, all other models are applicable to only square or
rectilinear shapes. The models proposed by Yong et al.
(1988); Nagashima et al. (1992); Li et al. (1994) have
limited applicability for wide concrete strength ranges. It
has been proved experimentally in the present study and
in many earlier studies (Cusson & Paultre 1994; Razvi &
Saatcioglu 1996; Foster 1999) that for high strength concrete columns, lateral-confining ties may not yield when
peak of confined concrete stress-strain is reached. But,
most of the models use lateral steel yield strength to calculate lateral confining pressure at peak-confined
strength. Only Cusson & Paultre (1995); Razvi & Saatcioglu (1999) and Legeron & Paultre (2003) have incorporated this fact into their respective models by proposing procedures to calculate actual tie stress at peak of
confined stress-strain response. Li et al. (1994) has also
accounted for this indirectly by suggesting different expression for confined strength when higher grades of
lateral steel are to be used, but no explicit expression for
finding the actual tie stress at peak was proposed. There
is hardly any one model, which takes into account all the
loading conditions namely monotonic, cyclic, strain rates
and eccentric loading into account.
To investigate the relative performance of the various
proposed analytical models (as listed above) with regards to their capabilities of predicting the experimentally observed stress-strain profile, stress-strain curves of
the test specimens of present study were compared with
the ones predicted by the various models. It may again
be mentioned here that all the eight confinement models
of the study are applicable to square sections whereas
only four namely Razvi & Saatcioglu (1999); Legeron &
Paultre (2003); Li et al. (1994) and Bjerkli et al. (1990)
can be applied to circular columns. Figures 15 to 22
illustrate the comparisons of the experimental and predicted stress-strain curves of a few representative test
specimens only. The comparisons for circular columns
indicate that Razvi & Saatciouglu (1999) and Li et al.
(1994) models consistently overestimate the actual test
behavior, while Bjerkli et al. (1990) model underestimates the test curves. Legeron & Paultre (2003) model
closely follows the experimental stress-strain curves
though, with a slight overestimation, for most of the cir-
60
40
20
CA
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
Strain (m m /m m )
120
Experimental.
Li
100
Stress (MPa)
278
80
60
40
CC
20
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Strain (m m /m m )
279
U.K. Sharma, P. Bhargava and S.K. Kaushik / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 2, 267-281, 2005
120
160
Razvi
Legero n
B jerkli
140
Experimental
Li
120
Cusso n
Experimental
Li
M uguruma
80
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
Nagashima
Razvi
Legero n
B jerkli
100
100
80
60
60
40
40
20
SC
CE
20
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.005
0.01
120
120
0.02
0.025
0.03
140
Razvi
Legeron
B jerkli
0.015
Strain (m m /m m )
Strain (m m /m m )
Experimental
Li
100
Nagashima
Cusson
Razvi
Experimental
Legeron
Li
Bjerkli
M uguruma
Yong
80
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
100
80
60
40
60
40
20
20
SD
CI
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.01
Strain (m m /m m )
0.02
0.03
0.04
Strain (m m /mm )
100
Nagashima
Razvi
Legero n
B jerkli
80
Cusso n
Experimental
Li
M uguruma
100
Nagashima
Cusson
Razvi
Experiment al
Bjerkli
Legeron
M uguruma
Li
Yong
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
80
60
40
20
60
40
20
SA
SH
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
Strain (m m /m m )
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
Strain (m m /m m )
8. Conclusions
This paper presents the results of spirally confined circular and tie confined square high strength concrete col-
280
U.K. Sharma, P. Bhargava and S.K. Kaushik / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 2, 267-281, 2005
U.K. Sharma, P. Bhargava and S.K. Kaushik / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 3, No. 2, 267-281, 2005
281