Headed Stud / Shear Friction
Headed Stud / Shear Friction
(OP)
Folks,
If there is an embedded plate with headed studs on the soffit of a concrete beam, can the shear-friction design method be used for tension loads in lieu of Appendix D?
The logic I am thinking is that the headed studs will transfer tensile loads through bearing of the head in concrete. Once this load is transferred into concrete, any concrete cone breakout is prevented by adding longitudinal steel in the beam in addition to what is needed for flexure. Calculate As = Tu/ phi fy. In addition, you can always add closely spaced shear ties (say at 3" o.c.) to prevent the cone breakout on the sides.
Does this make sense?
If there is an embedded plate with headed studs on the soffit of a concrete beam, can the shear-friction design method be used for tension loads in lieu of Appendix D?
The logic I am thinking is that the headed studs will transfer tensile loads through bearing of the head in concrete. Once this load is transferred into concrete, any concrete cone breakout is prevented by adding longitudinal steel in the beam in addition to what is needed for flexure. Calculate As = Tu/ phi fy. In addition, you can always add closely spaced shear ties (say at 3" o.c.) to prevent the cone breakout on the sides.
Does this make sense?






RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
I would say no, and here is why - The shear friction provisions assume a true shear plane, not the principal tensile stress plane. The reason this is important (IMO) is that the principal tensile stress plane will not have the necessary aggregate interlock to get the coefficient of friction values listed for the shear friction provisions.
Just as a comparison, even if you have the bottom longitudinal reinforcement of a concrete beam fully developed into a support, you can't count on that reinforcement in shear calculations. That's a very similar condition to what you are suggesting.
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
I agree with that, but that's not shear friction, that's just developing the reinforcing per App. D in ACI 318-08.
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
Not looking to pick up an argument/fight, just trying to understand. :)
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
There are diagrams as well, and a design method for the reinforcing.
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
I'll look at the 02 version tomorrow. I just want to ask this question to you. Using your thought pattern, what would preclude one from using bottom longitudinal tension steel as "shear friction" steel at supports?
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
Using longitudinal steel has some sort of benefit in the shear capacity. The use of the rho(w) factor in the shear capacity equations of concrete does allow for this. A flexural tension crack that propagates to a flexural shear crack is definitely going to be held together better if you have reinforcing passing through it.
The mode of shear transfer close to the supports is based on a compression strut being developed. Definitely the bottom steel there acts as a tension tie.
You do bring up a good question about longitudinal steel in shear friction. I believe there was a discussion in this forum on that very topic. I will dig it up and look.
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
You're correct that the longitudinal steel has some shear capacity - it's lumped into Vc (as in a section that is unreinforced for shear, i.e. no stirrups) for the basic case. Vc is a combination of the shear strength of the concrete, aggregate interlock, and dowel action of the longitudinal steel. If you decide to take the long route, you don't get much benefit from calc'ing out the "exact" amount. Additionally, I would say that any additional capacity gained is from dowel action, not from shear friction. If the capacity gained were from a shear friction mechanism the capacity would be substantially higher.
I agree that the bottom steel is seeing some tension as a tie mechanism as you point out, but that's still not a shear capacity.
The bottom line is if you have a section reinforced for tension without stirrups (specifically designed to take the shear force), then your shear capacity is only phiVc. Because phiVc already accounts for the dowel action of the longitudinal steel you don't get any benefit by having it in. If you don't have longitudinal steel (I admit this wouldn't happen in practice, but just for discussion...) then I would take an additional reduction since you don't have all of the conditions that apply to phiVc.
I think I started a thread a while back asking about the shear friction mechanism for longitudinal steel in RC Beams. That thread helped me understand what I'm trying to explain here.
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
We are talking about whether longitudinal steel in a beam passing through the concrete cone will prevent such a failure from happening say for a stud that is 8" deep.
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
same topic discussed
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
I'd first like to comment on your reference to Figure R11.7.4 in ACI 318-02. If you look at the figure closely, you can see that it is a direct shear plane. It's not a tensile plane, not a principal stress plane, not any other kind of plane................ just a shear plane. The condition you describe is not a shera plane. I'm attaching a sketch to make sure we're picturing the same thing (I left out the top reinforcement and the stirrups for clarity).
Why do you think that the longitudinal reinforcement WILL prevent a breakout of the cone in tension? What is the reasoning for this other than shear friction?
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
What is the mechanism by which supplementary reinforcing that is provided parallel to the direction of force ACI 318-08 Appendix D 5.2.9 resists the applied tension? That tension reinforcing is developed on either side of the breakout surface (shear plane?). Does it make a difference is this reinforcing is parallel to the force or perpendicular to the force, if it is developed on both sides of the breakout surface?
Maybe I am missing something really important here.
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
Does that make sense? You can only use shear friction for steel crossing a shear plane. A edges of a breakout cone from anchors loaded in tension is not a shear plane (i.e. there is not shear along that plane, therefore you don't get the clamping force).
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
Thanks for the explanation.
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
When a headed stud in a composite beam is in shear, the shear force pushes the stud laterally which is in turn resisted by the concrete on the other side. Hence, there is no rotation on the stud and hence, carries only a shear force and no bending?
However, the code requires the welds for channel connectors to be designed for the eccentricity of the load if the weld is smaller than 3/16". Why is that so?
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
I've never done it this way but it seems right to me.
RE: Headed Stud / Shear Friction
I agree with StructuralEIT, I don't think the shear friction model fits this failure mode. My interpretation of Appendix D is that if you want to avoid being limited by the concrete cone breakout capacity, you must provide anchor reinforcement that satisfies the requirements of D.5.2.9, which specifically defines what can be considered as anchor reinforcement (stirrups, ties or hairpins at a certain spacing relative to the anchors). Since normal flexural reinforcement doesn't qualify, it can't be used in lieu of concrete breakout strength per D.4.2.1.
Even if you design the stirrups to take all the load, you still have to check anchor steel strength per Appendix D against the stirrup capacity.