Title:
Effect of Member Size and Tendon Layout on Shear Behavior of Post-Tensioned Beams
Author(s):
Boyan I. Mihaylov, Jian Liu, Konstantine Simionopoulos, Evan C. Bentz, and Michael P. Collins
Publication:
Structural Journal
Volume:
116
Issue:
4
Appears on pages(s):
265-274
Keywords:
arch action; deformation patterns; kinematic model; shear; size effect; strut-and-tie model
DOI:
10.14359/51715633
Date:
7/1/2019
Abstract:
Eight post-tensioned beams were tested at the University of Toronto to study the size effect in shear and the influence of different tendon layouts. The specimens varied in depth from 250 to 1000 mm (9.84 to 39.4 in.), while the unbonded tendons were either straight or harped. The eccentricity of the tendons was either zero, 1/6, or 1/2.67 of the section depth. The beams had no stirrups and were tested to shear failure under symmetrical three-point bending. It is shown that the specimens with a shear-span-to-effective-depth ratio of approximately 3 developed arch action and exhibited a size effect. A strut-and-tie model based on the AASHTO code captures the experimental results well, except the high shear resistance observed in the smallest specimens. To explain this behavior and the transition from slender to deep members, the paper sets the basis of a rational modeling approach based on kinematics. It is shown that the complete deformation patterns of the beams, including the width of the shear cracks, can be captured by a kinematic model with only three degrees of freedom.
Related References:
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 519 pp.
2. AASHTO, “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary,” sixth edition, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2012, 1264 pp.
3. CSA A23.3-14, “Design of Concrete Structures,” Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2014, 290 pp.
4. Collins, M. P.; Bentz, E. C.; and Sherwood, E. G., “Where is Shear Reinforcement Required? Review of Research Results and Design Procedures,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2008, pp. 590-600.
5. Collins, M. P.; Bentz, E. C.; Quach, P. T.; and Proestos, G. T., “The Challenge of Predicting the Shear Strength of Very Thick Slabs,” Concrete International, V. 37, No. 11, Nov. 2015, pp. 29-37.
6. Shioya, T.; Iguro, M.; Nojiri, Y.; Akiyama, H.; and Okada, T., “Shear Strength of Large Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Fracture Mechanics: Application to Concrete, SP-118, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1989, 309 pp.
7. Shioya, T., “Shear Properties of Large Reinforced Concrete Member,” Special Report of Institute of Technology, Shimizu Corporation, No. 25, Tokyo, Japan, Feb. 1989, 198 pp.
8. Sherwood, E. G.; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins, M. P., “Effect of Aggregate Size on Beam-Shear Strength of Thick Slabs,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2007, pp. 180-190.
9. CEB-FIP Model Code, fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010, Ernst & Sons, NJ, 2013, 434 pp.
10. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., “The Modified Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
11. Collins, M. P.; Bentz, E. C.; Sherwood, E. G.; and Xie, L., “An Adequate Theory for the Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Structures,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 60, No. 9, 2008, pp. 635-650. doi: 10.1680/macr.2008.60.9.635
12. Sigrist, V.; Bentz, E.; Fernández Ruiz, M.; Foster, S.; and Muttoni, A., “Background to the fib Model Code 2010 Shear Provisions - Part I: Beams and Slabs,” Structural Concrete, V. 14, No. 3, 2013, pp. 195-203. doi: 10.1002/suco.201200066
13. Kani, M.; Huggins, M.; and Wittkopp, R., “Kani on Shear in Reinforced Concrete,” University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON, Canada, 1979.
14. Mihaylov, B. I.; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins, M. P., “Behavior of Large Deep Beams Subjected to Monotonic and Reversed Cyclic Shear,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2010, pp. 726-734.
15. Bentz, E. C., “Empirical Modelling of Cracking in Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 116, No. 3, May 2019, pp. 233-242. doi: 10.14359/51714476
16. Mihaylov, B. I.; Hunt, B.; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins, M. P., “Three-Parameter Kinematic Theory for Shear Behavior of Continuous Deep Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2015, pp. 47-57. doi: 10.14359/51687180
17. Mihaylov, B. I.; Liu, J.; and Lobet, R., “A Kinematic Approach for the Complete Shear Behavior of Short FRC Coupling Beams,” Shear in Structural Concrete, SP-328, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2018, 20 pp.
18. Mihaylov, B. I.; Hannewald, P.; and Beyer, K., “Three-Parameter Kinematic Theory for Shear-Dominated Reinforced Concrete Walls,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 142, No. 7, 2016, 04016041.