paper: jackson/salim

Web crushing in EN 1992

Synopsis
The web crushing rules in EN 1992 are investigated by comparison with tests. Although they give significant increases compared with past practice, they appear to be largely valid within the range of tests. There are, however, some very marginal values and some slightly below the safe ratio of tests to predictions of 1.0. These are all for cases where the 80% yield rule governs. It is therefore recommended that this is made slightly more conservative. The rules allow greater web crushing stress with inclined links. With links at 45 the maximum force is doubled and can be as much as 3.5 times that allowed by BS 5400 Part 4. The rules also allow the full web crushing stress irrespective of slenderness. There do not appear to be tests to justify these large stresses. Further testing is recommended and suggestions for restrictions on shear stresses in slender webs and with inclined links are proposed for the interim. The proposals from the work modifying the rules for web crushing have been adopted in the National Annex to Parts 1 and 2 of EN 1992 efficient and there are test results to confirm this, it is not clear if there are any tests with sufficient inclined links to test the upper limit of the shear allowed by EN 1992. In reviewing the literature for the Departures of Standard mentioned above, evidence was found for a reduction in web crushing stress with slenderness. However, EN 1992 has no limit on web slenderness whilst the most slender webs found in practice, such as on the original A2/M2 Medway Bridge, are up to some four times more slender than any for which there are published test data. It therefore seemed likely the EN 1992 rules were unsafe, or at least unproven, for slender webs. It was therefore decided to investigate the rules using existing test results. As the work was done for the Highways Agency and primarily aimed at bridges, the code used for comparison is BS 5400: Part 4. BS 8110 rules are, however, the same for this particular aspect.

Paul Jackson
BSc, PhD, CEng, FIStructE, MICE
Technical Director, Gifford

Stephen W. Salim
BEng (Hons), PhD
Scott Wilson, ex-Gifford

Practical significance
The web crushing limit is often critical in prestressed concrete bridges. It usually decides the web thickness over the support of larger concrete box structures. Thinner webs give less concrete which means less dead weight and a more efficient section for stressing which results in major reductions in prestress quantity. Higher maximum shear stress can also avoid the need to vary web thickness, thus simplifying formwork which can be important. It is therefore likely that these high web crushing stresses will be used even if they require abnormally large quantities of shear reinforcement. Web crushing limits are less often critical in reinforced concrete or in buildings. However, if the economic consequence of reducing the limits is less, it would seem to be a case for being less concerned about the old rules being overconservative, rather than for being less concerned about the new ones being dubious. The work reported here was done primarily for the Highways Agencys implementation of EN 1992 for Bridges. However, when it was completed the UK National Annex for EN 1992-1-1 (General Principles and rules for buildings) was still out for public comment. As it is clearly undesirable to have potentially unsafe rules in this document (even if they will rarely be used in the unsafe region) and as it is desirable to avoid arbitrary inconsistencies between the buildings and bridges rules, it was decided to submit the work as public comments. This was done and the recommendations have been adopted in the National Annex.

Received: 01/06 Accepted: 05/06 Keywords: Eurocode 2, Concrete, Webs, Crushing, Stress, Shear reinforcement, Testing Paul jackson & Stephen Wijaya Salim Your comments on this paper are welcome and will be published as Correspondence. Please send items of not more than 500 words to the Editor within 3 months

Nomenclature
Asw bw d fc fc1 fcd fck fyk fywd Sv VEN Vtest VRd, s VRd, max z cross sectional area of shear reinforcement minimum web width between tension and compression chords effective depth cylinder concrete strength ultimate compressive stress in concrete struts design concrete compressive strength characteristic compressive cylinder concrete strength characteristic yield strength of reinforcement design yield of shear reinforcement spacing of the stirrups shear force calculated by EN 1992 experimental shear force shear resistance governed by yielding of stirrups upper limit of shear governed by crushing of concrete lever arm angle between shear reinforcement and the beam axis perpendicular to the shear force coefficient taking account of the state of stress in the compression chord material partial safety factor angle between the concrete compression strut and the beam axis perpendicular to the shear force strength reduction factor for concrete cracked in shear compressive stress in the concrete from axial load or prestressing

cw cp

Introduction
Codes of practice have web crushing stresses that limit the maximum shear stress in concrete irrespective of the amount of shear reinforcement provided. EN 1992 allows significantly higher stresses than previous British codes, BS 8110 and BS 5400. Although it is known that the British codes are conservative, and Gifford have used Departures from Standard to use higher stresses in assessment of several bridges, there was some concern about the increase for the following reasons: The maximum stress is increased when moderate axial compression is applied. There is no obvious theoretical reason for this and the maximum stress with the optimum compression (which is actually typical of prestressed structures) can be as much as 70% greater than in BS 5400. The maximum shear increases when inclined links are used. Although inclined links are theoretically more 50|The Structural Engineer 5 December 2006

EN 1992 approach Members requiring designed shear reinforcement (no axial force)
EN 1992 adopts a variable strut inclination method. The designer is allowed to choose the strut inclination which ranges from 1 cot 2.5, i.e. 22 to 45. The choice of the lowest value leads to the most economic link design. In this case the compression struts are supposed to rotate 23 from an initial value, which is 45 in the absence of compression in the web, to 22. If the strut inclination is and the vertical shear reinforcement yields, a shear force: Asw VRd, s = s : z : f yw : cot i ...(1)

is transmitted. Whilst the smallest gives the greatest shear force in relation to link force, the compressive stress in the concrete struts increases as the struts get flatter. The shear strength limited by concrete crushing is:

paper: jackson/salim

VRd, max =

a cw : b : z : f c1 _ cot i + tan i i

...(2)

where: fc1= .fc (web crushing limit) cw = 1.0 z = lever arm which may be taken as 0.9d Strictly, the code only says that for reinforced concrete without axial force, the approximate value z = 0.9d may normally be used. The exact meaning of this is unclear. Heavily reinforced beams without significant flanges can have z < 0.9d, down to around 0.75d. However, the wording does not imply the approximation has to always be conservative and it seems unlikely engineers will use less than the normal value for sections which appear reasonably normal. Sections with odd shapes (such as significant upstands above the compression flange as when string courses are taken as structural) might be considered abnormal and require the actual z to be calculated. o = 0.6 : e1 f ck o 250 ...(3)

Except that when the links are not stressed above 80% yield the code gives

Fig 1. Relationship between shear strength and links (expressed as a stress) in EN 1992 for non-prestressed member

Members requiring shear reinforcement (prestressed member)

EN 1992, unlike the BSs, treats prestressed members exactly the same as reinforced ones. However, for both prestressed members and RC ones with axial loads, cw is taken as: v cp v cp for 0 G G 0.25 f cd o f cd v cp G 0.5 = 1.25 for 0.25 < f cd v cp v cp = 25 : e1 o for 0.5 < f < 1 f cd cd = e1 + According to the above three equations the maximum value for cw is equal to 1.25 which gives a 25% strength enhancement above an equivalent non-prestressed member. This applies for axial stress of 0.25 to 0.5fcd. That is 713N/mm2 for a typical 50Nmm2(cube) concrete used for prestressed work. This will apply to most prestressed beams where web crushing is likely to be critical. A physical explanation for this enhancement can be given for lower values of as the axial compression means the initial direction of maximum principal compression is closer to horizontal which implies less rotation of the struts is needed to get to the optimum for link design. However, EN 1992 continues to use the enhancement when close to 45 is used to maximise shear strength. For such cases, it appears the web compression means more rotation of struts is needed to get to the assumed angle. The simplification of taking z = 0.9d is only explicitly allowed for cases without axial force. However, in this study to avoid having to undertake flexural section checks for every specimen considered, predictions calculated by EN 1992 rules will be based on assuming a lever arm of 0.9d. Only where predicted strengths exceed experimental values is the actual value of z/d calculated to see if 0.9d is too high. Where beams are very heavily flanged, it is possible the actual z can be greater than 0.9d in which case use of 0.9d would be conservative for design and hence unconservative for checking the rules. However, the maximum effect is less than 10%. BS 5400 and BS 8110 use the addition principle based on a 45 truss. However, because the concrete shear strength they use for prestressed concrete is significantly greater than for reinforced concrete, EN 1992 does not give the same economy of links relative to BS 5400 and BS 8110 as it does for RC. The difference in web crushing limit, however, increases with concrete grade and is therefore greater in realistic prestressed sections than in RC.

= 0.6 for fck < 60

and fck/200 > 0.5

= 0.9 for fck 60

although the latter is rendered largely irrelevant by the UK National Annex restriction on the concrete grade assumed for shear calculation. The shear resistance is thus the greater of that calculated with links at design yield and 80% yield and each of these in turn is the lesser value of predictions given by Equations (1) and (2). Once the concrete crushing limit is reached with the flattest allowable struts, the optimum case is when Equations (1) and (2) are equal. The maximum allowable force both with yield and 80% yield stress in the links and the maximum possible web crushing stress and the corresponding links expressed as Asw : f y is shown in Fig 1. The initial straight line section b:s corresponds to the flattest allowable strut angle. Once the concrete stress reaches the crushing stress with this angle, a larger angle is adopted. It will be seen that almost as soon as this happens the 80% yield rule gives the higher design strength for a given link area. Fig 1 also shows the BS 5400 relationship. BS 5400 and BS 8110 use the addition principle where the shear strength of the member due to links, calculated for a 45 truss, is added to the strength of the member without links. Since the section without links fails as soon as the shear crack forms, whereas the links can only work at anything approaching their full strength after the concrete has cracked in shear, there is no theoretical basis for this approach. EN 1992s approach, in contrast can be derived from the plastic theory. However, plastic theory is strictly theoretically valid only for ductile behaviour and shear failures in concrete are often not ductile. This is why both the limitation on and the effectiveness factor are needed to make the theory match test results. However, with these corrections, it does generally give more consistent predictions than other methods. It will be seen from Fig 1 that EN 1992 allows significantly less links for moderate shears. For this high concrete grade, the upper limit is also significantly greater although more links are needed to take full advantage of this. Fig 1 shows optimum link design. The flatter truss angles used by EN 1992 do result in the curtailment rules (which are already more conservative than in British codes) being more restrictive so it may not always pay to optimise the links.

Members without shear reinforcement

Unlike BS 5400 and BS 8110, EN 1992s approach for sections with designed links is not directly related to its approach for those without designed links. However, the upper limit to shear stress in members without designed links is equivalent to the limit with designed links with struts at 45 but without the increases for either prestress or nonfully stressed links. This makes it much closer to the BS 5400 5 December 2006 The Structural Engineer|51

paper: jackson/salim

Fig 2. Overall correlation of predictions by EN 1992 (full yield) against experimental results

links are not stressed above 80% of yield. The philosophical basis of this is obscure. It is not clear how yield strength of links can affect strength if they have not, in fact, yielded, which is what the rules appear to imply. Also, as there is no explicit in the 80% rule, it is not clear how or if it should be altered to get from design values to something directly comparable with tests. In the following it is left unaltered. This might be considered over-conservative so the implication of the alternative interpretation will be considered where appropriate.

Bennett and Balasooriya3

Fig 3. Overall correlation of predictions by EN 1992 (non-fully stressed links) against experimental results Bennett and Balasooriya presented results for 26 flanged beams which were intended to fail in web compression. In fact, due to the high shear strength, five of these specimens failed in flexural compression. Also, 11 of them were within the short shear span enhancement rules and were excluded in the present study. Table 1 shows details of the specimens with corresponding EN 1992 predictions for both cases of full and 80% yielding of the reinforcement. The ratios Vtest/VEN lie comfortably above one for all specimens where full yielding of the reinforcement is assumed suggesting that EN 1992 is conservative. The majority of the specimens considered had calculated values of cw = 1.25 and there is no evidence this leads to unsafe predictions. The web crushing stress can be as much as 13.78N/mm2 for specimen (3C3) with a corresponding prediction of 10.58N/mm2. The ratio Vtest/VEN is lower when the 80% yield rule is considered with the lowest ratios being 0.99 and 0.94. However, these results are conservative due to the assumption of (z/d = 0.90). By considering the exact values of (z/d), new ratios of Vtest/VEN of 1.05 and 0.99 are obtained.

value. Also, in practice it is not critical without designed links unless there is significant short shear span enhancement of the basic shear strength. Although neither BS 5400 nor EN 1992 considers it, there is strong evidence1,2 that the upper limit is also enhanced by short shear spans. There is therefore no reason to doubt the EN 1992 limit for sections without links and the following therefore only considers sections with shear reinforcement.

Bennett & Debaiky4

Bennett and Debaiky tested simply-supported prestressed beams to failure but only four were sufficiently close to the EN 1992 upper limit to be relevant. The results indicated that compression due to the prestressing force enhances the shear strength which again justifies the use of cw enhanced for axial compression. All specimens had a shear span-to-depth ratio of 3. This is normally assumed to eliminate short shear span enhancement although Batchelor et al1 suggest there might be a small effect out to 3.5. Table 2 shows details of the specimens with corresponding predictions by EN 1992 for both cases of full and 80% yielding of the reinforcement. Half of the specimens considered have ratios of Vtest/VEN greater than one while the remaining specimens seem to suggest unsafe results with the worst

Comparison with test results

Only a few test beams had sufficient links to get to the maximum upper limit in EN 1992. As far as the study is concerned, experimental results conducted by Bennett & Balasoorya3, Bennett & Debaiky4, Leonhardt et al5 and Lyngberg7 are included for comparison. In addition, experimental results conducted by Regan8 are also included which consider non-prestressed members with shear reinforcement. For the sake of comparison, the material partial safety factors will be set to 1.0. The test data considered here overlaps that considered in deriving the EN 1992 rules8. However, the important references 5 and 7 were not considered in the original derivation. Neither were the review work in references 1 and 2. Figs 2 and 3 show the overall correlation of predictions by EN 1992 (with removal of material partial safety factors) against test data for both cases of full and 80% yielding of the reinforcement. Most of the predictions are safe but there are a few exceptions. Two points should be noted about the treatment of safety factors. Firstly, the strength limited by crushing of the compression struts is directly proportional to the concrete crushing stress. This means that, provided there are sufficient links to ensure failure load is not dictated by steel strength, EN 1992 gives a safety factor of 1.5 on such failures. In contrast, BS 5400 uses a nominal concrete factor of safety of 1.25 for shear. This means the following is actually aiming to give shear a greater factor of safety than BS 5400 requires. In practice, the difference in factors of safety assumed by the codes is not fully realised. Previous calibration work on the shear rules concluded that although EN 1992s rules are safe for sections without links, they do not really give the 20% higher safety factor they appear to claim. The following suggests, in contrast, that the upper limit in BS 5400 actually gives a factor of safety in excess of 1.5. The second complication in treatment of safety factors is that EN 1992 enhances the concrete crushing stress if the 52|The Structural Engineer 5 December 2006

Table 1: Tests by Bennett & Balasooriya

Specimen
3A2 3C2 3C3 3C4 3C5 3D1 3D2 3D3 3D4 3E3

bw (mm)
25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4

d (mm)
225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225

bw/d
0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113

fc (N/mm2)
41.72 33.24 33.66 30.48 31.59 44.28 44.28 40.34 39.38 40.76

cp/fc fy.Asv/bw.sw Vtest (N/mm2) (kN)

0.41 0.44 0.30 0.25 0.10 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.26 8.73 8.73 8.73 8.73 8.73 13.08 8.73 5.82 4.35 5.82 69.75 75.71 78.74 56.36 48.84 85.72 76.73 70.06 61.03 89.86

Vtest/VEN
1.10 (0.99) 1.39 (1.26) 1.43 (1.30) 1.10 (1.00) 1.04 (0.94) 1.22 (1.04) 1.17 (1.05) 1.28 (1.18) 1.26 (1.19) 1.63 (1.50)

cw
1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.10 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25

NB: Value within () denotes ratios for non-fully stressed links

paper: jackson/salim

Table 2: Tests by Bennett & Debaiky

Specimen
NM-6-80 NH-6-80 NM-10-160 PH-6-80

bw (mm)
51 51 51 51

d (mm)
298 298 298 298

bw/d
0.171 0.171 0.171 0.171

fc (N/mm2)
35.00 36.50 36.00 38.40

cp/fc fy.Asv/bw.sw Vtest (N/mm2) (kN)

0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 2.92 3.51 4.02 3.49 106.0 114.0 102.5 102.5

Vtest/VEN
1.10 (1.15) 1.07 (1.03) 0.92 (0.87) 0.93 (0.93)

cw
1.11 1.11 1.11 1.14

case having Vtest/VEN = 0.87 (non fully stressed links). Again, by considering exact ratios of (z/d) which equal to 0.79 for both specimens (NM-10-160) and (PH-6-80), this is corrected bringing the ratios to 1.05 (full yield) or 0.99 (non-fully stressed links) and 1.05 (full yield) or 1.06 (non-fully stressed links) respectively thus implying that EN 1992 is still just about satisfactory.

ratios of Vtest/VEN to 0.68 which still implies that EN 1992 rules are unsafe. However, Table 4 shows the EN 1992 flexural strength predictions (along with the German code predictions) which suggest both specimens should have failed in flexure. It was also not clear from the pictures of these two failures in ref 5 why they had been classified as shear failures, unlike some other apparently similar failures which were classed as flexural and therefore disregarded in the analysis of shear. It was therefore concluded that these two specimens had actually failed in flexure, as predicted by the code, and should therefore be excluded from the present study which would indicate that EN 1992 rules remain valid.

Lyngberg7
A series of eight partially prestressed reinforced concrete beams was tested by Lyngberg to investigate the effect of prestress. He concluded that higher strength concrete increases the strength of the diagonal truss member thus allowing flatter angles of inclination. This results in increased efficiency of the web reinforcement through mobilization of more stirrups as well as increased load carrying capacity of the struts themselves. This is consistent with the EN 1992 design approach. Table 5 shows details of the specimens with corresponding EN 1992 predictions for both cases of full and 80% yielding of shear reinforcement. The majority have ratios of Vtest/VEN greater than one but a few give ratios slightly less than one. Consideration of the exact ratio of (z/d) again brings the ratios of Vtest/VEN up with a minimum of 1.01 again showing that EN 1992 is satisfactory.

Leonhardt et al5
Among the test data considered, that presented here are undoubtedly the most significant ones where there is an opportunity that EN 1992 rules could lead to unsafe predictions. All specimens had a shear span-to-depth ratio of 4.0 which eliminates the influence of short shear span enhancement. Table 3 shows details of the specimens with predictions by EN 1992 for both fully and non fully stressed links. A clear indication of unsafe results is observed with a calculated ratio of Vtest/VEN = 0.70 with cw = 1.03. This was calculated for a lever arm z of 0.9d. Ref 5 gives enough information to determine a more accurate lever arm and this brings the

Regan8
Possibly the only available data on reinforced concrete specimens with sufficient shear reinforcement to get to the upper limit of shear was conducted by Regan. Only specimens which failed by web crushing are considered in the present study. Table 6 shows details of the specimens with corresponding EN 1992 predictions for both cases of fully and non-fully stressed links. The majority of the results have ratios of Vtest/VEN greater than 1 apart from one specimen (W3) with a ratio of Vtest/VEN = 0.93, 7% below the safe value with consideration of the 80% yield rule. If that rule is ignored the ratio becomes a safe 1.13. These numbers are based on z = 0.9d as normally allowed by EN 1992 without axial compression. However, because the beam was heavily flanged (necessary to achieve such a high shear force outside the region of short shear span enhancement without flexural failure) the actual calculated lever arm is slightly greater at 0.92d. Using this makes the strength calculated using the 80% rule unsafe by 9%. The limit on maximum effective shear reinforcement in EN 1992, given by 6.2.3 (3) Note 4 is (Asw.fywd)/(b.sy) 0.5.cw .1.fcd. With the factors all set to 1.0, this equals 13.65N/mm2 for this specimen. The actual value for this specimen was 13.45. Thus it appears to have almost exactly the minimum links to achieve the maximum web crushing load in EN 1992. However, strictly Note 4 is not correct in that it does not fully account for the 80% yield rule. It appears that fywd should really be 0.8fyk when the 80% yield rule is invoked. The status of Note 4 is not clear: it was written assuming it is a simple statement of fact but because of this discrepancy it says the maximum effective crosssectional area of the shear reinforcement is only 92% of the value that gives the maximum force according to the equations. However, the practical implication of this is not significant as the final 8% of reinforcement increases the shear strength by only 0.5%. If it is assumed that consistency with other aspects implies a limit based on 80%fyk in design should be based on 1.15*0.8 = 0.92fyk for comparisons with tests, the predictions are safe although if the actual calculated z is used the ratio is 1.0 exactly. 5 December 2006 The Structural Engineer|53

Table 3: Tests by Leonhardt et al

Specimen
IP2

bw (mm)
300

d (mm)
810

bw/d
0.370

fc (N/mm2)
20.80

cp/fc fy.Asv/bw.sw Vtest (N/mm2) (kN)

0.09 2.45 948

Vtest/VEN
0.88 0.86* (0.86) (0.84*) 0.71 0.69* (0.70) (0.68*) 1.08 1.08* (1.05) (1.05*) 1.20 1.16* (1.05) (1.02*)

cw

1.09

IP3

300

810

0.370

27.90

0.01

2.45

867

1.01

TP2

150

895

0.168

24.00

0.24

3.00

760

1.24

TP4

80

825

0.097

45.10

0.17

10.20

900

1.17

*denotes ratios of (Vtest/VEN) when considering real ratio of (z/d).

Table 4: Tests by Leonhardt et al (Comparison of German & EN 1992 predictions)

Specimen bw (mm)
IP2 IP3 300 300

d (mm)
810 810

z z (German) (EN1992)
0.92d 0.93d 0.83d 0.93d

exp (kN/m)
3150 2890

MGerman (kN/m)
2976 3032

MEN1992 (kNm)
2533 2888

failure type
Flexural Flexural

Table 5: Tests by Lyngberg

Specimen
2A-3 2B-3 3A-2 3B-2 4A-1 4B-1 5A-0 5B-0

bw (mm)
120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

d (mm)
600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600

bw/d
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.50

fc (N/mm2)
32.60 33.89 31.10 27.50 31.50 30.40 25.70 26.60

cp/fc fy.Asv/bw.sw Vtest (N/mm2) (kN)

0.39 0.38 0.18 0.21 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 3.26 3.41 3.51 3.31 3.39 3.49 3.57 3.43 506 515 489 433 469 454 435 435

Vtest/VEN
1.02 1.00 1.01 0.97 1.05 1.03 1.11 1.10

cw
1.25 1.25 1.18 1.21 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00

paper: jackson/salim

Table 6: Non-prestressed specimens tested by Regan

Specimen
W1 W3 W6 W7

bw (mm)
64 64 64 64

d (mm)
273 273 273 273

bw/d
0.234 0.234 0.234 0.234

fc (N/mm2)
29.90 45.50 33.90 34.30

cp/fc fy.Asv/bw.sw Vtest (N/mm2) (kN)

0 0 0 0 13.45 13.45 13.45 12.92 160 199 158 162

Vtest/VEN
1.29 (1.13) 1.13 (0.93) 1.14 (0.99) 1.16 (1.00)

cw
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

not reduce the maximum theoretical shear although it may reduce the maximum practical shear because this may be limited by the maximum practical quantity of links. It seems more attractive to simply reduce the value of 1. A 10% reduction to 0.54 puts it equal to from equation (6.6) for the lowest practical grade of concrete (fck = 25N/mm2). This seems a reasonable move and reduces the minimum ratio observed from the tests here to approximately 1.02. However, removing the rule completely would not have very serious economic consequences and would simplify the calculations.

Table 7: Predictions by EN 1992 (inclined links) from Bennett and Balasorya

Specimen bw (mm)
3A2 3C2 3C3 3C4 3C5 3D1 3D2 3D3 3D4 3E3 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4

d (mm)
225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225

fc (N/mm )
41.72 33.24 33.66 30.48 31.59 44.28 44.28 40.34 39.38 40.76
2

cp/fcd

Gaps in test results Haunched sections

EN 1992 is unclear on one important aspect for haunched sections. It explicitly says in 6.2.1(2) Equation 6.1 that the vertical component of flange force can be added to shear strength from links to obtain shear resistance. However, for web crushing the wording is obscure saying the sum of design shear force and contribution of flanges, Ved Vccd Vtd should not exceed VRd,max. Strictly since design shear force is an applied force, not a resistance, and the equation clearly shows the flange force subtracted from this, this seems to mean the contribution of the forces is included. However, it is peculiar to put the flange forces on the opposite side of the equation from in 6.1 and then to say it is summed when it is actually subtracted. This has led some engineers to interpret it the other way. Also, in the definition of VRd,s it refers to .shear force which can be sustained by the yielding of the shear reinforcement which is consistent with the addition of flange forces in 6.1 being needed to get the total resistance of the member. However, in the definition of VRd,max (as in the definition of VRd,c) it refers to the shear force that can be maintained by the member which appears to conflict with the above interpretation that the vertical component of flange forces can be added to VRd,c to get VRd, the resistance of the member, Further confusion is added by 6.2.1(5) as this refers to Expression (6.8) for cases where links are needed, which bypasses (6.1). Strictly it also seems to avoid the section on inclined links. 6.2.3(3), the section that gives expression 6.8 and 6.2.3(4), also explicitly says VRd is the lesser of VRd,s and VRd,c which are given by expression which do not include the effect of chord forces. Thus taken literally they suggest the vertical component cannot be used at all. It appears it is intended that the vertical component is used for both sets of equations for sections with designed links and theory suggests this is correct. The conflicts are probably just because this was not properly considered when the other sections were written, possibly because they were written before the effect was explicitly mentioned and the full implications of doing so were not followed through. If the effect is not considered, it would normally be conservative although there are cases where this does not apply, e.g. simply supported beams with arch shaped soffits sometimes used in suspended spans. It also appears, since the effect is not mentioned at all in the section on beams without designed links, that it is not meant to be used there. However, the reason for this is not clear. MacLeod and Houmsi10 found correcting for it was justified and they observed that the shear strength of haunched beams can be greater than that of the equivalent prismatic beams, even when the haunching is achieved by reducing the volume of concrete. BS 5400 is not explicit on this but it is normally assumed the effect of non parallel flanges can be considered although it is only done in more extreme cases. The calculations for correcting for vertical component of flange forces are not obvious as the prestress force is considered as part of the load and therefore the chord forces used should not include the prestress force as otherwise the vertical component of this is counted twice. Also, it is not clear what section analysis the chord forces should come form. It might be argued it should be the actual stress

fy.Asv/bw.sw (N/mm )
2

Vtest (N/mm )
12.20 13.25 13.78 9.86 8.55 15.00 13.43 12.26 10.68 15.72
2

VEN1992 (full) (N/mm2)

15.53 14.34 14.41 13.89 13.31 19.96 15.84 12.12 9.69 12.16

VEN1992 80% (N/mm2)

15.96 14.52 14.59 14.00 13.46 20.70 16.36 11.92 8.91 11.92

0.41 0.44 0.30 0.25 0.10 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.26

8.73 8.73 8.73 8.73 8.73 13.08 8.73 5.82 4.35 5.82

Normally, due to the scatter of shear results, the odd one at or slightly below 1.0 would be expected when large numbers of tests results are considered. However, in this case the number of tests with enough links to push the EN 1992 web crushing limit to its maximum is small. There is therefore a case for altering the rules slightly to improve the safety of the predictions for this case. Regans tests also included just two with inclined links and these will be considered in a later section.

Discussion
Tests have been found with sufficient vertical links and with prestress values to test the rules in the regions where they give the largest increase relative to BS 5400. No test results have been found that indicate than the EN 1992 rules, with the recommended values for the Nationally Determined Parameters, are unsafe by significant margins. However, some give ratios around 0.99 and one gives 0.91 if it is assumed the 80% yield rule is still based on 80% when all factors are set to 1.0 for direct comparison with test results. If the 80% is multiplied by the normal steel factor of 1.15, the result is just safe with a ratio of 1.00. Given the relatively small number of tests that push the rules to their limits, there is a case for making the rules slightly more conservative. There is no evidence that the enhancement of cw for axial force is not justified. The least safe result was with no axial force and therefore no such enhancement. However, all the least safe results were for cases where the 80% yield rule applies. The philosophical justification of this rule is obscure and it is not given any justification in the background document9. The second expression for it (6.10.bN) is made redundant by the EN 1992-1 NA limit on concrete grade used. The first expression has the effect of putting effectiveness factor equal to the value equation 6.6N gives with a concrete strength of zero. Given that the statistical study of web crushing research in Ref 1 indicates that concrete grade is not a significant factor in effectiveness factor, reducing the effect of this way may be justified although this is contrary to normal assumptions that the factor does reduce as concrete strength increases. Also, if the 80% yield rule was eliminated completely, it would make the limits significantly more conservative with no real evidence this is justified. There is, therefore a case for simply making it slightly more conservative. This could be done by reducing the 80%. However, this would only increase the links required for a given shear force. It would 54|The Structural Engineer 5 December 2006

paper: jackson/salim

state under the relevant load which would often be intermediate between elastic and ultimate analyses. Since none of the tests considered in this study were haunched, the treatment of the effect has not affected the quantitative findings.

Inclined links
In addition to conventional vertical shear reinforcement, EN 1992 gives expressions for inclined links. The effect of the relevant Equations (6.13 and 6.14) is illustrated in Fig 4. The solid lines give the maximum shear force divided by that with vertical links and a 45 truss. This is equal to twice the factor by which the web compressive stress is multiplied to obtain the average shear stress. The inclined links significantly increase the maximum shear. The dotted lines indicate the efficiency of the links: the relationship between VRd,s and link quantity which is based on volume per unit length of beam times yield strength. The calculation of this allows for the inclined links being longer; indeed it over-estimates this effect as it implicitly assumes both the horizontal legs of the links and the splices increase proportionately with the length of the effective legs. It will be seen that inclining the links initially improves their efficiency. The analysis in previous sections of this paper assumes the links are vertical. It is assumed that once the concrete crushing strength is reached with = tan1(0.4), higher shear forces are carried by increasing . This makes the links less efficient and means the link area increases disproportionately to shear force. Increasing shear force by 45% above the maximum with = tan1 0.4 to get to the maximum for vertical links with = 45(tan11.0) in Fig 4 reduces the link factor from 2.5 to 1.0 and thus requires 2.5*1.45 = 3.6 times the link quantity. However, if instead you inclined the links, the same shear force can be resisted with a link factor of around 1.5 and hence only 2.2 times the link area, a 40% saving. It therefore appears both in terms of maximum shear and minimising steel quantity, there is a significant incentive to use inclined links. The steel areas required to get to these shear forces are large but not impossible. For example with a 225mm C40/50 concrete web, the normal crushing limit is reached with 25mm links at 190mm centres. To reach double this by using links inclined at 45 they would have to be spaced at 85mm along the beam which is 60mm in the direction perpendicular to the links. The mathematical derivations of Equations 6.13 and 6.14 are correct. However, they are based on plastic theory and only check equilibrium, not strain compatibility. Few tests

Fig 4. Effect of inclining links

with inclined links with sufficient link area to test the web crushing aspect of theses rules were identified and it appears none were used in their derivation9. Table 7 shows results of tests with inclined links by Bennett & Balasoorya3. The EN 1992 predictions for these are safe but the link area is not sufficient to test the web crushing rules to their limit. The design web crushing stress can be as much as 20N/mm2 which is twice the upper limit of EN 1992 rules for members with vertical shear reinforcement and higher than any of the stresses at failure in Table 7. Regan8 does give results for two tests with inclined links. One had relatively light links and (like others tests) the EN 1992 prediction was safe giving a significantly higher failure load than a similar specimen with vertical links. The other had heavy links. Unfortunately, the links were bent to a smaller than intended radius and broke at the bend when yield was reached. Regan dismissed this as a premature failure. However, it is not clear the load would have increased much after this point. The strut angle required to give the maximum load was close to the initial cracking angle so no rotation was needed. Because the links were strain gauged, it is known not only that they had reached yield but also that shear force in other specimens did not increase after yield, indeed some did not reach yield. The failure load was 66% of the EN 1992 prediction using the 80% yield rule or 77% if this is not used. This casts doubt on both the benefit of inclined links and the 80% rule. It is odd to use a formula that gives increased strength for links being at only 80% of yield when strain gauges show the steel has yielded. In the absence of adequate tests extending them to their limits appears unwise and possible restrictions were considered. Links and struts both inclined at 45 give the maximum web crushing stress. However this implies the longitudinal force in the web is zero, i.e. the longitudinal component of the tension in the steel equals that of the compression in the concrete struts. In such a case it is hard to see how compression in the web can enhance its shear strength as the recommended value of cw implies. As a restriction on this there could be a restriction cw 1.0 for 90. This would reduce the increase in maximum web crushing stress from inclined links from 2 to 2/1.25 = 1.6. However, Regans results suggest, a further restriction is needed. A tentative proposal was made to add a factor of (1 0.5cos) on the end of the expression for . This proposal was accepted for the EN 1992-1-1 National Annex but the restriction cw 1.0 was not and indeed applying both together would appear overconservative. The code also limits the maximum value of to 90. This avoids requirements for implausible stress states which would otherwise arise. Strictly, is the angle of the links to the longitudinal axis of the beam. This means that the links would have to slope back in a haunched beam. Whether it will be interpreted this literally is not clear.

Slender webs
Limited test data is available which consider slender specimens. Fig 5 shows the influence of web slenderness ratio on crushing stress based on Ref 3. There appears to be a trend for web crushing stress to reduce for very slender webs and the value can be as low as 4.5N/mm2 for bw/d = 0.1. Fig 6 shows predictions given by EN 1992 against available test results. Batchelor, George and Campbell1 undertook an investigation of web crushing using a statistical study of others tests. They investigated all the available data for beams which did not have prestressing ducts in the webs, a total of 59 results from seven different studies. They did not investigate all the variables EN 1992 considers. In particular, they did not look at the effect of link area, although they did exclude tests they thought had not failed in the relevant mode. Hence, where their work suggests shear stresses below EN 1992s maximum it does not necessarily mean EN 1992 is 5 December 2006 The Structural Engineer|55

paper: jackson/salim

Fig 5. Influence of web slenderness on web crushing stress (Ref 3)

Fig 6. Overall correlation of predictions by EN 1992 against experimental results

unsafe. They found that web slenderness was a significant factor in the effectiveness factor obtained. Closer investigation of their work for this study suggests this is not as convincing as it at first appears. There is very little data for very slender webs so their conclusion depends on comparing small numbers of results from two different researchers which, due to other differences between the tests, is not very reliable. The most slender webs Gifford has assessed are four times more slender than any for which tests results are published in the literature, although it is understood that tests on a model of the relevant structure were undertaken when it was designed. Using Batchelor, George and Campbells formula for this case therefore involves extrapolating a dubious trend well beyond the tests it was derived from. However, their work suggests the web crushing shear stress for such slender webs would be less than BS 5400 predicts, let alone EN 1992. They do, however, also indicate that shear span is a significant factor with a shear span to depth ratio of 1.0 giving 60% higher web crushing stress than for a ratio in excess of 3.5. This is relevant to slender webs as in practice beams with such slender webs would invariably be haunched with the most slender sections being in the region of short shear span. If the webs were very slender a point must eventually be reached where buckling is an issue as in steel girders. However, this was investigated by comparison with rules used for steel structures and it appeared this point has not been reached at least when pure shear in webs with diaphragms is considered. If longitudinal compression is included and webs without any support diaphragms considered, so that it is necessary to consider a patch loading criterion, this became less clear. However, the comparison did not give a quantitative basis for any rules. Although neither buckling analysis nor test results give very convincing evidence for a slenderness effect, there is some evidence. With practice extending to slenderness some four times the limit of tests and EN 1992 giving substantial increases in web stress compared with past practice, some restriction appeared to be justified, particularly as EN 1992 does not restrict slenderness of webs. The practical limitations on slenderness and the conservative web crushing stresses have prevented this becoming an issue in past practice. However, as EN 1992 can increase maximum web crushing stresses by significant factors (in extreme cases by a factor of 3.50) it could become an issue in the future and it was felt some limit should be introduced. 56|The Structural Engineer 5 December 2006

The only defined quantitative criterion for the limit would have been the limit of test data which is d/b = 0.10. However, experience indicates that the BS 5400 values are safe for significantly more slender webs than this and it is understood that a considerably more slender structure was tested to failure. Web compression reduces shear web buckling strength but, within the normal range of average stresses (up to 0.6fcd) the recommended cw in EN 1992 gives an enhancement. One approach to the above would be to eliminate or reverse this enhancement for slender webs. However, a simpler solution is to put an absolute limit on force related to slenderness. This would not give the benefit for compression. Consider grade 40/50 concrete. For most slender webs known d/bw = 9000/225 = 40 Assume BS 5400 stress of approx 5 is safe for this: Gives maximum force 5 40bw2 = 200bw2 Since buckling is related to stiffness and the stiffness does not increase proportionately with concrete grade, this formula can be left with no correction for concrete grade. For 60 (cylinder) concrete (max allowed to be assumed by UK NA for shear) with vertical links this governs for d/bw > 20 with maximum links, although it does not alter designs based on of tan1 0.4 until d/bw > 28. These figures can be compared with the limit of test results which appears to be 10. They are well beyond both common practice and test results which means they cannot be considered either over-restrictive or over-conservative. With inclined links they could govern for much less slender webs. The above ratios of 20 and 28 reduce to 10 and 14 respectively for links at 45 although to 13 and 20 if the changes proposed in the section on inclined links in this paper are implemented. As no test results have been found to justify increases in web crushing with inclined links this greater restriction does not seem unreasonable Because the National Annex is only allowed to alter specific things, this restriction should ideally be converted into an equivalent value of a variable such as 1. This, however, would make a simple limit need a relatively complicated formula. This can be overcome by simply saying the recommended 1 and cw may be used provided it does not result in VRd,max > 200bw2 This restriction can be based on bw before reductions for ducts and does not need to be applied within 1d of a support provided the support has a diaphragm or other additional concrete capable of distributing the bearing force through the web.

Conclusions
EN 1992 can give much higher shear stresses than previous codes. However, investigation of test results supports the EN 1992 rules and there does not appear to be any reason to depart significantly from the recommended Nationally Determined Parameters within the range of the tests. However, the 80% yield rule does appear to be slightly optimistic. A small change in equation 6.10.aN is suggested to resolve this and this has been adopted in the EN 19921-1 National Annex. According to the EN 1992 rules, the design shear stress can double when considering inclined links at 45. Although this appears to be theoretically correct, it is a very large change from past practice apparently without any tests to prove it and with one that appears to cast doubt on it. It is therefore considered wise to limit the web crushing stress until further verification with test results become available. The most slender webs observed in practice are well outside the limit of the tests and some caution is needed with these as EN 1992 otherwise allows very substantial increases in stress compared with past practice. Two points were noted where the wording of EN 1992 is unclear. Saying z may normally be taken as 0.9d leaves it unclear when this does not apply and the wording of 6.2.1(6)

paper: jackson/salim

regarding the treatment of the vertical component of flange forces is peculiar.

REFERENCES
Batchelor, BdeV, George, H. K. and Campbell, T. I.: Effectiveness factor for shear in concrete beams, J. Struct. Engng Div. ASCE, 112/6, June 1986, p 1464-1477 2. Clarke, J. L. and Taylor H. P. J.: Web crushing a review of research. Publication 42.509, Wexham Springs, C&CA, 1975 3. Bennett, E. W. and Balasoorya, B. M. A.: Shear strength of prestressed beams with thin webs failing in inclined compression, ACI J., March 1971 4. Bennett, E. W. and Debaiky, S. Y.: High strength steel as shear reinforcement in prestressed concrete beams, ACI Special Publication 42, Vol. I, p 231-248 5. Leonhardt, F., Koch, R. and Rostasy, F.: Schubversuche an Spannbetontragern, Deutsher Ausschuss fur Stahlb beton, Heft 227, Berlin, 1973 6. Walraven, J. C.: Shear in prestressed concrete, CEB-Bulletin dinformation, 180, 144pp 7. Lyngberg, B. S.: Ultimate shear resistance of partially prestressed concrete I-beams, ACI J., April 1976, p 214-221 8. Regan, P. E.: Shear in reinforced concrete an experimental study, A report to the Construction Industry Research and Information Association, April 1971, Department if Civil Engineering, Imperial College of Science and Technology 9. Walraven, J. C.: Background Document for EC2-2 Chapter 6.2 Shear. Delft University of Technology, January 2002 10. Macleod, I. A. and Houmsi, A.: Shear strength of haunched beams without shear reinforcement. ACI Struct. J., 91/1, Jan.-Feb. 1994, p 79-89 1.

Recommendations
The immediate recommendations of this work were to make the 80% yield rule slightly more conservative and to introduce restrictions on the web crushing limit for inclined links and for slender webs. These have both been adopted in the UK National Annexes for both Part 1 (general) and Part 2 (bridges) of EN 1992. It is recommended that similar restrictions should be considered for EN 1992 itself the first time it is revised. It is also recommended that the wording regarding the lever arm, z, and the treatment of the vertical component of flange forces should be edited at that time. The limits proposed by this work and given in the National Annexes are introduced not because research shows the rules to be unsafe but because there is no research data to support the rules. This is clearly unsatisfactory and it is recommended that the CEN committee should be urged to provide research evidence to support the rules or, if this is not available, that research should be undertaken to investigate web crushing limits with slender webs and/or with inclined links.

Acknowledgments
The work reported in this paper was done as part of a commission to prepare for the implementation of the Eurocodes under a contract placed by the Secretary of State for Transport to Parsons Brinckerhoff under which Gifford acted as a sub consultant. Any views expressed are not necessarily those of the Secretary of State for Transport. The authors would also like to thank Dr Denton and Dr Shave of Parsons Brinckerhoff and Mr George of the Highways Agency for helpful suggestions.

5 December 2006 The Structural Engineer|57