ARTICLE IN PRESS

Building and Environment 43 (2008) 11091120

www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Behaviour of reinforced and concrete-encased composite columns

subjected to biaxial bending and axial load
Cengiz Dundar, Serkan Tokgoz, A. Kamil Tanrikulu, Tarik Baran
Civil Engineering Department, Cukurova University, 01330 Adana, Turkey
Received 3 February 2006; received in revised form 26 January 2007; accepted 2 February 2007

Abstract
An experimental investigation of the behaviour of reinforced concrete columns and a theoretical procedure for analysis of both short
and slender reinforced and composite columns of arbitrarily shaped cross section subjected to biaxial bending and axial load are
presented. In the proposed procedure, nonlinear stressstrain relations are assumed for concrete, reinforcing steel and structural steel
materials. The compression zone of the concrete section and the entire section of the structural steel are divided into adequate number of
segments in order to use various stressstrain models for the analysis. The slenderness effect of the member is taken into account by using
the Moment Magnication Method. The proposed procedure was compared with test results of 12 square and three L-shaped reinforced
concrete columns subjected to short-term axial load and biaxial bending, and also some experimental results available in the literature for
composite columns compared with the theoretical results obtained by the proposed procedure and a good degree of accuracy was
obtained.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Reinforced concrete column; Composite column; Biaxial loading; Ultimate strength; Stressstrain models

1. Introduction
Reinforced and concrete-encased composite columns of
arbitrarily shaped cross section subjected to biaxial
bending and axial load are commonly used in many
structures, such as buildings and bridges. A composite
column is a combination of concrete, structural steel and
reinforcing steel to provide an adequate load carrying
capacity of the member. Thus, such composite members
can provide rigidity, usable oor areas and cost economy
for mid-to-high buildings. Many experimental and analytical studies have been carried out on reinforced and
composite members in the past years. Furlong [1] has
carried out analytical and experimental studies on reinforced concrete columns using well-known rectangular
stress block for the concrete compression zone in the
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 322 338 6762; fax: +90 322 338 6702.

E-mail addresses: dundar@cu.edu.tr (C. Dundar), stokgoz@cu.edu.tr

(S. Tokgoz), akt@cu.edu.tr (A.K. Tanrikulu), tbaran@cu.edu.tr
(T. Baran).
0360-1323/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.02.010

analysis. Brondum-Nielsen [2] has proposed a method of

calculating the ultimate strength capacity of cracked
polygonal concrete sections using rectangular stress block
in the concrete compression zone of the section under
biaxial bending. Hsu [3,4] has presented theoretical and
experimental results for L-shaped and channel shaped
reinforced concrete sections. Dundar [5] has studied
reinforced concrete box sections under biaxial bending
and axial load. Rangan [6] has presented a method to
calculate the strength of reinforced concrete slender
columns including creep deection due to sustained load
as an additional eccentricity and the method compared
with ACI 318-Building Code Method [7]. Dundar and
Sahin [8] have researched arbitrarily shaped reinforced
concrete sections subjected to biaxial bending and axial
load using Whitneys stress block [9] in the compression
zone of the concrete section. Rodriguez and Ochoa [10] and
Fatis [11] have suggested numerical methods for the
computation of the failure surface for reinforced concrete
sections of arbitrary shape. Hong [12] has proposed a
simple approach for estimating the strength of slender

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1110

C. Dundar et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 11091120

reinforced concrete columns with arbitrarily shaped cross

section using nonlinear stressstrain relationship for the
materials. Saatcioglu and Razvi [13] have presented an
experimental research to investigate the behaviour of high
strength concrete columns conned by rectilinear reinforcement under concentric compression. Furlong et al. [14]
have examined several design procedures for ultimate
strength analysis of reinforced concrete columns and
compared with many short and slender experimental
columns under short-term axial load and biaxial bending.
Morino et al. [15] have presented a series of experimental
results on short and slender square composite columns.
Roik and Bergmann [16] have proposed a simplied design
method based on the strength interaction curve and
reported test results for short and slender composite
columns with unsymmetrical square and rectangular
shaped cross sections. Virdi and Dowling [17] have
presented a numerical method and test results for square
composite columns to predict the ultimate strength
capacity of the composite column members under biaxial
bending and axial load. Mirza [18] has examined the effects
of variables, such as the connement effect, the ratio of
structural steel to gross area, the compressive strength of
concrete, the yield strength of steel and the slenderness
ratio, on the ultimate strength of composite columns.
Mirza and Skrabek [19] have carried out a statistical
analysis on the variability of ultimate strength capacity of
slender composite beam-columns. Munoz [20] and Munoz
and Hsu [21,22] have presented an experimental and a
theoretical study based on the nite differences method,
including connement effect for the concrete, on square
and rectangular cross sections of short and slender
composite columns under biaxial load. Weng and Yen
[23] have investigated the differences between the ACI [7]
and AISC [24] approaches for the design of concreteencased composite columns. Lachance [25], Chen et al. [26]
and Sfakianakis [27] have proposed a numerical analysis
method for short composite columns of arbitrarily shaped
cross section.
Connement provided by lateral ties increases the
ultimate strength capacity and ductility of reinforced
concrete columns under combined biaxial bending and
axial load. Strength and ductility gain in concrete are
obtained by many connement parameters e.g., the
compressive strength of concrete, longitudinal reinforcement, type and the yield strength of lateral ties, tie
spacing, etc. Because of such parameters, determination
of mechanical behaviour of conned concrete is not as easy
as unconned concrete. Some researchers for instance,
Kent and Park [28], Sheikh and Uzumeri [29], Saatcioglu
and Razvi [30], Chung et al. [31] have presented a
stressstrain relationship to describe the conned concrete
behaviour.
The main objective of this paper is to present an iterative
computing procedure for the rapid design and ultimate
strength analysis of arbitrarily shaped both short and
slender reinforced, and concrete-encased composite mem-

bers having arbitrarily located reinforcing steel bars and

structural steel elements subjected to biaxial bending and
axial load. For this aim a computer program has been
developed which considers various conned or unconned
concrete stressstrain models for the concrete compression
zone for both short and slender reinforced and composite
columns. Thus, results of the ultimate strength analysis,
with various concrete models, can be compared with each
other.
In the experimental part of the study, 12 square and
three L-shaped short and slender reinforced concrete
columns were tested to determine the ultimate strength
capacity, load-deection behaviour, load-axial strain behaviour and connement effect of column members. The
test results were compared with the theoretical results
obtained by the developed computer program which uses
various stressstrain models for the conned concrete or
unconned concrete in the compression zone of the
member.
Finally, the theoretical results obtained using the
proposed procedure were also compared with the test
results available in the literature for short and slender
composite columns.
2. Experimental program
An experimental investigation of the behaviour of
reinforced concrete columns under short-term axial load
and biaxial bending is presented. The primary objective of
this investigation was to examine the ultimate strength
capacity and load-deection behaviour of short and slender
reinforced concrete columns and to compare the test results
of ultimate strength capacities of specimens with the results
obtained by the proposed theoretical procedure using
various stressstrain models for the materials. For this
reason, reinforced concrete specimens were designed with
different length, dimension and cross section with different
diameter and arrangement of longitudinal and lateral
reinforcements.
2.1. Test specimens
The experimental program includes 15 reinforced concrete columns. Five specimens are short square tied
columns (C1C5), seven specimens are slender square tied
columns (C11C14, C21C23) and the other three are
L-shaped section slender tied columns (LC1LC3). The
cross section details and dimensions of each specimen are
shown in Fig. 1.
The reinforced concrete column specimens were cast
horizontally inside a formwork in Structural Laboratory at
Cukurova University, Adana. Maximum 20 mm diameter
local aggregate and Normal Portland Cement were used in
all concrete batches. Three standard cylinder specimens
(150 mm in diameter by 300 mm long) were cast from each
column specimen concrete mix and cured under the same
condition as the column specimen in the Structural

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Dundar et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 11091120

1111

150 mm
100 mm

6 mm (C1C5)

8 mm

8 mm (C11C14)

25

17.5

150 mm

100 mm
25

17.5
17.5

17.5

25

(C1C5, C11C14)

25
(C21C23)

100

6 mm
17.5

y
150 mm
G

100

17.5

150 mm
LC1LC3

Fig. 1. Reinforced concrete column specimen cross sections.

Stress (MPa)

Stress-Strain Relation (LC3)

50

Table 1
Specimen details of reinforced concrete columns

40

Specimen no.

L (mm)

f c (MPa)

ex (mm)

ey (mm)

f=s (mm/cm)

C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C11
C12
C13
C14
C21
C22
C23
LC1
LC2
LC3

870
870
870
870
870
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300

19.18
31.54
28.13
26.92
25.02
32.27
47.86
33.10
29.87
31.70
40.76
34.32
35.12
32.77
44.88

25
25
25
30
30
35
40
35
45
40
50
50
36.25
41.25
46.25

25
25
25
30
30
35
40
35
45
40
50
50
36.25
41.25
46.25

6/12.5
6/15
6/10
6/8
6/10
6.5/10.5
6.5/10.5
6.5/10.5
6.5/12.5
6.5/10.5
6.5/10.5
6.5/10.5
6/10
6/11
6/13

30
20
10
0
0

0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004

Strain

Fig. 2. Experimental concrete stressstrain relationship for specimen LC3.

Laboratory. The concrete cylinder specimens were tested at

the same day of that column specimen in order to
determine the mean compressive strength of concrete and
to attain a stressstrain relationship for each column
specimen to use in the analysis. A typical concrete
stressstrain relationship obtained experimentally is given
in Fig. 2.
The longitudinal reinforcement consisted of 6 and 8 mm
diameter of deformed bars with the yield strength of 630
and 550 MPa, respectively. Lateral reinforcements were
arranged using 6 and 6.5 mm diameter of deformed
reinforcing bars with the yield strength of 630 MPa for
the specimens. The lateral ties were bent into 135 hooks at
the ends. The overall length L, the mean compressive
strength of the concrete f c , the eccentricities of the
applied load (ex and ey ) and the lateral reinforcement
arrangements of the specimens (diameter + and spacing s)
are presented in Table 1.

2.2. Test procedure

The specimens were tested with pinned conditions at
both ends using 400 kN capacity HI-TECH MAGNUS
hydraulic testing machine in the Structural Laboratory at
Cukurova University. A photograph of test setup for
reinforced concrete column specimen is shown in Fig. 3.
For the application of the biaxially eccentric load to the
column specimen in the vertical position, the heavily
reinforced brackets were designed for both ends of the
specimen to prevent local failures. The point of the applied
biaxially eccentric axial load was sensitively marked up on

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Dundar et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 11091120

1112

the surface of each bracket of the specimen. Two different

types of load cells were accommodated at both ends to
obtain the biaxially applied axial load. Linear variable
transducers were located at the middle height of each
column specimen to measure the lateral deection of the
member into two principal directions. In addition, the axial
displacement measurements of the most heavily compressed ber were recorded by using displacement trans-

ducer in order to compute axial strain for the specimens

C1C5, C11C14. The load cells and the transducers were
calibrated before they were used in the test. A schematic
diagram of test setup and instrumentation are presented in
Fig. 4.
At load controlled tests, the monotonically increasing
compressive biaxially axial load was applied to the
column specimen at a rate of 1 kN/s. In the meantime,
short-term axial load, lateral and axial displacements
of the column specimen were recorded. The test was
continued until a signicant drop in load resistance
occurred.
2.3. Test results

Fig. 3. Photograph of test setup for reinforced concrete column specimen.

In the experimental investigation, all column specimens

behaved in a similar manner until crushing of concrete
occurred. It was observed that the tensile crack in the
tension zone are and the concrete crash in the compression
zone are located nearly in the middle height of the column
specimens as shown in Fig. 5.
Experimental load-deection diagrams for the specimens
C5, C14, C23 and LC3 are presented in Fig. 6(a)(d) for x
and y directions. As can be seen in the diagrams, the
column specimens behaved in a ductile manner in both
sides. The specimens deected until reaching the peak load
and tensile crack observed on the convex side of the

HI-TECH
MAGNUS

Hydraulic pump
Load cell
Steel ball

L/2

Steel plate
8 channel data
logger

Personal
computer

L/2

Displacement
transducers

8 channel data
logger

Signal
cables
Load cell

Laboratory floor

Fig. 4. Diagram of test setup and instrumentation.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Dundar et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 11091120

1113

Fig. 5. Reinforced concrete column after testing.

Load-Deflection (C5)

Load-Deflection (C14)
80

80

Load (kN)

Load (kN)

100

60
40
X Axis
Y Axis

20
0

60
40
X Axis
Y Axis

20
0

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

Deflection (mm)

Load-Deflection (C23)

250

10

12

Load-Deflection (LC3)
200
Load (kN)

200
Load (kN)

6
Deflection (mm)

150
100
50

X Axis
Y Axis

100
50

X Axis
Y Axis

0
0

150

10

Deflection (mm)

10

12

Deflection (mm)

Fig. 6. Load-deection relations of C5, C14, C23 and LC3 columns.

specimens at that stage. After that, a sudden drop occurred

in load resistance and lateral displacements increased. This
indicated that the lateral reinforcements played a signicant role in column ductility and connement.
Load-axial strain relation for the specimen C14 is given
in Fig. 7. As shown from the gure the specimen behaved
in a ductile manner until crushing of concrete. Because of

the connement provided by lateral ties, the maximum

strain value for the column specimen shown in the
gure exceeded the maximum compressive strain value
obtained experimentally from the uniaxially tested cylinder
specimen.
The experimental results of the specimens are evaluated
theoretically in Section 4.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Dundar et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 11091120

1114

3. Analysis method
3.1. Assumptions
The proposed method is based on the following
assumptions:
1. Plane sections remain plane after deformations (Bernoullis
assumption).
2. Arbitrary monotonic stressstrain relationships for each
of the three materials (i.e., concrete, structural steel and
the reinforcing bars) may be assumed.
3. The longitudinal reinforcing bars are identical in
diameter and are subjected to the same amount of
strain as the adjacent concrete.
4. The effect of creep and the tensile strength of concrete
and any direct tension stresses due to shrinkage etc. are
neglected.
5. Shear deformation is neglected.
3.2. Stressstrain models for the materials
In the proposed procedure, the idealized stressstrain
relationships for the concrete and the steel materials
are expressed in the following generalized form: s f 

Load (kN)

Load-Axial Strain Relation (C14)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

(Fig. 8). In this study, various stressstrain models

available in literature have been used in the compression
zone of the concrete section. The mathematical expressions
of these models are presented in Table 2.
In Table 2, the parameters used in Kent and Park model
[28] and Saatcioglu and Razvi model [30] are dened as
follows:
In Kent and Park model for conned and unconned
concrete:
c20 1:650u 50h  0:6coc ,
3 0:285f c
50u
Xco f c taken as MPa,
142f c  1000
rs f ywk
Ao Ls
coc Kco ; f cc Kf c ; K 1
; rs
,
fc
sbk hk
 1=2
bk
0:5
; Zu
,
50h 0:75rs
50u  co
s
0:5
Zc
,
50u 50h  coc
where rs , Ao , Ls , bk , and hk are volumetric ratio, cross
sectional area, length, small and large edge of lateral ties,
respectively; s is the centre-to-centre spacing between
lateral ties; K is the strength enhancement factor and
f ywk is the yield strength of lateral ties.
In Saatcioglu and Razvi model for conned concrete:
0:8
85  cc cc ; 85 260rcc 0:0038,
0:15
cc co 1 5K,
k1 f le
K
; k1 6:7f le 0:17 ; f cc f c k1 f le ,
fc
c20

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

Axial Strain
Fig. 7. Load-axial strain relation for the specimen C14.

where 85 , cc and co are the strain at 85% strength, is the
strain corresponding to peak stress of conned concrete
and the strain corresponding to peak stress of unconned
concrete, respectively; f le , f c and f cc are the equivalent
uniform lateral pressure, unconned strength of concrete

b
Stress

Stress
fyn
fc

fy1

co

cu

Strain
Steel

Concrete
Fig. 8. Idealized stressstrain curves of concrete (a) and steel (b) materials.

Strain

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Dundar et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 11091120

1115

Table 2
Mathematical expressions for the concrete stressstrain relations
Model

0 pc pco

co oc pcu

co , cu

Hognestad [32]

"
 2 #
2c
c
sc f c

co
co




c  co
sc f c 1  0:15
cu  co

0.002, 0.0038

CEC [33]

"
 2 #
2c
c
sc f c

co
co

sc f c

0.002, 0.0035

Kent and Parku unconned [28]

"
 2 #
2c
c
sc f c

co
co

sc f c 1  Zu c  co 

0.002, 0.004

sc f cc 1  Zc c  coc X0:2f cc

0.002, c20

Kent and Parkc conned [28]

Saatcioglu and Razvi [30]

Whitneys stress block [9]

"
sc f cc

 2 #
2c
c

coc
coc

"
 2 #1=12K
2c
c

pf cc
sc f cc
cc
cc

sc f cc

sc 0:85 f c

sc 0:85 f c

and conned strength of concrete, respectively; r is the

volumetric ratio of the section [30].
3.3. Formulation of the problem
An arbitrarily shaped concrete cross section with any
arrangement of reinforcement and structural steel subjected to biaxially eccentric load N is shown in Fig. 9.
The coordinates (xN , yN ) of the axial load N with respect
to xy axis system are obtained as follows:
xN xpc  ex ,

yN ypc  ey ,

in which ex and ey are the eccentricities of the axial load N

with respect to the parallel axis system through the plastic
centroid (PC) of the arbitrarily shaped composite cross
section. xpc and ypc indicate the coordinates of the plastic
centroid of the arbitrarily shaped composite cross section
and given as follows [16]:
xpc

Ac xc f c =gc As xs f y =gs At xt f t =gt

,
Ac f c =gc As f y =gs At f t =gt

ypc

Ac yc f c =gc As ys f y =gs At yt f t =gt

,
Ac f c =gc As f y =gs At f t =gt

where Ac , As; and At are the total areas of concrete,

reinforcing bars and the structural steel, respectively; f c , f y;
and f t are the strength of concrete, reinforcing bars and
structural steel, respectively; xc , yc , xs , ys , xt , yt are the
centroid coordinates of the xy axis system for concrete,
reinforcing bars and structural steel, respectively; and
gc , gs , and gt are the partial safety factors of concrete,
reinforcing bars and structural steel, respectively.
In the analysis, the plastic centre is assumed as the
geometric centre of the section for reinforced concrete
members.


f cc  f 85
c  cc X0:2f cc
cc  85

0.002, c20
0.002, 0.003

The strain distribution is linear across the concrete

section according to Bernoullis assumption. Therefore,
the strain at any point (xi , yi ) in the cross section is
indicated by
hy x 
i
i
i
i cu

1 ,
(5)
c
a
where a and c are the horizontal and the vertical distances
between the origin of the xy axis system and the neutral
axis. cu denotes the strain at the location of the maximum
compressive stress.
In the analysis, any stressstrain model can be used for
the compression zone of the concrete and the steel
materials. For this reason, the compression zone of the
arbitrarily shaped cross section and entire section of the
structural steel are divided into adequate number of
parallel segments to the neutral axis. The geometric
properties (i.e., the area and the coordinates of the
centroid) of each segment are computed according to the
procedure given in Dundar and Sahin [8]. The stress
resultants of the arbitrarily shaped concrete member and
the structural steel are calculated at the centroid of each
segment by using Eq. (5) and assumed stressstrain model
for each material. Hence, using a sufcient number of
segments for the compression zone of the concrete member
provide more compatible compressive stress distribution
with the assumed stressstrain model. The optimum
number of segments is computed iteratively until convergence factor satisfy in the analysis. The same approach is
also applied to the structural steel element in compression
and tension zone for the composite column analysis.
3.4. Equilibrium equations
The equilibrium equations for an arbitrarily shaped
composite column member subjected to biaxial bending
and axial load can be written with respect to the x0 y0 axis

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Dundar et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 11091120

1116

cu
c

Typical segment

Neutral axis
a
x
yN
x'

si

ypc

ey

PC

Reinforcing bar

Asi

Opening
y'
xN

Structural steel
ex

xpc

y
Fig. 9. An arbitrarily shaped concrete-encased composite cross section.

(6)

structural steel stress at the centroid of the jth segment; n is

the total number of segment of the structural steel.
In the design procedure, the algebraic equations
(Eqs. (6)(8)) have three unknowns a; c; Ast . These
equations are solved by a numerical procedure [8] based
on the NewtonRaphson iterative method.
For the ultimate strength analysis, the biaxially eccentric
ultimate load N u can be determined by solving Eq. (7) and
Eq. (8) for (a, c) by using the aforementioned procedure
and substituting them in Eq. (6), resulting in

Nu

system with its origin at the coordinates of the biaxially

eccentric load (xN , yN ) and parallel to the xy axis system
(Fig. 9) as follows:
f1

t
X

Ack sck 

f2

m
n
X
Ast X
xi  xN ssi
Atj stj xtj  xN
m i
j


f3

m
n
X
Ast X
ssi 
Atj stj  N 0,
m i
j

t
X

Ast
m


Ack sck xck  xN 0,

k
m
X

n
X

yi  yN ssi

t
X

t
X

Ack sck 

Atj stj ytj  yN

Ack sck yck  yN 0,

m
n
X
Ast X
ssi 
Atj stj .
m i
j

(9)

3.5. Slenderness effect

8

where Ast is the total area of the reinforcing bars within

the cross-section; sck is the concrete compressive stress at
the centroid of the kth segment; Ack and (xck , yck ) indicate
the area and the centroid coordinates of kth concrete
segment, respectively; t is the number of segment of the
concrete in compression zone; ssi is the stress of ith
reinforcing bar; xi and yi are the coordinates of the ith
reinforcing bar; m is the total number of reinforcing bars;
Atj and (xtj , ytj ) are the area and the centroid coordinates of
the jth structural steel segment, respectively; stj is the

The slenderness effect of reinforced or composite column

is considered by using the Moment Magnication Method
(ACI 318-99 [7]) as follows:
The moment magnication factor d is expressed as
d

Cm
X1:0,
1  1:33N u =N cr

(10)

in which C m is the end effect factor (C m 1:0 for the pin

ended column), taken as follows:
C m 0:6 0:4

M u1
X0:4;
M u2

M u1 pM u2

(11)

with M u1 and M u2 are the end moments of the column.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Dundar et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 11091120

N cr is the elastic buckling load of column:

Read Input Data:

Material properties,
Column geometrical properties
Initial parameters (a, c, t)

N cr

p EI
,
kL2

(12)

where kL is the effective length and EI is the effective

exural rigidity of the column section. The effective
exural rigidity of the section plays an important role on
the computation of the ultimate strength capacity of
slender reinforced and composite columns and may be
determined as follows:
For reinforced concrete columns (ACI 318-99 [7]):
EI

0:2E c I g
EsI s
1 bd

Calculate cross section properties

(Area, Geometric centre coordinates)

Iterative calculation for Nu or Ast

Calculate segment stresses
Calculate reinforcement bar stresses
Calculate structural steel stresses

(13)
Derive new values
for neutral axis
parameters (a, c)

or
EI

0:4E c I g
1 bd

1117

No

Satisfying
equilibrium
equations?

(14)

where E c and E s are the modulus of elasticity of the

concrete and the steel materials, respectively; I g is the
moment of inertia of gross concrete section of the column;
I s is the moment of inertia of reinforcement about
centroidal axis of member cross section; bd is the sustained
load factor (bd 0 for short-term axial load).
For composite columns [16]:
EI E ce I ce E s I s E t I t ,

In Eq. (15), I ce , I s and I t are the moments of inertia of

the uncracked concrete, the reinforcement and the structural steel section, calculated with respect to the elastic
centroidal axis, respectively. E s and E t are the modulus of
elasticity of reinforcement and structural steel, respectively.
For the arbitrarily shaped composite cross section, the
coordinates of the elastic centre may be expressed with
respect to the xy axis system as [16]:
Ac E c xc As E s xs At E t xt
,
Ac E c As E s At E t
Ac E c yc As E s ys At E t yt
,
yec
Ac E c As E s At E t

No

Increase number of
segment (t = t +1)

Yes
Store results to
output file

(16)

xec

Bi - Bi-1

Bi

(15)

where
E ce 600f c .

Yes

17
18

in which E c is the modulus of elasticity of the concrete (TS

500 [34]), given as
p
(19)
E c 3250 f c 14 000 MPa.

Fig. 10. Flow chart of the computer program.

As shown in the owchart, at the beginning of the analysis,

the initial values for the location of the neutral axis (a, c)
and the number of segment t are read from the data le,
then N u or Ast is computed using an iterative procedure. To
optimise the number of segment t, it is increased by one
until the following criteria is satised:


Bi  Bi1

p,
(21)


Bi
where Bi is N u or Ast value which is obtained at the ith step,
 is the convergence factor.
Due to space limitation, the listing of developed
computer program is not given in the paper. A personal
computer version and the manual of the program can be
obtained free of charge from the authors upon request.

For biaxial bending, ACI 318-99 [7] recommends that

the moment magnication factors shall be computed for
each axis separately and multiplied by the corresponding
moments as follows:

4. Evaluation of test results

M ux dx N u ey ;

4.1. Computer analysis of reinforced concrete columns

tested by the authors

M uy dy N u ex .

(20)

To reach the ultimate strength value N u of a slender

column, dx and dy are computed for each iteration until
satisfying the equilibrium equations.
The owchart of the developed computer program based
on the aforementioned procedure is illustrated in Fig. 10.

The reinforced concrete column specimens (C1C5,

C11C14, C21C23, LC1LC3) were tested with pinned
conditions at both ends under short-term axial load and
biaxial bending. These specimens were also analysed for

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Dundar et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 11091120

1118

the ultimate strength capacities using the computer

program.
In the ultimate strength analysis, various stressstrain
models, Hognestad (HOG) [32], CEC [33], Kent and Park
unconned [28] K&Pu , Kent and Park conned [28]
K&Pc , Saatcioglu and Razvi [30] (S&R), Whitney Stress
Block [9] (WSB) and experimental stressstrain relationships obtained from the cylinder specimens of the columns
by the authors (EXP), were used for the concrete
compression zone in order to compute the theoretical
ultimate strength capacity and to compare with the
experimental results of the column specimens. Experimental results and obtained theoretical capacities according to
each stressstrain model are presented in Table 3,
comparative ratios of the theoretical load to the experimental test load for the specimens are given in Table 4.
A good degree of accuracy has been obtained between
the theoretical results according to each concrete stress
strain models and the experimental results. The maximum
permissible strain assumed in the K&Pc model for the
concrete compression zone is affected by connement
provided by lateral ties. Most of the calculated loads by
using this model are higher than the test results and
the results of the other models. The mean ratios of
the comparative results indicate that the shape of the
concrete stressstrain relationship has little effect on the
ultimate strength capacity of the column members as seen
in Table 4. On the other hand, the maximum permissible
strain plays the most important role on the ultimate
strength capacity.

Table 4
Comparative results for the reinforced concrete column specimens
Column no.

C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C11
C12
C13
C14
C21
C22
C23
LC1
LC2
LC3
Mean ratio

Ratio
B/A

C/A

D/A

E/A

F/A

G/A

H/A

1.016
1.058
0.943
0.962
0.962
0.870
1.045
0.934
1.094
0.993
1.049
0.987
0.956
0.881
0.934
0.979

0.999
1.048
0.932
0.945
0.945
0.854
0.962
0.918
1.086
0.981
1.049
0.986
0.918
0.843
0.891
0.957

1.008
0.981
0.892
0.922
0.933
0.835
0.987
0.894
1.058
0.924
0.949
0.917
0.969
0.896
0.953
0.941

1.173
1.077
1.016
1.082
1.068
0.890
1.041
0.966
1.170
0.942
1.033
0.981
1.308
1.184
1.210
1.076

0.991
0.910
0.845
0.886
0.891
0.792
0.922
0.849
1.026
0.830
0.920
0.871

0.894

0.895
0.942
0.838
0.845
0.846
0.776
0.867
0.835
1.044
0.890
0.944
0.918
0.871
0.842
0.842
0.880

0.990
0.876
0.954
0.952
0.802
0.930
0.849
1.105
0.863
1.029
0.913
0.992
0.871
0.924
0.932

63.5 mm
19.05

25.4

19.05

14.3

19.05

25.4

19.05

14.3

4.2. Computer analysis of composite columns tested by

Munoz and Hsu
Munoz and Hsu [21] presented one short (MC1) and
three slender composite columns (MC2MC4) with pinned

Table 3
Ultimate strength capacities of reinforced concrete columns
Column N test
N u (theoretical)
no.
(kN) (A)
HOG CEC
K&Pu K&Pc S&R
(B)
(C)
(F)
(D)
(E)

WSB
(G)

EXP
(H)

C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C11
C12
C13
C14
C21
C22
C23
LC1
LC2
LC3

79.66
114.04
104.71
83.67
79.55
80.71
82.38
81.81
60.57
211.89
187.88
176.35
170.68
153.23
149.91

119.85
109.45
94.46
89.46
83.45
88.31
83.23
64.10
205.46
204.78
175.26
194.54
158.53
164.47

89
121
125
99
94
104
95
98
58
238
199
192
196
182
178

90.45
127.98
117.83
95.21
90.47
90.53
99.24
91.51
63.46
236.45
208.82
189.46
187.47
160.30
166.28

88.95
126.78
116.51
93.57
88.83
88.81
91.39
90.00
63.02
233.41
208.83
189.38
179.96
153.38
158.53

89.75
118.76
111.45
91.25
87.70
86.86
93.74
87.58
61.38
219.86
188.86
176.12
190.02
163.21
169.61

104.44
130.29
127.00
107.14
100.42
92.54
98.96
94.73
67.88
224.17
205.71
188.41
256.35
215.52
215.40

88.18
110.15
105.63
87.76
83.78
82.38
87.63
83.22
59.51
197.44
183.00
167.15

63.5 mm

14.3

14.3

Fig. 11. Composite column cross section of MC1MC4.

conditions at both ends. The cross section of 63:5 

63:5 mm2 had four reinforcing steel bars at each corner
with a total area of 126:68 mm2 . An I-shaped structural
steel of 25.4 mm in width, 25.4 mm in depth and 2.39 mm
ange and web thickness was situated at the centre of the
composite column section as shown in Fig. 11. The
columns were subjected to biaxial bending and axial load.
The stress and the strain values for a selected number of
points described the piecewise linear stressstrain relationship for the steel bars and the structural steel materials [20].
The overall length, the compressive strength of concrete for
each specimen and the eccentricities of the applied loads
are presented in Table 5.
These composite columns are solved by the developed
computer program for the ultimate strength analysis using
various stress distribution models (HOG, CEC, K&Pu ,
WSB) in the concrete compression zone of the cross
section. The obtained theoretical results for the maximum
load capacity as well as the test results are presented in
Table 6 for comparison.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Dundar et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 11091120

1119

160 mm

Table 5
Specimen details of MC1MC4
Column

L (mm)

f c (MPa)

ex (mm)

ey (mm)

MC1
MC2
MC3
MC4

812.8
1219.2
1219.2
1219.2

36.77
30.97
25.83
27.51

38.10
31.75
25.40
38.10

38.10
31.75
25.40
38.10

30

100

6 mm

30

19

30

160 mm

100

4 mm
Table 6
Comparative results for the composite column specimens MC1MC4

30

19
Column N test
Ratio
N u (theoretical) (kN)
(kN) (A)
HOG CEC K&Pu WSB B/A C/A
(B)
(C)
(E)
(D)
MC1
MC2
MC3
MC4
Mean
ratio

28.17
26.48
29.06
22.03

29.01
27.81
30.17
22.19

28.19
27.02
29.31
21.54

27.65
27.15
29.92
21.88

25.29
24.41
26.55
19.43

1.029
1.050
1.038
1.007
1.031

1.001
1.020
1.008
0.978
1.002

D/A

19

E/A

19
H-10010068 mm

0.981
1.025
1.029
0.993
1.007

0.897
0.922
0.913
0.882
0.903

Fig. 12. Composite column cross section.

Table 7
Load carrying capacities and test results of composite columns
Column

As can be seen from Table 6 the results obtained by

using WSB model are below the test results, since
maximum permissible strain cu in concrete plays an
important role to achieve the ultimate strength capacity of
the composite column section. Comparative results by
using the other stressstrain models show an excellent
degree of accuracy with the test results reported by Munoz
and Hsu [21].
4.3. Computer analysis of composite columns tested by
Morino et al.
Morino et al. [15] tested pin ended short and slender
composite columns under biaxial bending and axial load.
The dimensions of the composite column specimen as well
as the steel arrangements are shown in Fig. 12. The overall
length and the compressive strength of the composite
column specimens named A4, B4, C4 are 960, 2400,
3600 mm and 21.10, 23.37, 23.30 MPa, respectively. The
rectangular shaped lateral ties of 4 mm in diameter are
spaced at 150 mm. The yield strength of the reinforced and
the structural steel are 413.70 and 344.75 MPa, respectively, the modulus of elasticity of the steel is taken as
200 kN=mm2 . The authors solved the column specimens
with the developed computer program using various
stress distribution models, including connement effect
for the concrete compression zone of the section, to
demonstrate the accuracy and validity of the proposed
procedure. Experimental and theoretical results are presented in Table 7.
The ultimate strength results of the composite columns
compare well with the test results reported by Morino [15].
Most of the computed loads obtained by using the K&Pc
model are higher than the test results and the other

A4-00
A4-30
A4-45
A4-60
A4-90
B4-00
B4-30
B4-45
B4-60
B4-90
C4-00
C4-30
C4-45
C4-60
C4-90

ex
(mm)

40
34.64
28.28
20
0
40
34.64
28.28
20
0
40
34.64
28.28
20
0

ey
(mm)

0
20
28.28
34.64
40
0
20
28.28
34.64
40
0
20
28.28
34.64
40

N test
(kN)

499.91
513.44
518.83
524.25
740.44
371.04
392.62
389.64
436.41
503.56
274.61
283.55
304.47
340.29
411.94

N u (theoretical) (kN)
HOG

CEC

K&Pc

S&R

488.37
488.37
507.22
544.40
635.28
396.32
410.89
428.81
461.39
559.18
313.95
308.83
322.10
346.69
435.75

497.82
482.16
500.10
537.35
645.67
383.38
406.42
423.07
455.33
564.19
311.97
306.48
319.04
343.07
429.75

492.69
511.88
541.82
581.47
584.12
409.22
422.39
447.12
482.60
513.29
293.34
314.64
331.83
357.39
416.51

473.82
485.92
511.98
552.39
479.29
371.57
405.46
428.58
464.06
491.49
311.03
306.54
323.38
350.42
410.14

theoretical results, since the maximum permissible concrete

strain and the concrete connement provided by lateral ties
play an important role in enhancing the ultimate strength
capacity and ductility of short and slender composite
column members.
5. Conclusions
An experimental investigation of the behaviour of
reinforced concrete columns and an iterative numerical
procedure for the strength analysis and design of short and
slender reinforced concrete and concrete-encased composite columns of arbitrarily shaped cross section under
biaxial bending and axial load by using various stress
strain models, including connement have been presented
in this paper. The computational procedure takes into
account the nonlinear behaviour of the materials (i.e.,
concrete, structural steel and reinforcing bars) and includes
the second order effects due to the additional eccentricity

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1120

C. Dundar et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 11091120

of the applied axial load by the Moment Magnication

Method.
The capability and the reliability of the proposed
procedure and its computer program have been tested by
means of comparisons with the experimental results
reported by the authors of this study and other researchers.
The theoretical and experimental results show that the
compressive strength of concrete and its corresponding
compressive strain are the most effective parameters on the
ultimate strength capacity of column members. However,
the shape of the concrete stressstrain relationship has little
effect on the ultimate strength capacity of the column
members.
Consequently, the ratio of computed axial load to
experimental load for different cross section of reinforced
and composite column members indicate that the results
obtained by the proposed procedure have been in good
agreement with the test results of columns subjected to
biaxial bending and axial load.
References
[1] Furlong RW. Concrete columns under biaxially eccentric thrust. ACI
Journal October 1979:1093118.
[2] Brondum-Nielsen T. Ultimate exural capacity of fully prestressed,
partially prestressed, arbitrary concrete sections under symmetric
bending. ACI Journal 1986;83:2935.
[3] Hsu CTT. Biaxially loaded L-shaped reinforced concrete columns.
Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 1985;111(12):257695.
[4] Hsu CTT. Channel-shaped reinforced concrete compression members
under biaxial bending. ACI Structural Journal 1987;84:20111.
[5] Dundar C. Concrete box sections under biaxial bending and axial
load. Journal of Structural Engineering 1990;116:8605.
[6] Rangan BV. Strength of reinforced concrete slender columns. ACI
Structural Journal 1990;87(1):328.
[7] Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-99).
Detroit (MI): American Concrete Institute (ACI); 1999.
[8] Dundar C, Sahin B. Arbitrarily shaped reinforced concrete members
subjected to biaxial bending and axial load. Computers and
Structures 1993;49:64362.
[9] Whitney CS. Plastic theory of reinforced concrete design. Transactions, ASCE 1940;107:25160.
[10] Rodriguez JA, Aristizabal-Ochoa JD. Biaxial interaction diagrams
for short RC columns of any cross section. Journal of Structural
Engineering 1999;125(6):67283.
[11] Fatis A. Interaction surfaces of reinforced-concrete sections in
biaxial bending. Journal of Structural Engineering 2001;127(7):8406.
[12] Hong HP. Strength of slender reinforced concrete columns under
biaxial bending. Journal of Structural Engineering 2001;127(7):
75862.
[13] Saatcioglu M, Razvi SR. High-strength concrete columns with
square sections under concentric compression. Journal of Structural
Engineering 1998;124(12):143847.

[14] Furlong RW, Hsu CTT, Mirza SA. Analysis and design of concrete
columns for biaxial bending-overview. ACI Structural Journal
2004;101(3):41323.
[15] Morino S, Matsui C, Watanabe H. Strength of biaxially loaded
SRC columns. In: Proceedings of the US/Japan joint seminar on
composite and mixed construction. New York, NY: ASCE; 1984.
p. 18594.
[16] Roik K, Bergmann R. Design method for composite columns
with unsymmetrical cross-sections. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 1990;15:15368.
[17] Virdi KS, Dowling PJ. The ultimate strength of composite columns in
biaxial bending. In: Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers,
Part 2; 1973. p. 25172.
[18] Mirza SA. Parametric study of composite column strength variability. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1989;14:12137.
[19] Mirza SA, Skrabek W. Statistical analysis of slender composite beamcolumn strength. Journal of Structural Engineering 1992;118(1):
131231.
[20] Munoz PR, Behavior of biaxially loaded concrete-encased composite
columns. PhD thesis, New Jersey Institute of Technology; 1994.
[21] Munoz PR, Hsu CT. Behavior of biaxially loaded concrete-encased
composite columns. Journal of Structural Engineering 1997;123(9):
116371.
[22] Munoz PR, Hsu CT. Biaxially loaded concrete-encased composite
columns: design equation. Journal of Structural Engineering 1997;
123(12):157685.
[23] Weng CC, Yen SI. Comparisons of concrete-encased composite
column strength provisions of ACI code and AISC specications.
Engineering Structures 2002;24:5972.
[24] Load and resistance factor design specication for structural steel
buildings. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC); 1993.
[25] Lachance L. Ultimate strength of biaxially loaded composite sections.
Journal of Structural Division, ASCE 1982;108:231329.
[26] Chen SF, Teng JG, Chan SL. Design of biaxially loaded short
composite columns of arbitrary section. Journal of Structural
Engineering 2001;127(6):67885.
[27] Sfakianakis MG. Biaxial bending with axial force of reinforced,
composite and repaired concrete sections of arbitrary shape by ber
model and computer graphics. Advances in Engineering Software
2002;33:22742.
[28] Kent DC, Park R. Flexural members with conned concrete. Journal
of Structural Division ASCE 1971;97(7):196990.
[29] Sheikh SA, Uzumeri SM. Analytical model for concrete connement
in tied columns. Journal of Structural Division ASCE 1982;108(12):
270322.
[30] Saatcioglu M, Razvi SR. Strength and ductility of conned concrete.
Journal of Structural Engineering 1992;118(6):1590607.
[31] Chung HS, Yang KH, Lee YH, Eun HC. Stressstrain curve
of laterally conned concrete. Engineering Structures 2002;24:
115363.
[32] Hognestad E, Hanson NW, McHenry D. Concrete stress distribution
in ultimate stress design. ACI Journal 1955;27(4):45579.
[33] Commission of the European Communities (CEC). Design of
composite steel and concrete structures. Brussels: Eurocode 4; 1984.
[34] Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (TS 500). Ankara:
Turkish Standards Institution; 2000.