Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTACT
The current design methods for the hollow core shear resistance are derived
from experimental results and elastic theories that are not consistent with the
behavior in the ultimate limit state.
In this paper, an analytical methodology adopted from the modified
compression field theory (MCFT) and safety concepts from Eurocode 2 is
properly presented and evaluated with experimental data available in the
literature, proved to be accurate and simple enough for use in the design.
Comparisons with the codes CSA A23.3 and Eurocode 2 are also presented.
For the validity of the process presented, the support region specific
characteristics of this type of slab, as the anchorage of prestressing strands,
prestressing dispersion and short support lengths, are discussed with nonlinear
numerical models considering the bond between the strand and concrete.
Pg1
Pg2
4
s
0.8 f cu
Point 1
0.000
Point 2
0.030
Point 3
0.047
Point 4
0.480
0.500
2.000
0.700
0.000
Pg3
Unit
(MPa)
(mm)
(105 mm2)
(108 mm4)
(mm)
(mm)
(-)
(-)
(mm2)
(mm2)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(mm)
(mm)
(10-5 MN/m)
(mm)
(mm)
VTT33.200
47.5
200
1.19
6.03
103
238
7 12.5
651
1100
40
9.56
4958
40
VTT109.265
51.8
265
1.72
15.0
137
242
10 12.5
930
1000
39
9.44
4957
40
VTT148.320
43.5
320
2.03
25.9
164
263
2 9.3
11 12.5
104
1023
900
1000
49
51
8.40
5945
40
All models showed good agreement with the values measured in the laboratory, as shown in
Tab. 3, and qualitatively, obtained similar results, from which can be drawn some important
conclusions: under the load applied, the prestressing tension had a little variation between the
release of the prestressing and the ultimate load, as well as the bond slips and bond stress; in
the sections close to the application of the loads, the plane section hypothesis is acceptable.
This analysis reaffirms the shear failure mechanisms mentioned in the previous item.
Table 3
Slab
33.200
109.265
148.320
Tests
Fcr: kN Ffail: kN
81
108
178
223
238
Numerical model
Fcr: kN Fm: kN
96
112
188
214
233
Fum/Ffail
1,04
1,06
0,98
Fig. 4 shows the bond slip, bond stress and prestressing stress along the slab for the release of
the prestressing and ultimate load to the slab VTT 109.265, where also shows the values
calculated with the recommendations from Eurocode 2 [12]. The shear failure mechanism in
all examples was shear tension failure, clearly shown in Fig. 5 for the slab VTT 109.265. The
anchorage failure of strands was discarded, for the reason that inside the transmission length
did not show bending cracks and there were compression stress in the bottom side (Fig. 6).
The Fig. 7 brings the longitudinal deformations along the slab to the stages of prestressing
release and ultimate load.
Pg4
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 4. Numerical results of VTT 148.320 (a) Bond slips (b) Bond stress (c) Stress in strands
Pg5
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 6. Principal stress (a) maximum (b) minimum (c) tensors
(a)
(b)
Pg6
bw d v f ctm
(1)
In Eq 1, the term f ck in the original equation of MCFT [4] was replaced by 2 f ctm and
likewise should not be taken greater than 8 MPa. According to the requirements of Eurocode
2:
Pg7
(2)
The coefficient models the strain effect, the first term of Eq. 3, and the size effect, the
second term of the same equation. The strain effect is considered by controlling the
longitudinal strain at mid-depth of the member, x, which can be taken as a good
approximation equal to half the longitudinal reinforcement deformation, whereas the concrete
deformation in compression is small compared to steel deformation [4].
0, 40
1300
(1 + 1500 x ) (1000 + s xe )
(3)
Figure 9 shows the deformation of the longitudinal reinforcement due to bending moment
and shear. When cot is taken equal to 2, as suggested by the Canadian code [1], x
deformation can be calculated by Eq. 4. In the methodology presented in this paper for
hollow core slabs, the term (Ec bw d v ) 2 should be added the reinforcement stiffnesses in the
denominator when the design bending moment is greater than the cracking moment, as a
conservative simplify. The term f p0 ( x ) is calculated assuming a linear variation in the
transmission lengths, whereby in the Eurocode 2. According as [4], the shear depth dv and is
taken as 0.9d.
x =
M d d v + Vd Aps f p 0 ( x )
(4)
2 E p Aps
Pg8
s xe =
where
35s x
0,85s x
15 + a g
(5)
s x d v = 0.9 d
The section which should be checked depends on the type of loading and should be where
the width of the critical shear crack can be satisfactorily represented by the
strain, according Muttoni;Ruiz [14]. In the methodology presented here, was found
appropriate to consider a section distant dv/2 from the application point
of concentrated loads and a section distant dv from the support in the case of uniformly
distributed load.
Pg9
L/7.2
P/2
P/2
L/7.2
P/2
L/7.2
L/7.2
L
P/2
P/2
L/8
P/2
L/4
P/2
L/4
L/8
2
L
P/2
a
P/2
P/2
300
P/2
300
3
L
P
a
4
L
P/2
P/2
300
5
L
P
a
6
L
CS
Pg10
Total
46
39
16
14
14
13
45
35
24
12
19
1
10
66
25
8
39
90
39
75
15
129
Total
129
Performed
by
Thickness
range
(mm)
Load
scheme
(Fig. 10)
Type of
holes
f ck (MPa)
VTT
TNO
TU-D
USA
MANSINI
155-200
240-260
300-320
360-400
420-500
1
2
3
4
5
6
circular
irregular
fck 60
60 < fck 90
90 < fck 120
CSA
Proposed methodology
Mean
Coefficient
Mean
Coefficient
value
of variation (%)
value
of variation (%)
using the mean values of the material properties
0,84
17,6
0,94
15,9
0,85
18,4
0,98
17,1
0,81
16,0
0,89
13,4
0,68
22,5
0,77
21,1
0,94
17,9
1,00
17,9
0,86
27,9
0,92
28,2
0,80
17,6
0,90
17,0
0,88
18,3
1,00
15,6
0,81
18,0
0,92
16,7
0,90
19,6
0,93
16,4
0,90
19,6
1,02
15,0
1,03
0,0
1,16
0,0
0,81
8,5
0,89
8,3
0,81
20,0
0,92
18,9
0,78
14,5
0,85
12,3
0,96
20,4
1,05
21,7
0,83
23,0
0,95
21,5
0,83
17,9
0,93
16,8
0,84
24,8
0,94
23,4
0,84
16,1
0,93
15,3
0,80
19,2
0,92
18,0
0,83
19,0
0,93
18,0
using the design values of the material properties
0,60
22,1
0,64
19,0
Table 5
Slab
33.200
109.265
148.320
Tests
Fcr: kN
81
223
Ffail: kN
108
178
238
CSA
x (%o)
-0,031
-0,077
-0,088
Fum/Ffail
1,05
0,97
0,83
Proposed
methodology
x (%o)
Fum/Ffail
-0,014
1,09
-0,064
1,00
-0,060
0,90
Pg11
Numerical model
Fcr: kN
96
214
x (%o)
-0,085
-0,083
-0,091
Fum/Ffail
1,04
1,06
0,98
(a)
(b)
Pg12
(a)
(b)
Pg13
Pg14
(a)
(b)
(c)
Pg15
REFERENCES
1. Bentz E. C. and Collins M. P. Development of the 2004 CSA A23.3 shear provisions for
reinforced concrete. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2006, 33, No. 5, 521534.
2. Bentz E. C., Vecchio F. J. and Collins M. P. The simplified MCFT for calculating the
shear strength of reinforced concrete elements. ACI Structural Journal, 2006, 103, No. 4,
614624.
3. Collins, M. P., Mitchell D., Adebar, P., and Vecchio, F. J. A general shear design
method, ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 1, January-February 1996, pp. 36-45.
4. Collins, M. P., Bentz, E. C., Sherwood, E. G., and Xie, L., An adequate theory for the
shear strength of reinforced concrete structures, Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 60,
No. 9, 2008, 635650.
5. Vecchio F. J. and Collins M. P. The modified compression field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI Journal, Proceedings, 1986, 83, No. 2, 219
231.
Pg16
6. Jendele, L., and Cervenka, J., Finite element modelling of reinforcement with bond,
Computers and Structures, 84, 2006, 17801791.
7. Janney , J. R., Nature of bond in pre-tensioned prestressedconcrete, Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, May 1954, Proceedings Vol. 50, p. 717.
8. Fusco, P. B., Tcnica de armar as estruturas de concreto, Editora Pini, So Paulo, 1995.
9. Cervenka J, Jendele L. Atena users manual, Part 17. Prague: Cervenka Consl.; 2000
2002.
10. Bigaj AJ. Structural dependence of rotation capacity of plastic hinges in RC beams and
slabs. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Delft University of Technology,
1999.
11. Pajari, M. Resistance of Prestressed Hollow Core Slabs against Web Shear Failure.
ESPOO, Finland, 2005, VTT Research Notes 2292.
12. Comit Europn de Normalisation. EN 1992-1-1:2004 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
Structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels, 2004.
13. Canadian Standards Association. Design of Concrete Structures. CSA, Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada, 2004. CSA Committee. A23.3
14. Muttoni, A., Ruiz, M. F., Shear Strength of Members without Transverse Reinforcement
as Function of Critical Shear Crack Width, ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 2,
March-April 2008, pp. 163-172.
15. Bertagnoli G., and Mancini, G., Failure analysis of hollow-core slabs tested in shear,
Structural Concrete, 2009, 10, No. 3, pp. 139152.
Pg17