Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract: This paper presents the test results of 35 direct tensile specimens to
investigate the effect of concrete strength on the tension stiffening effect and cracking
response in axially loaded reinforced concrete tensile members. Three concrete
strengths 25, 60 and 80 MPa were included as a major experimental parameter
together with six concrete cover thickness ratios. The results showed that as higher
strength concrete was employed, not only splitting cracks along the reinforcement
more extensive, but also the transverse crack spacing became smaller. Thereby, the
effective tensile stiffness of the high-strength concrete specimens at the stabilized
cracking stage was much smaller than those of normal-strength concrete specimens.
This observation is contrary to the current design provisions, and the reduction in the
tension stiffening effect by employment of high-strength concrete is much greater than that
would be expected. Based on the present results, a modification factor is proposed to
account for the effect of the cover thickness and the concrete strength.
Key words: bond, cover thickness, crack spacing, high-strength concrete, tension stiffening effect.
1. INTRODUCTION
In the conventional methods for designing reinforced
concrete members the concrete tensile resistance in a
section is generally neglected, and the force equilibrium
condition is based on reinforcement tension only. The
recent trend of the employing more accurate analysis
such as strength design method as well as higher
strength materials, has resulted in smaller member sizes
and higher tension stress in reinforcement. Thereby, it
is becoming increasingly necessity to take into account
for the deformation compatibility conditions in
designing reinforced concrete structures.
When a reinforced concrete member is cracked, the
stiffness is drastically decreased and the internal
stresses are redistributed in such a way that in the
cracked cross-section all tensile forces are balanced by
the steel only, while in the zone between adjacent
127
Reinforcement
Concrete
(b)
2nd crack
s , c
so
s = c
so
sm
so
N
L+
(a)
Axial load, N
Cracking and Tension Stiffening Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Tension Members Subjected to Axial Load
RC member
response
D-region B-region
Ncr
5
(c)
(d)
It
s , c
max
m
max
so
fct .(0.6 + n)
Es
so
s
c
Member strain, m
sm = so
Uncracked stage
Crack formation stage
Stabilized cracking stage
Yielding of reinforcement
Bare bar
fct
Es
(1)
128
1
2
3
4
5
It
Bond stress
2. EXPERIMENTAL WORK
The test specimens in this study were, as shown in
Figure 4, axially loaded direct tension members had a
length of 1500 mm, containing single 19 mm bars of
yield stress 430 MPa at the center of the rectangular
section. The sectional area of the specimen was kept
constant of 23250 mm2 in all specimens, but had
rectangular shapes with different aspect ratios in order
to vary the cover thickness of c/db between 1.0 and 3.5
in 0.5 increments.
The concrete mix design is shown in Table 1, with
three types of concrete normal-strength (NSC, 25 MPa),
medium-strength (MSC, 60 MPa), and high-strength
(HSC, 80 MPa). The concrete compressive strength fck
was obtained by testing standard cylinders having a
diameter 100 mm and a height of 200 mm. All
properties of the 35 specimens are listed in Table 2. To
minimize the shrinkage during the curing procedure,
wet curing was provided for 3 days after concrete
casting until demoulding, and afterwards submerged
curing was provided for 4 to 6 weeks until the test.
For the loading a displacement control method was
employed, and the longitudinal elongation between the
N
High-strength
concrete
Normal-strength
concrete
LVDT
19 mm Deformed bar
1500 mm
LVDT
19 mm
b
c
db c
a
(See table 2 for dimensions)
Admixture
(kgf/m3)
Slump
Test
Strength
W/C
S/A (%)
(mm)
S.F
M-150
(MPa)
0.60
0.25
0.20
45
37
38
150
150
150
385
550
650
229
138
153
810
662
578
991
1105
950
0
0
98
0
11
13
24.8
60.7
80.4
Note: C: cement, W: water, S: sand, G: gravel, S.F: silica fume, M-150: supper plasticizer
129
130
100 230
115 200
135 170
150 155
2.5
3.0
3.5
115 200
2.5
2.0
100 230
2.0
80 290
80 290
1.5
1.5
60 385
1.0
60 385
150 155
3.5
1.0
135 170
3.0
150 155
115 200
2.5
3.5
100 230
2.0
135 170
80 290
1.0
3.0
60 385
1.0
Cross
Sectional
Dimensions
a b (mm)
80.4
60.7
24.8
Compressive
Strength
fck (MPa)
3.53
3.34
1.96
Tensile
Strength
fct (MPa)
Note: In all specimens, a 19 mm bar was placed at the center of the section (fy = 430 MPa, = 0.0124).
N 10-A
N 10-B
N 15-A
N 15-B
N 20-A
N 20-B
N 25-A
N 25-B
N 30-A
N 30-B
N 35-A
N 35-B
M 10-A
M 15-A
M 15-B
M 20-A
M 20-B
M 25-A
M 25-B
M 30-A
M 30-B
M 35-A
M 35-B
H 10-A
H 10-B
H 15-A
H 15-B
H 20-A
H 20-B
H 25-A
H 25-B
H 30-A
H 30-B
H 35-A
H 35-B
Specimens
Cover
Thickness
Ratio
(c/db )
Measured Concrete
Strength
55
54
55
46
51
48
52
47
51
52
45
50
60
76
75
62
71
73
81
71
79
77
77
68
73
71
73
83
81
86
81
94
94
94
97
Transverse
Crack
Ntr (kN)
42
36
39
46
53
62
68
84
84
86
93
93
41
46
37
42
46
69
64
77
80
85
84
50
44
54
48
64
64
86
72
94
94
94
97
Splitting
Crack
Nsp (kN)
Initial Cracking
Load
7
10
8
12
10
9
7
9
6
5
4
6
11
12
15
14
14
11
14
13
9
10
8
11
14
16
16
15
16
12
14
12
9
12
13
Number of
Transverse
Crack
(each)
188
136
167
115
136
150
188
150
214
250
300
214
125
115
940
100
100
125
100
107
150
136
167
125
100
880
880
940
880
115
100
115
150
115
107
Average
Crack
Spacing
(mm)
650(43)
690(46)
720(48)
810(54)
760(51)
590(39)
510(34)
290(19)
350(23)
260(17)
50(3)
180(12)
1100(73)
1010(67)
1160(77)
770(51)
880(59)
840(56)
680(45)
760(51)
680(45)
660(44)
540(36)
1020(68)
1170(78)
1000(67)
1070(72)
1060(71)
1100(73)
850(53)
900(60)
470(31)
500(33)
380(25)
370(25)
Length of
Splitting
Crack
mm (%)
Cracking and Tension Stiffening Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Tension Members Subjected to Axial Load
130
fck = 25 MPa
120
110
110
100
100
90
90
Applied axial load (kN)
120
130
80
70
60
50
Bare bar
40
30
c/db
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
80
70
60
50
Bare bar
40
30
20
c/db
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
20
Transeverse crack starting point
10
0
0.0
fck = 80 MPa
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
Average steel strain (103)
2.1
2.4
(a) NSC
10
0
0.0
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
Average steel strain (103)
2.1
2.4
(b) HSC
Figure 5. Tension versus average strain responses of normal-strength and high-strength concrete specimens
131
Cracking and Tension Stiffening Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Tension Members Subjected to Axial Load
120
120
fck = 25 MPa
fck = 60 MPa
100
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0
3.5
60
40
20
80
0
0.0
4.0
(a) NSC
3.5
4.0
(b) MSC
120
fck = 80 MPa
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0
3.5
4.0
(c) HSC
Figure 6. Measured variation of transverse cracking load and split cracking load
132
130
130
c/db = 3.0
c/db = 3.5
120
120
MC 90
(HSC)
110
MC 90
(MSC)
100
90
Applied axial load (kN)
MC 90
(MSC)
100
90
80
70
Bare bar
60
MC 90
(NSC)
50
40
80
70
Bare bar
60
MC 90
(NSC)
50
40
30
30
20
20
10
0
0.0
MC 90
(HSC)
110
10
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
Average steel strain (103)
2.1
0
0.0
2.4
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
Average steel strain (103)
2.1
2.4
2.0
fck
fck,NSC
1.0
c/db
3.0
3.5
3.0
3.5
0.0
20
Type
Transverse cracking load
Splitting cracking load
40
60
80
Concrete strength, fck (MPa)
100
133
Cracking and Tension Stiffening Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Tension Members Subjected to Axial Load
30
25
NSC
20
MSC
15
10
HSC
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Cover thickness ratio, c/db
3.5
4.0
N10
H10
N15
H15
N20
H20
N25
H25
N30
H30
N35
H35
(a) NSC
(b) HSC
Figure 10. Final crack configuration in normal-strength and high-strength concrete specimens
134
= 0.4 st co 0.4
1.25
c/db = 2.5
1.00
Experimental coefficient st
4. FORMULATIONS
The experimental coefficient in Eqn. 1 is fixed with the
value of 0.4 for the short-term loading. As discussed
previously, the present experimental result shows that
the tension stiffness of the axially loaded members is
highly dependent on the cover thickness and the concrete
strength. It is observed that the coefficient of 0.4 in Eqn. 1
fits appropriately only for the normal strength and for
c/db value of above 2.5 Figures 5 and 7. This observation
indicates that tension stiffness of members after cracking
cannot be sufficiently predicted by the in Eqn. 1, so
that additional experimental coefficients are required to
account for the two parameters above.
Accordingly, two additional modification factors have
been incorporated in Eqn. 1 st and co are intended to
take into account for the effect of fck and c/db respectively,
and each factor has a value of less than unity.
0.75
st =
25
fck
1.0
0.50
0.25
0.00
25
50
75
Concrete strength, fck (MPa)
100
(2)
1.50
E
= s ( so sm )
fct
(3)
fck = 25 MPa
1.25
Experimental coefficient co
co =
c/db
2.5
1.00
0.75
0.50
Proposed
0.25
f
fct = fcto ln 1 + ck
fcko
(4)
1.0
0.00
0.0
0.5
Abrishami and
Mitchell (1996)
co = 0.8c/db 1
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Cover thickness ratio, c/db
3.5
4.0
(5)
co =
c /db
1.0
2.5
(6)
135
Cracking and Tension Stiffening Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Tension Members Subjected to Axial Load
130
120
110
110
100
100
90
90
Applied axial load (kN)
120
130
c/db = 1.5
80
Bare bar
70
60
50
40
30
80
Bare bar
70
60
50
40
30
NSC Predicted
20
c/db = 2.5
NSC Predicted
20
MSC Predicted
10
0
0.3 0.0
MSC Predicted
10
HSC Predicted
0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8
Average steel strain (103)
2.1
2.4
HSC Predicted
0
0.3 0.0
2.1
2.4
130
120
c/db = 3.5
110
100
Applied axial load (kN)
90
80
Bare bar
70
60
50
40
30
NSC Predicted
20
MSC Predicted
10
0
0.3 0.0
HSC Predicted
0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8
Average steel strain (103)
2.1
2.4
136
(7)
Azizinamini, A., Stark, M., Roller, J.J. and Ghosh, S.K. (1993).
Bond performance of reinforcing bars embeded in high-strength
concrete, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 90, No. 5, pp. 554561.
Broms, B.B. (1965). Stress distribution in reinforced concrete
member with tension cracks, ACI Journal, Vol. 62, No. 9,
pp. 10951108.
Broms, B.B. (1965). Crack width and crack spacing in reinforced
concrete members, ACI Journal, Vol. 62, No. 9, pp. 12371256.
CEB-FIP. (1991). CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, Comite EuroInternational Du Beton, Paris, France.
FIB(CEB-FIP). (1999). Structural Concrete: Textbook on Behavior,
Design and Performance - Volume 1, International Federation for
Structural Concrete, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Hungspreug, S. (1981). Local Bond Between a Reinforced Bar and
Concrete under High Intensity Cyclic Load, Structural
Engineering Report No. 816, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY,
USA.
Leonhardt, F. (1977). Crack Control in Concrete Structures, IABSE
Surveys No. S-4/77, IABSE Periodical 3/1977, International
Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich,
Switzerland.
Stroband, J. (1991). Experimental Research into the Bond Behavior
of Reinforcing Bars in Light weight and Normal Weight
Concrete, Report 25.5-91-3/VF C, Delft University of
Technology, Netherlands.
NOTATION
c
cover thickness
db
bar diameter
Es
modulus of elasticity of steel
fck
compressive strength of concrete
fct
tensile strength of concrete
lt
transmission length
Nsp splitting cracking load
Ntr transverse cracking load
reinforcement ratio
bond stress
137