Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 25

BEHAVIOR OF CONCRETE BEAMS REINFORCED WITH ASTM A1035 GRADE 100 STIRRUPS UNDER SHEAR by Aruna Munikrishna, Amr

Hosny, Sami Rizkalla and Paul Zia ACI Member Aruna Munikrishna received her B.E from R.V. College of Engineering, India in 2005 and M.Sc. degree from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 2008. Currently she is a practicing engineer in the Raleigh, NC area. ACI Member Amr Hosny is a PhD candidate in structural engineering North Carolina State University, where he also obtained his M.Sc. in 2007. He received his B.Sc. from Ain Shams University, Egypt in 2004. ACI Fellow Sami H. Rizkalla is a Distinguished Professor of Civil and Construction Engineering in the Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University, where he also serves as the Director of the Constructed Facilities Laboratory and NSF I/UCRC in Repair of Structures and Bridges. He is also a fellow of ACI, ASCE, CSCE, EIC, and IIFC. ACI honorary member Paul Zia is a Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at North Carolina State University. He served as ACI President in 1989, and is a member of several ACI committees including ACI 363, High-Strength Concrete; joint ACI ASCE 423, Prestressed Concrete; ACI 445, Shear and Torsion; the Concrete Research Council; and TAC Technology Transfer Committee, serving as chairman of its ITG-6. ABSTRACT This paper presents the results of an investigation of shear strength of large-sized concrete beams reinforced with ASTM A10352 Grade 100 bars. The performance of these beams is compared to that of similar beams reinforced with ASTM A6151 Grade 60 bars. The results indicate that by utilizing the higher yield strength of ASTM A1035 bars with reduced reinforcement ratio, the beams can achieve similar shear strengths as the beams reinforced with Grade 60 bars. The results also show that cracking and deflection under service load of the beams with reduced reinforcement ratio are within acceptable limits.

Keywords: beam; cracking; deflection; high strength reinforcement; shear strength; stirrup; web reinforcement.

INTRODUCTION Reinforcing bars conforming to ASTM A10352 are characterized by their high tensile strength and enhanced corrosion resistance in comparison to ASTM A6151 Grade 60 bars. Use of these high strength steel bars offers several advantages such as reduction of the reinforcement ratio, less cost for reinforcement placement, reduced reinforcement congestion, better concrete placement, and increase in service life due to enhanced corrosion resistance. The high strength reinforcing bars used in this investigation3 exhibit a non-linear stress-strain curve without a distinct yield plateau reaching a stress of 100 ksi (690 MPa) at 0.35% strain. One major concern with using this high strength steel bar is whether the larger induced steel strains under service load could cause unacceptably large cracking and deflection of the reinforced concrete beam and whether the beam would achieve adequate ductility under ultimate load. The objective of this research is to examine the behavior of concrete beams reinforced with different reinforcement ratios of high strength steel stirrups up to yield strength of 100 ksi (690 MPa) and to evaluate the serviceability and effectiveness of using high strength steel as transverse reinforcement in flexural members. The paper also examines the ability of current codes to predict the contribution of transverse steel to the shear capacity of reinforced concrete flexural members. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE There are no experimental data or design guidelines for the use of high strength steel as shear reinforcement with yield strength of 100 ksi (690 MPa) for reinforced concrete flexural members. Most of the research currently available in the literature focused on the use of high

strength steel as flexural reinforcement

4,5,6,7,8,9

. This paper will provide much needed information

on the behavior of high strength steel stirrups designed for yield strength of 80 ksi (550 MPa) and 100 ksi (690 MPa) for reinforced concrete members. It also provides an evaluation of the current ACI 318-0810, CSA A23.3-0411 and AASHTO12 code provisions in predicting the contribution of transverse steel to the shear capacity of reinforced concrete flexural members. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM The experimental program included eighteen tests using nine large-sized reinforced concrete beams, tested under static loading up to failure. All beams were 22 ft. (6.7 m) long, and were designed using nominal concrete compressive strength of 4000 psi (28 MPa). The beam length was chosen such that each beam could be tested twice, and thus doubling the amount of collected data. The shear span to depth ratio, a/d, of all specimens was kept constant. The nine beams were classified into three groups based on their shear resistance. The spacing of the shear reinforcement was varied to reflect a minimum and maximum level of shear resistance allowed by ACI 318-08. Test specimens were designed to induce stresses of 80 ksi (550 MPa) and 100 ksi (690 MPa) in the high strength stirrups. Within each group, the beams were geometrically similar and the shear reinforcement was designed to achieve the same nominal shear capacity. Hooks were provided at both ends of the longitudinal tension reinforcement to prevent anchorage failure. The transverse reinforcement consisted of #3 (No. 10) and # 4 (No. 13) closed stirrups designed according to ACI 318-08 requirements, with a bend radius equal to six times the bar diameter and an extension of six times the bar diameter past the 90-degree bend. Figure 1 shows the elevation and cross section of the beams in Groups 1, 2 and 3. The cross-sections and reinforcement details of all the specimens are summarized in Table 1. The beams, shown in Table 1, are identified by three parameters: the first two characters indicate the group to which the beam

belongs, i.e. G1 is Group 1. The second parameter specifies the longitudinal and transverse steel type using C for conventional steel and M for high strength steel. The third parameter is the specified design yield strength in the stirrup, 0 indicates no transverse reinforcement, 60 indicates 60 ksi (415 MPa), 80 for 80 ksi (550 MPa) and 100 for 100 ksi (690 MPa) design stress in the stirrup based on ACI 318-08. The beams were tested with a targeted shear span to depth ratio a/d = 3. For the first 4 beams of Group 1 with target shear capacity of 3f'cbd, the beams were tested with a loaded span equal to 19.0 feet (5.8 m) as detailed in Table 2. The same four beams were then rotated and tested with a loaded span equal to 13.2 feet (4 m) while maintaining the same shear span to depth ratio of 3. This set of tests is identified as Group 2. With the smaller sectional dimensions of the remaining 5 beams compared to the first 4 beams, it was possible to test these beams twice using the same setup configuration. For the replicate tests, an additional letter R was added at the end of the identification to differentiate the second test from the first test of the specimen. In each group, the beams reinforced with high strength stirrups were compared with beams reinforced with Grade 60 steel stirrups. Also, beams G1-M0, G2-M0, G3-C0 and G3-M0 were designed without shear reinforcement and were used to determine the nominal concrete contribution to the shear strength, Vc. MATERIAL PROPERTIES Local ready-mixed concrete using Type I cement and a maximum aggregate size of 3/8 (9.5 mm) was used to construct all specimens. Three 48 in. (102204 mm) concrete cylinders were used to determine the compressive strength of concrete in accordance with ASTM C39, at the time of testing as shown in Table 3. Tension coupons from the reinforcing steel were used to determine the stress-strain characteristics. Samples of #3 and #4 Grade 100 and Grade 60 bars were taken from the supply

used to fabricate the beams. The stress-strain relationships for #3 and #4 Grade 100 bars and Grade 60 bars are shown in Figure 3. The Grade 60 bars used in this research program had yield strengths greater than 60 ksi (415 MPa) and did not exhibit typical yielding plateau. The #3 bars had yield strength of 80 ksi (550 MPa) compared to 69 ksi (475 MPa) for the #4 bars. Both bars had ultimate strength of approximately 100 ksi (690 MPa) as shown in Figure 3. In general, the Grade 100 bars exhibit a linear stress-strain relationship up to a stress level 95 ksi (655 MPa) for #3 and #4 bars. This linear behavior is followed by a nonlinear behavior and reduction in the modulus of elasticity up to an ultimate strength of 155 ksi (1070 MPa) for #3 bars and 160 ksi (1105 MPa) for #4 bars. The stress of 100 ksi (690 MPa) at a strain of 0.35% was taken as the yield strength according to the recommendations of ACI 318-08 Section 3.5.3.2. TEST SETUP The test setup was designed to allow each beam to be tested twice to replicate test data. Table 2 gives the test setup details including the location of the load from two supports, effective depth of beams and shear span to depth ratio for each group. All beams were instrumented to measure applied loads, deflections, crack widths and steel strain. For each beam, a strain gage was placed on one bar of the bottom layer of the tension reinforcement at the location of the applied load to measure strains. Weldable strain gages were used to measure strains in stirrups. The location of the weldable strain gages was determined by estimating the location of the compressive strut acting from the point of load application to the support. The weldable strain gages were attached to the stirrups using a spot welder as recommended by the manufacturer. Three strain rosettes were attached to the front face of the beam to measure the crack widths and the strain in the stirrups after cracking. The rosette consisted of three 7.87 in (200 mm) PI gages, placed horizontally, vertically and inclined at 45 angles. In addition to the rosettes, six 3.94 in (100 mm)

PI gages were attached to the back face of the beams to measure strain in a stirrup. Crack comparators were also used to measure the crack width at different load levels in addition to the rosettes. All instruments were connected to an electronic data acquisition system to continuously record the data. Figure 4 shows pictures of the instrumentation. LOAD- DEFLECTION BEHAVIOR The applied shear versus deflection at the load point, up to failure for beams in Group 1, 2 and 3 are shown in Figure 5. The results indicate that the pre-cracking stiffness of the beams in each group were almost identical, but there is a reduction in the post-cracking stiffness of the beams reinforced with Grade 100 bars using design strength of 80 ksi (550 MPa) and 100 ksi (690 MPa) due to the larger strains in the longitudinal reinforcement and the reduction of the transverse reinforcement ratios. However, the figures show that despite the lower shear reinforcement ratio for beams reinforced with high strength stirrups in comparison with beam reinforced with conventional steel stirrups, all the beams were capable of sustaining similar loads. This behavior is attributed to the utilization of the higher tensile strength of high strength steel. The use of the lower longitudinal reinforcement ratio for the beams reinforced with the high strength steel caused higher deflections compared to the beams reinforced with the conventional Grade 60 steel at the same load levels. The reduced transverse reinforcement ratio results in larger crack widths and reduced stiffness of the beams reinforced with high strength stirrups. The beams without stirrups failed as expected in a brittle manner at much lower load and significantly less deflection than the beams with transverse reinforcement. Beams reinforced for shear were capable of sustaining much higher loads and deflections, and showed more ductile failures. CRACK PATTERN The general crack patterns observed for all beams within the same group were identical.

The first flexural crack occurred at an applied load of 30 kips (133 KN) and was located near the location of the applied load and maximum moment. As the load increased the flexural cracks propagated towards the compression zone and the number of flexural cracks also increased. Flexural cracks tended to develop at approximately the location of the stirrups. Therefore, the spacing of cracks was dominated by the location of the stirrups. As additional load was applied, new flexural cracks began to form towards the support and these cracks developed into flexuralshear cracks. For beams without transverse reinforcement (i.e. G1-M0, G2-M0, G3-C0 and G3M0), further increase in load resulted in the formation of a critical diagonal shear crack and sudden failure, as shown in Figure 6 for beams G1-M0 and G2-M0 characterized by the formation of a single critical diagonal crack spanning from the point of load application to the support. On the other hand, beams with transverse reinforcement were capable of carrying higher loads and were characterized by the initiation of additional flexure-shear cracks between the applied loads and the supports. They exhibited fairly ductile response without explosive failure. As the loading continued, a well-defined shear crack formed at the middle of the shorter shear span, and propagated towards the support and the loading plates under the load. The shear crack widened and extended towards the supports at a faster rate than the flexure cracks. All the beams failed due to crushing of concrete in the nodal zone of the compression strut connecting the nodes at the support and at the applied load as shown in Figure 6. Failure of beams G3-M80 and G3-M100 was due to high stresses developed in the stirrups and the high compression stresses in the strut, leading to crushing at the tip of the strut. CRACK WIDTH Crack widths were measured using a crack comparator and PI gages at each load level. The latter method utilizes the geometry of two PI gages in the rosettes in order to determine the

summation of the shear crack width within the gage length. In the analysis, the vertical and diagonal gage readings were used to calculate the summation of the crack widths using the Shehata13 equation: w = ( 2 D v 0.5lg ct )sin + (v 0.5lg ct ) cos where, V is the PI gage reading in the vertical direction, D is the PI gage reading in the diagonal direction, is the measured crack angle to the horizontal beam axis, lg is the gage length of the PI gage, and ct is the maximum tensile concrete strain taken as 0.1x10-3. The average crack width, w, was determined based on the number of cracks within the gage length of the rosette. According to the commentary of ACI 318-08, at the service load level, the acceptable crack width is 0.016" (0.41 mm). The shear at service load for this analysis was taken as 60% of the nominal shear strength of the beam predicted using ACI Building Code for the given reinforcement. Table 3 gives the service shear load for each group, the number of cracks recorded at service load for each beam and the measured angle of the crack with respect to the beam axis. It should be noted that all beams were designed to achieve the same nominal shear capacity using different stirrup spacing for the specific yield strength of the steel. Therefore, all beams within each group have the same service load. It was also observed that, the measured crack widths by the PI gage and the crack comparator were approximately the same for the beams within the same group. Therefore, only the crack widths measured using the crack comparators are presented in this paper. Furthermore, at service, the measured crack width was less than 0.016" (0.41 mm) for all beams as shown in Figure 7 for Groups 1, 2 and 3. Due to the selected design strength of 80 ksi and 100 ksi used in high strength stirrups, beams G1-M80, G2-M80 and G3-M80 had a larger crack width in comparison to beams G1-C60, G2-C60 and G3-C60 respectively. Figure 7 shows that beam G1-M100 in Group 1 had no cracks at service load. This is mainly due to the higher compressive strength of concrete in G1-

M100 that provided greater concrete contribution and delayed the formation of the first shear crack. The first measured flexural-shear crack width of 0.004" (0.1 mm) was recorded at 76 kip (338 KN) of shear. The results suggest that using high strength stirrups slightly increased the crack width in comparison to conventional stirrups.

STRAIN IN STIRRUPS The strains in the stirrups were measured using the vertical component of the PI gage rosette, the PI gages on the back side of the beams, and weldable strain gages that were attached to the stirrups at selected locations for beams G1-M80, G2-M80, G3-C60 and G3-M80. For Group 1, the measured shear versus transverse strain is shown in Figure 8(a). The figure shows that the stirrups were stressed only after first cracking. The corresponding shear was taken as the concrete contribution to shear strength, Vc. The concrete contribution, Vc, was also estimated from the control specimens. Figure 8(a) indicates that beams G1-C60 and G1-M100 have a higher Vc, compared with G1-M0. This difference is due to the higher compressive strength of the concrete used for these beams. It can be seen that at any given load, beams reinforced with high strength stirrups have a slightly higher strain value due to the reduced transverse reinforcement ratio in comparison with beams reinforced with Grade 60 stirrups. The test results indicated that yielding of the transverse reinforcement of beam G1-C60 did not cause failure of the beam. Instead, failure of the beams was due to crushing of the concrete in the nodal zone of the compression strut. The shear versus strain relationship for the beams of Group 2 is shown in Figure 8(b). The same phenomenon was observed where the strains in the beams reinforced with high strength stirrups were higher at any given load level due to the lower transverse reinforcement ratio of these beams. It can also be seen that the strains measured from the weldable strain gages, curve G2-M80-

WSG, matched closely the strains measured using the PI gages, curve G2-M80. These results indicate that the strains in the transverse reinforcement for both beams exceeded the yield strain; however, the beams continued to sustain increasing loads. Failure was caused due to crushing of the concrete in the nodal zone of the compression strut. It should be noted that the results for Beam G2-M100 were not included in this graph as failure occurred due to a diagonal shear crack that occurred in the longer shear span of the beam where no instrumentations were provided. Similar observations can be made for the beams of Group 3 as shown in Figure 8(c). At any given load level, the strains are higher for beam G3-M100 with the lowest transverse reinforcement ratio, followed by the strains for beam G3-M80, and beam G3-C60 had the lowest strains in the stirrups because it had the highest transverse reinforcement ratio. For beams G3-M80 and G3M100, it was observed that, following the formation of the first shear crack the stirrup reached very high strains, without much increase in the load. It is believed that, once these stirrups yielded, the increase in the applied load was transferred to the adjacent stirrups and so on until all the stirrups have yielded. Once all the stirrups in the shear span yielded, the compression strut carried additional load and failure occurred when the concrete at the nodal zone of the compression strut crushed. An explosive failure was observed in beams G3-M80 and G3-M100. Spalling of the concrete cover was also observed during testing. All the stirrups were terminated with 90 hooks. At high stresses these 90 hooks were insufficient in confining the concrete and opened up, resulting in an explosive failure. CODE PREDICTIONS Concrete contribution to the shear strength of each beam was determined by three methods: Vc1, using the test result from the control specimen without transverse reinforcement; Vc2, using shear versus transverse strain relationship when strain is first detected in the stirrups; and Vc3,

10

based on initiation of the first diagonal crack. The concrete contribution determined from these three methods is compared with the predictions according to ACI, CSA and AASHTO codes in Table 4. It can be seen that for larger beams, beams in Groups 1 and 2, the concrete contribution was overestimated by all the codes. This is likely due to the size effect, which is not accounted for in the code equations. For the smaller sized beams of Group 3, the code equations underestimated the concrete contribution. Also, there are some differences in the concrete contribution determined by the different methods. For example, for Beam G1-C60, the control specimen failed at Vc1 = 51 kips, while Vc2 = 65 kips based on the strain first detected in the weldable strain gage, and V c3 = 56 kips was observed at the first diagonal cracking. These differences are due to the fact that the initiation of the first diagonal crack did not always pass through the instrumented stirrups with the weldable strain gage. In addition, the diagonal crack could be too small to be visible, but it can be detected by the strain gages as is the case for Beam G2-M80, where Vc2 = 63 kips and Vc3 = 68 kips. The steel contribution Vs to the shear strength is compared to the predicted values according to ACI, which is based on a 45 degree truss model, CSA, and AASHTO codes, which are based on the Modified Compression Field Theory, in Table 5. The comparisons between the experimental and the predicted values by the code equations indicate that the ACI 318 code is most conservative since it underestimates the steel contribution Vs from stirrups especially when high strength steel is used. The test results also indicate that CSA and AASHTO codes predict more accurately the steel contribution Vs in all cases except for Beam G3-M100 which is more heavily reinforced with stirrups using design strength of 100 ksi (690 MPa). CONCLUSIONS Based on the tests of large-scale beams reinforced with high strength longitudinal and

11

transverse reinforcements, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. The shear strength of flexural members can be achieved by using less number of high

strength stirrups and lower high strength longitudinal reinforcement ratio in comparison with using Grade 60 reinforcement 2. The use of the lower longitudinal reinforcement ratio for the beams reinforced with the

high strength steel caused higher deflections compared to the beams reinforced with the conventional Grade 60 steel at the same load levels. 3. The measured shear crack widths for all beams reinforced with high strength stirrups

designed with yield strength of 80 ksi (552 MPa) and 100 ksi (690 MPa) were within the allowable limit recommended by the ACI Building Code. 4. The ACI, CSA and AASHTO LRFD design codes can all be used to predict the shear

strength of concrete beams reinforced with high strength stirrups with the ACI Buidling Code being most conservative. The predictions by the CSA and AASHTO codes are quite accurate and are very close to each other. Yield strength up to 100 ksi (690 MPa) can be used in design of high strength transverse reinforcement for flexural members without impairing the ultimate load carrying capacity and not exceed the limits of the crack width. But the stirrups should have 135 degree hooks to provide better anchorage when it is designed for such high stresses. More testing to validate this detail is recommended. 5. The ultimate load-carrying capacities recorded for all the beams were at least five times the

service load specified by the ACI Building Code.

ACKNOWLEDGEMNETS

12

The authors would like to thank MMFX Technologies Corporation for their financial support for the research. They are also indebted to several members of Constructed Facilities Laboratory including Jerry Atkinson, Bill Dunleavy, Greg Lucier, and Lee Nelson for their help with beam fabrication and laboratory testing.

REFERENCES 1. ASTM A615, ASTM A 615/ A 615M - 09: Standard Specifications for Deformed and Plain Carbon-Steel bars for Concrete Reinforcement, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009, 6 pp. 2. ASTM A1035, ASTM A 1035/ A 1035M - 07: Standard Specifications for Deformed and Plain, Low Carbon, Chromium, Steel bars for Concrete Reinforcement, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007, 5pp. 3. MMFX Technologies Corporation, "MMFX Steel Technologies," 2005. (Retrieved from: http://www.mmfx steel.com/). 4. Briggs, M., Miller, S., Darwin, D., and Browning, J., Bond Behavior of Grade 100 ASTM A 1035 Reinforcing Steel in Beam-Splice Specimens, SL Report 07-01, The University of Kansas Center for Research Inc., Lawrence, KS, Aug. 2007 (Revised Oct. 2007), 83 pp. 5. Glass, G. M., Performance of Tension Lap Splices with MMFX High Strength Reinforcing Bars, M.Sc. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 2007, 141 pp. 6. Hosny, A., Bond Behavior of High Performance Reinforcing Bars for Concrete Structures, M.Sc. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2007, 150 pp.

13

7. Seliem, H. M., Behavior of Concrete Bridges Reinforced with High-Performance Steel Reinforcing Bars, Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2007, 259 pp. 8. Seliem, H. M., Hosny, A., and Rizkalla, S., Evaluation of Bond Characteristics of MMFX Steel, Technical Report No. RD-07-02, Constructed Facilities Laboratory (CFL), North Carolina State University, 2007, 71 pp. 9. El-Hacha, R., El-Agroudy, H., and Rizkalla, S., H., Bond Characteristics of High-Strength Steel Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2006, pp. 771-782. 10. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary (318R-08), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI., 2008. 11. CSA Committee A23.3, Design of Concrete Structures, CSA A23.3-04, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada, 2004.. 12. AASHTO LRFD, Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary (3rd Ed.), American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2004.. 13. Shehata, E.F.G., Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) for Shear Reinforcement in Concrete Structures, PhD thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, 1999. 14. Munikrishna, A., Shear Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with High Performance Steel Shear Reinforcement M.Sc. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2008, 167 pp. TABLES AND FIGURES List of Tables: Table 1: Reinforcement details of beams Table 2: Load location and a/d details

14

Table 3: Service Loads Table 4: Code Comparisons for Vc Table 5: Code Comparisons for Vs

List of Figures: Figure 1: Typical cross sections for beams of Group 1, 2 and 3 Figure 2: Typical section and test setup of beams Figure 3: Stress-strain relationship for #3 and #4 high strength and Grade 60 steel Figure 4: Instrumentation Figure 5: Applied shear v/s deflection for beams of Groups 1, 2 and 3 Figure 6: Failure for beams of groups 1 and 2 Figure 7: Crack width v/s applied shear for beams of Groups 1, 2 and 3 Figure 8: Applied shear v/s transverse strain for beams of Groups 1, 2 and 3

15

Table 1: Reinforcement details of beams


Target Shear capacity Crosssection in Design flexura l stress 100 ksi Min. 24 x 28 3.1 CONV 60 ksi 100 ksi 100 ksi 100 ksi Min. 24 x 28 3.1 CONV 60 ksi 100 ksi 100 ksi CONV 60 ksi Max. 100 ksi 16 x 22 3.0 CONV 60 ksi 100 ksi 100 ksi Flexural Steel Ten. 4 # 11 6 # 11 4 # 11 4 # 11 4 # 11 6 # 11 4 # 11 4 # 11 7 # 11 5 # 11 7 # 11 5 # 11 5 # 11 Comp 2#9 2#9 2#9 2#9 2#9 2#9 2#9 2#9 4 # 10 4 # 10 4 # 10 4 # 10 4 # 10 CONV. 60 ksi 80 ksi 100 ksi CONV. 60 ksi 80 ksi 100 ksi CONV. 60 ksi 80 ksi 100 ksi Design Stirrup Stress Stirrup Size Spacing tr in 8.0 10.0 13.0 8.0 10.0 13.0 4.5 5.5 7.0 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.31 0.25 0.20

Group

ID

a/d

G1-M0 G1-C60 1 G1-M80 G1-M100 G2-M0 G2-C60 2 G2-M80 G2-M100 G3-C0 G3-M0 3 G3-C60 G3-M80 G3-M100

#3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #4 #4 #4

3 f c' bd

3 f bd

' c

7 f c' bd

1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa Table 2: Load location and a/d details
Group Target Shear Capacity CrossSection b in 1 2 3 h in 28 28 22 Loaded Span ft 19.0 13.2 14.8 Test configuration l1 in 15 3 15 l2 in 79 79 54 l3 in 155 85 129 l4 in 15 97 66 Effective Depth in 25.4 25.4 18.0 3.1 3.1 3.0 a/d

3 f c' bd 3 f c' bd 7 f c' bd

24 24 16

1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 304.8 mm

16

Table 3: Service Loads


Group ID b in G1-C60 1 G1-M80 G1-M100 G2-C60 2 G2-M80 G2-M100 G3-C60 3 G3-M80 G3-M100 16 18 24 25 24 25 d in f'c psi 4710 4710 4950 4710 4710 4950 5090 5240 5840 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #4 #4 #4 Stirrup size Spacing in 8.0 10.0 13.0 8.0 10.0 13.0 4.5 5.5 7.0 Vc kip 84 84 86 84 84 86 41 42 44 Vs Kip 42 45 43 42 45 43 96 105 103 Vn kip 126 128 129 126 128 129 137 146 147 143 86 128 77 128 77 Vn(avg) kip Vservice kip 32 35 41 27 36 40 47 38 49 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Theta No. of Cracks

1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1000 psi = 6.895 MPa; 1 kip = 4.4482 KN Table 4: Code Comparisons for Vc
ACI Group ID S in G1-C60 1 G1-M80 G1-M100 G2-C60 2 G2-M80 G2-M100 G3-C60 G3-C60-R 3 G3-M80 G3-M80-R G3-M100 G3-M100-R 8.0 10.0 13.0 8.0 10.0 13.0 4.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 7.0 7.0 Vc1 kip 51 51 51 75 75 75 62 62 63 63 63 63 Vc2 kip 65 52 67 77 63 70 62 68 54 52 52 53 Vc3 kip 56 52 59 60 68 68 56 54 59 58 53 56 Vc kip 84 84 86 84 84 86 41 41 42 42 44 44 Vc(exp) /Vc ratio 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.90 0.90 0.88 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.42 1.42 1.11 Vc kip 104 89 96 98 85 87 44 45 37 38 42 42 CSA Vc(exp) /Vc ratio 0.50 0.58 0.54 0.77 0.88 0.87 1.39 1.37 1.67 1.64 1.48 1.49 1.10 Vc kip 97 97 100 97 90 92 44 44 41 41 44 44 AASHTO Vc(exp) /Vc ratio 0.53 0.53 0.51 0.77 0.84 0.82 1.41 1.41 1.51 1.51 1.43 1.43 1.06

Average

1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.4482 KN

17

Table 5: Code Comparisons for Vs


Group ID S in G1-C60 1 G1-M80 G1-M100 G2-C60 2 G2-M80 G2-M100 G3-C60 G3-C60-R 3 G3-M80 G3-M80-R G3-M100 G3-M100-R 8.0 10.0 13.0 8.0 10.0 13.0 4.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 7.0 7.0 Vs(exp) kip 82.8 72.5 61.2 78.9 59.8 61.3 149.9 145.1 149.4 143.0 126.3 129.4 Average Standard deviation Coefficient of variation ACI Vs kip 50.3 44.7 43.0 50.3 44.7 43.0 108.8 108.8 104.7 104.7 102.9 102.9 1.42 0.13 0.09 Vs(exp)/ Vs ratio 1.65 1.62 1.42 1.57 1.34 1.43 1.38 1.33 1.43 1.37 1.23 1.26 Vs kip 71.2 60.1 58.8 69.8 59.1 56.7 129.7 130.2 131.9 132.8 133.0 132.5 1.09 0.08 0.07 CSA Vs(exp)/ Vs ratio 1.16 1.21 1.04 1.13 1.01 1.08 1.16 1.11 1.13 1.08 0.95 0.98 AASHTO Vs kip 76.8 68.3 65.7 76.8 60.3 58.0 156.1 156.1 135.1 135.1 132.7 132.7 1.01 0.06 0.06 Vs(exp)/ Vs ratio 1.08 1.06 0.93 1.03 0.99 1.06 0.96 0.93 1.11 1.06 0.95 0.98

1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.4482 KN

18

c Figure 1: Typical cross sections for beams of Group 1, 2 and 3

19

Figure 2: Typical section and test setup of beams

Figure 3: Stress-strain relationship for #3 and #4 high strength and Grade 60 steel

20

A: Strain gages

B: Rosettes Configuration

C: Transverse PI Gages Configuration Figure 4: Instrumentation

21

c Figure 5: Applied shear v/s deflection for beams of Groups 1, 2 and 3

22

G1-M100 & G2-M100

G1-M80 & G2-M80

G1-C60 & G2-C60

G1-M0 & G2-M0

Figure 6: Failure for beams of Groups 1 and 2

23

c Figure 7: Crack width v/s applied shear for beams of Groups 1, 2 and 3

24

c Figure 8: Applied shear v/s transverse strain for beams of Groups 1, 2 and 3

25

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi