Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Design of Non-Prismatic RC Beams Using Strut-and-Tie Models: Kiang Hwee Tan
Design of Non-Prismatic RC Beams Using Strut-and-Tie Models: Kiang Hwee Tan
Abstract
This study deals with the application of the strut-and-tie models in the analysis and design of non-prismatic reinforced
concrete beams. Seven beams were designed, fabricated and tested to failure. Test results showed that the ultimate
loads exceeded the design loads for all beams. Non-prismatic beams with a recess through the web performed satisfac-
torily, compared to beams with equivalent transverse rectangular openings. For non-prismatic beams with a recess at
the bottom, an increase in the recess width resulted in a decrease in the stiffness and an increase in the beam deflection.
Non-prismatic beams with a recess in the compression zone performed better with regards to cracking but not deflection,
compared to beams with a recess in the tensile zone. Also, beams strengthened with carbon fibrereinforced polymer
(FRP) plates performed satisfactory with regard to strength; however, the deflection and crack widths increased rapidly
thereafter, leading to a sudden and non-ductile failure of the beam.
1
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
National University of Singapore, Singapore Fig. 1 Examples of Recess Beams: (a) Floor Beams; (b)
E-mail: cvetankh@nus.edu.sg Ground Beam; (c) Stepped Beam; (d) Retrofitted Beam.
250 K. H. Tan / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 2, 249-256, 2004
cally, at the high-moment end of recess and under the 800 400 800 P 1000
load were thus calculated for the conjugate beam and B A B
the higher value gives the maximum deflection.
ST-1 ST-2, 2R
ST-3
A
3. Test programme
150 B 3000 B 150
Seven beams with dimensions shown in Fig. 2 were
designed, fabricated and tested to failure. Beams ST-1, 600 800 600 P 1000
ST-2 and ST-3 each had a recess in the tensile zone (that B
is, at the bottom) of the beam with widths of 400 mm, C
800 mm and 1200 mm respectively, with the center of ST-2T
recess at 1,000 mm from one support. They were de- C B
signed to take a load of 204 kN, 132 kN and 90 kN,
respectively, applied at one-third span length from the 400 600 500 P 500 600 400
other support. B A
C
Beam ST-2T was designed with a recess in the com-
pression zone (that is, at the top) at also 1,000 mm from ST-4 A
one support to take a load of 132 kN, applied at C B
one-third span length from the other support. Beam P/2
ST-4 had two recesses, one at the top and the other at 650 650 400 650 650
the bottom and ST-5 was designed as a stepped beam. A B
Both beams were designed for a total load of 150 kN, as P/2
ST-5
a point load at the mid-span for Beam ST-4, and as two C
A
point loads, one each at the mid-length of the upper and
lower stepped regions, for Beam ST-5. B C
Beam ST-2R was meant to simulate a beam that was 200 mm
200 mm
strengthened with externally bonded carbon FRP plates
after a recess has been introduced. The geometry of 220mm 200 mm
ST-2R was the same as that of beam ST-2. The internal (140mm
for ST-5) 400mm
steel reinforcement of ST-2R was first designed assum- (500mm
ing a solid beam carrying a load of 89 kN. This rein- A-A for ST-5) 220mm
forcement was curtailed at the faces of introduced recess (140mm
for ST-5)
and was welded to steel plates that lined the recess.
The strengthened beam was designed with external car- B-B C-C
bon FRP plates to transfer the forces over the recess so
Sections
that the beam would carry the original design load of 89
kN. Fig. 2 Dimensions of Test Beams (all dimensions in mm).
The strut-and-tie-models for the test beams are pre-
sented in Figs. 3(a) to (d), with the solid lines indicating carried out on three specimens of each bar size and the
the tie members and the dotted lines representing strut results are presented in Table 1.
members. The reinforcement was designed accord- The carbon FRP plates had a thickness of 1.2 mm and
ingly to resist the forces in the tie members, derived width of 100 mm. They were stiff in the longitudinal
from force equilibrium at the nodes. Typical rein- direction, having a high tensile modulus of 150 GPa, but
forcement layout is shown in Fig. 4. Nominal links weak in the transverse direction. The plate has a low
were provided in accordance with code requirements. density of 1.6 g/cm3. Properties of the carbon FRP
plates and the epoxy mortar are shown in Table 2.
3.1 Materials The plates were cut to the required length and width
The concrete mix was designed for a 28-day cylinder using an ordinary cutting blade. The concrete surface
compressive strength of 30 MPa. Ordinary Portland was ground and cleaned of dust and loose particles be-
cement, natural sand and crushed granite of 10 mm fore the plates were bonded to the beam using the epoxy
maximum size were mixed in the ratio of 1 : 1.32 : 1.98 mortar.
by weight. The watercement ratio was 0.45 and the
cement content was 495 kg/m3. To increase workability, 3.2 Preparation of test beams
a superplasticizer was added at a dosage of 0.3 kg per A wooden prismatic formwork was used. The recess
100 kg of cement to give a slump of about 150 mm. was formed by attaching rectangular boxes of the re-
Mild steel bars designated R6 and R8, and high yield quired dimensions into the formwork. The inner surface
deformed bars designated T10, T13, T16, T20 and T25, of the formwork was oiled to facilitate demoulding.
were used as internal reinforcement. Tensile tests were Six 100 mm cubes were cast for each beam. The beam
252 K. H. Tan / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 2, 249-256, 2004
ST-2T
ST-1 ST-3
(a)
(a) (b)
(b) (c)
(c)
ST-5 ST-2R
ST-4
(d)(d) (e)
(e) (f)
Fig. 5 Appearance of Test Beams After Failure.
254 K. H. Tan / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 2, 249-256, 2004
at the mid-span for beam ST-5. Table 3 shows that the are in general less than the test values, except for beam
maximum service load deflections for all the test beams ST-1. This is because the first cracks were diagonal
were less than span/350 or 20 mm (BS 8110 1997) ex- cracks originating from the corners of recess whereas
cept for beam ST-2R. the prediction assumed a flexural crack. The predicted
Beam ST-2 failed in flexure at the section directly service load deflections are also less than the observed
under the applied load. Beams ST-2T, ST-3 and ST-4 values, indicating that further refinement of the calcula-
failed in flexure with the crushing of concrete at the tion method is necessary.
high moment end of the recess whereas ST-1 failed by Excluding ST-5, the ratio of the observed to design
concrete crushing at the top of the arch that developed ultimate loads varies from 1.07 to 1.69, with an average
above the recess. ST-2R failed by debonding of the of 1.29 and standard deviation of 0.21. The main reason
carbon FRP plates from the concrete surface and ST-5 for the higher observed ultimate strength is that the
failed by steel yielding at the connection between the strut-and-tie method gives a lower bound solution, al-
upper and the lower stepped regions. though the higher concrete strength compared to the
design strength of 30 MPa might have some effect.
4.1 Comparison of test results with design val- Beam ST-5 did not satisfy both the ultimate strength
ues and serviceability requirements, due to premature fail-
The test results are compared with the design or pre- ure. This was the result of a detailing error for the di-
dicted values in Table 3. The predicted cracking loads agonal bars, which had not been sufficiently anchored.
200
150 100
150 R3 80
Service Load R5
100 100 Service Load 60 Service Load
40
50 50
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
(a) Deflection Characteristics
250 250 140
ST-1 120 ST-3
200 R1 200 ST-2 R5
Load (kN)
100
150 150 R3
Service 80
100 Load 100 60 Service Load
Service Load
50 40
50
20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Maximum Crack Width Maximum Crack Width Maximum Crack Width
(b) Cracking Characteristics
Fig. 6 Beams with Recess vs. Beams with Opening.
K. H. Tan / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 2, 249-256, 2004 255
200 ST-2T
150 150
ST-3
150
100 Service Load 100 ST-2R
100
50 50 50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 20 40 60 80
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Maximum crack width Maximum crack width Maximum crack width
That is, the diagonal bars indicated by 2-2 and 3-3 in cess had smaller crack widths at service load and hence,
Fig. 4(b) should have been extended to the bottom and more desired cracking characteristics than beams with
top edges of the beam, respectively, so as to effectively an opening.
control cracking at the re-entrant corners of the beam. All beams with a recess exhibited a ductile failure.
Beams R3 and R5 both failed with the crushing of con-
4.2 Comparison of beam performance crete on the top and bottom faces of the chord members
The beams are first compared with beams with an at the high and low moment ends of the opening respec-
opening in place of the recess. Next, the effect of re- tively, while Beam R1 failed at the solid section under
cess width is investigated using the results of ST1, ST-2 the applied load. As beams R1, R3 and R5 were tested
and ST-3. The effect of recess location across the beam using a load-control actuator, the post-peak behaviour
depth is examined using the results of ST-2 and ST-2T. could not be obtained.
Finally, beam ST-2R is compared with beam ST-2 to It is concluded that the provision of recesses offers an
investigate the effect of strengthening. alternative solution to openings, and such beams per-
form satisfactorily with respect to deflection, cracking
4.2.1 Recess vesus web opening and ultimate load behaviour.
Beams ST-1, ST-2 and ST-3, are compared to Beams R1,
R3 and R5, respectively, which were tested by Mansur 4.2.2 Effect of recess width
et al. (1985). The latter beams had the same overall The load-deflection characteristics of Beams ST-1, ST-2
cross-section dimensions, beam span and were designed and ST-3, with recess widths of 400 mm, 800 mm and
to carry the same ultimate load under the same test 1200 mm, respectively, are compared in Fig. 7(a). All
set-up as ST-1, ST-2 and ST-3. The only difference three beams have recesses at the same location at the
between the two groups of beams is that instead of a bottom of the beam. The maximum deflection oc-
recess, R1, R3 and R5 each had an opening through the curred at the middle of the recess for ST1 and ST-3, and
web at mid-depth, having the same dimensions and lo- under the load for beam ST-2. The service load deflec-
cation along the beam as the recess in ST-1, 2, and ST-3 tion decreases with an increase in the recess width.
respectively. The load versus maximum crack width curves are
As shown in Figs. 6(a), the load-deflection character- compared in Fig 7(b). The maximum crack widths of
istics of beams ST-1, ST-2 and ST-3 are similar to those Beams ST-1, ST-2 and ST-3 under the service load are
of beam R1, R3 and R5 respectively. The maximum 0.14 mm, 0.35 mm and 0.15 mm respectively. The
service load deflections are similar for each pair of larger value for Beam ST-2 is probably due to the failure
beams. Figs. 6(b) show the load versus maximum occurring under the applied load whereas it occurred at
crack width relations for the beams. Beams with a re- the high moment end of the recess in ST-1 and ST-3.
256 K. H. Tan / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 2, 249-256, 2004