Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
net/publication/279897502
CITATIONS READS
22 1,345
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Barzin Mobasher on 28 July 2015.
A set of closed form equations for flexural design of fiber-reinforced beam cross section is required to determine the ultimate
concrete are presented. These equations are based on simplified moment capacity. Similar to the RILEM, German guidelines
tensile and compressive constitutive response and may be used for design of flexural members use the strain compatibility
in a limit state approach or serviceability-based criterion that analysis to determine the moment capacity.17 In the UK,18 the
limits the effective tensile strain capacity. The equations allow
practice of FRC traditionally followed the Japanese Standard
generation of flexural moment-curvature response of a rectangular
beam section for use in structural analysis calculations in addition to JCI-SF4;19 however, it has recently shifted toward the RILEM
design charts for strain softening fiber-reinforced concrete. To design methodology. The Italian guideline is also based on
prevent sudden failure after flexural cracking and to control load-deflection curves deduced from flexural or direct
crack width, equations for minimum post-crack tensile strength tension tests.20 The current U.S. design guidelines for flexural
are also proposed. The analytical tensile strain equations members are based on empirical equations of Swamy et al.21,22
proposed for serviceability limit the average crack width of Particular types of fibers and natures of concrete were not
structural members. In addition, the bilinear moment-curvature model specified in the guidelines. Henager and Doherty23 proposed
is used in conjunction with geometrical relationship between curva- a tensile stress block for SFRC that is comparable with the
ture and deflection to determine short-term deflections of struc- ultimate strength design of ACI 318-05.24
tural members. An example of a one-way slab demonstrates the
This paper proposes a design methodology for strain-
calculation steps.
softening FRC and consists of two parts: design for ultimate
strength and design for serviceability. The design procedures
Keywords: composite concrete flexural members; design; fiber-reinforced
concrete. are based on theoretical derivations of Soranakom and
Mobasher,25,26 in addition to ACI 318-0524 and RILEM TC
INTRODUCTION 162-TDF.16 Topics include nominal moment capacity,
Fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) can be considered a minimum post-crack tensile strength for flexural cracking,
brittle matrix composite material consisting of cementitious tensile strain limit, short-term deflection calculations, and a
matrix and discrete fibers. The fibers that are randomly conversion design chart to correlate traditional reinforced
distributed in the matrix act as crack arrestors. Once the concrete and FRC systems. A design example of a one-way
matrix cracks under tension, the debonding and pulling out slab is presented to illustrate the use of equations in the
of fibers dissipate energy, leading to a substantial increase in design of typical structural members.
toughness.1 The main areas of FRC applications are slabs-on-
ground, tunnel linings, and precast and prestressed concrete RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
products. Recently, elevated slabs of steel fiber-reinforced The proposed design guideline provides computational
concrete (SFRC) have been successfully used where fibers efficiency over the commonly used strain compatibility analysis
provide the primary reinforcement.2,3 A wide range of FRC of a layered beam in determining moment capacity of FRC
systems, including glass fiber-reinforced concrete (GFRC),4 members. The closed form equations and guidelines are
engineered cementitious composite (ECC),5,6 slurry-infiltrated compatible with the ACI 318-05 design method procedures,
concrete (SIFCON),7,8 and high-performance fiber-reinforced while allowing deflection and serviceability criteria to be
concrete (HPFRC)9,10 require better design guidelines. To calculated based on fundamentals of structural mechanics.
standardize these materials, Naaman and Reinhardt11 defined These computations allow engineers to reliably design and
“strain-hardening” and “strain-softening” classifications based on compare the overall performance of a conventional reinforced
tensile responses. Within the second category, additional concrete system and FRC.
terms of “deflection-hardening” and “deflection-softening”
are defined to further classify the flexural response. STRAIN-SOFTENING FRC MODEL
Tensile and compressive response of strain-softening FRC
Despite the fact that FRC has been used in the construction
such as steel and polymeric fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC
industry for more than four decades, applications are still
and PFRC) can be simplified to idealized stress-strain
limited to a few market sectors. This is mainly due to the lack
models as shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b). In these materials, the
of standard guidelines for design procedures. To facilitate the
contribution of fibers is mostly apparent in the post-peak
design process, technical guidelines for FRC have been
tensile region, where the response is described by a decaying
developed by RILEM Committee TC162-TDF for SFRC12-16
stress-strain relationship. It is possible, however, to assume
during the past 15 years. The committee proposed a three-
an average constant post-crack tensile strength σp for the
point bending test of a notched beam specimen for material
characterization. The elastically equivalent flexural strength at
specific crack mount opening displacement (CMOD) is ACI Materials Journal, V. 106, No. 5, September-October 2009.
MS No. M-2008-380.R2 received December 6, 2008, and reviewed under Institute publi-
empirically related to the tensile stress-strain model. The cation policies. Copyright © 2009, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
compression response is described by a parabolic-rectangular including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright
proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors’ closure, if any, will be published in the
stress-strain model. The strain compatibility analysis of a layered July-August 2010 ACI Materials Journal if the discussion is received by April 1, 2010.
σ cr 0.56 f c′ 6.7 f c′
ε cr = ------ - = 118 microstrain (3)
- = ---------------------- = -------------------------
E 4733 f c′ 57,000 f c′
σp σ
μ = ---------
- = ------p- (5)
Eε cr σ cr
ε cy σ cy σ cy
ω = ------ = ---------
- = ------- = 1.52 f c′ (SI units)
ε cr Eε cr σ cr
(6)
ε cy σ cy σ cy
ω = ------ = ---------- = ------- = 0.127 f c′ ( U.S. customary units )
ε cr Eε cr σ cr
Fig. 2—RILEM material model for steel fiber-reinforced Note that the coefficients 1.52 and 0.127 used in Eq. (6)
concrete. are for fc′ expressed in MPa and psi, respectively. Equation (6)
implies that the normalized yield compressive strain ω is also
a compressive-to-tensile strength ratio; thus, these terms can be
softening response, which can be correlated to the fiber
used interchangeably. For typical fc′ between 20 and 65 MPa
volume fraction and their bond characteristics.21-23
(2900 and 9427 psi), ω varies between 6.8 and 12.8. The tensile
The following assumptions are made in the development
and compressive responses terminate at the normalized ultimate
of the material models: a) Young’s modulus E for compression
tensile strain βtu and compressive strain λcu, respectively.
and tension are equal; b) tension model (Fig. 1(a)) consists of a
linear stress-strain response up to the cracking tensile strain
ε 0.025
εcr , followed by a constant post-crack tensile strength σp = μEεcr β tu = -----tu- = ------------------------- ≈ 212 (7)
with a parameter μ (0 ≤ μ ≤ 1) representing the post-crack ε cr 118 × 10
–6
2ε cr
Φ = φΦ cr ; Φ cr = ---------
- (10)
h
μ
k ∞ = ------------- (11)
ω+μ
Fig. 3—Stress-strain diagram at three ranges of normalized top By substituting k = k∞ and λ = ∞ in the expression for
compressive strain λ: (a) elastic for compression and tension m in range 3 of Table 1, the ultimate moment capacity m∞
(0 < λ ≤ 1); (b) elastic for compression but nonlinear for tension is also obtained
(1 < λ ≤ ω); and (c) plastic for compression and
nonlinear for tension (λ > ω). 3ωμ
m ∞ = ------------- (12)
ω+μ
λ a ε cr β a ε cr
-----------
- = --------------
- (17)
Fig. 5—Normalized allowable moment. kh h – kh
φ cu – φ bcr ⎧
θ pcr = ------------------------
- (15) ⎪ 2μβ – 2μ + 1 for β a ≤ β crit
m cu – m bcr ⎪ a
λa = ⎨ 2 (18)
2μβ a – 2μ + ω + 1
⎪ ----------------------------------------------- for β a > β crit
Finally, the normalized curvature-moment relationship ⎪ 2ω
can be expressed as ⎩
2
⎧ m for 0 < m ≤ m bcr ω + 2μ – 1
β crit = ---------------------------- (19)
φ = ⎨ (16) 2μ
⎩ φ bcr + θ pcr ( m – m bcr ) for m > m bcr
where βcrit is the critical tensile strain. When βa ≤ βcrit , the
ALLOWABLE TENSILE STRAIN parameter λa will be between 1 and ω (range 2), and when
For sufficiently high fiber volume fractions and a good βa > βcrit , the parameter λa will be greater than ω (range 3).
bond property, the ultimate moment capacity of the strain- Two levels of normalized allowable tensile strain βa = 20
softening FRC can be as high as 2.6 times the first cracking and 60 (corresponding to 2360 and 7080 microstrain for the
moment.25 There may, however, be a need to design based cracking strain of 118 microstrain defined in Eq. (3)) and the
on a limit to the allowable tensile strain and crack width. lower and upper bound compressive tensile strength ratio
Because many deflection-hardening FRC show multiple ω = 6 and 12 are evaluated. The closed form solutions for the
cracking, the nominal tensile strain averaged from several allowable moments corresponding to the combination of
cracks spaced apart is proposed as the serviceability criterion. these βa and ω can be derived by first substituting the values
This section only addresses the effect of lower and upper in Eq. (18), then substituting the obtained λa and/or ω in the
bounds of the allowable tensile limit and their effect on expressions for k and m in range 2 and 3 in Table 1. The final
service moments. form of allowable moments in range 2 or 3 (m2a and m3a) are
From the linear strain diagrams in the post-crack ranges presented in Table 2 depending on the value of βa compared
(Fig. 3(b) and (c)), the relationship between normalized to βcrit as shown in Eq. (19).
2M u f c′
μ = --------------------------------------------
-
6φ p M cr f c′ – ξM u (23)
( ξ = 1.32 for f c′ in MPa, ξ = 15.8 for f c′ in psi )
2M u f c′
μ = --------------------------------------------
-=
6φ p M cr f c′ – ξM u
2 × 18.4 45
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 0.66
6 × 0.7 × 14.06 45 – 1.32 × 18.4
2
Fig. 8—Predicted nominal moment capacity versus experimental 18 ( 1444μ + 12,388μ – 343 )
ultimate moment. m a = ----------------------------------------------------------------------- =
2
( 277 + 38μ )
2
18 ( 1444 × 0.66 + 12,388 × 0.66 – 343 )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 1.67
is minimal and the applied moment is relatively low ( 277 + 38 × 0.66 )
2
compared to the cracking moment. An example is presented to
demonstrate the design calculations for a one-way slab with a
Unfactored loads are used to calculate the moment at
single span of 3.5 m (11.67 ft) subjected to a uniformly
service condition at the midspan
distributed live load of 2.0 kN/m2 (41.8 lb/ft2) and super-
imposed dead load of 0.7 kN/m2 (14.6 lb/ft2). A point load of
4.0 kN/m (0.274 kip/ft) is applied at the center. The design 2
wL PL ( 3.6 + 0.7 + 2.0 ) × 3.5 4.0 × 3.5
2
requires use of SFRC with a compressive strength fc′ of 45 MPa M S = ---------- + ------- = -------------------------------------------------------- + --------------------- =
8 4 8 4
(6531 psi) and unit weight of 24 kN/m3 (153 lb/ft3).
13.15 kN-m/m ( 2.96 kip-ft/ft )
Ultimate moment capacity
The one-way slab is designed based on 1.0 m (3.33 ft) strip. The normalized moment at service load is
The self-weight for an assumed thickness of 0.15 m (6 in.) is
M
wsw = 0.15 × 24 = 3.6 kN/m2 (75.2 lb/ft2) m S = --------S- = 13.15
------------- = 0.935 < m a = 1.67 → “passed”
M cr 14.06
The factored loads according to ACI 318-05 Section 9.2.1 are Short-term deflection
To calculate the deflection, the bilinear curvature-moment
wu = 1.2(3.6 + 0.7) + 1.6(2.0) = 8.36 kN/m2 (174.6 lb/ft2) relationship is generated. The compressive-to-tensile strength
ratio ω computed by Eq. (6) is
Pu = 1.6(4.0) = 6.4 kN/m (0.439 kip/ft)
ω = 1.52 f c′ = 1.52 45 = 10.2
The maximum moment at midspan due to the uniform and
point loads
Two data points (φbr , mbr) and (φcu, mcu), and the slope θpcr
in the post-crack region can be determined by Eq. (12) to (16).
2
w u L Pu L 8.36 × 3.5 2 6.4 × 3.5
M u = -----------
- + --------- = -------------------------- + --------------------- =
8 4 8 4 3 × 10.2 × 0.66- = 1.86
3ωμ = -----------------------------------
m cu = m ∞ = -------------
18.4 kN-m/m ( 4.14 kip-ft/ft ) ω+μ 10.2 + 0.66
θ pcr = ------------------------
- = ------------------------------ = 686.5 - – 3μ ( 2k cu – 1 )
m cu = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
=
m cu – m bcr 1.86 – 1.56 λ cu
2 3 2
For a simple beam case, the curvature at both ends (Φ1 and ( 3 × 10.2 × 30 – 10.2 + 3 × 0.66 × 30 – 3 × 0.66 + 2 ) 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 0.0723 –
Φ3) are zero, and the curvature at midspan, Φ2, is determined
2
30
by Eq. (10) and (16). Because ms is less than mbcr , φ2 = ms.
3 × 0.66(2 × 0.0724 – 1) = 1.858
–6
2ε cr × 118 × 10 -
- = 0.935 2---------------------------------- Mcu = mcu Mcr = 1.858 × 14.06 = 26.12 kN-m/m (5.87 kip-ft/ft)
Φ 2 = φ 2 Φ cr = m s --------- =
h 150
–6 –1 –5 –1 The neutral axis parameter and moment at infinite
1.471 × 10 mm ( 3.736 × 10 in. )
compressive strain are obtained by Eq. (9), (11), and (12).
Finally, the midspan deflection of the beam is calculated
μ 0.66
by the geometric relationship between curvature and deflection k ∞ h = -------------h = --------------------------- × 150 = 9.12 mm ( 0.36 in. )
defined in Eq. (26a) ω+μ 10.2 + 0.66