Lecture 20 Under-reinforced and Over-reinforced Beams

In the previous lecture we learned that moment capacity increases in almost linear proportion with increasing amounts of reinforcement. But we qualified that statement saying that it applies to reinforcement ratios not exceeding 2%. In this lecture we learn why we set this upper limit to reinforcement ratio. The idea that moment capacity increases with increasing reinforcement ratio is fairly intuitive. The expression M = bd fy jd implies so succinctly. The simplest reason why we do not push this relationship too far and, instead, limit the amount of reinforcement to 2% of b xd is that reinforcement is of little use if we cannot cast concrete around it. And reinforcement ratios exceeding 2% lead to congestion and problems during casting. Figure 1. Void under closely-spaced rebar. as increases, the

Another reason to limit the amount of reinforcement is that,

maximum curvature that can be achieved before the concrete reaches its limiting unit strain decreases (Lecture 19). In other words, as we increase the reinforcement ratio, crushing of the concrete is reached earlier (at smaller deformations). There is a threshold reinforcement ratio at which the limiting unit strain for concrete and yielding of the reinforcement are reached at the same time. If this threshold is exceeded, the reinforcement does not yield before the concrete reaches its limit. stage of flexural response:
The action during the last stage differs for the two classes of beams (a) beams which may be termed normal beams in which the amount of reinforcement is not sufficient to develop the full compressive strength of the concrete at the maximum load and (b) beams which fail by crushing of the concrete before the elastic limit of the steel is reached and hence may be said to have an excess of [steel].

This was first

understood in the early 1900s by A. N. Talbot, who wrote in reference to the fourth

We call the first class of beams (class a) under-reinforced beams. We call the other class of beams over-reinforced beams. The former are preferred over the latter.

Failures of under-reinforced beams are ductile and require deformations that are large and serve as warning. Failures of over-reinforced beams, on the other hand, are brittle, sudden, and may occur without warning signs. The stage in which the limiting unit strain in concrete and the unit strain at yield of steel are reached simultaneously is called balanced failure. The state of unit strain at balanced failure is depicted by the solid line in the figure on the right.
b

cu
< kbd > kbd

From this figure we conclude neutral balanced is that, axis the at

h d d-k bd kbd

relative depth to the conditions

su = y

cu

kb =

cu y + cu

For Gr. 60 steel, this ratio is approximately 3/5 (strictly, the ratio is 3/5.07 = 0.59). Note that if ku is smaller than kb (3/5) , we expect the steel to reach a unit strain larger than the unit strain at yield. And if ku is larger than kb (3/5) we expect the unit strain in the steel to be smaller than the unit strain at yield. Note also that curvature (c/ku) increases as ku decreases. And because we know that curvature and deflection are proportional to one another, we try to design beams so that the depth to neutral axis at the limiting stage is small. If the depth to the neutral axis is small, the associated curvature and deflection are large, and they provide warning. Recalling that the neutral axis depth is associated to reinforcement ratio by the relationship:

ku = k1 0.85 f c kb fy

fy k1 0.85 f c

we realize there is a unique reinforcement ratio associated with balanced failure:

b =

To insure some degree of ductility in beams, we do not provide beams with

reinforcement amounts exceeding a fraction of the amount associated with b. For many decades Codes limited the maximum amount of reinforcement in a beam to 3/4 of b. Although the language used in todays Code has changed, current requirements essentially equivalent, and proportions used in practice and the reasons for the limit on reinforcement ratio have not changed much. We choose to concentrate on proportions and reasons rather than language because the latter is likely to keep changing. The maximum allowable reinforcement ratio is

max =

3 k1 0.85 f c kb 1 4 fy

Todays Code encourages the designer to use reinforcement rations lower than max by allowing the use of a larger strength reduction factor ( =0.9) for sections with reinforcement ratios not exceeding 5/8 of b.2 For Gr. 60 steel and 5000-psi concrete, the this reinforcement ratio is:
5 0.8 0.85 5,000 psi 3 2% 8 60,000 psi 5

[SHOULD WE EVEN MENTION THE 5/8 LIMIT? BUT IF WE DO NOT, HOW TO EXPLAIN THAT MAY BE LESS THAN 0.9 EVEN IF rho < rho_max?] For these reasons, and to prevent problems during construction, beams built using practices and materials common today should not contain reinforcement exceeding a ratio of 2%.

c c = 0.0037 The strain in the steel associated with max is 3 kb 4

c c = 0.005 The strain in the steel associated with = 5/8 b is 5 kb 8

Examp e
A simple beam spanning 30ft is to be designed using the following parameters: a) d = 25in b) d = 16in. P = 35 kip (unfactored load) fc = 3ksi fy = 60ksi Load Factor = 1.4 = 0.9 -Select longitudinal reinforcement to satisfy flexural strength requirements (Mn>Mu). -Express your result as a ratio and compare it to b and max. Ignore self weight. Solution a) The moment demand is M u =

L P d

b ! "2#

1 (1.4 P ) L = 4410kip ft 4

Assuming that j is 0.9, we estimate the required cross-sectional area of reinforcement as

1 in. 1.4 35kip 30 ft 12 4 ft = = 3.6in 2 0.9 60ksi j 25in.

As _ required

We choose 4 #9s (As = 4in2). With this value, we can now compute j and check our choices:

4in 2 4 = % 25in. 12in. 3

ku =

1.33% 60ksi = 0.37 < 0.6 f s = f y 0.85 0.85 3ksi

j =1 0.425 0.37 = 0.84

M n = 0.9 4in 2 60ksi 0.84 25in = 4540 M u . We conclude 4 #9s would suffice.
The ratio of reinforcement provided is 4/3%. This ratio is smaller that

3 k 0.85 f c 3 0.85 0.85 3ksi b = 1 = = 2.2% 5 fy 5 60ksi

and max =

3 b = 1.6% 4
d

b) We start again with the same assumption that j=0.9:

1 in. 1.4 35kip 30 ft 12 4 ft As = 5.7in 2 0.9 60ksi j 16in.

We choose 6 #9s realizing that we may need to arrange them in two layers to be able to fit them in the space we have. In this case, we define d as the distance to the centroid of the reinforcement.

6in 2 = 3 .1 % 16in. 12in.

This is outside of what we decided is desirable (<2%) so we need to expect deviations from the procedure we followed in the precious case. We estimate the relative depth to the neutral axis assuming fs =fy:

ku =

3.1% 60ksi = 0.86 0.85 0.85 3ksi

> 0.6 f s < f y

Because ku > 3/5 we conclude that the steel does not yield before the concrete reaches its limiting unit strain. We are dealing with an over-reinforced beam. Our design would not me permitted. But we continue the process to learn. We need to revise our estimate of the stress in the reinforcement. We do so using the graphical solution we used before. We compare the functions:

f s ( su ) =

cu k 0.85 f c 1 and f s ( su ) = E s su f y cu + su
Unit Sress [ksi] 80

and obtain fs = 45.5ksi. With this value we revise ku:

3.1% 45.5ksi ku = = 0.65 0.85 0.85 3ksi

We get ku > 3/5 again. But that is now consistent with the estimate fs = 45.5ksi. Now j =1 0.425 0.65 = 0.72 This estimate deviates from 0.9 more than what we usually expect because we are working outside the ranges in which we observed j to be close to 0.9.

60

40

20

0 0

0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 Unit Strain

The computed moment capacity (2830kip-in) is smaller that the moment demand (4410kip-in). Because we already estimating an excessive amount of required reinforcement, we should realize that section cannot meet the demand unless we increase its dimensions. Again,

3 k 0.85 f c 3 0.85 0.85 3ksi b = 1 = = 2.2% 5 fy 5 60ksi

and max =

3 b = 1.6% 4

Exercise
Repeat the example above for L = 24ft.