PSI - Issue 70

Blessy Grant C J et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 70 (2025) 247–254

254

contributing to structural integrity and influencing the effective moment inertia by increasing the cross section to resist bending. The stiffness of the LRC 45 beam is remarkably higher than that of the RC 90 and LRC 60 beam, both in the forward and reverse loading cycles. Specifically, LRC 45 shows a 27.27% higher stiffness in the forward cycle and a 32.5% higher stiffness in the reverse cycle than RC 90. 5. Conclusion • LRC-45 displayed superior crack resistance, higher ductility, and substantial energy dissipation, making it more resilient being the optimal choice for high-load, high-reliability applications where maximum safety and minimal deformation are required. • The Cumulative Energy absorption capacity of LRC 45 is 2500 kN mm and is 143.43% higher than conventional beam RC 90 and 100.48% higher than LRC -60 , revealing LRC 45’s superior performance . • The stiffness of LRC 45 is 27.27% and 32.50% higher than RC 90 in the forward cycle and reverse cycle respectively. The stiffness of LRC 45 is 16.67% and 17.78% higher than LRC 60 in the forward cycle and reverse cycle respectively. • Despite its improved performance, LRC 45 may face limitations in scalability for larger structures, increased construction costs, and challenges in reinforcement placement. These factors could affect its practical adoption and warrant further investigation. References Blessy Grant Christian Johnson, Murugesan Ramasamy & Anandavalli Narayanan 2024, Experimental study and assessment of the structural performance of laced reinforced concrete beams against reverse cyclic loading, Revista Materia, 29(1), 514. Hayfaa Dhumad Hasan Al-Aboodi, Abass, AA, Chai Hwa Kian, 2015, Response of Laced Reinforced Concrete Beams to Fatigue Loading, International Journal of Science and Research, 6(5), 1150-1157. Hindi, R, 2004, Behaviour of concrete columns confined with cross spirals under different loads, Structures Congress, ASCE 2013, 1662 – 1672. IS 13920: 2016: Ductile Design and Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces - Code of Practice (First Revision) IS 1893: Part 1: 2016: Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures - Part 1 : General Provisions and Buildings IS 456: 2000, Plain and reinforced concrete — Code of practice. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards. Karayannis, CG & Chalioris, CE 2013, Shear tests of reinforced concrete beams with continuous rectangular spiral reinforcement, Construct Build Mater, 46, 86 – 97. Karyannis, C, Sirkelis, G, 2005, Response of columns and joints with spiral shear reinforcement, WIT Trans Modell, 41, 455-463. Lakshmanan, N 2008, Laced reinforced concrete construction technique for blast resistant design of structures, Sixth Structural engineering convention (SEC 2008), Chennai, India, 1-14. Lakshmanan, N, Parameswaran, VS, Krishnamoorthy, TS & Balasubramanian, K 1991, Ductility of flexural members reinforced symmet rically on the tension and compression faces, Indian Concrete Journal, 65(8), 381-388. Madheswaran, CK, Gnanasundar, G & Gopala Krishnan, N 2015, Performance of laced reinforced geopolymer concrete (LRGPC) beams under monotonic loading, Advances in Structural Engineering, 355 – 367. DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-2190-6_31. Parameswaran, VS, Lakshmanan, N, Srinivasulu, P, Krishnamoorthy, TS, Balasubramanian, K, Thandavamoorthy, TS & Arumugam, M 1986, Application of laced reinforced concrete construction techniques to blast-resistant structures, Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai. SERC Report No. RCC-SR- 86-1 Rao, PS & Lakshmanan, N 1996, Seismic Behavior of Laced Reinforced Concrete Beams, Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, p. 1740. TM 5-1300 1984, Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions, Department of Army, Navy and the Air force, Washington, DC, USA. Thirugnanam, GS, 2001, Ductile behavior of SIFCON Structural member, Journals of Structural engineering, 28(1), 27- 32.