Design of Slender Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns

Considering the Interaction between Columns

Javier García Hernando, Civil Eng., FHECOR Consulting Engineers; Alejandro Perez Caldentey, Prof., Polytechnic University
of Madrid, Spain; Freddy Ariñez Fernández, Civil Eng., UPM; Hugo Corres Peiretti, Prof., UPM. Contact: apc@he-upm.com
DOI: 10.2749/101686616X14480232444360

Abstract designer to better control the develop-

ment of the final structural solution in
Forces on columns caused by second-order effects are routinely over-estimated, a practical way and, at the same time,
which results in a waste of valuable resources and in construction difficulties obtain results that resemble closely the
because of high reinforcement ratios. This paper introduces a simplified method ones produced by more sophisticated
for the design of slender reinforced concrete (RC) bridge columns that repro- finite element models.
duces the interaction between columns of the structure and its effects on their
second-order behavior. The method considers that the instability of the more slen-
der columns is affected by the horizontal displacement stiffness of the less slender Design and Verification
columns, thereby increasing the horizontal forces acting on the less slender ele- of Slender RC Columns
ments. Two application examples are presented and the results obtained with the
new method are compared with the results obtained by applying the simplified In 1759, the critical buckling load for a
formulations of two major concrete design codes, as well as a nonlinear finite perfect elastic strut2 was determined by
element design of the whole structure. The results show that the codes tend to solving the differential equation, which
produce over-conservative designs for slender elements while the new method represents the equilibrium between
produces designs that better match the results obtained using the more sophis- the external and internal moments in
ticated finite element approach, still maintaining a margin of additional safety. a deformed column thus obtaining the
critical load shown in Eq. (1).
Keywords: slender columns; bridge columns; structural design; concrete design 2
codes; new design method. ⎛ π ⎞
NB = EI ⎜ ⎟ (1)
⎝ κ L⎠

Introduction
The design and verification of slen-
der reinforced concrete (RC) bridge
columns is a complex and challeng-
ing task. The difficulties involved in
their analysis often results in over-
simplification, which leads to overly
safe designs and can be the cause of
construction difficulties because of the
high reinforcement density.
This type of analysis must deal with
the following difficulties:
• Mechanical nonlinearity due to the
material properties of the concrete
and the reinforcing steel.
• Geometric nonlinearity due to the
non-negligible influence of the
deformed shape of the structure on
the forces acting on the element.
• Representation of the connection
between columns and the super-
structure, which often behaves dif-
ferently in the longitudinal and
transverse directions.
Peer-reviewed by international ex-
perts and accepted for publication
by SEI Editorial Board
Paper received: January 7, 2015
Paper accepted: September 10, 2015
References [1, 2] explain that the
design of isolated slender RC columns
is a well-researched and relatively
well understood subject. However,
Refs. [3–6] show that most traditional
design codes, especially those that rely
on simplified formulations such as
EC2,4 MC2010,7 as well as the Spanish
Concrete Design Code EHE-08,10 tend
to produce results that require exces-
sive reinforcement in columns with
large slenderness ratios. Thus, several
researchers have opted to either com-
plement or modify the parameters and
the procedures in which the traditional
design codes approach the problem of
slender RC columns,3,8 or to altogether
develop simplified formulations that
produce acceptably safe designs that
are not prohibitively conservative and
that are also sufficiently practical to be
used by everyday engineers.1,4,9
Nevertheless, most of these methods
were devised considering the charac-
teristics of building columns, which are
generally part of complex structures
that cannot be analyzed in a simple
manner with a great degree of preci-
sion. Bridges, however, are simpler
structures. Taking advantage of this
characteristic, this paper proposes a
new methodology to design slender
RC bridge columns, which allows the
where NB is the critical buckling load of
the column, E is the elastic modulus of
the column’s material, I is the moment
of inertia, L is the length of the column
and k is the effective length factor that
varies according to the end conditions
of the element. It should be noted that
Eq. (1) was developed considering a
column made of a homogeneous, lin-
ear elastic material without any imper-
fections and without the simultaneous
application of bending moments.
Nowadays, most concrete design codes
have adopted the moment magnifier
method that considers the influence
of second-order effects by magnifying
the acting first-order moment with an
additional moment as shown in Eq. (2).
Md = Me + Ma (2)
where Me is the first-order moment,
which also includes geometric imper-
fections; Ma is the moment that rep-
resents the influence of second-order
effects; and Md is the final design
moment of the column. In some cases,
assuming that the normal design force
Nd acting on the column remains con-
stant, Eq. (2) can be expressed in terms
of eccentricities by dividing all terms
by Nd, obtaining Eq. (3):
ed = ee + ea (3)

52 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2016

where ee, ea and ed are the eccentrici-
ties that correspond to Me, Ma and Md,
respectively.
Design Method in EHE-08
EHE-0810 establishes a simplified
design method valid for RC columns
with a prismatic cross-section and con-
stant longitudinal reinforcement. This
method determines the value of the
second-order moment eccentricity ea
using Eq. (4):
ea = (1 + 0.12 β ) ( ε y + 0.0035 )
2
( h + 20ee ) (κ L)
× (4)
( h + 10ee ) 50ic
where h is the depth of the column
in the direction perpendicular to the
bending axis, ey is the yielding steel
strain, ic is the radius of gyration of
the noncracked concrete section of
the column and b is a reinforcement
factor to be determined from Eq. (5).
The first-order moment eccentricity ee
can be determined using Eq. (6). EHE-
08 distinguishes the expression of the
equivalent eccentricity depending on
the bracing of the column.
2
( d − d′)
β= (5)
4is2
ee = 0.6e2 + 0.4e1 > 0.4e2
for braced columns
ee = e2 for unbraced columns (6)
In Eqs. (5) and (6), e2 is the first-order
eccentricity at the end of the column
with the larger bending moment, con-
sidered as positive; e1 is the first-order
eccentricity at the end of the column
with the smaller bending moment,
considered as positive only if it has the
same orientation as e2; d is the effec-
tive depth of the column; d′ is the axis
distance from the rebar to the edge of
the section; and is is the radius of gyra-
tion of the longitudinal reinforcement.
For unbraced columns, no reduction is
allowed for the equivalent eccentricity
resulting from non-uniform first-order
curvature because EHE-08 makes no
allowance for global second-order
effects.
Design Method in Eurocode 24
EN 1992-1-17 considers two simplified
methods for the design and verifica-
tion of slender columns, one method
based on nominal stiffness and the
other based on nominal curvature.
This paper will only cover the method
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2016
based on nominal curvature, which is
similar to the method adopted by FIB
Model Code 2010.11
The method based on nominal curva-
ture considers each column as an iso-
lated element.
The value of the second-order moment
Ma caused by local buckling effects is
determined based on the deformed
shape of the column, considering the
effective buckling length of the col-
umn and an approximate equilibrium
curvature given by Eq. (7).
2 case common in bridge practice—
⎛ 1 ⎞ (κ L)
Ma = Nd ⎜ ⎟ (7)
⎝r⎠ c
where (1/r) is the curvature of the
deformed column determined from
Eq. (8) and c is a factor that depends
on the assumed curvature distribu-
tion defined in CEB-FIP Manual of
Buckling and Instability.12
⎛1⎞ ⎛ εy ⎞
⎜ ⎟ = Kr Kϕ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
(8)
⎝r⎠ ⎝ 0.45d ⎠
In Eq. (8), Kr is a factor that depends
on the axial load defined in Eq. (9) and
Kj is a factor that takes into account
the effect of creep and is defined in Eq.
(10).
(1 + ω −ν )
Kr = ≤1 (9)
(1 + ω −ν bal )
⎛ f κL ⎞
Kϕ = 1 + ⎜ 0.35 + ck − ⎟
⎝ 200 150ic ⎠
M 200
× ϕ( ∞ ,t ) 0Eqp (10)
M0Ed
As fyd
In Eqs. (9) and (10), ω = , where
Ac fcd
Ac is the transverse area of concrete,
As is the area of the longitudinal rein-
forcement, fyd is the design yielding
stress of the reinforcement, fcd is the
design concrete strength, fck is the
characteristic concrete strength, j (∞,t)
is the final creep coefficient according
to EC2,7 M0Eqp is the first-order bend-
ing moment for the quasi-permanent
load combination (SLS) and M0Ed is
the first-order bending moment for the
design load combination (ULS), while
Nd
ν= and νbal is the value of ν at
Ac fcd
maximum moment resistance. EC-27
accepts a value of νbal =0.4.
It should be noted that the first-order
moment Me is calculated by Eq. (11),
which is very similar to Eq. (6) in
EHE-0810 (with the difference that
the reduction with respect to the
maximum moment can be taken into
account for both braced and unbraced
structures, provided that global sec-
ond-order effects have been consid-
ered adequately):
Me = 0.6M2 + 0.4M1 > 0.4M2 (11)
Similar to Eq. (6), M1 and M2 are bend-
ing moments at the ends of the column
and have the same sign if they produce
tension on the same side, and |M2| ≥
|M1|. In the case of a cantilever—a
the equivalent moment Me should be
taken as the maximum moment at the
base, since the maximum second-order
moment and the first-order moment
occur at the same cross-section. Factor
c can be taken as 12, since the first-
order moments will have a triangular
distribution and that of second-order
moments will be less than triangular.12
This assumption is therefore on the
safe side (see Fig. 1).
Additionally, EC27 specifies that an
eccentricity caused by imperfections
should be determined using Eq. (12):
ακ L
ei = 0.5 ( 1 + 1 ) (12)
2 m
where m is the number of vertical
members contributing to the horizon-
tal stiffness and a can be estimated
from Eq. (14)
1 0.01 1
≥α = ≥ (13)
κL 300
Development and Description
of the Proposed Method
The primary concept of the new
method is to transcend the traditional
isolated analysis of columns and to
account for the influence of the whole
bridge on the slenderness and the
forces acting on the columns. The pro-
posed methodology is developed in
three main steps:
• Determination of the first-order
forces acting on the structure.
• Determination and reevaluation of
the effective buckling lengths of the
columns and the acting forces con-
sidering the expected interaction
scheme of the first-order forces as
discussed in earlier.
• Structural design and verification of
the RC columns using the model col-
umn method as described earlier.12
Scientific Paper 53
(a) Braced element: (b) Cantilever:
Bending moments Deformed shape Bending moments Deformed shape
Section of maximum second-order Nd Nd Section of maximum second-order Nd Nd
effects does not coincide with section effects coincides with section of
of maximum first-order moment maximum first-order moment
e1
Hd Hd
First-order
First-order moment
moment

Second-order
Second-order moment
moment

e2 e2

Nd Nd Nd Nd

Fig. 1: Equivalent total bending moments: Eq. (11) not applicable to cantilever (Units: [–])

Determination of the First-Order
Effects
First-order effects are determined
using the traditional linear-elastic
analysis commonly used in bridge
engineering. The first-order analy-
sis enables the designer to determine
which combination of actions is the
most critical and will define the struc-
tural design of the columns.
Determination and Reevaluation of
the Influence of the Structure on the
Behavior of the Columns
The method presented in this paper
follows the concept that when the
most slender column of a bridge
approaches instability, it begins to
deform in search for a new position of
equilibrium. However, the horizontal
displacement stiffness of the other less
slender columns of the bridge limits
the deformation of the slender mem-
ber and changes its deformed buckling
shape. At the same time, this interac-
tion causes the slender members to
increase the magnitude of the hori-
zontal forces acting on the less slender
columns. This concept has also been
studied in Refs. [13–15].
The effects of column interaction
were modeled in Ref. [1] with a pair
of rotational springs, while both rota-
tional springs and translational springs
were used in Refs. [13,14]. This paper
reproduces this notion with a system
of translational springs, which limit
the displacement of the columns with
greater risk of instability and with a
set of forces that increase the actions
on the columns with lesser instability
risk. Thus, the forces acting on the less
slender elements and the second-order
effects on the more slender elements
are corrected to produce results that
better match the results obtained with
nonlinear finite element analysis.
The proposed method quantifies the
contribution of all the bridge supports
to prevent the instability failure of
a slender column with the following
procedure:
• For each of the bridge columns,
the critical buckling Euler load NB
is obtained from Eq. (1) assuming
non-braced conditions.
• Considering the most critical
first-order load combination, the
maximum design axial force Nd is
determined for each column to cal-
culate the effective instability ratio
(EIR) = Nd/NB for each element.
• According to EIR, each column will
be assigned a buckling order num-
ber (BON). The column with the
highest EIR will be assigned num-
ber one and the remaining columns
will be sequentially numbered, so
columns with lower buckling order
number would be closer to reach-
ing instability. In this manner, each
column contributes to prevent the
instability of all the other columns
with a BON inferior to its own.
• The contribution of the less slender
columns to preventing the instabil-
ity of the more slender member
would originate from their respec-
tive stiffness against horizontal dis-
placement at the top of the column.
Therefore, the column about to
buckle can be modeled with a spring
on its top whose stiffness is equal to
the effective stiffness (that considers
the reduction in horizontal stiffness
because of cracking, and uncertain-
ties in the elastic modulus and axial
load as provided by the geometrical
stiffness matrix) of the columns with
a smaller buckling order.
• The contribution of each column
to resisting the external system of
horizontal loads on the bridge is
controlled by the compatibility of
deformations that is established
throughout the superstructure
of the bridge and the connection
mechanisms between the columns
and the superstructure. For example,
a column that is free at its top and
embedded at its foundation (canti-
lever) will contribute to the system
with stiffness k given by Eq. (14)
while a column that is embedded
both at the foundation and in the
superstructure, will provide the stiff-
ness given by Eq. (15).
2
⎛ 0.4 EI ⎞
12 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ γ ce ⎠ + 26 × 0.4 × EI × N + 3 N
2
L4 γ ce × 5 L2 20
k=
4 × 0.4 EI 2 NL
+
γ ce L 15
(14)
12 × 0.4 EI 6 N
k= + (15)
γ ce L3 5L
Both Eq. (14) and Eq. (15) are both
derived considering the stiffness
matrix and the geometric stiffness
matrix as explained in Ref. [16].
In the case of a column with neo-
prene bearings, the stiffness of the
system formed by the column and

54 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2016

 the neoprene bearing is determined
by Eq. (16):
1 1 1
= +
k kc knb
where kc is the stiffness of the col-
umn as determined by Eq. (14) or
(15) and knb is the horizontal stiff-
ness provided by the neoprene bear-
ing as determined by Eq. (17).
GAnb
knb =
hnb
In Eq. (14), Eq. (15) and Eq. (17), N
is the axial force acting on the col-
umn and is considered negative for
compressive forces, G is the shear
modulus of the neoprene bearings,
Anb is area of the bearing, hnb is the
net neoprene height of the bearing
and γce is a reduction factor specified
in EC27 with a value of 1.2.
• The increase in the horizontal
forces acting on the less slender
columns can be determined by a
method based on the formulation of
Eurocode 2,7 Annex H,4 originally
derived for buildings, applied to a
structure having only one story (rep-
resentative of bridges), and assum-
ing a perfectly rigid connection at
the footing. In order to estimate
the buckling load, this formulation
assumes that the supports act as
cantilevers subjected to a triangular
distribution of curvatures (c = 12) as
shown in Fig. 1, assuming cracked
flexural stiffness (for which the
noncracked values are multiplied
by a factor of 0.4). The forces in the
less slender columns ( j) are multi-
plied by an amplification factor AFj,
equal to the ratio of the amplifica-
tion factor of forces considering the
participation of the element, whose
buckling is being considered, in the
bracing system and the same ampli-
fication factor concept if the bracing
structure is considered acting with-
out the column that is being braced.
The amplification factor for column
j is given by Eq. (18).
∑ j > BON
Nj
1−
12 EIj
0.4∑ j > BON
γ CE ( 2L )
2 C1
j
AFj =
1−
∑ i >BON−1 Ni
12 EIi
0.4∑ i > BON−1
γ CE ( 2 Li)
2
• Once the support, in terms of hori-
zontal stiffness, that the structure
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2016
N a rather high axial load with respect
(16) K • A three-span continuous bridge.
δ This is a more elaborate example
Y
(17)
X in EC27, MC201011 and EHE-0810 as
Fig. 2: Column with fixed base and spring
on top (Units: [–])
provides to each column has been
determined, the effective buckling
length is reevaluated considering
the boundary conditions of each col-
umn and the equilibrium between
the external bending moments and
the internal bending moments on the
current deformed geometry of the
column expressed by Eq. (19). In
the case of a cantilever column (see
Fig. 2), the solution of Eq. (19) is Eq.
(20)17 and the buckling load is deter-
mined by solving Eq. (20) numeri-
cally for the value of N. The solution
of the differential equilibrium equa-
tion for other support conditions
may be found in many papers and
textbooks (for instance, Ref. [1]).
M ( x) = N × (δ − y ) − Kδ ( L− x)
N ⎛N K ⎞
= EIy → 
y+ y=⎜ − ( L− x ) ⎟ δ
EI
 ⎝ EI EI ⎠
k2
(19)
⎛ KL ⎞
− 1⎟
⎛ N ⎞ ⎜⎝ N ⎠ Hinge
tan ⎜⎜ L⎟ = (20)
⎝ EI ⎟⎠ K EI
N N
Application Examples
The application of the proposed
method is illustrated in two examples:
(18)
• An asymmetrical frame. This is a
simple example meant to focus on
the application of the proposed
method and to examine a case with
to the axial capacity of the column.
that features the particularities of
the structures aimed to be covered
by this method. Here the level of
axial load is smaller, as in typical
bridges, because of the high value of
the bending moments.
In both examples, the results obtained
by the proposed methodology are
compared with the results obtained
applying the procedures described
well as with a nonlinear finite element
program. The finite element analysis
includes geometric and material non-
linear analysis. Since material safety
factors are not considered in nonlin-
ear analysis, forces are increased until
a minimum safety factor of 1.5 over
already factored loads is achieved, this
value representing a safe estimate of
the safety of materials (see Annex PP
of EN 1992-218).
Asymmetrical Frame
Geometry and Loads
The frame is composed of two cylindri-
cal columns with a 1 m diameter and
heights of 11 and 7 m, hinged at the top
and fixed at the foundation as seen in
Fig. 3. The longest column is labeled C1
and the shortest one C2. The beam that
connects the two columns is assumed
to be rigid in the axial direction. It is
initially assumed that the effective
length factor of the columns is k = 2,
which neglects the influence of one
column on the other.
The forces acting on the structure are a
factored axial force of Nd = 11 000 kN
on each column and a factored trans-
versal wind load acting in the plane
of the frame of 100 kN acting on the
beam. The concrete of both columns
11 000 kN 11 000 kN
Hinge
100 kN
C2
7.00
11.00
∅=1m
Fig. 3: Geometry of asymmetric frame
Scientific Paper 55
Column H (m) Nd (kN) He (kN) M2 (kNm) e2 (m) Ase (mm2) qe (%) kreal klim, EHE k lim, EC2
C1 11 11 000 21 225 0.020 3100 0.40 88 67 37
C2 7 11 000 80 557 0.051 3100 0.40 56 45 37
Table 1: First-order linear elastic analysis

(a) (b) (c)

11 000 kN 11 000 kN 11 000 kN 11 000 kN 11 000 kN 11 000 kN

C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2
100 kN 100 kN 100 kN

556.6 kNm 779.9 kNm 1077.3 kNm

M2 M2+N×ei AF×(M2+N×ei+N×ei. )

225.4 kNm 576.3 kNm 560.3 kNm

M2 M2+N×ei AF×(M2+N×ei+N×ei. )

Fig. 4: First-order forces on frame for (a) EHE-08, (b) EC 2 and (c) new method

M1 M2 M01 M02
Design Column j (kNm) (kNm) ei (m) (kNm) (kNm) ee (m) ea (m) etot (m) Md (kNm) Astot (mm2) qtot (%)
EC2 C1 2 0 225 0.032 0 576 0.052 0.130 0.183 2010 8100 1.03
C2 2 0 557 0.020 0 780 0.071 0.052 0.123 1349 3100 0.40
EHE-08 C1 2 225 225 – – – 0.020 0.319 0.339 3732 24000 3.06
C2 2 557 557 – – – 0.051 0.147 0.198 2178 9000 1.15
Table 2: Second-order design traditional codes

has a characteristic strength of 30
MPa (gc=1.50) and the steel reinforce-
ment has a yield strength of 500 MPa
(gs=1.15).
Table 1 shows the first-order linear
elastic analysis of the asymmetrical
frame and the reinforcement neces-
sary to meet the first-order forces. In
this case, the reinforcement provided
corresponds to the minimum rein-
forcement ratio of 0.4% as specified in
EHE-08.10
In Table 1, all the e-subscripts refer to
the first-order conditions at the criti-
cal section (column connection to the
foundation); lreal is the mechanical
slenderness of each column; llim, EHE
and llim, EC2 correspond to the mini-
mum slenderness from which second-
order analysis is necessary according
Figure 4 shows the first-order forces
to be used for the different design
methods considered. Imperfections
for the proposed model are smaller
for the more slender column because
of the smaller buckling length being
considered in comparison to the meth-
ods in the design codes.
Second-Order Design According
to Design Codes
The second-order design of the struc-
ture following the simplified code for-
mulations presented earlier can be seen
in Table 2. With regard to the method
of EC 2,7 each column is considered as
an isolated element. Geometric imper-
fections (ei) according to Eq. (12) are
0.3
22 ⎛ 30 + 8 ⎞ 6 π × 1.00
4
taken into account only for the method
of EC2 (see Fig. 4).
Second-Order Design According to
New Method
Figure 3 shows that C1 is at a greater
risk of reaching instability and C2
would help to reduce the deformation
of C1, whose buckling length would be
reduced. Taking into account the loss
of stiffness caused by the axial force
applied on C2, according to Eq. (14),
cracking of C2 (but, conservatively, not
of C1) and gCE, the buckling factor of
column C1 is reduced from 2 to 1.52.
This corresponds to a value of the hor-
izontal spring of 2809 kN/m as shown
in Eq. (22).

to EHE-0810 and EC2,7 respectively. EI = 0.4 × ⎜ ⎟ ×10 = 537 287 kNm2

1.2 ⎝ 10 ⎠ 64
The reinforcement ratio r is defined
2 2
according to Eq. (21). 26 EI × N 3 N2 12 × ( 537 287 ) 26 × 537 287 ×11000 3 ×11000
12 (EI ) 2

++ − +
As k= L4 5 L2 20 = 74 5 × 72 20
ρ= (21) 4 EI 2 NL 4 × 537 287 2 ×11000 × 7
Ac + −
L 15 7 15
where As is the area of reinforcing 833735106.60 3EI 3 × 537 287
steel in the column and Ac is the gross = = 2809.51 kN/m → < 3 = = 4699.30kN/m → o.k.
296 754.47 L 73
area of the column cross-section. (22)

56 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2016

 M1 M2 ei,i M01 M02 Me etot Md Astot qtot
Design Column j (kNm) (kNm) ei (m) (m) (kNm) (kNm) AF (kNm) ee (m) (m) (kNm) (mm2) (%)
New C1 1.52 0 225 0.024 0.006 0 560 1 560 0.051 0.079 869 3100 0.40
method C2 2 0 557 0.020 0.006 0 848 1.27 1077 0.098 0.153 1685 5000 0.64
Table 3: Second-order design new method

N M1 M2 ei + ei,i M01 M02 Md

Design Column L Astot (kN) (kNm) (kNm) (m) (kNm) (kNm) e2 (m) etot (m) (kNm) c (mm) SF(f )
Nonlinear C1 11 10e 20 11 000 0.00 225.39 0.030 0.00 361 0.033 0.038 422 13 2.38
analysis f F = 1.0 C2 7 10e 20 11 000 0.00 556.57 0.027 0.00 891 0.081 0.099 1085 1.96
Nonlinear C1 11 10e 20 18 700 0.00 383.16 0.030 0.00 614 0.056 0.055 1030 44 1.99
analysis f F = 1.7 C2 7 10e 20 18 700 0.00 946.17 0.027 0.00 1515 0.138 0.138 2589 1.20
Table 4: Second-order design finite element models

Taking into account the increase in Longitudinal bridge disposition

eccentricity due to geometric imper- 28 m 35 m 28 m
fections and applying the model col-
umn method, the results of Table 3 C1 C2
are obtained. The value of ei,j repre- 8m
sents the eccentricity increase result- Φ = 1.30 m 11 m Φ = 1.30 m

ing from the creep of the permanent

loads.
Table 3 shows that the more slender
column can actually be designed with
the minimum reinforcement, taken
here as 0.4% of the concrete area. For
the restraining column, a larger rein-
forcement is obtained with respect
to the EC2 model, as a result of the
amplification factor, which takes into
account global second-order effects.
However, the total amount of rein-
forcement is smaller.
A good feature of this method is that
it provides a better balance in the rein-
forcement of slender and less slender
columns, avoiding the design of col-
umns with excessive amounts of steel,
which are difficult to concrete.
Design According to Nonlinear
Analysis and Comparison of Results
A nonlinear geometric and mechanic
calculation was performed using a
program, developed by FHECOR
Consulting Engineers, assuming mini-
mum reinforcement in both columns.
The initial geometry of the structure
included the geometrical imperfections
according to Eq. (12), so that first-order
moments included these effects. This
calculation was undertaken using real-
istic constitutive laws (a Sargin-type19
constitutive equation for concrete,
and bilinear law for steel with a yield
strength of 500 MPa) and assuming the
minimum amount of reinforcement in
both columns (10f 20), that is less than
the value obtained in the above calcu-
lations. As explained above, since mate-
rial safety factors are not considered,
Fig. 5: Bridge geometry for second numerical example
the calculation was deemed satisfac-
tory if the additional safety coefficient
on the loads (applied to both horizon-
tal and vertical loads, this being the
critical condition) was at least equal to
1.5, which is the partial safety factor of
concrete (gc). In this case, the load was
then increased until numerical instabil-
ity occurred, with a value of gF = 1.725.
For gF = 1.7, the ratio between ultimate
forces on the less slender columns and
the acting forces, expressed in terms
of constant eccentricity, is still 1.2, so
it seems that this factor could still be
increased. The second-order and final
design of the columns obtained by this
analysis is shown in Table 4. The last
two columns of Table 4 show the hori-
zontal displacements (d ) and the safety
factor of the columns with respect to
their unfactored resistance (SF(g )).
The large margin of safety still pres-
ent in the more slender column is to
be noted.
All of the simplified methods lie on
the safe side for this example. The
reinforcement ratios obtained with the
different methodologies developed in
Tables 2–4 illustrate the magnitude in
which the simplified formulations in
the codes produce over-conservative
results for the more slender column
C1, while the proposed new method
produces results much less conserva-
tive, yet still on the safe side, consid-
ering a more refined nonlinear finite
element analysis.
Three-Span Continuous Bridge
Geometry and Loads
This example, considering a three-span
continuous prestressed concrete slab
bridge, was selected because this typol-
ogy is commonly adopted for urban
viaducts and highway overpasses. The
assumed longitudinal disposition is
shown in Fig. 5.
The columns are circular RC col-
umns with a radius of 1.30 m and
the longest column is again labeled
C1 and the shortest column C2.
This example also shows the influ-
ence that the connection mechanism
between the superstructure and the
columns and the end-abutments of
the bridge has on the final design of
the structure. In the first scenario, it
is assumed that the superstructure is
connected to the abutments with two
neoprene supports of 450 × 450 × 90
mm (90 mm being the net neoprene
height), which provide a total hori-
zontal displacement stiffness of 4500
kN/m per abutment. For the second
scenario, the disposition of sliding
bearings which allows free horizontal
displacement of the superstructure
without any restriction is assumed.
In both cases, it was considered
that the columns are connected to
the superstructure by two neoprene
bearings of 600 × 600 × 70 mm with a
shear modulus of G = 1 MPa, which
account for a total (both columns)

Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2016 Scientific Paper 57

horizontal displacement stiffness of
10 285 kN/m.
The loads on the structure are adopted
from EN 1991.20
The concrete of both columns is
assumed to have a concrete strength of
fck = 30 MPa and the steel reinforce-
ment bars are assumed to have a yield
stress of fyk = 500 MPa.
For the linear and nonlinear finite ele-
ment analysis of the structure, several
models were developed.
First Case: Contribution of Abutments
to Lateral Stiffness. Table 5 shows the
first-order linear elastic analysis of
the structure and the initial first-order
design.
In Table 5, M2dy is the bending moment
acting on the column in the longitudi-
nal direction of the bridge and M2dz is
the bending moment acting on the col-
umn in the transverse direction of the
superstructure. For this particular case,
since the column is circular, the square
root of the sum of the squares of the
moments is considered in order to
determine the first-order eccentricity.
Figure 6 shows the first-order forces
for the different design methods
considered.
Second-Order Design According to
Design Codes. Table 6 shows the sec-
ond-order analysis and final structural
design of columns C1 and C2 accord-
ing to EHE-0810 and EC27.
Second-order Design According to
New Method. In this case, the connec-
tion between the superstructure of the
bridge and the end-abutments enables
the abutments to contribute to anchor-
ing the horizontal displacement of the
slender columns. Since the abutments
are not susceptible to buckling, their
BON is 3, while C1 would have a BON
of 1 and C2 a BON of 2.
The horizontal spring to be used in the
determination of the buckling length
of the more slender support is deter-
mined as follows:
EI = 1 534 545 kNm2
kcolumn= 7487 kN/m
kcolumn+neoprene= 4333 kN/m
k = 13 333 kN/m
With this value, the buckling coeffi-
cient of the more slender pier comes
down to 1.34.
In the same way, the less slender pier
is supported at its head by the stiffness
of the neoprene bearings of the abut-
ments, which account for a stiffness of
9000 kN/m. With this spring, the buck-
ling coefficient was again determined
for the less slender pier, obtaining a
value of 1.74.
Furthermore, in order to apply the
proposed formulation, global second-
order effects on the bracing structure
should be taken into account. Thus,
a buckling load calculation was per-
formed using a simple linear model
developed with a structural analysis
program. For this calculation, and
in line with the safe approach of
Eurocode 2, the stiffness of the sup-
ports was reduced by a factor of 0.4
in order to account for cracking and
then divided by a factor of gCE = 1.2 in
order to consider uncertainties inher-
ent to the value of the modulus of
elasticity, for a total reduction in the
stiffness of the supports by a factor

M2dy M2dz M2d Ase klim, klim,

Column H (m) Nd (kN) Hdy (kN) Hdz (kN) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm) e2 (m) (mm2) qe (%) k real EHE EC2
C1 11 10 058 187 36 393 2056 2093 0.208 5300 0.40 68 34 59
C2 8 10 022 485 93 742 3884 3954 0.395 5300 0.40 49 45 37
Table 5: First-order linear elastic analysis case 1

(a) 79.8 kN
(b) 79.8 kN
(c)
79.8 kN

C2 C2 C2

494.2 kN 494.2 kN 494.2 kN

3954 kNm 4186.5 kNm 4187.4 kNm

C1 M2 M2+Nei
C1 C1 AF×(M2+Nei+Nei, )

190.3 kN 190.3 kN 190.3 kN

2093.3 kNm 2414.2 kNm 2280.3 kNm

79.8 kN 79.8 kN 79.8 kN
M2 M2+Nei AF×(M2+Nei+Nei, )

Fig. 6: First-order forces on first bridge example for (a) EHE-08, (b) EC 2 and (c) new method

M1 M2 M01 M02 Astot qtot

Design Column j (kNm) (kNm) ei (m) (kNm) (kNm) ee (m) ea (m) etot (m) Md (kNm) (mm2) (%)
EC2 C1 2 0 2093 0.032 0 2414 0.240 0.163 0.403 4056 5300 0.40
C2 2 0 3954 0.023 0 4186 0.418 0.096 0.514 5152 12200 0.92
EHE-08 C1 2 2093 2093 – – – 0.208 0.339 0.547 5498 14300 1.08
C2 2 3954 3954 – – – 0.395 0.194 0.589 5900 17000 1.28
Table 6: Second-order design traditional codes

58 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2016

of 3. The buckling load of the structure
(NB, structure), taking into account the
contribution of the neoprene bearings
at the abutments, was then determined
to be 172 977.5 kN. Without the reduc-
tion factor of 3, the elastic buckling
load would have been only 2.2 times
less. This nonlinearity shows that if the
supports are less stiff, the bearings at
the abutments are more effective in
limiting the displacement induced by
the axial loads.
The amplification factor to be applied
to the loads carried by the bracing
structure of the more slender pier was
determined using the following expres-
sion, adapted from Eq. (18):
Nj
1−
12 EI j
0.4
γ CE (β L )
2
j
AFj =
1−
∑N i i 1−
NB,structure
The results in Table 7 show that allow-
ing the abutments to restrain the hori-
zontal displacement of the system not
only serves to better distribute the
horizontal forces acting on the bridge
but also significantly reduces the effec-
reinforcement. It can be seen that the
reduction in the total bending moment
is very important, dropping from 4056
to 2504 kNm.
This analysis assumes that the flexibil-
ity of the superstructure in the trans-
verse direction is negligible, which is
the case for the example studied. For
very long bridges, however, the influ-
ence of the transverse flexibility of the
bridge would have to be considered.
Design According to Nonlinear Analy-
sis and Comparison of Results. Nonlin-
ear mechanical and geometrical analysis
was undertaken using the reinforcement
determined with the proposed method.
10 058
1−
1.34
22 × 3.80.3 ×106 × π ×
12 64
0.4
1.2 (1.74 × 8 )
2
0.894
= = = 1.01
10 058 + 10 022 0.884
172977.48
A reduction of the reinforcement with
respect to the proposed method was not
deemed viable in this case because of
the very small second-order effects that
appear using this method. However, the
calculation was carried out in order to
Second Case: Without Contribution of
Abutments to Lateral Stiffness. Table 9
shows the results for the case when the
end-abutments do not contribute to re-
straining the horizontal displacement of
the structure. The increase in the forc-
es acting on the columns is about 23%.
Second-Order Design According to
Design Codes. Table 10 shows the sec-
ond-order design of the columns using
the simplified expression of EHE-
0810 and the formulations in EC27.
Figure 7 shows the first-order forces to
be considered for each design method.
Second-Order Design According to
New Method. Since the abutments
do not contribute at all to anchoring
the horizontal displacement of the
most slender column, the only element
that helps to prevent the instability
failure of C1 is C2. The amplification
factor to be applied to the loads car-
ried by the bracing structure of the
more slender pier, which is here re-
duced to the less slender pier, is deter-
mined using the following expression:
Nj
1−
12 EI j
0.4
γ CE ( 2L )
2
0.860
j
AFj = = = 1.05
1−
∑N i i 0.817
12 EI
0.4∑ i

tive buckling length factor on both col- prove that the design is still on the safe γCE 2L ( i )
2

umns. In this example, the table shows
that the reinforcement is almost the
same as for the method of Eurocode
2, but this is due to the fact that the
slender column carries minimum
side. The results of this calculation are
shown in Table 8. The load was increased
up to 1.75 times the factored ULS load,
failing to achieve convergence for a fac-
tor of 1.8.
The horizontal spring to be used in the
determination of the buckling length
of the more slender support is deter-
mined as follows:

M1 M2 M01 M02 Me Md Astot qtot

Design Column j (kNm) (kNm) ei (m) ei,i (m) (kNm) (kNm) AF (kNm) ee (m) etot (m) (kNm) (mm2) (%)
New C1 1.34 0 2093 0.017 0.002 0 2280 1.00 2280 0.227 0.249 2504 5300 0.40
method C2 1.74 0 3954 0.018 0.002 0 4146 1.01 4187 0.418 0.482 4831 11800 0.89
Table 7: Second-order design new method

M1 M2 ei + ei,i M01 M02 Md

Design Column L Astot N (kN) (kNm) (kNm) (m) (kNm) (kNm) e2 (m) etot (m) (kNm) c (mm) SF (f )
Nonlinear C1 11 27f16 10 058 0 2093 0.019 0 361 0.036 0.166 1666 3.30
analysis C2 8 24f25 10 022 0 3954 0.019 0 891 0.089 0.419 4203 21 1.87
g F = 1.0
Nonlinear C1 11 27f16 17 099 0 3559 0.019 0 614 0.061 0.194 3317 1.80
analysis C2 8 24f25 17 037 0 6722 0.019 0 1515 0.151 0.415 7072 49 1.11
g F = 1.75
Table 8: Example 1 - Second order design using finite element analysis

M2dy M2dz M2d klim, klim,

Column H (m) Nd (kN) Hdy (kN) Hdz (kN) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm) e2 (m) Ase (mm2) qe (%) kreal EHE EC2
C1 11 10 058 230 44 484 2535 2581 0.257 5300 0.40 68 34 59
C2 8 10 022 599 114 915 4789 4875 0.486 10200 0.77 49 45 37
Table 9: First-order linear elastic analysis case 2

Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2016 Scientific Paper 59

 M1 M2 M01 M02 Astot qtot
Design Column j (kNm) (kNm) ei (m) (kNm) (kNm) ee (m) ea (m) etot (m) Md (kNm) (mm2) (%)
EC2 C1 2 0 2581 0.032 0 2902 0.289 0.163 0.452 4544 8000 0.60
C2 2 0 4875 0.023 0 5108 0.510 0.096 0.606 6074 18300 1.38
EHE-08 C1 2 2581 2581 – – – 0.257 0.349 0.605 6088 18100 1.37
C2 2 4875 4875 – – – 0.486 0.198 0.685 6863 23200 1.75
Table 10: Second-order design with traditional codes

M1 M2 M01 M02 Me Md Astot qtot

Design Column j (kNm) (kNm) ei (m) ei,i (m) (kNm) (kNm) AF (kNm) ee (m) etot (m) (kNm) (mm2) (%)
New C1 1.53 0 2581 0.024 0.002 0 2844 1.00 2844 0.283 0.340 3420 5400 0.41
Method C2 2 0 4875 0.023 0.002 0 5126 1.05 5382 0.537 0.624 6254 21700 1.64
Table 11: Second-order design new method

(a) (b) (c)

C2 C2 C2

609.4 kN 609.4 kN 609.4 kN

4875 kNm 5107.8 kNm 5381.9 kNm

C1 M2 M2+Nei
C1 C1 AF×(M2+Nei+Nei, )

234.6 kN 234.6 kN 234.6 kN

2581 kNm 2901.9 kNm 2844.4 kNm

M2 M2+Nei AF×(M2+Nei+Nei, )

Fig. 7: First-order forces on second bridge example for (a) EHE-08, (b) EC 2 and (c) new method

N M1 M2 ei + ei,i M01 M02 Md SF

Design Column L Astot (kN) (kNm) (kNm) (m) (kNm) (kNm) e2 (m) etot (m) (kNm) c (mm) (f )
Nonlinear analysis C1 11 27f 16 10 058 0 2581 0.026 0 361 0.036 0.255 2566 34 2.59
γF = 1.0 C2 8 27f 32 10 022 0 4875 0.025 0 891 0.089 0.536 5367 1.90
Nonlinear analysis C1 11 27f 16 15 590 0 4130 0.026 0 578 0.057 0.281 4386 68 1.55
γF = 1.55 C2 8 27f 32 15 534 0 7800 0.025 0 1426 0.142 0.572 8889 1.15
Table 12: Example 2 - Second order design using finite element analysis

EI = 1 534 545 kNm2
kcolumn= 7487 kN/m
With this value, the buckling coeffi-
cient of the more slender pier comes
down to 1.53.
Unlike Table 7, Table 11 shows that
C2 is the only anchoring structure of
the bridge and is itself not assisted by
other elements to avoid instability. This
fact considerably increases first-order
forces on C2 and it does not reduce the
necessary reinforcement ratio in C1 as
effectively as in the First Case. In this
case, with respect to Eurocode 2, the
reinforcement is less in the slender col-
umn and more in the bracing column,
bringing the total amount to about the
same, in spite of the different distribu-
tion of forces, even though the second-
order forces of the more slender pier
are significantly reduced.
Design According to Nonlinear Analy-
sis and Comparison of Results. The
nonlinear analysis developed for
this problem is shown in Table 12.
Conclusions
From the above considerations, the fol-
lowing conclusions can be established:
1. The proposed new method produces
results that can reduce the necessary
reinforcement ratio significantly in
more slender columns compared
with the simplified formulations in
the design codes. The final results
obtained have been proven to be
safe by comparison with nonlinear
mechanical and geometrical analysis
in all the cases examined.
2. The simplified formulations in cur-
rent design codes (more so in EHE-
08) produce over-conservative
results in very slender columns. This
fact leaves ample room for the opti-
mization of design procedures.
3. The proposed method is easy to
implement with a degree of com-
plexity similar to the simplified
methods of design codes.
4. The use of connection mechanisms
between the superstructure and
abutments that enable the abut-
ments to restrain the horizontal
displacement of the structure sig-
nificantly improves the design of
the bridge columns. Nevertheless, it
is important to mention that these

60 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2016

 connection mechanisms produce
additional forces that have to be
taken into account in the design of
the bracing elements.
5. Nonlinear analysis of the whole
structure reveals that the increment
in the horizontal force to be applied
to the bracing system, as developed
by the proposed method, is adequate.
References
[1] Bazant Z, Xiang Y. Inelastic buckling of con-
crete columns in braced frame. J. Struct. Eng.
1997; 123: 634–642.
[2] Ba žant, ZP, Cedolin, L. Stability of Structures:
Elastic, Inelastic, Fracture and Damage Theories.
2nd edn. Oxford University Press: New York,
1991.
[3] Barros H, Silva V, Ferreira C. Second-order
effects in slender concrete columns – reformula-
tion of the Eurocode 2 method based on nomi-
nal curvature. Eng. Struct. 2010; 32: 3989–3993.
[4] Bazant Z, Cedolin L, Tabarra M. New method
of analysis for slender columns. ACI Struct. J.
1991; 88: 391–401.
[5] Kwak H, Kim J. Ultimate resisting capacity
of slender RC columns. Comput. Struct. 2004; 82:
901–915.
!
ns
a tio
l ic
ub
w
P www.iabse.org/onlineshop
Ne
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2016
[6] Kwak H, Kim J. Nonlinear behavior of slen-
der RC columns (2). Introduction of design for-
mula. Construct. Build. Mater. 2006; 20: 538–553.
[7] CEN. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete
Structures-Part 1: General Rules and Rules for
Buildings, EN 1992-1-1, 2004.
[8] Bonet J, Romero M, Miguel P. Effective
flexural stiffness of slender reinforced concrete
columns under axial forces and biaxial bending.
Eng. Struct. 2011; 33: 881–893.
[9] Kwak H, Kwak, J. An improved design for-
mula for biaxially loaded slender RC column.
Eng. Struct. 2010; 33: 226–237.
[10] Spanish Minister of Public Works.
Instrucción de Hormigón Estructural EHE-08
(Spanish Structural Concrete Code), 2008.
[11] Fédération Internationale du Béton (FIB).
Model Code 2010 – first complete draft, vol. 2,
Fédération Internationale du Béton, Bulletin 56,
Lausanne; 2010, pp. 45–53.
[12] International System of Unified Standard
Codes. CEB-FIP Manual of Buckling and
Instability, Bulletin d’Information No 123. The
Construction Press, Lancaster, England, 1978.
[13] Hellesland J. Extended second-order
approximate analysis of frames with sway-braced
column interaction. J. Construct. Steel Res. 2009;
65: 1075–1086.
Now available in ePDF version
IABSE Reports:
- Geneva Conference 2015
- Conference Nara 2015
- Workshop Helsinki 2015
[14] Hellesland J. Evaluation of effective length
formulas and applications in system instability
analysis. Eng. Struct. 2012; 45: 405–420.
[15] Iglesias C, et al. Pandeo simultáneo de pilas
de puente: aplicación a un cálculo sísmico tipo
push-over de las pilas del puente atirantado
de Bucaramanga en Colombia (Simultaneous
buckling of bridge columns: application of
a push-over-like analysis on the columns of
the cable-stayed bridge in Bucaramanga in
Colombia). Hormigón Acero 2012; 63: 65–85.
[16] Wilson E. Three-Dimensional Static and
Dynamic Analysis of Structures. Computers and
Sructures Inc.: Berkeley, California, USA, 1996.
[17] Garcia, J. Metodología para el dimension-
amiento de pilas de puentes moderadamente
esbeltas en teoría de segundo orden. Master
Thesis. Technical University of Madrid, Madrid,
Spain, 2010.
[18] CEN. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete
Structures-Part 2: Concrete Bridges – Design and
Detailing Rules, EN 1992-2, 2005.
[19] Sargin, M. Stress-strain relationship for
concrete and the analysis of structural concrete
section. PhD Thesis. University of Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada, 1971.
[20] CEN. Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures,
EN 1991.
Scientific Paper 61