高性能钢筋混凝土梁抗剪强度设计准则分析

J. Calixto, A. Ribeiro
{"title":"高性能钢筋混凝土梁抗剪强度设计准则分析","authors":"J. Calixto, A. Ribeiro","doi":"10.14359/20172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents a comparative analysis of the predicted shear capacities of beams obtained by using several design criteria with respect to test results of reinforced concrete beams built with high-performance concrete (fc > 50 MPa). The database contains a total of 234 test beams with and without web reinforcement. The employed design criteria are EUROCODE 2 and the simplified methods of ACI 318 and Canadian CSA A23.3. The Brazilian code (NBR 6118) procedures and Zsutty’s method are also included in the study. Statistics of the ratio of test-to-predicted shear capacity are used to evaluate the adequacy of these design models in terms of safety, precision, and economy. The effects of the depth of the beams, concrete compressive strength, and the amount of longitudinal and web reinforcement are also investigated. The results show that for the beams without web reinforcement, EUROCODE 2, and Zsutty’s method are the most suitable procedures; NBR 6118 provisions, on the other hand, need adjustments because they can have inadequate margins of safety. The performance of the shear predicting models of ACI 318, the CSA A23.3 and NBR 6118 (θ = 45°) for beams with web reinforcement are similar but significantly biased; EUROCODE 2, in this case, is extremely conservative and consequently not economical. Overall, Zsutty’s method was the best predicting model among those included in this study.","PeriodicalId":410288,"journal":{"name":"SP-253: Fifth ACI/CANMET/IBRACON Int'l Conference on High-Performance Concrete Structures & Materials","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis of Design Criteria for Shear Strength of High-Performance Reinforced Concrete Beams\",\"authors\":\"J. Calixto, A. Ribeiro\",\"doi\":\"10.14359/20172\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper presents a comparative analysis of the predicted shear capacities of beams obtained by using several design criteria with respect to test results of reinforced concrete beams built with high-performance concrete (fc > 50 MPa). The database contains a total of 234 test beams with and without web reinforcement. The employed design criteria are EUROCODE 2 and the simplified methods of ACI 318 and Canadian CSA A23.3. The Brazilian code (NBR 6118) procedures and Zsutty’s method are also included in the study. Statistics of the ratio of test-to-predicted shear capacity are used to evaluate the adequacy of these design models in terms of safety, precision, and economy. The effects of the depth of the beams, concrete compressive strength, and the amount of longitudinal and web reinforcement are also investigated. The results show that for the beams without web reinforcement, EUROCODE 2, and Zsutty’s method are the most suitable procedures; NBR 6118 provisions, on the other hand, need adjustments because they can have inadequate margins of safety. The performance of the shear predicting models of ACI 318, the CSA A23.3 and NBR 6118 (θ = 45°) for beams with web reinforcement are similar but significantly biased; EUROCODE 2, in this case, is extremely conservative and consequently not economical. Overall, Zsutty’s method was the best predicting model among those included in this study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":410288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SP-253: Fifth ACI/CANMET/IBRACON Int'l Conference on High-Performance Concrete Structures & Materials\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SP-253: Fifth ACI/CANMET/IBRACON Int'l Conference on High-Performance Concrete Structures & Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14359/20172\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SP-253: Fifth ACI/CANMET/IBRACON Int'l Conference on High-Performance Concrete Structures & Materials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14359/20172","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文将几种设计准则计算的梁抗剪承载力与高性能混凝土(fc > 50 MPa)钢筋混凝土梁的试验结果进行了对比分析。该数据库共包含234个有腹板加固和没有腹板加固的试验梁。所采用的设计标准是EUROCODE 2和ACI 318和加拿大CSA A23.3的简化方法。巴西代码(NBR 6118)程序和Zsutty的方法也包括在研究中。统计试验与预测剪切能力的比率被用来评估这些设计模型在安全性、精度和经济性方面的充分性。研究了梁深、混凝土抗压强度、纵向和腹板配筋量的影响。结果表明,对于无腹板加固的梁,采用EUROCODE 2和Zsutty法是最合适的程序;另一方面,NBR 6118条款需要调整,因为它们的安全边际可能不足。ACI 318、CSA A23.3和NBR 6118 (θ = 45°)对腹板加固梁的剪切预测模型性能相似,但存在显著偏差;在这种情况下,EUROCODE 2是非常保守的,因此不经济。总的来说,Zsutty的方法是本研究中最好的预测模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analysis of Design Criteria for Shear Strength of High-Performance Reinforced Concrete Beams
This paper presents a comparative analysis of the predicted shear capacities of beams obtained by using several design criteria with respect to test results of reinforced concrete beams built with high-performance concrete (fc > 50 MPa). The database contains a total of 234 test beams with and without web reinforcement. The employed design criteria are EUROCODE 2 and the simplified methods of ACI 318 and Canadian CSA A23.3. The Brazilian code (NBR 6118) procedures and Zsutty’s method are also included in the study. Statistics of the ratio of test-to-predicted shear capacity are used to evaluate the adequacy of these design models in terms of safety, precision, and economy. The effects of the depth of the beams, concrete compressive strength, and the amount of longitudinal and web reinforcement are also investigated. The results show that for the beams without web reinforcement, EUROCODE 2, and Zsutty’s method are the most suitable procedures; NBR 6118 provisions, on the other hand, need adjustments because they can have inadequate margins of safety. The performance of the shear predicting models of ACI 318, the CSA A23.3 and NBR 6118 (θ = 45°) for beams with web reinforcement are similar but significantly biased; EUROCODE 2, in this case, is extremely conservative and consequently not economical. Overall, Zsutty’s method was the best predicting model among those included in this study.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信