Ductility of Prefabricated Cage Reinforced Concrete Beams: Analytical Study

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 2, No 4, 2012
Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services
Research article
ISSN 0976 4399
Ductility of Prefabricated Cage Reinforced Concrete Beams: Analytical

Study
Chithra.R1, Thenmozhi. R2, Ravathi.M.C3

1- Asst. Professor in Civil Engineering, Government College of Technology, Coimbatore
641 013
2-Associate Professor in Civil Engineering, Thanthai Periyar Government Institute of
Technology, Vellore 632 002
3-PG Scholar, Government College of Technology, Coimbatore 641 013
chithrajothin@gmail.com
doi:10.6088/ijcser.00202040002
ABSTRACT
Experimental studies have reported that confinement provided by Prefabricated Cage
effectively improves the flexural strength, ductility and deformation characteristics of
Prefabricated Cage Reinforced Composite (PCRC) Beams. This paper presents an analytical
solution to predict the curvature ductility of PCRC beams. An equation for ductility is
proposed in terms of ultimate concrete strain and yield strength of steel. Experimental results
from literature were employed to validate the analytical results. The findings show that the
theoretical analyses are in good agreement with the test data. The theoretical curvature
ductility factor has a reasonably good agreement with the experimental results, which
demonstrates the present closed-form solution is simple yet accurate. The analyses also show
the deformation characteristics of PCRC beams is significantly influenced by the percentage
of tension steel.
Keywords: PCRC Beam; curvature ductility factor; prefabricated cage; equilibrium
equations; strain compatibility.
1. Introduction
A structural member is to be designed with sufficient ductility capacity to avoid brittle failure
in flexure and insure a ductile behaviour, especially for seismic design. The current
philosophy of seismic design of moment-resisting reinforced concrete frames is based on the
formation of plastic hinges at the critical sections of the frame under the effect of substantial
load reversals in the inelastic range. The ability of the plastic hinge to undergo several cycles
of inelastic deformations without significant loss in its strength capacity is usually assessed in
terms of the available ductility of the particular section.
The ductility capacity of a section can be expressed in the form of curvature ductility factor
(). The moment-curvature analysis of performed under monotonically increasing load
represents only the first quarter-cycle of the actual hysteretic behaviour of the plastic hinge
rotation under the earthquake loading. Therefore, of a section calculated under such an
assumption is considered a theoretical estimate of the actual ductility that can be supplied by
the section when subjected to an actual earthquake loading.
However, the theoretical estimation of under monotonic loading is widely used as an
appropriate indicator of the adequacy of the earthquake resistant design of RC members. It is
even used for prediction of the damage level in frames under earthquake loading. Although
the actual response of frame subjected to severe earthquakes is complex and involves large
Received on March, 2012 Published on May 2012
1026
Ductility of Prefabricated Cage Reinforced Concrete Beams: Analytical Study

Chithra.R, Thenmozhi. R, Ravathi.M.C
uncertainties, prediction of damage is usually made in terms of ductility demand on

individual members.
Improving the ductility of the materials generally leads to an improvement in the ductility of
the section. Based on a closer examination of published literature, ductility of concrete is
being improved at present by confining it in steel binders, as ties in compression members
and as closely spaced stirrups in beams (Shamim A Sheikh 1982, Mohamed Saafi et al. 1999,
Mohamad M Ziara et al. 1995, Sharim A.Sheikh et al. 1994, Esneyder Montoya et al. 2006,
Guney Ozcebe et al. 1987, Soliman et al. 1967). The ductility of structures can be improved
by adding compression steel in the concrete section or by confining the compression zone
which leads to an improvement in the ductility of the material. The concrete confined in such
a way is called confined concrete or ductile concrete.
Prefabricated cage proposed by Halil Sezen et al. (2006) to reinforce the structural members
and to confine the concrete core. Since the use of prefabricated cage for confinement of
concrete is a relatively a new approach, theoretical work in this area is still limited and the
models originally developed for transverse steel reinforcement are not necessarily applicable
to prefabricated cage reinforcement. In beams reinforced with prefabricated cage known as
Prefabricated Cage Reinforced Concrete (PCRC) Beams, the compression zone is partially
confined by prefabricated cage. This aids in confinement which helps to increase ductility
factor.
The paper presents analytical model for curvature ductility factor for the PCRC beams. The
analytical results are validated with the available experimental results.
2. Experimental Program
Nine beam specimens were made in this study were 150mm x 200mm x 2500mm in size. The
geometrical details of beams are shown in Table 1. The parameters considered in the study
are the thickness of the sheet and Grade of Concrete. The yield strength of cold formed steel
used for making the Prefabricated Cage and compressive strength of concrete are given in
Table 2. The details of the Prefabricated Cage beams are shown in Figure 1.
Table 1: Geometrical Details of Beam Specimens
Sl. Beam
No Id
t
mm
B
mm
D
mm
Length
m
Yield
Strength
of Steel
(N/mm2)
Ast
(mm2)
Grade
of
concrete
A1
1.6
150
200
2.50
245.0
208
M20
A2
2.0
150
200
2.50
262.0
260
M20
A3
2.5
150
200
2.50
279.0
325
M20
B1
1.6
150
200
2.50
245.0
208
M25
B2
2.0
150
200
2.50
262.0
260
M25
B3
2.5
150
200
2.50
279.0
325
M25
C1
1.6
150
200
2.50
245.0
208
M30
C2
2.0
150
200
2.50
262.0
260
M30
Profile of the
Cage
P1
1027
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 2 Issue 4 2012

C3
2.5
150
200
2.50
279.0
325
M30
Table 2: Material Properties

Series
A
Material
0.238 x10
2.74
27.86
0.264 x10
3.11
32.23
0.284x10
3.32
CR sheet (1.6mm)
245.0
1.84 x 105
CR sheet (2.0mm)
262.0
1.81 x 105
CR sheet (2.5mm)
279.0
1.83 x 105
Concrete
B
C
A, B,C
fck
Properties (In N/ mm2)

Ec
ft
fy
22.75
Figure 1: Details of Prefabricated Cage and PCRC beam

2.1. Testing of Specimens
All the specimens were tested in a 100ton capacity Reaction Frame. The test set up is shown
in the Figure 2. In order to record the applied load precisely, a proving ring of 30ton capacity
with a least count of 0.01ton was used. A special steel frame arrangement was fabricated for
measuring the longitudinal strains. Three dial gauges having a travel of 50mm were used to
record the vertical deflection at the bottom of mid span and under the loading points. The
behaviour of the beams was keenly observed from the beginning till the collapse. The
appearance of the first crack, the development and propagation of cracks due to the increase
of load were also recorded. The loading was continued upto the peak load.
1028

Figure 2: Test setup over strong floor

3. Methods of Defining Ductility
The term ductility is generally, quantitatively described by a parameter called ductility
factor or ductility ratio. The most common measures of ductility are displacement
Ductility factor and curvature ductility factor.
a) Displacement ductility factor ( = u / y).
where,
u is the displacement at ultimate load and
y is the displacement at which tension steel yields.
b) Curvature ductility factor ( = u / y)
where,
u is the curvature corresponding to u and
y is the curvature at which tension steel yields.
3.1 Cross sectional ductility of PCRC beam
The ductility of beams may be defined in terms of the behaviour of individual cross sections
or the behaviour of entire beams. The cross sectional ductility is widely used as a measure of
beam ductility represented as ductility factor.
3.1.1 Calculation of Yield and Ultimate Curvatures
A typical PCRC beam section with its corresponding strain distribution at the yield and
ultimate stages are shown in Figures 3 and 4. As all the beams exhibit nearly full shear
connection at ultimate, for the calculation of ductility factor, slip in these beams is ignored.
The curvature calculations are given by the following equations:
a) At Yield Stage
Yield Curvature
y =
y
Ny
----- (1)
1029


where Ny can be determined by assuming the linear stress distribution and satisfying the
equilibrium condition of forces. This leads to:
The neutral axis (Ny) at the yield state is obtained from the equilibrium condition which is
given in equation 2.
Figure 3: Stress-strain diagram at yield stage
C =T
f ck BNy = 2 f yts [dt + bt ]
2t s f y ( d t + bt )
Ny =
Bf ck
----- (2)
Where,
f ck - cube compression strength at 28th day in MPa
f y - yield stress of steel sheet in MPa

At Ultimate Stage
Ultimate Curvature u =
u
Nu
----- (3)
where
u = Concrete compressive strain at crushing of concrete or at ultimate moment

Nu = Depth of compression zone at ultimate, can be determined by satisfying
equilibrium equation of forces.
1030

d = Effective depth of Beam
----- (4)
where,
Ast = Area of tension reinforcement
ts = thickness of Prefabricated cage
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 4: Section at ultimate stage

From strain compatibility conditions,
cu
s
=
N u (d N u )
----- (5)
----- (6)
From equilibrium conditions,
C = T1 + T2
1031

f ck BNu = f y Ast
----- (7)
----- (8)
aNu2 + bNu c = 0
----- (9)
Solving equation 9, Nu can be obtained as
The addition of compression reinforcement in the form of continuous sheet to a beam will
shift the neutral axis upwards and increase the ultimate curvature substantially, although it
has little effect on its yield strength or yield curvature. Hence the curvature ductility factor is
defined as,
u
y
----- (10)
cu (d N y )
Es
f sy
N u
----- (11)
4. Results and Discussions

Using eq.11, curvature ductility factor (CDF) for the PCRC beams was evaluated and are
presented in Table 3. The experimental results (Chithra et. al, 2011) were used to validate
the theoretical predictions. The ratio between the experimental and theoretical ductility factor
shows the accuracy of the equation.
Table 3: Theoretical and Experimental ductility factor
Neutral axis
Sl.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Beam
ID
A1
A2
A3
B1
B2
B3
C1
C2
C3
Curvature ductility factor
Nu
(mm)
Ny
(mm)
Theory
Expt.
( ,T )
( , E )
37.03
40.49
44.72
35.42
38.76
42.84
34.30
37.55
41.53
14.93
19.96
26.57
12.19
16.30
21.70
10.54
14.09
18.76
12.19
9.91
8.12
12.98
10.61
8.78
13.55
11.11
9.24
12.93
10.88
8.65
13.93
11.03
8.97
14.34
11.28
9.58
Ratio
, EXP
,THE
1.06
1.10
1.07
1.07
1.04
1.02
1.06
1.02
1.04
1032

5. Conclusions
From the analytical investigations carried out in the present study, the following major
findings can be arrived at.
1. The flexural behaviour and curvature ductility of PCRC beams made of materials of
widely varying strengths have been studied.
2. From equilibrium forces and strain compatibility conditions at yield and at ultimate
the equation for curvature ductility factor was arrived.
3. The experimental and theoretical ductility factors are in good agreement.
4. From equilibrium forces and strain compatibility conditions at yield and at ultimate
the equation for curvature ductility factor was arrived.
6. References
1. Chithra R, Thenmozhi R., (2011), Studies on prefabricated cage reinforced
steel- concrete composite beams, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building
and Housing), 12(1), pp 27-37.
2. Esneyder Montoya; Frank J. Vecchio; Shamim A. Sheikh., (2006),
Compression Field modeling of Confined Concrete: Constitutive Models,
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 18(4), pp 510-517.
3. Guney Ozcebe; Murat Saatcioglu., (1987), Confinement of concrete columns
for seismic loading, ACI Structural Journal, 84(4), pp 308-315.
4. Halil Sezen; Mohammad Shamsai., (2006), Behaviour of normal strength
concrete columns reinforced with prefabricated cage system, Structures
Congress 2006, p 74.
5. Halil Sezen; and Mohammad Shamsai., (2008), High-strength concrete
columns reinforced with prefabricated cage system, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 134(5), pp 750-757.
6. Mohamed M.Zaira; David Haldane; Atallah S.Kuttab., (1995), Flexural
Behavior of Beams with Confinement, ACI Structural Journal, 92(1), pp 103114.
7. Mohamed Saafi; Houssam A. Toutanji; Zongjin Li., (1999), Behavior of
Concrete Columns confined with Fiber Reinforced Polymer Tubes, ACI
Structural Journal, 96(4), pp 500-510.
8. Shamim A. Sheikh., (1982), A Comparative Study of Confinement Models,
ACI Structural Journal, 79(4), pp 296-306.
9. Sharim A.Sheikh, Dharmendra V.Shah, and Shafik S.Khoury., (1994),
Confinement of High-Strength concrete columns, ACI Structural Journal,
91(1), pp 100-113.
1033

10. Soliman .M.T.M.; Yu .C.W., (1967), The flexural stress-strain relationship of

concrete confined by rectangular transverse reinforcement, Magazine of
Concrete Research, 19(61), pp 223-238.
1034

Ductility of Prefabricated Cage Reinforced Concrete Beams: Analytical Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Ductility of Prefabricated Cage Reinforced Concrete Beams: Analytical Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

ISSN 0976 4399