J. Cent. South Univ.

(2013) 20: 28632869

DOI: 10.1007/s11771-013-1807-1

Failure mode classification of reinforced concrete column using Fisher method

QI Yong-le()1. 2, HAN Xiao-lei()2, JI Jing()2
1. Guangdong Electric Power Design Institute, China Energy Engineering Group Co. Ltd., Guangzhou 510663, China;
2. School of Civil Engineering and Transportation, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China
Central South University Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract: In order to apply the performance-based seismic design, an engineer must first find out whether the column is expected to
fail in shear before or after flexural yielding. According to column failure characteristics and failure mode of reinforced concrete
column, the UW-PEER structure performance database was discussed and analyzed. In order to investigate the relevance of failure
mode and factors such as longitudinal reinforcement ratio, transverse reinforcement ratio, hoop spacing to depth ratio, aspect ratio,
shearing resistance demand to shear capacity ratio and axial load ratio, Fishers discriminant analysis (FDA) of the above factors was
carried out. A discriminant function was developed to identify column failure mode. Results show that three factors, i.e., Vp/Vn, hoop
spacing to depth ratio and aspect ratio have important influence on the failure mode. The failure mode has less to do with
longitudinal reinforcement ratio, transverse reinforcement ratio and axial load ratio. Through using these three factors and the model
proposed, over 85.6% of the original grouped cases were correctly classified. The value of coefficient of Vp/Vn is the largest, which
means that discriminant equation is most sensitive to the shearing resistance demand to shear capacity ratio.
Key words: Fishers discriminant analysis (FDA); concrete column; failure mode identification; performance-based seismic design

1 Introduction
Performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE)
aims to improve structure engineering by providing
engineers with the capability of designing structures to
achieve a variety of performance levels [12]. In severe
earthquakes, some columns failed in shear after flexure
yielding while others failed in shear without flexure
yielding, and their seismic performance creates sharp
distinction [35]. To implement PBEE, it is necessary to
classify the failure modes firstly, and then give different
performance acceptance criteria under different failure
modes.
Columns are the primary members of frame
structures that dominate the frame response during
earthquakes. Most building collapses in the Wenchuan
earthquake for poor column performances [6]. Column
failures in buildings are either due to insufficient shear
resistance (shear failure) or due to insufficient
deformation capacity (flexure-shear and flexure failure)
[7]. New generation of performance-based seismic
design [89] expresses the performance of column in
terms of plastic rotation capacities of the critical end
regions. In order to apply the performance-based seismic
design, an engineer must first determine which kind of

failure mode the column is expected to fail in. Because

the modeling parameters and numerical acceptance
criteria for nonlinear procedure of reinforced concrete
columns are different in different failure modes,
ASCE/SEI 4106 and FEMA 356 classified modeling
parameters for reinforced concrete columns according to
whether they are flexure failure, shear failure, or
flexure-shear failure [10]. Columns controlled by shear
had zero permissible plastic deformation and were
evaluated using lower-bound material strengths. A
column is to be classified into one of three failure modes
based on the nominal shear strength, the plastic shear
demand on the column, and the transverse reinforcement
detailing. But due to failure mode depended on many
other variables, it should not be expected that
classification in FEMA 356 and ASCE/SEI 4106 will
correctly predict the failure mode of a column in every
case. Therefore, the primary objective of this work is to
propose a discriminant model more precise to investigate
and predict the failure type of reinforced concrete (RC)
column before damage.

2 Column failure modes

RC columns under both lateral and axial loads are
damaged in one of the following forms: 1) flexure

Foundation item: Project(2011ZA05) supported by the State Key Laboratorys Autonomous Project of Subtropical Building Science in South China
University of Technology
Received date: 20120523; Accepted date: 20121110
Corresponding author: QI Yong-le, PhD; Tel: +862087113349; E-mail: q.yongle@mail.scut.edu.cn

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 28632869

2864

failure, where degradation in the lateral load capacity

occurs after yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement
due to damage related to flexural deformations (i.e.,
spalling of concrete, buckling of longitudinal bars,
concrete crushing); 2) shear failure, where degradation in
the lateral load capacity occurs before yielding of the
longitudinal reinforcement due to shear distress (i.e.,
diagonal cracking) in the column; 3) a combined
flexure-shear failure, where degradation in the lateral
load capacity occurs after yielding of the longitudinal
reinforcement but results from shear distress in the
column [10].
The PEER structure performance database has been
assembled to provide researchers with the data needed to
evaluate and develop seismic performance models for
reinforced concrete columns. The database is available
on the World Wide Web from the University of
Washington and from PEER (UW-PEER).
In this database [11], the nominal column failure
mode was classified as flexure-critical, flexure-shear
critical, or shear-critical. If no shear damage was
reported by the experiment, the column was classified as
flexure-critical. If shear damage was reported, the
absolute maximum effective force (Feff), was compared
with the calculated force corresponding to a maximum
strain of 0.004 (F0.004). The failure displacement ductility
at the 80% effective force, fail, was also considered.
If the maximum effective force was less than 95% of the
ideal force (Feff<0.95F0.004) or if the failure displacement
ductility was less than or equal to 2 (fail2), the column
was classified as shear failure. Otherwise, the column
was classified as flexure shear failure [11].
Above categorization method is given according to
the experimental phenomena after column failure.
Nevertheless, in order to apply the performance-based
seismic design, an engineer must first find out which
mode the column is expected to fail before the
experiment. Hence, the effort is to provide a relation
which determines the column failure mode before the
failure.

3 Data distribution
In total, 111 columns obtained from PEER structure
performance database are considered to develop the
column classification method. The 111 columns
considered in this work have properties within the
following ranges. Figure 1 gives their distribution in
transverse
reinforcement
ratio,
longitudinal
reinforcement ratio, hoop spacing to depth ratio, aspect
ratio, axial load ratio and failure modes. There are many
factors affecting the columns failure modes. To avoid the
error caused by choosing different factors, all the
gathered factors were assumed to influence the failure

modes. Through the stepwise discriminant analysis

method, the items were ranked according to their
importance, from most to least significance, and then the
discriminant equations were established.

4 Column failure mode classification

4.1 Based on aspect ratio
In a much generalized statement, the type of failure
can be said to be mainly dependent on the aspect ratio of
the column [12]. If a/d 2, the column fails in shear,
whereas for a/d 4, it exhibits flexure failure. For the
range of 2<a/d<4, shear strength and shear demand tend
to be close and the type of failure is generally uncertain.
This range is a grey area of so called flexure-shear
which has to be explored.
Figure 2 compares the observed column failure
mode and the value of aspect ratio of the selected
database. The plot shows relatively high dispersion for
all three failure modes. Only 63% of columns with
aspect ratio a/d2 experienced pure shear failures. Only
51% of columns with aspect ratio a/d4 experienced
pure flexure failures. In contrast, 92% of column with
aspect ratio 2<a/d<4 experienced flexure-shear failure. It
is apparent that the boundaries of a/d=2 and a/d=4 are
not sufficient to distinguish the three failure modes.
Hence, the classification of column failure modes based
on the aspect ratio is not adequate.
4.2 Based on shear strength
Here, only the transverse reinforcement details of
ACI conforming details with 135 hooks are researched.
It is well recognized that the relation between plastic
shear demand and shear strength provides useful
information in the determination of column failure
modes [13]. Here, the column shear demand is
determined by its maximum moment capacity divided by
the shear span, Vp=Mmax/a. The maximum moment
capacity, Mmax, is computed through a moment-curvature
analysis for the columns cross section. The column
shear strength, Vn, is calculated according to a shear
strength model proposed by SEZEN and MOEHLE [14].
For columns, the shear strength, Vn, is calculated
according to Eq. (1):
Vn k

Av f y d
s

k (

6 f c
M / Vd

Nu

1.0, 2.0

k 1.15 0.075 , 2.0 6.0

0.7, 6.0

6 f c Ag

)0.8 Ag

(1)

(2)

where f c is in MPa and the coefficient k defines the

shear strength degradation with increasing displacement

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 28632869

2865

Fig. 1 Parameter histograms of specimens

Fig. 2 Relation between observed column failure mode and

aspect ratio

ductility, ; Nu is the axial compression force (Nu=0 for

tension force); M/Vd is the largest ratio of moment to
shear times effective depth under design loadings for the
column but shall not be taken greater than 4 or less than
2; d is the effective depth; Ag is the gross cross-sectional
area of the column. It shall be permitted to assume
d=0.8h, where h is the dimension of the column in the
direction of shear.
To reduce the likelihood of non-conservatively
misclassifying a column as flexure-critical when it might
actually sustain a flexure-shear failure, the upper bound
on Vp/(Vn/k) for flexure failure mode was set at 0.6,
rather than 0.7, as might be inferred from Eq. (1) [13].

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 28632869

2866

The above method was used in ASCE/SEI 4106, and

the detail is given in Table 1.
Table 1 Classification of columns for determination of
modeling parameters
Condition
Vp/(Vn/k)0.6
0.6Vp/(Vn/k)1.0
1.0Vp/(Vn/k)

Conforming details with 135 hooks

Flexure failure
(flexural yielding without shear failure)
Flexure-shear failure (shear failure
following flexural yielding)
Shear failure (shear failure before
flexural yielding)

Figure 3 compares the observed column failure

mode and the value of Vp/(Vn/k) for the selected database.
The plot also shows relatively high dispersion for all
three failure modes. It is also apparent that the
boundaries of Vp/(Vn/k)=1.0 and Vp/(Vn/k)=0.6 are not
sufficient to distinguish the three failure modes. Hence,
the classification of column failure modes based only on
the shear strength model is also not adequate; other
column parameters, which may also influence the
observed failure mode, should be considered.

various classes can be re-arrayed and separated in the

transformed data space [16]. This property of FDA can
be used to isolate the fault source.
All the operation data from the measurement system,
including normal operation and faulty operation, can be
classified into different data classes Gi(i=1, , k), where
G1 refers to the normal operation data class, and G2, ,
Gk refer to the various faulty data classes. With the ni
rows of samples from class Gi, supposing xi is a mean
m-dimensional sample from class i that can be denoted
1
as xi
x . The mean of all the samples is
ni xGi
x

1 k
x , where n is the total number of all the
n i 1 xGi

samples, then the within-class scatter matrix can be given

by

Sw

( x xi )( x xi )T .

And

the

be

given

i 1 xGi

between-class

scatter

matrix

can

by Sb = ni ( xi x )( xi x )T . Therefore, the optimal

i 1

discriminant direction is obtained by maximizing the

TS
Fisher criterion: J ( ) T b , where is the Fisher
Sw
optimal discriminant direction which maximizes the
between-class scatter but minimizes the within-class
scatter. If Sw is nonsingular, the optimal problem can be
transferred into a conventional eigenvalue problem by
writing S w1 Sb , where =(1, 2, , r) are the
eigenvalues of S w1 Sb , and the corresponding
eigenvectors can be denoted as l=(l1, l2, , lr). So, the
discriminant function can be given by y=lTx . With the
Fisher transformation shown in Fig. 4, the various
classes from the measurement space can be arrayed again
and separated in another space.

Fig. 3 Relation between observed column failure mode and

Vp/(Vn/k)

5 Fisher discriminant analysis

5.1 Basic principle of Fishers linear discriminant
analysis
Fishers linear discriminant analysis (FDA) is a
method to find a linear combination of features which
characterize or separate two or more classes of objects or
events [15]. Fishers discriminant analysis is a linear
dimensionality reduction technique, optimal in terms of
maximizing the separation among different classes.
Through a series of linear transformation, FDA technique
can maximize the scatter between the classes and
minimize the scatter within the classes. Consequently,

5.2 Choice of discriminant fact

The above analysis indicates that it is not adequate
to classify column failure modes based only on one
factor such as aspect ratio or shear strength. Therefore,
the classification of column failure modes should be
based on various factors. Because traditional methods
cannot avoid human interference in selection of factors,
they could lead to an imprecise result. To avoid the
subjective error, longitudinal reinforcement ratio,
transverse reinforcement ratio, hoop spacing to depth
ratio, aspect ratio, shearing resistance demand to shear
capacity ratio and axial load ratio are all selected for
classifying the column failure modes. And the stepwise
discriminant analysis is designed to reduce the variables
of the discriminant function for the classification of
column failure modes.

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 28632869

2867

Fig. 4 Classes separation based on Fisher transformation

6 Evaluation of Fisher discriminant analysis

6.1 Divided into three failure modes
Three failure modes are considered (flexure failure,
flexure-shear failure and shear failure) here. Through
stepwise statistics analysis, structure matrix is obtained
in Table 2. From the coefficient of the discriminant
function, transverse reinforcement ratio, axial load ratio
and longitudinal reinforcement ratio cannot cause
significant influence on the failure modes. And this
variable will not be used in the analysis.

classified into three types (flexure failure, flexure-shear

failure and shear failure) as follows: substitute the value
of Hoop spacing to depth ratio, aspect ratio and Vp/Vn
into these three functions. Then the failure mode belongs
to the very type that corresponds to the function which
gets the largest results. Table 3 gives the coefficients and
constants in three discriminant functions.
Table 3 Classification function coefficients
Influencing factor

Function 1

Function 2

Vp/Vn

0.805*

0.221

Aspect ratio
Transverse
reinforcement ratioa

0.611*

0.476

0.469*

0.061

Axial load ratioa

Longitudinal
reinforcement ratioa
Hoop spacing to
depth ratio

0.390*

0.185

0.018

0.328

0.927*

0.042

1) Pooled within-groups correlation is between discriminating variables and

standardized canonical discriminant functions; 2) Variables ordered by
absolute size of correlation within function. *: Largest absolute correlation
between each variable and any discriminant function; a: This variable not
used in analysis.

Therefore, the following three discriminant

functions obtained through the discriminant analysis
respectively were used to determine the failure mode.
Substituting the observed value into each discriminant
function, the failure mode is determined by the largest
function value. Therefore, the following three
discriminant functions can be drawn respectively through
discriminant analysis. An observed value can be

Flexure Flexure-shear

Hoop spacing to depth ratio 7.664

Table 2 Structure matrix

Influencing factor

Failure mode
Shear

0.168

2.935

Aspect ratio

6.448

4.942

4.038

Vp/Vn

16.860

21.232

25.726

(Constant)

19.455

20.815

23.23

Fishers linear discriminant functions.

In Fisher discriminant analysis, the explained

quality of discriminant function can be determined by the
cumulative variance. In Table 4, the variance of Function
1 accounts for 93.9%, which indicates that Function 1
can explain the information of sample in 93.9% degree.
Only by this function, most samples can be explained
very well. In the discriminant Function 1, the coefficient
of Vp/Vn is the largest, which indicates that the function is
mostly sensitive to Vp/Vn. Vp/Vn can better reflect the
failure modes of RC columns. With the increase of a/d,
the columns are most likely to experience flexure failure,
and with the increase of s/d, the columns are most likely
Table 4 Eigenvalues
Function Eigenvalue Variance Cumulative
1

1.800a

0.117

Canonical
correlation

93.9%

93.9%

0.802

6.1%

100.0%

0.324

a: First 2 canonical discriminant functions are used in analysis.

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 28632869

2868

to experience shear failure.

In Table 5, it can be concluded that the center value
of zone flexure failure is 1.093, the center value of zone
flexure-shear failure is 1.187, and the center value of
zone shear failure is 2.472. A new sample can be adopted
into one of these types by comparing its distance with the
center points of these three groups of value, thus, the
classification of failure modes of RC columns can be
realized. Figure 5 shows the canonical discriminant
functions.
Table 5 Functions at group centroids
Failure mode

Function 1

Function 2

Flexure failure

1.093

0.077

Flexure-shear failure

1.187

0.381

Shear failure

2.472

0.798

Unstandardized canonical discriminant functions are evaluated at group

means.

mode. Some discriminations of shear-flexure failure

modes go wrong. One of the reasons is that there is no
obvious boundary between them when the test results are
recorded.
6.2 Divided into two failure modes
If adopting only two failure modes to distinguish
the failures classifications of RC columns, i.e. merging
the shear-flexure failure mode of RC columns into shear
failure mode, and working out the performance indices
of this mode according to shear failure mode, the values
are more conservative and safer. The performance
indices of classified columns in FEMA356 are worked
out in this way. As given in Table 7, only one function
can explain all the variables.
Table 7 Eigenvalues
Function Eigenvalue Variance

Cumlative

Canonical
correlation

1.528a

100.0%

0.777

100.0%

a: First canonical discriminant functions are used in analysis.

Fig. 5 Grouping using first and second discriminant functions

Table 6 shows that the accuracy of predicted result

of the functions reaches 85.6%. As can be seen, by using
the Fisher discriminant analysis method in statistics, the
classification and failure problem of RC columns can be
solved to a great extent. The result also shows that the
accuracy is above 90% in flexure failure and shear failure
Table 6 Classification results
Failure mode
(Original)

Predicted group membership

Flexure Flexure-shear

Shear

Total

Flexure

59

64

Flexure-shear

26

36

Shear

10

11

Flexure

92.2%

7.8%

0.0%

100.0%

Flexure-shear

13.9%

72.2%

13.9%

100.0%

Shear

0.0%

9.1%

90.9%

100.0%

85.6% of original grouped cases are correctly classified.

Table 8 gives the coefficients and constants in the

first and second discriminant functions. The variance of
Function 1 accounts for 100%, which indicates that
Function 1 can explain the information of sample in
100% degree, and only by this function, the failure mode
can be determined. Figure 6 shows the histograms from
the discriminant functions. It can be concluded that the
center value of zone flexure is 1.050, and the centroids
value of zone shear is 1.43. A new sample can be adopted
into this type by comparing its distance with the
centroids points of these two groups of value, thus the
classification of failure modes of RC columns can be
realized.
Table 8 Classification function coefficients
Influencing factor

Failure mode
Flexure failure

Shear failure

Hoop spacing to depth ratio

7.998

0.541

Aspect ratio

6.422

4.866

Vp/Vn

17.444

22.032

(Constant)

19.149

20.805

Fishers linear discriminant functions.

Table 9 shows that the accuracy of predict result of

the functions reaches 90.1%. As can be seen, by using
the Fisher discriminant analysis method in statistics, the
classification and failure problem of RC columns can be
solved to a great extent. Some discriminations of
shear-flexure failure modes go wrong.

J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 28632869

2869

short-column failure), or decrease the space of hooped

reinforcement.
3) The structure system contains many other
components such as shear wall and beam. In the future
work, the FDA method will also be used in these
components to propose a discriminant model.

References
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

Fig. 6 Parameter histograms of zone flexure and zone shear

[8]

Table 9 Classification results

Failure mode
(Original)

Predicted group membership

Total

Flexure

Flexure-shear

Flexure failure

59

64

Flexure-shear

41

47

Flexure

92.2%

7.8%

100.0%

Flexure-shear

12.8%

87.2%

100.0%

[9]

[10]

[11]

90.1% of original grouped cases are correctly classified.

[12]

7 Conclusions
1) The failure modes of RC columns can be
identified by using the discriminant function. In the
discriminant function, the coefficient of Vp/Vn is the
largest, which indicates that the function is mostly
sensitive to Vp/Vn. Vp/Vn can better reflect the failure
modes of RC columns. In the condition that the
minimum hooped reinforcement ratio is met, the failure
mode of RC columns has little relationship with hooped
reinforcement ratio, axial compression ratio, and axial
reinforcement ratio.
2) In order to avoid shear failure mode, we can
increase the value of Vp/Vn, aspect ratio (to avoid

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

DEIERLEIN G G, KRAWINKLER H, CORNELL C A. A framework

for performance-based earthquake engineering [C]// J A BLUME.
Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Stanford, 2003,
140148.
LAO Xiao-chun, HAN Xiao-lei. Performance index limits of high
reinforced concrete shear wall components [J]. Journal of Central
South University of Technology, 2011, 18: 12481255.
LIU Ming, LU Ben-yan, LIU Bo-quan. Failure mode identification
method of reinforced concrete bridge pier [J]. China Journal of
Highway and Transport, 2011, 24(3): 5863. (in Chinese)
LAM S S E, WU B, WONG Y L, WANG Z Y, LI C S. Drift capacity
of rectangular reinforced concrete columns with low lateral
confinement and high-axial load [J]. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 2003, 129(6): 733742.
MAEKAWA K, AN X. Shear failure and ductility of RC columns
after yielding of main reinforcement [J]. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, 2000, 65(2/3): 335368.
LI Hong-nan, XIAO Shi-yun, HUO-Lin-sheng. Damage
investigation and analysis of engineering structures in the Wenchuan
earthquake [J]. Journal of Building Structures, 2008, 29(4): 1019.
(in Chinese)
ACUN B, SUCUOLU H. The effect of displacement history on the
performance of concrete columns in flexure [J]. Advances in
Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering, 2010, 13(3): 373382.
ASCE/SEI 4106. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings [S].
American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, Virginia, 2007.
FEMA 356. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings [S]. American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, Virginia, 2000.
ZHU L, ELWOOD K J, HAUKAAS T. Classification and seismic
safety evaluation of existing reinforced concrete columns [J]. Journal
of Structural Engineering, 2007, 133(9): 13161330.
BERRY M, PARRISH M, EBERHARD M. PEER structural
performance database users manual (Version 1.0) [R]. CA:
University of California: Berkeley, 2004.
WAN Hai-tao, HAN Xiao-lei, JI Jing. Analyses of reinforced
concrete columns by performance-based design method [J]. Journal
of Central South University (Science and Technology), 2010, 41(4):
15841589. (in Chinese)
Update to ASCE/SEI 41 concrete provisions, seismic rehabilitation
of existing buildings [S]. American Society of Civil Engineers:
Reston, Virginia, 2007.
SEZEN H, MOEHLE J P. Shear strength model for lightly reinforced
concrete columns [J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2004,
130(11): 16921703.
DU Zhi-min, JIN Xin-qiao. Multiple faults diagnosis for sensors in
air handling unit using Fisher discriminant analysis [J]. Energy
Conversion and Management, 2008, 49(12): 36543665.
TAN Chao, CHEN Hui, WU Tong. Classification models for
detection of lung cancer based on nine element distribution of urine
samples [J]. Biological Trace Element Research. 2011, 142(1):
1828.
(Edited by HE Yun-bin)