Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPPORTING FIRMS
PCI SPECIALLY FUNDED R & D PROGRAM
Phase I-1982-1985
PRODUCER MEMBERS
Arnold Concrete Products
Baass Concrete Co.
Basalt Precast, A Division of Dillingham
Heavy Construction, Inc.
Blakeslee Prestress, Inc.
Buehner Concrete Co.
Joseph P. Carrara & Sons, Inc.
Central Pre-Mix Concrete Co.
Colorado Concrete Structures, Inc.
Concrete Technology Corporation
Dura-Stress, Inc.
Everman Corporation
Exposaic Industries, Inc.
Fabcon Incorporated
Featherlite Corporation (Prestress Div.)
Finfrock Industries, Inc.
Florence Concrete Products, Inc.
Forest City Dillon Precast Systems, Inc.
Formigli Corporation
F-S Prestress, Inc.
Genstar Structures Limited
Heldenfels Brothers, Inc.
High Concrete Structures, Inc.
F. Hurlbut Company
Lone Star Industries, Inc.
Lone Star/San-Vel
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
American Spring Wire Carp
American Steinweg Company, Inc.
Armco Inc.
J. I. Case Company
Dayton Superior Corporation
Dur-0-Wal. Inc.
Dy-Core Systems Inc.
Elkem Chemicals, Inc.
Fehr Brothers, Inc.
Florida Wire&Cable Co.
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERS
ABAM Engineers, Inc.
W. Burr Bennett Ltd.
Ross Bryan Associates, Inc.
Conrad Associates East
The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc.
Gary J. Klein
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
330 Pfingsten Road
Northbrook, IL 60062
STEERING COMMITTEE
Ned M. Cleland, Chairman
Alex Aswad
fergu;hman
Kamal Chaudhari
Keith Gum
John Hanlon
Floyd Jones
Stuart McRimmon
Joseph A Miller
Kim E. Seeber
C. P. Siess (RCRC)
Robert Smith
Tom A. Thomas, Jr.
Garry Turner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The
behavior
and
design
This
of
precast
research
spandrel
project
beams
was
was
primarily
studied
directed
research
practices, analytical
included
studies
background
using
finite
investigation
element
models,
of
and
design
full-scale
The
target
design
loads
were
based on 90 psf dead load and 50 psf live load, which are typical for a
double tee parking structure with 60 ft spans.
The
published
background
procedures
vary
research
with
revealed
respect
to
that
industry
several
practices
fundamental
aspects
and
of
nor
of
is
the
influence
connections
to
deck
elements.
In
general,
the
consensus
attachment.
on
the
Also,
design
the
AC1
of
hanger
Building
Code
reinforcement
for
ledge-to-web
(AC1
does
not
318-83)
address
attachment
and
behavior
near
the
end
region
of
spandrels were identified as the key issues and were the primary focus of
this
research.
The
analytical
studies
and
for
shear
and
torsion
laboratory
testing
design
examples,
at
the
face
do
not
substantially
reduce
restraining
lateral
of
program
the
critical
support
should be considered.
0
Connections
to
deck
elements
are
effective
in
-iii-
bending.
The
use
of
lapped-splice
stirrups
and
reactions.
reinforcement
for
internal
torsion.
Second,
the
should be
been recommended.
reinforcement
is
additive
to
shear
and
torsion
reinforcement.
0
is recommended.
In conclusion, this research has clarified many of the questions
relating to spandrel beam design and the design recommendations will be of
immediate benefit to the precast industry.
-iv-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
w
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.
BACKGROUND RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.
Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SpandrelBeamBehsvior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TransferofLedgeLoadstoWeb . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
22
22
29
Test Specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Test Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Behavior and Strength of Test Specimens . . . . . . . . .
29
31
32
51
51
51
51
53
54
59
69
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NOTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
72
74
Al
Bl
Cl
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
6.
21
LOADTESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.
5
6
7
9
10
12
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.
-v-
INTRODUCTION
1.
construction.
to
several
fundamental
aspects
of
their
design.
I"
in
particular,
reinforcement
for
(AC1 31&83)(l)
beams,
the
general,
design
there
is
ledge-to-web
of
no
beam
ledges
consensus
on
is
the
Also.
attachment.
not
consistently
design
of
hanger
these issues by studying the behavior and design of precast spandrel beams.
The
research
program
was
primarily
directed
toward
deep
and
slender
L-beams
and
spandrel
beams
with
pockets for T-stem bearings (pocket spandrels) were included in the program.
Figure
1.1
findings
shows
of
prestressed
radically
while
of
cross
research
may
geometric
research
is
spandrel
beam
sections
generally
spandrels, but
different
this
aspects
this
typical
of
apply
not
be
these
to
design
to
be
are
both
or
to
load
reasonably
covered.
of
beams.
prestressed
applicable
configuration
believed
types
and
spandrel
level.
The
non-
beams
of
Furthermore,
comprehensive,
not all
"or
Also,
spandrels.
These
the
effects
handling
considerations
can
of
volume
and
be
change
vehicular
very
on
impact
design
loads
and
are
detailing
not
of
discussed.
Study
of
design
requirements
and
practices
to
determine
the
Full-scale
tests
of
two
L-beams
and
1.
one
spandrel
2.
6TO 10
6 TO 10
l-l
l-t
POCKET SPANDREL
L-BEAM
Fig.
3.
2.
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
guides
and
research
reports
on
spandrel
beam
design.
Later, a
Finally,
the collective
The following
Critical section.
indirectly loaded, and the additional shear capacity due to arch action near
(2) Therefore, design for shear and torsion
the support is not available.
forces at a distance d (h/2 for prestressed spandrels) from the support may
be not appropriate.
which carry all the concentrated loads acting on the ledge rather than just
loads farther than d from the support.
The consensus among designers is that all loads acting on the
ledge,inside the critical section, based on inclined cracking from the edge
of the beam base plate. must be considered as part of the shear/torsion
load.
5.
Eccentricity
are
contributing
to
torsion.
The former
require
an
increase
in
torsional
load.
The eccentricity
applied
load,
as
shown
in
Fig.
2.2.
should be measured relative to the shear center. which, for an untracked Lbeam
section,
consistent
with
the
theoretical
Further,
prediction
(5)
However, this
of
shear
center
location
After
connections
to
deck
elements
are
made,
however,
the
force due to friction at the bearing pads coupled with restraint at the deck
connections
(Fig.
2.2).
research(6)
In
addition.
Flexure
Flexural
design
of
spandrels
generally
follows
AC1
and
PC1
procedures for bending about the horizontal and vertical axes. However, Lshaped spandrel beams do not have symmetry about either axis.
The principal
axes are rotatedslightly from the vertical and horizontal axes, as shown in
Fig. 2.3.
axis
can
particularly
neglected
those
for
deep
employing
spandrel
beams.
prestressing,
this
For
shallow
influence
spandrels.
should
be
considered.
Perhaps
axe.s
rotation
more
on
important,
horizontal
however,
is
displacement
the
of
influence
spandrels.
of
principal
As shown in
Fig. 2.3, a component of the vertical load acts along the weak axis inducing
6.
Cleland(5)
was the most dominant behavior of long slender spandrels and suggests a
principal axes analysis when the spa" length is 40 to 50 times web width,
depending on the intermediate support conditions.
I" general, detailing
practice
follows
the
AC1
code.
One
reinforcement be placed in the side faces of webs more than 3 ft deep. The
reinforcement is to be distributed in the zone of flexural tension with a
spacing not more than the web width, nor 12 in.
check this provision; instead reinforcement in the side faces of the web is
designed to resist torsion or handling.
2.3 Shear and Torsion
Prestressed
prestressed
concrete.
spandrels.
concrete, which is a" extension of the AC1 provisions of torsion for nonprestressed concrete. was developed by Zia and McGee. (7) The second edition
of the PC1 handbook included a modified version of the Zia and McGee
method.(8)
torsional
A further
(9)
refinement of these methods was subsequently developed by Zia and Hsu.
stress which is conservative for most spandrel beams.
While the general design approach follows that of Zia-McGee and PCI, new
expressions are proposed for torsion/shear interaction and minimum torsion
reinforcement.
moments rather than nominal stresses, which is more consistent with the
current AC1 code.
Most designers follow one of these three similar procedures.
Practices vary with respect to the design of longitudinal reinforcement for
torsion.
their
original
paper.
Zia
and
McGee
recommended
that
7.
only
the
and located
(3)
describes a procedure
This approach assumes that, after cracking, the concrete can carry
no tension and that shear and torsion are carried by a field of diagonal
Compression.
approach,
will~generally
shown, iwthe handbook, the required positive and negative bending strength
at the face of the support exceeds the midspan moment.
These requirements
transverse
However,
Article
11.6.7.3
requires
'~
U-stirrups.
spacing limit of 12 in. is not appropriate for deep spandrels, and this
limit
is
routikiy
exceeded.
Non-prestressed spandrels.
concrete generally follows AC1 code requirements, except for the detailing
considerations discussed above.
Pocket
spandrels.
design.
Design practices vary for considering the effect of the pocket; some
designers neglect this effect.
the dimensions of deep pocket spandrels and often only minimum reinforcement
is required.
8.
Torsion
equilibrium.
The
eccentric
load
applied
on
the
ledge
Customarily.
rotation.
the
web
is
connected
to the
to restrain
column
Figures 2.4e and 2.4b show the torsion equilibrium reactions for
vertical
Raths(1')
The
torsional
and
horizontal
equilibrium
web
and Osborn('1)
reactions
reinforcement
prescribe
similar
at
may
the
require
ends
methods
supplemental
of
for
the
design
reinforcement.
A
= Awl =
WV
where T
girder.
of
the
this
inside
(1)
and $
The use of $ = 0.85 instead of 0.90 (flexwe) compensates for the ratio of
internal moment to total effective depth, which is not in Equation 1.
Osborn recommends the bars be evenly distributed over a height and
width equal to hs (see Fig. 2.4) from the concentrated reaction point.
Because shear cracks may coincide with diagonal cracks due to outof-plane
bending,
However,
torsion.
as
reinforcement
WV
is
and
If
A
the
w?.
required
reinforcement
reinforcement,
provided
all
torsion
little
loads
9.
for
or
acting
is
no
con
considered
to
supplemental
the
ledge
are
Figure
2.5
shows
a"
alternative
lead
to
Most
excessive
means
end
to
provide
reactions
torsional
are
in
close
designers
rolling
surveyed
of
the
indicated
spandrel
that
beam
this
approach
the
support,
Design
Handbook
at
design
beams.
criteria
Section
for
dapped-end
6.13
of
the
connections.
PC1
Research
on
dapped
end
L-beams
is
often
complicated
by
Also,
spandrel
reinforcing
often
interferes
with
the
the
reinforcement
last blockout
for
the
Design
for
of
torsion
in a pocket
dapped
end.
The
Beam
Hanger
between
the
PCAc4)
and
Ledges
reinforcing.
ledge
and
Collins
web
and
of
a"
L-shaped spandrel.
Design examples by
(12)
provide
hanger
reinforcement
Mitchell
sh
= v
&
4fY
Ash=
(jd+a)
Gy
jd
IO.
(3)
where
sh
inside
face
of
spandrel
for
each
ledge
load
(sq
in.).
"
=
jd =
and
existing
reinforcement
have
spandrels
than
occurred
instances,
this
where
beams
that
have
equation
there
was
very
light
with
performed
would
no
require.
hanger
hanger
well
with
much
less
reinforcement.
reinforcement
have
In
several
survived
load
tests.
Further
refinements
of
hanger
reinforcement
design
(11,12.13)
reduce the load that must be suspended from the web based on internal shear
stress
di s t r i b u t i o n ,
relative
depth
of
the
ledge,
and
deflection
compatibility.
There is no consensus among designers on requirements for hanger
reinforcement.
Furthermore, there is no
torsion
generally
region
of
reinforcement.
controls
the
the
quantity
of
transverse
reinforcement
in
the
middle
punching
shear.
The
design
for
punching
shear
in
beam
ledges generally follows the procedures in Section 6.14 of the PC1 Handbook.
11.
(10)
based
Beam
Pockets
typically
Therefor e ,
located
Equation
require m e n t s .
The
near
2
the
is
concrete
used
T-stem
to
tensile
load,
as
determine
stress
at
shown
hanger
the
in
Fig.
2.7.
reinforcement
"ledge"
level
is
Also,
12.
-7
~~----_---.
-------- -_
----__--_ -4
_-------7
13.
CONNECTION TO DECK
SHEAR CENTER
FRICTION AT BEARING
14.
X-
XP
15.
16.
17.
-A,,.,
(INSIDE
LEG
ONLY)
POSSIBLE SEPARATION
BETWEEN LEDGE AND WEB
18.
~STIRRUP
19.
20.
3.
3.1
Description
Finite
The
analyzed.
essentially
long.
element
models
geometry
the
same.
of
of
a"
these
L-beam
models
and
and
the
spandrel
test
were
specimens
was
Figures 4.1 and 4.2 provide mcnre detailed information on the geometry
of the beams.
The model studies had several objectives:
o
Investigate
the
deflections
and
rotations
caused
by
the
Determine
the
theoretical
torsional
equilibrium
reactions
at
elements
on
the supports.
o
Study
the
influence
of
connections
to
deck
at
each
node.
loads
included
reaction at 4 ft centers.
The
beam
tee-stem
dead
load
and
16.8
kip
tee-stem
from the web centerline for the L-beam and pocket spandrel, respectively.
The
restraints
at
each
end
of
the
beam
modeled
typical
spandrel
beam
support where the bearing pad is placed at the centerline of the web, and
lateral support is provided near the bearing and at the top corners of the
beam.
For both the L-beam and pocket spandrel, a second condition was
analyzed in which additional lateral restraint was provided near mid-height
of
the
beam
to
simulate
connections
to
deck
elements.
There
was
no
This
case
was
modeled
so
the
analytical
studies and load tests modeled the same condition, although it should be
noted
that
direct
connection
between
21.
the
column
and
deck
is
not
necessarily
required.
without
any
connections
to
deck
elements.
effectively
Fig. 3.lb.
load
is
Fig. 3.2.
restrain
this
outward
Connections
displacement,
as
to
deck
shown
in
Usually these connections are not made until all of the dead
in
place,
Similar
plots
for
the
spandrel
are
shown
in
connections
between
the
spandrel
and
deck.
shows
the
horizontal
connections
at
restrain rotation.
would
be
the
The
counteracted
column-to-deck
reactions
The
deck
The
support
net
by
work
outward
the
with
with
force
deck
the
connections.
Figure
top
between
column-to-deck
corner
the
connections
deck
connection.
and
to
spandrel
If there were no
As
expected,
the
results
inside
face
of
that
of
the
study
web
is
are
in
presented
tension.
in
The
maximum tensile stress of 295 psi, which occurs at the ledge load, is about
40 percent greater than the average stress.
stresses
The
resultant
in
the
of
these
individual
stresses
elements
resultant
22.
can
near
is
be
the
slightly
computed
ledge/web
less
by
integrating
junction.
than
the
As
applied
ledge load and is shifted significantly towards the web centerline. These
differences are equilibrated by shear and torsion in the ledge itself.
mechanism is discussed further in Section 5.4.
23.
This
24.
F.E.
MODEL
VERT.
(IN.)
H O R I Z . (IN.1
ROT.
<RAD)
(A)
WITHOUT
DECK
-0.053
+0.024
-0.00085
LOAD
TESTS
-0.173
+0.038
-0.00443
CONNECTIONS
VERT.
<IN. 1
HORIZ. (IN. >
ROT.
(RAE I>
F.E.
MODEL
LOAD
TESTS
-0.053
-0.146
+0.013
-0.00346
0.0
-0.00083
(B) W I T H D E C K C O N N E C T I O N S
Fig. 3.2 - Midspan deflection of pocket spandrel (superimposed dead load plus live load)
26.
9+ j.:i.:j.:.i:j.:i.~i:.i:j.i:.:j.i:j.:i.:i.:.i:.:i.:j.i:.:i. ~i .i:.i:.:i.:~.:.~~~~
~:::.,.
:~.:~.:~:.~:.~:.-:.~:.~:.:~.:~.:~: :::,: : :-:.~:.:~:.~:~.~:.:.:.:.::::;.
:
.:..::..::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::..::..::..:~.:..::.::.::.::,::,::.::.::.::.::,.::.::. .;:.
::::::. .:;:;:::.~.. .,. . ::..:.::..:.
Eo
..:.:-.::::_
.::
.:.: .:.:.:.:.:.:;:..~:.:.::.
.:.:.:.:.:::..~:.:..:..:..:..:,.~..:. .:. .:. .:. .,:..,:..:... .,. . . . ._ .
.:,.::.::.::.::;.::.::.::.::.::;.::.::_:::.::.::.::.::.::.::.:~.::.::.~:::.::.::.::.~~::.: : : : :
.:.:.:.:.:_:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:,:.~:.:.:.:.:.:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
._
~~
27.
0
3
E5
5
3
2%.
4.
LOAD TESTS
Two L-beams and one pocket spandrel were tested to study their
behavior
and
structural
verify
their
laboratory
of
strength.
Wiss,
The
tests
were
conducted
in
the
Janney,
Illinois.
4.1
Test
General.
2.8 ft long.
Specimens
The target design loads were based on 90 psf dead load and 50
psf live load. which are typical for a double tee parking structure with 60
ft
The reactions at each stem of a" 8 ft wide double tee was 16.8
spans.
kips.
Design.
Shear
and
torsion
the
equal
to
provisions
at
least
of
1.2
Article
times
the
cracking
moment.
Reinforcement
f or
view
of
the
controversy
regarding
ledge-to-web
attachment,
on
relative
reinforcement
ledge
between
ledge
depth.
loads
All
was
of
the
transverse
considered
to
be
2.
all
the
hanger
reinforcement
between
distribution.
ledge
loads
was
considered
reinforcement.
o
Hanger
reinforcement
for
the
spandrel
(Specimen 3)
was
designed by Equation 2.
one wire on each side of the pocket from the mesh reinforcing
was considered to contribute.
Design
of
the
dapped-end
connection
for
the
spandrel
First,
dap
and
the
main
body
for
flexure
of
the
member.
The
welded
wire
axial
tension
in
the
extended
shear
Second,
the
end
not
was
continued past the potential diagonal tension crack extending to the bottom
corner of the beam.
Details.
The
dimensions
and
reinforcement
details
of
the
test
was
provided
by
partial-height
L-bars
on
These
the
bars
on
The
longitudinal
bars
in
the
L-beams
are
not
hooked
at
the
ends.
O At the right side of the L-beams, two #5 bars are welded to a
bearing
plate.
beams.
O
Wire
mesh
spandrel.
at
the
is
used
for
shear
reinforcement
of
the
top
and
bottom
of
30.
the
beam,
although
the
AC1
code
requirements
for
development
of
web
reinforcement
60
ksi
reinforcing
to
Table 4.1.
(ASTM
A706).
270
ksi
stress-relieved
tested
bars
determine
actual
strengths.
The yield strength of the X3 bars was much higher than expected.
4.2
Test
Setup.
Procedure
The
spandrels
were
using
double
specially
designed
tees
(and
one
single
tee).
To simulate
long-term creep of elastomeric bearing pads, two l/4 in. pads on either side
of a l/4 in. steel plate were used under the tee stems.
wide (measured along the beam) by 3 in. long.
These
dimensions
were
chosen
test
setup
featured
removable
connection
between
the
loading
points
double
tees.
as
deflection
transducers
to
monitor
horizontal
and
single
element
strain
midspan
Finally,
the
included
Three
reaction points.
at
on
Instrumentation
gages
well
vertical
were
and
load
as
one
cells
all
tiltmeter
deflections
placed
on
four
and
selected
at
two
of
horizontal
were
set
up
rotations.
reinforcing
Initially,
to service load (16.8 kips per tee stem) without the connection between the
double tees and spandrel.
the
place.
deck
connections
in
without the deck connections in increments of 2.5 kips per tee stem.
third specimen was tested to failure in two phases.
The
the end region in Phase 1, the supports were moved in 4 ft from each end.
and the specimen was reloaded to failure.
31.
of
the
element
L-beam
models.
and
spandrel
to
those
deflection
by
the
predicted
and
.some
of
the
rotation
About
may
be
half
of
the
attributable
to
torsional
the
L-beams.
connection
of
At service load. no
cracks
were
observed
the
spandrel.
These
cracks. which
are
shown
in
Fig. 4.5a, were all less than 10 mils (0.010 in.) in width.
Failure
patterns
Specimen
1.
The
cracking
patterns
Diagonal cracks
that
The
crack
at
ledge.
The ledge continued to separate from the web until the test was
crack at the ledge/web junction was over l/8 in. wide, as show" in Fig. 4.7.
Failure
patterns
Specimen
2.
As shown in Fig.
4.6b,
a well
The crack at the ledge/web junction was restrained by the additional hanger
reinforcement,
punching shear failures occurred at the first and sixth tee stem from the
left.
Figure
4.9
shows
the
punching
the
top
and
inclined
below
The
the
shear
failure
ledge
failures.
surface
reinforcing.
As
almost
a
vertical
result,
the
ledge flexural reinforcement is not very well developed across the failure
plane.
32.
of
the
Specimen
test
are
The
shown
cracks
which
during
Fig. 4.5b.
in
formed
widen,
tension
cracks
developed
further
As
from
the
load
was
support.
increased,
These cracks
the
stem. a diagonal tension crack near the right support extended down to
the bottom corner of the beam and failure occurred immediately, as shown in
Fig.
4.10.
In Phase 2 of the Specimen 3 test, a wide "rainbow" crack formed
at load
of
about
43
kips
per
tee-stem.
combination of diagonal tension due to shear and vertical tension due to the
tee-stem
below
loads.
the
"rainbow"
fifth
from
the
left
punched
out
at
47.6
kips.
The
crack and punching failure are shown in Figs. 4.5~ and 4.11.
Strength.
Table
4.2
summarizes
the
design
force.
calculated
strength and test force for several potential and actual failure mechanisms.
The
calculated
strengths
are
based
on
the
equations
used
for
design.
Because the hanger reinforcement for Specimens 1 and 2 was designed using
different equations, the calculated strength is roughly the same even though
Specimen 2 had twice as much hanger reinforcement.
The calculated strength is expressed as both a "design" strength
and
"predicted"
strength.
The
design
strength
is
based
on
specified
predicted
strength
uses
actual
material
properties
and
no
strength
reduction factor.
As
shown
in
Table
4.2,
near or beyond their predicted capacity for several of the primary failure
mechanisms.
load, and the expected contribution from the shear reinforcing was
not realized.
The
ledge-to-web
attachment
strength
In
of
Specimen
contrast,
was
Specimen
33.
The strength
2)
was
of
the
Apparently, the
shear
strength
Specimen
The
most
surprising
result
was
the
punching
shear
failure
at
2.
Although the ledge loads were quite high, the punching shear
reactions.
Apparently,
face
of
the
the
torsion
spandrel
was
equilibrium
yielding
and
reinforcement
eccentric
on
bearing
the
helped
at
gaged
strain.
locations.
Table
Data
are
4.3
summarizes
provided
at
or
the
"ear
reinforcement
service
load,
reinforcement
bar
nearest
the
load
is
almost
0.1
This
percent.
strain level corresponds to half the yield strees for a Grade 60 bar.
Eve"
though the strain levels in the ledge flexure and hanger reinforcing are
very low, they are noticeably higher at the ledge load.
At factored load, cracking of the ledge/web junction of Specimen 1
was
accompanied
this
cracking
reflected
was
in
reinforcement
by
very
high
limited
the
hanger
to
the
recorded
remains
low
at
reinforcement
vicinity
strains.
factored
of
the
Strain
loads
strain.
in
In Specimen 2,
ledge
load
the
ledge
because there
are
no
which
is
flexure
vertical
end connection. strain levels at factored loads are well below yield strain.
At the maximum test load, the strain in the ledge hanger bars in
Specimen 1 are well into the strain hardening range. The ledge hanger bars
in
Specimen
are
approaching
the
yield
strain.
offset method, the yield strain of the 83 bars is about 0.5 percent.)
The
hanger reinforcing bars at the pocket in Specimen 3 are also near the yield
strain.
It
should
be
noted
that
these
strains
would
exceed
the
nominal
35.
the
absence
of
ledge
flexure
Concrete
Specimen
Reinforcing
Compressive
Strength
Bar
Size
Yield Strength
f
(ksi)
Y
Tensile Strength
f
(ksi)
"
f'= (a)
5,330
#3
78.9
98.7
5,640
#4
70.4
103.7
6,060
86
64.2
98.1
(a) Average of 3 field-cured cylinders tested concurrently with load test (psi)
36.
74.9
77.1
65.2
67.1
37.
Gage
No. (a)
Distance
from
load (in)
Ledge hanger
reinforcement
(near midspan)
l-l
l-2
l-3
1-4
1-5
0
12
24
12
0
16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9
0.004
0.001
0.0
0.0
0.003
27.3
27.4
27.4
27.4
27.4
0.239
0.120
0.223
0.245
Cc)
34.6
35.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
(cl
3.211
2.235
Cc)
Cc)
Ledge flexure
reinforcement
l-6
l-7
24
0
16.9 -0.002
16.9 -0.001
27.4
27.4
0.016
0.026
34.6
34.6
.015
0.042
Ledge hanger
reinforcement
(near midspan)
2-l
2-2
2-3 Cc)
2-4
2-5
24
18
12
6
0
16.7
16.7
0.0
0.001
28.1
28.1
0.005
0.007
4i.7
42.7
Cc)
0.210
16.7
16.7
0.002
0.004
28.1
28.1
0.023
0.035
42.7
42.7
0.412
Cc)
Ledge flexure
reinforcement
2-6
2-7
24
0
16.7 -0.002
16.7 -0.001
28.1
28.1
-0.003
0.007
42.7
42.7
0.016
0.034
Dapped end
flexure reinf.
3-l
16.7
0.056
24.9
0.130
----
-----
Dapped end
hanger reinf.
3-2
3-3
8
11
16.7
16.7
0.091
0.017
24.9
24.9
0.097
0.067
-------
---------
Hanger reinf.
at pocket
(at midspan)
3-4
3-5
6
6
16.7
16.7
0.006
0.005
24.9
24.9
0.101
0.093
46.8
46.8
0.414
0.162
Location
Service- Load-Strain
Load
(b)
(%)
Factored LoadLoad
Strain
(b)
(%)
SECTION
39.
ELEVATION
I, CHAMFER
AT POCKET
W/i+ STRANDS
STRESS RELIEVED
28.9k
SECTION
40.
(a)
L-Beams
(b) P o c k e t s p a n d r e l
F i g . 4.3 - T e s t s e t u p
41.
CSdI)O
(A)
(B)
CA)
CRACK
LEGEND:
I-10
II-k9
-----
50
MIL
MIL
CRACK
MIL
OR
ORE
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
33VMAV
50.
5.
5.1
General
Design
Considerations
The
shear
failure
Specimen
3,
of
occurred
in
Specimens
and
suggest
The
crack
similar
patterns
possibility.
Therefore, the shear and torsion design of spandrel beams should consider a
critical section at the face of the support.
Alternately,
transfer
the
ledge
if
loads
separate
to
the
hanger
top
of
reinforcement
the
beam,
the
is
provided
spandrel
can
to
be
support
for
non-prestressed
and
prestressed
spandrels,
respectively.
reinforcement.
Influence
of
deck
connections.
effect
of
the
deck
connections
is
the
restraint
of
only
lateral
Flexure
behavior
of
the
test
both
the
specimens
strength
was
and
serviceability-
satisfactory.
It is worth
back
face.
principal axis.
5.3 Shear and Torsion
Prestressed L-beams.
roughly
which
equal
was
the
negative bending
to
the
basis
predicted
for
capacity
their
required
capacity
based
on
design.
There
was
by
compression
51.
the
no
field
Zia-Hsu
equations.
evidence
theory
was
that
the
needed.
The
premature
shear
failure
through
the
full
be a m .
It
may
have
helped
to
extend
the
flexural
dapped-end
of
connections.
the
shear
primary
corner
research
anchoring
the
PCIFSRAD
primary
#6
Project
flexural
emphasizes
reinforcement
at
the
dapped
strength
flexural
of
under
the
of
the
web
reinforcement
beam.
is
typically
) because the
C"
anchored at the bottom
not
Ha"so"(16)
pockets.
strength
of
concrete
found
joists
that
with
conservative
square
openings,
prediction
but
of
without
the
stirrup
of
the
opening
develops,
assuming
the
shear
is
distributed
proportion to the area of the section above and below the opening.
in
One
equations
for
the
shear
strength
of
the
concrete
section
pocket.
spandrels), where h
given by
Vs =Avf
(d-h)
P
(4)
s
which reflects an unfavorable crack pattern through the pocket region, as
shown in Fig. 5.1.
but
spandrels.
openings.
is
not
generally
applicable
to
beams
with
square
Using AC1 Code Equation 11-13 and substituting bw(d-hp) for bwd,
52.
to
depending
contribute
to
on
whether
shear
or
not
the
These
strength.
prestress
predictions
is
are
these cases, the hp term need not be included for design of the end region.
Detailing practices.
cover
torsion.
which
can
occur
in
compact
sections
subjected
primarily
to
not appear to have any detrimental effect, and the absence of hooks on the
longitudinal reinforcement did not lead to any apparent problems.
It is unlikely that there would have been any improvement in shear
strength of the pocket spandrel had the wire mesh been anchored by a bend at
the
longitudinal
The
reinforcement.
failure
is
attributable
to
poor
and
was
beyond
the
predicted
capacity
To
may
have
helped
equilibrate
the
some
applied
of
the
torsion
extent eccentric
torsional
load.
Nonetheless, the test results support the contention that reinforcement for
the torsion equilibrium reaction need not be added to the reinforcement for
internal torsion.
Longitudinal reinforcement at end.
Figure 5.2 shows the forces acting on a free body cut off by
Neglecting
the
distance
from
the
top of the beam to the compressive force. the developed force required at
the face of the support is given by
'*sfsd
= N"h/d + Vu(0.5+a/d)
53.
(5)
where
sd
support.
developed
The
spandrel,
stress
remaining
in
notation
the
is
reinforcement
defined
in
at
Fig.
the
face
5.2.
of
the
For a dapped
Beam
Hanger
Ledges
reinforcement.
-
The
load
tests
and
analytical
studies
indicate that the eccentricity of the ledge load cannot be neglected in the
design of hanger reinforcement.
the ledge is suspended from the web, and the effective eccentricity of the
ledge load is significantly reduced due to torsion within the ledge.
Design
developed based on the transverse forces acting on the free body shown in
Fig. 5.3.
Vu(d+a)
- AVQbfi/2
- ATE
(6)
sh =
+ fy d
where
Most
of
the
notation
compensates
for
used
for
hanger
reinforcement
design
is
graphically
ratio
of
internal
model
study
moment
arm
to
total
effective
depth.
The
ledge,
AVE.
finite
depends
element
on
the
internal
verified
shear
stress
that
the
shear
distribution,
in
which
the
is
calculated by integrating VQ/I from the top of the ledge to the bottom of
the
beam.
the
parabolic
shear
stress
distribution
54.
in
rectangular
beam,
gives
AV, = Vu(3-2hR/h)(hR/h)2
(7)
where h
(8)
(x2y) ledge
whichever is smaller,
= bQh; or b2h
R R'
the
If
ledge.
closed
stirrups
are
provided
in
the
ledge
Yt
1.0;
otherwise
Y t=Tc
<
-
(9)
Finally,
if
equilibrate
the
Va
end
and
of
TQ
the
.
L-beam
is
dapped,
the
end
reaction
will
not
reinforcement is given by
55.
XAsh =
ZVu (d+a)
(10)
4 fy d
Equation
would
require
on Y
beams
two
Data
of
were
conducted
these
load
pertaining
to
by
precast
producers
several
years
ago.
reinforcement
design
in
these
two
test
in these prior load tests a wide horizontal crack developed at the ledge/web
junction.
off.
in
In each case, the test was stopped before the ledge actually fell
All three tests indicated the ledge-to-web connection was very ductile
spite
of
specimens
very
light
suggests
hanger
that
due
reinforcement.
to
strain
hardening,
forces
in
the
hanger
using
Equation
6.
the
yield
and
ultimate
ledge
loads
were
During
the
1974
test,
localized
separation
between the ledge and web occurred in the midspan region where ledge loads
were much heavier than average (See Fig. 5.6).
Therefore,
the
strength
contribution due to shear and torsion in the ledge was significantly greater
than predicted by Equation 6.
The reinforcement ratio (Ash/sd,
of
these
minimum
spandrels
was
requirement
roughly
for
100/f
.
This
Y
structural slabs.
56.
amount
In
is
view
similar
of
the
to
the
ductility
minimum
reinforcement
ratio
of
100/f
is
Y
recommended
for
hanger
reinforcement.
was
the
early
failures
punching
shear
in
the
ledge
of
Specimen
2.
As
discussed in the background section, other researchers have found that the
PC1 equations for ledge punching shear may be ""conservative.
may
be
that
the
PC1
One reason
between the applied load and the centroid of the critical section.
eccentricity
is
shown
in
Fig.
5.5.
The
analysis
approach
This
used
to
to
punching
shear
of
beam
ledges.
v
u+ UeQC
<4*
bohl
T
=
(11)
distance
between
the
centroid
of
the
critical
section
This formula assumes that the full height of the ledge is effective
and
none
of
the
eccentricity
is
resisted
by
ledge
flexure.
The computed
improved
developed
by
ledge
increasing
flexure
the
ledge
reinforcement
projection
should
capacity.
57.
also
or
depth.
increase
The
use
punching
of
shear
Equation
11
c@n
not
be
accurately
applied
to
conditions
where
flexural reinforcement developed across the critical section can help resist
eccentricity.
Also.
evidence
that
the
PC1
design
equations
HOW@V@r,
may
be
this
study
""conservative
in
t h e
L - b e a m
specimens showed evidence of higher stresses in the ledge hanger and flexure
reinforcement in the vicinity of the applied load.
HOW@V@r,
strain was much more evenly distributed after the horizontal crack at the
ledge/web junction had fully developed.
along the entire length of Specimen 1, it was clear that all of the hanger
reinforcement between ledge loads was effective.
course.
and
these
results
are
reinforcement
similar
to
only
the
applicable
test
to
L-beams
with
Local
ledge
specimens.
failures are conceivable, particularly if the loads or load spacing are not
Figure 5.6 shows two local failures in which the ledge flexure or
uniform.
hanger
reinforcement
effective.
assumed
However,
to
resist
each
ledge
load
not
fully
is
This contribution is
Even though the ledge
reinforcing and shear strength may non. be fully additive, premature failures
of
the
type
shown
in
Fig.
5.6
are
unlikely.
On
the
other
hand,.if
to
reinforcement
5.7
the
shows
bending
stress
is
local
strength
evenly
separation
of
the
distributed
between
ledge.
between
the
ledge
Assuming
ledge
and
the
loads
web
hanger
(and
neglecting AVQ) the upward force between loads is equal to Vu/s, where Vu is
58.
the negative and positive bending moments in the ledge is equal to Vus/8.
The reinforcement required to resist this bending moment is given by
A
Sk
=v
s
u
@$,f
where A
SE
(12)
Y
dQ
again.
use
of
strength
reduction
factor
equal
to
0.85
instead of 0.9 compensates for the ratio of internal moment arm to total
effective depth.
In
summary,
reiqforcement
or
this
ledge
research
flexure
suggests
reinforcement
that
all
between
of
ledge
the
loads
hanger
can
be
(Eq
12)
of
the
ledge
are
adequate.
Further
testing
should
be
Beam
Pockets
based
difference
on
is
yielding
of
apparently
the
due
hanger
to
The
reinforcement
punching
shear
is
predicted
30.8
strength
failure
kips.
The
contribution.
Based on Equation 11. the predicted punching shear strength is 31.1 kips per
stem.
stem
Fully developed inclined cracks below the pocket were observed at tee
loads
contributions
of
25
from
kips.
hanger
These
results
reinforcement
additive.
59.
and
indicate
that
punching
shear
the
are
strength
not
fully
TABLE
-bl
PC1 9/85
Specimen 1
72
14 6.5
a0
ll-3/4
1 2 3 . 7 5
72
12
1 6
Load
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Test
12
d-
6 . 5
Hanger
B
Amount
Grade
t 3 @ 12
( 0 . 4 4 in.)
60
4.25
# 4 @ 18"
( 0 . 5 3 in.2)
40
55(d)
5.5
# 4 @ 24(e)
( 0 . 4 5 i.2
60
70(d)
5.5
Calc. Ledge
Load
(b)
Reinforcement
'y
78.9(C) 98.7(C)
Yt
_
At Yield 5
NaX.TeSt
Load
(kips)
0.62
23.1
25.9
29.0
32.4
34.6
1.0
80(d)
1.0
20.9
30.4
29.2
100(d)
0.59
21.3
24.4
30.4
34.9
39.2Cf
1.0
Wide horizontal crack developed at the ledge/web junction in all three cases
Using Eq. 6 (kips)
Measured (ksi)
Estimated (ksi)
(e) 4.5 ft avg. spacing of tee *terns
(f) A localized separation between the ledge and web occurred in midspan region where ledge loads were much heavier
than average. Therefore. the strength contribution due to shear and torsion in the ledge was significantly greater
than predicted by Eq. 6.
d-hp
111I
F
61.
hP
62.
63.
;j
:.;.
:.:.
.:.
_1~;~:~;~~
:::::.:.
.A.:::,-.
:::
.::.
:::::.
.::::.
:.:.:.
:::::.
::.
::. .::.
.::.
i
:
::
:
:
-I
: :j:J: .:: e
..__ .,-,::: . .
.i:_ .::.:::
~.r:*:;:;
~.~.~.~_~_~ .. 1:.. =
~~
64.
eL
L FACE OF WEB
BRG. PAD
i
I
65.
66.
67.
68.
6.
The
following
paragraphs
describe
the
findings
based
on
the
Critical
section.
Connections
to
elements
deck
do
lateral
displacement
induced
by
bending
about
the
Shear
and
torsion
of
prestressed
L-beams.
Methods
which
spandrels,
such
as
the
Zis-McGee
compression
field
theory
are
or
the
Zia-Hsu
somewhat
more
conservative,
effect
of
spandrels
has
the
been
on
the
proposed.
shear
While
strength
the
of
accuracy
pocket
of
this
Detailing
practices.
The
torsional
response
and
longitudinal
reinforcing
of
deep
spandrels
without
hooks
does
Beam
end
region
design.
of
Two
spandrels
independent
are
design
recommended.
checks
First,
in
the
end
reinforcement
torsional
equilibrium
reactions.
This reinforcement
little
supplemental
steel
69.
will
be
required
provided
critical
section
support
is
for
shear
and
torsion
Second, the
considered.
at
the
developed
face
of
the
force
in
the
The
eccentricity
of
the
ledge
load
ledge
is
suspended
from
the
web
and
the
effective
within
the
ledge.
program
and
by
others
have
verified
addition, it
was
determined
that
hanger
additive
shear
to
and
torsion
this
procedure.
reinforcement
In
not
is
Minimum hanger
reinforcement.
Ledge
shear
punching
strength
shear.
of
PC1
beam
design
ledges
equations
may
for
the
punching
be unconservative.
Further
In
gone
long
way
toward
the
understanding
The
and
resolution
findings
of
several
generally
apply
not
details.
HOWeVer,
handling and vehicular impact were not discussed, and the report
fully
address
tolerances,
corrosion
protection
or
connection
pl-OCXSS.
70.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Throughout the study, the Steering Committee for PCISFRAD Project
#5 provided helpful guidance and perspective.
support
of
Wiss,
Janney.
Elstner
specifically
thank
John
Hanson,
John
Associates,
Inc.
in
Fraczek.
Lilia
Glikin,
Their
and
Development
Program.
71.
NOTATION
shear
span,
distance
between
concentrated
load
or
A
A
sh
sn.
addition
to
the
reinforcement
required
for
the
primary moment
A
A
"
lull
of
longitudinal
web-reinforcement
for
bending
due
WV
b
b
bcJ
b
w
c
web width
f'
sd
"
h
h
height of ledge
72.
P
hs
height
Jc
of
beam
effective
in
resisting
bending
due
to
of inertia
N
Tc
TX
shear in ledge
"
c
VE
v
v;
x
=
=
=
Yt
summation symbol
73.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Iverson, James K. and Pfeifer, Donald W., "Bearing Pads for Precast
Concrete Buildings," PC1 Journal, V. 30, No. 5, September-October 1985,
pp. 128-154.
7.
8.
9.
Zia , Paul and Hsu. Thomas, "Design for Torsion and Shear in Prestressed
Concrete," Preprint 3424, ASCE Chicago Exposition, October, 1978.
10.
Raths, Charles H.. "Spandrel Beam Behavior and Design," PC1 Journal.
Vol. 29. No. 2. March-April 1984, pp. 62-131.
11.
12.
Collins, Michael P.. and Mitchell, Denis, "Shear and Torsion Design of
Prestressed and Non-Prestressed Concrete Beams," PC1 Journal, Vol. 25.
September-October 1980, pp. 85-86.
13.
Third
Second
Edition,
Concrete
(AC1
318-83).
74.
Draft
report
Compatibility,"
for
Private
REFERENCES (continued)
14.
Mirza, Sher Ali, and Furlong, Richard W., "Serviceability Behavior and
Failure Mechanisms of Concrete Inverted T-Beam Bridge Bentcaps."
AC1 Journal, Proceedings Vol. 80, No. 4. July-August 1983, pp. 294-304.
15.
16.
17.
Rice, Paul F., et al, Structural Design Guide to the AC1 Building Code,
Third Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., Inc., New York, NY, 1985.
477 pp.
75.
76.
in
sn
order
of
.a
their
these
design
Some oE
considerations
contributing
to torsion
Eccentricity
are
Transverse
Longitudinal
reinforcement
reinforcement
reinforcement
The reader is
Longitudinal
reinforcement
at end
10
for
discussion
of
design
Ledge Design
o Tee stem bearing
Dimensions
o Punching shear:
0 Span
- at interior reaction
- at outside reaction
o Ledge flexure
o Hanger reinforcement
a Ledge distribution
reinforcement
Loads
' Dead and live
' Frame action
Details
o Volume change
a Vehicular impact
o Reinforcement details:
-
Flexure
anchorage/development
- spacing
- tolerance and
- at release
ClearanCe
- in service
o Corrosion protection:
a Flexural srrength
- concrete cover
o Minimum reinforcement
- protection of exposed
plates
o Out-of-plane bending:
- protection of end of
strand
- during handling
- during erection
- due to vehicular
impact
' Sweep due to strand eccentricity
a Principal axis analysis for
slender L-beams
Al
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE 1 - L-BEAM FOR PARKING STRUCTURE
DESIGN LOADS
STEM REACTIONS
DEAD LOAD (90 PSF) = 0.09(60/2)4 = 10.8 kips
LIVE LOAD (50 PSF) = 0.05(60/2)4 = 6.0 kips
16.8 kips
FLEXIJRE
THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE FLEXURE DESIGN. REFER TO PC1
HANDBOOK SECTION 4.2 FOR DETAILS OF THE DESIGN PROCEDURE.
SERVICE LOAD MOMENT = 5533 in-k
NOTE:
PRESTRESS:
ft-fb
COMPUTED(psi) 483 -215
ALLOW.(psi)
2100 -355
yPS
In Service
(17% Loss)
ft
&k
-fb
-166 525 148 430
-424 2250
Bl
= 5.0 in.
3 TOPPING (NORMAL
WT )
2LO
DESIGN DATA
SECTION PROPERTIES
= 307,296 in4
60 ksi
Y =
f
= 270 ksi
P"
(l/Z" dia. stress relieved strand)
Y =
Zb =
Zt =
7813 in3
WT =
0.675 k/ft
648 in2
32.67 in
9406 in3
Cc SUPPORT
6.75
13.5
f-x FT.
t
6.75
a245
101.8
$w)
B3
ULT IMATE
A
STRENGTH :
2
= 0.612 in.2
As = 4-#4 = 0.80 in.
PS
Mn = 9243(prestress) + 2654(mild reinf.) = 11,897 in-k
= 1.2(7.5Qfpe)Zb = 1.2(7.5~430)9406/1000
CT
A ND
TOR SIO N
PROPERTI ES 0~ SECTION
x
WEB (ABOVE
LEDGE)
LEDGE
8
12
2Y
60 3840
14
2016
Ex2y
5856
+ lofPJf;- =
= $CO.5
$I + 10x148/5000 = 1.14
JfrytZx2y)
= 0.85(0.5t'%%1.14~5856
B4
MAXIMUM TORSION
c = 12 - lo(fpd/f;) = 12 - 10(148/5000) = 11.7
T
= W3)CYtq.2y
max
h+WtVu/30CtTu)
= u/3)11.7x1.14GGx5856
J1+(11.7x1.14x101.8/(30x0.091/x708)
vc = v;/Jl + C(V;T~)/(T;V~)~~
= 131.9/h + ~(131.9x7081/(331x101.8)12 = 44.8 kips
Tc = T;/h + 1(T;Vuh'W;Tu)12
= 331/h + C(331x101.f?)/(131.9/708)1
= 311 in-k
AT QUARTER POINT:
M = Zb (6&>fpe) = 9406(6&?%t430)/1000
cr
= 8035 in-k
= 447 in-k
B5
TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT
AT SUPPORT:
Av/s = (Vu/$ - Vc)/df
= (101.8/0.85-44.8)/(66.6x60)
= 0.019 in'/in . = 0.23 in'/ft
Ts = T,/$ - T
Ref 9. Eq 7
AQ = -440x
Ref 9, Eq 8
Tu+Vu/3Ct
s
Y
J
WHICHEVER IS GREATER, WHERE
*At/s (IN EQ 8) 1. 50bw-< (l+12fpc/fL) = 0.009 in2/in.
B6
2At/s
AR(Eq 7) T
u
2
2
(in /in) (in )
(in-k)
"
Ae(Eq8)
(kips)
(in')
-
Aa
2
(in )
-
AT SUPPORT:
0.034
2.52
708
101.8
0.05
2.52
AT QUARTER PT:
0.002
0.15
354
50.9
1.90
1.90
T
=
= 1.11 in2
708
"
2df d
2x0.85x60x6.25
YS
Awv/hs = 1.11/54 = O.OZl/in'/in. = 0.25 in'/ft
A,/s = 0.20 in'/ft (SHT 86).
B7
BARS
DEVELOPED STRESS
4 - 84
60x8/12 = 40 ksi
0.9x40x0.8
4 - l/2 in.
STRAND
150x10/25 = 60 ksi
0.9x60x0.61 = 32.9
2 - #7
(WELDED
$x DEVELOPED FORCE
60 ksi
= 28.8
0.9x60x1.20 = 64.8
126.5 kips ok
TO BRG PLATE)
LEDGE DESIGN
BEARING, PUNCHING SHEAR h LEDGE FLEXURE
THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE LEDGE DESIGN FOLLOWING PC1
HANDBOOK PROCEDURES. REFER TO PART 6 OF THE HANDBOOK FOR DETAILS
OF THE DESIGN PROCEDURE.
BEARING:
PUNCHING SHEAR:
LEDGE FLEXURE:
REACTIONS.
HANGER REINFORCEMENT
Vu = 25.3 kips
AV
= T /T = 311/708 = 0.44
c "
ATTQ = V"eyt (x2y) ledge /Cx2y = 25.3x8x0.44x2016/5856 = 30.7 in-k
Yt
sh
B8
(0.5Ay + At)/s
NEAR SUPPORT
0.32
TORSION EQUIL.
(0.5Ay + Awv)/s
0.38
HANGER REINF.
0.26
x4 at 6
(0.40)
PROVIDED
MIDSPAN
0.11 (MIN)
0.20
#3 at 6
(0.22)
B9
APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE 2 - POCKET SPANDREL FOR PARKING STRUCTURE
GENEUAL
THIS EXAMPLE ILLIJSTRATES DESIGN OF SHEAR, END REGION, AND HANGER
REINFORCEMENT FOR A DAPPED POCKET SPANDREL. NOTE THAT A POCKET IS
OFTEN THIS POCKET IS OMMITTED DUE
PROVIDED NEAR THE DAPPED END.
TO DETAILING DIFFICULTIES
(A WELDED BRACKET OR CAZALY HANGER IS
USED, INSTEAD). SHEAR AND BENDING FORCES ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE IN
EXAMPLE 1 (FIG. BZ). REFER TO FIG. Cl FOR FRAMING DETAILS AND
DESIGN DATA.
IN ADDITION, THE FOLLOWING IS GIVEN:
f
= 167 psi, f
= 904 psi (AT POCKET), d = 67.0
PC
Pe
SHEAR AND TORSION
TORSION AT SUPPORT
STEM REACTION = 25.3 kips; e = 2.0 in.
TU = 7x25.3x2.0/2 = 177 in-k
INSIDE OUTER REACTION: Tu = 5x25.3x2.0/2 = 127 in-k
MINIMUM TORSION
= /l + 10f /f' = 41 + 10x167/5000 = 1.15
PC =
Ex2y = .S2x72 = 4608
Yt
Tmin = ~(o.5J;;cytZx2yJ
= 0.85x0.5~5000x1.15x4608/1000 = 159 in-k
THEREFORE, TORSION DESIGN NOT REQUIRED INSIDE OUTER REACTION.
DESIGN END REGION FOR TORSION EQUILIBRIUM REACTIONS AT SUPPORTS.
SHEAR STRENGTH OF CONCRETE
AT SUPPORT:
v=v
= (3.5% + 0.3fpc)bw(d-hp)
c
cw
= (3.5fi + 0)8(67.0-24.0)/1000 = 85.1 kips
AT QUARTER POINT (SEE ART 11.4.2 OF AC1 318-83 COMMENTARY):
M = Zb(6q+fpe) = 5023(6 5000+904)/1000
CT
= 6672 in-k (AT POCKET)
Cl
2Lo
6 SPACES AT 4-0=24-0
21-O
-+
DESIGN DATA
fi
= 5000 psi
fY =
fY =
P"
FULL SECTION
AREA
I
60 ksi (bars)
70 ksi (WWF)
270 ksi
'b
'b
=t
576 in2
248,832 in4
AT POCKET
432 in2
204.288
36.0 in
40.7 in
6912 in3
5023 in3
6912 in3
6520 in3
in4
= 1000hbhp/Vu( 3.4
= 1000x1x8x38x1.4/(101.8x1000) = 4.18 +,,u, = 3.4
c3
- i - - r
T-
24 AT CENTERLINE
WELDED TO END ANGLE
c
*
/
/
/ 9,
101.8k
'2-#7
END DETAIL
FORCE MODEL bc
FORCE MODEL de
FORCE MODEL fg
C4
As = 2v"/(3$Jfype) + An
= 2x101.8/(3x0.85x60x3.4) + 0.40 = 0.79 in2
2-18 PROVIDED: A = 1.44 in2
Ah = 0.5(As-An) = 0.5(0.72-0.40) = 0.16 in2
6x6-W4.OxW4.0 PROVIDED: Ah = 3x0.08 = 0.24 in2
CRACK AT RE-ENTRANT CORNER (FORCE MODEL bc):
NEGLECT INCLINED HANGER REINFORCEMENT
=O+T
= Vu = 101.8 kips
sh
A
= Tsh/$f = 101.8/(0.85x60) = 2.00 in2
sh
Y
4-87 PROVIDED; Ash = 2.40 in2
zF
CM0 = 0-t T
"
An= T,/$f
sh
"
c5
= 170 ksi
PS
$*psfps = 0.9x0.61x170 = 93.3 kips
CHECK DEPTH OF COMPRESSION BLOCK
SAY OK
2.3/Z
1.2
in
in
OK
HANGER REINFORCEMENT
AT POCKET
= V"Of = 25.3/(0.90x60) = 0 . 4 7 in2
sh
Y
USE l-#4 uJ4 EA POCKET (PLUS 2-W4.0 WIRES)
I
A
A
9.
sh
dh =
C6
Copyright 8 1986
Prestressed Concrete Institute
All rights reserved. This book or any part thereof may not be
reproduced in any form without the written permission of the
Prestressed Concrete Institute.
This report is based an a research project supported by the
PCI Specially Funded Research and Development (KISFRAD)
Program. The conduct of the research and the preparation of
thefinalrepcxtsforeachofthePClSFRADprojectswerep&ormed
under the guidance of selected industry Steering Committees.
It should be recognized that the research conclusions and
recommendations are those of the researchers, and that the
reportwasnotsubjectedtothereviewandconsensusprocedures
established for other W-published technical reports and documents. It is intended thdtheconclusionsand recommendations
of this reserach be considered by appropriate PCI technical
committees and included. if viable. in future reports coming
from these committees. In the meantime. this research report is
made available to producers, engineers and others to use with
appropriate engineering judgment similar to that applied to
any new technical information.
ISBN 0-937040-30-4,
Printed in U.S.A.