Anda di halaman 1dari 205

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia

Short Course on
Advanced Topics in Analysis and Design of
Normal and High Strength Concrete
Structures
4 to 5 May 2006, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Course Materials
Volume 2: Lecture Notes

EIT
2006

PREFACE
The Short Course on Advanced Topics in Analysis and Design of Normal and
High Strength Concrete Structures is delivered on the invitation of The
Institution of Engineers, Malaysia. Held in Kuala Lumpur on 4 and 5 May
2006, its primary objective is to acquaint the participants with the research
work conducted in the topical areas by the researchers at Griffith University
mainly over the last decade. The Short Course also provides the background
and technical details which inform the Keynote Address to be presented at the
9th International Conference on Concrete Engineering and Technology
(CONCET 2006) to be held from 8 to 10 May 2006. It is hoped that the
discussion over the next two days will be helpful to the Malaysian engineering
colleagues in their future work.
To assist the participants, the Short Course materials are given in two
volumes: Selected Published Papers, which is an up-to-date collection of
relevant publications in the areas to be covered in the discussion; Lecture
Notes, which contains the hardcopy of all the PowerPoint slides to be
presented.
I wish to take this opportunity to acknowledge the contributions of all my
concrete research colleagues and students at Griffith School of Engineering
without which many of the advances made would not have been possible. In
particular, I would like to thank my close collaborators

Dr Sam Fragomeni, Associate Professor and Deputy Head of School


Dr Hong Guan, Senior Lecturer in Structural Engineering and Mechanics
Dr Sanaul Chowdhury, Lecturer in Structural Engineering, and
Dr Jeung-Hwan Doh, Associate Lecturer in Structural Engineering

for their invaluable work over the years. Special thanks are also due to Drs
Chowdhury and Doh for their meticulous efforts in compiling, developing and
updating these two volumes of materials.
The invitation of the Organising Committee of CONCET 2006 to present the
Keynote Address and the help of its members in particular Ir. M.C. Hee, Mr.
Thang Fai Li and Mr. Jamie Kheng are greatly appreciated.

Professor Yew-Chaye Loo


Dean, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
Griffith University
4 May 2006

Section 1: Overview

SERVICEABILITY
SERVICEABILITY AND
AND STRENGTH
STRENGTH OF
OF
NORMAL
AND STRENGTH
HIGH STRENGTH
NORMAL
AND HIGH
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
BEAMS,
COLUMNS,
STRUCTURESOVERVIEW
SLABS AND WALLS
Professor Yew-Chaye Loo
PhD, FICE ,FIStructE, FIEAust
Yew-Chaye
Loo
PhD, FICE ,FIStructE, FIEAust

Dean
Professor of Civil
Engineering and
Faculty ofHead,
Engineering
&
School ofInformation
EngineeringTechnology
Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology

CONTENTS
z

SERVICEABILITY

STRENGTH

LAYERED FINITE ELEMENT


METHOD (LFEM)

COLUMN & WALL


SHORTENING

SUMMARY

z CRACK

WIDTH

z DAMPING

CHARACTERISTICS

z DEFLECTION

SERVICEABILITY

ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF WALLS

PUNCHING SHEAR STRENGTH OF FLAT


PLATES

STRENGTH

CRACK WIDTH
Crack width formulas for beams

Crack Width Formula*


Average crack width:
(1)

wcr = (fs/Es) [0.6(c - s) + 0.1 (/)]


steel stress
elastic modulus

clear cover

average bar diameter

spacing between bars

steel ratio

Maximum crack width:


wmax = 1.5 wcr

(2)

__________________________________________________
*Chowdhury, S.H., Loo, Y.C. & Wu, T.H. 1995; Chowdhury, S.H. & Loo, Y.C. 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003,
2004a, 2004b; Chowdhury, S.H. 2001; Chowdhury, S.H. & Fragomeni, S. 2001

Comparison (30 test beams) *


wcr, measured in mm

0.4

0.3

- 30% line

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

+ 30% line
Partially prestressed
concrete beams
Reinforced concrete
continuous beams
Reinforced concrete
solid beams
Reinforced concrete
box beams

wcr, calculated in mm

*Chowdhury, S.H. & Loo, Y.C. 1997, 2001, 2002; Chowdhury, S.H. 2001

Published data
59 RC beams
Clark (1956), ACI, USA

26

Chi & Kirstein (1958), ACI, USA

16

Hognestad (1962), PCA, USA

Kaar & Mattock(1963), PCA, USA

34 PC beams
Nawy (1986), Rutgers University
Fully prestressed T-beams
PPC T-beams
PPC I-beams
Post-tensioned PPC T-beams

6
12
2
14

93 RC & PC beams
.9

M easured crack widths in mm

.8

Legend
+ 30% line

.7

- 30% line

.6

Kaar & Mattock's bea


.5
Hognestad's beams
.4

Nawy's beams
(14 post-tensioned)

.3

Nawy's beams
.2

(20 pre-tensioned)

.1

Chi & Kirstein's bea

0.0

Clark's beams

0.0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

Equation 1 or 2 in mm

Comparison with Code Formulas


0.7

0.6

Measured w max in mm

For maximum crack width


For average crack width
0.4
0.35

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.35
0.2

0.7

Measured w cr in mm

Chow dhury & Loo's beams


Chi & Kirstein's beams

0.2

Clark's beams
Chi & Kirtstein's
beams
- 30% line
Clark's beams
- 30% lne +30% line
+ 30% line

0.4

0.15

0.3

0.2

0.05
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.1
Calculated
w m ax in0.2
mm

0.6

0.7

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.4

0.6

0.7

BS formula

0.2
0.15
0.1

0.4

0.05

0.3

0
0

0.2

0.1

Calculated w cr in mm

Chowdhury
Chowdhury &
& Loo
Loo formula
formula

0.5

Calculated w m ax in mm

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.6

0.1

0.0

0.250.1

0.7

M e a s u re d w m a x in m m

Measured w cr in mm

0.0

0.25

0.5

Measuredwmax inmm

0.3

0.1

0.3
0.6

0.2

0.3

Calculated w cr in mm
0.1

Eurocode formula

0.0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Calculated wmax in mm

CRACK WIDTH

ACI Code formula

0.7

0.4

DEFLECTION

Deflection
Repeated loading
Impact

T= da+ l
da = k di
k = k1 + R log10T
number of loading cycles
(0.0015/) (Mt Md)/(My Mcr)
1.18 + (0.029/) (Mt Md)/(My Mcr)
Deflection of RC beams under repeated loading

REPEATED LOAD

Correlation of measured and computed total deflections proposed formula

Hertzs Contact Law and the relative approach

y = ymax [(2/mb12)F(1.25
( t ) ms v02 K2/3)3/5]
a (max
t ) = y s ( t ) y( x , t ) =
K
2/3

1 = (2/L2) (EI/A)

Deformation constant (materials and shapes)

= (mb/ms)
= 1.47 (1/) (5ms/4Kv01/2)2/5

Wijewardenes and Hussains beams

Hughes and Speirs beams

DEFLECTION

DAMPING CHARACTERISTICS

Damping of RC & PC beams

DAMPING - DEFINITION
The logarithmic decrement, , is obtained as:
Amplitude A

= (1/n) log e

n periods
amplitude
at cycle1, A 1
amplitude at cycle (n + 1), A n +1
An+1

A1

Time t

n periods

Amplitude A

An+1

A1

= aw cr,r + b L

Time t

Residual crack width

Experimental Program
60

mm

Loading beam

300 mm

100 mm

Beam length, L

Typical RC box beam

mm

180

60

mm

28

Embedded
Polystyrene
as void

300mm

Loading beam

60

100 25

Applied load

Beam length, L

mm

28

100 mm

Typcal loading diagram

60

Embedded
Polystyrene
as void

Test Procedure

100 mm

180

100 25

Applied load

100 mm

300 mm

Typical RC box beam

Typcal loading diagram

Stages in a vibration measurement system

300mm

14 RC beams
12 PPC beams

Damping prediction formulas*


For RC beams, is

= 0.048 wcr,r + 0.011 L


Wcr,r = 0.312 wcr,i
wcr,i = (fs /Es) [0.6 (c s) + 0.1 (/)]
For PPC beams,

= 0.054 wcr,r + 0.0104 L

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Chowdhury, S.H. & Loo, Y.C 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001, 2003; Chowdhury,
S.H. Loo, Y.C. & Fragomeni, S. 2000

RC beams
.16

Measured

.12

.08

+ 30% limits
- 30% limits

.04

Continuous beams
Simply-supported
beams
0.00
0.00

.04

.08

.12

Predicted

.16

PPC beams
.16
.16

- 30% limits

Measured

.12

.08

.04

+ 30% limits

.16
0.00
0.00

.04

.08

.12

.16

Predicted

PPC beams

.16
.16

Measured

- 30% limits
.12

.08

.04

+ 30% limits

0.00
0.00

.04

.08

.12

.16

Predicted

6 HSC RC beams
0.09
0.08
0.07

Measured

Beam HSB 1
0.06

Beam HSB 2
Beam HSB 3

0.05

Beam HSB 4
Beam HSB 5

0.04

Beam HSB 6
0.03

+ 30% Line
- 30% Line

0.02
0.01
0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Predicted

0.07

0.08

0.09

DAMPING

PUNCHING SHEAR STRENGTH OF


FLAT PLATES

Typical flat plate with spandrel beams

Punching Shear Strength


Bending
cracks
appear at
low
loading
LOAD

LOAD

30 35
degrees

Higher punching shear due to


unbalanced bending moment

Balanced bending
moments

Test setup (University of Wollongong, 19871987-90)

Corner connection

Vu = V1 + V2
Vu =

k1k 3k 4 k 2 k 4 + k 3 (V1,corner)
k3 k 4k5

Corner connection

Vu = V1 + V2 n 1 Pely

Vu =

k 1k 3 k 4 k 2 k 4 + k 3 k 7
k3 k 4k5

Edge connection

Vu = V1 + 2V2
Vu =

2k 2 k 3k 4 k 2 k 4 + k 3 (V1,edge)
k3 k 4k5

Edge connection

Vu = V1 + 2V2 n 1 Pely

Vu =

2k 1 k 3 k 4 k 2 k 4 + k 3 k 7
k3 k 4k5

RC Flat Plates (19 Vu values from 9 half-scale models)

Measured Vu (kN)

250
200
Falamaki & Loo (1992)

150

AS 3600-1994
100

45 degree line

50
0
0

50

100

150

200

Predicted Vu (kN)

250

Post-tensioned Flat Plates (4 half-scale models)

M ea sured Vu (kN)

100
80
Loo & Chiang (1996)
AS 3600-1994

60

ACI 318-1989
40

BS 8110-1985
45 degree line

20
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Predicted Vu (kN)

PUNCHING SHEAR

ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF WALLS

One-way and two-way actions

(a) OneOne-way action

(b) TwoTwo-way action

AS 3600 (2001)
ACI 318 (2002)

Limitations

AS3600-2001
Hwe/tw 30
fc 65 MPa
e tw/20
one-way action
only solid walls

ACI 318-2002
Hwe/tw 25 or L/ tw 25
fc 50 MPa
e tw/6
one-way action
only solid walls

Test-rig
set up

1200x1200x40
(fc=35 MPa)(oneMPa)(one-way)

1200x1200x40
(fc= 37 MPa)(twoMPa)(two-way)

1600x1600x40
(fc= 50 MPa)
(two(two-way,
opening)

Design formula*
compressive strength (MPa)

0.6

thickness (mm)

N u = 2 .0 f c'0.7 ( t w 1 .2 e 2 e a )
eccentricity (mm)
design axial strength / unit length (N/mm)
additional eccentricity due to
secondary effect (mm)
= (H we ) 2 /(2500t w )
*Doh, J.H., Fragomeni, S. & Loo, Y.C.; Doh, H., Fragomeni, S. & Kim, J. 2001

Comparison with test data one-way action


0.7
f'c = 30 MPa
f'c = 50 MPa
f'c = 80 MPa
Fragomeni (NSC)
Fragomeni (HSC)
DohNS
(NSC)
OW
(Stage 1)
OW
(Stage 2)
DohHS
(HSC)

0.6

Nu / f'cLtw

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

10

20

30

40

50

60

H/tw

Comparison with test data two-way action


f'c = 30 M Pa

0.8

f'c = 50 M Pa
f'c = 80 M Pa
Saheb & Desayi (1990)

0.7

Nu / f'cLtw

Fragomeni (NSC)(1995)
Fragomeni (H SC)(1995)
D oh (NSC)
D oh (H SC)

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
10

20

30

H /tw

40

50

60

Formula for wall with openings:

N uo = (k1 k 2 ) N u

One-way action
Two-way action

Comparison of test results and new proposed method


k1 = 1.18
(for one-way Failure
action)
N*
W all
N*
Panels
Load
(kN )
(kN )
= 1.00 (for two-way action)
A oFailureload

=
+

O W 01
253.10
250.54
0.99
k = 1.19 (forAone-way
L action)
H 2 344.64
O W 02
441.45 G
0.78

G
G
=
0.93
(for
two-way
O W 11
309.02
290.30
0.94 action)
1

O W 12

294.30 L
o
185.41

O W 21

L 0.99

200.68
1.03
2

707.70
0.96
285.97

195.71

T W 01
T W 02

735.75
Elevation
1177.20
L

1067.90

T W 11

750.47

676.21

1030.05

878.52

L/2 T W 12

T W 21

618.03

T W 22
G1

647.46
G2

Average

0.97

184.38

O W 22

0.91

t L t L
= w 0.85 w o o
471.44
0.76
Lo t w
Lt w0.95
612.48
t
1
2

20.90

G3

0.92

C ross- sec tional Plan

WALL

Degenerate shell elements composed of concrete


and smeared steel layers
z
w

Mid reference plane

x v
y

5 DOFs per node


- in-plane displacements,
u and v
- transverse
displacement w
- two independent
bending rotations about
x and y axes,y and x

zc+1
zc
zc1
z
z23
z1

nc
nc-1
3
2
1

zs
zs-1

ns
ns-1
Concrete
layers

z2
z1

2
1

Layer
number

Smeared-out
steel layers

te

Material modelling
z

Smeared crack approach for cracked concrete

Strain-hardening plasticity procedure for


concrete compressive behaviour
Tension-stiffening and shear stiffness
deterioration effects after concrete cracking
Tri-linear - for steel

Perfect plasticity model

Strain-hardening model

fc'

fy

Crushing
loadingunloading

0.3fc'

0.8fy

Effect of bulk mod

modulus

Es

E0
Effect of tension stiffening
Cracking

Es2

1
Es1

0.002

ft

Numerical Modelling

z
Mid reference plane

y
zc+1
zc
zc-1
z3
z2
z1

nc
nc-1
3
2
1

zs
zs-1

ns
ns-1

z2
z1

2
1

Concrete
layers
Layer
number

Smeared-out
steel layers

te

LFEM for flat plates*


Punching shear strength
Load-deflection response
Crack patterns
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Loo, Y.C. & Guan, H 1997; Guan, H. & Loo, Y.C. 1994, 1997a, 1997b, 2002

Load-Deflection
35

W2
Collapse load

30

28.91

20
40

15

M2

35

Collapse load

10
1

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Deflection (m m )
Experiment* (point 1)
Experiment* (point 2)

Proposed method (point 1)


Proposed method (point 2)

Experiment* (point 3)

Proposed method (point 3)

32.7

30

35

Load density (kN/m)

Load density (kPa)

25

25
20
15
2

10

5
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Deflection (m m )
Experiment* (point 1)
Experiment* (point 2)
Experiment* (point 3)

LFEM

Proposed method (point 1)


Proposed method (point 2)
Proposed method (point 3)

40

Comparison of Vu (models with spandrel beams)


Connection

Type*

W1-A
W2-A
W3-A
W4-A

C
C
C
C

W1-B
W2-B
W3-B

Experiment
Vu (kN)

LFEM

AS 3600-1994

50.15
48.08
43.38
47.07

Predicted
Vu (kN)
58.58
52.88
46.30
52.14

Predicted
Experiment
1.17
1.10
1.07
1.11

Predicted
Vu (kN)
119.07
120.94
70.42
96.12

Predicted
Experiment
2.37
2.52
1.62
2.04

E
E
E

117.63
120.36
93.57

116.21
104.79
96.47

0.99
0.87
1.03

146.92
150.05
94.99

1.25
1.25
1.02

W2-C
W3-C
W4-C

C
C
C

45.17
44.33
46.32

46.70
48.65
50.79

1.03
1.10
1.10

113.54
73.38
82.93

2.51
1.66
1.79

M2-A
M3-A
M4-A

C
C
C

53.90
25.70
58.97

56.21
34.10
65.79

1.04
1.33
1.12

82.90
127.31
114.77

1.54
4.95
1.95

M2-B
M3-B
M4-B

E
E
E

123.22
76.50
130.24

115.43
68.37
149.69

0.94
0.89
1.15

116.24
214.32
137.82

0.94
2.80
1.06

M3-C
M4-C

C
C

24.30
60.09

29.75
74.50

1.22
1.24

131.89
102.75

5.43
1.71

37.73

1.04

51.71

Mean:

1.081

R90-D
Note:

36.20

1.43

2.097

* C - corner column; E-edge column

This specimen did not fail in punching; the reported result is the maximum value.

Failure load (kPa)

Note:

Model

Type*

W1
W2
W3
W4
M2
M3
M4
R90-D

SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB

30.63
28.91
24.69
28.95
32.70
17.84
33.85
21.70

W5
M5
R3-A
R4-A
R90-A
R90-B
R90-C

TS
TS
TS
TS
TS
FE
FE

19.01
25.18
23.80
22.50
25.50
23.80
20.00

Experiment

Predicted
29.50
30.00
23.60
25.75
37.50
15.60
37.00
23.00

0.96
1.04
0.96
0.89
1.15
0.87
1.09
1.06

Mean:

1.003

18.50
30.50
20.50
19.00
23.50
22.50
20.50

0.97
1.21
0.86
0.84
0.92
0.95
1.03

Mean:

0.969

SB - spandrel beam; TS - torsion strip; FE - free edge

Line load in kN/m

Predicted
Experiment

LFEM

Crack pattern

Predicted

Observed

(bottom layer)

(bottom surface)

Predicted

Observed

(top layer)

(top surface)

LFEM

Features Q1 Tower
Instrumentation; Measurements;
Prediction method; Comparison

Surfers Paradise,
The City of Gold Coast

Features
z
z
z

z
z
z

Site area 12840m2


80 levels, 322.5 m height
527 apartments
Penthouse + 12 sub-penthouses
One-BR, 213
Two-BR, 184
Three-BR, 117
Commercial Area 1200 m2
Ten-storey Skygarden (Level 60-69)
Project values = AUD 500,000,000

Current State of Construction

Level 63 as of 5 October 2004


Q1 TOWER

Column and Wall


Locations

z
z

14 columns and 5 walls per


floor
Number of DEMEC point 3
to 9 measurements per
column/wall

Instrumented Levels and Concrete Compressive


Strengths for Columns at the Specific Level
Date
of
Construction
Jan 2005

Level 71, 32 MPa

02/08/2004

Level 49, 40 MPa

10/03/2004

Level 31, 50 MPa


Level B1 and B2,
65 MPa

19/02/2003
25/01/2003

Demountable Mechanical
Strain Gauge (DEMEC)

Gauge Length = 200 mm

1 division = 0.002 mm or 10 microstrain

A Typical Image of DEMEC


Points on a Column Surface.

Details of Columns Presented (Level B2)


TC12 TC10
TC06

TC05

Designation

Shape

Size (mm)

Design Stress (MPa)

TC05
TC06

Circular
Circular

diameter 2000
diameter 2000

27.5
27.5

TC10
TC12

Rectangular
Rectangular

4000 x 900
3200 x 800

32.5
19.5

Started
Date
1/2/2003

700

WINTER

SPRING

SUMMER

AUTUMN

WINTER

1.56

600

1.35

500

1.13

400

0.90
40 days time lag

300

0.68

200

0.45

100

TC05

Shortening (mm)

S t r a i n ( 1 0- 6 )

1/6/2003 31/08/2003 31/11/2003 1/02/2004 1/06/2004

AUTUMN

Last
Reading
23/09/2004

0.23

TC06

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

13

27

40

55

No. of slabs
0
constructed

Started
Date
1/2/2003

700

S t r a i n ( 1 0- 6 )

1/6/2003 31/08/2003 31/11/2003 1/02/2004 1/06/2004

AUTUMN

WINTER

SPRING

SUMMER

AUTUMN

700

Days

Last
Reading
23/09/2004

WINTER

1.56

600

1.35

500

1.13

400

0.90

300

0.68

200

0.45

100

TC05

0.23

TC06

0
-100

No. of slabs
0
constructed

100

200

300

400

500

600

13

27

40

55

700

Days

Shortening (mm)

-100

Started
Date
1/2/2003

1/6/2003 31/08/2003 31/11/2003 1/02/2004 1/06/2004

AUTUMN

700

WINTER

SPRING

SUMMER

AUTUMN

WINTER

1.56
Differential shortening
160 microstrain
0.36 mm

1.35

500

1.13

400

0.90

300

0.68

200

0.45

Differential shortening estimate (80 storey)


6

160 10 275000
= 22mm
2

100

TC10

0.23

TC12

0
-100

Shortening (mm)

600

S t r a i n ( 1 0- 6 )

Last
Reading
23/09/2004

No. of slabs
0
constructed

100

200

300

400

500

600

13

27

40

55

700

Days

Age Adjusted Modulus Method


(Trost and Bazant, 1972)
t (t) =

i
[1 + C 1 ( t , s ) ] + s ( t ) ( t ) [ ( t , s ).C 1 ( t , s ) 1]
E c (s )
E c (s )

Reinforcement
Restraint
Shrinkage
Elastic + creep

Age Adjusted Modulus Method


(Trost and Bazant, 1972)
t (t) =

i
[1 + C 1 ( t , s ) ] + s ( t ) ( t ) [ ( t , s ).C 1 ( t , s ) 1]
E c (s )
E c (s )

A computer program based on this method


COLECS by Allan Beasley (1987)

S h o rte n in g (m m )

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4

COLECS

0.2
0.0
-0.2 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

No of slabs
0
constructed

13

27

40

55

TC06

700 Days

S h o rte n in g (m m )

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4

0.2
0.0
-0.2 0
No of slabs
0
constructed

COLECS
TC10

100

200

300

400

500

600

13

27

40

55

700 Days

S h o rte n in g (m m )

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4

0.2
0.0
-0.2 0
No of slabs
0
constructed

COLECS
TC12

100

200

300

400

500

600

13

27

40

55

700 Days
Q1 TOWER

SUMMARY
z Serviceability

Cracking
Damping
Deflection

z Strength

Flat plates, walls

z Complicated

problems

Simplified solutions: explicit formulas


Rigorous solution: LFEM
z On-Going

work
HSC structures
Column and wall shortening
Deep beams and walls with openings

THANK YOU

Section 2: Cracking and Crack


Width Formulas

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURESS
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

CRACKING AND CRACK WIDTH


FORMULAS
PROFESSOR YEW-CHAYE LOO

Dean
Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology
Griffith University
Queensland , Australia

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURE
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

OVERVIEW
Q
Q
Q
Q

Q
Q
Q
Q
Q

INTRODUCTION
CRACKING TYPES, CAUSES & FORMULAS
TEST PROGRAM
PROPOSED CRACK WIDTH FORMULAS FOR
NSC BEAMS
COMPARISON WITH TEST DATA
COMPARISON WITH CODE FORMULAS
COMPARISON WITH OTHER FORMULAS
VERIFICATION FOR HSC BEAM DATA
CONCLUSIONS

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

INTRODUCTION
Q

Serviceability is one of the major considerations in


the design of structures
Cracking and crack control in concrete structures
are major serviceability issues
Cracking is more pronounced for high strength
concrete (HSC) structures because of their relative
brittleness compared to normal strength concrete
(NSC)
All major codes for design and construction with
concrete are applicable only to and based on NSC

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

CRACKING TYPES, CAUSES & FORMULAS


Types of Cracks:
Q Cracking in reinforced concrete buildings or
structural elements is usually classified according
to the cause of cracking
Q There are five major types of cracks:
X
X
X

X
X

flexural cracks in reinforced (and prestressed)


concrete beams, frames, and slabs;
diagonal tension (shear cracks);
splitting cracks along the reinforcement in beams
and in the anchorage zones of prestressed
elements;
cracking in concrete shear walls; and
temperature and shrinkage cracks

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

There are many factors causing cracks in concrete


Cracks caused by load are the main ones considered
in design
The others are usually eliminated or reduced by
selecting suitable material and improving the quality
of construction
Flexural crack width depends on geometrical factors
and on loading
The width of crack is restricted at the transverse bars
in reinforced concrete members and it widens toward
the surface of the member
The Concrete Cover and the Spacing of the bars
are of primary importance

Q
Q

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

Loading affects crack width several ways


The crack width is proportional to fsn,
where fs is the steel stress and n is about
1.4. However, n can be taken as unity
without significant error
X The distribution and width of cracks also
depend on the variation of moments
along the member
X The loading history is also important
X

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

Prediction of crack widths has been studied


by many researchers
Most of the available crack width formulas
are based on research conducted on
structural members made of NSC
The authors also developed two NSC beam
formulas
for average crack widths
X for maximum crack widths
X

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

8 full-scale HSC beams were tested to


failure to investigate the cracking
behaviour of HSC beams
A comparison is made with the authors
proposed NSC beam formulas to verify
their applicability to HSC beams
The NSC beam formulas are found to be
generally applicable to HSC beams

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

TEST PROGRAM
Total 30 NSC RC & PPC beams
and 8 HSC RC beams
mm

28

Embedded
Polystyrene
as void

60

300 mm

Loading beam

180

60

25 mm

Applied load

100

100 mm

100 mm
l
Beam length, L

300 mm

Typical RC box beam


Typcal loading diagram

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

X11

5-6 September 2005

RC simply-supported box beams


Q

Overall cross-section 300 mm x 300


mm

180 mm x 180 mm void

3 different L 5.5 m, 6.7 m & 8.0 m

5 different values

fc varied from 25.4 to 37.7 MPa

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

60

180

60

mm

300 mm

100 25

mm

12 PPC simply-supported box beams

175

Embedded
Polystyrene
as void

300 mm

Typical PPC beam

Q
Q
Q
Q

3 different L- 5.5 m, 6.8m & 8.0 m


4 different degrees of prestressing
fc varied from 25.9 to 46.4 MPa
4 different values

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

4 RC simply-supported solid beams


78

36

20

40

210

36

20

36

40 35

35

40

Typical RC solid beam


Q
Q
Q
Q

Cross-section - 150 mm x 250mm


All 2.5 m long
fc varied from 34.1 to 37.1 MPa
3 different values

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

3 RC two-equal-span continuous beams


57 36

180

60
Embedded
Polystyrene
as void

46
228

36

14

36
36

36 76

36

Q
Q

76 76 36

Section at midspan

Section over the


support

14 46

as void

180

32

180 28

Embedded
Polystyrene

60

10

60
130

57

10

36 57 57

12 m long - two spans 6 m each


fc varied from 30.6 to 34.2 MPa
3 different positive values
3 different negative values

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

8 HSC RC simply-supported beams


25

250

25

25

200

25

25

100

25

200

300

300 x 300 mm beam section


Q

Q
Q

25

30 - 35

25 - 35

250

250 x 250 mm beam section

150

150 x 200 mm beam section

3 beams of cross-section 300 mm x 300 mm, 3 of


250 mm x 250 mm and 2 of 150 mm x 200 mm
6 different L 2.4 m, 3.0 m, 4.0 m, 4.5 m, 5.0 m
& 6.0 m
5 different values
fc varied from 58.3 to 65.9 MPa

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

Test Procedure
Q

Beams subjected to two-point


static loading
Crack widths at each load level
measured using a crack detection
microscope
Crack spacings measured at 60 to
70% of ultimate load

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

PROPOSED NSC BEAM


CRACK WIDTH FORMULAS
Q

Crack formation and development


is a complex phenomenon
involving many parameters
Crack spacing, lcr related to:
(i) the / ratio; = avg. bar dia
X (ii) the concrete cover, c
X (iii) the average spacing between
reinforcing bars, s
X

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

The regression equation takes the


form:

lcr = C1 c + C2 s + C3 (/)
Q

4 RC and 4 PPC beam data used


in the regression analysis
These are from the earlier tested
30 NSC beams

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

Table 1. Parameters used in development of average


crack spacing formula

Beam
number

2
6
10
11
21
23
24
30

Average
bar
diameter,

(mm)
20
20
24
20
6.6
10.8
8.1
5.6

Steel ratio

The
ratio
/
(mm)

0.01154
0.02309
0.03348
0.01154
0.00511
0.00737
0.00730
0.00460

1733
866
717
1733
1292
1465
1110
1217

Average
spacing
between
bars, s
(mm)
120
48
48
120
40
62
38.5
40

Concrete
cover, c
(mm)

Average
crack
spacing, lcr
(mm)

12
12
12
12
27
38
27
40

131.6
43.7
48.7
120.0
126.5
126.9
118.2
142.0

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

The resulting equation for average


crack spacing:

lcr = 0.6(c - s) + 0.1 (/)

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

Crack Width Formulas for NSC


Beams
Q

The proposed formula for average


crack widths, wcr,is developed as:
wcr = (fs/Es) [0.6(c - s) + 0.1 (/)]

(1)

The proposed formula for the


maximum crack widths is:
wmax = 1.5 (fs/Es) [0.6(c - s) + 0.1 (/)]

(2)

10

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

COMPARISON WITH TEST DATA


Q

Authors Test Beams (30 NSC)


wcr, measured in mm

0.4

0.3

- 30% line

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

+ 30% line
Partially prestressed
concrete beams
Reinforced concrete
continuous beams
Reinforced concrete
solid beams
Reinforced concrete
box beams

wcr, calculated in mm

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

Other Beams
X

26 Clarks (1956) RC beams

16 Chi & Kirsteins (1958) RC


beams

8 Hognestads (1962) RC beams

9 Kaar & Mattocks (1963) RC


beams

11

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Q

5-6 September 2005

Other Beams (Continued)


X

34 Nawys (1986) beams


20 pre-tensioned
6 fully prestressed T-beams
12 PPC T-beams
2 PPC I-beams
14 post-tensioned PPC T-beams

Crack widths compared


both at tension face and steel level
) both average and maximum
)

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

Table 2. Crack width test data


Investigator

Reinforcement
stress levels,
ksi

No. of
specimens

No. of observations
Average
crack width

(1 ksi = 6.895 Mpa)

Clark (1956)

15, 20, 25,


30, 35, 40, 45

26

161

Chi &
Kirstein (1958)

15, 20, 25,


30, 35, 40

16

76

Hognestad
(1962)

20, 30, 40, 50

32

Kaar &
Mattock (1963)

40

Nawy (1986)

30, 40, 60

34

Maximum
crack width

102

12

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

93 Other Beams (All NSC)


.9

M easured crack w idths in mm

.8

Legend
+ 30% line

.7

- 30% line

.6

Kaar & Mattock's bea


.5
Hognestad's beams
.4

Nawy's beams
(14 post-tensioned)

.3

Nawy's beams
.2

(20 pre-tensioned)

.1

Chi & Kirstein's bea

0.0
0.0

Clark's beams
.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

Equation 1 or 2 in mm

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

COMPARISON WITH CODE FORMULAS


Q

Code Formulas Compared


X

ACI formula (ACI, 1995)


)

BS formula (BS, 1985; BS, 1987)


)

wmax at tension face for RC beams

wmax at tension face for RC beams

Eurocode formula (EC2, 1991).


)

wcr at tension face for RC beams

13

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

Comparison with Eurocode formula


X The measured crack widths are divided by
the calculated widths to evaluate the
accuracy of the calculation methods
X The test data included 199 data points from
authors 18 RC beams and those from Clark
(1956)s and Chi & Kirstein (1958)s beams
X The results are presented in figure on next
slide
X It can be seen that both the formulas provide
reasonable results, with no one method
providing more accurate results than the
other

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Eurocode versus Proposed Formula


Authors, Clarks and Chi & Kirsteins
beams

100

100

80

80

Number of observations

Number of observations

5-6 September 2005

60

40

20

60

40

20

0
.04

.31

.58

.85

1.12

1.38

1.65

1.92

2.19

2.46

Measured/calculated crack width (Eurocode formula)

.05

.34

.63

.91

1.20

1.49

1.78

2.07

2.36

Measured/calculated crack width (Equation 1)

14

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Comparison with the ACI and the BS formulas

The measured crack widths are divided by the calculated


widths to evaluate the accuracy of the calculation
methods
The test data included data points from Clark (1956)s
and Chi & Kirstein (1958)s beams
For Chi & Kirsteins beams the calculated crack widths
were multiplied by the strain gradient factor
The results are presented in figure on next slide

It is found that while both the proposed and the

X
X

ACI formulas reasonably deter-mine the crack


widths, the BS formula grossly underestimates
the values

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Q

5-6 September 2005

Comparison of formulas - Clarks and Chi &


Kirsteins beams
100

80

80

Number of observations

100

60

40

20

60

40

20

0
.10

.90

1.70

2.50

3.30

4.10

4.90

5.70

.10

Measured/calculated crack width (Equation 2)

.90

1.70

2.50

3.30

4.10

4.90

5.70

Measured/calculated crack width (ACI formula)

100

Number of observations

Number of observations

5-6 September 2005

80

60

40

20

0
.10

.90

1.70

2.50

3.30

4.10

4.90

5.70

Measured/calculated crack width (BS formula)

15

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

COMPARISON WITH OTHER FORMULAS


(PPC BEAMS)
Q

None of the code formulas is recommended for


prestressed or partially prestressed concrete
beams
Proposed formula is further compared with 3
published formulas applicable to such beams
These formulas which calculate maximum crack
widths only are:
X
X
X

modified Gergely-Lutz formula (Armstrong et al.


1997, Gergely & Lutz 1968)
Batchelor & El-Shahawi (1985)
Suri & Dilger (1986)

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

The basis for comparison is the maximum crack


width data obtained from 7 of the authors own 12
PPC beams
The results are presented in figure on the next
slide
It can be seen that the proposed formula
performs better than the three above stated
formulas
It provides more accurate predictions and safer
results.

16

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Q

5-6 September 2005

Comparison of formulas Authors 7 PPC


beams

Measured maximum crack widths in mm

1.2

1.0

.8

Legend
- 30% line

.6

+ 30% line
Suri and Dilger

.4

Batchelor-El Shahawi
Modified Gergely-

.2

Lutz formula
0.0
0.0

Equat ion 2
.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

1.2

Calculated maximum crack widths in mm

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

VERIFICATION FOR HSC BEAM


DATA
Q

For each beam, at different steel


stress levels both average and
maximum crack widths calculated
Measured and calculated crack
widths are compared

17

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

Comparison for Average Crack Widths


0.5

Measured average crack widths in mm

0.45
0.4

Beam HSB 1
Beam HSB 2

0.35

Beam HSB 3
0.3

Beam HSB 4
Beam HSB 5

0.25

Beam HSB 6
Beam HSB 7

0.2

Beam HSB 8
0.15

+ 30% line
- 30% Line

0.1
0.05
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Predicted average crack widths in mm

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

Comparison for Maximum Crack Widths


1

Measured maximum crack widths in mm

0.9
0.8
Beam HSB 1
0.7

Beam HSB 2
Beam HSB 3

0.6

Beam HSB 4
Beam HSB 5

0.5

Beam HSB 6
Beam HSB 7

0.4

Beam HSB 8
+ 30% Line

0.3

- 30% Line
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Predicted maximum crack widths in mm

18

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

CONCLUSIONS
Q

8 full-size HSC beams tested to investigate the


cracking characteristics of HSC beams
Average and maximum crack spacings and
crack widths measured at each level of loading
for each beam
The authors earlier developed NSC beam
crack width formulas verified for their
applicability to HSC beams
The initial findings are very encouraging as
most of the data points lay within + 30% limits

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

TUTORIAL EXERCISES
For a simply supported beam of the following cross-section and a
span of 2.4 m, calculate the average crack widths (use Chowdhury
& Loo formula) at 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 kN loads applied at the
centre of the beam. The stirrups used are10 mm diameter plain
bars. The beam cross-section is 150 mm x 250 mm.
78

36

36

20

36

210

2-N 12 bars
3-N 20 bars

20

40

40 35

35

40

Typical beam cross-section

19

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

TUTORIAL EXERCISES
Q

Hints for solution


X

X
X
X
X

Formula to be used:
wcr = (fs/Es) [0.6(c - s) + 0.1 (/)]
c = 20 mm; s = 15 mm; d = 210 mm; b = 150 mm; =
20 mm; = Ast / bd
Use fully cracked transformed section to calculate
neutral axis depth (kd) for finding fs
Applied moment, Ma = PL/4, where P = 3, 5, 7, 9, 11,
13 and 15 kN and L = 3 m
fs = Ma/Astjd where jd = d kd/3

20

Section 3: Damping Characteristics


and Analysis

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURESS
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

DAMPING CHARACTERISTICS
AND ANALYSIS
Professor Yew-Chaye Loo

Dean
Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology
Griffith University
Queensland, Australia

OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION
DAMPING DEFINITION
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
DAMPING PREDICTION FORMULAS
COMPARISON WITH TEST DATA
COMPARISON WITH HSC BEAM DATA
CONCLUSIONS

INTRODUCTION
Quantification of Damping
A very vexing problem in Structural Engineering
Damping mechanisms are very complex
Accurate determination of damping is very important
in design

It is generally acknowledged that cracking


condition is the most significant factor
influencing damping in both reinforced and
prestressed concrete members
No researchers except Dieterle & Bachmann
(1981) have attempted to establish any sort of
relations between damping and the cracking
condition of concrete structures

RELEVANCE OF DAMPING
STUDY
Damping and Natural
Period are most
important properties
Been of importance
since centuries
But formal studies
since 1940
Limits the resonance
response

Seismic Importance
Acoustic Importance
Concrete Masses
used as damping
systems
Important for
buildings with
vibration sensitive
equipment

THE APPROACH
In total, 26 beams tested
Free-decay method was used for the
determination of damping
Damping values () predicted from the residual
crack widths and span lengths of beams
Residual crack widths are related to the
instantaneous crack widths
4 RC and 4 PPC beam data used for
formulation
Comparisons were made with test results from
all 26 NSC beams and 8 HSC beams

DAMPING - DEFINITION AND


MODEL
Nature of Damping
There are mainly three ways in which energy
is dissipated:
(i) Material Damping
(ii) System Damping
(iii) Radiation Damping

These together constitute the structural


damping

Damping Model Viscous Damping

DAMPING MODELS
Friction or Coulomb Damping due to
microcracking - Rubbing of cracked surfaces
Viscous Damping due to the moisture movement
within the pores
Solid damping due to the sliding friction within
the gel structure
Total energy dissipation due to inelastic
deformations and energy dissipation at cracked
surfaces

DAMPING - DEFINITION AND


MODEL
The logarithmic decrement, , is obtained
as:
amplitude at cycle1, A1
= (1/n) log e amplitude at cycle (n +1), A n + 1
n periods

Amplitude A

A1

An+1
Time t

DAMPING - DEFINITION AND


MODEL
The damping coefficient C, or alternatively
the damping ratio , where = C/Cc, in
which Cc is the critical damping constant,
is related to as
=

2
1

= m

where m and d respectively are the mass


and the damped natural frequency of free
vibration

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
11 reinforced concrete simply supported beams
Full-size box beams - overall cross-section 300
mm x 300 mm (for all beams)
180 mm x 180 mm void in each beam embedded polystyrene prism
3 different L 5.5 m, 6.7 m and 8.0 m
5 different values 0.01154, 0.01163,
0.02309, 0.02326 and 0.03348
fc varied from 25.4 to 37.7 MPa

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM,
CONT.
180

60

mm

28

Embedded
Polystyrene
as void

300mm

Loading beam

60

100 25

mm

Applied load

100 mm

100 mm

300 mm

Beam length, L
Typcal loading diagram

Typical RC box beam

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM,
CONT.
12 partially prestressed concrete simply
supported beams
3 different L 5.5 m, 6.8 m and 8.0 m
fc varied from 25.9 to 46.4 MPa
4 different degrees of prestressing - 0.25,
0.50, 0.75 and 1.00
4 different values 0.00460, 0.00511,
0.00730 and 0.00737

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM,
CONT.

3 two-equal-span continuous beams


Each beam 12 m long - 2 spans 6 m each
fc varied from 30.6 to 34.2 MPa
3 different positive values 0.01163,
0.02283 and 0.02361
3 different negative values 0.01519,
0.02714 and 0.02854

TEST PROCEDURE
Beams were tested in two stages under
static loading
Residual crack widths measured at zero
load after each load application
Free vibration with hammer excitation
used for damping measurement
Accelerometer at the center of the beam to
receive the vibration signals

TEST PROCEDURE, CONT.

Stages in a vibration measurement system

DEVELOPMENT OF DAMPING
PREDICTION FORMULAS
Variables influencing logarithmic
decrement,
beam span lengths, L
compressive strengths of concrete, fc
degrees of prestressing,
steel ratios,
residual crack widths, wr

The main factors affecting the damping


values were found to be wr and L

REINFORCED CONCRETE
BEAMS
Data from the following 4 beams were used in the
regression analysis
BEAM
NUMBER

fc
(MPa)

Bar
diameter

Number
of bars

Beam
Length (m)

25.9

20

5.5

25.4

20

5.5

31.0

20

8.0

11

27.6

20

6.7

The resulting damping prediction formula is


= 0.048 wr + 0.011 L

PARTIALLY PRESTRESSED
CONCRETE BEAMS
Data from the following 4 beams used in the
regression analysis
Beam
number
15
18
22
24

fc
(MPa)
25.9
31.0
31.3
39.1

Prestressing steel
25
105
75
55

Reinforcing
steel
2Y16+1Y12
1Y12
2Y12
4Y12

Beam
length
5.5
5.5
6.8
8.0

Degree of
prestressing
0.25
1.00
0.75
0.50

The resulting damping prediction formula is:


= 0.054 wr + 0.0104 L

RESIDUAL CRACK WIDTH


PREDICTIONS
Residual crack width is obtained from instantaneous
average crack width, wi using

wr = 0.312 wi
A unified formula for the prediction of wi is given as

wi = (fs /Es) [0.6 (c s) + 0.1 (/)]

where

fs is the average steel stress


Es is the modulus of elasticity for steel
c is the concrete cover
s is the average spacing between the reinforcing bars
is the average bar diameter
is the steel ratio

COMPARISON WITH TEST


DATA
For the 14 RC beams
.16

Measured

.12

.08

+ 30% limits
- 30% limits

.04
Continuous beams
Simply-supported
beams
0.00
0.00

.04

.08

.12

.16

Predicted - Equation 3

Measured versus predicted damping values

COMPARISON WITH TEST


DATA
A good correlation exists between the calculated
and the measured damping values
The majority of the 191 correlation points lie well
within the + 30% limits
All but one of the correlation points for the 3 twoequal-span continuous beams lie well within the
+ 30% limits
This indicates that the damping formula which is
developed based on simply-supported beam
data is also applicable to the individual spans of
continuous beams

COMPARISON WITH TEST


DATA
For the 12 PPC beams
.16

- 30% limits

Measured d

.12

.08

.04

+ 30% limits

0.00
0.00

.04

.08

.12

.16

Predicted d - Equation 4

Measured versus predicted damping values

COMPARISON WITH TEST


DATA
The overall correlation is acceptable as a
majority of the 81 correlation points lie
within + 30% limits
It should be pointed out that, for partially
prestressed beams with low or no
residual crack widths, the measured
damping values varied widely for the
different test beams
This may be due to the inaccuracy of the
crack measurements

COMPARISON WITH HSC BEAMS


Eight full-size simply-supported reinforced HSC beams
Cracking characteristics in terms of crack spacing and
width
Damping behaviour in terms of logarithmic decrements
in free vibration
Beams subjected to two-point loading for crack
development in a constant moment region

DETAILS OF TEST BEMS


Beam
Designation

bxD
(mm x mm)
300 x 300
300 x 300
150 x 200
150 x 200
250 x 250
250 x 250
300 x 300
250 x 250

HSB 1
HSB 2
HSB 3
HSB 4
HSB 5
HSB 6
HSB 7
HSB 8

25

250

25

fc
(MPa)
60.9
62.3
61.5
63.4
65.9
65.9
58.3
58.3

Ast
3 N24
3 N28
3 N16
3 N16
3 N20
3 N20
4 N24
4 N20

25

250

Span
L (m)
3.00
5.00
2.40
2.40
4.00
5.00
6.00
4.50

25

R10 stirrups @
110 mm c/c for
HSB 1
R6 stirrups @
110 mm c/c
for HSB 2

300

Applied load

35
25 for HSB 1
30 for HSB 2

300

Beam HSB 7

Beams HSB 1 and HSB 2


25

175

25

100

Loading beam

300

25

R10 stirrups
@ 75 mm c/c
for HSB 4

200

25

200 mm

R6 stirrups @
100 mm c/c
for HSB 3

250

25
30 for HSB 5
35 for HSB 6

150

25

200

200 mm

l = 867 mm for beam HSB 1, l = 1534 mm for beam HSB 2,


l = 667 mm for beam HSB 3, l = 734 mm for beam HSB 4,
l = 1200 mm for beam HSB 5, l = 1534 mm for beam HSB 6,
l = 1867 mm for beam HSB 7 and l = 1367 mm for beam HSB 8

250

Beams HSB 5 and HSB 6

Beams HSB 3 and HSB 4

l
Beam length, L

25

R6 stirrups @
120 mm c/c
250
30

250

Beam HSB 8

Cross Sectional Details of Test Beams

Loading Arrangements
for Test Beams

COMPARISON OF DAMPING
VALUES
0.09

0.08

0.07
Beam HSB 1

Measured

0.06

Beam HSB 2
Beam HSB 5

0.05

Beam HSB 6
Beam HSB 7

0.04

Beam HSB 8
0.03

+ 30% Line
- 30% Line

0.02

0.01

0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

Predicted

CONCLUSIONS
Two damping prediction formulas
developed one for RC and one for PPC
beams
Comparison with the test data of all the 26
NSC and 8 HSC beams shows that the
accuracy of the proposed formulas is good
The formula for RC beams is also
applicable to continuous beams

Section 4: Deflection

SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURESS
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5-6 September 2005

DEFLECTION
PROFESSOR YEW-CHAYE LOO

Dean
Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology
Griffith University
Queensland , Australia

DEFLECTION

Deflection
static loading
repeated loading
impact

A new method for incorporating


tension stiffening effects
Curvature values at sections
between adjacent cracks
Short-term deflections for 35
flexural members compared
_____________________________________________________________
*Piyasena, R., Loo, Y.C. & Fragomeni, S. 2002

Procedure
for
intensive
creep
deflection of R.C. box beams*
The intensive creep factor is

k = k1 + R log10T
where

T is the number of loading cycles,


k1 = 1.18 + (0.029/r) {(Mt Md)/(My Mcr)} and
R = (0.0015/r) {(Mt Md)/(My Mcr)}

____________________________________________
*Loo, Y.C. & Wong, Y.W. 1983, 1984, 1986; Wong, Y.W. & Loo, Y.C. 1985

Deflection of RC beams under repeated loading

k versus T for Mt/Mv = 0.7

k versus steel ratio for Mt/Mv = 0.7

Maximum deflection of RC and PPC


beams*
deflection under repeated mid-span
impact of below yield intensity
Deflections compared
Comparisons with other formulas
Design charts produced
___________________________________________
*Loo, Y.C. & Santos, A.P. 1985; Loo, Y.C. 1991

Correlation of measured and computed total deflections proposed formula

Correlation of measured and computed


total deflections Balaguru & Shah
(1982) formula

Correlation of measured and computed


total deflections Lovegrove & El Din
(1982) formula

= (mb/ms)
= 1.47 (1/) (5ms/4kv01/2)2/5
1 = (2/L2) (EI/A)
ymax = ymax / [(2/mb12) (1.25 ms v02 k2/3)3/5]

IMPACT AND ENERGY ABSORPTION

Impact deflection analysis of


beams
Precast beam-column
connections
under repeated load
under cyclic loading

An analytical solution for instantaneous


deflection of beams under mid-span
impact*
An integral equation incorporating
Hertzs contact law
Equivalent moment of inertia for
repeated loading
RC and PC beams
Comparisons with published results
___________________________________________________
*Loo, Y.C. & Santos, A.P. 1986

Correlation of measured and computed deflections Hussains (1982)


and Wijewardenes (1984) beams

Correlation of measured and computed deflections Bates (1961) beams

Correlation of measured and computed deflections Hughes


and Speirs (1982) beams

18 half-scale interior connection models


tested*
Under static and repeated loading
Two types of precast RC beam-column
connections
The precast connections were superior to
their monolithic counterparts
___________________________________________________
*Yao, B.Z. & Loo, Y.C. 1993; Loo, Y.C., Yao, B.Z. & Han, Q. 1994; Loo, Y.C. &
Yao, B.Z. 1995

Precast connection Type A

Test setup

Precast connection Type B

Typical load history

Load-deflection curves under static loading

Load-deflection curves under repeated loading

12 half-scale interior connection


models tested*
Under repeated and cyclic loading
Two types of precast RC beamcolumn connections
Precast connections possessed
larger energy absorbing capacities
than the monolithic models
___________________________________________________
*Loo, Y.C., Yao, B.Z. & Takheklambam, S. 1996

Load history for cyclic tests

Load-deflection curve under cyclic loading

THANK YOU
ALL

Section 5: Punching Shear Strength


Analysis of Concrete Flat
Plates

PUNCHING SHEAR DESIGN OF REINFORCED AND


POST-TESIONED CONCRETE FLAT PLATES:
ARE THE MAJOR DESIGN CODE METHODS
ADEQUATE?

Professor Yew-Chaye Loo


Faculty of Engineering and Information
Technology
Griffith University

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Section 6: Ultimate Strength


Analysis of Walls (Solid
and with Openings)

Ultimate Strength Analysis of


Concrete Walls (Solid and with
Openings)

Aim
To investigate the failure behaviour of reinforced
concrete walls with and without openings
z
z
z
z
z

simply supports top and bottom


only
simply supports on all sides
Solid/ Opening panels
varying slenderness(H/tw)
New design formula for wall
with/without openings

Overview
O
O
O
O

Introduction
Design of walls using code methods
Test specimens - solid panels and test set up
Results solid panels
Crack pattern
Deflection/failure load

O
O
O

Comparison with new design formula


Test specimens-opening panels
Results opening panels
Crack pattern
Deflection/failure load

Comparison with new design formula

Introduction
Reinforced concrete wall applications
R In tilt-up

construction
R As concrete cores in

tall buildings

(a) In-plane vertical load

(b) Transverse horizontal load

(c) In-plane horizontal load

One and Two-way action

core walls
A)Typical
One-wayexample
action of Concrete
B) Two-way action
AS 3600(2001)
ACI 318(2005)

Code Methods
z AS3600-01
Section 11 (Design of walls -simplified formula)
Section 10 (Design of columns for

strength and serviceability


z ACI318-05
Chapter 14
z BS8110-97
Section 3.9.4 (Identical to AS3600)

AS3600-01 Wall Design Method

N u = (t w 1.2e 2e a )0.6f c'


Ultimate strength
Eccentricity of load
Concrete strength
per unit length of wall (N/mm)
Additional eccentricity
Thickness of the wall

=Hwe2/2500tw

ACI318-02 Wall Design Method

kH 2

N u = 0.55f c' t w 1 -

32 t w

ACI318-05/BS8110

Limitations

H/tw 25 or L/ tw 25

z fc
z

AS3600-01

Hwe/tw 30

50 MPa
e tw/6
Only one-way action
Only solid walls

z fc
z
z
z

65 MPa
e 0.05tw(=tw/20)
Only one-way action
Only solid walls

Previous experimental results of One-way action


0.6

AS3600

Nu/(f'cAg)

0.5

ACI318
Pillai(1977)

0.4

Saheb/Desayi(1989)
0.3

Fragomeni(1995)(NSC)
Fragomeni(1995)(HSC)

0.2

Butler(1998)
0.1
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

H/t

Previous experimental results of Two-way action


Saheb & Dasey (1991)

1.2

Nu/(f' cAg)

Fragomeni(1995) (NSC)

0.8
Fragomeni(1995) (HSC)

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

10

20

H/t

30

40

50

Test specimens and test set up


(ecc =t/6, v= h = 0.0031)
tw (mm) f'c(MPa)

H/tw

AS3600

35.7

30.00

68.544 kN

52.0

35.00

40

51.0

40.00

1200

40

78.2

30.00

1400

40

63.0

35.00

1600

1600

40

75.9

40.00

1000

1000

40

45.4

25.00

1200

1200

40

37.0

30.00

TWNS3

1400

1400

40

51.0

35.00

TWNS4

1600

1600

40

45.8

40.00

TWHS1

1000

1000

40

68.7

25.00

TWHS2

1200

1200

40

64.8

30.00

TWHS3

1400

1400

40

60.1

35.00

TWHS4

1600

1600

40

70.2

40.00

H (mm)

L (mm)

OWNS2

1200

1200

40

OWNS3

1400

1400

40

OWNS4

1600

1600

OWHS2

1200

OWHS3

1400

OWHS4
TWNS1
TWNS2

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Test specimens and test set up


(ecc =t/6)
H (mm) L (mm) tw (mm) f'c(MPa)
40
77.8
TAHS1 1600 1400
40
73.8
TAHS2 1400 1000
40
77.8
TAHS3 1600 1000

H/tw
40.0
35.0
40.0

H/L
1.1
1.4
1.6

Test-rig
set up
(2400 kN
capacity)

Support Condition
(one-way)
Eccentricity t/6

23 roller

15050 plate
2020 EA

40mm thickness test panel

Side Support Condition


(two-way)
150 PFC

40405 SHS

1600x1600x40 (fc=50MPa)(one-way)

1600x1600x40(fc=76MPa)(one-way)

1600x1600x40(fc=46MPa)(Two-way)

1600x1600x40(fc=70MPa)(Two-way)

10

1600x1600x40(fc=70MPa)(Two-way)

1600x1000x40(fc=78MPa)(Two-way)

11

Experimental results of One-way action


AS3600

ACI318

Nu/(f'cAg)

0.9

Pillai(1977)

0.8

Saheb/Desayi(1989)

0.7

Fragomeni(1995)(NSC)

0.6

Fragomeni(1995)(HSC)

0.5

Butler(1998)

0.4

Doh(2002)(NSC)
Doh(2002)(HSC)

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

H/t

Experimental results of Two-way action


AS3600

ACI318

0.9

Saheb/Desayi(1990)

0.8

Fragomeni(1995)(NSC)

Nu/(f'cAg)

0.7

Fragomeni(1995)(HSC)

0.6

Doh (2002)(NSC)

0.5

Doh (2002)(HSC)

0.4

Doh (2002)(HSC)

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

H/t

12

Axial strength ratio versus Slenderness ratio


One-way (NSC)

Nu/(f'cLt w )

0.6
One-way (HSC)

0.5
0.4

Two-way (NSC)

0.3

Two-way (HSC)

0.2
TAHS

0.1
0.0

AS3600

10

20

30

40

ACI318

H/t (Slenderness ratio)

Axial strength ratio versus Aspect ratio


0.500

TAHS
(H/t=40)

Nu/(f'cLtw)

0.450
0.400

TAHS
(H/t=35)

0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

H/L (Aspect ratio)

13

Load (kN)

Load vs Deflection for TWNS4 and TWHS4


1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

TWNS4(top)
TWNS4(middle)
TWNS4(bottom)
TWNS4(side)
TWHS4(top)
TWHS4(middle)
TWHS4(bottom)
TWHS4(side)

10

Deflection (mm)

Summary of test result


z Laboratory

tests (half-scale of 17 NSC


and HSC wall panels)
z H/tw with Nu/(fcLt)
z Nu/(fcLt)HSC < Nu/(fcLt)NSC
z

H/L with Nu/(fcLt)

14

Summary
z Limitations

of code methods

fc < 50 MPa
H/tw < 30
ACI318 does not consider H/L
Both ignore
One-way action only
Conservative and could be erroneous

z New

empirical formula anticipated

Design formula for walls without openings

N u = 2.0f c0.7 ( t w 1.2e 2e a )

= 0.6 for compression member

Nu

= design axial strength per unit length of wall (N/mm)

tw

= thickness of the wall (mm)

fc

= Characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete (MPa)

= eccentricity of the load measured at right angles to plane of the wall (mm)

ea

= an additional eccentricity due to deflections in the wall and


e a = (Hwe ) 2 /(2500tw ) (mm)

Hwe

= the effective height (mm)

15

Hwe = H
=
=

for simply supported top and bottom


only

1
H
1+
L

for H L when all four all sides are


restrained

L
2H

for H > L when all four all sides are


restrained

where is eccentricity parameter and is equal to:


1
1
18
=
=

e
e H 0.88
1
1
tw
t w t
w
for H/tw < 30
for H/tw 30

Wall
Panels

Failure Load
(kN)

OWNS2
253.10
OWNS3
426.73
OWNS4
441.45
OWHS2
482.65
OWHS3
441.45
OWHS4
455.84
Mean
Standard Deviation

Proposed Eq
(kN)

Proposed Eq
Failure load

250.54
340.86
344.69
433.76
389.93
455.29

0.99
0.80
0.78
0.90
0.88
1.00

0.89
0.09

16

Wall
Panels

Failure load
(kN)

Proposed Eq
(kN)

Proposed Eq
Failure load

TWNS1
TWNS2
TWNS3
TWNS4
TWHS1
TWHS2
TWHS3
TWHS4
TAHS1
TAHS2
TAHS3
TAHS4

765.2
735.8
1177.21
1177.21
1147.8
1177.21
1250.8
1648.1
1618.7
1118.3
1265.5
1442.1

716.43
707.66
1020.16
1067.91
957.77
1047.60
1144.67
1440.23
1486.51
1381.09
1137.18
1228.22

0.94
0.96
0.87
0.91
0.83
0.89
0.88
0.86
0.92
1.23
0.90
0.85

0.92
0.11

Mean
Standard Deviation

Notes: 1 Hydraulic jacks measured 40 tonnes for these specimens (4039.81kN).


The accuracy of jack was 1 tonne ( = 9.81 kN).
2 Load eccentricity = tw/6

Comparison with test data one-way action


0.7
f'c = 30 MPa
f'c = 50 MPa
f'c = 80 MPa
Fragomeni (NSC)
Fragomeni (HSC)
DohNS
(NSC)
OW
(Stage 1)
OW
(Stage 2)
DohHS
(HSC)

0.6

Nu / f'cLtw

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

10

20

30

40

50

60

H/tw

17

Comparison with test data two-way action


f'c = 30 M Pa

0.8

f'c = 50 M Pa
f'c = 80 M Pa
Saheb & Desayi (1990)

0.7

Nu / f'cLtw

Fragomeni (NSC)(1995)
Fragomeni (H SC)(1995)
D oh (NSC)
D oh (H SC)

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
10

20

30

40

50

60

H /tw

Comparison with test data two-way action


0.6

0.5

Nu / f'cLtw

0.4

0.3
f'c = 3 0 M Pa
f'c = 5 0 M Pa
f'c = 8 0 M Pa
TAH S (H /tw = 40)
TAH S (H /tw = 35)
LFEM results (f'c =30 M P a)
LFEM results (f'c =50 M P a)
W AS TAB results (f' c =30 M P a)
W AS TAB results (f' c =50 M P a)

0.2

0.1

0.5

1.5

H /L

18

Test specimens-opening panels


and test set up
(ecc =t/6, v= h = 0.0031)
Number
of
openings

One-way
action
Two-way
action

Wall
Panel

Height
(H: mm)

Length
(L: mm)

Thickness
(tw: mm)

Opening size
(mm mm)

Concrete
strength
(fc: MPa)

H/tw

OW01

1200

1200

40

None

35.7

30

OW02

1600

1600

40

None

51.0

40

OW11

1200

1200

40

300300

53.0

30

OW12

1600

1600

40

400400

47.0

40

OW21

1200

1200

40

300300

50.0

30

OW22

1600

1600

40

400400

51.1

40

TW01

1200

1200

40

None

37.0

30

TW02

1600

1600

40

None

45.8

40

TW11

1200

1200

40

300300

50.3

30

TW12

1600

1600

40

400400

50.3

40

TW21

1200

1200

40

300300

50.3

30

TW22

1600

1600

40

400400

50.3

40

Typical example of concrete panel dimensions

(a) OWN11/TW11

(b)OW12/TW12

19

Reinforcement layout

Shrinkage
control

20

One-way action panel with


two-openings

Two-way action
solid panel

Two-way action panel


with two openings

Two-way action panel


with one opening

21

OW11 1200x1200x40
(fc= 53 MPa)

TW11 1200x1200x40
(fc= 50.3MPa)

OW21 1600x1600x40
(fc= 50 MPa)

TW12 1600x1600x40
(fc= 50.3MPa)

22

TW21 1200x1200x40
(fc= 50.3MPa)

TW22 1600x1600x40
(fc= 50.3MPa)

Load vs Deflection for TW21


1200x1200x40 (f
(fc= 50.3MPa)
700
600

Load (kN)

500
400
top

300

middle
bottom
side

200
100
0
0

10

Lateral Deflection (mm)

23

Load vs Deflection for TW22


1600x1600x40 (f
(fc= 50.3MPa)
700
600

Load (kN)

500
400
top

300
200

middle
bottom

100

side

0
0

10

12

Lateral Deflection (mm)

Ultimate loads and axial strength ratios of test


panels.

Two-way
action

One-way
action

Wall
Panel
OW01
OW02
OW11
OW12
OW21
OW22
TW01
TW02
TW11
TW12
TW21
TW22

Concrete
Strength
(fc :MPa)
35.7
51.0
53.0
47.0
50.0
51.1
37.0
45.8
50.3
50.3
50.3
50.3

Failure
Load
(kN)
253.10
441.45
309.02
294.30
185.41
195.71
735.75
1177.20
750.47
1030.05
618.03
647.46

Axial strength
ratio
(Nu/fcLtw)
0.148
0.135
0.121
0.098
0.077
0.060
0.414
0.402
0.414*
0.427*
0.512*
0.402*

Reduction strength
ratio (%)
8%

19%
22%
3%
-2%
21%

24

Axial strength ratio vs Slenderness ratio


AS 3600-01
Axial strength ratio
(Nu/f'cLtw)

0.6

ACI318-02

0.5

One-way (no opening)

0.4
0.3

One-way (one opening)

0.2

One-way (two
openings)
Two-way (no opening)

0.1
0

Two-way (one opening)

10

20

30

Slenderness ratio (H/tw)

40

Two-way (two
openings)

Design formula for solid walls

N u = 2.0f c0.7 ( t w 1.2e 2e a )

= 0.6 for compression member

Nu

= design axial strength per unit length of wall (N/mm)

tw

= thickness of the wall (mm)

fc

= Characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete (MPa)

= eccentricity of the load measured at right angles to plane of the wall (mm)

ea

= an additional eccentricity due to deflections in the wall and


e a = (Hwe ) 2 /(2500tw ) (mm)

Hwe

= the effective height (mm)

25

Hwe = H
=
=

for simply supported top and bottom


only

1
H
1+
L

for H L when all four all sides are


restrained

L
2H

for H > L when all four all sides are


restrained

where is eccentricity parameter and is equal to:


1
1
18
=
=

e
e H 0.88
1
1
tw
t w t
w
for H/tw < 30
for H/tw 30

N uo = (k1 k 2 ) N u

G1

G3

G2

Ho

Lo

Elevation

A
= o +
A L

=
2

12 t w L2 t w L o o

Lt
L
t

w
o w

L/2

G1

G2

G3

C ross- sec tional Plan

26

Formula for wall with openings:

N uo = (k1 k 2 ) N u

N uo/N u

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2

0.3

OW12

294.30
Saheb

285.97
0.8

0.97

OW21

(1985)
185.41

184.38

0.99

OW22

195.71

200.68

1.03

TW01

Current test
735.75
data

N uo/N u

Comparison of test results and new proposed method


Eq. (2)
k1 = 1.18 Wall
(for one-way
action) Predicted (Eq. 2)
Experimental
Experimental
Panels
(kN)
(kN)
= 1.00 (for two-way action)
OW01
253.10
250.541
0.99
1
k344.64
one-way
= -0.9331x
+ 1.0036 action)
2 = 1.19 y(for
y = -1.1879x + 1.1752
OW02
441.45
0.78
0.9
0.9
=
0.93
(for
two-way
action)
OW11
309.02
290.30
0.94

707.70
0.6

0.96

TW02

1177.20

1067.90

0.91

0.7

0.5

TW11

750.47

676.21

0.90

TW12

1030.05

878.52
0.4

0.85

618.03

471.44 0.2

647.46

612.48

0.4

0.5

TW21

TW22

0.6

0.3

Average

0.4 0.760.5

Saheb
(1985)

Current test
data

0.6

0.95
0.92

Variation of Nuo / Nu with for panels


with for panels
Variation of Nuo / Nu0.08
Standard2 deviation
with openings in one-way action
(R =0.7)
with openings in two-way action (R2 =0.92)

Saheb(1985)
C
L

C
L
240x240

240x420

C
L

600

WWO- 1

WWO- 4

900

900

240x240

240x420

WWO- 5

80

80

240x240

240x420

240x240

600
80

80

WWO- 3

WWO- 6
80

++

Saheb(1985)

Design formulas
Eqn. (A):
for One-way action
for Two-way action

C
L

Two-way action

C
L

600

WWO- 2

240x240

One-way action

Test Panles

Wall
Panels

Experimental
(kN)+

Proposed Eq
Exp

Eqn. (A)++
Exp

WWO-1

672.56

0.95

0.98

WWO-2

568.90

0.98

0.83

WWO-3

433.47

0.93

0.63

WWO-4

652.65

1.03

0.95

WWO-5

548.02

1.09

0.79

WWO-6

423.47

1.01

0.61

WWO-1P

692.47

0.86

0.77

WWO-2P

592.83

0.89

0.66

WWO-3P

448.38

0.89

0.53

WWO-4P

697.47

0.89

0.233

WWO-5P

587.83

0.95

0.35

WWO-6P

448.38

0.93

0.51

Mean

0.95

0.65

Standard deviation

0.07

0.23

H
Pu = 0.55[ A f + (f y f ) A sv ]1
32 t w
'
g c

'
c

Pu = 0.67f c' A g {1 [L /(120t w )]2 }{1 + 0.12(H / L)}

27

Conclusions
z Laboratory

tests (half-scale of 10 walls with

openings)
z

Nu/(fcLt)two-way action > Nu/(fcLt)one-way action

z H/tw
z

with Nu/(fcLt)

Number of openings with Nu/(fcLt)

Conclusions (contd)
zLimitations of code methods
H/tw < 30
ACI318 does not consider H/L
Both ignore
Solid panels with One-way action only
Conservative and could be erroneous

zNew design formula gives good and


consistent prediction of results.
zMore test models are required for the
verification

28

29

Section 7: Column and Wall


Shortening in Highrise
Buildings

COLUMN AND WALL


SHORTENING IN HIGHRISE
BUILDINGS
Professor Yew-Chaye Loo

Dean
Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology
Griffith University

Axial deformation in a concrete


structure

Axial shortening
refers to column or wall length changes in tall concrete
buildings
due to sustained stresses (heavy loads) and concrete
properties such as shrinkage and creep
is not really an issue if allowed for in design, BUT can give rise
rise
to differential shortening

The research

Axial shortening of columns and core walls at


the Q1 Tower has been monitored during the
last two and a half years

Features

Current photo
15/08/2005

Site area 12840m2


80 levels, 322.5 m height
527 apartments
One penthouse, 12 subpenthouses, 213 one- bedroom,
184 two-bedroom, 117 threebedroom
Commercial Area 1200 m2
Ten-storey Skygarden (Level 6069)
Project values = AUD
500,000,000

Instrumented Levels and Concrete Compressive


Strengths for Columns at the Specific Level
Date
of
Construction
Jan 2005

Level 63, 40 MPa

02/08/2004

Level 49, 40 MPa

10/03/2004

Level 31, 50 MPa

19/02/2003
25/01/2003

Level B1 and B2,


65 MPa

Plan of a typical floor & the


instrumented locations
Column and Wall
Locations

14 columns and 5 walls


per floor

Strain measurement at a column

The deformations were measured using

demountable mechanical strain gauges


(DEMECs) with a sensitivity of 0.002mm

Typical instrumentation at a column

Up to 9 gauge points were instrumented

on each selected locations and the


average values were taken

Difficulties faced

Durations and frequencies of strain

measurements vary greatly depending on


the accessibility of each locations

Typical Results

A typical plot of column strains at the Q1 Tower using 200mm DEMEC


(10 microstrain sensitivity)
S tr a in ( 1 0 - 6 m m /m m

1000

Series1
Series2

800

Series3

600

Series4

400

Series5

200

Series6

Series7

-200 0

200

400

600

800

1000

Series8
Series9

Duration of Strain Reading (Days)

Observed Behaviours
Strain variations between different gauge

positions in each column


Some periods with constant strains even
with the continuing of construction during
the time
Some negative strains (extension)
Fluctuations in strain-time curves

Explanations
Variation in term of concrete quality within

a single column/wall
Field results are affected by many random
variables, i.e. ambient temperature,
relative humidity, loadings
Temperature effect, a change in
temperature of 1C results in a strain of
10x10-6 (mm/mm)

Uncertainty in stress

The partial completion at different levels resulted


in uneven loadings for the columns
The confused state of propped and backpropped conditions around the columns
Unknown variation of construction loads
Unexpected loading/unloading

Example of an unexpected loading

Slip form, jump forms, props and


back props in place.

Measured Axial Shortening


at Level B2

700
Columns at Level B2

TC06

Axial Shortening (microstrain)

600

TC10

500
TC05

TC12

400
TC10

300

TC06

TC12

200
100
0
-100 0

TC05

200

400

600

800

Age (days)

500
Columns at Level B2

400

TC01
TC13
TC04
TC03
TC11
TC08
TC07

TC08

Axial Shortening (days)

TC14
TC04

300
200

TC09

TC11
TC09

100

TC01
TC07

TC03

0
0

200

400

600

800

-100
Age (days)

800
TC06

Axial Shortening (microstrain)

700

TC06
TC05

600
500
TC05

400
300
200

TC06

100

TC05

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Age (days)

10

800

TC10

Axial Shortening (microstrain)

700
600

TC10

500

TC09
TC09

400
300
200
TC09

100

TC10

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Age (days)

800

TC12

TC11
Axial Shortening (microstrain)

700
TC12

600
500 TC11
400
300
200

TC11

100

TC12

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Age (days)

11

600
Core Walls at Level B2
TW09

Axial Shortening (days)

500

TW09

400
300

TW18
TW17
TW16
TW06
TW07

200
100
0
-100

200

400

600

800

Age (days)

Comparisons of Predicted and


Measured Axial Shortening at
Level B2

12

Axial Shortening Estimation

Various axial shortening estimation methods to


compute total concrete strain in vertically loaded
members exist

One of the more famous and reliable ones is


z

z
z

The Age Adjusted Effective Modulus Method


Method - Trost
and Bazant (1972)
used to compute strains under varying stresses
Capable of incorporating shrinkage, creep, reinforcing
restraints, elastic modulus

Superposition theory
(McHenry, 1943)

superposition

13

Estimation of axial shortening

Assumed Loading Sequences

C3

C4
S3

S4
C3

C2

C2

Stage 1

C1

C1

C1
S1

Stage 1b

TC1= 3

TC1= 3+TC2

WC1=SWC1

Stage 2

TC1 = 3 +
WC 1 =

C6

S5

C2

C1

Ci

i =1

C8

WC1 =

Ci

i =2

1 5
Wc( si )
2 i =2

WC1 =

SW

i =1

i =2

Ci

Ci

S2

S1
Stage 2c

i =2

Ci

TC1 = 3 +

Ci

1 6
Wc ( si)
2 i =2

SW

WC1 =

Ci

i =1

i=2

Ci

1 7
Wc( si )
2 i =2

S(j+1)

S(j+1)

S8
Cj

Cj

C2

S2

SW

i =1

S7

S1
TC1 = 3 +

Ci

C7
C2

i =1

Stage 2b

TC1 = 3 +
5

SW

C1

S1

SW

TC1 = 3 +

Ci

C2

S2

Stage 2a

WC1 =

S1
Stage 1d

i =2

C6

C2

S2

C7

S6

C5

C1

Stage 3, 4, 5

C1
Stage 1c

WC1=SWC1+SWC2

C4

S2

S1

S1

Stage 1a

C5

C2

S2

S2

S2

C2

S2

Ws

C1

C1

C1

S1

S1

Stage 3
TC1 = 3 +
WC1 =

SW

i 1

Stage 4

i =2

Ci

S1

TC1 = 3 +

Ci
8

i=2

c ( si )

WC1 =

SW

i 1

Stage 5

i=2

Ci

TC1 = 3 +

Ci
J+1

i=2

c ( si )

WC1 =

SW

i =1

Ci

Ci
i =2
j +1

+ 90

i =2

c ( si )

j +1

+ Ws ( si)
i =2

14

TC12 TC10

14

TC06

TC05,06

12

TC11,12

Stress (MPa)

TC09,10
10

Computed
columns
stresses

TC11
TC09

TC05

6
TC05,06

TC09,10
TC11,12

2
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Age (days)

TW09

14
12

TW18
TW09
TW16

TW16

Stress (MPa)

TW18

Computed
cores
stresses

10
8
6
TW09

TW16
2

TW18

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Age (days)

15

Elastic Modulus AS3600-2006


(draft)
when fcm<40MPa Elastic Modulus is given as

Ec (t ) = 0.043 1.5 f c (t )
when fcm>40MPa Elastic Modulus is given as

Ec (t ) = [0.024 f c (t ) + 0.12] 1.5

Shrinkage AS3600-2006 (draft)

cs (t ) = cse (t ) + csd (t )
where

cse (t ) = cse
(1.0 e 0.1t )

cse
(t ) = (0.06 f c '1.0) 50 10 6

csd (t ) = k1k 4 csd .b


csd.b = (1.0 0.0008 fc ' ) csd.b

16

Creep AS3600-2006 (draft)


C1 (t , s ) = cc = k 2 k3 k 4 k5cc.b
K2

K3

Age Adjusted Modulus Method


(Trost and Bazant, 1972)
t (t ) =

i
Ec (s)

[1 + C1 (t , s ) ] + s (t ) (t ) [1 (t , s ).C1 (t , s ) ]
Ec (s)

Reinforcement
Restraint
Shrinkage
Elastic + creep

17

Comparisons of Predicted
and Measured Axial
Shortening of Columns/Core
Walls at Level B2

900

TC06
TC05

700

AS3600-2001

600

TC06
TC05

AS3600-2006

500
400
14

300

TC05,06

12

TC11,12
TC09,10

Stress (M Pa)

Axial Shortening (microstrain)

800

200

10
8
6
TC05,06

TC09,10
TC11,12

100

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Age (days)

0
-100

200

400

600

800

1000

Age (days)

18

900

TC10
TC09

700

AS3600-2001

600

TC10

AS3600-2006

500

TC09

400
14

300

TC05,06

12

TC11,12
TC09,10

Stress (M Pa)

Axial Shortening (microstrain)

800

200

10
8
6
TC05,06

TC09,10
TC11,12

100

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Age (days)

0
-100

200

400

600

800

1000

Age (days)

TC11

800

TC12

700

AS3600-2001

600

AS3600-2006

TC11
TC12

500
400
14

300

TC05,06

12

TC11,12
TC09,10

Stress (M Pa)

Axial Shortening (microstrain)

900

200

10
8
6
TC05,06

100

TC09,10
TC11,12

2
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Age (days)

0
-100 0

200

400

600

800

1000

Age (days)

19

1300
TW09

900

AS3600-2001
AS3600-2006

700
TW09

500
14

TW18
TW09
TW16

12
Stress (M Pa)

Axial Shortening (microstrain)

1100

300

10
8
6
TW09

TW16
2

100
-100 0

TW18

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Age (days)

200

400

600

800

1000

Age (days)

1300

TW18
AS3600-2001

900

AS3600-2006

TW18
TW16

700
14

500

TW18
TW09
TW16

12
Stress (M Pa)

Axial Shortening (microstrain)

1100

TW16

300

10
8
6
TW09

TW16
2

100
-100 0

TW18

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Age (days)

200

400

600

800

1000

Age (days)

20

Comparisons of Predicted
and Measured Differential
Shortening between Adjacent
Columns/Walls at Level B2

500

Differential Shortening (microstrain)

Measured
AS3600-2001

400

AS3600-2006

300
TC10

200

TW09

100
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

-100
Age (days)

21

500
Measured
AS3600-2001

Differential Shortening (microstrain)

400

AS3600-2006

TW16

300
TC09

200
100
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

-100
-200
Age (days)

500

Differential Shortening (microstrain)

Measured
AS3600-2001

400

AS3600-2006

300
200
100
TW18
TC05

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

-100
Age (days)

22

Conclusions

Axial shortenings of columns and core walls


measured at the Q1 Tower have been compared
with predictions using the most up-to-date
material model incorporated with Age adjusted
modulus method and superposition theory
For columns, reasonably good agreements were
found. However, predictions underestimate early
age axial shortenings in most cases except for
Column TC10

Conclusions

For core walls, overestimations at ages up to


400 days were observed. Good agreements
were found after 400 days up to 600 days
The accuracy of long-term prediction is still in
doubt. In general, over predictions are observed
after 600-800 days
The use of the new draft code instead of the
AS3600-2001 reduces axial shortening
underestimation in young column/wall and
overestimation in old column/wall

23

Conclusions
In general, differential shortening is

minimum is this building. Both predictions


significantly overestimate the magnitude of
differential shortening

24

Section 8: Design Codes and


Applications: AS 3600,
BS 8110 and EC 2

Design Codes and Applications:


AS3600, BS8110 and EC2
Professor Yew-Chaye Loo

Faculty of Engineering and Information


Technology

Griffith University

Content

General remarks
Design requirements
Durability
Fire resistance
Strength
Serviceability

Ultimate strength of a singly-reinforced rectangular section


reinforced rectangular section
Doubly-reinforced rectangular sections
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3

GENERAL REMARKS

Ru S*
Ru S*

AS3600
BS8110 & EC2 (but include partial safety
factors )

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Durability
Fire resistance
Strength
Serviceability

Design Loads
Account for Variation in Loads due to:
* Errors in the analysis and Design
* Constructional inaccuracies
* Possible load increases
The Characteristic Loads are multiplied by the appropriate partial safety factor
for loads to give the Design Loads
acting
on the
structure
LIVE
LOAD
COMBINATION
FACTOR
FOR STRENGTH DESIGN (c)

.
Load Combination

Load Type Combination factor ( )


Type of Live Load
c

AS

Dead+ Imposed
Dead+Wind
Dead+Imposed+Wind

1.2
0.8
1.2

Dead, Gk

Imposed, Qk

BS

BS

EC

AS

1.6
1.2

1.5
1.5

1
1

EC
AS
Floors
1.4
1.35 1.5
1.4 Domestic
1.35
Office
1.2
1.35
c
Parking area
Storage area
Other

Roofs
Trafficable
Non-trafficable

Wind, Wk
BS

0.4
1.4
0.4
1.2

EC

1
1

0.4
0.6
0.6, unless otherwise assessed
0.4
0.0

Serviceability Design
(a)

(b)

Short-term effects
LIVE
LIVELOAD
LOADFACTORS
FACTORSFOR
FORSERVICEABILITY
SERVICEABILITYDESIGN
DESIGN
(i)
G
-AS3600
-EC1
(ii)
G + Ws
Type of Live Load Short-term
factor (l )
factor (
Short-term
Long-term
Combination
s ) Long-term
Type of Live Load
(iii)
G + s Q
(s )
(l )
(c )
Long-term effects
(i)
G
(ii)
G + l Q

Floor
Floor
Domestic
Domestic
Offices
Offices
Parking
area
Parking area
Retailstore
store
Retail
Storage
Storage
Snow
load
Other
Wind
Load
Roofs

Fire Resistance

0.7

0.4

0.7
0.5
0.3
0.4 0.3
0.7 0.7
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.4 0.6
0.7 0.7
0.7
0.6 0.8
1.0 1.0
0.9
0.6for storage, unless
0.2otherwise assessed
0
As

Non-fire
building
Trafficable

Non-trafficable

0.6
0.6

0.7
0.7

0.5

0.5

0.4 0
0.0

1.1G + c Q

Durability
Signs of concrete deterioration are nowadays far too common.
Repair can be very costly and difficult. Improved durability is therefore
paramount.
How can this be achieved:
cover to reinforcement
minimum cement content
maximum water/cement ratio
maximum crack widths

REQUIRED COVER-BS8110
Conditions of exposure
Nominal
Mild - protected from weather
25
Moderate - sheltered from weather
Severe - exposed to severe rain
Very Severe - de-icing salts, fumes etc.
Extreme - abrasives e.g. sea water
Max. Free water/cement ratio
.65
Min. Cement Content kg/m3
275
Lowest grade
C30

cover (mm)
20 20 20 20
35 30 25 20
40 30 25
50 40 30
60 50
.60 .55 .50 .45
300 325 350 400
C35 C40 C45 C50

Exposure classification
Surface and exposure environment

Reinforced or
Plain concrete
prestressed
members
concrete members

1. Surfaces of members in contact with the ground


(a) Members protected by a damp-proof membrane
(b) Residential footings in non-aggressive soils
(c) Other members in non-aggressive soils

Al
Al
A2

Al
Al
Al

(d) Members in aggressive soils*

Al

Al

BI

Al

REQUIRED COVER-AS3600

2. Surfaces of members in interior environments


(a) Fully enclosed within a building except for a
brief period of weather exposure during
construction;
(b) In industrial buildings, the member being
subject to repeated wetting and drying

Required cover*, mm
Exposure

3. Surfaces of members in above-ground exterior

Characteristics strength

Classification

environments
In areas that are:
(a) Inland (> 50 km from coastline) environment
being (i) Non-industrial and arid climatic zone*
(ii) Non-industrial and temperate climatic zone
(ill) Non-industrial and tropical climatic zone
(iv) Industrial and any climatic zone
(b) Near-coastal (l km to 50km from coastline),
any climatic zone
(c) Coastal (Up to 1km from coastline but
excluding tidal and splash zones)*, any

Al
A2
Bl
BI

Al
Al
Al
Al

BI

Al

climatic zone

B2

Al

4. Surface of members in water


(a) In fresh water
(b) In sea water
(i) permanently submerged
(ii) in tidal or splash zones

BI

Al

B2
C

U
U

(c) In soft or running water

( f c )
20MPa 25MPa

32MPa 40MPa 50MPa

Al

20

20

20

20

A2

(50)

30

25

20

20
20

B1

(60)

40

30

25

B2

(65)

45

35

(70)

50

5. Surfaces of members in other environments


Any exposure environment not otherwise described
in Items 1 to 4 above

REQUIRED COVER-EC2
Exposure class

Example of Environmental conditions

1 dry environment

Interior of buildings for normal habitation of office


- interior of buildings where humidity is high (e.g.
a without
laundries)
frost
- exterior components
- components in non-aggressive soil and/or water
2 Humid
- exterior components exposed to frost
environment
- component in non-aggressive soil and/or water and
b with
exposed to frost
frost
- interior components when the humidity is high and
exposed to frost
3 humid environment with Interior and exterior components exposed to frost and
frost and de-icing salts
de-icing agents
- components completely or partially submerged in
a without
seawater, or in the splash sone
frost
- components in saturated salt air (coastal area)
4 seawater
environment
- components partially submerged in seawater or in the
b with
splash zone and exposed to frost
frost
- components in saturated salt air and exposed to frost
The following classes may occur alone or in combination with the above classes:
- slightly aggressive chemical environment (gas, liquid
or solid)
a
- aggressive industrial atmosphere
5 aggressive
chemical
Moderately aggressive chemical environment (gas,
b
environment
liquid or solid)
highly aggressive chemical environment (gas, liquid or
c
solid)

Exposure
class

Minimum
cover
(mm)

15

2a

20

2b

25

40

4a

40

4b

40

5a

25

5b

30

5c

40

FIRE PROTECTION (Beam only)


Fire protection of reinforced concrete members is largely achieved
by specifying limits for:
cover to reinforcement
minimum dimensions for section

Fire Protection-BS8110
Fire
resistance
hrs.
.5
1
1.5
2
3
4

Nominal Cover
(mm)
Beams
Floors
S.S
Cont.
S.S
Cont.
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
20
40
30
35
25
60
40
45
35
70
50
55
45

Columns
20
20
20
25
25
25

Fire
resistance
hrs.
.5
1
1.5
2
3
4

Beam
Width
(b mm)
200
200
200
200
240
280

Minimum Dimension
Floor
Fully exposed
Thickness
column width
(h mm)
(b mm)
75
150
95
200
110
250
125
300
150
400
170
450

Fire Protection-AS3600

Fire Protection-EC2
Table 4.6:
4.5: Minimum dimensions and axis distances
for continuous
simply supported
beamsbeams
Standard
Standard fire
fire
Minimum
Minimum
dimensions
dimensions
(mm)
(mm)
/ axis
distance
resistance
/ axis
distance a
resistance Possible
Possible combinations
combinationsofofmember
memberwidth
widthbmin
bmin
a
2
46
11
2
3
4 3
5

R 30
30
R

[80/12]
[80/25]
[120/15]

[160/12] [200/10]
[160/10]

[200/12]
[200/10]

R 60
60
R

[120/25]
[120/40]
[160/35]

[200/12] [300/25]
[200/30]

[300/12]
[300/25]

R 90
90
R

[150/35]
[150/55]
[200/45]

[250/25] [400/35]
[250/40]

[400/25]
[400/45]

R 120
120
R

[220/45]
[200/65]
[240/55]

[300/35] [500/45]
[300/50]

[500/35]
[500/45]

R
R 180
180

[240/80]
[300/70]
[380/60]

[400/65]
[400/60] [600/60]

[600/60]
[600/50]

R
R 240
240

[280/90]
[350/80]
[480/70]

[500/75]
[500/70] [500/70]

[700/70]
[700/60]

ULTIMATE STERNGTH OF A SINGLYREINFORCED RECTANGULAR


SECTION

Actual and Equivalent Stress Blocks AS3600


M

N.A.

Uncracked section
C

C ult
kud

jud

Tult

Transformed section

MuoAt= ultimate
CuIt ju dstate
= Tult ju d

fc'

0.85 f c'
k u d

k ud

C = f c' k u bd

k u d / 2

k u d

C = 0.85 f c' k u bd

N.A.

Actual Stress Block

Equivalent Stress Block

= 0.85
for f'c 28 MPa and
= 0.85 - 0.007 (f'c -28) for f'c > 28 MPa
But, 0.65 0.85.
And to fully define the stress block, the ultimate
concrete strain, cu = 0.003

ULTIMATE STERNGTH OF A SINGLYREINFORCED RECTANGULAR SECTION


Tension, Compression and Balanced Failure
z

Failure of a concrete member occurs invariably and only when


cu = 0.003.

At this ultimate state, the strain in the tensile reinforcement,

or

s > sy
s < sy

tension failure
compression failure

cu = 0.003
k ud
d

s > sy

cu = 0.003 cu = 0.003 0.85f c'

k ud

s < sy

Tension Compression
failure
failure

k uB d

s = sy

T = A st f sy

Balanced
failure

The ultimate state for a section s = sy when c = c is called a


balanced failure.

We can establish an equation for the neutral axis parameter kuB, i.e.,

k uB

cu

d
cu + sy

from which

kuB =

cu
cu + sy

By substituting the known values, we obtain

0.003

k uB =

0.003 +

f sy

or

k uB =

600
600 + f sy

200000

For 400Y grade bars, we have kuB = 0.6


For 500Y grade bars, we have kuB = 0.545

Balanced Steel Ratio using AS3600


The resultants C and T are respectively,
C = 0.85 f'c kuB b d
and
T = Ast fsy = B b d fsy

where pB = balanced steel ratio.


z

But C = T, or
from which

0.85 f'c kuB b d = pB b d fsy

0.85f c' k uB
pB =
f sy

Substituting Eq. 3.3(4) into Eq. 3.3(5) gives,

f c'
600
p B = 0.85
f sy 600 + f sy

For a given beam, if p < pB it is under-reinforced; it is


over-reinforced if p > pB. With
ku = 0.4, Eq. 3.3(5) becomes,

p all

f c'
= 0.34
f sy

which is the maximum allowable steel ratio for beam without


special consideration (see Clause 8.1.3).

Ultimate Moment using AS3600


Mu

0.85f c'

0.003

k u d

N.A.

d
A st

s > sy

T = A st f sy

C = 0.85 f'c ku b d
and
T = Ast fsy

10

Ast f sy

ku =

Fx = 0, i.e. C = T, from which

0.85 f c b d

Considering M = 0;
Muo = Ast fsy d (1 - ku / 2)
Substituting ku,

1 A st f sy
M uo = A st f syd 1
'
1.7 bd f c
But 1/1.7 = 0.5882, therefore AS1480-1982 recommends that,

A f
M uo = A st f sy d 1 0.6 st sy'
bd f c

ULTIMATE STERNGTH
OF A SINGLY- REINFORCED
RECTANGULAR SECTION
cu = 0.003

= 0.0035

f cu =0.67f ck / m =0.45f ck

cu

0.9x

0.85f c'

z=d-

k uB d

=
s

T=
sy

BS8110

=
s

sy

0.9x
2

A st f sy
ms

cc f cu = 0.85f cd = 0.85f ck / c

cu

AS3600

EC2
where =0.8, =1 and cc=0.85 =
s

sy

11

Design Strength BS8110/EC2


In order to take account of the difference between
actual and laboratory values, local weaknesses and
inaccuracies in the assessment of the resistance of
sections, the Characteristic Strengths fk are divided
by an appropriate PARTIAL SAFETY FACTOR
for strength m .

Design strength =

fk
m
m
(partial safety factor)

Reinforcement (prestressing steel included)


Concrete in flexure or axial load
Shear strength without shear
reinforcement
Bond strength
Others (e.g. bearing stress)

1.05(BS) 1.15(EC)
1.5
1.25
1.4
1.5

12

= 0.0035
cu

Concrete Compression-BS8110
x

f cu =0.67f ck / m

0.9x

0.9x
0.67f cu
C=
and
0.9 zb= d 2
m

z=d-

BS8110 restrict the neutral axis depth


=
to x = 0.5d
s

0.9x
2

sy

M = C z or T z

M = C z =
=

0.67f cu
0.9
x)
0.9x b (d mc
2

0.67f cu
0.9
0.9 (0.5d)b (d 0.5d)
mc
2

M = 0.156f cu bd 2

M = Tz =

f y As
ms

rearranging and putting ms = 1.05


As =

M
0.95f y z

i.e. AS3600
T = Ast fsy = B b d fsy
Ast =B b d

13

Concrete Compression-EC2

FC =

0.85f ck
b x
c

As f yk
s
x
z=d2
z = d - 0.4x

cc f cu = 0.85f cd = 0.85f ck / c

cu

FT =

=
s

sy

where =0.8, =1 and cc=0.85

For x = 0.45d upper limit (No redistribution & fck > 35)

M u = 0.167 f ck bd 2
For fck 40 MPa and greater (No redistribution & fck > 35)

M u = 0.128 f ck bd 2

DOUBLY-REINFORCED
RECTANGULAR SECTIONS
z

As previously discussed, for singly-reinforced sections if pt > pB,


then by adding Ast is not going to be effective and the use of
compression steel Asc to reinforce the concrete in the compressive
zone will be desirable

A section reinforced with both Ast and Asc is referred to as being


doubly- reinforced.

14

Criterion for yielding of Asc at failure-AS3600


kud dc dc

a = kud

b
dc

kud

Cs
C

sc

u
sc = sy

d
d- dc

s < sy

s > sy
z

In general there are two cases at ultimate state in which,


Asc yields
Asc does not yield.
In both cases, Ast yields at the ultimate state. However,
there are exceptional cases in which Ast does not yield at
failure.

Criterion for yielding of Asc at failure-AS3600


First we have to determine if Asc yields or not at failure i.e. if sc >
can be derived by considering
or < sy. The relevant equation
compatibility of strains for the limiting case where sc = sy as shown
in Eq. 3.5(1)e. By relating the strain sc = sy to cu it gives

sy
k ud dc

cu
k ud

from which
d
d
cu c
600 c
d =
d
ku =
cu sy 600 f sy

( t c )limit

dc
d
=
(600 f sy ) f sy
510 fc

Take Fx = 0 for the limiting case, i.e.


c b d fsy + 0.85 f'c ku b d = t b d fsy

15

Criterion for yielding of Asc at failure-AS3600

( t c )limit
z

dc
d
=
(600 f sy ) f sy
510 fc

For a given beam section if (t - c) is greater than (t - c) limit, then Asc


would yield at failure. Otherwise, it would not. It is obvious that with a
greater amount of Ast, the neutral axis at failure will be lower leading
to a higher value of sc. Thus yielding of Asc would occur. To ensure a
tension failure, AS 1480-1982 Clause A 1.1.2 states that
(t - c) B

No recommendation is apparent in AS3600-2001. But by implication,


we can take ku 0.4 (see Section 3.3.2), or for Grade 500N bars,
(t - c) all = 0.34

f c
f sy

Analysis Formulas-AS3600
k ud dc dc

a = k u d

Cs
C

u
sc = sy

s < sy

16

Analysis Formulas-AS3600
z

Case (ii) : Asc does not yield at failure

( t c )limit

In cases where

dc
d
<
(600 f sy ) f sy
510 f c

then Asc would not yield. Thus, in addition to ku we also have fsc as
unknown. We can determine these two unknowns using the
compatibility and equilibrium equations.
a = kud
d
dc

kud

sc

Cs
C

a
2

a =kud

dc

kud

dc

sc

Cs
C

a
2

17

a =kud

dc

dc

sc

kud

Cs
C

a
2

Given section with Y400 or N500 bars

SUMMARY-AS3600
dc > 0.2d (Y400)
dc > 0.091d (N500)

Yes

t t, limit
(Eq. 3.5(21))

Yes

Yes

Ast yields at failure

No

t t, limit
(Eq. 3.5(18))

No

Ast does not yield at


failure

(t- c) t- c )limit
(Eq. 3.5(3))
No

Eq. 3.5(26): ku
Eq. 3.5(27) or (28): Mu

Ast does not yield


but Asc does at
failure
Yes

Ast does not


yield at
failure

Asc yields at
failure

Eq. 3.5(11): ku
Eq. 3.5(14) or (15): Mu

Eq. 3.5(6): a
Eq. 3.5(7): Mu

Eq. 3.5(30): ku
Eq. 3.5(33) or (34): Mu

sc sy

No
Go to

Yes
CONTINUE

18

DOUBLY-REINFORCED SECTIONS-BS8110
M = C z =

0.67f cu
0.9bxz
mc

putting mc = 1.5
M = 0.402f cu bxz
= 0.402f cu bz2

(d - z)
0.9

8.04
f cu bz(d - z)
9
dividing both sides by f cu bd 2

K
z = d 0.5 + (0.25
)
0.9

M
8.04 z
( )(1- z )
=
2
d
d
f cu bd
9
Subs K =
K=

M
and z 0 = z gives :
d
f cu bd 2
8.04
(z 0 )(1- z 0 ) or 0 = z 0 2 - z 0 + 9K
8.04
9

K = M / bd 2 f cu

This is a quadratic
and can be solved
to give

therefore balance failure

If K K, compression reinforcement is not required and:


K

z = d 0.5 + (0.25
)
0.9

But not greater than 0.95d.


x = (d-z)/0.45
As = M/0.95fyz
where As is area of tension reinforcement
If K > K, compression reinforcement is required and:

K '
z = d 0.5 + (0.25
)
0.9

x =same as above, As = (K-K)fcubd2/0.95fy(d-d) where As = area of


compression reinforcement, As = Kfcubd2/0.95fyz +As
If d/x exceeds 0.37 (for fy =460MPa), the compression stress will less
than 0.95fy

19

where K
z K = 0.156 where redistribution does not exceed 10 %
(this implies a limitation of the neutral axis depth to
d/2); or
z K = 0.402(b 0.4) 0.18(b 0.4)2 where
redistribution exceeds 10 %;

Where b

b =

moment at the section after redistribution


moment at the section before redistribution

DOUBLY-REINFORCED SECTIONS-EC2
K=

M
bd 2 f ck

x max = ( 0.4)d

z=

cc x max
x
d max

2
d c
2
and = 1 for no redistribution

and K' =

c
d
(min K, K') 0.95d
1 + 1 2
2
cc

M 2 = bd 2 f ck (K K ') 0
As 2 =

M2
f sc (d d 2 )

sc

cc f cu = 0.85f cd = 0.85f ck / c

cu

where f cs = 700((x d 2 ) / x)
As =

f
M M2
+ As 2 sc
f yd z
f yd

=
s

sy

where =0.8, =1 and cc=0.85

20

Design Example 1
Using relevant clauses of AS, BS and EC design a simply
supported beam of 6m span to carry a live load of 3 kN/m
and a superimposed live load of 2 kN/m plus self weight.
Given = 32 MPa, fsy = 500 MPa maximum aggregate size
= 20 mm, = 2400 kg/m3

Using AS3600
Live load moment
wl 2 3 36
MQ =
=
= 13.5 kNm
8
8
Superimposed dead load moment
2 36
MSG =
= 9 kNm
8
Trial 1:
Assume b D = 150 300 mm
Self-weight = 0.15 0.30 2400 9.81 10-3 = 1.059 kN/m
The moment due to self weight is,
1.059 36
Msw =
= 4.766 kNm
8
MG = MSG + Msw = 9 + 4.766 = 13.77
M* = 1.2 MG + 1.5 MQ
M* = 1.2 13.77 + 1.5 13.5 = 36.77 kNm

21

Then,
M*

bd 2 =

t f sy 1

150d 2 =

f sy
1
t
1.7
f 'c

36.77 106
1
500

0.01192
0.8 0.01192 500 1

32
1.7

Therefore d = 242.1mm
and Ast = t b d = 0.015 150 242.1
= 429.13 mm2

TABLE 2.2(1)
STEEL REINFORCEMENT BAR AREAS AND SPACINGS

AREA (mm2) OF BARS OF TYPE-SIZE (Grade & mm)


PLAIN BARS
DEFORMED BARS
fsy = 250 MPa
where fsy = 500 MPa for Grade500N and 250 MPa for Grade 250R
N6
N10
D12
D16
N20
N24
N28
N32
N36
N40
N50
31
80
110
200
310
450
620
800
1020
1260
1960

62

160

220

400

620

900

1240

1600

2040

2520

3920

93

240

330

600

930

1350

1860

2400

3060

3780

5880

124

320

440

800

1240 1800

2480

3200

4080

5040

7840

155

400

550

1000

1550 2250

3100

4000

5100

6300

9800

186

480

660

1200

1860 2700

3720

4800

6120

7560

11760

217

560

770

1400

2170 3150

4340

5600

7140

8820

13720

248

640

880

1600

2480 3600

4960

6400

8160

10080

15680

279

720

990

1800

2790 4050

5580

7200

9180

11340

17640

10

310

800

1100

2000

3100 4500

6200

8000

10200

12600

19600

0.245

0.616

0.888

1.579

2.466

4.834

6.313

7.991

9.664

15.413

No.
OF
BARS

MASS
kg/m

3.551

22

Using BS8110
Live load moment
wl 2 3 36
MQ =
=
= 13.5 kNm (same as AS3600)
8
8
Superimposed dead load moment
2 36
(same as AS3600)
MSG =
= 9 kNm
8
Trial 1:
Assume b D = 150 300 mm
Self-weight = 0.15 0.30 2400 9.81 10-3 = 1.059 kN/m
The moment due to self weight is,
1.059 36
Msw =
= 4.766 kNm (same as AS3600)
8
MG = MSG + Msw = 9 + 4.766 = 13.77
M* = 1.4 MG + 1.6 MQ
M* = 1.4 13.77 + 1.6 13.5 = 40.87 kNm

K = 0.156
K=

M
40.87 106
=
= 0.109
2
bd f cu 150 2502 32
0.8

Therefore K > K and hence compression reinforcement is not required.


K

z = d 0.5 + (0.25
)
0.9

0.109

=250 0.5+ 0.25 = 214.75 < 0.95 d (= 237.5)


0.9

As =
=

o.k.

M
0.95f y z
40.87 106
0.95 500 214.75

= 400.66

mm2

(AS3600 AS = 429.13 mm2)

23

Using EC2
Live load moment
wl 2 3 36
MQ =
=
= 13.5 kNm (same as AS3600)
8
8
Superimposed dead load moment
2 36
MSG =
(same as AS3600)
= 9 kNm
8
Trial 1:
Assume b D = 150 300 mm
Self-weight = 0.15 0.30 2400 9.81 10-3 = 1.059 kN/m
The moment due to self weight is,
1.059 36
Msw =
= 4.766 kNm (same as AS3600)
8
MG = MSG + Msw = 9 + 4.766 = 13.77
M* = 1.4 MG + 1.6 MQ
M* = 1.35 13.77 + 1.5 13.5 = 38.84 kNm

M
40.87 106
=
= 0.109
bd 2 f ck 150 2502 32
0.8
x
x 0.85 (1-0.4) d 0.8
0.8 (1 0.4)d
and K' = cc 2max d max =
d
= 0.207
d c
2
d 21.5
2

K=

Therefore K > K and hence compression reinforcement is not required

z=
=

c
d
(min K, K') 0.95d
1 + 1 2
cc
2

250
1.5
(0.109) = 223.05 0.95d(= 237.5 o.k.)
1 + 1 2
2
1 0.85

M = Tz =

fyAs
ms

rearranging and putting ms = 1.15


As =

M
38.84 10 6
=
= 400.30mm2
0.87f y z 0.87 500 223.05

i.e.
AS3600
As = 429.13mm2
BS8110
As = 400.66mm2

24

Design Example 2
Given a doubly-reinforced section with = 32 MPa,
fsy = 500 MPa. Compute Mu
350
40
3N12
580

6N24

Using AS3600
2700
= 0.01244
350 620
330
c =
= 0.001521
350 620

t =

40
620
(t - c) limit =
= 0.0173
(600 500) 500
(t - c) = 0.01092 < (t - c) limit = 0.0173
510 0.822 32

Hence Asc does not yield at failure

0.01244 500 600 0.001521


= 0.11869
1.7 0.822 32

600 0.001521
= 0.0408
0.85 0.822 32

25

ku = 0.11869 + 0.11869 2 + 0.0408

40
= 0.248
620

a = ku d = 0.822 0.248 620 = 126.39 mm

Mu = 2700 500 (620

126.39
40
126.39
) + 600 330 (1
)(
40)
2
0.248 620
2

Mu = 755.1 kNm
Mu = 0.8 755.07 = 604.1 kNm

Using BS8110
x=(d-z)/0.45
where

K '
z = d 0.5 + (0.25
)
0.9

0.156

=620 0.5+ 0.25 = 481.67 < 0.95 d (= 589)


0.9

Therefore x =307.4

o.k

Concrete compression
=

0.67 f cu
b 0.9x
m
0.67

32
0.8 350 0.9 307.4

1.5
= 1730.0 103 N

26

Compressive steel reinforcement

As ' f yk
s

330 500
1.05
= 157.1 103 N
=

Tensile steel reinforcement

As f yk
s

2700 500
1.05
= 1285.7 103 N
=

M = 1730.0 103 z + 157.1 103 (307.4 40)


=875.3kNm

i.e. AS3600
Mu = 604.1 kNm

Using EC2
x=(d-z)/0.4

cc x max
x 0.85 (1-0.4) d 0.8
0.8 (1 0.4)d
d max =
d

2
2
d c
2
d 1.5
2

= 0.207

K' =

z=
=

c
d
(min K, K') 0.95d
1 + 1 2
2
cc

620
1.5
(0.207) = 470.9 0.95d(= 589.0 o.k.)
1 + 1 2
2
1 0.85

Therefore x =(620-470.9)/0.4 =372.7


Concrete compression
=

0.67 f cu
b 0.9x
m
0.67
1.5

32
0.8 350 0.9 372.7 = 2097.6 103 N

27

Compressive steel reinforcement

As ' f yk
s

330 500
1.15
= 143.48 103 N
=

Tensile steel reinforcement

As f yk
s

2700 500
1.15
= 1173.91 103 N
=

i.e.
i.e. AS3600
Mu = 604.1 kNm
BS8110
Mu = 875.3 kNm

M = 2097.6.0 103 470.7 + 143.5 103 (372.7 40)


= 1035.1

kNm

Design Example 3
Given b = 200 mm, D = 400mm, M * = 200
kNm, fc= 25 MPa, and fsy = 400 MPa .
Determine Ast and Asc (as necessary) using
only N28 bars. Assume using R10 Ties.

28

Using AS3600

Assume two layers of say N28 bars for Ast


and one layer for Asc. Thus
d = D - cover - tie dia.-1.5 bar dia.
d = 400 20 10 1.5 28 = 328 mm
dc = 45 mm

25
200 328 = 947.92 mm2
500
947.92 500

Mu1 = 947.92 500 328 1 0.6

106 = 128.5 kNm


328 25
200

As1 = 0.34 0.85

As 2 =

( 200 0.8128.5) 106 = 858.7 mm2


0.8 500 ( 328 45)

As1,limit =

510 0.85 25 45 200


= 1950.8 mm2
( 600 500) 500

Since As1 < As1,limit Asc does not yield


3 45

= 0.001971
2 0.6 328
500
Asc = 858.7
= 1089 mm 2
200000 0.001971
Thus ,

sc = 0.003 1

Asc = 1089 mm 2 ;

use 2Y28:

Ast = As1 + As 2 = 1806.6 mm ;


2

use 4Y28:

Check accomadation:
b > 5 28 = 140 O.K. ( 2 layers of bars )
b > 7 28 = 196 O.K. ( 3bars+1)

Asc = 1240 mm 2
Ast = 2480 mm 2

29

Using BS8110

z Assume

two layers of say N28 bars for Ast


and one layer for Asc. Thus same as before

d = D - cover - tie dia.-1.5 bar dia.


d = 400 20 10 1.5 28 = 328 mm
dc = 45 mm

M*=200 kNm
therefore M=200/0.8

K = 0.156
K=

M
200 106 / 0.8
=
= 0.371
2
bd f cu 200 3282 25
0.8

Therefore K < K and hence compression reinforcement is required.

K'
0.156

z = d 0.5 + (0.25 ) =3280.5+ 0.25 = 254.82 < 0.95d (= 311.6)


0.9
0.9

(K K ')f cu bd 2
As' =
0.95fy(d d')
25
(0.371 0.156)
200 3282
0.8
=
= 1075.4mm2 (Asc)
0.95 500 (328 45)
As =

K 'fcu bd 2
+ As'
0.95f y z

25
200 3282
0.8
=
+ 1075.4 = 1942.0mm2
0.95 500 254.82
0.156

i.e. AS3600
Asc =1089.0 mm2
Ast = 1806.6 mm2

(Ast)

30

Using EC2

Assume two layers of say N28 bars for Ast


and one layer for Asc. Thus same as before
d = D - cover - tie dia.-1.5 bar dia.
d = 400 20 10 1.5 28 = 328 mm
dc = 45 mm

K=

M
250 106
=
= 0.465
bd 2 f ck
200 3282 25

K' =

cc x max
x
d max
d 2 c
2

0.8 (1 0.6) 328


0.85 (1-0.6) 328 0.8
328
= 0.207
=
3282 1.5
2

Therefore K < K and hence compression reinforcement is required.


z=
=

c
d
(min K, K') 0.95d
1 + 1 2
2
cc

328
1.5
(0.207) = 249.1 0.95d( = 311.6)
1 + 1 2
2
1 0.85

o.k.

31

M 2 = bd 2 f ck (K K ') 0
= 200 3282 25(0.465 0.207)
= 138.7kNm
f cs = 700(x d 2 ) / x = 700(0.6 328 45) /(0.6 328) = 539.9
As 2 =

As =

M2
138.7 106
=
= 907.8mm 2
f sc (d d 2 ) 539.9(328 45) (Asc)
f
M M2
539.9
250 106 138.7 106
+ 907.8
+ As 2 sc =
500
f yd z
f yd
500 249.1

= 1873.8mm 2

(Ast)

i.e. AS3600
Asc =1089.0 mm2
Ast = 1806.6 mm2

i.e. BS8100
As =1075.4 mm2
As = 1942.0 mm2

32