1 Development of Design Guidelines for Ledges of L-Shaped Beams

2 Mohamed K. Nafadi, Gregory W. Lucier, Sami H. Rizkalla, Paul Z. Zia, and Gary J. Klein
3

4 <subhead 1>
5 Introduction

6 This paper is the third in a series of three that report research on the behavior and punching shear
7 strength of ledges of L-shaped beams. The research program included experimental tests of 21
8 short beams of 15.5 ft (4.7 m) span, 8 long beams of 45.5 ft (13.9 m) span, and one long beam of
9 36.5 ft (11.1 m) span. All short beams were reinforced with mild steel only, while all long beams
10 were prestressed, except one 45.5 ft (13.9 m) span beam. All beams were subjected to multiple
11 tests at different locations along the ledge, resulting in 106 total tests in the program. The results
12 of these tests were presented in the first two papers in this series.1-2 In addition to the test
13 program, the research also included the development of a three-dimensional nonlinear finite
14 element (FE) model, validated by the experimental data and other data reported in the literature. 3-
9
15 The FE model was used initially to examine the possible effects of various design parameters,
16 providing a basis for design of the experimental program, and to generate additional data
17 supplementing the experimental data.10

18 Research findings revealed that several parameters significant to ledge punching strength are not
19 considered by the design procedure presented in the 7th edition of the PCI Design Handbook11 for
20 the ledges of L-shaped beams (hereinafter referred to as “PCI procedure”). These parameters
21 include the global flexural and shear stresses, prestressing, and load eccentricity. While high
22 levels of global stress and increased load eccentricity cause reductions in ledge capacity, the use
23 of prestressing enhances the load carrying capacity of the ledge. The PCI procedure assumes 45-
24 degree failure planes; however, observed failure planes were generally inclined at more shallow
25 angles, resulting in a relatively larger failure surface. Furthermore, the PCI procedure specifies a
26 load spacing of bt + h l or greater to prevent the overlapping of failure cones from adjacent loads.
27 Nevertheless, test results indicate that failure cones overlap when adjacent loads are spaced at a
28 distance much larger than this specified value.2

29 This paper proposes a design procedure that takes into consideration the effects of the above-
30 mentioned parameters along with the parameters traditionally considered for ledge resistance.

1
1 Recommendations are presented for certain reinforcement details found to improve the behavior
2 and enhance the capacity of the ledge without changing ledge geometry. It is envisioned that this
3 proposed procedure will be incorporated in the 8th edition of PCI Design Handbook.12

4 <subhead 1>
5 Observed Failure Surface

6 The symmetric failure surface observed from a typical test is compared to the surface assumed
7 by the PCI procedure in Figure 1. If a load is applied sufficiently close to the end of the ledge,
8 then there exists a potential for asymmetric failure, as shown on the left side of the figure. If two
9 concentrated loads are placed relatively close to one another, their failure planes may overlap. In
10 such a case, a combined failure plane will develop and the failure surface will generally follow
11 the same configuration as the isolated failure surface, whether symmetric or asymmetric, as
12 shown in Figure 2. In all cases, test results demonstrated that the slopes of the faces of the
13 observed failure surfaces are affected by five main parameters, namely: (1) global flexure and
14 shear stresses, (2) prestressing, (3) load eccentricity, (4) concentrated ledge reinforcement, and
15 (5) ledge height.1-2

Asymmetric Symmetric

16

17 Figure 1: Isolated Symmetric and Asymmetric Failures

18

2
 Symmetric
Asymmetric

2 Figure 2: Combined Symmetric and Asymmetric Failures

4 <subhead 2>
5 Proposed Idealized Failure Surface

6 To determine the punching shear strength of a ledge, the PCI procedure uses an idealized
7 rectangular failure surface, based on assumed 45-degree failure planes developed from both sides
8 of the bearing area, as shown in Figure 3. The width of the idealized rectangular failure surface is
9 assumed to be the ledge projection,l p, regardless of the load eccentricity from the inner web face.
10 The depth of failure surface is assumed to be equal to the full ledge height, h l.

11

12
13 Figure 3: Idealized Failure Surface by PCI Procedure (Isolated Symmetric Failure)

3
1 Based on the actual failure surfaces measured from the experimental 106 tests, the length of the
2 idealized rectangular failure surface is determined by a similar approach. Figure 4 shows the
3 ratios of the average extension of the idealized rectangular failure surface from each side of the
4 bearing area to the ledge height. Statistical analysis of these plotted data indicates that the
5 average extension of the idealized failure surface on each side of the bearing area is 1.1 h l, with a
6 coefficient of variation of 19 percent. Therefore, for simplicity, the average is taken as 1.0 h l.

7
8 Figure 4: Ratios of the Extension of Idealized Failure Surface to Ledge Height for 106 Observed Failure
9 Surface

10

11 Given these results, it is proposed to modify the PCI procedure to consider the extension of the
12 idealized rectangular failure surface from each side of the bearing area as 1.0 h l instead of 0.5 h l
13 , reflecting the relatively larger failure surface observed in the tests. Accordingly, idealizations
14 for design of various cases of failure can be easily derived, as shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6.
15 No change is proposed to either the width or the height of the idealized failure surfaces. The
16 idealized surfaces proposed by this paper for symmetric and asymmetric failure surfaces are
17 summarized in Table 1.

4
1

2
3 Figure 5: Proposed Idealization for Isolated Asymmetric and symmetric Failures

6 Figure 6: Proposed Idealization for Combined Asymmetric and symmetric Failures

5
1 Table 1: Area of Idealized Failure Surface for Different Cases

Failure Surface Area of Idealized Failure Surface

Symmetric Isolated h l ( b t + 2 h l + 2 lp )
Failures Combined h l ( b t + 2 h l +s+ 2 l p )
Asymmetric Isolated h l ( 0.5 b t + h l + d e + l p )
Failures Combined h l ( 0.5 b t + h l + d e +s+ l p )
2

3 <subhead 1>
4 Nominal Shear Stress

5 The shear stress on the ledge due to applied eccentric concentrated loads are comprised of two
6 main components:

7  Direct shear stress due to the vertical applied load, which is uniformly distributed along
8 the perimeter of the idealized failure surface.
9  Torsional shear stress due to the eccentricity of the applied load with respect to the
10 centroid of the critical section of the idealized failure surface, as shown in Figure 7 for
11 symmetric and asymmetric failures.

12 For symmetric failures, the distribution of shear stress on the back face of the failure surface due
13 to the vertical load is typically uniform. However, the presence of the torsional moment, M ny
14 induces a non-uniform distribution of shear stress on the side faces of the failure surface with a
15 minimum value at the back plane and a maximum value at the edge of the ledge, as shown on the
16 right side of Figure 8. However, some of the torsional moment is counteracted by ledge flexure
17 in the same way that the unbalanced moment at a slab-column connection is resisted by a
18 combination of flexure and eccentric shear.13 For asymmetric failures, the distribution of shear
19 stress on both the back face and the side face of the failure surface is non-uniform due to the
20 presence of the torsional moments in two directions, M ny and M nx , as shown on the left side of
21 Figure 8. Again, some of the torsional moment in both directions is counteracted by ledge
22 flexure. To simplify these complex stress distributions, the shear stress is assumed to be uniform
23 whether for the symmetric or asymmetric failures. The value of this uniform shear stress can be

6
1 expressed in terms of β √ f' c, where β is a shear strength coefficient dependent on the level of
2 global stress, and f' c is the compressive strength of concrete.

Asymmetric
Symmetric

3 Figure 7: Applied Torsional Moments in Asymmetric and symmetric Failures

Asymmetric
Symmetric

5 Figure 8: Shear Stress Distribution for Asymmetric and symmetric Failures

7
1 <subhead 2>
2 Effect of Global Stresses in RC Beams

3 <subhead 3> Effect of Global Flexural Stress in RC Beams: Results of the analytical and
4 experimental studies indicate that increasing the level of the global flexural stress reduces the
5 nominal punching shear strength of the ledge. To account for this effect, the level of global
6 flexural stress at a given location along the span can represented by the ratio of the applied
7 moment, M , to the nominal moment capacity, M n , of the beam at location of interest (M / Mn ).
8 Using the idealized failure surface, the applied ledge load, and the concrete strength, the shear
9 strength coefficient β was determined as follows.

10 Selected results of the FE analysis10 for two locations, mid-span and the quarter-span were used
11 to determine the effect of global flexural stress on the shear strength coefficient β. For each
12 location, different load cases were studied by holding loads at auxiliary locations constant at a
13 specified level while increasing the load at a selected location to failure. By varying the
14 magnitude of the auxiliary loads, different levels of global flexural stress were achieved. Using
15 the failure load predicted by the FE analysis for each case and the ratio of applied moment to
16 nominal moment capacity M/ M n, the shear strength coefficient β was determined for each case,
17 as shown in Figure 9. Such correlation indicates that increasing the ratio M/ M n reduces the shear
18 strength coefficient β from 2.0 down to 1.0. Most of the reduction of shear strength occurred
19 when the ratio M/ M n ranged from 0.2 to 0.6, while it becomes insignificant at ratios higher than
20 0.6. It should be noted that the data used in this analysis represent industry-typical cases with
21 uniformly distributed ledge reinforcement and maximum practical load eccentricity (ledge load
22 is placed at 3/4 of the ledge projection, l p, from the inner web face, in accordance with 7th edition
23 of PCI Design Handbook1).

8
 4.0

Control (Mid-span)
3.0
Control (Quarter-span)
β

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
M/Mn at Location of Failure
1
2 Figure 9: Effect of Global Flexural Stress in RC Beams (FE Analysis)

4 <subhead 3> Effect of Global Shear Stress in RC Beams: A similar analysis was performed to
5 correlate the level of global shear stress to the uniform shear stress on the idealized failure
6 surface of the ledge. In this case, the level of global shear stress is represented by the ratio V/ Vn
7 , where V is the applied shear and Vn is the nominal shear capacity of the beam at a given
8 location, as determined by the procedure developed by Lucier et al.6-8

9 Different loading cases were analyzed by FE for two selected locations at the end region and the
10 quarter-span to simulate different levels of global shear stress. Using the failure load predicted
11 by the FE analysis for each loading case, both the ratio of applied shear to nominal shear
12 capacity V/ Vn, and the shear strength coefficient β were determined for each loading case, as
13 plotted in Figure 10. The correlation clearly indicates that increasing the ratio V/ Vn reduces the
14 shear strength coefficient β from 2.0 to 1.0, similar to the reduction associated with increasing
15 global flexural stress. Similarly, most of the reduction occurs when the ratio V/ Vn ranges from
16 0.2 to 0.6.

17

9
 4.0

3.0 Control (End)

β

2.0 Control (Quarter-span)

1.0

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

1
V/Vn at Location of Failure

2 Figure 10: Effect of Global Shear Stress in RC Beams (FE Analysis)

4 <subhead 3> Proposed Relationship for the Effects of Global Stress: Results of the FE
5 analysis indicate that the relationships between the ratios M /M n and V /V n and the shear strength
6 coefficient β are almost identical. Therefore, one bilinear relationship can be used to estimate the
7 shear strength coefficient β at a given location, based on the larger of the two ratios (M /M nand
8 V /V n ). Figure 11 shows the experimental test results plotted against the proposed relationship

9 using the larger of M /M nand V /V n , and the corresponding shear strength coefficient, β. Similar
10 trends were obtained from the FE parametric study that was performed to study the effects of
11 various parameters on ledge capacity at various locations. These results are presented
12 elsewhere.10 It should be noted that the proposed relationship is based on an optimized
13 correlation between the shear strength coefficients determined by FE analysis and the
14 experimental program, and the predictions.

10
 4.0

Experimental Results
3.0 Experimental Results
β
RC Short Beams

2.0 RC Long Beams

Lucier, RC Long
Beam
1.0

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

1
Larger of M/Mn and V/Vn at Location of Failure

2 Figure 11: Experimental Results Overlaid on the Proposed Relationship for the Effect of Global Stresses
3 in RC Beams

5 <subhead 2>
6 Effect of Prestressing

7 Research findings clearly indicate that the use of prestressing generally enhances the punching
8 shear strength of a ledge.2 The influence of prestressing is dependent on the level of prestressing
9 in the beam.

10 Using the same approach for reinforced concrete beams, the results of FE analysis10 for the ledge
11 capacities of prestressed concrete beams were analyzed to determine the relationship between the
12 larger of the ratios M /M nand V /V n and the corresponding shear strength coefficient, β, as shown
13 at the top of Figure 12. The data used to establish the relationship were based on beams having
14 the same prestressing level and the same concrete strength. The figure clearly indicates that
15 prestressing increases the shear strength coefficient for different levels of global stress at all
16 locations along the beam.

17 To account for the effect of prestressing, it is proposed to modify the shear strength coefficient, β
18 , by the coefficient γ , where γ is a factor that is dependent on the level of prestressing. The
19 coefficient γ was derived based on the increase of the principal tensile strength of concrete in the
20 prestressed section, subjected to the combined effect of shear and torsion.14-16 For reinforced

11
1 concrete beams, the coefficient γ equals 1.0, and for prestressed concrete beams, the following
2 equation can be used:

3
√
γ= 1+10
f pc
f' c

4 Where,
5 f pc = average prestress after losses

6 f' c = design compressive strength of the concrete, psi

7 For the data presented at the top of Figure 12, the coefficient γ was 1.47, based on the average
8 prestressing level after losses, f pc, of 690 psi (4.8 MPa) and a concrete strength, f' c, of 6000 psi
9 (41.4 MPa). The comparison between the modified shear strength coefficients, γβ, and those
10 predicted by FE analysis indicates the validity of the proposed approach to predict the punching
11 shear strength of a ledge. The same conclusion is drawn when this proposed approach is
12 compared to the available experimental results for beams having an average coefficient γ equal
13 to 1.32, corresponding to an average prestress level after losses, f pc, of 690 psi (4.8 MPa) and
14 measured concrete strength, f' c, ranged from 8670 psi (59.8 MPa) to 10190 psi (70.3 MPa), as
15 shown at the bottom of Figure 12. The proposed approach to considering the effect of
16 prestressing can be used to conservatively predict the modified shear strength coefficient γβ.

17

12
 4.0
FE Results 𝛾 =1.47
3.0 Control (Mid-
span)
γβ

2.0 Control (Quar-

ter-span)
RC,
1.0 γ=1.
0 Control (End)

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Larger of M/Mn and V/Vn at Location of Failure
1
2

4.0
Experimental
Results
𝛾=1.32
3.0 Experimental PC Lo...
γβ

2.0

RC
1.0 , γ=
1.0

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Larger of M/Mn and V/Vn at Location of Failure
3
4 Figure 12: FE and Experimental Results Overlaid on the Proposed Idealization for the Effect of
5 Prestressing

13
1 <subhead 1>
2 Proposed Procedure to Evaluate the Punching Shear Strength of Ledges

3 Based on the above analyses, a step-by-step procedure for evaluating ledge punching shear
4 capacity is proposed below:
5 1. For a given location of concentrated ledge load along the span of an L-shaped beam, the
6 ratios M u /Mn and Vu /V n are determined, where:
7 M u = factored moment in the beam at the given location,
8 Vu = factored shear in the beam at the given location,
9 M n = nominal flexural strength of the beam at the given location determined in
10 accordance with section 5.2 of the 7th edition of PCI Design Handbook.1
11 Vn= nominal shear strength of the beam at the given location, equal to Vc + V s

12 V c= nominal shear strength provided by concrete, determined in accordance with section

13 5.3 of the 7th edition of PCI Design Handbook.1
14 Vs= nominal shear strength provided by shear reinforcement, determined in accordance
15 with the slender spandrel procedure developed by Lucier et al.6,

16 ¿2 ( )
Aso
s
. f y .d

17 Aso /s= vertical shear reinforcement on the outer web face (i.e. non-ledge web face), units
18 of in2/in.
19 d = distance from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid of longitudinal tension
20 reinforcement (per ACI 318-1413), but not less than 0.8h for prestressed components (
21 d p is used for prestressed components when a distinction from d for non-prestressed
22 reinforcement is relevant)
23 f y= specified yield strength of shear reinforcement, psi
24
25 2. Let R be the larger of the two ratios (M u /Mn and Vu /V n). Determine the shear strength
26 coefficient of the ledge, β, based on the following conditions, as shown in Figure 13.
27 for R≤0.2, β =2
28 for 0.2≤R≤0.6 , β=1+2.5(0.6-R)
29 for R ≥0.6, β=1

14
1

Shear Strength Coefficient, β

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
R = Larger of Mu/Mn and Vu/Vn at a Given Loca-
tion
2

3 Figure 13: Shear Strength Coefficient β for Ledges of L-shaped Beams

4
5 For typical designs, the ratio R will likely exceed 0.6 in regions of maximum shear or
6 flexure. Thus, it is usually reasonable and always conservative to take β as 1.0. Generally,
7 ledge punching shear strength near the support or the mid-span will control the design of
8 the ledge.

15
1 3. For interior concentrated loads, where d e >0.5 bt + h l + l p, a symmetric failure would
2 control the design punching shear strength of the ledge, ϕ V ln. The design strength should
3 be taken as the lesser of the values given by Equations (1) and (2). Typically, Equation
4 (1) controls the strength for single interior ledge loads, while Equation (2) controls the
5 strength for closely spaced interior ledge loads,

6 ϕV ln =ϕλγβ √ f'c h l ( bt + 2 h l + 2 l p ) (1)

7 ϕV ln =ϕ0.5 λγβ √ f'c hl ( b t + 2 h l +s+ 2 l p ) (2)

8 For end concentrated loads, where d e <0.5 bt + h l + l p, an asymmetric failure would

9 control the design punching shear strength of the ledge, ϕ V ln. The design strength should
10 be taken as the lesser of the values given by Equations (3) and (4). Typically, Equation
11 (3) controls the strength for single ledge loads close to the end of the ledge, while
12 Equation (4) controls the strength for closely spaced ledge loads close to the end of the
13 ledge,

14 ϕV ln =ϕλγβ √ f'c h l ( 0.5 bt + h l + de + l p ) (3)

15 ϕV ln =ϕ0.5 λγβ √ f'c hl ( 0.5 b t + hl + d e +s+ l p ) (4)

16 Where
17 ϕ V ln = design punching shear strength, lb.
18 h l = height of ledge, in.
19 l p = projection of the ledge, in.
20 bt = the width of the DT stem or the width of the bearing pad, whichever is less, in.
21 d e = distance from the center of an applied concentrated load to end of the ledge, in.
22 f' c = design compressive strength of the concrete, psi

23 s = spacing between applied concentrated loads, in. The minimum load spacing along the
24 ledge should be used to determine the design punching shear strength.
25 γ = a factor accounting for the level of prestressing

26
√
= 1+10
f pc
f'c

16
1 = 1.0 for non-prestressed sections
2 f pc = average prestress after losses at a given location, psi. If the distance of the load to

3 end of the ledge,d e, is less than the transfer length of the strands, the average
4 prestress should be reduced accordingly.
th
5 λ = modification factor for density of concrete (section 5.3.3 in 7 edition of PCI Design
6 Handbook1)
7 ϕ = strength reduction factor, 0.75
8
9 It should be noted that this research did not consider the case where a ledge supports a
10 continuous load (such as cored slabs or box beams placed side-by-side), or a continuous series of
11 closely spaced concentrated loads (such as channel beams).

12 These conditions are addressed by Equation 5-48 of the 7th edition of the PCI Design Handbook1:

13 ϕV ln =24 ϕ h l λ √ f'c (Equation 5-48)

14 ϕ V ln = design shear strength, lb/ft.

15 PCI Equation 5-48 assumes a shear strength of 2√ f' c over the height of the ledge. The observed
16 behavior of ledges under concentrated loads in this research suggests that PCI Equation 5-48
17 overestimates ledge strength. Accordingly, it is recommended that the shear strength be reduced
18 to √ f' c and the following revised equation can be used conservatively:

19 ϕV ln =ϕ12 λ √ f'c . h l (5)

20

17
1 <subhead 1>
2 Reliability of the Proposed Procedure

3 Figure 14 compares the experimentally measured ledge capacities to predictions calculated per
4 the design equations included in the 7th edition of PCI Design Handbook1 and also per the
5 proposed procedure. It should be noted that the ledge capacity predicted by PCI equations for
6 each case is determined using the specified equation for the selected failure location (i.e.
7 Equation 5-44 for interior locations and Equation 5-45 for end locations). The experimental data
8 represent typical cases where ledge reinforcement is uniformly distributed and maximum
9 eccentricity is induced by placing the ledge load at 3/4 of the ledge projection, l p, from the inner
10 web face. The comparisons demonstrate that the proposed procedure can be conservatively
11 applied to predict the punching shear strength of the ledges of L-shaped beams. The average ratio
12 between the measured and the predicted values using the proposed design procedure is 1.15±
13 0.03, based on a 95% confidence level, with much of the variation on the conservative side. The
14 study was performed on L-shaped beams having the following characteristics:
15 a) Varying levels of global flexure and shear stresses
16 b) Reinforced and prestressed concrete beams
17 c) Ledge heights from 8 to 18 in. (200 to 460 mm).
18 d) Ledge projections from 6 to 10 in. (150 to 250 mm).
19 e) Concrete strengths from 5,000 to 15,000 psi (34.5 to 103.4 MPa).
20 f) Bearing widths from 4 to 12 in. (100 to 300 mm).
21 g) Edge distances from 4 to 36 in. (100 to 910 mm)
22 h) Normal weight concrete

23 It should be noted that size effect should be considered if the proposed procedure is applied
24 larger ledger beams, especially deep ledges supporting bridge girders. For concrete strengths
25 higher than 10,000 psi (69 MPa), it is conservative to limit √ f ' c to 100 psi (0.69 MPa), in
26 accordance to ACI 318-14.13 However, research findings indicate significantly greater ledge
27 capacity for concrete strengths up to 15,000 psi (103.4 MPa), provided that the level of prestress
28 is increased in proportion to f' c.

18
 7th edition of PCI
Design Handbook
1

Proposed
Procedure

2
3 Figure 14: Comparison of Measured Nominal Ledge Capacities and the Values Predicted by the
4 Equations Included in 7th edition of the PCI Design Handbook and by the Proposed Procedure.

19
1 <subhead 1>
2 Detailing Recommendations

3 The ledge shear resistance mechanism is primarily governed by failure in the concrete. However,
4 previous research1-2 indicates that details of the ledge reinforcement can influence the ledge
5 behavior.

6 1. Test results indicate that turning the bottom leg of the hanger reinforcement into the ledge
7 may improve the ledge shear failure mechanism by intercepting the diagonal compressive
8 stress extending downward from the ledge load, thus reducing the brittleness of the
9 failure. It is recommended to provide a bar or strand at the inside corner of hanger bars
10 that are turned outward towards the ledge.
11 2. Limited test results indicate that the nominal shear capacity of the ledge can be increased
12 by 25 percent or more by concentrating all required ledge flexure and hanger
13 reinforcement over a distance of bt +2 h l at the location of the applied concentrated load,
14 with turning the bottom leg of the hanger reinforcement into the ledge. The amount of
15 reinforcement concentrated near the load should be determined using the equations in
16 Section 5.5.2 and Section 5.5.4 of the 7th edition of the PCI Design Handbook1, with
17 additional minimum reinforcement placed elsewhere between ledge loads. For practical
18 reasons, the ledge height is often kept constant throughout a project. This approach may
19 be particularly useful in cases where supporting an unusual heavy load is required, but
20 increasing the ledge height is undesirable. The strut-and-tie method of ACI 318-1413
21 provides an alternate means for proportioning concentrated hanger and ledge
22 reinforcement.
23 3. Limited test results indicate that welded wire reinforcement (WWR) performs as well as
24 conventional ledge reinforcement; use of WWR was observed to reduce the time required
25 for fabrication and placement of ledge reinforcement.

20
1 <subhead 1>
2 Summary and Conclusions

3 Based on extensive finite element analyses and a comprehensive experimental program that
4 included 106 tests performed on 21 short-span and 9 long-span L-shaped beams, the following
5 conclusions can be drawn for the evaluation of the punching shear strength of ledges of L-shaped
6 beams.

7 1. The PCI procedure, provided by the 7th edition of PCI Design Handbook1, can
8 significantly overestimate the punching shear strength of the ledge, especially for interior
9 locations.
10 2. The level of global stress is the most influential parameter affecting ledge capacity. High
11 levels of global flexural or shear stress in the region of a concentrated ledge load
12 significantly reduce the punching shear strength of the ledge.
13 3. The use of prestressing enhances the punching shear strength of the ledge. The enhanced
14 capacity is dependent on the level of prestressing of the beam.
15 4. Increasing the eccentricity of the applied load from the inner web face reduces the
16 punching shear strength of the ledge. Therefore, it is conservative to determine the
17 punching shear strength of the ledge by assuming the ledge load is applied at 3/4 of the
18 ledge projection, l p, from the inner web face, in accordance with PCI guidelines.
19 5. For typical ledges, the crack angles of the observed failure surfaces were more shallow
20 than the 45o angles assumed by the PCI procedure.
21 6. A simple and practical procedure is introduced for calculating the punching shear
22 strength of the ledge by assuming a uniform nominal shear stress acting on an idealized
23 failure surface.
24 7. Special reinforcement details are recommended to improve and enhance the behavior and
25 capacity of the ledge without changing its geometry.

26

21
1 <subhead 1>
2 Acknowledgments

3 This research was sponsored by the PCI Research and Development Committee. The authors are
4 grateful to the Ledge Advisory Committee for the support and guidance provided throughout all
5 phases of this research. The authors would also like to thank Metromont Corporation, Tindall
6 Corporation, and Gate Precast Company for their generosity in providing test specimens, and for
7 their expertise in support of the experimental program.

8 <subhead 1>
9 References

10 1. Nafadi, M. K., O. M. Khalafalla, G. W. Lucier, S. H. Rizkalla, P. Z. Zia, and G. J. Klein.

11 Ledge Behavior and Strength of Short-Span L-Shaped Beams. PCI Journal, forthcoming.
12 2. Nafadi, M. K., G. W. Lucier, S. H. Rizkalla, P. Z. Zia, and G. J. Klein. Ledge Behavior
13 and Strength of Long-Span L-Shaped Beams. PCI Journal, forthcoming.
14 3. Klein, G. J. 1986. Design of Spandrel Beams. PCI Journal, V.31, No. 5: pp. 76–124.
15 4. Klein, G. J. 1986. Design of Spandrel Beams. PCI specially funded research and
16 development program research project no. 5 (PCISFRAD #5). Chicago, IL.
17 5. Hassan, T. K. 2007. Finite Element Study of Shear Behavior of Spandrel Ledges and
18 Comparison with PCI Shear Design Provisions. Advances in Structural Engineering,
19 V.10, No.5: pp. 475–485.
20 6. Lucier, G., C. Walter, S. Rizkalla, P. Zia, and G. Klein. 2011. Development of a Rational
21 Design Methodology for Precast Concrete Slender Spandrel Beams: Part 1, Experimental
22 Results. PCI Journal, V.56, No. 2: pp. 88–112.
23 7. Lucier, G., C. Walter, S. Rizkalla, P. Zia, and G. Klein. 2011. Development of a Rational
24 Design Methodology for Precast Concrete Slender Spandrel Beams: Part 2, Analysis and
25 Design Guidelines. PCI Journal, V.56, No. 4: pp. 106–133.
26 8. Lucier, G., C. Walter, S. Rizkalla, P. Zia, and G. Klein. 2010. Development of a Rational
27 Design Methodology for Precast Concrete Slender Spandrel Beams. Technical Report
28 No. IS-09-10. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
29 9. Logan, D. R. 2012. Discussion on "Development of a Rational Design Methodology for
30 Precast Slender Spandrel Beams". PCI Journal, V. 57, No. 2: pp. 182–187.

22
 1 10. Rizkalla, S., M. Nafadi, G. Lucier, P. Zia, and G. Klein. 2016. Behavior and Design of
2 Directly-Loaded L-Shaped Beam Ledges. Technical Report No. RD-16-03. North
3 Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
4 11. PCI Industry Handbook Committee. 2010. PCI Design Handbook: Precast and
5 Prestressed Concrete. 7th ed. Chicago, IL.
6 12. PCI Industry Handbook Committee. 2017. PCI Design Handbook: Precast and
7 Prestressed Concrete. 8th ed. Chicago, IL.
8 13. ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2014. Building Code Requirements for Structural
9 Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14). Farmington Hills, MI.
10 14. Hsu, T. T. (1968). Torsion of Structural Concrete-Uniformly Prestressed Rectangular
11 Members Without Web Reinforcement. PCI Journal V. 13, No. 2: pp. 34-44.
12 15. Zia, P., and Hsu, T.T.C. (2004). Design for Torsion and Shear in Prestressed Concrete
13 Flexural Members. PCI Journal V. 49, No. 3: pp. 34-42.
14 16. Zia, P., and McGee, W. D. (1974). Torsion Design of Prestressed Concrete, PCI Journal
15 V. 19, No. 2: pp. 46-65.

16 <subhead 1>
17 Notation

18 A l = longitudinal reinforcement in ledge, in2

19 A s = transverse flexural reinforcement, in2

20 A sh = hanger reinforcement, in2

21 A so /s = vertical shear reinforcement on the outer web face (i.e. non-ledge web face), units of
22 in2/in.
23 b = width of web, in.
24 bl = width of web and one ledge, in.
25 bt = the width of the DT stem or the width of the bearing pad, whichever is less, in.

26 d = distance from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid of longitudinal tension
27 reinforcement (per ACI 318-1413), but not less than 0.8h for prestressed components (d p is
28 used for prestressed components when a distinction from d for non-prestressed reinforcement
29 is relevant)
30 d e= distance from the center of an applied concentrated load to end of the ledge, in.

23
 1 e' =eccentricity of the factored ledge vertical load to the inner web face, in.
2 f' c = specified compressive strength of concrete, psi

3 f pc = average prestress after losses at a given location, psi.

4 f y= specified yield strength of shear reinforcement, psi

5 h= height of beam, in.
6 h l= height of beam ledge, in.

7 l b = length of the bearing area, in.

8 l p= projection of the ledge, in. (( bl -b) in section 5.5 of 7th edition of PCI Design Handbook)

9 M n = nominal flexural strength of the beam at the given location determined in accordance with
10 section 5.2 of the 7th edition of PCI Design Handbook.1
11 M n x= torsional moment around x axis at centroid of critical section (parallel to ledge projection)

12 M ny = torsional moment around y axis at centroid of critical section (perpendicular to ledge

13 projection)
14 M u = factored moment in the beam at the given location
15 N lu= factored ledge friction load, lb. (N u in section 5.5 of 7th edition of PCI Design Handbook)

16 R = the larger of the two ratios (M u /Mn and V u /V n).

17 s = spacing between applied concentrated loads, in.
18 V c= nominal shear strength provided by concrete, determined in accordance with section 5.3 of
19 the 7th edition of PCI Design Handbook.1
20 V n= nominal shear strength of the beam at the given location, equal to V c + V s
21 V u = factored shear in the beam at the given location
22 V lu= factored ledge vertical load, lb. ( V u in section 5.5 of 7th edition of PCI Design Handbook)

23 V ln= nominal ledge capacity, lb. ( V n in section 5.5 of 7th edition of PCI Design Handbook)

24 x0 = distance from ledge load to centroid of critical section, in a parallel direction to ledge
25 projection
26 y0 = distance from ledge load to centroid of critical section, in a perpendicular direction to ledge
27 projection
28 ϕ = a strength-reduction factor
29 γ = a factor accounting for the level of prestressing

24
1 λ = modification factor for density of concrete (section 5.3.3 in 7th edition of PCI Design
2 Handbook)
3 <subhead 1>
4 About the authors

5 Mohamed K. Nafadi, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at Assiut University,

6 Egypt. He is a former graduate research assistant in the Department of Civil, Construction, and
7 Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

8 Gregory W. Lucier, PhD, is Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil,

9 Construction and Environmental Engineering, and Manager of the Constructed Facilities
10 Laboratory at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

11 Sami H. Rizkalla, PhD, FPCI, FACI, FASCE, FIIFC, FEIC, FCSCE, is Distinguished Professor
12 of Civil Engineering and Construction, director of the Constructed Facilities Laboratory, and
13 director of the NSF Center on Integration of Composites into Infrastructure at North Carolina
14 State University, Raleigh, NC.

15 Paul Z. Zia, PhD, PE, FPCI, is a Distinguished University Professor Emeritus in the Department
16 of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering at North Carolina State University,
17 Raleigh, NC.

18 Gary J. Klein, PE, is Executive Vice President and Senior Principal for Wiss, Janney, Elstner
19 Associates, Inc. in Northbrook, IL.

25
1 <subhead 1>
2 Abstract

3 The design procedure presented in the 7th edition of the PCI Design Handbook for ledges of L-
4 shaped beams has been called into question by many engineers and researchers. Research
5 findings from previous experimental studies have indicated that the PCI ledge design equations
6 can overestimate ledge punching shear strength.

7 This paper presents the development of a proposed design procedure for the 8th edition of PCI
8 Design Handbook to evaluate the punching shear strength of ledges of L-shaped beams. Based
9 on the failure surfaces observed throughout a comprehensive experimental program, an idealized
10 failure surface was determined. The results of extensive finite element analyses and a large
11 experimental program were used to evaluate the effects of global stress on ledge capacity, and a
12 procedure to evaluate the punching shear strength of the ledge was developed. The proposed
13 procedure is presented in this paper and is intended to provide an improved margin of safety for
14 ledge capacity under a wide range of loading conditions. Consideration was given to ensure
15 simplicity and practicality of the proposed design procedure.

16

17 <subhead 1>
18 Keywords

19 Ledge, Punching shear, L-shaped beams, Spandrel, Global stress, Failure.

20

21

22

26
1 <subhead 1>
2 Appendix: Design Example

3 Problem:
4 Investigate the shear strength of the ledge of the following L-shaped beam and determine the
5 required ledge reinforcement.

6 Figure A1: Elevation View of the Example Prestressed Concrete L-shaped Beam. Note: 1 ft=0.305 m; 1
7 in.=25.4 mm

8
9

27
1 Data:

2 Prestressing:

3 (14) ½-S in. diameter, 270 ksi low relaxation strands

4 Aps=2.338 in2 (1510 mm2)

5 Pertinent results:

6 M n = 1405 kip.ft (1906 kN.m), at first stem, near support

7 = 2138 kip.ft (2900 kN.m) at fifth stem, mid-span

8 Vc = 215 kip (956 kN), at first stem, near support

9 = 66 kip (294 kN), at fifth stem, mid-span

10 Aso /s= 0.06 in2/ft (127 mm2/m), continuous

11 Additional information:

12 h =60 in. (1520 mm), d p =48 in. (1220 mm)

13 Vlu = 24.7 kip/stem (110 kN/stem)
14 h l = 8 in. (200 mm)
15 lp = 8 in. (200 mm)
16 bt = 4 in. (100 mm)
17 s = 60 in. (1520 mm)
18 f' c = 10000 psi (69 MPa)
19 d s = 6.75 in. (170 mm)
20 d l = 6 in. (150 mm)
21 λ =1.0
22

28
1 Solution:

2 Check the shear strength of the ledge

3 At the stem location of maximum shear (first stem):

4 Step 1 - Calculate the ratios Vu /V n and M u /Mn

Vu = 123 kip (547 kN), M u = 340 kip.ft (461 kN.m)

to calculate V s :
Vs = 2(A so /s). f y .d/12 =0.06x2x60x48/12
= 28.8 kip (128 kN)
Vn = Vc + Vs=215+28.8 =243.8 kip (1084 kN),

Vu /V n=123/243.8=0.50 (larger)
M u /Mn =340/1405 =0.24
5
6 Step 2 - Determine the coefficient of shear strength of the ledge, β

7 R= V u /V n =0.50

8 for 0.2≤ R ≤0.6 , β=1+2.5 ( 0.6- R ) =1+2.5 ( 0.6-0.5 ) = 1.25

9
10 Step 3 - Determine the design shear strength of the ledge

11 From Design Aid 15.3.4 of 7th edition of PCI Design Handbook1, strand develops 170 ksi at 29.6
12 in. (750 mm), [< 27+12=39 in. (990 mm)]. Thus, prestress force is fully transferred.

Ppd 2.338×170
13 f pc = = =0.731 ksi (5 MPa)
A 544

14
√
γ = 1+10
f pc
f' c √
= 1+10
0.731
10
=1.316

15 d e =27 in. (690 mm) >0.5 bt + h l + l p = 18 in. (460 mm)

29
1 Use the lesser of equations (1) and (2)
2 ϕV ln =ϕλγβ √ f'c h l ( bt + 2 h l + 2 l p ) (1)

3 =0.75×1.0×1.316×1.25 √ 10000 ×8(4+2×8+2×8)/1000

4 = 35.5 kip (158 kN), lesser
5

6 ϕV ln =ϕ0.5 λγβ √ f'c hl ( b t + 2 h l +s+ 2 l p ) (2)

7 =0.75×0.5×1.0×1.31×1.25 √ 10000 ×8(4+2×8+60+2×8)/1000

8 = 47.4 kip (211 kN)
9
10 At the stem location of maximum moment (fifth stem):
11
12 Step 1- Calculate the ratios Vu /V n and M u /Mn
13
14 Vu = 12 kip (53 kN), M u = 1446 kip ft (1961 kN.m)

15 to calculate Vs:

16 Vs=2 (Aso /s). f y .d /12 =2x0.060.12x60x48/12

17 = 28.8 kip (128 kN)

18 Vn = Vc + Vs=66+28.8 =94.8 kip (422 kN),

19 Vu /V n=12/94.8=0.13

20 M u /Mn =1446/2138 =0.68 (larger)

21
22 Step 2 - Determine the coefficient of shear strength of the ledge, β

23 R= M u /M n=0.68

24 for R >0.6 , β =1.0

25 Step 3 - Determine the design shear strength of the ledge

30
1 d e =267 in. ( 6780 mm) > 0.5 b t + h l + l p = 18 in . (460 mm)

2 Use the lesser of equations (1) and (2)

3 ϕV ln =ϕλγβ √ f'c h l ( bt + 2 h l + 2 l p ) (1)

4 =0.75×1.0×1.316×1.0 √ 10000 ×8(4+2×8+2×8)/1000

5 = 28.4 kip (126 kN), lesser
6

7 ϕV ln =ϕ0.5 λγβ √ f'c hl ( b t + 2 h l +s+ 2 l p ) (2)

8 =0.75×0.5×1.0×1.316×1.0 √ 10000 ×8(4+2×8+60+2×8)/1000

9 = 37.9 kip (169 kN)
10
11 ∴ ϕ Vln =28.4 kip (126 kN) >24.7 kip (110 kN) /stem (OK)
12

13 Determine the required transverse reinforcement

14 Using Nlu =15% of Vlu =3.71 kip (17 kN),

15 Assuming the maximum load eccentricity of 0.75 l p from the inner web face

16 a =0.75 l p + ( cover )
17 =0.75 ×8+1.25=7.25 in. (180 mm)

18 d =6.75 in (170 mm)

s
19 6 h l =48 in. > =30 in . (760 mm)
2
s
20 Distribute reinforcement over a distance of on each side of the load
2

21 As =
1
ϕ fy[V lu ( ) ( )]
a
d
+ Nlu
hl
d
=
1
0.75×60
24.7
[
7.25
6.75 ( )
+3.71
8
6.75 ( )] =0.69 in (445 mm )
2 2

A s 0.69 (12) 2
22 = =0.138 in. /ft (292 mm2/m)
s 60
23 Maximum bar spacing = 8 in. (200 mm)

31
1 Use #3 @ 8 in. (10M@200 mm), A s = 0.165 in.2/ft (349 mm2/m) at all locations

2 Check longitudinal bending of the ledge

dl 6 2
3 Al =200 . l p . =200 ×8× =0.16 in. (103 mm2)
fy 60000

4 Use (1) 1/2”-S strand at top of the ledge providing 0.167 in2 (108 mm2) and use (1) #5 (16M) bar
5 at the bottom of the ledge, providing 0.31 in2 (200 mm2)

6 Determine the required hanger reinforcement

7 γ t =0 (open reinforcement)
8

[ ( )( ) ( ) ( x2 y)l
][ )( ) (162 )-0 ] =2.02
2
hl hl bl
(
2
( ds +a ) - 3-2 -e γ t ( 6.75+7.25 ) - 3-2 2×8 8
9 h h 2 ∑ x2 y 60 60
m= =
ds 6.75
10
Vlu 24.7
11 Ash = (m) = ( 2.02 ) =1.11 in 2 (716 mm2)
ϕ fy 0.75×60
12
A sh 1.11(12) 2
13 = =0.22 in. /ft (466 mm2/m)
s 60
14 Use #4 @ 8 in. (13M@200 mm), Ash = 0.30 in.2/ft (635 mm2/m)

32