Reinforced Concrete Columns with

High-Strength Concrete and Steel

Reinforcement, Part 1
ACI Fall 2012 Convention
October 21 24, Toronto, ON
ACI
WEB SESSIONS

Dr. Hindi is a professor at Saint Louis University, MO. He is a

registered professional engineer in British Columbia, Canada. He has
worked as a structural and bridge engineer in the US and abroad for
more than 20 years. Dr. Hindis area of expertise includes non-linear
behavior, modeling, and damage of reinforced and prestressed
concrete elements under static, cyclic and seismic loadings,
confinement of reinforced concrete bridge columns, low-cycle fatigue
of bridge elements and reinforcement, behavior of bridges under
vehicular live load. His research includes experimental, analytical and
finite element modeling of bridges and structures. He is a member of
several professional organizations including; ACI, ASCE, EERI,
ASEE, IABMAS, and NEES. He is the chair of ACI-343A
subcommittee on concrete bridge design and the secretary of ACI-342
committee evaluation of concrete bridges. He is also a member of ACI
341 on earthquake-resistant concrete bridges, and ACI 441 (concrete
columns).
ACI
WEB SESSIONS

Presentation
Experimental

High-Strength Concrete Columns

Confined with Spirals
Lonnie Marvel, PE
Riyadh Hindi, PhD, PEng

Objectives

Objectives
Axial Behavior of
Concrete
ACI 318 Code
Previous Research
Experimental
Program
Results &
Comparisons

Outline
Theoretical
Modeling vs.
Experimental
Results
Summary and
Conclusions
Future Research
Questions

Axial Behavior of Concrete

Introduce New Confinement

Technique
Improve Strength & Ductility
Increase Spiral Spacing
Compare Performance of the New
Technique to the Conventional

Confinement Techniques
Rect. Shape
Hoops
w/ or w/o
Cross-ties

Elliptical Hoops
Interlocking
Spirals

Circular Shape
Hoops or Spirals
Circular Spirals

ACI 318
Minimum Spiral Spacing 25mm (1 in)
Constructability Flow of Fresh Concrete
Limits Strength & Ductility
Maximum Spiral Spacing 75mm (3 in)
Ensures Ductile Behavior
Congestion in Heavily Reinforced Beam
Column Connections

Most Efficient

Confinement Need
Leveling of Seismic Design Codes Across All
Regions
ACI Minimum Spiral Spacing
High-Strength Concrete
Need For New Confinement Technique
Accounts for Leveling of Seismic Design
Code
Minimum Spiral Spacing
Ductile High-Strength Concrete

Previous Research
10-Tested in Axial Compression
12-Tested in Constant Axial
Compression & Cyclic Lateral
Displacement

18-Tested Cyclic Torsion

Experimental Program
Hindi (2005)
New Cross-Spiral Confinement
Technique
Enhance Strength & Ductility
Increase Spacing W/O Compromising
Strength & Ductility

Experimental Program
21 Circular High-Strength Concrete Columns
Spiral Confinement

Various Spacing & Long. Reinforcement Ratios

Diameter -350 mm (14 in) Length-1 m (40 in)
Concrete strength:
Design 70 MPa (10,000 psi)
Actual 67.3 MPa (9761 psi)
63.2 MPa (9166 psi)

Monotonic Axial Loading

Specimens
mm
mm
00
55
32

mm
mm
00
55
32

m
m
0
5
2

a S
e/
w7
r
A .
0

m
m
0
5
2

a/S
ew7
r
A .
0

aS
e/
r
Aw

aS
e/
r
Aw

m
m
0
0
5

m
m
0
0
5

m
m
0
5
2

a S
e/
w7
r
A .
0

e
kt
c
a
il
h
TP
l
me
e
mt
3S

m
m
0
5
2

a/ S
ew7
r
A .
0

e
kt
c
i
l
ha
TP
l
me
e
mt
3S

l
a
r
i
p
S
s
s
o
r
C

l
a
r
i
p
S
r
a
l
u
g
e
R

0
.
6
3

ms
r
ma
9B
.
5.
g
1n
-o
0L
1

0
.
6
3

ms
r
ma
9B
.
.
5
g
1n
-o
0L
1

l
a
r
mi
p
mS
5s
.
s
9
o
r
C

m
m
5
2

l
a
mr
i
p
mS
5r
.
e
9
n
n
I

m
m
5
3

ml
a
mr
i
5p
.
S
9

Specimens

r
.e
c
nv
oo
CC

B
B
n
o
i
t
c
e
S

s
c
r
/a
c
mB
.
mg
0n
5o
2L

r
.e
c
nv
oo
CC

A
A
n
o
i
t
c
e
S

s
c
/
a
cr
mB
.
mg
0n
5o
2L

Cross
S

Single
S

Cross
2S

Instrumentation
3-350 StrainGages
1 Longitudinal Bar
Vertical Center
2 Spiral Technique
Vertical Center
180o apart
Cross-Spiral
1 Inner spiral
1Outer spiral

Instrumentation
2-Linear
Potentiometers
1 Vertical Middle
of Column
1 Vertical Middle
of Column

Overall
Displacement of
Ram Head

Test Setup

Analysis
Damage Progression
Comparison Groups
Direct Comparison
Variation in Spiral Spacing
Variation in Longitudinal Reinforcement

Experimental Values vs. Theoretical

Models

Analysis

Damage Progression

Axial Load Carried by Components

Cover
Core
Longitudinal Bars
Assumption
Components Experienced Same Axial

Spalling of Cover
Rupture of Spirals
& Buckling of Long.
Bars

Strain
Shear Failure

Analysis

Analysis
Core Axial Force
Fcore P Fsteel Fcover
Core Stress
Fcore
core

Acore
l
a
r
i
p
S

l
a
r
i
p
S

Core Area

f
o
re
e
tr
e
o
mC
a
i
D

f
o
re
e
tr
e
o
mC
a
i
D

Direct Column Comparison

Specimen

Strength,
f`cc,
MPa (ksi)

Ratio
(X/S)

Ultimate
Strain

Ratio
(X/S)

Ultimate Displ.,
mm(in)

Ratio
(X/S)

50S-8
100X-8
50X-8
40S-10
80X-10
40X-10

76 (11)
70 (10)
104.4 (15)
75.5 (11)
81.9 (12)
111.2 (16)

--0.92
1.37
--1.08
1.47

0.03441
0.03392
0.05408
0.02813
0.03705
0.05992

--0.99
1.57
--1.32
2.13

33.06 (1.3)
32.57 (1.28)
47.44 (1.87)
27.3 (1.07)
35.61 (1.4)
59.37 (2.34)

--0.99
1.44
--1.30
2.18

25.39 (1)
29.05 (1.14)
37.95 (1.49)

--1.14
1.49

26.86 (1.06)
50.91 (2)
45.13 (1.78)
22.7 (0.89)
22.98 (0.9)
29.39 (1.16)
21.82 (0.86)
32.17 (1.27)
40.62 (1.6)
27.81 (1.09)
23.46 (0.92)
37.89 (1.49)

--1.90
1.68
--1.01
1.29
--1.47
1.86
--0.84
1.36

50S-10 77.9 (11)

100X-10 74.4 (11)
*50X-10 99.6 (14)
55S-10
110X-10
55X-10
60S-10
120X-10
60X-10
50S-12
100X-12
*50X-12
50S-14
100X-14
50X-14

66.1 (10)
72.8 (11)
95.7 (14)
68.7 (10)
75.6 (11)
96.6 (14)
69.3 (10)
75.7 (11)
97.2 (14)
77 (11)
70.2 (10)
106.5 (15)

--0.95
1.28
--1.10
1.45
--1.10
1.41
--1.09
1.40
--0.91
1.38

0.02651
--0.02905 1.10
0.03816 1.44
0.02746
0.05171
0.04628
0.02363
0.02298
0.03426
0.02306
0.03521
0.04648
0.02737
0.02346
0.03789

--1.88
1.69
--0.97
1.45
--1.53
2.02
--0.86
1.38

Direct Column Comparison

* Indicates column had an unconfined compressive strength of 63.2 MPa versus 67.3 MPa

Comparison of Spiral Spacing

Specimen

Strength,
f`cc,
MPa (ksi)

40S-10
50S-10
55S-10
60S-10
80X-10
100X-10

75.5 (11)
77.9 (11)
66.1 (10)
68.7 (10)
81.9 (12)
74.4 (11)

-3.2%
12.5%
9.0%

9.2%

0.02813
0.02651
0.02746
0.02363
0.03705
0.02905

5.8%
2.4%
16.0%

21.6%

110X-10

72.8 (11)

11.1%

0.05171

120X-10

75.6 (11)

7.7%

0.02298

40X-10

111.2 (16)

*50X-10
55X-10
60X-10

99.6 (14)
95.7 (14)
96.6 (14)

10.4%
14.0%
13.1%

%
Ultimate
Decrease
Strain

%
Ultimate Displ.,
%
Decrease
mm(in)
Decrease
27.3 (1.07)
25.39 (1)
26.86 (1.06)
22.7 (0.89)
35.61 (1.4)
29.05 (1.14)

7.0%
1.6%
16.9%

18.4%

-39.6%

50.91 (2)

-43.0%

38.0%

22.98 (0.9)

35.5%

0.05992

59.37 (2.34)

0.03816
0.04628
0.03426

36.3%
22.8%
42.8%

37.95 (1.49)
45.13 (1.78)
29.39 (1.16)

36.1%
24.0%
50.5%

Comparison of Various Longitudinal

Reinforcement Ratios
Specimen

Strength,
f`cc,
MPa (ksi)

50S-8
50S-10
50S-12
50S-14
100X-8
100X-10

76 (11)
77.9 (11)
69.3 (10)
77 (11)
70 (10)
74.4 (11)

100X-12

75.7 (11)

100X-14

70.2 (10)

50X-8

104.4 (15)

0.05408

47.44 (1.87)

*50X-10
*50X-12
50X-14

99.6 (14)
97.2 (14)
106.5 (15)

4.6%
6.9%
-2.0%

0.0381574
0.0464827
0.0378889

29.4%
14.0%
29.9%

37.95 (1.49)
40.62 (1.6)
37.89 (1.49)

-14.8%
-22.9%
-14.6%

%
Increase

Ultimate
Strain

-2.6%
8.8%
-1.3%

-6.3%

0.0344143
0.0265071
0.0230581
0.0273693
0.0339229
0.0290491

14.4%

33.06 (1.3)
25.39 (1)
21.82 (0.86)
27.81 (1.09)
32.57 (1.28)
29.05 (1.14)

-8.2%

0.0352055

-3.8%

32.17 (1.27)

2.7%

-0.3%

0.0234589

30.8%

23.46 (0.92)

29.0%

23.0%
33.0%
20.5%

23.2%
34.0%
15.9%

12.1%

Ductility

Ductility

`cc
`c
Ductility

Comparison of Various Longitudinal

Reinforcement Ratios

%
Ultimate Displ.,
%
Increase
mm(in)
Increase

Ductility
Definition

Comparison of Spiral Spacing

Specimen

`c

`c c

Ratio to
Single
Spiral
(X/S)

50S-8
100X-8
50X-8
40S-10
80X-10
40X-10

0.002356
0.002356
0.002356
0.002356
0.002356
0.002356

0.033057
0.032573
0.047443
0.027297
0.035606
0.059373

14.0
13.8
20.1
11.6
15.1
25.2

--0.99
1.44
--1.30
2.18

50S-10

0.002356 0.025387

10.8

---

Specimen

`c

`c c

%
Decrease

100X-10

0.002356 0.029049

12.3

1.14

*50X-10

0.002022 0.037947

18.8

1.74

40S-10
50S-10
55S-10
60S-10
80X-10
100X-10
110X-10
120X-10
40X-10
*50X-10
55X-10
60X-10

0.002356
0.002356
0.002356
0.002356
0.002356
0.002356
0.002356
0.002356
0.002356
0.002022
0.002356
0.002356

0.027297
0.025387
0.026856
0.022697
0.035606
0.029049
0.050908
0.022981
0.059373
0.037947
0.045129
0.029389

11.6
10.8
11.4
9.6
15.1
12.3
21.6
9.8
25.2
18.8
19.2
12.5

7.0%
1.6%
16.9%

-6.4%
-86.5%
15.8%

-62.0%
-65.3%
-7.7%

55S-10
110X-10
55X-10
60S-10
120X-10
60X-10
50S-12
100X-12
*50X-12
50S-14
100X-14
50X-14

0.002356
0.002356
0.002356
0.002356
0.002356
0.002356
0.002356
0.002356
0.002022
0.002356
0.002356
0.002356

11.4
21.6
19.2
9.6
9.8
12.5
9.3
13.7
20.1
11.8
10.0
16.1

--1.90
1.68
--1.01
1.29
--1.47
2.17
--0.84
1.36

0.026856
0.050908
0.045129
0.022697
0.022981
0.029389
0.021823
0.032173
0.040624
0.027805
0.023459
0.037889

Theoretical vs. Experimental

Theoretical vs. Experimental

3 Models Evaluated
Mander et al. (1988)
Spiral Confinement
Continuous Curve
Normal Strength Concrete
Razvi & Saaticioglu (1999)
Spiral Confinement
High-Strength Concrete
Bing et al. (2001)
Spiral Confinement
High-Strength Concrete

Theoretical vs. Experimental

Theoretical vs. Experimental

Conclusions

Conclusions

Damage Progression
Spalling
Rupture / Bucking of Long. Bars
Crushing of Concrete Core

Ultimate Failure Due to Spiral Rupture

Cross Spiral Columns have 2-stage Failure

Cross Spiral Columns 2S

2% Increase Compressive Strength
6% Increase Ultimate Strain
18% Increase in Ductility

Cross Spiral Columns S

36% Increase Compressive Strength

47% Increase Ultimate Strain

40% Increase Ductility

Thank You
Questions?