237

V
ci
or V
cw
Vci is the shear force required to produce first flexural
cracking and then cause this flexural crack to become inclined. Vcw
represents the shear force required to produce first inclined cracking
in the web of the member. These two shear mechanisms have been
previously explained in Sec. 2.3.1.
Row (3) shows the values of V
ci
for each of the design sections.
These values are evaluated using Eq. 4.54.
(4.54)
where Vo is the shear force at the section due to the unfactored dead
load, Vi is the factored shear force at the section due to externally
applied loads occurring simul taneously with M
max
' Mmax is the maximum
factored moment at the section due to externally applied loads. The
evaluation of the ratio Vi/Mmax causes a great deal of confusion in the
shear design of prestressed concrete bridge members because it has to be
evaluated at several sections along the span of the member. In
addition, in the cases of members subjected to moving loads such as this
design example, the loading combinations used to evaluate the maximum
shear at a section are different than those used to evaluate the maximum
moment. Hence, the question arises about which of the two loading
combinations should be used in the evaluation of the V
ci
It would seem
apparent that since the mechanism which is represented by the Vci
equation is that of the shear force required to produce first flexural
cracking this would be associated with the maximum moment at the
section. Therefore, the loading combination used should be that which
238
produces maximum moment at the section under consideration. However,
the amount of web reinforcement Vs would be determined from the relation
Vs = Vn - V
Ci
' where Vn = V
u
/. Since Vu is the maximum factored shear
force at the section then it would be determined from the loading case
producing maximum shear at the section. Thus, in this case the
reinforcement would be designed with the combination of two effects from
two different loading cases. This discrepancy has led designers to
simply use for the value of Mmax the bending moment at the section which
is associated with the loading case producing the maximum shear force at
that section. Such a procedure is followed in this design example.
Row (4) of Table 4.19 shows the values of Vcw for each of the
design sections. These values are evaluated using Eq. 4.55.
(4.55)
where fpc is the compressive stress in the concrete (after allowance for
all prestress losses) at the centroid of the cross section resisting the
externally applied loads or at junction of web and flange when the
centroid lies within the flange. In this design example the centroid of
the composite cross section lies within the web. Thus, fpc is simply
given as Fse/Ab' where Fse = fseAps' and Ab is the area of the precast
bridge girder. Vp is the vertical component of the effective prestress
force at the sect ion.
Row (6) shows the amount of shear strength that has to be
provided by the web reinforcement VS. The amount of shear carried by
the web reinforcement is evaluated using Eq. 4.56.
239
(4.56)
Rearranging Eq. 4.56 yields
where Avis is the area of web reinforcement required per inch of
longitudinal spacing s, fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement
(in this case f y = 60000 psi). Shown in row (7) of Table 4.19 are the
required amounts of web reinforcement at each of the design sections in
accordance with the ACI/ AASHTO requirements.
Row (8) shows the minimum amount of web reinforcement that has
to be provided whenever the factored shear force at the section exceeds
the value of 1/2 Vc. As can be seen from comparing rows (3), (4), and
(5), a minimum amount would have to be provided at all the design
sections. This minimum amount for this design example is evaluated
using Eq. 4.58.
(4.58)
which for this design example is equal to 0.006.
Row (9) shows the required stirrup spacing if a Grade 60 113 U
stirrup is used as web reinforcement. Row (10) shows the maximum
allowed stirrup spacing. In this case the requirement that the spacing
of vertical stirrups cannot exceed the 12" spacing required for adequate
horizontal shear transfer controls at all design sections.
240
4.4.7 Comparison between the Amounts of Web Reinforcement
Required the Truss Model and the ACI/AASHTO Design Procedure. Figure
4.49 shows a comparison between the amounts of web reinforcement
required by the truss method and the current ACI/AASHTO design
procedures. As can be seen from Fig. 4.49 is obvious that minimum
spacing requirements almost totally controls the shear design of this
member. The fact that minimum requirements controlled the design of
this specimen, in spite of the short span (40 feet) intended to maximize
the shear, supports the idea that flexure would always control the
design of this type of member. Futhermore, while the design using the
truss model appears far more rational, it can be seen that the end
product is virtually identical to that given by the current ACI/AASHTO
procedures.
4.5 Summary
In this chapter several numerical design examples have been
given to show the application of the truss model to different design
si tuations
In Sec. 4.2.4 it was shown how with the aid of the truss model
the designer is able to handle complex design situations. The adaption
of the tr uss model would give the most benefit in treating such
complex cases of irregular sections, unusual loading or complex combined
loading conditions. Once the truss model has been selected for the
particular case, the design procedure becomes relatively simple and
straight forward. Experience with the solution of the truss model would