Deep Beam Kong Robin Sharp Method

4.
COMPARISON OF REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR

A FRAME WITH AND WITHOUT EARTHQUAKE LOAD
4.1. INTRODUCTION
A two bay three storey frame with 230 x 750 columns and 230 x 450 beams, with
storey height 3m and bay length and width 6m was subjected to analysis with and
without earthquake. The frame was subjected to dead load and live load alone in the
first analysis and was later subjected to earthquake load in addition. Both cases were
analyzed and designed using ETABS. Figure 4.1 and 4.2 shows the 3D view and plan
view of the frame respectively.
Figure 4.1: 3D view of the frame
25
Figure 4.2: Plan view of the frame
4.2. FRAME SUBJECTED TO DEAD LOAD AND LIVE LOAD ONLY

The above mentioned frame was analysed and designed in ETABS with the
slab supporting a live load of 10 kN/m2 and beam supporting a dead load of 10 kN/m,
additional to the self-weight. The results of the typical beams and columns are as
shown in Table 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4.
Table 4.1: Flexural reinforcement of typical beams at Storey 2
Beam
Location
B1
B2
B3
Reinforcement (%)
Top
Bottom
Discontinuous end
0.99
0.49
Mid-span
0.25
1.09
Continuous End
0.94
0.47
Continuous End
0.94
0.47
Mid-span
0.25
1.09
Discontinuous End
0.99
0.49
End B2
1.10
0.55
Mid-span
0.27
1.25
End B4
1.10
0.55
26

Beam
Reinforcement (%)
C1
2.51
C2
4.84
Table 4.3: Shear reinforcement of typical beams at Storey 2

Reinforcement
Beam
Location
B1
Discontinuous end
0.000660
Mid-span
0.000298
Continuous End
0.000659
Continuous End
0.000659
Mid-span
0.000298
Discontinuous End
0.000660
End B2
0.000594
Mid-span
0.000281
End B4
0.000594
B2
B3
(Asv/sv)
Table 4.4: Shear reinforcement of typical columns at Storey 2

Column
Major (Asv/sv)
Minor (Asv/sv)
C1
0.000255
0.000831
C2
0.000255
0.000831
4.3. FRAME SUBJECTED TO EARTHQUAKE LOAD ALONG WITH DEAD

LOAD AND LIVE LOAD
The frame was again subjected to earthquake load along with dead load and
live load and was analyzed and designed in ETABS. The software automatically
calculates the lateral loads as per IS 1893 2002. The frame was assumed to be
27
situated in Zone 3 (z = 0.16) and soil was assumed to be Hard rock (Type 1). The
design details of the same are represented in Table 4.5 to 4.8.
Beam
Location
B1
B2
B3
Reinforcement (%)
Top
Bottom
Discontinuous end
0.99
0.49
Mid-span
0.25
1.09
Continuous End
0.94
0.47
Continuous End
0.94
0.47
Mid-span
0.25
1.09
Discontinuous End
0.99
0.49
End B2
1.10
0.55
Mid-span
0.27
1.25
End B4
1.10
0.55

Beam
Reinforcement (%)
C1
2.51
C2
4.84
Table 4.7: Shear reinforcement of typical beams at Storey 2

Reinforcement
Beam
Location
B1
Discontinuous end
0.000832
Mid-span
0.000530
Continuous End
0.000833
Continuous End
0.000833
Mid-span
0.000530
B2
28
(Asv/sv)
B3
Discontinuous End
0.000832
End B2
0.000782
Mid-span
0.000522
End B4
0.000782
Table 4.8: Shear reinforcement of typical columns at Storey 2

Column
Major (Asv/sv)
Minor (Asv/sv)
C1
0.000255
0.000831
C2
0.000255
0.000831
4.4. OBSERVATIONS
ETABS by default assumes any frame as ductile frame and hence minimum
negative steel and minimum positive steel clauses from IS 13920 1993 is valid even
before the application of earthquake load.
For the frame analyzed here; flexural reinforcement of beams, flexural
reinforcement of columns and shear reinforcement of columns remained the same.
When subjected to earthquake load, there is an increase in the shear reinforcement
in the beams. This increase is according to Clause 6.3.3 IS 13920 1993, guiding to
take an additional shear force proportional to the moment capacity of the beam
section along with the shear force due to dead load and live load, when subjected to
lateral load.
29
5. COMPARISON OF SLAB AS SHELL AND SLAB AS

MEMBRANE
5.1. INTRODUCTION
This exercise was to find out the difference in the loads/load effects transferred to
the supporting beams when a slab is modeled as shell and the same when modeled as
membrane. A simple space frame, single bay single storey, with column size 300 x
300 and beam size 200 x 450 and storey height and bay dimensions 3m, was modeled
and analyzed in ETABS. Manual verification of the same was also done. The models
are shown in Figure 5.1 & 5.2.The results are as listed in Table 5.1.
Figure 5.1: Model of the frame with slab as membrane
30
Figure 5.2: Model of the frame with slab as shell
Table 5.1: Comparison of results

Beam
Member
Slab
Mid-span
End-span
Moment
Deflection
(kNm)
(kNm)
(kNm/m)
(mm)
Membrane
56.62
-6.68
NA
NA
Shell
58.16
-2.26
14.28
3.85
48.23
-5.57
17.39
3.49
Manual
calculation
31
5.2. OBSERVATIONS
Slab when modeled as membrane merely transfers the load to the supporting
beam. It possesses no bending stiffness and is used only when a slab is supported on
all four sides by beams.
Shell on the other hand possesses bending stiffness and takes some of the load.
The same shell when meshed differently yields different results. eg: The result given
in the table is for a mesh pattern of 4 x 4. When the shell was left alone to be automeshed by the programme the results were 24.50kNm at mid-span of the beam, 5.79kNm at end-span of the beam and 1.61kNm/m on the slab. This deviation is
accounted by the fact that finer meshing increases accuracy.
Manual calculation of the same was carried out as per IS 456-2000, although the
values may seem to be in agreement the simplicity of the frame need to be considered.
32
7. DESIGN OF DEEP BEAM (KONG ROBINS SHARP METHOD)
7.1. INTRODUCTION
Kong Robins Sharp method is an empirical procedure which based on
extended research work carried out by Kong Robins and Sharp. The minimum
reinforcement is based on European code committee recommendations. A worked out
example of the same is carried in Reynolds Concrete Designers Handbook (10 th
edition).
7.2. DESIGN FORMULAE
Equation A
Equation B
=(
Equation C
1.9
1.9
(0.65 )
1 ( 0.35 1)
1 = ( 1 ( 0.35 1)
Equation D
)+ ( 2
1= 2 ( 2
Where, A = area of individual web bar
(/))
As reqd, As prov = minimum area of main steel required and actually provided
a1 = clear distance from edge of load to face of support
a2 = depth at which the web bar intersects the critical diagonal crack
b = width of beam
d = effective depth to main steel
33
ft = cylinder splitting tensile strength of concrete

fy = yield strength of steel
h = overall depth of beam
k1, k2 = empirical co-efficient for concrete and reinforcement
l = span of beam between supports
M = ultimate moment
V = ultimate shearing force
V1 = shear force resisted by concrete and main reinforcement only
= angle between bar being considered and critical diagonal crack
The geometry of the beam as represented in Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.1: Geometrical parameters of deep beam
34
7.3. DESIGN PROCEDURE

i. Calculate the ultimate bending moment acting on the beam.
ii. Calculate the area of main reinforcement required from Equation A.
iii. Calculate the ultimate shearing force acting on the beam.
iv. Calculate the minimum breadth of the beam form Equation B.
v. Sketch the elevation of the beam and measure the angle for the main bar.
vi. Calculate the shearing resistance of the beam with main reinforcement alone using
Equation C. Thus determine the shearing force to be resisted by web reinforcement.
vii. Calculate the area of web bars required from Equation D.
35

Deep Beam Kong Robin Sharp Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deep Beam Kong Robin Sharp Method

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Deep Beam Kong Robin Sharp Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.

COMPARISON OF REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR

Figure 4.1: 3D view of the frame

Figure 4.2: Plan view of the frame

4.2. FRAME SUBJECTED TO DEAD LOAD AND LIVE LOAD ONLY

Table 4.2: Flexural reinforcement of typical beams at Storey 2

Table 4.3: Shear reinforcement of typical beams at Storey 2

Table 4.4: Shear reinforcement of typical columns at Storey 2

4.3. FRAME SUBJECTED TO EARTHQUAKE LOAD ALONG WITH DEAD

Table 4.6: Flexural reinforcement of typical beams at Storey 2

Table 4.7: Shear reinforcement of typical beams at Storey 2

Table 4.8: Shear reinforcement of typical columns at Storey 2

5. COMPARISON OF SLAB AS SHELL AND SLAB AS

Figure 5.1: Model of the frame with slab as membrane

Figure 5.2: Model of the frame with slab as shell

Table 5.1: Comparison of results

7. DESIGN OF DEEP BEAM (KONG ROBINS SHARP METHOD)

Where, A = area of individual web bar

ft = cylinder splitting tensile strength of concrete

Figure 7.1: Geometrical parameters of deep beam

7.3. DESIGN PROCEDURE

You might also like