bd
= 2
bd,0
 u.4p
t
<
1.5
y
c
ck
(1)
where p
tr
is the mean compression stress perpendicular to the potential splitting failure surface at
the ultimate limit state, it is negative when transverse stress is compressive; and f
bd,0
is the basic
bond strength given by:
bd,0
= p
1
p
2
p
3
p
4
]
ck
5 y
c
(2)
where:
q
1
is a coefficient taken as 1.75 for ribbed bars (including galvanised and stainless
reinforcement), 1.4 for fusion bonded epoxy coated ribbed bars and 0.90 for plain surface
bars.
q
2
represents the casting position of the bar during concreting:
2
=1.0 when good bond conditions are obtained, as for:
all bars with an inclination of 45  90 to the horizontal during concreting and;
all bars with an inclination less than 45 to the horizontal which are up to 250mm
from the bottom or at least 300mm from the top of the concrete layer during
concreting.
2
= 0.7 for all other cases where ribbed bars are used, or
2
= 0.5 where plain bars are used.
q
3
represents the bar diameter:
3
= 1.0 for  25mm;
3
= (25/)
0.3
for  > 25mm.
q
4
represents the characteristic strength of steel reinforcement being anchored or lapped:
4
= 1.20 for f
yk
= 400MPa;
4
= 1.00 for f
yk
= 500MPa;
4
= 0.85 for f
yk
= 600MPa;
4
= 0.75 for f
yk
= 700MPa;
4
= 0.68 for f
yk
= 800MPa;
Intermediate values may be obtained by interpolation.
Thus, for cases of straight bars in tension the design anchorage length is:
l
b
= o
1
I
yd
4 ]
bd
> l
b,mn
, o
1
=
A
s,ccl
A
s,c]
(3)
l
b,mn
= mox ]u.S
I
yd
4 ]
bd
, 1u, 1uumm (4)
3.2 Draft of NBR6118 2013 [3]
The design value of the ultimate bond stress may be taken as:
bd
= p
1
p
2
p
3
ctd
(5)
ctd
=
0.7]
ctm
y
c
(6)
ctm
= u.S
ck
23
or
ck
CSu (7)
ctm
= 2.12 l n(1 +u.11
ck
) or
ck
> CSu (8)
where
q
1
is a coefficient taken as 2.25 for ribbed bars, 1.4 for welded wire reinforcement and 1.0
for plain surface bars.
q
2
represents the casting position of the bar during concreting: 1.0 for good conditions and
0.7 for all others cases.
q
3
represents the bar diameter:
3
= 1.0 for  32mm;
3
= (132)/100 for  > 32mm.
The design anchorage length for cases of straight bars in tension is given by equations 3 and 4.
4 Shear provisions
4.1 Fib New Model Code 2010 [1]
The shear provisions of the NMC have been significantly changed from previous model codes.
NMC proposes equations stemmed from the work of Collins et al. The Modified Compression
Field Theory (MCFT) produces accurate estimates of shear strength but the requirement to solve 15
simultaneous nonlinear equations is not compatible to a design model. As such, some simplifying
assumptions were taken into account in order to make design practical. These assumptions reduce
the number of equations from 15 to two and they were used in the Canadian code for structural
concrete and in NMC [4] [13].
Another significantly change in shear provisions is the inclusion of a Level of Approximation
(LoA) concept. The first level is low timeconsuming and in theory, is typically sufficient for
preliminary design or to check that a design provision is not governing. The highest level provides
the most accurate results, but at the cost of the most arithmetic.
Fig. 1 LevelofApproximation approach [9].
The design shear resistance in NMC of a web or slab without shear reinforcement is given by:
I
Rd,c
= k
]
ck
y
c
b
w
z (9)
where the value of f
ck
should not be taken greater than 64MPa. Two levels of approximation are
present in this case. In level I is considered the assumption that the middepth strain at the control
section is c
x
= 0.00125, that corresponds to half the yield strain for a reinforcing bar with f
yk
= 500
MPa. This level can be used in members with no significant axial load, with f
yk
600MPa, f
ck
70
MPa and with a maximum aggregate size of not less than 10mm. Thus:
k
=
180
1000+1.25z
(10)
For Level II the state of strain need be calculated and the maximum size of aggregate introduced:
k
=
0.4
1+1500s
x
.
1300
1000+k
dg
z
(11)
e
x
=
1
L
s
A
s

M
Ed
2z
+
v
Ed
2
] (12)
k
dg
=
32
16+d
g
3
4
(13)
where z and d
g
are in mm and the variable z can be calculated as 0.9d. For highstrength concrete
(f
ck
> 70 MPa) or lightweight concrete, the cracks will tend to pass through the aggregate and thus
for such concretes, the value of d
g
should be taken as zero.
4.2 Draft of NBR6118 2013 [3]
The shear provision for slabs without transversal reinforcement is based on previous version of
EC2 [16]. As time goes by, however, some small changes were adopted. Considering a reinforced
member, the shear resistance takes into account three main parameters: tensile strength, size effect
and the influence of longitudinal reinforcement ratio. These parameters were established
empirically in the formula and because of that some limitations are needed.
I
Rd1
= u.2S
ctd
(1.6 J)(1.2 +4up)b
w
J where p < u.u2 (14)
The tensile strength is presented in equations 7 and 8. For slabs with height greater than 600 mm
this equation is not recommended, neither for f
ck
greater than 70MPa. However, the vast majority
of cases are covered.
5 Experimental program
The last version of the Brazilian Standard for Structural Concrete Design recommends to RC slabs
with steel meshes the utilization of a straight anchorage length at support of the maximum between
10 cm or 10 times the diameter of the bar, with at least one transversal welded bar. This provision
considered smooth bars. As the steel meshes are now made with improved bond, it was supposed
the standard need no more require the transversal welded bar and may allow smaller anchorage
lengths. Thus, it was proposed a program of tests on samples of concrete reinforced with welded
steel meshes to evaluate the behavior with this type of reinforcement in relation to its anchorage at
supports using different lengths of anchorage, but also to evaluate shear, flexure and their
interaction with anchorage. For comparison some samples were reinforced with steel bars.
Due to good anchorage, some failures were conditioned by shear and they were analyzed all
together with a qualified database of shear test results.
5.1 Specimen design and experimental setup
The specimens were constructed to a nominal width of 34 cm, 150 cm of total clear span and varied
in thickness from 7 to 15 cm. Diameters of bars ranged from 4.2 mm to 12.5 mm, with anchorage
length of 5, 7 and 10 cm. Beams, with b
beam
varying from 12 to 15 and h
beam
varying from 32 to 40,
were designed at the ends of the slab strips in order to provide support and allow a cracking just
beside the support beam. It is shown below the design of generic specimen A100xxx.
Fig. 2 Design of specimen A100xxx.
All specimens were cast using concrete with specified 28day strength of 30 MPa. At the time
of testing the strength was close to this value or even higher. The concrete was made using
aggregate with a maximum size of 19 mm. More information is present in Table 2 and 3.
The specimens were submitted preliminarily to a horizontal loading, as shown in Fig. 3, in order
to cause a precracking just on the inner face of the support beams. Thus, the strut and tie resisting
behavior is mobilized and the anchorage capacity evaluated. The tests were performed always
symmetrically with two span loads, at the third span points or 2h
slab
from the supports. All tests
were carried out in an upside down position, Fig.4.
Loading case a
Loading case b
Fig. 3 Horizontal loading. Fig. 4 Testing loading.
Table 1
Details and nomenclature of specimens
Reinforcement Anchorage length
evaluable
Distance of the1
st
transversal bar to the
border of the beam
Testing loadings Specimens
A Steel
Welded
Mesh
10 cm 0 cm a Symmetric load
at 1/3 of the span
distance of the
support
A100xxxa or b
A107.5xxxa or b
A1010xxxa or b
A1015xxxa or b
A7 0xxx a or b
A5 0xxxa or b
7.5 cm
7 cm
10 cm b Symmetric load
at 2 h
slab
distance
of the support
5cm
15 cm
B Reinforcing
Bars
10 cm 0 cm a Symmetric load
at 1/3 of the span
distance of the
support
B100 a or b
B107.5 a or b
B1015 a or b
7.5 cm
b Symmetric load
at 2 h
slab
distance
of the support
15 cm
xxx refers to mesh type
5.2 Experimental results
A total of 64 results, where all experimental data were clearly defined, are analyzed. See [15]. 13
specimens failed by loss of anchorage, 13 by shear and 38 by flexure. In Fig. 5 are presented the
failure modes of the experimental program.
The flexural theory predicts the strength of the 38 specimens with an average experimental
overpredicted flexural strength ratio of 1.01 with a coefficient of variation of 5.2%.
Flexural failure Anchorage failure
Shear failure: flexureshear Shear failure: diagonal tension
Fig. 5 Failure modes.
Table 2
Characteristics and results of specimen that failed by anchorage
Specimen f
c
f
y
 long l
b
evaluable
f
b
NBR f
b
NMC P
exp.
P
exp
/P
NBR
P
exp
/P
NMC
A50138a 27.5 698 0.42 5.00 3.827 2.760 9.29 1.84 2.55
A50246a 24.6 747 0.56 5.00 3.553 2.490 14.86 2.38 3.39
A50503a1 21.7 674 0.80 5.00 3.268 2.530 12.34 1.50 1.94
A50503a2 21.7 674 0.80 5.00 3.268 2.530 13.50 1.64 2.12
A50503b 21.7 674 0.80 5.00 3.268 2.530 17.25 2.10 2.71
A50785a1 23.4 688 1.00 5.00 3.436 2.580 22.20 2.06 2.74
A50785a2 23.4 688 1.00 5.00 3.436 2.580 32.60 3.02 4.02
A501131a1 26.8 632 1.20 5.00 6.045 2.964 47.57 2.09 4.26
A501131a2 26.8 632 1.20 5.00 6.045 2.964 54.75 2.40 4.90
A70246a 16.3 747 0.56 7.00 2.700 2.027 12.79 1.92 2.56
A70503a 20.4 674 0.80 7.00 3.136 2.453 26.48 2.40 3.07
A70785a 23 688 1.00 7.00 3.397 2.558 45.56 3.05 4.05
A701131a 29.3 632 1.20 7.00 6.415 3.099 55.10 1.63 3.37
Note: f
c
indicates cylinder strength on day of test [MPa]; f
y
represents the yield stress
[MPa]; f
b
, the bond strength [MPa]; l
b
, the anchorage length [cm];  [cm]; P
exp.
, the shear
force correspondent to anchorage failure [kN].
2.16 3.21
COV 22.6% 27.8%
Regarding anchorage failure, P
NBR
and
P
NMC
represent the predicted vertical force, or reaction, at
inner face of support beam. These forces are correlated to horizontal tensile force in bars dividing
by cotu = 1.5, corresponding to u equals to 33.69, as NBR6118 prescribes. For analyzed cases, a
desirable safety is found. The average experimentaloverpredicted bond strength ratio is 2.16 for
NBR and 3.21 for FIBMC2010 with coefficient of variation of 22.6% and 27.8%, respectively.
These values of the COV are not completely reliable due to the size of the sample (13 elements).
FIBMC2010 is more conservative and prescriptive than NBR.
All analyzed shear results has anchorage length of 10 cm. That implied, independent of bar
diameters, in a good anchorage and then shear failure was determinant. Two types of shear failure
were observed: 1. flexureshear that is assumed to take place in regions where flexure cracks have
appeared and, 2. diagonal tension that is supposed to take place within regions of the structural
span not affected by flexural cracks.
In RC members, diagonal tension may be regarded as an upper limit. It may be predicted
conservatively with the same model that predicts flexureshear. When both cases are analyzed all
together, as in this case it conducts to a large coefficient of variation. See Table 3, which indicates,
for each test, the failure observed. These values of the COV are not completely reliable due to the
size of the sample (13 elements).
Table 3
Characteristics and results of specimen that failed by shear
Specimen d b/d a/d l fy fc Failure Vexp. Vexp. /VNBR Vexp. /VNMC.II
A1uuSuSb 81 4.2u 2.47 u.S48 674 2S.2 FS SS.u1 1.2S 1.u8
A1u1uSuSb 81 4.2u 2.47 u.S48 674 29.S
FS
S4.S6 1.1S 1.u7
A1uu78Sb 8u 4.2S 2.Su u.868 688 19.2
FS
S4.62 1.44 1.1u
A1u1u78Sb 8u 4.2S 2.Su u.868 688 26.4
FS
S6.uS 1.21 1.u2
A1u1u11S1b 119 2.86 1.68 u.8S9 6S2 S6.6
FS
62.S1 1.18 1.u6
A1uu1227a 129 2.64 2.SS u.7uu 6S2 2S.u BT 69.6S 1.72 1.7u
A1u7.S1227a 129 2.64 2.SS u.7uu 6S2 2S.u BT 69.SS 1.71 1.7u
A1u1S1227a 129 2.64 2.SS u.7uu 6S2 2S.u BT 68.67 1.69 1.68
A1uu78Sb 8u 4.2S 2.Su u.868 688 2S.S BT 42.u9 1.S4 1.S4
A1uu1227b 119 2.86 2.SS u.8S9 6S2 22.8 BT 72.88 1.88 1.87
B1uu1227a 129 2.64 2.SS u.7uu 6S2 29.S BT 79.98 1.67 1.81
B1u7.S1227a 129 2.64 2.SS u.7uu 6S2 29.S BT 76.S2 1.6u 1.7S
B1u1S1227a 129 2.64 2.SS u.7uu 6S2 29.S BT 86.1S 1.8u 1.94
Note: fc inuicates cylinuei stiength on uay of test NPaj; fy iepiesents the yielu stiess
NPaj; u mmj; l , ieinfoicement iatio %j; vexp. iepiesents applieu sheai foice
consiueiing specimen selfweight in the upsiue uown position kNj. FS iefeis to flexuie
sheai anu BT to uiagonal tension;
1.S2 1.48
C0v 16.7% 24.1%
6 Shear database of RC slab strips
Because of a small number of tests, a qualified database of shear test results was created. All slab
strips in this database do not contain shear reinforcement and the majority was subjected to point
loads, only four uniformly loaded tests. Besides the experimental program presented in this work,
two databases were used as source: Collins (2008) and Reineck (2010). As first criterion, 105 tests
whose widthdepth ratio (b/d) is greater than 2 were gathered.
A sanctioned set of criteria was then developed for accepting a test result from 105 into an
evaluationlevel database. 81 tests were selected.
Fig. 6 Components of database.
These sanctioned set of criteria include: compressive strength from 18 to 59 MPa, a widthdepth
ratio from 2.3 to 12.1, a longitudinal reinforcement ratio from 0.6 to 2.9% and minimum and
maximum shear spantodepth ratio (a/d) based on Kanis strength envelope [7], of 2 and 6,
respectively. The shear presenting failure by diagonal tension were not included in the evaluation
level database.
In Fig. 7 the results are plotted in terms of shear stress for each of the codes for both collected
data (105 in left) and selected data (81 in right). The FIBMC results are presented in two levels of
13 2 4 4 7 4 9 41 4 17 105tests
5 2 4 4 7 2 4 33 4 16 81tests
Stucchi2010 Marti1977 Kani1967 Ghannoum1998
Bentz2004 Aster1974 Richart1948 Leonhardt1962
Heger1982 Regan1988
approximation. For the first level (FIBMC2010  LoA I) a smaller amount of tests is shown (49
results) since there are some limitations, namely the yield stress must be less than 600 MPa and the
maximum diameter of the aggregate should be greater than 10 mm. Besides these limitations,
simplifications proposed for this level of approximation became it too conservative, even for what
was proposed. The average for the 49 data is 2.01 with a coefficient of variation of 14.6%. For the
81 selected data the FIBMC2010  LoA II has an average of 1.29 and COV of 14.5% and the
Brazilian standard (NBR) has an average of 1.08 and COV of 14.3%.
Analyzing the FIBMC LoA II and NBR for the 105 data the first has an average of 1.33 with a
COV of 16.6%, and the second, 1.18 and 23.1%, respectively.
Regarding some limitations for application of the NBR design model, namely height not greater
than 600 mm and f
ck
not greater than 70MPa, and what was commented about how slabs work in
reality, safety and economy, the NBR design model may be considered satisfactory despite an
average of 1.08. This mean value, that could be 1.0 for flexure for example, should be greater than
1.0 for shear due to the expected brittle failure and 8% could be considered enough.
The FIBMC LoA I need be improved in order to represent what it is proposed within a model
code. FIBMC LoA II, as expected, is better in accuracy in relation to LoA I but at the cost of the
most arithmetic. Its coefficient of variation, as not expected, was almost the same than NBR one
for 81 selected data.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
1
.
5
2
.
0
2
.
5
3
.
0
t
e
x
p
.
(
M
P
a
)
tpred. (MPa)
NBR
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
1
.
5
2
.
0
2
.
5
3
.
0
t
e
x
p
.
(
M
P
a
)
tpred. (MPa)
NBR
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
1
.
5
2
.
0
2
.
5
3
.
0
t
e
x
p
.
(
M
P
a
)
tpred. (MPa)
FIBMC2010 LoAI
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
1
.
5
2
.
0
2
.
5
3
.
0
t
e
x
p
.
(
M
P
a
)
tpred. (MPa)
FIBMC2010 LoAI
Fig. 7 Experimental versus predicted shear stresses: left  105 tests, right  81 tests.
7 Conclusions
As a result of this research, it was possible to conclude that:
1) When used as slab reinforcement, bars and welded meshes have equivalent behavior in service
and at ultimate limit state.
2) The reliability of flexural results was really good. Theatrical results were 1% lower than
experimental, with a COV of 5% for both NBR and NMC.
3) As it would be desirable, the theory for shear collapse without stirrups, flexureshear, has higher
safety margin than the flexure theory. The NBR margin of 8% seems to be enough, if we consider
that we tested only strips, not real slabs and under concentrated not distributed loads, to avoid
brittle failure. The Brazilian criteria for shear are equivalent to EC2 1992 version, not the last
version. The margin of the NMC LoA II of 23% is probably more than enough. The COV of both
is approximately 14.4%. The margin of LoA I is more than 100%, really too much.
4) If we consider in the database for shear failure, not only flexureshear, but also diagonal tension,
mean value and COV increase. It would be always better to study each type of failure, let say,
Ultimate Limit State, separately.
5) As it would be desirable, the theory for loss of anchorage is still safer. The margin of the NBR
criteria is a little higher than 50% and of NMC approximately 70%. The COV were 23 and 28%
respectively. This higher safety margin is really desirable to avoid the separation between steel and
concrete before a failure of reinforced concrete.
6) The minimum anchorage at the support (maximum between 10 and 10 cm) for steel mesh
made of enhanced bond bars avoids the slip of reinforcement with that enlarged safe margin.
References
[1] Final Draft of fib Model Code 2010. Fdration international de bton (fib). Lausanne.
[2] NBR6118: 2004, Structural Concrete Design Brazilian Standard (available in English).
[3] Draft of NBR6118: 2013, Structural Concrete Design, Brazilian Standard.
[4] Bentz, E. C., and Collins, M. P. (2006), Development of the 2004 CSA A23.3 shear
provisions for reinforced concrete. Can. J. Civ. Eng., 335, 521534.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
1
.
5
2
.
0
2
.
5
3
.
0
t
e
x
p
.
(
M
P
a
)
tpred. (MPa)
FIBMC2010 LoAII
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
1
.
5
2
.
0
2
.
5
3
.
0
t
e
x
p
.
(
M
P
a
)
tpred. (MPa)
FIBMC2010 LoAII
[5] Bentz, E. C., Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. (2006), The simplied MCFT for calculating
the shear strength of reinforced concrete elements. ACI Journal, 1034, 614624.
[6] Collins et al. (2008), Where is Shear Reinforcement Required? Review of Research Results
and Design Procedures, ACI Struct. J., Vol. 105, No 5.
[7] Kani, G. N. J. (1964), The Riddle of Shear Failure and Its Solution, ACI Journal,
Proceedings V. 61, No. 3, pp. 441467.
[8] Kani, G. N. J. (1966), Basic Facts Concerning Shear Failure ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 63,
No. 6, pp. 675692.
[9] Muttoni, A., Ruiz, M. F. (2012), LevelofApproximation Approach in Codes of Practice.
Structural Engineering International, V. 2, pp 190194.
[10] Muttoni, A., Ruiz, M. F. (2008), Shear Strength of Members without Transverse
Reinforcement as Function of Critical Shear Crack Width, ACI Journal, Vol. 105, No 2.
[11] Reineck, K. H., Kuchma, D. A. (2010), Extended databases with shear tests on structural
concrete beams without and with stirrups for the assessment of shear design procedures,
Research Report.
[12] Schlaich, J. (1991), The need for consistent and translucent Models, IABSE Colloquium
Structural Concrete, Proceedings V. 62, Stuttgart, p. 169184.
[13] Sherwood, E. G. (2008), OneWay Shear Behaviour of Large, LightlyReinforced Concrete
Beams and Slabs, PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario Canada, 546 pp.
[14] Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. (1986), The modied compression eld theory for
reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear. J. Am. Concr. Inst., 832, 219231.
[15] IBTS Instituto Brasileiro de Tela Soldada Estudo do comportamento de Estruturas de
Concreto armadas com Tela Soldada Ensaios de Ancoragem (2010) Pesquisa EGT
(Stucchi, F.; Fugii, G.) e EEUSPS. Carlos (Hanai, J.; Takeya, T.) www.ibts.org.br
[16] EUROCODE 2 Design of Concrete Structures Part 1.1 General Rules and Rules for
Buildings 1992 version.
Mult mai mult decât documente.
Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.
Anulați oricând.