See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325783207

Comparison of Reinforced and Post-Tensioned Transfer Beams with an

emphasis on their design economy

Thesis · April 2018

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29378.07361

CITATIONS READS

0 2,427

1 author:

Dren Gashi
University of Westminster
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dissertation: Comparison of RC transfer beams and PT transfer beams View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dren Gashi on 15 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Comparison of Reinforced and Post-Tensioned
Transfer Beams with an emphasis on their
design economy

Prepared by

Dren S. Gashi

A dissertation submitted for the degree of

BSc(Hons) Building Engineering

UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER

FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Department of Property & Construction

April 2018
To my beloved grandfather, Mon Berisha
 Abstract

The client’s requirements for more building space and open architectural
features are still one of the most popular design topics of the architecture and the
structural engineering fusion. Most of these design features are surely inevitable
in tall buildings with various stakeholders whereby architectural design changes
from one zone to another, or even from a floor to another. The variety of these
architectural features within one building has led to requirements for providing
stable structures such as transfer beams that can transfigure the loading trajectory
vertically and horizontally. The problem, however, is that transfer beams are quite
massive and expensive because they usually bear heavy loads that come from
columns laying on top of them. Hence, engineers and other experts in this field
have been trying to implement new and innovative technologies which can provide
design economy and structural capacity while performing the same role in
architectural terms.

This study aims to determine which technology between reinforced concrete and
post-tensioning is more advantageous for transfer beam design and construction.
To this end, the research contains specific questions and objectives which
determine the main points to which the transfer beam technologies should be
compared and distinguished. In this context, the points of study cover structural
capacity, deflection performance and most importantly design economy.

The research question is answered through structural analysis and design by

calculation methods suggested by various codes of conduct and by competent
software which allows the use of Finite Element Analysis. Furthermore, the use of
case studies has shown to increase the standard of the research presenting
comparable data that is used to conclude the points for design economy. In that
matter, the results derived show that Post-tensioned transfer beams are more
advantageous than their counterpart to a considerable extent. On this basis, it is
recommended that post-tensioning should always be chosen instead of reinforced
concrete to derive economic outcomes.

i
 Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................ i

List of Illustrations,Tables,Diagrams,Charts ......................................................... v

Declaration ......................................................................................................... vi

Preface ...............................................................................................................vii

1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Basis ..................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Rationale ............................................................................................... 1

1.3 Aim ........................................................................................................ 3

1.4 Objectives.............................................................................................. 3

1.5 Key questions ........................................................................................ 3

1.6 Hypothesis ............................................................................................. 3

1.7 Outline of the methodology .................................................................... 4

2 Literature Review .......................................................................................... 5

2.1 Background information ......................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Mechanics and ULS Design............................................................ 6

2.1.2 Post-tensioning in principle ............................................................. 9

2.2 Reinforced vs Post-tensioned Transfer Beams .................................... 10

2.2.1 Structural Capacity ....................................................................... 10

2.2.2 Deflection Performance ................................................................ 12

2.2.3 Design Economy and Theoretical Conclusions ............................. 13

2.3 Critical Appraisal of Research Contribution .......................................... 14

3 Research design and methodology............................................................. 15

3.1 Overview of the Research Methodology Topic ..................................... 15

3.1.1 Qualitative research ...................................................................... 15

3.1.2 Quantitative research.................................................................... 15

ii
 3.2 Achieving Objectives ........................................................................... 16

3.2.1 Design of the Transfer Beams ...................................................... 16

3.2.2 Comparison of Structural Capacity Design Outcomes .................. 16

3.2.3 Comparison of Deflection Performance ........................................ 16

3.2.4 Economical Design Comparison and Appraisal ............................ 17

3.3 Ethics Statement ................................................................................. 18

3.4 The Scenario ....................................................................................... 19

3.4.1 Main Assumptions ........................................................................ 20

4 Findings and Discussion ............................................................................. 21

4.1 Raw Data............................................................................................. 21

4.1.1 Structural Analysis ........................................................................ 21

4.1.2 RC Transfer Beam design at ULS ................................................ 24

4.1.3 Reinforcement and Detailing......................................................... 25

4.1.4 PT Transfer Beam design at ULS ................................................. 26

4.2 Derived Data ....................................................................................... 28

4.2.1 Bending Moment Capacity ............................................................ 28

4.2.2 Shear Capacity ............................................................................. 29

4.2.3 Deflection Performance ................................................................ 31

4.2.4 Design Economy by Case Studies Analysis .................................. 34

4.3 Summary and Significance of Results ................................................. 40

5 Conclusion, Limitations and Recommendations .......................................... 41

5.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 41

5.2 Limitations and Further Recommendations .......................................... 42

References ........................................................................................................ 43

Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 47

iii
 List of Illustrations

Figure 1: Conventional Skeleton RC Frame ...................................................................... 5

Figure 2: Skeleton Frame with Transfer Beams ................................................................ 5

Figure 3: B and D regions within a structure ...................................................................... 6

Figure 4: Bernoulli’s hypothesis described by FEA ........................................................... 7

Figure 5: St. Venants principle and its relation to STM described by FEA ........................ 8

Figure 6: Pre-stressing in Principle .................................................................................... 9

Figure 7: The Truss Analogy (Strut and Tie Method) ...................................................... 10

Figure 8: The reaction force induced by the tendons in post-tensioning ......................... 12

Figure 9: Deflection impact in transfer beams ................................................................. 12

Figure 10: The structural system analysed from the scenario ........................................ 19

Figure 11: Geomtery and Determinacy Details ................................................................ 21

Figure 12: RC Transfer Beam Section ............................................................................. 24

Figure 13: Isometric view of the RC transfer beam at reinforcement detail level ............ 25

Figure 14: Top view and elevations of the RC transfer beam at reinforcement detail level
.......................................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 15: PT Transfer Beam Section ............................................................................. 26

Figure 16: Isometric view of the PT transfer beam at reinforcement detail level ............. 27

Figure 17: Top view and elevations of the PT transfer beam at reinforcement detail level
.......................................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 18: Architectural Benefits of using PT beam over RC beam Scenario 1 ............ 37

Figure 19: Architectural Benefits of using PT beam over RC beam Scenario 2 ............ 37

Figure 20: (left) Project RC beam (right) Project PT beam ............................................. 39

Please note: Figures and other illustrations without citations were designed by
the author.

iv
 List of Tables

Table 1: Brief details of the selected case studies ........................................................... 17

Table 2: Reactions in various load cases and combinations ........................................... 21

Table 3: Important Shear and Bending Moment .............................................................. 22

Table 4: Structural Capacity Input Data for the RC beam ................................................ 24

Table 5: Provided Reinforcement and Structural Capacity @ULS for the RC beam ....... 24

Table 6: Structural Capacity Input Data for the PT beam ............................................... 26

Table 7: Provided Reinforcement and Structural Capacity @ULS for the PT beam ....... 26

Table 8: Design economy data amalgamation with case studies .................................... 34

Table 9: Summary of Research Findings “Tabulated” ..................................................... 40

List of Diagrams and Charts

Diagram 1: Shear Force and Bending Moment Diagrams ............................................... 23

Diagram 2: Derived data for bending moments ............................................................... 28

Diagram 3: Derived data for Shear Performance ............................................................ 29

Diagram 4: RC Transfer Beam deflection check with FEA .............................................. 31

Diagram 5: PT Transfer Beam deflection check with FEA ............................................... 29

Chart 1: Bending Moment Capacity Comparison ............................................................. 30

Chart 2: Shear Capacity Comparison .............................................................................. 30

Chart 3: Deflection Performance Comparison ................................................................. 33

Chart 4: Similarity derived from case study comparison and analysis ............................. 35

Chart 5: Section size comparison derived from case study analysis ............................... 36

Chart 6: Weight comparison derived from case study comparison and analysis ............ 38

Chart 7: Weight comparison for Project Beams Only ...................................................... 38

Chart 8: Summary of Research Findings ......................................................................... 40

v
 Declaration

I hereby certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has
been identified through the proper use of citations and references. I also confirm
that I have fully acknowledged by name all of those individuals and organisations
that have contributed to the research for this dissertation.

I further declare that this dissertation has not been accepted in part or in full for
any other degree, nor is it being submitted currently for any other degree.

The dissertation contains 7961 words, exclusive of diagrams, tables, bibliography

and appendices.

I confirm that a digital copy of this dissertation may be made available to future
students of the University of Westminster.

Student’s name………………………………………………………………

Student’s signature…………………………………………………………

Date of declaration…………………………………………………………

vi
 Preface

The research paper “Comparison of Reinforced and Post-Tensioned Transfer

Beams with an emphasis on their design economy” has been written to fulfil the
graduation requirements of the BSc (Hons) Building Engineering program at the
University of Westminster. I was engaged in research work for this dissertation
from July 2017 to April 2018 whereby I had the chance to consult with structural
engineers in the UK and Kosovo discussing topics in relation to reinforced concrete
as a material that I really prefer to work with.

My research title and the key questions were formulated together with my
supervisor Masi Farjadmand who helped me a lot throughout this work by giving
me guidance and suggestions in approaching the problem. Hence, I take the time
to sincerely thank Masi for her support and guidance developed by productive
meetings.

Words are powerless to express my gratitude for the help that Mr. Lekë Gjinali
gave me prior to starting this work. His generosity during the internship at his
structural engineering consultancy, helped me learn the fundamentals and more of
the Structural Engineering field.

I would also like to thank with all my heart my family in London and Kosovo,
especially my parents for giving me the chance to study and become a Building
Engineer. You were with me from the beginning of my studies and helped me cross
every obstacle I had, so I highly appreciate everything you have done for me.

I would finally like to thank my best friend and now my colleague Raphael
Boothman and my beloved fiancée who kept me motivated every day and night.

I hope you enjoy your reading.

Dren Gashi

London, April 30, 2018

vii
1 Introduction

1.1 Basis
Mechanics and Concrete Structures

1.2 Rationale
The subject of this research paper developed from a personal interest in
the field of structural mechanics of reinforced concrete, considering the diversity of
the concrete microstructure which provides different properties throughout the
concrete mass. Transfer beams are an essential medium consisting the latter mass
which behaves non-linearly considering the application of concentrated loads,
which is the case in most transfer beams. In the research paper “Experimental and
Numerical Investigations of Composite Frames with Innovative Composite
Transfer Beams” Nie et al. (2017) define a transfer beam as “A beam that transmits
loads from the upper closely spaced columns or walls acting on it to the widely
spaced columns or walls supporting it”. The main problem with transfer beams as
defined by Colaco and Lambajian (1971) is their deflection performance, which
property drives their design. The basic concept behind the deflection impact in the
design of transfer beams is further described in the literature review. However, it is
important to note that a deflection in a transfer beam causes more problems with
structural integrity rather than a deflection in an ordinary beam (Doshi, 2015).
Therefore, researchers and engineers such as Nie et al. (2017) have always
sought to find technologies which can overcome these structural defects resulting
in more economical design.

One of these techniques which is quite popular in floor construction but not as
much in transfer beams is post-tensioning. Furthermore, it is first proved in practice
that post-tensioning reduces the linear elastic curve by inducing compression
stresses on the top face of the concrete floor (Khan and Williams, 1995). Secondly,
Dr.Anwar (2014) confirms that mathematical expressions which relate deflection
with other design principles such as bending moment, shear forces and the loading

1
itself bring at the end smaller sections compared to ordinary RC beams. Hence, if
post-tensioning helps with deflections in concrete floors, it will also increase the
moment and shear capacities in them.

The latter assertion reflects on the principal theme of this research which supports
theories that admit the higher performance of post-tensioned transfer beams over
random reinforced transfer beams. Moreover, the outcomes from a few numbers
of case studies together with the original results from the project beams will try to
prove the more economical solution with the aim of stimulating its implementation.

Further literature provides more information about the previous points.

Nevertheless, transfer beams do not rely on structural capacity and deflection only
when safety is a derivative of design. In that aspect, the seismic performance is
essential as well because transfer beams are massive rigid structures carrying
heavy concentrated loads that can be variable when a vertical earthquake wave
hits (Li et al.2003). However, the official calculations in this piece of work will only
deal with gravity loads on the y-axis including dead and live loads factorised with
the help of Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures.

The topic chosen is a vital piece of work having an impact on the personal,
professional development aspect as well as in the field of innovation in
construction. Post-tensioning was first used 88 years ago, but it is still a relatively
new technology in construction with a few noticeable utilizations in transfer
structures. Therefore, providing supportive information for its liability in such
situations will help structural designers be more critical in their design choices.

A distinctive quality of this research paper is the finite element analysis which aims
to provide accurate results. Thereby, two transfer beam technologies (RC and PT)
are going to be analysed with Robot Structural Analysis FEA software, and the
outcomes will drive the design of their sections which will then be compared with
case studies for their design economy. The following sections will give further
details about the principal objectives of this research.

2
1.3 Aim
To provide distinctive results between reinforced and post-tensioned
transfer beams about structural capacity, deflection performance and design
economy through structural analysis and design.

1.4 Objectives
 To analyse and design two types of transfer beams (RC and PT) with same
predefined loading conditions using specific methodologies by various
codes of conduct and methods that suggest the design of transfer beams.
 To compare the design outcomes of both beam technologies by using
analytical charts which reflect the structural capacity of the beams (bending
moment capacity, shear capacity).
 To provide distinctive results for theoretical deflection performance
between two beam technologies (RC and PT) through Finite Element
Methods executed by a competent software package.
 To compare the design economy outcomes with an investigation of similar
case studies by building spreadsheets and charts with individual results
leading to the findings for the most economical solution.

1.5 Key questions

1. Which transfer beam technology between the two is characterised with a
better structural capacity (bending moment capacity, shear capacity) under
same loading conditions?
2. Which transfer beam technology shows a better deflection performance
under same service load conditions?
3. Which transfer beam technology between the two groups compared with
case studies, provides more conservative results leading to a more
economical design?

1.6 Hypothesis
Post-tensioned transfer beams provide a safer and more economical
solution if utilised for transfer beam construction.

3
1.7 Outline of the methodology
Within the work carried out in this research paper, several methods have
been used to help in reaching the aim and accomplishing the objectives listed.
These methods include:

Literature review - this method is used to present thorough background information

starting from the fundamentals of skeleton frames, mechanics and design of RC
beams and PT principles. The literature review is then focused on previous
research in regards to the comparison between RC and PT technologies related to
the set-out objectives. All the information on the literature review is based on
academic papers/journals, books, experiments and lectures which theoretically
answer raised questions in the dissertation work.

Finite element analysis (FEA) - A firm ground supports the method of using
mathematical calculations and analysis to fulfil the first objective with the use of
finite element analysis software. In essence, this software breaks down the section
of transfer beams in many small parts known as finite elements to perform stress
analysis. The stress analysis then leads to the determination of the appropriate
methods of design such as the strut and tie method or other standard methods. As
a result, the first and the third objective are fulfilled by this method and helped by
the use of Robot Structural Analysis and Autodesk Inventor as an FEA software.

Case studies – Case studies are used to fulfil the fourth objective. They, in general,
are real-life scenarios where technologies such as RC and PT transfer beams were
used. Thereby, they prove or disprove the findings in other objectives which will
determine which technology is triumphant in design economy. Finally, the data
provided by the case studies is accumulated and transformed into a way which can
be compared with the project beams analysed in this research work, so the
information concluded proves to have achieved the aim.

4
2 Literature Review

2.1 Background information

Increased requirements for more space have led to the development of
skeleton framed buildings which are a replacement of conventional masonry
structures. Skeleton frames (Figure 1) can be imagined as a “Series of rectangular
frames placed at right angles to one another, so that the loads are transmitted from
member to member until they are
transferred through the foundations to
the subsoil” (Riley and Cotgrave, 2014).
However, in most cases, the grid of
skeleton frames which represents the
position of columns and beams changes
from floor to floor as a result of client’s
requirements and architectural design.
This design enhancement becomes
more complicated in tall buildings with
Figure 1: Conventional Skeleton RC Frame
various stakeholders where the
reconfiguration of column grids becomes a commercial necessity. Consequently,
in these design situations transfer structures are introduced, whose role is to
optimise space by transfiguring column grids between stories (Strudy Structural,
no Date). In other words, transfer structures function by taking the highly
concentrated loads from columns through their considerable depth and then to
other structures which can resist them.

Transfer structures are standard

components which provide solutions to
different architectural engineering
scenarios including big openings in
shopping malls, parking lots and public
hallways. Their design can take various
forms, while different materials provide
different properties in their structure. The
Figure 2: Skeleton Frame with Transfer
main types of transfer structures are Beams

5
Transfer beams (Figure 2), transfer plates, girders and trusses. Most of the transfer
beam systems are made from reinforced concrete and steel. However, innovation
has led to the improvement of old technologies by the implementation of post-
tensioning and pre-stressing.

2.1.1 Mechanics and ULS Design

The forces applied on the surface of RC transfer beams often induce

different pressures within the section to then generate generic stressed parts
named as B and D regions by Schlaich and Schafer (1984). Before defining B and
D-regions (Figure 3) as means of determining the methodology of design, it should
be noted that a typical RC section resists moments and shear by an internal
tension-compression mechanism provided by the composite bond of concrete and
steel. Therefore, if there was no steel reinforcement provided the concrete section
would fail by the first appearing crack due to progressive failure of the concrete
chemical bond (Wight and McGregor, 2009).

The critical aspect in the design of concrete beams is to determine the nature of
the stress behaviour which can be visualised by computer software. In the lack of
computer FEA software, engineers used to judge stresses within a member
according to experimental methodologies which lead to theories which define B
(Bernoulli) and D (discontinuity) regions. B regions also known as Bernoulli regions
are the part of a concrete member in which stresses induce linear strains and
equalised distribution until they reach the supports (Dr.Anwar, 2014). Forces which
induce such stresses in small to
medium sized beams are usually
UDL-s. These beams can be
designed by standard methods
to whom Bernoulli’s hypothesis
is a fundamental background.
However, there are cases where
strains are non-linear and
standard methods are not
applicable (Schlaich and
Schafer, 1984). The B and D
regions are usually found

Figure 3: B and D regions within a structure. Tonsukit (2015)

6
combined in different members (Figure 3) and each of them has to be designed
separately using different methods considering variations in stress behaviour.

2.1.1.1 Bernoulli’s hypothesis and St. Venants Principle

Bernoulli’s hypothesis and the St.Venants Principle are two basic

mechanical concepts that are used to analyse stresses in assisting further ULS
design of B and D-regions based on material properties. Bernoulli’s hypothesis
states that “Plane sections remain plane after bending” (Dr.Anwar, 2014) and this
is usually the case if the beam is elastic and “The variation in stress and strain from
the top to middle to bottom is linear” (Arya, 2009,p24). This point can also be the
case in components such as Reinforced Concrete or Post-Tensioned beams
where there is a substantial plastic performance says Arya (2009). Similar
situations are seen in most ordinary beams where UDL-s are applied, and their
span is greater than 4d. These beams can be designed using standard codes
which allow the Bernoulli’s hypothesis to create a linear strain distribution for all
loading stages, including ultimate flexural capacity (Dr.Anwar, 2014). The latter can
be found in Figure 4 where the B-region takes most of the length and has constant
stress Isolines running horizontally until they get disturbed in the D-region.

Figure 4: Bernoulli’s hypothesis described by FEA. Done by using Robot Structural

Analysis Software

7
In the case of D-regions which are typical in transfer beams (deep beams) the
Bernoulli’s hypothesis does not apply. This statement is true because the stresses
imposed in such areas show warping and crippling of the section where the neutral
axis does not have a specific location, and compression-tension strain is non-
linear. Figure 5 describes this statement by showing that the compression stresses
remain constant until they reach a certain point of the neutral axis, and then they
increase until they reach the support. In such cases, the stress dissipates with
depth, and this is known as the St.Venants Principle. This principle says that “The
localised effects caused by any load acting on the body will dissipate or smooth
out within regions that are sufficiently away from the location of the load”
(Dr.Anwar, 2014). Such structures are analysed by this method, and they are
designed by the strut and tie method (STM or truss analogy) which will not be
described in greater depth considering the limitations of this research paper.

Figure 5: St. Venants principle and its relation to STM described by FEA. Done by using
Robot Structural Analysis Software

8
2.1.2 Post-tensioning in principle

Post-tensioning is a pre-stressing technique involving the use of tendons to induce

compression stresses in the concrete member to overcome to a greater extent the
applied loads to the member (Khan and Williams, 1995).

In essence, the process of post-tensioning involves the use of High strength steel
strands which are placed inside ducts within the concrete member, with one side
usually being anchored (dead-end) to assist the induction of pre-stress. After the
concrete is poured into the mould and it has hardened to a certain level the strands
are pulled by a special hydraulic jack to a force pre-determined by the engineer.
Afterwards, the strand is locked in an anchorage cast in concrete to stay there
permanently.

During the design of Post-tensioned beams, it is very crucial to decide on the

position and the pre-determined force of the tendon. The most usual location of the
tendon in a beam section is Depth/4 where the eccentricity helps in inducing more
pre-stress due to the moment exerted by the distance from the neutral axis (Figure
6). In a situation of an applied eccentric tendon, the pre-stressing utilises a
permanent axial force which induces compressive stresses in the concrete section
(Khan and Williams, 1995). After
the compressive pre-stress is
contained within the section, the
service applied load needs to
overcome it before the beam is
driven into any tension. In that
matter, the tensile strength of
concrete is enhanced efficiently
(Khan and Williams, 1995).

In Figure 6 the axial pre-stress

Figure 6: Pre-stressing in Principle. Khan and
Williams (1995) which is a result of tendons
being pulled adds up to the pre-
stress eccentricity, and then the loads applied equal the net stress pattern which
theoretically is safer than in a regular RC section.

9
2.2 Reinforced vs Post-tensioned Transfer Beams
2.2.1 Structural Capacity

Structural Capacity is a characteristic of structural members which sets out

properties that produce the ultimate strength of the member being able to resist
the defined loads on it (Api,2017). Structural capacity can also be considered as a
part of the performance assessment of structural members which deals with the
analysis of ultimate limit state design outcomes of flexural and compressive
members. The main characteristics of these outcomes are bending moment
performance and shear performance of beams due to different forces induced
within their mass.

2.2.1.1 Bending Moment Capacity

The critical aspect in resisting bending in RC and PT transfer beams is to be able

to withstand the induced tensile stresses within the part below the neutral axis as
well as at the ends considering fixity of the RC beams to columns (fixed end
moments). The mechanism by which deep members work is best explained by the
truss analogy (Figure-7) described by Schlaich and Schafer (1984) as the best
method to design deep RC members at Ultimate Limit State.

Figure 7: The Truss Analogy (Sturt and Tie Method)

10
However, this method does not consider any moments as such during the analysis
and design. The question in that matter would be if these members experience
significant moments or not, and the answer can be quickly derived from a FEA
analysis which does admit that deflection is present in all members no matter how
large their depth is. Considering this point, it can be concluded that bending
moment has a significant impact on RC and PT transfer beam design because
deflection is an integral of the bending moment (Masi, 2017).

The work of many researchers and engineers has led to different

conceptualisations of increasing bending moment capacities of RC members. In
that instance, research from Wu et al. (2011) defined that structural capacity of an
RC transfer member relies highly on steel reinforcement content within the Beam.
However, they add that a large amount of reinforcement leads to problems with
crack control and other serviceability issues, so at the end, they recommend the
implementation of SRC transfer beams as a perfect fusion between large steel
sections and concrete without causing any trouble in their serviceability aspects.

2.2.1.2 Shear Capacity

Shear Capacity is another structural characteristic of ULS performance expressed

by RC and PT transfer beams. Doshi (2015) says that low shear capacity is a
significant weakness of RC Transfer Beams found in lateral load resisting systems
where it can relocate the centre of rigidity due to the beam’s enormous mass.
Therefore, Londhe (2011) suggests bracing of such systems and says that
consideration should be given to the vertical component of earthquakes where
applicable because a small vertical dynamic load could increase the vertical force
on the beam and expose it to a dangerous fatigue scenario which could lead to
progressive collapse. Finally, RC transfer beams are also prone to creep damage,
and it should be noted that the shear forces in these structures are very high
compared to typical RC beams, therefore in RC transfer beams concrete shear
capacity is always smaller than the design value of the applied shear force.
Moreover, shear reinforcement should be provided at all times (Arya, 2009). RC
transfer beam’s shear strength assessment and enhancement methods were
discussed by Londhe (2011) and Bouadi et al. (2005).

11
 Their studies suggested the massive implementation of shear reinforcement in RC
transfer beams. However, the significance of the change in shear capacity between
using shear reinforcement compared to using pre-stressing is one topic which
should be appraised here.

In that matter, as seen by case studies analysis post-tensioning or pre-stressing,

in general, has a vast contribution in reducing shear failure chances and hence
increasing shear capacity. This is due to the introduction of forces in the upward
direction from the post-tensioned member (Figure 8), where downward forces
induced by loading and gravity are resisted by the pre-stress acting upwards, a
term also appraised by the fundamental Newton’s third law of motion.

Figure 8: The reaction force induced by the tendons in post-tensioning. Civil Engineer forum
(no date)
2.2.2 Deflection Performance

As seen previously, RC transfer beams are deep structures which redirect

forces in a horizontal manner. They
are often exposed to heavy
concentrated loads from columns,
but they can also be exposed to
massive uniform loads of shear walls
(Kuang and Li, 2005). In general RC
transfer beams manifest
characteristic weaknesses which
have a direct impact on the
determination of the beam depth.
One of these characteristics as
explained by Doshi (2015) is
deflection; for instance, if a transfer
Figure 9: Deflection impact in transfer beams

12
beam carrying a sizeable concentrated load as in Figure 9 deflects by 20 mm that
would mean that all the floors which transfer the loads to the columns taken by the
beam will deflect by 20 mm or more. Consequently, tackling large deflections will
require the utilisation of large RC sections which are characterised by a variety of
problems including significant self-weight of the section, reduction of clear height
and massive supporting columns.

The use of post-tensioning, on the other hand, could reduce the disadvantage of
large deflections while at the same time providing a beneficial design economy.

Many researchers have studied the topic of deflections in transfer beams

appraising major problems in changes with the stiffness of the transfer system with
the construction of every story. A group of researchers who have studied this topic
in depth were Colaco and Lambajian (1971), who found the impact of various
characteristics in serviceability performance of transfer beams. The diverse
characteristics having an impact in deflection are also mentioned in the MPA paper
for the rigorous design of deflection according to EC2 (Bond et al., 2011). These
characteristics involve the loading sequence, concrete properties and the critical
arrangement of actions as means of producing a function that will provide a realistic
estimate of deflection. However, these terms will not extensively help the research
because deflection is one of the most challenging characteristics to be found,
especially in transfer beams. Hence, FEA will be used to determine such
characteristics which are only theoretical, but still comparable.

2.2.3 Design Economy and Theoretical Conclusions

The theoretical improvements of flexural performance in transfer beams

and other sections can be best described by mathematical relationships between
moments, shear forces and deflections caused by service loading. Hence, it should
be noted that:

 The shear force is the integral of the load

 The bending moment is the integral of the shear force
 The deflection is the integral of bending moment (Masi, 2017)

Since all of these core principles drive structural design, a change in any of them
will impact one another and would then imply differences in design economy and

13
performance. For instance, if post-tensioning is seen to improve the deflection, it
must simultaneously be assumed that bending moment and shear force are being
improved as well. In conclusion, it can be theoretically seen that post-tensioning
could lead to smaller sections and a more economical design considering the
improvements in the principles above. From this, we see an indication of Post-
tensioning being an advantageous innovation in construction. However, the
significance of this advantage will be the core theme to be discussed and analysed
in this paper, with the aim of providing quantitative information which will lead to
beneficial economic design outcomes.

The comparable measurements of design economy in RC and PT transfer beams

will be appraised by practical case studies. One of the most critical research cases
having an impact on a personal critical judgement towards design economy is the
project of the Rio Serviced Apartments. In this scheme, Maverick United Engineers
(2017) had to replace an existing RC transfer beam structure under 30 storeys with
a post-tensioned transfer floor. During this project, they achieved excellent design
economy outcomes reducing the depth of the RC transfer structure from 2800mm
to a PT one with a depth of 1800mm. This case study and the research paper of
its value engineering is the strongest foundation of the main emphasis of this
research, defining design economy as the main advantage of post-tensioning.

2.3 Critical Appraisal of Research Contribution

The findings from the literature review have led to conclusions that
theoretically define post-tensioning as a significant alternative that can improve
structural capacity, deflection performance and design economy of RC transfer
beams. The first aspect of structural capacity is a link of deliverables from
experiments done by Nie et al. (2014) who conclude that innovation of RC
structures does produce beneficial outcomes in their overall strength. This effect
has a significant contribution to the current research because it provides incentives
of design and predictability. Furthermore, their paper which links with the research
of Colaco and Lambajian (1971) sets out the relation of ULS design with SLS
outcomes for deflection performance.

The significant factor of this research which is design economy is also backed up
by a broad research foundation, which is based in practice by the analysis of
various case studies.

14
3 Research design and methodology

The rest of this research was developed with the use of established
methodologies and strategies which can help in achieving the set-out aim and
objectives. In the previous section of the Outline of the methodology, the key
processes which lead to the final goal were briefly discussed. However, they shall
be explained in more detail in this section considering research strategies which
are underlying platforms of data accumulation of any research. The Research
strategy is defined by Naoum (2010) as the way in which the research objectives
can be questioned; she divides the research strategies in Quantitative research
and Qualitative research.

3.1 Overview of the Research Methodology Topic

3.1.1 Qualitative research

Qualitative research is a data collection strategy based on subjective

matters which underline experiences, meanings and descriptions (Naoum,2010).
The information gathered from this type of research is more abstract and wordy
hence its complexity is further reduced by classifying it into two categories, namely
exploratory and attitudinal. While the exploratory category is mostly based on
interviews and other approaches used by people with limited amount of knowledge
about the topic, the attitudinal category is more critical, and it is used to subjectively
evaluate a view or an opinion (Naoum,2010). Thereby, the qualitative attitudinal
research was used to interpret the data collected from the Literature Review which
is the first methodology of the research. This way knowledge about the subject was
provided, and non-proved theories by other people were questioned.

3.1.2 Quantitative research

The quantitative research is a form of data collection based on numerical

variables which can be analysed to prove a hypothesis or a theory (Creswell,
1994). In that matter, a quantitative type of research emphasises objective
measurements and numerical data which are the outcomes of research that will
afterwards be analysed to give conclusions (Nauom,2010). The quantitative
research strategy in this paper was the primary approach used to answer the
questions gathered from the qualitative data of the literature review. It is also the

15
crux of this dissertation considering that the data received from the FEA analysis
as well as from calculations was purely numeric and only quantitative techniques
can describe and prove to reach the aim. Below the process of derived data
formulation will be described through the set-out objectives of the research.

3.2 Achieving Objectives

3.2.1 Design of the Transfer Beams

The first objective of this research was fulfilled by a combination of software

analysis simulation and by hand calculations as the main methodologies to provide
the raw quantitative data for the research. The software used includes Autodesk
platforms such as Robot Structural Analysis (RSA) and Autodesk Inventor (AI).
RSA was used to provide a precise structural analysis of the beams from the
scenario introduced later one, while AI was used for Finite Element Analysis. It
should be noted that the software utilised is competent and eligible, and licensed
for free use by students.

3.2.2 Comparison of Structural Capacity Design Outcomes

This objective was achieved by accumulating raw quantitative data

produced by calculations achieved in the first objective. This data amalgam was
then transfigured into derived outcomes which were presented by charts and
diagrams built to show which technology performs better in regards to structural
capacity.

3.2.3 Comparison of Deflection Performance

The third objective was completed with the help of diagrams produced by
Autodesk Inventor through Finite Element Analysis (FEA). This platform allowed
the presentation of the primary data which was then compared as derived data by
specific charts. The FEA software contains nodes plotting high accuracy stresses,
determining theoretical deflections even though the element size specified for the
FEA is only 100mm. This assertion is correct considering that Dutt (2015) found by
experiments that variations in finite element size do not have an impact on
displacement results as they have in principal stresses.

16
 3.2.4 Economical Design Comparison and Appraisal

The last objective of this dissertation was achieved with the use of the
derived data and analysis from the designed beams. However, the standard and
the accuracy of the data was raised by a thorough comparison to specific case
studies (Table 1) which provide similar scenarios of design for transfer beams. The
data derived from the case studies was a combination of quantitative and
qualitative statistics, but the derived outcomes were purely numeric leading to the
formation of charts and diagrams that show which technology is more economical
than the other.

A final note that shall be given for the last objective of the research is the similarity
of the case studies compared to the beams designed from the scenario defined in
chapter 3.4. In that matter, the beams from the case studies differ quite much from
the project beams. Nevertheless, a mathematical formula was derived to find
similarities in percentage which were then multiplied by the raw data to provide
comparable values for completing the objective.

Transfer
Project Location Beam Brief Description Ref.
Technology
9 meter span; 7 storey building;
32-38 Wells Reinforced W1500 x D1600 C35 concrete built
London, UK Appendix B
Street, Concrete around 1960
20 meter span; 38 storey building;
Rio Serviced Selangor, Reinforced W1800 x D2700 C50 concrete Appendix C
Apartments Malaysia Concrete
28.2 meter span; 5 storey building;
Senatorska W1600 X D1800 C50 concrete
Warsaw, Poland Post-tensioned Appendix D
Street retrofitet on 2014
18 meter span; 6 storey building;
Funchal, W1200 x D2500 C50 concrete built on
Funchal Crown Post-tensioned Appendix E
Portugal 1999
Plaza Hotel

Table 1: Brief details of the selected case studies

17
3.3 Ethics Statement
The research work in this dissertation was done according to these objectives set
from ESRC Framework for Research Ethics (2015):

 To ensure quality and integrity of the research;

 To seek informed consent;
 To avoid harm to case study providers be they, contractors or engineers;
 To show that the research is independent and impartial.

The objectives were accomplished by following ethical conduct and by ensuring

that the questions asked were transparent and clear to the case study supplier.
Professionalism was applied when sending emails to contractors/engineers who
provided drawings, calculations and other information supportive of the case
studies. The information provided by the contractors/engineers might be sensitive
or limited. Hence care was taken to appropriately reference it and provide
protective disclaimers to further readers and users.

All ethical implications were reviewed ahead, and it should be noted that this
research project does not impair the dignity, rights, safety and well-being of any
humans.

Finally, it should be noted that the software programs used for the FEA are
academic licensed Autodesk programs supplied to students for research use only.

18
3.4 The Scenario
The design and analysis of the beams was based on a real scenario taken
from a building being designed and built in the Republic of Kosovo. The property
is respectively located in the small town of Peja, and it is planned to be a ten storey
mixed-use building to include a basement carpark as well. The client has instructed
“Kingly Structural Engineers” to design transfer beams for their basement carpark
because Kosovan authorities are not giving planning and permission for the
building considering that there are not enough carpark spaces to fulfil the minimum
criteria of “one parking space per family”. In the original architectural and structural
design, the column layout at the basement carpark was the same as in the other
floors allowing around 15 parking spaces in total. The new suggested design which
implements transfer beams will endeavour to provide the most economical solution
that will solve the client’s problem. The dissertation dealt with this scenario by
solving the problem below:

The longest and the most critical beam in the scenario spans 12.5 meters from
1000 x 1000 thick columns (Figure 10). The beam supports a 350 x 600 column in
the middle with a total concentrated load of 2410 kN @SLS, and it also supports a
UDL from the ground floor slab with a load of 78 kN/m @SLS.

Note: A number of
perimeter columns were
removed intentionally
within the 3D model.

Project Transfer Beam

Columns

Figure 10: The structural system analysed from the scenario

19
3.4.1 Main Assumptions

1. The design deals with a fixed supported beam to 1000 x 1000 RC columns
(not a continuous beam).
2. The design is only based on vertical loading perpendicular to the z-axis (no
design is conducted for earthquakes or other forces in the y or x-axis)
including self-weight, uniformly distributed loads and the concentrated load
coming from the middle column.
3. The beams are designed at ULS and SLS
4. SLS analysis and design for deflection is done only with the use of FEA
software Autodesk Inventor 2018 with an element size of 100mm. No hand
calculations were undertaken in that matter.
5. The RC beam is designed with the help of FEA software and with the Strut
and Tie method suggested by Schlaich and Shchafer (1984) and Goodchild
et al. (2014) (See Appendix A).
6. All beams are designed with suggestions from various national and
international codes. The codes followed during the design include:
 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 1-1: General actions-
Densities, selft-weight, imposed loads for buildings
 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules
and rules for buildings
 ACI 318-14: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
and Commentary
 Dutch Code Voorschriften beton TGB 1990: NEN 6720
 AS 3600:2009 Concrete Structures.

20
4 Findings and Discussion

4.1 Raw Data

4.1.1 Structural Analysis

The analysis was carried out in conjunction with theories and formulas of
the limit state design method. The first section of calculations deals with Ultimate
Limit State (ULS) design.

4.1.1.1 Structural System and Reactions

The loading was regulated using Robot Structural Analysis in conjunction

with Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 1-1. In that matter, the formula used
to generate factorised ULS loading was 1.35Gk + 1.5Qk.

Figure 11: Geometry and Determinacy Details

Node/Case Fx(Kn) Fz(kN) MY (kNm)

1/ UDL only 1146.3 923.97 655.9
1/ PL only 1658.5 2118.57 1503.92
1/ EC1 combination 2804.8 4492 2159.83
2/ UDL only 1146.3 -923.97 -655.9
2/ PL only 1658.5 -2118.57 -1503.92
2/ EC1 combination 2804.8 -4492 -2159.83

Table 2: Reactions in various load cases and combinations

21
4.1.1.2 Design Moments and Shear Force

Bar/Node/Case Fx(Kn) Fz(kN) Mz (kNm)

1/ 4/UDL only 1146.3 923.97 -655.9
1/ 4/PL only 1658.5 2118.57 -1503.92
1/ 4/EC1 combination 2804.8 3042.54 -2159.83
1/ 3/UDL only 1084.98 923.97 1654.01
1/ 3/PL only 1658.5 2118.57 3792.5
1/ 3/EC1 combination 2743.48 3042.54 5446.52
2/ 2/UDL only 1084.98 -923.97 1654.01
2/ 2/PL only 1658.5 -2118.57 3792.5
2/ 2/EC1 combination 2743.48 -3042.54 5446.52
2/ 1/UDL only 1146.3 -923.97 -655.9
2/ 1/PL only 1658.5 -2118.57 -1503.92
2/ 1/EC1 combination 2804.8 -3042.54 -2159.83
3/ 3/UDL only 923.97 1084.98 -1654.01
3/ 3/PL only 2118.57 1658.5 -3792.5
3/ 3/EC1 combination 3042.54 2743.48 -5446.52
3/ 2/UDL only 923.97 -1084.98 -1654.01
3/ 2/PL only 2118.57 -1658.5 -3792.5
3/ 2/EC1 combination 3042.54 -2743.48 -5446.52
Middle UDL only 0 0 1736.54
Middle PL only 0 -1658.5 6573.12
Middle EC1 combination 0 0 8307

Important Moments Important Shear

Table 3: Important Shear and Bending Moment

All moments and Shear derived from the given input data within the scenario.
Extended calculations and analysis can be found in Appendix A while shear force
and bending moment diagrams showing maximum (critical) values are found on
the next page.

22
a)

b)

c)

Table 2: Reactions from the structural analysis

d)

Diagram 1: a) Bending Moment Diagram for UDL case (Floor Load)

b) Shear Force Diagram for UDL case (Floor Load)
c) Bending Moment Diagram for PL case (Column Load)
d) Shear Force Diagram for PL case (Column Load)
All analysis at ULS i.e 1.35Gk + 1.5Qk

23
4.1.2 RC Transfer Beam design at ULS
4.1.2.1 General Outcomes

Considering the diagrams and the loading conditions with suggestions for
design on Eurocode 2. The RC transfer beam that suits the scenario has the
characteristics summarised in Table 4 and 5. Extended calculations which
produced these outcomes can be found in Appendix A.

ID RC-B 1600x750
Geometry
Span (m) 12.5
Size (mm) 1600H x 750B
Area (mm2) 1.20E+06
4
Moment of Inertia Iz (mm ) 2.56E+11
Moment of Inertia Iy (mm4) 5.63E+10
3
Total Volume (m ) 15
Concrete Properties
Strength fck @28 days (MPa) 50
3
Density (kN/m ) 24
Modulus of Elasticity E (MPa) 17,000
Creep coefficient t 2
Material factor gc 1.5
Poisson's ratio 0.2
Steel Reinforcement Properties 𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛= 50 𝑚𝑚
Strength fy (MPa) 500 𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑅240 = 70 𝑚𝑚
3
Density (kN/m ) 78
Modulus of Elasticity E (MPa) 200,000 Figure 12: RC Transfer
Strength reduction factor f 1 Beam Section
Material factor gc 1.15
Table 4: Structural Capacity Input Data for the RC beam
Bottom Reinforcement

Shear Reinforcement
Skin Reinforcement
Top Reinforcement

Main (mm2) 7365 2455 4824 90450

Distributed at top ends n/a 1473 n/a n/a
Distrubuted at Middle 1106 n/a n/a n/a
Moment of Resistance (kNm) 8750 n/a n/a n/a
Shear Resistance (kN) n/a n/a n/a 3210

Table 5: Provided Reinforcement and Structural Capacity @ULS for the RC beam
24
 4.1.3 Reinforcement and Detailing

H25 (3x1 layer) x 2000mm

H18 bars bundled with the pair of

five H25 bars with a length of
5000mm
Bobs (steel plates)
to provide H25 (3x1 layer) x 2000mm
Anchorage and to
prevent burst
failure
H25 (5x1 layer) c/w UBar each
end

H16 Hooks @110mm c/c in four H25 (5x3 layers)

rows @57 mm vertical c/c

6 H16 @120 mm c/c

Skin reinforcement

Figure 13: Isometric view of the RC transfer beam at reinforcement detail level

Top, Bottom

Left, Right

Front, Back

Figure 14: Top view and elevations of the RC transfer beam at reinforcement detail level

25
4.1.4 PT Transfer Beam design at ULS
4.1.4.1 General Outcomes

Considering the diagrams and the loading conditions with suggestions for
design on Eurocode 2. The PT transfer beam that suits the scenario has the
characteristics summarised in Table 6 and 7.

ID PT-B 1200x650
Geometry
Span (m) 12.5
Size (mm) 1200H x 650B
Area (mm2) 1.28E+06
Moment of Inertia Iz (mm4) 1.71E+11
Moment of Inertia Iy (mm4) 5.32E+11
Total Volume (m3) 15.93
Concrete Properties
Strength fck @28 days (MPa) 50
Density (kN/m3) 24
Modulus of Elasticity E (MPa) 17,000
Creep coefficient t 2
Material factor gc 1.5
Poisson's ratio 0.2
Steel Reinforcement Properties
Strength fy (MPa) 500
Density (kN/m3) 78
Modulus of Elasticity E (MPa) 200,000
Strength reduction factor f 1
Material factor gc 1.15
Prestressing Steel Properties
Strand Diameter (mm) 15.7
Area of strand (mm2) 194
Modulus of Elasticity E (MPa) 200,000 𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛= 50 𝑚𝑚
Strength fpu (MPa) 1860 𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑅240 = 70 𝑚𝑚
Material factor gc 1.15
Figure 15: PT Transfer
Table 6: Structural Capacity Input Data for the PT beam
Beam Section

Bot Tp Skin Shear

Rein. Rein. Rein. Rein. Prestress
Main (mm2) 2946 1964 3216 11770 10088
Distributed at top ends n/a 2946 n/a n/a n/a
Distrubuted at Middle 2946 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Moment of Resistance (kNm) n/a n/a n/a n/a 8430
Shear Resistance (kN) n/a n/a n/a 6806 n/a
Table 7: Provided Reinforcement and Structural Capacity @ULS for the PT Beam

26
 4.1.4.2 Post-tensioning, Reinforcement and Detailing

Additional 6H25 x 5000mm

@80 mm vertical c/c

Typical H16 @120 mm c/c

1 x ø100mm Parabolic tendon skin reinforcement

Containing 13 strands

Additional 6H25 x 2500mm

@80 mm vertical c/c

H16 stirrups (hooks)

H25 (6 x 1 layer)

3 x ø100mm Harped tendons

Containing 13 strands each

Figure 16: Isometric view of the PT transfer beam at reinforcement detail level

Top

Left, Right

Front, Back
Figure 17: Top view and elevations of the PT transfer beam at reinforcement detail level

27
 4.2 Derived Data
4.2.1 Bending Moment Capacity

(a)

(b)

(c)

Diagram 2: Derived data for bending moments

(a) RC transfer beam derived data from further analysis
(b) PT transfer beam derived data from further analysis
(c) RC vs. PT Moment Capacity

The diagram above comes as a result of data combination between

outcomes of design moments for both cases of the scenario and the moments of
resistance derived from the Project RC and PT beam design in conjunction with
the cited codes of conduct.

It can be seen from Diagram 2(a) that the RC transfer beam designed resists the
design moment (Mu) in all the points by extending further from the line of the

28
previous for more than 15%. This scenario sets out and extends the moment
capacity threshold (Mc – RC) to an average of 30.34% throughout the total length
of 12.5 meters. On the other hand, the design end-moments get resisted by the
reinforcement provided at the top face at the ends while the moment at the middle
gets resisted by the ties (bottom reinforcement) designed through the Strut and Tie
methodology. The middle moment capacity for the RC transfer beam has a
threshold of up to 8750 kNm or 7% more than the design moment.

The post-tensioned transfer beam, in contrast, has a smaller threshold average of

the moment capacity which equals 24.15%, and in the middle, it extends to 8430
kNm with the harped and the parabolic tendons.

When both beams are compared for their moment of resistance as in Diagram 2(c).
They are almost the same, but the RC beam is by 320 kNm more advantageous
considering results from the calculations. Nevertheless, the previous value is quite
small and perhaps inconsequential.

4.2.2 Shear Capacity

(a)

(b)

(c)

Diagram 3: Derived data for Shear Performance (a)RC (b)PT (c)Both

29
In regards to the shear force resistance, Diagram 3 describes explicitly the
theoretical shear and the real one balanced with load distribution. It can also be
seen from diagram 3(a) that the RC beam has a minimal threshold of shear
resistance (VRd,s) above the design shear (VEd), which possess a significant risk
in situations where the structure is exposed to vertical waves of earthquakes (Li et
al.2003). This point which was also discussed in the literature review is quite
important because a small vertical load from an earthquake could increase the
shear immediately and cause direct failure of the transfer beam. The shear
resistance (VRd, s) threshold of the RC beam extends up to 10% above the VEd
line.

On the contrary, the post-tensioned beam outcomes suggest that such technology
in this exact scenario can resist way more shear than the RC beam. Diagram 2 (b)
and (c) show that post-tensioning has a greater impact in improving properties for
shear resistance rather than for bending. This is an excellent point of benefit
considering that Londhe (2011) says that transfer beams most of the times fail in
shear due to the highly concentrated loads in the middle. In that matter, the post-
tensioned beam designed can resist even higher forces that can be introduced
from vertical waves of earthquakes to a threshold 450% higher than the actual
design shear (Chart 2).

8800 8750 8000

6806
8700 7000

8600 6000
5125
8500 5000
8430
KNM

KN

8400 4000
8307 3210
8300 3000

8200 2000

8100 1000

8000 0
Bending Moment Capacity Shear Capacity

Project RC Beam Project PT Beam Project RC Beam Project PT Beam

Design Moment Design Shear

Chart 1: Bending Moment Capacity Chart 2: Shear Capacity Comparison

Comparison

30
4.2.3 Deflection Performance

Service limit state design including the deflection check was done with a
combination of different codes as well as various software which allowed the use
of FEA to predict theoretical deflections of RC and PT beams which were designed
previously at ULS. Based on Eurocode 2 another critical factor which should be
monitored carefully during the design of RC members at SLS is crack control. This
aspect was covered previously parallel to ULS design as also noted in Appendix
A. Therefore, the most important feature followed through SLS design in this work
is the deflection which is covered throughout this chapter. The deflection check on
both beams was conducted with Autodesk Inventor Software, and the deflection
limit is checked against Australian Standard AS 3600: 2009 Concrete Structures,
considering that Eurocode 2 makes no such suggestions in limiting deflections for
transfer beams in general. The deflection limit according to AS 3600:2009 is
Span/1000 therefore, in this case, it is 12.5 mm. Such rigorous performance should
be followed considering the statements made in the literature review which
underline that “Deflection drives design in all transfer beams “(Doshi, 2015).

4.2.3.1 RC Beam Deflection Analysis and Performance

Diagram 4: RC Transfer Beam deflection check with FEA

31
Diagram 4 shows the amount of deflection caused in the RC transfer beam being
analysed and designed. This deflection comes as a result of the maximum bending
moment formed at the middle derived from the concentrated service load of
2410.55 Kn plus the maximum moment exerted from the UDL of 50 Kn/m all at
SLS. It can be seen that the amount of the theoretical deflection caused within the
RC beam stays well within the defined limits of the Australian Code for Concrete.
This way if the RC beam is built to the right standards with the right monitored cure
time; it can have a stable service life which would provide significant benefits for
the edifice.

The theoretical maximum deflection during the service life of this beam is 4.6 mm
which is 2.71 times smaller than the deflection limit calculated (12.5 mm as per AS
3600:2009).

4.2.3.2 PT Beam Deflection Analysis and Performance

Diagram 5: PT Transfer Beam deflection check with FEA

In contrast, Diagram 4 shows a different set of results for the Post-tensioned beam
in regards to deflections. It can be seen that the deflection obtained from the same
loading conditions and the same FEA characteristics as for the RC beam analysis

32
shows a higher deflection of the PT beam. The PT beam in theoretical terms
experiences a deflection of 7.5 mm in the middle which is 2.9 mm bigger than the
theoretical deflection of the RC transfer beam. Nevertheless, the PT transfer beam
still meets the criteria for limiting deflections considering that is smaller than 12.5
mm, and therefore it meets the standards of trusted service life.

When both beams are compared (Chart 3), it comes clear that the RC transfer
beam wins the battle of the theoretical deflection performance. However, a
significant factor which should be appreciated here is the section size which comes
to a great contribution towards the design. The critical aspect in the worked-out
scenario is the component stiffness which is a factor of the moment of inertia.
However, a big moment of inertia does not necessarily mean smaller deflections,
and this is due to the shape of the member also known as the component stiffness.
Hence both terms relate mathematically. In this scenario, the RC beam has a
greater depth and a smaller moment of inertia, while the PT beam which in
geometrical terms is a T beam has a smaller depth but a bigger moment of inertia.
Hence, it can be seen that the depth of the member is having a significant impact
on deflection reduction which point relates to St.Venants Principle that describes
stress diminishing through component’s depth. Finally, it can be concluded that
pre-stressing will still have an impact in deflection reduction, because in general
terms deflection is an integral of bending moment, and bending moment has
improved drastically by the implementation of pre-stressing as noticed before.

14
12.5
12

10
MILIMITERS

8 7.47

6
4.64
4

0
Deflection Performance

Project RC Beam Project PT Beam Deflection Limit per AS 3600:2009

Chart 3: Deflection Performance Comparison

33
 4.2.4 Design Economy by Case Studies Analysis

RC Beams PT Beams

Funchal Crown Plaza Hotel

Rio Serviced Apartments
32-38 Wells Street

Senatorska Street
Project RC Beam

Project PT Beam
Comparable weight economy formula =
Total Case Similarity (%) x Total Weight
(tonnes)

Geometrical Properties
Span (m) 12.5 9.5 48 12.5 28.2 20
Height h (mm) 1600 1500 2800 1200 1600 2250
Breadth bw (mm) 750 1600 2000 650 1800 1200
Number of Stories Supported 9 7 30 9 5 6
Actions on Structures
Selfweight @ULS (kN/m) 40 104.8 189 41.5 93.31 87.48
Other Uniform Loads @ULS (kN/m) 70 70 100 70 50 70
PL case number 1 1 varies 1 6 5
PL at the middle @ULS (kN) 3317 5336 varies 3317 varies varies
Concrete Section Properties
Concrete Strength @28 days (Mpa) 50 30 50 50 45 45
Amount of concrete (m3) 15 22.8 268 9.75 81.21 54
Weight (tonne) 36.7 55.7 660 24 199 132
Sectional Area A (m2) 1.2 2.4 5.6 1.28 2.88 2.7
Reinforcement and Prestress Properties
Steel Strength (fy) 500 500 500 500 500 500
Area of Tensile Reinforcement 7365 8838 52260 2946 9820 11784
Area of Compressive Reinforcement 2455 2946 52260 2946 5892 7070.4
Area of Shear Reinforcement 90450 108540 659904 6806 6384 7660.8
Total Reinforcement Weight (tonnes) 3 3.6 37 2 5.2 6.24
Total Prestress Weight (tonnes) n/a n/a n/a 1 2 1
Derived Data
Total Case Similarity (%) 100% 76% 38% 100% 55% 65%
Total Weight (tonnes) 39.7 59.3 697 27 206.2 139.24

Table 8: Design economy data amalgamation with case studies

Numbers in blue are assumed values derived as data on their left +20%

34
The table above is one of the crucial parts of this work which sets out the outcomes
that will fulfil the primary objectives of the dissertation that is to figure out which
beam technology provides a better design economy relating to size, cost and
weight. The way this analysis is being done is by comparing the data from the
beams designed in this dissertation with existing case studies or projects that
contain either an RC or a PT transfer beam within their structure. However, the
problem with such analysis is that most of the raw data will not directly compare to
the beam technologies designed in this dissertation. This happens because all
cases of transfer beam design are unique and they depend on the vast variety of
construction projects all across the world. In that case, the raw data which is
presented in table 8 is analysed and then derived with percentage similarity which
is a mathematical measure derived by taking average values between each case
study compared to the beams designed in the dissertation (Chart 4).

Chart 4: Similarity derived from case study comparison and analysis

The first thing which is noticed from Chart 4 is the difference in section size
between all members compared. Furthermore, their span is entirely different to one
another. The most comparable beam to the dissertation beams is 32-38 Wells
Street RC transfer beam which spans 9.5 meters, and it supports a point load from
7 stories with mostly office loading conditions. The other beams which come down

35
the line with similarity are the Senatorska Street beam and the Funchal Hotel
Beam. All the data derived from this percentage evaluation then produces results
which suggest the outcomes in the separated parts below.

4.2.4.1 Section Size and Architectural Benefits

2.5

2
METERS SQUARE

1.5

0.5

Dissertation RC 32-38 Wells Street Rio Serviced Apartments

PT Project Beam Senatorska Street Funchal Hotel

Chart 5: Section size comparison (Area m2) derived from case study analysis

From the section size comparison (Chart 5), the PT beams compared are
considerably smaller in size than their counterparts. This characteristic is seen as
a great advantage in many aspects including architecture and cost. As a result,
using PT beams in the project study would reduce the need to dig more soil for the
basement carpark or in the other it could increase the space capacity by containing
a larger floor-to-ceiling height raising the standards of the carpark being designed.
This characteristic could also be seen advantageous in other aspects as well,
including building services implementation and fire design. Viewing the project in
perspective as in Figures 18 and 19, it can be seen that PT beams are triumphant
in both cases. In Figure 18 the overall floor to ceiling height is 4100mm allowing
the RC beam to create the minimum clear head-height of 2500mm. In contrast,
Figure 19 scenario describes that if 600 mm of digging is saved then the RC Beam
would not meet the standards of head-height while the PT beam would still be a
triumphant

36
Figure 18: Architectural Benefits of using PT beam over RC beam Scenario 1

Figure 19: Architectural Benefits of using PT beam over RC beam Scenario 2

37
4.2.4.2 Weight and Impact in Cost

160

140

120

100
TONNES

80

60

40

20

Dissertation RC 32-38 Wells Street Rio Serviced Apartments

PT Project Beam Senatorska Street Funchal Hotel

Chart 6: Weight comparison derived from case study comparison and analysis

The data produced from Chart 6, is perhaps not as precise as it should be.
However, considering the limitations due to differences in size, loading conditions
and span characteristics this part of the derived data should be able to identify
which technology is heavier than the other. From that aspect, it can be seen that
PT transfer beams are lighter in weight compared to RC ones. The best way to
precisely appraise this is by comparing the Project Beams only, which show more
accurate results than all of the case beams compared together.

45
40
35
30
TONNES

25
20
15
10
5
0

RC Project Beam PT Project Beam

Chart 7: Weight comparison for Project Beams Only

38
As seen on Chart 7 the Project RC beam is heavier than the PT beam by 32.3%
or by 12.84 tonnes. This characteristic of the PT transfer beam has a significant
advantage in two aspects. First, regarding cost, the PT transfer beam could be
triumphant because the total weight of reinforcement is only 5.2 tonnes. Moreover,
the beam considered has a T shape which means that its flange acts as a slab as
well. So in conclusion cost is being saved in two parts, by having a smaller beam
section and less reinforcement, and by implementing the flange as a slab within
the structure.

The effects in price could undoubtedly come from the pre-stress as well, which
balances cost towards the weight of reinforcement of the RC beam. However,
concrete makes the difference as well knowing that for the RC beam there is a
volume of 15m3 needed while for the PT beam only 9.75 m3 of concrete are
needed.

In regards to the cost of construction and for the buildability, in general, the PT
beam again wins the battle. That can be logically appraised by viewing the
complexity of the RC beam details against the PT beam details (Figure 20).

Figure 20: (left) Project RC beam (right) Project PT beam SAME SCALE

39
4.3 Summary and Significance of Results
The research findings shown in Chart 8, underline the key findings of this
coursework and provide a concise summary of all the data derived throughout this
work. The results will further be concluded in the next chapter.

Moment Capacity

Design Economy Shear Capacity

Project RC Beam
Project PT Beam

Deflection
Geometry
Performance

Chart 8: Summary of Research Findings

Deflection Performance

Performance Average
Moment Capacity

Design Economy
Shear Capacity

Project RC Beam 100% 57% 100% 40% 74%

Project PT Beam 90% 100% 90% 100% 95%
Table 9: Summary of Research Findings “Tabulated”

40
5 Conclusion, Limitations and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusion
This dissertation was written with the aim of providing distinctive results
between reinforced and post-tensioned transfer beams about structural capacity,
deflection performance and design economy through analysis and design. This
was done for the reason of finding out which transfer structure provides better
outcomes in regards to structural performance and design economy. Chapter two
of this research paper was the first step to provide a ground for further study to
complete the set-out objectives. In that matter, in chapter two theoretical
conclusions were derived underlining that RC Transfer Beams are much heavier
and larger compared to PT Transfer Beams. Furthermore, this chapter allowed
specifics to be extracted for suggestions in design that induced the raw data
presented in chapter four and extensively formulated in Appendix A.

The main conclusions of this research form concise results which mainly prove the
highlights of the literature review and fulfil all of the objectives set out at the
beginning. The main conclusions are as follows:

 In regards to structural capacity the RC transfer beam studied, showed a

slightly better performance in moment resistance. This statement was not
predicted from the literature review because the latter instead showed facts
that post-tensioning improves moment resistance. Nevertheless, this
statement is further justified considering the perfect performance in shear
of the PT beam and its savings in size. So in that matter an average
outcome for structural performance suggests that the PT beam is much
better.
 The deflection performance observed by the FEA analysis showed that the
RC transfer beam performs slightly better compared to its counterpart in
service conditions. Again, the result was unpredicted during the research
because literature suggested the opposite outcome. However, again
considering the size and knowing that deflection is an integral of bending
moment the small difference is negligible.

41
  Regarding the design economy which is the part with the most significant
emphasis in this work, it can be concluded that PT transfer beams are
triumphant in weight and size. This statement confirms the findings from
studying different cases which suggested that Post-tensioning provides
major savings in materials and construction cost as well as other
advantages in structural matters.

All in all, answering the question of the scenario described in chapter 3.4 this paper
would certainly suggest the use of Post-tensioned transfer beams over RC transfer
beams. The post-tensioned beam will be lighter, cheaper and smaller in size saving
money for the client. The RC transfer beam will perform slightly better structurally,
however, the RC beam will be heavy, massive and expensive and its minimal
structural advantages are inconsequential.

5.2 Limitations and Further Recommendations

This research paper is quite competent, and it can be used to derive
necessary recommendations in judging approaches suggested to be taken by
engineers for transfer beam construction. However, the findings and the design still
has some limitations starting with the lack of reliability in FEA results. This is
because the software package used which is Autodesk Inventor is not the best
program for use in computational analysis for structural engineers. Probably in
future studies other research could implement FEA analysis from a more
competent software such as Ansys or Abaqus. Moreover, the use of testing
equipment and local case studies could improve the study and research by not
having to make any assumptions as noted previously.

42
 References

Almeida,J. et al. (2005). Post-tensioning in buildings: Technical Report. Lusanne:

The International Federation for Structural Concrete. Available from
http://www.civil.ist.utl.pt/~cristina/EBAP/book_63505_fib31.pdf [Accessed
28 April 2018].

American National Standards Institute (2014). Building Code Requirements for

Structural Concrete and Commentary — (ACI 318-14). ACI Committee

Anwar, N. (2014). Lecture 6 Strut and Tie Approach. YouTube. Available from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKXFx2stBPE&t=840s [Accessed 28
April 2018].

API. (2017). Verification and Validation of Subsea Connectors: First report.

Washington: Energy API. Available from
http://www.iadclexicon.org/structural-capacity/ [Accessed 28 April 2018].

Arya, C. (2009). Design of Structural Elements: Concrete, Steelwork, Masonry

and Timber Designs to British Standards and Eurocodes. 3rd ed. Oxon:
Taylor and Francis.

Bond, A.J. et al. (2011). How To Design Concrete Structures Using Eurocode 2:
Deflection Calculations. MPA publications. 1(1/3) 59-67.

Bouadi, H., Green, E., and Gosain, N. (2005). Evaluation and repair of a deep
transfer girder. Structures Congress and Forensic Engineering
Symposium. Reston. October 2005, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–12.

Civil Engineers Forum (no date). Post Tension Slab – Advantages and
Disadvantages of Post Tension Slab [image]. Available from
http://civilengineersforum.com/post-tension-slab-advantages-
disadvantages/ [Accessed 28 April 2018].

43
Colaco, J. P., and Lambajian, Z. H. (1971). Analysis of transfer girder system.
ACI J. Proc., 68(10), 774–778.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. CA: Sage.

Doshi, J. (2015). What is the design and construction difference between a

transfer beam and an ordinary beam. Quora. Available from
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-design-and-construction-difference-
between-a-transfer-beam-and-an-ordinary-beam [Accessed 28 April
2018].

Dutch Standards (1990). Dutch Code Voorschriften beton — (TGB 1990: NEN
6720). Netherlands: Dutch Standards

Dutch Standards (1990). Dutch Code Voorschriften beton — (TGB 1990: NEN
6720). Netherlands: Dutch Standards

Dutt, A. (2015). Effect of Mesh Size on Finite Element Analysis of Beam. SSRG
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2 (1/12) 8-10. Available
from http://www.internationaljournalssrg.org/IJME/2015/Volume2-
Issue12/IJME-V2I12P102.pdf [Accessed 28 April 2018].

ESRC (2015). Framework for research ethics. Available from

https://esrc.ukri.org/files/funding/guidance-for-applicants/esrc-framework-
for-research-ethics-2015/ [Accessed 28 April 2018].

European Standard (2002). Eurocode 1 Actions on structures – Part 1-1: General

actions- Densities, selft-weight, imposed loads for buildings (EN 1991-1-
1). Brussels: CEN

European Standard (2004). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1-1:

General rules and rules for buildings — (BS EN 1992-1-1:2004). Brussels:
CEN

European Standard (2004). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1-2:

General rules — Structural fire design— (BS EN 1992-1-2:2004).
Brussels: CEN

44
Goodchild, C.H., Morrison, J., Vollum, R.L. (2014). Strut-and-tie Models: How to
design concrete members using strut-and-tie models in accordance with
Eurocode 2. MPA publications.1-61.

Hamilton,T. (no date). Design of Post-Tensioned Components for Flexure.

Florida: The Post-Tensioned Institue Edc-130 Education Committee.
Available from http://www.post-
tensioning.org/Uploads/Education%20Resources/130617-3-PTI%20EDC-
130-Flexure-55-reduced.pdf [Accessed 28 April 2018].

Khan, S., and Williams, M. (1995). Post-tensioned Concrete Floors. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.

Kuang, J.S., and Li.S (2005). Interaction-Based Design Formulas for Transfer
Beams: Box Foundation Analogy. ASCE, 10 (2), 127-132. Available from
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291084-
0680%282005%2910%3A2%28127%29 [Accessed 03 November 2017].

Li, J. H., Su, R. K. L., and Chandler, A.M. (2003). Assessment of low-rise building
with transfer beam under seismic forces. Eng. Struct. 25(12),1537–1549.

Londhe, R. S. (2011). Shear strength analysis and prediction of reinforced

concrete transfer beams in high-rise buildings. 37(1), 39–59.

Masi, F. (2017). Week 7: Indeterminate structures, Moment Distribution Method

[lecture notes]. Structural Principles. Available from
https://learning.westminster.ac.uk/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent
.jsp?course_id=_53145_1&content_id=_1575181_1&mode=reset
[Accessed 03 May 2017].

MUE (2017). Value Engineering Post-Tensioned Transfer Plate: final report.

Kuala Lumpur: Maverick United Consulting Engineers. Available from
https://maverickengineers.com/conversion-of-rc-transfer-beams-to-a-dual-
cast-pt-transfer-plate [Accessed 28 April 2018].

Naoum, S.G. (2013). Dissertation Research & Writing For Construction Students,
3rd ed. Oxon: Routledge

45
Nie,J.G. et al. (2017). Experimental and Numerical Investigations of Composite
Frames with Innovative Composite Transfer Beams. Journal of Structural
Engineers, 1(04017041,1), 1-14. Available from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318237113_Numerical_and_exp
erimental_investigations_of_the_propeller_characteristics_of_an_electrica
lly_powered_ultralight_aircraft [Accessed 28 April 2018].

Riley, M. and Cotgrave, A. (2014). Construction technology 2: Industrial and

commercial building. 3rd ed. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Schlaich,J., and Schafer, K. (1984). Towards a consistent design of reinforced

concrete structures: final report. Zurich: IABSE congress. Available from
https://www.pci.org/PCI/Publications/PCI_Journal/Issues/1987/May-
June/Toward_a_Consistent_Design_of_Structural_Concrete.aspx?Websit
eKey=5a7b2064-98c2-4c8e-9b4b-18c80973da1e [Accessed 30
November 2017].

Standards Australia (2009). Concrete Structures — (AS 3600:2009). Australia:

SAI Global Limited

Strudy Structural (no date). Transfer Structures. Strudy Structural. Available from
http://www.sturdystructural.com/transfer-structures.html [Accessed 28
April 2018].

Szydolwski, R., and Szreniawa, M. (2016). About the Project and Study of Post-
Tensioned Transfer Beams Under the Five-storey Building in the Centre
of Warsaw. In: Szydolwski, R., eds, 4th Annual International Conference
on Architecture and Civil Engineering, ACE 2016. Singapore, Malaysia.
April 2016. Research Gate. 494-500.

Tonsukit (2015). The examples of B and D Regions in a Building [image].

Available from http://www.tonsukit.com/blog-and-article [Accessed 28
April 2018].

Wight, J.K., and MacGregor, J.G. (2009). Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and
Design. 5th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

46
Wu, Y., Cai, J., Yang, C., Zhou, Y., and Zhang, C. (2011). Mechanical behaviours
and engineering application of steel truss reinforced concrete transfer
beam in tall buildings. 20(6), 735–746.

Bibliography

Calavera, J. (2012). Manual for Detailing Reinforced Concrete Strucures to EC2.

Oxon: Spon Press.

Kong, F. K. (2002). Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams 3rd ed. London: Taylor &
Francis.

Mahmoud, N.M. (2007). Design and Numerical Analysis of Reinforced

Concrete Deep Beams. Delft: TU Delft . Available from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Petr_Vabishchevich/publication/3160
48943_Numerical_Analysis_of_Reinforced_Concrete_Deep_Beams/links/
59eb80d60f7e9bfdeb7044ef/Numerical-Analysis-of-Reinforced-Concrete-
Deep-Beams.pdf [Accessed 28 April 2018].

MPA (2016). Lecture 3: Bending and Shear in Beams [lecture notes]. Concrete
Structures. Available from
https://www.concretecentre.com/TCC/media/TCCMediaLibrary/Presentati
ons/Lecture-3-Bending-and-Shear-in-Beams-PHG-A8-2Oct16.pdf
[Accessed 28 April 2018].

Ove Arup and Partners (no date). The design of deep beams in reinforced
concrete. Available from https://www.istructe.org/journal/volumes/volume-
53-(published-in-1975)/issues/issue-4/articles/the-design-of-reinforced-
concrete-deep-beams-in-cu [Accessed 28 April 2018].

Ridley, D. (2012). The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students, 2nd
ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Walraven, J.C. (2008). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures

EN1992-1-1. Available from
http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/doc/WS2008/EN1992_1_Walraven.pdf
[Accessed 28 April 2018].

47
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
Structural Analysis and Hand typed Calculations
Calculations Cover Sheet

Transfer Beam Design for Dissertation Work

Made By Date Project No. Sheet No. Student Name and ID: Dren Gashi
DG April 2018 N/A 1 of 11 150518371

Introduction:

The client has instructed “Kingly Structural Engineers” to design transfer beams for their basement carpark because
Kosovan authorities are not giving planning and permission for the building considering that there are not enough
carpark spaces to fulfil the criteria of “one parking space per family”. In the original architectural and structural
design, the column layout at the basement carpark was the same as in the other floors allowing around 15 parking
spaces in total. With the new suggested design by the architect and with the implementation of transfer beams 10
more spaces are created and the criteria for getting planning and permission is fulfilled. At this stage, the dissertation
and the following calculations will suggest the most economical and reliable solution for transfer beams between RC
and PT technology. Furthermore, the calculations will provide a complete package of the design solution which will
lead to the final drawings that could be implemented for construction in real-life.

Calculation Method & Assumptions:

- The design will deal with fixed supported beams fixed to 1000 x 1000 RC columns (not a continuous beam).
- The design will only be based on vertical loading perpendicular to the z-axis (no design for earthquakes or for other
forces in the y or x-axis) including self-weight, uniformly distributed loads and the concentrated load coming from the
middle column; DL and LL for all cases.
- The beams will be designed at ULS and SLS, please find SLS design in “Findings and Discussions” chapter of the
dissertation.
- SLS analysis and design with the use of FEA software Autodesk Inventor 2018 with an element size of 100mm.
- Note that the utilized standards with their respective clauses are marked in the References column in the
calculation pages.
- RC beam designed with the help of FEA and the Strut and Tie method suggested by Schlaich and Shchafer (1984)
and Goodchild et al. (2014). Strut and Tie model and the truss forces developed with Robot Structural Analysis
Software.
- All beams designed with suggestions from various national and international codes.

Design Standards Used:

Description Tick if Used

Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-1: General actions -Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for ✔
buildings
✔
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings
✔
ACI 318-14: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
✔
Dutch Code Voorschriften beton TGB 1990: NEN 6720
Australian Standard AS 3600:2009 Concrete Structures ✔
Contents List:

Description Page Checked By Date

RC transfer beam design at Ultimate Limit State MF n/a
1. Loading 51
2. Structural Analysis and Geometry 52
52
2.1 Initial Sizing
52
3. Design for UDL case 52
3.1 Design for Bending 52
3.2 Design for Shear 53
4. Finite Element Analysis 53
5. Design of Strut and Tie model 54
6. Design of Transfer Beam with STM 54
54
6.1 Check Bearing Stress
54
6.2 Design Bottom Ties 54
6.3 Design Vertical Ties 54
6.4 Adding reinforcement from UDL case as per sheet 2 54
6.5 Check anchorage 54
6.6 Design Struts – Maximum strut width 55
6.7 Design Struts – Check strength of strut 55
55
6.8 Check Shear
55
6.9 Shear design for both sides (i.e LHS & RHS) 55
6.10 Minimum Reinforcement 55

Post-Tensioned transfer beam design at Ultimate Limit State 56

1. Geometry and Structural System 56
56
1.1 Effective Width of Flange
56
2. Material Properties 56
2.1 Pre-stressing 56
2.2 Unbonded System 56
2.3 Bonded System 56
2.4 Concrete 56
2.5 Passive Steel Reinforcement 56
56
3. Design Parameters
56
3.1 Allowable Stresses 56
3.2 3.1 Continued
4. Post-tensioning 57
4.1 Selection of post-tensioning tendon force and profile 57
4.2 Selection of number of strands 57
5. Stress Check 57
57
5.1 Frequent load condition – Point A
57
6. Crack width control (minimum reinforcement) 57
6.1 Contribution of reinforcement from bonded pre- 57
stressing point A
7. Main Passive Reinforcement 58
8. Shear Design 58
58
8.1 Maximum Spacing
59
9. Final Drawings and Details
 Title: Made by: DG Date: April 2018
RC transfer beam design at Ultimate Limit State
Student Name and ID: Dren Gashi Checked by: MF Sheet no: 3 of 11
150518371

Reference:
1. Loading

All loading values derived from Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures Part 1-1. It should be noted that the
building comprises seven residential floors, two mixed-use and a basement carpark. The structure is in
concrete containing flat slabs and columns with transfer beams at the basement. The transfer beam being
designed spans 12.5 meters and it supports a concentrated load in the middle coming from 9 storeys above
plus the uniformly distributed load of the ground floor slab. The building being designed is located in the
Republic of Kosovo and the snow load in this zone is as calculated below:

𝐴 2
𝑆𝑘 = (0.642𝑧 + 0.009) × [1 + ( ) ] BS EN 1991 1-1-3
728
500 2 𝑘𝑁
𝑆𝑘 = (0.642 × 2 + 0.009) × [1 + ( ) ] = 1.9 2
728 𝑚
𝑆𝑘 = 𝜇𝑖 × 𝐶𝑒 × 𝐶𝑡 × 𝑆𝑘 = 0.8 × 0.8 × 1.0 × 1.9 = 1.22 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2

1.35𝐺𝑘 + 1.5𝑄𝑘 BS EN 1991 1-1

Roof Loading
Load type Component SLS (kN/m2) ULS (kN/m2)
Paving 0.95 1.28
Asphalt water proofing/Insulation 0.45 0.6
50 mm screed 1.2 1.62
DL
280 mm RC slab (24t) 6.72 9.07
Ceiling and services 0.15 0.2
9.47 12.77
Accesible Roof 1.5 2.25
IL Snow load 1.22 2.85
12.19 17.87

1.35𝐺𝑘 + 1.5𝑄𝑘
Apartment Loading
Load type Component SLS (kN/m2) ULS (kN/m2)
Parquet/finishes 0.15 0.2
Partitions 1.2 1.62
50 mm screed 1.2 1.62
DL Figure 1: The total concentrated load in the
280 mm RC slab (24t) 6.72 9.07
middle was calculated using Robot
Ceiling and services 0.15 0.2
Structural Analysis as above. The
9.42 12.71 concentrated load at SLS is 2410.55 kN and
Residential domestic 1.5 2.25 at ULS as per Eurocode 1 is 3317 kN
IL
10.92 14.96

1.35𝐺𝑘 + 1.5𝑄𝑘
Commercial Floor Loading
Load type Component SLS (kN/m2) ULS (kN/m2)
Finishes 0.15 0.2
Partitions 1.2 1.62
70 mm screed 1.7 2.3
DL
300 mm RC slab (24t) 7.2 9.72
Ceiling and services 0.15 0.2
10.4 14.04
Shopping centres 4 6
IL
14.4 20.04
2. Structural Analysis and Geometry

RSA Software
Analysis

2.1 Initial sizing

During the initial analysis the load cases were treated separately as on the diagrams in Figure 2. The preliminary
sizing of the section as suggested by Australian code AS 3600-2009 for RC transfer beams is L/8, there are no EC AS 3600-2009
suggesting dimensions in this aspect.

12.5
= 1.56 𝑚 ≈ 1.6 𝑚
8
ℎ0 = 1600 𝑚𝑚
𝑏0 = 750 𝑚𝑚

3. Design for UDL case

3.1 Design for Bending

𝑀𝑢 1654 × 106 1736 × 106

𝐹𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 → 𝐴𝑠 = = = 1054 𝑚𝑚2 𝑀𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 →= = 1106 𝑚𝑚2 NEN 6720
𝑓𝑦 × 𝑧 500 × 3140 500 × 3140

3.2 Design for Shear EN 1992-1-1:2004

200 CL. 6.2
𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 0.5 × (𝑤𝑙) = 0.5 × 146 × 12.5 = 912.5 𝑘𝑁 𝑘 = 1+√ = 1.36 < 2.0
1500

𝐴𝑠𝑙 9808
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.035𝑘 3/2 𝑓𝑐𝑘1/2 = 0.035 × 1.363/2 × 501/2 = 0.392 𝑝1 = = = 0.008 < 0.02
𝑏𝑤𝑑 750 × 1500

1 1
𝑉𝑅𝑑, 𝑐 = [𝐶𝑅𝑑, 𝑐𝑘(100𝑝1𝑓𝑐𝑘)3 + 𝑘1𝜎𝑐𝑝] 𝑏𝑤𝑑 = [0.12 × 1.36(100 × 0.008 × 50)3 ] × 750 × 1500 = 627.903 𝑘𝑁

∴ Provide Shear Reinforcement

𝑓𝑐𝑘 50 𝛼𝑐𝑐𝑓𝑐𝑘 50
𝑉1 = 0.6 × (1 − ) = 0.6 × (1 − ) = 0.48 𝑓𝑐𝑑 = = 0.85 × = 28.33 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
250 250 𝛾𝑐 1.5

𝑏𝑤𝑧𝑣1𝑓𝑐𝑑 750 × (0.9 × 1500) × 0.48 × 28.33

𝑉𝑅𝑑, 𝑚𝑎𝑥 = =[ ] × 10−3 = 6884.19 𝑘𝑁 > 𝑉𝐸𝑑 OK
𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 + 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃 𝑐𝑜𝑡450 + 𝑡𝑎𝑛450

Where VEd < VRd,c provide H8 at 110 mm cc

Where VEd>VRd,c provide H12 @110 mm cc
Note: Final reinforcement will be added up with the point load case OK
4. Finite Element Analysis

Inventor
Software
Analysis

The design conducted with the help of the Strut and Tie model was done according to suggestions based on MPA (MPA,2014)
(2014) which gives recommendations for application of STM’s according to Eurocode 2. The images above show
the 3rd principal stress analysis on the left and the 1st Principal Stress analysis on the right for the studied beam
considering beam’s deflection which is adjusted by x1. The above analysis was conducted with Autodesk Inventor
2018 with an average finite element size of 100 mm. The analysis below was done with the use of Robot
Structural Analysis 2018 with an average finite element size of 80 mm.

(MPA,2014)
5. Design of Strut and Tie Model

a) Conducted a FEA
analysis
Distinguishing D and B
regions
Based on stress behaviour

b) Confirmed stress
values which help in
distinguishing D and B
regions to a more
accurate level

c) Drawn Struts and Ties

in respect to stress
patterns derived from the
FEA

d) Simplified STM
considering the
instructions from EC2
aiming an optimal angle of
θ= 450 which gives more
economical outcomes
6. Design of Transfer Beam with STM

6.1 Check Bearing Stress EN 1992-1-1:2004

3317×103 𝑁 𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝜎𝐸𝑑 = = 15.8 𝜎𝑅𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1.0𝑉 ′ 𝑓𝑐𝑑 = 1.0 × (1 − ) × 𝑓𝑐𝑑
350×600 𝑚𝑚2 250 (MPA, 2014)
50 0.85 × 50 𝑁
𝜎𝑅𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1.0 × (1 − )× = 22.6
250 1.5 𝑚𝑚2

6.2 Design Bottom Ties

2971 × 103 3248 × 103

𝐹16 = 2971 𝑘𝑁 → 𝐴𝑠𝑟𝑒𝑞 = = 6833 𝑚𝑚2 𝐹2 = 3248 𝑘𝑁 → 𝐴𝑠𝑟𝑒𝑞 = = 7470 𝑚𝑚2
500 ÷ 1.15 500 ÷ 1.15

∴Try 15 H25 in three layers (7365 mm2) @105 mm cc say OK

6.3 Design Vertical Ties

1658.5 × 103
𝐹𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑠 = 1658.5 𝑘𝑁 → 𝐴𝑠𝑟𝑒𝑞 = = 3815 𝑚𝑚2 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑖𝑒
500 ÷ 1.15

∴Try H12 @110 mm cc in 4 rows (4068 mm2) OK

6.4 Adding reinforcement from UDL case as per sheet 2

Bottom reinforcement 7365 mm2 + 1106 mm2 = 8471 mm2

∴Try 15 H25 in three layers (7365 mm2) @105 mm cc OK
Add at the middle 3 H25 bars (1106) mm2

Shear reinforcement Try H16 @110 mm cc in 4 rows (7236 mm2) OK

6.5 Check anchorage

For H25, anchorage required assuming straight bar in “good” condition in C40/50 concrete
Factor x lbd = 0.73 x 1010 = 737.3 mm; lbd taken from Table 2 of practical design to EC2

Average anchorage available beyond face of compression strut

= 1000 + 200/2 – 50 – 16 = 1034 mm l bd > lb available

∴ By inspection provide bobs at end of bars

6.6 Design Struts – Maximum strut width

𝑎1 = 𝑙𝑏 − 2𝑠𝑜 => 𝑎1 = 1000 − 2 × 62.5 = 875 𝑚𝑚

𝑢 = 2𝑠𝑜 + (𝑛 − 1) × 𝑠 = 2 × 62.5 + (3 − 1) × 42 = 209 𝑚𝑚

MPA (2014)
6.7 Design Struts – Check strength of strut
2073 × 103
𝜎𝐸𝑑 = = 3.35 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
824 × 750
1 − 50 50
𝜎𝑅𝑑 = 0.6 × ( ) × 0.85 × = 13.6 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
250 1.5

𝜎𝐸𝑑 < 𝜎𝑅𝑑 ∴ No burst reinforcement required

Joint Design
6.8 Check Shear
According to PD 6687 shear should be verified where a v > 1.5d ; av = distance between load
and support in this case = 6700 mm

6700 > 1.5 x 1500 ∴ Shear design is required

OK

6.9 Shear desing for both sides (i.e LHS & RHS)

6700
𝛽 = 𝑎𝑣 × 2𝑑 = = 2.23 𝛽𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 2.23 × 4492 = 10017 𝑘𝑁
2 × 1500 OK

𝑉𝐸𝑑 10017 × 103

𝐴𝑠𝑤 ≥ ; 𝐴𝑠𝑤 = 23039 𝑚𝑚2 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑡 0.75𝑎𝑣
𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑑 × 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 (500 ÷ 1.15) × 1.0

23039 ÷ (0.75 × 6.3) = 4585 𝑚𝑚2 /𝑚 OK

∴ By inspection not critical

6.10 Minimum Reinforcement OK

0.002 𝐴𝑐 = 0.002 × (1600 × 750) = 2400 𝑚𝑚2 /𝑚 ∴Provide min 5H25 (2455 mm2) top face OK

∴Provide min 12H16 (2412 mm2) on right

and left faces horizontally at a vertical
spacing of 110 mm
 Title: Made by: Date:
DG April 2018
Post-Tensioned transfer beam design at Ultimate Limit State
Student Name and ID: Dren Gashi Checked by: Sheet no:
150518371 MF 8 of 11

Reference:
1. Geometry and Structural System

Post-Tensioned flanged beam with the loading conditions and the geometrical characteristics as above. To
simplify matters for this, the beam is going to be designed only for the point load case which at SLS is 2000 kN
and at ULS is 3317 kN

ACI 318-11,
1.1 Effective Width of Flange
Section 18.12.2
The lesser of the following:

i) Eight time the flange thickness on each side of the stem (16 × 200) + 650 = 3850 𝑚𝑚

ii) One quarter of the span (12.5 × 1000)/4 = 3125 𝑚𝑚

iii) Tributary width = 5000 mm

2. Material Properties
EN 1992-1-
2.1 Pre-stressing 2.4 Concrete 1:2004(E)
Material according to European Standard PREN Cylinder strength fck=50 MPa Table 3.1
10138-3 Prestressing steels – Part 3: Strand Density = 24 kN/m3
Nominal strand diameter = 15.7 mm Modulus of elasticity E=17,000 MPa
Area of strand = 194 mm2 Creep coefficient t=2
Elastic modulus= 200,000 MPa Material factor gc = 1.50
Ultimate strength of strand (fpu)= 1860 MPa fcd = 28.33 MPa
Material factor gc = 1.15

2.2 Unbonded System 2.5 Passive Steel Reinforcement

Angular coefficient of friction (µ) = 0.07 fy=500 MPa
Wobble coefficient of friction (K) = 0.003 rad/m density = 78 kN/m3
Anchor set (wedge draw-in) = 6 mm E= 200,000 MPa
Stressing force = 80% of specified ultimate Material factor gc = 1.15
strength Strength reduction factor (bending) ϕ=1
Effective stress after all losses = 1200 MPa

2.3 Bonded System

Use GTI Duct, 115mm (4-1/2"), Flow channels
Housing up to 16 strands.
Angular coefficient of Friction (K) = 0.003 rad/m
Anchor set (Wedge Draw-in) = 6 mm
Offset of strand to duct centroid (z) = 3 mm
Effective stress after all losses = 1100 MPa

3. Design Parameters
Minimum rebar cover = 40 mm
Minimum pre-stressing CGS cover = 70 mm
3.1 Allowable Stresses 3.2 3.1 Continued EN 1992-1-
Concrete Compression = 30 MPa For quasi-permanent load condition 1:2004(E),
Concrete Tension = 4.07 MPa Compression = 22.5 MPa section 7.2
Passive reinforcement Tension = 400 MPa Tension = 4.07 MPa
4. Post - tensioning
4.1 Selection of post-tensioning tendon force and profile

1860 𝑀𝑃𝑎 × 194 𝑚𝑚2

𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑈𝑛𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑛 = = 360.84 ≈ 361 𝑘𝑁
1000
1100 𝑀𝑃𝑎 × 194 𝑚𝑚2
𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐵𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑛 = = 213.4 𝑘𝑁 ≈ 213 𝑘𝑁
1000

4.2 Selection of number of strands

Assume to balance 90% to 99% of the total concentrated load applied @ULS by using a harped tendon

𝑃 ′ × 𝐿 3317 × 12.5 12641 𝑘𝑁

𝐹= = = 12641 𝑘𝑁 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑠 = = 35.01 = 36 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑠 (PTI, No Date)
4𝑎 4 × 0.820 361 𝑘𝑁

12641 ∴ Considering UDL add 12 more strands in a

𝑃 ′ = 4 × 0.820 × = 3316.9 𝑘𝑁 OK
12.5 parabolic form to balance all forces.
At the end provide 4-115mm ducts
accommodating 12 strands each

5. Stress Check EN 1992-1-

1:2004(E),
Section 7.3.4

5.1 Frequent load condition – Point A

Point A: 𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑀𝐷 = 3947 𝑘𝑁𝑚
𝑃′ 𝐿𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑀𝐿 = 832 𝑘𝑁𝑚
𝜎 = (𝑀𝐷 + 0.5𝑀𝐿 + 𝑀𝑃𝑇 ) ÷ 𝑆 +
𝐴
Point B: 𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑀𝐷 = 2278 𝑘𝑁𝑚
𝐿𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑀𝐿 = 480 𝑘𝑁𝑚

2𝑃𝑎2 𝑏 2 2 × 4408 × 6.252 × 6.252 𝑆𝑇𝑂𝑃 = 3.41632𝑒 + 8 𝑚𝑚3

𝑀𝑃𝑇 = − ( ) = ( ) = 6887.5 𝑘𝑁𝑚
𝐿3 12.53

(𝑀𝐷 + 0.5𝑀𝐿 + 𝑀𝑃𝑇 ) = 3947 + 0.5 × 832 − 6887.5 = −2524.5 𝑘𝑁𝑚 𝐴 = 1.34000𝑒 + 6 𝑚𝑚2

𝑃′ 3317 2524.5 × 10002

= = 0.0025 𝜎= − 0.0025 = 7.39 ≈ 7.4
𝐴 1.34000𝑒 + 6 3.41632𝑒 + 8

Stress thresholds sustained load condition ∴ Considering that the actual stress exceeds by a lot FAIL
𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 0.45 × 𝑓𝑐 = 22.5 = −22.5 𝑀𝑃𝑎 the stated thresholds, cracking control
Stress threshold for total load condition reinforcement will be designed for all loading cases
𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 0.6 × 𝑓𝑐 = 30 = −30 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 4.07 𝑀𝑃𝑎
EN 1992-1-
6. Crack width control (minimum reinforcement)
𝑏𝑡 = 650 𝑚𝑚 1:2004(E),
𝑑 25 Section 7.3.3
𝐴𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≥ (0.26 × 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 × 𝑏𝑡 × ) ≥ 0.0013 × 𝑏𝑡 × 𝑑 𝑑 = 1300 − 50 − = 1238 𝑚𝑚
𝑓𝑦𝑘 2
2/3
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 = 0.3 × 50 = 4.07 𝑀𝑃𝑎
1238
𝐴𝑠1 = 0.26 × 4.07 × 650 × = 1703 𝑚𝑚2
500
𝐴𝑠2 = 0.0013 × 𝑏𝑡 × 𝑑 = 0.0013 × 650 × 1238 = 1046.11 ∴ As1 is chosen for the appropriate area of
reinforcement to control crack width OK

6.1 Contribution of reinforcement from bonded pre-stressing point A EN 1992-1-

1:2004(E),
Section 9.2.1
𝑓𝑝𝑘 1860
𝐴𝑝𝑠 × ( ) = 56 × 194 × ( ) = 40414.08 𝑚𝑚2 > 1703 𝑚𝑚2 OK and 7.3.2
𝑓𝑦𝑘 500
7. Main Passive Reinforcement EN 1992-1-
1:2004(E),
𝐴𝑠 𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑘𝑐 × 𝑘 × 𝑓𝑐𝑡,𝑒𝑓𝑓 × 𝐴𝑐𝑡 /𝜎𝑠 𝜎𝑠 = 𝑓𝑦𝑘 = 500 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝑓𝑐𝑡,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 = 4.07 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝑘=1 Section 9.2.1
and 7.3.2
1300
(ℎ − 𝑐) = 7.3 × = 1290 𝑚𝑚
7.4 + 7.3
𝜎𝐶 𝑁𝑒𝑑 12641 × 103
𝑘𝑐 = 0.4 × [1 − ( )] 𝜎𝐶 = = = 18.5 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ℎ∗ = 1300 𝑚𝑚
ℎ 𝑏ℎ 650 × 1300
𝑘1 ( ∗ ) × 𝑓𝑐𝑡,𝑒𝑓𝑓
ℎ

𝑘1 = 1.5

18.5
𝑘𝑐 = 0.4 × [1 − ( )] = −0.81
1300
1.5 ( ) × 4.07
1300

838500
𝐴𝑠 𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.81 × 1 × 4.07 × = 5528 𝑚𝑚2 ∴ Try 12H25 (5892 mm2) in two layers OK
500
Assume same area of reinforcement for fixed end moments OK

8. Shear Design EN 1992-1-

200 1/2 200 1/2 1:2004 (E )
𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 1.35𝑉𝐷 × 1.5𝑉𝐿 + 1.0𝑉𝐻𝑌𝑃 𝑏𝑤 = 650 𝑚𝑚 𝑑 = 1238 𝑚𝑚 𝑘 =1+( ) = 1+( ) = 39
𝑑 1238 Section 6.2.2
5528 103
𝜌1 = 𝐴𝑠𝑙 (𝑏𝑤𝑑) = = 0.006 𝜎𝐶𝑃 = 15624 × = 11.66 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝑘1 = 0.15
650 × 1238 1.34000𝑒 + 6

𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.035 × 𝑘 3/2 × 𝑓𝑐𝑘1/2 = 0.035 × 1.533/2 × 501/2 = 0.47

1
𝑉𝑅𝑑𝑐 = [0.12 × 1.53 × (100 × 0.006 × 50)3 + 0.15 × 11.66] × 650 × 1300=1952000 N = 1952 kN

𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 2118 + 1.0𝑉𝐻𝑌𝑃 ≈ 2500 𝑘𝑁 𝑉𝐸𝑑 > 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 ∴ Shear reinforcement required

Assume 12 mm stirrups with two legs

𝐴𝑆𝑊
𝐴𝑆𝑊 = 113 × 2 = 226 𝑚𝑚2 𝑆=( ) × 𝑧 × 𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑑 × 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 𝜃 = 400 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 = 1.20 𝑓𝑐𝑑 = 28.33 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑠

𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑠 = 𝑉𝐸𝑑 − 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 2500 𝑘𝑁 − 1952 𝑘𝑁 = 548 𝑘𝑁 𝑧 = 0.9𝑑 = 0.9 × 1238 = 1114.2 𝑚𝑚

226 500
𝑠=( × 1000) × 1114.2 × ( ) × 1.20 = 239.7 ≈ 240 𝑚𝑚
548 1.15 EN 1992-1-
1:2004 (E) Exp:
𝛼𝐶𝑊 × 𝑏𝑤 × 𝑧 × 𝑣1 × 𝑓𝑐𝑑 6.9
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
(𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 + 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃)
EN 1992-1-
𝑓𝑐𝑘 50 𝜎𝐶𝑃 11.66 1:2004 (E) Exp:
𝑉1 = 0.6 [1 − ( )] = 0.6 × [1 − ( )] = 0.48 𝛼𝐶𝑊 = (1 + )=1+ = 1.41
250 250 𝑓𝐶𝐷 28.33 9.6(N)

1.41 × 650 × 1114.2 × 0.48 × 28.33 EN 1992-1-

𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = 6806 𝑘𝑁 > 548 𝑘𝑁 OK
1.2 + 0.84 1:2004 (E) Exp:
9.4 &9.5(N)

8.1 Maximum Spacing

𝑓𝑦𝑘 500
𝑠 = 𝐴𝑠𝑤 × = 226 × = 307.36 ≈ 307 𝑚𝑚
0.08 × √𝑓𝑐𝑘 × 𝑏𝑤 0.08 × √50 × 650

∴ Try H12 at 240mm c/c with no mora than OK

307 mm spacing at areas with lower VEd
 G I

3 2 H25 (5 x 1 layer) c/w UBar each end

1 3
H25 (3 x 1 layer) x 2500mm H25 (3 x 1 layer) x 2500mm length

H16 @110mm c/c in 4 rows (hooks)

Steel Bob (Plate) Steel Bob (Plate)

H16@110mm c/c H18 x 5000mm five bars bundled with the pair of five H25 bars H25 (5 x 3 layers) @57 mm vertical c/c
EF c/w UBar each end fully anchored with bobs at the ends

2 1
3 3

RC Beam 1600 x 750

1:100

Additional 3 H25 bars with

a length of 2500mm at supports
750 750 750

40
40

40
H25 (5 x1 layer) c/w 40 H25 (5 x1 layer) c/w 40
H25 (5 x1 layer) c/w 40
UBar each end UBar each end UBar each end
40 40 40

H16 @110 mm c/c skin H16 @110 mm c/c skin H16 @110 mm c/c skin
H16 hooks in 4 rows H16 hooks in 4 rows H16 hooks in 4 rows
reinforcement reinforcement reinforcement

1600
1600

1600 Additional H18 bundled

H25 (5 x 3 layers) @57 mm vertical c/c H25 (5 x 3 layers) @57 mm vertical c/c H25 (5 x 3 layers) @57 mm vertical c/c
at the middle
in one layer (top) with a

40
40

40
length of 5000mm

Section 1-1 Section 2-2 Section 3-3

1:50 1:50
1:50

G I

Add 6 H25 x 2500mm @57 c/c c/w UBar each end H25 (6 x 1 layer) 5 Add 6 H25 @57 c/c with a length 4
EF c/w UBar each end of 2500mm c/w UBar each end

H12 @240mm c/c in 2 rows (hooks)

Add 6 H25 x 5000mm @57mm c/c H25 (6 x 1 layer)

EF c/w UBar each end
H16@120 c/c EF c/w UBar each end

5
4

PT Beam 1200 x 650

1:100

3125 3125

Typical H16 to form a mesh for crack Typical H12 to form a mesh for crack Typical H16 to form a mesh for crack H25 (6 x 1 layers) Typical H12 to form a mesh for crack
control at @163 mm c/c control at @163 mm c/c control at @163 mm c/c @80 mm c/c control at @163 mm c/c

H25 (6 x 2 layers)
@80 mm c/c Typical ø100 mm GTI duct
Typical ø15.7 mm SRG strand according
to PREN 10138-3
H16 stirrups (hooks)
1200

1200

Typical ø15.7 mm SRG strand according

to PREN 10138-3 H16 stirrups (hooks)
Typical ø100 mm GTI duct Typical H16 @120 mm
c/c skin reinforcement
Typical H16 @118 mm
c/c skin reinforcement
H25 (6 x 2 layers) @57 mm c/c
H25 (6 x 1 layer)

650 650

Section 4-4 Section 5-5

1:50 1:50

*General Notes: *
Reinforced Concrete:

1. Do NOT scale from this drawing. 1. High Strength Cement Concrete Grade
2. All dimensions in millimeters unless noted C50 60 with a dosing of 400 kg/m3. Module: Drawn by: Checked by:
otherwise. 2. Cover to reinforcement minimum Dissertation DG MF
3. Any discrepancies noted should be 50mm or conform R240 fire resistance
reported to the engineer (student). standards as per EC2 Student: Scale: Date:
4. Structural details conform Eurocode 2: 3. Steel fy=500 MPa; Tendons fp = 1860 Dren Gashi 150518371 as shown April 2018
Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: MPa Title: Drawing no: Revision:
General rules and rules for buildings. RC and PT beams final details 001 1
APPENDIX B, C, D, E
Case Study Information
Appendix B – 32-38 Wells Street in London, UK

The pictures above show the transfer beam located at the basement of
32-38 Wells Street

Pictures and beam measurements taken by the author on site

Appendix C – Rio Serviced Apartments Selangor,
Malaysia
 Appendix D – Senatorska Street Warsaw, Poland

Figures and drawings taken from a referenced document

 Appendix E –Funchal Hotel Funchal, Portugal

Figures and drawings taken from a referenced document

View publication stats