EFFECT OF REINFORCEMENT ON THE FAILURE

LOAD OF RC BEAMS
Osama Salem(1), Arafa El-Helloty(2)
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt .
(1)

Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt .

(2)

‫تأثير حديد التسليح على حمل االنھيار في الكمرات الخرسانية‬

‫نظرا لتكلفة الحديد العالية في ھذه الحقبة الزمنية فان ھذا البح ث ي درس م دى ت أثير نس بة الحدي د الموج ودة ف ي القط اع‬
‫الخرساني لكمرة بسيطة االرتكاز عند وصول حمل الكمرة إلى حمل االنھيار وذلك عن طريق دراسة العديد من النماذج‬
‫ وتغيي ر بع ض المتغي رات مث ل ط ول وع رض وعم ق الكم رة ون وع الركي زة ونس بة‬OpenSeeS ‫م ن خ الل برن امج‬
.‫الحديد وقطر سيخ الحديد ويھدف البحث إلى التوصل إلى أفضل نسبة اقتصادية الستخدام الحديد في الكمرات البسيطة‬

ABSTRACT
The beams are considered as a common element in our practical life and the cost of
steel reinforcement is high. Thus, this paper searches for the economic percentage of
reinforcement of R.C. sections. The beam is constrained by two hinged supports in the first
model and is constrained by a roller support at one end and a hinged support at the other
end in the second model. The effect of reinforcement on the failure load of reinforced
concrete beams is studied to obtain the best economic percentage of reinforcement. A
parametric study was carried out on 480 finite element models of reinforced concrete
beams to investigate the significance of beam dimensions (length , depth and width), beam
supports and the percentage reinforcement on the failure load. Investigation was conducted
using the Computer program "OpenSeeS" [2], which is a finite element education package
capable of performing nonlinear analysis. This paper presents curves for estimating the
difference of failure load between minimum and maximum percentages of reinforcement.

KEYWORDS : Failure load, R.C. beam, Steel reinforcement

1361
1. INTRODUCTION
In plastic analysis, the ultimate load of a structure as a whole is regarded as the design
criterion. The term plastic has occurred due to the fact that the ultimate load is found from
the strength of steel in the plastic range. Plastic analysis and design have their main
application in the analysis and design of statically indeterminate framed structures [1].
Consider a simply supported beam subjected to a concentrated load P at mid-span. as
shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Simple beam under central concentrated load

The stress distribution across any cross section is linear Fig. 2(a). As the load is
increased gradually, the stresses at every section increases. At a section close to mid-span
where the bending moment is maximum, the stresses in the extreme fibers reach the yield
stress. The moment corresponding to this state is called the first yield moment My, of the
cross section. This does not imply failure as the beam can continue to carry additional load.
As the load continues to increase, more and more fibers reach the yield stress and the stress
distribution is as shown in Fig. 2(b). Furthermore, the whole of the cross section reaches the
yield stress and the corresponding stress distribution is as shown in Fig. 2(c). The moment
corresponding to this state is known as the plastic moment of the cross section and is
denoted by Mp [1].

1362
 Fig. 2 Development of stress distribution in cross section

The cross section is not capable of resisting any additional moment but may maintain
this moment for some amount of rotation in which case it acts like a plastic hinge. If this is
so, then for further loading, the beam is then said to have developed a collapse mechanism
and will collapse as shown in Fig 3 [1].

Fig. 3 Collapse mechanism

Silva A., et al. 1995 [3], studied the design and mechanical behavior of T-beams
subjected to lateral loading on the web. A special fixture was designed in order to carry out
tests where the T-beams were laterally loaded on the web and clamped on the flange. Finite
element analyses of the T-beams were performed using plate/shell elements and two
models were used for the joint between the web and flange in order to compute the planar
stresses in the beam.

Pritpal and Mahmoud 1999 [4], presented the results of an experimental study on 111
under-reinforced concrete beams in order to determine their residual flexural capacity after
undergoing different degrees of reinforcement corrosion. Corrosion was induced in the
laboratory by an accelerated corrosion technique.

1363
 Marisa and Giovanni 1999 [5], summarized the results of an experimental
investigation studying available rotation capacity of reinforced concrete beams.

Sung-Woo S. et al. 1999 [6], tested thirty high-strength concrete beams under
concentrated loads at midspan to determine their diagonal cracking strength and nominal
shear strength. The test variables were the compressive strength of concrete, the shear span-
to-depth ratio, and the vertical shear reinforcement ratio. The effects of each test variables
were studied separately. Test results were compared with strengths predicted using ACI
318-95. It was found that for beams with shear span-to-depth ratios between 1.5 and 2.5,
ACI Eq. (11-30) generally underestimates the shear strength contributed by the vertical
shear reinforcement. New equations are presented for a more accurate prediction of the
diagonal cracking strength and the nominal shear strength of reinforced concrete deep
beams.

Armero and Ehrlich 2004 [7], presented an analysis of localized failures in

Timoshenko beams/rods. Standard elastoplastic models were considered first. A spectral
analysis of the linearized problem showed the instability of the viscous problem and the ill-
posedness of the inviscid rate-independent problem in the presence of strain softening. The
consequences of the ill-posedness were illustrated by obtaining the exact solution of wave
propagation in a simply supported beam and observing its lack of physical significance: the
failure of the beam occurs with no energy dissipation.

Joachim L., 1996 [8], discussed different types of constructional details with regard to
the load carrying capacity of beams.

Lee and Watanabe 2003 [9], proposed a model to predict the axial strain in the plastic
hinge regions of RC beams. The proposed model includes four path types: Path 1, pre-
flexural yielding region; Path 2, post-flexural yielding region; Path 3, slip region; and Path
4, repeated loading region, provided an equation to predict the longitudinal axial strain in
the plastic hinge regions subjected to reversed cyclic loading of various patterns. To verify

1364
the longitudinal strain in the plastic hinge region by the proposed model, twelve RC beams
were tested under reversed cyclic loading. The observed longitudinal strains in the plastic
hinge regions of the tested beams agreed reasonably with the calculated longitudinal
strains.

2. THE MODEL
The nonlinear beam column element has two translational DOF and one rotational
DOF per node. The model is shown in Fig. 4, which is based on the non-iterative force
formulation, and considers the spread of plasticity along the element [2]. The list of the
OpenSeeS program is given in the appendix. The failure load of the beam has been
calculated.

In this case study, the beam shown in Fig. 2 has been studied to explain the effect of
reinforcement on the failure of the R.C. beam, by changing some parameters such as:

1) Length of beam, Lb 2) Breadth of beam, Bb 3) Depth of beam, Hb

4 ) Reinforcement, R 5 ) Kind of support, S

The length of beam takes the values (4, 4.5, 5, 5.5 and 6 m), the breadth of beam takes the
values (0.12, 0.25, and 0.4 m), the height of beam takes the values (0.5,0.6,0.7 and 0.8 m),
the reinforcement takes the ranges from minimum to maximum percentage, and kind of
supports (hinged - hinged, hinged – roller). Own weight of beam is neglected.

Fig. 4 The model

Characterization of materials used: for concrete, using Concrete02 Material. This

material is used to construct a uniaxial concrete material object with tensile strength and
linear tension softening as in fig. 5 [2].

1365
 Fig. 5 Behavior of concrete material

Fpc = 111.67 kg/cm2. epsc0 = 0.002 fpcu = 250 kg/cm2. epsU = 0.003
ratio = 0.5 Ets = 0.1 Ft = 25 kg/cm2.

For reinforcement using, Steel01 Material. This material is used to construct a

uniaxial bilinear steel material object with kinematic hardening and optional isotropic
hardening described by a non-linear evolution equation as in fig. 6 [2].

1366
 Fig. 6 Behavior of steel material

Fy = 2000 kg/cm2. E0 = 2100000 kg/cm2. b = 0.01.

3. RESULTS

Figure 7 shows the relation between the maximum deflection of beam and the failure
load with the various percentages of reinforcement for L = 4m, B = 0.12m, H = 0.50m and
the supports are hinged-hinged. It is clear from the figure that the average difference of
deflection between maximum and minimum percentages of steel is 14.19%, and the
difference is 45% at the failure load. All percentages of steel have the same failure load.

Figure 8 shows the relation between the maximum deflection of beam and the failure
load with the various percentages of reinforcement for L = 4m, B = 0.12m, H = 0.50m and
the supports are hinged-roller. It is clear from the figure that the average difference of
deflection between maximum and minimum percentages of steel is 9.57%, and the
difference is 28% at the failure load. The failure load at the max percentage of steel is 1.75
times the failure load at the minimum percentage of steel.

Figure 9 shows the relation between the maximum deflection of beam and the failure
load with the various percentages of reinforcement for L = 6m, B = 0.40m, H = 0.80m and

1367
the supports are hinged-hinged. It is clear from the figure that the average difference of
deflection between maximum and minimum percentages of steel is 27.8%, and the
difference is 57% at the failure load. The failure load at the max percentage of steel is 1.16
times the failure load at the minimum percentage of steel.

Figure 10 shows the relation between the maximum deflection of beam and the failure
load with the various percentages of reinforcement for L = 6m, B = 0.40m, H = 0.80m and
the supports are hinged-roller. It is clear from the figure that the average difference of
deflection between maximum and minimum percentages of steel is 21.76%, and the
difference is 88% at the failure load. The failure load at the max percentage of steel is 1.8
times the failure load at the minimum percentage of steel.

Figure 11 shows the relation between the maximum deflection of beam and the failure
load with the various breadths of beams for L = 5m, H = 0.50m, average % of steel and the
supports are hinged-hinged. It is clear from the figure that the average difference of
deflection between the values of breadth of beam between 0.12 and 0.25m is 68.17%,
between 0.25 and 0.40m is 57.03%. The failure load at breadth of beam equal to 0.4m is 4
times the failure load at the breadth of beam equal 0.12m.

Figure 12 shows the relation between the maximum deflection of beam and the failure
load with the various depths of beams for L = 5m, B = 0.25m, average % of steel and the
supports are hinged-hinged. It is clear from the figure that the average difference of
deflection between the values of depths of beam between 0.50 and 0.60m is 53.44%,
between 0.60 and 0.70m is 50.16%, between 0.70 and 0.80m is 43.92%. The failure load at
depth of beam equal to 0.8m is 2.67 times the failure load at depth of beam equal to 0.5m.

Figure 13 shows the relation between the maximum deflection of beam and the failure
load with various lengths of beam for B = 0.25m, H = 0.60m, average % of steel and the
supports are hinged-hinged. It is clear from the figure that the average difference of
deflection between the values of length of beam from 4 to 4.5m is 57.57%, from 4.5 to 5m
is 58.77%, from 5.0 to 5.5m is 69.05%, from 5.5 to 6m is 69.7%.

1368
Fig. 7 Relation between Max def. and failure load
for (L=4m, B=0.12m, H=0.50m and hinged-hinged supports)

Fig. 8 Relation between Max def. and failure load

for (L=4m, B=0.12m, H=0.50m and hinged-roller supports)

1369
Fig. 9 Relation between Max def. and failure load
for (L=6m, B=0.40m, H=0.80m and hinged-hinged supports)

Fig. 10 Relation between Max def. and failure load

for (L=6m, B=0.40m, H=0.80m and hinged-roller supports)

1370
Fig. 11 Relation between Max def. and failure load
for (L=5m, average % of steel, H=0.50m and hinged-hinged supports)

Fig. 12 Relation between Max def. and failure load

for (L=5m, B=0.25m, average % of steel and hinged-hinged supports)

1371
Fig. 13 Relation between Max def. and failure load
for (B=0.25m, average % of steel, H=0.50m and hinged-hinged supports)

1372
4. CONCLUSIONS
The major observations and findings of this research are summarized as follows:
1- Effect of percentage of reinforcement on the deflection of beam ranges from 14.2%
to 21.8% when beam length ranges from 4 to 6m, beam breadth ranges from 0.12 to
0.40m, beam depth ranges from 0.50 to 0.80m.

2- Deflection of beam with average percentage of reinforcement ranges from 57% to

70% when beam length ranges from 4 to 6m.

3- Increase of beam depth with average percentage of reinforcement by 10 cm decreases

the deflection by 50%.

4- Increase of beam breadth with average percentage of reinforcement by 10 cm

decreases the deflection by 45%.

5- Effect of increase of restraint of beam from (hinged – roller support) to (hinged –

hinged support) decreases the deflection from 11% to 37%.

LIST of SYMBOLS
My Yield moment. Mp Plastic moment.
Lb Length of beam. Bb Breadth of beam.
Hb Height of beam.
R Reinforcement. S Support.
P Vertical load. θy Rotation about y direction.
Ux Horizontal disp. in x direction. Uz Deflection in z dir.
Fpc Compressive strength epsc0 Strain at compressive strength
fpcu Crushing strength. epsU Strain at crushing strength
ratio Ratio between unloading slope at epscu and initial slope
Ets Slope of the linear tension softening branch
ft Tensile strength Fy Yield strength
E0 Initial elastic tangent b Hardening ratio

1373
REFERENCES
1. Satich Kumar S. R. and Santha Kumar A. R. “Design of steel structure
http://nptel.iitm.ac.in /courses /IIT MADRAS / Design_Steel_Structures_II /
2_industrial_building / 5_plastic_analysis.pdf

2. OpenSeeS Manual www.opensees.berkeley.edu

3. Silva A., Travassos J., de Freitas M. and Soares C., “Failure Prediction of Composite T-
Beams Subjected to Lateral Load on the Web” Comp. Str. Vol. 32, pp. 601–607, 1995.

4. Pritpal S. and Mahmoud S., “Flexural Strength of Concrete Beams with Corroding
Reinforcement” ACI Str. Journal, Vol. 96, No. 1, pp. 149–159, January-February 1999.

5. Marisa P. and Giovanni F., “Plastic Rotation Capacity of Beams in Normal and High-
Performance Concrete” ACI Str. Journal, Vol. 96, No. 2, pp. 290–296, March-April 1999.

6. Sung-Woo S., Kwang-Soo L., Jung-Ill M., and Ghosh S., “Shear Strength of Reinforced
High-Strength Concrete Beams with Shear Span-to-Depth Ratios between 1.5 and 2.5”
ACI Str. Journal, Vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 549–557, July-August 1999.

7- Armero F. and Ehrlich D., “An Analysis of Strain Localization and Wave Propagation in
Plastic Models of Beams at Failure” Comp. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. Vol. 193, pp.
3129 –3171, 2004.

8- Joachim L., “Influence of Constructional Details on the Load Carrying Capacity of Beams”
Eng. Str. Vol. 18, No. 10 pp. 752 –758 , 1996.

9- Lee J.-Y. and Watanabe F., “Predicting the Longitudinal Axial Strain in the Plastic Hinge
Regions of Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Loading” Eng. Str.
Vol. 25, pp. 927 –939 , 2003.

Appendix:
OpenSeeS program
# OpenSees beam- nonlinear material-static load
# length = 6m, width = 0.4m, depth = 0.8m
# Units: ton, m, sec

1374
# Start of model generation
# Create ModelBuilder (with two-dimensions and 3 DOF/node)
model basic -ndm 2 -ndf 3
# Set parameters for overall model geometry
set l 6.0; set t 0.8; set b 0.40; set beamCov 0.025;set gamac 2.5
# Create nodes
# tag X Y
node 1 0.0 0.0
node 2 [expr 0.25 * $l] 0.0
node 3 [expr 0.5 * $l] 0.0
node 4 [expr 0.75 * $l] 0.0
node 5 $l 0.0
# hinged supports
# fix $nodeTag (ndf $ConstrValues)
fix 1 1 1 0
fix 5 1 1 0
# Define materials for nonlinear beam
uniaxialMaterial Concrete02 1 -1116.7 -0.002 -2500 -0.003 0.5 300 10
uniaxialMaterial Steel01 2 20000 21000000 0.01
# Define cross-section for nonlinear beam
#steel reinforcement
set As8 0.5027e-4; # area of T8 bars;
set As10 0.78e-4; # area of T10 bars;
set As12 1.13e-4; # area of T12 bars;
set As13 1.33e-4; # area of T13 bars;
set As14 1.54e-4; # area of T14 bars;
set As15 1.77e-4; # area of T15 bars;
set As16 2.01e-4; # area of T16 bars;
set As18 2.54e-4; # area of T18 bars;
set As19 2.84e-4; # area of T19 bars;
set As20 3.14e-4; # area of T20 bars;
set As22 3.80e-4; # area of T22 bars;
set As24 4.52e-4; # area of T24 bars;
set As25 4.91e-4; # area of T25 bars;
set As26 5.31e-4; # area of T26 bars;
set As28 6.16e-4; # area of T28 bars;
section Fiber 1 {
# Create the concrete core fibers
patch rect 1 4 4 [expr $beamCov-$y] [expr $beamCov-$z] [expr $y-$beamCov] [expr $z-
$beamCov]
# Create the concrete cover fibers (top, bottom, left, right)
patch rect 1 4 4 [expr -$y] [expr $z-$beamCov] $y $z
patch rect 1 4 4 [expr -$y] [expr -$z] $y [expr $beamCov-$z]
patch rect 1 4 4 [expr -$y] [expr $beamCov-$z] [expr $beamCov-$y] [expr $z-$beamCov]
patch rect 1 4 4 [expr $y-$beamCov] [expr $beamCov-$z] $y [expr $z-$beamCov]

1375
# Create the reinforcing fibers (top, bottom)
layer straight 2 2 $As18 [expr $beamCov-$z] [expr $y-$beamCov] [expr $z-$beamCov]
[expr $y-$beamCov]
layer straight 2 6 $As22 [expr $beamCov-$z] [expr $beamCov-$y] [expr $z-$beamCov]
[expr $beamCov-$y]
}
# Define beam elements
# Geometry of column elements
# tag
geomTransf Linear 2
# Number of integration points along length of element
set np 5
# Create the elements using Beam-column elements
# Create the columns element
# tag ndI ndJ nsecs secID transfTag
element nonlinearBeamColumn 1 1 2 $np 1 2
element nonlinearBeamColumn 2 2 3 $np 1 2
element nonlinearBeamColumn 3 3 4 $np 1 2
element nonlinearBeamColumn 4 4 5 $np 1 2
# Define concentrated loads
# Set some parameters
set v 10.0; # Reference vertical load
# Set vertical load pattern with a Linear TimeSeries
pattern Plain 1 "Linear" {
# Create nodal loads at nodes 3
# nd FX FY MZ
load 3 0.0 -$v 0.0
}
# End of model generation
# Start of analysis generation
system BandGeneral
constraints Transformation
numberer RCM
test NormDispIncr 1.0e-12 10 3
algorithm Newton
integrator LoadControl 0.1
analysis Static
initialize
# End of analysis generation
# Start of recorder generation
# Create a recorder to monitor nodal displacements
recorder Node -file nodeGravity1.out -time -node 3 -dof 2 disp
# End of recorder generation
# Finally perform the analysis
analyze 100

1376