International Concrete Abstracts Portal

Five specific limitations to the existing shear design methodologies of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and ACI 318-08 are discussed: (1) the issues resulting from the fact that what has been tested in the laboratory is not representative of what is built in the field for bridge structures and therefore where additional laboratory testing is needed particularly for bridge members; (2) the equivalency and non-equivalency of the treatment of axial load and prestress in shear provisions; (3) the basis for the minimum and maximum shear reinforcement requirements or limits for members and why those requirements differ in the AASHTO LRFD Specifications from those in ACI 318-08; (4) shear design considerations for the end regions of bridge girders and the need to design for the effects of the funneling of the shear force into the support and the balancing of the tension caused by shear at the face of the support; and (5) the relative variations in the components of the shear resistance with increasing load and changes in member behavior and the significance of those variations for the limitations to the existing shear design concepts of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications and ACI 318-08.

Reinforced concrete (RC) bridge columns are subjected to combined flexural, axial, shear, and torsional loading during earthquake excitations. This combination of loading can result in complex flexural and shear failure. The work presented herein included an experimental study conducted to understand the behavior of RC circular columns under combined loading. The main variables considered are the ratio of torsion to bending moment, and the level of detailing for high and moderate seismicity (low or high spiral reinforcement ratio). This paper presents the results of tests on eight reinforced concrete columns subjected to cyclic bending shear, cyclic pure torsion, and various levels of combined cyclic bending and torsional moments. It discusses the effects of combined loading on the hysteretic lateral load-deformation response, torsional moment-twist response, reinforcement strain variations, and plastic hinge characteristics. It also includes diagrams of interaction between bending and torsional moment. In addition, the results of this study highlight the significance of proper detailing of transverse reinforcement and its effect on torsional resistance under combined loading. Test results demonstrate that combined loading decreases both flexural and torsional capacity. Further, they show a significant improvement in the performance of columns with an increase in the spiral reinforcement ratio.

The two-dimensional design and behavior of typical reinforced concrete (RC) structures has been extensively studied in the past several decades. Such design requires knowledge of the constitutive behavior of reinforced concrete elements subjected to a biaxial state of stress. These constitutive models were accurately derived from experimental test data on representative reinforced concrete panel elements. The true behavior of many large complex structures, however, requires knowledge of the constitutive laws of RC elements subjected to a triaxial state of stress. The goal of the proposed work is to develop new constitutive relations for RC elements subjected to a triaxial state of stress. To accomplish this task, largescale tests on representative concrete panels need to be conducted. The University of Houston is equipped with a unique universal panel testing machine that was used for this purpose. This universal panel tester is the only one of its kind in the United States, and the only one in the world that allows for both displacement and forcecontrolled load application through its newly upgraded servo-control system. The panel tester enhanced the understanding of the in-plane shear behavior of reinforced concrete elements. Recently, 20 additional hydraulic cylinders were mounted in the out-of-plane direction of the universal panel tester to facilitate testing of concrete elements subjected to tridirectional shear stresses. The addition of these cylinders makes the panel tester the only one of its kind in the world that is capable of applying such combinations of stresses on full-scale reinforced concrete elements. This paper presents the details of the mounting and installation of the additional hydraulic cylinders on the universal panel tester, and preliminary results of large-scale tests of a series of RC panels subjected to three-dimensional shear loads.

Data from 360 deep beam tests was collected from available literature to perform a strut-and-tie model analysis on each of the beams using a simple deep beam strut-and-tie model. The capacities of bottle-shaped struts in the deep beam strut-and-tie models determined from experimental testing were compared with predicted strut strengths specified by ACI 318-08 and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO 2007). For AASHTO LRFD, the comparisons showed that the strut stress provisions are unconservative for concrete strengths greater than 7000 psi (48 MPa). For ACI 318-08, the comparisons showed that the strut stress provisions are unconservative for concrete strengths less than 6000 psi (41 MPa) when used with the minimum amount of crack control reinforcement specified by ACI 318-08 and for concrete strengths greater than 6000 psi (41 MPa) for any amount of crack control reinforcement. Based on these findings, new strut strength provisions were developed for ACI 318-08 and AASHTO LRFD that provided increased conservatism.

This paper presents an evaluation of the minimum shear reinforcement requirements in the ACI 318 code for nonprestressed concrete beams exempt from distributed horizontal reinforcement requirements. A total of 34 tests performed by different researchers on reinforced concrete beams with heights in the range of 24 to 36 in. (600 to 900 mm) are used to examine the reserve shear strength defined as the shear strength in excess of the nominal shear strength provided by the concrete, Vc, calculated in accordance with ACI 318. Additionally, the design shear force limitations for these beams containing minimum shear reinforcement are examined. Tests evaluated in this study include beams without shear reinforcement as well as beams with shear reinforcement levels that are less than ACI 318-08 minimum requirements. From the evaluation conducted in this study, it is concluded that the addition of low amounts of shear reinforcement, even less than the minimum amount required by ACI 318-08, Vs,min, provide a reserve strength beyond Vc calculated in accordance with the code. Results also show that low amounts of shear reinforcement tend to eliminate the trend of decreasing shear strength with increasing height. When low levels of shear reinforcement are taken into account in the strength calculation (that is, Vn=Vc+ Vs,min), however, specific concerns are raised regarding the reliance on minimum shear reinforcement to mitigate low values of the concrete contribution to the shear strength as well as provide shear resistance above Vc without the use of the strength reduction f factor. Modifications to the minimum shear reinforcement requirement exceptions for beams in ACI 318-08 are also examined.