See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225402419

Optimal reinforcement of RC columns for biaxial bending

Article  in  Materials and Structures · November 2010

DOI: 10.1617/s11527-009-9576-x

CITATIONS READS

26 2,956

3 authors:

Luisa María Gil-Martín Enrique Hernández-Montes

University of Granada University of Granada
96 PUBLICATIONS   699 CITATIONS    121 PUBLICATIONS   861 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mark Aschheim
Santa Clara University
134 PUBLICATIONS   1,443 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Topological mapping for tension and compression structures View project

Asymmetrically reinforced concrete piles in earth retaining systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Luisa María Gil-Martín on 17 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Materials and Structures (2010) 43:1245–1256
DOI 10.1617/s11527-009-9576-x

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Optimal reinforcement of RC columns for biaxial bending

Luisa Marı́a Gil-Martı́n • Enrique Hernández-Montes •

Mark Aschheim

Received: 4 May 2009 / Accepted: 7 December 2009 / Published online: 15 December 2009
Ó RILEM 2009

Abstract The Reinforcement Sizing Diagram This contrasts with conventional approaches for the
(RSD) approach to determining optimal reinforce- design of column reinforcement, in which a predeter-
ment for reinforced concrete beam and column mined distribution of longitudinal reinforcement is
sections subjected to uniaxial bending is extended to assumed, even though such a distribution generally is
the case of biaxial bending. Conventional constraints non-optimal in any given design. Column and wall
on the distribution of longitudinal reinforcement are sections that are subjected to uniaxial or biaxial
relaxed, leading to an infinite number of reinforce- loading may be designed using this method. The
ment solutions, from which the optimal solution and a solutions are displayed using a biaxial RSD and can be
corresponding quasi-optimal pragmatic is determined. obtained with relatively simple algorithms imple-
First, all possibilities of reinforcement arrangements mented in widely accessible software programs such
are considered for a biaxial loading, including sym- as MathematicaÒ and ExcelÒ. Several examples
metric and non-symmetric configurations, subject to illustrate the method and the savings in reinforcement
the constraint that the reinforcement is located in a that can be obtained relative to conventional solutions.
single layer near the circumference of the section.
This theoretical approach establishes the context for Keywords Ultimate strength design

obtaining pragmatic distributions of reinforcement Optimal reinforcement
Biaxial bending
that are more suitable for construction, in which
distributions having double symmetry are considered. List of symbols
Ac Cross sectional area of concrete section
As Area of bottom reinforcement
L. M. Gil-Martı́n (&)
E. Hernández-Montes A0s Area of top reinforcement
Department of Structural Mechanics, University Ap Area of prestressing tendon
of Granada, E.T.S. Ingenieros de Caminos,
N Nominal axial strength
Campus Universitario de Fuentenueva,
18072 Granada, Spain Nd Design value of the applied axial force
e-mail: mlgil@ugr.es M Bending moment applied at the center of
E. Hernández-Montes gravity of the gross section
e-mail: emontes@ugr.es Md Design value of the applied bending moment
Mx Flexural moment strength about x-axis
M. Aschheim
Mxd Design value of the bending moment applied
Department of Civil Engineering, Santa Clara University,
500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA about the x-axis
e-mail: maschheim@scu.edu My Flexural moment strength about y-axis
1246 Materials and Structures (2010) 43:1245–1256

Myd Design value of the bending moment applied should be distributed symmetrically. Unlike previous
about the x-axis approaches, the present work determines longitudinal
fck Characteristic compressive strength of reinforcement solutions for the design problem as a
concrete function of the neutral axis depth and inclination, and
fyk Characteristic yield strength of reinforcement thus identifies an infinite number of reinforcement
sh Distance between centroids of consecutive solutions from which the optimal reinforcement
bars of the top and bottom reinforcement solution may be selected for design. In the present
sv Distance between centroids of consecutive case, the fundamental assumptions and hypotheses
bars of side reinforcement are given as represented in Eurocode 2 [8].
x Depth to neutral axis from top fiber of cross The present work represents a simplification of the
section more general approach for ultimate strength design
y Vertical coordinate measures from the center presented by Aschheim et al. [9], wherein a single
of gravity of the gross section model applicable to a rectangular section and solution
rc Stress in concrete approach was used for the design of reinforced
rp Stress in prestressing tendon concrete beams, columns and walls for uniaxial or
rs Stress in bottom reinforcement biaxial loading. The model uses a conjugate gradient
r0s Stress in top reinforcement search method to solve the nonlinear optimization
n Intersection of the neutral axis with the y-axis problem of minimizing the total reinforcement area.
u Angle of the neutral fiber The solution approach allows additional constraints
U Bar diameter to be imposed such as single or double symmetry of
the reinforcement distribution.
The theory for strength design of biaxial columns
1 Introduction can be found in several references or text books [6,
10]. Beal and Pannell [11] shows that multibar
The approaches, assumptions, and hypotheses com- rectangular concrete columns can be designed using
monly used for the design of reinforced concrete the published curves for four-bar columns if the
sections subjected to combinations of axial load and effective depth of the multibar column is transformed
moment applied about one or both principal axes of the into an equivalent four-bar effective depth. Rafiq and
cross section were established many years ago. Even Southcombe [12] presented an interesting approach to
though conventional approaches for the analysis and optimal design of RC biaxial columns using genetic
design of cross sections make use of pre-determined algorithms. Extensions to RC moment frames have
patterns of longitudinal reinforcement distributed been made. For example, Liu [13] considered a
symmetrically about the cross section, there are quadratic expression for the relationship between the
significant differences in the approaches suggested area of longitudinal reinforcement and the fully
by different authors. For example, Bresler [1] and plastic moments of cross-sections in order to mini-
Gouwens [2] have suggested different approximations mize the total volume of reinforcing steel in the frame.
for design of rectangular sections subjected to biaxial Once the reinforcement has been determined,
bending. Marı́n [3] addressed the biaxial bending of L- existing software such as PCAColumn [14] or
shaped sections. Approximate methods for biaxial BIAX-2 [15] may be used to analyse the strength of
bending were evaluated by Lepage-Rodrı́guez [4] and the section, producing interaction diagrams that are
Furlong et al. [5]. A rigorous application of the plane- useful for validating trial designs. Ehsani [16] shows
sections remain plane assumption for the sectional a valid algorithm that can be used to obtain the
analysis of rectangular sections is described by Leet interaction diagrams. These programs, which analyse
and Bernal [6]. Even more recently, Lepš and Šejnoha sections with known reinforcement, do not provide a
[7] used genetic algorithms to design RC cross sections. direct solution for the reinforcement required to
The present work applies conventional assump- provide a section with adequate strength according to
tions and hypotheses at a fundamental level for the a governing building code.
design of longitudinal reinforcement, but relaxes the Recent work by the authors has emphasized a
conventional assumption that the reinforcement unique solution strategy in which reinforcement
Materials and Structures (2010) 43:1245–1256 1247

solutions are obtained as a function of the neutral axis equilibrium, compatibility, and the constitutive rela-
depth, allowing optimal reinforcement solutions to be tions of the steel and concrete materials at the section
characterized and used for design. The resulting level. In the present biaxial formulation, the orthog-
reinforcement distributions generally are not sym- onal axes x and y are aligned with the principal axes
metric, but conform to building code requirements of the cross section, and the applied moment, M, is
and may result in significant savings of reinforce- represented in terms of its components about the x
ment, and thus advance the aims of sustainability in and y axes, Mx and My, respectively.
construction. In one instance, Reinforcement Sizing The compatibility conditions make use of Ber-
Diagrams are applied to the design of sections noulli’s hypothesis that plane sections remain plane
subjected to uniaxial bending in conjunction with after deformation (see Fig. 1). The plane sections
axial load [17]. Characteristics of the optimal solu- hypothesis allows the distribution of strain over the
tions obtained with Reinforcement Sizing Diagrams cross section to be defined by two variables in the
are the basis of the Optimal Domains identified in case of uniaxial bending (usually strain at the center
Aschheim et al. [18]. The treatment of multiple load of gravity of the gross section and curvature, or
combinations is addressed by Lee et al. [19]. A alternatively, depth to the neutral axis and curvature).
general solution to the biaxial bending problem was In the case of biaxial bending, three variables are
described by Aschheim et al. [9]. This reference sufficient to define the distribution of strain over the
includes a comparison of an optimal solution with a cross section (usually strain at the center of gravity of
conventional textbook solution for the biaxial bend- the gross section, angle of inclination of the neutral
ing of a rectangular section column. fiber relative to a principal axis of the section, and
The present paper extends the uniaxial Reinforce- curvature). For example, the maximum compressive
ment Sizing Diagram concept to sections subjected to strain of the gross section, the height of the neutral
biaxial bending. Rather than considering the general axis (along the y-axis) from the center of gravity of
solution that is described in [9], this solution reflects a
view that rectangular cross sections should have Tension
reinforcement patterns in which double symmetry is
present (i.e. parallel sides have equal reinforcement). Neutral axis
Reinforcement configured in this way, with double
symmetry, is often used for rectangular sections Compression

subjected to biaxial bending [20]. The consideration

of double symmetry forces to a reduction in the
number of variables, with this restriction, admissible
solutions for strength design depend only on one
variable, so the minimum reinforcement area can be
b
identified on a 2D (two-axis) diagram, this point will
be develop later on the paper. In this paper, y
commercial software is used to show that reinforce- Neutral axis
T ension
ment solutions, plotted on biaxial RSD diagrams zone
provide the section with sufficient resistance to the
h
specified combination of axial load and moment. The
My M
minimum total reinforcement area solution, under the
constraint of double symmetry, is readily identified, Mx x
N
as evident in several examples.

C ompres sion zone

2 Ultimate strength evaluation of cross sections

The design problem for combined biaxial flexure and

axial load involves the simultaneous consideration of Fig. 1 Strains at cross section level in biaxial bending
1248 Materials and Structures (2010) 43:1245–1256

the gross section (n), and the angle between the x-axis is to measure x and y from the center of gravity of the
and the neutral fiber (u) may be used to define the gross section (see Fig. 2). In Eq. 1, extended from
strain diagram, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Under the Collins and Mitchell [21] to biaxial bending, rc = the
constraint of ultimate strength design, one of these normal stress on a differential element of concrete,
variables is given, because the maximum compres- Ac = the area of concrete in the cross section,
sive strain is established by code. r0s = the stress and A0s = the area of the compression
Let’s consider the following example to clarify the reinforcement, rs = the stress and As = the area of the
previous paragraph: h = 700 mm and b = 400 mm tension reinforcement, and rp = the stress and
are given for the cross section in Fig. 1. Steel grade is Ap = the area of the prestressing steel, if present, with
500 (fyk = 500 MPa) and concrete strength, fck, is x and y being the respective distances of each
30 MPa (C-30). Reinforcement consists of five bars differential area (Ac, As, A0s or Ap) from the center of
along each side of the cross-section and mechanical gravity of the gross section, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
cover is 70 mm. In order to resist Nd = 200 kN, Axial forces and stresses are positive in compression
Mxd = 400 kN m and Myd = 100 kN m, the bars and negative in tension. The moments, Mx and My, are
must have a diameter of 16.1 mm (so 20 mm is considered positive if they produce tensile strain on the
used) and the sectional strains are defined by three upper and left portions of the section, respectively.
variables: maximum compression strain of 0.035,
u = 438 and n = 0.07 m.
The strain diagram defines the strains at every fiber 3 Reinforcement Sizing Diagrams for uniaxial
of the cross section. Based on the constitutive bending
relationships for the component materials, or useful
design approximations thereof, the nominal axial In the event that Mx or My is zero, the biaxial problem
strength, N, and flexural strengths Mx and My may be reduces to the simpler case of uniaxial bending in
determined as conjunction with axial load. In this case bending
X Z Z Z moments are applied about a principal axis of the
0 0
N¼ N ¼ rc dAc þ rs dAs þ rs dAs cross section and only two variables are required to
internal
Ac A0s As define the strain distribution, because the neutral axis
Z is aligned with one of the principal axes of the cross
þ rp dAp section. Thus, design for uniaxial bending requires
Ap that only two equilibrium equations be satisfied
X Z Z (N and either Mx or My).
Mx ¼ Mx ¼ ÿ rc ydAc ÿ r0s ydA0s The reinforcement is used most efficiently when it
internal
Ac A0s is located as far from the neutral axis as possible. Thus,
Z Z for uniaxial bending problems it is desirable to have
ÿ rs ydAs ÿ rp ydAp reinforcement at the bottom of the section (As) and/or
As Ap at the top of the section (A0s ). In this case, the number of
X Z Z Z unknowns in the two governing equilibrium equations
My ¼ My ¼ rc xdAc þ r0s xdA0s þ rs xdAs is three: As, A0s and the neutral axis depth, x. Since the
internal number of unknowns exceeds the number of equilib-
Ac A0s As
Z rium equations, an infinite number of solutions are
þ rp xdAp possible, and constraints of some kind must be
Ap imposed in order to identify a particular solution. For
ð1Þ beam design, A0s = 0 is often imposed, while for
column design A0s = As is often imposed. More
where N acts at the point where x and y are measured generally, however, one may observe that solutions
P
from and Mx is the summation of internal for As and A0s may be determined for any neutral axis
internal
P depth, x. Alternatively, since top reinforcement may be
bending moments about the x-axis (idem for My
internal used to satisfy strength requirements or for other
about the y-axis). The convention adopted in this paper reasons, such as to increase the curvature ductility of
Materials and Structures (2010) 43:1245–1256 1249

Fig. 2 Stresses and fcu

resultants in biaxial bending
for an arbitrary reinforced As1· s1

concrete section c,max

c

y s1

As2· s2

Neutral axis
As3· s3

s2
1
M
My s3
x
N Mx

3
2

center of gravity
of the gross

the member, to control long term deformations due to h=406 mm (20 in)
creep and shrinkage, or to aid in constructability, one
0.75h
may solve for the required value of As given a
predetermined value of A0s .
b= 508 mm (16 in)
The general solution of As and A0s as a function of y
for a cross section subjected to a single combination A’s As
of axial load, N, and moment, Mx, can be portrayed
Pn=3559 kN (800 kips)
on a Reinforcement Sizing Diagram. This diagram, e=178 mm (7in)
proposed by Hernández-Montes et al. [17], provides a
convenient way to represent the infinite solutions
P
given by the equilibrium equations (N ¼ N and Steel area (mm )
2

P internal 10000
Mx ¼ Mx ) for the case of uniaxial bending. In Total area (A s + A’s)
internal As
8000
addition to plotting As and A0s
as a function of the
neutral axis depth, y, the sum (As ? A0s ) is also 6000
plotted, in order to allow the minimum total longi-
tudinal reinforcement solution to be identified. The 4000
A’s
RSD also portrays solutions corresponding to sym-
2000
metric reinforcement and the solution for one steel
area given a known value for the other steel area.
225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400
Fig. 3 illustrates the RSD for an example according
Neutral axis depth, x (mm)
to design provisions of ACI-318 [17]. Cross section
analyses indicate that ductility capacities are not Fig. 3 Example of RSD for uniaxial bending
significantly reduced, and may be enhanced in some
cases, when optimal (minimum) reinforcement is The RSD is intended for use in design, that is, for
selected relative to conventional (symmetric) rein- determining necessary and sufficient reinforcement
forcement [22]. quantities for a given cross section for the governing
1250 Materials and Structures (2010) 43:1245–1256

load case. N–M interaction diagrams [23] may then For strength design of rectangular RC cross section,
be developed for the section having a particular equilibrium provides three equations while there are
combination of As and A0s in order to establish that the six unknowns (As,t, As,b, As,l, As,r, n, and u), therefore
given design has adequate resistance for the various an infinite number of satisfactory combinations of
combinations of N and M associated with the relevant reinforcement steel areas may be identified.
load combinations. In this way, an interaction Aschheim et al. [9] presented a procedure to easily
diagram for an asymmetrically reinforced section is obtain the optimal solutions using nonlinear conju-
developed, in contrast to the conventional use of N–M gate gradient search methods; the optimum could be a
interaction diagrams, which are prepared for a global minimum area or minimum area subjected to
predetermined reinforcement pattern. Conventional additional constraints, such as the use of equal
interaction diagrams enforce ad hoc assumptions reinforcement on opposite faces or equal reinforce-
about the distribution of reinforcement in the cross ment on all faces. ‘‘Smeared reinforcement’’ was
section and provide no information about the range of considered by using plates along each side. To
acceptable solutions, and thus do not aid the designer illustrate the application, an example previously
in identifying a truly optimal reinforcement solution. evaluated by McGregor and Wight [24] was used.
Aschheim et al. [9] presented minimum reinforce-
ment required to provide the section with the same
nominal strength (Nn = 1700 kN, Mnx = 225 kN m
4 Optimization problem for rectangular RC and Mny = 111 kN m), determined for different val-
concrete under biaxial bending ues of n and u (see Fig. 4). Minimum reinforcement
solutions are shown for each value of n and u
In the case of rectangular RC cross sections, the (uniformly spaced) where such solutions could be
general problem of reinforcement distribution can be obtained, along with contours. The global minimum
considered in terms of independent quantities of is given by qg = 2.22%, and occurs for n/h = 0.750
reinforcement along each side: As,t, As,b, As,l and As,r. and u = 38.8°. Small sketches superimposed on

Fig. 4 Contours of total

0.90

10.51 7.17 5.67 4.91 4.67 5.14 5.95

reinforcement (expressed as
a percent of gross section 0.89% 0.09%
area) required to provide 5.39 4.43 3.9 3.71 3.63 4.75

Nn = 1700 kN, 4.38% 0.12% 2.76% 0.78%

0.85

Mnx = 225 kN m, and 4.33 3.66 3.26 3.11 3.04 2.99

Mny = 111 kN m as a 0 0
function of n/h and u 3.66 3.16 2.85 2.72 2.66 2.62
0.80

3.23 2.84 2.58 2.48 2.43 2.39 2.37

Symmetric
2.72%
/h 2.97 2.65 2.43 2.34 2.3 2.27 2.25

Optimal
0.75

2.82 2.55 2.36 2.28 2.25 2.23 2.22

2.77 2.54 2.36 2.29 2.26 2.25 2.25

2.41% 0.04%
0.70

2.81 2.59 2.42 2.36 2.33 2.33

0.33% 0.20% 0 2.11%
2.94 2.72 2.51 2.44 2.43 2.47
0 0.28%
0.65

3.2 2.88 2.66 2.59 2.59 2.64

15 20 25 30 35
Materials and Structures (2010) 43:1245–1256 1251

Fig. 4 indicate the distribution of reinforcement over 5 32 @ 64mm + 9 10 @ 270mm

the section for four combinations of n/h and u.

Clearly, very different patterns of reinforcement may
be used to provide a section with a desired nominal
strength. For comparison, the symmetric reinforce-
ment solution (equal reinforcement on all faces)
requires qg = 2.72%, and is obtained for n/h = 0.784
and u = 30.0°.
Constraints may be imposed on the reinforcement
areas to obtain solutions mimicking conventional 5 32 @ 64mm

column reinforcement distributions. Where equal

reinforcement areas are desired on opposite faces
(As,t = As,b and As,l = As,r), the variables As,b and As,r
may be set equal to the values used on the opposite
faces, and values of As,t and As,l are sought that
minimize the objective function (As,t ? As,b ?
As,l ? As,r, for example). Similarly, if equal rein-
forcement areas on all faces is desired, three
reinforcement areas may be set equal to a fourth,
and values of the fourth are sought that minimize the
objective function.

5 Reinforcement Sizing Diagrams for biaxial

bending
Fig. 5 Cross section used for tangent wall piles
Unsymmetrical bar arrangements are not suitable for
common practice in columns. Reinforcement arrange-
ments having double symmetry may be acceptable in reinforcement, which assures the fulfilment of Euro-
some circumstances. code 2 [8] requirements.
Authors of this paper [25] have investigated Relative to the case of uniaxial bending, strength
unsymmetrical reinforcement arrangements for sev- design for biaxial bending requires an additional
eral years. Some configurations have been found to variable to define the strain distribution. Chosen here
be very attractive, such as circular piers for retaining are the intersection of the neutral fiber with the y-axis
walls (protected by international patents property of (n) and the angle between the x-axis and the neutral
the University of Granada), see Fig. 5. axis (u). The steel areas can be parameterized in
These piers can be installed prior to excavation several ways including some that require a large
and in some circumstances are very cost effective. number of variables. Constructability considerations
Solutions like this may save more than 50% of the require that the reinforcement pattern not be exces-
reinforcement and 10–15% of total (materials and sively complex. Thus, a single longitudinal bar size is
labor) cost for the reinforced concrete portions of the used, and the spacing of the bars along the top and
work. bottom faces (sh) is allowed to differ from the spacing
Of interest in this paper is the case that a rectangular along the side faces (sv). Consequently, bottom and
RC section is used with equal reinforcement along top reinforcement areas are equal, and may differ
opposite sides, an arrangement that aids in construc- from the reinforcement on each side, as represented
tability of reinforced concrete columns. For this case, in Fig. 6a. Consequently, for a given set of assump-
common computing software can be used for the tions regarding ultimate strength analysis, the strain
optimization process described above. IECA 3.0 [26] distribution is defined by two unknowns (n and u,
is used in this paper for the design verification of which define the position of the neutral axis) in
1252 Materials and Structures (2010) 43:1245–1256

Fig. 6 Reinforcement (a) 400 mm

Sizing Diagrams for biaxial
y
bending. a Cross section Neutral Axis
and load cases. b Total side
reinforcement area plotted
against top and bottom 700 mm
reinforcement area. c Total
reinforcement area plotted fck = 30 MPa; fyk = 500 MPa
against top and bottom Mechanical cover = 7 mm
reinforcement area x Case 1 Case 2
Nd = 200 kN 200 kN
sv Mxd = 300 kN·m 400 kN·m
Myd = 250 kN·m 100 kN·m

sh

(b) Biaxial Reinforcement Sizing Diagram

5000

4500
Total Side Reinforcement (mm 2)

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Top and Bottom Reinforcement (mm2 )

(c) Biaxial Reinforcement Sizing Diagram

5000
Total Reinforcement Area (mm )
2

4900

4800

4700

4600

4500

4400

4300

4200
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
2
Top and Bottom Reinforcement Area (mm )

conjunction with the strain limit specified in the unknowns (the diameter of the reinforcement, U, and
applicable design code for ultimate strength analysis, the bar spacing ratio, sh/sv). Thus, the equilibrium
while the reinforcement distribution is defined by two equations can be stated as:
Materials and Structures (2010) 43:1245–1256 1253

X
N¼ Nðn; u; /; sh =sv Þ section width and height are given so these values
X are not included as optimization parameters.
Mx ¼ Mx ðn; u; /; sh =sv Þ ð2Þ Eurocode 2 [8] assumptions for ultimate strength
X
My ¼ My ðn; u; /; sh =sv Þ analysis are used, wherein the maximum usable
compressive strain is 0.0035, the maximum usable
where summations are used in place of integrals to tensile strain in the reinforcement is 0.01, and
reflect the discrete locations of the resultant forces, admissible strain diagrams are limited to strain
determined in conformance with the applicable domains as described by Eurocode 2 [8]. The
design provisions. The right side of the first equation reinforcement is assumed to be elastoplastic, with
in (2) represents the internal contribution to the axial design yield strength fyd equal to the nominal yield
force, and includes concrete and steel. The same strength fyk divided by a material safety factor, cs,
types of terms contribute to the flexural moments Mx which is equal to 1.15. The parabola-rectangle
and My, in the second and third equations of (2), diagram for concrete compressive stress defined in
respectively. The number of variables considered is Eurocode 2 [8] was used, with a maximum stress of
four (n, u, / and sh/sv), which cover all the possible 0.85 fcd. The design strength fcd is given by the
cases for double symmetry reinforcement arrange- nominal strength fck divided by a material safety
ments. Solutions may be obtained by calculating the factor cc, which is equal to 1.5. The depth of the
required bar diameter (together with n and u) for concrete stress block is given by k times the depth of
different values of sh/sv. In practice, the required bar the neutral axis, even where the neutral axis is
diameter may be determined assuming an integer inclined at an angle u. In this example k is taken
number of bars on the top and bottom faces and a equal to 0.8.
different integer number of bars along the side faces. Table 1 shows that the minimum total reinforce-
This represents a form of discrete optimization, and ment consists of 16 /11.6 bars distributed equally to
differs from the smeared reinforcement distribution the top and bottom layers with 13 bars added to each
(as plates) considered by Aschheim et al. [9]. One side, resulting in a total reinforcement area of
useful graphical representation, named Biaxial Rein- 4439 mm2 (Case 9). The reinforcement areas shown
forcement Sizing Diagram (BRSD), plots the total top in Table 1 are plotted in Fig. 6b and c. Figure 6b
and bottom reinforcement area on the abscissa and shows the variation in side reinforcement area as a
the total reinforcement area on the ordinate, as function of top and bottom steel reinforcement area;
illustrated subsequently. total reinforcement area is plotted in Fig. 6c. One can
For a set of axial load and biaxial load bending observe that the optimum (or minimum) reinforce-
moments a check is required to ensure that the cross- ment area is obtained for a specific amount of bottom
section resists this given set. This can be done with and top reinforcement area. Because significant
P–M interaction diagrams or with the Bresler load amounts of reinforcement are required on each face,
contour method [1], although the later is a conserva- the minimum reinforcement solution is similar to the
tive approximation. solution obtained for equal reinforcement on each
face, given by Case 5 of Table 1. The optimum
reinforcement solution requires 97.3% of the rein-
6 Biaxial bending example forcement area obtained with equal reinforcement on
each face (4560 mm2). In this procedure the bar
The 700 9 400 mm rectangular cross section of diameter has been obtained from Eq. 2 and does not
Fig. 6a was designed with doubly symmetric rein- match the available range of bars in the market, so a
forcement according to Eurocode 2 [8], for a concrete slightly larger, commercially available, bar would be
strength (fck) equal to 30 MPa and steel strength (fyk) used in construction.
of 500 MPa. To illustrate the potential under different The second loading case better illustrates the
loading conditions, two different design loadings are potential of biaxial RSDs to save reinforcement. For
considered: (1) Nd = 200 kN, Mxd = 300 kN m and this case, Nd = 200 kN, Mxd = 400 kN m and Myd =
Myd = 250 kN m and (2) Nd = 200 kN, Mxd = 100 kN m. The optimum reinforcement is given by
400 kN m and Myd = 100 kN m. Column cross Case 1 of Table 2, for which 16 longitudinal bars are
1254 Materials and Structures (2010) 43:1245–1256

Table 1 Analyses used to computer the biaxial Reinforcement Sizing Diagram for the example cross section, for Nd = 200 kN,
Mxd = 300 kN m and Myd = 250 kN m
Analysis Bar diameter (mm) Number Number sh/sv Total area Total area Total area
case of top and bottom of side barsb of top and of side bars of bars
barsa bottom bars (mm2) (mm2) (mm2)

1 19.9 8 0 0.08 4976 0 4976

2 18.5 8 1 0.16 4301 538 4839
3 17.3 8 2 0.24 3761 940 4701
4 15.6 8 4 0.40 3058 1529 4587
5 14.4 8 6 0.56 2606 1954 4560
6 13.4 8 8 0.72 2256 2256 4512
7 12.6 8 10 0.88 1995 2494 4489
8 11.9 8 12 1.04 1780 2669 4449
9 11.6 8 13 1.13 1691 2748 4439
10 11.9 6 14 1.69 1335 3114 4449
11 12.6 4 14 2.81 998 3491 4489
12 13.4 2 14 8.44 564 3949 4513
13 10.8 2 23 13.50 366 4214 4580
14 9.6 2 30 17.44 290 4343 4633

The minimum total reinforcement solution is shown in bold text; that obtained using equal amounts of steel on each face is shown by underlining
a
Number of top and bottom bars is the number of bars at the top layer, which is the same as the number of bars in the bottom layer in this
implementation of biaxial RSDs
b
The number of side bars, excluding the corner bars (which are counted as top or bottom bars)

Table 2 Analyses used to computer the biaxial Reinforcement Sizing Diagram for the example cross section, for Nd = 200 kN,
Mxd = 400 kN m and Myd = 100 kN m
Analysis Bar Number Number sh/sv Total area Total area Total area
case diameter of top and bottom of side barsb of top and of side bars of bars
(mm) barsa bottom bars (mm2) (mm2) (mm2)

1 15.3 8 0 0.08 2942 0 2942

2 14.6 8 1 0.16 2679 335 3013
3 14.0 8 2 0.24 2463 616 3079
4 12.9 8 4 0.40 2091 1046 3137
5 12.1 8 6 0.56 1840 1380 3220
6 11.4 8 8 0.72 1633 1633 3266
7 10.8 8 10 0.88 1466 1832 3298
8 10.3 8 12 1.04 1333 2000 3333
9 10.1 8 13 1.13 1282 2083 3365
10 10.4 6 14 1.69 1019 2379 3398
11 11.2 4 14 2.81 788 2759 3547
12 12.1 2 14 8.44 460 3220 3680
13 9.8 2 23 13.50 302 3470 3771
14 8.7 2 30 17.44 238 3567 3805

The minimum total reinforcement solution is shown in bold text; that obtained using equal amounts of steel on each face is shown by underlining
a
Number of top and bottom bars is the number of bars at the top layer, which is the same as the number of bars in the bottom layer in this
implementation of biaxial RSDs
b
The number of side bars, excluding the corner bars (which are counted as top or bottom bars)
Materials and Structures (2010) 43:1245–1256 1255

Savings in longitudinal reinforcement not only reduce

Total Reinforcement Area (mm )
2

3900

3700
the cost of construction, but also reduce the carbon
footprint, helping to improve the sustainability of
3500
reinforced concrete construction.
3300

3100

2900

2700 References
2500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 1. Bresler B (1960) Design criteria for reinforced columns
Top and Bottom Reinforcement Area (mm )
2 under axial load and biaxial bending. ACI Proc 57:481–490
2. Gouwens AJ (1975) Biaxial bending simplified, reinforced
Fig. 7 Reinforcement Sizing Diagram for biaxial bending, for concrete columns, ACI Special Publication SP-50. Amer-
Nd = 200 kN, Mxd = 400 kN m and Myd = 100 kN m ican Concrete Institute, Detroit
3. Marı́n J (1974) Resistencia de las secciones de concreto
armado sometidas a flexo compresión: un método algo-
rı́tmico general y sus aplicaciones en el diseño de colum-
distributed equally to the top and bottom faces and nas. tesis de Doctor de Ingenierı́a, Univeristy of Central
without side bars. The total required reinforcement is Venezuela, Caracas
2942 mm2. This is 91.4% of the total reinforcement 4. Lepage-Rodrı́guez A (1991) Evaluación de métodos para
el diseño de columnas rectangulares de concreto armado en
required if equal reinforcement is provided to each flexión biaxial. tesis de Magister en Ingenierı́a Civil,
face (Case 5). Figure 7 illustrates the reduction in Universidad Simón Bolı́var, Caracas
total reinforcement area as the top and bottom 5. Furlong RW, Hsu C-TT, Mirza A (2004) Analysis and
reinforcement area increases. design of concrete columns for biaxial bending—overview.
ACI Struct J 101(3):413–423
6. Leet KM, Bernal D (1996) Reinforced concrete design.
McGraw-Hill, Blacklick
7 Conclusion 7. Lepš M, Šejnoha M (2003) New approach to optimization
of reinforced concrete beams. Comput Struct 81(18–19):
1957–1966
The infinite number of reinforcement area solutions 8. Eurocode 2 (2002) Design of concrete structures—Part 1:
for the classic flexural design problem has led in General rules and rules for buildings prEN 1992-1-1 (July).
current and past practice to the imposition of European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
constraints on the reinforcement pattern in order to 9. Aschheim M, Hernández-Montes E, Gil-Martı́n LM (2008)
Design of optimally reinforced RC beam, column and wall
make column design practicable. With the advent of sections. J Struct Eng 134(2):169–188
modern computing tools, however, the constraints on 10. Pannell FN (1966) Design charts for members subjected to
the reinforcement pattern can be relaxed, allowing a biaxial bending and trust. Concrete Publishing Ltd., Lon-
larger number of solutions to be identified. By don, 52 pp
11. Beal AN, Pannell FN (1992) Simple design of multibar
portraying these solutions on a biaxial Reinforcement concrete columns. Struct Eng 70(23/24):434–435
Sizing Diagram, the engineer is given the freedom to 12. Rafiq MY, Sothcombe C (1998) Genetic algorithms in
select the solution that is optimal in any particular optimal design and detailing of reinforced concrete biaxial
context. An example illustrated the use of biaxial columns supported by a declarative approach for capacity
checking. Int J Comput Struct 69:443–457
RSDs under the constraint that the same bars are 13. Liu I-W (1998) An approximate resizing system for the
used, at one spacing along the top and bottom faces, preliminary design of reinforced concrete frames. Struct
and at a different spacing along the side faces. The Optim 15:242–250
examples illustrated the potential to reduce the 14. PCAColumn, Version 3.6.4 (2005) Portland Cement
Association, Skokie
reinforcement required by 2.7 or 8.6%, depending 15. Wallace (1992) JBIAX-2: analysis of reinforced concrete
on the relative values of the moments Mx and My. and reinforced masonry sections. http://nisee.berkeley.edu/
Greater savings may potentially be achieved depend- elibrary/getdoc?id=BIAX2ZIP. Accessed 16 Feb 2008
ing on the relative values of the moments, the axial 16. Ehsani MR (1986) CAD for columns. Concr Int 8(9):43–47
17. Hernández-Montes E, Gil-Martı́n LM, Aschheim M (2005)
load, and the willingness of the engineer or contractor The design of concrete members subjected to uniaxial
to construct reinforcement cages having an uncon- bending and compression using reinforcement sizing dia-
ventional layout of longitudinal reinforcing bars. grams. ACI Struct J 102(1):150–158
 1256 Materials and Structures (2010) 43:1245–1256

18. Aschheim M, Hernández-Montes E, Gil-Martı́n LM (2007) curvature ductility capacity of reinforced concrete column
Optimal domains for strength design of rectangular sec- sections. Mag Concr Res 56(9):499–512
tions for axial load and moment according to Eurocode 2. 23. Whitney CS, Cohen E (1956) Guide for ultimate strength
Eng Struct 29(8):1752–1760 design of reinforced concrete. ACI J 28(5):445–490 (pro-
19. Lee HJ, Aschheim M, Hernández-Montes E, Gil-Martı́n ceedings vol 53)
LM (2009) Optimum RC column reinforcement consider- 24. MacGregor JG, Wight JK (2005) Reinforced concrete:
ing multiple load combinations. Struct Multidiscip Optim mechanics and design, 4th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall,
39(2):153–170 Upper Saddle River, p 525
20. Bonet JL, Romero ML, Fernández MA, Miguel PF (2007) 25. Hernández-Montes E, Gil-Martı́n LM, Aschheim M (2010)
Design method for slender columns subjected to biaxial Pilotes Asimétricos para contención de tierras. Revista de
bending based on second-order eccentricity. Mag Concr Obras Públicas (in press)
Res 59(1):3–19 26. Corres Peiretti H, Martı́nez Martı́nez JL, Pérez Caldentey
21. Collins MP, Mitchell D (1991) Prestressed concrete A, López Agüı́ JC (2001) Prontuario Informático del
structures. Prentice Hall, New Jersey Hormigón Estructural v. 30. IECA. www.ieca.es. Accessed
22. Hernández-Montes E, Aschheim M, Gil-Martı́n LM (2004) 16 Feb 2008
The impact of optimal longitudinal reinforcement on the

View publication stats