ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL . -~ . .

TECHNICAL PAPER,

Title no. 88-S58

Evaluation of a Modified Truss-Model Approach for Beams in Shear

by Julio A. Ramirez and John E. Breen

A modified truss model design approach with variable angle of inciination diagonals and a concrete contribut ion for beams with web reinforcement is proposed as a viable and economic design 1001. Computed values were compared with a wide range oj test results of reinforced and prestressed concrete beams failing in shear. The modified truss model approach was shown to be conservative and in good agreement with test reSUIIS. A diminishing concrete contribution is proposed 10 supplement the strength of the variable angle truss mode! for reinforced concrete beams. For prestressed concrete beams the proposed modified truss model utilizes a constant concrete contribution. A maximum allowable compressive stress oj 30 Jr: toge/her with 10 wer angle limits oj 30 deg jor reinforced concrete beams and 25 deg jar prestressed beams, was shown 10 provide adequate safety agotns: web crushing failures prior 10 yielding oj the stirrup reinforcement.

Keywords: beams (supports): del ailing: models; prestressed. concrete; reinforcedccncrcie; sileRr properties; trusses: web reinforcement.

Design procedures proposed for regulatory standards should be safe, correct in basic concept although not necessarily accurate in all details, simple to understand, and should not necessarily add to either design or construction costs. Successful experience with code provisions for flexure and for combined axial load and flexure has shown that this is best done through use of a relatively simple conceptual model like the rectangular stress block rather than through use of complex empirical equations. Throughout the twentieth century truss models have influenced design procedures. for shear. Truss models in reinforced and prestressed concrete structures are behavioral tools used to study the equilibrium between loads, reactions, and internal forces in the concrete and reinforcement.

The first use of truss models in reinforced concrete beams was presentee! by Ritter.' In his original truss model for shear the compression diagonals were inclined at 45 deg (Fig .. J). Morsch" later suggested the possibility of having angles of inclination different from 45 deg and also introduced the use of truss models for torsion. This pioneer work received new impetus in the period from the ] 960s to 19805. Attention was focused on the truss model with variable angle of incli-

562

nation diagonals as a viable model for shear and torsion in reinforced and prestressed concrete bearns.P" Fuller development of plasticity theories extended the applicability of the model to nonyielding domains.":" Collins and Mitchell':' further developed the European truss model for beams by introducing a compatibility condition for the strains in the transverse and longitudinal steel and the diagonal struts. This geometry-related condition allowed prediction of beam shear and torsion deformations.

Recent work by Schlaich, Schafer, and Jennewein" extended the beam truss model with uniformly inclined diagonals to allow for application to all parts of tbe structure in the form of strut-and-tie systems. In this work Schlaich differentiates between two types of regions in any reinforced or prestressed concrete structure: B (bendingj-regions, where plane sections essentially remain plane, and D (discontinuity)-regions, where the distribution of strains is significantly nonlinear (Fig. 2). The typical truss model developed for beams is usually applicable only in B-regions; specific strut-and-tie systems reflecting actual support conditions need to be developed for D-regions and checks must be introduced to insure proper ultimate load behavior.

Design provisions for shear and torsion for reinforced and prestressed concrete beams in American design specifications+" have evolved into complex procedures. The complexity of such procedures results from their highly empirical nature and the lack of a unified treatment for shear and torsion. Such deficiencies could be largely overcome if the design procedures for shear and torsion were based on behavioral models rather than on detailed empirical equations. The designer would be able to envision the effects of the

ACt Structura; Journal. v. 88, No.5, Seprember-Oerobcr 1991.

Re,·civcd SeD~. 18, 1990, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.

CODyri~hl© 1.99.1. AmeriNn Concreto InstitUlC. All fiSht! reserved, inciuding the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyrighr proprierors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the July-August 1992 ACI Structural Journal if received by Mar. 1, 1992.

ACI Structural Journal I September-October i 991

ACt member Julio A. Ramtre; is Associate Professor of Structural Engineerjng a/ Purdue University. He received a BSC£ from the Unlversidad AuIOIlO/llIJ de Mexico ill 1977. all MS /r011l the University 0/ Texas a/ £1 Paso, and a Pit 0 [rom lite University of Texas UI Austin. Dr. Ramirez is Q member a/join I A SC£·A Cf Committee 445, Shear (1nd Torsion, and A CI Committee .sM. Bond and Development 0/ Reinforcement.

John E. Breen. FAC!. holds Ihe Nasser I. At-Rashid Chair ill Civil Engineering UI fhe Universily of Texas at A ustin. He was formerly Director of the Phil M. Ferguson SlfllCIU'IJI Engineering Laboratory at Ihe University. He is currently a member and is immediare pas! Chairman a/ the ACI Committee J 18. Standard Building Code.

C B

~~

b. A

(a)

1 iJrJillJJlAtlL1t1!

(bl

(co)

Fig. i-Reinforced concrete beam under uniform load (from Reference 35): (a) crack formation indicated by tension stress trajectories; (b) typical crack formation in beam with stirrups; (c) Ritter's truss model, 1899 (Reference i)

forces acting on the member and then provide structural systems capable of resisting those forces. A promising approach is the use of a truss model which allows selection of variable angles of the compression diagonals." The general nature of the variable-angle truss model design approach makes it extremely useful to the designer in treating complex shear and torsion problems. It provides a general framework to handle the case of combined actions in both reinforced and prestressed concrete.

In design of beams for shear and torsion, the variable-angie truss gives the engineer several different design schemes from which to chocse." Sometimes architectural constraints, loading conditions, and general economy may lead the designer towards using low values of the angle to minimize 'congestion of shear and! or torsion stirrup reinforcement. In cases where shear is not critical the selection of larger values of the angle may be more advisable to. reduce the amount of longitudinal reinforcement required. When the shear varies along the length of the beam, selection of truss diagonal inclination angle values which vary along the span can result in almost uniform stirrup spacing which may simplify construction.

Historically, shear design in the United States has included a concrete contribution term Vc to supplement

ACI Structural Journal I September·October 1991

I Ih

tr-------iti-

II'" II Ii" Ii qP! ,

fp]e[O'j t t

a) Beam with direct supports.

.. h ...

,F F!

b) Column with point loads.

c) T·Beam

Fig. 2-B and D-type regions (from Reference 11)

the 45 deg truss model to reflect test results in beams with light web reinforcement and insure economy in practical design of such members.":" In the proposed modified truss model for beams and beam-type regions, the economic penalties resulting from using the variable-angie truss model approach for beams with low shear stresses are minimized by inclusion of a concrete contribution. Thus, the proposed procedure is also applicable to lightly loaded beams and beam-type regions not requiring shear reinforcement.

This paper reports an evaluation of a proposed modified truss model with concrete contribution" for beams and beam-type regions. Experimental data from shear failures of reinforced and prestressed concrete beams with web reinforcement are compared to the design recommendations.

Under the current framework of the ACI Building Code," beams and beam-type regions can only be designed as flexuraily under-reinforced sections to insure ductility. Applying the assured ductility concept to shear failures requires yielding of web reinforcement before crushing of the concrete diagonals. Thus a differentiation was made in the analysis of test results. Only those beams failing in shear in which yielding of the web reinforcement took place prior to failure were used to verify web reinforcement design. In a separate section, the results of beams failing in web crushing were used to evaluate a proposed" upper limit for di-

563

Fig. 3-Truss model for beams and beam-type regions

agonal compression stresses in the web to insure yielding of the stirrup reinforcement at failure.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

A unified and consistent approach employing behavioral models should lead to a more efficient design of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures. However, before a generalized truss-model approach can be used as the basic design procedure in American practice an extensive evaluation of its safety using available test data is necessary.

MODIFIED TRUSS MODEL WITH CONCRETE CONTRIBUTION

The tfUSS model evaluated in this paper for beams and beam-type regions with vertical shear reinforcement consists of a parallel chord truss with the diagonals forming a uniform compression field as shown in Fig. 3. From the equilibrium condition of summation of vertical forces, the truss model capacity in shear V""" is obtained

z

V""" = A,. [, -ooto . s

(I)

where A,. is the area of the shear reinforcement (stirrups), J, is the yield strength of the stirrup reinforcement, ex is the angle of inclination of the truss diagonals. z is the truss effective depth, and s is the center to center stirrup spacing in the longitudinal direction. The ratio of (zcotex)/(s) represents the nu m ber of stirrups within the horizontal projection of the diagonal truss member. Introducing the definition of web reinforcement index rf; where r = (A,,)/[(b .. )(sl] and arranging Eq. (I) in terms of shear stress

Vftl/•t1 1.

V",,",,< = -b. = r .coto

• Z .

where b •. is the member web width.

Dimensioning of the transverse reinforcement based entirely on the equilibrium conditions of the truss mod el d escri bed, u nd u ly penal izes 1 he maj or it y of members which are subjected to low levels of shear stress or that have no or low amounts of shear reinforcement. Other components of the shear-carrying mechanism which supplement the contribution of the

564

v (psi)

Fig. 4-Diminishing concrete contribution for reinforced concrete beams

(2)

truss model include: tension in the concrete, shear across the concrete in the flexural compression zone, dowel action of the longitudinal reinforcement, and aggregate interlock. Their neglect would impose substantial economic penalties in design.

To remove unnecessary conservatism, the contribution of these components of the failure mechanism may be reflected by means of an additional concrete contribution which supplements the shear capacity of the truss model. Fig. 4 shows a proposed concrete contribution for reinforced concrete members in shear .14 The vertical axis represen ts the concrete contri bu tion in terms of nominal shearing stresses. The horizontal axis represents the shear stress level v, produced by the applied loading V,/[{bw)(z)]' where V" is the factored shear force at the section.

Although the importance of some of the components to the shear failure mechanism not directly included in the truss model under current ACI design philosophy for under-reinforced section design decreases at high levels of shear stress. others such as shear carried by uncracked concrete could be significant at higher stress levels. In prestressed beams, this situation is further accentuated by the presence of the prestress force. The angle of inclination at first cracking JS cerrainly affected by the presence of prestress. The larger the amount of prestress force, the lower the angle of inclination at first diagonal cracking. Therefore, depending upon the level of prestress force, prestressed concrete beams could reach much lower angle values at failure than reinforced concrete beams.

Therefore, to prevent excessive conservatism for prestressed concrete beams it is proposed to allow a constant concrete contribution which is a function of the level of prestress and extreme tension fiber stresses such as the one shown in Fig. 5. The beneficial effect of the prestress on the shear cracking load and further capacity after cracking is introduced by multiplying the capacity of a reinforced concrete member before diagonal cracking by a factor K. The expression for the K-factor can be derived from a Mohr circle representation of an element at the neutral axis of a prestressed beam prior to initial diagonal cracking as shown in Fig. 6

K = II + ~~r\

ACI Structural Journal I September-October 1991

(3)

v<=concrete contribution

V.~=2V[

lSKS2

v (shear stress level)

Fig. S=Constant concrete contribution for prestressed concrete beams

where fp< is the compressive stress at the neutral axis and J, is the principal diagonal tension stress. This expression is currently used in both the ACI Building Code" and AASHTO specifications" as part of the basis for the web shear cracking criteria V<w' Limiting the value of K to 1.0 in those sections of the member where the stress in the extreme tension fiber due to the calculated factored load and prestress force exceeds 6J]{ is similar to the provision in both specifications which limits the concrete contribution to the smaller of the two values Vo", and V;'i'

In traducing the addi tio nal concrete con tri b u tio n v < in the truss model approach would result in an available shear capacity in terms of shear stress V"ITM of

where VMTM is the available shear stress capacity in the modified truss model, VMTM/[(bw)(z)].

Another important condition in this proposed modified truss model design approach is the limitation imposed on the angle of inclination of the truss diagonals. Fig. 7 shows that if the angle of inclination a of the truss diagonals is 45 deg, the mean crack strain €, defined as the ratio of crack width to the distance between cracks is at the minimum value for yielding of both the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. Large deviations from 45 deg of the angle of inclination will demand excessive strains in the reinforcement together with extremely wide crack openings at failure. In the proposed design procedure the inclination of these diagonals must be within the limits of 30 deg ~ a ~ 65 deg for reinforced concrete beams and 25 deg ~ ~ ~ 65 deg for prestressed concrete beams. The lower limit for the angle value in prestressed concrete beams reflects the effect of the prestressing force on the angle of inclination at first cracking.

In the modified truss model procedure due to the presence of an inclined compression field represented by the diagonal compression struts of the truss, an area of longitudinal steel for shear in addition to that required for flexure is necessary to resist the horizontal component of the diagonal compression struts. Traditionally, the additional area of longitudinal tension steel for shear has been provided by extending the bars a distance equal to the effective depth of member past the

ACI Structural Journal I September-October 1991

f

2 2 0.5

= [(ft + fpd - (fpd ]

2 0.5 2

= fd1+ fpc]

11

Fig. 6-K~factor for prestressed concrete beams

theoretical flexural cut-off point. However, this detailing rule although adequate for a truss model with 45 deg diagonals, is not valid for trusses with diagonals inclined at lower angles such as 30 and 25 deg. The additional longitudinal tension force due to shear can be determined from equilibrium conditions of the truss model as H~ = Vjtana. Because the shear stresses are assumed uniformly distributed over the depth of the web, H; acts at mid-depth of the section. Thus, it may be resisted by equal (HJ2) additional tension forces added to the tension flange and compression flange forces, respectively. For a beam without axial loads the required tension chord force becomes

cJ> A I, >- Mu + Hu $: MuMAX (5)

v ST y:;.-- z 2""<:: Z

Recognizing the sudden nature of shear failures, it is suggested that a minimum amount of shear reinforcement be provided for ductility whenever the nominal shearing stress exceeds one half of the cracking shear stress of the concrete taken as 2JJ: for reinforced concrete beams (ignoring aid effects) and 2KJJ[ for prestressed beams. In the proposed modified truss model

565

Cr Cy

... ~ . ~ ~ ~ .

. ' .• ~.~~.~4.4 ..••• ~4 ..

10

Cs: strain ln the stir-rup r ainf or c ement

EL>Cy "

,

tL<Cy

5

2_ 5'<a < 65"

--- - -

I- -I

45'

CL: strain in the longitudinal reinforcement

W tr=(i cr

WO°

EL =e,

w .. Ad~ XXa

90" a

Rela tionship of $ trut orienta tion with cracking and strains in the reinforcement

Fig. 7-Relationships of strut-orientation with cracking and strains in (he reinforcement (from Reference 36)

3
2.0
2
v"I'E$T 1.5
vMTM
1
0.5
00 Aseumed limit lor <>=30· Reinforced Concrete

n=09

Mean =1.42 Stdv=O.32

...

~- ~ ~

~ .. "I., ;.

-.--:---:- .. ----··-----------.:.------:-i-------------.-----~------

0.0

0.5

0.7

o.i

0.2

O.J 0.4

Fr, (koi)

Fig. 8-Evaluation with reinforced concrete beams with concrete contribution of Fig. 4 and 0' = 30 deg

design procedure, it is suggested that an amountequilibrating a shear equal to 1.jJ: (bkd) be provided in both reinforced and prestressed concrete beams.

In subsequent sections the capacity provided by the modified truss model approach represented by Eq. (4) will be evaluated by comparison with test data from numerous reinforced and prestressed concrete beams failing in shear.

RE.INFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS

The predicted capacity of the modified truss model given by Eq .. (4) and the proposed concrete contribution shown in Fig. 4 were compared with the results of shear failure tests reported in References 18 through 26 of 59 reinforced concrete beams with web reinforcement. All the specimens displayed yielding of the stirrup reinforcement prior to failure. The members had a/ d>2.0. In this evaluation b •. represented [he actual web

566

width, and z was taken equal to (O.9)(d), where d was the distance from the centroid of the longitudinal tension reinforcement to the extreme compression fiber.

The predicted capacity of the modified truss model including a concrete contribution as shown in Fig. 4 is evaluated in Fig. 8 for an assumed variable-angle value of 30 deg corresponding to the proposed lower limit which yields the maximum design estimate for a given test." The ratios of test to predicted values of beams from References 18 through 26 shown in Fig. 8 indicate that the proposed modified truss model provides generall y conservative values (v TEST/ V MTM > 0.94 ) for all test results, and becomes quite conservative for beams with rj>;;;:200 psi. The use of a lower angle limit such as 25 deg would reduce the conservatism for beams with ri.« 100 psi. However, it would result in unacceptable unconservative values for beams with r/ .. > 300 psi as shown in Fig. 9. Therefore, a lower limit of 30 deg is suggested to insure adequate safety in beams with low and high amounts of shear reinforcement.

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAMS

The predicted capacity of the modified truss model given by Eq. (4) together with the proposed concrete contribution shown in Fig. 5 was compared with shear test results reported in 77 pretensioned concrete beams with web reinforcement from References 27 through 31. The stirrup reinforcement was reponed as having reached yield values in all tests at failure. The members all had a/d>2.0 and straight strands. In this evaluation b; represented the actual web width, and z was

'Man;- le,l~ would have acrual .angle value! different than 30 deg.

AC! Structural Jou mal I September-October 1991

3,- -,

VMTM

, ... ...

. ,-

2.5

Assumed limit for 0=2:5° Reinrorcled Concrete Vt.,.=2'./1:

n-1llllS0

~tea.n::::::;1.23

S.dv~O.30

2

"TEST 1.5

. ,

1 r··l .. 1 ..... ~. __ _' 1----".--.,. ... • .1.-----.--_. _. •

- i .

0.5

O}O---cO~.1,--.O~_2,---O~.~3--~O.A4---iO.~5---nO~.6--~0.7 rfy (bt)

Fig. 9-Evalualion with reinforced concrete beams with concrete contribution oj Fig. 4 and a = 25 deg

taken equal to 0.9d. The predicted truss capacity is given for an assumed variable-angle value of 25 deg corresponding to the proposed lower limit.

The ratio of test to predicted capacity for beams from References 27 through 31 is shown in Fig. 10. The use of a constant concrete contribution together with a lower limit of 25 deg for the angle ex yields virtually

. conservative results (vrEsrlvMT.H>0.91) in the case of prestressed beams.

WEB·CRUSHING FAILURES

The use of the modified truss-model approach within the general ductile framework of current design practice requires that failures due to concrete crushing prior to yielding of the reinforcement be avoided. In current flexural design, ACI Building Code restrictions Emit the amount of longitudinal reinforcement to prevent premature failures due to crushing of the flexural compression zone.

The diagonal members of the truss carry the compression forces necessary for truss equilibrium. The compression stress /,/ in the struts may be determined from geometric considerations for the uniform field of compression struts shown in Fig. 11 as

Limiting the angle of inclination a reduces the variation in the magnitude of the diagonal compression stress fd' which then can be further controlled by limiting it to a fixed allowable value.

This sect jon evaluates a proposed limit" of fd = 30 .JJ: for the maximum diagonal compression stress for beams and beam-type regions using the test results of 12 reinforced and 17 prestressed concrete beams failing in web-crushing mode from References 21, 28, 32, 33, and 34, shown in Table 1. Eq. (6) is rearranged in terms of maximum shear stress as

v .

v",",(truss) = bw z = fd sino COsa

= 30.JJ: sino COSa

ACI Structural Journal I Septernber-October 1991

3r-----------------------~---- ~

2.5

Assurned limit for 0'''iI250 Prest.reseed Concrete

v C-1"-2R. './1:

n~77

Mean~1.38

+

+

+ h-lo + St.d v =O.25

5 j_ ++"I"'I:L+

1. -ff +++ ;*tt + "i' +

+ ++ + : of :t:

4++. ",,+;: ...

1 r----A- ~ ! - t +; + . _t __ *" •. &_ ... ~ ~ .... _

0.5

01-0 ------"O~.l,...--.O~. 2,-~O~_3:;---n'O.-:;-4 -------nO.'i;-6--nO.7B-----OO.1 rfy (hi)

Fig. IO-Evaluation of prestressed concrete beams with constant concrete contribution of Fig. 5 and a '= 25 deg

Fig. l I=Diagonal compressive stress fd

(6)

The ratios of Vma.< (Test) = VTEsTlb .. z to v"'o.< (Truss) for the 29 beams are shown in Fig. 12. The truss maximum capacity is obtained using an a angle value limit of 30 deg for reinforced concrete beams and 25 deg for prestressed beams. As can be seen from Fig. 12, the proposed limit value of fd = 30 JJ: together with the suggested lower angle limits would provide adequate safety against failures due to crushing of the concrete web.

Note that Eq, (7) with the limiting compressive stress of 30 .JJ: and the lower angle limit of 30 deg for reinforced concrete beams results in a maximum allowed shear stress of 13 .JJ:. In terms of V /b.d with d = zl 0.9 trus corresponds to a maximum shear stress of 11.7 .JJ:. The current ACI shear provisions" for members subjected to shear and flexure only, limit the maximum shear stress to

vma_' = v, (max) + vimax)

= 2JJ: + 8JJ: = 1OJ!: (8)

which is somewhat less than the proposed value. ln practical situations with v( = 2 .JJ: the proposed upper limit would allow the use of larger amounts of shear reinforcement (and hence somewhat smaller members) with the modified truss-model design approach.

(7)

COMPARISON WITH CURRENT ACI SHEAR PROVISIONS

The results of a comparison between the proposed modified truss model approach and current ACI shear

567

Table 1-Evaluation of web crushing data

(1) (2) (3) ~ (5) (6) (7)
Reference Specimen rJ" 30 'I:, v(TEST), I',..jTRUSS), 1'( TES1) IV",,(lruss)
ID ksi ksi hi ksi
Haddadin, A5 0.63 1.8 0.92 0.78 l.! 8
Hong, and C4 0.393 1.8 0.74 0.78 0.95
Mattock,' C5 0.63 1.95 0.85 0.84 i.oi
reinforced concrete E4 0.393 1.35 0.60 0.58 1.03
E5 0.63 1.50 0.73 0.65 1.12
GS 0.693 1.8 1.02 0.78 i.31
15 0.63 2.1 1.03 0.91 1.13
Leonhardt. and TAl 0.79 1.5 0.91 0.65 I J .40
Walther n,,, TAl 0.52 1.5 0.87 0.65 1.34
reinforc~d TA3 0.34 1.5 0.74 0.65 1.14
concrete TAD 9.79 1.65 0.94 0.71 1.32
TAJ4 0.52 1.65 0.91 0.71 1.28 12 reinforced concrete beams-mean (Col. 7) = 1.18; standard deviation (Col. 7) '" 0.145.

Bennett and 3A2 1.28 2.4 1.96 0.92 2.13
Debaiky," 2A3 1.28 2.1 2.27 0.80 2.84
pr es tressed 2B2 1.28 2.4 2.8! 0.92 3.05
concrete 2B3 L28 2.4 2.86 0.92 3.11
2B4 1.28 2.25 2 .. 22 0.86 2.58
2B5 1.28 2.25 2.12 0.86 2.47
3C2 1.28 2.1 2.12 0.80 2.65
3C3 1.28 2.1 2.21 0.80 2.76
3C4 1.28 1.95 1.59 0.75 2.12
3C5 1.28 2.1 1.37 0.80 1.71
3Dl 1.93 2.4 2.41 0.92- 2.62
302 1.28 2.4 2.16 0.92 2.35
2FI 1.10 2.25 2.28 0.86 2.65
2F2 !.I 0 2.25 , 2.21 0.86 2.57
2F3 1.10 2.25 1.99 0.86 2.31
2F4 1.l0 2.25 1.83 0.86 2.13
Bennett and
Debaiky,"
prestres sed
concrete NM-IO·160 0.577 2.10 1.09 0.80 1.36 17 prestressed concrete beams-mean (Col. 7) =" 2.44;. standard deviation (Col. 7) <= 0.45.

Overall for 29 beams-mean (Col. 7)= 1.92; standard deviation (Col. 7) = 0.72.

Notes-Col. (6) ", .. .{Truss) "" 30ff sinocoso.

o "" 30 deg reinforced concrete.

o "" 25 deg prestressed concrete,

3.S
.3 =1=
:I: t
2.5 1:
.. +
z .. + +

1+ .:

• I

1 ...... -- ...... ---'--:------ ... -------- ... --. y .... .,,~.,. ............. ~~~ ..... ;,. ~~~~ ... - ...... - .. -

0.5

.. Reinforc.ed Concrete: <. P ce$tcu.ed' Con "rel.<!

°0~----~U~~5F------+l------~1~.o------~~ !"fy (kei)

Fig. I2-Rein/orced and prestressed concrete beams falling in web-crushing mode

design procedures for 136 previously reported beams are shown in Table 2. For reinforced concrete beams with r/, :::;; 200 psi the modified truss model approach with a lower angle limit of 30 deg is slightly more conservative than the current ACI procedure." For beams with r~. between 200 and 300 psi both procedures yield similar results. For beams with rJ;, > 300 psi and up to 500 psi the modified truss model procedure yields better estimates than the current ACI procedure. The only specimen with rf,. greater than 500 psi came from Reference 25. Al though the sti rru ps were reported as

568

showing yield, this beam failed in web-crushing mode,

The improved accuracy of the modified truss model procedure for reinforced concrete beams with larger rf, seems to support the use of diminishing concrete contribution if lower angles than 45 deg are to be used in design. It is clear that the accuracy of tbe modified truss model design approach in beams with low amounts of web reinforcement could be improved by allowing a larger concrete can tri bu tion, However ,. the majority of the tests in the literature have been conducted on beams with large amounts of continuous longitudinal reinforcement. In practice, this reinforcement is curtailed. The results from these tests might overestimate the shear capacity of members in the field particularly in the case of beams with low amounts of shear reinforcement. Thus it would seem that safety and not excessive accuracy should be the aim of the proposed design procedure. This would be particularly true for beams with high shear stresses and with larger amounts of shear reinforcement. In these cases the contribution of the longitudinal reinforcement seems to decrease in importance as shown by the data in Table 2 for reinforced concrete beams.

For prestressed concrete beams, the modified truss model procedure with the concrete contribution shown

ACI Structural Journal { September-October 1991

Table 2-Comparison between ACI and modified truss-model predicted strengths

Type of member

rf., psi

v{ratio)

Standard Maximum Minimum deviation

Mean Value Value (STD)

Reinforced concrete beams

ex = 30 deg (MTM)

References 18-26 MTM

nmT == 59 Mean = 1.42 STD= 0.32

95117o Coni", 0.08J

n

to Test/MTM 1.35

0-50 10 TeST I ACI 1.25

1.6.1 l.52

1.08 0.99

0.227 0.215

17 Test/MTN! 1.515

50-100 17 Test/ AC[ 1.45

3 Test/MTN! !.87

100-200' 3 Te,[/ACI 1.83

1.92 1.92

2.25 2.17

1.11 1.04

1.33 1.32

0.25 0.247

0.48 0.-15

11 Test/MTrv! 1.11

400·500 II Tesl/ ACJ 1.29

500-600

Test/MTM 1.09

Test/ ACI I. 35

2.05 2.00

l.J9 1.39

1.34 1.52

1.24 1.3·2

0.99 \.09

0 .. 94 1.10

13 Test/MTM 1.62

200·)00 13 Tes!/ ACI 1.64

6 Tesl/MTM 1.31

0-50 6 Tes!/ AC! ! .29

1.48 !.37

2.04 1.72

1.1.7 1.22

1.17 1.14

0.26 0.23

4 Test/MTM' 1.13

300-400 4 Testl ACl 1.23

2.14 1.89

[.08 l.IS

0.094 0.223

1.43 1.72

1.01 0.98

0.1.46 0.156

15 Test/MTrv! 1.52

50-100 15 Test! ACJ 1.36

0.148 0.05

.243 0.\91

1.46 1.61

1.1 ! 1.28

0.91 [.02

1.02 1.05

27 'Tes!/MTM !.52

100-200 27 Tesr/ ACI 1.36

in Fig. 5 and a lower angle limit of 25 deg yields more conservative estimates than the current ACI procedure for beams with low amounts of shear reinforcement. As shown in Table 2, the degree of conservatism clearly decreases for beams with r!, greater than 200 psi and the ACI and the modified truss approach yield comparable estimates. The accuracy of the modified truss model approach in beams with low amounts of shear reinforcement could also be improved in this case by either allowing lower angle limits or increasing the concrete co n tri b uti on. H a wever, all the sp ecim ens i n ~ eluded in this evaluation had can tin uously bonded straight strands and aid ratios greater than 2.0. Effects due to blanketing of strands, (an analogous situation to curtailing longitudinal steel in reinforced concrete members), draping, and post-tensioning need additionalevaluation before refinements in the modified tJUSS model approach can be further recommended.

The effect of inclined strands in increasing the shear strength of a beam is widely recognized. J1 However, if taken into account, the amount of longitudinal straight reinforcement developed into simple supports must be checked to insure adequate shear strength. As shown in Fig. 13, the use of inclined strands in prestressed concrete beams results in a supplementary load-carrying

ACI Structural Journal I September-October 1991

0.238 0.187

15 Tesl/MTM 1.22

200-300 15 Tese! ACI 1.26

0.134 0.185

10 TesL/MTM 1.22

300-400 to Tesl/ ACI 1.21

4 Test/fI.'!TM 1.05

300·500 4 Test/ ACI 1.17

0.173 0.166

0.04 0112

Prestressed concrete beams

ex '" 25 deg (MTM)

References 27-31 MTM

nmr'" 77 Mean'" \.38 STD = 0.25

950)'0 Conf '" 0.057

NOles-Ali specimens had aid> 2.0.

M '" number of specimens.

v(Ae!), Predicted ACI" shear stress capacity '" V(ACf)lb.o If Of reinforced ctmcrele beams ~, '" 2JJ:).

v,·m(ACf) '" V..,lb..d.

V,.,."",: Predicted modified truss shear Stress capacity will! proposed concrete comnbutions of Fig. 4 and 5 '" V(MTM! b.z wi'lh z '" O.9d.. '" '" 30 deg for rein forcedconcrete beams and « '" 25 deg for prestressed beams.

v .... (MTM) '" V,~,1[(b_)(O.9l(d)I·

I. psi '" 0.006895 MPa.

system, such as the arch formed by diagonal member D~ and the inclined prestressing steel, t hat can balance a part of the applied load Qb = Psin{3, where P is the prestressing force (Joint A). For the part of the load Q" - Psin{3, exceeding the balancing resistance of the inclined strands, a second arch formed by the diagonal member D[ is necessary. It is dear that this second arch can only exist if a tensile chord, indicated by the member BB' in Fig. [3, is available. From equilibrium considerations at the support (Joint B).. the straight amount of longitudinal steel representing the member BB' must be capable of resisting a tension force T equal to (Q" - Psin{3) coto..

SUMMARY

The comparison of the proposed modified truss model with test results of reinforced concrete beams failing in shear showed that the approach is safe and in reasonable agreement with experimental results. The mean of the ratio of test to predicted capacity with Co: = 30 deg for all 59 tests is 1.42 and the standard deviation is 0.32. Although a lower limit to the angle of inclination of 25 deg was shown to be adequate for beams with low rJ" to insure adequate safety for beams with

569

Joint A

Joint B

Fig. 13-Effect of inclined strands on the shear strength a/prestressed concrete beams (from Reference

37) .

larger amounts of shear reinforcement, the lower limit would have to be at least 30 deg. The evaluation of web-crushing data indicated that a lower limit of the angle of 30 degrees, together with a limit of 30 JJ: for the compression stress in the web of the member fa. would also insure adequate safety against web-crushing failures. A comparison of the proposed procedure with the current ACI design approach indicated that the current ACI procedure was more accurate in beams with low amounts of web reinforcement and the proposed modified truss model with concrete contribution did better in beams with rf, ~ 200 psi. Based on the results of this evaluation and to simplify the proposed procedure, it is suggested that for reinforced concrete beams a lower angle limit of 30 deg be used together with the concrete contribution shown in Fig. 4.

In the case of prestressed concrete beams the use of the constant concrete contribution shown in Fig .. 5, together with the angle limits 25 deg ~ 0: ~ 65 deg, was shown to be adequate. The mean of the ratio of test to predicted capacity for all 77 tests is 1.38 and the standard deviation is 0.25. A comparison with the current ACT design approach showed that both procedures yield comparable estimates of ultimate strength. However, the proposed approach is much simpler than the current ACr procedures. Evaluation of this modified truss model with web-crushing data indicated that the lower angle limit of 25 deg together with the limit of 30 JJ: for the diagonal compression stress in the concrete would provide adequate safety against web-crushing failures. Therefore, it is proposed that a truss model with a lower angle limit of 25 deg and the concrete COntribution shown in Fig .. 5 be used for prestressed concrete beams throughout the entire range of rf; values.

570

Another important consideration is the increased emphasis on adequate detailing of reinforced and prestressed concrete members when the modified truss design procedure is used. Ultimate angle values which deviate substantially from tbose of first inclined cracking are possible at failure through redistribution of internal forces only if the member has adequate amounts of properly anchored transverse and longitudinal reinforcement and failures due to concrete crushing are prevented.

CONCLUSIONS

It is apparent that both the current ACI method and proposed modified truss model procedure could be improved to minimize scatter and achieve better agreement with experimental evidence. However, it is irnponant to keep in mind that a generally correct but simple procedure is needed and to also examine how well the experimental evidence reflects actual structures in the field. The fact that the currently availa bleexperirnental evidence has relatively few large-scale specimens, that the majority of the tests has been conducted on beams with continuous longitudinal reinforcement, and that almost all test beams are simply supported under point load differs greatly from usual field conditions. It would not seem to indicate that higher accuracy as opposed to safety and simplicity should be the aim of a proposed design procedure,

The proposed modified truss model with a concrete contribution offers a clear behavioral concept and covers the design of beams with no or low amounts of shear reinforcement. At the same time it results in a safe, general, and simple shear design approach for reinforced and prestressed concrete beams and provides an overall framework for design of torsion and combined actions.

NOTATION

Q shear span. distance between concentrated load and support face, in.

A. area of shear rein [orcement perpendicular 10 flexural tension reinforcement within a distance s, in.'

A" total area of longitudinal tension steel required 10 resist shear and nexureat the sectlon.Tn.'

b; web width, in.

d distance from extreme compression fiber 10 centroid of

tension reinforcement, in ..

f: speci fled compressive stress of concrete , psi

!,. specified yield strength of reinforcement, psi

f", compressive stressat the neutral axis due [0 effective prestress force, psi

l, princi pal diagonal tension stress in the web 0 r the member,

psi

H. additional tension force due to shear

K prestress factor

M. moment at the section due [0 factored loads

M •. "" maximum rnorneru in the member due 10 factored loads

n number of specimens

rf, web reinforcement index", (AJ (f.lIlb. ·s]

s spacing of stirru ps measured along the longitudinal axis of

the member, in.

STDV = standard deviation

V'CST failure shear force

V".n shear force capacity of the [fUSS

V. factored shear force at the section

V""' shear force capacity 0 f the modi ned !rUSS model

ACI Structu ralJ ou rna! I September-October 1991

V,,'" V "',IT (for truss) = failure shear stress = b,,::;

VTI:' .. r "mr (ACI) = failure shear stress = b; d

"""u shear stress capacity of the truss

Y~N shear stress capacity with the modified truss model

v. concrete contribution to the truss model in terms of shear

stress

: effective truss depth = (O.9)(d)

a angle of inclination of the truss model diagonals at failure

ID, capacity reduction factor for shear

/J drape angle

CONVERSION FACTORS

1 in. = 25.4 mm

1 in.' = 645.2 mm' I Ib = 4.448 N

I psi = 0.006895 MPa

REFERENCES

1. Ritter, W., "Die Bauweise Hennebique." Schweizerische BaLlZeitung (Zurich), V. 33, No.7, Feb. 1899, pp, 59-61.

2. Morsch, E., Der Eisenbesonbau-Seine Theorie und Anwendung (Reinforced Concrete Construction-Theory and Application). 5th Edition, Wittwer, Stuttgart, V. I, Pan I, 1920, Part 2, 1922, 112 pp. 3. Caflisch , R.; Krauss, R.o and Thur lirnann, B., "Beige'llnd Schubversuche and Teilweise Vorgespannten Beronbalken, Serie C.;" Bericht 6504·3, Institut fur Baustarik, ETH Zurich, Feb. 1971.

4. Collins, Michael P., and Mitchell, Denis, "Shear and Torsion Design of Prestressed and Non- Prestressed Concrete Beams," PCI Journal. V. 25, No, 5, Sepi-Oct. 1980, pp, 32-100.

5. Mitchell, Denis, and Collins, Michael P., "Diagonal Cornpression Field Theory-A Rational Model for Structural Concrete in Pure Torsion," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 71, No.8, Aug. 1974, pp. 396-408.

6. Lampert, P., and Thurlimann, B., "Ultimate Strength and Design of Reinforced Concrete Beams in Torsion and Bending," Publication No. 31-[, IABSE, Zurich, 1971, pp. 107-131.

7. Thurlimann, B.; Marti, P.: Pralong, 1.; Ritz, P.; and Zimrnerli, B., "Vorlesung Zurn Bortbildungs Kurs fur Bauingenieure." lnstitute fur Bautecknik und Konstrukticn, ETH Zurich, 1983.

8. Muller, P., "P lastische Berechnung von S tahlbetonscheiben und-balken" (Plasticity Analysis of Reinforced Concrete WaH and Beams), Report No. 83, Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH Zurich, 1978, 160 pp.

9. Nielsen, M. P .. and Braestrup, N. W., "Plastic Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams," Technical Report No.3, Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser, 1975, V. 46.

10. Marti, P .. "Zur Plastischen Berechnung von Stahlbeton" (On Plastic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete), Report No. 104, Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH Zurich, 1980, 176 pp.

II. Schlaich, J.: Schafer, I.; and Jennewein, M., "Towards a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete," PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 3, May-June 1987, pp. 74-150.

12. ACI Committee 3L8, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-891 ACI 318R-89)," American Concrete lnsrirute, Detroit, 1989,353 pp.

13. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 13th Edition.

American Association of Slate Highway and Transpcnation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1989, 420 pp.

14. Ramirez, J. A., and Breen, J. E., "Proposed Design Procedure for Shear and Torsion in Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete," Research Report 248-4F, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, Dec. 1983,254 pp.

15. Talbot. A. N., "Tests of Reinforced Concrete Beams: Resisranee to Web Stresses, Series 06,. 1907 and 1908," Bulletin 29, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Jan. 1909, 85 pp. 16. "Progress Report of the Joint Committee, Tentative Specifications for Concrete and Reinforced Concrete," 1921, ASTM, V. 21,

ACI Structural Journal I September-October 1991

pp.212-28J.

17. ACI Cornrniuee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (318-63)," American Concrete lnst itute, Detroit. 1963, 144 pp.

18. Johnson. Mark K., and Ramirez, Julio A .. "Minimum Shear Reinforcement in Beams with Higher Strength Concrete." .-lCI Structural Journal, V. 86, No.4, July-Aug. 1989. pp. 376-382.

19. Elzanary, A. H,: Nilson, A. H,; and Slate, F. 0 .. "ShearCritical High Strength Concrete Beams," Research Report 85·1. Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, Feb. 1985,216 pp.

20. Bresler, Boris. and Scordelis, A. C., "Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams," ACI JOURNAL. Proceedings V. 60, No.1, 1963, pp. 51·72.

21. Haddadin, M. J.; Hong, S. T.; and Mattock, A. H., "Stirrup Effectiveness in Reinforced Concrete Beams with Axial Force," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 97, ST9, Sept. 1971, pp, 2277-2297.

22. Mphcnde, A, G., and Frantz, G. C., "Shear Strength of High Strength Reinforced Concrete Beams," Report CE 84-157, Civil Engineering Department, University of Connecticut, Storrs, June 1984, 260 pp.

23. Hsiung, Wayne, and Franz. Gregory C., "Transverse Stirrup Spacing in RIC Beams," Journal of (he Structural Division, ASCE, V. 111, No.2, Feb. 1985, pp. 353-362.

24. Anderson, Neal S., and Ramirez, Julio A., "Detailing of Stirrup Reinforcement," ACT Structural Journal, V. 86, No.5, Sept.Oct. 1989. pp. 507-515.

25. Cerruti, L. M., and Marti, P., "Staggered Shear Design of Concrete Beams: Large Scale Tests," Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 14, No.2, Apr. 1987, pp. 257-268.

26. Taylor, R., "Some Shear Tests on Reinforced Concrete T· Beams with Stirrups," Magazine of Concrete Research (Wexham Springs), V. ts. No. 57, Dec. 1986, pp. 221-230.

27. Hanson, John M., and Hulsbos, C. L.. "Ultimate Shear Tests of Prestressed Concrete l-Bearns Under Concentrated Load and Uniform Loadings." PCl Journal, V. 9, No. J, June 1964, pp. 15-28.

28. Bennett, E. W., and Debaik y, S. Y .. "High Strength Steel as Shear Reinforcement in Prestressed Concrete Beams," Shear in Reinforced Concrete, SP-42, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1974, V. 1, pp. 231-248.

29. MacGregor, 1. G.; Sozen, M. A.; and Siess, C. P., "Strength and Behavior of Prestressed Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement," Research Report Structural Research Series 201, University of Illinois, Urbana, Aug. 1960, 185 pp.

30. Castrcdale, R. W., "Comparison of Design for Shear in Prestressed Concrete Bridge Girders," MS thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1983. 348 pp.

31. Elzanaty, Ashraf H.; Nilson, Arthur H.; and Slate, Floyd 0., "Shear Capacity of Prestressed. Concrete Using High-Strength Concrete," AC[ JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No.3, May-June 1986, pp. 359-368.

32. Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R., "Tests on T-Beams under Severe Shear Load Conditions," Bulletin No. 156, Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton, Berlin, 1962, 71 pp.

33, Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R., "Shear Tests on T·Beam with Varying Shear Reinforcement," Bultetin No. 156, Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton, Berlin, 1962, 84 pp.

34. Bennett, E. W., and Balascoriya, B. M. A., "Shear Strength of Prestressed Beams with Thin Webs Failing in Inclined Cornpressicn," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 68, No.3, Mar. 1971, pp. 204- 212.

35. Ferguson, Phil M.; Breen, John E.; and Jirsa, James 0., Reinforced Concrete Fundamentals, 5th Edition, John Wiley and SOrtS, ew York, 1988, 746 pp.

36. Thurlimann, B., "Shear Strength of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Beams CEB Approach," Technical Report, ACI Symposium 1976, Feb. 1977, Revised Copy, 33 pp,

37. "Shear in Prestressed Concrete Members," Comite Euro-Intemarional du Beton Bulletin D'Lnformation No. 180, Apr. 1987, 144 pp.

571