this document is on RCC link or coupling beam

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

256 views

this document is on RCC link or coupling beam

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Concrete Block Construction
- Formula Estimate
- tie beam
- Post Tension Ing
- Research Engineers (Europe) Ltd European Headquarters Draycott House Almondsbury Business
- 2006 Structural Seismic Design Manual 1
- 05.Design of Truss
- Seismic Design Using Structural Dynamics_SK Ghosh
- Manual 3 Full Brick
- Staad Training - Module 3 - Malaybalay City June 2011_2
- Design of Wall Footing
- 54122216-Rilem-2001-Connection-Concrete-Steel.pdf
- Staad.pro_v8i - Part I
- Construction Handbook
- Dynamic Analysis Verification
- Coupling Beam
- beam desigm
- Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings
- Seismic Design of Rft Frams
- Seismic Design Guide Masonry Buildings April 2009

You are on page 1of 116

David Naish John W. Wallace University of California, Los Angeles Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering J. Andrew Fry Ron Klemencic Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Inc.

Sponsor:

David Naish Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Los Angeles J. Andrew Fry Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Inc. Ron Klemencic Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Inc. John Wallace Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Los Angeles

Report to Charles Pankow Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science University of California, Los Angeles August 11, 2009

ii

ABSTRACT

An efficient structural system for tall building construction to resist earthquake loads consists of reinforced concrete shear walls connected by diagonally reinforced coupling beams. Construction of coupling beams that satisfy the strength and detailing requirements set forth in ACI 318-05 for diagonally reinforced coupling beams is cumbersome and costly; therefore, ACI 318-08 provides a new detailing option which aims to improve the constructability while maintaining adequate strength and ductility. Eight half-scale specimens were tested to compare the performance of beams constructed utilizing new and old detailing options, to evaluate common modeling approaches, and to assess the impact of reinforced and post-tensioned slabs. Test results indicate that the new detailing approach provides equal, if not improved behavior as compared to the alternative detailing approach, that simple modeling approaches reasonably capture measured force versus deformation behavior, and that including a slab had only a modest impact on strength, stiffness, ductility, and observed damage. This report summarizes the results of these eight tests.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research has been funded by the Charles Pankow Foundation, with significant in-kind support provided by Webcor Concrete; this support is gratefully acknowledged. As well, material contributions from Catalina Pacific Concrete, SureLock, and Hanson Pacific are appreciated. Thanks are extended to laboratory assistants Joy Park, Nolan Lenahan, and Cameron Sanford, as well as UCLA students Anne Lemnitzer, Sarah Taylor-Lange, and Derek Skolnik and UCLA laboratory technicians Steve Keowen, Alberto Salamanca, Steve Kang, and Harold Kasper, for help in test preparation and completion.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. v LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF SYMBOLS ................................................................................................................... xi 1 2 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM.......................................................................................... 5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3 Beam Design................................................................................................................... 5 Material Properties.......................................................................................................... 6 Test Setup...................................................................................................................... 16 Loading Protocol........................................................................................................... 16 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 18

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION........................................................ 25 3.1 Detailing........................................................................................................................ 27 3.1.1 Full Section vs. Diagonal Confinement ................................................................ 27 3.1.2 Full vs. Half Confinement .................................................................................... 27 3.2 Slab Impact ................................................................................................................... 31 3.3 Frame Beam .................................................................................................................. 35 3.4 Damage ......................................................................................................................... 36

MODELING........................................................................................................................ 47 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Effective Stiffness......................................................................................................... 47 Effect of Scale............................................................................................................... 49 Backbone Relations ...................................................................................................... 53 Model vs. Test Results.................................................................................................. 56

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 59

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 61 APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................. 63 APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................. 92 APPENDIX C .............................................................................................................................. 95 APPENDIX D .............................................................................................................................. 96 APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................................ 100

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Confinement options: (a) Diagonal confinement; and (b) Full section confinement........4 Figure 2.1 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 2.4) full section confinement: (a) CB24F, CB24F-RC, CB24F-PT, CB24F-1/2-PT elevation; (b) CB24F cross section; and (c) CB24F-RC, CB24F-PT, CB24F-1/2-PT cross section. (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm) ...........................................8 Figure 2.2 Photographs of test specimens (ln/h = 2.4) full section confinement (clockwise from top left): (a) CB24F beam construction; (b) CB24F-1/2-PT beam construction; (c) CB24F-PT beam elevation; and (d) CB24F-RC beam and slab construction.......................................................9 Figure 2.3 - Slab geometry and reinforcement for CB24F-RC, CB24F-PT, and CB24F-1/2-PT: (a) Elevation view; and (b) plan view. (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm) ............................10 Figure 2.4 - Slab geometry and PT reinforcement for CB24F-PT and CB24F-1/2-PT: (a) Plan view; and (b) photo of post-tensioning load application. (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm)11 Figure 2.5 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 2.4) diagonal confinement (clockwise from top left): (a) CB24D elevation; (b) cross section; (c) diagonal bundle section dimensions; and (d) beam construction (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm) ....................................................................12 Figure 2.6 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 3.33) full section confinement (clockwise from top left): (a) CB33F elevation; (b) cross-section; and (c) beam construction (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm) ............................................................................................................................................13 Figure 2.7 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 3.33) diagonal confinement (clockwise from top left): (a) CB33D elevation; (b) cross-section; (c) diagonal bundle section dimensions; and (d) beam construction (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm) ....................................................................14 Figure 2.8 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 3.33) frame beam: (a) FB33 elevation; and (b) crosssection. (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm)............................................................................15 Figure 2.9 Laboratory test setup .......................................................................................................16 Figure 2.10 Loading protocol: (a) Load-controlled; and (b) Displacement-controlled. (1k = 4.45kN) .............................................................................................................................................17 Figure 2.11 Sensor layout for: (a) CB24F and CB24D, and (b) CB33F, CB33D, and FB33 ..........19 Figure 2.12 Sensor layout for (a) CB24F-RC, and (b) CB24F-PT and CB24F-1/2-PT ...................20 Figure 2.13 Strain gauge layout for CB24F and CB33F. SG 12 and SG 14 are on horizontal crossties.............................................................................................................................................21 Figure 2.14 Strain gauge layout for CB24D and CB33D. SG 15 and SG 16 are located on horizontal crossties............................................................................................................................22 Figure 2.15 Strain gauge layout for CB24F-RC, CB24F-PT, and CB24F-1/2-PT. SG 12 and SG 16 are located on horizontal crossties. ..............................................................................................23 Figure 2.16 Strain gauge layout for FB33. SG 12 and SG 16 are located on horizontal crossties. ..24 Figure 3.1 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F vs. CB24D (1in = 25.4mm) .......................................29 Figure 3.2 Cyclic load-deformation: CB33F vs. CB33D (1in = 25.4mm) .......................................29 Figure 3.3 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F-PT vs. CB24F-1/2-PT (1in = 25.4mm) .....................30 vii

Figure 3.4 Moment curvature analysis summary for beam with and without slab (clockwise from top left): (a) Beam cross section with and without slab; (b) beam elevation with positive and negative moment capacities shown; (c) plot of Mn- vs. curvature; and (d) plot of Mn+ vs. curvature ...........................................................................................................................................32 Figure 3.5 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F vs. CB24F-RC (1in = 25.4mm) .................................33 Figure 3.6 Axial elongation vs. rotation: CB24F vs. CB24F-RC (1in = 25.4mm)...........................33 Figure 3.7 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F-RC vs. CB24F-PT (1in = 25.4mm) ...........................34 Figure 3.8 Axial elongation vs. rotation: CB24F-PT vs. CB24F-RC (1in = 25.4mm).....................34 Figure 3.9 Cyclic load-deformation: FB33 (1in = 25.4mm).............................................................35 Figure 3.10 CB24F damage photos: (a) 0.075% rotation; (b) 1% rotation; (c) 2% rotation; and (d) 3% rotation........................................................................................................................................38 Figure 3.11 CB24F damage photos: (a) 4% rotation; (b) 6% rotation; (c) 8% rotation; and (d) 10% rotation......................................................................................................................................39 Figure 3.12 CB24D damage photos: (a) 0.075% rotation; (b) 1% rotation; (c) 2% rotation; and (d) 3% rotation ..................................................................................................................................40 Figure 3.13 CB24D damage photos: (a) 4% rotation; (b) 6% rotation; (c) 8% rotation; and (d) 10% rotation......................................................................................................................................41 Figure 3.14 CB24F-PT damage photos: (a) 0.075% rotation; (b) 1% rotation; (c) 2% rotation; and (d) 3% rotation ...........................................................................................................................42 Figure 3.15 CB24F-PT damage photos: (a) 4% rotation; (b) 6% rotation; (c) 8% rotation; and (d) 10% rotation......................................................................................................................................43 Figure 3.16 CB24F-1/2-PT damage photos: (a) 0.075% rotation; (b) 1% rotation; (c) 2% rotation; and (d) 3% rotation ...........................................................................................................................44 Figure 3.17 CB24F-1/2-PT damage photos: (a) 4% rotation; (b) 6% rotation; (c) 8% rotation; and (d) 10% rotation ................................................................................................................................45 Figure 4.1 Effective stiffness plotted as a function of aspect ratio for various levels of displacement ductility (NZS 3101-1995). Included on the plot are test results at the corresponding ductility levels. ..........................................................................................................51 Figure 4.2 Effective stiffness vs. rotation: ln/h = 2.4 .......................................................................51 Figure 4.3 Yield rotation due to slip/extension vs. aspect ratio for various testing scales ...............52 Figure 4.4 Effective elastic stiffness as a function of gross section stiffness calculated for various aspect ratios and testing scales..........................................................................................................52 Figure 4.5 Determination of backbone relation from test data .........................................................55 Figure 4.6 Backbone load-deformation for full-scale beam models and ASCE 41-06 model (1/2scale test results are dotted lines)......................................................................................................55 Figure 4.7 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F vs. moment hinge model............................................58 Figure 4.8 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F vs. shear hinge model ................................................58

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 - Test Matrix and Material Properties............................................................................. 7 Table 3.1 - Moment and Shear Strength Capacities ..................................................................... 26 Table 3.2 - Crack Widths [in.] ...................................................................................................... 37 Table 4.1 - Effective Stiffness Values .......................................................................................... 50

ix

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Acw = cross-sectional area of concrete beam web Ash Avd bw db Ec fc fy h Ieff Ig ln Mn My s V = area of transverse reinforcement provided within given spacing, s = cross-sectional area of each diagonal group of bars = width of beam web = diameter of rebar = modulus of elasticity of concrete = concrete compressive strength = yield strength of reinforcement = beam depth = effective section moment of inertia = gross section moment of inertia = clear span of beam = moment capacity of beam = yield moment of beam = longitudinal spacing of transverse reinforcement = beam shear

Vave = average beam shear between yield and onset of strength degradation Vmax = max shear force applied during test Vn Vy y y = nominal shear capacity of beam = yield strength of beam = angle between diagonal bars and longitudinal axis of beam = relative displacement of beam end = relative displacement at yield = beam chord rotation = beam chord rotation at yield

xi

xii

Introduction

Tall building construction is common in metropolitan areas and it has become increasingly important to provide methods of construction that improve both seismic performance and constructability. Reinforced concrete core walls, with coupling beams above openings to accommodate doorways, are an efficient lateral-force-resisting system for tall buildings. When subjected to strong shaking, coupling beams act as fuses and typically undergo large inelastic rotations. Various testing programs have been carried out to assess the load deformation behavior of coupling beams.1-5 Primary test variables in these studies were the ratio of the beam clear span to the beam total depth (commonly referred to as the beam aspect ratio) and the arrangement of the beam reinforcement. In a majority of these studies, the load deformation behavior of lowaspect ratio beams (1.0 to 1.5) constructed with beam top and bottom longitudinal reinforcement were compared with beams constructed with diagonal reinforcement. Concrete compressive strengths for most tests were around 4 ksi (~25-30 MPa). Although these tests provided valuable information, they do not address issues for current tall building construction, where beam aspect ratios are typically between 2.0 and 3.5 and concrete strengths are in the range of 6 to 8 ksi (~4055 MPa). In addition, in none of the prior studies was a slab included as part of the test specimen; whereas the slab might restrain axial elongations and impact stiffness, strength, and deformation capacity.6-8 Use of post-tensioned slabs is common for current construction. Use of diagonal reinforcement in coupling beams with clear length to total depth less than four was introduced into ACI 318-95.9 Two groups of diagonal bars are commonly assumed to form a truss, with one group serving as the tension member and the other as the compression member. To enhance the compressive strength and deformation capacity of the diagonal truss

members as well as to suppress buckling of the diagonal bars, use of transverse reinforcement around the diagonal bar groups is required. The quantity of transverse reinforcement required is the same as that used for columns, which is substantially more than that used in most of the prior coupling beam test programs. Nominal transverse reinforcement also is required around the entire beam cross section. Providing transverse reinforcement around the diagonal bar bundles as detailed in ACI 318-0510 S21.7.7 is difficult where the diagonal groups intersect at the beam mid-span, particularly for shallow beams, as well as at the beam-wall interface due to interference with the wall boundary vertical reinforcement (Fig. 1-1(a)). To combat these issues, ACI 318-0811 S21.9.7 introduced an alternative detailing option, where transverse reinforcement is placed around the beam cross section to provide confinement and suppress buckling, and no transverse reinforcement is provided directly around the diagonal bar bundles (Fig. 1-1(b)). Use of this detailing option avoids the problems noted where the diagonal bars intersect and at the beam-wall interface, reducing the construction time for a typical floor by a day or two.12 In beams with aspect ratio (ln/h) approaching four, the angle of inclination () of the diagonal reinforcement is often very small (~10), making placement of the diagonal reinforcement more difficult, as the diagonal bars are more likely to be obstructed by transverse reinforcement. Use of straight (longitudinal) flexural reinforcement is common in these situations, if the shear demand and required ductility are low. Nonlinear modeling of coupling beams has received increased attention as the use of performance-based design for tall core wall buildings has become more common.13 Modeling parameters for diagonally-reinforced coupling beams were introduced into Table 6-18 of FEMA 35614; given the limited test data available, only one row of modeling parameters is provided, and these parameters remain unchanged in ASCE 41-06 (2007).15 Of particular interest is the selection of the effective secant bending stiffness at yield Ec I eff and the allowable plastic rotation prior to significant lateral strength degradation. The value used for coupling beam bending stiffness has a significant impact on degree of coupling.16 Based on investigation of prior studies, the following parameters were deemed particularly important for study: 1) Aspect ratio 2) Residual capacity/failure

3) Slab inclusion (RC and PT) 4) Detailing/confinement steel a. Diagonal confinement b. Full-section confinement c. -section confinement

*

(a)

to the axis of the diagonal bars not to exceed 14 in., typical

SECTION

Spacing not to exceed 8 in., typical

(b)

Alternate consecutive crosstie 90-deg hooks, both horizontally and vertically, typical

* *

SECTION

Figure 1.1 Confinement options: (a) Diagonal confinement; and (b) Full section confinement

typical

Experimental Program

2.1

BEAM DESIGN The test beam prototypes were based on two common tall building configurations for

residential and office construction. Typical wall openings and story heights produce coupling beams with aspect ratios of approximately 2.4 for residential buildings and 3.33 for office buildings. A coupling beam with cross-section dimensions of 24" x 30"

( 94.5 mm x 118 mm )

and 24" x 36" ( 94.5 mm x 142 mm ) reinforced with two bundles of 8-#11 diagonal bars is common for residential and office construction, respectively. The nominal shear strengths of the residential and office beams, determined using ACI 318-08 equation 21-9

(V

= 2 Avd f y sin 10 f 'c Acw , are 7.3 f 'c Acv and 4.8 f 'c Acv , for aspect ratios of 2.4

(=15.7) and 3.33 (=12.3), respectively, for Grade 60 reinforcement. Due to geometric and strength constraints of an existing reaction frame, tests were conducted on one-half scale replicas of the prototype beams. Thus the test specimens were either 12" x 15" ( 47 mm x 59 mm ) or

12" x 18" ( 47 mm x 71 mm ) with two bundles of 6-#7 diagonal bars (Figs. 2.1-2.5), for the

residential and office beams, respectively. For aspect ratio 3.33, a 12" x 18"

( 47 mm x 71mm )

specimen with two groups of 3-#6 straight (longitudinal) flexural reinforcement (referred to as frame beam) was also tested (Fig. 2.8). The maximum shear stress expected for the frame beam, based on reaching M pr at the beam-wall interface at the beam ends, was 3.6 f 'c . This limit was selected based on input from practicing engineers; at higher shear stresses, use of diagonal reinforcement is common.

As stated previously, the configuration of the transverse reinforcement was a primary variable of the test program. Beams with transverse reinforcement provided around the bundles of diagonal bars (referred to as diagonal confinement) were designed according to ACI 318-05 S21.7.7.4, whereas beams with transverse reinforcement provided around the entire beam cross section (referred to as full section confinement) were designed according to ACI 318-08 S21.9.7.4(d). Volumetric ratios of transverse reinforcement and the ratios bar spacing to bar diameter ( s / db ) for the one-half scale test beams were selected to be similar to the prototype beams. Due to maximum spacing requirements, the volumetric ratios of transverse reinforcement provided in both the prototype and test beams exceed that calculated using the requirement for columns (ACI 318-08 21.6.4.4). The test beam geometries and reinforcement configurations are summarized in Table 2.1 and Figures 2.1-2.8. Three test specimens with aspect ratio of 2.4 were constructed with 4-thick slabs. One specimen (CB24F-RC) contained a slab reinforced with #3 bars @12 spacing, on the top and bottom in the transverse direction, and on the top only in the longitudinal direction, without posttensioning strands (Fig. 2.3). Two specimens (CB24F-PT and CB24F-1/2-PT) both contained a similar reinforced-concrete slab, but also were reinforced with 3/8 7-wire strands post-tensioned to apply 150 psi to the slab in the longitudinal direction (Figs. 2.3-2.4). Specimen notation is given in Table 2.1.

2.2

MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Material samples were taken and tested in order to determine actual properties for both concrete compressive strength and steel tensile strengths. Concrete cylinders were tested to determine fc for each test specimen on the day of testing. Concrete cylinders were tested both in the UCLA material testing laboratory as well as at Twining Testing Labs in Long Beach, CA, in order to provide redundancy, and to help avoid error in the material testing process. Rebar coupons were tested in order to determine yield and ultimate tensile strengths for steel in the coupling beam specimens. Rebar in each specimen was taken from the same batch to ensure consistency from test to test. These material properties are summarized in Table 2.1.

A sh act [] Ash Full Section Diagonals req

Beam

Transverse Reinforcement

Description Full section confinement ACI 318-08 Diagonal confinement ACI 318-05 Full section conf. w/ RC slab ACI 318-08 Full section conf. w/ PT slab ACI 318-08 Full section conf. (reduced) w/ PT slab ACI 318-08 Full section confinement ACI 318-08 Diagonal confinement ACI 318-05 Frame beam with 6-#6 straight bars

CB24F

#3 @ 3"

N.A.

1.34 (1.25)1 1.92 1.34 (1.25)1 1.34 (1.25)1 0.67 (0.63)1 1.34 (1.25)1 1.92 -

1.24 (1.09)1 2.44 1.24 (1.09)1 1.24 (1.09)1 0.62 (0.55)1 1.26 (1.06)1 2.44 -

6850

CB24D 2.4

#2 @ 2.5" #3 @ 2.5"

6850

()1

15.7

#3 @ 3"

N.A.

7305

#3 @ 3"

N.A.

#3 @ 6"

N.A.

#3 @ 3" 12.3

N.A.

6850

office

6850 6000

Section A-A

Section A-A

Figure 2.1 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 2.4) full section confinement: (a) CB24F, CB24F-RC, CB24F-PT, CB24F-1/2-PT elevation; (b) CB24F cross section; and (c) CB24F-RC, CB24F-PT, CB24F-1/2-PT cross section. (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm)

Figure 2.2 Photographs of test specimens (ln/h = 2.4) full section confinement (clockwise from top left): (a) CB24F beam construction; (b) CB24F-1/2-PT beam construction; (c) CB24F-PT beam elevation; and (d) CB24F-RC beam and slab construction

Figure 2.3 - Slab geometry and reinforcement for CB24F-RC, CB24F-PT, and CB24F-1/2-PT: (a) Elevation view; and (b) plan view. (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm)

10

Figure 2.4 - Slab geometry and PT reinforcement for CB24F-PT and CB24F-1/2-PT: (a) Plan view; and (b) photo of posttensioning load application. (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm)

11

Section B-B

Figure 2.5 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 2.4) diagonal confinement (clockwise from top left): (a) CB24D elevation; (b) cross section; (c) diagonal bundle section dimensions; and (d) beam construction (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm)

12

Section C-C

Figure 2.6 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 3.33) full section confinement (clockwise from top left): (a) CB33F elevation; (b) crosssection; and (c) beam construction (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm)

13

Section D-D

Figure 2.7 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 3.33) diagonal confinement (clockwise from top left): (a) CB33D elevation; (b) crosssection; (c) diagonal bundle section dimensions; and (d) beam construction (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm)

14

Section E-E

Figure 2.8 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 3.33) frame beam: (a) FB33 elevation; and (b) cross-section. (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm)

15

2.3

TEST SETUP

The setup shown in Figure 2.9, where the test specimen was placed in a vertical position with end blocks simulating wall boundary zones at each end, was used for all tests. The end blocks were grouted and post-tensioned to the laboratory strong floor (bottom) and to the steel reaction frame (top) to minimize slip between the surfaces as well as to provide for fixed end conditions. Two vertical hydraulic actuators were used to ensure zero rotation at the top of the specimen, while maintaining constant (zero) axial force in the beam. The lateral load was applied via a horizontal actuator, with the line of action of the actuator force passing through the mid-span (mid-height) of the test specimen to achieve zero moment at the beam mid-span. To prevent out-of-plane rotation or twisting, a sliding truss system was attached between the steel reaction frame and the reinforced concrete reaction wall.

2.4

LOADING PROTOCOL

The testing procedure included load-controlled and displacement-controlled cycles (Fig. 2.10). Load-control was performed at 0.125, 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75Vy, where Vy = 2 M y ln to ensure that the load-displacement behavior prior to yield was captured. For residential beams, Vy was

16

assumed to be 120k using nominal material properties; for office beams, Vy was assumed to be 100k. Beyond 0.75Vy, displacement-control was used in increments of percent chord rotation (), defined as the relative lateral displacement over the clear span of the beam () divided by the beam clear span (ln) (excluding any contribution of slip and rotation of the bottom support block). Three cycles were applied at each load increment for load controlled testing, and three cycles were applied in displacement-control at each increment of chord rotation up to 3%, which is approximately the allowable collapse prevention (CP) limit state for ASCE 41-06.15 Two cycles were applied at each increment of chord rotation exceeding 3%.

100

50 0 -50 -100

12 8

Rotation [%]

4 0 -4 -8 -12

Figure 2.10 Loading protocol: (a) Load-controlled; and (b) Displacement-controlled. (1k = 4.45kN)

17

2.5

INSTRUMENTATION

Each of the test specimens was heavily instrumented. Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs) were placed on the specimen to measure key deformation quantities; Figures 2.11 and 2.12 show the sensor layouts for the different test specimens. Vertical sensors (#1-12) measured flexural response, diagonal sensors (#13-24) measured shear response, vertical sensors (#54-57) at the beam-wall interface measured slip/extension deformations, horizontal sensors (#50-53) at the beam-wall interface measured any sliding of the beam with respect to the wall, vertical sensors (#40-41) spanning the full length of the beam measured axial elongation of the beam, and all other sensors (#30-33 and AC-1,2) were used to measure the tip displacement of the beam. As well, strain gauges were placed on diagonal, transverse, and longitudinal rebar (Fig. 2.13-2.16). Data from several different sensors was used to calculate values plotted in all results. Individual sensor data are available from the authors. Eventually, the data will be uploaded to the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation data repository. Data also will be stored on a data server at UCLA.

18

Figure 2.11 Sensor layout for: (a) CB24F and CB24D, and (b) CB33F, CB33D, and FB33

19

Figure 2.12 Sensor layout for (a) CB24F-RC, and (b) CB24F-PT and CB24F-1/2-PT

20

Figure 2.13 Strain gauge layout for CB24F and CB33F. SG 12 and SG 14 are on horizontal crossties

21

Figure 2.14 Strain gauge layout for CB24D and CB33D. SG 15 and SG 16 are located on horizontal crossties.

22

Figure 2.15 Strain gauge layout for CB24F-RC, CB24F-PT, and CB24F-1/2-PT. SG 12 and SG 16 are located on horizontal crossties.

23

Figure 2.16 Strain gauge layout for FB33. SG 12 and SG 16 are located on horizontal crossties.

24

Results from the tests are presented and discussed. Overall load-displacement relations are compared to assess the impact of providing full section confinement as opposed to confinement around the diagonals for both residential- and office-use beams. The role of transverse reinforcement is examined by comparing load-displacement relations for the beams, including one beam with only one-half of the required transverse reinforcement. Other comparisons are made that examine the effect of the floor slab (both reinforced concrete (RC) and post-tensioned reinforced concrete (PT)) on the beam load-deformation response, including the effective elastic bending stiffness at yield as well as the influence of scale on the test results. specimen at major points. Table 3.1 summarizes the calculated strengths, as well as the actual strengths and deformations of each test

25

Table 3.1 - Moment and Shear Strength Capacities Beam Mn+ [in-k] Mn- [in-k] V@Mn [k] CB24F CB24D 2850 2850 2850 2850 2890 (3350)1 3160 (3625)1 3145 (3610)1 3615 3615 1450 158.3 158.3 160.6 (191.7)1 175.6 (210.7)1 174.7 (209.7)1 120.5 120.5 48.3 V @ Mn Vn ( ACI ) Vn(ACI)[k] V [k] f 'c Acv f 'c Acv ave 10.65 10.65 10.45 (12.50)1 11.45 (13.75)1 11.61 (13.90)1 6.77 6.77 2.89 136.3 136.3 136.3 136.3 136.3 107.8 107.8 9.15 9.15 8.87 8.90 9.06 6.03 6.03 154.9 150.7 181.0 198.9 182.4 118.3 114.7 56.3 Vave V [k] y [in] Vmax [k] @Vmax [in] f 'c Acv y 10.40 10.12 11.77 12.98 12.12 6.62 6.42 3.37 121.3 0.360 128.8 0.363 147.2 0.362 163.2 0.361 158.1 0.365 107.7 0.600 95.94 0.601 47.86 0.306 171.0 159.2 190.8 211.8 189.6 124.0 120.6 58.1 1.08 2.16 2.16 2.16 1.08 1.80 3.60 1.20

CB24F- 2890 RC (3550)1 CB24F- 3160 PT (3960)1 CB24F- 3145 1/2-PT (3940)1 CB33F CB33D FB33 3615 3615 1450

1

Calculations that consider the impact of the slab [1 in-k = 113 mm-kN, 1 in = 25.4 mm, 1 k = 4.45 kN]

26

3.1 3.1.1

Load-deformation responses of CB24F and CB24D are very similar over the full range of applied rotations (Fig. 3.1). Notably, both beams achieve large rotation (~8%) without significant degradation in the lateral load carrying capacity, and the beams achieve shear strengths of 1.25 and 1.17 times the ACI nominal strength (Table 3.1). The shear strength of CB24D degraded rapidly at around 8% rotation, whereas CB24F degraded more gradually, maintaining a residual shear capacity of ~80% at rotations exceeding 10%. Figure 3.2 plots load vs. rotation relations for the 3.33 aspect ratio beams with full section confinement (CB33F) vs. diagonal confinement (CB33D). Similar to the 2.4 aspect ratio beams, Figure 3.2 reveals that the beams have similar strength (Table 3.1), stiffness, deformation, and damage (Table 3.2) characteristics. The test results presented in Figures 3.1-3.2 indicate that the full section confinement option of ACI 318-08 provides equivalent, if not improved performance, compared to confinement around the diagonals per ACI 318-05.

3.1.2

The transverse reinforcement used for CB24F-1/2-PT was one-half that used for CB24F-PT to assess the impact of using less than the code-required transverse reinforcement given that the requirements of S21.6.4 are based on column requirements. Figure 3.3 plots load-deformation responses and reveals similar loading and unloading relations up to 3% total rotation, which approximately corresponds to the Collapse Prevention limit state per ASCE 41-06. At higher rotations (4%), modest strength degradation is observed for CB24F-1/2-PT, whereas the strength of CB24F-PT continues to increase slightly; however, both beams achieve rotations of ~8% before significant lateral strength degradation (<0.8Vave). Vave is defined as the average shear force resisted by the beam between the yield point and the onset of significant lateral strength degradation.

27

The results indicate that the one-half scale coupling beams tested with ACI 318-08 detailing are generally capable of achieving total rotations exceeding 8%, whereas ASCE 41 limits plastic rotation to 3% without strength degradation and 5% with 20% strength degradation. The potential influence of scale on the test results is discussed later (Section 4.2). The test results indicate that there is little difference in load-deformation response between CB24F-PT and CB24F-1/2-PT; therefore, the potential to reduce the quantity of required transverse reinforcement exists, but requires further study since only one beam test was conducted.

28

200

-12

-6 0 6

CB24F CB24D

Vn (ACI)

12

890 445 0

100 0 -100

-445

Vn (ACI)

-200 -4.32

-890

-2.16

2.16

4.32

150 100

-10

-5 0 5

CB33F CB33D

Vn (ACI)

10

* **

670 335 0

Vn (ACI)

-335 -670 6

29

-14 200

-7 0 7

CB24F-PT CB24F-1/2-PT Vn (ACI)

14

980 490 0

Vn (ACI)

-490 -980

-2.5

2.5

30

3.2

SLAB IMPACT

Four beams with aspect ratio of 2.4 were tested to systematically assess the impact of a slab on the load-deformation responses. CB24F did not include a slab, whereas CB24F-RC included an RC slab, and CB24F-PT and CB24F-1/2-PT included PT slabs (with 150 psi of prestress). Comparing the load-displacement responses of CB24F vs. CB24F-RC, Figure 3.5 reveals that the slab increases shear strength by 17% (155 k to 181 k); however, this strength increase can be taken into account by considering the increase in nominal moment strength due to the presence of the slab, i.e. slab concrete in compression at the beam-wall interface at one end, and slab tension reinforcement at the beam-wall interface at the other end (Figure 3.4 and Table 3.1). For example, consideration of the slab produces increases of approximately 20% in the nominal moment capacities, which also provide similar increases in beam shear (since yielding of diagonal reinforcement limits the shear forces on the beams). The results indicate that the higher test shear strength observed is primarily due to the increase in nominal moment capacity when a slab is present. The presence of a slab, and in particular, a post-tensioned slab, might impact the loaddeformation behavior by restraining the axial growth along the member length. Figure 3.6 plots the axial growth of CB24F vs. CB24F-RC and reveals that the axial growth is very similar for the two tests. Both beams grow approximately one inch over the course of the test, with relatively large cracks observed at the beam-wall interface. Strength degradation for CB24F is noted at 8%, due to the buckling and eventual fracture of the diagonal bars, leading to axial shortening, whereas the axial extension in CB24F-RC remains stable over the entire test due to the presence of the slab. Load-deformation responses for CB24F-RC vs. CB24F-PT are compared in Figure 3.7 and display similar overall behavior, with CB24F-PT experiencing higher shear forces (13.0 f 'c Acw ) than CB24F-RC (11.8 f 'c Acw ). This increase in strength is primarily due to the axial force applied to the specimen by the tensioned strands, which provided approximately 150 psi stress to the slab and increased the nominal moment strength (Table 3.1). Between 8% and 10% rotations, strength degradation is more pronounced for CB24F-PT than CB24F-RC, with

31

30% reduction for CB24F-PT vs. 10% for CB24F-RC, possibly due to the presence of precompression. A plot of axial elongation of CB24F-RC vs. CB24F-PT, (Fig. 3.8), indicates that the PT slab with 150 psi prestress grows 30-40% less than the RC slab. As well, the PT slab, like the RC slab in CB24F-RC, helps to maintain the axial integrity of the beam for rotations exceeding 6%.

Mn+

Mn-

4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0

Moment [in-k]

No Slab Slab

No Slab Slab

Curvature [in-1]

0.00216

0.00432 0

0.0005

Curvature [in-1]

0.001

0.0015

0.002

0.0025

Figure 3.4 Moment curvature analysis summary for beam with and without slab (clockwise from top left): (a) Beam cross section with and without slab; (b) beam elevation with positive and negative moment capacities shown; (c) plot of Mn- vs. curvature; and (d) plot of Mn+ vs. curvature

32

-14 200

-7 0 7

CB24F CB24F-RC

14

980 490 0

Vn (ACI)

-490 -980

-2.5

2.5

1.2

-14

-7 0 7

14

3 1.5 0

CB24F CB24F-RC

-1.5 -3

-2.5

2.5

Figure 3.6 Axial elongation vs. rotation: CB24F vs. CB24F-RC (1in = 25.4mm)

33

Vn (ACI)

-14 200

-7 0 7

CB24F-RC CB24F-PT

14

980 490 0

100 0 -100

Vn (ACI)

-490 -980

-200 -5

-2.5

2.5

1.2

-14

-7 0 7

14

3 1.5 0

CB24F-RC CB24F-PT

-1.5 -3

-2.5

2.5

Figure 3.8 Axial elongation vs. rotation: CB24F-PT vs. CB24F-RC (1in = 25.4mm)

34

Vn (ACI)

3.3

FRAME BEAM

FB33 was tested to assess the impact of providing straight bars as flexural reinforcement instead of diagonal bars in beams with relatively low shear stress demand (< 4.0 f 'c ). A plot of load vs. deformation for FB33 (Fig. 3.9) indicates that plastic rotations greater than 4% can be reached prior to strength degradation. These results correspond well with prior test results5 on similarly sized beams, which achieved maximum shear stresses of about 4.7 f 'c and plastic chord rotations greater than 3.5%. Compared with CB33F and CB33D (Fig. 3.2), FB33 experiences pinching in the load-deformation plot, indicating that less energy is dissipated. As well, the beams with diagonal reinforcement exhibited higher ductility, reaching plastic rotations exceeding 7% prior to strength degradation. However, for beams that are expected to experience shear forces less than 5.0 f 'c Acw , frame beams with straight bars can provide significant ductility (p > 4%), and are much easier to construct than diagonally-reinforced beams. Therefore, adding a shear stress limit of 5.0 f 'c for conventionally-reinforced coupling beams with aspect ratio between 2 and 4 to ACI 318-08 21.9.7 might be prudent. At a minimum, ACI 318 should add commentary to note the significant difference in deformation capacity between diagonally- and longitudinally-reinforced coupling beams.

80 -8

-4 0 4

356 178 0

40 0 -40 -80 -5

-178 -356

-2.5

2.5

35

3.4

DAMAGE

Figures 3.10-11 and 3.12-13 are photos of CB24F and CB24D at the peak of every displacement stage between 0.075% and 10% total rotations, respectively, and reveal that maximum diagonal crack widths for CB24F were less than 0.02 and flexural crack widths of 0.08 and 0.125 were measured at 3 and 6% rotations (Table 3.2). In general, diagonal crack widths for CB24D were larger than for CB24F, possibly due to the reduced transverse reinforcement around the full section. The results indicate beams detailed with full section confinement might require less repair than beams detailed with diagonal confinement following an earthquake. Diagonal crack widths for CB24F-1/2-PT (Figs. 3.16-17) are much larger than those observed for CB24F-PT (Figs. 3.14-15), especially for rotations exceeding 6%. At 4% rotation, 1/16 diagonal cracks were noted in CB24F-1/2-PT, whereas diagonal cracks were still hairline in CB24F-PT. Beyond 4% rotation, for CB24F-1/2-PT, spalling of cover concrete was noted, with 1/4 diagonal cracks noted at 6% rotation; buckling and fracture of reinforcement, and crushing of the core concrete were noted for rotations between 8 and 10%. In contrast, minimal damage was observed for CB24F-PT (Figs. 3.14-15), with hairline diagonal cracks and flexural crack widths of less than 1/4, with most of the rotation due to rebar slip/pullout at the beam-wall interface (approximately 1/2 at 6% rotation). Crack widths for all specimens are summarized in Table 3.2. More photos of damage for all specimens are provided in Appendix A. Particularly, it is of interest to know the degree of residual damage (i.e. at zero rotation) for repair purposes. Pictures showing the residual damage of each beam after each rotation level are also shown in Appendix A.

36

Table 3.2 - Crack Widths [in.] Beam CB24F CB24D 1% Slip/ext Flexure 0.125 0.125 0.065 0.095 0.045 0.030 0.015 0.065 0.065 0.030 hairline 0.400 hairline 0.375 hairline 0.500 hairline 0.250 hairline 0.375 hairline 0.315 hairline 0.250 hairline 0.250 3% 0.080 0.125 0.125 0.190 0.190 0.065 0.125 0.250 hairline 0.750 0.016 0.016 0.500 0.500 6% 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.250 0.375 0.250 0.190 0.015 0.125 0.065 hairline 0.250 0.015 0.125 Shear Slip/ext Flexure Shear Slip/ext Flexure Shear

CB24F0.095 RC CB24F0.065 PT CB24F0.065 1/2-PT CB33F CB33F FB33 0.125 0.125 0.060

[1 in = 25.4 mm]

37

Rotation = 0.0075

Rotation = 0.01

Rotation = 0.02

Rotation = 0.03

Figure 3.10 CB24F damage photos: (a) 0.075% rotation; (b) 1% rotation; (c) 2% rotation; and (d) 3% rotation

38

Rotation = 0.04

Rotation = 0.06

Rotation = 0.08

Rotation = 0.10

Figure 3.11 CB24F damage photos: (a) 4% rotation; (b) 6% rotation; (c) 8% rotation; and (d) 10% rotation

39

Rotation = 0.0075

Rotation = 0.01

Rotation = 0.02

Rotation = 0.03

Figure 3.12 CB24D damage photos: (a) 0.075% rotation; (b) 1% rotation; (c) 2% rotation; and (d) 3% rotation

40

Rotation = 0.04

Rotation = 0.06

Rotation = 0.08

Rotation = 0.10

Figure 3.13 CB24D damage photos: (a) 4% rotation; (b) 6% rotation; (c) 8% rotation; and (d) 10% rotation

41

Rotation = 0.0075

Rotation = 0.01

Rotation = 0.02

Rotation = 0.03

Figure 3.14 CB24F-PT damage photos: (a) 0.075% rotation; (b) 1% rotation; (c) 2% rotation; and (d) 3% rotation

42

Rotation = 0.04

Rotation = 0.06

Rotation = 0.08

Rotation = 0.10

Figure 3.15 CB24F-PT damage photos: (a) 4% rotation; (b) 6% rotation; (c) 8% rotation; and (d) 10% rotation

43

Rotation = 0.0075

Rotation = 0.01

Rotation = 0.02

Rotation = 0.03

Figure 3.16 CB24F-1/2-PT damage photos: (a) 0.075% rotation; (b) 1% rotation; (c) 2% rotation; and (d) 3% rotation

44

Rotation = 0.04

Rotation = 0.06

Rotation = 0.08

Rotation = 0.10

Figure 3.17 CB24F-1/2-PT damage photos: (a) 4% rotation; (b) 6% rotation; (c) 8% rotation; and (d) 10% rotation

45

46

Modeling

Typical modeling procedures are discussed and results generated with models are compared to test results. Specifically, models for effective secant stiffness at yield are presented to provide a direct comparison between typical parameters used by engineers and values obtained via testing. As well, the impact of scaling test specimens is investigated to allow test results to be applied to full-scale models. Based on these studies, backbone relations are fit to all test results and modified to represent the behavior of the beam at full-scale. These backbone relations can be used directly in computer software, and the load-deformation results of one specific modeling effort are presented.

4.1

EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS

Elastic analysis approaches require estimation of the effective elastic bending and shear stiffness values. In FEMA 35614, stiffness values of 0.5 Ec I g and 0.4 Ec Acw are recommended for bending and shear, respectively. ASCE 41-06 including Supplement #115 incorporates a lower value for effective stiffness of 0.3 Ec I g , with a mean value obtained from tests of 0.2 Ec I g .17 The New Zealand Code (NZS-3101 1995)18 includes an equation to estimate the effective bending stiffness that depends on the expected ductility demand as: Ec I eff = A Ec I g B + C (h / ln ) 2 (Eq. 1)

where A, B, and C vary with ductility [A=1.0 and 0.40; B=1.7 and 1.7; C=1.3 and 2.7; for ductility=1.25 and 6.0]. For beams with aspect ratio ln/h = 2.4, Equation 1 yields a beam with effective elastic stiffness of around fifty percent of the gross section stiffness, 0.5 Ec I g , whereas

47

for a ductility ratio of 6, the effective (secant) stiffness drops to eighteen percent of the gross section properties, 0.18 Ec I g . All of these values are summarized and compared with the test results in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.2 plots the secant stiffness normalized with respect to the concrete gross section stiffness versus the chord rotation. Secant stiffness is calculated assuming fixed end conditions according to: Ec I eff = V ln3 . 12 The initial stiffness of each residential beam is

approximately 0.25 Ec I g , with an effective stiffness at the yield rotation (~1.0% rotation) of 0.12 Ec I g . Effective secant stiffness values corresponding to ASCE 41-06 limit states are approximately 0.15 Ec I g at Immediate Occupancy (~0.6% rotation), 0.075 Ec I g at Life Safety (~1.8% rotation), and 0.05 Ec I g at Collapse Prevention (~3% rotation). The effective stiffness ratio ( I eff I g ) does not vary significantly for the three different configurations (Fig. 4.2), i.e. beam without slab (CB24F, CB24D), beam with RC slab (CB24F-RC), and beam with PT slab (CB24F-PT, CB24F-1/2-PT). The initial stiffness ratio for the beams with slabs is moderately higher (~25%) for rotations up to about 2%; however, after significant flexural cracks form at the slab-wall interface, generally at ~3% rotation, the stiffness ratio is nearly the same for all three test configurations. The low secant stiffness ratios ( I eff I g ) relative to recommended values (Table 4.1) might imply that significant damage (cracking, concrete spalling) is required to achieve these ratios. However, photos of beam damage, Figures 3.10-13 for the beams without slabs, and Figures 3.14-17 for the beams with slabs, do not show significant spalling and diagonal crack widths are limited to 1/32 even at 6% total rotation (Table 3.2); damage is concentrated at the beam-wall interface in the form of slip/extension cracks. The photos also indicate that the quantity of beam transverse reinforcement is sufficient to keep crack widths small for peak shear stresses as large as10.5 to 13.8 f 'c . The larger diagonal crack widths observed for CB24F-1/2PT, with only one-half the required transverse reinforcement, indicate that the quantity of transverse reinforcement provided in CB24F, CB24F-RC, and CB24F-PT could likely be reduced moderately without compromising deformation capacity. Current modeling of the loaddeformation response of coupling beams tends to focus on shear behavior19; however, for the 2.4

48

and 3.33 aspect ratio beams tested, flexural and slip/extension deformations at and adjacent to the beam-wall interface generally accounted for more than 85% of the total rotation. Of the various approaches noted above for estimating the effective stiffness at yield, i.e. FEMA 356

c g

( 0.5 E I ) ,

c g

ASCE 41-06

( 0.3 E I ) ,

c g

( 0.5 E I ) , only ASCE 41-06 (2007) addresses the impact of slip/extension on the effective

stiffness at yield [it is noted that median effective stiffness reported by Elwood et al (2007)17 is actually 0.2 Ec I g at low axial load, the value of 0.3 Ec I g is used as a compromise to address issues associated with deformation compatibility checks for gravity columns]. The contribution of slip/extension to the yield rotation is estimated for the beams tested using the approach recommended by Alsiwat and Saatcioglu20, where the crack width that develops at the beam-wall interface depends on bar slip and bar extension (strain). Using a coupling beam effective stiffness derived from a moment-curvature analysis of the beam crosssection at the beam-wall interface ( ~ 0.5 Ec I g ) and the slip/extension model noted above, the effective stiffness at yield reduces to 0.12 Ec I g , which is consistent with the effective stiffness at the yield rotation (approximately 1.0% for all beams) derived for the tests (Fig. 4.2). Additional details of the slip/extension calculations are included in Appendix B. Table 4.1 provides a summary of the effective stiffness and yield rotation for each of the different models discussed above. Based on these results, use of the model detailed in ASCE 4106 Supplement #1 is recommended, i.e., use a moment-curvature analysis to define the secant stiffness at the yield point and include a slip/extension spring. Alternatively, as noted in ASCE 41-06 (2007), the effective bending stiffness can be defined to provide an equivalent stiffness that combines both curvature and slip deformations (~ 0.12 Ec I g for the test beams).

4.2

EFFECT OF SCALE

As previously stated, the tests were conducted at one-half scale; therefore, it is important to understand the potential impact of scale on the effective yield stiffness as well as the overall load-deformation behavior. The relative contribution of flexural deformations (curvature) and slip/extension to the yield rotation of the test beams at full scale (i.e. prototype beams) is assessed using the same approach as noted in the previous paragraph for the one-half scale 49

beams. The study is extended to consider coupling beam aspect ratios beyond those tested, by varying the beam length. Results are reported in Figure 4.3, where the effective yield rotation is plotted against beam aspect ratio (ln/h) for various scale factors. For a given scale factor, variation of the aspect ratio has only a moderate impact on the slip rotation, producing roughly a 15 to 20% increase from aspect ratios of 1.0 to 3.0. However, for a given aspect ratio, slip rotation at yield is significantly impacted by scale, with a 35 to 40% reduction for beams at onehalf versus full scale. The effective bending stiffness at yield for the one-half scale tests of

0.12 Ec I g increases to 0.14 Ec I g for the full-scale prototypes due to the reduction in the relative

contribution of slip rotation. Based on these results, we recommend use of an effective yield stiffness value of 0.15 Ec I g for full-scale coupling beams. Figure 4.4 provides a summary of calculated values of effective yield stiffness for coupling beams with aspect ratios 2.0 ln h 4.0 , for both full-scale and half-scale beams (for comparison purposes). The specifics of these calculations are provided in Appendix C.

Table 4.1 Effective Stiffness Values EIeff [% EIg] y [% drift] Test Results FEMA 356 ASCE 41 ASCE 41 S1, w/slip hinge NZS-3101 95 (=1)

1

50

0.6

m=1.25 m=3.0 m=4.5

0.4

m=6.0

Ieff/Ig

0.2 0 1 2

Ln/h

Figure 4.1 Effective stiffness plotted as a function of aspect ratio for various levels of displacement ductility (NZS 3101-1995). Included on the plot are test results at the corresponding ductility levels.

0.3

CB24F-PT CB24F-RC CB24F

Ieff/Ig

0.2

0.1

0 0

51

0.006

ln/h

Figure 4.3 Yield rotation due to slip/extension vs. aspect ratio for various testing scales

0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 2 2.4 2.8 Full-scale 1/2-scale 3.2 3.6 4

ln/h

Figure 4.4 Effective elastic stiffness as a function of gross section stiffness calculated for various aspect ratios and testing scales

52

4.3

BACKBONE RELATIONS

Linearized backbone relations for normalized shear strength versus rotation are plotted in Figure 4.6 as dotted lines for the three configurations of beams tested, i.e. beams with no slab (CB24F, CB24D, CB33F, CB33D), beam with RC slab (CB24F-RC), and beams with PT slab (CB24F-PT and CB24F-1/2-PT). These backbone relations are determined as shown in Figure 4.5, which plots the peaks of the load-deformation curves for CB24F and CB24D. The backbone relations that are modified to represent full-scale beams are also plotted in Figure 4.6, as discussed in the prior subsection. For configurations with multiple tests, an average relation is plotted. The results for all seven tests are very consistent, with a yield rotation of approximately 1.0%, initiation of shear strength degradation at 8.0% rotation, and the residual shear strength reached at 12.0% rotation. Backbone relations modified to represent full-scale beams indicate that the total rotations at yield, strength degradation, and residual strength are reduced to 0.70%, 6.0%, and 9.0%, respectively (from 1.0%, 8.0%, and 12.0%). The impact of slab on shear strength also is apparent in Figure 4.6, with the ratios of Vave Vn being approximately 1.1 (no slab), 1.3 (RC slab), and 1.4 (PT slab), where Vave is defined as the average shear force resisted by the beam between the yield point and the onset of significant lateral strength degradation. ASCE 41-06 with Supplement #1 modeling parameters also are plotted on Figure 4.6 and indicate that the test beams are more flexible at yield and that they attain substantially higher deformation capacity prior to lateral strength degradation than the standard backbone relation. The elastic stiffness of the ASCE 41 relation is based on a bending stiffness of 0.3 Ec I g , or about double that derived for full-scale beams from the test data. The plastic rotation capacity given by ASCE 41-06 Table 6-18 is limited to 3%, whereas the backbone relations for the full-scale beams derived from the test data yield at approximately 0.7% rotation and reach 6.0% rotation prior to strength degradation, or a plastic rotation of 5.3%. Therefore, relative to ASCE 41-06, the relations derived for the full-scale beams have a lower effective yield stiffness (0.14EcIg/0.3EcIg = 0.47) and substantially greater deformation capacity (5.3%/3.0% = 1.77). The tests also reveal that a residual strength equal to 0.3Vn can be maintained to very large rotations (10 to 12%) compared to the ASCE 41-06 residual strength ratio of 0.8 at a plastic rotation value of 5.0%. Therefore, it is reasonable to use a plastic rotation value of 5.0% with no strength

53

degradation, with moderate residual strength (0.3Vn) up to a plastic rotation of 7.0%. It is noted that the ASCE 41-06 relation applies to all diagonally-reinforced coupling beams, including beams with aspect ratios significantly less than the values of 2.4 and 3.33 investigated in this test program. Results presented in Fig. 4.6 apply for the beam aspect ratios tested (2.4 and 3.33), as well as to beams between these ratios. It is reasonable to assume these values can be extrapolated modestly to apply to beams with 2.0 ln h 4.0 .

54

1.4 1.2

V/Vncode

10

12

14

V/Vncode

Rotation [% drift]

12

14

Figure 4.6 Backbone load-deformation for full-scale beam models and ASCE 41-06 model (1/2-scale test results are dotted lines)

55

4.4

Based on the backbone and effective stiffness relations discussed above, nonlinear modeling approaches commonly used by practicing engineers were investigated to assess how well they were able to represent the measured test results. Two models were considered, one utilizing a rotational spring at the ends of the beam to account for both nonlinear flexural and slip/extension deformations (Mn hinge) and one utilizing a nonlinear shear spring at beam mid-span to account for both shear and slip/extension deformations (Vn hinge). Both models were subjected to the same loading protocol used in the tests (Fig. 2.8). The Mn-hinge model consists of an elastic beam cross-section with EcIeff = 0.5EcIg, elastic-rotation springs (hinges) at each beam-end to simulate the effects of slip/extension deformations, and rigid plastic rotational springs (hinges) at each beam-end to simulate the effects of nonlinear deformations. The stiffness of the slip/extension hinges were defined using the Alsiwat and Saatcioglu20 model discussed above, whereas the nonlinear flexural hinges are modeled using the backbone relations derived from test results (Fig. 4.6, excluding the elastic portion). The Vn-hinge model also consists of an elastic beam cross-section and slip/extension hinges. However, instead of using flexural hinges at the beam ends, a shear force versus displacement hinge (spring) is used at the beam mid-span to simulate the effects of nonlinear deformations. The shear hinge properties are defined using the backbone relations derived from the test results (Fig. 4.6). Figures 4.7 and 4.8 shows cyclic load-deformation plots for the two models and the test results for CB24F. Both models accurately capture the overall load-displacement response of the member; however, the Mn-hinge model (Fig. 4.7) captures the unloading characteristics better than the Vn-hinge model (Fig. 4.8), due to the fact that unloading stiffness modeling parameters, which help to adjust the slope of the unloading curve, are available for the flexural hinges in the commercial computer program used, but not for the shear hinges. As noted previously, for the beam test aspect ratios (2.4 and 3.33), flexural and slip/extension deformations account for approximately 80-85% of total deformation whereas shear deformations generally account for only l5-20% of total deformation. Therefore, in both models, the flexural and shear hinges are used to represent flexural deformations, whereas shear deformations are not considered.

56

Therefore, depending on the computer program used, modeling studies similar to those presented here should be conducted to calibrate available model parameters with test results. Specifically, these models were created using Perform 3D, as it is the common program used by design engineers in nonlinear modeling of structural systems. The parameters used in each model are summarized in detail in Appendix D.

57

200

890 445 0

-445 -890

-0.06

0.06

0.12

200

890 445 0

-445 -890

-0.06

0.06

0.12

58

Conclusions

Eight coupling beam specimens with ln/h ratios of 2.4 and 3.33, and varying geometries and reinforcement layouts, were tested under reversed cyclic loading and double curvature bending. The following conclusions can be drawn from the test results. 1) Beams detailed according to the new provision in ACI 318-08, which allows for full section confinement, have performance, in terms of strength and ductility, that is better than beams detailed according to the old provision in ACI 318-05, which requires confinement of the diagonal bar groups. 2) Including a reinforced concrete slab increases the beam shear strength approximately 1520%, whereas adding post-tensioning increases the beam shear strength an additional 10%. However, the strength increase was directly related to the increase in beam moment strength, as the beam shear force was limited by flexural yielding. 3) Beams detailed to satisfy 1/2*Ash perform well at chord rotations < 3.0%. However, at very large rotations ( > 6.0%), the beams experienced greater levels of damage (i.e. more spalling of cover concrete and substantially larger shear cracks > 1/4) compared with beams detailed to satisfy Ash. The results indicate that the amount of transverse reinforcement required could be modestly reduced for the beam aspect ratios tested, especially for beams with lower ductility requirements ( < 3.0%.). However, further study is necessary to determine if less transverse reinforcement could be used for rotations exceeding 3%, or for beams with lower aspect ratios (< 2).

59

4)

Effective elastic stiffness values for test beams are determined to be ~15% of the gross section stiffness, values that are much less than FEMA and ASCE 41 prescribed values of 50% and 30%, respectively. Designers should therefore utilize the slip/extension hinge model detailed in Supplement 1 to ASCE 41 to better approximate the elastic stiffness of the coupling beam.

5)

Most damage experienced by coupling beams with aspect ratio ranging from 2.4 to 3.33 is concentrated at the beam-wall interface in the form of slip/extension of diagonal reinforcement, even when axial load is applied to the beam via post-tensioning. Beams not detailed with full section confinement experience more damage at large rotations ( > 6.0%).

6)

ACI 318-08 implies equivalence between diagonally-reinforced and frame beams for aspect ratios between 2.0 and 4.0. However, frame beams typically achieve maximum plastic chord rotations of 3.5 to 4.0%, for cases where the expected shear stresses are 4.0 to 5.0 f 'c , or about one-half the values for diagonally-reinforced coupling beams tested. Changes to ACI 318 code should be considered to reduce the shear stress allowed for frame beams

( e.g., 5.0

difference in performance. 7) Simple nonlinear models, either moment-hinge or shear-hinge, accurately represent the load-deformation behavior of test beams. The flexural hinge model better matches the test results in the unloading and reloading range, due to the specific modeling parameters available in the computer software used (unloading stiffness modeling parameters), although both models produce acceptable results up to 3% total rotation for beams with ln/h between 2.0 and 4.0. Therefore, depending on the computer program used, the influence of modeling parameters on the load versus deformation responses should be compared with test results to ensure that they adequately represent observed behavior.

60

REFERENCES

1. Paulay, T., and Binney, J. R., 1974, Diagonally Reinforced Coupling Beams of Shear Walls, Shear in Reinforced Concrete, SP-42, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 579-598. 2. Tassios, T. P.; Moretti, M.; and Bezas, A., 1996, On the Coupling Behavior and Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams of Shear Walls, ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 711-720. 3. Kwan, A. K. H. and Zhao, Z. Z., 2001, Testing of coupling beams with equal end rotations maintained and local joint deformation allowed, Structures and Buildings, Thomas Telford, London, 152, No. 1, 6778. 4. Galano, L., and Vignoli, A., 2000, Seismic Behavior of Short Coupling Beams with Different Reinforcement Layouts, ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 876-885. 5. Xiao, Y.; Esmaeily-Ghasemabadi, A.; and H. Wu, "High-Strength Concrete Beams Subjected to Cyclic Shear," ACI Structural Journal Vol. 96 No.3, May-June 1999, pp.392-399. 6. Klemencic, R., Fry, J.A., Hurtado, G., and Moehle, J.P., 2006, Performance of Posttensioned slab-core wall connections, PTI Journal, 4(2), 7-23. 7. Kang, T. H.-K., and Wallace, J. W., Dynamic Responses of Flat Plate Systems with Shear Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2005, pp. 763-773. 8. Kang, T. H.-K., and Wallace, J. W., Punching of Reinforced and Post-Tensioned Concrete Slab-Column Connections, ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-August 2006, pp. 531-540. 9. ACI Committee 318, 1995, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (318R-95), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 430 pp. 10. ACI Committee 318, 2005, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 430 pp.

61

11. ACI Committee 318, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary (318R-08), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 430 pp. 12. ENR, 2007. Good News for Tall, Concrete Cores, story by Nadine Post, Engineering News Record, 16 May 2007, pp. 10-11. 13. Wallace, J. W., 2007, Modeling issues for tall reinforced core wall buildings, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, V. 16, No. 5, pp. 615-632. 14. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA-356), Washington DC. 15. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2007, ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Reston, VA. 16. Coull, A., 1974, Stiffening of Coupled Shear Walls against Foundation Movement, Structural Engineer, V. 52, Issue 1, pp. 23-26. 17. Elwood, K.J., et al. (2007), Update to ASCE/SEI 41 Concrete Provisions, Earthquake Spectra, EERI, Vol. 23, Issue 3, pp. 493-523. 18. New Zealand Standards Association (NZS), 1995, NZS 3101:1995 Concrete Structures Standard, Wellington, New Zealand, 256 pp. 19. New Zealand Standards Association (NZS), 2006, NZS 3101:2006 Concrete Structures Standard, Wellington, New Zealand, 256 pp. 20. Alsiwat, J., and Saatcioglu, M. 2421-2438. (1992), Reinforcement Anchorage Slip under Monotonic Loading, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 9, pp.

62

63

CB24F

200

-12

-6 0 6

12

-2.16

2.16

4.32

100

% Contribution

80 60 40 20 0 0

0.01

Rotation [% drift]

0.02

0.03

0.04

64

After Rotation = 0.01 After Rotation = 0.015

65

66

CB24D

200

-12

-6 0 6

12

Flexure Slip Shear

-2.16

2.16

4.32

100

% Contribution

80 60 40 20 0 0

0.01

Rotation [% drift]

0.02

0.03

0.04

67

After Rotation = 0.01 After Rotation = 0.015

68

69

CB24F-RC

200

-12

-6 0 6

12

Flexure Slip Shear

-2.16

2.16

4.32

100

% Contribution

80 60 40 20 0 0

0.01

Rotation [% drift]

0.02

0.03

0.04

70

CB24F-PT

-12 200

-6 0 6

12

Flexure Slip Shear

-2.16

2.16

4.32

100

% Contribution

80 60 40 20 0 0

0.01

Rotation [% drift]

0.02

0.03

0.04

71

After Rotation = 0.01 After Rotation = 0.015

72

73

CB24F-1/2-PT

-12 200

-6 0 6

12

Flexure Slip Shear

-2.16

2.16

4.32

100

% Contribution

80 60 40 20 0 0

0.01

Rotation [% drift]

0.02

0.03

0.04

74

After Rotation = 0.01 After Rotation = 0.015

75

76

CB33F

150 100

-10

-5 0 5

10

-3

77

Rotation = 0.0075 Rotation = 0.01

Rotation = 0.015

Rotation = 0.02

78

Rotation = 0.03

Rotation = 0.04

Rotation = 0.06

79

After Rotation = 0.01 After Rotation = 0.015

80

81

CB33D

150 100

-10

-5 0 5

10

-3

82

Rotation = 0.01 Rotation = 0.015

Rotation = 0.02

Rotation = 0.03

83

Rotation = 0.04

Rotation = 0.06

84

After Rotation = 0.01 After Rotation = 0.015

85

86

FB33

80

-8

-4 0 4

40 0 -40 -80 -5

-2.5

2.5

87

Rotation = 0.0075 Rotation = 0.01

Rotation = 0.015

Rotation = 0.02

88

Rotation = 0.03

Rotation = 0.04

Rotation = 0.05

Rotation = 0.06

89

After Rotation = 0.01 After Rotation = 0.015

90

91

Problem Statement For the cross-section of CB24F, determine the rotation, , due to slip/extension of flexural reinforcement at the beam-wall interface prior to yielding.

x d

tot

Given: db = 7 / 8" = 22.23 mm Ab = 0.6 in 2 = 387 mm 2 f c' = 6.8 ksi = 46.9 MPa f y = 70 ksi = 482.7 MPa Ld = 33" = 838mm d = 12.625" @ fs = f y M y = 2200 in k ( from M analysis) x = 5" 92

ue =

f y db

4 ld

Le =

s1 =

30 = 0.80 mm f c'

@ fs = fy

' ue =

f y db 4 L'e

= 3.19 MPa

s = s1 (

tot

tot

Result This M- relation represents the deformation characteristics of the beam in the elastic region due to slip/extension of the flexural reinforcement. It can be implemented as an M- hinge in a model to modify the elastic stiffness of the member.

93

4000

-2000

Slip/Extension springs

94

Problem Statement Determine an estimate for the effective elastic stiffness (EIeff) as a function of the gross section stiffness (EIg), considering the influence of slip/extension deformations. Calculations 1) Calculate slip@yield, by following the procedure in Appendix B. 2) Calculate flex@yield, by the following:

VACI a. Vy = min V@ M y b. Use EIeff for flexure = 0.5EIg c. flex @ yield = 3) Calculate tot: a. tot slip + flex 4) Calculate EIeff: a.

EI eff EI g = V y ln 2 12 EI g tot V y ln 2 12 ( EI eff for flex.) = V y ln 2 6 EI g

Results This value of EIeff as a function of EIg can be directly input to a model (modifying the flexural stiffness) in place of a slip/extension hinge model. This has the same impact as the slip hinge, but would ease computation time.

95

Summarized below are the parameters used in modeling of diagonally reinforced coupling beams using CSI Perform 3D. Specifically, these parameters are for CB24F. Mn-Hinge Model The Moment-hinge model consists of an elastic RC cross-section, Mn- hinges, and Slip/Extension hinges. The properties listed are for CB24F.

Slip/Ext. Springs

Mn-Rotation Springs

The elastic RC cross-section has the following properties:

Cross Section: Beam, Reinforced Concrete Section Shape and Dimensions

Section Stiffness

Axial Area: 180 [in2] Shear Area: 0 (Shear area = 0 means no shear deformation)

Material Stiffness

96

Inelastic: Semi-Rigid Moment Connection Basic F-D Relationship

Inelastic: Moment Hinge, Rotation Type Basic F-D Relationship

Strength Loss

DU: 0.075 [rad] DX: 0.130 [rad] FR/FU: 0.3 Interaction Factor: 0.25

Cyclic Degradation

Unloading Stiffness Factor: 0.5 Alternatively, similar results can be obtained by modifying the cross-section properties such that Youngs Modulus = 0.15EcIg = 540 [ksi], and eliminating the slip/ext hinge altogether.

97

Vn-Hinge Model The Shear-hinge model consists of an elastic RC cross-section, Vn- hinges, and Slip/Extension hinges. The properties listed are for CB24F.

Slip/Ext. Springs

Vn-Displacement Hinge

Cross Section: Beam, Reinforced Concrete Section Shape and Dimensions

Section Stiffness

Axial Area: 180 [in2] Shear Area: 0 (Shear area = 0 means no shear deformation)

Material Stiffness

Inelastic: Semi-Rigid Moment Connection Basic F-D Relationship

98

Inelastic: Shear Hinge, Displacement Type Basic F-D Relationship

Strength Loss

DU: 2.7 [in] DX: 4.7 [in] FR/FU: 0.3 Interaction Factor: 0.25

Cyclic Degradation

Unloading Stiffness Factor: 0.5 Alternatively, similar results can be obtained by modifying the cross-section properties such that Youngs Modulus = 0.15EcIg = 540 [ksi], and eliminating the slip/ext hinge altogether.

99

Diagonal #7 bars; tested by twining laboratories; based on given fy, fu, and % elongation

100 80

[ksi]

bar1 bar2 bar3

[in/in]

100

Concrete cylinders CB24F, CB24D, CB33F, CB33D; 6x12 tested by twining laboratories; curve fit based on fc

8 6

[ksi]

0.01

[in/in]

Concrete Cylinders CB24F-RC; 6x12 tested by twining laboratories; 4x8 tested by ucla; curve fit based on fc

10 8

[ksi]

0.008

0.01

[in/in]

101

Concrete Cylinders CB24F-PT; 6x12 tested by twining laboratories; 4x8 tested by ucla; curve fit based on fc

10 8

[ksi]

0.008

0.01

[in/in]

Concrete cylinders CB24F-1/2-PT; 6x12 tested by twining laboratories; 4x8 tested by ucla; curve fit based on fc

8 6

[ksi]

0.008

0.01

[in/in]

102

Concrete cylinder tests FB33; 6x12 tested by twining laboratories; 4x8 tested by ucla; curve fit based on fc

8 6

[ksi]

0.008

0.01

[in/in]

103

- Concrete Block ConstructionUploaded byHebatallah Reda El-desouqi
- Formula EstimateUploaded byRamil S. Artates
- tie beamUploaded byKarma Jamtsho
- Post Tension IngUploaded byGlen Beale
- Research Engineers (Europe) Ltd European Headquarters Draycott House Almondsbury BusinessUploaded bypankajsamiksha
- 2006 Structural Seismic Design Manual 1Uploaded byvttrlc
- 05.Design of TrussUploaded byFeigyl Miro
- Seismic Design Using Structural Dynamics_SK GhoshUploaded byBenigno
- Manual 3 Full BrickUploaded bykeithjonathan
- Staad Training - Module 3 - Malaybalay City June 2011_2Uploaded byJoseph Cloyd L. Lamberte
- Design of Wall FootingUploaded byMayolites
- 54122216-Rilem-2001-Connection-Concrete-Steel.pdfUploaded byErick Santiago Cubillos
- Staad.pro_v8i - Part IUploaded byCarlos Bernal Bobadilla
- Construction HandbookUploaded byagileengr
- Dynamic Analysis VerificationUploaded byMichael Dixon
- Coupling BeamUploaded by''Jeff Leong Manzanillo
- beam desigmUploaded bynams_varshney
- Reinforced Concrete Frame BuildingsUploaded byarber_rapushi
- Seismic Design of Rft FramsUploaded byahmed adel
- Seismic Design Guide Masonry Buildings April 2009Uploaded byfrancesco_serraino
- MB Concrete Frames Oct06Uploaded byMayMST
- METHODOLOGIES FOR SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING TIMBER STRUCTURESUploaded bySemana de Engenharia '2010
- EIA Revised Procedural Manual Main Document NewUploaded byRobert Guce
- Aitc 117-04-With Errata IncorporatedUploaded byrweld1028
- Urban Ecologies Information and ComplexityUploaded byCarl Hastrich
- Fatigue Report Reinforced Concrete Box CulbertUploaded byZelzozo Zel Zozo
- Wallace_PEER - Coupling Beams - Wallace - Oct 13 2009 FinalUploaded byStef22
- seismic designUploaded bygreen77park
- Oneway SlabUploaded bygendadeyu552625
- Timber Beam Design to MSUploaded byMuhammad Azuan Tukiar

- PMP and General Questions for UPDA (1)Uploaded byWaseem Ahmad
- Bolt connection geometryUploaded byWaseem Ahmad
- ISRM-standard-water-content-etcUploaded byWaseem Ahmad
- effective stress.pdfUploaded byWaseem Ahmad
- Q&A -CementUploaded byAnonymous cQ13WWe
- Project Control Management ContentUploaded byWaseem Ahmad
- Critical State Soil MechanicsUploaded bycezhua
- eurocode 2 part 1-1 uk national annex.pdfUploaded bySanjoy Sanyal
- Tempareture Load Application in ROBOTUploaded byWaseem Ahmad
- Horizontal Curve - Design briefUploaded byWaseem Ahmad
- Seismic Guidelines January 2010Uploaded byRajesh Sarswa
- National Building Code 2005Uploaded byapi-26172168
- Truss ExamplesUploaded byWaseem Ahmad
- Project Scope ManagementUploaded byWaseem Ahmad
- Question for Eng. Registration_answersUploaded byWaseem Ahmad
- UPDA/MMUP QuestionsUploaded byWaseem Ahmad
- MMUP Engg Test - ScanUploaded byWaseem Ahmad
- Amendments IRC-78_2000 Notification No -68Uploaded byWaseem Ahmad
- Steps for RCC Design 10.01.08Uploaded byPrisco Atabong
- Examples for Ductile Detailing RCC BuildingsUploaded byVaidyanathan Sivasubramanian

- Project Close Out Report-j364Uploaded byZara Shireen
- Glenium 51Uploaded bySivakumar
- Accelerated and natural carbonation of concretes with internal curing and shrinkage/viscosity modifiersUploaded byfcofimeuanl
- Concrete Beam Design ACI 318Uploaded byKutty Mansoor
- MasterTop 1200 EngUploaded byMohiuddin Muhin
- Criteria of the Rating System-GRIHAUploaded byBhavik Vachhani
- 88-m37Uploaded byMohammed Essam Shatnawi
- PDFUploaded byRonnieNdozireho
- I S 101_1_3 r - 1986.pdfUploaded byMuthusamy Arumugam
- Brazo ManualUploaded byMaTeresaCalbuyahue
- Cement FactoryUploaded byvijendra017
- 05 Footing Nscp 2010Uploaded byMar Martillano
- Soils for Earthbag Part 2 How to BuildUploaded bysovereign_marta
- Trenwa Trench Catalog 2012.pdfUploaded bygormankung
- SHRP2prepubR05Uploaded byTim Lin
- Tds - Wabodec pUploaded byVenkata Rao
- b Estimate & Check ListUploaded bymani0214
- TDS Nitoflor SL2000 IndiaUploaded byabrm123
- 2009 09 16 Tarmac Topfloor ReportUploaded byRagu Nathan
- Session 2.4 Holcim Case Study - Stefanie KochUploaded bycakalil
- Shotcrete as a Good Looking Final FinishUploaded byAnonymous Re62LKaAC
- 1-s2.0-S0008884611003000-main.pdfUploaded byhizbawis
- is.2185.3.1984Uploaded byabhyudayaanchliya
- v110-m-l-e_141.141Uploaded byMohammed Abdalrhman
- Concrete Floor Slabs on Grade Subjected to Heavy Loads chap4.pdfUploaded bytrack0026
- PileUploaded bysdutta2591
- RCC JACKETING procedures.docUploaded byAjith Chandran
- Shear in Reinforced Concrete BeamsUploaded byksshashidhar
- Morth 3000 Maintenance of RoadUploaded byRamesh
- 002 RCM Chapter 2 - LoadingUploaded byMossSkosana

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.