Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reinforcedhigh Strengthconcretebeamsinflexure
Reinforcedhigh Strengthconcretebeamsinflexure
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Despite a large number of investigations1-15 carried out in
the past on flexural behavior of high-strength concrete
(HSC) beams, controversy still remains with regard to some
vital design issues. One such issue is the serviceability
requirement of deflection. Beams tested by several investigators
consistently demonstrated significantly larger deflections at
service load than what would be predicted by following the
ACI Code16 provisions. Even the assumption of cracked
moment of inertia as the effective value and use of the
representative expressions for the elastic modulus of
concrete as reported by ACI Committee 36317 for HSC
had failed to bring the predictions on the conservative
side. Therefore, explanations must be sought through
further investigations.
Another important design issue is the ductility or the ability
of a reinforced concrete (RC) member to deform at or near the
ultimate load without significant strength loss. Because
concrete becomes increasingly more brittle as its compressive
strength is increased, guaranteeing adequate ductility
represents one of the primary design concerns when HSC
is involved. Based on the current code provisions, it can
be analytically shown18 that, everything else remaining
the same, an increase in concrete strength leads to higher
ductility. Experimental evidence reported by many
researchers2-6,9,10,12-14 supports this prediction, except for
those by Ashour1 and Shin, Ghosh, and Moreno.19 In these
cases, test results have also shown enhanced ductility for
higher strength concrete beams, but only up to a concrete
strength of around 80 MPa. Thereafter, ductility decreases as the
concrete strength is increased. Further experimental evidence,
embracing concrete with compressive strength greater
than 80 MPa, is therefore necessary with analytical backing.
In view of this, the present study aims at investigating the
full flexural response of reinforced HSC beams with
concrete compressive strengths ranging from 40 to 130 MPa.
462
Test results
Concrete
Concrete
At yielding
At ultimate
At failure
strain
strength
Cracking
Tensile Compression
Age of
*
fc,100
,
load Pcr , Load Deflection Load Deflection Load Deflection capacity, concrete,
Longitudinal = As /bd, = As /bd, Tie
,
%
,
kN
,
mm
P
,
kN
,
mm
P
,
kN
,
mm
days
Beam
MPa
tensile bars
%
%
kN
s
y
y
u
u
f
f
cu
A111
42.8 1-T25 + 2-T20 1.25
0.30
0.62
35.5 300.78
7.7
342.84
23.0
291.52
51.2
0.0035
39
A211
42.8
4-T25
2.20
0.30
0.62
28.0
440.48
15.5
461.30
37.0
392.30
76.4
0.0033
B211
74.6
4-T25
2.20
0.30
0.62
51.5
420.40
14.6
495.18
50.0
||
||
0.0038
42
42
B211a
B311
73.6
72.8
4-T25
6-T25
2.20
3.46
0.30
0.31
0.62
0.62
64.0
49.0
456.70
575.68
14.9
17.0
500.90
751.96
42.0
26.1
426.62
639.76
91.6
28.3
0.0034
0.0036
17
44
B312
B313
72.8
72.8
6-T25
6-T25
3.46
3.46
0.31
0.31
1.23
1.85
40.0
42.0
560.36
580.26
16.9
16.1
730.22
742.94
24.4
27.0
619.86
631.45
49.9
69.5
0.0033
0.0037
55
57
B321
B331
77.0
72.8
6-T25
6-T25
3.46
3.46
0.62
0.94
0.62
0.62
45.0
50.0
551.16
590.38
15.5
16.5
765.06
772.80
34.4
27.0
649.70
657.68
46.8
46.0
0.0036
0.0033
50
51
B411
77.0
8-T25
4.73
0.32
0.62
36.5
621.34
15.5
950.40
30.6
807.80
37.6
0.0039
52
C211
85.6
4-T25 + 2-T16
2.71
0.30
0.62
52.0
560.94
18.2
650.42
44.1
552.20
58.1
0.0042
40
C311
C411
88.1
85.6
4-T25 + 4-T16
6-T25 + 2-T20
3.22
4.26
0.31
0.32
0.62
0.62
53.0
45.0
605.46
722.56
18.0
19.3
730.12
901.40
28.3
29.0
619.88
769.60
50.5
36.1
0.0030
0.0034
64
42
C511
D211
88.1
114.5
8-T25 + 2-T16
4-T25
5.31
2.20
0.33
0.30
0.62
0.62
44.5
71.0
811.82
506.00
20.8
16.0
880.60
605.00
23.3
38.0
749.96
515.00
33.3
80.2
0.0027
0.0032
67
28
E211
126.2
4-T25
2.20
0.30
0.62
72.0
506.00
15.9
595.20
40.0
505.90
78.0
0.0030
45
463
(1)
Researcher(s)
Present study
Concrete
No. of strength fc ,
beams
MPa
16
43 to 126
Ratio
M cr, exp
---------------M cr, ACI
Tensile
Compressive
reinforcement reinforcement
ratio , %
ratio , %
Mean
1.25 to 5.31 0.31 and 0.94 0.90
M cr, exp
-------------------M cr, cal 1
M cr, exp
-------------------M cr, cal 2
M cr, exp
-------------------M cr, cal 3
Standard
deviation
0.126
Mean
0.62
Standard
deviation
0.083
Mean
1.19
Standard
deviation
0.158
Mean
0.97
Standard
deviation
0.059
Ashour1
49 to 102
1.18 to 2.37
N/A*
1.02
0.131
0.69
0.124
0.85
0.162
0.82
0.148
Lambotte and
Taerwe6
34 to 81
0.48 to 1.45
N/A*
0.77
0.207
0.57
0.192
0.76
0.332
0.72
0.290
Paulson, Nilson,
and Hover7
37 to 91
1.49
0.0 to 1.49
0.68
0.114
0.49
0.118
0.80
0.393
0.74
0.317
Shin10
28
27 to 100
0.41 to 3.60
0.41 to 3.60
1.00
0.216
0.71
0.190
0.93
0.393
0.89
0.339
Four out of a total of 32 beams have been excluded from consideration as, for those beams, predicted values of shrinkage stresses were found to be larger than those of corresponding
modulus of rupture.
(2)
(3)
Table 3Predictions of maximum deflection at service load level for high-strength concrete beams
Range of parameters considered
Concrete
Tensile
Compressive
strength fc , reinforcement reinforcement
MPa
ratio , %
ratio , %
Mean
Researcher(s)
No. of
beams
Present study
16
43 to 126
1.25 to 5.31
0.31 to 0.94
Ratio
s, exp
--------------- s, cal 1
s, exp
----------- s, ACI
s, exp
--------------- s, cal 2
s, exp
--------------- s, cal 3
Standard
Mean* deviation*
Standard
deviation
Mean
Standard
deviation
Mean
Standard
deviation
1.26
0.082
1.23
0.066
1.22
0.068
0.93
0.059
49 to 102
1.18 to 2.37
1.17
0.065
1.23
0.161
1.18
0.094
0.91
0.053
27 to 69
2.04 to 3.67
0.34
1.27
0.121
1.27
0.109
1.26
0.110
0.96
0.089
Lambotte and
Taerwe6
34 to 81
0.48 to 1.45
1.17
0.116
1.33
0.313
1.21
0.183
0.94
0.082
Paulson, Nilson,
and Hover7
37 to 91
1.49
0.0 to 1.49
1.37
0.141
1.68
0.351
1.38
0.176
1.06
0.080
Shin10
23
27 to 100
0.41 to 3.60
0.41 to 3.60
1.56
0.272
2.03
0.761
1.75
0.501
1.26
0.243
Pastor, Nilson,
and Slate12
12
26 to 64
1.12 to 5.33
0.0 to 2.50
1.09
0.078
1.10
0.080
1.08
0.077
0.84
0.083
Ashour
For all of 67 literature1,5-7,10,12 beams considered, mean and standard deviation of ratio s,exp /s,cal3 are 1.04 and 0.226, respectively.
One out of total of six beams has been excluded from consideration as, for that beam, ratio of maximum moment to cracking moment ratio (Ma/Mcr ) was close to unity.
Eight out of a total of 31 beams have been excluded from consideration for same reason as mentioned in preceding note.
(4)
(5)
)0.33,
(s,ACI). Use of fr = 0.42( fc,150
20
as suggested by Rashid, Mansur, and Paramasivam, also
yields no improvement in the predictions s,cal1 as the mean
and SD of the ratio s,exp/s,cal1 are 1.23 and 0.066,
respectively. Similar observations have also been reported
by Pastor, Nilson, and Slate12 and Paulson, Nilson, and
Hover7 for reinforced HSC beams. Pastor, Nilson, and Slate12
reported that even the assumption of a fully cracked beam, that
is, use of Ie = Icr, was of little benefit. Analysis of a large
number of relevant test data on HSC beams, collected from the
literature,1,5-7,10,12 provides further evidence (Table 3) that
this method gives an unconservative estimate for service load
deflection of HSC beams. The underlying reason should then
466
Ratio
Beam
Maximum crack
width cr,exp, mm
A111
0.22
0.93
1.65
A211
0.17
1.07
1.52
M u, exp
Ratio, ---------------M u, ACI
Researcher(s)
No. of beams
studied
Range of fc
considered,
MPa
Present study
16
43 to 126
1.09
0.072
Standard
Mean* deviation*
B211
0.19
1.11
1.57
Ashour
49 to 102
1.02
0.032
B211a
0.18
1.04
1.47
B311
0.18
0.90
1.21
13
65 to 91
1.07
0.097
B312
B313
0.19
0.15
1.02
0.77
1.36
1.03
27 to 69
1.09
0.117
B321
0.18
0.91
1.21
34 to 81
1.00
0.043
10
B331
0.18
0.92
1.23
32
27 to 100
1.19
0.111
B411
C211
0.34
0.24
1.79
1.23
2.23
1.70
12
26 to 64
1.09
0.067
C311
C411
0.24
0.23
1.24
1.19
1.67
1.51
Leslie, Rajagopalan,
and Everard15
12
64 to 81
1.16
0.146
C511
D211
0.22
0.24
1.31
1.15
1.63
1.62
E211
0.22
1.09
1.10
(1.06)*
1.54
1.51
(1.46)*
0.236
(0.152)*
0.276
(0.205)*
Mean
Standard deviation
*
cr, exp
--------------- cr, BS
cr, exp
---------------- cr, G&L
Shin
*
For all 93 literature1,3,5,6,10,12,15 beams considered, mean and standard deviation of
ratio Mu,exp/Mu,ACI are 1.12 and 0.120, respectively.
d = -----f
y
(6)
(7)
2 ( b + d )A s
s = ---------------------------------bds
(8)
(9)
REFERENCES
1. Ashour, S. A., Effect of Compressive Strength and Tensile Reinforcement Ratio on Flexural Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Beams,
Engineering Structures, V. 22, No. 5, 2000, pp. 413-423.
2. Mansur, M. A.; Chin, M. S.; and Wee, T. H., Flexural Behavior of
High-Strength Concrete Beams, ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 6,
Nov.-Dec. 1997, pp. 663-674.
3. Sarker, S.; Adwan, O.; and Munday, J. G. L., High Strength Concrete:
An Investigation of the Flexural Behavior of High Strength RC Beams,
The Structural Engineer, V. 75, No. 7, 1997, pp. 115-121.
4. Pendyala, R.; Mendis, P.; and Patnaikuni, I., Full-Range Behavior of
High-Strength Concrete Flexural Members: Comparison of Ductility
Parameters of High and Normal-Strength Concrete Members, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1996, pp. 30-35.
5. Lin, C.-H.; Ling, F.-S.; and Hwang, C.-L., Flexural Behavior of High
Strength Fly Ash Concrete Beams, Journal of the Chinese Institute of
Engineers, Taiwan, V. 15, No. 1, 1992, pp. 85-92.
6. Lambotte, H., and Taerwe, L. R., Deflection and Cracking of High
Strength Concrete Beams and Slabs, High-Strength Concrete, Second
International Symposium, SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1990, pp. 109-128.
7. Paulson, K. A.; Nilson, A. H.; and Hover, K. C., Immediate and
Long-Term Deflection of High Strength Concrete Beams, Research Report
No. 89-3, Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca,
N.Y., 1989, 230 pp.
8. Marro. P., Bending and Shear Tests Up to Failure of Beams Made with
High-Strength Concrete, International Symposium on Utilization of High
Strength Concrete, Stavanger, Norway, June 15-18, 1987, pp. 183-193.
9. Uzumeri, S. M., and Basset, R., Behaviors of High Strength Concrete
Members, International Symposium on Utilization of High Strength
Concrete, Stavanger, June 15-18, 1987, Norway, pp. 237-248.
10. Shin, S.-W., Flexural Behavior Including Ductility of Ultra-HighStrength Concrete Members, PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Chicago,
Ill., 1986, 232 pp.
11. Swamy, R. N., High-Strength ConcreteMaterial Properties and
Structural Behavior, High-Strength Concrete, SP-87, H. G. Russell, ed.,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1985, pp. 119-146.
12. Pastor, J. A.; Nilson, A. H.; and Slate, F. O., Behavior of High
Strength Concrete Beams, Research Report No. 84-3, Department of
Structural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., 1984, 311 pp.
13. Okada, K., and Azimi, M. A., Strength and Ductility of Reinforced
High Strength Concrete Beams, Memoirs of the Faculty of Engineering,
471
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.