CONCRETE
DEEP
BEAMS
I
WITH
WEB OPENINGS
by
GRAHAMS RICHARD
SHARP,
B. Sc.
for of
of
Department University
of of
October
1977
BEST COPY
AVAILABLE
Variable print quality
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The R. C.
Author of
to
Professor Kong of
Coates
F. K. of the and
research advice.
Nottingham, J.
Barlow,
members co-operation
Sincere
Structures
Laboratory
and
are
assistance.
due to Mr. of to I. the student Denmark, for Mrs. Ruth for Shawcross his and Cambridge the numerical for valuable to Mr. J. C. the checkthe
of
Conway drawings; to
visiting University
research of
from
of
the
calculations. this Sincere the facilities to also leave in thesis thanks in to Cambridge
of
was
Professor
Heyman
due
Consulting Author to
Cambridge.
research Research
reported Council.
in
this
thesis
was
supported
by
ii
SYNOPSIS The yet covered design by are AC1318-71 guide of contains recommendations deep beams 1972. is
of the given
CP110:
provisions and design a number with web This in and shear in the
Building more
guidance of deep
including beams
openings. thesis of is concerned reinforced effects serviceability. comprised reinforced ranging web openings failure and the from on modes, influence seventy-five concrete one to two. lightweight deep beams The , effects of with the general deep on behaviour beams their
single-span the and specimens normal weight ratios range of loads, studied, investigated.
analysis presents strengths accuracy was A simple derived
particular strength
test
span/depth a varied
crack shear
rein-
of
deep
beams However,
be
predicted ideal-
reasonable which
using from
results explained
test design
design
method
given.
The
procedures
currently
used
by
practising
engineers
iii
for and
the
design
of
deep
beams of are
and
a more
detailed Design
review examples
guide
illustrate
the of
design the
reinforcement the on
on the 2
to end
provide an-
strength details
crack, given of of
beams.
three deep
investigate loading
behaviour
iv
TABLE
OF CONTENTS Page
Acknowledgments Synopsis List Symbols of Tables and Units and Figures of Measurement -1
i
ii viii xiii
CHAPTER 1.1
1.2
INTRODUCTION
AND BACKGROUND
Introduction
Background
1 3
Elastic Deep
1.2.2.1 1.2.2.2 1.2.2.3 1.2.2.4
1.2.1 1.2.2
3 3 4 7 9
12
Leonhardt Crist's
Nottingham-Cambridge
CHAPTER
OF R. C. PRACTICE
DEEP
BEANS
2.1 2.2
Introduction Outlines 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 of CEB-FIP ACI current design methods
17 17 17 21
association :
Building
Portland comments
25 28
2.3
General
CHAPTER 3.1
3.2
THE
EXPERIMENTAL
PROGRADL'1E
Introduction
Materials 3.2.1 Cement
31 33 33
aggregates
3.2.2
Lightweight
33
3.2.3
Normal
weight
aggregates
34
3.2.4
3.3 Concrete 3.3.1 3.3.2
1
Reinforcement
mixes Lightweight Normal weight concrete concrete
34
35
35
35
3.4
36
36
fabrication curing 37
Formwork
Reinforcement Casting and
38
39
40
3.5
3.6
Control
Testing 3.6.1 3.6.2
3.6.3
specimens
Test Test
Test
equipment preparation
procedures
40 41
42
CHAPTER
BEAMS
WITH
4.1 4.2
Test Test
4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3
44 45
of failure 45 48 50
4.3
General
comments
53
CHAPTER
LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE DEEP BEVIS FURTHER TESTS WITH WEB OPENINGS: 56 57 59 patterns and modes of failure 59
vi
CHAPTER
DEEP
BEAMS
Introduction Test Test 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 programme results Crack Crack Ultimate patterns widths loads and and modes of failure
72 73 74 74 75 77
deflection
CHAPTER
7A
FOR DEEP
7.1 7.2
The
structural discussion
81 88
General
CHAPTER
8A
OF
"
Introduction Proposed Design Design design hints example equations for shear
91 91 94 96
CHAPTER
9A
CIRIA
DESIGN
9.1
Introduction
100
CIRIA
design
with deep
vii
10.1 10.2
119 120
APPENDIX
REINFORCEMENT ANCHORAGE OF TENSION CONCRETE DEEP BEANS IN LIGHTWEIGHT and background 122 123 125
control control patterns loads and modes of failure 125 125 126 127
programme results
Deflection Crack Crack Ultimate
A1.4
General
comments
127
APPENDIX
SHEAR BEAMS
A2.1 A2.2
background
specimens
A2.3
Test
A2.3.1
Deflections
Crack Ultimate
patterns loads
and
modes
of
failure
REFER ENCES
136
viii
LIST
OF TABLES
AND FIGURES
full text,
page in
tables groups
and as
diagrams listed
appear below.
at
the
Page CHAPTER Figure 1 1.1 Effect steel Figure 1.2 Leonhardt arrangement Figure Figure 1.3 1.4 Meanings Comparison ultimate Figure 1.5 Nottingham of symbols computed and measured 147 148 of and inclined concrete and Walther: cracking strains on 145
Reinforcement
146
of loads
tests:
Details
of
web reinforcement
149
CHAPTER Figure
2 2.1 Reinforcement pattern: CEB-FIP Recommendations examples CEB-FIP ACI Recommendations Code 150
beam
in
Building
design
guide
153
CHAPTER
Table Table 3.1 3.2
3
Sieve Sieve analysis analysis of of Lytag aggregates gravel aggregates 154 155
Hoveringham
Table Figure
3.3 3.1
Tensile Load v.
properties extension
of
diagrams
Figure
3.2
The
loading
apparatus:
general
Figure
3.3
The
loading
apparatus:
detail
159
ix
Page
CHAPTER Table
of tests;
Table
4.2
Figure
4.1
Dimensions and reinforceme (Pilot tests; lightweight Opening reference in Table to beams Typical Typical crack sequence numbers: 4.1 at which
Figure
4.2
163
Figure Figure
4.3 4.4
patterns in
Figure
4.5
Typical with
modes
of
168
Beam M-0.4/4
Beam 0-0.4/4
crack
deflections
transmission paths
176
Figure
4.12
Explanation
of
symbols
177
CHAPTER Table
5 5.1 Properties (Further Measured (Further Dimensions (Further Opening lightweight normal of tests; ultimate tests; and tests; test beams lightweight loads lightweight reinforcement lightweight 178 concrete) 180 concrete) details concrete) 182 181
Table
5.2
Figure
5.1
Figure
5.2
to nos: applicable reference 5.1 in Table beams and 6.1 Table in beams weight W7(A) for beams W1(A)
Figure
5.3
183
x Page
crack crack
patterns widths
at
failure
193
CHAPTER Table
of
the
normal
weight
197
Table
6.2
of
the
198
Table
6.3
Comparison
199
Figure
6.1
Dimensions
200
of Figure 6.2
the
concrete failure of
Figure Figure
6.3 6.4
203 204
deflections
7 7.1 7.1
7.2
Measured The
and
computed idealization
of symbols
ultimate
loads
205 209
210
structural
Explanation
Figure
7.3
Properties
and
dimensions
of
Beam
211
WW3-o. 3/4
Figure 7.4 Comparison ultimate CHAPTER Figure 8 8.1 Design equations: geometrical notation 213 of loads computed and measured 212
Xi
Page
Figure Figure
8.2 8.3
and and
loading web
214 215
CHAPTER
of
computed of deep
design beams:
CIRIA
Guide
Guide
219 220
admissibility:
Figure
9.6
admissibility
221
Figure
9.7
System opening:
beams
around
an
222
Figure Figure
9.8 9.9
Guide
222 223
openings:
of loads test
and
test
beams
224 225
specimens
reinforcement details
226
226
the
test
widths at
APPENDIX Table
Table
2 A2.1
A2.2
Properties
Measured and
of
test
computed
specimens
loads
230
231
xii Page
Figure
A2.1
General of web
and
details
232
Central Maximum
Figure
A2.5
235
xiii
SYMBOLS
AND UNITS
OF MEASUREMENT
(for (7.1),
As
area
of
main
longitudinal
reinforcement
Ah
area
of
horizontal
web
reinforcement
Av
area
of
vertical
web
reinforcement
Aw
area
of
web
reinforcement
Ar
used
in
Egn.
(9.4),
see
symbol
a1,
a2
coefficients opening
of
an
the of
line the
action of supporting
the of member
width
(breadth)
of
beam
section
length the of
in
the
direction
empirical (4.2),
in
Eqns. (7.3)
(1.9), for
(4.1),
C=1.40; for weight concrete, C=1.31 the concrete, where cylinderft is determined in splitting strength accord1STM Standard C330, C1 = 1.0 with ance where ft is determined in BS 1881) accordance with
normal lightweight
C2
and plain
xiv
C1
empirical (8.2)
(for
coefficient normal
in weight
Egn3.
(8.1)
and
concrete
c; " C2
= 0.44;
for
lightweight
concrete (8.1)
C1=
0.36)
empirical
(8.2) for
(for
coefficient
deformed round bars
in
bars C2 =
Eqns.
C2
ang
;
plain
over-all
depth
of
beam
(Figs.
4.1,5.1,6.1)
effective
depth
of
beam,
measured
to
centroid
of As
fI characteristic compressive (or strength cylinder specified) of concrete
fcu
characteristic
cube
strength
of
concrete
ft
characteristic of concrete
cylinder
splitting
strength
fy
characteristic of reinforcement
(or
specified)
yield
strength
allowable
tensile
stress
in
reinforcement
ha
effective
height
of
beam
(Fig.
9.1)
ks
shear
stress
modifying
factor
coefficients opening
(Figs.
defining 4.2,5.2,7.1)
the
position
of
an
simple
span
of
beam
(Figs.
4.1,5.1,6.1)
span = clear
(Fig.
9.1); distance
in Chapter between
faces
xv
10
between 9.1)
faces
of
design
bending
moment
Diu
design section
bending (Egn.
moment 2.4)
at
critical
Ps
modified
Ps according
to
de
Paiva
and
Siess
P SS Pt
=2v
bD
used formula
in
Laupa, (page 6)
Siess
and
main
steel
ratio
A s
/bd
Pweb
ratio that
of the
web beam
PmsPwh'Pwv
modified
percentage
of
main
steel;
web
steel;
vertical
web
steel
Qult
ultimate
shear
strength
(Ault
s W2/2)
spacing
in
of
web
reinforcement,
measured
9h
spacing
of
horizontal
web
reinforcement
sv
spacing
of
vertical
web
reinforcement
total
tensile
force
resisted
by
A s
design
shear
force
Vc
shear
capacity
of
a beam
(Eqn.
9.6)
XV1
design u section
shear (Eqn.
force 2.4)
at
critical
allowable
shear
stress
(Eqn.
2.9)
vc 1
stress; shear
stress
vu
stress; shear
in stress
vs
stress formula
in
Laupa,
Siess
Vmax9 Vwh'
vx'vms Fwv
concrete parameters shear stress steel shear stress parameters Eqn. 9.6) and
total
load
on
beam
measured (Table
ultimate 4.2)
load
of
solid
beam
W1
measured
ultimate
load
W2
load
from in
(1.9)
W4
design
loads
(Chapter
9.3,
distributed length
load,
axial
load
clear-shear-span 5.1,6.1)
distance
(Figs.
4.1,
xe
effective
clear-shear-span
(Eqn.
9.2)
xvii
depth bar at which a typical intersects the potential critical in diagonal deep crack a solid is line the which approximately loading joining the and reaction
beam, points
yi
bar
openings, CB in or
yr
used
in
Egn.
(9.4),
see
symbol
lever
arm
between intersection angle of a typical the bar and critical potential diagonal described in the defincrack ition 0 of y above
of 1.2)
reinforcement
al
between intersection a typical angle of diagonal bar critical and a potential beam in with openings, crack a deep CB in Fig. EA line idealized the or as
(7.2)
0a
characteristic (Eqn.
ratio
(Eqns.
2.6
and
2.7)
1, 2, 3
constants
9.6)
Yf
partial
safety
factor
for
loading
Ym
partial
safety
factor
for
materials
Fa
characteristic
ratio
(Eqns.
2.6
and
2.7)
Ar
and
to 1.5 bars
Xvlll
x1,
A2
constants
'(Egn.
9.4)
defining the directions angles of the diagonal potential critical (lines EA and CB in Fig-7.2); cracks 0= Chapter in 2.2.2 capacity (Eqn. factor 2.2) reduction
7
UNITS
OF MEASUREMENT
The this
SI system thesis,
is
used stated.
throughout
CHAPTERONE
INTRODUCTION
AND
BACKGROUND -1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
1.2
ANALYSIS TESTS
de Paiva and and tests. Siess's Walther's tests. tests.
BEAM
Leonhardt Crist's
1.2.2.4
Nottingham
Cambridge
tests.
1.
CHAPTERONE
INTRODUCTION
AND
BACKGROUND
1.1
INTRODUCTION At a Mechanics it became concrete and that to practical covered in the by behaviour recurred provide in Colloquium clear deep of that 1 the University and particular, web it or with of Code Europe. little openings, may for be found behaviour the were of
given the
at
Cambridge, of reinforced
strength topics necessary but not as and British on the It in the yet CP11O3 the
design
beams
web
major Building 5 in
codes
U. K.;
CP110: of
provides
guidance
deep during
beams. the deep In last beams the decade has or been so that research out du on Beton (PIP) their Building solid Portland ST668 a
concrete 6 7. ,
carried Europeen
1970,
Comite de la
Federation provisions
included
deep 1971,
beams.
widely Industry
known
published guides
(1977), U. K.
beams
are and
employed in for a a
in variety
structures. department
In stores, buildings
building
municipal
so
on,
it
is
desired
the heavy
lower frame
floors
entirely
free the
of use-of
Here,
of
construction, even the the uses for may and structural external column of
or
may as the in
be
deep
to above
building cooling-water
Other
deep stations;
may in
be
power be in
foundation
provided bunkers
to and
the
beams At the on
between of
concrete were carried that for Since little their some recent
without is
shown at least
data opening
of web
available
experimental
which
concentrated
effects
openings,
was In
carried chapter,
this
vestigation, reinforced
a review concrete
selected beams
investigations
3.
1.2
BACKGROUND
1.2.1
ELASTIC
A substantial the alysis Dischinger stresses iation paper guidance have is that, elastic also pertinent where 8 in have added for been to there the behaviour 13-21. 13, of deep
terms work
The who
pioneering used
this series
trigonometric deep an beams. expanded for of deep simply beams. deep and in
determine Cement
The version
Portland of
and
methods It out
investigate Saad
that holes
Hendry
a deep
beam, or even
solution
very
difficult
impracticable.
PCA
other of in the of
elastic concrete
no
longer
ultimate
research be
which
appropriate.
1.2.2
DEEP In
BEAM 1964,
4.
an it the
of Comite
Practice Europeen
for du
Principles based
should
behaviour forming or
concrete to the
conceived action of
internal
respectively, conducted and centres, New Mexico, and last has been have Walther
of
practical in Illinois,
deep
beam and
Siess
together have
expanded
knowledge influenced
beam
behaviour the
design large
Over research
seven carried
by
the
Nottingham 1,27-38.
In
Cambridge
team
under
the
direction
of
Kong
what
a brief out by de
of Siess, with
details
of
the and of
Leonhardt an outline
presented, -
together Cambridge
Nottingham
team.
1.2.2.1
de
Paiva Possibly
Siess's earliest on by de
tests
24, comprehensive tests 24' 39 on and study reinforced colleagues work, and a Siess digest 24 in of deep concrete 40,41
beam
practical Paiva of
University reported in
Illinois. by de
This Paiva
was
a paper
J0
1965, other
has deep
since beam
been research
guiding workers
influence 11,12,26
on
the
projects
of
tests,
that
were
in
1965,
consisted subjected to
of thitd
supported loading
reinforced (Fig. the 1.1). behaviour ratios(L/D) were (shear) tested from The two at the
beams of the
test deep
investigate with
moderately of between of
quantity
and
were varied
mm,
to
3.4. or
bars plates.
in
vertical
or
inclined
No-7
results
that upward on of
was
deduced
near
that
the
the
maximum
arch'. in the
tension must be
supports anchorage
reinforcement.
b.
Three collapse through which formed where of rupture resulted between the failure the
were
defined failure
to
the
which proper'
tie; of the
that
cracks; clearly
of found it
type be not
and
amount
of
web in
observed failure
flexure
an
of
the
test equation
results, to
de compute
Paiva the
and ultimate
strength,
Ps =
0.8
(1-
o. 6D )
Ps
(1.1)
41
s (vs), beams
P'
was as
using the
for
shear
of
ordinary ratios.
(large
with
(1.2)
in
which Pt =A
(1
+ bD
sina0)
quantity
(1
sinao) section of
referred between
to
the the
crossing a0 was
inclination
of
the
reinforc-
to in the
be
two
test shear
observatiozis strength
secondly on
conventional strengths.
vertical
stirrups
effect
1.2.2.2
Leonhardt Leonhardt
their
Rec(>m^nenda
work
, c,, s
C1g70)5
Chpt.
considered of this supported here beam scale x 1600 was of x will tests. thesis;
hence
top-loaded A total
supported
beams 100
tested an overall
under
applied
over
system
distributing was
aggregate
In
others
cases
a proportion
was
bent was
up
over
the by all
of
the or
reinhoriof web
hooks,
beams
a nominal of an
amount orthogonal
reinforcement of 5 mm diameter Analysis confirmed takes the of was chord. concrete might have place elastic deep found beams to Failure at the been hooks. In Leonardt and that in
provided, bars.
consisting
mesh
of
concrete
and
steel
strain of
measurements internal compared action of of destruction the failure of the forces with behaviour failure the tension of the there vertical-
theory was be
apparent.
mode
flexural, also
occurred it by the
as was
a result thought
supports: caused
unfavourable
action
anchorage
summary, Walther
from 25
the
basis
of the
the
test
recommended
following
1. from
The Egns.
quantity (1.3),
of which
main
longitudinal follow
steel
should
be
determined
for for
L/D L/D
>1T= <1T=
M/O. M/O.
6D 6L (1.3)
11 is
the tension
maximum chord
bending
moment,
and
is
the
The
reinforcement to support
from positively
the
above anchored
should using
extend
support
and
be
9.
4
horizontal 3. To limit
hooks crack
distributed
or
anchor widths,
over
plates. the
the
main
bottom
reinforcement
0.15 to 0.2
should
times
be
the
uniformly
beam 4. bars,
for
(Fig.
orthogonal more
of at
1.2).
vertical the
and
horizgntal be provided
the It
view was
that contended
failure shear
was cracks
not
a would
and
extended it might
from be it
wi1 the
tests, Leonhardt's
seems tests
shear early
failure collapse
because
occurred
it is to
as
be
a result
noted that
of
either
+hempi_T_+r?
premature
+y ^f
flexural
reinfnrcam6rit
failure
r'
l a+i v1 y
smal
or
premature
bearing
failure
at
the
supports.
1.2.2.3
Crist's
tests
26
Together
at Illinois,
with
Crist's
the 26
work
of
de Paiva
work
and
at
colleagues24,39-41
the University of
experimental
New
which
Mexico
is
formed
given in
the
the
main
current
basis
issue
of
the
of
deep
the
beam
ACI
design
guidance
Code 4
Building
Crist's
tests and 3
experimental
dynamic tests on
programme
uniformly
consisted
top-loaded
of
static
reinforced
concrete
behavioural
beams.
The
object
for
of
the
research
concrete
was
to
develop
beams;
equations
reinforced
deep
10.
especially All simply beams Normal of ment tensile beams, with the The
There failure web were
regards test
shear
capacity. were of 203 2438 of mm thick mm. L/D The ratios and were of 1.6 strength steel reinforcethe to 3.8.
depths of
varied
a range
concrete and
25.9 were
used. reinforcing,
contained of the
an
orthogonal longitudinal
statically
no beams were
beams
failed
to
collapse.
and the with the but
that
modes reinforcement
beams of
loaded to
beams behave to
similarly, the
development,
Static
derived tests research. can be given on the
behavioural
lower above total conservatively boundary and static
equations
of seventy-three shear at a data
for
deep
beams
by from
were
nine
represented tests
mentioned The
capacity, critical
it section,
was
or
xc
d),
by V=V+V u
uc
us capacity is
(1.4)
gin which .
the
concrete
vuc
=[3-5
-3vd1.9
f
cc
+ 2500
(i)i pa
(1.5)
11.
and
the
web
reinforcement
capacity
is
Vus
1.5
fyd
Av svv
1+L+ 12 d
Ah sh
1 12 /11 ld -L
where
M= v
of
applied
moment section.
to
applied
shear
force
critical of vertical sv
Av,
Ah-
and sh
horizontal
web
steel
and depth
d=
the of
main of concrete on
p=
the of Upper
limits
were found as
established to control
in in
the
capacity number
a minor
follows:
Vuc/bd
fco
X1.7)
Vu/bd
<8
f'
(1.8)
concluded
that behaviour
reinforced is large
of
deep
in
normal
there is not is
beams
a usually
with
but
that
reserve
strength in
diagonal beams.
available
Eqn. term
(1.5), as that
the
term Building-Code in
is
the the
same
inclined
cracking cracking
load load
such of
diagonal capacity of
a measure
useful
12.
the term
beam gives
without
shear of
The
first
a measure cracking
strength empirically
beyond
test
diagonal
data.
The
A
web the
reinforcement capacity
with the
capacity, of an orthogonal
given array
axis of
by
Eqn. of
(1.6),
represents
ment coincident
reinforceThe
longitudinal
beam.
on 42.
shear The
friction
inclined to frictional
crack
which
1.2.2.4
NOTTINGH01 Research by
the
CAMBRIDGE
tests team been the ongoing past nine on the under years. solutions were sought10+43 experimental would
and results
behavthe At
of
concrete Dr. F. K.
assumption research
evidence
the most
that
fruitful
practical
approach.
concrete
of the
provide
of and
which
the the
is
tests new
have CIRIA
on
been design
the
published guide
design
in contains
proposals
technical some
of the
journals design
Nottingham
27-32, guidance
-
based
team
33.
of
the
research of
up
to
1972
on
deep
beams 33
openings
publication
a proposed
formula
13.
for it The
the was
design argued,
of
solid
deep test
beams,
which
observations. of the 30
proposed
evaluation at Nottingham -
experiments proposed
carried following
form:
-1
Qult
C1
(1
0.35X D'
ftbD
+Cn
2AY
sin
a_
i1.
-w
for
two-point
top
loading
where, is is the W2 C1 is
to shear shear in
Fig.
-ult L4
of
Newtons, of two-point
computed top
above Qult an
equal
to
1.4
for
normal
weight
concrete C2 is an
concrete. equal to 130 bars. in available. in mm. N/mm2, or N/mm2 for plain
deformed
cylinder the
tensile if of ft the
strength, is not
2, mm
and
for bars
longitudinal
considered depth, an in
the
of line
the
beam,
individual edge of
joining support to
bearing
14.
the a is line n is
edge
of
that the
at bar
the being
loading
point. and (180> the described JA(y/D) main in sin2a the the a< 0)
considered of y above
including line
longitudinal definition is to be
cross the
summed the
n bars. from Nottingham loads from in Fig. (1) Eqn. and and (1.9) It the the elsewhere, computed above) may ultimate was be seen
Using a plot urtimate presehted, that Egn. of the loads and (1.9) of The of out the on proposed 135 simply were mm. top x/D 0.7. is
measured (2, as
determined here
reproduced gives
(1.4). of
estimate
strengths
solid
work included
27-32 tests
which to
the
depths
beams were
a range 3; x/d
from
aggregate of web
and
five
pweb' of the
ratio the
Both
deformed
and 400
strengths
approximately longitudinal
N/mm
respectively.
15.
anchored anchorage
at
their
ends
to
steel
blocks
to
prevent
possible
more for
reported
itemised
here
1.
shear
strength
of of
a the
deep
is
of
contribution
concrete
reinforcement. contribution the x/D splitting f. cu diagonal inside the face crack of face at bar cot-1 is it the of is approximately load-bearing that (x/D) perpendicular is with in resisting the depth at to the the the block loading horizontal. to the shear: at which diagonal its it line at the ratio, increased and strength is more ft linearly closely than to the with related cube a, deto
2.
concrete in cylinder
the to is
outside
point,
The crack,
nearly more
increases crack.
practical of the
shear
strength
is
inde-
longitudinal to the
reinforced
be
noted span
that ratio
(2) interpreted
above to
important
span/depth
Observation
16.
that
diagonal of a
cracking cylinder in
in the
beam
is test,
akin an
in ratio
beams
span/depth beams by
Ramakrishnan
the
Shear
there the
are results
two of team.
assumes the
of uniformly
the
expression with
given the
that
CHAPTERTW0
THE
DESIGN
OF R. C.
DEEP
BEAMS
IN
CURRENT
PRACTICE
2.1
INTRODUCTION
2.2
DESIGN
METHODS
Building
Portland
2.3
GENERAL
COMMENTS
17.
CHAPTERTW0
THE
DESIGN
OF RC.
DEEP
BEAMS
IN
CURRENT
PRACTICE
2.1
INTRODUCTION With the of concrete guide the the deep PCA joined issue the CIRIA British beams with became (but design 9 on in the for more theACI January design the detailed Building some design profirst
of
guide
some
form
reinforced The
CEB-FIP ST668; is
4,
containing in British
beams
this
chapter
the and
design are is
mentionillushave a
CIRIA
contains openings,
beams 9.
reviewed
2.2
OUTLINES
OF CURRENT
DESIGN
METHODS
2.2.1
The
CEB-FIP According
area the
longitudinal moment
from
largest
bending
in
the
LU"
using
the
following
values
for
lever
arm
z: -
z= z=0.6
0.2
(L L
2D)
for for
1<L/D<2 L/D< 1
(2.1)
is
thus of the
seen
that
for D of
<1,, beam:
the for
lever L/D
arm trom
z 1 to 2,
depth at a
with main
D but
lower
reinforcement, without curt, securely not distributed in of Fig. detailing diameter to facilitate (2.1). of bars to be
anchored steel is
uniformly as shown
equal drew
in width the
a number of
development
and
anchorage
0.1bDfo/Ym
O. 1bLfc/ym
(whichever
where
is
the
beam cylinder
width,
D the strength,
depth, of the
the
span, and
fc
the ym the
concrete
for web
materials. reinforcement, the to and extreme Recommendations an orthogonal bars bars. placed The state
1y.
required for a
of round
one
bar
of and
the by
mesh
is
given for
by
where the
spacing
the web
therefore, Near
Design
example
for
CEB-FIP
Recommendations for (2.2a). to give a heavy proposed column load each web industrial to free w utilize access
A tentative structure Wall below. selfweight) 3300 kN, 'A' If is as shown a deep the is design Idealising geometry (2.2b), distributed of where the deep W/2 load. total 400 the in
scheme Fig.
part It
of is
beam,
required distributed
(including B and C is
load
in
column
longitudinal the
beam
equals
column
plus
L/D
CEB-FIP
6000/4800
Recommendations
1.25<
apply.
arm
z=0.2
(L
2D)
= ff
3120 x
bending is
=yfx2
= live
say, loading,
overall 9,000 =
partial kN)
safety
: -10.
Moment
(where steel, Ym, fy the 410 =
of
partial
resistance
safety and
103
=x Ym
factor 3120
As
xz
material, calculated)
As x x
for mm as
410 1.15
is
1.15
for
N/mm2
9000 2 x
z=
1.4
2000
3120
steel
area
As= bars
11327 (11782
are
arranged from
support, (0.25
width
determined
from
the
condition
Design
shear
force
Yf
and
1.4
9000
103
{> .
0.1
48001x522.5 xbx
'. b=
1Jeb reinforcement:
875 mm .
say, bar spacing s= 150 mm.
Area i. e.,
required 0.002 x
for 150
each x
bar 875
0.2 = = 262
cent
of
bxs
an
orthogonal in each
of (A
20 V=
mm diameter Ah = 314.2
deformed mm2/bar)
mm centres
face
and
at
75 mm spacing
The detailing
near
is
supports.
shown in Fig. (2.3).
21.
2.2.2
ACI
Building
Code:
ACI
provisions the These emphasis shear the carried follows. located for support
are is provisions
given on the
resist simple less section, load, the and load it distance the is than and 5.
force.
beams
when are as is
ratio the
load
span
supports. the nominal shear force shear Vu: stress vu is calculated from
the
given
design
Yu u-
V
bd
(2.2
where
is b d
the is is of
factor
(taken
as
0.85)
depth longitudinal
to
the
centroid
The
d of the beams
designer
are large
should
enough
ensure
for
the
to
dimensions
exceed the
and
follow-
ing
limits: vu J
8 2/3 (10
when + 1/d)
1/d< ifwhen
2 2G 1/d C5
vu
(2.3
where
f'
is
the
concrete
cylinder
compressive
strength.
22.
Next, concrete is
the calculated:
nominal -
shear
stress
vc
carried
by
the
vc
= 3.5
2.5
Mu Vud
1.9
fc+
2500p
Vud M u
VUd M.
(2.4)
(2.4$
u 6
where
Mu f'
is is
the the
design
bending
moment
at
the
critical compressive
section
specified
concrete
cylinder
strength. p is of Vu, b the the and ratio concrete d are as of the main steel As to the area bxd
Irrespective an of of tal crete should orthogonal the the web vertical horizontal steel not bd. satisfy mesh web of
of web
the
values
of
vu is
and
vc
so
steel
less and
per
horizoncon-
0.25 exceeds
cent the of
vertical
section also
reinforcement -
requirements
Eqn. (2.5)below:
rl1/dl+Ah[11_1/dl
v 12 sh 12
(vu
f Y
v)b
(2.5)
where
Av
is
the
area
of
the
vertical
web
steel
within
spacing s. v a sh
Ah
is
the
area
of
the
horizontal
web
steel
within spacing
23.
1 b fy
is is is
clear beam
span width.
distance.
snscified
yield
strength
of
the
steel.
Design
example
for
ACI
code.
Consideration beam noted units. in Eqn. shown that in all Fig. (2.2).
is
to
the ACI
of must
the be
equations in in practice,
for units
use
evaluating
The for and designing 49 notes documents, plained culations later, will Main (16336 2). mm The x 850 (2000 + 0.5 0.5 x
ACI deep to
code
does for
not
detailed In is the
the as and be
the
such
bulletin final
The of
result
steel
provided:
13
No.
40
mm diameter
bars
section 850
is mm from the
(Fig. face of of
2.2)
at
0.5 or
support,
mm from
support.
Design (where
moment partial
Mu
1.4
9200 x factor
1150 for
= 7245 loading).
kNIK
safety
Design
shear
force
Vu = 1.4
b may
x
be
9000 2
chosen
6300
kN
(2.3).
A suitable
beam
width
from
Egn.
IQ.
(fc
= 22.5
N/rnm2=
3260
lbf/in2.
'.
fl=
57.2
lbf/in2=
0.394
N/mm2)
6300 0.85
x 103 500 bx
=8x0.394
b
Referring to Eqn.
525
(2.4),
mm say
3.5
2.5
Mu VdU3S _
2.5
x 7245 63oo x
x 103 500
> 2.86 =
Use vc 2.5 = 2.5 (See 1.9 Egn. fC (2.4) + 2500 Vud p ri
2.5
16336 525 x
= =
3.04 2.36
N/mm2 N/mm2
ff-c7l =6x0.394
Eqn. (2.2)
500
3.14
2 h/mm
vu
exceeds of
vc,
the
web
requirement is (AWeb)
equation to in a
the
code.
square
patter-i
at,
'_5.
150
mm spacings,
equation
(2.5)
gives
Aweb
150
1+
(600o - 600)/4500
12
j+
x
(3.14
10
2.36)
-1
525
""" Check
Aweb
150mm2
minimum
requirements
Ah
0.0025 =
525
150
197 =
mm
A=0.0015 v
= 178
Provide vertical 16 mm diameter = 201 bars mm2, Ah at = 150 201
x 525 x 150
2 mm
mm spacing mm2) horizontal and
(Av
The
detailing
is
shown
in
Fig.
(2.4).
2.2.3
Portland The
Cement PCA's
and simply 1.25 and
Association Information
on the
8.
Concrete
not
ST668
of of
is
based
load ratio
on
tests. L/D not of a
analysis to
results beams
ultimate
supported to
beams out
ratio help
exceeding number
The
design Briefly,
procedure
follows.
two are
ratios to
F and as the
depth E is
to
a continuous a support
equal
ratio
C of
4. V
"
the the
of
a column is D/L. It
in For would
the a
of C a
careful
supported
distributed
12
and
L 2D
(2.6
For
simply
supported
beam
under
a point
load
applied
at
2L
From by the
the
values main
of
c and
, steel
the
tensile As is
force obtained
to
be
resisted
from
a chart,
reproduced
(2.5).
Then
As
T/fs
(2.8
where fs is
fs left
is
the to the
stress of the
in
the
steel;
the
value
of
regards
specific
reinforcement, to the
V applied (2.9).
given
3 g b-D
i1
LD
(2.
where
is
the
allowable
shear
stress
for
an
ordinary
beam
27.
made left
of to
similar the
quality discretion
concrete; of the
the designer.
value
of
is
again
Design
example Once
PCA
to PCA
the
design is safety
of
the
beam on
method
based factors
stresses. ym do is not
partial
under
W/2 (Fig.
one
applied 2.5) it
a
at is
span
third first
of in 2L/3 the ratios
points.
necessary having two F a beams and
To
to point are are
PCA's
design
the
with
maximum the
moments
for
L: -
C 2(2L/3)
600
x31 x 6000
13.3
_D
4800 2(2L/3)
x3=0.6 6000 x
to
Fig. to
(2.5) interpolate
it
will T
be for
conservative E= 1/13.3
to and
use =0.6.
the
interpolation
T=0.2917
0.29 =
9000
kN
2610
kN
As
from
Eqn.
(2.8)
it stress 4)
is
necessary fs. be
to
steel code
A reasonable f= s
would
28.
As
T s
2610
x 165
103
15818
mm2
13
No.
40
bars
(16336
mm2) steel
guide to
placed Next,
required
Eqn.
(2.9)
using shear
a reasonable stress v
1.1
allowable
ACI
and
11.4.1).
Ffc, v=1.1 =
63
lbf/in2
0.44
N/mm2
Using
Eqn.
(2.9)
with
D/L
replaced
by
D/(2L/3)
(1 +2x 3
i5x
4800
6000/3
)xo.
44
b=
1050
mm
(say)
The
PCA
method is
does shown
not in
call Fig.
for (2.6).
web
reinforcement.
The
detailing
2.3
GENERAL The
COMENTS most 8 PCA, widely was used prepared on of the four thirty methods, years concrete was the be based on namely, ago deep tae theory The when beams theoretical of elast-
of
the
some. reinforced it
who beam
used to
classical homogeneous.
method,
'9.
be
expected the
to stress load of
reflect
actual a con-
example, at ultimate
that of in most
because is likely
the to
conservative
although The
use
would
not
be
recommended. 5 , published and the 50. do in Walther 1970 25, tests Recommenspecific
based
influenced
out
Sweden
Nylander
concentrate on how to
design web
calculate
resist
shear based de
give areas
guidance specified publication comparatively deep that ACI beams inclined code type of critical
Since recommendations, been known not is that it carried for covered the the most
of
ACI
and
volume U. K.
27-32
example, by the
reinforcement CEB-FIP
(which
and of
Recommendations) for on and part where that of the deep and the beams, how main web reare -
efficient
web bar
effectiveness the
a web diagonal is an
in-'_-rcepts
aspects
beam the
behaviour
method
proposed
Nottingham
30.
33P34
(Chapter
1.2.2.4: of deep
design of the
of
with
web outlined
is
by will
any be
shown,
provisions As in the
case
reasonable As a step
predicting
capacity. experimental
description four
and
the
results
of
presented
succeeding
chapters.
CHAPTERTHREE
THE
EXPERIMENTAL
PROGRM
1E
3.1
INTRODUCTION
3.2
MATERIALS 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 Cement Lightweight Normal weight aggregates aggregates
Reinforcement
3.3
Lightweight Normal
3.4
3.5
CONTROL
SPECIMENS
3.6
TESTING 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 Test Test Test equipment preparation procedures
31.
CH
APT
ERTHREE
THE
EXPERIMENTAL
PROGRA! fl1E
3.1
INTRODUCTION Previous work using practical has proved laboratory fruitful and has It is led tests in to possible on providing the that, such provide behaviour the complex
reinforced an appreciation
concrete of of
specimens deep beam design advances the finite capable at the of the Such have
behaviour guidance. in
practical
mathematical method
refinements
element of simulating
post because
time, after
cracking, tool
codes practical
should
recommendations. object the of the present of which, in the in past, practice Due reinforced as experimental concrete mentioned and one prodeep earlier, which of lack of the of may wall pre-
primary study
was with
to web
behaviour a topic
openings; attention
uses the
beams. investigation
necessity, in which
with
These widths
beam
32.
of the as
size, of up test
and
position Further of 39
and
broadly were
tests was
beams
atically pilot
important information
observations on the
study
and
provide
inforcement. In were concrete Committee should would bond be used in beams 408 both these making particularly recommended on ability of expect lightweight of that two test because lightweight data for of
of
series, test
scarce;
"experimental concrete
conducted the
lightweight 52.
concrete Furthermore, too distant enhanced comprised making between deep test
environments" that, will series in achieve of were tests, used in in the not greatly which
engineers "lightweight
concrete In a final
concrete
differences and of further were system for a the survey on normal lightweight
weight
seven
normal
designed of web
investigate
reinforcement. planning the literature shallow drawn from beams the of the test pro-
early of ordinary
derived of
depth that
The located
conclusion the
predominantly
flexural
33.
not high
whereas
openings do so.
in
of the
reason
within to
at point
Nottingham loading
a similar
configuration
adopted. In the of the given test each this chapter, are the described. series discussion the succeeding deep end (9 beams in (3 beam of the of general The test each three topics of and These and the the experimental description specimens, set of test details and of notation with are
together results,
the
described
Appendices
2 respectively.
3.2 3.2.1
MATERIALS Cement Ordinary Portland normal weight to Cement and permit of all conforming lightweight cement beams carefully by the from within stored Blue to B. S. 12 was Quantities batch series, conto be
both
successively All
and supplied
Group.
3.2.2
Lightweight
aggregates
34.
Lightweight ash for (supplied the Fine Coarse Both necessitated results between of the in two
of
fuel used
were
well being
use. as
(3.1),
difference
ft
3.2.3
Normal The
weight following
aggregates: aggregates: dried dried Hoveringham Hoveringham River River Sand Gravel (5 mm down) (10 mm nominal) (3.2).
The
results
from
sieve
analysis
are
given
in
Table
3.2.4
Reinforcement Deformed bars The quality the of high (Unisteel ordered of were as a 410) single picked tested for for were
yield
steel was
used batch at
reinforcement control,
random
fabrication strength.
these tensile
tests
was properties
by
tests
on
smaller
sample,
standard
recommended v. extension
B. S. 4449:
curves
35.
bars
are
in
(3.1).
It
is 10 the
to mm value of
taken
as
representative
'yield
strength'.
I
3.3
CONCRETE
MIXES
3.3.1
accordance
with
recommendations
manufacturers:
Mix Total
by
weight ratio
1.55
average as
and -
hardened
properties
follows: immediately
after
mixing
70 mm 1810
1780
kg/m3
kg/m3
strength
37.90
(5.4%4'
N/mm2
coeff. N/mm2 of variation)
Cylinder
crushing (28
of
variatiorn
Cylinder
splitting
of
variation
3.3.2
Normal The
concrete designed for concrete a target and after strength A series comparable of trial
to
that
of
the
36.
mixes,
of
the
following by
selected: 3.25
Cement
kg/m3
values
for
the
properties
of
the
mix
70 mm
2450 kg/m3
(28 day)
strength
53.25
N/mm2 of variation)
(6.0%ocoeff.
Cylinder crushing (28 Cylinder splitting (28 strength day) strength day)
of
variation)
3.4 3.4.1
BEAM
MANUFACTURE
Formwork Four upright a bolted and a base all and grease. seal the in all wooden used mm thick 75 mm planed were liberally grease served to cast Wisaform softwood. coated with coated the beams. sides,
moulds of
were 20
mould stop-ends to
was
mm x
assembling, oil
surfaces were of
with
successfully
openings polystyrene.
test
were were
formed easily
by
blocks and
of
expanded
These a purpose
shaped grease
on
built
cutter, the
were ingress of
during
assembling
prevent
37.
of the in
An
array
of
each
block in
compression holes,
Those opening
required were
a particular
specimen, Lateral
by of
third as
for top
on
rubber
pads, vibration.
reduce
smoother
3.4.2
Reinforcement The
fabrication for University's reinforcement deformed end had were anchorage threaded with was spacers through to lifting simplify bolts at the light bar all the beams was Science beams for had All welds. in and of the the by the the been joints After mould main at beams, to fabricated Faculty. consisted purpose cut longer on the
reinforcement of the
the main
workshop longitudinal 20
mm diameter external
beam
and
screw made
reinforcement the in
position bar In
transportation to be cast in
were
reinforcement
assembly.
38.
3.4.3
Casting
The
and
beams
curing
for in each groups test of series 3 two aggregates a previous and cu ft. to initial batch, or 4. were cast consecutively session and carefully to
at
weekly
Each of cement
normal
were
mixed
for
about
mix, of
mortar.
carried carried 70
compaction batches 20
random.
obtained; slump
slumps than 50
mm either
were water
mm additional slump with taken. shovels and A (100 beam, table. beams and in the mm)
continuously set and were Several the control region of 6 control standard cast in hours of cylinders On their of (at wet moulds hessian.
external
standard for
neat test 6
the and
from layers
beams and
stored until
approximately
23C
39.
3.5
CONTROL The
of
each and
were
from
3 cubes The
mm diameter and of
cylinders
concretes ard cured humidity main strength, cylinders a reduction (ASTM)/t t reported was effect C330 for
recommended was at is is consisting ASTM method (t); Similar 58. For control adopted; 50 to on per be t'"e of curing the
7 days until
and it
found
that
average
(B. S. 1881) by Teychenne that aggregates Each set of grade corresponding cylinders The cylinder three plywood
results this
important
and under
cylinders
lightweight
were
determine
from
the
further
3 mm thick
diametrically
opposite
40.
3.6
TESTING
3.6.1
Test
equipment
The beams were by and frame. manometer scale. set-up and its mode of operation are illustested means The under of static tonne load a top-loading capacity was load measured indicator M. A. N. by hand
hydraulically machine
a 500
applied operating
large The
trated
in
Fig. The
be then
tested winched
was
mounted rails
on
was load
The be
adjusted attention up
particular a beam this to the lowered lateral into each test end
for
operation. were
special of
designed
end
ensured as
beam by crane
whilst
beam
the
diameter The
beam. and
to axis
rotate of the
pera The
permitted 2 mm.
translation
approximately
41.
to 25
the
top
of
the
test
beam
was
mm diameter the
by were
Mercer to beam of
0.01 = was
gauges the on of
test
frame, just
fixed steel
(Fig.
3.3). the
two
above
average
was
microscope
magnifications.
3.6.2
Test
The
preparation
casting of of tested 4 weeks testing. during the beams of to coat and of testing one day set five the days. the face each to beam assist reference was programme per of week beams was casting cast casting, test organised followed together with age of the 28 days was
into by
cycles 4 weeks
after similar
all
minus A week
testing, of white
of paint
painted crack
with detection
measurement,
mm square
42.
grid x 25
was mm),
marked each
on having bar
in
pencil. a central pass, layer mortar, ed to loading of mm) on a the were thin up of
x main of
75
the
(3 of were
mortar. end of
spanner. test a small bearing to the beam gypsum at the beam screw
On the was jack blocks at the installed to raise (100 support Similar points x
were the
A. C. a for
motor
apply
the
verticality, support
temporary released.
offered
alignment
jigs
3.6.3
Test
The
procedures
single of test kN were up cycle producing beams. to of loading, which simple was the applied test was adopted, had
loading
incrementally .
carried on deep
investigate these
loading 2).
behaviour;
reported
Appendix
43.
After readings hand detect crack marked with ities at later the of lamp the was on were and
increment and
of recorded of
load,
deflection the was of aid inspected each and line, at similarly the
gauge of a to
the
surface of cracks.
the The
beam width
development measured the value the load After beam of crack. increments. collapse, and rig the for test by on
significant extent
A
and a
its
position pencil
was
thin was
written was
Subsequent
growth
monitored
the
final
was
recorded from
in the
removed during
storage data
a minimum processed.
weeks,
which
CHAPTERFOUR
LIGHTWEIGHT
CONCRETE
DEEP
BEAMS
WITH
OPENINGS:
PILOT
STUDY
4.1
TEST
PROGRAMME
4.2
deflection
4.3
GENERAL
COMMENTS
if If
CHAPTERF0UR
LIGHTWEIGHT
CONCRETE
DEEP
BEAMS
WITH
OPENINGS:
PILOT
STUDY
4.1
TEST
PROGRAbfE
I
consisted 4.. 1) of b
of span
24 L
simply 1500
100
Two and
clear 0.25
respectively. at 2, because
was x/D
constant is a more
important
divided
into whilst of
two Group
groups: M beams
0 beams
had
a rectangular-mesh formed steel The bars ratio longitudinal deformed blocks support at and which investigation fly-ash details All Group M beams, the the of of 425
N/mm2
stress, vertical
(0.0020
horizontal). of one 20 mm to at
consisted stress, cages 4.1) at these openings were are rectangular with to
ends.
beams
given
Table in
web each
trimmed
bar openings 0 to
were (4.1).
(Fig.
Note indicated
(ii)). by
The reference in
range
The
13
which
under
are
static
explained
two-point
tested
loading
as
shown
in
The Chapter 3.
general
experimental
details
have
been
given
in
4.2
TEST
RESULTS
4.2.1
Crack
The
patterns
crack (4.3), to in which the particular seen the 3.6). at
and
patterns where Table the load in
modes
at the (4.1). cracks 10
of
failure beam
failure.
of notation all is the as numbers and the the 4.3) beams explained indicate the extent vertical served other of are
in
Fig. footnote
interval. of
beam
laterally
during
preparations
Chapter
A study crack extent path' ing of patterns to joining point an (Fig. which the
of and the
the modes
crack of
the on the
support and as
the only
opening the an
these
affected Where
location
of clear and
opening the
reasonably pattern
'load-path'
mode
failure
46.
of
comparable
beam
without
openings.
M-0.4/11,0-0.4/5,0-0.25/51, following which approximately the ultimately along a formation caused line
propagation beams to
cracks, two 7
split
the at the
inside support
and
edges point is
of
the
loadbearing The
mode, (4.5a).
1,
shown has
27,28 of solid
failure
top-load
containing forcement.
little
ineffective
arrangements
Where shown as in Fig. (a) beam 4.4: load. load soffit cracks Corners remained (b) and 2 became blocks. for of beam, beam,
an (4.4),
opening the
the
load of
path
as was
behaviour
follows:
The and at
to
form
were C of
those the
at
1 and
opened closed
the
cracks load
and Other
initiated influence
these
could
behaviour.
47.
in
loading were
the the
diagonal dangerous of
immediate for
'critical crack'.
properties: and bearing ing the iously diagonal this lower to vious the and crack been (2)
They
the the
opening region
between the
was
at
observed
the
evidence diagonal as
diagonal
openings. final distinct (Fig. or increment modes. 4.5b), the the sudden split the to outside the outside of resulted In diagonal the the in the edge top lower the in In loading the first, of of above the corner chord beam failure in the caused collapse is critical upper
in
either
which the
Mode
a new the
opening,
second cracking
mode, chord
Mode
48.
the of
did
not
occur
and
collapse crack
as the
diagonal that
outside head
which
failed and in
in Mode 4.3).
Mode 3,
2 were Beams
Beams M-0.4/9,
25/4
(Fig.
4.2.2
Crack The
and crack
deflection widths notation The of is the as beams are shown in in close the each by of (4.7), The rarely in
Fig.
beam
footnote beam the crack which flexural found grew collapse, and the to to
Table
maximum
crack
behaviour in Fig.
central whilst
At
group to in Fig.
of the
beams
could
be widths. divided
into example,
according M beams
maximum could
crack be
(4.6a)
Sub-group
Ni:
beams M-O.
14-0.4/O, 4/11,
M-0.4/1,
49.
Sub-group
M2:
Beams M-0.4/3
M-0.4/8,
Sub-group
113:
Beams M-0.4/6.
M-0.4/13,11-0.4/10,
crack
widths had
were no the
in
beams reasonably
which widest
of which
path';
openings
An
that resulted
openings in large
which maximum
ultimate
loads
A study tions beams parison top type in part of on in the Group of of the Fig.
Fig. of which
that
the
above equally
observato A comthe
effects 0,
those the
in
the same
openings,
crack of
comparison under
increasing It
Beams
11-0.4/4
load
exercised a consequence
of
horizontal
cracks.
)O.
Fig.
of
the the
the
cracks
crack widths.
equally this
to to
such
average
However, behaviour
demonstrate
symmetrical The
be similar
of the
effect
the
effect
to
of
their The
openings
on
on
crack of the
deflection
widths, beams, only span) (4.10), that the the at of
was
though as the 60 in per shown
found
less in of
to
Fig.
generally
order cent
(1/1500 load.
Examination and roughly crack resulting widths from diagonal It load effect 60 on (4.9),
conjunction deflection plot maximum that shear cracks significant that openings prior had beams. to and
(4.6) beam
corner more
to the
100
little
stiffness
the
4.2.3
loads ultimate ('k. 2). (U1/1i0) loads In gives the the of all the hand of beams, column the W1, of are Table
presented (4.2),
Table
right ratio
ratio
ultimate
51
'
load without
of
with It
openings may in be
to seen
of
the in
and in ultimate
with quite
being in the
greater remaining 6,
than
However, in
opening
Type
where
results ultimate
indicated
of
interrupted loading openings loads without of as were openings. these described the
and were
For of to noted
ultimate a beam
high
comparable as
Indeed, were
beams
path', reference in It
lowest Fig.
may
be
beams
collapsed
4.5c). the beams directly If this in could AEC in path tested from was here, the interwould reWhen the the
most load-
of ing
the point
applied along by on an
ultimate be Fig
strength
along in and BC
paths
ABC
AE reached critical
upper
would
52.
a given angles
load
the
in
AE and
BC i.
on
made
horizontal, in It load of
where little
Fig. of the on
(4.11), the
turn, is,
size
and to to
location expect
ultimate locations
that, 0 were
carrying corners
the
of E of
were
depend
(4.2) angles
the
shows 0 and
the
Table the
different
from
the
of
critical load The those lower beams [lith path substantial the capacity path propagation by
crack for
of
a beam
without
example, in
Beam Table diagonal it may inwould EE was on the BC be large. effectfailed (4.2)
ultimate in which to
loads an
upper (4.11),
Fig.
the because
be
between
iveness as
a result collapse
diagonal
crack
occurred
Node
The
beams of the shows openings M-0.4/5 little only Group that was
amount
found to
of
web
reinforcement
an effect on of beams were clear without of the the in the
provided
ultimate ultimate Group openings 'load-path' web reinforcement 0
in
Group
strength loads
11
have
the
of 4.2)
the Beams
example) strengths.
had the
However,
where
53.
'load the
path' web
(as
in
Beam
M-0.4/6 was to
significantly such ive fore increase capacity of 4.2: Fig. caused that in ever, effect were (Fig. it the 4.5). was the deep the on Beam 340 (4.3) as (Fig. to M-0.4/6 4.3): provide the of
highly
a horizontal capacity of
EE the
path
the
beam. (Table
ultimate
M-0.4/4 kN) it
0-0.4/4 reference
shows may
a also
the web
failure
important Howlittle
openings amount of of
deep
beams
collapse on in the
concluded had
general, on ultimate
reinforcement
provided
effect
strengths.
4.3
COMMENTS noted pilot that that tests certain in results after in the both discussions have of the the also of been the experimental elsereported testing. is of concrete the therefore results (Chapter 5) 35
of
presentation lightweight
follow-up
54.
and 7a is
weight
concrete idealization
where with
in
Chapter
openings
from However,
a basis it
would
illustrate in what
the of list
proposed reported
given. that the following the beams equations ultimate with web shear openings: -
suggested means of
offered strength
calculating deep
reinforced
concrete
'ult
C1 =
`1
0.35
D)
ft
bD
+ C2>IA
sin2oc
(4
1) .
Ault
C1 =
0.35
k1X k2D
) ft
k2
D+
C2
AD
sin2ot
(4.2)
in
which
the
notation (4.1) at
is
as
explained
in
Fig.
(4.12).
Egn. of (cf. it the were support. approximate made the using lower earlier Chapter was argued
is
the
equation of basis
derived deep of could beams the be which the the strength on the path and
from
the
results openings
ultimate clear of
strength the an
beams, joining
There
opening of the
reinforcement
beams
without
openings
55.
Hence, concrete k2 D to
the
first
term was
of
Egn.
(4.1) by lower
modified of the
second
term,
reinforcement
contribution,
unchanged. The main The the to bearing point occurs. is reasonably may (4.1) clear be above. the using and widths as 'load Eqn. amount but important. loops path' (4.2). of the as conclusions from the test results were
then
as
follows:
(i) strength cepts loading location the depends 'load point at (ii) 'load for path', a beam
effect primarily
of
an on
on
ultimate which it
blocks and on
reaction
which
strength Egn.
computed
of
proits
contribution
Trimming effect
reinforcement strengths.
has
no
beneficial
CHAPTERFIVE
LIGHTWEIGHT
CONCRETE
DEEP
BEAMS
WITH
OPENINGS:
FURTHER
TESTS.
-A
5.1
INTRODUCTION
5.2
TEST
PROGRANNE
5.3
TEST 5.3.1
5.3.2
Crackwidths
and
deflection.
5.3.3
Ultimate
loads.
56.
CHAPTERFIVE
LIGHTWEIGHT
CONCRETE
DEEP
BEAMS
WITH
OPENINGS:
FURTHER
TESTS
5.1
INTRODUCTION Since it thought potential be of provided such a The the beams further purpose behaviour and in that the
was had to
results in or yet including the and tests failure the check 4.2.4), of the tests could against mere into was depended crack.
of
the
pilot openings
the
the
Conclusion of beams in
No. 1 of which
pilot position
the
Secondly, web
two one
critin the a
diagonal beam
of
needed
there
which
and of and
guicblinesfor Conclusion
proper was
web
Fourthly,
unexpected
merited
57.
5.2.
TEST
The
PROGRAMME
test designed of (Fig. four 39 5.1 to those
in
the
pilot
lightweight Thirty-six
concrete of the
specimens
to
test
5.1), lengths
were L
of of
overall 1125
mm and
1.5 x
ratios
respectively. Table
giving x/D divided ratios into b
The 5.1)"
76 mm of two 2
other
see
were
nn (3 ), and
manufactured
D 0.4 762 mm (30 ),
test
were
groups:
had
no seven W7)
web
reinforcement types of
while web
the
Group
W beams (Fig. of of
in5.1;
W1 to (Fig. each
a uniform IM). of
the cent of these
reinforcereinforceof
as
5.1;
special deformed
" so very of a web a was that
consisted
and 1.2 in each per
10
web
mm diameter
steel (Table beams consisted ratio 5.1) was
460
N/mm
strength at
possible of the
weight the
6 ratio in
prefixed
face
of
mm
"
The
web
steel of
ratio steel)/(volume
Pweb
was of
calculated concrete)
as
the
ratio
(volume
58.
bar each
around beam
each consisted
opening. of one
The 20
main
long-
mm diameter to external
430 the
N/mm2 ends
yield (Fig.
strength, 5.1). Lytag used are of. are the in given web
lightweight details of The those ranging openings al 0.2 1.5. is of as x by but As in the from
were
again
positions pilot 0 to
study, 18 0 the as to
height al
was
factor clearly
notation centroids
footnote at were at
opening
were 13 16 was
those top.
of while Opening
beam soffit. of
mm from in the
used
tests
using 18 with
specimens. of 0.25. all present However. one for for the for of the
reference at
number
shear
span
mid-depth.
the
beams
were
under beams
loading; tested is
investigation in deep this four of practice beams; condition, the beams, drawn
four-point to give
loading some
whether
conclusions
from
59.
tests the
using uniformly
two-point distributed
loading load
could
be
broadly
applicable
to
condition.
5.3
TEST
RESULTS
5.3.1
Crack
and patterns
modes
of at-failure
beams (5.4b).
without
web
reinforcement
are
shown
in
Fig.
(5.4a)
and
The
ions further effect dependent 'load and path' loading of recorded evidence an of in
present
the to
tests
pilot substantiate on the to load
broadly
study and the behavioii: which bearing the r
confirmed in particular
the
observation
of a deep
beam
opening blocks at
intercepted the
the
in
the opening
pilot was
tests, clear of
the of
have the
shown failure
deep
beam:
and was
clearly by the
in the
each load
bearing by
support of an an
was Fig.
opening
path
described at in
study present
crack clear
patterns trends
tests,
60.
haviour of Beams
now
became
obvious.
of 0-0.3/4 of the
the
patterns
that
interception which
consistently Beam 0-0.3/4 evident 4 and would interior (Fig. found in 4.11). to those be in of
occurred
chords
the failure
and
which occur
beams 4.5)
4: Fig.
the (Fig.
opening. of
presented: etc. A of in loads which of
Fig.
(5.4d)
patterns
and 0-0.3/58
failure
are
0-0.3/28,0-0.3/38,0-0.3/48 beams were of not the duplicates crack immediately it was pair of patterns suggest found could Beams
sets
differences ultimate
However, a similar
an
amount
6t.
seemed of the
greater effects
than of
that normal in
which
might
typically scatter
be and (Table
result small for 0-0.3/4 have beams (Table the diagonal early indicate influence corner the form load as of an point of ultimate the comextenat load, the 5.2). regions
experimental concrete in and ultimate Beam 0-0.3/4R In could the be it are very crack
strengths load
more
reasonably in without below and ultimate web the that load formation if
expected. load
as
large
reinforcement openings a diagonal be the reduced. early load: 2) propagated crack might not for Also, near likely crack This with to to and happened. 0-0.3/5. the should yielded the be useful crack (Fig. form
would
above cracking, the that on crack critical a very was pared sive (Fig. critical strength 0-0.3/5R the
an
ultimate the
would of cracking
would an
corner in beams
cracks where
lower
crack diagonal or
sufficiently 4.4: until in early support the increase for example, crack the Beam 8)
rapidly, would
collapse 0-0.3/2
reached. with
happened
diagonal beam.
Beam
compared out
pointed
earlier,
pilot most
tests effectively
did
not
show arranged.
the
web
present Fig.
information at failure
on
W beams as
incorporated in Fig.
types sequence
of
forcement
(5.1).
of
early
62.
in to the 1 and
was
in which
and
was
cracks by the
web will
reinforcebe more
discussed here,
'Ultimate reinforcement or
opening in only an
Beam
W1-0.3/4) the
W2-0.3/4)
consequent in it
only
moderate opening
(Beam of the
increases by surrounding
ultimate with
to being in
load. several
locally able fact
reinforcement propagation that resulted mode reinforcement. W4-0.3/4, and restrained so that The the outside wide the collapse the flexural they was of
'i5-0.3/4) corner
the in little
critical a rather different However, particularly the remained pattern was due to
strength of web a
the
reinforcement W6-0.3/4, diagonal instant clearly portion there This of were is evidence the so of shows the
effectively cracks collapse. that beam fairly that diagonal that mode, the and
of
crack
reaction near
point; the
below had to
different load.
result
ultimate
63.
The the shown record The similar patterns and the again openings commonly
crack
patterns
at mesh
failure type
of
the
beams
with are
used
(5.4e).
typical 28.
0.4/4 it had
little
important,
failure on the
effect
lower
critical
diagonal
cracks.
5.3.2
Crack
widths The
and
deflection crackwidths and the results that to For which for the Group the maximum web 0 beams
maximum (5.5)
are
in the
Fig.
conclusion crack-
namely, extent
(5.5a) the in
progressive to progressive
new
observations
are
presented
in
Fig.
(5.5c),
shows z be
widths
of
the
four
beams
with and
widest No. O.
width,
No. 4 agreed
the with
second the
followed from
0-0.3/16,0-0.3/4,0-0.3/13
64.
in
L/D
1.5 of the
and
x/D
In it
the was to
single to
ratio
2 was
referred ratio. to
I
covered ratio
deep'beams 3. the
crack grid for can be mesh
L/D
the Fig.
1 to shows
maximum a state it
effects
widths. of
of
different
The crack
types
width width.
of
0.3
Beams where
Beam
W5-0.3/4
the
opening. not
The only
inclined substantially restrained not exceeded noted flexural system the 9), 4.4:
web
reinforcement increased the until crack the the at the width applied widest mid-span. was upper
in
Beam
W6-0.3/4, strength
effectively was as
the
was but
earlier, cracks in
also
and (Fig.
while crack
combined effective.
inclined-horizontal
system
Fig.
(5.5e)
also
shows
the
four
beams
with
suffix
"15
were
under
four-point load Beam condition; i/(A) w3-0-3/4, of similar; and formed the other less reinforcement. 'also the
to
identical and so
Beam The
Beam
Beam
W7(. t) this
that true
of of
and and
of
W3(A) exceptional
and
from
results, important
loading
condition arran1ements of as syste^i of the the opening. the far latter as was better
becomes of
loading a result
as
distribution
around
The ing shown the (Table diagonal 1.0% effect. crack whereas ultimate effective oi'enin. limit of s width in web the in amount 4.1;
maximum
crack mesh
of
the
three
the
significant mm (Fig. limit 4.6a) until was the beams not with the 85% so on
ultimate was
exceeded
however, in
WM-0.4/18): load.
66.
The deflection the to with I primarily Examination types the of effect their Fig. is of effect (5.6) of the of
behaviour illustrated openings on shows effects Fig. (5.6d) on for crack again on
of in
the
beams
as
measured As in the to
by
central study
found
(5.5)
a result spans.
cracking the
showed deflection
effect and
deflection
Beam
particularly indication
widths flexural
resulting until
behaviour,
increased
5.2.3
Ultimate The
Loads measured
in Table
ultimate
(5.2). the the a deep the loading The deduction effect beam 'load point
loads
results
of
all
of from
of
the
the
beams
0 test
made of a web
where load
and
how
bearing point.
reaction
the
opening
clear
of
the (Fig-5.4b),
load
path, the to
for
0-0.3/12 5.2;
0-0.3/14 kN each)
loads
(Table
were
comparable
that
67.
of close three
the
beam
without of
Beam
0-0.3/0 at were
(595 failure
A these in in
patterns
that
openings in in
the
significant was to
the
crack
pattern,
reduce
the
inclined cracks
had
effect flexure-shear
ultimate numbered
The beams
results have
that
has
mode
24
the
beam reductions was
load
no in
path,
longer ultimate
the
typical as a
the the
drack ultimate
at
showed reduction
the was
interception Fig.
cause
small.
the al
loads gives as
are an the
the way
opening in which
increased,
68.
opening to effect
type a type in
to path. 10,
(Fig-5.4), Similarly,
which the
caused
ultimate
is the
worth trends: so
serve
behaviour to
particular the found of and ultimate which the gave The the results in method the results Chapter of
load
transfer
ultimate Chapter
have
proposed
The
formation circumstances reinforcement. forcement. monstrated strength web yielded that could on the
tests
on
the
Group
of deep
0 beams
beams
provided
with web
useful
openings of web rein-
inin web
that The
by
the
effects
and ultimate
de-
reinforcement example,
type
1;6-0.3/'1 strength
ment.
(Table for
reinforce-
69.
As without
has
been
mentioned have be
earlier, shown by
tests there
on are
beans two
web
and Table
one
studied (5.1),
details show
the
crack
patterns
(a) region or
'here '..
the
web
only region
the
(Fig-5.1: it was
where
trim -
W5),
Table
Beam
115-0.3/4
and
kN),
and higher
W7-0.3/4 in
were 0-0.3/0
much
beam
was
most
used Group
in
the
form each of
of
ultimate of the
much
of
Beams of the
and outside
1: 4-0.3/4 the
result and in
hence fact
reinforcement result of
achieved.
load the of
the
of can the
in failure
the
a result
anchorage
hooks
70.
of
the
shows
177-0.3/4 span
115-0.3/4
1
distortion
shear
(e) in
The ultimate
web
Type
W3 effected of
a useful controlling
cracks 2 (Fig.
and 4.5).
mode
from
Mode
The point
of
the point.
that
is
whether with and the load loading the present the system the
would
results, of a safe
a uniformly equivalent
was
noted
that
as
result sets
of of in
diagonal
from
if
it
is
be
results 5-2)9
'.14 (A)
'J4-0.3/4,
71.
the
web and by a
to
much is of their
This ultimate
Beam were
14711 -
mentioned
previously
ultimate
identical. I
(h) on
One deep
final beams
point without
concerning openings. the to the have present primarily former beam amount little
the In of
of pilot
web
study,
mentioned provided Beam pilot thickness approximately and the costs relatively As will be 5.1). same and
previously, was found in differed of the 0.5% The would self snail, seen of still. in web
WI-0.4/0 study
much less
that but
reinforcement for both savings by of the could the web use result
beams in
provision reinforcement. of in an
quantity Chapter,
inclined greater
arrangement benefits
reinforcement
much
C If
APTERSIX
NOR}IAL
WEIGHT
CONCRETE
DEEP I
BEANS
WITH
WEB OPENINGS
6.1
INTRODUCTION
6.2
TEST
PROGRA}fl1E
6.3
and and
modes
of
deflection
72.
11
.1PTERSIX
NORMAL
WEIGHT
CONCRETE
DEEP
BEAMS
WITH
WEB OPENINGS
INTRODUCTION A third irate deep the beams behaviour with of web the test of to concrete the Zeneral invest-
was
carried reinforced
out
openings inclined
to
determine of web
effectiveness
system
reinforcement.
In differences
of lightweight in of nd it
studies been
concrete
of
previous 27'
normal studies beams
test 28
significant behaviour
deep beams. conround bars. in reinforce-
have
reported
and
these
previous weight
with
reinforced the to
concrete
The
web strated in this reinforcement in the
effectiveness
in lightweight Only a deep
of
beams deep single
an
with beam type
inclined
web tests of
arrangement
opening reported was was
of
demonearlier
thesis.
opening
then
considered, haviour
number
and of
of
it
was
desirable
to
test
the for
bea
deep
different
beans
reinforcement,
opening
locations.
In normal weight
this concrete
chapter deep
the
results are
of
the
tests and
on whenever
beams
presented,
73.
possible lightweight
their test
performance specimens.
is
discussed
in
relation
to
the
6.2
TEST
PROGRAM The
E specimens lightweight supported Table 6.1) span length 1.5 tests and were designed test weight to complement and deep mm and a giving
test the
used
in 16
programmes, concrete
simply and
6.1 min.
depth of 1125
D 750
length x 0.3 of
mm and used,
mm were
respectively. were These been two normal repeats beams given types are an of of nine
of as
the their
concrete twins
weight -
web of
and
repeated above,
contained
web
reinforcement. The other of no Fig. web openings, (6.2b) in bars and each of seven beams all contained one each in beams yield beam the was a same control openings ). of The 6 mm in-
shown
reinforcenent deformed
consisted stress,
diameter
arranged
74.
in
each
face
at spacing
30
to of
the 125
and web in
at
a uniform
Reinforcement were beam (Table Details onmitted, varied G. O. the are for
so slightly
that
total was in
a range
of
and
other 3.
general of X6.1).
details strengths
Details in Table
beam
given
6.2
TEST
RESULTS
6.2.1
Crack
and
modes
of at
failure. failure (6.2). bea'is and $. 4a were patterns In weight in & c) little of general beams of all the normal
weight
beams
are
presented of
Fig.
A comparison and the by of lightweight crack concrete similar that pattern type beams the concrete and in
weight that
pair was
found at only
occurred
slightly
The
applied
patterns
of
the
series
of
type the
W6A
inclined
web
provided corner
crack was
failure 2 as
typically
Mode
75.
More
the
web and
below
the the
width result
beams. at failure of
crack
from a I NW6-0.3/4
amount
was as
containing followed
of N0-0.3/0 on been
the
crack and
patterns
at revealed
of
:, 76A-0.3/0 of
deep that
with-
only guide
will
investi; of inclined
reported
web
reinforcement.
6.2.2
Crack
wi(iths
and
deflections
was widths
found in
that normal to
the
effect
of concrete the
web
weight that in
openings
%ras similar
lightweight
76.
specimens. types of
It
may
be
seen the
6.3a)
that, web
of
the
most
crack k; l and
the crack.
width as in
limit the
exceeded lightweight
was (5.5d)
approximately
'of fact junction ing weight weight than behaviour effects of the the on previous a flexural with
tests
Fig.
(6.3a)
beams
that
reinforcement
of in
Type (6.3b).
W6A web It
reinforceis to be noted
the up to load
openings 500 kN
exceeded of state
several limit
serviceability greater
As web beam inclined inclined
considerably Beam
the in
than
the
earlier,
collapse
also a
N: r6-0.3/4 NW6A-0.3/4
steel
The
the behaviour
effect
of the
of
solid
the
inclined
web
reinforcement
was found to
on
be
beam
NW6A-0.3/0
77.
substantial. reinforcement,
0.3 0.655 of ixi was web cracking
Vhereas Beam
reached steel was the 1000
in
the
similar the
beam crack
Beam
without limit
web of
NO-0.3/O,
at 350 load kN kN, at an this
width
W6. -0.3/0
in
serviceability in load of
increase
over
Fig.
(6
1t)
the
for
the confirmed
generally, in the
tests reflect
ability widths
reinforcement
control
6.2.3
Ultimate : he
Loads present
that deep the beams used. weight in the similar the tests on 5.3.3). the tests observations and further to conjunction crack to the patterns those
normal
effects is little A
weight
of web
concrete
openings by
tests
on the the
have
ultimate of
shown of
affected of the
study
beams
No.
observations of
previously beams of
lightweight to of and 5)
seer-is from
(Chapters weight
applicable beams.
78.
In loads
it was
general, pair
that beams
from of similar
higher were by weight by not the
comparison be_, ms
ultimate inconsistent control concrete. cube
of
the 5.2
of
each
(Tables
loads
the
measured normal
cylinders
An ultimate
by
the the
beam
reinforcement:
thus
of Bean be sets
Beam
NW1-0.314 by the
by so
of In
Beam Table is to
provided of the
suggest
performance was
reinforcement in both
regards and
particular reinforced
similar concrete
weight
lightweight
deep The
of
web behaviour by the
the
series
of
beams
provided
containing
some web new openings. 0.50: pattern, in any loads.
the
same
type
of
inclined on the
beams of an
with
the of
in the
NWJ6A-0.3/15 path'
the joining
of
the
bearing to
intercepted of the
ataposition tests on
c]oye lightweight
results
79.
have strength
shown of
that deep
such beams In
openings without
the
contrast, the
to
measured it
Beam of beams,
NW6A-0.3/15 the with ment, measured which 'load A solid similarly recorded
indeed,
greater all of
that
Similarly openings loads the solid that a load beam earlier ability without the of and which beam;
Type were
the
and
N. 16A-0.3/4, the
some web
over of
openings. present
reinforcement, of steel,
fact of
performance web
be in load kN for the In
Beam that
contained ultimate
shows kN that
0.65% load
the with Beam or no
inclined
could ultimate 695
1215 web
compared
beams (Chapter
N0-0.3/O), and
shear
failure of split a
progagation at collapse
goneAl However.
N:: 6. -0.3/0
examination
8o.
at to
failure control
6.2)
shows
the
web diagonal
reinforcement cracks shearing such action two the observed as an tests of effective diagonal
acted that on
propagation as a result of
failure the cracks. crushing previous pression beams web mode of the 'strut'-
between that,
present
with
web
failure results
occur. have
shown
confirmed beams
openings which by
proper
arrangement
CHAPTERSEVEN
A STRUCTURAL
IDEALIZATION
FOR DEEP
BEAMS
WITii
WEB OPENINGS
7.1
THE
STRUCTURAL.
IDEALIZATION
7.2
GENERAL
DISCUSSION
81.
CHAPTERSEVEN A STRUCTURAL 7.1 THE The of 4,5 the and IDEALIZATION IUEALIZ that all FOR DEEP %TION follow of the the tests, are tests based on the in of L/D of of 79 sum total BEAMS 61I111 WE OPENINGS
evidence 6. In
reported a total
summary, (a)
covered:
ratios x/D
1,1.5
clear-shear 13 4.2
0.2,0.25,0.3 factors
and
opening-location reinforcement weight and The calculated which mainly The the of that
to ing
both
normal
concrete. strength of a deep beam of may Fig. to be (7.1), the path' support AEC. of that time dimensions
by keep-
that 'lower
an'upper the
with us
angle
the the
k,, D 6. the
upper
consider, level,
0 0 is is
being,
opening
and k2
i.
kept
e.,
Then.
dimension
progressively
reduced
by
increasing
the
kix, in were
it
would ultimate
be
to 0-
strength. to test
(5.2)shows from
0-0.3/7
`Tn
82.
280 in
kN,
260
kN, 0-0.3/1
to
210 to
kN
for
Beam
Beams
0-0.3/6
(Fis-5.4a),
constant
was
confirm load.
general
in
Fig. the
been
Qult
predicted
Quit
C1
(1
0.35
D)
ft
bD
+ C2
sin2a
(%. 1)
where
the
notation The
explained
in
Fig.
(7.2a). that if the signifiof This (7.1) the using reasonably the
idealization so located path, obtainable test (+) for results; have these as not
suggests to
is with
small the
load be the
by with W1/W`
asyrnbol ratios
opening
interrupts takes
the the
natural modified
load form:
path,
the
ultimate
equation
) ft
k2
Df
AC2
Yk A pl
sin2ai
(7.2)
W2/2 s
where the notation is explained in Fig. (7.2b).
83.
should
be
noted
that bar
yl
is
now
the the
lower typical
angle
between
in pilot
the
proposed data
equation, 4; Eqn.
corrected: form:
proposed
Quit
II C1
1-0.35
kD IV
) ft
b k2D
+ C2
>A
sin2a
(7-3)
were
with
reference relation to
to the
the
natural
load dia-
often in In the C1 ft
critical
openings. on C2 the (1-0.35 the is first the way the ft b right-hand Ci sin 0) CB of side is the of Eqn. (7.2), of path the
the the in
of
'strut' kix/k`D) in
and
the
which
capacity 'strut'
inclination term is of C ft is
capacity 'strut'
resulting along of to
formation
diagonal
right-hand reinforcement
71
84.
strength the
of
the
beam; has
experimental two functions. of otherwise enables path' not of explicitly web corner cause a AEC.
observation Firstly, cracks failure proportion However, been reinforcement, for of the the very beam (Fig. in
has it 4.4;
widening 1 and Hence, carried 'strut' because, was ' 0(say described Eqn. by (7.2) the found
propagation would
Mode the
reinforcement the 'upper has absence ineffective the (7.1). restricted, while for in The to restrain
of the
load
path of
be
concrete
in
conservatively, the the second the along leads into of by two the the contribution reinforcement important propagation EA and to by CD.
is
implicitly as explained
diagonal and beam CD. cracks of typical It would cracks in The of with a is The
Unless Mode
failure the
diagonal
reinforcement test and crosses propagation the end portion motion (Fig-7.1) to and restrain similarly results on the
was
angle
a critical and
predominantly structural
Egns.
I -, a
(7.2)
and
(7.1) It is
respectively. appropriate the function and to point of that 27,33, D/3from Egn.
one spaced 32,
one
significant
between term
(7.1)
way to
increases
detail near shown
distance is and deed than and natural fections forcement and also, to
suggests in a
experience especially However, paths are of such is as a as in less solid diagonal more earlier,
the beam
beams openings
path -
are
effect beams of
hence noted
in
deep
with the
effectiveness
is
in
any
case to It
dependent tensile
on capacity
the
provision along EE
of (Fig.
rein-
forcement
therefore
into Eqn. allow allow for for the
required
(4. i) for the the
to
(repeated the
introduce
above
a
as of
increase types
experimentally that the it allow protected opening. was found for tl: e
of
experimental
the for
main the
for and
below Item
illustrated
1).
use
of
perhaps
by
shear
a simple
capacity
worked
of
example,
Beam W3-O.
and
3/4
for
will
this
be
purpose
calculated.
the
ultimate
EXA`tl'LE
: The properties Fig. (5.1) of and the Table Beam (5.1) W3-0.3/4 and are have been in
extracted
from
shown
Fig.
(7.3)"
. %'ith reference to Fig. (7.2) and Fig. (7.3)
ft k1x k2D
', /mm2 mm mm
D= b= C1=
mm mm
then by the
the
shear first
of side
the of
is
given follows
1.35
(1
0.35
k1X k2D
ft
k2
= 1.35
(1 - 0.35
5 300 )x2.87
kN
85.7
The calculated usin,;
kti.
shear the 3tren; second th contribution term on the right of the hand steel side is of
Egn.
(7.2).
Referring
is given
to
by
Fig.
(7.2)and
Fig.
(7.3)"the
steel
contribution
Xx
300 300
xAx (314.2
y1/D x
=1x
71 0x0.64)
10-3 term;
520
A=
+ X-
1
3 0.64 x10
1.5
300
1557 0
(190
230
270 web
560)x 1.5
steel
term;
(57.1
This gives a
+ 135.6)
computed
kN
ultimate shear load of
Qult
85.7 =
278.4
+ 57.1
kN
+ 135.6
kN
4ult 112
= W2/2 557
With
where kN
reference W3-0.3/4
W2 is
the
total
applied
load
to was
Table 560
(5.2) kN.
the
measured
ultimate
load
W1 of
Deam
As strength From
the ment the
final for ft
the
illustration a 2.69
and
us without Beam
consider web
the
ultimate
replica N/mm2
the W3-0.4/0 is as
0-0.4/O,
beam to Beam
reinforce(7.3),
strength
follows,
Qult
85.7
2,
qf $6
37.1
W2 ith
275
.. load W1 of
reference 0-0.3/4
measured
ultimate
Beam
In the beams,
(7.1) (7.2)
the or
ultimate as
loads
all
using with a
appropriate, be seen
can is Fig.
agreement in
W1 = W`
represents
a reasonable
profile.
7.2 1. )
GENERAL In Table
DISCUSSION (7.1). W2 values W5-0.3/4, If, computed load (Fig. weak not and shown the against similar Eqn. be from Type the over the W1) potential the (7.2) 800 fact was Beams beams is kN; that such as of
not and
the
upper path
capacity collapse of
lower
be realized
before
beam
occurred.
2. the of
In first the
Egn.
(7.2) on path, is
contribution, side, proper primary lower happened, were path for designed from relative beam Eqn. Fig. to is
represented on the of the special weaker beams structthe lower capacity web
by
term lower
reinforcement circumst. than 0-0.3/16 ural laths Table the inces, upper and idealization. in (7.1) these
Under be much
in the
0-0.2/16
paths; grossly
09.
In
any to be D); to
the
shear of low, k2
of angle special
cot-1
Fig. detailing
are of the
given
web Eqn.
conservative web
estimate is the
from
reinforcement 6.1),
provided,
ultimate an opening
for
Beam
NW6A-0.3/15
neams
w3(-A), to (5.3). be
44(A)
and the
117(A)
were
tested
under condition,
show
that In
also
kix define a
of it
the is
values,
necessary EA in Fig.
represent
the
-pith for
reference a given
(7.2), is much
it an
is upper web at a
to the
reached
represented beam.
rather
web
rein-
forcement
normal sheer
have scale in
present
as to
in At
of of
the
wide
range a
of test
using in
commenced;
specimens of depth
normal
mm and span
shear the by
present an
webs or by
either of
arrangeat present,
reinforcement. `
strength affected a beam, containing 1.34% kN; was using obtained. ultimate comparable to of Eqn.
result that
not The described in an
reported
ultimate
but
indications
by Eqn.
prediction
to be ultimate and mesh, of measured reasonably
significantly load of
scale openings
calculated and
CHAPTEREIGHT
PROPOSED
METHOD
FOR THE
DZSIGN
OF DEEP
BEAMS
WITH
WEB OPENINGS
3.1
INTRODUCTION
8.2
PROPOSED
DESIGN
EQU%TIONS
FOR SHEAR
8.3
DESIGN
HINTS
8.4
DESIGN
EXAMPLE
510
C If
APTEREIGHT
A PROPOSED
METHOD
FOR THE
DESIGN
OF DEEP
DEANS
WITH
WED OFENINGS
8.1
INTRODUCTION.
1
of
reinforced covered by
deep codes
beams of
web 3-5.
Britain,
the
for
provisions because
openings
restrictive little
shown on
effects concrete
analysis presents
load
beams.
of reinforced problems presented web openings presented the designer, in of method and to their for in concrete 36, deep but this not beams the thesis be
exact
structural a of powerful the and this load for chapter. openings with use.
with
design illustrate
together ease of
method's
8.2
PI OPO. iCD
It
DE..3IGN
be
EqUATIONS
that
FOR
Egn3.
SITE\1t
(7.1)and (7.3)
-should
noted
are
intended no
a
to
predict factor
actual of
of
collapse and
in order it is and of
Hence, is
predicted the to
there to
and
is be
built-in
certain
safety
likely
amount
scatter in
comparing to modify
actual to be
strengths. appropriate empirical lower able factor lower loads material, bound. lower of bound by the Y"
Therefore, for coefficients Examination Lound 0.75. strengths application to In the design.
equations the obtain that is to state factor given relate design for a a
multiply to
C1
safe
reasonby a the
addition, to
It is usually
is
noted concrete
that
the
hence on is be
based which
cube used in
and
normally
available. the
0.52
guide
relationship
is taken concrete range lightweight over the estimates of of
between
as this the present ft
adopted this
however, strength:
relationthe results
from a relationship
testing
specimens
fcu ht that
wa3
obtained.
and (It is
this
is
the
value to point
adopted
pertinent th of
stren.
lightweight
concrete
93.
is for
on
curing concrete
in d --,
the in into
is
ft
obtain: Taking
which
A3TM
factor 1.5
see
safety
Chapter
for the
partial
as design
strength
purposes
ft =
EC-U5 0.52 0
y
ft
1cu
fcu 0,1}4 i. )
42
if-
for
normal
weight
concrete
0.36
Ff u
for
lightweight
concrete
ym
The
design
equations
for
ultimate
shear
strength
then
become:
"-u
it
C1
(1-0.35
x/D)
ffcu
Quit
"" (1-0.35 C1 =
a1(8.2)
where
the
geometrical
notation
is
as
explained
again
in
Fig.
8.1
and
C1 C1 C C 2 `
= =
0.44 0.36 1 95
weight
aggregate aggregate bars round (f y bars bars proper strength of web bar
concrete concrete 410 = (f (A y )near s (A N concrete as the case may ) N/mm2) N/mm2) soffit
_ = a a =
= 250
A A f A
beam
cu
acteristic of main
bar
or
7 `t 0
8.3
uE5ISh
The
HINTS
following are and design given to hints qualify based and on to the aid experimental the use of
(8.2).
(1) with
are
intended shear-span/depth
to
apply ratios
to
beams
comparable and deep are (2) the points. load from (3) path, Egzi. 0.2< beams covered. '. henever natural If
specimens: should be
equations
loading
conditions;
static
web
openin; joining
s the
be
kept and
of
is shear
reasonably strength
of be
the
calculated
(8.1).
In
using
Egn. as
it the
is
that the
the
steel
less
20;:
of
the
intercepts that the 8.1). from (S. the angle The Eqn.
the
natural
should
(kix/k2D) shear
strength
calcul.
(8.2).
In
usin;
2),
it
is
possible
that
the
contribution
from
(A )
the
might
concrete
be found
term
to
to,; ether
be sufficient
with
that
to
of
meet
the
the
main
design
steel
shear
95.
However, mobilisation it is
the of
shown of
that the
to
ensure
unreinforced to protect
advisable above
regions is
purpose
recommended 20`:
should steel Aw
contribution steel
(A w ),
exceeds
bution web
of
Qult,
be made be
at
the
contriand the
proper
must
properly.
(6) given so
It in
is
worth (5)
noting the
that total to
in
meeting quantity
the of
above, is unlikely
provided
be
significantly required
(Clause reinforcement Recommendations 5.5)
greater for
and
the
mandatory
and than solid shrinkage the deep
quantity
effects
of
reinforcement
by CPI103 web OED-FIP
so-called beams by
nominal the
required 5
Charter
(7) The ultimate by providing the both :Veb be web the shear strength designed reinforcement regions above not using may quantities the and meeting Egn. (8.2). be substantially of designer below this the web inreinforcement. should opehing requirement again are
creased In detailing
that
reinforcenent when
disregarded
(8) is
web
(Fig. increasing is
6.1:
Type the
strength This to
crack
see likely
However, dimensions
there beam,
strictions
on
the
overall
96.
is
the
main
concern,
then
Type
Trimming has
any
locally effect
is
with on
loops ultimate
locally Eqn.
of
reinforceshear
for
little
reinforcement should
strengths
crack
provided in using
(8.2).
In
the
of 31,32
shallow it limit is
and
of
the
of consider of an state
ultimate openings,
design be limit
important of
(11) only
consideration (see
is
serviceability 6.2.2).
cracking
It where
Chpts.
that end
equations is
be for on
longitudinal anchorage the are the steel (see %CI very main blocks also
experimental deep the point. were beams CE-FIP In anchored measured all
tests, to failure
against
8.4
ILi:
-iI'i\
;:
_`i
VPLE
FOR
A DEEP
I).: ki i ,: ITii
Of i; ": INGS
The
this example aro of 2. is It shown
geometry
siri1r the is in design required
and
to
properties
those of to solid include design used deep
of
the
beam
used
in the
for
in beam web
an the
yi.
steel.
Examination
intercepts the notional
of
Fig.
loadpath
(8.2)
shows
joining
that
the
the
load
opening
and support
and
is
likely internal
to forces
seriously and to
necessary (8.2).
compute
using
an steel
proportion
estimate required.
of
should
be
made
of
the
necessary
main
Because
main
steel
required
is
and
the
also approx-
shear
estimate
necessary it be is
example
su;
gested
main as
longitudinal follows: -
reinforcement
conservatively
calculated
reference of 1.4
as
to
Fig.
(8.2) the
and design
using shear
factor
are then
for
follows:
loading,
-
)esi-n
Design
shtr
bending
force
V=1.4
M=1.41
4500
x
6300 =
4500 x 2.0
kN
= 12600 kNm
moment
Using
1:gn.
(8.3)
with
y=1.15
for
steel
95.
12600
a 0.75
2600
410 As x 1.15
10-6
As
18124
(As/bD
6 No. 40 we concrete in
mm bars
+ shear.
14
(18792 kIx/k2D by
consider
resistance (8.2)
the
Equation
as
0.44
Dimension say 55 per b
(1-0.35
be of
x 0.462)
chosen the so
30 x 2600 xb=5.25
that shear the concrete force, then
b kN
resists
may cent
design
5.25b
bs
6300 650
Eqn. (As)
x 0.55
mm say
(8.2) only is the shear resistance of the beam
5.25
6501 f1x x
195
18792
400 x
(say)
sin2al
10-3
(where
a1
0 cot-i
kix/k2D
65; =
sin2(z
1a0.82)
(3412 .
The
+ 2754)
6166 required
kN
by the web reinforce-
contribution
went
total
6300
steel
-6
166
134
kN,
(6300
but
-
it
3412
is
=
noted
2888
that
kN) is
the
required
greater
contribution
than ment
and
a minimum proper
amount
of
web
reinforce25:: x
should
contribute
2888
= 722 kN.
From
Lqn.
(R. 2)
Y 81
sin2a1
lssuminq
horizontal
stirrups
at
uniform
spacing
are sin`a1
uNed
protect as design of yi a
the before
above al is
and '' `
the
opening:
= sin
750/1200) take an
0.72. average of yi
sufficient and an
value
(say
1800).
From
above,
Aw :
R548
mm2
(%w/bD
) 0.271,: =
2) mm "
Use
18
No.
25
mm
diameter
bars
(8836
These
regions shown ment, in which above Fig. and (8.3). might and at bearing the
bars
below
must
the
be
arranged
to
The nominal in
protect
detailing reinforcethe beam
both
is
(Note: be provided
for rein-
provide clarity).
omitted
CHAPTERNINE
A CRITICAL
REVIEW
OF THE
CIRIA
DESIGN
GUIDE
FOR DEEP
BEANS
9.1
INTRODUCTION
9.2
CIRIA
DESIGN
METHOD:
SOLID
TOP-LOADED
DEEP
BEAMS
9.3
COMP.%RISON
OF DESIGN
LOADS
WITH
TEST
RESULTS
9.4
CIRIA
GUIDE:
PROVISIONS
FOR DEEP
BE. VIS
WITH
HOLES
100.
CHAPTERNINE
A CRITICAL
REVIEW
OF THE
CIRIA
DESIGN
GUIDE
FOR DEEP
HEMS
9.1
issued
CIRIA
Guide 9 is the
'The most
design
of
deep
design impact codes in
beams
Guide on of
in
concrete'
date (1977)" and is
comprehensive
of its likely of here
future practice,
practice Guide
revisions discussed
reviewed
some
detail. 9
The lished is and 'simple concrete complex elastic or also the indirect, unique design of stated. to the rules' deep cases, literature
Guide
is of to
on
an
exhaustive on
of beams, Kong It
puband 27-35 it
and much
reports of
work
Leonhardt
International designing and which or where the the 'supplementary the where load the
Recommendations simpler forms rules' capacity applied are first openings. may loads indirect. time some of to be
contains
beams in
instability, or in
are The
provisions
In only those
review of of beacas
it Guide
will which
be
to to
explained
101,
in the
in
(9.3) the
comparison test would to and the finally of beams beams obtain three in
is
drawn
between reported
herein to the
which
Chapter for
provisions
design
with
openings
9.2
CIRIA
DESIGN According
SOLID Guide
DEEP
BEAMS be a
rules' of
to
a beam with
satisfies
significant
essensimple
using
tension
steel
required
calculated
Equation
follows:
An >M
0 . 87 f yz ( 9.1 )
where
is z 1 ha
If
the is is is
1/h
moment arm
at and span
limit
spans
effective effective
it is
height
required
9.1)
confirm the strength
n>1.5
of
the
in ha
to
bending
and
the
condition
M<0.12
reinforcement
in the span
by
be
Eqn.
(9.1)
above
over a
is
not
to
be
curtailed
and
may
distributed
depth
a v'.
of
0.2
ha.
The
bars force
must
be
to
develop of the
of
beyond
or
beyond the
beyond
far
face
support, It
whichever is
similar Chapter
less 11 that
9.1). provisions
in therefore The elastic and hence, factor (Note: of mode). some test Compared the
worth
for
CEB-FIP related lever stress as of Appendix beams
flexural
Recommento arm the factors distrimight safety (1) that say, of be on
are (cf.
Leonhardt are in
bending which
fact
for thesis
description failure
to,
the
flexural (9.1)
of
normal
span/depth in the
therefore limit
the
philosophy
philosophy good
from
the may
Nottingham/Cambridge be
design
found
point of t1&e failure t'ie'd of deep of
as
to
of
why
view
the
33,34,51.
Firstly, internal of Vie lever concrete flexuril than re rior: n*1 ; aired be. ir.; in trm
because flexural to
size
of
the
lever
av).
as
0.6D
or
say.
would more
not important,
make
cost. intersects
crack
(Fig. 27
will
bars that
with Robins
Sharp
designer's
reinforcement' ".
as
'shear The
of
the
steel stress
stem in the
the
understanding uniform
approximates However, it
tension presence
the
support that
although
experimental in
insufficient
prudent of
the
Appendix 37
of 'simple
carried
the
to
steel).
investigate
requirements As regards
shear,
rules'
specify
two
conditions
webs; these
for
are
the
to
shear
be
capacity
as
of
beams
with
-
unreinforced
satisfied
follows:
V<
2 bh
2vk
acae
/x
(9.2)
V<
bh
au
(9.3)
1U4.
where
V is
the
applied
shear
force
xe
is (a) (b)
to for clear
be
the
least
for to
11
more
support. average than than one 50% of load to the clear acts shear and spans none force contriat the
(c)
shear
shear normal
stress weight
taken
from
CP1IO and
vu is
aggregate
aggregate
value for
concretes,
shear stress
respectively.
taken from
CPI1O types
Tables of
and
26,
respectively,
for
the
two
concrete.
ks
= 1.0
0.6
for
for
ha/b
hA/b
<4
>4
may for
be shear
as
being (cf. an
an
extension CF1103:
attempt of beams.
to
all
d/aw, allow
was the
included increased
normal by normal
shear
capacity
exhibited
with
shear
span/depth
(a
v%
/d
ratios
47
59
For
such
beans
it
Lv>.
has
been
4 a beam
the beam be
failure failure
in
in
certain failure of
respects in both
that
the
diagonal
(splitting) There is
which
loading included
ratio
support
points (9.1),
deep
further
depends
Equation
As
the
value
of
on
the
have of the
aspect factor
of by that pro-
4, 40%.
regarding later
beams
Taylor
attention
shear with
to
aspect against
to
failure of
both beams to be
necessary present
comparing with
nominal given by
shear Equation
stresses (9.2)
obtained without
factor.
For
example,
feam
NO-O.
nominal ultimate
3/0
(Chapter
shear shear would taking
6:
stress stress imply k8
Table
of 4.5 from a at
6.2)
achieved
which of
a
compares 3.66 of 0.6 then
measured with x k5 nn
N/mm2. k3 2.05.
figures which,
factor its
safety of
4.5/3.66 becomes
1.23/ka
upper in Egn.
limit (9.3).
for It
shear is
stress worth
is
fixed
by that
the the
conuse
mentioning
I'D.
of as
this the
limit limit of
in has normal
the been
rules as
is an
not for
beams However,
Eqn.
(9.2) bearing
or
more pressures
usually
support
govern at
that f. cu The
the
bearing
pressures
simple
of web of less
rules
steel web the
do
not
but
give
stipulate
specific
the The for under yield concrete
recommendations
provision minimum shrinkage Clauses steel) is to or be regions of 0.52 concrete Jr '/0.87 of amount and 3.11 0.3% provided the in f; and (for
the
than
high the
In to not the be
proportion which
is than = 30
sufficient that of
steel the fy
to uncracked : X10
provide
direction
',: here
equal
is web
0.8.
subjected shear web to to capacity reinforcement improve 9 the loads by may top Egn. be load
beam
concentrated given
where is
the
exceeded. the
nominal rules'
un-! er
Under
the
supplementary
rules
the
ultimate
shear
capacity
is
given
by.
with
reference
to
Fig.
(9.2):
al(i-o.
35
"e
Wabh
Jfcu )
+ A2
Ar yr
a
sin
2
ar
(9.4)
where
s
.
0.44
0.32
for
for
normal
lightweight
weight
aggregate
aggregate
concrete
concrete
1.95 : 0.85
for for is
bars round on bars the analysis tests 1. loads 0.23 to The coefficients 34 by a The with 0.7; 27-32: equation clear this 3304 it is shear being Al and C2 of by the of 0.75 the in inspan/ the 9
Equation results fact, tended depth range and X2 of Egn. to ratios considered are based (1.9 a lower
of
of is,
under range
27-32
Equation to give
),
having bound
safety
modified
experimental
for materials. is
results,
partial
factor
The
ultimate
shear
capacity
subject
to
the
condition
expressed
as
follows:
V/bha
<
1.3
Al
rcu
(9.5)
the Nottingham-Cambridge
conservative depending,
This
tests `7-3`,
limit,
may or
judging
may not
from
be
very
on In
how the
the
beam 27-32
is the
bearshear
over about
cross-sectional to
sp.
depth)
4 `: /mm`
7 N/mm`
geometry
the effect-
c1e. ar-shear-
n/depth
iveness
of
the
web
reinforcement.
The
limit
given
by
Egn.
(9.5),
for
equals 30 N/mm2
3.12 cube
for
a normal For
present restricts
tests the
of
at
beam
0.3/0 N/mm2
stress N/mm2).
nominal
of
60.8
As maximum limit suitable provide found, supported capacity expect in of bearing 0.4
the to
Guide be 0.6 to
permits
concrete. capacity
generally simply
limiting .r'hil4t it to be
factor is at
design to -
beam. limits
present on
conservative
placed
pressures
for oratory
the
reason conditions it
that
the may
achieved it is great
reported tests might cracks have
under 9,
labin
thought an
practice
has (cf. by ary zones: diagonal It ct", is es the effect by been
also
to 1.2.2.2).
seems
the
too
importance
by Leonhardt indicated be into to be a the control avoidable. secondsupport 25
attlched
Chapter tine of of
failure diagonal
proper cracking,
web
notable of
in
the the
present load
confining helped to
reinforcement
points
fv
7"
prevent
the Two
occurrence worked
of design
bearing
are rules
illustrate loading rather illustration deep such aid beam. a beam to the and
the
application conditions and the a be design simple given -ns. Guide, a number are presented are
support
for
the
(9.3) so
Tables. and
Design
example The
the
CIRIA
which is
was
given to
in
Chapter the 9.
2. main
required
design dations
web
steel
CIRIA
Recommen-
the
limit
ultimate V are
design '2.2):
fo1loW3
?;
ai
.4XX2a
12600
k.\m
1.4
x2
6300
kN
where
1.4
is 1/ha
the
partial 1*800/6000
factor
of 1.25
on
the
loading.
live
hence bending)
there in The
is the
no
need
to
check
the
compression
stresses
(from
area
(9.1)
s 0.87 fyz
z=0.2
As=
6000 + 0.4 x
12600 x 106 410 0.87 x x
3120
Provide
24
No. 25
wm diameter
bars
(11782
cunt;
p=
As bh
0.497, =
a
over
This a height 0.2 across Next, the beam. The for might concentrated be used, x
will
be
in and
a band be fully
anchored
complete
consideration
to
the
shear
capacity
of
'simple loads,
rules'
of therefore,
the
Guide the
supplementary
(9.2) Guide
and as
(9.3) follows:
have -
been
algebraically
v c=A
bh
vX
"
(l
vms
+ 2
vwh
+ 3 vwv
(9.6)
yc bh
Amax a
(9.7)
111,
where
Vc x1 01
is
the 0.44 2
shear or = 3 0.32
capacity as for in
of Eqn.
the (9.2).
beam.
: a
a1
deformed
bars
and
0.4
for
plain.
vx,
ms
etc.,
are
given
in
of
(CIRIA (9.3).
(9.6)
contribution
shear main
horizontal
respectively.
Using Eqn. be beam given (9.7). determined. width in the first the limit a (Note: considering Guide and on maximum value on concrete minimum shear for choosing cover thickness stress the a to beam as given width b by may
minimum is
be
not
less
than
300
mm).
Fig.
(9.3)
Guide by
Table
5;
vmax in
N/mm2:
Mm then
substitution
6300 500
103 4800 x x
2.63
>
0.44
x 7.12
<
3.13
i.
e.,
condition
satisfied.
Choose
b The
500
mm. of Al the vx concrete and 01 vm' and of main Egn. bars (9.6), only namely:
is
given
by
IIC.
(0.44
vx
f1x
vag)
500
4800
Where
Fi3.
(9.3);
Guide
Table
4 for
fcu = 0.29,
= 30 vx =
x/h Guide
p= ms
0.4959
vas
0.86 =
N/mm
then
(2.156
0.86)
500
4800
10-3
7238
kN.
Hence. is
bute the
the It
capacity may be
of noted
of had
the that
shear
and steel
main
bars bars
only contriexample,
sufficient.
a main significant steel equation extra for
for more
rigorous to provide
been steel
necessary to
compensate
Guide of
requires web
in
all
cases
the
provision hori-
reinforcement;
0.25%10 both
zontally
reference contribution
to
Eqn. given
(9.6) by
and the
Guide nominal
Tables mesh is
and
(0.22
+ 0)
500 x 4800
x 10"3
528 k.N.
. Qt2l1
7238
528
7766 a
'C.N
i.
e..
V /V
1.2
The
detailing
of
the
reinforcement
is
shown
in
(Note
that
the of for
CIZIA
Suide
an
support fcu = 30
the
beam
preferable the
continue
pro-
span).
9.3
COMPARISON The
LOADS
WITH
TEST
RESULTS of those beams using described 5, the and tested the in ACI (1977)
without comzaonly 2;
calculated were
namely, 4
CED-FIP PCA
code design By
document
new
Guide. comparing ultimate in-built the load factor the each to ratios of Table the of design (W it safety to design it
the
shear is
load possible
the
correspondthe
ing
measured
effective In of With
method
against W1/W7)
Table safety
(9.1) for
factors
methods be seen
value
respectively. that
for
reference
is very
may
average
the
the
PCA
factor
conservative;
of
safety
on The
the
working
load
is
over
CUB-FIP beams
also
rather which
for since
those
of of
nominal safety
mandatory, ultimate
minimum significantly
greater
ACI are be
the
CIRIA
less CIRIA
concentrated method,
on
the
elastic in
Dischinger's which and Walther, on are based centre how forces. are and of deep which beams. the centred based to
the
tests design
flexural the
guidance shear
. reb
CIRIA's de Paiva
respectively, reinforced
9.4
CIRIA
GUIDE: The
FOR DEEP
BEAMS
WITH
exhaustive
study Guide 9,
web the As
reference by the
a paper
authored are
recommendations
necessarily
%ny
is
likely obtain in
to a
disturb beam, is
the
stress
rules. given be an in
patterns diagrams
conditions
opening which
to
diagram reproduced
top-loaded
here
Li
in two
Fig. point
(9.5). loading of
The
Guide condition
does if it
not the be
for
Fig.
(9.5)
may would It
spirit
except in the
for
opening tests
type (cf.
that
all 5.2)
under to therefore,
of o.re
the
present
OpeninZs,
deemed
the the rules,
'inadmissible
by of
disturb
only
excessive to be stress,
purpose, uniform,
in the
sensibly of side
reinforcement of the
forces notional assumed from number duced tional stresses direction occupied each rules' a
deep to act
directly use is of the in solid of repronogiven each beam system 'simple are a
the
by
the
total in the to
notional as
reinforced Where
described
to
the of the
opening, an equivalent
the
is in
recommended of the
pattern. of the in a
origins for by on
opening
obtained forces, be
solid which
design
calculated,
Uhlmann factors;
stress
derived uniform
be broadly with that the
a photofields.
of
sum
the
up of
beams
produce effect depends load and type has of little on the path at
serviceable of an opening
designs. on on the the load reaction considered the limit overall state.
35 stated th of a
primarily joining the small effect ultimate of does the seem that limit support opening on
intercepts loading
wide and
As
design it is
opening; when it
considered
serviceability
117.
the
on
which
the at
applicable
load In
absence
of
any
evidence
on
the be
behaviour inferred range local provision forcement. servatively that ing ness; assume example, of x is for (a) the and say of
of from tests,
at
such specified
of required capacity
con-
based x (b)
the (b) of
weight 30 =
taking
along (0.52 It is
each
side /0.87
0.44o: to
bars
detailed
trim
should length
tensile reported
tests
demonexample
reinforcement ended by
and -
this
include
recom-,
might
118.
unavoidable admissibility ation the herein consider because with structural and useful ization for deep ultimate the the in deep has ultimate have the to
and
it criteria
is
that in
it the
fails Guide,
to
satisfy then
the considereffect on
be limit
given state
capacity. that
yet it given
have is in
However,
Chapter
idealboth in their
beams
openings
prediction
C11
APTERTEN
CONCLUSIONS
AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR
FURTHER
RESEARCH
10.1
CONCLUSIONS
10.2
SUGGESTIONS
FOR FURTUER
RESE'1RCH
li9.
CHAPTERTEN
CONCLUSIONS
AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR
FURTHER
RESEARCH
10.1
CONCLUSIONS The design is stich not as deep major and is openings, of deep guide beams of CED-FIP available and beams are as with necessar-
of"reinforcod yet CP1IO: covered 1972, Little the effects for in the the by
concrete the
with
web
openings
codes the
practice,
openings restrictive.
It is
(new)
hoped here
the be of
of to
the
research
branch assist
reinforced advancement
this
aspect
that already of
of presented is
some
of
the
sum to
on
79
reinforced
concrete
beams: (i) strength, arily natural on The effect on the 'load crick extent path' of a web opening and which the the on on the ultimate shear depends intercepts blocks at primthe the
widths, to
deflection opening
joining
loadbearing
120.
loading location (ii) the shear intercepts be (iii) imate proper ant. as
point at Where
the this
reaction
point, occurs.
and
on
the
or paragraph
clear
of
'load may
path' be the
Egn. the
(7.1). ultimate
strength
(7.2). substantially increases with web is is strength in effect of beams loads by the on the form the openings, the ultbut importtype width trimming strength. and any strengths potential and
reinforcement capacity of web both Local has general concrete in cracking for of of the
deep
beams
detailing Inclined
reinforcement
reinforcement shear
regards
shear
normal is and
similar,
be
accounted capacity
structural lightweight
of
The
structural
simple
design
in
this to a
is
10.2 (i)
SUGrFSTIONS The of
FOR the
FUItT)IER test
RESEARCH in the
size
specimens
used
present
121.
was
as
large
as
was
the
range using
the
to
bend
conventional of all
signifipractice. of
investigate would
of the Cement tests useful various
percentage
reinforcement
Taylor some made of 61
has in
ordinary
deductions shear
about parameters,
dowel beams
action, may
and lead
the to
zone.
of
the
exploratory 1) have
tests indicated
on
end that
design beams.
criteria
data seem
collected to be the
by
the most
to and under-
justify which
yet
a more
better efficient
beam
behaviour
procedure.
AP
I'
ENDIXONE
IN
A1.1
INTRODUCTION
AND BACKGROUND
Al .2
41.3
TEST PROGRAMOME
TEST A1.3.1 x1.3.2 4,1.3.3 RESULTS Deflection Crack Crack control patterns and modes of failure control
%1.4
GENERAL
COMMENTS
122.
APPENDIXONE
ANCHORAGE
OF TENSION
IN
LIGHTWEIGHT
CONCRETE
A1.1
INTRODUCTION It
AND would
seem the
-for anchorage
some
yet,
the of
reinforcement surveys
must 6,7,9-12
extensive
have of
control
conclusions
which
anchoring or by using
bars
reinforced
in
concrete
anchorage which and is at
beams,
the thought
the
full
tensile
because
force of the
must arch
be
action
loads normal
Henry
reported have 37
increase pressure
proportion 66
the
applied
At carried out by
the Singh
University 12 have
of
tests usual
recently design
indicated
1'23.
regarding be 24
end
anchorage
of
the
main In
in
deep
conservative. concrete main zero In inclined 11.9.6 deep longitudinal to all an of web of
beams,
length web
was
provided; satisfying
reinforcement AC1318-71
mesh
Section
Singh's
on deep beam of behaviour web
tests
but
provided
it was had as of web the not
some
clear on
valuable
what the the
information
effects the for strengths could strength. test without and results programme web of are hive
reinforcement
had
of
general
observations tests.
evidence
thirty-three
%1.A
TEST
test 12 tests
specimens and as
were previously
designed 12 ,
to in
be
complementthe
ary
to
Singh's
planning
test it
where 4
to the not
of
des-
guide cover
British
CP110:
124.
test
specimens
of
beams depth
mm and
(Note: mm
sized mm span of
different with I a
used: ratio
beams
clear-shear-span/depth beams with an x/D The ment same are properties as given those in ratio concrete and given Table The
consisted was lengths A1.1. anchorage provided. beyond Column was 4). either of two
0.55
and
rum in
six
of
and
reinforcewere the
other in
Chapter
strengths
(A1.1). longitudinal
dia. bars centre In those an %CI deformed were line bears standard anchored of the with
main
8 aim
reinforcement
bars; by support an hook x/D no web
in
each
beam
These the
(: \C1318-71:
7.1.1.1)4 bar +
the length hook. Hence the one
or
one db,
of 20
the db, In
following 15 those
a
25 one of of
times (25 db
diameter standard
anchorage or nil.
db.
or an
plus ratio
db of is
hook).
was
beams
standard
0.55.
either The
from
specified i.
ACI318-71, bars.
mm
diameter
Details
of
the
test
procedures
and
equipment
have
1'25
been (Fig. 89 x
given A1.2) 29
in were
3"
and
mm steel
concrete
support to A1.5,
on
steel
Beam
mm dial as
measured; of 25
magnifications.
A1.3
TEST
RESULTS
A1.3.1
control shows beams with that the length within same of by the x/D the individual ratio, tension series progressive reinforcelarge in deflections
that Beams of beams,
of
each
reduction ment Ui .
the the
embedment
did of
load tension
increase beans
deflections a marked
first at failed anchorage. of end flexural the
significantly increase
crack,
amounts. at
exhibited
the yielded
these not
amount
observable.
A1.3.2
Crack The
control flexural cracks but after were a usually few more widest load at the beam the
soffit
at
formation,
increments
b.
of
a soffit, shows
flexural
crack irrespective
was
always of the
150
mm length. as
to
that and
the the
crack cracks
widths
wide 10 mm
opened As in
deflection refor
0-0.55(0) failed
embedment
A1.3.3
Crack
and
modes the
of
failure. pattern
the amount and
showed
not the of of the of to were 25 to small tests) and
crack
by
and
failure
of end
mode
(Fig.
(A1.4) except
influenced two the other the which like mm the of beams tension beams
0-0.55(0)
the
reinforcement. was in flexure: and flexural penetrated beam top point. of tension reported Chpt. cracks web to cause Similar
reinforcement all tributaries, the loading amounts have been (see type other
to
within adjacent
crushing flexural
with
Walther
those and
reinforcement beams
In
those
tension
reinforcement
O. 42%.
127.
AI-3-4
Ultimate Table
shows Beams
loads no evident. at
ultimate deep
and,
again,
0-0.55(0) of
observable
the of
amount the
anchorage showed
ultimate
reinforcement In in on the
loads
stress of the
in
the steel.
usual steel
procedure requirements
current the
calculate value
assumed
for
the the amount
the
overall lever of
internal
depth. arm tension z is
lever
For taken
arm
of
approximately
in the L+0.3D As is given new
0.6D.
CIRIA and by
where
design the
D is
9 guide
example, as z=0.2
required
reinforcement
As
Al 0. H7
fyz
(see
Chapter
9: Eqn.
9.1)
Column the
2 design and
of
Table load
the to that
of equation is
it
may of of
an
approximately x, -D equal to
beam
0.55.
11. t
*1 iL
CO The
\T3 tests here reported exploratory the It was main observed together in nature; rather 37 with those hence than it of is draw
12
were to
necessarily sumadrise
observations that:
conclusions.
1.
The
progressive
reduction
of
the
end
anchorage
of
the
tension
1 28.
down
to
an
length detrimental or
of
ten
bar effects
diameters on
clearly maximum
ultimate
deflections
2. ten
Within bar
each diameters
series was
of not
test less
beams, efficient
an
embedment than an
length ACI
of
standard
hook.
3. in
The
showed
that
web
reinforcement to mesh
as the
Singh's
contribute of or almost an of
satisfying of load.
318-71 could
amount ultimate
reinforcement
double
Observation equilibrium, between Observation the ments current of the "flexural 2 was which are
above of
the
laws distinction
of
unaware
reinforcement" unexpected, regarding reinforcement beams of with a proper However, current test and
it
is
one
programme.
further
on
developthe been
lightweight 439
Committee
experimental
research
strength
reinforcing
i-19
with ksi) at
a minimum 65. It is
greater together
than with
N/mm2
Nottingham, providing
results on deep
presented beam
behaviour, It does
to
further capacity
reinforcepresence regions of of
compressive
support
beams.
APPENDIXTWO
SHEAR
STRENGTH SUBJECTED
OF LIGHTWEIGHT TO REPEATED
DEEP LOADS
BEAMS
A2.1
INTRODUCTION
A2.2
!E specimens
A2.3
RESULTS Deflection Crack Ultimate patterns loads and cracl: and widths modes of failure
A2.4
SUMMARY
130.
APPENDIX2
SHEAR
STRENGTH
OF LIGHTWEIGHT TO REPEATED
DEEP
BEAMS
SUBJECTED
LOADS.
A2.1
INTRODUCTION
Recent little beams repeated members codes without has to and a teat subjected loading has merely stating recently current that the factor is to be At programme on i8 of received mention how. claimed codes may data are to on
have
shown
that deep
lightweight Indeed,
scant that
considered, Crockett
structures loading be as
number as
design
magnitude
cracking
failure
avoided. the University load concrete tests deep whether for had deep of Nottingham was beams. the carried The various could an out aims exploratory by of static be Singh the 12932 proshear applied and of From web the no to reinresults to
repeated
lightweight were to
beams
history, types
was
loadeyelings shear
had
appreciable
ultimate
strengths.
ijl.
it
was the
suggested effect of
that
it
would
seem
desirable the
to number
substantially
increasing
In further are given each the the tests presented. to beam results previous each was of
this
the
details
and Singh's
results test
of
three
carried In beam
supplement the
programme history
Singh's
tests possible to
Whenever in relation
tests
Singh.
A2.2
TEST
PROGR? CIE
A2.2.1
Test
specimens The test specimens (Table concrete mm; the other designed The of A2.1) deep consisted beams of are identical tension mm diameter bars of of constant as shown to one 3
dimensions to be
beam specimens.
was
longitudinal one 20
6 mm deformed all web were the (as given the soffit, found to
N/mm of
used
web
orthogonal 11.9.6
Section An
ACI318-71 in the
closely which
An
inclined effective
highly
J"
28,29,31 kept by
web
ratio 3 times
constant Section
0.012, of of Details
minimum
manufacture concrete
were
the
same are
as
strengths
given
(A2.1).
A2.2.2
top hydraulic
loading
A2.1 jacks;
and
Fig. steel
A2.5) load-
was
applied blocks
through of
size
89
used. load,
Each
beam 2 Vu,
first Vu is
loaded, the
design from
AC1318-71 in stages at
Chapter
between
load to this
and 1.25
The load
next
the of the
was
2 cycling 1.25
tested,
applied; load
Beam
consisted ACI.
the
between
beams statically and
and
0.5
For
load
of
in-
C-2/0.4,
until a third
For
introduced 100,000
between
1.5
ACI
and
0.5
A2.3
TEST
ltr: SU'LTS
A2.3.1
Deflection
and
crack
widths
1 i>.
Fig.
(. 12.2)
the
deflections plotted that During by less was about for deflections Stage 25% Beam 1 for C-2/0.4, for smaller
respectively, shows
stage deflection
load was
but
substantially in 20':. 6?. the (A2.4) -deflection Stage These increases the
comparable much in
beams, in
deflection,
deflection in the
however, the it
compared, history
had poor
little of
iingh's
C-2/O.
4'). in
to
be
was was
about
3 mm in
times
%2.3.2
Crack
patterns
and
modes
of
failure
The
In a Beams mesh
crack
%-2, '0.11
patterns
.%nd a B-2/04. modified cracks In the Beam load
at
failure
which mesh formed
are
contained. system before the and
shown
in
Fig.
(A2.5).
system %2.1).
(Fig. at the
1CI
C-0.2/01 cycling
diagonal the
generally
during
effectiveness
the
web
reinforcement
in
controlling
the
growth
and
134 .
of
diagonal
is shows The
the of
pattern,
small remained in
widths
whereas not
Beam
4 and
efficient; beams
widths (Fig.
these
exceeded
mm
modes by the
the 32.
beams In occurred
were all of at
similar the
to beams In the
those
collapse. into an
type
at
records preceded zones cracking, points, mentioning and the cube were A2.1).
blocks crushings
at
to
be the of
pressures were
loading strength 52
beams
concrete; with
average strengths
pressures (Table
N/mm2
compared
t2.3.3
Ultimate
loads
The
computed ACI design
measured
loads
ultimate
and the
loads
measured
together
diagonal
with
the
cracking
15).
loads
are
shown
in different
(\2.2). the
being loads
significantly Singh's increased strengths. should ACI318-71 . however, bution the was of same thought be tests
(Table
Column
indicate effect on
ultimate it of
ACI
load
11.9.5
and contrito be
Co
types as that to
C web
assumed This
type
A web reasonable by
more covered
neglecting
reinforcement
%CI318-71.
A2.4
SUI The
%RY . three tests reported similar of the herein previous tests were
of
to
at the
previously
increase be mentioned follows in
recorded
the that number fatigue gradual bond the was previous inchored bars influence were on of failure
However,
concrete flection concrete. steel deformed have the Further mild steel 4
between tests,
blocks factors,
contributed
observed testing
lack reinforced
sensitivity concrete
repeated beams
reinforcement
would
be
valuable.
136.
REFERENCES
1.
F. K., with
and web
SHARP, openings.
G. R.
Reinforced presented
concrete at
deep Cambridge
Paper Colloquium,
Mechanics
8 November
1973"
2.
A.,
et
al.
for
Prepared Partners,
and
9)" 1: 1972.
3.
BRITISH The
110:
structural COMMITTEE
London.
4.
ACI
DU BETON CE-FIP
and 3:
construction International
of deep 1970. deep beams.
80. pp.
design and 6.
recommendations
beans. pp. 17-24. London, Cement London,
construction tssociation,
Cement
Concrete
%NON.
Bibliography
on
and
1969.
8. pp.
Library
Bibliography
of
literature
pertaining U. S. Army
to Engineer pp-80
the
Vicksburg, November
Experiment
Report No.
Station,
1-701.
1965.
137.
8.
PORTLAND ST66:
CEMENT of
Information 1946.
design ARUP
9.
OVE
and
P%RTNERS.
of
deep
beams Industry
in
Construction January
Association,
1977,
of
deep
reinforced of
University
11.
ROBINS,
P. J.
deep element
beams
studied
experimentally PhD. 12. SINGU, concrete Nottingham. 13. DISCNINGER, und and des thesis. %.
lightweight of
deep
University
der Assn.
wandartigen
Structural
1932.
i4. COULL, The pp.
pp.
A.
69-93.
Stress Vol. analysis 22, No. of 5744. deep beams and 1966. walls.
Engineer. 310-312.
February
15-
C. %. vertical of
Effect
of edges.
holes
in
deep
beams Progress
Florida.
December
1.
16.
SA%D, in deep
S.,
and beams.
A. W. Structural 185-194.
Gravitational Engineer.
June
1961. and
KITCHEN,
E. M.
Engineering February
CONi; %Y,
FI. D.,
and Paper
WINTER, American
deep
beams. Engineers.
2557.1953.
G. N. Press.
Stress 1961.
concentrations
around
holes.
M. E.. beams
and
McCOtU1ICK, to central
F. J. and
in
Vol-59.1959. of girder
references Structural
concrete August
172-181
D. S.. with No.
.
and a 6. }iENURY, central June A. W. concentrated 1961. pp. 192-198. Stresses load. in a deep Mech.,
Exp.
23.
: 11 MITE
International Concrete Institute
EL'ROPEEN
DU BETON.
of ed. ). and Practice
Recommendations
for Reinforced
for
an
London. Concrete
American Association.
Concrete 1')64.
159,
24.
SIESS, in ST5.
C-1shear. October R.
Strength Proceedings
and
25.
and
WALTHER,
Deutscher
%Jilholm January
26.
CRIST. of
and
uniform thesis,
Ph. D.
27.
KONG,
F. K..
Y. J., on
and deep
COLE, beams.
D. F. Journal Proceedings
Web of
December
1010-1017.
28.
F. A.. on of
and
ROBINS,
P. J. concrete Concrete
Web
reinforcement beams.
deep
American 68,
Institute. 1971"
D. F.,
Proceedings
29. KONG, SIIOrtT, forcement. Institute. pp. 172-176. F. K.. U. R.
No. 7.
P. J.,
July
KIRBY,
pp"514-520.
and web Concrete rein-
beams of
March
1972.
30.
F. K.,
and concrete
F. J. beams.
Shear
strength
of Vol. 6,
Concrete.
March
1972.
3'*-36.
1 'I O
31.
F. K.,
and
SINGH, of
A.
Diagonal concrete
cracking deep
and beams.
Proceedings 32. KONG, weight loads. American Publication 33" KONG, Shear deep October 34. KONG, The current No. 4. 35" KONG, F. K.,
and
concrete Shear
Concrete SP-42.
P. J., design
SING!!, of
and
reinforced Engineer.
Structural
pp. 405-409. ROBINS, P. J., and concrete Structural 173-180. G. R. concrete Shear deep strength beams of with SHARP, deep G. R. beams in Vol-53,
design
of practice.
Engineer.
April F. K.,
1975" and
lightweight
reinforced
web
openings. 1973.
F. K., load KUMAR.
The pp.
and of
Structural
Engineer.
Vol-5,
No. 8.
August
36. KONG, Collapse by P.
267-275.
KUBIK9 deep L. A. reinforced of Concrete Discussion concrete Research. of: beams
Magazine
Vol.
37.
29,
No. 98.
F. K.,
March
A.,
1977.
and in
pp.
42-43.
G. R. Anchorage concrete
KONG, of
SINGH, reinforcement
SHARP,
tension
lightweight
1111.
Engineering
and and
CIRIA's
at
H. A. R.
and deep
behaviour under
in static
shear
concrete loading.
beams thesis,
Ph. D.
University
of
Illinois,
40. UNTRAUER, of and Illinois, 41. LAUPA, Strengh Bulletin Illinois. 42. MAST. precast Engineering January
43. rIOFFET,
1961.
R. E. reinforced loading. 1961. A., in SIESS, shear C. P., of Eng. P. 59. of auxiliary reinforcement A. S. C. E. Beach, Structural in and NEWANARK, N. M. concrete Station, deep University beams. of Strength concrete and behaviour beams under in flexure
deep
static of
dynamic
Ph. D. thesis,
University
reinforced Expt.
concrete
connections. Miami
Conference, 1966.
D. R. Stresses
Florida,
and
strain
in
deep
beams
studied method.
and thesis,
by
the
finite-difference of
University
Nottingham,
1969.
Ti2
44.
G. of
Effect beams
of with
shear tensile
on
the
ultimate
Proceedings
Vol-56.
45.
of: by Vol.
The
riddle KANI.
of
shear ACI
N. J.
61,
No. 12.
December
46.
Y. shear. February
strength Proceedings
No. 2.
47.
SHEAR forced
STUDY
GROUP.
The
shear Institution
strength of
of
rein-
concrete London.
beams. January
Structural pp.
COMMITTEE
318. for
building
code
American ENGINEERING Portland H., and 1946. of P. J., applied Engineering 1973. pp. Ove and to
1972.
and
concrete University, translation London). finite deep Review, element beams. Vol. 68
Swedish; and F. K.
1'3"
52.
408.
in
bond
research. November
Proceedings
No. 11.
53.
News Civil
article. Engineers.
NCE,
54.
ANON.
Construction Ltd.,
Northwood
COMMITTEE.
Concrete
Year
2000.
ACI pp.
56.
Journal. 581-589.
The general
Proceedings
Vol.
68,
No. 8.
August
1971.
all-round information
lightweight brochure.
57.
D. C.
Structural
concrete Concrete.
made Vol. 1,
with No. 4
58.
J. A. of
strength
and
tensile
lightweight Vol-58.
R. H.
Journal.
F. K.,
pp.
pre-
1-37.
59.
KONG, stressed
Reinforced London,
concrete.
Nelson,
pp.
60.
NANI, ACI J
G. N. J. ournal.
How
safe
are
our Vol.
large 65.
concrete rlarch,
beams? 124-141.
Proceedings
1967"pp.
I 44.
61.
TAYLOR, A. S. C. E.,
Strength ST11. An
of
large
November
62.
thesis,
63.
KONG, for
and
Structural
deep
beams Research. K. N.
June of
1977.
and
S. M. the SP42:
and deep
strength in
441-460.
Proceed-
UNTRAUER,
R. E.
Influence
of
normal
pressure ings
67. ANON. News Civil (a
on bond 62,
ACI pp.
Journal. 577-586.
of failure
Proceed-
Vol.
No. 5.
fatigue NCE,
Magazine Thomas
Institution Ltd., 25
paper
for
ICE
is
in
preparation).
1It5.
Cracked
"'
Uncracked
CONCRETE STRAIN
y
Cracked
`.
Uncracked
STEEL STRAIN
FIG.
1.1
EFFECT STEEL
OF
INCLINED
CRACKING STRAINS
ON
AND CONCRETE
146.
-1
0.15 D to 0.20D
&Main steel
:::::::::::::::: O2
Web steel
FIG.
1.2
LEONH)RDT
1-: 7.
r'--I
FIG.
1 .3
MEANINGS
OF
SYMBOLS
X48.
Z
1
.-
'v cl
O
r
a) N O
100
200
300 loads
400
Computed
ultimate
700
FIG.
1.4
COMPARISON
AND MEASURED
149.
In N QJ t0 C1
E E
E E U, N
FIG.
1.5
TESTS: details
tCi11ENT 27
150.
2.1(a)
General
layout
Zone in which additional horizontal reinforcement is needed Zone of principal normal reinforcement 0.3D or 0.3L whichever is smaller
2.1(b) Detail at support
I-T0.5D or 0.5L
whichever is smaller
FIG.
2.1
REINFORCEMENT
PATTERN:
CEB-FIP
RECOMMEND XTIONS
3300kN
3300kN COLUMN
151
11
COLUMN BC
WALL A
EFFECTIVE
HT.
4800mm
2.2(a)
l ag
5400mm
arrangement
General
4500kN
4500kN
16,, OOmm
D= 4800mm
L= 6000mm
2.2(b) Structural deep beam element
FIG.
2.2
DEEP
BEM's
IN
DESIGN
EXAMPLES
FIG.
2.3
BEAM
DESIGNED
TO
CEB-FIP
RECOMENDATIONS
WIDTH = 525 mm
FIG. 2.4 BEAM DESIGNED
TO
ACI
BUILDING
CODE
153.
06
Iy 0.5 \1/2O LOAD AT BOTTOM
0-4-0
w Zj 0.2
0.3
c=
1o 1/s _ho
L0TOPAT 01-0'
'"1yt
0.2
DESIGN
0.4 8
CHART
0.6
0.8
1.0
FIG.
2.5
PCA's
IJ
1V V.
yV111111
LJIM.
IJP
1%J
WIDTH =1050 mm
FIG. BEAM DESIGNED
(3+5 PAIRS)
2.6
TO PC
DESIGN
GUIDE
(A)
LYTAG
BATCH
No. 1
MEDIUM
B. S. Sieve
GRADE
Cumulative Size % retained
FINE
GRADE Cumulative
B. S. Sieve 3/16 7
Size
; retained 0 15.4
0
11.8
3/16 7
Pan Fineness modulus
97.4 98.3
100.0 6.075 =
14 25 52
100
Pan
Fineness modulus
63.2
100.0
2.175
(B)
LYTAG
BATCH
MEDIUM
GRADE
GRADE
Cumulative Size a, retained ,o
B. S. Sieve
Size
0
10.0
3/16
7 14 25 52 100
Pan
0
27.8 47.4 51.3 55.2 59.9
100.0
3/16 7
Fan Fineness modulus
96.0 98.0
100.0 6.030 =
Fineness
modulus
= 2.696
TABLE
3.1
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
OF LYTAG
AGGREGATES.
.'>.
COARSE
GRADE
FINE Cumulative
GRADE Cumulative
B. S. Sieve
Size % retained
D. S. Sieve
Size % retained
3/16 7
14
4.1 19.3
32.1
I
3/16
7
Pan
25 52 100
100.0
Fineness
modulus
6.452 =
Pan
Fineness
modulus
= 2.936
TABLE
3.2
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
OF HOVE
INGHi
GRAVEL
AGGREGATES.
/ t
mm
N/mm2
N/mm2
425
614
441
643
10
452
634
20
432
602
TABLE
3.3
TENSILE
PROPERTIES
OF REINFORCEMENTS.
157.
200
0 J
150
100
Sc
0
01. Extension
90 0 J0
20
10
0.1
02
0.3
0.4
0.6 05
0.7
0.8
0.9 "/.
0 Extension
FIG.
3.1
LOAD
v.
i XTi;
NSION
DIS\GR kNS
FOR REINFORCEMENT
158.
ed I
otor
Load beam
gating
Test
irary
rt
jig
Travell i beam
Winch
J4
FIG.
3.2
TUE
LOWING
&1PA: ZATUS: .
GLNER %L %RRANGEMENT
159.
Test
Specimen
Dial
Gauge
a0 III
Bearing Block
Steel Bracket
Anchor
Block
Reaction Assembly
FIG-3.3
TIIE
LOADING
DETAIL
AT TILE
SUPPORTS
Beam
"
Web
++ ++
XX
Web
11
Ref.
No.
opening R ef. No .
Steel i
cu Nimm 2
fc
xx
ft""
N/mm
N/mm2
ri-o. 4/4
M-0.4/5 . i-o. 4/6 ri-o. 4/8 r1-o. 4/9
2 2 2 2
0 1 2 3
2
2 2 2 2
0.4
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
4
5 6 8 '9
0.48
0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48
36.4
29.3
2.16
2.30 2.84 2.74 2.60
ri-o. 4/10
rs-o. 4/11 ri-o. 4/12 M-0.4/13
0-0.4/0 0-0.4/2
2
2 2 2
2 2
0.4
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.4 0.4
10
11 12 13
0 2
0.48
0.48 0.48 0.48
0 0
35.8
38.7 38.1 38.7
37.1 38.1
34.0
33.8 32.0 33.8
32.6 32.4
2.78
2.62 2.60 2.62
2.50 2.45
2 2 2 2
4 5 6 7
0 0 0 0
0-0.25/0
0-0.25/4
2
2
0.25
0.25
0
2
0
0
38.4
42.6
34.0
36.4
2.68
2.80
0.25
37.5
34.1
2.80
0-0.25/5 0-0.25/6
2 2
0.25 0.25
5 6
0 0
41.4 41.8
35.8 37.2
2.83 2.58
A letter indicates M before hyphen the notation: 0 rectangular mesh web reinforcement, a letter whilst indicates is given the no web reinforcement; ratio x/D the hyphen, followed by the after reference web-opening Thus 0-0.4/2 to number. no web reinrefers a beam with forcement, having and a web opening an x/D ratio of 0.4 type 2.
%++ Details of web openings in Figs. 4.2 4.3
Beam
are
given
and
fcu
cube
strength
(100
mm).
xx xxfc
cylinder
compressive
strength
(300
mm x
150
mm).
ft
tensile ASTM
strength Standard
(300 C330.
mm x
150
mm)
T. OLE
4.1
concrete).
Beam
Measured
w1 W0
st
Ref.
No.
W1
kN
M-o. 4/o
M-0.4/1 M-0.4/2 M-0.4/3 N-0.4/4 m-0.4/5 ri-o. 4/6 m-o. 4/8 M-o. 4/9 N-0.4/10
M-0.4/11 N-0.4/12 M-0.4/13
660
580 360 445 450 600 270 340 240 300
600 520 130
1.0
0-0.4/0
0-0.4/2 0-0.4/4 0-0.4/5 0-0.4/6 0-0.4/7
0-0.25/0
660
370 340 540 190 420
660
1.0
"
Beam
notation
as
in
Table
4.1
W1/W0 a of solid
is beam deep
the
the to
measured that of
TABLE
4.2
concrete)
162. x 300mm or 188 mm ' , 6mm DIA. 925 mm forxD=0.25 X/D= 700 mm for 0.40 100x100mm Bearing blocks
170mm
6mm DIA.
Square stirrups
D 750 6mm DIA. bars
I-
(i) A rectangular mesh of 6mm dia. bars at 100mm horizontal 140mm spacings vertical spacings and and (ii) A 6mm dia. rectangular loop to trim each opening.
FIG.
4.1
DETAILS concrete)
163.
X 1
C) U, tn
0
a2 D I
kli k2 DI
..
i
REF NO. 0 1 2 3 4 5
SIZE a1 a2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 NO WEB 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
POSITION k, k2 OPENI NG 0.8 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.75 0.4 1.0 0.12
6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13
0.5 0.5
0.25 1.0 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.0
0.2 0.2
0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0 0.63 1.0 0.63 1.0
0.12 0.6
0.3 0.45 0.3 0.45 0.45 0.3
FIG.
492
OPENING
REFERENCE TO BEAMS IN
:IPPLIC?
1BLE
FIG.
1&. 3e
164.
TYPICAL. - GROUP CRACK PATT M BEAM show the unitq, ; INS XT FAILURE
(The
the
in the which sequence figures other numerical show the the of et which extent
M-0.4/1
M-U 4/2
M-0 4/3
M-0.4/4
NI u 4i J
1'M1 u 4i b
M-0.4/8
M-0.4/9
M--(j 4/ iU
H_
1V"
FIG.
4.3b
TYPICAL GROUP -
AT
FAILURE
the in which sequence numerical figures o"tther show the the whic' of it extent
0-0-4/5
0-0.4/6
U-U-4/7
0-0.25/0
0-0.2512
0-0.25/4
ie6.
-1
'/2 f'////
.I
i'ij/
(1
FIG. I 7
4.4
TYPICAL
SEQUENCE APPEARED
IN
WHICH
THE
CRACKS
167.
'
-$ K
JI
FIG.
4.5
TYPICAL WITH
OF DEED
BE. \NS
168.
Z
a 0 J
00 -. z 500
64 00 0
J
0 300
2 00
00
M'
mm
"2s
peam
notation
as
in
Table
(4.1)
FIG.
4.6(a)
MAXIMUM
CRACK
WIDTHS
GROUP M BEANS
169.
. -. Z 0
(a) Group
beams
Beam
notation
as
in
Table(4.1)
FIG.
4.6(b)
MAXIMUM
CRACK
WIDTHS
GROUP 0 DEANS
170.
lOOkN
12
1/2
-1
200kN
6 1L4 1/4
3
3/4
400kN 22 8 5 3 46 10 24
After
Collapse (0kN)
FIG.
4.7
DEVELOPMENT
OF CRACKING
IN
BEAN
N-0.4/4
171.
$
100kN
14
14
16
-200 kN
10 2 26 2 15
al
300kN
FIG.
4.8
DEVELOPMENT
OF CRACKING
IN
BEAM
0-0.4/4
" 172-.
Z
v
00 00 4 00
00 00 00 0 \ v
mm
0
J
z Y
0
Beam
notation
as
in
Table
(4.1)
}IG.
.9
(a)
AVERAGE
CRACK
WIDTHS
GROUP M BE %MS
173.
Z
Q'
O
J
60, 50 z . 401
0
0 J
30 20 10
(b) Group 0 beams with X/D 25 =0 .
m
Beam
notation
as
in
Table
(4.1)
FIG.
4.9(b)
AVERAGE
CRACK
WIDTHS
GROUP 0 BEAMS
174.
6
,5 z 0 3
J
600
500 z 400 300 J200
100
M 0413
0.4 mm
Beam
notation
as
in
Table
(4.1)
F'IG.
4.1O(a)
CENTRAL
DEFELECTIONS
GROUP M BEAMS
175.
14-
6 DO -. z
0
500 II 0r oo. u u
0
Y4 00
3 00
J
2 00
00
O. 4
mm
600 500 z
0
400
C)300 200
100
o'
0.4
mm
notation
as
FIG.
4.1O(b)
CENTRAL
DEFLECTIONS
GROUP
0 BEANS
176.
-1
WW 22
r-P=2E1
0' -------#-r-
E 4
B'
i/i
k2D
k1 x
22
FIG.
4.11
LOAD-TRANSMISSION
PATHS
177.
QI . 14
Qult
-1
k2 D
Qult (=W2/2)
Qult
for equations (4.1) and (4.2) 1. Geometrical notation as shown above; all dimensions millimetres. 2. C, and C2 are empirical coefficients, being equal, respectively, to 1.35 and 300 N/mm? Notatation
a tt is the cylinder splitting tensile C 330. with A. STM. standard strength in accordance -
in
FIG.
4.12
EXPLANATION
OF
SYMBOLS
178.
L D
x D
++ ++
f cu N/mm2
fc
Oxx
**
ft N/ium2
N/mm2
O h ci
0 1 2 3 4
M 0 +) M
H +J M
0-0.3/5
0-0.3/6 0-0.3/7 0-0.3/8 0-0.3/9 0-0.3/10 0-0.3/11 0-0.3/12 0-0.3/13 0-0.3/14 0-0.3/15
0-0.3/16
1.5
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
1.5
0.3
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.3
5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12
39.2
0 r. b 33.4 43.7 33.0 45.0 36.0 30.8 36.7 41.3 33.2 35.2
43.4
35.0
33.3 39.2 31.8 38.1 33.6 33.3 33.1 37.8 30.2 33.6
37.6
2.74
2.89 3.04 2.61 2.80 2.85 2.78 3.11 2.92 2.76 2.92
3.07
E a .0 0 a 0 W 0 a 0
13 i4 15
16
0 4 13 16
CD
(continued
notation: web no reinforcement, of web presence Beare A letter 0 before a letter the the x/D
whilst reinforcement;
after Thus
Type a web
reference reinforcement
of 0.3
number.,
and
+The
four beams with a suffix (see loading Fig-5-3); point identical to Beam '41-0.3/4. X13-0.3/4 and so on.
four beams with a suffix
4was to Beam
X XThe
were
repeat
tests;
viz.,
was Beam
identical 0-0.3/3
to and
Beam so on.
0-0.3/2,
Beam
0-0.3/38
see RTIr'
continuation S OF TLST
tests;
next BEAMS
page.
lightweight
concrete)
i(9.
xx
Beam s
Ref. No.
Web
++ No.
Web
71 fcu
+) N/mm2
opening
Ref.
fc
xx
ss
ft
2 N/mm2
steel
N/mm 4 i C-U
0-0.3/3R 0-0.3/4R
1.5 1.5
0.3 0.3
3 4
40.7 45.0
35.9 35.3
2.54 3.03
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2
2
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4
37.3 39.5 40.5 40.9 39.1 36.8 37.8 37.4 34.5 34.3 35.2 37.7 30.6
35.1 31.6
31.7 34.2 34.6 33.7 33.3 35.3 31.9 33.0 31.8 33.6 32.5 31.9 26.4
26.1 26.1
3.03 2.93 2.96 2.87 2.89 2.93 2.91 3.03 2.82 3.04 2.89 3.04 3.03
3.16 3.16 v
wii-o.
WMi-0.4/18
4/18
::rri-0 . 4/0
0.4
0.4
18
18
1.13 1Yfi1
'171 1.13
VIM 1 13 .
+xx
,9 ++ ++
see
previous
page.
Details
of
web
openings
are
given
in
Figs-5.2
and
5.4
P(fcu
= cube
strength
(100
mm)
XXfc
= cylinder
compressive
strength
(300
mm x
150
mm)
ft
with
tensile ASTM
strength C330.
(300
mm x
150
mm)
TABLE
5.1
PROPERTIES
OF TEST
BEAMS
(Continued).
Beam No.
Ref.
Measured W1 kN
Beam
Ref.
Measured W1 kN
No.
0-0.3/0 0-0.3/1
0-0.3/2
595 460
390
0-0.3/2R 0-0.3/3R
260 400
0-0.3/3 0-0.3/4
0-0.3/5 0-0.3/6 0-0.3/7
280 260
200 250 420
215 330
400
1;2-0-3/4
0-0.3/8
0-0.3/9 0-0.3/10
490
560 660 370 825 630 475
500
380
280 210
0-0.3/11 0-0.3/12
0-0.3/13 0-0.3/15 0-0.3i16 0-0.2/0 0-0.2/4 0-0.2/13
0-0.2/16
360
560
300
A(A)
650
0-0.3/14
560
260 195 655 360 500
340
W7(A)
0 lal-0.4/ 10,1-0. 4/18 irrt'-o . 4/18
670
660 500 500
*Beam
notation
as
in
Table
5.1
TABLE
5.2
MEASURED (Further
concrete).
181.
l
6 mm
D Beam tAlckneac
1
Dia
For
(mm) 150 00
j_.
1 16
TYPE W1 QQ TYPE W4 ED 0
H i 20 mm Dia
L
nu h
--T-100X100 mm.
bearing
blocks
i s
TYPE
TYPE
W2
W3
13
[]
TYPE W5
TYPE we QQ
TYPE
W7
QO
NOTES: (1) Reinforcement
TYPE WM
lw D
TYPE WM'
C,
details
of Tyre
Group
Learns
(no
web
reinforcement) 10 mm diameter
as
(2) Web
shown
in
top
diagrau
steel ratio
above.
W; : to W7 1.2S) consisted of
(3)
consisted
of
6 mm diamuter
FIG-5.1
REINFORCEMENT in lightweight
DETAILS concrete)
182.
D
kx
a2 D
k2D
REF No. 0
SIZE al
a2 NO OPENING
POSITION ki k2
1
2 .3 4 5
0.30
0.50 0.70 1.00 1.20
0.20
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.40
0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
6
7 8
1.50 0.20
0.30 0.50 0.20 0.20
1.00
0.30 0.50
0.40
0.40 0.40
9 10
11 12
0.70
0.20
0.70 1.30
0.40 0.40
1.30 0.20
0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
1.00 0.666 0.30 1.00 0.30 0.65 0.622 0.666 0.134 0.134 0.40 0.375
TO
13
14 15
1.00 0.20
1.00 0.666
16
17 18
FIG. 5.2
1.00
0.30 0.25
0.20
0.20 0.25
1.00 0.134
OPENING REFERE14CE NUMBERS: APPLICABLE LIGHTWEIGHT BE. * IS IN TABLE 5.1 AND NO. UL L WEIGHT 6.1 BEAMS IN TABLE
183.
Five at 225 mm
1125mm
750mm
i ,o
0i
FIG-5.3
FOUR
POINT
LOADING
W1(A), w3(A),
FOR
BEANS
, r ._ :.
0-0310
0-03/1
0-0-3/2
Ll
0-0-3/3
0-0 3/4
0-0-3/5
0-0.3/6
0-03/7
0-0.3/6
0-0.3/9
FIG. 5.4n
0-u-3/1U
TYPICAL CRACK ROUP r. 0 t' 1T'I',. RN .) AT FAILURK (First twelve)
0-0.3/11
(The
the circled numbers in which show the sequence erac>; the were observed; load figures other numerical the show in 10 kN units, the at which extent the were of cracks ; earn notation . mirked. Table as in 5.1)
Z '4
0-0.3/12
0-0.3/13
0-0.3/14
0-0.3/15
0-0.3/16
0-0.2/0
0-0.2/4
0-0.2/13
0-0.2/16
FIG.
5 . 4b
(The
numbers show the observed; were load in the figures show the the extent cracks of `seam notation in Table as circled cracks
1i
W1-0.3/4
W2-0.3/4
W3-0.3/4
\& 4-03/4
W5-0.3/4
W6-03/4
W7-0.3/4
W1 (A)
W3 (A)
FI(. 5 . 'tc
W4(A)
TYiIC. L CRACK 1 -iTT. GROUP BEMIS W show other the .; ir I: tILUiiE
W7 (A)
(The
L%, -
0-0-3/2R
0-0-3/3R
0-0.3/4R
0-0.3/5R
notation
as
in the
Table
5.1
cracks
in the which sequence figures the show other tho the extent of ihi. cli :
FIrs.
3.4d
TYPICAL
CRACK (continued
1 1TT-, i(N.; )
AT
F. \ILUilE
188.
51
6 6 60 6 40
N -i
\\ 1
`0 t
30
\\.
Ob 80 p t,
to 40 to
y 44
44
50
54
+a so "
2e @t8 a
44
48 Ov9, 40 la
OOOa i 48
So
26 22 30 O
42 24 It 34 +a 22 fat
to
34
BEAN WN-0.4/18
ss se
36
Oso 4
se ' 30 Ky`
22' e so
20 O `$ 22 )0 r4 3O
44
BEAM WM -
0.4/18
FIG-5.4e
TYPICAL
CRACK (continued)
PATTERNS
AT
FAILURE
189.
600 Z 500
Y
IZF E
0
p-0 p-0'
5R 6 mm
100
(a) No web
0-6
600Z 0 O J
500400 300
200
Vll 0 .o
0- '3
100
(b) No Web steel; X%D 7-73 openings =0.3;
0.3
0 0 J
FIG.
5.5
MAXIMUM
CRACK
WIDTHS
190,
70 60 0o 150 z 40 030 0 20 10
(d) Web steel as in fig5.1; x/D=0.3; opening No. 4
0.3 mm
3l
4 31 w5_
100
(e) Web steel as
0.3
mm
opening
No. 4
Z 4
O
J
0 Q
NO.18
FIG-5-5
MAXIMUM
CRACK
iiIDTH3
(continued)
191.
600500. 40 300
200 100 mm
-'
0/1
.1mI
600500400 30020 10
mm
Po o
. ry
04
FIG.
5.6
CENTRAL
DEFLECTIONS
192.
Z Y v
01
Q
O
J
(d) Web
No. 4.
Z Y v
0
Q
O
J
loading;
opening
No. 4.
FIG-5.6
CENTRAL
DEFLECTIONS
(continued)
193.
500
"
-sr -
-']
a1
-,
ai varies from
- 400
0
zero to 1.5
J
300
20011
Opening
ref nos.
al
(a) increased breadth Opening (For to breadth x, equal towards a1 W 1) support
X
i %7r
50 0
Z
40
0 J
0 30 0
201
7894 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 kj
I
10 1.1 1.3
Opening point increased breadth (For breadth equal
(b)
towards kl to x,
loading = i)
FIG.
5.7
ULTIP1ATL
STRENGTHS
OF DEEP
BEANS
WITH
WEB OPENINGS
194.
FIG.
5.8
, FTI t FAILUW
195.
/1--
1Q"1
rIG.
5.9
t3;: \ii
7".
0.3/4
F`1..... it 1ILUIZL
196.
NIG. 5.10
BEAN
W5-0.3/4
AFTER
FAILURE
I.
++
Beam
Ref.
s No.
xx
is
L
D
x
D
Web
opening
Web No. Ty p e %
fcu N/mm2
fcxx N/mm2
ft N/mm2
lef.
0 4 4 4 4
4
0 0 Ill W2 W3
w4
4 4 4 0
1
W5 w6 'W7 . w6A
W6A
3. 'i4 4.03
4 17 7 11 15
Beam The letter N signifies notation: normal weight concrete; 0 before the hyphen indicates a letter no web reinforcement W indicates the whilst a letter presence of web reinforcement; the is the hyphen, followed by x/D the ratio given after webThus N'W1-0.3/4 opening to reference number. refers a beam of Type W1 (see normal weight concrete with web reinforcement 6.1 ), Fig. having 4. 0.3 type an x/D ratio a web of and opening
++ ++ Details
of
web
openings
are
given
in
Figs-5.2
and
6.2
f= Cu
xx XX
cube
strength
(100
mm)
fc
s"
= cylinder
compressive
strength
(300
mm x
150
mm)
ft
strength
(300
150nm)
TABLE
6.1
PROPERTIES
OF THE
NORMAL
WEIGHT
l,
C)
Beam No.
Ref. "
Measured
Ult.
load
W1 kN
N0-0.3/0
680
No-0.3/4 NW1-0.3/4
NW2-0.3/4
NW3-0.3/4
240 420
580
620
840 930
880
Nw6 A-0.3/15
820
Beam
notation
as
in
Table
6.1
TABLE
6.2
MEASURED NORM'1L
OF THE
L)9.
Beam No.
Ref.
Normal
weight +
Lightweight ++ concrete++
Ref.
concrete+
NW6-0.3/4
NQ-0-3/4
1.56
1-15
1.39
1.11
16-0.3/4
114-0.3/4
WA-0-3/7
NI,T6.A-0.3/11 NW6 A-0.3/15
1.37
1.29 1.21
Beam
notation
as
in
Table
6.1
Deam
notation
as
in
Table
5.1
+ Measured
ultimate
loads
= ult.
load
of
Beam
NO-0.3/O
++ Measured
ultimate
loads
ult.
load
of
Beam
0-0.3/0
TU3LE
6.3
COMPARISON OF THE ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF NORMAL WEIGHT AND LIGHTWEIGHT TEST SI, ECIMENS.
200.
h-'7 f mrn_-
D 750mrn
1 1 .1
TYPE W1 OD
4-4
20 mm dia L 1125 mm
TYPE W2
-=-DD
TYPE W3
Cl
TYPE
W4,
TYPE W5
C1,
TYPE W6
TYPE W7
J1111 00 1= 4:
NOTES: (1")
Hill Hill
TYPE W6A
TYPE
W6A
II
Reinforcement in as shown
0 beams
(no
web
reinforcement)
(2)
W7 consisted 1.13%)
of
10 mn, dinmeter
(j)
Web reinforcement Type W6% consisted stirrups of 6 mm diameter 125 mm horizontal in beam at Reinforcement shown spacing. (enm M6. beam with without openings and typical -0.3/0) (cnm openings 5i6A-0.3/15)
FIG.
6.1
___.
1 11 z
N0-0.3/0
N0-0314
NW1-0 314
NW2-0.3/4
NW3-0.3/4
NW4-0-3/4
.4
NW 5-0.3/4
NW6-0-3/4
NW 7-0.3/4
FIG.
6.2a
(The
the numbers show the the observed; were figures the load, in 10 show the the extent of cracks were
Beam
notation
as
in
Table
6.1)
10
64-
*Q
Z6+ 00
64
NW6A-0.3/0
NW6A-0-3/4
NW6A-0-3/1
NW6A-0.3/17
NW6A-0.3/7
NW6A-0.3/11
NW6A-0.3/15
not
FIG.
6.2b
CRACK
NO, &IAL
PATTERNS
WEIGHT
AT FAILURE
BE. VIS ('The
OF TIIG
remaining beams)
(The in which numbers show the circled sequence the the cracks observed; were other numerical figures load, in 10 kN units, show the at which the extent of the cracks were as marked. Beam notation 6.1) as in Table
203.
2,
I, 0
Lio
%1%.
5 p
N"
0.3 m No 4.
100 n
1200 1100 1000 900 800
"Ali
700 600 500 0 300 200 100 0 (b) Web steel Type W6A(Fig 6.1);x/D=0.3; opening varies
Beam notation as in Table 6.1
'
400
0.3
FIG
6.3
MAXIMUM
CR %CK WIDTHS
204.
(a) Web steel as in Fig 6.1; x/D=0.3; opening No. 4 1200 1100 1000 9 00 800 700 2600 - 500 0 <400 300 200 100 0 (a) Web steel Type W6A(Fig 6.1);x/D=0.3; opening varies
Beam in Table 6.1 I
notation
as
FIG.
.4
CENTR \L
DEFLECTIONS
Ultimate Measured W1 kN
Loads Computed W2 kN
11
`_ 2
+695 590 406 231 270 + +6oo 102 193 268 241 + +657 +653 163
+590
M-o. 4/5
M-o. 4/6 M-o. 4/8 M-o. 4/9 M-0.4/1o M-0.4/11 M-0.4/12 M-0.4/13
0-0.4/0
600
270 340 240 300 600 520 130
660
1.00
2.64 1.76 0.89 1.25 0.91 0.80 0.79
1.12
0-0.25/0
660
360 460 560
280
$662
441 337 $689
125
Continued next
1.00
0.81 1.36 0.81
2.23
page
0-0.25/2
0-0.25/4 0-0.25/5
0-0.25/6
Beam
notation (7.1)
as
in
Table for
+Equation
used
TABLE
7.1
MEASURED
AND
COMPUTED
ULTIM%TE
LOADS
Ultimate Measured x, 11 kN
Loads Computed W2 kN
w1 if 2
0-0.3/0 0-0.3/1
0-0.3/2
595 460
390
+651 +637
295
0.91 0.72
1.32
0-0.3/3 0-0.3/4
0-0.3/5
280 260
200
275 275
278
1.02 0.95
0.72
356 507 92
Continued next
s t
Beam
Notation
(7.1)
as
in
Table
for
(5.1)
these beams; (7.2) the others
+Equation
used
TABLE
7.1
Continued.
k)7" .
Ultimate
Measured
Loads
Computed
Wi W 2
W1 kN
W2 k
0-0.3/2R 0-0.3/3R 0-0.3/48 0-0.3/5 WI-0-3/4 W2-0.3/4 W3-0.3/4 w4-o. 3/4 W5-0.3/4 6-0.3/4
W7-0.3/4
260 400 215 330 400 490 560 660 370 825
630
' 552 797 542 +667 356 0.91 0.82 1.24 0.99 1.4
WM`-o. 4/18
500
356
Continued next
1.4
page
Beam
notation
as
in
Table
(5.2)
+Equation
(7.1)
used
for
these
beams;
TABLE
7.1
Continued.
1)8.
"
Ultimate Measured w1 kN
Loads Computed W2 kN
W1 W 2
No-0.3/0 No-0.3/4
NW1-0.3/4
680 , 240
420
+861 367
0.79 0.65
0.95 0.90
NW6-0.3/4
NW7-0.3/4
1060
720 1215 1015 620 840 930 880
820
907
591 +991 +944 542 593 652 845
402
1.17
1.22 1.22 1.07 1.14 1.4 1.4 1.04
2
"
Beam
notation
as
in
Table
(6.2)
+Equation
(7.1)
used
for
these
beams;
TABLE
7.1
Continued.
209.
kw Ix -
k2 D
E`
f
F4 }L `2 . D C
/B
Upper Path Lower Path
w 2
FIG. 7.1
THE STRUCTURAL
IDEALIZATION
lU. . Quit
Beam thickness b
y
C D Aw
As
I
FIG 7.2(a) X
lt
Y
Y
y1
Aw
k2D
C 1
,o K1X
As
FIG 72 (b)
C1
For is normal coefficient. an empirical weight C=1.4. For lightweight C=1.35 concrete concrete, f the is determined strength where cylinder splitting tC C330; Standard in 1STM with accordance where = 1.0 in DS 181 ft is determined with accordance is an empirical 130 N/mm for respectively coefficient bars deformed to equal and plain 300 N/mm" and bars, round
C2
is coefficient an empirical (: 1 ) near longitudinal bars (k web reinforcement prooper is of is to the equal the web bars the cylinder area (A w) splitting of as the the
to soffit
1.0
for and
bars may of
(1 be concrete
or
the
area
ft,
strength
FIG-7.2
OF
SYMBOLS
211.
225
cxl=53'
0 0
10 mm Stirrups i
O O
Dia.
` = 53
20 mm
k, x1 225
1125
r-
ft b= All
N /Tnm2 mm in mm.
FIG.
7.3
PROPERTIES
%ND DIMENSIONS
OF BEAM
W3_O. 3/4
212.
O a)
v
W2kN (Computed)
Data taken from Table 7.1
FIG-7.4
\ND
MEASURED
213
v,
0
FIG.
8.1
DESIGN
EQUATIONS:
GEOMETRIC%L
NOTATION
214.
Symetrical about
1,
kx 1200 r ,,.,
or
L6
. L_
Normal wt. concrete. fc = 22.5 N/mm2 fcu = 30.0 N /mm2 ft = 3.0 N/mm2
FIG.
8.2
DESIGN
EX\1PLE:
GEOMETRY
AND LOADING
215.
Bea b=E
threes)__
FIG.
8.3
DESIGN
EXNNPLE:
MAIN
STEEL
DETAILS
=1O.
Beam No.
Ref.
CEF3 by /W4
ACI w /W5
PCA W1 W
CIRIA J1/lJ7
2.09 2.02
1.94
1.62 2.44
2.28
6.2 6.1
6.0
1.66 1.87
1.72
0-0.3/0 0-0.2/0
Wh_. 0
N0-0.3/0
4/0
1.61 1.75
3.29
2.04 2.07
2.13
5.1 3.7
, 10.1
1.57 1.66
1.75
1.52
1.70'
4.2
1.41
NW6a-0.3/0
Average values
2.98
2.38
2.37
2.08
7.9
6.2
2.24
1.73
Beam W1 in
notation
as
given
in
Tables,
'*.
195.1
and
6.1
is the Tables
measured 4.2,5.2
of
the
beams
as
given
the W w4 to are, respectively, CEB-FIP loads to the acording I'C. \ ACI Building Code, the the CIRIA Guide. 3T66 the and
TABLE
9.1
COMPARISON
OF COMPUTED
DESIGN
LOADS
217.
Effective span (/) = to + (the lesser of c, /2 or 0.1/0) + (the lesser of c2/2 or 0.110) Active height (h. ) =h when I>h
=( whenh>1
-A
FIG.
9.1
BASIC
DIMENSIONS
OF DEEP
BEA}IS:
CIRIA
GUIDE
(FIG.
5)9
ine
FIG.
9,2
MEANING
OF SYMBOLS:
CIRIA
GUIDE
(FIG.
14)9
218
TABLE 4 Concrete shear stress parameter, vx (N/mm2 )
-. 15 2.52 20 2.91 Concrete grade U) 25 3.25 30 3.56 40 4.11
0.8 0.6
0.4 0.2
2.79 3.06
3.33 3.60
3.22 3.53
3.85 4.16
3.60 3.95
4.30 4.65
3.94 4.33
4.71 5.09
4.55 5.00
5.44 5.88
3.87
4.47
5.00
5.48
6.32
TABLE 5
(N/mm2)
15
20
5.03
5.81
25
30 40
6.50
7.12 8.22
TABLE 6
0 TABLE 7
0.39
0.78
1.17
1.56
1.95
0.4 0.2
0
0.21 0.23
0.24
0.25 0.28
0.29
0.29 0.33
0.34
0.34 0.37
0.39
0.50 0.56
0.59
0.67 0.75
0.78
0.84 0.94
0.98
TABLE 8
FIG. 9.3
CIRIA
DESIGN
TABLES
(Nos.
4 to
8)9
219.
at 75. cts.
I,
II I'
12m at 1
ia. sti rr
C
FIG.
9.4
BEAM
DESIGNED
TO CIRI,
\ GUIDE
220,
I iiiii_
it
- Centreof compression
M 0
Lt M O
N O
Compression band
J Tensionband
L
Approx to direction of principal stresses Micateo thus ----+-
Effective support length is actual column width, c, or 0 2la whichever is the less
0.2
times
width
of
notional
FIG. 9,5
221.
-1
re of Con prc:, tion
p 0
e
BI
I I
a .
'--
-- -ifik`i\--
Condition Dimension
of
Examples: Hole
Holes
A-
(cf.
opening
type
11,
Fig.
5.2
for
Il, C, I)
Hole
E-
not and
admissible 5.4)
(cf.
opening
type
14, Fig.
5.2
FIG. 9.6
OF
222.
FIG.
9.7
DEANS
AROUND
AN OPENING:
o"zst
-0.79
unitload/2
-1.15 -0.73
-071
-0.36
Single span H/L = 2/3 C/L = 1120 Two top point loads at 1/4 span (Stresses proportional to unit load/span)
/ 1-9
0 OSl
0-45L
FIG.
9.8
TYPICAL
PRINCIPAL
STRESSES:
CIRIA
GUIDE
(FIG.
51)9
223.
-1
Equivalent hole
Actual hole
supported
FIG.
9.9
REINFORCEMENT
AROUND
AN OPENING:
CIRIA
GUIDE
(FIG.
24)9
_24
'+
""
+Lx
Embedment DD Length, mm
fcu N/mm2
rc N/mm2
ft N/mm2
0-0.3(25fh)
0-0.3 (25)
1.25
1.25
0.3
200+Std.
hook
37.6
0.3
0.3 Std.
200
hook
36.2
41.2
"
the hyphen indicates The 0 before Beam notation: no is the the ratio x/D given after web reinforcement; length followed by the in brackets. hyphen, embedment 0-0.3(10) to For a beam having refers an x/D example: length 0.30 diameters. 10 bar of and an embedment of ratio
it fcu
= cube
strength
(100
mm)
+fc
= cylinder
compressive
strength
(300
mm x
150
mm)
ft
strength 0330.
(300
mm x
150
mm
TABLE
A1.1
PROPERTIES
OF TEST
SPECIMENS.
320 320
300
3.37 3.37
3.16
0-0.3
0-0.3
(15)
(io)
320
300
3.37
3.16
0-0.3
0-0.55(h) 0-0.55
(o)
(10)
i8o
190 i90
1.89
2.52 2.52
0-0.55
( o)
140
1.86
Beam
notation
as
given
in
Table
A1.1
ii
Ratio flexural
of
measured design
TABLE
Al.
ULTIMATE
LOADS
,.: 6
317mm or 508mm 6 mm dia at 89 mm centres horizontally Stirrups in Series A Single bars in Series B
E
E
N P,
4--
mr 38
Varies
2 No 8 mm dia bars
6 mm dia Horizontal spacing 152mm Vertical spacing 76 mm Stirrups in Series C Single bars in Series D 2 No 8 mm dia bars
FIG.
A1.1
SINGH'S (Further
TEST details
2 No 8 mm dia bars
FIG.
A1.2
DIMENSIONS DETAILS
227.
200,
Z
(0) 55 p-O.
(10
ioo
O. 4mm
300
200
OO
r` O
0.4 mm
goo9
O
Table
F
(A1.1)
Beam
notation
as
in
FIG.
A1.3
CENTRAL
CURVES
228.
II
h0
i
[--5 Ol
0_0.55
III-(1O
O_ 0.551h; O.5 mm
200
z IOO Q
-o-5
300
Z
200
] N LA
O I00
O p
`9
0
D p
0 p
p
p
IT
O
(Al.!
0.5 mm
Beam
notation
as
in
Table
FIG.
A1.4
MAXIMUM
CRACK
WIDTHS
0-0-5500)
0-0-55(h)
0-0-3(0)
0-0 3(h)
UU AMA
0-0-305)
0-0 3 (25)
U-U 3(25+h)
ream
The
notation
as
in
Table
'. 1.1
circled the numbers in show which mmquence ti; e cr- cl. ' wec( t'. it i, bvt'rvedq other numerical the load, fi.; ures in 10 kN units, show at which the the of cracks extent were as marked.
Cit. \CK
\T
F1IlAJU
4I
t "1YC gyn. _
-i+'i sR
Y
1Y
1flit ''F t$
Tyf,
ti L'
'ik`ttl
t t''.. "
N-..
`, ife. , . A, r
'1
"i4
1. t
fS.
L D
x D
Web Type
steel %
fo N/mm
fo
ft++ N/mm
Test age
N/mm2
A-2/0.4
0.4
1.2
37.4
29.82
2.44
111
B-2/0.4
0.4
1.2
45.0
36.26
2.53
1119
C-2/0.4
0.4
1.2
46.6
37.0
2.63
69
The the
type reinforcement web L/D hyphen; the ratio followed by the x/D ratio.
(Fig. is given
A2.1)
PI fcu
= cube
strength
(100
mm)
at
completion
of
test.
fc
= cylinder
compressive
strength
(300
mm x
150
mm)
++f t=
strength Standard
(300 C330.
mm x
150
mm)
Age
test of duration
of
were was
cast
TABLE
A2.1
PROPERTIES
OF
TEST
SPECIMENS
ACI kN
load
Singh's beams
test kN
1A-2/0.4
706
283
157
646
B-2/0.4
C-2/0.4
687
726
294
274
216
274
685
724
Beam
notation
as
in
Table
A2.1
Measured further
ultimate details
beams; 32.
TABLE
A2.2
MEASURED
AND COMPUTED
LOADS
E
ON
38 mm
L 15 24mm TYPE A
I
TYPE B
TYPE C
FIG.
42.1
GENER 1L
ARRANGEMENT
AND DETAILS
OF WED REINFORCEMENT
V0J"
z 400
0 300
J
FIG.
A2.2
CENTRAL
DEFLECTIONS
B-2/b-4 . -2i
200
100
0.1
FIG.
A2.3
M kXIMUM
DI 4GONAL
CRACK
WIDTHS
notation
as
in
Table
`L .
10
.u
//
0.4 mm
J 100
as are
in
Table indicated
are
given
FIG
1 2.4
TEST
235.
A-2/ 0.4
C-2/ 0.4
B-2/0.4
B-2/0-4
notation
as
in
Table
figures in load, 10 kn units, show the was observed and the extont of the crack Cl to C5 indicate the symbols extent of cycling as follows:
'J . -k
.: e <im
1-t,
v=
2/0
Cl = 120,000 C2 = 100,000 200,000 ,3: C4 - 300,000 (; 5 a 100,000 3/004 Seam 0Cl = 120,000 C2 s 150,000 C3 = 300,000 C4 : 100,000
1 2 2 2 3
Cl C2 C3 C4 C5
1 1 2 2 2
1 2 2 3
FIG.
A2"5
CROCK IIATT61LNS
AT VAILURE;