Sei sulla pagina 1di 12

Suggested Approach Based On ACI Code For Maximum Bending Capacity Of Singly And Doubly Reinforced Concrete Beam Sections

K. S. Youkhanna *

* Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Duhok, Duhok, IRAQ e-mail: kanaansliwo@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT In structural engineering, a need to check the analysis and design calculations using another approach arises. Structural engineer, sometimes, needs as soon as possible to know the maximum bending capacity of a specific beam section, as a result, he needs approaches that require simplified calculations. It is believed, that the present research serves for the above objectives. The method of the ACI code in analysis of singly and doubly reinforced concrete beam sections is reviewed as background of analysis. New suggested approach for the analysis of singly and doubly reinforced concrete beams, based on ACI method, is presented. Theoretical formula to calculate optimum reinforcement is presented. A factor relating maximum and optimum tensile reinforcement is suggested. Also simple formulas are presented to calculate maximum flexural capacity of singly and doubly reinforced concrete rectangular beam sections. Applicable tables and figures are presented to be used with the suggested approach. Numerical examples verify that the suggested approach is simpler compared to the original ACI code approach.

KEYWORDS: Singly Reinforced Beam; Doubly Reinforced Beam; Tension Steel; Compression Steel; Maximum Bending Capacity.

INTRODUCTION The universal nature of reinforced concrete construction stems from the wide availability of reinforcing bars and of the constituents of concrete (gravel, sand, water and cement), from the relatively simple skills required in concrete construction (Macgregor & Wight, 2005). Concrete is a material obtained by permitting a carefully proportioned mixture of cement, sand and gravel or other aggregate, and water to harden in forms of the shape and dimensions of the desired structure. It is used in one form or another for almost all structures, large or small. It is also very durable and fire resistant when specification and construction procedures are met.

Steel in compression zone is used for many reasons, among them are reducing sustained load deflections, increasing ductility, changing the mode of failure from compression to tension and ease of fabrication to hold the stirrups (Macgregor & Wight, 2005).

Since 1963, the ultimate-strength design method has rapidly gained popularity. With this method (now called strength design), the working loads are multiplied by certain load factors, the members are then selected so they will theoretically just fail under the factored loads. One of the most important members in reinforced concrete buildings is the beam which we are going to deal with for the case of singly and doubly reinforced. For verification, alternate approaches are always required in analysis and design.

1

It is believed that this research may be considered as an aid in the analysis and design of reinforced concrete beams and this is the objective of this study.

ACI CODE APPROACH In this research, the basis of analysis is ACI code approach. The mathematical concept of optimum steel is used to derive simplified theoretical approach, as an alternative approach, to find the maximum bending moment capacity of singly and doubly reinforced concrete sections making use of maximum applicable values for steel suggested by the approach of the ACI Code.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Singly Reinforced Beam Reference is made to Fig. (1) which represents Whitney (Whitney, 1942) equivalent rectangular stress block.

0.85 f ' c b C = a =β 1 c c 0.85 f '
0.85 f ' c
b
C =
a =β 1 c
c
0.85 f ' c ab
d
N.A
A
s
A s f y
Fig. (1) Singly reinforced rectangular beam.

The nominal moment can be written as (Ferguson, 1981; McCormac, 1998; Nilson et al., 2004)

M

n

====

And

ρρρρ ====

And

a ====

A f

s

y

(

d

A s

bd

A f

s

y

−−−−

a

2

0.85

f

'

c

b

)

For balanced failure (McCormac, 1998; Nilson et al., 2004):

ρρρρ

b

====

0.85

ββββ

1

f '

c

(

600

f

y

600 ++++

f

y

)

ACI Code (ACI318M, 2008) limits the percentage of steel to:

ρρρρ

max ====

0.75ρρρρ

b

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

in which , β 1 is to be taken equal to 0.85 for c up to and including 30 MPa. For c above 30 MPa , β 1 is calculated from Eq.(6) but shall not be taken less than 0.65 (McCormac, 1998)

ββββ

1 ====

0.85

−−−−

1

7

(

f

'

c

−−−−

30)(0.05)

Substituting Eq.(3) into Eq.(1) and simplifying:

2

(6)

M

n

==== (

f d

y

)

A

s

−−−− (

f

y

2

1.7 f

`

c

b

)

A

2

s

(7)

To get optimum reinforcement (A so ) that gives optimum flexural capacity (M no ) :

∂∂∂∂ Mn

∂∂∂∂ As

====

(

f d

y

)

−−−−

(

f

y

2

0.85

f

`

c

b

)

A

s

Equating Eq.(8) to zero, we obtain

A

so

==== 0.85(

f

'

c

f

y

) bd

(8)

(9)

Comparing Eq.(9) with Eq.(2), the optimum percentage of reinforcement is:

ρρρρ

o

====

0.85(

f

'

c

f

y

)

Now, let the factor “F” be

F ====

( A

s ) max

(

ρρρρ

)

max

====

(

A

so

)

(

ρρρρ

)

o

From which:

(A )

s

max ====

F.A

so

(10)

(11)

(12)

Substituting Eq.(4) into Eq.(5) then Eq.(5) and Eq.(10) into Eq.(11), we get:

F ==== 0.75(

600

600 ++++ f

y

)

ββββ

1

From Eq. (13), it can be seen that the factor “F” depends only on

construct Table (1) to find “F” for different values of on

c and

c and f y .

(13)

f y . As a result, we

c

f

y

F

MPa

 

275

0.437

15

300

0.425

350

0.403

 

450

0.364

c

f

y

F

MPa

 

275

0.433

31

300

0.421

350

0.399

 

450

0.361

c

f

y

F

MPa

 

275

0.382

45

300

0.371

350

0.352

 

450

0.318

Table (1) Factor "F".

c

f

y

F

MPa

 

275

0.437

20

300

0.425

350

0.403

 

450

0.364

c

f

y

F

MPa

 

275

0.419

35

300

0.407

350

0.386

 

450

0.349

c

f

y

F

MPa

 

275

0.364

50

300

0.354

350

0.335

 

450

0.303

 

3

c

f

y

F

MPa

 

275

0.437

30

300

0.425

350

0.403

 

450

0.364

c

f

y

F

MPa

 

275

0.400

40

300

0.389

350

0.369

 

450

0.334

c

f

y

F

MPa

 

275

0.345

55

300

0.336

350

0.318

 

450

0.288

We conclude from Table (1) that for values of f ´ c less or equal to 30 MPa, the factor “F” takes the same value regardless of f y values. Hence, Table (1) may be replaced by Table (2).

Table (2) Factor "F ".

f

y

 

c

(MPa)

(MPa)

30

31

35

40

45

50

55

275

0.437

0.433

0.419

0.400

0.382

0.364

0.345

300

0.425

0.421

0.407

0.389

0.371

0.354

0.336

350

0.403

0.399

0.386

0.369

0.352

0.335

0.318

450

0.364

0.361

0.349

0.334

0.318

0.303

0.288

Substituting Eq.(9) into Eq.(12) then this into Eq.(7), a simple formula can be derived to calculate maximum flexural capacity of a singly reinforced concrete rectangular section as a function of the factor F :

−−−− Where F is a factor from Table (2) or from Fig. (2) that is drawn for specific values of f y .

(

M

n

)

max

0.425

f

'

c

bd

2

(2

F

F

2

)

====

(14)

Fig.(2) Factor "F" for different values of f'c and fy.

fy = 275 MPa fy = 350 MPa fy = 450 MPa 0.45 0.4 350
fy = 275 MPa
fy = 350 MPa
fy = 450 MPa
0.45
0.4
350
0.35
0.3
0.25
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
f'c (MPa)
Factor (F)

Fig.(2) Factor “F”.

Another formula, based on ACI code approach, for maximum bending capacity, may be derived if Eq.(4) is substituted into Eq.(5), then this into Eq.(2), after which Eq.(2) is substituted into Eq.(3) and Eq.(1) to get:

(

M

n

)

max

====

382.5

ββββ

1

bd

2

f

`

c

(600

++++ f

y

)

[1 −−−−

382.5

ββββ

1

1.7(600

++++

f

y

)

]

(15)

Numerical examples show that the application of the suggested Eq. (14) is more convenient due to it’s simplicity and requires less mathematical work and less variables to deal with.

4

Doubly Reinforced Beam

Simplified approaches are used widely in design to simplify the rigorous analysis (Hayder et al., 2004; Andrea et al., 2007). In Practice, the design of beams is greatly facilitated by the use of aids (Nilson et al., 2004).

The basis of analysis of reinforced concrete beam section with compression steel (doubly reinforced) is shown in Fig.(3) (Nilson et al., 2004).

In this study, an attempt is made to study the case where tension and compression reinforcement are both reaching yield stress (f y ). For such case, the bending moment capacity (M n ) of a reinforced concrete beam with compression steel may be represented as (Ferguson, 1981; Nilson et al., 2004; Nawy, 2005; PCA, 2008 ):

0.85 f ' 0.85 f ' c c b A' s f y A' s
0.85 f '
0.85 f '
c
c
b
A' s f y
A' s f y
C
a
a =β 1 c
A'
d'
c
s
C
=
+
d
d - d'
N.A
A
s
A s f y
(A s - A' s ) f y
A' s f y
Fig. (3) Doubly reinforced rectangular beam.
a
M
====
( A
−−−−
A
'
)
f
(
d
−−−−
) ++++
A
'
.
f
(
d
−−−−
d
')
(16)
n
s
s
y
s
y
2
Where:
( A
−−−−
A
'
)
f
(
ρρρρ −−−− ρρρρ
')
f d
s
s
y
y
a ====
====
(17)
0.85
f
'
b
0.85
f
'
c
c
And:
A s
ρρρρ ====
(18)
bd
A '
s
ρρρρ'====
(19)
bd

Maximum percent of steel in doubly reinforced concrete beam section is:

5

−−−−

ρρρρ

max

====

0.75

ρρρρ

b

++++

ρρρρ

'

(20)

Where ρ b is the balanced steel ratio and is given in Eq.(4).

Substituting Eq.(17) into Eq.(16) and simplifying:

M

n

==== R A

1

s

−−−− R

3

( A

s

)

2 ++++

Where:

R

R

1 ====

====

2

R 3 ====

f y .

.

f

d

d

y

(

f

y

'

) 2

1.7

f

'

c

b

2

R A A

3

s

'

s

−−−−R A

2

'

s

−−−−R

3

(

A

'

s

)

2

(21)

(21-a)

(21-b)

(21-c)

Now, optimizing Eq.(8) (i.e. to find the optimum steel “ A so ” ), by taking the derivative of (M n ) with respect to (A s ) and then equating to zero (Fong et al., 2003):

∂∂∂∂ M

n

∂∂∂∂ A

s

====

R

1

−−−−

2

R A

3

s

++++

2

R A

3

'

s

====

0

From which the optimum steel “ A so ” will be:

A

so

====

A '

s

++++

R

1

2 R

3

(22)

Substituting Eq.(21-a) and Eq.(21-c) into Eq.(22) and dividing by (bd), the optimum ratio of reinforcement will be:

ρρρρ

o

==== ρρρρ'++++

0.85 f '

c

f

y

(23)

Now, let the ratio of maximum to optimum be denoted as “R”:

R ====

A

s

max

ρρρρ

max

====

A

so

ρρρρ

o

From which

A

s

max ====

R.A

so

(24)

(25)

Substituting Eq.(4) into Eq.(20), then substituting Eq.(20) and Eq.(23) into Eq.(24) and simplifying, we get:

6

R ====

F ++++

γγγγ ρρρρ

.

'

1

++++

γγγγ ρρρρ

.

'

(26)

Where ( F ) is a factor relating the maximum tensile reinforcement to optimum reinforcement for singly reinforced concrete beam section given in Eq.(13) and in Table (2), and γ is

γγγγ ====

f

y

0.85

f

'

c

(27)

Substituting Eq.(22) into Eq.(25) and simplifying:

A

s

max

====

R A

(

'

s

++++

R

1

2 R

3

)

(28)

Substituting Eq.(28) into Eq.(21) and introducing the effect of strength reduction factor (φ) and simplifying, the suggested formula for maximum ultimate bending moment will be:

M

u

Where

And

K

o

K

1

max

====

K

o

.

b d

.

====

(

ϕϕϕϕ

f

y

)

2

1.7

f

'

c

( R

====

ϕϕϕϕ

.

f

y

(

ρρρρ

' )

2

−−−−

K

1

.

b d d

.

.

'

−−−−

1)(

ρρρρ

')

2

++++

ϕϕϕϕ

.

f

y

.

R

.(

ρρρρ

')

++++

0.425

ϕϕϕϕ

.

R f

.

'

c

(29)

(30)

(31)

Where “R” is from Eq.(26). Values of the factor (K o ) are given in Table (3) for some of the applicable values of

of the factor (K 1 ) are given in Table (4) also. Both Tables (3) & (4) are for the case where f s = f y .

f y and f ' c . Values

Table (3) Factor “K o ”.

 

f ' c = 20 (MPa)

f ' c = 30

(MPa)

f ' c = 35 (MPa)

ρ'

 

K

o

 

K

o

 

K

o

 

f y (MPa)

 

f y (MPa)

   

f y (MPa)

 

275

350

450

275

350

450

275

350

450

0.001

3.521

3.304

3.066

5.192

4.844

4.453

5.781

5.384

4.950

0.002

3.702

3.520

3.337

5.372

5.067

4.733

5.953

5.603

5.217

0.003

3.876

3.740

3.615

5.552

5.280

5.006

6.127

5.823

5.488

0.004

4.052

3.963

3.890

5.722

5.507

5.283

6.291

6.032

5.763

0.005

4.231

4.181

4.172

5.906

5.725

5.564

6.478

6.257

6.042

0.006

4.412

4.403

4.440

6.079

5.945

5.836

6.655

6.470

6.309

0.007

4.585

4.628

4.724

6.266

6.167

6.111

6.834

6.684

6.579

0.008

4.770

4.846

4.993

6.441

6.391

6.391

7.014

6.917

6.85

0.009

4.948

5.068

5.278

6.618

6.604

6.660

7.180

7.136

7.131

0.01

5.128

5.293

5.545

6.796

6.833

6.949

7.363

7.340

7.412

7

Table (4) Factor “K 1 ”.

For all values of ( f ' c )

ρ'

 

f y (MPa)

275

350

450

0.0005

0.124

0.158

0.203

0.001

0.248

0.315

0.405

0.002

0.495

0.630

0.810

0.003

0.743

0.945

1.215

0.004

0.990

1.260

1.620

0.005

1.238

1.575

2.025

0.006

1.485

1.890

2.430

0.007

1.733

2.205

2.835

0.008

1.980

2.520

3.240

0.009

2.228

2.835

3.645

0.01

2.475

3.150

4.050

Figures (4), (5) and (6) show the relationship of factor (R) and the compression steel ratio (ρ'). Figure (7) shows the relationship of factor (K 1 ) and the compression steel ratio (ρ'). Figures (8), (9) and (10) show the relationship of factor (K o ) and the compression steel ratio (ρ').

Substituting Eq.(20) into Eq.(17) and the result to be substituted into Eq.(16) and making use of Eq.(4), the maximum bending moment capacity of doubly reinforced beam section, according to ACI code approach, may be found to be:

M

u

max

Where

====

0.6375

φφφφ

.

f

'

c

b . d

600

H ==== 600

++++ f

y

2

[

ββββ

1

H

−−−−

0.375(

ββββ

1

H

)

2

]

++++ ϕϕϕϕ ρρρρ

.

'

f

y

b . d

(

d

−−−−

d

' )

(32)

(33)

Comparing Eq. (32) with Eq. (29), it can be seen that the suggested equation [Eq. (29)] is simpler than Eq. (19) and it is to be applied using Tables (3) and (4) for the values of (f ' c and f y ) indicated in the tables. Tables (3 & 4) may be expanded for other values of (f ' c and f y ).

CONCLUSIONS

1. Simple formulas are derived to calculate maximum flexural capacity of singly and doubly reinforced concrete rectangular sections.

2. Another formula is derived to calculate optimum tensile reinforcement and optimum flexural capacity of singly reinforced concrete rectangular section.

3. A factor F relating maximum reinforcement to optimum one is presented for singly reinforced section, this factor depends on c and f y only.

4. A factor (R) relating the maximum and optimum steel reinforcement is presented for doubly reinforced section.

5. Applied tables and figures are provided to be used with the derived simple formulas.

8

Fig.(3) Relationship of factor "R" and compression steel ratio. 0.55 f ' c = 20
Fig.(3) Relationship of factor "R" and
compression steel ratio.
0.55
f
' c = 20 MPa
0.5
f y = 275 MPa
0.45
350
0.4
450
0.35
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Compression Steel Ratio ( )
(ρ')
Factor ( R )

Fig.(4) Relationship of factor “R” and compression steel ratio.

Fig.(4) Relationship of factor "R" and compression steel ratio. 0.55 f ' c = 30
Fig.(4) Relationship of factor "R" and
compression steel ratio.
0.55
f
' c = 30 MPa
0.5
f y = 275 MPa
0.45
350
0.4
450
0.35
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Compression Steel Ratio
(ρ')
Factor (R)

Fig.(5) Relationship of factor “R” and compression steel ratio.

9

Fig.(5) Relationship of factor "R" and compression steel ratio. 0.55 f ' c = 35
Fig.(5) Relationship of factor "R" and compression steel
ratio.
0.55
f ' c = 35 MPa
0.5
0.45
f y = 275 MPa
0.4
350
450
0.35
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Compression Steel Ratio
(ρ')
Factor (R)

Fig.(6) Relationship of factor “” and compression steel ratio.

Fig.(6) Relationship of factor "K1" and compression steel ratio. 4.5 fy = 450 MPa 4
Fig.(6) Relationship of factor "K1" and compression
steel ratio.
4.5
fy = 450 MPa
4
For all values of (f ' c )
3.5
350
3
275
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Compression Steel Ratio
(ρ')
Factor (K1)

Fig.(7) Relationship of factor “K 1 ” and compression steel ratio.

10

Fig.(7) Relationship of factor "Ko" and compression steel ratio. 7.5 7 6.5 f ' c
Fig.(7) Relationship of factor "Ko" and compression
steel ratio.
7.5
7
6.5
f ' c
= 35 MPa
6
5.5
5
30
4.5
4
25
3.5
fy = 275 MPa
3
2.5
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Compression Steel Ratio
(ρ')
Factor (Ko)

Fig.(8) Relationship of factor “K o ” and compression steel ratio.

Fig.(8) Relationship of factor "Ko" and compression steel ratio. 7.5 7 6.5 6 f '
Fig.(8) Relationship of factor "Ko" and compression
steel ratio.
7.5
7
6.5
6
f ' c
= 35 MPa
5.5
5
4.5
30
4
25
3.5
fy = 350 MPa
3
2.5
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
(ρ')
Compression Steel Ratio
Factor (Ko)

Fig.(9) Relationship of factor “K o ” and compression steel ratio.

11

Fig.(9) Relationship of factor "Ko" and compression steel ratio. 7.5 7 6.5 6 f '
Fig.(9) Relationship of factor "Ko" and compression
steel ratio.
7.5
7
6.5
6
f ' c
= 35 MPa
5.5
5
4.5
30
4
3.5
25
fy = 450 MPa
3
2.5
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Compression Steel Ratio
(ρ')
Factor (Ko)

Fig.(10) Relationship of factor “K o ” and compression steel ratio.

REFERENCES

ACI318M (2008), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, USA.

Andrea Dall'Asta, Laura Ragni, Alessandro Zona (2007). Simplified Methods for Failure Analysis of Concrete Beams Prestressed with External Tendons, Journal of Structural Engineering, 133(1), 121-131.

Ferguson, Phil M. (1981), Reinforced Concrete Fundamentals, 4th Ed., SI Version John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Fong, C. F., Kee, D. De., Kaloni, P. N. (2003), Advanced Mathematics for Engineering and Science, World Scientific Publishing Co.

Hayder A. Rasheed, Hasan Charkas, Hani Melhem (2004), Simplified Nonlinear Analysis of Strengthened Concreet Beams Based on a Rigorous Approach, Journal of Structural Engineering, 130(7), 1087-1096.

Macgregor, J. G., Wight, J. K. (2005), Reinforced Concrete, Mechanics and Design, 4 th Ed. Pearson Prentice Hall.

McCormac, Jack C. (1998), Design of Reinforced Concrete, 4th Ed., Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc., California.

Nawy, E. G. (2005), Reinforced Concrete, A Fundamental Approach, 5 th Ed., ACI 318-05 Code Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall International Series.

Nilson, A. H., Darwin, D., Dolan, CH. W. (2004), Design of Concrete Structures, 13 th Ed., McGraw Hill Book Company.

PCA (2008), Notes On ACI 318-08 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, Portland Cement Association,

10 th Ed. U.S.A.

Whitney , C. S. (1942), Plastic Theory of Reinforced Concrete Design, Transactions ASCE, 107, 251-326.

12