## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Title no. 107-S32

TECHNICAL PAPER

**Shear Strengths of Prestressed Concrete Beams Part 1: Experiments and Shear Design Equations
**

by Arghadeep Laskar, Thomas T. C. Hsu, and Y. L. Mo

In this paper, Part 1, five full-scale prestressed concrete I-beams were tested to study the effect of three variables: the shear spandepth ratio (a/d), the transverse steel ratio (ρ t), and the presence of harped strands on the web shear and the flexural shear capacity. The results from these tests, together with those found in literature, were used to develop an accurate, yet simple, equation for the shear strengths of prestressed concrete beams. This new equation is a function of the shear span-depth ratio (a/d), the strength of concrete

f c ′ , the web area bwd, and the ρ t ratio.

Although the ACI and AASHTO shear provisions include two other variables, namely the prestress force and the angle of failure crack, this study showed that these two variables had no significant effect on the shear capacity. In addition, a new formula was derived for the maximum shear strengths to preclude the web crushing of concrete before the yielding of transverse steel. The ACI minimum stirrup requirement was also evaluated. In the Part 2 paper, given in this same journal issue, the proposed shear design method will be compared to the shear provisions in the ACI 318-08 and the 2007 AASHTO LRFD Specifications.

Keywords: beams; full-scale tests; prestressed concrete; shear design; shear strength.

INTRODUCTION Prestressed concrete I-beams are used extensively as the primary superstructure components of highway bridges. This research aims to solve one of the most troublesome problems in prestressed concrete beams, namely the shear problem. In fact, there is, at present, no rational model to predict the shear behavior of prestressed concrete structures and the various modes of shear failures. Because of this deficiency, all of the shear design provisions, such as those in the ACI Building Codes and the AASHTO LRFD Specifications, are empirical, complicated, and have severe limitations. This paper describes the laboratory tests on five full-scale prestressed concrete I-beams and the development of a rational and simple method to calculate the shear strength of prestressed concrete beams. Three of the prestressed concrete beams were designed and tested to fail in web shear mode and the other two in flexural shear. It was observed that the shear span-depth ratio (a/d) was a primary variable affecting the shear strength of prestressed concrete beams. The concrete contribution term Vc in web shear failure was higher than that recognized by ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee 318 2008) and much higher than that allowed by the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 2007). The proposed Vc term was derived from the shear resistance of concrete along an inclined failure crack, rather than the tensile resistance of concrete across the failure crack, as assumed in the shear provisions of the previously referenced codes. 330

The test results and the shear analysis of the five beams, as well as those reported in the literature, were used to develop a new equation for the shear strength of prestressed concrete beams. In this new equation, the shear capacity of a prestressed beam is simply a function of the a/d ratio, the compressive strength of concrete f c′ , the web cross section bwd, and the ρt ratio of the beams. Notably, this study shows that the present ACI Code and AASHTO Specifications unnecessarily include two complicated variables, the prestress force and the angle of failure crack. These two variables are shown experimentally to have no significant effect on the shear capacity (Laskar et al. 2006; Lyngberg 1976). The maximum shear strength, which ensures the yielding of transverse steel before the web crushing of concrete, is very different in ACI and AASHTO. In this study, a new formula is proposed that reduces the unwarranted conservatism of the ACI Code, and guards against the unsafe nature of the AASHTO Specifications for high-strength concrete. The ACI minimum stirrup requirement is checked by the prestressed I-beams available in literature. It was found that the ACI requirement, shown later as Eq. (18), is not conservative when the a/d ratios are in the range from 2 to 4. In Part 2, the proposed shear design procedures for prestressed concrete beams are analyzed and compared to the shear design provisions of ACI and AASHTO. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Through the testing of five girders and the analysis of 143 girders available in literature, the shear strengths of prestressed concrete bridge girders were found to be strongly affected by the a/d, and weakly influenced by the prestress force and the angle of failure crack. These findings led to the development of an accurate, yet simple, equation for the shear analysis and design of prestressed I-girders. This new shear design method can replace the shear provisions in the ACI Building Code and the AASHTO LRFD Specifications. EXPERIMENTAL WORK Test program and specimens Five beams having cross sections known as Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Type A and shown in Fig. 1 were designed to study their behavior in web shear and flexural shear. The total length of each of the beams was 7.62 m (25 ft) whereas the span length was 7.32 m (24 ft). The position of the vertical loads on the beams, together with the support positions, is shown in Fig. 2. Three of the five beams

ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 3, May-June 2010. MS No. S-2009-079.R1 received March 23, 2009, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2010, 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 MarchApril 2011 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2010.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

Arghadeep Laskar is an Engineer at WorleyParsons Inc., Houston, TX, working on the design and analysis of offshore structures. He was previously a Graduate Research Assistant in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX. He received his PhD in May 2009. Thomas T. C. Hsu, FACI, is Moores Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston. He is the recipient of many national awards, including the ACI Arthur J. Boase Award in 2007, the ACI Arthur R. Anderson Award in 1990, and the ACI Wason Medal for Materials Research in 1965. Y. L. Mo, FACI, is a Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and the Director of Thomas T. C. Hsu Structural Research Laboratory at the University of Houston. He is a member of Joint ASCE-ACI Committees 445, Shear and Torsion, and 447, Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures.

(Beams B1, B2, and B3) were designed to fail in web shear mode with an a/d ratio of 1.61, whereas the remaining two (Beams B4 and B5) were designed to fail in flexural shear mode with an a/d ratio of 4.29. One web shear specimen (Beam B3) and one flexural shear specimen (Beam B5) had harped prestressing strands. Figure 1 shows the locations of the strands at the end cross section. Another variable in the test program was the amount of shear reinforcement (ρt), which was either 0.17% (minimum) provided by No. 2 reinforcing bars at 250 mm (10 in.) spacing, or 0.95% provided by No. 4 reinforcing bars at 178 mm (7 in.) spacing. Table 1 gives the three test variables (a/d, ρt, strand configuration) for Beams B1 to B5.

Twelve 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) diameter, seven-wire, low-relaxation strands were used as the prestressing steel. The prestressing strands had an ultimate strength of 1862 MPa (270 ksi). The strands were prestressed by hydraulic jacks in a long-line prestressing bed with a steel form. Hold-downs were installed on the bed to harp the strands at the desired inclination. One day after casting of the beams, the prestressing strands were slowly released to minimize the bond slip between the strands and the concrete. The compressive strength of concrete at the release of prestress was approximately 27.6 MPa (4000 psi). For Beams B3 and B5, the anchors of the hold-down rods were removed after the release of the prestress, and the rod holes were grouted by mortar. Loading equipment The beams were subjected to vertical loading up to their maximum shear capacity in a steel loading frame, as shown in Fig. 3. Two of the four actuators (B and C), each attached to a vertical steel frame, were used to apply the vertical loads on the beams. Each of the two actuators had a capacity of 1423 kN (320 kips). Actuator frame B was installed on the north end of the beam. Actuator frame C was installed on the south end of the beam. The loads from Actuators B and C were simultaneously applied at 0.914 m (3 ft) from the supports (both north and south supports) to create an a/d ratio of 1.61 for Beams B1, B2, and B3; and at 2.44 m (8 ft)

Fig. 1—Cross section of Beams B1 to B5. (Note: dimensions are in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) Table 1—Test variables and failure loads of beams

Concrete compressive Tendon profile Transverse cylinder strength at a/d (straight/harped) steel ratio, % test, MPa Straight Straight Straight Straight Harped Straight Harped 0.17 0.17 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.17 0.17 72.4 72.4 74.5 74.5 64.6 71.0 64.5 Failure mode Web shear Web shear Web shear Web shear Flexure/ web shear Flexural shear Flexure/ flexural shear Maximum shear Maximum moment Ultimate corresponding to corresponding to Ultimate shear moment ultimate moment, ultimate shear, capacity, kN capacity, kN-m kN kN-m 840.2 771.7 894.5 1040.8 — 430.6 — — — — — 927.3 — 1062.9 — — — — 1014.1 — 435.9 768.3 705.7 817.9 951.7 — 1049.9 —

Beam

B1-North 1.61 B1-South 1.61 B2-North 1.61 B2-South 1.61 B3-North 1.61 B4-South 4.29 B5-North 4.29

Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 kN-m = 0.74 kip-ft.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

331

from the supports to create an a/d ratio of 4.29 for Beams B4 and B5. Actuator loads were applied through a roller assembly consisting of two 152.4 x 304.8 x 50.8 mm (6 x 12 x 2 in.) bearing plates and two rollers of 50.8 mm (2 in.) diameter and 304.8 mm (12 in.) length. Lead sheets were also used between the load bearing plates and the beam surface. The loads and displacements of the actuators were controlled by the MTS system. Actuators B and C were first programmed with a load control mode of 22.2 kN/minute (5 kips/minute). When the slope of the load-displacement curve started decreasing, the control mode was switched to a displacement control of 5.08 mm/hour (0.2 in./hour). This step continued until shear failure occurred near either end of the beam. A full test lasted 8 to10 hours. The displacement control feature was essential in capturing the ductility/ brittleness behavior of beams failing in shear. Instrumentations During testing, linear voltage differential transformers (LVDTs) were used to measure the displacements within the failure regions of the beam adjacent to the points of load application, as shown in Fig. 2. A set of six LVDTs forming a rosette was installed on both faces of the beams to get the average deformations within the failure zone (Fig. 4). Several LVDTs were also placed vertically under the beam, both at the supports and at the points of loading, to measure the total and net deflections of the beam. The net deflection of the beam was obtained by subtracting the deflections measured under the loading points from the support deflections, if any. Electrical-resistance strain gauges were installed on both legs of the vertical stirrups inside the beams to monitor the steel strains during the load test. The locations of strain gauges on the stirrups were selected to intersect the predicted shear failure planes of the beams (Laskar et al. 2006). On average, each beam was instrumented with 30 LVDTs and 16 strain gauges to record the structural behavior of the beam. Data from these sensors were continuously monitored during the testing and stored by an acquisition system. Shear cracks that formed on the beam web during the load test were marked at regular intervals by putting the test on

hold. The cracks marked on one of the specimen grids is shown in Fig. 4. The crack widths were measured using hand-held microscopes having a measuring precision of 0.0254 mm (0.001 in.). Further details about the test specimens and testing procedure can be obtained from the research report by Laskar et al. (2006). TEST RESULTS Shear strengths Table 1 shows the ultimate strengths at failure for the five test beams. It can be seen that both ends of Beams B1 and B2 failed in web shear mode. It was possible to induce two web shear failures in each of these two beams because after the beams failed at one end, the testing could be continued in displacement control mode until a second failure occurred at the other end. The tests could be continued on the existing supports of the beams because the first failure damaged only a short length of the beams adjacent to the support. The north half of Beam B3 failed in flexure at the holddown section due to poor grouting of the holes for the holddown rods. Because the hole extends from the hold-down point up to the top flange of the beams, the flexural capacity of the hold-down section was weakened. Fortunately, the shear span at the north end almost reached its web shear capacity because the concrete in the web region was close to crushing at failure. The load-deformation curve of B3-North in Fig. 5 shows that the north end had reached its flat top. The south end of the beam could not be tested after the failure of the north half of the beam.

Fig. 3—Test setup.

Fig. 2—Loading positions and LVDT rosettes in Beams B1 to B5. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) 332

Fig. 4—LVDT setup on Beam B4. ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

Beams B4 and B5 were designed to fail in flexural shear mode in a region adjacent to the load point at one-third of the span. The failure destroyed one-third of the beam length, so it was not possible to devise a loading scheme to create another flexural shear failure on the other end. Hence, each of these two beams could provide only one set of data. Specimen B5 also failed in flexure at a distance of 3.35 m (11 ft) from the end due to a weak section created by the poor grouting of the hole for the hold-down rod. Similar to Beam B3, Fig. 5 showed that the flexural shear failure load of Beam B5 was very close to its failure load in flexure. Load-deflection curves From the shape of the load-deflection curves shown in Fig. 5, it can be seen that the specimens designed for web shear failure (Beams B1, B2, and B3) had much higher shear capacities compared to the specimens designed to fail in flexural shear (Beams B4 and B5); however, the specimens that failed in flexural shear had higher ductility. Both the strengths and deflections were predicted accurately by the flexural analysis (Laskar et al. 2006). Strains at failure The ultimate strains at the failure regions of Beams B1 to B5 were measured by the LVDT rosettes shown in Fig. 4. These strains were used in the theoretical shear analysis of the beams to rigorously calculate their ultimate capacities (Laskar et al. 2006). The ultimate strains of transverse stirrups in all five beams were measured by gluing an electrical strain gauge to each of the two stirrup legs in the failure regions. Three stirrups were instrumented with strain gauges in Beams B1, B4, and B5, and four stirrups were instrumented in Beams B2 and B3. The locations of the strain gauges on the stirrups were selected to intersect the failure plane. The ultimate strains of the stirrups were beyond the yield strain at failure, with many stirrups far into the strain hardening range. The stirrup forces were also used to derive the ultimate shear capacities of the beams in the report of Laskar et al. (2006). SHEAR ANALYSIS OF PRESTRESSED BEAMS Shear model The concept of shear resistance developed by Loov (2002), Fig. 6, was used to derive the ultimate web shear capacity of Beams B1 to B3. According to this model, the contribution of concrete to the shear capacity of the beam stems from the shear stress in the concrete along a failure crack, represented by the force S. Loov’s concept is very different from the concept of the existing design methods (ACI and AASHTO), which assume that the concrete contribution to the shear capacity of beams is derived from the tensile stress across the cracks. Assuming the failure surface to be an inclined plane, and taking the force equilibrium of the free body along the crack direction, Fig. 6, the shear capacity of the beam, Vn, can be calculated as S – Tcosθ V n = ----------------------- + sinθ

failure crack, T is the tensile force in the prestressing tendons at the ultimate load of the beams, and θ is the angle between the failure crack and the longitudinal axis. The crack angle θ of web shear failure in Beams B1 to B3 was observed to be less than 45 degrees by a few degrees. To check the validity of Eq. (1), θ was also determined using an eight-step iteration procedure described in Laskar et al. (2006). It was found that the calculated θ angles for Beams B1 to B3 were approximately the same as those observed in tests. The term (S – Tcos(θ))/sinθ in Eq. (1) is the “contribution of concrete in shear,” Vc. To avoid the excessive complexity involved in the calculation of S, T, and θ, it was decided to derive the Vc term directly from tests. In Eq. (1), F V is the contribution of steel in shear, denoted as Vs. Thus

∑

Vn = Vc + Vs

(2)

Contribution of steel (Vs) The Vs term in Eq. (2) must be based on the observed failure crack. In beams that failed in flexural shear, such as B4 and B5, the angle θ of the cracks would theoretically be much less than 45 degrees according to the principal compressive direction of concrete in the prestressed webs. Such a crack with a small θ angle is shown in Fig. 7 by the large crack that passed through Grid 4 at the bottom edge of the web of Beam B4; however, this crack with a small θ

Fig. 5—Load-deflection curves of Beams B1 to B5. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

∑ FV

(1)

where F V is the summation of vertical forces of the stirrups intersected by the failure crack at the ultimate load, S is the ultimate shear force of concrete in the direction of ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

∑

Fig. 6—Analytical model used for calculating web shear capacities of beams. 333

angle did not develop to form a failure surface at ultimate load. In fact, Fig. 7 shows another large crack with a θ angle of approximately 45 degrees, developed and passed through Grid 8 at the bottom edge of the web. This approximately 45-degree crack was observed to cause failure. For design, the failure crack can simply be assumed to incline at an angle of 45 degrees, similar to the ACI Code. The assumption of a 45-degree failure crack can also be supported by a study of shear energy dissipations in the failure zone. According to Laskar (2009), a crack with inclination close to 45 degrees would result in minimum shear energy dissipation. In the ACI Code, the 45-degree crack is located in a manner as shown in Fig. 8(a). This ACI concept of smearing the stirrups results in an average number of stirrups, d/s, crossing the crack. In this paper, however, we used a more realistic concept of seeking a minimum shear resistance among a series of individual stirrups, as shown in Fig. 8(b).

This concept by Loov (2002), which was also supported by Kim and Mander (2005, 2007), gives the number of stirrups crossing the crack as (d/s – 1), and the Vs term as d V s = A v f y ⎛ -- – 1⎞ ⎝s ⎠ (3)

Besides being more rational and conservative, Eq. (3) has an additional practical advantage: all of the tedious stirrup spacing limitations to guard against the unsafe nature of the smeared stirrups assumption can be eliminated. Contribution of concrete (Vc) Two trends were observed from the test results of Beams B1 to B5. First, the Vc term in the shear strength of prestressed beams was observed to be a strong function of the a/d ratio because the web shear strengths of Beams B1 to B3 with a/d = 1.61 were much higher than the flexural shear strengths of Beams B4 and B5 with a/d = 4.29. This parameter, a/d, must be implemented in the new shear equation. Second, Laskar et al. (2006) showed that the shear strength was not significantly affected by the angle of failure plane, both in the case of web shear failure (Beams B1, B2, and B3) and in the case of flexural shear failure (Beams B4 and B5). This angle variable need not be included in the new equation. The tests conducted by Lyngberg (1976) convincingly showed that the prestress force could also be neglected in the new shear equation. Nine 600 mm (23.6 in.) deep beams were tested, in which the major variable was the intensity of prestress. The cross section, web reinforcement, ultimate moment, and shear span were held constant. The results showed that the shear strength was not influenced by the amount of prestress. For practical application and to be consistent with ACI 318-08, however, the effective prestress force in the beams should not be less than 40% of the tensile strength of the flexural reinforcement. Lyngberg’s tests also provided another important observation when compared to the UH test specimens. The two groups of test specimens were similar in size and shape, except that Lyngberg’s specimens had wide top flanges (700 mm [27.6 in.]) and the UH specimens had narrow top flanges (305 mm [12 in.]). Because good agreement in shear strengths was observed between these two groups of tests, it was concluded that the top flange width was not a significant variable affecting the shear strength, and that the web region, defined as bwd, was the primary shear-resisting component. From the study of RC shear elements with concrete strengths up to 100 MPa (14,500 psi) (Zhang and Hsu 1998), it was observed that the softened compressive strength of concrete struts is proportional to the square root of the compressive strength, f c′ (for more details, refer to a following section on maximum shear strength). Therefore, the shear force that causes the crushing of concrete in the web of a beam must be proportional to f c′ bwd. This parameter could be used to normalize a shear force into a nondimensional quantity. The test results of Beams B1 to B5 reported in this research, as well as those of Hernandez (1958), MacGregor (1960), Mattock and Kaar (1961), Bruce (1962), Hanson and Hulsbos (1965), Lyngberg (1976), Elzanaty et al. (1986), Robertson and Durrani (1987), Kaufman and Ramirez (1988), and Shahawy and Batchelor (1996) were used to implement the parameter a/d into the new shear equation. ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

Fig. 7—Flexural shear failure region in Beam B4.

Fig. 8—Determination of number of stirrups for contribution of steel Vs. 334

The concrete shear contribution Vc of all of the specimens were calculated by subtracting the steel contribution Vs as per Eq. (3), from the total shear capacities of the beams. The normalized concrete shear stress Vc/ f c′ bwd of the specimens was obtained thereafter and its variation versus a/d was plotted in Fig. 9. A conservative Vc/ f c′ bwd versus a/d curve has an expression of 1.17 V c = ------------------- f c ′ ( MPa )b w d ≤ 0.83 f c ′ ( MPa )b w d 0.7 (a ⁄ d) (4)

where f c′ ( MPa ) ≈ 12 f c′ ( psi ) ⋅ b w equals the width of the web of the prestressed beam; and d is the effective depth from the centroid of the tendons to the top compression fiber of the prestressed beam. To be consistent with ACI 318-08, the value of d is not taken to be less than 80% of the total depth of the beam. The expression V c = 1.17 ( a ⁄ d ) ( V c = 14 [ a ⁄ d ]

– 0.7

25% less than the web crushing failure load of the ends with perfectly anchored strands. Because shear failures at beam ends (a/d ratios less than 1.6) are significantly affected by the bond slip of prestressing strands, the limitation in Eq. (4) at low a/d ratios must be a function of the anchorage length of the strands. A satisfactory anchorage length for shear should be one that ensures the yielding of the transverse stirrups at shear failure in the web. The upper limit in Eq. (4) for a/d less than 1.6 appears to be valid for the TxDOT Type A beams tested at UH. The UH beams have 12 seven-wire strands of 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) diameter, with an extension of 152 mm (6 in.) beyond the support resultant and a supporting plate of 152 mm (6 in.) wide. More research is required to determine a satisfactory anchorage length of prestressed strands to prevent shear/bond failure. Shear strengths Assuming that the transverse steel yields at failure, the final equation for the shear strength of prestressed I-beams is obtained by substituting Eq. (3) and (4) into Eq. (2) 1.17 V n = ------------------- f c′ ( MPa )b w d + A v f y⎛ d – 1⎞ -0.7 ⎝s ⎠ (a ⁄ d) (5a)

f c′ ( MPa )b w d f c′ [ psi ]b w d )

– 0.7

shown in Eq. (4) was substantiated by the large-sized test specimens of Mattock and Kaar (1961) with a beam height of 648 mm (25.5 in.). The shear strengths of their beams agreed very well with the proposed expression in Fig. 9 for a/d ratios of 4.5, 3.25, 2.0, 1.5, and all the way down to 1.0. The upper limit of V c ≤ 0.83 f c′ ( MPa )b w d ( V c ≤ 10 f c′ [ psi ]b w d ) in Eq. (4) is imposed for simply supported beams to ensure that the end anchorage will be sufficient to produce yielding of the stirrups, as observed in the web shear failure of Beams B1 to B3. Mattock and Kaar (1961) tested continuous beams, which did not have the anchorage problems at beam ends associated with simply supported beams. Shear/bond failure at beam ends Shahawy and Batchelor (1996) showed that the prestressed strands at the ends of the AASHTO Type II pretensioned concrete beams would slip before the web crushing of shear failures. They referred to this type of failure as shear/bond failure. When the a/d ratio is greater than approximately 1.6, the bond slip did not appear to have a noticeable effect on the shear strengths; however, in their B1 series of 10 beams where a/d ratios varying from 1.37 to 1.52, the bond slip appeared to have reduced the shear strengths. It was not clear, however, whether the transverse stirrups in the shear span had yielded. Ma et al. (2000) tested two NU1100 pretensioned beams with a/d ratios that varied from 1.16 to 1.28. At both ends of their Beam A, the strands were extended beyond the end face, bent upward, and securely anchored into a large concrete diaphragm attached to the end face. Because bond slip was not allowed to occur, Beam A failed in web crushing, a typical shear failure, at both ends. One failed end of Beam A was then sawed off, leaving the ends of strands flush with the end face. The application of shear loads then produced a shear/bond failure, rather than a web crushing failure. The shear/bond failure load of the saw-cut end was ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

where 1.17(a/d)–0.7 ≤ 0.83. The ratio a/d in Eq. (5a) represents the effect of moment M (relative to shear V) on the shear strength Vn. This moment effect was quantified by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326, (1962) using a parameter M/Vd along the length of a beam with a uniformly distributed load as well as other types of loading. The parameter M/Vd degenerated into a/d for beams with concentrated loads, which are the easiest to apply and are employed by most researchers. Replacing a/d by M/Vd in Eq. (5a) results in the following expression for all types of loading V u d 0.7 d V n = 1.17 ⎛ -------- ⎞ f c′ ( MPa )b w d + A v f y⎛ -- – 1⎞ ⎝s ⎠ ⎝ Mu ⎠ where 1.17(Vud/Mu)0.7 ≤ 0.83. Using the U.S. Customary system, Eq. (5b) becomes (5b)

Fig. 9—Variation of normalized concrete shear with a/d. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.) 335

Vu d V u = 14 ( 1.17 ) ⎛ -------- ⎞ ⎝ Mu ⎠

0.7

f c′ (psi) b w d + Av f y ⎛ d – 1⎞ (5c) -⎝s ⎠

Vu d V n = 1.17 ⎛ -------- ⎞ ⎝ Mu ⎠

0.7

d f c′ ( MPa )b w d + A v f y⎛ -- – 1⎞ + V p (6a) ⎝s ⎠

where 14(Vud/Mu)0.7 ≤ 10. In Eq. (5b) or (5c), the three quantities Mu, Vu, and d in Vud/Mu are calculated at the same given section under consideration. Contribution of harped strands to shear strengths The additional shear strengths contributed by harped strands were studied by comparing the shear strengths of Beam B3 (with harped strands) to that of Beam B2 (without harped strands) in the case of web shear, and by comparing the shear strength of Beam B5 (with harped strands) to that of Beam B4 (without harped strands) in the case of flexural shear. It was clear that shear capacity of prestressed concrete beams is enhanced due to the harping of the prestressing strands in both cases of web shear and flexural shear. The vertical component of the effective prestressing force in the harped strands at the section, Vp, used in the ACI Code and the AASHTO 2007 specifications, appeared to be a conservative estimate of the observed additional strength. Hence, for a beam with harped strands, the ultimate shear capacity can be conservatively taken as

where 1.17(Vud/Mu)0.7 ≤ 0.83. Using the U.S. Customary system, Eq. (6a) becomes V u d 0.7 V n = 14 ⎛ -------- ⎞ f c′ ( psi )b w d + A v f y⎛ d – 1⎞ + V p -⎝ Mu ⎠ ⎝s ⎠ (6b)

where 14(Vu d/Mu)0.7 ≤ 10. It should be emphasized that the V p term in Eq. (6a) is applicable to prestressed beams failing in web shear as well as in flexural shear. This is not the same as the provisions of the ACI Code, which uses the vertical component of the prestressing force in harped strands in the case of web shear failure only, and not in the case of flexural shear failure. MAXIMUM SHEAR STRENGTHS Maximum shear strengths in code provisions Because Eq. (6a) is based on the yielding of transverse steel reinforcement, a maximum shear strength Vn,max must be defined to ensure that transverse steel will yield before the web crushing of concrete. ACI Code (1963) specifies V n, max = 0.83 f c′ ( MPa )b w d ( 10 f c′ [ psi ]b w d ) (7)

and AASHTO Specifications (2007) specifies V n, max = 0.25f c′ b w d v or 0.225f c ′b w d if d v is assumed to be 0.9d The fact that Vn,max is proportional to f c′ in the ACI Code, Eq. (7), and is proportional to fc′ in the ASSHTO specifications, Eq. (8), testifies to the confusion surrounding the formulas for Vn,max. These two equations are plotted in Fig. 10. The ACI equation V n, max = 0.83 f c′ ( MPa )b w d ( 10 f c′ [ psi ]b w d ) Fig. 10—Variation of ultimate strength with concrete strength. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.) was first proposed by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326 (1962) and was incorporated into the ACI Code (1963) for nonprestressed beams. It was slightly liberalized in 1971 for application to both nonprestressed and prestressed concrete beams (ACI 1971), in the form of limiting the Vs term to a maximum contribution of steel V s, max = 0.66 f c′ ( MPa )b w d ( 8 f c′ [ psi ]b w d ) If Vc is taken conservatively as 0.17 f c′ ( MPa )b w d ( 2 f c′ [ psi ]b w d ) then the Vu,max in the 1971 ACI Code is identical to that in the 1963 ACI Code. Because the Vc term could be greater than 0.17 f c′ ( MPa )b w d ( 2 f c′ [ psi ]b w d ) ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010 (9) (8)

Fig. 11—Variation of normalized ultimate shear capacities of beams with a/d. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.) 336

the Vn,max for prestressed beams in the 1971 ACI Code is allowed to be somewhat greater than 0.83 f c′ ( MPa )b w d ( 10 f c ′ [ psi ]b w d ) The ACI formula for Vs,max has continued to be used up to the present time (ACI 2008). On the other hand, the AASHTO formula Vn,max = 0.225fc′ bwd was introduced into the first edition of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (1994), based on the truss model concept first introduced by the Canadian Code (1977) and the CEB-FIP Code (1978). A second edition of AASHTO (1998) followed, and interim revisions were made from 1999 to 2003. The analysis in this paper is based on the fourth edition of AASHTO (2007). Both the ACI and AASHTO formulas can be checked by the prestressed beams of Bennett and Balasooriya (1971), Rangan (1991), and Ma et al. (2000), which are overreinforced in shear (refer to Fig. 11). These experimental data are also shown in Fig. 10. It can be seen that the ACI formula is way too conservative. The AASHTO formula is more reasonable when compared to the test data; however, the AASHTO formula is expected to be unsafe for beams with a concrete strength higher than 60 MPa (8700 psi), in view of the panel element tests in the following section. Maximum shear strength in panel elements The shear resistance of a prestressed I-beam is contributed mainly by its web. The state of stress and strain in the web can be simulated by a two-dimensional (2D) panel element subjected to pure shear stress. In the 45-degree direction, such an element is also subjected to a biaxial stress condition with equal magnitude of principal compressive stress and principal tensile stress. Such a biaxial stress condition can be applied to an element by placing it in a universal panel tester (Hsu et al. 1995). Using the softened truss model (Zhang and Hsu 1998), the maximum shear strength of the element can be expressed as V n, max = σ 2 b w ( 0.9d )sinθcosθ

c

c

ζ = f ( f c′ )f ( ε 1 )

(12)

where ε1 is the principal tensile strain. The function f(fc′ ) was determined by panel element tests to be 0.48 5.8 f ( f c′ ) = ------------------------- ⎛ ---------------------⎞ f c′ ( MPa ) ⎝ f c′ [ psi ]⎠ (13)

Substituting Eq. (13) into Eq. (12), and then into Eq. (11) and (10) results in V n, max = constant f c′ f ( ε 1 )b w ( 0.9d ) ( 0.5 ) (14)

where the constant is 5.8 for fc′ in MPa (or 0.48 for fc′ in psi). Equation (14) shows that Vn,max should be a function of f c′ for fc′ up to 100 MPa (14,500 psi). Proposed maximum shear strength Equation (14) can be simplified as follows V n, max = C 1 f c′ b w d (15)

where C1 is a constant to be determined by the shear tests of prestressed beams. Before deciding on the constant C1 for the maximum shear strength, we must first calibrate the balanced condition defined as V n, b = C b f c′ b w d (16)

(10)

where σ 2 is the compression strength of the concrete struts, 0.9d is the height of the truss measured from the centroid of the steel to the centroid of the compression zone, and θ is the angle of the failure surface with respect to the longitudinal axis of the beam (refer to Fig. 6). The value θ equals 45 degrees when an element is subjected to pure shear. To develop an expression for Vn,max that is applicable to the whole range of concrete strengths from 20 MPa (3000 psi) to 100 MPa (14,500 psi), Zhang and Hsu (1998) tested full-sized reinforced concrete (RC) panel elements (1.4 x1.4 x 0.178 m [55 x 55 x 7 in.]) with concrete strengths up to 100 MPa (14,500 psi). Because the strength of the concrete struts in the principal compressive direction is “softened” by the perpendicular principal tensile strain, the c “effective compressive strength” of concrete struts σ 2 is σ 2 = ζ f c′

c

(11)

where ζ is the softening coefficient. Zhang and Hsu (1998) summarized the extensive panel tests at UH and showed that ζ is a product of two functions, that is ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

where Vn,b is the balanced shear force and Cb is the constant corresponding to the balanced condition. The balanced condition occurs when the beam is reinforced in a condition where the yielding of the transverse steel occurs simultaneously with the web crushing of the concrete. When Vn < Vn,b, the beam is defined as under-reinforced in shear, where the transverse steel yields before the crushing of concrete. When Vn > Vn,b, the beam is defined as over-reinforced in shear, where the concrete crushes without the yielding of steel. The balanced constant Cb can be calibrated by comparing the over-reinforced beams versus the under-reinforced beams, as shown in Fig. 11. Over-reinforced beams have been tested by three groups of researchers (Bennett and Balasooriya 1971; Rangan 1991; Ma et al. 2000). Underreinforced beams have been tested by all the other researchers. Figure 11 plots Vn/ f c′ bwd against a/d. It can be seen that all of the over-reinforced beams had a Vn/ f c′ bwd value above 1.5 for fc′ in MPa (or 18 for fc′ in psi) and almost all of the under-reinforced beams have a Vn/ f c′ bwd value below 1.5 for fc′ in MPa (or 18 for fc′ in psi). Therefore, the balanced constant can be taken as Cb = 1.5 for fc′ in MPa (or 18 for fc′ in psi). To provide some ductility in shear failure, the constant C1 for maximum shear strength must be taken as less than Cb ⋅ C1 < Cb is also desirable because Rangan’s over-reinforced beams have large web stiffeners under the loads to prevent local compression failures. In view of the fact that the prestressed beams used in practice do not contain web stiffeners, it was decided to choose a conservative C1 value of 1.33 for fc′ in MPa (or 16 for fc′ in psi) and Vn,max can thus be expressed as 337

Fig. 12—Variation of minimum shear reinforcement with a/d ratio. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.) V n, max = 1.33 f c′ ( MPa )b w d ( 16 f c′ [ psi ]b w d ) (17)

Equation (17) is also plotted in Fig. 10. It can be seen that the UH formula is the most reasonable for concrete strengths up to 100 MPa (14,500 psi). The ACI formula is obviously too conservative, and the AASHTO formula may be seriously unsafe when fc′ is greater than 60 MPa (8700 psi). MINIMUM SHEAR REINFORCEMENT Minimum shear reinforcement in prestressed I-girders is required to prevent the brittle failure of the girders due to the fracture of the shear reinforcement shortly after the formation of the inclined shear cracks. The ACI Code (2008) states that the minimum area of shear reinforcement, Av,min, provided at a spacing s in a member having width bw and effective depth d, should be greater than the smaller of two quantities expressed in the following bw s bw s A v, min = 0.0625 f c′ ( MPa ) ------- ≥ 0.35 ------fy fy bw s bw s ⎛A = 0.75 f c′ [ psi ] ------- ≥ 50 ------- ⎞ ⎝ v, min fy fy ⎠ Aps f pu s d A v, min = ---------------- ----- 80f yt d b w (19) (18)

represented by solid points whereas those that failed in a ductile manner were represented by hollow points. Figure 12 shows that some beams tested by Hernandez (1958), MacGregor (1960), Hanson and Hulsbos (1965), and Robertson and Durrani (1987) failed in a brittle manner although they had shear stirrups greater than that required by Eq. (18) and (20). These beams have a/d ratios in the range from 2.0 to 4.0, the region known as “Kani’s Valley” (Kani 1964). Two recommendations can be drawn from Fig. 12: (a) ACI Eq. (18) is applicable to all a/d, except in the range from 2 to 4. In other words, when 0.25 < Vu d/Mu < 0.5, the ACI minimum stirrup required by Eq. (18) should be doubled; and (b) ACI 318-08 Eq. (19) should be removed as in the AASHTO Specifications, because this formula could be unconservative for prestressed I-beams. Notice that the six beams tested by Teoh et al. (2002) with very small amounts of stirrups (ρfy/ f c′ varying from 0.045 to 0.079 for fc′ in MPa or 0.54 to 0.95 for fc′ in psi) are not included in Fig. 12. These 700 mm (27.5 in.) deep, highstrength concrete I-beams were simply supported and subjected to a single point load at midspan. The beams were provided with strong stiffeners at the supports and under the loading point at midspan. The large stiffeners, together with the large top and bottom flanges, formed a Vierendeel truss. A Vierendeel truss, which has rectangular openings and requires no diagonal bracings, can resist the midspan load even in the absence of the webs. The large deformations undergone by the beams were caused by the flexural deformations of the Vierendeel truss and were not due to any shear deformations of the web. Furthermore, the beams were symmetrically loaded and were tested using a servocontrol system, which helped to promote ductile failure. Because of these reasons, the ductile behavior of beams tested by Teoh et al. (2002) should not be used to justify a low requirement for minimum stirrups. CONCLUSIONS 1. Five full-scale prestressed concrete I-beams were designed, cast, and tested to study their behavior in web shear and flexural shear failure modes. The test program included three variables: the a/d, the transverse steel ratio, and the effect of harped strands. 2. A simple and accurate shear equation, Eq. (6a), based on Loov’s rational concept, was developed using the test results of the five prestressed beams tested at UH, as well as the 143 test beams available in literature. In this equation, the concrete contribution (Vc) term is proportional to f c′ and inversely proportional to (a/d)0.7. For the steel contribution (Vs) term, the number of transverse steel bars intersecting a 45-degree crack is taken as (d/s – 1). In addition, the contribution of the harped strands, Vp, is taken into account for both web shear and flexural shear failure modes. 3. In contrast to the ACI Code and the AASHTO specifications, an accurate equation for shear strengths of prestressed concrete beams can be obtained without taking into account the amount of prestressing force and the angle of failure crack. 4. A new formula, Eq. (17), was derived for the maximum shear strength (Vn,max) to ensure the yielding of transverse steel before the crushing of concrete. Vn,max is a function of f c′ for concrete strengths from 20 MPa (3000 psi) to 100 MPa (14,500 psi). NOTATION

1 2 Aps = direction of applied principal tensile stress = direction of applied principal compressive stress = cross-sectional area of prestressing steel

The minimum shear reinforcement in the AASHTO specifications (2007) is bw s A v, min = 0.083 f c′ ( MPa ) ------fy ⎛A = ⎝ v, min bw s f c′ [ psi ] ------- ⎞ fy ⎠ (20)

Equations (18) and (20) are evaluated by the test beams found in literature as follows: first, all of the I-beams having ρt fy less than 1.38 MPa (200 psi) were selected. Second, the nondimensional reinforcement index ρt fy/ f c′ of these beams were plotted against their corresponding a/d ratios, as shown in Fig. 12. Third, the beams that failed in a brittle manner due to the low amount of shear reinforcement were 338

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

As Av Av,min a bw C1 d dv fc ′ fc ′ fpu fy fyt ΣFV h l ln M Mn Mu Pe R S s T t V Vcal Vexp Vc Vn Vp Vs Vs,max Vu Vu,max x β ε1 θ ρt σc2 ζ

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

cross-sectional area of longitudinal steel cross-sectional area of stirrup (including two legs for closed stirrup) minimum required cross-sectional area of stirrup shear span of prestressed concrete beams width of web of prestressed I-beams constant term used to express maximum design shear capacity of prestressed beams effective depth of prestressed beams measured from centroid of tendons to top fiber of concrete lever arm between resultant compressive and tensile forces in AASHTO code cylinder compressive strength of concrete square root of cylinder compressive strength of concrete (same units as fc′) ultimate strength of prestressing bars yield strength of bare mild steel bars yield strength of transverse steel summation of stirrup forces crossing failure crack in prestressed beam depth of prestressed beams direction of longitudinal reinforcements clear span of PC beams bending moment in prestressed beams nominal bending moment at given section of prestressed beams bending moment at given section of prestressed beams effective prestressing force normal force at failure surface in prestressed beams concrete shear force along inclined shear crack of prestressed beam stirrup spacing tensile force of tendons in prestressed beams direction of transverse reinforcements shear resistance composed of Vc and Vs shear capacity of prestressed beams calculated by various methods experimental shear capacity of prestressed beams concrete contribution to shear resistance of prestressed beams nominal shear strength at given section of prestressed beams vertical component of prestressing force in beams with draped tendons steel contribution to shear resistance of prestressed beams maximum shear capacity of stirrups in prestressed beams ultimate shear force of prestressed beams maximum shear strength of prestressed beams distance from support of prestressed beams factor indicating ability of diagonally cracked concrete to transmit tension as per AASHTO specifications principal tensile strain angle of inclination of diagonal compressive stresses as per AASHTO specifications (same as crack angle) transverse steel ratio compressive strength of concrete struts softening coefficient of concrete in compression

REFERENCES

AASHTO, 1994, “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” first edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC, 1091 pp. AASHTO, 1998, “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” second edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC, 1116 pp. (Including interim revisions for 1999 through 2003.) AASHTO, 2007, “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” fourth edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC, 1518 pp. ACI Committee 318, 1963, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63) and Commentary (ACI 318R-63),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 91 pp. ACI Committee 318, 1971, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-71) and Commentary (ACI 318R-71),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 78 pp. ACI Committee 318, 2008, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 473 pp. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326, 1962, “Shear and Diagonal Tension,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 59, No. 1, Jan., pp. 1-30 (Chapters 1-4); No. 2, Feb., pp. 277-334 (Chapters 5-7); No. 3, Mar., pp. 352-396 (Chapter 8).

Bennett, E. W., and Balasooriya, B. M. A., 1971, “Shear Strength of Prestressed Beams with Thin Webs Failing in Inclined Compression,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 69, No. 3, Mar., pp 204-212. Bruce, R. N., 1962, “An Experimental Study of the Action of Web Reinforcement in Prestressed Concrete Beams,” PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 249 pp. CSA Code, 1977, “Code for the Design of Concrete Structures and Buildings, CAN3-A23.3-M77),” Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Toronto, ON, Canada, 131 pp. CEB-FIP, 1978, “Model Code for Concrete Structures,” CEB-FIP International Recommendation, third edition, Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB), Paris, 348 pp. Elzanaty, A. H.; Nilson, A. H.; and Slate, F. O., 1986, “Shear Capacity of Prestressed Concrete Beams Using High Strength Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 3, May-June, pp. 359-368. Hanson, J. M., and Hulsbos, C. L., 1965, “Overload Behavior of Pretensioned Prestressed Concrete I-Beams with Web Reinforcement,” Highway Research Record 76, Highway Research Board, pp. 1-31. Hernandez, G., 1958, “Strength of Prestressed Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement,” Report, The Engineering Experiment Station, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 135 pp. Hsu, T. T. C.; Belarbi, A.; and Pang, X. B., 1995, “A Universal Panel Tester,” Journal of Testing and Evaluations, ASTM, V. 23, No. 1, pp. 41-49. Kani, G. N. J., 1964, “The Riddle of Shear Failure and its Solution,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 61, No. 4, Apr., pp. 441-468. Kaufman, M. K., and Ramirez, J. A., 1988, “Re-evaluation of Ultimate Shear Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Prestressed I-Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 3, May-June, pp. 295-303. Kim, J. H., and Mander, J. B., 2005, “Theoretical Shear Strength of Concrete Columns Due to Transverse Steel,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 131, No. 1, Jan., pp. 197-199. Kim, J. H., and Mander, J. B., 2007, “Influence of Transverse Reinforcement on Elastic Shear Stiffness of Cracked Concrete Elements,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 131, No. 1, Jan., pp.197-199. Laskar, A.; Wang, J.; Hsu, T. T. C.; and Mo, Y. L., 2006, “Rational Shear Provisions for AASHTO LRFD Specifications,” Technical Report 0-4759-1 to Texas Department of Transportation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 216 pp. Laskar, A., 2009, “Shear Behavior and Design of Prestressed Concrete Members,” PhD dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 322 pp. Loov, R. E., 2002, “Shear Design of Uniformly Loaded Beams,” Presented at the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span Bridges, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 515-522. Lyngberg, B. S., 1976, “Ultimate Shear Resistance of Partially Prestressed Reinforced Concrete I-Beams,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 73, No. 4, Apr., pp. 214-222. Ma, Z. J.; Tadros, M. K.; and Baishya, M., 2000, “Shear Behavior of Pretensioned High-Strength Concrete Bridge I-Girders,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 185-193. MacGregor, J. G., 1960, “Strength and Behavior of Prestressed Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement,” PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 295 pp. Mattock, A. H., and Kaar, P. H., 1961, “Precast-Prestressed Concrete Bridges—4: Shear Tests of Continuous Girders,” Journal of the PCA Research Development Laboratories, pp. 19-47. Rangan, B. V., 1991, “Web Crushing Strength of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 1, Jan.Feb., pp. 12-16. Robertson, I. N., and Durrani, A. J., 1987, “Shear Strength of Prestressed Concrete T Beams with Welded Wire Fabric as Shear Reinforcement,” PCI Journal, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 32, No. 2, pp. 46-61. Shahawy, M. A., and Batchelor, B., 1996, “Shear Behavior of Full-Scale Prestressed Concrete Girders: Comparison between AASTHO Specifications and LRFD Code,” PCI Journal, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 41, No. 3, pp. 48-62. Teoh, B. K.; Mansur, M. A.; and Wee, T. H., 2002, “Behavior of HighStrength Concrete I-Beams with Low Shear Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 3, May-June, pp. 299-307. Zhang, L. X., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1998, “Behavior and Analysis of 100 MPa Concrete Membrane Elements,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 124, No. 1, Jan., pp. 24-34.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

339

- MODERN PRESTRESSED BRIDGES
- Prestressed Concrete
- Prestressed Concrete Example Problem
- Flexural Strength of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete T-Beams.pdf
- Precast Prestressed Concrete Horizontally Curved Bridge Beams
- Prestressed Concrete
- SAIV - Exam Handout
- Comprehensive Design Example for Prestressed Concrete (Psc) Girder Superstructure Bridge
- Fundamentals of Pre Stressed Concrete
- 40609 Prestressed
- Strut and Tie
- Shear Strengths of Prestressed Concrete Beams 2
- The Modified Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Cocrete Elements Subjected to Shear
- Prestressed Precast Concrete Beam Bridge Design
- Eurocode Guide - Online
- Prestress Losses in wire Strands for Prestressed Concrete
- Prestressed _ Solved Examples
- Development Length of Pre Stressed Concrete Piles
- 013248
- Design of Prestressed Concrete Structures (3rd Edition) - T. Y. Lin & Ned H. Burns_2
- Study Guide Civil Engineering MSc (DEF) 2006-2007
- Cement and Concrete
- Integral Concrete Bridges to Eurocode 2
- Design of prestressed Concrete flat slabs
- Applied Geography
- Prestress Concrete - Inner Beams - After Check
- Bridge Design Eurocodes Worked Examples
- ACI 207 1R-05 Guide to Mass Concrete
- Concrete Analysis and Design
- Prestressed Concrete Analysis and Design, Fundamentals, 2nd ed.pdf

- Gb 50025-2004 湿陷性黄土地区建筑规范
- Gb 50073 洁净厂房设计规范
- GB 50010-2010 混凝土结构设计规范（含条文说明）.pdf
- 轨道工程
- CECS38-2004 纤维混凝土结构技术规程
- 地坪工程設計規範
- Crack width estimate of concrete plates
- Design Prestressed concrete Beams with openings.pdf
- Guide_design_concrete_pavements_settlement.pdf
- AS3600-Lossese
- Post-tensioning Force in Tendons (Elogation Calculations)
- Shear Strengths of Prestressed Concrete Beams 2

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading