by
Gavin MacLeod
March, 1997
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec
Canada
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partid fulfilment of the
National Librciry
Bibliothque nationale
du Canada
Acquisitions and
Bibliographic SeMces
Acquisitions et
services bibliographiques
Canada
ABSTRACT
Two fullsale rernforced concrete bridge pier caps were constructeci and tested to
investigate the influence of concrete strength on their behaviour. The arnount of uniformly
distributeci reinforcement required for crack control at service load Ievels was aiso varied in order
to investigate the suitabili~of current design approaches for these disturbed regions. in addition,
strutandtie modeIs, refined strutandtie models and nonIinear finite element analyses are used
CO predict
Deux chapiteaux de pont grandeur relle en bton arm ont t construits et tests pour
tudier I'infiuence de la rsistance du bton sur leur comportement. La quantit d'armature
distribue uniformment, ncessaire pour contrler les fissures sous charges de service, a t
varie pour dterminer si les approches de conception actuelles conviennent pour ces structures
spciales. De plus, des modles bielle et tirant simple, des modies bielle et tirant plus dtaills
et des analyses nonlinaires par lments finis sont utiliss pour prdire Ie comportement complet
des spcimens d'essai.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would Iike to thank Professor Denis Mitchell for his cornpetent supervision,
support and encouragement throughout this research programne. The author would also like to
express his gratitude to Dr. WiiIiam Cook for his advice and assistance durhg this programme.
The efforts of Marek Pnykorski, Ron Sheppard, John Bartczac and Darnon Kiperchuk
in preparing the experiments are gratefully acknowtedged. The author would also like to thank
Homayoun Abrishami, Arshad Khan, Stuart Bristowe, Glenn Marquis, Peter McHarg and PierreAlexandre Koch for their contributions in the construction and testing of the specimens.
The financiai support provided by Concrete Canada, a Network of Centres of Excellence
Pro
appreciated.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
RSUM
..
II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF SYMBOLS
1.
INTRODUCTION
Introduction .
Disturbed Regions
DeepBearns
1.6.2
Corbels
1.6.3
PierCaps
.
.
1.7.1
1.7.2
1.8.1
.
Compressive Strength .
1.8.2
1.8.3
HighPerformance Concrete
1.8.4
..
iii
viii
2.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
2.1
Details of Specimens
2.2
Material Properties
.
.
2.2.1
Concrete
2.2.2
Reinforcing Steel
2.3
2.4
Testing Procedure
3.1
LoadDeflection Responses
3.2
3.1.1
Specimen CAPN
3.1.2
Specimen CAPH
39
39
.
.
.
43
46
48
51
76
43
Development of Strains
3.2.1
Specimen CAPN
4.
Development of Cracking
3.1.1
Specimen CAPN
3.1.2
Specimen CAPH
4.2
76
dredictions of Results .
83
4.2.1
83
4.2.2
83
.
4.2.4 NonLinear Finite Element Analysis Using Program FIELDS .
.
.
Estimates of Crack Widths
85
4.2.3
4.3
5.
Specimens
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
88
101
103
105
LIST OF FIGURES
Typical forms of cap beams and pier caps used in bridge construction .
Examples of disturbed regions .
Strutandtie modelling of a deep beam with a direct support and a tension
hanger support .
Influence of principal tensile strain, E , , on compressive strength of
diagonally cracked concrete
.
compressive struts
Investigating the effect of distributed reinforcement on deep beams
E,
LVDT locations
Strain gauge locations and crdck width lines of measurernent
.
54
Strains in bottom bar of CAPN tension fie, determined from strain gauges
.
.
58
56
Longitudinai strains from LVDTs at midheight and at the level of the tension
tie of CAPN
Longitudinal strains frorn LVDTs at midheight and at the level of the tension
tie of CAPH Respomes of CAPHA rosettes A6 and A7
FIexural crack widttis measured at the level of the tension tie in specimens
vii
LIST OF TABLES
1.1
1.2
2.1
10
44
2.2
2.3
Concrete properties
46
2.4
48
4.1
88
98
102
102
yielding
4.2
4.3
4.4
Readings from LVDTs located at the level of the main tension tie in
specimen CAPNB
Readings from LVDTs located at the level of the main tension tie in
specirnen CAPHB
.
viii
.
.
A. 13
124
A. 14
125
A. 15
A. 16
.
.
.
.
.
127
A. 17
128
A. 18
130
126
LIST OF SYMBOLS
r?iaximum aggregate size
shear span
effective area of concrete surrounding each reinforcing bar
area of effective embedment zone of concrete where reinforcing bars can influence crack
widths
effective crosssectionai area of concrete compression strut
area of reinforcement required to resist moment, Mu,in corbel
area of horizontal stirrup reinforcement in corbel
area of reinforcernent required to resist horizontal rensile force, N,,, in corbel
area of primary tension reinforcement
area of reinforcing steel
expression
E,S,
Pef
AiAccf
Pw
Aibwd
capacity reduction factor, taken as 0.85 for shear
material resistance factor for concrete
6,
xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
Figure 1.1 shows some typical forms of cap bearns and pier caps used in bridge
construction. Although there is a variety of forms for these types of elements, this research
programme will examine a pier cap of f o m shown in Fig. l.l(b), which is also representative
of the cantilever portions of the cap beam shown in Fig . 1.1(a). This chapter first reviews the
behaviour and design of disfurbed regions, highlighting the use of strutandtie modeIs for design.
.4 review of experimental work carried out on deep beams, corbels and pier caps is presented to
provide background information on the behaviour of disturbed regions which are similar to those
investigated in this research programme.
1.2
Disturbed Regions
Regions of a member in which the "planesectionsn assurnption is appropriate are
sometimes referred to as Bregions (where B stands for beam or Bernoulli hypothesis). Other
regions of a member where the strain distribution is significantly nonlinear are referred to as Dregions, or disturbed regions (Schlaich et ai. 1987). This nonIinear distribution of strains is due
to a complex interna1 flow of stresses adjacent to abrupt changes of crosssection or the presence
of concentrated loads or reactions. The two maid design assumptions, that plane sections remain
plane and that the shear stress can be assumed to be unifonn over the nominai shear m a , are no
longer valid in disturbed regionsSeveral examples of disturbed regions are shown in Fig. 1.2. where the flow of
compressive stresses is shown by dashed lines, and tende ties are indicated by solid lines.
Figure 1.2(a) shows how the presence of a support reaction intempts the uniform diagonal
compression field in a s h p l y supported "slendernbeam with stimps. The flow of compressive
stresses fan into the support causing a disturbed region near that location. Figure 1,2(b) shows
a deep beam subjected to concentrated loads. Because of the complex flow of stresses in this
member, the entire member is a disturbed region. The flow of forces from the top of the beam
Figure 1.1 Typical foms of cap bearns and pier caps used in bridge construction
unifom
field
fan
/'
/'
\'
tension tie
(b)Deep beam
CO mpressive
stnlt
(c)Corbet
to the reaction areas delineates concentrated compressive stresses as shown. The resisting
mechanism, consisting of the flow of compressive stresses and the presence of the tension tie,
resembles a tied arch.
concentrated compressive stresses flowing from the bearing areas to the column. The horizontal
components of these diagonal compressive stresses must be equilibrated by tension in
reinforcement which is wellanch~redat the outer edges of the bearing areas.
1.3
reinforced concrete beams (Ritter 1899, Morsch 1909). These early truss models had a
compression chord and tension chord with diagonal compressive stmts, typically assumed to act
at 45". These tmss models formed the basis of code developrnents in Europe and North America
for the design of slender beams. Recently, renewed interest has been generated in t m s models
as a design tool, not only for siender beams, but also for the design of disturbed regions.
A strutandtie model provides a simple toof for the design of disturbed regions, that is,
regions having a complex flow of stresses. The flow of forces in a disturbed region is ideaiized
using compressive stnits to represent the concentrated compressive stresses and reinforcement to
represent the tension ties (see Fig. 1.2). Figure 1.3 illustrates the development of a strutandtie
model for a deep beam with a direct support and a tension hanger support. The first step in
design is to sketch the flow of compressive stresses, in the form of compressive stmts, from the
location of the applied loads to the support regions. The next step is to sketch the tension tie
reinforcement required to complete the strutandtie model (see Fig. 1.3(a)). The shaded areas
in Fig. 1.3(a) where compressive struts and tension ties meet are referred to as nodal zones.
These nodal zones are regions of multidirectionaily stressed concrete. In order to examine the
equilibriurn of the model, an ideaiized truss model is created as shown in Fig. 1.3(b). The
dashed lines represent the centreline of the compressive struts, and the solid lines are located at
the centroid of the tension tie reinforcement. The nodes of the idealized t m s occur at the
intersections of the compressive struts and tension ties in the idedized t m s model. One of the
main advantages of using strutandtie models is that the flow of forces can be easily visualized
by the designer. Scme experience is required to determine the most efficient strutandtie model
for any given situation, as no unique solution exists. As this is a lowerbowid solution technique,
al1 solutions will give conservative resulrs provided that equilibriwn is satisfied, applicable stress
limits are not exceeded and the reinforcement is capable of developing the required stress.
Schlaich and Schafer (1984) and Schlaich et al. (1987) suggest choosing the geometry of a sirut
 4 
 4 
andtie model such that the angle of each compression diagonal is within
the resultant of the compressive stresses obtained from an elastic analysis. While this approach
gives some guidance in choosing the model geometry, it should be noted that considerable
redistribution of stresses may occur afier cracking.
Once the geometry of the strutandtie model has been chosen, forces in the t m s
members can be found from equilibrium. The required arnount of reinforcement for each tension
tie can then be determined while ensuring that this reinforcement is anchored in such a way to
transfer the required tension to the nodal zones of the truss. The dimensions of a concrete
compressive strut m u t be made large enough such that the calculated stress in the stmt is less
than its h i t i n g stress.
Considerable research has been carrieci out on limiting stresses in concrete compressive
struts and the influence of anchorage details on the dimensions of these stnits. Thrlirnan et al.
(1983) and Marti (1985) concludeci that the stress in the stmts be limited to 0.60fCf, while
Ramirez and Breen (1991) suggest a compressive stress limit of 2 . 4 9 K (in MPa units).
Schlaich et al. (1987) proposed stress limits for the struts which depend upon the stress conditions
and the angle of cracking associated with the stmt (see Table 1.1).
Vecchio and Collins (1986) developed expressions for the modifieci compression field
theory which accounted for the strain softening of diagonally cracked concrete (see Fig. 1.4).
The limiting compressive stress, f.
where: fCt
1
is given as:
The following strain compatibility equation provides a means of detennining the principd tensile
where:
E,

I I 
Conditions of Strut
1
1

Effective
Stress Level
by
.
Schlaich er
al.
prismatic struts
( 1987)
II width
MacGregor
( 1997)
Il
Table 1.1 Effective stress Ievels ii stmts (adaptai from Schlaich et al. 1987,
and MacGregor 1997)
Figure 1.4 Infiuence of principal tensile strain, E,, on corvpressive strength of diagonally
cracked concrete (Vecchio and Coilins 1986)
Figure 1.5 Compressive strength of stmt versus orientation of tension tie passing
through stmt (Collins and Mitchell 1986)
In order to apply the strain softening expression to diagonal compressive struts, for use
in a stmtandtie model, Collins and Mitchell (1986) gave the foilowing expressions for the
limiting compressive stress in the struts:
where: f,
f:
1
where:
es
= smallest angle between the stmt and the tension tie crossing the strut.
The variation of the compressive strength, f,, of a strut as a function of the angle, 8,, between
the strut and the tension tie passing through the strut is shown in Fig. 1.5.
It is also necessary to Iimit the compressive stress in the nodal zones of the strutandtie
model. The maximum compressive stress Iimits in nodal zones depend on the different straining
and confinement conditions of these zones. Figure 1.3 iIlustrates three types of nodes identifieci
as follows:
1
CCC  nodal zone bounded by compressive struts and bearing areas only,
2.
CCT  node with a tension tie passing through it in only one direction, and
3.
CTT  node with tension ties passing through it in more than one direction.
The two nodal zones in Fig. 1.3 located under the bearing areas at the top of the deep beam are
examples of CCCnodes, that is, each node is bordered by a bearing area and two compressive
struts. The node above the direct support at the right end of the beam is an example of a CCTnode since it contains one principal tension tie passing through the zone. The node at the indirect
support, located at near the bottomleft corner of the deep beam show. in Fig . 1.3 is an example
of a CTTnode since two tension ties pass through it. These nodal zones must be chasen large
enough to ensure that stresses do not exceed the applicable stress limits. Table 1.2 outlines the
effective stress limits for nodal zones as determineci by several researchers.
Effective
Proposed
Stress LeveI
CCCnodes
O. 85f:
Collins and
CCTnodes
O. 75f;
CTTnodes
0.60fc
Mitchell
(1986)
1 .O v2 fcf (')
MacGregor
O=
1.4
1994), the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC 199l), the Canadian Highway Bridge
Design Code (CHBDC 1997, currently under development) and the AASHTO LRFD
specifications (AASHTO 1992) have adopted the strutandtie design methods developed by
Collins and Mitchell (1986). In cornparing different codes, it is important to realize that the
Canadian standards use material resistance factors (@, for concrete. t$s for reinforcing steel and
4p for prestressing steel), while the U.S. codes use capacity reduction factors, 9, which depend
on the type of action Both the CSA Standard and the CHBDC use the s a m material resistance
#p = 0.90.
The design procedure, with reference to the relevant code requirements, is sumrnarized
Sketch the strutandtie model, assuming straight compression struts to mode1 the flow
of forces from the points of application of the loads to the supports (see Fig. 1.3fa)).
2.
Choose the size of each bearing such that the limiting compressive stress of the adjacent
nodal zone is not exceeded. The nodal zone stresses are limited to 0.85 4, fCf for a CCCnode, 0.75 &, fCt for a CCTnode, and 0.604,f; for a CTTnode.
reinforcement must be distributed over an effective area of concrete such that the force
in the tension tie does not exceed the appropriate stress limit, given above, times this
effective area.
For example, the bearing area of the direct support on the right end of the deep beam
shown in Fig . 1.3(a) is adjacent to a CCTnode, so the area of the bearing plate, 1, b,
must be chosen Iarge enough to ensure that the factored reaction force of the support does
not exceed 0.75 6,fer k b. in addition. the reinforcernent making up the tension tie musc
be detailed such that the effective area surroundhg the bars (defmed as that area having
the same centroid as the tension tie, that is, h,b) is large enough such that the tension in
the tie does not exceed 0.75 d,f: hab.
3.
Draw the t m s rnodel ideaiizing the strutandtie mode1 (see Fig. 1.3(b)). All nodes are
tocated at the intersections of the lines of action of suuts, tension ties, applied loads and
bearing reactions.
In order to detennine the line of action of compressive stnits, it is necessary to determine
the dimensions of the struts, such that the compressive stress lirnits are ~ o exceeded.
t
Since the design of deep beams usuaily commences by considering equilibrium at the
location of maximum moment, it is useful to realize that the depth of the horizontal stmt,
da, cm be found by :
hanging (indirect) support in Fig . 13 is located at the inters~ctionof the centroids of the
horizonta1 and vertical tension ties.
4.
Calculate the factored forces in the tniss mcmbers (compression struts and tension ties)
through static equilibriurn.
5.
Choose tension tie reinforcement such that the calculated tension force, T, in each tie
does not exceed
A,,
the tension tie reinforcement. Distribute this reinforcement over an effective area of
concrete at least equal to the force in the tie divided by the stress limit of the nodal zone
which anchors it. Figure 1.3(a) shows the effective anchorage ara, h,b, of the CCTnode of the deep beam.
6.
Check the development of the reinforcement. For example, the tension tie reinforcernent
in the deep beam shown in Fig. 1.3(a) m u t be anchored over the length lb so that it is
capable of resisting the caiculated force in the tension tie, T, at the inner edge of the
bearing .
7.
Check the compressive stresses in the stmts. The dimensions of the strut shall be large
enough to ensure that the caiculated compressive force in the strut does not exceed
&faA,,
where fa and A, are the Iimiting compressive stress and effective cross
compressive stress in the strut. The iimiting compressive stress, f,, decreases as the
principal tensile strain, E , , increases. The principal strain, E , increases as the angle, O,,
between the strut and the tension tie passing through the strut decreases (see Fig. 1.5).
It is necessary to determine the area, A,,
diagonal stmt at the intersection with the nodal zone at the righthand end of the deep
beam in Fig. 1.3(a) equals (lbsins+ h,cos,)b.
compressive stress in the stmt, f,, as detennined by Eq. 1.3 and 1.4. In caiculatingf,,
the strain in the tension tie passing through the strut,
E,,
force in the tie divided by q5,AstEsr, where E,, is the modulus of elasticity of the tension
tie reinforcement.
8.
Choose crack control reinforcement. The CSA Standard and the CHBDC require the
inclusion of uniforrnly distributed reinforcement in the horizontal and vertical directions,
having minimum reinforcement ratios of 0.002 and 0.003, respectively, in order to
control cracking. The maximum spacing of this u n i f o d y distributed reinforcement is
300 mm.
1.5
The Amencan Concrete Institute Standard 31895 "Building Code Requirements for
Structurai Concreteu (AC1 1995) has separate provisions for the design of deep beams and for
the design of brackets and corbels. These two different design approaches are discussed below.
1.5.1
where: Vu
Vn
where: V,
v~
The AC1 Code defines a member as as deep beam when ZJd is Iess than 5 (where I, is
the clear span measured from face to face of supports). The shear strength, Vn, for deep flexural
The criticai section for shear shall be taken at a distance of O. 15I, from the face of the
support for uniformiy loaded beams, and at a distance of 0.50a (where a is the shear span) from
the support face for beams with concentrated loads, but shall not be taken at a distance greater
than d from the face of the support. Unless a more detaiied caiculation is made in accordance
The nominal shear strength provided by the concrete may also be calculated as:
where:
p,
AJb,d
except that the value of the first bracketed term shall not exceed 2.5. and V, shall not be taken
greater than 0 . 5 0 g b W d . Muis the factored moment occurring simuitaneously with Vu at the
critical section defined above.
resistance, @ V,. shear reinforcement shall be provided to satisw Eq. 1.6 and 1.7, where
V' shall
be computed by:
where: A,
reinforcement, and
$2
tension reinforcement.
In addition, the area of shear reinforcement, A,, shall not be less than 0.00 15bwsand s shall not
exceed d/5,nor 500 mm, and A, shall not be less than O.ME5 b,s2 and s2 shalI not exceed 6/3,
nor 500 mm. The shear reinforcement calculated for use at the critical section shall also be used
throughout the span.
1.5.2
The AC1 Code limits the applicability of the design provisions for brackets and corbels
to cases where the shear spantodepth ratio, ald, is not greater than unity. These brackets and
corbels tend to act as t r w e s or deep beams rarher than flexural memben (see Fig. 1.6).
According to the Commentary, the upper limit of uniy for ald is specified because, for larger
shear spantodepth ratios, the diagonal tension cracks are less steeply inclined and the use of
horizontd stirrups alone as shown in Fig. 1.6@)may not be suitable. Also, the specified method
of design has only been validateci experimentally for ald not exceeding unity , and for a factored
horizontal tensile force, N,
not greater than the factored shear force, Vu. lt is assumed that a
corbel may fail by shearing dong the columncorbel interface, by yielding of the main tension
tie, by crushing or splitting of the compression strut, or by Iocalized shearing or bearing failure
under the loading plate. In order to limit the size and shape of the corbel, it must have a
minimum depth at the outside edge of the bearing area of 0.5d. This limit is specified so that
a premature failcre will not occur due to the propagation of a major diagonal tension crack from
below the bearing area to the outer sloping face of the corbel. The section at the face of the
support shall be designed to resist a shear. Vu,a moment [V,a + Nuc(hd)]. and a horizontal
tensile force, N,,, simuItaneously. In al1 design calculations, 4 is taken equd ro 0.85 since the
behaviour of corbeis is predominantiy controlled by shear.
The design procedure is suIIlfnanzed in the folIowing steps:
Select the initial geometry of the corbel ensuring that the shear spantoepth ratio, ald,
does not exceed unity, and that the minimum depth at the outside edge of the bearing
area is 0.5d. Also, the shear strength, Vn,shall not exceed 0.2f:bWdnor 5.5bwd (in
Newtons).
Caiculate the area of shear friction reinforcement, A* across the shear plane necessary
to resist the applied shear force, Vu, as:
It is necessary to
estimate the distance ( h  d ) from the top face of the corbel to the centroid of the main
tension reinforcement. The design uitimate moment, Mu,to be resisted is:
tension tie
plane
stirmps orties
(b)Detailing of corbel
Figure 1.6 Provisions for brackets and corbels
Cdculate the area of reinforcement, A,, required to resist the horizontal tensile force,
N,, frorn:
where # is taken as 0.85. The value of N, shail not be taken less than 0.2 Vu,uniess
speciai provisions are made to avoid tensile forces.
Caiculate the total area of prirnary tension reinforcement, A,, frorn:
Distribute this reinforcement uniformly within twothirds of the effective depth of the
corbel adjacent to the primary tension reinforcement.
caps.
Figure 1.7 illustrates the marner in which the shear strength reduces as the shear spantodepth ratio, ald, increases. This series of tests were carried out by Kani in the 1960's and are
reported by Kani et al. (1979). The beams in this senes had the same flexural reinforcement and
no shear reinforcement. The two main variables were the shear span and the size of the bearing
plates. Aiso shown in this figure are the predicted capacities (Collins and Mitchell 1991) using
the modified compression field theory and stmtandtie models. This figure demonstrates that
for beams with ald less than about 2.5 strutandtie rnodels give more accurate predictions. The
1995 AC1 Code provides special provisions for deep flexural rnernbers with clear spantodepth
rstios, IJd, tess than 5, that is beams with ald l e s than 2.5 (see Section 1.5.1).
Franz and Niedenhoff (1963) used photoelastic mode1 studies to investigate the stresses
in isouopic homogeneous deep bearns before cracking. These beams had a uniformly distributed
load applied dong their top surface and were sirnply supported. Franz and Niedenhoff found that
the srnailer the spantodepth ratio, the more pronounced the deviation of stress distribution from
that assurned by the Bernoulli hypothesis. For beams with a sparttoheight ratio of one, the
extreme fibre tensile stress can be more than twice that predicted by traditional engineering beam
theory. It has also been demonstrated that the flexural lever a m for the elastic solution is las
than 0.67h, which corresponds to that for a slender beam (Park and Paulay 1975). Furthemore,
the interna1 iever arm for very deep beams does not significantly increase after cracking. For
very deep beams, Franz and Niedenhoff also found that the depth of the tension zone near the
bottom of the beam is relatively srnall (roughly 0.251 thick).
Franz and Niedenhoff (1963) also tested reinforced concrete pier cap specimens which
when inverteci resemble simply supported deep bearns . Two different reinforcing bar layouts
were investigated, one which had concentrateci reinforcing bars representing a tension tie and the
other contained bentup bars for the main tension reinforcement.
horizontal bars had a capacity which was 23 % higher chan that with the bentup bars due to the
larger arnount of tension tie reinforcement at the inside edge of the bearing.
Leonhardt and Walther (1966) carried out experirnents on deep bearns to investigate the
influence of detailing of the reinforcement and the influence of type of loading. They made the
following conciusions and recomrnendations:
1.
The main tension tie reinforcement should be distributed over a depth of 0.25 h 0.051
from the bonom (tension) face, for cases where h 5 f.
rn 1 5 2 ~ 1 5 2 ~ 2 5 m r n p l a t e
152 x 229 x flmm plate
strutandtie rnodel\
= 372 MPa
max agg. = 19 mm
d = 538 mm
b = 155 mm
A, = 2277 mm2
sectional mode1
Figure 1.7 Applicability of strutandtie model for predicting series of beams tested
by Kani (adapted from Collins and Mitchell 1991)
2.
At least 80% of the maximum calcuiated force in the main tension tie reinforcement
should be developed at the b e r face of the supports.
3.
Small diameter bars of mechanicd anchorages should be used as the main tension tie
reinforcement to prevent premature anchorage faiiure,
4.
5.
Near the supports, closely spaced horizontal and vertical bars of the same size as the web
reinforcement should be provided.
In their tests of sirnply supported deep beams, the location of the application of load was
varied. For the case of a point load applied on the top surface at midspan, the load path
resembles a ~k3arch. When a unifonnly distributed load was suspended from the bottom of the
beam instead of being applied to the top (compression) face of the beam, a more severe loading
condition was created. For this case, the load must first be transferred by vertical or inclined
tension reinforcement up to the compression region of the beam before it can be transferred to
the supports by means of tiedarch action. Therefore, verticai stimps must be provided to satisQ
this force requirement as well as to control cracks.
Rogowsky et al. (1986) carried out tests on 7 simply supported and 17 twospan
continuous deep beams.
reinforcement ratio, the amount of vertical stirrups and the amount of horizontal web
reinforcement. Two main types of behaviour were observeci. Near failure, beams without
vertical stirrups or with minimum verticai stirmps approached tiedarch action regardless of the
arnount of horizontal web reinforcement present. These beams failed suddenly with Iittle plastic
defonnation, while those with large amounts of vertical stirrups failed in a ductile manner.
The AC1 Code provisions for deep beams (see Section 1S. 1) have been developed based
solely on past experiments of singlespan, simply supported deep beams Ioaded on their top
(compression) face. Rogowsky et al. (1986) concluded that the AC1 Code expressions gave
conservative results for the simply supported beams and the continuous beams with large amounts
of vertical reinforcement tested. However, these expressions proved unconservative for the
continuous beams without web reinforcement and for those containing only horizontai web
reinforcement. They determined that the AC1 Code predictions were unconservative due to the
fact that they are based on an incorrect mechmical mode1 for the shear strength of deep beams .
RogowsIq and MacGregor ( 1986) proposed the use of stnitandtie models as a more rational and
consistent means of analyzing single and multiplespan deep beams .
Franz and Niedenhoff (1963) carrieci out photoelastic experiments on corbels having a
shear spantodepth ratio, ald, of less than 1.0. These experimental studies of the elastic response
of corbels indicated that:
1.
The tensile stress dong the top edge of the corbel is almost constant between the bearing
The compressive stress flowing in from the bottom of the corbel into the c o l m are
almost parailel and resemble a compressive strut.
3.
Rectangular corbels exhibited a nearly stress free zone at the outerbottom corner of the
corbel.
Franz and Niedenhoff developed a simple truss analogy based on their observations of
the stress trajectories. In addition, they gave the following detailing recommendations:
1.
The prirnary tension reinforcement should be anchored at the outside face of the corbel.
They recornmended providing the main tension reinforcement in the form of closed
hoops .
2.
The ratio of the arnount of main tension reinforcernent to the gross crosssectional area
2.
be at least equal to the largest bar used in the main tension tie reinforcement, and it
should be located as near to the outer face of the corbel as cover requirements permit.
3.
Closed horizontal stimps shouid be provided having an area not less than 50% of that
provided by the main tension tie reinforcement. These stirnips shouId be uniforxnly
distributed throughout the upper twothirds of the effective depth of the corbel.
4.
The total depth of the corbel at the outer edge of the loading plate shoitid be at least
equal to onehaif the depth of the corbel at the colurnn face.
5.
The outer edge of the bearing plate shouid be at least 50 mm from the outer face of the
corbel.
6.
When corbels are designed to resist horizontal forces, the steel bearing plates should be
welded to the main tension tie reinforcement to transfer the horizontal force directly to
these bars (see Fig . I .6(b)).
7.
was to develop a simple rational approach based on physical models of behaviour which could
be used in the design of a number of different concrete connections. The approach assumes
nurnerous failure planes for which reinforcement m u t be chosen to prevent failure dong these
planes.
The shearfriction concept assumes that a crack interface has some roughness and hence.
as shear is applied, the defocmations include not oniy some shear displacernent dong the crack
reinforcement crossing the crack which is balanced by compressive stresses in the concrete across
the crack interface. The shear on the interface is assumed to be related to the compression across
the interface by a coefficient of friction,
p,
The reinforcement crossing a crack is sufficientiy anchored such that the bars can yield.
2.
3.
The effective coefficient of shear friction, p, depends on the surface roughness but is
independent of concrete strength.
This concept was applied to test data reported by Kriz and Ratlis where the shear spanto
depth ratio, ald, was less than or equal to 0.7 and where the reinforcement had yielded. The
shearfriction concept gave reasonably conservative strength predictions for both vertical and
combineci vertid and horizontal loading cases.
Mattock et al. (1976) tested 28 reinforced concrete corbels subjected to vertical and
horizontal loading. The variables included in these tests were: the ratio of shear span to effective
depth, the ratio of horizontal to vertical load, the maunts of main tension tie and distributed
reinforcement, concrete strength and type of aggregate.
The design procedure first introduced in the 1971 AC1 Code was based on the research
of Kriz and Raths (1965) with later modifications to include the design procedure developed by
Mattock (1976)and Mattock et al. (1976). This approach is still in use today (see Section 15.2).
1.6.3
Pier Caps
AlSoufi (1990) carried out an experimental investigation which involveci testing six
reinforced concrete pier caps. Parameters which were varied in these specimens included: the
geometry of the pier caps, the amount and distibution of unifonnly distributed reinforcement,
and the anchorage details of this reinforcement.
recornmendations:
After yielding of the main tension tie reinforcement, yielding spreads to the distributed
reinforcement.
The unifonniy distributed reinforcement contributes significantly to the strength and plays
The
1.7
1.7.1
represented by straight lines between loading and support bearhg areas, and usuaily ignore the
contribution of uniformiy distnbuted reinforcement. More refmed strutandtie models attempt
to include the effects of bulging and curving compressive stnits due to the presence of tensile
stresses in the concrete and uniformiy distributecl reinforcement. Accounting for the presence
of unifonnly distributed reinforcement also increases the total amount of tension tie
reinforcement, and hence the strength of the member.
Figure 1.8 shows a simply supported deep bearn with a concentrated load applied on its
top surface. In Fig. 1.&a), the flow of principal compressive and tensile stresses are indicated
with dashed and solid lines, respectively. The diagonai compressive struts buige between the
loading point and the supports due to the presence of tensile stresses in the concrete. A possible
strutandtie mode1 which acccJunts for this bulging action of the struts is presented in Fig. 1.8(b).
Design procedures have typically adopted a simpler assumption of straight compression struts in
combination with a minimum arnount of reinforcement uniforxniy distributed in the horizontal and
vertical directions as s h o w in Fig. 1.8(c). This uniformly distributed reinforcernent serves to
control cracking in disturbed regions (see Section 1.4).
In deep bearn design, unifonnly distributed reinforcement corresponding to geornetnc
ratios of 0.002 to 0.003 is usually provided in the horizonta1 and vertical directions. Marti
(1985) investigated the role of this reinforcement in controllhg cracks, perrnitting redistribution
of stresses after cracking and increasing the strength of the member. Figure 1.9 shows onehalf
of a deep bearn which is subjected to a concentrated load applied on its top surface and with
simple supports at its ends. It is assumed that this beam has u n i f o d y distributed reinforcemnt
in the verticai direction ody. Figure 1,9(a) illustrates the arching and fanning of the compressive
stresses in the member. The presence of the unifonnly distributed vertical reinforcement perniits
the main compression stmt to curve, thus forming an arcb, and also provides anchorage for the
fanning compression s m t s near the bottom of the beam. Figure 1.9(a) shows the variation of
the force in required in the main tension tie reinforcement. The main tension tie has a maximum
force at the centreline of the beam (point d) corresponding to the tensile force, T. In the region
crack
cantrol
sted
VV
I I
vertical reinforcement
between points b and d, that is where uniformly distributed vertical reinforcement is present, the
force in the longitudinal reinforcement changes as shown in Fig. 1.9(a). in the regions between
points a and b and between d and e the force in the main tension tie remains constant. As
pointed out by Marti (1985), the vertical distributed reinforcement allows curtailment of some
of the longitudinal tension tie reinforcement. Figure 1.9(b) shows the idedized strutandtie
model for this deep beam containing uniformly distributed vertical reinforcement. The uniformiy
distributed vertical reinforcement has been idealized as a tension tie at the centre of zone
While uniformiy distributed vertical reinforcement reduces the demand on the main
tension tie reinforcement close to the support region, its presence does not result in increased
member strength. This is due to the fact that the strength is controlled by the conditions at
midspan. The presence of uniforxniy distributed horizontal reinforcement assists the main tension
tie reinforcement and resuIts in increased strength.
Although the simple strutandtie models are very useful in design and give conservative
strength predictions, for detailed analysis of the strength a more refmed stmtandtie model,
including both the vertical and horizontal distributeci reinforcement, gives more accurate strength
predictions.
As was mentioncd in Section 1.2, it is not appropriate to design disturbed regions with
the usual beam theory assumptions. Elastic finite element analysis may be used to determine the
stresses in a reinforced concrete member prior to cracking, however this type of analysis may not
be appropriate for predicting stresses in a cracked member as significant redistribution of stresses
occurs after cracking. In order to predict the full response (including postcracking response) of
reinforced concrete members a computer program, FIELDS, was developed (Cook 1987, Cook
and Mitchell 1988) which combines twodimensional nonlinear finite etement analysis with the
compression field theory (Collins and Mitchell 1980, 1986, and Vecchio and Collins 1986).
Triangular and quadrilateral elements are used to mode1 the reinforced concrete member.
To account for significant nonlinearities which may arise within a finite element, up to fourbyfour Gauss quadrature may be chosen for an element. Figure 1.10 filustrates the method used
to evaluate stresses correspondhg tcb a state of strain at each Gauss point (Cook and Mitchell
E,,
the stressstrain relationships of the reinforcing steel. However. the average stresses in the
cracked concrete, f,,and f,, are not as easy to determine. The average principal campressive
stress, f,, is not only a huiction of the principal compressive strain, q,but is also dependent on
the principal tensile strain, c l . As
E,
softening. Combining the Iimiting compressive stress for cracked concrete developed by Vecchio
and Collins (1986) and a parabolic concrete stressstrain curve gives the compressive stressstrain
relationship for cracked concrete (see Fig. 1.4(a)) as:
where:
and
c:
After cracking, the principal tensile stress in the concrete varies from zero at a crack location to
a maximum between cracks. Figure 1.11 shows the average principal tensile stress. fcl, plotted
against the principal tensile strain, E , (Vecchio and Collins 1986) as:
where: E,
E c ~
Lr
Figure 1.12 shows that the average principal tensile stress may be lirnited by yielding of
reinforcement or by sliding dong the crack interface (Vecchio and Collins 1986). Between the
cracks, the concrete and the steel are assumed to have average values of stress (see Fig . 1.12(c)),
while at a crack the tensile stress in the concrete is zero, the steel stress is a maximum, and a
shear stress v, may exist at the crack interface (see Fig. l.l2(d)). An approximate expression
for the shear stress limit dong a crack has been developed (Vecchio and Collins 1986) based on
the interface shear transfer tests conducted by Walraven (1981).
simplifieci as:
where: w
a
mm,
Note that this is an empirical expression and that stresses are expressed in MPa units. The
average crack width c m be assurneci to equal the average crack spacing tirnes e,. Since the stress
States shown in Fig. 1.12(c) and (d) are statically equivalent, it is possible to determine whether
yielding of the reinforcenent across the crack (Le. ,
f
interface (i.e. v, equals v,)
will result in a value off,, less than thac given by Eq. 120.
1.8.1
Compressive Strength
Advances in concrete technoIogy over the past two decades have resulted in the
availability of readymixed concrete with compressive strengths as high as 100 MPa in several
North American cities. There is a need to investigate whether the design proceciures, developed
for use with normalstrength concretes, are applicable to the full range of highstrength concrets
currently available (Collins et al. 1993).
The traditional parabolic stressstrain curve for normalstrength concrete recommended
by Hognestad (1957) can be expressed as:
This formula provides a reasonable approximation to the stressstrain curve for nomialstrength
concrete. However , as concrete strength increases, the compressive stressstrain cuve is near
linear over the rising branch, and exhibits greater initial stiffkess and decreased ductility (see Fig .
113). The parabota is too " rounded" to accurately represent this increased linearty and the more
bnttle postpeak response of very highstrength concrete.
Thorenfeldt er al. (1987) introduced a postpeak decay term, k, to the stressstrain
relationship developed by Popovics (1973) such that it could be applied to wide range of concrete
strengths. This resuited in the following expression:
= compressive stress,
where: fc
fc'
Cc
I
= compressive strain,
= compressive strain when fc reaches fCt,
= cuve fitting factor, as n becomes higher. the rising portion of the curve
&
E:
tc and
and k. While these four constants can al1 be determineci from actual cytinder stressstrain curves,
in rnany design situations, only the cylinder strength, f:, is laiown. Collins and Porasz (1989).
where Er
The 1994 CSA Standard gives an expression for E, (in m a ) , for concrete with y, between 1500
and 2500 kg/m3, as follows:
where y,
From the value off,' the four constants in Eq. 1.24 through 1.27 can be used to develop
the stressstrain relationship given in Eq. 1.23.
1.8.2
PI, of
suitable for a wide range of concrete compressive strengths. It is assurneci that a concrete stress
of al$cfc'is uniformiy distributed from the extreme compression fibre into the member a
distance of 8, c, where c is the distance of the neutrai axis from the extreme compression fibre.
These factors now depend on the concrete cylinder strength as follows:
The new factors are intended to account for both the signifiant shape change in the stressstrain
cuve as the concrete strength increases and the difference between the cylinder strength and the
1.8.3
The 1994 CSA Standard requires a minimum arnount of fiexural reinforcement in order
to give adequate reserve of strength after cracking and hence provide a ductile response. The
1994 CSA Standard requires that one of the foiiowing three provisions be satisfied:
1.
2.
Except for slabs and footings, provide a minimum area of flexural reinforcement, A
,,
as foIlows:
where: b,
3.
The minimum reinforcement requirements given above may be waived provided that the
factored moment resistance, M,, is at least onethird greater than the factored moment,
Mr.
The 1994 CSA Standard also requires a minimum arnount of shear reinforcement which
is dependent on concrete strength. An increase in the concrete compressive strength leads to an
increase in the tensile strength, which in turn results in an increase in the cracking shear. This
increase in the cracking shear requires an increase in the minimum shear reinforcement in order
to ensure that the shear strength exceeds the cracking shear. The 1994 CSA Standard requires
where: b,
s
=
=
This requirement, together with the maximum spacing limits for shear reinforcement, is intendeci
to control inclineci cracking at service load levels.
1.8.4
SWandTie Provisions
The provisions for strutandtie models in the 1994 CSA Standard are the same as those
in the 1984 CSA Standard. The stress limit for a concrete strut. 0.85+,fc'. remains a linear
function of the concrete cylinder strength. MacGregor (1997) has introduced a factor. v,, to
account for the infiuence of highstrength concrete (see Tables 1.1 and 1.2).
The 1994 CSA Standard and the 1997 CHBDC provisions for suutandtie models require
minimum arnounts of uni forrnly distributeci reinforcement which are independent of concrete
1.9
Concrete cm only withstand srnall tensile strains before it cracks. As these cracks do not
form at equai spacings, crack widths may Vary in size. and it is therefore appropriate to define
the mean crack width, w,,,, as:
where: s,,,
cf
The characteristic crack width (the width which only 5% of the cracks will exceed), w,, is
approximated by the CEBFIP Model Code (CEB 1990) as w, = 1.7 w,. The CEBFIP Model
Code (CEB 1990) gives the following expression for the mean crack spacing:
where: c
S
= Ai*c,g
As
4.4
area of the effective embedment zone of the concrete where the reinforcing
15 d,
4= shaded area
neutral axis
shaded area
\tension
face
neutral
axis
skin reinforcernent
crosssection
elevation
ki
k2
= 0.25 (t,
+ c 3 / 2 e,. where e,
where: 6
reinforcement from the neutral axis and 4 is the distance of the extreme tension
fibre from the neutral axis
S.
cr
= effective area of concrete surrounding each bar, taken as the total concrete
distance frorn the extreme tension fibre to the centre of the closest bar, and
area in tension, which has the sarne centroid as the tension reinforcement,
divided by the number of reinforcing bars (see Fig. 1.14(b)).
In the GergelyLutz expression, the strain in the reinforcement at a crack is taken as:
where: N
ES
The CEBFIP Mode1 Code, (CEB 1990) lirnits crack widths to 0.30 mm for structures
exposed to both frost and deking conditions. The 1995 AC1 Code and the 1994 CSA Standard
require the calculation of a crack width parameter, z , to detennine if the crack widths would be
within acceptable limits. This crack width parameter is based on the GergelyLutz expression
(see Eq. 1.35) and is given as:
where: f,
= calculated stress
The 2factor is lirnited to 30,000 Nlrnrn for interior exposure and 25,000 Nlmm for exterior
exposure. These limits correspond to maximum crack widths of 0.40 and 0.33 mm, respectively.
If epoxycoated reinforcement is used the CSA Standard requires multipIication of the limiting
crack width parameter, z, by a factor of 1.2, based on the research of Abrishami et al (1995).
Figure 1.15 illustrates the requirement for skin reinforcement in the 1995 AC1 Code and
the 1994 CSA Standard for members with an overall depth, h, exceeding 750 mm. The required
longitudinal skui reinforcement shall be unifonniy distributed dong the exposed side faces of the
member over a depth of O S h  2(h 6)fiom the principal reinforcement (see Fig. 1.15). The total
area of such reinforcement shall be p&,
dong each exposed side face, each strip having a height of 0.5h  2(h 4 and a width of twice the
distance from the side face to the centre of the skin reinforcernent but not more than hdf the web
width. The minimum amount of skin reinforcement shall be such that p, equals 0.008 or 0.0 10
for interior or exterior exposure, respectively. The maximum spacing of this skin reinforcement
is 200 mm.
Research Objectives
The objectives of this research programme are:
Cl3APTER2
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
Two fullscaie cantilever cap beams were constructeci and tested in order to study their
complete responses. These test specimens are representative of the cantilever portions of
continuous cap beams and of cantilever cap beams as shown in Fig. 2.1. These cantilever cap
bearns were designed using the strutandtie approach of current codes (CSA 1994, CHBDC 1996
and AASHTO LFRD L994). The arnounts of uniformly distributed horizontal and vertical
reinforcement were varied in order to study their influence on crack conrol at service load levels.
The geometry of the cantilever cap beams was chosen after snidying a number of
drawings of typical cap beams (see Fig. 1.1). The loads at each bearing location for the
prototype bridge investigated were a service dead load of 460 kN and a service dead plus Iive
plus impact Ioad of 1140 kN.
2.1
Details of Specimens
Cap beam specimen CAPN was cast with normal strength concrete (design fc' = 35 W a ) ,
while specimen CAPH was constmcted with highperformance concrete (design fc' = 70 MPa).
Both specimens have identicd geometries. As shown in Fig. 2.2, each cap beam is 3350 mm
long, 750 mm wide and has cantilevers which extend 1300 mm from the faces of the 750 mm
square columri. The depth of each cantilever is 900 mm at its end, increasing to 1100 mm over
a distance of 625 mm from the end.
The reinforcement for both specimens was identicai, with epoxycoated bars used
throughout to conform to the requirements of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code
(CHBDC 1996) for corrosive environrnents. The main tension tie reinforcement was provided
by two layers of reinforcement, each containing 5 No.25 bars, with a clear vertical spacing of
35 mm. One layer of 5 No.25 bars served as the compression steel. The square colurnn was
reinforceci with 12 No.25 bars and confued by sets of 3 No.10 colurnn ties spaced at 300 mm
(see Fig. 2.2). The specimens had crack control reinforcement ratios of 0.18% and 0.30% in
cantilever ends A and B, respectively (see Sections AA and BB). In end A, this reinforcement
7 4 No. 10
/double stirrups
(vertical
distributed
reinforcement)
s = 300
double stirrups
(vertical
distributed
reinforcement)
s =l?S
2'
 NO. 15
Ushaped bars
(horizontal
distnbuted
reinforcement)
s = 295
Section BB
Section AA
10 No.25
(tension
reinforcement)
12 No. 25
(column bars)
3 NO. I O
(colurnn ties)
s = 3G0
Notes:
dimensions in mm
minimum cover = 50 mm
was provided by 4 double No.10 stirrups spaced at 300 mm in the vertical direction, and 2
Ushaped No. 15 bars spaced at 295 mm in the horizontal direction. These spacings were reduced
to 175 mn for the 7 vertical double stirnrps and 177 mm for the 4 horizontal crack control bars
in end B. A minimum cover of 50 mm was maintained &oughout the specimens.
Ninetydegree end anchorages with free end extensions of 300 mm beyond the bend were
provided on al1 the No. 25 bars used for the main tension tie reinforcement. In order to fully
develop the reinforcement (fy = 400 m a ) , the code (CHBDC 1996) requires straight embedment
lengths, l&, of 430 mm and 304 mm beyond the hooks for specirnens CAPN and CAPH,
respectively. The tension development length, ld, of the No. 25 bars in CAPN is determined as:
where:
k,
k2
k,
= bar size factor, taken as 1.0 because bars are larger than No. 20.
Likewise, ld = 782 mm for the No. 25 bars of CAPH. The stress in the bar that can be
developed by the hook is [(Il06  430)/1106] * 400 MPa = 244 MPa for specimen CAPN and
[(782  304)/782] * 400 MPa = 244 MPa for CAPH. Knowing the geometry of the bend and
the placement of the bearing pads (see Fig. 2.2). the avaiIable straight bar embedment length to
the inner edge of the bearing plate is 286 mm for the bottom Iayer and 226 mm for the bottom
layer of bars for CAPN. Therefore, the bottom Iayer of bars in CAPN is capable of developing
a stress of 244 MPa + 286/1106 * 400 MPa = 348 MPa, while the top bars can develop 326
MPa. SimiIarly the bottom and top bar layers of CAPH can develop 371 MPa and 340 MPa,
respectively. These calculations assume that the bond stress is uniform over the development
tength, which results in a linear buildup of stress aiong l& A1thoug.h stresses greater than 400
MPa are expected during testing, these smaller embedment lengths were provided to investigate
the beneficial effects of the compressive bearing stress on the bond strength.
The horizontal distributed steel was lap spliced in the central regions of the specirnens
where additiod confinement is provided by the column ties which are typically continued into
the cap bearn. Without considering the beneficial effects of the confinement provided by these
column ties, the required lap splice length is calculateci as 1.3 1, (CHBDC 1996). where:
Hence the required lap splice Iength for specimen CAFN is 1.3 x 531 mm = 690 mm.
Sirnilarly, the required lap length for specimen CAPH,having a design compressive strength of
70 MPa is 488 mm. Full development of the horizontal bars was therefore achieved in the
central region of the cap beam. Over the constantdepth porons of the cap beam the vertical
uniformiy disuibuted reinforcement was provided by No. 10 double closed stimps (see Fig. 2.2).
Because of the changing depth of the cap beam near its ends, it was necessary to use double Ushaped spliced stimps over the tapered portions of the specimem. The required lapsplice length
for these Ushaped stimps, using Eq. 1.1, is 460 mm for CAPN and 340 mm for CAPH. A
conservative value of 460 mm was used for both specimens.
2.2
Material Properties
2.2.1
Concrete
Both specimens were cast with readymix concrete. The specified concrete strength for
CAPN was 35 MPa with a water to cernent ratio (wlc) of 0.40 and a maximum aggregate size
of 14 mm. The high performance concrete of CAFH had a specified strength of 70 MPa, a wlc
of 0.28, and a 10 mm maximum aggregate size. Mix designs are presented in Tables 2.1 and
2.2, and the slump and air content measurernents taken upon delivery are shown in Table 2.3.
The test specimens, together with the controI cylinders and flexural beams, were covered with
wet burlap and plastic sheeting a few hours after casting, and were kept moist. The test
specimens and the control specimens were stripped of their formwork 4 days after casting and
kept in the sarne aircured conditions of the laboratory. The compressive strengths were
detennined fiom the resuits of testing 3 standard, 150 m m diameter by 300 mm long, concrete
cylinders, and the splitting tensile strengths were taken as the average fiom 3 Brazilian tests on
150 mm 4 by 3 0 mm cylinders. in addition, 3 flexural beam tests were used to determine the
average modulus of rupture. These flexural beam specimens measured 150 x 150 x 600 mm and
were subjected to thirdpoint loadrg over a span of 450 mm. A sumrnary of the results of the
cylinder and beam tests are presented in Table 2.3. Representative compressive stressstrain
curves for the 35 MPa and 70 MPa concretes are shown in Fig . 2.3(a). In addition, shrinkage
strains were determinecl from externaily applied strain targets on concrete beam specimens
measuring 100 x 100 x 400 mm. The strain targets were placed on these shrinkage specimens
24 hours after casting. The shrinkage strains determineci From these measurements are shown
Ir
cernent
415 kg/m3
10
fine aggregate
Lafarge St.Gabriel
1014 mm limestone
coarse aggregate
757 kg/m3
1003 kg/m3
water (fotal)
167 kg/m3
total density
2342 kg/m3
I
I
I
superplasticizer
1
1
1
airentraining agent
Rheobuild 1 0 0
retarder
pozzolith 1 0 0 ~ ~
water reducer
Pozzolith 2ON
Micro Air
1
1
1
1346 mL
330 mL
2.7 L
375 mL
 
cernent
1
I
480 kg/m3
lOSF
IL
fine aggregate
Lafarge St.Gabriel
850 kg/m3
coarse aggregate
10 m m lirnestone
1015 kg/m3
1
1
water (total)
135 kg/m3
totai density
2480 kg/m3
water reducer
Pozzolith 2ON
1630 mL
superplasticirer
Rheobuild 1 0 0
L3.0 L
retarder
Pozzolith lXR
780 rnL
in Fig . 2.3(b). It is interesthg to note that the 70 MPa concrete exhibited considerably higher
shrinkage strains in the first few days after casting than the 35 MPa concrete.
microstrain
(a) representative stressstrain curves
35 MPa
A
50
100
150
tirne (days)
(b) average shrinkage strains
Figure 2.3 Concrete Properties
200
250
air content (% )
I
r
6.5
2.3
36.1
72.8
2.18
3.08
average
37.6
average
3.2
average
4.6
6.7
(MW
std. dev.
0.3
0.3
79.2
(MW
splitting tensile strength at testing
5.2
(MW
. 
..
2.2.2
Reinforcing Steel
Steel reinforcement consisted of No. 10, No. 15 and No.25 epoxycoated deforrned bars
with a specified grade of 400 MPa. A minimum of 3 tensile samples were testeci for each bar
size to determine their mechanical properties. Table 2.4 summarizes the average values and the
standard deviation of the yield and ultimate stresses and strains at strain hardening, strains at the
dtimate stress and the rupture strains. Figure 2.4 shows typical stressstraincurves for the three
different bar sizes. The modulus of elasticity for d l reinforcing steel has been taken as 200 GPa
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.12
0.14
0.16
strain (mm/mrn)
strain (mm/mrn)

I UY
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.16
strain (mm/mm)
average
1
1
std. dev.
R O P ~
441.0
1
1
2.7
No. 10
419.0
1
1
1.0
1.12
OS4
No. 15
No. 25
468.5
7.1
strain at strain
average
0.77
hardenhg ( %)
std. dev.
0.04
0.02
0.06
ultimate stress
average
707.5
6884
768.6
std. dev.
2.2
2.9
L.2
average
13.4
12.0
10.2
(w)
std. dev.
0.2
0.5
O. 1
rupture strain,
average
14.1
over 200 mm ( % )
std. dev.
16.0
1
0.6
13.5
1
1.1
0.6
2.3
testing machine (see Fig. 2.5). Figure 2.6 shows the loading arrangement at the top of the stub
column for each specimen. Load was transferred through the 559 mm diameter bottom platen
of the MTS's spherical seat, which in turn loaded two plates. These plates had a total thickness
of 127 mm in order to ensure sufficient spreading of the load. The 51 mm thick bottom plate
rneasured 660 x 660 mm, and was seated with plaster to the top of the 750 x 750 mm stub
column. The size of this bouom plate was chosen such that the load wodd be transrnitted to the
vertical column bars without loading the concrete cover.
The cap beams were simply supported on the laboratory strong floor. Figure 2.6 shows
the bearing details used for specimens CAPN and CAPH. Two 20 mm thick by 152 mm wide
by 600 mm long bearing plates were seated with a plaster mortar compound on the bottorn of
CAPN. The bearing plates for specimen CAPH had a width of 76 mm, that is, onehalf that
provided for CAPN due to the higher concrete compressive strength of specimzn CAPH. These
600 mm long bearing plates were centred across the 750 mm wide cap beams such that they did
not bear on the cover concrete. The centre of the bearings was Iocated 375 mm from the end
faces of the cap beams (see Fig . 2.6). The bearing plates rested on a rocker, with a radius of
Notes;
dimensions in mm
I, = 152 mm for CAPN
I, = 76 mm for CAPH
250 mm, which in tum rested on two 152 mm diamerer rollers sandwiched between two 76 mm
thick steel plates.
Three Linear Voltage Differential Transducers (LVDT's) or extensometers were installecl
to m u r e vertical displacements of the specimen at the supports and at midspan (see Fig. 2.7).
The centre deflection reporteci is taken as the deflection from the LVDT at midspan (CV),minus
the average of the LVDT's at ends A and B (AV and BV), in order to remove rnovements at the
Figure 2.8 shows the locations of the twentytwo electricd resistance strain gauges which
were glued to the reinforcing bars prior to casting. Twelve gauges were Iocated on the bonom
layer of the main tension reinforcement, 6 on the centre and 6 on the outerrnost bar. These
gauges were positioned at the start of the hooks, at the inner edges of the bearing plates, and at
locations aligned with the colurnn faces (see Fig. 2.8). An additional ten gauges were glued to
the h o ~ o n t a and
i vertical distributed bars in the shear spans of the cap beams as shown.
2.4
Testing Procedure
The loading was displacement controlled at a rate of approximateiy 0.004 mrnkec.
Throughout the testing, load, displacement and strain readings were recorded at intervals of 25
khi or 0.1 mm, whichever came first. During the early stages of a test, load application was
haited, to create major load stages, at increments of approximately 500 kN. At these load stages,
widths of cracks crossing the horizontal lines shown in Fig. 2.8 were measured using a crack
comparator, and the crack patterns were sketched and photographed. Afier yielding of the main
tension reinforcement, load stages were taken at increments of 1 to 2 mm of the midspan vertical
deflection. The loading of the specimens continueci until a significant decrease in loadcarrying
capacity was observed.
Note:
dimensions in mm
crack widths
measured on
figure 2.8 Strain gauge locations and crack width lines of measurernent
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
This chapter describes the experimentai results of each specimen. Appendix A gives
more details of the rneasurements taken.
3.1
LoadDeflection Responses
The response is described in terms of the applied shear on each shear span, which is
taken as onehaif of the total load applied to the top of the column. Figures 3.l(a) and (b) show
the shear vs. centre deflection responses for specirnens CAPN and CAPH, respectively.
3.1.1
Specimen CAPN
7
10
15
20
LVDT's were used to deterrnine the average strains over the gauge lengths provided. and
the main gauges, glued to the reinforcing bars, were used to determine local strains in the bars.
3.2.1
Specimen CAPN
Figure 3.2shows the variation of shear vs. horizontal strains rneasured in the bottom bars
of the main tension tie. The development of strains is shown at different Iocations of the main
tension tie for both ends A and B. with solid lines used to identify readings from gauges placed
on the outermost bar and dashed lines used to identifjr those readings from the innennost bar.
From gauges A5 and A6, as well as B3 and B4, it is ckar that the outermost bars are strained
approxirnately the sarne amount as the uinermost bars. Gauge B5 did not work during testing.
Gauges A5 and A6, as well as gauge 86 (see Fig. 3.2(e) and (f)), located close to where the first
flexural cracks f o d , clearly indicate the change from precracking to postcracking stiffness
at a shear of 430 kN, corresponding to first flexural cracking. A11 of the strain measurements
on end A were Iost after a shear of 1590 khi was reached due to a rnalfunction in the data
acquisition system. Up to this shear level of 1590 kN, end A experienced slightly greater strains
than end B. Gauge B6 indicates that first yielding of the tension tie in end B occurs at a shear
A1 (outer bar)
A2 (inner bar)
B l (outer bar)
82 (inner bar)

2.000
4,000
6,000
8.
micmstrain
vield
A3 (outer bar)
A4 (inner bar)
 
micmstrain
rnicmsttain
yield
vield

500 s'
1
2.000
4,000
microstrain
6.000
2,000
86 (inner bar)
4,000
6.000
8,
microstrain
Figure 3.2 Strains in bottom bar of CAPN tension tie. determined from strain gauges
of 23 10 kN,that is, somewhat less than the shear corresponding to general yielding of 25 10 W.
Extrapolation of readings from gauges AS and A6 indicates that first yielding of the tension tie
in end A occwed at a shear of about 2260 W. The readings from gauges B3 and B4 (see Fig.
3.2(d)), located at the imer edge of the bearing in end B, indicate that the strains at this location
were close to the yield strain at maximum shear level. At general yield of the specimen (2510
kN), these strains had only reached about 65% of their yield suain. Strains in the bars at the
start of the main tension tie hook (BI and B2) remained well below yield throughout the loading
(see Fig. 3.2(b)).
Figure 3.3 shows the applied shear vs. the measured strains in the distributed
reinforcement. Gauges located on the distributed reinforcement in end A were Iost after a shear
of 1590 kN. Gauges A10 and Al 1, as well as BI0 and Bl 1, glued to the vertical legs of the
closed hoops, experienced significant tende strains afier the first major diagonal cracking at a
shear of 870 kN. As can be seen from Fig. 3.3(a) and (b), gauges A10 and B10, which were
glued to the outer hoop legs, experienced larger suains than gauges Al 1 and B11, attached to the
inner hoop legs. Gauges A7 through Ag, and B7 and B8 were placed outside the region where
major diagonal cracks formed, and therefore experienced very Iittle straining (see Fig. 3.3(c) and
(W.
Figure 3.4 shows the strains determined from the sets of LVDT's placed dong a line
corresponding to the midheight of the cap beam, and at the level of the centroid of the tension
tie. The average strains determined from these LVDT readings are plotted for four different load
stages: at a loading corresponding to Mlservice plus impact, at general yielding, at maximum
shear, and after failure. Also shown in Fig. 3.4 are the yield strains of the uniformly distributed
steel and the tension tie reinforcement. Figure 3.4(a) shows that some regions of the tension tie
had reached yield at a load corresponding to fullservice plus impact, while the uniformiy
distributed crack control reinforcement had a maximum suain of 76% of its yield strain. At
generai yield (see Fig. 3.4(b)), the average strains exceeded the strainhardening strain of 5.4
millistrain in three regions of the main tension tie steel. in addition, yielding of the distributed
reinforcernent at midheight of the section occurred. At maximum shear (see Fig . 3.4(c)) there
is a noticeable difference between ends A and B, with strains in end A reaching a maximum
strain of 2.83% in the main tension tie reinforcement in linc with the c o l m face (this average
strain corresponds to a steel stress of about 600 ma). The maximum strain achieved in the
stronger end (end B) was 1.46% As can be obsewed in Fig. 3.4(d), the strains generally
decreased due to the d r o p f f in load after failure, with the exception of the regions where a
major diagonal crack formed between the reentrant corner and the support in end A.
microstrain
microstrain
micmstrain
O
micmstrain
10
20
30
40 50 60
deg rees
70
80
90
microstrain
5,000
10,000
15.000
20,000
microstrain
500
1
O
.
5.000
10.000
15,000
20.000
mianstrain
( e )shear strain, y,
Figures 35 and 36 show the shear vs. horizontal strain, vertical strain, principd strains,
shear strain and angle of minimum principal strain detennined fiom the rosettes in ends A and
B, respectively. The strains detennined from the rosettes were very small until a crack formed
within the gauge lengths of the LVDT's. The first diagonal cracks, which fonned in ends A and
B at a shear of 870 kN, resulted in the development of significant principal tende strains and
shear strains. These are the same cracks that caused the slight drop off in load as shown in Fig.
3.1(a). The shear vs. horizontal suain,
E,,
responses are
described in Fig. 3.5(a) and (b), and Fig. 3.6(a) and (b), for ends A and B, respectively, Both
the horizontal and vertical strains in the region of the cap beam close to the column face
experienced a sudden increase in strains upon first diagonal cracking. In end A, the horizontal
strains are slightly larger than the vertid strains, with yielding of the u n i f o d y distributed steel
in the horizontal and vertical directions taking place at a shear of 1350 kN and 1500 kN,
respectively. In end B, the strains were Iower than in end A due to the larger arnount of
uniformiy distributed reinforcement in end B. This reinforcement, in end B, yielded in the
horizontal and vertical directions at shears of 1740 kN and 1780 kN, respectively. Both the
principal tensile strain,
place, resulting in very Iarge principal tensile strains and shear strains, particularly in end A.
The principal tensile strain was greater than 2%. resulting in very large cracks, and hence slip
dong the crack interface occurred at shears greater than 2700 W. In end B, the strains were
somewhat lower than those experienced in end A, with a maximum tende strain of 1.28% and
a maximum shear strain of 0.78%. For both ends A and B, the angle, Oz, corresponding to the
minimum principal strain was close to 45" from the horizontal until significant yielding took
place, which resulted in the angle becoming steeper.
Figure 3.7 shows the variation of shear vs . horizontal strains rneasured in the bottom bars
of the main tension tie. Solid lines are used to identiQ readings from gauges placed on the
outermost bar and dashed lines are used to identiQ those readings from the innermost bar. It can
be seen fiom gauges A3 through A6, and B3 through B6, that the strains in the outermost bars
are approxirnately the sarne as those in the imemost bars. Gauges A5 and A6, Iocated close to
where the first flexural crack fonned, clearly indicate the change from precracking to postcracking stifiess at a shear of 490 kN, corresponding to first flexurai cracking (see Fig. 3.7(e)).
Readings fiom gauges B5 and B6 indicate that the first flexural crack in end B did not forrn until
a shear of 570 kN was reached (see Fig. 3.7(9). Strains in the tension tie in cantilever end A
vield
soo
1
A? (outer bar)
A 2 (inner bar)
500
 
2,000
4,000
6,000
8.
microstrain
500
k;
t1
~ i ( o u t ebar)
r
A4 (inner bar)
2.000
4,000
 
6,000
8,000
microstrain
yieid
3,500
3,000
1,500 .
A6 ( m e r bar)
2.000
4,000
(outer bar)
   85
86 (inner bar)
 
6.000
8,000
microstrain
Figure 3.7 Strains in bottom bar of CAPH tension tie, detenined from strain gauges
were slightly greater than those in end B. Gauges A5 and A6 indicate that first yielding of the
tension tie occurred at a shear of about 2120 kN, chat is, somewhat less than the shear
corresponding to general yielding (2620 W. At general yielding. the strains fiom gauges A3
and A4, located at the inner edge of the bearing in end A, were at 85% of their yield strain.
while strauis from gauges 83 and 84 had only reached 76% of their yield strain (see Fig. 3.7(c)
and (d)). The readings from gauges A3 and A4 indicate that, at the maximum shear, the strains
at this location were slightly greater than the yield suain, while strains from gauges B3 and B4
remained just below yield. Strains in the bars at the start of the main tension tie hooks (Al, A2,
B1 and B2) remained well below yield throughout the loading (see Fig. 3.7(a) and (b)).
Figure 3.8 exhibits the applied shear vs. the measured strains in the distributed
reinforcement. Gauges A10 and A l 1, expenenced significant vertical tensile strains after the first
major diagonal cracking occurred at a shear of 890 W. As can be seen fiorn Fig. 3.8(a), gauge
A10 which was glued to the outer hoop leg, expenenced large; strains than gauge A l 1, located
on the inner hoop leg. Gauges B 10 and B 11, experienced significant tensile strains at a shear of
L625 kN when a major inclined crack propagated up towards the reentrant corner of end B (see
Fig. 3.8(b)).
Gauges A8, and B7 through B9 experienced very small strains as they were
positioned outside the region where major diagonal cracks formed (see Fig. 3,8(c) and (d)).
Figure 3.9 shows the strains determincd fiom the lines of LVDT's positioned at midheight of the cap beam, and at the level of the centroid of the tension tie. The LVDT readings
indicate that the tension tie reinforcement in end A had reached yield at a location in line with
the colurnn face at full service loading plus impact (see Fig. 3.9(a)). At this load level, the crack
control reinforcement rernained below yield. Figure 3.9(b) shows that strain hardening of the
tension tie occurred at the same location where first yielding was measured and yielding of the
distributeci reinforcement at rnidheight of the section was measured at generai yield of the
specimen. Strains in end A are considerably greater than those of end B at this stage. At the
extremities of the rnidheight Iine of measurernent, the strains were close to zero throughout
loading until a diagonal crack formed through the outer gauge length at failure. At maximum
shear, midheight strains in end A are roughly twice those in end B (see Fig. 3.9(c)). Strains at
the level of the tension tie are largest at the locations of the major flexural cracks. The maximum
strains in ends A and B at the maximum shear were 2.62%. and 1.9496, respectively. The postfailure strains decreased due to the drop in load, with the exception of the extreme left reading
at midheight due to the formation of the diagonai crack which caused failure (see Fig. 3.9(d)).
Figures 3.10 and 3.1 1 show the shear vs. horizontal strain. vertical strain. p ~ c i p a l
strains, shear strain and angle of minimum principal strain detennined from the rosettes in ends
5,000
10,000
15.000
micmstrain
"
5,000
10,000
15,000
"
5,000
10,000
15,000
microstrain
microstrain
5.000
10.000
15.000
10 20
30
40
50
60
70
micmstrain
degrees
80
90
5,000
10.000
15,000
microstrain
microstrain
5,000
10,000
15.000
microstrain
degrees
A and B, respectively. The strains detennined from each rosette were very srnall until a crack
f o d within the rosette. Significant principal tensile strains and shear strains developed at a
shear of 890 W, which corresponds to the formation of the first diagonal crack in end A. This
is the same crack that caused the slight dropoff in load as shown in Fig . 3.l(b). The rosettes
in end B did not register significant strains until the formation of the first diagonal crack in that
end at a shear of 1040 W. The shear vs. horizontal strain and the shear vs. vertical strain
responses are described in Fig. 3.10(a) and (b), and Fig . 3.1 1(a) and @), for ends A and B,
respectively. Both the horizontal and vertical strains in the cantilever ends near the colurnn face
experienced sudden increases upon first diagonal cracking. In end A, the horizontal strains were
somewhat larger than the vertical strains, with yielding of the uniformly distnbuted steel in the
horizontal and vertical directions taking place at shears of 1360 kN and 1610 kN, respectively.
In end B, the strains were lower than in end A due to the larger arnount of uniformly distributeci
reinforcement in end B. The horizontal distributed reinforcement in end B yielded at a shear of
1910 kN, while the vertical distributed reinforcement did not yield until a shear of 2730 W.
Both the principai tensile strain and the shear strain plots show that significant yielding had taken
piace resulting in very large principal tensile strains and shear strains, particularly in end A.
As can be seen from Fig. 3.10, significant strains were rneasured in CAPHA rosette A7
when the shear reached the diagonal cracking shear of 890 kN. A maximum tensile strain of
1.4% and a maximum shear strain of 0.7% were reached during the test. Afier this maximum
strain was reached, failure occurred by shear slippage as shown in Fig. 3.15. Significant strains
developed in rosette B7 of CAPHB at shears greater than 1040 kN (see Fig. 3.1 1). This
corresponds to the formation of diagonal cracks through this rosette. A maximum [ensile strain
of 0.65% and a maximum shear strain of 0.69% were reached in end B.
The angles of minimum principal strain for both ends were considerably steeper (see Fig.
3.10(9 and 3.1 l(f)) than those reached in specimen CAPN (see Fig. 3.5(f) and 3.6(f)).
3.3
Development of Cracking
Since one of the main objectives of this research programme is to examine the influence
3.3.1
Specimen CAPN
Figures 3.12(a) and (b) illustrate the change in cracking pattern and crack widths which
were measured over the full service load range for the cap beam. First cracking of specimen
CAPN occurred at a shear of 430 kN with the formation of two short flexurai cracks, near the
bottom of the specimen, in Iine with the column faces (see Fig. 3.12(a)). As the shear was
increased to 460 kN,the load corresponding to the selfweight of the superstructure, the cracks
extended slightly but their widths had not changed significantly. Figure 3.12(b) shows the crack
pattern at a shear of 1120 kN, which corresponds closely to NI service plus impact loading on
the superstructure. This crack pattern had essentially developed at a shear of 870 kN, and as the
load was increased to 1120 kN, the cracks grew in width alone. It can be seen from Fig . 3.12(b)
that ends A and B had maximum diagonal crack widths of 0.20 and 025 mm, respectively, even
though end B had a larger amount of unifonnly disuibmed reinforcement (p = 0.003). than end
A (p = 0.00 18). At this load Ievel the maximum flexural crack width was 0.20 mm. It is noted
that the maximum diagonal crack width and the maximum flexural crack width were about the
same, and both are within acceptable limits for this member containhg epoxycoated bars
As the shear was increased beyond 1120 kN, it was observed that cracks had formed at
nearly every hoop location dong the bottom of the bearn. Figure 3.12(c) shows the crack pattern
at a shear of 25 10 kN, corresponding to general yietding. The diagonal cracks had a maximum
width of 1.00 and 0.60 mm in ends A and B, respectively. For this loading case, well above the
service load range, the higher percentage of uniformly distributed reinforcement in end B
provided better crack control. Minor cnishing at both reentrant corners was observed at load
levels slightly higher than general yield.
The crack pattern at maximum shear is shown in Fig. 3.12(d). In end A, a new major
diagonal crack formed with a width of 2.20 mm, white two existing diagonai cracks, also had
widths greater than 2.00 mm. Two of these cracks delineate the "bulging" of the newly formed
strut in end A (see Fig. 3.12(d)).
At failure, a new 3 .Omm wide diagonal crack opened suddeniy, delineating the strut
between the reentrant corner and the bearing in end A, as shown in Fig. 3.13. This was
followed immediately by major crushing near the reentrant corner of end A (see Fig. 3.13).
Figures 3.14(a) and (b) illusuate the change in cracking pattern and crack w i d h which
were rneasured for the HPC specimen CAPH over its MI service load range. First cracking of
specimen CAPH occurred in end A at a shear of 490 kN,slightly higher than 460 W, the load
corresponding to the superstructure dead load. This flexural crack propagated from the bottom
of the specimen, in line with the column face, over a distance of approximately onehalf metre
(see Fig. 3.14(a)). This behaviour is typical of HPC as large amounts of energy are released
upon initial cracking due to the elevated tensile strength of the concrete. At a shear of 570 kN,
the first flexural crack in end B had fonned in line with the column face. Figure 3.14(b) shows
the crack pattern at a shear of 1120 kN, which corresponds closely to full service load plus
impact Ioading on the superstructure. This crack pattern had essentially developed at a shear of
890 kN, with the only change taking place, as the Ioad was increased to 1120 kN, being the
widening of the cracks. It can be seen from Fig. 3.14(b) that end A had a maximum diagonal
crack width of 0.45 mm, which is greater than permissible Iimts. The maximum diagonal crack
width in end B was only 0.25 mm, indicating that the higher percentage of unifonnly distributed
reinforcement in this end provided sufficient crack control. The maximum flexurai crack width
was 0.25 mm at this load levei, and splitting cracks could be observed dong the main tension tie.
As the shear was increased beyond 1120 kN, nearly every hoop location dong the bottom
of the beam had attracted a crack. Figure 3.14(c) shows the crack pattern at a shear of 2620 kN,
the load corresponding to general yielding. The diagonal cracks had a maximum width of 1.25
and 0.60 mm in ends A and B, respectively.
The crack pattern at maximum shear is s h o w in Fig. 3.14(d). In end A, a new major
diagonal crack forrned with a width of 1.25 mm between the reentrant corner and the support
of end A. Just before failure occurred, minor cnishing at both reentrant corners was observed,
and a horizontal crack at the top of tile cap beam directly under the column formed.
Figure 315 shows the crack pattern of specimen CAPH after failure. Failure was causeci
by relative shear slip of 8.0 mm dong the newly formed diagonal crack in end A. A minor
arnount of crushing aiso occurred near the top of this crack.
CHAPTER 4
4.1
First
flexurd cracking occurred at a shear of 430 kN for the normalstrength concrete specimen,
CAPN, and 490 kN for the highstrength concrete specimen, CAPH. The first diagonal cracking
in CAPN occurred at a shear of 870 kN,while the first inclineci crack CAPH occurred at a shear
of 890 W. While the highstrength concrete had about twice the compressive strength of the
normalstrength concrete. it is somewhat surprishg that CAPH had only rnarginaily higher
cracking loads. It is important to realize that at the tirne of testing, the shrinkage strains in
specimens CAPN and CAPH were about 320 and 420 microsuain, respectively (see Fig .2.3@)).
The higher expected restrained shrinkage stresses in specimen CAPH would cause a larger
reduction in the cracking load than that of specimen CAPN.
Specimen CAPN reached general yield at a shear of 2510 kN and exhibited a
displacement ductility, defined as the ultimate deflection divided by the yield deflection (Au/$),
of 3.4. Specimen CAPH exhibited a slightly stiffer response than specimen CAPN and yielded
at a shear of 2630 W. However, this specimen was considerably less ductile than CAPN,
achieving an ultimate deflection of only 2.3 times 4. The failure of the nonnalstrength concrete
specimen was caused by c m h i n g at the reentrant corner of end A, followed by shear slip (see
Fig. 3.13). The highperformance concrete pier cap failed by shear slip dong a diagonal crack
extending from the reentrant corner to the support of end A (see Fig. 3.15).
Steel strains in cantilever ends A of both specimens were generally slightly greater than
those of ends B. The strains measured on the tension tie reinforcement at the inside edges of the
bearing pads were significantly lower than those measured in line with the column faces. This
curtaihnent of stresses in the main tension tie is described in section 1.7.1. The steel stresses
measured at the inner edge of the bearing in end A of each specimen was typically 69 % of those
measured in Lne with the column faces after signifiant cracking had occurred. In end B of each
specimen, the stresses at the inner edge of the bearing were approximately 63 96, representative
_..I
1O
CAPN
shear slio
15
20
25
of the higher ratio of vertical distributed reinforcement. Most of the strain gauges located on the
distributed reinforcement did not register large strains as they were located just outside the region
of significant diagonal cracking.
By comparing the horizontal strains at midheight for specimens CAPN and CAPH (see
Fig . 3.4(a) and Fig . 3.9(a)), at a load level correspondhg to full service plus impact loading, the
following observations can be made:
1.
.3
maximum horizontal strain of 1.1 millistrain for CAPN and 1.2 millistrain for CAPH.
At higher load levels the differences between these horizontal strains at midheight of
ends A and B for both specimens becarne more significant.
The rosettes of specirnen CAPN indicate that after cracking and up to a load of about
2700 kN the principal tensile and shear strains in ends A and B were virtudly the same (see Fig.
3.5 and 3.6). At loads higher than 2700 kN, general yielding of the reinforcement resulted in
very large principal tensile and shear strains in end A. The angle of minimum principal strain
deterrnined frorn rosettes A7 and B7 were roughly 45
O.
rosette A7 of the highperformance concrete specirnen, CAPH, were considerably greater than
those determined from rosette 87, while the shear strains were virtually the sarne in the two ends
(see Fig. 3.10 and 3.1 1). The angle of minimum principai strain detennined from rosette B7 was
slightly steeper than that of A7.
Figure 4.2 compares the flexural crack widths measured at the level of the tension tie in
the normai and highstrength concrete pier cap specimens. Crack widths are slightly higher in
the highstrength concrete specirnen due in large part to the greater release of energy upon initial
cracking. Figure 4.3 compares the diagonal crack widths measured at midheight of the norrnaland highstrength concrete specimens. It is clear that crack widths are considerably larger in end
A of the highstrength concrete specimen than in the normalstrength concrete specimen, while
the crack widths in end B of each specimen are roughly the same.
Figures 4.4(a) and (b) compare the maximum diagonal crack widths in ends A and B of
specimens CAPN and CAPH, respectively. There was nor a significant difference between the
crack widths of the two ends of CAPN under upper serviceability conditions (refer to Fig.
3.12(b)), and they were al1 smaller than required by code limits. However, at higher load levels,
the extra reinforcement in end B caused a moderate improvement in crack control over end A.
3,000

N d 
,
/
CAPNA
500
CAPHA

0.5
1.O
1.5
2.0
0.5
1.O
1.5
2.0
Altematively, a significant difference in crack control performance of the two ends of CAPH
could be observed at full service plus impact Ioading. A diagonal crack in end A had already
opened up to 0.45 mm, while the cracks in end B were well controlled (refer to Fig. 3.14@)).
It is interesthg to note that the highstrength concrete specirnen has a postcracking
stifmess which is only slightly higher than that of the normalstrength concrete specimen (see Fig.
4.1). This result is sornewhat surprishg since the tensile strength of the highstrength concrete
is about 1.6 times the tensile strength of the no&strength
reduced tension stiffening observed in the highstrength concrete specimen may be due to the
greater tendency for bond splitting cracks as c m be obsewed by comparing the crack patterns
of CAPN and CAPH (see Fig. 3.13 and 3.15). A
' '
'
highsuength concrete, due to its higher compressive strength, develops higher , more localized
bond stresses. This, together with the fact that the bearing capacity of the concrete is related to
fcl whereas the tensile strength is related to
results in bond splining of the concrete before
K.
a uniform bond stress c m be achieved. Abrisharni et al. (1995) conciuded that the presence of
epoxycoating on reinforcement results in fewer flexural cracks, larger crack widfhs, more
splitting cracks and decreased ductility. In addition, Abrisharni and Mitchell (1996) concluded
that bond splitting cracks reduce the tension stiffening in the concrete and that after significant
deformations in the postcracking range, the tension stiffening of hi&strength concrete specimens
approaches that of normalstrength concrete specimens. The effects associated with the use of
highstrength concrete in combination with the use of epoxycoated reinforcing bars has resulted
in a reduced tension stiffening, fewer flexural and diagonal cracks, bond splitting cracks and a
lower ductility.
A number of different types of predictions were carrieci out to determine the response of
Although pIanesections analysis is not applicable for prdicting the responses of disturbed
regions, it is of interest to compare the predicted cracking loads, using this method, with the
rneasured cracking loads.
The predicted shears corresponding to first flexural cracking, at rnidspan of the
specimens, from planesections analyses were 462 kN and 661 kN for specimens CAPN and
CAPH. respectively. These values are significantly higher than those measured during testing,
that is, 430 kN for CAPN and 490 kN for CAPH. The key reasons why these predictions are
unconservative are that the strain distribution in disturbed regions is significantly nonlinear and
that concrete shrinkage strains were not given any consideration.
RESPONSE (Collins and Mitchell 1991) was used to cary out the sarne predictions including the
effect of concrete shrinkage strains. The shears corresponding to first flexural cracking including
shrinkage strains were predicted to be 304 kN and 476 kN for specimens CAPN and CAPH,
respectively, which are conservative predictions.
4.2.2
cap yield strengths (see Fig. 4.5 and 4.6). Both specimens were governed by yielding of the
main tende tie. The main tension tie, which consists of 10 No. 25 bars with a yield stress of
468
Mh, has a yield force of 2340 kN. It is assumed that the lines of action of the diagonal
stmts intersect the lines of action of the compressive resultants in the column (Le., at the quarter
points of the column). From equilibriurn, the shear which corresponds to yielding of the main
tension tie is 1995 kN for specirnen CAPN and 2050 kN for specimen CAPH (see Fig. 4.5 and
4.6). In these predictions, the materid reduction factors were taken as 1.0. These models are
simple and no consideration is given to any strength enhancement provided by the distributeci
reinforcement, particularly the horizontal bars. The predictions are therefore conservative.
Figure 4.5 Simple strut & tie modei for specimen CAPN
4.2.3
of the crack controI reinforcement to the strength of the specimens. In addition to the main
tensile tie at the bottom of the specimens, additional ties are provided to represent the horizontal
and vertical distributed steel. These secondary tension ties are positioned at the centroids of the
effective horizontal and vertical unifonnly distributed reinforcement. The refined strutandtie
models shown in Fig. 4.7(a) and 4.8(a) model the response of each specnen as though they were
reinforced throughout with a reinforcement ratio of 0.0018 for the distributed steel. These
details, which were used in ends A of both test specimens, are rnodelled by a secondary
horizontal tension rie (4 legs of No. 15 bars) with a yield force of (800 mm2)(419 MPa) = N O kN
and vertical tension ties (3 sets of 4 legged No. 10 hoops) at each end with yieid forces of (1200
mrn2)(441 MPa) =Yi0 kN. The predictions obtained from Fig 4.7(a) and 4.8(a) are representative
of the weaker side of each specimen and hence should be used when comparing with the actual
strengths. The refined strutandtie models s h o w in Fig. 4.7(b) and 4.8@) model a distributed
reinforcement ratio of 0.003, which is the same reinforcement ratio contained in ends B of
specimens CAPN and CAPH. The yield forces of the horizontai and vertical tension ties in Fig.
4.7(b) and 4.8(b) were calculated to be 670 kN and 880 kN, respectively. The predictions
obtained frorn Fig. 4.7(b)and 4.8(b) are presented in order to demonstrate the how the strengths
would increase if the Iarger amount of uniformly distributed reinforcement (Le., a ratio of 0.003)
were present throughout the specimens.
The changing inclinations of the main diagonal struts in Fig. 4.7 and 4.8 are induced by
the presence of the vertical and horizontal distributed reinforcement. The tensile forces result
in discrete angular changes at the nodes where the secondary tension ties intersect the struts. The
resulting arching action provides steeper struts above the supports, ultirnately resulting in higher
strengths. If more distributed steel were present, then the arching action would be even more
pronounceci (see Fig. 4.7(b) and 4.8 (b)).
This more detailed strutandtie model gives a better representation of the flow of
compressive stresses. The modelling of the flow of compressive stresses from the column into
the cap bearn results in higher localized compressive stresses near the reentrant corners and
secondary struts which represent the fanning compressive stresses anchored by the vertical
uniformly distributeci reinforcement. A comparison of Fig. 4.7 with 4.8 illustrates that the struts
for the highstrength concrete specimen are considerably smaller than those in the normalstrength
concrete specimen. This effect gives a slight increase in the capacity for the highstrength
concrete specimen.
V = 2540 kN
(b) End B details
Figure 4.7 Refined strut & tie models for specimen CAPN
Figure 4.8 Refined strut & tie models for specirnen CAPH
Table 4.1 compares the predictions made with the simple strutandtie mode1 and the
refmed suutandtie mode1 with the measured values of total load applied to the pier caps at
general yield. in rnaking these predictions, it was assumed that both ends of the cap beam were
reinforced with the smaller amount o f uniforiniy distributed reinforcement, that is consistent with
end A, since end A will give a lower predicted load. It is apparent that the refined strutadtie
models give excellent predictions of the load at general yielding. Accounting for the uniformly
distributed reinforcement can significantly increase the predicted yield load. while giving slightly
conservative predictions. It m u t be pointed out that the acniai faiIure loads are somewhat higher
than the general yielding loads due to strain hardening in the reinforcement. The predictions
made with the stmtandtie models neglected the effects of strain hardening.
1 Measured 1
Specimen
Load at
Yield
Odv)
Simple StrutandTie
Re
StruandTie
Predicted
Yield
Measured
Predided
Predicted
Measured
Yield
OrN)
CAPN
5020
3990
1.26
4820
1.04
CAPH
5240
4100
1.28
5 120
1.O2
Table 4.1 Conparison of strutandtie predictions with measured loads at generai yielding
4.2.4
Figure 4.9 compares the measured loaddeflection responses with the predicted responses
obtained by using the nonlinear finite element prograrn FIELDS (Cook 1987, Cook and Mitchell
1988) for specimens CAPN and CAPH. In predicting the responses the cracking stress was
adjusted to account for the size effect of these NIscaie specirnens. Using a cracking stress of
0.33
fifor these specirnens which experience signifiant diagonal cracking within the cantilever
portions of the cap beams, and assuming that the cracking stress is inversely proportional to the
fourth root of the size, then the cracking stress for these 1 1 0 mm deep members compared to
the 150 mm deep control specirnens would be:
10
15
20
25
20
25
10
15
At these load levels, the nonlinear analysis predicts local crushing at the reentrant corner. The
load deflection responses up to cracking and from cracking up to the points where local cnishing
is predicted, agree reasonably well with the measured response. As can be seen from comparing
Fig . 4.9(a) and (b), the predictions overestimate the tensionstiffening ,particularly for the highstrength concrete specimen (see discussion in Section 4 1).
In order to reduce the sensitivity due to local cnishing, the elements at the reentrant
corner were softened by specifying a compressive stressstrain curve having a peak strain equal
to 1.5 times the cylinder peak strain. The frnite element analysis gives an accurate prediction of
yielding, however since the analysis relies on a tangent stiffness model, it was unable to converge
after local crushing was predicted.
Figure 4.10 shows the deflected s~hapesof specimens CAPN and CAPH at the predicted
maximum load levels. It is apparent from this figure that the deformations are not symmetrical
about the centrelines of the pier caps due to the fact that end B of each specimen contains a
greater arnount of uniformly distributed horizontal and vertical reinforcement.
Figures 4.11 through 4.16 show the predicted strains and concrete stresses for specimens
CAPN and CAPH at three different load levels. At the lower service load level, that is a total
applied load of 920 kN, for both the normalstrength and highstrength concrete specimens the
stresses are nearly elastic with only minor cracking predicted for specimen CAPN. in addition,
no distinct compressive strut action is apparent at this load level (see Fig. 4.11 and 4.12).
Figures 4.13 and 4.14 show the predicted strains and stresses at the upper service load level
corresponding to a total applied load of 2280 kN. Significant principal tensile strains are
predicted in both spec'mens at this load level. It is apparent that Iarger principal tensile strains
occur in end A than in end B due to the smaller amount of uniformiy distributed reinforcement.
Figures 4.15 and 4.16 show the predicted strains and stresses at the maximum predicted
load IeveIs. It is apparent that the principal tensile strains are Iarger for the diagonal cracks than
for the flexural cracks. By observing the flow of compressive stresses it is apparent that more
direct compressive strut action is taking place close to failure. Some bulging of the compressive
stmts between the coIumn and the reaction bearhgs is apparent. The highstrength coricrete
specimen CAPH exhibits struts having smaller widths and higher compressive stresses. The nonlinear finiteelement analysis predicts a 7% higher ultirnate strength for CAPH than for CAPN.
The predicted strains in the tension tie for the highstrength concrete specimen are higher than
those predicted for the normalstrength concrete specimen
)1
,
I
displacement scale:
5.00 mm
:  
.
V = 2490 kN
<
1
I
displacernent scale:
5.00 mm
! ! !
V = 2670 kN
stress scale:
5 MPa
Figure 4.11 Predicted strains and stresses in specimen CAPN at a load of 920 kN
stress scale:
5 MPa
stress scale:
5 MPa
Figure 4.1 3 Predicted strains and stresses in specimen CAPN at a load of 2280 kN
stress scale:
5 MPa
Figure 4.14 Predicted strains and stresses in specimer! CAPH at a load of 2280 kN
stress scale:
20 MPa
Figure 4.1 5 f redicted strains and stresses in specimen CAPN at a load of 4980 kN
strain scaie:
stress scale:
20 MPa
Figure 4.17 shows the development of stress in the main tension ties of specimens CAPN
and CAPH. Stresses are plotted at applied shears of 460 kN and 1140 k;N (the service load range
bounds), 2000 kN and at the maximum load predicted by the finite element analyses, The
predictions for both specimens indicate a significant stress dropoff within the region containhg
the confinement reinforcement provided by the column ties. The measured strains are typically
somewhat higher than the predicted strains. It m u t be pointed out that the predicted strains
shown in the figure are "average" strains and therefore would be Iess than the strains measured
at or near cracks. The nonlinear finite element anaiyses provided excellent predictions of the
strains in the main tension tie at the inner edge of the bearing. The presence of uniformly
distributed reinforcement results in a dropoff in stress from the location of maximum moment
towards the inner edge of the bearing . As can be seen from the measured and predicted stresses
the tension tie force decreases for locations close to the bearing due to the contribution of the
vertical uniformly distributed steel. The larger arnount of vertical reinforcement in end B results
in reduced force dernands on the tension tie at the imer edge of the bearings. (see Fig . 417).
Figure 4.18 compares the predicted stresses in the main tension tie using finite element
analysis and refined strutandtie modelling with the stress computed from the measured steel
strains at maximum predicted loads. It can be seen that the refined strutandtie model gives
reasonable predictions for these stresses.
Table 4.2 compares the predictions made using the r e f d strutandtie model and the
predictions from the nonlinear fuiiteelement analysis with the measured values of total load
applied to the pier caps at general yield. Although the nonlinear finite element analysis gives
slightly better predictions, the refined strutandtie mode1 compares exceptionally well with this
more sophisticated approach. It mus: be pointed out however that the nonlinear finite element
analysis is capable of predicting strains and crack widths at service load 1eveIs.
su
CAPN
Yield
5020
Predided
Me&
Predicted
Table 4.2 Cornparison of refmed strutandtie predictions and nonlinear finite element
predictions with measured loads at generai yielding
rneasured
measured
refined sMandtie
measured

finite element
refined
  stnitandtie

(b)Specimen CAPH
Figure 4.d8 Predictions of stress development in main tension ties at general yield
4.3
Tables 4.3 and 4.4 compare the measured principal tensile strains and crack widths with
those predicted using the results from the nonlinear f i t e element analyses. The crack width
predictions were made for both flexural and diagonal cracks. The expecte flexural crack widths,
w , were determined fiom:
where:
td
= maximum predicted principal tensile strain at the level of the niain tension tie,
Sm
average crack spacing predicted fkom CEB expression (see Section 1.9).
where: e#
Mitchell 1991):
where,s
and s,, are the crack spacings indicative of the crack control characteristics of the
horizontal and vertical distributed reinforcement. respectively. For simplicity sm and s.,
were
taken as the spacings of reinforcement in the two directions and the angle of principal
compression, 8, was assumed to be 45 O . In addition, the predicted crack widths were multiplied
by a factor of 1.2 to account for the influence of epoxy coating on the reinforcement (Abrishami
et al. 1995).
As can be seen fkom Table 4.3, the flexural crack widths predicted using nonlinear finite
element analyses compare very well with the measured maximum crack widths.
The predicted widths of diagonal cracks can Vary considerably frorn the crack widths
observed (see Table 4.4). One concern is that when applying normal procedures to the high
strength concrete specimen, the principal tensile strain and the crack width rnay be
underestimated. This rnay be due to the larger energy released when cracks forrn in highstrength
concrete members, which can Iead to the formation of longer and larger cracks. In addition this
Load
OrN)
Specimen
cm
~%~mmi
Wpndiacd
(id,
(mm)
(mm)
%e=Wtd
920
O. 169
0.29 1
0.05
0.05
2280
0.805
1.134
0.24
0.20
CAPNB
920
O. 107
O. 144
0.03
0.05
s, = 2 4 8 m
2280
0.704
1.000
0.2 1
O. 15
CAPHA
920
0.037
0.064
s, =248mm
2280
0.704
1.O87
0.2 1
0.25
CAPHB
920
0.037
0.067
CAPNA
s,
= X8mm
2280
0.562
1.068
0.17
0.20
Table 4.3 Comparison of predicted and measwed crack widths and principai tensile strains
in the main tension tie
Load
Specime~~
'marumi
EPreti~
wmeas~t~
wprcdicttd
(lm
(107
920
O .O25
2280
2.174
2459
0.55
0.30
CAPNB
920
0.030
sd=124mm
2280
O. 985
1.953
0.15
0.25
CAPHA
920
0.019
sme = 2 10mm
2280
1.638
2.203
0.4 1
0.45
CAPHB
920
0.019
CAPNA
S~=~~OIIIIII
124mm
2280
0.585
1.096
(1
(mm)
0.09
0.25
Table 4.4 Comparison O predicted and measured diagonal crack widths and principal
tens ile strains at rnidheight
phenomenon may be due to the fact that the tension stiffening in highstrength concrete members
tends to approach that of normalstrength concrete members after signifiant cracking has
developed (see Section 4.1).
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions arising from this research project are surnmarized as follows:
1.
A reinforcement ratio for the unifomily distributeci steel of 0.002 was sufficient to control
cracking over the depth of the normalstrength concrete pier cap specimen. This amount
of reinforcement is required in the 1994 CSA Standard for controiling cracking in
disturbed regions. Side A of the normalstrength concrete specimen contained a
reinforcement ratio of 0.0018. and exhibited adequate crack control at service load Ievels.
2,
control cracking over the depth of the highstrength concrete pier cap specimen at service
load levels. Fcr the highstrength concrete specirnen, initial cracks tended to be longer
and wider than those observed in the normdstrength concrete specirnen.
3.
The highstrength concrete specirnen had a slightly higher strength dian the normaistrength concrete specimen due to the sinaller compressive struts in the highstrength
concrete pier cap, leading to a slightty larger effective depth. The highstrength concrete
pier cap specimen exhibited a 32% Iower ductility than the normalstrength concrete
specimen.
4.
Both the normai and highstrength concrete specimen exhibited cracking Ioads which
were influenced by the large size of the specimens and by the restrained shrinkage
stresses. The cracking load of the highstrength concrete specimen was only slightly
higher than that of the normalstrength concrete specirnen due to the higher shnnkage
strains experienced in the highstrength concrete.
5.
Simple strutandtie models provided conservativeestimates of the strength of the pier cap
specimens.
6.
Refined strutandtie models which simulate the effect of the horizontal and vertical
distributed reinforcement, provided better estimates of the general yielding load of the
specimens than the simple strutandtie model. In the refined strutandtie model, the
inclusion of the horizontai tension tie representing the unifonnly distributed horizontal
reinforcement significantiy increases the strength prediction. The vertical tension ties
representing the uniformly distributeci vertical reinforcement reduces the required force
in the main tension tie near the support bearings.
7.
The predictions using nonlinear fiaite elernent analyses gave accurate predictions of the
variation of stress in the main tension tie and provideci a means of assessing the principal
tensile strains and crack widths at service Ioad levels.
8.
Reasonably accurate predictions of flexural crack widths were made by applying the usual
crack spacing assurnptions to the principal tensile strains obtained from the nonlinear
finite elernent analyses.
9.
More research is requireci to accurately predict the inclined crack widths in very large
disturbed regions and to properly account for the influence of highstrength concrete on
inclined crack w idths .
REFERENCES
AC1 Committee 3 18 (1995), "Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (AC1
3 1895)", American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1995.
Stiffening", ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 93, No. 6, Nov.Dec. 1996, pp. 703710.
AlSoufi, S. (1990), "The Response of Reinforced Concrete Bndge Pier Caps", Masters
thesis, McGill University, MontreaI, 1990. 134 pp.
Azizinamini, A., Stark, M., Roller, J. J. and Ghosh, S. K. (1993), "Bond Performance
of Reinforcing Bars", ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 90, No. 5, Sept.Oct. i396, pp. 55458 L .
of Msting Concrete Bridges, Amencan Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1985, pp. lC9 141.
Collins, M. P. and Mitchell, D. (1986). "A Rational Approach to Shear Design  The
1984 Canadian Code Provisions", ACI Journal, Vol, 83, No. 6, Nov.Dec. 1986, pp. 925933.
Collins, M. P. and Mitchell, D. (199 l), "Prestressed Concrete Structures", PrenticeHall
Inc., EngIewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991, 766 pp.
Collins, M. P., Mitchell, D. and MacGregor, J. G. (1993), "Structural Design
Considerations for HighStrength Concreten, Concrete Incemational, Vol. 15, No. 5, May 1993,
pp. 2734.
Collins, M. P. and Porasz, A. (1989), "Shear Design for High Strength Concreten, CEB
Strength of Corbels", Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institue, Vol. 10, No. 1, Feb . 1965,
pp. 1647.
Leonhardt, F. and Wdther, R. ( 1966). "Wandatiger Trager (Walllike Bearns) ",
Deutscher AusschussfLir Stahlbeton, Bulletin No. 178, Wilhelm Ernst und Sohn, Berlin, 1966,
159 pp.
MacGregor, J. G. ( 1997), " Reinforced Concrete: Mecfianics and Design", PrenticeHall
Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997, 939 pp.
Marti, P. (1985), "Basic Tools of Reinforced Concrete Beam Design", AC1 Jourrial, Vol.
82, No. 1, Jan.Feb. 1985, pp. 4656.
Concrete Deep Beams" ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 83, No. 4, JulyAugust 1986, pp. 6 14623.
Schlaich, J. and Schafer, K. ( l984), "Konstruieren im Stahibetonbau (Reinforced
Concrete Construction)" , BeronKalender I984, W ilhelm Ernst und Sohn, Berlin, 1984, pp. 7871004.
APPENDIX
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
This appendix presents a surnmary of the experirnental data recorded for the two pier cap
specimens. The data presented includes applied shear, LVDT readings, and strains from the
electrical resistance strain gauges.
instrumentation.
Table A.2 Readings from LVDTs located at the level of the main tension tie in
specimen CAPNA
Table A.3 Readings from LVDTs located at the level of the main tension tie in
specimen CAPNB
TabIe A.6 Readings from LVDT rosettes located in end A of specimen CAPN
Table A.7 Readings frorn LVDT rosettes located in end B of specimen CAPN
Shear
Al
A2
A3
A4
AS
A6
Wv
(106,
(109
(109
(103
(109
(103
246 .O
2
4
44
46
427.5
2
6
210
254
615.5
2
8
14
496
520
864.5
4
6
36
66
8 12
834
1123.0
10
382
540
1052
Il06
1502.5
44
26
986
1446
1526
NIA
1753.5
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
1998.5
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
225 1.5
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
2505 .O
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
2665.5
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
272 1.5
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
2786.O
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
2833 .O
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
2895.5
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
29 12.5
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
2104.0
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
L
Table A.8 Strains from strain gauges located in end A of specirnen CAPN
Shear
A7
AS
A9
A10
Al1
(kW
(106,
(106,
t103
(109
(106,
246 .O
 14
 12
427.5
24
20
18
1O
615.5
34
32
32
2
2

864.5
34
2 8
20
14
18
1123.0
60
38
14
2 12
58
1502.5
80
46
22
338
124
1753.5
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
1998.5
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
225 1.5
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
2505.0
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
2665 5
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
272 1.5
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
2786 .O
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
2833 .O
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
2895.5
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
2912.5
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
N/A
2104.0
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
Table A.8 (Cont 'd) Strains from strain gauges located in end A o f specimen CAPN
Shear
B1
B2
(10~)
(10'3
B3
(10~)
B4
B5
(106,
(10'9
M
(106,
NIA
246.0
2
4
NIA
42
427 5
4
6
10
NIA
100
615.5
4
 10
14
NIA
440
864.5
8
10
24
42
NIA
722
1123.0
 10
8
186
178
NIA
970
1502.5
10
642
554
NIA
1368
17535
24
14
872
758
NIA
1620
1998.5
48
22
1140
968
NtA
1878
225 1.5
110
38
1462
1234
NIA
2 180
2505 .O
164
52
1612
1476
NIA
2506
2665 5
232
72
1828
1664
NIA
2740
272 1.5
274
90
1882
!734
NIA
2776
2786.0
302
100
1950
1794
NIA
3 138
2833.0
388
108
2168
1902
NIA
5698
2895. 5
446
122
2220
1992
NIA
3054
29 12.5
466
128
2266
2054
NIA
2998
2 104.0
454
130
1802
1774
NIA
2638
Table A.9 Strains from strain gauges located in end B of specimen CAPN
Shear
B7
Ba
OrN)
(109
(109
B9
(106,
BI0
BI1
(109
W6)
NIA
246.0
12
 12
NIA
6
427.5
20
24
NIA
 10
14
28
36
NIA
28
32
864.5
22
40
NIA
12
26
1123.0
34
54
NIA
410
148
1502.5
64
80
NIA
710
338
1753.5
82
 100
NIA
882
458
1998.5
100
120
NIA
1080
598
225 1.5
1 12
 142
NIA
1376
796
2505 .O
1 14
164
NIA
1564
956
2665.5
94
180
NIA
1730
1138
272 15
82
192
NIA
1818
1268
2786 .O
70
200
NIA
1802
1292
2833 .O
340
24
NIA
1378
1230
2895.5
6 12
54
NIA
1304
1260
2912.5
668
80
NIA
1244
1162
2104.0
636
106
NIA
1060
1016
6 15.5

Table A.9 (Cont 'd) Strains from strain gauges located in end B o f specimen CAPN
Table A.10 Readings from vertical LVDTs used to detennine the deflection of
specimen CAPH
Table A.11 Readings from LVDTs located at the level of the main tension tie in
specirnen CAPHA
Shear
B5
B4
B3
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
B2
(1
B1
(mm)
250.0
0.003
0.006
495.5
0.003
0.007
5715
0.003
0.003
0.020
0.006
745.5
0.014
0.3 15
0.013
0.013
0.003
890.5
0.028
0.419
0.333
0.034
0.000
1124.0
0.087
0.45 1
0.499
0.1 15
0.0 12
13265
O. 140
0.498
0.552
0211
0.009
1611.O
O. 189
0.582
0.600
O. 027
O. 166
1870.5
0.217
0.655
0.743
0.286
0.29 1
2122.0
0.24 1
O. 745
0.852
0.3 13
0.350
2391.O
0.259
0.855
0.982
0.320
0.423
2618.0
0.280
0.960
1.134
0.333
0.500
277 15
0.297
1.O59
1.426
0.299
0.555
2844.0
0.304
1405
1.871
4.055
0.61 1
2902.5
0.304
1.783
2.525
0.34 1
0.65 1
29605
0.217
2.402
3.760
1 .O63
0.688
2996 .O
O. 185
2.763
4.500
 1539
0.718
2792. O
O. 157
2.763
4.528
1 676
0.72 1
2910.0
O154
2.800
4.665
1,717
0.728
1842.O
0.080
2.501
4.123
 1676
0.632
Table A.12 Readings from LVDTs located at the level of the main tension tie in
specimen CAPHB
Table A.15 Readings frorn LVDT rosettes located in end A of specimen CAPH
Table A.16 Readings fiom LVDT rosettes located in end B of specimen CAPH
Table A.17 Strains from strain gauges Iocated in end A of specimen CAPH
Shear
A7
A8
A9
A10
(106,
(106,
(106,
(104
Al!
(104
NIA
NIA
250.0
NIA
6
NIA
495 5
NIA
20
NIA
2
4
57 1.5
NIA
16
NIA
2
6
745.5
NIA
24
NIA
26
26
890.5
NIA
6
NIA
50
1124.0
NIA
 16
NIA
224
80
1326.5
NIA
26
NIA
340
140
1611.O
NIA
38
NIA
460
220
1870.5
NIA
46
NIA
628
308
2 122.0
NIA
54
NIA
744
376
239 1.O
NIA
54
NIA
1050
4 14
2618.0
NIA
56
NIA
1216
444
277 1.5
NIA
64
NIA
1332
494
2844.O
NIA
66
NIA
1418
568
2902 5
NIA
74
NIA
1464
744
2960.5
NIA
66
NIA
1512
1010
2996.0
NIA
60
NIA
1608
1088
2792 .O
NIA
34
NIA
48
1 180
2910.0
NIA
148
NIA
26
 12
1842.0
NIA
272
NIA
206
rn

Table A.17 (Cont'd)Strains From main gauges Iocated in end A of specimen CAPH
Shear
BI
(106,
B2
(10~)
B3
B4
B5
Bd
(106,
(107
(m
(103
250.0
4
30
34
495 5
2
6
56
64
571.5
2
8
10
70
82
745.5
2
 12
14
688
644
890.5
2
6
12
32
874
782
1124.0
2
8
60
72
1090
988
1326.5
2
6
f 44
200
1282
1152
161f .O
16
806
702
1556
1510
1870.5
34
1164
1132
1832
1820
2 122.0
46
12
1340
1362
2170
2098
239 1.O
52
12
1554
1630
2536
2394
26 18.0
72
18
1748
1846
2884
2606
277 1.5
58
22
1892
1982
3248
2670
2844.0
116
24
1976
2040
4316
2762
2902.5
132
26
2046
2092
6818
2976
2960.5
144
28
2122
2140
6196
3554
2996. O
158
28
2190
2172
3794
5204
2792.O
160
30
2162
2146
3680
5 174
2910.0
168
30
2170
2154
2846
4458
1842.0
154
30
1714
1674
2348
3806

1
i
Table A.18 Strains from strain gauges located in end B of spechen CAPH
Table A.18 (Cont'd) Strains fiom strain gauges located in end B of specirnen CAPH
IMAGE NALUATION
TEST TARGET (QA3)

Rctiester.
USA
 Phocre:
W482W0O

: +  ,