54 views

Uploaded by Jackieli Janet Palma

comportamiento de bloque en tension para concretos de alta resistencia

- Mechnical Strength
- how to design slab in SAFE
- Copy of 98636355 Footing Design Sheet
- Corner Cast in Place Anchor
- Frame Analysis Design of Reinforced Concrete Two-Way Slabs A
- 1_introduction.ppt
- Pillar & Roof Span Guidelines
- J. ACI.pdf
- FEA Pressure Vessel
- DGGHB N
- Concrete Stress Distribituion in Ultimated Strength Design
- Dynamic Behavior of a Mediterranean Natural Stone Under Tensile Loading
- J. ACI.pdf
- STRESS ANALYSIS OF BULK LEVER USING FEA ANALYSIS
- Gusset Guidance
- Elasto-Plastic and Finite Element Analysis Using Beam-Column Element for Concrete Filled Steel Tubes Subjected to Torsion
- Centrifugal Fan Impeller Stress
- A Distributed Plasticity Model For
- F1839.1479757-1
- Ultimate Analysis of PWR Prestressed Concrete Containment Subjeted to Internal Pressure

You are on page 1of 9

TECHNICAL PAPER

for High-Strength Concrete

Most concrete codes do not explicitly cover concrete with strengths above

50-60 MPa (7000 to 9000 psi). Compression stress blocks from three current codes that do allow design for high-strength concrete (HSC) sections

are presented. Comparisons of test data from the literature to strengths calculated using the current ACI rectangular stress block indicate it is not

conservative for high strength concrete column sections failing in compression. New equations for the parameters that define the ACI rectangular

stress block are suggested and compared to tests.

Keywords:columns; design; flexural strength; high-strength concrete; column interaction diagrams; reinforced concrete; stress-strain relationships.

INTRODUCTION

In North America the design of reinforced concrete for

flexure is based on a rectangular compression stress block.

An analytical study by Garcia and Nilson,1 based on stressstrain curves of concentrically loaded cylinders with a peak

stress equal to 0.85 f'c suggests that the ACI rectangular

stress block is unconservative by up to 12% for the design of

high strength concrete (HSC) rectangular sections subjected

to axial loads with small eccentricities. The ACI code equations for the flexural stress block for HSC were based on

tests by Kaar, et al., 2 and Nedderman, 3 where the sections

were subjected to axial forces with small eccentricities. Leslie, et al., 4 and Garcia and Nilson have proposed non-rectangular stress blocks for design of HSC sections. Swartz, et

al.,5 and Leslie, et al., suggest that the code value of 0.003 for

the ultimate compressive strain is not conservative for design

of HSC sections.

In order to design a concrete member that is subjected to

different cases of loading, an interaction diagram is generated for the cross-section. Using different stress-strain equations for concrete in compression can lead to substantial

differences in the resulting interaction diagrams.

The current Norwegian code has a stress block specifically

derived for HSC. It is conservative compared to the ACI

code. The difference between interaction diagrams generated using these two codes for a HSC section is significant for

the part of the diagram where the axial load is high (when the

section is subjected to axial forces with small eccentricities).

ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1997

stress block is negligible.

In this paper the ACI design procedures for high-strength

concrete and ultra high-strength concrete sections (HSC up

to 100 MPa, [14,500 psi]; and UHSC over 100 MPa) are reviewed and new stress block equations are suggested. The

study includes compression zones with rectangular and triangular cross-sectional areas.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

This paper compares the results from different tests conducted on concentrically and eccentrically loaded normal

strength concrete (NSC), HSC, and UHSC columns to interaction diagrams based on the ACI rectangular stress block.

New equations for the parameters that define the ACI rectangular stress block are suggested.

REVIEW OF CURRENT DESIGN CODES

ACI 318-M896 and Canadian Code

CAN3-A23.3-M847

The ACI code and the Canadian code have identical stress

block provisions. Both codes specify the concrete compression strength using 152x304 mm (6x12 in.) cylinders. In the

ACI and CSA codes, rectangular, trapezoidal, parabolic, or

other stress blocks may be assumed, provided the relationship between the concrete compressive stress distribution

and the resulting concrete strain is in agreement with test data. Figure 1(c) shows the stress block parameters obtained

from tests: k1 , k 2, and k3 . The rectangular stress block is defined by the parameters and as shown in Figure 1(d) (k1 ,

k2 , k3 , and are defined in the Notation). A distinction has

been made between the k1 , k2 , and k3 obtained from tests and

the parameters and used to define the rectangular stress

ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 1, January-February 1997.

Received Feb. 8, 1995, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright

1997, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of

copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the November-December 1997 ACI Structural Journal if

received by July 1, 1997.

Bridge Design Engineers, in Vancouver, Canada. He received his BSc and MSc from

Cairo University and his PhD from the University of Alberta. His research interests

are reinforced and prestressed structures and the applications of high-strength concrete in concrete structures.

James G. MacGregor is an ACI Fellow as well as University Professor Emeritus at

the University of Alberta. He is a member of ACI Technical Committees 318, 441, and

445, and is a past president of the Institute.

block because the rectangular stress block uses two parameters to approximate the effects of the three measured in tests.

In the ACI and CSA codes the parameter is assumed to

have a constant value of 0.85. The parameter is equal to

0.85 for concrete strengths, f'c up to 30 MPa and is reduced

continuously at a rate of 0.08 for each 10 MPa of strength in

excess of 30 MPa. The parameter is not taken less than

0.65. The limiting compressive strain is assumed to have a

constant value of 0.003. The parameter k2 is taken equal to

0.5.

Norwegian Code NS 3473-19898

The highest grade for normal density concrete based on

tests of 100x100x100 mm (4 in.) cubes is 105 MPa (C 105)

(15,225 psi). The conversion factor to a 152/304 mm cylinder is given as 0.8 up to grade C55 and the cube strength minus 11 MPa (1595 psi) for higher grades. The Norwegian

code assumes an effective k3 value (ratio between structural

strength to cylinder strength, see Fig. 1(c)) that decreases

Table 1Stress block parameters of Norwegian

Code NS 3473-19898

Cube strength

fcube, MPa

Cylinder

strength fc,

MPa

Strength in

structure

fcn = k 3fc ,

MPa

R = k1

C = k2

25

20

16.8

0.877

0.445

35

28

22.4

0.829

0.424

45

36

28.0

0.804

0.413

55

44

33.6

0.778

0.403

65

54

39.2

0.751

0.392

75

64

44.8

0.722

0.382

85

74

50.4

0.66

0.361

95

84

56.0

105

94

61.6

Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.

strength of 20 MPa (2900 psi) to 0.66 for cylinder strength of

94 MPa (13,630 psi). Figure 2(a) illustrates the recommended stress strain relationship for different concrete grades.

The strain values at the peak stress, , change from 0.00197

to 0.00215 and the strain values at ultimate strain, , change

from 0.00384 to 0.00268 with a change in the cylinder

strength from 20 to 94 MPa. Equations that define the parameters of the stress-strain relationship are given in the Norwegian code. The symbol fcn in the figure represents the

strength of the concrete in the structure (fcn/f'c is equal to k3 ).

The moment and the normal force capacity of rectangular

sections can be calculated by direct use of the magnitude of

the resultant force (R), which corresponds to k1 , the strength

of concrete in the structure, fcn, and the position of the resultant (C), which corresponds to k2 . Table 1 (from Thorenfeldt,

et al.9 ) gives values of fcn, R and C for different concrete

strengths.

Finnish Code Rak MK4 1989 10

The highest grade concrete defined using 150x150x150

mm (6 in.) cubes is 100 MPa (K100) (14,500 psi). The conversion factor to a 1 52x304 mm cylinder is taken as the cube

strength minus 8 MPa (1160 psi). The Finnish code assumes

a constant value of k3 equal to 0.70.

Figure 2(b) shows the stress-strain relationship recommended by the code. The symbol fck in the figure represents

the concrete strength in the structure.

CEB/FIP Model MC9011

The highest grade concrete defined using the uniaxial

compression strength of 150x300 mm cylinders is 80 MPa

(C80) (11,600 psi) for normal density concrete. Stress-strain

diagrams of the form shown schematically in Figure 2(c) are

presented for analytical purposes. The value of is set at

0.0022. Values of E c, Ec1, vary with changes in the concrete

grade.

For design, two stress blocks are described, the first a parabola-rectangle that consists of a second degree parabola

with apex at a stress of 0.85 f'c and a strain of 0.002, followed

by a yield plateau with a uniform stress of 0.85f' c for strains

between 0.002 and 0.0035, and the second a rectangular

stress block with a function of the concrete strength, decreasing from 0.782 for f'c = 20 MPa (2900 psi) to 0.578 for

f'c = 80 MPa (11,600 psi), and = 1.0.

2

Figure 3

Specimens

Figure 2

pression

FOR USE IN THE ACI RECTANGULAR STRESS

BLOCK

Structure to Cylinder Compression Strength

Ratio, k3

The parameter k3 is the ratio between the strength of the

concrete in columns compared with concrete of the same

mix in standard compression test cylinders (see Figure 1(c)).

This parameter can be determined from tests on concentrically loaded columns by dividing the part of the maximum

load carried by the concrete section by the gross cross-section area multiplied by the cylinder compression strength. It

can also be determined from tests on eccentrically loaded

columns, as described in Reference 2 and those reported in

two companion papers, References 12 and 13. In this case

the parameter k3 cannot be obtained from the equilibrium of

the external and internal loads since the column strength is

related to the cylinder strength by the parameters k1 k 3 as illustrated in Figure 1(c) and it is necessary to compute the

stress-strain relationship of the cross-section with certain assumptions to calculate k3 .

ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1997

the use of a constant value of k3 equal to 0.85. This recommendation was based, in part, on the results of an experimental program on concentrically loaded plain concrete highstrength cylinders of different sizes, conducted by Martinez,

et al.15 The CEB/FIP16 state-of-the-art report on HSC included results from two test series on concentrically loaded reinforced HSC columns with strengths ranging from 75 to 100

MPa (10,900 to 14,500 psi), conducted by Hiseth and

Jensen17 and Bjerkeli, et al.18 The average value of k3 was

0.82 in the first test series and ranged between 0.94 to 0.96

in the second test series.

Figure 3 shows k3 values obtained from 49 tests of eccentrically loaded columns with concrete strengths greater than

40 MPa (5800 psi). All of the specimens were tested under a

triangular strain distribution with zero strain on one side of

the column. The test series by Kaar, et al.,2 and Swartz, et

al.,5 were on plain concrete specimens. The test series by

Schade19 and Ibrahim and MacGregor12 included both plain

and reinforced concrete specimens. For the latter two series,

the net loads and moments carried by the longitudinal reinforcement at failure were subtracted out, based on the reported stress strain curves, before computing k3 . The figure

indicates that despite the scatter in the test results, the ACI

value of 0.85 is conservative with respect to the values of k3

obtained from eccentrically loaded tests. This conclusion

does not mean that the ACI code is conservative in predicting the applied loads on eccentrically loaded sections since

the force in the cross-section is related to the cylinder

strength by the product of the parameters k1 k3 and the moment arm factor k2 , as discussed before. Although not evident in the figure, there were no significant differences

between the k3 values of the plain concrete specimens and

the reinforced concrete specimens.

Figure 4 shows the values of k3 obtained from 90 tests of

concentrically loaded columns. The columns had a wide

range of amounts of lateral reinforcement ranging from columns without any lateral reinforcement to columns that had

more reinforcement than required by the ACI code for seismic regions. The loads carried by the longitudinal reinforcement at failure were subtracted out, based on the reported

stress strain curves, before computing k3. The values of k3

obtained from the test series conducted by Sheikh and

3

Columns

Figure 5 Normalized ACI Interaction Diagram for Rectangular Plain Concrete Sections

Uzumeri 20 were calculated using the gross cross-sectional

area and the peak load that occurred after spalling of the cover. This peak load was higher than the maximum load before

spalling because of the confinement effects. For the other

tests the k 3 value was calculated at the first peak that occurred at or before spalling of the cover.

Figure 4 shows that the ACI value of 0.85 is not conservative. All the test results of Cusson and Paultre21 were lower

than the code value. The figure also shows more scatter between the results of different HSC column test series than

different NSC column test series, and a trend for k3 to become lower as the concrete strength increases. Some test series of HSC columns showed high values of k 3, on average,

4

were also reported in the FIP/CEB16 report on HSC, as discussed before. Other tests conducted at the University of

Toronto (not plotted in Figs. 3 and 4) showed values of k3 as

low as 70% of the value given by the ACI code. These tests

included eccentrically loaded columns made with 60 MPa

(8700 psi) concrete tested by Sundararaj22 and concentrically loaded columns made with 66 MPa concrete tested by Polat. 23 Tests on concentrically loaded spirally reinforced

cylinders made with 63 MPa (9100 psi) concrete conducted

by Martinez 24 (also not plotted in Fig. 4) showed an average

value of k3 equal to 0.8. The lower strength concrete specimens of the same test series showed an average value of k3

equal to 0.98.

The lower values of k 3 reported in the excluded HSC column tests were explained by the researchers in different

ways. Martinez claimed that the quality of the concrete in the

protective cover of the spiral columns was inferior to that of

the concrete inside their cores. This difference in quality is

believed to have occurred because of inadequate compaction

of the concrete in the cover caused by the low workability of

the HSC mixes. The low failure loads of University of Toronto tests were explained by the early spalling of the concrete cover, possibly caused by the formation of spliting

cracks in the plane of the longitudinal reinforcing bars. Cusson and Paultre explained the low capacity of their columns

by the existence of longitudinal planes of weakness between

the cover and the core due to the high density of steel reinforcement.

More tests on concentrically loaded HSC columns are required to provide better understanding of the behavior of

these columns. The design codes should provide a conservative value of k 3 compared with the available test data.

Parameters Defining the Rectangular Stress Block

The stress block parameters k1 k 3 and k2 obtained from previous tests and two companion papers12,13 are used in the following analysis to check the ACI design procedures. The

experimental data are given in Refs. 2, 3, 5, 12, 25, and 29.

These tests had a wide range of variables including rate of

loading, size of specimen, concrete mix design, type of aggregates, amount of reinforcement, and test procedures.

The ACI rectangular stress block parameters were used to

generate interaction diagrams for the plain concrete sections

as shown in Figure 5. The interaction diagram was normalized with respect to f'c and the cross-section dimensions. For

reinforced concrete sections, this normalized interaction diagram represents the contribution of the concrete section to

the loads and the moments carried by the section after excluding the part of the loads and the moments that were carried by the reinforcement. In the normalized interaction

diagram each test can be represented by one point Rt , as illustrated in Figure 5. This point represents the maximum capacity of the specimen obtained during the test. The

coordinates of this point, nt and mt , are a function of the reported stress block parameters k1 , k2 , k3 and the relative position of the neutral axis in the test, t where t = c/h, which

is equal to 1.0 for the strain distribution in Figure 1(b). For

each test these coordinates were determined using the following equations:

ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1997

with ACI 318-89

Normal force = C = k1 k 3 bcf c = k 1 k 3 bhf c

(1)

C

n t = ------------ = t k1 k3

bhf c

(3)

M

= t k1 k3 ( 0.5 t k2 )

m t = -------------2

bh fc

(4)

To generate the normalized interaction diagram corresponding to the code values of and , a series of points in

that diagram are calculated. Each point in the diagram has

the coordinates n and m defined by the following equations:

n = 1 1

(3a)

m = 0.5 1 1 ( 1 1 )

(4a)

the n t and m t of the test point except that the code stress block

parameters and are used instead of the stress block parameters obtained from the test. By changing the value of ,

different points are calculated and the normalized interaction

diagram shown in Figure 5 can be generated.

Figure 5 also shows that any data point can be defined by

the radial distance from the origin (0-Rt ) and the slope . The

relative position of the neutral axis depth for the point in

the interaction diagram that has the same slope , Rc, can be

calculated from the equation of tan , as follows:

1

1

t a n = ----------------------- = ------------------------------0.5 t k2 0.5 c 1 2

(5)

The percentage ratio , defined in Figure 5 indicates how far

the test point is from the ACI interaction diagram. A positive

value of for a particular test point means that the code is

conservative while a negative value of means that the code

ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1997

for ACI 318-89

is not conservative in predicting the maximum capacity of

the tested specimen. The ratio is equivalent to (test/calculated - 1.0) expressed as a percentage.

The percentage ratio was calculated for a total of 94 tests

of eccentrically loaded columns. All of the specimens, except for those by Rsch,25 were of C-shaped (in elevation)

specimens. Figure 6 shows the percentage ratio of these

tests ploted versus the concrete strength. All the tests were on

plain concrete specimens except those by Ibrahim12 and

Schade.19 Before making the comparisons for the reinforced

specimens, the net axial load and moment carried by the reinforcement was subtracted out, based on the strains in the

various steel layers and the stress strain curves for the steel.

Figure 6 indicates that the ACI code is not conservative for

most concrete strengths, especially for HSC and UHSC sections. Most of the test points were between 20 % from the

code prediction. About 55% of the test points had lower

strengths than the code prediction. The mean value of for

all the tests was -0.1% (test/calculated capacity of concrete =

0.999) with a standard deviation of 9.91% (coefficient of

variation C.O.V of 0.0992). Figure 7 shows the mean value

of in each 10 MPa increment of concrete strength. The figure shows that the mean value of 8 decreased from about

+12% for NSC test points to about -12% for UHSC test

points. Figures 6 and 7 suggest that the ACI rectangular

stress block parameters should be modified.

Proposed Parameters for the Rectangular

Stress Block

The first step in deriving stress block parameters was to

find a more accurate equation to represent the position of the

resultant force. The position of the resultant force is represented by the parameter k2 obtained from test results, or k2 =

/2 as suggested by the ACI code. Figure 8 compares the experimental data for k2 and the current ACI equation for /2

plotted versus the compression strength. The ACI value of /

2 falls below the data showing that it is too small. If /2 is

too small, the internal lever arm is too big and the moment

5

f c

1 = 0.85 -------- 0.725

800

fc

1 = 0.85 -------------------- 0.725

116, 000

capacity will be overestimated. The proposed equation plotted in Figure 8 has been chosen to pass through the center of

the data and is conservative compared to the current ACI

equation for any concrete strength. The expression for is

represented by the equation:

fc

1 = 0.95 -------- 0.70

400

fc i n M P a

(6a)

fc

1 = 0.95 ----------------- 0.70

f c in psi

(6b)

58, 0 0 0

The second step of the analysis was to choose the parameter . This parameter should provide a conservative lower

bound for the experimental data of k obtained from concentrically loaded columns. It also should provide conservative

design for eccentric sections when combined with the parameter . Several trials were made to choose a suitable

equation for . For each trial, figures similar to Figures 6 and

7 were used to check the validity of this equation for design.

These trials showed that the use of a constant value for

could provide a safe design for HSC and UHSC sections but

the resulting value of a1 would be much lower than 0.85 and

would give very conservative design for NSC sections. The

parameter is best represented by an equation that decreases

with an increase in the concrete strength. The following

equation was chosen to represent the parameter

6

fc i n M P a

fc in psi

(7a)

(7b)

and are both taken constant and are equal to 0.725 and

0.70, respectively. The shape of the actual stress-strain curve

for fc greater than 100 MPa is very close to triangular. The

stress block parameters and for a triangular stress-strain

curve with the maximum stress = fc, are 0.5 and 0.33, respectively. The same stress block parameters using the proposed equations are 0.5075 and 0.35, respectively. Figure 9

compares the experimental data for k3 obtained from concentrically loaded columns and the k 3 or relationships from

different codes. The figure shows that the ACI value of 0.85

is not conservative, although the Norwegian code is very

conservative while the proposed equation provides a lower

bound for most of the data points. Figure 10 shows the experimental data, the current and proposed design parameters

plotted versus the concrete strength. The figure shows that

the proposed parameters give higher resultant forces for LSC

and HSC sections than the ACI equations while they give

lower resultant forces for UHSC sections.

Figure 11 shows the percentage ratio for the same 94

tests of eccentrically loaded columns calculated with respect

to the normalized interaction diagram based on the proposed

design parameters. Only 16% of the experimental data points

had lower capacity than the predicted capacity, four of which

were more than 5% low. Figure 12 shows that the mean value

of is greater than zero for all concrete strengths. The mean

value of for all of the 94 tests was 10.8% (test/calculated

capacity of concrete = 1.108) with a standard deviation of

9.93% (C.O.V of 0.0896).

Figures 13 and 14 show the interaction diagrams generated

using the ACI code, the Norwegian code, and the proposed

parameters for two eccentrically loaded specimens tested by

Ibrahim and MacGregor. The ACI interaction diagrams

overestimate the capacity of these specimens. The interaction diagrams of the Norwegian code provide a very conserACI Structural Journal / January-February 1997

vative estimate to the capacity of these specimens. The

proposed parameters provide a safe design.

Design of Triangular Compression Zones

A triangular stress block with the extreme compression fiber at the apex is a particularly severe test of the applicability

of a rectangular stress block because the tip reaches the limiting compressive strain before the bulk of the stress block

reaches an inelastic state. The ACI design parameters and the

proposed parameters were used to compute the maximum

strength of the six triangular specimens tested by Ibrahim

and MacGregor. The computed strengths were compared

with the maximum strength measured during each test. This

analysis followed the same procedures described earlier

(Eqs. 1 to 5) for rectangular specimens illustrated in Figure

5(b). Figure 15 shows the strains and stresses in a triangular

cross-section. The test specimens had b = 2h. The coordinates of each data point (nt , mt ) were calculated as follows:

2

2 2

ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1997

Figure 13

Figure 14

2

2

Bending moment = M = C ---h k c = Ch -- k2 (9)

3

3

2C = 2 k 2 k 2-- k

n t = -----------t 1 3

t 2

3

bhf c

(10)

2 M = 2 k 2 k 2-- k

m t = -------------t 1 3

t 2

2

3

bh fc

(11)

in that diagram was calculated. Each point had coordinates

similar to those of Eqs. 10 and 11 based on the ACI design

parameters and instead of k1 , k2 and k 3 . The resulting

equations and the expression for tan 6 of the test point were

as follows:

2 2

n = 1 1

(10a)

7

lower bound of experimental data.

Figure 15

RECOMMENDATIONS

The ACI design procedures for HSC and UHSC sections

were investigated. The results of tests conducted on 90 tests

of concentrically and 94 tests of eccentrically loaded columns made from NSC, HSC, and UHSC were used in this investigation. Based on the analysis presented in the paper the

following conclusions and design recommendations are

drawn:

1. More tests are required to investigate the reasons for the

early and sudden spalling of the concrete cover reported in

some of the test series for HSC and UHSC columns.

2. The current ACI rectangular stress block parameters

were found to overestimate the moment capacity of HSC and

UHSC columns failing in compression. A rectangular stress

block can be used for design, with a limiting strain value of

0.003 and modified stress block parameters and as

follows:

f c

1 = 0.85 -------- 0.725

800

fc

1 = 0.95 -------- 0.70

400

Ibrahim and MacGregor12

fc i n M P a

fc i n M P a

(7)

(6)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

2 2

m = 2-- 1 1 ( 1 1 )

3

1

1

t a n = ------------------------= ----------------------------------2 3 t k2 2 3 ( 1 c 1 )

(11a)

(12)

Figure 16 shows the results from the analysis of the six triangular specimens. All six specimens had lower capacity

than that predicted by the ACI code as shown by the square

points. For the triangular specimens the mean value of using the ACI design procedures was -11.8% (test/calculated

capacity of concrete = 0.882) with a standard deviation of

6.29% (C.O.V of 0.071). Only one specimen had lower capacity than that predicted by the proposed parameters as

shown by the crosses. The mean value of using the proposed equations was 2.0% (test/calculated capacity of concrete =1.02) and a standard deviation of 6.21% (C.O.V of

0.0609).

Limiting Strain

Values of the maximum strain , obtained from specimens

of Ibrahim and MacGregor (0.0033 to 0.0046 for HSC and

0.0039 to 0.0043 for UHSC rectangular columns) were considerably higher than the limiting strain value of 0.003.

These specimens showed higher strain values at the peak

stress than the maximum strain values from previous test series of HSC columns. Despite that, based on the reported values of maximum strain in previous tests of C-shaped

specimens, the value of 0.003 for the ultimate strain speci8

Funding for this research was provided by the Canadian Network of Centres of Excellence on High Performance Concrete, now known as Concrete

Canada.

NOTATION

bwidth of compression zone

cneutral axis depth

f'c cylinder compressive strength of concrete

hoverall height of the cross section

k1 ratio of the average compressive stress to the maximum compressive

stress

k2 ratio of the distance between the extreme compressive fiber and the

resultant of the compressive stress to the distance between the

extreme fiber and the neutral axis

k3 ratio of the maximum compressive stress in a stress block in a structure

to the cylinder strength

ratio of the stress in the rectangular stress block to the cylinder strength

, ratio of the depth of the rectangular stress block to c

ultimate compressive strain of concrete

ratio of neutral axis depth to the overall depth of the section

REFERENCES

1. Garcia, D. T., and Nilson, A. H., "A Comparative Study of Eccentrically Loaded High Strength Concrete Columns," Research Report No. 90-2,

Department of Civil Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, January 1990,

206 pp.

2. Kaar, P. H., Hanson, N. W., and Capell, H. T.,"Stress-Strain Characteristics of High Strength Concrete," ACI Special Publication 55-7, Douglas

McHenry International Symposium on Concrete and Concrete Structures,

ACI, Detroit, 1978, pp. 161-185.

3. Nedderman, H., "Flexural Stress Distribution in Very High Strength

Concrete," M.A.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of

Texas, Arlington, 1973.

4. Leslie, K. E., Rajagopalan, K. S., and Everard, N. J., "Flexural Behavior of High Strength Concrete Beams," ACI J OURNAL, Vol. 73, No. 9, Sept.

1976, pp. 517-521.

5. Swartz, S. E., Nikaeen, A., Narayan Babu, H. D., Periyakaruppan, N.,

and Refai, T. M. E., "Structural Bending Properties of High Strength Concrete," ACI Special Publication 87-9, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,

1985, pp. 147-178.

6. ACI 318-89 "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete,"

ACI Committee 318, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1989, 353 pp.

7. CAN3-A23.3 M84, "Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings,"

Canadian Standard Association, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada, Dec. 1984, 280 pp.

8. NS 3473 1989, "Norwegian Standard for Design of Concrete Structures," The Norwegian Council for Building Standardisation, N.B.R., Oslo,

Norway, 1989.

9. Thorenfeldt, E., Tomaszewicz, A., and Jensen, J. J., "Mechanical

Properties of High Strength Concrete and Application in Design," Utilization of High Strength Concrete, Proceedings, First International Symposium in Stavanger, Norway, 1987, pp. 149-159.

10. Rak MK4 1989, National Building Code of Finland, Concrete Structures, Concrete Association of Finland, 1989.

11. CEB/FIP Model MC9O, Committee Euro-International du Beton,

Bulletin d'Information Nos. 195 and 196, Lausanne, Mar. 1990, 348 pp.

12.Ibrahim, H. H. H., and MacGregor, J. G., "Tests of Eccentrically

Loaded High-Strength Concrete Columns," accepted for publication in the

ACI Structural Journal, Mss 8741.

13.Ibrahim, H. H. H., and MacGregor, J. G., "Flexural Behavior of Laterally Reinforced High Strength Concrete Sections," accepted for publication in the ACI Structural Journal, Mss 8745.

14. ACI Committee 363, "State of the Art Report on High-Strength Concrete," ACI JOURNAL , Vol. 81, No. 4, July-Aug. 1984, pp. 364-411.

15. Martinez, S., Nilson, A. H., and Slate, F. O., "Short-Term Mechanical Properties of High-Strength Light-Weight Concrete," Department

Report No. 82-9, Structural Engineering Department, Cornell University,

Ithaca, Aug. 1982, 98 pp.

16. CEB/FIP, "High Strength Concrete State-of-the-Art Report," CEB

Bulletin d'Information No. 197, 1990, 61 pp.

17. Hoiseth, Hoff, and Jensen, "Hoyfast Betong," Delrapport 2. Soyler

Under Sentrisk Last., SINTEF Report STF65 A83049, 1983.

18. Bjerkeli, L., Tomaszewicz, A., and Jensen, J. J., "Deformation Properties and Ductility of High Strength Concrete," Utilization of High

Strength Concrete, Proceedings , Second International Symposium in Berkeley, Calif., 1990, pp. 215-238.

19. Schade, J. E., "Flexural Concrete Stress in High Strength Concrete

Columns," M.A.Sc Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of

20. Sheikh, S. A., and Uzumeri, S. M., "Strength and Ductility of Tied

Concrete Columns," J. Struct. Div., ASCE, Vol. 106, STS, May 1980,

pp. 1079-1102.

21. Cusson, D., and Paultre, P. "Behavior of High-Strength Concrete

Columns Confined by Rectangular Ties under Concentric Loading,"

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Report SMS92/02, Aug. 1992, 39 pp.

22. Sundararaj, P., "High Strength Concrete Columns Under Eccentric

Load," M.A.Sc Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of

Toronto, 1991, 261 pp.

23. Polat, M. B., "Behavior of Normal and High Strength Concrete under

Axial Compression," M.A.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,

University of Toronto, 1992, 175 pp.

24. Martinez, S., "Spirally Reinforced High Strength Concrete Columns," PhD Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, Jan. 1983.

25. Rusch, H., "Tests on the Strength of the Flexural Compression

Zone," Bulletin N9. 120, Deutscher Ausschuss Fiir Stahlbeton, Berlin,

1955, 94 pp.

26. Richart, F. E., Brandtzaeg, A., and Brown, R. L., "The Failure of

Plain and Spirally Reinforced Concrete in Compression," University of lllinois Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 190, Urbana, Apr. 1929,

73 pp.

27. Richart, F. E., and Brown, R. L., "An Investigation of Reinforced

Concrete Columns," University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station,

Bulletin No. 267, Urbana, June 1934, 91 pp.

28. Richart, F. E., Draffin, J. O., Olson, T. A., and Heitman, R. H., "The

Effect of Eccentric Loading, Protective Shells, Slenderness Ratio, and

Other Variables in Reinforced Concrete Columns," University of Illinois

Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 368, Urbana, Nov. 1947, 128 pp.

29. Hognestad, E., Hanson, N. W., and McHenry, D., "Concrete Stress

Distribution in Ultimate Strength Design," ACI JO URN AL, Proceedings Vol.

52, Dec. 1955, pp. 455A79.

30. Yong, Y. K., Nour, M. G., and Nawy, E. G., "Behavior of Laterally

Confined High-Strength Concrete under Axial Loads," J. Struct. Div.,

ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 2, Feb. 1988, pp. 332-351.

- Mechnical StrengthUploaded byDivya Daniel
- how to design slab in SAFEUploaded bySaad Ullah
- Copy of 98636355 Footing Design SheetUploaded byAntonius Ajalah
- Corner Cast in Place AnchorUploaded bywaweng22
- Frame Analysis Design of Reinforced Concrete Two-Way Slabs AUploaded byaboalhassan
- 1_introduction.pptUploaded byZabid Ullah
- Pillar & Roof Span GuidelinesUploaded byAldi Bolang Bocah Ilang
- J. ACI.pdfUploaded byJunior Garcia
- FEA Pressure VesselUploaded bynaim
- DGGHB NUploaded byTata Pov
- Concrete Stress Distribituion in Ultimated Strength DesignUploaded byjsgalvis
- Dynamic Behavior of a Mediterranean Natural Stone Under Tensile LoadingUploaded byShahab Yazdegerdi
- J. ACI.pdfUploaded bySamir Vara Medina
- STRESS ANALYSIS OF BULK LEVER USING FEA ANALYSISUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- Gusset GuidanceUploaded byAnkit Suri
- Elasto-Plastic and Finite Element Analysis Using Beam-Column Element for Concrete Filled Steel Tubes Subjected to TorsionUploaded byTooma David
- Centrifugal Fan Impeller StressUploaded byMyself Formylife
- A Distributed Plasticity Model ForUploaded byYahia Raad Al-Ani
- F1839.1479757-1Uploaded byThaweekarn Changthong
- Ultimate Analysis of PWR Prestressed Concrete Containment Subjeted to Internal PressureUploaded bydavid david david
- Discussion_ Note on Beam-Column Moment Amplication FactorUploaded bygeorgesnomicos_60346
- Splices of columns.docUploaded bydsananda
- Arch DamsUploaded bySuperb Hard
- AS3600-2009 Wall DesignUploaded byMREFAAT
- Anchor Bolts ACI318 2002Uploaded byAlina Corcoz Iliuţă
- Lec 22 ColumnsUploaded byAli Ammar

- LAS REGIONES GEOGRÁFICAS DEL PERÚUploaded byJackieli Janet Palma
- puente extradosadoUploaded byJackieli Janet Palma
- expo1Uploaded byJackieli Janet Palma
- Trabajo de PuertosUploaded byJackieli Janet Palma
- AHMSA Diseño de estructuras de Acero Capitulo 2.pdfUploaded byErnesto Juarez Hernandez
- Rne-condiciones de DiseñoUploaded byGrace Ojeda
- Expo EgiptoUploaded byJackieli Janet Palma
- Vdc Capeco I-2013 (1)Uploaded byJackieli Janet Palma
- Manual Revit 2011 2Uploaded byJackieli Janet Palma
- mezclas asfalticasUploaded bypuriqayar
- Perfil Del Proyecto TecnologicoUploaded byJackieli Janet Palma
- 1 OSCEUploaded byJackieli Janet Palma
- NANOTECNOLOGÍAUploaded byAdriana Campos
- NANOTECNOLOGÍAUploaded byAdriana Campos
- NANOTECNOLOGÍAUploaded byAdriana Campos
- Propiedades Del ConcretoUploaded byJackieli Janet Palma
- Paper JackieliUploaded byJackieli Janet Palma
- Paper JackieliUploaded byJackieli Janet Palma
- Vector EsUploaded byJackieli Janet Palma

- Vt Construction Spec HDPE LLDPE LinerUploaded byKosan Namnam
- Analysis and Design Reinforced Concrete FoundationsUploaded byandcos
- ch36Uploaded bynaconnet
- FinalUploaded byJohn Aries Almelor Sarza
- 10-Reliability-based Sensitivity Analysis for Prestressed Concrete Girder BridgesUploaded bymghu70
- CRSI-Designers responsibility for rebar design.pdfUploaded byk_maheswari3397
- Comparison of ROBOT and MIDAS GENUploaded byAshish Loya
- Assessment of Reinforcement CorrosionUploaded byClethHiren
- Scope of WorkUploaded byceprasenjit
- CALTRANS Seismic-Design-Criteria V1.3 2004.pdfUploaded byAkshay Sakhare
- CIB9934Uploaded byLwitiko Humphrey Kalenga
- Amendments to Approved DocumentUploaded byzzz_monster
- 023Manholes_1.pdfUploaded byAnonymous tL8KytgJ3
- Scope of WorkUploaded byGG
- Swimming Pool Construction MethodologyUploaded byJayChristian Quimson
- Lintel Design and DetailingUploaded byxuanlinh_nguyen8063
- ASTM _706 60 and 80 Grade Specifications & Standards Use of High-Strength ReinforcementUploaded byTasvir A R Chowdhury
- Introduction to BNBC- ACI CodeUploaded byХрабрый Истребитель
- Simpson XT Anchor ICBO CertUploaded byjarneberg
- Hcw 14-Us HalfenUploaded byALBERT
- Foundation Inspection ChecklistUploaded bykhemraj deore
- 630 Crew Manhour FactorsUploaded bySatria Pinandita
- u.s. Practices for Concrete Containment Design and EvaluationUploaded bydavid david david
- DRIC Road supplemental report of the IERUploaded bywindsorcityblog1
- BS EN1461 LatestUploaded byHanuman Rao
- 26.Strengthening of Structural Elements by Ordinary Reinforcement (New One)Uploaded bydeepesh3191
- Factors Influencing Horizontal Cracking in Continuously Reinforced Concrete .pdfUploaded byMajid Al-Gburi
- Civil 2018 v2.1 Release NoteUploaded byJuan Camilo Uribe Tamayo
- Exampl Shear CalculationUploaded byGautam Paul
- footing.docxUploaded byBharath Reddy ChinthiReddy