Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dino Angelakos
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la
National Library of Cana& to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reprodiice, loan, distnbute or sell reproduire, prêter, distniuer ou
copies of this thesis in microfom, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/lfilm, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.
ABSTRACT
concrete beams was the motivation for this investigation. The objectives of this study
reinforcement ratio on the shear capacity of large, Iightly reinforced concrete members
with, and without, transverse reinforcement. In addition, the test results were used to
assess the performance of the North Arnerican code provisions, AC1 318-95 and CSA
(i) Overall, the General Method yielded much better predictions than the AC1
approach. For the 12 tests, the average ratio of the experirnental shear failure load to the
predicted shear failure load for the AC1 Methoci and the General Method was 0.74
without stirrups, and concrete strengths of 20 MPa, 32 MPa, 38 MPa, 65 MPa, and 80
MPa, respectively, had essentiaily the same ultimate shear capacity. No benefit was
realized in the shear capacitywforthe higher stnngth concrete beams. In fact, the bearn
specimen with the 80 MPa concrete had the lowest shear capacity.
1 would like to thank my supervisor, Professor M.P. Collins, for his support and
guidance t hroughout this project.
1 would also like to thank Mr. Peter Leesti for al1 his help.
Thanks are also due to the following coileagues and fiiends:
Evan B e n e Stephen Cairns, Amr Helmy, Young-Joon Kim, Jason Muise, Marco Petretta,
Terry Rarnlochan, and Joel Smith.
1 would like to thank the staff of the Civil Engineering Stmctural Laboratones at
the University of Toronto for al1 their help and expertise; Joel Babbin, Remo Basset,
Giovanni Buueo, Mehmet Citak, Peter Heliopoulos, John MacDonald, and Alan
McClanneghan.
To my parents, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for d l their support
and continued encouragement throughout my Iife-
Constantina, thank you for aIways laughing at my jokes.
Dimitra, thank you for being in my life and entering it at the perfect time.
Finally, to my brother Bill, thanks for your unconditional support and your
invaluable advice.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
NOMENCLATURE
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Research Objectives and Layout of Work
vii
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
Page
4.9 Photograph of Specirnen DB 120M at Failure 38
4.10 Photograph of Specimen DB 140M at Failure 39
4.1 1 Photograph of Specimen DB 165M at Failure 39
4.12 Photograph of Specimen DB 180M at Failure 40
4.1 3 Load vs. Midspan Deflection for DB 120 and DB 120M 42
4.14 Load vs. Midspan Deflection for DB 140 and DB140M 42
4-15 Load vs- Midspan Deflection for DB 165 and DB 16SM 43
4.16 Load vs. Midspan Deflection for DB 180 and DB 180M 43
4.17 Load vs. Midspan Deflection for DB0.530 and DB0.530M - 45
4.18 Photograph of Specimen DB0.530 after Failure 46
4.19 Photograph of Specimen DB0.530M after Failure 46
4.20 Load vs. Midspan Deflection for 32 MPa Specimens with Varying 47
Longitudinal Reùiforcement
4.21 Load vs. Longitudinal Strain for 32 MPa Specimens with Varying 48
Long itudinal Reinforcement
4.22 Photograph of Specimen DB0.530 after Failure
4.23 Photograph of Specimen DB 130 after Failure
4.24 Influence of Concrete Strength on Shear Capacity of Beams with 1% 55
Longitudinal Reinforcement and no Stimps
1.1 Introduction
High-strength concrete is a more sensitive materid than normal strength wncrete
and it must be treated with care both in design and in constmction. The more brittle
nature of high-strength concrete means that if cracks form, they may propagate more
extensively than they would in traditional concrete. This may lead to premature shear
failures in large, lightly reinforced beams. In designing structures utilizing hi&-strength
concretes, questions arise as to the applicability of traditiona! design procedures, which
were developed for much lower strength concretes (Collins et al 1993). Extrapolation to
higher strength material is unjustified and may be dangerous (Carrasquillo et al 1981).
r d 1 ( i l U s
Figure 2.1 Shear stress, v, normal stress, a, and shear displacement D at different
constant crack widths, w, for 59 MPa (left) and 115 MPa concrete (right)
In the present study, it is expected that the shear stress transmitted across the
cracks will decrease as the concrete strength increases, which in turn, May be a prominent
factor in the overall shear capacity of the high strength concrete specimens.
Loneitudind Reinforcement
The percentage of longitudinal reinforcement in a reinforced concrete beam also
has a pronounced effect on the basic shear transfer mechanisms. An important factor that
affects the rate at which a flexural crack develops into an inclined one, is the magnitude of
shear stress near the tip of that crack. The intensity of principal stresses above the flexural
crack depends on the depth of penetration of that crack. The greater the percentage of
longitudinal reinforcement, the l e s the penetration of the flexural crack. The less the
penetration of the fiexural crack, the less the principal stresses for a given applied load,
and consequently a higher shear is required to cause the principal stresses that will result in
diagonal tension cracking (EIzanaty et al 1986).
The General Shear Design Method of the Canadian Standard (CSA A23.3 1994),
which is based on the Modified Compression Field Theory, States that the shear camed by
tensile stresses in the concrete, V, is a fiinction of the longitudinal straining in the web
member As E~ increases, V, decreases. Increasing the magnitude of the moment or
applied axial tension increases E, and hence, decreases V,. Applying axial compression,
or prestressing the beam member, or increasing the area of longitudinal reinforcernent
decreases Er and hence increases V,. A key to the General Method is that it explicitly
considen the influence of shear upon stresses in the longitudinal reinforcernent (Collins
et al 1996).
Increasing the percentage of longitudinal reinforcement aiso affects the aggregate
interlock contribution to shear resistance. Bearns with a low percentage of longitudinal
reinforcement will have wide, long cracks in contrat to the shorter, narrow cracks found
in beams with a high percentage of longitudinal reinforcement. Since the aggregate
interlock mechanism depends on the crack width, an increase in the aggregate interlock --
force is to be expected with an increase in the percentage of longitudinal reinforcement
(Elzanaty et al 1986).
Increasing the percentage of longitudinal reinforcement also increases the dowel
capacity of the member by increasing the dowel area and hence decreasing the tensile
stresses induced in the surrounding concrete (Elzanaty et al 1986). As mentioned above,
one feature of high-strength concrete that affects structural response is the tendency for
cracks to pass through, instead of around the aggregate. This creates smoother crack
surfaces, reducing the aggregate interlock action, and hence, reducing the shear carried by
the concrete, V,. Because of the reduced aggregate interlock, higher dowel forces occur
in the longitudinal reinforcing bars for high-strength concretes. Fenwick and Paulay
(1968) concluded that the transverse displacement at the level of the main longitudinal
reinforcement, Le., the shear slip across the crack, will be one of the more important
factors that influence dowel capacity in beams without stirnips. These higher dowei
forces, together with the highly concentrated bond stress in higher strength concrete
beams, result in higher bond-splitting stresses where the shear cracks cross the
longitudinal tension bars. These combined effects can lead to brittle shear-splitting cracks
at the level of the bottom bars, which can lead to brittle shear failures (Yoon et al 1996).
Transverse Reinforcement
Stimps perform the dual role of resisting shear as well as enhancing the strength
of the other shear transfer mechanisrns. Providing an adequate arnount of shear
reinfiorcernent can control the horizontal splitting cracks at the level of the longitudinal
reinforcement, increasing the strength of the dowel action, and thereby enhancing the
shear capacity of the member. Along with increasing the strength of the dowel action, the
stimps can lirnit crack propagation and crack widths (Carrasquiilo et al 1986).
For large concrete beams, the possibly unconservative nature of the AC1
expression for calculating the shear strength contribution from the concrete, V,, is
mitigated by the requirement that a minimum area of -stimips be provided should the
factored shear force exceed 0.5&Vc. However, the provision does not apply to slabs and
footings. Such members can often be both very thick and very lightly reinforced, i.e.,
contain small amounts of longitudinal reinforcement. Traditionaily, such members are
constnicted without stirrups and are sized using the AC1 shear strength equation. The
current AC1 shear provisions, which were developed more than 35 years ago, do not take
into account that members without stirmps fail at lower values of shear stress as they
become larger. Larger member have more widely spaced cracks relative to smdler
rnembers and hence are predicted to fail in shear at lower shear stresses for the reasons
discussed above. Thus, if these provisions are used to design large lightly reinforced one-
way slabs or footings, the resulting structure may have an hadequate margin of safety
(Collins and Kuchma 1997).
v n = + Y* 2.1
where V, and V. represent the concrete and transverse steel contributions, respectively.
The expression for the concrete's contribution to shear strength is given by :
When Vu> O.SpVC the ACI Code requires minimum shear reinforcement, AY min, in ail
flexural members such that,
bws
A ~ m i n= 035- [mm and MPa]
fi
To take .advantage of concrete strengths greater than 69 MPa when calculating V,,
AC1 3 18-95 ailows for the actuai specified concrete strength to be used in equation 2.2
provided a minimum amount of shear reinforcement is provided ,given by :
v n = v c + Ys
where the concrete contribution to shear resistance is given by :
vc = pmbvdv
Also, CSA A23.3-94 requires that the minimum amount of shear reinforcement be
provided in al1 regions of flexural members where the factored shear force exceeds OSV,,
and is given as :
The values of 8 and P for a beam without transverse reinforcement, are shown in
Figure 2.2 and Table 2.1,
Figure 2.2 Values of 8 and P for Section Not Containing Transverse Reinforcement
Table 2.1 Values of 0 and for Section Not Containing Transverse Reinforcement
SX Longitudinal Strain s, XI
000
, [mm] s 0.0 s 0.25 r 0.50 s 1.00 s 1.50 12.0
Il25 8 27" 29" 32" 34" 36" 38"
P 0-406 0.309 0.263" 0.214 0.183 0.161"
1250 8 30" 34" 37" 41" 43" 45"
p 0.384 0.283 0.235 0.183 0.156 0.138
1500 8 - 34" 39" 43" 48" . 51" 54'
The values in Figure 2.2 and Table 2.1 are based on the assumption that the
spacing of the diagonal cracks is dsin8, where s is the crack spacing parameter. From
Figure 2.2 and Table 2.1, as the longitudinal strain increases and the crack spacing
parameter increases, p, the measure of the concrete' s ability to carry tensile dresses across
potential diagonal cracks, decreases.
The beta values were derived assuming that the maximum aggregate sue, a, was
19 mm. These Pvalues can be used for memben cast with other aggregate sizes by using
an equivalent spacing parameter, %=, given by :
35
Sxe = Sx -
a+l6
The crack spacing, s,shall be taken as the esective depth of the member, d,, for
members that do not contain stirrups or intermediate layers of crack control
reinforcement. If the member contains intemediate layers of longitudinal reinforcement,
crack spacing shall be taken as the maximum distance between layers of crack control
reinforcement,
It is important to note that for high-strength beams ( f c > 70 MPa), the cracks will
pass through the aggregate and hence the aggregate size, a, should be taken as zero.
Figure 2.3 and Table 2.2 give the P and 0 values for members that contain at least
the minimum amount of transverse reinforcement required by CSA A23 -3 -94.
Figure 2.3 Values of t9 and /3 for Section With Transverse Reinfiorcement
Tabte 2.2 Values of 8 and fl for Section With Transverse Reinforcement
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL TEST PROGRAM
Twelve full-scale reiriforced concrete beams were tested under 3-point loading.
The key variables in the experimental study were: the amount of main longitudinal
reinforcement and the concrete strength. The addition of transverse reinforcement was
also investigated. The details for the test program are discussed in this chapter.
Age at Shrinkage
Beam Cast Date Test Date Test f', on A#d Stnin at
specimeni Date test Test Date
date
The shrinkage strain was monitored during the maturing process for the
specimens using the average of the readings of the two strain gauges on the
longitudinal reinforcement.
Figure 3.1 shows the details of the geomeûic properties of the beam series. The
reasoning behind specimen Di3 l2OM having a different stimp detail than the rest of the
transverse reinforced beams is discussed in Chapter 4. As can be seen in Figure 3.1,
Specimens DB 140M,DB 165M,and DB 18OM have one, single-legged stimp every 300
mm. Specimen DB 120M had one double-legged stirrup every 600 mm.
Details for the construction of the test specimens are given in the next section.
Figure 3.1 Geornetric Details of DB Bearn Series Specimens
The preparation of each reinforced concrete beam for casting consisted of the
following procedures:
After the strain gauges were applied to the individuai rebars, the reinforcement
cages were constnicted entirely outside of the forrn-work. Plastic chairs, positioned on
the form-work floor, were used to support the Iongitudinai reinforcement. 300 mm
spacers were tied to the longitudinal rebar to obtain the required spacing. For those
specimens that contained stirmps, steel horses were used to support the top reinforcement
(two MIS rebars) as the stirmps were tied to both the top and bottom longitudinal
reinforcement. A contractors level was used to ensure the stimps were plum. After the
inside of the form-work was oiled, the reinforcement cages were placed inside using with
the aid of a 10-ton crane. The endplates of the fonn-work were then attached to the f o m -
work using 11/2" screws. 300 mm wooden spacers were placed in both beam forms to
keep the width uniform during the cast. Threaded steel rods were used to clamp the
beams across their widths d o n g the entire length of the beams. A final check was made
for plumbness of the stimps. The wooden spacers were removed when the pour was
near completion. A large concrete bucket, maneuvered by the 10-ton crane in the Mark
Huggins Laboratory, was used for the concrete pours.
Both the beam specimens and control cylinders were covered in burlap and plastic
sheets to minimize the moisture loss afier the initial setting of concrete. The beams were
kept under cover for at least four days afier which they were dlowed to air dry until the
day of testing. The specimens were painted white (flat latex paint) to emphasize the
crack patterns in the photographs taken during load stages of the tests. Sixty zurïch
targets were also glued to the south side of each specimen prior to testing. See Figure 3.6
for details of the zurich target layout.
Six dial gauges (not shown in Figure 3.4) were also used in the tests. Two diai
gauges were placed on either side of the LVDT at the midspan of the bearn approximately
25 mm in from the beam sides. Two dial gauges were aiso placed 200 mm from the
centreline of the supports on each end of the beam, again, 25 mm in fiom the sides of the
beam (see Figure 3.5). The dia1 gauges were used: to monitor any tilting of the specimen
that may have occurred during the tests, to monitor support displacements, and to obtain
displacements for general cornparison to the LVDT readings. Expenmental data
collected from the Dia1 Gauges are located in Appendix E.
Figure 3.5 Dial Gauge Layout
Figure 3.6 shows the Zurich target layout. The rneasurements obtained using
hand-held Zurich gauges were used to obtain horizontal, vertical, and diagonal
displacements For each g-id of zurich targets, the horizontal, vertical, and shear strains
were calculated for each load stage of every test (Appendix B and C ) .
1
--
.-
.a,
In:
.sr .a. .=., .SI . -4s .y .>; 05.. 3
;'. a. .C5 .
r, -7 ce .-,9 .w
xc
Figure 3.8b Strain Gauge Layout for Transverse Reinforcement for DBOS30M,DB140M,
DB l6SM,and DB 180M
With the exception of the Zurich displacement readings and the Diai Gauge
readings, which were done m a n d l y at the end of each load stage, the data acquisition
system automatically monitored the instrumentation at a pre-selected time interval. The
components of the data acquisition system include a microcornputer, a digital voltmeter, a
scanner, and the data acquisition software-
In this chapter the experimental results are presented and discussed. In addition,
shear strength predictions for the test beams using the design provisions contained in ACI
3 1 8-95 and in CS A A23 3-94 (Generai Method based on MCFT) are compared with the
experimental resdts.
-
1
i
O 1 Z 1 4 5 6 7 I O 10
iiiarpul c-l
Figure 4.1 Load versus Deflection for Beams with 1% Longitudinal Reinforcement and
no Transverse Rein forcement
Table 4.1 Experimental Results for Beams Containing 1% Longitudinal
Reinforcement
Wal CkN] Iw C
m1
Dl3120 20 172 179.1 6-2 32 %
DB130 32 178 185.1 5 36 %
DB 140 38 173 180-1 4-8 36 %
DB165 1 65 178 185.1 7-1 33 %
DB180 1 80 165 172.1 1 9.3 42 %
1 Vu,,is the test shear load plus the shear load from the self-weight of the beam
As can be seen in Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1,the concrete strength had no beneficial
influence on the shear capacity of the beam specimens. Specimen DB180 (80 MPa),
which contained a concrete strength 4 times as strong as specimen DB 120 (20 MPa), had
a slightly lower (-5%) shear capacity.
One explanation for this is that due to the relatively smooth crack surfaces
observed at failure for the specimen containing the high strength concrete, DB180,
aggregate interlock may not have been as prominent in the shear mechanism of resistance
for the beam, resulting in the noticeably low shear load obtained in the tests. Figure 4.2
shows a photograph of portions of concrete taken nom the tested specimens surnmarized
in Table 4.1. From Figure 4.2, it appears that the roughness of the failure crack surface
decreased considerably as the strength of the concrete increased.
The beam shear failures were sudden with virtually no warning, with failure
cracks extending fiom the loading point, down along a previously formed f l e d - s h e a r
crack farthest fiom the midspan of the beam, and splitting the bond of the longitudinal
reinforcement al1 the way to the support. Also, the M n measured in the longitudinal
reinforcement at the bearn's midspan at failure for every specimen was at most about
40% of the yield strain (see Table 4.1). Detailed experimental observations for each
beam test are given in Appendix B.
Figure 4.2 Crack Surface Roughness for Concrete Strengths Exarnined
Figures 4.3 to 4.7 show photographs of the bearns at failure. It is important to note
that the Iabeled shear load at failure, V, does not include the self weight of the bearn.
Figure 4 3 Specimen DB 120 after Faiiure
33
Figure 4.5 Specimen DB140 after FaiIure
34
Figure 4.7 Specimen DB 180 afier Failure
From Figures 4.3 to 4.7, it can be seen that the specimens had essentially the same
crack patterns at failure. However, bond splitting was more severe for the hi&-strength
beam specimens, DB 165 (65 MPa) and DB 180 (80 MPa).
Appendix B contains the total load versus midspan deflection, shear load versus
shear strain, and total load versus longitudinal reinforcernent strain responses for these
tests; crack patterns and nirich strain plots of every load stage for ail these beam tests are
also given.
Wal WI [W [mm1
DB0.530 32 158 165.1 7.6 52 %
BRLlOO 1 94 157 164.1 7.4 64 %
From Table 4.2, it is evident that the specirnens yielded virtually identical
responses.
CkN]
275
As can be seen in Figure 4.8 and Table 4.3, when transverse reinforcement is
present, the benefits of high strength concrete are realized in the ultimate shear strength.
The lower concrete strength beam specimens, DB120M and DB140M, failed at a
shear Ioad of about 270 W. At that load level, the higher concrete strength beam
specimens, DBl6SM and DB180M, had very similar crack patterns but srnaller cracks
widths when compared to the lower strength concrete specimens. This translates to a
higher reserve capacity in these higher strength concrete beams (see crack patterns;
Appendix C). As can be seen in Table 4.3, in specimen DB165M, the longitudinal
reinforcement nearly yielded prior to failure.
During the maturing process the specimens rnay shrink due to the hydntion
process and the Ioss in moisture in the concrete. As a result, pre-compression may have
been induced in the longitudinal steel, thus giving it that extra capacity for tensile
straining (see Table 3.1).
The experimental shear capacity of DB 180M (80 MPa concrete) was less than the
experimental shear capacity of DB 165 (65 MPa concrete). This result may be due to the
reduction in aggregate interlock capacity across the diagonal cracks in specimen
DBl8OM due to fracturing of the aggregate (Figure 4.2). Detailed experirnental
observations for each beam test is given in Appendix C.
Figures 4.9 to 4.12 show photographs of these specimens at failure.
38
Figure 4.10 Specimen DB l4OM afier Faiiure
39
Figure 4.12 Specimen DB 1SOM after Failure (Note: error in sign)
and transverse reinforcernent such that -- 0.40 W Q .No. 3 reinforcing bars (9.5 mm
b !*CF
diameter, 71.3 mm2 area) were used for the stimps with a yield strength of 508 MPa.
The Canadian Standard, A23.3-94, requires a minimum area of shear reinforcement, A,,,
given by:
AV = 0 . 0 6 m - or a stress, pfi = 0 . 0 6 6
fu
For specimen DBEOM, double-legged stimps (& = Z(7l.3) = 142.6 mm') were
for dl the beams, the minimum amount of stirrup stress at yield, 0.06&, was not
always attained.
Figures 4.13 to 4.16 compare the load versus midspan deflection for the beams
containing transverse reinforcement and their counterparts, which contain no transverse
reinforcement,
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Midspan Oeffection [mm]
Figure 4.13 Load versus Midspan Deflection for DB 120 and DB 120M
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Midspn D t f l d o n [mm]
Figure 4.14 Load versus Midspan Deflection for DB 140 and DBI40M
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Midspan Defiedion [mm]
Figure 4.15 Load versus Midspan Deflection for DB 165 and DB l6SM
10.0 15.0
Midspan Oeflecîion [mm]
Figure 4.16 Load versus Midspan Deflection for DB 180 and DB 1 80M
A significant increase in capacity and ductility was realized in the specimens with
transverse reinforcement when compared to their counterparts wbich had no transverse
reinforcement. In general, the presence of stirrups increased the beams shear capacity by
58% for specimens DB120M (20 MPa concrete) and DB140 M(40 MPa concrete). The
increase in beams shear capacity due to the presence of stirrups was much higher for the
higher strength concrete beam specimens. Specimens DB 165M (65 MPa concrete) and
DB 1 8OM (80 MPa concrete) showed a 135 to 150 % increase in ultimate shear strength
over their counterparts that did not contain stirrups.
Though at peak load, the midspan deflection of al1 the beams with transverse
reinforcement was three to four tixnes that of their counterparts without transverse
reinforcement, the sudden drop in load beyond peak conditiors indicated that there was
not enough transverse reinforcement provided for post-peak ductility. Table 4.4 shows
the amount transverse reinforcement used in the specimens relative to the requirements
for minimum transverse reinforcement given in the CSA and AC1 codes.
46
4.3 Effect of Main Longitudinal Reinforcement
Specimens DB0.530, DB130, and DE3230 were designed to study the effects of
arnounts of main longitudinal reinforcement on the shear capacity of reinforced concrete
beams. The three specirnens were dl constnicted using 32 MPa concrete. Figure 4.20
shows the ioad versus midspan deflection of the three specirnens. Table 4.6 summarizes
the experimentai results of the specimens.
0.0 1.O 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0
Midspan Deflection [mm]
Figure4.20 Load vs. Deflection for 32 MPa Beams with Varying Longitudinal
Reinforcement
Table 4.6 Experimental Results for Beams Containing OS%, 1%, and 2 %
LongitudinaI Reinforcement
Figures 4.22 to 4-24 show photographs of the three specimens after failure.
Figure 4.22 Photograph of DBO.530 after Failure
From the crack patterns shown in Figures 4.22 to 4.24, it appears that tess bond
splitting occurred as the amount of the main longitudinai reinforcement increased. This
may be attributed to an increase in dowel area By the end of the test several small
diagonal cracks had forrned in the zone of the reinforcement at the east end of the beam
adjacent to the support for specimen DB230. The diagonal shear failure crack got steeper
as the amount of main longitudinal reinforcement increased. Further details of these tests
are given in Appendix B.
4.4 Prediction of Beam's Ultimate Shear Capacity using the ACI 318-95 and
CSA A23.3-94 (General Method) Procedures
Tt is important to note that for the beams containhg stirrups, it was assumed that
al1 the specimens contained the minimum amount of transverse reinforcement required by
CSA A23.3-94 and thus predictions were based on P and B values fiom Figures 2.3 and
2.3 and Tables 2.1 and 2.2 given in Chapter 2.
Table 4.7 compares the d t h a t e shear strength values obtained fiom the
experimental results for the specimens with 1% Longitudinal reinforcement and no
transverse reinforcernent to those calculated using the AC1 318-95 and CSA A23.3-94
approaches. In the table, Pl2 signifies the half the total load applied by the testing
machine. Vu,,"Pis the actual shear load acting on the specimen taking into account the
self-weight of the bearn.
Sarnple calculations used to obtain the values given in the d l the tables in this
section are provided in Appendix A.
Frorn Table 4.7, the AC1 predictions for shear capacity significantly exceed the
experimental values, especially for the higher concrete strengths. Even with the Iimit of
69 MPa imposed on the compressive strength of the concrete, specimen DB 180 failed at a
load less than one-half of that predicted using the AC1 code.
The General Method fkom the Canadian Code performed much better than the
AC1 method. Predictions, however, grew increasingly unconservative as the concrete
strength increased.
Table 4.8 compares the ultimate shear values obtained fiom the experimental
results, to those predicted using the AC1 3 18-95 approach and CSA A23.3-94 (General
Method) approach, for those beams containkg 1% longitudial reinforcement and
Avfv
transverse reinforcement, such that, - = 0.401MPa .
bws
From Table 4.8, the AC1 predictions, in general, overestimated al1 the
expenmental shear strengths. The concrete compressive strength was limited to 69 MPa
again for the AC1 predictions because the transverse reinforcement required to use the
specified f'c was not provided. However, the prediction overestimated the capacity of
specimen DB 180M by 20%.
The General Method (based on MCFT) fiom the Canadian Code, yielded better
predictions than the AC1 approach. Both methods proved to be the most unconservative
for specimen DB 140M.
Table 4.9 compares the ultimate shear values obtained from the experimeatal
results of the beams with OS%, 1%, and 2 % longitudinal reinforcement made fkom 32
MPa and 94 MPa concrete to those calculated using the AC1 3 18-95 approach and CSA
A23.3-94 (Generai Method) approach.
Table 4.9 Ultimate Shear Capacity for Beams Containing OS%, I%, and 2%
Longitudinal Reinforcement and no Stirrups
-
Beam PO vuIl -
VUII vuif V, MckT LPc1 vulr=P vulr="
bd b d m ~uir~- Yuh Act
[W M wa1 w a ] FN] N I
BRL100 157-0 164.1 0.60 0.06 175.0 382.1 0.94 0.43
DB0.530 158.0 165.1 0.60 0.1 1 146.1 262.2 1.13 0.63
DB130 178.0 185.1 0.67 O. 12 191.9 262.2 0.96 0.7 1
DB230 260.0 272.1 0.98 0-17 218-1 262.2 1-25 1-04
The AC1 predictions for uitimate shear capacity are better when the crack widths
are contained, either with stirmps or distnbuted reinforcement. However, if the amount
of longitudinal reinforcement is low, as for specimen DB0.530M, the code still yields
very unconservative predictions. This is likely because the AC1 code does not consider
the effects of the longitudinal reinforcement on shear strength. In previous test studies
(see Chapter 2), it appeared that the AC1 code yielded conservative results when stirrups
were utilized. However, the AC1 does not perform well for the beams with transverse
reinforcement in this study because the percentage of longitudinal reinforcement is Iow
(Table 4.7and 4.10). The results in Tables 4.7 to 4.10 indicate that the AC1 code
predictions are conservative o d y when there is a relatively high percentage of
longitudinal reinforcement (Specimen DB230 only).
The average ratio of the experimental shear failure load to the predicted shear
failure load for the General Method was 0.98 with a coefficient of variation of 15.3%.
For the AC1 method the average ratio of the experimental shear failure load to the
predicted shear failure load was 0.74 with a coefficient of variation of 23%.
Possible discrepancies that exist with predicted values and experimental values
may involve the quality of the aggregate. Though the desired concrete compressive
strengths were obtained, the quality of the aggregate was, in general, poor. With
advances in the quaiity of cement and supplementary cementing materials, concrete as a
whole, can achieve the required strength with poor quality aggregate. However, shear
resistance, and not unixial compressive strength of concrete, is the main concem in a
lightly reinforced concrete beam. Poor aggregates can have a negative effect on the shear
fnction dong crack surf'aces. If the development of shear fnction dong the crack surfâce is not as
effective as is irnplicitly assumed in current design code niles, unconservative designs niay result-
Figure 4.25 shows the influence of the concrete compressive strength on the beam shear
capacity for specimens of this series, and two specimens tested in 1996 by Tommi Leinala and
Sinisa Stojicic with 1% longitudinal reinforcement and no stimips (the 36 MPa specimen in 1996
was strapped after Mure and re-tested to produce the two data points shown). The predîctions
made by the AC1 and CSA (General Method) codes are also shown for the various concrete
strengths in Figure 4.25,
It is interesting to note that the specimens tested in 1996 show higher shear capacities
comparai to the specimens testai in the cunent series. However, both test series show that
increasing the concrete strength by a factor of 3 to 4 does not result in a correspondhg increase in
the shear capacity of the beams. in fact, for both senes, the highest strength concrete beams fàiled
at the iowest shear capacities.
Figure 4.25 infiuence of Concrete Strength on Shear Capacity of Beams with 1% Longitudinal
Reinforcement and no Stirmps.
As rnentioned previously, the aggregate quality in the current test series \as,in general,
poor. The trend in Figure 4.25 would appear to indicate that, in the last two years, the quality of
the aggregate, in terms of shear resistance, fiom the local concrete plant has deteriorated. It would
sccm that large lightly reinforceci beams are very sensitive to aggregate quality.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
1. The concrete strength, which ranged between 20 and 80 MPa, had no significant
influence on the shear capacity of the beam specimens of this test series which
contained 1% (main) longitudinal reinforcement and no transverse reinforcement.
The beam specirnen with the highest concrete strength had the lowest shear
capacity.
4. Increasing the main longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and thus decreasing the
crack widths, increased the shear capacity of beams without transverse
reinforcement.
5. Bond splitting was most severe for the high strength concrete specirnens without
stirrups. Furtherrnore, bond-splitting cracks were controlled with an increase in
the main longitudinal reinforcement ratio or the addition of stirnips.
6. It is of considerable concem that 11 of the 12 specimens failed at shears less than
the capacities predicted by the AC1 code. Specimen DB230, which contained 2%
longitudinal reinforcement, failed at just 4% above the AC1 code prediction. The
AC1 code predictions were severely unconservative for lightly reinforced (0.5%
and I%), high strength concrete beams without transverse reinforcement- For the
12 tests the average ratio of the experimental shear failure Load to the AC1
prediction for the shear failure load was 0.74 with a coefficient of variation of
23%. See Figure 5.1.
7. The use of the Generai Method for the predictions o f the beams' shear capacities
yielded generally good results. Unlike the AC1 approach, as the percentage of
longitudinal reinforcement decreased, the General Method provided excellent
predictions for the large beams without stirnips. This approach gave somewhat
unconservative results, however, as the concrete strength increased for specimens
without transverse reinforcement. Thus, specimen DB180 failed at 75% of the
General Method prediction. For the 12 tests, the average ratio of the experimental
shear failure Ioad to the General Method prediction for the shear failure load was
0.98 with a coefficient of variation of 15.3%. See Figure 5.1.
Figure
- 5.1 Ratio of experirnental shear capacity to predicted shear capacity versus
longitudinal reinforcement ratio and concrete strength for beams without S ~ ~ M P S
5.2 Recommendations
The concrete used in this study was obtauied fiom a major ready-inix plant in Toronto.
For some of the low strength concrcte specirnens, examination of the crack surfàce of tested
specirnens showed that, though the surfafes were, in general, quite "hi11y" and rough, some of the
coarse aggregates had fractured. Fracturing of the aggregate is usually expected fiom high
strength cuncrete.
As discussed in section 4.4, large lightly reinforceci concrete beams seem to be vecy
sensitive ta aggregate quality (see Figure 4.25). A coordinated program of t e h g should be
perfonned across Canada with standardid specirnens to systernatically study the influence of
local aggregate characteristifs on the shear capacity of large, lightly reinforcecl concrete beam
specirnens.
REFERENCES
4. Collins, M.P., Mitchell, D., Adebar, P., Vecchio, F.J.? "A G e n e d Shear Design
Method", AC1 Structural Journal, V.93, No. 1, Jan-Feb. 1996, pp. 36-45.
6. Collins, M.P., Kuchma, D., "How Safe Are Our Large, Lightly Reinforced
Concrete Beams, Slabs and Footings?", Paper published in Concrete Canada
Compendium for Technology Transfer Day: The Specifications and Use of HPC,
University of Toronto, October 1, 1997, pp. 87-1 16.
14. Kuchma, D., Vegh, P., Simionopoulos, K., Stanik, B., Collins, M.P., "The
Influence of Concrete Strength, Distribution of Longitudinal Reinforcement, and Member
Size on the Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams", CEB Bulletin No. 237, 21
PP.
16. Vecchio, F.J., Collins, M.P., "The Modified Compression Field Theory for
Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear", AC1 Structural Journal, V.83, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 2 19-23 1,
19. Walraven, J.C., Frenay, J., Pruijssers, A., "Influence of Concrete Strength and
Load History on the Shear Friction Capacity of Concrete Members", PCI Journal V. ,
No. ,Jan.-Feb. 1987, pp. 66-84.
20. Yoon, Y., Cook, W.D., Mitchell, D., "Minimum Shear Reinforcement in Normaf,
Medium and High-Strength Concrete Beams", V.93, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1996, pp. 576-584.
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS O F AC1 318-95 AND CSA A23.3-94 (General Method)
CODE PREDICTIONS
Estimation of Shear Failure Load Using the General Method (CSA A23.3-94)
S a r n ~ l Calculation
e for Specimen DB 130. V,.
-,,= 185.1 kN (Table 4.6)
Concrete; f', = 32 MPa, 10 mm aggregate
Because the aggregate size is not 19 mm, the aggregate size used to derive the P
values, the equivalent crack spacing parameter, ss,, is needed. Le.,
3. Guess a value for the longitudinal strain, 4, to obtain Vu and calculate Muusing
equation for q. Check ratio of moment to shear at critical section.
The shear capacity, Vu,is given fiom equation 2.7 in chapter 2 as:
Mu/ dv + OSVucott9
Longitudinal Strain, =
EsAs
The criticai section is taken 4. away from the applied load where the moment to shear
ratio is approximately 1.8 metres.
M u - 422 -
- - 2.62 > 1.8 This indicates that our assumption was too
Vu 1612
conservative. We must choose a smaller magnitude of the longitudinal strain, gx.
4. Second iteration
/ 83 1 + O5(224OOO)cot 52
MU
Ex= = 0,0005
(200000)(2800)
1.8--7 14
Using Linear Interpolation, VU= 224 - (224 - 16 1.2) = 1882k.N
2.62--7 14
The concrete's contribution to shear strength fiom equation 2.2 în chapter 2 is given by:
Predicüon overestimates the section shear capacity, 185.1 kN, by about 42%.
Estimation of Shear Failure Load Using the General Method (CSA A23.3-94)
Shear,
2(7 l3)(5O8)
=p&x300~831+ (83 1) cot 9
600
v
Using Table 2.2, assume gX r 0.00 15 and - 1 0.075 . This yields 8 = 40" ,P = 0.158
f'.
Therefore, Vu = (1 1 130.158 + 100.3cot40 = 295.7 khi
MU/ 83 1 t O.S(2957OO)cot 40
a= = 0.0015
(200000)(2800)
The critical section is taken dv away from the applied load where the moment to shear
ratio is approximately 1.8 metres.
Mu 551.6
-- _-- - 1.87 > 1.8 This indicates that our assumption was a little too
Vu 295.7
conservative. We must choose a smaller magnitude o f the longitudinal strain, E,.
v
Try E, I; 0.001 and - 10.075-From Table 2.2, O= 36 ,P= 0.179
f'.
Therefore, Vu = (1 1 15)O. 179 + 100.3cot36 = 337.6 IrN
v
-=
337600 / 300 x 83 I = 0.068 < 0.075 okay.
f'c 20
MU/ dv + 05Vu~0t0
Longitudinal Strain, ~r =
Eds
1.8- 0.805
Using Linear Interpolation, VU= 33 8- (338 - 296) = 298.8kN
1.87 - 0.805
Prediction overestimates the section shear capacity, 282.1 kN, by about 6%.
Estimation of Shear Failure Load Using the AC1 Approach (ACI-318-95)
The concrete contribution to shear capacity, V , fiom equation 2.2 in chapter 2 is given as:
The stirrup steel contribution to shear capacity, V,, from equation 2.3 in chapter 2 is given
as:
So, Vc = 0167$E(300)(925) = 2 0 7 W
î(7 l3)(508)(925)
and Vs = = 111.7kN
600
Therefore, Vu = Vc + Ys = 3 19kN
Prediction overestimates the section shear capacity, 282.1 kN,by about 13%.
RESPONSE OF BEAM SPECIMENS CONTAINING O.SO/o, le/. AND 2%
LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT
The first flexural crack occurred at a total load of 150 kN (75 kN shear) at the
beam's midspan, extending approxirnately 350 mm into the specimen (the loads
mentioned are the test loads and do not consider self weight). At a total load of about 220
kN (1 10kN shear) the Eirst flexural-shear crack formed on the West side of the specimen.
At Load Stages 2 and 3 (total loads of 224 kN and 300 IrN respectively), several flexurai
and flexural-shear cracks formed on either side of the beam's midspan. The spacing of
these cracks was about 300 to 400 mm. At a total load of 350 kN (Load Stage 4), the
flexural-shear cracks on both ends of the specimen had turned over with crack tips
directed towards the loading point. On the West side, the cracks extended diagondly
towards the loading point approximately 700 mm into the beaxn (perpendicular distance
from the bottom). Upon reloading, the specimen failed abruptiy in shear at a load less
than the Ioad attained at load stage 4. The failure shear load was 172 W. The failure
crack extended Erom the loading point diagonaIIy dong a flexurai-shear crack that had
forrned at a shear load of about 170 kN on the West side of the beam. The failure crack
also split the bond between the longitudinal reinforcement and the concrete and extended
passed the support into the overhanging portion of the bearn..
The deflection at the peak load of 175 kN was 5.7 mm and the defiection at the
failure load was 6.2 mm. The strain in the longitudinal reinforcement at the beam's
midspan peaked at approximateiy 900 microstrain, about 33% of the yield strain.
The totai load versus midspan deflection, shear load versus shear strain, total load
versus longitudinal reinforcement strain responses, and crack patterns and zurich strain
plots for every load stage, are given in the following figures.
180 -t
-
OB120 Shear vs. Shear Strain
4 -/
r WEST
EAST
0.20 0.30
Sheir Stnin ( 111000)
-
DE120 Load vs Longitudinal Reinforcement Strain
The first flexural crack occurred at a total load of 170 k N (85 kN shear) and
extended halfway up the beam. At load stages 2 and 3, (total loads of 200 kN and 250 kN
respectively) new flexural cracks formed on both sides of the beam's midspan. The
cracks on both the West and east sides showed signs of tuming over following Load Stage
3. Load Stage 4 was taken at a total load of 300 )cN (1 50 kN in shear). New flexural-
shear cracks formed forming a symmetric pattern about the beam's midspan and the
existing flexural cracks at the beam's midspan had extended as far as 700 mm into the
beam. The final load stage was taken at a total load of 350 kN. At this stage, fiexural-
shear cracks extended 500 to 600 mm into the beam depth. On the west side, the
flexural-shear cracks extended approximately 400 mm into the beam depth.
The beam failed in shear, on the east side, at a shear load of 178 kN. Again, tike
specimen DB120, the shear crack extended fiom the loading point to the level of the
longitudinal reinforcement where bond splitting occurred al1 the way to the support and
beyond into the overhang of the beam.
The longitudinal strain in the reinforcement at the beam's midspan at fadure was
approximately 1000 microstrain (36% of yield) and the midspan deflection of the
specimen at failure was approximately 5 mm.
The total load versus midspan deflection, shear load venus shear strain, total load
venus longitudinal reinforcement strain responses, and crack patterns and zurich strain
plots for every load stage are given in the foIlowing figures.
-l-
-
OB130 Load vs. Daflection
3
-
D M 3 0 Shear vs. Shear Strain
1 a --- L
m
t
-
----
.,
MN
The first flexural cracks formed at a total load of approximately 142 kN (71 kN
shear). The first flexural-shear crack formed at a load of about 250 kN (125 kN shear), at
which point the second load stage was taken. Load Stage 3 was taken at a total load of
300 kN by which time several f l e d - s h e a r cracks had formed on both sides of the
beam's midspan, Flexural-shear cracks had extended about 700 mm into the beam depth
on both the east and West sides.
Faiture occurred at a total load of 346 kN (173 kN in shear) on the west side.
Like the 20 and 30 MPa specimens, the shear crack extended fiom the loading point,
along an existing flexural-shear crack, down to the level of the longitudinal reinforcernent
where bond splitting occurred al1 the way to the support and beyond into the overhang of
the beam.
The strain in the longitudinal reinforcement at the bearn's rnidspan at failure was
approximately 1000 microstrain (36% of yield). The midspan deflection of the specimen
at failure was approximately 4.8 mm at failure.
The total load versus rnidspan deflection, shear load versus shear strain, total load
versus longitudinal reinforcement strain responses, and crack patterns and ninch strain
plots for every load stage are given in the following figures.
-
DBl4û Load vs. Deflection
-
DBl4O Shear vs. Shear Strain
0.30 0.40
Shear Strain [ 111000)
-
08140 Load vs. Longitudinal Reinforcement Stnin
The first indication of cracking was at a total load of 186 kN (93 kN s h e d . Upon
reaching a total load of 250 kN, the existing flexurai cracks had extended about 700 mm
into the beam depth and the outermost flemral-shear cracks had began to turn over. At a
total load of 3 10 kN, a new flexural-shear crack had propagated about 650 mm into the
beam on the West side. A load stage was taken at a total load of 320 kN (160 kN in
shear). The flexural cracks extended about 850 to 900 mm into the specimen.
At a total load of 350 kN (175 kN shear), a large shear crack formed on the east
side. The crack extended fiom the loading point down to the level, and dong the
longitudinal reinforcement nearly reaching the support through bcnd splitting. The crack
tvidth of this diagonal crack on the east side (not measured and marked at a load stage)
appeared to be approximately 0.3 to 0.4 mm. The load dropped approximately 60 kN
(17% drop) in total load when this crack formed.
With only about a 1 mm increase in midspan deflection, the beam recovered the
load in approximately two minutes, followed by a shear failure, on the West side, at a total
load of 356 kN (178 kN in shear).
The strain in the longitudinal reuiforcement at the beam's midspan at failure was
approximately 920 microstrain (33% of yield). The midspan deflection of the specimen
at failure was approximately 7.1 mm.
The total load versus midspan deflection, shear load versus shear strain, total load
versus longitudinal reinforcement strain responses, and crack patterns and nuich strain
plots for every load stage are given in the following figures.
-
DBl6S Load vs. ûeflection
-
DB165 Shear vs. Shear Strain
The first flexural cracks occurred at a total load of 170 kN with the first crack
extending about 650 mm into the specimen. At a total load of 250 kN, load stage 2 was
taken. At this point, the outerrnost flexural cracks had tumed over. At this point the
existing flexural cracks at the midspan extended 900 mm into the beam. Load stage 3
was taken at a total load of 300 kN. The crack pattern was syrnmetric about the beam's
midspan and d l the outerrnost cracks had tumed over.
At a total load of 322 kN (16 1 kN in shear), a Iarge diagonai crack formed on the
West side. The crack extended form the loading point down to the level of the
longitudinal reinforcement, splitting some of the bond of the longitudinal reinforcement.
Like specimen DB 165. the load dropped approximately 60 icN (19% drop) without a large
increase in deflection.
The beam recovered the load and failed in shear on the east side of the specimen
at a total load of 330 kN (165 kN in shear) - the lowest shear capacity of ail the
specimens tested.
n i e strain in the longitudinal reinforcement at the beam's midspan at failure was
approximately 1150 microstrain (42% of yield). The midspan deflection of the specimen
at failure was approximately 9.3 mm.
The total load versus rnidspan deflection, shear load versus shear strain, total load
venus longitudinal reinforcement strain responses, and crack patterns and zurïch strain
plots for every load stage are given in the following figures.
-
DB18O Load vs. üeflection
-
OB180 Load vs Longitudinal Reinforcernent Strain
3501
The first cracks occurred at a total load of 144 kN (72 kN shear) extending 600
mm into the specimen at midspan. The second load stage was taken at a total load of 220
N where the flexural cracks began to turn over into flexural-shear cracks. Much like the
k
beams with 1% longitudinal reinforcement, at a total load of 300 kN (150 kN in shear;
Ioad stage 3), a symmetric pattern of flexural shear cracks existed about the beam's
midspan. At this point the west side of the beam showed greater distress than the east
with a relatively flat diagonai crack extending towards the Ioading point.
The specimen failed abruptly in shear on the West side at a total load of 3 16 kN
(1 58 kN in shear). Unlike the 1% and 2% longitudinally reinforced beam specimens with
32 MPa concrete, DB130 and DB230, respectively. the failure crack was relatively flat
extending fiorn the ioading point diagonally to the level of the reinforcement and splitting
the bond a11 the way passed the support into the overhang of the beam.
The strain in the longitudinal reinforcement at the beam's midspan at failure was
approximately 1430 microstrain (52% of yield). The midspan deflection of the specimen
at failure was approximately 7.6 mm.
The total load versus midspan deflection, shear load versus shear strain, total load
versus Longitudinal reinforcement strain responses, and crack patterns and zurich strain
plots for every load stage are given in the following figures.
-
080.530 Load vs. lkfkction
0.0 1 .O 20 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.O
Midspan Delkction (mm]
0.2 0.3
Shear Strain [ 111000]
-
080.530 Load vs. Longitudinal Reinforcement Stnin
1t g Ls
2
1 *
2 :-
O i
e-
,t
Specimen DB230
The first crack occurred at the high total load of 200 kN (1 00 kN in shear).
Significant cracking did not occur until a total load of about 324 kN (162 kN shear)
where three other flexural cracks formed at the midspan area. The cracks in the shear
spans of the beam appeared to begin tuniing over into flexural-shear cracks at a total load
of about 400 kN (200 kN shear)at which tirne a load stage was taken. Following this load
stage, at a total load of 450 kN (225 kN shear), no new cracks had formed and the
existing flexural-shear cracks had extended about 600 mm into the beam. At a total Ioad
of 500 kN (250 kN shear), few new cracks formed but existing flexurai-shear cracks on
the east side had extended al1 the way up to the Ioading point. The cracks were steeper,
wider and spaced farther apart than those for the 1 % and 0.5 % longitudinally reinforced,
32 MPa specimens, DB 130 and DB0.530, respectively.
Specimen DB230 failed in shear at a total load of 520 kN (260 kN in shear)- The
diagonal crack was steep extending from an existing flexurai-shear crack on the east side
from the loading point to the level of the reinforcement. Unlike specirnens DB 130 and
DB0.530, there was not a significant amount of bond splitting, though several small
diagonal cracks fomed at the Ievel of the two layers of main longitudinal reinforcement
at the east end of the beam, adjacent to the support.
The strain in the longitudinal reinforcernent at the beam's midspan at failure was
approximately 770 microstrain (28% of yield). The midspan deflection of the specimen
at failure was approximately 7.6 mm.
The total load versus midspan deflection, shear load versus shear strain, total load
versus longitudinal reinforcement strain responses, and crack patterns and zurich strain
plots for every load stage are given in the following figures.
-
08230 Load vs. ûeflection
WEST
The first flexurd crack occurred at a total load of approximately 148 kN (74 kN in
shear). At a total load of 400 kN (200 kN shear), there was a symmetric pattern of
flexural-shear cracks about the beam's midspan. Diagonal crack widths on the West and
east sides of the bearn ranged from 0.4 to 0.6 mm and 0.1 to 0.3 mm, respectively.
At a total load of 500 kN (250 kN shear), the diagonal cracks on the west side had
extended al1 the way up to the loading point and smail diagonal cracks had formed at the
level of the reinforcement adjacent to the support. The diagonal cracks on the West side
measured about 3.0 to 3.5 mm in width whereas on the east side they measured about 0.2
to 0.5 mm in width.
Failure occurred very suddenly on the east side at a total load of 550 kN (275 IcN
in shear). The diagonal failure crack extended fiom the loading point to the level of the
longitudinal reinforcement dong a flexural-shear crack that had previously formed.
The midspan deflection of the specimen at failure was approximately 15 mm and
the strain in the longitudinal reinforcement at the beam's midspan peaked at 1450
microstrain (53% of yieId).
The total load versus midspan deflection, shear load versus shear strain, total load
versus longitudinal and transverse reinforcement strain responses, and crack patterns and
zurich strain plots for every load stage are given in the following figures.
-
OB120M Lord vs. Dafkction
m-.
500 - -
400 --
z
L.
sr 300.-
I
A
t
7"
r
-
DB120M Shear vs. Shear Stmin
1 1.5 2 2.5
Strain Gauqe Reiding microd drain^
-
DB120M Shear vs. Tnnsverse Reinfoicement Strain
-
DB120M Lord vs. Longitudinal Reinforcement Strain
6001
The first flexural crack occurred at a total load of 154 kN (77 kN). At a total load
of 440 kN (220 kN shear), the diagonal cracks on the West and east sides had maximum
widths of 0.5 mm and 0.35 mm, respectively.
New diagonal cracks formed at a total load of 520 kN (260 kN shear) and
extended fiom the edge of the both supports, 600 mm into the specimen depth. The
flexural-shear cracks at this load had extended al1 the way up to the loading point and
diagonal cracks had a maximum widths of 1.5 mm and 0-7 mm on the West and east
sides, respectively.
A shear failure occurred at a total load of 540 ICN (270 kN shear) on the east side,
A s t i m p approximately 1.5 metres from the midspan, on the east side, fmctured.
Leading up to failure the strain histories of the gauges attached to the stirrups on the east
side indicated much more straining than the gauges attached to the stirrups on the west
side of the beam (see the Ioad versus transverse reinforcement strain response).
The midspan deflection of the specimen at failure was approximately 13.5 mm
and the strain in the longitudinal reuiforcement at the beam's midspan peaked at 1540
microstrain (56% of yield).
The total load versus midspan deflection, shear load versus shear strain, total load
versus longitudinal and transverse reinforcement strain responses, and crack patterns and
nuich strain plots for every load stage are given in the following figures.
-
DB140M Shear vs. Shear Strain
?
1 -5 2
Shear Stnin [111000]
DB14OM - Shear vs. Tnnsverse Reinforcement Strain
-
08140M Load vs. Longitudinal Reinforcement Strain
600
The first flexural crack occurred at a total load of 182 kN (91 kN in shear).
According to stirmp gauges W3 and E3, the transverse steel 1 metre on either side of
midspan began straining at a total load of about 360 k N (180 kN shear). At a total load of
560 kN (280 kN) as new diagonal cracks formed, the stirrups approx. 2 metres on either
side of midspan, with gauges W2 and E2 attached, began to strain significantly.
From a total load of 450 kN (225 kN) to the failure load, few new cracks formed.
Existing f l e d shear cracks extended towards the loading point and continued to widen-
At a Ioad of 520 kN (260 kN shear), a stimp, with gauge E3 attached, approximately 1
metre ezst of the midspan, yielded. At a total load of 650 kN (325 kN shear), srnall
diagonal cracks formed at the level of the longitudinal reinforcement adjacent to the
supports. The maximum diagonal crack widths prior to failure were 3.0 mm and 2.5 mm
on the W e s t and east sides respectively.
A shear failure occurred on the West side at a total load of 890 kN (445 kN shear)
- far greater than any beam examined in the series. The failure crack was steeper than
those for specimens DB120M and DBl40M and propagated dong a wide flexural-shear
crack on the West side.
The rnidspan deflection of the specimen at failure was approximately 22 mm and
the strain in the longitudinal reinforcement at die bearn's midspan peaked at 2400
microstrain (87% of yield).
The total load versus midspan deflection, shear load versus shear strain, total load
versus longitudinal and transverse reinforcement strain responses, and crack patterns and
zurich strain plots for every load stage are given in the following figures.
-
DB16SM Load vs. Defkction
-
DB165M Shear vs. Shear Strain
DB165M - Sherr vr. Tmnsverse Reinfortement Stnin
-
DB165M Load vs. Longitudinal Reinforcement Stmin
SPECIMEN : DB165M LOADSTAGE: 2 SHEAR FORCE V = 12s kN
4.w I aor l
P Y'
SPECIMEN : DB16SM LOADSTAGE: 3 SHEAR FORCE V = 175 kN
v
LOADSTAGE: 4 SI1EAR FORCE V = 225 W
LOADSTACE: 7 SHEAR FORCE V = 325 kN
The first flexwal crack fonned at a total load of 176 kN (88 kN shear). The
gauged transverse steel about 1 rnetre on each side of midspan, with gauges E3 and W3
attached, began straining at a totai load of about 350 kN (175 kN shear). At a total load
of approximately 460 kN (230 kN) as new diagonal cracks formed, stimrps about 2
metres on either side of midspan, with gauges E2 and W2 attached, began to strain
significantly. At a total load of approximately 400 kN (200 kN shear), there was a
symmetric distribution of flexural-shear cracks about the beam's midspan.
At a totai load of 436 kN (218 kN shear), a large diagonal crack formed on the
east side approximately 1 mm in width extending 800 mm into the specimen's depth
followed by, at a total load of 466 kN (233 kN shear), a shear crack forming on the west
side approximately 0.5 mm in width extending about 350 mm into the specimen depth.
At a total load of about 494 kN (247 kN shear); just prior to a load stage, new diagonal
cracks formed just adjacent to the eastem support with hairline widths extending 350 mm
into the specimen depth. At a total load of 600 kN (300 kN shear), previously formed
diagonal cracks continued to propagate towards the toading point, and small diagonal
cracks formed at the level of the longitudinal reinforcement adjacent to the support on the
West end.
The maximum crack widths for the diagonal cracks prior to failure were 3.0 mm
for the West side and 2.5 mm for the east side- The bearn failed in shear at a total load of
776 kN (388 k N in shear) on the West side. As with DB 165M, the failure crack was steep
and had propagated fiom a previously formed flexural-shear crack.
At failure, the midspan deflection of the specimen was approximately 22 mm and
the strain in the longitudinal reinforcement at the beam's rnidspan peaked at 2275
microstrain (83 % of yield).
The total load versus midspan deflection, shear load versus shear strain, and total
load versus longitudinal and transverse reinforcement strain responses, and crack patterns
and zurich strain plots for every load stage are given in the following figures.
-
06180M Lord vs. Daflection
8001
-
DB18OM Shear vs. Shear Strain
0.00 0.50 1-00 1 -50 206 250 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Shmr Strain [111000]
SQO lm0 1500 2000 2500
Strain Gauge Reiding (microstrain]
-
DBf 8OM Lord vs. Longitudinal Reinforcement Strain
SPECIMEN : DBllOM LOADSTAGE : 1 SIIEAR FORCE V = 00 kN
SPECIMEN : DBl8OM LOADSTACE: 6 SHEAR FORCE V = 350 kN
T V
ND (iRICH M T A C a L C C l L D
Specimen DB0.530M
The first flexural crack formed at a total Ioad of 140 khi (70 kN). The transverse
steel about 1 metre on each side of rnidspan with gauges E3 and W3 attached began to
strain at a total load of about 280 kN (140 W shear). At a total load of 400 kN (200 kN
shear), the stimps approximately 2 metres on each side of midspan, with gauges E2 and
W2 attached, began to strain significantly.
It is worth noting that relative to the specimens containing 1% longitudinal
reinforcement and stirrups the flexurai cracks were wider and spaced farther apart.
Prior to failure, the maximum diagonal crack width on the West side was 2.0 mm
and 1.0 mm on the east side. The beam exhibited a very ductile response. The beam
failed in shear at a total load of 512 kN (256 kN shear) on the West side. The rnidspan
deflection at the peak load was about 21 mm. M e r the shear failure, the specimen
achieved a rnidspan deflection of 38 mm sustainhg a total of 400 kN (200 kN shear).
The strain of the longitudinal reinforcement at the beam's midspan, at the peak
shear failure load of 256 kN, was 2750 microstrain, equivalent to the yield strain of the
reinforcement.
The total load versus midspan deflection, shear load versus shear strain, and total
Ioad versus longitudinal and transverse reinforcement strain responses, and crack patterns
and zurich strain plots for every load stage are given in the following figures.
Unfortunately, photographs for the first five load stages for specimen DB0.530M
were unrecoverable and thus, crack patterns and are not available.
-
DB0.530M Load vs. Ocfiection
600
-
OB0.530M Shear vs. Sheat Stnin
L
EAST
DB0.530M - Shear vs. Tmnsverse ReinforcernentStmin
-
DB0.530M Load vs. Longitudinal Reinforcernent Strain
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Load versus Displacement Curves for Uniaxial Compression Tests on Concrete Cylinders :
65 MPa
t . . - 1 . . . :
APPENDIX E
S H M DUL GAUGE R W N G S
Laad SI- LOAD vusrt-mh we81.roulh AVG. Change
O 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 74 0.40 0.31) 0.39
2 92 0.54 0,50 0.13
3 140 0.89 0.77 0.32
4 200 1.47 1.11 O,*
5 250 1.91 1AS 0.39
Failura 1 7 1
In th0 n o i m - wdiraAh, îho dial gaugm won pl~ced25 mm in hom elch hce of the barn.
wost-nomi, for ritimpie, Impiies the west slde of the barn near tha northem lace.
DB16SM = DEFLECf IONS (dmwards) ( ALL VALUES IN mm)
O 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,OO O .O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 na
Failum
p m 1 ~ h di4
e gauges n u i h a wppoib r i e plmced 200 mm hom n* centrelino d me suppo<l.
In tha norlhmuîh dlrdon, the dlai giuges wsre p l i c d 25 mm ln IWtl ~h hce d Ihe krm.
( ALL VALUES IN mm)
LVDT
mlddbnorth m)bdk.souîh AVG. Chwipr
0.00 0.00 0.00
-
DBO,S~OMRECTMS (dommrds) ( ALL VALUES IN mm)