STRI]CTIJRAL ENGNEERS

QUARTERLY JOURNAL

NDIAN SOCIETY
OF fsffir
STRUCTURAL E,NGINEERS
VOLUME 20-1, Jan-Feb-Mar 2018
Head Office : C/O S.G. Dharmadhikari, 24,PandilNiwas, 3rd Floor, S. K. Bole Road,
Dadar (W.), Mumbai 400 028 o Tel. :91-22 24314423 I 24221015
oE-mail : [email protected] oWebsite : wwwisse.org.in
Regd. Office :
The Maharashtra Executor & Trustee Co. Ltd., Bank of Maharashtra, Gadkari Chowk,
Gokhale Road (N.), Dadar (W.), Mumbai400 028.
Charity Commissioner Reg. No. E-17940, Mumbai Donations are exempted from lncome Tax under B0-G

FOUNDER PRESIDENT:
Late Eng. R. L. Nene
Contents
Parent Advisors : ...... M. C. Bhide
+ FRATERNITY NEWS
M. D. Mulay 2
::::: S. G. Patil
S. G. Dharmadhikari + Gem 15: Dr. Fazlur R. Khan,'Einstein 3
of Structurai Engineering'
ISSE WORKING COMMITTEE :
by Dr. N. Subramanian
Presrdent Prof. D. S. Joshi
Secretary P. B. Dandekar
Er. Vivek G. Abhaynakar
Treasurer M. M. Nandgonkar
Past President ..... Prof. G. B. Choudhari + lS '16700:20'17 Criteria for I
Member K. L. Savla Structural Safety of Tall Concrete Buildings
M. V. Sant by Alpa Sheth
J. R. Raval
U. V. Dhargalkar + Problems in Using RCDC for 16
S. H. Jain
Columns Under Biaxial Bending
H. S. Vadalkar
N. K. Bhattacharyya by Vasant Kelkar, Ashish Bhangle &
Prabhat Pandey Dr. Kelkar Designs Pvt. Ltd.
ISSE - PUNE CENTRE :

Chairman Dhairyashil Khairepatil * News and Events during Jan - Mar 2018 20
Secretary Kishor Jain
Jt. Secretary Parag Deshpande
Treasurer Anshuman Bhide
ISSE . SOLAPURE CENTRE :

Chairman S. S. Patil
Secreiary O. G. Darak
Jt. Secretary J. D. Diddi
Treasurer V. V. Homkar
ISSE - MUMBAICENTRE :

Chairman K. N. Hadkar
Secretary S. G. Ghate
Treasurer H. M. Raje Editor : Hernant Vadalkar
ISSE - AURANGABAD CENTRE :

Views expressed are authors'or reporters' personal and do

Chairman R. Y Bansode not necessarily reflect views of ISSE. ISSE is not responsible
Secretary B. S. Joshi for any consequent actions bassed on contents or information
Jt. Secretary S. W. Danekar
given in the journal.
Treasurer M. D. Yunus

ISSE JOURNAL Volume 20-1 , Jan-Feb-Mar 2018

 Problems in Using RCDC for
Columns Under Biaxial Bending
by Vasant Kelkar, Ashish Bhangle & Prabhat Pandey

Preamble :Structural engineers are using design of rectangular columns/walls the authors
STAADpTo orETAB for analysis of structures. developed their own software for columns with
RCDC is very popular for preparing the RCC biaxial bending and compared the results with
drawings and bar bending schedule. Many those obtai ned by other softwares.
engineers are using the software without cross
checking the results which will be dangerous if Discussions were also held with S-Cube on this
there is some bug in some of the versions of subject wherein this discrepancy and the reasons
software. Some engineers complained about the for the same were pointed out to them. But they
incorrect results of RCDC for biaxial column came out with a new Version 6.3 which gives two
design in some of the versions. One such example options viz: Version 6.3a which apparently still
of column design has been illustrated by Dr. V S follows same procedure as V5 and Version 6.3b
Kelkar showing the variation in results with which apparently follows the same procedure as
different versions. Structural engineers should not V4. Surprisingly for the same rectangular colu mns,
blindly accept the results from any software steel percentages obtained by Version 6.3a are
withoutvalidating it. much less than those by Version 6.3b - although
Editor they are from two options given in the same
A large number of multistoreyed buildings are software. lt is the authors' opinion that results
being constructed in Mumbai and other cities in obtained from RCDC V5 and V6.3a especially for
lndia. Columns and shear walls of such buildings shear walls or rectangular columns are apparently
are subjected to moments about their major axis incorrect and should be used with caution. This is
mainly due to wind and earthquake loads. They are explained in the following pages.
also subjected to moments about their minor axis 1) Column is subjected to axial load Pu and
due to lateral loads plus minimum eccentricity, moments Mux and Muy about X and Y axis
slenderness etc. as per lS code. Hence, the respectively. Refer Fig. 1
columns/walls have to be designed for biaxial
bending. For such design and detailing R.C.C. Cl. 39.6 of lS 456 states:
columns and shear walls RCDC software of M/s. "The resistance of a member subjected to
S-Cube is very useful and hence is being used by axial force and biaxial bending shall be
several structural consultants. obtained on the basis of assumptions given
in 39.1 and 39.2 with neutralaxis so chosen
When.designing columns for compression plus
biaxial bending, especially rectangular columns as to satisfy the equilibrium of load and
moments about two axes".
and shear walls having one cross sectional
dimension small, it was noticed that reinforcement Exact solution of this problem becomes very
percentages obtained by RCDC V5 or V6.3a were complex. Hence, code also gives a method
far too less than those obtained by ETABS and wherein max. capacities of Mux with Pu and of Muy
other softwares. However, earlier Version 4 of with Pu are calculated separately treating each
RCDC did not give such low values of case as of axial load with uniaxial bending
reinforcement percentages. To check this moment and then satisfying the interaction formula
discrepancy and to decide procedure for a safe given in Clause 39.6 of lS 456.

ISSE JOURNAL 16 Volume 20-1, Jan-Feb-Mar 2018

 d) Then for assumed 'pt', vArious values
angle 'o', and N. A. depth 'dn', values of
strains and hence internal stresses 6, in
each element and bar are determined in
each case and corresponding capacity
Pu, Mux, Muy calculated from the
equilibrium equations:
HSIS
mqr$!*&JBEfm?SSM*IS*f*
f!$.#
umr&nEF*SEtnxrtw$Fi*e"t&r
Pu -I (6,) (AAi) =Q
Mux -E(6,)(Mi)(Yi) =a
2) ln RCDC Version 4 apparenfly this interaction Muy -I(6,)(Mi)(Xi)=0
formula procedure of code is followed to
design columns with biaxial bending. This is repbated for various values of 'dn' and then
of 'q'and then of 'pt'.
RCDC Version 6.3 gives in 'Design Settings' e) The lowest steel percentage ,pt' for
under'Design methods" two alternatives for which the above equations are satisfied
design: gives the correct solution.
a) Resultant M (combined action) This procedure is used in our own
b) lnteraction Principle (Discrete action) software program 1 and also in ETABS.
Version 6.3 b) apparenfly considers uniaxial 4) lnstead of the above procedure, RCDC Version
moment capacities in each direction and then uses 5 and version 6.3 a) apparenfly consider the
interaction formula of lS code - a procedure similar resultant of the moments Mux and Muy. This
to V4. resultant moment Muy, is about y., axis where
Y, makes an angle'O'with y axis. Refer Fig. 3.
Version 6.3 a) apparently considers resuttant of
both momentsto obtain exact solution.
Moment Mux, about X, axis is obviously zero.
The problem is then considered as of a column
3) For exact solution of column with biaxial subjected to Pu and a uniaxial moment Muy1.
moments the following procedure satisfying
equilibrium of axial forces and moments about the
two axes, can be followed: rtol* *JG7TTffi
trlw *S
TA*$ * &ur
$ffi
$lil 6 * *sr
*F
fH'! o*$* *
*Eq&?riltf*rca6fiTt*dlrm "{.ry
iA#
ffisesE$er;@xr,ft*rffiLHf

For various assumbd values of 'pt', various depths

'dn'of N. A. (Parallel to Y.,) are considered and for
each case strains and internalstresses in concrete
*r*, * o*.uou *rffi s.EuEfifi r {sR sr're}
and reinforcement are calculated in each element
a) The column section is divided into a no. of orstrip. ReferFig.4.
.strips or elements each of area Mi. Refer
Fig.2
b) Under Pu, ,Mux, Muy, angle 'q, of
inclination of N.A. and its depth 'dn' are
unknown.

c) Steel percentage 'pt' is assumed and

corresponding bar areas calculated - for
bars on two orfourfaces.
&$8$&BiraFsIrm$r&s00*Fpc88t0!tJTgxBar{ffiB

ISSE JOURNAL 1T Votume 20-1, Jan_Feb_Mar 201g

 Final location of NA is taken as the one, which moments plus components of Mux,. lt is seen
satisfies the following equilibrium equations of from the above equations that these
internal and external forces for the iowest 'pt' components increase original Mux but
value. decrease originalMuy.
Pu - I(6i)(nn; = s ...1 lncrease in Mux does not give much higher
Muy,- I(Oi) (AA,) (X, ) = 0 ...2 steel since it is about the major axis of
column.
The third equilibrium equation of moments
aboutXl axisviz: But decrease in moment Muy (which is about
the minor axis) reduces steel significantly in
Mux, - I (6i) (AA) (Y, ) -0 ...3 rectangular columns and walls.
is not checked at all - although it should be Thus, s'olution by RCDC version 5 or 6.3 a)
also satisfied. for columns/walls is actually for a slightly
higher Mux and much smaller value of Muy
5) It is obvious that internal stresses in concrete and not for given Mux and Muy. This results in
and steel will also give non zero moment substantial reduction of requ ired steel.
aboutX, axis = I(6,) (AA)(Y,i)
Hence, the solution obtained is valid only if an
6) We ourselves developed a software for
columns with biaxial bending by using the
external moment Mux, is also present along exact method above satisfying all three
with Pu and Muyl, to satisfy equilibrium with equations of equilibrium (called Program 1)
moments of internal stresses about X, axis. and checked the required reinforcement
Thus, the solution obtained by satisfying
percentage. We also checked the
only two equilibrium equations is actually
reinforcement with our own earlier software
for external loads Pu, Muyl and Mux1. which is based on interaction formula of
15456 (called Program 2). Given below are
Muxl direction will be generally as shown in reinforcement required for walls of size 1800
the figure. Then resolving Muy, and x250 mm, with M30 grade concrete obtained
Mux, back to X and Y axis we get with various softwares.

Muxa = Muy, sin O + MuX, cos O = Mux + ln all the four examples considered, Pu and
Mux, cos O Mux were kept the same while Muy was
and Muya = Muy, cos O - Mux, sin O = varied. ln calculations with ETABS and
Muy - Mux, sin O RCDC the additional moments due to
minimum eccentricity and slenderness were
The first two terms in the above equations are not included for comparison with results of
the original design moments Mux and Muy. other softwares. Reinforcement was
But the solution obtained is for these considered to be equally placed on two long
faces of the column cross section.

Required Reinfo rcement %

STAAD
Pu Mux Muy Pro
Column Etabs Our Own Program
KN KNM KNM RCDC RCDC RCDC RCDC with
UFL UFL v4 V5 V6.3a v6.3 b Program Program RDACE
0.95 1.0 3 option-
1 2
C,1 3000 1 500 0 0.8(min) 0.8 (min) 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.29 0.65

LZ 3000 1 500 100 1.07 O,B B 0.8 3 0.34 0.34 0. 83 0. 86 0. 85 0.Bs

C3 3000 i 50c 200 2.14 1.89 1 .84 0.34 0.34 1.U 1. 81 1.7 1.8

a 3000 1 5C0 300 3.09 2.85 3"19 0.36 0.36 2.61 2.65 2.9

. STAAD Pro results

- Courtesy Mr. Hemant Vadalkar

ISSE JOURNAL 1B Volume 20-1, Jan-Feb-Mar 2018

Notes: Methodology used in the above softwares as discussed above that RCDC V6.3a (and
. Our Program 1 and Etabs Uses - also V5) apparently gives reinforcement for
inclined N.A. and satisfies 3 equilibrium Pu + a slightly bigger value of Mux + much
equations as per first alternative of Cl. reduced value of Muy and not for Pu + Mux
39.6 of 13456 + Muy and this gives much less steel
RGDC V4, V6.3b and our Program 2 - especially where one dimension of column
cross section is small as in shear walls and
Uses the 2nd approximate alternative
of C|.39.6 of 15456 calculating uniaxial rectangular columns.
capacities separately in two directions
and using the interaction formula of Hence, in our opinion reinforcement
code.
obtained from RCDC V5, RCDC V6.3a, is
substantially lower than actually required
RCDC V5 and V6.3a - Apparently
and. if so provided can make the
considers uniaxial bending in the column/wall unsafe and hence should be
direction of resultant moment and used with caution
satisfies only two equilibrium
equations.
The results of ETABS were also NOTE:
obtained considering Utilization Factor Recently version 7.0 of RCDC has been released
Limit (UFL) = 1.0 for comparison with which also has two options V7.0a and V7.0b
results of other softwares. Otherwise similar to the two options V6.3a and V6.3b. They
give similar results as those of V6.3a and V6.3b in
ETABS considers this factor by default
the above table. So there will be no change in the
= 0.95 (i.e. it restricts ratio of required
capacity to actual capacity to max. results and conclusions discussed above even
0.95) which results in somewhat higher when V7.0 is used.
percentage of steel as seen in table
a.bove. Author:
ETABS gives min. steel as 0.8o/o
irrespective of actual required steel. Dr. V. S. Kelkar
Hence, ETABS results for C1 show
highersteel.
Director - Dr. Kelkar Designs Pvt. Ltd.
Email ld: [email protected]

It is seen that reinforcement obtained in our

Programs 1 & 2, RCDC V4, and RCDC
V6.3b are similar while those obtained by Mr. Ashish Bhangle
RCDC V5 and RCDC V6.3a are Director - Dr. Kelkar Designs Pvt. Ltd.
substantially less. This difference is much Email ld: [email protected]
higher when moment about weak axis Muy
is higherfor reasons mentioned in 5) above.

Results of
ETABS with UFL = 1.0 also Mr. Prabhat Pandey
match very well with those of our programs -
Sr. Associate Dr. Kelkar Designs Pvt. Ltd.
1 and 2, RCDC V4, V 6.3b. ETABS on its Email ld : prabhat.pandey@kelkardesigns,com
own restricts UFL to 0.95 which is not a
requirement of lS code and hence shows
somewhat highersteel in that case.

Even steel obtained from RCDC V6.3a is

much less than that from RCDC V6.3b.
How can two alternative options of solution
given in Version 6.3 give such completely
different results? The reason is obviously

ISSE JOURNAL 19 Volume 2A-1, Jan-F eb-Mar 201 B