Advanced Topics in Analysis and Design of Normal and High Strength Concrete Structures Volume 2 Lecture Notes PDF

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia
Short Course on
Advanced Topics in Analysis and Design of
Normal and High Strength Concrete
Structures
4 to 5 May 2006, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Course Materials
Volume 2: Lecture Notes
EIT
2006
PREFACE
The Short Course on Advanced Topics in Analysis and Design of Normal and
High Strength Concrete Structures is delivered on the invitation of The
Institution of Engineers, Malaysia. Held in Kuala Lumpur on 4 and 5 May
2006, its primary objective is to acquaint the participants with the research
work conducted in the topical areas by the researchers at Griffith University
mainly over the last decade. The Short Course also provides the background
and technical details which inform the Keynote Address to be presented at the
9th International Conference on Concrete Engineering and Technology
(CONCET 2006) to be held from 8 to 10 May 2006. It is hoped that the
discussion over the next two days will be helpful to the Malaysian engineering
colleagues in their future work.
To assist the participants, the Short Course materials are given in two
volumes: Selected Published Papers, which is an up-to-date collection of
relevant publications in the areas to be covered in the discussion; Lecture
Notes, which contains the hardcopy of all the PowerPoint slides to be
presented.
I wish to take this opportunity to acknowledge the contributions of all my
concrete research colleagues and students at Griffith School of Engineering
without which many of the advances made would not have been possible. In
particular, I would like to thank my close collaborators
Dr Sam Fragomeni, Associate Professor and Deputy Head of School

Dr Hong Guan, Senior Lecturer in Structural Engineering and Mechanics
Dr Sanaul Chowdhury, Lecturer in Structural Engineering, and
Dr Jeung-Hwan Doh, Associate Lecturer in Structural Engineering
for their invaluable work over the years. Special thanks are also due to Drs
Chowdhury and Doh for their meticulous efforts in compiling, developing and
updating these two volumes of materials.
The invitation of the Organising Committee of CONCET 2006 to present the
Keynote Address and the help of its members in particular Ir. M.C. Hee, Mr.
Thang Fai Li and Mr. Jamie Kheng are greatly appreciated.
Professor Yew-Chaye Loo

Dean, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
Griffith University
4 May 2006
Section 1: Overview
SERVICEABILITY
SERVICEABILITY AND
AND STRENGTH
STRENGTH OF
OF
NORMAL
AND STRENGTH
HIGH STRENGTH
NORMAL
AND HIGH
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
BEAMS,
COLUMNS,
STRUCTURESOVERVIEW
SLABS AND WALLS
PhD, FICE ,FIStructE, FIEAust
Yew-Chaye
Loo
PhD, FICE ,FIStructE, FIEAust
Dean
Professor of Civil
Engineering and
Faculty ofHead,
Engineering
&
School ofInformation
EngineeringTechnology
Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology
CONTENTS
z
SERVICEABILITY
STRENGTH
LAYERED FINITE ELEMENT

METHOD (LFEM)
COLUMN & WALL

SHORTENING
SUMMARY
z CRACK
WIDTH
z DAMPING
CHARACTERISTICS
z DEFLECTION
SERVICEABILITY
ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF WALLS
PUNCHING SHEAR STRENGTH OF FLAT

PLATES
STRENGTH
CRACK WIDTH
Crack width formulas for beams
Crack Width Formula*

Average crack width:
(1)
wcr = (fs/Es) [0.6(c - s) + 0.1 (/)]

steel stress
elastic modulus
clear cover
average bar diameter
spacing between bars
steel ratio
Maximum crack width:

wmax = 1.5 wcr
(2)
__________________________________________________
*Chowdhury, S.H., Loo, Y.C. & Wu, T.H. 1995; Chowdhury, S.H. & Loo, Y.C. 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003,
2004a, 2004b; Chowdhury, S.H. 2001; Chowdhury, S.H. & Fragomeni, S. 2001
Comparison (30 test beams) *

wcr, measured in mm
0.4
0.3
- 30% line
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
+ 30% line
Partially prestressed
concrete beams
Reinforced concrete
continuous beams
Reinforced concrete
solid beams
Reinforced concrete
box beams
wcr, calculated in mm
*Chowdhury, S.H. & Loo, Y.C. 1997, 2001, 2002; Chowdhury, S.H. 2001
Published data
59 RC beams
Clark (1956), ACI, USA
26
Chi & Kirstein (1958), ACI, USA
16
Hognestad (1962), PCA, USA
Kaar & Mattock(1963), PCA, USA
34 PC beams
Nawy (1986), Rutgers University
Fully prestressed T-beams
PPC T-beams
PPC I-beams
Post-tensioned PPC T-beams
6
12
2
14
93 RC & PC beams
.9
M easured crack widths in mm
.8
Legend
+ 30% line
.7
- 30% line
.6
Kaar & Mattock's bea

.5
Hognestad's beams
.4
Nawy's beams
(14 post-tensioned)
.3
Nawy's beams
.2
(20 pre-tensioned)
.1
Chi & Kirstein's bea
0.0
Clark's beams
0.0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
Equation 1 or 2 in mm
Comparison with Code Formulas

0.7
0.6
Measured w max in mm
For maximum crack width

For average crack width
0.4
0.35
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.35
0.2
0.7
Measured w cr in mm
Chow dhury & Loo's beams

Chi & Kirstein's beams
0.2
Clark's beams
Chi & Kirtstein's
beams
- 30% line
Clark's beams
- 30% lne +30% line
+ 30% line
0.4
0.15
0.3
0.2
0.05
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.1
Calculated
w m ax in0.2
mm
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
BS formula
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.4
0.05
0.3
0
0
0.2
0.1
Calculated w cr in mm
Chowdhury
Chowdhury &
& Loo
Loo formula
formula
0.5
Calculated w m ax in mm
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.250.1
0.7
M e a s u re d w m a x in m m
Measured w cr in mm
0.0
0.25
0.5
Measuredwmax inmm
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.3
Calculated w cr in mm
0.1
Eurocode formula
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Calculated wmax in mm
CRACK WIDTH
ACI Code formula
0.7
0.4
DEFLECTION
Deflection
Repeated loading
Impact
T= da+ l
da = k di
k = k1 + R log10T
number of loading cycles
(0.0015/) (Mt Md)/(My Mcr)
1.18 + (0.029/) (Mt Md)/(My Mcr)
Deflection of RC beams under repeated loading
REPEATED LOAD
Correlation of measured and computed total deflections proposed formula
Hertzs Contact Law and the relative approach
y = ymax [(2/mb12)F(1.25
( t ) ms v02 K2/3)3/5]
a (max
t ) = y s ( t ) y( x , t ) =
K
2/3
1 = (2/L2) (EI/A)
Deformation constant (materials and shapes)
= (mb/ms)
= 1.47 (1/) (5ms/4Kv01/2)2/5
Wijewardenes and Hussains beams
Hughes and Speirs beams
DEFLECTION
DAMPING CHARACTERISTICS
Damping of RC & PC beams
DAMPING - DEFINITION
The logarithmic decrement, , is obtained as:
Amplitude A
= (1/n) log e
n periods
amplitude
at cycle1, A 1
amplitude at cycle (n + 1), A n +1
An+1
A1
Time t
n periods
Amplitude A
An+1
A1
= aw cr,r + b L
Time t
Residual crack width
Experimental Program
60
mm
Loading beam
300 mm
100 mm
Beam length, L
Typical RC box beam
mm
180
60
mm
28
Embedded
Polystyrene
as void
300mm
Loading beam
60
100 25
Applied load
Beam length, L
mm
28
100 mm
Typcal loading diagram
60
Embedded
Polystyrene
as void
Test Procedure
100 mm
180
100 25
Applied load
100 mm
300 mm
Typical RC box beam
Stages in a vibration measurement system
300mm
14 RC beams
12 PPC beams
Damping prediction formulas*

For RC beams, is
= 0.048 wcr,r + 0.011 L

Wcr,r = 0.312 wcr,i
wcr,i = (fs /Es) [0.6 (c s) + 0.1 (/)]
For PPC beams,
= 0.054 wcr,r + 0.0104 L
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Chowdhury, S.H. & Loo, Y.C 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001, 2003; Chowdhury,
S.H. Loo, Y.C. & Fragomeni, S. 2000
RC beams
.16
Measured
.12
.08
+ 30% limits
- 30% limits
.04
Continuous beams
Simply-supported
beams
0.00
0.00
.04
.08
.12
Predicted
.16
PPC beams
.16
.16
- 30% limits
Measured
.12
.08
.04
+ 30% limits
.16
0.00
0.00
.04
.08
.12
.16
Predicted
PPC beams
.16
.16
Measured
- 30% limits
.12
.08
.04
+ 30% limits
0.00
0.00
.04
.08
.12
.16
Predicted
6 HSC RC beams
0.09
0.08
0.07
Measured
Beam HSB 1
0.06
Beam HSB 2
Beam HSB 3
0.05
Beam HSB 4
Beam HSB 5
0.04
Beam HSB 6
0.03
+ 30% Line
- 30% Line
0.02
0.01
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Predicted
0.07
0.08
0.09
DAMPING
PUNCHING SHEAR STRENGTH OF

FLAT PLATES
Typical flat plate with spandrel beams
Punching Shear Strength

Bending
cracks
appear at
low
loading
LOAD
LOAD
30 35
degrees
Higher punching shear due to

unbalanced bending moment
Balanced bending
moments
Test setup (University of Wollongong, 19871987-90)
Corner connection
Vu = V1 + V2
Vu =
k1k 3k 4 k 2 k 4 + k 3 (V1,corner)
k3 k 4k5
Corner connection
Vu = V1 + V2 n 1 Pely
Vu =
k 1k 3 k 4 k 2 k 4 + k 3 k 7
k3 k 4k5
Edge connection
Vu = V1 + 2V2
Vu =
2k 2 k 3k 4 k 2 k 4 + k 3 (V1,edge)
k3 k 4k5
Edge connection
Vu = V1 + 2V2 n 1 Pely
Vu =
2k 1 k 3 k 4 k 2 k 4 + k 3 k 7
k3 k 4k5
RC Flat Plates (19 Vu values from 9 half-scale models)
Measured Vu (kN)
250
200
Falamaki & Loo (1992)
150
AS 3600-1994
100
45 degree line
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
Predicted Vu (kN)
250
Post-tensioned Flat Plates (4 half-scale models)
M ea sured Vu (kN)
100
80
Loo & Chiang (1996)
AS 3600-1994
60
ACI 318-1989
40
BS 8110-1985
45 degree line
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Predicted Vu (kN)
PUNCHING SHEAR
ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF WALLS
One-way and two-way actions
(a) OneOne-way action
(b) TwoTwo-way action
AS 3600 (2001)
ACI 318 (2002)
Limitations
AS3600-2001
Hwe/tw 30
fc 65 MPa
e tw/20
one-way action
only solid walls
ACI 318-2002
Hwe/tw 25 or L/ tw 25
fc 50 MPa
e tw/6
one-way action
only solid walls
Test-rig
set up
1200x1200x40
(fc=35 MPa)(oneMPa)(one-way)
1200x1200x40
(fc= 37 MPa)(twoMPa)(two-way)
1600x1600x40
(fc= 50 MPa)
(two(two-way,
opening)
Design formula*
compressive strength (MPa)
0.6
thickness (mm)
N u = 2 .0 f c'0.7 ( t w 1 .2 e 2 e a )
eccentricity (mm)
design axial strength / unit length (N/mm)
additional eccentricity due to
secondary effect (mm)
= (H we ) 2 /(2500t w )
*Doh, J.H., Fragomeni, S. & Loo, Y.C.; Doh, H., Fragomeni, S. & Kim, J. 2001
Comparison with test data one-way action

0.7
f'c = 30 MPa
f'c = 50 MPa
f'c = 80 MPa
Fragomeni (NSC)
Fragomeni (HSC)
DohNS
(NSC)
OW
(Stage 1)
OW
(Stage 2)
DohHS
(HSC)
0.6
Nu / f'cLtw
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
10
20
30
40
50
60
H/tw
Comparison with test data two-way action

f'c = 30 M Pa
0.8
f'c = 50 M Pa
f'c = 80 M Pa
Saheb & Desayi (1990)
0.7
Nu / f'cLtw
Fragomeni (NSC)(1995)
Fragomeni (H SC)(1995)
D oh (NSC)
D oh (H SC)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
10
20
30
H /tw
40
50
60
Formula for wall with openings:
N uo = (k1 k 2 ) N u
One-way action
Two-way action
Comparison of test results and new proposed method

k1 = 1.18
(for one-way Failure
action)
N*
W all
N*
Panels
Load
(kN )
(kN )
= 1.00 (for two-way action)
A oFailureload
=
+
O W 01
253.10
250.54
0.99
k = 1.19 (forAone-way
L action)
H 2 344.64
O W 02
441.45 G
0.78
G
G
=
0.93
(for
two-way
O W 11
309.02
290.30
0.94 action)
1
O W 12
294.30 L
o
185.41
O W 21
L 0.99
200.68
1.03
2
707.70
0.96
285.97
195.71
T W 01
T W 02
735.75
Elevation
1177.20
L
1067.90
T W 11
750.47
676.21
1030.05
878.52
L/2 T W 12
T W 21
618.03
T W 22
G1
647.46
G2
Average
0.97
184.38
O W 22
0.91
t L t L
= w 0.85 w o o
471.44
0.76
Lo t w
Lt w0.95
612.48
t
1
2
20.90
G3
0.92
C ross- sec tional Plan
WALL
Degenerate shell elements composed of concrete

and smeared steel layers
z
w
Mid reference plane
x v
y
5 DOFs per node

- in-plane displacements,
u and v
- transverse
displacement w
- two independent
bending rotations about
x and y axes,y and x
zc+1
zc
zc1
z
z23
z1
nc
nc-1
3
2
1
zs
zs-1
ns
ns-1
Concrete
layers
z2
z1
2
1
Layer
number
Smeared-out
steel layers
te
Material modelling
z
Smeared crack approach for cracked concrete
Strain-hardening plasticity procedure for

concrete compressive behaviour
Tension-stiffening and shear stiffness
deterioration effects after concrete cracking
Tri-linear - for steel
Perfect plasticity model
Strain-hardening model
fc'
fy
Crushing
loadingunloading
0.3fc'
0.8fy
Effect of bulk mod
modulus
Es
E0
Effect of tension stiffening
Cracking
Es2
1
Es1
0.002
ft
Numerical Modelling
z
Mid reference plane
y
zc+1
zc
zc-1
z3
z2
z1
nc
nc-1
3
2
1
zs
zs-1
ns
ns-1
z2
z1
2
1
Concrete
layers
Layer
number
Smeared-out
steel layers
te
LFEM for flat plates*

Punching shear strength
Load-deflection response
Crack patterns
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Loo, Y.C. & Guan, H 1997; Guan, H. & Loo, Y.C. 1994, 1997a, 1997b, 2002
Load-Deflection
35
W2
Collapse load
30
28.91
20
40
15
M2
35
Collapse load
10
1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Deflection (m m )
Experiment* (point 1)
Proposed method (point 1)

32.7
30
35
Load density (kN/m)
Load density (kPa)
25
25
20
15
2
10
5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Deflection (m m )
LFEM

40
Comparison of Vu (models with spandrel beams)

Connection
Type*
W1-A
W2-A
W3-A
W4-A
C
C
C
C
W1-B
W2-B
W3-B
Experiment
Vu (kN)
LFEM
AS 3600-1994
50.15
48.08
43.38
47.07
Predicted
Vu (kN)
58.58
52.88
46.30
52.14
Predicted
Experiment
1.17
1.10
1.07
1.11
Predicted
Vu (kN)
119.07
120.94
70.42
96.12
Predicted
Experiment
2.37
2.52
1.62
2.04
E
E
E
117.63
120.36
93.57
116.21
104.79
96.47
0.99
0.87
1.03
146.92
150.05
94.99
1.25
1.25
1.02
W2-C
W3-C
W4-C
C
C
C
45.17
44.33
46.32
46.70
48.65
50.79
1.03
1.10
1.10
113.54
73.38
82.93
2.51
1.66
1.79
M2-A
M3-A
M4-A
C
C
C
53.90
25.70
58.97
56.21
34.10
65.79
1.04
1.33
1.12
82.90
127.31
114.77
1.54
4.95
1.95
M2-B
M3-B
M4-B
E
E
E
123.22
76.50
130.24
115.43
68.37
149.69
0.94
0.89
1.15
116.24
214.32
137.82
0.94
2.80
1.06
M3-C
M4-C
C
C
24.30
60.09
29.75
74.50
1.22
1.24
131.89
102.75
5.43
1.71
37.73
1.04
51.71
Mean:
1.081
R90-D
Note:
36.20
1.43
2.097
* C - corner column; E-edge column
This specimen did not fail in punching; the reported result is the maximum value.
Failure load (kPa)
Note:
Model
Type*
W1
W2
W3
W4
M2
M3
M4
R90-D
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
30.63
28.91
24.69
28.95
32.70
17.84
33.85
21.70
W5
M5
R3-A
R4-A
R90-A
R90-B
R90-C
TS
TS
TS
TS
TS
FE
FE
19.01
25.18
23.80
22.50
25.50
23.80
20.00
Experiment
Predicted
29.50
30.00
23.60
25.75
37.50
15.60
37.00
23.00
0.96
1.04
0.96
0.89
1.15
0.87
1.09
1.06
Mean:
1.003
18.50
30.50
20.50
19.00
23.50
22.50
20.50
0.97
1.21
0.86
0.84
0.92
0.95
1.03
Mean:
0.969
SB - spandrel beam; TS - torsion strip; FE - free edge
Line load in kN/m
Predicted
Experiment
LFEM
Crack pattern
Predicted
Observed
(bottom layer)
(bottom surface)
Predicted
Observed
(top layer)
(top surface)
LFEM
Features Q1 Tower
Instrumentation; Measurements;
Prediction method; Comparison
Surfers Paradise,
The City of Gold Coast
Features
z
z
z
z
z
z
Site area 12840m2

80 levels, 322.5 m height
527 apartments
Penthouse + 12 sub-penthouses
One-BR, 213
Two-BR, 184
Three-BR, 117
Commercial Area 1200 m2
Ten-storey Skygarden (Level 60-69)
Project values = AUD 500,000,000
Current State of Construction
Level 63 as of 5 October 2004

Q1 TOWER
Column and Wall

Locations
z
z
14 columns and 5 walls per

floor
Number of DEMEC point 3
to 9 measurements per
column/wall
Instrumented Levels and Concrete Compressive

Strengths for Columns at the Specific Level
Date
of
Construction
Jan 2005
Level 71, 32 MPa
02/08/2004
Level 49, 40 MPa
10/03/2004
Level 31, 50 MPa

Level B1 and B2,
65 MPa
19/02/2003
25/01/2003
Demountable Mechanical
Strain Gauge (DEMEC)
Gauge Length = 200 mm
1 division = 0.002 mm or 10 microstrain
A Typical Image of DEMEC

Points on a Column Surface.
Details of Columns Presented (Level B2)

TC12 TC10
TC06
TC05
Designation
Shape
Size (mm)
Design Stress (MPa)
TC05
TC06
Circular
Circular
diameter 2000
diameter 2000
27.5
27.5
TC10
TC12
Rectangular
Rectangular
4000 x 900
3200 x 800
32.5
19.5
Started
Date
1/2/2003
700
WINTER
SPRING
SUMMER
AUTUMN
WINTER
1.56
600
1.35
500
1.13
400
0.90
40 days time lag
300
0.68
200
0.45
100
TC05
Shortening (mm)
S t r a i n ( 1 0- 6 )
1/6/2003 31/08/2003 31/11/2003 1/02/2004 1/06/2004
AUTUMN
Last
Reading
23/09/2004
0.23
TC06
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
13
27
40
55
No. of slabs
0
constructed
Started
Date
1/2/2003
700
S t r a i n ( 1 0- 6 )
1/6/2003 31/08/2003 31/11/2003 1/02/2004 1/06/2004
AUTUMN
WINTER
SPRING
SUMMER
AUTUMN
700
Days
Last
Reading
23/09/2004
WINTER
1.56
600
1.35
500
1.13
400
0.90
300
0.68
200
0.45
100
TC05
0.23
TC06
0
-100
No. of slabs
0
constructed
100
200
300
400
500
600
13
27
40
55
700
Days
Shortening (mm)
-100
Started
Date
1/2/2003
1/6/2003 31/08/2003 31/11/2003 1/02/2004 1/06/2004
AUTUMN
700
WINTER
SPRING
SUMMER
AUTUMN
WINTER
1.56
Differential shortening
160 microstrain
0.36 mm
1.35
500
1.13
400
0.90
300
0.68
200
0.45
Differential shortening estimate (80 storey)

6
160 10 275000
= 22mm
2
100
TC10
0.23
TC12
0
-100
Shortening (mm)
600
S t r a i n ( 1 0- 6 )
Last
Reading
23/09/2004
No. of slabs
0
constructed
100
200
300
400
500
600
13
27
40
55
700
Days
Age Adjusted Modulus Method

(Trost and Bazant, 1972)
t (t) =
i
[1 + C 1 ( t , s ) ] + s ( t ) ( t ) [ ( t , s ).C 1 ( t , s ) 1]
E c (s )
E c (s )
Reinforcement
Restraint
Shrinkage
Elastic + creep

t (t) =
i
[1 + C 1 ( t , s ) ] + s ( t ) ( t ) [ ( t , s ).C 1 ( t , s ) 1]
E c (s )
E c (s )
A computer program based on this method

COLECS by Allan Beasley (1987)
S h o rte n in g (m m )
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
COLECS
0.2
0.0
-0.2 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
No of slabs
0
constructed
13
27
40
55
TC06
700 Days
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2 0
No of slabs
0
constructed
COLECS
TC10
100
200
300
400
500
600
13
27
40
55
700 Days
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2 0
No of slabs
0
constructed
COLECS
TC12
100
200
300
400
500
600
13
27
40
55
700 Days
Q1 TOWER
SUMMARY
z Serviceability
Cracking
Damping
Deflection
z Strength
Flat plates, walls
z Complicated
problems
Simplified solutions: explicit formulas

Rigorous solution: LFEM
z On-Going
work
HSC structures
Column and wall shortening
Deep beams and walls with openings
THANK YOU
Section 2: Cracking and Crack

Width Formulas
SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURESS
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
5-6 September 2005
CRACKING AND CRACK WIDTH

FORMULAS
PROFESSOR YEW-CHAYE LOO
Dean
Griffith University
Queensland , Australia
SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURE
5-6 September 2005
OVERVIEW
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
INTRODUCTION
CRACKING TYPES, CAUSES & FORMULAS
TEST PROGRAM
PROPOSED CRACK WIDTH FORMULAS FOR
NSC BEAMS
COMPARISON WITH TEST DATA
COMPARISON WITH CODE FORMULAS
COMPARISON WITH OTHER FORMULAS
VERIFICATION FOR HSC BEAM DATA
CONCLUSIONS
SHORT COURSE ON
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
5-6 September 2005
INTRODUCTION
Q
Serviceability is one of the major considerations in

the design of structures
Cracking and crack control in concrete structures
are major serviceability issues
Cracking is more pronounced for high strength
concrete (HSC) structures because of their relative
brittleness compared to normal strength concrete
(NSC)
All major codes for design and construction with
concrete are applicable only to and based on NSC
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
CRACKING TYPES, CAUSES & FORMULAS

Types of Cracks:
Q Cracking in reinforced concrete buildings or
structural elements is usually classified according
to the cause of cracking
Q There are five major types of cracks:
X
X
X
X
X
flexural cracks in reinforced (and prestressed)

concrete beams, frames, and slabs;
diagonal tension (shear cracks);
splitting cracks along the reinforcement in beams
and in the anchorage zones of prestressed
elements;
cracking in concrete shear walls; and
temperature and shrinkage cracks
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
There are many factors causing cracks in concrete

Cracks caused by load are the main ones considered
in design
The others are usually eliminated or reduced by
selecting suitable material and improving the quality
of construction
Flexural crack width depends on geometrical factors
and on loading
The width of crack is restricted at the transverse bars
in reinforced concrete members and it widens toward
the surface of the member
The Concrete Cover and the Spacing of the bars
are of primary importance
Q
Q
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
Loading affects crack width several ways

The crack width is proportional to fsn,
where fs is the steel stress and n is about
1.4. However, n can be taken as unity
without significant error
X The distribution and width of cracks also
depend on the variation of moments
along the member
X The loading history is also important
X
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
Prediction of crack widths has been studied

by many researchers
Most of the available crack width formulas
are based on research conducted on
structural members made of NSC
The authors also developed two NSC beam
formulas
for average crack widths
X for maximum crack widths
X
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
8 full-scale HSC beams were tested to

failure to investigate the cracking
behaviour of HSC beams
A comparison is made with the authors
proposed NSC beam formulas to verify
their applicability to HSC beams
The NSC beam formulas are found to be
generally applicable to HSC beams
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
TEST PROGRAM
Total 30 NSC RC & PPC beams
and 8 HSC RC beams
mm
28
Embedded
Polystyrene
as void
60
300 mm
Loading beam
180
60
25 mm
Applied load
100
100 mm
100 mm
l
Beam length, L
300 mm
Typical RC box beam

SHORT COURSE ON
X11
5-6 September 2005
RC simply-supported box beams

Q
Overall cross-section 300 mm x 300

mm
180 mm x 180 mm void
3 different L 5.5 m, 6.7 m & 8.0 m
5 different values
fc varied from 25.4 to 37.7 MPa
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
60
180
60
mm
300 mm
100 25
mm
12 PPC simply-supported box beams
175
Embedded
Polystyrene
as void
300 mm
Typical PPC beam
Q
Q
Q
Q
3 different L- 5.5 m, 6.8m & 8.0 m

4 different degrees of prestressing
4 different values
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
4 RC simply-supported solid beams

78
36
20
40
210
36
20
36
40 35
35
40
Typical RC solid beam

Q
Q
Q
Q
Cross-section - 150 mm x 250mm

All 2.5 m long
3 different values
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
3 RC two-equal-span continuous beams

57 36
180
60
Embedded
Polystyrene
as void
46
228
36
14
36
36
36 76
36
Q
Q
76 76 36
Section at midspan
Section over the

support
14 46
as void
180
32
180 28
Embedded
Polystyrene
60
10
60
130
57
10
36 57 57
12 m long - two spans 6 m each

3 different positive values
3 different negative values
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
8 HSC RC simply-supported beams

25
250
25
25
200
25
25
100
25
200
300
300 x 300 mm beam section

Q
Q
Q
25
30 - 35
25 - 35
250
150
3 beams of cross-section 300 mm x 300 mm, 3 of

250 mm x 250 mm and 2 of 150 mm x 200 mm
6 different L 2.4 m, 3.0 m, 4.0 m, 4.5 m, 5.0 m
& 6.0 m
5 different values
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
Test Procedure
Q
Beams subjected to two-point

static loading
Crack widths at each load level
measured using a crack detection
microscope
Crack spacings measured at 60 to
70% of ultimate load
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
PROPOSED NSC BEAM

CRACK WIDTH FORMULAS
Q
Crack formation and development

is a complex phenomenon
involving many parameters
Crack spacing, lcr related to:
(i) the / ratio; = avg. bar dia
X (ii) the concrete cover, c
X (iii) the average spacing between
reinforcing bars, s
X
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
The regression equation takes the

form:
lcr = C1 c + C2 s + C3 (/)
Q
4 RC and 4 PPC beam data used

in the regression analysis
These are from the earlier tested
30 NSC beams
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
Table 1. Parameters used in development of average

crack spacing formula
Beam
number
2
6
10
11
21
23
24
30
Average
bar
diameter,
(mm)
20
20
24
20
6.6
10.8
8.1
5.6
Steel ratio
The
ratio
/
(mm)
0.01154
0.02309
0.03348
0.01154
0.00511
0.00737
0.00730
0.00460
1733
866
717
1733
1292
1465
1110
1217
Average
spacing
between
bars, s
(mm)
120
48
48
120
40
62
38.5
40
Concrete
cover, c
(mm)
Average
crack
spacing, lcr
(mm)
12
12
12
12
27
38
27
40
131.6
43.7
48.7
120.0
126.5
126.9
118.2
142.0
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
The resulting equation for average

crack spacing:
lcr = 0.6(c - s) + 0.1 (/)
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
Crack Width Formulas for NSC

Beams
Q
The proposed formula for average

crack widths, wcr,is developed as:
wcr = (fs/Es) [0.6(c - s) + 0.1 (/)]
(1)
The proposed formula for the

maximum crack widths is:
wmax = 1.5 (fs/Es) [0.6(c - s) + 0.1 (/)]
(2)
10
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005

Q
Authors Test Beams (30 NSC)

wcr, measured in mm
0.4
0.3
- 30% line
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
+ 30% line
Partially prestressed
concrete beams
Reinforced concrete
continuous beams
Reinforced concrete
solid beams
Reinforced concrete
box beams
wcr, calculated in mm
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
Other Beams
X
26 Clarks (1956) RC beams
16 Chi & Kirsteins (1958) RC

beams
8 Hognestads (1962) RC beams
9 Kaar & Mattocks (1963) RC

beams
11
SHORT COURSE ON
Q
5-6 September 2005
Other Beams (Continued)

X
34 Nawys (1986) beams

20 pre-tensioned
6 fully prestressed T-beams
12 PPC T-beams
2 PPC I-beams
14 post-tensioned PPC T-beams
Crack widths compared

both at tension face and steel level
) both average and maximum
)
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
Table 2. Crack width test data

Investigator
Reinforcement
stress levels,
ksi
No. of
specimens
No. of observations
Average
crack width
(1 ksi = 6.895 Mpa)
Clark (1956)
15, 20, 25,

30, 35, 40, 45
26
161
Chi &
Kirstein (1958)
15, 20, 25,

30, 35, 40
16
76
Hognestad
(1962)
20, 30, 40, 50
32
Kaar &
Mattock (1963)
40
Nawy (1986)
30, 40, 60
34
Maximum
crack width
102
12
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
93 Other Beams (All NSC)

.9
M easured crack w idths in mm
.8
Legend
+ 30% line
.7
- 30% line
.6
Kaar & Mattock's bea

.5
Hognestad's beams
.4
Nawy's beams
(14 post-tensioned)
.3
Nawy's beams
.2
(20 pre-tensioned)
.1
Chi & Kirstein's bea
0.0
0.0
Clark's beams
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
Equation 1 or 2 in mm
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
COMPARISON WITH CODE FORMULAS

Q
Code Formulas Compared

X
ACI formula (ACI, 1995)

)
BS formula (BS, 1985; BS, 1987)

)
wmax at tension face for RC beams
wmax at tension face for RC beams
Eurocode formula (EC2, 1991).

)
wcr at tension face for RC beams
13
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
Comparison with Eurocode formula

X The measured crack widths are divided by
the calculated widths to evaluate the
accuracy of the calculation methods
X The test data included 199 data points from
authors 18 RC beams and those from Clark
(1956)s and Chi & Kirstein (1958)s beams
X The results are presented in figure on next
slide
X It can be seen that both the formulas provide
reasonable results, with no one method
providing more accurate results than the
other
SHORT COURSE ON
Eurocode versus Proposed Formula

Authors, Clarks and Chi & Kirsteins
beams
100
100
80
80
Number of observations
5-6 September 2005
60
40
20
60
40
20
0
.04
.31
.58
.85
1.12
1.38
1.65
1.92
2.19
2.46
Measured/calculated crack width (Eurocode formula)
.05
.34
.63
.91
1.20
1.49
1.78
2.07
2.36
Measured/calculated crack width (Equation 1)
14
SHORT COURSE ON
Comparison with the ACI and the BS formulas
The measured crack widths are divided by the calculated

widths to evaluate the accuracy of the calculation
methods
The test data included data points from Clark (1956)s
and Chi & Kirstein (1958)s beams
For Chi & Kirsteins beams the calculated crack widths
were multiplied by the strain gradient factor
The results are presented in figure on next slide
It is found that while both the proposed and the
X
X
ACI formulas reasonably deter-mine the crack

widths, the BS formula grossly underestimates
the values
SHORT COURSE ON
Q
5-6 September 2005
Comparison of formulas - Clarks and Chi &

Kirsteins beams
100
80
80
100
60
40
20
60
40
20
0
.10
.90
1.70
2.50
3.30
4.10
4.90
5.70
.10
Measured/calculated crack width (Equation 2)
.90
1.70
2.50
3.30
4.10
4.90
5.70
Measured/calculated crack width (ACI formula)
100
5-6 September 2005
80
60
40
20
0
.10
.90
1.70
2.50
3.30
4.10
4.90
5.70
Measured/calculated crack width (BS formula)
15
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
COMPARISON WITH OTHER FORMULAS

(PPC BEAMS)
Q
None of the code formulas is recommended for

prestressed or partially prestressed concrete
beams
Proposed formula is further compared with 3
published formulas applicable to such beams
These formulas which calculate maximum crack
widths only are:
X
X
X
modified Gergely-Lutz formula (Armstrong et al.

1997, Gergely & Lutz 1968)
Batchelor & El-Shahawi (1985)
Suri & Dilger (1986)
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
The basis for comparison is the maximum crack

width data obtained from 7 of the authors own 12
PPC beams
The results are presented in figure on the next
slide
It can be seen that the proposed formula
performs better than the three above stated
formulas
It provides more accurate predictions and safer
results.
16
SHORT COURSE ON
Q
5-6 September 2005
Comparison of formulas Authors 7 PPC

beams
Measured maximum crack widths in mm
1.2
1.0
.8
Legend
- 30% line
.6
+ 30% line
Suri and Dilger
.4
Batchelor-El Shahawi
Modified Gergely-
.2
Lutz formula
0.0
0.0
Equat ion 2
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
1.2
Calculated maximum crack widths in mm
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
VERIFICATION FOR HSC BEAM

DATA
Q
For each beam, at different steel

stress levels both average and
maximum crack widths calculated
Measured and calculated crack
widths are compared
17
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
Comparison for Average Crack Widths

0.5
Measured average crack widths in mm
0.45
0.4
Beam HSB 1
Beam HSB 2
0.35
Beam HSB 3
0.3
Beam HSB 4
Beam HSB 5
0.25
Beam HSB 6
Beam HSB 7
0.2
Beam HSB 8
0.15
+ 30% line
- 30% Line
0.1
0.05
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Predicted average crack widths in mm
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
Comparison for Maximum Crack Widths

1
Measured maximum crack widths in mm
0.9
0.8
Beam HSB 1
0.7
Beam HSB 2
Beam HSB 3
0.6
Beam HSB 4
Beam HSB 5
0.5
Beam HSB 6
Beam HSB 7
0.4
Beam HSB 8
+ 30% Line
0.3
- 30% Line
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Predicted maximum crack widths in mm
18
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
CONCLUSIONS
Q
8 full-size HSC beams tested to investigate the

cracking characteristics of HSC beams
Average and maximum crack spacings and
crack widths measured at each level of loading
for each beam
The authors earlier developed NSC beam
crack width formulas verified for their
applicability to HSC beams
The initial findings are very encouraging as
most of the data points lay within + 30% limits
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
TUTORIAL EXERCISES
For a simply supported beam of the following cross-section and a
span of 2.4 m, calculate the average crack widths (use Chowdhury
& Loo formula) at 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 kN loads applied at the
centre of the beam. The stirrups used are10 mm diameter plain
bars. The beam cross-section is 150 mm x 250 mm.
78
36
36
20
36
210
2-N 12 bars
3-N 20 bars
20
40
40 35
35
40
Typical beam cross-section
19
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
TUTORIAL EXERCISES
Q
Hints for solution

X
X
X
X
X
Formula to be used:
wcr = (fs/Es) [0.6(c - s) + 0.1 (/)]
c = 20 mm; s = 15 mm; d = 210 mm; b = 150 mm; =
20 mm; = Ast / bd
Use fully cracked transformed section to calculate
neutral axis depth (kd) for finding fs
Applied moment, Ma = PL/4, where P = 3, 5, 7, 9, 11,
13 and 15 kN and L = 3 m
fs = Ma/Astjd where jd = d kd/3
20
Section 3: Damping Characteristics

and Analysis
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
DAMPING CHARACTERISTICS
AND ANALYSIS
Dean
Griffith University
Queensland, Australia
OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION
DAMPING DEFINITION
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
DAMPING PREDICTION FORMULAS
COMPARISON WITH HSC BEAM DATA
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
Quantification of Damping
A very vexing problem in Structural Engineering
Damping mechanisms are very complex
Accurate determination of damping is very important
in design
It is generally acknowledged that cracking

condition is the most significant factor
influencing damping in both reinforced and
prestressed concrete members
No researchers except Dieterle & Bachmann
(1981) have attempted to establish any sort of
relations between damping and the cracking
condition of concrete structures
RELEVANCE OF DAMPING
STUDY
Damping and Natural
Period are most
important properties
Been of importance
since centuries
But formal studies
since 1940
Limits the resonance
response
Seismic Importance
Acoustic Importance
Concrete Masses
used as damping
systems
Important for
buildings with
vibration sensitive
equipment
THE APPROACH
In total, 26 beams tested
Free-decay method was used for the
determination of damping
Damping values () predicted from the residual
crack widths and span lengths of beams
Residual crack widths are related to the
instantaneous crack widths
4 RC and 4 PPC beam data used for
formulation
Comparisons were made with test results from
all 26 NSC beams and 8 HSC beams
DAMPING - DEFINITION AND

MODEL
Nature of Damping
There are mainly three ways in which energy
is dissipated:
(i) Material Damping
(ii) System Damping
(iii) Radiation Damping
These together constitute the structural

damping
Damping Model Viscous Damping
DAMPING MODELS
Friction or Coulomb Damping due to
microcracking - Rubbing of cracked surfaces
Viscous Damping due to the moisture movement
within the pores
Solid damping due to the sliding friction within
the gel structure
Total energy dissipation due to inelastic
deformations and energy dissipation at cracked
surfaces

MODEL
The logarithmic decrement, , is obtained
as:
amplitude at cycle1, A1
= (1/n) log e amplitude at cycle (n +1), A n + 1
n periods
Amplitude A
A1
An+1
Time t

MODEL
The damping coefficient C, or alternatively
the damping ratio , where = C/Cc, in
which Cc is the critical damping constant,
is related to as
=
2
1
= m
where m and d respectively are the mass

and the damped natural frequency of free
vibration
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
11 reinforced concrete simply supported beams
Full-size box beams - overall cross-section 300
mm x 300 mm (for all beams)
180 mm x 180 mm void in each beam embedded polystyrene prism
3 different L 5.5 m, 6.7 m and 8.0 m
5 different values 0.01154, 0.01163,
0.02309, 0.02326 and 0.03348
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM,
CONT.
180
60
mm
28
Embedded
Polystyrene
as void
300mm
Loading beam
60
100 25
mm
Applied load
100 mm
100 mm
300 mm
Beam length, L
Typical RC box beam
CONT.
12 partially prestressed concrete simply
supported beams
3 different L 5.5 m, 6.8 m and 8.0 m
4 different degrees of prestressing - 0.25,
0.50, 0.75 and 1.00
4 different values 0.00460, 0.00511,
0.00730 and 0.00737
CONT.
3 two-equal-span continuous beams

Each beam 12 m long - 2 spans 6 m each
3 different positive values 0.01163,
0.02283 and 0.02361
3 different negative values 0.01519,
0.02714 and 0.02854
TEST PROCEDURE
Beams were tested in two stages under
static loading
Residual crack widths measured at zero
load after each load application
Free vibration with hammer excitation
used for damping measurement
Accelerometer at the center of the beam to
receive the vibration signals
TEST PROCEDURE, CONT.
Stages in a vibration measurement system
DEVELOPMENT OF DAMPING
PREDICTION FORMULAS
Variables influencing logarithmic
decrement,
beam span lengths, L
compressive strengths of concrete, fc
degrees of prestressing,
steel ratios,
residual crack widths, wr
The main factors affecting the damping

values were found to be wr and L
REINFORCED CONCRETE
BEAMS
Data from the following 4 beams were used in the
regression analysis
BEAM
NUMBER
fc
(MPa)
Bar
diameter
Number
of bars
Beam
Length (m)
25.9
20
5.5
25.4
20
5.5
31.0
20
8.0
11
27.6
20
6.7
The resulting damping prediction formula is

= 0.048 wr + 0.011 L
PARTIALLY PRESTRESSED
CONCRETE BEAMS
Data from the following 4 beams used in the
regression analysis
Beam
number
15
18
22
24
fc
(MPa)
25.9
31.0
31.3
39.1
Prestressing steel
25
105
75
55
Reinforcing
steel
2Y16+1Y12
1Y12
2Y12
4Y12
Beam
length
5.5
5.5
6.8
8.0
Degree of
prestressing
0.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
The resulting damping prediction formula is:

= 0.054 wr + 0.0104 L
RESIDUAL CRACK WIDTH

PREDICTIONS
Residual crack width is obtained from instantaneous
average crack width, wi using
wr = 0.312 wi
A unified formula for the prediction of wi is given as
wi = (fs /Es) [0.6 (c s) + 0.1 (/)]
where
fs is the average steel stress

Es is the modulus of elasticity for steel
c is the concrete cover
s is the average spacing between the reinforcing bars
is the average bar diameter
is the steel ratio
COMPARISON WITH TEST

DATA
For the 14 RC beams
.16
Measured
.12
.08
+ 30% limits
- 30% limits
.04
Continuous beams
Simply-supported
beams
0.00
0.00
.04
.08
.12
.16
Predicted - Equation 3
Measured versus predicted damping values

DATA
A good correlation exists between the calculated
and the measured damping values
The majority of the 191 correlation points lie well
within the + 30% limits
All but one of the correlation points for the 3 twoequal-span continuous beams lie well within the
+ 30% limits
This indicates that the damping formula which is
developed based on simply-supported beam
data is also applicable to the individual spans of
continuous beams

DATA
For the 12 PPC beams
.16
- 30% limits
Measured d
.12
.08
.04
+ 30% limits
0.00
0.00
.04
.08
.12
.16
Predicted d - Equation 4
Measured versus predicted damping values

DATA
The overall correlation is acceptable as a
majority of the 81 correlation points lie
within + 30% limits
It should be pointed out that, for partially
prestressed beams with low or no
residual crack widths, the measured
damping values varied widely for the
different test beams
This may be due to the inaccuracy of the
crack measurements
COMPARISON WITH HSC BEAMS

Eight full-size simply-supported reinforced HSC beams
Cracking characteristics in terms of crack spacing and
width
Damping behaviour in terms of logarithmic decrements
in free vibration
Beams subjected to two-point loading for crack
development in a constant moment region
DETAILS OF TEST BEMS

Beam
Designation
bxD
(mm x mm)
300 x 300
300 x 300
150 x 200
150 x 200
250 x 250
250 x 250
300 x 300
250 x 250
HSB 1
HSB 2
HSB 3
HSB 4
HSB 5
HSB 6
HSB 7
HSB 8
25
250
25
fc
(MPa)
60.9
62.3
61.5
63.4
65.9
65.9
58.3
58.3
Ast
3 N24
3 N28
3 N16
3 N16
3 N20
3 N20
4 N24
4 N20
25
250
Span
L (m)
3.00
5.00
2.40
2.40
4.00
5.00
6.00
4.50
25
R10 stirrups @
110 mm c/c for
HSB 1
R6 stirrups @
110 mm c/c
for HSB 2
300
Applied load
35
25 for HSB 1
30 for HSB 2
300
Beam HSB 7
Beams HSB 1 and HSB 2

25
175
25
100
Loading beam
300
25
R10 stirrups
@ 75 mm c/c
for HSB 4
200
25
200 mm
R6 stirrups @
100 mm c/c
for HSB 3
250
25
30 for HSB 5
35 for HSB 6
150
25
200
200 mm
l = 867 mm for beam HSB 1, l = 1534 mm for beam HSB 2,

l = 1867 mm for beam HSB 7 and l = 1367 mm for beam HSB 8
250
l
Beam length, L
25
R6 stirrups @
120 mm c/c
250
30
250
Beam HSB 8
Cross Sectional Details of Test Beams
Loading Arrangements
for Test Beams
COMPARISON OF DAMPING
VALUES
0.09
0.08
0.07
Beam HSB 1
Measured
0.06
Beam HSB 2
Beam HSB 5
0.05
Beam HSB 6
Beam HSB 7
0.04
Beam HSB 8
0.03
+ 30% Line
- 30% Line
0.02
0.01
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
Predicted
CONCLUSIONS
Two damping prediction formulas
developed one for RC and one for PPC
beams
Comparison with the test data of all the 26
NSC and 8 HSC beams shows that the
accuracy of the proposed formulas is good
The formula for RC beams is also
applicable to continuous beams
Section 4: Deflection
SHORT COURSE ON
5-6 September 2005
DEFLECTION
PROFESSOR YEW-CHAYE LOO
Dean
Griffith University
Queensland , Australia
DEFLECTION
Deflection
static loading
repeated loading
impact
A new method for incorporating

tension stiffening effects
Curvature values at sections
between adjacent cracks
Short-term deflections for 35
flexural members compared
_____________________________________________________________
*Piyasena, R., Loo, Y.C. & Fragomeni, S. 2002
Procedure
for
intensive
creep
deflection of R.C. box beams*
The intensive creep factor is
k = k1 + R log10T
where
T is the number of loading cycles,

k1 = 1.18 + (0.029/r) {(Mt Md)/(My Mcr)} and
R = (0.0015/r) {(Mt Md)/(My Mcr)}
____________________________________________
*Loo, Y.C. & Wong, Y.W. 1983, 1984, 1986; Wong, Y.W. & Loo, Y.C. 1985
Deflection of RC beams under repeated loading
k versus T for Mt/Mv = 0.7
k versus steel ratio for Mt/Mv = 0.7
Maximum deflection of RC and PPC

beams*
deflection under repeated mid-span
impact of below yield intensity
Deflections compared
Comparisons with other formulas
Design charts produced
___________________________________________
*Loo, Y.C. & Santos, A.P. 1985; Loo, Y.C. 1991
Correlation of measured and computed total deflections proposed formula
Correlation of measured and computed

total deflections Balaguru & Shah
(1982) formula
Correlation of measured and computed

total deflections Lovegrove & El Din
(1982) formula
= (mb/ms)
= 1.47 (1/) (5ms/4kv01/2)2/5
1 = (2/L2) (EI/A)
ymax = ymax / [(2/mb12) (1.25 ms v02 k2/3)3/5]
IMPACT AND ENERGY ABSORPTION
Impact deflection analysis of

beams
Precast beam-column
connections
under repeated load
under cyclic loading
An analytical solution for instantaneous

deflection of beams under mid-span
impact*
An integral equation incorporating
Hertzs contact law
Equivalent moment of inertia for
repeated loading
RC and PC beams
Comparisons with published results
___________________________________________________
*Loo, Y.C. & Santos, A.P. 1986
Correlation of measured and computed deflections Hussains (1982)

and Wijewardenes (1984) beams
Correlation of measured and computed deflections Bates (1961) beams
Correlation of measured and computed deflections Hughes

and Speirs (1982) beams
18 half-scale interior connection models

tested*
Under static and repeated loading
Two types of precast RC beam-column
connections
The precast connections were superior to
their monolithic counterparts
___________________________________________________
*Yao, B.Z. & Loo, Y.C. 1993; Loo, Y.C., Yao, B.Z. & Han, Q. 1994; Loo, Y.C. &
Yao, B.Z. 1995
Precast connection Type A
Test setup
Precast connection Type B
Typical load history
Load-deflection curves under static loading
Load-deflection curves under repeated loading
12 half-scale interior connection

models tested*
Under repeated and cyclic loading
Two types of precast RC beamcolumn connections
Precast connections possessed
larger energy absorbing capacities
than the monolithic models
___________________________________________________
*Loo, Y.C., Yao, B.Z. & Takheklambam, S. 1996
Load history for cyclic tests
Load-deflection curve under cyclic loading
THANK YOU
ALL
Section 5: Punching Shear Strength

Analysis of Concrete Flat
Plates
PUNCHING SHEAR DESIGN OF REINFORCED AND

POST-TESIONED CONCRETE FLAT PLATES:
ARE THE MAJOR DESIGN CODE METHODS
ADEQUATE?

Faculty of Engineering and Information
Technology
Griffith University
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Section 6: Ultimate Strength

Analysis of Walls (Solid
and with Openings)
Ultimate Strength Analysis of

Concrete Walls (Solid and with
Openings)
Aim
To investigate the failure behaviour of reinforced
concrete walls with and without openings
z
z
z
z
z
simply supports top and bottom

only
simply supports on all sides
Solid/ Opening panels
varying slenderness(H/tw)
New design formula for wall
with/without openings
Overview
O
O
O
O
Introduction
Design of walls using code methods
Test specimens - solid panels and test set up
Results solid panels
Crack pattern
Deflection/failure load
O
O
O
Comparison with new design formula

Test specimens-opening panels
Results opening panels
Crack pattern
Deflection/failure load
Comparison with new design formula
Introduction
Reinforced concrete wall applications
R In tilt-up
construction
R As concrete cores in
tall buildings
(a) In-plane vertical load
(b) Transverse horizontal load
(c) In-plane horizontal load
One and Two-way action
core walls
A)Typical
One-wayexample
action of Concrete
B) Two-way action
AS 3600(2001)
ACI 318(2005)
Code Methods
z AS3600-01
Section 11 (Design of walls -simplified formula)
Section 10 (Design of columns for
strength and serviceability

z ACI318-05
Chapter 14
z BS8110-97
Section 3.9.4 (Identical to AS3600)
AS3600-01 Wall Design Method
N u = (t w 1.2e 2e a )0.6f c'

Ultimate strength
Eccentricity of load
Concrete strength
per unit length of wall (N/mm)
Additional eccentricity
Thickness of the wall
=Hwe2/2500tw
ACI318-02 Wall Design Method
kH 2
N u = 0.55f c' t w 1 -
32 t w
ACI318-05/BS8110
Limitations
H/tw 25 or L/ tw 25
z fc
z
AS3600-01
Hwe/tw 30
50 MPa
e tw/6
Only one-way action
Only solid walls
z fc
z
z
z
65 MPa
e 0.05tw(=tw/20)
Only one-way action
Only solid walls
Previous experimental results of One-way action

0.6
AS3600
Nu/(f'cAg)
0.5
ACI318
Pillai(1977)
0.4
Saheb/Desayi(1989)
0.3
Fragomeni(1995)(NSC)
Fragomeni(1995)(HSC)
0.2
Butler(1998)
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
H/t
Previous experimental results of Two-way action

Saheb & Dasey (1991)
1.2
Nu/(f' cAg)
Fragomeni(1995) (NSC)
0.8
Fragomeni(1995) (HSC)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
H/t
30
40
50
Test specimens and test set up

(ecc =t/6, v= h = 0.0031)
tw (mm) f'c(MPa)
H/tw
AS3600
35.7
30.00
68.544 kN
52.0
35.00
40
51.0
40.00
1200
40
78.2
30.00
1400
40
63.0
35.00
1600
1600
40
75.9
40.00
1000
1000
40
45.4
25.00
1200
1200
40
37.0
30.00
TWNS3
1400
1400
40
51.0
35.00
TWNS4
1600
1600
40
45.8
40.00
TWHS1
1000
1000
40
68.7
25.00
TWHS2
1200
1200
40
64.8
30.00
TWHS3
1400
1400
40
60.1
35.00
TWHS4
1600
1600
40
70.2
40.00
H (mm)
L (mm)
OWNS2
1200
1200
40
OWNS3
1400
1400
40
OWNS4
1600
1600
OWHS2
1200
OWHS3
1400
OWHS4
TWNS1
TWNS2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Test specimens and test set up

(ecc =t/6)
H (mm) L (mm) tw (mm) f'c(MPa)
40
77.8
TAHS1 1600 1400
40
73.8
TAHS2 1400 1000
40
77.8
TAHS3 1600 1000
H/tw
40.0
35.0
40.0
H/L
1.1
1.4
1.6
Test-rig
set up
(2400 kN
capacity)
Support Condition
(one-way)
Eccentricity t/6
23 roller
15050 plate
2020 EA
40mm thickness test panel
Side Support Condition

(two-way)
150 PFC
40405 SHS
1600x1600x40 (fc=50MPa)(one-way)
1600x1600x40(fc=76MPa)(one-way)
1600x1600x40(fc=46MPa)(Two-way)
10
11
Experimental results of One-way action

AS3600
ACI318
Nu/(f'cAg)
0.9
Pillai(1977)
0.8
Saheb/Desayi(1989)
0.7
0.6
0.5
Butler(1998)
0.4
Doh(2002)(NSC)
Doh(2002)(HSC)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
H/t
Experimental results of Two-way action

AS3600
ACI318
0.9
Saheb/Desayi(1990)
0.8
Nu/(f'cAg)
0.7
0.6
Doh (2002)(NSC)
0.5
Doh (2002)(HSC)
0.4
Doh (2002)(HSC)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
H/t
12
Axial strength ratio versus Slenderness ratio

One-way (NSC)
Nu/(f'cLt w )
0.6
One-way (HSC)
0.5
0.4
Two-way (NSC)
0.3
Two-way (HSC)
0.2
TAHS
0.1
0.0
AS3600
10
20
30
40
ACI318
H/t (Slenderness ratio)
Axial strength ratio versus Aspect ratio

0.500
TAHS
(H/t=40)
Nu/(f'cLtw)
0.450
0.400
TAHS
(H/t=35)
0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
H/L (Aspect ratio)
13
Load (kN)
Load vs Deflection for TWNS4 and TWHS4

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
TWNS4(top)
TWNS4(middle)
TWNS4(bottom)
TWNS4(side)
TWHS4(top)
TWHS4(middle)
TWHS4(bottom)
TWHS4(side)
10
Deflection (mm)
Summary of test result

z Laboratory
tests (half-scale of 17 NSC

and HSC wall panels)
z H/tw with Nu/(fcLt)
z Nu/(fcLt)HSC < Nu/(fcLt)NSC
z
H/L with Nu/(fcLt)
14
Summary
z Limitations
of code methods
fc < 50 MPa
H/tw < 30
ACI318 does not consider H/L
Both ignore
One-way action only
Conservative and could be erroneous
z New
empirical formula anticipated
Design formula for walls without openings
N u = 2.0f c0.7 ( t w 1.2e 2e a )
= 0.6 for compression member
Nu
= design axial strength per unit length of wall (N/mm)
tw
= thickness of the wall (mm)
fc
= Characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete (MPa)
= eccentricity of the load measured at right angles to plane of the wall (mm)
ea
= an additional eccentricity due to deflections in the wall and

e a = (Hwe ) 2 /(2500tw ) (mm)
Hwe
= the effective height (mm)
15
Hwe = H
=
=
for simply supported top and bottom

only
1
H
1+
L
for H L when all four all sides are

restrained
L
2H
for H > L when all four all sides are

restrained
where is eccentricity parameter and is equal to:

1
1
18
=
=
e
e H 0.88
1
1
tw
t w t
w
for H/tw < 30
for H/tw 30
Wall
Panels
Failure Load
(kN)
OWNS2
253.10
OWNS3
426.73
OWNS4
441.45
OWHS2
482.65
OWHS3
441.45
OWHS4
455.84
Mean
Standard Deviation
Proposed Eq
(kN)
Proposed Eq
Failure load
250.54
340.86
344.69
433.76
389.93
455.29
0.99
0.80
0.78
0.90
0.88
1.00
0.89
0.09
16
Wall
Panels
Failure load
(kN)
Proposed Eq
(kN)
Proposed Eq
Failure load
TWNS1
TWNS2
TWNS3
TWNS4
TWHS1
TWHS2
TWHS3
TWHS4
TAHS1
TAHS2
TAHS3
TAHS4
765.2
735.8
1177.21
1177.21
1147.8
1177.21
1250.8
1648.1
1618.7
1118.3
1265.5
1442.1
716.43
707.66
1020.16
1067.91
957.77
1047.60
1144.67
1440.23
1486.51
1381.09
1137.18
1228.22
0.94
0.96
0.87
0.91
0.83
0.89
0.88
0.86
0.92
1.23
0.90
0.85
0.92
0.11
Mean
Standard Deviation
Notes: 1 Hydraulic jacks measured 40 tonnes for these specimens (4039.81kN).

The accuracy of jack was 1 tonne ( = 9.81 kN).
2 Load eccentricity = tw/6
Comparison with test data one-way action

0.7
f'c = 30 MPa
f'c = 50 MPa
f'c = 80 MPa
Fragomeni (NSC)
Fragomeni (HSC)
DohNS
(NSC)
OW
(Stage 1)
OW
(Stage 2)
DohHS
(HSC)
0.6
Nu / f'cLtw
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
10
20
30
40
50
60
H/tw
17

f'c = 30 M Pa
0.8
f'c = 50 M Pa
f'c = 80 M Pa
Saheb & Desayi (1990)
0.7
Nu / f'cLtw
Fragomeni (NSC)(1995)
Fragomeni (H SC)(1995)
D oh (NSC)
D oh (H SC)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
10
20
30
40
50
60
H /tw

0.6
0.5
Nu / f'cLtw
0.4
0.3
f'c = 3 0 M Pa
f'c = 5 0 M Pa
f'c = 8 0 M Pa
TAH S (H /tw = 40)
TAH S (H /tw = 35)
LFEM results (f'c =30 M P a)
LFEM results (f'c =50 M P a)
W AS TAB results (f' c =30 M P a)
W AS TAB results (f' c =50 M P a)
0.2
0.1
0.5
1.5
H /L
18
Test specimens-opening panels

and test set up
(ecc =t/6, v= h = 0.0031)
Number
of
openings
One-way
action
Two-way
action
Wall
Panel
Height
(H: mm)
Length
(L: mm)
Thickness
(tw: mm)
Opening size
(mm mm)
Concrete
strength
(fc: MPa)
H/tw
OW01
1200
1200
40
None
35.7
30
OW02
1600
1600
40
None
51.0
40
OW11
1200
1200
40
300300
53.0
30
OW12
1600
1600
40
400400
47.0
40
OW21
1200
1200
40
300300
50.0
30
OW22
1600
1600
40
400400
51.1
40
TW01
1200
1200
40
None
37.0
30
TW02
1600
1600
40
None
45.8
40
TW11
1200
1200
40
300300
50.3
30
TW12
1600
1600
40
400400
50.3
40
TW21
1200
1200
40
300300
50.3
30
TW22
1600
1600
40
400400
50.3
40
Typical example of concrete panel dimensions
(a) OWN11/TW11
(b)OW12/TW12
19
Reinforcement layout
Shrinkage
control
20
One-way action panel with

two-openings
Two-way action
solid panel
Two-way action panel

with two openings
Two-way action panel

with one opening
21
OW11 1200x1200x40
(fc= 53 MPa)
TW11 1200x1200x40
(fc= 50.3MPa)
OW21 1600x1600x40
(fc= 50 MPa)
TW12 1600x1600x40
(fc= 50.3MPa)
22
TW21 1200x1200x40
(fc= 50.3MPa)
TW22 1600x1600x40
(fc= 50.3MPa)
Load vs Deflection for TW21

1200x1200x40 (f
(fc= 50.3MPa)
700
600
Load (kN)
500
400
top
300
middle
bottom
side
200
100
0
0
10
Lateral Deflection (mm)
23
Load vs Deflection for TW22

1600x1600x40 (f
(fc= 50.3MPa)
700
600
Load (kN)
500
400
top
300
200
middle
bottom
100
side
0
0
10
12
Lateral Deflection (mm)
Ultimate loads and axial strength ratios of test

panels.
Two-way
action
One-way
action
Wall
Panel
OW01
OW02
OW11
OW12
OW21
OW22
TW01
TW02
TW11
TW12
TW21
TW22
Concrete
Strength
(fc :MPa)
35.7
51.0
53.0
47.0
50.0
51.1
37.0
45.8
50.3
50.3
50.3
50.3
Failure
Load
(kN)
253.10
441.45
309.02
294.30
185.41
195.71
735.75
1177.20
750.47
1030.05
618.03
647.46
Axial strength
ratio
(Nu/fcLtw)
0.148
0.135
0.121
0.098
0.077
0.060
0.414
0.402
0.414*
0.427*
0.512*
0.402*
Reduction strength
ratio (%)
8%
19%
22%
3%
-2%
21%
24
Axial strength ratio vs Slenderness ratio

AS 3600-01
Axial strength ratio
(Nu/f'cLtw)
0.6
ACI318-02
0.5
One-way (no opening)
0.4
0.3
One-way (one opening)
0.2
One-way (two
openings)
Two-way (no opening)
0.1
0
Two-way (one opening)
10
20
30
Slenderness ratio (H/tw)
40
Two-way (two
openings)
Design formula for solid walls
N u = 2.0f c0.7 ( t w 1.2e 2e a )
= 0.6 for compression member
Nu
= design axial strength per unit length of wall (N/mm)
tw
= thickness of the wall (mm)
fc
= Characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete (MPa)
= eccentricity of the load measured at right angles to plane of the wall (mm)
ea
= an additional eccentricity due to deflections in the wall and

e a = (Hwe ) 2 /(2500tw ) (mm)
Hwe
= the effective height (mm)
25
Hwe = H
=
=
for simply supported top and bottom

only
1
H
1+
L
for H L when all four all sides are

restrained
L
2H
for H > L when all four all sides are

restrained
where is eccentricity parameter and is equal to:

1
1
18
=
=
e
e H 0.88
1
1
tw
t w t
w
for H/tw < 30
for H/tw 30
N uo = (k1 k 2 ) N u
G1
G3
G2
Ho
Lo
Elevation
A
= o +
A L
=
2
12 t w L2 t w L o o
Lt
L
t
w
o w
L/2
G1
G2
G3
C ross- sec tional Plan
26
Formula for wall with openings:
N uo = (k1 k 2 ) N u
N uo/N u
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.3
OW12
294.30
Saheb
285.97
0.8
0.97
OW21
(1985)
185.41
184.38
0.99
OW22
195.71
200.68
1.03
TW01
Current test
735.75
data
N uo/N u
Comparison of test results and new proposed method

Eq. (2)
k1 = 1.18 Wall
(for one-way
action) Predicted (Eq. 2)
Experimental
Experimental
Panels
(kN)
(kN)
= 1.00 (for two-way action)
OW01
253.10
250.541
0.99
1
k344.64
one-way
= -0.9331x
+ 1.0036 action)
2 = 1.19 y(for
y = -1.1879x + 1.1752
OW02
441.45
0.78
0.9
0.9
=
0.93
(for
two-way
action)
OW11
309.02
290.30
0.94
707.70
0.6
0.96
TW02
1177.20
1067.90
0.91
0.7
0.5
TW11
750.47
676.21
0.90
TW12
1030.05
878.52
0.4
0.85
618.03
471.44 0.2
647.46
612.48
0.4
0.5
TW21
TW22
0.6
0.3
Average
0.4 0.760.5
Saheb
(1985)
Current test
data
0.6
0.95
0.92
Variation of Nuo / Nu with for panels

with for panels
Variation of Nuo / Nu0.08
Standard2 deviation
with openings in one-way action
(R =0.7)
with openings in two-way action (R2 =0.92)
Saheb(1985)
C
L
C
L
240x240
240x420
C
L
600
WWO- 1
WWO- 4
900
900
240x240
240x420
WWO- 5
80
80
240x240
240x420
240x240
600
80
80
WWO- 3
WWO- 6
80
++
Saheb(1985)
Design formulas
Eqn. (A):
for One-way action
for Two-way action
C
L
Two-way action
C
L
600
WWO- 2
240x240
One-way action
Test Panles
Wall
Panels
Experimental
(kN)+
Proposed Eq
Exp
Eqn. (A)++
Exp
WWO-1
672.56
0.95
0.98
WWO-2
568.90
0.98
0.83
WWO-3
433.47
0.93
0.63
WWO-4
652.65
1.03
0.95
WWO-5
548.02
1.09
0.79
WWO-6
423.47
1.01
0.61
WWO-1P
692.47
0.86
0.77
WWO-2P
592.83
0.89
0.66
WWO-3P
448.38
0.89
0.53
WWO-4P
697.47
0.89
0.233
WWO-5P
587.83
0.95
0.35
WWO-6P
448.38
0.93
0.51
Mean
0.95
0.65
Standard deviation
0.07
0.23
H
Pu = 0.55[ A f + (f y f ) A sv ]1
32 t w
'
g c
'
c
Pu = 0.67f c' A g {1 [L /(120t w )]2 }{1 + 0.12(H / L)}
27
Conclusions
z Laboratory
tests (half-scale of 10 walls with
openings)
z
Nu/(fcLt)two-way action > Nu/(fcLt)one-way action
z H/tw
z
with Nu/(fcLt)
Number of openings with Nu/(fcLt)
Conclusions (contd)
zLimitations of code methods
H/tw < 30
ACI318 does not consider H/L
Both ignore
Solid panels with One-way action only
Conservative and could be erroneous
zNew design formula gives good and

consistent prediction of results.
zMore test models are required for the
verification
28
29
Section 7: Column and Wall

Shortening in Highrise
Buildings
COLUMN AND WALL

SHORTENING IN HIGHRISE
BUILDINGS
Dean
Griffith University
Axial deformation in a concrete

structure
Axial shortening
refers to column or wall length changes in tall concrete
buildings
due to sustained stresses (heavy loads) and concrete
properties such as shrinkage and creep
is not really an issue if allowed for in design, BUT can give rise
rise
to differential shortening
The research
Axial shortening of columns and core walls at

the Q1 Tower has been monitored during the
last two and a half years
Features
Current photo
15/08/2005
Site area 12840m2

80 levels, 322.5 m height
527 apartments
One penthouse, 12 subpenthouses, 213 one- bedroom,
184 two-bedroom, 117 threebedroom
Commercial Area 1200 m2
Ten-storey Skygarden (Level 6069)
Project values = AUD
500,000,000
Instrumented Levels and Concrete Compressive

Strengths for Columns at the Specific Level
Date
of
Construction
Jan 2005
Level 63, 40 MPa
02/08/2004
Level 49, 40 MPa
10/03/2004
Level 31, 50 MPa
19/02/2003
25/01/2003
Level B1 and B2,

65 MPa
Plan of a typical floor & the

instrumented locations
Column and Wall
Locations
14 columns and 5 walls

per floor
Strain measurement at a column
The deformations were measured using
demountable mechanical strain gauges

(DEMECs) with a sensitivity of 0.002mm
Typical instrumentation at a column
Up to 9 gauge points were instrumented
on each selected locations and the

average values were taken
Difficulties faced
Durations and frequencies of strain
measurements vary greatly depending on

the accessibility of each locations
Typical Results
A typical plot of column strains at the Q1 Tower using 200mm DEMEC

(10 microstrain sensitivity)
S tr a in ( 1 0 - 6 m m /m m
1000
Series1
Series2
800
Series3
600
Series4
400
Series5
200
Series6
Series7
-200 0
200
400
600
800
1000
Series8
Series9
Duration of Strain Reading (Days)
Observed Behaviours
Strain variations between different gauge
positions in each column

Some periods with constant strains even
with the continuing of construction during
the time
Some negative strains (extension)
Fluctuations in strain-time curves
Explanations
Variation in term of concrete quality within
a single column/wall
Field results are affected by many random
variables, i.e. ambient temperature,
relative humidity, loadings
Temperature effect, a change in
temperature of 1C results in a strain of
10x10-6 (mm/mm)
Uncertainty in stress
The partial completion at different levels resulted

in uneven loadings for the columns
The confused state of propped and backpropped conditions around the columns
Unknown variation of construction loads
Unexpected loading/unloading
Example of an unexpected loading
Slip form, jump forms, props and

back props in place.
Measured Axial Shortening

at Level B2
700
Columns at Level B2
TC06
Axial Shortening (microstrain)
600
TC10
500
TC05
TC12
400
TC10
300
TC06
TC12
200
100
0
-100 0
TC05
200
400
600
800
Age (days)
500
Columns at Level B2
400
TC01
TC13
TC04
TC03
TC11
TC08
TC07
TC08
Axial Shortening (days)
TC14
TC04
300
200
TC09
TC11
TC09
100
TC01
TC07
TC03
0
0
200
400
600
800
-100
Age (days)
800
TC06
700
TC06
TC05
600
500
TC05
400
300
200
TC06
100
TC05
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Age (days)
10
800
TC10
700
600
TC10
500
TC09
TC09
400
300
200
TC09
100
TC10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Age (days)
800
TC12
TC11
700
TC12
600
500 TC11
400
300
200
TC11
100
TC12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Age (days)
11
600
Core Walls at Level B2
TW09
Axial Shortening (days)
500
TW09
400
300
TW18
TW17
TW16
TW06
TW07
200
100
0
-100
200
400
600
800
Age (days)
Comparisons of Predicted and

Measured Axial Shortening at
Level B2
12
Axial Shortening Estimation
Various axial shortening estimation methods to

compute total concrete strain in vertically loaded
members exist
One of the more famous and reliable ones is

z
z
z
The Age Adjusted Effective Modulus Method

Method - Trost
and Bazant (1972)
used to compute strains under varying stresses
Capable of incorporating shrinkage, creep, reinforcing
restraints, elastic modulus
Superposition theory
(McHenry, 1943)
superposition
13
Estimation of axial shortening
Assumed Loading Sequences
C3
C4
S3
S4
C3
C2
C2
Stage 1
C1
C1
C1
S1
Stage 1b
TC1= 3
TC1= 3+TC2
WC1=SWC1
Stage 2
TC1 = 3 +
WC 1 =
C6
S5
C2
C1
Ci
i =1
C8
WC1 =
Ci
i =2
1 5
Wc( si )
2 i =2
WC1 =
SW
i =1
i =2
Ci
Ci
S2
S1
Stage 2c
i =2
Ci
TC1 = 3 +
Ci
1 6
Wc ( si)
2 i =2
SW
WC1 =
Ci
i =1
i=2
Ci
1 7
Wc( si )
2 i =2
S(j+1)
S(j+1)
S8
Cj
Cj
C2
S2
SW
i =1
S7
S1
TC1 = 3 +
Ci
C7
C2
i =1
Stage 2b
TC1 = 3 +
5
SW
C1
S1
SW
TC1 = 3 +
Ci
C2
S2
Stage 2a
WC1 =
S1
Stage 1d
i =2
C6
C2
S2
C7
S6
C5
C1
Stage 3, 4, 5
C1
Stage 1c
WC1=SWC1+SWC2
C4
S2
S1
S1
Stage 1a
C5
C2
S2
S2
S2
C2
S2
Ws
C1
C1
C1
S1
S1
Stage 3
TC1 = 3 +
WC1 =
SW
i 1
Stage 4
i =2
Ci
S1
TC1 = 3 +
Ci
8
i=2
c ( si )
WC1 =
SW
i 1
Stage 5
i=2
Ci
TC1 = 3 +
Ci
J+1
i=2
c ( si )
WC1 =
SW
i =1
Ci
Ci
i =2
j +1
+ 90
i =2
c ( si )
j +1
+ Ws ( si)
i =2
14
TC12 TC10
14
TC06
TC05,06
12
TC11,12
Stress (MPa)
TC09,10
10
Computed
columns
stresses
TC11
TC09
TC05
6
TC05,06
TC09,10
TC11,12
2
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Age (days)
TW09
14
12
TW18
TW09
TW16
TW16
Stress (MPa)
TW18
Computed
cores
stresses
10
8
6
TW09
TW16
2
TW18
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Age (days)
15
Elastic Modulus AS3600-2006

(draft)
when fcm<40MPa Elastic Modulus is given as
Ec (t ) = 0.043 1.5 f c (t )
when fcm>40MPa Elastic Modulus is given as
Ec (t ) = [0.024 f c (t ) + 0.12] 1.5
Shrinkage AS3600-2006 (draft)
cs (t ) = cse (t ) + csd (t )
where
cse (t ) = cse
(1.0 e 0.1t )
cse
(t ) = (0.06 f c '1.0) 50 10 6
csd (t ) = k1k 4 csd .b

csd.b = (1.0 0.0008 fc ' ) csd.b
16
Creep AS3600-2006 (draft)

C1 (t , s ) = cc = k 2 k3 k 4 k5cc.b
K2
K3

t (t ) =
i
Ec (s)
[1 + C1 (t , s ) ] + s (t ) (t ) [1 (t , s ).C1 (t , s ) ]
Ec (s)
Reinforcement
Restraint
Shrinkage
Elastic + creep
17
Comparisons of Predicted
and Measured Axial
Shortening of Columns/Core
Walls at Level B2
900
TC06
TC05
700
AS3600-2001
600
TC06
TC05
AS3600-2006
500
400
14
300
TC05,06
12
TC11,12
TC09,10
Stress (M Pa)
800
200
10
8
6
TC05,06
TC09,10
TC11,12
100
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Age (days)
0
-100
200
400
600
800
1000
Age (days)
18
900
TC10
TC09
700
AS3600-2001
600
TC10
AS3600-2006
500
TC09
400
14
300
TC05,06
12
TC11,12
TC09,10
Stress (M Pa)
800
200
10
8
6
TC05,06
TC09,10
TC11,12
100
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Age (days)
0
-100
200
400
600
800
1000
Age (days)
TC11
800
TC12
700
AS3600-2001
600
AS3600-2006
TC11
TC12
500
400
14
300
TC05,06
12
TC11,12
TC09,10
Stress (M Pa)
900
200
10
8
6
TC05,06
100
TC09,10
TC11,12
2
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Age (days)
0
-100 0
200
400
600
800
1000
Age (days)
19
1300
TW09
900
AS3600-2001
AS3600-2006
700
TW09
500
14
TW18
TW09
TW16
12
Stress (M Pa)
1100
300
10
8
6
TW09
TW16
2
100
-100 0
TW18
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Age (days)
200
400
600
800
1000
Age (days)
1300
TW18
AS3600-2001
900
AS3600-2006
TW18
TW16
700
14
500
TW18
TW09
TW16
12
Stress (M Pa)
1100
TW16
300
10
8
6
TW09
TW16
2
100
-100 0
TW18
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Age (days)
200
400
600
800
1000
Age (days)
20
Comparisons of Predicted
and Measured Differential
Shortening between Adjacent
Columns/Walls at Level B2
500
Differential Shortening (microstrain)
Measured
AS3600-2001
400
AS3600-2006
300
TC10
200
TW09
100
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
-100
Age (days)
21
500
Measured
AS3600-2001
400
AS3600-2006
TW16
300
TC09
200
100
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
-100
-200
Age (days)
500
Measured
AS3600-2001
400
AS3600-2006
300
200
100
TW18
TC05
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
-100
Age (days)
22
Conclusions
Axial shortenings of columns and core walls

measured at the Q1 Tower have been compared
with predictions using the most up-to-date
material model incorporated with Age adjusted
modulus method and superposition theory
For columns, reasonably good agreements were
found. However, predictions underestimate early
age axial shortenings in most cases except for
Column TC10
Conclusions
For core walls, overestimations at ages up to

400 days were observed. Good agreements
were found after 400 days up to 600 days
The accuracy of long-term prediction is still in
doubt. In general, over predictions are observed
after 600-800 days
The use of the new draft code instead of the
AS3600-2001 reduces axial shortening
underestimation in young column/wall and
overestimation in old column/wall
23
Conclusions
In general, differential shortening is
minimum is this building. Both predictions

significantly overestimate the magnitude of
differential shortening
24
Section 8: Design Codes and

Applications: AS 3600,
BS 8110 and EC 2
Design Codes and Applications:

AS3600, BS8110 and EC2
Faculty of Engineering and Information

Technology
Griffith University
Content
General remarks
Design requirements
Durability
Fire resistance
Strength
Serviceability
Ultimate strength of a singly-reinforced rectangular section

reinforced rectangular section
Doubly-reinforced rectangular sections
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
GENERAL REMARKS
Ru S*
Ru S*
AS3600
BS8110 & EC2 (but include partial safety
factors )
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Durability
Fire resistance
Strength
Serviceability
Design Loads
Account for Variation in Loads due to:
* Errors in the analysis and Design
* Constructional inaccuracies
* Possible load increases
The Characteristic Loads are multiplied by the appropriate partial safety factor
for loads to give the Design Loads
acting
on the
structure
LIVE
LOAD
COMBINATION
FACTOR
FOR STRENGTH DESIGN (c)
.
Load Combination
Load Type Combination factor ( )

Type of Live Load
c
AS
Dead+ Imposed
Dead+Wind
Dead+Imposed+Wind
1.2
0.8
1.2
Dead, Gk
Imposed, Qk
BS
BS
EC
AS
1.6
1.2
1.5
1.5
1
1
EC
AS
Floors
1.4
1.35 1.5
1.4 Domestic
1.35
Office
1.2
1.35
c
Parking area
Storage area
Other
Roofs
Trafficable
Non-trafficable
Wind, Wk
BS
0.4
1.4
0.4
1.2
EC
1
1
0.4
0.6
0.6, unless otherwise assessed
0.4
0.0
Serviceability Design
(a)
(b)
Short-term effects
LIVE
LIVELOAD
LOADFACTORS
FACTORSFOR
FORSERVICEABILITY
SERVICEABILITYDESIGN
DESIGN
(i)
G
-AS3600
-EC1
(ii)
G + Ws
Type of Live Load Short-term
factor (l )
factor (
Short-term
Long-term
Combination
s ) Long-term
Type of Live Load
(iii)
G + s Q
(s )
(l )
(c )
Long-term effects
(i)
G
(ii)
G + l Q
Floor
Floor
Domestic
Domestic
Offices
Offices
Parking
area
Parking area
Retailstore
store
Retail
Storage
Storage
Snow
load
Other
Wind
Load
Roofs
Fire Resistance
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.4 0.3
0.7 0.7
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.4 0.6
0.7 0.7
0.7
0.6 0.8
1.0 1.0
0.9
0.6for storage, unless
0.2otherwise assessed
0
As
Non-fire
building
Trafficable
Non-trafficable
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4 0
0.0
1.1G + c Q
Durability
Signs of concrete deterioration are nowadays far too common.
Repair can be very costly and difficult. Improved durability is therefore
paramount.
How can this be achieved:
cover to reinforcement
minimum cement content
maximum water/cement ratio
maximum crack widths
REQUIRED COVER-BS8110
Conditions of exposure
Nominal
Mild - protected from weather
25
Moderate - sheltered from weather
Severe - exposed to severe rain
Very Severe - de-icing salts, fumes etc.
Extreme - abrasives e.g. sea water
Max. Free water/cement ratio
.65
Min. Cement Content kg/m3
275
Lowest grade
C30
cover (mm)
20 20 20 20
35 30 25 20
40 30 25
50 40 30
60 50
.60 .55 .50 .45
300 325 350 400
C35 C40 C45 C50
Exposure classification
Surface and exposure environment
Reinforced or
Plain concrete
prestressed
members
concrete members
1. Surfaces of members in contact with the ground

(a) Members protected by a damp-proof membrane
(b) Residential footings in non-aggressive soils
(c) Other members in non-aggressive soils
Al
Al
A2
Al
Al
Al
(d) Members in aggressive soils*
Al
Al
BI
Al
REQUIRED COVER-AS3600
2. Surfaces of members in interior environments

(a) Fully enclosed within a building except for a
brief period of weather exposure during
construction;
(b) In industrial buildings, the member being
subject to repeated wetting and drying
Required cover*, mm
Exposure
3. Surfaces of members in above-ground exterior
Characteristics strength
Classification
environments
In areas that are:
(a) Inland (> 50 km from coastline) environment
being (i) Non-industrial and arid climatic zone*
(ii) Non-industrial and temperate climatic zone
(ill) Non-industrial and tropical climatic zone
(iv) Industrial and any climatic zone
(b) Near-coastal (l km to 50km from coastline),
any climatic zone
(c) Coastal (Up to 1km from coastline but
excluding tidal and splash zones)*, any
Al
A2
Bl
BI
Al
Al
Al
Al
BI
Al
climatic zone
B2
Al
4. Surface of members in water

(a) In fresh water
(b) In sea water
(i) permanently submerged
(ii) in tidal or splash zones
BI
Al
B2
C
U
U
(c) In soft or running water
( f c )
20MPa 25MPa
32MPa 40MPa 50MPa
Al
20
20
20
20
A2
(50)
30
25
20
20
20
B1
(60)
40
30
25
B2
(65)
45
35
(70)
50
5. Surfaces of members in other environments

Any exposure environment not otherwise described
in Items 1 to 4 above
REQUIRED COVER-EC2
Exposure class
Example of Environmental conditions
1 dry environment
Interior of buildings for normal habitation of office

- interior of buildings where humidity is high (e.g.
a without
laundries)
frost
- exterior components
- components in non-aggressive soil and/or water
2 Humid
- exterior components exposed to frost
environment
- component in non-aggressive soil and/or water and
b with
exposed to frost
frost
- interior components when the humidity is high and
exposed to frost
3 humid environment with Interior and exterior components exposed to frost and
frost and de-icing salts
de-icing agents
- components completely or partially submerged in
a without
seawater, or in the splash sone
frost
- components in saturated salt air (coastal area)
4 seawater
environment
- components partially submerged in seawater or in the
b with
splash zone and exposed to frost
frost
- components in saturated salt air and exposed to frost
The following classes may occur alone or in combination with the above classes:
- slightly aggressive chemical environment (gas, liquid
or solid)
a
- aggressive industrial atmosphere
5 aggressive
chemical
Moderately aggressive chemical environment (gas,
b
environment
liquid or solid)
highly aggressive chemical environment (gas, liquid or
c
solid)
Exposure
class
Minimum
cover
(mm)
15
2a
20
2b
25
40
4a
40
4b
40
5a
25
5b
30
5c
40
FIRE PROTECTION (Beam only)

Fire protection of reinforced concrete members is largely achieved
by specifying limits for:
cover to reinforcement
minimum dimensions for section
Fire Protection-BS8110
Fire
resistance
hrs.
.5
1
1.5
2
3
4
Nominal Cover
(mm)
Beams
Floors
S.S
Cont.
S.S
Cont.
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
20
40
30
35
25
60
40
45
35
70
50
55
45
Columns
20
20
20
25
25
25
Fire
resistance
hrs.
.5
1
1.5
2
3
4
Beam
Width
(b mm)
200
200
200
200
240
280
Minimum Dimension
Floor
Fully exposed
Thickness
column width
(h mm)
(b mm)
75
150
95
200
110
250
125
300
150
400
170
450
Fire Protection-AS3600
Fire Protection-EC2
Table 4.6:
4.5: Minimum dimensions and axis distances
for continuous
simply supported
beamsbeams
Standard
Standard fire
fire
Minimum
Minimum
dimensions
dimensions
(mm)
(mm)
/ axis
distance
resistance
/ axis
distance a
resistance Possible
Possible combinations
combinationsofofmember
memberwidth
widthbmin
bmin
a
2
46
11
2
3
4 3
5
R 30
30
R
[80/12]
[80/25]
[120/15]
[160/12] [200/10]
[160/10]
[200/12]
[200/10]
R 60
60
R
[120/25]
[120/40]
[160/35]
[200/12] [300/25]
[200/30]
[300/12]
[300/25]
R 90
90
R
[150/35]
[150/55]
[200/45]
[250/25] [400/35]
[250/40]
[400/25]
[400/45]
R 120
120
R
[220/45]
[200/65]
[240/55]
[300/35] [500/45]
[300/50]
[500/35]
[500/45]
R
R 180
180
[240/80]
[300/70]
[380/60]
[400/65]
[400/60] [600/60]
[600/60]
[600/50]
R
R 240
240
[280/90]
[350/80]
[480/70]
[500/75]
[500/70] [500/70]
[700/70]
[700/60]
ULTIMATE STERNGTH OF A SINGLYREINFORCED RECTANGULAR

SECTION
Actual and Equivalent Stress Blocks AS3600

M
N.A.
Uncracked section
C
C ult
kud
jud
Tult
Transformed section
MuoAt= ultimate
CuIt ju dstate
= Tult ju d
fc'
0.85 f c'
k u d
k ud
C = f c' k u bd
k u d / 2
k u d
C = 0.85 f c' k u bd
N.A.
Actual Stress Block
Equivalent Stress Block
= 0.85
for f'c 28 MPa and
= 0.85 - 0.007 (f'c -28) for f'c > 28 MPa
But, 0.65 0.85.
And to fully define the stress block, the ultimate
concrete strain, cu = 0.003
ULTIMATE STERNGTH OF A SINGLYREINFORCED RECTANGULAR SECTION

Tension, Compression and Balanced Failure
z
Failure of a concrete member occurs invariably and only when

cu = 0.003.
At this ultimate state, the strain in the tensile reinforcement,
or
s > sy
s < sy
tension failure
compression failure
cu = 0.003
k ud
d
s > sy
cu = 0.003 cu = 0.003 0.85f c'
k ud
s < sy
Tension Compression
failure
failure
k uB d
s = sy
T = A st f sy
Balanced
failure
The ultimate state for a section s = sy when c = c is called a

balanced failure.
We can establish an equation for the neutral axis parameter kuB, i.e.,
k uB
cu
d
cu + sy
from which
kuB =
cu
cu + sy
By substituting the known values, we obtain
0.003
k uB =
0.003 +
f sy
or
k uB =
600
600 + f sy
200000
For 400Y grade bars, we have kuB = 0.6

For 500Y grade bars, we have kuB = 0.545
Balanced Steel Ratio using AS3600

The resultants C and T are respectively,
C = 0.85 f'c kuB b d
and
T = Ast fsy = B b d fsy
where pB = balanced steel ratio.

z
But C = T, or
from which
0.85 f'c kuB b d = pB b d fsy
0.85f c' k uB
pB =
f sy
Substituting Eq. 3.3(4) into Eq. 3.3(5) gives,
f c'
600
p B = 0.85
f sy 600 + f sy
For a given beam, if p < pB it is under-reinforced; it is

over-reinforced if p > pB. With
ku = 0.4, Eq. 3.3(5) becomes,
p all
f c'
= 0.34
f sy
which is the maximum allowable steel ratio for beam without

special consideration (see Clause 8.1.3).
Ultimate Moment using AS3600

Mu
0.85f c'
0.003
k u d
N.A.
d
A st
s > sy
T = A st f sy
C = 0.85 f'c ku b d
and
T = Ast fsy
10
Ast f sy
ku =
Fx = 0, i.e. C = T, from which
0.85 f c b d
Considering M = 0;
Muo = Ast fsy d (1 - ku / 2)
Substituting ku,
1 A st f sy
M uo = A st f syd 1
'
1.7 bd f c
But 1/1.7 = 0.5882, therefore AS1480-1982 recommends that,
A f
M uo = A st f sy d 1 0.6 st sy'
bd f c
ULTIMATE STERNGTH
OF A SINGLY- REINFORCED
RECTANGULAR SECTION
cu = 0.003
= 0.0035
f cu =0.67f ck / m =0.45f ck
cu
0.9x
0.85f c'
z=d-
k uB d
=
s
T=
sy
BS8110
=
s
sy
0.9x
2
A st f sy
ms
cc f cu = 0.85f cd = 0.85f ck / c
cu
AS3600
EC2
where =0.8, =1 and cc=0.85 =
s
sy
11
Design Strength BS8110/EC2

In order to take account of the difference between
actual and laboratory values, local weaknesses and
inaccuracies in the assessment of the resistance of
sections, the Characteristic Strengths fk are divided
by an appropriate PARTIAL SAFETY FACTOR
for strength m .
Design strength =
fk
m
m
(partial safety factor)
Reinforcement (prestressing steel included)

Concrete in flexure or axial load
Shear strength without shear
reinforcement
Bond strength
Others (e.g. bearing stress)
1.05(BS) 1.15(EC)
1.5
1.25
1.4
1.5
12
= 0.0035
cu
Concrete Compression-BS8110
x
f cu =0.67f ck / m
0.9x
0.9x
0.67f cu
C=
and
0.9 zb= d 2
m
z=d-
BS8110 restrict the neutral axis depth

=
to x = 0.5d
s
0.9x
2
sy
M = C z or T z
M = C z =
=
0.67f cu
0.9
x)
0.9x b (d mc
2
0.67f cu
0.9
0.9 (0.5d)b (d 0.5d)
mc
2
M = 0.156f cu bd 2
M = Tz =
f y As
ms
rearranging and putting ms = 1.05

As =
M
0.95f y z
i.e. AS3600
T = Ast fsy = B b d fsy
Ast =B b d
13
Concrete Compression-EC2
FC =
0.85f ck
b x
c
As f yk
s
x
z=d2
z = d - 0.4x
cc f cu = 0.85f cd = 0.85f ck / c
cu
FT =
=
s
sy
where =0.8, =1 and cc=0.85
For x = 0.45d upper limit (No redistribution & fck > 35)
M u = 0.167 f ck bd 2
For fck 40 MPa and greater (No redistribution & fck > 35)
M u = 0.128 f ck bd 2
DOUBLY-REINFORCED
RECTANGULAR SECTIONS
z
As previously discussed, for singly-reinforced sections if pt > pB,

then by adding Ast is not going to be effective and the use of
compression steel Asc to reinforce the concrete in the compressive
zone will be desirable
A section reinforced with both Ast and Asc is referred to as being

doubly- reinforced.
14
Criterion for yielding of Asc at failure-AS3600

kud dc dc
a = kud
b
dc
kud
Cs
C
sc
u
sc = sy
d
d- dc
s < sy
s > sy
z
In general there are two cases at ultimate state in which,

Asc yields
Asc does not yield.
In both cases, Ast yields at the ultimate state. However,
there are exceptional cases in which Ast does not yield at
failure.

First we have to determine if Asc yields or not at failure i.e. if sc >
can be derived by considering
or < sy. The relevant equation
compatibility of strains for the limiting case where sc = sy as shown
in Eq. 3.5(1)e. By relating the strain sc = sy to cu it gives
sy
k ud dc
cu
k ud
from which
d
d
cu c
600 c
d =
d
ku =
cu sy 600 f sy
( t c )limit
dc
d
=
(600 f sy ) f sy
510 fc
Take Fx = 0 for the limiting case, i.e.

c b d fsy + 0.85 f'c ku b d = t b d fsy
15
( t c )limit
z
dc
d
=
(600 f sy ) f sy
510 fc
For a given beam section if (t - c) is greater than (t - c) limit, then Asc

would yield at failure. Otherwise, it would not. It is obvious that with a
greater amount of Ast, the neutral axis at failure will be lower leading
to a higher value of sc. Thus yielding of Asc would occur. To ensure a
tension failure, AS 1480-1982 Clause A 1.1.2 states that
(t - c) B
No recommendation is apparent in AS3600-2001. But by implication,

we can take ku 0.4 (see Section 3.3.2), or for Grade 500N bars,
(t - c) all = 0.34
f c
f sy
Analysis Formulas-AS3600
k ud dc dc
a = k u d
Cs
C
u
sc = sy
s < sy
16
Analysis Formulas-AS3600
z
Case (ii) : Asc does not yield at failure
( t c )limit
In cases where
dc
d
<
(600 f sy ) f sy
510 f c
then Asc would not yield. Thus, in addition to ku we also have fsc as
unknown. We can determine these two unknowns using the
compatibility and equilibrium equations.
a = kud
d
dc
kud
sc
Cs
C
a
2
a =kud
dc
kud
dc
sc
Cs
C
a
2
17
a =kud
dc
dc
sc
kud
Cs
C
a
2
Given section with Y400 or N500 bars
SUMMARY-AS3600
dc > 0.2d (Y400)
dc > 0.091d (N500)
Yes
t t, limit
(Eq. 3.5(21))
Yes
Yes
Ast yields at failure
No
t t, limit
(Eq. 3.5(18))
No
Ast does not yield at

failure
(t- c) t- c )limit
(Eq. 3.5(3))
No
Eq. 3.5(26): ku
Eq. 3.5(27) or (28): Mu
Ast does not yield

but Asc does at
failure
Yes
Ast does not

yield at
failure
Asc yields at
failure
Eq. 3.5(11): ku
Eq. 3.5(14) or (15): Mu
Eq. 3.5(6): a
Eq. 3.5(7): Mu
Eq. 3.5(30): ku
Eq. 3.5(33) or (34): Mu
sc sy
No
Go to
Yes
CONTINUE
18
DOUBLY-REINFORCED SECTIONS-BS8110
M = C z =
0.67f cu
0.9bxz
mc
putting mc = 1.5
M = 0.402f cu bxz
= 0.402f cu bz2
(d - z)
0.9
8.04
f cu bz(d - z)
9
dividing both sides by f cu bd 2
K
z = d 0.5 + (0.25
)
0.9
M
8.04 z
( )(1- z )
=
2
d
d
f cu bd
9
Subs K =
K=
M
and z 0 = z gives :
d
f cu bd 2
8.04
(z 0 )(1- z 0 ) or 0 = z 0 2 - z 0 + 9K
8.04
9
K = M / bd 2 f cu
This is a quadratic
and can be solved
to give
therefore balance failure
If K K, compression reinforcement is not required and:

K
z = d 0.5 + (0.25
)
0.9
But not greater than 0.95d.

x = (d-z)/0.45
As = M/0.95fyz
where As is area of tension reinforcement
If K > K, compression reinforcement is required and:
K '
z = d 0.5 + (0.25
)
0.9
x =same as above, As = (K-K)fcubd2/0.95fy(d-d) where As = area of

compression reinforcement, As = Kfcubd2/0.95fyz +As
If d/x exceeds 0.37 (for fy =460MPa), the compression stress will less
than 0.95fy
19
where K
z K = 0.156 where redistribution does not exceed 10 %
(this implies a limitation of the neutral axis depth to
d/2); or
z K = 0.402(b 0.4) 0.18(b 0.4)2 where
redistribution exceeds 10 %;
Where b
b =
moment at the section after redistribution

moment at the section before redistribution
DOUBLY-REINFORCED SECTIONS-EC2
K=
M
bd 2 f ck
x max = ( 0.4)d
z=
cc x max
x
d max
2
d c
2
and = 1 for no redistribution
and K' =
c
d
(min K, K') 0.95d
1 + 1 2
2
cc
M 2 = bd 2 f ck (K K ') 0
As 2 =
M2
f sc (d d 2 )
sc
cc f cu = 0.85f cd = 0.85f ck / c
cu
where f cs = 700((x d 2 ) / x)
As =
f
M M2
+ As 2 sc
f yd z
f yd
=
s
sy
where =0.8, =1 and cc=0.85
20
Design Example 1
Using relevant clauses of AS, BS and EC design a simply
supported beam of 6m span to carry a live load of 3 kN/m
and a superimposed live load of 2 kN/m plus self weight.
Given = 32 MPa, fsy = 500 MPa maximum aggregate size
= 20 mm, = 2400 kg/m3
Using AS3600
Live load moment
wl 2 3 36
MQ =
=
= 13.5 kNm
8
8
Superimposed dead load moment
2 36
MSG =
= 9 kNm
8
Trial 1:
Assume b D = 150 300 mm
Self-weight = 0.15 0.30 2400 9.81 10-3 = 1.059 kN/m
The moment due to self weight is,
1.059 36
Msw =
= 4.766 kNm
8
MG = MSG + Msw = 9 + 4.766 = 13.77
M* = 1.2 MG + 1.5 MQ
M* = 1.2 13.77 + 1.5 13.5 = 36.77 kNm
21
Then,
M*
bd 2 =
t f sy 1
150d 2 =
f sy
1
t
1.7
f 'c
36.77 106
1
500
0.01192
0.8 0.01192 500 1
32
1.7
Therefore d = 242.1mm
and Ast = t b d = 0.015 150 242.1
= 429.13 mm2
TABLE 2.2(1)
STEEL REINFORCEMENT BAR AREAS AND SPACINGS
AREA (mm2) OF BARS OF TYPE-SIZE (Grade & mm)

PLAIN BARS
DEFORMED BARS
fsy = 250 MPa
where fsy = 500 MPa for Grade500N and 250 MPa for Grade 250R
N6
N10
D12
D16
N20
N24
N28
N32
N36
N40
N50
31
80
110
200
310
450
620
800
1020
1260
1960
62
160
220
400
620
900
1240
1600
2040
2520
3920
93
240
330
600
930
1350
1860
2400
3060
3780
5880
124
320
440
800
1240 1800
2480
3200
4080
5040
7840
155
400
550
1000
1550 2250
3100
4000
5100
6300
9800
186
480
660
1200
1860 2700
3720
4800
6120
7560
11760
217
560
770
1400
2170 3150
4340
5600
7140
8820
13720
248
640
880
1600
2480 3600
4960
6400
8160
10080
15680
279
720
990
1800
2790 4050
5580
7200
9180
11340
17640
10
310
800
1100
2000
3100 4500
6200
8000
10200
12600
19600
0.245
0.616
0.888
1.579
2.466
4.834
6.313
7.991
9.664
15.413
No.
OF
BARS
MASS
kg/m
3.551
22
Using BS8110
Live load moment
wl 2 3 36
MQ =
=
= 13.5 kNm (same as AS3600)
8
8
2 36
(same as AS3600)
MSG =
= 9 kNm
8
Trial 1:
Self-weight = 0.15 0.30 2400 9.81 10-3 = 1.059 kN/m
1.059 36
Msw =
= 4.766 kNm (same as AS3600)
8
MG = MSG + Msw = 9 + 4.766 = 13.77
M* = 1.4 MG + 1.6 MQ
M* = 1.4 13.77 + 1.6 13.5 = 40.87 kNm
K = 0.156
K=
M
40.87 106
=
= 0.109
2
bd f cu 150 2502 32
0.8
Therefore K > K and hence compression reinforcement is not required.

K
z = d 0.5 + (0.25
)
0.9
0.109
=250 0.5+ 0.25 = 214.75 < 0.95 d (= 237.5)

0.9
As =
=
o.k.
M
0.95f y z
40.87 106
0.95 500 214.75
= 400.66
mm2
(AS3600 AS = 429.13 mm2)
23
Using EC2
Live load moment
wl 2 3 36
MQ =
=
= 13.5 kNm (same as AS3600)
8
8
2 36
MSG =
(same as AS3600)
= 9 kNm
8
Trial 1:
Self-weight = 0.15 0.30 2400 9.81 10-3 = 1.059 kN/m
1.059 36
Msw =
= 4.766 kNm (same as AS3600)
8
MG = MSG + Msw = 9 + 4.766 = 13.77
M* = 1.4 MG + 1.6 MQ
M* = 1.35 13.77 + 1.5 13.5 = 38.84 kNm
M
40.87 106
=
= 0.109
bd 2 f ck 150 2502 32
0.8
x
x 0.85 (1-0.4) d 0.8
0.8 (1 0.4)d
and K' = cc 2max d max =
d
= 0.207
d c
2
d 21.5
2
K=
Therefore K > K and hence compression reinforcement is not required
z=
=
c
d
(min K, K') 0.95d
1 + 1 2
cc
2
250
1.5
(0.109) = 223.05 0.95d(= 237.5 o.k.)
1 + 1 2
2
1 0.85
M = Tz =
fyAs
ms
rearranging and putting ms = 1.15

As =
M
38.84 10 6
=
= 400.30mm2
0.87f y z 0.87 500 223.05
i.e.
AS3600
As = 429.13mm2
BS8110
As = 400.66mm2
24
Design Example 2
Given a doubly-reinforced section with = 32 MPa,
fsy = 500 MPa. Compute Mu
350
40
3N12
580
6N24
Using AS3600
2700
= 0.01244
350 620
330
c =
= 0.001521
350 620
t =
40
620
(t - c) limit =
= 0.0173
(600 500) 500
(t - c) = 0.01092 < (t - c) limit = 0.0173
510 0.822 32
Hence Asc does not yield at failure
0.01244 500 600 0.001521

= 0.11869
1.7 0.822 32
600 0.001521
= 0.0408
0.85 0.822 32
25
ku = 0.11869 + 0.11869 2 + 0.0408
40
= 0.248
620
a = ku d = 0.822 0.248 620 = 126.39 mm
Mu = 2700 500 (620
126.39
40
126.39
) + 600 330 (1
)(
40)
2
0.248 620
2
Mu = 755.1 kNm
Mu = 0.8 755.07 = 604.1 kNm
Using BS8110
x=(d-z)/0.45
where
K '
z = d 0.5 + (0.25
)
0.9
0.156
=620 0.5+ 0.25 = 481.67 < 0.95 d (= 589)

0.9
Therefore x =307.4
o.k
Concrete compression
=
0.67 f cu
b 0.9x
m
0.67
32
0.8 350 0.9 307.4
1.5
= 1730.0 103 N
26
Compressive steel reinforcement
As ' f yk
s
330 500
1.05
= 157.1 103 N
=
Tensile steel reinforcement
As f yk
s
2700 500
1.05
= 1285.7 103 N
=
M = 1730.0 103 z + 157.1 103 (307.4 40)

=875.3kNm
i.e. AS3600
Mu = 604.1 kNm
Using EC2
x=(d-z)/0.4
cc x max
x 0.85 (1-0.4) d 0.8
0.8 (1 0.4)d
d max =
d
2
2
d c
2
d 1.5
2
= 0.207
K' =
z=
=
c
d
(min K, K') 0.95d
1 + 1 2
2
cc
620
1.5
(0.207) = 470.9 0.95d(= 589.0 o.k.)
1 + 1 2
2
1 0.85
Therefore x =(620-470.9)/0.4 =372.7

Concrete compression
=
0.67 f cu
b 0.9x
m
0.67
1.5
32
0.8 350 0.9 372.7 = 2097.6 103 N
27
Compressive steel reinforcement
As ' f yk
s
330 500
1.15
= 143.48 103 N
=
Tensile steel reinforcement
As f yk
s
2700 500
1.15
= 1173.91 103 N
=
i.e.
i.e. AS3600
Mu = 604.1 kNm
BS8110
Mu = 875.3 kNm
M = 2097.6.0 103 470.7 + 143.5 103 (372.7 40)

= 1035.1
kNm
Design Example 3
Given b = 200 mm, D = 400mm, M * = 200
kNm, fc= 25 MPa, and fsy = 400 MPa .
Determine Ast and Asc (as necessary) using
only N28 bars. Assume using R10 Ties.
28
Using AS3600
Assume two layers of say N28 bars for Ast

and one layer for Asc. Thus
d = D - cover - tie dia.-1.5 bar dia.
d = 400 20 10 1.5 28 = 328 mm
dc = 45 mm
25
200 328 = 947.92 mm2
500
947.92 500
Mu1 = 947.92 500 328 1 0.6
106 = 128.5 kNm

328 25
200
As1 = 0.34 0.85
As 2 =
( 200 0.8128.5) 106 = 858.7 mm2

0.8 500 ( 328 45)
As1,limit =
510 0.85 25 45 200

= 1950.8 mm2
( 600 500) 500
Since As1 < As1,limit Asc does not yield

3 45
= 0.001971
2 0.6 328
500
Asc = 858.7
= 1089 mm 2
200000 0.001971
Thus ,
sc = 0.003 1
Asc = 1089 mm 2 ;
use 2Y28:
Ast = As1 + As 2 = 1806.6 mm ;

2
use 4Y28:
Check accomadation:
b > 5 28 = 140 O.K. ( 2 layers of bars )
b > 7 28 = 196 O.K. ( 3bars+1)
Asc = 1240 mm 2
Ast = 2480 mm 2
29
Using BS8110
z Assume
two layers of say N28 bars for Ast

and one layer for Asc. Thus same as before

d = 400 20 10 1.5 28 = 328 mm
dc = 45 mm
M*=200 kNm
therefore M=200/0.8
K = 0.156
K=
M
200 106 / 0.8
=
= 0.371
2
bd f cu 200 3282 25
0.8
Therefore K < K and hence compression reinforcement is required.
K'
0.156
z = d 0.5 + (0.25 ) =3280.5+ 0.25 = 254.82 < 0.95d (= 311.6)

0.9
0.9
(K K ')f cu bd 2
As' =
0.95fy(d d')
25
(0.371 0.156)
200 3282
0.8
=
= 1075.4mm2 (Asc)
0.95 500 (328 45)
As =
K 'fcu bd 2
+ As'
0.95f y z
25
200 3282
0.8
=
+ 1075.4 = 1942.0mm2
0.95 500 254.82
0.156
i.e. AS3600
Asc =1089.0 mm2
Ast = 1806.6 mm2
(Ast)
30
Using EC2
Assume two layers of say N28 bars for Ast

and one layer for Asc. Thus same as before
d = 400 20 10 1.5 28 = 328 mm
dc = 45 mm
K=
M
250 106
=
= 0.465
bd 2 f ck
200 3282 25
K' =
cc x max
x
d max
d 2 c
2
0.8 (1 0.6) 328

0.85 (1-0.6) 328 0.8
328
= 0.207
=
3282 1.5
2
Therefore K < K and hence compression reinforcement is required.

z=
=
c
d
(min K, K') 0.95d
1 + 1 2
2
cc
328
1.5
(0.207) = 249.1 0.95d( = 311.6)
1 + 1 2
2
1 0.85
o.k.
31
M 2 = bd 2 f ck (K K ') 0
= 200 3282 25(0.465 0.207)
= 138.7kNm
f cs = 700(x d 2 ) / x = 700(0.6 328 45) /(0.6 328) = 539.9
As 2 =
As =
M2
138.7 106
=
= 907.8mm 2
f sc (d d 2 ) 539.9(328 45) (Asc)
f
M M2
539.9
250 106 138.7 106
+ 907.8
+ As 2 sc =
500
f yd z
f yd
500 249.1
= 1873.8mm 2
(Ast)
i.e. AS3600
Asc =1089.0 mm2
Ast = 1806.6 mm2
i.e. BS8100
As =1075.4 mm2
As = 1942.0 mm2
32

Advanced Topics in Analysis and Design of Normal and High Strength Concrete Structures Volume 2 Lecture Notes PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Topics in Analysis and Design of Normal and High Strength Concrete Structures Volume 2 Lecture Notes PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND

The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia

Dr Sam Fragomeni, Associate Professor and Deputy Head of School

Professor Yew-Chaye Loo

LAYERED FINITE ELEMENT

COLUMN & WALL

ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF WALLS

PUNCHING SHEAR STRENGTH OF FLAT

Crack Width Formula*

wcr = (fs/Es) [0.6(c - s) + 0.1 (/)]

average bar diameter

spacing between bars

Maximum crack width:

Comparison (30 test beams) *

Chi & Kirstein (1958), ACI, USA

Hognestad (1962), PCA, USA

Kaar & Mattock(1963), PCA, USA

M easured crack widths in mm

Kaar & Mattock's bea

Chi & Kirstein's bea

Comparison with Code Formulas

For maximum crack width

Chow dhury & Loo's beams

ACI Code formula

Correlation of measured and computed total deflections proposed formula

Hertzs Contact Law and the relative approach

Deformation constant (materials and shapes)

Wijewardenes and Hussains beams

Hughes and Speirs beams

Damping of RC & PC beams

Residual crack width

Typical RC box beam

Typcal loading diagram

Typical RC box beam

Typcal loading diagram

Stages in a vibration measurement system

Damping prediction formulas*

= 0.048 wcr,r + 0.011 L

= 0.054 wcr,r + 0.0104 L

PUNCHING SHEAR STRENGTH OF

Typical flat plate with spandrel beams

Punching Shear Strength

Higher punching shear due to

Test setup (University of Wollongong, 19871987-90)

RC Flat Plates (19 Vu values from 9 half-scale models)

Post-tensioned Flat Plates (4 half-scale models)

ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF WALLS

One-way and two-way actions

(a) OneOne-way action

(b) TwoTwo-way action

Comparison with test data one-way action

Comparison with test data two-way action

Formula for wall with openings:

Comparison of test results and new proposed method

C ross- sec tional Plan

Degenerate shell elements composed of concrete

Mid reference plane

5 DOFs per node

Smeared crack approach for cracked concrete

Strain-hardening plasticity procedure for

Perfect plasticity model

Effect of bulk mod