Upload
others
View
14
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1187 [email protected]
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 8, Issue 9, September 2017, pp. 1187–1199, Article ID: IJCIET_08_09_134
Available online at http://http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=9
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
EFFECT OF HAUNCHED BEAMS IN MOMENT
RESISTING RC FRAMES
Venna Mythilee Priyanka
Department of Civil Engineering,
Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, India
M. Pavan Kumar
Department of Civil Engineering,
SVP Engineering College, Visakhapatnam, India
Dr. G.V.S. Raj Kumar
Department of IT,
GITAM University, Visakhapatnam, India
Duba Vishalakshi
Department of Civil Engineering,
Govt Polytechnic, Visakhapatnam, India
ABSTRACT
The need of experimental studies on the motorized behavior of reinforced concrete
(RC) Haunched beams leads to difficulties in statistical and reliability analysis. This
study performs the analysis of RC framed structure with Haunched beams. Structures
composed of Haunched beams, have been recently adopted for many high-rise
buildings. STAAD pro has been used for the analysis of RC framed structure with
Haunched beams. This paper is concerned with the effects of stiffness attained by
considering Haunched beams on the seismic response of a structure and the main
objective is to carry out the linear static (seismic coefficient) and linear dynamic
(response spectrum) analysis on RC building frames modelled with and without
Haunched beams for ten storeys at all seismic zones in India considering IS 1893
(Part 1): 2002 and compare the results of analysis (lateral displacements and natural
period). From the results analysis, it was observed that there is an increase in the
stiffness of RC frame with Haunched beams than that of the RC frame without
Haunched beams.
Key words: Haunched beams, Stiffness, RC frames, Lateral displacement, STAAD
pro.
Cite this Article: Venna Mythilee Priyanka, M. Pavan Kumar, Dr. G.V.S. Raj Kumar,
Duba Vishalakshi. Effect of Haunched Beams in Moment Resisting RC Frames.
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(9), 2017, pp. 1187–
1199.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=9
Effect of Haunched Beams in Moment Resisting RC Frames
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1188 [email protected]
1. INTRODUCTION
Haunched beam is a beam whose cross section is thicker at the supports than in the middle of
the span. Haunched beams are used in buildings for many reasons among them as they favor a
more efficient use of materials to clear a given span or to provide a reasonable clear height for
the storeys of buildings. Indeed, tapered elements in general and Haunched beams in
particular have been traditionally difficult to model in a practical manner. This was the main
reason for which most commercial software did not include them in their elements libraries
for many years. In fact, it was in 2000’s the leading worldwide commercial software for
structural analysis such as STAAD pro started to include them in their element libraries.
Reinforced concrete (RC) Haunched beams are widely used as bridges or portal frames
and precast roof girders, there is a lack of studies in the literature investigating this topic
Scarce in experimental studies is the main obstacle to include this topic in details by
international building practice codes. As a result of various experimental studies (Nilson, et
al. 2011), it can be concluded that the behavior and failure of the RC Haunched beams differs
as compared to prismatic section RC beams. The researchers (Tena colunga, 2012) ,
(Archundia-Aranda, et al. 2013) proved that the depth variance along the beam has a clear
influence on the shear behaviour as well as shear capacity (Albegmprli, et al. 2015).
During an earthquake, failure of structure starts at points of weakness. This weakness
arises due to discontinuity in mass, stiffness and geometry of structure. The structures having
this discontinuity are termed as irregular structures. Irregular structures contribute a large
portion of urban infrastructure. Irregularities are one of the major reasons of failures of
structures during earthquakes. For example structures with soft storey were the most notable
structures which collapsed. So, the effect of irregularities in the seismic performance of
structures becomes really important. Height-wise changes in stiffness and mass render the
dynamic characteristics of these buildings different from the 'regular' building. According to
IS 1893: 2002, structure withstand moderate level of earthquake ground motion without
structural damage, but possibly with some structural as well as non-structural damage. In
present study, the earthquake analysis for ten storeyed buildings was done by both linear
static analysis and linear dynamic (Response Spectrum) analysis.
2. METHODOLOGY
The plan and elevation of ten storeyed reinforced concrete buildings with and without
considering Haunched beams are shown in the fig 1& fig 2.
Figure 1 Plan of the RC framed structure (All dimensions in m)
Venna Mythilee Priyanka, M. Pavan Kumar, Dr. G.V.S. Raj Kumar, Duba Vishalakshi
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1189 [email protected]
Figure 2 Elevation of 10 storeyed RC Framed Structure
2.1. Geometrical Configuration
Ten storeyed reinforced concrete buildings which are modelled without Haunched beams and
with Haunched beams are considered. Figure shows the plan of the three buildings. Storey
height of each building is assumed as 3.0m. Fig 3 shows the column positions of the RC
building. Fig 4 and Fig 5 shows the 3D rendered view of RC frames without Haunched beams
and RC frames with Haunched beams.
Beam cross sections for ten storeyed RC model at seismic zone II, III, IV and V – 230 mm
x 630 mm. Column cross sections for ten storeyed RC model at seismic zone II, III, IV and V
– 380 mm x 750 mm. Beam Cross section for Haunched beam1: The width of the Haunched
beam is constant that is 230 mm and the depth of the beam is varies from 400 mm to 630
mm.Beam Cross section for Haunched beam2: The width of the Haunched beam is constant
that is 230 mm and the depth of the beam is varies from 630 mm to 830 mm.
2.2. 3D views of the RC Framed Structures used for Analysis
Figure 3 3D view of the RC frame structure without Haunched beams
Effect of Haunched Beams in Moment Resisting RC Frames
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1190 [email protected]
Figure 4 3D view of the RC frame structure with Haunched beam1
Figure 5 3D view of the RC frame structure with Haunched beam2
2.3. Structural Analysis and Design
The steps required to analyse and design a structure using STAAD Pro V8i are represented by
a flow chart as shown below:
Figure 6 Flow chart showing Methodology of the Present Study
Venna Mythilee Priyanka, M. Pavan Kumar, Dr. G.V.S. Raj Kumar, Duba Vishalakshi
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1191 [email protected]
3. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
The results for linear static and linear dynamic analysis are calculated. The results are given
for Mode number & natural period, lateral displacements and base shear of the RC frames
with and without Haunched beams for ten storeys RC framed structure for seismic zones II,
III, IV & V respectively.
3.1. Linear Static Analysis
The analysis for load combinations is carried out for positive and negative X & Z directions
after defining the seismic definition. The corresponding lateral displacements at each and
every storey height from the ground level for the three models (RF, RFHB1 & RFHB2) with
and without Haunched beams for the seismic zones II, III, IV & V are compared below.
Case (i) Regular Frame (RF)
Table 1 Lateral displacements of RF
Storey Height
(m)
Lateral Displacement (mm)
ZONE-II ZONE-III ZONE-IV ZONE-V
32 47.236 75.787 113.855 170.957
29 46.126 73.785 110.664 165.981
26 43.568 69.704 104.553 156.826
23 40.089 64.139 96.206 144.308
20 35.865 57.38 86.067 129.098
17 31.072 49.71 74.561 111.839
14 25.87 41.38 62.076 93.109
11 20.397 32.63 48.941 73.408
8 14.758 23.612 35.416 53.122
5 9.082 11.639 21.586 32.303
2 2.522 3.935 5.819 8.645
Case (ii) Regular Frame with Haunched Beam1 (RFHB1)
Table 2 Lateral displacements of RFHB1
Storey
Height (m)
Lateral Displacement (mm)
ZONE-II ZONE-III ZONE-IV ZONE-V
32 41.478 65.11 96.62 143.884
29 40.336 63.265 93.837 139.694
26 38.037 59.727 88.647 132.028
23 34.983 54.971 81.622 121.598
20 31.319 49.241 73.136 108.98
17 27.194 42.777 63.554 94.72
14 22.744 35.797 53.202 79.309
11 18.086 28.491 42.365 63.176
8 13.308 21.004 31.266 46.659
5 8.499 13.405 19.946 29.758
2 2.477 3.856 5.693 8.45
Effect of Haunched Beams in Moment Resisting RC Frames
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1192 [email protected]
Case (iii) Regular Frame with Haunched Beam2 (RFHB2)
Table 3 Lateral displacements of RFHB2
Storey Height (m) Lateral Displacement (mm)
ZONE-II ZONE-III ZONE-IV ZONE-V
32 24.805 39.521 59.142 88.57
29 24.221 38.498 57.535 86.89
26 22.925 36.443 54.468 81.505
23 21.192 33.688 50.35 75.343
20 19.122 30.396 45.427 67.975
17 16.805 26.711 39.918 59.729
14 14.32 22.759 34.012 50.89
11 11.734 18.65 27.871 41.702
8 9.1 14.469 21.628 32.367
5 6.45 10.233 15.277 22.844
2 2.086 3.261 4.828 7.179
Comparison of Lateral Displacement for RF, RFHB1 & RFHB2
Figure 7 Comparison of Lateral Displacement of RC frame with and without Haunched Beams
(RFHB1, RFHB2) at seismic Zone-II obtained by Linear Static Analysis.
Figure 8 Comparison of Lateral Displacement of RC frame with and without Haunched beams
(RFHB1, RFHB2) at seismic Zone-III obtained by Linear Static Analysis.
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
La
tera
l D
isp
lace
men
t
(mm
)
Height (meters)
RF
RFHB1
RFHB2
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
La
tera
l D
isp
lace
men
t (m
m)
Height (meters)
Venna Mythilee Priyanka, M. Pavan Kumar, Dr. G.V.S. Raj Kumar, Duba Vishalakshi
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1193 [email protected]
Figure 9 Comparison of Lateral Displacement of RC frame with and without Haunched Beams
(RFHB1, RFHB2) at seismic Zone-IV obtained by Linear Static Analysis.
Figure 10 Comparison of Lateral Displacement of RC frame with and without Haunched Beams
(RFHB1, RFHB2) at seismic Zone-V obtained by Linear Static Analysis.
From the above figures 7, 8, 9 and 10, it is observed that there was a decrease in lateral
displacement of RC frame with Haunched beams (RFHB1& RFHB2) when compared to the
RC frame without Haunched beams. The percentage of decrease in the lateral displacements
of the RC frames with Haunched beams for RFHB1 & RFHB2 at seismic zone II & III are
12% and 47, seismic zone IV & V are 15% and 48% respectively when compared with
regular frame without Haunched beams.
3.2. Linear Dynamic Analysis
The analysis for load combinations is carried out for positive X & Z directions after defining
the Response Spectrum load case. The corresponding lateral displacements and base shear at
each and every storey height from the ground level and the natural period with respect to
modes for the three models (RF, RFHB1& RFHB2) with and without Haunched beams for
the seismic zones II, III, IV & V are compared below.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32L
ate
ra
l D
isp
lace
men
t
(mm
)
Height (meters)
020406080
100120140160180200
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
La
tera
l D
isp
lace
men
t
(mm
)
Height (meters)
Effect of Haunched Beams in Moment Resisting RC Frames
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1194 [email protected]
Case (i) :Regular Frame Lateral isplacements
Table 4 Lateral displacements of Regular Frame
Storey Height (m) Lateral Displacement (mm)
Zone-II Zone-III Zone-IV Zone-V
32 81.524 130.648 196.147 294.396
29 80.376 128.585 192.863 289.281
26 77.157 123.447 185.168 277.748
23 72.313 115.698 173.545 260.315
20 65.97 105.548 158.319 237.475
17 58.275 93.235 139.849 209.77
14 49.41 79.05 118.571 177.852
11 39.578 63.32 94.976 142.46
8 28.99 46.383 69.572 104.357
5 17.818 28.418 42.552 63.752
2 4.839 7.642 11.38 16.986
Case(ii): Regular Frame with Haunched Beam1
Table 5 Lateral displacements of RFHB1
Case (iii): Regular Frame with Haunched Beam2
Table 6 Lateral displacements of RFHB2
Storey Height (m) Lateral Displacement (mm)
Zone-II Zone-III Zone-IV Zone-V
32 69.155 109.394 163.045 243.521
29 68.069 107.638 160.397 239.535
26 65.273 103.304 154.013 230.076
23 61.175 96.878 144.482 215.888
20 55.881 88.54 132.085 197.404
17 49.512 78.485 117.116 175.063
14 42.213 66.948 99.928 149.398
11 34.154 54.2 80.928 121.02
8 25.505 40.519 60.538 90.567
5 16.375 26.007 38.849 58.112
2 4.702 7.416 11.034 16.461
Storey Height (m) Lateral Displacement (mm)
Zone-II Zone-III Zone-IV Zone-V
32 42.929 68.519 102.639 153.816
29 42.43 67.633 101.238 151.641
26 40.889 65.186 97.582 146.117
23 38.608 61.555 92.15 138.04
20 35.646 56.834 85.084 127.458
17 32.063 51.123 76.536 114.654
14 27.935 44.543 66.687 99.901
11 23.348 37.232 55.744 83.51
8 18.396 29.342 43.938 65.831
5 13.099 20.871 31.234 46.777
2 4.165 6.587 9.817 14.661
Venna Mythilee Priyanka, M. Pavan Kumar, Dr. G.V.S. Raj Kumar, Duba Vishalakshi
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1195 [email protected]
020406080
100120140160180200
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
La
tera
l
Dis
pla
cem
ent(
mm
)
Height (meters)
Comparison of Lateral Displacement for RF, RFHB1 & RFHB2
Figure 11 Comparison of Lateral Displacement of RC frame with and without Haunched beams
(RFHB1, RFHB2) at seismic Zone-II obtained by Linear Dynamic Analysis.
Figure 12 Comparison of Lateral Displacement of RC frame with and without Haunched beams
(RFHB1, RFHB2) at seismic Zone-III obtained by Linear Dynamic Analysis.
Figure 13 Comparison of Lateral Displacement of RC frame with and without Haunched beams
(RFHB1, RFHB2) at seismic Zone-IV obtained by Linear Dynamic Analysis.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
La
tera
l D
isp
lace
men
t(m
m)
Height (meters)
0102030405060708090
100110120130140150
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
La
tera
l
Dis
pla
cem
ent(
mm
)
Height (meters)
Effect of Haunched Beams in Moment Resisting RC Frames
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1196 [email protected]
020406080
100120140160180200220240260280300
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
La
tera
l
Dis
pla
cem
ent(
mm
)
Height (meters)
Figure 14 Comparison of Lateral Displacement of RC frame with and without Haunched beams
(RFHB1, RFHB2) at seismic Zone-V obtained by Linear Dynamic Analysis.
From the Figures 11, 12, 13 and 14, it is observed that there was a decrease in lateral
displacement of RC frame with Haunched beams (RFHB1&RFHB2) when compared to the
RC frame without Haunched beams. The percentage of decrease in the lateral displacements
of the RC frames with Haunched beams for RFHB1 & RFHB2 at seismic zone II are 15% and
47%, seismic zone III & IV are 16% and 47% , seismic Zone-V are 17% and 47%
respectively when compared regular frame without Haunched beams.
3.3. Natural Period and Frequency
The Natural period and frequency for a Regular Frame(RF), Regular frame with Haunched
beam1(RFHB1) and Regular frame with Haunched beam2(RFHB2) at each mode are given
below. Table 7 Frequency and time period for mode shapes
Mode
RF RFHB1 RFHB2
Frequency
Hz
Period
seconds
Frequency
Hz
Period
seconds
Frequency
Hz
Period
seconds
1 0.291 3.432 0.355 2.818 0.431 2.318
2 0.317 3.155 0.389 2.57 0.489 2.044
3 0.329 3.041 0.399 2.508 0.509 1.963
4 0.389 2.568 0.596 1.677 0.719 1.392
5 0.477 2.095 0.791 1.264 0.951 1.052
6 0.477 2.095 0.795 1.258 0.959 1.043
Comparison of natural period of RC frame with and without Haunched beams
Figure 15 Comparison of natural period of RC frame with and without Haunched beams (RFHB1,
RFHB2)
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
4
1 2 3 4 5 6
PER
IOD
(Se
c)
MODE
RF
RFHB1
RFHB2
Venna Mythilee Priyanka, M. Pavan Kumar, Dr. G.V.S. Raj Kumar, Duba Vishalakshi
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1197 [email protected]
The percentage of decrease in the natural period of the RC frameswith Haunched beams1
for the Mode numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 are 17%, 18%, 17%, 34%, 39% & 40% respectively
when compared regular frame.
The percentage of decrease in the natural period of the RC frames with Haunched beam2
for the Mode numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 are32%, 35%, 35%, 34%, 39% & 40% respectively
when compared regular frame.
3.4. Base Shear
The base shear of a Regular frame with Haunched beam1 at each and every storey height
from the ground level with respect to all zones are given below
Table 8 Base Shear of Regular frame
HEIGHT BASE SHEAR (KN)
Zone-II Zone-III Zone-IV Zone-V
32 255.82 409.31 613.96 920.94
29 645.21 1032.33 1548.5 2322.75
26 978.28 1565.25 2347.87 3521.81
23 1289.55 2063.28 3094.92 4642.38
20 1571.33 2514.13 3771.2 5656.8
17 1817.48 2907.97 4361.96 6542.94
14 2022.66 3236.25 4854.37 7281.56
11 2182.52 3492.04 5238.05 7857.08
8 2294.6 3671.36 5507.04 8260.56
5 2346.14 3753.83 5630.74 8446.11
2 2349.9 3759.84 5639.75 8459.62
Table 9 Base Shear of RFHB1
HEIGHT BASE SHEAR (KN)
Zone-II Zone-III Zone-IV Zone-V
32 278.36 445.37 668.05 1102.08
29 740.14 1184.22 1776.33 2664.49
26 1124.86 1799.78 2699.67 4049.51
23 1486.36 2378.17 3567.26 5350.88
20 1815.6 2904.95 4357.43 6536.14
17 2105.84 3369.34 5054.02 7581.02
14 2351.11 3761.77 5642.66 8463.98
11 2546.33 4074.13 6111.2 9166.8
8 2688.4 4301.44 6452.15 9678.23
5 2752.84 4404.54 6606.81 9910.21
2 2759.07 4414.51 6621.76 9932.64
Table 10 Base Shear of RFHB2
HEIGHT BASE SHEAR (KN)
Zone-II Zone-III Zone-IV Zone-V
32 302.72 484.36 726.54 1089.81
29 759.14 1214.62 1821.93 2732.9
26 1155.08 1848.13 2772.19 4158.29
23 1528.98 2446.37 3669.56 5504.33
20 1872.95 2996.72 4495.08 6742.62
17 2180.94 3489.51 5234.26 7851.39
14 2447.57 3916.11 5874.16 8811.24
11 2668.17 4269.07 6403.62 9605.42
8 2839.77 4543.64 6815.46 10223.19
5 2931.79 4690.86 7036.3 10554.45
2 2940.45 4704.71 7057.08 10585.61
Effect of Haunched Beams in Moment Resisting RC Frames
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1198 [email protected]
From the above, it was observed that there was an increase in Base Shear of RC frame
with Haunched beams (RFHB1&RFHB2) when compared to the RC frame without Haunched
beams. The percentage of increase in the Base Shear of the RC frames with Haunched beams
for RFHB1& RFHB2 at all seismic Zones are 17% and 25% respectively when compared
with regular frame without Haunched beams.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of RC frames with and without Haunched beams has been carried out for ten
storeyed model at all seismic zones in India as per code IS: 1893:2002 by using linear static
analysis and linear dynamic analysis. Based on the analysis of results and discussions thereon
the following conclusions are shown
For ten storeyed regular RC frames, it was observed that there was an increase in lateral
displacement of RC frame at seismic Zones III, IV & V are 37%, 58% and 72% respectively
by linear static analysis and 37%, 58% and 72% respectively by linear dynamic analysis with
respect to seismic Zone II.
For ten storeyed regular RC frame with Haunched beam1, it was observed that there was an
increase in lateral displacement of RC frame at seismic Zones III; IV & V are 36%, 57% and
71% respectively by linear static analysis and 36%, 58% and 71% respectively by linear
dynamic analysis with respect to Zone II.
For ten storeyed regular RC frame with Haunched beam2, it was observed that there was an
increase in lateral displacement of RC frame at seismic Zones III, IV & V are are 37%, 58%
and 71% respectively by linear static analysis and 37%, 58% and 72% respectively by linear
dynamic analysis with respect to Zone II.
For RC frame with Haunched beam1, it was observed that there was a decrease in lateral
displacement when compared to the regular RC frame are 12%, 14%, 15% and 15%
respectively by linear static analysis and 15%, 16% ,16 % and 17% respectively by linear
dynamic analysis with respect to seismic Zones II, III, IV & V.
For RC frame with Haunched beam2, it was observed that there was a decrease in lateral
displacement when compared to the regular RC frame are 47%, 47%,48% and 48%
respectively by linear static analysis and 47%, 47% ,47 % and 47% respectively by linear
dynamic analysis with respect to seismic Zones II, III, IV & V.
From the results of a ten storeyed RC frame with Haunched beam1, it was observed that there
is a decrease in the natural period of the frame with Haunched beams when compared to the
frame without Haunched beams are 17%, 18%, 17%, 34%, 39% & 40% for the mode numbers
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 respectively.
From the results of a ten storeyed RC frame with Haunched beam2, it was observed that there
is a decrease in the natural period of the frame with Haunched beams when compared to the
frame without Haunched beams are 32%, 35%, 35%, 34%, 39% & 40% for the mode numbers
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 respectively.
From the results, it was observed that there was an increase in Base shear of RC frame with
Haunched beams (RFHB1&RFHB2) when compared to the RC frame without Haunched
beams. The percentage of an increase in the Base shear of the RC frames with Haunched
beams for RFHB1& RFHB2 are 17% and 25% respectively.
In view of the above observations, clearly there was an increase in the stiffness for RC frame
with Haunched beam1 compared with the regular RC frame and there was an increase in the
stiffness for RC frame with Haunched beam2 compared with the RC frame with Haunched
beam1. Thus, by considering Haunched beams, effective stiffness models can be generated.
Venna Mythilee Priyanka, M. Pavan Kumar, Dr. G.V.S. Raj Kumar, Duba Vishalakshi
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1199 [email protected]
REFERENCES
[1] Albegmprli, H.M., Çevik, A., Gülsan, M.E. and Kurtoglu,A.E. (2015) “Reliability
analysis of reinforced concrete haunched beams shear capacity based on stochastic
nonlinear FE analysis”, Computers and Concrete journal Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.259-277.
[2] Archundia-Aranda, H.I. Tena-Colunga, A. and Grande-Vega, A (2013) “Behavior of
reinforced concrete Haunched beams subjected to cyclic shear loading”, Engineering
Structures journal, Volume 49,pp. 27-42.
[3] Abd el-rahman megahid, Rashwan M. M. and Ahmed mohamed sayed ( 2010) “Static
Behaviour of Reinforced High Strength Concrete haunched beams strenghened by using
Epoxy bonded external steel plates”, Journal of Engineering Sciences, Assiut University,
Vol. 38, No. 6, pp.1391-1428.
[4] Arturo Tena-Colunga,, Hans I. Archundia-Aranda and Oscar M. Gonz alez-Cuevas (2008)
“Behavior of reinforced concrete Haunched beams subjected to static shear loading”,
Science direct journal, Engineering Structures 30, pp. 478–492.
[5] A.K. Sinha and Sharad Singh , Seismic Protection of RC Frames Using Friction Dampers.
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 289–299.
[6] Hans I. Archundia-Aranda and Arturo Tena-Colunga (2008) “Cyclic behavior of
reinforced concrete Haunched beams failing in shear”, 14th
World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, Beijing, China.
[7] Hasan M. Albegmprli1, Abdulkadir C evik, M. Eren Gülşan and Ahmet Emin Kurtoglu
(2015) “Reliability analysis of reinforced concrete Haunched beams shear capacity based
on stochastic nonlinear FE analysis”, Computers and Concrete, Vol. 15, No. 2, 259-277.
[8] M.E. Ephraim and T.C. Nwofor , Experimental Modeling of In Filled RC Frames with
Opening, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(2), 2016, pp. 95–
106.
[9] Nilson, A Darwin, D. and Dolan, C. (2011), Design of Concrete Structures, (14th Edition),
Mc Grew Hill, New York, USA.
[10] Rombach,G. and Nghiep, V.H. (2011), “Shear strength of Haunched concrete beams
without transverse reinforcement Beton-und Stahlbetonbau journal, Volume 106, Issue 1,
pp.11-20.
[11] Tena-Colunga, Arturo (2012) “Lateral Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Moment Frames
with Haunched Beams”, 15th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering LISBOA.
[12] Tena-Colunga A. and Martínez-Becerril, L.A.(2013) “Approximations of lateral
displacements of reinforced concrete frames with symmetric haunched beams in the
elastic range of response using commercial software”, Practice Periodical on Structural
Design and Construction journal, Volume 18, issue 2, pp.92-100.
[13] Vu Hong Nghiep (2011) “Shear Design of Straight and Haunched Concrete Beams
without Stirrups”, Dissertation.