Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
NATIONAL
NCHRP REPORT 549
COOPERATIVE
HIGHWAY
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
Simplified Shear Design of
Structural Concrete Members
OCR for page R2
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2005 (Membership as of October 2005)
OFFICERS
Chair: John R. Njord, Executive Director, Utah DOT
Vice Chair: Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board
MEMBERS
MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director, Texas DOT
ALLEN D. BIEHLER, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT
LARRY L. BROWN, SR., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT
DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Vice President, Customer Service, Norfolk Southern Corporation and Subsidiaries, Atlanta, GA
ANNE P. CANBY, President, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, DC
JOHN L. CRAIG, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads
DOUGLAS G. DUNCAN, President and CEO, FedEx Freight, Memphis, TN
NICHOLAS J. GARBER, Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
ANGELA GITTENS, Vice President, Airport Business Services, HNTB Corporation, Miami, FL
GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, Director, Metrans Transportation Center, and Professor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development,
USC, Los Angeles
BERNARD S. GROSECLOSE, JR., President and CEO, South Carolina State Ports Authority
SUSAN HANSON, Landry University Professor of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University
JAMES R. HERTWIG, President, CSX Intermodal, Jacksonville, FL
GLORIA JEAN JEFF, Director, Michigan DOT
ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
HERBERT S. LEVINSON, Principal, Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultant, New Haven, CT
SUE MCNEIL, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark
MICHAEL R. MORRIS, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments
CAROL A. MURRAY, Commissioner, New Hampshire DOT
MICHAEL S. TOWNES, President and CEO, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA
C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin
LINDA S. WATSON, Executive Director, LYNX--Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority
MARION C. BLAKEY, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA (ex officio)
GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, Chancellor, Polytechnic University, and Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering (ex officio)
J. RICHARD CAPKA, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
THOMAS H. COLLINS (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard (ex officio)
JENNIFER L. DORN, Federal Transit Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
JAMES J. EBERHARDT, Chief Scientist, Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy (ex officio)
JACQUELINE GLASSMAN, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads (ex officio)
JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ex officio)
JOHN E. JAMIAN, Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
EDWARD JOHNSON, Director, Applied Science Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (ex officio)
ASHOK G. KAVEESHWAR, Research and Innovative Technology Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
BRIGHAM MCCOWN, Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association (ex officio)
SUZANNE RUDZINSKI, Director, Transportation and Regional Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ex officio)
ANNETTE M. SANDBERG, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
JEFFREY N. SHANE, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
CARL A. STROCK (Maj. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ex officio)
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for NCHRP
JOHN R. NJORD, Utah DOT (Chair) MICHAEL D. MEYER, Georgia Institute of Technology
J. RICHARD CAPKA, Federal Highway Administration ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board
JOHN C. HORSLEY, American Association of State Highway MICHAEL S. TOWNES, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA
and Transportation Officials C. MICHAEL WALTON, University of Texas, Austin
OCR for page R3
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
NCHRP REPORT 549
Simplified Shear Design of
Structural Concrete Members
NEIL M. HAWKINS
DANIEL A. KUCHMA
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL
ROBERT F. MAST
M. LEE MARSH
Berger/ABAM Engineers, Inc.
Federal Way, WA
AND
KARL-HEINZ REINECK
University of Stuttgart
Stuttgart, Germany
S UBJECT A REAS
Bridges, Other Structures, and Hydraulics and Hydrology
Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
2005
www.TRB.org
OCR for page R4
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH NCHRP REPORT 549
PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Project 12-61
approach to the solution of many problems facing highway
administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local ISSN 0077-5614
interest and can best be studied by highway departments ISBN 0-309-08844-5
individually or in cooperation with their state universities and
Library of Congress Control Number 2005935299
others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation
develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to © 2005 Transportation Research Board
highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a
coordinated program of cooperative research. Price $20.00
In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research
program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is
supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating
member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation
and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States NOTICE
Department of Transportation.
The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies
Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the
was requested by the Association to administer the research
approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval
program because of the Board's recognized objectivity and reflects the Governing Board's judgment that the program concerned is of national
understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the
suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee National Research Council.
structure from which authorities on any highway transportation
The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review
subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and
this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due
cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and
universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the
Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee,
research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National
matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in Research Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
a position to use them. Officials, or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
The program is developed on the basis of research needs Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee
identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research
departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research
areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed Council.
to the National Research Council and the Board by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and
qualified research agencies are selected from those that have
submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research
contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council
and the Transportation Research Board. Published reports of the
The needs for highway research are many, and the National
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant
contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of are available from:
mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program,
however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or Transportation Research Board
duplicate other highway research programs. Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet at:
Note: The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the
National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the individual
http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore
states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do
not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear
herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R5
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol-
ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology
and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in
1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni-
cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration
and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for
advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs
aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve-
ments of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining
to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative,
to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the
Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate
the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad-
emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences
and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the
scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and
the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair,
respectively, of the National Research Council.
The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board's mission is to promote
innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisciplinary setting,
the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and
practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical
excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research
results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Board's varied activities annually engage more
than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and
private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is
supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of
the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the
development of transportation. www.TRB.org
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R6
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 549
ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Manager, NCHRP
DAVID B. BEAL, Senior Program Officer
EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications
HILARY FREER, Senior Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 12-61 PANEL
Field of Design--Area of Bridges
EDWARD P. WASSERMAN, Tennessee DOT (Chair)
MARCUS H. ANSLEY, Florida DOT
TIMOTHY BRADBERRY, Texas DOT
VIJAY CHANDRA, Parsons Brinckerhoff, New York, NY
SUSAN E. HIDA, California DOT
PETER C. MCCOWAN, New York State DOT
DENNIS R. MERTZ, University of Delaware, Newark, DE
LOREN RISCH, Kansas DOT
HALA ELGAALY, FHWA Liaison
STEPHEN F. MAHER, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Proj- of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The other Co-PIs and authors on
ect 12-61 by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineer- this report were Robert F. Mast, M. Lee Marsh, and Karl-Heinz
ing at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, with subcon- Reineck.
tracting services being provided by Berger/ABAM Engineers, Inc., The work was done under the general supervision of Neil M.
and Karl-Heinz Reineck from the University of Stuttgart. Hawkins. The work at the University of Illinois was done under the
The Principal Investigators on this project were Neil M. supervision of both Neil M. Hawkins and Daniel A. Kuchma, with
Hawkins (PI) and Daniel A. Kuchma (Co-PI) from the University the assistance of Kang Su Kim, Sang-Ho Kim, and Shaoyun Sun.
OCR for page R7
This report contains the findings of research performed to develop practical equa-
FOREWORD tions for design of shear reinforcement in reinforced and prestressed concrete bridge
By David B. Beal girders. Recommended specifications, commentary, and examples illustrating applica-
Staff Officer tion of the specifications were also developed. The material in this report will be of
Transportation Research immediate interest to bridge designers.
Board
Applying the LRFD shear provisions is difficult for designers. The sectional design
model is not intuitively related to physical behavior, and the strut-and-tie model
requires several trials to produce an efficient model and does not provide a unique solu-
tion. Mechanistic models that can be applied to shear design of conventional structures
and to estimate shear reinforcement requirements in more complex structural configu-
rations are needed. Such tools would permit designers to develop a more intuitive feel
for shear reinforcement needs and permit verification of solutions developed from auto-
mated design software.
The objective of this research was to supplement the LRFD methods for shear
design with procedures providing a direct solution for transverse and longitudinal rein-
forcement of concrete structures of common proportions. This work focused on
development of resistance equations that yield unique solutions with defined limits of
applicability. The recommended equations are similar in format and application to the
resistance equations currently found in the AASHTO Standard Specifications. The
equations apply to conventional structure types such as reinforced concrete T-beams,
prestressed concrete I girders continuous for live load, prestressed concrete box beams,
cast-in-place post-tensioned box girders, hammerhead piers and footings, and multi-
post reinforced concrete bents and footings. The recommendations for additions to the
LRFD specifications apply to precast concrete strengths up to 18 ksi and cast-in-place
concrete strengths up to 10 ksi.
This research was performed by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The report fully documents the research leading to the recommended shear design pro-
cedures and includes design examples. NCHRP Web-Only Document 78 contains
extensive supporting information, including a database that can be used to compare the
predictions from the recommended procedures to existing design procedures.
AASHTO is expected to consider these recommendations for adoption in 2007.
OCR for page R8
CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY
5 CHAPTER 1 Introduction and Research Approach
1.1 The AASHTO LRFD Shear Design Specifications, 5
1.1.1 Summary of the LRFD Sectional Design Model (S5.8.3), 5
1.1.2 Basis of the LRFD Sectional Design Model, 10
1.1.3 Comparison of AASHTO LRFD and AASHTO Standard
Specifications, 11
1.2 Introduction to Shear Behavior and Design Practices, 12
1.2.1 Development of Traditional U.S. Code Provisions for Shear, 12
1.2.2 Compression Field Approaches for Modeling Shear Behavior, 14
1.2.3 Other Approaches and Design Provisions, 14
1.2.4 Factors Influencing Shear Resistance, 15
1.2.5 Experimental Test Data, 16
1.2.6 Analysis Tools, 16
1.2.7 Design Cases, 17
1.3 Project Objectives and Tasks, 18
1.3.1 Project Motivation and Objectives, 18
1.3.2 Research Approach and Project Tasks, 18
20 CHAPTER 2 Findings
2.1 Differences in Underlying Bases of Code Provisions, 20
2.1.1 Type 1: Empirical Relationships Designed to Fit Test Data, 20
2.1.2 Type 2: Relationships Based on Specific Condition of Member in
Its Ultimate Limit State, 21
2.1.3 Type 3: Relationships Derived from Comprehensive Behavioral
Model, 21
2.2 Comparison of Shear Design Methods, 23
2.3 Evaluation of Shear Design Methods Using Test Database, 26
2.4 Results of Survey of Practice, 28
2.5 Criteria for Proposed Simplified Provisions, 30
31 CHAPTER 3 Proposed Changes to LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
3.1 Change Proposal 1: Proposed Simplified Approach (Modified VCW and VCI
or Modified Standard), 31
3.1.1 Basis of Proposed Simplified Provisions, 31
3.1.2 Proposed Simplified Provisions, 32
3.2 Change Proposal 2: Modification of LRFD Sectional Design Model
(S5.8.3), 33
3.3 Discussion of Design Examples, 33
3.4 Evaluation of Simplified Provisions with Selected Test Data, 36
3.5 Comparison of Required Strength of Shear Reinforcement in Design
Database, 37
3.6 Effect of Change Proposals on Design Process, 41
3.6.1 AASHTO-Standard Specifications LRFD Modified Sectional
Design Method (CSA Method), 41
3.6.2 AASHTO-Standard Specifications LRFD Proposed Simplified
Provisions (Modified Standard), 41
3.6.3 LRFD Sectional Design Model LRFD Modified Sectional
Design Model (CSA Method), 42
3.6.4 LRFD Sectional Design Model LRFD Proposed Simplified
Provisions (Modified Standard), 42
3.7 Safety and Economy of Structures Designed by Simplified Provisions, 42
3.7.1 Minimum Shear Reinforcement Requirements, 42
3.7.2 Maximum Shear Design Stress Limit, 42
3.7.3 Evaluation of Change Proposals Using Experimental Test
Results, 43
3.7.4 Evaluation of Change Proposals using Design Cases Examples, 43
3.8 Utilization of NCHRP Process 12-50, 45
47 CHAPTER 4 Conclusions and Suggested Research
4.1 Conclusions, 47
4.1.1 Basis of Design Provisions, 47
OCR for page R9
4.1.2 Role of Experimental Research and Field Experience, 47
4.1.3 Role of Design Database and Numerical Tools, 48
4.1.4 Differences in Shear Design Provisions, 48
4.2 Recommended Research, 49
50 NOTATION
53 REFERENCES
