n ABSTRACT

q SPECIMEN CONSTRUCTION

This experiment examines the behavior of a slender column

subjected to an eccentric axial load. Slender columns fail by
buckling or excessive lateral bending influenced by secondary
moments. In the experiment, a first-order displacement results
from the initial eccentricity. Second-order displacements are a
function of both Eulers formula for critical loading of a column
and the first-order deflection. The experiment provides evidence
that slenderness causes a column to undergo increased
moments and deflections, which in turn cause the column to fail
at a lower axial load than if slenderness effects were neglected.
Specifically, our results show that the column failed in flexure
due to yielding of steel before crushing of concrete. While this
matches conceptually with our predictions, the column failed at a
lower axial load possibly due to uncertainty in rebar placement
and additional moment caused by the self-weight of the column.

t TEST RESULTS

r INSTRUMENTATION

The specimen used nominal Grade 60, #4 longitudinal

reinforcement rebar. The material strength of the rebar was
tested prior to the experiment and an analysis of the stress-strain
plot was determined providing the actual values for modulus of
elasticity, yield stress, strain-hardening stress, and ultimate
stress for the #4 steel in the column. Concrete was tested in
compression on a 6 x 12 cylindrical concrete placed in between
rubber padding to compensate for the irregularity of the surface
of the concrete. Concrete was compressed until failure, and an
analysis of the stress-strain plot, Figure 4(c), determined the
maximum stress of the concrete to be 5.2 ksi. Photos of both
specimen testing are shown on Figure 4(b) and Figure 4(d).

The column failed at 28 kips axial load, much lower than

expected. The shape of the graph in Figure 7(a) indicates that
column behavior was greatly influenced by secondary moments
and slenderness effects. The column failed in flexure due to
yielding of steel before the concrete crushed as can be seen by
the P-M relation crossing the failure envelope below the balance
point. This corresponds to the theoretical prediction. In Figure
7(b), the curve may have been due to the self-weight of the
column inducing additional moment at mid-span. This would
result in a greater moment for smaller applied loads than
theoretically predicted. The difference in the curves in Figure 7(c)
may be explained by the fact that elastic axial displacement does
not account for slenderness effects. The axial vs. transverse
deflections are depicted in Figure 7(d). The predicted and
experimental curves generally follow the same shape, although
concrete shrinkage may have created a void that would explain
the apparent jump in initial measured axial deformation values.

Test specimen instrumentation consisted of a load cell to

measure the applied load and two LVDTs to measure the
transverse displacement at mid-span and the axial
displacement. The measurements were needed to determine
load and moment at failure, load-deflection curves, and axial
versus lateral displacement relations. Photos of the
instrumentation are shown in Figures 5(a), (b), (c), (d).

6.0

Model

5.0

test1

test2

Stress [ks

4.0

o OBJECTIVES
Theoretical and experimental results were compared to assess
common structural engineering approaches use to:

3.0

Figure 5(b) Axial LVDT

2.0

P-M Diagram

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

Figure 5(a) Mid-span LVDT

0.010

Strain

90
80

150

70

Load [kip

Figure 4(a) Rebar Stress-Strain

100

200

0.0

Compute axial deflection due to axial load using material,

force and cross sectional property relations.
Determine axial deflections versus lateral deflection
relations.
Predict the failure moment and load by comparing to a
P-M interaction diagram.
Assess the influence of slenderness by considering
buckling effects.
Determine mid-span column moment versus lateral
displacement relations.

Mid-Height Column Moment vs Lateral Displacement

250

1.0

Figure 4(c) Concrete Stress-Strain

Moment [kip-

Civil Engineering

CEE 142L REINFORCED CONCRETE TESTING LABORATORY

SLENDER COLUMN EXPERIMENT
G. Beretta, E. Chen, S.A. Cooke, D. Hurley, D. Naish

100

50

0
20

40

60

80

100

-50

-100

Moment [kip-in]

120

140

Figure 4(b) Reinforcing steel

Figure 4(d) Concrete cylinder (6 x 12)

Figure 5(c) Signal Conditioner

Figure 5(d) Axial Load Cell

P-M Diagram

column can be seen in the P-M interaction diagrams in Figure

6(a) for actual material strengths. It was expected to fail at a
125 kips and 125 kip-in due to the relationship M=P*e.
However, when considering slenderness, the expected failure
is 48 kip and 134 kip-in. The experiment was conducted to
compare to these expectations.
Photos below display the experiment process.

Load [kip

150

100

Figure 6(b) Before Loading

50

Figure 6(c) Initial Loading

0.2

0.4

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ACI P-M including Slenderness

M=P*e
Class Derived, incl. 0.23 alpha
Euler Critical Buckling

-50

-100

Moment [kip-in]

P-M

Figure 6(a) P-M Interaction Diagram

0.6

0.8

1.2

Axial vs Transverse Deflection

0.5

40

0.45

lambda vs a Measured
lambda* vs a Theoretical
lambda* vs a Measured
lambda vs a Theoretical

0.4

25
20

Experimental
Theoretical

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

10

lambda* accounts for

elastic axial deformations

0.1

0.05

0.05

0.1
0.15
Axial Displacement [in]

0.2

0.25

Figure 7(c) Load-Displacement

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Transverse (a) [in]

Figure 7(d) Axial-Transverse

u CONCLUSIONS
The results of this experiment indicate:
Theoretical axial capacity of the column was modified by the
slenderness ratio, which exceeded the ACI 318 limit.
Close placement of the longitudinal rebar to the center of
the section provided a narrow cage of flexural
reinforcement, which may have contributed to diminishing
the capacity, in accordance with predicted results.
Thus a column of this nature should be designed with
caution as slight eccentricities can cause major differences
in the behavior of the column.

v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

0
107"

4 #4 Total
1/4" Diam

45

15

The column was subjected to axial loading with an eccentricity of

one inch on one end of the column. Load magnitude was slowly
increased until the column buckled and experienced failure.
The behavior of the slender column was evaluated using ACI 31802 procedures. The P-M diagram was determined by finding the
moment capacity at various loads. The nominal strength of the

200

6"

Figure 7(b) Moment-Displacement

Axial (lambda) [

Axial Load[ki

s ANALYTICAL RESULTS & FAILURE EVALUATION

250

Figure 3 Column Dimensions

10

Axial Load vs. Axial Displacement

The test specimen was designed to be representative of a slender

column in a non-sway frame. The column dimensions were such
that the kl/r ratio was approximately 70 (greater than the ACI 318
section 10.12.2 limit of 22), indicating that buckling effects needed
to be considered. In addition, reinforcement was close to the
centroid of the section. The column was tested horizontally with
an axial load applied at one pinned end for simplicity, see Figure
2. Dimensional details, including reinforcement specifications are
shown in Figures 1 and 3.

1 " cover
216

Measured
Calculated

20

Lateral Displacement [in]

Figure 7(a) P-M Including Actual

p TEST OVERVIEW

Figure 2 Pinned Connection

40

160

ACI P-M including Slenderness

M=P*e
Class Derived, incl. 0.23 alpha
Euler Critical Buckling
P-M
Experimental

30

214"

50

30
0

35

Figure 1 Rebar Cage

60

Figure 6(d) Failure

Figure 6(d) Rebar Exposure

The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance and

leadership of the following people: Prof. John Wallace and
Leonardo Massone, for offering insight into the experiments and
challenging us to improve our lab-writing skills. We would also
like to thank Mr. Harold Kasper for his assistance in the
experiments and Kutay Orakcal for preparing us in CEE 142.