Print_Reduced

February 27, 2015
Structural Behavior of Hybrid & Ductal Decked Bulb
T Beams Prestressed with CFCC
Thesis Defense By:
Ranjit Kumar Sharma
MSc. Candidate, Civil Engineering
Project Principal Investigator
Nabil F. Grace, Ph.D., P.E.
Defense Committee Members
Elin Jensen, Ph.D.
Keith J. Kowalkowski, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Mena Bebawy, Ph.D.

Research Issues
Proposed Solution
Research Objectives
Experimental Program
Research Findings
Comparison with Previous Research & Analytical Data
Conclusions & Recommendations
Presentation CoversPresentation CoversPresentation CoversPresentation Covers 2

ResearchResearchResearchResearch IssuesIssuesIssuesIssues 3
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
NumberofBridges(inthousands)
Year
NumberofBridges(inthousands)
# Total Bridges # Structural Deficient # Funtional Obsolete # Total Deficient Bridges
1/9 United States Bridges are deficient (NBI, FHWA)
United States Bridge GPA = C+ (2013 ASCE Report Card)

ResearchResearchResearchResearch Issues (contd.)Issues (contd.)Issues (contd.)Issues (contd.) 4
Challenges Currently Faced by Bridge Construction Industry
LongitudinalCracking
of Bridge Deck
Solution: UHPC
Corrosion of Steel
Reinforcement
Solution: FRP
Lack of Space for
Inspection (B0x Beam
Bridge System)
Solution: DBT Beams
*DBT = Decked Bulb T

Limitation of UHPC & FRP
Application
Higher Cost of Production
Lack of Unified Design Guidelines &
Specification
Limited Research Data
Risk of implementing new materials

Issues with FRP
Prestressed Decked Bulb
T Beam Bridge system
Sudden Flexural Failure
of Under-Reinforced
HSC Beams
Solution: Increase
Tensile Strength of
Concrete
Sudden Shear Failure of
HSC Beams
Solution: Increase
Shear Capacity
Lack of Ductility
Solution: Add Steel
Fibers to Concrete
Decked BulbT Beam
Bridge system
Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP)

Research Issues
Proposed Solution
Research Objectives
Research Findings
Proposed SolutionProposed SolutionProposed SolutionProposed Solution 7

CFCC Prestressed Decked BulbT Beams
Hybrid Beam
Ductal Beam
CFCC Prestressed HSC Decked BulbT Beam
CFCC Prestressed Hybrid Decked BulbT Beam
CFCC Prestressed Ductal Decked BulbT Beam
Box Beam
Section
HSC Beam
Section
Ductal Beam
Section
Hybrid Beam
Section
Critical shear span = a/d = 8 Critical shear span = a/d = 8
16”
14”

Hybrid or
Ductal
Decked Bulb
T Beam
Bridge
Prestressed
with CFCC
Mitigates
sudden shear
or flexural
failure Efficiently
uses
expensive
UHPC & FRP
Material
Facilitates
easier & faster
construction
of
reinforcement
cage/Beam
Increases
span to depth
ratio of the
beam
Replaces
corrosive steel
reinforcement
with CFCC
Generates
valuable
research data
for UHPC
unified design
guidelines
Provides
sufficient
space for
inspection &
passage of
utility
Faster on-site
bridge
construction
with inbuilt
deck

Research Issues
Proposed Solution
Research Objectives
Research Findings
Research ObjectiveResearch ObjectiveResearch ObjectiveResearch Objective 10

Research Objectives 11
ResearchObjective
To examine the effect of eliminating the use of shear stirrups with UHPC
either partially or completely in CFCC prestressed decked bulbT beams.
To study the effect of variation of shear span-to-depth ratio on shear
behavior and modes of failure in hybrid & ductal decked bulbT beams.
To evaluate the flexural behavior, cracking and the ultimate flexural
capacity of hybrid and ductal beams with their modes of failure.
To determine the level of conservatism in various design guidelines and
codes for predicting capacity of hybrid and ductal beams.

ResearchResearchResearchResearch Flow ChartFlow ChartFlow ChartFlow Chart 12
Structural Behavior of Hybrid & Ductal Decked BulbT Beams
Experimental Investigation
ShearTest
Hybrid Beam
a/d 3
a/d 4
a/d 5
a/d 6
Ductal Beam
a/d 3
a/d 4
FlexureTest
Hybrid Beam
Ductal Beam
Literature Review
Comparison of results with similarly reinforced
beams from previous researchers
Comparison of results with analytical results
predicted using various design codes
Analysis of Results

Research Issues
Proposed Solution
Research Objectives
Research Findings
Experimental ProgramExperimental ProgramExperimental ProgramExperimental Program 13

14
Material Properties:Material Properties:Material Properties:Material Properties:
Concrete Compressive StrengthConcrete Compressive StrengthConcrete Compressive StrengthConcrete Compressive Strength
7, 17.73
28, 24.21
99, 27.36
7, 14.13
28, 20.50
82, 21.50
7, 5.80
28, 8.31 99, 9.32
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.0
34.5
68.9
103.4
137.9
172.4
206.8
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (Days)
CompressiveStrength(MPa)
CompressiveStrength(ksi)
Time (Days)
UHPC Compressive Strength - Hybrid beam
UHPC Compressive strength - Ductal beam
HSC Compressive strength - Hybrid beam
UHPC HSC

15
Material Properties:Material Properties:Material Properties:Material Properties:
Concrete Split Tensile StrengthConcrete Split Tensile StrengthConcrete Split Tensile StrengthConcrete Split Tensile Strength
7, 2.10
28, 2.50
99, 2.67
7, 1.72
28, 2.07 82, 2.15
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
3
7
10
14
17
21
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (Days)
SplitTensileStrength(MPa)
SplitTensileStrength(ksi)
Time (Days)
UHPC Split Tensile Strenght - Hybrid Beam
UHPC Split Tensile Strength - Ductal Beam
UHPC Cylinder Split Tensile Failure

16
Construction:Construction:Construction:Construction:
Hybrid Beam (HB) & Ductal Beam (DB)Hybrid Beam (HB) & Ductal Beam (DB)Hybrid Beam (HB) & Ductal Beam (DB)Hybrid Beam (HB) & Ductal Beam (DB)
Deck Setup for HB Conc. Joint
Pouring
HSCPouring UHPC
Gate – Used to
Close Trap
Door
HB Ready for Conc. Pour
DB Formwork DB Ready for Conc. Pour

Mixing of UHPC at CIMRMixing of UHPC at CIMRMixing of UHPC at CIMRMixing of UHPC at CIMR
Gray Mix Cement Discontinuous Steel Fibers
Premia 150 Super Plasticizer Water
17

18
Mixing of UHPC at CIMRMixing of UHPC at CIMRMixing of UHPC at CIMRMixing of UHPC at CIMR
Concrete Mixer UHPC
Checking UHPC Temperature Flow Test for UHPC Workability
Limits of Flow Value, 8in – 10in

19
Pouring BeamsPouring BeamsPouring BeamsPouring Beams
HSC from Batching Plant Pouring HSC
Pouring UHPC
HSC
UHPC
Concrete Joint Formation
Video

20
Testing:Testing:Testing:Testing:
Typical Beam Setup for Shear TestTypical Beam Setup for Shear TestTypical Beam Setup for Shear TestTypical Beam Setup for Shear Test
Linear Variable Differential
Transformer (LVDT)
Data Acquisition Setup
Linear Motion Transducer
(LMT)
Shear Span (a)
Effective depth (d)
Effective Length
Surface Strain Gage

21
Testing:Testing:Testing:Testing:
Typical Beam Setup for Flexure TestTypical Beam Setup for Flexure TestTypical Beam Setup for Flexure TestTypical Beam Setup for Flexure Test
Linear Motion
Transducer (LMT)
2 Point Load Spreader
Effective Length
Data Acquisition Setup

Research Issues
Proposed Solution
Research Objectives
Research Findings
Research FindingsResearch FindingsResearch FindingsResearch Findings
22

23
BeamBeamBeamBeam NomenclatureNomenclatureNomenclatureNomenclature
• HB = Hybrid Beam • SC = CFCC Stirrup HSC Beam*
• DB = Ductal Beam • SS = Steel Stirrup HSC Beam*
AB
(Type of Beam)
• 100 = 100 kip (444.8 kN) • 132 = 132 kip (587.2 kN)
CDE
(Prestressing Force)
• 3, 4, 5, 6 = shear span to depth (a/d) ratio – Shear Test
• Mid = Mid Span of the beam - FlexureTest
F
(Location of Load)
• 0SS = No Stirrups in Shear Span • 6 = 6 in.(152.4 mm)*
• 0ES = No Stirrups in Entire Span
0GH
(Span with no Stirrups)
• Hybrid Beam-100 kip prestressing force-shear test at a/d
= 3 - No stirrups in shear spanHB-100-3-0SS
• Steel stirrup beam – 100 kip prestressing force – force-
shear test at a/d = 5 – Stirrup spacing of 6”SS-100-5-6*
Beam AB – CDE – F – 0GH
*Rout, S.K. (2013). “Shear Performance of Prestressed Concrete Decked BulbT Beams Reinforced with CFCC
Stirrups.” MSCEThesis,Civil Engineering Department, LawrenceTechnologicalUniversity, Southfield, MI., U.S.A.

HYBRID BEAM
24

Shear Force = 118.8 kip, 3.4in Deflection (Under Load)
25
Diagonal Shear Failure, a/d = 3 Diagonal Shear Failure, a/d = 4
Flexural Comp. Failure, a/d = 5
Results/Hybrid Beam Shear Test:Results/Hybrid Beam Shear Test:Results/Hybrid Beam Shear Test:Results/Hybrid Beam Shear Test:
Ultimate Shear FailureUltimate Shear FailureUltimate Shear FailureUltimate Shear Failure
Shear Force = 81 kip, 9.4in Deflection (Under Load)
Flexural Comp. Failure, a/d = 6
Video Video
Video Video

26
Applied Load = 92.4 kip, 5.15 in Deflection (At Mid Span)
Compression Flexure Failure
Results/Hybrid Beam Flexure Test:Results/Hybrid Beam Flexure Test:Results/Hybrid Beam Flexure Test:Results/Hybrid Beam Flexure Test:
Ultimate Flexural FailureUltimate Flexural FailureUltimate Flexural FailureUltimate Flexural Failure
Video

27
CrackPatternsinHybridBeams
HB-100-3-0SS
HB-100-4-0SS
HB-100-5-0SS
HB-100-6-0SS
HB-100-Mid-0SS
Crack PatternCrack PatternCrack PatternCrack Pattern

0.0 25.4 50.8 76.2 101.6 127.0 152.4 177.8 203.2 228.6 254.0
0
89
178
267
356
445
534
623
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Deflection (mm)
ShearForce(kN)
ShearForce(kip)
Deflection (in.)
HB-100-3-0SS
HB-100-4-0SS
HB-100-5-0SS
HB-100-6-0SS
28
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
Shear ForceShear ForceShear ForceShear Force----Deflection ResponseDeflection ResponseDeflection ResponseDeflection Response

34.2
21.9
16.1
12.2
118.8
100.6
80.9
62.2
0
89
178
267
356
445
534
623
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
HB-100-3-0SS HB-100-4-0SS HB-100-5-0SS HB-100-6-0SS
ShearForce(kN)
ShearForce(kip)
Beams
Cracking Shear Force
Ultimate Shear Force
29
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
Cracking & Ultimate Shear ForceCracking & Ultimate Shear ForceCracking & Ultimate Shear ForceCracking & Ultimate Shear Force

0.000 0.025 0.051 0.076 0.102 0.127 0.152 0.178 0.203 0.229 0.254
0
89
178
267
356
445
534
623
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01
Crack Width (mm) in UHPC Section
ShearForce(kN)
ShearForce(kip)
Crack Width (in.) in UHPC Section
HB-100-3-0SS
HB-100-4-0SS
HB-100-5-0SS
HB-100-6-0SS
30
Shear ForceShear ForceShear ForceShear Force----Crack Width ResponseCrack Width ResponseCrack Width ResponseCrack Width Response
Hybrid Beam

0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250
0
89
178
267
356
445
534
623
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
Crack Width (mm)
ShearForce(kN)
ShearForce(kip)
Crack Width (in.)
HB-100-4-0SS (UHPC)
HB-100-4-0SS (HSC)
HB-100-6-0SS (UHPC)
HB-100-6-0SS (HSC)
31
Shear Force
Load
Support

-4,000-3,500-3,000-2,500-2,000-1,500-1,000-5000
0
89
178
267
356
445
534
623
712
-4,000-3,500-3,000-2,500-2,000-1,500-1,000-5000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Compressive Strain at Top Flange (µε)
ShearForce(kN)
ShearForce(kip)
HB-100-3-0SS (UHPC at Load) HB-100-3-0SS (UHPC at Joint) HB-100-3-0SS (HSC at Joint)
32
Shear Force
Load
Support
Shear ForceShear ForceShear ForceShear Force----Conc. Compressive Strain ResponseConc. Compressive Strain ResponseConc. Compressive Strain ResponseConc. Compressive Strain Response

-2,206
UHPCatLoad
-2,832
UHPCatLoad
-2,763
UHPCatLoad
-3,264
UHPCatLoad
-1,865
UHPCatJoint
-2,193
UHPCatJoint
-2,243
UHPCatJoint
-2,148
UHPCatJoint
-1,764
HSCatJoint
-2,829
HSCatJoint
-3,519
HSCatJoint
-3,287
HSCatJoint
-4,500
-4,000
-3,500
-3,000
-2,500
-2,000
-1,500
-1,000
-500
0
-4,500
-4,000
-3,500
-3,000
-2,500
-2,000
-1,500
-1,000
-500
0
TopFlangeConceteStrain(µε)
TopFlangeConcreteStrain(µε) 33
Shear Force
Load
Support
Maximum Concrete Compressive StrainMaximum Concrete Compressive StrainMaximum Concrete Compressive StrainMaximum Concrete Compressive Strain

-4,000-3,500-3,000-2,500-2,000-1,500-1,000-5000
0
89
178
267
356
445
534
623
-4,000-3,500-3,000-2,500-2,000-1,500-1,000-5000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
ShearForce(kN)
ShearForce(kip)
HB-100-3-0SS (UHPC at Load) HB-100-4-0SS (UHPC at Load)
HB-100-5-0SS (HSC at Joint) HB-100-6-0SS (HSC at Joint)
34
Shear Force
Load
Support

35
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
0
89
178
267
356
445
533
622
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Tensile Strain in UHPC at Bottom Flange under Load (µε)
ShearForce(kN)
Tensile Strain in UHPC at Bottom under Load Flange (µε)
ShearForce(kip)
HB-100-3-0SS (Concrete)
Shear Force
Load
Support
Shear ForceShear ForceShear ForceShear Force----Concrete Tensile Strain ResponseConcrete Tensile Strain ResponseConcrete Tensile Strain ResponseConcrete Tensile Strain Response

-2,206, UHPC at Load
-2,832, UHPC at Load
-3,519, HSC at Joint
-3,287 HSC at Joint
4,480, UHPC under Load
6,334 UHPC under Load
-6,000
-3,000
0
3,000
6,000
9,000
-6,000
-3,000
0
3,000
6,000
9,000
ConcreteStrain(µε)
BEAMS
36
Max. Concrete Compressive & Tensile StrainMax. Concrete Compressive & Tensile StrainMax. Concrete Compressive & Tensile StrainMax. Concrete Compressive & Tensile Strain
Shear Force
Load
Support

36.5%
HB-100-3-0SS
38.5%
HB-100-4-0SS
31.9%
HB-100-5-0SS
27.2%
HB-100-6-0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Ductility Ratio (%) = [Ei/(Ei+Ee)]
DuctilityRatio(%)=[Ei/(Ei+Ee)]
Beams
37
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
<69%
70%-
74%
>75%
Ductility
Ratio
Brittle
Semi-
Ductile
Ductile
Failure
Mode
Ductility RatioDuctility RatioDuctility RatioDuctility Ratio

DUCTAL BEAM
38

39
Diagonal Shear Crack
Diagonal Shear Failure
Shear Failure: Non-Shear Span
Results/Ductal Beam Shear Test:Results/Ductal Beam Shear Test:Results/Ductal Beam Shear Test:Results/Ductal Beam Shear Test:
Ultimate Shear FailureUltimate Shear FailureUltimate Shear FailureUltimate Shear Failure
Diagonal Shear Failure
Video
Video

40
Beam Just Before Failure
Applied Load = 35.6 kip, 20.8 in Deflection (At Mid Span)
Flexural Tension Failure
Top View Rupture of Prestressing Strands
Ultimate Flexural FailureUltimate Flexural FailureUltimate Flexural FailureUltimate Flexural Failure
Video

41
CrackPatternsinDuctalBeams
DB-132-3-0ES
DB-132-4-0ES
DB-132-Mid-0ES
Crack PatternCrack PatternCrack PatternCrack Pattern

0 25.4 50.8 76.2 101.6 127 152.4 177.8 203.2 228.6 254
0
44
89
133
178
222
267
311
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Deflection (mm)
ShearForce(kN)
ShearForce(kip)
Deflection (in.)
DB-132-3-0ES
DB-132-4-0ES
42
57.8 kip (0.8 in.)
49.0 kip (1.3 in.)
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
Shear ForceShear ForceShear ForceShear Force----Deflection ResponseDeflection ResponseDeflection ResponseDeflection Response

36.0
32.0
64.7 62.8
0
89
178
267
356
445
534
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
DB-132-3-0ES DB-132-4-0ES
ShearForce(kN)
ShearForce(kip)
Beams
43
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
Support
Cracking & Ultimate Shear ForceCracking & Ultimate Shear ForceCracking & Ultimate Shear ForceCracking & Ultimate Shear Force

0.000 0.013 0.025 0.038 0.051 0.064 0.076 0.089 0.102 0.114
0
44
89
133
178
222
267
311
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004 0.0045
Crack Width (mm)
ShearForce(kN)
ShearForce(kip)
Crack Width (in.)
DB-132-3-0ES
DB-132-4-0ES
44
Ductal Beam
0.0036 in.
0.0030 in.

-4,000-3,500-3,000-2,500-2,000-1,500-1,000-5000
0
44
89
133
178
222
267
311
-4,000-3,500-3,000-2,500-2,000-1,500-1,000-5000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
ShearForce(kN)
ShearForce(kip)
DB-132-3-0ES
DB-132-4-0ES
45
-2,083 µε -3,388 µε
Load
Shear Force
Support

46
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
0
89
178
267
356
445
533
622
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
ShearForce(kN)
ShearForce(kip)
DB-132-3-0ES (Concrete)
DB-132-4-0ES (Concrete)
4,685 µε 7,630 µε
Load
Shear Force
Support
Shear ForceShear ForceShear ForceShear Force----Tensile Strain ResponseTensile Strain ResponseTensile Strain ResponseTensile Strain Response

-2,083 UHPC at Load
-3,388 UHPC at Load
-6,000
-3,000
0
3,000
6,000
9,000
-6,000
-3,000
0
3,000
6,000
9,000
DB-132-3-0ES DB-132-4-0ES
BEAMS
Maximum Compressive Strain at Top Flange Concrete
Maximum tensile Strain at Bottom Flange Concrete Under Load
47
Load
Shear Force
Support
Results/Ductal Beam Shear Test: Max.Results/Ductal Beam Shear Test: Max.Results/Ductal Beam Shear Test: Max.Results/Ductal Beam Shear Test: Max.
Concrete Compressive & Tensile Strain Under LoadConcrete Compressive & Tensile Strain Under LoadConcrete Compressive & Tensile Strain Under LoadConcrete Compressive & Tensile Strain Under Load

60.31%
DB-132-3-0ES 56.48%
DB-132-4-0ES
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
5
Beams
48
<69%
70%-
74%
>75%
Ductility
Ratio
Brittle
Semi-
Ductile
Ductile
Failure
Mode
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
Ductility RatioDuctility RatioDuctility RatioDuctility Ratio

49
Beam
Type
Beam
Notation
Ultimate
Shear Force,
kip
(kN)
Cracking
Shear
Force,
kip
(kN)
Ultimate
Deflection
under load,
in.
(mm)
Max.
Concrete
Strain at
Top (µɛ)
Max.
Concrete
Strain at
Bottom
(µɛ)
Ductility
Ratio
(%)
Modes of
Failure
HYBRIDBEAM
HB-100-3-0SS
118.8
(528.5)
34.2
(152.1)
3.4
(85.9)
-2,206 5,980 36.6 DS
HB-100-4-0SS
106.6
(447.5)
21.9
(97.4)
8.3
(201.3)
-3,052 6,334 38.5 DS
HB-100-5-0SS
80.9
(359.9)
16.1
(71.6)
9.9
(250.2)
-3,519 4,421 31.9 CF
HB-100-6-0SS
62.2
(276.7)
12.2
(54.3)
7.7
(195.6)
-3,244 3,024 27.2 CF
DUCTALBEAM
DB-100-3-0ES
64.7
(287.8)
36.0
(160.1)
0.8
(20.32)
-2,110 2,198 60.3 DS
DB-100-4-0ES
62.8
(297.3)
32.0
(142.3)
1.3
(33.8)
-3,389 5,926 56.4 DS
DS: Diagonal Shear Failure, CF: Compression Flexural Failure
Results: Shear Test SummaryResults: Shear Test SummaryResults: Shear Test SummaryResults: Shear Test Summary

Research Issues
Proposed Solution
Research Objectives
Research Findings
Comparison with Previous ResearchComparison with Previous ResearchComparison with Previous ResearchComparison with Previous Research50

51
Properties
HYBRID BEAM HSC BEAM*
Width, in. (mm) Depth, in. (mm) Width, in. (mm) Depth, in. (mm)
Top Flange 18.0 (457.2) 3.0 (76.2) 18.0 (457.2) 3.0 (76.2)
Web 3.0 (76.2) 8.0 (203.2) 3.0 (76.2) 8.0 (203.2)
Bottom Flange 12.0 (304.8) 3.0 (76.2) 12.0 (304.8) 3.0 (76.2)
Centroid of Beam from Top - 7.2 (182.9) - 7.2 (182.9)
Other Properties
Crosse Sectional Area, in.2 (mm2) 126.5 (8.2 x 104
) 126.5 (8.2 x 104
)
Moment of Inertia, in.4
(mm4
) 4174.2 (1.7 x 109) 4174.2 (1.7 x 109)
Designed -Depth of Neutral Axis from Top, in. (mm) 3.8 (96.2) 3.8 (96.2)
Balance-Depth of Neutral Axis from Top, in. (mm) 3.3 (83.5) 3.3 (83.5)
Initial Effective Prestressing Force, kip (kN) 100 (444.8) 100 (444.8)
Designed –Reinforcement Ratio 0.382 0.382
Balance–Reinforcement Ratio 0.312 0.312
Section Designed Compression Controlled Compression Controlled
*Rout, S.K. (2013). “Shear Performance of Prestressed Concrete Decked Bulb T Beams Reinforced with CFCC Stirrups.”
MSCE Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Lawrence Technological University, Southfield, MI., U.S.A.
Comparison BetweenComparison BetweenComparison BetweenComparison Between Hybrid &Hybrid &Hybrid &Hybrid & HSCHSCHSCHSC Beam*Beam*Beam*Beam* TestedTestedTestedTested
inininin Shear: Section PropertiesShear: Section PropertiesShear: Section PropertiesShear: Section Properties

0 25.4 50.8 76.2 101.6 127 152.4 177.8 203.2 228.6 254
0
89
178
267
356
445
534
623
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Deflection (mm)
ShearForce(kN)
ShearForce(kip)
Deflection (in.)
SC-100-3-6* SC-100-4-6* SC-100-5-6* SC-100-6-6*
SS-100-3-6* SS-100-4-6* SS-100-5-6* SS-100-6-6*
52
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
inininin Shear: Shear ForceShear: Shear ForceShear: Shear ForceShear: Shear Force----DeflectionDeflectionDeflectionDeflection ResposneResposneResposneResposne

34.2
27.3 26.8
21.9 20.0 19.2
16.1 15.8 15.6
12.2 12.4 14.2
118.8
61.2
58.6
100.6
53.6 52.2
80.9
49.7 49.1
62.2
44.2 46.3
0
89
178
267
356
445
534
623
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
ShearForce(kN)
ShearForce(kip)
Beams
53
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
inininin Shear: Cracking & Ultimate Shear ForceShear: Cracking & Ultimate Shear ForceShear: Cracking & Ultimate Shear ForceShear: Cracking & Ultimate Shear Force

-4,000-3,500-3,000-2,500-2,000-1,500-1,000-5000
0
89
178
267
356
445
534
623
-4,000-3,500-3,000-2,500-2,000-1,500-1,000-5000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Maximum Compressive Strain at Top Flange (µε)
ShearForce(kN)
Maximum Compressive Strain at Top Flange (µε)
ShearForce(kip)
HB-100-3-0SS(UL) HB-100-4-0SS(UL) HB-100-5-0SS(HJ) HB-100-6-0SS(HJ)
SC-100-3-6* SC-100-4-6* SC-100-5-6* SC-100-6-6*
SS-100-3-6* SS-100-4-6* SS-100-5-6* SS-100-6-6*
54
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
inininin Shear: Shear ForceShear: Shear ForceShear: Shear ForceShear: Shear Force----Conc. Compressive StrainConc. Compressive StrainConc. Compressive StrainConc. Compressive Strain

-2,206
-1,642
-1,282
-2,832
-2,038
-1,767
-3,519
-2,639 -2,624
-3,287
-2,649 -2,732
-5,000
-4,500
-4,000
-3,500
-3,000
-2,500
-2,000
-1,500
-1,000
-500
0
-5,000
-4,500
-4,000
-3,500
-3,000
-2,500
-2,000
-1,500
-1,000
-500
0
TopFlangeConcreteStrain(µε)
TopFlangeConcreteStrain(µε)
Beams
55
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
inininin Shear: Shear ForceShear: Shear ForceShear: Shear ForceShear: Shear Force----Conc. Compressive StrainConc. Compressive StrainConc. Compressive StrainConc. Compressive Strain

HB-100-3-0SS
HB-100-3-0SS
SS-100-3-6*
SS-100-3-6*
SC-100-3-6*
SC-100-3-6*
HB-100-4-0SS
HB-100-4-0SS
SS-100-4-6*
SS-100-4-6*
SC-100-4-6*
SC-100-4-6*
HB-100-5-0SS
HB-100-5-0SS
SS-100-5-6*
SS-100-5-6*
SC-100-5-6*
SC-100-5-6*
HB-100-6-0
HB-100-6-0SS
SS-100-6-6
SS-100-6-6
SC-100-6-6
SC-100-6-6
0
6
11
17
23
28
34
40
45
51
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Inelastic Energy (Ei) Elastic Energy (Ee)
Energy(kN-m)
Energy(kip-in) 56
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
inininin Shear: Elastic and Inelastic EnergyShear: Elastic and Inelastic EnergyShear: Elastic and Inelastic EnergyShear: Elastic and Inelastic Energy

HB-100-3-0SS
SS-100-3-6*
SC-100-3-6*
HB-100-4-0SS
SS-100-4-6*
SC-100-4-6*
HB-100-5-0SS
SS-100-5-6*
SC-100-5-6*
HB-100-6-0
SS-100-6-6*
SC-100-6-6*
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Beams
57
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
LMT
(Deflection)
Load
Shear
Force
<69%
70%-
74%
>75%
Ductility
Ratio
Brittle
Semi-
Ductile
Ductile
Failure
Mode
inininin Shear: Ductility RatioShear: Ductility RatioShear: Ductility RatioShear: Ductility Ratio

58
Beams
Inelastic Energy (Ei),
kip-in (kN-m)
Elastic Energy (Ee),
kip-in, (kN-m)
Ductility Ratio (%) =
100 Ei/(Ei+Ee)
HB-100-3-0SS 104.3 (11.8) 180.7 (20.4) 36.6
SS-100-3-6* 23.6 (2.7) 65.3 (7.4) 26.5
SC-100-3-6* 23.9 (2.7) 63.3 (7.2) 27.4
HB-100-4-0SS 168.7 (19.1) 270.1 (30.5) 38.5
SS-100-4-6* 21.5 (2.4) 41.7 (4.7) 34.1
SC-100-4-6* 20.4 (2.3) 40.9 (4.6) 33.3
HB-100-5-0SS 159.9 (18.1) 341.8 (38.6) 31.9
SS-100-5-6* 43.9 (5.0) 79.7 (9.0) 35.5
SC-100-5-6* 41.1 (4.6) 77.2 (8.7) 34.7
HB-100-6-0SS 90.9 (10.3) 242.2 (27.6) 27.2
SS-100-5-6* 48.7 (5.5) 82.4 (9.3) 37.2
SC-100-6-6* 65.0 (7.3) 108.1 (12.2) 37.5
Comparison Between Ductal & HSC BeamComparison Between Ductal & HSC BeamComparison Between Ductal & HSC BeamComparison Between Ductal & HSC Beam**** TestedTestedTestedTested
inininin Shear: Elastic, Inelastic Energy & Ductility RatioShear: Elastic, Inelastic Energy & Ductility RatioShear: Elastic, Inelastic Energy & Ductility RatioShear: Elastic, Inelastic Energy & Ductility Ratio

59
Beams
Ultimate
Shear
Force,
kip (kN)
Cracking
Shear
Force,
kip (kN)
Ultimate
Deflection
under load,
in. (mm)
Max.
Concrete
Strain at
Top (µɛ)
Max.
Concrete
Strain at
Bottom (µɛ)
Ductility
Ratio
(%)
Modes of
Failure
HB-100-3-0SS 118.8 (528.5) 34.2 (152.1) 3.4 (85.9) -2,206 5,980 36.6 DS
SS-100-3-6* 61.2 (272.2) 27.3 (121.5) 1.4 (36.0) -1,642 416 26.5 ST
SC-100-3-6* 58.6 (260.7) 26.8 (119.2) 1.6 (41.0) -1,282 412 27.4 SC-W
HB-100-4-0SS 106.6 (447.5) 21.9 (97.4) 8.3 (201.3) -3,052 6,334 38.5 DS
SS-100-4-6* 53.6 (238.2) 20.0 (89.0) 2.6 (66.0) -2,038 280 34.1 ST
SC-100-4-6* 52.2 (232.0) 19.2 (85.3) 3.0 (76.0) -1,767 407 33.3 SC-W
HB-100-5-0SS 80.9 (359.9) 16.1 (71.6) 9.9 (250.2) -3,519 4,421 31.9 CF
SS-100-5-6* 49.7 (220.8) 15.8 (70.4) 3.5 (90.0) -2,639 416 35.5 ST
SC-100-5-6* 49.1 (218.0) 15.6 (69.4) 4.1 (104.0) -2,624 334 34.7 SC-T
HB-100-6-0SS 62.2 (276.7) 12.2 (54.3) 7.7 (195.6) -3,244 3,024 27.2 CF
SS-100-6-6* 44.2 (196.6) 12.4 (55.3) 4.8 (122.0) -2,649 312 37.2 ST
SC-100-6-6* 46.3 (206.1) 14.2 (63.0) 5.5 (139.0) -2,732 390 37.5 SC-T
DS: Diagonal Shear, CF: Compression Flexural, SC-W: Shear Compression Web Crushing, SC-T: Shear Compression Top
Flange Crushing, ST: Shear Tension due to yielding of Stirrup
Comparison BetweenComparison BetweenComparison BetweenComparison Between Hybrid &Hybrid &Hybrid &Hybrid & HSC BeamHSC BeamHSC BeamHSC Beam**** TestedTestedTestedTested
inininin Shear: SummaryShear: SummaryShear: SummaryShear: Summary

60
Properties
DUCTAL BEAM HSC BEAM**
Width, in. (mm) Depth, in. (mm) Width, in. (mm) Depth, in. (mm)
Top Flange 18.0 (457.2) 1.5 (38.1) 18.0 (457.2) 3.0 (76.2)
Web 2.0 (50.8) 5.8 (147.6) 3.0 (76.2) 8.0 (203.2)
Bottom Flange 7.0 (177.8) 1.5 (38.1) 12.0 (304.8) 3.0 (76.2)
Other Properties
Transverse Reinforcement Type, Spacing, in. (mm) None, 0.0 (0.0) Steel, 4.0 (101.6)
Longitudinal Reinforcement Type, Dia, in. (mm) CFCC, 0.6 (15.2) CFCC, 0.6 (15.2)
Initial Effective Prestressing Force, kip (kN) 132 (587.2) 120 (533.8)
Cross-Sectional Area, in.2
(mm2
) 80.7 (5.2 x 104
) 126.5 (8.2 x 104
)
Moment of Inertia, in.4
(mm4
) 1980.6 (8.2 x 109) 4174.2 (1.7 x 109)
Designed -Depth of Neutral Axis from Top, in. (mm) 2.3 (57.4) 3.8 (96.2)
Balance-Depth of Neutral Axis from Top, in. (mm) 2.5 (63.3) 3.3 (83.5)
Designed –Reinforcement Ratio 0.301 0.382
Balance–Reinforcement Ratio 0.550 0.312
Section Designed Tension Controlled Tension Controlled
**Kasabasic, M. (2015). “Development of Innovative CFRP Prestressed Decked Bulb T Beam Bridge System.” MSCE Thesis,
Civil Engineering Department, Lawrence Technological University, Southfield, MI., U.S.A. (Yet to Publish)
Comparison Between Ductal & HSC Beam** TestedComparison Between Ductal & HSC Beam** TestedComparison Between Ductal & HSC Beam** TestedComparison Between Ductal & HSC Beam** Tested
in Flexure:in Flexure:in Flexure:in Flexure: Section PropertiesSection PropertiesSection PropertiesSection Properties

0 101.6 203.2 304.8 406.4 508 609.6
0
22
44
67
89
111
133
156
178
200
222
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0
Deflection (mm)
AppliedLoad(kN)
AppliedLoad(kip)
Deflection (in.)
Ductal Beam
HSC Beam**
61
in Flexure:in Flexure:in Flexure:in Flexure: Applied LoadApplied LoadApplied LoadApplied Load----Deflection ResponseDeflection ResponseDeflection ResponseDeflection Response
Applied Load
Displacement
LMT
Ductal or HSC Beam**

12.0
Cracking
Load
14.5
Cracking
Load
33.4
Ultimate
Load
35.6
Ultimate
Load
100.5
Cracking
Moment
121.4
Cracking
Moment
279.4
Ultimate Moment
297.8
Ultimate Moment
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
HSC Beam** Ductal Beam
AppliedLoad(kip)&UltimateMoment(kip-ft)
AppliedLoad(kip)&UltimateMoment(kip-ft)
Beams
62
in Flexure:in Flexure:in Flexure:in Flexure: Cracking, Ultimate Load & MomentCracking, Ultimate Load & MomentCracking, Ultimate Load & MomentCracking, Ultimate Load & Moment
Applied Load
Displacement

-3,000-2,500-2,000-1,500-1,000-5000
0
22
44
67
89
111
133
156
178
200
222
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
-3,000-2,500-2,000-1,500-1,000-5000
Top Flange Concrete Strain (µε)
AppliedLoad(kN)
AppliedLoad(kip)
Top Flange Concrete Strain (µε)
Ductal Beam
HSC Beam**
63
in Flexure:in Flexure:in Flexure:in Flexure: Applied LoadApplied LoadApplied LoadApplied Load----Conc. Compressive StrainConc. Compressive StrainConc. Compressive StrainConc. Compressive Strain
Applied Load
Displacement
Top Flange Compressive Strain

64
in Flexure:in Flexure:in Flexure:in Flexure: Strain in Prestressing StrandStrain in Prestressing StrandStrain in Prestressing StrandStrain in Prestressing Strand
0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 24,000
0
22
44
67
89
111
133
156
178
200
222
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 24,000
AppliedLoad(kN)
AppliedLoad(kip)
Strain in prestressing strands (µε)
Strain in prestressing strands (µε)
Ductal Beam
HSC Beam**
Initial Prestressing Strain
= 7,800µε
Initial Prestressing Strain = 8,500µε
Applied LoadDuctal or HSC Beam**
Tensile Strain in CFCC
Prestressed Strand

65
Comparison Between Ductal & HSCComparison Between Ductal & HSCComparison Between Ductal & HSCComparison Between Ductal & HSC Beam**Beam**Beam**Beam** TestedTestedTestedTested
in Flexure:in Flexure:in Flexure:in Flexure: Elastic & Inelastic EnergyElastic & Inelastic EnergyElastic & Inelastic EnergyElastic & Inelastic Energy
226.5 kip-in
HSC Beam**
158.2 kip-in
HSC Beam**
346.2 kip-in
Ductal Beam
238.1 kip-in
Ductal Beam
0
6
11
17
23
28
34
40
45
51
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Inelastic Energy (Ei) Elastic Energy (Ee)
Energy(kN-m)
Energy(kip-in)
Applied Load
Displacement

66
in Flexure: Ductility Ratioin Flexure: Ductility Ratioin Flexure: Ductility Ratioin Flexure: Ductility Ratio
58.9%
HSC Beam**
59.3%
Ductal Beam
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
DuctilityRatio(%)
DuctilityRatio(%)
Beams
<69%70%-74%>75%
Ductility
Ratio
Brittle
Semi-
Ductile
Ductile
Failure
Mode
Applied Load
Displacement
Ductal or HSC
Beam**

67
Comparison Between Ductal & HSC Beam**Comparison Between Ductal & HSC Beam**Comparison Between Ductal & HSC Beam**Comparison Between Ductal & HSC Beam**
Tested in Flexure:Tested in Flexure:Tested in Flexure:Tested in Flexure: SummarySummarySummarySummary
PARAMETERS DUCTAL BEAM HSC BEAM**
Effective Span, ft. (m) 40.0 (12.2) 40.0 (12.2)
Gross Cross-Sectional Area, in.2
(mm2
) 80.7 (5.2 x 104
) 126.5 (8.2 x 104
)
Gross Moment of Inertia, in.4
(mm4
) 1980.6 (8.2 x 109) 4174.2 (1.7 x 109)
Cracking Load, kip (kN) 14.5 (64.5) 12.0 (53.4)
Maximum Applied Load, kip (kN) 35.5 (158.2) 33.3 (148.1)
Maximum Deflection, in. (mm) 20.8 (528.6) 16.4 (416.6)
Nominal Flexural Capacity, kip-ft. (kN-m) 297.8 (403.8) 279.4 (378.9)
Maximum Concrete Compressive Strain, (µɛ) -2,813 -2,190
Ductility Ratio, % 59.6 58.9
Mode of Failure Tension Tension

Australian
Australian
Australian
Australian
Australian
Australian
AFGC
AFGC
AFGC
AFGC
AFGC
AFGC
JSCE
JSCE
JSCE
JSCE
JSCE
JSCE
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
HB-100-3-0SS HB-100-4-0SS HB-100-5-0SS HB-100-6-0SS DB-132-3-0ES DB-132-4-0ES
Experimental/PredictedRatioforConcreteCracking
ShearResistance
Experimental/PredictedRatioforConcreteCracking
Shearresistance
68
Comparison Between Experimental & PredictedComparison Between Experimental & PredictedComparison Between Experimental & PredictedComparison Between Experimental & Predicted
Values: Concrete Cracking Shear ResistanceValues: Concrete Cracking Shear ResistanceValues: Concrete Cracking Shear ResistanceValues: Concrete Cracking Shear Resistance
Reasonable
Estimation
Best Fit
Conservative
Estimation
Very
Conservative
Estimation

JSCE
JSCE
JSCE
JSCE
JSCE
JSCE
AFGC
AFGC
AFGC
AFGC
AFGC
AFGC
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Experimental/PredictedRatioforSteelFiberShear
Resistance
Experimental/PredictedRatioforSteelFiberShear
Resistance
69
Values: Steel Fiber Shear ResistanceValues: Steel Fiber Shear ResistanceValues: Steel Fiber Shear ResistanceValues: Steel Fiber Shear Resistance
Reasonable
Estimation
Best Fit

JSCE
JSCE
JSCE
JSCE
JSCE
JSCE
AFGC
AFGC
AFGC
AFGC
AFGC
AFGC
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Experimental/PredictedRatoforNominalShear
Resistance
Experimental/PredictedratioforNominalShear
Resistance
70
Values: Nominal Shear ResistanceValues: Nominal Shear ResistanceValues: Nominal Shear ResistanceValues: Nominal Shear Resistance
Best Fit
Reasonable
Estimation
Very
Conservative
Estimation

71
Beams Experimental (1)
AFGC
(2)
JSCE
(3)
Canadian
(4)
Australian
(5)
ConcreteCrackingShear
Resistance,kip(kN)
HB-100-3-0SS 34.2 (152.1)
18.1
(80.7)
1.89
15.7
(69.6)
2.19
12.09
(53.8)
2.83
37.3
(166.0)
0.92
HB-100-4-0SS 21.9 (97.4) 1.21 1.40 1.81 0.59
HB-100-5-0SS 16.1 (71.6) 0.89 1.03 1.33 0.43
HB-100-6-0SS 12.2 (54.3) 0.67 0.78 1.01 0.33
DB-100-3-0ES 36.0 (160.1)
8.7 (38.8)
4.12 7.5
(33.5)
4.78 5.8
(25.9)
6.18 19.67
(87.5)
1.83
DB-100-4-0ES 32.0 (142.3) 3.66 4.25 5.50 1.63
SteelFiberShear
Resistance,kip(kN)
HB-100-3-0SS 84.6 (376.3)
76.2
(339.0)
1.11
83.8
(372.9)
1.01
52.4
(232.9)
1.62
-
-
HB-100-4-0SS 78.7 (350.1) 1.03 0.94 1.22 -
HB-100-5-0SS 64.8 (288.2) 0.85 0.77 1.24 -
HB-100-6-0SS 50.0 (222.4) 0.66 0.60 0.96 -
DB-100-3-0ES 28.7 (127.7) 41.4
(184.2)
0.69 45.6
(202.6)
0.63 25.2
(112.2)
1.14
-
-
DB-100-4-0ES 30.8 (137.0) 0.74 0.68 1.22 -
NominalShear
Resistance,kip(kN)
HB-100-3-0SS 118.8 (528.5)
94.3
(419.6)
1.26
99.5
(442.4)
1.19
64.4
(286.6)
1.84
-
-
HB-100-4-0SS 106.6 (447.5) 1.07 1.01 1.56 -
HB-100-5-0SS 80.9 (359.9) 0.86 0.81 1.26 -
HB-100-6-0SS 62.2 (276.7) 0.66 0.63 0.97 -
DB-100-3-0ES 64.7 (287.8) 50.1
(223.0)
1.29 53.1
(223.1)
1.22 31.0
(138.1)
2.08
-
-
DB-100-4-0ES 62.8 (297.3) 1.25 1.18 2.02 -
Values: SummaryValues: SummaryValues: SummaryValues: Summary

Research Issues
Proposed Solution
Research Objectives
Research Findings
Conclusions & RecommendationsConclusions & RecommendationsConclusions & RecommendationsConclusions & Recommendations 72

73
ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions
1. The use of UHPC in the critical shear span of the hybrid beam efficiently
changes the mode of failure from sudden shear failure to ductile shear/flexural
failure with an increase in a/d ratio.
2. The UHPC without stirrup can be employed either in the critical shear span or in
the entire span of the beam with an additional advantage of increased cracking
resistance and ultimate capacity at both serviceable and ultimate state of the
beam.
3. Both the hybrid and ductal beams exhibited sufficient warning prior to ultimate
shear and flexural failure in terms of excessive deflection, sever micro-cracks and
loud fiber pull-out signals.
4. Shear-moment interaction played an important role in determining concrete
cracking and ultimate shear resistance in CFCC prestressed beam irrespective of
the type of shear reinforcement employed in the beam (i.e. steel fibers or steel
and CFCC stirrups).

74
5. The monolithic concrete joint between the HSC and the UHPC did not experienced
any parallel cracks or premature failure along its diagonal seam. The shear and
flexural cracks were observed to cross the diagonal concrete joint confirming the
satisfactory bond behavior of monolithic concrete joint in dissipating stresses.
6. The steel fibers present in the UHPC section played an important role in enhancing
the post-cracking tensile strength of the hybrid and ductal beams through superior
bonding between concrete and steel fibers. This resulted in an increase in the
cracking and ultimate capacity of the beam.
7. An average increase of 8%, 72% and 150% in cracking shear resistance, ultimate
shear resistance and ultimate deflection, respectively, was observed in hybrid beam
in comparison with similarly reinforced HSC beams as investigated by Rout (2013)
under similar a/d ratio.
8. An average increase of 6.6%, 20.8% and 26.8% in ultimate deflection, cracking
load and nominal moment capacity was observed in ductal beam in comparison
with HSC beam as investigated by Kasabasic (2015) even the cross-sectional area
of ductal beam was reduced by 36%.

75
9. The shear capacity of the ducal beam at a/d ratio of 3 and 4 were 8.0% and
18.6% higher than average shear capacity of Rout’s HSC beam and 45.6% and
37.6% lower than hybrid beams tested in similar a/d ratio.
10. Due to the presence of UHPC in the critical shear span of the hybrid beam which
changes the mode of shear failure within shear span in UHPC section into the
flexural failure in HSC section near concrete joint, the ductility ratio of the hybrid
beam in shear was observed to increase from a/d ratio of 3 to 4 then gradually
decreases from 4 onwards.
11. Both Japanese (JSCE), and French code (AFGC) predicted conservative shear
capacity for the hybrid and ductal beam sections in comparison to that of actual
experimental results. Whereas the Canadian code predicted the most conservative
shear capacity for both the beams.
12. None of the available design guideline for the UHPC section consider the effect
of shear-span-to-depth (a/d) ratio factor in predicting shear behavior of UHPC
beam.

RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations
1. Vary the percentage of steel fibers in the UHPC (i.e. from 0 to 4% by volume).
2. Consider other possible hybrid combination between UHPC and HSC (i.e.
within the depth of the section).
3. Consider various possible optimized cross-sectional shape of decked bulb T
beam.
4. Various possible loading scenarios instead of static flexural and shear loading
i.e. dynamic loading.
5. Consider de-bonding the strands at the ends of the beam and measure the
influence on the shear and flexural performance of the beam.
76

Thank YouThank YouThank YouThank You
7

Print_Reduced

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Print_Reduced

More from Ranjit Kumar Sharma (E.I.T.)

Print_Reduced