0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

25 Ansichten54 SeitenCrack Sliding Theory

Hoang - On the Conceptual Basis of the Crack Sliding Theory

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

Crack Sliding Theory

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

25 Ansichten54 SeitenHoang - On the Conceptual Basis of the Crack Sliding Theory

Crack Sliding Theory

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 54

BYGNINGSSTATISKE

MEDDELELSER

udgivet af

DANSK SELSKAB FR BYGNINGSSTATIK

On the Conceptual Basis of the Crack Sliding Theory1-48

KBENHAVN 2008

Copyright 2008 Dansk Selskab for Bygningsstatik, Kbenhavn

ISSN 0106-3715 (trykt udgave)

ISSN 1601-6548 (online)

BYGNINGSSTATISKE

MEDDELELSER

udgivet af

DANSK SELSKAB FOR BYGNINGSSTATIK

On the Conceptual Basis of the Crack Sliding Theory1-48

KBENHAVN 2008

Redaktionsudvalg

Lars German Hagsten (Redaktr)

Rasmus Ingomar Petersen

Finn Bach

Morten Bo Christiansen

Jrgen Nielsen

Mogens Peter Nielsen

Sven Eilif Svensson

Papers published in the Proceedings of the Danish Society for Structural Science

and Engineering have been reviewed.

1

Introduction

4.1

4.2

10

15

Conclusions

31

References

32

Notations

33

36

44

BYGNINGSSTATISKE MEDDELELSER

Proceedings of the Danish Society for Structural Science and Engineering

Edited and published by the Danish Society for Structural Science and Engineering

Volume 79, No. 1-2, 2008, pp. 1-48

Crack Sliding Theory

Y. Zhao1

L. C. Hoang2

M. P. Nielsen3

1. Introduction

In the original formulation of the crack sliding theory developed by Zhang [5] and

Hoang [9], very simple yield line patterns consisting of straight yield lines were

used in order to simplify calculations. These calculations rendered very good results for not too small shear spans. However, for short shear spans, the results

were rather conservative.

In this paper, more accurate curved yield lines, in fact those observed in tests, are

calculated using the same values of the effectiveness factors as those formed

originally. By taking into account whether sliding failure takes place in an already

existing crack or in uncracked concrete, remarkably accurate results are found in

the whole relevant shear span interval. Both concentrated loading and uniform

loading are treated.

2. Review of the classical plasticity approach

In the classical plasticity approach to beam shear problems, concrete is identified

as a homogeneous and rigid plastic Coulomb material without tensile strength.

The lack of perfectly plastic compressive behaviour is accounted for by introduc1

Professor, Institute of Industrial and Civil Engineering, University of Southern Denmark

3

Professor Emeritus, Technical University of Denmark

2

ing a so-called effectiveness factor into the theoretical solutions. Any possible

strength reduction due to cracking is also covered by the effectiveness factor.

Therefore, models based on the classical approach are neither capable of quantifying the strength reduction due to cracking nor account for the influence of cracking on the failure mechanism. An example on this drawback can be seen in the

model developed for shear strength of beams without stirrups. For the standard

case of a simply supported beam symmetrically loaded by two concentrated

forces, an exact plastic solution for the maximum shear capacity is obtained by

considering the stress field and the failure mechanism shown in figure 2.1, [2].

The solution appears in formula (1).

Figure 2.1 Failure mechanism and stress field rendering the exact plastic solution.

P

u

1

a

a

= u = 1+

f c f c bh 2

h

h

(1)

In order to determine the effectiveness factor , solution (1) was compared with a

large number of test results, [2]. It turned out that, unlike the case of shear reinforced beams, good agreement with test results could only be obtained when the

effectiveness factor had a dependency on the shear span to depth ratio a/h. This

result was rather unsatisfactory for two reasons: 1) a physical explanation of the

a/h-dependence was lacking. 2) The dependency on a/h is not practical for design

purposes.

The a/h dependency indicated that the classical plasticity approach was unable of

fully capturing the shear failure mechanism of beams without stirrups. Figure 2.2

schematically shows the process at the onset of a typical shear failure for beams

with a/h larger than approximately 2. At a load level near the failure load, the

crack pattern is as shown in figure 2.2 (left). Of particular interest prior to failure

is the last formed diagonal crack, which typically initiates perpendicular to the

bottom face and propagates towards (and end very near) the loading point. This

crack will in the following be termed the critical diagonal crack and characterised

by its horizontal projection x (or xo). For beams with a/h larger than 2 we have x <

a. When the beam collapses, figure 2.2 (right), a sliding failure takes place in a

curved yield line. This yield line runs along a large portion of the last formed diagonal crack. Near the bottom face of the beam, the yield line deviates from the

path of the last formed diagonal crack and runs to the bottom face in almost

alignment with the longitudinal reinforcement. In contrary to the upper part, this

lower part of the yield line does not run along an existing crack. Rather, this part

is formed in uncracked concrete at the very onset of failure.

A mechanically transparent explanation of the disagreement between the actual

failure mode and the one predicated by the classical plasticity approach was given

by Zhang [5; 7], who studied the strength reduction due to diagonal cracking and

subsequently developed a modified upper bound plasticity approach the so

called Crack Sliding Model. Description of this model is given in the next chapter.

A model based on lower bound considerations and taking into account strength

reduction due to cracking has been developed by Muttoni & Schwartz [4] and

Muttoni & Fernndez [10].

Figure 2.2 Typical crack pattern prior to failure (left). Failure mechanism involving sliding in part

of the last formed diagonal crack (right).

The basic principles of the Crack Sliding Model will be described in the following. For more details, see Zhang [5; 7], Nielsen [8] and Hoang [9].

As already mentioned a typical shear failure in concrete beams without stirrups is

characterized by the formation of a critical diagonal crack and subsequently sliding failure in parts of this crack. The phenomenon of crack sliding has been observed by Muttoni [3] who measured the relative displacements along the critical

diagonal crack at different loading levels, see figure 3.1. When the crack is

formed, the relative displacement is mainly perpendicular to the crack. At the load

level corresponding to failure there is a displacement component parallel to the

crack. In other words, the critical diagonal crack is transformed into a yield line.

Such a yield line has less sliding resistance than the yield line formed in uncracked concrete.

Figure 3.1 Relative displacements along a diagonal crack at different load levels, Muttoni [3].

The distinction between yield lines formed in uncracked concrete and yield lines

formed in cracked concrete may be illustrated by figure 3.2 which schematically

shows two different ways of analyzing the shear failure of an overreinforced beam

without stirrups. Case a) shows a straight yield line formed in uncracked concrete

as assumed in the classical plastic approach. This is characterized by the fact that

the relative displacement between the two parts on both sides of the yield line is

described by only one displacement parameter u. In this case there is no displacement discontinuity prior to failure. Case b) illustrates a straight diagonal crack

transformed into a yield line. Here the displacement is described by two paths,

namely w followed by u, where w represents the opening (formation) of the crack

prior to failure and u represents the shear failure along the crack, i.e. transformation of the crack into a yield line. It is evident that the assumptions in case b) is in

closer agreement with experimental observations, figure 3.1, than that of case a).

Note that the mechanism of figure 3.2 b) is still a simple approximation. As indicated in figures 2.2 and 3.1, diagonal cracks are not straight but curved. In addition, only a part of the diagonal crack is transformed into a sliding yield line.

These details will be taken into account in chapter 4 and 5.

Figure 3.2 Yield line formed in uncracked concrete a). Crack transformed into yield line b).

To account for crack sliding, two Modified Coulomb failure criteria are used; see

figure 3.3. For uncracked concrete, the failure criterion corresponds to the dotted

lines with cohesion c and angle of friction . In planes where cracks are developed, the failure criterion is assumed to shrink such that the tensile strength disappears and the cohesion reduces to c while the angle of friction remains unchanged.

For uncracked concrete the angle of friction and the cohesion are taken to be =

37o and c = 0.250fc. Here fc is the uniaxial compressive strength and 0 is an effectiveness factor taking into account softening and micro-cracking, see formula

(3). For cracked concrete the cohesion is assumed to reduce to c = sc where s is

called the crack sliding reduction factor, which may be taken to be s = 0.5. This

value has been confirmed by Zhang [6] using a micro mechanical model.

Figure 3.3 Failure criteria for uncracked concrete and for cracked concrete.

Having defined the failure criterion along planes of cracks, it is now possible to

calculate the dissipated energy (internal work) in a crack suffering sliding failure.

The dissipation per unit length of the crack reads; see for instance [8].

1

Wl = s 0 fc (1 sin ) bu

2

(2)

Here is the angle between the yield line and the displacement u and b is the

width of the beam. The constraints on are due to the fact that crack sliding must

be treated as a plane strain problem, [5]. The effectiveness factor 0 may be taken

from (3) in which the compressive strength fc is inserted in MPa and the depth h in

meters. The parameter = As/bh is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio. The factor

depends on the loading configuration. For beams subjected to concentrated

loading = 1.0 whereas = for beams subjected to uniform loading [5].

0 =

0.88

1

1 +

(1 + 26 ) ;

fc

h

0 1

(3)

For a straight diagonal crack transformed into a yield line, the total dissipated energy WI can be calculated by use of (2). Using the notations from figure 3.2(b) and

assuming the displacement u to be vertically directed, we find:

2

1

x

x

WI = s 0 f c bh 1 + u

2

h h

(4)

Inserting (4) into the work equation, the external work being Pu u and s = 0.5, we

find the following expression for the shear capacity as a function of x.

2

1

x

x

Pu = 0 f c bh 1 +

4

h h

(5)

yield line/critical diagonal crack. According to the Crack Sliding Model, this

problem is solved by requiring that the load needed to develop the diagonal crack

must be equal to the load needed to cause sliding failure in the crack.

Using a plasticity approach, a crack may develop when the effective tensile

strength of concrete, ftef, is reached along the crack path, figure 3.4. Hence, the

load required to form a crack may either be determined by considering a cracking mechanism as shown in figure 3.4 or simply by considering moment equilibrium around the crack tip. A more refined model would require a fracture mechanics approach. After formation of the crack, the longitudinal reinforcement will be

activated and prevent the cracking mechanism to further develop into a flexural

failure. If the crack is critical, a shear failure will follow immediately. If not, the

load may be further increased and another crack with smaller inclination (larger x)

is to be considered. Using the notations from figure 3.4, the cracking load Pcr may

be expressed as follows:

b x2 + h2

1

Pcr = ftef

2

a

(6)

The effective tensile strength includes a size effect factor and may be taken to be,

[5]:

ftef = 0.156 f c2 / 3

0.1

0.30

(7)

By means of (5) and (6) we may now qualitatively illustrate the variation of the

forces Pcr and Pu (corresponding to the cracking load and the crack sliding capacity, respectively) as a function of x/h, see figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5 Cracking load and crack sliding capacity versus x/h.

Using figure 3.5 the shear failure mechanism in a beam without stirrups may now

be explained as follows: When the applied load P increases, cracks with increasing horizontal projection x are developed. However, as long as the load is less

than PA, sliding failure in the cracks developed will not occur since sliding requires a higher load level. Only at the load level PA corresponding to the intersection point between the two curves, sliding failure may take place in the crack just

developed. Thus the shear capacity of the beam has been reached.

critical diagonal crack is determined and consequently the load carrying capacity

may be calculated as well. If x is found to be larger than a, then x = a must be inserted into (5) when calculating the shear capacity. Further, crack sliding is only

possible for x/h tan = 0.75. This is due to the constraint, imposed by the normality condition of the theory of plasticity, on the angle between the relative displacement and the yield line when plane strain problems are treated.

Using the procedure outlined, Zhang has compared the calculated shear strength

with a large number of test results, [5]. The agreement was found to be good. On

the average, the model underestimates the shear strength by approximately 10%.

The results obtained in chapter 4 and 5 by considering curved yield lines suggest

that parts of the deviation found by Zhang are most probably due to the assumption of straight diagonal cracks.

As mentioned in chapter 3 only straight diagonal cracks are considered in the

Crack Sliding Model. This is an approximation which adds to the simplicity of the

model and makes it suitable for practical use. However, as explained previously

the shear failure mechanism is more complex. The critical crack is curved and the

actual failure does not take place entirely as crack sliding, but rather as sliding in a

yield line consisting partly of a portion of the last formed diagonal crack and

partly of a portion formed at the onset of failure. The last portion may be interpreted as a yield line formed in uncracked concrete.

In view of these facts, it appears interesting to investigate whether the concept of

crack sliding may still be applicable if some of the complexity of the shear failure

mode is included in the analysis of the ultimate load. More generally, it is also

interesting to outline how the Crack Sliding Model can be extended to include

arbitrary curved yield lines. For both purposes, there is a need of developing a

dissipation formula for arbitrary curved yield lines.

4.1

Consider a shear failure mechanism as shown in figure 4.1 where part I moves

away from part II by the downwards displacement u. A curved yield line separates

the two rigid parts. For the time being, the yield line may be formed in uncracked

concrete or it may be the result of a diagonal crack suffering sliding failure. For

both cases, similar dissipation formulas are obtained. The only difference will be

the effective compressive strength which takes the form f c* = s 0 fc in case of

crack sliding and f c* = 0 fc in case of sliding failure through uncracked concrete.

Assume that the curved yield line is described by the function y = f(x) with f(x) >

0. The dissipation in a unit length ds of the yield line may be expressed as, see

also formula (2):

dWI =

1 *

f c bu (1 sin )ds

2

(8)

In case we are dealing with crack sliding, the constraints on as given in (2) also

apply to (8). If the yield line is formed in uncracked concrete, the dissipation may

be calculated by assuming plane stress condition and can therefore take any

possible value. From geometrical considerations, the following relations are obtained:

1

1 + ( f ' ( x))2

(9)

ds = 1 + ( f ' ( x)) 2 dx

(10)

sin =

By inserting (9) and (10) into (8) and integrating over the whole length of the

yield line, we obtain the following simple expression for the dissipation in a

curved yield line:

WI =

1 * x0

f c bu 1 + ( f ' ( x))2 dx xo

0

(11)

As can be seen from formula (11), the first part in the bracket is the total length of

the yield line while the second part in the bracket simply is the horizontal projection xo of the curve. Formula (11) can therefore be rewritten as:

1 *

f c bu (l xo )

2

WI =

(12)

l=

x0

1 + ( f ' ( x)) 2 dx

(13)

According to (12) we find that for any fixed value of horizontal projection xo a

straight yield line always renders minimum dissipation. Thus, a straight yield line

is, as expected, also the correct result when dealing with sliding failure through

uncracked concrete. For crack sliding problems, however, the form of the crack

can not be determined by minimizing (12). Calculation of the cracking path must

be based on fracture mechanical crack growth analysis. This is, however, not the

scope of this paper. In the following, we will carry out analyses based on predefined crack shapes and based on crack patterns observed in tests.

4.2

Having established (12) it is now possible to extend the crack sliding model to

deal with arbitrary curved diagonal cracks.

By inserting (12) into the work equation, the external work being Puu, we find the

following expression for the shear capacity as a function of xo:

Pu =

1 *

f c b(l xo )

2

(14)

The cracking load and the shape of the curved diagonal crack should, as mentioned above, ideally be determined using fracture mechanical crack growth

analyses. However, in a much more simplified approach the shape of the diagonal

cracks may be assumed (predefined) and the cracking load can be calculated as

outlined in chapter 3, i.e. by assuming the normal stresses along the crack path to

be constant and equal to ftef. This approach implies, as indicated in figure 4.2, that

the cracking load only depends on the horizontal projection of the crack but not on

the shape of the crack. Thus, the cracking load may be calculated using formula

(6).

11

To illustrate the concept, we will in the following carry out calculations based on

diagonal cracks having parabolic shape, i.e. y = f ( x) = Ax 2 + Bx + C (see figure

4.3). To determine the constants A, B and C, we have the following geometrical

conditions.

f (0) = 0

f ( xo ) = h

(15)

The first two conditions are obvious. The third condition ensures that

0 f ( x) h and = 37o. The situation for which f(0) = 4/3 and at the same

time f(xo) = 0 is found for xo = 3/2h. When xo < 3/2h, we always have f(0) = 4/3

whereas f(xo) = 0 is a sufficient replacement of the third condition in (15) when xo

> 3/2h. For xo = 3/4h, A = C = 0 resulting in a straight diagonal crack.

Having determined f(x) as described, formulas (13) and (14) are then used to calculate the crack sliding capacity as a function of xo. The results appear as shown

in (16) and (17) with f c* = s 0 fc . As mentioned, the cracking load only depends

on the horizontal projection and can therefore be calculated using (6).

2

2

2h 4 5

1

1 1 + 2h 4 +

1+

2

x0 3 3h

x0 3 3

x0

1 *

; 3 xo 3

Pu = f c bxo

4 h 2

2

2h 4 + 1 + 2h 4

x0 3

1

x0 3

+ 1

ln

1

4 h 4

x0 3

(16)

1

1

h

1 1 + 4

2 2

x0

Pu = f c*bxo

2

1x

1

0 ln

2

4 h h

h

2 + 1 + 4

x0

x0

(17)

3 xo

; 2 h

1

Formulas (6), (16) and (17) have been used to calculate the shear strength of two

beams tested by Leonhardt and Walther [1], namely beam No. 6 and No. D4/1.

Data for these test specimens can be found in appendix B. Based on the test data,

the cracking load curve and the crack sliding capacity curve have been calculated,

see figure 4.4. In the figure, the sliding capacity curve for straight diagonal cracks

is also shown.

The intersection points provide the results shown in table 4.1.

Beam No.

6

D4/1

xo/h

2.3

2.03

Pu [kN]

60

73.5

xo/h

2. 6

2. 2

Pu [kN]

70

85.5

Test results

Ptest [kN]

62

75.5

Tabel 4.1 Results based on different yield lines for beam No.6 and beam No. D4/1.

13

For these two particular tests, calculations based on straight diagonal cracks can

be seen to be in closer agreement with experiments. However, as mentioned in the

preceding, approximately 10% underestimation of the capacity was found for a

large number of tests with a/h > 2 when straight diagonal cracks are considered,

[5]. It is therefore expected that on the average closer agreement with tests can be

obtained when using curved diagonal cracks.

Figure 4.5 shows the calculated positions of the cracks. It can be seen that the

assumed parabolic shape to some extent captures the actual cracking path better

than the assumption of straight crack.

200

P (kN)

Pu(straight yield line)

Pu(parabolic yield line)

150

Pcr

100

50

x (mm)

0

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

200

P(kN)

150

Pu(straight yield line)

Pu(parabolic yield line)

100

Pcr

50

x (mm)

0

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

Figure 4.4 Calculation of shear capacity assuming different shape of yield lines

Figure 4.5 Actual yield lines and calculated yield lines with predefined shape.

15

The formulas developed for curved yield lines will in the following be used to

investigate the applicability of the crack sliding concept when observed shear

failure modes are used in the analysis of the ultimate load.

Data used in the following stems from the well-known test series by Leonhardt

and Walther [1]. As explained in the previous chapters, we consider the shear

failure as the result of sliding in a yield line partly formed along a crack and partly

formed in uncracked concrete. This is indicated in figure 5.1, where the part

formed in uncracked concrete is shown with the length l1 and horizontal projection xo1. The part of the diagonal crack suffering sliding failure is shown with the

length l2 and horizontal projection xo2. The point where the yield line deviates

from the path of the diagonal crack marks the transition between crack sliding

failure and failure through uncracked concrete. This transition point is usually

easy to localize from photographs of test specimens. In cases where the transition

point does not appear clearly, the point at which the diagonal crack forms the angle = with the vertical displacement vector u will be used as the transition

point. The reason for this is, that = marks the point where crack sliding according to (2) is possible.

Figure 5.1 Failure mode with combination of crack sliding and yield line through uncracked

concrete.

To reflect the failure mode described above and shown in figure 5.1, formula (14)

must be rewritten as follows:

1

Pu = 0 f c b [ (l1 xo1 ) + s (l2 xo 2 )]

2

(18)

For beams subjected to uniform loading, a formula similar to (18) can be obtained

by use of the work equation. In this case, the internal work is taken as the right

hand side of (18) and the external work is q(a-ao). Using the notation from figure

5.2, the result reads:

1

a

Pu = qa = 0 f c b [ (l1 xo1 ) + s (l2 xo 2 )]

2

a ao

(19)

The tests by Leonhardt and Walther [1] include a number of beams without stirrups. These tests are in the following grouped in three series, 1, 2 and 3. The main

test data and calculation data are summarized in appendix B.

The first series consists of 10 beams subjected to four point bending. The shear

span to depth ratio a/h was the main varying parameter. In this series, 8 beams

failed in shear. Figure 5.3 shows photographs of the test specimens. Based on the

photographs, the geometries of the yield lines have been extracted and shown in a

drawing of each beam4. From the drawings, l1, l2, xo1 and xo2 are measured (see

appendix B) and inserted into formula (18) in order to calculate the shear capacity.

Figure 5.4 shows the comparison of calculated values and test results. The agreement is remarkably good. It should be mentioned that for beams No. 1 and No. 2,

the calculations have not been based on formula (18). The reason is that this formula and the associated failure mechanism only applies to beams with a/h larger

than approximately 2. For beam No. 1, the geometry of the beam and of the loading plates make it impossible for crack sliding to take place ( < ). In this case,

the calculation must be based on yield line through uncracked concrete. The fail4

Note that the loading and support plates shown in the drawings have the correct dimensions.

According to [1] the width of the loading plates was 130 mm.

17

ure mechanism of beam No. 2 is completely different from that considered in figure 5.1.

If for beam No. 2 a failure mechanism consisting of a straight yield line in uncracked concrete from support to load is calculated, almost exact agreement is

found. However, this failure mechanism has not developed, as seen in figure 5.3.

If the observed mechanism is calculated the lower bound solution deviates rather

much from the upper bound solution. However, the average gives a very accurate

value. It may happen that the observed mechanism is the result of some complicated fracture dynamics at the onset of a sudden failure, a phenomenon which can

not yet be treated theoretically in an accurate way. Detailed calculations for beams

No. 1 and 2 are given in appendix A.

The second series consists of 8 beams with varying length and subjected to uniform loading. Seven beams failed in shear. Two of the seven beams have been

omitted because of difficulties in determining the yield lines (photographs show

large areas with damages making it difficult to identify the yield lines). Yield lines

observed and used in calculations are shown in figure 5.5. Comparison of calculations with tests appears in figure 5.6. The agreement is seen to be good, especially

for a/h larger than 4.

The third series from [1] consists of beams, all having shear span to effective

depth ratio equals to 3. The depth varies from 80 mm to 670 mm. Photographs of

8 specimens are provided in [1]. These and drawings of yield lines used in calculations are shown in figure 5.7. Comparison of calculations with tests can be seen

in figure 5.8. The agreement is good.

Summary of the calculations for all three series are shown in figure 5.9. The

agreement with tests is seen to be very good.

The results obtained strongly indicate that the crack sliding concept is capable of

capturing the essential phenomena in the shear failure mechanism of reinforced

concrete beams without stirrups.

Figure 5.3 Series 1, test specimens and drawings with yield lines. Tests by Leonhardt & Walther

[1].

19

21

500

Pu(kN)

cal

test

400

300

200

100

a/h

0

0

Pu (kN)

400

cal

test

300

200

100

0

1

4

5

Specimen No.

7-1

8-1

23

Figure 5.5 Series 2, test specimens and drawings with yield lines. Tests by Leonhardt & Walther

[1]

400

Pu(kN)

cal

test

300

200

100

0

11-1

12-1

13-1

14-1

Specimen No.

Figure 5.6 Results for beams subjected to uniform loading, serie 2.

15-1

25

Figure 5.7 Series 3, test specimens and drawings with yield lines. Tests by Leonhardt & Walther

[1].

27

29

180

100

Pu(kN)

Pu(kN)

80

cal

test

120

60

cal

40

test

60

20

0

D1-1

D2-2

D3-2

C1

D4-1

C2

C3

C4

450

Vtest (kN)

400

350

300

250

200

series 1

150

series 2

100

series 3

50

Vcal.(kN)

0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Figure 5.9 Comparison of tests and calculations for all test series.

350

400

450

31

6. Conclusions

In the classical plasticity approach, failure mechanisms are determined solely by

energy minimization. The Crack Sliding Model on the other hand determines the

critical yield line by evaluating both the sliding strength and the cracking load of

the considered crack pattern. Since cracking is a fracture mechanical phenomenon, it is not possible within the framework of plastic theory accurately to calculate the form of the crack suffering sliding failure. In the original formulation of

the Crack Sliding Model, diagonal cracks are predefined to be straight.

The objective of this paper has been to investigate the applicability of the crack

sliding model when arbitrary curved diagonal cracks are taken into account. For

this purpose, a general dissipation formula for arbitrary yield lines has been developed.

By means of this formula, a simple extension of the Crack Sliding Model involving cracks of parabolic shape has been carried out. Results of two simple calculations suggest that good agreement with tests can be obtained.

Further, it has been shown that the developed formula in a very simple way may

be used to take into account the actual shear failure mechanism when analyzing

the ultimate strength. Remarkably good agreement with test results has been

found.

The results obtained first of all demonstrate that there is a sound physical basis

behind the simple straight yield line calculations used in the crack sliding theory.

The results obtained further may be used as a basis for future research as well as

immediate implementation in practice. In future research, it is obvious that the

concept of crack sliding in arbitrary curved cracks should be combined with a

fracture mechanical approach to evaluate the crack formation. With regards to

practical implementation, the results found in chapter 5 evidently may be used to

evaluate the vulnerability towards sliding failure in observed cracks in existing

concrete structures. This is a task often met when dealing with strength assessment of existing concrete bridges.

References

[1]

Stahlbetonbalken mit und ohne Schubbewehrung. Deutscher Ausschuss

fr Stahlbeton, Heft 151, 1962.

[2]

plasticity---Beam shear-Shear in joints-Punching shear. Special Publication. Danish Society for Structural Science and Engineering, Structural

Research Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, 1978.

[3]

Bemessung von Stahlbeton. Institut fr Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH

Zurich, Bericht Nr.176, Juni 1990.

[4]

without Shear Reinforcement. IABSE Colloquium, Vol. 62, pp. 703-708,

Stuttgart, Germany, 1991.

[5]

conventional concrete beams, deep beams, corbels, and prestressed reinforced concrete beams without shear reinforcement. Technical University of Denmark, Department of Structural Engineering, Report R 311,

Lyngby, 1994.

[6]

modeling of shear failure in cement paste and in concrete. Technical

University of Denmark, Department of Structural Engineering, Report R

17, Lyngby, 1997.

[7]

Zhang, J. P.: Diagonal cracking and shear strength of reinforced concrete beams. Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 49, No.178, 1997, pp.

55-65.

[8]

CRC Press, 1998.

[9]

Hoang, L. C.: Extension and application of the crack sliding model. Proceedings of the Danish Society for Structural Science and Engineering,

Vol. 72, No.4, 2001, pp. 71-118.

[10]

transverse reinforcement as function of critical shear crack width, ACI

Structural Journal, Vol. 105, No. 2, pp. 163-172, 2008.

Notations

a

ao

As

c'

fc

fc*

ftef

fy

Depth of beam

l1

l2

Lo

External load

Pcr

Cracking load

Distance between the end of the yield line and the support in uniformly

loaded beams

33

Pu

Pucal

Putest

Reaction at support

WE

WI

xo

xo1

xo2

Rotation angle

Reinforcement ratio(=As/bh)

Normal stress

Concrete stress

Shear stress

35

For the short beams No. 1 and No. 2 in the Leonhardt-Walther test series [1], the

failure mechanism assumed in figure 5.1 of the paper does not apply. This appendix contains calculations specifically for these two beams.

For beam No. 1 the shear span to depth ratio is: 0.27/0.32 = 0.84. When the

widths of the loading plate (130 mm) and the support plate (100 mm) are taken

into account and when the plates are assumed to be rigid, the largest possible

horizontal projection of the yield line becomes 155 mm. This means that the angle

= Arctan (155/270) = 30o. This is smaller than 37o meaning that the assumption

of crack sliding can not be used. Instead, the calculation must be based on the

classical plasticity approach. For this purpose, formula (18) can still be used if l2

and xo2 are put to zero. From figure A-1 the following length are measured: l1 =

365 mm and xo1 = 162 mm. Note that xo1 is a bit larger than the theoretical values

(155mm). The reason is that the loading and support plates are not perfectly rigid.

The effectiveness factor for this specimen is 0 = 0.65 (see also appendix B). Inserting into (18), we find:

1

Pu = 0 f c b [ (l1 xo1 ) + s (l2 xo 2 )]

2

1

= 0.65 29.47 MPa 190 mm [ (365mm 162mm ]

2

= 369 kN

Figure A-1 Failure mode of beam No. 1, photo and drawing of yield line.

(A.1)

37

Upper bound Analysis:

From the photograph of the failure mechanism of beam No. 2, it appears that it is

completely different from that considered in figure 5.1. For the crack patterns

shown on the drawing in figure 5.3, a failure mechanism involving a simple vertical displacement is not possible. The beam must therefore be analyzed using another failure mechanism.

What we notice from the photograph of the test specimen is that the compression

zone between the applied loads is crushed. A mechanism allowing for crushing of

this zone and shear failure in the diagonal cracks can be seen in figure A-2.

This mechanism consists of a rotation of part I about the point of intersection

between the diagonal crack and the longitudinal reinforcement. The rotation

causes the compression zone between the loads to crush. Dissipation in the

crushed zone may be calculated by considering a vertical yield line undergoing a

linear displacement field with constant = -90o. Since the reinforcement is not

yielding (due to the position of the point of rotation) the mechanism also involves

a downward punching of part II. The resulting displacement field in the diagonal crack and in the horizontal yield line is composed of the vertical displacement

of part II and the rotation of part I. This means that the displacement vector varies

along the yield lines. This is illustrated in figure A-3.

The diagonal crack (or parts of it) is assumed to have been developed prior to

failure whereas the rest of the yield lines are assumed to develop at the onset of

failure. This means that for the horizontal yield line, failure through uncracked

concrete is assumed. Dissipations for the three different yield lines are derived in

the following.

Figure A-2 Assumed failure mechanism for beam No. 2 based on photograph of specimen.

Figure A-4 Sliding failure along the diagonal crack, (left) the part above rotation point, (right) the

part below rotation point.

As shown in figure A-4 (left), there are two components of displacement for any

point along the diagonal crack; namely v1 stemming from the rotation of part I and

u1 from the vertical displacement of part II. The relative displacement u between

the two parts along the crack is the vector sum of v1 and u1. For a point at the

distance x from the point of rotation, we have:

(A.2)

39

u sin = u1 cos v1

; u1 = ( y1 + y2 ) ; v1 = x

(A.3)

dW =

1 *

f c bu (1 sin )dx

2

(A.4)

Inserting (A.2) and (A.3) into (A.4) and integrating along the yield line from the

point of rotation to the end point A, we find:

1 R

W1 = b f c*u (1 sin )dx

2 0

2

2

R *

1 0 f c [ x ( y1 + y2 ) cos ] + [ ( y1 + y2 ) sin ] dx

= b R

2 f * ( y + y ) cos x dx

[

]

c

1

2

0

(A.5)

Note that in (A.5) the effective compressive strength may vary along the yield line

depending on whether is smaller or larger than . Using figures A-2 and A-4

(left) and values in table A-1, it can be shown that = = 37 o at a distance x1

3

from the point of rotation. This distance is: x1 = ( y1 + y2 )( y2 z1 ) / R . Thus, for

4

o

o

0 x x1 we have 37 while < 37 for x1 < x R . Therefore, in (A.5)

f c* = s 0 f c must be inserted for 0 x x1 and f c* = 0 f c applies when x1 < x R .

For the part of the yield line below the rotation point, see figure A-4 (right), we

have:

u = x 2 + 2( y1 + y2 ) x cos + ( y1 + y2 ) 2

u sin = u1 cos + v2

(A.6)

v2 = x

Similar to (A.5) we find the dissipation for the part of the crack below the point of

rotation to be:

r x + ( y + y ) cos 2 + ( y + y )sin 2 dx

] [ 1 2

]

1

2

0 [

1

*

W2 = b f c

2

2

( y + y ) cos r + r

(A.7)

For the horizontal part of the yield line AB in figure A-5, we find the following

geometrical conditions:

v3 =

cos

(A.8)

W3 =

=

1 * y1 + y2

fc b

(1 sin )udx

y2

2

1 *

f c b

2

y1 + y2

y2

[ x ( y1 + y2 )]

+ z12 dx

y1 + y2

y2

( y1 + y2 x)dx

(A.9)

As this part of the yield line is assumed to develop at the onset of failure,

f c* = 0 f c may be used.

41

For the vertical yield line representing concrete crushing, see figure A-6, we have

constant = -90 degrees. The dissipation is:

W4 =

z1 + z3

1

1 sin(90o ) x dx

vb f c b

z

1

2

( z + z ) 2 z12

z32 + 2 z3 z1

= b f cb 3 1

=

f

b

b c

2

2

(A.10)

For concrete crushing in zones with constant moment, the effectiveness factor

may be taken as the one valid for bending, [8]:

b = 0.97

fy

5000

fc

300

(A.11)

The total dissipation (for half of the beam) is the sum of (A.5), (A.7), (A.9) and

(A.10):

WI = W1 + W2 + W3 + W4 =

] [ 1 2

]

]

1

2

0 [ 1 2

0 s 0 [

R

R

2

2

+

[ x ( y1 + y2 ) cos ] + [ ( y1 + y2 ) sin ] dx x1 [ ( y1 + y2 ) cos x ] dx

1

0 x1

f cb

r

r2

2

2

2

+ 0 s [ x + ( y1 + y2 ) cos ] + [ ( y1 + y2 ) sin ] dx ( y1 + y2 ) cos r +

0

2

y1 + y2

y

+

y

z + 2 z3 z1

2

1

2

x ( y1 + y2 )] + z12 dx

( y1 + y2 x)dx + b 3

+ 0 y

[

y2

2

2

(A.12)

The external work for half of the beam is:

WE = P (a1 + a2 )

(A.13)

By setting up the work equation WE = WI , an upper bound is found for the shear

capacity of the beam. The geometrical parameters to be used in (A.12) and (A.13)

are measured from photograph and drawing of the test specimen. These are listed

in table A-1. In the table, strength parameters are also shown (see also appendix

B).

By inserting the parameters into (A.12) and (A.13) and by performing numerical

integration, we obtain the following upper bound for the shear capacity:

Pu = 369 KN

a1

cm

25.32

x1

cm

16.38

(A.14)

a2

cm

14.87

y2

cm

26.81

b

cm

19

h

cm

32

y3

cm

7.64

fc

MPa

29.47

R

cm

32.89

r

cm

9.37

y1

cm

16.21

cos

sin

0.649

0.5

0.8

0.82

0.58

z3

cm

7.49

z1

cm

19.05

z2

cm

5.43

43

Beam No. 2 has also been analyzed using a lower bound approach. Figure A-7

shows an admissible stress field with diagonal struts avoiding the observed crack

pattern. The geometrical parameters for this stress field are shown in the figure,

where the width of the bearing stress block is Lo = 41 mm. The triangular parts are

in plane hydrostatic stress conditions.

Since the diagonal struts are not crossing any cracks, a compressive stress corresponding to c = 0fc may be transferred throughout the system. A lower bound

for Pu can therefore be calculated as below:

Pu = 0 f c Lo b

= 0.65 29.5MPa 41mm 190mm

(A.15)

= 149 kN

From the upper and lower bound analyses, an estimate of the shear capacity of the

beam can be obtained by taking the average value of the two results. Thus:

Pu =

1

(149 + 369 ) kN = 259 kN

2

(A.16)

45

Resum

af forskydningsstyrken af betonbjlker er der behov for at bestemme den plastiske dissipation i brudlinierne. De hidtil udviklede beregningsformler er hovedsageligt baseret p antagelsen om rette brudlinjer. Det fremgr dog af utallige forsg, at bruddet sker i krumme forskydningsrevner. Denne artikel prsenterer en

procedure til beregning af dissipationen i vilkrlige krumme brudlinier. Resultatet

viser sig at vre en simpel formel velegnet til praktisk anvendelse. I artiklen anvendes den udviklede formel til forskydningsberegning iht. revneglidingsteorien.

Frst foretages beregninger, hvor det antages at den krumme forskydningsrevne

har parabolske form. Dernst foretages beregninger baseret p brudlinieforlb

observeret ved forsg. Der opns gode overensstemmelser mellem beregnede og

eksperimentelle styrker.

Summary

When the upper bound plasticity approach is used to calculate the shear strength

of concrete beams, there is a need of determining the energy dissipated in the

yield lines. Plastic design formulas developed until now are mostly based on the

assumption of straight yield lines. However, many experimental results have

shown that shear cracks in beams are curved. This paper presents a procedure to

calculate the dissipation in arbitrary curved yield lines. The result turns out to be a

simple formula suitable for practical use. The derived formula is used to carry out

shear strength analyses within the framework of the plasticity based Crack Sliding

Model. First, an analysis based on the assumption of shear failure in cracks with

predefined parabolic shape is carried out. There next, the formula is used to carry

out calculations based on crack patterns observed in tests. Very good agreements

with test results are obtained.

Diskussion ben indtil juli 2009

47

Anmodning om optagelse i selskabet indsendes til et af bestyrelsens medlemmer:

Flemming Petersen (formand), Tlf. 45 97 20 48

COWI, Parallelvej 2, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby

Erik Stoltzner (sekretr), Tlf. 33 41 34 36

Vejdirektoratet, Postboks 9018, Niels Juels Gade 13, 1022 Kbenhavn K

Mogens G. Nielsen (kasserer), Tlf. 45 98 60 00

Rambll, Bredevej 2, 2830 Virum

Mads Nicolai Jensen, Tlf. 45 95 55 18

Birch & Krogboe, Teknikerbyen 34, 2830 Virum

Holger Koss, Tlf. 72 15 77 00

FORCE, Hjortekrvej 99, Bygning 118, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby

Henrik Mrup, Tlf. 48 10 42 00

NIRAS, Sortmosevej 2, 3450 Allerd

Lars Hauge, Tlf. 45 97 28 81

COWI, Parallelvej 2, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby.

Jeppe Jnsson, Tlf. 45 25 17 07

BYGDTU, Brovej. Bygning 118, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby

Selskabets forml er at arbejde for den videnskabelige udvikling af bygningsmekanikken - bde teori for og konstruktion af alle slags brende konstruktioner fremme interessen for faget, virke for et kollegialt forhold mellem dets udvere og

hvde dets betydning overfor og i samarbejde med andre grene af ingenirvidenskaben. Formlet sges bl.a. realiseret gennem mder med foredrag og diskussioner samt gennem udgivelse af Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser.

Som medlemmer kan optages personlige medlemmer, firmaer og institutioner, som

er srligt interesserede i bygningsmekanik, eller hvis virksomhed falder indenfor

bygnings-mekanikkens omrde.

Det rlige kontingent er for personlige medlemmer 300 kr., for firmaer samt institutioner 1.800 kr. Studerende ved Danmarks Tekniske Universitet og andre danske

ingenirskoler samt indtil 2-rs kandidater kan optages som juniormedlemmer

uden stemmeret for et rskontingent p 80 kr. Pensionerede medlemmer med

mindst 10 rs medlemsanciennitet kan opn status som pensionistmedlem med

stemmeret for et rskontingent p 100 kr.

Selskabets medlemmer modtager frit Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser, der udsendes kvartalsvis. Endvidere publiceres Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser p Selskabets hjemmeside www.dsby.dk. Manuskripter til optagelse i Bygningsstatiske

Meddelelser modtages af redaktren.