ACI ITG-4.

3R-07

Report on Structural Design and

Detailing for High-Strength Concrete in
Moderate to High Seismic Applications

Reported by ACI Innovation Task Group 4

and Other Contributors
 Second Printing
December 2008
®
American Concrete Institute
Advancing concrete knowledge

Report on Structural Design and Detailing for High-Strength Concrete

in Moderate to High Seismic Applications

Copyright by the American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. All rights reserved. This material
may not be reproduced or copied, in whole or part, in any printed, mechanical, electronic, film, or other
distribution and storage media, without the written consent of ACI.

The technical committees responsible for ACI committee reports and standards strive to avoid ambiguities,
omissions, and errors in these documents. In spite of these efforts, the users of ACI documents occasionally
find information or requirements that may be subject to more than one interpretation or may be
incomplete or incorrect. Users who have suggestions for the improvement of ACI documents are
requested to contact ACI. Proper use of this document includes periodically checking for errata at
www.concrete.org/committees/errata.asp for the most up-to-date revisions.

ACI committee documents are intended for the use of individuals who are competent to evaluate the
significance and limitations of its content and recommendations and who will accept responsibility for the
application of the material it contains. Individuals who use this publication in any way assume all risk and
accept total responsibility for the application and use of this information.

All information in this publication is provided “as is” without warranty of any kind, either express or implied,
including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or
non-infringement.

ACI and its members disclaim liability for damages of any kind, including any special, indirect, incidental,
or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result
from the use of this publication.

It is the responsibility of the user of this document to establish health and safety practices appropriate to
the specific circumstances involved with its use. ACI does not make any representations with regard to
health and safety issues and the use of this document. The user must determine the applicability of all
regulatory limitations before applying the document and must comply with all applicable laws and regulations,
including but not limited to, United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) health
and safety standards.

Order information: ACI documents are available in print, by download, on CD-ROM, through electronic
subscription, or reprint and may be obtained by contacting ACI.

Most ACI standards and committee reports are gathered together in the annually revised ACI Manual of
Concrete Practice (MCP).

American Concrete Institute

38800 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331
U.S.A.
Phone: 248-848-3700
Fax: 248-848-3701
www.concrete.org

ISBN 978-0-87031-254-0
 ACI ITG-4.3R-07

Report on Structural Design and Detailing for

High-Strength Concrete in Moderate to
High Seismic Applications
Reported by ACI Innovation Task Group 4 and Other Contributors

ACI Innovation Task Group 4

S. K. Ghosh
Chair

Joseph M. Bracci D. Kirk Harman Adolfo Matamoros

Michael A. Caldarone Daniel C. Jansen Andrew W. Taylor

Other contributors
Dominic J. Kelly Andres Lepage Henry G. Russell

ACI ITG-4.3R presents a literature review on seismic design using high-
strength concrete. The document is organized in chapters addressing the
structural design of columns, beams, beam-column joints, and structural
walls made with high-strength concrete, and focuses on aspects most relevant
for seismic design. Each chapter concludes with a series of recommended
modifications to ACI 318-05 based on the findings of the literature review.
The recommendations include proposals for the modification of the equiva-
lent rectangular stress block, equations to calculate the axial strength of
columns subjected to concentric loading, column confinement requirements,
ITG 4.3R-07, “Report on Structural Design and Detailing for
High-Strength Concrete in Moderate to High Seismic Applica-
tions,” presents a literature review on seismic design using high-
strength concrete and provides recommendations for code
changes based on the tests reported in this literature. For
example, column confinement recommendations are made on
the basis that a target design story drift ratio is 2.5%.
ACI 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete,” governs for the design and construction of buildings
and is applicable for designs using high-strength concrete in
moderate to high seismic applications. ITG 4.3R-07 does not
supersede ACI 318.
Users of ITG 4.3R-07 should not infer that the recommendations
it contains are future ACI 318 Code requirements.
Issued: December 18, 2008.
ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Standard Practices, and
Commentaries are intended for guidance in planning,
designing, executing, and inspecting construction. This
document is intended for the use of individuals who are
competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of its
content and recommendations and who will accept
responsibility for the application of the material it contains.
The American Concrete Institute disclaims any and all
responsibility for the stated principles. The Institute shall not
be liable for any loss or damage arising therefrom.
Reference to this document shall not be made in contract
documents. If items found in this document are desired by the
Architect/Engineer to be a part of the contract documents, they
shall be restated in mandatory language for incorporation by
the Architect/Engineer.
limits on the specified yield strength of confinement reinforcement, strut
factors, and provisions for the development of straight bars and hooks.
An accompanying standard, ITG-4.1, is written in mandatory language
in a format that can be adopted by local jurisdictions, and will allow building
officials to approve the use of high-strength concrete on projects that are
being constructed under the provisions of ACI 301, “Specifications for
Structural Concrete,” and ACI 318, “Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete.”
ITG 4 has also developed another nonmandatory language document:
ITG-4.2R. It addresses materials and quality considerations and is the
supporting document for ITG-4.1.
Keywords: bond; confinement; drift; flexure; high-strength concrete; high-
yield-strength reinforcement; seismic application; shear; stress block; strut-
and-tie.
CONTENTS
Chapter 1—Introduction, p. ITG-4.3R-2
1.1—Background
1.2—Scope
Chapter 2—Notation, p. ITG-4.3R-4
Chapter 3—Definitions, p. ITG-4.3R-7
Chapter 4—Design for flexural and axial loads
using equivalent rectangular stress block,
p. ITG-4.3R-7
4.1—Parameters of equivalent rectangular stress block
4.2—Stress intensity factor α1
4.3—Stress block depth parameter β1
4.4—Stress block area α1
ACI ITG-4.3R-07 was published and became effective August 2007.
Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute.
All rights reserved including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any
means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by electronic or
mechanical device, printed, written, or oral, or recording for sound or visual reproduction
or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in writing
is obtained from the copyright proprietors.

ITG-4.3R-1
ITG-4.3R-2 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
4.5—Limiting strain εcu
4.6—Axial strength of high-strength concrete columns
4.7—Comparison of different proposals for rectangular
stress block
4.8—Recommendations
Chapter 5—Confinement requirements for beams
and columns, p. ITG-4.3R-19
5.1—Constitutive models for confined concrete
5.2—Previous research and general observations
5.3—Equations to determine amount of confinement
reinforcement required in columns
5.4—Definition of limiting drift ratio on basis of expected
drift demand
5.5—Use of high-yield-strength reinforcement for
confinement
5.6—Maximum hoop spacing requirements for columns
5.7—Confinement requirements for high-strength concrete
beams
5.8—Maximum hoop spacing requirements for high-
strength concrete beams
5.9—Recommendations
Chapter 6—Shear strength of reinforced concrete
flexural members, p. ITG-4.3R-35
6.1—Shear strength of flexural members without shear
reinforcement
6.2—Effect of compressive strength on inclined cracking
load of flexural members
6.3—Effect of compressive strength on flexural members
with intermediate to high amounts of transverse
reinforcement
6.4—Shear strength of members with low shear span-
depth ratios
6.5—Calculation of shear strength of members subjected
to seismic loading
6.6—Use of high-strength transverse reinforcement
6.7—Recommendations
Chapter 7—Development length/splices,
p. ITG-4.3R-44
7.1—Design equations for development length of bars in
high-strength concrete
7.2—Design equations for development length of hooked
bars in high-strength concrete
7.3—Recommendations
Chapter 8—Design of beam-column joints,
p. ITG-4.3R-48
8.1—Confinement requirements for beam-column joints
8.2—Shear strength of exterior joints
8.3—Shear strength of interior joints
8.4—Effect of transverse reinforcement on joint shear
strength
8.5—Development length requirements for beam-column
joints
8.6—Recommendations
Chapter 9—Design of structural walls, p. ITG-4.3R-51
9.1—Boundary element requirements
9.2—Shear strength of walls with low aspect ratios
9.3—Minimum tensile reinforcement requirements in walls
9.4—Recommendations
Chapter 10—List of proposed modifications to
ACI 318-05, p. ITG-4.3R-53
10.1—Proposed modifications to equivalent rectangular
stress block
10.2—Proposed modifications related to confinement of
potential plastic hinge regions
10.3—Proposed modifications related to bond and develop-
ment of reinforcement
10.4—Proposed modifications related to strut-and-tie
models
Acknowledgments, p. ITG-4.3R-56
Chapter 11—Cited references, p. ITG-4.3R-56
CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION
1.1—Background
The origin of ACI Innovation Task Group (ITG) 4, High-
Strength Concrete for Seismic Applications, can be traced
back to the International Conference of Building Officials
(ICBO) (now International Code Council [ICC]) Evaluation
Report ER-5536, “Seismic Design Utilizing High-Strength
Concrete” (ICBO 2001). Evaluation Reports (ER) are issued
by Evaluation Service subsidiaries of model code groups. An
ER essentially states that although a particular method,
process, or product is not specifically addressed by a particular
edition of a certain model code, it is in compliance with the
requirements of that particular edition of that model code.
ER-5536 (ICBO 2001), first issued in April 2001, was
generated by Englekirk Systems Development Inc. for the
seismic design of moment-resisting frame elements using
high-strength concrete. High-strength concrete was defined
as “normalweight concrete with a design compressive
strength greater than 6000 psi (41 MPa) and up to a
maximum of 12,000 psi (83 MPa).” It was based on research
carried out at the University of Southern California and the
University of California at San Diego to support building
construction in Southern California using concrete with
compressive strengths greater than 6000 psi (41 MPa).
The Portland Cement Association performed a review* of
ER-5536 and brought up several concerns that focused on
inconsistencies between the evaluation report and existing
industry documents in two primary areas: material and
structural. Despite those concerns, it was evident that the
evaluation report had been created because quality assurance
and design provisions were needed by local jurisdictions, such
as the City of Los Angeles, to allow the use of high-strength
concrete without undue restrictions. ACI has assumed a
proactive role in the development of such provisions with the
goal of creating a document that can be adopted nationwide.
*
Unpublished report available from PCA, Skokie, Ill., Aug. 2001.
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
ACI considered its own Committee 363, High Strength
Concrete, to be the best choice to address the materials and
quality aspects of the document, while ACI Subcommittee
318-H, Structural Concrete Building Code—Seismic
Provisions, was considered the best choice to address the
seismic detailing aspects. Because 318-H is a subcommittee
of a code-writing body, the development of a technical
document of this kind is not part of its intended mission. In
addition, producing a document through a technical
committee can be a lengthy process. Based on these limita-
tions, a request was made to form an ITG that would have the
advantage of following a shorter timeline to completion. In
response to the request, the Technical Activities Committee
(TAC) of ACI approved the formation of ITG 4 and estab-
lished its mission. The mission was to develop an ACI docu-
ment that addressed the application of high-strength concrete
in structures located in areas of moderate and high seismicity.
The document was intended to cover structural design, mate-
rial properties, construction procedures, and quality-control
measures. It was to contain language in a format that allowed
building officials to approve the use of high-strength concrete
in projects being constructed under the provisions of ACI 301-05,
“Specifications for Structural Concrete,” and ACI 318,
“Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.”
The concept of “moderate to high seismic applications,”
stated in the mission of the document, dates back to when
U.S. seismic codes divided the country into seismic zones.
These seismic zones were defined as regions in which
seismic ground motion on rock, corresponding to a certain
probability of occurrence, remained within certain ranges.
Present-day seismic codes (ASCE/SEI 2006) follow a
different approach to characterizing a seismic hazard. Given
that public safety is a primary code objective, and that not all
buildings in a given seismic zone are equally crucial to
public safety, a new mechanism for triggering seismic
design requirements and restrictions, called the seismic
performance category (SPC), was developed. The SPC
classification includes not only the seismicity at the site, but
also the occupancy of the structure.
Recognizing that building performance during a seismic
event depends not only on the severity of bedrock acceleration,
but also on the type of soil that a structure is founded on,
seismic design criteria in more recent seismic codes are
based on seismic design categories (SDC). The SDC is a
function of location, building occupancy, and soil type.
The TAC Technology Transfer Committee (TTTC)-estab-
lished mission of ITG 4 was interpreted to mean that the
Task Group was to address the application of high-strength
concrete in structures that are:
• Located in Seismic Zones 2, 3, or 4 of the “Uniform
Building Code” (ICBO 1997); or
• Assigned to SDC C, D, or E of “The BOCA National
Building Code” (BOCA 1993 and subsequent editions)
or the “Standard Building Code” (SBCCI 1994); or
• SDC C, D, E, or F of the “International Building Code”
(IBC 2003) or the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) NFPA 5000 “Building Construction and Safety
Code” (2003).
ITG-4.3R-3
SPC or SDC C is also referred to as the “intermediate”
category. Similarly, SPC D and E or SDC D, E, and F are
referred to as “high” categories. The terminology “moderate
to high seismic applications,” however, is used throughout
this document.
1.2—Scope
This document addresses the material and design consider-
ations when using normalweight concretes having specified
compressive strengths of 6000 psi (41 MPa) or greater in
structures designed for moderate to high seismic applications.
Irrespective of seismic zone, SPC, or SDC, this document is
also applicable to normalweight high-strength concrete in
intermediate or special moment frames and intermediate or
special structural walls as defined in ACI 318-05 (ACI
Committee 318 2005).
The term “high-strength concrete,” as defined by ACI 363R-92
(ACI Committee 363 1992), refers to concrete having a spec-
ified compressive strength for design of 6000 psi (41 MPa) or
greater. The 6000 psi (41 MPa) threshold that was chosen for
this document is similar to that adopted by ACI Committee 363.
Even though high-strength concrete is defined based on a
threshold compressive strength, the concept of high strength
is relative. The limit at which concrete is considered to be
high strength depends largely on the location in which it is
being used. In some regions, structures are routinely designed
with concrete having specified compressive strengths of
12,000 psi (83 MPa) or higher, whereas in other regions,
concrete with a much lower specified compressive strength is
considered high strength. Essentially, the strength threshold
at which concrete is considered high strength depends on
regional factors, such as the characteristics and availability
of raw materials, production capabilities, testing capabilities,
and experience of the ready mixed concrete supplier.
ITG-4 produced three documents: ITG-4.1 is a reference
specification that can be cited in the project specifications;
ITG-4.2R addresses materials and quality considerations that
are the basis for the ITG-4.1 specification; and ITG-4.3R, this
document, addresses structural design and detailing. Certain
modifications of ACI 318 requirements are proposed in
Chapter 10 of ITG-4.3R.
From a materials perspective, there are few differences
between the properties of high-strength concrete used in
seismic applications and those of high-strength concrete
used in nonseismic applications; therefore, the information
presented in ITG-4.1 and ITG-4.2R is generally applicable to
all high-strength concrete. When special considerations are
warranted due to seismic applications, they are addressed
specifically. Unlike ITG-4.1 and ITG-4.2R, most of the
material contained in ITG-4.3R is specific to seismic
applications of high-strength concrete structural members.
The information in Chapters 4 through 9 of this document
is presented in a report format. Chapter 10 contains
suggested modifications to design and detailing requirements
in ACI 318-05.
Some topics, such as compressive stress block and
confinement of beam-columns, are more developed than others
because there is significantly more literature available on these
ITG-4.3R-4 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

topics. For all topics, an attempt was made to be as thorough as bw = web width or diameter of circular section, in.
possible in summarizing the most relevant information (mm)
pertaining to the design of members with high-strength c = distance from extreme compression fiber to
concrete. For topics with limited information in the litera- neutral axis, in. (mm)
ture, however, recommendations were made with the intent c′ = cmin + db /2 = spacing or cover dimension, in.
of preventing potentially unsafe design. (mm)
c1 = dimension of rectangular or equivalent rectan-
CHAPTER 2—NOTATION gular column, capital, or bracket measured in
Ab,max = cross-sectional area of largest bar being direction of span for which moments are being
developed or spliced, in.2 (mm2) determined, in. (mm)
Acc = cross-sectional area of structural member c2 = dimension of rectangular or equivalent rectan-
measured center-to-center of transverse gular column, capital, or bracket measured in
reinforcement, in.2 (mm2) direction perpendicular to c1, in. (mm)
Ach = cross-sectional area of structural member cb = smaller of: a) distance from center of bar or
measured out-to-out of transverse reinforcement, wire to nearest concrete surface; or b) one-half
in.2 (mm2) center-to-center spacing of bars or wires being
Acv = gross area of concrete section bounded by web developed, in. (mm)
thickness and length of section in direction of cc = clear cover of reinforcement, in. (mm)
shear force considered, in.2 (mm2) ccb = least distance from surface or reinforcement to
Ag = gross area of concrete section, in.2 (mm2). For tension face, in. (mm)
hollow section, Ag is area of concrete only and
cmax = maximum of ccb and cs , in. (mm)
does not include area of void(s)
cmin = minimum cover used in expressions for bond
Ash = total cross-sectional area of transverse reinforce-
strength of bars not confined by transverse
ment (including crossties) within spacing s and
reinforcement. Smaller of ccb and cs, in. (mm)
perpendicular to dimension bc , in.2 (mm2)
cp = ρvr · fyt /fc′ = volumetric confinement index
Asp = cross-sectional area of transverse reinforce-
cs = minimum of cso and (csi + 0.25) in. [(csi + 6.35)
ment crossing potential plane of splitting of
mm], in. (mm)
bars being developed or spliced, in.2 (mm2)
csfw = flexural stress index for structural wall that
Ast = total area of nonprestressed longitudinal
represents measure of ratio of neutral axis
reinforcement (bars or steel shapes), in.2 (mm2)
depth to length of wall, in. (mm)
Asv = total area of vertical reinforcement in structural
csi = one-half of clear spacing between bars, in. (mm)
wall, in.2 (mm2)
Aswb = total area of vertical reinforcement in boundary cso = clear side concrete cover for reinforcing bar,
element of structural wall, in.2 (mm2) in. (mm)
Asww = total area of vertical reinforcement in web of DRlim = (Δlim /hcol ) = limiting drift ratio
structural wall, excluding the boundary d = distance from extreme compression fiber to
elements, in. 2 (mm2) centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement,
Ate = sum of areas of tie legs used to provide lateral in. (mm)
support against buckling for longitudinal bars db = nominal diameter of bar, wire, or prestressing
of column, in.2 (mm2) strand, in. (mm)
Atr = total cross-sectional area of all transverse ds = nominal diameter of bar used as transverse
reinforcement within spacing s that crosses reinforcement, in. (mm)
potential plane of splitting through reinforcement E = load effects of earthquake or related internal
being developed, in.2 (mm2) moments and forces
Av = area of shear reinforcement with spacing s, in.2 EEp = [(Mcalc – Mexp)/Mexp] × 100 = parameter used
(mm2) to characterize accuracy of nominal moment
Aw = gross cross-sectional area of structural wall, strength of column
in.2 (mm2) Es = modulus of elasticity of reinforcement and
av = shear span, equal to distance from center of structural steel, psi (MPa)
concentrated load to either: a) face of support for fc′ = specified compressive strength of concrete, psi
continuous or cantilever members; or b) center of (MPa)
support for simply supported members, in. ′
fco = in-place strength of unconfined concrete in
(mm) columns, psi (MPa) (often assumed as 0.85fc′ )
b = width of compression face of member, in. (mm) fp = P/Ag fc′ = axial load ratio
bc = cross-sectional dimension of column core fpc = P/Ach fc′ = axial load ratio based on area of
measured center-to-center of outer legs of confined core
transverse reinforcement comprising area Ash, fs = calculated tensile stress in reinforcement at
in. (mm) service loads, psi (MPa)
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
ft,l = stress imposed on concrete by compression
field associated with reinforcement oriented in
direction parallel to flexural reinforcement
located at edge of compression field, psi (MPa)
ft,t = stress imposed on concrete by compression
field associated with reinforcement oriented in
direction perpendicular to flexural reinforcement
located at edge of compression field, psi (MPa)
fu = maximum tensile stress that can be developed
in bar with 90-degree hook, psi (MPa)
fyl = specified yield strength of longitudinal reinforce-
ment, psi (MPa)
fyt = specified yield strength of transverse reinforce-
ment, psi (MPa)
fyt,l = specified yield strength of transverse reinforce-
ment oriented parallel to flexural reinforcement
located at edge of uniform compression field,
psi (MPa)
fyt,t = specified yield strength of transverse reinforce-
ment oriented perpendicular to flexural
reinforcement located at edge of uniform
compression field, psi (MPa)
h′′ = core dimension perpendicular to transverse
reinforcement providing confinement measured
to outside of hoops, in. (mm)
ha = tie depth, in. (mm)
hcol = clear column height, in. (mm)
hw = height of entire wall from base to top or height
of segment of wall considered, in. (mm)
hx = maximum center-to-center horizontal spacing
of crossties or hoop legs on all faces of column,
in. (mm)
j = ratio of internal lever arm to effective depth of
beam
Ktr = (Atr fyt /1500sn) = transverse reinforcement
index (refer to ACI 318-05, Section 12.2.3)
Ktr′ = (0.5tdAtr /sn)fc′ 1/2 = transverse reinforcement
index for Committee 408 development length
expression, in. (mm)
k1 = ratio of average to maximum stress in
compression zone of flexural member
k2 = ratio of distance from extreme compression
fiber to location of compression reaction to
distance from extreme compression fiber to
location of neutral axis in flexural member
k3 = ratio of maximum stress in compression zone
of flexural member to cylinder strength
kcc = cover factor in calculation of development
length of hooked bars
kd = development length factor in calculation of
development length of hooked bars
kj = development length and lever arm factor in calcu-
lation of development length of hooked bars
ks = transverse reinforcement bar diameter factor
for calculation of development length of hooked
bars
lb = dimension of loading plate or support in axial
direction of member, in. (mm)
ITG-4.3R-5
ld = development length in tension of deformed bar,
deformed wire, plain or deformed welded wire
reinforcement, or pretensioned strand, in. (mm)
ldh = development length in tension of deformed
bar or deformed wire with standard hook,
measured from critical section to outside end of
hook, in. (mm)
lo = length, measured from joint face along axis of
structural member, over which special transverse
reinforcement must be provided, in. (mm)
lw = length of entire wall or length of segment of wall
considered in direction of shear force, in. (mm)
M = maximum unfactored moment due to service
loads, including P-Δ effects, in.-lb (N-mm)
Mexp = measured flexural strength of column, in.-lb
(N-mm)
Mncol = nominal flexural strength of column, in.-lb
(N-mm)
m = fyl /0.85fc′ = ratio of nominal yield strength of
longitudinal reinforcement to nominal strength
of concrete in column
n = number of bars being spliced or developed in
plane of splitting
nL = number of legs of reinforcement in hoops and ties
P = unfactored axial load, lb (N)
Po = nominal axial strength at zero eccentricity, lb (N)
s = center-to-center spacing of items, such as longi-
tudinal reinforcement, transverse reinforcement,
prestressing tendons, wires, or anchors, in. (mm)
so = center-to-center spacing of transverse reinforce-
ment within length lo, in. (mm)
Tb = total bond force of developed or spliced bar,
lb (N)
Ts = steel contribution to total bond force, additional
bond strength provided by transverse steel, lb (N)
td = term representing effect of bar size on Ts
V = maximum unfactored shear force at service
loads, including P-Δ effects, lb (N)
Va = nominal shear strength provided by strut
spanning between load point and support in
reinforced concrete members with shear span-
depth ratios below 2.5, lb (N)
Vall = allowable shear force under service loads, lb (N)
Vc = nominal shear strength provided by the concrete,
lb (N)
Vn = nominal shear strength, lb (N)
Vs = nominal shear strength provided by shear
reinforcement, lb (N)
Vt,l = nominal shear strength provided by uniform
compression field associated with transverse
reinforcement oriented parallel to flexural
reinforcement located at edge of compression
field, lb (N)
Vt,t = nominal shear strength provided by uniform
compression field associated with transverse
reinforcement oriented perpendicular to flexural
reinforcement located at edge of compression
field, lb (N)
ITG-4.3R-6 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
vc,all = allowable shear stress in concrete
wst = strut width, in. (mm)
α1 = factor relating magnitude of uniform stress in
equivalent rectangular compressive stress block
to specified compressive strength of concrete
αc = coefficient defining relative contribution of
concrete to nominal wall shear strength
αl = angle between struts and flexural reinforcement
for a compression field associated with
transverse reinforcement oriented in direction
parallel to flexural reinforcement
αsh = 1 ≤ 4/[(M/Vd) +1] ≤ 2 = factor to account for
effect of shear span-depth ratio on allowable
shear stress carried by concrete
αst = smallest angle between strut and ties that it
intersects at its nodes
αt = angle between struts and flexural reinforcement
for compression field associated with transverse
reinforcement oriented in direction perpendicular
to flexural reinforcement
β1 = factor relating depth of equivalent rectangular
compressive stress block to neutral axis depth
βfc = factor to account for effect of concrete
compressive strength on effective compressive
strength of concrete in strut
βnl,strut = factor to account for effect of repeated load
reversals into nonlinear range of response on
effective compressive strength of concrete in strut
βnl,truss = factor to account for effect of repeated load
reversals into nonlinear range of response on
shear strength associated with compression field
βs = factor to account for effect of cracking and
confining reinforcement on effective
compressive strength of concrete in strut
βsc = factor to account for effect of load reversals,
concrete compressive strength, confining
reinforcement, and cracking on effective
compressive strength of concrete in strut
βta = factor to account for effect of interaction
between truss and arch mechanisms on effective
compressive strength of concrete in strut
βαt = factor to account for effect of angle of inclination
of strut αs on effective compressive strength of
concrete in strut
χ1 = ratio of mean concrete compressive stress
corresponding to maximum axial load resisted
by concentrically loaded column to specified
compressive strength of concrete
Δlim = lateral drift corresponding to 20% reduction in
lateral resistance, in. (mm)
Δyield = lateral drift corresponding to yielding of
longitudinal reinforcement, in. (mm)
δu = design displacement, in. (mm)
ε1 = principal tensile strain in strut
εcu = maximum strain at extreme compression fiber
at onset of crushing of concrete
εlim = concrete strain at extreme compression fiber
corresponding to limit state being considered
εo = strain in concrete when it reaches peak stress
εs = strain demand on reinforcement
εy = strain in reinforcement at yield
φ = strength reduction factor
φlim = limiting curvature of reinforced concrete wall
φu = curvature at limit state of reinforced concrete
section
φy = curvature at yielding of flexural reinforcement
of reinforced concrete section
γvj = joint shear coefficient
λp = factor to account for effect of axial load ratio
on strength of compression field subjected to
repeated load reversals into nonlinear range of
response
μΔ = (Δlim /Δyield) = displacement ductility ratio
θp = expected rotation in plastic hinge region of
flexural member, radians
ρarea = ratio of area of distributed transverse reinforce-
ment Ash to gross area of concrete perpendicular
to that reinforcement in members with rectilinear
and circular transverse reinforcement
ρl = ratio of area of distributed longitudinal reinforce-
ment to gross concrete area perpendicular to
that reinforcement
ρs = ratio of volume of spiral reinforcement to total
volume of core confined by spiral (measured
out-to-out of spirals)
ρt = ratio of area of distributed transverse reinforce-
ment to gross concrete area perpendicular to
that reinforcement
ρtc = Ash /bcs = ratio of area of distributed transverse
reinforcement Ash to area of core perpendicular
to that transverse reinforcement
ρt,l = ratio of area of distributed reinforcement
oriented in direction parallel to flexural reinforce-
ment of compression field to gross concrete area
perpendicular to that reinforcement
ρt,t = ratio of area of distributed reinforcement
oriented in direction perpendicular to flexural
reinforcement of compression field to gross
concrete area perpendicular to that reinforcement
ρvol = ratio of volume of rectilinear or circular
transverse reinforcement to volume of core
confined by that transverse reinforcement
ρvr = ratio of volume of rectilinear transverse
reinforcement to volume of core confined by
that transverse reinforcement
ρwt = ratio of total area of vertical reinforcement to
gross area of structural wall
ωc = 0.1(cmax/cmin) + 0.9 ≤ 1.25 = factor to account
for ratio of maximum to minimum cover on
development length of straight bar
ψe = factor used to modify development length
based on reinforcement coating
ψs = factor used to modify development length
based on reinforcement size
ψt = factor used to modify development length
based on reinforcement location
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
CHAPTER 3—DEFINITIONS
area transverse reinforcement ratio—ratio of the area
of transverse reinforcement crossed by a plane perpendicular
to the legs of the transverse reinforcement to the area of
reinforced concrete along that plane.
axial load ratio—ratio of axial load to the product of
compressive strength of concrete and the gross area of
concrete cross section.
confinement index—product of transverse reinforcement
ratio (either by area or by volume) and the yield strength of
the transverse reinforcement, divided by the compressive
strength of concrete.
curvature ductility ratio—ratio of mean curvature at
failure in the plastic hinge length to curvature at the onset of
section yielding. In the case of reinforced concrete columns,
the majority of researchers referenced in this document
define failure as a 20% reduction in lateral load resistance.
displacement ductility ratio—ratio of displacement at
failure to displacement at the onset of member yielding. In
the case of reinforced concrete columns, the majority of
researchers referenced in this document define failure as a
20% reduction in lateral load resistance.
ductility—ability of a reinforced concrete member to
maintain its strength when subjected to repeated load reversals
beyond the linear range of response.
interstory drift—relative lateral displacement between
two adjacent stories of a building imposed by the design
earthquake.
interstory drift ratio—ratio of interstory drift to story
height.
killed steel—steel made by completely removing or tying
up the oxygen in the liquid steel through the addition of
elements such as aluminum or silicon before the ingot
solidifies, with the objective of achieving maximum uniformity
in the steel.
limiting drift—drift corresponding to a 20% reduction in
lateral load resistance of a reinforced concrete member subjected
to load reversals with increasing maximum displacements.
limiting drift ratio—ratio of limiting drift to column
height.
limiting strain—maximum strain at the extreme concrete
compression fiber of a flexural member at the onset of
concrete crushing, εcu.
volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio—ratio of the
volume of transverse reinforcement confining the concrete
core of a potential plastic hinge region to the volume of
concrete inside the confined core.
CHAPTER 4—DESIGN FOR FLEXURAL
AND AXIAL LOADS USING EQUIVALENT
RECTANGULAR STRESS BLOCK
It is common practice for structures assigned to a high
Seismic Design Category (SDC) to proportion the majority
of the structural elements of the lateral force-resisting system
so that the axial load demand remains below the balanced
axial load. For these elements, variations in the shape of the
stress block related to the compressive strength of the
concrete do not have a significant effect on the calculated
ITG-4.3R-7
strength. There are instances, however, in which it is difficult
for engineers to avoid proportioning columns with high axial
load demands, such as lower-story columns in tall buildings,
lower-story columns in narrow moment-resisting frames,
and columns supporting the ends of discontinuous walls. For
these elements, the shape of the stress block may have a
significant effect on the estimated strength. The stress block
for members with high-strength concrete is also a concern in
moderate seismic applications. In these cases, structures are
proportioned for seismic events that impose lower force and
deformation demands than high seismic applications, allowing
the use of more slender columns.
The accuracy of the stress block is of concern in earth-
quake-resistant design because overestimating the flexural
strength of columns leads to overestimating the ratios of
column-to-beam moment strengths, which increases the
probability of hinging in the columns due to the development
of a strong beam-weak column mechanism.
Although the stress-strain characteristics of high-strength
concrete are different from those of normal-strength
concrete, there is no well-defined compressive strength
boundary between the two; there is instead a gradual change
with increasing concrete strengths (ACI Innovation Task
Group 4 2006). The ascending branch of the stress-strain
relationship is steeper for higher-strength concretes, indicating
higher elastic modulus. It changes from approximately a
second-order parabola for concretes within the normal-
strength range to almost a straight line as the strength
approaches 18,000 psi (124 MPa), which may be considered
as the limit for high-strength concrete made with ordinary
limestone aggregates. The strain at peak concrete stress, εo,
increases with strength as well, varying approximately
between 0.0015 and 0.0025 for 3000 to 15,000 psi (21 and
103 MPa) concrete, respectively. Failure becomes more sudden
and brittle as the concrete strength increases and unloading
beyond the peak becomes more rapid. In summary, concrete
becomes more rigid and more brittle with increasing strength.
Several researchers developed constitutive models for the
stress-strain relationship of concrete that are applicable to
high-strength concrete with proper adjustments to the
governing parameters (Popovics 1973; Yong et al. 1988;
Hsu and Hsu 1994; Azizinamini et al. 1994; Cusson and
Paultre 1995). Expressions applicable specifically to high-
strength concrete have also been developed (Martinez et al.
1984; Fafitis and Shah 1985; Bjerkeli et al. 1990; Muguruma
and Watanabe 1990; Li 1994).
Members subjected to uniform compression attain their
maximum strength when concrete reaches a strain level
corresponding to peak stress, εo. Under a strain gradient,
maximum strength is attained at an extreme compressive
fiber strain higher than that at peak stress, εlim (Hognestad
1951). This value changes with the geometric shape of the
compression zone, and may also vary significantly with
concrete strength and confinement. After the limiting strain
has been established, the sectional strength can be computed
by evaluating internal forces, including the compressive
force in the concrete. The magnitude of the compressive
force in the concrete can be established by relying on the
ITG-4.3R-8 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Fig. 4.1—Parameters for rectangular stress block.

assumption that plane sections remain plane after bending

and by calculating the stresses corresponding to the strains in
the compression zone from the stress-strain relationship.
Because it is cumbersome to use a nonlinear stress-strain
relationship, ACI 318-05 provides an equivalent stress block
for ease in design calculations. This stress block is derived
such that both the area under the actual nonlinear stress
distribution (force) and the centroid of this area (point of
application of force) correspond to those of the stress block
as closely as possible. The stress block adopted by ACI 318-05
is of rectangular geometry. Other equivalent stress blocks
with various different shapes, such as triangular and trape-
zoidal, have been proposed in the literature. A historical
review of this topic has been presented by Hognestad (1951).

4.1—Parameters of equivalent rectangular

stress block
The column design provisions of ACI 318-05 are based on
an extensive column investigation conducted jointly by the
University of Illinois, Lehigh University, and ACI. The
initial results of the study were published in 1931 (Slater and
Lyse 1931a,b), with a more comprehensive follow-up report
in 1934 (Richart and Brown 1934). Subsequently,
Hognestad (1951) conducted a large number of column tests
and developed the parameters for a rectangular stress block.
Figure 4.1 shows the parameters that define the equivalent
rectangular stress block according to ACI 318-05. A parabolic
stress distribution, shown in Fig. 4.1(b), results in values of
k2 = 0.375 (β1 = 0.75) and k1 = 0.67 (α1 = 0.9k3). A linear
stress distribution yields values of k2 = 0.333 (β1 = 0.667)
and k1 = 0.50 (α1 = 0.75k3). ACI 318-05 stipulates that the
average stress factor α1 is not sensitive to compressive strength
and remains constant at 0.85, while the β1 factor decreases
from 0.85 (k1k3 = 0.723) for a compressive strength of 4000
psi (28 MPa) to 0.65 (k1k3 = 0.553) for a compressive
strength of 8000 psi (55 MPa). According to ACI 318-05, the
strain at the extreme compression fiber in the concrete at the
onset of crushing is 0.003 (Fig. 4.1(a)).
Fasching and French (1998) presented a summary of
several proposals for modifying the parameters of the equivalent
Fig. 4.2—Variation of k2 with concrete strength (Ozbakkaloglu
and Saatcioglu 2004).
rectangular stress block for high-strength concrete. They
reported average values of k2 = 0.381 (β1 = 0.762) and k1k3
= 0.647 (α1 = 0.849) from tests of C-shaped specimens
(column specimens in which axial load and bending are
induced by applying a load eccentrically at both ends) by
several researchers, in which compressive strengths varied
from 8400 to 14,400 psi (58 to 99 MPa). The aforementioned
values are very close to those corresponding to a parabolic
distribution. Specimens with higher strengths tested by
Ibrahim and MacGregor (1994, 1996a), with concrete
compressive strengths ranging between 17,600 and 18,600 psi
(121 to 128 MPa), had values of k2 = 0.347 (β1 = 0.694) and
k1k3 = 0.524 (α1 = 0.755), close to those corresponding to a
linear distribution. Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004)
summarized the variation of experimentally obtained values
for k2 and the product k1k3 with concrete compressive
strength. They also presented a comparison with various
design expressions, including those of ACI 318-05 and CSA
A23.3-94 (Canadian Standards Association 1994). These are
shown in Fig. 4.2 and 4.3 and indicate a gradual reduction in
k2 and k1k3 with increasing concrete strength.
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-9

While the product of the terms k1 and k3 is often used as a

single parameter in the formulation of an equivalent rectan-
gular stress block, researchers in the past identified the
values for k3 separately. The parameter k3 represents the
ratio of the in-place strength of concrete in a structural
member to the compressive strength measured using standard
cylinder tests. Saatcioglu et al. (1998) reported values of the
k3 factor for high-strength concrete measured by several
researchers for unconfined concrete members subjected to
concentric loading. Two 10 in. (250 mm) square columns
with compressive strengths of 11,700 and 17,600 psi (81 and
121 MPa), tested by Saatcioglu and Razvi (1998), had k3
factors of 0.89 and 0.92, respectively. The average value
reported by Cusson and Paultre (1994) was 0.88 for columns Fig. 4.3—Variation of k1k3 with concrete strength
with compressive strengths of 14,500 psi (100 MPa). Tests by (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004).
Yong et al. (1988) indicated values of 0.87 and 0.97 for
compressive strengths of 12,100 and 13,600 psi (83 and
94 MPa), respectively. Sun and Sakino (1994) obtained
0.01f c′
values of 0.93 and 0.91 for compressive strengths of 7500 α 1 = 0.85 – ---------------
- ≥ 0.67 ( fc′ in psi) (4-2)
and 19,000 psi (52 and 131 MPa), respectively. Saatcioglu 1000
and Razvi (1998) indicated that similar values of k3 were
obtained under eccentric loading. α 1 = 0.85 – 0.0015f c′ ≥ 0.67 ( fc′ in MPa)
Other tests performed to measure the value of k3 include
those by Ibrahim and MacGregor (1994, 1996b), Kaar et al. Park et al. (1998) described the background considerations
(1977), Schade (1992), and Swartz et al. (1985). The afore- of the NZS 3101:1995 design provisions (Standards Associ-
mentioned series of tests resulted in average k3 values of ation of New Zealand 1995) regarding the shape of the
0.91, 1.00, 0.93, and 0.98, respectively. Ibrahim and equivalent rectangular stress block, which is very similar to
MacGregor (1994, 1996b) reported mean k3 values of 0.932 that used in ACI 318-05. As stated previously, for a linear
for specimens with concrete compressive strengths between stress distribution, the equivalent rectangular stress block has
8400 and 14,400 psi (58 and 99 MPa), and 0.919 for speci- values of k2 = 0.333 (β1 = 0.667) and k1 = 0.5 (α1 = 0.75k3). The
mens with higher compressive strengths ranging between following expression for the stress factor is used in the New
17,600 and 18,600 psi (121 and 128 MPa). Zealand Standard, which is close to that corresponding to a
linear stress distribution for high-strength concrete
4.2—Stress intensity factor α1
According to Fasching and French (1998), experimental α1 = 0.85, for fc′ ≤ 8000 psi (55 MPa) (4-3)
results show that the nominal strength of beams calculated
using the stress intensity factor α1 of ACI 318-05 is conser- 0.0275 ( f c′ – 8000 )
α1 = 0.85 – -----------------------------------
- ≥ 0.75 for fc′ > 8000 (fc′ in psi) (4-4)
vative for high-strength concrete. Data reported by Kaar et 1000
al. (1977) had a mean value of α1 = 1.0, and the data reported
by Swartz et al. (1985) had a mean value of α1 = 0.96. α1 = 0.85 – 0.004(fc′ – 55) ≥ 0.75 for fc′ > 55( fc′ in MPa)

Ibrahim and MacGregor (1994,1996a) conducted extensive

Azizinamini et al. (1994) investigated columns subjected
tests of concentrically and eccentrically loaded high-strength
to axial load and flexure, and observed that the ACI 318-05
concrete columns and developed an expression for α1. They
equivalent stress block resulted in conservative estimates of
found lower stress intensity factors in concentrically loaded
strength for columns with normal-strength concrete, while it
columns, which resulted in the following expression for the
overestimated the strength of columns with high-strength
stress intensity factor
concrete. Based on this observation, they recommended
maintaining the value of α1 = 0.85 for fc′ ≤ 10,000 psi (69 MPa)
0.00862f c′ and changing it for fc′ > 10,000 psi (69 MPa) using the
α 1 = 0.85 – ------------------------
- ≥ 0.725 ( fc′ in psi) (4-1)
1000 following expression

0.50 ( f c′ – 10,000 )
α 1 = 0.85 – 0.00125f c′ ≥ 0.725 ( fc′ in MPa) α1 = 0.85 – -------------------------------------------
- ≥ 0.60 for fc′ > 10,000 (fc′ in psi) (4-5)
1000

The equation by Ibrahim and MacGregor was used as the α1 = 0.85 – 0.00725(fc′ – 69) ≥ 0.60 for fc′ > 69 (fc′ in MPa)
basis for the Canadian Standard CSA A23.3-94 (Canadian
Standards Association 1994), where the value of the stress Bae and Bayrak (2003) developed a proposal based on
intensity factor is stress-strain relationships for high-strength concrete. The
ITG-4.3R-10 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Fig. 4.4—Comparison of proposed expressions for stress
intensity factor α1.
stress intensity factor α1 was derived by finding the total area
underneath the theoretical stress-strain curve. According to
Bae and Bayrak (2003)
α1 = 0.85 – 2.75 × 10–5(fc′ – 10,000), 0.67 ≤ α1 ≤ 0.85 (fc′ in psi)
α1 = 0.85 – 0.004(fc′ – 70), 0.67 ≤ α1 ≤ 0.85 (fc′ in MPa)
Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) developed a rectan-
gular stress block for high-strength and normal-strength
concretes based on a large volume of experimental data and an
analytical stress-strain relationship. They suggested varying
α1 with concrete compressive strength to reflect the change in
the shape of the stress-strain relationship. Accordingly
α1 = 0.85 – (fc′ – 4000) × 10–5, 0.72 ≤ α1 ≤ 0.85 (fc′ in psi)
α1 = 0.85 – 0.0014( fc′ – 30), 0.72 ≤ α1 ≤ 0.85 (fc′ in MPa)
A comparison of the ACI 318-05 stress intensity factor α1
and the aforementioned recommended changes for the stress
intensity factor is shown in Fig. 4.4.
4.3—Stress block depth parameter β1
The parameter β1 defines the ratio of the depth of the
equivalent rectangular stress block to that of the neutral axis.
For a constant value of the stress intensity factor α1, the
effect of assuming a theoretical value of β1 smaller than the
actual value is that the calculated lever arm is increased,
resulting in unconservative estimates of the moment strength.
Fasching and French (1998) evaluated the ACI 318-95
expression (same as in ACI 318-05) for factor β1 using
experimental results reported by Ibrahim and MacGregor
(1994), Kaar et al. (1977), and Swartz et al. (1985). Fasching
and French concluded that the ACI 318 expression for β1
underestimated the experimentally observed values in the
data set used for the evaluation.
A similar conclusion was derived by Ibrahim and
MacGregor (1994), who proposed the following expression
for β1
0.0172f c′
β 1 = 0.95 – ---------------------
- ≥ 0.70 ( fc′ in psi) (4-8)
1000
β 1 = 0.95 – 0.0025f c′ ≥ 0.70 ( fc′ in MPa)
The previous equation served as the basis for and is very
similar to the equation adopted in CSA A23.3-94 (Canadian
Standards Association 1994)
0.0172f c′
β 1 = 0.97 – ---------------------
- ≥ 0.67 ( fc′ in psi) (4-9)
1000
β 1 = 0.97 – 0.0025f c′ ≥ 0.67 ( fc′ in MPa)
The stress block depth parameter recommended by Park
(1998), and subsequently adopted in NZS 3101:1995 design
provisions (Standards Association of New Zealand 1995),
has the same definition as the depth parameter β1 in ACI
(4-6) 318-05. Similarly, Azizinamini et al. (1994) recommended
no change to the definition of β1 used in ACI 318-05. In
effect, these authors implied that changing the location of the
equivalent force Cc (Fig. 4.1) relative to the extreme
compression fiber has a negligible effect on the nominal
moment strength because the term (1/2)β1c is small in
comparison to the moment arm jd = (d – [1/2]β1c). In
columns with small eccentricities, the precision of β1 will
have a more significant influence on the moment arm and,
consequently, on the nominal moment strength. The overall
effect of reducing the stress intensity factor α1 while
maintaining the parameter β1 similar to that in ACI 318-05
(4-7)
is that a larger neutral axis depth is calculated for a given
amount of reinforcement and axial load, reducing the lever
arm and the nominal moment strength of the section.
Bae and Bayrak (2003) suggested the following expression
for the parameter β1 by finding the location of the compression
resultant for the theoretical stress-strain curve
β1 = 0.85 – 2.75 × 10–5(fc′ – 4000), 0.67 ≤ β1 ≤ 0.85 (fc′ in psi) (4-10)
β1 = 0.85 – 0.004(fc′ – 30), 0.67 ≤ β1 ≤ 0.85 (fc′ in MPa)
Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) recommended a
gradual change in β1 starting at 4000 psi (28 MPa) to reflect
the variation in internal lever arm with the changing shape of
the stress-strain relationship of concrete. Their recommended
relationship for β1 is
β1 = 0.85 – 1.3 × 10–5(fc′ – 4000), 0.67 ≤ β1 ≤ 0.85 (fc′ in psi) (4-11)
β1 = 0.85 – 0.020(fc′ – 30), 0.67 ≤ β1 ≤ 0.85 (fc′ in MPa)
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
Fig. 4.5—Comparison of proposed expressions for stress
block depth factor β1.
A comparison of the ACI 318-05 stress block depth
parameter β1 and the aforementioned recommended changes
to the depth parameter are shown in Fig. 4.5.
4.4—Stress block area α1β1
The product α1β1 is an indication of the area of the stress
block. Fasching and French (1998), using the data from
Ibrahim and MacGregor (1994), Kaar et al. (1977), and
Swartz et al. (1985), showed that the product α1β1 decreased
with increasing compressive strength. The decrease was
approximately linear from a value of 0.75 for 6000 psi
(41 MPa) to 0.5 for 18,000 psi (124 MPa). The provisions in
ACI 318-05 include a steeper descent in the product α1β1
from 4000 to 8000 psi (28 to 55 MPa) than results from stress
block parameters proposed by several authors for high-strength
concrete (Bae and Bayrak 2003; Ibrahim and MacGregor
1997; Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004). Fasching and
French (1998) indicated that the steeper descent in the
product α1β1 resulted in underestimating the area of the
compression block for specimens with concrete compressive
strengths up to 14,000 psi (97 MPa), and overestimating the
area of the compression block for specimens with concrete
compressive strengths of 18,000 psi (124 MPa). For concrete
compressive strengths on the order of 18,000 psi (124 MPa),
the inferred values of the coefficients α1 and β1 were similar
to those corresponding to a linear stress distribution.
4.5—Limiting strain εcu
The limiting strain at the extreme compression fiber at the
onset of concrete crushing, εcu, is a significant parameter for
calculating the nominal moment strength of columns
because it defines the strains throughout the cross section,
particularly the strains in the longitudinal reinforcement.
Calculated strains have a direct effect on the calculated
stresses in the longitudinal reinforcement and also on the
magnitude of the strength reduction factor φ. ACI 318-05
indicates that the magnitude of the strain at the extreme
compression fiber εcu is independent of compressive
ITG-4.3R-11
Fig. 4.6—Cover spalling strains for high-strength concrete
columns (Bae and Bayrak 2003).
strength, and should be taken as 0.003. The majority of
design provisions and proposals presented (Ibrahim and
MacGregor 1994; Standards Association of New Zealand
1995; Azizinamini et al. 1994; Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu
2004) adopt the same limiting strain of 0.003 as ACI 318-05,
whereas CSA A23.3-94 adopts a limiting strain of 0.0035.
Fasching and French (1998) indicated that past research on
the magnitude of εcu for high-strength concrete resulted in
mixed conclusions, with some researchers indicating that the
limiting strain increases with compressive strength, and others
indicating that it decreases. A review of test data by Fasching
and French showed that the limiting strain was more sensi-
tive to the type of aggregate than the concrete compressive
strength, with limiting strains ranging between 0.002 and
0.005 for compressive strengths greater than 8000 psi (55 MPa).
Average values for each type of aggregate were all above 0.003,
and the average for all types of aggregate was 0.0033.
Bae and Bayrak (2003) suggested adopting a lower value
of εcu due to observed spalling at lower strains in highly
confined high-strength concrete columns (Fig. 4.6). They
proposed using a limiting strain of 0.0025 for concrete
compressive strengths greater than 8000 psi (55 MPa), and
0.003 for lower compressive strengths.
ITG-4.3R-12 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Fig. 4.7—Variation of ultimate strain with concrete strength
according to various design codes and authors.
Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) reported that, while
the crushing strain under uniform compression, εo, increases
with increasing concrete strength, the crushing strain under
strain gradient, εcu , decreases with increasing concrete
strength because of the brittleness of high-strength concretes.
Based on moment-curvature analyses of columns under
different levels of axial compression, the researchers
concluded that εcu varied between 0.0036 and 0.0027 for
4000 to 18,000 psi (28 and 124 MPa) concretes, respectively.
This is shown in Fig. 4.7. The same researchers, however,
also concluded that the variation in εcu did not appreciably
affect sectional strength calculations, and hence recommended
the use of a constant average value of εcu = 0.003 for
members under strain gradient.
4.6—Axial strength of high-strength
concrete columns
The design expression used in ACI 318-05 to calculate the
strength of concentrically loaded columns, similar in form to
Eq. (4-12), is based on an extensive column investigation
that was conducted jointly by the University of Illinois
(Richart and Brown 1934), Lehigh University (Slater and
Lyse 1931a,b), and ACI. One of the main conclusions of this
research was that it was possible to express the strength of
columns subjected to concentric loading in a simple form,
consisting of contributions from: 1) concrete at peak stress;
and 2) longitudinal steel at yield
Po = 0.85fc′ (Ag – Ast) + Ast fy (4-12)
The concrete contribution is based on the in-place strength
and the net area of concrete, including the cover. The in-
place strength of concrete is assumed to be 85% of the
cylinder strength. The reduction in strength is attributed to
the differences in size, shape, and concrete casting practice
between a standard cylinder and an actual column. This ratio
of in-place strength to cylinder strength, defined as the coef-
ficient k3 in Section 4.1, is one of the parameters necessary
to define the rectangular stress block. Experimental data are
available for in-place strength of high-strength concrete, as
Fig. 4.8—Instability of cover concrete under concentric
compression (Saatcioglu and Razvi 1998). The bottom
photograph shows section of the cover that spalled off
during the tests.
indicated in Section 4.1. Researchers found that the coefficient
k3 for high-strength concrete varied between 0.87 and 0.97
based on concentrically tested columns (Yong et al. 1988;
Sun and Sakino 1993; Cusson and Paultre 1994; Saatcioglu and
Razvi 1998). A similar variation was obtained from column
tests under eccentric loading (Kaar et al. 1977; Swartz et al.
1985; Schade 1992; Ibrahim and MacGregor 1994,1996b).
Having reviewed the previous experimental data,
Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) concluded that k3 = 0.9
provides a reasonable estimate for the ratio of concrete
strength in a structural member to that determined by standard
cylinder tests.
In spite of the favorable in-place strength of high-strength
concrete, experimentally recorded column strengths have been
shown to be below the computed values based on Eq. (4-12)
unless the columns are confined by properly designed
transverse reinforcement. The strain data recorded by
Saatcioglu and Razvi (1998) during their tests of high-
strength concrete columns indicated that premature spalling
of cover concrete occurred in most columns before the
development of strains associated with concrete crushing.
This observation, combined with visual observations of
cover spalling during tests, as shown in Fig. 4.8, suggests
that the cover concrete in high-strength concrete columns
suffers stability failure rather than crushing.
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-13

Saatcioglu and Razvi (1998) hypothesized that the presence

of closely spaced longitudinal and transverse steel, forming
a mesh of reinforcement, produced a natural plane of separation
between the cover and the core. The separation along this
plane was triggered by high compressive stresses associated
with high-strength concrete as well as the differences in
mechanical properties of core and cover concretes (Richart
et al. 1929; Roy and Sozen 1963). Columns tested by Rangan
et al. (1991) and some of the columns tested by Yong et al.
(1988) contained widely spaced transverse reinforcement of
low volumetric ratio, without a sufficient mesh of reinforcement
to separate the cover from the core. These columns were able
to develop unconfined column strengths Po calculated using
Eq. (4-12). Columns tested by Itakura and Yagenji (1992)
without any cover consistently showed higher strengths than
those computed on the basis of gross cross-sectional area and Fig. 4.9—Variation of k3k4 with concrete compressive
unconfined concrete because they did not suffer strength loss strength (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004).
due to cover spalling. Columns that were sufficiently
confined to offset the effects of cover spalling consistently
developed higher strengths than Po. The group that
contained an insufficient volumetric ratio of closely spaced
transverse reinforcement, however, could not sustain
strengths computed on the basis of total cross-sectional area
and unconfined concrete strength.
According to Saatcioglu and Razvi (1998), given the
unfavorable circumstances described previously, the premature
spalling of cover concrete could lead to reduced strength of
concentrically loaded high-strength concrete columns relative
to those predicted by Eq. (4-12). The effect of premature
cover spalling was introduced into Eq. (4-12) by
Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) through a coefficient k4
by defining the in-place strength of concrete as k3k4 fc′
instead of k3 fc′ , where k3 = 0.85. Figure 4.9 shows the
variation of the product k3k4 with concrete strength obtained
from a large volume of test data. The test data also included Fig. 4.10—Variation of k3k4 with core-to-gross area ratio
moderately confined columns for which high values of the (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004).
product were obtained. The strength loss associated with
cover spalling is a function of the area of unconfined cover
concrete. For this reason, this effect can be quantified in taken less than 0.6, irrespective of its actual value, in
terms of the ratio of core area to gross area (Ac /Ag) of the assessing the premature cover spalling effect.
column. As this ratio decreases (cover thickness increases), The test data in Fig. 4.9 and 4.10 were further examined
the strength loss increases. Figure 4.10 illustrates the variation after removing confined column data and grouping them on
of the product k3k4 with respect to the Ac /Ag ratio. The product the basis of concrete strength (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu
k3k4 in Figure 4.10 indicates the degree of premature loss of 2004). A regression analysis was conducted to find an
strength in high-strength concrete columns as a function of expression for the coefficient k4. The researchers suggested
concrete compressive strength and the Ac /Ag ratio. This prema- the following expressions for computing concentric axial
ture spalling effect can be quite significant in small-scale test strength of high-strength concrete columns
columns with thin covers (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004).
Po = k3k4 fc′ (Ag – Ast) + Ast fy (4-13)
Because the stability of the cover improves as the cover
thickness increases, columns with thick covers are less likely
to be susceptible to premature spalling than those with thin k3 = 0.90 (4-14)
covers. Given the difficulties associated with testing large-
scale columns with very high concrete compressive A
k4 = γc + (1 – γc) -----c ≤ 0.95 (4-15)
strengths under concentric compression, there is a paucity of Ag
experimental results for large-scale high-strength concrete
columns with thick concrete covers. For this reason, it was
A
suggested by Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) that, until -----c ≥ 0.6 (4-16)
more data become available, the ratio Ac /Ag should not be Ag
ITG-4.3R-14 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

f c′
γc = 1.1 – ---------------
- ≤ 0.8 (fc′ in psi) (4-17)
20,000

f c′
- ≤ 0.8 (fc′ in MPa)
γc = 1.1 – --------
138

The product k3k4 can be as low as 0.61 for 18,000 psi

(124 MPa) concrete and Ac /Ag = 0.6, which is 28% below
the 0.85 value suggested by ACI 318-05 for normal-strength
concrete columns, as reproduced in Eq. (4-12). Instead of
detailed computation of the coefficient k4, as outlined
previously, a conservative, but simple, approach was
recommended for convenience in design by Ozbakkaloglu
and Saatcioglu (2004). They suggested that the product k3k4
be taken as 0.85 for fc′ of up to 6000 psi (41 MPa), and be
reduced by 0.017 for every 1000 psi (6.9 MPa) increase over
6000 psi (41 MPa), up to 18,000 psi (124 MPa). The
researchers identified the premature cover spalling as a
phenomenon that is prevalent in concentrically loaded high-
strength concrete columns. For columns subjected to bending
and axial load, Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) indicated
that the critical compression side of the cover would deform
toward the core concrete, which would restrain the cover
against buckling.
Park et al. (1998) indicated that the axial strength of
columns subjected to compression is
Po = χ1 fc′ (Ag – Ast) + fy Ast (4-18)
They pointed out that the k3 values that have been
measured under concentric compression are greater than the
value of χ1 in the NZS 3101:1995 provisions (Standards
Association of New Zealand 1995) and, as a result, the
nominal axial strength calculated using that standard is
conservative. Azizinamini et al. (1994) proposed calculating
the axial strength of columns in the same manner as NZS
3101:1995 by using Eq. (4-18). The premature spalling of
cover concrete was recognized by CSA A23.3-94 (Cana-
dian Standards Association 1994), and Eq. (4-18) was
adopted with the stress intensity factor χ1 decreasing as a
function of concrete strength, reducing to 0.67 for 18,000 psi
(124 MPa) concrete.
4.7—Comparison of different proposals
for rectangular stress block
Fasching and French (1998) carried out a comparison
between the measured flexural strengths of beam members
and those calculated according to different stress block
proposals for high-strength concrete. They found a slightly
higher level of conservatism for the stress block proposals
for high-strength concrete that they evaluated compared with
the stress block defined in ACI 318-05. The New Zealand
and Canadian proposals resulted in nearly identical average
ratios of experimental-to-calculated strengths of 1.25, while
the stress block of ACI 318-05 resulted in an average ratio of
1.21. Because the depth of the compression zone in beams is
small compared with the depth of the member, it was
Fig. 4.11—Comparison of stress block parameters α1 and
β1 inferred from experimental results and various expressions
proposed for high-strength concrete (Bae and Bayrak 2003).
anticipated that the proposed modifications to the stress
block would have a small effect on the nominal moment
strength of beams. Fasching and French (1998) recommended
that the stress block should be modified to avoid uncon-
servative estimates of column strength.
Bae and Bayrak (2003) compared the measured strengths
of 224 columns with the strengths calculated using the ACI
318-05 rectangular stress block and other stress blocks
outlined in this review (Fig. 4.11 and 4.12). Figure 4.11
shows the variation of the factors α1 and β1, and the product
α1β1 proposed by several investigators with respect to
concrete compressive strength.
To estimate the accuracy of moment and axial strengths,
Bae and Bayrak (2003) developed two different error indicators.
They defined the error based on the experimental axial force
EEp as the ratio of the difference between the nominal and
experimental moment strengths to experimental moment
strength (Fig. 4.12). EEp is calculated as
M ncol – M ex p
- × 100
EE p = -------------------------------- (4-19)
M ex p
A negative EEp value implies that the calculated strength
was below the measured value, and consequently, the estimate
was conservative.
The second error indicator was based on the experimental
eccentricity (Bae and Bayrak 2003). Based on both error
indicators, Bae and Bayrak concluded that estimates using
the equivalent rectangular stress block of ACI 318-05
became increasingly unconservative with increasing
compressive strength, particularly with concrete strengths
exceeding 10,000 psi (69 MPa).
The stress blocks proposed by Ibrahim and MacGregor
(1997), Park et al. (1998), Standards Association of New
Zealand (1995), and Bae and Bayrak (2003) all produced
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
Fig. 4.12—Error parameter EEp in estimates of column strength (Bae and Bayrak 2003).
similar levels of conservatism for all levels of concrete strength.
The model proposed by Azizinamini et al. (1994) increasingly
underestimated the column strengths for concrete compressive
strengths beyond 13,000 psi (90 MPa). Bae and Bayrak noted
that the data they used lacked a significant number of test
results with high axial loads (small eccentricities). When
axial loads are high, the different models provide significantly
different predictions. They also noted that in seismic
applications, the concern is not with high axial loads, but
with relatively low axial loads (high eccentricities).
Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) compared column
interaction diagrams based on the rectangular stress blocks
of ACI 318-05, CSA A23.3-94, and those proposed by
Ibrahim and MacGregor (1997) and Ozbakkaloglu and
Saatcioglu (2004).
The comparisons, shown in Fig. 4.13, indicate that the
interaction diagrams generated by the equivalent rectangular
stress block of ACI 318-05 and that proposed by
ITG-4.3R-15
Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu are identical for columns with
a concrete compressive strength of 4000 psi (28 MPa), whereas
the equivalent rectangular stress blocks recommended by
CSA A23.3 and Ibrahim and MacGregor produce slightly
lower estimates of strength than ACI 318-05. As concrete
strength increased, Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu concluded
that the ACI 318-05 stress block lead to overestimating
column strengths obtained from test results. Ozbakkaloglu
and Saatcioglu indicated that the magnitude of the overestima-
tion was very significant for a column with a concrete
compressive strength of 17,400 psi (120 MPa). For this same
column, the rectangular stress blocks proposed by Ibrahim
and MacGregor and Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu produced
similar interaction diagrams, and the CSA A23.3 stress block
resulted in a more conservative estimate of strength. The fact
that the results obtained using the rectangular stress block in
CSA A23.3 were consistently more conservative was attributed
to the use of a lower stress intensity factor α1.
ITG-4.3R-16 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Fig. 4.13—Comparison of interaction diagrams for columns

with different concrete strengths (Ozbakkaloglu and
Saatcioglu 2004) (Ac /Ag = 0.7; ρ = 1.33%; b = h =
11.81 in. [300 mm]).

Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) also provided

comparisons of interaction diagrams drawn on the basis of
their proposed stress block and that of ACI 318-02 (ACI
Committee 318 2002) (which is the same used in ACI 318-05)
for columns tested by Lloyd and Rangan (1996), Ibrahim and
MacGregor (1994, 1997), and Foster and Attard (1997),
under different levels of end eccentricity (Fig. 4.14).
They concluded that the stress block of ACI 318-05 over-
estimated column axial and moment strengths, resulting in
unsafe strength values for columns with concrete strengths in
excess of 10,000 psi (69 MPa), whereas their proposed stress
block (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004) provided very
good agreement with experimental strength values.
A parametric study was carried out as part of this report to Fig. 4.14—Comparison of computed interaction diagrams
provide further insight into the differences among various with test data (Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2004).
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-17

Table 4.1—Summary of parameters α1 and β1 defining different rectangular stress blocks investigated in
parametric study
Concrete compressive strength, psi (MPa) 4000 (28) 6000 (41) 8000 (55) 10,000 (69) 12,000 (83) 15,000 (103)
Equivalent rectangular stress block parameter α1 β1 α1 β1 α1 β1 α1 β1 α1 β1 α1 β1
ACI 318-05 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.75 0.85 0.65 0.85 0.65 0.85 0.65 0.85 0.65
Ibrahim and MacGregor (1997) 0.82 0.88 0.80 0.85 0.78 0.81 0.76 0.78 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.70
Park et al. (1998) 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.75 0.85 0.65 0.80 0.65 0.75 0.65 0.75 0.65
Aziznamini et al. (1994) 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.75 0.85 0.65 0.85 0.65 0.75 0.65 0.60 0.65

proposals. Column interaction diagrams were calculated,

with and without strength reduction factors φ, to compare the
ACI 318-05 stress block with the proposals by Ibrahim and
MacGregor (1997), Park et al. (1998), and Azizinamini et al.
(1994). The column cross section that was analyzed is shown
in Fig. 4.15, with the bending moment about the Y-Y axis.
The column was analyzed for steel ratios of 1 and 2.5% and
for concrete compressive strengths of 4000, 6000, 8000,
10,000, 12,000, and 15,000 psi (28, 41, 55, 69, 83, and 103
MPa). The stress block parameters for the compared models
are given in Table 4.1, and the results of the parametric study
are given in Fig. 4.16.
From Fig. 4.16 and Table 4.1, it can be seen that for concrete
compressive strengths of 4000, 6000, and 8000 psi (28, 41,
and 55 MPa), the only model that resulted in estimates of
strength that were noticeably different from those obtained
with the ACI 318-05 stress block was that proposed by
Ibrahim and MacGregor (1997).
The Ibrahim and MacGregor (1997) model resulted in
progressively smaller estimates of nominal strength as
concrete compressive strength increased, which indicates
that their model was the most conservative in this range. For
a concrete compressive strength of 10,000 psi (69 MPa), the
ACI 318-05 stress block and that proposed by Azizinamini
et al. (1994) produced similar results, whereas the proposals
by Ibrahim and MacGregor (1997) and Park et al. (1998)
produced more conservative estimates of strength. For a
concrete compressive strength of 12,000 psi (83 MPa), the
models by Park et al. and Azizinamini et al. have identical
stress block parameters. Consequently, strength estimates
obtained with these two models were identical, and approx-
imately the same as the nominal strength calculated using the
model by Ibrahim and MacGregor. Finally, for a concrete
compressive strength of 15,000 psi (103 MPa), the models
by Ibrahim and MacGregor and Park et al. yielded similar
results, and were slightly more conservative than the
equivalent rectangular stress block of ACI 318-05. The
model by Azizinamini et al. (1994) resulted in significantly
lower estimates of strength than the other models.
4.8—Recommendations
It is apparent from a review of the available literature that
when the equivalent rectangular stress block of ACI 318-05
is used for members with axial loads above that corre-
sponding to balanced failure and high-strength concrete, the
ratio of nominal-to-experimental column strength decreases
as the axial load increases. Experimental results (Fig. 4.12(a))
indicate that the nominal moment and axial strengths of
Fig. 4.15—Column cross section used in parametric study.
columns calculated with the ACI 318-05 stress block may be
unconservative for compressive strengths greater than
approximately 12,000 psi (83 MPa).
Two consequences of overestimating the flexural
strengths of columns are that the shear demand on the
column calculated on the basis of the probable flexural strength
is overestimated and that the ratio of column-to-beam
moment strengths is overestimated. Overestimating the
shear demand is conservative because it leads to a higher
amount of transverse reinforcement. Conversely, overesti-
mating the ratio of column-to-beam moment strengths has a
negative effect because it increases the probability of hinging in
the columns. ACI 318-05 requires a minimum ratio of
column-to-beam moment strengths of 1.2. Overestimating
column flexural strength decreases that ratio, and may even
result in a strong beam-weak column mechanism.
Because experimental results showed that the equivalent
rectangular stress block of ACI 318-05 is appropriate for
normal-strength concrete, a recommendation was developed
focusing on columns with compressive strengths greater
than 8000 psi (55 MPa). This was done by suggesting a stress
block with a variable stress intensity factor α1 for concrete
compressive strengths greater than 8000 psi (55 MPa).
Accordingly, in inch-pound units, it is recommended that:
“factor α1 shall be taken as 0.85 for concrete strengths fc′ up
to and including 8000 psi. For strengths above 8000 psi, α1
shall be reduced continuously at a rate of 0.015 for each 1000
psi of strength in excess of 8000 psi, but α1 shall not be taken
less than 0.70.” In SI units, the recommendation is that:
ITG-4.3R-18 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Fig. 4.16—Column strength interaction diagrams comparing different stress blocks.
Fig. 4.17—Comparisons of column interaction diagrams
and test data (fc′ = 10,440 psi [72 MPa], 7.8 x 11.8 in. (200
x 300 mm), ρ = 1.3%, Ac /Ag = 0.6).
“factor α1 shall be taken as 0.85 for concrete strengths fc′ up
to and including 55 MPa. For strengths above 55 MPa, α1
shall be reduced continuously at a rate of 0.0022 for each
6.9 MPa of strength in excess of 55 MPa, but α1 shall not be
taken less than 0.70.”
A number of revisions to ACI 318-05 are proposed in
Chapter 10 of this document.
The parameter β1, which defines the depth of the stress block,
was not changed. Figures 4.17 to 4.20 show the correlation of
the proposed stress block with those proposed by others, as
well as with the results of sample tests on columns using
concrete strengths of up to 18,000 psi (124 MPa).
The strength intensity factor α1 is also recommended to
calculate the strength of columns subjected to concentric
loading. The similarities in the values of α1 and the coefficient
that defines the in-place strength of concrete in columns
under concentric compression χ1 makes it possible to use the
same value in computing column concentric strength Po for
convenience in design. The recommendations translate into
Eq. (4-20) and (4-21) for spirally reinforced and tied
columns, respectively
φPn,max = 0.85φ[χ1 fc′ (Ag – Ast) + fy Ast] (4-20)
φPn,max = 0.80φ[χ1 fc′ (Ag – Ast) + fy Ast] (4-21)
Accordingly, in inch-pound units, it is recommended that:
“factor χ1 shall be taken as 0.85 for concrete strengths fc′ up
to and including 8000 psi. For strengths above 8000 psi, χ1
shall be reduced continuously at a rate of 0.015 for each 1000 psi
of strength in excess of 8000 psi, but χ1 shall not be taken
less than 0.70.” In SI units, the recommendation is that:
“factor χ1 shall be taken as 0.85 for concrete strengths fc′ up
to and including 55 MPa. For strengths above 55 MPa, χ1
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
Fig. 4.18—Comparison of column interaction diagrams and
test data (fc′ = 14,000 psi [97 MPa], 6.9 x 6.9 in. (175 x
175 mm), ρ = 1.3%, Ac /Ag = 0.84).
Fig. 4.19—Comparison of column interaction diagrams and
test data (fc′ = 18,270 psi [126 MPa], 7.9 x 11.8 in. (200 x
300 mm), ρ = 1.3%, Ac /Ag = 0.60).
Fig. 4.20—Observed stress intensity factors for concentrically
loaded columns.
shall be reduced continuously at a rate of 0.0022 for each
MPa of strength in excess of 55 MPa, but χ1 shall not be
taken less than 0.70.”
Figure 4.20 provides a comparison of the aforementioned
recommendations with experimental data and the nominal
strengths calculated using the provisions in ACI 318-05. The
proposed parameters α1, β1, and χ1 were selected based on
what was deemed an acceptable level of conservatism in the
judgment of the committee. Another factor considered by the
committee in selecting the aforementioned parameters was
that there is no experimental evidence to suggest that the
ITG-4.3R-19
parameters in ACI 318-05 result in unconservative estimates
of strength for columns with normal-strength concrete. For
this reason, the stress block parameters proposed by the
committee were selected so that there would be no change in
the stress block parameters of ACI 318-05 for columns with
normal-strength concrete.
CHAPTER 5—CONFINEMENT REQUIREMENTS
FOR BEAMS AND COLUMNS
The increased strength and enhanced performance of high-
strength concrete are advantageous features for structural
applications. The increasing brittleness of concrete with
higher compressive strength is a major concern for seismic
applications, however, where toughness under repeated load
reversals is of paramount importance. For this reason, proper
confinement of concrete is essential for the safe use of high-
strength concrete in moderate to high seismic applications.
This chapter addresses concrete confinement for beam and
column elements. In Chapter 21 of ACI 318-05, which
includes seismic design provisions, columns are defined as
members with an axial load ratio (Pu/ fc′ Ag) greater than 0.1.
The same definition is adopted throughout this document to
differentiate between beams and columns. Constitutive
models for confined concrete, salient features of previous
research, and design recommendations are provided in the
following sections.
5.1—Constitutive models for confined concrete
Several researchers have indicated that constitutive models
developed for normal-strength concrete do not offer a good
representation of the behavior of high-strength concrete,
especially in the case of columns, where the characteristics of
the constitutive model have the highest impact on the calculated
response. Therefore, previously developed constitutive
models have been modified to reflect the differences in
behavior, and a number of additional analytical models have
been developed specifically for high-strength concrete.
Ahmad and Shah (1982), Martinez et al. (1984), and
Fafitis and Shah (1985) were among the first to develop
models for high-strength confined concrete based on tests of
spirally reinforced small cylinders. These models incorporate
the effect of confinement through a lateral confining pressure
that develops under hoop tension. The models were shown to
produce good correlations with tests of spirally confined
circular cylinders for concrete strengths of up to 12,000 psi
(83 MPa).
Yong et al. (1988) developed a model based on small-scale
square column tests with concrete strengths ranging between
12,000 and 13,600 psi (83 and 94 MPa). Their approach was
similar to that originally proposed by Sargin et al. (1971) for
normal-strength concrete. Azizinamini et al. (1994) subse-
quently modified the model on the basis of large-scale
column tests under reversed cyclic loading.
Bjerkeli et al. (1990) proposed a generalized model for
normalweight and lightweight aggregate confined concretes
with compressive strengths of up to 13,000 and 10,000 psi (90
and 69 MPa), respectively. Their model is applicable to elements
with circular, square, and rectangular section geometry.
ITG-4.3R-20 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
A number of confinement models were developed in Japan
based on experimental results from the New RC project
(Mugurama and Watanabe 1990; Mugurama et al. 1991,
1993; Nagashima et al. 1992).
Cusson and Paultre (1994) proposed a model based on
tests of large-scale high-strength concrete columns. Their
model uses the effectively confined core area concept that
was originally proposed by Sheikh and Uzumeri (1982) and
modified by Mander et al. (1988). These researchers later
improved their model by introducing an iterative procedure
to compute the strain in transverse confinement reinforcement
(Cusson and Paultre 1995).
Li (1994) developed a constitutive model for confined
concrete that covered a wide range of concrete compressive
strengths between 4000 and 19,000 psi (28 and 131 MPa).
The model was quite comprehensive and elaborate, incorpo-
rating several parameters to reflect the effects of confinement.
Razvi and Saatcioglu (1999) developed a generalized
confinement model on the basis of the equivalent uniform
lateral pressure concept that they proposed earlier for
confinement of normal-strength concrete (Saatcioglu and
Razvi 1992). The model covers a wide range of concrete
compressive strengths between 3000 and 19,000 psi (21 and
131 MPa), and incorporates the effects of different reinforce-
ment geometry and arrangement while also incorporating the
effect of high-strength transverse reinforcement.
5.2—Previous research and general observations
One of the most challenging aspects about interpreting
results from beam and column studies found in the literature
is that there are differences among the loading protocols,
loading configurations, scale, and failure criteria used by
different researchers. These differences are such that P-Δ
effects, reported shear strengths, and drifts at failure are not
directly comparable in some instances (Brachmann et al.
2004a,b). In spite of these differences, there are some well-
established common trends that have been observed about the
behavior of beams and columns with high-strength concrete.
The ductile behavior of high-strength concrete beams is
well documented in several experimental studies found in
the literature. Based on a series of beam tests conducted at
Cornell University, Nilson (1985) observed that although the
ultimate compressive strain was smaller for high-strength
concrete, section and member displacement ductilities were
larger than in normal-strength concrete elements. Nilson also
observed that spiral reinforcement was less effective in high-
strength concrete columns subjected to axial compression,
resulting in a smaller displacement ductility.
A study on the flexural ductility of high-strength concrete
beams (Shin et al. 1990) indicated that ductility ratios
increased with concrete strength for specimens with similar
amounts of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. This
was observed for both monotonic and cyclic loading.
Several researchers (Xiao and Yun 1998; Azizinamini et
al. 1994; Matamoros and Sozen 2003) have shown, based on
tests of columns subjected to cyclic loading under constant
axial load, that drift ratios exceeding 3% can be reached with
detailing conforming to the existing provisions in Chapter 21
of ACI 318-05 if the axial load demand on the columns is
below 0.2fc′ Ag (approximately 1/2 of the balanced axial
load). Even at these low levels of axial load, Matamoros and
Sozen (2003) observed that the degradation of the confined
core, as indicated by the strain demand in the lateral reinforce-
ment, increased more rapidly with drift for higher values of
axial load. Xiao and Martirossyan (1998) and Matamoros
and Sozen (2003) observed a similar trend with increasing
compressive strength.
A study on the properties of high-strength concrete
members (Bjerkeli et al. 1990) concluded that properly
confined columns can have ductile behavior and sustain
large axial strains. The variables of the study were the
compressive strength of the concrete, with values of 9400,
13,800, and 16,700 psi (65, 95, and 115 MPa), and the shape
of the specimen, with circular and rectangular sectional
shapes included. Concrete compressive strengths reported in
this study were measured using 4 in. (102 mm) cubes. Small-
scale specimens (6 x 6 in. [152 x 152 mm] rectangular
columns and 6 in. [152 mm] diameter circular columns) were
subjected to eccentrically applied monotonic loading. Both
the effectiveness of confinement and the ultimate strain
under concentric loading decreased with increases in
concrete strength. According to the authors, specimens with
a volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio (defined as the
ratio of the volume of transverse reinforcement to the core
volume confined by the transverse reinforcement) ρvr of
1.1% resulted in inadequate ductility, while the behavior of
specimens with ρvr of 3.1% was satisfactory. Circular
columns with transverse reinforcement in the form of spirals
showed larger values of maximum stress and strain at peak
stress than rectangular columns with similar volumetric
ratios of hoop reinforcement. The difference between the
two increased with the amount of transverse reinforcement.
In the set of specimens with ρvr of 1.1%, the ratio of strain at
peak stress for the confined case to strain at peak stress for
the unconfined case was approximately 1.1 for the rectangular
column with hoops and 1.25 for the circular column with
spiral reinforcement. The ratio of peak stress for the confined
case to peak stress for the unconfined case was approxi-
mately 0.85 for the rectangular column with hoops and 0.9
for the circular column with spiral reinforcement. In the set
of specimens with ρvr of 3.1%, the ratio of strain at peak
stress for the confined case to strain at peak stress for the
unconfined case was approximately 1.9 for the rectangular
column with hoops and 3.5 for the circular column with
spiral reinforcement. The ratio of peak stress for the confined
case to peak stress for the unconfined case was approximately
1.05 for the rectangular column with hoops and 1.55 for the
circular column with spiral reinforcement.
Razvi and Saatcioglu (1994) conducted an investigation
on the strength and deformability of high-strength concrete
columns based on the results of 250 tests by various
researchers. They concluded that the volume of reinforcement
required for proper confinement of high-strength columns
may be reduced with the use of high-strength steel as transverse
reinforcement, particularly for high axial loads. They indicated
that the use of high-strength steel did not improve
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
behavior when low axial loads were present. They also
observed that column deformability decreased with
increasing axial compression. A specimen tested under
axial tension showed improved deformability compared
with specimens loaded in compression.
Saatcioglu et al. (1998) reviewed the effect of confinement
on concentrically loaded columns tested by several different
investigators. They concluded that the strength of confined
concrete increased with the amount of confinement indepen-
dently of unconfined compressive strength. They also
observed that for a similar percent increase in strength,
higher confinement pressure is required for high-strength
concrete than for normal-strength concrete. They indicated
that values for the confinement index (defined as the product
of the volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio and the
yield strength of the transverse reinforcement divided by the
compressive strength of the concrete) recommended in the
literature to ensure ductile behavior under concentric loading
ranged between 0.15 and 0.30. The distribution and spacing
of the transverse reinforcement is another important parameter
that affects behavior. Although high-strength reinforcement
may be used to decrease the volumetric transverse reinforcement
ratio, the effectiveness of the confining reinforcement
decreases as spacing increases. Saatcioglu et al. (1998)
indicated that the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement
may not be reached for columns in which the volumetric
reinforcement ratio, the axial load, or both, is low.
Kato et al. (1998) reviewed tests carried out in Japan on
91 square columns and 59 circular columns under concentric
loading. The compressive strength of the concrete in the
specimens ranged between 4000 and 19,000 psi (28 and
131 MPa), while the yield strength of the transverse reinforce-
ment ranged between 25,000 and 198,000 psi (172 and
1365 MPa). Their conclusions were similar to those by
Saatcioglu et al. (1998). They indicated that the maximum
stress increase in the columns was independent of the
compressive strength and proportional to the strength of the
transverse reinforcement. An upper limit of 100,000 psi
(690 MPa) on the strength of the transverse reinforcement
was suggested because calculations using the concrete models
derived from the tests suggested that the reinforcement might
not be effective beyond that point. In addition, they concluded
that increasing the spacing of the transverse reinforcement by
using high-strength reinforcement increased the probability of
failure due to buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement.
Saatcioglu and Razvi (1998) tested 26 large-scale high-
strength concrete columns with a square cross section under
concentric compression. The concrete compressive strength
used varied between 8700 and 17,400 psi (60 and 120 MPa).
The researchers investigated the effects of various confinement
parameters, including the use of high-grade transverse
reinforcement. It was concluded that the lateral pressure
required to confine high-strength concrete columns can be
achieved by using high-strength transverse reinforcement. It
was cautioned, however, that this may not be achieved unless
a sufficiently high volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement
is used. The researchers further reported premature spalling
of cover concrete under concentric loading that was observed
ITG-4.3R-21
before reaching the crushing strength of unconfined
concrete. This was attributed to the stability failure of the
cover shell under high compressive stresses when a mesh of
reinforcement, consisting of longitudinal bars and closely
spaced transverse reinforcement, separated the cover from
the core. Similar conclusions were obtained by Razvi and
Saatcioglu (1999), who tested 21 large-scale, circular, high-
strength concrete columns under concentric compression.
Lipien and Saatcioglu (1997) and Saatcioglu and Baingo
(1999) reported test results of large-scale square and circular
columns, respectively, under constant axial compression and
incrementally increasing lateral deformation reversals. The
level of axial compression varied between 22 and 43% of the
column strength under concentric loading Po , and the concrete
strength varied between approximately 9000 and 14,000 psi
(62 and 97 MPa). The researchers reported that a minimum
of 5% drift capacity can be attained in circular columns if the
volumetric ratio of spiral reinforcement is at least equal to
0.17fc′ /fyt and the limit on the yield strength of transverse
reinforcement is increased to 145,000 psi (1000 MPa). The same
requirements produced approximately 8% lateral drift when
the level of axial compression was reduced from 0.43Po to
0.22Po. It was further concluded that individual circular ties,
with 90-degree hooks well anchored into the core concrete,
performed as well as continuous spiral reinforcement having
the same material properties. Similar observations were made
for square columns with overlapping hoops and crossties.
Sheikh et al. (1994) tested four 12 in. (305 mm) square
columns with concrete strengths of approximately 8000 psi
(55 MPa) under constant axial compression and lateral
moment reversals. The level of axial compression ranged
between 0.59Po and 0.62Po. Sheikh et al. (1994) reported
displacement ductility ratios (at a 20% reduction in lateral
resistance) for the high-strength concrete columns ranging
between 2.0 and 5.4 for specimens with volumetric
confinement indexes ranging between 0.16 and 0.36. The
corresponding curvature ductility ratios ranged between 5
and 17. It was concluded that the required amount of
confinement reinforcement was proportional to concrete
strength. The improvement in column ductility appeared to be
proportional to the amount of confinement steel.
Azizinamini et al. (1993, 1994) tested nine 12 in. (305 mm)
square columns under 0.20Po, 0.30Po, and 0.40Po. The
specimens consisted of a central stub representing the joint
region of a frame, with two columns extending outward.
Lateral loads were applied at the center of the stub while the
columns were subjected to a constant axial load. The transverse
reinforcement had yield strengths of 60 and 120 ksi (414 and
827 MPa), with volumetric confinement indexes ranging
between 0.13 and 0.37. The concrete compressive strengths
ranged between 3800 and 15,000 psi (26 and 103 MPa).
Azizinamini et al. (1994) reported that the maximum drift
ratios, defined by the authors as the maximum drift ratio at
which test columns were capable of withstanding two
complete cycles of horizontal displacement, ranged between
3.0 and 5.1%. The test data indicated that an increase in
concrete strength did not necessarily result in reductions in
the column displacement ductility ratio. Reducing the
ITG-4.3R-22 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
spacing of the ties, however, resulted in larger ductility
ratios. When comparing the behavior of specimens with
similar amounts of transverse reinforcement and different
yield strengths, Azizinamini et al. (1994) concluded that
increasing the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement
had no significant effect on the maximum drift ratio. They
also expressed concern that, because of buckling of the
longitudinal reinforcement, increasing the spacing between
hoops while increasing the yield strength of the transverse
reinforcement to achieve a similar confinement index would
not be fully effective. Test results from two specimens with
1-5/8 and 2-5/8 in. (41 and 67 mm) hoop spacing and transverse
reinforcement yield strengths of 71 and 109 ksi (490 and
752 MPa), respectively, showed that the specimen with the
closer hoop spacing and lower yield strength had a higher
maximum drift ratio (3.3%) than the specimen with the
higher yield strength and larger stirrup spacing (2.4%). They
attributed the difference in behavior to premature buckling
of the longitudinal reinforcement observed in the specimen
with the larger stirrup spacing.
Thomsen and Wallace (1994) tested twelve 6 in. (152 mm)
square column specimens with a concrete compressive
strength of approximately 12,000 psi (83 MPa). The specimens
consisted of cantilever columns with a foundation block that
was anchored to the reaction floor. The axial and lateral loads
were applied at the free end of the cantilever. Test variables
were the spacing and configuration of the transverse reinforce-
ment, the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement (115
and 185 ksi [793 and 1276 MPa]), and the axial load ratio (0,
0.1, and 0.2). Measurements indicated that the longitudinal
reinforcement started to yield at a drift ratio of 1%. Shear and
flexural strengths deteriorated at drift ratios exceeding 2%,
and severe damage occurred at drift ratios higher than 4%.
The longitudinal reinforcement buckled in specimens with
axial load ratios of 0.2 and at drift ratios greater than 4%. The
main conclusion of the study by Thomsen and Wallace was
that high-strength reinforcement may be used effectively to
confine high-strength concrete.
A significant amount of experimental data from columns
with axial load ratios fp = P/fc′ Ag exceeding 0.3 is available
from an extensive study on the behavior of concrete
members with high-strength materials sponsored by the
Ministry of Construction in Japan (Aoyama et al. 1990).
Because the maximum number of stories in high-rise buildings
is limited by concrete strength, Japanese engineers believe
that strengths higher than 6000 psi (41 MPa) would be essential
to the construction of buildings taller than 30 stories.
Tests conducted in Japan focused on columns subjected to
axial load ratios above 0.3 (Aoyama et al. 1990; Sakaguchi
et al. 1990; Muguruma and Watanabe 1990; Sugano et al.
1990; Kimura et al. 1995; Hibi et al. 1991). These tests
showed a strong correlation among axial load, amount of
confinement, and the drift capacity (drift limit) of columns.
A large amount of transverse reinforcement was required to
obtain ductile behavior in columns subjected to axial loads
greater than the balanced load. Japanese researchers
addressed this problem by incorporating high-strength steel
as transverse reinforcement.
Sakaguchi et al. (1990) reported test results from eight
high-strength concrete columns with compressive strengths
of 11,200 and 13,600 psi (77 and 94 MPa) and a shear span-
depth ratio of 1.1. The specimens consisted of columns with
rigid blocks at the top and bottom. The bottom block was
attached to the reaction floor, while the top block was used
to apply the lateral and vertical loads. The column specimens
were deformed in double curvature. All specimens had trans-
verse reinforcement with a yield strength of 200,000 psi
(1379 MPa). The variables of the study were the amount of
transverse reinforcement, with volumetric confinement
indexes ranging between 0 and 0.27, and the axial load ratio,
which was set to 0, 0.2, or 0.4. The majority of the columns were
tested with an axial load ratio of 0.4. Because the main thrust of
the study was to investigate the shear strength of the columns,
no limiting drift values were reported. Sakaguchi et al. (1990)
concluded that in specimens with very light amounts of trans-
verse reinforcement, a shear slip failure occurred soon after the
formation of an inclined crack. In specimens with intermediate
and high amounts of transverse reinforcement, shear strength
increased with the amount of reinforcement. They indicated that
a relatively high amount of transverse reinforcement was
needed to maintain ductile behavior after the formation of
inclined cracks in light of the low shear span-depth ratio.
Muguruma and Watanabe (1990) tested eight specimens,
varying the transverse reinforcement yield strength between
48,000 and 115,000 psi (331 and 793 MPa) while maintaining
a constant volumetric ratio ρvr of 1.6%. The specimens
consisted of a central stub with two columns extending
outward. The lateral load was applied at the center of the
stub, deforming the specimens in single curvature, while the
axial load was maintained constant. Four tests were
conducted on specimens with a concrete compressive
strength of 12,400 psi (85 MPa) at axial load ratios fp of 0.4
and 0.6. For these specimens, the limiting drift ratio, defined
as the drift ratio attained without a significant loss in
strength, ranged between 1.5 and 10%. There was a strong
correlation among the limiting drift ratio, axial load, and the
yield strength of the transverse reinforcement. The limiting
drift ratio decreased as the axial load ratio increased.
Increasing the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement
had the opposite effect. The limiting drift ratio increased by
a factor as high as 3 when the yield strength of the transverse
reinforcement was increased from 48,000 to 115,000 psi
(331 and 793 MPa). The two specimens with a volumetric
confinement index cp (defined as ρvr fyt /fc′ ) of 0.06 had
limiting drift ratios of 6.0% for fp = 0.4 and 1.5% for fp =
0.63. When the volumetric reinforcement index was
increased to 0.15 through the use of high-strength transverse
reinforcement, the limiting drift ratio increased to over 10%
for fp = 0.4 and 4.5% for fp = 0.63. The remaining four spec-
imens had a concrete compressive strength of 16,800 psi
(116 MPa) and were tested at axial load ratios of 0.25 and
0.41. Limiting drift ratios for these specimens varied
between 3.0 and 8.5%. A volumetric confinement index of
0.05 was sufficient to attain a limiting drift ratio of 3.0% for
an axial load ratio of 0.41. The authors concluded it was
possible to achieve a high ductility ratio in columns with
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
high-strength concrete through the use of high-strength
transverse reinforcement.
A research program, motivated by the need to use high-
strength materials in high-rise structures, was carried out in
Tokyo. It comprised a first series of eight column tests and
10 beam tests (Sugano et al. 1990), and a second series of five
column tests (Kimura et al. 1995). The specimens each
consisted of a column with rigid blocks at the top and bottom.
The specimens were deformed in double curvature while the
axial load was maintained constant. The first test series showed
excellent behavior for column specimens with an axial load
ratio of 0.3, which achieved limiting drift ratios of 4%. The
limiting drift ratio increased in proportion to the yield strength
of the transverse reinforcement normalized by the concrete
compressive strength. The authors suggested a minimum
confinement index of 0.10 to achieve limiting drift ratios of
2% at an axial load ratio of 0.6. The beams that were tested
had span-depth ratios of 1.5, concrete compressive strengths
ranging from 5800 to 12,000 psi (40 to 83 MPa), longitudinal
reinforcement ratios of 1.9 and 2.9%, transverse reinforce-
ment with yield strengths of 44.3, 114.6, and 197 ksi (305,
790, and 1358 MPa), and confinement indexes ranging from
0.08 to 0.36. Beams with high confinement indexes (above
0.15) had limiting drift ratios above 5%; the limiting drift ratio
was not very sensitive to the amount of transverse reinforce-
ment or concrete compressive strength. The second series in
the study concluded that the ductility of high-strength concrete
columns was strongly affected by both the level of axial
compression and the yield strength of the transverse reinforce-
ment. The authors stated that the yield strength of the trans-
verse reinforcement normalized by the compressive strength
of the concrete was an appropriate index to evaluate ductility.
A series of five tests at the University of Tokyo focused on
column behavior after flexural yielding (Hibi et al. 1991).
The specimens each consisted of a column with rigid blocks
at the top and bottom. The specimens were deformed in
double curvature while the axial load was maintained
constant. The columns had axial load ratios of 0.30 and 0.45,
and a shear span-depth ratio of 1.5. The amount and the
strength of the transverse reinforcement were varied, while
the quantity ρt fyt was maintained approximately constant.
The tests showed a strong correlation between toughness and
axial load. The behavior of specimens with an axial load
ratio of 0.3 was very ductile, achieving limiting drift ratios
exceeding 4%. Specimens with higher axial loads failed in
shear, with limiting drift ratios on the order of 3.5%. At drift
ratios below 2%, the University of Tokyo tests indicated that
the shear component of the lateral deflection within the
plastic hinge region was similar for all specimens, regardless
of axial load. It must be pointed out, however, that none of
the specimens reached yielding of the transverse reinforcement,
thus limiting the degradation of the confined core within the
plastic hinge region.
All of these test results showed that beams and columns
made with high-strength concrete can be used safely in
seismic design for a wide range of axial loads, provided that
an adequate amount of transverse reinforcement is provided
to confine the core concrete.
ITG-4.3R-23
5.3—Equations to determine amount of
confinement reinforcement required in columns
Section 21.4.4 of ACI 318-05 specifies the minimum
amount of transverse reinforcement for confining the core
concrete and providing lateral support to the longitudinal
reinforcement in columns subjected to cyclic loading.
Equation (21-2) in ACI 318-05 specifies the minimum
volumetric ratio of spiral or circular hoop reinforcement for
circular columns as
ρs = 0.12fc′/fyt ACI 318 Eq. (21-2)
For rectangular columns, the minimum amount of reinforce-
ment required by ACI 318-05 is given by Eq. (21-3) and (21-4)
f c′ ⎛ A g
- -------- – 1⎞
Ash = 0.3sbc ---- ACI 318 Eq. (21-3)
f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠
f c′
Ash = 0.09sbc ----
- ACI 318 Eq. (21-4)
f yt
ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-3), controls when the ratio of gross
area Ag to area of the confined core Ach is greater than 1.3.
As a result, ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-3), is likely to control for
small columns. These requirements were developed to
ensure that the strength of the confined core would be sufficient
to compensate for the loss in axial strength that occurs when
the concrete in the exterior shell of the column spalls off.
ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-2) and (21-4), imply that the confining
stress provided by rectangular hoops is less effective than
that provided by a similar volume of spiral reinforcement. A
comparison between the volumetric reinforcement ratio
required to confine a similar volume of concrete in a circular
column with spiral reinforcement, according to ACI 318-05,
Eq. (21-2), and a rectangular column with rectangular hoops,
according to Eq. (21-4), indicates that spiral reinforcement is
considered to be approximately 50% more effective than
hoop reinforcement. The commentary in ACI 318-05 indicates
that, although the strength and ductility of columns are
affected by the amount of axial load, the axial loads and
deformation demands during an earthquake are not known
with sufficient accuracy to justify the calculation of the
amount of transverse reinforcement as a function of these
parameters.
Experimental results (Matamoros and Sozen 2003) have
shown that the amount of transverse reinforcement required
by ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-2) to (21-4), will result in limiting
drift ratios exceeding 3% for concrete compressive strengths
up to 10,000 psi (69 MPa) and axial load ratios below
0.2fc′ Ag. The main concerns about ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-2) to
(21-4), are whether they provide sufficient transverse
reinforcement to properly confine high-strength columns
with axial loads greater than the balanced failure load, and
that they require excessive amounts of transverse reinforcement
for members with lower axial load, leading to congestion of
reinforcement and concrete placement problems. Another
concern, brought to attention by Bayrak and Sheikh (1998),
ITG-4.3R-24 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

is that in the case of high-strength concrete members, the ρlm ≤ 0.4 (5-5)
amount of transverse reinforcement required for proper
confinement will create a plane of weakness that may lead to fyt ≤ 116,000 psi (800 MPa) (5-6)
loss of the shell of the column before an axial strain of 0.003
is attained.
fc′ ≤ 10,000 psi (69 MPa) (5-7)
Confinement provisions in the New Zealand concrete
design standard NZS 3101:1995 recognize the effect of axial
load on column behavior. In potential plastic hinge regions, For rectangular-shaped transverse reinforcement, the
when hoop reinforcement is used, the design standard center-to-center spacing in potential plastic hinge regions
requires that the total area of transverse bars Ash in each of should not exceed the smaller of 1/4 of the smaller dimension
the transverse directions within spacing s should not be less of the cross section, or six longitudinal bar diameters. The
than that given by the following three equations spacing between adjacent hoop legs or crossties should not
exceed 8 in. (203 mm), or 1/4 of the dimension of the section
parallel to the direction of the spacing.
A sh 1.3 – ρ l m⎞ A g f c′ P
- = ⎛ ----------------------
------- -------- ----- --------------- (5-1) The previous equations were based on the results of
sh″ ⎝ 3.3 ⎠ A ch f yt φf c′ A g theoretical cyclic moment-curvature analyses (Park et al.
1998) for compressive strengths up to 5800 psi (40 MPa).
A sh = ∑ Ate (5-2) According to Park et al., analyses by Li (1994) showed that
the equations can be projected to columns with concrete
compressive strengths up to 14,500 psi (100 MPa) provided
The area of a tie leg Ate required to tie the longitudinal bars that the maximum value of yield strength of the transverse
reliant on it is defined as reinforcement used in the calculations is limited to 116,000 psi
(800 MPa).
A st f yl Li and Park (2004) carried out a parametric study to verify
A te = 10 -----------
-s (Ast in in.2, s in in.) (5-3)
f yt whether the provisions for confining reinforcement in ACI
318-05 and NZS 3101:1995 were applicable to high-strength
concrete columns. They investigated the effect of several
1 A st f yl s
A te = ------ -----------
- --------- (Ast in mm2, s in mm) parameters on the available strength and curvature ductility
16 f yt 100
of plastic hinge regions of columns. The parameters investi-
gated by Li and Park were concrete compressive strength,
where axial load level, yield strength of the transverse reinforcement,
ρl = Ast /Ag = longitudinal reinforcement ratio; volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement, percentage of
Ast = total area of nonprestressed longitudinal reinforce- longitudinal reinforcement, and ratio of the area of the
ment (bars or shapes); confined core to the total area of the cross section. They
m = fyl /0.85fc′ ; performed a series of cyclic moment-curvature analyses
Ag = gross area of concrete section; based on stress-strain relationships previously derived for
Ach = cross-sectional area of structural member measured high-strength concrete to develop a set of design equations
out-to-out of the transverse reinforcement; relating the amount of transverse reinforcement to the curva-
s = center-to-center spacing of hoop sets; ture ductility ratio.
h′′ = core dimension perpendicular to transverse Li and Park (2004) found that concrete compressive
reinforcement providing confinement measured strength and the ratio of the area of confined core to area of
to outside of hoops; the cross section had a considerable influence on the quantity
fyl = specified yield strength of longitudinal reinforce- of confining reinforcement needed to achieve a given
ment; ductility ratio. They also found that the required amount of
transverse reinforcement needed to achieve a given curvature
fyt = specified yield strength of transverse reinforce-
ductility ratio increased significantly as the axial load ratio
ment;
increased, and that the amount of transverse reinforcement
fc′ = specified compressive strength of concrete;
increased as the percentage of longitudinal reinforcement
P = unfactored axial load; increased. They adopted a curvature ductility ratio of 20 as
φ = strength reduction factor, defined in this case as indicative of adequate column toughness. They stated that a
0.85 if plastic hinging can occur, or 1.0 otherwise; curvature ductility ratio of 20 was likely to result in displacement
ΣAte = sum of areas of legs required to tie the longitudinal ductility ratios for the overall structure on the order of 4 to 6.
bars; and They also suggested a curvature ductility ratio of at least 10
ΣAb = sum of areas of longitudinal bars tied to the hoop for frames where limited ductility would be sufficient.
for lateral support. Li and Park (2004) found that the expressions in ACI 318-05
The following limits apply produced columns with adequate toughness for low levels of
axial load, but were unconservative for high levels of axial
Ag/Ach ≤ 1.2 (5-4) load. Within the data set used in their study, there were four
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-25

high-strength concrete columns with rectilinear normal- and

strength reinforcement ( fyt < 72,500 psi [ fyt < 500 MPa])
that contained 200, 138, 180, and 167% of the confining trans- η = 91 – 0.1fc′ (fc′ in MPa)
verse reinforcement required by ACI 318-05. These columns
achieved curvature ductility ratios of 17, 14, 21, and 14, For columns confined by circular high-yield-strength
respectively—all below or very close to the limit of 20 that reinforcement, they proposed
they suggested as a performance criterion.
It was concluded by Li and Park (2004) that the amount of
A sh A g ( φ u ⁄ φ y – 55ρ l m + 25 ) f c′ P u
confining reinforcement required by ACI 318-05 was ------- = -------
- ----------------------------------------------------- ----- --------------- (5-16)
inadequate to achieve curvature ductility ratios of 10 under sb c A ch 79 f yt φf c′ A g
high axial loads.
Li and Park proposed the following expression for the In Eq. (5-8) to (5-16), the following limitations apply
amount of confinement needed for columns with rectilinear
normal-yield-strength ( fyt < 72,500 psi [ fyt < 500 MPa]) ρ i 0.85f c′
reinforcement --------------------- ≤ 0.4 (5-17)
f yt

A sh A ( φ u ⁄ φ y – 33ρ l m + 22 ) f c′ P u
------- = -------g- ----------------------------------------------------
- ----- --------------- (5-8) Ag
sb c A ch η f yt φf c′ A g - ≤ 1.5
------- (5-18)
A ch
where
and the specified yield strength fyt is limited to
η = 117 when fc′ < 10,000 psi (70 MPa) (5-9)
fyt ≤ 130,500 psi (900 MPa) (5-19)
and
According to Li and Park (2004), the proposed equations
f c′ ⎞ 2f c′ estimated, with reasonable accuracy, the curvature ductility
η = ⎛ ------------ - + 539.4 when fc′≥ 10,000 (fc′ in psi) (5-10)
- – --------- ratio of 56 high-strength concrete columns reported in the
⎝ 648.6⎠ 15.2
literature.
Due to the emphasis placed on performance-based design,
η = 0.05(fc′ )2 – 9.54fc′ + 539.4 when fc′ ≥ 70(fc′ in MPa) more recent studies focus on quantifying the relationship
between limiting drift (or ductility ratio), axial load, and the
For columns confined by circular normal-yield-strength amount of confinement. Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002)
steel, they proposed the following developed a procedure to estimate the amount of transverse
reinforcement needed to sustain a given drift demand in
A sh A ( φ u ⁄ φ y – 33ρ l m + 22 ) f c ′ P u columns subjected to cyclic loading. Their procedure was
- = κ ------g- ----------------------------------------------------
------ - ----- --------------- – 0.006 (5-11)
sb c A ch 111 f yt φf c ′A g derived based on nonlinear static analyses, using a computer
program that incorporated analytical models for concrete
where confinement, steel strain-hardening, bar buckling, formation
and progression of plastic hinging, and anchorage slip. They
κ = 1.1 when fc′ < 11,600 psi (80 MPa) (5-12) indicated that their computer program was verified extensively
against a large volume of column test data. They proposed
and the following expression for the transverse reinforcement
area ratio ρtc needed to attain a given limiting drift ratio
κ = 1.0 when fc′ ≥ 11,600 psi (80 MPa) (5-13) under a specified level of axial load

f c′ ⎛ A g
- -------- – 1⎞ ----------- -----δ
For columns confined by rectilinear high-yield-strength 1 P
ρ tc = 14 ---- (5-20)
reinforcement (fyt ≥ 72,500 psi [ fyt ≥ 500 MPa]), they f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠ k P o
ve
proposed the following
where
A sh A g ( φ u ⁄ φ y – 30ρ l m + 22 ) f c′ P u
------- = -------
- ----------------------------------------------------- ----- --------------- (5-14)
sb c A ch η f yt φf c′ A g 2
bc
k ve = 0.15 ------- (5-21)
where sh x

f c′ P
η = 91 – -----------
- ( fc′ in psi) (5-15) ----- ≥ 0.2 (5-22)
1450 Po
ITG-4.3R-26
Fig. 5.1—Comparison of confinement steel requirements to
proposal by Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002).
Ag
- – 1 ≥ 0.3
-------
A ch
The transverse area ratio ρtc in each cross-sectional direction
is computed as the ratio of total transverse steel in each direction
divided by the concrete area defined by core dimension bc
times the vertical spacing of the transverse reinforcement s.
The core dimension is defined as the center-to-center
dimension of the perimeter tie, hoop, or spiral perpendicular
to the confinement reinforcement under consideration. In
Eq. (5-21), bc /s is the ratio of core dimension to vertical
spacing of the transverse reinforcement, and bc /hx is the ratio
of core dimension to the center-to-center distance between
laterally supported longitudinal reinforcement. The coefficient
kve reflects the efficiency of reinforcement arrangement as a
function of the spacing of the transverse reinforcement along
the column height and the distance between laterally supported
longitudinal bars. A value kve = 1.0 represents the most efficient
arrangement of closely spaced circular hoops with anchored
hooks and spirals. The P/Po ratio defines the level of axial load
relative to column concentric capacity Po, and δ defines the drift
ratio as relative column displacement divided by column height.
Ag and Ach are cross-sectional areas based on gross sectional
dimensions and core dimensions, respectively.
Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002) indicated that because the
story drift ratio is limited to 2.0 to 2.5% by current building
codes, Eq. (5-20) can be simplified for use in high seismic
applications by assuming a permissible drift ratio of 2.5%
and replacing the ratio P/Po by Pu /φPo in Eq. (5-20) and (5-22).
This results in Eq. (5-24) with the limits specified as in
Eq. (5-22) and (5-23)
f c′ ⎛ A g
- -------- – 1⎞ ----------- -----
1 P
ρ tc = 0.35 ----
f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠ k P 0
ve
Pu is the maximum axial compressive force that can
possibly be applied on the column during a strong earth-
ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
quake. This quantity may be computed as the factored axial
load calculated in accordance with ACI 318-05, or the axial
force associated with the formation of probable moment
resistances at the ends of the framing beams dictated by
capacity design requirements. The capacity reduction factor
may be taken as 0.9 to reflect the improved ductility in the
column due to effects of confinement.
Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002), based on a comparison of
their proposed equations with those in ACI 318-05 (Fig. 5.1),
concluded that ACI 318-05 provisions result in overly
conservative requirements for spiral columns and some
rectangular columns subjected to low levels of axial loads.
They also concluded that ACI 318-05 requirements can be
unsafe when the axial load level is above approximately 40% of
the column strength under concentric loading Po , particularly for
columns with inefficient arrangements of transverse reinforce-
ment. Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002) pointed out that, unlike their
proposed equations, the New Zealand specification does not
include an efficiency parameter for the arrangement of
transverse reinforcement, resulting in overly conservative designs
(5-23) for columns with superior arrangements of reinforcement.
Brachmann et al. (2004a,b) reviewed test results from 184
rectangular columns subjected to shear reversals under
constant axial load with axial load ratios ranging from 0 to
0.7. The database used by Brachmann et al. included tests
carried out in Japan with high-strength concrete and high
axial load ratios. The equation proposed by Brachmann et al.
was derived by analyzing the effect of confinement on the
limiting drift ratio of members without axial load. The effect
of the axial load ratio on the effectiveness of confinement
was determined by grouping test results according to the
level of axial load and comparing the estimated drift ratio
with that of members without axial load. This is illustrated in
Fig. 5.2, which shows that increasing the level of axial load
results in a decrease of the limiting drift ratio. Brachmann et
al. (2004b) proposed the following relationship between drift
limit, axial load, and amount of confinement, as an alternative
to Eq. (21-4) of ACI 318-05
ζDR lim ⎞ 2 f c′
ρ tr = ⎛ -------------------- ----- (5-25)
⎝ 1 – 1.1f p⎠ f yt
where the value for the coefficient ζ is given in Table 5.1.
The term ρtr refers to the transverse reinforcement ratio,
which may be expressed in terms of the volumetric or area
transverse reinforcement ratio, depending on the value of ζ.
Brachman et al. (2004b) recommended modifying Eq. (5-25)
by replacing the axial load ratio fp by the core axial load ratio
fpc to assure adequate confinement of the core for columns
with thick cover
ζDR lim ⎞ 2 f c′
ρ tr = ⎛ ----------------------
- ----- (5-26)
⎝ 1 – 0.8f pc⎠ f yt
(5-24)
where fpc = P/fc′ Ach. The previous equations were calibrated
so that the probability of overestimating the limiting drift in
a column with the amount of transverse reinforcement
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-27

Table 5.1—Values of coefficient ζ for proposed

design Eq. (5-25) and (5-26)
Transverse Coefficient ζ, Coefficient ζ, square and
reinforcement ratio ρtr circular sections rectangular sections
ρvr 10 12
ρt 6 8

Table 5.2—Values of coefficient γ for Eq. (5-27)

Transverse Coefficient γ,
Type of seismic reinforcement Coefficient γ, square and rectangular
application ratio ρtr circular columns columns
ρvr 0.15 0.18
Moderate
ρt 0.09 0.12
ρvr 0.25 0.30
High Fig. 5.2—Effect of axial load on column limiting drift ratio
ρt 0.15 0.20 (Brachmann et al. 2004a).

provided in accordance with the previous equations would be

15% (one standard deviation from the mean). A comparison of
measured and calculated limiting drift ratios is presented in
Fig. 5.3. Because the equation relates the amount of confinement
to the limiting drift ratio of a column, it can be used by
designers seeking different levels of performance or expected
drift demands.
Recommendations for design for different levels of
seismic applications can be derived by specifying suitable
values for the limiting drift ratio. According to Brachmann et
al. (2004a), yielding of the specimens occurred at a drift ratio
of approximately 1%. Consequently, the difference between
the specified limiting drift ratio and a drift ratio of 1% is an
indication of the capability of a column to deform in the Fig. 5.3—Measured and calculated limiting drift ratio limit
inelastic range of response without significant loss in lateral versus volumetric confinement index cp = ρvpfyt /fc′ according
resistance. Prescriptive confinement requirements for to Eq. (5-26).
regions of moderate and high seismic applications can be
established by conservatively assuming limiting drift ratios
of 1.5 and 2.5%. The resulting design expression for the two Test data in the study by Brachmann et al. (2004a,b) had
different definitions of the transverse reinforcement ratio is compressive strengths ranging from 3000 to 17,000 psi (21
to 117 MPa); uniform factors of safety for columns were
obtained throughout the range of compressive strengths.
γ 2f ′
ρ tr = ⎛ -----------------------⎞ ----
c
- (5-27)
⎝ 1 – 0.8f pc⎠ f yt 5.4—Definition of limiting drift ratio on basis of
expected drift demand
The seismic design provisions in ASCE/SEI 7-05 (ASCE/
where the values of γ are given in Table 5.2. SEI 2006) require in Section 12.12 that beams and columns
Equation (5-27) requires the same amount of transverse of moment-resisting frames be proportioned for stiffness so
reinforcement as ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-4), in rectangular that the interstory drift demand generated by the design
columns of special moment frames with a core axial load earthquake forces is limited to 2.0% of story height for
ratio fpc of 0.4. In the case of circular columns, the same standard-occupancy buildings (Seismic Occupancy Category
amount of transverse reinforcement is required at a core axial III). The design earthquake is defined in Section 11.4.4 of
load ratio fpc of 0.35. For a rectangular column with two ASCE/SEI 7-05 as that with a seismic demand equal to 2/3
symmetric layers of reinforcement, an axial load ratio of 0.4 of the seismic demand corresponding to the maximum
corresponds approximately to the balanced failure condition. considered earthquake (MCE), which has a 2% probability
The study by Brachmann et al. (2004a and b) was based on of being exceeded in a period of 50 years. There is a proba-
data from rectangular columns. Equations (21-2) and (21-4) bility that the drift demands experienced during the life cycle
of ACI 318-05 imply that the effectiveness of rectangular of a standard occupancy structure may exceed the 2% limit
hoops is approximately 2/3 that of spiral reinforcement. established in ASCE/SEI 7-05.
Brachmann et al. (2004b) based their recommendation for Drift demand can be greater than that computed in accor-
circular columns on a similar assumption. dance with Sections 12.8.6 and 12.9.2 of ASCE/SEI 7-05
ITG-4.3R-28 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
because of the drift computation procedure that is implemented
in ASCE/SEI 7-05. The most frequently used drift computation
procedure in ASCE/SEI 7-05 (Section 12.8.6) involves an
elastic analysis of the building structure using design-level
earthquake forces. The design-level earthquake forces
specified in Section 12.8.3 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 are obtained
from an elastic design response spectrum that produces a
seismic response coefficient Cs (Section 12.8.1), which is
inversely proportional to the response modification factor R.
Because proportioning the strength of the structure on the
basis of reduced earthquake forces does not reduce the drift
demands (Shimazaki and Sozen 1984; Shimazaki 1988;
Lepage 1997; Browning 2001; Matamoros et al. 2003), the
reduced displacement demands computed based on the
forces specified in Section 12.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-05, with the
inclusion of the coefficient R must be adjusted to obtain
reasonable estimates of the displacement demands caused by
the design earthquake. This is accomplished in Sections
12.8.6 and 12.9.2 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 through the use of the
deflection amplification factor Cd. Current values of R and
Cd specified in Table 12.2-1 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 for special
reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames are 8 and 5.5,
respectively. There is a significant body of research based on
nonlinear analyses of reinforced concrete frames and physical
tests of small-scale specimens in earthquake simulators
showing that these two factors are approximately equal for
special reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames if the
stiffnesses of the frames used in the linear analysis are
calculated on the basis of cracked section properties (Shibata
and Sozen 1976; Shimazaki and Sozen 1984; Lepage 1997;
Browning 2001; Matamoros et al. 2004). Consequently, drift
demands in special moment-resisting frames calculated
using the R and Cd factors specified in Table 12.2-1 of
ASCE/SEI 7-05 may underestimate the drift demand associated
with the design earthquake by as much as 45%.
Also, as hinges form in columns, the nonlinear response
tends to concentrate drift demands in the stories between
plastic hinges in columns rather than distributing them
evenly over the height of a building, as an elastic analysis
would indicate. In special reinforced concrete moment
frames, however, the strong column-weak beam provision
guards against plastic hinges within columns from being
close to one another, that is, plastic mechanisms over only a
few stories, where large drifts are concentrated.
One of the criteria that must be considered in establishing
a limiting drift for the purpose of determining the amount of
confinement in columns is the performance objective
outlined by design codes. The general goals of the code
provisions, though not specifically stated, are to provide life
safety in the design-level earthquake and collapse prevention
for the MCE (BSSC 2004). The amount of confinement is
primarily determined by the need for providing life safety in
the design earthquake while considering collapse prevention
in the MCE. The drift demand from the MCE may be as high
as 50% greater than the drift demand from the design-level
earthquake.
The most common failure criterion adopted by researchers
investigating the relationship between column performance
and the amount of transverse reinforcement used to confine
the concrete has been the point in the hysteresis curve
corresponding to a 20% reduction in the maximum lateral
load that was measured. If the performance of a frame
expected in the MCE is considered, the amount of confinement
must be adequate to achieve collapse prevention at drift
demands approximately 50% greater than the 2% interstory
drift limit established in Section 12.12 of ASCE/SEI 7-05.
Experimental results from columns tested to axial load
failure at the University of California (Lynn 2001; Sezen
2002) show that specimens with significantly less transverse
reinforcement than that specified by the proposals summarized
in Section 5.3 were able to sustain drift demands before axial
load failure exceeding 3.5% of the story height. It must be
noted, however, that all columns tested by Lynn (2001) and
Sezen (2002) were made with normal-strength concrete and
that there were no references found addressing the axial load
failure of columns with high-strength concrete.
5.5—Use of high-yield-strength reinforcement
for confinement
Because the amount of confinement required in columns is
proportional to the compressive strength of the concrete,
congestion problems arise in potential plastic hinge regions
of columns with high-strength concrete, particularly in the
beam-column joints. Conversely, the amount of required
confinement reinforcement is inversely proportional to the
yield strength of the reinforcement, which presents the possi-
bility of decreasing the volume of transverse reinforcement,
thereby relieving congestion.
Several studies done at the University of Ottawa have
investigated the use of high-strength reinforcement for the
confinement of high-strength concrete columns (Saatcioglu
and Razvi 1998; Razvi and Saatcioglu 1999; Lipien and
Saatcioglu 1997; Saatcioglu and Baingo 1999; Saatcioglu
and Razvi 2002). The researchers tested a total of 66 nearly
full-size circular and square columns, with concrete strengths
ranging between 8700 and 18,000 psi (60 and 124 MPa), under
either monotonically increasing concentric compression or a
constant compression accompanied by incrementally
increasing lateral deformation reversals. Three different
grades of transverse reinforcement were used, with yield
strengths of 60,000, 83,000, and 145,000 psi (414, 572, and
1000 MPa). The researchers concluded that, given the right
combination of parameters, transverse reinforcement with
yield strengths up to 145,000 psi (1000 MPa) can be effective
in confining high-strength concrete columns, increasing the
column lateral drift ratio up to a minimum of 5% in heavily
loaded columns (0.43Po) and 8% in lightly loaded columns
(0.22Po). The researchers focused on finding how much of
the additional strength available in transverse reinforcement
with higher nominal yield strengths could be mobilized by a
relatively brittle material like high-strength concrete before
significant strength degradation. They observed that the
effectiveness of transverse reinforcement increased with
confinement efficiency, the volumetric ratio of steel, and the
level of axial compression. The efficiency of confinement is
improved by selecting a superior reinforcement arrangement,
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
either in the form of circular hoops or spirals, where hoop
tension results in uniform confinement pressure, or by
selecting well-distributed longitudinal reinforcement laterally
supported by perimeter and overlapping hoops, crossties, or
both. According to the researchers, a square column with
12 longitudinal bars in which each bar is supported by the
corner of a hoop or the hook of a crosstie provides an
example of a superior arrangement, while a square column
with four corner bars tied by perimeter hoops exemplifies a
poor reinforcement arrangement for rectilinear reinforcement.
Similarly, the spacing of transverse reinforcement along the
column height affects the efficiency of confinement quite
significantly. It was shown that a spacing of 1/4 of the
smaller cross-sectional dimension was adequate to provide
sufficient confinement efficiency, with reductions in efficiency
occurring as the spacing approached 1/2 of the smaller
cross-sectional dimension. The confinement efficiency was
quantified empirically by Razvi and Saatcioglu (1999).
Accordingly, the confinement efficiency parameter kve
equals 1.0 for closely spaced circular hoops or spirals, and can
be computed by Eq. (5-24) for rectilinear reinforcement.
Tests of columns under concentric compression indicated
that square columns with 12,000 to 18,000 psi (83 to 124 MPa)
concrete and confinement efficiency parameter kve ≥ 0.5
experienced yielding of transverse reinforcement with yield
strength of 145 ksi (1000 MPa) when the volumetric ratio of
reinforcement was approximately 2%. Circular columns
with similar properties required a smaller volumetric ratio of
1.3% to trigger the yielding of 145 ksi (1000 MPa) reinforcement
when spiral reinforcement (kve = 1.0) was used. The yielding
of high-strength transverse reinforcement was recorded at or
immediately after column strength, often just before the
onset of significant strength degradation. The following
expression was suggested by Razvi and Saatcioglu (1999)
for the computation of transverse steel stress at or shortly after
the attainment of strength under concentric compression
⎛ k ve ρ tc ⎞
-⎟ ≤ f
f s = E s ⎜ 0.0025 + 0.213 ------------- (5-28)
⎝ ′ ⎠ yt
f co
where ρtc is the area ratio of transverse reinforcement; fco ′ is
the in-place strength of unconfined concrete in the column in
psi (often taken as 0.85fc′ ); and Es is the modulus of elasticity
of reinforcing steel.
According to Razvi and Saatcioglu (2002), the upper limit
on the yield strength of steel may be taken as 200,000 psi
(1379 MPa) because this was the maximum yield strength of
transverse reinforcement used (Nagashima et al. 1992) in the
high-strength concrete column tests evaluated.
The level of axial load was found to be another parameter
that affects the effectiveness of high-strength transverse
reinforcement for columns subjected to lateral loading
(Saatcioglu and Baingo 1999). Spirals with 145 ksi (1000 MPa)
yield strength developed their tensile strength in columns
with 18,000 psi (124 MPa) concrete before significant
strength decay, when the level of axial load was 0.43Po.
ITG-4.3R-29
When the level of axial compression dropped to 0.22Po, the
stress in spirals did not exceed approximately 110,000 psi
(758 MPa). Steel with 90 ksi (621 MPa) yield strength was
effective in all columns tested. Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002)
recommended a limit of 110 ksi (758 MPa) on the yield
strength of transverse reinforcement for confinement design
when column axial compression is at least 20% of its strength
under concentric loading, and 90 ksi (621 MPa) otherwise.
Otani et al. (1998) and Otani (1995) described the use of
high-strength reinforcement in the seismic design guidelines
for high-rise reinforced concrete buildings in Japan.
According to Otani (1995), high yield strength is normally
attained by heat treatment of hot-rolled, chemically
controlled killed steel. The chemical composition of the
reinforcing steel must be carefully controlled to develop
large elongations at fracture, especially when welding is
used to splice closed hoops and stirrups. Shear reinforcement
is provided in the form of rectangular hoops and stirrups with
135-degree hooks, circular or rectangular spirals, supplementary
ties with 135- or 90-degree hooks, or welded closed hoops
and stirrups. The yield strength is defined by the 0.2%
permanent offset. The fracture strain is measured over a
gauge length of eight times the nominal bar diameter, and
must not be less than 0.05 at any region of the bar, including
sections where bars have been connected through welding.
Four types of high-yield-strength bars were developed in
Japan as part of the New RC project for use as transverse
reinforcement, with yield strengths ranging from 99,000 to
185,000 psi (683 to 1276 MPa). These are: 1) UHY685;
2) KSS785; 3) SPR785; and 4) SBPD1275/1420 steel bars.
Grade 685 steel bars—Mechanical characteristics of
UHY685 reinforcement (Hokuetsu Metal Co. 1990) are:
a) minimum yield strength of 99,000 psi (683 MPa); b) minimum
tensile strength of 128,000 psi (883 MPa); and c) minimum
fracture strain of 0.10. The nominal diameters of these bars
are 0.35, 0.39, 0.50, and 0.63 in. (9.00, 9.53, 12.7, and
15.9 mm), which give nominal cross-sectional areas of 0.10,
0.11, 0.20, and 0.31 in.2 (63.6, 71.3, 126.7, and 198.6
mm2), respectively (Otani 1995). According to Otani et al.
(1998), a second type of Grade 685 reinforcement
(USD685B) was developed for use as longitudinal reinforce-
ment in plastic hinge regions. The yield strength of
USD685B reinforcement must range between 99,000 and
110,000 psi (683 and 758 MPa), and the ratio of yield
strength to tensile strength must be less than or equal to 0.8.
This type of reinforcement must have a strain of at least
0.014 at the upper-bound yield stress of 110,000 psi (758 MPa)
to ensure an adequate yield plateau.
KSS785 steel bars—Mechanical characteristics of
KSS785 reinforcement (Kobe Steel Ltd. 1989; Sumitomo
Electrical Industries Ltd. 1989; Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd.
1989) are: a) minimum yield strength of 114,000 psi (786 MPa);
b) minimum tensile strength of 135,000 psi (931 MPa); and
c) minimum fracture strain of 0.08. Nominal diameters of these
bars are 0.24, 0.31, 0.38, and 0.50 in. (6.35, 7.94, 9.53, and
12.7 mm), which give nominal cross-sectional areas of 0.05,
0.08, 0.11, and 0.20 in.2 (31.7, 49.5, 71.3, and 126.7 mm2).
ITG-4.3R-30 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Fig. 5.4—Ratio of measured to calculated limiting drift
ratio versus yield strength of the transverse reinforcement
according to Eq. (5-26). (Note: Yield strength of transverse
reinforcement was limited to 120,000 psi [827 MPa] in the
calculation of the limiting drift ratio regardless of the actual
yield strength.)
SPR785 steel bars—Mechanical characteristics of SPR785
reinforcement (Tokyo Steel Co. 1994) are: a) minimum
yield strength of 114,000 psi (786 MPa); b) minimum tensile
strength of 135,000 psi (931 MPa); and c) minimum fracture
strain of 0.10. Nominal diameters of these bars are 0.38,
0.50, and 0.63 in. (9.53, 12.7, and 15.9 mm), which give
nominal cross-sectional areas of 0.11, 0.20, and 0.31 in.2
(71.3, 126.7, and 198.6 mm2), respectively.
SBPD1275/1420 steel bars—Two producers (Neutren Co.
Ltd. 1985; Kawasake Steel Techno-wire Co. 1990) manu-
facture Type D SBPD(N/L) 1275/1420 bars conforming to
the requirements of the Japanese Standards Association
(1994) JIS G 3137, “Small Size-Deformed Steel Bars for
Prestressed Concrete,” which requires: a) a minimum yield
strength of 185,000 psi (1276 MPa); b) a minimum tensile
strength of 206,000 psi (1420 MPa); and c) a minimum
fracture strain of 0.05. The JIS G 3137 specification was
instituted following the establishment of ISO 6934 (1991)
(Steel for the Prestressing of Concrete; Part 3: Quenched and
Tempered Wire; and Part 5: Hot-Rolled Steel Bars with or
without Subsequent Processing), but the JIS requires more
rigorous control of the chemical composition of the steel.
Furthermore, the amount of impurities in SBPD1275/1420
high-strength shear reinforcement is controlled more rigorously
than required by the JIS G 3137 specification. The minimum
strain at fracture is set to 0.07 because the bars are normally
bent either 90 or 135 degrees at the corners and ends.
Nominal bar diameters available are 0.25, 0.28, 0.35, 0.42,
and 0.50 in. (6.4, 7.1, 9.0, 10.7, and 12.7 mm), which corre-
spond to nominal cross-sectional areas of 0.05, 0.06, 0.10, 0.14,
and 0.19 in.2 (30, 40, 64, 90, and 125 mm2), respectively.
Otani et al. (1998) described the guidelines for the design
of high-rise structures using high-strength materials devel-
oped as part of the research initiative sponsored by the
Ministry of Construction in Japan (Japan Institute of
Construction Engineering 1993). According to Otani et al.
(1998), these seismic design guidelines limit the yield
strength of the longitudinal reinforcement to 102,000 psi
(703 MPa) and the concrete compressive strength to 8700 psi
(60 MPa). The maximum yield strength of the transverse rein-
forcement allowed by the document is 189,000 psi (1303 MPa).
The database used in the study by Brachmann et al.
(2004a,b) had specimens with transverse reinforcement
yield strengths ranging between 37,000 and 183,000 psi (255
and 1262 MPa), and volumetric transverse reinforcement
ratios ranging from 0.17 to 6.64%. Because specimens with
transverse reinforcement with yield strengths of 180,000 psi
(1241 MPa) had significantly lower test/calculated ratios,
they recommended establishing an upper limit of 120,000 psi
(827 MPa) on the yield strength of the transverse reinforce-
ment. The ratio of measured to calculated limiting drift ratio
according to the equation proposed by Brachmann et al.
(2004b) versus the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement
is shown in Fig. 5.4, where the yield strength of transverse
reinforcement was limited to 120,000 psi (827 MPa) in the
calculation of the limiting drift ratio regardless of the actual
yield strength. The broken line in Fig. 5.4 represents a linear
regression between the ratio of measured to calculated drift
(computed limiting the yield strength of the reinforcement to
120,000 psi [827 MPa]) and the actual yield strength of the
reinforcement.
The suggestion by Brachmann et al. (2004a,b) to limit the
yield strength of the transverse reinforcement to 120,000 psi
(827 MPa) is consistent with the observations by Saatcioglu
et al. (1998) and Kato et al. (1998) that the effective
confining pressure decreases and the probability of buckling
of the longitudinal reinforcement increases with increasing
hoop spacing. Similarly, the NZS 3101 design provision
establishes an upper limit of 116,000 psi (800 MPa) for the
nominal yield strength of the transverse reinforcement.
5.6—Maximum hoop spacing requirements
for columns
Section 21.4.4.2 of ACI 318-05 allows a maximum
spacing of transverse reinforcement in regions of potential
plastic hinging of 1/4 of the minimum member dimension,
six times the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement, and
4 in. (102 mm). The 4 in. (102 mm) spacing requirement may
be increased linearly up to 6 in. (152 mm) as the spacing of
crossties or legs of overlapping hoops decreases from 14 to
8 in. (356 to 203 mm). The ICBO ER-5536 document (2001)
suggests that the maximum spacing of hoops within plastic
hinge regions should be 5 in. (127 mm). The rationale for this
provision stems from the fact that in the experimental
research used as the basis for the aforementioned document
(C4 Committee 2000), satisfactory behavior was observed in
specimens with a maximum hoop spacing of 6 in. (152 mm).
Englekirk and Pourzanjani indicate in the C4 report (2000),
however, that test results by Azizinamini et al. (1994)
contradict this observation. In specimens with an axial load
ratio of 0.2 and concrete compressive strength of approximately
14,500 psi (100 MPa), Azizinamini et al. observed that the
mode of failure changed from yielding of the transverse
reinforcement to buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
as the hoop spacing was increased from 1.62 in. (41 mm)
(which represents a hoop spacing of d/6.6, 2.2 longitudinal
bar diameters, and 4.32 transverse bar diameters) to 2.62 in.
(67 mm) (which represents a hoop spacing of d/4.1, 3.5
longitudinal bar diameters, and seven transverse bar diameters),
and the strength of the transverse reinforcement from 60,000
to 120,000 psi (414 to 827 MPa). The database used by
Brachmann et al. (2004a,b) had columns with hoop spacing
ranging between 1 and 17 in. (25 to 432 mm). When specimens
with concrete compressive strengths of 5000 psi (34 MPa) or
above only were considered, however, the majority of the
data had a maximum hoop spacing below 4 in. (102 mm).
The data do not show a decrease in the factor of safety with
increased spacing, and two specimens with hoop spacings of
approximately 10 in. (254 mm) showed adequate performance.
On this limited basis, there seems to be no conclusive
experimental evidence justifying the reduction in maximum
hoop spacing from 6 to 5 in. (152 to 127 mm), although the
paucity of experimental data with maximum hoop spacing
above 4 in. (102 mm) is a concern.
5.7—Confinement requirements for high-strength
concrete beams
The only confinement requirements for concrete in plastic
hinge regions of beams established in ACI 318-05 are in
terms of the maximum spacing allowed between hoops.
Unlike in the case of ACI 318-05, Eq. (21-2) to (21-4), for
columns, there are no equations that set the minimum
amount of transverse reinforcement that must be used in
beams. Such a lack of requirement is of some concern for
high-strength concrete beams because test results previously
summarized show that the limiting drift ratio of beams is
proportional to the volumetric confinement index cp (Fig. 5.5).
The data in Fig. 5.5 indicate that to maintain a level of
deformability, the product of ρvr fyt must increase with the
concrete compressive strength.
Ghosh and Saatcioglu (1994) summarized test results from
high-strength concrete beams under monotonic and cyclic
loading by several researchers. Based on tests by Fajardo and
Pastor (Pastor et al. 1984) under monotonic loading, they
concluded that the addition of lateral tie steel increases the
displacement ductility of beams provided that the volumetric
confinement index is greater than 0.11. The definition of the
volumetric confinement index used by Ghosh and Saatcioglu,
however, included the effects of the compression reinforcement
f
cp = (ρvr + ρ′) ----yt- (5-29)
f c′
A volumetric confinement index of 0.11, calculated as
defined in Eq. (5-29), corresponded to a displacement
ductility of approximately 3. For beams with volumetric
confinement indexes below 0.11, increasing the volumetric
confinement index in the plastic hinge region resulted in
small increases in displacement ductility. In cases where the
volumetric confinement index exceeded 0.11, increasing the
volumetric confinement index resulted in significant
ITG-4.3R-31
Fig. 5.5—Limiting drift ratio versus confinement index cp
for beam specimens in database used by Brachmann et al.
(2004a).
increases in displacement ductility. Ghosh and Saatcioglu
(1994) attributed the low deformability of the beams with
lower amounts of transverse reinforcement to the lack of
confinement of the concrete in the compression zone.
Brachmann et al. (2004a) proposed an equation for the
minimum amount of transverse reinforcement for adequate
confinement of reinforced concrete beams based on experi-
mental results. For members without axial load, the
minimum amount of confining reinforcement is given by
2f ′ f c′
ρ vr = ( 12DR lim ) ----c- ≥ 0.12 ----
- (5-30)
f yt f yt
Equation (5-30) was calibrated so that the probability of
overestimating the limiting drift in a beam with the amount
of transverse reinforcement provided in accordance to
Eq. (5-30) would be 15% for the data set used (one standard
deviation from the mean). Figure 5.5 shows the measured
limiting drift ratios and those calculated with Eq. (5-30) for
62 specimens with fp ≤ 0.1, and concrete compressive
strengths ranging from 3000 to 15,000 psi (21 to 103 MPa).
The average ratio of measured to calculated drift was 1.6,
with a coefficient of variation of 0.26. Based on the sample
of 62 specimens considered, the probability of underestimating
the limiting drift of beam elements with Eq. (5-30) was
approximately 10%.
Equation (5-30) requires a higher amount of transverse
reinforcement for high-strength concrete beams than that
calculated using the current ACI 318-05 approach of propor-
tioning the transverse reinforcement to resist, in most prac-
tical circumstances, 100% of the shear demand (ACI 318-05,
Section 21.3.4.2). A comparison based on assumptions of a
span length to beam depth ratio of 10, an effective depth
equal to 90% of the beam height, a width-height ratio of the
core equal to 2, and a limiting drift ratio of 2% indicates that
the amount of reinforcement would increase by a factor of
approximately 0.2fc′ /ρl fyl , where ρl is the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio and fyl is the yield strength of the longitu-
ITG-4.3R-32 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
dinal reinforcement. The difference is most significant for
lightly reinforced beams. For beams with normal-strength
concrete, the amount of transverse reinforcement would be
approximately the same as required by the current code,
while in the case of beams with high-strength concrete, the
amount of transverse reinforcement would increase by as
much as a factor of 4. Before a code change is implemented,
such an increase in the amount of transverse reinforcement
should be justified on the basis of experimental evidence
showing inadequate performance of high-strength concrete
beams under cyclic loading.
Experimental research on column collapse indicates that
vertical load-carrying capacity is lost soon after the lateral
load-carrying capacity has degraded to zero (Yoshimura and
Nakamura 2002; Elwood and Moehle 2005), and that the
lateral drift at axial failure decreases with axial load. Elwood
(2002) and Elwood and Moehle (2005) developed a model
consistent with the observation from experimental research
that the drift ratio at axial failure is inversely proportional to
the axial load demand. From this research, it follows that the
risk of catastrophic failure at drifts slightly higher than the
limiting drift ratio (defined as that corresponding to a 20%
reduction in strength) decreases as the amount of axial load
on the member decreases. For this reason, it is reasonable to
adopt a lower margin of safety for proportioning the amount
of transverse reinforcement needed to reach a target limiting
drift ratio in beams than in columns. Brachmann et al.
(2004a) provided expressions with various probabilities of
overestimating the limiting drift ratio. The expression
corresponding to the mean response (such that the probability
of overestimating the limiting drift ratio in a beam with the
amount of transverse reinforcement provided in accordance
to Eq. (5-31) would be 50%) is given by
2f ′ f′
ρ vr = ( 8DR lim ) ----c- ≥ 0.12 ----c- (5-31)
f yt f yt
Because the volume of transverse reinforcement required
by Eq. (5-31) is 44% of that required by Eq. (5-30), the
amount of transverse reinforcement required in beams is
closer to that calculated using the approach in ACI 318-05.
A comparison based on assumptions of a span length to
beam depth ratio of 10, an effective depth equal to 90% of
the beam height, a width-height ratio of the core equal to 2,
and a limiting drift ratio of 2% indicates that the amount of
reinforcement would increase by a factor of approximately
0.09fc′ /ρl fyl where ρl is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio
and fyl is the yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement.
In this case, the amount of transverse reinforcement required
by Eq. (5-31) in lightly reinforced beams (ρl = 0.01) would
range between approximately 1/2 the amount currently
required by ACI 318-05 for beams with normal-strength
concrete and two times the amount calculated using ACI 318-05
for beams with high-strength concrete.
5.8—Maximum hoop spacing requirements
for high-strength concrete beams
According to Section 21.3.3.2 of ACI 318-05, the
maximum hoop spacing in flexural members of special
moment frames must not exceed d/4, eight times the diameter
of the smallest longitudinal bar, 24 times the diameter of the
hoop bars, and 12 in. (305 mm). A similar spacing requirement
is established in Section 21.12.4.2 of ACI 318-05 for beams
of intermediate moment frames. Although the upper limit for
the hoop spacing is 12 in. (305 mm), it is important to note
that the requirements related to bar size and d/4 are likely to
result in significantly smaller upper limits on spacing.
Consequently, the 12 in. (305 mm) spacing limit is not the
controlling criterion for most practical cases. For instance, a
cross section with an effective depth of 24 in. (610 mm), No. 7
longitudinal bars, and No. 3 hoops would have a maximum
hoop spacing of 6 in. (152 mm), significantly lower than the
nominal 12 in. (305 mm) limit established by ACI 318-05.
The ICBO ER-5536 document (2001) proposed an upper
limit of 5 in. (127 mm) for the stirrup spacing in beams,
which implies a significant reduction from the 12 in. (305 mm)
limit currently adopted in ACI 318-05. The paucity of
experimental results from beams with hoop spacing larger
than 4 in. (102 mm) is a concern in determining whether the
reduction from 12 to 5 in. (305 to 127 mm) is justified.
The high-strength concrete beams tested by Pastor et al.
(1984) that provided the basis for the study by Ghosh and
Saatcioglu (1994) had stirrup spacing ranging from 3 to 12 in.
(76 to 305 mm). The width of the test region ranged between
6.56 and 7.38 in. (167 to 187 mm), and the depth was
approximately 12 in. (305 mm). Beams with a hoop spacing
of 12 in. (305 mm) exhibited the worst performance, with
ductility ratios on the order of 2 or 3. All beams with a stirrup
spacing of 6 in. (152 mm) or less exhibited displacement
ductilities higher than 4. This observation raises concerns
about the 12 in. (305 mm) spacing limit adopted by ACI 318-05
particularly because these beams were not subjected to the
deterioration of the core that would occur under load
reversals. The conclusions by Ghosh and Saatcioglu (1994)
about the effects of confinement also seem to indicate that there
is no compelling reason to have different procedures to
determine the amounts of confinement in beams and columns.
5.9—Recommendations
There are several recommendations deemed necessary for
proper confinement of sections with high-strength concrete.
Research by Brachman et al. (2004a,b), and Saatcioglu and
Razvi (2002) has indicated that the current provisions for
confinement in ACI 318-05, even though the effect of axial
load is neglected, result in sufficient amounts of confinement
to achieve limiting drift ratios of at least 2% in most cases.
The main disadvantage of the current provisions is that the
safety afforded is not uniform for all columns, and the
amount of transverse reinforcement required in members
with lower levels of axial load is overly conservative.
Although excessive conservatism does not pose a safety
concern, it creates significant congestion problems that
hinder the use of high-strength concrete.
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
Experimental research shows that a viable alternative to
reduce congestion in plastic hinge regions is the use of high-
strength transverse reinforcement. There is consensus among
researchers that there should be an upper limit to the nominal
yield strength of the transverse reinforcement used for
confinement purposes of approximately 120 ksi (827 MPa).
The experimental data that were reviewed did not
substantiate the need to reduce the maximum hoop spacing
in beams or columns. Although there was a greater concern
in the case of beams because the upper limit for hoop spacing
established by ACI 318-05 is 12 in. (305 mm), a closer
review shows that spacing limits in terms of the diameter of
the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement should be
adequate to prevent buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement.
Research results and experimental evidence indicate that the
amount of confinement afforded by the current spacing limits
should be sufficient to achieve drift ratios (approximately
similar to the rotation of the plastic hinge in units of radians)
on the order of 0.02 without catastrophic failure. For these
reasons, it was deemed unnecessary to introduce confinement
requirements for beams with high-strength concrete.
The following recommended modifications to ACI 318-05,
presented in greater detail in Chapter 10 of this document,
are made for adequate confinement of high-strength concrete
columns in special moment frames (SMF). The basis for the
proposed equations is the approach by Saatcioglu and Razvi
(2002), with some minor conservative modifications to
simplify their use.
In inch-pound units:
• The use of transverse reinforcement with a specified
yield strength of up to 120,000 psi shall be allowed to
meet the confinement requirements for high-strength
concrete columns. The yield strength of the reinforce-
ment can be measured by the offset method of ASTM A
370 using 0.2% permanent offset.
• Transverse reinforcement required as follows in (a)
through (c) shall be provided unless a larger amount is
required by ACI 318-05, Sections 21.4.3.2 or 21.4.5:
(a)The area ratio of transverse reinforcement shall not
be less than that required by Eq. (5-32)
f c′ ⎛ A g 1 Pu
- -------- – 1⎞ ----------- -----------
ρ t = 0.35 ----
⎝
f yt A ch ⎠ k A g f c′
ve
where
Ag
- – 1 ≥ 0.3
-------
A ch
and
Pu
----------- ≥ 0.2
A g f c′
(b)Transverse reinforcement shall have either circular
or rectangular geometry. Reinforcement for
ITG-4.3R-33
columns with circular geometry shall be in the
form of spirals or hoops, for which kve = 1.0. Rein-
forcement for columns with rectangular geometry
shall be provided in the form of single or overlap-
ping hoops. Crossties of the same bar size and
spacing as the hoops shall be permitted. Each end
of the crosstie shall engage a peripheral longitu-
dinal reinforcing bar. Consecutive crossties shall
be alternated end for end along the longitudinal
reinforcement. The parameter kve for rectangular
hoop reinforcement shall be determined by Eq. (5-35)
0.15b
k ve = ---------------c ≤ 1.0 (5-35)
sh x
(c)If the thickness of the concrete outside the
confining transverse reinforcement exceeds 4 in.,
additional transverse reinforcement shall be
provided at a spacing not exceeding 12 in.
Concrete cover on the additional reinforcement
shall not exceed 4 in.
In SI units:
• The use of transverse reinforcement with a specified
yield strength of up to 830 MPa should be allowed to
meet the confinement requirements for high-strength
concrete columns. The yield strength of the reinforce-
ment can be measured by the offset method of ASTM A
370 using 0.2% permanent offset.
• Transverse reinforcement required as follows in (a)
through (c) shall be provided unless a larger amount is
required by ACI 318M-05, Sections 21.4.3.2 or 21.4.5:
(a)The area ratio of transverse reinforcement shall not
be less than that required by Eq. (5-36)
f c′ ⎛ A g 1 Pu
- -------- – 1⎞ ----------- -----------
ρ t = 0.35 ---- (5-36)
f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠ k A g f c′
ve
where
Ag
(5-32) - – 1 ≥ 0.3
------- (5-37)
A ch
and
Pu
----------- ≥ 0.2 (5-38)
(5-33) A g f c′
(b)Transverse reinforcement shall have either circular
or rectangular geometry. Reinforcement for
columns with circular geometry shall be in the
(5-34) form of spirals or hoops, for which kve =1.0. Rein-
forcement for columns with rectangular geometry
shall be provided in the form of single or overlap-
ping hoops. Crossties of the same bar size and
spacing as the hoops shall be permitted. Each end
ITG-4.3R-34 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
of the crosstie shall engage a peripheral longitudinal
reinforcing bar. Consecutive crossties shall be alter-
nated end for end along the longitudinal reinforce-
ment. The parameter kve for rectangular hoop
reinforcement shall be determined by Eq. (5-39).
0.15b
k ve = ---------------c ≤ 1.0 (5-39)
sh x
(c)If the thickness of the concrete outside the
confining transverse reinforcement exceeds 100 mm,
additional transverse reinforcement shall be
provided at a spacing not exceeding 300 mm.
Concrete cover on the additional reinforcement
shall not exceed 100 mm.
The term hx is defined as the maximum horizontal spacing
of hoop or crosstie legs perpendicular to bc , in.
Section 21.12.3 of ACI 318-05 requires that the design
shear strength φVn of beams and columns of intermediate
moment frames be no less than: a) the sum of the shear asso-
ciated with development of nominal moment strengths of the
member at each restrained end of the clear span and the shear
calculated for factored gravity loads; and b) the maximum
shear obtained from design load combinations that include
E, with E assumed to be twice that prescribed by the
governing code for earthquake-resistant design.
If the dimensions of a column are maintained constant, the
ratio of axial load demand to balanced failure load decreases
as concrete compressive strength in the column increases.
Under the current design provisions in Section 21.12.3 of
ACI 318-05, the amount of transverse reinforcement
increases with the nominal flexural strength of columns,
which decreases as the ratio of axial load to balanced load
decreases (assuming that the column is not compression
controlled). For this reason, it is possible that the amount of
transverse reinforcement required by the aforementioned
provision be similar or even less for columns with high-
strength concrete than it is for columns with similar dimensions
made with normal-strength concrete. This is inconsistent
with the conclusions from the literature review presented in
Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of this report, which indicate that the
amount of confinement needed for ductile behavior in columns
increases with increasing concrete compressive strength.
To prevent the sudden failure of columns with high-
strength concrete in intermediate moment frames (IMF), it is
recommended that a minimum amount of confinement
reinforcement be added to the provisions in the code. The
confinement reinforcement requirement for IMF columns in
ITG-4.3R is based on a design expression developed by
Saatcioglu and Razvi (2002), and modified by ACI ITG 4 to
facilitate its use for design. One of the key assumptions
adopted by ACI ITG-4 in deriving this requirement is that a
20% reduction in lateral strength at a drift ratio of 1.5%
corresponds to a tolerable level of damage for intermediate
moment frames. This criterion is related to the level of
damage deemed reasonable for this type of a lateral-force-
resisting system, and should not be interpreted to mean that
intermediate moment frames must be proportioned so that
drift ratios are kept below 1.5%. This assumption is consistent
with the fact that the R factor for the IMF traditionally has
been set by building codes to approximately 60 to 75% of
that for a SMF. For example, according to ASCE 7-05, the R
factor for an IMF is 5, while that for a SMF is 8. If the R
factor is taken as a measure of the ductility demands
(including inherent overstrength) and it is assumed that the
maximum nonlinear displacement is approximately equal to
the maximum displacement of a linear system (Shimazaki
1988; Lepage 1997; Browning 2001) (implying that Cd ≈ R),
the difference in R factors implies that the SMF is expected
to experience nearly 8/5 (or 1.6 times) as much plastic rotation
demands as the IMF. Lower plastic rotation demands imply
lower strain demands on the concrete and a reduction in the
amount of confinement reinforcement required. This reduction
is indirectly recognized in these recommendations by using
1.5% drift ratio instead of 2.5% when deriving the requirements
for confinement reinforcement for the IMF. To further
simplify the calculation, a value of kve = 0.5 is adopted for
columns with rectilinear transverse reinforcement. Considering
that a value of kve = 1.0 is used in columns with spiral reinforce-
ment, this assumption implies that the rectilinear confining
reinforcement arrangement being used is 71% as effective as
that of spiral reinforcement.
The following changes to ACI 318-05 are recommended
for columns of IMFs. In inch-pound units:
• The use of transverse reinforcement with a specified
yield strength of up to 120,000 psi shall be allowed to
meet the confinement requirements for high-strength
concrete columns. The yield strength of the reinforce-
ment can be measured by the offset method of ASTM A
370 using 0.2% permanent offset;
• For columns with concrete compressive strength greater
than 8000 psi and rectilinear transverse reinforcement, the
area ratio of transverse reinforcement shall not be less
than that required by Eq. (5-40)
f c′ ⎛ A g Pu
- -------- – 1⎞ -----------
ρ c = 0.3 ---- (5-40)
⎝
f yt A ch ⎠ A g f c′
where
Ag
- – 1 ≥ 0.3
------- (5-41)
A ch
and
Pu
----------- ≥ 0.2 (5-42)
A g f c′
• For columns with concrete compressive strength
greater than 8000 psi and transverse reinforcement in
the form of circular hoops or spirals, the area ratio of
transverse reinforcement shall not be less than that
required by Eq. (5-43)
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-35

f ′ Ag Pu Pu
ρ c = 0.2 ----c- ⎛ -------
- – 1⎞ ----------- (5-43) ----------- ≥ 0.2 (5-51)
f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠ A g f c′ A g f c′

where CHAPTER 6—SHEAR STRENGTH OF

REINFORCED CONCRETE FLEXURAL MEMBERS
In flexural members made with high-strength concrete,
Ag
- – 1 ≥ 0.3
------- (5-44) the strength of the paste is similar to or higher than that of the
A ch aggregates. As a result, cracks tend to propagate through the
aggregates and have a smoother surface than in normal-
and strength concrete (ACI Committee 363 1992). A smoother
crack surface reduces the effect of aggregate interlock on
Pu shear strength, which theoretically implies a reduction in the
----------- ≥ 0.2 (5-45) concrete component of the total shear strength.
A g f c′
The effect of compressive strength on the shear force
carried by the transverse reinforcement can be analyzed
In SI units: using a variable angle truss model (Fig. 6.1). The equilib-
• The use of transverse reinforcement with a specified rium equations for a variable angle truss model with a
yield strength of up to 830 MPa should be allowed to uniform compression field (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee
meet the confinement requirements for high-strength 445 1998) indicate that the average shear stress carried by
concrete columns. The yield strength of the reinforce- the truss mechanism is given by
ment can be measured by the offset method of ASTM A
370 using 0.2% permanent offset;
Vs Av fs j 1
• For columns with concrete compressive strength greater v s = --------
- = ----------
- ------------- (6-1)
than 55 MPa and rectilinear transverse reinforcement, the bw d b w s tan α t
area ratio of transverse reinforcement shall not be less
than that required by the following equation where j is the ratio of internal lever arm (the distance
between the tension force in the reinforcement and the
f c′ ⎛ A g Pu compression force carried by the concrete) to the effective
- -------- – 1⎞ -----------
ρ c = 0.3 ---- (5-46) depth, and αt is the angle of inclination of the compressive
f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠ A g f c′
strut. Equation (6-1) shows that if all other parameters in a
beam remain constant, the shear stress carried by the truss
where mechanism increases as the angle of inclination of the strut
αt decreases. The same model indicates that the compressive
Ag stress in the struts of the compression field fc is given by
- – 1 ≥ 0.3
------- (5-47)
A ch
vs
f c = --------------------------
- (6-2)
and cos α t sin α t

Pu The average compressive stress acting on the struts

----------- ≥ 0.2 (5-48)
A g f c′
• For columns with concrete compressive strength
greater than 55 MPa and transverse reinforcement in
the form of circular hoops or spirals, the area ratio of
transverse reinforcement shall not be less than that
required by the following equation
increases as the average shear stress vs increases and the
angle of inclination of the struts αt decreases. These two
equations show that, on the basis of a variable angle truss
model, it should be expected that if concrete strength
increases, a truss mechanism with a shallower angle of
inclination of the struts can be developed due to the higher

f c′ ⎛ A g Pu
- -------- – 1⎞ -----------
ρ c = 0.2 ---- (5-49)
⎝
f yt A ch ⎠ A g f c′

where

Ag
- – 1 ≥ 0.3
------- (5-50)
A ch
Fig. 6.1—Variable angle truss model with uniform compression
and field.
ITG-4.3R-36 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Fig. 6.2—Effect of different parameters on test/estimate ratios for shear strength using
ACI 318-05 Eq. (11-3). Data set compiled by Reineck et al. (2003). (Note: The calculated
ACI shear strengths did not consider the limit of 100 psi (8.3 MPa) on the term f c′ . The
dashed line in each figure represents linear regression best fit of the data.)

capacity of the struts. Equation (6-1) shows that a reduction

in the strut angle leads to an increase in the shear force
carried by the reinforcement, increasing the effectiveness of
the transverse reinforcement.
After inclined cracking occurs, the force carried by the
concrete is expected to decrease with increasing compressive
strength due to reduced aggregate interlock. The opposite
occurs with the force carried by the reinforcement through
the truss mechanism, which is expected to increase due to the
higher strength of the concrete in the struts of the web. Conse-
quently, one of the most significant concerns in calculating the
shear strength of members with high-strength concrete is
preventing the sudden failure of members with relatively small
amounts of transverse reinforcement, for which the maximum
shear force that can be carried by the truss mechanism is
similar to or smaller than the shear force corresponding to
inclined cracking. In members with high amounts of transverse
reinforcement, theory suggests that the reduction in the shear
force carried by the concrete is offset by an increase in the
effectiveness of the transverse reinforcement.
6.1—Shear strength of flexural members without
shear reinforcement
Figures 6.2 and 6.3 show the effects of different parameters
on the test/calculated ratio obtained with Eq. (11-3) and (11-5)
of ACI 318-05 for nonprestressed beams without transverse
reinforcement
V c = 2 f c′ b w d (f c′ in psi)
ACI 318 Eq. (11-3)
V c = 0.17 f c′ b w d (f c′ in MPa)
V c = ⎛ 1.9 f c′ + 2500ρ w --------
V u d⎞
- b w d ≥ 3.5 f c′ b w d ( f c′ in psi )
⎝ Mu ⎠
ACI 318 Eq. (11-5)
V c = ⎛ 0.16 f c′ + 17.2ρ w --------
V u d⎞
- b w d ≥ 0.29 f c′ b w d ( f c′ in MPa )
⎝ Mu ⎠
Test results presented in Fig. 6.2 and 6.3 are from the data-
base of shear tests developed by Reineck et al. (2003).
Although the figures indicate that there is no bias with
respect to the compressive strength of concrete, they show a
significant problem for members with light amounts of
longitudinal reinforcement.
Collins and Kuchma (1999), Nilson (1994), Ahmad et al.
(1986), and Ahmad and Lue (1987) point out that this
problem is of most significance for lightly reinforced slender
beams with high-strength concrete. Figures 6.2 and 6.3 also
show that the shear strength of members without transverse
reinforcement may be affected by the effective depth of the
member (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445 1998). Although
there is considerable debate about the proper model to quantify
the effect of size (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445 1998),
Collins et al. (1993) stated that tests of high-strength
concrete beams conducted by Kuchma et al. (1997) showed
that this effect is not significant if longitudinal reinforcement
is distributed throughout the depth of the member. The report
by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445 (1998) summarizes
several equations that have been proposed to more accurately
reflect the effects of compressive strength, longitudinal
reinforcement ratio, and effective depth on shear strength of
members without transverse reinforcement.
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-37

Fig. 6.3—Effect of different parameters on test/estimate ratios for shear strength using
ACI 318-05 Eq. (11-5). Data set compiled by Reineck et al. (2003). (Note: The calculated
ACI shear strengths did not consider the limit of 100 psi (8.3 MPa) on the term f c′ . The
dashed line in each figure represents linear regression best fit of the data.)

In seismic design, most flexural members are required to
have transverse reinforcement and thus the effect of size is
not a significant concern. Members in which transverse
reinforcement is not used are primarily slabs and footings,
and it is unlikely that such members with large effective
depths and high-strength concrete would be used in high
seismic applications.
6.2—Effect of compressive strength on inclined
cracking load of flexural members
ACI 318-89 (ACI Committee 318 1989) placed an upper
limit of 100 psi (8.3 MPa) on the term f c′ for calculating
the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams, joists, and
slabs. This upper limit was based on experimental results
(Mphonde and Frantz 1984; Elzanaty et al. 1986), which
indicated that the ratio of measured to calculated inclined
cracking load in beams increased with the compressive strength
of concrete at a lower rate than indicated by Eq. (11-3) or
(11-5) of ACI 318-89. Similar behavior was observed in a
study on the shear strength of high-strength concrete beams
without transverse reinforcement by Thorenfeldt and
Drangsholt (1990). The inclined cracking load remained
almost constant in spite of an increase in compressive
strength from 11,300 to 14,200 psi (78 to 98 MPa).
These and other test results raised concerns about the shear
strength of high-strength concrete flexural members with
small amounts of transverse reinforcement. ACI 318-89
allowed the limit of 100 psi (8.3 MPa) on the term f c′ to be
exceeded if transverse reinforcement sufficient to carry a
nominal shear stress of 50 psi (0.34 MPa), multiplied by the
factor fc′ /5000 ≤ 3, fc′ in psi ( fc′ /35 ≤ 3 [fc′ in MPa]), was
provided to prevent sudden shear failures at the onset of
inclined cracking. The use of the factor fc′ /5000 ≤ 3 resulted
in a step-wise increase in the amount of transverse reinforce-
ment with compressive strength, requiring that the product
of the transverse reinforcement ratio and the yield strength of
the transverse reinforcement (ρt fyt) be at least 50 psi (0.34 MPa)
for concrete compressive strengths below 10,000 psi (69 MPa),
and double that amount (ρt fyt = 100 psi [0.69 MPa]) for
concrete compressive strengths slightly higher than 10,000 psi
(69 MPa). The amount of transverse reinforcement increased
linearly with compressive strength up to a maximum ρt fyt of
150 psi (1.03 MPa) for a concrete compressive strength of
15,000 psi (103 MPa). Experimental results by Roller and
Russell (1990) showed that the amount of transverse reinforce-
ment that resulted in a nominal shear stress of 150 psi
(1.03 MPa) was barely sufficient to ensure a safe estimate of
strength using the ACI 318-89 equation for shear strength
(Fig. 6.4). Based on experimental results by several authors
(Johnson and Ramirez 1989; Ozcebe et al. 1999; Hofbeck et
al. 1969; Mattock et al. 1976; Walraven et al. 1987; Roller
and Russell 1990), a new form of ACI 318, Eq. (11-13), was
introduced in ACI 318-02 to estimate the minimum amount
of transverse reinforcement in beams, with the goals of
increasing the safety of the estimates and eliminating the
steep increase that occurred at a concrete compressive
strength of 10,000 psi (69 MPa). The minimum amount of
transverse reinforcement is given by
ITG-4.3R-38 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Fig. 6.4—Ratio of measured to nominal strength versus
calculated shear strength provided by truss mechanism for
beams with high-strength concrete tested by Roller and
Russell (1990).
bw s
A v, min = 0.75 f c′ -------
- (f c ′ in psi)
f yt
ACI 318 Eq. (11-13)
bw s
A v, min = 0.062 f c′ -------
- (f c ′ in MPa)
f yt
6.3—Effect of compressive strength on flexural
members with intermediate to high amounts of
transverse reinforcement
The 10 beams tested by Roller and Russell (1990)
included three different groups, with concrete compressive
strengths of 10,500, 17,400, and 18,200 psi (72, 120, and
125 MPa). There were five beams with compressive
strengths of 17,400 psi (120 MPa), for which the design shear
stress vs (equal to the product of the transverse reinforcement
ratio ρt and the yield strength of the hoops fyt) carried by the
truss mechanism ranged from 0.3 f c′ to 8.9 f c′ (psi)
(0.025 f c′ to 0.74 f c′ [MPa]). The beam with the lightest
amount of transverse reinforcement (vs = 0.3 f c′ (psi) [vs =
0.025 f c′ (MPa)]) had a shear strength below the nominal
value calculated according to the provisions of ACI 318-83
(ACI Committee 318 1983). The remaining four beams
(Fig. 6.4), with compressive strengths of 17,400 psi (120 MPa),
had measured shear strengths above the nominal values Vn
calculated using ACI 318, Eq. (11-6) (Vc term), and ACI
318, Eq. (11-17) (Vs term), of the ACI 318-83. Although for
these four beams the ratio of measured to nominal strength
decreased with the amount of transverse reinforcement, the
tests were within the range allowed by ACI 318, which places
an upper limit of vs = 8 f c′ (psi) (vs = 0.66 f c′ [MPa]), on
the nominal shear strength attributed to the truss mechanism.
The two remaining series of tests, with compressive
strengths of 10,500 and 18,200 psi (72 and 125 MPa), were
primarily aimed at determining the minimum amount of
transverse reinforcement needed to prevent sudden failures
after inclined cracking.
As observed in Fig. 6.4, the ratio of measured to nominal
shear strength of the beams with 10,500 psi (72 MPa)
concrete in the study by Roller and Russell (1990) was not
very sensitive to the nominal strength provided by the trans-
verse reinforcement, while the opposite was true for the
beams with 18,200 psi (125 MPa) concrete. While providing
vs = 50 psi (0.34 MPa) resulted in an adequate estimate of
strength for beams with a concrete compressive strength of
10,500 psi (72 MPa), the same amount resulted in an uncon-
servative estimate of strength for the beams with concrete
compressive strengths of 17,400 and 18,200 psi (120 and
125 MPa). In both cases, tests showed that a minimum vs of
approximately 150 psi (1.03 MPa) would have been necessary
to obtain a strength above the nominal value given by Eq. (11-5)
of ACI 318-83.
6.4—Shear strength of members with low shear
span-depth ratios
A series of tests was conducted in Japan to investigate the
shear strength of high-strength concrete members
(Sakaguchi et al. 1990). The series included six beams with
shear span-depth ratios ranging between 1 and 1.14, and
different amounts of transverse reinforcement. The purpose
of the tests was to determine the inclined cracking load and
ultimate shear strength of the beams. Concrete compressive
strength was maintained constant at approximately 13,000 psi
(90 MPa). The principal variable was the product ρt fyt , where ρt
is the transverse reinforcement ratio defined as ρt = Av /bws and
fyt is the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement.
According to the truss model adopted in ACI 318-05, the
product ρt fyt represents the average shear stress carried by
the reinforcement in slender beams (ρt fyt = vs = Vs /bwd),
that, in the tests by Sakaguchi et al. (1990) ranged from 0 to
1150 psi (7.9 MPa). In beams with ρt fyt lower than 260 psi
(1.8 MPa) (ρt fyt /fc′ = 2%), inclined cracking propagated
rapidly, leading to a sudden shear failure. In specimens with
ρt fyt of 725 and 1145 psi (5 and 7.9 MPa) (ρt fyt /fc′ higher than
5.5%), both the shear and longitudinal reinforcement yielded
before failure at a load considerably exceeding the inclined
cracking strength. The conclusions from the study by
Sakaguchi et al. (1990), based on tests of deep beams, differ
from those by Roller and Russell (1990). Sakaguchi et al.
focused on the amount of transverse reinforcement needed to
preclude failure at the onset of inclined cracking and achieve
yielding of the transverse reinforcement before failure. They
found that for beams with a compressive strength of approxi-
mately 13,000 psi (90 MPa), the amount of transverse rein-
forcement needed to develop a truss mechanism and prevent
sudden failure after inclined cracking was approximately vs
= ρt fyt = 260 psi (1.8 MPa) (5.2 times 50 psi), which corre-
sponds to 2.3 f c′ (psi) (0.19 f c′ [MPa]) significantly
higher than the ρt fyt = 0.75 f c′ (psi) (0.06 f c′ [MPa])
required by ACI 318-05 for flexural members.
The study by Sakaguchi et al. (1990) raises concerns about
the behavior of members with low shear span-depth ratios
subjected to cyclic loading. ACI 318-05 requires that such
members be proportioned using nonlinear analysis or in
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-39

accordance with Appendix A of the Code, which outlines 9

provisions for the use of strut-and-tie models.
Strut-and-tie models are a methodology for member
design that can be applied to different types of structural
members, including deep beams and structural walls.
Although Chapter 6 of this document addresses shear design
and Chapter 8 addresses the design of structural walls, some
of the reference material presented in this chapter about the
behavior and design of members with low shear span-depth
ratios is based on studies of deep beams and walls. Such
material is included in this chapter only when it is relevant to
the topic of strut-and-tie models.
Little reference material is available on the use of strut-
and-tie models for the seismic design of deep beams made
with high-strength concrete. The Architectural Institute of
Japan (AIJ) seismic design guideline (1994) includes a
design procedure for beams that is based on the superposition of
two different strut-and-tie models. The AIJ model is inconsistent
with the provisions in Appendix A of ACI 318-05. The AIJ
procedure includes two reduction factors applied to the
compressive strength of the concrete struts that Appendix A
of ACI 318-05 does not include.
The first factor was originally proposed by Nielsen (1999)
and was developed based on test results from beams with
uniform stress fields subjected to monotonic loading. It is a
function of the compressive strength of the concrete, and it
decreases linearly as the compressive strength increases
f c′
β s = 0.7 – ---------------
- (f c ′ in psi)
29,000
(6-3)
f c′
β s = 0.7 – --------
- (f c ′ in MPa)
200
The second factor is a function of the amount of rotation
θp expected in a plastic hinge region of a flexural member. It
is given by
βsc = (1 – 15θp)βs ≥ 0.25βs (6-4)
Aoyama (1993) carried out a comparison of measured and
calculated shear strengths for beams and columns subjected
to cyclic loading following the procedure in the 1988 Japa-
nese design guideline. He concluded that the method in the
Japanese guideline resulted in accurate estimates of the
reduced shear strength of both beams and columns subjected
to cyclic loading with various shear span-depth ratios. He
indicated, however, that the method did not perform well for
members with high-strength concrete. Further research at
Kyoto University showed that the performance of the
method was improved by adopting the strut factor proposed
in the draft of the CEB-FIP model code (Comité Euro-Interna-
tional du Béton 1988), which is proportional to the reciprocal
of the cubic root of the compressive strength of concrete
(Watanabe and Kabeyasawa 1998)
β s = ---------- (f c ′ in psi)
3 f ′
c
(6-5)
1.7
β s = ---------- (f c ′ in MPa)
3 f ′
c
Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006) defined the strut
strength as the product of factors related to the compressive
strength of the concrete (βfc), the angle of inclination of the
strut (βαt), and, in the case of members in which the strut
interacts with a truss mechanism, an additional factor (βta).
The strut factor is defined as
βs = βfcβαtβta (6-6)
The work by Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006) on
members with low shear span-depth ratios was calibrated
using experimental data from deep beams and structural
walls with concrete compressive strengths ranging from
2200 to 20,300 psi (15 to 140 MPa). Von Ramin developed
a base expression for the strut factor using experimental
results from elements subjected to monotonic loading. The
effect of load reversals was later introduced by comparing
the base factors for the monotonic loading case to reduced
values of strength of columns and walls subjected to
repeated load reversals into the nonlinear range of response.
Following this methodology, Von Ramin and Matamoros
(2004, 2006) proposed the following expressions for the
compressive strength factor
β fc = 0.85 – f c′ ⁄ 36,200 ≥ 0.5 (f c ′ in psi)
(6-7)
β fc = 0.85 – 0.004f c′ ≥ 0.5 (f c ′ in MPa)
They proposed the following expression for the strut angle
factor in members without transverse reinforcement
1
β αt = ---------------------------------
- (6-8)
3
1 + 0.1cot α st
and in members with transverse reinforcement
4.6
β αt = -----------------------------------------
5
- (6-9)
6.5 + 0.13cot α st
where αst is the angle of inclination of the strut with the main
longitudinal tie (Fig. 6.5), that in the case of structural walls,
is oriented in the vertical direction. Von Ramin and Matamoros
(2006) indicated that the angle of inclination of the main
strut in members with low shear span-depth ratios may be
approximated as
cotαst = av /d (6-10)
For members with low shear span depth-ratios in which a
truss mechanism is superimposed on a strut (Fig. 6.5), Von
ITG-4.3R-40 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

A similar approach was proposed by Watanabe and Ichinose

(1991), and implemented in the seismic design guidelines of
the Architectural Institute of Japan (1994).
Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006) suggested the
following limits for the angle of inclination of the struts of
the compression fields

cotαl ≤ 2cosαst (Fig. 6.5(a)) (6-14)

and

Fig. 6.5—Strut and compression field angles for structural

cot α
walls as defined by Von Ramin and Matamoros (2006). cotαt ≤ --------------st- (Fig. 6.5(b)) (6-15)
2
Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006) indicated that the
strength of the strut must be reduced to reflect interaction They also suggested a lower limit of 30 degrees for both
with the tie. Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006) angles. The strength provided by the two orthogonal truss
proposed the following expression for the interaction factor mechanisms is given by

(β s f c′ – f t, t ) (β s f c′ – f t, l ) Vt,l = ρt,l fyt,l b · a · tan2αl (Fig. 6.5(a)) (6-16)

β ta = --------------------------------------------------------
2
(6-11)
(β s f c′ ) – f t, t f t, l
and
where ft,l and ft,t are the stresses imposed on the concrete by
Vt,t = ρt,t fyt,t b · jd · tanαt (Fig. 6.5(a)) (6-17)
the compression fields associated with reinforcement
oriented in directions parallel to and perpendicular to the
main longitudinal tie. These stresses are calculated based on The nominal shear strength of members with low shear
the assumption of a uniform compression field (Von Ramin span-depth ratios is calculated as
and Matamoros 2006) as
Vn + Va + Vt,t + Vt,l (6-18)
ρ t, t f yt, t
f t, t = ----------------
2
(6-12) where Va is the component of the shear strength resulting
sin α t
from arch-action. The term Va was defined on the basis of the
strength of a strut spanning from load point to support as
and
Va = βs fc′ wstbsinαst (6-19)
ρ t, l f yt, l
f t, l = ----------------
2
(6-13)
cos α l where wst is the strut width, and b is the width of the structural
member. Based on the geometric configuration of the node,
where ρt,t is the transverse reinforcement ratio for the transverse the width of the strut w is given by
reinforcement oriented perpendicular to the main longitudinal
tie, fyt,t is the specified yield strength of the transverse wst = hacosαst lbsinαst (6-20)
reinforcement oriented perpendicular to the main longitudinal
tie, ρt,l is the transverse reinforcement ratio for the transverse with ha = 2cb = twice the cover of the longitudinal reinforce-
reinforcement oriented in the direction parallel to the main ment and lb is the dimension of the loading plate or support
longitudinal tie, fyt,l is the specified yield strength of the in the axial direction of the member.
reinforcement oriented parallel to the main longitudinal tie, In the case of squat walls in which designers include the
αt is the angle between the main longitudinal tie (which is strength provided by the transverse reinforcement, contrary
oriented in the vertical direction in the case of structural to expectations, Eq. (6-11) will result in a significant reduction
walls) and the struts of the compression field induced by the in the calculated strength of the strut. In structural walls with
transverse reinforcement oriented perpendicular to the main those characteristics, the amount of transverse reinforcement
longitudinal tie (Fig. 6.5), and αl is the angle between the needed to avoid a reduction in shear strength after inclined
main longitudinal tie and the struts of the compression field cracking is very large. A larger nominal shear strength may
induced by the transverse reinforcement oriented parallel to be obtained by neglecting the effect of the transverse reinforce-
the main longitudinal tie. ment in the calculation of the strength of the wall, which is
Equation (6-11) originates from a lower bound plasticity consistent with the behavior observed in tests. In those cases,
solution of a strut-and-tie model proposed by Nielsen (1999). although the amount of transverse reinforcement does not
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-41

affect the nominal shear strength, a minimum amount of where ε1 is the principal tensile strain in the strut. Based on
reinforcement should be provided as dictated by ACI 318-05. strain compatibility, the principal tensile strain is expressed
Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006) indicated that, as a function of the strain in the tie εs as
for walls with well-confined boundary elements, Eq. (6-18)
resulted in conservative estimates of strength, and that a ε1 = εs + (εs + 0.002)/tan2αst (6-27)
better estimate of the shear strength is obtained by adding the
shear strength of the boundary element, calculated as if it The strain in the tie εs is usually taken as the yield strain of
were a compression member. the reinforcement εy.
Based on test results from columns and beams subjected to A modification of Eq. (6-26) was later proposed by
load reversals, Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004) suggested Vecchio et al. (1994) for high-strength concrete with
the following expression for the reduction in the strength of compressive strength ranging up to 10,400 psi (72 MPa)
the strut as a result of repeated load reversals into the
nonlinear range of response 1
β s = ----------------------------- (6-28)
ε
0.9 + 0.27 ----1
8DR lim ε0
β nl, strut = 1 – ----------------------------------------
- (6-21)
( ρ t f yt ⁄ f c ′ ) + 0.01
6.5—Calculation of shear strength of members
The strut factor in members subjected to repeated load subjected to seismic loading
reversals into the nonlinear range of response is given by Current provisions in Section 21.3.4 of ACI 318-05 for
proportioning the amount of transverse reinforcement in
beams (flexural members) of special moment frames require
βsc = βnl,strut βs (6-22)
that the design shear force be calculated on the basis of
opposing probable flexural strengths at the joint faces and
Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004) indicated that the the factored tributary gravity load along the span. The shear
strength of the truss mechanism should be reduced as well by strength must be calculated according to the procedures
the following factor outlined in Chapter 11 of ACI 318-05, which were calibrated
based on tests of members subjected to monotonic loading.
1 The effect of repeated shear reversals is accounted for in that
β nl, truss = ----------------------------------------------- (6-23) the term related to the contribution of the concrete, Vc , must be
λp
1 + 1.5 ⋅ DR lim ⋅ 6 neglected if the earthquake-induced shear is 1/2 or more of the
design shear force and the axial force is less than Ag fc′ /20.
where Additional requirements for the amount of transverse
reinforcement are given in Section 21.3.3 of ACI 318-05,
which limits the maximum hoop spacing to the smallest of d/4,
λ p = 1 + 2 · (P/Ag fc′ )0.35 (6-24)
eight times the diameter of the smallest longitudinal bar, 24
times the diameter of the hoop bar, and 12 in. (305 mm).
Warwick and Foster (1993) also noted the effect of A similar two-tier approach is used to determine the
compressive strength and shear span-depth ratio on the strut amount of transverse reinforcement in columns (members
factor. They proposed the following strut factor expression subjected to bending and axial load) of special moment frames.
for concrete compressive strengths ranging between 2900 The shear demand must be calculated on the basis of the
and 14,500 psi (20 and 100 MPa) probable moment strengths at the joints and the amount of
reinforcement required for shear strength must be calculated in
f c′ a a 2 accordance with Chapter 11 of ACI 318-05. As in the case of
- – 0.72 ⎛ -----v⎞ + 0.18 ⎛ -----v⎞ ( f c′ in psi)
β s = 1.25 – --------------- beams, the term related to the contribution of the concrete, Vc ,
72,500 ⎝ d⎠ ⎝ d⎠
(6-25) must be neglected if the earthquake-induced shear is 1/2 or
f c′ a a 2
β s = 1.25 – --------- – 0.72 ⎛ -----⎞ + 0.18 ⎛ -----⎞ ( f c′in MPa)
v v more of the design shear force and the axial force is less than
500 ⎝ d⎠ ⎝ d⎠ Ag fc′ /20. For the majority of practical design cases, the term Vc
does not have to be neglected in columns because the axial force
The CSA Standard adopts a strut factor that considers the is not less than Ag fc′ /20. Moreover, the shear strength of a
strain compatibility of the struts and the strain softening of column increases as the compressive axial load on it increases.
the diagonally cracked concrete. The expression for the strut In addition, designers must verify that the amount of transverse
reinforcement provided is greater than that required by Eq. (21-3)
factor is
or (21-4) of ACI 318-05. These two equations specify the
amount of transverse reinforcement for adequate confinement
1
β s = ---------------------------- (6-26) of the column core under cyclic loading. The latter criterion
0.8 + 170ε 1 controls for most practical situations.
ITG-4.3R-42 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
6.6—Use of high-strength transverse
reinforcement
The use of high-strength transverse reinforcement is
advantageous for column confinement. This topic is
addressed in detail in Chapter 5 of this report. Section 11.5.2
of ACI 318-05 limits the yield strength of shear reinforce-
ment to a maximum of 60,000 psi (414 MPa), which is
increased to 80,000 psi (552 MPa) in the case of welded
deformed wire reinforcement. It is stated in the commentary
to the code that this provision is intended to limit the width
of inclined cracks at service-load levels.
Otani (1995) described the approach followed by the
Japanese code for shear design using high-yield-strength
transverse reinforcement. The objective of the Japanese
Standard is to limit the width of shear cracks under long-term
loads to an acceptable value, particularly in the case of
columns, and to provide a safe estimate of strength (5% failure
ratio on the basis of 1200 test data) for short-term loads.
In the case of beams subjected to long-term loading, the
maximum allowable shear force is given by
Vall = bj[αshvc,all + 0.5fyt(ρt – 0.002)] (6-29)
For columns subjected to long-term loading, the allowable
shear force is given by
Vall = bjαsh fyt (6-30)
In the case of beams under short-term service loads, the
allowable shear force is given by
Vall = bj[αshvc,all + 0.5fyt(ρt – 0.001)] (6-31)
For columns subjected to short-term service loads, the
allowable shear force is given by
Vall = bj[vc,all + 0.5fyt(ρt – 0.001)] (6-32)
where
4
αsh = 1 ≤ ------------------------- ≤ 2 (6-33)
M ⁄ Vd + 1
where
vc, all = allowable shear stress in concrete;
M = maximum moment in the member due to
service loads;
V = maximum shear force in the member due to
service loads (at the same location as M);
b = width of compression face of member;
j = ratio of internal lever arm to effective depth of
beam (under bending, j = 7/8d);
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to
centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement;
and
ρt = ratio of area of distributed transverse reinforce-
ment to gross concrete area perpendicular to
that reinforcement (the nominal value of ρt has
an upper limit of 0.006 for long-term loads and
0.008 for short-term loads).
The allowable shear stress in the concrete is given by the
minimum of fc′ /30 and 70 + fc′ /100 (psi) ( fc′ /30 and 0.5
+ fc′ /100 [MPa]) for normalweight concrete under long-term
loading. For short-term loading, the allowable stress is
increased by a factor of 1.5. For lightweight-aggregate
concrete, a reduction factor of 0.9 must be applied. The
maximum allowable tensile stress in the shear reinforcement
is limited by the Japanese Design Standard to 28,500 psi
(197 MPa) under long-term loads and 85,400 psi (589 MPa)
under short-term loads. The reasons for establishing an upper
limit on the allowable tensile stress include: 1) serviceability
concerns; and 2) experimental evidence from beams with
high-strength transverse reinforcement tested in Japan
showing that yielding of the transverse reinforcement was
not reached at shear failure.
6.7—Recommendations
Based on the body of research that was reviewed, there are
no specific recommendations deemed necessary for the
design of slender high-strength concrete members for shear.
The modification to Eq. (11-13) of ACI 318-05 to make the
minimum amount of reinforcement a function of the
compressive strength of concrete provides an adequate solution
to prevent sudden shear failures after inclined cracking in
members with light amounts of transverse reinforcement.
A study by Sakaguchi et al. (1990) raises concerns about
the behavior of members with low shear span-depth ratios
subjected to cyclic loading. There is evidence (Sakaguchi et
al. 1990; Kabeyasawa and Hiraishi 1998; Von Ramin and
Matamoros 2004, 2006) that the application of the strut
factors specified in Appendix A of ACI 318-05 to the design
of high-strength concrete members may be unconservative
because these factors were calibrated based on test results of
elements loaded monotonically to failure.
In elements subjected to load reversals, concrete may
alternate between states of tension and compression due to
changes in the direction of loading. If the element remains in
the elastic range of response, the width of the cracks that
form while concrete is subjected to tensile strains is not large
enough to cause severe damage, and the use of strut factors
derived for the monotonic loading case is acceptable. This
type of behavior was observed in tests of deep beams
subjected to load reversals conducted by Uribe and Alcocer
(2001) in which failure took place prior to significant
inelastic deformations in the flexural reinforcement (peak
recorded strains in the flexural reinforcement at failure were
on the order of 1%).
When elements undergo excursions into the inelastic
range of response, crack widths are significantly larger than
those observed in the linear range of response due to larger
deformations associated with yielding of the reinforcement.
If concrete is not properly confined, this type of behavior
leads to rapid degradation of strength. Furthermore, in some
instances, the compression force may not be sufficient to
fully close cracks formed while concrete and reinforcement
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-43

were subjected to tension. These effects may result in

reduced strength for concrete in the struts, or may render
struts ineffective due to changes in the load path in the
element. To address the aforementioned problems caused by
load reversals into the inelastic range of response, several
proposals in the literature suggest that it is necessary to
adjust strut factors for monotonic loading when using them
for seismic design. Uribe and Alcocer (2001) indicated that
procedures for seismic design using strut-and-tie models
should account for the reduction in strength of the concrete
in the struts as well as potential reductions in bond strength
due to load reversals. They also suggested that proper
detailing should include the use of closely spaced hoops to
limit the width of the cracks under tension, and to provide
confinement to concrete in the struts. Expressions for the
reduction in strength with inelastic deformations are
presented in the Japanese Design Code (AIJ 1994) and by
Von Ramin and Matamoros (2006). In the Japanese Design
Code (AIJ 1994), the capacity of struts is reduced as a function Fig. 6.6—Comparison between strut factors proposed and
of the plastic rotation, while in the proposal developed by that in Appendix A for ACI 318-05 for bottle-shaped struts
without transverse reinforcement.
Von Ramin and Matamoros (2006), the reduction in strength
is a function of deformation demand, amount of confining
reinforcement, and the axial stress on the element.
Because the strut factors in Appendix A of ACI 318-05 do A comparison between the proposed strut factor and that
not account for the effects of load reversals, the committee corresponding to bottle-shaped struts in Appendix A of ACI
recommends that they only be used to proportion elements 318-05 is presented in Fig. 6.6. As shown in Fig. 6.6, when the
intended to remain elastic for the design earthquake. angle of inclination of the strut is 35 degrees, the proposed strut
Specific recommendations for the design of members with factor becomes equal to that in ACI 318-05 at a concrete
low shear span-depth ratios using strut-and-tie models are compressive strength of approximately 7000 psi (48 MPa).
presented in the following. In the case of bottle-shaped For struts with uniform cross-sectional area over their
struts, a recommendation is made based on the strut factors length, the stress conditions are very similar to those in the
suggested by Von Ramin and Matamoros (2004, 2006). compression zone of members subjected to flexure and axial
These factors were calibrated using deep beams and walls, load. For this reason, it is recommended that the strut factor
and adjusted to account for the 0.85 factor included in Eq. (A-3) be similar to the α1 factor defined of Section 4.8 of this
of Appendix A of ACI 318-05: report, adjusted for the 0.85 factor in ACI 318, Eq. (A-3). In
inch-pound units, it is recommended that: “for struts with
βs = βfcβαt ≤ 0.6 (6-34) uniform cross-sectional area over their length, the factor βs
shall be taken as 1.0 for concrete strengths fc′ up to and
including 8000 psi. For strengths above 8000 psi, βs shall be
where reduced continuously at a rate of 0.02 for each 1000 psi of
strength in excess of 8000 psi, but βs shall not be taken less
βfc = 1 – fc′ /30,000 ≥ 0.6 ( fc′ in psi) (6-35) than 0.80.” In SI units, the recommendation is that: “for
struts with uniform cross-sectional area over their length, the
βfc = 1 – 0.005 fc′ ≥ 0.6 ( fc′ in MPa) factor βs shall be taken as 1.0 for concrete strengths fc′ up to
and including 55 MPa. For strengths above 55 MPa, βs shall
be reduced continuously at a rate of 0.003 for each MPa of
1
β αt = ---------------------------------
3
- (6-36) strength in excess of 55 MPa, but βs shall not be taken less
1 + 0.1cot α st than 0.80.”
Because research on the effect of repeated load reversals
where αst is the angle of inclination of the strut with respect into the nonlinear range of response on strut factors is at an
to the main tie. early stage, it is recommended that the use of strut-and-tie
models be limited to design of members where significant
In the case of members subjected to point loads with single
degradation of strength under load reversals into the
struts running between the load and reaction points, the angle
nonlinear range is not expected to take place.
of inclination of the strut may be approximated as
Recommendations about the amount of transverse reinforce-
ment needed for proper confinement of the concrete under
a nonlinear deformations are addressed in Chapter 5 of this
cos α st = -----v (6-37)
d report.
ITG-4.3R-44 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

CHAPTER 7—DEVELOPMENT LENGTH/SPLICES reinforcement in the splice region (McCabe 1998; Zuo and
According to ACI 318-05, the development length of Darwin 2000; Azizinamini et al. 1993). In high-strength
deformed bars or deformed wires in tension may be calculated concrete members without transverse reinforcement, there is
according to the following requirements. For cases in which: a greater tendency for the cracks to propagate through the
1) the clear spacing of the bars being developed or spliced is
aggregate, resulting in smoother failure surfaces than those
not less than db, the cover is not less than db, and the stirrups
found in normal-strength concrete (McCabe 1998). When
or ties throughout ld or the splice length are not less than the
the critical failure stress is reached, there is only limited
code minimum; or 2) the clear spacing of the bars being
developed or spliced is not less than 2db and the cover is not redistribution of stresses and, as a result, failure tends to be
less than db more sudden and brittle in nature than in normal-strength
concrete. Zuo and Darwin (2000) observed brittle failures in
l fy ψt ψe λ high-strength concrete without significant damage to the
- for No. 6 and smaller bars (f c′ and f y in psi)
----d- = ------------------
db 25 f c′ concrete at the interface between the bar and the concrete.
(7-1) Azizinamini et al. (1999b) also indicated that the strength
l 12f y ψ t ψ e λ
- for No. 6 and smaller bars (f c′ and f y in MPa)
----d- = -------------------------
db 25 f c′ of specimens without transverse reinforcement cannot be
estimated with much accuracy because there are significant
l fy ψt ψe λ variations in measured strength for similar specimens.
- for No. 7 and larger bars (f c′ and f y in psi)
----d- = ------------------
db 20 f c′ McCabe (1998) stated that in members without transverse
(7-2) reinforcement, the maximum stress before splitting
l 3f y ψ t ψ e λ
- for No. 7 and larger bars (f c′ and f y in MPa)
----d- = ----------------------
db 5 f c′ failure is related to the fracture properties of the concrete,
and not solely to the compressive strength. Because the
For cases not meeting the aforementioned spacing, cover, fracture energy does not increase proportionally to the square
and confinement criteria root of the compressive strength, design expressions based on
the square root function may be unconservative for
l 3f y ψ t ψ e λ compressive strengths greater than 10,000 psi (69 MPa)
- for No. 6 and smaller bars (f c′ and f y in psi)
----d- = ----------------------
db 50 f c′ (McCabe 1998). Zuo and Darwin (2000) proposed a relation-
(7-3)
l 18f y ψ t ψ e λ ship between bond force and compressive strength to the
- for No. 6 and smaller bars (f c′ and f y in MPa)
----d- = -------------------------
db 25 f c′ 1/4 power based on a statistical study of monotonic tests
of beams without transverse reinforcement and with
l 3f y ψ t ψ e λ concrete compressive strengths up to 16,000 psi (110 MPa). It
- for No. 7 and larger bars (f c′ and f y in psi)
----d- = ----------------------
db 40 f c′ has also been suggested that the lower water-cementitious
(7-4)
l 9f y ψ t ψ e λ material ratios of high-strength concrete result in less bleeding
- for No. 7 and larger bars (f c′ and f y in MPa)
----d- = ----------------------
db 10 f c′ and sedimentation, which makes the top bar effect less
significant than in normal-strength concrete (Fujii et al.
Alternatively, the development length of deformed bars or 1998; Azizinamini et al. 1999b).
deformed wires in tension may be calculated with a more
complex equation: ACI 318 Eq. (12-1) 7.1—Design equations for development length of
bars in high-strength concrete
l fy ψt ψe ψs λ
3- -------- Design equations applicable to high-strength concrete
----d- = ----- - ----------------------- (f c′ and f y in psi)
db 40 f c′ ⎛ c b + K tr⎞ have been proposed in ACI 408R-03, based on the statistical
------------------
⎝ db ⎠
ACI 318 Eq. (12-1) analysis by Zuo and Darwin (2000). It is proposed in the ACI
l fy ψt ψe ψs λ
9- -------- Committee 408 report that Eq. (12-1) of ACI 318-05 be
----d- = ----- - ----------------------- (f c′ and f y in MPa)
db 10 f c′ ⎛ c b + K tr⎞
------------------
⎝ db ⎠
replaced by the following

fy
⎛ -----------
in which the term (cb + Ktr)/db ≤ 2.5. The development – 2210ω⎞ ψ t ψ e λ
ld ⎝f ′ 1 ⁄ 4 ⎠
length calculated with any of the previous formulas must be ----- = -------------------------------------------------------- (f c′ and f y in psi)
c
db c′ω + K tr′ ⎞
not less than 12 in. (305 mm). 70 ⎛ ----------------------- -
⎝ db ⎠
Due to a lack of test data on bars embedded in high- (7-5)
42f y
⎛ ----------- – 2210ω⎞ ψ t ψ e λ
strength concrete, ACI 318-05 places an upper limit of 100 psi ⎝f ′ 1 ⁄ 4 ⎠
ld
(8.3 MPa) on the term f c′ in the previous equations. This c
- (f c′ and f y in MPa)
----- = -------------------------------------------------------
db c′ω + K tr′ ⎞
limit does not allow designers to take advantage of any 70 ⎛ ----------------------- -
⎝ db ⎠
increase in bond strength associated with increases in
concrete compressive strength beyond 10,000 psi (69 MPa).
Research on bond of reinforcement in high-strength where
concrete has shown that there is a significant difference
between the behavior of members with and without transverse c′ = cmin + 0.5db (7-6)
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-45

c max relationship between the amount of transverse reinforcement

ω = 0.1 ---------
- + 0.9 ≤ 1.25 (7-7) and the total bond force is given by
c min

Tb = ⎛ 2177t d ------
A sp
- + 66⎞ f c′
1⁄4
(Tb in lb, td in in., Asp in in.2, and fc′ in psi) (7-13)
Ktr′ = (0.5tdAtr/sn) f c′ (td in inches, Atr in in.2, and fc′ in psi) (7-8) ⎝ n ⎠

Ktr′ = (6.25tdAtr /sn) f c′ (td in mm, Atr in mm2, and fc′ in MPa) t d A sp
Tb = ⎛ --------
- ------- + 1⎞ f c′ (Tb in kN, td in mm, Asp in mm2, and fc′ in MPa)
1⁄4
⎝ 500 n ⎠

td = 0.78db + 0.22 (db in inches) (7-9) where Tb is the bond force, Asp is the cross-sectional area of
transverse reinforcement crossing the potential plane of
td = 0.03db + 0.22 (db in mm) splitting along the length of splice, n is the number of bars
being spliced, and fc′ is the specified compressive strength.
and This equation was used to estimate the amount of transverse
reinforcement required to achieve an increase in bond
(c′ω + Ktr′ )/db ≤ 4.0 (7-10) strength proportional to the square root of the compressive
strength. For test data with a concrete compressive strength
The simplified expressions provided in Section 12.2.2 of of 15,000 psi (103 MPa), the amount of transverse reinforce-
ACI 318-05 are proposed to be replaced by the following: for ment needed to obtain a safe estimate of the development
cases in which 1) the clear spacing of the bars being developed length of a No. 8 (No. 25) bar with the ACI 318 equations
or spliced is not less than db, the cover is not less than db, and was approximately
the stirrups or ties throughout ld provide a value of Ktr′ /db ≥ 0.5;
or 2) the clear spacing of the bars being developed or spliced is Asp = 0.5nAb,max (7-14)
not less 2db, and the cover is not less than db
where n is the number of bars being spliced. A linear adjustment
l fy was proposed to estimate the amount of transverse reinforce-
----d- = ⎛ --------------------
- – 20⎞ ψ t ψ e λ (f c′ and f y in psi)
db ⎝ 105f ′ 1 ⁄ 4 ⎠ ment required for members with concrete compressive
c
(7-11) strengths other than 15,000 psi (103 MPa) and higher than
l 0.4f y
----d- = ⎛ ----------- – 20⎞ ψ t ψ e λ (f c′ and f y in MPa)
db ⎝f ′ 1 ⁄ 4 ⎠ 10,000 psi (69 MPa)
c

A sp = 0.5nA b, max ( f c′ ⁄ 15,000 ), f c′ ≥ 10,000 (f c′ in psi)

For cases not meeting the aforementioned spacing, cover, (7-15)
A sp = 0.5nA b, max ( f c′ ⁄ 100 ), f c′ ≥ 69 (f c′ in MPa)
and confinement criteria

Equation (7-15) was calibrated on the basis of experiments

----d- = ⎛ -----------------
l fy
- – 30⎞ ψ t ψ e λ (f c′ and f y in psi)
db ⎝ 70f ′ 1 ⁄ 4 ⎠
c
(7-12)
----d- = ⎛ -----------
l 0.6f y
– 30⎞ ψ t ψ e λ (f c′ and f y in MPa)
db ⎝f ′ 1 ⁄ 4 ⎠
c
The use of transverse reinforcement significantly changes
behavior (Azizinamini et al. 1999b), because the confinement
provided by the transverse reinforcement restrains the
development of splitting cracks. Furthermore, the behavior
becomes significantly more ductile. Zuo and Darwin (2000)
showed the significant effect of transverse reinforcement on
bond strength. Their study showed that the best fit between
bond force and compressive strength for members with
transverse reinforcement was obtained for a power coefficient
of 3/4 compared with a coefficient of 1/4 for members
without transverse reinforcement.
An alternative design procedure was proposed by Azizinamini
et al. (1999a). Rather than introducing new design equations,
the procedure relies on a minimum amount of transverse
reinforcement over the splice region to take advantage of the
concrete compressive strength and improve the ductility of
the splices (Azizinamini et al. 1999a). The approach
proposed by Azizinamini et al. is based on an analysis of test
results by Darwin et al. (1996), which concluded that the
with concrete compressive strengths of up to 16,000 psi
(110 MPa).
Additional requirements are that the maximum spacing of
stirrups in the longitudinal direction not exceed 12 in.
(305 mm), a minimum of three stirrups be used through the
length of the splice, and that the bar size for the stirrups be at
least No. 3 (No. 10). The proposal by Azizinamini et al.
(1999a) requires that the development length be calculated
using the equations in Sections 12.2.2 or 12.2.3 of ACI 318-05
assuming a value of Ktr = 0. Because the current restriction in
the code applies to concrete compressive strengths greater
than 10,000 psi (69 MPa), the amount of transverse reinforce-
ment proposed previously would be required when the
compressive strength exceeds that threshold. The main
advantage of the procedure proposed by Azizinamini et al.
(1999a) is that it does not require adopting new equations for
development length. There may, however, be additional cost
if additional transverse reinforcement is required.
7.2—Design equations for development length of
hooked bars in high-strength concrete
There is little experimental data on the behavior of hooked
bars in high-strength concrete. Fujii et al. (1998) summarized
research on hooked bars in exterior joints carried out in Japan
ITG-4.3R-46 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
as part of the research program on high-strength materials.
Compressive strength of concrete in the specimens tested as
part of the study ranged from 5800 to 17,400 psi (40 to
120 MPa). All specimens in the testing program failed due
to splitting of the side cover (cover to the side of the bar).
Fujii et al. (1998) indicated that bond force was proportional
to the cubic root of the compressive strength rather than the
square root of fc′ . Increasing side cover led to increases in
strength up to a cover of six bar diameters. The maximum
stress developed in specimens with closely spaced bars (bar
spacings ranging between two and 15 bar diameters) was
approximately 75% of that observed in bars spaced farther
apart than 30 bar diameters. The maximum stress increased
in proportion to the development length up to a development
length of 16 bar diameters, after which the observed increase
in maximum stress was negligible. The maximum bar stress
also increased proportionally to the ratio of development
length to the lever arm between the tension and the compression
resultants in the beam. Finally, the maximum stress in the bar
was found to increase with the amount of transverse reinforce-
ment. The increase was proportional to the ratio Asp fyt /s, where
Asp is the cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement
crossing the potential splitting plane, fyt is the yield strength
of the transverse reinforcement, and s is the spacing. The
increase was approximately linear, with a maximum of 40%
for an Asp fyt /s ratio of 3350 lb/in. (0.59 kN/mm).
Fujii et al. (1998) proposed the following expression for
the maximum tensile stress that can be developed in a bar
with 90-degree hook
fu = 4000kcc kj kd ks(fc′ )0.4 ( fu and fc′ in psi) (7-16)
fu = 200kcc kj kd ks(fc′ )0.4 ( fu and fc′ in MPa)
where kcc is the cover factor, kj and kd are development
length factors, and ks is the transverse reinforcement factor.
The factors are as follows
0.1c
k cc = 0.43 + ---------- (7-17)
db
0.5l dh
k j = 0.8 + -------------
- (1 ≤ kj ≤ 4) (7-18)
jd
l dh
- + 0.54 ≤ 1.0
k d = 0.038 ----- (7-19)
db
2 using standard hooks in high-strength concrete.
0.46d
k s = 0.7 + ---------------s- ≤ 1.0 (7-20)
2
db
where
cc = clear cover of reinforcement (side cover in this
case) to the outermost anchored bar;
db = nominal diameter of the anchored bar;
ldh = development length in tension of deformed bar
or deformed wire with standard hook, measured
from critical section to outside end of hook;
j = ratio of internal lever arm to effective depth of
the beam section at the column face; and
ds = nominal diameter of bar used as transverse
reinforcement (positioned at the hook).
The configuration of the hook must satisfy the requirements
of ACI 318-05.
7.3—Recommendations
Research in bond and development of reinforcement
(McCabe 1998) indicates that design expressions based on
the square root of the compressive strength of the concrete
may be unconservative for compressive strengths greater
than 10,000 psi (69 MPa). Research by Azizinamini et al.
(1993, 1999b) and Zuo and Darwin (2000) showed that the
two main alternatives to correcting this problem were to
increase the development length or to add transverse reinforce-
ment. The main advantage of the latter approach is that it
improves the behavior of the spliced or developed bars
because failure is significantly more ductile. This is particularly
advantageous in seismic design.
Zuo and Darwin (2000) proposed a relationship between
bond force and compressive strength to the 1/4 power based
on a statistical study of monotonic tests of beams without
transverse reinforcement and with concrete compressive
strengths up to 16,000 psi (110 MPa). Their study concluded
that the best fit between bond force and compressive strength
for members with transverse reinforcement was obtained for
compressive strength raised to the power of 3/4, compared
with the compressive strength raised to the power of 1/4 for
members without transverse reinforcement.
Because ductile behavior is preferable in earthquake-resistant
design, it was decided that the use of transverse reinforcement
would be the preferable of the two alternatives. Therefore,
the recommendation by Azizinamini et al. (1999a) was
adopted as the basis for the proposed addition to Chapter 21
of ACI 318-05. Consistent with the approach adopted in ACI
318-05, the design recommendation adopted by the
committee did not include any limitations to its applicability
related to use of epoxy coating. It is important to note,
however, that the recommendation by Azizinamini et al.
(1999a) was based primarily on test results from uncoated
bar splices in elements with concrete compressive strength of
up to 16,000 psi (110 MPa). At the time the recommendation
was adopted by the committee, there was a paucity of
experimental results from splices of epoxy-coated bars with
transverse reinforcement in elements with high-strength
concrete, and from uncoated and epoxy-coated bars terminated
The proposed recommendation is stated in the following:
In inch-pound units:
Lap splices of flexural reinforcement shall be permitted
only if hoop or spiral reinforcement is provided over the lap
length. When the value of f c′ exceeds 100 psi, ld shall be
calculated from either 12.2.2 or 12.2.3 with Ktr = 0, and
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS ITG-4.3R-47

transverse reinforcement crossing the potential plane of

splitting shall be provided over the tension splice length with
a minimum total cross-sectional area Asp given by ACI 318,
Eq. (21-AA).

Asp = 0.5nAb,max(fc′ /15,000) ACI 318 Eq. (21-AA)

where n is the number of bars or wires being spliced along

the plane of splitting.
Maximum spacing of the transverse reinforcement
enclosing the lapped bars shall not exceed d/4 or 4 in., and
the minimum hoop or spiral bar size shall be No. 3. Lap
splices shall not be used
(a) within joints;
(b) within a distance of twice the member depth from the
face of the joint; and
(c) where analysis indicates flexural yielding is caused by
inelastic lateral displacements of the frame.
In SI units:
Lap splices of flexural reinforcement shall be permitted
only if hoop or spiral reinforcement is provided over the lap
length. When the value of f c′ exceeds 25/3 MPa, ld shall
be calculated from either 12.2.2 or 12.2.3 with Ktr = 0, and
transverse reinforcement crossing the potential plane of
splitting shall be provided over the tension splice length with
a minimum total cross-sectional area Asp as given by ACI
318M, Eq. (21-AA).
Asp = 0.5nAb,max(fc′ /100) ACI 318M Eq. (21-AA)
where n is the number of bars or wires being spliced along
the plane of splitting.
Maximum spacing of the transverse reinforcement
enclosing the lapped bars shall not exceed d/4 or 100 mm,
and the minimum hoop or spiral bar size shall be No. 10. Lap
splices shall not be used
(a) within the joints;
(b) within a distance of twice the member depth from the
face of the joint; and
(c) where analysis indicates flexural yielding is caused by
inelastic lateral displacements of the frame.
Fig. 7.1—Proposed modification for development length of
hooks.
strengths above 10,000 psi (69 MPa). While the term f c′
has an upper limit of 100 psi (8.3 MPa) in Chapter 12 of ACI
318-05, there is no such limit on Chapter 21. Given that no
literature was found evaluating the use of the current ACI
provisions for the development length of hooked bars in
members with high-strength concrete, a modification to
Eq. (21-6) of ACI 318-05 is proposed in this report to reduce
the likelihood of unconservative estimates. The proposed
modification is as follows:
In inch-pound units:
21.5.4.1 The development length ldh for a bar with a
standard 90-degree hook in normalweight aggregate
concrete shall not be less than the largest of 8db, 6 in., or the
lengths required by ACI 318 Eq. (21-6) and (21-BB)
fy db
ldh = ---------------
- ACI 318 Eq. (21-6)
65 f c′
fy db
ldh = --------------------------
- ACI 318 Eq. (21-BB)
1⁄4
650 ( f c′ )
for bar sizes No. 3 through 11.

Conclusions from Zuo and Darwin (2000) for splices are In SI units:
consistent with those by Fujii et al. (1998) for hooked bars. 21.5.4.1 The development length ldh for a bar with a
Fujii et al. (1998) summarized research on hooked bars in standard 90 degree hook in normalweight aggregate
exterior joints carried out in Japan as part of the research concrete shall not be less than the largest of 8db, 150 mm, or
program on high-strength materials. Concrete compressive the lengths required by ACI 318M Eq. (21-6) and (21-BB)
strengths of the specimens tested as part of the study ranged
from 5800 to 17,400 psi (40 to 120 MPa). All specimens in 12f y d b
ldh = ---------------
- (ACI Eq. (21-6))
the testing program failed due to splitting of the side cover 65 f c′
(cover to the side of the bar). Fujii et al. concluded that bond
force was proportional to the cubic root of the compressive
42f y d b
strength rather than the square root of fc′ . ldh = --------------------------
- ACI 318M Eq. (21-BB)
1⁄4
It is a concern that the current equation for the development 650 ( f c′ )
length of hooked bars in tension of ACI 318-05 (Eq. (21-6))
may result in unconservative estimates for compressive for bar sizes No. 10 through 36.
ITG-4.3R-48 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Fig. 7.2—Percentage change in ldh according to proposed
modification for development length of hooks.
The proposed modification results in the same develop-
ment lengths as given by ACI 318-05 (Fig. 7.1) for concrete
compressive strengths up to 10,000 psi (69 MPa). For
strengths greater than 10,000 psi (69 MPa), the development
length of a hooked bar ldh increases in proportion to the
fourth root of the compressive strength, resulting in an
increase in development length (Fig. 7.2) that varies from 0
at 10,000 psi (69 MPa) to approximately 20% at 20,000 psi
(138 MPa).
CHAPTER 8—DESIGN OF BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS
The provisions for the design of joints in ACI 318-05
require that the horizontal shear stress in the joint be
compared with the nominal shear strength (Fig. 8.1), which
is calculated as
Vn = γvj f c′ Aj ( fc′ in psi) (8-1)
Vn = γvj f c′ Aj ( fc′ in MPa) (add factor 1/12 in equation)
where Aj is the effective cross-sectional area within a joint in
a plane parallel to the plane of reinforcement generating
shear in the joint, and γvj is a constant equal to 20, 15, or 12
for joints confined on all four faces (typically interior joints),
joints confined on three faces or two opposite faces (typi-
cally exterior joints), and all other (typically corner) joints,
respectively. A column face is considered confined if a beam
frames into it and the beam is wide enough to cover 3/4 of
the column face.
The horizontal shear force in the joint must be calculated
based on the assumption that the stress in the flexural tensile
reinforcement of the beams framing into the joint is 1.25fy
(Fig. 8.1).
8.1—Confinement requirements for
beam-column joints
For special moment-resisting frames, ACI 318-05 requires
the same amount of transverse hoop reinforcement as that
Fig. 8.1—Joint shear stress.
required in potential plastic hinge regions of columns, unless
the joint is confined by structural members on all four sides.
For rectangular columns, the amount of transverse reinforce-
ment through the joint must be at least
Ag f c′ f c′
A sh = 0.3 ⎛ -------
- – 1⎞ sb ----
- ≥ 0.09sb c ----
- (8-2)
⎝ A ch ⎠ c f yt f yt
Vertical spacing of transverse reinforcement within the
length lo, near the top and bottom of columns, may not
exceed 1/4 of the minimum column dimension, six times the
diameter of column longitudinal bars, and the longitudinal
spacing so. These criteria result in hoop spacing generally in
the range of 4 to 6 in. (102 and 152 mm). This requirement
is similar to that included in the design provisions developed
by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (2002).
In the case of joints that are confined by structural
members framing into all four sides of the joint, with each
member having a width of at least 3/4 of the column width,
Section 21.5.2.2 of ACI 318-05 requires a minimum of 1/2
the amount of reinforcement in Eq. (8-2), and a maximum
hoop spacing of 6 in. (152 mm).
The aforementioned requirements apply to joints of
special moment frames only. There are no specific code
requirements for joints of frames that are not part of the
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
lateral force-resisting system of a building assigned to
Seismic Category D or higher. Such joints and joints of inter-
mediate moment frames must comply with Section 7.10.4 of
ACI 318-05 in the case of spirally reinforced columns, and
Section 7.10.5 in the case of tied columns.
Section 7.10.5.2 requires that vertical spacing of ties shall
not exceed 16 longitudinal bar diameters, 48 tie bar or wire
diameters, or the least dimension of the compression
member. Section 7.10.5.4 requires that ties complying with
the aforementioned limitation must be provided at no more
than 1/2 of a tie spacing below the lowest horizontal reinforce-
ment in slab or drop panel above. It also requires that ties
must be located vertically not more than 1/2 of a tie spacing
above the top of footing or slab in any story. Where beams
or brackets frame from four directions into a column,
termination of ties not more than 3 in. (76 mm) below the
lowest reinforcement in the shallowest of such beams or
brackets is permitted.
Section 7.10.4.6 requires that spirals in a spirally reinforced
column must extend from the top of the footing or slab to the
level of the lowest horizontal reinforcement in members
supported above.
Section 7.10.4.7 requires that where beams or brackets do
not frame into all sides of a column, ties must extend above
termination of the spiral to the bottom of the slab or drop
panel. No maximum spacing for such ties is specified.
Within the regions of potential plastic hinging at the ends
of columns of intermediate moment frames, nonspiral trans-
verse reinforcement must be in the form of hoops and must
be provided at a spacing not to exceed: a) eight times the
diameter of the smallest longitudinal bar; b) 24 times the
diameter of the hoop bar; c) 1/2 of the smallest cross-
sectional dimension of column; and d) 12 in. (305 mm). The
only requirement concerning transverse joint reinforcement,
however, is in Section 21.12.5.5, which requires such rein-
forcement to conform to Section 11.11.2. That section
requires transverse reinforcement having a minimum cross-
sectional area equal to 0.75 f c′ c2s/fyt ≥ 50c2s/fyt (0.063 for
fc′ in MPa) to be provided over a depth not less than that of
the deepest framing member. Ghosh et al. (1995) recom-
mended that the column end transverse reinforcement, as
required by Section 21.12.5.2, be continued through joints of
intermediate moment frames, irrespective of whether they
are confined or unconfined.
8.2—Shear strength of exterior joints
Saqan and Kreger (1998) evaluated test results from 26
beam-column connections tested in Japan and the U.S. with
concrete compressive strengths ranging from 6000 to
15,500 psi (41 to 107 MPa). The maximum joint shear was
calculated based on the story shears in the specimens at drift
ratios of 2%.
In the case of exterior joints, only two of the 22 specimens
considered by Saqan and Kreger (1998) had shear strengths
less than those calculated per ACI 318-05. Saqan and Kreger
(1998) attributed the lower strengths observed in the two
specimens to high bond stresses that degraded the shear
strength of the joints prematurely. The ratios of column
ITG-4.3R-49
depth to beam bar diameter in these two tests were 13.6 and
15.7, below the limit of 20 specified by the design provisions
of ACI 318-05 and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (2002).
The average ratio of measured to calculated strength was
1.31 for the entire group of exterior joint tests, and the
average joint shear coefficient γvj was 20.8 compared with
the value of 15 given in ACI 318-05 and the design provisions
of Committee 352.
Of the 22 specimens evaluated, the majority did not
comply with the code requirements for exterior connections,
namely that there should be a minimum of two beams on
opposite sides of the column with widths of at least 75% of
the column width. The strict interpretation of this requirement
would have led to classifying the specimens as corner
connections and adopting a shear coefficient γvj of 12.
Noguchi et al. (1998) presented an overview of experimental
research on connections in Japan. The total number of
specimens with concrete compressive strength over 8700 psi
(60 MPa) was 110, with 76 simulating interior connections,
and 28 specimens simulating exterior joints without trans-
verse beams.
Noguchi et al. (1998) concluded that the provisions for
calculating joint shear strength in ACI 318-89 (same as those
in ACI 318-05) provided conservative results for the tests
carried out in Japan. The mean value of the joint shear
strength measured experimentally was approximately
proportional to the compressive strength raised to the power
0.72. The ACI provisions, which assume that joint shear
strength increases with the square root of the compressive
strength, resulted in a safe lower-bound estimate of strength.
8.3—Shear strength of interior joints
Saqan and Kreger (1998) had only four test results from
specimens simulating interior joints. All specimens
sustained joint shear strengths higher than the nominal
values calculated according to ACI 318-05, despite having
lower amounts of transverse reinforcement than dictated by
ACI 318-05 and the design provisions of Committee 352,
and despite not meeting the requirement that beams extend
over at least 75% of the width of all column faces. They
concluded that on the limited basis of these four tests, the
design provisions for joint shear strength in ACI 318-05 and
those proposed by Committee 352 provided safe estimates of
strength for concrete compressive strengths of up to 15,000 psi
(103 MPa). The evaluation of test results by Noguchi et al.
(1998) also led to the conclusion that the ACI design provisions
yielded conservative estimates of strength for concrete
compressive strengths up to 17,400 psi (120 MPa).
8.4—Effect of transverse reinforcement on
joint shear strength
The amount of transverse reinforcement in the exterior
joint specimens reviewed by Saqan and Kreger (1998)
ranged from 0.07 to 2.02 times the amount required by
ACI 318-05. They found no discernible correlation between
joint shear strength or mode of failure and the amount of
transverse reinforcement. Of the 22 specimens evaluated by
Saqan and Kreger, only five had an amount of transverse
ITG-4.3R-50 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
reinforcement higher than required by ACI 318-05. The
remaining specimens had an average amount of reinforcement
that was 47% of the minimum required, and had joint shear
strengths that were 42% higher than the calculated nominal
strength. Based on this, Saqan and Kreger indicated that the
amount of transverse reinforcement in the joint could be
reduced for joints with high-strength concrete, although the
effect of axial load should be assessed before such a reduction
is put in place.
Noguchi et al. (1998) concluded that transverse reinforcement
was marginally effective in increasing joint shear strength,
and that the effect of transverse reinforcement on joint shear
strength was not sensitive to concrete compressive strength.
They also found that the effect of transverse reinforcement
was slightly more significant for exterior joints than for
interior joints.
Although experimental results showed that beam-column
joints with low amounts of transverse reinforcement were
able to attain shear strengths comparable with those of well-
reinforced joints, one important additional consideration is
that the same cannot be concluded about the toughness of the
joints. The term “toughness” in this case refers to how
sustainable the peak shear strength was upon further load
reversals up to similar or greater joint distortions (Joint ACI-
ASCE Committee 352 2002). Noguchi et al. (1998)
concluded that the plastic deformation capacity and the
ductility of joints were enhanced by transverse reinforce-
ment in a manner consistent with the behavior of joints with
normal-strength concrete.
8.5—Development length requirements for
beam-column joints
ACI 318-05 criteria for the design of interior beam-
column joints in special moment frames subjected to seismic
loading include the requirement that the column dimension
parallel to the beam reinforcement must be no less than 20 times
the diameter of the largest longitudinal bar for normalweight
concrete nor 26 times the bar diameter for lightweight
concrete. These criteria are based on an evaluation of test
results (Zhu and Jirsa 1983) for beam-column joints made
with normal-strength concrete subjected to load reversals. Zhu
and Jirsa (1983) concluded that the ratios of column width to
bar diameter of 20 to 22 were appropriate to avoid bond
damage at an interstory drift of 3%.
The slip of bars in beam-column joints under load reversals
plays an important role in the ability of reinforced concrete
frames to resist seismic loading (Durrani and Wight 1982;
Zhu and Jirsa 1983; Ciampi et al. 1982). Based on push-pull
tests of bars embedded in beam-column joints with normal-
strength concrete, Ciampi et al. (1982) found that to limit
bond damage under cyclic loading, anchorage lengths
between 25 and 30 bar diameters and between 35 and 40 bar
diameters were necessary for Grade 40 and 60 (280 and
420 MPa) deformed bars, respectively. The criteria used to
define satisfactory performance were: 1) that the bond
damage be limited to the end region of the embedment
length; 2) that the hysteretic loops of the anchored bar
remain stable; and 3) that the strength of the anchorage
continues to increase for slip values larger than the peak
values during the previous cycles. The evaluation of test
results by Zhu and Jirsa (1983) resulted in the smaller values
now used in ACI 318-05. More recent tests, however,
support the earlier observations and indicate that the current
design criteria will not prevent bond slip, even in the earliest
stages of cyclic loading, and that significant bond slip will
occur even under more stringent requirements than those in
ACI 318-05 (Quintero-Febres and Wight 2001; Joint ACI-
ASCE Committee 352 2002).
Development length requirements for beam-column joints
differ significantly among the ACI 318-05 (ACI Committee
318 2005), the AIJ Design Guideline (AIJ 1994), and the
NZS 3101 (Standards Association of New Zealand 1995).
While the minimum column dimension requirement in
ACI 318-05 is insensitive to material properties, design
provisions in the AIJ Design Guideline (AIJ 1994) and in
NZS 3101 establish the ratio of bar diameter to column depth
as a function of the square root of the concrete compressive
strength and the yield strength of the reinforcement. The
philosophy behind this requirement is that bond deterioration
can cause significant loss in the capacity of the connection to
dissipate energy (pinching behavior). Noguchi et al. (1998),
based on the tests of beam-column joints with concrete
compressive strengths greater than 8700 psi (60 MPa)
carried out in Japan as part of the New RC project, concluded
that specimens with high-strength concrete and high-
strength reinforcement demonstrated significantly reduced
ability to dissipate energy compared with beam-column
joints made with normal-strength concrete. They indicated
that while specimens that met the Japanese design guideline
had adequate behavior, it is not clear if a less stringent
requirement such as that of ACI 318-05 would be sufficient
for adequate toughness under cyclic loading. They
concluded that further evaluation of the Japanese design
guideline was needed for high-strength materials.
8.6—Recommendations
Because research indicates that the equations for calculating
the shear strength of joints are conservative for high-strength
concrete, no change to the code provisions is recommended.
There are significant differences in the provisions for the
ratio of column dimension parallel to the beam reinforcement to
the diameter of the largest longitudinal beam bar (which
effectively defines the minimum interior column dimension)
between ACI 318-05 and both the AIJ Design Guideline
(1994) and NZS 3101 (Standards Association of New
Zealand 1995). ACI 318-05 requires significantly smaller
column dimensions for joints with high-strength concrete.
Although there is consensus in the literature that the
minimum column dimension specified in ACI 318-05 is not
sufficient to prevent slip of the reinforcement, this situation
is not specific to high-strength concrete. The main difficulty
faced by the ITG was that there were no references found
evaluating the minimum column dimension specified in
ACI 318-05 when high-strength concrete was used. Although
there is experimental evidence from research carried out in
Japan that the toughness of joints subjected to repeated load
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
reversals decreases with increasing compressive strength, the
research conducted in Japan was aimed at evaluating the perfor-
mance of joints proportioned according to the Japanese design
provisions. For that reason, no consensus was found on how to
modify the ACI 318-05 provisions to account for this effect.
CHAPTER 9—DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL WALLS
Seismic design of structural walls is covered in Section 21.7
of ACI 318-05. For walls with low aspect ratios, the primary
design consideration is shear strength. According to ACI
318-05, the nominal shear strength of walls is given by
Vn = Acv(αc f c′ + ρt fy)
ACI 318 Eq. (21-7)
where the coefficient αc = 3.0 for hw /lw ≤ 1.5, 2.0 for hw /lw
≥ 2.0, (fc′ and fy in psi) where the coefficient αc = 0.25 for
hw /lw ≤ 1.5, 0.17 for hw /lw ≥ 2.0, (fc′ and fy in MPa) and
varies linearly in between.
The minimum amount of web reinforcement required by
the code is ρl = ρt = 0.0025, with a maximum spacing
between bars of 18 in. (457 mm).
In slender walls, the flexural behavior of the walls is most
important. The minimum amount of longitudinal reinforcement
is specified to prevent premature failure due to rupture of the
reinforcement. The significance of this problem is greater for
walls made with high-strength concrete because the depth of
the neutral axis decreases and the strain demand in the
reinforcement increases with compressive strength.
Another mode of failure that the code intends to prevent,
or at least postpone, through the use of special boundary
elements at the edges of structural walls is crushing of the
concrete in the compression zone due to flexural demands.
According to ACI 318-05, compression zones shall be
reinforced with special boundary elements in areas where
lw
c ≥ ----------------------------
-, δ ⁄ h ≥ 0.007 (9-1)
600 ( δ u ⁄ h w ) u w
where c corresponds to the largest neutral axis depth calculated
for the factored axial force and nominal moment strength,
consistent with the design displacement δu , in. These
elements allow proper confinement and ductile behavior of
the compression zone. Due to the amount of transverse
reinforcement required, however, the use of boundary
elements significantly increases the cost of the walls.
9.1—Boundary element requirements
The equation to determine whether boundary elements are
required stems from establishing a limiting strain demand
εlim that the wall can sustain without special confinement,
such that
ε lim
c = --------
- (9-2)
φ lim
ITG-4.3R-51
From research by Wallace and Moehle (1992), the
following expression was proposed for the limiting curvature
δ
1
φlim = ---
- 0.0025 ( l w – 0.5h w ) + 2 -----u- (9-3)
lw hw
Because the first term within the square brackets is small
compared with the second, it can be conservatively
neglected to calculate the depth of the neutral axis
ε lim lw lw
- = --------------
c = -------- - = --------------
- (9-4)
φ lim 2δ u δ
--------------- 600 -----u-
ε lim h w hw
The previous expression was derived by assuming a
limiting strain of 0.003 and rounding the term 2/0.003 = 667
down to 600. The design expression implemented in ACI
318-05 is thus intended to require special boundary elements
if the strain in the extreme compression fiber of a wall
exceeds 0.003 for the design drift demand. In the current
design procedure, the limiting strain is independent of the
concrete compressive strength. A limiting strain of 0.003 has
been shown to be a safe limit for normal-strength concrete
(Wallace 1998). The main concern in applying this provision
to high-strength concrete walls is whether a limiting strain of
0.003 remains a safe value as the concrete compressive
strength increases.
Wallace (1998) suggests that a similar limiting strain for
normal-and high-strength concrete can be adopted, although
greater conservatism may be prudent for high-strength
concrete given the relatively brittle behavior of unconfined
high-strength concrete.
As previously stated in Section 4.5, Fasching and French
(1998) indicate that opinions about the limiting strain for
high-strength concrete are varied. The test data set they
compiled had limiting strains ranging from 0.002 and 0.005,
with an average value of 0.0033. Average values for data sets
with the same type of aggregate were all above 0.003.
Bae and Bayrak (2003) suggested adopting a lower
limiting strain due to observed spalling at lower strains in
highly confined high-strength concrete columns. They
attribute the premature spalling observed in these columns to
the existence of a failure plane created by closely spaced hoops.
Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2004) proposed, on the
basis of moment-curvature analyses, that the limiting
concrete strain be linearly reduced from 0.0036 for 4000 psi
(28 MPa) concrete to 0.0027 for 18,000 psi (124 MPa)
concrete. Their analysis consisted of finding the maximum
moment resistance and the corresponding extreme compression
fiber strain from a series of moment-curvature diagrams.
They concluded that although the optimal values of flexural
strength were obtained by varying the limiting strain as
proposed, the calculated flexural strength was not very
sensitive to the limiting strain, and recommended adopting a
constant value of 0.003.
ITG-4.3R-52 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Saatcioglu and Razvi (1998) observed premature spalling
of cover concrete in most of the concentrically loaded
columns that they tested, prior to the development of strains
associated with concrete crushing. Similar to Bae and
Bayrak (2003), they attributed the premature spalling in
these columns to a stability failure caused by a failure plane
induced by the presence of closely spaced longitudinal and
transverse steel. Furthermore, they indicated that this
problem was not observed in columns with widely spaced
transverse reinforcement tested by Rangan et al. (1991) and
Yong et al. (1988).
9.2—Shear strength of walls with low aspect ratios
Tests of low-rise walls with high-strength concrete carried
out in North America are scarce. Wallace (1998) performed
an analysis comparing the strength estimated using the shear
design equation in ACI 318-05 with test results of low-rise
walls made of high-strength concrete carried out in Japan.
The analysis by Wallace showed that the ratio of measured
to estimated strength decreased with the ratio ρn fy/fc′ . The
strength of several specimens with ρn fy/fc′ ≥ 0.08 was over-
estimated using the ACI 318 equation. He carried out a
second comparison using a design procedure proposed by
Wood (1990). According to Wood, the shear strength of the
walls is given by
Vn = Asv fy/4 (9-5)
10 f c′ Acv ≥ Vn ≥ 6 f c′ Acv ( fc′ in psi) (9-6)
0.83 f c′ Acv ≥ Vn ≥ 0.5 f c′ Acv ( fc′ in MPa)
where Asv is the total area of vertical reinforcement, and Acv
is the area of the wall bounded by the web thickness and the
wall length. Wallace found that for the high-strength walls
with different amounts of vertical reinforcement tested in
Japan, the equation proposed by Wood provided a uniform
ratio of measured to calculated shear strength. The average
ratio of measured to calculated strength was 1.76, with a
coefficient of variation of 20%. Wallace also showed that for
high-strength concrete walls, shear strength was not sensitive to
the amount of web reinforcement, and suggested using a
shear strength of 9 f c′ Acv (in psi) (0.75 f c′ Acv [in MPa])
as a safe lower bound.
Kabeyasawa and Hiraishi (1998) presented a summary of
21 tests on high-strength concrete walls conducted in Japan,
with compressive strengths ranging from 8700 to 17,400 psi
(60 to 120 MPa). The parameters of the experimental
program were the concrete compressive strength, the trans-
verse and longitudinal reinforcement ratios, the axial load,
the type of boundary element, and the shear span-depth ratio.
Six of the specimens were designed to reach flexural
yielding before shear failure.
Specimens designed to fail in shear had different amounts
of web reinforcement. All shear-critical specimens failed
due to crushing of the concrete in the web of the wall.
Specimens with lower amounts of web reinforcement failed
after yielding of that reinforcement, and their strength was
safely estimated by the Japanese seismic design guideline. In
specimens with high amounts of transverse reinforcement,
failure occurred due to crushing of the web concrete before
yielding of the web reinforcement, and their strength was
overestimated by the Japanese design guideline. The Japanese
guideline is based on a strut-and-tie approach in which the
total strength is the sum of the strength contributions from
truss and arch action. The procedure is based on estimating
the demand on the concrete placed by the truss mechanism,
and whatever capacity is left, if any, is assigned to the direct
strut mechanism. Kabeyasawa and Hiraishi (1998) also
indicated that although the walls designed to fail in flexure
were able to sustain deformations past the yield point of the
flexural reinforcement, the energy dissipated, as indicated by
the hysteresis loops, was relatively low. They indicated that
equivalent damping coefficients for the high-strength
concrete walls were on the order of 5 to 8%, while these
values for normal-strength walls are considerably higher, on
the order of 20%. In addition, the hysteresis loops exhibited
pinching behavior.
9.3—Minimum tensile reinforcement requirements
in walls
Failure of lightly reinforced structural walls may occur, in
some instances at relatively low levels of drift, due to fracture
of the tensile reinforcement (Wood 1989). A documented
case of this type of failure occurred in an eight-story structural
wall building that suffered severe damage and fracture of the
tensile reinforcement near the base of the structural walls
during the 1985 Chilean earthquake (Wood 1989).
According to Wood, the damaged walls had calculated tensile
strains in the boundary reinforcement that were twice the
measured fracture strain of the reinforcement.
This problem can be exacerbated by the use of high-
strength concrete because the depth of the compression zone
needed to equilibrate the force in the tensile reinforcement is
considerably less than in walls with normal-strength concrete.
Based on results from 37 structural wall tests, Wood
proposed two different criteria that may be used to determine
the vulnerability of walls to failure due to fracture of the
tensile reinforcement. The first criterion uses the calculated
steel strain in the extreme layer of reinforcement at the
nominal flexural strength of the cross section as an index
value. Because there were several walls within the set with
calculated steel strains greater than 5% that failed in shear,
however, Wood concluded that the calculated steel strain
cannot be used as the sole criterion for determining the
susceptibility of a wall to fracture of the reinforcement.
It was observed that of the subset of 24 walls with a shear
stress index greater than 0.75, 20 failed in shear, and of the
13 walls that developed a shear stress index less than 0.75,
12 failed in flexure. The shear stress index was defined by
Wood as vmax /vn , where vmax is the maximum shear stress
demand on the wall and
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
vn = 2 f c′ + ρn fy ≤ 8 f c′ (psi) (9-7)
vn = f c′ /6 + ρn fy ≤ 2 f c′ /3 (MPa)
Within the subset of walls with shear stress indexes below
0.75, Wood observed that 10 of the 12 walls with total
vertical reinforcement ratios ρwt less than 1% were susceptible
to fracture of the tensile reinforcement. Fracture of the
reinforcement was observed in walls with calculated steel
strains in the extreme layer of reinforcement as low as 2.5%.
A limit of 4% was proposed as a reasonable boundary for
identifying walls that are likely to fail due to fracture of the
reinforcement.
The second criterion is based on the flexural stress index
cfsw, which is representative of the ratio of neutral axis depth
to wall length, and is given by
ρ wt f yl + P ⁄ A w
c fsw = ---------------------------------
- (9-8)
f c′
where
A swb + A sww
ρ wt = ----------------------------
- (9-9)
Aw
where
ρwt = total vertical reinforcement ratio of the wall;
Aw = gross area of the wall;
Aswb = area of vertical reinforcement in the boundary
element of the wall (the participation of the
steel in the compression boundary element is
ignored in the formulation because it was
assumed that the neutral axis depth is small);
Asww = total area of vertical reinforcement in the web
of the wall, excluding boundary elements; and
P = axial load on the wall, with a positive value
representing a compressive force.
Wood noted that of the 27 specimens in which the main
reinforcement did not fracture, 26 had flexural stress indexes
greater than 15%, and suggested that structural walls suscep-
tible to fracture of the tensile reinforcement are those with a
flexural stress index below 15%.
Both of the two requirements proposed by Wood may be
interpreted as prescribing a minimum amount of tensile
reinforcement in structural walls.
9.4—Recommendations
The literature survey indicates that design provisions for
the detailing of boundary elements in slender walls in ACI
318-05 are adequate for high-strength concrete, and no
significant change is necessary. The technical references in
which a lower limiting compressive strain was suggested for
high-strength concrete columns attributed the need for a
lower limiting strain to the existence of a failure plane
caused by closely spaced ties, or to an overestimation of the
ITG-4.3R-53
flexural strength. The former is not a concern in the case of
end regions of walls without boundary elements, while the
latter is not a concern because the limiting strain of the
concrete is not likely to have a significant effect on the
calculated flexural strength of slender walls.
One area of concern is the behavior of walls with very light
amounts of longitudinal reinforcement. A simple procedure
was proposed by Wood to prevent wall failure due to fracture
of the tension reinforcement.
In the case of walls with low aspect ratios, the study by
Wallace (1998) showed that shear strength equations in ACI
318-05 become less conservative as the amount of transverse
reinforcement increases in walls with high-strength
concrete. For high amounts of transverse reinforcement, the
equation for shear strength in ACI 318-05 was found to be
unconservative. One viable option to obtain a uniform level
of safety is to adopt the equations proposed by Wood. The
main disadvantage of this option is that the level of conser-
vatism was found to be quite large for high-strength
concrete. Another alternative is to recommend the use of
strut-and-tie models following the recommendations presented
in Chapter 6.
The study by Wallace indicated that the current ACI
procedure was unconservative for several high-strength
concrete walls with ρn fy /fc′ ≥ 0.08. These cases, however,
are rare in earthquake-resistant construction. This concern
may be addressed with an addition to the commentary to
ACI 318-05, Section 21.7.4, indicating that the current
design equations may yield unconservative estimates of
shear strength for high-strength concrete walls with high
amounts of transverse reinforcement.
CHAPTER 10—LIST OF PROPOSED
MODIFICATIONS TO ACI 318-05
One of the main goals of this report was to present a series
of recommendations for the use of high-strength concrete in
seismic design. The main purpose of the literature review
presented in the previous chapters on structural design was
to identify specific sections of ACI 318-05 that should be
revised to allow for the use of high-strength concrete in
seismic design. Although some of the changes that were
proposed were intended to facilitate a smooth transition
between normal- and high-strength concrete, the majority of
them specifically address structural design using high-
strength concrete.
The following are specific modifications to ACI 318-05
intended for the safe use of high-strength concrete in seismic
design. Section numbers are noted where applicable. SI units
are not repeated in this Chapter for clarity. See previous
chapters for SI equivalents.
10.1—Proposed modifications to equivalent
rectangular stress block
The following changes are proposed to the equivalent
rectangular stress in ACI 318-05.
Changes and additions to Section 2.1—
α1 = factor relating magnitude of uniform stress in
the equivalent rectangular compressive stress
ITG-4.3R-54 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
block to specified compressive strength of
concrete as defined in 10.2.7.2, Chapter 10.
β1 = factor relating depth of equivalent rectangular
compressive stress block to neutral axis depth,
see 10.2.7.3 10.2.7.4, Chapters 10, 18,
Appendix B
χ1 = factor relating mean concrete compressive
stress at axial load failure of concentrically
loaded columns to specified compressive
strength of concrete as defined in 10.3.6.4,
Chapter 10.
Changes to Section 10.2.7—
10.2.7.1 Concrete stress of 0.85 α1fc′ shall be assumed
uniformly distributed over an equivalent compression zone
bounded by edges of the cross section and a straight line
located parallel to the neutral axis at a distance a = β1c from
the fiber of maximum compressive strain.
10.2.7.2 For fc′ between 2500 and 8000 psi, α1 shall be
taken as 0.85. For fc′ above 8000 psi, α1 shall be reduced
linearly at a rate of 0.015 for each 1000 psi of strength in
excess of 8000 psi, but α1 shall not be taken less than 0.70.
10.2.7.2 10.2.7.3 Distance from the fiber of maximum
strain to the neutral axis, c, shall be measured in a direction
perpendicular to that axis.
10.2.7.3 10.2.7.4 For fc′ between 2500 and 4000 psi, β1
shall be taken as 0.85. For fc′ above 4000 psi, β1 shall be
reduced linearly at a rate of 0.05 for each 1000 psi of strength
in excess of 4000 psi, but β1 shall not be taken less than 0.65.
Changes to Section 10.3.6—
10.3.6.1 For nonprestressed members with spiral
reinforcement conforming to 7.10.4 or composite members
conforming to 10.16, or confined columns conforming to
21.4.4.1 through 21.4.4.3 for the full height of the column
φPn,max = 0.85φ[0.85fc′ (Ag – Ast ) + fyAst] (10-1)
φPn,max = 0.85φ[χ1fc′ (Ag – Ast ) + fyAst] (10-1)
10.3.6.2 For nonprestressed members with tie reinforcement
conforming to 7.10.5
φPn,max = 0.80φ[0.85fc′ (Ag – Ast ) + fyAst] (10-2)
φPn,max = 0.80φ[χ1fc′ (Ag – Ast ) + fyAst] (10-2)
10.3.6.3 For prestressed members, design axial strength
φPn shall not be taken greater than 0.85 (for members with
spiral reinforcement) or 0.80 (for members with tie rein-
forcement) of the design axial strength at zero eccentricity
φPo calculated assuming concrete stress of χ1fc′ uniformly
distributed across the entire depth of the section.
10.3.6.4 For fc′ between 2500 and 8000 psi, χ1 shall
be taken as 0.85. For fc′ above 8000 psi, χ1 shall be
reduced linearly at a rate of 0.015 for each 1000 psi of
strength in excess of 8000 psi, but χ1 shall not be taken
less than 0.70.
10.2—Proposed modifications related to
confinement of potential plastic hinge regions
Addition to Section 2.1—
kve = confinement efficiency factor. See Eq. (21-YY)
Changes to Section 21.2.5—
21.2.5 Reinforcement in members resisting earthquake-
induced forces—Reinforcement resisting earthquake-
induced flexural and axial forces in frame members and in
structural wall boundary elements shall comply with ASTM
A 706. ASTM A 615 Grades 40 and 60 (280 and 420 MPa)
reinforcement shall be permitted in these members if:
(a) The actual yield strength based on mill tests does not
exceed fy by more than 18,000 psi (retests shall not exceed
this value by more than an additional 3000 psi); and
(b) The ratio of the actual tensile strength to the actual
yield strength is not less than 1.25
The value of fyt for transverse reinforcement including
spiral reinforcement shall not exceed 60,000 psi. The use of
transverse reinforcement with a specified yield strength not
exceeding 120,000 psi shall be permitted when required to
meet the confinement requirements given by Eq. (21-XX).
The yield strength of the reinforcement shall be measured by
the offset method of ASTM A 370 using 0.2% permanent
offset. The requirement of Section 3.5.3.2 shall be inappli-
cable to such high-strength transverse reinforcement.
Replace Section 21.4.4.1 with the following—
21.4.4.1 Transverse reinforcement as required in (a)
through (c) shall be provided unless a larger amount is
required by 21.4.3.2 or 21.4.5.
(a) The area ratio of transverse reinforcement shall not be
less than that required by Eq. (21-XX)
f c′ ⎛ A g 1 Pu
- -------- – 1⎞ ----------- -----------
ρ t = 0.35 ---- (21-XX)
f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠ k A g f c′
ve
where Ag /Ach – 1 ≥ 0.3, and Pu /Ag fc′ ≥ 0.2.
(b) Transverse reinforcement shall have either circular or
rectangular geometry. Reinforcement for columns with
circular geometry shall be in the form of spirals or hoops, for
which kve = 1.0. Reinforcement for columns with rectangular
geometry shall be provided in the form of single or overlapping
hoops. Crossties of the same bar size and spacing as the
hoops shall be permitted. Each end of the crosstie shall
engage a peripheral longitudinal reinforcing bar. Consecutive
crossties shall be alternated end for end along the longitudinal
reinforcement. The parameter kve for rectangular hoop
reinforcement shall be determined by Eq. (21-YY)
0.15b
k ve = ---------------c ≤ 1.0 (21-YY)
sh x
(c) If the thickness of the concrete outside the confining
transverse reinforcement exceeds 4 in., additional transverse
reinforcement shall be provided at a spacing not exceeding
12 in. Concrete cover on the additional reinforcement shall
not exceed 4 in.
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
Changes to Section 21.12.5—
21.12.5.1 Columns shall be spirally reinforced in accor-
dance with 7.10.4 or shall conform to 21.12.5.2 through
21.12.5.421.12.5.5. Section 21.12.5.521.12.5.6 shall apply
to all columns.
21.12.5.2 At both ends of the member, hoops shall be
provided at spacing so over a length lo measured from the
joint face. Spacing so shall not exceed the smallest of (a), (b),
(c), and (d): (a) eight times the diameter of the smallest
longitudinal bar enclosed; (b) 24 times the diameter of the hoop
bar; (c) 1/2 of the smallest cross-sectional dimension of the
frame member; (d) 12 in. length lo shall not be less than the
largest of (e), (f), and (g); (e) 1/6 of the clear span of the
member; (f) maximum cross-sectional dimension of the
member; and (g) 18 in.
21.12.5.3 For members in which the specified concrete
compressive strength is greater than 8000 psi, transverse
reinforcement as required in (a) and (b) shall be provided at
both ends of the member over a length lo measured from the
joint face.
(a) Members with transverse reinforcement with rectilinear
geometry shall not be less than that required by Eq. (21-ZZ)
f ′ Ag Pu
ρ t = 0.3 ----c- ⎛ -------
- – 1⎞ ----------- (21-ZZ)
f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠ A g f c′
(b) Members with transverse reinforcement with circular
geometry shall not be less than that required by Eq. (21-WW)
f c′ ⎛ A g Pu
- -------- – 1⎞ -----------
ρ t = 0.2 ---- (21-WW)
f yt ⎝ A ch ⎠ A g f c′
where Ag /Ach – 1 ≥ 0.3, and Pu /Ag fc′ ≥ 0.2.
21.12.5.321.12.5.4 The first hoop shall be located not
more than so/2 from the joint face.
21.12.5.421.12.5.5 Outside the length lo, spacing of
transverse reinforcement shall conform to 7.10 and 11.5.5.1.
21.12.5.521.12.5.6 Joint transverse reinforcement shall
conform to 11.11.2.
10.3—Proposed modifications related to bond and
development of reinforcement
Additions to Section 2.1—
Asp = total cross-sectional area of all transverse
reinforcement that is within the splice or devel-
opment length and that crosses the potential
plane of splitting through the reinforcement
being spliced or developed, in.2
Ab,max = cross-sectional area of largest bar being spliced
or developed, in.2
Changes to Chapter 21—
21.3.2.3 Lap splices of flexural reinforcement shall be
permitted only if hoop or spiral reinforcement is provided
over the lap length. When the value of f c′ exceeds 100 psi,
ld shall be calculated using either 12.2.2 or 12.2.3 with Ktr =
0, and transverse reinforcement crossing the potential plane
of splitting shall be provided over the tension splice length
ITG-4.3R-55
with a minimum total cross-sectional area Asp given by
Eq. (21-AA)
Asp = 0.5nAb,max(fc′ /15,000) (21-AA)
where n is the number of bars or wires being spliced along
the plane of splitting.
Maximum spacing of the transverse reinforcement
enclosing the lapped bars shall not exceed d/4 or 4 in., and
the minimum hoop or spiral bar size shall be No. 3. Lap
splices shall not be used:
(a) within the joints;
(b) within a distance of twice the member depth from the
face of the joint; and
(c) where analysis indicates flexural yielding is caused by
inelastic lateral displacements of the frame.
21.4.3.2 Mechanical splices shall conform to 21.2.6, and
welded splices shall conform to 21.2.7. Lap splices shall be
permitted only within the center half of the member length.
Lap splices shall be designed as tension lap splices in accor-
dance with 21.3.2.3, and shall be enclosed with transverse
reinforcement conforming to 21.4.4.2 and 21.4.4.3 and the
maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement in lap splices
shall be as given by 21.4.4.2. The transverse reinforcement
also shall conform to 21.4.4.3.
21.5.4.1 The development length ldh for a bar with a
standard 90-degree hook in normalweight aggregate
concrete shall not be less than the largest of 8db, 6 in., and
the lengths required by Eq. (21-6) and (21-BB)
fy db
l dh = ---------------
- (21-6)
65 f c′
fy db
l dh = ---------------------
- (21-BB)
1⁄4
650f c′
for bar sizes No. 3 through 11.
21.7.2.3 Reinforcement in structural walls shall be
developed or spliced for fy in tension in accordance with
Chapter 12, except:
(a) The effective depth of the member referenced in
12.10.3 shall be permitted to be 0.8lw for walls;
(b) The requirements of 12.11, 12.12, and 12.13 need not
be satisfied;
(c) At locations where yielding of longitudinal reinforce-
ment is likely to occur as a result of lateral displacements,
development lengths of longitudinal reinforcement shall be
1.25 times the values calculated for fy in tension. When the
value of f c′ exceeds 100 psi, transverse reinforcement with
a minimum total cross-sectional area Asp as given by Eq. (21-AA)
shall be provided over the development or splice length;
(d) Mechanical splices of reinforcement shall conform to
21.2.6, and welded splices of reinforcement shall conform to
21.2.7; and
(e) When the value of f c′ exceeds 100 psi, ld shall be
calculated with Ktr = 0.
ITG-4.3R-56
21.7.6.6 Mechanical and welded splices of longitudinal
reinforcement of boundary elements shall conform to 21.2.6
and 21.2.7. Lap splices shall be designed as tension lap
splices in accordance with 21.3.2.3, except that the
maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement shall be as
given by 21.4.4.2 and the transverse reinforcement shall also
conform to 21.4.4.3.
Addition to Section 2.1—
αst = smallest angle of inclination of a strut with
respect to the ties that it intersects in both of its
nodes
βfc = factor to account for the effect of concrete
compressive strength on the effective
compressive strength of concrete in a strut
βαt = factor to account for the effect of the angle of
inclination of the strut αst on the effective
compressive strength of concrete in a strut
10.4—Proposed modifications related to
strut-and-tie models
Changes to Appendix A—
A.3.2 The effective compressive strength of the concrete
fce in a strut shall be taken as
fce = 0.85βs fc′
A.3.2.1 For a strut of uniform cross-sectional area over its
length βs= 1.0: for fc′ between 2500 and 8000 psi, βs shall be
taken as 1.0; for fc′ above 8000 psi, βs shall be reduced
linearly at a rate of 0.02 for each 1000 psi of strength in
excess of 8000 psi, but βs shall not be taken less than 0.80.
A.3.2.2 For struts located such that the width of the
midsection of the strut is larger than the width at the nodes
(bottle-shaped struts):
(a) with reinforcement satisfying A.3.3, βs = 0.75; and
(b) without reinforcement satisfying A.3.3, βs = 0.6 shall
be taken as the smaller of: (a) 0.6λ; and (b) the product of
βfcβαt , where
βfc = 1 – fc′ /30,000, but βfc shall not be taken less than
0.60.
1
β αt = ----------------------------------
3
1 + 0.1cot α st
and λ is given in 11.7.4.3.
In the case of members subjected to point loads with single
struts connecting the load and reaction point, the angle of
inclination of the strut may be approximated as
a
cot α s = -----v
d Ahmad, S. H., and Shah, S., 1982, “Stress-Strain Curves
A.3.2.3 For struts in tension members, or the tension
flanges of members, βs = 0.40
A.3.2.4 For all other cases, βs = 0.60
ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Acknowledgments
Thanks are due to the Carpenters Contractors Cooperation
Committee, Inc., of Los Angeles, Calif., for sponsoring
Innovation Task Group 4 and to Joseph C. Sanders for acting
as liaison with that group. The members of ITG 4 are
indebted to the following individuals for their review of
portions of this document and for their constructive
comments: R. J. Frosch, M. E. Kreger, D. A. Kuchma, J. M.
LaFave, J. A. Ramirez, J. W. Wallace, and S. L. Wood. O.
Bayrak is owed many thanks for his input related to stress
block parameters. M. Saatcioglu made numerous contributions
related to stress block parameters and column confinement,
which are gratefully acknowledged.
CHAPTER 11—CITED REFERENCES
Abrams, D. P., 1987, “Influence of Axial Force Variations
on Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 3, May-June, pp. 246-254.
ACI Committee 301, 2005, “Specifications for Structural
Concrete (ACI 301-05),” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., 49 pp.
ACI Committee 318, 1983, “Building Code Requirements
for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-83),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 155 pp.
ACI Committee 318, 1989, “Building Code Requirements
(A-3) for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-89) and Commentary
(318R-89),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., 347 pp.
ACI Committee 318, 2002, “Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary
(318R-02),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., 443 pp.
ACI Committee 318, 2005, “Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary
(318R-05),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., 430 pp.
ACI Committee 363, 1992, “Report on High-Strength
Concrete (ACI 363R-92),” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., 56 pp.
ACI Committee 408, 2003, “Bond and Development of
Straight Reinforcing Bars in Tension (ACI 408R-03),” Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 49 pp.
ACI Innovation Task Group 4, 2006, “Materials and
Quality Considerations for High-Strength Concrete in
Moderate to High Seismic Applications (ITG-4.2R-06),”
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 26 pp.
Ahmad, S. H.; Khaloo, A. R.; and Poveda, A., 1986,
“Shear Capacity of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete
Beams,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-
Apr., pp. 297-305.
Ahmad, S. H., and Lue, D. M., 1987, “Flexure-Shear Inter-
action of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beams,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 330-341.
of Concrete Confined by Spiral Reinforcement,” ACI
JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 79, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 484-490.
Aoyama, H., 1993, “Design Philosophy for Shear in
Earthquake Resistance in Japan,” Earthquake Resistance
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
of Reinforced Concrete Structures, A Volume Honoring
Hiroyuki Aoyama, University of Tokyo, pp. 407-418.
Aoyama, H.; Murota, T.; Hiraishi, H.; and Bessho, S.,
1990, “Outline of the Japanese National Project on
Advanced Reinforced Concrete Buildings with High-
Strength and High-Quality Materials,” Proceedings of the
Second International Symposium on High Strength Concrete,
SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 21-32.
Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ), 1994, “Design for
Earthquake Resistant Reinforced Concrete Buildings Based
on Ultimate Strength Concept, with Commentary,” 337 pp.
ASCE/SEI, 2006, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-05),” Structural Engi-
neering Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, Va., 424 pp.
Azizinamini, A.; Baum Kuska, S.; Brungardt, P.; and
Hatfield, E., 1994, “Seismic Behavior of Square High-
Strength Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91,
No. 3, May-June, pp. 336-345.
Azizinamini, A.; Darwin, D.; Eligehausen, R.; Pavel, R.;
and Ghosh, S. K., 1999a, “Proposed Modifications to ACI
318-95 Tension Development and Lap Splice for High-
Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 6,
Nov.-Dec., pp. 922-926.
Azizinamini, A.; Pavel, R.; Hatfield, E.; and Ghosh, S. K.,
1999b, “Behavior of Lap-Spliced Reinforcing Bars
Embedded in High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 826-835.
Azizinamini, A.; Stark, M.; Roller, J. J.; and Ghosh, S. K.,
1993, “Bond Performance of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in
High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 90,
No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 554-561.
Bae, S., and Bayrak, O., 2003, “Stress Block Parameters
for High-Strength Concrete Members,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 100, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 626-636.
Bassapa, R. H., and Rangan, B. V., 1995, “Strength of
High Strength Concrete Columns under Eccentric Compres-
sion,” Research Report No. 2/95, School of Civil Engi-
neering, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
Bayrak, O., 1999, “Seismic Performance of Rectilinearly
Confined High Strength Concrete Columns,” PhD dissertation,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bayrak, O., and Sheikh, S., 1998, “Confinement Reinforce-
ment Design Considerations for Ductile HSC Columns,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 124, No. 9, pp. 999-1010.
Bjerkeli, L.; Tomaszewicz, A.; and Jensen A. A., 1990,
“Deformation Properties and Ductility of High Strength
Concrete,” Proceedings, Second International Symposium
on High-Strength Concrete, SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed., Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 215-238.
BOCA, 1993, “The BOCA National Building Code,”
Building Officials and Code Administrators International,
Country Club Hills, Ill.
Brachmann, I.; Browning, J.; and Matamoros, A., 2004a,
“Drift-Dependent Confinement Requirements for Rein-
forced Concrete Columns under Cyclic Loading,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 669-677.
ITG-4.3R-57
Brachmann, I.; Browning, J.; and Matamoros, A., 2004b,
“Relationship Between Drift and Confinement in Reinforced
Concrete Columns Under Cyclic Loading,” Proceedings,
13th World Conference in Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 15 pp.
Browning, J., 2001, “Proportioning of Earthquake-
Resistant RC Building Structures,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 127, No. 2, pp. 145-151.
BSSC, 2004, “NEHRP Recommended Provisions for New
Buildings and Other Structures Part 2: Commentary (FEMA
450),” 2003 Edition, Building Seismic Safety Council,
National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.
C4 Committee, 2000, “High Strength Concrete Research,”
Carpenters/Contractors Cooperation Committee, Inc., Los
Angeles, Calif.
Canadian Standards Association, 1994, “Design of
Concrete Structures for Buildings (CAN3-A23.3-94),”
Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
Ciampi, V.; Eligehausen, R.; Bertero, V. V.; and Popov,
E. P., 1982, “Analytical Model for Deformed Bar Bond
Under Generalized Excitations,” UCB/EERC Report No. 82/
23, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
Collins, M., and Kuchma, D., 1999, “How Safe Are Our
Large, Lightly Reinforced Concrete Beams, Slabs, and
Footings?” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 4, July-Aug.,
pp. 482-490.
Collins, M. P.; Mitchell, D.; and MacGregor, J. G., 1993,
“Structural Design Considerations for High-Strength Concrete,”
Concrete International, V. 15, No. 5, May, pp. 27-34.
Comité Euro-International du Béton (CEB), 1988, “CEB-FIP
Model Code 1990—First Predraft (1988),” Bulletin d’Infor-
mation No. 190a/190b, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Comité Euro-International du Béton (CEB), 1993, “CEB-FIP
Model Code 1990,” Bulletin d’Information No. 213/214,
Lausanne, Switzerland.
Cusson, D., and Paultre, P., 1994, “High-Strength Concrete
Columns Confined by Rectangular Ties,” Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, ASCE, V. 120, No. 3, pp. 783-804.
Cusson, D., and Paultre, P., 1995, “Stress-Strain Model for
Confined High-Strength Concrete,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 121, No. 3, pp. 468-477.
Darwin, D.; Zuo, J.; Tholen, M. L.; and Idun, E. K., 1996,
“Development Length Criteria for Conventional and High
Relative Rib Area Reinforcing Bars,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 93, No. 3, May-June, pp. 347-359.
Durrani, A. J., and Wight, J. K., 1982, “Experimental and
Analytical Study of Internal Beam to Column Connections
Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Loading,” Report No. UMEE
82R3, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Mich., Ann Arbor, Mich., 275 pp.
Elwood, K., 2002, “Shake Table Tests and Analytical
Studies on the Gravity Load Collapse of Reinforced
Concrete Frames,” PhD dissertation, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of California at
Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
ITG-4.3R-58 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Elwood, K., and Moehle, J., 2005, “Axial Capacity Model for
Shear-Damaged Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102,
No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 578-587.
Elzanaty, A. H.; Nilson, A. H.; and Slate, F. O., 1986,
“Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using High-
Strength Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr. pp. 290-296.
Fafitis, A., and Shah, S. P., 1985, “Lateral Reinforcement
for High Strength Concrete Columns,” High Strength
Concrete, SP-87, H. G. Russell, ed., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 213-232.
Fasching, C. J., and French, C. E., 1998, “Effect of High-
Strength Concrete (HSC) on Flexural Members,” High-
Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French
and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farm-
ington Hills, Mich., pp. 137-178.
Foster, S. J., and Attard, M. M., 1997, “Experimental Tests
on Eccentrically Loaded High-Strength Concrete Columns,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 3, May-June, pp. 295-303.
Fujii, S.; Noguchi, H.; and Morita, S., 1998, “Bond and
Anchorage of Reinforcement in High-Strength Concrete,”
High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W.
French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 23-43.
Ghosh, S. K.; Domel, A. W.; and Fanella, D. A., 1995,
Design of Concrete Buildings for Earthquake & Wind Forces,
2nd Edition, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Ill.
Ghosh, S. K., and Saatcioglu, M., 1994, “Ductility and
Seismic Behavior,” High Performance Concrete: Properties
and Applications, S. P. Shah and S. H. Ahmad, eds.,
McGraw Hill, 388 pp.
Hibi, J.; Mihara, Y.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama H., 1991,
“Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns Using High
Strength Concrete after Flexural Yielding,” Transactions of
the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 13, 1991, pp. 395-402.
Hofbeck, J. A; Ibrahim, I. O.; and Mattock, A. H., 1969,
“Shear Transfer in Reinforced Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL ,
Proceedings V. 66, No. 2, Feb., pp. 119-128.
Hognestad, E., 1951, “A Study of Combined Bending and
Axial Load in Reinforced Concrete Members,” Bulletin
Series No. 399, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment
Station, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, Ill., 128 pp.
Hognestad, E.; Hanson, N. W.; and McHenry, D., 1955,
“Concrete Stress Distribution in Ultimate Strength Design,”
ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 52, pp. 455-479.
Hokuetsu Metal Co., 1990, “Design and Construction
Guidelines for Reinforced Concrete Beams and Columns
using High-Strength Shear Reinforcement UHY Hoops.” (in
Japanese)
Hsu, L. S., and Hsu, C. T., 1994, “Complete Stress-Strain
Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Under Compression,”
Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 46, No. 169, pp. 301-312.
IBC, 2003, “International Building Code 2003,” published
in cooperation by BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI, International
Code Council, Falls Church, Va., 632 pp.
Ibrahim, H., and MacGregor, J., 1994, “Flexural Behavior
of High-Strength Concrete Columns,” Report No. 196,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 197 pp.
Ibrahim, H., and MacGregor, J., 1996a, “Tests of Eccentri-
cally Loaded High-Strength Concrete Columns,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 585-594.
Ibrahim, H., and MacGregor, J., 1996b, “Flexural Behavior
of Laterally Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Sections,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 674-684.
Ibrahim, H., and MacGregor, J., 1997, “Modification of
the ACI Rectangular Stress Block for High-Strength
Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.,
pp. 40-48.
ICBO, 1997, Uniform Building Code, Whittier, Calif.
ICBO, 2001, “Seismic Design Utilizing High-Strength
Concrete,” ICBO ER-5536, ICBO Evaluation Service Inc.,
Whittier, Calif., http://www.icces.org/reports/pdf_files/
UBC/5536.pdf
ISO, 1991, “Steels for the Reinforcement and Prestressing
of Concrete,” Standard 6934-4:1991.
Itakura, Y., and Yagenji, A., 1992, “Compressive Test on
High-Strength R/C Columns and Their Analysis Based on
Energy Concept,” Proceedings of 10th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, pp. 2599-2602.
Japan Institute of Construction Engineering, Design
Guidelines Committee, 1993, “New RC Structural Design
Guidelines and Commentary,” Annual Report of New RC
Project. (in Japanese)
Japanese Standards Association, 1994, “Small Size-
Deformed Steel Bars for Prestressed Concrete,” JIS G
3137:1994.
Johnson, M. K., and Ramirez, J. A., 1989, “Minimum
Amount of Shear Reinforcement in High-Strength Concrete
Members,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 4, July-Aug.,
pp. 376-382.
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, 2002, “Recommenda-
tions for Design of Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic
Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352R-02),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 40 pp.
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, 1998, “Recent
Approaches to Shear Design of Structural Concrete,” Journal
of Structural Engineering, V. 124, No. 12, pp. 1375-1417.
Kaar, P.; Hanson, N.; and Capell, H., 1977, “Stress-Strain
Characteristics of High-Strength Concrete,” Report
RD051.01D, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Ill.
Kabeyasawa, T., and Hiraishi, H., 1998, “Tests and Analyses
of High-Strength Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls in
Japan,” High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176,
C. W. French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 281-310.
Kato, D., 1991, “Stress-Strain Behaviors of Square
Confined Reinforced Concrete Columns,” Journal of
Structural and Construction Engineering, No. 422, pp. 65-74.
Kato, D., and Wakatsuki, K., 1992, “Effects of Hoop Ties
on the Stress-Strain Relation of Square Confined R/C
Columns,” Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual
Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, pp. 645-646.
Kato, D.; Watanabe, F.; Nishiyama, M.; and Sato, H.,
1998, “Confined Concrete with High-Strength Materials,”
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W.
French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 85-104.
Kawasake Steel Techno-wire Co., 1990, “Design and
Construction Guidelines of Reinforced Concrete Members
using High-Strength Shear Reinforcement River Bon.” (in
Japanese)
Kimura, H.; Sugano, S.; and Nagashima, T., 1995, “Study
of Flexural Strength and Ductility of R/C Columns Using
High Strength Concrete,” Takenaka Technical Research
Report No. 51, pp. 161-178.
Kuchma, D.; Vegh, P.; Simionopoulous, K.; Stannik, B.;
and Collins, M. P., 1997, “The Influence of Concrete Strength,
Distribution of Longitudinal Reinforcement, and Member
Size, on the Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams,”
Bulletin d’Information No. 237, Lausanne Switzerland.
Kobe Steel Ltd., 1989, “Design and Construction Guide-
lines for Reinforced Concrete Beams and Columns using
High-Strength Shear Reinforcement D-Hoops.” (in Japanese)
Lepage, A., 1997, “A Method for Drift-Control in Earth-
quake-Resistant Design of Reinforced Concrete Building
Structures,” PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana, Ill.
Legeron, F., and Paultre, P., 2000, “Behavior of High-
Strength Concrete Columns under Cyclic Flexure and
Constant Axial Load,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 4,
July-Aug., pp. 591-601.
Li, B., 1994, “Strength and Ductility of Reinforced
Concrete Members and Frames Constructed Using High
Strength Concrete,” Research Report 94-5, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand.
Li, B., and Park, R., 2004, “Confining Reinforcement for
High-Strength Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 101, No. 3, May-June, pp. 314-324.
Lipien, W., and Saatcioglu, M., 1997, “Tests of Square
High-Strength Concrete Columns Under Reversed Cyclic
Loading,” Research Report No. OCEERC 97-11, Ottawa
Carleton Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University
of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 184 pp.
Lloyd, N., and Rangan, B., 1996, “Studies on High-
Strength Concrete Columns under Eccentric Compression,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 631-638.
Lynn, A. C., 2001, “Seismic Evaluation of Existing Rein-
forced Concrete Building Columns,” PhD dissertation,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
Mander, J.; Priestley, N.; and Park, R., 1988, “Theoretical
Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete,” Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, pp. 1804-1826.
Martinez, S.; Nilson, A.; and Slate, F., 1984, “Spirally
Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Columns,” ACI
JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 81, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 431-442.
Matamoros, A.; Browning, J.; and Luft, M., 2003, “Eval-
uation of Simple Methods for Estimating Drift of Reinforced
Concrete Buildings Subjected to Earthquakes,” Earthquake
Spectra, V. 19, No. 4, pp. 839-861.
ITG-4.3R-59
Matamoros, A.; Garcia, L. E.; Browning, J.; and Lepage,
A., 2004, “The Flat-Rate Design Method for Low- and
Medium-Rise Reinforced Concrete Structures,” ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 101, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 435-446.
Matamoros, A., and Sozen, M., 2003, “Drift Limits of
High-Strength Concrete Columns Subjected to Load
Reversals,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 129,
No. 3, pp. 297-313.
Mattock, A. H.; Li, W. K.; and Wang, T. C., 1976, “Shear
Transfer in Lightweight Reinforced Concrete,” PCI Journal,
V. 21, No. 1, pp. 20-39.
McCabe, S., 1998, “Bond and Development of Steel Rein-
forcement in High-Strength Concrete—An Overview,”
High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W.
French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 1-21.
Mphonde, A. G., and Frantz, G. C., 1984, “Shear Tests of
High- and Low-Strength Concrete Beams without Stir-
rups,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 81, No. 4, July-Aug.,
pp. 350-357.
Mugumura, H.; Nishiyama, M.; Watanabe, F.; and
Tanaka, H., 1991, “Ductile Behavior of High-Strength
Concrete Columns Confined by High-Strength Transverse
Reinforcement,” Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Concrete
Structures and Innovations in Design, SP-128, V. M.
Malhotra, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Mich., pp. 877-891.
Muguruma, H.; Nishiyama, M.; and Watanabe, F., 1993,
“Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete with a Wide-Range of
Compressive Strength,” Proceedings, Symposium on High-
Strength Concrete, Norway, pp. 314-321.
Muguruma, H., and Watanabe, F., 1990, “Ductility
Improvement of High-Strength Concrete Columns with
Lateral Confinement,” Proceedings, Second International
Symposium on High-Strength Concrete, SP-121, W. T.
Hester, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., pp. 47-60.
Nagashima, T.; Sugano, S.; Kimura, H.; and Ichikawa, A.,
1992, “Monotonic Axial Compression Test on Ultra-High-
Strength Concrete Tied Columns,” Proceedings, 10th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain,
pp. 2983-2988.
National Fire Protection Association, 2003, “NFPA
5000—NFPA Building Construction and Safety Code,”
Quincy, Mass., 540 pp.
Nedderman, H., 1973, “Flexural Stress Distribution in
Very High Strength Concrete,” MASc Thesis, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Texas, Arlington, Tex.
Neutren Co. Ltd., 1985, “Design Standard Using High
Tensile Steel ULBON as Shear Reinforcement in Reinforced
Concrete Beams and Columns.”
Nielsen, M. P., 1999, “Limit Analysis and Concrete Plas-
ticity,” New Directions in Civil Engineering, 2nd Edition,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 908 pp.
Nilson, A., 1985, “Design Implications of Current
Research on High-Strength Concrete,” High-Strength
Concrete, SP-87, H. G. Russell, ed., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 85-118.
ITG-4.3R-60 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Nilson, A., 1994, “Structural Members,” High Perfor-
mance Concrete: Properties and Applications, S. P. Shah
and S. H. Ahmad, eds., McGraw-Hill.
Nishiyama, M.; Fukushima, I.; Watanabe, F.; and Mugu-
ruma, H., 1993, “Axial Loading Tests on High-Strength
Concrete Prisms Confined by Ordinary and High-Strength
Steel,” Proceedings of the Symposium on High-Strength
Concrete, Norway, pp. 322-329.
Noguchi, H.; Fujii, S.; and Teraoka, M., 1998, “Shear
Strength of Beam-Column Joints with High-Strength
Materials,” High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions,
SP-176, C. W. French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 329-356.
Otani, S., 1995, “Use of High-Strength Lateral Reinforcement
in Japanese RC Construction,” Proceedings, Samsung
Forum on Tall Buildings, Seoul, Korea.
Otani, S.; Teshigawara, M.; Murakami, M.; and Okada, T.,
1998, “New RC Design Guidelines for High-Rise Reinforced
Concrete Buildings using High-Strength Materials,” High-
Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French
and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 405-417.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., and Saatcioglu, M., 2004, “Rectangular
Stress Block for High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 101, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 475-483.
Ozcebe, G.; Ersoy, U.; and Tankut, T., 1999, “Evaluation
of Minimum Shear Reinforcement Requirements for Higher
Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 3,
May-June, pp. 361-368.
Ozden, S., 1992, “Behavior of High-Strength Concrete
under Strain Gradient,” MA thesis, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Park, R., 1998, “Design and Behavior of RC Columns
Incorporating High-Strength Materials,” Concrete Inter-
national, V. 20, No. 11, Nov., pp. 55-62.
Park, R., and Priestley, M. J. N., 1982, “Ductility of
Square-Confined Concrete Columns,” Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, V. 108, No. 4, pp. 929-950.
Park, R.; Tanaka, H.; and Li, B., 1998, “Flexural Strength
and Ductility of High-Strength Concrete Columns,” High-
Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French
and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farm-
ington Hills, Mich., pp. 237-257.
Pastor, J.; Nilson, A.; and Slate, F., 1984, “Behavior of
High-Strength Concrete Beams,” Research Report No. 84-3,
Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell University,
Ithaca, N.Y.
Popovics, S., 1973, “Analytical Approach to Complete
Stress-Strain Curves,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 3,
No. 5, pp. 583-599.
Quintero-Febres, C. G., and Wight, J. K., 2001, “Experi-
mental Study of Reinforced Concrete Interior Wide Beam-
Column Connections Subjected to Lateral Loading,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 572-582.
Rangan, B. V.; Saunders, P.; and Seng, E., 1991, “Design
of High-Strength Concrete Columns,” Evaluation and Reha-
bilitation of Concrete Structures and Innovations in Design,
SP-128, V. M. Malhotra, ed., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 851-862.
Razvi, S., and Saatcioglu, M., 1994, “Strength and
Deformability of Confined High-Strength Concrete
Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 6, Nov.-Dec.,
pp. 678-687.
Razvi, S., and Saatcioglu, M., 1999, “Circular High-Strength
Concrete Columns under Concentric Compression,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 817-825.
Reineck, K.; Kuchma, D.; Sim, K.; and Marx, S., 2003,
“Shear Database for Reinforced Concrete Members without
Shear Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr., pp. 240-249.
Richart, F. E.; Brandtzaeg, A.; and Brown, R. L., 1929,
“The Failure of Plain and Spirally Reinforced Concrete in
Compression,” Bulletin No. 190, University of Illinois Engi-
neering Experiment Station, Urbana, Ill., 74 pp.
Richart, F. E., and Brown, R. L., 1934, “An Investigation of
Reinforced Concrete Columns,” Bulletin No. 267, University of
Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana, Ill., 91 pp.
Roller, J. J., and Russell, H. G., 1990, “Shear Strength of
High-Strength Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 191-198.
Roy, H. E. H., and Sozen, M. A., 1963, “A Model to Simu-
late the Response of Concrete to Multi-Axial Loading,”
Structural Research Series No. 268, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Illinois.
Saatcioglu, M., and Baingo, D., 1999, “Circular High-
Strength Concrete Columns Under Simulated Seismic
Loading,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 125,
No. 3, pp. 272-280.
Saatcioglu, M., and Ozcebe, G., 1989, “Response of
Reinforced Concrete Columns to Simulated Seismic Loading,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 3-12.
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S., 1992, “Strength and
Ductility of Confined Concrete,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 118, No. 6, pp. 1590-1607.
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S., 1998, “High-Strength
Concrete Columns with Square Sections under Concentric
Compression,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 124, No. 12, pp. 1438-1447.
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S., 2002, “Displacement-Based
Design of Reinforced Concrete Columns for Confinement,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 3-11.
Saatcioglu, M., Paultre, P.; and Ghosh, S. K., 1998,
“Confinement of High-Strength Concrete,” High-Strength
Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French and
M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Mich., pp. 105-136.
Sakaguchi, N.; Yamanobe, K.; Kitada, Y.; Kawachi, T.;
and Koda, S., 1990, “Shear Strength of High-Strength
Concrete Members,” Proceedings of the Second International
Symposium on High-Strength Concrete, SP-121, W. T.
Hester, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., pp. 155-178.
Sakai, Y.; Hibi, J.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama, H., 1990,
“Experimental Study of Flexural Behavior of Reinforced
 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
Concrete Columns Using High Strength Concrete,” Trans-
actions of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 12, pp. 323-330.
Saqan, E. I., and Kreger, M. E., 1998, “Evaluation of U.S.
Shear Strength Provisions for Design of Beam-Column
Connections Constructed with High-Strength Concrete,”
High-Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W.
French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 311-328.
Sargin, M.; Ghosh, S. K.; and Handa, V., 1971, “Effect of
Lateral Reinforcement Upon the Strength and Deformation
Properties of Concrete,” Magazine of Concrete Research,
V. 23, No. 75-76, pp. 99-110.
SBCCI, 1994, “Standard Building Code,” Southern
Building Code Congress, Birmingham, Ala.
Schade, J. E., 1992, “Flexural Concrete Stress in High
Strength Concrete Columns,” MASc thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 156 pp.
Sezen, H., 2002, “Seismic Response and Modeling of
Reinforced Concrete Building Columns,” PhD dissertation,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
Sheikh, S.; Shah, D.; and Khoury, S., 1994, “Confinement
of High-Strength Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 91, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 100-111.
Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M., 1982, “Analytical Model
for Concrete Confinement in Tied Columns,” Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, ASCE, V. 108, No. 5, pp. 2703-2723.
Shibata, A., and Sozen, M., 1976, “Substitute-Structure
Method for Seismic Design in Reinforced Concrete,”
Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, V. 102, No. ST3,
pp. 1-18.
Shimazaki, K., 1988, “Strong Ground Motion Drift and
Base Shear Strength Coefficient for R/C Structures,”
Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan, pp. 165-170.
Shimazaki, K., and Sozen, M., 1984, “Seismic Drift of
Reinforced Concrete Structures,” Technical Research
Report of Hazama-Gumi Ltd., pp. 145-166.
Shin, S. W.; Kamara, M.; and Ghosh, S. K., 1990, “Flexural
Ductility, Strength Prediction, and Hysteretic Behavior of
Ultra-High-Strength Concrete Members,” Proceedings of
the Second International Symposium on High-Strength
Concrete, SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 239-264.
Slater, W., and Lyse, I., 1931a, “Progress Report on
Column Tests at Lehigh University,” ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 2, No. 6, June, pp. 677-730.
Slater, W., and Lyse, I., 1931b, “Progress Report on
Column Tests at Lehigh University,” ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 2, No. 7, July, pp. 791-835.
Standards Association of New Zealand, 1995, “Concrete
Design Standard, NZS 3101:1995, Part 1” and “Commen-
tary on the Concrete Design Standard, NZS 3101:1995, Part
2,” Wellington, New Zealand.
Sugano, S.; Nagashima, T.; Kimura, H.; Tamura, A.; and
Ichikawa, A., 1990, “Experimental Studies on Seismic
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Members of High Strength
ITG-4.3R-61
Concrete,” Proceedings of the Second International Sympo-
sium on High-Strength Concrete, SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed.,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.,
pp. 61-87.
Sumitomo Electrical Industries Ltd., 1989, “Design and
Construction Guidelines for Reinforced Concrete Beams and
Columns using High-Strength Shear Reinforcement Sumi-
Hoops.” (in Japanese)
Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd., 1989, “Design and
Construction Guidelines for Reinforced Concrete Beams
and Columns using High-Strength Shear Reinforcement
D-Hoops.” (in Japanese)
Sun, Y. P., and Sakino, K., 1993, “Ductility Improvement
of Reinforced Concrete Columns with High-Strength
Materials,” Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute,
V. 15, pp. 455-462.
Sun, Y. P., and Sakino, K., 1994, “Effect of Confinement
of Transverse Reinforcement on the Axial Behavior of
Concrete,” Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 16,
No. 2, pp. 449-454.
Swartz, S.; Nikaeen, A.; Babu, H.; Periyakaruppan, N.;
and Refai, T., 1985, “Structural Bending Properties of
Higher Strength Concrete,” High Strength Concrete, SP-87,
H. G. Russell, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Mich., 288 pp.
Thomsen, J., and Wallace, J., 1994, “Lateral Load
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns Constructed
Using High-Strength Materials,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91,
No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 605-615.
Thorenfeldt, E., and Drangsholt, G., 1990, “Shear
Capacity of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beams,”
Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on
High-Strength Concrete, SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed., American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 129-154.
Tokyo Steel Co., 1994, “Design and Construction Guide-
lines for Reinforced Concrete Beams and Columns using
High-Strength Shear Reinforcement SPR785.” (in Japanese)
Uribe, C., and Alcocer, S., 2001, “Comportamiento de
Vigas Peraltadas Diseñadas con el Modelo de Puntales y
Tensores,” Informe Técnico CI/EIG-1012001, Centro
Nacional de Prevención de Desastres, México, 248 pp. (in
Spanish)
Vecchio, F.; Collins, M.; and Aspiotis, J., 1994, “High-
Strength Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 91, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 423-433.
Von Ramin, M., and Matamoros, A., 2004, “Shear
Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members Subjected to
Monotonic and Cyclic Loads,” SM Report No. 72, University
of Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence, Kans., 517 pp.
Von Ramin, M., and Matamoros, A. B., 2006, “Shear
Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members Subjected to
Monotonic Loads,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 1,
Jan.-Feb., pp. 83-92.
Wahidi, S. A., 1995, “Strength and Behavior of Rein-
forced Concrete Columns Made from High Performance
Materials,” PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, Tex., 299 pp.
ITG-4.3R-62 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Wallace, J. W., 1998, “Behavior and Design of High-
Strength RC Walls,” High-Strength Concrete in Seismic
Regions, SP-176, C. W. French and M. E. Kreger, eds., Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 259-279.
Wallace, J. W., and Moehle, J. P., 1992, “Ductility and
Detailing Requirements of Bearing Wall Buildings,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 118, No. 6,
pp. 1625-1644.
Walraven, J.; Frenay, J.; and Pruijssers, A., 1987, “Influence
of Concrete Strength and Load History on the Shear Friction
Capacity of Concrete Members,” PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 1,
Jan.-Feb., pp. 66-84.
Warwick, W. B., and Foster, S. J., 1993, “Investigation
into the Efficiency Factor Used in Non-Flexural Reinforced
Concrete Member Design,” UNICIV Report No. R-320,
School of Civil Engineering, University of South Wales,
Kensington.
Watanabe, F., and Ichinose, T., 1991, “Strength and
Ductility Design of RC Members Subjected to Combined
Bending and Shear,” Preliminary Proceedings, International
Workshop on Concrete Shear in Earthquakes, University of
Houston, Houston, Tex., pp. IV4-1 to IV4-10.
Watanabe, F., and Kabeyasawa, T., 1998, “Shear Strength
of RC Members with High-Strength Concrete,” High-
Strength Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French
and M. E. Kreger, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farm-
ington Hills, Mich., pp. 379-396.
Watanabe, F., and Muguruma, H., 1988, “Toward the
Ductility Design of Concrete Members (Overview of
Researches in Kyoto University),” Proceedings of Pacific
Concrete Conference, New Zealand, pp. 89-100.
Wood, S. L., 1990, “Shear Strength of Low-Rise Reinforced
Concrete Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 1, Jan.-
Feb., pp. 99-107.
Wood, S.L., 1989, “Minimum Tensile Reinforcement
Requirements in Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 5,
Sept.-Oct., pp. 582-591.
Xiao, Y., and Martirossyan, A., 1998, “Seismic Performance
of High-Strength Concrete Columns,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 124, No. 3, Mar., pp. 241-251.
Xiao, Y., and Yun, H., 1998, “Full-Scale Experimental
Studies on High-Strength Concrete Short Columns,”
Report No. USC-SERP 98/05, University of Southern
California, 97 pp.
Yong, Y. K.; Nour, M. G.; and Nawy, E. G., 1988,
“Behavior of Laterally Confined High-Strength Concrete
under Axial Loads,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 114, No. 2, pp. 332-351.
Yoshimura, M., and Nakamura, T., 2002, “Axial Collapse
of Reinforced Concrete Short Columns,” Proceedings of the
Fourth U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earth-
quake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete
Building Structures, Toba, Japan, Report No. PEER-2002/21,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif., Oct., pp. 187-198.
Zhu, S., and Jirsa, J. O., 1983, “A Study of Bond Deterio-
ration in Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints,”
PMFSEL Report No. 83-1, Phil M. Ferguson Structural
Engineering Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, Tex., July, 69 pp.
Zuo, J., and Darwin, D., 2000, “Splice Strength of
Conventional and High Relative Rib Area Bars in Normal
and High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97,
No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 630-641.
 ®
American Concrete Institute
Advancing concrete knowledge

As ACI begins its second century of advancing concrete knowledge, its original chartered purpose
remains “to provide a comradeship in finding the best ways to do concrete work of all kinds and in
spreading knowledge.” In keeping with this purpose, ACI supports the following activities:

· Technical committees that produce consensus reports, guides, specifications, and codes.

· Spring and fall conventions to facilitate the work of its committees.

· Educational seminars that disseminate reliable information on concrete.

· Certification programs for personnel employed within the concrete industry.

· Student programs such as scholarships, internships, and competitions.

· Sponsoring and co-sponsoring international conferences and symposia.

· Formal coordination with several international concrete related societies.

· Periodicals: the ACI Structural Journal and the ACI Materials Journal, and Concrete International.

Benefits of membership include a subscription to Concrete International and to an ACI Journal. ACI
members receive discounts of up to 40% on all ACI products and services, including documents, seminars
and convention registration fees.

As a member of ACI, you join thousands of practitioners and professionals worldwide who share a
commitment to maintain the highest industry standards for concrete technology, construction, and
practices. In addition, ACI chapters provide opportunities for interaction of professionals and practitioners
at a local level.

American Concrete Institute

38800 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331
U.S.A.
Phone: 248-848-3700
Fax: 248-848-3701
www.concrete.org
Report on Structural Design and Detailing for High-Strength
Concrete in Moderate to High Seismic Applications

The AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE

was founded in 1904 as a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to public
service and representing the user interest in the field of concrete. ACI gathers and
distributes information on the improvement of design, construction and
maintenance of concrete products and structures. The work of ACI is conducted by
individual ACI members and through volunteer committees composed of both
members and non-members.

The committees, as well as ACI as a whole, operate under a consensus format,

which assures all participants the right to have their views considered. Committee
activities include the development of building codes and specifications; analysis of
research and development results; presentation of construction and repair
techniques; and education.

Individuals interested in the activities of ACI are encouraged to become a member.

There are no educational or employment requirements. ACI’s membership is
composed of engineers, architects, scientists, contractors, educators, and
representatives from a variety of companies and organizations.

Members are encouraged to participate in committee activities that relate to their

specific areas of interest. For more information, contact ACI.

www.concrete.org

®
American Concrete Institute
Advancing concrete knowledge