GLOBAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCED SMART AND SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES IN ENGINEERING(GCASSTE 2020), Held

on 30 - 31 January, 2020, at MANGALORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ENGINEERING (MITE), Badaga Mijar,
Moodabidri-574 225, Mangalore Tq., D.K., Karnataka, INDIA

Structural Performance of Concealed Beam: Review Article

Afifa Mariyam N.1, Kallesha B. M.1, Avinash K.1, Mahmadajafar Savanur1 and Balaji N. C. 2
1
Under Graduates, Department of Civil Engineering, The National Institute of Engineering, Mysuru

email: Affifa@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, The National Institute of Engineering, Mysuru

Abstract:

When the depth of the beam is equals to the thickness of the slab that beam is known as
concealed beam or hidden beams. Concealed beams are favoured structural elements because of
their many inherent features that characterize them; they save on floor height clearance,
formwork material cost and shuttering time. Moreover, they form an aesthetic appearance. The
present study deals with the summarization of experimental works from literature on concealed
beams, on imparting stiffness to the concealed beam by different techniques. The flexural
behavior of slab, with influence of concealed beam was investigated from literature, and the
results are summarized.

Key words: Concealed beam, Drop beam, Load-deflection, Crack pattern.

1. Introduction

The loads acting on the multi-story building are Gravity loads (Dead load of the structure, Live
load, Snow load) and Lateral loads (earthquake and wind loads). In earlier days only gravity
loads are used to design the multistory buildings, but other than the gravity loads the Horizontal
loads are also act on the buildings. Now a day’s design of the multi-story building is done by
considering the both Gravity loads and Lateral loads for the safety purpose.

The depth of the concealed beam will be equal to the thickness of the slab and it is hidden in the
slab hence Concealed beam is known as HIDDEN BEAM. The top levels of the both slab and
the hidden beam will be same. Concept of concealed beam originated from flat slab. The beam
rebar is designed for the same depth of the slab. The concealed beams are used to provide
maximum clearance between the floors because of this hidden beams are widely used in
commercial buildings. When the concealed beams are provided the beam-column joint is similar
to the flat slab of slab-column joint. Both buildings have the same appearance but acts differently
when considered resistance to gravity, earthquake and wind loads.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Ibrahim Mohammad Arman (2014)

There are many methods that are used to analyze two-way slabs and the precision of these
methods vary depending on method assumptions. In this study, the ACI direct design method is
used as a manual or hand method of calculation and the solution will be compared with the
analysis results of the three dimensional structural model done by the computer program
Sap2000. The moments in beams, slab column strip and slab middle strip will be determined. It
will be illustrated that the distribution of moments in two-way slabs with hidden beams likes the
distribution of moments in slabs without beams as the stiffness of the hidden beams is small. It is
recommended that the use of three dimensional modeling by computer software is the best
solution for moment’s determination and distribution.

They discussed that:

The beam-slab flexural stiffness ratios (αf1 * L2/L1) for all interior and exterior spans in all
frames are small in two way ribbed slabs with hidden beams with a value equals to about 0.2.
This ratio is very small comparing with slabs of large beams with αf1 * L2/L1 equals to 1 or
more. The panel average beam-slab flexural stiffness ratio, αfm, in slabs ranges from 0.20 to
0.33. This ratio is very near to consider this type of slabs as slabs without interior beams. The
column strip moment ratios are very close to that for slabs without beams; with beam –slab
flexural stiffness ratio equal to zero. The moment ratios for slab without beams or flat slab or flat
plate for exterior negative moment, interior negative moment and for positive moment are 100%,
75% and 60%. And the ratios of moments for the four slabs are not far from these values. The
difference between two way ribbed slabs with hidden beams and slabs without interior beams is
that the column strip moments in slabs without beams are resisted by the slab itself but in two
way ribbed slabs with hidden beams, the column strip moments are resisted by the hidden beams
and the slab. By direct design method, it is found that the beams resist about 20% of the column
strip moments, while, the slab resists about 80% of the column strip moments for slab with
longer span to shorter span ratio of 1.2. By three dimensional structural models, it is found that
the beams in all slabs resist about 40% to 50% of the column strip moments while the slab resists
about 50% to 60% of the column strip moments. As a result, two- way ribbed and waffle slabs
with hidden beams can be treated approximately as slabs without beams (flat plate) in calculating
the moments to column and middle strips. In general, most of the column strip moments are
resisted by the slab not by the beams. It is recommended to use computer software for analysis of
slab systems to determine moments in slab strips and in beams. There is no simple exact
procedure to specify accurately the moments in beams and in slab strips in two way slabs.

Zaid N. Taqieddin (2014)

The effectiveness of compression reinforcement in controlling the deflection of a

wide-hidden continuous reinforced concrete beam is studied using nonlinear finite element (FE)
simulations. Concrete Damaged-Plasticity and reinforcing steel Elasto-Plasticity are used in the
nonlinear FE simulations of ABAQUS. Results are compared to Elastic FE simulations as well
as to conventional code procedures.

They concluded that:

The ACI Code deflection check procedure shows that the deflection of the beam under
consideration is off limits when considering floors supporting or attached to nonstructural
elements that are likely to be damaged by excessive deflections, which is the case in residential
buildings. On the other hand, the presented FE simulations reveal huge problems concerning
immediate deflections and consequent concrete damage under service loads due to the shallow
depth of the wide-hidden beam. The effect of compression steel reinforcement on deflection
control is clearly noted in the results of the ACI Code procedure as well as the FE simulations.
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of it in dragging the deflection values back into the Code’s
admissible range, or in preventing concrete damage at service loads in the FE simulations, is
unimpressive, both physically and economically. The shallow depth of the beam necessitates an
amount of compression reinforcement at midspan greater than that required to resist the flexural
moments. The misguided procedure of designing the wide hidden beam for ultimate loads and
then “throwing in some” compression reinforcement to control deflection can lead to dreadful
consequences. Therefore, the use of such a beam in residential buildings, and where functionality
of nonstructural components might be jeopardized, is questionable. Other alternatives, although
less aesthetically pleasing, might be more attractive on all other aspects.

Samir H. Helou, Munther M. Diab (2014)

The paper represents the structural influence of hidden beams within slabs is thoroughly
investigated. The investigation tackles, inter alias, deflection, bending moment distribution
between beam and slab as well as its impact on relevant seismic parameters during earthquake
ground excitation thus assessing the vulnerability of such structural systems. Furthermore, the
following parametric study is extended to focus on medium size three reinforced concrete
structures that differ in their respective flooring systems. The present study is a comparative one
among various slab systems that include slabs with drop beams, ribbed slabs and solid slabs with
hidden beams. Natural frequencies and Mass Participation Factors are compared; both values are
fundamental for the number of characteristic modes necessary for inclusion in the analysis.

They noticed that:

Based on the numerical exercise performed on the different slab systems alone and on the various
flooring systems within similar structures it is noticed that in comparison with the system of drop
beams, selected as a comparison basis, hidden or imbedded beams provide little, if any, added
value. It can be concluded that shallow beams are vulnerable to seismic action and their behavior
is questionable. This is addition to the fact that even under static loadings a hidden beam behaves
more of a slab than of a beam. The foregoing results indicate that the selection of shallow beam
elements within a structural system is a judicious choice that requires a thorough in-depth analysis
within the context of the overall structural behavior. Linear discourse is illusive and could be
misleading as it may lead to erroneous results. The present study indicates that the use of shallow
beams demands focused attention, proper in depth analysis and meticulous detailing.
Akash.C. Arakere, Tejas D. Doshi (2015)

In this study an attempt was made in this work to evaluate and compare the seismic performance
of G+5 storey made with normal beams and concealed beams. SAP2000 software was used for
this purpose. Both models are analyzed by selecting region of earthquake zone II on a medium
soil. Response spectrum method is used for analysis. Displacement, Base shear and axial force
are considered as parameters.

They concluded that:

 Displacement of model with concealed beams is more compared to model with normal
beams because stiffness of structure reduces with decrease in size of beam.
 The base shear of model with concealed beam is more than that with normal beam
because the fundamental time period is high when concealed beam is provided. Even
though the damping percentage of both the structures remains same.
 The axial forces of model with normal beam are more than model with concealed beam
because of increase in self-weight with increase in size of beam.
 Normal beams can be used in designing building for seismic forces while concealed
beams can be used in designing buildings for gravity loads.

Mahmad Irfan Nadagouda, G. Ravi (2017)

This paper represents the finite element modelling of RC slabs with concealed beam & with drop
beams using ANSYS, which is based on Finite Element (FE) method. The flexural behaviour of
slabs with the influence of concealed beams is investigated. The results of the slabs from the
analytical solution are compared with the available experimental results. Comparison between
load deflection curve, Crack pattern & load carrying capacity were carried.

They concluded that:

 The behaviour of RC slabs represented by load deflection curves in ANSYS show close
agreement with experimental results, within the linear part before first cracking.
  The deflection of slabs with concealed beam is more compared to that of drop beams.
This is due to the reduction in cross section area & thus reducing the stiffness.
 As the grade of concrete increases the deflection in the slab reduces, hence grade of
concrete plays important role in reducing the deflection.
 Analytically, the load carrying capacity of slab with drop beam increases by 26.63% as
compared to that of slab with concealed beam & experimentally it was increased by
27.2%. The FE analysis results were in good agreement.
 The ultimate loads from the FE analysis are slightly greater than the ultimate loads from
the experimental results, due to the presence of initial micro cracks in the experimental
models, instability issues of load mechanism adopted in the experimental setup
 The experimental deflection is 21.2% more than that of analytical deflection in slab with
concealed beam, due to the increased stiffness of the FE model.
 The experimental deflection is 17.8% more than that of analytical deflection in slab with
drop beam.
 Analytically, the maximum deflection of slab with drop beam has decreased by 32% as
compared to the slab with concealed beam. This is due to the increased stiffness &
increased moment of inertia of slab with drop beam.

Chetan Talawar, Hemant Sonawadekar (2017)

In the present study the seismic behavior of the reinforced concrete structure with and without
concealed beam is described. The various models of G+4 storey and G+6 storey are modeled and
analyzed in ETABS 09. The response spectrum analysis is carried out as per IS 1893:2002 by
considering the seismic zone as ZONE II and medium soil. Further the pushover analysis is
carried out as per FEMA 356 and ATC-40. The parameters like Base Shear, Axial loads, Natural
period, Displacement are considered and comparison is done between the models with and
without concealed beam.
They reported that:

 The base shear of the concealed beam structure is less as compare to normal beam
structure. Since lesser the mass lesser will be the seismic force. Hence it is concluded that
concealed beam structure is better than normal beam structure during earthquake.
 The influence of concealed beam in a structure increases the natural period as compared
to normal beam structure.
 In multi-storey structures, if long span slabs are provided the deflection will be more. The
concealed beams are provided in order to decrease the deflection and increase the
stiffness of the slab.
 In multi-storey building provision of concealed beam can act as a flat slab and provides
large clearance in between the floors.
 As the damping value increases, the inelastic displacement of the structure decreases due
overall increase in the structural stiffness. As the damping increases, the capacity of the
structure increases.

Nohaira S. Morsy, Alaa G. Sherif, Ata E. Shoeib, Mohamed H. Agamy (2018)

The effect of shear reinforcement on the performance of wide shallow beams. The investigated
parameters include the crack patterns, mode of failures, load-deflection curves, load-strain curves
of stirrups and the failure load. Nine tested specimens have 1800mm clear span and 500mm
width with different thicknesses (150mm, 200mm, and 250mm), and type of the web
reinforcement. The experimental results showed that there was a significant improvement in the
shear strength due to using the traditional tied stirrups for beams with depth 250mm, but it seems
that the vertical tied reinforcement does not work properly to resist the shear for beams with
depth less than 250mm. While the welded link web reinforcement increases the shear capacity
for beams with depth less than 250mm. A comparison between experimental shear capacities and
the prediction of the ECP-203-2016, ACI 318-14, EN1992 and CSA 2004 codes are also
presented in this research. It is recommended to re-evaluate the contribution of the shear
reinforcement according to the Egyptian ECP-203. In addition, the tested beams specimens are
analysed using the nonlinear finite element method (ANSYS). The results showed that the effect
of web reinforcement on improving shear strength is more pronounced at higher depth of
specimens.

They noticed that:

 The different types of stirrups investigated cause an increase in the maximum failure load
and corresponding deflection and slightly delayed the occurring of the diagonal cracking.
 Using welded stirrups significantly increases the shear resistance of the shallow wide
beams tested. By comparing between using traditional stirrups (four branches stirrups)
and welded link stirrups, it was found that using welded stirrups increased the ultimate
load by about 31% and 16% compared to traditional stirrups, with thickness equal to
200mm and 150mm respectively.
 The ductility of the shallow wide beam has a significant enhancement by using stirrups
and more enhancement can be achieved with changing the configuration types of steel.
 The angle of diagonal shear crack decreases by increasing the shear span-to-depth ratio.
 The ECP-203 is conservative in ignoring the shear reinforcement contribution in the
resistance of shear stress in hidden RC beams. It is recommended to re-evaluate the
contribution of the shear reinforcement in ECP-203 especially for welded stirrups.
 Welded stirrups used proofed to be an efficient shear reinforcement for wide shallow RC
beams.

SUMMARY:

Two-way ribbed slabs and waffle slabs with hidden beams and without interior beams are
analyzed for moments in beams and in slab strips in two-way slabs. The difference between two
way ribbed slabs and waffle slabs with hidden beams and slabs without interior beams is that, the
column strip moments in slabs without beams are resisted by the slab itself, but in two-way
ribbed slabs and two-way waffle slabs with hidden beams, the column strip moments are resisted
by the hidden beams and the slab with a definite proportion.

The ACI code and FE simulations are used to check the deflections of hidden beams with an
additional amount of compression steel is used at the mid span of the shallow depth beam to
resist the moments, but it is observed that, it is not safe for residential building and it can lead to
deadfall consequences.

The shallow beams are vulnerable to seismic action and their behavior is questionable. This is
addition to the fact that even under static loadings a hidden beam behaves more of a slab than of a
beam. The foregoing results indicate that the selection of shallow beam elements within a
structural system is a judicious choice that requires a thorough in-depth analysis within the
context of the overall structural behavior.

Using SAP2000 software, seismic performance of G+5 storey building made with normal beams
and concealed beams is compared in the earthquake region of zone II. It is observed that
displacement and base shear are more in building with concealed beams than the building with
normal beams, and axial forces are more in building with normal beams than in the building with
concealed beams due to self-weight.

The flexural behaviour of slabs with the influence of concealed beams is investigated.
Comparison between load deflection curve, Crack pattern & load carrying capacity were carried.
deflection of slabs with concealed beam is more compared to the deflection of slabs with normal
beams with a considerable ratio. And increase in grade of concrete leads to decrease in the
deflection.

The shear strength of the shallow hidden beams can be increased by using welded stirrups rather
than using ordinary stirrups, and the shear strength of shallow hidden beams also depends on the
grade of steel used for stirrups.

CONCLUSION:

It is expected that the study gives an experimental and analytical data which helps for
improvement of strength of hidden beams under different loading conditions.
REFERENCES

1. Ibrahim Mohammad Arman, “Analysis of Two Way Ribbed and Waffle Slabs With
Concealed Beams”. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 4,
No 3, 2014.
2. Ziad N. Taquieddin, “Deflection Of Wide Concealed Beams In One Way Slab Systems:
A nonlinear Finite Element Study”. Journal of Institute of research engineers and doctors
2014.
3. Samir H.Helou, Munther M. Diab, “Slabs With Concealed Beams Facts And
Fallacies”. Asian Journal of Engineering and Technology (ISSN: 2321 – 2462) Volume
02 – Issue 04, August 2014.
4. Akash.c.Arakere , Tejas D .Doshi, “comparision of Multy-storey buildings with Normal
beams and concealed beams” . International research journal of engineering and
technology ,volume:02 Issue:03 June 2015.
5. Mahmad Irfan Nadagouda, G. Ravi (2017),” Analytical study on Flexural behaviour of
RCC slabs with concealed beams using ANSYS”, International research journal of
engineering and technology, Volume: 04 Issue: 07 | July -2017.
6. Chetan Talawar, Hemant Sonawadekar (2017), “Performance Based Analysis of
Concealed Beam in Reinforced Concrete Structure”, Indian research journal of
engineering and technology, Volume: 04 Issue: 06 | June -2017.
7. Nohaira S. Morsy, Alaa G. Sherif, Ata E. Shoeib, Mohamed H. Agamy (2018),
“Experimental Study of Enhancing the Shear Strength of Hidden/Shallow Beams by
Using Shear Reinforcement”, Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Civil,
Structural, and Environmental Engineering (CSEE’18), April 8 - 10, 2018.