13.07.2015 Views

Bursting and Spalling in Pretensioned U-Beams - Ferguson ...

Bursting and Spalling in Pretensioned U-Beams - Ferguson ...

Bursting and Spalling in Pretensioned U-Beams - Ferguson ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Figure 2.30 L<strong>in</strong>ear regression analysis form<strong>in</strong>g basis of Marshall & Mattockdesign equation (after Marshall & Mattock, 1962)The actual variation of spall<strong>in</strong>g stress with distance from beam end isapproximately l<strong>in</strong>ear, as previously shown <strong>in</strong> stra<strong>in</strong> terms (Figure 2.29). However, fortheir design procedure, Marshall <strong>and</strong> Mattock used a uniform design stress for transversere<strong>in</strong>forcement <strong>in</strong> the end region. “If f s is the maximum allowable stress <strong>in</strong> the stirrups,then the average stress will be very nearly f s /2” (p. 72). The difference, then, between theactual spall<strong>in</strong>g stress variation <strong>and</strong> that assumed for design is shown <strong>in</strong> Figure 2.31.The result<strong>in</strong>g design equation is shown as Equation 2.3. Marshall <strong>and</strong> Mattockrecommended distribut<strong>in</strong>g this re<strong>in</strong>forcement required by this equation uniformly overthe end h/5 of a beam.PA 021hir= 0.Equation 2.3fsltwhere: = maximum allowable stress <strong>in</strong> re<strong>in</strong>forcement47

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!