Members in Compression plus Bending

When a member is subjected to combined axial compression P and moment M, such as in

Fig. 1(a), it is usually convenient to replacement and axial load and moment with an equal
load P applied at eccentricity e = M/P, as in Fig. 1(b). The two loadings are statically
equivalent. All columns may than be classified in terms of the equivalent eccentricity. Those
having relatively small ‘e’ are generally characterized by compression over the entire
concrete section, and if overloaded will fail by crushing of the concert accompanied by
yielding of the steel in compression on the more heavily loaded side. Columns with large
eccentricity are subject to tension over at least a part of the section, and if overloaded may
fail due to tensile yielding of the steel on the side farthest from the load.

Fig. 1: Equivalent eccentricity of column load

For columns, load stages below the ultimate are generally not important. Cracking of
concrete, even for columns with large eccentricity, is usually not a serious problem, and
lateral deflections at service load levels are seldom, if ever, a factor. Design of columns is
therefore based on the factored load, which must not exceed the design strength, as usual, i.e.

Design Assumptions for Columns:

The design limitations for columns, according to the ACI Code, Section 10.2, are as follows:
(a) Strains in concrete and steel are proportional to the distance from the neutral axis.
(b) Equilibrium of forces and strain compatibility must be satisfied.
(c) The maximum usable compressive strain in concrete is 0.003.

1
(d) Strength of concrete in tension can be neglected.
(e) The stress in the steel is fs = Es  fy.
(f) The concrete stress block may be taken as a rectangular shape with concrete stress of
0.85 f c that extends from the extreme compressive fibers a distance a = 1c, where c is

the distance to the neutral axis and 1 is 0.85 when f c  4000 psi (30 MPa); 1

decreases by 0.05 for each 1000 psi above 4000 psi (0.008 per 1MPa above 30 MPa)
but is not less than 0.65.

Strain Compatibility Analysis and Interaction Diagrams:

Figure 2(a) shows a member loaded parallel to its axis by a compressive force Pn at an
eccentricity e measured from the centerline. The distribution of strains at a section a-a along
its length, at incipient failure, is shown in Fig. 2(b). With plane sections assumed to remain
plane, concrete strains vary linearly with distance from the neutral axis, which is located at
distance c from the more heavily loaded side of the member. With full compatibility of
deformations, the steel strains at any location are the same as the strains in the adjacent
concrete; thus, if the ultimate concrete strain is u, the strain in the bars nearest the load is
s , while that in the tension bars at the far side is s. Compression steel with area As and

tension steel with area As are located at distance d and d, respectively, from the compression
face.

Fig. 2: Column subject to eccentric compression: (a) loaded column; (b) strain distribution at
section a-a; (c) stresses and force at nominal strength

2
The corresponding stresses and forces are shown in Fig. 2(c). Just as for simple bending, the
actual concrete compressive stress distribution is replaced by an equivalent rectangular
distribution having depth a = 1c. Equilibrium between external and internal axial forces
shown in Fig. 2(c) requires that
Pn  0.85f cab  Asf s  A sfs (1)
Also, the moment about the centerline of the section of the internal stresses and forces must
be equal and opposite to the moment of the external force Pn, so that
h a h   h
M n  Pne  0.85 f cab    As f s  d    As f s  d   (2)
2 2 2   2
These are the two basic equilibrium relations for rectangular eccentrically compressed
members.
The fact that the presence of the compression reinforcement As has displaced a

corresponding amount of concrete of area As is neglected in writing these equations. If

necessary, particularly for large reinforcement ratios, one can account for this very simply.
Evidently, in the above equations a nonexistent concrete compression force of amount
As (0.85 f s ) has been included as acting in the displaced concrete at the level of the

compression steel. This excess force can be removed in both equations by multiplying As by

f s – 0.85 fc rather than by f s .

For large eccentricities, failure is initiated by yielding of the tension steel As. Hence, for this
case, fs = fy. When the concrete reaches its ultimate strain u, the compression steel may or
may not have yielded; this must be determined based on compatibility of strains. For small
eccentricities the concrete will reach its limit strain u before the tension steel starts yielding;
in fact, the bars on the side of the column farther from the load may be in compression, not
tension. For small eccentricities, too, the analysis must be based on compatibility of strains
between the steel and the adjacent concrete.
For a given eccentricity determined from the frame analysis (i.e., e = Mu/Pu) it is possible to
solve Eqs. (1) and (2) for the load Pn and moment Mn that would result in failure as follows.
In both equations, f s , fs, and a can be expressed in terms of a single unknown c, the distance

to the neutral axis. This is easily done based on the geometry of the strain diagram, with u
taken equal to 0.003 as usual, and using the stress-strain curve of the reinforcement. The
result is that the two equations contain only two unknowns, Pn and c, and can be solved for

3
those values simultaneously. However, to do so in practice would be complicated
algebraically, particularly because of the need to incorporate the limit fy and both f s and fs.
A better approach, providing the basis for practical design, is to construct a strength
interaction diagram defining the failure load and failure moment for a given column for the
full range of eccentricities from zero to infinity. For any eccentricity, there is a unique pair of
values of Pn and Mn that will produce the state of incipient failure. That pair of values can be
plotted as a point on a graph relating Pn and Mn such as shown in Fig. 3. A series of such
calculations, each corresponding to a different eccentricity, will result in a curve having a
shape typically as shown in Fig. 3. One such a diagram, any radial line represents a particular
eccentricity e = M/P. For that eccentricity, gradually increasing the load will define a load
path as shown, and when that load path reaches the limit curve, failure will result. Note that
the vertical axis corresponds to e = 0, and P0 is the capacity of the column if concentrically
loaded. The horizontal axis corresponds to an infinite value of e, i.e., pure bending at moment
capacity M0. Small eccentricities will produce failure governed by concrete compression,
while large eccentricities give a failure triggered by yielding of the tension steel.

Fig. 3: Interaction diagram for nominal column strength in combined bending and axial load

For a given column, selected for trial, the interaction diagram is most easily constructed by
selecting successive choices of neutral axis distance c, from infinity (axial load with
eccentricity 0) to a very small value found by trial of given Pn = 0 (pure bending). For each
selected value of c, the steel strains and stresses and the concrete force are easily calculated
as follows. For the tension steel-

4
 d c
s u (3)
c
d c
f s u Es  fy (4)
c
while for the compression steel
c  d
s u (5)
c
c  d
f s u Es  fy (6)
c
The concrete stress block has depth
a  β1c  h (7)
And consequently the concrete compressive strength is
C  0.85 f cab (8)
The nominal axial force Pn and nominal moment Mn corresponding to the selected neutral
axis location can then be calculated from Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively, and thus a single
point on the strength interaction diagram is established. The calculations are then repeated for
successive choices of neutral axis to establish the curve defining the strength limits, such as
Fig. 3. The calculations, of a repetitive nature, are easily programmed for the computer or
performed using a spreadsheet.

Balanced Failure:
As already noted, the interaction curve is divided into a compression failure range and a
tension failure range. It is useful to define what is termed a balanced failure mode and
corresponding eccentricity eb with the load Pb and moment Mb acting in combination to
produce failure with the concrete reaching its limit strain u at precisely the same instant that
the tensile steel on the far side of the column reaches yield strain. This point on the
interaction diagram is the dividing point between compression failure (small eccentricities)
and tension failure (large eccentricities).
The values of Pb and Mb are easily computed with reference to Fig. 2. For balanced failure-
u
c  cb  d (9)
u  y

And, a  ab  1cb (10)

Equations (3) through (7) are then used to obtain the steel stresses and the compressive
resultant, after which Pb and Mb are found from Eqs. (1) and (2).

5
It is important to observe, in Fig. 2, that in the region of compression failure the larger the
axial load Pn, the smaller the moment Mn that the section is able to sustain before failing.
However, in the region of tension failure the reverse is true; the larger the axial load, the
larger the simultaneous moment capacity. In the compression failure region, failure occurs
through overstraining of the concrete. The larger the concrete compressive strain caused by
the axial load alone, the smaller the margin of additional strain available for the added
compression caused by bending. On the other hand, yielding of the steel initiates failure in
the tension failure region. If the member is loaded in simple bending to the point at which
yielding begins in the tension steel, and if an axial compression load is the added, the steel
compressive stresses caused by this load will superimpose on the previous tensile stresses.
This reduces the total steel stress to a value below its yield strength. Consequently, an
additional moment can now be sustained of such magnitude that the combination of the steel
stress from the axial load and the increased moment again reaches the yield strength.
The typical shape of a column interaction diagram shown in Fig. 2 has important design
implications. In the range of tension failure, a reduction in axial load may produce failure for
a given moment. Only that amount of compression that is certain to be present should be used
in calculating the capacity of a column subject to a given moment.

Example 1:
A 12 in  20 in. column is reinforced with 4#9 bars as shown in Fig. 4(a). The concrete
cylinder strength is f c =4000 psi and the steel yield strength is 60 ksi. Determine (a) the load
Pb, moment Mb, and corresponding eccentricity eb for balanced failure; (b) the load and
moment for a representative point in the tension failure region of the interaction curve; (c) the
load and moment for a representative point in the compression failure region; (d) the axial
load strength for zero eccentricity. Then (e) sketch the strength interaction diagram for this
column. Finally, (f) design the transverse reinforcement, based on ACI code provisions.

Solution:
(a) The neutral axis for the balanced failure condition is easily found from Eq. (9) with u
= 0.003 and y = 60/29,000 = 0.0021:
0.003
C b  17.5   10.3 in giving a stress-block depth a = 0.85  10.3 = 8.76
0.003  0.0021
in. For the balanced failure condition, by definition, fs = fy. The compressive steel stress
is found from Eq. (6):

6
 c  d 10.3  2.5
f s u E s  f y  fs  0.003  29000   65.9 ksi but  60 ksi,
c 10.3
confirming that the compression steel, too, is at the yield.
The concrete compressive resultant is C = 0.85 48.7612 = 357 kips
The balanced load Pb is then found from Eq. (1) to be-
Pb = 357 + 2.0  60– 2.0  60 = 357 kips
and the balanced moment from Eq. (2) is
Mb = 357 (10–4.38) + 2.0  60 (10–2.5) + 2.0  60(17.5 –10)
= 3806 in-kips = 317 ft-kips and the corresponding eccentricity of load is eb = 10.66 in.

Fig. 4: Column interaction diagram for Example 1: ( a) cross section; (b) strain distribution;
(c) stresses and forces; (d) strength interaction diagram

(b) Any choice of c smaller than cb = 10.3 in. will give a point in the tension failure region
of the interaction curve, with eccentricity larger than eb. For example, choose c = 5.0 in.
By definition, fs = fy. The compressive steel stress is found (from Eq. 6) to be-
5.0  2.5
f s  0.003  29,000   43.5 ksi , with the stress-block depth a = 0.85  5.0
5.0
4.25, the compressive resultant is C = 0.85  4  4.25  12 = 173 kips.

7
 Then from Eq. (1), the thrust Pn = 173 + 2.0  2.0  43.5 – 2.0  60 = 140 kips and the
moment capacity from Eq. (2) is- Mn = 173 (10–2.12) + 2.0  43.5 (10–2.5) + 2.0 
60(17.5 –10) = 2916 in-kips = 243 ft-kips, giving eccentricity e = 2916/140 = 20.83 in.,
well above the balanced value.
c) Now selecting a c value larger than cb to demonstrate a compression failure point on the
interaction curve, choose c = 18.0 in., for which a = 0.85  18.0 = 15.3 in. The
compressive concrete resultant is C = 0.85  4  15.3  12 = 624 kips. From Eq. (4) the
stress in the steel at the left side of the column is
dc 17.5  18.0
f s u Es  f y  f s  0.003  29000  2 ksi
c 18.0
Note that the negative value of fs indicates correctly that As is in compression if c is
greater than d, as in the present case. The compressive steel stress is found from Eq. (6)
18.0  2.5
to be f s  0.003  29000  75ksi but  60 ksi
18.0
Then the column capacity is-Pn = 624 + 2.0  60 + 2.0  2 = 748 kips, and moment
capacity, Mn = 624 (10 – 7.65) + 2.0  60 (10–2.5) – 2.0  2 (17.5–10) = 2336 in-kips
= 195 ft-kips, giving eccentricity e = 2336/748 = 3.12 in.
d) The axial strength of the column if concentrically loaded corresponds to c =  and e =
0. For this case, Pn = 0.85  4  12 20 + 4.0  60 = 1056 kips
Note that, for this as well as the preceding calculations, subtraction of the concrete
displaced by the steel has been neglected. For comparison, if the deduction were made
in the last calculation:
Pn = 0.85  4 (12  20 – 4) + (4.0  60) = 1042 kips
The error in neglecting this deduction is only 1 percent in this case; the difference
generally can be neglected, except perhaps for columns with reinforcement ratios close
to the maximum of 8%.
e) From the calculations just completed, plus similar repetitive calculations that will not be
given here, the strength interaction curve of Fig. 4 (d) is constructed. In the process of
developing a strength interaction curve, it is possible to select the values of steel strain
s, as done in step (a), for use is steps (b) and (c). Selecting s uniquely establishes the
neutral axis depth c, as shown by Eqs. (3) and (9), and is useful in determining Mn and
Pn for values of steel strain that correspond to changes in the strength reduction factor .

8
f) The design of the column ties will be carried out following the ACI Code restrictions.
3
For the minimum permitted tie diameter of 8
in., used with No. 9 longitudinal bars
having a diameter of 1.128 in a column the least dimension of which is 12 in., the tie
spacing is not to exceed:
3
48   18 in. or 16  1.128  18.05 in. or b = 12 in.
8
The last restriction controls in this case, and No. 3 ties will be used at 12 in. spacing,
detailed as shown in Fig. 4 (a). Note that the permitted spacing as controlled by the first
and second criteria, 18 in., must be reduced because of the 12 in. column dimension,
indicating that a saving in tie steel could be realized using a smaller tie diameter;
however, this would not meet the ACI Code restriction on the minimum tie diameter in
this case.