Strength Enhancement in Concrete Confined by Spirals

Supervised by: Dr. K. Baskaran

Group Members: U. Kaneswaran J. Reginthan H.M.P. Perera

Introduction & Experiment 1

H.M.P. Perera

Introduction
This is not a widely used technology in construction industry Strength of the concrete can be enhanced by the confinement effect using spirals Confinement increases the ductility of concrete The spiral reinforcement can be used to prevent the punching shear failure of flat slabs

Introduction cont..

The shear carrying capacity of spiral is due to,

Direct tension induced in spirals Enhanced strength of concrete due to confinement

Failures Due to Lack of Confinement

Advantages of Using Spiral to Increase the Confinement

Increase the ductility and strength of the concrete Prevent spalling of concrete Prevent buckling of longitudinal reinforcement Give good response to seismic effect Give warning before failure Easy to install

Objectives
Determine the anchorage depth of the spiral Identify the shear strength enhancement in beams due to spiral reinforcement Identify the shear strength enhancement in flat slab due to spiral reinforcement Find the equation to calculate shear enhancement in beams

Experiment 1

Diameter of the spiral = 118mm Diameter of steel = 5.8mm D = Embedded depth inside the concrete

Testing arrangement

Experiment Results
Depth of spiral (mm) 26 33 43 48 53 58 Failure load (kN) 7.32 11.12 13.35 16.46 18.91 17.8 Mode of failure Pullout Shear Shear Block shear Fracture of steel Fracture of steel

60 61
63 66 68

17.8 15.57
15.57 13.35 13.35

Fracture of steel Fracture of steel

Fracture of steel Fracture of steel Fracture of steel

Mode of Failures

Pullout Failure

Shear Failure

Mode of Failures cont.

Block Shear Failure

Fracture of Steel

Conclusion Regarding Experiment 1

The anchorage depth of the spiral is 26mm The anchorage depth depends on the strength of concrete and diameter of spiral

Experiment 2 & 3
J. Reginthan

Experiment 2
Beam Identification Beam A Beam B Description Without any reinforcement Reinforced with 2 Nos. of T16 bars at the bottom Reinforced with 2 Nos. of T16 bars at the bottom Beam C and the spiral having the pitch of 30 mm and 108 mm centre to centre diameter

Testing Arrangement

Experimental Results

Failure loads
Beam Identification
Beam A Beam B Beam C 200 Load (kN) 150 100 50 0

Failure Load (kN)

17.66 109.87 155.00

B Beam

Experimental Results cont..

Failure modes
Beam Identification
Beam A Beam B Beam C

Failure Mode
Flexural Shear Shear

Flexural Failure

Shear Failure

Experimental Results cont..

Load VS Deflection
180.0
160.0 140.0 120.0 Load (kN) 100.0

Beam A
80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Deflection (mm) 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Beam B Beam C

Experimental Results cont..

14.00 12.00 10.00

Strain VS Load

8.00
Strain (10-6 ) 6.00 4.00 CH 1 2.00 0.00 0.00 -2.00 -4.00 -6.00 CH 2

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

Load (kN)

Beam C

Experiment 3
Beam Identification Description

Beam D
Beam E

Reinforced with 2 Nos. of T16 bars at the bottom

Reinforced with 2 Nos. of T16 bars at the bottom and the spiral having the pitch of 30 mm and 108 mm centre to centre diameter Reinforced with 2 Nos. of T16 bars at the bottom and the spiral having the pitch of 45 mm and 108 mm centre to centre diameter Reinforced with 2 Nos. of T16 bars at the bottom and the spiral having the pitch of 60 mm and 108 mm centre to centre diameter

Beam F

Beam G

Experimental Results

Failure loads
Beam Identification D
E F G 150 Load (kN) 100 50 0 D E F Beam G

Failure Load (kN) 109.87

149.11 139.30 127.53

Experimental Results cont..

Load Vs Deflection
160.00

140.00
120.00 100.00 Load (kN) 80.00 60.00 40.00 Beam G 20.00 0.00 0.00 Beam E

Beam D

Beam F

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00 2.50 3.00 Deflection (mm)

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Experimental Results cont..

Strain VS Load
10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 0 -4 -6 -8 -10 Strain (10-6) Strain (10-6) 10 8 6 4 2 0 -20.00 -4 -6 -8 -10 Load (kN)

Strain VS Load

CH 1 50 100 150 200 CH 2

CH 1 50.00 100.00 150.00 CH 2

Load (kN)

Beam E Strain VS Load

3 2 Strain (10-6) 1 0 -10.00 -2 50.00 100.00 150.00

Beam F

CH 1 CH 2

-3
-4 -5 Load (kN)

Beam G

Conclusion Regarding Beam Test

There is a significant increase in shear carrying capacity when spiral is used as shear reinforcement The pitch of the spiral should be selected as greater than (hagg+5)mm

Experiment 4 & Design Methods

U. Kaneswaran

Experiment 4

Dimensions of the slab panel Width =1200mm Length = 1200mm Thickness = 150mm Specimens tested Panel A : no spiral reinforcement Panel B : with spiral reinforcement

Reinforcement Arrangement
Panel A

Panel B

Testing Arrangement

Experimental Results
Failure loads
Slab panel A B Failure load (kN) 262.1 299

Strength enhancement in panel B = 36.9 kN Load VS Deflection

300
250 200 Load (kN) 150 100 50 0 0.00

Panel B Panel A

2.00

4.00 6.00 Deflection (mm)

8.00

10.00

Experimental Results cont..

Strain variation in spirals with load for panel B

1000

800

600

Strain ()

400

@ column face @ 1.5d away from column face

200

@ 1.5d away from column face

0 0 -200 50 100 150 200 250 300

-400

Load (kN)

Crack pattern

Panel A

Panel B

Conclusion Regarding Experiment 5

There is a significant increase in load carrying capacity (36.9kN) Spirals were not yielded under the direct tension induced on them The deflection of panel B is higher than panel A at failure

Design Methods

There are two design methods available to calculate the shear carrying capacity of spirals
Average integration method Discrete method

Average Integration Method

Proposed by Ghee
Considers spiral geometry by a factor k = /4

Discrete Method

Considers the exact variation of spiral contribution to shear force due to spiral geometry

Arrangement of Spiral and Failure Surface

Beam D

Beam E

Beam G

Expected Results VS Actual Results

Average integration method

Beam E F G Expected enhancement (kN) 32.31 25.17 15.85 Actual enhancement (kN) 39.24 29.43 17.66

The actual enhancement is higher than the expected shear enhancement

Expected Results VS Actual Results

Discrete method
Beam E F G Expected enhancement (kN) 50.53 38.59 24.50 Actual enhancement (kN) 39.24 29.43 17.66

The expected shear enhancement is higher then the actual shear enhancement

Conclusion Regarding Available Design Methods

The actual shear enhancement is closer to the expected shear enhancement calculated using average integration method In the average integration method the actual contribution from the spiral geometry is not considered More specimens has to be tested with different diameter of spirals to identify the best method to calculate the shear enhancement of spirals

Future works to be done

Find the anchorage length of different diameter of spirals Test different sizes of beams with different diameter of spirals and different pitches Test the slab panel with different arrangement of spirals

Thank you