SP 50-10

BIAXIAL BENDING SIMPLIFIED

By
Albert J. Gouwens
Synopsis:
A comprehensive but simple design procedure is presented for the
design of concrete columns subject to biaxial bending. The pro-
cedure is oriented towards hand computation but is suitable for
incorpor.ation into computer programs.
The methods in the existing literature are summarized and
evaluated. A new design procedure and an example problem showing
its use are given.
A comparison of the proposed method was made with a column analysis
based on a rigorous stress-strain approach. 67 columns were in-
vestigated at 10 to 16 different axial loads for each column.
Square and rectangular columns with various sizes, fc, fy, percent-
ages of steel, and bar arrangements were used. The comparison
shows that the procedure gives moments which are 5% on the con-
servative side.
Keywords: axial loads; bending; biaxial loads; columns (supports);
loads (forces); moment distribution; moments; reinforced concrete;
reinforcing steels; stress-strain relationships; structural analysis;
structural design.
233
reinforced concrete columns
~ --------------------------------------------
ACI Member Albert J. Gouwens, Manager - Computer Engineering Services,
The Engineers Collaborative, supervises computer applications to
engineering projects. He is a member of ACI-ASCE Committee 441,
Reinforced Concrete Columns, 'and ACI Committee 340, Strength Design
Handbook.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this article is to present a simple, but comprehensive
and accurate design procedure for the design of concrete columns
subjected to biaxial bending. The procedure is oriented towards
hand computation, although it can also be incorporated into computer
programs to increase the speed of computation.
PREVIOUS WORK
Two computer programs are readily available to calculate biaxial
bending capacity of columns. Nieves program (13) is based on an
exact formulation. It is efficient for analysis but careless use
can cause the program to be time consuming for design. The Gouwens-
Kripanarayanan program (11) uses an approximate procedure similar to
the simplified version presented in this article which, due to its
simplicity, enables the program to perform rapid design.
A number of papers have been written which give procedures based on
fundamental strength of materials techniques for calculating the
capacity of concrete columns subject to biaxial bending.
( H. Craemer (7) presented an iteration method of calculating the
, capacity of members subjected to skew bending. The effects of
) axial load and of compression force are also presented
. ,
Tung Au (4) gives a similar presentation of members subject to skew
, bending and presents design charts to simplify the solution of the
many equations and conditions involved.
\ K. H. Chu and A. Pabarcius (6) give a quite rigorous and completely
) general presentation of a procedure to calculate biaxial bending
1 capacity. It is even applicable to cross-sections of arbitrary
shape. Their procedure is undoubtably the most accurate type of an
l
approach that can be used. Such a method, however, is time consuming
even by computer, and impractical to use by hand.
, Fleming and Werner (9) give a design procedure which is based on
the existence of a set of design curves for each concrete section.
The design curves are basically equivalent to a three dimensional
interaction surface for each column. This is an accurate but a
voluminous approach. A complete set of design curves is not available
in the literature.
biaxial bending simplified
We.ber (21) gives interaction curves for load vs. moment for square
columns with evenly distributed reinforcement which are bent about
their 45 axis. This is also a voluminous approach if interaction
curves are provided for various bar arrangements and rectan9ular
cross-sections. ACI "Ultimate Strength Design Handbook" (2) repro-
duces the curves of Weber's article.
Furlong (10) investigated many columns and plotted their capacity as
contours of moment about two axes to give insights into the behavior
of biaxially loaded columns. He described the variations of the
moment capacities from the circular curve for different axial loads
and for different percentages of reinforcement (from 1% to 4%).
Also of particular interest is his observation that for small eccen-
tricities about one of the axes, that the moment capacity about the
other axis remains virtually constant.
Most attempts, including this article, at simplification of the
problem of biaxial bending are based on the fact that the biaxial
bending capacity can be found as a function of the uniaxial capaci-
ties of the cross section. The simplest but overly conservative
approach is to assume a single straight line between the moment
capacity about the two axes.
Pannell (15,-17) presents a method of calculating the biaxial
capacity based on the uniaxial capacities. It requires the use of
charts presented in the article and the use of a trigonometric
interpolation formula.
Boris Bresler (5) suggests two methods, one the equation:
1
Pi
(1)
which is exact for elastic materials but is merely an approximation
for reinforced concrete columns. The equation has been used fre-
quently and gives reasonable results for loads above balance
condition load, but it is of questionable accuracy for loads less
than balance.
The other equation proposed by Bresler is:
(
Mx \ n + ~ \ n = 1. 0
Mxo} \Myo}
Equation (2) is discussed later.
(2)
235
A. Aas Jacobsen (1) presented a method of finding the capacity for
bending about the diagonal in terms of bending about the main planes.
He also separated the column's behavior into a compression failure
236
reinforced concrete columns
region and a tension failure region. These are key concepts neces-
sary to develop an accurate solution to the problem.
The procedure given in this article is not intended to replace the
many good procedures which have been presented in the existing
literature, but rather, it is intended to give a simplified but
accurate, conservative and rapid method of calculation.
The procedure given requires only curves such as those readily
available for uniaxial bending (2, 8, 18, 19, 20).
REVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
The capacity of a column subject to biaxial bending can be repre-
sented by a 3-dimensional surface. Fig. 1 shows a typical surface.
Several sections can be cut on this surface which are familiar.
The curve P vs. Mx (9 = 90) is shown in Fig. lb. The curve P vs.
My (9 = 0) is shown in Fig. lc. These load vs. moment interaction
curves are readily available. The curve P vs. Md (9 = 450) is shown
in Fig. ld. It represents the load as a function of the moment
capacity for bending about the diagonal of the cross-section. The
curve Mx vs. My (P = constant) is shown in Fig. le.
The focus of attention in this article is devoted to the study of
the shape of the Mx vs. My interaction curves at various loads P.
For square columns bent about the axis at 45 from the other two,
the moment capacity shown in Fig. 2, Mx = Bb Mxo and My = Bb Myo
results in an easily understood concept to describe the shape of
the biaxial moment capacity interaction.
Bb is mainly a function of axial load, and the reinforcement index
pfY./fc, and to a lesser extent on the concrete cover, fy, b/h,
ana the distribution pattern of reinforcing.
If Bb = 0.707 (Fig. 2a) the interaction between the moment capaci-
ties is approximately circular. If Bb = 0.50 the interaction
between the moment capacities is a straight line (Fig. 2b). As Bb
approaches 1.0 (Fig. 2c), the moments about the two axes are nearly
independent. The normal range of Bb is 0.51 to 0.80.
Rectangular columns bent about some axis approximately parallel to
the also results in moment capacities Mx = Bb Mxo and My =
Bb Myo (Fig. 3a). The shape of the interaction curve for rectangular
columns is an ellipse at Bb = 0.707. The interaction curve for
rectangular columns can be transformed into approximately symmetrical
shape by dividing the moment about each axis by the value of the
maximum moment which occurs at uniaxial bending. The shape is only
approximately symmetrical due to the fact that if constant cover is
used on all sides of a column cross section, the ratio of the cover
biaxial bending simplified
to the overall column dimensions is different about the two axes.
The same dissymmetry would occur in a square column if unequal cover
were used on adjacent faces of the column.
Any approximate solution of the biaxial bending problem consists of
two parts: 1) The determination of the value of Bb; and 2) the
determination of an equation to represent the shape of the inter-
action curve Mx vs. My.
The curve for Mx vs. My has been approximated by several different
forms of equations in previous articles. Even for square sections,
there is no known exact equation for Mx vs. My.
Equation (2) given by Bresler can be expressed in terms of Bb as:
(3)
The above equation is plotted in Fig. 4a for several values of Bb.
Equation 3 is cumbersome to evaluate but gives results closest of
any interaction expression to the actual interaction curve based
237
on fundamental strength of materials techniques. In reference (14),
a comparison was made between equation 3 and fundamental analytical
formulations for columns with various bar arrangements and for. ratios
of h/b up to 3.0. Fig. 4b shows the type of deviation that was en-
countered. The error in over-estimation of column strength appears
to be a maximum of 3%.
Pannell (15-17) gives a trigonometric interpolation formula which
can be expressed in terms of Bb as:
_ (cos
2
29 + {2'Bb sin
2
29)
My - Myo sec 9
(4a)
where
9 = tan-
1
( Myo x Mx )
Mxo (4b)
For design, the value of My obtained by equation 4a must be greater
than the value used to calculate Q in equation 4b.
Equations 4 result in a set of peculiar looking curves (Fig. 5)
which are not verified by any of the curve shapes obtained by
exact procedures (9, 10, 14). It appears that although the curves
closely represent the moment capacity at Bb = 0.7, the curves give
results in error by as much as 13% on the unconservative side for
lower as well as higher values of Bb.
238 reinforced concrete columns
Meek (12) showed that the relationship between moment about two
axes can be r-epresented by two straight lines. The scatter of his
test results indicate that the two straight lines may actually be
just as accurate a representation of column capacity as the curve
calculated by exact procedures. Any error introduced by this assump-
tion is on the conservative side. The straight lines when expressed
in terms of Bb are given by two equations shown in Fig. 6.
The maximum difference between Meek's proposal and Bresler's pro-
posal (equation 2) is approximately 7.9% at 9 = 26 and Bb = .80.
A second step is to determine the Bb value to be used for calculat-
ing the capacity at 9 = 45.
Parme, Nieves, and Gouwens (14) presented curves of column bending
capacity for diagonal bending for various bar arrangements, per-
centages and yield strengths. A set of curves which represented a
lower bounds of many columns for Bb vs. load (P) are given.
The typical variation of Bb is given in Fig. 7.
Curves are given in reference (14) for various quantities and pat-
terns of reinforcement.
Pannell (15, 16, 17) gives charts for N which is
for Mx vs. My from a circular interaction curve.
Bb by the equation:
Bb = (1-N) ~
a deviation factor
It is related to
(5)
The above two references each require charts for each bar arrange-
ment and reinforcement strength.
The procedure which follows results in an analytical representation
of curves for Bb vs. load. The equations can be incorporated into
a computer program or can easily be evaluated by hand.
METHOD OF SOLUTION
Curves have been derived which are analytically formulated as a
function of the load (P) and the reinforcement index, pfylfc They
are shown to be quite accurate for all values of g, b/h, fy, fc
and reinforcement arrangements.
A study was made using the PCA computer program by J. M. Nieves (10).
It was noted that the minimum value of Bb defined as B25 occurred
at or near a load of .25 fc bh for all columns despite a large
range of fc, b/h, g, and pty/fc.
At loads greater than .25 fc bh, the value of Bb increases. At
loads less than .25 fc bh, the value of Bb also increases.
biaxial bending simplified
For loads either greater than or less than .25 fc bh, the increase
in Bb for an increment of load is greater for columns with a small
percentage of reinforcement than it is for columns with a large
percentage of reinforcement.
The increase in Bb for loads greater than .25 fc bh is nearly linear
with the exception of loads in the range between minimum eccentri-
city and P
0
as shown by the steep section at the right side of
Fig. 7. In this region the exact value of Bb approaches 1.0 in
most cases. This need not concern the designer, however, since the
maximum load for design is at minimum eccentricity. No attempt was
made to incorporate the phenomen of the rapid increase in Bb for
such high loads since this method is intended only for design.
The increase in Bb for loads less than .25 bh is not an easily
represented funct1on. It has different shapes for different
and values. The equation proposed in this region is on the
conservat1ve side as is the equation for the upper load region but
is more conservative.
The equation for P .25 Cc is given by:
P/Cc-.25
Bb = B25 + .2 .85 + Cs/Cc
(6)
The equation for P < .25 Cc is given as:
Bb B
25
+ (.25- P/Cc)
2
(.85- Cs/2Cc) (7)
where Cc bh
(8)
Cs As fy (9)
and B
25
is given by either equation (10) or (11) below. s
25
is
the value of Bb at P = .25 Cc.
A study was also made to determine an equation for the value of s
25
.
It, too, was found to have two distinct regions. One for Cs/C
greater than .5 and one for Cs/Cc less than .5. The study
concrete strengths from 3,000 ps1 to 6,000 psi, various amounts of
cover, b/h ratios up to 3:1 and various distributions of reinforce-
.,ment among column faces. As noted by Pannell (17) and by Parme,
and Gouwens (14), the capacity of 4 bar columns is distinctly
'ifferent from columns with more bars. In this study it was found
at the Bb values for 4-bar columns were consistently about 0.02
than those for all other columns. For 4-bar columns, subtract
02 from equations 10 and 11.
239
240 reinforced concrete columns
In the region where Cs/Cc ~ .5:
825 = .485 + .03 CciCs
In the region where Cs/Cc < .5:
825 = .545 + .35 (.5- Cs/Cc)
2
( 1 0)
( 11)
The above equations, except for 4-bar columns, lead to a set of
curves such as those shown in Fig. 8.
ACCURACY
The ratio (R) of the exact 8b to the approximate 8b for the 67
columns studied was 1.053 with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.053.
To evaluate the accuracy of the value of 8b calculated by the pre-
vious section, the exact 8b value was calculated using Nieves' (13)
computer program.
Each of the 67 columns was studied for loads ranging from P = 0 to
the P value corresponding to a minimum eccentricity moment. The
load increments were 100 kips for the 20 x 20 and the 12 x 36 columns
and 25 kips for the 10 x 10 columns. Depending on the amount of re-
inforcement, the above load increments result in 10 to 16 different
load investigations for each column.
A summary is given in Table 1 for the various columns studied.
The accuracy of the procedure is given in terms of R and SD which
are defined as above. The accuracy is given for loads less than
P25 = .25 fc bh and for loads greater than P25 as well as for the
entire range of P from 0.0 to the maximum load at minimum eccentri-
city. The column headed "No." gives the number of columns studied.
The reinforcement arrangements are given by pattern designations A
thru F which are schematically represented below the table.
It is interesting to note that the procedure is most accurate for
the commonly used concrete strength of fc = 5,000 psi and for the
nearly standard steel strength fy = 60 K ~ I The procedure becomes
more conservative for lower concrete strengths and for lower steel
strengths.
biaxial bending simplified
EVALUATION OF RESULTS
Bars were placed at specific points and varied from symmetrical
placement to all the bars in one face. The various extremes in the
distribution of bars to various faces of the column indicate that
the Bb value can be used for any distribution of reinforcement.
The 12" x 36" rectangular columns studied show that the procedure
for calculating Bb is just as accurate for rectangular columns as
it is for square columns.
The effect of the amount of cover was studied by using a 10" x 10"
column with the same cover as the 20" x 20" column. Cover for both
columns is 2". The distance between bars for the 10" columns is
about 5". It is not recommended that the above procedure be used
for columns with such large amounts of cover that the bars are
spaced closer than 1/2 the column dimension, or for columns less
than 8".
DESIGN PROCEDURE
The step by step design procedure is given below:
Given P, Mx, My, f ~ fy
1) Choose band h of column. Calculate Cc
2) Choose a bar arrangement and calculate Mx
0
1Myo = Bm
3) Calculate p = As/bh and Cs.
4) Calculate B
2
5 as a function of Cs/Cc
5) Calculate Bb as a function of B
25
, P, Cc, and Cs
6) Determine which portion of the bilinear interaction curve
as shown in Fig. 6 is to be used:
A. If My1My
0
~ Mx/Mxo the straight line and equation above
the 450 division should be used.
B. If My/My
0
< Mx/Mxo the straight line and equation below
the ~ 5 0 division snould be used.
The equations given in figure 6 are restated below in a form
more useful for design purposes.
241
242 reinforced concrete columns
6A) Find required My
0
= My+ Mx I 8m (l-8b)
TBbJ
68) or find required Mxo = + My 8m l-8b
TBbJ
DESIGN EXAMPLE
Design a column for
p
=
200k
Mx =
75 ft. -k
1) Choose 20 x 20 My = 350 ft. k
f' =
c
6000 psi cc = fc bh = 6 x 20 x 20 = 24ook
.25 Cc = 600 >P fy =
60,000 psi
2) Try 12 #10 placed evenly on
all 4 sides. cover = 2"
3) p = 3.81, Cs = 12 X 1.27 X 60 = 912 kips.
4) Cs/Cc = 912/2400 = .380 < .5
825 = .545 + .35 (.5-.38)
2
= .550
5) Bb=.550+(600-200 .568
2400 2
6) !1L = 350 = .85 Mx = 75 .182
Myo 412 Myo ill
75 (1.-.568) + 350 = 1
m .568 412
.182 (.76) + .85 = 0.97 < 1
Therefore design is adequate.
biaxial bending simplified
CONCLUSIONS
A purely analytical method has been presented for the analysis or
iterative design of concrete columns subject to biaxial bending.
Equations have been given which relate the capacity for bending
about the diagonal to bending about the two major axes of the
column.
The equations are compared to the exact values and are found to be
in good agreement. The bilinear moment - moment interaction diagram
is recommended to make a simple, but conservative and complete
method of design.
Further analytical studies and comparisons with test results might
indicate that the proposed equations could easily be included in
the building code.
243
244
reinforced concrete columns
REFERENCES
1. Aas-Jakobsen, A., "Biaxial Eccentricities in Ultimate Load
Design," ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 61, March 1964, pp.
293-315.
2. ACI Committee 340. "Ultimate Strength Design Handbook, Volume
2 Columns," Special Publication No. 17A, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, 226 pp.
3. Andersen, Paul, "Square Sections of Reinforced Concrete Under
Thrust and Nonsymmetrical Bending," Engineering Experimental
Station, Bulletin No. 14, Vol. XLII, No. 41, August 12, 1939,
University of Minnesota, 42 pp.
co-
4
'
~ - 6.
~ } - 7.
8.
Au, Tung, "Ultimate Strength Design of Rectangular Concrete
Members Subject to Unsymmetrical Bending," ACI Journal,
Proceedings V. 54, Feb. 1958, pp. 657-674.
Bresler, Boris, "Design Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Columns
Under Axial Load and Biaxial Bending," ACI Journal, Proceedings
V. 57, Nov. 1960, pp. 481-490.
Chu, Kuang-Han, and Pabarcius, Algis, "Biaxially Loaded Re-
inforced Concrete Columns," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 84, ST8,
Dec. 1958, pp. 1865-1 to 1865-27.
Craemer, Hermann, "Skew Bending in Concrete Computed by Plasti-
city," ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 48, Feb. 1952, pp. 516-519.
"CRSI Handbook," Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, Chicago,
1972, Chapter 3, 176 pp.
9. Fleming, John F., and Werner, Stuart D., "Design of Columns Sub-
jected to Biaxial Bending," ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 62,
March 1965, pp. 327-342.
10. Furlong, Richard M., "Ultimate Strength of Square Columns Under
Biaxially Eccentric Loads," ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 57,
March 1961, pp. 1129-1140.
11. Gouwens, Albert, and Kripanarayanan, K. M., "Load Accumulation
and Concrete Column Stack Design," Portland Cement Association,
Chicago, 1973, 152 pp.
12. Meek, John L., "Ultimate Strength of Columns with Biaxially
Eccentric Loads," ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 60, No.8,
Aug. 1963, pp. 1 053-1 064.
13. Nieves, Jose M., "IBM 1130 Computer Program for the Ultimate
Strength Design of Reinforced Concrete Columns," Portland
Cement Association, Chicago, 1967, 58 pp.
f.
' (>\
biaxial bending simplified
~ Parme, Alfred L., Nieves, Jose M., and Gouwens, Albert J.,
"Capacity of Reinforced Rectangular Columns Subject to Biaxial
Bending," ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 63, Sept. 1966, pp.
911-923.
245
~ 1 5
Pannell, Frederick N., "The Design of Biaxially Loaded Columns
by Ultimate Load Methods," Magazine of Concrete Research:
17.
18.
19.
20.
Vol. 12, No. 35: July 1960, pp. 99-108.
Pannell, Frederick N., "Design of Biaxially Loaded Columns by
Ultimate Load Method. - I," Concrete and Constructional
Engineering, Oct., Nov., and Dec. 1960.
Pannell, Frederick N., "Failure Surfaces for Members in Compres-
sion and Biaxial Bending," ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 60,
Jan. 1963, pp. 129-140.
"Ultimate Load Tables for Tied'Columns," Concrete Information,
Portland Cement Association, Chicago, 1961, 29 pp.
"Ultimate Strength Design of Reinforced Concrete Columns,"
Portland Cement Association, Chicago, 1969, 49 pp.
"Biaxial and Uniaxial Capacity of Rectangular Columns,"
Advanced Engineering Bulletin 20, Portland Cement Association,
Chicago, 1967, 29 pp.
21. Weber, Donald C., "Ultimate Strength Design Charts for Columns
, \ with Biaxial Bending," ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 63,
, :) Nov. 1966, pp. 1205-1230.
246
N
p
Bm
reinforced concrete columns
APPENDIX A
(NOTATION)
Area of reinforcement in a column.
Width of a rectangular column.
f(; bh
Asfy
Concrete design strength in psi.
Reinforcement yield strength in psi.
Depth of a rectangular column.
The bending moment capacity of a column about its diagonal.
The bending moment capacity of a column about its x-axis.
The bending moment capacity of a column about its x-axis
without bending about the y-axis.
The bending moment capacity of a column about its y-axis.
The bending moment capacity of a column about its y-axis
without bending about the x-axis.
Deviation factor from a circular interaction curve.
The axial load on a column.
The axial load capacity with only x-axis bending.
The axial load capacity with only y-axis bending.
The axial load capacity without any bending.
Agfbh
A factor relating Md to Mxo and Myo'
MxoiMyo
B
25
The minimum value of Bb which occurs at P = .25 Cc.
Capacity reduction factor.
biaxial bending simplified
NOTATION
R Ratio of exact Bb to the approximate Bb given by Equation 6
or 7.
SO Standard deviation of the R values calculated.
9x 9y = Ratio of distance between bars on the outside face to
the column dimension in either the x or y direction.
247
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF THE DESIGN PROCEDURE ACCURACY
Column Size f' f
c
y
20 X 20 5 60
20 X 20 5 60
20 X 20 3 60
20 X 20 6 40
10 X 10 5 60
12 X 36 4 60
SUMMARY FOR ALL COLUMNS
D

A





B





Reinf. p% No.
l> < l>?t;
Pattern R SD
1.00
A B c 9.00 12 1.057 .074
1.5
E, F 4.5 8 1.043 .049
1.0
A B c 9.00 12 1.079 .061
1.0
A, B c 9.00 12 1.109 .083
2.00
A, B 7.04 7 1.007 .032
.93
A B c D 8.33 16 1.086 .057
67




~
D D
.:




-
c D E F
REINFORCEMENT PATTERNS
p
> p?._
R SD R
1.033 .014 1.043
1.017 .012 1.029
1.059 .010 1.066
1.046 .030 1.077
1.014 .020 1.011
1.057 .026 1.068
1.053
AllP
SD
.050
.036
.039
.070 I
I
.026 I
.043
.053
~
co
...
~
:::::1
cr
...
n
Cl)
c..
n
0
::I
n
~
r+
Cl)
n
2..
!:
3
::I
"'
biaxial bending simplified
249
APPENDIX B
The accuracy of the approximate value of Bb is given in Tables
Al to A6 for the columns studied.
TABLE Al - COLUMN SIZE 20 x 20, fy = 60, fc = 5
Reinforce- p < .25 fc bt p > .25 f' bt
p% ment Rverage RVerage
Pattern Ratio Std. Ratio Std.
(See exact B Dev. exact B Dev.
Table 1)
Bb Bb
1.0 1.125 .138 1.007 .005
1.27 .1.113 121 1. 013 .004
1.56 A 1.103 .104 1 .021 .005
2.25 1.088 .079 1.032 .005
2.5 1.049 .049 1.022 .004
3.17 1.043 .041 1.028 .005
3.90 D 1.033 .036 1. 027 .005
5.63 1.032 .027 1.049 .006
4.0 1.022 .022 1.034 .006
5.08 c 1.024 .020 1.042 .007
6.24 1.026 .018 1.049 .007
9.00 1.029 .017 1.052 .010
SUMMARY 1.057 .074 1.033 0.014
250 reinforced concrete columns
TABLE A2 - COLUMN SIZE 10 x 10, fy = 60, ~ = 5
Reinforce- p < . 25 f; bt p > .25 f' bt
ment AVerage -Average
Pattern Ratio Std. Ratio Std.
p% (See exact B Dev. exact B Dev.
Table 1)
Bb Bb
2.0 1. 027 . 028 1. 003 016
3.10 015 .024 1. 015 019
4.39 A . 998 . 029 1.009 021
5.99 1. 001 .042 1. 016 .026
3.20 1.009 .023 1 .015 .017
4.96 B .996 . 031 1. 015 .019
7.04 1. 001 .046 1.020 .022
SUMMARY 1.007 .032 1.014 .020
biaxial bending simplified 251
TABLE A3 - COLUMN SIZE 12 x 36, fy = 60, ~ = 4
Reinforce- p < .25 ~ bt p > .25 f
1
bt
ment Average Average
p% Pattern Ratio Std. Ratio Std.
(See exact B Dev. exact B Dev.
Tab1e1)
Bb Bb
.93 1.136 .1 01 1. 031 .007
1.18 1.133 .094 1.038 .006
1.44 B 1.132 .089 1.049 .009
2.08 1.124 .065 1.065 .011
--
2.31 1.101 .044 1.064 .007
2.94 c 1.100 .037 1. 071 .007
3.61 1.098 .029 1.077 .006
5. 21 1.116 .025 1 .1 00 .006
3.70 1.055 .009 1.052 .003
4.70 D 1.066 .007 1.064 .005
5.78 1.075 .009 1. 070 .007
8.33 1. 091 .026 1.076 012
2.31 1.046 .025 1.021 .008
2.94 A 1.036 . 015 1 .021 .011
3.61 1.031 .010 1 .019 .013
5.21 1.040 .008 1.030 .021
SUMMARY
1.086 .057 1.057 0.026
252 reinforced concrete columns
TABLE A4 - COLUMN SIZE 20 x 20, fy = 60, ~ = 3
Reinforce- p < .25 ~ bt p > .25 f' bt
ment Average Average
p% Pattern Ratio Std. Ratio Std.
(See exact B Dev. exact B Dev.
Table 1)
Bb Bb
1.0 ' 1.137 .128 1. 051 .014
1.27 1.126 .106 1.054 .007
1. 56 A 1.117 .089 1.056 .005
2.25 1.097 .064 1.055 .005
2.50 1. 057 .038 1.042 .004
3.17 B 1.062 .033 1.052 .005
3.90 1.062 .027 1.056 .006
5.63 1.063 .026 1.056 .006
4.00 1. 055 013 1.067 .007
5.08 1.056 .012 1.068 .008
.6.24 c 1.057 013 1.068 .008
9.00 1. 061 .026 1. 061 .008
SUMMARY 1.079 .061 1.059 0.010
biaxial bending simplified 253
TABLE A5 - COLUMN SIZE 20 x 20, fy = 40, ~ = 6
Reinforce- p < . 25 ~ bt p > .25 f' bt
ment Average Average
p% Pattern Ratio Std. Ratio Std.
(See exact B Dev. exact B Dev.
Table 1)
Bb Bb
1.0 1.132 132 .998 .005
1.27 1.134 .140 1.006 .005
1.56 A 1.133 142 1. 021 .017
2.25 1.128 .140 1.038 .017
2.50 1.089 .069 1.009 .002
3.17 B 1.090 .063 1.027 .007
3.90 1.093 .054 1.041 .005
5.63 1.098 .037 1.072 .014
4.00 1.089 .018 1.040 .002
5.08 c 1.098 012 1.058 .003
6.24 1.105 .008 1.073 .008
9.00 1.121 .011 1.093 .004
SUMMARY 1.109 .083 1.046 0.030
254 reinforced concrete columns
TABLE A6 - COLUMN SIZE 20 x 20, fy = 60, ~ = 5
Reinforce- p < .25 f: bt
p > .25 ~ bt
ment Average AVerage
p%
Pattern Ratio Std. Ratio Std.
(See exact B Dev. exact B Dev.
Table 1)
Bb Bb
1.50 1.054 .071 .998 .008
Similar
1.90 to B 1.047 .058 1.005 .005
but with
2.34 only 6 1.043 .050 1. 014 .010
bars
3.38 1. 033 .041 1.020 .010
2.00 1.050 .057 1 011 .001
Similar
2.54 to B 1.047 .052 1.021 .004
but with
3.12 only 8 1.041 .043 1.026 .005
bars
4.50 1.025 .031 1. 027 .007
SUMMARY 1.043 .049 1.017 0.012
biaxial bending simplified 255
p
Fig. la--P-Mx-My interaction surface
256 reinforced concrete columns
p
Fig. lb--P-Mx interaction curve
p
Fig. ld--P-Md interaction curve
Fig. lc--P-M interaction curve
y
p
Fig. le--M -M interaction curve
X y
biaxial bending simplified
257
Mv
Mvo- /3b=:: I.
f3bMYo-
258 reinforced concrete columns

J3bMxo
Mxo
Fig. 3a--Mx-My for a rectangular column
Mx/Mxo
1.0
Fig. 3b--Mx/Mx
0
-Myo for a rectangular column
biaxial bending simplified
Mv
-M .s
YO
.o.o
~
.25 .50 .75
Mx/Mxo
Fig. 4a--Plot of Eq. (3)
1,0
1,0
Fig. 4b--Comparison of Eq. (3) to actual interaction diagram
259
260
reinforced concrete columns
Mv
-M .so
YO
~ o
.25 .50 .75 1.0
M/Mxo
Fig. 5--Plot of Eq. (4)
~ ~ + .Mr_ =1.0
Mxo J3b J Mvo
.Mx.+ .Mr (1-.Sb\ = 1.0
Mxo Mvo A)
Mx/Mxo
Fig. 6--Straight line interaction approximation
f3b
biaxial bending simplified
I. Qt-----r------r------r-----1
u s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0. P
0
AXIAL LOAD
Fig. ?--Variation of Bb with axial load
. 7 t : :
.2 .4 .6
P/Cc
.a
Fig. a--Simplified Bb as given by Eq. (6) through (10)
261
1.0