See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245304274

Confinement Model for High-Strength Concrete

Article  in  Journal of Structural Engineering · March 1999

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:3(281)

CITATIONS READS
215 2,552

2 authors:

Salim Razvi Murat Saatcioglu

Oman Academic Accreditation Authority University of Ottawa
16 PUBLICATIONS   1,040 CITATIONS    106 PUBLICATIONS   2,940 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Higher Ed QA in the Gulf States View project

Fundamentals of distributed sensing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Murat Saatcioglu on 27 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CONFINEMENT MODEL FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE
By Salim Razvi1 and Murat Saatcioglu,2 Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: A mathematical model is developed to express the stress-strain relationship of high-strength con-
crete confined by transverse reinforcement. The model is applicable to both normal-strength and high-strength
concretes, covering a strength range between 30 and 130 MPa. It incorporates all the relevant parameters of
confinement that have been observed to play important roles in column tests. These parameters include the type,
volumetric ratio, spacing, yield strength, and arrangement of transverse reinforcement as well as concrete strength
and section geometry. Therefore, it can be used for concrete confined by spirals, rectilinear hoops, crossties,
welded wire fabric, and combinations of these reinforcements. It has been verified extensively against data
obtained from column tests under concentric and eccentric loads, as well as slow and fast strain rates.

INTRODUCTION ment pressure. The model is based on the computation of

Characteristics of confined concrete have been researched
extensively during the last three decades. Early studies date
back to the 1920s. Richart et al. (1928, 1929) were among the
first to study the confinement of normal-strength concrete.
Their research on concrete cylinders, either confined by uni-
form hydrostatic pressure or spiral reinforcement provided
some of the basic information on modeling confined concrete.
Subsequent research by Chan (1955), Roy and Sozen (1963),
Soliman and Yu (1967), Sargin (1971), Kent and Park (1971),
Vallenas et al. (1977), and Park et al. (1982) resulted in ana-
lytical models with various limitations. The main variables
considered in these models included the size, strength, amount,
and spacing of lateral reinforcement. Other variables consid-
ered were cross-sectional size and shape, rate of loading, and
amount of longitudinal reinforcement.
Researchers prior to 1980 did not consider the distribution
of longitudinal reinforcement and the resulting tie arrangement
as a confinement parameter. This effect was proven to be sig-
nificant by Sheikh and Uzumeri (1980) on columns tested un-
der concentric loading. The importance of tie arrangement was
also shown by Scott et al. (1982) for columns under concentric
and eccentric loadings and by Ozcebe and Saatcioglu (1987)
for columns under reversed cyclic loading. The tie arrange-
ment was not a parameter in earlier models, as well as some
of the more recent models (Park et al. 1982; Fafitis and Shah
1985b). The influence of this parameter on square columns
was modeled for the first time by Sheikh and Uzumeri (1982),
using the ‘‘effectively confined core area’’ concept. A com-
parative study, conducted by Sheikh (1982), showed that mod-
els that did not include reinforcement arrangement as a param-
eter were not able to predict differences in response resulting
from tie arrangement. The Sheikh and Uzumeri model was
subsequently modified by Sheikh and Yeh (1986, 1992) to in-
corporate the effects of eccentric loading and high axial com-
pression under eccentric loading.
A theoretical model was proposed by Mander et al. (1988),
with a wider scope than those previously proposed. The model
utilized the effectively confined core area concept, originally
proposed by Sheikh and Uzumeri (1982) for square columns.
Subsequently, a model was proposed by Saatcioglu and Razvi
(1992) relating strength and deformability to lateral confine-
1
Nat. Sci. Engrg. Res. Council of Canada Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept.
of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1N 6N5.
2
Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
K1N 6N5.
Note. Associate Editor: Walter H. Gerstle. Discussion open until Au-
gust 1, 1999. To extend the closing date one month, a written request
must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for
this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on July 10,
1998. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
125, No. 3, March, 1999. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/99/0003-0281 –
0289/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 18752.
equivalent uniform confinement pressure resulting from dif-
ferent arrangements of transverse reinforcement. The model is
applicable to circular, square, and rectangular columns under
concentric and eccentric loads with slow and high strain rates
(Saatcioglu et al. 1995). All of the aforementioned models
were developed for normal-strength concrete.
Confinement models developed for normal-strength con-
crete may not be applicable to high-strength concrete. In fact,
these models were shown to overestimate ductility when ap-
plied to high-strength concrete (Yong et al. 1988; Polat 1992;
Thomsen and Wallace 1992; Razvi 1995). Presently, most of
the models proposed for high-strength concrete are modified
versions of models developed for normal-strength concrete.
The modifications were usually introduced on the basis of lim-
ited test data, often restricting them to data used for the mod-
ifications. Hence, these models were often modified more than
once as additional test data became available. Most of these
models are only applicable to either circular or square sections.
Those developed by Ahmed and Shah (1982), Martinez et al.
(1982), and Fafitis and Shah (1985a) are applicable to circular
columns, whereas others developed by Yong et al. (1988), Mu-
guruma et al. (1983, 1991, 1993), and Cusson and Paultre
(1995) are applicable to square columns. With the exception
of models proposed by Muguruma et al. (1991, 1993) and Li
(1994), none of the previous models are applicable to a wide
range of concrete strengths, covering both normal-strength and
high-strength concretes. The review of existing confinement
models conducted by Razvi (1995) indicates that there is a
need for an analytical model that is relatively simple to use
and general enough to cover normal-strength and high-strength
materials, as well as the cross-sectional shapes and reinforce-
ment arrangements used in practice. One such model is pro-
posed in this paper.
PROPOSED MODEL
The proposed confinement model was developed on the ba-
sis of the ‘‘equivalent uniform confinement pressure’’ concept
proposed by Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992) in developing their
model for normal-strength concrete. Because of the differences
in strength and ductility characteristics of normal-strength and
high-strength concretes, significant changes were introduced
to the formulation used in the previous model, while keeping
the overall approach the same. Extensive test data was first
generated by the writers to establish the characteristics of con-
fined high-strength concrete with circular and rectilinear ge-
ometry. A total of 46 near full-size columns were tested with
concrete strengths ranging between 60 and 124 MPa (Razvi
and Saatcioglu 1996a; Saatcioglu and Razvi 1998). Additional
data were obtained from 124 tests of high-strength concrete
columns conducted by others, to increase the database. The
data collected were supplemented by 96 additional column
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1999 / 281
tests conducted earlier using normal-strength concrete, to ex-
pand the scope of the model.

Confined Concrete Strength

Concrete confined by transverse reinforcement develops
passive lateral pressure as it expands under the influence of
axial compression, creating a multiaxial state of stress. The
strength of concrete with nonlinear and nonhomogeneous ma-
terial characteristics under a multiaxial state of stress may be
difficult to establish theoretically. Therefore, test data are often
used to develop empirical or semiempirical approaches. For
an idealized material with elastic and homogeneous material
properties, Hooke’s law may be used to establish a relationship
between axial and transverse strains. This relationship may be
used to derive an expression for strength in the axial direction
if a failure criterion is adopted. One such expression is shown
in (1) based on the assumption that the failure under uniaxial
stress occurs at the same transverse strain level as that under
the triaxial stress condition (Saatcioglu and Razvi 1991)
ft2 = fu2 ⫹ k⬘1 ft1 (1)
where
(1 ⫺ ␮)
k⬘1 = (2)
␮
A similar relationship was shown to apply to concrete, al-
though concrete has nonlinear and nonhomogeneous material
characteristics (Richart et al. 1928). It was suggested by Ri-
chart et al. (1928) that incremental strength gain due to con-
finement can be expressed as 4.1 times the lateral confinement
pressure when the confinement pressure is uniform as in the
case of externally applied active hydrostatic pressure, or as in
approximately uniform passive confinement pressure devel-
oped by closely spaced circular spirals. However, the passive
lateral pressure generated by laterally expanding concrete and
restraining transverse reinforcement is not always uniform.
Square and rectangular columns, confined by rectilinear rein-
forcement, develop nonuniform lateral pressure that peaks near
the crosstie locations (Saatcioglu and Razvi 1992). The lateral
restraint in these regions is dictated by the axial stiffness of
crossties, which is quite high until the steel yields in axial
tension. The restraining action diminishes quickly with dis-
tance from crossties, as flexural rigidity of perimeter ties dom-
inates the behavior. Fig. 1 illustrates passive confining pres-
sures that develop in columns with different reinforcement
arrangements. The confinement model proposed by Saatcioglu
and Razvi (1992) is based on the computation of equivalent
uniform pressure that gives the same effect as the nonuniform
confinement pressures as shown in Fig. 1. Accordingly, the FIG. 1. Passive Confinement Pressure: (a) Development of
Passive Confinement Pressure in Square Column; (b) Variation
strength of confined concrete can be written as shown below, of Confinement Pressure with Reinforcement Arrangement; (c)
where fle is the equivalent uniform lateral pressure Uniform Lateral Pressure in Circular Columns; (d) Equivalent
Uniform Pressure in Square Column; (e) Confinement Pressure
f ⬘cc = f ⬘co ⫹ k1 fle (3) in Rectangular Column
⫺0.17
k1 = 6.7( fle) (4)
surface area, defined as sbc and reducing it by k2. The tensile
fle = k2 fl (5) forces correspond to peak concrete stress. Therefore, the stress

冘
q
fs used in (6) is the tensile stress in transverse reinforcement
(As fs sin ␣)i
at peak concrete stress. Although fs is often taken equal to yield
i=1 strength fyt, the transverse steel may not always yield at this
fl = (6) stage of concrete stress, especially when high-strength rein-
sbc
forcement is used to confine high-strength concrete. The value
where q = number of tie legs that cross the side of core con- of fs is discussed in the following section.
crete for which the average lateral pressure fl is being com-
puted. The equivalent uniform pressure fle used in (4) is ex- Stress in Transverse Steel at Peak Concrete Stress
pressed in megapascals. It is computed by dividing the
perpendicular components of tensile forces in transverse re- Confinement of normal-strength concrete is usually
inforcement acting on each side of concrete core by the core achieved using normal-strength transverse steel, having a yield
282 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1999
strength of up to 500 MPa. Experimental studies conducted
by Sheikh and Uzumeri (1980) indicated that transverse steel
may or may not yield at peak concrete stress. Therefore, it was
proposed to use the actual steel stress to compute the confine-
ment pressure (Sheikh and Uzumeri 1982). However, no equa-
tion was suggested for the actual stress. Almost all other ex-
isting models for normal-strength concrete assume yielding of
transverse steel in computing confined concrete strength. This
assumption was found to produce fairly accurate predictions
for normal-strength concrete confined with normal-strength
steel (Saatcioglu and Razvi 1992).
The lateral confinement pressure required for high-strength
concrete may be significantly higher than that for normal-
strength concrete (Razvi and Saatcioglu 1994). This require-
ment is usually met by using higher grades of steel rather than
increasing the volumetric ratio of reinforcement to avoid con-
gestion of the column cage. In this case, the assumption of
steel yielding at peak concrete stress may not be accurate.
Depending on the confinement efficiency and grade of steel,
high-strength steel may or may not yield (Saatcioglu 1998).
High-strength concrete columns tested under concentric axial
load showed that 1,000-MPa steel yielded at or after column
capacity was reached, often just before the onset of significant
strength degradation (Razvi and Saatcioglu 1996a). Polat
(1992) also reported yielding of 950-MPa steel at peak con-
crete stress. However, Cusson and Paultre (1995) indicated
that high-strength steel yielded at the peak only when the con-
crete specimens were well-confined. Therefore, an iterative
procedure was proposed by these researchers to compute the
stress in confinement steel (Cusson and Paultre 1995).
It has become clear from previous experimental research
that the effectiveness of high-strength transverse reinforcement
depends on the volumetric ratio and efficiency of transverse
reinforcement, as well as concrete strength. A large volume of
test data were evaluated by the writers to derive an expression
that relates stress in steel to experimentally observed param-
eters. Eq. (7) was derived for this purpose from regression
analysis of test data

TABLE 1. Strength Enhancement in Circular Columns Tested by Razvi and Saatcioglu (1996a)
f ⬘cc (MPa)
Column Reinforcement bc db s fyt fs fl f ⬘co Analytical/
label arrangement (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) k1 k2 (MPa) Experimental Analytical experimental
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
CC-1 Circular 223.7 6.3 135 660 660 1.36 6.4 1.0 51.0 59.9 59.7 1.00
CC-2 Circular 218.7 11.3 135 400 400 2.72 5.7 1.0 51.0 62.3 66.4 1.07
CC-3 Circular 223.7 6.3 70 660 660 2.63 5.7 1.0 51.0 68.4 65.9 0.96
CC-4 Circular 223.7 6.3 70 660 660 2.63 5.7 1.0 51.0 67.4 65.9 0.98
CC-8 Circular 223.7 6.3 70 660 660 2.63 5.7 1.0 105.4 122.9 120.3 0.98
CC-9 Circular 218.7 11.3 135 400 400 2.72 5.7 1.0 105.4 134.7 120.8 0.90
CC-10 Circular 218.7 11.3 60 400 400 6.11 4.9 1.0 105.4 135.3 135.5 1.00
CC-11 Circular 223.7 6.3 60 660 660 3.07 5.5 1.0 105.4 124.8 122.4 0.98
CC-12 Circular 222.5 7.5 60 1,000 818 5.41 5.0 1.0 105.4 127.7 132.6 1.04
CC-14 Circular 222.5 7.5 60 1,000 851 5.63 5.0 1.0 78.2 102.5 106.3 1.04
CC-15 Circular 218.7 11.3 60 400 400 6.11 4.9 1.0 78.2 105.2 108.3 1.03
CC-16 Circular 222.5 7.5 100 1,000 796 3.16 5.5 1.0 78.2 95.1 95.6 1.01
CC-19 Circular 218.7 11.3 100 400 400 3.67 5.4 1.0 78.2 94.6 97.9 1.03
CC-20 Circular 223.7 6.3 100 660 660 1.84 6.0 1.0 78.2 88.4 89.3 1.01
CC-21 Circular 223.7 6.3 70 660 660 2.63 5.7 1.0 78.2 93.4 93.1 1.00
CC-22 Circular 218.7 11.3 135 400 400 2.72 5.7 1.0 78.2 89.3 93.6 1.05

TABLE 2. Strength Enhancement in Square Columns Tested by Razvi and Saatcioglu (1996a)
f ⬘cc (MPa)
Column Reinforcement bc db sl s fyt fs fl f ⬘co Analytical/
label arrangement (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) k1 k2 (MPa) Experimental Analytical experimental
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
CS-1 4-bar 218.7 11.3 191.4 55 400 400 6.67 5.9 0.32 105.4 120.8 118.0 0.98
CS-2 8-bar 223.5 6.5 100.5 55 570 570 6.15 5.6 0.45 105.4 121.6 121.0 1.00
CS-3 12-bar 223.5 6.5 67.0 55 570 570 6.15 5.4 0.55 105.4 129.1 123.9 0.96
CS-4 8-bar 222.5 7.5 99.5 55 1,000 787 8.53 5.3 0.45 105.4 123.4 125.9 1.02
CS-5 12-bar 222.5 7.5 66.3 120 1,000 729 4.83 6.1 0.37 105.4 122.5 116.3 0.95
CS-6 8-bar 223.5 6.5 100.5 85 400 400 2.10 7.0 0.36 105.4 115.7 110.7 0.96
CS-7 12-bar 223.5 6.5 67.0 120 400 400 1.98 7.1 0.37 105.4 115.0 110.6 0.96
CS-8 8-bar 218.7 11.3 95.7 85 400 400 6.47 5.8 0.36 105.4 117.8 119.0 1.01
CS-9 12-bar 218.7 11.3 63.8 120 400 400 6.11 5.8 0.37 105.4 134.2 118.7 0.88
CS-11 4-bar 218.7 11.3 191.4 40 400 400 9.17 5.4 0.37 68.9 93.9 87.5 0.93
CS-12 4-bar 218.7 11.3 191.4 55 400 400 6.67 5.9 0.32 68.9 82.1 81.4 0.99
CS-13 8-bar 223.5 6.5 100.5 55 570 570 6.15 5.6 0.45 78.2 85.9 93.8 1.09
CS-14 12-bar 223.5 6.5 67.0 55 570 570 6.15 5.4 0.55 78.2 94.3 96.7 1.03
CS-15 8-bar 222.5 7.5 99.5 55 1,000 831 9.00 5.3 0.45 68.9 95.5 90.3 0.95
CS-16 12-bar 222.5 7.5 66.3 85 1,000 814 7.60 5.4 0.44 68.9 95.2 87.3 0.92
CS-17 8-bar 223.5 6.5 100.5 85 400 400 2.10 7.0 0.36 68.9 75.2 74.2 0.99
CS-18 12-bar 223.5 6.5 67.0 85 400 400 2.79 6.5 0.44 68.9 76.4 76.9 1.01
CS-19 8-bar 218.7 11.3 95.7 85 400 400 6.47 5.8 0.36 78.2 104.2 91.8 0.88
CS-20 12-bar 218.7 11.3 63.8 85 400 400 8.63 5.3 0.45 78.2 106.3 98.7 0.93
CS-22 8-bar 222.5 7.5 99.5 85 1,000 795 5.57 5.9 0.36 51.0 68.0 63.0 0.93
CS-23 12-bar 222.5 7.5 66.3 120 1,000 792 5.24 6.0 0.37 51.0 71.3 62.7 0.88
CS-24 8-bar 218.7 11.3 95.7 85 400 400 6.47 5.8 0.36 51.0 72.6 64.6 0.89
CS-25 12-bar 218.7 11.3 63.8 120 400 400 6.11 5.8 0.37 51.0 69.7 64.3 0.92
CS-26 12-bar 223.5 6.5 67.0 55 570 570 6.15 5.4 0.55 51.0 76.7 69.5 0.91

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1999 / 283

 fs = Es 冉
0.0025 ⫹ 0.04 冑 冊
3 k2 ␳c
f ⬘co
ⱕ fyt (7)
laterally supported by closely spaced ties. It was also found
that k2 varies with average pressure fl. An empirical expression
was developed for k2 through regression analysis of test data
for normal-strength concrete (Saatcioglu and Razvi 1992).
where f ⬘co is in megapascals. The upper limit for yield strength
This is shown in (8)
fyt may be taken as 1,400 MPa, as this was the maximum yield
strength considered in the experimental data evaluated.

Equivalent Uniform Lateral Pressure

k2 = 0.26 冑冉 冊 冉 冊 冉 冊
bc
s
bc
sl
1
fl
ⱕ 1.0 (8)

where fl is in megapascals. However, analysis of test data with

The equivalent uniform lateral pressure fle used in (5) is high-strength concrete indicated that (8) was not applicable to
often smaller than the average uniform pressure fl, because of cases where the average pressure fl was very high, as typically
nonuniformity of lateral pressure. The reduction in pressure is is the case for confined high-strength concrete. It was also
reflected through coefficient k2, which is a function of tie spac- found that k2 was not very sensitive to fl in high-strength con-
ing s and the spacing of laterally supported longitudinal re- crete and would produce sufficiently accurate results for nor-
inforcement sl. Coefficient k2 reflects the efficiency of rein- mal-strength concrete if (8) was simplified by using an average
forcement arrangement and is equal to unity when the constant value of fl = 3.0 MPa. This resulted in (9), which is
confinement pressure is near-uniform as in the case of closely applicable to both normal-strength and high-strength concretes
spaced circular spirals, indicating highest efficiency. In this
case the average pressure and the equivalent uniform pressure
become equal to each other. Coefficient k2 may approach unity
for other efficient arrangements as well, such as rectilinear
k2 = 0.15 冑冉 冊 冉 冊
bc
s
bc
sl
ⱕ 1.0 (9)

reinforcement consisting of well-distributed longitudinal bars The equivalent uniform pressure expressed in (5) is appli-

TABLE 3. Strength Enhancement in Square Columns Tested by Nagashima et al. (1992)

f ⬘co f c⬘c (MPa)

Column Reinforcement bc db sl s fyt fs fl Analytical/
label arrangement (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) k1 k2 (MPa) Experimental Analytical experimental
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
HH08LA 12-bar 199.9 5.1 61.6 55 1,387 767 7.13 5.6 0.52 98.8 122.8 114.6 0.93
HH10LA 12-bar 199.9 5.1 61.6 45 1,387 795 8.71 5.3 0.57 98.8 122.5 119.7 0.98
HH13LA 12-bar 199.9 5.1 61.6 35 1,387 835 11.20 4.9 0.65 98.8 131.5 128.6 0.98
HH15LA 12-bar 198.6 6.4 60.7 45 1,368 840 13.33 4.9 0.57 98.8 127.0 130.0 1.02
HH20LA 12-bar 198.6 6.4 60.7 35 1,368 884 17.14 4.5 0.65 100.4 148.2 144.9 0.98
HL06LA 12-bar 200 5.0 61.7 45 807 794 7.03 5.3 0.57 100.4 118.2 121.3 1.03
HL08LA 12-bar 200 5.0 61.7 35 807 807 9.04 5.0 0.65 100.4 133.2 129.4 0.97
LL05LA 12-bar 200 5.0 61.7 55 807 807 5.58 5.6 0.51 51.3 68.9 67.4 0.98
LL08LA 12-bar 200 5.0 61.7 35 807 807 9.04 5.0 0.65 51.3 79.4 80.3 1.01
LH08LA 12-bar 199.9 5.1 61.6 55 1,387 829 6.92 5.6 0.52 51.3 70.9 67.8 0.96
LH13LA 12-bar 199.9 5.1 61.6 35 1,387 917 11.20 4.9 0.65 51.3 85.7 83.5 0.97
HH13MA 12-bar 199.9 5.1 61.6 35 1,387 833 11.20 4.9 0.65 100.4 131.8 130.2 0.99
HH13HA 12-bar 199.9 5.1 61.6 35 1,387 833 11.20 4.9 0.65 100.4 129.2 130.2 1.01
LL08MA 12-bar 200 5.0 61.7 35 807 807 9.04 5.0 0.65 51.3 79.6 80.3 1.01
LL08HA 12-bar 200 5.0 61.7 35 807 807 9.04 5.0 0.65 51.3 78.0 80.3 1.03
LH15LA 12-bar 198.6 6.4 60.7 45 1,368 920 13.33 4.8 0.57 52.4 88.7 86.1 0.97
HH13LB 12-bar 199.9 5.1 61.6 27 1,387 860 12.39 4.7 0.74 100.4 131.7 137.4 1.04
HH13LD 8-bar 199.9 5.1 92.4 25 1,387 849 13.38 4.8 0.62 100.4 128.2 134.4 1.05
LL08LB 12-bar 200 5.0 61.7 27 807 807 9.99 4.8 0.74 52.4 82.4 87.5 1.06
LL08LD 8-bar 200 5.0 92.5 25 807 807 10.79 4.8 0.62 52.4 77.3 85.0 1.10
HH13MSA 12-bar 199.9 5.1 61.6 35 1,387 833 11.20 4.9 0.65 100.4 129.7 130.2 1.00
HH13HSA 12-bar 199.9 5.1 61.6 35 1,387 833 11.20 4.9 0.65 100.4 134.8 130.2 0.97
LL08MSA 12-bar 200 5.0 61.7 35 807 807 9.04 5.0 0.65 52.4 79.0 81.4 1.03
LL08HSA 12-bar 200 5.0 61.7 35 807 807 9.04 5.0 0.65 52.4 80.5 81.4 1.01

TABLE 4. Strength Enhancement in Square Columns Tested by Nagashima et al. (1993)

Column Reinforcement bc f ⬘co f ⬘cc (MPa)

db sl s fyt fs fl Analytical/
label arrangement (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) k1 k2 (MPa) Experimental Analytical experimental
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
1 12-bar 214 6 64 31 813 813 14.67 4.49 0.72 92.4 145.0 139.8 0.96
2 12-bar 214 6 64 31 813 813 14.67 4.49 0.72 92.4 137.0 139.8 1.02
3 12-bar 214 6 64 31 813 813 14.67 4.49 0.72 92.4 145.0 139.8 0.96
4 12-bar 214 6 64 45 813 813 10.11 4.93 0.60 92.4 122.0 122.2 1.00
5 12-bar 214 6 64 60 813 799 7.58 5.31 0.52 92.4 120.0 113.2 0.94
6 12-bar 214 6 64 60 813 799 7.58 5.31 0.52 92.4 110.0 113.2 1.03
7 12-bar 214 6 64 60 813 799 7.58 5.31 0.52 92.4 120.0 113.2 0.94
8 12-bar 216 4 64 31 840 818 6.68 5.12 0.73 92.4 120.0 117.3 0.98
9 12-bar 214 6 64 31 462 462 8.34 4.94 0.72 96.2 134.0 125.9 0.94
10 12-bar 214 6 64 31 462 462 8.34 4.94 0.72 96.2 133.0 125.9 0.95
11 12-bar 214 6 64 45 462 462 5.75 5.43 0.60 96.2 117.0 114.9 0.98
12 12-bar 214 6 64 60 462 462 4.31 5.84 0.52 96.2 115.0 109.2 0.95
13 12-bar 214 6 64 60 462 462 4.31 5.84 0.52 96.2 115.0 109.2 0.95
14 12-bar 216 4 64 31 481 481 3.83 5.63 0.73 96.2 115.0 111.9 0.97

284 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1999

 TABLE 5. Strength Enhancement in Circular Columns Tested by Li (1994)

Column Reinforcement bc f ⬘co f ⬘cc (MPa)

db s fyt fs fl Analytical/
label arrangement (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) k1 k2 (MPa) Experimental Analytical experimental
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
3A Circular 204.0 6.0 20 445 445 6.17 4.9 1.0 63.0 93.0 93.3 1.00
6A Circular 204.0 6.0 35 445 445 3.52 5.4 1.0 63.0 78.0 82.1 1.05
9A Circular 204.0 6.0 50 445 445 2.47 5.7 1.0 63.0 74.7 77.2 1.03
12A Circular 204.0 6.0 65 445 445 1.90 6.0 1.0 63.0 70.6 74.4 1.05
3B Circular 204.0 6.0 20 445 445 6.17 4.9 1.0 72.3 108.8 102.6 0.94
6B Circular 204.0 6.0 35 445 445 3.52 5.4 1.0 72.3 92.7 91.4 0.99
9B Circular 204.0 6.0 50 445 445 2.47 5.7 1.0 72.3 85.0 86.5 1.02
12B Circular 204.0 6.0 65 445 445 1.90 6.0 1.0 72.3 73.8 83.7 1.13
2HB Circular 203.6 6.4 20 1,318 1,039 16.42 4.2 1.0 52.0 126.0 120.4 0.96
4HB1 Circular 203.6 6.4 35 1,318 948 8.56 4.6 1.0 52.0 87.5 91.8 1.04
6HB Circular 203.6 6.4 50 1,318 897 5.67 4.9 1.0 52.0 68.5 80.3 1.16
2HC1 Circular 203.6 6.4 20 1,318 962 15.21 4.2 1.0 82.5 146.5 146.6 1.00
4HC Circular 203.6 6.4 35 1,318 884 7.98 4.6 1.0 82.5 106.8 120.1 1.12
6HC Circular 203.6 6.4 50 1,318 841 5.31 4.9 1.0 82.5 92.3 109.3 1.18

FIG. 3. Proposed Model

gashima et al. (1992) concluded that the strength gain due to

FIG. 2. Confined Concrete Strength
cable to circular and square sections having the same confine-
ment pressure in two orthogonal directions. For rectangular
and square columns with different pressures in two orthogonal
directions, resulting from different tie arrangements in two di-
rections, a weighted average may be used as indicated in (10)
flex bcx ⫹ fley bcy
fle =
bcx ⫹ bcy
Equivalent lateral pressures flex and fley, acting perpendicular to
core dimensions bcx and bcy, can be computed separately using
(5) – (7) and (9).
Verification against Test Data
Review of previous research indicated two conflicting views
on strength enhancement in high-strength concrete. While Na-
confinement was independent of concrete strength, Galeota et
al. (1992) showed that the strength gain was lower in higher-
strength concretes. The experimental results obtained by the
writers (Razvi and Saatcioglu 1996a) confirmed the findings
of Nagashima et al. (1992); that is, the absolute gain in
strength was independent of concrete strength. Therefore,
(3) – (7), (9), and (10) can be used to compute confined
strength of normal-strength and high-strength concretes, with-
out modification. These expressions were used to compute the
strength of 40 confined high-strength concrete columns tested
by the writers (Razvi and Saatcioglu 1996a), as well as 124
additional high-strength concrete columns tested by six other
groups of researchers. The columns were either circular or
square in section. They were confined by different amount,
spacing, grade, and arrangement of transverse reinforcement.
The concrete strength ranged approximately between 50 and
130 MPa, and the steel yield strength ranged from 400 to
⬃1,400 MPa. The in-place strength of unconfined concrete
f ⬘co was taken to be 0.85 f c⬘ for columns tested by the writers.
Similar values were used for columns tested by others, either
as reported or suggested by researchers who conducted the
tests. The comparisons between analytical and experimental
strength values are presented in Tables 1 – 5 and Fig. 2. The
results indicate good agreement between the analytical and
(10)
experimental strength values.
Ductility of Confined Concrete and Descending
Branch
Ductility of confined concrete can be modeled by defining
the strain at peak concrete stress ε1 and the descending branch
of the stress-strain relationship. The descending branch
adopted in the model is the same as that proposed by Saat-
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1999 / 285
FIG. 4. Circular High-Strength Concrete Columns Tested by
Razvi and Saatcioglu (1996a)
FIG. 5. Square High-Strength Concrete Columns Tested by
Razvi and Saatcioglu (1996a)
cioglu and Razvi (1992) in their original model developed for
normal-strength concrete and consists of a linear segment orig-
inating from the peak. The slope of this segment is defined by perimental observations that indicated that, although it may
the strain corresponding to 85% of peak stress ε85. The ex- not have yielded at peak stress, transverse steel did yield at or
pressions proposed earlier for normal-strength concrete (Saat- before the onset of strength decay in concrete (Razvi and Saat-
cioglu and Razvi 1992) were modified to introduce the effects cioglu 1996a).
of increased concrete and steel strength through coefficients k3 Unconfined, in-place concrete properties (ε01 and ε085) are
and k4, respectively. The new expressions, which are applica- often determined through tests. If experimental values are
ble to both normal-strength and high-strength concretes, are available, they should not exceed the values specified in (17)
given below and (18) for modeling purposes. In the absence of experi-
mental data, however, the values obtained by the same two
ε1 = ε01(1 ⫹ 5k3 K ) (11) equations, given below, may be used
ε01 = 0.0028 ⫺ 0.0008k3 (17)
ε85 = 260k3 ␳c ε1[1 ⫹ 0.5k2(k4 ⫺ 1)] ⫹ ε085 (12)
ε085 = ε01 ⫹ 0.0018k 2
3 (18)
where
Eq. (16) was obtained from test data that included columns
40 with lateral reinforcement ratios, ␳c, less than 0.03 – 0.01k3.
k3 = ⱕ 1.0 (13)
f ⬘co Therefore, this may be used as an upper limit for the appli-
cability of (16).
fyt
k4 = ⱖ 1.0 (14)
500 Ascending Branch
k1 fle The ascending branch of the stress-strain relationship, pro-
K= (15)
f ⬘co posed by Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992) for normal-strength

冘 冘
n m
concrete, was a modified version of Hognestad’s (1951) curve.
It was confirmed experimentally that the applicability of this
(Asx)i ⫹ (Asy)j
curve was limited to normal-strength concrete. The relation-
␳c =
i=1 j=1
(16) ship overestimated the initial modulus of elasticity when ap-
[s(bcx ⫹ bcy)]
plied to high-strength concrete. Therefore, the relationship pro-
where n and m = number of tie legs in x- and y-directions, posed by Popovics (1973), and later used by Mander et al.
respectively. It should be noted that the stress in transverse (1988) for normal-strength concrete and by Nagashima et al.
steel is assumed to reach the yield strength in defining ε85 on (1992) and Cusson and Paultre (1995) for high-strength con-
the descending branch. This assumption was adopted from ex- crete, was adopted for the ascending branch of the proposed
286 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1999

FIG. 6. Square High-Strength Concrete Columns Tested by
Nagashima et al. (1992)
FIG. 7. Square High-Strength Concrete Columns Tested by
Nishiyama et al. (1993)
Stress-Strain Relationship and Comparisons with
Tests

model. The mathematical expression for the curve is given The proposed stress-strain relationship consists of a nonlin-
below ear ascending branch up to confined peak stress and a linear
descending branch beyond the peak, as illustrated in Fig. 3.

f ⬘cc 冉冊
εc
ε1
r
Eqs. (19) – (22) define the ascending branch up to the peak.
The peak strength is computed using the equivalent uniform
pressure concept and employing (3) – (7), (9), and (10) as ap-

冉冊
fc = r (19)
εc plicable. The descending branch assumes a slope that changes
r⫺1⫹ with confinement and can be established by (11) – (18).
ε1
The proposed model has been verified by comparing ana-
Ec lytically generated relationships with those obtained from 266
r= (20) column tests. The comparisons included circular, square, and
Ec ⫺ Esec rectangular columns with a wide range of confinement param-
eters and concrete strengths (Razvi and Saatcioglu 1996b).
where Esec = secant modulus of elasticity of confined concrete Sample comparisons selected from different research pro-
and can be calculated from (21) grams, shown in Figs. 4 – 8, indicate a good agreement be-
tween experimental and analytical stress-strain relationships.
f ⬘cc
Esec = (21)
ε1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
where Ec = modulus of elasticity of unconfined concrete. The An analytical model was proposed for confined high-
following expression, originally proposed by Carrasquillo et strength concrete. It was developed by modifying the earlier
al. (1981) is found to produce good agreement with experi- model proposed by Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992) for normal-
mentally obtained values strength concrete. The model incorporates all relevant param-
eters of confinement with a smooth transition from 30-MPa
Ec = 3,320兹 f ⬘c ⫹ 6,900 (22) normal-strength concrete up to 130-MPa high-strength con-
crete. It is applicable to concretes confined by spirals, rectilin-
where f c⬘ is in megapascals. However, Ec should be greater than ear hoops, crossties, welded wire fabric, and combinations of
Esec. these reinforcements. It also incorporates the effects of high-
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1999 / 287

FIG. 8. Circular High-Strength Concrete Columns Tested by Li
(1994)
strength transverse reinforcement, with up to 1,400-MPa yield
strength. The model has been verified extensively against ex-
perimental data and shows good correlations with stress-strain
relationships established experimentally.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Ahmed, S. H., and Shah, S. P. (1982). ‘‘Stress-strain curves of concrete
confined by spiral reinforcement.’’ ACI J., 79(6), 484 – 490.
Carrasquillo, R. L., Nilson, A. H., and Slate, F. O. (1981). ‘‘Properties of
high-strength concrete subjected to short term loads.’’ ACI J., 78(3),
171 – 178.
Chan, W. L. (1955). ‘‘The ultimate strength and deformations of plastic
hinges in reinforced concrete frameworks.’’ Mag. of Concrete Res.,
7(21), 121 – 132.
Cusson, D., and Paultre, P. (1994). ‘‘High-strength concrete columns con-
fined by rectangular ties.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 120(3), 783 – 804.
Cusson, D., and Paultre, P. (1995). ‘‘Stress-strain model for confined
high-strength concrete.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 121(3), 468 – 477.
Fafitis, A., and Shah, S. P. (1985a). ‘‘Lateral reinforcement for high-
strength concrete columns.’’ SP-87-12, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, 213 – 232.
Fafitis, A., and Shah, S. P. (1985b). ‘‘Prediction of ultimate behavior of
confined columns subjected to large deformations.’’ ACI Struct. J.,
82(4), 423 – 433.
Galeota, D., Giammatteo, M. M., and Marino, R. (1992). ‘‘Strength and
ductility of confined high-strength concrete.’’ Proc., 10th World Conf.
on Earthquake Engrg., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2609 –
2613.
Hognestad, E. (1951). ‘‘A study of combined bending and axial load in
reinforced concrete members.’’ Bull. Ser. No. 399, University of Illi-
nois, Engineering Experimental Station, Urbana, Ill., 128.
Itakura, Y., and Yagenji, A. (1992). ‘‘Compressive test on high-strength
R/C columns and their analysis based on energy concept.’’ Proc., 10th
World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Neth-
erlands, 2599 – 2602.
Kent, D. C., and Park, R. (1971). ‘‘Flexural members with confined con-
crete.’’ J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 97, 1969 – 1990.
288 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1999
Li, B. (1994). ‘‘Strength and ductility of reinforced concrete members
and frames constructed using high strength concrete.’’ Res. Rep. No.
94-5, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 389.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). ‘‘Theoretical
stress-strain model for confined concrete.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE,
114(8), 1804 – 1826.
Martinez, S., Nilson, A. H., and Slate, F. O. (1982). ‘‘Spirally reinforced
high-strength concrete columns.’’ Res. Rep. No. 82-10, Dept. of Struct.
Engrg., Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., 255.
Muguruma, H., Nishiyama, M., and Watanabe, F. (1993). ‘‘Stress-strain
curve for concrete with a wide range of compressive strength.’’ Proc.,
Symp. on High-Strength Concrete, 314 – 321.
Muguruma, H., Nishiyama, M., Watanabe, F., and Tanaka, H. (1991).
‘‘Ductile behaviour of high strength concrete columns confined by high
strength transverse reinforcement.’’ Proc., ACI Int. Conf. on Evaluation
and Rehabilitation of Concrete Struct. and Innovations in Des., ACI Spec.
Publ. SP-128 – 54, Vol. 2, ACI, Farmington Hills, Mich., 877 – 891.
Muguruma, H., Watanabe, F., Iwashimizu, T., and Mitsueda, R. (1983).
‘‘Ductility improvement of high strength concrete by lateral confine-
ment.’’ Trans., Japan Concrete Inst., 5, 403 – 410.
Nagashima, T., Sugano, S., Kimura, H., and Ichikawa, A. (1992).
‘‘Monotonic axial compression test on ultra-high-strength concrete tied
columns.’’ Proc., 10th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2983 – 2988.
Nishiyama, M., Fukushima, I., Watanabe, F., and Muguruma, H. (1993).
‘‘Axial loading tests on high-strength concrete prisms confined by or-
dinary and high-strength steel.’’ Proc., Symp. on High-Strength Con-
crete, 322 – 329.
Ozcebe, G., and Saatcioglu, M. (1987). ‘‘Confinement of concrete col-
umns for seismic loading.’’ ACI Struct. J., 84(4), 308 – 315.
Park, R., Priestley, M. J. N., and Gill, W. D. (1982). ‘‘Ductility of square
confined concrete columns.’’ J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 108(4), 929 – 951.
Polat, M. B. (1992). ‘‘Behaviour of normal and high strength concrete
under axial compression,’’ MASc thesis, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Uni-
versity of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 175.
Popovics, S. (1973). ‘‘Analytical approach to complete stress-strain
curves.’’ Cement and Concrete Res., 3(5), 583 – 599.
Razvi, S. (1995). ‘‘Confinement of normal and high-strength concrete col-
umns,’’ PhD thesis, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 416.
Razvi, S., and Saatcioglu, M. (1994). ‘‘Strength and deformability of con-
fined high-strength concrete columns,’’ ACI Struct. J., 91(6), 678 – 687.
Razvi, S., and Saatcioglu, M. (1996a). ‘‘Tests of high-strength concrete
columns under concentric loading.’’ Rep. No. OCEERC 96-03, Ottawa
Carleton Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, Ottawa, ON, Can-
ada, 147.
Razvi, S., and Saatcioglu, M. (1996b). ‘‘Confinement model for normal-
strength and high-strength concretes.’’ Rep. No. OCEERC 96-04, Ot-
tawa Carleton Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, Ottawa, ON,
Canada.
Richart, F. E., Brandtzaeg, A., and Brown, R. L. (1928). ‘‘A study of the
failure of concrete under combined compressive stresses.’’ Bull. No.
185, University of Illinois, Engineering Experimental Station, Urbana,
Ill., 104.
Richart, F. E., Brandtzaeg, A., and Brown, R. L. (1929). ‘‘The failure of
plain and spirally reinforced concrete in compression.’’ Bull. No. 190,
University of Illinois, Engineering Experimental Station, Urbana, Ill.,
74.
Roy, H. E. M., and Sozen, M. A. (1963). ‘‘A model to simulate the
response of concrete to multi-axial loading.’’ Struct. Res. Ser. No. 268,
Civil Engineering Studies, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
Saatcioglu, M. (1998). ‘‘Behavior and design of confined high-strength
concrete columns.’’ ASCE Special Publication, ASCE, Reston, Va. (in
print).
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. (1991). ‘‘Analytical model for confined
concrete.’’ Res. Rep. No. 9101, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of
Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 59.
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. R. (1992). ‘‘Strength and ductility of con-
fined concrete.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 118(6), 1590 – 1607.
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. R. (1998). ‘‘High-strength concrete columns
with square sections under concentric compression.’’ J. Struct. Engrg.,
ASCE, 124(12), 1438 – 1447.
Saatcioglu, M., Salamat, A. H., and Razvi, S. R. (1995). ‘‘Confined col-
umns under eccentric loading.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 121(11),
1547 – 1556.
Sargin, M. (1971). ‘‘Stress-strain relationship for concrete and analysis
of structural concrete sections.’’ Study No. 4, Solid Mech. Div., Uni-
versity of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada., 167.
Scott, B. D., Park, R., and Priestly, M. J. N. (1982). ‘‘Stress-strain be-
havior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at high and low strain
rates.’’ ACI J., 79(1), 13 – 27.
Sheikh, S. A. (1982). ‘‘A comparative study of confinement models.’’
ACI Struct. J., 79(4), 296 – 305.
Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M. (1980). ‘‘Strength and ductility of tied
concrete columns.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 106(5), 1079 – 1102.
Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M. (1982). ‘‘Analytical model for concrete
confinement in tied columns.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 108(5), 2703 –
2723.
Sheikh, S. A., and Yeh, C. C. (1986). ‘‘Flexural behavior of confined
concrete columns.’’ ACI Struct. J., 389 – 404.
Sheikh, S. A., and Yeh, C. C. (1992). ‘‘Analytical moment-curvature re-
lations for tied concrete columns.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 118(2),
529 – 544.
Soliman, M. T. M., and Yu, C. W. (1967). ‘‘Flexural stress-strain rela-
tionship of concrete confined by rectangular transverse reinforcement.’’
Mag. of Concrete Res., 19(61), 223 – 238.
Thomsen, J. H., and Wallace, J. W. (1992). ‘‘A study of high-strength
reinforced concrete columns subjected to lateral and axial loads.’’ Res.
Rep. No. CU/CEE-92/6, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Clarkson University,
Potsdam, N.Y., 170.
Vallenas, J., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P. (1977). ‘‘Concrete confined
by rectangular hoops and subjected to axial load.’’ Rep. No. UCB/
EERC-77/13, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of En-
gineering, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., 114.
Yong, Y. K., Nour, M. G., and Nawy, E. G. (1988). ‘‘Behavior of laterally
confined high-strength concrete under axial loads.’’ J. Struct. Engrg.,
ASCE, 114(2), 332 – 351.
APPENDIX II. NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
As = area of one leg of transverse reinforcement;
Asx, Asy = area of one leg of transverse reinforcement in x- and
y-directions, respectively;
bc = core dimension measured center-to-center of perimeter
hoop;
bcx, bcy = core dimensions measured center-to-center of perime-
ter hoop in x- and y-directions;
Ec = modulus of elasticity of plain concrete;
Es = modulus of elasticity of transverse steel;
Esec = secant modulus of elasticity defined in Eq. (21);
fc = stress in concrete;
f ⬘c = ultimate compressive strength of plain concrete ob-
tained from standard cylinder test;
f c⬘c = confined concrete compressive strength in member;
f ⬘co = unconfined concrete compressive strength in member;
fl = average confinement pressure defined in Eq. (6);
View publication stats
fle = equivalent uniform lateral pressure that produces same
effect as nonuniform pressure;
flex, fley = equivalent lateral pressures perpendicular to bcx and bcy,
respectively;
fs = tensile stress in transverse reinforcement at peak con-
crete stress, defined in Eq. (7);
ft1, ft2 = stresses under triaxial stress condition, acting in direc-
tions 1 and 2, respectively;
fu2 = stress under uniaxial stress condition, acting in direc-
tion 2;
fyt = yield strength of transverse reinforcement;
K = strength enhancement coefficient defined in Eq. (15);
k1 = coefficient that relates confinement pressure to strength
enhancement, defined in Eq. (4);
k2 = coefficient that reflects efficiency of confinement re-
inforcement, defined in Eqs. (8) and (9);
k3 = coefficient to reflect effect of concrete strength, defined
in Eq. (13);
k4 = coefficient to reflect effect of transverse steel strength,
defined in Eq. (14);
k⬘1 = coefficient, defined in Eq. (2);
m = number of tie legs in y-direction;
n = number of tie legs in x-direction;
q = number of tie legs that cross side of core concrete for
which average lateral pressure fl is being computed;
r = modular ratio, defined in Eq. (19);
s = spacing of transverse reinforcement;
sl = spacing of longitudinal reinforcement, laterally sup-
ported by corner of hoop or hook of crosstie;
␣ = angle between leg of transverse reinforcement and core
side crossed by same leg;
εc = concrete strain;
ε1 = strain corresponding to peak stress of confined con-
crete;
ε01 = strain corresponding to peak stress of unconfined con-
crete;
ε85 = strain corresponding to 85% of peak stress of confined
concrete on descending branch;
ε085 = strain corresponding to 85% of peak stress of uncon-
fined concrete on descending branch;
␮ = Poisson’s ratio for concrete; and
␳c = total transverse steel area in two orthogonal directions
divided by corresponding concrete area, defined in Eq.
(16).
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1999 / 289