DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR LARGE AND LIGHTLY RC BEAMS

O. IRUAN SI, M. GUADA GNI NI AND K . PI LAK OUTA S

Centre for Cement and Concrete, The University of Sheffield, Sir Frederick Mappin Building, Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, UK

IN TRODUCT ION Code provisions for shear design of large and lightly Reinforced Concrete (RC) beams have been calibrated on limited test results [1]. In addition, most of the available laboratory shear test specimens have relatively small depth and are usually over-reinforced in flexure to ensure shear failure [2]. By contrast, most RC beams found in practice are large and lightly reinforced in flexure to ensure the ductile flexural failure mode. Tests conducted over the past sixty years which were available to code committees when developing and validating their empirical design expressions , however, included only a limited selection of large and lightly reinforced beam specimens [2]. Experimental evidence however, clearly suggest that the shear capacity of RC members without stirrups is a function of their depth, a phenomenon known as size effect [3]. Therefore the crucial questions are: can the empirical formulae recommended by these code committees be safely extrapolated to predict the shear capacity of large and lightly reinforced concrete members? Does the size effect term of existing design provisions require any modification in light of some recently conducted tests on large and lightly reinforced concrete beams? The purpose of this paper is to investigate the answers to these questions by evaluating the provisions of four major national codes including the EN1992:2004, BS8110:1997, ACI318:2008, CSA A23.4:2004, focusing on their ability to account for the size effect. Special attention will be devoted to the recently implemented EN1992:2004. EVALUA T ION OF COD E PROV I SIO NS A comprehensive database having a total of 127 large beams (effective depth > 400mm) with longitudinal reinforcement less than 1.5% was utilised to evaluate the performance (Vtest/Vpred) of the code provisions (Fig 1) with emphasis on their ability to take size effect into account. Fig 1 shows that the empirical models included in ACI318:2008, BS8110:1997 and EN1992:2004 fail to adequately capture the influence of size effect on the shear capacity of these members. The CSA A23.4:2004 equation, which is based on the modified compression field theory, was found to reasonably account for the size effect with an acceptable level of safety across the range of specimens examined.
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

ACI11-3
2.0 2.0

CSA A23.4
2.0

BS8110
2.0

EN1992

1.5

rhol<1% 1%<rhol<1.5% /v

1.5
pred

1.5

1.5
pred

pred

/v

pred utest

/v

EMPIRICA L MOD EL LIN G OF S IZ E E FFE CT From the analysis shown above there is a need to reconsider the size effect law implemented in EN1992:2004. Four different forms of size effect expressions were considered, for the purpose of this study and applied to EN1992:2004 (see Table 1). The coefficients in this expressions were recalculated for large and lightly reinforced elements by minimising the summed square of the

/v v

utest

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

utest

utest

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.0 500 1000 1500 2000

0.0 500 1000 1500 2000

0.0 500 1000 1500 2000

0.0 500 1000 1500 2000

d (mm)

d (mm)

d (mm)

d (mm)

Figure 1: Performance of code provisions plotted against effective depth(d0

residual errors of the normalised shear stress (i.e. ) using the LevenbergMarquardt optimization scheme. The optimal values for the coefficients are shown in table 1.
Table 1: Optimal values of size effect coefficients for large and lightly reinforced memebers

Code
EN1992:2004 BS8110:1997 CSA23.4:2004 NLFM

Size Effect Term

A
0.06(0.18) 3.03 416 0.56

B
6410(167) -0.38 970 182

r2
0.67(0.43) 0.67 0.66 0.66

RMSE
0.039(0.050) 0.039 0.039 0.039

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

K1
2.0 2.0

k2
2.0

k3
2.0

k4

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

pred utest

pred

pred

pred

/v v

/v

/v

/v

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

utest

utest

utest

0.5

rhol<1% 1%<rhol<1.5%
500 1000 1500 2000

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.0

0.0 500 1000 1500 2000

0.0 500 1000 1500 2000

0.0 500 1000 1500 2000

d (mm)

d (mm)

d (mm)

d (mm)

Figure 2: Performance of EN1992:2004 using the optimized sizeeffect terms

DIS CU SS ION OF RE SU L T S It can be seen from Fig 2 that the size effect term in EN1992:2004 can be easily re-calibrated to take into account large and lightly reinforced concrete beams and provide a uniform level of safety. An attempt was also made to study the performance of these equations across the different sub categories of effective depth. The lack of sufficient data within specific depth range, however, made this impossible. From Table 1 it is found that, if the current value of the first constant in the size effect expression of EN1992:2004 is adopted (i.e. A=0.18) the value of the , second constant should be less than 200 (i.e. B=167). This was found to reduce further to B=56 when only beams of effective depth greater than 500mm are considered. Although the size effect expression proposed by the CSA A23.4:2004 showed an overall better performance, the four equations studied had similar variability. CONCLUDI NG REMARK S The following conclusions can be drawn from this study: y y The currently implemented EN1992:2004 design provision is un -conservative when applied to the shear design of large concrete beams without stirrups.

To provide an adequate level of safety, the current EN1992:2004 shear design provision requires modification. This study has shown that the size effect term of the EN1992:2004 can be easily re-calibrated to predict more accurately the shear capacity of large and lightly reinforced concrete beams. Majority of laboratory tests are carried out on small, over-reinforced elements made of normal strength concrete ( Pa). More tests on large and lightly reinforced elements are required as well as tests on high strength concrete elements. REFER ENCE S
1. 2. 3. Taylor, H.P.J., Shear Strength of Large Beams. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 1972. 98(ST11): p. 2473-2489. Collins, M.P., E.C. Bentz, and E.G. Sherwood, Where is Shear Reinforcement Required? A Review of Research Results and Design Procedures. ACI Structural Journal, 2008. 105(5). Bazant, Z.P. and J.K. Kim, Size effect in shear failure of longitudinally reinforced beams. ACI Journal, Proceedings, 1984. 81(5): p. 456-468.