JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
| dc.contributor.author | Yeshiwa, Asmare Mengstu | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-12-01T11:00:34Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-12-01T11:00:34Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022-02 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://ir.bdu.edu.et/handle/123456789/14674 | |
| dc.description.abstract | In this study, the impact of reinforcement details on the behavior of a reinforced concrete dapped end beam is investigated. The performance of four regularly used alternative reinforcement layouts (one of which is high capacity) is evaluated and compared using a dapped end beam. If the joints are incapable of bearing the forces and deformations caused by the transfer of forces among the elements meeting at the joint, the structural behavior will differ from what was predicted in the analysis and design. A key objective in structural design is to create structures that have adequate capacity for the load they would be subjected to their design life. So, how does the reinforcement detailing support or prevent the achievement of this objective? The research includes a finite element study of four proposed detailing systems in the literature specimens: reference specimen, no diagonal rebar, no U-rebar, and reduced stirrup, as well as RL1, RL2, RL3, and RL4 calculated using STM calculations. The effect of various chamfer sizes at the re-entrant corner, stirrup, diagonal rebar, U-rebar, varied percentages of reinforcement ratio, and end anchorage longitudinal (compression and tensile) reinforcement at 90 and 45 degrees are also investigated. Reinforcement layout RL4 had higher capacity than compared from other reinforcement layout RL1, RL2, and RL3 by 31.16%, 62.28% and 1.03% respectively. Reinforcement ratio 2% was 45.67%, 30.84%, 7.5%, 12.325% and 4.39% greater performance and load capacity than comparison from the reinforcement ratio 0.76%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.54%, and 1.715% respectively. RL1 with chamfer size C-4 had 17.82%, 13.3%, and 6.2% high ultimate load capacity compared from DEB with chamfer size C-1, C-2 and C-3 respectively. According to the result, providing transversal (stirrups) and diagonal rebar, increasing reinforcement percentage ratio, increasing chamfer size, and longitudinal (compression and tensile) reinforcement end anchorage at 45 degrees in the joint improves the joint region's strength and deformation capacity. Keywords: Dapped-end beam, Strut-and-tie, Load-capacity, Re-entrant corner | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.subject | CIVIL AND WATER RESOURCE ENGINEERING | en_US |
| dc.title | EVALUATION OF REINFORCEMENT DETAILING IN REINFORCED CONCRETE CORNER DAPPED END BEAM JOINTS | en_US |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_US |
