Construction and Building Materials 38 (2013) 482490

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Bending behavior, deformability and strength analysis of Prefabricated Cage

Reinforced Composite beams
Chithra Rethnasamy a,, Thenmozhi Rajagopal b, Hareesh Muthuraj c
a
Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Government College of Technology, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore 641 013, Tamilnadu, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Thanthai Periyar Government Institute of Technology, Vellore 632 002, Tamilnadu, India
c
L&T Ramboll, Chennai 600 032, Tamilnadu, India

h i g h l i g h t s

" The experimental and analytical exural behavior of PCRC beams is deeply analyzed.
" The partial connement provided by Prefabricated Cage enhances the exural response.
" The connement offered by prefabricated cage prolonged the initiation of cracks.
" This beam system exhibits an improved ductility and energy absorption capacity.
" The beams are capable of withstanding impact forces due to higher ductile response.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The principal aim of this paper is to examine, both experimentally and analytically, the bending behavior
Received 31 May 2011 of Prefabricated Cage Reinforced Composite (PCRC) beams. This paper presents comprehensive data and
Received in revised form 9 August 2012 their interpretation on strength, deformation characteristics, ductility and mode of failure of beams in
Accepted 16 August 2012
terms of effects of thickness of sheet, concrete strength and amount of tension reinforcement. A total
Available online 4 October 2012
of 18 PCRC beam specimens and 3 Rebar Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) beam specimens were con-
sidered in this study: Nine were made from cold formed steel sheet with average yield strength of 260 N/
Keywords:
mm2 and the rest of the beams with average yield strength of 400 N/mm2. Theoretical model was devel-
Prefabricated Cage
Composite beams
oped for exural strength and its accuracy was veried against experimental data. A three dimensional
Cold formed steel sheet nite element model using ANSYS was also proposed to simulate the overall exural behavior of PCRC
Ductility beams. The experimental results infer that the connement offered by prefabricated cage prolonged
Energy absorption the initiation and propagation of cracks when compared to RCC beam specimens and the beams exhibited
well dened post peak behavior. In PCRC beams, the exural strength was not signicantly inuenced by
yield strength of steel. This type of beam system exhibits an improved ductility and energy absorption
capacity making it suitable for seismic resistant structures. Reduced construction time of these beams
can play a vital role in fast track construction.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Sezen and Shamsai [4] experimentally investigated the behav-

In recent years, fast track construction has made signicant ad-
vances in multistory buildings and bridges. Fast track construction
can be achieved by using prefabricated elements in construction
activities. Recently prefabricated reinforcement system proposed
by Shamsai and Sezen [8], prepared by perforating steel tubes or
steel plates was reported to function as both longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement connected monolithically and working
compositely with the concrete.
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chithrajothin@gmail.com (Chithra Rethnasamy).
ior of PCS reinforced columns with normal strength concrete. A
total of 16 specimens were constructed and tested to investigate
the strength and displacement capacity of PCS reinforced columns
and was compared with those of equivalent rebar reinforced
specimens. The test results indicated that PCS reinforced speci-
mens have similar elastic behavior, comparable peak strength
and better performance in the residual strength section beyond
the peak strength and were found to be more ductile and absorb
more energy than equivalent rebar reinforced columns. The
crossties help to prevent the PCS tube from buckling and therefore,
improve the connement, strength and displacement capacity.
Sezen and Shamsai [5] investigated the connement provided by

0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.08.017
 Chithra Rethnasamy et al. / Construction and Building Materials 38 (2013) 482490
Nomenclature
Ast area of tension steel
fck compressive strength of concrete
Pcr cracking load
/y curvature at which the tension steel yields
/u curvature corresponding to Du
l/ curvature ductility factor
Du displacement at failure stage
Dy displacement based on equivalent elasto-plastic yield
lD displacement ductility factor
d effective depth of beam
b width of beam
Prefabricated Cage System (PCS) by comparing the results from 6
small-scale column tests. The test results showed that PCS pro-
vided much better concrete connement than rebar reinforcement
system.
Shamsai et al. [9] reported that the usage of prefabricated cage
reinforcement results in a 33.3% time savings and a 7.1% cost savings
over rebar for each column. This resulted in an average of 3.6% sav-
ings on total project cost, an average of 22.2% savings on total column
costs and provides a time savings of 116 days, which was equivalent
to 20.4% savings on total project time period, 33.3% savings on col-
umns construction time period. The cost savings were estimated
based on the production of small quantities of PCS reinforcement
and mass production of PCS reinforcement could result in even high-
er cost savings. Sezen and Shamsai [5] conducted test on high
strength concrete columns with Prefabricated Cage System and
proved that this reinforcement in columns improves the structural
performance with various additional advantages in various aspects.
However, the behavioural response of the concrete beams rein-
forced with prefabricated reinforcement system has its own signif-
icance and was considered for study in this paper. The beams were
then termed as Prefabricated Cage Reinforced Composite (PCRC)
beams based on the composite action assured by the perforations
in steel sheet. Experimental and analytical investigations were car-
ried out to assess the performance level of eighteen series of PCRC
beams with variations in key input parameters namely the thickness
of the steel sheet, concrete grade, yield strength of the steel sheet
and width of perforations and three RCC beams. The inuence of
these parameters on the overall structural performance of the PCRC
beams was also analyzed and compared with RCC beams.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials and specimens
Eighteen PCRC beam specimens and three equivalent RCC beam specimens
were considered in this study. All the beams had the same dimensions
150  200  2500 mm and the typical cross-sectional details are shown in Fig. 1.
Rectangular cold formed steel sheet of length 2.5 m was used to produce the rein-
forcement cage. Two separate cold form steel sheets of required size were taken.
The perforations were made in the two sheets using CNC cutting as shown in
Fig. 2. Then the plates were bent in a plate bending machine. After bending, the
plates were connected along the edges on both sides throughout the length of
the specimen to form tube shaped reinforcement as shown in Fig. 3. Nine of the
specimens (G, H, I series) were made with mild strength steel sheet while the others
(J, K, L series) were made with high tensile strength cold form steel sheet. However,
the percentage of tension reinforcement was varied in both the sets in such a way
that all the beams had merely same equivalent area of steel (Astfy), where Ast is the
area of steel in mm2 and fy is the yield strength of steel in N/mm2.
To compare the behavior of PCRC beams with conventional reinforced concrete
beams, three RCC beams of same compressive strength and with equivalent area of
steel as that of G, H, I series beams were also cast as control specimens. The RCC
beam specimens were reinforced with 2 nos. of 12 mm diameter bars at bottom
and 2 nos. of 8 mm diameter bars at top.
483
ft splitting tensile strength of concrete
fy yield strength of steel
Mu the theoretical moment of resistance
Mu exp experimental moment of resistance
Mu ANSYS moment of resistance predicted in ANSYS
t thickness of steel sheet
Pu ultimate load
Py yield load
Ec youngs modulus of concrete
Es youngs modulus of steel sheet
The mix proportions of concrete mixtures and properties of hardened concrete
are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. The coarse aggregate used were
12.5 mm maximum size crushed gravel aggregate. Locally available river sand
was used as ne aggregate. The mechanical properties of the cold formed steel
sheets are tabulated in Table 3.
The beams were named considering the variations in thickness of steel
sheet and concrete strength. Specimens G1, G2, G3 had a concrete strength of
33.10 N/mm2 where the numbers 1, 2, 3 in the specimen names corresponds
to 1.6 mm, 2.0 mm, 2.5 mm thickness steel sheet respectively. Specimens H1,
H2, H3 and I1, I2, I3 remained the same as that of G1, G2, G3 specimens
respectively except for the variation in the concrete strength of 38.80 N/mm2
and 45.20 N/mm2 respectively against the concrete strength of 33.10 N/mm2
of the later.
Beams of G, H, I series exhibited a prole with two layers of tension reinforce-
ment against the prole of specimens J, K, L with single layer of tension reinforce-
ment. The numbers in the J, K, L specimens represents the thickness of steel sheet
similar to that of G, H, I specimens. The compressive strength of J, K, L specimens
was 32.80 N/mm2, 38.30 N/mm2 and 44.20 N/mm2 respectively.
2.2. Test procedure and instrumentation
The beams were white washed at the surfaces before testing. The locations of
the supports, Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT) points to measure
deections were marked. A precision reaction frame of 50 ton capacity xed over
strong oor was used for testing. The beams were simply supported with an effec-
tive span of 2080 mm c/c. Two point loads were applied transversely at one fourth
distances from each support using a cross beam. A paste of plaster of paris was
spread at the two load points. Two distribution plates of 25 mm width were placed
on the plaster of paris and pressed into it to get a level surface, and this was checked
by a spirit level. Two rollers were placed over the distribution plates and a loading
beam (a rolled steel I-joist) was mounted on the beam.
LVDTs were used to measure the deection of the beams. One LVDT was kept at
the mid span of the beam and other two were kept under the loading points. A cur-
vature meter was used to determine the strains at the top and bottom most bers of
the beam section. Loading was applied by means of 20 ton power pack. The load ap-
plied by the power pack was measured using a Proving Ring of capacity 30 ton. The
behavior of the beams was keenly observed from the beginning till the collapse.
The appearance of the rst crack, the development and propagation of cracks due
to the increase of load were also recorded. The loading was continued beyond the
peak load. The test set up is shown in Fig. 4.
2.3. Theoretical model
2.3.1. Model assumptions
The following assumptions are made in the analytical study:
1. Plane sections remain plane even after bending.
2. The stressstrain curve for cold formed sheet is the same both in tension and
compression.
3. Tensile strength of concrete is neglected.
4. Compressive stress distribution is represented by a rectangular stress block.
5. The steel in the compression zone is neglected in the calculation of moment of
resistance.
6. The stress strain relationships for steel and concrete are elastic perfectly plastic.
The plastic strength of the steel is equal to fy (fy is the yield strength of the steel).
The plastic compressive strength of the concrete fc is equal to the characteristic
compressive design strength of the concrete material fck).
7. The enhancement in concrete strength due to partial connement provided by
prefabricated cage is taken as the partial safety factor for materials.
484 Chithra Rethnasamy et al. / Construction and Building Materials 38 (2013) 482490

15

15 15
15

15

120.20
120 200
200

34.80
35

15
15

15 35 50 35 15 15 32.80 54.40 32.80 15

150 150

Fig. 1. Typical cross sectional details of beam specimens (all dimensions are in mm).

Table 1
Mix proportions used for different test series.

Mix series (kg/m3) G, J H, K I, L

W/C ratio 0.40 0.40 0.38
Water 208 214 217
Cement 521 536 570
Fine aggregate 532 516 498
Coarse aggregate 1339 1093 1080

Table 2
Properties of hardened concrete.

Mix Characteristic compressive Initial tangent Split tensile

series strength (N/mm2) modulus (N/mm2) strength
(N/mm2)

Fig. 2. Fabrication of cage using CNC machine. G 33.10 0.288  105 3.38
H 38.80 0.311  105 3.97
I 45.20 0.336  105 4.60
J 32.80 0.286  105 3.33
K 38.30 0.309  105 3.92
L 44.20 0.332  105 4.60

Table 3
Mechanical properties of cold formed steel sheets.

Beam series Thickness (mm) Yield strength Youngs modulus

(N/mm2) (N/mm2)
G1, H1, I1 1.6 245.0 1.84  105
G2, H2, I2 2.0 262.0 1.81  105
G3, H3, I3 2.5 279.0 1.83  105
J1, K1, L1 1.6 397.0 2.01  105
J2, K2, L2 2.0 402.0 1.99  105
J3, K3, L3 2.5 404.0 2.01  105
Fig. 3. Fabricated cage for beams.
 Chithra Rethnasamy et al. / Construction and Building Materials 38 (2013) 482490 485

Load

Spreader Beam

Beam 200mm

LVDT
Strong Floor

520mm 1040mm

2080mm

Fig. 4. Test setup over strong oor.

2.3.2. Section analysis and exural capacity

The maximum possible strength of a composite beam can be calculated using b cu
the nonlinear techniques such as rigid plastic analysis [2]. The rigid plastic strength
is an upper bound to the strength of the composite beam and requires that all other
modes of failure do not occur prior to this strength being achieved. Furthermore it is Concrete in Compression Nc
also necessary to ensure that the composite beam has sufcient rotational capacity
to attain ultimate strength. In accordance with the plane section assumption, the
strain distribution across the section at ultimate stage is shown in Fig. 5. The stress
distribution in a section is shown in Fig. 6.
In this analysis it is found that the strength of concrete is enhanced due to par- d
tial connement provided by Prefabricated Cage reinforcement. This enhancement
due to connement is taken as partial safety factors. Hence, the maximum compres-
sive capacity of the concrete in the compression zone Cc and the maximum tensile
capacity of the steel in tension T can be calculated from the following equations:

C c fck bN c 1
Steel Section s
T fy Ast 2

where Ast is the area of the tension steel, Nc is the depth of Neutral axis, d and b is the Fig. 5. Strain distribution in section.
effective depth and the width of the beam respectively. Nc can be calculated by
equating Eqs. (1) and (2).
The theoretical exural strength (Mu the) of the PCRC beam can be described as:
2
b f ck
M u the fy Ast d  fck bN c =2 3

The theoretical exural strength of the PCRC beams is tabulated in Table 4. The
Concrete in Compression Nc
results demonstrated that the analytical expressions developed are in close agree-
ment with experimental results in predicting the exural strength in bending.

2.4. Finite element analysis

d
The main aim of conducting FE analysis was to provide a comparison with the
results obtained from the experimental and proposed analytical results. The general
purpose software package ANSYS 11.0 was used.

2.4.1. Finite element models

The PCRC beams tested under two point monotonic loading were used in
Steel Section
the numerical simulation. A non-linear 3D FE model was established, in which
only one fourth of the beam was considered due to symmetry. In the quarter fy
model, as the two sides of the beam are continuous, the displacement in the
direction perpendicular to the planes was arrested, and nodes at the end of Fig. 6. Stress distribution in a section.
the beam were restrained to represent the simple roll-supported condition as
shown in Fig. 7.
The concrete block was modeled with 8-node brick elements (element solid 65)
e0 2f c =Ec 5
and cold formed steel sheet was modeled with shell elements (element shell 63) as
shown in Fig. 8. The support and loading plates were modeled with 8-node brick The total strain in the non-linear region is calculated and corresponding stresses
elements (element solid 45). for the strains are found out by using the following equation:

Ec e
2.4.2. Constitutive model fc2;3;4  h i2  6
1 e
The stressstrain curve for concrete can be constructed by using the Desayi and e0
Krishnan [3] equations. Multi-linear kinematic behavior is assumed for the stress
strain relationship of concrete which is shown in Fig. 9. It is assumed that the curve where e is the strain at stress fc(2, 3, 4)
is linear up to 0.3fc (fc ultimate compressive strength). Therefore, the elastic The above input values are given as material properties for concrete to dene
stressstrain relation is enough for nding out the strain value e1 corresponding the non-linearity.
to stress fc as follows: In compression, the stressstrain curve of concrete is linearly elastic up to about
e1 fc1 =Ec 0:3f c =Ec 4 30% of the maximum compressive strength. Above this point, the stress increases
gradually up to the maximum compressive strength, and then descends into a
The ultimate strain e0 can be found out from the following equation: softening region, and eventually crushing failure occurs at an ultimate strain eo.
486 Chithra Rethnasamy et al. / Construction and Building Materials 38 (2013) 482490

Table 4
Experimental and analytical results.

Sl. Beam t fck (N/ Ast Pcr Py Pu q (Ast/ Mu exp Mu the Mu ANSYS Dy Du lD uy  104 uu  104 lu
no. Id (mm) mm2) (mm2) (kN) (kN) (kN) bd) (kN m) (kN m) (kN m) (mm) (mm) (mm1) (mm1)
1 G1 1.6 33.1 432 43.50 57.00 81.00 0.0171 20.574 16.398 17.948 4.00 70.40 17.60 0.178 1.489 8.37
2 G2 2.0 33.1 432 43.50 51.00 86.25 0.0169 21.908 18.323 20.320 8.00 73.10 9.14 0.221 1.840 8.33
3 G3 2.5 33.1 432 44.00 57.00 79.50 0.0188 20.193 17.770 21.133 9.00 57.69 6.41 0.100 1.813 8.13
4 RCC1 33.1 226 22.25 55.00 60.00 0.0084 15.240 10.00 61.00 6.10
5 H1 1.6 38.8 432 45.75 66.75 85.50 0.0171 21.717 16.694 19.159 4.00 87.70 21.93 0.151 1.395 9.23
6 H2 2.0 38.8 432 45.50 64.50 85.50 0.0169 21.717 18.555 22.017 7.00 75.42 10.77 0.153 1.383 9.04
7 H3 2.5 38.8 432 46.25 63.75 90.00 0.0188 22.860 17.990 22.250 8.00 55.27 6.91 0.121 1.080 8.93
8 RCC2 38.8 226 24.50 56.00 69.00 0.0084 17.526 7.00 67.00 9.57
9 I1 1.6 45.2 432 47.50 66.00 93.75 0.0171 23.813 16.880 20.919 5.00 106.40 21.28 0.224 2.201 9.83
10 I2 2.0 45.2 432 47.00 63.75 99.00 0.0169 25.146 18.746 22.962 5.00 91.80 18.36 0.191 1.785 9.34
11 I3 2.5 45.2 432 49.00 63.75 82.50 0.0188 20.955 18.170 23.409 5.00 60.20 12.04 0.105 0.956 9.10
12 RCC3 45.2 226 27.25 57.00 68.00 0.0084 17.272 10.00 84.00 8.40
13 J1 1.6 32.8 262 31.00 59.25 74.25 0.0102 18.860 16.635 14.841 2.50 63.10 25.24 0.188 1.769 9.41
14 J2 2.0 32.8 262 30.00 62.25 75.00 0.0099 19.050 17.080 15.646 5.00 90.20 18.04 0.226 1.939 8.58
15 J3 2.5 32.8 262 30.00 57.75 74.25 0.0099 18.860 17.359 16.312 5.00 81.10 16.22 0.178 1.452 8.16
16 K1 1.6 38.3 262 31.00 64.50 72.00 0.0102 18.288 16.793 16.012 4.00 98.50 24.63 0.147 1.334 9.07
17 K2 2.0 38.3 262 30.00 60.75 82.50 0.0099 20.955 17.240 16.662 5.00 83.30 16.66 0.173 1.498 8.66
18 K3 2.5 38.3 262 31.00 59.25 72.75 0.0099 18.479 17.523 17.396 6.00 92.80 15.47 0.197 1.624 8.24
19 L1 1.6 44.2 262 31.00 65.25 72.75 0.0102 18.479 16.919 16.947 4.00 76.60 19.15 0.230 2.000 8.70
20 L2 2.0 44.2 262 30.00 69.25 72.75 0.0099 18.479 17.367 17.150 7.00 102.80 14.69 0.253 2.092 8.27
21 L3 2.5 44.2 262 31.00 60.00 69.00 0.0099 17.526 17.654 17.363 6.00 79.90 13.32 0.166 1.342 8.08

Where t is the thickness of steel sheet, fck the compressive strength of concrete, Ast the area of bottom tension steel, Pcr the cracking load, Py the yield load, Pu the ultimate load,
P the reinforcement ratio(Ast/bd), Mu the the theoretical moment of resistance, Mu exp the experimental moment of resistance, Mu ANSYS the moment of resistance predicted in
ANSYS, Du the displacement at failure stage, Dy the displacement based on equivalent elasto-plastic yield, lD the displacement ductility factor, /y the curvature at which the
tension steel yields, uu the curvature corresponding to Du, l/ is the curvature ductility factor.

In tension, the stressstrain curve for concrete is approximately linearly elastic up
to the maximum tensile strength. After this point, the concrete cracks and the
strength decreases gradually to zero.
The steel for the nite element models was assumed to be an elastic-perfectly
plastic material [1] and identical in tension and compression. Properties like
youngs modulus and yield stress, for the steel reinforcement used in this nite ele-
ment study were found out by conducting the required tests on the sample speci-
mens. Poissons ratio of 0.3 was used for the steel reinforcement. Bilinear kinematic
material model is adopted for steel and Fig. 10 shows the stressstrain relationship
used in this study.
Failure load of each beam obtained in ANSYS are presented in Table 4. Deformed
shapes for J1 series specimen is shown in Fig. 11. Results of the numerical simula-
tions are compared with the experimental ndings. Apparently, good agreement is
obtained from the comparison showing that the proposed numerical simulation
method is applicable for analyzing the similar structures.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Test observations and failure mode
In PCRC beam specimens, no appreciable cracking was recog-
nized up to 50% of ultimate load. The cracking was very ne even
at 6070% of ultimate load. The cracks were equally spaced and
concentrated in the pure bending region. The number of cracks
varied from 912. Cracking in the exural span consists predomi-
nantly of vertical cracks. This is expected since the concrete, which
cracks perpendicular to the direction of maximum principal stress,
is subjected to longitudinal tensile stresses that are induced by the
pure moment. Initial crack propagation outside the pure moment
region was similar to exural cracking. With further increase in
the load, the cracks get widened.
On the other hand, in control specimens rst crack was initiated
in the mid span at 35% of ultimate load and then quickly propa-
gated into the upper surfaces. On further increase in load the spec-
imens failed in exural failure mode along with crushing of
concrete in the compression zone.
The test results for all PCRC specimens reveal a dramatic
enhancement in the exural behavior than the control specimens
due to connement provided by prefabricated cage reinforcement.
The crack patterns of the tested specimens shown in Fig. 12

Fig. 7. One forth model of the beam with loading. Fig. 8. Modelling of prefabricated cage.
 Chithra Rethnasamy et al. / Construction and Building Materials 38 (2013) 482490
Fig. 9. Simplied compressive uniaxial stressstrain curve for concrete.
Fig. 10. Stressstrain curve for steel.
indicates the exural tension failure mode and exhibit remarkable
similarities other than I3 beams. In I3 beam, prior to ultimate load
diagonal shear cracks were observed in the shear span extending
towards the loading point. As the loading increased further, crush-
ing of concrete occurred at compression zone near the loading
point which leads to the failure of the beam. Consequently, the
exural behavior and failure modes of the PCRC beams are much
favorable in terms of ductility and failure mode. Observed values
of loads at yield and collapse are given in Table 4.
3.2. Ultimate load carrying capacity
The results indicate that the ultimate load carrying capacity of
PCRC beam specimens is more than the control specimens. Table 4
shows the load carrying capacity of the tested specimens. It is
shown that the load carrying capacity of G series specimens exhibit
an average increase of 37% than the control specimen RCC1. Simi-
larly in H series specimens, 22% increase is noted than the control
specimen RCC2. In I series beams, the load carrying capacity is in-
creased by 28% when compared with the control specimen RCC3.
487
Fig. 11. Deformed shape of J1 series beam.
In case of J, K, L series specimens, the load carrying capacity is
decreased by 10%, 13% and 22% respectively when compared with
G, H, I specimens with same equivalent area of steel (Astfy) as that
of J, K, L specimens. This is due to the fact that in G, H, I series, more
surface area of concrete is conned by steel sheet than J, K, L series.
Due to the connement provided by prefabricated cage reinforce-
ment, the propagation of crack is prolonged and hence an in-
creased load carrying capacity is achieved.
Beams reinforced with prefabricated cage of 2 mm thickness
exhibited more load carrying capacity than the specimens with
1.6 mm and 2.5 mm thickness. The load carrying capacity is in-
creased with the thickness of steel sheet up to 2 mm thickness.
Specimens with 2.5 mm thick sheet exhibited more strength and
stiffness degradation in the post ultimate stage and hence shows
a reduced load carrying capacity when compared to specimens of
lesser thickness steel sheet.
In G, H, I series the ultimate load carrying capacity of G1, H1, I1
specimens with 1.6 mm thickness increased signicantly with the
increase in the grade of concrete whereas the specimens with
2.0 mm and 2.5 mm thickness had no consistent trend on increase
in concrete strength. The exural strength of J, K, L specimens was
not much inuenced by increasing the grade of concrete. The
488 Chithra Rethnasamy et al. / Construction and Building Materials 38 (2013) 482490

I1 I3 J3

Equal spaced cracks Diagonal Crack

Fig. 12. Failure pattern of PCRC beams.

ultimate load carrying capacity for all the nine beams was nearly
equal. This could be due to the fact that being under reinforced
specimens, the beams failed in exural mode by the yielding of
tension steel before concrete attaining its ultimate strain and
hence the inuence of grade of concrete was not noticeable.
3.3. Loaddeformation response
In the present work the load vs central deection for the tested
beams were used to clarify the failure type. The exural failure is
identied to take place in beams in which Prefabricated Cage yields

(a) 100 (b) 90

80
80
70
Load in kN

Load in kN

60
60
50
G3 Series 40 H1 Series
40
G2 Series 30 H2 Series
20 G1 Series 20 H3 Series
RCC1 10 RCC2
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 50 100
Deflection in mm Deflection in mm

(c) (d) 90
100 80
90
70
80
Load in kN

60
70
Load in kN

60 50
50 I1 Series 40
40 J1 Series
I2 Series 30
30 J2 Series
I3 Series 20 J3 Series
20
10 RCC3 10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100

Deflection in mm Deflection in mm

(e) (f) 90
90 80
80
70
70
Load in kN

60
Load in kN

60
50
50
40 L1 Series
40 K1 Series L2 Series
30 K2 Series 30
L3 Series
K3 Series 20
20
10 10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Deflection in mm Deflection in mm

Fig. 13. LoadDeection response of PCRC beams. (a) PD plot of G series; (b) PD plot of H series; (c) PD plot of I series; (d) PD plot of J series; (e) PD plot of K series and
(f) PD plot of L series.
 Chithra Rethnasamy et al. / Construction and Building Materials 38 (2013) 482490 489

rst and consequently the beams exhibit large plastic plateau prior
to failure. The exural failure is characterized by a very large in-
crease in deection for the same load or a very little increase of
load. Table 4 summarizes the experimental load and deection at
yield and ultimate stage for all test specimens.
The load vs corresponding deection curves were drawn for all
the beams and are shown in Fig. 13. These diagrams give a better
picture of the behavior of beams. A linear elastic response can be
seen in the load deection curves for all PCRC beams at the initial
loading stage. This is expected since the strains in the steel and
concrete are relatively small and both the materials are in the elas-
tic portion of their respective responses. Beyond the rst yield
capacity, the stiffness gradually degraded and the behavior of the
beams became more non-linear. The load deection response of
PCRC beams eventually converged to a second linear behavior with
a slope much lower than the initial stiffness.
To visualize qualitatively the energy absorption/dissipation
Fig. 15. Dy Based on equivalent elasto-plastic yield.
capacity of the tested beams, the area under load deformation
curves for all variables are compared in Fig. 14. The test results
indicate that PCRC specimens provide better energy dissipation curvature ductility factors based on yielding of steel and ultimate
capacity than similar conventional RC control specimens. This is stage are shown in Table 4.
especially important for seismic design applications where struc- From the Table 4, It can be seen that displacement ductility fac-
tures should be able to capable of sustaining large deformations tor (lD) based on equivalent elasto-plastic yield (Fig. 15) varied
without collapse. from 6.41 to 25.24 and curvature ductility factor (lu) varied from
8.08 to 9.83 for PCRC Beams. For the redistribution of moments to
be considered, a minimum ductility index lD of 3 is generally re-
3.4. Ductility quired [6]. Beam without compression reinforcement is very poor
in ductility whereas in PCRC beams, the provision of compression
In the practice of plastic design of structures, ductility denes steel in the form of horizontal strips coupled with stirrups in the
the ability of the structure to undergo deformations after its initial form of vertical continuous strips substantially improves the duc-
yield, without any signicant reduction in ultimate strength. The tility index. PCRC beam has better connement capacity than nor-
ductility of a structure allows us to predict the ultimate capacity mal RCC beams preventing the disintegration of concrete in the
of a structure, which is the most important criteria for designing compression zone even after the concrete cover has spalled off,
structures under conventional loads. thereby improving failure ductility. The vertical continuous strips
Two types of ductility factors were employed in this study: Dis- in Prefabricated Cage, acting as closely spaced stirrups in the max-
placement Ductility Factor, Curvature Ductility Factor. imum bending moment region can substantially improve the fail-
Ahmad and Batts [10] dened the displacement ductility factor ure ductility of PCRC beams. The major parameters affecting the
as the ratio of deection at ultimate (Du) to the deection at the ductility factors are hereby discussed.
yielding (Dy) of the tensile steel. Ultimate is dened as the stage The thickness of steel sheet is one of the dominant factors inu-
beyond which it was felt during the testing that the beam would encing the magnitudes of the ductility factor. Plots of displacement
not be able to sustain additional deformation at the same load ductility factor vs thickness of steel sheet (lD vs t) and curvature
intensity. ductility factor vs thickness of steel sheet (lu vs t) for G, H, I are
The ductility capacity of a section can be expressed in the form presented in Figs. 16 and 17. The plots clearly show that for the
of the curvature ductility lu = uu/uy, where uy is the curvature of same compressive strength, both ductility factors got reduced with
the section at rst yield of the tensile reinforcement, and uu is the the increase in the thickness of the steel sheet. In beams with steel
maximum curvature corresponding to a ultimate stage [7]. The

25
I3 fck = 33.1MPa
Displacement Ductility factor

fck=38.8MPa
I2
20 fck=45.2MPa
I1
H3 15

H2
10
H1
G3
5

G2
Energy absorption before yield
G1 Energy absorption after yield 0
1 2 3
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Thickness of steel sheet in mm
Energy Absorption in N-m
Fig. 16. Inuence of thickness of steel sheet on displacement ductility factor G, H
Fig. 14. Comparison of energy absorption capacity. and I series.
490 Chithra Rethnasamy et al. / Construction and Building Materials 38 (2013) 482490

10  The displacement ductility factors based on elasto-plastic yield

fck = 33.1MPa
varied from 6.41 to 25.44 and curvature ductility factor (lu)
fck=38.8MPa
varied from 8.08 to 9.83 which clearly indicated that all the
Curvature Ductility factor

9.5
fck=45.2MPa
9  Ultimate deections of the PCRC beams with sheet of 1.6 mm
8.5
8
7.5
7 bility conditions, the equation for exural strength is arrived.
1 2
Thickness of steel sheet in mm
Fig. 17. Inuence of thickness of steel sheet on curvature ductility factor G, H and
I series.
sheet of larger thickness, a brittle nature of behavior was observed
while beams with lesser thickness sheet exhibited a ductile behav-
ior. This could be attributed to the fact that the degree of conne-
ment provided by steel sheet of lesser thickness is more than the
higher thickness ones for the same cross sectional area. The con-
nement provided by prefabricated cage reinforcement delays
crack initiation and propagation and hence impart more ductility
to specimens with lesser thickness.
4. Conclusions
Eighteen specimens were designed, fabricated and tested to
investigate the exural behavior of PCRC beams. The LoadDeec-
tion curves were plotted and the failure mode of each specimen
was recorded and studied carefully. Based on the test observations,
the following conclusions can be drawn.
 Higher degree of connement in PCRC beams delayed rst
cracking load. At ultimate, the failure of beams occurred only
by the yielding of steel and exhibited a better ultimate behavior.
 All the beams exhibited nearly 912 equally spaced vertical
cracks in the pure bending region.
 The ultimate load carrying capacity of PCRC beam specimens is
more than the RCC control specimens.
PCRC beam specimens exhibited good ductility in bending.
thickness were found to be higher than those of beams with
sheet thickness 2 mm and 2.5 mm. This could be attributed to
the fact that a steel sheet of reduced thickness has lower
stiffness.
 Evidences from test indicated that, the increase in energy
absorption capacity of PCRC beams beyond yield is nearly ten
times as that of the capacity up to yielding of tension steel.
 From the fundamental laws of force equilibrium and compati-
3 The analytical expressions developed are in full agreement with
experimental results in predicting the ultimate strength in
bending.
 The proposed three-dimensional FE model is able to simulate
the overall exural behavior of PCRC beams and results
obtained track well the experimental as well as the predicted
theoretical results.
References
[1] Oehlers Deric J, Bradford Mark A. Composite steel and concrete structural
members: fundamental behavior. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1995.
[2] Oehlers Deric J. Composite proled beams. J Struct Eng ASCE 1993;119(4):
1085100.
[3] Desayi P, Krishnan S. Equation for stressstrain curve of concrete. J ACI
1964:3459.
[4] Sezen Halil, Shamsai Mohammad. Behavior of normal strength concrete
columns reinforced with prefabricated cage system. Structures congress;
2006. p. 74.
[5] Sezen Halil, Shamsai Mohammad. High-strength concrete columns reinforced
with prefabricated cage system. J Struct Eng ASCE 2008;134(5):7507.
[6] Sin Lim Hwee, Huan Wee Tiong, Islam Md Raqual, Mansur Md Abul.
Reinforced lightweight concrete beams in exure. ACI Struct J 2011;108(1):
312.
[7] Al-Haddad Mohammad S. Curvature ductility of reinforced concrete beams
under low and high strain rates. ACI Struct J 1995;92(5):52634.
[8] Shamsai Mohammad, Sezen Halil. Fast and easy concrete construction using
innovative steel reinforcement. Construction research congress; 2005.
[9] Shamsai Mohammad, Whitlatch Earl, Sezen Halil. Economic evaluation of
reinforced concrete structures with columns reinforced with prefabricated
cage system. J Constr Eng Manage ASCE 2007;133(11):86470.
[10] Ahmad Shuaib H, Batts Jaime. Flexural behavior of doubly reinforced high-
strength lightweight beams with web reinforcement. ACI Struct J
1991;88(3):3518.