Xie Liping 200906 PHD Thesis

The Influence of Axial Load and Prestress on
The Shear Strength of Web-Shear Critical

Reinforced Concrete Elements
by
Liping Xie
A Thesis Submitted in Conformity with The Requirements
for The Degree of Ph. D.
Graduate Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
Copyright By Liping Xie (2009)
ii
The Influence of Axial Load and Prestress on The Shear Strength of Web-Shear
Critical Reinforced Concrete Elements
Ph.D. of Applied Science, 2009
Liping Xie
Graduate Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
Abstract
Experimental research was conducted to investigate the influence of axial load and prestress
on the shear strength of web-shear critical reinforced concrete elements. The ability of two
design codes, the ACI code and the CSA code, to accurately predict the shear strength of web-
shear critical reinforced concrete elements was investigated through two sets of experiments
performed for this thesis, the panel tests and the beam tests. The experimental results indi-
cated that the CSA code provided better predictions for the shear strength of web-shear criti-
cal reinforced concrete members subjected to combined axial force and shear force than the
ACI code.
A total of six panels, reinforced almost identically, were tested under different combinations
of uni-axial stress and shear stress. In addition to the panel tests, a total of eleven I-shaped
beams, with the same web thickness, were tested under different combinations of axial force
and shear force. The parameters for these beams were the amount of longitudinal reinforce-
ment, the amount of transverse reinforcement, and the thickness of the flanges. The beams
were simply supported, but the loading geometry was specially designed to simulate the load-
ing conditions in continuous beams near points of inflection.
iii
The experimental results from the panel tests and the beam tests followed a similar trend of
variations. Both the inclined cracking strength and the ultimate shear strength were increased
by compression and were reduced by tension. The specimens subjected to very high compres-
sion failed explosively without developing many cracks. The inclined cracking strength could
be predicted with good accuracy if the influence of the co-existing compression on the crack-
ing strength of the concrete and the non-uniform distribution of the stresses over the depth of
the cross-section were considered. The strength predictions using the ACI code for these tests
were neither accurate nor consistent. The ACI code was unconservative for members sub-
jected to compression and was excessively conservative for members subjected to tension. In
contrast, the strength predictions using the CSA code for these tests were generally conserva-
tive and consistent. The CSA code accurately predicted the response of specimens subjected
to compression and was somewhat conservative in predicting the shear strength of specimens
subjected to tension.

iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my supervisors, Professor M. P. Col-
lins and Professor E. C. Bentz, for their enthusiasm, their inspiration, their detailed and con-
structive comments and their great efforts to explain things clearly and simply.
Special thanks to my dear friends: J immy Susetyo and Boyan Mihailov, for their kind assis-
tance with giving wise advice, helping in the lab and so on. I treasure the time I spent with
them.
I wish to thank those who helped me in the structural lab and in the concrete lab: Adam
Lubell, Alan McClenaghan, Ana Acevedo, Beckett Zhou, David Ruggiero, Giovanni Buzzeo,
Hoa Lam, J ingtao Liu, J oel Babbin, J ohn McDonald, Katrin Habel, Kien Vinh Duong,
Michael Park, Nabil Mansour, Peter Badea, Renzo Basset, Sylvio Tam, Ted Sherwood, Thor-
sten Klaus, Tian Chen, Urszula Nytko, Olga Perebatova, and many others.
I am grateful to my family: my husband, Zhihong Weng; my Dad, J ianyong Xie and my Mom,
Pinru Yang, for helping me get through the difficult time and for all the emotional support and
care they have provided.
Lastly, and most importantly, I want to dedicate my thesis to my coming baby.
v
Nomenclature
= shear span, distance between concentrated load and face of support
= specified nominal maximum size of coarse aggregate
= area enclosed by outside perimeter of concrete cross-section including area of
holes, if any
= area of concrete on flexural tension side of member
= area of concrete on flexural tension side of member when member was subjected
to tension on bottom
= area of concrete on flexural tension side of member when member was subjected
to tension on top
= gross area of section
= area of tendons on flexural tension side of member
= area of tendons on flexural compression side of member
= area of prestressing steel in flexural tension zone
= area of nonprestressed reinforcement on flexural tension side of member
= area of nonprestressed tension reinforcement located at bottom flange of I-beam
= area of tensile reinforcement defined in the EC2 code, which extended greater
than beyond the section considered
= area of nonprestressed tension reinforcement located at top flange of I-beam
= cross-sectional area of shear reinforcement
= area of shear reinforcement perpendicular to the axis of member within distance
a
a
g
A
c
A
ct
A
ct-bot
A
ct-top
A
g
A
p
A
p
A
ps
A
s
A
s-bot
A
si
l
bd
d +
A
s-top
A
sw
A
v
s
vi
= minimum area of shear reinforcement within spacing
= width of compression face of member
= width of bottom flange for I-shaped section
= width of top flange for I-shaped section
= minimum effective web width within depth
= design shear resistance of member without shear reinforcement defined in the
EC2 code
= distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of longitudinal tension rein-
forcement, but need not to be less than for prestressed members and circu-
lar sections
= nominal diameter of bar, wire or prestressing strand
= distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of prestressing steel
= effective shear depth taken as greater of or
= eccentricity of prestressing tendon with respect to centroid of section
= eccentricity of bottom prestressing tendon with respect to centroid of section
= eccentricity of top prestressing tendon with respect to centroid of section
= modulus of elasticity of concrete
= modulus of elasticity of tendon
= modulus of elasticity of reinforcement
= modulus of elasticity at strain hardening for reinforcement
= principal tensile stress, positive quantity
= principal compressive stress, negative quantity
= specified compressive strength of concrete
A
v min ,
s
b
b
fbot
b
ftop
b
w
d
C
Rd,c
d
0.8h
d
b
d
p
d
v
0.9d 0.72h
e
e
bot
e
top
E
c
E
p
E
s
E
sh
f
1
f
2
f
c
vii
= square root of specified compressive strength of concrete, psi or MPa
= principal tensile stress in concrete
= principal compressive stress in concrete
= characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days defined in the
EC2 code
= cracking strength of concrete
= design tensile strength of concrete defined in the EC2 code
= 5% fractile value of axial tensile strength of concrete defined in the EC2 code
= stress due to unfactored dead load, at extreme fiber of section where tensile stress
is caused by externally applied loads
= compressive stress in concrete (after allowance for all prestress losses) at cen-
troid of cross section resisting externally applied loads
= compressive stress in concrete due to effective prestress force only (after allow-
ance for all prestress losses) at extreme fiber of section where tensile stress is
caused by externally applied loads
= stress in prestressing tendons when strain in surrounding concrete is zero, may be
taken as for bonded tendons outside the transfer length and for
unbonded tendons
= specified ultimate strength of prestressing tendon
= specified yield strength of prestressing tendon
= modulus of rupture of concrete
= stress in longitudinal reinforcement on average
= local stress in longitudinal reinforcement at crack
= stress in transverse reinforcement on average
= local stress in transverse reinforcement at crack
f
c
f
c1
f
c2
f
ck
f
cr
f
ctd
f
ctk 0.05 ,
f
d
f
pc
f
pe
f
po
0.7f
pu
f
pe
f
pu
f
py
f
r
f
sx
f
sxcr
f
sz
f
szcr
viii
= specified tensile strength of concrete
= specified ultimate strength of concrete or reinforcement
= stress in x-direction
= applied normal stress at inclined cracking
= applied normal stress at failure
= applied normal stress at failure from experiment
= applied normal stress at failure from prediction
= specified yield strength of nonprestressed reinforcement
= specified yield strength of transverse reinforcement in the ACI code
= maximum allowed yield strength of transverse reinforcement defined in the ACI
code
= specified yield strength of shear reinforcement
= design yield strength of shear reinforcement
= specified yield strength of reinforcement in x-direction
= specified yield strength of reinforcement in y-direction
= specified yield strength of reinforcement in z-direction
= stress in z-direction
= required tension force in longitudinal reinforcement at section of interest on flex-
ural compression side of member
= required tension force in longitudinal reinforcement at section of interest on flex-
ural tension side of member
= overall thickness of member
= depth of haunch in I-shaped section
f
t
f
u
f
x
f
x-cr
f
x-u
f
xu-exp
f
xu-pred
f
y
f
yt
f
y
f
yt max ,
f
yv
f
ywd
f
yx
f
yy
f
yz
f
z
F
lc
F
lt
h
h
1
ix
= depth of haunch in I-shaped section
= thickness of flange in I-shaped section
= thickness of bottom flange in I-shaped section
= thickness of top flange in I-shaped section
= moment of inertia of section resisting externally applied factored loads
= moment of inertia of gross concrete section about centroidal axis, neglecting
reinforcement
= size effect factor defined in the EC2 code,
= coefficient for influence of axial load, 0.15 as recommended by the EC2 code
= length of beam
= length of beam with I-shaped section
= moment causing flexural cracking at section due to externally applied loads from
experiment
= total moment required to cause cracking at the extreme fiber in tension
= factored moment at section due to externally applied loads
= factored moment at section modified to account for effect of axial compression
= factored moment at section
= axial load perpendicular to shear plane
= average axial force applied by unbonded prestressing bars
= factored axial load normal to cross-section occurring simultaneously with
including effects of tension due to creep and shrinkage, taken as positive for ten-
sion and negative for compression
= maximum axial force applied by unbonded prestressing bars
= minimum axial force applied by unbonded prestressing bars
h
2
h
f
h
fbot
h
ftop
I
I
g
k 1 200 d + =
k
1
L
L
w
M
cr-exp
M
ct
M
f
M
m
M
u
N
N
avg
N
f
V
f
N
max
N
min
x
= factored axial load normal to cross-section occurring simultaneously with
including effects of tension due to creep and shrinkage; taken as positive for
compression and negative for tension
= axial force due to prestressing
= applied transverse force measured by load cell at east loading point
= applied transverse force measured by load cell at west loading point
= first moment of area
= first moment of area at centroid
= first moment of area at junction of flange and web
= web reinforcement ratio based on width of precast flange
= radius of circle
= radius of circle
= reaction force at east support
= reaction force at west support
= spacing of shear reinforcement in direction parallel to longitudinal reinforcement
= crack spacing parameter dependent on crack control characteristics of longitudi-
nal axis of member from program Membrane-2000
= crack spacing parameter dependent on crack control characteristics of transverse
axis of member from program Membrane-2000
= crack spacing parameter dependent on crack control characteristics of longitudi-
nal axis of member
axis of member
axis of member
N
u
V
u
P
P
E
P
W
Q
Q
cen
Q
flange
r
r
1
r
2
R
E
R
W
s
s
mx
s
my
s
x
s
y
s
z
xi
= effective value of which allows for influence of aggregate size
= diagonal crack spacing parameter
= first moment of area about centroidal axis
= shear stress
= nominal shear stress provided by concrete
= normalized shear stress from experiment
= shear stress on crack; or nominal shear stress provided by concrete when inclined
cracking results from combined shear and moment
= inclined cracking stress
= inclined cracking stress from experiment
= predicted inclined cracking stress considering the influence of co-existing com-
pressive stress on the cracking strength of the concrete
= nominal shear stress provided by concrete when inclined cracking results from
excessive principal tensile stress in web
= nominal shear stress at section due to externally applied loads
= shear stress due to kinking of longitudinal reinforcement
= minimum shear strength defined in the EC2 code, =
= nominal shear stress provided by shear reinforcement
= ultimate shear stress
= ultimate shear stress calculated using the ACI code
= ultimate shear stress from experiment
= ultimate shear stress from prediction
= shear force
s
ze
s
z
s
S
v
v
c
v
c-exp-norm
v
ci
v
cr
v
cr-exp
v
cr-sec
v
cw
v
f
v
k
v
min
0.035k
3 2
f
ck
1 2
v
s
v
u
v
u-ACI
v
u-exp
v
u-pred
V
xii
= nominal shear strength provided by concrete
= nominal shear strength provided by concrete when inclined cracking results from
combined shear and moment
= inclined cracking force from experiment
= nominal shear strength provided by concrete when inclined cracking results from
excessive principal tensile stress in web
= design shear force in the section considered resulting from external loading and
prestressing (bonded or unbonded) defined in the EC2 code
= factored shear force at section due to externally applied loads
= assumed factored shear force at section for trial and error procedure
= nominal shear strength
= vertical component of effective prestress force at section
= factored shear resistance
= shear resistance of member defined in the EC2 code
= design shear resistance of member without shear reinforcement defined in the
EC2 code
= design value of shear force which can be sustained by yielding of shear rein-
forcement defined in the EC2 code
= nominal shear strength provided by shear reinforcement
= factored shear force at section
= ultimate shear force from experiment
= crack width
= average crack width
= average crack width
V
c
V
ci
V
cr-exp
V
cw
V
Ed
V
f
V
f-trial
V
n
V
p
V
r
V
Rd
V
Rd c ,
V
Rd s ,
V
s
V
u
V
u-exp
w
w
average
w
avg
xiii
= maximum crack width
= x coordinate of center of circle
= y coordinate of center of circle
= distance from centroid of gross section, neglecting reinforcement, to bottom fibre
of section
= distance from centroid of gross section, neglecting reinforcement, to top fibre of
section
= distance from centroid of gross section, neglecting reinforcement, to extreme
fiber in tension
= inner lever arm defined in the EC2 code, for member with constant depth,
according to bending moment in element under consideration. In shear analysis
of reinforced concrete without axial force, approximate value of may
normally be used
= factor for different types of tendons defined in the EC2 code, =1.0 for all types of
tendons except pretensioned tendons
= coefficient taking account of long term effects on tensile strength and unfavor-
able effects defined in the EC2 code, resulting from the way the load is applied
= factor accounting for shear resistance of cracked concrete
= specified concrete compressive strength
= partial safety factor for concrete defined in the EC2 code
= shear strain in x-y direction
= shear strain in x-z direction
= strain
= principal tensile strain, positive quantity; or strain equal to
= strain in diagonal direction
w
max
x
0
y
0
y
0-bot
y
0-top
y
t
z
z 0.9d =
ct
xy
xz
1
50
6
10
135
xiv
= principal compressive strain, negative quantity; or strain corresponding to 40%
of in concrete stress-strain relationship
= strain in diagonal direction
= strain at peak stress in concrete stress-strain relationship
= principal tensile strain in concrete
= principal compressive strain in concrete
= rupture strain of reinforcement
= tensile strain of reinforcement due to factored loads
= hardening strain of reinforcement
= tensile strain of reinforcement in x-direction due to factored loads
= tensile strain of reinforcement in y-direction due to factored loads
= ultimate strain
= longitudinal strain at mid-depth of member due to factored loads, positive when
tensile; strain in x-direction due to factored loads, positive when tensile
= strain in y-direction due to factored loads, positive when tensile; or yield strain of
reinforcement
= strain in z-direction due to factored loads, positive when tensile
= Poissons ratio
= ratio of nonprestressed reinforcement on flexural tension side of member, =
= reinforcement ratio of longitudinal reinforcement defined in the EC2 code
= ratio of nonprestressed reinforcement in x-direction
= ratio of nonprestressed reinforcement in y-direction
2
f
c
45
c1
c2
rupture
sh
sx
sy
A
s
bd
sx
sy
xv
= percentage of reinforcement in transverse direction defined by web width, =
= percentage of reinforcement in x-direction of panel
= percentage of reinforcement in transverse direction defined by web width, =
= percentage of reinforcement in z-direction of panel
= inclination of diagonal compressive stress to longitudinal axis of member; incli-
nation of inclined shear cracks
= average inclination of inclined shear cracks
= inclination of inclined shear cracks
= inclination of inclined shear cracks from experiment
= angle of kinking for longitudinal reinforcement
= stress
= principal tensile stress; or stress corresponding to strain in concrete
stress-strain relationship
= principal compressive stress; or stress equal to 40% of
= concrete compressive stress at centroidal axis due to axial loading and/or pre-
stressing defined in the EC2 code ( in MPa, in compres-
sion)
= factored uniformly distributed loads
w
A
s
b
w
d
y
A
s
b
w
d
avg
cr
exp
1
50
6
10
2
f
c
cp
cp
N
Ed
A
c
= N
Ed
0 >
f
xvi
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements .....................................................................................iv
Nomenclature ...............................................................................................v
CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................1
Introduction ..................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose of Study ............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Web-Shear Cracking and Flexure-shear Cracking .......................................... 8
1.3 Methods of Study .......................................................................................... 11
1.4 Outline of Thesis ........................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER 2 ...............................................................................................14
Existing Shear Design Provisions ..............................................................14
2.1 ACI 318-08 (Chapter 11) .............................................................................. 14
2.2 CSA A23.3-04 (Clause 11.3) ........................................................................ 18
2.3 Literature Review .......................................................................................... 22
2.3.1 Review of Relevant Panel Tests ............................................................. 22
2.3.1.1 Vecchio and Collins [1982] ..........................................................................23
2.3.1.2 Andre [1987] ................................................................................................24
2.3.1.3 Bhide and Collins [1989] ..............................................................................24
2.3.1.4 Marti and Meyboom [1992] .........................................................................25
2.3.1.5 Vecchio and Aspiotis [1994] ........................................................................25
2.3.1.6 Pang and Hsu [1995] ....................................................................................25
2.3.2 Review of Selected Beam Tests ............................................................. 26
2.3.2.1 UIUC Bulletin 452, Sozen, Zwoyer and Siess [1959] ..................................28
2.3.2.2 Hawkins, Sozen and Siess [1965] ................................................................28
2.3.2.3 UIUC Bulletin 493, Oleson, Sozen and Siess [1967] ...................................29
xvii
2.3.2.4 Vegh [1994] ..................................................................................................30
2.3.2.5 Gregor and Collins [1995] ............................................................................30
2.3.2.6 Gupta and Collins [2001] .............................................................................31
2.4 Example of Differences in The Required Amounts of Shear Reinforcement by The
CSA Code (CSA A23.3-04) and by The ACI Code (ACI 318-08) ..................... 32
2.5 Purpose of Experimental Program ................................................................ 37
CHAPTER 3 ...............................................................................................39
Panel Tests .................................................................................................39
3.1 Specimen Description ................................................................................... 39
3.2 Material Properties ........................................................................................ 44
3.2.1 Concrete .................................................................................................. 44
3.2.2 Reinforcement ......................................................................................... 48
3.3 Test Setup ...................................................................................................... 49
3.4 Instrumentation ............................................................................................. 51
3.4.1 Strain Gauges .......................................................................................... 51
3.4.2 LVDTs (Linear Variable Differential Transformer) ............................... 53
3.4.3 Electronic Zurich Gauges ....................................................................... 54
3.4.4 Load Cells ............................................................................................... 55
3.4.5 Pressure Gauges ...................................................................................... 55
3.5 Test Arrangement and Procedure .................................................................. 55
3.6 Experimental Observation ............................................................................. 57
3.7 Evaluation of Test Results ............................................................................ 64
3.7.1 Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain ................................................................... 64
3.7.2 Cracking .................................................................................................. 67
3.7.3 Strain in x-Direction ............................................................................... 71
3.7.3.1 Strain Measured by LVDTs ..........................................................................71
3.7.3.2 Strain Measured by Strain Gauges ...............................................................73
3.7.4 Strain in y-Direction ............................................................................... 75
3.7.4.1 Strain Measured by LVDTs ..........................................................................75
xviii
3.7.4.2 Strain Measured by Strain Gauges ...............................................................76
3.7.5 Principal Stress vs. Principal Strain ........................................................ 79
3.8 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results ................................... 81
3.8.1 Methods Used ......................................................................................... 82
3.8.2 Predictions of Capacities of Panels ......................................................... 90
3.8.3 Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain ................................................................... 95
3.8.4 Shear Stress vs. Strain in x-Direction ..................................................... 96
3.8.5 Shear Stress vs. Strain in y-Direction ..................................................... 98
3.8.6 Principal Stress vs. Principal Strain ........................................................ 99
3.9 Kinking Effect ............................................................................................. 101
3.10 Summary ................................................................................................... 103
CHAPTER 4 .............................................................................................106
Beam Tests ...............................................................................................106
4.1 Specimen Description ................................................................................. 106
4.1.1 Specimen Dimension ............................................................................ 107
4.1.2 Reinforcement Layout .......................................................................... 110
4.1.3 Formwork ............................................................................................. 121
4.2 Material Properties ...................................................................................... 123
4.2.1 Concrete ................................................................................................ 123
4.2.2 Reinforcement ....................................................................................... 126
4.3 Test Setup .................................................................................................... 128
4.4 Instrumentation ........................................................................................... 138
4.4.1 Pressure Gauge and Dial Gauge ........................................................... 138
4.4.2 Load Cells ............................................................................................. 138
4.4.3 LVDTs .................................................................................................. 138
4.4.4 Clinometer ............................................................................................ 139
4.4.5 Electronic Zurich Gauges ..................................................................... 140
4.4.6 Strain Gauges ........................................................................................ 141
4.5 Test Arrangement and Procedure ................................................................ 144
xix
4.6 Experimental Observation ........................................................................... 145
4.7 Evaluation of Test Results .......................................................................... 163
4.7.1 Shear Force vs. Tangential Deviation ................................................... 163
4.7.2 Cracking ................................................................................................ 165
4.7.3 Deflection ............................................................................................. 169
4.7.4 Shear Force vs. Shear Strain ................................................................. 172
4.7.5 Shear Force vs. Average Longitudinal Strain ....................................... 174
4.7.6 Strain Measured by Strain Gauges ....................................................... 175
4.7.6.1 Strains in Longitudinal Reinforcement ......................................................175
4.7.6.2 Strains in Transverse Reinforcement ..........................................................182
4.8 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results ................................. 184
4.8.1 Methods Used ....................................................................................... 186
4.8.2 Predictions of Capacities of Beams ...................................................... 211
4.8.3 Shear Force vs. Tangential Deviation ................................................... 218
4.8.4 Shear Force vs. Shear Strain ................................................................. 220
4.9 Comparison of Panels and Beams ............................................................... 222
4.10 Summary ................................................................................................... 226
CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................228
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................228
5.1 Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................... 228
5.2 Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................... 232
References ................................................................................................234
Appendix A ..............................................................................................239
Details of Panel Tests ...............................................................................239
Appendix B ..............................................................................................299
Details of Beam Tests ..............................................................................299
xx
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Comparison of Shear Strength Equations for Members Subjected to Axial Load
(ACI-Fig. R11.2.2.2) ....................................................................................6
Figure 1.2 Self-Centering Post-Tensioned Shear Wall [Panian et al., 2007] ................7
Figure 1.3 Offshore Oil Platform ...................................................................................7
Figure 1.4 Details of The Geometry and Loading for Tricell 23 [Collins et al., 1997] .8
Figure 1.5 Shear Force-Axial Load Interaction for The Tricell Wall of The Sleipner Plat-
form [Collins et al., 1997] ............................................................................8
Figure 1.6 Typical Crack Patterns for Prestressed Concrete Members .......................10
Figure 1.7 Web-Shear Cracking V
cw
[Collins & Mitchell, 1991] ...............................11
Figure 2.1 Equations for The Modified Compression Field Theory (MPa, mm) ........20
Figure 2.2 Tests of Panels Under Pure Shear Stress and Under Combined Uni-Axial and
Shear Stresses .............................................................................................23
Figure 2.3 Two-Span Railway Bridge .........................................................................33
Figure 2.4 Cross-Section of Box Girder ......................................................................34
Figure 3.1 Reinforcement Details for Panels (PL1-PL5) (unit: inch) .........................42
Figure 3.2 Reinforcement Details for Panels (PL6) (unit: inch) .................................43
Figure 3.3 Dimensions for Shear Keys (unit: inch) .....................................................44
Figure 3.4 Anchorage Details ......................................................................................44
Figure 3.5 Average Concrete Stress-Strain Relationship for PL4 and PL1 ................47
Figure 3.8 Average Stress-Strain Relationship for D4 and D8 ...................................49
Figure 3.9 Panel Testing Machine ...............................................................................50
Figure 3.10 Capacity of Panel Testing Machine ...........................................................51
Figure 3.11 Strain Gauge Arrangement .........................................................................53
Figure 3.12 Distribution of LVDTs ...............................................................................54
Figure 3.13 Arrangement of Zurich Targets ..................................................................55
Figure 3.14 Failure of Specimen PL4 ............................................................................59
xxi
Figure 3.20 Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain ......................................................................66
Figure 3.21 Relative Effects of Axial Stress .................................................................66
Figure 3.22 Inclined Cracking Strength .........................................................................70
Figure 3.23 Inclination of Inclined Cracks ....................................................................70
Figure 3.24 Biaxial Strength of Concrete [Kupfer, 1969] .............................................71
Figure 3.25 Mohr-Coulomb Approximation .................................................................71
Figure 3.26 Shear Stress vs. Strain in x-Direction [a] (LVDT) .....................................72
Figure 3.27 Shear Stress vs. Strain in x-Direction [b] (LVDT) .....................................73
Figure 3.28 Shear Stress vs. Strain in x-Direction (Strain Gauge) ................................74
Figure 3.29 Shear Stress vs. Strain in y-Direction [a] (LVDT) .....................................75
Figure 3.30 Shear Stress vs. Strain in y-Direction [b] (LVDT) .....................................76
Figure 3.31 Shear Stress vs. Strain in y-Direction (Strain Gauge) ................................78
Figure 3.32 f
c1
vs.
c1
.....................................................................................................80
Figure 3.33 f
c2
vs.
c2
.....................................................................................................81
Figure 3.34 Details of Mesh for A Typical Panel ..........................................................89
Figure 3.35 f
x
- v Interaction ..........................................................................................91
Figure 3.36 Cracking vs. Post-Cracking ........................................................................93
Figure 3.37 Comparison of M2K and VT2 ...................................................................93
Figure 3.38 Comparison of Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain .............................................96
Figure 3.39 Comparison of Shear Stress vs. Strain in x-Direction ................................97
Figure 3.40 Comparison of Shear Stress vs. Strain in y-Direction ................................98
Figure 3.41 Comparison of f
c1
vs.
c1
..........................................................................100
c2
vs.
c2
..........................................................................101
Figure 3.43 Kinking Effect ..........................................................................................102
Figure 3.44 Angle of Kinking ......................................................................................103
Figure 3.45 Comparison with Previous Experimental Data ........................................105
xxii
Figure 4.1 Test Scheme .............................................................................................108
Figure 4.2 Reinforcement Cage .................................................................................113
Figure 4.3 Longitudinal Reinforcement ....................................................................113
Figure 4.4 Transverse Reinforcement ........................................................................114
Figure 4.5 Dimensions and Reinforcement Details for LB1 .....................................115
Figure 4.6 Dimensions and Reinforcement Details for LB2, LB3 ............................116
Figure 4.7 Dimensions and Reinforcement Details for LB4, LB5 ............................117
Figure 4.8 Dimensions and Reinforcement Details for LB6-LB9 .............................118
Figure 4.9 Dimensions and Reinforcement Details for LB10 ...................................119
Figure 4.10 Dimensions and Reinforcement Details for LB11 ...................................120
Figure 4.11 Formwork for LB1 ...................................................................................122
Figure 4.12 Formwork for LB2-LB11 .........................................................................122
Figure 4.13 Sequence of Assembly for Beams ............................................................123
Figure 4.14 Average Concrete Stress-Strain Relationship for LB1-LB5 ....................125
Figure 4.15 Average Concrete Stress-Strain Relationship for LB6-LB11 ..................125
Figure 4.16 Average Stress-Strain Relationship for 10M and 15M ............................127
Figure 4.17 Average Stress-Strain Relationship for Dywidag and Prestressing Bar ..128
Figure 4.18 Details on Prestressing Setup ...................................................................131
Figure 4.19 More Details on Setup ..............................................................................132
Figure 4.20 Prestressing Setup (Beams in Compression) ............................................132
Figure 4.21 Prestressing Setup (Beams in Tension) ....................................................133
Figure 4.22 Setup for Beams in Compression .............................................................134
Figure 4.23 Setup for Beams in Tension .....................................................................135
Figure 4.24 Endview of Loading Setup .......................................................................136
Figure 4.25 Loading Setup ..........................................................................................137
Figure 4.26 Arrangement of LVDTs and Clinometer .................................................140
Figure 4.27 Arrangement of Zurich Targets ................................................................141
Figure 4.28 Strain Gauge Layout (LB1-LB3) .............................................................142
Figure 4.29 Strain Gauge Layout (LB4-LB9) .............................................................143
Figure 4.30 Strain Gauge Layout (LB10-LB11) .........................................................144
Figure 4.31 Failure of Beams (Thick Flange) .............................................................148
xxiii
Figure 4.32 Failure of Beams (Thin Flange) ...............................................................149
Figure 4.33 Failure of LB6 ..........................................................................................151
Figure 4.34 Crack Diagrams for Selected Load Stages (LB1) ....................................153
Figure 4.43 Crack Diagrams for Selected Load Stages (LB10) ..................................162
Figure 4.44 Crack Diagram for The Only Load Stage (LB11) ....................................162
Figure 4.45 Shear Force vs. Tangential Deviation (Thick Flange) ..............................163
Figure 4.46 Shear Force vs. Tangential Deviation (Thin Flange with The Same Stir-
rups) .................................................................................................164
Figure 4.47 Shear Force vs. Tangential Deviation (Thin Flange with Different Stir-
rups) ................................................................................................164
Figure 4.48 Inclined Cracking Strength and Crack Inclination at Neutral Axis .........167
Figure 4.49 Inclined Cracking Strength and Crack Inclination at Flange-Web J unc-
tion ................................................................................................169
Figure 4.50 Deflection of Beams (LB1-LB5) ..............................................................170
Figure 4.51 Deflection of Beams (LB6-LB11) ............................................................171
Figure 4.52 Elastic Deflected Shape ............................................................................171
Figure 4.53 Shear Force vs. Shear Strain (Thick Flange) ............................................173
Figure 4.54 Shear Force vs. Shear Strain (Thin Flange) ..............................................174
Figure 4.55 Shear Force vs. Average Longitudinal Strain ...........................................175
Figure 4.56 Longitudinal Strain (LB1-LB3) ...............................................................177
Figure 4.57 Longitudinal Strain (LB4-LB5) ...............................................................178
Figure 4.58 Longitudinal Strain (LB6, LB8) ...............................................................179
Figure 4.59 Longitudinal Strain (LB7, LB9) ...............................................................180
xxiv
Figure 4.60 Longitudinal Strain (LB10, LB11) ...........................................................181
Figure 4.61 Transverse Strain (LB1-LB5) ...................................................................183
Figure 4.62 Transverse Strain (LB6-LB11) .................................................................184
Figure 4.63 Shear Capacity by ACI (LB1-LB3) .........................................................190
Figure 4.66 Shear Capacity by ACI (LB10-LB11) .....................................................193
Figure 4.67 Shear Capacity by ACI 318-63 (LB1-LB3) .............................................194
Figure 4.70 Shear Capacity by ACI 318-63 (LB10-LB11) .........................................197
Figure 4.71 Variation of Stirrups .................................................................................198
Figure 4.72 Shear Capacity by CSA (LB1-LB5) .........................................................200
Figure 4.73 Shear Capacity by CSA (LB6-LB11) .......................................................201
Figure 4.74 Details of Mesh for A Typical Beam Subjected to Axial Compression ..209
Figure 4.75 N-V Interaction (Thick Flange) ................................................................216
Figure 4.76 N-V Interaction (Thin Flange) ..................................................................217
Figure 4.77 Influence of Amounts of Stirrup ..............................................................218
Figure 4.78 Comparison of Shear Force vs. Tangential Deviation (LB1-LB5) ..........219
Figure 4.79 Comparison of Shear Force vs. Tangential Deviation (LB6-LB11) ........220
Figure 4.80 Comparison of Shear Force vs. Shear Strain (LB1-LB5) .........................221
Figure 4.81 Comparison of Shear Force vs. Shear Strain (LB6-LB11) .......................222
Figure 4.82 Comparison Between Panels and Beams (Using Average Properties) ....225
Figure A.1 Mixer in Concrete Lab .............................................................................242
Figure A.2 Strength Development of Concrete (PL1) ................................................244
Figure A.3 Crack Diagrams for PL1 ..........................................................................247
Figure A.4 Zurich Data for PL1 - East Surface (Strain, Unit: m) .............................247
Figure A.5 Zurich Data for PL1 - East Surface (Principal Strain) .............................248
Figure A.6 Zurich Data for PL1 - West Surface (Strain, unit: m) ............................249
Figure A.7 Zurich Data for PL1 - West Surface (Principal Strain) ............................250
Figure A.8 Zurich Data for PL1 (Mohrs Circle) .......................................................250
xxv
Figure A.11 Zurich Data for PL2 - East Surface (Strain, unit: m) .............................256
Figure A.25 Zurich Data for PL4 (Strain, unit: m) .....................................................276
Figure A.26 Zurich Data for PL4 (Principal Strain) .....................................................276
xxvi
Figure B.1 Slump Flow Test for SCC ........................................................................300
Figure B.2 Strength Development of Concrete (LB1) ...............................................301
Figure B.3 Crack Diagrams for LB1 (N =-804 kN) ..................................................302
Figure B.4 Zurich Data for LB1 (N =-804 kN) .........................................................303
Figure B.5 Strength Development of Concrete (LB2-LB5) .......................................306
Figure B.10 Crack Diagrams for LB4 ..........................................................................315
Figure B.11 Zurich Data for LB4 .................................................................................316
Figure B.12 Crack Diagrams for LB5 ..........................................................................319
Figure B.13 Zurich Data for LB5 .................................................................................320
Figure B.14 Strength Development of Concrete (LB6-LB9) .......................................323
Figure B.21 Crack Diagrams for LB9 (N =0 kN) .......................................................335
Figure B.22 Zurich Data for LB9 (N =0 kN) ..............................................................336
Figure B.23 Strength Development of Concrete (LB10-LB11) ...................................339
Figure B.24 Crack Diagrams for LB10 (N =-822 kN) ................................................340
Figure B.25 Zurich Data for LB10 (N =-822 kN) .......................................................341
Figure B.26 Crack Diagrams for LB11 (N =-809 kN) ................................................343
Figure B.27 Zurich Data for LB11 (N =-809 kN) .......................................................343
xxvii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Shear Design Equations for V
c
in The ACI 318-08 Code (in/lb units) .......16
c
in The ACI 318-08 Code (mm/N units) ....17
s
in The ACI 318-08 Code (in/lb units) .......18
s
in The ACI 318-08 Code (mm/N units) ....18
Table 2.5 CSA A23.3-04 Shear Design Equations (mm/N units) ...............................21
Table 3.1 Specified Properties of Panels .....................................................................41
Table 3.2 As-Built Properties of Panels ......................................................................41
Table 3.3 Concrete Strength ........................................................................................46
Table 3.4 Physical Properties of Aggregates ...............................................................46
Table 3.5 Concrete Mix Properties ..............................................................................47
Table 3.6 Shrinkage of Concrete .................................................................................48
Table 3.7 Reinforcement Properties ............................................................................49
Table 3.8 Shear Stresses for Load Stages (MPa) ........................................................57
Table 3.9 Summary of Test Results for Panels ...........................................................59
Table 3.10 Inclined cracking Stresses ...........................................................................69
Table 3.11 Inclinations of Inclined Cracks ...................................................................69
Table 3.12 Properties Used in Calculation ....................................................................82
Table 3.13 The Material Properties in Membrane-2000 Models ..................................85
Table 3.14 The Reinforcement in Membrane-2000 Models .........................................86
Table 3.15 The Loadings in Membrane-2000 Models ..................................................86
Table 3.16 The Analysis Parameters for VecTor2 Models ...........................................87
Table 3.17 The Structural Parameters for VecTor2 Models .........................................88
Table 3.18 The Material Properties for VecTor2 Models .............................................88
Table 3.19 Properties of Rebars for VecTor2 Models ..................................................89
Table 3.20 Dimensions of Mesh for VecTor2 Models ..................................................89
Table 3.21 Loading Informations for VecTor2 Models ................................................90
Table 3.22 Predictions by Different Methods ...............................................................94
Table 4.1 Specified Dimensions of Beams ...............................................................109
xxviii
Table 4.2 As-built Dimensions of Beams .................................................................110
Table 4.3 Concrete Compressive Strength ................................................................125
Table 4.4 Modulus of Rupture of Concrete ...............................................................126
Table 4.5 Shrinkage of Concrete ...............................................................................126
Table 4.6 Reinforcement Properties in Beam ...........................................................127
Table 4.7 Shear Forces for Load Stages (kN) ...........................................................145
Table 4.8 Axial Forces for Specimens (kN) ..............................................................146
Table 4.9 Summary of Test Results for Beams .........................................................147
Table 4.10 Web-Shear Cracking Loads and Crack Inclinations at Neutral Axis ........167
Table 4.11 Web-Shear Cracking Loads and Crack Inclinations at Flange-Web J unc-
tion ...................................................................................................169
Table 4.12 Longitudinal Strains ..................................................................................176
Table 4.13 Properties Used in Calculation ..................................................................185
Table 4.14 Average Properties of Beams ....................................................................186
Table 4.15 The Material Properties in Response-2000 Models ..................................203
Table 4.16 The Reinforcement in Response-2000 Models .........................................204
Table 4.17 The Loadings in Response-2000 Models ..................................................205
Table 4.18 The Analysis Parameters for VecTor2 Models .........................................206
Table 4.19 The Structural Parameters for VecTor2 Models .......................................207
Table 4.20 The Material Properties for VecTor2 Models ...........................................208
Table 4.21 Properties of Rebars for VecTor2 Models ................................................209
Table 4.22 Dimensions of Mesh for VecTor2 Models ................................................210
Table 4.23 Loading Informations for VecTor2 Models ..............................................211
Table 4.24 Predictions By Different Methods .............................................................215
Table 4.25 The Amounts of Reinforcement and Thicknesses for All Specimens ......224
Table 4.26 Ultimate Shear Stresses and Uni-Axial Stresses of All Specimens ..........224
Table A.1 Parameters for Mohrs Circle ....................................................................241
Table A.2 Concrete Mix for PL1 ...............................................................................243
Table A.3 Moisture Correction for PL1 .....................................................................243
Table A.4 Cylinder Strength for PL1 (MPa) ..............................................................244
Table A.5 Specimen Summary : PL1 .........................................................................251
xxix
Table B.1 Measurement of Workability for Concrete (LB1) .....................................300
Table B.2 Cylinder Strength for LB1 (MPa) .............................................................301
Table B.3 Modulus of Rupture for LB1 .....................................................................301
Table B.4 Specimen Summary : LB1 ........................................................................304
Table B.5 Measurement of Workability for Concrete (LB2-LB5) ............................305
Table B.6 Cylinder Strength for LB2-LB5 (MPa) .....................................................305
Table B.7 Modulus of Rupture for LB2-LB5 ............................................................305
xxx
Table B.12 Measurement of Workability for Concrete (LB6-LB9) ............................322
Table B.13 Cylinder Strength for LB6-LB9 (MPa) .....................................................322
Table B.14 Modulus of Rupture for LB6-LB9 ............................................................322
Table B.19 Measurement of Workability for Concrete (LB10-LB11) ........................338
Table B.20 Cylinder Strength for LB10-LB11 (MPa) .................................................338
Table B.21 Modulus of Rupture for LB10-LB11 ........................................................338
Table B.22 Specimen Summary : LB10 ......................................................................342
Table B.23 Specimen Summary : LB11 ......................................................................344
1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Purpose of Study
It is well known that inadequate shear design is inherently more dangerous than inadequate
flexural design, since shear failures normally exhibit fewer significant signs of distress and
warnings than flexural failures. However, unlike flexural design for which the classical beam
theory (plane sections remain plane) allows for an accurate, rational and simple design for
both uncracked and cracked members, the determination of shear strength of reinforced or
prestressed concrete members remains open to dispute.
Shear behavior is more complicated than flexural behavior in the regard that more than one
load-transfer mechanism are involved. These mechanisms include shear transferred by
uncracked concrete, by aggregate interlock, by transverse steel, by dowel action of the longi-
tudinal reinforcement, by vertical component of the prestressed tendon, by residual tensile
stresses across the cracked concrete and by arch action. Many models have been developed
for shear design and analysis. Models used by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) specifi-
cation and by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) code are two major models for shear
design used in North America. Other models are also available, such as the rotating-angle
softened-truss model and the fixed-angle softened-truss model [Hsu, 1988/93; Belarbi and
Hsu, 1988; Pang and Hsu, 1996], and the truss model with crack friction [Dei Poli et al., 1987/
90; Kirmair, 1987; Kupfer and Bulicek, 1991; Reineck, 1991]. However, these models will
not be discussed in the thesis since they are not as widely used in practice as the ACI and the
CSA models.
Due to the complexity of shear behavior, a committee of senior American engineers in 1962
[ACI Committee 326, 1962] concluded that a full rational shear design approach does not
seem possible at this time. A semi-empirical shear design procedure was developed as an
interim measure. The design procedure was based on the assumption [MacGregor and Han-
son, 1969] that the shear strength of reinforced or prestressed concrete members was equal to
CHAPTER 1 - Introduction
2
the inclined cracking strength of the concrete, V
c,
plus the strength of the shear reinforcement,
V
s
. The inclined cracking strength of the concrete, V
c,
was obtained from curve fitting to the
available experimental results, and the strength of the shear reinforcement, V
s
, was calculated
using the truss model [Ritter, 1899]. This design procedure was considered reasonably
safe and accurate. It is worth mentioning that the aforementioned design procedure is the basis
of the ACI design code and has remained unchanged since 1971. Similar design procedures
had been used in the CSA code until 1994 and continued to be used in the current European
Code (EC2).
There is often concern on the applicability of shear design procedures, which are based on
limited experiments, to actual structural designs, especially when the procedures are applied
to members considerably different from the specimens tested. In discussing the application of
laboratory experimentation to structural design, Professor Hardy Cross quoted with
approval the paradoxical statement of the Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Arthur Eddington that
No experiment is worthy of credence unless supported by an adequate theory. The Modified
Compression Field Theory (MCFT) [Vecchio and Collins, 1986], developed from observation
of the response of a large number of reinforced concrete elements loaded in pure shear, is such
a theory. The MCFT treats cracked concrete as one integrated material. Equilibrium, geometry
compatibility and constitutive relationships are applied simultaneously to determine the shear
strength of reinforced or prestressed concrete members. According to the MCFT, the shear
strength of reinforced or prestressed concrete members is equal to the shear strength of the
cracked concrete and the strength provided by the shear reinforcement, both of which pertain
to the average strain condition in concrete. The MCFT forms the basis for the shear design
provision of the current CSA code [2004] and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifica-
tions [2004].
The ACI code and the CSA code, representing two fundamentally different shear design con-
cepts, are two major design codes in North America. They differ in three main aspects for
shear design. The first difference is in how the concrete contribution V
c
is considered. In the
ACI code, V
c
is taken as the inclined cracking strength of the originally uncracked concrete.
Factors such as the concrete strength and the applied axial compression (including prestress)
45
3
or tension have significant influence on V
c
. In contrast, the CSA code takes V
c
as the shear
strength of the already cracked concrete. V
c
is not only related to the concrete strength and the
applied axial force but also related to the deterioration of the concrete. As more inclined
cracks appear and the concrete sustains more damage, the ability of the concrete to transfer
shear is reduced. Therefore, the V
c
determined using the CSA code is usually lower than the
inclined cracking strength calculated as V
c
in the ACI code. The second difference between
the ACI code and the CSA code is in how the steel contribution V
s
is considered. In the ACI
code, V
s
is expected to be conservatively derived from the truss model, since the inclina-
tion of the diagonal struts is usually flatter than in most cases. Therefore, according to the
ACI code, V
s
is only related to the amount of transverse reinforcement and can be greatly
enhanced by adding more transverse reinforcement alone. In addition, the ACI code does not
consider that inadequate amount of longitudinal reinforcement may cause premature shear
failures before the transverse reinforcement can reach yielding. In the CSA code, V
s
is also
determined using a truss model. However, the angle of the truss is not always and typi-
cally after yielding of the transverse reinforcement, the angle will become smaller than .
The force that can be developed in the longitudinal reinforcement is also examined. The third
difference is related to the empirical versus the theoretical method. The basic expressions for
the inclined cracking strength V
c
in the ACI code are obtained from curve fitting to the avail-
able experiments done at the University of Illinois [Sozen, Zwoyer and Seiss, 1959; ACI
Committee 326, 1962; Olesen, Sozen and Siess, 1967], and are intended to represent the lower
portion of the experimental scatter band. On the other hand, the CSA code is based on a
behavioral model, the MCFT, which has a physical meaning. The disadvantage of an empiri-
cal method is its potential inaccuracy when it is applied to structures outside the range of the
database used to develop the method.
For members without stirrups, there is now substantial evidence that the ACI design proce-
dure is unsafe when applied to members of large size or members containing low percentage
of longitudinal reinforcement, since the original curve fitting for the inclined cracking
strength V
c
did not include the influence of member size and included few test with low
amount of longitudinal reinforcement [Kani, 1967; Kuchma and Collins, 1999]. The problem
45
45
45
45
4
of size effect has been gradually recognized by the ACI committee and can be resolved by
simple modifications to the current ACI code equations though this has not yet be done.
For members with at least a minimum amount of stirrups, there is generally less concern of the
safety of the designs made using the ACI code since the possibly unconservative nature of the
ACI expressions for the concrete shear strength V
c
can be mitigated by the conservative nature
of the ACI expressions for the shear strength provided by the stirrups V
s
. However, calcula-
tions based on the MCFT indicated that for members with or without stirrups, the ACI method
could be either excessively unconservative in predicting the shear strength of web-shear criti-
cal reinforced concrete elements subjected to compression and excessively conservative in
predicting the shear strength of web-shear critical reinforced concrete elements subjected to
tension. This was partly due to the different ways of considering the influence of axial force
(prestress) in the ACI code and in the CSA code. In the ACI code, the axial force (prestress)
directly affects the inclined cracking strength of the concrete. Applying compressive force
(prestress) can greatly enhance the inclined cracking strength of the concrete, whereas apply-
ing tensile force can substantially reduce the inclined cracking strength of the concrete. This
conclusion was partly developed from the experiments after the partial collapse of a ware-
house at Wilkins Air Force Base in Shelby, Ohio in 1955. These experiments [Elstner and
Hognestad, 1957; Mattock, 1969; Haddadin, Hong and Mattock, 1971] indicated that the fail-
ures were likely due to the detrimental effect of axial tension on shear strength. However, the
influences of compression and tension are accessed using different expressions in the ACI
code (see Fig 1.1). Also, the influences of compression and prestress are treated in different
ways. In the CSA code, the influence of axial force (prestress) is accounted through changing
the estimated width and the inclination of shear cracks, and this in turn changes the magnitude
of the shear strength of the cracked concrete and the transverse reinforcement. Both the bene-
ficial effect of axial compression (prestress) and the detrimental effect of axial tension, which
are assessed using the MCFT based equations, are more consistently considered in the CSA
code than in the ACI code.
The differences in the consideration of the influences of axial compression and prestress in the
ACI code and in the CSA code can be illustrated in the design of self-centering post-tensioned
5
shear walls (see Fig 1.2). These walls are hybrid systems, which combine the advantages of
reinforced concrete wall constructions and the advantages of unbonded post-tensioning.
Hence, these walls can be identified both as members subjected to axial compression and as
prestressed members. In the CSA code, the effects of axial compression and prestress are both
taken into account by calculating the average longitudinal strain using one equation, whereas
in the ACI code, members subjected to axial compression and prestressed members are treated
as two separate categories. Hence, it will be difficult to choose the appropriate equations for
the shear design of these post-tensioned walls using the ACI code.
Accurately estimating the shear capacity of structural members is very critical for public
safety. It is well known that an inadequate design can lead to catastrophic collapse, but it is
seldom realized that a design which is too conservative may also be dangerous to public
safety. For instance, as bridges get older, the material deterioration and the tendency for
increased service loads can severely reduce the margin of safety against shear failures. Each
year, the departments of transportation need to spend extensive resources and efforts to exam-
ine and maintain existing bridges. Hence, a too conservative estimation may result in a waste
of money and resources on structures that are not in the critical path for safety, and this could
indirectly mislead decision makers away from the real critical structures.
Also, the design of some special structures, such as offshore oil platforms (see Fig 1.3),
requires a balance between weight and strength. As a consequence, an accurate design, which
employs rather low factors of safety, is required. On August 23, 1991 the concrete base struc-
ture for the Sleipner A offshore oil platform failed when it was lowered into Gandsfjord in
preparation for deck mating. This accident was triggered by the failure of Tricell 23 (see Fig
1.4) in the base structure due to a web-shear failure. An investigation following the Sleipner
accident [Collins et al., 1997] pointed out that the failure was attributed to the underestimation
of the magnitude of the shear at the end of the wall, and more importantly due to the overesti-
mation of the beneficial effect of the axial compression on the shear strength of the wall using
the 1977 Norwegian concrete code, which had been influenced by the 1971 ACI design code.
Also, it was concluded from the interaction diagrams using different design codes (see Fig
1.5) that under certain circumstances, such as the situation in the Sleipner A platform, the pre-
dicted shear strength is very sensitive to the interaction between the shear strength and the
6
applied axial load. The ACI code certainly does not provide clear guidance for the shear
design of members similar to the Sleipner A platform due to its inherent inconsistencies in
considering the effects of axial compression and tension, which result in discontinuous predic-
tions of V
c
for members subjected to small axial load and provide a wide range of possible
predictions of V
c
for members subjected to compression (see Fig 1.1).
This thesis will concentrate on the experimental study of the web-shear behavior of reinforced
concrete members subjected to shear force and axial compression or axial tension. The main
purpose of this study is to investigate two shear design methods, the ACI method and the CSA
method, for more accurate predictions. In order to come up with a more rational shear design
and evaluation method, assessment of the reliability of both methods will be carried out based
on experiments relevant to the behavior of web-shear critical reinforced concrete elements.
The predictions by the ACI shear design method and by the MCFT will be compared with the
experimental results. The advantages and disadvantages of both methods will be identified
and improvements on these methods will be proposed. Additionally, a study will be made on
the role played by the transverse reinforcement in shear resistance and on methods to properly
and efficiently proportion the transverse reinforcement to ensure that the structures fail in a
favorable way. Furthermore, modern computerized analysis tools may be implemented to see
if they can improve the code application.
Figure 1.1 Comparison of Shear Strength Equations for
Members Subjected to Axial Load (ACI-Fig. R11.2.2.2)
7
Figure 1.2 Self-Centering Post-Tensioned Shear Wall [Panian et al., 2007]
Figure 1.3 Offshore Oil Platform
8

1.2 Web-Shear Cracking and Flexure-shear Cracking
Web-shear cracking and flexure-shear cracking (see Fig 1.6) are two typical shear crack pat-
terns found in reinforced or prestressed concrete structures. Flexure-shear cracking is initiated
in areas which are already cracked due to flexure. Further increase of the loads will transform
some of the vertical flexural cracks into the inclined shear cracks. Flexure-shear cracks usu-
ally occur in regions subjected to high moment and significant shear. Web-shear cracking is
initiated in regions which are uncracked in bending, and occurs when the principal tensile
stresses in the web exceed the cracking strength of the concrete. As the loads increase, both
ends of web-shear cracks extend towards the flanges. Web-shear cracks usually appear in
regions subjected to high shear and low moment. They often occur in continuous prestressed
concrete beams near points of contraflexure. In this thesis, web-shear behavior will be dis-
cussed in more detail, as web-shear cracking does not involved complicated mechanisms as
flexure-shear cracking.
In the ACI code, the smaller of the web-shear cracking strength and the flexure-shear cracking
strength is taken as the inclined cracking strength V
c
for prestressed concrete members. Since
web-shear cracking and flexure-shear cracking are triggered by different causes, the web-
shear cracking and the flexure-shear cracking are treated differently in the ACI code and are
referred to as V
cw
and V
ci
, respectively. Expressions for the web-shear cracking V
cw
are
derived from a Mohrs Circle as illustrated in Fig 1.7. Alternatively, the ACI code allows V
cw
Figure 1.4 Details of The Geometry and Loading
for Tricell 23 [Collins et al., 1997]
Figure 1.5 Shear Force-Axial Load Interaction for
The Tricell Wall of The Sleipner Platform [Collins
et al., 1997]
9
to be calculated as the shear force corresponding to the dead load plus the live load that result
in a principal tensile stress of (psi) at the centroid of a member, despite the fact that
web-shear cracks can appear anywhere over the depth of the web. Flexure-shear cracking will
happen when the stresses at the tip of a flexural crack are high enough to make the vertical
flexural crack tilt in a diagonal direction. It is very difficult to theoretically determine the
shear at which the existing flexural cracks will develop into flexure-shear cracks. From the
available experimental data, flexure-shear cracking strength is predicted by the shear corre-
sponding to the first flexural crack plus the additional shear stress ( psi) necessary to
make the crack rotate.
The method used by the CSA code is completely different from that used by the ACI code.
The design equations in the CSA code are derived from the MCFT. Cracked concrete is
treated as a new material. The shear contribution of concrete is taken as the aggregate inter-
lock strength of the cracked concrete in stead of the inclined cracking strength of the concrete.
Web-shear cracking and flexure-shear cracking are not distinguished in the CSA code.
4 f
c
0.6 f
c
10
Figure 1.6 Typical Crack Patterns for Prestressed Concrete Members
11
1.3 Methods of Study
Developing a satisfactory shear design method is a long-term task due to the complexity of
shear behavior. Since it is controversial to say which method, the ACI shear design method or
the MCFT, provides better prediction for the web-shear behavior of reinforced or prestressed
concrete members, it is hoped that through two sets of experiments conducted in this research
program, the panel tests and the beam tests, the phenomenon can be better understood and the
causes of the different predictions can be better diagnosed.
One of the reasons why shear behavior is difficult to study is due to the fact that while tradi-
tional beam tests are easy to perform, it is hard to interpret the results for such a complicated
phenomenon as shear, as the stress and strain conditions vary from section to section and
many hard-to-identify constraint exist in traditional beam tests. It will be easier to perform a
v
cr
f
cr
1
f
pc
f
cr
------ + (Mohrs Circle) =
f
cr
4 f
c
(psi) =
Simplification ACI: v
cw
3.5 f
c
0.3f
pc
(psi) + =
Figure 1.7 Web-Shear Cracking V
cw
[Collins & Mitchell, 1991]
12
shear study if the complexity of the test can be reduced as much as possible. A panel test is
one such test in which the shear behavior of the simplest concrete element with uniform rein-
forcement in orthogonal directions can be studied. Additionally, very distinct stress and strain
conditions can be introduced into the panel, which easily enable the establishment of the equi-
librium, compatibility and constitutive relationships. Also, the behavior of a concrete panel is
a direct comparison with that of the web-shear critical reinforced or prestressed concrete
members. The accuracy of a method to predict the panel response can be examined and the
inadequacy of a method can be discovered. Constitutive models based on the results from
panel tests can also be incorporated into a finite-element program such that a more general
structural analysis can be performed.
A good design method should be able to not only predict the behavior of reinforced concrete
elements but also to predict the response of more complicated structural members, such as
beams. Most of the available beam tests were experiments on simply supported beams under
either three or four-point bending. For such experiments, web-shear failures usually occurred
close to the disturbed region near the support, where rapidly changing stress directions,
anchorage and bond conditions may complicate the response. It was difficult to use the results
of such previous tests to study the web-shear behavior of reinforced or prestressed concrete
members. Hence, experiments on continuous thin-webbed reinforced concrete beams, in
which web-shear failures would dominate and would occur near the points of contraflexure,
were carried out. Since the performance of beams is not simply the sum of the response of
panels, extra care was taken when interpreting the behavior of the beam tests. By comparing
the results of the panel tests and the beam tests, it was hoped that the factors affecting the
response of the beams but not the response of the panels could be identified. The recommen-
dations on how these factors can be included in the design method to improve the quality of
predictions will be provided.
1.4 Outline of Thesis
This chapter defines the existing problems in current design codes. It is hoped that through the
study of this thesis, the accuracy of the shear prediction on web-shear critical reinforced con-
crete elements under combined shear and axial forces can be improved. In CHAPTER 2,
13
equations from the current American and Canadian codes will be summarized and discussed.
Previous experimental and analytical programs related to this thesis will be reviewed. An
example of the considerable differences that can arise in the amounts of shear reinforcement
required by different codes will be presented and compared.
The experimental program was divided into two parts: the panel tests and the beam tests. A
total of six panels were tested under different combinations of axial stress and shear stress.
Details on the panel tests followed by analytical studies of the panels using different methods
are explained in CHAPTER 3. A total of eleven I-shaped beams with different longitudinal
reinforcement, transverse reinforcement, flange thicknesses were tested under different axial
loads. Details on the beam tests followed by analytical studies of the beams using different
methods are explained in CHAPTER 4. The comparison between the panels and the beams is
also included in CHAPTER 4. The conclusions drawn from the experimental results are
listed in CHAPTER 5. Recommendations for future research can also be found in CHAP-
TER 5. Complete experimental data on the panel tests can be found in Appendix A and com-
plete experimental data on the beam tests can be found in Appendix B.
14
CHAPTER 2
Existing Shear Design Provisions
In contrast to flexural design, there is significant international disagreement on the most
appropriate shear design regulations concerning their physical significance, rationality and
ease of use. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) Building code for Structural Concrete
[2008] and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard for Design of Concrete Struc-
tures [2004] are two major design specifications in North America. These codes, however, can
yield very different shear designs under certain circumstances. In this chapter, the design
equations from both codes will be summarized and compared. The fundamental theories
behind both specifications will be reviewed and discussed. A review of the previous experi-
mental work on the shear behavior of reinforced concrete elements and beams related to this
thesis will be given. Finally, an example showing the differences in the required amounts of
shear reinforcement by the ACI code and by the CSA code will be presented.
2.1 ACI 318-08 (Chapter 11)
The current ACI shear design provisions were developed from the experimental research con-
ducted primarily at the University of Illinois in the 1950s and 1960s [Sozen, Zwoyer and
Seiss, 1959; ACI Committee 326, 1962; Olesen, Sozen and Siess, 1967]. The equations in the
ACI code were obtained by conducting numerical fitting to the experimental data available at
the time when the code was developed. According to the ACI code, V
c
is the shear strength
provided by the concrete, and is defined as the inclined cracking strength. Table 2.1 lists the
shear design equations for V
c
(in psi units) from Chapter 11 in the ACI code. Table 2.2 is the
metric version of Table 2.1. V
s
is the shear strength provided by the transverse steel, and is
based on the truss analogy. V
s
is calculated using the formula shown in Table 2.3 (in psi
units). Table 2.4 is the metric version of Table 2.3.
The ACI code specifies different sets of equations to calculate V
c
for different types of mem-
bers and different types of loading. For example, the equations for designing non-prestressed
45
CHAPTER 2 - Existing Shear Design Provisions
15
and prestressed members are different. The equations for prestressed members cannot be used
for non-prestressed members by setting the prestressing force as zero. For nonprestressed
members, the equations used also depend on the applied axial loads. The equations for mem-
bers under axial tension [ACI-Eq.(11.8)] and the equations for members under axial compres-
sion [ACI-Eq.(11.4) - Eq.(11.7)] are completely different. Also, they are not interchangeable
by changing the sign of the axial load, N
u
. For prestressed members, web-shear cracking and
flexure-shear cracking are distinguished and are calculated using different equations. It is
worth mentioning that the V
cw
equations are the only equations for designing web-shear
cracking in the ACI code and are based on first principles. All the other equations are essen-
tially for designing flexure-shear cracking and are obtained by numerical curve fitting.
16

c
in The ACI 318-08 Code (in/lb units)
Non-prestressed Members Prestressed Members
Critical
Section
from face of support from face of support
Simplified
Method
No
Axial Load
For members with effective prestress
force not less than 40% of the tensile
strength of flexural reinforcement
Axial
Compression
Axial
Tension
Detailed
Method
No
Axial Load
or
Axial
Compression
Axial
Tension
is positive for compression and negative for tension.
f
pc
and f
pe
are positive for compression and negative for tension.
corresponds to flexure-shear and corresponds to web-shear.
is the force required for flexural crack to develop to flexure-shear crack.
psi
d h 2
V
c
2 f
c
b
w
d =
V
c
0.6 f
c
700
V
u
d
p
M
u
------------ +

b
w
d =
2 f
c
b
w
d V
c
5 f
c
b
w
d
V
u
d
p
M
u
1
V
c
V
cw
V
c
2 1
N
u
2000A
g
------------------ +

f
c
b
w
d =
V
c
0 =
V
c
1.9 f
c
2500
w
V
u
d
M
u
--------- +

b
w
d =
V
c
3.5 f
c
b
w
d
V
u
d M
u
1
w
A
s
b
w
d
--------- =
V
c
min V
ci
V
cw
, ( ) =
V
ci
0.6 f
c
b
w
d
p
V
u
M
ct
M
u
--------------- + =
V
ci
1.7 f
c
b
w
d
M
ct
I y
t
( ) 6 f
c
f
pe
+ ( ) =
V
cw
3.5 f
c
0.3f
pc
+ ( )b
w
d
p
V
p
+ =
V
cw
4 f
c
Ib
w
Q
-------- 1
f
pc
4 f
c
------------- + =
V
c
1.9 f
c
2500
w
V
u
d
M
m
--------- +

b
w
d =
M
m
M
u
N
u
4h d
8
--------------- 0 =
V
c
3.5 f
c
b
w
d 1
N
u
500A
g
--------------- +
w
A
s
b
w
d
--------- =
V
c
2 1
N
u
500A
g
--------------- +

f
c
b
w
d 0 =
d 0.8h
N
u
V
ci
V
cw
0.6 f
c
b
w
d
f
c
100
17
c
in The ACI 318-08 Code (mm/N units)
Non-prestressed Members Prestressed Members
Critical
Section
from face of support from face of support
Simplified
Method
No
Axial Load
For members with effective prestress
force not less than 40% of the tensile
strength of flexural reinforcement
Axial
Compression
Axial
Tension
Detailed
Method
No
Axial Load
or
Axial
Compression
Axial
Tension
is positive for compression and negative for tension.
f
pc
and f
pe
are positive for compression and negative for tension.
corresponds to flexure-shear and corresponds to web-shear.
is the force required for flexural crack to develop to flexure-shear crack.
MPa
d h 2
V
c
0.166 f
c
b
w
d =
V
c
0.0498 f
c
4.83
V
u
d
p
M
u
------------ +

b
w
d =
0.166 f
c
b
w
d V
c
0.415 f
c
b
w
d
V
u
d
p
M
u
1
V
c
V
cw
V
c
0.166 1
N
u
13.8A
g
------------------ +

f
c
b
w
d =
V
c
0 =
V
c
0.158 f
c
17.2
w
V
u
d
M
u
--------- +

b
w
d =
V
c
0.291 f
c
b
w
d
V
u
d M
u
1
w
A
s
b
w
d
--------- =
V
c
min V
ci
V
cw
, ( ) =
V
ci
0.0498 f
c
b
w
d
p
V
u
M
ct
M
u
--------------- + =
V
ci
0.141 f
c
b
w
d
M
ct
I y
t
( ) 0.498 f
c
f
pe
+ ( ) =
V
cw
0.291 f
c
0.3f
pc
+ ( )b
w
d
p
V
p
+ =
V
cw
0.332 f
c
Ib
w
Q
-------- 1
f
pc
0.332 f
c
------------------------- + =
V
c
0.158 f
c
17.2
w
V
u
d
M
m
--------- +

b
w
d =
M
m
M
u
N
u
4h d
8
--------------- 0 =
V
c
0.291 f
c
b
w
d 1
N
u
3.45A
g
------------------ +
w
A
s
b
w
d
--------- =
V
c
0.166 1
N
u
3.45A
g
------------------ +

f
c
b
w
d 0 =
d 0.8h
N
u
V
ci
V
cw
0.0498 f
c
b
w
d
f
c
8.3
18
2.2 CSA A23.3-04 (Clause 11.3)
The CSA design specification is based on the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT).
Its basic assumption is that a diagonal compression field will carry shear after the concrete has
cracked and that the inclination of the average principal stress coincides with the inclination
of the average principal strain. Equilibrium, compatibility and constitutive relationships for
cracked reinforced concrete are considered. The local state at the crack interface is also
checked. The equations of the MCFT are illustrated in Fig 2.1.
In the CSA code, the shear resistance of reinforced and prestressed concrete members also
consists of two components: the shear resistance of the cracked concrete and the shear resis-
tance provided by the transverse reinforcement, both of which are related to the stress and
s
in The ACI 318-08 Code (in/lb units)
Nonprestressed Members Prestressed Members
psi
s
in The ACI 318-08 Code (mm/N units)
Nonprestressed Members Prestressed Members
MPa
f
yt max ,
60000
s
min d 2 24 , ( ) V
s
4 f
c
b
w
d
min d 4 12 , ( ) V
s
4 f
c
b
w
d >
s
min 0.75h 24 , ( ) V
s
4 f
c
b
w
d
min 0.375h 12 , ( ) V
s
4 f
c
b
w
d >
A
v min ,
0.75 f
c
b
w
s
f
yt
--------- = A
v min ,
min 0.75 f
c
b
w
s
f
yt
---------
A
ps
f
pu
s
80f
yt
d
------------------
d
b
w
------ ,

=
V
s
A
v
f
yt
d
s
--------------- 8 f
c
b
w
d =
f
yt max ,
414
s
min d 2 610mm , ( ) V
s
0.332 f
c
b
w
d
min d 4 305mm , ( ) V
s
0.332 f
c
b
w
d >
s
min 0.75h 610mm , ( ) V
s
0.332 f
c
b
w
d
min 0.375h 305mm , ( ) V
s
0.332 f
c
b
w
d >
A
v min ,
0.0623 f
c
b
w
s
f
yt
--------- = A
v min ,
min 0.0623 f
c
b
w
s
f
yt
---------
A
ps
f
pu
s
80f
yt
d
------------------
d
b
w
------ ,

=
V
s
A
v
f
yt
d
s
--------------- 0.664 f
c
b
w
d =
19
strain field of the members. A single set of design equations are provided in the CSA code for
the design of reinforced and prestressed concrete members under all the loading situations.
The equations are shown in Table 2.5. The equations were derived from the MCFT assuming
plane sections remain plane, that the shear stress will be uniform over the depth of the section,
and that there is no clamping stress applied through the thickness of the member [Bentz and
Collins, 2006].
20
Equilibrium:
Average Stresses:
1. f
x

x
f
sx
f
1
v cot + =
2. f
z

z
f
sz
f
1
v tan + =
3. v f
1
f
2
+ ( ) tan cot + ( ) =
Geometric Conditions:
Average Strain:
6. tan
2

x

2
+
z

2
+
---------------- =
7.
1
x

z

2
+ + =
8.
xz
2
x

z
+ ( ) cot =
Stress-Strain Relationships:
Reinforcement:
Concrete:
11. f
sx
E
s
x
f
yx
=
12. f
sz
E
s
z
f
yz
=
13. f
2
f
c
0.8 170
1
+
----------------------------- 2
------

2
------

2
=
14. f
1
0.33 f
c
( ) 1 500
1
+ ( ) =
Stresses at Cracks:
4. f
sxcr
f
x
v cot v
ci
cot + + ( )
x
=
5. f
szcr
f
z
v tan v
ci
tan + ( )
z
=
Crack Width:
9. w=s
1
10. s
1
sin
s
x
-------------
cos
s
z
------------- +

=
Shear Stress on Crack:
15. v
ci
0.18 f
c
0.31
24w
a
g
16 +
----------------- +
------------------------------------
Figure 2.1 Equations for The Modified Compression Field Theory (MPa, mm)
Note: f
1
and f
2
are the average
concrete principal stresses.
21
Table 2.5 CSA A23.3-04 Shear Design Equations (mm/N units)
Critical Section
from face of support
where
Simplified Method
(for )
General Method
is the force that can be developed in the longitudinal reinforcement at the section of interest on the
flexural tension side.
is the force that can be developed in the longitudinal reinforcement at the section of interest on the
flexural compression side.
Note: The simplified method in the CSA code is equivalent to the general method when .
d
v
V
n
V
c
V
s
V
p
+ + 0.25f
c
b
w
d
v
=
A
v mi n ,
0.06 f
c
b
w
s
f
y
--------- =
V
s
A
v
f
y
d
v
s
--------------- cot =
s
min 0.75d
v
600mm , ( ) v f
c
0.125
min 0.35d
v
300mm , ( ) v f
c
0.125 >
V
c
f
c
b
w
d
v
=
f
y
400MPa
f
c
60MPa
35 =
0.18 A
v
A
v min ,
230
1000 s
ze
+
------------------------- others
=
s
ze
35s
z
a
g
15 +
----------------- 0.85s
z
=
s
z
min
d
v
distance between layers of A
s
0.003b
w
s
z
29 7000
x
+ =
0.4
1 1500
x
+ ( )
-------------------------------
1300
1000 s
ze
+ ( )
------------------------------ =
s
ze
300mm A
v
A
v mi n ,
35s
z
a
g
15 +
----------------- others
x
M
f
d
v
V
f
V
p
0.5N
f
A
p
f
po
+ +
2 E
s
A
s
E
p
A
p
+ ( )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
0
M
f
d
v
V
f
V
p
0.5N
f
A
p
f
po
+ +
2 E
s
A
s
E
p
A
p
E
c
A
ct
+ + ( )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- others
=
M
f
V
f
V
p
( )d
v
0.2
3
10
x
3
3
10
M
f
d
v
0.5N
f
V
f
0.5V
s
V
p
( ) cot + + F
lt
for flexural tension side
0.5N
f
V
f
0.5V
s
V
p
( ) cot M
f
d
v
+ F
l c
for flexural compression side
F
lt
F
lc
d
v
max 0.9d 0.72h , ( ) =
a
g
0 f
c
70MPa
a
g
70 f
c

10
----------------- 60MPa f
c
70MPa < <
a
g
others
x
0.85
3
10 =
22
2.3 Literature Review
2.3.1 Review of Relevant Panel Tests
Tests of reinforced concrete elements under different combinations of uni-axial stress and
shear stress have been found to be a better way to study the fundamental shear behavior of
reinforced concrete as compared to beam tests, because the stress and strain conditions in
panel tests are generally uniform and, hence, easier to interpret. Bentz, Vecchio and Collins
[2006] summarized experiments of 102 reinforced concrete elements under different combi-
nations of uni-axial stress and shear stress relevant to the design of reinforced and prestressed
concrete beams. The predictions by the ACI code, the full MCFT and the simplified MCFT
were compared with the experimental results. It was found that both the full 15 equations of
the MCFT and the simplified MCFT consistently provided satisfactory predictions for the
shear capacity of the existing panel tests, whereas the predictions by the ACI code were nei-
ther accurate nor consistent.
The existing panel tests covered a wide variation of parameters, such as the concrete strength
f
c
(14.5 MPa to 103 MPa), the dimension of specimens (890 x 890 x 70 mm to 2510 x 2510 x
140 mm), the amount of longitudinal reinforcement (0.77 MPa to 32.5 MPa) and the
amount of transverse reinforcement (0 MPa to 24.6 MPa). A closer study of these tests
found that the distribution of the number of specimens in the range of parameters considered
was highly uneven. Fig 2.2 shows the distribution of 61 panel tests (59% of the total) with the
f
x
/v ratio between -3.0 and +3.0, and with less than 6 MPa. It can be seen in Fig 2.2 that
only 4 panels, which were subjected to combined shear and axial loads, were reinforced with a
practical amount of transverse reinforcement ( psi). Two of them were
subjected to combined compression and shear [Marti and Meyboom, 1992] and the other two
were subjected to combined tension and shear [Andre, 1987]. The maximum compression to
shear ratio was -0.8 and the maximum tension to shear ratio was +3.0. The other panels were
either subjected to pure shear or were reinforced with no transverse reinforcement. Thus it can
be concluded from Fig 2.2 that experimental studies on the shear behavior of reinforced con-
crete elements representing typical reinforced concrete members subjected to tension or com-
pression are rather rare. As such, the different predictions for the behavior of prestressed
x
f
yx
z
f
yz
z
f
yz
0.75 f
c

z
f
yz
8 f
c

23
concrete members between the CSA and ACI code have not been explored with panel ele-
ments to date.
A brief description of some of the representative panel tests summarized in Bentz, Vecchio
and Collins [2006] will be presented in the following sections.

2.3.1.1 Vecchio and Collins [1982]
The purpose of this research was to establish the relationship between the diagonal compres-
sive stress and the diagonal compressive strain . Thirty reinforced concrete panels with a
dimension of 890 mm by 890 mm by 70 mm were tested under pure shear or a biaxial stress
state. It was found that not only depended on but also depended on the coexisting , a
phenomenon called compression softening. The following relationship between and
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
r
z
f
yz
(MPa)
f
x
/
v
ACI ACI
min(r
z
f
yz
)
= 0.75 (f
c
')psi
max(r
z
f
yz
)
= 8 (f
c
')psi
Tension
Compression
Figure 2.2 Tests of Panels Under Pure Shear Stress and Under
Combined Uni-Axial and Shear Stresses
f
2
2
f
2
1
f
2
2
24
[Eq. (2-1)] was proposed and adopted later in the MCFT. It was also found that significant
tensile stresses still existed between the cracks, a phenomenon called tension stiffening and
this could be modelled as well.
(2-1)
2.3.1.2 Andre [1987]
The purpose of this research was to determine if a scale effect existed and to check the exper-
imental result consistency between two concrete element testers. The experimental results of
five full scale panels tested at Kajima Corporation and five half-scale panels (with a dimen-
sion of 890 mm by 890 mm by 70 mm) tested at the University of Toronto were compared to
study the scale effect. It was found that the shear cracking strength, the ultimate shear
strength, the principle compressive stress, the cracking orientation, and the average strain ( ,
and ) were very well reproduced in the tests conducted using both testers, while the
principle tensile stress was not very well reproduced. It was concluded that for members with
transverse steel, any scale effect was of small importance.
2.3.1.3 Bhide and Collins [1989]
The purpose of this research was to study the role played by the longitudinal reinforcement in
the shear capacity of reinforced concrete elements subjected to combined tension and shear.
Twenty-four reinforced concrete panels (with a dimension of 890 mm by 890 mm by 70 mm)
containing only longitudinal reinforcement were tested under various uni-axial tension and
shear (including tests of pure shear and direct tension). The experimental results confirmed
the predictions of the MCFT that considerable post-cracking shear capacity existed as long as
sufficient longitudinal reinforcement was provided and detailed to prevent excessive widening
of cracks. In contrast, the predictions by the ACI design procedure, which required substantial
reduction on the shear capacity of reinforced concrete elements under tension irrespective of
the amount of longitudinal reinforcement, were excessively conservative compared to the
experimental results.
f
2
f
c
0.8 170
1
+
----------------------------- 2
------

2
------

2
=
y

xy
25
2.3.1.4 Marti and Meyboom [1992]
Meyboom and Marti [1992] presented the experimental results of three specimens with a
dimension of 1626 mm by 1626 mm by 287 mm. The specimens tested had almost identical
reinforcing details except for the amount of prestressing in the longitudinal direction. The
effects of different prestressing levels on the shear behavior of reinforced concrete elements at
service load state and at ultimate load state were investigated. It was found that prestressing
increased both the cracking strength and the ultimate strength but reduced the redistribution of
the internal forces after cracking. The predictions by the linear, nonlinear, and limit state anal-
ysis were compared with the experimental response. It was found that the linear analysis pro-
vided good approximation for the service load state, the limit state analysis provided good
approximation for the ultimate load state, and the nonlinear analysis provided good approxi-
mation for the full response of the reinforced concrete elements. While these specimens were
pretensioned, the amount of prestress applied was relatively low when compared to typical
highway girders.
2.3.1.5 Vecchio and Aspiotis [1994]
The main purpose of this research was to study if there was any difference in the concrete soft-
ening model between normal strength concrete and high strength concrete. It was often recog-
nized that high strength concrete tended to have smoother crack surfaces and more brittle
failures, hence it was suspected that the softening effect for high strength concrete would be
more severe. Twelve high strength concrete (average =56 MPa) elements with a dimen-
sion of 890 mm by 890 mm by 70 mm were tested under various combinations of biaxial
stress and shear stress. The experimental results showed no obvious difference between nor-
mal strength concrete and high strength concrete in the softening behavior, even though a
modified model was proposed to provide better predictions of the behavior of high strength
concrete.
2.3.1.6 Pang and Hsu [1995]
Pang and Hsu [1995] developed the fixed-angle truss model and the rotating-angle truss
model for analyzing the shear behavior of reinforced concrete. Thirteen reinforced concrete
elements with a dimension of 1400 mm by 1400 mm by 178 mm were tested to study the
f
c

26
influences of the percentage of reinforcement, the ratio of transverse to longitudinal reinforce-
ment, and the history of loading on the shear behavior of the elements. Four distinctive failure
modes were observed and the applicability for the rotating-angle truss model was verified. To
achieve better prediction, the authors proposed a kinking correction factor for the constitu-
tive law of rebars. However, it was later discovered that the definition of steel percentage and
the calculation of member stresses were inconsistent in the original publication. To make them
consistent, the published shear stresses should be multiplied by a ratio of 57.5/55. It was this
inconsistency that made the kinking correction factor necessary and when the inconsistency
was accounted for, the kinking term could be eliminated.
2.3.2 Review of Selected Beam Tests
Beam tests, despite their complexity for analysis of fundamental shear behavior, enable the
complete loading geometry and the construction details of real structural members to be
reproduced and are the most straightforward way to evaluate any analytical and design
method. Most of the previous shear tests on prestressed concrete beams were conducted on
simply supported beams under either three-point bending or four-point bending. In these tests,
the shear force remained constant within the shear span, but the moment varied linearly with
no inflection point present in the specimens. These beams were usually not web-shear critical.
Hence, it was not appropriate to use the test results of these beams to study the web-shear
behavior. Tests of such kind include Sozen et al. [1959], Oleson et al. [1967], Haddadin et al.
[1971], Elzanaty et al. [1986] and many other experiments summarized in Collins et al.
[1996]. Only a few tests on the shear behavior of continuous beams were actually conducted
on continuously supported specimens or at least on the specimens simulating the loading con-
dition of continuous beams. Experiments of such kind include Hawkins, Sozen and Siess
[1965], Gregor and Collins [1995], and Kuchma and Collins [1999].
The ACI design code was empirically derived from the experiments conducted at the Univer-
sity of Illinois after the partial collapse of a warehouse at Wilkins Air Force Base in Shelby,
Ohio in 1955, and has hardly changed since 1971. Those test results were described and dis-
cussed in detail in Laupa et al. [1955], Sozen et al. [1959], Hawkins et al. [1965] and Oleson
et al. [1967]. It was concluded from those tests that the shear strength of reinforced or pre-
27
stressed concrete beams could be obtained by adding a concrete contribution and a steel con-
tribution. The concrete contribution V
c
was limited to the first inclined cracking strength, and
the steel contribution V
s
was calculated using the truss model. A similar design concept
has been used in the ACI code since then and has been adopted by many other design codes.
As for methods to calculate the first inclined cracking strength, two types of shear crack pat-
terns were distinguished, flexure-shear cracks and web-shear cracks. The lesser of the flexure-
shear cracking strength and the web-shear cracking strength was taken as the shear strength
contribution from the concrete. Although, the flexural cracking strength could be predicted
with reasonable accuracy, the scatter in the flexure-shear cracking strength was relatively
large. The conditions causing flexure-shear cracks were complicated. Therefore, an empirical
value found by using regression analysis was proposed to take into account the additional
stresses necessary to change flexural cracks into flexure-shear cracks. Since the web-shear
cracking occurred in an uncracked region, the best way to calculate the web-shear cracking
strength was to check the principal tensile stresses along and perpendicular to a network of
trajectories covering the whole beam. Since such calculations were very labor intensive, par-
ticularly when advanced computational tools were not available, it was suggested that a con-
sideration of the principal tensile stress at the centroid of a cross-section would give a good
measure of the likelihood of a web-shear crack. With the advent of spread sheets, the method
originally suggested by Hawkins et al. [1965] could be fully implemented to achieve better
accuracy.
The CSA design code was based on a behavioral model, the MCFT, which was derived from
equilibrium and geometric compatibility conditions combined with the constitutive relation-
ships obtained from reinforced concrete element tests. After the development of the MCFT
and the adoption of the MCFT in the CSA design code and AASHTO LRFD provisions, more
experiments were carried out to compare the ACI code to the CSA code (or the closely related
AASHTO LRFD provisions) in terms of predicting the shear behavior of reinforced or pre-
stressed concrete beams. Such experiments include tests done by Gregor and Collins [1995],
Kuchma and Collins [1999], Gupta and Collins [2001] and more experiments can be found in
Collins et al. [1996]. It was found that the CSA code was easier than the ACI code to imple-
ment because the method was very consistent in treating members subjected to tension and
45
28
compression, and in treating members with and without web reinforcement. The factor of
safety was also more consistent in the CSA code than in the ACI code. Collins et al. [1996]
concluded from the available experiment data that the ACI code could be extremely conserva-
tive for uniformly loaded members, for members with inclined tendon and members subjected
to high tension. However, for large lightly reinforced members and members subjected to high
compression, the ACI code could be very unconservative.
A brief description of some of the beam tests mentioned previously will be presented in the
following sections.
2.3.2.1 UIUC Bulletin 452, Sozen, Zwoyer and Siess [1959]
The behavior of prestressed concrete beams without web reinforcement was investigated by
testing 43 rectangular beams and 56 I-beams. All beams had over-all dimensions of 152 mm
by 305 mm. The beams were simply supported and tested under either three-point or four-
point loading over a 2.74 m span, except for four rectangular beams which were tested over a
2.13 m span. The variables of the tests were the concrete strength (from 12.1 MPa to 59
MPa), the longitudinal reinforcement ratio (from 0.1% to 0.96%), the level of stresses in
prestressing tendons (from 0 to 966 MPa), the shear span (from 607 mm to 1372 mm) and the
web width for I-beams (44.5 mm and 76.2 mm). The specimens failed in two modes: (1) flex-
ural failure; (2) shear failure, which included shear compression failure and web distress fail-
ure. It was concluded that the useful shear strength of prestressed concrete beams without web
reinforcement was up to the formation of the inclined cracks. Also, an empirical expression
was suggested to predict the inclined tension cracking load.
2.3.2.2 Hawkins, Sozen and Siess [1965]
This study was a part of the research on prestressed and reinforced concrete for highway
bridges carried out in the Structural Research Laboratory of the Department of Civil Engineer-
ing at the University of Illinois. Twenty-two two-span (each span of 2.74 m long) continuous
prestressed concrete beams loaded at the mid-span were tested and their behaviors were ana-
lyzed. All beams had overall dimensions of 152 mm by 305 mm. The variables were the shape
of the cross-section (3 rectangular and 19 I-shaped), the concrete strength (from 20.8 MPa to
f
c

29
56.2 MPa), the amount of prestressing reinforcement (from 77 mm
2
to 154.8 mm
2
), the
amount of web reinforcement (5 I-beams with web reinforcement), and the ratio of the effec-
tive depth at mid-span to that at the interior support (from 0.8 to 1.3). The crack patterns of
continuous beams tested were found to be compatible with those of simply supported beams
under shear. Three different types of cracks were distinguished: 1) flexural cracks; 2) flexure-
shear cracks; 3) shear cracks. The possible critical trajectory was also identified. To predict
the inclined cracking strength accurately, an analysis of the stress condition for all possible
critical trajectories covering the whole beam was necessary. Since the amount of work
involved to check every possible trajectory was large, a method based on simplified assump-
tions was proposed and was expected to be able to provide a representative estimate for the
inclined cracking strength. The effect of web reinforcement on enhancing the ultimate shear
capacity and the ductility of continuous beams were also investigated. It was suggested that
the method for proportioning web reinforcement in simply-supported beams could be used for
the proportioning of web reinforcement in continuous beams. When enough web reinforce-
ment was provided, the flexural capacity could be obtained and the full moment redistribution
in continuous beams between the interior support and the mid-span could be achieved.
2.3.2.3 UIUC Bulletin 493, Oleson, Sozen and Siess [1967]
The behavior of prestressed concrete beams with web reinforcement was investigated by test-
ing 5 rectangular beams, 114 I-beams and 10 beams with composite slabs. All the non-com-
posite beams had overall dimensions of 152 mm by 305 mm. The composite beams had
overall dimensions of 152 mm by 305 mm and a cast-in-place slab with dimensions of 610
mm by 50.8 mm. The beams were simply supported and tested under either three-point or
four-point loading over a 2.74 m span. The parameters of the study were the concrete strength
(from 17.2 MPa to 52 MPa), the percentage of longitudinal prestressing reinforcement (from
0.0467% to 0.713%), the level of stresses in prestressing tendons (from 0 to 876 MPa), the
arrangement of prestressing reinforcement (straight or draped under load point), the shear
span (from 711 mm to 1981 mm), the web thickness of I-beams (44.5 mm and 76.2 mm), the
web reinforcement ratio based on flange thickness (from 0 to 0.67 percent), the type of web
reinforcement (bonded and unbonded) and the stirrup spacing (from 47.6 mm to 267 mm).
The specimens failed in three modes: (1) flexural failure; (2) shear failure, which included
30
shear-compression failure and web distress; (3) transition failure between flexure and shear. It
was found that a sufficient amount of web reinforcement changed the useful shear strength
from that at the development of inclined cracks to that at the yielding of stirrups. Eq. (2-2)
was suggested to determine the amount of web reinforcement which was needed to prevent a
shear failure. Here, V
c
was the smaller of the web-shear crack strength and the flexure-shear
crack strength. The last term in Eq. (2-2) was the contribution from the vertical web reinforce-
ment with r being the web reinforcement ratio based on the width of the precast flange. Eq.
(2-2) was expected to be a conservative estimation of the shear capacity of prestressed con-
crete beams with web reinforcement.
(2-2)
2.3.2.4 Vegh [1994]
Twelve large scale rectangular reinforced concrete beams reinforced with minimum or no
transverse reinforcement were tested to study the relationship between the size of reinforced
concrete beams and their shear strength. The parameters studied were the size of cross-section
(from 138 mm by 333 mm to 295 mm by 1000 mm), the concrete strength (from 50 MPa to 91
MPa), and the arrangement of the transverse and the longitudinal reinforcement. The loading
condition was specially designed to create a test region with constant shear and double bend-
ing behavior as in continuous beams near points of inflection. All specimens failed abruptly
due to diagonal tension with longitudinal splitting occurring in some of the specimens. Beams
of a larger size failed at lower shear stresses, demonstrating the size effect in shear. It turned
out that the beams with a minimum amount of stirrups or the beams with skin reinforcement
showed better crack control than those without, hence reducing the observed size effect. The
ACI formulation provided unconservative predictions for beams with depths larger than 500
mm.
2.3.2.5 Gregor and Collins [1995]
Tests were carried out on six partially prestressed large-scale beams with overhangs loaded
uniformly to evaluate the validity of the truss model design procedure, the Modified Compres-
sion Field Theory, and the ACI design method. The dimensions of all specimens were compa-
V
u
V
c
rf
y
bd + =
31
rable to real precast AASHTO-PCI Type II I-girders. The concrete strength for all specimens
varied from 44.7 MPa to 57.8 MPa. The variables were the level of prestressing (varying
from 0 to 3.2 MPa), the amount of longitudinal reinforcement, and the amount of web rein-
forcement. The amount of nonprestressed reinforcement was determined by designing the
specimens subjected to a specific loading using truss models with variable angles. The stag-
gered shear effect was considered in proportioning the reinforcement. Both the truss model
and the Modified Compression Field Theory provided a prediction of the ultimate shear
capacity which was consistent with the test results. However, for the beams failing in shear,
the ACI method significantly underestimated their shear capacity and overestimated their
flexural capacity. The inclination of the principal stress was far from the assumed by the
ACI code, and was very well predicted by the Modified Compression Field Theory. To con-
clude, both the truss model and the Modified Compression Field Theory were valid in predict-
ing the shear capacity of full-scale partially prestressed beams, as long as the proper detailing
of the longitudinal reinforcement was considered when applying the Modified Compression
Field Theory.
2.3.2.6 Gupta and Collins [2001]
The failure of the Sleipner offshore platform triggered extensive experimental research on the
design procedures of heavily reinforced concrete members subjected to combined compres-
sion and shear. Twenty-four reinforced concrete elements subjected to different levels of com-
pression and shear were tested. The length (about 1.5 m), the overall depth (about 375 mm),
and the amount of longitudinal reinforcement (about 2.63%) were almost identical for all
specimens. The compression to shear ratio (from 0 to 20), the concrete strength (from 29.5
MPa to 86.9 MPa), the width of specimens (from 375 mm to 625 mm), and the amount of
transverse reinforcement (from 0 to 0.667%) varied from one specimen to another. The failed
Sleipner wall was designed using the 1977 Norwegian concrete code, which used the same
design concept as the 1971 ACI building code. The comparison was carried out using the ACI
simplified method, the ACI detailed method, and the 2000 AASHTO-LRFD method. The test
results indicated that the ACI detailed method provided an unconservative design for mem-
bers under very high compression and shear. The ACI simplified method provided a more
consistent and safe design for members under various levels of compression and shear. The
f
pc
45
32
2000 AASHTO-LRFD provided the best prediction out of three methods and could be used in
a wider range of application.
2.4 Example of Differences in The Required Amounts of Shear Reinforce-
ment by The CSA Code (CSA A23.3-04) and by The ACI Code (ACI
318-08)
As an example of the considerable differences that can arise in the amounts of shear reinforce-
ment required by different codes, the required shear reinforcement at section s (see Fig 2.3)
for a post-tensioned box-girder bridge will be determined by both the CSA code and the ACI
code. The bridge was continuous over two 43 m spans and the bearings supporting the bridge
were 600 mm wide (see Fig 2.3). The bridge supported two railway tracks, two walkways,
and a substantial quantity of ballast in addition to its own weight. The loadings were as fol-
lows:
Live Loads:
train 88 kN/m each track, including impact
walkway 4.4 kN/m each walkway
Dead Loads:
superimposed ballast and hardware 139 kN/m
self-weight of box girder 245 kN/m
To make the basis of comparison more direct, the ACI load factors and capacity reduction fac-
tors will be used for both sets of calculations. The load factor is 1.2 for dead load and 1.6 for
live load. The capacity reduction factor is 0.9 for flexural design and 0.75 for shear design.
Hence, the factored load was:
f
1.2 139 245 + ( ) 1.6 88 4.4 + ( ) + 2 757 kN/m = =
33
A preliminary design had resulted in a choice of 10 tendons in the bottom flange and 10 ten-
dons in the top flange. Each tendon contained twelve 15 mm diameter low-relaxation strands
with the strands post-tensioned to ( ). The longitudinal reinforcement
required for flexural strength is shown in Fig 2.4. The dimensions of the box-girder section
are shown in Fig 2.4. The shear forces and the bending moments due to factored load and sec-
ondary effect of post-tensioning are shown in Fig 2.3.
The concrete compressive strength was . Hence,
. The yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement and transverse
reinforcement were both 550 MPa.
0.7f
pu
f
pu
1860MPa =
f
c
34.5MPa =
E
c
4500 f
c
26430MPa = =
Figure 2.3 Two-Span Railway Bridge
34
The CSA Code:
For section at point s: and ,
The area of the prestressing tendons on the flexural tension side (bottom) of the section was
, the area of the nonprestressed reinforcement on the flexural
tension side of the section (bottom) was , the area of the pre-
stressing tendons on the flexural compression side (top) of the section which provided axial
compressive force was .
The web thickness was and the distance from the top fibre to the bottom flexural
reinforcement was , hence ,
the area on the tension side of the section was .
Since ,
Figure 2.4 Cross-Section of Box Girder
M
f
63000kN m = V
f
7320kN =
A
p
10 12 140 16800mm
2
= =
A
s
11 1000 11000mm
2
= =
A
p
18 12 140 30240mm
2
= =
b
w
700mm =
d 4115 180 3935mm = = d
v
max 0.72h 0.9d , ( ) 3542mm = =
A
ct
3954000mm
2
=
v
f
f
c
V
f
b
w
d
v
f
c
( ) 7320 1000 700 3542 34.5 ( ) 0.086 = = =
M
f
d
v
V
f
f
po
A
p
+ 0 >
35
Hence,
and
Shear Resistance Provided by The Cracked Concrete V
c
:
Required Shear Resistance by The Transverse Reinforcement V
s
:
Required Transverse Reinforcement:
Check The Capacity of The Longitudinal Reinforcement:
OK
The ACI Code:
For section at point s: and ,
Gross Properties of Cross-Section: , ,
, , , Assume,
after all the losses, the stress in tendon was 1100 MPa.
x
M
f
d
v
V
f
f
po
A
p
+
2 E
s
A
p
A
s
+ ( ) [ ]
---------------------------------------------- =
63000 10
6
3542 7320 10
3
1302 16800 +
2 200000 16800 11000 + ( ) [ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- =
0.291
3
10 =
0.4
1 1500
x
+
-------------------------- 0.278 = = 29 7000
x
+ 31 = =
V
c
f
c
b
w
d
v
0.278 34.5 700
3542
1000
------------ 4050kN = = =
V
s
V
f
0.75 V
c
5710kN = =
A
v
s
-----

CSA
V
s
f
y
d
v
--------- ( ) tan
5710 1000
550 3542
------------------------------ 31 ( ) tan 1761
mm
2
m
-----------
A
v
s
-----

min
0.06 f
c
b
w
f
y
---------------------------- 449
mm
2
m
----------- = = > = = =
F
lt
M
f
d
v
V
f
0.5V
s
( ) cot + 22800kN 0.9 f
y
A
s
f
py
A
p
+ ( ) < 30800kN = = =
M
f
63000kN m = V
f
7320kN =
I
g
2.64 10
13
mm
4
= A
g
10.07 10
6
mm
2
=
y
t
2594mm = e
bot
2594 180 2414mm = = e
top
4115 2594 180 1341mm = =
36
Flexure-Shear Resistance :
Web-Shear Resistance :
Concrete Contribution V
c
:
Required Transverse Reinforcement:
Hence,
V
ci
f
pe
P
A
g
------
Pe
I
g
------y
t
+
1100 16800 30240 + ( )
10.07 10
6
-----------------------------------------------------------
1100 16800 2414 30240 1341 ( )
2.64 10
13
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2594 + = =
5.14MPa =
M
ct
I
g
y
t
---- 0.498 f
c
f
pe
+ ( )
2.64 10
13
2594
---------------------------- 0.498 34.5 5.14 + ( ) 82100kN m = = =
V
ci
0.0498 f
c
b
w
d
V
f
M
f
------M
ct
+ 0.0498 34.5 700 3935 1000
7320
63000
--------------- + 82100 10340kN = = =
V
cw
f
pc
P
A
g
------
1100 16800 30240 + ( )
10.07 10
6
----------------------------------------------------------- 5.14MPa = = =
V
cw
0.291 f
c
0.3f
pc
+ ( )b
w
d 0.291 34.5 0.3 5.14 + ( ) 700 3935 1000 = =
8960kN =
V
c
min V
ci
V
cw
, ( ) 8960kN = =
V
s
V
f
0.75 V
c
800kN = =
A
v
s
-----

ACI
V
s
f
y
d
-------
800 1000
550 3935
--------------------------- 370
mm
2
m
-----------
A
v
s
-----

min
< 0.0623 f
c
b
w
f
y
------ 465
mm
2
m
----------- = = = = =
A
v
s
-----

ACI
465
mm
2
m
----------- =
37
The calculated amount of web reinforcement required to provide sufficient shear strength was
for the CSA code and for the ACI code. In other words, to provide the
required shear strength, the CSA code required 4.8 times as much shear reinforcement as the
ACI code. Because the calculated amount of web reinforcement using the ACI code was less
than the required minimum amount in the ACI code, the provided amounts of shear reinforce-
ment by different codes would differ by a factor of 3.8. Hence, it can be concluded that either
the CSA code is excessively conservative or the ACI code is excessively unconservative.
2.5 Purpose of Experimental Program
The considerable differences in the required amounts of shear reinforcement by different
codes shown in Section 2.4 raise the question of which design concept more accurately repre-
sents the shear strength of reinforced concrete: a) the inclined cracking strength of the con-
crete plus the stirrup contribution based on the truss model; b) the MCFT (the shear
contribution from cracked concrete plus the stirrup contribution based on a variable-angle
truss model). The experiments in the following two chapters, the panel tests and the beam
tests, will attempt to answer this question. These experiments will concentrate on the study of
the web-shear behavior of reinforced concrete near points of contraflexure. The web-shear
behavior near inflection points does not involve complicated causes and can be calculated
using first principles. Therefore, web-shear behavior is an ideal case to examine the validity of
the two shear design concepts.
Panel tests are the most direct representation of the web-shear behavior of reinforced concrete.
The response of a panel simulates the behavior of an element taken from the centroid of a
thin-web box girder at the points of contraflexure. The very few complexities involved in
panel tests make them an ideal method to study the fundamental shear behavior of reinforced
concrete. The nature of panel testing requires the loads being applied proportionally, while
this is not necessary for beam tests. The different loading history is predicted to have no effect
on the inclined cracking strength but may have some effects on the ultimate shear strength,
which is left to be studied.
1761
mm
2
m
----------- 370
mm
2
m
-----------
45
38
On the other hand, beam tests are the conventional method for experimental study of shear
behavior. The response of a beam represents the behavior of more realistic structural mem-
bers. The beams tested in this thesis are designed to model the behavior of thin-web box gird-
ers. These beams are reinforced in a way that the failures are predicted to occur near the zero
moment region due to web-shear. The response of thin-web box girders near the zero moment
region will provide a good comparison with the behavior of panels. However, very little
research has been conducted to investigate this area.
39
CHAPTER 3
Panel Tests
3.1 Specimen Description
This experimental program involved testing six reinforced concrete panels under different
combinations of uni-axial stress and shear stress. The ratio between the uni-axial stress and
the shear stress was the only parameter studied. The axial stress varied from tension to com-
pression. The dimensions of the test panels were 890 mm by 890 mm by 70 mm, which were
the specified standard dimensions for the panel testing machine at the University of Toronto.
The specimens were identified as PL1 to PL6 according to the testing sequence and were
listed in the tables and the figures in an order based on the axial stress to shear stress ratio for
the ease of comparison.
Normal strength concrete (with a specified strength of 30 MPa) was used. This concrete
strength was chosen to make sure that the capacity of the panel testing machine would not be
exceeded under any loading combination applied to the specimens. The actual concrete
strength was somewhat different for each specimen, ranging from 34.1 MPa to 41 MPa for the
28-day strength.
All panels contained an orthogonal grid of reinforcement with the major reinforcement layout
being identical. The reinforcement ratio was chosen to simulate the web-shear behavior of
reinforced concrete beams which were heavily reinforced longitudinally and lightly reinforced
transversely. Twenty D8 cold-drawn deformed bars were provided as the longitudinal rein-
forcement, also called the x-direction reinforcement or the strong-direction reinforcement.
The specified reinforcement ratio in the x-direction was 1.657%, with the parameter
having the value of 10.01 MPa. Five D4 cold-drawn deformed wires were provided as
the transverse reinforcement, also called the y-direction reinforcement or the weak-direction
reinforcement. The specified reinforcement ratio in the y-direction was 0.1942%, with the
parameter having the value of 1.027 MPa. The amount of reinforcement in the y-direc-
sx
sx
f
yx
sy
sy
f
yy
CHAPTER 3 - Panel Tests
40
tion was about 2.5 times the minimum amount of stirrups specified by the current CSA build-
ing code, for which the parameter was 0.382 MPa. The amount of reinforcement in the
x-direction was chosen so that the x-direction reinforcement would not yield at failure, except
when subjected to very high tensile stresses (i.e. PL6). When a very high tensile stress was
applied, the reinforcement was expected to yield in both directions at failure.
A list of all panels and their properties are given in Table 3.1, Fig 3.1, and Fig 3.2. The as-
built properties of all panels are listed in Table 3.2. For all test data and calculations given in
this thesis, the as-built properties were used unless otherwise specified.
The reinforcement was first bolted to the shear keys and then the concrete was cast. There
were 5 keys on each side of the panel, with a total of 20 shear keys in each specimen. Differ-
ent types of shear keys were used in the x and the y-direction (Fig 3.3). The connection
between the concrete and the shear keys was crucial in transferring the forces from the shear
keys to the center of the panels. Special reinforcement details were applied to ensure proper
anchorage of the shear keys in the concrete. In the x-direction, D8 deformed bars, finely
threaded at both ends of the bars, were fed through the holes in the shear keys. Each bar was
anchored by two nuts at each end. In the y-direction, the D4 deformed wires were anchored
using the U-shaped edge reinforcement and the shop-machined steel anchorage details (see
Fig 3.4). The U-shaped edge reinforcement was made of 3/8 ASTM standard threaded rod
and extended approximately 120 mm into the panel. The steel anchorage details were 12 mm
by 19 mm by 12 mm rectangular steel block, with a 6 mm diameter tapered hole in its center.
The D4 wires were connected to the blocks by a hammered butt head. In specimen PL6, sig-
nificant tension needed to be transferred from the shear keys to the center of the panel and the
reinforcement in both directions were predicted to yield at failure. To avoid an unfavorable
edge failure, four 7-in long 3/8 ASTM standard threaded rods were installed in every shear
key in the x-direction in addition to the D8 bars. These rods were also fed through the holes in
the shear keys and were anchored by nuts and washers. Fig 3.4 shows the details of these con-
nections.
sy
f
yy
41

Table 3.1 Specified Properties of Panels
Specimen PL4 PL1 PL2 PL5 PL3 PL6
In Plane Dimension
(mm)
890 x 890
Thickness (mm) 70
1.657%
(MPa)
10.01

0.1942%
(MPa)
1.027
-2.8 -2.0 -1.0 0 1.0 3.0
Table 3.2 As-Built Properties of Panels
In Plane Dimension
(mm)
890 x 890
Range of Thickness
(mm)
70-71 73-75 73-75 73-74 73-74 73-74
Average Thickness
(mm)
70.3 73.8 73.3 73.6 73.8 73.2
1.649% 1.571% 1.582% 1.575% 1.571% 1.584%
(MPa)
9.96 9.49 9.55 9.52 9.49 9.57
0.1934% 0.1842% 0.1855% 0.1847% 0.1842% 0.1857%
(MPa)
1.023 0.975 0.981 0.977 0.975 0.983
-2.8 -2.0 -1.0 0 1.0 3.0
sx
sx
f
yx
sy
sy
f
yy
f
x
v
sx
sx
f
yx
sy
sy
f
yy
f
x
v
42
Figure 3.1 Reinforcement Details for Panels (PL1-PL5) (unit: inch)
43
Figure 3.2 Reinforcement Details for Panels (PL6) (unit: inch)
44
3.2 Material Properties
3.2.1 Concrete
The same concrete mix was used for all panels. The specified concrete strength was 30 MPa,
while the actual strength varied from one panel to another (see Table 3.3 for the 28-day con-
crete strength for each panel). The concrete was mixed in the concrete laboratory at the Uni-
versity of Toronto. Appendix A explained the procedure of concrete mixing in detail. The
cement used was Type 10 Ontario Portland Cement manufactured by Lafarge. The stone and
Figure 3.3 Dimensions for Shear Keys (unit: inch)
Figure 3.4 Anchorage Details
45
sand were obtained from Dufferin Construction. The aggregates used complied with the CSA/
ASTM requirements. The maximum coarse aggregate size was 10 mm. More information on
the aggregate properties can be found in Table 3.4. Tap water was used in all mixes. PolyHeed
997 (water reducer) and RHEOBUILD 1000 (superplasticizer) were used to help improving
the workability of the concrete. The mix proportions are listed in Table 3.5.
A special casting table made of steel was used to lay out the reinforcement and the shear keys
and as the formwork. The casting table consisted of a 3/4-in thick steel plate sitting on a steel
frame. The shear keys were anchored to the casting table using one inch bolts. Rubber pads
and wooden cubes were used to fill in the spaces between the shear keys and the spaces at the
corners to prevent concrete leaking. Four form vibrators were mounted at the bottom of the
steel plate to help consolidate the concrete. Generally, using form vibrator alone resulted in
good concrete compaction. However, it was found that the corner of the panel was not very
well consolidated in some specimens. In such case, a poker vibrator was also used to vibrate
the corner. During casting, the concrete was placed in two layers. About three hours after cast-
ing, the panel was covered with wet burlap and plastic sheet and was moist-cured for 7 days
and then left in the ambient environment until test. The shrinkage of the concrete was obtained
by monitoring the change of the strain gauge readings before and after concrete casting (see
Table 3.6).
Fifteen cylinders (100 mm by 200 mm) were cast with each panel and were cured under the
same condition as the panel. The concrete cylinders were tested at 7-day, 14-day, 28-day and
at the day of test to get the strength development curves (shown in Appendix A). Also at the
day of test, the cylinders were tested using a 250-kN MTS displacement controlled machine to
obtain the full stress-strain response of the concrete in compression. A summary of the cylin-
der test results is given in Table 3.3. The stress-strain relationship of the concrete for all pan-
els are shown in Fig 3.5 to Fig 3.7.
46

Table 3.3 Concrete Strength
Specimen
7-day
(MPa)
14-day
(MPa)
28-day
(MPa)
At Test
(MPa)
E
c
(MPa)
*
(MPa) ( )
PL4 32.1 37.9 - 43.1 33600 2.17 2.31
PL1 31.4 34.3 34.5 38.5 34300 2.05 1.89
PL2 25.0 31.0 34.1 38.2 36900 2.04 2.10
PL5 32.1 32.5 33.9 38.1 36800 2.04 1.89
PL3 31.4 36.0 38.9 42.0 33300 2.14 2.27
PL6 34.6 40.7 41.0 43.5 38100 2.18 2.15
) E
c
is calculated according to the ASTM Standard, . Here, is
equal to 40% of and is the corresponding strain; is equal to and is
the corresponding stress.
*) The concrete tensile strength ( ) listed here was not measured value. It was calculated
from the measured concrete compressive strength and listed here for reference only.
Table 3.4 Physical Properties of Aggregates
Properties Units Sand Stone
Fineness Modulus 3.1 -
Nominal Maximum Size mm - 10
Bulk Specific Gravity (Oven Dry)
kg/m
3
2.612 2.662
Bulk Specific Gravity (SSD)
kg/m
3
2.651 2.694
Apparent Specific Gravity
kg/m
3
2.719 2.751
Compacted Bulk Density
kg/m
3
1689 1666
Loose Bulk Density
kg/m
3
1590 1559
Water Absorption % 1.5 1.2
f
t
0.33 f
c
=

c
m
E
c

2
1
( )
2
1
( ) =
2
f
c

2
1
50
6
10
1
f
t

47
Table 3.5 Concrete Mix Properties
Constituent Unit Proportion
W/C - 0.62
OPC
kg/m
3
260
Water
kg/m
3
161.2
Course Aggregate
kg/m
3
1050
Fine Aggregate
kg/m
3
870
WR (Polyheed 997)
ml/m
3
1300
SP (Rhenobuild 1000)
ml/m
3
500
Total Volume
m
3
1
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
PL1
e (mm/mm)
s
(
M
P
a
)
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
PL4
e (mm/mm)
s
(
M
P
a
)
Figure 3.5 Average Concrete Stress-Strain Relationship for PL4 and PL1
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
PL2
e (mm/mm)
s
(
M
P
a
)
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
PL5
e (mm/mm)
s
(
M
P
a
)
48
3.2.2 Reinforcement
The reinforcing bars used in the panels were D4 (A
s
=24.2 mm
2
), D6 (A
s
=38.7 mm
2
), D8
(A
s
=51.6 mm
2
) cold-drawn deformed wires and 3/8 threaded rods. The D4 wires were used
in the y-direction of the panel. The D8 bars were used in the x-direction of the panel. The D6
wires and the 3/8 threaded rods were used to make the U-shaped hooks. It was found that for
rebars with small area (such as D4 wire), the possibility of the actual reinforcement area being
different from its nominal area was higher. Hence, the area of the D4 wires shown in Table 3.7
was measured from weighing the samples taken from different bars, while for the other rebars,
the area shown was the specified nominal area. The measured area for the D4 wires (24.2
mm
2
) was about 94% of their nominal area (25.8 mm
2
). Eighteen-inch long steel coupons
were made for all rebars. They were tested using a 250-kN MTS displacement controlled
machine to obtain the mechanical properties of the steel. A 50-mm clip gauge was used to
Table 3.6 Shrinkage of Concrete
Reading 1 ( ) - - -0.046 - - -
Reading 2 ( ) - - -0.218 - -0.089 -
Reading 3 ( ) -0.073 - -0.332 - -0.321 -
Reading 4 ( ) -0.229 -0.393 -0.379 -0.468 -0.386 -0.300
Note: Reading 1-4 are shrinkages measured at different time.
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
PL3
e (mm/mm)
s
(
M
P
a
)
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
PL6
e (mm/mm)
s
(
M
P
a
)
m
m
m
m
49
measure the strain. The coupon test results are shown in Table 3.7. The stress-strain relation-
ship for the D4 wires and the D8 bars are shown in Fig 3.8.
.
3.3 Test Setup
The membrane element tester (also called the panel tester) at the University of Toronto is used
to apply the in-plane loads to the reinforced concrete panels. The membrane tester was
designed by Vecchio and Collins in 1979. The loads are applied through the shear keys along
Table 3.7 Reinforcement Properties
x-direction y-direction Edge Reinforcement
D8 D4 D6 3/8 threaded rod
d
b
(mm) 8.10 5.72 7.01 3/8
A
s
(mm
2
) 51.6 24.2 38.7 31.7
f
y
(MPa) 604* 529* 609* 724
( )
3.02 2.65 3.05 -
E
s
(MPa) 202000 195800 200300 105600
f
u
(MPa) 641 581 657 959
( )
45 40 40 84
E
sh
(MPa) 881 1390 1114 -
*) The yield strength of steel shown for deformed wires (D6, D4 and D8) was the strength
corresponding to 0.2% residual strain.
) E
s
=200000 MPa will be used in all calculations for consistency.
y
m
u
m
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
D4
e (mm/mm)
s
(
M
P
a
)
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
D8
e (mm/mm)
s
(
M
P
a
)
Figure 3.8 Average Stress-Strain Relationship for D4 and D8
50
the perimeter of the panels (see Fig 3.9). There are 5 shear keys on each side. Each shear key
is connected to two 10-ton double-acting hydraulic jacks perpendicular to each other and at an
angle of to the edge of the panel. The jacks are able to apply either tension or compres-
sion forces to the panel. By varying the relative magnitude of these forces, the jacks are able
to apply different combinations of shear force and normal force. The 10-ton hydraulic jack
can apply a maximum tension force of 95.5 kN and a maximum compression force of 218 kN.
From these jack capacities, the maximum axial compressive stress (-24.7 MPa), the maximum
axial tensile stress (10.84 MPa), the maximum shear stress (10.84 MPa), and the maximum
combinations of stresses can be calculated as shown in Fig 3.10. A load maintainer called
Challenger 6M is used to maintain the pressures in the different jack groups at fixed ratios
throughout the test. As such, all loadings were proportioned in the panel tests with axial load
and shear increasing simultaneously and proportionally.
On the back of the testing machine, a yellow steel frame (see Fig 3.9) is present to prevent the
out-of-plane movement of the specimen. Links with hinges on both ends are used to connect
the specimen to the yellow frame at the location of every shear key. The distance between the
specimen and the yellow frame can be adjusted to ensure that the specimen is located at the
center of the testing machine and that only in-plane loading is applied.
45
Figure 3.9 Panel Testing Machine
Front Back
51
3.4 Instrumentation
3.4.1 Strain Gauges
Strain gauges were attached to the reinforcement and were connected to the data acquisition
system to allow the continuous variation of strains to be recorded. The strain gauges used are
manufactured by Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co, Ltd. The gauge type was FLA-5-11. The strain
gauges are equipped with electrical cables for connection to the data acquisition system and
have a gauge length of 5 mm and a width of 2 mm. Therefore, the strain measured was very
localized. In the panel tests, a total of 15 strain gauges were used in each panel to measure the
strain of the rebars in two orthogonal directions. The arrangement of the strain gauges is
shown in Fig 3.11.
A strain gauge is a delicate device. Special care should be taken to attach the strain gauges to
the reinforcement. The procedure for attaching strain gauges is listed below.
1). The steel surface was carefully ground and sanded using dynafile and sandpaper to
remove local roughness.
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
f
x
(MPa)
v
(
M
P
a
)
10.84 -24.7
10.84 (-13.9,10.84)
Compression Tension
Figure 3.10 Capacity of Panel Testing Machine
52
2). The steel surface was cleaned using acid and neutralizer, with a sequence of neutral-
izer (dried with lint-free paper), acid (left for 1 min.) and neutralizer (dry with lint-
free paper).
3). The strain gauge was attached to the reinforcement using Cyano-acrylate glue. Cello-
phane tape was used to help position the strain gauge.
4). After the glue dried (usually 10 min.), a thin layer of M-coat (polyurethane) was
applied to isolate the gauges from moisture. After the M-coat dried (usually 2-3
hours), a thick layer of wax was applied to further protect the gauges from moisture
and damage from casting. The gauges would then be wrapped with aluminum tape
for additional protection.
The attachment of a strain gauge to the steel surface usually reduces the bond between the
steel and the concrete and the area of the reinforcement at the strain gauge location. Since the
area of a strain gauge is very small and the behavior of the panel depends more on the average
response of the steel, such reduction effect is considered to be negligible. No evidence of
cracks initiated at the strain gauge locations was observed during the tests.
53
3.4.2 LVDTs (Linear Variable Differential Transformer)
Six LVDTs with a range were used to continuously monitor the deformation of the
panels in four directions of both surfaces. The four directions were x, y, and . The
gauge lengths in the x and the y-direction were 740 mm while the gauge lengths in the diago-
nal directions were 1000 mm. The configuration of the LVDTs is shown in Fig 3.12. Length
changes of the LVDTs were monitored and stored in the data acquisition system throughout
the test. Using the LVDT readings, the average surface strains in four directions of both sur-
faces could be calculated. Furthermore, the average strains in any direction could be derived
using a Mohrs Circle.
The LVDTs were attached to the specimens using aluminum mounts. The aluminum mounts
were attached to the specimens using threaded rods and nuts glued in 3/16 by 1 holes which
Figure 3.11 Strain Gauge Arrangement
15mm
45 135
54
were drilled on both surfaces. Excessive epoxy was removed after it had hardened. Since the
LVDT itself only had short plunge, aluminum rods of proper length with threads at one end
were used as the extension. Shrinkage tubes were used to connect the plunge of the LVDTs
and the extension rods.
3.4.3 Electronic Zurich Gauges
A method to determine the local state of the average strains is by measuring the change of the
distance between Zurich targets. The measurements by Zurich targets provided more detailed
descriptions of the strain distribution compared to the LVDT measurements. Sixteen alumi-
num Zurich targets on a 200 mm by 200 mm grid, forming nine sub squares and centered on
both surfaces of the panels, were attached to the panels by epoxy. A special aluminum tem-
plate and a steel frame were used to determine the relative positions of the LVDT mounts and
the Zurich targets on the surfaces of the panel and to help install the LVDT mounts and the
Zurich targets. The gauge lengths in the x and the y-direction were 200 mm and the gauge
lengths in the diagonal directions were 283 mm. The targets were numbered as shown in Fig
3.13. The changes of the distance between the adjacent targets before and after loading were
measured to calculate the average strains within each subgrid. Two sets of zero readings were
taken to obtain the undeformed state of the specimens. After that, at every load stage, a single
Figure 3.12 Distribution of LVDTs
Front Back
55
set of readings were taken. Readings from the Zurich gauges were not continuous because
they were only taken at certain levels of load.
3.4.4 Load Cells
There were three load cells installed in the panel testing machine to measure the reaction
forces of the three rigid links. The readings from the load cells could be used to verify the reli-
ability of loading.
3.4.5 Pressure Gauges
Pressure gauges were used to measure the pressure outputs of the load maintainer. The ratio
between the axial stress and the shear stress determined the number of different pressure out-
puts, which subsequently determined the number of the pressure gauges needed. From the
readings of the pressure gauges, the applied loads could be calculated and the loading ratio
could be checked.
3.5 Test Arrangement and Procedure
After the panel was removed from the casting table, a few preparations were needed before
the specimen was ready for testing.
Figure 3.13 Arrangement of Zurich Targets
Front Back
56
1). In order to help spotting the occurrence of cracks, the panel was first painted white
using water-based latex paint while it was hanging on a crane. The water/paint ratio
is approximately one to one.
2). With the help of the template, the locations of the LVDT mounts and the Zurich tar-
gets were marked. The mounts and the targets were installed as well.
3). The panel was put into the testing machine by connecting the hydraulic jacks to the
corresponding shear keys one at a time. Afterwards, the out-of-plane links were
installed and the distance between the specimen and the yellow frame was adjusted.
4). Next, the LVDTs were installed. Both the LVDTs and the strain gauges were then
connected to the data acquisition system.
5). The LVDT readings and the strain gauge signals were zeroed. Two sets of Zurich
readings were taken with no force applied. The pressure gauge readings were cali-
brated to achieve the desired loading ratio. The above preparations were usually done
one day before the test.
The specimen was ready for test after the above preparations were finished. The test lasted
approximately a whole day. The hydraulic pump required to be warmed up one hour before
the test started. The test progressed by loading the panel to the intended load levels. The plot
of the horizontal LVDT reading vs. the pressure gauge output was monitored throughout the
test to ensure that the test proceeded properly.
There were usually 1 to 8 load stages in each test. The first load stage was taken right after the
occurrence of the first major crack, which did not include any crack which may have occurred
at the interface between the concrete and the shear keys. After the first crack, a load stage
would be taken when a sufficient change in behavior from the last load stage occurred. The
LVDTs and the strain gauge readings were recorded nonstop throughout the test, while the
Zurich readings were only taken during load stages. For each load stage, the loads were
reduced by 10% to 15% to avoid any detrimental effect resulting from the creep under the sus-
tained load and for safety. New cracks were marked, measured and photographed. After the
failure of the panel, the instrumentation was removed and more photos were taken. The shear
keys were then removed and reused for the next panel. The detailed load stage information
can be found in Table 3.8.
57
3.6 Experimental Observation
The specimens tested were subjected to different combinations of axial stress and shear stress.
The axial stress to shear stress ratio was from -2.8 (compression) to +3.0 (tension), as shown
in Table 3.9. The panels were loaded simultaneously in axial and shear, which were in propor-
tion to each other. All six panels behaved well throughout the tests. The forces applied by the
testing machine were fully transferred from the edge to the center region of the specimens. As
the loads increased, edge cracks developed at the joint of the concrete and the shear keys. The
width of these edge cracks was generally small and the opening of the edge cracks was con-
trolled by the edge reinforcement as the loads further increased. No specimen failed at the
edge or at the corner nor was there any evidence that these local edge cracks affected the
results in any way. Even in specimen PL6, which was subjected to large axial tension and
shear, no damage was found at the edges. This demonstrated that the reinforcing method was
successful in ensuring the proper anchorage and load transfer and could be used in future
panel tests with similar loads and reinforcement levels.
The panel testing machine was positioned so that the elements faced east and west. The east
surface was called the front surface and the west surface was called the back surface. When
the panels were installed, the top surface during casting was facing west and the bottom sur-
face during casting was facing east. The east surface was smoother and stiffer than the west
surface, because the concrete aggregate tended to sink and a thin layer of cement paste
Table 3.8 Shear Stresses for Load Stages (MPa)
Load Stage #1 3.41 2.23 2.10 1.747 0.671 0.754
Load Stage #2 - 2.63 2.36 2.10 1.186 1.006
Load Stage #3 - 3.06 2.67 2.47 1.340 1.267
Load Stage #4 - 3.46 2.81 2.90 1.594 1.533
Load Stage #5 - 3.84 2.97 - 1.779 1.804
Load Stage #6 - 4.04 - - 2.06 1.893
Load Stage #7 - - - - 2.29 2.03
Load Stage #8 - - - - 2.62 -
Failure 4.81 4.31 3.21 3.31 3.04 2.47
58
remained on the top of the specimens when the concrete hardened. In order to minimize the
amount of restrained shrinkage, the specimens were removed from the casting table one day
after casting and were kept moist-cured for seven days. For all specimens, the shrinkage mea-
sured was between -0.2 to -0.5 (see Table 3.6). Only a few shrinkage cracks were
observed on the west surface of the specimens. Most of the shrinkage cracks were plastic
shrinkage cracks, not drying shrinkage cracks. The shrinkage cracks were evenly distributed
and had a maximum width of no more than 0.05 mm. There was no indication that the shrink-
age cracks had significant effects on the behavior of the panels. One crack occurred at about
inclination during the installation of specimen PL3 on both surfaces. It was not clear how
this crack occurred. The most likely cause was due to the out-of-plane bending that occurred
while connecting the shear keys to the yellow frame using the links. This crack did not seem
to affect the cracking load nor the failure load. However, it had some effects on the crack pat-
tern at failure as PL3 failed along this crack.
Under the applied loads, evenly distributed shear cracks developed before failure for most of
the specimens, except for PL4, which was subjected to the highest compressive stress. The
crack patterns on both surfaces were generally compatible with each other, except in PL2 (see
Appendix A). All specimens failed due to rupture of the transverse reinforcement and sliding
along one major shear crack. For all panels except PL6, only the y-direction reinforcement
yielded and ruptured. In PL6, which was subjected to the highest tensile stress, reinforcement
in both directions yielded and the y-direction reinforcement ruptured upon failure. A summary
of the test results for all panels can be found in Table 3.9. Photos presented in Fig 3.14
through Fig 3.19 show the failure of every panel (for east surface only). In these figures, the
photo on the right side was taken after failure and the other photo was taken at a few load
stages before failure. More detailed description of the experimental observations for each
panel can be found in the following sections and in Appendix A.
m m
45
59
Table 3.9 Summary of Test Results for Panels
PL4 PL1 PL2 PL5 PL3 PL6
f
x
/v -2.8 -2.0 -1.0 0 1.0 3.0
v
cr
(MPa) 3.41 3.84 2.36 1.747 1.186 0.754
f
x-cr
(MPa) -9.48 -7.69 -2.38 0 1.180 2.35
v
u
(MPa) 4.81 4.31 3.21 3.21 3.04 2.47
f
x-u
(MPa) -13.24 -8.66 -3.22 0 3.05 7.36
v
u
- v
cr
(MPa) 1.397 0.459 0.852 1.463 1.851 1.720
v
cr
/v
cr-PL5
1.95 2.20 1.35 1.00 0.68 0.43
v
u
/v
u-PL5
1.50 1.34 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.77
Figure 3.14 Failure of Specimen PL4
60
61
62
PL4 - The axial stress to shear stress ratio for specimen PL4 was -2.8. This ratio was the high-
est that could be safely applied by the membrane tester for the concrete strength and reinforce-
ment level used. PL4 developed the first crack at a shear stress of 3.41 MPa. This first crack
was almost parallel to the direction of the applied compression on both sides of the specimen.
The crack was very wide with a width of 0.5 mm. Almost at the time of the occurrence of the
first crack, another crack which was parallel to the first crack but much narrower (0.05 mm
wide) appeared on the front surface of the panel and another secondary crack (0.05 mm wide)
appeared on the back surface of the panel. As the loads increased, no new crack developed.
All deformations were concentrated in the opening of the major shear crack. Finally, the spec-
imen failed at a shear stress of 4.81 MPa due to rupture of the transverse reinforcement and
sliding along the critical shear crack. As can be seen in Fig 3.14 this panel contained insuffi-
cient reinforcement to control the crack spacing at this high axial compressive load.
PL1 - The axial stress to shear stress ratio for specimen PL1 was -2.0. During the inspection
before the test started, it was found that the U-shaped hooks moved during casting. Because of
this movement, the concrete specimen was not anchored properly to the shear keys. Remedial
measures were taken to restore the anchorage as much as possible. Edge cracks between the
shear keys and the specimen developed at early stages of the test and edge cracks opening up
to a maximum width of 1.4 mm were observed. The edge reinforcement restrained the edge
cracks and prevented them from further widening at later load stages. Inclined cracks devel-
63
oped in the center region of the specimen. This indicated that the applied forces were success-
fully transferred from the edge to the center of the panel. The first set of inclined cracks
developed at a shear stress of 3.84 MPa on both surfaces of the specimen. Multiple cracks
with inclination between - (all angles were measured with respect to the x-direction)
appeared simultaneously. The cracks were fairly wide with a maximum width of 0.7 mm. As
the loads increased, more cracks almost parallel to the previous cracks appeared. They were
evenly distributed over the specimen. PL1 failed at a shear stress of 4.31 MPa due to rupture
of the transverse reinforcement and sliding along the critical shear crack. The crack width
before failure was greater than 1.7 mm. The inclination of the crack along which the specimen
failed was much smaller than those of the previous cracks.
PL2 - The axial stress to shear stress ratio for specimen PL2 was -1.0. PL2 developed its first
inclined crack on the back surface of the specimen at a shear stress of 2.07 MPa. The width of
the crack was 0.1 mm and the inclination of the crack was approximately . It was believed
that this crack was caused by out-of-plane bending instead of the combined action of shear
stress and axial stress. As the shear stress increased to about 2.36 MPa, a shear crack with an
inclination of and a width of 0.1 mm appeared on the front surface of the specimen. On
the back surface of the specimen, another crack with inclination and 0.15 mm width
appeared due to out-of-plane bending. As the loads increased, more shear cracks developed
due to the combined action of shear stress and axial stress. These shear cracks were almost
parallel to each other. The major shear crack appeared at about 2.67 MPa due to shear and was
located in the center of the specimen. This crack continued to open until failure occurred. PL2
failed at a shear stress of 3.21 MPa due to rupture of the transverse reinforcement. The crack
width before failure was greater than 1.4 mm. The inclination of this major shear crack was
about . The crack patterns were similar on both surfaces except for two cracks that caused
by out-of-plane bending on the back surface of the specimen.
PL5 - PL5 was subjected to pure shear. The first shear crack appeared at a shear stress of
1.747 MPa on both surfaces of the specimen. The maximum width of the crack was 0.4 mm
and the angle of the crack was about . More shear cracks of steeper angle (about )
developed later on. These cracks were mostly parallel to each other, and were accompanied by
20 30
50
30
50
30
35 45
64
some minor secondary cracks of steeper angle. At the end of the test, several cracks joined to
form the failure shear crack. PL5 failed at a shear stress of 3.21 MPa due to rupture of the
transverse reinforcement, with the maximum width before failure greater than 1.05 mm. The
inclination of the failure shear crack was about .
PL3 - The axial stress to shear stress ratio for specimen PL3 was +1.0. PL3 was precracked
before the test during panel installation. The width of this crack was 0.15 mm and the inclina-
tion of this crack was close to . The crack was wider on the front surface than on the back
surface. It was suspected that the crack was caused by shrinkage and out-of-plane bending
during panel installation. As the loads increased, more cracks with an angle greater than or
equal to developed. There were also some secondary cracks which were less inclined.
Finally, several cracks joined to form the major shear crack. PL3 failed at a shear stress of
3.04 MPa. The crack width before failure was greater than 1.1 mm. The inclination of the
major shear crack was about .
PL6 - The axial stress to shear stress ratio for specimen PL6 was +3.0. At early load stages,
the cracks developed were mostly perpendicular to the direction of the applied axial tensile
stress. Only a couple of cracks with an angle of about appeared at the early stages of the
test. As the loads increased, the inclination of the cracks started to decrease, but was still
greater than or equal to . Finally, the cracks joined together and continued to widen until
failure occurred. PL6 failed at a shear stress of 2.47 MPa due to rupture of the transverse rein-
forcement and opening of the critical shear crack. The crack width before failure was greater
than 1.0 mm. The inclination of the major shear crack was about . The transverse rein-
forcement were ruptured and the longitudinal steel was bent severely upon failure.
3.7 Evaluation of Test Results
3.7.1 Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Fig 3.20 plots the relationship of shear stress vs. shear strain. It can be observed from Fig 3.20
that the initial stiffness of all panels before the occurrence of significant shear cracking was
similar. There was a sudden increase in the shear strain when the first inclined crack occurred.
The stiffness of all panels decreased after shear cracking as the loads increased.
40
45
45
45
45
45
45
65
As shown in Fig 3.20, as the axial stress changed from tension to compression, the ductility of
the specimens tended to decrease. The shear stresses of the panels subjected to compression
and shear (PL4, PL1 and PL2) dropped abruptly after the peak load and very little ductility
was observed. The other specimens (PL5, PL3 and PL6) were clearly more ductile, since a
considerable fraction of the peak stress was sustained after the peak stress was reached. Espe-
cially in the panel subjected to very high compressive stress (PL4), the panel failed abruptly
without developing many cracks. This phenomenon showed that the shear reinforcement pro-
vided for crack control (about 2.5 times of the minimum amount required by the CSA code)
was only enough for the panels subjected to moderate compression, pure shear and tension.
For the panels subjected to high compressive stress, more transverse steel was necessary to
control the crack spacing.
Both the inclined cracking strength and the ultimate shear strength of the panels were
increased when the panels were subjected to axial compressive stress. Under axial tensile
stress, it was observed that the inclined cracking strength and the ultimate shear strength were
reduced. The only exception was PL4. The inclined cracking strength of PL4 was lower than
that of PL1 although PL4 was subjected to a higher compressive stress than PL1. The shear
capacities of specimen PL2, PL5 and PL3 were very similar, although their cracking strength
was considerably different. This indicated that when the axial force was low, its influence on
the ultimate shear strength was not as obvious as its influence on the inclined cracking
strength. Fig 3.21 shows this trend. Fig 3.21 shows that the inclined cracking strength and the
ultimate shear strength did not follow the same variation with respect to the axial stress. The
axial stress had significant influence on the inclined cracking strength of the panels, while the
axial stress needed to reach a certain level until a significant change in the ultimate shear
strength could be observed.
66
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
1
2
3
4
5
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
PL5 (f
x
/v=0)
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
g
xy
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Figure 3.20 Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
-4 -2 0 2 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
f
x
/v
v
(
M
P
a
)
v
cr
v
u
Figure 3.21 Relative Effects of Axial Stress
67
3.7.2 Cracking
The inclined cracking load was obtained through visual observation supplemented by listen-
ing to the noise during cracking and monitoring the sudden increase in shear strain in the shear
stress vs. shear strain curve. It could be seen from the test results that the axial force had sig-
nificant effects on the inclined cracking load (Fig 3.21). Whereas axial compressive stress
increased the cracking load, axial tensile stress decreased it. The only exception was PL4. The
inclined cracking load for PL4 was lower than PL1 despite the fact that PL4 was subjected to
a higher compressive stress than PL1 and that the concrete strength of PL4 was also higher
than that of PL1. As it is shown in the crack diagrams presented in Appendix A and the exper-
imental observation described previously, the inclination of the cracks slightly re-oriented as
the loads increased. The angle of the major shear crack increased as more tensile stress was
applied and reduced as more compressive stress was applied. As a crack angle became less
inclined, the number of transverse reinforcement crossing the inclined crack increased, result-
ing in an increased contribution of the transverse reinforcement to shear capacity. This was
also one of the reasons why compressive stress increased the post-cracking shear capacity of
the specimens.
Using a Mohrs circle, the shear stress that will cause inclined cracking can be calculated
using Eq. (3-1) and the inclination of these cracks can be determined using Eq. (3-2). In these
equations, the compressive stress is taken as positive value for , whereas the tensile stress is
taken as negative value. is taken as . The effect of reinforcement was ignored.
(3-1)
(3-2)
The cracking loads observed from the experiments were slightly lower than what were pre-
dicted, except for PL6. The agreement between the experiment data and the predictions by
Eq. (3-1) was generally good (see Table 3.10 and Fig 3.22), despite the fact that the cracking
load was affected by many factors such as shrinkage, temperature, unexpected restraint and
f
x
f
cr
0.33 f
c
v
cr
f
cr
1
f
x
f
cr
----- + =
1
2
---
2v
f
x
------

atan =
68
out-of-plane bending. The actual cracking load was naturally scattered and difficult to predict.
The inclinations calculated using Eq. (3-2) were generally steeper than the experimental
results (see Table 3.11 and Fig 3.23).
Fig 3.22 shows that for panels subjected to compression, the agreement between the predic-
tions and the experimental results was not as good as the agreement for panels subjected to
pure shear and tension. It was probably due to not considering the influence of the co-existing
compression on the cracking strength of the concrete. Hence, the calculation considering the
influence of the co-existing compression on the cracking strength of the concrete will be per-
formed. Fig 3.24 shows the relationship between the bi-axial strength of concrete and the
principal stresses at failure adopted from Kupfer [1969]. In Fig 3.24, represented the prin-
cipal tensile stress (also denoted as ), represented the principal compressive stress (also
denoted as ) and represented the concrete compressive strength (also denoted as ). For
simplification, a Mohr-Coulomb linear approximation [Eq. (3-3) and Fig 3.25] was used to
determine the cracking strength of the concrete under combined tensile stress and compres-
sive stress.
(3-3)
The procedure was illustrated as follows. When was known, the first trial value of inclined
cracking shear could be calculated as,
(3-4)
Using a Mohrs Circle,
(3-5)
Using Eq. (3-3), a new could be obtained. A new could then be obtained using Eq. (3-
4). Iteration was necessary until the calculation converged. The prediction considering the
1
f
1
2
f
2
p
f
c
f
cr
0.33 f
c
1
f
2
f
c
-----

=
f
x
v
cr
f
cr
1
f
x
f
cr
----- =
f
2
f
x
2
---

2
v
cr
2
+
f
x
2
--- + =
f
cr
v
cr
69
influence of the co-existing compressive stress is listed as v
cr-sec
in Table 3.10. (Here, was
positive for tension and negative for compression)
After the influence of the co-existing compressive stress was considered, the accuracy of the
predictions of the inclined cracking strength was significantly improved (see Fig 3.22). The
shape of the curve from the analysis considering the influence of the co-existing compressive
stress agreed much better with the experimental results than that of the curve from the analysis
based on first principles (see Fig 3.22). It was concluded that the influence of the co-existing
compressive stress on the cracking strength of the concrete should be included in analyses
where an accurate prediction of the inclined cracking strength of the panels is important.

Table 3.10 Inclined cracking Stresses
f
x
/v
f
cr
(MPa)
f
x
(MPa)
v
cr-exp
(MPa)
Eq. (3-1)
(MPa)
v
cr-sec
(MPa)
PL4 -2.8 2.17 -9.48 3.41 5.02 0.68 4.22 0.81
PL1 -2.0 2.05 -7.69 3.84 4.47 0.86 3.79 1.01
PL2 -1.0 2.04 -2.38 2.36 3.00 0.79 2.76 0.85
PL5 0 2.04 0 1.747 2.04 0.86 1.93 0.90
PL3 1.0 2.14 1.180 1.186 1.43 0.83 1.38 0.86
PL6 3.0 2.18 2.35 0.754 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A
Average: 0.80 Average: 0.89
C. o. V: 9.4% C. o. V: 8.8%
Table 3.11 Inclinations of Inclined Cracks
f
x
/v
(deg)
Eq. (3-2)
(deg)
PL4 -2.8 5-10 17.78
PL1 -2.0 20-26 22.5
PL2 -1.0 26-36 31.7
PL5 0 30-45 45.0
PL3 1.0 45-57 58.3
PL6 3.0 45-80 73.2
f
x
v
cr-sec
Eq.(3-1)
--------------------
v
cr-exp
v
cr-sec
---------------
exp
70
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
f
x
/v
v
c
r
(
M
P
a
)
PL4
PL1
PL2
PL5
PL3
PL6
f
cr
=0.33 f
c
'
f
cr
=0.33 f
c
' (1- f
2
/f
c
')
EXP
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
f
x
(MPa)
v
c
r
(
M
P
a
)
PL4
PL1
PL2
PL5
PL3
PL6
f
cr
=0.33 f
c
'
f
cr
=0.33 f
c
' (1- f
2
/f
c
')
EXP
Figure 3.22 Inclined Cracking Strength

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
f
x
/v
q
(
d
e
g
)
PL4
PL1
PL2
PL5
PL3
PL6
Eq(3-2)
Figure 3.23 Inclination of Inclined Cracks
71

3.7.3 Strain in x-Direction
3.7.3.1 Strain Measured by LVDTs
Fig 3.26 and Fig 3.27 show the relationship of the shear stress vs. the strain in the x-direction.
The curves in Fig 3.26 were plotted in a unified scale, while the curves in Fig 3.27 were plot-
ted in different scales. It is clearly shown in Fig 3.26 that all curves had the same initial stiff-
ness but different ductility. For the panel under the highest compressive stress (PL4), was
consistently negative through the test. For the panels subjected to moderate compressive stress
(PL1&PL2), was first negative and then changed towards the positive strain as more cracks
appeared. This reversal of strain was caused by the formation of cracks within the gauge
length of the LVDTs. For the panels subjected to tensile stress (PL3&PL6), was positive
for the entire duration of the test. The value of at failure was the highest in compression for
PL4 and the highest in tension for PL6. For panels under the highest tensile stress (PL6),
reached the yield strain of the longitudinal reinforcement upon failure. The curve for PL3 soft-
ened from the beginning. This was likely due to the fact that PL3 was accidentally precracked
before the test.
Figure 3.24 Biaxial Strength of Concrete [Kupfer, 1969] Figure 3.25 Mohr-Coulomb Approximation
x
72
-2 0 2 4 6
0
1
2
3
4
5
e
x
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
PL5 (f
x
/v=0.0)
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
Figure 3.26 Shear Stress vs. Strain in x-Direction [a] (LVDT)
73
3.7.3.2 Strain Measured by Strain Gauges
The strain gauge readings depend greatly on the relative location of the gage compared to the
cracks. The reading of a strain gauge near a crack was much higher than the reading of a
gauge away from a crack, even if both gauges were attached to the same reinforcement. Also,
some gauges did not survive the casting and the signals of some gauges were very noisy.
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
0
1
2
3
4
5
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
e
x
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
e
x
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
e
x
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL5 (f
x
/v=0.0)
e
x
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
e
x
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
e
x
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Figure 3.27 Shear Stress vs. Strain in x-Direction [b] (LVDT)
74
Hence, only selected strain gauge data are plotted in Fig 3.28 as an indication of the overall
behavior of the reinforcement.
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
e
sx
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
L3
L4
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
e
sx
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
L3
L4
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
e
sx
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
L3
L4
Figure 3.28 Shear Stress vs. Strain in x-Direction (Strain Gauge)
-2 0 2 4 6 8
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL5 (f
x
/v=0.0)
e
sx
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
L3
L4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
e
sx
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
L3
L4
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
e
sx
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
L3
L4
75
The shape of the v vs. curves was similar to that of the v vs. curves. By comparing Fig
3.27 and Fig 3.28, it could be concluded that the reinforcement in the x-direction did not yield
in PL4, PL1 and PL2. In PL5 and PL3, the x-direction reinforcement yielded locally at the
cracks. In PL6, the x-direction reinforcement yielded across the panel.
3.7.4 Strain in y-Direction
3.7.4.1 Strain Measured by LVDTs
Fig 3.29 and Fig 3.30 show the relationship of the shear stress vs. the strain in the y-direction.
The curves in Fig 3.29 were plotted in a unified scale, while the curves in Fig 3.30 were plot-
ted in different scales. was very small prior to the occurrence of inclined cracks. After the
first inclined crack appeared, a sudden increase in was observed. For all panels, reached
strain higher than the yielding strain of the steel. Even in the panel subjected to the highest
compressive stress (PL4), went up to about 2.5 , which indicated that the steel in the y-
direction yielded upon failure. Again, the curve for PL3 indicated softening behavior from the
start of the test likely due to the existing precracks.
sx

x
y

y
y
m
0 5 10 15 20
0
1
2
3
4
5
e
y
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
PL5 (f
x
/v=0.0)
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
Figure 3.29 Shear Stress vs. Strain in y-Direction [a] (LVDT)
76
3.7.4.2 Strain Measured by Strain Gauges
The shape of the v vs. curves was similar to that of the v vs. curves. By comparing Fig
3.30 and Fig 3.31, it was found that although the strain gauge readings indicated that the strain
in the y-direction of PL4 reached very high tension upon failure, the readings from the LVDTs
did not show the same strain. This would have been because the strain gauges measured the
local deformation of the steel, whereas the LVDTs measured the average deformation of the
Figure 3.30 Shear Stress vs. Strain in y-Direction [b] (LVDT)
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
e
y
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
e
y
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
0 5 10 15 20
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
e
y
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
0 5 10 15
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL5 (f
x
/v=0.0)
e
y
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
e
y
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
0 5 10 15
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
e
y
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
sy

y
77
steel. The deformation of the steel at the cracks was much higher than the average deforma-
tion of the steel. Again, the curve for PL3 did not have a distinctive linear part due to pre-
cracking. The reverse of the curves for PL1, PL5, PL3 and PL6 suggested redistribution of
stresses in cracked concrete as the final failure cracks developed.
78
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
e
sy
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
S4
S5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL5 (f
x
/v=0.0)
e
sy
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
S4
S5
S6
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
e
sy
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
S4
S5
Figure 3.31 Shear Stress vs. Strain in y-Direction (Strain Gauge)
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
0
1
2
3
4
5
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
e
sy
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
S4
S5
S6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
e
sy
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
S4
S5
S6
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
e
sy
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
S1
S8
79
3.7.5 Principal Stress vs. Principal Strain
Fig 3.32 shows the principal tensile stress vs. the principal tensile strain relationship. All pan-
els showed tension-stiffening behavior [Vecchio and Collins, 1986]. The shape of the vs.
relationship was relatively similar for all specimens. usually reached a maximum
stress of approximately 1.2-1.5 MPa before it started to decrease. In PL6, the maximum
was 2.5 MPa. The only difference in the vs. relationship of all specimens was the
shape of the curves near failure. In PL2 and PL6, increases in the values were observed
after the panels had attained a certain value of . In the other specimens, after reaching the
maximum , continued to decrease until failure occurred.
f
c1
c1
f
c1
f
c1
f
c1
c1
f
c1
c1
f
c1
f
c1
80

Fig 3.33 shows the relationship between the principal compressive stress and the principal
compressive strain. The shape of the vs. relationship was also similar for all speci-
mens. As the applied tensile stress increased, the highest that the specimens could reach
decreased. The strain corresponding to the peak value of was the highest for PL4, the low-
est for PL6 and more or less constant for the other panels.
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
e
c1
(me)
f
c
1
(
M
P
a
)
Figure 3.32 f
c1
vs.
c1

0 1 2 3 4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
e
c1
(me)
f
c
1
(
M
P
a
)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
e
c1
(me)
f
c
1
(
M
P
a
)
0 5 10 15 20
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
PL5 (f
x
/v=0.0)
e
c1
(me)
f
c
1
(
M
P
a
)
0 5 10 15
0
0.5
1
1.5
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
e
c1
(me)
f
c
1
(
M
P
a
)
0 5 10 15
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
e
c1
(me)
f
c
1
(
M
P
a
)
f
c2
c2
f
c2
f
c2
81
3.8 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results
The properties that will be used in the following calculations are re-summarized in Table
3.12. For the properties that are not listed, the default values of the programs shall be used.
Figure 3.33 f
c2
vs.
c2

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
e
c2
(me)
f
c
2
(
M
P
a
)
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
e
c2
(me)
f
c
2
(
M
P
a
)
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
e
c2
(me)
f
c
2
(
M
P
a
)
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
PL5 (f
x
/v=0.0)
e
c2
(me)
f
c
2
(
M
P
a
)
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
e
c2
(me)
f
c
2
(
M
P
a
)
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
e
c2
(me)
f
c
2
(
M
P
a
)
82
3.8.1 Methods Used
Predictions of the strength of the tested panels were done using four different methods: the
ACI approach, the CSA code, Membrane-2000 and VecTor2. The methods used will be
explained in more detail in this section.
The ACI Approach - There is no specific formula in the ACI specification for panels. There-
fore, the principles behind the ACI formulation that the ultimate shear strength equals to the
inclined cracking strength of the concrete plus the shear reinforcement contribution using the
Table 3.12 Properties Used in Calculation
Specimen PL4 PL1 PL2 PL5 PL3 PL6 Average
f
x
/v -2.8 -2.0 -1.0 0 1.0 3.0 -
(MPa)
43.1 38.5 38.2 38.1 42 43.5 40.6
(MPa)
2.17 2.05 2.04 2.04 2.14 2.18 2.10
( ) 2.15 2.08 2.07 2.07 2.13 2.15 2.11
E
c
* (MPa) 28696 27500 27420 27393 28416 28797 28054
(mm)
10
Thickness (mm) 70.3 73.8 73.3 73.6 73.8 73.2 73.0
Spacing (mm) 89

1.649% 1.571% 1.582% 1.575% 1.571% 1.584% 1.588%
(MPa)
9.96 9.49 9.55 9.52 9.49 9.57 9.59
Spacing (mm) 178
For Properties of Reinforcement, refer to Table 3.7

0.1934% 0.1842% 0.1855% 0.1847% 0.1842% 0.1857% 0.1862%
(MPa)
1.023 0.975 0.981 0.977 0.975 0.983 0.985
(mm) 151 156 155 155 156 155 155
(mm) 478 494 492 493 494 491 490
) The measured showed significant scatter. The average of measured values was 2.1 ,
which was close to the default value from Membrane-2000 (seepage 84). Hence the default
value of Membrane-2000 for each concrete strength will be used in all calculations.
*) The corresponding initial tangent modulus of elasticity for each concrete strength from Mem-
brane-2000 will also be used.
) Crack spacing and was calculated automatically by Membrane-2000.
f
c
f
t
m
a
g
x
f
yx
y
f
yy
s
mx
s
my
c
m
s
mx
s
my
83
truss model will be used. The formula is presented in Eq. (3-6). Here, f
x
is positive for
tension and negative for compression. All calculations were done in a speadsheet.
(3-6)
The CSA Code - The CSA method explained here is a simplified version of the MCFT. Since
this was an analysis problem instead of a design problem, iterative calculations were neces-
sary to apply the CSA method. The procedure is explained below. All calculations were done
in a spreadsheet.
Assume ;
(deg)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
Continue iteration until f
x
or f
x
/v reaches the specified value.
When the specimen had at least the minimum amount of transverse steel specified by the CSA
code, the value of could be taken as 300 mm. This should provide conservative results as
the observed crack spacings were less than 300 mm for these relatively small size panels.
45
v
u-ACI
f
cr
1
f
x
f
cr
-----
y
f
yy
+ f
x
f
cr
<
y
f
yy
otherwise
x
29 7000
x
+ =
0.4
1 1500
x
+ ( )
-------------------------------
1300
1000 s
ze
+ ( )
----------------------------- =
v
c
f
c
=
f
1
v
c
tan =
v f
c

sy
f
yy
cot + =
f
x
sx
E
s
x
v cot f
1
+
sx
f
yx
v v
c
+ ( ) cot if
x
0 >
sx
E
s
E
c
+ ( )
x
v cot
sx
f
yx
v v
c
+ ( ) cot if
x
0
=
s
ze
84
Membrane-2000 (M2K) - M2K [Bentz, 2000B] is a single element program developed by
Bentz at the University of Toronto to evaluate the shear response of reinforced concrete ele-
ments. It is based on the MCFT. From Membrane-2000, the full load-deformation response
can be obtained in addition to the prediction of the ultimate strength. Hence, even when the
post-cracking shear strength was lower than the inclined cracking strength, both strengths can
be obtained in Membrane-2000 analysis.
The material properties used in Membrane-2000 modelling are summarized in Table 3.13.
The amounts and the locations of longitudinal reinforcement and transverse reinforcement
defined in Membrane-2000 modelling are shown in Table 3.13. The loadings defined in
Membrane-2000 modelling are shown in Table 3.14.
85
Table 3.13 The Material Properties in Membrane-2000 Models
Concrete
(MPa)
43.1 38.5 38.2 38.1 42 43.5
(MPa)
2.17 2.05 2.04 2.04 2.14 2.18
( )
2.15 2.08 2.07 2.07 2.13 2.15
(mm)
10
Tension Stiffening Factor 1.0
Base Curve Popovics / Thorenfeldt / Collins *
Compression Softening Vecchio - Collins 1986 *
Tension Stiffening Collins - Mitchell 1987 *
Name x-steel (Longitudinal Reinforcement)
E
s
(MPa) 200000
f
y
(MPa) 604
( )
3
( )
45
f
u
(MPa) 641
Name y-steel (Transverse Reinforcement)
E
s
(MPa) 200000
f
y
(MPa) 529
( )
2.6
( )
40
f
u
(MPa) 541
*) The details of these models can be found in Bentz [2000A].
f
c
f
t
c
m
a
g
sh
m
rupture
m
sh
m
rupture
m
86
VecTor2 (VT2) - VecTor2 [Vecchio, 2003] is a general-purpose finite-element program
developed by Vecchio at the University of Toronto. It is based on the Disturbed Stress Field
Model (DSFM) [Vecchio, 2000]. However, if the slip distortion is not considered, VecTor2 is
also performing the analysis based on the MCFT. The analysis parameters for VecTor2 mod-
elling are listed in Table 3.16. The structural parameters for VecTor2 analysis are listed in
Table 3.17. The models were chosen to ensure that the analysis background was similar
Table 3.14 The Reinforcement in Membrane-2000 Models
Name of Layers X-Direction Reinforcement
X-Layer1
In-Plane Spacing (mm) 89
Bar Area (mm
2
)
52
Distance from bottom (mm) 27
Prestrain ( ) 0
Rebar Type x-steel
X-Layer2
Bar Area (mm
2
)
52
Prestrain ( ) 0
Rebar Type x-steel
Name of Layers Y-Direction Reinforcement
Y-Layer1
Bar Area (mm
2
)
24
Prestrain ( ) 0
Rebar Type y-steel
Table 3.15 The Loadings in Membrane-2000 Models
Axial-X
Constant (MPa) 0
Increment (MPa) -2.8 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0
Axial-Y
Constant (MPa) 0.0
Increment (MPa) 0.0
Shear
Constant (MPa) 0.0
Increment (MPa) 1.0
m
m
m
87
between Membrane-2000 and VecTor2. An exception was that the effect of the Poisson's ratio
was considered in VecTor2 but not in Membrane-2000. Using VecTor2, a single element
with smeared reinforcement was used to model each panel as shown in Fig 3.34. The support
restraints are also shown in Fig 3.34. The material properties of different types of reinforced
concrete and steels can be found in Table 3.18 and Table 3.19. The coordinate of each node is
shown in Table 3.20. Only one load case was used: the shear force denoted as V. The shear
force was increased by 1 kN per load step. The locations and values of the nodal loads and
how they were applied are shown in Fig 3.34 and Table 3.21. Since the VecTor2 analysis was
load controlled, if the post-cracking shear strength is lower than the inclined cracking
strength, only the inclined cracking strength can be obtained.
Table 3.16 The Analysis Parameters for VecTor2 Models
Material Models
Converge Criteria Displacements - Weighted
Compression Base Curve Popovics (High Strength Concrete)
Compression Post - Peak Popovics (High Strength Concrete)
Compression Softening Vecchio - Collins 1986
Tension Stiffening Collins - Mitchell 1987
Tension Softening Linear
Tension Splitting Not Considered
Confinement Strength Kupfer / Richart
Concrete Dilation Fixed Poisson Ratio
Cracking Criterion Constant
Crack Shear Check Vecchio - Collins 1986
Crack Width Check Crack Limit (Agg/5)
Concrete Bond Eligehausen Model
Concrete Creep / Relax Not Considered
Concrete Hysteresis Linear w/ Offset
Steel Hysteresis Seckin Model
Rebar Dowel Action Not Considered
Rebar Buckling Asatsu Model
Previous Load History Considered
Slip Distortion Not Considered
Strain Rate Effects CEB - Full
Geometric Nonlinearity Not Considered
Note:The details of these models can be found in Wong and Vecchio [2002].

88
Table 3.17 The Structural Parameters for VecTor2 Models
All Panels
No. of R.C. Material Types 1
No. of Steel Material Types 0
No. of Bond Material Types 0
No. of Rectangular Elements 1
No. of Quadrilateral Elements 0
No. of Triangular Elements 0
No. of Truss Bar Elements 0
No. of Linkage Elements 0
No. of Contact Elements 0
No. of J oints 4
No. of Restraints 3
Table 3.18 The Material Properties for VecTor2 Models
Concrete Components for Reinforced Concrete Materials
Thickness (mm) 70.3 73.8 73.3 73.6 73.8 73.2
(MPa)
43.1 38.5 38.2 38.1 42 43.5
(MPa)
2.17 2.05 2.04 2.04 2.14 2.18
E
c
(MPa) 28696 27500 27420 27393 28416 28797
( )
2.15 2.08 2.07 2.07 2.13 2.15
(mm)
10
Sx (mm) 151 156 155 155 156 155
Sy (mm) 478 494 492 493 494 491
Reinforcement Components for Reinforced Concrete Material
Concrete 1
(%)
1.649 1.571 1.582 1.575 1.571 1.584
Direction ( ) 0
Rebar Type * D8
(%)
0.1934 0.1842 0.1855 0.1847 0.1842 0.1857
Direction ( ) 90
Rebar Type * D4
*) For the properties of rebars, please refer to Table 3.19.
f
c
f
t
c
m
a
g

89
Table 3.19 Properties of Rebars for VecTor2 Models
Rebar Type
d
b
(mm)
f
y
(MPa)
f
u
(MPa)
E
s
(MPa)
E
sh
(MPa)
( )
D4 5.72 529 581 200000 1392 2.65
D8 8.11 604 641 200000 881 3.02
Table 3.20 Dimensions of Mesh for VecTor2 Models
Specimen All Panels
Node 1
x coordinate (mm) 0
y coordinate (mm) 0
Node 2
x coordinate (mm) 890
y coordinate (mm) 0
Node 3
x coordinate (mm) 890
y coordinate (mm) 890
Node 4
x coordinate (mm) 0
y coordinate (mm) 890
Note: The numbering of nodes is shown in Fig 3.34.
sh
m
Figure 3.34 Details of Mesh for A Typical Panel
90
3.8.2 Predictions of Capacities of Panels
Fig 3.35 shows interaction curves between the axial stress and the shear stress covering a
wide range of stresses, from tension to compression. The average properties listed in Table
3.12 were used in formulating Fig 3.35. For Membrane-2000 analysis, if the post-cracking
shear strength was lower than the first shear cracking strength, the post-cracking shear
strength was chosen as the capacity of the panel and plotted in Fig 3.35, since the post-crack-
ing shear strength was the observed strength of shear failure for all panels.
Table 3.21 Loading Informations for VecTor2 Models
V
Initial (kN)
Final (kN)
Increment (kN)
0
394
1
0
304
1
0
208
1
0
174
1
0
160
1
0
134
1
Node 2
Fx -1.9 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 - 1.0
Fy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
Node 3
Fx -0.9 -0.5 0 0.5 1.0 2.0
Fy 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Node 4
Fx 1.9 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -1.0
Fy -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5
Note: The numbering of nodes is shown in Fig 3.34.
f
x
v
91
As indicated in Fig 3.35, it was found that for panels subjected to compression and shear, the
predictions by the ACI approach were very unconservative, the predictions by the CSA code
agreed very well with the test results, the predictions by Membrane-2000 were fairly good and
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
f
x
(MPa)
v
(
M
P
a
)
PL4
PL1
PL2
PL5
PL3
PL6
ACI Approach
CSA Code
MEMBRANE
VecTor2
EXP
difference between pre-cracking
and post-cracking strength
e
x c c
=0,E A in Equation
low, as can not "rotate" like
MCFT-based methods allow
q
different calculation of
crack check
yield equation starts to control
Figure 3.35 f
x
- v Interaction
92
generally conservative, and the predictions by VecTor2 was fairly good and a bit unconserva-
tive. For panels subjected to tension and shear, all four methods underestimated the capacities
of the specimens. For the panel tested under pure shear, the ACI approach gave the best pre-
diction. The predictions by Membrane-2000 and VecTor2 were conservative and fairly good,
while the CSA method provided the most conservative prediction. While the shape of curves
predicted using the CSA code, Membrane-2000 and VecTor2 still followed the variation of
the test results, the curve from the ACI approach substantially deviated from the experimental
results.
Theoretically, VecTor2 and Membrane-2000 should provided similar predictions when the
slip-distortion option was turned off in VecTor2. However, it was found that for the panels
subjected to compression, VecTor2 provided a higher prediction than Membrane-2000. This
was because different criteria were applied in choosing the shear capacity for each program as
illustrated in Fig 3.36. In Membrane-2000, when a panel with the similar concrete strength
and reinforcement level as the panels tested in this thesis is subjected to a compressive stress
greater than or equal to 3 MPa, the predicted post-cracking shear strength is lower than the
inclined cracking strength. Since the ultimate shear strength measured in the experiments was
corresponding to the strength after the concrete had cracked, the post-cracking strength was
chosen as the shear capacity in Membrane-2000 in such case. In VecTor2, however, the post-
cracking shear strength could not be obtained when the post-cracking shear strength is lower
than the inclined cracking strength, since the analysis was load controlled. In such cases, the
inclined cracking strength was chosen as the shear capacity in VecTor2. If the criteria used in
VecTor2 analysis is applied to Membrane-2000 analysis, the predictions using both programs
are essentially the same as shown in Fig 3.37.
93

For the panels subjected to tensile stresses, Membrane-2000 and VecTor2 yield different pre-
dictions because different criteria are applied for checking the yielding of the reinforcement at
the cracks, when the stress-strain relationship of the reinforcement is not bilinear. Also, for the
panels subjected to tensile stresses, the predictions using the CSA code are always lower than
those using Membrane-2000 and VecTor2 because the inclination of cracks in the CSA for-
mulation is only related to the average longitudinal strain, . Hence, the predicted inclina-
tions can not rotate as is allowed by the more computationally intensive MCFT-based
methods (Membrane-2000 and VecTor2).
Table 3.22 lists the predictions using different methods and their corresponding experimental
results. The properties of individual panel (see Table 3.12) were used in formulating Table
3.22. When the inclined cracking strength is higher than the post-cracking shear strength in
Membrane-2000 analysis, the inclined cracking strength is listed as Membrane Cracking in
Table 3.22 and the post-cracking shear strength is listed as Membrane Post-Cracking in
Table 3.22. Otherwise, the post-cracking shear strength is listed in Table 3.22 for both Mem-
brane Cracking and Membrane Post-Cracking. The best predictions of all methods are
highlighted in Table 3.22. The selection of the best predictions followed these rules: Conser-
vative is better than unconservative (the ratio of Exp/Pred greater than one is better than less
than one). Among the conservative predictions, the prediction having the smallest value of
Exp/Pred is the best. Among the unconservative predictions, the prediction with the highest
value of Exp/Pred is the best. The ACI approach gave the best prediction for PL5. The CSA
code gave the best prediction for PL1 and PL2. Membrane-2000 gave the best prediction for
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
g
xy
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
VecTor2 (Cracking)
Membrane-2000 (Post-Cracking)
Figure 3.36 Cracking vs. Post-Cracking
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
f
x
(MPa)
v
(
M
P
a
)
PL4
PL1
PL2
PL5
PL3
PL6
MEMBRANE-PRE
VecTor2
EXP
Figure 3.37 Comparison of M2K and VT2
x
94
PL4, PL1, PL3 and PL6. VecTor2 gave the best prediction for PL6. Membrane-2000 turned
out to be the most consistent method (C.o.V =7.5%) and the ACI approach was the most
inconsistent method (C.o.V =64.5%).
Generally speaking, for panels tested under compression and shear, the CSA code is a good
choice to predict the strength of the panels. Membrane-2000 and VecTor2 also provided good
results. For panels under tension and shear, none of these methods provided excellent predic-
tions, although the CSA code, Membrane-2000 and VecTor2 still predicted the general trend
reasonably well. It is hoped that better predictions can be achieved by modifying these mod-
els.

Table 3.22 Predictions by Different Methods
-2.8 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0
v
u-exp
(MPa)
4.81 4.31 3.21 3.21 3.04 2.47
f
xu-exp
(MPa)
-13.24 -8.66 -3.22 0 3.05 7.36
f
xu-pred
(MPa)
ACI Approach -24.0 -13.14 -4.71 0 1.82 2.95
CSA -14.93 -8.71 -3.25 0 2.11 5.13
Membrane Cracking -15.08 -8.55 -3.12 0 2.61 6.16
Membrane Post-Cracking -13.59 -7.56 -3.12 0 2.61 6.16
VecTor2 -17.58 -9.22 -3.19 0 2.40 6.18
v
u-pred
(MPa)
ACI Approach 8.58 6.57 4.71 3.03 1.82 0.983
CSA 5.33 4.35 3.25 2.46 2.11 1.711
Membrane Cracking 5.40 4.29 3.09 2.71 2.63 2.05
Membrane Post-Cracking 4.82 3.76 3.09 2.71 2.63 2.05
VecTor2 6.28 4.61 3.19 2.64 2.42 2.04 Average C. o.V
ACI Approach 0.56 0.66 0.68 1.06 1.67 2.52 1.192 64.5%
CSA 0.90 0.99 0.99 1.31 1.44 1.45 1.180 21.0%
Membrane Cracking 0.89 1.00 1.04 1.19 1.15 1.21 1.080 11.6%
Membrane Post-Cracking 1.00 1.15 1.04 1.19 1.15 1.21 1.123 7.50%
VecTor2 0.77 0.93 1.01 1.22 1.25 1.21 1.065 18.2%
f
x
v
v
u-exp
v
u-pred
---------------
95
3.8.3 Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
Fig 3.38 compares the shear stress vs. shear strain relationship obtained from the LVDTs and
the Zurich readings to those obtained from Membrane-2000 analysis. The shape of the curves
predicted by Membrane-2000 agreed well with the curves obtained from the experiments
except that all specimens failed at higher shear stresses than the predictions using Membrane-
2000. For PL4, the unexpected early cracking allowed the post-cracking behavior to be
observed.
96
3.8.4 Shear Stress vs. Strain in x-Direction
Fig 3.39 compares the shear stress vs. strain in the x-direction relationship obtained from the
LVDTs and the Zurich readings to those obtained from Membrane-2000 analysis. The experi-
mental data agreed well with the program predictions. For PL4, Membrane-2000 predicted
that after cracking, the strain would change from compression to tension. This was not
observed in the experimental results. The reason behind this discrepancy was because the
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
1
2
3
4
5
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
g
xy
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
g
xy
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
g
xy
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
g
xy
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
0 10 20 30 40
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL5 (f
x
=0 MPa)
g
xy
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
g
xy
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
Figure 3.38 Comparison of Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain
97
shear cracks were located outside the range which could be measured by the x-direction
LVDTs. Hence, the behavior after cracking was not captured by the LVDTs. The highest
strain in the x-direction predicted by Membrane-2000 reached a value of approximately 0.4
(equivalent to a slip of ). A slip of about 5 mm in the x-direction
(compared to 0.4 mm predicted using Membrane-2000) could be measured from the failure
photo of PL4 (Fig 3.14).
m 0.0004 890 0.4mm
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
e
x
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
e
x
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL5 (f
x
=0 MPa)
e
x
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
e
x
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
Figure 3.39 Comparison of Shear Stress vs. Strain in x-Direction
-0.5 0 0.5 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
e
x
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
e
x
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
98
3.8.5 Shear Stress vs. Strain in y-Direction
Fig 3.40 compares the shear stress vs. strain in the y-direction relationship obtained from the
LVDTs and the Zurich readings to those obtained from Membrane-2000 analysis. All curves
agreed well. The transverse reinforcement ruptured earlier than what was predicted by Mem-
brane-2000.
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
e
y
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
e
y
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
e
y
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PL5 (f
x
=0 MPa)
e
y
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
e
y
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
Figure 3.40 Comparison of Shear Stress vs. Strain in y-Direction
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
1
2
3
4
5
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
e
y
(me)
v
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
99
3.8.6 Principal Stress vs. Principal Strain
In Membrane-2000, the tension stiffening is accounted for using Eq. (3-7). Eq. (3-7) shows
that after cracking, decreased as increased. Furthermore, is limited to the shear
stress which can be transferred across the cracks. If the shear stress transferred across the
cracks cannot be maintained after yielding of the transverse reinforcement and loss of aggre-
gate interlock due to crack opening, needs to be further decreased to maintain equilibrium.
(3-7)
Fig 3.41 shows the comparison of the principal stress vs. the principal strain relationship
between the experimental data by the LVDTs and the Zurich readings to the Membrane-2000
predictions. The measured principal tensile stress was generally higher than what was pre-
dicted, except in PL4. For all panels, did not decrease as much as Membrane-2000 pre-
dicted. This inconsistency appears to start about when the crack slip relationship is predicted
to control. Perhaps the assumption in the program of a single straight crack at failure is a poor
representation of the actual complex crack pattern. Note that Bentz, Vecchio and Collins
[2006] did not note this for the existing 102 panels. However, if the crack slip relationship is
too conservative in these tests, it may mean that dowel action was important or that kinking
effect was important. However, such mechanisms were not always activated, and large defor-
mations were required to activate these mechanisms. In real infrastructure, structural elements
would have potentially already failed under such large deformations. Hence, these mecha-
nisms may not necessarily be utilized. More discussion about the kinking effect can be found
in Section 3.9.
According to Membrane-2000, the maximum compressive stress that the concrete can reach
decreased as the tensile strain in the perpendicular direction increased. These properties were
very well observed in the experiments (see Fig 3.42). In comparison (see Fig 3.42), Mem-
brane-2000 generally predicted the peak value of accurately, with some underestimation in
PL1 and overestimation in PL2. The shape of the curves predicted by Membrane-2000 agreed
with that of the experiments.
f
c1
c1
f
c1
f
c1
f
c1
f
cr
1 500
c1
+
------------------------------ =
f
c1
f
c2
100
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
e
c1
(me)
f
c
1
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
e
c1
(me)
f
c
1
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
PL5 (f
x
=0 MPa)
e
c1
(me)
f
c
1
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
e
c1
(me)
f
c
1
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
e
c1
(me)
f
c
1
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
c1
vs.
c1
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
e
c1
(me)
f
c
1
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
101
3.9 Kinking Effect
The influence of the kinking effect on the shear strength of reinforced concrete elements is
similar to that of the inclined prestressing tendon and is illustrated in Fig 3.43. When the pan-
els were approaching failure, the longitudinal reinforcement was severely bent (with an angle
of ) if the shear deformation was large enough. The vertical component of the yielding
-8 -6 -4 -2 0
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
e
c2
(me)
f
c
2
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
-8 -6 -4 -2 0
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
e
c2
(me)
f
c
2
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
-8 -6 -4 -2 0
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
e
c2
(me)
f
c
2
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
-8 -6 -4 -2 0
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
PL5 (f
x
=0 MPa)
e
c2
(me)
f
c
2
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
-8 -6 -4 -2 0
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
e
c2
(me)
f
c
2
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
c2
vs.
c2
-8 -6 -4 -2 0
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
e
c2
(me)
f
c
2
(
M
P
a
)
Zurich Data
LVDT Data
Membrane
k
102
force of the longitudinal reinforcement would contribute to the shear resis-
tance. This phenomenon can be called kinking.
In panel PL6, the yielding stress in the x-direction was . From Fig 3.44, it
was measured that the angle of kinking at failure for PL6 was approximately - . If the
angle of kinking was taken as , the shear stress due to kinking would be
. The CSA prediction for the ultimate shear stress of PL6 was
1.711 MPa. By considering the kinking effect, the new CSA prediction for PL6 became
. The ratio of became 1.04, better than the old
value of 1.45 (Table 3.22). The accuracy of the prediction was greatly improved by consider-
ing the kinking effect for the panels tested under combined tension and shear. However, large
deformations were necessary for the kinking effect to become significant (no significant kink-
ing was observed in PL3). These large deformations may lower the contribution of concrete
interlock to V
c
. Also, such deformations are unfavorable in real structures. Hence, the kinking
effect will not be further considered as a contribution to the useful shear resistance in real
structures.
v
k

x
f
yx

k
tan =
x
f
yx
9.57MPa =
k
3 4
4
v
k

x
f
yx

k
tan 0.669MPa = =
1.711 0.669 + 2.38MPa = v
u exp
v
u pred
Figure 3.43 Kinking Effect

103
3.10 Summary
1). A proper anchorage is very important to achieve a successful panel test. The anchor-
age method proposed for the rebars, which were not fed through the shear keys,
proved to be successful for the concrete strength, reinforcement details and loading
used.
2). For panels subjected to very high compression (f
x
/v =-2.8), the amount of transverse
steel specified by the CSA code was not sufficient to control crack spacing. The
specimen failed suddenly without any warning along what was essentially a single
crack in the specimen.
3). Inclined cracking could be predicted with good accuracy. The accuracy of the predic-
tion could be further improved when the influence of the co-existing compressive
stress on the cracking strength of the concrete was considered. This indicated that the
influence of the co-existing compressive stress on the cracking strength of the con-
crete was important in predicting the cracking strength.
4). Applying a moderate amount of compression or tension strongly affected the inclined
cracking strength of the panels, but did not change the shear capacity of the panels as
significantly.
Figure 3.44 Angle of Kinking
104
5). The ACI approach was very unconservative in predicting the capacities of the panels
under compression and very conservative in predicting the capacities of the panels
under tension. The predictions by the CSA code were very good for all specimens
under compression. However, for the panels under tension, the predictions were also
excessively conservative although better than the predictions by the ACI approach.
This might be due to exclusion of the consideration of the redistribution capacity of
internal stresses, dowel action and kinking effect. After the kinking effect was taken
into account, the prediction for PL6 was greatly improved. However, to utilize these
mechanisms, the panels needed to undergo very large deformations, which might not
be realistic in real structures. The existing equations of the MCFT do not require
adjustment to model these tests appropriately.
6). Fig 3.45 plots the available panel tests including the tests presented in this thesis
(called current experiments). It can be seen as noted in Section 2.3.1 that the current
tests were in the area which had not been investigated previously. The minimum
in the current tests reached as low as , which is a practical value for pre-
stressed concrete structures and had not been reached by any previous panel test. And
the ratio of lied between 0.2 and 0.8, which is also within the practical
range of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures, while most of the previous
panel tests were either without transverse reinforcement [ ] or were
heavily reinforced in the transverse direction [ ].
x
0.15
3
10
v
c
v
c
v
s
+ ( )
v
c
v
c
v
s
+ ( ) 1 =
v
c
v
c
v
s
+ ( ) 0.2 <
105
0 1 2 3 4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Strain in x Direction e
x
(x10
-3
)
v
c
-
e
x
p
-
n
o
r
m
(
M
P
a
)
0.4
v
c
=
1+1.5e
x
Previous Experiments
Current Experiments
CSA Method
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
v
c
/(v
c
+v
s
)
v
e
x
p
/
v
p
r
e
d
Previous Experiments
Current Experiments
Figure 3.45 Comparison with Previous Experimental Data
v
c-exp-norm
1
f
c
---------
v
c
v
c
v
s
+
---------------v
exp
1000 s
x
+
1300
---------------------- =
106
CHAPTER 4
Beam Tests
4.1 Specimen Description
This experimental program involved testing 11 thin-web I-section beams under different com-
binations of axial force and shear force. The applied axial force varied from a very high com-
pression (-800 kN) to a very high tension (500 kN). The specimens were identified as LB1 to
LB11 according to the sequence of testing, and will be listed in the tables and the figures in an
order based on the cross-section dimension, the amount of axial force, and the amount of
transverse reinforcement. Ready-mixed self-consolidating concrete (SCC) with a specified
strength of 35 MPa was used. The actual strength of the concrete varied between 55.6 MPa
and 59.2 MPa for the 28-day strength, which are the typical concrete strength now used in pre-
stressed concrete structures. The dimensions and the reinforcement of the beams were specifi-
cally chosen to obtain web-shear failures, and will be explained in more detail in the following
sections. The loading of the beams was chosen to simulate the loading conditions of continu-
ous beams near the points of inflection.
Beam LB1 was the pilot specimen designed to examine the feasibility of the test setup, which
included the method of construction, the details of reinforcement, the loading setup and the
arrangement of instrumentation. Modifications made after the test of LB1 included changing
the formwork partly from wood to styrofoam for the ease of demoulding (Section 4.1.3), low-
ering the amount of longitudinal reinforcement to reduce shrinkage restraint (Section 4.1.2),
doubling the stirrups in Region 2 (Fig 4.1) to prevent an ACI predicted flexure-shear failures
near the supports (Section 4.1.2), increasing the number of strain gauges in the longitudinal
and the transverse reinforcement to gather more information (Section 4.4.6), and adding load
cells as additional measurements to monitor the variation of the axial force during the test
(Section 4.4.2).
CHAPTER 4 - Beam Tests
107
4.1.1 Specimen Dimension
The specified total length of all beams was L =4620 mm and the specified height of all beams
was h =500 mm. The middle part of the beams (between E and F in Fig 4.1) had a specified
length of L
w
=3220 mm and an I-shaped cross-section. At both ends of the beams, a 700 mm
long diaphragm block was used to transfer the prestressing force from the end to the middle
part of the beams. The test setup was designed to introduce double bending into a test region
of 2400 mm long (between B and C in Fig 4.1). The bending moment diagram and the shear
force diagram are shown in Fig 4.1. The effective a/d ratio for all specimens was 5.14.
The specified web thickness of all beams was the same, b
w
=75 mm. However, the flange
thicknesses of the I-shaped section were divided in two groups (Fig 4.1): 75 mm for group 1
(thick flange) and 50 mm for group 2 (thin flange). Group 1 comprised beams LB1 to LB5.
They were sorted according to the axial force they were subjected to, from the highest com-
pression for LB1 to the highest tension for LB5. Beam LB1 to LB3 were subjected to axial
compression and shear, while Beam LB4 and LB5 were subjected to axial tension and shear.
Group 2 comprised of beams LB6 to LB11. The beams in group 2 were subjected to various
axial compression and shear. Beam LB6 to LB9 had the same amount of transverse reinforce-
ment (see Section 4.2.2) and were listed in the tables according to the amount of axial force
they were subjected to (from the highest compression for LB6 to the lowest compression for
LB9). LB10 and LB11 were subjected to the same amount of axial force as LB6, but had dif-
ferent amounts of transverse reinforcement. The specified dimensions of all beams are shown
in Table 4.1. The as-built dimensions of all beams are shown in Table 4.2 and were used in all
calculations.
108
Figure 4.1 Test Scheme
109

Table 4.1 Specified Dimensions of Beams
Specimen LB1 LB2 LB3 LB4 LB5 LB6 LB8 LB7 LB9 LB10 LB11
h (mm) 500
h
ftop
(mm) 75 50
h
fbot
(mm) 75 50
b
ftop
(mm) 350
b
fbot
(mm) 350
b
w
(mm) 75
h
1
(mm) 25
h
2
(mm) 25
d

(mm) 467
A
s-top
(mm
2
) 1334 534 842 934
A
s-bot
(mm
2
) 1334 534 842 934
A
v
* (mm
2
) 24.2 -
s* (mm) 175 87.5 -
0.1844% 0.369% -
(MPa)
0.975 1.952 -
N (kN) -800 -800 -400 250 500 -800 -500 -250 0 -800 -800
*) values for Region 1 only
y
A
v
b
w
s
--------- =
y
f
yv
110
4.1.2 Reinforcement Layout
The reinforcement cage (see Fig 4.2) for a typical beam was composed of three parts. They
were the longitudinal reinforcement (including the reinforcement in the top and the bottom
flanges), the transverse reinforcement (the reinforcement in the web), and the unbonded pre-
stressing bars within a conduit duct in the top and the bottom flanges.
Table 4.2 As-built Dimensions of Beams
h (mm) 500 506 506 504 502 506 504 506 504 506 506
b
w
(mm) 75 74 73 87 68 73 73 73 73 74 74
b
fbot
(mm) 350 350 351 358 352 350 352 353 350 350 350
h
fbot
(mm) 70 72 76 83 76 55 51 55 52 50 49
b
ftop
(mm) 350 350 348 369 352 350 352 350 350 351 352
h
ftop
(mm) 80 84 80 71 76 51 53 51 52 56 57
h
1
&h
2
(mm) 25
d

(mm) 467 473 473 471 469 473 471 473 471 473 473
d
v
420 426 426 424 422 426 424 426 424 426 426
A
g
(mm
2
) 85630 87400 86980 93280 84400 73230 72780 73430 72530 73670 73740
A
ct
(mm
2
) 43080 44180 43090 45080 41490 35560 35850 35600 35550 36650 36880
I
g
(mm
4
x10
9
) 2.85 2.98 2.98 3.08 2.89 2.55 2.52 2.56 2.51 2.56 2.56
Q
cen

(mm
4
x10
6
)
7.29 7.54 7.53 7.87 7.33 6.32 6.26 6.35 6.24 6.35 6.35
Q
flange

(mm
4
x10
6
)
6.27 6.56 6.45 6.39 6.29 4.79 4.84 4.80 4.78 4.97 5.01
y
0-top
(mm) 245 247 252 256 251 256 250 256 252 248 247
y
0-bot
(mm) 255 259 254 248 251 250 254 250 252 258 259
A
stop
(mm
2
) 1334 534 842 934
A
sbot
(mm
2
) 1334 534 842 934
A
v
* (mm
2
) 24.2 -
s* (mm) 175 87.5 -
(%) 0.1844 0.1869 0.1894 0.1589 0.2034 0.1894 0.1894 0.1894 0.1894 0.374 -
(MPa)
0.975 0.989 1.002 0.841 1.076 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.977 -
N (kN) -804 -786 -475 252 499 -797 -512 -319 0 -822 -809
*) values for Region 1 only
y
A
v
b
w
s
--------- =
y
f
yv
111
The amount of longitudinal reinforcement was chosen to ensure that the reinforcement would
not yield under the applied loads and that flexural failures would not control. Deformed 15M
bars were used as the longitudinal reinforcement for the beams subjected to compression,
whereas 5/8 dywidag bars were used as the longitudinal reinforcement for the beams sub-
jected to tension. D4 and D6 cold-drawn deformed wires were used as the cross-ties of the
longitudinal reinforcement and also to prevent longitudinal splitting cracks and uneven bend-
ing over the flanges. The amount of longitudinal reinforcement varied from one beam to
another, which can be found in Table 4.2 and Fig 4.3 and is described in the following.
The amount of transverse reinforcement was chosen to ensure that web-shear failures
occurred within Region 1 (Fig 4.1). D4 cold-drawn deformed wires were used as the trans-
verse reinforcement within the test region for all specimens. The layouts of the transverse
reinforcement within the test region were not the same in all specimens and were summarized
in Table 4.2 and Fig 4.4. The layouts of the transverse reinforcement outside the test region
for all specimens were the same: 10M deformed bars spaced at 125 mm, which was about
three times the amount of stirrups within Region 1. The details of the transverse reinforcement
can be found in Table 4.2 and Fig 4.4 and are described in the following.
Beam LB1 was the pilot specimen. It had 6-15M in the top and the bottom flanges as the lon-
gitudinal reinforcement, and D4 wires spaced at 175 mm across the whole test region as the
transverse reinforcement. The amount of transverse reinforcement ( ) was
about twice the minimum amount of stirrups specified by the CSA code for reinforced con-
crete beams ( ). The dimensions and the reinforcement details of LB1 are
shown in Fig 4.5.
As seven vertical shrinkage cracks were found after the demoulding of beam LB1, it was sus-
pected that the wooden formwork and the high amount of longitudinal reinforcement intro-
duced too much restraint. In addition, great effort was required to remove the formwork from
the specimen and this may have damaged the specimen. For all specimens cast after LB1, the
amount of longitudinal reinforcement was reduced. However, they still met the requirement
that the longitudinal reinforcement would not yield at shear failure. Also, there was concern
that flexure-shear failures might occur near the higher moment region before web-shear fail-
y
f
yv
0.975MPa =
y
f
yv
0.48MPa =
112
ures according to the calculations using the ACI code. Hence, D4 wires spaced at 87.5 mm
were used in Region 2 (see Fig 4.1) for all specimens cast after LB1.
Beam LB2 to LB5 could be considered as an independent set of tests, as they were beams with
similar dimensions (I-shaped beams with thick flanges) tested under different axial forces.
Beam LB2 and LB3 had 2-15M in the top and the bottom flanges. Beam LB4 and LB5 had 4-
5/8 dywidag bars in the top and the bottom flanges. For LB2 to LB5, D4 wires spaced at 87.5
mm were used in Region 2 (see Fig 4.1) and D4 wires spaced at 175 mm were used in Region
1 (see Fig 4.1). The dimensions and the reinforcement details of LB2 and LB3 are shown in
Fig 4.6 and the dimensions and the reinforcement details of LB4 and LB5 are shown in Fig
4.7.
Beam LB6 to LB9 could be considered as another independent set of tests, as they were beams
with similar dimensions and reinforcement layouts tested under different axial compression.
Beam LB6 to LB9 had 4-15M in the top and the bottom flanges. The layouts of the transverse
reinforcement in LB6 to LB9 were the same as those in LB2 to LB5. The dimensions and the
reinforcement details of LB6 to LB9 are shown in Fig 4.8.
Beam LB10 and LB11 were designed to study the effects of different amounts of transverse
reinforcement on the behavior of reinforced concrete beams tested under very high compres-
sive force (prestress). LB10 and LB11 had the same amount of longitudinal reinforcement as
LB6 to LB9, but the amount of transverse reinforcement was different. Specimen LB10 had
D4 wires spaced at 87.5 mm ( ) across the whole test region. Specimen
LB11 had no stirrup within Region 1 and D4 wires spaced at 87.5 mm within Region 2 to pre-
vent flexure-shear failures. The dimensions and the reinforcement details of LB10 are shown
in Fig 4.9 and the dimensions and the reinforcement details of LB11 are shown in Fig 4.10.
y
f
yv
1.977MPa =
113
Figure 4.2 Reinforcement Cage
Figure 4.3 Longitudinal Reinforcement
114
Figure 4.4 Transverse Reinforcement
115
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
5

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

R
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
o
r

L
B
1
116
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
6

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

R
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
o
r

L
B
2
,

L
B
3
117
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
7

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

R
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
o
r

L
B
4
,

L
B
5
118
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
8

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

R
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
o
r

L
B
6
-
L
B
9
119
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
9

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

R
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
o
r

L
B
1
0
120
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
1
0

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

R
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
o
r

L
B
1
1
121
4.1.3 Formwork
The formwork of LB1 was completely made of wood (see Fig 4.11). It was found that the I-
section part of the wooden formwork created too much restraint after the concrete shrank and
the wood swelled due to moisture, which resulted in difficulties in disassembling the form-
work. The formwork of LB1 needed to be destroyed during disassembly and this may have
caused unseen damage to the beam. Also, the restraint due to the wooden formwork may have
been one of the reasons why LB1 showed more shrinkage cracks than the other beams. To rec-
tify this, styrofoam (Dow Rigid Blue) was used in the formwork for the I-section part for the
remaining beams (see Fig 4.12). The advantages of styrofoam were that it was rigid enough to
create the shape and at the same time it was flexible enough to accommodate the shrinkage of
the concrete. Therefore, using styrofoam simplified the demoulding process and minimized
the restraint caused by the formwork. Additionally, styrofoam was very light and easy to
manipulate. The sequence of the formwork assembly was described as follows and is shown
in Fig 4.13. The longitudinal reinforcement in the bottom flange, which were supported by
plastic rebar chairs, was first placed into the formwork. Then the transverse reinforcement and
the two styrofoam sides were lowered into the formwork simultaneously. Silicon caulking was
used to glue the styrofoam to the wood. After the silicon caulking was fully cured (usually
about 2 hours), the longitudinal reinforcement in the top flange was placed. The tips of the
cross-tie hooks rested directly on the top surface of the styrofoam.
122
Figure 4.11 Formwork for LB1
Figure 4.12 Formwork for LB2-LB11
123
4.2 Material Properties
4.2.1 Concrete
Since the web was too thin to fit the available poker-vibrator, ready-mixed self compacting
concrete (SCC) was used. A total volume of 3 m
3
of SCC was ordered for an individual cast
for consistency. The specified concrete strength was 35 MPa with the maximum aggregate
size of 10 mm. The workability of the SCC was measured using special methods shown in
Appendix B-B1.1.
SCC is normally able to flow under its own weight. However, the flowability of SCC
decreased as the casting proceeded. Therefore, more superplasticizer was added into the con-
crete mix towards the end of the casting. A poker vibrator was also used wherever possible to
ensure consolidation of the concrete. The ability of the SCC to fill the formwork was quite
good. Very few honeycombs were observed and were only found at the top surface of the bot-
tom flange. In addition, no evidence of segregation was observed.
Figure 4.13 Sequence of Assembly for Beams
124
The shrinkage of the concrete was obtained by monitoring the change of the strain gauge read-
ings before and after concrete casting (see Table 4.5). It was worth mentioning that the SCC
used for beam LB1 showed higher average shrinkage (close to -0.7 ) than normal concrete,
while the average shrinkage for the remaining beams was normal (between -0.2 to -0.4
). Vertical shrinkage cracks were spotted in some of the specimens. For example, multiple
vertical cracks with an average crack spacing of approximately 250 mm were found in LB1
right after the demoulding. The crack width was between 0.05 mm and 0.15 mm. The influ-
ence of the shrinkage cracks on the behavior of the beams will be discussed in Section 4.6.
The beams were moist-cured using damp burlap for 7 days and then were left in the ambient
environment until testing. Eighteen cylinders (6 by 12) and three prisms (6 by 6 by 21)
for the modulus of rupture test were cast along with the beams. All cylinders were cured under
the same condition. The concrete cylinders were tested at 7-day, 14-day, 28-day and the day of
test to get the strength development curves (shown in Appendix B). Also, at the day of test,
the cylinders were tested using a 250-kN MTS displacement controlled machine to obtain the
full stress-strain response of the concrete in compression. The modulus of rupture specimens
were kept in the fog room until the day of test. The modulus of rupture prisms were tested
using either the Relay machine or a 250-kN MTS displacement controlled machine at the day
of test to provide additional information on the concrete. The test results of the cylinders and
the modulus of rupture prisms are summarized in Table 4.3 and Table 4.4. The measured
modulus of rupture was scattered compared to the measured cylinder strength.
m
m
m
125
Table 4.3 Concrete Compressive Strength
Specimen
7-day
(MPa)
14-day
(MPa)
28-day
(MPa)
At Test
(MPa)
E
c
(MPa)
*
(MPa) ( )
LB1 48.3 53.0 58.9 65.2 39200 2.66 2.10
LB2-LB5 48.6 54.1 55.6 63.2 39600 2.62 2.50
LB6-LB9 50.7 55.6 56.2 63.5 40300 2.63 2.47
LB10-LB11 48.2 54.3 59.2 62.3 37900 2.60 2.27
) E
c
is calculated according to the ASTM Standard, . Here, is equal
to 40% of and is the corresponding strain; is equal to and is the corre-
sponding stress.
*) The concrete tensile strength ( ) listed here was not measured value. It was calculated from
the measured concrete compressive strength and listed here for reference only.
f
t
0.33 f
c
=

c
m
E
c

2
1
( )
2
1
( ) =
2
f
c

2
1
50
6
10
1
f
t
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
LB1
e (mm/mm)
s
(
M
P
a
)
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
LB2-LB5
e (mm/mm)
s
(
M
P
a
)
Figure 4.14 Average Concrete Stress-Strain Relationship for LB1-LB5
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
LB6-LB9
e (mm/mm)
s
(
M
P
a
)
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
LB10-LB11
e (mm/mm)
s
(
M
P
a
)
Figure 4.15 Average Concrete Stress-Strain Relationship for LB6-LB11
126
4.2.2 Reinforcement
Stirrup: Deformed D4 wires (A
s
=24.2 mm
2
) were used as the stirrups within the test region.
Deformed 10M bars (A
s
=100 mm
2
) were used as the stirrups outside the test region.
Longitudinal Reinforcement: Two kinds of reinforcement were used for the longitudinal rein-
forcement: 15M deformed bars (A
s
=200 mm
2
) and 5/8 dywidag bars (A
s
=177 mm
2
).
Prestressing Bar: Unbonded 1 smooth high strength bars (A
s
=507 mm
2
) were used to apply
the axial forces to the specimens.
Cross Tie: The functions of the cross ties were to hold the longitudinal reinforcement in place
during casting and also to resist the bending and any tendency of longitudinal splitting in the
flanges. D4 or D6 deformed wires were used as the cross ties.
Prestressing Duct: Galvanized steel conduit pipes (A
s
=134 mm
2
) were used as the ducts for
prestressing bars. Compared to other steels, the conduit pipe would have a lower yield
strength.
Table 4.4 Modulus of Rupture of Concrete
Specimen LB1 LB2-LB5 LB6-LB9 LB10-LB11
Age at Test (Days) 164 89 62 86
Modulus of Rupture f
r
(MPa) 6.33 6.97 7.81 8.99
Table 4.5 Shrinkage of Concrete
Specimen LB1 LB2 LB3 LB4 LB5 LB6 LB8 LB7 LB9 LB10LB11
Reading 1 ( ) - -0.100-0.124-0.111-0.145 - - - - - -
Reading 2 ( ) - -0.134-0.159-0.172-0.151 - - - - - -
Reading 3 ( ) - -0.199-0.249-0.234-0.216-0.267-0.258-0.286-0.288-0.186-0.176
Reading 4 ( ) -0.692-0.213-0.273-0.249-0.213-0.362-0.317-0.349-0.331-0.357-0.371
Note: Reading 1-4 are shrinkages measured at different time.
m
m
m
m
127
Coupon tests of 18-in long sample bars complying with the ASTM standard were carried out
and the results are summarized in Table 4.6. The D4, D6 and D8 bars used in the beam tests
were the same bars used in the panel tests. The stress-strain relationship for D4 wires and D8
bars can be found in Fig 3.8. The stress-strain relationship for 10M bars, 15M bars, 5/8
dywidag bars and 1 high strength smooth bars are shown in Fig 4.16 and Fig 4.17.
Table 4.6 Reinforcement Properties in Beam
Size
d
b
(mm)
A
s
*
(mm
2
)
f
y
(MPa)
f
u
(MPa)
( ) ( )
E
s
(MPa)
E
sh
(MPa)
D4
5.72 24.2 529 581 2.65 40 195800 1392
D6 7.01 38.7 609 657 3.05 45 200330 1144
D8 8.10 51.6 604 641 3.02 45 202350 881
10M 11.3 100 431 571 2.16 140 201880 -
15M 16.0 200 409 671 2.05 130 201100 -
Dywidag
5/8 177 1026 1141 5.13 640 210560 -
Prestressing Bar 25.4 507 972 1074 - - 199400 -
Duct N/A 134
300
**
400
**
1.50 100 200000 -
*) All reinforcement areas shown in the table were the specified nominal area, except for D4
wires, for which the area was measured from weighing the samples taken from different bars.
) The yield strength of steel shown for cold-drawn deformed wires (D4, D6 and D8), dywidag
and high strength prestressing bars was the strength corresponding to 0.2% residual strain.
And the yield strength for deformed bars (10M and 15M) was the value for yield plateau.
) E
s
=200000 MPa will be used in all calculations for consistency.
**
)The strength of the duct is not a measured value but an assumed value.
y
m

u
m
5 8

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
10M
e (mm/mm)
s
(
M
P
a
)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
15M
e (mm/mm)
s
(
M
P
a
)
Figure 4.16 Average Stress-Strain Relationship for 10M and 15M
128
4.3 Test Setup
The axial forces were applied through two unbonded one-inch high-strength smooth bars.
Smooth bars instead of dywidag bars were chosen to reduce the friction losses of the pre-
stressing. The axial compression was applied through post-tensioning of two unbonded one-
inch high-strength smooth bars, whereas the axial tension was applied through post-compress-
ing of the same bars. The prestressing forces were applied using a manual pump and a hydrau-
lic jack and the forces were maintained throughout the test. A 60-ton jack (ENERPAC
RCH603) with a hole in the center was used to apply the prestressing forces for beams under
compression. Two 30-ton jacks (ENERPAC RCH308) without holes were used to apply the
prestressing forces for beams under tension. The jacking setups for the specimens under com-
pression and for those under tension were different. The jacking details are shown in Fig 4.18
through Fig 4.21.
The conduit ducts were embedded in the concrete to separate the prestressing bars from the
concrete. The outside diameter of the duct was 30 mm and its thickness was 1.5 mm. The
clearance between the duct and the prestressing bar was small (only 1.6 mm) in order to
restrain the buckling of the bar under compression when tensile forces were applied to the
beams. However, the small clearance might increase the friction between the duct and the pre-
stressing bar. The prestressing bars were left in the ducts during the casting process to keep the
ducts straight and thereby reduce friction. Grease was also used to reduce the friction between
the duct and the prestressing bar. It was designed that the highest force in the prestressing bar
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
5/8'' Dywidag Bar
e (mm/mm)
s
(
M
P
a
)
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1'' Smooth High-Strength Rod
e (mm/mm)
s
(
M
P
a
)
Figure 4.17 Average Stress-Strain Relationship for Dywidag and Prestressing Bar
129
would not exceed the yield force of the bar. Therefore, the high-strength bars could be reused.
If the bars were bent during the test, they were re-straightened before the next test.
The method of prestressing for the beams subjected to compression was similar to a conven-
tional prestressing application. The prestressing bars were longer than the specimen. During
prestressing, these bars were connected to steel plates using nuts at one end and were con-
nected to the jacking apparatus at the other end. The compressive forces were applied by pull-
ing the prestressing bars from one end while reacting on the concrete. The prestressing forces
were applied by pulling the top and the bottom bars alternately in 2-3 steps to prevent any pre-
mature flexural cracking. After the prestressing forces reached the target value, the nuts were
tightened to maintain the forces and the jacking apparatus was then removed. A special jack-
ing stool was used to help prestressing the bars and tightening the nuts.
The method of prestressing for the beams subjected to tension was innovative. The prestress-
ing bars for the beams subjected to tension were cut slightly shorter than the specimen and the
bonded longitudinal reinforcement was extended from the specimen by 600 mm at both ends
(see Fig 4.7). The bonded reinforcement was connected to steel plates using dywidag nuts at
both ends. At one end of the specimen, the prestressing bars were connected to steel plates
through jacks and steel plugs. At the other end of the specimen, the prestressing bars were
connected to the steel plates through load cells and steel plugs. The tensile forces were applied
by pushing the prestressing bars from one end while reacting on the steel plates. This in turn
pulled the concrete through the bond between the concrete and the bonded reinforcement. The
prestressing bars may buckle under compression. However, the buckling could be restrained
by the narrow space between the prestressing bar and the steel duct. The prestressing forces
were applied by pushing the top and the bottom bars simultaneously. The prestressing forces
were maintained at the target value by a load maintainer throughout the test, allowing constant
forces for any deformation. The vertical bars in the self-balancing system shown in Fig 4.19
were designed to prevent the top and the bottom jacking apparatus from deviating from each
other in the vertical direction.
Both ends of the prestressing bars were machined to provide fine threads for anchorage. The
average yield force for one prestressing bar was 493 kN. Considering a 10% reduction in the
130
bar area due to the fine threading, the yield force was reduced to 444 kN. The maximum force
applied to each prestressing bar during the tests was designed to be 400 kN in tension for
specimens subjected to axial compression. The increase of the force in the prestressing bars
due to bending of specimens during testing was measured and found to be very small. There-
fore, during the test, the prestressing bars would remain elastic.
The transverse loads, P
E
and P
w
(Fig 4.1) were introduced into the beams from the spherical-
head of the Baldwin machine through a spreader beam, such that a certain ratio of the load
applied at the east end of the beam to that applied at the west end of the beam (P
E
/P
W
=1.8)
was achieved. Since the shear outside of the test region was higher than that within the test
region, solid concrete blocks and an extra amount of stirrups were provided at both ends of the
beams to ensure the proper transfer of prestressing forces to the test region and to prevent the
premature failures out of the test region. The complete test setups are shown from Fig 4.22 to
Fig 4.25.
131
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
1
8

D
e
t
a
i
l
s

o
n

P
r
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
n
g

S
e
t
u
p
132
Figure 4.19 More Details on Setup
Figure 4.20 Prestressing Setup (Beams in Compression)
133
Figure 4.21 Prestressing Setup (Beams in Tension)
134
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
2
2

S
e
t
u
p

f
o
r

B
e
a
m
s

i
n

C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
135
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
2
3

S
e
t
u
p

f
o
r

B
e
a
m
s

i
n

T
e
n
s
i
o
n
136
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
2
4

E
n
d
v
i
e
w

o
f

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

S
e
t
u
p
137
Figure 4.25 Loading Setup
138
4.4 Instrumentation
4.4.1 Pressure Gauge and Dial Gauge
An electronic pressure gauge and a dial gauge were attached to the manual pump to measure
the pressure output of the pump for prestressing. The readings from both gauges were used to
ensure that the correct amounts of axial forces were introduced into the beams.
4.4.2 Load Cells
Load cells were used in the tests for two purposes: to measure the applied axial forces and to
measure the applied transverse loads. Friction losses, relaxation of the rebars and creep of the
concrete made the actual axial force in the specimen differ slightly from the initial jacking
force. Also, the readings from the pressure gauge and the dial gauge could not provide the pre-
cise information. Therefore, four 300-kN load cells with holes were used in the opposite end
of the prestressing end to measure the axial force transferred through the specimen after
losses. Two 500-kN load cells were also attached to the spreader beam at the loading points to
confirm that the correct load ratio was maintained during the test.
4.4.3 LVDTs
Nine vertical LVDTs with a measurement range were used at the bottom of the speci-
mens to continuously monitor the deflected shape of the beams (CANTI, LVDTVNW, LVDT-
VSW, LVDT-VWW, LVDT-VW, LVDT-VE, LVDT-VEE, LVDTVNE and LVDTVSE in Fig
4.26). They were placed at a certain distance apart along the span of the beam, and were cen-
tered at the mid-width of the beam. Two smaller vertical LVDTs with a measurement
range were used to measure the rotation of the beam over the west support (ROT
W
and ROT
E
in Fig 4.26). They were 400 mm apart and were placed at two opposite sides of the support.
The rotation was calculated using Eq. (4-1). Magnetic bases were used to mount the afore-
mentioned LVDTs. Six LVDTs with a measurement range were installed to measure
the shear deformation of the beams (TW-BE-W, TE-BW-W, TW-BE-M, TE-BW-M, TW-BE-
E and TE-BW-E in Fig 4.26). They were divided into three sets and each set had two LVDTs
placed diagonally crossing each other at . The configuration of all LVDTs is illustrated in
Fig 4.26. For specimens subjected to tension, two additional LVDTs with a measure-
25mm
5mm
15mm
90
15mm
139
ment range were installed on the top surface and the bottom surface of the beam at mid span to
measure the axial deformation of the beam (LVDT-TOP and LVDT-BOT in Fig 4.26). Shrink-
age tubes and aluminum rods were used to enable the LVDTs to cover larger gauge lengths.
These LVDTs were mounted in a similar way as the LVDTs used in the panel tests.
(rad) (4-1)
4.4.4 Clinometer
A clinometer is an instrument used to measure the inclination of any object it is attached to.
The clinometer was mounted right above the west support (point B in Fig 4.1) to measure the
rotation over the support in addition to the LVDT measurement (see Fig 4.26).
ROTATION
ROT
W
ROT
E
400
----------------------------------- =
140
4.4.5 Electronic Zurich Gauges
Zurich targets centered at the mid-height of the web were used to measure the local strains of
the web at every load stage. The dimensions of the grids depended on the height of the web.
Grids of 141 mm by 141 mm were used in specimen LB1-LB5. Grids of 200 mm by 200 mm
were used in the other specimens. Another set of Zurich targets, which were 300 mm apart
horizontally, were used to measure the local longitudinal strains in the flanges at the same
level of the longitudinal reinforcement. The configuration of the Zurich targets is shown in
Fig 4.27.
Figure 4.26 Arrangement of LVDTs and Clinometer
141
4.4.6 Strain Gauges
Since the amount of longitudinal reinforcement varied, the number of the strain gauges used
for longitudinal reinforcement also varied. A total of 7 strain gauges were used in every longi-
tudinal bar which was instrumented with strain gauges. The distribution of the strain gauges,
top to bottom, was always symmetric about the web. In other words, if the strain gauges in the
top flange were located in the north side of the web, the strain gauges in the bottom flange
would be located in the south side of the web. The strain gauges were distributed uniformly
along the longitudinal rebars and were named according to their locations. For example, in
TI5, T indicated that this strain gauge was located in the top flange, I indicated that this
strain gauge was attached to the inside bar of the multiple bars, and 5 represented the
sequence counted from the west. Similarly, in BO6, B indicated bottom flange, O indi-
cated outside, and 6 was the sequence from the west.
Strain gauges were only provided in the stirrups located within the test region. Strain gauges
were used in every second stirrup for all specimens except LB10. LB10 had more stirrups than
the other specimens. However, the number of the strain gauges and the locations of the strain
gauges were the same as in LB2 - LB9. These gauges were denoted as S and were numbered
according to their sequence counted from the west. The detailed layouts of the strain gauges
for all specimens are shown from Fig 4.28 to Fig 4.30.
Figure 4.27 Arrangement of Zurich Targets
142
Figure 4.28 Strain Gauge Layout (LB1-LB3)
143
144
4.5 Test Arrangement and Procedure
The readings of the LVDTs, the clinometer, the strain gauges and the load cells were zeroed
before the test started. Two sets of Zurich readings were taken to obtain the undeformed state
of the beams. The prestressing forces were usually applied one day before or on the same day
145
of the test and were maintained by tightening the high-strength nuts. The prestressing forces
were monitored throughout the test using the load-cells. The transverse loads were applied
gradually by the Baldwin machine. A total of 1-9 load stages were taken for each specimen.
The first load stage was taken when the specimen first cracked, either due to flexure or shear.
Then the shear force was applied at an increment of 10 to 30 kN until failure occurred,
depending on the ultimate strength of individual beam. After the target of each load stage was
reached, the loads were lowered by about 10% to 15% to avoid the excessive creep under the
sustained load and for safety. At each load stage, the cracks on both sides of the beam were
marked, measured and photographed and Zurich readings were also taken. The deflection of
the beam, the strain of the reinforcement and the clinometer readings were continuously
recorded by the data acquisition system. The plot of LVDT-VE vs. the total load applied by the
Baldwin machine was monitored throughout the test to ensure the proper progressing of the
test. After the failure of the beam, the instrumentation was removed and more photos were
taken. The detailed load stage information can be found in Table 4.7.
4.6 Experimental Observation
The specimens tested were subjected to different combinations of axial force and shear force.
For all beams, the axial loads were applied before any transverse load was introduced and
were maintained through the duration of the test. Based on the readings of the load cells, the
axial forces applied were found to be successfully transferred from one end of the specimen to
Table 4.7 Shear Forces for Load Stages (kN)
Load Stage #1 88.1 128.7 81.3 17.65 12.63 148.1 111.2 72.7 24.5 138.1 143.7
Load Stage #2 95.7 143.2 92.9 33.8 29.5 153.2 116.3 80.1 34.4 153.7 -
Load Stage #3 110.3 155.9 102.6 50.8 46.3 - 122.3 92.5 45.5 168.2 -
Load Stage #4 118.1 165.2 110.8 62.0 60.5 - 128.0 104.0 57.1 182.5 -
Load Stage #5 132.4 172.0 117.5 85.2 75.0 - - 115.3 68.7 197.5 -
Load Stage #6 - - 124.6 119.1 - - - 127.0 79.6 212 -
Load Stage #7 - - 131.5 - - - - - 91.0 - -
Load Stage #8 - - 138.8 - - - - - 100.0 - -
Load Stage #9 - - 146.0 - - - - - - - -
Failure 133.6 166.2 149.0 95.7 79.6 155.8 134.3 137.8 99.5 215 142.8
146
the other end. The measured axial loads are listed in Table 4.8. The variation of the axial loads
during the test was very small for most of the specimens, except for LB3 and LB7 (see Table
4.8). The average axial loads were listed for all specimens in Table 4.9, except for LB3 and
LB7, for which two values were listed. The left value was the axial load corresponding to
inclined cracking and the other value was the axial load corresponding to failure. The trans-
verse loads were then applied and increased gradually until failure. The actual values of P
E
and P
W
(Fig 4.1) were calculated from the readings of the load cells attached to the spreader
beam. The ratio of P
E
/P
W
was fairly constant for each test and varied between different
tests,with a variation between 1.74 and 1.86.
The cracking loads and the failure loads for all beams are listed in Table 4.9. Photos presented
in Fig 4.31 and Fig 4.32 show the failure of each specimen. More detailed description of the
experimental observations for each beam can be found in the following sections and in
Appendix B.
Table 4.8 Axial Forces for Specimens (kN)
N
min
- -780 -395 248 496 -793 -500 -246 0 -810 -809
N
max
- -799 -475 253 504 -808 -537 -319 0 -853 -811
N
min
/N
max
- 0.98 0.83 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.93 0.77 - 0.95 1.00
N
avg
* -804 -786 -426 252 499 -797 -512 -271 0 -822 -809
*) The axial forces were averaged only during the time that the beams were
loaded.
147
Table 4.9 Summary of Test Results for Beams
Specimens
N
(kN)
*
(MPa)
V
cr-exp
(kN)
v
cr-exp
(MPa)
V
u-exp
(kN)
v
u-exp
(MPa)
LB1 -804 -9.39 88.1 2.79 133.6 4.24
LB2 -786 -8.99 155.9 4.95 172 5.46
LB3
-408/-475
**
-4.69/-5.46
**
102.6 3.30 149 4.79
LB4 252 2.70 62 1.68 119.1 3.23
LB5 499 5.91 46.3 1.61 79.6 2.77
LB6 -797 -10.88 148.1 4.77 155.8 5.01
LB8 -512 -7.03 111.2 3.59 134.3 4.34
LB7
-255/-319
**
-3.47/-4.34
**
80.1 2.58 137.8 4.42
LB9 0 - 45.5 1.47 100 3.23
LB10 -822 -11.16 138.1 4.38 215 6.83
LB11 -809 -10.97 143.7 4.56 142.8 4.53
*)
) corresponds to inclined web-shear cracking.
) and
**
)The left value was the axial load corresponding to inclined cracking and the
other value was the axial load corresponding to failure.
f
pc
f
pc
N A
g
=
V
cr-exp
v
cr-exp
V
cr-exp
b
w
d
v
---------------- = v
u-exp
V
u-exp
b
w
d
v
-------------- =
148
Figure 4.31 Failure of Beams (Thick Flange)
149
Figure 4.32 Failure of Beams (Thin Flange)
150
Multiple cracks developed before failure for all specimens with stirrups. The crack patterns of
the specimens were related to the axial forces applied and the amounts of transverse reinforce-
ment. All the inclined cracks were web-shear cracks in specimen LB1, LB2, LB6, and LB11.
These were beams reinforced with double the minimum amount of stirrups specified by the
CSA code and were subjected to very high compression (N =-800 kN). The web-shear cracks
usually initiated at about a distance of d
v
from one end of the test region, and then spread
towards the mid span of the specimens. Both web-shear cracks and flexure-shear cracks
developed in specimen LB10, which were reinforced with four times the minimum amount of
stirrups specified by the CSA code and were subjected to very high compression (N =-800
kN). From the comparison of LB11, LB6 and LB10, the distribution of the cracks before fail-
ure was improved as the amount of stirrups was increased. For the specimens subjected to
moderate to no compression, such as LB3, LB7, LB8, LB9 (N =-500, -400, -250, 0 kN
respectively), flexural cracks first occurred at fairly low shear force in the regions with high
moment. These flexural cracks later developed into flexure-shear cracks and new web-shear
cracks then occurred. At failure, one web-shear crack developed into the critical shear crack.
For the specimens subjected to tension, such as LB4 and LB5, several vertical cracks across
the full height of the specimens first developed under the direct tension. More flexural and
flexure-shear cracks then appeared after the transverse loads were applied, followed by the
occurrence of web-shear cracks as the transverse loads further increased. The inclined cracks
in the specimens were intersected by the vertical cracks and were usually not continuous from
the top of the specimens to the bottom of the specimens. These discontinuous vertical cracks
seemed to be beneficial for the shear capacity, since they delayed the formation of continuous
critical shear cracks. Finally a continuous inclined crack developed as the critical shear crack.
The width of the critical cracks in all specimens was generally greater than 1 mm; in some
beams, it was greater than 3 mm.
All specimens failed abruptly. The shear failures usually occurred very quickly. For example,
the failure of LB6 shown in Fig 4.33 happened within 1 second due to opening of one major
shear crack followed by buckling of the flanges. For most specimens, except for LB11, the
failure usually occurred due to the rupture of consecutive stirrups and sliding along a major
inclined web-shear crack. LB11 failed with an unusual crack pattern with most of the web
151
remaining uncracked. Beams with thick flanges were holding better in the transverse direction
than beams with thin flanges. The combination of thin flange and high compressive stress led
to the flange buckling in LB6 and LB10 due to the sudden release of compressive strain
energy after the web failed.
Specimen LB1, LB2 and LB6 were tested under a similar amount of axial load, but had differ-
ent amounts of longitudinal reinforcement and flange thicknesses. Specimen LB1 failed at a
relatively low shear due to unknown reasons. The shear strength of LB6 (V
u
=155.8 kN) was
about 10% lower than that of LB2 (V
u
=172 kN) (see Table 4.9). Specimen LB3 and LB8
were also tested under a similar amount of axial load, but had different amounts of longitudi-
nal reinforcement and flange thicknesses. The shear strength of LB8 (V
u
=134.3 kN) was
about 10% lower than that of LB3 (V
u
=149 kN) (see Table 4.9). Since the influence of the
amounts of longitudinal reinforcement on the shear strength was small for beams subjected to
axial compression, the aforementioned differences in the shear strength were most likely due
to the differences in the flange thickness. When the beams were subjected to combined com-
pression and shear, they tended to expand in the transverse direction. The expansion was
restrained by the flanges. This will be called the clamping effect. Since a thicker flange will
provide more restraint than a thinner flange, beams having thinner flanges tended to have
slightly lower strength than beams having thicker flanges.
It was mentioned in Section 4.2.1 that the shrinkage of SCC for LB1 was higher than that of
normal concrete, whereas the shrinkage of SCC for the other beams was within a normal
range. Shrinkage cracks were only found in specimen LB1, LB7 and LB8. The width of these
Figure 4.33 Failure of LB6
t =-0.04 sec t =0 sec t =0.03 sec
152
shrinkage cracks was between 0.05 mm and 0.15 mm. The shrinkage cracks in LB1 were
mostly vertical. They were closed after the axial compression was applied. These cracks
might have caused the reduction of the inclined cracking load of LB1, which was much lower
than that of the other beams under the same amount of axial load and was also lower than the
value calculated using Eq. (4-3). The cracks did not seem to influence the crack pattern of
LB1. LB1 failed along a critical inclined crack independent of the shrinkage cracks. The
shrinkage cracks in LB7 and LB8 were much less than those in LB1 and were mostly inclined.
They were partially closed after the axial compression was applied. The shrinkage cracks did
not seem to affect either the inclined cracking load nor the crack patterns of LB7 and LB8.
LB1 - The average axial compression for LB1 was 804 kN. LB1 was the pilot specimen which
used different formwork than the other beams (wooden formwork instead of styrofoam form-
work), was reinforced with a higher amount of longitudinal reinforcement and was cast with
an SCC that happened to have high shrinkage. The shrinkage of the concrete was restrained by
the longitudinal reinforcement and the wooden formwork, resulting in seven vertical shrink-
age cracks in LB1 (more shrinkage cracks than any other beam), with two in Region 1 (see
Fig 4.1). In addition, the wooden formwork needed to be destroyed for disassembly, and this
may have caused unseen damage to the interface between the flange and the web. The rough-
ness between the junction of the flange and the web made such damage hard to discover.
However, such damage may reduce the clamping of the flange to the web. Due to the reasons
mentioned above, LB1 behaved differently compared to the other beams. The first inclined
crack appeared at a shear force of 88.1 kN. The inclination of the first crack was about
(all angles were measured with respect to the horizontal direction). The width of the first crack
was approximately 0.25 mm. As the loads increased, another crack parallel to the first crack
developed. As the loads further increased, no other major crack developed. Only minor cracks
developed at the joint between the flange and the web. The deformations were concentrated in
the widening of the two major shear cracks. LB1 failed at a shear force of 133.6 kN due to the
crack extending first horizontally along the junction of the flange and the web and then
towards both ends of the test region. The maximum width of the inclined cracks was 2.0 mm
before failure and the inclination of the critical shear crack was . The location of the fail-
ure shear crack was approximately at mid-span. All the inclined cracks were web-shear
29
25
153
cracks. The crack diagrams for selected load stages are shown in Fig 4.34 with crack width
indicated in millimeters.
LB2 - The average axial compression for LB2 was 786 kN. The first crack observed in LB2
was a flexural crack at the west support of the specimen (point B in Fig 4.1). At a later load
stage, another flexural crack developed under the east loading point (point C in Fig 4.1). The
crack width of the flexural cracks was relatively small, reaching 0.2 mm upon failure. When
the shear force reached 155.9 kN, multiple inclined cracks appeared simultaneously. The
inclination of the cracks was between and . The width of these cracks was about 0.75
mm. As the loads further increased, no new crack developed. The major shear crack continued
to widen to about 3.5 mm before failure. It was observed that the specimen continued take
additional load when the shear cracks were very wide (wider than 2.0 mm), and this suggested
that either the clamping due to the thick flanges or some mechanism formed between the top
and the bottom flanges which enhanced the load-carrying capacity of the beam. Finally, LB2
reached a maximum shear force of 172 kN and failed at a shear force about 166.2 kN due to
rupture of consecutive stirrups. The inclination of the critical crack was . All the inclined
Figure 4.34 Crack Diagrams for Selected Load Stages (LB1)
16 35
19
154
cracks were web-shear cracks. The crack diagrams for selected load stages are shown in Fig
4.35.
LB3 - The average axial compression for LB3 was 426 kN. The applied maximum axial force
was about 83% of the applied minimum axial force (see Table 4.8). Hence, the axial force
corresponding to inclined shear cracking (-408 kN) and corresponding to shear failure (-475
kN) are listed separately in Table 4.9. Flexural cracks appeared at the west support at a shear
force of 81.3 kN. As the loads increased, more flexural cracks appeared both at the west sup-
port and under the east loading point. Some of the early flexural cracks developed into flex-
ure-shear cracks at later load stages. The first set of shear cracks appeared at a shear force of
102.6 kN. These cracks were all web-shear cracks with an inclination between and ,
and a width of 0.3 mm. The flexure-shear cracks were much steeper and narrower than the
web-shear cracks. Many minor inclined cracks developed, which originated from the joint
between the flange and the web. They extended only to the mid-depth of web. It was also
observed in LB3 that the specimen continued to take additional load when the shear cracks
were very wide (wider than 2.0 mm). Finally, the specimen failed at a shear force of 149 kN
due to rupture of the stirrups and the major web-shear crack thrusting through the flanges at
24 35
155
both ends of the crack. The maximum crack width was about 2.9 mm before failure and the
inclination of the failure shear crack was . The crack diagrams for selected load stages are
shown in Fig 4.36.
LB4 - The average axial tension for LB4 was 252 kN. Multiple vertical cracks developed
when only the axial load was applied. The first vertical crack appeared at N =146.8 kN. The
average spacing between the vertical cracks within the web was about 305 mm and the aver-
age crack width was about 0.25 mm at N =252 kN. Vertical cracks spaced more closely
developed within the flanges, since the flanges had more longitudinal reinforcement to control
the spacing of the cracks. When the transverse loads were applied and increased, the existing
vertical cracks continued to widen until inclined cracks occurred. Some of the inclined cracks
extended from the existing vertical cracks. Others developed independently but were inter-
sected by the existing vertical cracks. When the inclined cracks were intersected by the verti-
cal cracks, they were not continuous from the top of the specimen to the bottom of the
specimen. Finally, one continuous inclined crack developed and the stirrups at the inclined
crack ruptured. The specimen failed at a shear force of 119.1 kN. The maximum crack width
22
156
of the inclined cracks was 9.0 mm before failure and the inclination of the failure shear crack
was . The crack diagrams for selected load stages are shown in Fig 4.37.
LB5 - The average axial tension for LB5 was 499 kN. Multiple vertical cracks developed
simultaneously at N =172.8 kN. The average spacing between the vertical cracks within the
web was about 215 mm and the average crack width was about 0.4 mm at N =499 kN. LB5
showed similar crack pattern as that of LB4. Finally, the specimen failed at a shear force of
79.6 kN due to rupture of the stirrups. The maximum crack width was 2.0 mm before failure
and the inclination of the critical shear crack was . The crack diagrams for selected load
stages are shown in Fig 4.38.
32
26
157
LB6 - The average axial compression for LB6 was 797 kN. No flexural nor flexure-shear
cracks appeared in LB6. The first set of web-shear cracks appeared at a shear force of 148.1
kN. The inclination of these cracks was between and . The maximum crack width was
1.0 mm. Accompanying the occurrence of the web-shear cracks, minor cracks at the joint of
the flange and the web also appeared. As the loads increased, no new crack appeared. The
existing inclined cracks continued to widen. The horizontal cracks continued to extend along
the junction of the flange and the web towards the east loading point. Finally, the specimen
failed at a shear force of 155.8 kN due to opening of one major shear crack and buckling of the
top and the bottom flanges. The maximum crack width was 2.5 mm before failure and the
inclination of the failure shear crack was . The crack diagrams for selected load stages are
shown in Fig 4.39.
27 36
25
158
LB8 - The average axial compression for LB8 was 512 kN. Two shrinkage cracks existed
within Region 1 before the test started. Flexural cracks and web-shear cracks appeared simul-
taneously when the shear force reached 111.2 kN. The width of the shear cracks was 0.3 mm,
which was much wider than that of the flexural cracks. The angle of the web-shear cracks was
about . As the loads increased, more web-shear cracks with smaller inclination appeared.
Only one or two flexural cracks developed into flexure-shear cracks at the west support and
under the east loading point. Horizontal cracks also developed at the junction of the flange and
the web. Finally, the specimen failed at a shear force of 134.3 kN due to opening of the major
shear crack and the shear crack thrusting through the flanges. The maximum width of the
shear cracks was 1.0 mm before failure and the inclination of the critical shear crack was .
The crack diagrams for selected load stages are shown in Fig 4.40.
30
25
159
LB7 - The average axial compression for LB7 was 271 kN. The applied maximum axial force
was about 77% of the applied minimum axial force (see Table 4.8). Hence, the axial force
corresponding to inclined shear cracking (-255 kN) and corresponding to shear failure (-319
kN) are listed separately in Table 4.9. Two shrinkage cracks existed within Region 1 before
the test started. The first flexural crack appeared near the west support. More flexural cracks
appeared under the east loading point at higher loads. These flexural cracks developed into
flexure-shear cracks in later load stages. The first web-shear crack appeared at a shear force of
80.1 kN. The inclination of this crack was about and the width of this crack was 0.35 mm.
As the loads increased, more web-shear cracks of lower inclination developed. The width of
the web-shear cracks was larger than that of the flexure-shear cracks. Horizontal cracks at the
junction of the flange and the web were also observed. Finally, the specimen failed at a shear
force of 137.8 kN due to opening of the major web-shear crack and rupture of the stirrups. The
maximum crack width was 1.25 mm before failure and the inclination of the failure shear
crack was . The crack diagrams for selected load stages are shown in Fig 4.41.
35
23
160
LB9 - No axial force was applied for specimen LB9. At early stages of loading, only flexural
cracks and flexure-shear cracks appeared. As the loads increased, web-shear cracks began to
develop. The first web-shear crack appeared at a shear force of 45.5 kN and at an inclination
of . The width of this crack was 0.1 mm. More web-shear cracks developed as the loads
increased. The development of the cracks started at both ends of the test region and spread
towards the mid-span of the specimen. Finally, the specimen reached a maximum shear force
of 100 kN and failed at a shear force of 99.5 kN due to crack opening and thrusting through
the flanges. The maximum web-shear crack width was 1.7 mm before failure and the inclina-
tion of the failure shear crack was . The crack diagrams for selected load stages are shown
in Fig 4.42.
52
44
161
LB10 - The average axial compression for LB10 was 822 kN. LB10 had twice the amount of
stirrups as the previous specimens within Region 1 (see Fig 4.1). Web-shear cracks appeared
before any flexural or flexure-shear cracks at a shear force of 138.1 kN. The maximum width
of the first set of web-shear cracks was 0.15 mm and the average inclination was about .
These cracks originated from the top junction of the flange and the web and developed
towards the bottom junction of the flange and the web. These cracks were almost parallel to
each other. More web-shear cracks of similar angle appeared as the loads increased and some
flexural or flexure-shear cracks with a maximum width of 0.15 mm also appeared. Finally, the
specimen failed at a shear force of 215 kN due to opening of web-shear cracks and buckling of
the top and the bottom flanges. The maximum shear crack width was about 1.3 mm before
failure and the inclination of the failure shear crack was . The crack diagrams for selected
load stages are shown in Fig 4.43.
25
20
162
LB11 - The average axial compression for LB11 was 809 kN. Only web-shear cracks devel-
oped. The first set of web-shear cracks appeared at a shear force of 143.7 kN. The maximum
crack width was 3.0 mm and the inclination was between and . Horizontal cracks at
the junction of the flange and the web were very wide and directly extended to the east load-
ing point when they occurred. Finally, the beam failed at a shear force of 142.8 kN, forming
an unusual crack pattern with most of the web remaining uncracked. The concrete crushed and
spalled in the web near the east loading point. The crack diagram for the only load stage
before failure is shown in Fig 4.44.
16 35
Figure 4.44 Crack Diagram for The Only Load Stage (LB11)
163
4.7 Evaluation of Test Results
4.7.1 Shear Force vs. Tangential Deviation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
50
100
150
200
Deviation (mm)
V
(
k
N
)
LB1 (N=-804 kN)
LB2 (N=-786 kN)
LB3 (N=-475 kN)
LB4 (N=252 kN)
LB5 (N=499 kN)
Figure 4.45 Shear Force vs. Tangential Deviation (Thick Flange)
164
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
50
100
150
200
Deviation (mm)
V
(
k
N
)
LB6 (N=-797 kN)
LB7 (N=-319 kN)
LB8 (N=-512 kN)
LB9 (N=0 kN)
Figure 4.46 Shear Force vs. Tangential Deviation (Thin Flange with The Same Stirrups)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
50
100
150
200
Deviation (mm)
V
(
k
N
)
LB10 (N=-822 kN)
(r
y
f
y
=1.977 MPa)
LB6 (N=-797 kN)
(r
y
f
y
=1.002 MPa)
LB11 (N=-809 kN)
(r
y
f
y
=0 MPa)
Figure 4.47 Shear Force vs. Tangential Deviation (Thin Flange with Different Stirrups)
165
The tangential deviation was defined as the vertical displacement of one end of the test region
from a tangent drawn at the other end of the test region, as shown in Fig 4.1. The tangential
deviation was measured using two methods. One was through the combination of the clinom-
eter and LVDT-VEE. The other was through the combination of ROT
W
, ROT
E
and LVDT-
VEE. It was found that the second method provided very noisy data, probably due to the com-
plex behavior within the disturbed region near the support. Hence, only the results of the first
method will be presented and evaluated. The shear force vs. tangential deviation curves for all
specimens are shown in Fig 4.45, Fig 4.46 and Fig 4.47.
The load-deflection response remained linear until the occurrence of the first shear crack. As
the applied loads increased, the slope of the load-deflection curve continued to decrease until
failure occurred. The initial stiffness of the beams with the same flange thickness in compres-
sion were similar to each other. The beams with thicker flanges were stiffer than the beams
with thinner flanges. The initial stiffness of the beams in tension were much lower than that of
the beams in compression, because the beams under tension were heavily cracked due to the
direct axial tension that was applied before the transverse loads were applied.
As shown in the figures, axial compression enhanced both the cracking strength and the shear
capacity of reinforced concrete beams, while axial tension reduced both the cracking strength
and the shear capacity of reinforced concrete beams. The beams subjected to higher compres-
sion were more brittle than the beams subjected to lower compression. It was also found that
adding more stirrups significantly increased the shear capacity of the specimens, but did not
improve their ductility, as shown in the comparison of LB6 and LB10. The behavior of the
beams tested under tension was very ductile.
4.7.2 Cracking
The inclined cracking load was obtained through visual observation supplemented by listen-
ing to the noise during cracking and observing the sudden increase of the shear strain in the
shear force vs. shear strain curve. The cracking load was greatly affected by the axial force.
The higher the compressive force, the higher the inclined cracking load was, except for the
pilot specimen LB1 with its observed high restrained shrinkage. The higher the tensile force,
166
the lower the inclined cracking load was. For all specimens, failure usually occurred after the
development of multiple cracks.
In this thesis, both the analysis based on first principles and the analysis considering the influ-
ence of the co-existing compressive stress on the cracking strength of the concrete (see Sec-
tion 3.7.2) were carried out to predict the cracking strength. The inclined cracking load
referred to the load corresponding to web-shear cracking and could be calculated using Eq.
(3-1) - Eq. (3-5) by replacing f
x
as f
pc
, where f
pc
could be calculated from Eq. (4-2). The effect
of the steel was again ignored.
(MPa) (4-2)
(MPa) (4-3)
The experimental cracking stresses were always lower than the predicted values (see Table
4.10 and Fig 4.48) perhaps due to the fact that many factors affecting the cracking loads, such
as shrinkage, temperature, damage during demoulding, and unexpected restraint were not con-
sidered in the formula. The analysis considering the influence of the co-existing compressive
stress on the cracking strength of the concrete agreed slightly better with the experimental
results than the analysis based on first principles did. As the loads increased, the inclination of
the cracks slightly reoriented. The angle of the critical crack was usually flatter than that of the
earlier developed cracks and also flatter than the predicted value. The measured crack angles
generally matched the predicted values (see Table 4.10). The inclined cracking load of the
beams subjected to tension was close to the inclined cracking load of the beams subjected to
no axial load. This was likely because the tension between the cracks was similar for the
beams subjected axial tension and the beams subjected no axial load. All tension was carried
in the bars at the cracks.
f
pc
N A
g
=
v
cr-exp
V
cr-exp
b
w
d
v
--------------- =
167
Another method to predict the inclined cracking load was to calculate the shear stresses and
the axial stresses at the junction of the flange and the web on the flexural tension side of the
beams with a consideration of the non-uniform distribution of the stresses over the height of
the cross-section. The shear stresses were calculated using Eq. (4-4). The axial stresses were
calculated using Eq. (4-5). The section at a distance d
v
from the edge of the west support was
considered. The theoretical predictions of the cracking strength and the inclination were cal-
Table 4.10 Web-Shear Cracking Loads and Crack Inclinations at Neutral Axis
Specimen
N
(kN)
(kN)
V
cr-exp
(MPa)
v
cr-exp
Eq. (4-3)
(MPa)
v
cr
Eq. (3-1)
(MPa)
v
cr-sec
(MPa) (deg)
Eq. (3-2)
(deg)
LB1 -804 -9.39 88.1 2.79 5.67 0.49 5.00 0.56 24-26 25.2
LB2 -786 -8.99 155.9 4.95 5.52 0.90 4.91 1.01 16-34 25.4
LB3 -408 -4.69 102.6 3.30 4.38 0.75 4.05 0.82 10-35 30.9
LB4 252 2.70 62 1.68 N/A N/A N/A N/A 26-48 N/A
LB5 499 5.91 46.3 1.61 N/A N/A N/A N/A 27-50 N/A
LB6 -797 -10.88 148.1 4.77 5.96 0.80 5.21 0.91 21-35 23.8
LB8 -512 -7.03 111.2 3.59 5.04 0.71 4.56 0.78 25-34 27.6
LB7 -255 -3.47 80.1 2.58 4.01 0.64 3.74 0.69 23-38 33.3
LB9 0 0 45.5 1.47 2.63 0.56 2.52 0.58 31-65 45
LB10 -822 -11.16 138.1 4.38 5.99 0.73 5.23 0.84 21-29 23.5
LB11 -809 -10.97 143.7 4.56 5.95 0.77 3.15 0.88 21-35 23.7
C. o. V: 18% C. o. V: 19%
f
pc
v
cr-exp
Eq.(3-1)
--------------------
v
cr-exp
v
cr-sec
---------------

exp
cr
-15 -10 -5 0 5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
f
pc
(MPa)
q
(
d
e
g
)
LB1
LB2
LB3
LB6 LB8
LB7
LB9
LB10
LB11
Eq(3-2)
-15 -10 -5 0 5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
f
pc
(MPa)
v
c
r
(
M
P
a
)
LB1
LB2
LB3
LB6
LB8
LB7
LB9
LB10
LB11
f
cr
=0.33 f
c
'
f
cr
=0.33 f
c
' (1- f
2
/f
c
')
EXP
Figure 4.48 Inclined Cracking Strength and Crack Inclination at Neutral Axis
168
culated using Eq. (3-1) - Eq. (3-5) and listed in Table 4.11. Both the analysis based on first
principles and the analysis considering the influence of the co-existing compressive stress on
the cracking strength of the concrete were carried out. It was found that this method provided
better strength predictions for most specimens as indicated in Fig 4.49. However, the pre-
dicted crack inclinations using this method were not as accurate as the predictions using the
previous method, since was the inclination of the cracks extending a certain length in the
web of the beams instead of the very localized value at the junction of the flange and the web.
Note that the cracking strength of LB1 was unusually low compared to the prediction, as it
was the only beam with the unusually high amount of shrinkage.
(4-4)
(4-5)
( ) (4-6)
(4-7)
The values of , and can be found in Table 4.2.
exp
v
cr-exp
V
cr-exp
Q
flange
I
g
b
w
-------------------------------- =
f
pc
N
A
g
------
M
cr-exp
I
g
----------------y
t
+ =
M
cr-exp
V
cr-exp
1.2 d
v
0.075 ( ) = kN m
y
t
y
0-top
h
ftop
=
Q
flange
y
0-top
h
ftop
169
4.7.3 Deflection
Fig 4.50 and Fig 4.51 show the deflection obtained from the vertical LVDTs along the span of
the specimens for different load stages.
The deflected shapes of all specimens were very much like the elastic deflected shape (see Fig
4.52). The maximum deflection for most specimens first occurred under the east loading
Table 4.11 Web-Shear Cracking Loads and Crack Inclinations at Flange-Web Junction
Specimen
N
(kN)
V
cr-exp
(kN)
(MPa)
Eq. (4-4)
(MPa)
v
cr
Eq. (3-1)
(MPa)
v
cr-sec
(MPa) (deg)
Eq. (3-2)
(deg)
LB1 -804 88.1 -5.80 2.59 4.75 0.54 4.32 0.60 24-26 29.3
LB2 -786 155.9 -3.04 4.64 3.85 1.20 3.61 1.28 16-34 34.3
LB3 -408 102.6 -0.56 3.05 2.89 1.05 2.77 1.10 10-35 42.3
LB4 252 62 5.31 1.48 N/A N/A N/A N/A 26-48 N/A
LB5 499 46.3 7.88 1.48 N/A N/A N/A N/A 27-50 N/A
LB6 -797 148.1 -2.58 3.81 3.70 1.03 3.48 1.09 21-35 35.4
LB8 -512 111.2 -0.93 2.92 3.06 0.95 2.92 1.00 25-34 40.7
LB7 -255 80.1 1.01 2.06 2.06 1.00 1.99 1.03 23-38 51.9
LB9 0 45.5 2.54 1.19 0.49 2.44 0.47 2.51 31-65 79.5
LB10 -822 138.1 -3.90 3.62 4.12 0.88 3.85 0.94 21-29 32.3
LB11 -809 143.7 -3.53 3.80 4.00 0.95 3.75 1.01 21-35 33.1
C. o. V: 47% C. o. V: 45%
f
pc
v
cr-exp
v
cr-exp
Eq.(3-1)
--------------------
v
cr-exp
v
cr-sec
---------------

exp
cr
-10 -5 0 5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
f
pc
* (MPa)
q
(
d
e
g
)
LB1
LB2
LB3
LB6
LB8
LB7
LB9
LB10
LB11
Eq(3-2)
-10 -5 0 5
0
1
2
3
4
5
f
pc
* (MPa)
v
c
r
*
(
M
P
a
)
LB1
LB2
LB3
LB6
LB8
LB7
LB9
LB10
LB11
f
cr
=0.33 f
c
'
f
cr
=0.33 f
c
' (1- f
2
/f
c
')
EXP
Figure 4.49 Inclined Cracking Strength and Crack Inclination at Flange-Web Junction
170
point. As the loads increased, the maximum deflected point shifted towards the mid span of
the beams. For all specimens except LB1, the deflection of the CANTI was of similar amount
as the deflection of the mid span, whereas the deflection of the CANTI for LB1 was much
smaller compared to that of the mid-span.
-2160 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 2160
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
LB1 (N=-804 kN)
Distance From Mid-Span (mm)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
1*
2
3
4
5
-2160 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 2160
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
LB2 (N=-786 kN)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
-2160 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 2160
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
LB3 (N=-475 kN)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
-2160 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 2160
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
LB4 (N=252 kN)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
-2160 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 2160
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
LB5 (N=499 kN)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
Figure 4.50 Deflection of Beams (LB1-LB5)
*) Different levels of loads. For detailed load stage information, refer to Table 4.7.
171
-2160 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 2160
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
LB6 (N=-797 kN)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
1*
2
-2160 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 2160
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
LB7 (N=-319 kN)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
-2160 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 2160
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
LB8 (N=-512 kN)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
-2160 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 2160
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
LB9 (N=0 kN)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
-2160 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 2160
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
LB10 (N=-822 kN)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
-2160 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 2160
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
LB11 (N=-809 kN)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
Figure 4.51 Deflection of Beams (LB6-LB11)
Figure 4.52 Elastic Deflected Shape
172
4.7.4 Shear Force vs. Shear Strain
The plots shown in Fig 4.53 and Fig 4.54 were obtained from the diagonal LVDTs readings
which included the flange deformation. It can be seen from the shear force vs. shear strain
plots that the beams subjected to higher compression were less ductile than those subjected to
lower compression. The data measured from the west, the middle and the east set of diagonal
LVDTs were very close to each other for most specimens, except for LB6. The shear force vs.
shear strain relationship measured in the west side of LB6 had a lower stiffness than those
measured in the other two locations.
173
-2000 0 2000 4000 6000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
LB1 (N = -804 kN)
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
Shear-W
Shear-M
Shear-E
-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
50
100
150
200
LB2 (N = -786 kN)
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
Shear-W
Shear-M
Shear-E
-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
50
100
150
LB3 (N = -475 kN)
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
Shear-W
Shear-M
Shear-E
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
LB4 (N = 252 kN)
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
Shear-W
Shear-M
Shear-E
-5000 0 5000 10000 15000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
LB5 (N = 499 kN)
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
Shear-W
Shear-M
Shear-E
Figure 4.53 Shear Force vs. Shear Strain (Thick Flange)
174
4.7.5 Shear Force vs. Average Longitudinal Strain
The plots shown in Fig 4.55 were obtained from the LVDTs (LVDT-TOP & LVDT-BOT)
installed on the bop and the bottom surfaces of the beams tested under tension. Note that the
other specimens did not include this instrumentation. It can be seen that there was a sudden
-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
LB6 (N = -797 kN)
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
Shear-W
Shear-M
Shear-E
-5000 0 5000 10000 15000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
LB8 (N = -512 kN)
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
Shear-W
Shear-M
Shear-E
-5000 0 5000 10000 15000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
LB7 (N = -319 kN)
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
Shear-W
Shear-M
Shear-E
-5000 0 5000 10000 15000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
LB9 (N = 0 kN)
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
Shear-W
Shear-M
Shear-E
-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
0
50
100
150
200
250
LB10 (N = -822 kN)
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
Shear-W
Shear-M
Shear-E
-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0
50
100
150
LB11 (N = -809 kN)
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
Shear-W
Shear-M
Shear-E
Figure 4.54 Shear Force vs. Shear Strain (Thin Flange)
175
increase in the average longitudinal strain at the occurrence of significant web-shear cracks,
around V =60 kN for LB4 and about V =45 kN for LB5. After the occurrence of the web-
shear cracks, the average longitudinal strain kept increasing as the shear force increased.
The initial average longitudinal strain was about 700 for LB4 and 1700 for LB5. The
gauge lengths of LVDT-TOP & LVDT-BOT were both 1000 mm. The expression,
, yielded an elongation of 0.7 mm for LB4 and 1.7 mm for LB5. The total
crack width measured within the gauge length was about 0.53 mm for LB4 and about 1.35
mm for LB5, which agreed well with what was calculated from the LVDTs readings.
The maximum average longitudinal strain was about 2200 for LB4 and about 3500 for
LB5, neither of which exceeded the yield strain of the dywidag bars (5130 ). This indicated
that the longitudinal reinforcement did not yield upon failure. Also, the formulation in the
CSA code, , yielded an inclination of for LB4 and for LB5,
which agreed well with the angle measured from the experiments (see Table 4.10).
4.7.6 Strain Measured by Strain Gauges
4.7.6.1 Strains in Longitudinal Reinforcement
Fig 4.56 through Fig 4.60 show the variation of the strains measured by the strain gauges in
the longitudinal reinforcement for different load stages. The strain gauge data for LB8-BI,

x
gauge length

29 7000
x
+ = 44.4 53.5
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
LB4 (N = 252 kN)
e
x
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
Axial-Top
Axial-Bot
Average
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
LB5 (N = 499 kN)
e
x
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
Axial-Top
Axial-Bot
Average
Figure 4.55 Shear Force vs. Average Longitudinal Strain
176
LB8-BO and LB9-BO were abnormal, possibly due to the damage to the strain gauges during
casting, and will not be discussed.
When only the axial force was applied, the strains were fairly constant in the longitudinal
direction. The strain gauges at both ends of the longitudinal reinforcement were located in the
region with a rectangular cross-section, so the measured strains at those locations were
smaller than the other strains. The strains of the longitudinal reinforcement in the bop and the
bottom flanges were similar. For specimens subjected to compression, the strains measured
were close to the values calculated using the elastic theory, except for LB1 (see Table 4.12).
As the transverse loads were introduced and increased, the strains started to increase depend-
ing on the location of the strain gauges and whether the strain gauges were crossed by cracks.
The bending moment diagram is shown in Fig 4.1. The maximum negative moment was at
1200 mm west of the mid-span (Section B in Fig 4.1). The maximum positive moment was at
1200 mm east of the mid-span (Section C om Fig 4.1). Hence the maximum tensile strain usu-
ally occurred at the top of section B and at the bottom of section C. The maximum compres-
sive strain usually occurred at the bottom of section B and at the top of section C.
For all specimens, the longitudinal reinforcement remained elastic. All longitudinal reinforce-
ment in LB1 remained in compression. For the other beams, tensile strains on the flexural ten-
sion side of the beam were observed. The basic shape of all curves followed the shape of the
bending moment diagram. Debonding of the longitudinal reinforcement near the inflection
point was observed. Debonding was more severe in the beams subjected to lower axial com-
pression.
Table 4.12 Longitudinal Strains
EXP ( ) -352 -222 -123 N/A N/A -296 -218 -105 -3 -282 -286
Elastic ( ) -241 -255 -130 N/A N/A -294 -190 -91 0 -304 -299
1.46 0.87 0.95 N/A N/A 1.01 1.14 1.16 1.00 0.93 0.96
EXP
Elastic
------------------
177
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
LB1 (N=-804 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
I
( m
e
)
1*
0
4
3
2
5
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
LB1 (N=-804 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
I
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
LB2 (N=-786 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
I
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
LB2 (N=-786 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
I
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
LB3 (N=-475 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
I
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
LB3 (N=-475 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
I
( m
e
)
Figure 4.56 Longitudinal Strain (LB1-LB3)
178
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
LB4 (N=252 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
I
( m
e
)
0
1*
2
3
4
5
6
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
LB4 (N=252 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
I
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
LB4 (N=252 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
O
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
LB4 (N=252 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
O
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
LB5 (N=499 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
I
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
LB5 (N=499 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
I
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
LB5 (N=499 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
O
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
LB5 (N=499 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
O
( m
e
)
Figure 4.57 Longitudinal Strain (LB4-LB5)
179
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
LB6 (N=-797 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
I
( m
e
)
0
1*
2
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
LB6 (N=-797 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
I
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
LB6 (N=-797 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
O
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
LB6 (N=-797 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
O
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
LB8 (N=-512 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
I
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
x 10
4 LB8 (N=-512 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
I
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
LB8 (N=-512 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
O
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
x 10
4 LB8 (N=-512 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
O
( m
e
)
Figure 4.58 Longitudinal Strain (LB6, LB8)
180
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
LB7 (N=-319 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
I
( m
e
)
0
6
5
4
3
2
1*
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-500
0
500
1000
1500
LB7 (N=-319 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
I
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
LB7 (N=-319 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
O
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-500
0
500
1000
1500
LB7 (N=-319 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
O
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
LB9 (N=0 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
I
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
LB9 (N=0 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
O
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
LB9 (N=0 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
I
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
x 10
4 LB9 (N=0 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
O
( m
e
)
181
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
LB10 (N=-822 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
I
( m
e
)
1*
6
5
4
3
2
0
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
LB10 (N=-822 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
I
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
LB10 (N=-822 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
O
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
LB10 (N=-822 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
O
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
LB11 (N=-809 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
I
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
LB11 (N=-809 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
T
O
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
LB11 (N=-809 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
I
( m
e
)
-1680 -1200 -600 0 600 1200 1680
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
LB11 (N=-809 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
B
O
( m
e
)
182
4.7.6.2 Strains in Transverse Reinforcement
Fig 4.61 and Fig 4.62 show the variation of the strains measured by the strain gauges in the
transverse reinforcement for different load stages. When only axial force was applied, strains
close to zero were recorded. This indicated that the transverse expansion or contraction caused
by the axial force was small. The strain gauge readings indicated that the stirrups crossed by
the inclined cracks yielded and ruptured upon failure. The maximum transverse strain usually
occurred within 0 to 700 mm from the mid-span, except in LB11. The location of the maxi-
mum transverse strain corresponded to the location of the web-shear crack with the maximum
width. The location of the maximum shear strain, which was 700 mm from mid-span, was
about 425 mm from the edge of the support. The value of d
v
was between 420 mm to 426 mm.
Hence, the critical section for shear was usually located at a distance d
v
from the edge of the
support. This agreed with the assumption of the CSA design code. Since LB11 only had stir-
rups within a distance d
v
from the edge of the support, the maximum strain recorded by the
strain gauges for LB11 was located at a distance of 1050 mm from mid-span, which was
essentially at the edge of the support.
183
-1050 -700 -350 0 350 700 1050
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
LB1 (N=-804 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
S
(
m
e
)
0
5
4
3
2
1*
-1050-875 -700 -350 0 350 700 875
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
LB2 (N=-786 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
S
(
m
e
)
-1050-875-700 -350 0 350 700 875 1050
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
LB3 (N=-475 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
S
(
m
e
)
-1050-875-700 -350 0 350 700 875 1050
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
LB4 (N=252 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
S
(
m
e
)
-1050-875-700 -350 0 350 700 875 1050
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
LB5 (N=499 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
S
(
m
e
)
Figure 4.61 Transverse Strain (LB1-LB5)
184
4.8 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results
The properties of individual beam that will be used in the following calculations are re-sum-
marized in Table 4.13. The average properties for the thick-flange and the thin-flange sections
that will be used in the following calculations are listed in Table 4.14. Otherwise, the default
values in each program will be used.
-1050-875-700 -350 0 350 700 875 1050
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
LB6 (N=-797 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
S
(
m
e
)
0
2
1*
-1050-875-700 -350 0 350 700 875 1050
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
LB8 (N=-512 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
S
(
m
e
)
-1050-875-700 -350 0 350 700 875 1050
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
LB7 (N=-319 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
S
(
m
e
)
-1050-875-700 -350 0 350 700 875 1050
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
LB10 (N=-822 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
S
(
m
e
)
-1050-875-700 -350 0 350 700 875 1050
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
LB9 (N=0 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
S
(
m
e
)
-1050-875-700 -350 0 350 700 875 1050
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
LB11 (N=-809 kN)
S
t
r
a
i
n
-
S
(
m
e
)
Figure 4.62 Transverse Strain (LB6-LB11)
185
Table 4.13 Properties Used in Calculation
N (kN) -804 -786 -475 252 499 -797 -512 -319 0 -822 -809
(MPa)
65.2 63.2 63.5 62.3
(MPa)
2.66 2.62 2.63 2.60
* ( )
2.47 2.44 2.44 2.43
E
c
(MPa) 33710 33290 33360 33110
(mm)
10
For Cross-Section Dimension, Refer to Table 4.2
A
stop
(mm
2
) 1334 534 842 934
A
sbot
(mm
2
) 1334 534 842 934
A
v
/b
w
s

(%) 0.1844 0.1869 0.1894 0.1589 0.2034 0.1894 0.3737 -
f
yv
A
v
/b
w
s

(MPa)
0.975 0.989 1.002 0.841 1.076 1.002 1.977 -
For Properties of Reinforcement, Refer to Table 4.6
*) The measured showed significant scatter and the average of the measured values is close to the
default value from Response-2000 (see page 202). Hence the default value of Response-2000 for
each concrete strength will be used in all calculations.
) The corresponding initial tangent modulus of elasticity from Response-2000 will also be used.
f
c
f
t
c
m
a
g

186
4.8.1 Methods Used
The strength of the tested beams were predicted using six different methods: the ACI code,
ACI 318-63 [ACI Committee 326, 1962], the CSA code, the EC2 code, Response-2000 and
VecTor2. The methods used will be explained in more detail in this section. The comparisons
between the predictions and the test results are shown in Section 4.8.2.
The ACI Code - The equations in the ACI code for shear design are listed in Chapter 11 of
ACI 318-08 and are summarized as follows.
Table 4.14 Average Properties of Beams
Section Thick Flange Thin Flange
N (kN) Varied
(MPa)
64 63
(MPa)
2.63 2.62
( )
2.45 2.44
E
c
(MPa) 33460 33250
h (mm) 504 505
h
ftop
(mm) 78 53
h
fbot
(mm) 75 52
b
ftop
(mm) 354 351
b
fbot
(mm) 352 351
b
w
(mm) 75 73
h
1
&h
2
(mm) 25 25
d

(mm) 471 472
A
g
(mm
2
) 87550 73230
A
ct
(mm
2
) 43390 36020
I
g
(mm
4
x10
9
) 2.96 2.55
Q
cen
(mm
3
x10
6
) 7.52 6.31
y
0-top
(mm) 250 252
y
0-bot
(mm) 254 253
A
s
(mm
2
) Varied
A
v
/b
w
s

(%) 0.1834 0.1886/0.3771
f
yv
A
v
/b
w
s

(MPa) 0.970 0.998/1.995
f
c
f
t
c
m
187
The ACI code does not specify the location of the critical section. Therefore, calculations
were carried out along the span of the specimen to find the location of the critical section and
the corresponding ultimate shear strength.
For beams subjected to compression, two kinds of shear mechanisms might control the failure
of the specimens: flexure-shear and web-shear. The shear strength was taken as the lesser of
them.
For flexure-shear, the shear strength from the concrete can be calculated using Eq. (11-10) and
Eq. (11-11) in the ACI code:
(4-8)
For web-shear, the shear strength from the concrete can be calculated using Eq. (11-12) in the
ACI code:
(4-9)
Finally,
(4-10)
For beams subjected to tension, the ACI code applies a very strict limit on the shear strength
provided by the concrete. The shear strength from the concrete can be calculated using Eq.
(11-8) in the ACI code,
(4-11)
For beams with no axial force, the shear strength from the concrete can be calculated using
Eq. (11-5) in the ACI code,
M
ct
I y
t
( ) 0.498 f
c
f
pe
+ ( ) =
V
ci
0.0498 f
c
b
w
d
M
ct
M
f
V
f
--------------- + 0.141 f
c
b
w
d =
V
cw
0.291 f
c
0.3f
pc
+ ( )b
w
d =
V
c
min V
ci
V
cw
, ( ) =
V
c
0.166 1
N
u
3.45A
g
------------------ +

f
c
b
w
d 0 =
188
(4-12)
For all specimens, the shear strength provided by the transverse reinforcement can be calcu-
lated using Eq (11-15) in the ACI code,
(4-13)
All equations are in N/mm units. N is positive for compression and negative for tension.
To apply the aforementioned equations, the procedure proposed in the PCI design handbook
[1978] will be followed:
1). For specimens in compression: Draw a horizontal line using Eq. (4-9); Draw a curve
using Eq. (4-8); Here, varied along the length of the specimen; Finally, draw a
line for the ultimate shear strength equal to the sum of the minimum of V
ci
and V
cw
and the shear strength provided by the shear reinforcement, the amount of which var-
ied along the length of the specimens, except in LB1 and LB10. Hence, the critical
section which had the minimum ultimate shear strength can be found.
2). For specimens in tension: Draw a line using Eq. (4-11); Draw a line for the ultimate
shear strength equal to the sum of V
c
and the shear strength provided by the shear
reinforcement, the amount of which varied along the length of the specimen.
3). For specimen with no axial load: Draw a line using Eq. (4-12); Draw a line for the
ultimate shear strength equal to the sum of V
c
and the shear strength provided by the
shear reinforcement, the amount of which varied along the length of the specimen.
Fig 4.63 through Fig 4.66 show the shear capacities of all specimens calculated using the ACI
code. Specimen LB1 was predicted to fail right at the edge of the support due to flexure-shear.
For the other specimens with thick flanges (LB2-LB5), the ACI code predicted web-shear
V
c
0.158 f
c
17.2
w
V
u
d
M
u
--------- +

b
w
d 0.291 f
c
b
w
d =
V
u
d M
u
1
w
A
s
b
w
d
--------- =
V
s
A
v
f
yt
d
s
-------------- 0.664 f
c
b
w
d =
M
f
V
f

189
failures, which were predicted to occur at a distance d from the edge of the support, because
the amount of transverse reinforcement was doubled in Region 2 (Fig 4.1). For all specimens
with thin flanges (LB6-LB11) except for LB9 and LB11, the ACI code predicted flexure-shear
failures, which were predicted to occur right at the edge of the support. For LB6, LB7, LB8,
the predicted flexure-shear strength was very close to the predicted web-shear strength. Spec-
imen LB9 was predicted to fail at the section very close to a distance d from the edge of the
support due to web-shear. And LB11 was predicted to fail at the section at a distance d from
the edge of the support, as there was no stirrup in Region 1 (Fig 4.1). Hence, for comparison,
the section located at a distance d from the edge of the support was chosen as the critical sec-
tion to formulate the N-V interaction curve.
190
0 200 400 600 800
0
5
10
15
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB2 (N=-786 kN)
d h/2
v
ci
v
cw
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB2 (N=-786 kN)
V
u
=210 kN
d h/2
0 200 400 600 800
0
5
10
15
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB3 (N=-475 kN)
d h/2
v
ci
v
cw
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB3 (N=-475 kN)
V
u
=171 kN
d h/2
0 200 400 600 800
0
5
10
15
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB1 (N=-804 kN)
d h/2
v
ci
v
cw
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB1 (N=-804 kN)
V
u
=186.9 kN
d h/2
Figure 4.63 Shear Capacity by ACI (LB1-LB3)
191
0 200 400 600 800
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB4 (N=252 kN)
d
Eq. (11-8)
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
20
40
60
80
100
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB4 (N=252 kN)
V
u
=45.8 kN
d
0 200 400 600 800
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB5 (N=499 kN)
d
Eq. (11-8)
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
20
40
60
80
100
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB5 (N=499 kN)
V
u
=34.2 kN
d
192
0 200 400 600 800
0
5
10
15
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB6 (N=-797 kN)
d h/2
v
ci
v
cw
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB6 (N=-797 kN)
V
u
=214 kN
d h/2
0 200 400 600 800
0
5
10
15
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB7 (N=-319 kN)
d h/2
v
ci
v
cw
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB7 (N=-319 kN)
V
u
=156.8 kN
d h/2
0 200 400 600 800
0
5
10
15
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB8 (N=-512 kN)
d h/2
v
ci
v
cw
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB8 (N=-512 kN)
V
u
=180.7 kN
d h/2
0 200 400 600 800
0
1
2
3
4
5
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB9 (N=0 kN)
d
v
c
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB9 (N=0 kN)
V
u
=87 kN
d
193
ACI 318-63 - In terms of the method proposed by the ACI code, it was originally recom-
mended [ACI Committee 326, 1962] that Shear corresponding to the flexure-shear crack is
equal to the shear causing flexural cracking at a distance d/2 from the load point in the direc-
tion of decreasing moment. Therefore, Eq. (4-14) instead of Eq. (4-8) shall be used for cal-
culating the flexure-shear strength. The other equations from the ACI code remain unchanged.
(4-14)
All equations are in N/mm units. N is positive for compression and negative for tension.
A similar procedure employed in the ACI code was applied for ACI 318-63. Fig 4.67 through
Fig 4.70 show the shear capacities of all specimens using ACI 318-63. ACI 318-63 predicted
0 200 400 600 800
0
5
10
15
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB10 (N=-822 kN)
d h/2
v
ci
v
cw
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB10 (N=-822 kN)
V
u
=221 kN
d h/2
0 200 400 600 800
0
5
10
15
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB11 (N=-809 kN)
d h/2
v
ci
v
cw
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB11 (N=-809 kN)
V
u
=196 kN
d h/2
M
ct
I y
t
( ) 0.498 f
c
f
pe
+ ( ) =
V
ci
0.0498 f
c
b
w
d
M
ct
M
f
V
f
d 2
------------------------------- + 0.141 f
c
b
w
d =

194
slightly higher flexure-shear strength than the predictions of the ACI code. Therefore, accord-
ing to ACI 318-63, all specimens except LB10 were predicted to fail due to web-shear at a dis-
tance d from the edge of the support. Even for LB10, the predicted flexure-shear strength and
the predicted web-shear strength was very close. Hence, for comparison, the section located at
a distance d from the edge of the support was chosen as the critical section to formulate the N-
V interaction curve.

0 200 400 600 800
0
5
10
15
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB1 (N=-804 kN)
d h/2
v
ci
v
cw
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB1 (N=-804 kN)
V
u
=215.1 kN
d h/2
0 200 400 600 800
0
5
10
15
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB2 (N=-786 kN)
d h/2
v
ci
v
cw
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB2 (N=-786 kN)
V
u
=210 kN
d h/2
0 200 400 600 800
0
5
10
15
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB3 (N=-475 kN)
d h/2
v
ci
v
cw
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB3 (N=-475 kN)
V
u
=171 kN
d h/2
Figure 4.67 Shear Capacity by ACI 318-63 (LB1-LB3)
195
0 200 400 600 800
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB4 (N=252 kN)
d
Eq. (11-8)
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
20
40
60
80
100
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB4 (N=252 kN)
V
u
=45.8 kN
d
0 200 400 600 800
0
20
40
60
80
100
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB5 (N=499 kN)
V
u
=34.2 kN
d
0 200 400 600 800
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB5 (N=499 kN)
d
Eq. (11-8)
v
s
v
u
196
0 200 400 600 800
0
5
10
15
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB6 (N=-797 kN)
d h/2
v
ci
v
cw
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB6 (N=-797 kN)
V
u
=227 kN
d h/2
0 200 400 600 800
0
5
10
15
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB8 (N=-512 kN)
d h/2
v
ci
v
cw
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB8 (N=-512 kN)
V
u
=186.7 kN
d h/2
0 200 400 600 800
0
5
10
15
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB7 (N=-319 kN)
d h/2
v
ci
v
cw
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB7 (N=-319 kN)
V
u
=159.7 kN
d h/2
0 200 400 600 800
0
1
2
3
4
5
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB9 (N=0 kN)
d
v
c
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB9 (N=0 kN)
V
u
=87 kN
d
197
The CSA Code - In the CSA code, for specimens containing a constant amount of transverse
reinforcement, the critical section is defined as d
v
from the edge of the support. For the speci-
mens tested in this research program, the amount of stirrups varied along the length of the
beams, except for LB1 and LB10. Therefore, calculations should be carried out at different
sections to find out the critical section and the corresponding ultimate shear strength. Starting
from d
v
from the edge of the support, sections located at 450, 475, 500, 525, 550, 575, 600,
625, 650, 675, 700 and 725 mm from the edge of the support were checked. Iteration is
required to apply the CSA code and the procedure is illustrated in the following.
When the spacing between the stirrups varied along the span, the variation of (A
v
/s) is drawn
as in Fig 4.71. The value of (A
v
/s) for a section located at x mm from the edge of the support
could be calculated using Eq. (4-15).
0 200 400 600 800
0
5
10
15
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB10 (N=-822 kN)
d h/2
v
ci
v
cw
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB11 (N=-809 kN)
V
u
=196 kN
d h/2
0 200 400 600 800
0
5
10
15
v
(
M
P
a
)
LB11 (N=-809 kN)
d h/2
v
ci
v
cw
v
s
v
u
0 200 400 600 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB10 (N=-822 kN)
V
u
=258 kN
d h/2
198
(4-15)
where, x1 =425-h/2 (mm) and x2 =425+h/2 (mm)
For a section located at x mm from the edge of the support:
,
Assume ,
Figure 4.71 Variation of Stirrups
A
v
s
A
v
s ( )
1
x x1
A
v
s ( )
1
A
v
s ( )
1
A
v
s ( )
2
[ ]
x x1
x2 x1
------------------ x1 x x2 < <
A
v
s ( )
2
x x2
=
M
f
V
f
1200 x 150 2 =
V
f trial
M
f
V
f trial
1200 x 150 2 ( ) =
199
Continue iteration until .
Check if .
All equations are in N/mm units. N is positive for tension and negative for compression.
Fig 4.72 through Fig 4.73 show the shear capacities of all specimens calculated using the
CSA code. The location of the critical section for each specimen is marked in the figure. The
location of the critical section for each specimen was not the same. The critical section for
LB1, LB3 and LB10 was located at a distance about d
v
from the edge of the support, while the
critical section for the rest of the beams was located at a distance about d
v
from the mid-span.
As the variation of the predicted shear strength for different sections was not very big for most
x
M
f
d
v
V
f trial
0.5N + +
2E
s
A
s
------------------------------------------------------------
x
0
M
f
d
v
V
f trial
0.5N + +
2 E
s
A
s
E
c
A
ct
+ ( )
------------------------------------------------------------
x
0 <
=
s
ze
35d
v
a
g
15 +
----------------- LB11
300mm All the other beams
0.4
1 1500
x
+ ( )
-------------------------------
1300
1000 s
ze
+ ( )
----------------------------- =
29 7000
x
+ =
V
c
f
c
b
w
d
v
=
V
s
f
yv
A
v
s
-----d
v
cot =
V
f
V
c
V
s
+ =
V
f
V
f trial
=
M
f
d
v
0.5N
f
V
f
0.5V
s
V
p
( ) cot + + F
lt
for flexural tension side
200
of the specimens, except for LB11, the section located at a distance d
v
from the mid-span was
chosen as the critical section to formulate the N-V interaction curve.
450 500 550 600 650 700
0
50
100
150
200
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB1 (N=-804 kN)
V
u
=154.4 kN
distance=420mm
Critical Section
450 500 550 600 650 700
0
50
100
150
200
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB2 (N=-786 kN)
V
u
=160.1 kN
distance=675mm
Critical Section
450 500 550 600 650 700
0
50
100
150
200
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB3 (N=-475 kN)
V
u
=130 kN
distance=450mm
Critical Section
500 550 600 650 700
0
50
100
150
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB4 (N=252 kN)
V
u
=92.2 kN
distance=675mm
Critical Section
450 500 550 600 650 700
0
50
100
150
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB5 (N=499 kN)
V
u
=73.3 kN
distance=675mm
Critical Section
Figure 4.72 Shear Capacity by CSA (LB1-LB5)
201
The EC2 Code - According to the EC2 code, in regions where , no calculated
shear reinforcement is necessary. In single-span prestressed members without shear reinforce-
ment, the shear resistance of the regions uncracked in bending is given by Eq. (4-16).
(4-16)
450 500 550 600 650 700
0
50
100
150
200
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB6 (N=-797 kN)
V
u
=159.9 kN
distance=675mm
Critical Section
450 500 550 600 650 700
0
50
100
150
200
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB8 (N=-512 kN)
V
u
=141.1 kN
distance=650mm
Critical Section
450 500 550 600 650 700
0
50
100
150
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB7 (N=-319 kN)
V
u
=124.1 kN
distance=675mm
Critical Section
450 500 550 600 650 700
0
50
100
150
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB9 (N=0 kN)
V
u
=101.6 kN
distance=675mm
Critical Section
450 500 550 600 650 700
0
50
100
150
200
250
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB10 (N=-822 kN)
V
u
=183.2 kN
distance=426mm
Critical Section
450 500 550 600 650 700
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
V
u
(
k
N
)
LB11 (N=-809 kN)
V
u
=91.8 kN
distance=700mm
Critical Section
Figure 4.73 Shear Capacity by CSA (LB6-LB11)
V
Ed
V
Rd c ,
V
Rd c ,
Ib
w
S
-------- f
ctd
( )
2
cp
f
ctd
+ =
202
(4-17)
(4-18)
Here: ; from Table-2.1N in the EC2 code; The value of is
obtained using linear interpolation from Table-3.1 in the EC2 code.
Otherwise, the shear resistance is given by:
(4-19)
Here: ; , with d in mm; ;
; .
In regions where , sufficient shear reinforcement should be provided in order that
. The shear resistance of a member with shear reinforcement can be calculated using
Equation-(6.1) in the EC2 code:
(4-20)
Here: ; and ; For the beams tested in this thesis,
was taken as 2.5.
Therefore, when , , otherwise,
The shear strength of LB1 and LB2 were predicted using Eq. (4-16). For the remaining
beams, Eq. (4-19) was used, because when reached the value calculated using Eq. (4-
16), the beams had already cracked in bending. Hence, Eq. (4-19) and Eq. (4-20) will both be
used to formulate the N-V interaction curve.
Response-2000 - R2K [Bentz, 2000C] is a sectional program developed by Bentz at the Uni-
versity of Toronto. It is based on the MCFT. In Response-2000, the change in shear flow over
f
ctd

ct
f
ctk 0.05 ,
( )
c
=
cp
N A
c
=
ct
1.0 =
c
1.5 = f
ctk 0.05 ,
V
Rd,c
C
Rd,c
k 100
l
f
ck
( )
1 3
k
1
cp
+ [ ]b
w
d v
min
k
1
cp
+ ( )b
w
d =
C
Rd,c
0.18
c
= k 1 200 d 2.0 + =
1
A
si
b
w
d ( ) 0.02 =
v
min
0.035k
3 2
f
ck
1 2
= k
1
0.15 =
V
Ed
V
Rd c ,
>
V
Ed
V
Rd
V
Rd
V
Rd s ,
=
V
Rd s ,
A
sw
s
--------zf
ywd
cot = 1 cot 2.5 cot
V
Rd c ,
V
Rd s ,
V
Rd
V
Rd c ,
= V
Rd
V
Rd s ,
=
V
Rd c ,
203
the depth of a section is considered. Shear force is calculated at all depths of a section. From
Response-2000, the full load-deformation response can be obtained in addition to the predic-
tion of the ultimate strength.
The material properties used in Response-2000 modelling are summarized in Table 4.15. The
amounts and the locations of longitudinal reinforcement and transverse reinforcement defined
in Response-2000 modelling are shown in Table 4.16. The loadings defined in Response-
2000 modelling are shown in Table 4.17.
.
Table 4.15 The Material Properties in Response-2000 Models
Concrete
(MPa)
65.2 63.2 63.5 62.3
(MPa)
2.66 2.62 2.63 2.60
( )
2.47 2.44 2.44 2.43
(mm)
10
Tension Stiff-
ening Factor
1.0
Base Curve Popovics / Thorenfeldt / Collins *
Compression
Softening
Vecchio - Collins 1986 *
Tension Stiff-
ening
Bentz 1999 *
Name Longitudinal Reinforcement
E
s
(MPa) 200000
f
y
(MPa) 409 1026 409
( )
10 6 10
( )
130 640 130
f
u
(MPa) 671 1141 671
Name Transverse Reinforcement
E
s
(MPa) 200000
f
y
(MPa) 529
( )
2.6
( )
40
f
u
(MPa) 541
*) The details of these models can be found in Bentz [2000A].
f
c
f
t
c
m
a
g
sh
m
rupture
m
sh
m
rupture
m
204
Table 4.16 The Reinforcement in Response-2000 Models
Name of Layers Longitudinal Reinforcement
Bot
#of Bars 6 2 4 4
Bar Type
or
Bar Area (mm
2
)
15M 177 15M
Distance from bot-
tom (mm)
33
Rebar Type Longitudinal Reinforcement
Pipebot
#of Bars 1
Bar Area (mm
2
)
134
Distance from bot-
tom (mm)
33
Pipetop
#of Bars 1
Bar Area (mm
2
)
134
Distance from bot-
tom (mm)
467
Top
#of Bars 6 2 4 4
Bar Type
or
Bar Area (mm
2
)
15M 15M
Distance from bot-
tom (mm)
467
Name of Layers Transverse Reinforcement
Stirrup
Stirrup Spacing
(mm)
175 87.5 -
Bar Area (mm
2
)
24.2
Distance to Top
(mm)
479
Distance to Bottom
(mm)
21
Bar Type Single Leg
Rebar Type Transverse Reinforcement
205
VecTor2 (VT2) - VecTor2 [Vecchio, 2003] is a general-purpose finite-element program
developed by Vecchio at the University of Toronto. It is based on the DSFM [Vecchio, 2000].
However, if the slip distortion is not considered, VecTor2 is also performing the analysis
based on the MCFT. The analysis parameters for VecTor2 modelling are listed in Table 4.18.
The structural parameters for VecTor2 analysis are listed in Table 4.19. In the VecTor2 model,
the transverse reinforcement was smeared in each element and the longitudinal reinforcement
was modelled as individual truss-bar element. For each beam, five types of reinforced con-
crete (concrete 1 to concrete 5) and one type of steel were used. The material properties of the
different types of reinforced concrete and the steel can be found in Table 4.20 and in Table
4.21. The details of the mesh for a typical beam subjected to compression are shown in Fig
4.74. The support restraints are also shown in Fig 4.74. The mesh of beams subjected to ten-
sion is similar to that of beams subjected to compression, with N being applied in the opposite
direction. The varied flange thickness in the actual cross-section was simplified as a constant
flange thickness in the VecTor2 model as illustrated in Fig 4.74. The sizes of the rectangular
mesh are listed in Table 4.22. Two load cases were used: the axial forces, denoted as N and the
shear forces, denoted as V. The axial forces were constant and equal to the average experimen-
tal values. The shear forces were applied in increments of 0.5 kN for beams subjected to ten-
sion and increments of 1 kN for beams subjected to compression. The locations and values of
the nodal loads and how they were applied are shown in Fig 4.74 and in Table 4.23. It is
worth mentioning that the size of rectangular elements varied over the depth of the flanges for
thin-flange beams. Therefore, to avoid the numerical failure within the flanges, the axial
forces were applied over the web instead of over the flanges for thin-flange beams. Since the
Table 4.17 The Loadings in Response-2000 Models
Axial
Load
Constant (kN) -804 -786 -475 252 499 -797 -512 -319 0 -822 -809
Increment (kN) 0.0
Moment
Constant ( ) 0.0
Increment ( ) 0.7
Shear
Constant (kN) 0.0
Increment (kN) 1.0
kN m
kN m
206
location of the axial forces was far away from the test region (Fig 4.1), the influence of apply-
ing the axial forces at a different location as in the experiments could be neglected.
Table 4.18 The Analysis Parameters for VecTor2 Models
Material Models
Converge Criteria Displacements - Weighted
Compression Base Curve Popovics (High Strength Concrete)
Compression Post - Peak Popovics (High Strength Concrete)
Compression Softening Vecchio - Collins 1986
Tension Stiffening Bentz 1999
Tension Softening Linear
Tension Splitting Not Considered
Confinement Strength Kupfer / Richart
Concrete Dilation Fixed Poisson Ratio
Cracking Criterion Constant
Crack Shear Check Vecchio - Collins 1986
Crack Width Check Crack Limit (Agg/5)
Concrete Bond Eligehausen Model
Concrete Creep / Relax Not Considered
Concrete Hysteresis Linear w/ Offset
Steel Hysteresis Seckin Model
Rebar Dowel Action Not Considered
Rebar Buckling Asatsu Model
Previous Load History Considered
Slip Distortion Not Considered
Strain Rate Effects CEB - Full
Geometric Nonlinearity Not Considered
Note:The details of these models can be found in Wong and Vecchio [2002].
207
Table 4.19 The Structural Parameters for VecTor2 Models
Beams with Thick Flanges Beams with Thin Flanges
No. of R.C. Material Types 5 4
No. of Steel Material Types 1 1
No. of Bond Material Types 0 0
No. of Rectangular Elements 1056 1152
No. of Quadrilateral Elements 0 0
No. of Triangular Elements 0 0
No. of Truss Bar Elements 192 192
No. of Linkage Elements 0 0
No. of Contact Elements 0 0
No. of J oints 1164 1261
No. of Restraints 3 3
208
Table 4.20 The Material Properties for VecTor2 Models
Concrete Components for Reinforced Concrete Materials (Concrete 1 - Concrete 5)
Thickness
(mm)
Concrete 1, Concrete 3
350 350 349 363 352 350 352 351 350 350 351
Thickness
(mm)
Concrete 2, Concrete 4, Concrete 5
75 74 73 87 68 73 73 73 73 74 74
(MPa)
65.2 63.2 63.5 62.3
(MPa)
2.66 2.62 2.63 2.60
( )
2.47 2.44 2.44 2.43
E
c
(MPa) 33710 33290 33360 33110
(mm)
10
Reinforcement Components for Reinforced Concrete Materials (Concrete 1 - Concrete 5)
Concrete 1
(%)
-
Direction ( ) -
Rebar Type * -
Concrete 2
(%)
0.1844 0.1869 0.1894 0.1589 0.2034 0.1894 0.1894 0.1894 0.1894 0.3737 0.0000
Direction ( ) 90
Rebar Type * D4
Concrete 3
(%)
0.2286 0.2286 0.2289 0.2201 0.2273 0.2286 0.2273 0.2276 0.2286 0.2282 0.2279
Direction ( ) 90
Rebar Type * 10M
Concrete 4
(%)
1.0667 1.0811 1.0959 0.9195 1.1765 1.0959 1.0959 1.0959 1.0959 1.0811 1.0811
Direction ( ) 90
Rebar Type * 10M
Concrete 5
(%)
0.1844 0.3737 0.3789 0.3179 0.4067 0.3789 0.3789 0.3789 0.3789 0.3737 0.3737
Direction ( ) 90
Rebar Type * D4
Material Properties for Steel Truss
Area(mm
2
) 1334 534 842 934
Rebar Type * 15M 5/8 Dywidag 15M
*) For the properties of rebars, please refer to Table 4.21.
f
c
f
t
c
m
a
g

209
Table 4.21 Properties of Rebars for VecTor2 Models
Rebar Type
d
b
(mm)
f
y
(MPa)
f
u
(MPa)
E
s
(MPa)
E
sh
(MPa)
( )
D4 5.72 529 581 200000 1392 2.65
10M 11.3 431 571 200000 5000 75
15M 16 509 671 200000 5000 75
5/8 Dywidag 16 1026 1141 200000 5000 75
sh
m
Figure 4.74 Details of Mesh for A Typical Beam Subjected to Axial Compression
210
Table 4.22 Dimensions of Mesh for VecTor2 Models
x-direction
dx (AB, EF)* (mm)
dx (BC, DE)* (mm)
dx (CD)* (mm)
50
41
50
y-direction
y0 (mm)
y1 (mm)
y2 (mm)
y3 (mm)
y4 (mm)
y5 (mm)
y6 (mm)
y7 (mm)
y8 (mm)
y9 (mm)
y10 (mm)
y11 (mm)
y12 (mm)
0
33
70
120
170
220
270
320
370
420
467
500
-
0
33
72
122
172
222
272
322
372
422
467
506
-
0
33
76
126
176
226
276
326
376
426
467
506
-
0
33
83
133
183
233
283
333
383
433
467
504
-
0
33
76
126
176
226
276
326
376
426
467
502
-
0
33
55
105
155
205
255
305
355
405
455
467
506
0
33
52
102
152
202
252
302
352
402
452
467
504
0
33
55
105
155
205
255
305
355
405
455
467
506
0
33
52
102
152
202
252
302
352
402
452
467
504
0
33
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
467
506
0
33
49
99
149
199
249
299
349
399
449
467
506
*) dx (AB, EF) means the size of mesh in the x-direction between A and B, E and F.
dx (BC, DE) means the size of mesh in the x-direction between B and C, D and E.
dx (CD) means the size of mesh in the x-direction between C and D.
The locations of A, B, C, D, E, F are shown in Fig 4.74.
) yi (i from 1 to 12) means the coordinate in the y-direction for different levels over the height
of the beams as shown in Fig 4.74.
211
4.8.2 Predictions of Capacities of Beams
Table 4.24 lists the predictions by different methods and their corresponding experimental
results. The as-built properties of the different beams (see Table 4.13) were used in formulat-
ing Table 4.24.
Table 4.24 highlights the best predictions out of the six methods. The determination of the
best predictions followed these rules: Conservative was better than unconservative. Among all
conservative predictions, the prediction having the highest Exp/Pred ratio was the best.
Among all unconservative predictions, the prediction with the lowest Exp/Pred ratio was the
best.
Generally speaking, the ACI code overestimated the shear capacities of the beams subjected
to compression (i.e. Exp/ACI =0.73 for LB6 and 0.74 for LB8) and underestimated the shear
Table 4.23 Loading Informations for VecTor2 Models
V
Initial (kN)
Final (kN)
Increment (kN)
0
166
1
0
180
1
0
150
1
0
120
0.5
0
80
0.5
0
180
1
0
170
1
0
150
1
0
120
1
0
230
1
0
170
1
Node G
Fx 0
Fy -1.25
Node H
Fx 0
Fy -2.25
N
Initial (kN)
Final (kN)
Increment (kN)
804
804
0
786
786
0
475
475
0
252
252
0
499
499
0
797
797
0
512
512
0
319
319
0
0
0
0
822
822
0
809
809
0
Node I
Fx 0.5 -0.5 0.5
Fy 0.0 0.0 0.0
Node J
Fx 0.5 -0.5 0.5
Fy 0.0 0.0 0.0
Node K
Fx -0.5 0.5 -0.5
Fy 0.0 0.0 0.0
Node L
Fx -0.5 0.5 -0.5
Fy 0.0 0.0 0.0
Note. The locations of G, H, I, J , K and L are shown in Fig 4.74.
212
capacities of the beams subjected to tension (i.e. Exp/ACI =2.60 for LB4 and 2.33 for LB5).
The overall prediction for the ACI method seemed acceptable with an average of 1.14, since
the overestimation for beams subjected to compression compensated the underestimation for
beams subjected to tension. The coefficient of variation for the ACI method was 59% how-
ever. This indicated that the ACI method was very inconsistent in its predictions. In addition,
for specimen LB1 and all specimens with thin flanges (LB6-LB11), except for LB9 and LB11,
the ACI code predicted flexure-shear failures right at the face of the support. This did not
agree with the experimental observation. The only difference between the ACI code and ACI
318-63 was the location for checking flexure-shear. The accuracy and the consistency of the
predictions using ACI 318-63 was similar to that of the ACI code. However, the failure sec-
tion predicted by ACI 318-63 was more meaningful than that predicted using the ACI code.
The predictions of the CSA code for the beams with thick flanges were generally conservative
except for the pilot specimen LB1. The predictions of the CSA code for beams with thin
flanges were particularly good, except for beam LB11, which did not contain any stirrup
within Region 1 (see Fig 4.1). For LB11, the prediction by the CSA code was much lower
than the experimental result. This was because the experimental ultimate load for LB11 was
taken as the cracking load, whereas the CSA code predicted the post-cracking shear strength
which was lower than the cracking shear strength for beams without stirrups. The Exp/Pred by
the CSA code had an average of 1.11, and a coefficient of variation of 17%. Generally, the
CSA code provided fairly consistent estimations of the shear capacities of all specimens.
The European code EC2 took the higher of the shear strength from the concrete and the shear
strength from the transverse reinforcement as the ultimate shear strength. The EC2 code pro-
vided very conservative predictions for all specimens, especially for beams subjected to axial
compression. The Exp/Pred using the EC2 code had an average of 1.46, and a coefficient of
variation of 22%.
Response-2000 and VecTor2 both provide a full load-deformation prediction as well as pre-
dicting the ultimate shear strength. Response-2000 is based on the analysis of one section,
while VecTor2 is a finite element program which is used to analyze a complete structural
member. The predictions by Response-2000 were excellent with an average of 1.03, and a
213
coefficient of variation of 14%. Response-2000 provided very accurate and consistent predic-
tions for all specimens, although the prediction was somewhat unconservative for LB5 (Exp/
Response =0.78). Note that for Response-2000, when the stirrups are not very ductile, failure
is taken when the average stirrup strain reaches one-half of the rupture strain as assumed in
Response-2000. The predictions by VecTor2 were also good, except that the predictions for
the beams subjected to tension were very conservative. The Exp/Pred calculated using
VecTor2 had an average of 1.01, and a coefficient of variation of 18%.
Fig 4.75 shows the interaction curves between the axial force N and the shear force V for
beams with thick flanges (LB1-LB5), with the applied axial force varied from tension to com-
pression. It was found that while the response of beams subjected to compression was not sen-
sitive to the amounts of longitudinal reinforcement, the response of beams subjected to
tension was. Therefore, the comparison between the experimental results and the theoretical
predictions of the beams was made with the same amount of longitudinal reinforcement as the
beams subjected to tension (LB4 and LB5), A
s
=842 mm
2
. Fig 4.76 shows the interaction
curves between the axial force N and the shear force V for beams with thin flanges (LB6-LB9)
under different compressive forces. Fig 4.77 shows the influence of the amounts of transverse
reinforcement on the ultimate shear strength for beam LB6, LB10 and LB11. The average
properties (see Table 4.14) were used in formulating Fig 4.75 through Fig 4.77.
From Fig 4.75, it can be seen that the ACI code overestimated the capacities of the specimens
with thick flanges when axial compression was applied and underestimated the capacities
when axial tension was applied. The shape of the curve obtained using the ACI code was a
poor match to the experimental results. The CSA code conservatively predicted the capacities
of the specimens with thick flanges, except for the pilot specimen LB1. The predictions using
the CSA code corresponded well to the experimental data. The EC2 code consistently under-
estimated the shear strength of the beams with thick flanges.
From Fig 4.76, it can be concluded that there was an excellent agreement between the CSA
predictions and the experimental results for the beams with thin flanges, whereas the ACI
code grossly overestimated the capacities of the specimens with thin flanges subjected to
compression. Again, the EC2 code consistently underestimated the shear strength of the
214
beams with thin flanges. The shape of the curve using the CSA code corresponded well to the
variation of the experimental data, whereas the predictions of the other two codes agreed
poorly with the experimental data.
The diagrams shown in Fig 4.77 indicate that both ACI 318-63 and the CSA method predict
that the ultimate shear strength of the beams increase almost linearly with an increase of the
amount of transverse reinforcement. However, ACI 318-63 generally overpredicted the shear
strength. In contrast, the predictions using the CSA code agreed well with the experimental
results. The shear strength of LB11 was conservatively predicted by the CSA code, as the
observed strength corresponded to first cracking while the CSA prediction was a post-crack-
ing prediction.
In conclusion, the predictions by the ACI code were neither accurate nor consistent. The pre-
dictions by the CSA code were fairly good for the specimens subjected to compression and
were conservative for the specimens subjected to tension. The beams with thick flanges (h
f
=
75 mm) were slightly stronger than the beams with thin flanges (h
f
=50 mm). The influence
of the amounts of transverse reinforcement was very well modelled by the CSA code.
215
T
a
b
l
e

4
.
2
4

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s

B
y

D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

M
e
t
h
o
d
s
S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
L
B
1
L
B
2
L
B
3
L
B
4
L
B
5
L
B
6
L
B
8
L
B
7
L
B
9
L
B
1
0
L
B
1
1
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
C
.
o
.
V
N

(
k
N
)
-
8
0
4
-
7
8
6
-
4
7
5
2
5
2
4
9
9
-
7
9
7
-
5
1
2
-
3
1
9
0
-
8
2
2
-
8
0
9
V
u
-
e
x
p

(
k
N
)
1
3
3
.
6
1
7
2
.
0
1
4
9
.
0
1
1
9
.
1
7
9
.
6
1
5
5
.
8
1
3
4
.
3
1
3
7
.
8
1
0
0
.
0
2
1
5
.
0
1
4
2
.
8
A
C
I
1
8
6
.
9
2
1
0
.
0
1
7
1
.
0
4
5
.
8
3
4
.
2
2
1
4
.
0
1
8
0
.
7
1
5
6
.
8
8
7
.
0
2
2
1
.
0
1
9
6
.
0
A
C
I

3
1
8
-
6
3
2
1
5
.
0
2
1
0
.
0
1
7
1
.
0
4
5
.
8
3
4
.
2
2
2
7
.
0
1
8
6
.
7
1
5
9
.
7
8
7
.
0
2
5
8
.
0
1
9
6
.
0
C
S
A
1
5
4
.
4
1
6
0
.
1
1
3
0
.
0
9
2
.
2
7
3
.
3
1
5
9
.
9
1
4
1
.
1
1
2
4
.
1
1
0
1
.
6
1
8
3
.
2
9
1
.
8
E
C
2
1
4
4
.
1
1
4
0
.
7
7
7
.
9
7
7
.
5
7
7
.
2
9
0
.
7
7
7
.
5
7
7
.
9
7
7
.
5
1
5
5
.
7
9
2
.
2
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
1
3
8
.
7
1
3
3
.
8
1
2
7
.
9
1
0
9
.
9
1
0
1
.
5
1
4
3
.
4
1
3
4
.
7
1
2
3
.
8
1
1
7
.
5
2
1
0
.
0
1
4
5
.
2
V
e
c
T
o
r
2
1
6
5
.
0
1
6
6
.
0
1
4
5
.
0
8
8
.
0
6
0
.
0
1
7
9
.
0
1
5
5
.
0
1
3
8
.
0
1
1
0
.
0
2
0
1
.
0
1
6
7
.
0
E
x
p
/
A
C
I
0
.
7
1
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
7
2
.
6
0
2
.
3
3
0
.
7
3
0
.
7
4
0
.
8
8
1
.
1
5
0
.
9
7
0
.
7
3
1
.
1
4
5
9
%
E
x
p
/
A
C
I

3
1
8
-
6
3
0
.
6
2
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
7
2
.
6
0
2
.
3
3
0
.
6
9
0
.
7
2
0
.
8
6
1
.
1
5
0
.
8
3
0
.
7
3
1
.
1
1
6
2
%
E
x
p
/
C
S
A
0
.
8
7
1
.
0
7
1
.
1
5
1
.
2
9
1
.
0
9
0
.
9
7
0
.
9
5
1
.
1
1
0
.
9
8
1
.
1
7
1
.
5
6
1
.
1
1
1
7
%
E
x
p
/
E
C
2
0
.
9
3
1
.
2
2
1
.
9
1
1
.
5
4
1
.
0
3
1
.
7
2
1
.
7
3
1
.
7
7
1
.
2
9
1
.
3
8
1
.
5
5
1
.
4
6
2
2
%
E
x
p
/
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
0
.
9
6
1
.
2
9
1
.
1
6
1
.
0
8
0
.
7
8
1
.
0
9
1
.
0
0
1
.
1
1
0
.
8
5
1
.
0
2
0
.
9
8
1
.
0
3
1
4
%
E
x
p
/
V
e
c
T
o
r
2
0
.
8
1
1
.
0
4
1
.
0
3
1
.
3
5
1
.
3
3
0
.
8
7
0
.
8
7
1
.
0
0
0
.
9
1
1
.
0
7
0
.
8
6
1
.
0
1
1
8
%
216
-1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
N (kN)
V
(
k
N
)
LB1
LB2
LB3
LB4
LB5
ACI
CSA-842
EC2
EXP
Photo LB2
Photo LB5
Figure 4.75 N-V Interaction (Thick Flange)
217
-1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
N (kN)
V
(
k
N
)
LB6
LB7
LB8
LB9
ACI
CSA
EC2
EXP
Photo LB6
Photo LB9
Figure 4.76 N-V Interaction (Thin Flange)
218
4.8.3 Shear Force vs. Tangential Deviation
Fig 4.78 and Fig 4.79 show the comparison of the shear force vs. the tangential deviation rela-
tionship between the experimental results and the Response-2000 results. The results from
Response-2000 were obtained from the member response option in the program. The exper-
imental results were obtained from the measurement of the clinometer and LVDT-VEE.
The results from Response-2000 were generally stiffer and less ductile than the experimental
results. The agreement between Response-2000 and the experimental data for the beams with
thin flanges was better than that for the beams with thick flanges, since the clamping effect of
the flanges was not considered in Response-2000. The shape of the curves was very well mod-
elled by Response-2000 for beams LB7 to LB11.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
v
f
yv
/b
w
s (MPa)
V
/
b
w
d
(
M
P
a
)
LB6
LB10
LB11
ACI 318-63
CSA
Figure 4.77 Influence of Amounts of Stirrup
219
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Deviation (mm)
V
(
k
N
)
LB1 (N=-804 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
50
100
150
200
Deviation (mm)
V
(
k
N
)
LB2 (N=-786 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
50
100
150
Deviation (mm)
V
(
k
N
)
LB3 (N=-475 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Deviation (mm)
V
(
k
N
)
LB4 (N=252 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
20
40
60
80
100
Deviation (mm)
V
(
k
N
)
LB5 (N=499 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
Figure 4.78 Comparison of Shear Force vs. Tangential Deviation (LB1-LB5)
220
4.8.4 Shear Force vs. Shear Strain
Fig 4.80 and Fig 4.81 show the comparison of the shear forcevs. the shear strain relationship
between the experimental results and the Response-2000 results. The section analyzed in
Response-2000 was located at 420 mm from the center of the west support. This location
coincided with the location of the crossing of the west diagonal LVDTs.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Deviation (mm)
V
(
k
N
)
LB6 (N=-797 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Deviation (mm)
V
(
k
N
)
LB8 (N=-512 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Deviation (mm)
V
(
k
N
)
LB7 (N=-319 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Deviation (mm)
V
(
k
N
)
LB9 (N=0 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 5 10 15 20
0
50
100
150
200
250
Deviation (mm)
V
(
k
N
)
LB10 (N=-822 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
50
100
150
Deviation (mm)
V
(
k
N
)
LB11 (N=-809 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
Figure 4.79 Comparison of Shear Force vs. Tangential Deviation (LB6-LB11)
221
It was found that the agreement between the experimental results and Response-2000 was
quite good, except for LB5. The cracking strength predicted by Response-2000 was generally
higher than the experimental results. The poor agreement for LB5 was again due to the inade-
quacy of Response-2000 in predicting the shear strength of members containing stirrups with
low ductility.
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
LB1 (N=-804 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 2 4 6 8 10
-50
0
50
100
150
200
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
LB2 (N=-786 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
LB4 (N=252 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
50
100
150
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
LB3 (N=-475 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
LB5 (N=499 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
Figure 4.80 Comparison of Shear Force vs. Shear Strain (LB1-LB5)
222
4.9 Comparison of Panels and Beams
The response of panels can be considered to represent the behavior of elements taken from
any reinforced or prestressed concrete structure, as long as the reinforcement details and the
stress and strain conditions are reproduced. In general, a good method should be able to satis-
factorily predict the response of both the panels and the beams.
0 5 10 15
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
LB6 (N=-797 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 5 10 15
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
LB8 (N=-512 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
LB7 (N=-319 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
LB9 (N=0 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 5 10 15
0
50
100
150
200
250
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
LB10 (N=-822 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
0 2 4 6 8 10
-50
0
50
100
150
g
xy
(me)
V
(
k
N
)
LB11 (N=-809 kN)
EXP
RESPONSE
Figure 4.81 Comparison of Shear Force vs. Shear Strain (LB6-LB11)
223
The amounts of reinforcement in the longitudinal and the transverse direction of all specimens
are given in Table 4.25. It can be seen that the amount of reinforcement in the transverse
direction of all specimens was similar and that the thickness of all specimens was also similar.
Such similarity enabled comparison to be carried out between the response of the panels and
the beams.
In the model for the CSA code, the web of the beam was represented as one bi-axial element
(panel element) with the average longitudinal strain, , being calculated at the mid-depth of
the beam and the shear stress, v, being taken as , where is the flexural lever arm
taken as 0.9d. Considering the section with zero moment and assuming that the shear stresses
acted over the area of , the average shear stresses could be calculated as . Also
assuming that the normal stresses acted over the area of , the average normal stresses could
be calculated as ; the amount of longitudinal reinforcement could be calculated as
; and the amount of transverse reinforcement could be calculated as
. Table 4.26 lists the ultimate shear stresses, v
u
, and the axial stresses, f
x
, for all
specimens. Table 4.25 lists the average properties of all specimens, which will be used to for-
mulate the f
x
-v interaction curves.
x
V b
w
d
v
( ) d
v
b
w
d
v
V
u
b
w
d
v
( )
A
g
N A
g
x
2A
s
A
g
=
y
A
v
b
w
s ( ) =
224

Fig 4.82 was formulated using the average properties of beams and panels listed in Table
4.25. In Fig 4.82, LB1 was plotted using a different legend than the other beams with thick
Table 4.25 The Amounts of Reinforcement and Thicknesses for All Specimens
Specimens
(MPa) (%) (MPa) (%) (MPa)
Thickness
(mm)
PL1 38.5 1.571% 9.49 0.1842% 0.975 73.8
PL2 38.2 1.582% 9.55 0.1855% 0.981 73.3
PL3 42.0 1.571% 9.49 0.1842% 0.975 73.8
PL4 43.1 1.649% 9.96 0.1934% 1.023 70.3
PL5 38.1 1.575% 9.52 0.1847% 0.977 73.6
PL6 43.5 1.584% 9.57 0.1857% 0.983 73.2
LB1 65.2 3.116% 12.40 0.1844% 0.975 75
LB2 63.2 1.222% 4.66 0.1869% 0.989 74
LB3 63.2 1.228% 4.69 0.1894% 1.002 73
LB4 63.2 1.805% 16.44 0.1589% 0.841 87
LB5 63.2 1.995% 18.17 0.2034% 1.076 68
LB6 63.5 2.551% 10.03 0.1894% 1.002 73
LB7 63.5 2.544% 10.01 0.1894% 1.002 73
LB8 63.5 2.567% 10.10 0.1894% 1.002 73
LB9 63.5 2.576% 10.13 0.1894% 1.002 73
Average 54.4 1.942% 10.28 0.1866% 0.987 -
For Panels: and
For Beams: and
Table 4.26 Ultimate Shear Stresses and Uni-Axial Stresses of All Specimens
Specimens
(MPa) (MPa)
Specimens
(MPa) (MPa)
PL1 -8.66 4.31 LB1 -9.39 4.24
PL2 -3.22 3.21 LB2 -8.99 5.46
PL3 3.05 3.04 LB3 -5.46 4.79
PL4 -13.24 4.81 LB4 2.70 3.23
PL5 0.00 3.21 LB5 5.91 2.77
PL6 7.36 2.47 LB6 -10.88 5.01
LB7 -4.34 4.43
LB8 -7.03 4.34
LB9 0.00 3.23
f
c

x

x
f
yx

y

y
f
yy
x
20 51.6 890 thickness =
y
5 24.2 890 thickness =
x
2A
s
A
g
=
y
A
v
b
w
s ( ) =
f
x
v
u
f
x
v
u
225
flanges because LB1 was the pilot specimen and behaved differently compared to the other
beams due to the unusually high amount of restrained shrinkage and the possible damage
occurring at the junction of the flange and the web during formwork disassembly.
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
f
x
(MPa)
v
(
M
P
a
)
ACI Approach (f
c
'=54.4MPa)
CSA Code (f
c
'=54.4MPa)
Panels
Beams(Thick Flange)
Beams(Thin Flange)
LB1 (Pilot Test)
3.05 MPa
3.04 MPa
2.70 MPa
3.23 MPa
1
2
1
2
Figure 4.82 Comparison Between Panels and Beams (Using Average Properties)
226
As indicated in Fig 4.82, it was observed that the data from the panel tests and the beam tests
had a similar trend of variation. In the panel tests, the loads were applied proportionally, while
in the beam tests, the loads were applied sequentially. There was no evidence showing that the
different loading history for the panels and the beams would affect the ultimate shear strength
of the specimens. The panels subjected to compression failed at lower shear stresses than the
beams subjected to compression partly since the concrete strength of the panels was lower
than that of the beams. The beams with thick flanges were stronger than the beams with thin
flanges due to the clamping effect of the flanges. The shape of the interaction curve generated
using the ACI approach agreed poorly with the experimental data, whereas the interaction
curve generated using the CSA code captured the variation in the experimental results from
both the panels and the beams. As discussed before, the CSA method underestimated the
strength of the panels and the beams subjected to combined tension and shear partly because it
did not include kinking effect and dowel action in its formulation, nor the ability for the reori-
entation of the crack angle at higher levels of shear stress.
4.10 Summary
1). The method for applying the axial compression and tension to the beams proved to
be successful. From the readings of the load cells located on the far end of the speci-
mens, it was found that the axial force was successfully transferred through the spec-
imens. The uniformly distributed vertical cracks in the specimens subjected to
tension also demonstrated the validity of the method.
2). For the beams subjected to very high compression, it was found that the failure was
extremely violent. Adding more stirrups did not solve this problem. The energy
released at failure made the failure relatively explosive and dangerous.
3). The inclined cracking strength was generously overestimated by the traditional
method. It was important to consider the actual distribution of the stresses over the
depth of a section to get an accurate prediction of the inclined cracking strength.
4). The pre-existing vertical cracks in the beams subjected to tension seemed to be bene-
ficial for the shear capacity. These vertical cracks intersected the inclined cracks and
delayed the formation of continuous critical shear cracks.
227
5). The presence of flanges affected the strength and the stiffness of the specimens. The
beams with thick flanges were slightly stronger and stiffer than the beams with thin
flanges.
6). The beneficial effect of compression for shear was not as large as what was predicted
by the ACI code and the detrimental effect of tension for shear was not as large as
what was predicted by the ACI code. The predictions by the ACI code agreed very
poorly with the experimental data and were very inconsistent, possibly due to the
inconsistent treatment of compression and tension in the ACI code. The ACI code
not only predicted the ultimate shear strength poorly, but also predicted the location
of the shear failure incorrectly. While the CSA code tended to consistently underesti-
mate the shear capacities of the beams, the agreement between the predictions by the
CSA code and the experiments was good, especially for the specimens with thin
flanges. The trend of the strength variation predicted by the CSA code generally
agreed with the variation observed in the experiments. The influence of the amounts
of transverse reinforcement was captured by the CSA code. The EC2 code generally
underestimated the shear strength of all beams.
7). The comparison between the panels and the beams showed that all experimental data
followed a similar trend of variation. The different loading history for the panels and
the beams did not seem to affect the ultimate shear strength of the specimens. The
clamping effect produced by the flanges made the beams with thick flanges slightly
stronger than the beams with thin flanges. The CSA code provided better predictions
than the ACI approach for all specimens.
228
CHAPTER 5
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Summary and Conclusions
The experimental studies presented in this thesis were intended to improve the understanding
of web-shear behavior of reinforced and prestressed concrete members. The ability of the ACI
method and the CSA method to accurately predict the web-shear strength of reinforced con-
crete elements under combined axial and shear forces were investigated through two sets of
experiments, the panel tests and the beam tests.
Panel tests, while more difficult to perform, were easier to analyze and demonstrated the fun-
damental shear behavior of reinforced concrete elements under various stress and strain con-
ditions. A comprehensive literature review by Bentz, Vecchio and Collins [2006] summarized
the results of 102 relevant reinforced concrete panel tests reported in the literature. However,
almost none of these panel tests covered the range of parameters typical of web-shear critical
reinforced or prestressed concrete members. Only 2 of the 102 panels had been tested under
combined uniaxial compression and shear and the highest compression-to-shear ratio was
only -0.8. Further, few of the existing panel tests contained amounts of transverse reinforce-
ment representative of the amounts used in typical prestressed concrete structures.
Six almost identically reinforced panels were tested under various combinations of uniaxial
stress and shear stress. The amount of reinforcement in the transverse direction was about 2.5
times the minimum amount of stirrups specified by both the ACI and CSA building codes. To
ensure shear failure of the concrete prior to yielding of all the reinforcement, even for panels
subjected to combined axial tension and shear, the amount of reinforcement in the longitudinal
direction was about ten times heavier than that in the transverse direction. The ratio between
the uniaxial stress and shear stress varied from -2.8 for compression to +3.0 for tension. These
six panels were specially designed to simulate the web-shear behavior of reinforced and pre-
stressed concrete beams near points of contraflexure.
CHAPTER 5 - Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
229
From the panel tests, the following significant conclusions can be drawn:
1). Not surprisingly, it was found that axial compression increased both the inclined
cracking strength and the ultimate shear strength of the panels, whereas axial tension
reduced both the inclined cracking strength and the ultimate shear strength. However,
the influence of axial stress on the inclined cracking strength was much more pro-
nounced than its influence on the ultimate shear strength.
2). The ACI approach of calculating web-shear cracking as the shear corresponding to a
principal tensile stress of overestimated the inclined cracking strength of
the panels in compression. For panels subjected to high compressive stress, the influ-
ence of the co-existing compression on the cracking strength of the concrete seems to
be very significant. By considering this influence, the accuracy of the predictions was
greatly improved.
3). The shear design concept of the ACI code is that shear strength can be taken as equal
to the inclined cracking strength plus the shear contribution of the stirrups as calcu-
lated by the truss model. This approach did not provide accurate predictions for
the shear strength of the panels. The ACI approach greatly overestimated the shear
strength of the panels under combined shear and compression and greatly underesti-
mated the shear strength of the panels under combined shear and tension.
4). The CSA code, which is based on the MCFT, was generally successful in predicting
the influence of axial stress on shear strength. For panels subjected to combined com-
pression and shear excellent agreement was obtained, while for panels subjected to
combined tension and shear, the predictions were somewhat conservative. Observa-
tions of the local deformations of the reinforcement suggested that kinking of the
reinforcing bars could partly explain these conservative predictions.
Beam tests, while easier to perform and more difficult to interpret, more closely represent the
response of real structural members. However, most such experiments investigating web-
shear failures have been conducted on simply supported beams under three or four-point
bending. In such tests, the regions with low moment are also the disturbed regions near the
support where shear strength may be enhanced by strut action. In this study, experiments on
0.33 f
c
45
230
beams with a point of zero moment in the middle of the shear span were conducted to study
web-shear behavior at low moment regions in continuous prestressed and reinforced concrete
members.
Eleven thin-webbed I-shaped beams were tested under different combinations of bending,
axial force and shear. The loading geometry and reinforcing patterns were chosen so that web-
shear behavior near the zero moment location could be investigated. All specimens had the
same web thickness but two different flange thicknesses were investigated. Four different lon-
gitudinal reinforcement layouts were used as well as four different arrangements of shear rein-
forcement.
From the beam tests, it can be concluded that:
1). The inclined shear cracking strength and the ultimate shear strength of the beams
were both increased by axial compression and reduced by axial tension.
2). In general, the inclined cracking load could not be predicted accurately using the ACI
approach. The accuracy of the predictions was slightly improved if the influence of
the co-existing compression on the cracking strength of the concrete was considered
and greatly improved if the non-uniform distribution of the axial stresses and the
shear stresses over the depth of the cross-section was considered. From the experi-
mental results of LB1, it can be concluded that the shrinkage of the concrete may
strongly influence the cracking shear of the beams. In the remaining experiments, the
internal restraint to shrinkage was minimized by reducing the amount of longitudinal
reinforcement, replacing the wooden formwork with styrofoam formwork, and
demoulding the formwork as early as possible. However, real structures are subjected
to all sorts of unavoidable restraint. These restraint include shrinkage, thermal
effects, and effects due to loading. Hence, a design method based on the inclined
cracking strength of the concrete, such as the ACI code, needs to consider these
effects.
3). The ACI code did not provide satisfactory predictions for the strength of members
governed by web-shear. The shear strength of the beams subjected to compression
was excessively overestimated by the ACI code, whereas the shear strength of the
231
beams subjected to tension was excessively underestimated by the ACI code. The
variation of the ultimate shear strength with respect to the variation of the axial
forces observed in the experiments was very different from what the ACI code pre-
dicted. The procedures proposed in the PCI design handbook were misleading in
determining the location of shear failure. In contrast, the originally recommended
ACI 318-63, which checked the flexure-shear failure at a different location than the
ACI code, predicted the location of failure more accurately.
4). The CSA code (MCFT) provided very good predictions for the beams subjected to
compression and provided slightly conservative predictions for the beams subjected
to tension. The agreement between the predictions by the CSA code and the experi-
mental results was excellent for the specimens with thin flanges. The trend of
strength variation predicted by the CSA code agreed well with the variation in the
experimental data. The location of failure predicted by the CSA code also agreed
with the experimental observation.
5). The design concept followed by the EC2 code, that either the concrete shear strength
or the stirrup shear strength is taken as the shear strength of the reinforced concrete
members, is not supported by these tests. The EC2 code provided overconservative
predictions for all beams.
6). Flange thickness affects the shear strength of beams subjected to compression. As the
flange thickness changed from 50 mm to 75 mm, an 10% increase in the ultimate
shear strength was observed for beams subjected to a similar amount of axial com-
pression. Also, the beams with thick flanges were slightly stiffer than the beams with
thin flanges.
7). Both the CSA code and ACI 318-63 predicted the shear strength to increase almost
linearly with the increase of the amount of web reinforcement. This agreed with the
trend of variation shown in the test results. However, ACI 318-63 overestimated the
shear strength of the beams subjected to compression.
8). The comparison between the panels and the beams showed that the data for the
beams and the panels had the same trend of variation. The different loading history
used in the panel tests and in the beam tests, proportional loading vs. sequential load-
ing, does not affect the ultimate strength of the specimens. The predictions using the
232
CSA code were consistent with the experimental results, whereas the predictions
using the ACI approach agreed poorly with the experimental results.
The brittle and dangerous nature of shear failures demands an accurate and conservative shear
design method. The experimental research in this thesis indicated that the CSA code method
(MCFT) provided more reliable predictions, in terms of accuracy and consistency, for the
shear strength of web-shear critical reinforced concrete members subjected to combined axial
force and shear force than the ACI code method.
5.2 Recommendations for Future Research
Even though the experimental results clearly demonstrated that the CSA method is better than
the ACI method in predicting the web-shear strength of reinforced concrete elements, there
are still uncertainties in explaining some of the phenomena observed in the experiments. To
characterize the influences of these factors on the shear strength of reinforced concrete ele-
ments, the following experimental research is recommended.
1). The comparison between the experimental and the analytical results indicated that
the shear strength of specimens subjected to combined tension and shear was consis-
tently under-estimated by both shear design methods. The ultimate shear strength of
these specimens may benefit from kinking, redistribution of internal stresses and
dowel action. However, the available experimental data were not adequate to deter-
mine what had caused the conservative strength predictions, nor to quantify the bene-
ficial effects or to determine if they could be safely relied upon. These problems can
be solved by testing more specimens subjected to combined tension and shear and
adding additional instrumentation to measure kinking and dowel action.
2). The predictions using the MCFT suggested that PL4 (f
x
/v =-2.8) would fail at the
occurrence of the first inclined crack. In the test, PL4 failed earlier than was pre-
dicted and this enabled the post-cracking shear strength to be observed but made it
impossible to determine whether the predicted failure at the first inclined crack by the
MCFT was correct. So panels subjected to higher compression could be tested to
investigate the limit of the applicability of the MCFT.
233
3). The comparison between the ultimate shear strength of beams with different flange
thicknesses (LB2 and LB6, LB3 and LB8) suggested that beams with thicker flanges
were stronger than the beams with thinner flanges. The fact that some of the beams
with thick flanges (LB2 and LB3) were able to sustain additional load when the shear
cracks were very wide (wider than 2.0 mm) also indicated that flange thickness had
some effects on the ultimate shear strength of the beams. The number of experiments
conducted and the instrumentation used was insufficient to characterize the effect of
different flange thicknesses. Hence, beams with different flange thicknesses should
be tested to investigate the influence of flange thicknesses on the ultimate shear
strength of beams under compression and also to determine if the beneficial effects
from the flange could be relied upon.
4). For a structural member, it is not only important to determine why it will fail and
when it will fail, it is also important to determine where it will fail. For the beams
tested in this thesis, the location of failure was not well predicted by the ACI method,
while the predictions by the CSA method were closer to the observations. However,
the location of failure may depend on the shear reinforcing patterns of beams, which
has not yet been studied. Therefore, the influence of different shear reinforcing pat-
terns on the location of failure and their effects on the ultimate shear strength of
beams should be studied and such studies will be very useful for the purpose of repair
and rehabilitation.
234
References
[1] AASHTO LRFD [2004] Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary, Third Ed.,
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, 1264 pp.
[2] ACI Committee 318 [2008] Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-08) and Commentary (318R-08), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
465 pp.
[3] ACI Committee 326 [1962] Shear and Diagonal Tension, Journal of the American
Concrete Institute, Proceedings, V. 59, No. 1, 2, 3, J anuary pp. 1-30, February pp. 277-
334, March pp. 352-396.
[4] Andre, H. [1987] Toronto/Kajima Study on Scale Effects in Reinforced Concrete Ele-
ments, M. A. Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 157
pp.
[5] Bentz, E. C. [2000A] Sectional Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members, Ph. D. The-
sis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 310 pp.
[6] Bentz, E. C. [2000B] Membrane-2000 program, http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/
m2k.htm. Last Accessed in Nov., 2008.
[7] Bentz, E. C. [2000C] Response-2000 program, http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/
r2k.htm. Last Accessed in Nov., 2008.
[8] Bentz, E. C.; Vecchio, F. J .; Collins, M. P. [2006] Simplified Modified Compression
Field Theory for Calculating Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Elements, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 103, No. 4, J uly.-Aug., pp. 614-624.
[9] Belarbi, A. and Hsu, T. T. C. [1988] Constitutive Laws of Softened Concrete In Biaxial
Tension-Compression, ACI Structural Journal, Sept.-Oct., pp. 562-573.
[10] Bhide, S. B. and Collins, M. P. [1989] Influence of Axial Tension on the Shear Capac-
ity of Reinforced Concrete Members, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp. 570-
581.
[11] Canadian Standards Association [2004] Design of Concrete Structures A23.3-04, Cana-
dian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario.
References
235
[12] Collins, M. P. and Mitchell D. [1991] Prestressed Concrete Structures, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N. J .
[13] Collins, M. P.; Mitchell D.; Adebar P.; Vecchio, F. J . [1996] A General Shear Design
Method, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 93, No. 1, J an.-Feb., pp. 36-60.
[14] Collins, M. P.; Vecchio, F. J .; Selby, R. G. and Gupta, P. R. [1997] The Failure of an
Offshore Platform, Concrete International, Vol. 19, No. 8, Aug., pp. 28-35.
[15] Dei Poli, S.; Gambarova, G. P.; Karakoc, C. [1987] Aggregate Interlock role In R. C.
Thin-Webbed Beams In Shear, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 1,
J an., pp. 1-19.
[16] Dei Poli, S.; Di Prisco, M.; Gambarova, P. G. [1990] Stress field in web of RC thin-
webbed beams failing in shear, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 116, No. 9,
Sept., pp. 2496-2515.
[17] Elstner, R. C. and Hognestad, E. [1957] Laboratory Investigation of Rigid Frame Fail-
ure, ACI Journal, Proceedings, V. 53, No. 7, J an., pp. 637-668.
[18] Elzanaty, A. H.; Nilson, A. H.; Slate, F. O. [1986] Shear Capacity of Prestressed Con-
crete Beams Using High Strength Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 83, No.3,
May.-J un., pp. 359-368.
[19] Gregor, T. and Collins M. P. [1995] Tests of Large Partially Prestressed Concrete Gird-
ers, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 1, J an.-Feb., pp. 63-72.
[20] Gupta, P. R. and Collins M. P. [2001] Evaluation of Shear Design Procedures for Rein-
forced Concrete Members under Axial Compression, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98,
No 4, J uly.-J un., pp. 537-547.
[21] Haddadin M. J .; Hong, S. T.; Mattock, A. H. [1971] Stirrup Effectiveness in Rein-
forced Concrete Beams with Axial Force, ASCE Structural Journal, Vol. 97, N. ST9,
Sept., pp. 2277-2297.
[22] Hawkins, N. M.; Sozen M. A. and Siess, C. P. [1965] Behavior of Continuous Pre-
stressed Concrete Beams, ACI Special Publication, Vol. 12, No. 1, J an.-Feb., pp. 259-
294.
[23] Hsu, T. T. C. [1988] Softened Truss Model Theory for Shear and Torsion, ACI Struc-
tural Journal, Nov.-Dec., pp. 624-635.
References
236
[24] Hsu, T. T. C. [1993] Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete, CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Fla.
[25] Kani, G. N. J . [1967] How Safe Are Our Large Concrete Beams?, ACI Journal, Pro-
ceedings, Vol. 64, No. 3, Mar., pp. 128-141.
[26] Kirmair, H. [1987] Loadbearing Behavior of Slender Reinforced Concrete Beams Sub-
jected to Shearing Stress. Theoretical and Experimental Investigations on Lightweight
and Normal Concrete, Deutscher Ausschuss fuer Stahlbeton, No. 385, 1987, pp. 5-72.
[27] Kuchma, D. and Collins, M. P. [1999] How Safe Are Our Large, Lightly Reinforced
Concrete Beams, Slabs, and Footings?, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 96, No. 4, J uly.,
pp. 482-490.
[28] Kupfer, H. and Bulicek, H. [1991] Comparison of Fixed and Rotating Crack Models in
Shear Design of Slender Concrete Beams, Proceedings of the International Workshop
on Progress and Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics, pp. 129.
[29] Kupfer, H.; Hilsdorf, H. K. and Rusch, H. [1969] Behavior of Concrete Under Biaxial
Stresses, ACI Structural Journal, Proceedings, Vol. 66, No. 8, Aug., pp. 503-514.
[30] Laupa A.; Siess, C. P. and Newmark N. M. [1955] Strength in Shear of Reinforced
Concrete Beams, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin No.
428.
[31] MacGregor, J . G.; Hanson, J . M. [1969] Proposed Changes in Shear Provisions for
Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Beams:, ACI Structural Journal, Proceedings, Vol.
66, No. 4, April 1, pp. 276-288.
[32] Marti, P. and Meyboom, J . [1992] Response of Prestressed Concrete Elements to In-
Plane Shear Forces, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 89, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 503-514.
[33] Mattock, A. H. [1969] Diagonal Tension Cracking in Concrete Beams with Axial
Forces, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 95, ST9; September, pp. 1887-1990.
[34] Neville, A. M. [1996] Properties of Concrete, Fourth Ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N. J .
[35] Olesen, S. O.; Sozen, M. A. and Siess, C. P. [1967] Investigation of Prestressed Rein-
forced Concrete for Highway Bridges, Part IV: Strength in Shear of Beams With Web
Reinforcement, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin No.
493.
References
237
[36] Pang, X. and Hsu, T. T. C. [1995] Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Membranes in
Shear, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 665-679.
[37] Pang, X.-B. D. and Hsu, T. T. C. [1996] Fixed-angle Softened-Truss Model for Rein-
forced Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 93, No. 2, pp.197-207.
[38] Panian, L; Steyer, M. and Tipping, S. [2007] Post-tensioned Shortcrete Shearwalls,
Concrete International, Vol. 29, No. 10, Oct., pp.39-45.
[39] Prestressed Concrete Institute [1978] PCI Design Handbook, Second Edition, 20 North
Wacker Drive / Chicago, Illinois, 60606.
[40] Reineck, K. H. [1991] Ultimate Shear Force of Structural Concrete Members Without
Transverse Reinforcement Derived From a Mechanical Model, ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 88, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 592-602.
[41] Ritter, W. [1899] Die Bauweise Hennebique Schweizerische Bauzeitung, Vol. 33, No. 7,
pp.59-61.
[42] Sozen, M. A.; Zwoyer, E. M. and Siess, C. P. [1959] Investigation of Prestressed Con-
crete for Highway Bridges, Part I: Strength in Shear of Beams Without Web Reinforce-
ment, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 452.
[43] Vecchio, F. J . and Collins, M. P. [1982] The Response of Reinforced Concrete to In
Plane Shear and Normal Stresses Publication No. 82 03, Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, University of Toronto, 332 pp.
[44] Vecchio, F. J . and Collins, M. P. [1986] The Modified Compression-Field Theory for
Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 83,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 219-231.
[45] Vecchio, F. J . [2000] Disturbed Stress Field Model for Reinforced Concrete: Formula-
tion, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 8, pp. 1070-1077.
[46] Vecchio, F. J . [2003] VecTor2 program, http://www.civ.utoronto.ca/vector/. Last
Accessed in Nov., 2008.
[47] Vecchio, F. J . and Aspiotis, J . [1994] Response of High Strength Concrete Elements in
Shear, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 4, pp. 423-433.
[48] Vegh, P. [1994] Uplatneni bioniky pri optimalizaci inzenyrskych konstrukci, Ph. D. The-
sis, DCVUT - Praha, Fakulta Stavebni, Praha, duben, pp. 156-186. Use of Bionics for
References
238
Optimization of Engineering Structures, Ph. D. Thesis, Czech Technical University -
Prague, Department of Civil Engineering, Prague, April, pp. 156-186.
[49] Wong, P. S. and Vecchio, F. J . [2002] VecTor2 and FormWorks Users Manual, 232 pp.
239
Appendix A
Details of Panel Tests
A1.1 Processing of Zurich Data
The original Zurich data were obtained by measuring the change of the distance between the
adjacent targets for individual load stage. By knowing the distance between the adjacent tar-
gets before any load was applied, the strain between the adjacent targets could be calculated,
from which the strain condition for each subgrid could be obtained. For example, for sub-grid
7-6-10-11:
(A-1)
(A-2)
7 6 LS# ( )
L
7 6 LS# ( )
L
7 6 LS0 ( )
L
7 6 LS0 ( )
--------------------------------------------------- =
6 10 LS# ( )
L
6 10 LS# ( )
L
6 10 LS0 ( )
L
6 10 LS0 ( )
-------------------------------------------------------- =
10 11 LS# ( )
L
10 11 LS# ( )
L
10 11 LS0 ( )
L
10 11 LS0 ( )
------------------------------------------------------------ =
11 7 LS# ( )
L
11 7 LS# ( )
L
11 7 LS0 ( )
L
11 7 LS0 ( )
-------------------------------------------------------- =
6 11 LS# ( )
L
6 11 LS# ( )
L
6 11 LS0 ( )
L
6 11 LS0 ( )
-------------------------------------------------------- =
7 10 LS# ( )
L
7 10 LS# ( )
L
7 10 LS0 ( )
L
7 10 LS0 ( )
-------------------------------------------------------- =
x

6 10

11 7
+ ( ) 2 =
y

7 6

10 11
+ ( ) 2 =
45
6 11
=
135
7 10
=
xy
2
135
x

y
+ ( ) =
Appendix A - Details of Panel Tests

240
(A-3)
In order to compare with the LVDT data, the Zurich data should be first averaged over one
surface in four different directions using Eq. (A-4) and then averaged on both surfaces. Then
the strain condition for the whole panel could be formulated using Eq. (A-3) and compared
with the data from the LVDTs.
(A-4)
As one way to present the results from Zurich readings, the principal strain and its direction in
each sub-grid were calculated and plotted as a vector with arrows at both ends in each sub-
grid. Here, the size of the vectors depended on the value of the principal tensile strain. The
maximum principal tensile strain out of nine sub-grids on one surface was given a fixed length
and all the others were scaled down relative to the maximum value. The orientation of the vec-
tors represented the direction of the principal compressive strain. Hence, the figures for the
principal strain had an approximate indication of where the cracks should locate and how
wide the cracks should be.
The other way to verify if the Zurich data were consistent was by drawing Mohrs Circles.
Since any strain in three different directions can determine an individual Mohrs Circle, three
independent circles could be plotted using the available Zurich data. How these three Mohrs
Circles were obtained are shown in Table A.1.
x

y
+ ( ) 2 0.5
x

y
( )
2
xy
2
+ + =
x

y
+ ( ) 2 0.5
x

y
( )
2
xy
2
+ =

x

2
y

2
---------------

atan =
x avg

1 5

5 9

6 10

10 14

3 7

7 11

8 12

12 16
+ + + + + + + + + +
12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- =
y avg

1 2

2 3

6 7

7 8

9 10

10 11

14 15

15 16
+ + + + + + + + + +
12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- =
45 avg

1 6

5 10

2 7

9 14

6 11

3 8

10 15

7 12

11 16
+ + + + + + + +
9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- =
135 avg

2 5

9 6

6 3

13 10

10 7

7 4

14 11

11 8

15 12
+ + + + + + + +
9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- =

241
The detailed information of all the panel tests were summarized by charts and tables in the fol-
lowing sections. These information included the concrete mix proportion after the moisture
correction for each specimen, the measurement of the concrete workability, the compressive
strength (cylinder) of the concrete, the concrete strength development curve (also the best lin-
ear fit for the development curve), the crack development diagram, the detailed Zurich data
(including measured strain between targets, the relative value of the principal strains and their
directions for each sub-grid and the Mohrs Circles calculated from the average Zurich data in
different directions), and the summary of the LVDT measurement and the strain gauge read-
ings.
A1.2 Information about Concrete Mix
A1.2.1 Correction of Moisture Content
The materials weight listed in Table A.2 are based on the assumption that all the materials
are apparent surface saturated. As the actual water content of the materials differed for each
cast, it was necessary to carry out moisture content correction for each cast. For more infor-
mation about moisture content correction, please refer to Neville [1996].
Table A.1 Parameters for Mohrs Circle
Circle#1 Circle#2 Circle#3
Center
Radius
Data Points
x
0
x

y
+
2
---------------- y
0
, 0 = =
x
0
y
0
( , ) x
0
y
0
( , ) x
0
y
0
( , )
yx

y

x

xy1
2
--------- ,
135
x
0

xy2
2
--------- , x
0
45

xy
,
135
45
= = = =
r
1
yx
2
xy1
2
+
2
---------------------------- = r
2
yx
2
xy2
2
+
2
---------------------------- = r

yx
2
xy
2
+
2
------------------------- =
xy
2
------- ( , )
y

xy
2
---------- ( , )
45
yx
2
---------- ( , )
135
yx
2
------- ( , ) , , ,
242
A1.2.2 Concrete Mixing
Three days before the cast, stones were cleaned using tap water to remove the dust and left to
air-dry on steel pans for 24 hours, usually 60 kg per steel pan. Then the stones and the sands
were batched according to the mix design. The stones and sands were sealed in plastic pails to
maintain their moisture. Samples of stones and sands were taken to be oven-dried overnight.
On the day of the cast, the moisture of sands and stones were measured and corrected. The
concrete was mixed using the mixer in the concrete lab at the University of Toronto, see Fig
A.1. The capacity of the mixer is 150 l. But to obtain the best mixing result, only two-third of
the capacity should be used. The concrete was mixed according to the following procedure:
1. Spray the mixer to make the mixer damp. Wipe the excessive water with rag;
2. Put constituents into the hopper by the following sequence: stone, sand, cement, sand, and
stone;
3. Dump everything in the hopper into the drum and start to rotate the drum, mix dry materi-
als for about 2 minutes;
4. Add 1/2 water and water-reducer, mix for 2 minutes;
5. Stop the mixer for 1 minute;
6. Add the remaining 1/2 water and super plasticizer, mix for 2 minutes;
7. Dump the concrete into the wheel barrow while the mixer is still running. Test the slump
of the concrete and cast the panel and the cylinders.

Figure A.1 Mixer in Concrete Lab
243
A1.3 PL1
PL1 was cast on J anuary 23rd, 2006 and tested on March 15th, 2006. PL1 was tested under
combined compression and shear with . The actual thickness of PL1 was 73.8
mm, the amount of longitudinal reinforcement was 1.571% and the amount of transverse rein-
forcement was 0.1842%. PL1 cracked at a shear stress of 3.84 MPa and failed at a shear stress
of 4.31 MPa due to rupture of the stirrups and sliding along the critical shear crack.
Table A.2 Concrete Mix for PL1
Unit
Mix
before m.c.
Mix
after m.c.
Water Cement Ratio 0.62 0.62
Type 10 Cement kg 31.2 31.2
Water kg 19.34 19.90
Coarse Aggregate (Stone) kg 126 126.9
Fine Aggregate (Sand) kg 104.4 106.0
Water Reducer (Polyheed 997) ml 156 156
Super Plasticizer (Rheobuild 1000) ml 120 120
Volume l 0.12 0.12
Slump mm 180
Table A.3 Moisture Correction for PL1
Pan Weight
(g)
Wet Weight
(g)
Dry Weight
(g)
Water
Content
(%)
Absorption
(%)
Stone 200 1295 1287 0.709 1.213
Sand 195 1525 1504 1.575 1.5
f
x
v 2.0 =
244
Table A.4 Cylinder Strength for PL1 (MPa)
7-day 14-day 21-day 28-day 59-day
100 mm by 200 mm 31.4 33.3 - 36.2 38.4
100 mm by 200 mm 31.0 35.3 - 34.5 37.3
100 mm by 200 mm 32.0 34.3 - 32.8 39.7
Average 31.4 34.3 - 34.5 38.5
6 by 12 - - - - 40.5
6 by 12 - - - - 39.6
6 by 12 - - - - 40.4
Average - - - - 40.2
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
Figure A.2 Strength Development of Concrete (PL1)
245
246
247
Figure A.3 Crack Diagrams for PL1
Figure A.4 Zurich Data for PL1 - East Surface (Strain, Unit: m)
248
Figure A.5 Zurich Data for PL1 - East Surface (Principal Strain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL1 East (f
x
/v=-2.0)
v=2.231 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL1 East (f
x
/v=-2.0)
v=2.632 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL1 East (f
x
/v=-2.0)
v=3.063 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL1 East (f
x
/v=-2.0)
v=3.456 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL1 East (f
x
/v=-2.0)
v=3.841 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL1 East (f
x
/v=-2.0)
v=4.038 MPa
249
Figure A.6 Zurich Data for PL1 - West Surface (Strain, unit: m)
250
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL1 West (f
x
/v=-2.0)
v=2.231 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL1 West (f
x
/v=-2.0)
v=2.632 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL1 West (f
x
/v=-2.0)
v=3.063 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL1 West (f
x
/v=-2.0)
v=3.456 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL1 West (f
x
/v=-2.0)
v=3.841 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL1 West (f
x
/v=-2.0)
v=4.038 MPa
Figure A.7 Zurich Data for PL1 - West Surface (Principal Strain)
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL1 (f
x
/v=-2.0)
Figure A.8 Zurich Data for PL1 (Mohrs Circle)
251
Dset Time v H
x
H
y
H
45
H
J
xy
H
H
T S1 S8 L3 L4
(#) (h:mm:ss) (MPa) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (deg) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m)
0 0:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 0:00:04 0.21 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 12.3 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.02
2 0:00:09 0.28 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 -0.01 28.3 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.03
81 1:37:01 2.08 -0.14 0.01 -0.10 0.02 0.18 0.05 -0.19 25.4 0.03 0.02 -0.11 -0.14
82 1:37:09 2.13 -0.14 0.01 -0.11 0.03 0.19 0.06 -0.19 25.2 0.03 0.02 -0.11 -0.15
83 1:37:18 2.17 -0.15 0.01 -0.10 0.02 0.18 0.05 -0.19 24.4 0.03 0.02 -0.12 -0.15
84 1:37:25 2.20 -0.15 0.01 -0.11 0.02 0.18 0.05 -0.19 23.9 0.03 0.02 -0.12 -0.12
85 1:37:33 2.23 -0.15 0.01 -0.11 0.02 0.17 0.05 -0.19 23.6 0.03 0.03 -0.12 -0.15 LS#1
86 1:37:44 2.26 -0.15 0.01 -0.11 0.02 0.18 0.05 -0.19 24.1 0.03 0.02 -0.12 -0.15 w
average
w
max
87 1:37:49 2.30 -0.15 0.02 -0.11 0.02 0.18 0.06 -0.19 23.7 0.03 0.03 -0.12 -0.16 (mm) (mm)
88 1:37:56 2.33 -0.15 0.01 -0.11 0.03 0.19 0.06 -0.20 24.5 0.03 0.02 -0.12 -0.16 0.4 0.8
89 1:38:05 2.35 -0.16 0.01 -0.12 0.02 0.19 0.05 -0.20 23.9 0.03 0.02 -0.13 -0.16
90 1:38:12 2.38 -0.16 0.02 -0.12 0.02 0.19 0.06 -0.20 23.7 0.03 0.03 -0.12 -0.16
91 1:38:21 2.42 -0.16 0.01 -0.12 0.02 0.19 0.05 -0.20 23.7 0.03 0.03 -0.13 -0.16
92 1:38:30 2.45 -0.16 0.02 -0.12 0.02 0.19 0.06 -0.20 23.3 0.04 0.03 -0.13 -0.17
93 1:38:46 2.49 -0.16 0.01 -0.12 0.02 0.19 0.05 -0.20 23.5 0.04 0.03 -0.13 -0.16
94 1:38:53 2.52 -0.17 0.01 -0.12 0.02 0.19 0.05 -0.21 23.8 0.04 0.03 -0.13 -0.17
95 1:39:03 2.56 -0.17 0.02 -0.12 0.02 0.19 0.06 -0.21 22.7 0.04 0.03 -0.14 -0.16
96 1:39:10 2.58 -0.17 0.02 -0.12 0.02 0.20 0.06 -0.22 23.9 0.04 0.04 -0.14 -0.17
97 1:39:17 2.61 -0.17 0.01 -0.12 0.02 0.21 0.06 -0.22 24.0 0.04 0.03 -0.14 -0.17
98 1:39:28 2.63 -0.17 0.01 -0.12 0.02 0.20 0.05 -0.22 23.4 0.04 0.03 -0.14 -0.17 LS#2
99 1:39:42 2.59 -0.17 0.02 -0.13 0.02 0.19 0.06 -0.21 22.0 0.04 0.03 -0.14 -0.17
100 1:39:45 2.55 -0.17 0.01 -0.12 0.01 0.18 0.05 -0.21 22.6 0.04 0.03 -0.14 -0.17 w
average
w
max
101 1:39:49 2.47 -0.17 0.01 -0.13 0.02 0.19 0.06 -0.21 23.2 0.04 0.02 -0.14 -0.17 (mm) (mm)
102 1:39:53 2.42 -0.17 0.01 -0.12 0.01 0.19 0.05 -0.21 23.3 0.04 0.03 -0.14 -0.16 0.6 0.8
203 2:46:51 3.38 -0.23 0.03 -0.17 0.01 0.22 0.07 -0.27 20.4 0.05 0.04 -0.19 -0.23
204 2:46:55 3.39 -0.23 0.02 -0.17 0.00 0.20 0.05 -0.26 19.9 0.06 0.04 -0.19 -0.23
205 2:46:59 3.42 -0.23 0.02 -0.18 0.00 0.21 0.06 -0.27 20.1 0.06 0.04 -0.19 -0.23
206 2:47:02 3.43 -0.23 0.02 -0.16 0.01 0.22 0.06 -0.27 20.7 0.06 0.04 -0.20 -0.22
207 2:47:06 3.43 -0.23 0.03 -0.17 0.01 0.22 0.07 -0.27 20.4 0.05 0.04 -0.19 -0.23
208 2:47:10 3.45 -0.23 0.02 -0.17 0.01 0.22 0.06 -0.27 20.8 0.06 0.04 -0.20 -0.23
209 2:47:14 3.45 -0.23 0.02 -0.17 0.01 0.22 0.06 -0.27 20.8 0.06 0.04 -0.20 -0.23
210 2:47:17 3.46 -0.23 0.02 -0.17 0.00 0.21 0.06 -0.27 20.1 0.06 0.04 -0.19 -0.23 LS#4
211 2:47:21 3.45 -0.23 0.02 -0.17 0.01 0.22 0.06 -0.27 20.8 0.06 0.04 -0.20 -0.23
212 2:47:25 3.40 -0.23 0.03 -0.17 0.01 0.22 0.07 -0.27 19.9 0.05 0.04 -0.19 -0.23 w
average
w
max
213 2:47:28 3.34 -0.23 0.02 -0.17 0.00 0.21 0.06 -0.27 20.4 0.05 0.04 -0.19 -0.23 (mm) (mm)
214 2:47:32 3.27 -0.23 0.02 -0.17 0.00 0.22 0.06 -0.27 20.5 0.06 0.04 -0.19 -0.23 0.6 1.4
253 3:20:53 3.73 -0.25 0.03 -0.19 0.02 0.25 0.08 -0.30 20.8 0.06 0.04 -0.22 -0.26
254 3:20:57 3.75 -0.25 0.03 -0.19 0.02 0.25 0.08 -0.30 20.8 0.06 0.05 -0.22 -0.26
255 3:21:00 3.77 -0.25 0.04 -0.20 0.02 0.25 0.08 -0.30 20.5 0.06 0.04 -0.22 -0.26
256 3:21:04 3.78 -0.25 0.03 -0.19 0.02 0.27 0.08 -0.30 21.8 0.06 0.05 -0.22 -0.26
257 3:21:08 3.79 -0.25 0.03 -0.19 0.02 0.26 0.08 -0.30 21.0 0.06 0.05 -0.23 -0.27
258 3:21:12 3.81 -0.25 0.03 -0.19 0.03 0.28 0.09 -0.31 22.1 0.06 0.05 -0.23 -0.26
259 3:21:15 3.83 -0.23 0.74 -0.08 0.64 0.78 0.87 -0.32 19.5 0.05 0.28 -0.23 -0.24
260 3:21:19 3.84 -0.21 1.07 -0.03 0.86 0.86 1.20 -0.34 16.9 0.06 0.38 -0.23 -0.24 LS#5
261 3:21:23 3.82 -0.18 1.14 -0.02 1.22 1.47 1.47 -0.33 24.1 0.06 0.39 -0.26 -0.26
262 3:21:27 3.81 -0.13 1.30 -0.02 1.43 1.69 1.69 -0.34 24.9 0.07 0.42 -0.27 -0.26 w
average
w
max
T
avg
263 3:21:31 3.81 -0.12 1.32 -0.02 1.47 1.74 1.73 -0.35 25.1 0.07 0.44 -0.26 -0.25 (mm) (mm) (deg)
264 3:21:35 3.52 -0.10 1.36 0.01 1.51 1.75 1.77 -0.33 25.1 0.07 0.46 -0.25 -0.24 0.35 0.7 25
305 4:11:54 3.87 -0.07 1.97 0.09 2.21 2.52 2.57 -0.41 25.5 0.07 0.74 -0.28 -0.26
306 4:12:01 3.91 -0.07 2.01 0.10 2.27 2.60 2.64 -0.41 25.7 0.07 0.74 -0.27 -0.26
307 4:12:05 3.92 -0.07 2.05 0.11 2.38 2.78 2.74 -0.40 26.4 0.07 0.74 -0.28 -0.26
308 4:12:15 3.94 -0.06 2.11 0.12 2.47 2.90 2.83 -0.40 26.6 0.07 0.74 -0.28 -0.27
309 4:12:31 3.97 -0.06 2.19 0.15 2.56 2.99 2.94 -0.40 26.5 0.07 0.75 -0.28 -0.26
310 4:12:37 4.01 -0.06 2.23 0.15 2.61 3.05 2.99 -0.40 26.5 0.07 0.75 -0.28 -0.26
311 4:12:47 4.03 -0.05 2.38 0.19 2.74 3.14 3.15 -0.40 26.1 0.09 0.75 -0.32 0.42
312 4:12:51 4.04 0.09 3.25 0.38 3.53 3.73 4.11 -0.40 24.9 0.09 2.91 -0.21 0.92 LS#6
313 4:12:54 4.03 0.11 3.37 0.41 3.65 3.82 4.25 -0.41 24.7 0.10 3.18 -0.17 1.02
314 4:12:58 3.92 0.12 3.47 0.45 3.72 3.85 4.35 -0.41 24.5 0.11 3.57 -0.14 1.08 w
average
w
max
T
avg
315 4:13:02 3.82 0.13 3.55 0.48 3.78 3.88 4.42 -0.40 24.3 0.20 3.93 -0.10 1.10 (mm) (mm) (deg)
316 4:13:05 3.65 0.14 3.59 0.49 3.79 3.85 4.45 -0.41 24.1 0.36 4.19 -0.08 1.10 0.65 1.7 22
368 4:48:45 4.24 0.30 6.45 1.28 6.18 5.61 7.53 -0.61 21.2 5.38 2.93 -0.07 1.36
369 4:48:49 4.25 0.30 6.54 1.30 6.37 5.90 7.71 -0.70 21.7 5.33 2.94 -0.07 1.37
370 4:48:52 4.29 0.30 6.67 1.33 6.52 6.06 7.88 -0.73 21.8 5.38 2.96 -0.07 1.38
371 4:48:56 4.30 0.30 7.38 1.39 7.10 6.53 8.65 -0.79 21.3 5.25 2.97 -0.07 1.38
372 4:49:00 4.29 0.31 7.80 1.51 7.43 6.75 9.09 -0.81 21.0 5.18 2.93 -0.07 1.39
373 4:49:04 4.29 0.31 8.10 1.59 7.63 6.85 9.39 -0.80 20.7 5.07 2.91 -0.08 1.39
374 4:49:08 4.29 0.31 8.26 1.62 7.75 6.93 9.56 -0.81 20.5 5.01 2.91 -0.08 1.40
375 4:49:12 4.29 0.32 8.45 1.67 7.89 7.01 9.75 -0.81 20.4 4.90 2.94 -0.07 1.42
376 4:49:15 4.30 0.32 8.65 1.73 8.06 7.15 9.97 -0.83 20.3 4.88 2.94 -0.07 1.42
377 4:49:19 4.31 0.31 8.91 1.79 8.38 7.55 10.33 -0.93 20.6 4.73 3.02 -0.08 1.20
Average Concrete Surface Strains Rebar Strains fx:v = -2.0
Notes
Failure
Linear Uncracked Response
Edge Crack
Edge Crack Kept
Increasing and
Edge Crack Kept
Increasing and
First Set of Diagonal Cracks
More Diagonal Cracks
Stirrup Start to Yield
Table A.5 Specimen Summary : PL1
252
A1.4 PL2
PL2 was cast on October 31st, 2006 and tested on J anuary 25th, 2007. PL2 was tested under
combined compression and shear with . The actual thickness of PL2 was 73.3
mm, the amount of longitudinal reinforcement was 1.582% and the amount of transverse rein-
forcement was 0.1855%. PL2 cracked at a shear stress of 2.36 MPa and failed at a shear stress
of 3.21 MPa due to rupture of the stirrups.
Unit
Mix
before m.c.
Mix
after m.c.
Water kg 19.34 22.0
Volume l 0.12 0.12
Slump mm 195
Pan Weight
(g)
Wet Weight
(g)
Dry Weight
(g)
Water Cont
(%)
Absorption
(%)
Stone 195 1780 1778 0.158 1.213
Sand 200 1195 1193 0.252 1.5
f
x
v 1.0 =
253
100 mm by 200 mm 24.7 32.7 31.7 33.8 39.1
100 mm by 200 mm 26.5 29.3 32.2 32.8 37.4
100 mm by 200 mm 23.7 - 32.9 35.6 38.2
Average 25.0 31.0 32.3 34.1 38.2
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
20
25
30
35
40
45
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
254
255
256
Figure A.11 Zurich Data for PL2 - East Surface (Strain, unit: m)
257
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL2 East (f
x
/v=-1.0)
v=2.096 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL2 East (f
x
/v=-1.0)
v=2.359 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL2 East (f
x
/v=-1.0)
v=2.668 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL2 East (f
x
/v=-1.0)
v=2.813 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL2 East (f
x
/v=-1.0)
v=2.968 MPa
258
259
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL2 West (f
x
/v=-1.0)
v=2.096 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL2 West (f
x
/v=-1.0)
v=2.359 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL2 West (f
x
/v=-1.0)
v=2.668 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL2 West (f
x
/v=-1.0)
v=2.813 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL2 West (f
x
/v=-1.0)
v=2.968 MPa
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL2 (f
x
/v=-1.0)
260
Dset Time v H
x
H
y
H
45
H
J
xy
H
H
T S4 S5 S6 L3 L4
(#) (h:mm:ss) (MPa) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (deg) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m)
0 0:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 0:00:04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.00 50.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.02 0.00
2 0:00:19 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.1 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.03 0.00
3 0:00:23 0.22 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 30.0 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.00
21 0:02:32 1.53 -0.03 0.00 -0.05 0.05 0.12 0.05 -0.08 36.2 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.06 -0.02
22 0:02:36 1.57 -0.03 0.00 -0.05 0.05 0.13 0.05 -0.08 36.4 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.07 -0.02
23 0:02:40 1.64 -0.04 0.00 -0.05 0.05 0.13 0.05 -0.09 36.4 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.07 -0.02
24 0:02:44 1.72 -0.04 0.00 -0.05 0.05 0.14 0.05 -0.09 36.5 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.07 -0.02
25 0:02:49 1.76 -0.04 0.00 -0.05 0.05 0.15 0.06 -0.09 37.0 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.07 -0.02
26 0:03:00 1.84 -0.04 0.00 -0.06 0.06 0.16 0.06 -0.10 36.5 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.07 -0.02
27 0:03:04 1.88 -0.04 0.00 -0.06 0.06 0.16 0.06 -0.10 36.9 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.08 -0.02
28 0:03:14 1.96 -0.05 0.00 -0.06 0.06 0.17 0.07 -0.11 36.5 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.07 -0.02
29 0:03:21 2.04 -0.05 0.00 -0.06 0.06 0.17 0.07 -0.11 36.6 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.08 -0.03
30 0:03:25 2.10 -0.05 0.00 -0.07 0.07 0.18 0.07 -0.12 36.5 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.08 -0.02 LS#1
31 0:03:39 2.16 -0.05 0.00 -0.07 0.07 0.19 0.07 -0.12 36.4 0.01 0.02 0.01 -0.08 -0.02
32 0:03:50 2.23 -0.06 0.00 -0.07 0.08 0.22 0.09 -0.13 37.3 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.08 -0.03 w
average
w
max T
avg
33 0:03:54 2.27 -0.06 0.00 -0.07 0.08 0.22 0.09 -0.13 37.0 0.02 0.01 0.01 -0.09 -0.03 (mm) (mm) (deg)
34 0:04:05 2.33 0.01 0.05 -0.08 0.19 0.33 0.19 -0.14 41.8 0.32 0.03 0.03 -0.08 -0.03 0.1
35 0:04:21 2.36 0.03 0.07 -0.08 0.24 0.38 0.24 -0.14 42.1 0.40 0.03 0.04 -0.08 -0.03 LS#2
36 0:04:37 2.33 0.03 0.07 -0.08 0.25 0.41 0.25 -0.14 42.3 0.42 0.03 0.04 -0.08 -0.03
37 0:04:42 2.26 0.03 0.07 -0.08 0.25 0.40 0.25 -0.14 42.2 0.42 0.03 0.04 -0.08 -0.03 w
average
w
max T
avg
38 0:04:46 2.16 0.03 0.07 -0.08 0.26 0.41 0.26 -0.14 42.7 0.42 0.03 0.03 -0.07 -0.02 (mm) (mm) (deg)
39 0:10:02 2.17 0.03 0.07 -0.08 0.27 0.43 0.27 -0.14 42.2 0.45 0.03 0.04 -0.08 -0.02 0.1 0.15 30
40 0:15:22 2.17 0.03 0.08 -0.08 0.27 0.42 0.27 -0.14 42.0 0.46 0.03 0.03 -0.08 -0.02
43 0:27:08 2.25 0.04 0.08 -0.09 0.27 0.43 0.27 -0.15 42.3 0.47 0.03 0.04 -0.08 -0.02
44 0:27:24 2.29 0.03 0.08 -0.09 0.27 0.43 0.27 -0.15 41.9 0.48 0.03 0.04 -0.08 -0.02
45 0:27:41 2.35 0.03 0.08 -0.09 0.28 0.45 0.28 -0.15 42.0 0.49 0.03 0.04 -0.08 -0.02
46 0:28:02 2.43 0.03 0.08 -0.09 0.29 0.47 0.29 -0.16 42.1 0.50 0.03 0.04 -0.08 -0.02
47 0:28:11 2.46 0.03 0.08 -0.09 0.30 0.48 0.30 -0.15 42.1 0.50 0.03 0.04 -0.08 -0.02
48 0:28:21 2.49 0.04 0.08 -0.09 0.31 0.50 0.31 -0.16 42.3 0.51 0.03 0.04 -0.08 -0.02
49 0:28:35 2.55 0.04 0.09 -0.09 0.33 0.53 0.33 -0.17 42.3 0.53 0.03 0.04 -0.09 -0.02
50 0:28:59 2.62 0.04 0.10 -0.10 0.35 0.57 0.36 -0.17 42.2 0.57 0.03 0.04 -0.09 -0.02
51 0:29:13 2.65 0.05 0.12 -0.10 0.38 0.59 0.38 -0.17 41.7 0.67 0.03 0.05 -0.08 0.01
52 0:29:20 2.64 0.05 0.43 -0.11 0.70 0.91 0.73 -0.17 33.8 2.27 0.03 0.08 -0.09 0.04
53 0:29:24 2.67 0.08 0.63 -0.11 0.84 0.97 0.91 -0.18 30.1 2.61 0.03 0.16 -0.09 0.06 LS#3
54 0:29:35 2.64 0.08 0.72 -0.11 0.90 1.00 0.99 -0.18 28.7 2.76 0.03 0.25 -0.06 0.08
60 0:31:16 2.37 0.24 1.28 0.05 1.30 1.08 1.51 -0.17 23.0 2.50 0.07 3.68 0.63 0.31 w
average
w
max T
avg
76 1:45:41 2.61 0.26 1.42 0.09 1.46 1.24 1.69 -0.19 23.5 2.69 0.14 5.60 0.70 0.35 (mm) (mm) (deg)
77 1:45:49 2.65 0.27 1.48 0.11 1.50 1.25 1.75 -0.19 23.0 2.73 0.15 6.48 0.70 0.35 0.3 0.45 25.2
78 1:46:18 2.71 0.28 1.61 0.16 1.60 1.32 1.88 -0.19 22.4 2.81 0.15 8.50 0.72 0.35
79 1:46:27 2.74 0.28 1.68 0.19 1.82 1.68 2.07 -0.19 25.2 2.82 0.15 9.70 0.71 0.36
80 1:46:35 2.75 0.29 1.75 0.21 1.91 1.79 2.17 -0.19 25.4 2.85 0.15 10.65 0.73 0.37
81 1:47:00 2.79 0.30 1.86 0.26 2.02 1.87 2.30 -0.19 25.1 2.93 0.16 11.80 0.76 0.38
82 1:47:10 2.81 0.30 1.94 0.29 2.08 1.91 2.38 -0.19 24.7 2.98 0.16 12.15 0.77 0.39 LS#4
83 1:47:20 2.73 0.31 1.97 0.30 2.11 1.94 2.42 -0.19 24.7 3.00 0.16 12.08 0.77 0.40
84 1:47:24 2.64 0.31 1.98 0.31 2.11 1.94 2.42 -0.19 24.6 2.99 0.16 11.95 0.77 0.40 w
average
w
max T
avg
85 1:47:28 2.58 0.31 1.98 0.31 2.11 1.93 2.42 -0.18 24.6 2.98 0.15 11.85 0.77 0.40 (mm) (mm) (deg)
86 1:52:53 2.56 0.31 1.98 0.32 2.12 1.95 2.43 -0.19 24.7 2.96 0.17 10.55 0.80 0.42 0.65 1.05 25.4
94 2:15:14 2.74 0.30 2.03 0.29 2.16 1.98 2.48 -0.21 24.5 3.00 0.19 10.40 0.80 0.43
95 2:15:25 2.77 0.30 2.07 0.31 2.19 2.01 2.52 -0.22 24.4 3.03 0.20 10.64 0.80 0.43
96 2:15:47 2.84 0.31 2.19 0.35 2.29 2.07 2.65 -0.22 23.9 3.18 0.20 11.20 0.82 0.43
97 2:16:14 2.90 0.32 2.32 0.40 2.39 2.13 2.79 -0.23 23.4 3.38 0.20 11.42 0.85 0.43
98 2:16:33 2.94 0.33 2.45 0.44 2.49 2.20 2.92 -0.23 23.1 3.61 0.19 11.21 0.86 0.44
99 2:16:49 2.94 0.42 2.72 0.49 2.99 2.83 3.39 -0.25 25.4 3.74 0.21 10.43 0.78 0.46
100 2:16:53 2.96 0.43 2.97 0.53 3.27 3.13 3.72 -0.25 25.4 3.88 0.21 10.65 0.79 0.47
101 2:17:01 2.97 0.44 3.09 0.56 3.37 3.21 3.84 -0.25 25.2 3.95 0.22 9.83 0.81 0.48 LS#5
102 2:17:13 2.96 0.46 3.24 0.61 3.52 3.34 4.02 -0.25 25.1 4.51 0.22 9.04 0.85 0.48
103 2:17:17 2.92 0.47 3.29 0.62 3.57 3.38 4.08 -0.25 25.1 4.66 0.22 8.69 0.84 0.48 w
average
w
max T
avg
114 2:46:43 2.74 0.46 3.37 0.65 3.57 3.30 4.11 -0.24 24.3 4.69 0.26 5.95 0.87 0.49 (mm) (mm) (deg)
116 2:47:02 2.84 0.47 3.43 0.66 3.64 3.37 4.19 -0.25 24.3 4.78 0.26 6.21 0.86 0.49 0.8 1.4 30.3
129 2:48:56 3.16 0.60 5.24 1.38 5.11 4.38 6.11 -0.35 21.7 7.38 0.27 4.98 0.88 0.59
130 2:49:02 3.16 0.61 5.39 1.45 5.23 4.47 6.27 -0.36 21.5 7.49 0.27 4.87 0.88 0.60
131 2:49:07 3.17 0.61 5.55 1.52 5.37 4.57 6.45 -0.37 21.4 7.55 0.27 4.78 0.88 0.60
132 2:49:12 3.18 0.62 5.70 1.59 5.50 4.67 6.61 -0.38 21.3 7.60 0.27 4.74 0.87 0.61
133 2:49:16 3.18 0.62 5.87 1.66 5.63 4.76 6.79 -0.38 21.1 7.65 0.27 4.72 0.86 0.61
134 2:49:20 3.19 0.63 6.07 1.75 5.82 4.94 7.02 -0.41 21.1 7.68 0.27 4.75 0.83 0.61
135 2:49:25 3.20 0.63 6.38 1.90 6.07 5.14 7.36 -0.44 20.9 7.68 0.27 4.86 0.78 0.62
136 2:49:28 3.21 0.64 6.88 2.16 6.42 5.32 7.86 -0.43 20.2 7.65 0.27 5.24 0.65 0.63
137 2:49:33 3.21 0.74 19.43 9.41 13.19 6.76 20.01 -0.59 9.7 7.65 0.27 5.24 0.65 0.63
138 2:49:37 3.21 0.76 19.47 9.47 13.21 6.77 20.04 -0.60 9.7 7.65 0.27 5.24 0.65 0.63
Crack Due to Out of
Plane Bending
1st Inclined Crack, More Out
of Plane Bending Crack
Average Concrete Surface Strains Rebar Strains fx:v = -1.0
Notes
Failure
More Inclined
Cracks Appeared
More Inclined
Cracks Appeared
More Inclined
Cracks Appeared
261
A1.5 PL3
PL3 was cast on November 14th, 2006 and tested on February 1st, 2007. PL3 was tested under
combined tension and shear with . The actual thickness of PL3 was 73.8 mm, the
amount of longitudinal reinforcement was 1.571% and the amount of transverse reinforce-
ment was 0.1842%. PL3 cracked at a shear stress of 1.186 MPa and failed at a shear stress of
3.04 MPa due to rupture of the stirrups.
Unit
Mix
before m.c.
Mix
after m.c.
Water kg 19.34 20.9
Volume l 0.12 0.12
Slump mm 90
Pan Weight
(g)
Wet Weight
(g)
Dry Weight
(g)
Water Cont
(%)
Absorption
(%)
Stone 195 1797 1788 0.557 1.213
Sand 200 1319 1310 0.781 1.5
f
x
v 1.0 =
262
100 mm by 200 mm 28.9 34.7 37.3 39.3 42.0
100 mm by 200 mm 32.1 37.8 38.7 39.8 41.4
100 mm by 200 mm 33.1 35.5 38.6 37.8 42.7
Average 31.4 36.0 38.2 38.9 42.0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
263
264
265
266
267
268
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL3 East (f
x
/v=1.0)
v=0.671 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL3 East (f
x
/v=1.0)
v=1.186 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL3 East (f
x
/v=1.0)
v=1.34 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL3 East (f
x
/v=1.0)
v=1.779 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL3 East (f
x
/v=1.0)
v=1.594 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL3 East (f
x
/v=1.0)
v=2.059 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL3 East (f
x
/v=1.0)
v=2.292 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL3 East (f
x
/v=1.0)
v=2.623 MPa
269
270
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL3 West (f
x
/v=1.0)
v=0.671 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL3 West (f
x
/v=1.0)
v=1.186 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL3 West (f
x
/v=1.0)
v=1.34 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL3 West (f
x
/v=1.0)
v=1.594 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL3 West (f
x
/v=1.0)
v=1.779 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL3 West (f
x
/v=1.0)
v=2.059 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL3 West (f
x
/v=1.0)
v=2.292 MPa
271
0 2 4 6 8
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
0 2 4 6 8
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
0 2 4 6 8
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL3 (f
x
/v=1.0)
272
Dset Time v H
x
H
y
H
45
H
J
xy
H
H
T S4 S5 L3 L4
0 0:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 0:01:09 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 76.2 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.00
2 0:01:17 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.01 72.9 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.00
16 0:03:22 0.56 0.06 0.06 -0.01 0.08 0.03 0.08 -0.01 47.5 0.12 0.23 0.21 0.05
17 0:03:35 0.60 0.07 0.07 -0.01 0.08 0.04 0.08 -0.02 43.5 0.13 0.27 0.24 0.05
18 0:03:41 0.62 0.07 0.07 -0.01 0.09 0.04 0.09 -0.02 44.7 0.14 0.28 0.25 0.06
19 0:04:06 0.63 0.07 0.08 -0.01 0.10 0.04 0.10 -0.02 43.1 0.15 0.31 0.28 0.07
20 0:04:16 0.67 0.08 0.08 -0.01 0.10 0.04 0.10 -0.02 42.0 0.16 0.33 0.30 0.07 LS#1
21 0:04:31 0.64 0.08 0.09 -0.01 0.11 0.04 0.11 -0.02 40.2 0.16 0.34 0.29 0.08
22 0:04:35 0.60 0.08 0.08 -0.01 0.11 0.05 0.11 -0.02 42.2 0.15 0.33 0.29 0.08 w
average
w
max T
avg
23 0:10:01 0.60 0.08 0.08 -0.02 0.10 0.04 0.10 -0.02 42.5 0.16 0.34 0.29 0.08 (mm) (mm) (deg)
24 0:31:27 0.61 0.08 0.09 -0.01 0.11 0.03 0.11 -0.02 36.9 0.17 0.34 0.29 0.09 0.1 0.15 40
41 0:43:01 0.99 0.16 0.23 -0.01 0.22 0.05 0.24 -0.03 19.7 0.33 0.81 0.60 0.24
42 0:43:14 1.04 0.17 0.25 -0.01 0.24 0.06 0.25 -0.03 18.2 0.35 0.87 0.64 0.25
43 0:43:23 1.06 0.18 0.25 -0.01 0.25 0.06 0.27 -0.03 19.0 0.36 0.92 0.66 0.26
44 0:43:41 1.07 0.18 0.28 -0.01 0.26 0.07 0.29 -0.03 17.4 0.39 0.99 0.68 0.27
45 0:43:52 1.12 0.19 0.30 -0.01 0.28 0.07 0.31 -0.03 16.3 0.41 1.06 0.72 0.28
46 0:44:02 1.13 0.20 0.32 -0.01 0.31 0.09 0.34 -0.03 17.6 0.49 1.16 0.77 0.28
47 0:44:24 1.16 0.23 0.36 -0.01 0.35 0.10 0.38 -0.04 19.3 0.53 1.26 0.84 0.33
48 0:44:48 1.19 0.25 0.38 0.00 0.38 0.13 0.41 -0.04 21.8 0.56 1.31 0.86 0.37 LS#2
49 0:44:59 1.16 0.26 0.41 0.01 0.40 0.14 0.44 -0.04 21.3 0.60 1.40 0.89 0.37
50 0:45:05 1.11 0.26 0.41 0.01 0.41 0.15 0.44 -0.04 21.3 0.60 1.40 0.88 0.38 w
average
w
max T
avg
51 0:45:09 1.06 0.25 0.41 0.01 0.41 0.14 0.44 -0.03 21.4 0.60 1.39 0.88 0.37 (mm) (mm) (deg)
52 0:50:11 1.06 0.25 0.42 0.01 0.41 0.15 0.44 -0.03 20.9 0.61 1.39 0.87 0.38 0.25 0.4 40
61 1:10:57 1.20 0.27 0.45 -0.01 0.44 0.17 0.48 -0.04 20.9 0.67 1.53 0.95 0.40
62 1:11:13 1.25 0.27 0.47 -0.01 0.46 0.18 0.50 -0.04 20.9 0.70 1.58 0.98 0.40
63 1:11:26 1.27 0.28 0.48 0.00 0.47 0.18 0.52 -0.04 20.8 0.72 1.62 1.00 0.42
64 1:11:37 1.28 0.29 0.50 -0.01 0.49 0.19 0.53 -0.04 21.0 0.74 1.66 1.02 0.44
65 1:11:47 1.33 0.32 0.55 0.00 0.54 0.21 0.59 -0.04 21.0 0.81 1.77 1.08 0.55
66 1:11:51 1.33 0.42 0.56 0.00 0.69 0.41 0.71 -0.05 35.1 0.82 1.79 1.07 0.57
67 1:12:01 1.33 0.48 0.59 0.01 0.82 0.58 0.83 -0.05 39.8 0.85 1.82 1.07 0.60
68 1:12:26 1.34 0.51 0.60 0.00 0.88 0.65 0.88 -0.05 41.1 0.87 1.84 1.08 0.62 LS#3
69 1:12:56 1.33 0.52 0.61 0.01 0.89 0.67 0.90 -0.06 41.1 0.88 1.83 1.08 0.63
70 1:13:00 1.31 0.52 0.61 0.00 0.89 0.67 0.97 -0.05 41.1 0.88 1.82 1.07 0.63 w
average
w
max T
avg
71 1:13:04 1.21 0.52 0.60 0.01 0.89 0.67 0.97 -0.05 41.2 0.88 1.82 1.06 0.63 (mm) (mm) (deg)
72 1:13:16 1.19 0.51 0.60 0.01 0.89 0.67 0.97 -0.05 41.4 0.88 1.81 1.05 0.63 0.3 0.55 40
189 4:22:09 2.20 1.37 2.27 0.05 3.92 4.20 3.96 -0.17 38.9 2.66 4.57 1.77 1.54
190 4:22:26 2.21 1.38 2.31 0.05 3.97 4.24 4.02 -0.17 38.8 2.86 4.67 1.78 1.56
191 4:22:51 2.23 1.39 2.38 0.06 4.03 4.29 4.09 -0.17 38.6 3.12 4.80 1.81 1.57
192 4:23:20 2.27 1.42 2.46 0.07 4.13 4.39 4.19 -0.18 38.3 3.43 5.08 1.85 1.60
193 4:23:36 2.28 1.43 2.51 0.07 4.20 4.45 4.26 -0.18 38.2 3.59 5.30 1.87 1.62
194 4:23:49 2.28 1.44 2.54 0.07 4.23 4.49 4.30 -0.18 38.1 3.68 5.43 1.88 1.63
195 4:24:05 2.28 1.45 2.57 0.08 4.28 4.54 4.35 -0.18 38.0 3.77 5.57 1.89 1.64
196 4:24:14 2.29 1.45 2.60 0.08 4.30 4.55 4.37 -0.18 37.9 3.82 5.67 1.90 1.65 LS#7
197 4:24:27 2.27 1.46 2.63 0.08 4.34 4.59 4.41 -0.19 37.9 3.87 5.78 1.90 1.66
198 4:24:31 2.16 1.46 2.63 0.08 4.34 4.60 4.41 -0.18 37.9 3.87 5.79 1.88 1.65 w
average
w
max T
avg
199 4:24:35 2.12 1.45 2.63 0.08 4.33 4.58 4.41 -0.18 37.8 3.86 5.78 1.85 1.65 (mm) (mm) (deg)
200 4:24:39 2.06 1.44 2.62 0.08 4.31 4.56 4.41 -0.18 37.8 3.85 5.75 1.83 1.64 0.65 0.9 38
226 4:54:10 2.54 1.70 3.82 0.23 5.72 5.92 5.90 -0.24 35.2 5.78 10.44 2.35 1.89
227 4:54:26 2.56 1.73 3.92 0.25 5.83 6.01 6.02 -0.24 35.0 6.00 10.85 2.39 1.92
228 4:54:30 2.56 1.73 3.94 0.25 5.85 6.02 6.04 -0.24 34.9 6.05 10.94 2.40 1.93
229 4:54:45 2.57 1.75 4.04 0.27 5.95 6.10 6.15 -0.24 34.7 6.23 11.45 2.44 1.95
230 4:54:53 2.58 1.76 4.09 0.28 5.99 6.12 6.20 -0.25 34.6 6.31 11.70 2.45 1.96
231 4:55:16 2.58 1.78 4.19 0.30 6.08 6.19 6.31 -0.25 34.4 6.48 12.18 2.47 1.98
232 4:55:28 2.62 1.79 4.24 0.31 6.14 6.26 6.38 -0.25 34.3 6.58 12.43 2.49 1.99
233 4:55:37 2.62 1.80 4.30 0.32 6.20 6.30 6.44 -0.26 34.2 6.65 12.68 2.51 2.00 LS#8
253 5:26:25 2.35 1.74 4.33 0.33 6.04 6.01 6.43 -0.24 33.3 6.68 12.93 2.32 1.96
254 5:26:58 2.40 1.74 4.33 0.33 6.05 6.03 6.43 -0.24 33.4 6.68 12.93 2.33 1.97 w
average
w
max T
avg
255 5:27:02 2.43 1.74 4.35 0.33 6.07 6.06 6.43 -0.24 33.4 6.70 12.95 2.34 1.97 (mm) (mm) (deg)
256 5:27:10 2.46 1.75 4.36 0.34 6.10 6.08 6.43 -0.24 33.4 6.73 12.99 2.35 1.98 0.7 1.1 35
276 5:31:45 2.84 2.11 6.01 0.61 7.73 7.36 8.22 -0.33 31.0 10.68 19.33 2.94 2.26
277 5:31:49 2.84 2.15 6.18 0.63 7.90 7.47 8.41 -0.35 30.8 11.43 19.72 2.97 2.27
278 5:31:54 2.84 2.17 6.32 0.65 8.02 7.55 8.55 -0.35 30.6 11.93 20.10 3.01 2.29
279 5:31:58 2.84 2.19 6.42 0.66 8.11 7.62 8.66 -0.36 30.5 12.26 20.43 3.04 2.31
280 5:32:04 2.84 2.21 6.56 0.68 8.24 7.70 8.81 -0.36 30.3 12.70 20.96 3.09 2.33
310 5:34:41 3.01 2.68 10.35 1.59 11.83 10.62 13.07 -0.58 27.1 7.65 7.69 5.33 3.44
312 5:34:51 3.01 2.70 10.64 1.67 12.06 10.79 13.37 -0.60 26.8 7.38 7.55 5.50 3.46
313 5:34:55 3.03 2.72 10.80 1.73 12.20 10.88 13.54 -0.61 26.7 7.30 7.50 5.60 3.47
314 5:34:59 3.04 2.73 11.01 1.81 12.37 11.01 13.76 -0.62 26.5 7.23 7.78 5.74 3.45
316 5:35:07 2.63 1.81 20.94 8.70 19.78 16.81 24.11 -1.36 20.7 5.86 7.70 8.55 4.22
More Inclined
Cracks Appeared
Failure
More Inclined
Cracks Appeared
Longitudinal Rebar Yield
Locally
Cracks of Steeper
Angle Appeared
fx:v = 1.0 Average Concrete Surface Strains Rebar Strains
Notes
Crack Due to
Unknown Constrain
Crack of 0-deg
appeared
273
A1.6 PL4
PL4 was cast on November 28th, 2006 and tested on February 9th, 2007. PL4 was tested
under combined compression and shear with . The actual thickness of PL4 was
70.3 mm, the amount of longitudinal reinforcement was 1.649% and the amount of transverse
reinforcement was 0.1934%. PL4 cracked at a shear stress of 3.41 MPa and failed at a shear
stress of 4.81 MPa due to rupture of the stirrups and sliding along the critical shear crack.
Unit
Mix
before m.c.
Mix
after m.c.
Water kg 19.34 21.5
Volume l 0.12 0.12
Slump mm 97
Pan Weight
(g)
Wet Weight
(g)
Dry Weight
(g)
Water Cont
(%)
Absorption
(%)
Stone 195 1656 1650 0.392 1.213
Sand 200 1320 1315 0.413 1.5
f
x
v 2.8 =
274
100 mm by 200 mm 31.9 39.2 40.0 - 42.3
100 mm by 200 mm 31.7 37.1 40.4 - 43.3
100 mm by 200 mm 32.8 37.3 39.5 - 43.8
Average 32.1 37.9 40.0 - 43.1
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
275
276
Figure A.25 Zurich Data for PL4 (Strain, unit: m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL4 East (f
x
/v=-2.8)
v=3.408 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL4 West (f
x
/v=-2.8)
v=3.408 MPa
Figure A.26 Zurich Data for PL4 (Principal Strain)
277
-0.5 0 0.5 1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
-0.5 0 0.5 1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
-0.5 0 0.5 1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL4 (f
x
/v=-2.8)
278
Dset Time v H
x
H
y
H
45
H
J
xy
H
H
T S4 S5 S6 L3 L4
0 0:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 0:03:00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0:03:06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.01 38.8 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00
3 0:03:10 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 -0.01 44.5 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00
4 0:03:48 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.01 -0.02 46.9 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00
5 0:03:54 0.17 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 -0.02 53.7 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00
6 0:04:29 0.24 0.00 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 -0.03 55.8 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00
7 0:04:33 0.28 0.00 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 -0.04 54.1 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00
8 0:04:38 0.33 0.00 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 -0.03 53.9 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01
9 0:04:43 0.35 -0.01 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 -0.04 52.2 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00
10 0:04:49 0.39 -0.01 -0.02 -0.01 0.02 0.06 0.02 -0.04 51.9 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00
26 0:08:23 0.89 -0.04 -0.01 -0.04 0.02 0.08 0.02 -0.07 35.8 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.06 -0.05
27 0:08:27 0.96 -0.04 -0.01 -0.04 0.03 0.10 0.03 -0.08 36.8 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.06 -0.05
28 0:08:31 1.05 -0.04 -0.01 -0.05 0.02 0.10 0.03 -0.08 35.4 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.07 -0.05
29 0:08:36 1.05 -0.05 -0.01 -0.05 0.03 0.11 0.03 -0.09 35.4 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.07 -0.06
30 0:08:40 1.09 -0.05 -0.01 -0.05 0.03 0.11 0.03 -0.09 34.2 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.08 -0.06
31 0:08:44 1.17 -0.06 -0.01 -0.05 0.03 0.11 0.03 -0.09 33.2 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.08 -0.07
32 0:08:48 1.32 -0.06 -0.01 -0.06 0.03 0.14 0.04 -0.11 35.1 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.09 -0.07
33 0:08:52 1.35 -0.07 -0.01 -0.07 0.04 0.15 0.04 -0.12 34.8 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.09 -0.08
34 0:08:56 1.35 -0.07 -0.01 -0.07 0.04 0.15 0.04 -0.12 34.2 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.09 -0.07
35 0:09:27 1.41 -0.07 -0.01 -0.07 0.05 0.18 0.05 -0.13 35.5 0.02 0.01 0.01 -0.10 -0.08
66 0:13:53 2.61 -0.16 0.00 -0.15 0.09 0.34 0.11 -0.27 32.3 0.04 0.03 0.02 -0.19 -0.17
67 0:13:57 2.64 -0.16 0.00 -0.15 0.09 0.34 0.11 -0.27 31.8 0.04 0.03 0.02 -0.20 -0.18
68 0:14:01 2.69 -0.17 0.01 -0.15 0.09 0.34 0.11 -0.27 31.7 0.04 0.03 0.03 -0.20 -0.18
69 0:14:05 2.73 -0.17 0.01 -0.15 0.09 0.35 0.11 -0.28 31.4 0.04 0.03 0.03 -0.21 -0.19
70 0:14:10 2.79 -0.18 0.01 -0.16 0.09 0.35 0.12 -0.28 31.1 0.05 0.03 0.03 -0.21 -0.19
71 0:14:13 2.82 -0.18 0.01 -0.16 0.09 0.36 0.12 -0.29 30.9 0.05 0.04 0.03 -0.22 -0.19
72 0:14:18 2.86 -0.18 0.01 -0.16 0.10 0.36 0.12 -0.29 30.8 0.05 0.03 0.02 -0.22 -0.20
73 0:14:22 3.04 -0.18 0.01 -0.17 0.10 0.37 0.12 -0.30 31.1 0.05 0.03 0.03 -0.23 -0.20
74 0:14:26 3.04 -0.19 0.02 -0.17 0.10 0.37 0.12 -0.30 30.3 0.05 0.04 0.03 -0.23 -0.21
75 0:14:31 3.14 -0.19 0.01 -0.17 0.09 0.37 0.12 -0.30 30.2 0.05 0.03 0.03 -0.23 -0.21
76 0:14:35 3.18 -0.20 0.02 -0.18 0.11 0.39 0.13 -0.31 30.7 0.05 0.03 0.03 -0.24 -0.22
77 0:14:39 3.25 -0.20 0.02 -0.18 0.11 0.40 0.13 -0.32 30.3 0.06 0.04 0.03 -0.24 -0.22
78 0:14:47 3.26 -0.21 0.02 -0.18 0.11 0.41 0.14 -0.33 30.4 0.07 0.04 0.03 -0.25 -0.23
79 0:14:52 3.32 -0.21 0.03 -0.19 0.12 0.41 0.15 -0.33 30.0 0.10 0.04 0.04 -0.25 -0.23
80 0:14:56 3.36 -0.21 0.05 -0.19 0.14 0.44 0.17 -0.34 29.7 0.23 0.05 0.03 -0.26 -0.24
81 0:15:00 3.37 -0.22 0.09 -0.19 0.17 0.47 0.21 -0.35 28.2 0.56 0.06 0.03 -0.26 -0.25
82 0:15:04 3.41 -0.23 0.51 -0.11 0.49 0.70 0.65 -0.37 21.7 2.07 0.72 0.03 -0.26 -0.25 LS#1
83 0:15:17 3.40 -0.23 0.63 -0.09 0.58 0.75 0.78 -0.37 20.6 2.26 0.92 0.03 -0.26 -0.25
84 0:15:21 3.23 -0.22 0.65 -0.08 0.58 0.74 0.79 -0.36 20.2 2.28 0.96 0.03 -0.25 -0.24 w
average
w
max T
avg
85 0:15:25 3.14 -0.21 0.65 -0.08 0.59 0.75 0.79 -0.35 20.5 2.23 0.96 0.03 -0.24 -0.23 (mm) (mm) (deg)
95 0:45:25 3.11 -0.21 0.70 -0.07 0.63 0.78 0.84 -0.35 20.3 2.23 1.12 0.03 -0.25 -0.24 0.2 0.5 9
96 0:45:29 3.14 -0.21 0.70 -0.07 0.63 0.78 0.84 -0.35 20.2 2.23 1.12 0.03 -0.25 -0.24
97 0:45:38 3.19 -0.21 0.70 -0.07 0.63 0.77 0.84 -0.35 20.1 2.25 1.12 0.04 -0.25 -0.24
98 0:45:43 3.23 -0.22 0.71 -0.07 0.63 0.78 0.85 -0.36 20.1 2.27 1.13 0.03 -0.25 -0.24
99 0:45:49 3.24 -0.22 0.71 -0.07 0.63 0.78 0.85 -0.36 19.9 2.30 1.13 0.04 -0.26 -0.25
100 0:45:55 3.28 -0.22 0.72 -0.07 0.63 0.77 0.85 -0.36 19.8 2.31 1.13 0.04 -0.26 -0.25
101 0:46:02 3.32 -0.22 0.72 -0.07 0.64 0.78 0.86 -0.36 19.8 2.33 1.14 0.04 -0.26 -0.25
102 0:46:07 3.36 -0.23 0.73 -0.07 0.64 0.79 0.87 -0.37 19.8 2.36 1.14 0.04 -0.26 -0.25
103 0:46:14 3.37 -0.23 0.73 -0.07 0.65 0.79 0.87 -0.37 19.6 2.38 1.15 0.04 -0.26 -0.26
104 0:46:24 3.40 -0.23 0.74 -0.07 0.66 0.80 0.88 -0.37 19.7 2.40 1.16 0.04 -0.26 -0.26
105 0:46:54 3.46 -0.23 0.75 -0.07 0.66 0.80 0.89 -0.37 19.6 2.45 1.18 0.04 -0.27 -0.26
106 0:47:15 3.48 -0.23 0.77 -0.07 0.68 0.82 0.91 -0.38 19.6 2.50 1.21 0.04 -0.27 -0.26
107 0:47:25 3.50 -0.23 0.78 -0.07 0.68 0.82 0.92 -0.38 19.5 2.53 1.23 0.04 -0.27 -0.26
108 0:47:43 3.53 -0.24 0.79 -0.07 0.69 0.82 0.93 -0.38 19.3 2.55 1.25 0.04 -0.27 -0.27
109 0:48:03 3.58 -0.24 0.80 -0.07 0.70 0.84 0.95 -0.39 19.4 2.59 1.27 0.04 -0.27 -0.27
110 0:48:16 3.61 -0.25 0.81 -0.06 0.70 0.84 0.96 -0.40 19.2 2.65 1.30 0.04 -0.27 -0.27
111 0:48:32 3.63 -0.24 0.83 -0.07 0.72 0.85 0.98 -0.39 19.2 2.68 1.33 0.04 -0.28 -0.27
112 0:48:49 3.66 -0.25 0.85 -0.07 0.73 0.86 1.00 -0.39 19.1 2.73 1.35 0.04 -0.28 -0.28
146 0:57:53 4.76 -0.34 2.28 -0.43 2.37 2.79 2.89 -0.94 23.4 12.48 2.27 0.09 -0.37 -0.37
147 0:58:10 4.79 -0.34 2.35 -0.46 2.46 2.91 2.99 -0.98 23.6 13.03 2.27 0.09 -0.37 -0.38
148 0:58:32 4.80 -0.34 2.41 -0.48 2.54 3.02 3.08 -1.01 23.8 13.51 2.28 0.09 -0.37 -0.38
149 0:58:52 4.80 -0.34 2.58 -0.59 2.88 3.51 3.41 -1.17 25.1 15.64 2.31 19.16 -0.36 -0.34
fx:v = -2.8 Average Concrete Surface Strains Rebar Strains
Notes
First Crack
Stirrup Yield Locally
Failure
279
A1.7 PL5
PL5 was cast on March 22th, 2007 and tested on April 27th, 2007. PL5 was tested under pure
shear. The actual thickness of PL5 was 73.6 mm, the amount of longitudinal reinforcement
was 1.575% and the amount of transverse reinforcement was 0.1847%. PL5 cracked at a shear
stress of 1.747 MPa and failed at a shear stress of 3.21 MPa due to rupture of the stirrups.
Unit
Mix
before m.c.
Mix
after m.c.
Water kg 19.34 21.1
Volume l 0.12 0.12
Slump mm 185
Pan Weight
(g)
Wet Weight
(g)
Dry Weight
(g)
Water Cont
(%)
Absorption
(%)
Stone 195 1870 1853 1.019 1.213
Sand 200 1413 1412 0.084 1.5
280
100 mm by 200 mm 32.2 33.6 - 34.7 37.1
100 mm by 200 mm 32.9 32.7 - 33.2 39.5
100 mm by 200 mm 31.2 31.2 - - 37.7
Average 32.1 32.5 - 33.9 38.1
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
PL5 (f
x
/v=0)
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
30
32
34
36
38
40
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
PL5 (f
x
/v=0)
281
282
283
284
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL5 East (f
x
=0 MPa)
v=1.747 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL5 East (f
x
=0 MPa)
v=2.098 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL5 East (f
x
=0 MPa)
v=2.471 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL5 East (f
x
=0 MPa)
v=2.9 MPa
285
286
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL5 West (f
x
=0 MPa)
v=1.747 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL5 West (f
x
=0 MPa)
v=2.098 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL5 West (f
x
=0 MPa)
v=2.9 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL5 West (f
x
=0 MPa)
v=2.471 MPa
0 2 4 6 8
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL5 (f
x
=0 MPa)
0 2 4 6 8
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL5 (f
x
=0 MPa)
0 2 4 6 8
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL5 (f
x
=0 MPa)
287
Dset Time v H
x
H
y
H
45
H
J
xy
H
H
T S4 S5 S6 L3 L4
0 0:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 0:02:52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.4 -0.79 -0.55 -0.47 -0.04 0.01
2 0:02:55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.7 -0.71 -0.36 -0.16 -0.01 -0.04
3 0:03:23 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 -0.01 43.0 0.00 -0.03 0.00 -0.01 0.00
4 0:03:27 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 7.9 0.00 -0.03 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
5 0:03:31 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 22.7 0.00 -0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 0:04:55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.7 0.00 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.00
45 0:32:07 1.42 -0.01 -0.01 -0.04 0.04 0.09 0.04 -0.05 46.2 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.01
46 0:37:07 1.42 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 0.04 0.10 0.04 -0.05 47.2 0.00 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.02
50 0:39:29 1.63 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 0.06 0.14 0.06 -0.07 47.6 0.00 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.02
51 0:39:47 1.69 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 0.06 0.12 0.06 -0.07 46.6 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.02
52 0:40:08 1.75 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 0.06 0.14 0.06 -0.07 47.5 0.00 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.02 LS#1
53 0:40:26 1.73 0.07 0.25 -0.06 0.31 0.29 0.33 -0.07 29.2 1.47 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 0.01
54 0:40:29 1.74 0.11 0.34 -0.04 0.39 0.34 0.43 -0.07 28.1 1.65 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 0.01 w
average
w
max T
avg
55 0:40:51 1.74 0.11 0.37 -0.04 0.43 0.38 0.47 -0.08 27.9 1.75 0.00 -0.02 -0.03 0.01 (mm) (mm) (deg)
56 0:40:59 1.70 0.11 0.37 -0.04 0.43 0.37 0.47 -0.07 27.6 1.72 0.00 -0.02 -0.02 0.01 0.25 0.4 33
67 1:02:58 1.86 0.13 0.43 -0.04 0.48 0.40 0.53 -0.08 26.4 1.92 0.00 -0.02 -0.03 0.01
68 1:03:10 1.88 0.13 0.45 -0.05 0.51 0.43 0.56 -0.08 27.0 1.99 0.00 -0.02 -0.03 0.01
69 1:03:30 1.97 0.14 0.47 -0.05 0.51 0.41 0.57 -0.08 25.8 2.04 0.00 -0.02 -0.03 0.01
70 1:03:37 1.96 0.27 0.54 -0.04 0.79 0.78 0.82 -0.09 35.6 2.07 0.02 0.02 -0.03 0.01
71 1:03:40 1.99 0.33 0.59 -0.04 0.88 0.84 0.90 -0.10 36.5 2.12 0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.02
72 1:03:52 1.99 0.36 0.63 -0.04 0.98 0.98 1.00 -0.10 37.1 2.17 0.01 0.01 -0.02 0.03
73 1:04:02 2.02 0.36 0.66 -0.03 1.06 1.11 1.08 -0.11 37.4 2.22 0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.02
74 1:04:12 2.04 0.36 0.69 -0.04 1.16 1.26 1.18 -0.10 37.8 2.23 0.01 0.02 -0.03 0.02
75 1:04:18 2.06 0.37 0.72 -0.04 1.22 1.35 1.24 -0.10 37.7 2.24 0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.03
76 1:04:30 2.10 0.38 0.74 -0.04 1.28 1.43 1.30 -0.10 37.8 2.27 0.01 0.02 -0.02 0.03 LS#2
77 1:04:40 2.04 0.38 0.76 -0.04 1.29 1.46 1.32 -0.11 37.7 2.25 0.01 0.02 -0.03 0.03
78 1:04:43 1.97 0.37 0.75 -0.04 1.29 1.46 1.31 -0.10 37.8 2.22 0.01 0.02 -0.03 0.02 w
average
w
max T
avg
79 1:04:48 1.89 0.37 0.75 -0.04 1.28 1.45 1.31 -0.10 37.7 2.21 0.01 0.02 -0.02 0.03 (mm) (mm) (deg)
88 1:42:25 1.87 0.37 0.75 -0.03 1.28 1.45 1.31 -0.10 37.5 2.15 0.02 0.02 -0.03 0.03 0.35 0.55 39
98 1:44:36 2.27 0.56 1.06 -0.03 1.84 2.07 1.87 -0.15 38.1 3.09 0.05 0.03 -0.02 0.04
99 1:44:51 2.33 0.58 1.10 -0.03 1.93 2.19 1.96 -0.15 38.3 3.21 0.06 0.03 -0.02 0.04
100 1:45:02 2.34 0.59 1.13 -0.02 2.01 2.29 2.04 -0.15 38.3 3.35 0.07 0.04 -0.02 0.05
101 1:45:07 2.35 0.60 1.17 -0.02 2.24 2.72 2.27 -0.15 39.0 3.40 0.07 0.03 -0.02 0.05
102 1:45:12 2.39 0.61 1.22 -0.03 2.34 2.85 2.38 -0.15 39.0 3.51 0.07 0.04 -0.02 0.05
103 1:45:20 2.43 0.64 1.27 -0.02 2.43 2.96 2.46 -0.16 39.0 3.60 0.08 0.04 -0.02 0.06
104 1:45:29 2.46 0.66 1.33 -0.02 2.53 3.06 2.56 -0.17 38.9 3.70 0.08 0.05 -0.03 0.05
105 1:45:36 2.46 0.69 1.40 -0.02 2.62 3.15 2.66 -0.17 38.7 3.90 0.08 0.07 -0.02 0.06
106 1:45:38 2.46 0.70 1.41 -0.02 2.64 3.17 2.68 -0.17 38.7 3.97 0.09 0.07 -0.02 0.06
107 1:45:40 2.47 0.70 1.43 -0.02 2.66 3.19 2.70 -0.17 38.5 4.02 0.09 0.08 -0.02 0.06 LS#3
108 1:45:45 2.46 0.86 1.76 -0.01 2.95 3.28 3.01 -0.20 37.3 3.88 0.42 1.29 0.29 1.03
109 1:45:47 2.43 0.89 1.84 0.00 3.02 3.31 3.08 -0.19 37.0 3.92 0.53 1.41 0.32 1.07 w
average
w
max T
avg
110 1:45:49 2.33 0.89 1.84 0.00 3.01 3.29 3.08 -0.19 37.0 3.89 0.55 1.42 0.33 1.06 (mm) (mm) (deg)
111 1:45:51 2.24 0.88 1.83 0.00 3.00 3.29 3.07 -0.18 37.0 3.85 0.56 1.42 0.33 1.05 0.5 0.85 42
139 2:23:11 2.78 1.41 3.72 0.27 4.92 4.71 5.19 -0.34 31.9 6.38 5.05 2.17 2.17 1.55
140 2:23:19 2.82 1.43 3.82 0.28 5.01 4.78 5.30 -0.35 31.7 6.55 5.20 2.18 2.23 1.57
141 2:23:26 2.83 1.44 3.90 0.29 5.11 4.88 5.40 -0.35 31.6 6.75 5.35 2.19 2.26 1.58
142 2:23:32 2.82 1.46 3.99 0.30 5.19 4.94 5.50 -0.35 31.4 6.95 5.48 2.20 2.30 1.60
143 2:23:38 2.83 1.47 4.08 0.32 5.29 5.03 5.61 -0.36 31.3 7.15 5.65 2.21 2.37 1.62
144 2:23:44 2.84 1.49 4.19 0.34 5.40 5.12 5.74 -0.36 31.1 7.38 5.83 2.22 2.43 1.64
145 2:23:50 2.85 1.51 4.31 0.35 5.52 5.22 5.87 -0.35 30.9 7.60 6.03 2.24 2.50 1.66
146 2:23:55 2.86 1.53 4.42 0.38 5.62 5.29 5.99 -0.35 30.6 7.80 6.23 2.24 2.56 1.69
147 2:23:59 2.88 1.54 4.50 0.40 5.69 5.35 6.08 -0.34 30.5 7.88 6.40 2.25 2.62 1.71
148 2:24:05 2.90 1.56 4.60 0.41 5.80 5.44 6.20 -0.35 30.4 8.05 6.63 2.27 2.67 1.73 LS#4
149 2:24:08 2.87 1.55 4.62 0.42 5.81 5.45 6.21 -0.35 30.3 8.03 6.68 2.26 2.66 1.71
150 2:24:10 2.75 1.53 4.58 0.42 5.76 5.40 6.16 -0.35 30.3 7.95 6.63 2.25 2.63 1.69 w
average
w
max T
avg
163 3:03:19 2.66 1.50 4.60 0.43 5.76 5.41 6.17 -0.34 30.1 8.05 6.73 2.27 2.51 1.65 (mm) (mm) (deg)
164 3:03:46 2.71 1.51 4.64 0.43 5.81 5.46 6.22 -0.35 30.1 8.10 6.78 2.30 2.54 1.67 0.75 1.05 43
205 3:07:36 3.19 2.03 9.21 1.32 10.07 8.91 11.34 -0.46 25.6 13.95 16.45 2.74 4.78 2.28
206 3:07:38 3.18 2.03 9.39 1.36 10.22 9.01 11.53 -0.47 25.4 14.00 16.88 2.77 4.86 2.29
207 3:07:40 3.19 2.06 9.62 1.42 10.41 9.13 11.77 -0.47 25.2 14.10 17.45 2.80 5.10 2.36
208 3:07:43 3.19 2.10 9.98 1.53 10.67 9.26 12.12 -0.47 24.8 14.30 18.40 2.82 5.35 2.40
209 3:07:45 3.19 2.12 10.33 1.63 10.94 9.42 12.47 -0.47 24.5 14.48 19.53 2.93 5.63 2.44
210 3:07:47 3.19 2.15 10.69 1.73 11.22 9.60 12.85 -0.48 24.2 14.50 20.58 3.13 5.88 2.45
211 3:07:49 3.19 2.16 11.06 1.80 11.53 9.84 13.25 -0.48 23.9 14.50 21.35 3.45 6.05 2.43
212 3:07:51 3.19 2.17 11.53 1.89 11.93 10.16 13.76 -0.48 23.7 14.60 22.18 3.67 6.20 2.44
214 3:07:56 3.20 2.22 12.55 2.14 12.79 10.81 14.86 -0.49 23.2 14.55 24.78 3.90 6.88 2.47
215 3:07:58 3.18 2.27 13.14 2.31 13.26 11.11 15.48 -0.51 22.8 14.45 26.30 3.92 7.28 2.47
216 3:08:00 3.21 2.32 14.12 2.57 14.04 11.65 16.51 -0.52 22.3 5.85 28.50 3.97 7.90 2.53
218 3:08:05 2.83 2.17 20.93 11.53 23.31 23.51 26.59 -3.49 25.7 5.00 38.20 -43.75 5.30 3.06
Failure
More Cracks
Developed
More Cracks
Developed
More Cracks
Developed
First Crack
Longitudinal Reinforcement
Start to Yield
Notes
288
A1.8 PL6
PL6 was cast on J une 23rd, 2007 and tested on J uly 31st, 2007. PL6 was tested under com-
bined tension and shear with . The actual thickness of PL6 was 73.2 mm, the
amount of longitudinal reinforcement was 1.584% and the amount of transverse reinforce-
ment was 0.1857%. PL6 cracked at a shear stress of 0.754 MPa and failed at a shear stress of
2.48 MPa due to rupture of the stirrups and opening of the critical shear crack.
Unit
Mix
before m.c.
Mix
after m.c.
Water kg 19.34 18.9
Volume l 0.12 0.12
Slump mm 75
Pan Weight
(g)
Wet Weight
(g)
Dry Weight
(g)
Water Cont
(%)
Absorption
(%)
Stone 200 1765 1740 1.623 1.213
Sand 195 1255 1240 1.435 1.5
f
x
v 3.0 =
289
100 mm by 200 mm 34.6 40.5 40.6 42.4 44.5
100 mm by 200 mm 34.2 41.6 42.4 38.6 42.3
100 mm by 200 mm 34.9 39.9 39.4 42.0 43.7
Average 34.6 40.7 40.8 41.0 43.5
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
34
36
38
40
42
44
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
290
291
292
293
294
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL6 East (f
x
/v=3.0)
v=0.754 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL6 East (f
x
/v=3.0)
v=1.006 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL6 East (f
x
/v=3.0)
v=1.267 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL6 East (f
x
/v=3.0)
v=1.533 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL6 East (f
x
/v=3.0)
v=1.804 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL6 East (f
x
/v=3.0)
v=1.893 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL6 East (f
x
/v=3.0)
v=2.032 MPa
295
296
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL6 West (f
x
/v=3.0)
v=0.754 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL6 West (f
x
/v=3.0)
v=1.006 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL6 West (f
x
/v=3.0)
v=1.267 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL6 West (f
x
/v=3.0)
v=1.533 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL6 West (f
x
/v=3.0)
v=1.804 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL6 West (f
x
/v=3.0)
v=1.893 MPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PL6 West (f
x
/v=3.0)
v=2.032 MPa
297
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
e (me)
g
x
y
(
m
e
)
PL6 (f
x
/v=3.0)
298
Dset Time v H
x
H
y
H
45
H
J
xy
H
H
T S4 S5 L3 L4
0 0:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 0:00:06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 48.3 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
16 0:04:54 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 86.8 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.02
17 0:05:34 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 81.1 -0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.03
59 0:19:46 0.74 0.05 -0.03 0.00 0.08 0.14 0.09 -0.01 59.1 -0.02 0.00 0.05 0.09
60 0:20:03 0.74 0.05 -0.03 0.00 0.09 0.17 0.10 0.00 57.0 -0.02 -0.01 0.05 0.09
61 0:20:45 0.75 0.05 -0.03 0.00 0.14 0.27 0.15 0.00 52.7 -0.02 -0.02 0.05 0.10
62 0:20:53 0.75 0.05 -0.03 0.00 0.18 0.33 0.18 -0.01 51.4 -0.02 -0.02 0.05 0.10 LS#1
63 0:21:04 0.75 0.05 -0.03 0.01 0.19 0.35 0.19 -0.01 51.2 -0.01 -0.02 0.05 0.10
64 0:21:19 0.75 0.11 -0.02 0.03 0.24 0.39 0.25 -0.01 54.3 -0.01 -0.02 0.06 0.08 w
average
w
max T
avg
83 0:49:11 0.75 0.12 -0.02 0.04 0.27 0.43 0.28 -0.01 53.8 -0.01 -0.02 0.05 0.08 (mm) (mm) (deg)
84 0:49:26 0.76 0.12 -0.01 0.04 0.27 0.43 0.28 -0.01 53.6 -0.02 -0.02 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.1 69
101 0:53:00 0.95 0.38 0.00 0.10 0.56 0.73 0.60 -0.01 58.5 0.13 0.26 0.91 1.10
102 0:53:14 0.97 0.39 0.01 0.10 0.58 0.75 0.62 -0.02 58.5 0.15 0.28 0.93 1.12
103 0:53:26 0.99 0.40 0.00 0.10 0.59 0.77 0.64 -0.01 58.6 0.16 0.29 0.94 1.13
104 0:53:37 0.99 0.41 0.01 0.11 0.71 1.00 0.74 -0.03 55.8 0.16 0.30 0.94 1.13
105 0:53:42 1.00 0.41 0.01 0.11 0.75 1.08 0.79 -0.02 55.1 0.17 0.30 0.95 1.14
106 0:53:59 0.99 0.56 0.02 0.15 0.89 1.21 0.95 -0.02 57.1 0.20 0.32 0.98 1.15
107 0:54:10 1.00 0.59 0.02 0.15 0.93 1.24 0.99 -0.02 57.2 0.21 0.33 1.00 1.18
108 0:54:17 1.01 0.59 0.02 0.15 0.94 1.26 1.00 -0.02 57.1 0.22 0.33 1.00 1.18 LS#2
109 0:54:30 1.00 0.60 0.02 0.15 0.94 1.27 1.01 -0.02 57.2 0.22 0.34 1.00 1.18
110 0:54:32 0.98 0.60 0.02 0.15 0.94 1.26 1.00 -0.01 57.4 0.22 0.34 0.99 1.18 w
average
w
max T
avg
111 0:54:35 0.97 0.59 0.02 0.15 0.95 1.29 1.01 -0.03 57.0 0.22 0.34 0.99 1.17 (mm) (mm) (deg)
112 0:54:38 0.96 0.59 0.02 0.15 0.95 1.29 1.01 -0.02 56.9 0.22 0.34 0.99 1.16 0.15 0.2 79
150 1:24:30 1.25 0.99 0.34 0.19 1.60 1.87 1.65 -0.04 54.6 0.49 1.28 1.40 1.31
151 1:24:43 1.26 1.00 0.35 0.20 1.63 1.91 1.69 -0.05 54.4 0.50 1.30 1.41 1.31
152 1:25:06 1.26 1.01 0.38 0.20 1.68 1.96 1.73 -0.04 54.0 0.52 1.35 1.44 1.32
153 1:25:31 1.26 1.04 0.39 0.20 1.71 1.98 1.76 -0.04 54.0 0.54 1.36 1.46 1.33
154 1:25:38 1.26 1.04 0.39 0.20 1.71 1.99 1.76 -0.04 54.0 0.55 1.37 1.46 1.33
155 1:25:46 1.26 1.05 0.40 0.20 1.73 2.02 1.78 -0.04 53.9 0.55 1.37 1.48 1.33
156 1:25:55 1.26 1.05 0.41 0.20 1.73 2.01 1.78 -0.03 53.8 0.56 1.37 1.48 1.33
157 1:26:06 1.27 1.06 0.41 0.20 1.76 2.05 1.81 -0.04 53.7 0.56 1.33 1.47 1.33 LS#3
158 1:26:08 1.24 1.06 0.42 0.20 1.75 2.02 1.80 -0.04 53.7 0.56 1.33 1.47 1.33
159 1:26:12 1.22 1.06 0.43 0.20 1.76 2.04 1.81 -0.05 53.6 0.56 1.32 1.46 1.33 w
average
w
max T
avg
160 1:26:14 1.20 1.05 0.43 0.22 1.76 2.03 1.80 -0.04 53.6 0.56 1.32 1.46 1.32 (mm) (mm) (deg)
161 1:26:16 1.21 1.05 0.43 0.20 1.76 2.04 1.81 -0.04 53.5 0.56 1.32 1.46 1.32 0.2 0.35 73
438 3:54:23 1.82 2.20 2.62 0.19 4.72 4.62 4.73 -0.13 42.4 6.45 4.93 2.60 1.95
439 3:54:39 1.83 2.21 2.66 0.19 4.77 4.67 4.78 -0.14 42.3 6.55 5.03 2.62 1.96
440 3:54:50 1.84 2.23 2.68 0.19 4.81 4.70 4.82 -0.15 42.3 6.65 5.10 2.64 1.98
441 3:55:03 1.85 2.25 2.71 0.19 4.85 4.74 4.86 -0.15 42.2 6.75 5.20 2.65 2.00
442 3:55:18 1.87 2.27 2.75 0.19 4.89 4.75 4.90 -0.15 42.1 6.85 5.33 2.67 2.02
443 3:55:31 1.88 2.29 2.79 0.19 4.94 4.81 4.96 -0.15 42.1 6.95 5.43 2.68 2.03
444 3:55:43 1.89 2.32 2.83 0.19 4.99 4.83 5.00 -0.15 42.0 7.08 5.50 2.70 2.05
445 3:55:55 1.89 2.34 2.86 0.19 5.03 4.86 5.05 -0.16 41.9 7.20 5.60 2.72 2.07 LS#6
446 3:56:00 1.89 2.34 2.87 0.18 5.05 4.89 5.06 -0.15 41.9 7.23 5.63 2.72 2.08
447 3:56:03 1.89 2.34 2.88 0.19 5.06 4.89 5.07 -0.15 41.8 7.25 5.63 2.72 2.08 w
average
w
max T
avg
448 3:56:11 1.89 2.35 2.90 0.19 5.08 4.91 5.10 -0.16 41.8 7.30 5.68 2.73 2.09 (mm) (mm) (deg)
469 4:41:26 1.77 2.29 2.88 0.18 4.96 4.76 4.98 -0.16 41.4 7.33 2.82 2.63 2.03 0.6 0.9 70
500 4:46:50 2.00 2.57 3.30 0.18 5.59 5.30 5.61 -0.18 41.1 8.43 3.32 2.91 2.26
501 4:46:58 2.01 2.58 3.32 0.18 5.61 5.33 5.64 -0.19 41.0 8.48 3.32 2.92 2.26
502 4:47:05 2.01 2.59 3.35 0.18 5.65 5.36 5.68 -0.19 41.0 8.55 3.35 2.94 2.27
503 4:47:11 2.01 2.60 3.36 0.18 5.66 5.36 5.69 -0.19 40.9 8.60 3.35 2.95 2.28
504 4:47:15 2.02 2.61 3.38 0.18 5.68 5.38 5.71 -0.19 40.9 8.63 3.36 2.95 2.28
505 4:47:23 2.02 2.64 3.45 0.19 5.74 5.39 5.77 -0.19 40.7 8.73 3.57 2.99 2.36
506 4:47:30 2.03 2.66 3.49 0.19 5.78 5.41 5.81 -0.19 40.6 8.80 3.57 3.00 2.38
507 4:47:36 2.03 2.66 3.51 0.19 5.81 5.43 5.84 -0.20 40.6 8.85 3.54 3.01 2.39 LS#7
508 4:47:39 2.03 2.66 3.52 0.19 5.82 5.45 5.85 -0.20 40.5 8.88 3.53 3.02 2.40
509 4:47:41 2.02 2.68 3.53 0.20 5.82 5.44 5.85 -0.19 40.6 8.88 3.52 3.02 2.40 w
average
w
max T
avg
581 5:20:29 1.98 2.58 3.59 0.17 5.74 5.31 5.79 -0.21 39.6 9.08 2.83 2.88 2.27 (mm) (mm) (deg)
582 5:20:37 1.94 2.60 3.62 0.17 5.79 5.35 5.84 -0.18 39.6 9.10 2.83 2.91 2.28 0.7 1 69
687 5:28:03 2.42 5.40 9.58 0.14 12.44 9.90 12.86 -0.24 33.6 8.83 3.41 7.83 4.06
688 5:28:06 2.42 5.45 9.71 0.14 12.57 9.98 13.01 -0.23 33.4 8.83 3.38 7.93 4.09
689 5:28:08 2.43 5.49 9.84 0.14 12.70 10.07 13.15 -0.24 33.3 8.63 3.35 8.00 4.12
690 5:28:11 2.43 5.54 9.97 0.13 12.83 10.16 13.30 -0.24 33.2 8.45 3.32 8.10 4.14
691 5:28:13 2.44 5.58 10.10 0.13 12.97 10.27 13.45 -0.23 33.1 8.30 3.30 8.18 4.17
692 5:28:16 2.45 5.64 10.23 0.13 13.13 10.40 13.62 -0.24 33.1 8.15 3.28 8.28 4.20
694 5:28:21 2.46 5.73 10.48 0.13 13.45 10.69 13.95 -0.24 33.0 7.90 3.26 8.50 4.27
695 5:28:24 2.46 5.78 10.59 0.13 13.64 10.91 14.15 -0.23 33.1 7.75 3.23 8.58 4.29
696 5:28:26 2.47 5.85 10.73 0.13 14.11 11.63 14.60 -0.25 33.6 7.70 3.22 8.68 4.32
697 5:28:29 2.46 5.92 10.94 0.12 14.41 11.97 14.92 1.94 33.6 7.60 3.19 8.78 4.36
Notes
First Crack
More Cracks
Developed
More Cracks
Developed
More Cracks
Developed
More Cracks
Developed
Stirrup Yield
Longitudinal Reinforcement
Yield
Failure
299
Appendix B
Details of Beam Tests
The detailed information of all the beam tests were summarized by charts and tables in the fol-
lowing sections. These information included the measurement of the workability, the com-
pressive strength (cylinder) and the tensile strength (modulus of rupture) of the concrete, the
concrete strength development curve (also the best linear fit for the development curve), the
crack development diagram, the Zurich data, and the summary of the LVDT measurement and
the strain gauge readings.
B1.1 Measurement of Workability for Self Compacting Concrete (SCC)
The concrete used for casting beams was ready-mix SCC. To determine the workability of
SCC, the traditional slump flow method, T50 and observation of the segregation border were
adopted. For the SCC, special criteria should be applied in the slump flow test, since the SCC
would flow into a flat pancake under its selfweight after the slump cone was removed. The
diameter of two perpendicular directions of the slump flow was measured and averaged. The
concrete with a slump flow of 600-700 mm was considered valid. T50 is the time that it takes
the concrete to reach a slump flow of 500 mm. T50 provides an indication of the viscosity of
the mixture. The concrete having T50 value less than 4 seconds was considered valid. Finally,
no segregation border should be found in any valid concrete mix. If the measured workability
does not meet the requirements, additional superplatisizer should be added and the concrete
needs to be remixed.
Appendix B - Details of Beam Tests
300
B1.2 LB1
LB1 was the first beam cast and was the only beam cast with wood formwork. It was cast on
August 29th, 2005 and tested on Feb 9th, 2006 under an average compression of 804 kN. The
nominal flange thickness of LB1 was 75 mm and the nominal web thickness was 75 mm. The
actual web thickness was 75 mm. The amounts of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement
could be found in Table B.4. LB1 cracked at a shear force of 88.1 kN and failed at a shear
force of 133.6 kN due to the crack extending first horizontally along the junction of the flange
and the web and then towards both ends of the test region.
Table B.1 Measurement of Workability for Concrete (LB1)
T50 2 sec
Slump
Direction 1 540 mm
Direction 2 660 mm
Average 600 mm
Segregate Border N/A
Figure B.1 Slump Flow Test for SCC
301
Table B.2 Cylinder Strength for LB1 (MPa)
6 by 12 48.7 53.5 - 59.1 63.3
6 by 12 47.1 52.2 - 58.0 65.1
6 by 12 49.1 53.3 - 59.5 67.1
Average 48.3 53.0 - 58.9 65.2
Table B.3 Modulus of Rupture for LB1
Prism #1 Prism #2 Prism #3 Average
f
r
(MPa) 6.49 6.17 - 6.33
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
45
50
55
60
65
70
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
LB1
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
45
50
55
60
65
70
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
LB1
Figure B.2 Strength Development of Concrete (LB1)
302
Figure B.3 Crack Diagrams for LB1 (N = -804 kN)
303
Figure B.4 Zurich Data for LB1 (N = -804 kN)
304
Dset Time Ntop Nbot V Deviat Shear-WShear-MShear-E Cant VWW VW VE VEE TI-avg BI-avg
(#) (h:mm:ss (kN) (kN) (kN) (mm) (PH) (PH) (PH) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (PH) (PH)
0 0:00:00 -404 -400 0.00 0.97 -36 -29 103 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.15 0.24 -331 -373
1 0:06:19 0.59 0.70 5 -4 -2 0.01 -0.12 -0.19 -0.24 -0.29 -331 -369
120 1:27:18 68.30 3.30 203 130 155 0.33 0.18 0.37 0.47 0.52 -332 -375
150 1:29:22 69.32 2.80 200 132 164 0.33 0.18 0.37 0.51 0.53 -332 -372
170 1:31:00 81.34 3.32 251 163 220 0.43 0.22 0.44 0.63 0.67 -331 -374
190 2:01:03 73.68 3.29 245 153 219 0.38 0.20 0.42 0.57 0.60 -333 -376
207 2:02:56 86.71 4.08 284 180 265 0.45 0.25 0.50 0.67 0.74 -332 -377
208 2:03:10 87.12 3.49 284 187 271 0.46 0.25 0.51 0.70 0.75 -333 -374
209 2:03:20 88.08 3.66 293 188 273 0.47 0.26 0.53 0.71 0.76 -333 -376 LS#1
210 2:03:25 87.29 4.37 536 507 278 0.55 0.39 0.77 0.88 0.84 -323 -370
211 2:03:38 87.00 5.17 551 521 282 0.55 0.39 0.78 0.89 0.85 -324 -371
240 2:36:14 88.44 4.61 608 557 309 0.54 0.42 0.82 0.92 0.89 -322 -369 w
avg
w
max T
avg
241 2:36:18 89.32 4.81 619 566 305 0.58 0.42 0.83 0.94 0.87 -322 -370 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.2 0.25 29
242 2:36:24 90.84 5.10 625 573 313 0.58 0.42 0.84 0.95 0.91 -321 -369
243 2:36:31 91.24 5.01 636 582 316 0.58 0.44 0.85 0.96 0.91 -321 -369
244 2:36:35 91.93 4.90 641 593 319 0.59 0.42 0.86 0.99 0.93 -321 -369
245 2:36:40 92.64 5.29 647 599 319 0.60 0.44 0.87 0.99 0.94 -320 -369
246 2:36:45 93.56 4.95 654 613 325 0.58 0.46 0.89 1.00 0.95 -321 -367
247 2:36:51 94.05 5.35 665 624 331 0.60 0.45 0.89 1.02 0.97 -321 -367
248 2:36:55 94.65 4.98 673 640 331 0.60 0.46 0.89 1.03 0.97 -320 -366
249 2:36:59 95.73 5.55 681 656 333 0.61 0.47 0.91 1.04 0.98 -320 -366 LS#2
250 2:37:03 95.53 5.46 692 669 334 0.61 0.47 0.92 1.05 0.99 -314 -359
251 2:37:07 93.72 5.97 731 1080 601 0.71 0.42 1.12 1.31 1.12 -313 -359
286 3:00:23 104.09 8.19 898 1373 889 0.84 0.47 1.35 1.61 1.38 -311 -353 w
avg
w
max T
avg
287 3:00:37 105.29 8.26 928 1412 917 0.85 0.48 1.38 1.63 1.40 -310 -351 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.3 0.4 27
288 3:00:48 106.23 8.65 956 1442 949 0.87 0.48 1.42 1.67 1.44 -309 -350
289 3:00:52 106.40 8.62 966 1454 958 0.87 0.52 1.43 1.69 1.44 -310 -351
290 3:01:06 107.17 8.75 1012 1501 989 0.89 0.52 1.46 1.72 1.48 -309 -348
291 3:01:17 107.69 8.77 1036 1529 1024 0.90 0.54 1.49 1.76 1.50 -309 -350
292 3:01:27 108.89 8.71 1064 1569 1063 0.94 0.57 1.57 1.82 1.53 -308 -348
293 3:01:39 109.49 9.08 1093 1599 1087 0.94 0.57 1.58 1.83 1.55 -309 -349
294 3:01:43 109.57 9.24 1097 1610 1092 0.94 0.58 1.59 1.84 1.56 -308 -351
295 3:01:47 110.26 9.23 1120 1637 1114 0.98 0.61 1.63 1.86 1.59 -308 -348 LS#3
296 3:01:51 110.17 9.00 1133 1646 1124 0.97 0.61 1.62 1.88 1.57 -307 -347
297 3:01:55 109.40 9.29 1145 1652 1126 0.97 0.61 1.64 1.87 1.58 -308 -351
345 3:35:12 116.34 11.75 1841 2284 1595 1.18 1.08 2.32 2.46 2.00 -306 -338 w
avg
w
max T
avg
346 3:35:16 116.34 11.88 1853 2298 1607 1.20 1.07 2.33 2.47 2.00 -306 -342 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.6 0.85 27
347 3:35:20 116.17 11.89 1865 2315 1619 1.19 1.09 2.34 2.48 2.01 -303 -342
348 3:35:24 116.43 11.68 1878 2332 1630 1.21 1.10 2.36 2.50 2.03 -306 -341
349 3:35:28 117.72 12.21 1897 2360 1661 1.23 1.11 2.40 2.52 2.05 -306 -338
350 3:35:32 117.46 11.87 1914 2374 1709 1.23 1.11 2.41 2.55 2.06 -305 -343
351 3:35:36 117.54 12.39 1927 2388 1743 1.24 1.12 2.42 2.57 2.07 -306 -346
352 3:35:40 117.20 11.84 1939 2400 1762 1.25 1.12 2.44 2.59 2.09 -304 -343
353 3:35:44 117.54 12.08 1952 2413 1778 1.26 1.14 2.46 2.62 2.11 -304 -339
354 3:35:48 118.14 12.13 1981 2443 1801 1.26 1.15 2.50 2.63 2.12 -303 -339 LS#4
355 3:35:52 117.63 12.15 1982 2455 1813 1.27 1.17 2.49 2.63 2.12 -304 -339
356 3:35:56 118.06 12.28 1993 2455 1820 1.26 1.15 2.50 2.63 2.12 -304 -338
446 4:14:09 130.83 18.79 3415 3624 3010 1.78 2.09 4.06 3.98 3.07 -292 -330 w
avg
w
max T
avg
447 4:14:13 131.60 19.02 3453 3648 3041 1.80 2.11 4.09 4.01 3.08 -292 -328 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.85 1.4 27
448 4:14:17 131.09 18.96 3473 3666 3054 1.80 2.12 4.11 4.02 3.08 -292 -327
449 4:14:22 131.09 18.53 3482 3679 3080 1.80 2.13 4.12 4.03 3.09 -290 -330
450 4:14:26 132.12 19.09 3523 3703 3107 1.82 2.16 4.17 4.07 3.12 -291 -324
451 4:14:30 132.12 19.16 3541 3715 3125 1.83 2.17 4.18 4.08 3.13 -291 -331
452 4:14:34 131.86 19.10 3550 3734 3145 1.82 2.16 4.20 4.08 3.13 -291 -327
453 4:14:40 132.03 19.32 3597 3764 3177 1.84 2.20 4.25 4.13 3.16 -291 -324
454 4:14:52 132.03 19.61 3638 3795 3218 1.86 2.23 4.28 4.17 3.17 -291 -330
455 4:14:59 132.37 19.31 3662 3807 3236 1.86 2.24 4.32 4.19 3.18 -291 -325 LS#5
456 4:15:06 131.26 19.54 3680 3819 3256 1.86 2.25 4.32 4.18 3.19 -293 -328
457 4:15:11 129.72 19.45 3668 3788 3249 1.84 2.25 4.27 4.14 3.10 -295 -327
518 4:49:33 133.40 23.02 4345 4307 3877 2.07 2.70 5.05 4.76 3.56 -292 -312 w
avg
w
max T
avg
519 4:49:38 133.23 22.68 4367 4337 3894 2.07 2.72 5.06 4.79 3.57 -293 -310 (mm) (mm) (deg)
2.2 4 26
520 4:49:42 133.14 22.66 4400 4362 3910 2.07 2.74 5.08 4.81 3.61 -293 -306
521 4:49:46 133.14 22.85 4417 4368 3941 2.09 2.75 5.13 4.82 3.61 -291 -308
522 4:49:50 132.80 23.18 4443 4392 3971 2.10 2.76 5.13 4.85 3.62 -293 -308
523 4:49:54 132.72 23.00 4471 4416 3991 2.10 2.79 5.19 4.88 3.63 -292 -307
524 4:49:58 133.40 23.65 4505 4429 4019 2.11 2.80 5.21 4.90 3.65 -292 -306
525 4:50:03 133.32 23.79 4531 4453 4039 2.12 2.84 5.25 4.93 3.67 -293 -306
526 4:50:08 133.14 23.39 4562 4465 4077 2.13 2.86 5.28 4.96 3.68 -293 -307
527 4:50:12 133.57 24.07 4600 4490 4111 2.13 2.87 5.32 4.98 3.70 -291 -309
533 4:50:38 126.20 26.02 5227 4721 5020 2.29 3.21 6.10 5.57 4.04 -295 -297
535 4:50:46 126.12 27.21 5352 4770 5177 2.32 3.29 6.23 5.69 4.11 -296 -296
Cracks Openning
Cracks Openning
Cracks Openning
As=1334 mm
2
A
v
/b
w
s=0.1844%
Note
Prestressing Finished
First Crack
Pressure
Maintained
Constant
More Cracks
Failure
Table B.4 Specimen Summary : LB1
305
B1.3 LB2
LB2 was cast on J uly 6th, 2006 and tested on August 22nd, 2006 under an average compres-
sion of 786 kN. The nominal flange thickness of LB2 was 75 mm and the nominal web thick-
ness was 75 mm. The actual web thickness was 74 mm. The amounts of longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement could be found in Table B.8. LB2 cracked at a shear force of 155.9
kN and failed at a shear force of 172.0 kN due to rupture of consecutive stirrups.
Table B.5 Measurement of Workability for Concrete (LB2-LB5)
T50 2 sec
Slump
Direction 1 800 mm
Direction 2 700 mm
Average 750 mm
Table B.6 Cylinder Strength for LB2-LB5 (MPa)
6 by 12 50.3 52.3 - 54.4 62.5
6 by 12 45.8 54.2 - 55.6 64
6 by 12 49.7 55.8 - 56.7 63.1
Average 48.6 54.1 - 55.6 63.2
Table B.7 Modulus of Rupture for LB2-LB5
Prism #1 Prism #2 Prism #3 Prism #4 Average
f
r
(MPa) 6.61 6.75 7.47 7.04 6.97
306
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
LB2-LB5
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
LB2-LB5
Figure B.5 Strength Development of Concrete (LB2-LB5)
307
308
309
0 0:00:00 -389 -399 0.00 0.19 -14 -10 -33 0.13 0.00 0.00 -0.04 0.00 -229 -210
1 0:15:52 -386 -398 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -232 -210
2 0:16:04 -387 -398 -0.27 0.01 -4 -2 1 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 -231 -208
138 1:45:24 -385 -396 124.98 3.18 283 76 389 1.08 0.25 0.79 1.16 1.28 -227 -209
139 1:45:44 -384 -396 125.71 3.24 293 79 395 1.07 0.25 0.80 1.17 1.29 -226 -208
140 1:45:58 -384 -396 126.35 3.36 299 81 402 1.10 0.27 0.81 1.18 1.29 -224 -212
141 1:46:17 -386 -396 127.21 3.40 305 83 409 1.12 0.27 0.82 1.18 1.31 -225 -211
142 1:46:39 -384 -396 128.45 3.45 311 83 413 1.13 0.27 0.82 1.20 1.31 -224 -210
143 1:46:52 -386 -396 128.71 3.56 311 84 416 1.14 0.29 0.83 1.21 1.32 -222 -209 LS#1
144 1:46:58 -384 -396 128.24 3.54 313 83 419 1.14 0.28 0.82 1.20 1.32 -223 -209
145 1:47:04 -387 -396 128.54 3.30 316 85 418 1.14 0.28 0.83 1.20 1.31 -224 -211
168 2:07:32 -387 -396 133.60 4.09 387 105 459 1.19 0.31 0.89 1.29 1.42 -202 -208 w
avg
w
max T
avg
169 2:07:41 -387 -396 134.58 4.19 391 109 463 1.19 0.32 0.89 1.29 1.42 -203 -206 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.05 0.05 90
170 2:08:13 -385 -396 135.83 4.21 404 109 471 1.23 0.33 0.91 1.31 1.45 -200 -203
171 2:08:47 -386 -396 136.98 4.32 409 111 472 1.24 0.33 0.92 1.33 1.47 -194 -200
172 2:09:34 -387 -396 138.31 4.42 420 115 474 1.27 0.34 0.93 1.35 1.48 -192 -199
173 2:10:14 -384 -396 139.08 4.81 433 120 484 1.31 0.34 0.94 1.35 1.50 -187 -199
174 2:10:21 -385 -396 140.11 4.83 441 120 484 1.33 0.35 0.95 1.37 1.50 -185 -197
175 2:10:29 -387 -396 141.40 5.02 448 123 484 1.36 0.35 0.97 1.39 1.53 -179 -194
176 2:10:37 -387 -396 142.98 5.11 453 126 486 1.39 0.36 0.98 1.40 1.55 -179 -190
177 2:10:43 -384 -396 143.24 5.18 454 128 485 1.39 0.36 0.97 1.40 1.55 -174 -192 LS#2
178 2:10:49 -386 -396 142.77 5.13 458 127 483 1.38 0.36 0.98 1.40 1.55 -175 -188
179 2:10:55 -387 -396 142.25 5.22 459 126 488 1.40 0.36 0.96 1.39 1.55 -172 -189
203 2:26:43 -385 -396 147.83 5.59 513 134 507 1.56 0.41 1.05 1.50 1.65 -162 -179 w
avg
w
max T
avg
204 2:27:15 -385 -396 148.90 5.67 521 140 509 1.58 0.42 1.07 1.51 1.66 -161 -177 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.1 0.1 90
205 2:27:30 -387 -396 150.01 5.75 524 142 511 1.61 0.43 1.08 1.52 1.68 -159 -170
206 2:27:51 -387 -396 151.00 5.94 534 145 513 1.64 0.43 1.09 1.54 1.70 -150 -168
207 2:28:12 -388 -396 151.64 5.99 538 144 517 1.67 0.44 1.11 1.57 1.72 -151 -163
208 2:28:20 -387 -396 152.63 5.90 541 147 520 1.67 0.44 1.11 1.57 1.73 -149 -162
209 2:28:45 -387 -396 153.65 6.05 544 147 531 1.72 0.46 1.13 1.60 1.76 -146 -161
210 2:29:19 -389 -396 154.30 6.04 553 151 544 1.77 0.47 1.15 1.62 1.79 -140 -157
211 2:29:28 -389 -396 154.85 6.02 554 152 546 1.78 0.47 1.15 1.63 1.80 -142 -156
212 2:29:45 -387 -397 155.93 6.17 559 152 549 1.80 0.48 1.16 1.65 1.82 -136 -153 LS#3
213 2:30:12 -390 -398 147.40 7.67 1426 1403 1121 2.30 0.90 2.05 2.46 2.26 -142 -146
214 2:30:18 -388 -398 141.65 10.02 1488 1476 1192 2.32 0.92 2.08 2.50 2.28 -144 -149
253 3:07:22 -391 -399 159.05 14.21 2323 2283 1892 3.08 1.41 2.98 3.43 2.98 -85 -117 w
avg
w
max T
avg
254 3:07:28 -392 -399 159.57 14.27 2340 2303 1910 3.09 1.42 3.00 3.45 3.01 -82 -118 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.45 0.75 25
255 3:07:42 -391 -399 160.43 14.47 2377 2347 1955 3.14 1.45 3.05 3.51 3.05 -80 -113
256 3:07:52 -390 -400 161.41 14.66 2400 2372 1981 3.16 1.47 3.08 3.54 3.07 -78 -111
257 3:08:09 -390 -400 161.67 14.94 2444 2414 2033 3.21 1.50 3.14 3.60 3.12 -72 -110
258 3:08:16 -392 -400 162.74 14.86 2463 2437 2058 3.22 1.51 3.15 3.62 3.14 -72 -109
259 3:08:30 -392 -400 162.91 15.23 2501 2469 2097 3.26 1.54 3.21 3.68 3.18 -70 -105
260 3:08:42 -393 -400 163.73 15.36 2533 2503 2129 3.30 1.55 3.24 3.70 3.22 -65 -104
261 3:08:54 -392 -400 164.07 15.51 2566 2530 2164 3.33 1.58 3.26 3.75 3.25 -62 -102
262 3:09:05 -391 -400 165.18 15.59 2596 2555 2199 3.36 1.59 3.31 3.79 3.28 -57 -102 LS#4
263 3:09:12 -392 -400 164.37 15.56 2607 2566 2208 3.37 1.60 3.32 3.79 3.30 -60 -103
264 3:09:19 -393 -400 164.33 15.69 2613 2569 2221 3.38 1.60 3.32 3.80 3.28 -60 -102
361 3:51:23 -394 -403 171.83 20.11 3505 3378 3231 4.20 2.21 4.33 4.86 4.09 -26 -81 w
avg
w
max T
avg
362 3:51:30 -393 -403 171.44 20.20 3513 3390 3243 4.20 2.20 4.34 4.87 4.10 -25 -78 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.85 2 27
363 3:51:36 -395 -403 171.78 20.21 3526 3402 3254 4.22 2.22 4.35 4.88 4.11 -23 -82
364 3:51:43 -395 -403 171.44 20.26 3536 3409 3267 4.23 2.23 4.37 4.89 4.11 -24 -82
365 3:51:49 -396 -403 171.27 20.34 3549 3421 3278 4.23 2.23 4.38 4.90 4.13 -25 -81
366 3:51:56 -396 -403 171.35 20.35 3557 3427 3288 4.25 2.25 4.39 4.91 4.12 -24 -81
367 3:52:03 -396 -403 171.87 20.47 3579 3436 3302 4.26 2.24 4.40 4.92 4.15 -21 -81
368 3:52:09 -394 -403 171.27 20.51 3590 3448 3320 4.27 2.26 4.42 4.94 4.16 -22 -83
369 3:52:16 -394 -403 171.87 20.49 3598 3466 3335 4.27 2.26 4.42 4.95 4.17 -20 -82
370 3:52:23 -396 -403 172.04 20.59 3607 3476 3348 4.28 2.27 4.43 4.95 4.17 -20 -79 LS#5
371 3:52:29 -395 -403 172.00 20.67 3623 3482 3358 4.28 2.27 4.45 4.96 4.18 -22 -81
372 3:52:36 -395 -403 171.35 20.67 3627 3488 3371 4.29 2.28 4.45 4.97 4.18 -22 -80
424 4:27:31 -395 -402 163.81 20.11 3604 3479 3380 4.28 2.29 4.42 4.92 4.11 -46 -98 w
avg
w
max T
avg
425 4:27:38 -392 -402 164.33 20.15 3604 3488 3381 4.29 2.28 4.42 4.91 4.11 -44 -98 (mm) (mm) (deg)
1.5 3.5 26
426 4:27:44 -395 -402 163.90 20.24 3607 3488 3390 4.30 2.28 4.43 4.92 4.12 -44 -97
427 4:27:51 -393 -402 164.67 20.24 3618 3491 3388 4.30 2.28 4.43 4.93 4.12 -44 -97
428 4:27:58 -395 -402 164.41 20.24 3616 3497 3388 4.31 2.28 4.44 4.93 4.12 -45 -94
429 4:28:04 -395 -402 164.88 20.32 3616 3500 3390 4.31 2.29 4.44 4.92 4.13 -44 -97
430 4:28:11 -395 -402 164.37 20.28 3629 3503 3394 4.31 2.28 4.45 4.94 4.12 -45 -93
431 4:28:18 -394 -402 165.01 20.38 3629 3512 3400 4.31 2.29 4.46 4.94 4.14 -44 -91
432 4:28:24 -392 -402 165.27 20.39 3642 3518 3409 4.33 2.30 4.47 4.96 4.14 -41 -97
433 4:28:31 -395 -402 166.21 20.43 3667 3549 3428 4.35 2.31 4.49 4.98 4.16 -40 -95
439 4:29:11 -396 -404 159.10 23.67 4705 4223 4325 4.84 3.01 5.45 5.74 4.60 -28 -76
440 4:29:18 -395 -406 157.64 24.88 4874 4354 4493 5.39 4.50 7.02 6.88 5.19 -59 -38
As=534 mm
2
A
v
/b
w
s=0.1869%
Linear Uncrack Response
More Cracks Appeared
Note
Flexural Crack at West
Support
Flexural Crack
Openning
Inclined Cracks
Appeared
Failure
More Cracks Appeared
310
B1.4 LB3
LB3 was cast on J uly 6th, 2006 and tested on August 30th, 2006 under an average compres-
sion of 426 kN. The applied maximum compression for LB3 was 475 kN. The nominal flange
thickness of LB3 was 75 mm and the nominal web thickness was 75 mm. The actual web
thickness was 73 mm. The amounts of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement could be
found in Table B.9. LB3 cracked at a shear force of 102.6 kN and failed at a shear force of
149 kN due to rupture of the stirrups and the major web-shear crack thrusting through the
flanges at both ends of the crack.
311
312
313
0 0:00:00 -196 -200 0.00 1.07 -10 -4 -26 0.06 0.01 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 -120 -122
1 0:01:28 -198 -200 0.22 0.20 -3 -3 -1 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 -121 -122
2 0:02:47 -196 -200 0.18 0.27 -3 -4 -8 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 -120 -124
71 0:38:24 -199 -199 78.18 1.81 45 -41 103 1.28 0.87 1.17 1.42 1.42 -110 -129
72 0:38:39 -196 -199 79.13 1.75 57 -34 116 1.32 0.89 1.19 1.43 1.44 -109 -125
73 0:38:57 -197 -199 80.85 0.92 53 -23 138 1.38 0.91 1.22 1.45 1.45 -110 -128
74 0:39:15 -198 -199 80.69 1.35 54 -20 139 1.41 0.92 1.22 1.46 1.46 -106 -125
75 0:39:23 -196 -199 81.01 1.37 53 -22 141 1.43 0.93 1.24 1.47 1.48 -105 -124
76 0:39:29 -197 -199 81.34 0.99 54 -17 145 1.44 0.95 1.25 1.49 1.49 -105 -127 LS#1
77 0:39:35 -196 -199 81.10 1.13 56 -18 148 1.45 0.95 1.26 1.49 1.50 -104 -126
78 0:39:41 -199 -200 77.89 1.19 54 -17 144 1.42 0.95 1.23 1.45 1.45 -106 -126
125 2:01:22 -202 -200 93.28 1.15 527 78 256 2.49 1.46 1.81 2.08 2.10 0 -90 w
avg
w
max T
avg
126 2:01:28 -203 -200 94.57 1.62 556 80 258 2.53 1.48 1.84 2.12 2.12 5 -87 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.05 0.05 90
127 2:01:42 -203 -201 95.60 1.68 581 81 261 2.57 1.50 1.86 2.15 2.15 9 -86
128 2:01:55 -202 -201 97.17 1.79 600 82 266 2.61 1.52 1.89 2.18 2.18 14 -81
129 2:02:10 -204 -201 98.03 1.91 617 82 262 2.65 1.53 1.91 2.21 2.20 15 -75
130 2:02:23 -203 -201 99.06 2.16 638 94 272 2.69 1.54 1.92 2.22 2.24 13 -76
131 2:02:38 -203 -201 100.17 2.09 658 97 276 2.74 1.56 1.95 2.25 2.26 23 -71
132 2:02:56 -204 -201 101.33 2.18 675 100 276 2.80 1.58 1.97 2.28 2.29 22 -68
133 2:03:15 -204 -202 103.13 1.61 705 110 287 2.84 1.58 2.00 2.31 2.32 28 -60
134 2:03:42 -206 -202 102.62 1.82 687 261 299 3.03 1.66 2.11 2.38 2.37 77 -62 LS#3
135 2:03:58 -207 -202 101.12 3.52 724 296 298 3.05 1.67 2.12 2.40 2.37 78 -59
136 2:04:04 -207 -202 101.59 3.65 747 402 298 3.10 1.68 2.17 2.44 2.40 83 -58
206 3:20:08 -215 -210 114.53 8.23 1461 1341 736 4.74 2.22 3.31 3.75 3.61 212 9 w
avg
w
max T
avg
207 3:20:29 -215 -210 115.60 8.36 1494 1374 764 4.80 2.24 3.35 3.80 3.66 225 11 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.25 0.3 25.4
208 3:20:57 -217 -210 115.95 8.69 1541 1392 790 4.85 2.26 3.37 3.83 3.69 234 16
209 3:21:28 -218 -210 116.67 8.66 1578 1425 826 4.89 2.27 3.41 3.87 3.74 237 15
210 3:21:51 -216 -210 116.67 9.20 1611 1473 877 4.93 2.27 3.44 3.92 3.77 239 16
211 3:22:18 -217 -210 117.10 9.23 1626 1488 892 4.96 2.28 3.45 3.94 3.79 244 19
212 3:22:34 -217 -211 116.89 9.30 1634 1491 897 4.97 2.29 3.46 3.95 3.79 243 20
213 3:22:40 -219 -211 117.23 9.46 1643 1500 899 5.00 2.29 3.49 3.96 3.82 247 22
214 3:22:46 -219 -211 117.45 9.26 1647 1502 903 5.00 2.31 3.48 3.97 3.81 246 20 LS#5
215 3:22:52 -217 -211 117.15 9.33 1648 1505 905 5.00 2.30 3.48 3.97 3.81 246 20
216 3:22:58 -214 -210 115.09 9.07 1609 1463 874 4.76 2.24 3.33 3.77 3.59 196 1
217 3:23:04 -216 -210 104.97 8.79 1536 1405 840 4.70 2.25 3.33 3.75 3.59 201 0
285 5:06:29 -224 -217 129.10 12.27 2467 1998 1447 6.16 2.85 4.40 5.06 4.82 354 76 w
avg
w
max T
avg
286 5:06:39 -224 -218 129.15 11.93 2463 1967 1467 6.15 2.88 4.46 5.16 4.92 352 144 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.4 0.9 25
287 5:06:45 -224 -219 129.15 12.25 2474 1979 1522 6.15 2.89 4.50 5.21 4.97 355 155
288 5:06:54 -224 -219 129.66 12.24 2495 1992 1542 6.17 2.91 4.52 5.23 5.00 359 158
289 5:07:01 -224 -219 130.00 12.49 2514 2006 1565 6.21 2.91 4.55 5.27 5.03 362 160
290 5:07:08 -225 -219 130.47 12.49 2538 2023 1580 6.25 2.93 4.57 5.30 5.04 360 161
291 5:07:15 -227 -220 130.65 12.65 2564 2058 1596 6.27 2.95 4.59 5.34 5.08 363 166
292 5:07:22 -226 -220 130.99 12.79 2588 2064 1612 6.28 2.96 4.62 5.36 5.10 366 169
293 5:07:29 -227 -220 131.29 12.85 2610 2086 1630 6.33 2.97 4.64 5.39 5.12 369 168
294 5:07:36 -225 -220 131.50 13.06 2633 2104 1651 6.34 2.99 4.66 5.41 5.15 369 173 LS#7
295 5:07:44 -226 -220 131.20 13.05 2645 2109 1653 6.37 2.99 4.67 5.42 5.14 360 171
296 5:07:50 -227 -220 130.77 12.82 2645 2092 1646 6.30 2.98 4.65 5.39 5.12 353 173
409 6:10:03 -235 -230 143.93 17.99 3795 2962 2578 7.76 3.73 5.98 6.92 6.54 517 400 w
avg
w
max T
avg
410 6:10:10 -235 -230 144.40 18.09 3830 2990 2607 7.78 3.75 6.01 6.96 6.57 524 405 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.7 1.6 22
411 6:10:19 -238 -230 144.66 18.25 3857 3006 2618 7.81 3.76 6.03 6.98 6.60 523 408
412 6:10:26 -237 -230 145.05 18.43 3879 3019 2639 7.82 3.78 6.06 7.01 6.62 527 409
413 6:10:33 -236 -230 145.09 18.53 3901 3044 2662 7.87 3.80 6.09 7.05 6.66 528 414
414 6:10:41 -238 -230 145.26 18.63 3922 3054 2687 7.87 3.80 6.11 7.07 6.68 531 413
415 6:10:48 -236 -230 145.60 18.79 3955 3079 2710 7.91 3.83 6.13 7.10 6.70 532 413
416 6:10:55 -239 -231 145.90 18.93 3979 3101 2735 7.94 3.85 6.16 7.13 6.71 537 418
417 6:11:02 -238 -231 145.95 18.96 4000 3118 2759 7.95 3.85 6.19 7.15 6.74 541 420 LS#9
418 6:11:09 -237 -231 145.82 19.27 4018 3130 2768 7.97 3.86 6.19 7.17 6.75 540 421
419 6:11:17 -238 -231 145.69 19.30 4031 3141 2781 7.97 3.87 6.20 7.18 6.75 535 397
420 6:11:23 -232 -229 135.49 18.21 3881 3021 2677 7.59 3.78 5.99 6.86 6.43 481 370
446 6:41:47 -238 -231 146.67 20.18 4304 3344 3018 8.26 4.06 6.50 7.47 6.99 559 440 w
avg
w
max T
avg
447 6:41:54 -237 -232 147.10 20.19 4337 3379 3039 8.30 4.08 6.52 7.51 7.01 565 442 (mm) (mm) (deg)
1.25 2.9 22
448 6:42:01 -238 -232 147.36 20.31 4371 3408 3075 8.33 4.09 6.56 7.55 7.04 571 445
449 6:42:09 -240 -232 147.49 20.47 4413 3434 3094 8.35 4.12 6.60 7.59 7.07 574 448
450 6:42:16 -238 -232 147.66 20.58 4436 3461 3127 8.39 4.15 6.64 7.62 7.10 578 448
451 6:42:23 -238 -232 147.96 20.76 4478 3487 3152 8.43 4.17 6.67 7.66 7.12 584 453
452 6:42:31 -241 -232 148.17 20.85 4530 3529 3208 8.47 4.21 6.72 7.71 7.16 588 455
453 6:42:41 -239 -233 148.35 21.09 4578 3568 3248 8.50 4.23 6.77 7.76 7.20 591 458
454 6:42:49 -239 -233 148.56 21.29 4623 3604 3295 8.53 4.25 6.81 7.80 7.23 593 461
455 6:42:57 -241 -233 148.82 21.53 4660 3641 3341 8.57 4.27 6.83 7.85 7.26 596 462
456 6:43:04 -242 -233 148.95 21.58 4711 3680 3386 8.61 4.31 6.90 7.90 7.30 598 466
457 6:43:11 -242 -233 149.03 21.98 4779 3736 3444 8.64 4.35 6.96 7.96 7.34 605 466
Inclined Cracks
Appeared
More Cracks
More Cracks
Note
Flexural Crack at West
Support
More Cracks
Failure
As=534 mm
2
A
v
/b
w
s=0.1894%
314
B1.5 LB4
LB4 was cast on J uly 6th, 2006 and tested on September 19th, 2006 under an average tension
of 252 kN. The nominal flange thickness of LB4 was 75 mm and the nominal web thickness
was 75 mm. The actual web thickness was 87 mm. The amounts of longitudinal and trans-
verse reinforcement could be found in Table B.10. LB4 cracked at a shear force of 62 kN and
failed at a shear force of 119.1 kN due to formation of a continuous shear crack and rupture of
the stirrups at the shear crack.
315
Figure B.10 Crack Diagrams for LB4
316
Figure B.11 Zurich Data for LB4
317
Dset Time Ntop Nbot V Deviat Shear-WShear-MShear-E Cant VWW VW VE VEE TI-avg TO-avg BI-avg BO-avg
(#) (h:mm:ss (kN) (kN) (kN) (mm) (PH) (PH) (PH) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (PH) (PH) (PH) (PH)
0 0:00:00 128 124 0.00 6.97 -74 141 -219 0.74 -0.21 -0.28 -0.17 -0.16 897 937 853 863
1 0:06:25 128 125 1.17 0.24 6 11 11 -0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 894 942 854 863
2 0:07:35 128 125 1.83 0.39 20 23 20 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.06 894 944 858 868
10 0:17:29 128 125 6.11 1.09 50 57 41 0.01 0.08 0.16 0.21 0.17 898 948 873 881
11 0:17:37 127 125 8.57 1.44 65 73 51 0.09 0.10 0.22 0.29 0.25 893 950 878 886
12 0:17:45 127 125 11.34 1.85 78 91 51 0.16 0.12 0.27 0.38 0.36 898 951 881 888 w
avg
w
max T
avg
13 0:17:54 127 125 13.86 2.17 93 108 65 0.25 0.15 0.34 0.49 0.46 902 955 893 899 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.22 0.3 90
14 0:18:02 127 125 16.35 2.63 110 129 78 0.32 0.17 0.41 0.59 0.58 901 956 899 906
15 0:18:10 127 124 17.65 2.97 117 141 80 0.36 0.19 0.44 0.66 0.64 905 957 910 913 LS#1
16 0:18:20 127 124 17.28 2.80 115 145 83 0.37 0.18 0.44 0.66 0.65 906 957 905 909
17 0:18:30 127 124 17.40 2.90 110 147 83 0.37 0.18 0.45 0.66 0.65 905 960 907 911
43 1:03:25 127 125 31.46 7.82 215 291 146 0.82 0.28 0.81 1.30 1.33 926 991 972 987 w
avg
w
max T
avg
44 1:03:53 127 125 32.30 8.10 222 300 149 0.84 0.29 0.85 1.33 1.36 930 989 975 991 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.29 0.4 87
45 1:04:02 127 125 32.32 8.24 223 301 151 0.84 0.29 0.85 1.34 1.37 925 990 975 990
46 1:04:12 127 125 32.62 8.41 225 304 153 0.85 0.29 0.85 1.36 1.38 928 990 977 993
47 1:04:21 127 124 32.47 8.42 227 305 155 0.85 0.29 0.85 1.36 1.38 928 990 982 993
48 1:04:31 127 125 33.20 8.73 235 309 160 0.86 0.29 0.87 1.37 1.41 931 990 982 993
49 1:04:50 127 124 32.92 8.85 234 312 164 0.87 0.30 0.87 1.39 1.42 930 993 978 993
50 1:05:00 127 125 32.91 8.91 236 316 163 0.88 0.30 0.88 1.40 1.43 931 990 984 1000
51 1:05:08 127 124 33.16 8.90 237 313 163 0.88 0.30 0.88 1.41 1.43 930 991 985 998
52 1:05:18 127 124 34.01 9.01 246 317 168 0.90 0.31 0.89 1.43 1.45 930 992 988 997
53 1:05:26 127 125 33.77 9.08 243 318 168 0.90 0.30 0.89 1.43 1.47 930 993 990 998 LS#2
54 1:05:34 127 124 32.40 9.05 234 317 167 0.88 0.30 0.89 1.41 1.45 931 990 988 996
55 1:05:44 127 124 30.74 9.02 225 315 165 0.85 0.30 0.88 1.37 1.41 933 987 977 993
113 2:18:04 127 124 55.32 15.35 587 1065 1209 1.77 0.57 1.93 3.05 3.27 1033 1094 1153 1158 w
avg
w
max T
avg
114 2:18:27 127 124 56.27 15.52 603 1080 1232 1.80 0.58 1.96 3.09 3.31 1035 1097 1161 1165 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.34 0.4 85
115 2:18:49 127 125 57.38 15.76 617 1095 1249 1.84 0.59 1.99 3.14 3.37 1035 1101 1161 1172
116 2:19:14 127 125 58.32 15.83 628 1109 1270 1.88 0.60 2.03 3.18 3.42 1038 1105 1167 1178
117 2:19:38 127 124 59.17 16.03 648 1125 1287 1.90 0.60 2.05 3.23 3.46 1040 1108 1174 1182
118 2:19:53 127 124 59.64 15.98 654 1137 1300 1.93 0.61 2.07 3.27 3.50 1043 1110 1180 1183
119 2:20:20 127 125 60.19 16.21 670 1152 1317 1.96 0.62 2.10 3.31 3.55 1050 1112 1185 1190
120 2:20:47 127 124 60.89 16.28 689 1163 1335 2.00 0.63 2.13 3.36 3.60 1054 1118 1191 1195
121 2:21:13 127 124 61.80 16.77 711 1177 1349 2.04 0.67 2.17 3.40 3.64 1055 1122 1199 1205
122 2:21:27 127 124 61.98 17.11 764 1178 1356 2.09 0.70 2.20 3.44 3.67 1063 1124 1206 1211 LS#4
123 2:21:51 128 124 53.24 16.93 719 1156 1323 1.96 0.67 2.11 3.27 3.50 1055 1112 1183 1182
124 2:21:59 128 125 53.84 16.57 728 1155 1323 1.96 0.68 2.10 3.27 3.51 1054 1110 1184 1187
194 3:10:20 128 124 82.21 23.99 2034 1991 2002 3.71 1.35 3.41 5.12 5.23 1238 1282 1391 1396 w
avg
w
max T
avg
195 3:10:42 128 124 82.46 24.06 2054 2006 2021 3.74 1.36 3.43 5.16 5.27 1241 1282 1394 1405 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.4 0.6 39.1
196 3:11:02 128 124 82.86 24.26 2067 2017 2045 3.76 1.37 3.45 5.19 5.30 1244 1285 1398 1407
197 3:11:21 128 124 83.25 24.40 2083 2030 2061 3.79 1.38 3.47 5.23 5.33 1249 1288 1399 1409
198 3:11:42 128 124 83.69 24.46 2102 2043 2080 3.82 1.38 3.48 5.26 5.36 1253 1291 1403 1413
199 3:12:02 128 124 84.38 24.62 2120 2058 2097 3.85 1.40 3.50 5.28 5.38 1251 1295 1405 1415
200 3:12:21 128 124 84.70 24.67 2136 2075 2113 3.86 1.41 3.51 5.32 5.43 1261 1298 1412 1416
201 3:12:32 128 124 84.76 24.77 2147 2082 2122 3.87 1.41 3.52 5.34 5.43 1261 1300 1409 1420
202 3:12:42 128 124 85.01 24.80 2152 2093 2128 3.89 1.41 3.53 5.35 5.45 1261 1301 1411 1418
203 3:12:54 128 124 85.23 24.84 2159 2106 2136 3.89 1.40 3.53 5.36 5.46 1264 1300 1416 1424 LS#5
204 3:13:02 128 124 84.96 24.79 2162 2110 2137 3.90 1.42 3.53 5.37 5.46 1267 1304 1412 1423
205 3:13:10 128 124 84.99 24.89 2163 2118 2142 3.90 1.41 3.54 5.38 5.46 1265 1304 1415 1422
413 4:26:05 128 124 118.62 48.34 6789 8463 4348 8.54 4.20 7.62 10.67 9.70 1951 1899 1748 1826 w
avg
w
max T
avg
414 4:26:13 128 124 118.45 48.48 6819 8490 4350 8.56 4.23 7.65 10.69 9.72 1952 1899 2360 1822 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.48 0.75 39.1
415 4:26:21 129 124 118.41 48.62 6848 8518 4358 8.57 4.25 7.67 10.71 9.74 1956 1902 2361 1826
416 4:26:29 129 124 118.79 48.70 6868 8547 4357 8.59 4.27 7.70 10.74 9.75 1958 1906 2363 1827
417 4:26:37 129 124 118.96 48.65 6901 8575 4370 8.61 4.30 7.72 10.76 9.76 1956 1906 2366 1831
418 4:26:45 128 124 118.88 48.77 6927 8604 4371 8.62 4.32 7.75 10.78 9.77 1960 1907 2363 1834
419 4:26:54 129 124 119.09 48.96 6953 8638 4381 8.65 4.35 7.77 10.81 9.79 1963 1911 2368 1835
420 4:27:03 128 124 119.09 49.02 6990 8672 4382 8.66 4.38 7.80 10.83 9.81 1963 1914 2368 1839
421 4:27:13 129 124 119.01 49.14 7027 8710 4391 8.69 4.40 7.84 10.85 9.84 1967 1916 2372 1836
422 4:27:21 128 124 119.13 49.25 7050 8735 4392 8.70 4.43 7.86 10.88 9.85 1964 1911 2375 1836 LS#6
423 4:27:33 129 124 117.85 49.09 7066 8741 4389 8.66 4.45 7.86 10.85 9.82 1955 1903 2359 1823
424 4:27:41 131 125 113.56 48.27 7024 8687 4357 8.53 4.42 7.77 10.71 9.69 1939 1881 2336 1806
861 1:28:48 127 124 91.19 54.19 10453 12276 4121 8.68 8.54 10.88 12.27 10.34 1843 1762 3629 2292 w
avg
w
max T
avg
869 1:29:53 128 124 91.29 56.94 11484 13335 4179 9.10 9.54 11.88 13.01 10.82 1880 1787 3705 2333 (mm) (mm) (deg)
2.25 9 30.4
870 1:30:01 128 124 92.20 57.25 11575 13247 4201 9.16 9.64 11.99 13.10 10.88 1885 1791 3577 2337
871 1:30:09 128 124 92.43 57.72 11702 13049 4237 9.23 9.76 12.13 13.20 10.96 1893 1795 3541 2344
872 1:30:17 128 124 93.00 58.17 11844 12872 4307 9.31 9.87 12.25 13.31 11.03 1899 1803 3370 2348
873 1:30:25 128 124 93.69 58.55 11971 12750 4350 9.37 9.98 12.37 13.40 11.09 1909 1807 3764 2355
874 1:30:33 128 124 94.05 59.14 12070 12643 4397 9.44 10.10 12.48 13.50 11.16 1911 1812 4757 2362
875 1:30:41 128 124 94.54 59.47 12060 12500 4447 9.52 10.21 12.60 13.60 11.23 1918 1821 4076 2363
878 1:31:06 128 124 95.60 61.00 11849 12018 4653 9.76 10.60 12.99 13.92 11.44 1930 1850 3807 2383
879 1:31:14 129 124 95.71 61.53 11775 11921 4689 9.84 10.76 13.14 14.04 11.52 1933 1853 12601 13310
880 1:31:23 137 133 92.13 63.52 8567 9165 4666 11.59 15.85 16.41 15.86 12.25 1768 1651 3767 2065
As=842 mm
2
A
v
/b
w
s=0.1589%
Only Vertical Cracks
Inclined Cracks
Appeared
Note
More Cracks
Appeared
Cracks
Openning and
More Inclined
Cracks
Failure
Cracks
318
B1.6 LB5
LB5 was cast on J uly 6th, 2006 and tested on September 29th, 2006 under an average tension
of 499 kN. The nominal flange thickness of LB5 was 75 mm and the nominal web thickness
was 75 mm. The actual web thickness was 68 mm. The amounts of longitudinal and trans-
verse reinforcement could be found in Table B.11. LB5 cracked at a shear force of 46.3 kN
and failed at a shear force of 79.6 kN due to rupture of the stirrups.
319
Figure B.12 Crack Diagrams for LB5
320
Figure B.13 Zurich Data for LB5
321
0 0:00:00 258 241 0.00 3.93 680 255 61 1.27 -0.12 -0.20 -0.30 -0.22 1811 1768 1633 1603
1 0:00:09 258 241 0.11 0.09 -8 -6 -4 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 1810 1766 1636 1598
2 0:01:37 258 241 1.49 0.16 -20 -10 -7 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 1812 1770 1638 1602
15 0:13:51 258 242 9.72 1.33 -60 -39 102 0.43 0.06 0.23 0.48 0.47 1827 1787 1662 1624
16 0:13:59 258 242 10.57 1.49 -59 -36 121 0.48 0.06 0.25 0.53 0.51 1828 1790 1664 1622
17 0:14:07 258 242 11.50 1.64 -58 -34 137 0.52 0.07 0.28 0.57 0.56 1828 1790 1667 1625
18 0:14:15 257 242 12.08 1.71 -60 -30 149 0.55 0.07 0.30 0.61 0.59 1831 1790 1667 1626
19 0:14:24 257 242 12.39 1.84 -62 -27 157 0.58 0.08 0.32 0.64 0.61 1830 1796 1670 1626
20 0:14:31 257 242 12.63 1.93 -61 -17 165 0.59 0.07 0.34 0.65 0.64 1832 1796 1669 1623 LS#1
21 0:14:47 257 242 11.40 2.04 -69 -10 163 0.60 0.05 0.36 0.66 0.63 1832 1794 1672 1629
22 0:14:57 258 242 10.70 1.95 -72 -13 162 0.58 0.05 0.35 0.64 0.61 1834 1796 1668 1625
55 0:52:53 259 242 26.33 6.85 159 499 746 1.53 0.17 1.15 1.75 1.81 1878 1860 1728 1690 w
avg
w
max T
avg
56 0:53:04 259 242 26.33 7.09 159 723 754 1.56 0.16 1.20 1.80 1.84 1880 1861 1730 1697 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.43 0.6 87
57 0:53:23 261 243 26.94 7.37 170 832 780 1.60 0.17 1.24 1.84 1.89 1889 1870 1743 1708
58 0:53:42 261 243 27.20 7.55 180 891 822 1.65 0.17 1.27 1.89 1.93 1890 1873 1747 1710
59 0:54:03 261 243 27.98 7.78 187 974 856 1.70 0.16 1.31 1.95 1.97 1888 1870 1749 1716
60 0:54:20 261 243 28.17 7.92 197 1025 884 1.75 0.16 1.33 1.99 2.01 1890 1876 1756 1718
61 0:54:31 261 244 28.65 8.17 197 1052 899 1.77 0.17 1.35 2.02 2.05 1892 1874 1757 1720
62 0:54:43 261 244 28.89 8.32 204 1071 918 1.80 0.17 1.36 2.04 2.07 1892 1879 1758 1721
63 0:54:51 261 244 29.13 8.38 209 1093 928 1.83 0.17 1.39 2.05 2.08 1892 1877 1760 1717
64 0:55:08 258 242 29.50 8.53 205 1106 945 1.85 0.17 1.40 2.06 2.09 1868 1854 1730 1695 LS#2
65 0:55:31 257 241 27.86 8.45 196 1104 956 1.83 0.17 1.38 2.04 2.07 1860 1849 1721 1685
66 0:55:39 257 241 26.19 8.40 186 1096 943 1.79 0.16 1.35 1.97 2.00 1859 1849 1718 1687
101 1:36:36 257 242 43.38 13.50 1041 1965 1516 3.83 0.63 2.17 3.04 2.69 1905 1929 1787 1765 w
avg
w
max T
avg
102 1:36:47 257 242 43.94 13.60 1066 1979 1534 3.89 0.65 2.21 3.07 2.73 1911 1934 1788 1766 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.5 0.9 86
103 1:36:56 257 242 44.08 14.06 1079 2069 1599 3.97 0.66 2.21 3.15 2.78 1912 1938 1794 1768
104 1:37:06 257 242 44.19 14.40 1105 2139 1648 4.04 0.65 2.22 3.20 2.82 1914 1943 1793 1771
105 1:37:16 257 242 44.76 14.64 1152 2168 1668 4.10 0.67 2.25 3.24 2.85 1915 1941 1798 1774
106 1:37:27 257 242 45.14 14.83 1199 2190 1696 4.16 0.70 2.29 3.28 2.89 1916 1944 1796 1777
107 1:37:35 257 242 45.47 15.01 1223 2212 1710 4.22 0.71 2.31 3.32 2.90 1918 1945 1802 1781
108 1:37:46 257 242 46.00 15.15 1251 2224 1736 4.28 0.73 2.34 3.36 2.95 1920 1946 1803 1781
109 1:37:55 257 242 46.23 15.32 1267 2239 1747 4.32 0.75 2.36 3.38 2.96 1920 1950 1804 1783
110 1:38:03 257 242 46.33 15.39 1280 2247 1756 4.35 0.76 2.38 3.39 2.96 1922 1952 1801 1782 LS#3
111 1:38:11 257 242 46.18 15.29 1283 2246 1756 4.37 0.76 2.38 3.39 2.96 1923 1948 1810 1778
112 1:38:19 258 242 42.35 15.16 1265 2224 1731 4.26 0.75 2.31 3.27 2.83 1916 1943 1794 1774
145 2:41:55 257 242 56.75 20.44 1831 3204 2245 5.81 1.23 3.63 4.73 4.14 1992 2035 1830 1820 w
avg
w
max T
avg
146 2:42:04 257 242 57.45 20.64 1859 3242 2270 5.87 1.25 3.68 4.77 4.18 1994 2040 1831 1822 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.6 1 51
147 2:42:14 257 242 57.97 20.87 1892 3284 2293 5.94 1.26 3.72 4.82 4.22 2002 2042 1835 1824
148 2:42:25 257 242 58.52 21.00 1923 3331 2324 6.01 1.27 3.77 4.87 4.26 2006 2044 1837 1828
149 2:42:36 257 242 58.88 21.19 1943 3364 2356 6.06 1.29 3.81 4.91 4.30 2007 2050 1839 1831
150 2:42:45 257 242 59.10 21.28 1974 3404 2382 6.13 1.31 3.85 4.94 4.33 2011 2055 1842 1834
151 2:42:56 257 242 59.51 21.39 1993 3444 2415 6.19 1.33 3.90 4.99 4.36 2013 2058 1844 1837
152 2:43:07 257 242 60.04 21.52 2025 3479 2445 6.25 1.35 3.94 5.05 4.40 2019 2058 1852 1839
153 2:43:18 257 242 60.45 21.80 2048 3521 2490 6.33 1.38 3.99 5.09 4.43 2023 2063 1854 1842
154 2:43:27 257 242 60.50 21.92 2071 3546 2507 6.36 1.38 4.01 5.11 4.45 2024 2062 1851 1840 LS#4
155 2:43:35 257 242 59.89 22.00 2073 3556 2521 6.37 1.39 4.01 5.10 4.44 2025 2057 1851 1843
156 2:43:44 257 242 59.73 21.95 2082 3555 2523 6.38 1.40 4.00 5.10 4.44 2023 2060 1852 1828
206 3:24:24 257 242 71.99 28.60 3269 5682 3938 8.26 1.82 5.63 6.82 5.87 2172 2209 1969 1952 w
avg
w
max T
avg
207 3:24:33 257 242 72.48 28.87 3338 5795 3966 8.33 1.85 5.70 6.89 5.92 2172 2214 1972 1957 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.77 1.1 46.7
208 3:24:41 257 242 72.66 29.16 3416 5906 4006 8.39 1.88 5.78 6.97 5.98 2179 2215 1979 1960
209 3:24:50 257 242 72.93 29.48 3509 6034 4035 8.46 1.91 5.87 7.04 6.03 2182 2222 1982 1966
210 3:24:58 257 242 73.45 29.93 3650 6185 4064 8.55 1.94 5.97 7.13 6.10 2187 2228 1988 1972
211 3:25:07 257 242 73.32 30.32 3851 6372 4072 8.62 2.00 6.09 7.22 6.17 2188 2229 1994 1974
212 3:25:15 257 242 73.92 30.66 3956 6488 4099 8.69 2.04 6.16 7.29 6.22 2191 2234 1997 1981
213 3:25:24 257 242 74.34 30.87 4038 6595 4128 8.75 2.07 6.23 7.36 6.27 2193 2239 2004 1985
214 3:25:32 257 242 74.86 31.21 4130 6703 4168 8.82 2.10 6.31 7.44 6.33 2199 2243 2007 1988
215 3:25:41 257 242 75.03 31.46 4198 6787 4198 8.87 2.12 6.37 7.50 6.38 2199 2245 2006 1988 LS#5
216 3:25:49 257 242 74.30 31.56 4224 6822 4205 8.88 2.13 6.39 7.50 6.36 2199 2244 2008 1987
217 3:25:57 257 242 74.10 31.51 4239 6830 4213 8.86 2.14 6.39 7.50 6.35 2191 2233 1996 1981
251 4:07:19 256 241 77.91 36.60 5090 8254 5530 10.07 2.16 7.80 8.73 7.18 2230 2288 2051 2021 w
avg
w
max T
avg
252 4:07:33 256 241 77.89 36.85 5119 8306 5594 10.09 2.14 7.86 8.79 7.22 2234 2290 2054 2029 (mm) (mm) (deg)
1.13 2 43.9
253 4:07:42 256 241 77.96 37.05 5143 8359 5642 10.12 2.14 7.90 8.84 7.25 2240 2293 2067 2037
254 4:07:55 256 241 77.92 37.21 5182 8408 5697 10.17 2.14 7.96 8.89 7.30 2244 2301 2070 2044
255 4:08:03 256 241 78.30 37.48 5207 8463 5772 10.21 2.13 8.04 8.96 7.35 2247 2304 2077 2047
256 4:08:12 257 241 78.78 37.75 5243 8529 5848 10.26 2.12 8.12 9.03 7.40 2254 2314 2081 2054
257 4:08:20 257 242 78.66 38.04 5287 8597 5949 10.32 2.10 8.20 9.11 7.46 2258 2316 2089 2060
258 4:08:28 257 242 78.87 38.33 5332 8721 6046 10.36 2.08 8.30 9.20 7.52 2262 2322 2094 2068
260 4:08:46 257 242 79.29 38.94 5402 8890 6269 10.47 2.05 8.49 9.37 7.63 2267 2326 2104 2077
261 4:08:54 257 242 79.35 39.30 5444 8988 6411 10.53 2.01 8.59 9.46 7.69 2270 2334 2110 2082
262 4:09:03 257 242 79.59 39.71 5481 9077 6550 10.60 1.99 8.69 9.55 7.75 2272 2335 2115 2090
263 4:09:11 259 242 71.21 41.66 5478 10070 8035 10.95 1.58 9.15 10.25 8.09 2242 2325 2115 2088
More Cracks
Appeared
More Cracks
Appeared
Cracks
As=842 mm
2
A
v
/b
w
s=0.2034%
Inclined Cracks
Appeared
Note
Only Vertical Cracks
Failure
More Cracks
Appeared
322
B1.7 LB6
LB6 was cast on April 18th, 2007 and tested on May 31st, 2007 under an average compres-
kN and failed at a shear force of 155.8 kN due to opening of one major shear crack and buck-
ling of the top and the bottom flanges.
T50 2 sec
Slump
Direction 1 720 mm
Direction 2 710 mm
Average 715 mm
6 by 12 50.8 57.6 - 55.3 63.5
6 by 12 51.1 55.5 - 55.9 63.5
6 by 12 50.3 53.8 - 57.3 63.5
Average 50.7 55.6 - 56.2 63.4
f
r
(MPa) 7.04 8.11 8.27 7.81
323
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
LB6-LB9
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
LB6-LB9
324
325
0 0:00:00 -399 -398 0.00 -0.13 -35 -126 -45 0.12 0.31 0.31 0.26 0.21 -304 -324 -270 -288
1 0:00:05 -398 -398 0.69 0.02 -8 -10 -9 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.02 -304 -328 -270 -285
2 0:01:32 -401 -398 0.67 -0.04 -9 -1 -18 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 -305 -328 -270 -291
3 0:02:13 -401 -398 0.58 -0.04 -12 -2 -15 -0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.03 0.03 -306 -324 -278 -287
58 0:24:08 -398 -397 23.52 0.91 -38 -79 -50 0.17 0.09 0.17 0.28 0.29 -305 -332 -276 -291
59 0:24:19 -400 -397 24.15 0.68 -38 -92 -52 0.18 0.09 0.18 0.28 0.30 -309 -330 -278 -286
60 0:24:24 -398 -397 25.56 0.81 -37 -77 -53 0.20 0.09 0.18 0.30 0.31 -305 -328 -274 -288
61 0:24:31 -398 -397 25.73 0.86 -25 -93 -57 0.20 0.10 0.19 0.30 0.30 -309 -330 -276 -286
62 0:24:36 -401 -397 26.23 1.20 -30 -80 -52 0.18 0.10 0.20 0.32 0.32 -309 -331 -273 -288
63 0:24:42 -401 -398 27.36 0.65 -28 -58 -56 0.22 0.11 0.21 0.31 0.33 -308 -329 -276 -289
64 0:24:51 -400 -397 25.61 0.81 -25 -66 -60 0.20 0.09 0.18 0.28 0.30 -307 -330 -274 -286
65 0:24:56 -398 -397 23.28 0.80 -27 -66 -61 0.19 0.08 0.17 0.28 0.29 -306 -329 -273 -287
66 0:25:15 -398 -397 23.18 0.80 -24 -83 -61 0.18 0.11 0.17 0.28 0.29 -308 -333 -280 -281
185 1:05:58 -398 -396 112.56 4.53 944 -317 40 1.58 0.80 1.13 1.47 1.51 -304 -331 -278 -284
186 1:06:17 -397 -396 113.59 4.53 966 -335 46 1.60 0.83 1.14 1.49 1.51 -301 -337 -283 -283
187 1:06:34 -400 -396 114.45 4.67 962 -314 54 1.60 0.81 1.14 1.50 1.53 -301 -334 -280 -282
188 1:06:43 -398 -396 114.79 4.61 970 -312 53 1.61 0.82 1.15 1.50 1.53 -302 -335 -283 -279
189 1:06:55 -398 -396 115.30 4.68 977 -318 59 1.62 0.83 1.17 1.51 1.54 -300 -334 -281 -281
190 1:07:20 -400 -396 116.50 4.71 993 -315 63 1.65 0.84 1.17 1.53 1.57 -301 -332 -281 -283
191 1:07:35 -400 -396 117.36 4.77 999 -316 70 1.65 0.84 1.19 1.54 1.57 -300 -333 -282 -283
192 1:07:50 -400 -396 118.22 4.84 1000 -330 75 1.67 0.84 1.18 1.56 1.58 -302 -334 -284 -279
193 1:07:56 -398 -396 118.56 4.79 1011 -319 77 1.67 0.85 1.19 1.57 1.59 -304 -335 -284 -278
194 1:08:19 -400 -396 119.59 4.87 1024 -314 84 1.67 0.89 1.20 1.57 1.60 -302 -331 -282 -283
195 1:08:35 -398 -396 121.47 4.82 1036 -324 98 1.71 0.88 1.22 1.59 1.61 -299 -332 -283 -278
196 1:08:45 -400 -396 121.47 4.83 1039 -309 95 1.74 0.87 1.22 1.59 1.62 -305 -332 -281 -279
197 1:08:50 -398 -396 121.30 5.02 1040 -314 94 1.72 0.88 1.22 1.59 1.62 -298 -331 -281 -279
199 1:09:06 -399 -397 109.65 4.61 1026 -330 78 1.63 0.84 1.15 1.49 1.53 -310 -334 -281 -281
237 1:28:16 -401 -396 140.33 8.02 1483 -95 265 2.27 1.19 1.63 2.01 1.98 -289 -315 -283 -280
238 1:28:27 -400 -396 141.36 8.52 1499 -2 281 2.29 1.21 1.66 2.05 2.04 -289 -313 -279 -279
239 1:28:32 -401 -396 141.87 8.39 1504 18 287 2.34 1.21 1.67 2.07 2.04 -288 -312 -278 -275
240 1:28:38 -401 -396 142.22 8.34 1514 31 294 2.33 1.22 1.69 2.08 2.05 -284 -313 -281 -279
241 1:28:48 -401 -396 143.25 8.36 1531 67 307 2.36 1.25 1.72 2.10 2.08 -285 -310 -280 -278
242 1:29:01 -401 -396 144.45 8.58 1544 98 332 2.39 1.26 1.75 2.14 2.10 -285 -303 -283 -275
243 1:29:11 -400 -396 145.13 8.64 1551 141 359 2.43 1.27 1.77 2.19 2.10 -280 -308 -279 -276
244 1:29:16 -402 -396 145.82 8.75 1559 153 370 2.45 1.28 1.79 2.19 2.15 -278 -299 -281 -280
245 1:29:28 -401 -397 146.33 9.47 1579 198 415 2.50 1.29 1.83 2.24 2.18 -273 -301 -275 -278
246 1:29:38 -400 -396 147.02 9.63 1602 224 464 2.54 1.31 1.87 2.28 2.21 -272 -298 -282 -276
247 1:29:51 -399 -396 148.05 9.79 1617 246 535 2.58 1.33 1.90 2.33 2.25 -271 -293 -279 -272 LS#1
249 1:30:01 -402 -398 139.99 11.68 2129 1072 890 2.88 1.71 2.45 2.83 2.57 -255 -272 -265 -268
250 1:30:07 -400 -398 139.13 11.82 2143 1117 910 2.88 1.72 2.46 2.84 2.58 -262 -273 -269 -271
251 1:30:11 -400 -398 133.13 11.57 2107 1084 898 2.82 1.68 2.41 2.79 2.52 -261 -278 -271 -271
312 2:04:32 -404 -399 151.99 20.32 3257 3294 1998 4.44 2.60 3.91 4.57 3.92 -222 -209 -198 -192 w
avg
w
max T
avg
313 2:04:42 -406 -400 152.16 20.43 3278 3333 2025 4.47 2.64 3.95 4.60 3.97 -220 -202 -196 -182 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.6 1 29.5
314 2:04:51 -406 -399 152.33 21.00 3221 3355 2062 4.60 2.65 3.97 4.65 3.97 -188 -161 -185 -183
315 2:04:56 -407 -399 151.65 20.81 3203 3348 2054 4.66 2.66 3.98 4.66 3.97 -181 -157 -185 -186
316 2:05:03 -406 -399 151.65 21.09 3196 3370 2063 4.70 2.68 4.00 4.68 4.00 -180 -151 -186 -183
317 2:05:12 -406 -399 151.99 21.23 3223 3413 2079 4.74 2.69 4.03 4.71 4.01 -177 -141 -185 -181
318 2:05:23 -407 -399 152.16 21.16 3243 3459 2099 4.83 2.72 4.05 4.74 4.07 -166 -134 -182 -178
319 2:05:32 -407 -399 152.50 21.19 3263 3498 2124 4.85 2.75 4.09 4.79 4.10 -160 -129 -180 -174
320 2:05:40 -408 -399 152.67 21.35 3281 3529 2140 4.88 2.76 4.12 4.83 4.13 -160 -133 -184 -173
321 2:05:52 -408 -399 153.02 21.56 3311 3582 2182 4.93 2.79 4.16 4.88 4.15 -162 -124 -183 -173
322 2:06:04 -406 -399 153.19 21.85 3336 3635 2216 5.00 2.82 4.20 4.90 4.19 -156 -123 -179 -171 LS#2
323 2:06:12 -408 -399 153.19 22.13 3357 3695 2239 5.02 2.84 4.25 4.96 4.23 -151 -120 -181 -172
324 2:06:17 -408 -399 153.02 22.32 3360 3698 2252 5.02 2.86 4.25 4.97 4.23 -155 -119 -179 -169
325 2:06:22 -408 -399 152.50 22.19 3360 3702 2258 5.04 2.86 4.23 4.97 4.22 -161 -121 -184 -173
362 2:37:54 -408 -398 151.99 23.46 3457 4079 2438 5.31 3.03 4.46 5.25 4.42 -149 -105 -179 -167 w
avg
w
max T
avg
363 2:37:59 -406 -398 152.67 23.61 3489 4102 2469 5.36 3.04 4.50 5.26 4.44 -148 -109 -178 -161 (mm) (mm) (deg)
1.7 2.5 28
364 2:38:04 -407 -398 153.19 23.84 3519 4147 2496 5.36 3.07 4.53 5.30 4.48 -146 -100 -172 -158
365 2:38:08 -406 -398 153.70 23.90 3549 4189 2529 5.42 3.10 4.57 5.36 4.54 -141 -99 -169 -153
366 2:38:13 -406 -398 154.22 24.10 3593 4237 2562 5.46 3.12 4.61 5.37 4.55 -140 -96 -169 -155
367 2:38:18 -408 -398 154.56 24.44 3609 4278 2589 5.49 3.14 4.64 5.43 4.58 -140 -94 -168 -153
368 2:38:23 -409 -399 154.90 24.76 3633 4318 2623 5.53 3.16 4.68 5.47 4.65 -139 -90 -163 -150
369 2:38:27 -408 -398 155.07 24.82 3667 4365 2661 5.57 3.20 4.70 5.52 4.65 -136 -86 -164 -144
370 2:38:32 -407 -399 155.42 24.87 3713 4426 2692 5.60 3.24 4.77 5.56 4.70 -133 -85 -161 -144
371 2:38:37 -409 -399 155.76 25.08 3738 4469 2733 5.64 3.26 4.80 5.61 4.72 -132 -83 -156 -142
372 2:38:41 -408 -399 155.59 25.43 3774 4540 2813 5.69 3.26 4.85 5.69 4.75 -126 -76 -152 -137
373 2:38:46 -407 -399 155.59 25.61 3805 4561 2875 5.72 3.32 4.90 5.71 4.81 -121 -59 -153 -132
374 2:38:51 -409 -399 155.76 25.91 3839 4583 2925 5.77 3.35 4.94 5.77 4.86 -120 -56 -149 -131
Linear Uncracked
Response
Uncracked Response
Uncracked Response
Inclined Crack
Appeared
More Cracks
Appeared
Failure
As=934 mm
2
A
v
/b
w
s=0.1894%
Note
326
B1.8 LB7
LB7 was cast on April 18th, 2007 and tested on J une 7th, 2007 under an average compression
of 271 kN. The applied maximum compression was 319 kN. The nominal flange thickness of
LB7 was 50 mm and the nominal web thickness was 75 mm. The actual web thickness was 73
mm. The amounts of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement could be found in Table B.16.
LB7 cracked at a shear force of 80.1 kN and failed at a shear force of 137.8 kN due to opening
of the major web-shear crack and rupture of the stirrups.
327
328
329
0 0:00:00 -123 -128 0.00 -0.78 27 -92 9 -0.09 0.05 0.13 0.02 0.12 -158 -155 -107 -104
1 0:00:22 -119 -128 0.12 0.04 -2 -7 0 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 -159 -157 -114 -104
3 0:00:56 -121 -128 0.33 0.17 1 1 3 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 -157 -150 -112 -105
66 0:15:05 -122 -128 36.87 0.53 10 0 19 0.22 0.13 0.26 0.52 0.45 -141 -131 -111 -102
67 0:15:14 -119 -128 38.25 0.56 12 4 22 0.23 0.13 0.27 0.52 0.48 -140 -131 -110 -104
68 0:15:23 -119 -128 39.50 0.69 16 11 33 0.25 0.14 0.27 0.54 0.48 -140 -126 -105 -103
69 0:15:28 -122 -128 40.17 0.71 18 6 32 0.25 0.12 0.27 0.54 0.50 -141 -125 -117 -101
131 0:27:39 -122 -129 72.65 2.64 105 88 219 0.78 0.26 0.58 0.98 1.00 -79 -60 -58 -48
132 0:27:47 -123 -129 72.74 2.65 105 91 220 0.79 0.27 0.61 1.00 1.04 -75 -62 -58 -40 LS#1
133 0:27:53 -124 -129 72.67 2.60 107 86 224 0.78 0.26 0.58 1.00 1.03 -80 -59 -55 -47
134 0:27:58 -123 -129 67.22 2.54 108 84 216 0.72 0.27 0.56 0.94 0.98 -81 -64 -58 -46
187 0:53:57 -121 -129 73.73 3.17 122 94 237 0.85 0.27 0.57 0.98 1.00 -71 -57 -49 -44 w
avg
w
max T
avg
188 0:54:04 -122 -129 74.30 3.28 130 96 238 0.86 0.27 0.58 0.97 1.01 -73 -56 -47 -33 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.1 0.1 70
189 0:54:17 -125 -130 75.14 3.28 128 99 240 0.88 0.27 0.58 0.99 1.03 -67 -54 -45 -29
190 0:54:31 -121 -129 75.87 2.84 136 100 248 0.90 0.28 0.60 1.01 1.05 -71 -57 -43 -32
191 0:54:49 -122 -130 76.82 2.90 154 108 260 0.96 0.29 0.61 1.04 1.07 -63 -48 -35 -27
192 0:54:54 -125 -130 77.43 2.90 152 110 272 0.96 0.28 0.62 1.04 1.07 -56 -49 -35 -26
193 0:54:59 -123 -130 77.73 2.90 148 113 265 0.98 0.26 0.63 1.05 1.08 -59 -41 -36 -24
194 0:55:11 -125 -130 78.22 2.99 149 109 271 1.01 0.30 0.63 1.06 1.09 -60 -44 -36 -18
195 0:55:28 -125 -130 79.30 3.00 151 112 282 1.05 0.30 0.65 1.08 1.12 -53 -37 -28 -20
196 0:55:46 -125 -130 80.13 2.63 155 110 287 1.10 0.29 0.65 1.10 1.15 3 -34 -26 -14 LS#2
197 0:55:51 -126 -131 78.15 3.98 484 131 301 1.31 0.43 0.77 1.18 1.19 5 2 -20 -8
198 0:56:08 -126 -131 78.14 4.28 513 135 300 1.33 0.44 0.80 1.18 1.20 4 3 -23 -10
267 1:21:29 -130 -135 87.62 4.27 743 160 401 1.60 0.59 1.06 1.58 1.69 41 37 36 54 w
avg
w
max T
avg
268 1:21:34 -128 -135 88.25 4.44 752 160 417 1.62 0.59 1.08 1.60 1.72 44 42 35 55 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.15 0.2 35.2
269 1:21:40 -131 -136 88.49 4.39 759 162 435 1.61 0.60 1.09 1.61 1.74 41 40 40 59
270 1:21:45 -128 -136 88.92 4.55 770 162 462 1.65 0.61 1.10 1.63 1.76 46 39 40 61
271 1:21:53 -129 -136 89.47 4.50 778 164 488 1.67 0.61 1.12 1.65 1.79 44 45 45 67
272 1:22:04 -132 -137 90.39 4.63 795 159 523 1.68 0.62 1.14 1.68 1.81 53 50 45 70
273 1:22:09 -130 -137 90.87 4.54 802 166 529 1.70 0.63 1.15 1.70 1.85 55 56 56 72
274 1:22:22 -130 -137 91.71 4.68 820 169 551 1.75 0.64 1.18 1.74 1.89 61 69 56 81
275 1:22:35 -131 -137 92.49 4.66 833 166 562 1.77 0.65 1.18 1.75 1.92 70 73 62 84
276 1:22:40 -131 -137 91.97 4.68 836 172 565 1.76 0.65 1.19 1.74 1.92 68 78 58 84 LS#3
277 1:22:45 -131 -137 92.09 4.73 838 171 565 1.76 0.64 1.20 1.76 1.93 68 78 59 84
278 1:22:50 -132 -137 91.89 4.73 841 171 560 1.76 0.64 1.19 1.76 1.93 71 75 59 86
347 1:52:45 -140 -143 101.42 8.64 1404 863 1057 2.50 0.91 1.76 2.31 2.68 180 204 170 231 w
avg
w
max T
avg
348 1:52:50 -137 -143 101.42 8.71 1406 875 1063 2.51 0.93 1.76 2.32 2.69 177 204 171 233 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.2 0.35 35
349 1:52:56 -140 -143 101.93 8.72 1430 889 1067 2.52 0.93 1.78 2.33 2.70 176 208 173 234
350 1:53:01 -139 -143 101.93 8.86 1430 890 1073 2.54 0.93 1.79 2.35 2.71 185 207 169 235
351 1:53:05 -137 -143 102.45 8.86 1429 900 1071 2.55 0.94 1.79 2.36 2.72 181 211 175 235
352 1:53:13 -137 -143 102.96 8.99 1444 910 1091 2.56 0.94 1.82 2.36 2.74 187 213 178 241
353 1:53:18 -137 -143 102.96 8.93 1451 928 1092 2.57 0.95 1.81 2.38 2.74 186 213 178 238
354 1:53:22 -137 -144 103.30 9.07 1460 927 1093 2.58 0.96 1.82 2.38 2.75 183 213 179 237
447 2:39:02 -146 -148 114.62 12.15 1960 1306 1449 3.22 1.22 2.33 2.98 3.38 259 305 262 329
448 2:39:08 -144 -148 115.30 12.26 1976 1314 1468 3.25 1.23 2.33 3.00 3.41 264 311 263 333 LS#5
449 2:39:13 -143 -148 114.96 12.41 1984 1322 1470 3.24 1.23 2.34 3.02 3.41 264 308 256 334
450 2:39:19 -146 -148 114.79 12.50 1989 1329 1478 3.23 1.23 2.34 2.99 3.41 264 308 264 334
549 3:14:35 -147 -152 123.70 16.62 2661 1813 2188 4.04 1.62 3.01 3.79 4.09 335 398 339 395 w
avg
w
max T
avg
550 3:14:40 -150 -152 124.22 16.87 2697 1832 2229 4.09 1.63 3.01 3.82 4.12 336 403 341 399 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.55 0.85 31
551 3:14:45 -151 -152 124.56 17.04 2718 1880 2249 4.11 1.65 3.05 3.86 4.15 340 406 340 402
552 3:14:50 -148 -152 124.90 17.07 2741 1911 2278 4.14 1.66 3.08 3.89 4.17 343 408 346 406
553 3:14:55 -151 -153 125.42 17.25 2773 1937 2307 4.18 1.67 3.10 3.92 4.19 346 410 349 408
554 3:15:00 -150 -153 125.59 17.32 2796 1965 2332 4.21 1.69 3.13 3.96 4.23 348 415 352 409
555 3:15:06 -152 -153 126.27 17.58 2828 1983 2369 4.23 1.73 3.16 3.99 4.26 352 421 354 413
556 3:15:12 -153 -154 126.62 17.70 2848 2006 2400 4.26 1.72 3.18 4.02 4.29 355 426 358 414
557 3:15:16 -151 -154 126.79 17.90 2862 2031 2422 4.28 1.73 3.18 4.04 4.32 354 425 358 418
558 3:15:21 -152 -154 126.96 17.97 2881 2041 2435 4.29 1.73 3.20 4.06 4.32 360 426 360 416 LS#6
559 3:15:26 -152 -154 126.45 17.99 2880 2056 2448 4.29 1.73 3.21 4.07 4.32 349 425 357 413
560 3:15:31 -149 -153 119.59 17.65 2821 2007 2405 4.14 1.69 3.12 3.94 4.18 329 395 339 389
646 3:50:40 -156 -158 135.87 22.60 3747 2737 3499 5.23 2.27 4.08 5.11 5.19 431 527 446 490 w
avg
w
max T
avg
647 3:50:45 -155 -158 136.39 22.61 3779 2769 3540 5.26 2.29 4.08 5.16 5.23 435 529 447 489 (mm) (mm) (deg)
1 1.25 29.5
648 3:50:56 -155 -159 136.56 23.08 3819 2796 3599 5.31 2.31 4.13 5.22 5.26 437 534 452 493
649 3:51:06 -159 -159 136.90 23.23 3852 2832 3685 5.35 2.34 4.17 5.27 5.32 442 538 451 491
650 3:51:15 -158 -159 136.73 23.42 3890 2832 3729 5.37 2.35 4.19 5.31 5.34 443 543 457 494
651 3:51:25 -159 -160 137.07 23.72 3923 2878 3780 5.42 2.38 4.23 5.40 5.35 445 546 461 499
652 3:51:30 -157 -160 136.73 24.00 4012 2972 3812 5.45 2.47 4.32 5.43 5.42 446 544 461 496
653 3:51:39 -156 -160 136.56 24.04 4078 3041 3851 5.49 2.53 4.37 5.47 5.45 448 548 466 500
655 3:51:50 -156 -160 137.42 24.62 4139 3099 3913 5.55 2.55 4.43 5.55 5.49 451 553 469 503
656 3:52:01 -157 -160 137.42 24.79 4171 3123 3966 5.59 2.59 4.46 5.58 5.54 453 557 474 506
657 3:52:07 -159 -160 137.76 25.02 4219 3169 4012 5.62 2.61 4.49 5.63 5.56 459 557 475 505
658 3:52:13 -157 -160 137.42 25.19 4225 3169 4031 5.64 2.62 4.51 5.64 5.58 459 557 475 505
Failure
Mpre Cracks
Appeared
Vertical Crack At
West Support
Inclined Cracks
Appeared
Linear Uncracked
Response
More Cracks
Appeared
As=934 mm
2
A
v
/b
w
s=0.1894%
More Cracks
Appeared
Note
330
B1.9 LB8
LB8 was cast on April 18th, 2007 and tested on J une 13th, 2007 under an average compres-
kN and failed at a shear force of 134.3 kN due to opening of the major shear crack and thrust-
ing through the flanges.
331
332
333
0 0:00:00 -249 -255 0.00 -0.16 25 -67 77 -0.37 0.24 0.42 0.40 0.28 -343 -348 -183 -244
1 0:00:25 -247 -255 1.99 -0.03 -4 -14 -7 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 -341 -344 -185 -244
2 0:00:30 -250 -255 2.26 0.04 -15 -23 -16 -0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.04 -337 -345 -189 -244
3 0:00:43 -251 -255 3.09 -0.06 -18 -26 -21 -0.01 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.07 -338 -346 -182 -249
134 0:27:33 -249 -254 106.18 2.59 175 -165 91 1.01 -0.14 0.84 1.26 1.42 -271 -268 -120 -324
135 0:27:38 -248 -255 107.21 2.54 188 -164 93 1.06 -0.15 0.87 1.27 1.45 -270 -273 -122 -331
136 0:27:45 -253 -255 108.58 2.63 208 -156 105 1.11 -0.15 0.87 1.30 1.47 -271 -268 -115 -343
137 0:27:50 -249 -255 109.44 2.88 249 -163 122 1.15 -0.13 0.91 1.36 1.52 -270 -267 -111 -330
138 0:27:57 -250 -255 110.64 3.05 295 -159 134 1.20 -0.10 0.95 1.38 1.56 -268 -266 -113 -333
139 0:28:02 -251 -256 111.15 3.10 360 -156 142 1.27 -0.08 0.96 1.42 1.59 -246 -232 -105 -306 LS#1
140 0:28:07 -256 -256 108.07 4.32 705 91 152 1.52 0.15 1.20 1.56 1.68 -247 -232 -108 -303
141 0:28:17 -251 -256 107.38 4.89 716 115 157 1.51 0.14 1.21 1.58 1.68 -247 -233 -105 -305
142 0:28:25 -255 -256 105.33 4.68 716 112 153 1.48 0.14 1.20 1.55 1.66 -258 -239 -118 -305
183 1:03:04 -251 -255 110.30 5.17 902 178 221 1.69 0.25 1.37 1.72 1.84 -242 -229 -107 -310 w
avg
w
max T
avg
184 1:03:13 -251 -256 111.33 5.30 919 187 225 1.72 0.27 1.38 1.76 1.85 -241 -223 -106 -314 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.2 0.3 42.5
185 1:03:20 -252 -256 111.67 5.45 927 203 228 1.73 0.29 1.40 1.76 1.87 -240 -221 -103 -310
186 1:03:25 -253 -256 112.35 5.53 938 216 230 1.73 0.29 1.41 1.78 1.89 -242 -221 -105 -314
187 1:03:31 -255 -256 113.38 5.68 955 229 237 1.77 0.31 1.43 1.83 1.91 -243 -220 -102 -311
188 1:03:40 -252 -256 113.38 5.75 974 250 239 1.79 0.31 1.45 1.82 1.92 -234 -215 -100 -313
189 1:03:49 -255 -256 114.07 5.97 993 273 245 1.83 0.33 1.48 1.83 1.95 -234 -216 -100 -316
190 1:04:00 -257 -256 115.61 6.01 1033 293 255 1.89 0.36 1.51 1.87 1.99 -232 -215 -100 -304
191 1:04:05 -253 -256 115.44 6.13 1026 311 249 1.90 0.37 1.52 1.89 1.99 -229 -213 -95 -310
192 1:04:14 -257 -256 116.13 6.29 1056 331 264 1.93 0.38 1.54 1.91 2.02 -231 -211 -95 -330
193 1:04:20 -257 -257 116.30 6.43 1067 345 267 1.94 0.39 1.54 1.92 2.03 -228 -215 -96 -309 LS#2
194 1:04:24 -255 -256 116.13 6.48 1065 350 271 1.95 0.38 1.56 1.93 2.02 -230 -211 -98 -305
195 1:04:29 -257 -257 113.38 6.39 1069 342 266 1.91 0.38 1.54 1.91 1.99 -231 -215 -103 -314
196 1:04:34 -252 -257 109.10 6.20 1039 326 256 1.84 0.34 1.49 1.82 1.93 -239 -225 -100 -308
252 1:36:11 -258 -258 118.87 6.69 1265 451 428 2.17 0.52 1.76 2.14 2.23 -216 -199 -90 -314 w
avg
w
max T
avg
253 1:36:16 -255 -258 119.38 6.90 1281 458 429 2.18 0.53 1.74 2.14 2.25 -215 -200 -86 -318 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.35 0.6 42.5
254 1:36:21 -254 -258 118.18 7.41 1409 680 456 2.27 0.63 1.92 2.26 2.32 -210 -189 -88 -305
255 1:36:28 -258 -258 117.84 7.80 1446 690 519 2.30 0.65 1.95 2.28 2.34 -213 -190 -88 -305
256 1:36:39 -256 -258 118.18 8.15 1494 718 610 2.35 0.66 2.00 2.34 2.37 -206 -185 -84 -304
257 1:36:58 -258 -258 118.70 8.36 1535 744 699 2.40 0.69 2.04 2.39 2.39 -204 -183 -84 -314
258 1:37:07 -258 -258 118.87 8.52 1560 770 745 2.42 0.70 2.06 2.42 2.43 -202 -181 -80 -308
259 1:37:14 -258 -258 119.73 8.88 1594 805 815 2.47 0.71 2.10 2.44 2.47 -195 -180 -79 -309
260 1:37:19 -255 -258 120.58 9.11 1631 861 872 2.52 0.73 2.14 2.53 2.51 -193 -172 -77 -308
261 1:37:25 -255 -258 121.78 9.20 1678 915 918 2.57 0.76 2.18 2.55 2.54 -193 -171 -75 -305
262 1:37:40 -259 -259 122.30 9.44 1725 1004 956 2.61 0.77 2.23 2.60 2.59 -189 -173 -74 -306 LS#3
263 1:37:45 -258 -259 122.13 9.57 1734 1012 964 2.62 0.77 2.23 2.61 2.60 -192 -167 -79 -308
264 1:37:50 -256 -259 121.61 9.54 1745 1024 966 2.63 0.78 2.24 2.63 2.63 -190 -165 -79 -309
265 1:37:55 -258 -259 122.64 9.62 1769 1042 981 2.65 0.80 2.25 2.66 2.65 -189 -168 -74 -306
314 2:04:40 -260 -259 124.01 10.13 1961 1203 1137 2.86 0.92 2.45 2.86 2.84 -180 -161 -70 -311 w
avg
w
max T
avg
315 2:04:47 -258 -259 124.70 10.27 1993 1227 1155 2.89 0.97 2.48 2.90 2.86 -176 -156 -67 -326 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.55 0.75 36.7
316 2:04:53 -261 -260 125.38 10.50 2021 1260 1176 2.93 0.98 2.51 2.90 2.90 -175 -153 -63 -311
317 2:05:00 -257 -260 126.07 10.56 2058 1293 1202 2.97 1.02 2.57 2.96 2.89 -172 -148 -62 -313
318 2:05:05 -261 -260 126.41 10.63 2079 1308 1237 2.99 1.05 2.58 3.00 2.96 -174 -147 -57 -315
319 2:05:13 -262 -261 126.75 10.75 2093 1319 1276 3.01 1.05 2.62 3.06 3.02 -168 -150 -30 -314
320 2:05:22 -261 -261 127.27 10.86 2112 1364 1337 3.01 1.08 2.66 3.11 3.07 -164 -148 -28 -320
321 2:05:27 -259 -261 127.44 11.20 2142 1378 1369 3.09 1.09 2.68 3.12 3.09 -162 -152 -28 -318
322 2:05:35 -260 -261 127.61 11.49 2167 1420 1423 3.13 1.11 2.71 3.15 3.13 -163 -148 -20 -316
323 2:05:41 -262 -262 127.61 11.51 2190 1427 1441 3.19 1.13 2.73 3.17 3.15 -161 -149 -18 -324
324 2:05:46 -263 -262 127.95 11.71 2202 1447 1465 3.20 1.12 2.73 3.19 3.16 -161 -152 -18 -331 LS#4
325 2:05:52 -262 -261 127.27 11.71 2206 1451 1481 3.20 1.11 2.73 3.18 3.16 -163 -150 -18 -324
326 2:05:57 -262 -262 119.38 11.27 2155 1409 1475 3.05 1.07 2.65 3.07 3.04 -176 -160 -26 -319
327 2:06:03 -257 -261 116.81 11.05 2130 1401 1468 3.00 1.04 2.61 3.03 3.00 -178 -162 -31 -318
619 3:33:26 -264 -273 133.44 20.51 4506 4787 4989 4.70 2.43 4.76 5.77 5.75 -52 -37 296 -328 w
avg
w
max T
avg
620 3:33:37 -263 -273 133.27 20.61 4535 4839 5000 4.72 2.45 4.78 5.79 5.78 -49 -35 299 -326 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.65 1 36.7
621 3:33:48 -261 -273 133.61 20.73 4564 4886 5036 4.74 2.47 4.81 5.83 5.78 -47 -35 303 -324
622 3:33:53 -261 -273 133.61 20.83 4583 4913 5047 4.76 2.48 4.83 5.84 5.81 -49 -35 302 -326
623 3:34:01 -261 -273 133.61 20.90 4595 4936 5059 4.77 2.49 4.84 5.86 5.82 -48 -30 303 -325
624 3:34:10 -261 -273 133.95 21.11 4626 4985 5094 4.80 2.48 4.85 5.88 5.84 -48 -31 305 -326
625 3:34:15 -260 -274 133.78 21.12 4635 5006 5106 4.77 2.51 4.86 5.89 5.85 -46 -29 307 -330
626 3:34:20 -263 -273 134.13 21.19 4645 5021 5130 4.81 2.52 4.88 5.92 5.86 -42 -26 305 -328
627 3:34:25 -263 -274 133.78 21.28 4654 5052 5141 4.82 2.54 4.87 5.93 5.88 -46 -31 303 -324
628 3:34:30 -261 -274 133.78 21.22 4665 5060 5141 4.84 2.53 4.90 5.94 5.89 -43 -30 309 -326
629 3:34:35 -261 -274 134.30 21.37 4694 5102 5165 4.85 2.54 4.93 5.96 5.91 -37 -29 311 -333
630 3:34:49 -261 -274 133.78 21.98 4724 5186 5224 4.90 2.54 4.96 6.01 5.95 -39 -27 315 -326
631 3:34:54 -265 -274 133.78 21.86 4733 5207 5224 4.90 2.57 4.97 6.04 5.96 -40 -23 313 -320
More Cracks
Appeared
More Cracks
Appeared
Failure
Linear Uncracked
Response
Cracks
Openning
As=934 mm
2
A
v
/b
w
s=0.1894%
Inclined Cracks
Appeared
Note
334
B1.10 LB9
LB9 was cast on April 18th, 2007 and tested on J une 18th, 2007 with no axial load. The nom-
inal flange thickness of LB9 was 50 mm and the nominal web thickness was 75 mm. The
actual web thickness was 73 mm. The amounts of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement
could be found in Table B.18. LB9 cracked at a shear force of 45.5 kN and failed at a shear
force of 100 kN due to crack opening and thrusting through the flanges.
335
Figure B.21 Crack Diagrams for LB9 (N = 0 kN)
336
Figure B.22 Zurich Data for LB9 (N = 0 kN)
337
Dset Time V Deviat Shear-WShear-MShear-E Cant VWW VW VE VEE TI-avg TO-avg BI-avg BO-avg
(#) (h:mm:ss (kN) (mm) (PH) (PH) (PH) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (PH) (PH) (PH) (PH)
0 0:00:00 0.00 -0.25 14 -5 -7 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0 -3 -3 -6
1 0:00:26 0.74 0.14 2 -4 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 -2 -2 0 -3
2 0:00:34 0.86 0.14 2 -4 4 -0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 -1 -6 -4 -2
3 0:00:43 1.39 0.16 4 1 2 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.03 0 -3 -3 -1
67 0:23:25 21.72 0.73 14 -8 13 0.31 0.04 0.16 0.28 0.28 49 56 5 -2
68 0:23:30 22.80 0.79 12 -7 16 0.35 0.05 0.16 0.29 0.29 50 56 10 -1
69 0:24:14 23.69 0.81 19 -2 6 0.34 0.04 0.18 0.34 0.34 51 56 48 -4
70 0:24:19 23.43 0.82 16 -11 -8 0.34 0.05 0.20 0.35 0.38 51 55 51 -4
71 0:24:40 24.53 0.65 23 -1 2 0.41 0.06 0.21 0.35 0.39 55 60 53 4 LS#1
72 0:24:58 24.38 0.60 20 -8 3 0.43 0.06 0.21 0.38 0.41 56 58 56 -3
73 0:25:06 24.17 0.66 26 0 -4 0.43 0.06 0.21 0.38 0.40 59 64 58 -3
183 1:17:00 41.88 1.52 612 46 446 1.50 0.32 0.76 1.09 1.45 244 253 252 208 w
avg
w
max T
avg
184 1:17:05 42.07 1.61 612 56 455 1.50 0.33 0.76 1.10 1.48 247 254 253 211 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.75 0.1 90
185 1:17:18 42.62 1.70 618 64 462 1.52 0.35 0.78 1.09 1.51 251 259 257 216
186 1:17:26 43.30 1.64 625 59 466 1.52 0.34 0.78 1.14 1.51 254 259 259 215
187 1:17:33 43.59 1.66 631 64 468 1.57 0.35 0.79 1.15 1.53 259 264 259 220
188 1:17:47 44.13 1.70 654 66 470 1.57 0.34 0.81 1.19 1.57 261 267 258 223
189 1:18:01 44.62 1.85 672 65 479 1.60 0.36 0.84 1.24 1.60 269 273 262 227
190 1:18:10 44.59 1.82 675 72 483 1.61 0.35 0.86 1.25 1.63 261 274 266 232
191 1:18:18 45.21 2.02 683 67 489 1.62 0.36 0.83 1.26 1.64 270 275 271 234
192 1:18:27 45.53 1.98 692 69 494 1.63 0.38 0.87 1.26 1.67 271 280 282 254 LS#3
193 1:18:32 45.15 2.07 693 69 494 1.64 0.37 0.87 1.30 1.69 274 274 285 252
194 1:18:36 44.91 1.95 695 72 495 1.64 0.38 0.87 1.30 1.70 272 271 284 253
374 2:40:01 64.90 5.66 1417 458 1041 2.79 0.69 1.49 2.45 2.77 428 423 429 380 w
avg
w
max T
avg
375 2:40:09 65.55 6.00 1443 503 1065 2.83 0.71 1.53 2.49 2.80 433 429 436 379 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.1 0.15 61.4
376 2:40:16 66.00 6.15 1479 570 1082 2.88 0.72 1.54 2.52 2.82 496 504 435 386
377 2:40:21 65.49 7.07 1616 786 1107 3.00 0.77 1.61 2.58 2.86 506 513 437 387
378 2:40:26 65.85 7.34 1641 848 1114 3.07 0.78 1.63 2.59 2.88 509 519 440 389
379 2:40:30 66.69 7.30 1657 878 1123 3.11 0.77 1.64 2.62 2.91 515 525 444 392
380 2:40:35 67.44 7.32 1662 890 1134 3.12 0.77 1.65 2.64 2.93 515 528 445 393
381 2:40:40 67.78 7.60 1682 910 1146 3.14 0.78 1.67 2.67 2.95 524 533 448 392
382 2:40:45 67.92 7.63 1702 921 1160 3.17 0.81 1.69 2.70 2.98 529 536 452 398
383 2:40:50 68.74 7.77 1712 938 1176 3.19 0.81 1.69 2.72 3.00 531 535 451 400 LS#5
384 2:40:55 68.19 7.77 1721 946 1185 3.20 0.81 1.70 2.73 3.00 531 541 455 398
385 2:41:00 68.40 7.78 1723 951 1191 3.21 0.81 1.73 2.73 3.01 535 542 454 403
534 3:48:54 88.73 13.11 2908 3193 2575 4.74 1.66 2.81 4.66 4.69 753 753 681 524 w
avg
w
max T
avg
535 3:49:03 88.61 13.13 2931 3218 2590 4.79 1.68 2.84 4.69 4.71 758 755 685 526 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.25 0.35 51.1
536 3:49:15 89.45 13.34 2966 3253 2612 4.84 1.71 2.85 4.72 4.74 761 759 681 524
537 3:49:22 89.66 13.62 2978 3276 2625 4.85 1.72 2.87 4.76 4.76 761 759 688 528
538 3:49:29 89.57 13.57 3002 3299 2645 4.89 1.73 2.89 4.79 4.78 761 763 695 529
539 3:49:43 89.88 13.86 3049 3359 2674 4.95 1.77 2.92 4.80 4.82 769 762 694 533
540 3:49:52 90.12 14.07 3073 3388 2695 4.99 1.79 2.94 4.84 4.83 767 766 699 536
541 3:50:05 90.36 14.12 3119 3444 2726 5.04 1.83 2.99 4.85 4.89 771 767 699 538
542 3:50:14 90.60 14.38 3155 3473 2743 5.08 1.85 3.01 4.91 4.90 776 769 707 544
543 3:50:21 91.03 14.59 3176 3502 2758 5.10 1.87 3.03 4.93 4.92 778 772 706 545 LS#7
544 3:50:26 91.03 14.49 3199 3517 2768 5.12 1.89 3.04 4.94 4.94 776 769 707 543
545 3:50:31 90.81 14.54 3203 3527 2773 5.12 1.92 3.05 4.96 4.93 775 771 708 543
644 4:27:00 98.49 21.43 5178 5580 3696 6.63 4.40 5.10 7.01 6.41 885 861 874 650 w
avg
w
max T
avg
645 4:27:09 98.83 21.47 5231 5634 3722 6.67 4.46 5.15 7.06 6.46 888 864 876 651 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.45 0.95 51.1
646 4:27:14 99.17 21.62 5268 5667 3727 6.68 4.50 5.18 7.09 6.48 889 866 879 654
647 4:27:21 99.17 21.78 5293 5698 3744 6.73 4.56 5.23 7.14 6.51 892 866 884 660
648 4:27:29 99.51 21.87 5342 5754 3762 6.74 4.61 5.29 7.19 6.54 898 865 886 660
649 4:27:36 99.17 21.97 5378 5788 3777 6.77 4.66 5.33 7.24 6.57 896 871 884 665
650 4:27:40 99.34 22.05 5420 5806 3785 6.79 4.69 5.37 7.26 6.59 896 873 891 666
651 4:27:45 99.51 22.12 5451 5840 3798 6.80 4.71 5.40 7.29 6.60 900 870 893 664
652 4:27:50 99.86 22.35 5470 5874 3804 6.83 4.78 5.44 7.32 6.64 902 875 891 669
653 4:27:55 100.03 22.43 5502 5892 3807 6.85 4.81 5.47 7.36 6.66 901 877 896 669 LS#8
654 4:28:00 99.51 22.43 5525 5917 3829 6.84 4.83 5.49 7.37 6.66 901 871 893 669
655 4:28:06 98.83 22.50 5543 5925 3816 6.84 4.86 5.48 7.37 6.66 878 854 875 655
701 4:55:15 97.97 23.16 5835 6098 4029 7.14 5.28 5.81 7.63 6.82 901 873 904 680 w
avg
w
max T
avg
702 4:55:21 98.31 23.25 5855 6121 4030 7.17 5.30 5.83 7.66 6.85 904 876 904 681 (mm) (mm) (deg)
1.05 2.1 47.3
703 4:55:26 98.31 23.25 5886 6145 4045 7.20 5.32 5.85 7.67 6.85 905 878 905 679
704 4:55:36 98.66 23.53 5939 6179 4047 7.20 5.37 5.90 7.72 6.88 908 879 909 684
705 4:55:43 98.83 23.61 5957 6213 4061 7.22 5.38 5.93 7.74 6.89 912 879 908 687
706 4:55:48 98.83 23.88 5963 6224 4062 7.23 5.43 5.94 7.76 6.91 908 881 907 686
707 4:55:54 99.00 23.65 6008 6257 4065 7.25 5.46 5.97 7.79 6.93 911 884 916 686
708 4:55:59 99.34 23.82 6010 6268 4062 7.25 5.48 6.01 7.80 6.92 911 885 914 692
709 4:56:07 99.34 23.92 6041 6304 4078 7.28 5.54 6.02 7.83 6.95 915 886 918 689
710 4:56:11 99.51 24.14 6069 6338 4078 7.30 5.56 6.06 7.86 6.98 916 886 920 696
711 4:56:16 99.34 24.21 6097 6360 4079 7.30 5.60 6.09 7.90 6.99 915 889 923 694
712 4:56:23 99.34 24.24 6142 6407 4080 7.34 5.66 6.15 7.92 7.02 918 891 919 696
Failure
As=934 mm
2
A
v
/b
w
s=0.1894%
Vertical Cracks
at West Support
Inclined Cracks
Appeared
Linear Uncracked
Response
More Cracks
Appeared
More Cracks
Appeared
More Cracks
Appeared
Note
338
B1.11 LB10
LB10 was cast on J uly 11th, 2007 and tested on September 28th, 2007 under an average com-
pression of 822 kN. The nominal flange thickness of LB10 was 50 mm and the nominal web
thickness was 75 mm. The actual web thickness was 74 mm. The amounts of longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement could be found in Table B.22. LB10 cracked at a shear force of
138.1 kN and failed at a shear force of 215 kN due to opening of web-shear cracks and buck-
ling of the top and the bottom flanges.
T50 2 sec
Slump
Direction 1 590 mm
Direction 2 630 mm
Average 610 mm
6 by 12 47.8 55.2 57.1 62.6 64.0
6 by 12 48.8 52.6 58.3 56.6 62.3
6 by 12 47.9 55.0 58.6 58.4 62.7
Average 48.3 54.3 58.0 59.2 63.0
f
r
(MPa) 9.47 8.59 8.94 8.99
339
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
LB10-LB11
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
45
50
55
60
65
70
log(Days)
f
c
'
(
M
P
a
)
LB10-LB11
340
341
342
0 0:00:00 -404 -415 0.00 0.24 3 -14 -4 0.23 0.00 -0.07 -0.05 -0.06 -290 -300 -278 -258
1 0:00:33 -404 -414 0.11 0.08 -3 -2 -7 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 -290 -301 -278 -259
2 0:01:07 -404 -414 1.39 0.03 -6 -6 -11 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 -291 -301 -278 -259
3 0:01:15 -404 -415 1.99 0.04 -2 1 -6 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 -291 -301 -278 -259
118 0:48:13 -404 -415 136.93 2.10 667 444 747 1.29 0.59 1.27 1.71 1.78 -253 -261 -280 -243
119 0:48:20 -404 -414 136.42 2.12 710 515 785 1.34 0.61 1.33 1.76 1.81 -251 -261 -279 -243
120 0:48:32 -404 -415 137.23 2.24 732 520 814 1.37 0.63 1.35 1.79 1.83 -250 -260 -281 -243
121 0:48:38 -404 -415 137.66 2.20 738 527 818 1.37 0.63 1.37 1.81 1.84 -251 -260 -281 -243
122 0:48:44 -404 -415 138.09 2.25 743 526 827 1.38 0.63 1.37 1.81 1.85 -250 -260 -281 -242 LS#1
123 0:48:50 -404 -415 137.53 2.28 744 529 830 1.38 0.64 1.37 1.81 1.85 -250 -259 -280 -242
124 0:48:55 -404 -415 137.66 2.29 747 532 833 1.38 0.64 1.37 1.81 1.85 -248 -257 -279 -240
209 1:36:26 -405 -415 144.69 2.97 878 576 873 1.78 0.72 1.48 1.93 1.97 -225 -233 -296 -259 w
avg
w
max T
avg
210 1:36:32 -405 -415 146.06 3.04 898 579 878 1.82 0.72 1.51 1.95 1.98 -223 -230 -296 -258 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.1 0.15 33.4
211 1:36:42 -406 -415 146.53 3.16 922 613 929 1.88 0.72 1.51 1.98 2.02 -220 -228 -293 -255
212 1:36:48 -405 -415 146.75 3.38 970 774 952 1.94 0.74 1.60 2.07 2.06 -218 -224 -295 -255
213 1:36:57 -406 -415 147.30 3.54 996 864 976 1.96 0.75 1.66 2.13 2.11 -214 -222 -293 -252
214 1:37:06 -406 -415 148.03 3.63 1046 889 998 2.02 0.77 1.70 2.18 2.14 -213 -219 -295 -252
215 1:37:16 -407 -416 149.79 3.66 1075 905 1016 2.06 0.79 1.72 2.20 2.17 -209 -217 -294 -251
216 1:37:28 -407 -416 150.95 3.73 1102 925 1028 2.11 0.80 1.75 2.24 2.20 -206 -213 -293 -249
217 1:37:41 -407 -416 152.79 3.82 1137 954 1049 2.16 0.83 1.81 2.28 2.23 -202 -209 -292 -248
218 1:37:51 -407 -416 153.69 3.91 1169 968 1065 2.21 0.84 1.83 2.32 2.26 -200 -207 -285 -246 LS#2
219 1:38:02 -407 -416 152.62 3.95 1174 970 1074 2.22 0.84 1.83 2.32 2.26 -201 -209 -283 -247
220 1:38:12 -407 -416 152.36 3.97 1172 972 1080 2.23 0.85 1.83 2.32 2.26 -204 -211 -284 -248
246 2:09:41 -409 -417 158.96 4.14 1333 1069 1204 2.71 0.95 1.89 2.53 2.47 -181 -179 -229 -242 w
avg
w
max T
avg
247 2:10:05 -409 -417 160.63 4.19 1354 1086 1219 2.75 0.96 1.91 2.55 2.49 -178 -176 -216 -240 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.15 0.25 29.6
248 2:10:24 -409 -417 162.22 4.21 1378 1094 1236 2.79 0.96 1.95 2.59 2.51 -172 -170 -213 -238
249 2:10:34 -410 -418 163.59 4.28 1399 1113 1250 2.84 0.98 1.97 2.61 2.55 -165 -162 -183 -233
250 2:10:42 -410 -418 164.32 4.33 1418 1129 1266 2.89 0.99 1.99 2.64 2.58 -161 -157 -144 -230
251 2:10:54 -411 -418 165.48 4.41 1443 1149 1299 2.94 1.00 2.02 2.68 2.62 -161 -156 -8 -233
252 2:11:03 -411 -418 166.68 4.41 1462 1159 1320 2.97 1.02 2.04 2.71 2.65 -159 -153 301 -233
253 2:11:12 -411 -418 167.49 4.27 1455 1169 1342 3.02 1.03 2.06 2.73 2.67 -133 -139 1376 -234
254 2:11:19 -412 -419 167.66 4.61 1463 1181 1351 3.11 1.02 2.07 2.74 2.68 -129 -136 4660 -233
255 2:11:25 -412 -419 168.18 4.68 1470 1191 1361 3.14 1.03 2.08 2.76 2.69 -125 -132 6078 -231 LS#3
256 2:11:31 -412 -419 167.58 4.75 1475 1186 1372 3.15 1.03 2.08 2.75 2.71 -123 -130 1073 -231
257 2:11:37 -412 -419 167.32 4.76 1478 1182 1373 3.16 1.04 2.08 2.76 2.70 -137 -144 707 -228
329 3:23:53 -420 -426 191.15 8.60 2459 1876 2571 4.91 1.56 3.10 4.13 4.09 -7 -2 -245 -169 w
avg
w
max T
avg
330 3:24:05 -420 -426 191.66 8.76 2492 1890 2596 4.96 1.58 3.14 4.15 4.13 -7 -3 -248 -171 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.2 0.3 28.5
331 3:24:19 -420 -426 193.08 8.83 2525 1919 2636 5.02 1.60 3.17 4.21 4.18 3 9 -246 -163
332 3:24:34 -421 -427 193.50 8.97 2566 1939 2673 5.06 1.63 3.21 4.26 4.22 11 16 -242 -158
333 3:24:46 -421 -427 194.10 9.10 2588 1958 2707 5.11 1.64 3.25 4.30 4.27 9 14 -241 -161
334 3:24:59 -421 -427 195.09 9.13 2620 1978 2750 5.16 1.65 3.29 4.34 4.31 14 21 -239 -156
335 3:25:13 -422 -428 195.65 9.28 2652 2008 2792 5.21 1.68 3.33 4.39 4.35 17 23 -241 -155
336 3:25:28 -422 -428 196.85 9.40 2693 2031 2834 5.26 1.70 3.37 4.43 4.40 21 27 -238 -152
337 3:25:34 -422 -428 197.06 9.45 2705 2044 2856 5.28 1.71 3.38 4.45 4.43 25 30 -237 -149
338 3:25:39 -423 -428 197.53 9.45 2716 2051 2870 5.31 1.72 3.40 4.47 4.44 26 30 -235 -148 LS#5
339 3:25:45 -422 -428 197.19 9.49 2728 2053 2877 5.29 1.72 3.40 4.48 4.45 27 31 -235 -149
340 3:25:51 -422 -428 196.68 9.54 2730 2058 2892 5.32 1.72 3.41 4.49 4.45 25 30 -236 -149
387 3:50:57 -426 -433 209.10 12.21 3640 2629 3981 6.41 2.37 4.42 5.65 5.59 102 110 -102 -31 w
avg
w
max T
avg
388 3:51:15 -426 -433 209.10 12.33 3696 2661 4030 6.45 2.41 4.48 5.71 5.62 105 116 -99 -30 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.55 0.8 27.7
389 3:51:23 -427 -434 209.36 12.45 3727 2686 4058 6.51 2.43 4.51 5.75 5.66 107 119 -95 -26
390 3:51:30 -427 -433 209.70 12.63 3829 2719 4085 6.57 2.46 4.55 5.78 5.70 105 115 -92 -24
391 3:51:39 -427 -433 210.78 12.78 3887 2753 4127 6.62 2.49 4.58 5.83 5.74 105 117 -92 -24
392 3:51:45 -427 -434 210.86 12.86 3916 2771 4158 6.66 2.52 4.64 5.86 5.77 105 119 -91 -20
393 3:51:51 -427 -434 211.59 12.97 3964 2798 4192 6.71 2.55 4.66 5.90 5.81 109 123 -83 -17
394 3:51:57 -428 -434 211.33 13.01 4002 2816 4225 6.74 2.57 4.72 5.94 5.84 112 127 -83 -16
395 3:52:05 -428 -434 211.55 13.16 4051 2846 4260 6.79 2.61 4.77 5.99 5.88 112 126 -78 -12
396 3:52:11 -428 -434 212.10 13.25 4080 2860 4290 6.83 2.63 4.80 6.02 5.91 113 128 -80 -11 LS#6
397 3:52:16 -428 -434 211.76 13.31 4109 2871 4314 6.85 2.66 4.82 6.04 5.91 115 129 -74 -9
398 3:52:22 -428 -434 211.29 13.34 4128 2886 4335 6.86 2.68 4.84 6.05 5.94 109 122 -82 -15
445 4:28:29 -428 -434 213.48 15.33 4966 3435 5087 7.70 3.30 5.63 6.82 6.58 120 143 -46 17 w
avg
w
max T
avg
446 4:28:35 -429 -435 213.43 15.41 4998 3456 5105 7.72 3.31 5.65 6.83 6.61 120 144 -45 18 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.85 1.7 27
447 4:28:46 -429 -435 213.48 15.50 5036 3485 5153 7.75 3.34 5.69 6.88 6.64 131 157 -34 28
448 4:28:59 -429 -435 214.12 15.63 5103 3514 5194 7.79 3.38 5.74 6.92 6.67 127 148 -42 21
449 4:29:04 -428 -435 213.56 15.61 5122 3529 5204 7.81 3.40 5.77 6.95 6.69 125 146 -41 21
450 4:29:10 -428 -435 213.78 15.68 5149 3543 5231 7.83 3.42 5.80 6.97 6.70 125 147 -41 21
451 4:29:22 -429 -435 213.90 15.83 5199 3573 5262 7.87 3.45 5.84 7.02 6.74 125 145 -39 22
452 4:29:29 -429 -435 214.12 15.88 5226 3594 5299 7.88 3.48 5.88 7.04 6.77 127 149 -37 24
453 4:29:40 -429 -435 214.12 15.97 5276 3639 5333 7.93 3.51 5.92 7.09 6.81 138 161 -26 34
454 4:29:51 -429 -435 214.72 16.13 5329 3659 5365 7.95 3.54 5.97 7.14 6.84 136 159 -32 26
455 4:30:01 -429 -435 214.72 16.18 5373 3688 5392 7.97 3.59 6.02 7.19 6.88 133 157 -33 22
456 4:30:08 -429 -435 214.72 16.22 5407 3724 5414 7.99 3.60 6.05 7.22 6.90 131 153 -30 22
More Cracks
Appeared
Failure
As=934 mm
2
A
v
/b
w
s=0.3737%
More Cracks
Appeared
More Cracks
Appeared
Inclined Cracks
Appeared
More Cracks
Appeared
Linear Uncracked
Response
Note
343
B1.12 LB11
LB11 was cast on J uly 11, 2007 and tested on October 5th, 2007 under an average compres-
transverse reinforcement could be found in Table B.23. LB11 cracked at a shear force of
143.7 kN and failed at a shear force of 142.8 kN, forming an unusual crack pattern with most
of the web remaining uncracked.
344
(#) (h:mm:ss (kN) (kN) (kN) (mm) (PH) (mH) (PH) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (PH) (PH) (PH) (PH)
0 0:00:00 -406 -403 0.00 0.42 5 -75 -34 0.15 -0.08 -0.13 -0.10 -0.09 -274 -272 -210 -297
0
1 0:00:06 -406 -403 -0.54 -0.04 0 2 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -274 -271 -210 -297
2 0:00:40 -407 -403 0.52 -0.01 2 4 0 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 -274 -272 -209 -296
3 0:00:58 -407 -403 1.27 -0.01 2 5 4 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 -275 -272 -207 -296
4 0:01:11 -407 -403 9.88 0.15 29 23 28 0.09 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.11 -274 -271 -198 -295
5 0:01:17 -407 -403 9.93 0.16 28 22 27 0.09 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.10 -274 -271 -199 -295
6 0:02:19 -407 -403 8.77 0.13 26 21 28 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.09 -275 -271 -201 -296
7 0:03:08 -407 -403 7.53 0.12 21 18 27 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.09 -275 -271 -201 -296
8 0:05:15 -406 -403 7.15 0.15 19 21 23 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.08 -275 -272 -202 -296
19 0:08:04 -407 -403 20.86 0.31 51 36 46 0.13 0.07 0.16 0.22 0.24 -274 -271 -188 -295
113 0:25:27 -407 -403 134.44 2.24 445 153 701 1.27 0.49 1.01 1.53 1.58 -227 -218 -50 -252
114 0:25:38 -407 -403 135.08 2.22 451 152 713 1.30 0.50 1.02 1.55 1.60 -224 -216 -48 -251
115 0:25:50 -407 -403 136.84 2.24 457 152 729 1.31 0.50 1.03 1.56 1.63 -222 -214 -47 -250
116 0:26:04 -408 -403 138.21 2.23 464 151 741 1.34 0.52 1.05 1.59 1.65 -210 -211 -45 -249
117 0:26:16 -408 -403 139.15 2.26 469 154 755 1.36 0.52 1.06 1.61 1.67 -206 -209 -43 -247
118 0:26:31 -408 -403 140.26 2.24 477 151 771 1.39 0.53 1.08 1.63 1.69 -204 -208 -42 -246
119 0:26:43 -408 -403 141.64 2.23 482 156 784 1.43 0.55 1.10 1.66 1.71 -204 -208 -41 -244
120 0:26:54 -408 -403 142.84 2.24 485 159 794 1.44 0.56 1.11 1.67 1.72 -209 -207 -39 -243
121 0:27:10 -408 -403 143.74 2.32 491 178 807 1.49 0.56 1.13 1.69 1.76 -242 -249 -37 -242 LS#1
151 0:58:27 -411 -405 121.06 7.99 1765 2017 3724 2.73 1.34 2.68 3.30 2.80 -179 -173 -66 -221
152 0:58:47 -412 -405 122.48 8.05 1796 2041 3773 2.78 1.35 2.71 3.35 2.82 -176 -171 -65 -220 w
avg
w
max T
avg
153 0:59:06 -412 -405 122.86 8.20 1828 2083 3827 2.83 1.38 2.75 3.39 2.86 -173 -169 -64 -219 (mm) (mm) (deg)
154 0:59:20 -412 -405 123.68 8.35 1857 2147 3868 2.86 1.39 2.78 3.43 2.91 -170 -168 -63 -217 1.4 3 26.7
155 0:59:38 -412 -405 124.62 8.50 1902 2201 3952 2.91 1.42 2.82 3.49 2.95 -166 -165 -62 -216
156 0:59:53 -412 -405 125.61 8.64 1938 2246 4034 2.97 1.44 2.87 3.53 2.98 -164 -163 -61 -215
157 1:00:05 -413 -405 125.99 8.79 1975 2306 4112 3.01 1.45 2.90 3.58 3.03 -161 -160 -61 -213
158 1:00:12 -413 -405 126.38 8.93 2007 2377 4151 3.06 1.48 2.94 3.63 3.06 -159 -159 -61 -212
188 1:04:05 -417 -411 132.12 13.94 3365 6036 5515 4.44 2.07 4.28 5.54 4.61 -102 -103 -55 -127
189 1:04:12 -417 -411 132.46 14.09 3397 6123 5554 4.48 2.08 4.33 5.60 4.66 -100 -102 -55 -123
190 1:04:20 -418 -411 132.98 14.20 3460 6214 5605 4.53 2.12 4.38 5.66 4.72 -99 -99 -55 -117
191 1:04:26 -418 -411 132.64 14.47 3586 6419 5605 4.56 2.14 4.47 5.78 4.81 -97 -98 -55 -111
192 1:04:32 -418 -412 133.24 14.55 3629 6512 5640 4.61 2.17 4.51 5.84 4.86 -96 -96 -55 -108
193 1:04:38 -418 -412 133.54 14.68 3665 6620 5685 4.65 2.20 4.57 5.90 4.91 -93 -94 -54 -103
194 1:04:45 -418 -412 133.96 14.82 3717 6709 5731 4.69 2.22 4.60 5.97 4.97 -91 -92 -54 -100
195 1:04:52 -418 -412 134.52 15.00 3758 6828 5787 4.73 2.24 4.65 6.03 5.04 -89 -90 -53 -97
196 1:04:59 -418 -413 135.08 15.19 3808 6938 5842 4.78 2.26 4.70 6.10 5.10 -87 -88 -53 -93
197 1:05:05 -418 -413 135.89 15.31 3849 7033 5886 4.82 2.29 4.75 6.17 5.15 -84 -86 -52 -89
198 1:05:11 -418 -413 135.89 15.48 3899 7137 5944 4.87 2.31 4.80 6.22 5.21 -82 -84 -52 -86
199 1:05:18 -418 -413 136.71 15.69 3939 7236 5991 4.90 2.33 4.84 6.30 5.26 -80 -82 -52 -83
200 1:05:25 -419 -413 136.88 15.81 3988 7353 6046 4.95 2.36 4.89 6.36 5.33 -77 -80 -51 -79
201 1:05:31 -419 -414 137.09 15.92 4028 7400 6101 4.99 2.39 4.94 6.43 5.38 -75 -78 -51 -76
202 1:05:37 -419 -414 137.61 16.08 4069 7484 6154 5.04 2.40 4.99 6.49 5.43 -73 -76 -51 -72
203 1:05:43 -419 -414 138.38 16.27 4109 7667 6198 5.07 2.43 5.03 6.55 5.49 -70 -74 -50 -69
204 1:05:49 -419 -414 138.16 16.40 4150 7751 6245 5.12 2.45 5.07 6.62 5.55 -68 -71 -50 -67
205 1:05:55 -419 -415 139.02 16.62 4198 7832 6292 5.15 2.47 5.13 6.69 5.62 -64 -69 -49 -64
206 1:06:01 -420 -415 139.58 16.74 4247 7913 6336 5.20 2.50 5.17 6.76 5.68 -61 -66 -49 -62
207 1:06:07 -420 -415 139.54 16.92 4286 7997 6391 5.23 2.53 5.22 6.83 5.75 -58 -64 -48 -59
208 1:06:13 -420 -415 140.26 17.09 4335 8170 6447 5.28 2.55 5.28 6.90 5.82 -55 -62 -47 -57
209 1:06:20 -420 -416 139.96 17.27 4384 8257 6499 5.33 2.58 5.33 6.98 5.89 -53 -59 -47 -54
210 1:06:26 -420 -416 140.82 17.49 4432 8332 6561 5.37 2.60 5.37 7.05 5.96 -50 -57 -46 -52
211 1:06:32 -420 -416 140.78 17.64 4475 8419 6623 5.41 2.62 5.42 7.13 6.03 -47 -54 -46 -49
212 1:06:38 -420 -416 141.55 17.83 4525 8593 6683 5.46 2.65 5.47 7.20 6.10 -45 -52 -45 -46
213 1:06:45 -421 -417 141.85 18.02 4566 8668 6750 5.50 2.67 5.53 7.27 6.16 -43 -50 -45 -43
214 1:06:51 -421 -417 141.51 18.15 4617 8746 6825 5.55 2.69 5.58 7.35 6.23 -40 -48 -44 -40
215 1:06:57 -421 -417 142.36 18.35 4669 8830 6894 5.60 2.72 5.64 7.41 6.30 -38 -46 -44 -37
216 1:07:04 -421 -418 142.06 18.52 4719 8905 6966 5.65 2.75 5.69 7.50 6.36 -10 -14 -48 -44
217 1:07:10 -421 -418 142.71 18.76 4766 8885 7041 5.70 2.77 5.74 7.58 6.44 -4 3 -48 -42
218 1:07:16 -421 -418 142.28 18.96 4816 8920 7107 5.74 2.80 5.78 7.66 6.52 -2 18 -48 -40
219 1:07:22 -421 -418 142.79 19.16 4870 8946 7188 5.79 2.82 5.83 7.76 6.60 -1 38 -48 -38
220 1:07:29 -421 -419 142.75 19.39 4917 8931 7270 5.84 2.84 5.88 7.85 6.67 -10 12 -47 -34
221 1:07:35 -421 -419 142.45 19.60 4975 8913 7353 5.88 2.87 5.94 7.95 6.75 -14 -5 -47 -30
222 1:07:41 -421 -419 141.85 19.78 5034 8899 7426 5.93 2.87 5.99 8.05 6.85 -16 -17 -44 -27
223 1:07:47 -421 -420 141.94 20.06 5084 8884 7535 5.98 2.91 6.05 8.16 6.94 -16 -21 -44 -24
First Crack
Failure
Linear Uncracked
Response
As=934 mm
2
no stirrup
Note

Xie Liping 200906 PHD Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Xie Liping 200906 PHD Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Xie Liping 200906 PHD Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influence of Axial Load and Prestress on

The Shear Strength of Web-Shear Critical

CHAPTER 2 - Existing Shear Design Provisions

CHAPTER 2 - Existing Shear Design Provisions

CHAPTER 3 - Panel Tests

Figure 3.22 Inclined Cracking Strength

(mm) 151 156 155 155 156 155 155

(mm) 478 494 492 493 494 491 490

CHAPTER 3 - Panel Tests

CHAPTER 3 - Panel Tests

Figure 3.43 Kinking Effect

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004

CHAPTER 4 - Beam Tests

CHAPTER 4 - Beam Tests

CHAPTER 4 - Beam Tests

CHAPTER 4 - Beam Tests

Appendix A - Details of Panel Tests

Appendix A - Details of Panel Tests

You might also like