Un on reinforced concrete T-beams. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Vc VTEST-Vc H TEST Pvfy Level of Hember V l10 Huo tan !l I K Kactual prestress 1D (kips) (psi)
26-1 12.5 0.44 0.91 79 0.27 1.09 1.0 1.0 0.0 29a-1 16.9 0.31 0.71 53 0.23 0.82 29b-1 16.4 0.32 0.71 53 0.23 0.83 213.5-1 18.4 0.29 0.65 35 0.17 0.76 29a-2 9.6 0.58 0.97 62 0.20 1.24 213.5a-2 16.0 0.36 0.71 42 0.18 0.86 318-1 10.7 0.48 0.99 93 0.29 1.18 321-1 16.4 0.27 0.73 79 0.33 0.82 313.5-2 8.8 0.56 1.04 65 0.25 1.37 318-2 14.9 0.37 0.79 64 0.25 0.93 321-2 15.5 0.36 0.75 55 0.22 0.89 218-2 15.8 0.44 0.73 31 0.13 0.94 39-3 9.6 0.53 1.06 55 0.28 1.28 313.5-2 12.6 0.52 0.95 65 0.21 1.17 318-3 17.8 0.36 0.77 48 0.19 0.91 321-3 21.2 0.19 0.63 42 0.20 0.69 x = 0.99 N 16 s = 0.21 Tests re20rted by Palaskas. 't,tioabe Darwin !321 on reinforced concrete T-beams. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Vc VTEST-V c H TEST PVfy Level of Hember Vuo Muo tan 0- I K Kactual prestress 1D (kips) (psi) (a/f A25 11.4 0.22 0.46 32 0.17 0.58 1.0 1.0 0.0 A25a 10.6 0.29 0.50 32 0.15 0.67 A50 6.0 0.39 0.62 74 0.29 0.84 A50a 7.3 0.33 0.58 75 0.31 0.77 A75 5.2 0.45 0.75 97 0.31 1.00 825 11.9 0.20 0.55 32 0.19 0.65 650 8.3 0.35 0.76 76 0.32 0.94 C25 10.2 0.21 0.31 32 0.18 0.43 C50 5.1 0.40 0.50 76 0.26 0.75 x = 0.74 N=9 s = 0.18 Overall for Tabh 2:q x = 0.90 N=25 s = 0.23 Table 2.4 Evaluation of reinforced concrete members with light amounts of web reinforcement under bending and shear failing in the transition state 57 58 However, on close examination of these specimens, it was found that poor detailing of the reinforcement was the cause for these premature failures. In the case of the specimens from Ref. 31 all but 26-1 had stirrup spacings in the longitudinal direction in excess of d/2 and in some instances larger than d. As previously explained in Sec. 2.4.2 of Report 248-3, large stirrup spacings do not allow the formation of a uniform diagonal compression field. Instead, those large spacings cause the excessive concentration of diagonal compression forces in the joints of the truss formed by the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement which then produced premature failures by pushing out of the longitudinal corner bars. Furthermore, when the stirrup spacing is even larger than d, the first diagonal crack which opens at 45 degrees in reinforced concrete members will run untouched by a single stirrup producing a sudden failure of the member. For those members from Ref. 32 the cause of failure was the inadequate detailing of the longitudinal reinforcement. The longitudinal reinforcement consisted of ASTM A416 Grade 270 seven-wire stress-reI ieved strand. The yield strength of this type of strand is usually defined as the value of stress corresponding to a strain of 0.01 and is usually about 240-250 ksi. The transverse reinforcement used in these specimens was made out of low carbon, smooth wires. These wires were annealed and the yield stress obtained was between 60 and 70 ksi. The long i tud inal rein forcement was left unstressed, thus creating an enormous difference between the yield strengths of both reinforcements 59 which then led to an excessive redistribution of forces causing very large strains in transverse reinforcement and in the diagonal compression strut leading to a premature failure. This problem does not exist in prestressed concrete members because the initial tensioning of the strand eliminates the difference between the strain required to produce yield in the transverse reinforcement which is usually made out of deformed reinforcing bars (40-60 ksi) and that required to yield the longitudinal prestressed reinforcement (Grades 250-270). The excessive redistribution of forces required in these members from Ref. 32 is illustrated by the very low values of the angle of inclination of the diagonal strut required at failure in those members. The values of tana for each member are shown in column (6) of Table 2.4. As can be seen they differ considerably from the tam= 1.0 equivalent to the 45 degree angle corresponding to initial diagonal cracking of the concrete member. Of even more importance they fall well below the lower limit of tana) 0.5 introduced into the design provisions. These specimens violate that limit severely. Finally, it must be noted that for the case of prestressed concrete members subjected to bending and shear, the current AASHTO/ACI Specifications (1,2) require that the concrete contribution shall be given by the smaller of the two values vcw and vci where vcw represents the shear required to produce first inclined cracking in the web of the member, and vci is the shear stress required to produce first flexure 60 cracking and then cause this flexural crack to become inclined. These two shear mechanisms have been previously explained in Report 248-2. The web shear cracking mechanism, v cw ' is the shear stress in a nonflexurally cracked member at the time that diagonal cracking occurs in the web. The design for web shear cracking in prestressed concrete members is based on the computation of the principal diagonal tension stress in the web and the limitation of that stress to a certain specified value. The ACI/AASHTO Specifications indicate that a value 3.5.fii should be used as the limit value of this principal diagonal tension stress. As seen in Fig. 2.11 from a Mohr's circle it can be shown that the value of the shear stress at the centroid of the web of a prestressed concrete beam prior to cracking, vcr' is given by (2.49) where f t is the principal diagonal tension stress and fps is the compressive stress due to prestress. In the current AASHTO/ACI recommendation, f t is substituted by the limiting value 3.5.ffJ. and for simplification the expression is reduced to the generally equivalent (see Fig. 2.10 of Report 248-2) straight line function vcw = vcr = 3.5.fFc + 0.3 fps (2.50) In the derivation of the proposed concrete contribution for prestressed concrete members the same approach was followed (see Fig. 2.11) to obtain the value of the shear stress required to produce initial diagonal cracking in the web of a member uncracked in flexure