This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Title no. 106-S63
Evaluation of Load Transfer and Strut Strength of Deep Beams with Short Longitudinal Bar Anchorages
by Sergio F. Breña and Nathan C. Roy
This paper presents laboratory results of 12 deep beams in which the longitudinal reinforcement was anchored into the support using short straight bar anchorages. The shortest anchorage lengths provided were below 50% of those required by ACI 318-08 Chapter 12 provisions. Four different specimen groups were constructed using three different shear span-depth ratios (a/d) and two longitudinal bar sizes. Most of the beams failed by strut crushing after yielding of the main longitudinal reinforcement at midspan. Only those specimens with the shortest anchorage length in each group developed concrete splitting failures along the anchorage region. The effect of a/d and anchorage length on strut strength and load transfer mechanism observed in the tests is presented and discussed. Test results indicate that a significant portion of the applied shear force may be transferred through truss action even in beams with low a/d. In addition to well-known variables such as a/d and transverse reinforcement content, short anchorage length affected the load transfer characteristics of the deep beams tested in this research.
Keywords: anchorage length; deep beams; strength; strut-and-tie models.
Fig. 1—Strut-and-tie models consistent with load transfer mechanisms in deep beams. of each node over each support. Anchoring these horizontal bars, which often have large diameter and are placed in multiple layers to satisfy the tie force requirement, becomes very difficult and results in reinforcing bar congestion near the ends of the beam. To anchor the bottom tie according to code procedures (for example, ACI 318), hooked bars or teeheaded reinforcement are almost always used. The anchorage condition over the support of deep beams might benefit from the presence of transverse confining stresses that generate from the reaction and diagonal strut that meet at the end node. The beneficial effect of transverse normal stresses on the anchorage condition of deep beams was examined and discussed in detail by Roy and Breña (2008). The test results indicated that beams with straight bar anchorages of only approximately 50% of the length required by provisions in Chapter 12 of ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee 318 2008) were able to develop peak loads comparable with beams where longer anchorages were provided. In some of these beams with a/d as low as 1.0 or 1.5, limited or no yielding was measured in longitudinal reinforcement at the face of the support node indicating that load transfer by tied-arch action was not predominant even in beams with this low a/d. Furthermore, reinforcing bar yielding at midspan was observed in many of these beams and maintained to load levels that caused crushing of the main struts forming after cracking of the beams. These results indicate that an alternate load path was developed in the beams with short anchorages (truss action), which allowed development of higher load without placing the high anchorage demand at the support node that is generated from tied-arch action. The purpose of this paper is to examine and discuss the behavior of struts and nodes in these deep beams fabricated
ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 5, September-October 2009. MS No. S-2008-205 received June 24, 2008, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2009, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the JulyAugust 2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2010.
INTRODUCTION Design of deep beams using strut-and-tie models involves the selection of an adequate model that captures the anticipated behavior with reasonable accuracy. Model selection is typically based on knowledge about the load transfer mechanisms present in deep beams. It is now commonly accepted that deep beams transfer shear through one of two basic load transfer mechanisms identified as either a tied-arch mechanism or truss mechanism (Fig. 1). The two most important factors affecting the type of load transfer mechanism are the shear span-depth ratio (a/d) of the beams and the amount of transverse reinforcement. There seems to be general agreement that as a/d increases, a higher fraction of load is transferred through truss action (Fig. 1(b)). Conversely, beams with lower a/d transfer a larger portion of the load through tiedarch action (Fig. 1(a)). Beams with intermediate a/d transfer load through a combination of these two mechanisms, but there is disagreement on how to estimate the fraction transferred by each assumed model. Similarly, larger amounts of transverse reinforcement lead to a higher fraction of load transferred by truss action. A minimum amount of web reinforcement (vertical and horizontal) is required to prevent splitting of diagonal struts forming between load and supports of deep beams. Load transfer through tied-arch action has important implications in design. As can be observed by equilibrium of the simplified model shown in Fig. 1(a) depicting a tied arch model, the horizontal tensile force in the tie at the bottom of the model is required to maintain its maximum value throughout the span of the beam. This assumed behavior places a high anchorage demand at nodes located above the supports, because if one designs the horizontal tie to yield at ultimate load, then yielding has to be maintained at the face 678
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
Sergio F. Breña, FACI, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA. He is Secretary of ACI Committee 369, Seismic Repair and Rehabilitation, and a member of the ACI Publications Committee; ACI Committees 374, PerformanceBased Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings, and 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion; and E803, Faculty Network Coordinating Committee. Nathan C. Roy is a Structural Engineer with LeMessurier Consultants, Cambridge, MA. He received his BS and MS in civil engineering from the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 2004 and 2006, respectively.
sectional area throughout their length. For bottle-shaped struts, βs equals 0.75 if the strut is crossed by the minimum amount of reinforcement specified in ACI 318-08 section A.3.3, or 0.60λ (λ is a lightweight aggregate concrete factor) if the reinforcement does not comply with ACI 318-08, Section A.3.3, or no reinforcement is present. Similarly, the nominal strength of nodal zones (Fnn) in ACI 318-08 is calculated using Fnn = fceAnz (3)
using short longitudinal bar anchorages. The strength of struts is investigated based on the results of the tests. A critical evaluation of the apparent load transfer mechanisms in this type of beams was conducted to provide insight into the effect of short bar anchorages on how these beams transfer shear. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Design of deep beams is commonly done using strut-andtie models following Appendix A in ACI 318-08. Engineers are given freedom to select the strut-and-tie model for design with little guidance as to the merits of each model. The choice of model is largely based on knowledge of load transfer mechanisms for beams with different a/d. Deep beams with a/d < 1.0 are commonly assumed to transfer the total load through tied-arch action, whereas the most widely accepted load transfer mechanism in slender beams with a/d ≥ 4.0 is based on truss action. Loads in deep beams with intermediate a/d (between 1.0 and 4.0) are transferred through a combination of these two mechanisms. This paper will provide data about load transfer mechanisms in deep beams with short longitudinal bar anchorages. The information provided in this paper will assist in implementation of strutand-tie models and an improved understanding of the merits of different models when used in design. ACI 318-08 STRUT AND NODE STRENGTH EQUATIONS Design provisions for strut-and-tie models are contained in Appendix A of ACI 318-08. The strength of elements designed using strut-and-tie models, according to these design provisions, is governed by the strength of the weakest element of the strut-and-tie model (strut, tie, or node). Forces acting in struts, ties, or nodes must be equated to the resistance of each element to solve for the load carrying capacity of the system. The focus in this paper will be those models governed by either strut or node strength. It will be assumed that tie strength does not govern the capacity of the chosen strut-and-tie model. The nominal strength of struts in a strutand-tie model built according to ACI 318-08 is determined from Fns = fce Acs fce = 0.85βs fc′ (1) (2)
where Anz represents the area of the node face perpendicular to the applied force on the node that results in the highest stress on the nodal zone. In the case of nodes, fce is calculated using Eq. (2) with βn instead of βs. The factor βn depends on the type of node, and it equals 1.0 for nodal zones with only compression forces acting on them, 0.80 in nodal zones where one tie is anchored, or 0.60 for nodal zones anchoring two or more ties. These nominal strengths computed by Eq. (1) and (3) must be multiplied by a strength reduction factor of 0.75 to calculate the design strength according to ACI 318. COMMONLY ACCEPTED FORCE TRANSFER MECHANISMS FOR DEEP BEAMS Rather than relying on empirical procedures as was done in the past, strut-and-tie models are now used extensively in the design of deep beams. These models are commonly constructed to approximately follow the force transfer path anticipated in deep beams. The two most commonly accepted strut-and-tie models used in deep beam design are tied arch or truss models depending on the a/d of the beam. A tied arch model is predominantly used in design of short beams (a/d equal to 1.0 or less), with the assumption that load is transferred directly from load point into support through the formation of concrete struts (direct strut mechanism). The horizontal component of each strut at the support is set in equilibrium by a horizontal tie extending the full length of the beam (Fig. 1(a)). The tie force in this model is constant throughout the span, so the longitudinal reinforcement forming the tie has to be anchored at the face of the node over each support to develop the yield stress fy. The critical section for development of reinforcement in ACI 318-08 is defined as the section where the centroid of the reinforcement leaves the extended nodal zone. For longer deep beams (a/d of 4.0 or above), load transfer occurs indirectly from load point into support through two or more struts that form between diagonal cracks within the shear span of the beam (Fig. 1(b)). The vertical component of struts that reach the bottom longitudinal reinforcement within the shear span is set in equilibrium by vertical tie forces generated in stirrups that enclose the longitudinal reinforcement and are well anchored in the compression zone of the beams. The bottom longitudinal reinforcement is again required to equilibrate the horizontal component of strut forces at the bottom nodes, and compression stresses near the top of the beam equilibrate horizontal strut force components at top nodes. The force transfer mechanism in this type of beams closely resembles forces in a truss, with top and bottom chords carrying compressive and tensile forces, respectively, diagonal web members carrying compressive forces, and vertical web members carrying tensile forces. In beams of intermediate length (a/d between 1.0 and 4.0), a combination of force transfer mechanisms is commonly 679
where Acs is the minimum cross sectional area (strut width w times element thickness b) at one of the two ends of the strut; fce is equal to the effective concrete strut strength; and βs is an effective concrete strength factor dependent on strut geometry and transverse strain conditions. The reduction in uniaxial concrete compressive strength, when subjected to off-axis tensile strains, is well known. In ACI 318-08, this decrease in strut strength is captured through the use of βs. The factor βs equals 1.0 for prismatic struts that have a constant crossACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
Table 1—As-built properties of specimens and observed failure parameters
Group a/d Specimen DB1.0-1.00 1.0 DB1.0-0.75 DB1.0-0.50 DB1.0-0.32 1.0L DB1.0-0.75L DB1.0-0.28L DB1.5-0.75 1.5 DB1.5-0.50 DB1.5-0.38 DB2.0-0.75 2.0
fc′ , MPa (psi) 33.3 (4830) 31.7 (4600) 30.6 (4440) 27.0 (3915) 29.9 (4340) 29.4 (4265) 32.7 (4745) 34.1 (4945) 33.8 (4900) 34.7 (5035) 33.0 (4790) 35.6 (5165)
Beam width b, mm (in.) Peak load Pu, kN (kip) Failure mode 165 (6.5) 173 (6.8) 157 (6.2) 152 (6.0) 155 (6.1) 155 (6.1) 152 (6.0) 152 (6.0) 152 (6.0) 155 (6.1) 155 (6.1) 155 (6.1) 677 (152) 743 (167) 729 (164) 667 (150) 741 (167) 642 (144) 459 (103) 423 (95) 427 (96) 313 (70) 297 (67) 266 (60) Strut – S Strut – H Strut – H Strut – S Strut – H Anchorage Strut – S Strut – H Anchorage Strut – H Strut – H Anchorage
Pu/Py* 1.43 1.55 1.53 1.43 1.15 ‡ 1.49 1.44 1.45 1.56 1.40 1.28
Pu/Pcr-d† 2.17 2.10 2.34 2.14 2.39 2.06 1.72 1.58 2.40 2.33 1.68 1.50
Ratio of maximum load to yield load. †Ratio of maximum load to diagonal cracking load. ‡ Yielding not observed. Note: S is strut crushing observed on test end (straight anchorage) of specimen; and H is strut crushing observed on far end (hooked anchorage) of specimen.
assumed. Guidance on the fraction of force transferred by either truss or tied arch action is sparse. Federation International de La Precontrainte Recommendations (FIP 1999) indicate that the force transfer in beams with a/d between 0.5 and 2.0 occurs through a combination of truss and tied arch action. Force transfer in beams transitions from entirely tied arch action to entirely truss action as a/d increases from 0.5 to 2.0 using the following relationship 1 2a - F 1 = -- ⎛ ----- – 1⎞ F ⎠ 3⎝ z (4)
where F represents the total force being transferred, F1 is the force transferred through truss action, and z is the internal lever arm (distance between top and bottom chords of the model). Using strain gauge data obtained from instrumented stirrups in tests of deep beams with a/z = 1.49, Uribe and Alcocer (2001) found that the direct strut mechanism contributed slightly more than implied by the FIP (1999) recommendations although the implied failure mode was consistent with test observations. The models mentioned above only account for the contribution of horizontal reinforcement near the bottom of the beam. Vertical web reinforcement is only explicitly included in truss models but not in tied arch models. Horizontal web reinforcement is not included in either model and its effect is only considered when determining the strength of struts. DESCRIPTION OF LABORATORY TESTS Tests reported in this paper were conducted for simply supported deep beams subjected to a single concentrated load at midspan. Laboratory specimens consisted of 12 deep beams divided into four different groups according to three different a/d (1.0, 1.5, or 2.0) and two sizes of the main longitudinal bars (No. 5 or No. 6). The main variable in each group of beams was the anchorage condition of longitudinal bars over one of the supports. On the test side, the longitudinal reinforcement was continued on different distances past the support node in the various specimens (straight bar anchorage). Longitudinal reinforcement on the far side of the beams was anchored past the support using a standard 90-degree hook to preclude anchorage failures there. 680
Specimens are designated according to a/d and anchorage length of straight bars on the test side of the beams. The first two digits in the beam designation correspond to a/d (1.0, 1.0L, 1.5, or 2.0), and the last three digits correspond to the ratio of provided-to-design anchorage length on the test side of the specimens. The design anchorage length is defined as the length calculated using Chapter 12 of ACI 318-08. This ratio varied in each group of beams as listed in the specimen designation in Table 1, but all groups had beams with 75 and 50% of the anchorage length required by ACI 318-08, Chapter 12. Specimen nominal dimensions and reinforcing patterns are shown in Fig. 2. All beams had a nominal width of 152 mm (6 in.) and total depths of 635, 457, or 356 mm (25, 18, or 14 in.) for beams with a/d of 1.0, 1.5, or 2.0, respectively. Longitudinal reinforcement consisted of No. 5 or No. 6 main bottom bars and No. 3 top bars needed for reinforcing cage fabrication. In specimens in Group 1.0L, the longitudinal bar size used was No. 6, whereas No. 5 bars were used in the other three groups. Vertical stirrups were fabricated using deformed wire (D4) with an actual yield stress of 605 MPa (88 ksi). Horizontal bars made from D4 wire were placed at 152 mm (6 in.) spaces in the beam web, close to each of the lateral beam faces. Web reinforcement complied with section A.3.3 in ACI 318-08. Beams were designed using a nominal compressive strength of concrete equal to 28 MPa (4 ksi) and a reinforcing steel nominal yield stress fy equal to 414 MPa (60 ksi). Just before testing each beam, specimen dimensions were verified and companion concrete cylinders were tested to determine the as-built geometry of the beams and the actual strength of concrete. Due to formwork flexibility, the actual width of the beams varied slightly from the nominal value of 152 mm (6 in.). The measured concrete compressive strength along with the asbuilt width of each specimen at the time of testing is listed in Table 1. Further details of the beam reinforcement configuration and provided anchorage length on the test side of the beams are presented in a previous paper (Roy and Breña 2008). Test setup and instrumentation The span in all beams was equal to 1.22 m (48 in.). Specimens were subjected to a single concentrated force at midspan. Thick steel plates (25 mm [1 in.]) were placed below the loading point and above reaction points to avoid localized ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
Fig. 2—Specimen geometry, reinforcement, and experimental test setup. crushing at the nodal zone. The beam supports consisted of a pin (far end of beam) and a roller (test end of beam) in all tests. A 445 kN (100 kip) load cell was placed underneath each support to measure reactions throughout the tests. External and internal instrumentation was placed at selected locations in the specimens to relate the measured response with parameters from common strut-and-tie models used for design of deep beams. To investigate the effect of the short reinforcing bar anchorage on tie stresses, reinforcing bars were instrumented internally using strain gauges. The results of these measurements were presented and discussed in detail in a separate paper (Roy and Breña 2008). The instrumentation that was used to determine the behavior of struts in the four specimen groups is described in detail in this section. During testing, linear potentiometers were attached on both beam faces to threaded rods embedded into the concrete before beam casting and defined the control points to calculate axial strains developed along struts. The rod placement was selected to measure concrete deformation along the direction of main struts in selected strut-and-tie models of the different specimen groups depending on beam a/d. For Specimen Groups 1.0 and 1.0L, the potentiometers measured axial deformation of a direct strut forming between loading point ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 and support on the test side of the beams. In Groups 1.5 and 2.0, two possible strut orientations were monitored by placing instruments that followed a direct path (tied-arch model) or an indirect path (truss model) from loading point to supports. Figure 3 illustrates the potentiometer placement for the four specimen groups tested in this research. The stress condition in the extended nodal zone on the test side of the beams was of interest because of the short longitudinal bar anchorage used in the design of the specimens. Properly anchored straight bars extending past the back face of the nodal zone are assumed to generate a uniform stress distribution on the vertical node face. These stresses are essential to preserve node equilibrium in strut-and-tie models and avoid node failure. Strains in the nodal zone on the test side of the specimens were measured using surface strain gauges bonded to the surface of the concrete in a 0-45-90 degree rosette pattern. The instrument placement within the extended nodal zone is illustrated in Fig. 3(d). Strain gauges were also bonded to reinforcing bars at midspan and within the extended nodal zone over the supports. These gauges were used to evaluate the development of yield stresses, primarily within the extended nodal zone on the test side of the specimens as an indicator of the load transfer mechanism being developed in the beams. Details of 681
Observed failure mode Failure of all specimens, except those with the shortest anchorage length, was characterized by strut crushing either on the test side or on the far side of the beams independent of provided anchorage length. Strut crushing was typically observed at the boundary between the top end of the strut and the nodal zone under the loading point (refer to Fig. 4). Only specimens DB1.0-0.28L, DB1.5-0.38, and DB2.0-0.43 exhibited an anchorage failure on the test side of the beams prior to strut crushing. Strains and stresses in struts on the test side of the beams were able to be examined in detail for all other specimens that failed by strut crushing. Detailed cracking maps for all specimens are presented and discussed in detail by Roy and Breña (2008). Figure 4 illustrates typical cracking and strut crushing in three different specimens from groups representing different a/d ratios. Other specimens failing by strut crushing in each group exhibited similar cracking and crushing characteristics. As shown in Fig. 4(a) and (b), the inclination of diagonal cracks and strut crushing in beams from Specimen Groups 1.0 and 1.5 approximately followed the direction of a direct strut between the load point and one of the supports. A comparison of Fig. 4(c) and (d), which show the front and back face of a specimen in Group 2.0, illustrates how the inclination of diagonal cracks and strut crushing roughly followed the direction of an indirect (truss) load-transfer mechanism that formed between loading point and support. This behavior is consistent with the recognized influence of a/d on behavior of deep or slender beams (MacGregor and Wight 2005). Comparison of strains in nodal zone with strains measured in direct strut Compressive strains were measured in all specimen groups along lines that approximately coincided with the expected direction that struts would form if loads were transferred through tied-arch action. In Specimen Groups 1.5 and 2.0, compressive strains were also measured along the direction of struts in a strut-and-tie model representing transfer of shear through truss action. Additionally, strains were measured within the extended nodal zone on the test side of the specimens using surface strain gauges bonded at an angle of 45 degrees with the horizontal in all specimens. Strains measured in the struts and nodes are compared for the three specimens with longest anchorage lengths in Group 1.0 in Fig. 5. In this group, the direct strut forming between load point and support was inclined at approximately 45 degrees so the readings on the two elements of the strut-and-tie tiedarch model (strut and node) could be compared directly. Several distinct features can be observed from the loadstrain plots in Fig. 5. The strain measured in different instruments at lower loads is approximately equal in Specimens DB1.0-1.00 and DB1.0-0.75, but quite different in Specimen DB1.0-0.50. Strains at lower loads, below a load approximately corresponding to first diagonal cracking, seemed to be increasing linearly. This load level is indicated by an oval or circle in the figures. After this point, the readings in different instruments departed significantly with strains measured in Instruments L2 or L3, positioned within the strut width registering the largest value and the strain measured within the extended nodal zone being one of the lowest. The difference in maximum compressive strain at peak load depended largely on whether crushing and diagonal cracks formed within the strut width on the test side of the beams or not. In Specimen DB1.0-1.00, crushing was observed at the ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
Fig. 3—Specimen instrumentation used in struts and nodes. reinforcing bar gauge placement and a description of the measured strains at these locations is provided by Roy and Breña (2008). TEST RESULTS All specimens failed at higher loads than anticipated by the strut-and-tie models used for design. Even specimens with the shortest longitudinal bar anchorages in each group (DB1.0-0.32, DB1.0L-0.28, DB1.5-0.38, and DB2.0-0.43) were capable of reaching a peak load approaching the maximum load measured in specimens within their corresponding group and exhibited yielding of the main reinforcement and moderate ductility before failure. Ultimate load was between 1.15 and 1.56 times higher than the load corresponding to yielding of longitudinal reinforcement at midspan, indicating the development of an alternate load transfer mechanism. In specimens where anchorage failure was observed on the test end of the beams, the ratio between ultimate and yield load was similar to or lower than other specimens in the same group (Table 1). The loads measured at flexural and diagonal cracking, yielding, and failure of the specimens are listed in the companion paper (Roy and Breña 2008). 682
Fig. 5—Measured strain in direct strut and nodal zone strain at 45 degrees. top of the diagonal strut on the test side and explains the large compressive strains registered in this specimen. Strut crushing occurred on the far side of Specimens DB1.0-0.75 and DB1.0-0.50, explaining the lower compressive strains recorded at failure compared with Specimen DB1.0-1.00. In Specimen DB1.0-0.75, diagonal cracks did not form within the estimated width of the direct strut, whereas cracks formed at approximately the same inclination as the strut in Specimen DB1.0-0.50. The presence of diagonal cracks within the strut width may have attributed to a stiffness reduction of the strut, leading to higher compressive strains. Instruments L2 and L3 in Specimen Groups 1.0 and 1.0L were thought to be the most representative of observed strut 683
Fig. 4—Selected pictures illustrating strut crushing in specimens from different groups. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
of anchorage length was observed in strain development for specimens in these groups. Also, due to the larger a/d in these specimen groups, it is conceivable that load transfer would occur predominantly by truss action so anchorage differences would not affect development of direct strut strains as much. It is interesting to note that strut strains in Specimen DB2.0-0.43, the specimen with the shortest anchorage length of this group, became tensile as load increased, perhaps due to the critical diagonal crack widening, excessively creating a vertical offset between the monitoring points for instrument L1. EVALUATION OF STRUT STRENGTH AND EFFECTIVE STRENGTH FACTOR A key parameter in the analysis and design of concrete elements using strut-and-tie models according to ACI 318-08 is the definition of a strut effective strength factor used to calculate strut strength. The ACI strut effective strength factor (βs) is meant to capture the lower compressive strength of concrete when subjected to off-axis tensile strains as commonly occurs in webs of beams. The instrumentation used to monitor strains in struts in the specimens was used with an assumed strut-and-tie model to determine experimental values of strut-effective strength factors for the different specimens, considering that the majority of the specimens tested in this research failed by strut crushing. To facilitate calculations to determine the strut strength from experimental results, the total load in the specimens was assumed to be transferred through tied-arch action from the loading point to support in all specimens. This assumption is not entirely correct because part of the load is also transferred through truss action, particularly in the more slender specimen groups. The number and inclination of struts entering the top node adjacent to the loading point of the specimens is illustrated in Fig. 7. Only this node was considered critical, because strut crushing was always observed at or near the top node. A single strut entering the top node, as opposed to various struts representing the different load transfer mechanisms, may be used to represent the resultant of all struts. This resultant would have a different angle than a strut following a direct path from load to support because of the presence of other load transfer mechanisms. The slight difference in angle between the resultant strut and a direct strut, however, is likely to affect strut strength calculations minimally (Fig. 7). A tied-arch strut-and-tie model consistent with the peak measured load in the tests was then developed for strut strength evaluation. The geometry of the tied-arch model was established so that node strength was not reached at the peak load because no crushing was observed in the nodal region of the beams. The procedure used followed the one proposed by Wight and Parra-Montesinos (2003), where the strut inclination angle and width are determined iteratively. From symmetry of the test setup, the total applied force on the beams resulted in equal shear force transferred to each support. The force in the direct strut forming between load and support in the tied-arch model is FS = V/sinα, where α is the angle of inclination of the strut measured from horizontal (Fig. 8). The angle α depends on the horizontal distance between the resultant of one-half of the applied force and the support (560 mm [22 in.]), and the vertical distance between the top and bottom chords in the model (z). The top-node height hnode-top was initially assumed equal to 50 mm (2 in.) to initiate iterations. After determining FS for the initial α, the top horizontal compressive force was calculated as ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
Fig. 6—Direct strut strain development in specimens within different groups. behavior, so only these are used to determine the average strut strain in subsequent calculations. Effect of anchorage length on strain developed in direct strut The influence of anchorage length on strain developed in the direct strut on the test side of specimens with different a/d was examined by comparing strains developed in struts within specimens of the same group (Fig. 6). The largest differences in strut strains were observed in Group 1.0 specimens (Fig. 6(a)), with lower compressive strains developing (in general) as anchorage length decreased. The only specimen in Group 1.0 that did not fit this trend was Specimen DB1.0-0.75, in which no diagonal cracks formed within the direct strut width as previously discussed. Differences in strut strains were less pronounced in specimens within Groups 1.5 and 2.0, as shown in Fig. 6(b) and (c), so no clear detrimental influence 684
Fig. 7—Replacement of forces at top node with single diagonal resultant.
FC = F S cosα; this force was then equated to the nominal strength of the top node given by Eq. (2) and (3) with βn = 1.0 to solve for the required top-node height to avoid node crushing FC F S cos α V h node-top = -------- = ------------------- = ------------------------------0.85f c′ b f ce b 0.85f c′ b tan α (5)
The depth between top and bottom chords in the model, z, was then revised and a new strut angle α was determined to avoid nodal failure h node-top z = d – ------------------2 (6) Fig. 8—Model and node geometry used for strut strength evaluation. Effective concrete strength factor Strut stresses fstrut determined using the peak measured shear force in the tests was equated to the ACI strut strength equation (Eq. (2)) to estimate the strut effective strength factor βs for all specimens. The resulting values for βs ranged between the value corresponding to prismatic and bottleshaped struts as defined in ACI 318-08, with higher average values obtained in Specimen Groups 1.0 and 1.0L. A plot showing the decrease of βs with increasing a/d is shown in Fig. 9. For comparison, results from deep beams tests reported by Quintero-Febres et al. (2006) are also shown in the figure (hollow symbols). The decreasing trend in βs, with an increase in a/d, is less pronounced in their specimens but the plot clearly demonstrates an influence of a/d on the concrete strut strength factor (βs). It is also of interest to note that the value recommended for prismatic struts in ACI 318 (βs = 1.00) was not reached even for deep beams with the lowest a/d. On the other hand, the value assumed for bottleshaped struts satisfying web reinforcement requirements of ACI A.3.3 (βs = 0.75) was conservative for all ranges of a/d; that is, higher βs values were obtained in all specimens. Short bar anchorages did not seem to influence βs values significantly as observed in values reported in Table 2 for specimens with even the shortest anchorage length within each group. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF SHEAR TRANSFER MECHANISM As mentioned previously, two major force transfer paths from load point application to support (direct or indirect path) commonly occur in deep beams with different a/d. The 685
Iterations were conducted until hnode-top was approximately the same in two subsequent calculation cycles. In all iterations, the height of the bottom node was assumed equal to 102 mm (4 in.), twice the distance between the bottom face of the beams and the centroid of the bottom longitudinal reinforcement. Once convergence was achieved and an appropriate strut inclination was found, the top and bottom widths of the strut were determined from wstrut = Lplatesinα + hnodecosα (7)
where the plate widths and node heights used for the top and bottom nodes in the previous equation corresponded to those shown in Fig. 8(a). Because the bottom plate is wider than half the top plate, the top end of the strut ended up governing strut strength in all the specimens. This is consistent with the location of observed concrete spalling near the top of the struts in all specimens that failed by strut crushing (refer to Fig. 4). The stress at the top end of the strut was then calculated using FS f strut = ---------------w s-top b (8)
where the as-built width of the specimens, b, was used and ws-top is the width of the strut determined from Eq. (7) at the top node. Table 2 summarizes the final strut angle, top-node height, and strut stress at the top end for the assumed tied arch model. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
Table 2—Model parameters for strut strength evaluation
Specimen DB1.0-1.00 DB1.0-0.75 DB1.0-0.50 DB1.0-0.32 DB1.0-0.75L DB1.0-0.28L DB1.5-0.75 DB1.5-0.50 DB1.5-0.38 DB2.0-0.75 DB2.0-0.50 DB2.0-0.43 Applied shear V, kN (kip) 338 (76) 371 (83.5) 365 (82) 334 (75) 371 (83.5) 320 (72) 229 (51.5) 211 (47.5) 214 (48) 156 (35) 149 (33.5) 133 (30) Beam width b, mm (in.) 165 (6.5) 173 (6.8) 157 (6.2) 152 (6.0) 155 (6.1) 155 (6.1) 152 (6.0) 152 (6.0) 152 (6.0) 155 (6.1) 155 (6.1) 155 (6.1) Top node height Strut width (top end) ws-top , mm (in.) Strut angle α, deg hnode-top , mm (in.) 44.3 44.0 43.8 43.6 43.6 44.0 32.9 33.3 33.3 25.5 25.5 26.0 74.3 (2.9) 82.6 (3.3) 92.9 (3.7) 100.3 (3.9) 99.1 (3.9) 85.8 (3.4) 83.5 (3.3) 72.9 (2.9) 74.4 (2.9) 71.6 (2.8) 72.1 (2.8) 58.3 (2.3) 124 (4.89) 130 (5.12) 137 (5.41) 143 (5.62) 142 (5.59) 132 (5.21) 125 (4.93) 117 (4.59) 118 (4.64) 108 (4.26) 109 (4.28) 97 (3.82) fstrut, MPa (ksi) 23.6 (3.43) 23.8 (3.45) 24.4 (3.53) 22.3 (3.23) 24.5 (3.55) 22.5 (3.27) 22.1 (3.2) 21.6 (3.14) 21.7 (3.14) 21.6 (3.13) 20.6 (2.98) 20.2 (2.94) βs 0.84 0.88 0.94 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.79 0.75 0.75 0.73 0.73 0.67
direct path is often represented using a tied-arch strut-and-tie model and the indirect path is often related to a truss model. An experimental evaluation of the fraction of the total shear transferred through both load mechanisms was only conducted for specimens in Groups 1.5 and 2.0 using the average strain data measured during the tests. Control points in these specimen groups were set following the approximate direction of tied-arch (direct) and truss-model struts (indirect) forming between loading point and support, as shown in Fig. 3(b) and (c). Instrumentation in Specimen Groups 1.0 and 1.0L was only placed following the direction of a direct strut as assumed in a tied-arch model (Fig. 3(a)) so no information could be obtained regarding the shear transferred by truss action, in these groups, if any. This instrumentation, in combination with assumed strut-and-tie models, permitted an estimation of the fraction of shear transferred from load point to support through each mechanism. Figure 10 shows average strains in struts measured during the tests for specimens in Groups 1.5 and 2.0. Average strains were measured in struts that followed a direction approximately parallel to that predicted from a truss load transfer model (refer to sketches in Fig. 10). In a truss model with the two struts inclined at the same angle as shown, the forces in diagonal struts are theoretically equal. The test results showed, however, that strains measured along the two struts developing in this hypothetical load-path model were different. This phenomenon may be due to the presence of diagonal cracks crossing the interior strut where Instruments L3 were placed, resulting in lower measured compressive strains compared with those measured in Instrument L2. Because these observed differences were larger in specimens in Group 2.0, only the measurements taken in the exterior strut along L2 were used to estimate stresses at the peak load measured in the tests in Specimen Group 2.0. The average strain values measured in Instruments L2 and L3 at peak load were used to estimate strut stresses in Specimen Group 1.5. The uniaxial stress-strain model proposed by Hognestad (1951) was used to compute stresses from measured average strains. To capture the stress-strain response of the concrete struts to the point of peak stress, the ascending portion in the model as described in Eq. (9) was used 2ε c εc 2 f c = kf c′ ------- – ⎛ ------⎞ ⎝ ε co⎠ ε co 686 (9)
Fig. 9—Variation of strut factor as a function of shear spandepth ratio. where εco = 2fc′ /Ec represents the strain at peak stress (fc′ ) and the modulus of concrete Ec was equal to 4730 f c′ MPa (57,000 f c′ psi). Because Eq. (9) was used to estimate stresses from strains measured experimentally, k was equal to 1.0 instead of the typically-assumed value of 0.85. Only the stress at maximum measured strain was of interest for estimation of the fraction of load transferred through truss action. Strut stresses determined from strain measurements taken on Instruments L2 and L3 (Fig. 10) were used to calculate the fraction of shear transferred through truss action (Vtruss). Figure 11 illustrates the assumed truss model used, where the top node geometry under the point load was assumed, as illustrated in Fig. 11(b). Forces acting at the top node were determined using Eq. (10) through (12) for an assumed value of shear transferred through truss action (Vtruss) V truss F S-truss = -----------sin γ V truss a V truss a F C ( R ) = --------------- = ---------------------------------z d – h node-top ( R ) FC(L) = FC(R) – Fscosγ (10)
where the shear span a equals 610 mm (24 in.), and the angle that the strut makes with the horizontal, γ, was determined ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
Fig. 11—Truss model for load transfer: (a) geometry of model; and (b) top node details. FC (R ) F S-truss cos γ V truss h node-top ( R ) = ------------ = ---------------------------- = ------------------------------ (13) 0.85f c′ b f ce b 0.85f c′ b tan γ FC (L F C ( R ) – F S-truss cos γ h node-top ( L ) = -----------) = ----------------------------------------------0.85f c′ b f ce b Δh node-top = h node-top ( R ) – h node-top ( L ) Fig. 10—Average strains measured in struts of strut-and-tie truss model: (a) Group 1.5 exterior strut; (b) Group 1.5 interior strut; (c) Group 2.0 exterior strut; and (d) Group 2.0 interior strut. L plate-top w S-truss = -------------------- sin γ + Δh node-top cos γ 2 (14)
assuming an initial depth of the top node (hnode-top(R)) of approximately 75 mm (3 in.). With known values of these forces acting at the top node, the node dimensions were adjusted so that nodal failure would not occur to be consistent with the observed behavior during the tests. The revised height of the right face of the node (hnode-top(R)), the height of the left face of the node (hnode-top(L)), and strut width (wS-truss) were determined using ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
Notice that the node heights calculated in Eq. (13) and (14) represent the minimum heights required to avoid nodal zone crushing failure at a stress equal to 0.85fc′ . With the node geometry defined, a revised value for the diagonal strut force FS-truss was estimated using the strut stresses determined during the tests (fS-truss(test)) applying Eq. (17), which then permitted evaluation of the shear force transferred into the support by truss action (Vtruss) through the use of FS-truss = fS-truss(test)wS-truss b (17) 687
Table 3—Geometry of strut-and-tie models for load transfer evaluation
Truss model Specimen DB1.5-0.75 DB1.5-0.50 DB1.5-0.38 DB2.0-0.75 DB2.0-0.50 DB2.0-0.43
Tied arch model Tied arch strut FS-truss, kN angle α, deg 139 125 284 181 162 258 32.9 33.3 33.3 25.5 25.5 26.0 FS-TA, kN 219 203 * 69 85 * ws-TA, mm 92 88 * 56 60 * fS-TA, MPa 15.7 15.2 * 8.0 9.2 * fS-TA(test), MPa 14.5 16.8 15.3 9.1 10.4 5.9 f S – TA ( test ) -------------------f S – TA 1.08 0.90 * 0.88 0.88 *
Truss strut angle γ, deg 52.7 52.7 52.7 43.7 43.7 43.7
fS-truss(test), MPa 9.8 9.0 17.8 12.9 11.6 16.8
ws-truss, mm 93 91 105 91 90 99
where all load was transferred through truss action. Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.2248 kip.
Vtruss = FSsinγ
Table 4—Fraction of shear transferred by individual load transfer mechanisms
Specimen DB1.5-0.75 DB1.5-0.50 DB1.5-0.38 DB2.0-0.75 DB2.0-0.50 DB2.0-0.43 Vtest, kN 229 211 214 156 149 133 Vtruss, Vtruss/Vtot kN 110 100 226 125 112 178 0.48 0.47 1.06 0.81 0.75 1.34 VTA, kN 119 112 * 30 36 * VTA/Vtot 0.52 0.53 * 0.19 0.25 * Vtruss/Vtot (FIP) 0.79 0.77 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00
With these revised values of FS-truss and Vtruss, Eq. (11) through (18) were applied again to adjust the top node geometry and forces until convergence was achieved in two subsequent cycles within reasonable tolerance. The effective depth z was calculated in each iteration using the most current value for hnode-top(R). Table 3 summarizes the diagonal strut force, FS-truss, corresponding to the measured strut stress and the corresponding strut width determined from the procedure described above. The fraction of shear force transferred by truss action is summarized in Table 4 for each of the specimens in Groups 1.5 and 2.0. It can be observed that this fraction depends on a/d, as would be expected. For specimens where anchorage failures were not observed, the fraction of total shear transferred through truss action was approximately 0.50 and 0.80 for Groups 1.5 and 2.0, respectively. Interestingly, specimens with the shortest anchorage length in these two groups, in which anchorage failure was observed during the tests, seemed to transfer the entire applied shear by truss action. The difference in observed load transfer mechanism of specimens with inadequate anchorage length can be attributed to the inability to develop high stresses at the bottom node over the support, as required by a tied-arch model. For comparison, the value considered transferred by truss action included in the “FIP Recommendations 1999” (Federation International de La Precontrainte 1999) (Eq. (4)) is listed in the last column of Table 4. The values determined in these tests are consistently lower than those computed using the FIP recommendations by approximately 40% for specimens in Group 1.5 and 20% for specimens in Group 2.0. ACI 318-08 does not give guidance as to specific strut-and-tie models to use for design of deep beams as indicated earlier in this paper. According to the assumed load transfer models, the difference in total shear not transferred by truss action must be transferred by tied-arch action (VTA = Vtest – Vtruss). A tied arch model similar to that illustrated in Fig. 8 was used in combination with strut stresses experimentally determined by using readings from Instrument L1 (Fig. 3(b)) to assess whether the procedure to estimate Vtruss previously described gave reasonable results. The assessment was based on comparing the strut stress determined from the assumed tied-arch model with strut stresses determined experimentally. For this comparison, the fraction of shear force transferred by tied-arch action was calculated as the difference between the total applied shear force and the fraction of shear transferred by truss action as previously calculated. As previously discussed, the total 688
Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip.
shear force was assumed to be transferred by truss action in specimens with the shortest anchorage lengths in each group. Table 3 lists relevant parameters of the diagonal strut in the tied-arch model for each specimen in Groups 1.5 and 2.0. The value of these parameters was obtained, assuming that only a fraction of the total shear corresponding to VTA was applied to the model. The assumed angle of inclination of the diagonal strut in the model (α) was calculated assuming an approximate node height of 75 mm (3 in.). The diagonal strut force FS-TA required for equilibrium was calculated using Eq. (19), from which the minimum node height to avoid nodal crushing was estimated using Eq. (20). The diagonal strut width at the face of the top node was estimated using Eq. (21). V TA V test – V truss F S – TA = ---------- = ----------------------------sin α sin α F S – TA h node-TA = ------------------0.85f c′ b L plate-top w S – TA = -------------------- sin α + h node-TA cos α 2 (19)
With these properties and forces determined, a diagonal strut stress could be determined analytically (fS-TA) and compared with the strut stress experimentally estimated ( fS-TA(test)). These values and their ratio are listed in the last three columns of Table 3. As shown in the table, strut stress values determined analytically with an assumed tied-arch model compare favorably with values experimentally determined. The maximum difference observed was approximately 12% in specimens in Group 2.0, giving confidence in the procedure and models adopted for the ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
experimental evaluation of shear force transfer. The fraction of shear force transferred by tied-arch action is listed in Table 4 for the two groups of specimens. CONCLUSIONS Tests of deep beams having three different a/d, where the longitudinal reinforcement was anchored using shorter lengths than required by the ACI 318-08 Code, were reported in this paper. Two parameters that are relevant to the development of strut-and-tie models for this class of deep beams were critically examined in the paper (effective concrete strength factor βs and the force transfer mechanism). The transverse reinforcement content in all beams was kept constant in order to isolate the effects of a/d and anchorage conditions. The effects of lateral confining stresses along the straight anchored bars were reported in a previous paper (Roy and Breña 2008). The following conclusions can be drawn from the test results presented in this paper, which are strictly applicable only for the range of variables included in the present study: 1. Longitudinal bars in the beams reported in this paper were anchored at nodes over a support generating transverse stresses along the bar within the nodal region. These transverse stresses prevented bars from pulling out from the nodal zone and promoted stress redistribution within the beams after bar yielding. Even beams with short longitudinal bar anchorages were capable of redistributing load into a load path other than directly from load to support, which allowed development of higher loads leading to strut crushing at failure of most of the specimens. 2. Because of the transverse stresses developed within the support node, deep beams with short longitudinal bar anchorages were able to transfer a fraction of the total load from loading point to support through truss action. This phenomenon is not expected to occur in beams supported through indirect supports where no clamping stresses are developed on longitudinal bars anchored in the nodal region. 3. The fraction of load transfer by truss action in deep beams is significant, even for relatively low a/d. In these tests, the fraction of load transferred by truss action in beams with a/d = 1.5 and a/d = 2.0 was approximately 50% and 80% of the total shear, respectively. These percentages would likely be different in beams with other amounts of transverse reinforcement. 4. The value of the effective concrete strength factor (βs) used in ACI 318-08 for bottle-shaped struts (βs = 0.75) was
conservative for the beams tested in this research. βs seems to decrease with increasing a/d, however, which would be consistent with the presence of higher longitudinal strains developing in the web. Further research seems warranted in this area. 5. Although short bar anchorages should not be encouraged in design to ensure ductility of beams prior to failure, the tests reported in this paper show that even with short anchorages yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement occurred at midspan, and, depending on the load transfer mechanism that is mobilized, could spread all the way into the support node. The high fraction of applied shear carried through truss action in beams with a/d greater than 1.0 and short anchorages allowed bottom bars to develop stresses lower than yield at the support node and still be able to carry the applied load safely. The tensile force demand at the support node decreased when truss action developed in the beams. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Graduate studies for the second author were supported through a Brack Structural Engineering Graduate Student Fellowship at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The authors would like to express their most sincere gratitude to R. Brack for establishing the graduate fellowship. In kind material donations received for specimen fabrication from Barker Steel and Nucor Steel Connecticut are deeply appreciated.
ACI Committee 318, 2008, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 465 pp. Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte, Commision 3 Recommendations, 1999, “FIP Practical Design of Structural Concrete,” FIP Symposium, London, UK, 113 pp. Hognestad, E., 1951, “A Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load in Reinforced Concrete Members,” Bulletin Series No. 399, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana, IL, V. 49, No. 22, 128 pp. MacGregor, J. G., and Wight, J. K., 2005, Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design, fourth edition, Prentice Hall, NJ, 1132 pp. Quintero-Febres, C. G.; Parra-Montesinos, G.; and Wight, J. K., 2006, “Strength of Struts in Deep Concrete Members Designed Using Strut-and-Tie Method,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 577-586. Roy, N. C., and Breña, S. F., 2008, “Behavior of Deep Beams with Short Longitudinal Bar Anchorages,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 460-470. Uribe, C. M., and Alcocer, S. M., 2001, “Behavior of Deep Beams Designed using Strut-and-Tie Models,” Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres, México, D.F., 247 pp. (in Spanish) Wight, J. K., and Parra-Montesinos, G., 2003, “Strut and Tie Model for Deep Beam Design,” Concrete International, V. 25, No. 5, May, pp. 63-70.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.