Mander - Priestley - Park (1988) - Observed Stress-Strain Behavior of Confined Concrete

OBSERVED STRESS-STRAIN BEHAVIOR
OF CONFINED CONCRETE
By J. B. Mander,* M. J. N. Priestley,2 and R. Park,3 Fellow, ASCE
ABSTRACT: Thirty-one nearly full-size reinforced concrete columns, of

circular, square, or rectangular wall cross section, and containing
various arrangements of reinforcement, were loaded concentrically with
axial compressive strain rates of up to 0.0167/s. The circular sections
contained longitudinal and spiral reinforcement, the square sections
contained longitudinal reinforcement and square and octagonal trans-
verse hoops, and the rectangular wall sections contained longitudinal
reinforcement and rectangular hoops with or without supplementary
cross ties. The longitudinal stress-strain behavior of the confined
concrete was measured and compared with that predicted by a pre-
viously derived stress-strain model with allows for the effects of various
configurations of transverse confining reinforcement, cyclic loading, and
strain rate. The measured longitudinal concrete compressive strain
when the transverse steel first fractured was also compared with that
predicted by equating the strain energy capacity of the transverse
reinforcement to the strain energy stored in the concrete as a result of
the confinement.
INTRODUCTION
In a companion paper by Mander et al. (1988), a theoretical stress-strain
model for confined concrete was developed for members with either
circular or rectangular sections, under static or dynamic axial compressive
loading, either monotonically or cyclically applied. The concrete section
may contain any general type of confinement with either spirals or circular
hoops, or rectangular hoops with or without supplementary cross ties. For
a particular transverse reinforcement configuration, the effective confining
stresses f\x and f'ly in the x and y directions can be calculated from the
transverse reinforcement and the confinement effectiveness coefficient ke,
which defines the effectively confined concrete core area by taking into
account the arching action that occurs between the transverse bars and
between longitudinal bars. The form of the stress-strain curve for confined
concrete was expressed in terms of three control parameters: the confined
concrete compressive strength f'cc, found using a constitutive model
involving an ultimate strength surface for the applied axial stress and the
confining stresses; the strain at the confined compressive strength, ecc;
and the modulus of elasticity of the concrete, Ec. The ultimate compres-
sive concrete strain, ecll, defined as that strain at which first fracture of the
'Asst. Prof, of Civ. Engrg., State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY
14260.
2
3
Prof. of Struct. Engrg., Univ. of California, San Diego, CA 92037.
Prof. and Head of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealand.
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 1989. Separate discussions should be
submitted for the individual papers in this symposium. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must befiledwith the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
December 30, 1986. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
114, No. 8, August, 1988. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/88/0008-1827/$1.00 + $.15 per
page. Paper No. 22687.
1827
Downloaded 25 May 2010 to 169.229.156.151. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
transverse reinforcement occurred, was determined by equating the work
done on the confined concrete and longitudinal reinforcement when
deformed in compression to the available strain energy capacity of the
transverse reinforcement when fracture occurred.
To extend the range of experimental results available to check the
stress-strain theoretical model, tests were conducted on reinforced con-
crete short columns with either circular, square, or rectangular wall cross
sections. The loading was applied concentrically at either quasi-static or
high strain rates. Various arrangements of longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement were investigated. The measured stress-strain behavior was
compared with that predicted by the stress-strain model. This paper
reports those experimental results and the comparison.
TESTS ON CONCENTRICALLY LOADED CIRCULAR COLUMNS CONFINED BY

SPIRALS
General
Mander et al. (1984) conducted tests on cylinders of 500 mm (19.7 in.)
diameter and 1,500 mm (59.1 in.) height. The cylinders were loaded
concentrically in a DARTEC 10 MN (2,250 kips) servohydraulically
controlled testing machine. Because of the high oil-pumping capacity, axial
strain could be applied at strain rates of up to 0.015/s. The high strain rates
imply that peak loads could be reached in as short a time as 0.2 s, Because
of the servohydraulic nature of the machine control, the full falling branch
behavior of the stress-strain relation could be monitored.
Details of the Columns

The details of the columns are given in Fig. 1 and Table 1. In the table,
the symbols D and R used to describe reinforcement stand for deformed
bar and round (plain) bar, respectively, and the following number is the bar
diameter in millimeters (1 mm = 0.039 in.). Thus R12-52 means 12-
mm-diameter round bar at 52 mm pitch; 12-D16 means 12 16-mm-diameter
deformed bars.
It will be seen from Fig. 1 that the columns were constructed and tested
in three series. A pilot series of three columns (a, b, and c) was followed
by two series of six confined columns, each with a companion unreinforced
column (CYL. 1 and CYL. 2) to enable the stress-strain curve of
unconfined concrete to be assessed from tests on unreinforced units of the
same size as the confined units so as to avoid scale effects. Column units
in series 1 had identical longitudinal steel arrangements, but differing
amounts and sizes of transverse spiral reinforcement, resulting in volu-
metric ratios of confining reinforcement, p^, between 0.006 and 0.025.
Series 2 column units had identical transverse reinforcement, but different
amounts and sizes of longitudinal reinforcement. As shown in Fig. 1, the
end 250 mm (9.9 in.) of each test unit had a reduced spiral spacing to ensure
failure occurred in the central, instrumented region of the column. With
the exception of column unit a, all column units were tested at the fast
strain rate of 0.013/s. This strain rate was intended to simulate the effect of
seismic loading rates of strain.
1828
VERTICAL LATERAL
TEST
COLUMN STEEL STEEL
SERIES
NQ--Bar Bar- s
a 12-016 R12-S2
PILOT b II
c II
1 12 -016 R12-k1
1 2 •• R12-69
3 » R12-103
U » R10-119
5 » R10-36
6 " R16-93
CYL.1
7 8 -028 R12-52
2 8 11 • 02k »
9 16-D20 »
10 2^-016 •i
11 36-016 >•
12 2k-DH16 ••
CYL.2 .
ELEVATION NOTES
1. CONCRETE:
strength %=28MPa
aggregate =20mm
slump=75mm
2.REINF0RCING STEEL-.
all steel Grade 275,
COVER TO except the vertical bars
SPIRAL = 25- of Column 12 use Grade 380.
3.SPIRAL JOINTS:
SECTION A-A lap 200mm,
fillet weld 150mm as shown
100 0 500 .200 .
-1S0F.W.
J I L
SCALE Imml
FIG. 1. Construction Details of Columns with Circular Cross Sections (1 mm

0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi)
Instrumentation
Monitoring of load applied by the DARTEC machine was available in
the form of a visual digital display, and an analogue output. Longitudinal
strains were recorded over the central 450-mm (17.7-in.) gage length of
each column using four linear potentiometers at 90° intervals around the
circumference measuring between steel rods integrally cast into and
passing through the core. Clearance holes were provided in the cover
concrete. It was assumed that strains indicated by these potentiometers
were applicable both to the core concrete and to the longitudinal reinforce-
ment, implying zero slip of longitudinal reinforcement.
Transverse strains on the spiral reinforcement were typically monitored
at nine locations over the central 450-mm (17.7-in.) gage length, using
1829
TABLE 1. Details of Spirally Reinforced Columns with Circular Cross Sections
Confine-
Longitu- Longitu- Trans- Material Strength" ment Lateral
dinal dinal verse (MPa) effec- confining Testing
steel steel steel Core diam- tive- pressure strain
ratio" ratiob ratio eter (mm) nessd n" rate
Unit Pi U d, (s-1)
Per Ps (MPa)
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
a 0.0123 0.0160 0.020 28 295 310 438 0.970 3.0 0.000003
b 0.0123 0.0160 0.020 31 295 340 438 0.970 3.3 0.013
c 0.0123 0.0160 0.020 33 295 340 438 0.970 3.3 0.013f
Cyl 1 28 0.013
1 0.0123 0.0160 0.025 28 295 340 438 0.983 4.I8 0.013
2 0.0123 0.0160 0.015 28 295 340 438 0.950 2.42 0.013
3 0.0123 0.0160 0.010 28 295 340 438 0.911 1.55 0.013
4 0.0123 0.0159 0.006 28 295 320 440 0.890 0.85 0.013
5 0.0123 0.0159 0.020 28 295 320 440 0.986 3.14 0.013
6 0.0123 0.0163 0.020 28 295 307 434 0.926 2.84 0.013
Cyl 2 31 0.013
7 0.0251 0.0327 0.020 31 296 340 438 0.987 3.35 0.013
8 0.0253 0.0330 0.020 27 260 340 438 0.987 3.35 0.013
9 0.0256 0.0334 0.020 31 286 340 438 0.987 3.35 0.013
10 0.0246 0.0320 0.020 27 295 340 438 0.986 3.34 0.013
11 0.0369 0.0480 0.020 27 295 340 438 1.002= 3.40 0.013
12 0.0246 0.0320 0.020 31 360 340 438 0.986 3.34 0.013
a
Based on gross section area.
Based on core area.
c
At time of testing of units.
d
From companion paper by Mander et al. (1988).
e
Ke may exceed 1.0 by definition when pcc is high.
f
Dynamic cyclic loading.
Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.039 in.
Kyowa KFC5-C1-11 electric resistance strain gages. All data were re-
corded in analog form on x-y plotters or chart recorders.
General Observations
Figs. 2(a-c) and 3(a-c) show column units 4 and 7, respectively, at three
different stages of testing. In these photographs, it will be observed that
two steel bands encircle the test units close to midheight. These in fact
were separated from the unit by a 25-mm (1-in.) air gap all around, and had
the purpose of protecting the potentiometers from damage as the cover
concrete spalled.
Column unit 4, shown in Figs. 2(a-c) had the lowest volumetric ratio of
confinement reinforcement (p^ = 0.006). Fig. 2(a) shows that just after
peak load was registered, many vertical cracks had developed and crush-
ing of the cover concrete was apparently more severe to the left of the
cylinder. Fig. 2(b), which is just after the first hoop fracture, shows the
development of a diagonal failure plane where the cover had spalled and
was commencing to fall as large slabs of concrete. The full extent of the
diagonal failure plane is shown in Fig. 2(c) at the end of the test when the
instrumentation and loose concrete had been removed. This form of
failure, with a strongly defined diagonal failure plane was characteristic of
the test units with comparatively low volumetric ratios of confining steel.
Column unit 7, shown in Figs. 3(a-c), contained a moderately high
amount of confinement reinforcement (p^. = 0.020). Fig. 3(a) shows column
7 with an axial strain of about 0.012 which was on the falling branch of the
1830
(a) (b) (c)
FIG. 2. Dynamic Testing of Circular Column with Low Spiral Volumetric Ratio
(Column Unit 4; ps = 0.006): (a) Just Following Peak Load at ec = 0.004; (b) Just
Following First Hoop Fracture at ec - 0.036; and (c) End of Test
fa) (b) (c)
FIG. 3. Dynamic Testing of Circular Column with High Spiral Volumetric Ratio
(Column Unit 7; ps = 0.020): (a) Just Following Peak Load at EC = 0.012; (b) Just
Following Hoop Fracture at ec = 0.061; and (c) End of Test
load-deformation response curve. Vertical cracks had developed in a

symmetrical fashion around the central region of the unit. Fig. 3(b) shows
the condition of the column just after the first hoop fracture. Deterioration
of the load carrying capacity was rapid following the first hoop fracture,
and the test was terminated with some six spiral fractures. The final
photograph shows the condition at the end of the test, after loose cover and
rubble had been removed. Note the fractured spirals, buckled longitudinal
steel, and the lack of a well defined failure plane. This was characteristic
of the column units with p > 0.02.
It is of interest that in no case did the spiral reinforcement tend to
1831
"unwind" after an initial hoop fracture. That is clearly illustrated in Fig. 2
at the end of the test where fractures had occurred sequentially over
adjacent spirals.
Measured Stress-Strain Curves

Typical experimental stress-strain curves for confined concrete obtained
from the test results are shown in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b) for columns with low
confinement ratio (column 4) and high confinement ratio (column 7),
respectively. As indicated previously, the columns were tested at a strain
rate of 0.013/s. In the upper graph of each section, total load measured in
the test, load carried by the vertical reinforcement determined from
separate tests at identical rates of strain, and load carried by cover
concrete determined from the comparison unreinforced column (CYL.l or
CYL.2) are separately plotted against axial (longitudinal) strain. The
relationship between average spiral strain recorded by strain gages and
axial strain is also included. The lower graph of each section plots axial
stress in the confined core against axial strain, and it includes the measured
stress-strain curve for the comparison unreinforced column. In these
figures the core stress was found by subtracting the calculated loads
carried by longitudinal reinforcement and cover concrete from the total
measured load, and dividing by the core area. For both graphs, the axial
strain at which the first spiral fractured is indicated by a step of decreasing
load or stress, which occurs near the end of the strain record.
The method adopted to define axial strain, and used in the experimental
stress-strain curves, requires some comment. Prior to attaining maximum
load, the average of the four potentiometers around the circumference was
used. Thereafter, between maximum load and first hoop fracture, the
critical potentiometers were identified and used to determine increments of
strain on the falling branch of the stress-strain curve. These critical
potentiometers were identified by establishing that the failure region
occurred wholly within the gage length of the potentiometers, and that the
incremental displacement indicated by the critical potentiometers was
approximately the same as the incremental stroke displacement. Thus,
where the failure plane was steeply inclined, gage lengths that were not
traversed by the failure plane were ignored. This is felt to be the most
reasonable method for establishing the experimental strain in the failure
region, as it is clear that the critical region for a column under combined
bending and axial load will be well defined and will definitely contain the
crushing region.
It can be seen from Fig. 4 that even for the comparatively lightly
confined column 4, substantial enhancement of compression strength
compared with unconfined concrete occurred, and a greatly extended
falling branch resulted. For the more heavily confined column 7, the results
are similar but more dramatic. For this column, first fracture of the spiral
steel did not occur until an axial strain of 0.06 was attained. At this strain,
the core concrete was still sustaining a stress in excess of 0.85/^ . It will be
noted that the less heavily confined column 4 suffered hoop fracture at a
much lower strain than column 7. This trend is apparent in the measured
spiral steel strains, which rise more rapidly for column 4 than for column 7.
1832
T0.02
I2-D16 R10-119 | SPIRAL

p, = 0.0123 ps = 0.006 I STRAIN
f, =310 MPa frh=320MPa
Cover =25 l'=28MPa
\-0.0l
0.05 AXIAL STRAIN
Call, £yJl-
lc'cIMPa) 36 29
f( IMPal 0.85
fee 0.0033 0.0015
-
feu 0.035 0.008
EJGPa) 26 26 1.0-k
O.Oi 0.05 AXIAL STRAIN

(a)
SPIRAL
STRAIN
-028 RI2-52
= 0.0251 P,= 0.020 ~\blbT
300MPa fc 3WMPa
25 f.'*31MPa
Vertical steel
0.05 AXIAL STRAIN '
^^ .
| COLUMN 7 | -f.5
I Plain concrete
1 cylinder 2
AXIAL Col. 7
STRESS
30 - sai~ •1.0 ^
Ii IMPal 52 32 • <i
m Confined core
IMPal 2 0
' f; IMPal 335
10- m fee
Ceu
0,0057 OJXIi
0.060 0.OCAS
28
•OS
EJGPa) 28
•}yy/-v/^ 1 - -j .- 1 ..!.. 1
0.02 0.03 OM 0.05 AXIAL STRAIN —
(b)
FIG. 4. Typical Experimental Stress-Strain Curves for Spirally Reinforced Circular

Columns (1 MN = 225 kips; 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.): (a) Column 4;
and (b) Column 7
1833
Comparison of Theory and Experiment
Figs. 5(a-d) and Table 2 compare the theoretical behavior predicted by
the stress-strain model described in the companion paper by Mander et al.
(1988), and the experimental behavior measured in the tests for the circular
column units, and display the significance of different variables on the
stress-strain behavior. From Figs. 5(a-d) it is apparent that the most
significant variable in the tests was the volumetric ratio, p^, of spiral
reinforcement (Fig. 5[a]). Increasing ps increases the peak stress f'cc, the
strain at peak stress z'cc, and the fracture strain BCU , and decreases the
slope of the falling branch of the stress-strain curve. The effects of spiral
pitch is shown in Fig. 5(b) for two columns with equal volumetric ratio of
spiral reinforcement formed by either R10-36 centers or R16-93 centers.
Although the 93-mm (3.7-in.) spacing gave a slightly less satisfactory
falling branch than the 36-mm (1.4-in.) spacing, the influence is small. Peak
stress and failure strain were not influenced significantly. Note that the
larger spacing of 93 mm (3.7 in.) was 19% of the column diameter, which
was close enough to effectively confine the concrete.
The number of longitudinal bars (Fig. 5[c]) has little influence on
behavior, and no trend is obvious. Although considerable scatter occurs
between test units with different amounts of longitudinal reinforcement
(Fig. 5[d]), again no trend is obvious, and it is felt that the variations
represent normal, though perhaps rather severe, experimental scatter.
The theoretical curves plotted for comparison in Figs. 5(a-d) were
calculated using the experimental values iovf'co and z'co obtained from the
comparison unreinforced column and the calculated effective lateral con-
fining stress//corresponding to yield of the spiral reinforcement (see Table
1). Details of the required theoretical parameters are included in Tables 1
and 2.
It will be seen that the theoretical curves in Figs. 5(a-d) give a good
prediction of the full stress-strain curves. Also, estimates of the axial strain
corresponding to first hoop fracture based on the energy balance method
are in good average agreement with the experimental values.
In Table 2, the peak experimental and theoretical confined concrete
strengths f'cc are listed and compared. Agreement is very close in most
cases with experimental concrete strengths exceeding the predicted level
by 1.7% on average. The experimental confined strain at peak stress e cc is
1.3% less than the predicted confined strain on average. The experimental
strain at first hoop fracture exceeded the predicted strain by 9.5% on
average. These close agreements of average behavior, and the compara-
tively low scatter, indicate that the theoretical model presented in the
companion paper gives an excellent prediction of the stress-strain curves
for concrete confined by spirals.
Effect of Grade of Transverse Reinforcement

Typical stress-strain curves measured for New Zealand manufactured
grade 275 (fyh > 40 ksi) and grade 380 (fyh > 55 ksi) are shown in Fig. 6.
It is observed that the fracture strain of the high-strength steel is about 40%
lower than that of the medium-strength steel. Also, the high-strength steel
shows a greater increase in stress with increasing strain in the strain-
hardening range after yielding commences. However, as mentioned in the
companion paper, it has been found that the strain energy stored per unit
1834
0-05 AXIAL STRAIN
045 AXIAL STRAW
ANALYTICAL'
EXPERIMENTAL
005 AXIAL STRAIN
I /-. I\
-1-5
^"*"'tt5355ii
-'•°i
COLUMN LONE. BARS P,
11 - 021, 00253
=10 2k- 016 0021,6 UO-S
36 - 016 00369 '^L~~ ANALYTICAL
EXPERIMENTAL
l i i i i
005 AXIAL STRAIN
(d)
FIG. 5. Influence of Variables on Experimental Stress-Strain Curves and Compari-

son with Theory for Spirally Reinforced Circular Columns (1 MPa = 145 psi),
Showing Effects of: (a) Amount of Spiral Reinforcement; (d) Spiral Pitch; (c)
Number of Longitudinal Bars; and (d) Amount of Longitudinal Steel
1835
TABLE 2. Experimental Results and Comparison with Theory for Spirally Re-
inforced Columns with Circular Cross Sections
Strain at Hoop Fracture
Plain Concrete Data Confined Strength/;.,. Confined Strain e ( r tin
Experi- Experi-
Theo- Experi- mental/ mental/
Experi- ret- mental/ Theo- Theo-
Ec mental ical" Theo- Experi- Theo- ret- Experi- Theo- ret-
Unit n fee
(MPa) (MPa) E
co (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) reticalb mental retical11 ical0 mental retical" ical11
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
a 30 24 0.002 24 38 40.3 0.94 0.008 0.0088 0.9I 0.060 0.056 1.07
b 31 30 0.0015 31 48 48.3 0.99 0.0042 0.0061 0.69 0.039 0.053 0.74
c 33 32 0.0015 32 47 50.5 0.93 0.0058 0.0059 0.98 0.058 0.053 1.09
Cyl 1 28 29 0.0015 26
1 28 29 0.0015 26 51 51.0 1.00 0.0073 0.0072 1.01 0.058 0.062 0.94
2 28 29 0.0015 26 46 43.0 1.07 0.0050 0.0051 0.98 0.056 0.048 1.17
3 28 29 0.0015 26 40 38.5 1.04 0.0040 0.0039 1.03 0.055 0.040 1.38
4 28 29 0.0015 26 36 34.5 1.04 0.0033 0.0029 1.14 0.035 0.034 1.03
5 28 29 0.0015 26 47 46.5 1.01 0.0065 0.0060 1.08 0.058 0.057 1.02
6 28 29 0.0015 26 46 45.1 1.02 0.0058 0.0057 1.02 0.057 0.059 0.97
Cyl 2 31 32 0.0014 28
7 31 32 0.0014 28 52 50.8 1.02 0.0057 0.0055 1.04 0.060 0.045 1.33
8 27 30 0.0014 28 49 48.6 1.01 0.0058 0.0057 1.02 0.057 0.048 1.19
9 31 32 0.0014 28 52 50.8 1.02 0.0054 0.0055 0.98 0.060 0.048 1.25
10 27 30 0.0014 30 50 48.5 1.03 0.0064 0.0057 1.12 0.058 0.047 1.23
11 27 30 0.0014 30 54 48.8 1.11 0.0045 0.0057 0.79 0.0432 0.042 1.03
12 31 32 0.0014 28 52 50.7 1.03 0.0056 0.0055 1.02 0.043 0.044 0.98
"Theoretical values computed from equations given in companion paper by Mander et al. (1988).
•"Average = 1.017.
'Average = 0.987.
••Average = 1.095.
Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 GPa = 145 ksi.
volume of reinforcing steel at fracture is approximately the same for both

grades of steel. That is, the areas under the two stress-strain curves of Fig.
6 up to the fracture strains are approximately identical.
Equations for the required quantity of transverse reinforcement speci-
Gradet 380 (fyhZ55ksi) Steel
Grade 275 (fyh»40ksi) Steel
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20

STRAIN
FIG. 6. Typical Stress-Strain Curves for Steel Reinforcement (1 MPa = 14S psi)
1836
ed in design codes permit a reduction in the required quantity of transverse
confining for higher strength steel. That is, the required quantity of
transverse steel is inversely proportional to the yield strength of that steel,
fyh . However, it is possible that the available ductility of a section confined
with high-strength transverse steel may be reduced due to premature
fracture of that steel and a consequent loss of effective confinement. To
investigate this possible problem six concentrically loaded spirally re-
inforced concrete columns were tested by Zahn et al. (1986). It was found
that the volumetric ratio of confining reinforcement can be decreased with
increasing steel yield strength without resulting in a reduction in the
compressive strength of the confined concrete, and that the ductility of the
confined concrete although reduced will remain high.
This result is explained by the energy balance approach described in the
companion paper. The reduced volume of high-strength steel means a
smaller strain energy capacity at fracture of that steel and hence a reduced
ultimate concrete compressive strain ec„ at first fracture of the transverse
steel. Thus the eclt available using grade 380 transverse steel will be
approximately 275/380 = 0.72 times the ecll available using grade 275
transverse steel.
TESTS ON CONCENTRICALLY LOADED SQUARE COLUMNS CONFINED BY

SQUARE AND OCTAGONAL HOOPS
General
Scott et al. (1982) have reported a test program involving 30 column
units of 450 mm x 450 mm (17.7 in. x 17.7 in.) square cross section and
1,200 mm (47.2 in.) in height. The column units were loaded concentrically
in the DARTEC testing machine in a fashion similar to the circular
columns.
Effect of Age at Testing

Five column units constructed but not tested by Scott et al. (1982) were
tested under concentric compression at an average age of greater than 940
days. These tests were made to check whether any ageing effects are
apparent apart from strength increase and are fully described elsewhere by
Mander et al. (1984).
Figs. l{a-c) and S(a-c) show experimental results for columns with 12
longitudinal bars and 8 longitudinal bars, respectively, and with different
hoop arrangements. The construction details of the columns are also
shown in figures. In Figs. l{a-c) the results of column 13 tested by Scott et
al. (1982) at age 67 days are compared with the results of column 16 tested
at age 942 days. In Figs. %{a-c), the results of columns 6 and 7 tested by
Scott et al. at ages 75 and 76 days, respectively, are compared with the
results of column 10 tested at age 983 days. For all columns, the strain rate
was ec = 0.0167/s except for column 6 where it was 0.0000033/s. The axial
strains were recorded over the central 400-mm (15.7-in.) gage length of
column using four linear potentiometers, one at each face of the column
measuring between steel rods as for the circular columns. In these figures,
the axial strain plotted is defined as for the circular column tests, namely
the average strain occurring in those gage lengths within the crushing
region rather than the average strain of all gage lengths. The experimental
1837
LONGITUDINAL STEEL P, =0-0186 f,=i3l, HPa
LATERAL STEEL % =0-0197 f,f309 HPa
CONCRETE f'c = 23 MPa at 28 days
f, =2i-8 MPa at 67 days
la)
SPECIMEN 16, tested al 91,2 days
0-02 003 O-Oi

AXIAL STRAIN
to
FIG. 7. Influence of Age at Testing on Stress-Strain Curves for 12-Bar Square

Columns (1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.): (a) Details of Specimens 13 and
16; (b) Specimen Load-Strain Response; and (c) Concrete Stress-Strain Response
stress-strain curves for the core concrete were found by subtracting the
load carried by the cover concrete and the longitudinal reinforcement from
the total load, and dividing by the core area.
From Figs. 7(a-c), it will be seen that the 12-bar column 16 tested at 942
days attained a slightly higher stress and ultimate strain than column 13
tested at 67 days. However, from Figs. 8(a-c), it is evident that the
eight-bar column 10 tested at 983 days produced an almost identical
stress-strain curve to column 7 which was tested at 76 days, except for a
reduction in ultimate strain for column 10. Column 6, tested at the
quasi-static strain rate at age 75 days, attained lower strength but higher
strain at first hoop fracture. These figures indicate that apart from the slight
1838
LONGITUDINAL STEEL P, =00179 ff=39i HPa
LATERAL STEEL % =00186 fa=309 MPa
CONCRETE f; =22 HPa at 26 days
C; =25-3 MPa at 75 days
la)
mm
AXIAL
lb)
so X THEORETICAL FIRST
HOOP FRACTURE
AXIAL
iO
STRESS
30
f, =^6'
20 COVER
IMPal
—rrrTr. ANALYTICAL
10 ^ ^ = EXPERIMENTAL
10
FIG. 8. Influence of Age at Testing on Stress-Strain Curves for Eight-Bar Square
Columns (1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.): (a) Details of Specimens 6, 7, and
10; (b) Specimen Load-Strain Response; and (c) Concrete Stress-Strain Response
strength increase expected due to the increased age of the concrete at time
of testing, no significant ageing effects are apparent.
Comparison between theoretical stress-strain curves predicted by the
proposed model and the experimental results, are included for columns 13
and 16 in Figs. l{a-c) and for columns 6, 7, and 10 in Figs. 8(a-c). Good
agreement is apparent for the shape of the curves as well as peak strains at
first hoop fracture.
TESTS ON CONCENTRICALLY LOADED RECTANGULAR WALL SECTIONS
CONFINED BY RECTANGULAR HOOPS AND CROSS TIES
General
Unlike the stress-strain models proposed by previous investigators, the
theoretical model proposed in the companion paper is able to cope with
1839
rectangular sections with different levels of confinement in the two
principal directions. The concern of Mander et al. (1984) when developing
the model was particularly with the behavior of flanges of hollow rectangu-
lar box-section columns under seismic response, although clearly other
situations have relevance, such as solid rectangular walls or slab piers.
Tests were conducted on sixteen rectangular wall units to observe behav-
ior and to check the accuracy of the stress-strain model.
Details of the Units

Fig. 9 presents the details of 16 rectangular wall units. Each wall had a
cross section of 150 mm (5.9 in.) x 700 mm (27.6 in.) with an overall height
of 1,200 mm (47.2 in.). The test units were designed as models of one-half
of full size of the flange region of a 1,900 mm (74.8 in.) x 1,900 mm (74.8
in.) square hollow columns with 300 mm (11.8 in.) thick walls. A cover of
25 mm (1 in.) to the outside hoop steel was adopted.
The principal variables in this test series were the amount and configu-
ration of the transverse reinforcement used in the wall units. Three
different hoop configurations were examined, including square hoops
enclosing four adjacent longitudinal bars together with an external per-
imeter hoop (walls 1,2,5, 6, and 9-12), overlapping square hoops together
with an external perimeter hoop (wall 3), and transverse cross ties together
with an external perimeter hoop (walls 4, 13, and 14). The amount of
transverse hoop steel chosen covered the typical range used in columns
designed in accordance with the New Zealand concrete design code NZS
3101 (Standards Association of New Zealand 1982).
It should be noted that several of the units violated the spacing
requirements of NZS 3101. The requirement that the spacing of hoop sets
should not exceed 0.2 of the least lateral dimension could be very onerous
for hollow section columns if the least lateral dimensions is taken as the
wall thickness, and would result in a maximum spacing of 150/5 = 30 mm
(1.2 in.) for the hoop sets in these wall units (i.e., 60 mm [2.4 in.] in
prototype dimension). Walls 3, 5, 6, 11, and 12 deliberately violated this
requirement. Also, in prototype terms, walls 13 and 14 had a center to
center spacing of longitudinal reinforcement of 320 mm (12.6 in.) which
exceeds the maximum of 200 mm (7.9 in.) permitted by NZS 3101.
Nevertheless, it will be shown later that these code violations did not result
in unsatisfactory performance.
The wall units were cast in two batches of eight units each, two of which
were unreinforced to allow the unconfined stress-strain curve to be
examined at both high and low strain rates. Full details of the wall unit
reinforcement, material strengths and confining stresses are given in Table
3. Of particular interest in this table are the very low confinement
effectiveness coefficient values which vary in the range of 0.40 < ke < 0.70.
These low values stem from the comparatively wide spacing of longitudinal
and transverse reinforcement compared with the width of the confined
core. Also of interest are the different levels of confining stress provided in
the two principal transverse directions.
Instrumentation
Longitudinal strains were measured by four potentiometers recording
over the central 400-mm (15.7-in.) gage length of each wall unit. Mounting
1840
NOTES
1. STEEL:
All steel GRADE 275
2. CONCRETE:
Strength f^28MPa
Aggregate =13 mm
Slump = 150mm
3. COVER:
Cover to hoops=25mm.
STEEL DETAILS FOR

WALLS 1,2,5A and 9 to 12. VERTICAL LATERAL
BATCH WALL STEEL STEEL
N°- - Bar Bar—s
1 16-012 R6-25
2 " "
1 3 R6-50
WALL 3 4
"
5
" R6-2S
6
" R6-72
7
" R10-U2
8 —
9 16-012 R6-2S
10
WALL U 2 11
16-016
"
12
" R6-S0
13
"
10- 012
RW-1,2
R10-30
^ w p ^ K " R6-30
15 — —
16 — —
WALLS 13 and %
FIG. 9. Construction Details of Columns with Rectangular Sections (1 SVlPa = 145
psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
1841
TABLE 3. Details of Columns with Rectangular Cross Sections
Vertical Reinforcement Transverse Reinforcement Confining Stress
Test
strain
fy A' fl! rate
Wall (MPa) P,b Pec" (MPa) P, e Pi = P.V + Pv (MPa) (MPa) (s-1)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) O) (10) (12) (13)
(11)
1 28 0.0172 0.030 330 0.0196 0.0270 0.0466 310 0.650 3.97 5.44 0.00001
2 28 0.0172 0.030 330 0.0196 0.0270 0.0466 340 0.650 4.33 5.97 0.0133
3 28 0.0172 0.030 330 0.0157 0.0270 0.0427 310 0.541 2.64 4.52 0.00001
4 28 0.0172 0.030 330 0.0157 0.0270 0.0427 310 0.650 3.16 5.44 0.00001
5 28 0.0172 0.030 330 0.0068 0.0094 0.0162 310 0.454 0.95 1.32 0.00001
6 28 0.0172 0.031 330 0.0292 0.0416 0.0708 330 0.587 5.66 8.06 0.00001
7 28 0.0133
8 28 0.00001
9 41 0.0172 0.030 330 0.0196 0.0270 0.0466 340 0.650 4.35 5.97 0.0133
10 41 0.0306 0.053 290 0.0196 0.0270 0.0466 340 0.700 4.69 6.43 0.0133
11 41 0.0306 0.053 290 0.0098 0.0135 0.0233 340 0.586 1.95 2.69 0.0133
12 41 0.0306 0.056 290 0.0292 0.0416 0.0708 360 0.634 6.66 9.49 0.0133
13 41 0.0108 0.020 290 0.0205 0.0582 0.0787 360 0.399 2.94 8.36 0.0133
14 41 0.0108 0.019 290 0.0082 0.0225 0.0307 340 0.397 1.11 3.04 0.0133
15 41 0.0133
16 41 0.00001
a
Average age at testing: approximately 240 days.
b
Longitudinal steel ratio related to gross section area.
c
Longitudinal steel ratio related to core section area.
d
See Fig. 9 for configuration of transverse reinforcement.
e
y = section short direction; x = section long direction.
f
Given by the equations in companion paper by Mander et al. (1988).
Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.
rods for the potentiometers were located 175 mm (6.9 in.) in from each end
face of the units passing through the core concrete. Transverse strains
were measured by electric resistance strain gage on hoop reinforcement at
the central cross section.
Testing Procedure
Because of the rather high aspect ratio of 1,200/150 = 8, the wall units
possessed a degree of lateral instability not apparent in the prototype
box-columns, where lateral support for the compression flange is provided
by the webs. This instability caused the first wall unit tested (wall 1) to fail
by buckling before fracture of hoop reinforcement occurred. To avoid
further instability, a stabilizing frame was built which provided lateral
support to the edges of the wall units, but did not inhibit longitudinal strain,
or any tendency to buckle midway between the lines of lateral support.
Thus the stabilizing effects of webs was effectively modelled for all but wall 1.
The walls were loaded concentrically. Most wall units were loaded
monotonically at either the quasi-static loading rate (EC. = 0.00001/s) or the
high strain rate (ec = 0.0133). Three wall units, however, were unloaded
and reloaded once or more during the test program to investigate the
influence of repeated loading on the stress-strain curves.
Results
Experimental stress-strain curves for the unreinforced concrete wall
units are plotted in Fig. 10, and show the influence of dynamic loading.
This figure also presents the experimental values for the strength pa-
1842
.*.:• , P M W CONCRETE-'-' £ 1750
700
40 -
Ufa// 7 8
Axial
30
Stress ^ r/wpo; 28 28
f 29
/c'0 r w p a ; 26
(MPa) 20
^•co 0.0018 0.0022
'cu 0.0082 0.010
10
£c(s-') 0.0133 0.00001
EJCPa) 24 22
0
0 . . . _. .0.01
Axial Strain
50 ' _
:
i
(,'-'-PLAIN CONCRETE .''» , 750
WALL IS
-1.0 ji 700
40
~ irf—WALL !S
'c
kVa// 15 16
Axial
Stress 30 - 47 47
£ /WRJ/
(MPa) -0.5 ^ 0 (MPa) 43 38
20
£co 0.0075 00079
t-cu 0.0045 0.0046
10
tc(s-'l 0.0133 0.00007
i
EJGPa) 32 30
n i <\ >
0 0.01
Axial Strain
FIG. 10. Experimental Stress-Strain Curves for Unreinforced Columns with Rec-
tangular Sections (1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
rameters f'co and eco, and the cylinder compressive strength f'c. The
experimental values off'co and eco were used to predict the stress-strain
response of the reinforced wall units using the theoretical model described
in the companion paper.
Experimental results for axial load versus axial strain, and core stress
versus axial strain are shown in Fig. 11 for a typical test. The axial
load-strain plot shows a pronounced drop at an axial strain of approxi-
mately 0.003, corresponding to spalling of cover concrete. Strength
enhancement of the confined core subsequently results in an increase in
load to a level higher than that attained prior to spalling. The wall unit
shown in Fig. 11 was unloaded and reloaded twice during the test program.
It should be noted that the unloading occurs at a stiffness similar to the
initial elastic stiffness, and that the stress-strain curve appears to regain the
monotonic level. As with other tests previously described, the core stress
is found by subtracting the load carried by cover concrete and longitudinal
1843
[0.02
I
HOOP
fcj M MNI|]so STRAIN
16-DI6 P, =0.0306 fy = 320MPa -001

RIO-42 ps =0.0708 fyh = 360MPa
25 fc' = HMPa
O.Oi AXIAL STRAIN
— 1.5
Wall 12 15 --1 n-L

fee (MPal 78 1,3
f} IMPa) 808
fee 0.0102 0.0018
0.045 0001,5 --0.5
Ecu
f Is-') 00133 0.0133
E (CPal 31 32
0.01 0.03 O.Oi AXIAL STRAIN
FIG. 11. Typical Experimental Stress-Strain Curves for Columns with Rectangular
Sections (1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
reinforcement from the total load, and dividing by the core area (measured
to the center line of the perimeter hoop reinforcement).
Figs. 12(a-d) and Table 4 summarize the experimental results and
compare with the predicted theoretical values. The effect of different
arrangements of transverse hoop reinforcement on the stress-strain behav-
ior is shown in Fig. 12(a). All three wall units shown contained the same
amount of transverse reinforcement, and were tested at the same strain-
rate of ec = 0.00001/s. Of the three wall units, wall 4, with cross ties, gave
the best performance. The first hoop fracture in wall 3 with overlapping
square hoops occurred at the rather low strain of ec„ = 0.028, and is
believed to be due to nonuniform action of the two overlapping hoops bent
around each longitudinal bar. Although wall 1, with nonoverlapping hoops
also gave poor response, this was due to premature wall buckling, as
discussed earlier. It is believed that had this wall been adequately
supported at its edges, as were walls 3 and 4, its behavior would also have
been satisfactory. This belief is supported by the behavior of wall 2, which
was identical to wall 1 except that it was loaded at the high strain rate (see
Fig. 12[c]), and behaved satisfactorily. Despite the problems noted for
walls 1 and 3 relating to ultimate strain, the theoretical predictions of the
general stress-strain curve shapes, shown in Fig. 12(a), are good. It will be
noted that despite nominally identical confinement ratios and concrete
strength, the theoretical predictions for the three hoop configurations
1844
STRESS
IHPa)
001 AXIAL STRAIN
(a)
x THEORETICAL FIRST HOOP FRACTURE-
WALL 10, R6-2Sl% = 0M661y
OM AXIAL STRAIN
FIG. 12. Influence of Variables on Experimental Stress-Strain Curves and Com-

parison with Theory for Columns with Rectangular Sections (1 MPa = 145 psi; 1
mm = 0.0394 in.), Showing Effects of: (a) Hoop Configuration; (b) Hoop Spacing
with Constant Hoop Size; (c) Strain Rate; and (d) Longitudinal Steel Distribution
differ. This is primarily a result of the different transverse steel configu-

rations for these walls.
Fig. 12(b) compares the influence of amount of confining reinforcement
on the stress-strain curves, and includes a comparison with unconfined
concrete. The trends apparent are identical to those reported earlier for
circular-section and rectangular-wall units. It will be noted that the
theoretical predictions for all three stress-strain curves in this figure are
extremely close to the experimental data.
The influence of strain rate on the stress-strain curve is illustrated in Fig.
12(c). Within the limits of comparison imposed by the premature buckling
of wall 1, the trends conform to those for other sections reported earlier,
with an increase in strength and slope of the falling branch resulting from
an increased strain rate.
The effect of altering the distribution of longitudinal reinforcement is
shown in Fig. 12(d)- Walls 12 and 13 had similar amounts of confining
1845
AXIAL
STRESS
IMPa)
(0
AXIAL
STRESS
IMPal
O-Oi AXIAL STRAIN
(d)
FIG. 12. continued
reinforcement (ps = 0.0708 and 0.0786, respectively) but it can be seen that
the stress-strain response of the two units is quite different. Wall 12 had 16
closely spaced 16-mm- (0.63-in.-) diameter bars (pr = 0.0306), while wall 13
had 12 more widely spaced 12-mm- (0.47-in.-) diameter bars (p, = 0.0108).
According to the theoretical model presented in the companion paper, the
confinement effectiveness coefficients ke were 0.63 and 0.40 for walls 12
and 13, respectively. Thus it is evident that a closer spacing of longitudinal
bars and cross ties will lead to more effectively confined concrete with a
greater strength enhancement. Nevertheless, it should be noted that by
using extra longitudinal steel to improve the axial load carrying capacity,
additional strain energy input from the hoop reinforcement is required to
restrain the longitudinal bars from buckling. Hence for a constant volume
of confining steel, the strain at first hoop fracture will be attained sooner
for sections in which the longitudinal steel has a large load carrying
capacity.
It should be noted that the difference in behavior apparent in Fig. 12(d)
does not result from the different longitudinal reinforcement ratio. Com-
parisons of walls with similar longitudinal reinforcement configurations,
1846
TABLE 4. Experimental Results and Comparison with Theory for Columns with
Rectaiiguiai' Cross Sections
Plain Concrete Confined Strength Confined Strain Strain at Hoop Fracture
Data8 fee
Experi- Experi- Experi-
Experi- Theo- mental/ mental/ mental/
n„ mental retical11 Theo- Experi- Theo- Theo- Experi- Theo- Theo-
Wall (MPa) E
co (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) retical mental retical11 retical mental retical11 retical
(1) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
(2)
1 26 0.0022 22 46 49 0.94 0.014 0.012 1.17 0.027c 0.048 0.56°
2 29 0.0018 24 56 . 55 1.02 0.017 0.0098 1.73 0.042 0.047 0.89
3 26 0.0022 22 46 44 1.05 0.013 0.010 1.30 0.028 0.040 0.70
4 26 0.0022 22 51 47 1.08 0.019 0.0111 1.71 0.050 0.050 1.00
5 26 0.0022 22 37 33 1.12 0.0075 0.0052 1.44 0.0284 0.025 1.14
6 26 0.0022 22 56 56 1.00 0.021 0.015 1.40 0.055 0.062 0.89
9 43 0.0018 32 72 71 1.01 0.0082 0.0076 1.08 0.030 0.040 0.75
10 43 0.0018 32 72 72 1.00 0.0076 0.0079 0.96 0.034 0.034 1.00
11 43 0.0018 32 60 57 1.05 0.0052 0.0047 1.11 0.025 0.0225 1.11
12 43 0.0018 32 78 81 0.96 0.0102 0.0098 1.04 0.045 0.044 1.02
13 43 0.0018 32 69 69 1.00 0.0065 0.0072 0.90 0.055 0.056 0.98
14 43 0.0018 32 58 55 1.05 0.0046 0.0043 1.70 0.033 0.032 1.03
a
From tests on walls 7, 8, 15, and 16 (see Fig. 10).
b
From equations given in the companion paper by Mander et al. (1988).
c
Hoop fracture did not occur: wall failed prematurely by buckling.
Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 GPa = 145 ksi.
but different bar diameter (for example, walls 9 and 10) indicated almost
identical stress-strain curves to those shown here (see Table 4 for salient
details).
Figs. \2{a-d) also illustrate that the theoretical stress-strain model
proposed in the companion paper for cyclic loading gives good agreement
with the unloading and loading branches in those cases where the loading
was cycled.
Predicted and experimentally obtained values for the confined strength
f'cc, the confined strain at peak stress ecc, and the strain at first hoop
fracture ECH are listed in Table 4, together with the relevant ratio of
experimental to theoretical results. It will be noted that very good
agreement is obtained for the confined strength, with the theoretical
predictions tending to be slightly conservative. Much more scatter is
apparent in the strain at peak stress. For the slow strain rate tests, the
theoretical predictions are very conservative, although with the exception
of wall 2, the agreement is good for the high-strain rate results. With the
exception of walls 1 and 3, for the reasons noted earlier, the agreement
between ultimate strain based on the energy balance method measured
strain at first hoop fracture is quite good.
CONCLUSIONS
Tests were conducted on reinforced concrete short columns with either
circular, square, or rectangular cross sections. The loading was applied
concentrically at either quasi-static or high strain rates. Various arrange-
ments of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement were investigated. The
following trends were observed:
1. The most significant parameter affecting the shape of the stress-strain
curve of confined concrete for all section shapes was the quantity of
1847
confining reinforcement, in the form of spirals for circular columns, or
rectangular hoops or cross ties for square or rectangular columns. As the
volumetric ratio of confining reinforcement increased, the strength devel-
oped increased, the slope of the falling branch decreased (i.e., flattened),
and the longitudinal strain at which hoop fracture occurred increased.
These trends followed the theoretical predictions of a stress-strain model
proposed by the writers for confined concrete.
2. The influence of the configuration of transverse reinforcement can be
predicted through the confinement effectiveness coefficient ke. The con-
figuration of transverse reinforcement had a particularly large effect, with
ke varying in the range 0.40-0.70 for the rectangular walls and 0.89-1.0 for
the circular columns. Also the only significance of the configuration of
longitudinal reinforcement was through its effect on ke.
3. As predicted, the circular columns confined with spiral reinforcement
performed better than rectangular or square columns. This was apparent in
both the strength enhancement and the ultimate compression strain for a
given volumetric confinement ratio.
4. The analytical stress-strain model proposed by the writers and
described in the companion paper was found to give good prediction of
experimental behavior for circular, square, and rectangular columns with
various reinforcement configurations. As well as accurately predicting the
enhanced strength and general shape of the stress-strain curves for the
confined concrete, the longitudinal strain at first hoop fracture was
predicted within surprisingly close tolerances using the energy balance
approach. This approach, which relates the increase in strain energy
absorbed by the confined core to the strain energy available in the yielding
hoop sets provides a neat explanation for the enhancement of ductility of
concrete confined by spirals or hoops.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work described in this paper was conducted by Dr. J. B. Mander as

part of his PhD studies at the University of Canterbury under the
supervision of Dr. M. J. N. Priestley and Professor R. Park. The financial
assistance provided by the University of Canterbury, the New Zealand
Railways and the National Roads Board is gratefully acknowledged.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
"Building code requirements for reinforced concrete." (1983). ACI318-83, Ameri-

can Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich.
"Code of practice for the design of concrete structures." (1982). NZS 3101,
Standards Association of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1984). "Seismic design of bridge
piers ."Research Report 84-2, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). "Theoretical stress-strain
model for confined concrete." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 114(8), 1804-1826.
Scott, B. D., Park, R., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1982). "Stress-strain behavior of
concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates." Am.
Concr. Inst. J., 79(1), 13-27.
Zahn, F. A., Park, R., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1986). "Design of reinforced
concrete bridge columns for strength and ductility.'' Research Report 86-7, Univ.
of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
1848
APPENDIX 11. NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
bc = concrete core dimension to center line of perimeter hoop in

x direction;
Df = dynamic magnification factor for concrete strength due to
dynamic loading;
dc = concrete core dimension to center line of perimeter hoop in
y direction;
ds = diameter of spiral;
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete;
fc = longitudinal concrete stress;
f'c = compressive strength of unconfined concrete cylinder 150
mm (6 in.) diameter x 300 mm (12 in.) high;
f'cc = compressive strength (peak stress) of confined concrete;
f'co = compressive strength of unconfined concrete;
=
(fco)dyn dynamic compressive strength of unconfined concrete;
// = effective lateral confining stress;
fjx = effective lateral confining stress in x direction;
fly = effective lateral confining stress in y direction;
fy = yield stress of longitudinal reinforcing steel;
fyh = yield strength of transverse reinforcing steel;
ke = confinement effectiveness coefficient; and
s = spiral spacing pitch.
1849

Mander - Priestley - Park (1988) - Observed Stress-Strain Behavior of Confined Concrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mander - Priestley - Park (1988) - Observed Stress-Strain Behavior of Confined Concrete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mander - Priestley - Park (1988) - Observed Stress-Strain Behavior of Confined Concrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OBSERVED STRESS-STRAIN BEHAVIOR

ABSTRACT: Thirty-one nearly full-size reinforced concrete columns, of

TESTS ON CONCENTRICALLY LOADED CIRCULAR COLUMNS CONFINED BY

Details of the Columns

FIG. 1. Construction Details of Columns with Circular Cross Sections (1 mm

fa) (b) (c)

load-deformation response curve. Vertical cracks had developed in a

Measured Stress-Strain Curves

I2-D16 R10-119 | SPIRAL

0.05 AXIAL STRAIN

O.Oi 0.05 AXIAL STRAIN

0.05 AXIAL STRAIN '

FIG. 4. Typical Experimental Stress-Strain Curves for Spirally Reinforced Circular

Effect of Grade of Transverse Reinforcement

045 AXIAL STRAW

005 AXIAL STRAIN

FIG. 5. Influence of Variables on Experimental Stress-Strain Curves and Compari-

volume of reinforcing steel at fracture is approximately the same for both

Gradet 380 (fyhZ55ksi) Steel

Grade 275 (fyh»40ksi) Steel

0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20

TESTS ON CONCENTRICALLY LOADED SQUARE COLUMNS CONFINED BY

Effect of Age at Testing

SPECIMEN 16, tested al 91,2 days

0-02 003 O-Oi

FIG. 7. Influence of Age at Testing on Stress-Strain Curves for 12-Bar Square

Details of the Units

STEEL DETAILS FOR

16-DI6 P, =0.0306 fy = 320MPa -001

O.Oi AXIAL STRAIN

Wall 12 15 --1 n-L

0.01 0.03 O.Oi AXIAL STRAIN

001 AXIAL STRAIN

x THEORETICAL FIRST HOOP FRACTURE-

WALL 10, R6-2Sl% = 0M661y

FIG. 12. Influence of Variables on Experimental Stress-Strain Curves and Com-

differ. This is primarily a result of the different transverse steel configu-

O-Oi AXIAL STRAIN

FIG. 12. continued

The work described in this paper was conducted by Dr. J. B. Mander as

"Building code requirements for reinforced concrete." (1983). ACI318-83, Ameri-

The following symbols are used in this paper:

bc = concrete core dimension to center line of perimeter hoop in

You might also like