DESIGN EQUATION FOR BIAXIALLY LOADED

CONCRETE-ENCASED COMPOSITE COLUMNS

By:
Pedro R. Muñoz, P.E.
Ph.D. Research and Dissertation
New Jersey Institute of Technology, Class of 1994

The 6th ASCCS International Conference

Steel-Concrete Composite Structures
March 22-24, 2000, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Presented at:
Merrimack College, Civil Engineering Department

March 19th, 2008

 Objectives
• Examine the Current Design Methods in USA
• Present an Interaction Equation of Failure
Surface
• Discuss the Basic Design Parameters
• Describe a Computer Program to generate
• Interaction Diagrams and Load Contours
• Theoretical Evaluation and Experimental
Verification
• Design Examples
• Conclusions
TYPICAL COLUMN UNDER BIAXIAL TYPES OF COMPOSITE COLUMNS
BENDING AND AXIA LOAD
SHORT AND SLENDER COLUMNS ACI MOMENT MAGNIFICATION
 Design Methods for Composite Columns
in the USA

• ACI Strength Design Method

ACI 318-1999 Building Code, Chapter 10, 10.16
Composite Compression Members
Same design procedures as for reinforced concrete

• AISC-LRFD Design Method

LRFD Design Manual, 2nd Edition, 2nd Rev. 1998
Part 5 - Composite Columns, Design Notes,Tables
Part 6 – Chapter I Composite Members
Design procedures analogous to Steel Design
 Limit Strength Interaction functio
concrete-encased WF composite section
3000
AXIAL LOAD (Kips)
18" square section
W12x120 steel shape
2500
6#4 + 2#9 steel bars
LRFD
Fy=50 ksi; f 'c = 4 ksi
2000
SSLC
1500
Roik and Bergmann
1000
ACI
500
Intrdiag
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
MOMENT (Kips-ft.)
ACI Strength Design Method
COMPOSITE SECTION GEOMETRICAL DEFINITIONS
3D FAILURE SURFACE LOAD MOMENT
INTERACTION DIAGRAM
 Interaction Diagram
Interaction Diagram Contours
Mathematical Function
P-M INTERACTION DIAGRAMS MOMENT CONTOUR DIAGRAMS

 αcx

 α cy

 α tx

 α ty

 β
 3-D Failure Surface Diagram
• Po (+) and Interaction Design Parameters
• Mnbx
P (+)
Po
• Po (-) Pn- Mnx - Mny
Load-Moment • Mnby
Interaction Diagram
Pn- Moy
• Pnbx Interaction Diagram
Pn Mnx M
nox • Mbx
Pn- Mox
M ny Interaction Diagram
• Pnby Mnoy
α
α cy (Pn,Mnx,Mny)  cx
• Mby
Pnbx Mnbx
Load Contour Diagram Pnb Mbyx
Pnby
• P β
(coefficient  )
M bxy
nb
o Mx
• Mnox
(Balanced Point) Mnby Mbx

• Mnb
My
M by
(Pnb,
Mnb )
α  (-)
α tx • M
ty Po Line of continuous functionnoy
Interaction diagram point
calculated by statics
 INTERACTION DIAGRAMS AND 3D FAILURE
SURFACE FOR COMPOSITE COLUMN
14 - # 6 W16x40
steel rebars steel shape
A sr, f y y A s , Fy
INPUT DATA
Concrete
A c , f'c
• b and t
Neutral •
a axis f’c , Fy , fy
t = 24" x x • As , Asr
• Es , Esr
2.5"

• Clear cover of bars

y
2.5" • Coordinates of bars
cover
b = 16"
 UNIAXIAL INTERACTION DIAGRAMS
16"x16" SQUARE COMPOSITE COLUMN
1500
Bending about x-x by IntEq.(green)
Bending about x-x by statics(blue)
Axial Load (Kips)

1000
a cy = 2.05 a cx = 1.90

500
Bending about y-y by IntEq.(red)
Bending about y-y by statics(black)
0
a ty = 2.75
a
tx = 1.45
-500

-1000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Bending Moment (Kip-in.)
Analytical 3-D Failure Surface Diagram

( x  y  z)
 Design Interaction Equations
Proposed Uniaxial Interaction Equation


 Pn  Pnb    mfx M n 
     1
 Po  Pnb   M nb 

Load-Contour Equation (Parme, Gowens, Bresler)

 
 M nx   M ny 
    1
M 
 M ox   oy 
 Generalized Interaction
Equation of Failure Surface

   1/ 
 Pn  Pnb    M nx   M ny  
      mfx M fx     mfy M fy   1
 Po  Pnb    M nb   M nb  
δmfx and δmfy are moment magnification factors
defined by 1999 ACI Building Code

Mfx and Mfy are bending moment-shape factors

computed by computer program “Intrdiag”
P.R. Muñoz, NJIT Ph.D. Dissertation 1994
 Theoretical Evaluation and
Experimental Verification
• Design Axial Load Strength
• Combined Uniaxial Bending and Axial Load
• Combined Biaxial Bending and Axial Load
References
• (1) AISC-LRFD Manual of Steel Construction, 1998
2nd Ed., Second Rev. Part 5, Composite Columns
• (2) AISC Steel Design Guide Series 6, 1992, by L. Griffis
• (3) Composite Construction Design for Buildings, 1997, by

Viest, Colaco, Furlong, Griffis, Leon, & Wyllie

• (4) Biaxially loaded Concrete-encased composite columns;
Design Equation, by Muñoz and Hsu, ASCE J.of Struct.
Eng. Dec. 1997
 Proposed Design Axial Load Strength
Pd  Pn Pn  Ag Fmcr

2mc  0.877 
Fmcr (0.658 ) Fmc mc 1.5 Fmcr   2  Fmc mc  1.5
 mc 
 Ac   Asr   As 
Fmc k1 f ' c    k 2 Fyr    k 3 Fy  
A  A  A 
 g  g   g

 Asr   As   Ac 
E mc k 4 E sr    k5 E s    k6 Ec  
A  A  A 
 g   g  g

Kl Fmc E c I g / 2.5  E s I s  E sr I sr
mc  rmc 
E c Ag / 2.5  E s As  E sr Asr
rmc 0.3b
rmc Emc
 Example 1-AISC Design Guide 6, Reference (2)
20 - # 14 W14x730
y

• Calculate Axial Design Strength

x x
48" KL = 11 ft.

y
2.846" 2.846" • Pd =  Pn =  Ag Fmcr
48" • Fmc = 8.1476 ksi
Given: • rmc = 0.3*48” = 14.4”
 mc = 0.1316 < 1.5
wc = 145 pcf
• Fmcr = 8.088 ksi
f ’c = 5 ksi • Pd = 0.85*2304*8.088 = 15,841 kips
Fy = 50 ksi • Pd (from Ref 2) = 15,820 kips

Fyr = Grade 60
 Uniaxial Bending and Axial Load
4- # 8 W10x49
y
• Design parameters from “Intrdiag”
Pnbx = 727.25 kips Mnbx = 7910.3 k-in.
18"
x x
2.5"
 = 2.05
KL = 14 ft.: Po = 2023 kips mfx = 1.18
2.5"
y

18"
 Pn  Pnbx   mfx M nx
   1
Given:  Po  Pnbx  M nbx
Pu= 1,340 kips
0.42 + 0.408 = 0.828 < 1
Mux= 205 kip-ft.
From ref. (3) and AISC-LRFD Eq. H1-1a
Pn= Pu/c=1577 k Pu 8M u 1340 8 205
   1.26  1
Pn 9b M n 1720 9 379
Mnx= Mux/ b=227.8 k-f
SOLUTION OF THE GENERALIZED INTERACTION
EQUATION OF FAILURE SURFACE
DATA: INTERACTION DESIGN PARAMETERS
3
Pnbx  214.01 Mnbx  1.051 10 enbx  3.789 c  2
Pnby  224.787 Mnby  851.618 enby  4.91 t  1.85
3
Poc  299.55 Mbyx  1.049 10 ebyx  4.667  2
Pot  192.375 Mbxy  847.37 ebxy  3.959   1.85

Po  192.375 Pnb  224.787 Mnb  851.618 MFX  0.806

Pn Pnb ex  7.5 ey  4.35 MFY  1

Given : BIAXIAL EQUATION OF FAILURE SURFACE

1


Pn Pnb Pn  ey MFX Pcrx    
Pn ex MFY Pcry 
1
Po Pnb Mnb ( Pcrx Pn ) Mnb ( Pcry Pn )

Pn Find ( Pn ) Pn  64.395 kips = 286.5 kN

Note: Axial Load P in (kips); Bending Moment M in (kip-in.); eccentricity e in (in.)

 Experimental Verification
Virdi and Dowling Composite Section
W 6 x 15Steel shape Column ex ey   Pt(2) Pn Pt(2)/Pn
4-#4 6" (mm.) (mm.) (kN) (kN)
A 63.5 36.83 2.25 1.75 1255.5 1241.3 1.011
0.25 "
B 127 73.66 2.15 1.95 647.7 616.9 1.049
C 190.5 110.49 2.05 2.0 473.3 395.6 1.196
10 " 6 "
0.25 " D 63.5 36.83 1.75 2.1 926.7 874.3 1.059
E 127 73.66 2.05 2.5 572.9 570.2 1.005
F 190.5 110.49 2.05 2.5 418.5 387.9 1.078
0.75 " 0.75 "
G 63.5 36.83 2.1 2.0 667.6 661.4 1.009
10 "
H 127 73.66 1.65 1.6 353.7 353.3 1.001
I 190.5 110.49 1.85 2.0 293.9 286.5 1.026
Muñoz Composite section
WF 1 x 1Steel shape MC1 38.1 38.1 1.8 1.35 28.2 27.8 1.011

4-#2 1" MC2 31.75 31.75 1.6 1.2 24.9 26.4 0.941
MC3 25.4 25.4 1.6 1.2 29.0 29.9 0.969
0.125 "
MC4 25.4 25.4 1.6 1.2 18.0 21.6 0.835
Pt(2) = Experimental ultimate load for specimens tested by Virdi
2.5 " 1 "
0.125 " and Dowling (1973), and Muñoz (1994).
Pn = Theoretical nominal load calculated by the proposed
interaction equation.
Pt(2) / Pn mean = 1.015; standard deviation = 0.0786
0.5625 " 0.5625 "
2.5 "
 Uniaxial Interaction Equation

 Pn  Pnb    mfx M n 
     1
 Po  Pnb   M nb 

Generalized Biaxial Interaction Equation

   1/ 
 Pn  Pnb    M nx   M ny  
      mfx M fx     mfy M fy   1
 Po  Pnb    M nb   M nb  
Experimental Column Specimen Analytical Column Model
WF STEEL COLUMN SPECIMEN

COMPOSITE SECTION MODEL

STRESS-STRAIN CURVES
COMPOSITE COLUMN SPECIMEN EXPERIMENTAL TEST SETUP
LOAD- DEFLECTION – MC1 LOAD- DFLECTION - MC2
LOAD- DEFLECTION - MC3 LOAD- DEFLECTION - MC4
FORMWORK – COLUMN SPECIMENS - CYLINDERS
STEEL BAR TENSION TEST CONCRETE COMPRESSION TEST
SHORT COLUMN TEST SETUP LONG COLUMN TEST SETUP
LONG COLUMN DURING TEST LONG COLUMN AFTER TEST
COMPOSITE COLUMNS MC1 MC2 MC3 MC4 AFTER TEST
COMPOSITE COLUMN DIMENSIONS AND TEST RESULTS
COMPOSITE COLUMNS FAILURE MODES
COMPARATIVE COMPOSITE COLUMN TEST LOADS
 Conclusions
• The nominal strength of a concrete-encased WF steel
composite column under biaxial bending moments and
axial load may be calculated by a proposed Generalized
interaction equation of failure surface

• A theoretical evaluation and experimental verification of

the proposed interaction equation of failure surface
proves that it can very accurately predict the nominal
strength of short and slender concrete-encased WF
steel composite sections under combined uniaxial or
biaxial bending and axial compressive load.

• The load-moment interaction diagram and the load

contours may each be represented by a continuous
mathematical function which shape is defined by two
numerical coefficients:  and 
 Conclusions
• The shape of the load-moment and load contour diagrams
vary above and below the balanced load and is mainly a
function of the following:
- cross section dimensions
- material properties of concrete and steel
- position and area of steel bars and steel shape

• A unified design method that incorporates both the ACI and

AISC-LRFD rules for the design of concrete-encased steel
composite columns may be introduced based on the
proposed generalized interaction equation of failure surface
with the appropriate design factors compatible with the ACI
and the AISC-LRFD design procedures.