Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • ACI 84-s03 - TASSIOS

    Uploaded by

    TIZIO
    7 views13 pages

    Original Title

    ACI 84-s03_TASSIOS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views13 pages

    ACI 84-s03 - TASSIOS

    Uploaded by

    TIZIO

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 13
    ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNA TECHNICAL PAPER Title no. 84.83, Behavior of Dowels under Cyclic Deformations Af by E. N. Vintzéleou and T. P. Tassios Presents an experimental investigation of dowel-ro-conerete shear transfer. Emphasis 1s given to idemifving dowel mechanisms under ‘cic octions. In adeltion, recommendations for the caleulation of ‘dowel strength are proposed, both under monotonic and cyclic lod ing conditions ‘The behavior of reinforced concrete structures sub- jected to earthquakes may be greatly influenced by the behavior of cracked critical zones. Therefore, for the post-cracking design of an aseismic structure which contains interfaces subjected to shear (e.g., interfaces between old and new concrete in elements repaired and strengthened by means of reinforced conerete jackets, interfaces within precast-element connections, etc.), the shear-transfer mechanisms (dowel action and concrete- to-conerete friction) under cyclic actions should be taken into account. Research up to now was mainly focused on friction (or aggregate interlock) which is considered to be the main load-transfer mechanism along shear-flexural cracks in monolithic reinforced concrete elements. i cording to Taylor,’ the contribution of the dowel ai tion to the shear capacity across a shear-flexural crack in a beam is equal to 9 to 20 percent. The remaining 80 10 91 percent of the shear force is transferred by means of friction along the tensioned zone and through the ‘compressed zone. However, the increase in the width of cracks during an earthquake due to bond degradation under cyclic actions, leads to a substantial decrease of concrete-to- concrete friction along the tensioned zone. On the other hand, in many other situations, such as certain types of connections between precast concrete celements or interfaces in some repair and strengthening techniques, dowel action is considered as the main load- transfer mechanism. In order to investigate the dowel mechanism under large cyclic actions, an extensive parametric experimen- tal program has been carried out in the Laboratory of Reinforced Concrete Structures at the National Tech- 18 nical University of Athens. The main findings of this program are presented briefly RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE 1. Experimental evidence concerning the dowel mechanism under fully reversed deformations is pro- vided. 2. Practical recommendations for the design of in- terfaces that transfer monotonic or cyclic shear forces by means of dowel action are proposed. LITERATURE SURVEY Several series of tests have been carried out at Cor- nell University to investigate dowel action under cyclic loading. Those tests are one of the main sources of ex- perimental data on dowel behavior under cycli¢ load- ing. In Fig. 1 some typical shear stress-shear displace- ment diagrams by Eleiott,* Stanton,’ and Jimenez, Gergely, and White‘ are shown. All specimens that failed by concrete splitting have shown some common features: * increase of the maximum slip with cycling, * substantial stiffness degradation, ‘very pronounced pinching effect, and * decreasing area of hysteresis loops with cycling. It should be noted that in all the previously men: tioned tests, the maximum cyclic shear stress was rela- tively small compared to the bearing capacity of dowels under monotonic loading. The aim of the tests per- formed at Cornell University was to simulate the be havior of cracks in reinforced concrete nuclear con- tainment vessels. Due to the high safety requirements for this type of structure, earthquakes are considered a variable, thus non-accidental, action. Consequently, design shear forces have to be considerably lower than the bearing capacity of interfaces. Reseed. Oe, 18, 1985, and reviewed under Iatue publi plies. opm ie Ame conc I: Aron, ag ‘te enter dein wl bs pubes nthe Novem vember 187 ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1987 EN, Vinton ison atta the Labortory of Reinforced Concrete Siac, National Teh! Univesity af Athens, Ans. Gree. She a ‘member of CEB and CIB working groups andthe aur of er! Papes ‘nthe boivor of shor afer mechan under monotone and Nee 8 ‘ion wl a onthe samsBeovirof reinforced meson. ACI member TP. Taian 6 9 profesor of reinforced concrete srctres et ‘he National Teche! Unienty af Athens, Athens Gece. Hes president (ofthe Eur-nerainal Concrete Comite (CEB) ond the author af ar ‘merous publications onthe behavior of reinforced coneee under monotone Gnd yi actone Combinations of Table 1—Experimental prograr parameters" Conca compres Designation wenth | Cover, of faMea_| mm spscimens no | 00 Das.16/M | foo Das, 16/0.80 200 ‘00 woo | teo | M_ | Dasasoene woo | ‘so | M | Deana wo} 0 | M | beanie yoo | 20] 140 | 080 | DBa0.4080 foo | 140 | 030 | Daae.e7030 wo | 140 | 035 | Dean.te0s woo | tao | oo | Dean.te/080 199 | 140 | 080 | DBxs0,te/0.90 woo | ‘so | oso | beansvoso 00 | 180 | 080 | De0.e/080 so | oo] wo | M | pcaosae wo | 140 | 080 | Dewo.4/080 7iwospecnens have ben sed for cs combnaton of parameters, Total De Sook ioee A BC th (A = 20 MPa, 3oMPa, nd ahr = mongtone loading: Hone, ach penn ene dog lon, cone wacom co However, for usual reinforced concrete structures earthquakes are an accidental action, hence, much higher levels of loading are accepted. ‘Therefore, the results of the previously mentioned tests are not directly applicable for normal reinforced concrete structures under seismic conditions. On the other hand, since structural elements are subjected to large deformation reversals under cyclic seismic ac- tions, strain-controlled tests should be carried out. TEST SETUP AND RESEARCH PROGRAM ‘The specimens used for investigation of the dowel ‘mechanism (Fig. 2) consisted of three concrete blocks, each 12 in. (300 mm) long, 12 in. (300 mm) high, and 6 in. (150 mm) wide, cast simultaneously in a metal mold. Metal sheets 0.16 in. (4 mm) thick were placed between adjacent concrete blocks. The metal sheets were re- moved before testing and the joints left between con- crete blocks were filled with paraffin. Thus, friction along interfaces was eliminated and shear forces could be transferred only by means of dowel action of the ACI Structural Journal | January-February 1987 tion: a) Eleiott,’ b) Stanton,’ and c) Jimenez et al.’ 1 ‘mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 KN = 0.225 kips; 1 MPa = 145 psi Fig. 2—Specimen for investigation of the dowel mech- anism. I mm = 0.0394 in, Mr dict gouges Fig, 3—Schematie of test setup and instrumentation for slip measurements two deformed bars crossing the interfaces. No trans- verse reinforcement was provided to those bars. The test setup is shown schematically in Fig. 3. The two end blocks were fixed; shear displacements were imposed on the central block. Shear displacements and shear forces were continuously recorded during testing. 19 ‘The following parameters were investigated: 1. Concrete compressive strength [f, = 2860, 4280, cr 6430 psi (20, 30, or 45 MPa)) 2. Bar diameter 4 = 0.32, 0.56, or 0.72. in. (8, 14, or 18 mm} 3. Bottom concrete cover [c= 0.80, 1.60, or 6.0 in. (20, 40, or 150 mm)], while the side cover was in all specimens equal to 1.60 in. (40.0 mm) 4, Loading level (Dyu/D,, mu, = 0.30, 0.55, oF 0.80 where D,., = maximum shear force for a loading cycle and D, nx. = dowel strength under monotonic loading). Combinations of parameters forall 32 specimens are given in Table 1, Fourteen specimens were subjected to monotonically increasing load up to failure. The re- raining 18 specimens were subjected to the following loading histories: An initial dowel load equal to 30, $5, or 80 percent of the dowel strength under monotonic loading was applied; the corresponding value of trans verse displacement A, was measured and deformation reversals to the same shear displacement were applied, Stabilized response was reached after three to five full reversals. Then, a dowel load equal to the initial one, or greater by 2.25 kips (10 KN), was applied to the specimen, the corresponding shear displacement 4, (>A,) was mea- sured and held constant during the subsequent defor. mation reversals. The same procedure was followed for larger A values up to failure. Two additional specimens were subjected to differ cent loading histories. The first was subjected to cyclic [© © [SECOON 1-1 [SECTION nt i Fig. 4—Typical crack pattern of specimens reinforced with two No. 14 bars. Con- crete cover = 40 mm, Imm = 20 0.0394 in.: 1 KN 0.225 kips ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1987 actions with a maximum shear displacement in the first loading direction twice as large as the shear displace ‘ment in the second loading direction (A = 2A, see Fi 10). The second specimen was subjected to repeated (not reversed) actions. TEST RESULTS Crack pattern ‘A typical crack pattern for specimens with a cover of @ 1.60 in. (40 mm) subjected either to monotonic or to cyclic actions is shown in Fig. 4. Similar crack patterns 1 were found for concrete cover of 0.80 in. (20 mm). At load levels equal to 40 to 50 percent of the dowel strength, longitudinal splitting cracks appear at the re- inforcement evel, both on the side and the upper faces of the specimens. For higher dowel loads and subsequent deformation reversals, both the length and the width of splitting cracks increase. In case of bottom cover of 6 in. (150 mm), splitting cracks appear only on the side faces of the specimens (Fig. 5). Monotonic loading Results of monotonic tests are summarized in Fig. 6 mt 10 8. Typical dowel force-dowel displacement curves are Ee aiven in Fig. 6, and the role of concrete cover on dowel = strength is also apparent. It was observed that an in- crease of concrete cover from 0.80 to 1,60 in. (20 to 40 becrown mm) leads to a 60 percent increase in dowel strength. Further increase of the bottom cover from 1.60 to 6 in. (40 to 150 mm) did not cause any substantial increase Fig. 5—Typical crack pattern of specimens with bot- Of the dowel strength. Since the side cover was always fom cover of 150 mm, reinforced with two No. 14 bars. 1,60 in, (40 mm) in specimens with bottom cover of 6.0 I. mm = 0.0394 in. + jt a 00 © 20 38 rr Fig, 6—Typical curves of mean values of dowel force vs. transverse displacement under monotonic loading: Influence of bottom cover on dowel strength. 1 mm = 0.0394 in; TKN = 0.225 kips; 1 MPa = 145 psi ACI Structural Journal | January-February 1987 a1 in, (150 mm) premature side splitting occurred, the ef- fectiveness of the large bottom cover being very small in this case. On the other hand, it was found that dowel strength increases proportionally to concrete tensile strength (Fig. 7) and to bar diameter (Fig. 8). Du (KN) 00: 00 10 20 30 40 Fig. 7—Influence of concrete tensile strength on dowel strength. I MPa = 145 psi; 1 KN = 0,225 kips 08-20,14/0.80 Cyclic loading ‘Some typical hysteresis loops are shown in Fig. 9 and 10. The shear displacement imposed in the second loading direction was equal to that of the first loading direction A°/A* = 1.0 for the specimen in Fig. 9, The ratio A-/A* was 0.50 for the specimen in Fig. 10. Du(KW/bar) 400 300 200 100) 00 80 “uo 80 Fig, 8—Influence of bar diameter on monotonic dowel strength. I KN = 0.225 kips; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi Fig. 9—Typical hysteresis loops for fully reversed transverse displacements (\’ = A-). The characteristic asymme- try of response (D* = D~) is apparent. I mm = 0.0394 in.: 1 KN = 0.225 kips 22 ‘ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1987 Fig. 10—Dowel force-transverse displacement diagram for partially reversed displacements (A-/* = 0.50). 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; KN = 0.225 kips Fig, 11—Dowel force-transverse displacement diagram for fully reversed dis- placements. I mm = 0.0394 in.: kN = 0.225 kips ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1987 23 response 2 308 5 3 Pas Bout + 04-cores0.80 Ee] ope-w.8s100 10) = 3} * 08-014 /080 £3) oc -co1a/000 $5] © 0B- 40.14/030 O2F Soc- wus 9 + DC-150:170.80 © DB- 20 14/0,80 Average curve et va-t) Dp=(Df +Dp)/2 @ JoB-40,14/080 fepeated loading Fig. 12—Force-response degradation due to cycling, normalized to the dowel force at first eycle. a) Specimens subjected 10 reversed actio repeated loading In all specimens in which a cover equal to 0.80 or 1.60 in. (20 or 40 mm) was provided to the bars, it was observed that dowel response in the second loading di- rection is considerably lower than the response in the first loading direction, even during the first deforma- tion reversal. This feature was not observed in the case of bars placed at midheight in the specimen (Fig. 11). On the other hand, substantial response degradation due to cycling was observed, even for specimens sub- jected to relatively small cyclic deformations. The pinching effect was very pronounced and, conse- quently, the hysteresis loop area (hysteretic damping) was very small. DISCUSSION Response degradation The asymmetry observed in the hysteresis loops of specimens with minimum cover of 0.80 or 1.60 in. (20 or 40 mm) (see Fig. 9 and 10) may be attributed to the fact that during cycling, bottom covers were different for each loading direction. During the first half of each cycle, the bottom cover was 10.5 or 9.7 in. (266 or 246 mm), while during the second half of each cycle the ottom cover was 0.80 or 1.60 in. (20 or 40 mm). 24 5: b) specimen subjected 10 ‘Thus, during the first half of the first eycle (and for loading levels higher than 0.40 to 0.50), a spitting crack appeared at the side faces of the specimens (see Fig. 4) because the side covers were critical [1.60 in. (40 mm)] in both cases. During the second half of the cycle, the splitting cracks that opened at the top face of the spec- mens (see Fig. 4) caused a decrease in the response in the second loading direction. Response degradation due to cycling is shown in Fig. 12(a) for dowel-force levels higher than 0.30 of the ul timate value. This response degradation was more pro- nounced during the second and third deformation re- versals (decrease of response by approximately 20 per- cent, while a tendeney for response stabilization was observed during subsequent reversals. After five full reversals, a response equal to 75 percent of the initial ‘one was observed It should be noted that response degradation did not seem to increase with increasing imposed deforma: tions, at least for loading levels higher than 0.30 (which were used in this program). ‘Additionally, response degradation due to cycling was found to be practically independent of concrete cover, bar diameter, and strength of concrete. ACI Structural Journal | January-February 1987 2 0C-10,18/080 *8-0;14/080 —{. spa-e0'14/080 : *0C-40,14/080 80} 08-0, 4/080(repeated) 808-10, 14/080 (4°78 ard +08-20,14/080 th 208-10, 14/030'relcad os —> P 0-80. 14/080 — oso} : ae N li * ang ————J i 0 Ss Ie >t 02 Pref ano ia cot nz 0%. 10 15 cy 30 Fig, 13 Normalized stiffness degradation due to cycling No improvement of dowel behavior was observed in the case of partially reversed shear displacements A~ = 0.504". On the contrary, smaller response degradation ‘occurs when imposed shear displacements do not change sign {repeated loading, Fig. 12(b)]. Stiffness degradation Dowel stiffness of the nth cycle (determined as shown in Fig. 13(b)), normalized to the stiffness observed the first cycle, is plotted against the number of cycles Fig. 13(@). Considerable stiffness degradation is observed (ap- proximately 50 percent after 10 reversals). Stiffness degradation seems to be practically independent of concrete compressive strength, concrete cover, and bar diameter. Curves of stiffness versus number of cycles for all specimens form a relatively narrow band (see Fig. 13), with the exception of two specimens: * The specimen subjected to repeated loading experi- ‘enced considerably lower stiffness degradation due to cycling than specimens subjected to full reversals. Specimens initially cycled at low dowel-force levels showed a stiffness degradation at a higher dowel- force level larger than that occuring when a high dowel force was immediately imposed to the speci- men (lower curves in Fig. 13 and 14), Hysteretic damy ‘A typical feature of shear-sensitive reinforced con- crete structural elements is that their hysteresis-loop area is very small. The same feature was observed dur- ing cyclic dowel tests (Fig. 15(a)}. The hysteretic damp- ing § for the first cycle of each group of full reversals at a given A value, determined as shown in Fig. 15(b), was approximately 4.3 percent. A decrease of ¢ by 20 ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1987 100: 090 080 070 oso oxo 030 020 12 Fig. 14—Influence of loading history on stiffness deg- radation due to cycling; stiffness degradation is finally ‘more pronounced for specimens having previously been subjected to a less intensive displacement reversal (dot- ted line) 25 Bie) 704 60 50 . : 00 12 4 6 8 0 2 1% 16 n, we 20 2% 2% 28 H Fig. 15S—a) Hysteretic damping decrease due to cycling; b) definition of equivatent hysteretic damping percent occurred in the second cycle and, finally, after three to five cycles (i.e. after response stabilization oc- curred), hysteretic damping was equal to 60 percent of the initial one. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS. On the basis of physical models describing the dowel mechanism of shear transfer, analytical expressions for the calculation of dowel strength have been proposed by Vintzéleou and Tassios.* ‘These expressions, the validity of which was checked bby means of the experimental data presented in this pa: per as well as by means of results reported in the liter- ature, allow the calculation of dowel strength under monotonic and cyclic actions. In this section, by appropriate modification of the previously mentioned expressions, some formulas for the calculation of the design values of dowel strength are derived. Monotonic loading Failure mode I—When large cover c (> six to eight times the bar diameter) is provided to the dowels, the mechanism fails due to yielding of the bar and crushing of the conerete.* For the calculation of dowel strength, it is assumed that the dowel behaves like a horizontally loaded free- headed pile embedded in cohesive soil (Fig. 16) and that yielding of the bar and crushing of the concrete occur simultaneously. It is also suggested by Vintzeleou and Tassios’ that the compressive stress of the concrete at failure f* is equal to Sf, (f,, being the strength of con crete under uniaxial compression). Thus, the equation in Fig. 16 is derived for the calculation of dowel strength. For zero eccentricity of the dowel force, and {Tie are moe ds ot exclu se appearance of secondary siting 26 for a characteristic compressive strength f, instead of the mean value f.., this equation becomes Di= 130diTiSy a where the units are in mm and N/mm. The design dowel-strength value may be obtained by substitution of f,, and J, by their design values Lal. = 1.50) Si 2 and Sa = Sol 1s = 1.15) ) (4. = 1.50 and +, = 1.15 are partial safety factors for concrete and steel, according to the CEB-FIP Model Code). Hence _ Dag = 1.3003 Safa = = 1.300 F/USOTIS Dug = 3 IT, In general, where the dowel is simultaneously sub- jected to a tensile stress 0, = af, (a < 1.0), the plastic ‘moment of the bar decreases (ia) My = ailfy (1-2) ® ‘Thus, the design dowel strength is calculated by the equation aT, 0) Failure mode 11 — For concrete cover smaller than six to eight times the bar diameter, the dowel mecha- ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1987 Dus «aby tet nats, Stee Miax= O05 tay Mmnax®Mo*080-Oy =Dye-050Dy 70 ,(e+05a) Mmax=017db fey. Hence F l0teedpelDy -17db tec fy-0 @® Oo Stee dp Dytheor KN) 2a 1 0 33000 ‘@utescher and Herrmand!™! (Bennett and Banerjee") ' Paulay.Park and Philips A Rasmussen! ‘© Vintzeteoul®) 06) Du expedkN) 3898 Fig, 16—a) Prediction of the ultimate dowel force; failure due to yielding of the bar and crushing of the concrete; b) comparison between theoretically predicted dowel strengths and experimental D, values. 1 kN = 0.225 kips; | mm = 0.0394 nism fails by concrete splitting. Side or bottom split ting may occur, depending on the value of side-to-bot tom cover ratio. For small values of this ratio, i.e., when side cover is critical, itis assumed that a horizontal crack opens when the tensile stresses 3, (which equilibrate the com- pressive stresses g,, under the bar) become equal to the concrete tensile strength J. (Fig. 17(a)] Hence, the dowel force causing side splitting is given by the equation D. dbf 6) where the units are in mm and N/mm?, and b, is the net width of the section and f, is the tensile strength of concrete. For large values of the side-to-bottom cover ratio, i.e., when bottom cover is critical, it is assumed that a vertical splitting crack opens when the bending mo- ment at Section CD of the cantilever ABCDEA [Fig. ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1987 17(b)], reaches its ultimate value. Thus, the dowel force causing bottom splitting is given by the equation WV dhe erg, © amen d, where the units are in mm and N/mm®, and c is the bottom cover and y" is a coefficient depending on the bottom cover (see Vintzéleou and Tassios’). For usual bottom cover values 0.80 to 1.60 in. (20 10 40 mm), ¥” = 5.0. Hence, D. Sache oa (6a) omerd, where the units are in mm and N/mm? Admitting a +, factor of 1.50, the corresponding de- sign dowel strength values are obtained from Eq. (5) and (6a) 2 0.00508 § SIDE SPLITTING For long dowels, lg 2.5dy, Hence, s Fee2dy /- tgie(x) dx =1220 3 Foundation Fee=Sot Bet 25d and, at cracking (DD, Figg 1220, er “Pet fot) Fet*fer Dot 25dy —> DD = 20d, be fey BOTTOM SPLITTING External ultimate moment at section CD: My =0.25-1.22D¢, (0.66c+dy) Resisting moment of the critical section CO: ABA Myvtet len 2 asi22 x2 + Basa, e(9>10h: maximum nominal tensile stress For small bottom cover it i assumed :¥=180 wy + Ecos rn z =50f ee) oo PeeS0ha 46 aaeeay +2 —_" For eccentrically applied dowel force Der=B'dpbet fot OF "epee Teseed, stfoude ang Mirza tte Tran! Sel werningt * mene! 8) lime ite sergety(*) SEEN Ee gt mes Honea Reale sschen and Schénhott" Sersexpedls) Vravou one me Fig. 17—a) Theoretical prediction of the dowel force causing side splitting of the concrete sec- tion; b) theoretical prediction of the dowel force causing bottom splitting of the concrete section; ©) comparison between theoretically predicted and experimental splitting force values. 1 kN = 0.225 kips; I mm = 0.0394 in, ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1987 Dow = 133dsbif (Sa) for side splitting and c Dag = 333 5G, (6) for bottom splitting. When the dowel mechanism fails by concrete split- ting, it was found by Vintzéleou® that the maximum bending moment developed in the bar is considerably lower than its plastic moment. This is also the case when the dowel is simultaneously subjected to a tens stress 0, (= af,). However, even for er values as large 2s 0.80 to 0.90, the concrete remains the critical mate- rial In fact, tests by Sharma,” Houde et al.,” Kemp et al.,’ and Vintzeleou’ have shown that no significant de- ‘ease of the splitting load occurred for ¢, values up to 0.80f,. Hence, a simple interaction curve as shown in Fig. 18 may be accepted. For 0, > 0.80/,, Eq. (Sa) and (6b) can be modified accordingly Dag = 6.65 (1a) dsdafs (sb) for side splitting and Dog = 665 (1-0) dhs epezg, for bottom splitting where 0.8

    You might also like