Title:
SHEAR BEHAVIOR AND DIAGONAL CRACK WIDTH FOR RC BEAMS WITH HIGH STRENGTH SHEAR REINFORCEMENT
Author(s):
Jung-Yoon Lee, Do Hyung Lee, Jin-Eun Lee, and Seong-Ho Choi
Publication:
Structural Journal
Volume:
112
Issue:
3
Appears on pages(s):
323-334
Keywords:
beams; diagonal crack width; high-strength concrete; highstrength shear reinforcement; reinforced concrete; shear failure modes
DOI:
10.14359/51687422
Date:
5/1/2015
Abstract:
ACI 318-11 specifies that the yield strength of shear reinforcement be limited to 420 MPa (60,000 psi) in a shear design equation. However, this is not the case in other design codes, such as EC2-04, CSA-04, and JSCE-02, where a yield strength of shear reinforcement of more than 420 MPa (60,000 psi) is allowed in shear design. The primary reason for the limit of 420 MPa (60,000 psi) in ACI 318-11 is to provide enough transverse reinforcement and, hence, control diagonal crack width. To investigate this, a total of 18 reinforced concrete (RC) beam specimens incorporating high-strength shear reinforcement were tested and the applicability of the
reinforcement was then assessed. In addition, the diagonal crack widths from the current test results and the 38 RC beam experimental results available in the technical literature have been evaluated by comparison with the crack regulation of ACI 318-11. Comparative results reveal that diagonal crack width can be influenced by the amount of shear reinforcement and compressive concrete strength. In short, the width is inversely proportional to amount of shear reinforcement divided by compressive concrete strength.
Related References:
1. Aoyama, H., Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures, Imperial College Press, London, UK, 2001, 442 pp.
2. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
3. (BS EN 1992-1-1), “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings,” Comite European De Normalisation (CEN), Lausanne, Switzerland, 2004, 211 pp.
4. CSA Committee A23.3-04, “Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings (CAV3-A23.3-04),” Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2004, 232 pp.
5. Japan Society of Civil Engineering, “Standard Specifications for Concrete Structures,” Tokyo, Japan, 2002, 257 pp.
6. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, “Recent Approaches to Shear Design of Structural Concrete (ACI 445R-99),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999, 55 pp.
7. Munikrishma, A.; Hosny, A.; Rizkalla, S.; and Zia, P., “Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with ASTM A1035 Grade 100 Stirrups under Shear,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 4, July-Aug. 2011, pp. 34-41.
8. Munikrishma, A., “Shear Behavior of Concrete Beam Reinforced with High Performance Steel Shear Reinforcement,” master’s thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2008, 167 pp.
9. Fukuhara, M., and Kokusho, S., “Effectiveness of High Tension Shear Reinforcement in RC Members,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, No. 320, 1982, pp. 12-20.
10. Iwai, I.; Enomoto, H.; Watanabe, F.; and Muguruma, H., “Shear Strength of High Strength Concrete Beams,” Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 1991, pp. 269-272.
11. Regan, P. L., and Baker, A. L. L., “Shear Failure of Reinforced Concrete Beams,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 68, No. 10, Oct. 1971, pp. 763-773.
12. Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R., “Beitrage zur Behandlung der Schubprobleme im Sthalbetonbau,” Beton-und Stahlbetonbau, V. 9, 1963, pp. 216-224.
13. ACI Committee 224, “Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures (ACI 224R-01),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2001, 46 pp.
14. Lee, J.-Y., and Hwang, H.-B., “Maximum Shear Reinforcement of Reinforced Concrete Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2010, pp. 580-588.
15. Lee, J.-Y., and Choi, I. J., “Shear Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams with High-Strength Stirrups,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2011, pp. 620-629.