EVALUATE THE CAPABILITY AND ACCURACY OF RESPONSE2000 PROGRAM IN PREDICTION OF THE SHEAR CAPACITIES OF REINFORCED AND PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

MEMBERS
Ibrahim M. Metwally ,Assoc. Prof., Reinforced Concrete Dept., Housing & Building Research Centre P.O. Box 1770 Cairo, Egypt E-mail: [email protected] Mobile: 002-0102683991

ABSTRACT
The program Response -2000 developed at the University of Toronto by Evan C. Bentz (1) was used in this research to obtain shear strength predictions. This program allows users to analyze beams and columns subjected to moment, shear, and axial loads comprising virtually any type of beam geometry, material types, and material properties. The fundamental theory supporting the program is the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT). Member response analysis and sectional analysis were both used in Response -2000 to predict the behavior of the beams. Member response calculates the full member behavior including the deflection and curvature along the member length, as well as predicted failure modes. The analysis was performed by specifying the length subjected to shear and any constant moment region. Response -2000 provided a very good prediction of experimental behavior when compared to a database of 534 beams tested in shear. These include prestressed and reinforced sections, very large footing-like sections, sections made with very high strength concrete and elements with unusual geometry. All are predicted well. The results include that Response -2000 can predict the failure shear with an average experimental over predicted shear ratio of 1.05 with a coefficient of variation of 12%. This compares favorably to the ACI 318-08 (2) Code prediction ratios that have an average of 1.20 and a coefficient of variation of 32%. Keywords: Response -2000, Shear capacity, Concrete beams.

INTRODUCTION
Response -2000 computer program was developed at the University of Toronto by Evan Bentz (1) as a part of his Ph.D. thesis. This two-dimensional sectional analysis program for beams and columns will calculate the strength and ductility of a reinforced concrete cross-section subjected to shear, moment, and axial load. Al1 three loads are considered simultaneously to find the full load-deformation response. Response- 2000 is able to calculate the strength of beams and columns with rectangular sections as well as or better than traditional methods and, more importantly, is able to make predictions of shear strengths for sections that cannot easily be modeled by such traditional methods. Response -2000 allows analysis of beams and columns subjected to arbitrary combinations of axial, moment, and shear. It also includes a method to integrate the sectional behavior for simple prismatic beam-segments. The assumptions implicit in the program are that plane sections remain plane and that there is no transverse clamping stress across the depth of the beam. For sections of a beam or column a reasonable distance away from a support or point load, these are excellent assumptions. These are the same locations in beams that are usually the critical locations for brittle shear failure.

Response 2000 uses the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT) which is considered the theoretical foundation for the analytical process (3). The MCFT is a smeared, rotating crack model describing the load-deformation response of reinforced concrete elements subjected to general two- or three dimensional stress conditions, as shown in Fig. 1. Conditions of equilibrium, compatibility and constitutive response are formulated in terms of average stresses and average strains; also central to the formulation, however, is the consideration of local stress conditions at crack locations. Concrete is treated as an orthotropic solid continuum with evenly distributed (smeared) cracks, as opposed to a solid interrupted by discrete physical discontinuities. The smeared cracks freely reorient, remaining coaxial with the changing direction of the principal concrete compressive stress field. As well as being computationally convenient, the smeared rotating crack approach is consistent with the distributed and meandering crack patterns observed in many reinforced concrete structures. In the basic form of the MCFT, the following assumptions are made: reinforcement (permissible in any direction) is well distributed; cracks are uniformly distributed and fully rotating; element boundary stresses are uniformly applied; a unique stress state exists for each strain state, without consideration of strain history; strains and stresses are averaged over distances that include several cracks; concrete principal strain and principal stress directions coincide; perfect bond exists between reinforcement and concrete; independent constitutive relationships can be defined for concrete and reinforcement; and negligible shear stresses exist in the reinforcement. These assumptions lead to a simple and powerful conceptual model that can be applied to a wide range of practical problems.

Fig. 1- Reinforced Concrete Element

Response 2000 will calculate strengths and deformations for beams and columns subjected to axial load, moment and shear based on the familiar assumption plane sections remain plane of engineering beam theory. Therefore, to have a reasonable analysis result, a limitation on the depth/span ratio of the frame component should exist. Unlike the other programs, Response -2000 program does not have a default cross section entered into it. This is not a problem, however, as one can be made quickly. For this example, an 80 foot span prestressed concrete bridge girder and slab will be analyzed. Program Response-2000 provides enhanced modeling and analysis capabilities for beam elements, using a layered section analysis approach (1). In addition to the traditional abilities of a sectional model to account for the effects of axial load and shear, Response-2000 also allows

rigorous inclusion of the effects of shear. Thus shear-moment-axial load interaction effects on strength and ductility are automatically taken into effect. The program is based on the assumption of plane sections remaining plane, zero clamping stress through the depth of the beam and the constitutive relations of the MCFT. Example capabilities are illustrated in Figs.2 and3.

Fig. 2- Automatically produced cross section of beam from Response-2000

Fig. 3- Response-2000 results from an analysis of a RC beam

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Examine the validity of the Response 2000 program and ACI 318 Code for finding the shear capacity of all types of concrete members with any cross sections (reinforced and prestressed concrete members).

TEST SPECIMENS & METHODOLOGY

The test specimens consisted of 534 reinforced and prestressed concrete beams with various shapes of cross section geometries were collected from the literature. The parameters of this study were beam geometry (b d), amount of longitudinal tensile steel reinforcement ( ), amount of transverse steel reinforcement ( ), loading status, and concrete compressive v strength ( f c ). The beams were simply supported and subjected to various types of loading, as reported in Table 1. These beams have been considered with a view to compare the ultimate shear strength of them to the shear capacity predicted by both Response-2000 software and ACI 318 Code. For a comparison to be made between the actual shear capacities and theoretical ones, the theoretical shear capacities had to be based on the same parameters as the actual beams tested. The details and summary of Response-2000 & ACI 318 Code experimental verification have been given in Table 1.

TEST RESULTS: ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

Table 1- Summary of Response-2000 & ACI 318 Experimental Verification Number & Specimens type 83 Prestressed I beams 43 rectangular beams 16 rectangular beams 28 rectangular beams 21 rectangular beams 15 rectangular beams 25 full-size Prestressed bridge girders 16 rectangular beams 9 round columns 34 Prestressed I beams 28 rectangular beams 5 rectangular beams 12 rectangular beams 12 rectangular beams Depth, mm fc, MP a 16 to 52 17 to 35 34 to 58 6.1 to 41.2 46 to 59 22 to 34 42 50 to 91 23 to 40 40 to 70 36 to 99 19 to 29 36 to 87 21 to 80 Stirrups Avfy/bws Response2000 M 2 point loads on simple span 2 point loads on simple span Point load on simple span Point load on simple span End loads applying shear and tension Point load on simple span Point load on simple span Point load on continuous span Symmetrical moment and shear 2 point loads on simple span Point load on simple span Uniform load on simple span Point load on simple span Point load on simple span 305 152 to 1219 220 to 960 305 210 to 410 150 to 1000 1118 0 to 3.6 0 0 0 1.12 1.05 1.10 1.02 COV, % 12.5 9.1 12.5 10.4 ACI 318-08 M -1.27 1.12 1.39 COV, % -19.5 24.4 11.2

Reference

Loading

MacGregor[4] Kani et al.[5] Ghannoum[6] Moody et al.[7] Adebar and Collins[8] Taylor[9] Shahawy and Batchelor[10] Collins et al. [11] Khalifa and Collins[12] Aregawi [13] Podgorniak[14 ] Shioya et al. [15] and Shioya [16] Yoon et al. [17 ] Angelakos[18]

0 to 1.3

0.96

12.8

1.7

66.4

0.99

8.3

1.23

13.6

0 to 12

1.05

9.6

1.09

14.2

500 to 1000 445 256 and 457 125 to 1000 300 to 3000 750 1000

0 to 0.83 0 to 2.7 0 to 4.8 0 to 0.35 0 0 to 1 0 to 0.35

1.02

8.2

0.88

12.4

1.06 1.12 1.05 1.02 1.05 0.95

6.4 8.2 16.8 10.9 11.2 15.4

1.33 1.15 0.89 0.74 1.14 0.74

24.2 9.7 29.2 46.3 14.4 23.8

Table 1- (Continued) Number & Specimens type Response2000 M Point load on beam with tension or compression Point loads on continuous span Point loads on continuous span 2 point loads on simple span Point load on simple span Point load on simple span Point load on simple span Point load on simple span 2 point loads on simple span Various loading 13 to 44 COV, % 11.1

Reference

Loading

Depth, mm

fc, MPa

Stirrups Avfy/bws

ACI 318-08 M COV, % 8.9

Haddadin et al. [19]

62 Tbeams

470

0 to 4.8

1.09

1.1

Pasley et al.[20]

13 Tbeams 15 Tbeams 12 rectangular beams 10 rectangular beams 33 rectangular beams 16 I-beams 7 I-beams 8 rectangular beams 5 rectangular beams 4 I-beams 2 Interlock hoop 534 beams

457

31

0 to 0.57 0 to 0.77 0 to 0.71 0 to 8.1 0.6 to 1.48 7.41 to 15.4 4.02 to 6.03 0

0.98

9.1

0.98

8.6

Palaskas and Darwin[21] Ozcebe et al.[22] Roller and Russell[23] Kong and Rangan[24] Rangan[25] Levi and Marro[26] Kawano and Watanabe[27] Gupta[28], Arbesman[29] and Kuzmanovic [[30

457

31 58 to 82 72 to 125 64 to 89 29 to 45 25 to 60 25

1.02

13.1

1.05

10

360 635 to 864 250 to 600 615 1050 330 to 2200

1.09 0.95 1.03 1.01 1.08 1.05

10.3 11.7 12.8 9.7 4.9 9.4

1.34 1.06 1.51 1.7 1.5 0.98

14.7 25.3 11.5 19.6 12.2 28

406 to 610

25 to 50

0 to 2.0

1.02

11.1

1.71

55

1.05

12.0

1.20

32

VERIFICATION OF THE RESPONSE-2000 PROGRAM & ACI 318 CODE

To verify the Response-2000 Program, the theoretical values of shear strength predicted by Response-2000 Program were compared to the test results of 534 prestressed and reinforced concrete beams which were collected from the literature. Table 1 show relevant details on the specimens included in this verification. Besides the predicted shear strengths according to the Response-2000 Program, the predicted shear capacities according to the current ACI 318-08 shear design equation are also presented in Table 1. For the 534 concrete beam tests, the average Vuexp / Vupred for the Response-2000 is 1.05 with a coefficient of variation of 12% (Table 1). On the other hand, the corresponding values were 1.2 and 32%for the current ACI 318-08 method. Fig. 4 shows comparison between the experimental and predicted shear strengths of the studied beams based on the results of the Response-2000 Program and ACI 318-08 equations. From these figures, it is evident that the level of accuracy of the shear strength of the concrete beams predicted by the Response-2000 Program is consistent unlike the method of ACI 318-08. The same observation can be made when the results of the Response-2000 Program and those of the ACI 318-08 equations are plotted versus the concrete strength, (shear span to depth)a/d ratio, effective depth, longitudinal reinforcement, and transverse reinforcement as in Figures 5,6,7,8, and9 respectively. Across the range of variables included in the data set, the predictions of the ACI 318-08 design method appear to have larger band width of the scattered results and higher level of conservatism compared to that of the Response-2000 Program. Thus, Response-2000 Program appears to be more accurate and reliable for predicting the shear capacity of prestressed and reinforced concrete beams.

2400

2400

Experimental shear strength, kN

2000

Experimental shear strength, kN

2400

1800

1600

1200

1200

800

600

400

Average=1.05

0 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000

0 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200

Predicted shear strength by Response -2000, kN

Predicted shear strength by ACI 318-08, kN

Fig. 4- Experimental and Predicted Shear Strength by Response-2000 and ACI 318

1.6

Exp / Pred. shear strength by Response-2000

1.2

0.8

0.4

0 0 40 80 120 160

Exp/ Predicted shear strength by ACI 318-08

0 0 40 80 120 160

Fig. 5- Experimental to predicted shear strength of beams versus concrete compressive strength

fc, MPa

fc, MPa

1.6

Exp / Predicted shear strength by Response-2000

1.2

Exp / Predicted shear strength by ACI 318

0 2 4 6 8 10

0.8

0.4

0 0 2 4 6 8 10

a/d ratio Fig. 6- Experimental to predicted shear strength of beams versus shear span to depth ratio

a/d ratio

1.6

Exp / Predicted shear strength by Response-2000

1.2

0.8

0.4

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Exp / Predicted shear strength by ACI 318

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Fig. 7- Experimental to predicted shear strength of beams versus effective depth

Effective depth, mm

Effective depth, mm

1.6

Exp / Predicted shear strength by Response-2000

1.2

Exp / Predicted shear strength by ACI 318-08

0 2 4 6 8

0.8

0.4

0 0 2 4 6 8

Longitudinal Rfts, %

`Longitudinal Rfts, %

Fig. 8- Experimental to predicted shear strength of beams versus tensile Longitudinal Reinforcement
1.6
6

Exp / Predicted shear strength by Response-2000

1.2

Exp / Predicted shear strength by ACI 318-08

0.8

0.4

0 0 1 2 3

0 0 1 2 3

Transverse Rfts, % Fig. 9- Experimental to predicted shear strength of beams versus Transverse Reinforcement (Stirrups)

Transverse Rfts, %

CONCLUSIONS
Response-2000 Program was used to calculate the shear strength of 534 prestressed and reinforced concrete beams tested in 27 different investigations. The calculated shear strengths using this program were compared to those calculated by the ACI 318-08 equations and the experimental ones. Based on this comparison, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Response-2000 Program gives accurate predictions and yet conservative over the range of variables known to affect the shear strength. 2. Response-2000 Program was compared to the ACI 318 Code using the available test data. More accurate and consistent predictions were obtained using this software. 3. It is very needed to modify the ACI 318 Code provision; it provides more conservative and inaccurate estimate of the shear capacity for concrete beams.

REFERENCES 1.
Bentz, E. C., Sectional Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members, PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2000, 184 pp.

2. 3.

ACI Committee 318 (2008), Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-08), American Concrete Institute. Vecchio, F. J. and Collins, M. P.(1986), The modified compression field theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear, ACI J., 83(2), 219-231. 4. MacGregor, J.G.,"Strength and Behavior of Prestressed Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement," PhD thesis, Uinversity of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 1960, 295 pp.

5.

Kani, M. W., Huggins, M. W., Wittkopp, R. R., Kani on Shear in Reinforced Concrete, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1979, 225 pp. 6. Ghannoum, W. M., " Size Effect on Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams", M. Eng. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, 1998, 115pp.

7.

Moody, K. G., Viest, M., Elstner, R. C., Hognestad, E., "Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams, Part-1:Test of Simple Beams", Journal of the American Concrete Institute, V. 26, No. 4, Nov. 1954, pp. 317-333. 8. Adebar, P. E., and Collins, M. P., "Shear Strength of Members without Transverse Reinforcement", Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 1, Feb. 1996, pp. 30-41. 9. Taylor, H. P., "Shear Strength of Large Beams", Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. ST. 11, Nov. 1972, pp 2473-2489.

10.

Shahawy, M. A., Batchelor, B., "Shear Behavior of Full-Scale Prestressed Concrete Girders: Comparison Between AASHTO Specifications and LRFD Code", PCI Journal Vol. 41, No. 3, May-June 1996, pp. 48-62. 11. Collins, M. P.; Mitchell, D. and MacGregor, J. G.," Structural Design Considerations for High Strength Concrete", Concrete International, May 1993, pp. 2734. 12. Khalifa, J. U.; and Collins, M. P., "Circular Reinforced Concrete Members Subjected to Shear", Publication No. 81-08, Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Toronto, Dec. 1981, 103pp. 13. Aregawi, M., "An Experimental Investigation of Circular Reinforced Concrete Beams in Shear", M. Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Toronto, 1974, 86 pp. 14. Podgorniak B., "The Influence of Concrete Strength, Distribution of Longitudinal Reinforcement, Amount of Transverse Reinforcement and Member Size on shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members", M. Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Toronto, 1998.

10

15. Shioya, T.; Iguro, M.; Nojiri, Y; Akiyama, H.; and Okada, T., "Shear Strength of Large Reinforced Concrete Beams, Fracture Mechanics: Application to Concrete", SP118, ACI, Detroit, 1989, 309pp. 16. Shioya, T., "Shear Properties of Large Reinforced Concrete Member", Special Report of Institute of Technology, Shimizu Corporation, No. 25, 1989, 198pp. 17. Yoon, Y.; Cook, W.; and Mitchell, D., "Minimum Shear Reinforcement in Normal, Medium, and High-Strength Concrete Beams", ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 93, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1996, pp. 576-584. 18. Angelakos, D.," The Influence of Concrete Strength and Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio on the Shear Strength of Large-Size Reinforced Concrete Beams with and without Transverse Reinforcement", M. Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Toronto, 1999, 181pp. 19. Haddadin, M. J., Hong, S. T. and Mattock, A. H., "Stirrup Effectiveness in Reinforced Concrete Beams with Axial Force", Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings ASCE, V. 97, No. ST9, Sept. 1971, pp. 2277-2297. 20. Pasley, G. P.; Gogoi, S.; Darwin, D.; and McCabe, S. L., "Shear Strength of Continuous Lightly Reinforced T-Beams", SM Report No. 26, University of Kansas, Dec. 1990, 151pp. 21. Palaskas, M. N. and Darwin, D., "Shear Strength of lightly Reinforced TBeams", SM Report No. 3, University of Kansas, Center for Research, Lawrence, Kansas, Sept., 1980, 198pp. 22. Ozcebe, G.; Ersoy, U.; and Tankut, T., "An Evaluation on the Minimum Shear Reinforcement Requirements for Higher Strength Concrete", ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 96, No. 3, May-June 1999. 23. Roller, J. J.; and Russell, H. G., "Shear Strength of High-strength Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement", ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 87, No. 2, Mar-Apr. 1990, pp. 191-198. 24. Kong, P. Y.; and Rangan, B.," Shear Strength of High-Performance Concrete Beams", ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 95, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1998, pp. 677-688. 25. Rangan, B., "Web Crushing Strength of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Beams", ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 88, No. 1, Jan-Feb. 1991, pp. 12-16. 26. Levi, F. and Marro, P., "Shear Tests up to Failure of Beams made with Normal and High Strength Concrete", CEB Bulletin 193, Lausanne, Switzerland, Dec. 1989. 27. Kawano, H. and Watanabe, H.," Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Columns-Effect of Specimen Size and Load Reversal", Proceedings of the Second ItalyJapan Workshop on Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, Feb. 1997, Rome, Italy. 28. Gupta, P. R., "Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to High Compression and Shear", Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Toronto, 1998. 29. Arbesman, B.," The Effects of Stirrups Cover and Amount of Reinforcement on Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams", M. Eng. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Toronto, 1975. 30. Kuzmanovic, S.," An Investigation of the Shear Design of a Reinforced Concrete Box Structure", M. Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Toronto, 1998, 126pp.

11

12