© All Rights Reserved

26 tayangan

© All Rights Reserved

- UPSC,SSC,CPWD,MES Civil Engineering Objectives Questions PDF
- 01-BIWE-01-Lecture_01
- hif17032 FHWA
- Change in ACI 318-08
- A Study on Strength and Behaviour of Exterior Beam-Column Joint by using SCC and SFRSCC
- Lecture-III Limit State Design
- NR 410110 Prestressed Concrete
- LRFD Composite Beam Design
- Çok Katlı Yapılara Giriş - Ders 4 - Döşeme Sistemleri
- Fib CH052
- Fem Model for Concrete Pipe
- C 78 – 94 ;QZC4LTK0
- 08-Self Consolidating Concrete
- SJ_Jan.-Feb._2015_V._112_No._01.pdf
- (Paper) Void Formers for Slab
- 07A80105-PRESTRESSEDCONCRETE.pdf
- Experimental Study on Self Compacting Steel Fiber Reinforced
- Pre Stressed
- CHAPTER 1
- Long Term Effects on the Addition of Crumb Rubber to Conventional High Strength Concrete

Anda di halaman 1dari 205

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

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 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.

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

METHOD (LFEM)

SHORTENING

SUMMARY

z CRACK

WIDTH

z DAMPING

CHARACTERISTICS

z DEFLECTION

SERVICEABILITY

PLATES

STRENGTH

CRACK WIDTH

Crack width formulas for beams

Average crack width:

(1)

steel stress

elastic modulus

clear cover

steel ratio

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

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

16

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

.8

Legend

+ 30% line

.7

- 30% line

.6

.5

Hognestad's beams

.4

Nawy's beams

(14 post-tensioned)

.3

Nawy's beams

.2

(20 pre-tensioned)

.1

0.0

Clark's beams

0.0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

Equation 1 or 2 in mm

0.7

0.6

Measured w max in mm

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

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

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

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)

= (mb/ms)

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

DEFLECTION

DAMPING CHARACTERISTICS

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

Experimental Program

60

mm

Loading beam

300 mm

100 mm

Beam length, L

mm

180

60

mm

28

Embedded

Polystyrene

as void

300mm

Loading beam

60

100 25

Applied load

Beam length, L

mm

28

100 mm

60

Embedded

Polystyrene

as void

Test Procedure

100 mm

180

100 25

Applied load

100 mm

300 mm

300mm

14 RC beams

12 PPC beams

For RC beams, is

Wcr,r = 0.312 wcr,i

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

For PPC beams,

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

*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

FLAT PLATES

Bending

cracks

appear at

low

loading

LOAD

LOAD

30 35

degrees

unbalanced bending moment

Balanced bending

moments

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

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

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

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

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

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

N uo = (k1 k 2 ) N u

One-way action

Two-way action

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

WALL

and smeared steel layers

z

w

x v

y

- 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

concrete compressive behaviour

Tension-stiffening and shear stiffness

deterioration effects after concrete cracking

Tri-linear - for steel

Strain-hardening model

fc'

fy

Crushing

loadingunloading

0.3fc'

0.8fy

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

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 2)

Experiment* (point 3)

32.7

30

35

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 2)

Proposed method (point 3)

40

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

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

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

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

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

Q1 TOWER

Locations

z

z

floor

Number of DEMEC point 3

to 9 measurements per

column/wall

Strengths for Columns at the Specific Level

Date

of

Construction

Jan 2005

02/08/2004

10/03/2004

Level B1 and B2,

65 MPa

19/02/2003

25/01/2003

Demountable Mechanical

Strain Gauge (DEMEC)

Points on a Column Surface.

TC12 TC10

TC06

TC05

Designation

Shape

Size (mm)

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 )

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 )

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

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

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

(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

(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 )

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

z Complicated

problems

Rigorous solution: LFEM

z On-Going

work

HSC structures

Column and wall shortening

Deep beams and walls with openings

THANK YOU

Width Formulas

SHORT COURSE ON

ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURESS

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

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

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

INTRODUCTION

Q

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Typcal loading diagram

SHORT COURSE ON

ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

X11

Q

mm

5 different values

SHORT COURSE ON

ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

60

180

60

mm

300 mm

100 25

mm

175

Embedded

Polystyrene

as void

300 mm

Q

Q

Q

Q

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

78

36

20

40

210

36

20

36

40 35

35

40

Q

Q

Q

Q

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

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

support

14 46

as void

180

32

180 28

Embedded

Polystyrene

60

10

60

130

57

10

36 57 57

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

25

250

25

25

200

25

25

100

25

200

300

Q

Q

Q

25

30 - 35

25 - 35

250

150

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

Test Procedure

Q

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

CRACK WIDTH FORMULAS

Q

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

form:

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

Q

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

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

crack spacing:

SHORT COURSE ON

ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Beams

Q

crack widths, wcr,is developed as:

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

(1)

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

Q

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

Other Beams

X

beams

beams

11

SHORT COURSE ON

ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Q

X

20 pre-tensioned

6 fully prestressed T-beams

12 PPC T-beams

2 PPC I-beams

14 post-tensioned PPC T-beams

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

Investigator

Reinforcement

stress levels,

ksi

No. of

specimens

No. of observations

Average

crack width

Clark (1956)

30, 35, 40, 45

26

161

Chi &

Kirstein (1958)

30, 35, 40

16

76

Hognestad

(1962)

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

.9

.8

Legend

+ 30% line

.7

- 30% line

.6

.5

Hognestad's beams

.4

Nawy's beams

(14 post-tensioned)

.3

Nawy's beams

.2

(20 pre-tensioned)

.1

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

Q

X

)

)

)

13

SHORT COURSE ON

ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

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

Authors, Clarks and Chi & Kirsteins

beams

100

100

80

80

Number of observations

Number of observations

60

40

20

60

40

20

0

.04

.31

.58

.85

1.12

1.38

1.65

1.92

2.19

2.46

.05

.34

.63

.91

1.20

1.49

1.78

2.07

2.36

14

SHORT COURSE ON

ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

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

X

X

widths, the BS formula grossly underestimates

the values

SHORT COURSE ON

ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Q

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

.90

1.70

2.50

3.30

4.10

4.90

5.70

100

Number of observations

Number of observations

80

60

40

20

0

.10

.90

1.70

2.50

3.30

4.10

4.90

5.70

15

SHORT COURSE ON

ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

(PPC BEAMS)

Q

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

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

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

beams

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

SHORT COURSE ON

ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

DATA

Q

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

0.5

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

SHORT COURSE ON

ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

1

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

18

SHORT COURSE ON

ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

CONCLUSIONS

Q

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

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

19

SHORT COURSE ON

ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

TUTORIAL EXERCISES

Q

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

and Analysis

SHORT COURSE ON

ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURESS

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

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

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

MODEL

Nature of Damping

There are mainly three ways in which energy

is dissipated:

(i) Material Damping

(ii) System Damping

(iii) Radiation Damping

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

= 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

= 0.054 wr + 0.0104 L

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

where

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 = 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

l

Beam length, L

25

R6 stirrups @

120 mm c/c

250

30

250

Beam HSB 8

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

DEFLECTION

PROFESSOR YEW-CHAYE LOO

Dean

Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology

Griffith University

Queensland , Australia

DEFLECTION

Deflection

static loading

repeated loading

impact

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

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

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

total deflections Balaguru & Shah

(1982) formula

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]

beams

Precast beam-column

connections

under repeated load

under cyclic loading

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

and Wijewardenes (1984) beams

and Speirs (1982) beams

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

Test setup

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

THANK YOU

ALL

Analysis of Concrete Flat

Plates

POST-TESIONED CONCRETE FLAT PLATES:

ARE THE MAJOR DESIGN CODE METHODS

ADEQUATE?

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

Analysis of Walls (Solid

and with Openings)

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

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

Test specimens-opening panels

Results opening panels

Crack pattern

Deflection/failure load

Introduction

Reinforced concrete wall applications

R In tilt-up

construction

R As concrete cores in

tall buildings

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

z ACI318-05

Chapter 14

z BS8110-97

Section 3.9.4 (Identical to AS3600)

Ultimate strength

Eccentricity of load

Concrete strength

per unit length of wall (N/mm)

Additional eccentricity

Thickness of the wall

=Hwe2/2500tw

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

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

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

(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

(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

(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

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

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

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

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

13

Load (kN)

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)

z Laboratory

and HSC wall panels)

z H/tw with Nu/(fcLt)

z Nu/(fcLt)HSC < Nu/(fcLt)NSC

z

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

Nu

tw

fc

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

ea

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

Hwe

15

Hwe = H

=

=

only

1

H

1+

L

restrained

L

2H

restrained

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

The accuracy of jack was 1 tonne ( = 9.81 kN).

2 Load eccentricity = tw/6

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

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

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

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

(a) OWN11/TW11

(b)OW12/TW12

19

Reinforcement layout

Shrinkage

control

20

two-openings

Two-way action

solid panel

with two openings

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)

1200x1200x40 (f

(fc= 50.3MPa)

700

600

Load (kN)

500

400

top

300

middle

bottom

side

200

100

0

0

10

23

1600x1600x40 (f

(fc= 50.3MPa)

700

600

Load (kN)

500

400

top

300

200

middle

bottom

100

side

0

0

10

12

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

AS 3600-01

Axial strength ratio

(Nu/f'cLtw)

0.6

ACI318-02

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

One-way (two

openings)

Two-way (no opening)

0.1

0

10

20

30

40

Two-way (two

openings)

Nu

tw

fc

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

ea

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

Hwe

25

Hwe = H

=

=

only

1

H

1+

L

restrained

L

2H

restrained

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

26

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

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

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

27

Conclusions

z Laboratory

openings)

z

z H/tw

z

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

consistent prediction of results.

zMore test models are required for the

verification

28

29

Shortening in Highrise

Buildings

SHORTENING IN HIGHRISE

BUILDINGS

Professor Yew-Chaye Loo

Dean

Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology

Griffith University

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

the Q1 Tower has been monitored during the

last two and a half years

Features

Current photo

15/08/2005

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

Strengths for Columns at the Specific Level

Date

of

Construction

Jan 2005

02/08/2004

10/03/2004

19/02/2003

25/01/2003

65 MPa

instrumented locations

Column and Wall

Locations

per floor

(DEMECs) with a sensitivity of 0.002mm

average values were taken

Difficulties faced

the accessibility of each locations

Typical Results

(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

Observed Behaviours

Strain variations between different gauge

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

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

back props in place.

at Level B2

700

Columns at Level B2

TC06

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

TC14

TC04

300

200

TC09

TC11

TC09

100

TC01

TC07

TC03

0

0

200

400

600

800

-100

Age (days)

800

TC06

700

TC06

TC05

600

500

TC05

400

300

200

TC06

100

TC05

0

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Age (days)

10

800

TC10

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

500

TW09

400

300

TW18

TW17

TW16

TW06

TW07

200

100

0

-100

200

400

600

800

Age (days)

Measured Axial Shortening at

Level B2

12

compute total concrete strain in vertically loaded

members exist

z

z

z

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

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

(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

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

16

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

K2

K3

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

400

AS3600-2006

TW16

300

TC09

200

100

0

0

200

400

600

800

1000

-100

-200

Age (days)

500

Measured

AS3600-2001

400

AS3600-2006

300

200

100

TW18

TC05

0

0

200

400

600

800

1000

-100

Age (days)

22

Conclusions

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

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

significantly overestimate the magnitude of

differential shortening

24

Applications: AS 3600,

BS 8110 and EC 2

AS3600, BS8110 and EC2

Professor Yew-Chaye Loo

Technology

Griffith University

Content

General remarks

Design requirements

Durability

Fire resistance

Strength

Serviceability

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

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

(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

Al

Al

BI

Al

REQUIRED COVER-AS3600

(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

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

(a) In fresh water

(b) In sea water

(i) permanently submerged

(ii) in tidal or splash zones

BI

Al

B2

C

U

U

( f c )

20MPa 25MPa

Al

20

20

20

20

A2

(50)

30

25

20

20

20

B1

(60)

40

30

25

B2

(65)

45

35

(70)

50

Any exposure environment not otherwise described

in Items 1 to 4 above

REQUIRED COVER-EC2

Exposure class

1 dry environment

- 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 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]

SECTION

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.

= 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

Tension, Compression and Balanced Failure

z

cu = 0.003.

or

s > sy

s < sy

tension failure

compression failure

cu = 0.003

k ud

d

s > sy

k ud

s < sy

Tension Compression

failure

failure

k uB d

s = sy

T = A st f sy

Balanced

failure

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

0.003

k uB =

0.003 +

f sy

or

k uB =

600

600 + f sy

200000

For 500Y grade bars, we have kuB = 0.545

The resultants C and T are respectively,

C = 0.85 f'c kuB b d

and

T = Ast fsy = B b d fsy

z

But C = T, or

from which

0.85f c' k uB

pB =

f sy

f c'

600

p B = 0.85

f sy 600 + f sy

over-reinforced if p > pB. With

ku = 0.4, Eq. 3.3(5) becomes,

p all

f c'

= 0.34

f sy

special consideration (see Clause 8.1.3).

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 =

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

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)

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-

=

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

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

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

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

doubly- reinforced.

14

kud dc dc

a = kud

b

dc

kud

Cs

C

sc

u

sc = sy

d

d- dc

s < sy

s > sy

z

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.

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

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

15

( t c )limit

z

dc

d

=

(600 f sy ) f sy

510 fc

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

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

( 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

SUMMARY-AS3600

dc > 0.2d (Y400)

dc > 0.091d (N500)

Yes

t t, limit

(Eq. 3.5(21))

Yes

Yes

No

t t, limit

(Eq. 3.5(18))

No

failure

(t- c) t- c )limit

(Eq. 3.5(3))

No

Eq. 3.5(26): ku

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

but Asc does at

failure

Yes

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

K

z = d 0.5 + (0.25

)

0.9

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

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 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

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

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

K

z = d 0.5 + (0.25

)

0.9

0.109

0.9

As =

=

o.k.

M

0.95f y z

40.87 106

0.95 500 214.75

= 400.66

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=

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

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

= 0.11869

1.7 0.822 32

600 0.001521

= 0.0408

0.85 0.822 32

25

40

= 0.248

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

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

As ' f yk

s

330 500

1.05

= 157.1 103 N

=

As f yk

s

2700 500

1.05

= 1285.7 103 N

=

=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

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

As ' f yk

s

330 500

1.15

= 143.48 103 N

=

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

= 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

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

328 25

200

As 2 =

0.8 500 ( 328 45)

As1,limit =

= 1950.8 mm2

( 600 500) 500

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:

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

and one layer for Asc. Thus same as before

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

K'

0.156

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

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

0.85 (1-0.6) 328 0.8

328

= 0.207

=

3282 1.5

2

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

- UPSC,SSC,CPWD,MES Civil Engineering Objectives Questions PDFDiunggah olehMRABSENI
- 01-BIWE-01-Lecture_01Diunggah olehMirza Basit
- hif17032 FHWADiunggah olehJuan Gutièrrez Ccencho
- Change in ACI 318-08Diunggah olehSi Zhang
- A Study on Strength and Behaviour of Exterior Beam-Column Joint by using SCC and SFRSCCDiunggah olehInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- Lecture-III Limit State DesignDiunggah olehjs kalyana rama
- NR 410110 Prestressed ConcreteDiunggah olehSrinivasa Rao G
- LRFD Composite Beam DesignDiunggah olehJuan Carlos Flores
- Çok Katlı Yapılara Giriş - Ders 4 - Döşeme SistemleriDiunggah olehİÜ İnşaat Mühendisliği Bölümü
- Fib CH052Diunggah olehmohan1441
- Fem Model for Concrete PipeDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- C 78 – 94 ;QZC4LTK0Diunggah olehRufo Francisco
- 08-Self Consolidating ConcreteDiunggah olehAnuja Kumari
- SJ_Jan.-Feb._2015_V._112_No._01.pdfDiunggah olehManuel Palomino pozo
- (Paper) Void Formers for SlabDiunggah olehShaileshRastogi
- 07A80105-PRESTRESSEDCONCRETE.pdfDiunggah olehPar Naw
- Experimental Study on Self Compacting Steel Fiber ReinforcedDiunggah olehSureshSuri
- Pre StressedDiunggah olehJenny Diwayan
- CHAPTER 1Diunggah olehmahmoud elkhedr
- Long Term Effects on the Addition of Crumb Rubber to Conventional High Strength ConcreteDiunggah olehAnilkmar P M
- Damage to Framed RCC Struct in Gujarat Earthquake & Retrofitting with Fiber Wrapping Technique - Paper (12).pdfDiunggah olehJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- reinforcemet limits_ACI 14.pdfDiunggah olehMin Khant
- sq (11).pdfDiunggah olehCebeiller Sdn Bhd
- 12.3 FlexureDiunggah olehrammiris
- 12 Section 5.7 Shear(E)Diunggah olehVinothAyyasamy
- material Laboratory.docxDiunggah olehAnonymous tLXKwT
- 3.0 and 4Diunggah olehSheikh Ubaid
- 006-(ST_08_06_ÃÖÁ¾)ÃÖÀû¼³°è¿¡_ÀÇÇÑ_PSC_ºö_°Å´õ±³ÀÇ_Àå´ëÈDiunggah olehGourishankar Parthasarathy
- UTM Accessory Guide Write-upDiunggah olehGerald Robles
- Microsoft PowerPoint - 6_Fundações Superficiais.ppt [Compatibility Mode]Diunggah olehMarcos Ma

- ISO9001 Implementation Guide Final April2016Diunggah olehUdomsak Suntithikavong
- Munk-Verkuilen-Conceptualizing and Measuring DemocracyDiunggah olehmarioalgabri
- Data Mining is Defined as the Procedure of Extracting Information From Huge Sets of DataDiunggah olehOdem Dinesh Reddy
- Bahan PoTDiunggah olehDian Natalia Sutanto
- 2013 W Stute Empirical DistributionsDiunggah olehAmber Miller
- Journal Review - Analytical Model for FRP-And-Steel-Confined Circular Concrete Columns in CompressionDiunggah olehOswaldo Russián
- LANCET 2018 Long term Outcomes for Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Early Breast Cancer_ Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data From Ten Randomised TrialsDiunggah olehYesenia HC
- Historical SemanticsDiunggah olehLea Štambuk
- Attitude ScalesDiunggah olehlifeis1enjoy
- European Cultural Policy - Course Overview 2018 v4(1) (1)Diunggah olehDestrox
- LPS Selling Stretegy Vivek Sharma.docDiunggah olehKuldeep Batra
- HistoryChemistryDow_2Diunggah olehIsma Azra
- Incapie Ppt PranavDiunggah olehPranav Sankpal
- Piecing Together Service Quality a Framework for Robust ServiceDiunggah olehAbhishek Puri
- Decision Making PptDiunggah olehMayank Jain
- Annotated BibliographyDiunggah olehAdrian Galloway
- Nature Human Behaviour Volume Issue 2018 [Doi 10.1038%2Fs41562-018-0353-0] Mooijman, Marlon_ Hoover, Joe_ Lin, Ying_ Ji, Heng_ Dehghani, Mo -- Moralization in Social Networks and the Emergence of ViolDiunggah olehRicardo Valenzuela
- Evaluating Performance of Testing Laboratory using Six SigmaDiunggah olehInternational Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Science
- hernandez-jaran-cvDiunggah olehapi-284939442
- Indian PharmacopoeiaDiunggah olehkamalsami1
- 233750462-USMLE-Epidemiology-Biostats.pdfDiunggah olehlala
- [Bungale s. Taranath] Wind and Earthquake Resistan(Booksee.org)Diunggah olehSubham Bose
- TOR Terms of ReferenceDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- The Social Marketing Program for Child, Maternal, and Reproductive Health Products and Services in Madagascar (USAID - 2010)Diunggah olehHayZara Madagascar
- Parametric Cost EstimatesDiunggah olehghassansaket
- Air Pollution Modelling at the ITO intersection,Diunggah olehK_Prabhav_Phal_295
- MEE404_PRODUCTION-AND-OPERATIONS-MANAGEMENT_TH_1.01_AC20.pdfDiunggah olehAnonymous 2SvuW1arj
- sheehan casey resumeDiunggah olehapi-261932791
- Sehar Internship ReportDiunggah olehSehar Andleeb
- OwenDiunggah olehJohn WNS