ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 109-S18

Behavior of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams

with Large Opening
by Dipti R. Sahoo, Carlos A. Flores, and Shih-Ho Chao
Large openings in reinforced concrete (RC) deep beams generally
interrupt the load transfer by concrete struts and cause a sharp
decrease in strength and serviceability. The reinforcement detailing
of these deep beams based on strut-and-tie models (STMs) can
be complex and, very often, these models may not predict the
failure mechanism of deep beams due to localized damages. This
study investigates the performance of two RC and two steel fiberreinforced concrete (SFRC) deep beams with large openings under
monotonically increased concentrated loads. The boundary regions
near the supports of two specimens were strengthened with steel
cages formed by steel reinforcement bars. The RC specimen with
strengthened boundaries exhibited a ductile mode of failure and
had significantly higher ultimate strength than predicted by STMs.
Although the complex reinforcement detailing as per STMs was
not used, the SFRC specimens with 1.5% volume fraction of fibers
reached much higher strength than the design load and exhibited
significant postpeak residual strength and a ductile mode of failure.
Keywords: deep beam; fiber-reinforced concrete; opening; structural concrete;
strut-and-tie model.

INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete (RC) deep beams are generally used
as load-transferring elements, such as transfer girders, pile
caps, tanks, folded plates, and foundation walls. In buildings,
a deep beam or transfer girder is used when a lower column
on the exterior faade is removed for architectural purposes.
Sometimes the full depth of the floor-to-floor height is
used to transfer the high axial forces of columns above to
the supporting columns below. Large openings through structural members are frequently required for mechanical and
electrical conduits or even for means of passageways, such
as openings for doors and hallways in buildings. ACI 318-08
(ACI Committee 318 2008) defines a deep beam as a structural element in which either the clear span is equal to or less
than four times the overall depth, or the concentrated loads
are applied within a distance equal to or less than two times
the depth from the face of the support. Code-specified empirical formulas used to design these members do not explicitly
address the design of D-regions with openings. Strut-andtie models (STMs) are extensively used for these structures
with D-regions since their implementation in various U.S.
design codes. These models idealize a deep member as a
series of concrete compressive struts and steel tensile ties
connected at joints (called nodes) idealized as frictionless
pins forming a truss. The applied force is transferred
from the loading point to supports only through the STM,
and the remaining concrete between the trusses is neglected
for design and strength calculation purposes. STMs satisfy
any load system based on a statically admissible stress field
that does not exceed the yield criteria and provide safe and
lower-bound designs of discontinuous structures (Schlaich
et al. 1987; Muttoni et al. 1997). Hence, no unique STM
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012

exists for a particular structure that results in different calculated capacities.

Large openings, if located between the loading point
and the support, will disrupt the flow of force transfer and
usually significantly reduce the load-carrying capacity (Ray
1990). ACI 318-08 does not give any explicit guidance for
designing these elements with openings. Based on limited
experimental studies (Maxwell and Breen 2000; Chen et al.
2002; Park and Kuchma 2007; Tan and Zhang 2007; Ley et
al. 2007; Brea and Morrison 2007; Kuchma et al. 2008),
it is inferred that STMs provide reliable, consistent, and
conservative results for deep beams with openings but fail
to predict the ultimate load and failure mode. Also, some
tests have shown that large differences can occur between
the calculated forces from STMs and the actual instrumented
experimental specimens (Brea and Morrison 2007). A
poorly detailed STM can lead to unacceptable levels of
cracking and damage, and limited postpeak ductility under
service loads (Kuchma et al. 2008). Nevertheless, STMs
provide flexibility to the designer to focus on safe and
performance design; however, the constructibility becomes
a main issue due to problems with anchorage and congestion
of reinforcement bars.
Steel fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC) has gained
increased popularity in construction industries in recent
years. Reinforcing concrete with steel fibers has been used
to reduce conventional steel reinforcement in structural
members such as slabs (ACI Committee 544 1996). SFRC
members exhibit enhanced shear strength, more ductile
behavior, and reduced crack widths (Dupont and Vandewalle
2003). Eliminating shear reinforcement in RC structures can
potentially reduce the congestion of reinforcing bars and
construction costs. In addition, steel fibers offer multi-directional reinforcement in concrete, simple detailing without
congestion, and enhanced postcracking residual strength
and ductility. Past studies (Narayanan and Darwish 1988;
Mansur and Ong 1991) have shown that including discrete
fibers enhances the strength and deformation capacities of
deep beams and provides better crack control.
This paper presents the performance of two RC deep
beams with large openings under monotonically increased
concentric loading. The observed ultimate strengths and
failure modes of these specimens were compared with those
predicted by a design STM. Further, two geometrically
similar SFRC specimens with a 1.5% fiber-volume fraction

ACI Structural Journal, V. 109, No. 2, March-April 2012.

MS No. S-2010-057.R6 received October 25, 2010, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2012, American Concrete Institute. All rights
reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be
published in the January-February 2013 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is
received by September 1, 2012.

193

Dipti R. Sahoo is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at the

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Delhi, India. He received his PhD in civil engineering
with structural engineering as a specialization from the Indian Institute of Technology
Kanpur, Kanpur, India. His research interests include fiber-reinforced concrete, seismic
behavior of structural members, and seismic strengthening of structures.
Carlos A. Flores is an Engineer at Nelson Jones, Flower Mound, TX. He received his
masters and bachelors degrees from the University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington,
TX. His research interests include design and behavior of reinforced concrete structures.
ACI member Shih-Ho Chao is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil
Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington. He is a member of ACI Committee 544,
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete. He received the ACI Chester Paul Siess Award for Excellence
in Structural Research in 2011. His research interests include fiber-reinforced concrete,
prestressed concrete, and seismic behavior of structural members.

Fig. 1Details of test specimen and location of linear

varying differential transformers (LVDTs).

Fig. 2Design STM adopted in this study (solid lines

represent ties and dashed lines represent struts).
were tested under identical loading conditions. The conventional
reinforcing bars in the SFRC specimens were used as flexural
tensile reinforcement only at the bottom of the specimens.
Based on the test results, the detailing of reinforcement bars
at the critical locations and the importance of steel fibers
in concrete is recognized to enhance the performance of
concrete deep beams with openings.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Past experimental studies have shown the conservative
estimates of ultimate strengths and unpredictable failure
mechanisms of RC deep beams with openings designed
194

using STMs. Moreover, the design method is at times ambiguous and cumbersome using these models. Experimental
investigations are required to evaluate the efficacy of these
models for the reliable and consistent prediction of ultimate
strengths and to identify the critical region for controlled
and predictable failure mechanisms. This study evaluates the
behavior of two RC deep beams, with a single large opening,
designed as per STMs. Further, the complex reinforcement
detailing was nearly completely replaced by steel fibers in
two more geometrically similar test specimens. The critical
regions in both types of test specimens are identified and
subsequently strengthened by reinforcing bars. The effect of
strengthening the critical regions of deep beams on their ultimate strengths and failure mechanisms is investigated.
DESCRIPTIONS OF TEST SPECIMENS
Specimen geometry
RC deep beams with large discontinuous regions were
considered as test specimens in this study. The test specimens
were 1/4-scale models of an example deep beam originally
considered by Schlaich et al. (1987) to evaluate the design of
STMs. Geometrically similar test specimens have also been
used previously in other laboratory tests (Maxwell and Breen
2000; Brea and Morrison 2007). All specimens were 74 in.
(1880 mm) long, 46 in. (1170 mm) deep, and 4.5 in. (112 mm)
thick. A 15 in. (380 mm) square opening was located at the
bottom corner near the support of the specimens and at a
distance of 5 in. (125 mm) from the boundaries (Fig. 1). It was
expected that the direct load paths between the loading point
and supports would be interfered with by the position and size
of the selected opening (Brea and Morrison 2007). A total
of four (that is, two RC and two SFRC) deep beam specimens
were tested in this study. The reinforcing bars in the RC
specimens were detailed as per a selected STM discussed in
the following section. Most of the reinforcing bars required
by the STM, however, were eliminated and replaced by steel
fibers in the SFRC specimens, in which steel bars were used
only for longitudinal tensile reinforcement.
Design STM
The principal factor in the design of concrete elements
with discontinuity regions is the selection of a suitable
STM. The position of struts and ties in a model can be based
on the elastic principal stress fields (Schlaich et al. 1987;
MacGregor 1997; Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445 2002) or
the stress fields at the development plastic hinge mechanisms
(Muttoni et al. 1997). An STM approximately following
the elastic (principal) stress distribution was considered in
this study. It should be noted that the direction of principal
stresses may change after the cracking in concrete; however,
the flow of forces will help decide the position of struts
and ties in the model. The stress distribution shows that the
applied load in the test specimen is transferred directly from
the loading point to the right support through a bottle-shaped
strut; however, the opening near the lower left corner impairs
the direct load transfer from the load point to the left support.
As shown in Fig. 2, the STM considered in this study is basically a modified model proposed by Schlaich et al. (1987).
This model was also previously used by Brea and Morrison
(2007) for comparison with laboratory test data. The right
part of the STM beyond the loading point consisted of a truss
system to resist the transverse tension and the compression
in the bottle-shaped concrete strut formed due to the direct
flow of forces from the loading point to the support, whereas
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012

Fig. 3Layout of reinforcement (two layers for each bar location) and locations of strain
gauges: (a) Specimen RC1; (b) Specimen RC2; (c) Specimen SFRC1; and (d) Specimen SFRC2.
the left part consisted of two truss systems that transfer the
applied load to the left support around the opening.
Specimen reinforcement
The test RC specimens were designed for an ultimate
strength of 31.3 kips (139kN), the same as that used by
a previous study (Brea and Morrison 2007). The nominal
values of compressive and tensile strengths of the concrete
and reinforcement bars were assumed as 5000 and 60,000 psi
(35 and 414 MPa), respectively. A strength-reduction factor
equal to 0.75 was used for all struts, nodes, and ties in
the STM (Brea and Morrison 2007). Detailed information about the strut geometry and forces, and the efficiency
factor bs can be found elsewhere (Brea and Morrison
2008). No. 3 (10mm) bars with a nominal area of 0.11 in.2
(71 mm2) were used as steel reinforcing bars, provided in
two layers in the RC specimens with a clear concrete cover
of 1 in. (25 mm) to the edges of the reinforcing bars. All
reinforcing bars ending near the edges of the specimens
were provided with standard hooks with required development lengths to provide sufficient anchorage and avoid their
pullout. Secondary reinforcing bars for the temperature
and shrinkage cracking for walls were not provided in this
study because these bars can significantly enhance the loadcarrying capacities of test specimens (Brea and Morrison
2007). Thus, the minimum vertical and horizontal reinforcement requirements as per the ACI 318-08, Section 14.3.1,
provisions for walls were not satisfied for these specimens.
Although the secondary reinforcement was expected to
increase the ductility of the concrete, thus allowing a trusslike plastic mechanism to form, it was hardly realized, as
evidenced by prior experimental results (Maxwell and Breen
2000; Brea and Morrison 2007; Kuchma et al. 2008). It
should also be noted that steel fibers not only enhance the
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012

shear strength of concrete but also control the cracking due

to temperature and shrinkage (Mindess et al. 2003).
As shown in Fig. 3(a), the longitudinal reinforcing bars
at the bottom of Specimen RC1 were provided with standard 180-degree hooks at both ends, whereas the other
reinforcing bars were provided with a 180-degree hook
only at the end located near the edge of the specimen. Steel
reinforcing bars were positioned to provide the required tie
action as per the selected STM. Prior experimental studies
(Maxwell and Breen 2000; Brea and Morrison 2007;
Flores 2009) showed that deep beam specimens suffered
severe cracking and crushing of concrete near the supports.
This is primarily due to the insufficient confinement of
concrete in the strut near the support under high compression. To avoid these local failures, a steel cage formed by
four No. 3 (10 mm) longitudinal reinforcement bars at the
corners and No. 3 (10 mm) transverse stirrups at a spacing
of 4 in. (100 mm) was used as a boundary element near
the supports of Specimen RC2. As shown in Fig. 3(b), the
bottom longitudinal reinforcing bars of Specimen RC2 were
provided with standard 90-degree hooks and inserted into
the steel cage for the required anchorage. Except for the
steel cage at the supports, the reinforcement detailing was
exactly the same in both RC specimens.
Figure3(c) shows the reinforcement detailing of
Specimen SFRC1, in which only two No. 3 (10mm)
reinforcing bars were used as longitudinal tensile
reinforcement at the bottom. Similar to Specimen RC2,
Specimen SFRC2 consisted of steel cages at both the left
and right ends near the supports in addition to two No. 3
(10mm) reinforcement bars as longitudinal tensile bars at
the bottom. The spacing of stirrups in the steel cage was kept
as 4 in. (100 mm), which was exactly the same as that used
in Specimen RC2. To restrain the opening and propagation
195

Table 1Nominal and measured material properties

Concrete compressive strength
Specimen

Nominal (28-day),
psi (MPa)

RC1
RC2
SFRC1
SFRC2

Measured (day of
testing), psi (MPa)

Tensile strength of No. 3 (10 mm) bars

Nominal yield stress, psi Measured yield stress, psi Measured ultimate stress,
(MPa)
(MPa)
psi (MPa)

6185 (43)
5000 (35)

6645 (46)
5867 (41)

60,000 (414)

81,240 (560)

126,700 (874)

6225 (43)

Fig. 4Flexural behavior of SFRC: (a) load-displacement behavior of ASTM beams; and
(b) multiple cracks in ASTM beams. (Note: 1 kip = 4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
of cracks emanating from the corner of the opening, two
No. 6 (20mm) bars were placed diagonally in two layers
near the opening of Specimen SFRC2, as shown in Fig.3(d).
These bars were purposely overdesigned to prevent the
failure initiating from the corner so as to achieve better
stress distribution in the specimen. These diagonal bars were
oriented as normal to the line connecting the loading point to
the corner of the opening. Unlike the RC specimens, the SFRC
specimens did not require any reinforcement detailing, which
resulted in a very fast and simple construction process.
Mixture compositions and material properties
A concrete mixture of nominal 28-day compressive
strength equal to 5000 psi (35 MPa) was used in all test
specimens. A mixture design was carried out to achieve the
target compressive strength of concrete and use the optimum
quantity and similar proportions of materials in both the
RC and SFRC specimens. The design mixture proportion
(by weight) used for all specimens was 1.0 (cement):0.5
(fly ash):1.7 (sand):1.0 (coarse aggregate). Type I portland
cement, Class C fly ash, and coarse aggregates of maximum
size limited to 0.5 in. (13 mm) were used in the concrete
mixture. A constant water-cementitious materials ratio (w/cm)
of 0.4 was used in all specimens. No chemical admixtures
or high-range water-reducing admixtures were added to the
concrete mixture. Both SFRC specimens consisted of endhooked steel fibers (diameter = 0.03 in. [0.75 mm]; length =
2.4 in. [60 mm]; aspect ratio = 80; tensile strength = 152.3 ksi
[1050 MPa]) of volume equal to 1.5% of the total volume of
the specimen. Based on an earlier study by Liao et al. (2010)
for a highly flowable mixture, the weight of cement and
steel fibers used in the SFRC specimen was 312 and 77 lb
(142 and 35 kg), respectively.
Standard tests (ASTM C31/C3M-09, ASTM C39/C39M-09,
and ACI 318-08) were carried out to evaluate the compres196

sive strength of concrete. The tensile stress-strain response

of the steel reinforcing bar was also obtained through coupon
tests. Table 1 summarizes the nominal and actual properties of the concrete and steel reinforcement bars used in the
test specimens. Six 4 x 8 in. (100 x 200 mm) cylinders
and four reinforcing bars 25 in. (63 mm) long were used to
evaluate their material properties. The average values of the
compressive strengths of concrete used in the RC and SFRC
specimens at the day of testing were 6700 and 6300 psi
(46 and 44 MPa), respectively. The actual yield strength
of the No. 3 (10 mm) steel bars was 81.2 ksi (560 MPa)
against their nominal value of 60 ksi (414 MPa). The ultimate tensile strength of these bars was 126.7 ksi (874 MPa).
Tensile testing of the No. 6 (20 mm) bars was not carried out
because they were not expected to yield under the applied
loading, which was also monitored by strain gauges, as
discussed in the following.
The flexural performance of the SFRC material was evaluated by a three-point test on SFRC beams 6x 6in. (150x
150mm) square in cross section and 20 in. (500mm) in
length in accordance with ASTM C1609/C1609M-10.
Figure4(a) shows a typical load-deflection response of SFRC
ASTM beams under three-point loading. The ASTM beams
reached an average peak lateral load of 10.8kips (48 kN)
and exhibited appreciable deflection-hardening behavior and
postpeak residual strength due to the fiber-bridging effects.
As shown in Fig. 4(b), the first flexural crack was initiated
at the midspan of the ASTM beam and propagated toward
the compression zones until failure. Smaller microcracks
also developed from the initial crack after the first crack was
formed. The pullout of steel fibers from the concrete was
noticed at the failure stage. The tensile behavior of the SFRC
materials was investigated by conducting a direct tensile
test using a dogbone-shaped specimen having a 4 x 4 in.
(102 x 102 mm) square cross section central portion (Chao
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012

et al. 2011). A typical stress-strain/crack opening response

of the tensile SFRC specimen is shown in Fig. 5(a). After
the formation of the first percolation crack in the specimen,
as shown in Fig. 5(b), the tensile stress kept increasing with
the development of further multiple cracks. The descending
branch of the curve was fairly gradual and ductile with the
opening of cracks.
Test setup and instrumentation
Both the RC and SFRC specimens were subjected to monotonic loading using a 400 kip (1780 kN) universal testing
machine at the University of Texas at Arlington Civil Engineering Laboratory. The loading was gradually increased
at an interval of 5kips (22.5kN) until the failure of specimens was observed. A steel roller of 2 in. (50 mm) diameter
placed between two 1 in. (25 mm) thick plates was provided
at the supports to allow rotation and translation of the plates
(Fig. 1). Horizontal restraints in the plates were provided
to the roller only at the left support to resemble a hinge

condition, whereas the roller at the right support represented a pin support. However, the presence of horizontal
restraints at the supports had a negligible effect on the strutand-tie forces (Brea and Morrison 2007). Several sensors
were used to measure the applied load and the response of
the specimens at different load levels. A load cell with a
capacity of 600kips (2670kN) was used at the loading point
to measure the magnitude of monotonic load applied to the
specimens. Uniaxial 120 Ohm electrical strain gauges with a
gauge length of 0.2 in. (5 mm) were attached to the surface
of the steel reinforcing bars at specified locations to measure
the magnitude of strain and, hence, to compute the tie forces
at various load levels (Fig. 3). These locations were finalized
where maximum strain would be expected so that the calculated tie forces could be compared with the predicted forces
from the STM. Four LVDTs were also used on the surface of
the specimens to measure the deformation of concrete struts
formed in the specimens during testing (Fig.1). A linear
potentiometer was used below the load point to measure the
deflection of the specimens and two additional linear potentiometers were used to measure the displacement or slippage
of both supports, if any.
TEST RESULTS
The performance of the test specimens was evaluated in
terms of the following parameters: overall cracking, loaddeflection response, failure mechanism, ultimate strength,
and variation of tie forces. A detailed discussion on these
parameters is presented in the following sections.

Fig. 5Tensile behavior of SFRC: (a) stress-strain/crack

opening response of tensile SFRC specimen; and (b) multiple
cracking in tensile SFRC specimen. (Note: 1 ksi = 6.89 MPa;
1 in. = 25.4 mm.)

Overall cracking
The propagation of cracks in the test specimens was
mapped after each load increment of 5 kip (22.5kN) intervals. The first crack in Specimen RC1 was noticed near the
supports at a load level of 25 kips (112.5kN). As shown
in Fig. 6(a), diagonal cracks initiated from the opening
at a 30 kip (135 kN) load level and propagated with

Fig. 6Crack propagation in test specimens: (a) Specimen RC1; (b) Specimen RC2; (c) Specimen SFRC1; and (d) Specimen SFRC2. (Note: Dimensions in kips; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.)
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012

197

Fig. 7Crushing of concrete strut near supports: (a) Specimen RC1; and (b) Specimen SFRC1.
the further increase of load up to 60 kips (270kN). At
a 50 kip (225 kN) load level, several instances of cracking
and crushing of concrete were observed near the right support
of Specimen RC1 because of the lack of confinement action
to the concrete. The width of the crack originating from the
opening to the loading point was 0.016 in. (0.40mm) at
a 65 kip (293kN) load level. A major flexural crack running
almost the full depth of Specimen RC1 was observed just
below the load point at a load level of 70 kips (315kN). The
loading in Specimen RC1 was stopped at this point due to
severe local damage and instability at the support regions.
In contrast to the single diagonal and flexural cracks noticed
in Specimen RC1 during the testing, as shown in Fig. 6(a),
Specimen RC2 showed several distributed cracks up to
failure. The first crack in Specimen RC2 was noticed at a
load level of 20 kips (90kN). As shown in Fig.6(b), several
diagonal cracks initiated at a load level of 40kips (180kN)
around the opening, and the maximum width of the crack
was measured as 0.012in. (0.3mm). These diagonal cracks
propagated toward the loading point as the applied load
levels increased. Flexural cracks started from the bottom of
the specimen below the load point at a load level of 65 kips
(293kN) and the maximum width of the crack measured was
0.03in. (0.75mm). This was consistent with Specimen RC1,
in which a major flexural crack was observed at 70 kips
(315 kN). Beyond the load level of 85 kips (382.5kN), the
diagonal cracks started to propagate horizontally toward
the load point. The width of the major flexural crack was
0.1in. (2.54 mm) at the load level of 95 kips (428 kN), and
this crack propagated toward the load point up to 130kips
(585kN) before complete failure. Unlike Specimen RC1,
Specimen RC2 did not exhibit any local damages near the
supports because of the sufficient concrete confinement
provided through steel caging near the supports. However,
both RC specimens showed that initial cracks propagating
from the opening did not cause the failure of the specimens;
instead, flexural cracks developing at the higher load levels
controlled the failure mechanism and the ultimate strength.
Hence, the RC specimens designed based on an STM effectively transferred the applied forces to the supports without
any local damage around the opening regions.
The first (minor) crack was observed in Specimen SFRC1
near the support at a load level of 15 kips (67.5kN). A small
crack 0.004 in. (0.10 mm) wide formed near the bottom
middle span of the specimen at a 20 kip (90kN) load level,
198

as shown in Fig. 6(c). Several microcracks less than 0.004 in.

(0.10 mm) wide were observed close to the top of the specimen in the vicinity of the point load at a 25 kip (112.5kN)
load level. Similar to Specimen RC1, a diagonal crack initiated from the opening of Specimen SFRC1 and propagated
toward the loading point at a load level of 30 kips (135kN).
At a 50 kip (225kN) load level, the width of the crack near the
opening of the specimen was measured as 0.01 in. (0.25 mm).
The width of the crack increased to 0.016 in. (0.40 mm) and
extended to nearly halfway between the corner of the opening
and the loading point at a load level of 55kips (248kN). Steel
fibers hindered the propagation and widening of cracks and
increased the number of cracks due to stress redistribution in
the SFRC specimen as compared to the RC specimen. Similar
to Specimen RC1, Specimen SFRC1 also suffered damage
near the support but to a much lesser degree, as shown in
Fig.6 and 7.
As expected, Specimen SFRC2 developed more distributed cracks (Fig. 6(d)) as compared to Specimen SFRC1 due
to local strengthening at the critical locations. The first crack
in Specimen SFRC2 was observed at a load level of 15kips
(67.5 kN). Several cracks initiated from the bottom and
opening of the specimen at a load level of 30 kips (135 kN).
Diagonal cracks emanated from the opening at a load level
of 45 kips (202.5kN) and propagated toward the loading
point. The maximum crack width of the diagonal crack was
0.008 in. (0.20 mm) at a load level of 70 kips (315 kN) and
increased to 0.015 in. (0.38 mm) at a load level of 90 kips
(405kN). Unlike Specimen SFRC1, Specimen SFRC2 did
not suffer local damage near the supports because of sufficient confinement provided by the steel cage. At the failure
stage, however, Specimen SFRC2 exhibited severe cracking
just above the opening, as discussed in the following.
Crack propagation
The propagation of cracks in the test specimens under the
applied load was monitored by the nondestructive acoustic
emission (AE) technique. This evaluation served as a
very valuable tool, as it allowed for the analysis of energy
dissipation in the form of crack formation, crack propagation, and reinforcing slippage and yielding (Colombo et
al. 2003). In this study, a total of seven AE sensors were
mounted on the concrete surface of the test specimens using
special glue. Each sensor had a radius of influence of 30 in.
(750mm). The location of an event (microcracking) inside
the specimen is captured by three sensors using the principle of triangulation. Based on the measured time elapsed
and the distance between two consecutive sensors for an
event, the shear wave velocity for both the RC and SFRC
specimens was estimated as 1.1 105 in./s (2795 m/s).
Figure8 compares the concrete struts formed in the RC and
SFRC specimens at a load level of 65 kips (293 kN). The
SFRC specimens showed more events near the cracked area
around the diagonal crack from the opening as compared to
the RC specimens because of multiple cracking. Thus, the
effective redistribution of internal stress was achieved in the
SFRC specimens, resulting in better use of the concrete strut
to resist the applied lateral load in the specimen.
As noticed in Fig. 8, the width of the compressive strut
formed in the RC specimen was smaller as compared to that
in the SFRC specimen, indicating that the SFRC specimen
dissipated the energy over a wider area. Both specimens
dissipated an equal amount of energy. The RC specimen
dissipated energy through a large single crack propagation
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012

due to the yielding of reinforcing bars. In contrast, the SFRC

specimen dissipated energy through multiple fine cracks that
branched out in random directions because the steel fibers
served as a bridge that enabled forces to be redistributed
from one area to the next. This characteristic of steel fibers
overcomes the weak tensile strength and the brittle nature
of plain concrete. Further, the cracking due to splitting of
the concrete compressive strut could be delayed due to the
better tensile behavior of SFRC. Hence, the SFRC specimen
showed better crack distribution and smaller crack width as
compared to the RC specimen.
Load-displacement response
Figure 9 shows the load-displacement behaviors of all test
specimens. As expected, the initial stiffness of both RC specimens was nearly equal. Specimen RC1 showed an almost
linear response up to 55 kips (248kN), and the maximum
load carried by Specimen RC1 was 68.2 kips (307kN)
before the testing was stopped due to severe damage near
the supports. In contrast, Specimen RC2 showed excellent post-yield behavior because the local failure near the
supports was effectively controlled. Specimen RC2 showed
linear elastic behavior up to approximately 95 kips (428kN),
beyond which a deflection-hardening behavior was noticed
up to a peak load of 132.1 kips (594kN). The load-carrying
capacity of Specimen RC2 was nearly two times that of
Specimen RC1. Both RC specimens reached their design
load-carrying capacity of 31.3 kips (139 kN), showing
overstrength factors of 2.0 and 4.2 for Specimens RC1 and
RC2, respectively. The excellent post-yield strain-hardening
behavior of Specimen RC2 was achieved due to the yielding
of the bottom longitudinal reinforcing bars in tension, which
was confirmed from the state of strains measured using
uniaxial strain gauges. The delaying of premature local failures near the supports due to the presence of steel cages at
the boundaries helped Specimen RC2 to exhibit a displacement ductility of nearly 4.0. The descending branch of the
load-deflection response of Specimen RC2 exhibited a
sudden drop from its peak strength due to the shear failure
that occurred below the opening.
As shown in Fig. 9, the load-displacement response
of Specimen SFRC1 was nearly linear up to a peak load
of 65kips (293kN). The initial stiffness of both SFRC
specimens was nearly equal to that of the RC specimens.
Specimen SFRC2 showed a nearly linear response up to a
peak load of 96.8 kips (435 kN), which was much higher
than the design load of 31.3 kips (139 kN) for the RC
specimens. It should be noted that even though there were
almost no steel reinforcing bars (except the steel cage at
the supports and longitudinal bars at the bottom) used as
per STMs, Specimen SFRC2 reached 3.0 times the design
load of the RC specimen. Further, the SFRC specimens
showed a very gradual postpeak descending branch in the
load-displacement response even without steel reinforcing
bars, indicating significant contribution of the steel fibers
to the residual strength of the specimen. The displacement
ductility of Specimen SFRC2 was approximately estimated
as 3.0. The boundary elements and diagonal steel reinforcement bars helped Specimen SFRC2 to achieve the design
strength without premature local crushing and cracking of
concrete near the boundaries in addition to the sufficient
residual strength.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012

Fig. 8Comparison of formation of struts in specimens at

65 kip (293 kN) load level: (a) Specimen RC1; and (b) Specimen SFRC1. Note: Dots represent AE events (locations of
microcracks).

Fig. 9Load-displacement response of test specimens.

(Note: 1 kip = 4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
Mode of failure
Because different detailing of reinforcing bars was
used in the test specimens, it was expected that the
failure modes would be different due to the availability of
various load-transfer mechanisms. The ultimate failure of
Specimen RC1 was primarily due to the crushing of concrete
struts followed by the loss of the concrete wedge near the
supports (Fig. 7(a)). A similar mode of failure was also noticed
199

Fig. 10Mode of failure of Specimen RC2: (a) overall view of specimen at

failure stage; and (b) shear failure of horizontal segment near opening.

Fig. 11Failure mechanism of Specimen SFRC2: (a) specimen at failure

stage; and (b) plastic hinge in horizontal segment near opening.
Table 2Design and measured strengths of test specimens
Specimen

Design strength, kips (kN)

RC1
RC2
SFRC1

Nominal strength, kips (kN)

41.2 (183)

70.3 (313)

14.3 (64)

31.3 (139)

SFRC2
Plain concrete*

Expected strength, kips (kN) Measured strength, kips (kN)

68.2 (303)
132.1 (588)
65.0 (289)
96.8 (431)

Modeled by CAST; only bottom reinforcing bars were used as that of SFRC specimens. Nominal strengths are computed by using nominal material properties of material with
strength-reduction factor of 0.75. Expected strengths are calculated by using actual material properties.

for Specimen SFRC1, as shown in Fig. 7(b). However, the

crushing of concrete was less severe as compared to that of
Specimen RC1 due to the confinement effect provided by the
steel fibers. The lack of confinement to the concrete under
high axial compressive forces in the vertical segment of the
openings and boundaries near the supports caused the ultimate failure of the specimens. As shown in Fig. 10(a), local
failure at the supports of Specimen RC2 was not observed
during the entire loading because of the sufficient confinement provided by the steel cage to the concrete under high
compressive stresses. A major flexural crack running from
the bottom face to the loading point was observed at the
failure stage of Specimen RC2. As shown in Fig. 10(b),
Specimen RC2 eventually collapsed due to the shear failure
of concrete in the horizontal segment of the opening because
of inadequate shear reinforcement. This ultimately led to the
fracture of the bottom longitudinal tensile reinforcing bars
after reaching their failure strains. The major cracks developed away from the opening region, indicating that the flow
of force was least affected by the presence of the opening
due to the local strengthening of Specimen RC2 near the
supports. On the other hand, as shown in Fig. 11(a), the
failure mode of Specimen SFRC2 was completely different
200

from that of Specimen SFRC1. A major crack (compressive

strut) developed just above the opening of Specimen SFRC2.
Due to the presence of diagonal steel reinforcing bars,
the major (failure) crack deviated from the corner of the
opening and formed at the end of those bars. The failure of
Specimen SFRC2 was fairly ductile, as evidenced by the
large deformation and formation of several plastic hinges, as
shown in Fig.11(a) and (b).
Ultimate strength
As stated previously, the design strength of the RC specimen was 31.3 kips (139 kN). The specimen was analyzed by
a strut-and-tie computer program, CAST (Tjhin and Kuchma
2002), in which the analysis of nodes is carried out, ensuring
that the geometry and stress limits are not exceeded. Using the
specified material strengths and a strength-reduction factor of
0.75, the nominal ultimate strength of the RC specimen was
estimated as 41.2 kips (183 kN). The expected capacity of
the RC specimen was estimated as 70.3 kips (313 kN) using
a strength-reduction factor as unity and the actual material
properties obtained from the testing of concrete cylinders and
steel bars. The effective width and the width of the tension
zone extension in the model were considered as 4.38 and 2 in.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012

(111.3 and 50.8 mm), respectively. A low-efficiency factor bs

of 0.63 was used for bottle-shaped struts to reflect the fact that
no cracking-controlled reinforcement was used. An efficiency
factor of 0.85 was conservatively used for the prismatic struts
at the supports. The computer model predicted that failure
would occur due to the yielding of the diagonal tie, which is a
desirable ductile failure mode as opposed to the brittle failure
of concrete struts. Table2 compares the measured strengths
with the designed or predicted values for all test specimens.
Although the observed failure strength of Specimen RC1 was
close to the predicted one, the failure mode was different due
to local damages near one of the supports. The observed ultimate strength of Specimen RC2 was 132.1 kips (588 kN),
which was 1.9 times the expected strength predicted by the
computer model. This was due to the redistribution of stress
in the specimen after the yielding of the steel reinforcing bars.
Similarly, Specimen SFRC2 had an ultimate strength of
96.8 kips (431 kN), which was approximately 1.4 times the
predicted strength of the RC specimen, even though nearly no
steel reinforcement bars were used as tie members. The fiberbridging effects limited the widening of cracks, enhanced
stress redistribution, and allowed a plastic mechanism
formation upon failure. The stress redistribution in both the
RC and SFRC specimens was enhanced by the strengthening
of the vertical segment near the opening and the boundaries.
A plain concrete model without using steel reinforcement
bars as ties was also evaluated by the computer program to
compare its strength with the SFRC specimens. The objective was to quantify the strength that the specimen would
gain due to the inclusion of steel fibers, if any. The model
consisted of only the bottom steel reinforcement bar as a tie
in addition to the concrete tensile strength, conservatively
calculated using Eq. (9-10) (fr = 7.5fc) of ACI 318-08. The
failure strength of the plain concrete model was 14.3kips
(64kN), which was exceptionally small as compared to the
observed strengths of the SFRC specimens.
Tie strains and forces
The magnitude tie forces were computed from the state of
strain measured in different steel reinforcing bars by uniaxial
strain gauges (Fig. 3). The actual material properties of
steel and concrete were used to compute tie forces using a
strength-reduction factor as unity. Several strain gauges were
located along the reinforcing bars corresponding to the same
tie in the STM. Table3 summarizes the measured tie forces
in all test specimens at the ultimate load levels and their
comparison with the computed tie forces using the design
STMs. The large strain differences along the reinforcing
bars corresponding to a single tie in the model were due
to the variation of bond stresses because of cracking in the
concrete. Specimen RC1 showed larger strains in the bottom
longitudinal bars and in the tie located in the bottle-shaped
concrete strut. Several reinforcing bars reached their yield
strain limit of approximately 2000 me at the ultimate load
level of Specimen RC1. The ratio of the measured forces
to the computed forces in most ties was nearly 1.0 because
the ultimate load for Specimen RC1 was nearly equal to the
expected ultimate strength predicted from the computed
model based on the STM. Nearly all ties except E86 and
E90 reached their yield strain limit in Specimen RC2 at the
ultimate load level. The yielding of these bars was noticed
between the yield and ultimate load levels of the specimen.
The bottom longitudinal bars, diagonal bars, and horizontal
bars just above the opening showed larger strain levels of
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012

greater than 1.0%, which was depicted by the strain-hardening behavior in the load-deflection response. The ratios of
measured ultimate forces to the computed values in various
ties were nearly 1.5 for Specimen RC2 with the strengthened
boundaries. Although the STM adequately identified the
locations of critical ties (with maximum strain levels) in the
specimens, the model failed to capture the important role of
anchorage bars in the load-sharing mechanism, particularly
if the vertical segments of the openings were strengthened
against premature local failures. The STM underestimated
the forces in the ties located at the bottom of the specimen
and in the bottle-shaped struts. In addition to these ties,
both horizontal and vertical steel reinforcing bars around
the opening were found to be critical for these specimens.
Table3 also summarizes the force carried by the steel reinforcing bars used as ties in the SFRC specimens. Both the
bottom longitudinal tensile bars and diagonal bars carried an
equal proportion of forces at the failure stage, indicating a
significant role of the diagonal bars in enhancing the performance of Specimen SFRC2. The steel reinforcing bars in
the SFRC specimens, however, carried a smaller amount
of force as compared to the RC specimens, indicating the
reduction in strain demand on the reinforcing bars in the
SFRC specimens due to additional tensile strength provided
by the steel fibers.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The sufficient plastic redistribution of internal forces is
essential for a structure to sustain expected and unexpected
loads and to fail in a ductile manner if overloaded. In RC
members, due to the brittle nature of concrete, this redistribution primarily relies on the steel reinforcing bars and
their layouts, in which bars are placed at locations where the
concrete is overly stressed beyond its cracking strength. For
typical concrete members with simple and regular geometries, those locations can be easily predicted by classical
elastic theory. It is well known, however, that the stress
pattern is highly nonlinear and deviates considerably from
the classical elastic theory for RC members with significant
geometric discontinuities. These members with significant
geometric discontinuities and complex stress distributions
under loading require considerable analyses and usually
complicated reinforcement detailing. The reinforcement
detailing of these concrete members based on STMs can
be quite complicated and, very often, these models cannot
predict the failure mechanism due to localized damages.
Also, the actual stress fields in such members are typically
very different from those predicted by STMs, as indicated by
many experimental investigations.
This study investigates the behavior of deep beams with
large openings that were designed using STMs. Two RC and
two SFRC test specimens were tested under monotonically
increased loads. A nearly self-consolidating SFRC mixture
was used without any workability issues even with 1.5% of
steel fibers by volume. Reinforcing bars in the SFRC specimens were required at only a few critical locations. Those
bars served as ductile links to prevent the breakdown of
the highly stressed regions before the fully plastic redistribution of internal forces through steel fibers. The main
objectives of this study were: 1) to investigate the effect of
local strengthening on the load-transferring mechanism and
failure modes of test specimens; 2) to study the behavior of
SFRC specimens and compare that behavior with that of the
RC specimens designed using STMs; and 3) to identify the
201

Specimen RC1 (Pu = 68.2 kips)

ANC

E24

RC specimen

E19

E18

E86

VT
E90

E10

E2
E14

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.11

10

0.11

11

0.11

12

0.11

13

0.11

14

0.11

15

0.11

16

0.11

17

0.11

20

0.11

18

0.11

19

0.11

22

0.11

770.0

22.33

2.5

2000.0

58.00

6.4

1380.0

40.02

4.4

1640.0

47.56

5.2

960.0

27.84

3.1

740.0

21.46

2.4

2400.0

69.60

7.7

2540.0

73.66

8.1

50.0

1.45

0.1

10.0

0.29

0.0

30.0

0.87

0.1

2010.0

58.29

6.4

2230.0

64.67

7.1

1800.0

52.20

5.7

1570.0

45.53

5.0

320.0

9.28

1.0

25.6

22.0

12.8

12.0

11.5

25.6

24.7
9.7

30.0

0.87

0.1

1830.0

53.07

5.8

1210.0

35.09

3.9

4.9

20.4

0.80

5.4

0.25

15.8

1.23

0.1

0.01

6.5

14.2

1.23

12.8

0.50

11.9

0.48

7.7

0.80

SFRC specimen

E18

DG

0.11

462.1

13.40

1.5

0.11

490.4

14.22

1.6

0.11

491.9

14.27

1.6

0.11

389.6

11.30

1.2

0.44

0.44

3.0

2.8

Tu /Tcalc

Total force Tu,

kips

Specimen RC2 (Pu = 132.1 kips)

2757.7

79.97

8.8

2802.3

81.27

8.9

4375.4

81.85

9.0

2447.8

70.99

7.8

3102.2

81.40

9.0

15,994.3

92.00

10.1

13,520.2

90.00

9.9

11,966.7

88.00

9.7

15,984.6

94.00

10.3

871.8

5.19

0.6

178.9

6.29

0.7

217.0

3.35

0.4

115.6

88.06

9.7

3036.5

81.30

8.9

5538.4

82.00

9.0

7723.8

84.00

9.2

11,107.1

87.00

9.6

10,409.9

86.50

9.5

1197.3

34.72

3.8

Specimen SFRC1 (Pu = 65.9 kips)

ANC

Bar force, kips

Microstrain

Tie forces at ultimate load

Tu /Tcalc

Total force Tu,

kips

Bar force, kips

Stress, ksi

Microstrain

Tie forces at ultimate load

Stress, ksi

Calculated tie force

Tcalc, kips

Tie area, in.2

Strain gauge

Tie No.

Specimen type

Table 3Design and measured tie forces in test specimens

17.9

33.6

1.31

20.0

0.91

20.0

1.57

1.1

0.10

1.1

19.4

1.68

36.4

1.42

38.2

1.55

7.6

0.79

Specimen SFRC2 (Pu = 96.8 kips)

931.3

27.01

3.0

1086.1

31.50

3.5

675.3

19.58

2.2

897.6

26.03

2.9

382.2

11.08

4.9

42.5

1.23

0.5

6.4

5.0

5.4

Instrumented bar not directly related to STM.

Damaged instrument (value not calculated).
Strain gauges not used.
Notes: ANC is anchorage ends; DG is diagonal reinforcing bars in SFRC specimen; VT is vertical reinforcing bar in RC specimens; 1 kip = 4.45 kN; 1 ksi = 6.89 MPa; 1 in.2 =
645.16 mm2.

critical regions of the specimens that are not identified by

STMs and to suggest the reinforcing detailing to avoid localized failures and enhance structural performance.
The following conclusions were drawn in this study:
1. Design STMs significantly underestimate the ultimate
strengths of the test specimens. The RC specimens designed
as per the STM without satisfying the requirement of
secondary reinforcements as per ACI 318-08, Appendix A,
provisions reached the design strength without failure.
2. The crushing of concrete that occurred in the highly
stressed region over the supports was primarily due to the
lack of confinement of the concrete under high axial stress.
Although RC specimens designed according to STMs had
202

much higher strength than the design strength, these models

failed to predict the locations of such local failures, where
usually no special detailing is provided. The use of confining
reinforcement (that is, a steel cage) in the support regions
significantly improved the ultimate strength of the RC specimen and changed its mode of failure to a much more ductile
manner. As a consequence, significant flexural action was
noticed in Specimen RC2 without any local failure and the
specimen showed an ultimate capacity of more than four
times the design strength.
3. Both Specimens RC1 and SFRC1 (without the steel
cage) showed comparable behavior. Specimen SFRC2 with
the steel cage near the supports reached three times the
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012

design strength, even though most steel reinforcing bars as

required by RC specimens were eliminated. The fibers serve
as not only the cracking control reinforcement but also a
vehicle to allow for significant internal plastic stress redistribution, which is an important mechanism to increase the
strength of the specimens after first cracking. The distribution of internal microcracking observed by AE sensors indicated a much wider strut developed in the SFRC specimens
as compared to the RC ones.
4. A ductile plastic mechanism developed after the formation of several plastic hinges in Specimen SFRC2. Further
research is needed to investigate the effects of less volume
fraction of steel fibers on the strength of such members.
5. The construction of RC specimens can be timeconsuming and labor-intensive due to the complicated
detailing of reinforcing bars in contrast to the SFRC specimens. Hence, replacement of conventional reinforcing bars
with deformed steel fibers at a volume of 1.5% can be a
feasible alternative to the current practice.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank G. Ramirez for providing AE equipment.

Assistance of specimen construction and testing from J.-S. Cho, N. Karki,
M. Bayat, J. Lee, and J. Forteza is appreciated. Materials used in this investigation were provided by V. Babakhanian at Hanson Pipe & Precast, Grand
Prairie, TX. Their help is gratefully appreciated.

REFERENCES

ACI Committee 318, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 473 pp.
ACI Committee 544, 1996, Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete (ACI
544.1R-96) (Reapproved 2009), American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 63 pp.
ASTM C31/C31M-09, 2009, Standard Practice for Making and
Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 6 pp.
ASTM C39/C39M-09, 2009, Standard Test Method for Compressive
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 7 pp.
ASTM C1609/C1609M-10, 2010, Standard Test Method for Flexural
Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam With Third-Point
Loading), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 9 pp.
Brea, S. F., and Morrison, M. C., 2007, Factors Affecting Strength of
Elements Designed Using Strut-and-Tie Models, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 104, No. 3, May-June, pp. 267-277.
Brea, S. F., and Morrison, M. C., 2008, authors closure on the discussion of Factors Affecting Strength of Elements Designed Using Strut-andTie Models, ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., p. 236.
Chao, S.-H.; Cho, J.-S.; Karki, N.; Sahoo, D. R.; and Yazadani, N., 2011,
FRC Performance Comparison: Direct Tensile Test, Beam-Type Bending
Test, and Round Panel Test, Durability Enhancements in Concrete with
Fiber Reinforcement, SP-276, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 20 pp.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012

Chen, B. S.; Hagenberger, M. J.; and Breen, J. E., 2002, Evaluation

of Strut-and-Tie Modeling Applied to Dapped Beam with Opening, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 445-450.
Colombo, S.; Main, I. G.; and Forde, M. C., 2003, Assessing Damage of
Reinforced Concrete Beam Using b-Value Analysis of Acoustic Emission
Signals, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 15, No. 3,
pp. 280-286.
Dupont, D., and Vandewalle, L., 2003, Shear Capacity of Concrete
Beams Containing Longitudinal Reinforcement and Steel Fibers, Innovations in Fiber-Reinforced Concrete for Value, SP-216, N. Banthia, M.
Criswell, P. Tatnall, and K. Folliard, eds., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 79-94.
Flores, C. A., 2009, Performance of Large-Scale Steel Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete Deep Beam with Single Opening under Monotonic Loading, MS
thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington,
Arlington, TX, 104 pp.
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, 2002, Examples for the Design of
Structural Concrete with Strut-and-Tie Models, Strut-and-Tie Models,
SP-208, K.-H. Reineck, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 445 pp.
Kuchma, D.; Yindeesuk, S.; Nagle, T.; Hart, J.; and Lee, H. H., 2008,
Experimental Validation of Strut-and-Tie Method for Complex Regions,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 578-589.
Ley, M. T.; Riding, K. A.; Widianto; Bae, S.; and Breen, J. E., 2007,
Experimental Verification of Strut-and-Tie Model Design Method, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 749-755.
Liao, W.-C.; Chao, S.-H.; and Naaman, A. E., 2010, Experience with
Self-Consolidating High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Mortar and
Concrete, Fiber-Reinforced Self-Consolidating Concrete: Research and
Applications, SP-274, C.-M. Aldea and L. Ferrara, eds., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 79-94.
MacGregor, J. G., 1997, Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design,
third edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 939 pp.
Mansur, M. A., and Ong, K. C. G., 1991, Behavior of Reinforced Fiber
Concrete Deep Beams in Shear, ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 1, Jan.Feb., pp. 98-105.
Maxwell, B. S., and Breen, J. E., 2000, Experimental Evaluation of
Strut-and-Tie Model Applied to Deep Beam with Opening, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 142-149.
Mindess, S.; Young, J. F.; and Darwin, D., 2003, Concrete, second
edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 644 pp.
Muttoni, A.; Schwartz, J.; and Thurlimann, B., 1997, Design of Concrete
Structures with Stress Fields, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland, 147 pp.
Narayanan, R., and Darwish, I. Y. S., 1988, Fiber Concrete Deep Beams
in Shear, ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 141-149.
Park, J. W., and Kuchma, D., 2007, Strut-and-Tie Model Analysis for
Strength Prediction of Deep Beams, ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 6,
Nov.-Dec., pp. 657-666.
Ray, S. P., 1990, Deep Beams with Web Openings, Reinforced Concrete
Deep Beams, F. K. Kong, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 288 pp.
Schlaich, J.; Schfer, K.; and Jennewein, M., 1987, Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete, PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 3, May-June,
pp. 74-150.
Tan, K. H., and Zhang, N., 2007, Size Effect in RC Deep Beams: Experimental Investigation and STM Verification, Engineering Structures, V. 29,
pp. 3241-3254.
Tjhin, T. N., and Kuchma, D. A., 2002, Computer-Based Tools for
Design by Strut-and-Tie Method: Advances and Challenges, ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 586-594.

203

NOTES:

204

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2012