Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 5

    Uploaded by

    naughtystone
    5 views9 pages

    Original Title

    10_5

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views9 pages

    10 5

    Uploaded by

    naughtystone

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 9
    Xe RSs elente svar eleainy TECHNICAL PAPER \ Title no, 99-857 Influence of Beam Size, Longitudinal Reinforcement, and Stirrup Effectiveness on Concrete Shear Strength by Eric J. Tompos and Robert J. Frosch ‘Research has shown thatthe current ACI shear design provisions provide unconservative results for large beams and beams with Tow levels of longitudinal reinforcement. Furthermore, recent research has indicated that some assumptions made in the current design provisions for shear reinforcement may further reduce the level of conservatism. To farther explore these deficiencies, this study investigated the influence of beam size and longitudinal reinforcement ratio on the shear strength attributed tothe concrete, {aswell as the effectiveness of stirups in transferring shear across {a diagonal erack. The experimental portion ofthis study tested six. rectangular reinforced concrete beams. Other research data found in th literature were used t0 supplement the experimental data Based on test results and a data analysis, conclusions regarding the influence of beam sie, longitudinal reinforcement, and transverse reinforcement on shear strength are presented herein. ‘Keywords: beam; longitudinal reinforcement; sear; strap INTRODUCTION Although the shear design provisions prescribed by ‘ACI 318-99! have been used successfully for years, research Suggests these provisions may provide unconservative results ‘when applied to large beams and beams with low longitu- dinal reinforcement ratios p. Under these conditions, it has been shown? that the shear strength attributed to the concrete decreases as either beam depth increases or p decreases. In combination, these two effects can result in shear strengths significantly lower than those calculated using the provisions of ACI 318.99. ‘Adding minimum shear reinforcement enhances shear resistance; however, recent research* has shown that the shear strength attributed to stirrups may also be adversely affected in large beams, Factors ascribed to this strength reduction include: variations in shear crack inclination, stirrup anchorage, and discretization of stirrup strength. ‘This study futher investigated the influence of the previously mentioned factors on the shear strength attributed to both the concrete and stirrups as stipulated by the current ACI shear design provisions. Additionally, the data used to establish the ‘current design provisions for concrete shear strength are assessed in terms of whether they provide an accurate representation of shear behavior in light of more recent studies. Ths investigation clearly illustrates that both concrete and stiup shear strength can be considerably lower than commonly assured in design. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE The research objective was to further investigate the effects ‘of beam size and stirrup effectiveness on the shear strength of reinforced conerete beams.° In particular, this study focused ‘on the effects of beam size and longitudinal reinforcement ratio regarding the shear strength attributed to the concrete. Further- ‘more, this study investigated several factors that influence ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002 series = 28 _ 17 ele iif | Series 1 e 1 rit | bead | | ee jt Heekt. J] - oe 4 y362 Vie3 : Fig. J—Beam cross sections. stirup effectiveness. These factors include: distribution of transverse reinforcement, stimup anchorage, discretization of stirup suength, and shear crack inclination EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION Six beams were tested in an experimental investigation conducted at Purdue University.® The two primary variables influencing the specimen design were the beam depth and the stimup spacing. Otber parameters, such as the shear spanto- depth ratio ald and te longitudinal reinforcement rao, were kept constant. The experimental progrem was divided into wo separate test series: Series I and IL Series I was comprised of two beams designed according to ‘ACI 318-99, An overall beam depth of 36 in. was chosen be- cause it approaches the maximum depth permitted by the ACL Code without requiring longitudinal skin reinforcement (Fig. 1). The inclusion of skin einforcement was undesirable because ofits potential shear strength contribution. Finally, the design of the Series I beams was consistent with beams tst- ‘ed previously’ to allow for comparison. Series Il was comprised of four beams designed as balf-scale models ofthe Series I specimens. This significant change in size was chosen to accentuate any effecsatribuable to beam size. ‘When scaling the specimens, the effective depth, beam width, and shear reinforcement spacing were scaled down by one-half. Toraintain compliance withthe ACI Code, however, the clear cover was not scaled. Scaling inthis manner resulted inthe Se- Fes I specimens shown in Fig. 1 ‘ACI Scan 99. No.5, Sepeber Octobe 202 IR at 3 are ee te a allt eoper nes peaon sted fom he sopra per Rien lc haps Ul 559 0" 5 {ACI manr Ene J. Tops avenger wih NIN. nc, Napanee, nd. He recied hs BSCE and MSCE from Purse Uniraty Wet fe Ind. ‘AC member Robert J. Frosh so seit peor of lengli Park Unies erected hs BSE fom Tare Universi, New Oo id [MSE ond PRD fm he Unies of Ts ata, Tex. Scary af {ACI Conmiee 22, Cracking. ond & member of ACI Conmanees 1%. Sey ‘Serica, ad nay 408 Bond nd Denopment of Rrrcement a Fer Reoced Poymer Reinforcement. Table 1—Stirrup layout seies Specimen] east 0m | ax |b. ol@fel o fTolel o 1 Lez 2 [612 Toone [55 | ao" vies [3 [ese | ose [a7 [oh visa [=| = [oa | oan | — 0 y [wea eae fone Pas | wie2e| 27916 [ove [aa9 | vies [3 [77s [03st | aay | a0 “Minium ping bse on AC 31899 eaten 11.553, By, 1-1 Clan 7 ‘atedon nomial fee eng fi Table 2—Reinforcing steel strength Yall, aT Design roan] “En on oto a Sarai —[ 8 0 Sia laimge [3 [8 iis lonphnalbas | 8 % t01 ‘Series If Dywidag bars ® 132 13 Series I longitudinal bars| os | 70. 4105 - a Table 3—Concrete mixture design and properties Teiesl | — Seder ow che a) A oo Sieve | Om i 2 ‘34 in, coarse aggregate (SSD) 1850 Ibiyd? | 1850 tbvyd? 0 Fine aarewe (SSD) | “tzzz mys? | 1356 hy » Weuye | Toye 0 Bony’ 9oulyd® 0 2000 psi__| 00 pe me om 00m ous eom 0010 oon ow ome eo | at Sein a) eo Fig. 3No. 2 reinforcement stress-strain curve. Forall six specimens, p was kept constant at 1%, This amount of flexural reinforcement was selected because it represents a ‘common design condition. As for shear reinforcement, the Series T beams were designed to investigate the ACI required minimum shear reinforcement strength. Accordingly, the Series I shear reinforcement was designed to provide a shear stress of 50 psi (Ay min = S0by.ff;). Using a nominal yield strength of 60 ksi, stizmups fabricated from No.2 and 3 deformed reinforcing bars were spaced as shown in Table 1. Series Il beams were constructed both with and without shear reinforcement. In beams with shear reinforcement, the stirrup spacing was scaled to provide the same dis as that of, Specimen V36-3. One beam containing stirrups, Specimen V18-2c, was constructed with closed stirrups to investigate whether closed stirups are more effective than U-shaped stirrups. Finally, Series HI included a beam without shear reinforcement, Specimen 18-0. This beam was constructed to investigate whether the concrete shear strength is affected by the presence of shear reinforcement. A summary ofthe variables studied in this experimental program is provided in Table 1 560 | 680 pat For both test series, the loading arrangement consisted of a concentrated load applied at midspan as shown in Fig, 2. Loading in this manner produces @ constant applied shear throughout both shear spans, as well as a linearly varying ‘moment that reaches a maximum under the applied load. The Tength of the shear span was selected based on past research,” which has shown that beams with alds greater than 2.5 resist shear primarily though beam action rather than arch action, Consequently, an a/d of 3.0 was chosen to minimize the shear strength contribution of arch action, thereby providing. lower-bound test results. Using an ald of 3.0 the clear spans were set at 16 ft, 9 in. for Series I and 8 fy, 4.5 in, for Series I, as shown in Fig. 2. MATERIALS Reinforcing steel Longitudinal reinforcement consisted of three bar types: No. 8 Grade 60, No. 9 Grade 60, and | in.-diameter Grade 150 threadbar. To ensure uniform chemical and mechanical proper- ties, bars ofa given size were obtained from the same heat of steel. The results of tensile tests performed on representative ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002 = L Lo sear cn Fron 3 or 0203 ad OS OKO Miepn Detection in) Fig. 4—Load versus deflection (Specimen V36-3). ‘steel coupons are presented in Table 2. Itshould be noted that the hotrolled, deformed No. 2 reinforcing bars did not exhibit a ‘well-defined yield point, as shown in Fig, 3; therefore, the yield stress was determined using the 0.2% offset method, Concrete Al beams of a given test series were cast from a single batch of conerete. A nominal 4000 psi concrete mixture was. used for Series I. Atthe time of testing, this mixture achieved. ‘an average compressive strength of 6200 psi. A similar concrete ‘mixture was used for Series I however, this batch of concrete achieved an average strength of 5200 psi at the time of testing. ‘Table 3 provides the details ofthe concrete mixture design and mechanical properties. ‘TEST SETUP AND PROCEDURE Instrumentation was provided to measure the applied load, ‘beam deflection, and strain in the reinforcement. During con- struction of the reinforcing cages, electrical resistance strain ‘gages (0.125 in. gage length for stimups, 0.250 in. gage length for longitudinal bas) were placed on stirrups that the inclined crack was expected to cross, These gages were positioned ‘vertically on the stirrups to place them as close as possible to the anticipated crack. Linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) were placed to measure beam deflections at the supports, quarter spans, and midspan. A 600 kip universal testing machine monotonically applied the concentrated load at midspan while load cells monitored the applied load. Where concentrated loads were applied, 6 in.wide steel bearing plates were used to prevent local crushing of the concrete. Round steel bars placed between the 6 in.-wide plates approx- mated simply supported conditions. STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR Series | In both specimens, flexural cracking began at approximately the same applied load. As the load was increased further, new flexural cracks formed in the shear span. These flexural cracks increased in depth and began to incline towards the applied load, ‘becoming flexural shear cracks. The primary shear crack formed. at approximately 74 and 71 kips in Specimens V36-2 and V36-3, respectively (Table 4, The formation ofthe primary shear crack. is evident in the Ioad-deflection plot of Specimen V36-3, as can be seen in the shift in the curve of Fig, 4, The formation of the primary shear crack was also observed in the readings taken from the strain gages on the stirrups. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002 UM Specimen 26:2 e fae Fig. 5—Series I crack patterns. 00 a 02 0 on os Mapa Defcon in) Fig, 6—Load versus deflection (Specimen V18-2). For both specimens, failure occurred when the primary shear erack propagated deeply into the compression zone, thereby reducing the compression zone to the point of buckling outward under combination of shear and compressive stress. The primary difference between the observed cracking patterns was the angle at which the primary shear crack formed. As shown in Fig. 5, the crack inclination observed in Specimen V36-3 was much steeper than that observed in Specimen V36-2. Series it For the Series II beams, a representative load-a2] — | — | — Series avenge] 196 Note Colima &¥,. date from other studies in the literature. This data survey included the data used to formulate the current ACI shear design provisions. ‘The current ACI provisions related to the shear strength attributed to the concrete were developed based on test results from 194 rectangular beams,*""” which are plotted in Fig. 8. Although this figure appears to validate the use of 2,Jf2 in shear design, the 194 test results provide a poor representation of overall shear behavior due to high reinforee- ‘ment ratios and relatively small beam sizes. It should be noted that, while 1% longitudindl reinforcement is common in design, fewer than 10% of the original test data were from beams with 1% longitudinal reinforcement or less, Further- ‘more, ofthe beams with 1% or less longitudinal reinforcement, only one failed ta shear stress below 2(f.’. This facts likely due to the limited range of beam depths investigated in the original test data. As the histogram in Fig. 9 shows, 87% of the beams considered had effective depths less than 15 in The data from this study indicate that an effective depth of 16-3/4 in, (Series ID) isnot large enough to exhibit a strength reduction due to beam size. In summary, a combination of high reinforcement ratios and small beam sizes likely resulted inhigh shear strengths in the data used to formulate the current shear design provisions, thereby hiding the true behavior of large and lightly reinforced beams. Recent research To address the apparent limitations in the data used to develop the current design provisions, a review of more ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002 Fig. 10—Concrete shear strength versus longitudinal reinforcement ratio (recent data). recent research, was performed. Test data were obtained from 18 sources >>"!?8 These data were from tests of simply supported beams of constant rectangular cross section, incl ing beams subjected to concentrated or distributed loading, and beams with and without shear reinforeement, The data were reduced by limiting concrete compressive strength to 8000 psi Orless and by excluding results from beams with afd es than 25 to eliminate data from beams potentially transferring shear through arch action. Additionally. all specimens included ‘were reported to have failed in shear."The resulting dataset, plotted in Fig. 10, consists of 414 test results. Inthe plot the data are partitioned by the effective depth tothe tensile reinforcement to illustrat the effect of beam size. Several observations can be made from Fig. 10, the ost apparent being the adverse affect thatthe longitudinal reinforcement ratio has on beams with 1% longitudinal reinforcement or less, At 1% reinforcement, beams ofall. effective depths fail at shear strengths below 2 fbyd AAs p decreases below 1% longitudinal reinforcement, the concrete shear strengths for beams ofall sizes decrease further. Figure 10 also indicates thatthe detrimental effect of low longitudinal reinforcement ratios is exacerbated by beam size. Overall, larger beams, which are shown as triangle data points in Fig. 10, exhibited the lowest shear strengths for a given reinforcement ratio. Infact, the lowest shear strengths Were observed in the beams with the greatest effective depths. These beams, which had effec- tive depths of 79 and 118 in, exhibited concrete shear strengths below 1.0,f,’byd Finally itis important to note that, while the size effect is observed in Fig. 10, a large amount of scatter exists in the dats, Considering this seat ter, it seems that the longitudinal reinforcement ratio plays a more significant role in influencing the concrete shear strength than does the size effect. SHEAR REINFORCEMENT Stimups provide tle, if any, contribution to shear strength until crossed by a shear crack, making it important to under- stand shear cracking behavior and its effect on stimup strength. Figure 11 depicts the primary shear cracks that formed in the specimens of the present study. As shown, the angle at which the primary shear crack formed varied between 31 and 54 degrees. For comparison, the diagonal dashed lines in Fig, 11 correspond to the crack inclination implied by the ACI Code. This crack inclination, based on dis, is slightly less than 45 degrees from horizontal ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002 Specimen V18-2 & V18-2c Fig. 11—Primary shear crack comparison. ‘As shown in Fig. 11, the V36-2 crack is shallower than the ‘ACT assumed crack angle, while the V36-3 crack formed at fan angle slightly steeper than that assumed by ACI. This ‘observation is significant because the angle at which the ‘crack forms affects the stirrup shear strength. A shallow crack, similar to that observed in Specimen V36-2, has a greater horizontal projection and crosses more stirrups than a steeper crack, as in Specimen V36-3. Furthermore, comparison of crack inclinations between the full- and helf- scale beams, illustrated in Fig. 11, indicates that beam depth does not significantly influence the shear crack formation angle. This variation in shear crack angle can significantly influence the shear strength provided by shear reinforcement ‘and requires additional consideration. Crack angle and stirrup anchorage In ACT 318-99, dis is used to compute the number of rups crossing a shear crack forming at an assumed angle of ap- proximately 45 degrees. This ratio, as used in the ACI Code, seldom results in whole numbers, allowing for fractional stirrup contributions to shear strength. In actuality, a crack ‘cannot cross a fractional portion ofa stirup. Intuitively, if a sirup is crossed by the shear crack, it contributes strength; iffa stirrup is not crossed by a shear crack, it should not con- tribute strength. This principle is easily incorporated when calculating shear strength by truncating the decimal portion of dfs, thus producing an integer quantity. While this method provides a more realistic estimate of the number of stirrups crossed by an inclined crack, it does not provide a lower- 563 ‘Table 6—Tests by Johnson and Ramirez"? Specimen V2 Fig. 12—Primary shear crack comparison from Reference 4 ‘Table 5—Shear crack formation sMieta, | Shear’ | stew, | enoaine | oe, Specimen | “tips” [Yow te] hips" [stirpa Ny| NICS) (a vae2_| i096 [18 | a6] — 7] a8 vies [uso] | a0 [ 2] 343 visa | 3867_| a4] 3] 2 | 38 Viz [34a [200 | 4a [2 is ve _| 7 [32] ass] 1 [asa 2 bound shear strength unless all stirups crossed by a shear crack are fully effective Figure 1 superimposes the locations ofthe primary shear cracks with the stiups. As shown in the figure, shear cracks Propagate very high into the section as they extend toward the lied load. When stirrups are crossed by a shear crack high in the section, they often have a small development length and may not reach yield, as assumed in design calcula- tions. Although these stirrups are capable of contributing some shear strength and could be accounted for through the use of fractional stirrups, the level of stress developed in these stirrups cannot be accurately estimated. By neglecting the contribution of these inadequately developed stirrups, however, a lower-bound shear strength can be computed. TO identify ineffective stirrups, the development length that re- sults when a shear crack crosses a stirrup can be compared with the required development length. When the required develop- ment length is not provided, the sirup is assumed to be inef- fective. ILis important to note that, due to the continuity atthe ‘bottom ofthe U-shaped stirrup, the stirrups were assumed to be fully effective atthe bottom of the beam. ‘Stirup development lengths can be approximated using Eq. (1), which is a modified version of the ACI equation 564 Cracking Concrete |Appliodshea| shear Von | Stinup shear Specimen _|prengthfo.ps] Vankins | kips | Ve kis w, @ o @ S 2 3280) 30 2 5 3 10,907 8 3 ® 4 10,390 7 32 is 7 7420 6 8 18 3 7440 58 s i ‘ac: ca einud nad ott Ges wed Cauon 3 V,=Var~ Vor (Section 12.5, ACI 318-99) for calculating the development length of hooked bars. ly = bd fy w ‘TB I @.00 The original ACI expression computes development length ‘based on the reinforcing bars developing 1.25f, to ensure ductility. Because the actual yield strengths are known in this ‘case, Eq. (I) is divided by 1.25 to remove this overstrength factor. Using the actual material properties for the present study, development lengths of 4.0 and 5.9 in. were computed for the No. 2 and 3 reinforcing bars, respectively. These computed development lengths are shown as horizontal dashed lines in Fig. 11. From this figure, the number of fully effective stirrups can be determined by counting the stirrups that are crossed by the shear crack below the required develop- ment length. The number of effective stirrups estimated in this manner is presented in Table 5. Reviewing the results for Specimen V36-2, the crack pattern shown in Fig, 5 indicates seven effective stirrups; however, the ‘experimental results in Table 5 suggest that only five stirrups ‘contributed strength. This discrepancy may be the result of Bq, (1) inaccurately calculating the development length for the No. 2 reinforcing bars. In Specimen V36-3, two stirrups were effective, but the. test resulted in a slightly greater strength, which is likely to be the result of strain hardening in the stirrups near ultimate, ‘The Series Il test results, also shown in Table 5, compare ‘well with the calculated strengths. It should be noted that ‘Specimens V18-2 and V18-2c were identical in construction, ‘except that Specimen V18-2 had U-shaped stirrups and ‘Specimen V18-2c had closed stirrups. Comparing the ultimate loads in Table 5, Specimen V18-2 sustained slightly more oad than Specimen V18-2c, More importantly, however, is the considerable difference in the inclination of the primary shear crack, as shown in Fig. 11. ‘Specimen V 18-2 cracked at an angle shallower than that as- sumed by ACI, thereby crossing two stirups (Stirrups 3 and 4 in Fig. 11) below their development length, making them fully effective. This observation is reflected in the ultimate strength of Specimen V18-2, which also indicates two effec- tive stirrups. Also shown in Fig, 1 is the primary shear crack in Specimen V18-2c, which formed at an angle steeper than that assumed by ACI. If U-shaped stirrups had been used in ‘Specimen V18-2c, it is possible that only one stirrup would have been fully effective. The closed stirrups in Specimen VI8-2c, however, were estimated to require significantly ess length to develop than did U-shaped stirrups. This reduced de- velopment length was estimated to be 2 in.,* and is shown in ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002 i Table 7—Analysis of stirrup capacity ]Epesnennl | Dinwete | Ea. ¥a Bperinenal peel specimen | Vetips | atmpst | “iipe” [ActVakipe] Ea Y, || ACI, @ @ @ @ @ @ w Vael_| 356 < ma [ asa 12 uo vaes_| 0 1 Ta | 394 26 tI Vie Tz T 5 157 35; HI views |i z be [is To a vi 155 o sa] 354 10 a ve 25a T isa [35a a 2 8 t 69 Bs 12 as zl 5 i 2 16 12 06 a @ i 69 Bs 28 a = a 169 136 a 3 ¢ 5 ps 16 19 to eng isa oa Fig. 11. The shear crack crosses Stirrup 5 below this re- duced length, providing adequate development. As aresult, the shear crack in Specimen VI8-2c erosses two stirrups below their development lengths, resulting in an ultimate strength very close to that of Specimen V18-2. Based on the comparison of only the ultimate loads, a compar- ison between Specimen V18-2 and V18-2c does not illustrate ‘benefit from the use of closed stirrups. From this analysis, however, itcan be seen that closed stirrups may mitigate the strength reduction that occurs due to variations in shear crack inclination. This is attributed to the smaller develop- ‘ment length of the vertical stirrup leg and its relationship to the shear crack location. ‘Although the Series I results did not conclusively show a relationship between overall stirrup strength and the number Of stirrups crossing the shear crack, the experimental results, cof two previous studies*'® demonstrate this relationship and its importance. In one study,* two beams identical in design to Specimen V36-3 were tested. These beams were both cast from the same batch of concrete and reinforced with steel from the same heat. In this investigation, the shear reinforce- ‘ment yield strength was 70 ksi and the concrete compressive strength at the time of testing averaged 5300 psi. The test setup and procedure were identical to those of the present study. Test results for these beams, Specimens VI and V2, are presented in Table 5, and the primary shear cracks are shown in Fig. 12 ‘A study conducted by Johnson and Ramirez"? tested five beams that are two-thirds the size of the Series I specimens. ‘These 12x 14 in, beams contained 2.4% longitudinal reinforce- ment placed at an effective depth of 21.2 in. Each shear span ‘was 65.8 in. long, resulting in an a/d of 3.1. Additionally, these five beams contained shear reinforcement, which provided the ACI minimum shear reinforcement strength of 50 psi. The shear reinforcement consisted of No. 2 deformed reinforcing. bars similar to those used in the present study. The resulting. stirrups were spaced at 10.5 in., giving a dis of 2.0. These bars did not exhibit a well-defined yield stress; however, ata 26% strain offset, the yield stress was found tobe approximately 69.5 ksi. The test results for five of the beams from this study are presented in Table 6. It should be noted that these specimens, are identical to each other in design, differing only in concrete compressive strength as shown in Table 6 ‘The procedure for assessing stirrup effectiveness, as demon- strated previously, was performed on the data from the previous, ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002 studies. As shown in Table 7, several specimens from the previous studies—Specimens V1, 2, and 3—failed at shear strengths considerably below the strength calculated by ACI318-99. Infact, these specimens exhibited shear reinforce- ‘ment strengths as fow as 40% of the calculated values. The shear crack angle in the low-strength specimens was steeper than that assumed by ACI, and was considerably steeper than those observed in companion specimens failing at greater strengths (Fig. 12). Based on these results, it appears that fewer stirrups were fully developed in these specimens due toa steep shear crack inclination, thereby resulting in lower shear strengths. inforcement distribution The distribution of shear reinforcement can significantly impact the overall shear strength of a reinforced concrete ‘beam. For example, if inclined cracking occurs ata steep angle and one stirrup is tendered ineffective, a beam with widely spaced stirrups—such as Specimens V36-3, V1, V2,2, and 3— may experience up to a 50% reduction in the strength provided by the stirrups. Alternately, for beams with enhanced stirrup distributions, such as Specimen V36-2, the effectiveness of @ single stirrup becomes less important. The stirrup strength is only reduced by 20% if one stirup is rendered ineffective. ‘Specimen V36-2 was constructed forthe purpose of inves: tigating the influence of shear reinforcement distribution. In this study, d/s was used to assess the stirrup distribution. Specimen V36-2 had a dis of 5.2, while the other 36 in-deep specimens—Specimens V36-3, V1, and V2—had ds ratios of 2.3. Although the dis ratio differs all beams have the same design capacity (nominal strength shear V,). This similarity in strength can be seen in Table 7, where the actual stirrup shear strength of Specimens V36-2, V36-3, and V2 (Expeni- ‘mental V,) is approximately equal considering the difference in stirup yield strengths. Conversely, Specimen V1 failed with ‘an average stirrup strength that was approximately 1/2 the strength of the companion specimens and 1/2 the value ce culated by ACT. Similar results were observed in the Johnson and Ramirez'” study, where Specimens 2 and 3 exhibited @ shear strength approximately one-half that of the companion specimens (Specimens 4, 7, and 8). As mentioned previously, this reduction in stirrup strength i possibly the result of only ‘one stirrup remaining fully effective after the formation of the primary shear crack. With a tighter stirrup spacing, this strength reduction may have been mitigated. These experimental 565 results illustrate the significance of transveise reinforcement distribution and the benefit of considering reinforcement dis- tribution in design, Calculation procedure ‘The method for assessing effective stirrups used herein Was incorporated into a calculation procedure in Reference 4 and is presented here as Eq. (2). This procedure utilizes an equation similar to the current ACI stirrup design equation, but instead of using a/d to compute the number of effective stirrups, a new term Nis provided for this purpose. This term isa whole number and accounts for stirrup development. Ne ® area of shear reinforcement; yield strength of shear reinforcement; number of stimups that effectively transfer shear across the inclined crack (integer quantity); tent distance fom extreme compress of longitudinal reinforcement; gy = development length of shear reinforcement (refer to Bq, (1); and spacing of sheer reinforcement. Equation (2) was evaluated using the actual material strengths forthe beams shown in Table 7. In these calculations, the stimup development lengths were estimated at 5.8 and 4.0;n. for the beams from References 4 and 19, respectively For comparison, the shear strength attributed tothe stiups V,, calculated using the current ACI expression, is also provided in Table 7. Overall, Equation (2) provides conservative estimates of stirrup shear strength for the beams presented in Table 7. ‘The computed strengths for six of the 12 beams were very conservative, with the strengths estimated using Eq. (2) accounting for less than one-half of the experimentally ob- served strengths. In these instances, the primary shear crack formed at shallow angles, resulting in more effective stirrups than estimated by Eq, (2). Contrary to this, where the prima- 1 shear crack formed at a steep angle—as in Specimens V1, VI8-26, 2, and 3—Eq, (2) provides a reasonable lower ‘bound for stimup strength, whereas the ACI equation is very unconservative, Since the angle of shear crack formation cannot be predicted, calculation ofthe lower-bound strength using Eq, (2) seems appropriate fiber to centroid ‘SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Six beams were tested to investigate the effects of beam size and stirrup effectiveness on the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams. The test configuration consisted of simple supports with a concentrated load applied monotonically at midspan, thereby producing a constant applied shear throughout the shear span. To investigate the effects of beam size on shear strength, beams of two different sizes were tested. While the beam size was varied, the longitudinal reinforce- ‘ment ratio was held constant. In the present study, shear reinforcement was included in five of the six beams to investi- Bate various aspects of stirup effectiveness. The test variables included stirrup spacing and stirrup anchorage details. In addition to an experimental investigation, a survey of data in the literature was performed to gain insight into the influence 566 of longitudinal reinforcement on shear strength. This data review included the data used to derive the current ACI shear

    You might also like