Search

Within the last decade, a construction‐friendly design principle using flexible wire ropes instead of traditional u‐bars for connecting wall elements has gained popularity. However, anchoring wire ropes in T and L connections remains a complex challenge. Here, the wire ropes stick out of the side of the wall element and are bent in the anchorage zone. This paper presents the findings of an extensive experimental program with 40 specimens, investigating the anchorage capacity of wire ropes in wall elements under these conditions. The study reveals that specially designed reinforcements significantly increase the anchorage capacity, while traditional wall reinforcements have minimal impact. Failure mechanisms primarily involve concrete cone failures, providing valuable insights for construction‐friendly connections. Based on the observed failure mechanism, the paper presents an analytical failure mechanism. The model is based on the upper‐bound theorem of plasticity theory. The model predicts both the capacity and the failure mechanism with satisfactory accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dowel action of the longitudinal reinforcement in RC beams without and with small amounts of shear reinforcement is typically considered a constant shear contribution determined from the splitting strength of the concrete cover. However, in a recent experimental investigation by the authors, it was shown that the shear force transferred by dowel action for beams without shear reinforcement should be determined from the dowel displacement and a linear elastic model and a rigid plastic dowel model. This article is aimed at extending this model to also cover members with small amounts of shear reinforcement. To that aim, a novel approach to calculate the shear force carried by dowel action of the longitudinal reinforcement in both beams with and without shear reinforcement is presented. The model is derived by establishing an equilibrium of work between the internal stored elastic or dissipated plastic energy and the external work performed by the shear force in the dowel. Additionally, a method to determine the displacement of the dowel from DIC measurements is presented. For the remaining shear‐transfer actions, reasonable constitutive models from the literature are adapted. On the basis of DIC measurements, the shear force carried by each of the shear‐transfer actions is calculated for 16 shear tests of beams without and with small amounts of shear reinforcement. The sum of shear force carried by each of the shear‐transfer actions is shown to predict the applied shear force fairly well, from the development of the critical shear crack until failure. Additionally, it is shown that for beams with shear reinforcement below the minimum requirements according to the current design standards, the shear capacity is governed by aggregate interlock, residual tensile stresses, and the inclination of the compression chord. While for beams with shear reinforcement above the minimum requirements, the shear capacity is governed by the shear reinforcement and dowel action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Small amounts of shear reinforcement are often assumed to increase the shear capacity of RC beams, compared to an identical beam without shear reinforcement. However, in a recent experimental campaign, the shear capacity of beams with a shear reinforcement ratio below the minimum requirements according to the design standards turned out to be similar to identical beams without shear reinforcement. This paper presents a detailed analysis of why the shear capacity may be similar for beams without‐ and beams with small amounts of shear reinforcement. This includes the influence of small amounts of shear reinforcement on the shear behaviour and shear‐transferring mechanisms. The analysis shows that the crack development is more severe at the ultimate load for beams with a small amount of shear reinforcement compared to beams without shear reinforcement. This more severe crack development is shown to cause an overestimation of the shear contribution from aggregate interlock when applying a well‐known constitutive model often used for beams without shear reinforcement. Therefore, a new expression for the aggregate interlock stresses is proposed. A comparison of the proposed expression with Mixed‐Mode crack opening tests shows a good agreement with the test for both small and large crack openings. By applying the proposed expression on the measured crack kinematics it is shown that for a large shear contribution from aggregate interlock the shear contribution from the shear reinforcement is very limited and as the aggregate interlock stresses decrease the shear contribution from the shear reinforcement increases. This shift in the governing shear‐transferring mechanism can help to improve the requirements for the minimum shear reinforcement often found in the design standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]