See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259312538

An Overview of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Research at the

University of Auckland

Conference Paper · May 2007

CITATION READS

1 6,004

3 authors:

Richard Stuart Henry Nicholas James Brooke

University of Auckland Compusoft Engineering Limited
99 PUBLICATIONS 1,129 CITATIONS 25 PUBLICATIONS 115 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jason Ingham
University of Auckland
527 PUBLICATIONS 6,020 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cold formed steel portal frames View project

Observations and Categorisation of Building Envelopes After Being Subjected to Earthquakes and Suggested Improvements to Existing Testing Protocols View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jason Ingham on 23 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AN OVERVIEW OF REINFORCED AND PRESTRESSED
CONCRETE RESEARCH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
AUCKLAND
R.S. HENRY, N.J. BROOKE and J.M. INGHAM

ABSTRACT

This paper is a review of recent research conducted at the University of Auckland on earthquake resistant
reinforced and prestressed concrete structures. The research was conducted by staff and students now
affiliated to the University of Auckland Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research (UACEER). Three
research projects are described in the paper.
The first project showed that reinforcement congestion in beam-column joint cores can be significantly
reduced by using ductile fibre reinforced cementitious composites (DFRCC) to provide shear strength in the
joint core instead of conventional transverse reinforcement. Two beam-column joints were constructed using
precast beams and column connected using in-situ DFRCC in the joint core. Due to the reduced
reinforcement congestion construction was quick and easy. When subjected to cyclic loads intended to
simulate the effects of an earthquake, the beam-column joints performed well until drift levels exceeded 4%.
Further research is being conducted to allow formulation of design methods based on strut-and-tie models.
The second project investigated the structural performance of concrete made using inorganic polymers.
Increasing international awareness of the need to reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions make inorganic
polymers an attractive alternative to Portland cement, since carbon dioxide emissions resulting from their
production are 85% lower than from the production of Portland cement. The research summarised in this
paper showed that inorganic polymer concrete beam-column joints perform in a similar manner to Portland
cement concrete beam-column joints. This result indicates that inorganic polymer concrete structures can be
designed using existing design codes, a finding which greatly simplifies their introduction as a construction
material.
The final project attempted to verify the accuracy of a previously developed equation for predicting the
nominal strength of concrete walls containing unbonded post-tensioning. The stress in unbonded tendons
cannot be calculated based on assumptions of strain compatibility, and instead semi-empirical equations are
normally used to predict tendon stresses. The current equations used in New Zealand were developed from
the results of beam tests. A new equation developed from results of masonry wall tests has been shown to
more accurately predict the nominal strength of unbonded post-tensioned concrete walls.

_____________
R.S. HENRY, PhD Candidate, University of Auckland Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research (UACEER),
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
N.J. BROOKE, Lecturer, University of Auckland Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research (UACEER),
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
J.M. INGHAM, Associate Professor , University of Auckland Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research (UACEER),
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
INTRODUCTION

There is a long history at the University of Auckland of innovative research on reinforced and prestressed
concrete structures. The focus of much of this research has been earthquake resistant design, which is a
dominant influence on New Zealand structural engineering.
Three recent or ongoing research projects on reinforced and prestressed concrete structures are described
in this paper. The research projects were conducted by staff and students now affiliated with the recently
formed University of Auckland Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research (UACEER). Two of these
projects investigated the use of advanced materials in reinforced concrete moment resisting frames, while the
third assessed the accuracy of equations intended to predict the strength of unbonded post-tensioned concrete
walls. Space limitations require that only a brief summary of each project is presented here; further details of
the projects can be found in recent publications by UACEER members and affiliates (Brooke and Ingham
2007; Brooke et al. 2007a; Brooke et al. 2007b).

FIBRE REINFORCED PRECAST CONCRETE BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS

Precast concrete is recognised internationally as an attractive construction solution with several

advantages over in-situ concrete construction. These include faster construction, better quality, reduced
formwork requirements and a reduced requirement for skilled labour on site (fib Task Group 7.3 2003).
Precast concrete frames in New Zealand are normally designed so that their performance emulates the
performance of a monolithic structure. The design of such frames is similar to the design of monolithic
frames, but special consideration must be given to the way precast elements are connected together. A
number of methods have been used in New Zealand to connect precast elements in moment resisting frames,
the performance of which have been verified experimentally (Restrepo et al. 1995). Difficulties commonly
encountered during the construction of precast concrete frames include:
• Reinforcement congestion in the joint core due to requirements for significant shear reinforcement.
• Tight tolerances required to ensure reinforcement can be inserted into ducts.
• Use of heavy or awkward shaped precast elements.
A method for constructing precast moment resisting frames has been developed at the University of
Auckland which minimises these problems. Reinforcement congestion in the joint core is reduced by using
ductile fibre reinforced cementitious composites (DFRCC) rather than conventional transverse reinforcement
to provide joint shear strength. Precast elements are connected together at the joint core, which allows the
use of less cumbersome precast elements, and also reduces the required construction tolerances.

Ductile Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Composites

There has recently been much interest worldwide in cement based materials that exhibit strain hardening
properties when subjected to axial tension, the characteristics of which have been described by Li (2003).
These materials are described variously in the literature as “High Performance Fibre Reinforced
Cementitious Composites” (HPFRCC); “Engineered Cementitious Composites” (ECC) and “Ductile Fibre
Reinforced Cementitious Composites” (DFRCC). The latter term will be used in this paper, since it is most
descriptive of the material’s properties. Due to their toughness and ductility, use of DFRCCs in structures
give numerous advantages over more conventional cementitious materials, including reduced requirements
for secondary reinforcement, elimination of spalling, and reduced reliance on the bond between
reinforcement and concrete due to the ability of cracked DFRCC to transmit tensile stresses (Li 2003). Many
different types of fibre can be used to produce DFRCC, although polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibres are
considered to be particularly suitable (Wang and Li 2005), and this fibre type were used in the research
discussed here.
Improved Method for Constructing Precast Moment Resisting Frames

In order to test the performance of the new method of constructing precast concrete frames, two beam-
column joints (PVA-1 and PVA-2) were constructed based on the design shown in Figure 1. The joints were
constructed using precast beams and columns, connected by DFRCC poured in-situ into the joint core. PVA-
1 and PVA-2 were identically reinforced, except for the detailing used in the joint region. The beam
longitudinal reinforcement of PVA-1 was anchored in the joint core with a “U” bend as shown in Figure 2a.
For PVA-2 the anchorage detail was changed to a 300 mm (15 bar diameters) straight development length for
the reinforcement of each beam, as shown in Figure 2b. Neither PVA-1 nor PVA-2 contained any
conventional transverse reinforcement in the joint core. In both joints, joint shear forces that would be
resisted by transverse reinforcement in conventional joints were effectively resisted by the tensile strength of
the DFRCC joint core. Figure 2c shows how the joint core of PVA-1 and PVA-2 should have been detailed
according to New Zealand standards, illustrating the reduced congestion resulting from the use of DFRCC.

Test Method

Units PVA-1 and PVA-2 were installed in a test frame designed to apply cyclic loading to simulate the
effect of an earthquake. The frame used is shown in Figure 3. The beams and columns are pin supported at
their ends to allow rotation, but are restrained to prevent lateral movement in the vertical and horizontal
planes respectively. The test setup does not allow axial loads to be applied to the column. Extensive

(a) Precast concrete elements (b) Assembled beam-column joint

Section C-C

R10 @ 100 mm c/c

precast beam element all longitudinal reinforcement D20 bars

400 mm
(diamter 20 mm, f y =300MPa)
1975 mm 875 mm

C
B

260 mm
1975 mm

400 mm
R6 @ 75 mm c/c

precast column element R6 @ 75 mm c/c

875 mm 875 mm
B

C
In-situ PVA DFRC joint
Section B-B Section A-A region
A A
400 mm

400 mm

R10 @ 100 mm c/c R10 @ 100 mm c/c

260 mm 450 mm

Figure 1. Precast beam-column joint design used for PVA-1 and PVA-2

4 stirrup sets,
yield strength
joint core 500 MPa

elevation

364 mm 300 mm
300 mm

section through
joint core

(a) PVA-1 (b) PVA-2 (c) NZ Design Standard

Figure 2. Joint core reinforcing details of PVA-1, PVA-2 and equivalent conventional joint
 Figure 3. Test setup

instrumentation installed on the test units allowed overall displacements of the sub-assembly to be monitored
and also allowed flexural and shear deformations of the beams, columns and joint core to be calculated. The
test units were subjected to drift controlled cyclic loading, and testing was continued until it was impractical
to proceed further due to deterioration of the test units.

Experimental Results

The performance of PVA-1 and PVA-2 when subjected to cyclic loading was satisfactory. The force-
displacement response of both units was stable until the imposed interstorey drift exceeded 4%, which
corresponded to a displacement ductility of μ = 6.25. Units PVA-1 and PVA-2 both failed during the second
cycle to 5% interstorey drift. The cause of failure differed for the two units. PVA-1 failed as a result of
longitudinal reinforcement buckling in the beam plastic hinges, where as PVA-2 failed when opening of wide
cracks in the joint core resulted in a loss of stiffness. When related to the philosophy of capacity design, the
performance of PVA-1 (limited by the performance of the beam plastic hinges) was ideal, while the
performance of PVA-2 (ultimately limited by the performance of the joint core) was not. Further details of
test results are available elsewhere (Brooke and Ingham 2007).
It was concluded that beam-column joint cores made from DFRCC and containing no conventional shear
reinforcement can be successfully designed to resist earthquakes. Further research is being conducted at the
University of Auckland to allow formulation of a design method for DFRCC beam-column joints based on
strut-and-tie models.

INORGANIC POLYMER CONCRETE BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS

It is increasingly recognised that humankind must reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions, or risk dramatic
global environmental effects. It has been shown that Portland cement production accounts for approximately
7% of global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (Malhotra 1999), which makes finding a replacement
for Portland cement with reduced carbon dioxide emissions during production environmentally and
economically advantageous. One promising option is inorganic polymer concrete, which creates 85% less
carbon dioxide during production than does Portland cement (Davidovits 2002). Inorganic polymers are
chemical compounds composed of silicon, oxygen and aluminium. Alone they can exist as a paste similar to
Portland cement paste, which can be mixed with aggregates to create concrete. Properties of inorganic
polymer concrete include high compressive strength, fire resistance to temperatures greater than 1000ºC,
resistance to strong acids, low shrinkage, and inherent protection of steel reinforcement due to high residual
pH.
If inorganic polymer concrete is to be used for structural purposes it is essential that its structural
performance can be accurately predicted, and thus experimental verification of the structural performance of
inorganic polymer concrete is required. The tests described in this section are believed to represent the first
cyclic testing of structural sub-assemblies constructed using inorganic polymer concrete. They therefore
represent a first step towards allowing the use of inorganic polymer concrete for structural applications in
seismic regions.

Beam-Column Joint Subassemblies

In order to assess whether existing New Zealand standards (NZS 3101:2006) can be used to design
inorganic polymer concrete structures, four interior beam column-joint sub-assemblies were tested. Three of
these beam-column joints were constructed from inorganic polymer concrete, while the fourth was a control
unit constructed from Portland cement concrete.
The inorganic polymer joints were designed with three different beam reinforcement ratios, and were
designated low (L.IP), medium (M.IP) and high (H.IP) according to this ratio. The Portland cement control
unit had identical reinforcement detailing to the unit with medium reinforcement ratio, and was designated
M.PC. To increase the number of performance aspects that could be compared, the control unit (M.PC) and
its inorganic polymer twin (M.IP) were designed so that premature bond failure would occur in the joint core.
The beam-column joints were tested using a similar procedure to that used for testing the DFRCC precast
joints described above, although an older test rig was used in which the beam-column joints were tested
while in a horizontal position, with forces applied to both beam tips with separate actuators.

Experimental Results

As expected the performance of the L.IP and H.IP units was very good, the force-displacement response
being characterised by “fat” hysteresis loops that are typical of properly designed monolithic beam-column
joints. The force sustained by both units increased as the imposed displacement was increased until drift
levels of at least 4.0% were reached, which is a significantly greater drift level than allowed by design
standards. It is sufficient to state that the performance of the joints was similar to that which would have
been expected if the beam-column joints were constructed from Portland cement concrete rather than
inorganic polymer concrete.
The hysteretic performance of units M.IP and M.PC showed that the response of these two units was
essentially identical, with the performance of both joints governed by bond failure as expected. The
similarity of the force-displacement response was a strong indicator that inorganic polymer concrete performs
in a similar manner to Portland cement concrete. Further details of the test results can be found elsewhere
(Brooke et al. 2007a).
It was concluded that beam-column joints made from inorganic polymer concrete perform in a similar
manner to joints constructed from Portland cement concrete. Inorganic polymer concrete can be used in
beam-column joints designed to meet seismic performance criteria, and the performance of such joints
designed using existing standards is indistinguishable from the performance of joints constructed from
Portland cement concrete.

UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE WALLS

In recent years there has been much interest in structures that combine the ability to resist significant
earthquakes with the ability to self-centre after such events. These structures typically employ a rocking
mechanism to accommodate post-elastic deformations and are exemplified by the structures and components
tested during the PRESSS program (Priestley et al. 1999). The performance of the rocking mechanism is
often enhanced by the use of post-tensioning tendons that are unbonded over at least some of their length.
Unbonded tendons are unlikely to yield during an earthquake and thus provide an additional restoring force
to enhance the self-centering ability of the structure. The behavior of such self-centering wall systems has
been a focus of previous research at the University of Auckland, with two prior PhD theses concentrating on
the performance of unbonded post-tensioned masonry walls (Laursen 2002; Wight 2006).
Rocking walls are designed so that when subjected to lateral forces only one crack forms, located at the
base of the wall. After repeated force reversal this crack extends across the full width of the wall. The
opening of this crack is related to the lateral drift of the wall, and can be large at the drift levels expected
during design earthquakes. The crack opening causes a significant additional strain in tendons crossing the
crack, and thus increases the lateral force that can be resisted by the wall. To accurately design rocking walls
it is important to be able to accurately predict the increase in tendon strain at nominal flexural strength,
defined as the strength when the strain at the extreme compression fibre reaches the code defined maximum
usable strain (typically 0.003).
Predicting the strength of a member with unbonded reinforcement is difficult. There is no requirement
for strain compatibility between concrete and unbonded reinforcement at a section, and thus unbonded
tendon stress change must be based on the average concrete strain along the unbonded length. This
significantly complicates the exact calculation of tendon stress, and thus semi-empirical predictive equations
are used for estimating tendon stresses at nominal flexural strength. Equations of this type found in New
Zealand design standards (NZS 3101:2006) were developed from experimental testing of beams (Mattock et
al. 1971), and thus their suitability for designing walls is questionable. Through a process of full scale wall
testing combined with finite element modeling, Wight (2006) developed an improved equation for predicting
the tendon stress levels in rocking masonry walls. Wight suggested that the equation would also be suitable
for a concrete walls, but this was not verified. The research project described here tested two concrete wall
panels containing unbonded post-tensioning, and used the results to assess the accuracy of Wight’s equation.

Experimental Method

Figure 4 shows details of the two wall panels constructed for this study. The panels were designed to
have quite different aspect ratios to enable the effect of this variable on tendon stress to be considered.
Straight plastic ducts were cast in the walls, which allowed unbonded post-tensioning tendons to be added as
required. Since the aim of this study was only to determine tendon stresses at nominal flexural strength, the
wall panels were loaded monotonically using the test setup shown in Figure 4. In addition to simplifying
testing, monotonic loading restricted damage during testing to the compressed corner at the base of the wall.
Thus by testing in both directions and then inverting the wall, each panel could be used for four tests with
different different initial stress levels. This greatly increased the quantity of data obtained from each test
specimen.
During testing of the first wall panel (wall B) a number of problems with the test setup were encountered
that prevented useful strain measurements from being recorded. Wall B was initially installed with no
bedding layer between the strong floor and the wall base, which was done to prevent the properties of the
bedding layer from influencing wall response. Initial testing demonstrated that a bedding layer was required
as full contact was not achieved under the compressed toe of the wall. Placing a layer of cement mortar
under the wall allowed full contact at the rocking interface, but the lower stiffness of this layer had a
significant influence on wall force-displacement response. In addition to these problems no useable strain
data was obtained from wall B since no strain gauges were installed on the concrete surface and other
instrumentation employed proved unable to measure concrete strain at the extreme compression fibre.
Based on the problems found when testing wall B, two improvements were made to the test and
instrumentation setup before testing of wall A commenced. High strength gypsum plaster was used instead
of cement based mortar to reduce the influence of the bedding layer on the experimental results. To improve
strain readings from the extreme compression fibre three strain gauges were surface mounted on the concrete
in this region.
 cross
section
1000 mm

140 mm
2000 mm

ducts for
tendons

3300 mm

3000 mm
elevation

Wall A Wall B

Figure 4. Elevation and cross section of wall panels and test setup

Experimental Results

The force-displacement response and concrete strain measurements obtained from testing wall A were
adequately predicted by finite element analysis, but response prediction for wall B was less successful due to
the soft bedding layer used during the testing of wall B. This significantly influenced the behaviour of the
wall and could not be accounted for in the finite element model. The other focus of the research was to
compare the tendon stress levels with those predicted by a new equation developed by Wight (2006). For
wall A, the new equation was able to predict the tendon stress levels with a maximum error of 7%, while the
existing equation in the New Zealand design standard (NZS 3101:2006) provided poor predictions with
errors up to 20%. More detailed experimental results are available elsewhere (Brooke et al. 2007b).
The research concluded that the new equation proposed by Wight more accurately predicted the tendon
stress levels in concrete wall panels. However, further testing of wall panels is required to properly evaluate
the influence of foundation material on wall force-displacement response.

CONCLUSIONS

An overview of three recent or ongoing research projects on reinforced and prestressed concrete
conducted by UACEER members has been presented. The first project investigated the performance of
precast concrete beam-column joints that used DFRCC rather than conventional transverse reinforcement to
resist shear forces in the joint core. The beam-column joints performed well when subjected to simulated
earthquake forces, and the removal of transverse reinforcement from the joint core significantly reduced
reinforcement congestion in this region.
The second project involved testing of reinforced concrete constructed from inorganic polymer concrete.
Inorganic polymer concrete has the potential to dramatically cut carbon dioxide emissions caused by the use
of concrete. Testing showed that the performance of inorganic polymer beam-column joints was
indistinguishable from the performance of Portland cement concrete joints, indicating that existing standards
can be used to design inorganic polymer concrete structures.
The final project discussed was focused on verifying the accuracy of equations used to predict the
nominal strength of unbonded post-tensioned concrete walls. Testing showed that the equation currently
found in New Zealand design standards did not accurately predict the strength of walls, and that a new
equation developed from testing of masonry walls can be applied to more accurately predict the strength of
concrete walls.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research work on inorganic polymer beam-column joints was funded by Golden Bay Cement. Their
kind permission to publish the research is greatfully acknowledged.
In addition to the listed authors, several other people contributed to the research presented in this paper.
The contributions of Louise Keyte, Les Megget and Warren South to the inorganic polymer concrete tests are
acknowledged, as is the help given by Alistair Russell and Gavin Wight during the testing of unbonded wall
panels.

REFERENCES

Brooke N. J. and J. M. Ingham, 2007, "Testing of Fibre Reinforced Precast Concrete Beam-Column Joints". Proc. Ninth
Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Ottawa, Canada, 26-29 June.
Brooke N. J., L. M. Keyte, W. South, J. M. Ingham and L. M. Megget, 2007a, "Seismic Performance of Inorganic
Polymer Concrete Beam-Column Joints," Proceedings of ICE, Construction Materials, In Press, Accepted for
Publication January 2007.
Brooke N. J., G. D. Wight, A. P. Russell and J. M. Ingham, 2007b, "Unbonded Prestressed Panel Tendon Stresses at In-
Plane Nominal Flexural Strength". Proc. Ninth Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Ottawa, Canada, 26-
29 June.
Davidovits J., 2002, "15 Years of Experience in Environmentally Driven Geopolymer Applications. Market Trends and
Potential Breakthroughs". Proc. Geopolymers 2002, Melbourne, Australia, 28-29 October.
fib Task Group 7.3, 2003, Seismic Design of Precast Concrete Building Structures. International Federation for
Structural Concrete (fib), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Laursen P. T., 2002, Seismic Analysis and Design of Post-tensioned Concrete Masonry Walls. PhD Thesis, Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Li V. C., 2003, "On Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC): A Review of the Material and Its Applications,"
Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 1(3): 215-230.
Malhotra V. M., 1999, "Making Concrete 'Greener' with Fly Ash," Concrete International, 21(5): 61-66.
Mattock A. H., J. Yamazaki and B. T. Kattula, 1971, "Comparative Study of Prestressed Concrete Beams, With and
Without Bond," Journal of the American Concrete Institute, 68(2): 116-125.
NZS 3101:2006, Concrete Structures Standard. Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
Priestley M. J. N., S. Sritharan, J. R. Conley and S. Pampanin, 1999, "Preliminary Results and Conclusions from the
PRESSS Five-Story Precast Concrete Test Building," PCI Journal, 44(6): 42-67.
Restrepo J. I., R. Park and A. H. Buchanan, 1995, "Test on Connections of Earthquake Resisting Precast Reinforced
Concrete Frames of Buildings," PCI Journal, 40(4): 44-61.
Wang S. and V. C. Li, 2005, "Polyvinyl Alcohol Fiber Reinforced Engineered Cementitious Composites: Material
Design and Performances". Proc. International Workshop on HPFRCC in Structural Applications, Honolulu, Hawaii,
23-26 May.
Wight G. D., 2006, Seismic Performance of a Post-Tensioned Concrete Masonry Wall System. PhD Thesis, Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Auckland, New Zealand.

View publication stats