Columns with axial load causing biaxial bending are present in

many different building structures. The provisions of ACI 318

Section 10.2 are the basis for traditional design aids that show
section strength when moments act in a plane of symmetry.
Strength analysis for biaxial bending is significantly more difficult,
as moments are not applied in a plane of symmetry. Several methods
of analyses that use traditional design aids are reviewed and the
results are compared with data obtained from physical tests of normal
strength concrete columns subjected to short-term axial loads and
biaxial bending. Results indicate that any among the four different
methods of cross-sectional analysis are equally suitable for design
purposes. The value of three-dimensional interaction diagrams in
the design process is discussed. Computer-based methods of analysis
are also described and compared with test observations.
Keywords: column; reinforced concrete; strength; surface.
INTRODUCTION
Columns resisting axial load and biaxial bending can exist
in building structures. Column bending is uniaxial when the
axial load acts at an eccentricity along one of the principal
axes (in a plane of section symmetry), and column bending
is biaxial when the load is applied at an eccentricity that is
not along a principal axis. Analysis of a rectangular cross
section in uniaxial bending uses an equivalent rectangular
stress block acting on a rectangular area of compressed concrete
and a neutral axis (axis of zero strain) that is perpendicular to
the direction of the eccentricity. Any lateral deflection along
the longitudinal axis of the column under uniaxially eccentric
compression loads remains in the plane of section symmetry.
Analysis of stress on a rectangular cross section in biaxial
bending can involve a triangular or trapezoidal area of
compressed concrete, as well as a neutral axis that is not
perpendicular to the direction of the eccentricity. Generally,
the lateral deflection along the longitudinal axis of the column
under biaxially eccentric compression loads is in a direction
different from the direction of the eccentricity.
Cross sections under service load conditions with low levels
of compressive stress and no cracking of concrete have a
unique geometric centroid that can be determined with elastic
analysis methods of solid mechanics after steel areas are
transformed by the modular ratio (Es/Ec) between steel and
concrete. Because concrete cracks at low tensile stress, it
does not effectively resist tension, and any area of tensile
concrete is neglected. Consequently, in the presence of tensile
strain, the portion of the cross section in compression varies
with load and eccentricity. The elastic analysis of transformed
rectangular cross sections under uniaxially eccentric compression
remains relatively simple because equilibrium equations
yield a second-order polynomial for locating the neutral axis.1
Under biaxially eccentric compression, the equilibrium
equations can be solved iteratively. After the location and
angular orientation of the neutral axis have been established,
displacements and concrete and steel stresses can be estimated
for service load conditions.
Cross sections in which material stress is not proportional
to material strain are more complex to analyze because the
elastic superposition of stresses does not apply. Methods of
analysis for such cross sections are described herein.
Strength design must be based on the cross section ultimate
strength, which is not influenced by the sequence of load that
causes failure. Several design procedures for ultimate
strength analysis are examined in this paper and recommendations
for design are offered. The results of the study
are limited to normal-strength concrete columns subjected to
short-term loads.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Reinforced concrete columns can be subjected to combined
biaxial bending moments and axial load. Current building
codes, however, do not give enough guidelines for the design
and analysis of these structural elements. This study presents
an overview of recently developed design and computer
analysis methods, and they are compared with many short
and slender columns under actual tests. Examples are also
provided for engineering practices.
ANALYSIS PROCEDURES FOR
STRENGTH INTERACTION SURFACES
Several writers on the analysis of the ultimate strength of
biaxially loaded columns explained the relationships that are
needed to consider nonlinear stress distributions throughout
a plane strain field.2-4 An equivalent compression zone, similar
to the one developed by Whitney5 and given in ACI 318
Section 10.2.7,6 was used to model concrete in the compression
zone for calculating ultimate strength. ACI 3186 Section 10.2.3
specifies the maximum usable concrete strain to be 0.003.
That strain together with any location and orientation of a
neutral axis defines failure condition for which one set of
failure coordinates Pn, Mnx, and Mny can be evaluated. The
locus of all such points is a strength interaction surface. One
quadrant of such a graph is shown in Fig. 1. Moment contours
representing planes of constant axial load have been used to
describe the three-dimensional ultimate strength interaction
diagram (Fig. 1). These contours are similar to a series of
ellipses for reinforced concrete rectangular cross sections.7,8
Title no. 101-S42
Analysis and Design of Concrete Columns for Biaxial
Bending—Overview
by Richard W. Furlong, Cheng-Tzu Thomas Hsu, and S. Ali Mirza
ACI 414 Structural Journal/May-June 2004
Deviations from the elliptical approximation are largest
when the ultimate axial load is near the axial load strength
corresponding to a balanced strain condition and the eccentricity
of the axial load is in the direction of a corner of the
cross section. The balanced strain condition occurs when a
limiting strain of 0.003 in the concrete is reached as the tension
reinforcement achieves first yield. Design aids were developed
from analyses that used the rectangular stress block for
concrete.9-11 The design aid relationship used was
(1a)
where
Mnx = applied nominal bending moment about the X-axis;
Mx0 = nominal bending moment strength if axial load
were eccentric only about the X-axis;
Mny = applied nominal bending moment about the Y-axis;
My0 = nominal bending moment strength if axial load
were eccentric only about the Y-axis; and
α = axial load contour exponent between 1 and 2.
Equation (1a) describes the true ellipse when the exponent
α = 2, and can be written as
(1b)
Mnx
Mx0
---------
α Mny
My0
---------
α
+ = 1
Mnx
Mx0
---------
2 Mny
My0
---------
2
+ = 1 (The Elliptic Load Contour Equation)
Graphs in Reference 10 show α to be a function of the ratio
between the specified compressive strength of concrete and the
yield strength of steel, the ratio between the ultimate axial
load and the cross section ultimate concentric strength, the
reinforcement ratio, and the ratio between the shorter and the
longer side of a rectangular cross section.
Design aids in the 1970 ACI SP-17A Handbookl2 and the
1972 CRSI Handbookl3 were based on interaction diagrams
developed in Reference 14 for square cross sections bent
about the diagonal axis at 45 degrees for which the resultant
moment acts in a plane of symmetry. The contour for an axial
load on the interaction surface was defined by two straight
lines that connect moment values for bending about a principal
axis and the moment value at the 45-degree skew angle.
An alternate equation that can be used to describe an ultimate
strength interaction surface published in 196015 and is used
in the commentary of ACI 3186 as evidence of adequate
strength in reinforced concrete cross sections
(2)
where
Pni = nominal axial load strength under biaxial eccentricity;
Pnx = nominal axial load strength for single eccentricity
along Y-axis;
Pny = nominal axial load strength for single eccentricity
along X-axis; and
Pn0 = nominal concentric compression strength of the
cross section.
If the value of Pni from Eq. (2) , reduced by a strength
reduction factor φ, exceeds the applied factored axial load Pui
at the biaxial eccentricity, the section is adequate. Design
aids in the 1978 ACI SP-17 Handbook16 were provided for
solving Eq. (2). The use of Eq. (1) or (2) requires determining the
cross section bending strength about each principal axis
separately. Such definitions are available with design aids in
the form of graphs17 or tables.18 Equation (1) and (2) were
developed for cross section strength. These equations are
also relevant for slender columns as for short columns if the
values Mnx and Mny for Eq. (1) and Pnx and Pny for Eq. (2)
are obtained with eccentricities magnified separately for
bending and slenderness about each principal axis.
Reports of physical tests on square columns subjected to
biaxially eccentric compression confirm the shape of interaction
surfaces predicted from design aids and Eq. (1) and (2).19
Generally, test strengths exceeded strength predictions from
the design aids. Studies on rectangular and round-ended
bridge pier columns20 included tests and analytical investigation,
which used discrete elements and various stress-strain models
for concrete. Ultimate strength estimates were found to be
insensitive to the specific shape of the stress-strain function
(bilinear, parabolic, higher-order polynomial) used for
concrete in compression.20 The clear spacing between
longitudinal bars in these specimens was about 2 in. (51 mm) or
less, and the effect such spacing can have on confining
concrete effectively to develop more compression capacity
was not considered.21,22 The test results showed that to predict
the maximum bending moments between the ends of an
eccentrically loaded slender column, moment magnifiers for
slenderness effects could be evaluated separately for each
principal axis of bending. Equation (1b) predicted u