616 views

Uploaded by João Rocha de Lima

- Strut & Modelling of Concrete Structures
- Strut and Tie
- Anchorage Strength and Behavior of Headed Bars
- ACI Structural Journal - Mar-Apr 2014
- 23 Shaft and Its Design Based on Strength
- Jy 3118451849
- Aci Structural Journal Mar.-apr. 2015 v. 112 No. 02
- ACI 421.1R-08 - Punching Shear
- Advanced strength of materials paper model
- Csi_sap2000_concrete Frame Design Tutorial
- CFD-HK-CP-04
- CFD-BS-8110-97
- DAY 3-1 IMPT OF SECTION CAPACITY AND DUCTILITY IN STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE.pdf
- Journal of Constructional Steel Research Volume 67 Issue 3 2011 [Doi 10.1016%2Fj.jcsr.2010.11.001] Safat Al-Deen; Gianluca Ranzi; Zora Vrcelj -- Full-scale Long-term Experiments of Simply Supported Co
- 2012 ICOLD Int Symp - Intake Tower Response-History Analysis - A Novel Approach - LOPEZ & Chopra
- RC Solid Slab Bridge Design.pdf
- content for reinforced and prestressed concrete design to EC2.pdf
- CFD-BS-8110-97.pdf
- A Higher Order Beam Finite Element With Warping Eigenmodes
- ACI-BEAM

You are on page 1of 10

Concrete Link Beams for Burj Dubai

by Ho Jung Lee, Daniel A. Kuchma, William Baker, and Lawrence C. Novak

This paper presents a study on the shear capacity and behavior of The center hex reinforced concrete core walls provide the

reinforced concrete link beams designed for the Burj Dubai Tower, torsional resistance of the structure similar to a closed pipe

which is the tallest building in the world and will be ready for or axle, as shown in Fig. 3. The center hex walls are

occupancy in 2009. Several thousand reinforced concrete link

beams were used in this structure to interconnect structural walls;

in some cases, the factored shear forces in these link beams were

up to three times the traditional nominal ACI shear force strength

limit. This study presents an examination of the factors that control

the design and behavior of heavily loaded reinforced concrete link

beams. Nonlinear finite element analysis methods were used to

validate and inform the design of the reinforced concrete link

beams for Burj Dubai and to examine if the ACI nominal sectional

shear force limit is appropriate for this type of member. The results

illustrate the undue conservatism of the ACI design provisions and

the role of nonlinear analyses in design.

concrete; shear; strut-and-tie model.

INTRODUCTION

The Burj Dubai Tower, when completed, will be the

world’s tallest structure. Whereas the final height of this

multi-use skyscraper is a “well-guarded secret,” it will

comfortably exceed the current record holder of 509 meter Fig. 1—Tower rendering.

(1671 ft) tall Taipei 101. The 280,000 m2 (3,000,000 ft2)

reinforced concrete tower will be used for retail, an Armani

hotel, residences, and offices. The goal of the Burj Dubai

Tower is not simply to be the world’s highest building—it is

to embody the world’s highest aspirations.

Designers purposefully shaped the structural concrete for

the Burj Dubai to be Y-shaped in plan to reduce the wind

forces as well as to keep the structure simple and foster

constructibility. The structural system can be described as a

buttressed core, as shown in Fig. 1 and 2. Each wing, with its

own high-performance concrete core and perimeter

columns, buttresses the others via a six-sided central core, or

hexagonal hub. The result is a tower that is extremely stiff

torsionally. The design team purposely aligned all the

common central core and column elements to form a

building with no structural transfers.

Each tier of the building steps back in a spiral pattern that

causes the tower’s width to change at each setback. The

advantage of this stepping and shaping is to “confuse the

wind.” The wind vortexes never become organized because

at each new tier the wind encounters a different building

shape that reduces the overall wind loads on the structure.

Due to the tapering of the tower, the primary demand on the Fig. 2—Construction photo of tower.

link beams is from gravity load redistribution, flow from the

taller core to the perimeter of the structure. The 280,000 m2 ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 4, July-August 2008.

(3,000,000 ft2) tower and 185,000 m2 (2,000,000 ft2) MS No. S-2007-030 received January 19, 2007, and reviewed under Institute

publication policies. Copyright © 2008, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,

podium structures are currently under construction, as shown including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.

Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the May-

in Fig. 2. The project is scheduled for completion in 2009. June 2009 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2009.

concrete strengths ranging from C80 to C60 cube strength

Ho Jung Lee is an Engineer with SC Solutions, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA. He received his

BS and MS from the Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea, and his PhD from and contained portland cement and fly ash. Local aggregates

the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL. were used for the concrete mixture design. The wall and

column sizes were optimized using virtual work/LaGrange

Daniel A. Kuchma, FACI, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He multiplier methods.1 This results in a very efficient structure.

received his PhD from the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. He is a The structure was analyzed for gravity (including P-Δ

member of ACI Subcommittee 318-E, Shear and Torsion.

analysis and creep and shrinkage), wind, and seismic loads

William Baker is a Partner of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, Chicago, IL. by a three-dimensional analysis model that consisted of

the reinforced concrete walls, link beams, slabs, mats, piles,

Lawrence C. Novak is an Associate Partner of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP. and the spire structural steel system. The model consisted of

over 73,500 shells and 75,000 nodes.

buttressed by the wing walls and hammer head walls, which

behave as the webs and flanges of a beam to resist the wind RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

shears and moments. Outriggers at the mechanical floors This paper examines methods for the design and analysis

allow the columns to participate in the lateral load resistance for reinforced concrete link beams that are cast integral with

of the structure; hence, all of the vertical concrete is used to wall piers. In particular, the appropriateness of the

support both gravity and lateral loads. The walls had strut-and-tie method and shear design stress limits for this

class of member are reviewed. The results of this investigation

indicate that much higher shear stress levels should be

permitted in ACI 318, as this would greatly extend the utility

of this class of member.

The demands on the link beams vary greatly and are

dependent on the location of the link beam relative to a

setback with the largest shear forces being generated in the

beams closest to a setback. The typical link beams used in

the Burj Dubai are quite stocky with a shear-span ratio (l/2h)

of 0.85, a width of 650 mm (2.13 ft), and a height of 825 mm

(2.7 ft). For the design of reinforced concrete link beams, the

conventional deep beam design method in the ACI 318-992

and the strut-and-tie method in ACI 318-023 were used, with

Fig. 3—Three-dimensional view of single floor. Appendix A enabling the design of link beams somewhat

beyond the conventionally designed maximum deep beam

stress limit of 10 f c′ in psi (0.83 f c′ in MPa), which is

based on ACI 318-99,2 Section 11.8.4, as will be discussed

in the following. In the case of members subjected to very

large shear forces, embedded built-up structural steel

sections were provided within the core of the concrete link

beams to carry the entire shear and flexure demand.

This study was principally conducted during the structural

design of the Burj Dubai and used to check and inform the

design by the different methods and to examine the condition

and stiffness of the reinforced concrete link beams under

service and factored loads. In addition, a study was made of

the appropriateness of nominal shear stress limits for link

beams. A series of nonlinear analyses were conducted

that can account for the influence of many factors on

response including the amount of flexural reinforcement,

the distribution of vertical and horizontal web reinforcement,

the span-depth ratio, and the confinement provided by walls

at the ends of the link beams. The nonlinear finite element

analysis tools used in this investigation were ABAQUS,4

ADINA,5 and VecTor2.6

The geometry, factored loads, and design methods of four

Burj Dubai link beams, LB1 to LB4, are shown in Table 1.

These link beams, which have the same external dimensions,

capture the range of typical shear design force levels for

which different design solutions were used. Table 2 and Fig. 4

present details on Link Beams LB1 and LB2, as well as Link

Fig. 4—Design details for analyzed link beams. (Note: 1 mm = Beams LB2A and LBRCMAX that are more heavily reinforced

0.0394 in.) and hypothetical link beams whose behavior is evaluated in the

nonlinear analyses. Link Beam LB1 was designed by the The strut-and-tie model used for the design of Link Beam LB2

deep design method specified in ACI 318-99.2 Link Beam is shown in Fig. 5. The design yields the required amount of

LB2 was designed by the strut-and-tie model in Appendix A horizontal and vertical tie reinforcement and the required

of ACI 318-02.3 Vertical shear or tie reinforcement in Link strength of diagonal concrete struts and nodal zones. Minimum

Beams LB1 and LB2 was determined using the selected horizontal web reinforcement was provided in the link beams

design approaches to support their factored design loads. even though it was not specifically required when the strut-and

Horizontal web reinforcement close to the minimum amount tie design procedure is used. In this link beam design, the amount

suggested for deep beams in ACI 318-023 was used in Link of horizontal and vertical ties can simply be increased to support

Beams LB1 and LB2. The design of Link Beam LB2 using the larger shear loads until the strength is limited by the strength of

strut-and-tie method in the ACI 318-023 provisions, unchanged the diagonal struts and nodal zones.

in ACI 318-05,7 is described in the next section. As previously The use of Appendix A in ACI 318-023 and ACI 318-057

mentioned, a pure reinforced design concrete solution was not provides for a direct design of the diagonal strength of struts so

possible for all members by ACI 318-02,3 or would be by ACI as to avoid a diagonal compressive failure. This permits a

318-05,7 such that composite members with steel-embedded member to be designed for a higher shear stress than the limit for

sections were used to support the shear design in members deep beams in ACI 318-99.2 This deep beam stress limit was also

subjected to very large shear and flexural forces, including Link set to guard against diagonal compression failures but is not

Beams LB3 and LB4. An objective of this study was to investigate considered to be necessary for deep beams as will be discussed in

whether or not it was possible to develop a pure reinforced the following. In the design of Link Beam LB2 by

concrete solution to support the very large shear forces in Link Appendix A of ACI 318-02, the conservative assumption of

Beams LB3 and LB4. To this end, the behavior of more heavily

narrow bottle-shaped diagonal struts were made even though

reinforced members, Link Beams LB2A and LBRCMAX, as

the results of the analyses indicate that there is a uniform

described in Table 2 and Fig. 4, will also be examined.

field of diagonal compression throughout these members.

The concrete cylinder compressive strength used in the

Thus, it was considered that the nominal capacity calculated

design of these link beams was fc′ = 64 MPa (9280 psi); a

for this strut-and-tie model by ACI 318-02 would lead to a

concrete cube strength of 80 MPa (11600 psi) was specified

conservative design.

and actual cube and cylinder breaks indicate considerably

stronger concrete. The design yield strength of flexural rein-

forcement used in the link beams was 460 MPa (67 ksi) and MAXIMUM SHEAR STRENGTH SPECIFIED

of the vertical stirrups and horizontal web reinforcement was IN CODE PROVISIONS

420 MPa (61 ksi). Reinforcement with a yield strength of There is a large variation in the nominal shear design stress

460 MPa (67 ksi) was actually provided, but in accordance limit that is specified in codes of practice even though the

with Section 11.5.2 of ACI 318-02,3 the effective strength reason for this limit is the same as guarding against a diagonal

was taken as 420 MPa (61 ksi). Nonlinear finite element

analyses of these reinforced concrete link beams (LB1, LB2, Table 1—Geometry, loading, and design methods

LB2A, and LBRCMAX) were performed as will be presented. for link beams

Geometry Factored loads

STRUT-AND-TIE MODEL USED IN LINK BEAM Beam Width, Depth, Span, Shear, Moment

The strut-and-tie method has recently developed as a rational ID mm mm mm kN kN-m Design method used

method in the design of discontinuity (D)-regions in structural Conventional (ACI 318-99,

LB1 650 825 1400 1705 1194

concrete such as deep beam, squat walls, pile caps, and other Section 11.8)

elements in which plane sections do not remain plane. The Strut-and-tie

strut-and-tie method provides a conceptually simple design LB2 650 825 1400 2805 1164 (ACI 318-02,

Appendixes A and C)

methodology based on the lower-bound theorem of limit

LB3 650 825 1400 3750 2625 Steel plate

analysis.8 Provisions for using the strut-and-tie method were

LB4 650 825 1400 5250 3675 Built-up steel I-beam

included as Appendix A in ACI 318-02.3

Notes: Factored loads are equal for both ends of link beams. Ratio of ultimate load to

sustained day-to-day (gravity only) service loads is approximately 2.5. Walls adjacent

to link beams are 650 mm thick and are typically reinforced with a minimum of

T20mm at 350 mm on each vertical and horizontal face. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip =

4.448 kN; and 1 ft-kip = 0.356 kN-m.

analyzed in study

Reinforcement Stirrups

Top Bottom Side bars Spacing,

Beam ID bars bars each face Size mm Type

LB1 5-T32 5-T32 5-T12 T16 150 Two hoops

LB2 12-T32 12-T32 4-T12 T16 125 Two hoops

LB2A 18-T32 18-T32 4-T12 T16 80 Three hoops

LBRCMAX 27-T32 27-T32 4-T12 T16 75 Five hoops

Notes: T32, T20, T16, and T12 are deformed reinforcing bars with respective diameters of

32, 20, 16, and 12 mm. In LB2, top and bottom bars were used in two layers each. LB2A

and LRCMAX were not used in Burj Dubai project. They are included for purpose of

examining appropriateness of current ACI 318-05 limit on maximum shear stress. LB2A

Fig. 5—Strut-and-tie model used in design of Link Beam LB2. has significantly more longitudinal tension reinforcement and transverse reinforcement

than LB2. LBRCMAX is analyzed to figure out maximum shear capacity of reinforced

(Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 psi = 6.89 × concrete link beam. In LB2A and LBRCMAX, top and bottom bars were placed in two

10–3 MPa; and 1 ft-kip = 1.356 kN-m.) layers and three layers each, respectively. 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

compression failure. For the limits shown in Table 3, the beams is investigated in the nonlinear finite element analyses

range in maximum permitted shear stress is more than a that are presented in the next section.

factor of two for the 64 MPa (9280 psi) concrete used in the

design of the Burj Dubai. The ACI conventionally designed NONLINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

beam shear limit of 10 f c′ (psi) (0.83 f c′ [MPa]) was The structural behavior of reinforced concrete link beams

derived from simply supported beam tests in which there is is influenced by many factors including the amount of flexural

a funneling and thus magnification of diagonal compressive reinforcement, vertical and horizontal shear reinforcement, the

stresses as they flow from the top of the beam to its support span-depth ratio, and the confinement effect of the adjacent

and in which anchorage failures are common. The AASHTO pier walls. Nonlinear finite element analyses can be used to

LRFD9 and CSA (Canadian) code 10 shear stress limit of evaluate the effect of these parameters. In this section, the

0.25fc′ for reinforced concrete members was derived from nonlinear finite analyses of the Burj Dubai link beams (LB1

the modified compression field theory.11) In this approach, and LB2) and the more heavily reinforced link beams (LB2B

the influence of diagonal tensile strains on the capacity of a and LBRCMAX), as described in Table 2, are presented.

uniform diagonal compression field is directly considered. Three different programs, ABAQUS, ADINA, and

The flow of diagonal forces in link beams, which are VecTor2, were used for the finite element analysis of these

supported over their ends, are expected to be uniform as reinforced concrete link beams. In ABAQUS, the concrete

illustrated later and thus the limit in the LRFD and CSA damaged plasticity model was selected. This model is based

provisions is more appropriate. For the reinforced concrete on the work of Lubliner et al.12 and Lee and Fenves.13 The

link beams used in the Burj Dubai, there is the further structural concrete damaged plasticity model is intended to provide a

advantage of the confinement effect from the pier walls. The general capability for the analysis of concrete structures

walls on both sides help to prevent vertical expansion of the link subjected to static and dynamic loading under low confining

beams at their ends, which limits diagonal cracking. The pressures. It is based on the combination of nonassociated

use of a higher shear design stress limit in these link multi-hardening plasticity and scalar damaged elasticity

models. The program ADINA provided the option to adjust

various concrete strength and ductility parameters as well as

failure envelopes to better represent the concrete behavior

for a specific application. The program VecTor2 implements

the rotating-angle smeared-crack model of the modified

compression field theory and quadrilateral elements are

used in the analyses.

Before conducting the finite element analyses of these link

beams, the finite element models were calibrated and validated

using experimental results that accounted for the effects of

complex geometries, loadings, and edge effects. Because

this study focuses on the strength of the link beams, it was

investigated to see if the selected parameters for the concrete

material model in ABAQUS, ADINA, and VecTor2 predict

well the strength of link beams tested to failure in laboratories.

One of the comparisons used the link beam tested under

monotonic loading by Galano et al.14 that had a shear span

Fig. 6—Geometry and detailing of link beam tested by Galano ratio of 0.75. This ratio was the closest to that of the Burj

et al.14 (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; and 1 psi = 6.89 × 10–3 MPa.) Dubai link beams (shear ratio = 0.85) for the identified test

data. The geometry and reinforcement details of the tested

permitted by code provisions

Maximum shear strength,

Design code Vn, max

AASHTO STD1 V c + 8 f c ′b w d

JSCE14 15 f c ′b w d

Notes: Vc equals nominal shear resistance provided by concrete, fc′ equals concrete

compressive strength, bw equals width, d equals distance from compression face to

Fig. 7—Predicted load-deformation response of link beam centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement, bv equals web width including adjustment

tested by Galano et al.14 (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; and 1 kip = for presence of ducts, dv equals effective shear depth, and Vp equals component in

direction of applied shear of effective prestressing force.

4.448 kN.)

link beam are shown in Fig. 6. Four-node plane stress isopara- concrete). These input parameters define the stress-strain

metric elements were used in the analyses. Reinforcing steel curve of concrete.

was modeled as two-node truss elements. The top section of In ABAQUS, the compressive and tensile response was

the left wall is restrained and the shear force is applied to the defined similarly as in ADINA, but the prediction by

bottom section of the right wall by displacement control; the ABAQUS was based on the concrete damaged plasticity

same prescribed vertical displacement is used along the model. In this model, the value of the flow potential eccentricity

section. The analysis results are presented in Fig. 7 and the parameter has a significant effect on the concrete response. This

strengths predicted by ABAQUS, ADINA, and VecTor2 are value was set to be 20 based on the calibration with experimental

shown to predict the experimentally measured capacity data, whereas the dilation angle was similarly selected to be 36.

reasonably well. The results of other validation studies were Default values were used for the other input parameters in

similar. Therefore, the selected parameters for the concrete the concrete damaged plasticity model.

model in ABAQUS, ADINA, and VecTor2 were taken to be

sufficiently accurate for capacity evaluation of the four link DISCUSSION OF PREDICTED LINK

beams in this study. BEAM BEHAVIOR

The load and boundary conditions of the finite element The finite element analysis results of Link Beam 1 (LB1)

model for the Burj Dubai link beams are shown in Fig. 8. The are shown in Fig. 9 through 11. ABAQUS, ADINA, and

wall boundary is extended vertically up to the depth of the VecTor2 all predicted similar responses for Link Beam LB1.

link beam and horizontally up to the length of the link beam. According to Fig. 9, the predicted capacity is much larger

This extension with the constraints put in the finite element than the factored design load. Therefore, the use of the deep

model provides a realistic boundary for the investigation of beam design method as specified in the ACI 318-992 Code is

link beam capacity that was expected to lead to conservative considered to lead to a very conservative design for this link

(lower bound) estimations of capacity. The load and beam. Crack patterns at the loading steps similar to the

boundary conditions are the same as that of the link beam factored design load and at the ultimate load are shown in

tested by Galano et al.14 except the stiff perimeter steel was Fig. 10. At the factored design load, flexural cracks occur at

used to account for the constraining effect of the wall as the the boundary regions of the link beam under tension,

boundary of the model. The additional benefit of axial

compression in the walls, as investigated by other analyses

not presented in this paper, was found to only have a very

minimal beneficial effect on the capacity of the link beams;

it is the link beam end restraint rather than axial compression

in the wall piers that influences the behavior of the link

beams. Thus, the axial load acting on the walls was not

considered in the reported analyses. The strain variation of

reinforcing steel identified in Fig. 8 was investigated as well

as the crack patterns and capacity of the link beams.

Additional information on the finite element models is

now presented and this is followed in the next section by the

predicted capacity and behavior of the link beams. In

creating the finite element models, it was necessary to select

and specify material models and select convergence limits.

In all analyses, the response of the reinforcement was linear

elastic and perfectly plastic. The default value of the

convergence limit in VecTor2 was used, a convergence

value of up to 0.01 was used in ADINA, whereas the stability Fig. 8—Load and boundary conditions used in modeling of

command was used in ABAQUS, but its use was found to Burj Dubai link beams.

have little effect on the predicted behavior. The philosophy

of VecTor2 is that the user is not required to select nonbasic

material parameter values and thus only the compressive

cylinder strength was specified and all other default values

were accepted. ADINA and ABAQUS require the user to

select many other parameter values. The selections made in

these programs are given in the following.

In ADINA, the required concrete material input parameters

were tangent modulus at zero strain (44,000 MPa [6380 ksi]),

Poisson’s ratio (0.15), uniaxial cut-off tensile stress (4.83 MPa

[700 psi]), post-cracking uniaxial cut-off tensile stress (4.83 MPa

[700 psi]), uniaxial maximum compressive stress (–64 MPa

[–9280 psi] for unconfined concrete; –102.4 MPa [–14848 psi] for

confined concrete) and corresponding compressive

strains (–0.002 for unconfined concrete; –0.0032 for confined

concrete), ultimate uniaxial compressive stress (–54.4 MPa

[–7888 psi] for unconfined concrete; –87 MPa [–12615 psi]

for confined concrete), and ultimate uniaxial compressive Fig. 9—Predicted load-deformation response of Link

strain (–0.003 for unconfined concrete; –0.0048 for confined Beam LB1. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; and 1 kip = 4.448 kN.)

whereas no shear cracking was observed in the central analysis of Link Beam LB2, the capacity of Link Beam LB2

portion of the link beam. The development of straining in the is slightly decreased due to concrete crushing at the ends of

longitudinal and shear reinforcement is presented in Fig. 11. the link beam. This is not expected in practice because the

The longitudinal tensile strain increased gradually with pier walls provide significant restraint to the vertical expansion

increasing shear force until the capacity of the member was of the link beam and this increases the concrete compressive

reached at the point of longitudinal yielding. As shown in strength at the ends of these link beams. VecTor2 directly

Fig. 11(b), the transverse reinforcement strain rapidly considers concrete confinement and softening without

increased with the formation of diagonal cracks, but the additional input from users. When the confined concrete

transverse strain at the capacity of the member was less than

the yield strain of 0.0021. At the ultimate load, severe flex-

ural cracks occurred and extensive shear cracking was

predicted. In summary, the finite element analysis results

predict that the failure mode of Link Beam LB1 was yielding

of longitudinal tension reinforcement and that shear failures

did not occur. It is also observed that Link Beam LB1, as

designed by the deep beam design method in ACI 318-99,2

was more conservatively designed for shear than for flexure.

The predicted load-deformation response of Link Beam 2

(LB2) by the nonlinear finite element analyses is shown in

Fig. 12 in which the predicted capacity is considerably larger

than the factored design load. The strut-and-tie method specified

in ACI 318-057 was therefore observed to lead to a conservative

design for this link beam. ABAQUS, ADINA, and VecTor2

provide similar predictions of behavior of this link beam.

Two different concrete models were used in the ADINA

analyses. One is an unconfined concrete stress-strain model

and the other is a confined concrete model. ADINA and

ABAQUS do not directly consider the confinement effect by

the pier walls at the end of the link beams. Thus, if the

unconfined model is used in ABAQUS and ADINA for the

Link Beam LB1. (Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN.)

Fig. 10—Predicted crack patterns by ADINA for Link Beam LB2. (Note: 1 psi = 6.89 × 10–3 MPa, 1 in. = 25.4 mm;

Beam LB1. (Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN.) and 1 kip = 4.448 kN.)

model is used in ABAQUS and ADINA for the analysis of strains were considerably smaller than yield strain at the

the link beams, it gives similar results to those of the VecTor2 point of yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement.

default model. The predicted development of reinforcement Therefore, it is predicted that the capacity of these link

strains for Link Beam LB2 is shown in Fig. 13. For Link beams is limited by their flexural capacities.

Beam LB2, the strain in the transverse reinforcement Sectional analyses of Link Beams LB2A and LBRCMAX

reaches yield before yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement. were also performed using the sectional analysis program

The capacity and mode of failure of Link Beam 2 is predicted Response 2000.15 Response 2000 15 is also based on the

to occur at the point of yielding of both the longitudinal and modified compression field theory and employs the engineering

transverse reinforcement. beam theory assumption that plane sections remain plane.

The finite element analysis results of hypothetical Link Unlike with the nonlinear finite element analyses,

Beams LB2A and LBRCMAX, which contained higher Response 200015 cannot account for the beneficial effects of

levels of longitudinal and shear reinforcement, are shown in confinement and strut action. Under combined shear and

Fig. 14 through 17. ABAQUS, ADINA, and VecTor2 bending loads, the sectional capacities predicted by

provide similar predictions of the behavior of these link beams. Response 200015 for Link Beams LB2A and LBRCMAX

Without consideration of the confinement effect by the walls, were 6026 and 7600 kN (1355 and 1709 kips), respectively.

the analysis results predict a maximum shear stress capacity The state of cracking in Link Beam LBRCMAX was also

limit that is 70% larger than the conventionally designed predicted by program Response 200015 as shown in Fig. 18

beam shear stress limit of 10 f c′ (psi) (0.83 f c′ [MPa]) that is at its ultimate capacity. The member analysis by Response

specified in ACI 318-05.7 If the confinement effect by the 200015 for Link Beam LBRCMAX supports the conclusion

pier walls is considered in the analysis through the use of from the nonlinear finite element analyses that a shear

the confined concrete stress-strain model, the shear stress force close to the LRFD and CSA limit can be supported

capacity of the reinforced concrete link beam can be 2.5 times by a reinforced concrete link beam of the dimensions used

the ACI shear stress limit. This is illustrated in the in the Burj Dubai.

predicted behavior of Link Beam LBRCMAX in which The strength results of this investigation are summarized

very significant amounts of longitudinal and transverse in Fig. 19, which presents a comparison of the factored shear

reinforcement were provided. For both Link Beams LB2A

and LBRCMAX, the predicted transverse reinforcement

Link Beam LB2A. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; and 1 kip =

4.448 kN.)

Fig. 13—Predicted development of reinforcement strains in Link Beam LBRCMAX. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; and 1 kip =

Link Beam LB2. (Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN.) 4.448 kN.)

design loads for link beams (LB1 to LB4) in the Burj Dubai for Link Beam LB1 that was designed by the ACI 318-992

and the predicted shear capacities by the nonlinear finite deep beam provisions and for Link Beam LB2 that was

element analyses for Link Beams LB1, LB2, LB2A, and designed by the strut-and-tie model of Appendix A in ACI

LBRCMAX. The shear force corresponding to the ACI 318-02.3 In the Burj Dubai, composite link beams with large

318-057 conventionally designed beam shear stress limit of embedded sections were used to support the shear and

10 f c′ (psi) (0.38 f c′ [MPa]) is also shown. The results of flexure demand when this demand was in excess of what

the analyses predict that the designs are very conservative could be designed for by ACI 318 sectional or strut-and-tie

design procedures. The results of the analyses for hypothetical

Link Beams LB2A and LBRCMAX suggest that it would have

been possible to support the large shear force demands in Link

Beams LB3 and LB4 with reinforced concrete link beams;

however, reinforcing bar congestion and constructibility

concerns would need to be evaluated for Link Beams LB2A and

LBRCMAX.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, the design and capacity of heavily loaded

reinforced concrete link beams were investigated by

nonlinear finite element analyses using the programs

ABAQUS,4 ADINA,5 and VecTor2.6 The following is a

summary of results from this study:

1. The effect of the pier walls at the ends of the link beams

was predicted by the analyses to reduce the vertical transverse

expansion at the ends of the members and thereby reduce the

demands on transverse reinforcement. The pier walls also

provided confinement that enabled the link beams to support

larger compressive stresses at their ends. Furthermore, they

enabled a more uniform field of diagonal compression and

vertical distribution of shear over the depth of the member

throughout the entire length of the link beam;

hypothetical Link Beam LB2A. (Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN.)

Fig. 18—Predicted cracking in hypothetical Link Beam

LBRCMAX by Response 2000 at ultimate load (V = 1709 kips

[7600 kN]). (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; and 1 kip = 4.448 kN.)

hypothetical Link Beam LBRCMAX (Location A in Fig. 8). Fig. 19—Comparison of shear demands and capacities in

(Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN.) link beams.

2. The use of the deep beam design method in the ACI REFERENCES

318-992 provisions leads to very conservative shear designs 1. Baker, W.; Novak, L.; Sinn, R.; and Viise, J., “Structural Optimization

for link beams as suggested by the results of multiple of 2000’ Tall 7 South Dearborn Building,” Proceedings of the 2000 ASCE

nonlinear finite element analyses. The ACI 318-992 shear Structures Congress, Track: 14th Analysis and Computational Conference,

stress limitation for deep beams, which is a function of the 2000.

span-depth ratio and imposed to guard against a diagonal 2. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural

compression failure, unnecessarily limits the load-carrying Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (318R-99),” American Concrete

capacity of stocky link beams supported over their heights Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999, 369 pp.

such as those used in the Burj Dubai project; 3. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02),” American Concrete

3. The strut-and-tie model in Appendix A of ACI 318-023

Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002, 443 pp.

and ACI 318-057 permits reinforced concrete link beams to be

4. ABAQUS, Version 6.4.3, Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc.,

designed for substantially higher loads than would be possible

Pawtucket, RI, 2004.

by the use of ACI sectional design methods. In the use of the

5. ADINA, “A Finite Element Program for Automatic Dynamic Incre-

strut-and-tie model, a direct check is made to ensure that the mental Nonlinear Analysis,” Version 8.3, ADINA R & D, Inc., 2006.

diagonal compressive struts have adequate capacity. There-

6. Vecchio, F. J., “VecTor2, Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis Program

fore, a design completed by the strut-and-tie model negates the of Reinforced Concrete,” University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2002.

need to satisfy any sectional shear stress limitation; 7. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural

4. The results of nonlinear finite element analyses indicate Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete

that reinforced concrete link beams have significantly larger Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 430 pp.

shear capacities than the nominal strengths calculated by the 8. Schlaich, J.; Schafer, K.; and Jennewein, M., “Toward a Consistent

strut-and-tie model of ACI 318-05.7 The capacity of the Design of Structural Concrete,” PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 3, 1987, pp. 75-149.

members was predicted to be controlled by yielding of the 9. AASHTO, “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” third

longitudinal reinforcement; the compressive and nodal stress edition, Washington, DC, 2004, 1450 pp.

limits in ACI 318-057 were found to be conservative; and 10. CSA Committee A23.3, “Design of Concrete Structures (CSA

5. There is a wide variation in the maximum shear stress A23.3-04),” Rexdale, ON, Canada, 2004.

limits in codes of practice. The difference is more than a 11. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., “The Modified Compression Field

factor of two between the sectional design models in ACI Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI

318-057 (10 f c′ [psi] [0.83 f c′ (MPa)]) and the Canadian JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Feb. 1986, pp. 219-231.

and AASHTO LRFD Design Codes (0.25f c′ ) for link beams 12. Lubliner, J.; Oliver, J.; Oller, S.; and Oñate, E., “A Plastic-Damage

cast with 64 MPa (9280 psi) concrete, as used in the Burj Model for Concrete,” International Journal of Solids and Structures, V. 25,

Dubai. The higher shear stress limit in the Canadian and 1989, pp. 299-329.

AASHTO LRFD code was found to be appropriate for short 13. Lee, J., and Fenves, G. L., “Plastic-Damage Model for Cyclic

link beams that are supported over their height at their Loading of Concrete Structures,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics,

ends by continuous wall piers. ASCE, V. 124, No. 8, 1998, pp. 892-900.

14. Luciano, G., and Vignoli, A., “Seismic Behavior of Short Coupling

Beams with Different Reinforcement Layouts,” ACI Structural

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The analyses presented in this paper were performed for Skidmore, Journal, V. 97, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2000, pp. 876-885.

Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM) LLP, Chicago, IL, under the direction of 15. Bentz, E. C., and Collins, M. P., “Response 2000,” http://

W. Baker, L. Novak, A. Ozkan, and S. Korista. www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/r2k.htm, 2000.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

- Strut & Modelling of Concrete StructuresUploaded byLim Chiaw Wah
- Strut and TieUploaded bywarati
- Anchorage Strength and Behavior of Headed BarsUploaded byProfessor Dr. Nabeel Al-Bayati-Consultant Engineer
- ACI Structural Journal - Mar-Apr 2014Uploaded byManuel Gutarra
- 23 Shaft and Its Design Based on StrengthUploaded byPRASAD326
- Jy 3118451849Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Aci Structural Journal Mar.-apr. 2015 v. 112 No. 02Uploaded byProfessor Dr. Nabeel Al-Bayati-Consultant Engineer
- ACI 421.1R-08 - Punching ShearUploaded byEdin Lissica
- Advanced strength of materials paper modelUploaded bydurgaraokamireddy
- Csi_sap2000_concrete Frame Design TutorialUploaded byAmelia Mercado Barraza
- CFD-HK-CP-04Uploaded bythanzawtun1981
- CFD-BS-8110-97Uploaded bystructuralengineers
- DAY 3-1 IMPT OF SECTION CAPACITY AND DUCTILITY IN STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE.pdfUploaded byMIHDI PALAPUZ
- Journal of Constructional Steel Research Volume 67 Issue 3 2011 [Doi 10.1016%2Fj.jcsr.2010.11.001] Safat Al-Deen; Gianluca Ranzi; Zora Vrcelj -- Full-scale Long-term Experiments of Simply Supported CoUploaded bysalmantop1
- 2012 ICOLD Int Symp - Intake Tower Response-History Analysis - A Novel Approach - LOPEZ & ChopraUploaded byMelissa Austin
- RC Solid Slab Bridge Design.pdfUploaded byChhon Chhour
- content for reinforced and prestressed concrete design to EC2.pdfUploaded byAnonymous imkwF8N7Te
- CFD-BS-8110-97.pdfUploaded byMuhammad Umar Riaz
- A Higher Order Beam Finite Element With Warping EigenmodesUploaded byalbsteinpor
- ACI-BEAMUploaded byKay Chan Sotheara
- flesure shear interaction of high strength concrete beamsUploaded bytumballisto
- Glass BeamsUploaded byพังงา บุญสวัสดิ์
- 118101-4747 IJET-IJENSUploaded bynvnrev
- 4 ijetst masonaryUploaded byYELLAMANDA SANKATI
- An Elasticity Solution for Functionally Graded BeamsUploaded byKajal Khan
- The Analysis of Reinforced ConcreteUploaded bypedraoha
- 8 - Analysis of Doubly Reinforced BeamUploaded bygarhgelh
- frame analysis2Uploaded byapi-303641376
- CFD-HK-CP-04Uploaded byahmedidrees1992
- Building DocUploaded byHarish Prashad Joshi

- cardinal teachingsUploaded byhundredwaters7387
- Knowing and SeeingUploaded byjonesdjat2386
- Verses for Eating Mindfully - Thich Nhat HanhUploaded byJoão Rocha de Lima
- Through-Deaths-Gate-A-Guide-to-Selfless-DyingUploaded bydumbiesharon
- be_stillUploaded bySrinath Srinivasaiah
- # - Discourse on the Full Awareness of BreathingUploaded byJoão Rocha de Lima
- Conscious ImmortalityUploaded byBarinderpal Singh
- Thay Um AnavarUploaded byananthuv
- ADAPT TN11 Dsgn Concrete Floors Ref PTUploaded byLaura Elgarrista
- Design of a Composite Road Bridge With High Strength SteelUploaded byJoão Rocha de Lima
- Design of Pedestrian Bridge LFRDUploaded byJoão Rocha de Lima

- 1143_ACF - Dry SterilizationUploaded byProf C.S.Purushothaman
- resumeUploaded byapi-329495595
- Countertrade and BartersUploaded byNathalie Crivoliubic
- ch9V12Uploaded byAnand Kolam
- Alpita ProjectUploaded bykpved92
- Gala'04Uploaded bygoogos
- L3 Overview of the Head and Neck CancersUploaded byredroseeeeee
- salah behind wahabiesUploaded byapi-240628129
- paper92.pdfUploaded bysha3107
- strategicmanagementprojectassignmentpart4Uploaded byapi-355425345
- SilverMAX Colloidal Silver GeneratorUploaded byLiviu Angelescu
- Free FXcorrelator Intro System AUG 2013Uploaded byHacène Azzouz
- SLM-Unit 01Uploaded byDr. Smita Choudhary
- The Rule on the Writ of AmparoUploaded byeugene_aban
- Reference, Review and revisionUploaded byvart1992
- 1. Civil Works Boq Raatc2Uploaded byRanga Rajan
- massachusetts foreign languages curriculum framework grade 10Uploaded byapi-273530894
- GSM or New Car Mgr or pre-Owned MgrUploaded byapi-77698158
- Serrano v. Central BankUploaded byWilfredo Molina
- Origin of HIndu DramaUploaded byManas Ranjan Mishra
- Nuisance Abatement CasesUploaded byNew York Daily News
- A history of modern psychologyUploaded byLavinia
- 10 Permutation & Combination Part 3 of 4Uploaded byzayagopinathe
- Moveabla BridgesUploaded bysiryousaf
- Chapter 5 - Public Administration in Malaysia-210314_031441Uploaded byHafizul Helmy
- Mechanical Engineer or Designer or Commissioning or HVAC DesigneUploaded byapi-78825421
- Transforming Lives in Zimbabwe: Rural Sustainable Energy Development ProjectUploaded byOxfam
- MSc in Supply Chain ManagementSuite - FlyerUploaded byHari Varrier
- Ida Jean OrlandoUploaded byLeonard Cyren Ligutom
- Gender Dimension in Health and Sustainable Development Goal: Sri LankaUploaded byADBI Events