Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
with
S. Chen,
Opening
Michael J. Hagenberger, and John E. Breen
Brian
The
ACI
318-02 using
Building strut-and-tie
Code models.
contains This
propaper
f- ;
229'"'"
381 -
design
results beams by
oftests with
on
independent models.
strut-and-tie greater
at servlce
than
.
the 1
oa
.b
I
. 1
1ft
factored d 1 1
eve s.
design
TI.
load
,l:'
~
26,7tN 305 NOte: mm Specimen tbickness equaIs
127 mm
labs
ex
Ite
,ne
successJ"
series and-tie
illustrotes
modeling
the
for
applicability
designo
and
conservative
nature
of
strut305 mm
J
76 mm 89 mm,
267tN
,
Keywords:
beam;
p1asticity;
structural
concrete;
strut.
nal, INTRODUCTION
~eo,~
Fig.
l-Test
specimen
geometry.
, ates ings
o~ fue
. . a~phcatlon to use
lS posslble
engineers In theory,
a conservative
design
structure.
produces
::.ar ighl1ecfue
~ower-bou?d mcorporatIon
lends
itsel~wellto A of Strut-and-tie complex and there has been behind experimental ACI 318-02
RESEARCH
modeling is
SIGNIFICANCE
a valuable tool for designing
building
codeso
AppendIX
the ACI 318-02 Building to fue use of strut-and-tie icant arnount of literature modeling Schw.artz' experImental This study (Schlai~h,. and ~ur~ann venficatIon presents
provisions pertaining there has been a signif behind strut-and-tie 1987;. Mutt?ni, little
unusual structural concrete members. While a significant arnount of literature on fue theory modeling, of Code This its there has been relatively In addition, pertaining experimental newly adopted little fue to verification Building models. application. provisions presents using the fue
strut-and-tie
Sch"fer,
1 ~97),
relatIvely
specimens
~~~~
~ngth
Inced
.1 of
models purpose ,
demonstrate
of
a dapped test
that
bearn se?es
vanous
with was
gafe
a large twofold.
and
opening. One
The
ofthis different
EXPERIMENTAL Test The scale specl~ens expenme~tal beam speclmens. 762. (3.5 mm ~n.) mto test prograrn .As shown long, t.wo
{~ 98
models
to solve
workable
ty of [o. 3, en th n:nd
other
objective
whether
fue new
Appenrela-
practitioners strut-and-tie
with
experience
measured ~9 mm
at midspan where
The
(5 m.) located
ct on :-tural Sh {, ~~
tions
opening
intuitive
point
and
problems.
Three and of in
groups
to resist
a concentrated service
independently capacity
competition steel
(based
corresponding kips) by
to weight
reinforcement),
to be 34 kN corresponds
a load loado
tance :-tural
Specimens 1 through 3 and tested them to destruction. tion, the senior authors designed and tested Specimen the designs
to equallive
Posed
were
for
ado
models g Code
fue Chair
N?',OI-286
pollcles, !he
Pertinent
re,ceived
@ of
discussion
September 2002,
5" 2001,
Amencan pennission
published
and review~d
lnstitute, is obtained
in !he May-June
under
All from
In~titute
nghts !he copyright
ACI
publicareserved. pro-
Copynght making
Concrete
appended
copies
will
unless
be
ACI
318
(C
ag
1
ey
200
1)
Th
e
t
es
t
s proVl
d
e
.
expenmen
t 1
a
2003
StlUCtural
Journal
ifreceived
by January
1.2003,
~002
ACI
8tructural
Journal/July-August
2002
445
ACI memberBrlan S. Chen is a doctoral candidate at the Unillersity of Texasat Austin,Austin, Tex.He receilledhis BSfrom Puroue Unillersity,West Lafayette, Ind., in 1997,and his MSfrom the UnillersityofTexasat Austin in 1999. ACI memberMichael J. Hagenberger is a doctoral candidateat the Unillersity of Texas Austin.He receilledhis BSfrom Bucknell Unillersity,wisburg, Pa., in 1992, at and his MEfrom Comell Unillersity,Ithaca, N.J:, in 1993. ACI Honorary Member John E. Breen holds the Nasserl. AI-Rashid Chair in Cillil Engineeringat the Unillersity ofTexas at Austin. He is a memberof ACI Committees 318, Structural ConcreteBuilding Code;and 355, Ancharageto Concrete.
b) Sub-mod.12
".
to note
resulti
bound beam.'
'
I]
t ";J;':~"f'; '-
d)Cnmbinedmodel
26.7
over1 al in Fig.
Fig. 2-Strut-and-tie models with forr:esfor Specimens1 and 4. Table 1-Relnforclng steel propertles Barsize Area, mm2 (in.1 Yieldstrength, (ksi) Capacity, (kips) MPa kN 6 mmcII 28.4(0.044) 620(90) 17.6 (3.96)
4 mm cII 125 0019 . (. ) 630 92 ( ) 7.78 (1.75)
applie(
below 1
model the de
10gage
<1>
9.7(0.015)
610(89)
5.94(1.34)
maten
Pea-gravel concreteand small steelreinforcing bars were usedto constructfue test specimens. The concretemixture was a prebagged cementand aggregate mixture combined .th d h. h d . d . th Wl water an a Ig -rangewater-re ucmg a Ill1xture at yielded an averagestrength of 31.7 MPa (4600 psi). The concretestrength determined was from 76 x 152mm (3 x 6 in.) testcylindersthat werecastandtested fue sarne at time asfue beamspecimens. steelreinforcingusedconsisted 4 and The of 6 mm-diameter deformed barsand 10 gagesmoothwire. The properties fuereinforcingsteelaresummarized Tablel. of in Deslgn process Specimens1, 2, and 3 were designedindependentlyby threegroupsof graduatestudents.Specimen4 was a slight variation of Specimen 1. Each specimen was designed 446
a properties
were
. lame
(FEA) to establishfue elastic stressfields in fue structure . This process suggested Schlaich, is by Schiifer, JenneweinI and (1987) and Bergmeister al. (1993) as a useful first stepto l et
I
struts (
recogn
ue Th
d t
promote
cations.For this particular problem, fue FEA was probably l not essentialand only confmned fue initial ideasabout fue force distribution. From fue flow of forcesillustrated in fue . . FEA, a strut-and-tiemodel was chosenand loadedWlth fue applied forces. Strut-and-tie forces were computed using simple truss analysistechniques, fue nodal zoneswere and checked. Reinforcement pattemswerethendeveloped using fue tie forcesprovided by fue analysisand fue geometryof fue strut-and-tiemodels. Graduatestudentsperformed fue detailedcalculationsusing AppendixA of ACI 318-02with no direct supervision from a strut-and-tie model experto Strut-and-tle models The strut-and-tie models developed for the tour test specimens shownin Fig. 2 through4. Eachdesignteam are ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002.:
visualization
of
fue
force
paths
in unfamiliar
appli-
f 1
Th.e conS1 The dI mode load tc assign comp 81 kN area b two 01 final! ACI t
J
1.4 ~S:kN.
4mm
4mm
10p,wi~
'~
lid
I-.ok
Iten"
b)Speebaon2 4mm
cilj
2-6...
"'kod.. 2-6mm _n
8shown t) SpeelnIeD 3
5.3
Fig. 5-Reinforcement
layouts.
~n 2.
employed different approaches for developing its final strutand-tie modelo These approaches included breaking one oyerall strut-and-tie model into several submodels, superimposing two overlapping strut-and-tie models, and using a singlemodel for fue entire structure. While some strut-and-
O : ~d'
l.
i
26.7
de modelsmay be more efficient than others, it is important lO notethat there is no uniquely correct modelo Each of fue resulting strut-and-tie models represents a unique lowerbound conservative estimate of fue true capacity of fue or
beam. These estimates, however, assume that failures as stability or local crushing are precluded. such o. o
Thestrut-and-tie model for Specimens 1 and 4 was developed. , three b od 1 h . F. 2 Th b d 1 usmg su m e s,ass own m 19.. e su mo e s con-
Flg. 6-F orm and remforcmg cagefor Speclmen l. The strut-and-tie model for Specimen 3, shown in Fig. 4,
sisted a simple truss for fue right half of the beam and two of overlapping trusses for the left half. The submodel shown en 3. inFigo 2(a)was developedto resist the shearcreatedby fue applied load, and consisted of compression struts above and ~ of ACI relow opening. fue Thesestrutswere tied togetherat various Lprocess, locations using tension tiesoThe submodel shown in Fig. 2(b) t layouts was developedto resist fue moment or couple created by fue compression and tension tie from fue right half of the strut indepenmodelo should be noted that, during the design process, It t analysis Ihe design team discovered that one of the compressive structur~. struls through fue edge of fue opening. The design team cut ennewem rocognized mistake, but was unable to correct fue error this r~t step t~ due fue time constraints associated with fue class project. lo LIar appl1The submodel fue right half of fue beam, shown in Fig. 2(c), for probably ~comprised struts and ties oriented in a more familiar truss of abo~t fue configuration. three submodels were superimposed to The creale Ih ti al trut . lted .In fue e m s -and -ti.e mode1tior Speclmens 1 and 4 . d Wlth fue . . . . rted using Th,e strut-and-tIe model ~or Speclmen 2, shown.In Flg. 3, ones were conslst~d two overlappl~g models of the .entIre beam. of >pedusing Thedeslgn e~ected asSlgn80% ~f.theapplied load to ~ne te~ to ~ometry of nKxlel, shownm Flg. 3(a), and fue ~m~g 20% afilie applied ormed fue loadlosecond model, shown In Flg. 3(b). The reason for a [8-02 with assigninga majority of fue load to one model was to reduce fue xpert. oompression fue opening. This is evidencedby fue large above 11 compressionstrut extending from fue load point to fue kN uearelow opening in Fig. 3(a). Similar to Specimen 1, fue fue four test liooyerlapping models were superimposed to establish the esign team final slrut-and-tie model for the specimen. gust 2002 CI Structural Journal/July-August 2002
1.4
should
!i;:::
O2
'
1:
.--, >;;..., ",.,' ,
clc"
"a'1;~:f':;:i3"{~~;.'::
luitialcrw:k
0,4
s) Specimen2 st servlce losd
1 2 Speclmen Number 3 4 ',j.'.'.~.;'.").:'..'i'.'.;~:;',~ ,':.,,:..,.,,;,~ '
fue rigt.
.,
10ads. ,:'..;;;l.;;~'.'..::::...,.~~,;;:.::,:~::,;~.; : : : : :
".,;f!;;";'i ':""";':,.:
',,:"::':~;':;,:~:' ".;:;:~::;;'~.:;":.:';:.;:~':~,;:;;;~;:::
;,
,..~ :
~
::
1, 1
: ""',
b)Specimen2stfailure
.:...'.: ._.,,~, ,;
..~:::t'
' i,
,..
,
a) Spedmen 1 at servlceload
.. " ",., ,'."
:
:
,
,; l
.l"."".
.'J..
,., ,-o;
'l
j~';'-':
:c .
.,., ,j.,...,.
""';"';'
i."'",,-.
"
. - . , . ~. , . . . . . . . . , -:. .. , . . , . .. . ~, . . -:
' , , ,
.
, , ,
.'
b) Specimen at fanure 1
Fig. 1l failure
'
Fig. 8-Concrete cracking patternsat service10ad andfailure for Specimen l. The reinforcementlayouts for Specimens and 3, shown 2 in Fig. 5(b) and (c), were designedto coincide with the orientationof fue tensionties in fue strut-and-tiemodels.While this resultedin a more accuraterepresentation fue strutof and-tie models,it complicatedfue constructionprocessand. would probably add extra costoWhere multiple bars were required for a single tension tie, fue bars were groupedas close to the tie location as possible. Examples of this grouping canbe seenin fue four diagonaltiesjust to fue left of the opening in Fig. 5(b) and the two groups of three vertical stirrups on fue right half of fue beamin Fig. 5(c). In addition to fue tension ties, confining reinforcement was incorporated in afeas of high compressive stress. Higher compressive stresses be handledwhen confining can reinforcement provided(Roberts is 1990, Breenel. al. 1994, HP Commission 1999).This enablesdesignersto accommo3 datenodal zoneswhere potentialIyhigh compressive stresses maybe encountered. Confiningtieswereusedin Specimens 2 through 4 under fue load point, abovethe opening,or both, as shownin Fig. 5. A picture of the reinforcementcagefor Specimen1 is shown in Fig. 6.
448
b)SpedmeDfaBore 3st . . FI.c' 10-Concr.ete crackIng pattems at servlce 10adand t faure for Speclmen 3. Test results and discussion ! Each of the four test specimenscarried more than fue l factored design load of 53 kN (12 kips). The maximum I load carriedis listed in Table2, andfueratio of ultimate test load Pu/t' to the factoreddesignload Pdes summarized is in Fig. 7. At service load,eachof fuespecimens only a single i had visiblecrackoriginatingfrom fuere-entrant comerat midspan. Thesecrackswerequickly arrested fue reinforcement by and werenot a factor in fuefailure mechanisms any specimen. of The failure mode and final cracking pattems, illustrated in Fig. 8 through 11, varied among the four specimens. The load-deflection responses, shownin Fig. 12,indicated a , generally linear response to the factored designloado up It
ACI Structural Journal/July-August ... 2002
ACI SI
]J
"'.,,
shouldbe noted that fue serviceability limit of span/180is shown onIy for reference, fue specimens as werenot designed for fue serviceabilitylimit state. Specimen1 exhibiteda shearfailure mode.At serviceload levels,the onIy visible crack originated from the re-entrant comer at midspan and extendedjust past fue longitudinal reinforcingbar asshownin Fig. 8(a). Subsequent loadingup to fue factoreddesignload developedfue inclined cracksin fueright side of fue beamas well asthe comer cracksat fue opening.At loads greaterthan fue design load, a diagonal crackformed from fue load point andextended across top fue of fue openingas shownin Fig. 8(b). This openingcreated a substantial separationin the beam and ultimately was the
failuremechanism. Failureof fuespecimen occurred 58.3kN at (13.1kips) andis picturedin Fig. 13(a). Specimen failed asa result of instability. The instability 2 was initiated when the concreteon one edge of fue beam under fue load point spalledjust abovethe factoreddesign loado Subsequent loadingcaused bearingplateto rotate to fue the side and the beam to rotate out of plane as shown in Fig. 13(b). The test was terminated at a load of 66.5 kN (15.0 kips) before fue load point slippedoff fue specimen. Extensionof the confinementreinforcementunder fue load point might haveprevented total spallingof fue concrete fue Table 2- Test results
...;..."'. .;;
:::
. ..: : : : ..
. . .;:::',,;', :.:
;
~ ~
Concrete
Cage
Maximum
..."-. .
.:.
izilure
a) Speclmen4 at service Ioad 60
",.~,
~ i
,? 45 -Specimen*l
~30 ~
i5
:
4 6
b) Specimen4 at failure
JO
Fig. 11-Concrete crackmg patterns at servlce load and failure for Specimen 4.
'.
DeOection (mm)
i and a)Speclmen 1 In fue imum te test ~edin single Ispan. Iltand imen. trated
\. mens.
b)Speclmen2
lted a )ad. It
c) Speclmen3
d) Speclmen4
'\
\
, 449
2002
andfue subsequent stabilityproblemo Despitefueseproblems, the specimenperformed well and exceededthe factored designload by 25%0 crackingpattemat serviceload and The failure are shownin Figo90 Specimen3 ultimately failed in shear. At fue factored design load, a crack was present that extended from the bottom left comerof fue openingdown to fue bottom faceof fue beamas shown in Fig. 10(b)0 Subsequent cracksdevelopedabovefueopening,but werecontained fue reinforceby mentpresento 6507 (14.8 kips), fue concreteunderfue At kN load point spalled(Figo13(c.Thepresence confiningreinof forcement allowedfor redistribution further load-can)'ing and capacityoAdditional vertical cracks extended from the
o
shownby fue strongvariation amongfue modelsdeveloped ti, by fue variousdesigngroupso strut-and-tie specimens ;: All test carriedloadsgreaterthan the factoreddesignload specified, c' proving fue underlying lower-boundnature of strut-and-tie modelingo The use of orthogonalreinforcementpattemsto simplify fabrication was both a valid and useful technique. Finally, specimensdesignedusing fue ACI 318-02 Code strut-and-tiemodelprovisionsforthisloadandreactionconfigurationweresafeandrelativelysimplemembers constructo to ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Theauthors would to thank of theindividual like all members the of design teams theircontributions. individuals for Those include Gabriela
Arce. Francisco Brenes, Ruben Salas, and Jorge David Varela. Figurski, We would Taichiro Okazaki, also like to thank Pedro Blake Quiroga, Stassney,
re-entra.nt
corner
at
mi
o. pomto
Fal1ure
of
fue speclmen occurred at 6803 kN (15.4 kips) when fue dowel action of the longitudinal bars at fue top and bottom of fue beam was overcomeo Specimen 4 behaved above fue design load similarly to Specimen from 1 up to the
Mike Bell, Patrick Wagener, and Jennifer Tanner for their assistance during fue construction and testing of the specimens. REFERENCES " Ber.g~eister, K.; Breen, J. E.; ~~a, J. o.; and Kreger, M. E., 1993, Detalllng ~or Structural C~ncre~, Research Rep~rt 112~-3F, Center for
o o . andextendedpastthetopoftheopemngasshownmFlg011(b)0 The shear failure mode seen in Specimen 1 did not occur in Specimen 4 because of fue additional reinforcement present above the opening. At 6207 kN (1401 kips), the concrete
o o o under theoload poomt spalledo As m Speclmen~, ~e p!esence of confimng remforcement allowed for redlstrlbution and further loadingo Specimen 4 failed in flexure due to crushing of fue concrete below fue load point at 6508 kN (14.8 kips) as shown in Fig 13(d)
o o
Transportatlon Research, Umversltyof Texas Austln, Austln, Tex.,300ppo at Breen, JoE.; Burdet, o.; Roberts,c.; Sanders, and Wol1mann, Do; G., 1994, "Anchorage Zone Reinforcement for Post-TensionedConcrete Girders," NCHRPReport356, Transportation Research Board,Washington, D.C., 1994,pp.33-34. .
Cagley, J. R., 2001, "Changmg from ACI 318-99 lo ACI 318-02, What's New?" Concrete lnternational, V. 23, No. 6, June, pp. 69-182. AP Cornmission 3, 1999, FIP Recommendations 1996, Practical Design o/ Structural Concrete, AP Congress Amsterdam 1996, Fdration Internationale de la Prc~ntrainte, Lausanne, Switzerl.:m?o . Muttom, A.; Schwartz, J.; and Thurllmann, B., 1997, Deslgn o/Con-
CONCLUSIONS
U sing different
o
strut-and-tie models based on plasticity designers can, and probably will, develop
"
"
th
e same
Th
eslgno
IS was c ear y
Deslgn of Structural Concrete, PCI Journal, Speclal Report, V. 32, No. 3, pp. 74-1500
"
a h bl Cl
.'
th
p~ gr in
450
ACI
Structural
Jour.l1al/July-August
2002
A(