Title:
Shear Response of Prestressed Thin-Webbed Continuous Girders
Author(s):
Michael P. Collins, Liping Xie, Boyan I. Mihaylov, and Evan C. Bentz
Publication:
Structural Journal
Volume:
113
Issue:
3
Appears on pages(s):
447-457
Keywords:
axial force; shear strength; thin-webbed girder; web shear cracking
DOI:
10.14359/51688599
Date:
5/1/2016
Abstract:
While different design codes provide similar guidance for the flexural design of prestressed thin-webbed continuous girders, the shear design provisions differ greatly. This paper investigates these discrepancies with the help of 11 experiments and a number of analytical studies. Together, these provide the basis for recommendations for engineers conducting the shear design for new girders or evaluating the shear capacity of existing girders. It is shown that the traditional ACI approach of taking Vc as the smaller of Vci (flexural-shear cracking load) and Vcw (web-shear cracking load) can significantly overestimate the shear strength of such girders, particularly if they are highly prestressed and contain relatively small quantities of shear reinforcement. The other codes evaluated provided more conservative predictions. It is shown that the ACI predictions can be improved significantly by taking into account the effect of flexural stresses on web shear cracking. While the ACI Code uses different shear-strength equations for members subjected to external axial loads versus members subjected to internal prestressing forces, the studies summarized in this paper support the idea that unification of these ACI shear provisions is possible.
Related References:
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
2. AASHTO LRFD, “Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary,” sixth edition, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2012, 1264 pp.
3. CSA Committee A23.3, “Design of Concrete Structures,” Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2004, 214 pp.
4. European Committee for Standardization, “CEN, EN 1992-1-1:2004 Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures- Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings,” Brussels, Belgium, 2004, 225 pp.
5. 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.
6. Xie, L.; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins, M. P., “Influence of Axial Stress on Shear Response of Reinforced Concrete Elements,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2011, pp. 745-754.
7. Hawkins, N. M.; Sozen, M. A.; and Siess, C. P., “Behavior of Continuous Prestressed Concrete Beams,” Flexural Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, SP-12, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1965, pp. 259-294.
8. Bentz, E. C., “Response-2000 program, 2000,” http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/r2k.htm. (last accessed Sept. 2012)
9. Xie, L., “The Influence of Axial Load and Prestress on the Shear Strength of Web-Shear Critical Reinforced Concrete Elements,” doctoral thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2009, 344 pp.
10. Gupta, P. R., and Collins, M. P., “Evaluation of Shear Design Procedures for Reinforced Concrete Members under Axial Compression,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 4, July-Aug. 2001, pp. 537-547.