Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Materials and Structures/Mat6riaux et Constructions,Vol.

33, August-September 2000, pp 411-418

Stress-strain curve for the design of high-strength concrete elements


Ibrahim A. E. M. Shehata 1, Lidia C. D. Shehata2 and Tales S. Mattos 3
(1) C O PPE, UniversidadeFederaldo Rio deJaneiro, Rio deJaneiro, Brasil. (2) UniversidadeFederalFluminense; COPPE, UniversidadeFederaldo Rio deJaneiro, Rio deJaneiro, Brasil. (3) UniversidadeFederalFluminense, Rio deJaneiro, Brasil. Paper received: November 3, 1999; Paperaccepted:March 23, 2000 A B S T R A C T Although the great advances in concrete technology have led to the possibility of obtaining ready-mix concrete with compressive strength around 100 MPa, some national and international codes for concrete structures do not cover concrete strengths above 50 MPa. Many codes are under revision, but some of them (including the Brazilian Code) will still not include high strength concretes. Due to the different characteristics of higher strength concrete some design procedures traditionally used in normal strength concrete structures have to be changed. Different types of stress-strain relationships for concrete have been proposed for the non-linear analysis of member behavior and for the ultimate state analysis of high strength concrete elements under combined flexure and axial load. In this work comparisons are made between proposed stress-strain curves and between the axial load-moment interaction diagrams based on these curves. Comparisons of test results with these diagrams, for columns subjected to eccentric compression, give an idea of the different degrees of safety obtained using those curves. R i~ S U M i~ Malgr~ les grands progr~s de la technologie en mati~re de bSton, qui ont rendu possible l'obtention de bStons r&istant a une compression d'environ IOOMPa, quelques codes nationaux et internationaux relatifs aux constructions en b~ton ne couvrent pas des r&istances du bSton sup&ieures a 50 MPa. Plusieurs codes sont en cours de r&ision, mais beaucoup (dont le code br&ilien) ne s'int&essent toujours pas aux b~tons a haute r&istance. En raison des diff&entes caract&istiques des b~tons a haute r&istance, certains procM& de dSfinition traditionnellement utilis& pour les constructions en bSton normal doivent dtre mode&. Diff&ents types de relations contraintes - d~formations ont ~t~ propos& pour le bdton clans le cadre de l'analyse non-lin&ire de son comportement et clans celui de l'analysefinale des ~l~ments en b&on arm~ en flexion combin& avec une charge axiale. Cet article compare les courbes contraintes - d~formations propos&s et les diagrammes interaction charge axiale - moment qui r&ultent de ces courbes. Les comparaisons effectu~es entre les r&ultats exp&imentaux et ces diagrammes, pour des colonnes soumises a des compressions excentriques viennent illustrer les d!ff&ents degr& de s~curit~ obtenus grdce aces courbes.

1. INTRODUCTION
High-strength concrete can be the most cost-effective solution for many structural cases while providing improved durability. This concrete is particularly advantageous in compression members and the concrete stressstrain relationship is one of the main material properties required for the analysis of their behavior. A realistic constitutive law for concrete under compression makes it possible to do an accurate analysis of the member behavior and can be used as a reference for the validation of simplified and approximate calculation methods. In recent years many stress-strain curves have been suggested to cover different strength classes of concrete. 1359-5997/00 9 tLILEM

These curves were based on experimental results of specimens under axial compression, usually standard cylinders. In determining the behavior of a structural element under combined bending and axial force, a key question arises, that is whether the stress-strain relationship obtained by testing a concrete cylinder can be used. Studies reported in [1] showed similarity between the ascending branch of the stress-strain curve for concrete columns with rectangular cross section submitted to eccentric compression and that for cylinders tested in axial compression, being columns and cylinders cured in the same laboratory environment. This suggests that the curves obtained from cylinders can be used for members under combined bending.

41 1

Materials and Structures/Mat6riaux et Constructions,Vol.33, August-September 2000

Some of these curves proposed in the literature are presented hereafter and compared with each other (compressive stresses and strains are considered positive). Approximate design stress-strain curves and rectangular stress blocks already suggested for calculating the combined bending capacity are also given, with examples of their influence on the axial force-moment interaction resistance diagrams.

8co

81 =(0.25A+0.5)+ 0 . ~ - ( 0 . 5 A + 1 ) 2 - 0 . 5

(2)

and the equation for the rest of the descending branch is given by:

fc I ( 81/ ( gl 12 I ~,gco) + __ -~ "(~oco


2. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Due to the different characteristics of higher strength concrete, for designing structures made with it, some design procedures traditionally used in normal strength concrete structures have to be changed. Different types of stress-strain relationships for concrete have been proposed for the non-linear analysis of member behavior and for the ultimate state analysis of high strength concrete elements under combined flexure and axial load. In this work comparisons are made between proposed stress-strain curves and between the axial loadmoment interaction diagrams based on these curves. Comparisons of test results with these diagrams, for columns subjected to eccentric compression, give an idea of the validity and the different degrees of safety obtained using those curves.
[[ \ec~ \~'coJ ; \~'ec~ ;

/]

(3)

where

4.[( 81 /2.(A-2)+2.( 81 I-A]


[\8co: \ec~

(4)

\8co ) A = Ect = Ect 9 I~c~

Ecs

fc -0.33

(5)

3. REALISTIC STRESS-STRAIN CURVES FOR CONCRETE


Realistic stress-strain curves for concrete in compression are needed for the non-linear analysis of structural members. The main characteristics of these curves are the tangent modulus of elasticity at the origin, the strain at peak stress, which increases with the increase in the concrete strength, the shape of the softening branch that becomes steeper for concrete with higher strength and the ultimate concrete strain. The proposed stress-strain curves for the concrete are either continuous functions for the ascending and descending branches or two separate functions. Three stress-strain models were selected for the investigation reported herein to represent those types of functions. The application of the stress-strain curve of CEB-FIP M e 9 0 [2] is limited to f& = 80 MPa and its constant value of strain at peak stress (eco = 2.2 %o) does not agree with experimental results. The M e 9 0 equation for the ascending branch and the descending branch up to a stress level % = 0.5 f~, and the equation for the strain (81) at this stress level are:

and Ect and Ecs are the tangent modulus of elasticity at the origin and the secant modulus of elasticity at peak stress, respectively. In CEB-228 [3], for 50 MPa _< fc -< 100 MPa, the equations for the ascending branch are the same as CEBFIP Me90, but with a slight different value for Ect (Ect= 22000 [fJ10]~ For the whole descending branch of the curve a different equation and a value of e~o that depends on fc are proposed and given as follows:
=

fc

l+/> j
( 8c _1"~2 gco

(7)

8co = 0.7fe0'31" 10 3
eco + 1 Vl- - -

(8)
(9)

The values of (t) are given in that reference as a function of the concrete strength (see Table 1). In this work an equation that approximates the values of Table 1 as a function of the concrete strength (in MPa) is used: t = 2.45 - 38f&. 10.3 + 7.083f2.10 -5 + 6.574fc ~ 910`7 (10) It is worth noting that in all the equations of the

( cl( cl 2
~__f._= c \ 8co I \ 8co J
(1)

Table 1 - Values of (t) as given by the CEB bulletin-228 [3] fck (MPa) t (%o) 50 0.807 60 0.579 70 0.338 80 0.221 90 0.070 100 0.015

412

I. Shehata, L. Shehata, T. S. Mattos

IO0 fc= 2 0 MPa

so
o

MC~90

Ic = 3 0 MPa o.. fr = 50 MPa fr = 70 MPa ~. fc = 8 0 MPa

eco =

n -1

(12/

d
=

":::: .......
O0
1 2 3

-'7"ee
4 5

Ir ( E- 3)
loo c[~-ffT.
fc = 20 MPa *~ fc = 3 0 MPa ... fc = BO MF'a fc = 70 MPa v

where k = 1 for gc - 8co, k = 0.67 + (fc/62) for ~co - co, n = 0.8 + (fc/17) and E a = 3320 (fc)0.5 + 6900 with fc in MPa. Examples of these curves are given in Fig.1. The comparison made in Fig.3 between Collins [4] and CEB-228 [3] shows that the greatest difference between them is in the descending part of the curves, which is affected by more parameters than the ascending one.
4. D E S I G N STRESS-STRAIN C U R V E S F O R r CONCRETE

6
........, ......... g .....
O0 i 2 3 4

fc = 90 MPa o. fr = 100 MPa

gr (E-3) zoo
80-60

*c=ZOMPa
fC = g M P a fc = 50 MPa

~
1

~
.-'~.
* ~

Collins etal [

I.

fc =~O'MPa o. fc = 9 0 MPa

At ultimate limit state, most design codes use simplified stress-strain curves for concrete in compression. The parabola-rectangle stress-strain curve commonly used in many countries (including Brazilian NBP,, [6]), which was first suggested by CEB, is given by: a) for ~c -< ~co = 2 %0
rSc 2 Igc) (gc/2

./.-,:5: ....
O0 2

-_
3 4 5

0,85fc k

"\ e~o: - \ e---~-o j

(13)

8e (E-3) Fig. 1 - Realistic stress-strain curves for concrete, according to CEB-FIP MC90, CEB bulletin 228 and Collins et al.

b) for 2 %o _<eco -< Zcu = 3.5 %0 0,85L,


-

Gc

- ]

(14)

100 80

CE~-228 90

MC95~0228

60

t
.
,0
, ~~ I, o ~

'.,
t.

SO

~2~0228
Collins e l e l 20

211
0
) 1 2 3 ~r (E-3) 4 S

The above-mentioned equations were lately adapted in the CEB-FIP MC90 [2] for concretes with 50 MPa < f& < 80 MPa. In this modified stress-strain diagram, the ultimate concrete strain for bending decreases as fck increases according to ~c~ = 3.5 (50 / fck) %0, with fck in MPa. With the aim of covering concretes with higher compressive strength, another type of stress-strain curve is suggested in [3] for concretes with 50 MPa < f& < 100 MPa. The concrete strain at the peak stress, the ultimate concrete strain, and the safety coefficient considered in this curve vary with fcka) for ec < eco
% -11-

Fig. 3 - Comparison between the realistic stress-strain curves for concretes with fc = 20 MPa, 50 MPa and 90 MPa.

0,85&

ec

(15)

b) for gco < gc < gcu C E B - M C 9 0 [2] and CEB-228 [3], the value of fc is referred as the average concrete strength (fcm = fck + 8 MPa) and not the characteristic one. The equation of the curve suggested by Collins et al. [4] is the same for both the ascending and descending branches, but has a coefficient that is constant for the ascending branch and varies with fc for the descending branch, so as:
Oc 0,85& _ ] (16)

with n = 2 - 0.008 (fck -- 50) eco = [2 + 0.005 (fck - 50)1%0

(17)

(18)
(19)

% ( ec I n -ff = \ 7~coJ n _1+ ( % 1 nk


\ gco J

(tl)

The general stress-strain curve of the Norwegian code NS-3473 E [5] is applicable to concretes with fck -< 94 MPa for designing members subjected to bending and
413

Materials and Structures/Mat~riaux et Constructions, Vol. 33, August-September2000

normal~force. It may also be used for non-linear analysis, but cannot predict the post-ultimate behavior. The concrete strain at the peak stress, the ultimate concrete strain, and the peak stress of this curve depend on fck. According to this code: a) for 0 < % < 0,6 fcn'
Gc -- 8c fcn F'cn

40
20
-

(20)

O0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

ec (E-3)

b) for 0,6 f~n < % < fcn,

t~c _ gc fen 8 cn

(~no_ l/.(:cCn - 0"6 i~ o ~ 3 , U ~;c (E-3)

"

with ec 0.6 a - %'-~----%0


~ cn

(22)

~cn- f~"

Ec.

(23)
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 25 3 3,5 4
E:~"(e-3)

In these equations, the nominal modulus of elasticity, the nominal compressive strength of concrete, the concrete deformation at peak stress and the ultimate deformation are given as: Ec,1 = 10000 fcn~
fcn= 0.70 fck + 2.8 fen = 0.56 fck + 8.96

Fig. 2 - Design stress-strain curves for concrete, according to CEB-FIP MC90, CEB bulletin 228 and NS3473 (Yc = 1).

(24) for fck -< 44 MPa


for 44 M P a _< fck -< 94 M P a

(25-a) (25-b) (26) (27)

gco = (1.9+ 0.004 f~n)%0 ~cu = 2,5 eco - 1.5 (fcn/Ecn),

where f& and fcn are in MPa. The stress-strain diagrams based on these equations, for different values of fck and safety coefficient 3'c taken equal to unity, are shown in Fig.2. The N B R [6] diaTable 2 - Values proposed for stress and grams are similar to the Author or code Stress I M c g 0 ones for fck <- 50 CEB-FIP MC90 [2] I 0.85 (1-fciJ250) fed MPa. It can be seen from Fig.4 that the differences fed = fck/l.5 between the diagrams are CAN3-A23.3 [7] (0.85-0.0015fc) fe > 0.67 fc greater for higher concrete strengths. The partial factor of safety for the material Yc AC1318 [8] 0.85 fc is equal to 1.5 for the MC90 and 1.4 for the NS and the NBR; for the CEB Ibrahim and ( 0 . 8 5 - f j 8 0 0 ) fc-> 0.725 fc bulletin 228 curve, 7c is 1.5 MacGregor [9] when fck -< 50 MPa and 0.85 fck [1.5/(1.1 - fck/500)], with fck NBR 6118 [6] in MPa, when fck > 50 MPa. fed = f c k / 1 . 4 If these values are introduced into the design curve x = neutral axis depth equations, further differ- fc, fck and fcd in MPa
414

ence will be noticed. In the design of structural members, a rectangular stress block for the concrete is also normally used. It can predict the resistant moment and axial force with a reasonable accuracy, but its greatest advantage, simplicity, is not so important nowadays, since design by hand calculations is rarely done. Different values of stress and height have beeia suggested for this simplified stress block, and examples of them are given in Table 2. This table includes also the valheight of the concrete rectangular stress block Height X (0.97-0.0025fc) x >_0.67 x 0.85 xforf c_< 28 MPa %u = 3 %0 [0.85-0.05(fc-28)/7 ] x >_0.65 x for fc > 28 MPa (0.95-fc/400) x >_0.7 x %u = 3 %0 %u = 3.5%o(bending) %u = 2.0%0 (axial compression) ~su = 10 %0 Other design data ~cu = (4- 0.02 fck)%O ~su = 10 %0 fck < 80 MPa ecu = 3.5 %0
fck -< 8 0 M P a

0.8 x

I. Shehata,L. Shehata,T. S. Mattos


0,15 I I [
i

NS MCgO ~ tea

fc =,72.8 MPa
0,1
p.

..~
,

.,:...:2:...... " ~. "'~'~ . ~


"':i':-.. \
0,4 0,6 W 0,8
i fc = 98.8 MP a

1", st; F r ~

(io)

~176

[
mm

oi 0

0,2

~5

~5

2 Ec (E .3)

Z5

t ! *

1 i
3 3.5

i
.i
i 0,15

Fig. 4 Comparison between the design stress-strain curves for concretes with fck = 20 MPa, 50 MPa and 90 MPa.
-

._/_-2."->A ,.. *.'5,


, O0

cou,m et
CEB
Te sts F ~

~.o

ues of ultimate strain considered for the concrete and the steel. The data of the current Brazilian code [6] will be kept in its revised version and are the same as those of the previous CEB-FIP Model Code. 5. TEST RESULTS Some experimental strengths of stocky columns reported in the literature [10, 11], with symmetrical reinforcement tested under eccentric compression, were chosen to be compared with the theoretical ones based on different concrete stress-strain relationships. Apart from two, the columns tested by Ibrahim and MacGregor [10] were subjected to axial compressive forces whose eccentricity was adjusted to maintain zero strain at one face of the columns (triangular strain diagram). The columns with rectangular cross section had concrete strength varying from 59 MPa to 128 MPa, longitudinal reinforcement ratio equal to zero or 1.33% and, except for two that had volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio of 3.9%, confinement reinforcement ratios in the range of 0 to 1.1%. All specimens had reinforcement with yield stress around 430 MPa. The low confinement reinforcement ratios had none or little effect on the behavior of the specimens. The two columns with higher confinement reinforcement and distributed longitudinal steel showed improved behavior. Foster and Attard [11] tested square cross section columns with concrete strengths from 40 MPa to 93 MPa and load eccentricities varying between 0.05 and 0:33 times the dimension of the cross section. The columns had either 2% or 4% longitudinal reinforcem e n t ratio (yield stress of 480 MPa) and volumetric lateral reinforcement ratio in the range of 1.0% to 3.7% (yield stress of 360 MPa or 460 MPa). 6. C O M P A R I S O N BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL A N D THEORETICAL RESULTS The bearing capacity of sections with a given distribution of reinforcement under moment and axial force can be clearly presented in interaction diagrams. With the aid of two computer programs, one for the non-lin415

0,2

0,4

% ,~ 0,6 V

.L_
1 mm

0,8 I

0,15

I I

I fc

124.8MPa]

NB~ MC'JO CEB


res~ F,~

o.0s
O0

:::'=::::::'""
0,2

..,.:.~:.;:~
""

""

\
0,8
1

L
mm

0,4

0,6

Fig. 5 - Interaction diagrams for the columns without reinforcement considering different design stress-strain curves for the
concrete.

ear analysis and the other for the rectangular stress block, the theoretical axial load-moment interaction diagrams for the tested columns were obtained. The calculations were based on the following assumptions: 9 plane sections remain plane 9 strains in the steel are the same as the strains in the adjacent concrete 9 tensile strength of concrete is neglected 9 stress-strain relationship for steel is idealized as elastoplastic 9 stress-strain relationship for concrete is given by different proposals 9 eventual confining effect of the lateral reinforcement is ignored. T h e n o n - d i m e n s i o n a l interaction diagrams (bt = M/bdefc and v = N/bdfc) seen in Figs. 5, 6, 9 and 10 were generated considering the design stress-strain curves of NBR6118 [6], CEB-FIP MC90 [2], CEB bulletin 228 [3], NS3473 [5] and Collins et al. [4]. The latter is the realistic curve with the concrete stress multiplied by (0.6 + 10/f~) < 0.85, with fc in MPa. In order to avoid distortion in the interaction diagrams, the ultimate concrete strain adopted for this curve was 3.0%o for concrete with fc < 50 MPa and (2.6 + 0.008 fc)%0 < 3.5%o for higher concrete strength. The code curves were also used for fc greater than its suggested upper limit. This leads to the necessity of imposing a condition on the strains at the beginning (eco) and at the end (~cu) of the CEB curves plateau: acu > eco, when fc > 87.5 MPa (Meg0) or fc > 110 MPa (bulletin 228).

Materials and Structures/Mat4riaux et Constructions,Vol: 33, August-September2000


02

0,2

t
fc = 71,6 MPa

.<...~.:...:;.:....
// %

__I__
..

N B I

0,15 ~ L L 0.i

~ C ~
C A ' A C T, ~F (IC

I~ o.1
o,c~

/
0,2

i "".'.'. ~.

t-: .,\ 9 I
";J:,
0,8
v

\\
0,2 0,4 0,6 V

9
~,
0~8

0,05/
I
%
1,2

"9 "%.
;%%.. 9
1

O
0,2

0,4

0,6

"""

o;
O2

%
1,2

N B R
MCgO

I
):''"

O,15 ~,
O,1

0,,
0,05

.,. ..... i;' .....

:'
9 %. ~'.'~
I

CEB

I .,'::1"::~:':-.,. .-~ -..-...~ i:~;., ,, . ' , . .

f c = 8 3 . 8 MPa

~
0,2 0,4 0,6

-""~ %,
%~
".

0,051
01 0

"~~ 0
0

0,2

0,4

0,6 V

0,8

1 I

1,2 2~m~m ~0

0/3
v

:.5
1
1,2

0,2 0,15

0,2
NS

N B R

~
~'
" ~

~.~
"'~'

fc=1255MPa

N O R M C 9 0 C E B (I0)
~

0,15 0,1

/ "..'.....; . . ..'.j~.;, 9 ;~...'--..


"% ~,

fc = 1 2 5 . 5 MPa " '~'~'~"~ CA~

MC90

ACl

~.t 0,1

o.o~
0 0 0,2 0,4

":7",,
~..9
v

0,6

'%"% 0,8

1,2

S
mm

0,05
0

.,. % %' 9

%% %. %.

.,%
1
12 )0
i

0,2

0,4

0,6

k % O~

Fig. 6 - Interaction diagrams for columns with 1.33% steel ratio considering different design stress-strain curves (columns with low lateral steel ratio).

Fig. 8 - Interaction diagrams for columns with 1.33% steel ratio considering different rectangular stress blocks (columns with low lateral steel ratio).

o, 15

==

0,35 0,3 0,25

NS

fc = 72.8 MP a 0,].

M~'QO

~; ~ ' ' ' "

~-'~

;.:.._i,

=.
",~ i 9 -, .~

fc = 4 2 . 0 M Pa

N B R
M C ~ O

0,05

/
,,
02

\,,
0,4
v

Ao (,o) 9

C d $ 1 n s a( e t
"~

P' 0 . 2 /
0,15 0,1 0,05

C E B Te~b*Fr~ 01)

",..%

".,

* ' , , % , . "~
0,6 O~

00
O,15

1 ~

mm

"-'k.-.N.,
0

[E
150 x 1~ b 1.4 NS
N BR

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8
v

1.2

I fc = 98 8 M Pa

"' 9 Mcgo

,.

fc = 7 4 . 3 MPa

MCm .. CEB (11)

'

--';..';..'~ ...... -.-

7
P

.--::.:-.-

....,.

~ ,.~

%,

"~.~
1 1,2
_ _

o/
0

i 02

\ 0,4

0,6

",~. O~ /",
i
fc = 124.8MPa

.
0,2 0.4
9

0,6

0.8

%9,'N
_ _ j

150 x 151
1,4 NS MC'~
C~insetld N BR m

0,15

0,25 "~-MCgO 0,2 0,15 9 [fc = 9 2 . 3 MPa

P
0,05/

! .::.:{
/

CEB r~t~Fr~

#0

.~ ~ ~

9 k

% 0 ' ~'.-

(10)

0,1 0,05 0

N'

9 %..;.....% '~%,,~ 9 "\

. ~^[--'-,, o

-"''.I
0,2 0,4 0,6 0.8

":::'k ~"<....,
1 1,2 1,4

150 x 151,

02

O,4

0,6 V

0,8

v Fig. 9 - I n t e r a c t i o n diagrams for columns with 2% steel considering different design stress-strain curves for concrete.

Fig. 7 - Interaction diagrams for the columns without reinforcement considering different rectangular stress blocks 9

416

I. Shehata, L. Shehata, T. S. Mattos

0,4 Q35 0,3 Q25

9"

fc = 4 1 . 0 MPa

I9

NS

~"~

I0,
o.,~ ,,
o, 1

I'
" ' Q ;'< ",,...
1% ~,

tc = 42.0 MPa

0,2 - 0,15 0,1 0,O5 0 0

............... 7...:.~.,-2--,. ............ --. 9 ~


";-.

I
~..,-,,,

.... ::;'" i~;


........ O_t)
%'C"

150 x151
0,2 0,4

Q,6

0,8

1,2

1,4

1,6

V 0,3 0,25 - -

O0
0,3 O,g5

0,2

0,4

0,6
9] 9

0,8

1 i

1,2 i

1,4

1,6 ~--NB,.R ~"'*".-.='~'~

fc = 74.3 MPa

g,2

0,2i
~L[ 0,15 0,1 q05 0
V
_-

,..~:--, ,-a:a.~ 9--. :...

.
%.,~

~'"

P- oaS/o,1
~. f ' L /
0,05

.... .........
0,2 0,4 0,6

9 -.......

T%,,;=
"~,

",',..~ ",.
.

"~
1,2 1,4

0,8

150 x 15 mm

q25
MC~

calm, eta I

o,25

ItT~=md ~1

' 2~..~ I

q15

I'-

,~,,

,,(".
0,8

CEB

::."X j
1
V

o,

:2L':

fc = ~3 MP.

,~o ;

o.1~
al

"'~

,-,[ b.L.[
,

I
..

~:I
Tesst

Fr~ (11} I
"

150x 15C

0,2

0,4

0,6

1,2

1,4

1,6

O,O5
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1

": 150 x 150


" 1,2 , 1,4 rnm

Fig. 10 - Interaction diagrams for columns with 4% steel ratio considering different design stress-strain curves for concrete.

%,

Fig. I1 - Interaction diagrams for the reinforced columns with 2% steel ratio considering different rectangular stress blocks.

The interaction diagrams in Figs.7, 8 and 11 were determined using the rectangular distributions of concrete stresses defined in Table 1. For the compressive strength of the concrete and the yield strength of the steel the mean values given in [10, 11] were adopted. Coefficients Yc and y.~were considered equal to one. As could be expected, for pure bending or compound bending with large eccentricities, the concrete stress-strain curve used made almost no difference in the computed strength of rectangular cross sections. On the other hand, for sections with prevailing compression, the stress-strain curve had a strong influence on the calculated strength. From the interaction diagrams in Figs. 5, 6, 9 and 10 and the experimental results plotted in them, it can be concluded that: 9 there is not much difference between the results obtained using the two CEB design stress-strain curves. 9 the design curves of the Norwegian Code and those of Collins et al. lead to the most conservative results. 9 Apart from the N B R curve, which is safe only for low strength concrete, in general, all the design stress-strain curves tend to lead to safe answers. In the diagrams of Figs. 7, 8 and 11 it can be observed that: 9 the ACI and N B R rectangular stress blocks, in general, lead to calculated strengths close to each other. 9 the rectangular stress diagrams of the Canadian code

and of Ibrahim and MacGregor tend to give similar results, with little difference for higher strength concretes. 9 the strengths obtained with the M c g 0 stress block are much lower than the ones obtained with the others, particularly for concretes with higher strength. 9 the results of the ACI and N B R rectangular stress blocks tend to be on the unsafe side for high-strength concretes, while the diagrams based on Ibrahim and MacGregor stress block tend to be safe and those based on the M C 9 0 are always extremely conservative.

7. CONCLUDING REMARKS
This work investigated the influence of the assumed stress-strain curve for concrete on the prediction of the strength of conventional and high strength concrete columns under eccentric axial load. It has been shown that, in the cases of prevailing compression, the stress-strain diagram adopted for the concrete has a great influence on the calculated strength. The design stress-strain diagrams of CEB-FIP MC90, CEB bulletin 228, NS 3473 and Collins et al., in general, gave safe results for the 68 columns with rectangular cross section tested under eccentric compression analyzed. The traditional parabola-rectangle stress-strain relationship of the NBR6118 (the same as the CEB-FIP

417

Materials and Structures/Mat6riaux et Constructions,Vol.33, August-September 2000

MC90 for fck < 50 MPa) lead to unsafe results when used for high strength concrete. As for the simplified rectangnlar stress blocks studied, the ones that were not calibrated for high strength concretes (of ACI and N B R codes) tended to overestimate the strength of columns with these concretes, while the ones proposed in the Canadian code and by Ibrahim and MacGregor [9] tended to give safe answers. The C E B - M C 9 0 stress block always lead to extremely conservative results.

bt normalized flexural strength (M/fc.b.d2) v normalized normal strength (N/fc.b.d) coefficient

REFERENCES
[1] Ibrahim, H. H. H. and MacGregor, J. G., 'Flexural behavior of laterally reinforced high-strength concrete sections', A C I StructuralJournal 93 (6) (1996) 674-684. [2] Comitd Euro-International du B&on, 'CEB-FIP Model Code 1990', Bulletin d'Information no 213/214 (Lausanne, Switzerland, 1993) 437p. [3] Comitd Euro-International du B&on, 'High Performance Concrete', Bulletin d'Information no 228 (Lausanne, Switzerland, 1995) 46!0.

LIST OF SYMBOLS
A Relation between Ect and Ecs (see equation (5) Ect tangent modulus of elasticity at origin for concrete Ecs secant modulus of elasticity at peak stress Ecn secant modulus of elasticity at nominal strength fcn fc compressive strength of concrete fcd design compressive strength of concrete fck characteristic compressive strength of concrete fc~ average compressive strength of concrete fcn nominal compressive strength of concrete according to NS 3473 E k coefficient n coefficient
t coefficient

ix ~c ecn eco ecu esu ed q

coefficient concrete strain nominal concrete strain at fcn concrete strain at peak stress ultimate concrete strain ultimate steel strain concrete strain on the falling branch at a stress = 0.5 fc coefficient

[4] Collins, M, P., Mitchell, D. and MacGregor,J. G., 'Structural Design Considerations for High-Strength Concrete', Concrete International: Design and Construction 15 (5) (1993) 27-34. [5] Norwegian Council for Building Standardization, 'Concrete Structures Design Rules-NS3473 E', (Stockhohn, 1992) 78p. [6] Brazilian Technical Standards, 'Project and Execution of Reinforced Concrete Structures - NBR 6118', only availablein Portuguese (ABNT, Rio deJaneiro, Brazil, 1980) 76p. [7] Canadian Stan&rd Association,'Design of Concrete Structuresfor Building- CAN3-A23.3-94', Concrete Design Handbook (CanadianPortlandCement Association,Ottawa, Canada, 1995). [8] American Concrete Institute, 'Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary- ACI 318-95', (ACI, Detroit, 1995) 369p. [9] Ibrahim, H. H. H. and MacGregor,J. G., 'Modification of the ACI RectangularStressBlock for High-Strength Concrete', ACI StructuralJournal 94 (1) (1997) 40-48. [10] Ibrahim, H. H. H. and MacGregor,J. G., 'Tests of Eccentrically Loaded High-Strength Concrete Columns', ACI Structural Journal 93 (5) (1996) 585-594. [11] Foster, S. J. and Attard, M. M., 'Experimental Tests on Eccentrically Loaded High-Strength Concrete Columns', ACI StructuralJournal 94 (3) (1997) 295-303.

418