A RATIONAL DESIGN OF SIMPLY SUPPORTED

AND CONTINUOUS DEEP BEAMS

BY

SYED MD. MYMUR SULTAN

A thesis submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering,

Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka,
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

111111111111111111111111111 1111111
#94569#

SEPTEMBER, 2000
 A RATIONAL DESIGN OF SIMPLY SUPPORTED
AND CONTINUOUS DEEP BEAMS

A Thesis
By
Syed Md. Mymur Sultan

Approved as to style and contents by:

Dr. Salek M. Seraj Chairman

Professor (Supervisor)
Department of Civil Engineering
SUET, Dhaka.

~
Dr. Md. Humayun Kabir Member
Professor and I-lead
Department of Civil Engineering
SUET, Dhaka.

!le'
Dr. Sk. Sekender Ali Member
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
BUET, Dhaka.

Dr. Md. M~ossain Member

Professor (External)
Department of Civil Engineering
Bangladesh Institute of Technology
Khulna

September, 2000
 DECLARATION

It is to declare that the work embodied in this thesis is the result of the investigation carried
out by the author under the supervision of Dr. Salek M. Seraj, Professor, Department of
Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka,
Bangladesh, except where specific references are made to the other investigators. Neither
this thesis nor any part of it has been submitted or is being concurrently submitted
elsewhere for any other purpose (except for publication).

September, 2000 Syed Md. Mymur Sultan

IV
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author wishes to express his deepest gratitude to his supervisor Dr. Salek M. Seraj,
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and
Technology (BUET), for his constant supervision, continuous guidance, helpful criticisms,
continued encouragement and suggestions, generous help and unfailing enthusiasm at all the
stages of this research work. His active interest in this topic and valuable advice was the
source of the author's inspiration.

The author wishes to express his sincere thanks and appreciation to Dr. Md. Humayun
Kabir, Professor and Head, Department of Civil Engineering, for his co-operation.

Thanks are due to all the technical staffs of the Concrete laboratory, Strength of Materials
Laboratory, Welding shop, Sheet metal and Wood working shop, for their assistance during
the work required for this project. Almost all the technical persOlmel were involved in the
experimental work someway or other. I would like to extend my special thanks to Mr. Md.
Barkat Ullah, Mr. Barnard Rojario, Mr. J ulhas Uddin and Mr. Md. Golam Robbani for their
assistance.

Finally, the author is grateful to his family members and friends who helped him with
necessary advice and information during the course of the study.

v
 ABSTRACT
Deep beam is a very important structural element in various types of concrete structures
such as pile cap, transfer girder, panel beams, foundation walls of rectangular tanks and
bins, shear walls, folded plate roof structures, etc. Analysis of deep beams under shear is
quite complex and because of the complexities involved, exact theoretical basis for the
analysis of deep beams in shear has not yet developed. Current design rules for deep beams
are largely based on the provisions of American Concrete Institute (ACI) Code,
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) Guide, and other
codes and design methods. The present-day design provisions for deep beams are usually
based on test results conducted on simply supported model deep beams, although deep
beams are often continuous. Again, some of the provisions for the design of deep beams are
essentially those for slender beams and are not applicable to deep beams.

In the absence of an exact and simplified basis for the design of deep beams, several new
lines of thinking have developed in the recent past in order to unify the design of various
structural concrete members. One of these new approaches is the concept of Compressive
Force rath (CFr). However, a very limited number of tests have been conducted to verify
the applicability of this method in the design of deep beams.

One of the primary purposes of this study is to try to understand the behaviour of deep
beams with the help of tests conducted by various researchers. Again, available test results
have been used, in conjunction with results from the limited tests conducted by the
investigator on simply supported as well as continuous deep beams, in finding out the
suitability of CFr method in the design of deep beams.

In the present study, test data of about 175 deep beams have been collected, analysed and
employed in understanding the behaviour and predicting the strength of such members
using ACI, CFr and CIRIA Guide methods. In addition, five simply supported and five two
span deep beams were designed, fabricated and load tested to failure in an effort to enrich
the data base of deep beam test results as well as to ascertain the applicability of CFr
method in the design of deep beams.

From the investigation it has been found that shear failure is common in all the cases of
deep beams. Whereas, clear span-to-effective depth ratio has demonstrated insignificant
effect, shear span-to-effective depth ratio has been found to be a governing parameter in
controlling the shear strength. Vertical web reinforcement, strength of concrete and amount
of flexural steel have shown some influence on the shear strength. It also appeared that the
effect of horizontal steel is much less than what is usually considered. Again, inclined
cracking strength has little influence on the shear strength of such type of beams. The ACI
code and CIRIA Guide have failed in predicting the ultimate strength of deep beams.
Although, in most cases, the CFr method predicted such strengths of deep beams more
closely, as the shear span-to-depth ratio gradually decreases from 1.0, this method becomes
progressively conservative. Among other findings, it has been gathered that the results
obtained from tests of simply supported beams may not be applied to continuous deep
beams and that further tests on multi-span beams are essential.

VI
 CONTENTS
Page No.
DECLARATION IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT V
ABSTRACT VI
CONTENTS Vll
LIST OF TABLES X
LIST OF FIGURES Xl
LIST OF PHOTOPLATES Xlll
NOTATIONS XIV

CHAPTER ONE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

I.I Introduction
1.2 Statement of the problem 3
1.3 Objective of the research 6
1.4 Scope of the experimental study 7
1.5 Outline of the research 8

CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9

2.1 General 9
2.2 Study on the previous research papers 10
2.2.1 Analytical methods 10
2.2.2 Experimental methods 11
2.2.3 Truss analogy/truss (strut and tic) model method 18
2.2.4 Fibre concrete deep beams 23
2.2.5 Deep beams with web opening 25
2.2.6 Compressive force path method 26

CHAPTER THREE METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS AND

DESIGN OF MEMBERS UNDER SHEAR 34

3. I Introduction 34
3.2 ACI concept for shear and diagonal tension 36

Vll
 3.2.1 Reinforced concrete bcam without shcar reinforcement 36
3.2.2 Reinforced concrete bcams with web reinforcemcnt 38
3.2.3 ACI conccpt on the shcar strength of dcep beams 41
3.3 BS 8110 concept for shear and diagonal tension 43
3.3.1 Shcar behaviour of beams without shear reinforcement 43
3.3.2 Shear rcsistanee of web reinforccment 46
3.3.3 British Standards Institution code for the design of shear strength 48
3.4 CIRIA Guide for the design of shear strength of deep beams 50
3.4.1 CIRIA Guide 'Simple rules' 50
3.4.2 CHUA Guide 'Supplcmentary rules' 53
3.5 Kotsovos design method for deep reinforced concrete beams 55
3.5.1 Modelling 55
3.5.2 Design method 58

CHAPTER FOUR STUDY OF AVAILABLE TEST RESULTS ON

DEEP BEAMS 64

4.1 Introd uction 64

4.2 Available data for the beams tested by previous researchers 65
4.3 Comparison between predicted and experimental shear strength 69
4.4 Analysis of the effect of various pllrameters 73
4.4.1 Effect of flexural steel 73
4.4.2 Effect of horizontal weh steel 73
4.4.3 Effect of vertical web stecl 76
4.4.4 Effect of clear span-to-effective depth ratio L"/d 79
4.4.5 Effect of shear span-to effective depth ratio, aId 79
4.4.6 Effcct of concrete strength, r, 82
4.5 Comparison of strength predicted by ACI, CFP and
CIRIA Guide with the experimental shear strength 84

CHAPTER FIVE LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 90

5.1 General 90

Vlll
 5.2 Aggregate properties 90
5.3 Reinforcement 91

5.4 Design of concrete mix 92

5.5 The test beams 93

5.6 Fabrication and casting oftest beams 94

5.7 Testing of beams 103

5.8 Compressive strength of associated cylinders 104

CHAPTER SIX TEST RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND

INTERPRETATION 105

6.1 General 105

6.2 The main observations and recording during test 105

6.3 Discussion and interpretation of the test results 109

CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDA TIONS 128

7.1 Conclusions 128

7.2 Reeommend:ltions for future study 130

REFERENCES 131

Appendix -A Design of beam DBS1, DBS5, DBC3 and DBC5 134

Appendix -B Prediction of shear strength by current design methods for the

beam DBS1 138

Appendix -C Calibration ofloading jack 140

Appendix - D Mid-span deflection of each span of all test specimens 142

IX
 LIST OF TABLES

Table no. Description Page no.

Table 3.1 Design concrete shear stress vcfor t~u~ 40 N/mm' 49
Table 4.2.1 Parameters of Beams tested by Smith and Vantsiotis.
Source: from Mau and Hsu (1987, 1989) 65
Table 4.2.2 Parameters of Beams tested by Kong, Robins and Cole (1970) 66
Table 4.2.3 Parameters of Beams tested by Manuel, Slight and Suter (1971) 66
Table 4.2.4 Parameters of Beams tested by Pavia and Siess (1965) 67
Table 4.2.5 Parameters of Beams tested by Subedi, Vardy and Kubota (1986, 1988) 67
Table 4.2.6 Parameters of Beams tested by Rogowsky, MacGregor and Ong (1986) 68
Table 4.2.7 Parameters of Beams tested by Mansur and Ong (1991) 68
Table 4.3.1 Comparison of Beams tested by Smith and Vantsiotis.
Source: Mau and Hsu (1987, 1989) 69
Table 4.3.2 Comparison of Beams tested by Kong, Robins and Cole (1970) 70
Table 4.3.3 Comparison of Beams tested by Manuel, Slight and Suter (1971) 70
Table 4.3.4 Comparison of Beams tested by Pavia and Siess (1965) 71
Table 4.3.5 Comparison of Beams tested by Subedi, Vardy and Kubota (1986, 1988) 71
Table 4.3.6 Comparison of Beams tested by Rogowsky, MacGregor and Ong (1986) 72
Table 4.3.7 Comparison of Beams tested by Mansur and Ong (1991) 72
Table 5.1 Grading of aggregates 91
Table 5.2 Physical properties of aggregates 91
Table 5.3 Physical properties of reinforcements, which are used in the test beams 92
Table 5.4 Contents of Concrete-mix batch 93
Table 5.5 Compressive strength of the associated cylinders 104
Table-6.1 Properties of all simply supported and two span model deep beam test
specimens 106
Table 6.2 Flexural cracking load, Diagonal tension
, cracking load and Ultimate
load at failure 107
Table 6.3 Shear forces, shear stresses of the failure span and maximum bending
moment at initial diagonal cracking load and at ultimate load respectively 108
Table 6.4 Ratio of different parameters and predicted shear strength to
experimental shear strength of the test specimens 109

x
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figurc 110. Description Pagc 110.

Fig. 2.1 Schematic representation of the path of compressive force and 33

corresponding outline of compressive stress trajectories for
RC deep beams with various aid ratios
Fig. 2.2 Typical inclined compression failures of RC deep beams under 33
(a) Uniform and (b) Two- point loading.
Fig. 3.1 Stresses in homogeneous rectangular beams 35
Fig. 3.2 Forces at diagonal crack in beam with vertical stirrups 40
Fig. 3.3 Forces at diagonal crack in beams with inclined web reinforcement 40
Fig. 3.4 Crack pattern for different shear span-to-depth (av/d) ratios 45
Fig. 3.5 Typical model of Truss Analogy 45
Fig. 3.6 CIRlA Guide 2 - meanings of symbols Cl, C2, h, 1 and 10 51

Fig. 3.7 CIRIA Guide 2 -meanings of symbols Ar, ha, x, Yr, 8, and ~ 51
Fig. 3.8 Proposed model for simply supported reinforced concrete beam 56
Fig. 3.9 Proposed model for deep beams under (a) Single-point
(b)Two-point and/or for uniform loading. 56
Fig. 3.10 Proposed model for continuous reinforced deep beams 57
Fig.3.11 Typical types of behaviour exhibited by RC beams without shear
reinforcement 57
Fig.3.12 Design procedure of Types iv behaviour 59
Fig .-3.13 Schematic representation of members of proposed model
design as column 59
Fig.3.14 Additional internal actions developing due to presence of
transverse reinforcement in region where path changes direction
for Type 11behaviour 63

Fig. 4.1 Effect of flexural steel ratio, pw on the shear strength of deep beams 74

Fig. 4.2 Effect of horizontal web steel ratio, Ph on the shear strength of deep beams 75

Fig. 4.3 Effect of vertical web steel ratio, pv on the shear strength of deep beams 77
Fig. 4.4 Deformation response of concrete compression strut model causing the
horizontal web reinforcement ineffective 78

Xl
Fig. 4.5 Load transfer mechanism from loading point to support for beam
with aid > 1.0 78
Fig. 4.6 Effect of span-to-depth ratio, L,/d on the shear strength of deep beams 80
Fig. 4.7 Effect of aid ratio on the shear strength of deep beams 81
Fig. 4.8 Effect of concrete strength f c on the shear strength of deep beams 83
Fig.4.9a Comparative study between the shear strength predicted by
ACI, CFP and ClRIA Guide 2 between aid = 0.30-0.74 87
Fig.4.9b Comparative study between the shear strength predicted by
ACI, CFP and CIRIA Guide 2 for aid =1.0 88
Fig.4.9c Comparative study between the shear strength predicted by
ACI, CFP and CIRIA Guide 2 between aid =1.l6-2.47 89
Fig. 5.1 Reinforcement arrangement of beam (a) DBS I (b) DBS2 95
Fig. 5.1 Reinforcement arrangement ofbeam (c) DBS3 (d) DBS4 96
Fig. 5.1 Reinforcement arrangement of beam (e) DBS5 (f) DBCI 97
Fig. 5.1 Reinforcement arrangement ofbeam (g) DBC2 (h) DBC3 98
Fig. 5.1 Reinforcement arrangement of beam (i) DBC4 (j) DBC5 99
Fig. 6.1 Load det1ection characteristics of simply supported model deep beams I 17
Fig. 6.2 Load det1ection characteristics of the failure span of continuous
deep beams 118
Fig. 6.3 Crack pattern and individual jack load intensities (P3 = P4)
in tonnes of beam (a) DBSI (b) DBS2 119
Fig. 6.3 Crack pattern and individual jack load intensities (P3 = P4)
in tonnes of beam (c) DBS3 (d) DBS4 120

Fig. 6.3 Crack pattern and individual jack load intensities (P3 = P4)
in tonnes of beam (e) DBS5 (f) DBCI 121

Fig. 6.3 Crack pattern and individual jack load intensities (P3 = P4)
in tonnes of beam (g) DBC2 (h) DBC3 122

Fig. 6.3 Crack pattern and individual jack load intensities (P3 = P4)
in tonnes of beam (i) DBC4 (j) DBC5 123

Fig. 6.4 Effect of aid ratio on the shear strength of test deep beams 124

Fig. 6.5 Comparison of experimental and predicted shear strength of the

test beams for (a) Simply Supported (b) Two span model deep beams 125

XII
 LIST OF PHOTOPLATES

Photo plate no. Description Page no.

Photoplate 5.1 Reinforcement assembly of model test specimen
(a) DBSI (b) DBS2 (c) DBS3 (d) DBS4 (e) DBS5 100
Photoplate 5.1 Reinforcement assembly of model test specimen
(I) DBCI (g) DBC2 (h) DBC3 (i) DBC4 G) DBC5 !OI
Photoplate 5.2 Formwork of model test specimen 102
Photoplate 5.3 Casting of model test specimen 102
Photoplate 5.4 Loading of model test specimen 102
Photoplate 6.1 Crack pattern of beam (a) DBSI (b) DBS2 (c) DBS3 126
(d) DBS4 (e) DBS5
Photoplate 6.1 Crack pattern of beam (I) DBC I (g) DBC2 (h) DBC3 127
(i) DBC4 G) DBC5

X1ll
 NOTATIONS

p Bond factor of fibre

0 = Inclination of shear crack
a Inclination of shear reinforcement
Pr = Volume fraction of fibre
Ph = Horizontal web steel ratio
pv = Vertical web steel ratio
pw = Main tension steel ratio
alav = Shear span; distance between centre of support to centre of load
As = Area of main tension steel
Ash = Area of horizontal web steel ratio
Asv = Area of vertical web steel ratio
b = Width of beam
c width of the column
d' = distance of the centroid of compression steel from top surface
d = Effective depth
f Bending stress
F Fibre factor
Ie avg. Average compression strength of3 sample cylinders =Ie
.te = Concrete cylinder strength
.tel Compression strength of cylinder I of 3 samples
.te2 = Compression strength of cylinder 2 of 3 samples
.te3 = Compression strength of cylinder 3 of 3 samples
fell Concrete compression strength of cube
ii, = Yield strength of horizontal web steel
Iv = Yield strength of vertical web steel

h = Yield strength of main tension steel

h Total height of the beam
h" = active height
I effective span
L Span; centre to centre of supports
If = Length of fibre
L,/ln = Clear span; distance between faces of supports
M = Moment at critical section

XIV
M" = Applied moment
Me = Moment resisted by concrete
Mer Maximum moment at initial diagonal cracking load
Mr = Flexural moment capacity

M" Maximum moment at ultimate failure load

p = Horizontal distance of shear crack
Per = Single jack load at initial diagonal crack
PI' Single jack load at flexural crack

P" Single jack load at ultimate failure

s = Distance of the critical cross section from support
Sa = Horizontal distance of inclined web bars
Sh = Spacing of horizontal web steel
sv Spacing of vertical web steel
/ = Princi pal stresses
V = Average shear stress
V Shear force at critical section
VACI = Predicted shear strength by American Concrete Institute Code method
Ve Shear resisted by concrete
Ve = Shear stress taken by concrete
VCFP Predicted shear strength by Compressive force path method
VCIRIA Predicted shear strength by CIRIA Guide 2 method
Ver = Initial diagonal cracking stress
Vd = Shear resisted by dowel action of main tension steel

V"P = Experimental shear strength at ultimate failure

Vms = Main steel shear stress parameter for CIRIA Guide

V" = Nominal shear strength

Vs = Shear resisted by web reinforcement

V" = Shear force at ultimate load

V" = Ultimate nominal shear stress
Vwh = Horizontal web steel shear stress parameter for CIRIA Guide
Vwv = Vertical web steel shear stress parameter for CIRIA Guide
Vx = Concrete shear stress parameter for CIRIA Guide
X = Clear shear span
Xc = Effective clear shear span
Z = Lever arm of flexural moment

xv
 CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL CONSIDERA TIO

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Deep beam is a very important structural element which is used in various types of concrete
structures such as pile cap, transfer girder, panel beams, foundation walls of rectangular
tanks and bins, floor diaphragms, shear walls, deep grid walls in offshore gravity type
concrete structures, hulls of floating vessels, folded plate roof structures, etc. The name deep
beam implies that the stress and strain across any section of the beam calculated from elastic
analysis exhibits non-linear behaviour (Subedi, 1988). The members, which have depth
much greater than normal, in relation to their span, while the thickness in the perpendicular
direction is much smaller than either span or depth, are usually referred to as deep beams.
According to the American Concrete Institute (AC!) code, beams having a clear span (L") to
effective depth (d) ratio, L)d, of about 5.0 or less or having a shear span (a) to effective
depth ratio, aid, less than or equal to 2.0 and which are loaded at the top or compression
face, are called deep beams (Winter and Nilson, 1981). However, if loads are applied at the
sides or at the bottom of a member, design provisions for ordinary beams are usually
applied.

The behaviour of deep beams is significantly different from that of beams with normal
proportions and, thus, requires special consideration in analysis, design and detailing of
reinforcement. The strength of deep beam is controlled by shear, and shear strength of deep
beam is significantly greater than those predicted by usual equations, because of a special
capacity to redistribute internal stresses before failure (Winter and Nilson, 1981). In deep
beams, inclined cracks are most important, as they have the greatest influence on the
behaviour (formation of a mechanism) but not on the ultimate shear strength. The formation
of inclined cracks eliminates the inclined principal tensile stresses necessary for beam action
and causes a redistribution of internal stresses which results in the formation of tied arch
with the reinforcement acting as the tension tic and the part of the concrete beam outside the
inclined crack acting as the arch rib in compression. The formation of the inclined cracks
cause a redistribution of internal stresses such that the tension stresses in the reinforcement
becomes uniform over the horizontal projection of the crack and the concrete strains tend to
concentrate at the upper end of the inclined crack (Pavia and Siess, 1965). Once the inclined
cracks are formed, the strains in the tension reinforcement would be nearly uniform along
the beam, and the concrete strains tend to concentrate near the midspan over the inclined
cracks. The formation and propagation of the inclined cracks in conventional beams is such
that the entire crack is usually contained within the shear span. In deep beams, the inclined
cracks form in the shear span but soon propagate into the moment region giving the
members their typical arch appearance. From the study of the steel strains, Pavia and Siess
(1965) found that prior to the formation of the inclined cracks the strain were distributed
along the tension reinforcement roughly according to the distribution of moment. As
inclined cracks were formed, the strains in the steel near the supports increased rapidly until
they were of the same order of magnitude as the midspan strains. After inclined cracking,
the steel strains adjacent to the support increased at a slightly greater rate than the strains at
midspan, and yielding occurred near the supports (Pavia and Siess, 1965).

Present design rules of deep beams are largely based on the code provlslOns such as
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Code, British Standards Institution (BS8110) Code,
Canadian Code (CAN-A23.3-M84) and other well-recognised codes. These codes are
usually based on test results and on the basis of these results empirical formula have been
adapted for the design of deep beams in current codes. Consequently, the codes do not
usually provide an accurate prediction of shear strength of deep beams, rather they generally
predict very conservative strength. On the other hand, application of the ACI code provision
to such beams has been proved to be inaccurate (Mau and Hsu, 1987). Subedi (1988)
mentioned that the failure of deep beams occurs by three distinct types of failure. They are
flexure, flexure shear and diagonal splitting. Diagonal splitting is the most common mode of
failure. The final shear cracks extend between load and support, but grows outward from
mid depth, having being initiated in a more brittle manner than either of the other two
failure modes. It is also possible for local crushing at the loads or supports. To develop the
full capacity of beams this type of failure must be prevented by appropriate detailing.

It is generally recognised that the main parameters governing the deep beam behaviour are
span/depth ratio, shear span/depth ratio, and slenderness (depth/thickness) ratio. It has also
been shown that the causes of shear failure of reinforced concrete deep beams are associated
with the development of tensile stresses in the region of the path in which the compressive

2
force is transmitted from the loading point to the support (Kotsovos, 1988a). This
conclusion leads to the introduction of the concept of compressive force path (CFP), which
has formed the basis for the development of a design method to predict the shear capacity of
a wide range ofreinforced concrete beams significantly better than those do the current code
methods.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The investigation of the stresses in deep beams is not a new subject. Although the
investigation on the shear stresses of concrete members actually started towards the end of
the 19th century, even today the behaviour of reinforced concrete members in shear is not
totally understood. This is even more true for deep beams. Deep beams have constituted the
subject of several papers which covers theoretical and experimental aspects of such
structural concrete members. Analysis of deep beams under shear is quite complex because
a large number of parameters are involved in this problem. Because of the complexities
involved, exact theoretical basis for the analysis of deep beams in shear is not still
developed. On the other hand, deep beams are frequently continuous. Current code
provisions for the design of deep beams are essentially those for long beams, modified so as
to allow for uncertainties arising because of the lack of a widely accepted theory describing
deep beam behaviour (Kotsovos, 1988a, 1988b). The shallow beam theory is not applicable
to deep beams because of the effect of load concentrations on the distribution of internal
stresses (Pavia and Siess, 1965). On the other hand at present there is no relevant British
Standard Code of practice for the design of deep beams but CIRIA (Construction Industry
Research and Information Association) GUIDE 2 (Subedi, 1988). CIRIA GUIDE 2 assumes
that the critical mode of failure in shear is diagonal cracks reaching from the load to the
support which is the commonest type of failure, but the guide acknowledges that the other
type of failure (flexure or flexure-shear) may occur in certain circumstances. CIRIA Guide
is intended only for beams with span/depth, Llh, ratio of less than 2. The guide predicts
conservatively the failure load of deep beams (Subedi, 1988). The guide assumes implicitly
that sufficient main reinforcement would be provided and that as a result failure would
occur in shear, not in flexure.

Subedi (1988) mentioned that, the mode of failure of a deep beam depends on the relative
magnitudes of the web splitting force and the strength capacity of the main reinforcement.

3
The web splitting force is controlled either by the concrete or by the reinforcement in the
web. If the beam contains small amount of web reinforcement, major contribution to the
diagonal splitting force comes from the limiting tensile strength of the concrete, acting over
the cross-sectional area of the inclined failure plane. In such a case the web splitting force is
controlled by the concrete. On the other hand, if the web contains sufficient amount of
reinforcement, both in the horizontal and vertical direction, the web splitting force is
controlled by the web steel. Barry and Heino (1983) stated that the stresses in a deep beam
differ radically from the stresses predicted by ordinary theory of beam bending. This
differences arise because ordinary beam theory does not account for the compressive
stresses normal to the beam axis that are introduced by the applied loads and support
reactions, nor for the shearing deformations. This compressive stress is related not only to
the shear force but also to the shear span to depth ratio (Mau and Hsu, 1987).

Mau and Hsu (1987) quoted that a theoretical concrete member may be subjected to four
types of actions; namely, axial loads (compression and tension), bending, shear and torsion.
The first two types of actions, axial loads and bending, are quite well understood; and the
design methods are essentially the same for different nations. In contrast, the last two types
of actions, shear and torsion, are not well understood; and the empirical design methods
used in the codes and specifications are very different around the world. There are two basic
approaches used to analyse the shear and torsion problem; one is mechanism method and
the other is truss model theory. Mechanism method is the basis for ACI code. By fitting the
mechanism method to the test results, the ACI method becomes empirical or at best semi-
empirical. From the theoretical point of view this method can not satisfy the compatibility
condition and in certain cases, even equilibrium condition. The other approach is the Truss
Model Theory. In this theory, a concrete element reinforced with orthogonal steel bars and
subjected to shear stresses will develop diagonal cracks at an angle inclined to the steel bars.
These cracks will separate the concrete into a series of diagonal concrete struts, which is
assumed to resist axial compression. Together with the steel bars, which are assumed to take
only the axial tension, they form a truss action to resist the applied shear stresses. After
initiation, the theory had undergone three major developments for its improvement. The first
development was the generalisation of the angle of inclination of the concrete struts; the
second development was the derivation of the compatibility equation, and the third
development was the discovery of the softening of concrete struts. Comparing the test

4
results of T-beams to the plasticity truss model, Mau and Hsu (1987) indicated that an
empirical factor must be included to reduce the compressive strength of concrete. The
compatibility truss model tends to overestimate the shear strength considerably if the
compression strength of concrete is not reduced empirically. Combining the equilibrium,
compatibility and softened stress-strain relationships, a theory has been developed for the
prediction of strength of various types of reinforced concrete structures subjected to shear
and torsion (Mau and Hsu, 1989). This theory is called the softened truss model theory to
emphasise the importance of the concrete softening phenomenon. The author claimed that
soften truss model theory agrees well with the test result of beams with shear span to depth
ratio, aid between 2.5 to 6 but for aid below 2.5, i.e., for deep beams, the theory
underestimates the shear strength considerably. Because a correct model for deep beams in
shear should include a component of transverse compression in the shear element. In this
method the solution of shear strength requires a numerical iterative method, which is not
convenient for actual design.

Seraj et aI., (1993) quoted that, early design procedures for reinforced concrete members in
shear were based on the truss analogy method, which is very conservative in nature. Present
codes adopt this truss model in design practice after adding an empirical correction term,
namely the 'concrete contribution'. Present codes consider that the shear resistance includes
three separate components, namely (a) the shear resistance of the compressive zone, (b)
shear resistance due to aggregate interlock, and (c) shear resistance due to dowel action of
the longitudinal reinforcement. The major contribution to shear resistance in beams without
shear reinforcement is provided by the region of the beam below the neutral axis through the
mechanism (b) and (c). Recent tests results, however, clearly raisc doubts over generally
accepted views, and indicate that 'truss' behaviour is not the necessary condition for
reinforced concrete beams to attain their flexural capacity, once their shear capacity is
exceeded. Eventually, a new model is needed for the rational explanation of the shear-
transfer mechanism of RC members and this proposition is strengthened by the outcome of
numerical experiments which point to the conclusion that aggregate interlock plays a
negligible role in such transfer mechanism. However, in the recent years it has been argued
that, in contrast to these widely held views, the shear resistance of RC beams is in fact
provided by the region of the path along which the compressive force is transmitted to the
supports, rather than the region of the beam below the neutral axis. In the absence of an

5
exact and simplified basis for the design of deep beams, a new line of thinking named
compressive force path (CFP) concept has developed which has given realistic results in the
design of deep beams (Kotsovos, 1988b). Although new concepts, like compression field
theory, modified compression field theory and the strut and tie model have recently evolved
in the general field of structural concrete design, with claims of far-reaching potentials,
most of these deviate very little from the basis on which present-day design is founded: and,
thus, they carry implicit assumptions which, in many cases are incompatible with the
fundamental properties of concrete. The CFP, on the other hand, departs radically from the
established design concept, and seems to give an adequate and rational explanation of the
behaviour of structural concrete. Although design based on this concept has been applied
successfully to RC members, made from a wide range of concrete strength, resulting in
economic and, above all, safer design solutions, and has also been found suitable in the
design of indeterminate skeletal structures like RC continuous beams and fixed-ended portal
frames (Kotsovos and Bobrowski, 1993), but only a very limited number of test data exists
to verify this method for deep beams. An organised scheme of testing on model deep beams,
both simply supported and continuous, is thus, deemed essential to further understand the
behaviour of deep beams.

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH

There are many structural elements the behaviour of which is significantly different from
the beams with normal proportions. But the behaviour of such type of beams is not clearly
understood. In order to find out the behaviour of such type of beams, researchers started
testing such beams towards the end of 19th century. Although a very large number of test
have been conducted on deep beams over the past hundred years, the influence of various
design parameters on the strength and behaviour of such beams is yet to be understood
clearly as test results often give rise to conflicting conclusions. As a result, design codes
have also failed to put forward specific recommendations. On the other hand, several new
lines of thinking have developed in the recent past in order to unify design of various
structural concrete members. One of these new approaches is the concept of Compressive
Force Path (CFP) which have been successfully implemented in the design of deep beams
(Kotsovos, et aI, 1988a, 1990). However, the ideas expressed in Kotsovos, et al. (1988a)
have been verified with reference to a very limited number of test results. It is the purpose
of this study to try to understand the behaviour of deep beams with the help of tests

6
conducted by various researchers. Again, available test results will be used in conjunction
with test conducted by the investigator in finding out the suitability of CFP method in the
design of deep beams.

The present study has two phases:

Phase 1: Using tests done by various investigators:

• To study the individual effects of horizontal and vertical web reinforcement

on the shear strength of concrete deep beams.

• To study the influence of the amount of web reinforcement on the shear

strength of deep beams.

• To study the suitability of vanous design methods of deep beams by

comparative analysis.

Phase 2: Using the results of tests conducted during the present study:

• A number of beams has been designed by CFP and tested to find out the
suitability of the new concept.

• To find out a rational design method and to verify predicted and tested
results.

• To examine the general crack pattern of deep RC beams .

• To study the load deflection characteristics of deep RC. beams .

• To examine the modes of failure of deep reinforced concrete beams .

• To make a comparative study of the shear strength of these tests beams with
those predicted by current ACI code and compressive force path method.

1.4 SCOPE OF THE EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

A limited number of tests were conducted to verify the application of compressive force
path (CFP) concept in the design of deep beams. Tests were carried out on ten deep beams,
which were designed in accordance with the concept of CFP. Five simply supported and
five continuous deep beams were designed to find out the effect of internal redistribution of
shear strength in the continuous deep beams. Two concentrated loads were applied on the
third point of simply supported beams and one concentrated load was applied at the mid-
point of each span of the continuous beams. Local bearing failures were prevented by

7
providing some special steel. All longitudinal steels were anchored to 5 mm thick steel
plates. Deflectometer was placed at the mid-span of each span. Loads were placed at the top
and supports were placed at the bottom. Sizes of the bearing plates were such that they
distribute the loads within the safe limit of the bearing stress of the concrete. The beams
were designed so that the failure loads remain within the machine capacity. Test conditions
like supp0l1mechanism, loading conditions, and rates of loading were kept practically same
as far as possible for all the test beams.

1.5 OUTLINE OF THE RESEARCH

The general considerations of the present study on the rational design of simply supported
and continuous deep beams have been reported in Chapter I of this thesis. A brief summary
of literature review has been included in Chapter 2 in an effort to appreciate the problem
under study. Various present-day design methods of deep beams have been discussed in
Chapter 3. Given the fact that an enormous amount of test results on deep beams are
available in the literature, some of these results have been critically studied and reported in
Chapter 4. The present study involves laboratory testing of five simply supported and five
continuous deep beams. Details of the laboratory investigation are described in Chapter 5.
The test results, their interpretation and detailed discussion form the content of Chapter 6.
Finally in Chapter 7, main findings of the study have been summarised as conclusions.
Recommendations for future study have also been proposed in this chapter.

8
 CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 GENERAL
A review of the literature reveals that the investigation on the behaviour of deep beams is
not a new subject. It started at the end of 19th century. Dcep beams have been subjected to
many papers (as referred) covering theoretical and experimental aspects that have been
included in the design documents. Analysis of deep beams under shear is quite complex
because large numbers of parameters involve in this problem. Because of the complexities
involved, exact theoretical basis for the analysis of deep beams in shear is not still
developed. On the other hand, deep beams are frequently continuous. Due to lack of
understanding the exact mechanism of shear failure, the design concept, design methods are
very different throughout the different nations of the world. Most of them are empirical or
semi-empirical which have come out depending on some test results. So the codes do not
usually provide an accurate prediction of shear strength of deep beams, rather they usually
predict very conservative strength. There are two basic approaches used to analyse the shear
and torsion problem; one is mechanism method and the other is truss model theory.
Mechanism method is the basis for ACI code. In this method it is assumed that the major
contribution to shear resistance in beams without shear reinforcement is provided by the
region of the beam below the neutral axis through the mechanism of aggregate interlock and
dowel action of the longitudinal reinforcement. But recent test results, however, clearly raise
doubts over these generally accepted views. By fitting the mechanism method to the test
results, the ACI method becomes empirical or at best semi-empirical. From the theoretical
point of view this method cannot satisfy the compatibility condition and in certain cases,
even equilibrium condition. Although new concept, e.g., compression field theory, modified
compression field theory and the strut and tie model have recently evolved in the general
field of structural concrete design, most of these deviate very little from the basis on which
present-day design is founded; and, thus, they carry implicit assumptions, which in many
cases, are incompatible with the fundamental properties of concrete. So, due to lack of exact
mechanism, when one's method is applied to tested data of others, it predicts unsatisfactory
results. So it is obvious that further close investigation and analysis are required in this field.
However, over the few years it has been argued that, in contrast to these widely held views,

9
the shear resistance of RC beams is in fact provided by the region of the path along which
the compressive force is transmitted to the supports, rather than the region of the beam
below the neutral axis. In the absence of an exact and simplified method, this new thinking
(Compressive Force Path) seems to give an adequate explanation of the shear transfer
mechanism of deep beams. The CFP, which departs radically from the established design
concept, seems to give an adequate and rational explanation of the behaviour of various
structural concrete members.

2.2 STUDY ON THE PREVIOUS RESEARCH PAPERS

2.2.1 ANALYTICAL METHODS

Dischinger (1932) started the investigation of stresses in deep beams. He solved the
problem of a continuous deep beam subjected to periodic loading by representing the load in
terms of a Fourier series. He constructed a stress function satisfying the boundary conditions
and governing differential equation in terms of hyperbolic functions. To handle a deep beam
of finite span, Dischinger suggested that the results of the continuous deep beam be used.
His solution for a finite beam did not satisfy the free end boundary conditions because the
finite beam was being supported by shearing stresses and the finite span did not satisfy the
condition of zero bending stress at its free ends.

Chow et al. (1951) undertook the investigation of a single span deep beam. He used the
solution of a continuous deep beam, which satisfied all but one of the boundary conditions.
He then constructed another stress function via the principle of least work, which negated
the residual boundary stresses. Chow cheeked his results by solving the governing
differential equation by the method of finite differences. Although, Chow claimed that the
principle of least work yielded more accurate results than the method of finite differences,
he reverted to the method of finite differences in his next study of a single span beam
subjected to five loading cases and three depth-to-span ratios (1953). Although Chow was
able to predict the general behaviour of finite deep beams, he could not produce accurate
results at all cross sections of the beam.

Kitchen and Archer (1956) utilised the method of least work to construct a stress function,
but it was different from Chow's work in that it did not depend on the solution of the

10
continuous beam. Their bending stress values agreed fairly well with the results of Chow,
but their shear stress results were not in good agreement.

Gcer (1960) studied the effects of load length vs. clear span. He used the method of finite
differences but with a much finer computational grid than Chow. His results had shown that
the distribution of the load could significantly affect the normal stress characteristics and the
maximum values. Furthermore, maximum compressive bending stresses were found to exist
below the mid-height of the beam. No data for the distribution of the shear stresses were
gIven.

Holmcs and Mason (1972) also used the method of least work to solve the problem of a
single span deep beam supported by a parabolic shearing force applied at the vertical edges.
This loading condition did not take into account the high bearing pressures normally
associated with the reactions. Their results did not differ from the results obtained by
shallow beam thcory by as much as might be expected for beams of dcep proportions.

Ban)' and Hcino (1983) used the multiple Fourier technique to compare the stress fields in
single span deep beams due to uniform loading at the top edge and at the bottom edge. The
method involved the superposition of stress functions. The first stress function was used to
satisfy the boundary conditions on the upper and lower edges of the beam. The second and
third stress functions were used to satisfy the boundary conditions on the vertical edges of
the beam. This approach allows satisfying all the required boundary conditions. Contour
maps of the stress field revealed the existence of the regions of pure tension and pure
compression. These regions indicated proneness to spalling, bursting or crushing.

2.2.2 EXPERIMENTAL METHODS

Pavia and Sicss (1965) tested 19 simply supported beams to describe and investigation of
the shear strength behaviour of some moderately deep reinforced concrete beams. The major
variables involved in his study were the amount of tension reinforcement, the concrete
strength, and the amount of wcb reinforcement and span depth ratios. The beams were
loaded at third points. Current shear and flexural strength concepts, as applied to shallow
members, were considered in relation to the strength and behaviour of the test specimen.
From the test results the authors suggested that the shallow beam theory is not applicable to

II
deep beams because of the effect of load concentrations on the distribution of internal
stresses. There seems to be, however, a gradual transition from shallow beam behaviour to
deep beam behaviour. The transition range appeared to be between span-depth ratios, Lid, of
2 and 6. Such beams are defined as moderately deep beams. From the load - deflection
curves, two major stages of behaviour were observed. First, the elastic behaviour of the
beams up to yielding of the tension reinforcement, and, second, the "inelastic" behaviour
after yielding and up to the ultimate when deformation becomes large with respect to the
load. Flexural cracks were observed at sections of maximum moment, and inclined cracks
originated near the support and propagate upward and toward mid-span. The formation of
inclined cracks eliminated the inclined principal tensile stresses necessary for beam action
and causes a redistribution of the internal stresses which results in the formation of a tied
arch with the reinforcement acting as the tension tie and the part of the concrete beam
outside the inclined crack acting as the arch rib in compression. Once the inclined cracks
have formed, the strain in the tension reinforcement is nearly uniform along the beam, and
the concrete strains tend to concentrate near the mid-span over the ends of the inclined
cracks. Arch behaviour in deep beams causes high stresses in the tension reinforcement at
the supports. An ordinary reinforced concrete beam having a low steel ratio failed in flexure
when the bending stresses in the region of high moment causes the concrete in the
compression zone to crush. This usually occurred after yielding of the longitudinal tension
reinforcement and is accompanied by a large quantity of inelastic deformation. Shear
failures in ordinary reinforced concrete beams usually began with the formation of inclined
cracks that resulted from the combined bending and shearing stresses. Inclined 'cracking
produces, a redistribution of the internal stresses, depending on the properties of the beam
and the nature of loading, may cause the beam to fail in diagonal tension, shear-
compression, or shear tension. The similarity of behaviour of deep beams and conventional
beams in the region of the inclined cracks would lead one to describe deep beam behaviour
in terms of the shear behaviour of a conventional beam. However, because the formation
and propagation of the inclined cracks in deep beams is quite different from that of
conventional beams, the modes of failure in deep beams should be redefined. The formation
and propagation of the inclined cracks in conventional beams is such that the entire crack is
usually contained within the shear span. In deep beams, the inclined cracks form in the shear
span but soon propagate into the moment region giving the members their typical arch
appearance. The failure was similar in appearance to the shear compression failure of

12
conventional beams but was usually accompanied by extensive inelastic deformation. For
the test beams that failed in shear, inclined cracks formed prior to failure. A second inclined
crack, which extended from the load point to the support outside the first inclined crack,
gave the beam a "strut like" appearance. The failure of this strut in compression was
accompanied by the shearing off of the unloaded part of the beam outside the load blocks
and the unbonding of the tension steel over the supports. Failure may occur simultaneously
with the formation of the second inclined crack, or the beam may support some additional
load after its formation. Several of the test specimens failed in such a manner that their
mode of failure could not be clearly defined as either flexure or shear. According to their
load-deflection curves, the failures of these beams would be termed "flexure" but ultimate
collapse occurred in a manner identical to that described for shear failures. Thus the term
"flexure-shear" was used to describe their failure mode. The steel strain data supported the
arching behaviour that developed at the formation of inclined cracks. lt has been shown that
prior to the formation of the inclined cracks the strains were distributed along the tension
reinforcement roughly according to the distribution of moment. As inclined cracks formed
the strains in the steel near the supports increased rapidly until they were of the same order
of magnitude as the mid-span strains. After inclined cracking, the steel strains adjacent to
the support increased at a slightly greater rate than the strains at mid-span, and yielding
occurred near the supports. Concrete strains along the top surface were also indicated the
change in behaviour from that of a beam to that of a tied arch. Prior to cracking, the concrete
strains were distributed along the span roughly according to the distribution of the moment.
As inclined cracks formed and progressed, the concrete strains at mid-span increased rapidly
and became very large, whereas those outside the load blocks remained small.

Kong, Robins and Cole (1970) tested 35 rectangular deep beams of 30 in. simple span, 36
in. over-al length, 3 in. width and over-all span/depth ratios (Uh) ranging from I to 3. The
test beams were divided into seven series, according to the type and amount of web
reinforcement. Each of the beams was tested under two point loading. Each time one type of
web steel was used to identify the individual effect of web reinforcement. He found that
relatively widely spaced horizontal and vertical web reinforcements were not effective in
controlling deflections but reduced significantly even by a moderate amount of horizontal
bars placed near the bottom. Deflection did not significantly affected by the cylinder
strength of concrete. As Uh and x/h (clear shear span/total depth) ratios increased, the

13
relative effectiveness of horizontal web reinforcement decreased. Average crack width was
smaller of closely spaced horizontal bars near the bottom. This type of bars was largely
effective for low Llh and x/h ratios. Vertical stilTups became effective with increasing Llh
and x/h ratios. The effectiveness of horizontal and vertical stirrups was insignificant for
moderately web reinforced and moderately deep beams. The crack widths were largest for
beams with no web reinforcement. Crack widths were increased with increasing Llh and x/h
ratios. With a few exceptions, the crack pattern and mode of failure did not affeet by the
web reinforcement and in Llh and x/h ratios. The typical behaviour was- first flexural cracks
formed and propagate rapidly and then diagonal eracks formed at higher loads. When the
load reached about 70 to 90 percent of the ultimate, a new type of diagonal crack suddenly
appeared within the shear span. These diagonal cracks were the dangerous craeks and they
had the common property of initiating not at the soffit but at points about h/3 up from the
soffit. On further loading, failures were occurred in one of the three ways. (a) One or more
of these existing diagonal cracks might penetrate so deeply into the compression zone at the
loading point or at the support that immediate failure occurred by crushing of the concrete
there. (b) The propagation of these cracks might split the beam approximately along the line
joining the load blocks at the support and loading point; or a new diagonal crack might form
outside of the existing one, in which case failure could occur by either one of the above
methods. (c) By crushing of the strut-like portion of concrete between two diagonal cracks.
The size of the bearing block might have significantly influenced the general cracking
behaviour and the final mode of failure. The authors also found that, in general, the British
code (i.e., CIRIA Guide-2) is not suitable for deep beams, and the provision of ACI
underestimate the shear strengths by rather wide margins. Laupa, Siess and Newmark's
formula over-estimated ultimate loads by rather wide margins and that the modification
introduced by Pavia and Siess brought about significant importance. This modified
prediction became fairly close to test results. Ramakrishnan and Anthanarayana's formula
predicts well with the expected results. But his formula disregards the influence of web
reinforcement. Again Pavia and Seiss' tests on moderately deep beams (Llh from 2 to 4
approx.) with vertical and inclined stirrups shown that web reinforcement had little efTect on
ultimate loads. Ultimate load was independent of web reinforcement for Llh = 1.0. The
author also claimed that for very deep beams, Ramakrishnan and Ananthanarayana's
formula was no more accurate than the modified Pavia and Siess' formula and for
moderately deep beams it was no more accurate than Pavia and Siess' formula. But it has the

14
merit of being easier to use.

Manuel, Slight and Suter (1971) tested 12 reinforced concrete deep beams in which the
variables aid and LId were systematically varied i.e., aid has been separated from LId and
other major variables were kept constant. All the beams were tested with two points loading.
This investigation was to establish the relative importance of aid and LId on deep beam
behaviour. The term M/V d has been related to shear capacity of a reinforced concrete beam.
ror simple beam under symmetrical two-point loading or single point loading, the term
M/V d is equivalent to the term aid at the load point sections. After analysing the test results
the authors concluded that the ultimate strength of reinforced concrete deep beams appeared
to be influenced significantly by aid and insignificantly by LId. The influence of aid relates
to the mode of failure. While the diagonal cracking capacity of deep beams was not
influenced significantly by LId, there was an overall tendency for the diagonal cracking
capacity to increase with an increase in aid from 0.30 to 1.00. The extent of arch action for
beams of constant shear span at any load level was reduced as the length of beam increased.
The effect of aid on the extent of arch action at any load level was not apparent in aid from
0.30 to 1.00. Maximum flexural and diagonal crack widths did not appear to be influenced
by aid, but appeared to be reduced slightly by increasing in LId for a constant ald.
Deflection was seriously underestimated even at working load levels if cracked section was
used. To compute deflections accurately, it will be necessary to consider the influence of
diagonal cracking. The web compression mode of failure was not a ductile failure mode and
occurred at a load less than the flexural failure mode.

Subcdi et al. (1986) tested 13 simply supported deep beams with span depth ratio, (Llh) 1,2
and 3. He varied span, overall depth, main longitudinal steel, vel1ical web steel and
horizontal web steel. He also used two types of support condition, one is resemblance of
practical condition and the other is more or less identical with the theoretical roller. Electric
strain gauges were incorporated to some steel. The beams were divided into three series on
the basis of loading types and support conditions. Different modes of failure, and a
comparative study with CIRIA GUIDE-2 have been presented in this paper. He claimed that
the model predict not only the shear strength but also the mode of failure of a deep beam.
He observed both flexural and shear failures in the test beams. Flexural cracks at mid-span
dominated the behaviour in the long span beams. However, the flexural cracks at mid-span

15
were accompanied by inclined shear cracks emanating from the edge of the loading blocks
for short span beams. In case of beams with relatively low amounts of main reinforcement
failed in a ductile manner. Diagonal splitting failures were observed in which the beams
contain higher amounts of main reinforcement. Most of these cases failure appeared from
the diagonal splitting; bond failure occurs along the main steel. When the diagonal split first
occurred, the events were accompanied by distinctive cracking sound, sometimes quite loud.
As the cracks extended, they appeared to do so relatively quietly, but splitting noises were
heard frequently, probably as a result of the formation of new cracks. The strains in the
main steel at the mid span increased slowly and remained steady even after the flexural and
diagonal splitting cracks appeared. Near the supports the strains in the main bars increased
steadily until diagonal splitting took place. The strains at these positions then increased
rapidly until diagonal-splitting failure was complete. With the concrete controlling the web
strength, the strains in the web bars increased gradually at first as the concrete and steel both
undergo the same strain increment. Then, as the splitting occurs, the strains in the web bars
suddenly increased greatly because there was not enough reinforcement to sustain the force
released from the concrete. With reinforcement controlling the web strength, the strain in
the web bars increased gradually throughout the process of diagonal splitting. This indicates
that as the concrete cracks, the force released by the concrete is taken over by the
reinforcement. In the later cases, the beams were capable of sustaining considerable
additional load after the occurrence of major diagonal cracking. [n context of CIRIA Guide-
2, the author mentioned that the guide gives quite good predictions in all cases where Llh <
2. In case of flexural failure, with Llh = I, the Guide predicts the failure load well. With Llh
= 2 it overestimated the strength and with Llh = 3, the overestimation is considerable. [n
case of shear failure the Guide is conservative with Llh = 1, provided that sufficient local
reinforcement is used to prevent crushing under the loads or near the supports. Again,
however, the Guide overestimates the strength of beams with Llh = 3 for shear failure.

Subcdi (1988) proposed a method of analysis for deep beams, based on the equilibrium of
forces at failure. The method was tested against the test results on 19 deep beams over a
wide range of parameters. The proposed method was also used to analyse 87 deep beams
tested by other researchers. In case of Beams tested by Kong et aI., the author claimed that
the observed mode of failure was same as predicted and the typical behaviour was diagonal
splitting. The beams with higher depth showed good results but inconsistency in the failure

16
modes. ror moderate depth it was not so good and for lower depth it shown bad results. In
case of Beams tested by Smith and Vantsiotis, the mode of failure had been correctly
predicted for the beams that failed in the diagonal splitting mode. The predicted ultimate
loads were considerably lower than the experimental values for the beams with either a
small or a large amount of web reinforcement in one direction only, shown greater
difference with the beams with a large amount of web reinforcement in both directions.

Ali and Habib (I 992a) presented a comprehensive experimental study on the deflection and

stress distribution characteristic in deep beam under uniformly distributed load. They
investigated the effect of Lid ratio, variation of web reinforcement on stress distribution and
deflection of deep beams. The author stated that the available theories for stress
computation do not predict the stress in concrete, in flexural steel or in web steel of a deep
beam. The midspan deflection could not be predicted accurately using the deflection
computation methods that generally used for ordinary shallow beams. The smaller the
span/depth ratio the more pronounced is the deviation of stress patterns from that of
Bernoulli and Navier. Design of deep beams based on the linear distribution of bending
stresses as used in shallow beams may be seriously in error, since the simple theory of
flexure does not take into account the effect of normal pressure on the top and bottom edges
of the beam caused by the load and reactions. Mid-span deflections were measured and
compared with the theoretical values calculated from deflection formulas for ordinary
shallow beam theory with both cracked and uncracked sections. Efforts were made in the
test program in order to observe the effects of the variation of horizontal and vertical web
reinforcement on the deflection and the stress distribution in the concrete masses, in the
flexural steel and in the horizontal and vertical web reinforcements. Brick aggregates were
also used in the test program because it is widely used in developing countries like
Bangladesh. After investigation the authors concluded that, before the initiation of cracks,
deflection of beams with LID = 2 was fairly accurately predicted by the ordinary shallow
beam formula using uncracked sections. However, for beams with LID = I, this approach
grossly underestimated the actual deflection of beams. On the other hand, after initiation of
cracks, ordinary shallow beam theory with cracked sections, predicts the deflections of
beams fairly accurately in both the test series (LID = I and LID = 2). Both ordinary shallow
beam theory and Holmes and Meson's approach did not predict the stresses in vertical and
horizontal web reinforcements properly. Flexural steel stresses were predicted fairly

17
accurately using the ordinary shallow beam theory with cracked section only when the load
level is closed to the ultimate load capacity of the beam. Extreme fibre concrete stresses
value computed using Heino Ainso's method seem quite different from the observed stresses
values for the beam with LID = 1. However, it predicts fairly accurately the stress in deep
beams having LID = 2. On the other hands both ordinary shallow beam theory and Holrnes
and Meson's approach are inadequate for computation of stresses in concrete at various
locations.

Ali and Habib (l992b) presented another research paper depending on the test results as
previously discussed. They found that the amount of web reinforcements int1uenced only
the diagonal cracking load not the ultimate load capacity. Diagonal cracks developed first in
relatively deeper beams (LID = I) and t1exural cracks developed tirst in the shallower deep
beams (LID = 2). ACI Code underestimates the diagonal cracking shear stress for deep
beams when subjected to VDL. However, the upper limit of the shear stress causing
diagonal cracks set by ACI Code is in conformity with the test results, although somewhat
conservative. On the other hand, the Cosio and Siess (1960) equation is not conservative for
calculating diagonal shear stress for deep beams having lower LID ratios. Vertical web
reinforcement is more effective ll1 resisting diagonal cracking in deep beams than is
horizontal web reinforcement. The upper limit of 8.,jf, for the ultimate shear stress
suggested by the ACI Code was a fairly conservative estimate for RC deep beams when
adequate web reinforcement was provided. Moreover, the upper limit of 6.,jf, for the
contribution of concrete in ultimate shear was also conservative for RC deep beams when
subjected to VOL. Shear compression failure (by crushing of concrete) was observed in
relatively shallow beams (LlD=2) whereas in the deeper beams (LlD=l) diagonal tension
failure was predominant.

2.2.3 TRUSS ANALOGY/ TRUSS (STRUT AND TIE) MODEL METHOD

Rogowsky et al. (I 986b ) reported the results of 7 simply supported and 17 two-span deep
beams with varying shear span to depth ratios and varying combinations of vertical and
horizontal web reinforcement. The design implications (strut and tie model) of these tests
were discussed in a companion paper (1986a). Analysing the test results, he found that ACI
design procedures for deep beams are not applicable for continuous deep beams. In the
simple span beams with light stirrups or no stirrups, major inclined cracks developed almost

18
instantaneously in both the shear span at about 50 to 60 percent of failure load. Thc cracks
appeared to be very sever even though the load was only about 25 percent of the eventual
failurc load. After inclined cracking, the behaviour was essentially that of a truss or tied-
arch. The stirrups crossing the major inclined cracks were at or near yield at failure. Some of
these reached yield at 50 to 60 percent of the failure load. Ultimate failure was due to
crushing of the comprcssion strut. [n the continuous deep beams, even though there were a
large number of stirrups present, inclined cracking still occurred with a loud thud. There
were crack fans over the interior support and under each load. Compression struts formed
between the cracks making up these fans but tended to be less well defined than in other
continuous beams with fewer stirrups. Failure was due to crushing near the top of the
compression strut in the interior shear span. There was little difference in behaviour for
beams with no web reinforcement, minimum stiITups, minimum horizontal web
reinforcement, or maximum horizontal web reinforcement. He also found that the increase
in shear strength with decrease in aid is due to a direct compression strut from the load to
the support. This has two important consequences. The slope of the compression strut is the
important parameter and is better defined by aid than by MIV d. Both is essentially the same
in simple beams, but in continuous beams M/V d varies greatly depending on how close the
critical section is to the point of inflection. This is one reason; the ACI Code overestimates
the strength of the continuous beams. A more significant consequence is that the addition of
stirrups does little to enhance the strength of the beam until stirrups with capacity in excess
of the capacity of the direct compression strut are used. When this occurs, the strut is
replaced by a combination of compression fans and a compression field and a ductile failure
result. Beams with significant amounts of vertical web reinforcement were ductile and had
consistent failure loads. All other beams were brittle and had rather variable failure loads,
which were strongly influenced by the location and shape of the first inclined crack. The
variability decreased as the ratio of vertical stirrups increased. In addition, less variability
were found in the simple beams than in the two-span specimens. The effective concrete
strength was not found to be very significant. The specimens were under-reinforced so that
the stirrups and much of the flexural steel yielded before the concrete crushed. [n such a
beam, the actual failure strength of the concrete was not nearly as significant as was the
correct determination of which steel yields. In other words, selecting an appropriate truss
model is of great importance in design. An appropriate truss model is one, which correctly
identifies the reinforcement, which is at yield at failure of the beam and discounts the

19
remammg reinforcement. If the model reqUlres a redistribution of internal forces, such
redistribution must not exceed the deformation capacities of the various concrete elements
involved. This has been illustrated for three cases. (a) The capacity of the equilibrium truss
model for simple beams was reached when the stirrups yield and the longitudinal steel yield
at mid-span. For simply supported beams, very little redistribution was required to reach
that state. It was noted that the longitudinal steel carried significant force at the faces of the
supports. (b) There are two trusses for a beam with one layer of horizontal web
reinforcement. For an ideal plastic material, the shear capacity of the beam would be the
sum of the shear capacities of the two trusses. For reinforced concrete this is not necessarily
the case. The lower chord would reach yield first. The additional deformation would require
for the upper layer of steel to yield so that the upper truss can reach its capacity will
generally be large enough to destroy the bottom truss. So the authors suggested that,
horizontal web reinforcement is ineffective in increasing the shear strength of deep beam.
(c) The two-span beams with heavy stirrups were ductile and developed yielding of the top
and bottom reinforcement producing full plastic mechanisms before failure. On the other
hand, the results of the two-span test specimens without heavy stirrups were rather variable
but consistently indicated that the top reinforcement did not yield before failure. The test
specimens were proportioned for an elastic distribution of bending moments ignoring shear
deformations. The experimental data, crack patterns, support reactions and strain
measurements, all indicated that the negative moment at the interior support was less than
the positive moment at mid-span. The ratio between experimental and elastic interior
support moment was typically 60 to 70 percent prior to yielding of longitudinal
reinforcement. The equilibrium truss model correctly predicted the bottom chord force but
overestimated the top chord force because the top chord did not yield at failure. In the
continuous beams without stirrups and those with minimum stirrups, the full plastic moment
capacities were not attained. Continuous deep beams are very sensitive to support
movements and, without heavy stirrup reinforcements, they may not have enough ductility
to permit one to design for any given distribution of moments and support reactions. The
designer should use reinforcement, which can accommodate all reasonable distributions of
bending moments and support reactions. The distributions chosen by the designer will
depend on the specifics of the structures such as foundation settlements, column shortening
etc. For ideal support conditions, the authors suggested that the design should be based on:
(i) A distribution based an elastic analysis that ignores shear effects, and (ii) On a second

20
distribution, ansmg out of the test data, in which the negative moments from first
distribution are reduced by 40 percent and the remaining moments adjusted accordingly.

Mau and I1su (1987) presented a theoretical treatment of the shear behaviour of deep beam.

The theoretical model consists of the application of soften truss model with an assumed
effective transverse compressive stress in the beam web. He stated that, on the basis of some
test results, empirical formulas have been adopted for the design of deep beams in the
current ACI Code. Theoretical treatment of the subject, however, has been scarce and
unsuccessful. He identified several possible modes of failure but the predominant one is that
of shear failure. The shear action in the beam web leads to compression in the diagonal
direction and tension in a direction perpendicular to that. The observation of the web cracks
before failure leads to a theoretical model that assumes the dependency of shear strength on
concrete splitting strength. Comparing the test result of T-beams to the plasticity truss
model, he indicated that an empirical factor must be included to reduce the compressive
strength of concrete. He also found that the compatibility truss model also tends to
overestimate the shear strength considerably if the compression strength of concrete is not
reduced empirically. The extent of reduction can be related to the ratio of the two principal
strains in the concrete. This phenomenon of the strength reduction has been called the
softening of concrete. The softened truss model theory, which has been successfully
developed for low-rise shear walls and torsion, is extended to deep beams. He found that the
soften truss model theory agrees well with the test results of the beams with shear span to
effective depth ratio, aid between 2.5 and 6. However, for aid below 2.5, i.e., for deep
beams, the theory underestimates the shear strength considerably because some other factors
are involved in the shear strength of deep beams. For the prediction of shear strength of a
deep beam, he used soften truss model theory by introducing an effective transverse
compressive stress in the beam web. So by introducing effective transverse compressive
stress acting on the web shear element and a softened concrete stress-strain relationship for
the concrete behaviour, he identified three major factors that affect the shear strength. They
are shear span to depth (aid) ratio, transverse reinforcement index (pJ/fJ, and longitudinal
reinforcement index (p,,f/rJ. The authors presented a theoretical model and the resulting
governing equations are then introduced and solved numerically. The theoretical predictions
were also compared with the test results of 64 simply supported deep beams conducted by
the previous researchers.

21
Hsu (1988) summarised the soften truss model theory, which has been developed for shear

and torsion of reinforced concrete member, in a systemic and unified manner. The softened
truss model theory for shear and torsion consists of eleven equations involving fourteen
variables has been derived from equilibrium, compatibility and materials conditions to solve
the shear problem. The author has claimed that the Soften Truss Model theory has been
successfully applied to structures where shear behaviour predominates, such as low-rise
shear walls, framed wall panels, deep beams, and shear transfer strengths. It also worked
very well for members subjected to torsion. The theory holds that a concrete element
reinforced with orthogonal steel bars and subjected to shear stresses would develop diagonal
cracks at an angle inclined to the main steel bars. These cracks could separate the concrete
into a series of diagonal concrete struts, which are assumed to resists axial compression.
Together with the steel bars, which are assumed to take only axial tension, they form a truss
action to resist the applied shear stresses. For simplicity, the concrete struts were assumed to
be inclined at 45° to the steel bars. The equations, derived from the preliminary truss
concept, overestimated the test results. To improve the prediction of the truss model, the
theory had undergone three major developments. The first development was the
generalisation of the angle of inclination of concrete struts. They assumed that the angle of
inclination might deviate from 45° On this basis three equilibrium equations had been
derived, which could explain why longitudinal and transverse steel with different
percentages can both yield at failure. The theory is known as variable angle truss model.
Since plasticity is assumed at failure, it could also be called the plasticity truss model. The
second development was the deviation of the compatibility equation to determine the angle
of inclination of the concrete strut. Since this angle was assumed to coincide with the angle
of inclination of the principle compression stress and strain, this theory was known as the
compression field theory. The author called it the compatibility truss model, because the
average strain condition should satisfy the Mohr's stress circle. The third development was
the discovery of the softening of concrete strut. Combining the equilibrium, compatibility
and softened stress-strain relationships, a theory has been developed to predict the test result
of various types reinforced concrete members subjected to shear and torsion. Eleven
equations involving fourteen variables were derived from equilibrium and compatibility
conditions, as well as the materials laws to solve the shear problem. Six additional equations
involving six additional variables were required to solve the torsion problem. The most

22
efficient algorithms for solving the simultaneous equations were presented for various types
of structures. But the solution of shear strength requires a numerical iterative method that is
not convenient for the actual design. In 1989 the author used the equations derived from the
equilibrium condition of the softened truss model theory; then an explicit and rational
formula has been derived for the prediction of shear strengths of deep beams. The constants
in the formula have been calibrated utilising test data available in the literature. The formula
is dimensionless and contains four variables that express the horizontal and vertical
reinforcement ratios, the concrete strength, and the shear span ratio. The formula was then
compared with the other formulas for the shear strength of deep beams.

2.2.4 FIBRE CONCRETE DEEP BEAMS

Narayanan and Danvish (1988) presented the test results of 12 Fibre Concrete Deep
beams. The inclusion of steel fibres in reinforced concrete deep beams resulted in enhancing
their deformation characteristics at all stages of loading up to failure, as well as improving
their shear resistance. Fibre concrete deep beams exhibited substantial increase in their
ultimate loads as well as in the load at first crack. Steel fibres were provided to act as web
reinforcement. Three parameters had been varied in his study, mainly, the volume fraction
of fibres, shear span to depth ratio, and the concrete compressive strength. The effect of
fibre incorporation on deflections, strain, crack width, crack patterns, failure modes,
cracking shear load and ultimate shear loads had been examined. Improvement in concrete
tensile strength and ductility due to inclusion of fibres are thought to be dependent upon
three factors. These are the fibre volume fraction Pr in the mix, fibre aspect ratio l!dr and the
extent of bond between the fibre and the matrix. The influence of these three factors had
been incorporated into combined parameters called fibre factor, F = (l/dr)Pf~' Where, If =
length of fibre (mm), dr = diameter of fibre (nun), Pr = volume fraction of fibre, ~ = bond
factor that accounts for differing bond characteristics of the fibre. The authors argued that
the behaviour of fibre concrete beams just before failure is similar to that of cylinder
specimens subjected to the splitting test; so splitting test values have been employed for
assessing the tensile strength of fibre concrete. The tested result as obtained by the author
that at early stages of loading, the beam behaved in an elastic manner and increased the
beam stiffness with increasing the value of F and with decrease in aid ratio. An
improvement in spalling resistance and diagonal cracking were first observed along the
direction from load to support. Crack widths were decreased with increase of Pr' The

23
presence of steel fibres influence the concrete strains and both shear cracking load and
ultimate shear load. Both cracking load and ultimate load increased almost linearly with an
increase in the fibre factor F. To predict the ultimate shear strength of the fibre concrete
deep beams, the author used the formula suggested by Kong, Robins, and Sharp for
conventional reinforced concrete. He used the formula with material properties of fibre
concrete.

Mansur and Ong (1991) presented a paper under the name of "Behaviour of reinforced
fibre concrete deep beams in shear". The name "Fibre concrete" comes from the fact that the
short and discrete steel fibres were mixed up in the concrete. This attempt have been made
to modify the existing theories by replacing the strength parameters of plain concrete with
their corresponding values for fibre concrete. The softened truss model theory for
nonfiberous concrete has been modified using new strcss-strain relationships for fibre
concrete both in tension and compression. Test results were indicated that including discrete
fibres in concrete significantly improves the strcngth and deformation characteristics of
deep beams. Using equilibrium equations, compatibility equations with material properties
of fibre concrete, some governing equations were developed for the design of deep beam,
which are available in the literature of this paper. The effects of different parameters like alh
ratio, volume fraction of fibres web steel ratio, were also discussed. He found that in early
stages of loading, thc beams behaved in a truly elastic manner and the load-deflection
curves were linear. In almost all the beams the diagonal cracks within the shear span were
the first to form. These cracks appeared approximately at mid depth of the beam and
extended towards both the support and loading points. Further increase in load resulted in
the propagation and widening of the existing cracks, new diagonal cracks developed more
or less parallel to the existing ones. Some of these new cracks had originated vertically, but
later became inclined in a diagonal direction. When alh ratio increased, the behaviour of
beam changed from diagonal splitting to flexural cracking. The beams, whieh contained
steel fibres, exhibited a slow process of widening and extension of diagonal cracks. This
lower rate of crack growth in beams with fibre concrete may be attributed to the restraint
provided by the fibres that bridges the crack. It has been shown that an increase in the
volume fraction of fibrcs decreased both the maximum and average crack widths at all load
levels. Similarly, higher volume fraction of fibres resulted in smaller concrete strains and
smaller deflections at a particular load level. Increasing the fibre content increased both the

24
cracking and ultimate strengths of thc beams. It has been observed that an increase in the
longitudinal web steel ratio has virtually no influence on the ultimate shear strength of the
beams. On the other hand, keeping the longitudinal web steel ratio constant, an increase in
transverse steel ratio had increased the shear strength. The authors also said that a reduction
in the shear span-depth ratio increase both the diagonal cracking and ultimate shear
strengths of reinforced fibre concrete beams. Addition of discrete steel fibres in the concrete
mix provides better crack control and enhances the strength and deformation characteristics
of deep beams containing conventional reinforcement.

2.2.5 DEEP BEAMS WITH WEB OPENING

Since in most building utility ducts and pipes, water line, swear line etc. are passed through
beams. However, provision of these openings may cause serviceability problems of
excessive cracking and deflection and may severely affect the strength of a beam. Several
investigation has been carried out by the researchers like Nasser et aI., 1967; Ragan and
Warwarcik 1967; Hanson 1969; Barney et aI., 1977; Mansur et aI., 1984, 1985; and Mansur
1988; and treated the strength problem with recommendations for the design and detailing
of reinforcement near the opening to achieve adequate crack control. However, these
researches were held on the normal beams. Researches on the deep beams with web opening
are very scarce. So adequate research must be needed in this field. Moreover, the available
methods for ultimate shear strength design can be applied only to simply supported beams
where bending moment and shear force distributions are uniquely defined. In the case of
continuous beams, the reduction of internal stress and a mark deviation of internal stresses
from elastic analysis, a reduction in stiffness due to presence of openings causes again a
redistribution internal forces and moments, the amount of which needs to be properly
evaluated to achieve a satisfactory design.

Kong et al. (1978) proposed a simple structural idealisation for predicting the ultimate shear
strength of deep beams with web openings. The structural idealisation was based on
simplifying assumptions derived from ultimate-load test on 56 small-scale deep beams; all
made of lightweight concrete. Further experimental evidence was produced in 1978 to
support the simple structural idealisation for predicting the shear strength of RC deep beams
with web openings. The shear behaviour of deep beams is complex and the presence of web
opening makes it cumbersome. The author mentioned that the experiments have confirmed

25
that the strength and serviceability of such beams are governed mainly by a small number of
identifiable variables and that for design purposes, the proposed structural idealisation could
prove a useful new tool. Deep beams with web openings are not yet covered by the current
codes of practice such as CP 110, ACI 318 and the CEB-FIP recommendations and also
because the scarcity of the experimental evidence, the provisions of CIRIA Guide are
necessarily rather caution and restrictive. The author observed that there was more scatter
value among the measured ultimate load for beams without web reinforcement than among
those for beams with web reinforcement. The scatter was mainly due to unavoidable initial
imperfections in the beams, and that the presence of web reinforcement reduces the effect of
such imperfections. From the different detailing of web reinforcement, the author observed
that the detailing of web reinforcement is more important than to provide an extra amount of
web reinforcement. Web reinforcement should be so arranged as to protect both diagonal
cracking regions, above and below the web opening.

Mansur ct al. (1991) experimentally investigated on eight reinforced concrete continuous

beams, each containing a large transverse opening. The beams are rectangular in cross-
section and all contain the same amount and arrangement of longitudinal reinforcement. The
number of spans, the size of opening, and its location along the span were considered as
major variables. Final failure of the beam occurred by the formation of a mechanism i.e. the
formation of hinge and the two opening ends represents the most vulnerable locations for
the development of plastic hinges. Besides early cracking, the strength and stiffness of the
beam decrease with an increase either in the length or depth of opening. Similarly, openings
located in the high moment region produce larger deflections and result in early collapse of
the beam. The author observed that the location of opening had very little influence on
cracking load but affects the load deflection response. Similarly the opening location had no
influence on the mode of failure.

2.2.6 COMPRESSIVE FORCE PATH METHOD

From the discussion of previous papers it can be concluded that the shear behaviour of
reinforced concrete beam is so complicated that though there are a huge numbers of research
papers, the behaviour is still ambiguous because a large number of parameters are involved
with shear behaviour. Because of this ambiguity different researchers have thought in
different angles and presented different solution procedures. Each of them claimed that their

26
procedures have shown good accuracy to predict the shear behaviour of deep beams. But if
one's procedure is applied to other's set of test data, the results have shown a very poor
accuracy. Since shear failure occurs in many types of building element, so it is important to
lind out the shear behaviour of a deep beam with exact failure mcchanism. The present day
design models are explicitly based on the truss-analogy concept and thus dependent very
much upon the residual strength of cracked concrete (Seraj et a!., 1993). The new thcories or
models, like the compressive field theory, the modified compressive field theory, or the
strut-and-tie model, are no exception, because Truss analogy forms the core of these
concepts as well (Seraj et a!., 1993). However, in the recent past, the widely held view that
concrete exhibits strain-softening material characteristics under any state of stress has been
challenged by Kotsovos (1983) with experimental evidence, which has indicated that
concrete, as a material, is brittle in nature. He showed that conventional strain-softening
response is not a material characteristic, as extensively considered, but merely a "descriptor"
of secondary testing effects. The shallowness of present-day design concepts becomes
evident by looking at the extensive number of design equations put forward by different
researchers or by the same researchers on different occasions. Incidentally most of the
investigators seldom deviate from truss-analogy, yet failed to put forward a generalised
design solution. The design cquations were calibrated to set of experiments and, thus, are
severely limited in their application (Kotsovos, 1983).

Kotsovos (1982) assessed the average longitudinal stress in the compressive zone, which
was 75% higher than the uniaxial compressive strength of concrete (Pol. This large stress
was due to the triaxial compressive stress conditions in the compressive zone. Kotsovos
(1983) argued that, in the absence of stirrups, a triaxial compressive state of stress could be
developed due to the occurrence of volume dilation in localised regions within the
compressive zone. His views have been supported by the experimentally established shape
of the transverse deformation profile (Kotsovos, 1982) of the top face of the beam. The
characteristic feature of this profile is the large transverse expansion (indicative of volume
dilation) that occurs in the region of cross-sections coinciding with a deep flexural crack
when the load-carrying capacity of the beam is approached. This localised transverse
expansion is restrained by concrete in the adjacent regions and such a restraint may be
considered to be equivalent to the application of a confining pressure that has been assessed
to be at least 10% of 1\. Kotsovos and Newman (1981) has found that small confining stress

27
is sufficient to increase the load-carrying capacity by more than 50% and this should be the
cause of large longitudinal compressive stress developing in the compressive zone.
Concurrently, the expanding concrete induces tensile stresses in adjacent regions and this
rise to a compression/tension state of stress. Such a state of stress reduces the strength of
concrete in the longitudinal dimension. In fact Kotsovos and Newman (1981) have found
that a tensile stress of about 5% of f, is sufficient to reduce the compressive strength by
about 50%. Kotsovos (1984) has been shown that collapse occurs due to horizontal splitting
of the compressive zone in the region between deep flexural cracks.

Kotsovos et al. (1987) investigated the behaviour of a number of RC beams, with various
arrangements of shear reinforcement, subjected to two-point loading with various shear
spans to depth ratios. The test results were in conflicts with the "truss analogy" concept. A
large portion of the shear span of beams could not behave as truss because the absence of
shear reinforcement did not allow the formation of ties and the presence of a wide inclined
crack did not permit the development of suitable struts. And yet, the beams sustained loads
significantly larger than those widely expected. These test results clearly rise doubts over
widely held views and, in contrast, indicate that "Truss" bchaviour is not a necessary
condition for the beams to attain their flexural capacity once their "shear capacity" is
exceeded. Their results support that the portion of the beam below the neutral axis is not the
main contributor to shear resistance of a concrete structure but the region of the beam above
the neutral axis. The inclined cracks, which eventually caused failure of a beam, locally
reduced the ncutral axis to less than 5% of the beam depth. In view of such a small depth of
compressive zone it may be argued that concrete is unlikely to be able to sustain such high
tensile stresses caused by the presence of shear force. Such an argument is usually based on
the erroneous assumption that the concrete behaviour within the compressive zone is
realistically described by uniaxial stress strain characteristics. As for the case of
compressive zone in the region of the section coinciding with a flexural crack, concrete in
the region of a scction through the tip of a deep inclined crack is also subjected to a wholly
compressive state of stress. It appeared that a part of vertical and horizontal components of
this compressive state of stress counteracts the tensile stresses developing in the presence of
shear force. Hence, in spitc of the prescnce of such a force, the state of stress remains
comprcssive and this causes a significant enhancement of the local strength. However,
eventually the shear force increases beyond a critical level and results in the development of

28
tensile stresses that are sufficient to eliminate the restraining effect of the adjacent concrete,
thus creating a compression/tension stress field which reduces abruptly the local strength
and causes failure.

KotsoyoS (l988a and 1988b) presented two papers introducing the concept "Compressive
Force Path (CFP)" as a basis for reinforced concrete ultimate limit state design. It was
shown that the causes of beam failure are associated with the development of tensile stresses
in the region of the path along which the compressive force is transmitted to the support and
not, as is widely considered by the region of the beam below the neutral axis through
aggregate interlock. The proposed concept identifies the mechanisms that may give rise to
such stresses within the path. The author suggested that, for a RC beam at its ultimate limit
state, the compressive force at the middle cross section is transmitted to the supports by
following a path that is essentially bilinear (Fig. 2.1 (b». For a beam subjected to two-point
loading with aid greater than a value of approximately 2.0, the change in the path direction
occurs at a distance of approximately twice the beam depth d; for smaller values of aid, the
change in path direction is considered to occur at the cross section including the load point.
The path of the compressive force may be visualised as the "flow" of compressive stresses
with varying sections perpendicular to the path direction and with the compressive force
representing the stress resultant at each section (Fig. 2.I(a». It has been proposed that shear
failure is associated with the presence of tensile stresses developing in the region of the
compressive force path. Tensile stresses may develop perpendicular to the path due to a
number of causes such as (a) A tensile stress resultant (T in Fig. 2.1) develops for
equilibrium purposes at locations where the path changes direction. (b) The compressive
stress will reach a critical level at the smallest section of the path, where the stress intensity
is the highest, before this level is reached in adjacent sections. This level marks the start of
an abrupt and large material dilation that induces tensile stress (t, in Fig. 2.1 (a» in the
surrounding concrete. (c) Large tensile stress (t, in Fig. 2.1 (a» develops perpendicular to the
direction of the maximum principal compressive stress in the region of the crack tip. (d)
Bond failure at the level of the tension reinforcement between two consecutive flexural
cracks changes the stress conditions in the compressive zone of the beam clement between
these cracks. This change in the stress intensity should give rise to tensile stresses in the
compressive zone. The author indicated that the force sustained by the tensile reinforcement
within the length of the horizontal projection of the inclined portion of the path is constant

29
and this implies that the compressive force acting along the inclined portion of the path is
also constant. The causes for such behaviour appeared to be associated with the occurrence
of inclined cracking; as the beam deflects under increased load. The compressive stress
trajectories along the path are such that, for equilibrium purposes, they give rise to tensile
stresses in the orthogonal direction. This combined compression tension state of stress leads
to the formation of an inclined crack at a location where the concrete strength is exceeded. It
should be noted, however, that, for a deep beam, the occurrence of such a crack within the
inclined portion of the path does not interrupt the flow of the compressive stresses and thus
the beam is capable of sustaining a significantly higher load. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 indicate
that the path of the compressive force may be visualised as a 'flow' of compressive stress
with varying section perpendicular to the path direction and with the compressive force
representing the stress resultant at each section. The shape of the stress 'now' and the
intensity of the stress field are very much dependent on the beam boundary conditions. For a
simply supported deep beam subjected to a load uniformly distributed on its top face, the
stress flow may have a shape similar to that indicated in Fig. 2.2 (a). It is realistic to
consider that the difference in shape between the above . flow' and that caused by an
equivalent load concentrated at the two third points affects only the location of failure
initiation within a particular portion (inclined or horizontal) of the path and not the
magnitude of the force that can be carried along this portion (Fig. 2.2). Based on this
reasoning, it is considered realistic for design purposes to replace the actual stress 'flow'
with a uniform stress 'flow' of intensity equal to the uniaxial cylinder compressive strength
(I'J. The cross-section of the 'f1ow' should be chosen such that the actual maximum
compressive force carried along the path remains unchanged.

Kotsovos (1988a) outlined the experimental evidence of RC beams, with vanous

arrangement of shear reinforcement, subjected to two-point loading and with various shear
span-to-depth ratios, aid. The inclined crack that formed within each shear span of the
beams, with aid=1.5, reinforced with stirrups within the middle span only, did not penetrate
into the region of the load point and caused crushing of this region, as widely considered.
Instead, it bypassed this region, and extended toward the middle zone. Apparently, the
presence of stirrups within the middle zone prevented fmiher extension and failure
eventually occurred due to yielding of the tension steel. It has been indicated that the
absence of stirrups in the portion of the shear span adjacent to the support (aid = 3.3) led to

30
the formation of a deep inclined crack that reduced the neutral axis depth. Further extension
of this crack toward the load point was prevented apparently by the presence of stirrups in
the portion of the shear span adjacent to the load point, and the beam eventually failed in
flexure. It is interesting to note that a flexural model of failure was also exhibited by Beam
with aid = 3.3. The inclined cracks that formed within the shear span apparently did not
reduce the depth of the neutral axis sufficiently to overcome the shear resistance of the
compressive zone. In contrast with this behaviour, the beam with aid = 4.4 failed in shear.
However, failure occurred under a load significantly higher than that predicted by current
code provisions for shear design. The beam with aid = 3.3 (which exhibited a flexural mode
of failure within the middle span), beam with aid = 4.4 was characterised by a flexural mode
of failure within the shear span. The lack of stirrups in the region extending to a distance of
2d from the support led to the formation of a deep inclined crack that reduced the depth of
the neutral axis to a very small value approximately equal to 0.05d. Such a small neutral
axis depth combined with the large width of the inclined crack must have led to yielding of
the tension reinforcement, and failure eventually occurred due to failure of the compressive
zone in the region between the horizontal branch of the crack and the top face of the beam.
Shear failure can be prevented only by placing shear reinforcement throughout the shear
span. Yet the results indicated that placing of stirrups in the middle, and not the shear span
of the beams with aid = 1.5, leads to a load-carrying capacity significantly larger than that of
beams without shear reinforcement. Similarly the absence of stirrups in a large portion of
the shear span of beams with aid = 3.3, did not prevent the beams from reaching their
flexural capacity and similar to the beam which was reinforced with stirrups throughout the
shear span. In fact, the load-carrying capacity of these beams was almost 100 percent higher
than that of the beam without stirrups, as expected, failed in shear. The results for beams
with aid = 4.4, sustained a load significantly larger than that of beam without shear
reinforcement, but it did not reach its flexural capacity. However, this beam sustained a load
similar to that corresponding to flexural capacity but failed within the shear span. These
results indicate clearly that such behaviour cannot be explained in terms of the concept of
the shear capacity of a critical section. A prerequisite for the application of the shear
capacity of critical sections concept is the widely accepted view that the main contributor to
the shear resistance of an RC beams without shear reinforcement is aggregate interlock. In
view of this, it is realistic to suggest that, in the absence of shear reinforcement, the main
contributor to the shear resistance of a RC beam at its ultimate limit state is the compressive

31
zone, with the region of the beam below the neutral aXIs. For a beam under two-point
loading with aid < 2.0, critical tensile stress were considered to develop in the region
adjacent to the load point within the middle span. Reinforcing this region with stirrups,
therefore, should prevent local failure before the f1exural capacity of the beam is reached. It
has been suggested also that, for a beam under two-point loading with aid > 2.0, the critical
stresses develop within the region of the path beyond a distance of approximately 2d from
the support. Reinforcing this region with stirrups, therefore, is essential if the beam is to fail
in f1exure. On the other hand, placing stirrups in regions where inclined cracks were
expected to form did not appeared to safeguard against shear failure (aid = 4.0). Such
behaviour that was also in agreement with the compressive force path concept.

Kotsovos and Lefas (1990) verified the method developed in compliance with the concept
of the "Compressive force path" for the design of reinforced concrete beams. The method
had been used to design a number of beams whose behaviour is subsequently instigated by
experiment. The beam chosen were such that the design details specified by the proposed
method were significantly different than those specified by current code provisions. In fact,
on the basis of current codc concept, the beams are deemed incapable of sustaining the
design load; yet the beams not only sustained safely the specified design load, but also did
so with an amount of transverse reinforcement 70% less, in some cases, than specified by
current methods. It has been demonstrated that the proposed model and the ensuing design
method can be extended easily to apply to any type of skeletal structural concrete
configuration where the model represents the structural elements between consecutive
points of inf1ection with the interaction between the elements in the region of such points
being modified as an "internal hinged support affected by the provision of transverse
reinforcement.

32
 <t.
a>2d I

-+ I

2d
-f--~~
,~

(0)
,T
I
a:52d

._- Path
-- __ Outline of compressive
stress trajectories

(b)
..
Fig. 2. I: Schematic representation of the path of compressive force and
corresponding outline of compressive stress trajectories for RC deep beams
with various old ratios

" '-
",
/
/
\
,.- "' ...•. 1 ;,"- -- '\
\

Y
/ / / \
\
/
/
/
""'I. I
"-.
'--V
I \
\ \
I I \ , I
I
/
I \
.\
\
\'--
\~
I \
\
, I I \
\
\
/ "
\ I / "" \

(a ) ( b)

Fig. 2.2: Typical Inclined compression failures of RC deep beams under( 0) Uniform
a (b) Two' point looding

33
 CHAPTER THREE
METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF
MEMBERS UNDER SHEAR

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Shear is an important but controversial topic in structural concrete (Hsu 1982, Kotsovos
1983, Kong 1987). In design it is generally desirable to ensure that ultimate strengths are
governed by flexure rather than by shear. Shear failures, which in reality are failures under
combined shear forces and bending moments, are characterised by small deflections and
lack of ductility. There is sometimes little warning before failure occurs, and this makes
shear failures particularly undesirable. When shear force act on a beam and goes into shear
deformation, the shear stress prevent the inplane sliding. The shear stress of a slender beam
varies parabolically through the beam height with maximum at the neutral axis and zero at
the top and bottom surface. If a small square element located at the neutral axis of such a
beam is isolated, Fig. 3.1 (a), the stresses in the element are as in Fig. 3.1 (b), which is
equivalent to the element as in Fig. 3.I(c). That is, the action of two pairs of shear stresses
on the vertical and horizontal faces is the same as that of two pairs of normal stresses, one
tension and one compression, acting on the 45° faces and of numerical value equal to that of
the shear stresses. If an element of the beam is considered which is located neither at the
neutral axis nor at the outer edges, its vertical faces are subjected not only to the shear
stresses (v = VQ/lb) but also to the familiar bending stresses if = My/l). The six stresses,
which now act on the element, can again be combined into a pair of inclined compression
stresses and a pair of inclined tension stresses, which act at right angles to each other. They
are known as principal stresses. Their value is given by, t = f/2 :!o ..J(//4 + v') and their
inclination a by tan 2a = 2v/f. Since the magnitude of the shear stresses v and the bending
stresses f changes both along the beam and vertically with distance from neutral axis, the
inclination as well as the magnitudes of the resulting principal stresses "t" also vary from
one place to another. Tensile stresses are of particular concern in view of the low tensile
strength of concrete. Tension stresses of various inclinations and magnitudes, resulting from
shear alone (at neutral axis) or from the combined action of shear and bending, exist in all
parts of a beam. It is for this reason that inclined tension stresses, known as diagonal
tension, must be carefully considered in reinforced concrete design.

34
 __ 0 • _

[I]
[£]

(a I
t2

----
v '=" )=-v ....L
" /
'-.l-vtDr~ "01-
vt[J!V
---
v

(bI
t=-vv~
t=v
(c I
V-

(dI
~2
( el
".
I

Fig. 3.1 : Stresses in homogeneous rectangular beams

35
3.2 ACI CONCEPT FOR SHEAR AND DIAGONAL TENSION

3.2.1 Reinforced Concrete Beam without Shear Reinforcement

The ACI-ASCE Committee (1962), MacGregor and Peter (1977) and joint ASCE-ACI Task
Committee (1973) explained the shear and diagonal tension behaviour. As load is increased
on a homogeneous elastic beam without reinforcement, tension cracks will form where the
tension stresses are largest and will immediately cause the beam to fail. The outer fibre at
the section of maximum bending moment experience maximum tension. However when
tension reinforcement is provided, the required flexural tension strength is furnished by the
steel and much higher loads can be carried. Shear stresses increase proportionally to the
loads. In consequence, diagonal tension stresses of significant intensity are created in
regions of high shear forces, chiefly close to the supports. Longitudinal tension steel does
not reinforce the tensionally weak concrete against those diagonal tension stresses which
occur elsewhere, caused by shear alone or by combined effect of shear and flexure.
Eventually, these stresses attain magnitudes sufficient to open additional tension cracks in a
direction perpendicular to the local tension stress. These are known as diagonal cracks.
Flexural cracks occur in regions of high moments and diagonal cracks in regions of high
shear forces.

Formation of diagonal cracks: The diagonal tension stresses t represent the combined
effect of the shear stresses v and bending stresses f which are proportional to shear force V
and the bending moment M, respectively. Eventually, the relative values of M and V will
affect the magnitude as well as the direction of the diagonal tension stresses. At location of
large shear force V and small bending moment M there will be little flexural cracking, if
any, prior to the development of a diagonal tension crack. Consequently, the average
intensity of shear stresses in the section prior to crack formation is, v = V/bd. The exact
distribution of these shear stresses over the depth of the cross section is not known. It can
not also be computed form equation, v = VQ/lb, because this equation does not account for
the influence of the reinforcement and because concrete is not an elastic homogeneous
material. If flexural stresses are negligibly small at the particular location, the diagonal
tension stresses are numerically equal to the shear stresses, with a maximum at the neutral
axis. Consequently, diagonal cracks form mostly at or near the neutral axis and propagate
from that location. These so-called web-shear cracks can be expected to form when diagonal

36
tension stress in the vicinity of the neutral axis becomes equal to the tension strength of
concretc. It was found that the tension strength of the concrete varies from about 3..Jf'o to
about S..Jf, (Winter and Nilson, 1981). It was also found that in regions with large shear and
small moment, the diagonal tension cracks form at an average or nominal shear stress v" of
about 3.S..Jrc, that is

v" = V,/bd = 3.S..Jr, 3.1 a

where V" = shear force at which diagonal tension crack is formed.
The locations at which the shear force and bending moment have large values, flexural
tension cracks first form. Their width and length are well controlled by longitudinal tension
steel. However, when the diagonal tension stress at the upper end of one or more of these
cracks exceeds the tensile strength of the concrete, the crack bends in a diagonal direction
and continues to grow in length and width. These cracks are known as flexural shear cracks.
As the diagonal tension cracks develops, the average shear stress is larger than that given by
the equation, v = V/bd, because the cracks reduce the area of uncracked concrete which is
available to resist shear. The amount of this reduction will vary, depending on the
unpredictable length of the pre-existing flexural tension crack. A large number beam test
(ACI-ASCE Committee 326, 1962) has been evaluated for this purpose. They show that in
the presence of large moments (for which adequate longitudinal reinforcement has been
provided) the nominal shear stress at which diagonal tension cracks form is

v,,=Vjbd=1.9..Jr, 3.lb
It has been found that the shear at which diagonal cracks develop depends on the ratio of
shear force to bending moment or more precisely, on the ratio of shear stress v to bending
stressfat the top of the flexural crack. Therefore v = k,(V/bd) andf= k,(M/bd2) where k,
depends on the depth of penetration of flexural crack and k, depends on the crack
configuration. Therefore, the ratio, v/f = k, Vd/k,M, must be expected to affect that load at
which flexural cracks develop into flexure-shear cracks, the unknown quantity k/k, to be
explored by test. Equation (3.la) gives the cracking shear for very large values of Vd/M,
and Equation (3.1 b) for very small values. Moderate values of Vd/M, v" will be
intermediate between these extremes. From the evaluation of large number of tests (ACI-
ASCE Committee 326, 1962) it has been found that the nominal shear stress at which
diagonal flexure-shear cracking develops is conservatively predicted from

37
..
.;
,"
 3.1 c
Where, p" = A/bd = longitudinal tension steel ratio.
The increasing values of steel ratio p", have benefieial effect in that they increase the shear
at which diagonal cracks develop. This is so because larger amount of longitudinal steel
result in smaller and narrower flexural tension cracks prior to the formation of diagonal
cracking, leaving a larger area of uncracked concrete available to resist shear. To summarise
in reference (MacGregor and Peter, 1977) indicate that the stress at which flexural shear
cracks form in the presence of significant moments depend on the reinforcement ratio p" in
addition to the primary variable --/1'0. The empirical equation for flexure-shear cracking,
proposed (MacGregor and Peter, 1977) to replace v" = 1.9--/f, in equation (3 .1b) is

3.ld
For steel ratio p" smaller than about 0.009, Eqn. (3.ld) gives values progressively smaller than
Eqn. (3.lb), while for p" larger than about 0.012, the reverse is true. Changes of code have
been proposed on this basis (MacGregor and Peter, 1977) that would eliminate (3.lc). They
would take account of the effect of VdiM only for unusually deep beams or when sizable
concentrated loads are located close to supports. Two types of behaviour have been
observed in diagonally cracked beams: (I) The diagonal crack, once formed, spreads either
immediately or at only slightly higher load, traversing the entire beam from the tension
reinforcement to the compression face, splitting it in two and failing the beam. This process
is sudden and without warning chiefly in the shallower beams, i.e. beams with span depth
ratio of about 8 or more. (2) Alternatively, the diagonal crack, once formed, spreads toward
and partially into the compression zone but stops short of penetrating to the compression
face. In this case sudden collapse occurs, and the failure load may be significantly higher
than that at which the diagonal crack first formed. This behaviour is chiefly observed in the
deep beams with smaller span-depth ratios.

3.2.2 Reinforced Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement

Economical design of a flexural member should be such that it develops its full moment
capacity without premature shear failure. Shear failure is sudden and explosive, show
inadequate ductility and fails without warning. When the concrete has the shear strength less
than the applied shear, special shear reinforcement, known as web reinforcement, is used to

38
increase this strength. Shear reinforcement is placed either vertically or inclindly with the
main tension bars. Web reinforcement has no noticeable effect prior to the formation of
diagonal cracks. After diagonal cracks, web reinforcement augments shear resistance in four
separate ways: (a) Part of the shear force is resisted by the bars, which traverse a particular
crack, (b) These bars restricts the growth of diagonal cracks and reduce their penetration
into the compression zone. This leaves more uncracked concrete for resisting the combined
action of shear and compression. (c) The stirrups also counteract the widening of the cracks.
This makes a significant and reliable interface force. (d) The stirrups are so arranged that
they tie the longitudinal reinforcement into the main bulk of the concrete. These resist the
splitting of concrete along the longitudinal reinforcement and increase the shear resisted in
dowel action.

Behaviour with Vertical Reinforcement: Most frequently, web reinforcement consist of

vertical stirrup. The forces acting on a cracked plane of a beam of vertical reinforcement are
shown in Fig. 3.2. Each stirrup traversing the crack exerts a force AJ,. A, is the cross-
section area of each leg of stirrup. For equilibrium in the vertical direction,

V"' = V, + V, + V" + V;y 3.2a

Where, V, =LoA, f, is the vertical force in the stirrup, n being the number of stirrups
traversing the crack = pis, p = horizontal projection of the crack; s = spacing of the stirrup
It is seen that after inclined cracking the portion of the shear, V, = Lo AJ, carried by the
stirrups increases linearly, while the sum of the three other components, V, + V" + V;y, stays
nearly constant (Winter and Nilson, 198 I). When the stirrups yield, LoAJ, remains constant
but V;y and V" falls off rapidly. It is conservatively assume that just prior to failure ofa web
reinforced beam

V" = V, + V" + V;y 3.2b

It is assumed that the inclined cracks are normally developed at 45°, then the horizontal
projection p will be equal to effective depth d of the beam. At failure when V,,, = Vo then

V + A,J,.d , ,
Vn cr J.J
S

This equation predicts very conservative strength than observed value. The observed value
is about 45% larger than the predicted value (Winter and Nilson, 1981).

39
 I
I
I
-1 s
II Vc
Cc

z
I I I
[- ~ -=--~ -1=- -1-=---1-_

Fig. 3.2 : Forces at diagonal crack in beam with vertical stirrups

Cc

Ts = Asfs

Fig. 3.3 : Forces at diagonal crack in beams with inclined web reinforcement

40
Beams with inclined web reinforcements: The functions of inclined web reinforcements
are very similar to vertical web reinforcements. Figure 3.3 indicates the forces acting on one
part of the inclined crack where the inclined crack length i = p/cosG is crossed by inclined
bars horizontally spaced a distance s apart. Therefore

s
a = 3.4
sin B( cotB + cot a)
Where, a = distance between the bars measured parallel to the direction of cracks
s = horizontal distance of the inclined bars
G = inclination of the crack
a = inclination of the bars
The number of bars crossing the cracks,
n = ila, after some transformation
n = pis (l + cota tanG)

The total vertical component of the forccs in all bars which cross the crack is, V, = nA,(
sina = A,( pis (sina + cosa tanG). It is assumed that at shear failure, the web reinforcement
reaches the yield point, the horizontal projection of the crack is the effective depth d and V,
+ Vd + V;y is equal to V". Therefore the ultimate strength when failure caused by shear is
obtained as
_ +AJyd(sina+cosa)
Vn - V,"' --------- 3.5
s
Equation (3.3) and (3.5) apply only if web reinforcement is so spaced that any conceivable
diagonal crack is traversed by at least one stirrup or inclined bar.

3.2.3 ACI Concept on the Shear Strength of Deep Beams

Behaviour of deep beams: According to ACI code for deep beams, flexural strength can be
predicted with sufficient accuracy using the same methods employed for beams of normal
proportions. The shear strength of deep beam may be as much as 2 or 3 times greater than
that predicted using expressions developed for normal members because a significant part of
the shear force is transferred directly from the load to supports by tied-arch action. The
ultimate strength of deep beams depends upon tied-arch action, in which the main steel is

41
fully stressed over nearly its entire length rather than only at the maximum moment section.

So special attention must be paid to the anchorage of such steel. When diagonal cracking

occurs, it will be at a slope steeper than 45' in most cases, consequently, while it is

important to include vertical stirrup, they are apt to be less effective than horizontal web

steel (Winter and Nilson, 1981). The horizontal bars are effective because they act more in

the direction perpendicular to the diagonal crack, thus improving the shear transfer by

aggregate interlock and dowel action.

ACI Code for deep beam

Special provision for shear in deep beams is provided for l./d ,.:;5

3.6

where $ = .85 for shear, and

v" = V, + V, 3.7

Regardless of the amount of reinforcement provided, the normal shear strength V" is not to

be taken greater than 8 ,Ir,bd when l./d is less than 2 and is not to be greater than

3.8

when l/d is between 2 and 5.

The critical section for shear is to be taken a distance 0.15 I" from the face of supports for

uniformly distributed loads and 0.5a for beams with concentrated loads, but not to exceed a

distance d from the support face in either case. Shear reinforcement required by calculation

or other code provisions at the critical section is to be used throughout the span. The

concrete contribution to the shear strength can be computed from

d
= (3.5 - 2.5 Mil )(1.9~f'c + 2500p" V" ) bd 3.9
V"d Mil

with the restrictions that the multiplier (3.5-2.5 M/V"d) must not exceed 2.5 and that V,

must not be taken greater than 6,1r,bd. M" and V" are the moment and shear force, at

factored loads, occurring simultaneously at the critical section. When the shear force V" at

factored loads exceeds the design shear strength of the concrete $ V" shear reinforcement

must be provided to carry the excess shear. The contribution of the web steel V, is to be

calculated from

42
 1 + I"d ] [ II -dI,,]]
v, = ~s 12
+ A,."
,,12.
f",d 3.10
[ [ 2

where A, = Area of the shear reinforcement perpendicular to the main flexural steel within a
distance s.
A,h = Area of the shcar reinforcement parallel to the main flexural steel within a distance s,.
Combining equations (3.6), (3.7) and (3.10) we got

~[I ~[II-i]
,,12
+ ;] +
", 12
= v" - rp V,
rpf"d
3 .11

The relative amounts of horizontal and vertical web steel that are used, based on equation
(3.11), may vary within the following restrictions: the area Av must not be less than 0.0015
b"s, and s must not exceed diS or 18 inch. The area A,h must not be less than 0.0025 b"s2'
and s, must not exceed d/3 or 18 inch. For design purposes, it is useful to note that the
coefficients in parenthesis in equation (3.11) are weighting factors for the relative
effectiveness of the vertical and horizontal web steel. It is seen that, for very deep beams
with small l/d, the horizontal steel A,h is dominantly effective, and the addition of vertical
web steel Av will have little effect in increasing strength (Winter and Nilson, 1981).

3.3 BS 8110 CONCEPT FOR SHEAR AND DIAGONAL TENSION

3.3.1 Sheur Behuviour ofBeums without Sheur Reinforcement

British Standards Institution Code (BS 8110, 1985) identified that the failure mode IS

strongly dependent on the shear span to depth ratio, aid as follows:

(a) aid> 6: Beams with such a high aid ratio usually fail in bending.
(b) 6> aid > 2.5: Beams with aid lower than about 6 tend to fail in shear. With reference
to Fig. 3Aa, as the force V is increased, the flexural crack a-b nearest the support would
propagate towards the loading point, gradually becoming an inclined crack, which is known
as a flexure-shear crack but which is often referred to simply as a diagonal crack (Fig. 3Aa:
crack a-b-c). With further increase of V, failure usually occurs in one of two modes. If the
aid ratio is relatively high, the diagonal crack would rapidly spread to e, resulting in

43
collapse by splitting the beam into two pieces. This mode of failure is often called diagonal-
tension failure; for such a failure mode, the ultimate load is sensibly the same as that at the
formation of the diagonal crack. If the aid ratio is relatively low, the diagonal crack tends to
stop somewhere at j (Fig. 3Aa); a number of random cracks may develop in the concrete
around the longitudinal tension reinforcement. As V is further increased, the diagonal crack
widens and propagates along the level of the tension reinforcement (Fig. 3Aa: crack g-h).
The increased shear force presses down the longitudinal steel and causes the destruction of
the bond between the concrete and the steel, usually leading to the splitting of the concrete
along g-h. If the longitudinal reinforcement is not hooked at the end, the destruction of bond
and the concrete splitting will cause immediate collapse. If hooks are provided, the beam
behaves like a two-hinge arch until the increasing force in the longitudinal reinforcement
destroys the concrete surrounding the hooks, whence collapse occurs. This failure mode is
often called shear-tension failure or shear-bond failure: again the ultimate load is not much
higher than the diagonal cracking load.

(c) 2.5 > aid > I: For aid lower than about 2.5 but greater than I, the diagonal crack
often forms independently and not as a development of a flexural crack (Fig. 3Ab) (Taylor,
1973). The beam usually remains stable after such cracking. Further increase in the force V
will cause the diagonal crack to penetrate into the concrete compression zone at the loading
point, until eventually crushing failure of the concrete occurs there, sometimes explosively.
This failure mode is usually called shear-compression failure; for this mode, the ultimate
load is sometimes more than twice that at diagonal cracking.

(d) aid < I: the behaviour of beams with such low aid ratio approaches that of deep
beams. The diagonal crack forms approximately along a line joining the loading and support
points (Fig. 3 Ac). It forms mainly as a result of the splitting action of the compression force
that is transmitted directly from the loading point to the support; it initiates frequently at
about d/3 above the bottom face of the beam. As the force V is increased, the diagonal crack
would propagate simultaneously towards the loading and support points. When the crack
has penetrated sufficiently deeply into the concrete zone at the loading point, or, more
frequently, at the support point, crushing failure of the concrete occurs. For a deep beam
failure mode, the ultimate load is often several times that at diagonal cracking.

44
 v <t
ay
I ay

d d

a
v 67ay/d>2.5 2.5>ay/d>1

v
ay/d<1

Fig. 3-4: Crack pattern for differenl shear span- 10- depth I ay/d) ratios

v
Fig. 3.5: Typical model of Truss Analogy

45
3.3.2 Shear Resistance of Web Reinforcement
The stresses in the shear reinforcement have been analysed by the truss analogy, illustrated
in Fig. 3.5, in which the web bars are assumed to form the tension members of an imaginary
truss, while the thrusts in the concrete constitute the compression members. The figure
shows a general case of links at a longitudinal spacing S,. The links and the concrete' struts'
are shown inclined at the general angles a and p, respectively, to the beam axis. To derive
design equations using the truss analysis, draw a line A-A in Fig. 3.5, parallel to the
concrete' struts'. Consider the vertical equilibrium of the free body to the left of the line A-
A. The web resistance V, is contributed by the vertical components of the tension AJyv in
the individual links that are crossed by A-A:
V, = AJyv sin a (Number of links crossed by A-A)

V, = AJy,.(cosa + smacotp . {d-.-s,.-d'J 3.12a

where Av is the area of both legs of each link and fyv is the characteristic strength of the
links.
In the particular case of vertical links, a =90" and Eqn. (3.12a) becomes

V, = A,Jy,. (d-- -d'J

S,.
cot P

V, '" A,Jy,.(~JcotP 3.12b

.S I'

Tests (ACI-ASCE Committee 426, 1973) have led to the recommendation that p in Eqn.
(3.12b) could be taken as 45°, so that

d
V, = A,J,,- 3.12c
Sl'

It is well known that, V, = V-V,; and if we write V = vbd and V, = v,bd, the above equation
for vertical links becomes

A,.f,.,.
v-v , = -- 3.12d
bs,.
When the web reinforcement consists of a system of bent-up bars, it would be reasonable to
use Eqn. (3. 12a).
It should be noted once again that the truss analogy is no more than a design tool; though
conceptually convenient, it presents an over simplified model of the reinforced concrete
beam in shear (ACI-ASCE Committee 426, 1973). The truss analogy model completely

46
Ignores the favourable interaction between the web reinforcement and the aggregate-
interlock capacity and the dowel force capacity; to this extent it tends to give conservative
results, though the conservatism reduces as the amount of web steel increases. The truss
analogy also assumes that the failure of the beam is initiated by the yielding or excessive
deformation of the web reinforcement, but in very thin webbed reinforced or prestressed
concrete beams (e.g. T-beams), failure may in fact be initiated by web crushing; in such a
case the truss analogy would give unsafe results. The above account of shear behaviour,
together with that of beams without web reinforcement, may be amplified by the following
summary statements:

(a) For a beam without web reinforcement, for a given concrete strength (" and the
longitudinal steel ratio Pw' a safe lower bound value can be assigned to the nominal shear
stress at collapse. Designating this nominal shear stress as v" a safe estimate of the ultimate
shear strength of a beam without web reinforcement would be V, = v,bd.
(b) Where web reinforcement is used, it remains practically unstressed until diagonal
cracking occurs, at which instant those web bars that intercept the diagonal crack will
receive a sudden increase in stress (Evans and Kong, 1967). If the amount of web steel is
too small, the sudden stress increase may cause the instant yielding of the web bars. In that
case the author suggested that pJ" should not be less than 0.38 N/mm'. So rounding up

pJ" (minimum) ~ 0.4 N/mm'

(c) Web reinforcement may confidently be assumed to be effective, only if every potential
diagonal crack is intercepted by at least one web bar. This is to be possible if the spacing of
vertical links must not exceed.

S" ",,, (vertical links) = d

More precisely taking 75 % of this value for design
S" <n" (vertical links) = 0.75d
For bent-up bars (or inclined links),
S,.",,, (bent-up bars) = (cota. + cot~)d
But both a. and ~ should not be less than 45°, so that
S" ",,, (bent-up bars) = 2d
Again, taking 75% of this value for design,

47
 S" m" (bent-up bars) = 1.5d

(d) When p, and s, satisfy the requirements in (b) and (c) above, the capacity of the web
reinforcement may for design purposes be estimated by the truss analogy. The truss analogy
assumes that the web steel can reach its yield stress before other failure modes occur, e.g.
web crushing or compression zone failure.

(e) For a beam with web reinforcement, the shear resistance may be regarded as V = V, +
V" where V, may conservatively be obtained from test results for beams without web
reinforcement.

(I) The truss analogy does not differentiate between links and bent-up bars. When they are
used in combination, the analogy gives their shear capacity as the sum of their capacities
when used separately. The effects oflinks and bent-up bars used in combination are actually
more than additive (Evans and Kong, 1967). Bent-up bars are more effective than links in
restricting the widening of the diagonal crack; but links can perform the important function
of preventing the pressing down of the longitudinal reinforcement and hence maintain the
dowel capacity.

3.3.3 British Standards Institution Code for the Design of Shear Strength
BS 8110's design procedure is based on the principles explained in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.
The procedure is summarised below:

Step I: The design shear stress, v = V/bd, where V = the ultimate shear force; b = the
beam width; and d = the effective depth of the beam.

Step 2: v> O,8--/f"or 5 N/mm'

If v of Step I exceeds O,8--/f",or 5 N/mm', whichever is less, the product bd must be
increased to reduce v to the limit.

Step 3: v < 0.5 v,

Compare the design shear stress v with the design concrete shear stress v, in Table 3.1, If v

< 0.5 v" then

48
(a) No shear reinforcement is required for members of minor structural importance, such as
lintels.
(b) For all other structural members, provide minimum links, which

Table 3.1 Design concrete shear stress v, for f", <: 40 N/mm'
Effective depth d (mm)
100As/bd 150 175 200 225 250 300 ;'400
,,0.15 0.50 0.48 0.47 0.45 0.44 0.42 0.40
0.25 0.60 0.57 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.50 0.47
0.50 0.75 0.73 0.70 0.68 0.65 0.63 0.59
0.75 0.85 0.83 0.80 0.77 0.76 0.72 0.67
1.00 0.95 0.91 0.88 0.85 0.83 0.80 0.74
1.50 1.08 1.04 1.0l 0.97 0.95 0.91 0.84
2.00 1.19 1.15 1.11 1.08 1.04 1.01 0.94
>3.00 1.36 1.31 1.27 1.23 1.19 1.15 1.07

are defined as shear links that will provide a shear resistance of 0.4 N/mm', i.e.

. I k) O.4bs,.
AI' (min. in ~. ~ --- 3.13
0.87 iy

and in the direction of the span, the link spacing s, should not exceed 0.75d.

Step 4: 0.5 v, S;; v S;; (v, + 0.4)

Ifv is between 0.5v, and (v, + 0.4), provide minimum links as defined by Eqn. (3.13) for the
whole length of the beam.

Step 5: (v, + 0.4) < v

Ifv exceeds v, + 0.4 provide links as follows:

(v-vJbs,.
AI' ~ ---- 3.14
0.87 iv"
Step 6:Anchorage of links
(a) A link should pass round another bar of at least its own size, through an angle of 90°, and
continue for a length of at least eight times its own size: or
(b) It should pass round another bar of at least its own size, through an angle of 180°, and
continue for a length of at least four times its own size.

49
3.4 CIRIA GUIDE FOR THE DESIGN OF SHEAR STRENGTH OF
DEEP BEAMS

The CIRIA Guide (1977) applies to beams having an effective span/depth ratio lIh of less
than 2 for single-span beams and less than 2.5 for continuous beams. The CIRIA Guide was
intended to be used in conjunction with the British Code CP II 0: 1972; however the authors
have done some comparative calculations (Kong et a!., 1986) and believed that the CIRIA
Guide could safely be used with BS811 0: 1985. The guide defines the effective span 1 and
the active height h, (Fig. 3.6) as follows.
1 = 10 + lesser of (c,l2 and 0.1 10) + lesser of (c,l2 and 0.1 10)
h, = h or 1 whichever is the lesser
The CIRIA Guide considers that the active height h, of a deep beam is limited to a depth
equal to the span; that part of the beam above this height is taken merely as a load bearing
wall between supports.

3.4.1 CIRIA Guide 'Simple Rules'

CIRIA's 'Simple Rules' are intended primarily for uniformly loaded deep beams. They can
be applied to both single-span and continuous beams.

Flexural strength:
Step I: Calculate the capacity of the concrete section.
Mu = 0.12J;"bh,' 3.15
Where, f", = concrete characteristic strength, and b = beam thickness.

Step 2: If IIh, :0; 1.5, go to step 3. If IIh,> 1.5 check that the applied moment M does not
exceed M" of Eqn. (3.15).
Step 3: Calculate the area A, of the main longitudinal reinforcement:
A, > M/0.87j,z 3.16
Where M = applied moment, f, = the steel characteristic strength, and z = lever arm, which
is to be taken as follows:
z = 0.2 1 + 0.4 h" for single span beams
z = 0.2 1 + 0.3 h" for continuous beams

50
 h

effeclive span I

clear s an I.

Fig. 3.6: CIRIA Guide 2 - meanings of symbols clo c2.h. I and ,•

•

x
oncenlraled top load
(Clear shear span)
Y
I
I
:& /
'iii
..c
/
Eha Yr I
o
Q) I Nolienal shear
.0
C.
I splilling line
~ /
"'0

.~
~ Typical bar crossing
:::
Q)
I Y.Y, Area Ar

~
Y

Fig. 3.7: CIRIA Guide 2-meanings of symbols Ar, ha, x, Yr, er and V

51
Step 4: Distribute the reinforcement A, (Eqn. 3.16) over a depth of 0.2 h,. Anchor the
reinforcement bars to develop at least 80% of the maximum ultimate force beyond the face
of the support. A proper anchorage contribute to the confinement of the concrete at the
supports and improves the bearing strength.

Shear Strength of Top Loaded Beams

The proven concept of the clear shear span x, as used by Kong et al. (1975) has been
adopted by the CrRlA Guide. The CrRIA Guide has also accepted the Kong et al (1975)
proposal that, for uniformly distributed loading, the effective clear shear span x, may be
taken as 1/4. The different steps, for the design of shear strength, are:

Step 1: With reference to figure 3.7, calculate the effective clear shear span x" which is to
be taken as the least of:
1. The clear shear span for a load which contributes more than 50% of the total shear
force at the support.
ll. 1/4 for a load uniformly distributed over the whole span.
lll. The weighted average of the clear shear spans where more than one load acts and
none contributes more than 50% of the shear force at the support. The weighted
average will be calculated as L(V,x,)1 LV" where LV, = V is the total shear force at
the face of the support, V, = an individual shear force and x, = clear shear span of V,.

Step 2: Calculate the shear capacity V" to be taken as the value given by Eqns. (3.17) and
(3.18)
V" = 2bh,'v/x, for h,1b < 4 3.l7a
V" = 1.2bh,'v/x, for hib 2: 4 3.17b
V,,= bh,v" 3.18
Where, v" is the maximum shear stress taken from Table 6 of CPllO (1972) for normal
weight concrete and Table 26 for lightweight concrete (and also BS 8110: part I: clause
3.4.5.2 and part 2: clause 5.4) and v, is the shear stress value taken from Table 5 of CPII 0
(1972) for normal weight concrete and Table 25 for lightweight concrete (and also BS 81 10:
part I: clause 3.4.5.4 and part 2: clause 5.4).

Step 3: Check that the applied shear force V does not exceed the shear capacity V"

52
calculated in step 2.

Step 4: provide nominal web reinforcement in the form of a rectangular mesh in each face.
The amount of this nominal reinforcement should not be less than that required for a wall by
clauses 3.11 and 5.5 of CPII 0 (1972); this in effect means at least 0.25% of defonned bars
in each direction (BS 8110: part I: clauses 3.12.5.3 and 3.12.11.2.9). The vertical bars
should be anchored round the main bars at the bottom. The horizontal bars should be
anchored as links round vertical bars at the edges of the beam. The maximum bar spacing
should not exceed 250 mm. In a tension zone, the steel ratio p, calculated as the ratio of the
total steel area to the local area of the concrete in which it is embedded, should satisfy the
condition, p > (0.52"1f,,,)/(0.87fy)' The maximum crack width should not be allowed to
exceed 0.3 mm in a normal environment; in a more aggressive environment, the maximum
crack width may have to be limited to 0.1 mm. To control maximum crack widths to within
0.3 and 0.1 mm, bar spacing should not exceed those given in Tables 2 and 3 respectively of
the CIRIA Guide.

3.4.2 CIRIA Guide 'Supplementary Rules'

CIRIA's 'Supplementary Rules' cover aspects of the design of deep beams which are
outside the scope of the 'Simple Rules" and are to be used in conjunction with the latter.
The 'Supplementary Rules' cover concentrated loading, indirect loading and indirect
supports.

Flexural strength: The 'Simple Rules' as previously discussed can be used without
modification.

Shear Strength of Top Loaded Beams:

Step I: If the beam is under uniformly distributed loading, go to step 3 or else use the more
conservative' Simple Rules'.
Step 2: If the beam is under concentrated loading, go to step 3.
Step 3: Check the applied shear force V does not exceed the limit imposed by Eqn (3.18a);
for a beam with a system of orthogonal web reinforcement. Eqn. (3.19a) can be expressed in
the more convenient form of Eqn. (3.19b). Eqns (3.18a) and (3.18b) apply over the range

53
0.23-0.70 for x/h. In using these equations, ignore any web reinforcement which is above
the active height h,.

-
v < A[I-0.35~] rr +A 'L.",IOOA,y,sin' {;I, 3. I 9a
\ h "\jim bh'
bh" u u

Where, A\ is 0.44 for normal weight concrete and 0.32 for light weight concrete, A, is 1.95
N/mm' for deformed bars and 0.85 N/mm' for plain bars, b is the beam thickness, h, is the
active height of the beam, A, is the area of a typical web bar (for the purpose of Eqn.
(3.19a), the main longitudinal bars are considered also to be web bars), y, is the depth at
which the typical web bar intersects the critical diagonal crack, which is represented by the
line Y-Y in Fig. 3.7. 8, is the angle between the bar being considered and the line Y-Y in
Fig. 3.7 (8, :s; n/2) and x, is the effective clear shear span. On the right hand side of Eqn.
(3.19a) the term A\[l -0.35x/h,]~" is the concrete contribution to the shear capacity. It is
clear that this quantity can be tabulated from various values of x/h, and /0". The term
A,L(lOOA,y, sin'8/bh,') is the steel contribution to the shear capacity; for a beam with
orthogonal web reinforcement. It can also be tabulated for various steel ratios and x/h,
ratios. In other words, for a beam with orthogonal web reinforcement, Eqn. (3.19a) can be
expressed as Eqn. (3 .19b), which is more convenient to use in design.

v 3.19b
bh"
Where vx is the concrete shear stress parameter, as tabulated in Table 4 of the CIRIA Guide
for various values of /0" and x/h, ratio; p is 1.0 for deformed bars and 0.4 for plain round
bars; von,is the main steel shear stress parameter, for various values of the main steel ratio
and x/h, ratio; Vwh is the horizontal web steel shear stress parameter, for various values of
the horizontal web steel ratio and x/h, ratio; v~ is the vertical web steel shear stress
parameter, for various values of the vertical web steel ratio and x/h, ratio as tabulated in
Table 6, 7, and 8 respectively of the CIRIA Guide.

Step 4: From the calculation in step 3, check the total contribution of the (main and web)
reinforcement to the shear capacity. If this is less than 0.2V, increase the web reinforcement
to bring the total steel contribution up to at lcast 0.2V.

54
Step 5: Check the applied shear force V is less than the shear capacity of the concrete
section:
3.20

3.5 KOTSOVOS DESIGN METHOD FOR DEEP REINFORCED

CONCRETE BEAMS

3.5.1 Modelling
The recently developed concept, "Compressive Force Path (CFP)" may be introduced in
structural concrete design by developing physical models of structural concrete members, at
their ultimate limit state, compatible with the concept. For the case of a simply supported
RC beam without web reinforcement, such a model may take the form of a "comb-like"
structure tied by the tension reinforcement, as indicated in Fig. 3.8 (Kotsovos and
Bobrowski, 1993). The authors shown that the "comb" comprises a frame with inclined legs,
providing a simplified yet realistic representation of the compressive force path, and a
number of "teeth" representing the concrete cantilevers that form between consecutive
flexural or inclined cracks. The horizontal distance 'a' of the joint of the horizontal and
inclined members of the frame from the support is dependent on the beam slenderness and
type of loading, as indicated also in Fig. 3.8, while the cross section of the model is that of
the actual beam.

Figure 3.9 shows two such simplified compressive force paths for the case of a deep beam
subjected to single and two-point loading, respectively. The CFP for a two-point loading
may also be valid for the case of a uniform loading if the equivalent two-point load is
applied at the third points. The stress 'flow' is considered to have a rectangular cross-section
with a width equal to the beam width. The depth of the horizontal portion of the stress. flow'
of the path may be assessed such that the compressive force equals the force sustained by
the tensile reinforcement. The inclined stress "flow" of the path is symmetrical with respect
to the line connecting the intersection of the directions of the applied load and the horizontal
path of the compressive force, with the intersection of the directions of the reaction and the
tensile reinforcement. Figure 3.10 shows the simplified compressive force path for two span
beam subjected to two point loading.

ss
 a
+

,I
tension reinforcement concrete tooth

Type of loading

a=2d for ay Id:>2

a=cv for ayl d ~ 2

a=2d for Lid >6

0= Ll3 for LId ~6
L
+

Fig. 3.8: Proposed model for simply supported reinforced concrete beam

a a
t

--- c

(0 ) ( b)

Fig. 3.9 Proposed model for deep beams under( a) Single-paint (b) Two'point
andlor for uniform loading

56
 a

Fig 3'10: Proposed model for continuous reinforced deep beams'

(b) Mc/Mt

1.0
IV
( c) n
0.5

(d) 4 8 12 16 LId
0
I
2
I
4 6
I
8 ••avId

Fig 3.11: Typical types of behaviour exhibited by RC beams without shear

reinforcement

57
3.5.2 Design Method
To implement the preceding model in design, it is essential to complement it with a failure
criterion, capable of yielding close predictions of the load-carrying capacity of a RC beam.
Such a criterion may take the form of the well-established relationship between the strength
of an RC beam (expressed as the moment corresponding to the failure load) and the shear
span lly or span-to-depth (Lid) ratio, as depicted by the curved of Fig. 3.11. The figure
indicates that the curve is divided essential into four portions each one corresponding to a
particular type of beam behaviour characterised by a particular mode of failure. It may also
be interesting to note that, while the horizontal portions of the curve describe the ultimate
moment of resistance of a section in pure bending, the inclined portions essentially reflect
the effect of the shear force on the maximum moment that can be sustained by the section. It
should be noted that, although the curve in Fig. 3.11 implies that for aid :0; 1 (Lid :0; 2), the
beam exhibits a flexural mode of failure, this, in fact, may not always be true. Failure may
occur within the shear span and be brittle in nature under a failure load corresponding to a
maximum bending moment which is not usually significantly different from flexural
capacity Mr. To prevent such failure, the legs of the frame may be designed as follows (Fig.
3.12):

(I) Moment equilibrium Cz = Pa, which yields x

(2) Horizontal force equilibrium T = C, which yield A,
where, 0', = 0.8f,,1 = 0.64f",
(3) Check whether al3 satisfies vertical force equilibrium C~ sin~ = P; If not, adjust b
and repeat.
Mr = T'z = C'z, Where C = bxO'" and T = A,fy
f'yl = Cylinder concrete strength.
f", = Cube concrete strength.
fy = Steel characteristic strength.
The author suggested that if the inclined concrete strut can not carry the total compressive
force and the width of the beam could not be increase to improve the strut capacity, then the
strut may be design as a column (Fig. 3.13) to sustain this loads.

An analytical expression of the inclined portion of the curve (Fig. 3.11) for ajd ~ 2 (Lid ~
4.0) has been proposed by Kotsovos and Bobrowski (J 993) as follows:

58
 a p

C =bxfc
x/2

Z=d-~

T= Asfy

Fig 3.12: Design procedure of Types iv behaviour

Fig. 3.13 Schematic representation of members of proposed model design as

column

59
M,. = 0.875Sd[0.342b + 0.3 M: ~) V16.66 3.21
d f; Pw/,

where s is the distance of the critical cross-section from the support (mm) shear span for
two-point loading; s = 2d for unifonnly distributed loading (all parameters refer to the
critical cross section).
M, = the moment corresponding to failure load (N-mm)
Mr = the flexural capacity (N-mm)
d = the effective depth (mm)
z = the lever arm of the horizontal internal actions (mm)
Pw = tension steel ratio
fy = the characteristic strength of the tension steel (N/mm2)
b = the effective width (mm)

The portion of the curve for I < ajd < 2 (2< Lid < 4) can be defined by linear interpolation
between the values, of M, = Mf for ajd = I (Lid = 2) and M, as obtained form Eqn. (3.21)
for ajd = 2 (Lid = 4). In this case the critical section will coincide with the section through
the joint of the horizontal and inclined members of the frame.

The use of the preceding failure criterion in design will involve (a) designing the horizontal
member of the frame to be capable of sustaining a compressive force C such that C = T =
M/z (Fig. 3.12); and (b) checking whether the applied moment (M,) applied at the critical
cross section is larger or smaller than M,. If M, S; M" only nominal web reinforcement
would be required similar to that specified by current codes of practice, whereas if M,> M"
web reinforcement should be designed in accordance with the requirements (Kotsovos and
Bobrowski, 1993) described as follows:

Web reinforcement
In compliance with the concept of the compressive force path, failure of the model should
occur due to failure of either the horizontal or inclined members of the frame or the joint of
these members. When such failure occurs under a load level lower than that corresponding
to the flexural capacity of an under-reinforced concrete beam, it will be brittle in nature and,
therefore, should be prevented. However, there cannot be a single method for preventing

60
brittle failure since as Fig. 3.11 indicates, there are a number of different types of failure
characterising beam behaviour.

For a ,.; d, the model essentially represents a deep beam, and brittle failure is associated with
failure of the inclined leg of the frame. It has been suggested that the most effective way to
prevent such failure is by adjusting the cross-sectional area of the beam to satisfy condition
(3) of Fig. 3.12 and providing nominal web reinforcement such as that specified in current
practice for deep beam design. Designing web reinforcement in compliance with current
design methods should not be relied upon to safeguard against brittle failure since there has
been experimental evidence (Kotsovos and Bobrowski, 1993) that shown that the presence
of such reinforcement has an insignificant effect on load-carrying capacity. On the other
hand, the provision of nominal reinforcement is essential, since it practically eliminates the
possibility of instability caused by unforeseen out of plane actions.

For d < a < 2d, brittle failure is associated with failure of the horizontal member of the
frame in the region of the join!. The penetration of the inclined crack deeply into the
compressive zone reduces the zone cross-sectional area and thus leads to a reduction of both
the load carrying capacity of the zone as well as the moment that can be sustained by the
model section. Failure can be prevented by increasing the section moment of resistance to
the level of the applied bending moment through the provision of web reinforcement in the
form of stirrups uniformly distributed throughout the portion of the model between the
support and the joint of the frame member. Such reinforcement should be designed such that
at yield, it would be capable of sustaining a total tensile force T" = AJ,,, applying halfway
between the support and the joint, the contribution of which to the moment capacity of the
critical section s is M" = T"a!2 = M, - M,. Hence, the total amount of stirrups required to
provide the critical section with a moment of resistance larger than, or equal to, the applied
moment will be

A,. 2: T". = 2(M,,-M,) 3.22

!Y'. a!y,.
For a 2: 2d, the most likely cause of brittle failure of the model is the tensile force V, that
develops in the region of the joint to balance the action of the resultant of the compressive
force acting on the joint in the direction of the frame members (Fig. 3.11 b). A measure of
the tensile force that can be resisted by concrete alone in this region is given by

61
 Me
= - 3.23
s
Where M, and s are as defined by Eqn. (3.21).
To prevent brittle failure of the joint, stirrups should be provided to sustain the force (V, -
V J. The presence of such reinforcement will slightly modify the "comb. like" model as
indicated in Fig. 3.14. The figure provides a schematic representation of the additional
internal actions developing in the region of the joint and indicates that the stirrups not only
sustain the action of the vertical component (V=V ,-V,) of the compressive force resultant,
but also subject the shaded concrete block, where it is anchored, to a compressive force D.
This force balance the shear force V acting at the right hand side of the preceding block. It
should be noted that the stirrups will be activated only when the capacity of concrete to
sustain alone the action of the internal tensile force is attained. When this occurs, the excess
tensile force will be sustained by the stirrups with a cross-sectional area equal to

(V" - Ve)
A,. = 3.24
fy,'
Placed over the length d of the shaded portion of the block in Fig. 3.14. It has been found
that the inclined and horizontal members of the concrete frame are capable of sustaining the
internal actions which develop for equilibrium purposes as indicated in Fig. 3.14, and
therefore, it will be sufficient to provide nominal web reinforcement outside the shaded
block to comply with current codes of practice. It should be noted that, if the beam is
subjected to point loads, stirrups may also be required within the horizontal member of the
frame of the model in the region of the point load. The need for such reinforcement arise
due to the development of tensile stresses within this region, which occurs when the tension
reinforcement is debonded form the concrete in the vicinity of the section including the load
point.

62
 v
~)
v

(1

v
~)v

ct [) [J

actions on portion I

.•.. --- --
+
n Tsv

actions on portion n

Fig 3'14: Additional internal actirns developing due to presence of transverse

reinforcement in region where path changes direction for Type II
behaviour

63
 CHAPTER FOUR
STUDY OF A V AILABLE TEST RESULTS ON DEEP BEAMS

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Shear is an important consideration in the design of a beam. Shear strengths greatly depend on
concrete strength, aggregates size, rouglmess, angularity, etc. But with the same parameters
and with same concrete strength, it has been found that the shear strength is different (Pavia
and Siess, 1965). As previously discussed, researchers have claimed that shear strength
depends on aggregate interlock, the portion of uncracked zone, dowel action of main
longitudinal steel, amount and arrangement of web steel, etc. Two-dimensional elasticity,
finite element method, photoelasticity, Fourier series analysis have confirmed that the shear
has a very diffIcult deformation response on the beam behaviour (Chow et aI., 1953). The
recent studies also confirm that the usual hypothesis, that the plane sections before bending
remains plane after bending, does not hold for the element where strength is controlled by
shear (Pavia and Siess, 1965). In slender beam, strength is mainly controlled by flexure, failed
with definite mechanism and the strength does not significantly vary in the beams of same
parameters. So design procedure of nonnal slender beam is more or less same throughout the
world. Shear strength varies significantly with same parameters. So the design procedures for
shear are different throughout the nations of the world. There is a gradual transition of shear
behaviour from slender beam to deep beam. In deep beams, strength is controlled by shear and
their shear strength may be as much as 2 or 3 times greater than that predicted using
expressions developed for normal beams, because of a special capacity to redistribute internal
forces before failure and to develop mechanisms offorce transfer which is quite different from
slender beam. Significant warping of cross-sections occurs because of high shear stress. It has
been found from Mhor's stress analysis that maximum shear stresses develop at an angle of 45°
with horizontal. So shear crack is assumed to form at an angle of 45°. So for beam with aid :$

1.0, the crack line directly intersects with the support; there is a direct transfer of load to the
support through a compression strut which would fornl by two separate parallel cracks steeper
than 45° and this strut acts as a compression member like column. So strength of deep beanl
depends on compressive strength of concrete. Deep beam would fail due to failure of this
compression strut. For aid > 1.0, there is a gradual transition of deep beam to slender beam, so
in this range it may be seen that the beam either fail in shear or in flexure (Kotsovos and Lefas,
1990). A large number of research papers and design methods are available in this field as
referred. Some of them were analysed in the following sections.

64
4.2 AVILABLE DATA FOR THE BEAMS TESTED BY PREVIOUS RESEARCHERS
Data available from various research materials have been tabulated in Tables 4.2.1 - 4.2.7.
Various parameters have been explained in notation.

Table 4.2.1 Parameters of Beams tested by Smith & Vantsiotis. Source: from Mall and HSll (1987, 1989
[Jearn L" 11 d b a c x i'w i'h i', Jy J h J, j',
Mark mm mm mm mm mm mm mm N/mm
2 2
N/mm" N/nu11 N/mm 2

IAI-IO 711.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 304.8 101.6 203.2 0.0194 0.0023 0.0028 430.9 437.3 437.3 18.7
IA3-11 711.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 304.8 101.6 203.2 0.0194 0.0045 0.0028 430.9 437.3 437.3 18.0
IM-12 711.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 304.8 101.6 203.2 0.0194 0.0068 0.0028 430.9 437.3 437.3 16.1
1M-51 711.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 304.8 101.6 203.2 0.0194 0.0068 0.0028 430.9 437.3 437.3 20.5
1A6-37 711.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 304.8 101.6 203.2 0.0194 0.0091 0.0028 430.9 437.3 437.3 21.0
2AI-38 711.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 304.8 101.6 203.2 0.0194 0.0023 0.0063 430.9 437.3 437.3 21.7
2A3-39 711.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 304.8 101.6 203.2 0.0194 0.0045 0.0063 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.8
2M-40 711.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 304.8 101.6 203.2 0.0194 0.0068 0.0063 430.9 437.3 437.3 20.3
2A6-61 711.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 304.8 101.6 203.2 0.0194 0.0091 0.0063 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.1
3A 1-42 711.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 304.8 101.6 203.2 0.0194 0.0023 0.0125 430.9 437.3 437.3 18.4
3A3-43 711.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 304.8 101.6 203.2 0.0194 0.0045 0.0125 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.2
3M-45 711.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 304.8 101.6 203.2 0.0194 0.0068 0.0125 430.9 437.3 437.3 20.8
3A6-46 711.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 304.8 101.6 203.2 0.0194 0.0091 0.0125 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.9
181-04 838.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 368.3 101.6 266.7 0.0194 0.0023 0.0024 430.9 437.3 437.3 22.1
183-29 838.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 368.3 101.6 266.7 0.0194 0.0045 0.0024 430.9 437.3 437.3 20.1
184-40 838.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 368.3 101.6 266.7 0.0194 0.0068 0.0024 430.9 437.3 437.3 20.8
1136-31 838.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 368.3 101.6 266.7 0.0194 0.0091 0.0024 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.5
2B 1-05 838.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 368.3 101.6 266.7 0.0194 0.0023 0.0042 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.2
2133-06 838.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 368.3 101.6 266.7 0.0194 0.0045 0.0042 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.0
2B4-07 838.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 368.3 101.6 266.7 0.0194 0.0068 0.0042 430.9 437.3 437.3 17.5
284-52 838.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 368.3 101.6 266.7 0.0194 0.0068 0.0042 430.9 437.3 437.3 21.8
2B6-32 838.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 368.3 101.6 266.7 0.0194 0.0091 0.0042 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.8
3B 1-08 838.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 368.3 101.6 266.7 0.0194 0.0023 0.0063 430.9 437.3 437.3 16.2
381-36 838.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 368.3 101.6 266.7 0.0194 0.0023 0.0077 430.9 437.3 437.3 20.4
3133-33 838.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 368.3 101.6 266.7 0.0194 0.0045 0.0077 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.0
3B4-34 838.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 368.3 101.6 266.7 0.0194 0.0068 0.0077 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.2
3B6-35 838.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 368.3 101.6 266.7 0.0194 0.0091 0.0077 430.9 437.3 437.3 20.6
4B 1-09 838.2 355.6 304.8 101.6 368.3 101.6 266.7 0.0194 0.0023 0.0125 430.9 437.3 437.3 17.1
ICI-14 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0023 0.0018 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.2
IC3-02 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0045 0.0018 430.9 437.3 437.3 21.9
1C4-15 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0068 0.0018 430.9 437.3 437.3 22.7
IC6-16 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0091 0.0018 430.9 437.3 437.3 21.8
2CI-17 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0023 0.0031 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.9
2C3-03 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0045 0.0031 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.2
2C3-27 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0045 0.0031 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.3
2C4-18 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0068 0.0031 430.9 437.3 437.3 20.4
2C6-19 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0091 0.0031 430.9 437.3 437.3 20.8
3CI-20 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0023 0.0056 430.9 437.3 437.3 21.0
3C3-21 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0045 0.0056 430.9 437.3 437.3 16.5
3C4-22 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0068 0.0056 430.9 437.3 437.3 18.3
3C6-23 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0091 0.0056 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.0
4CI-24 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0023 0.0077 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.6
4C3-04 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0045 0.0063 430.9 437.3 437.3 18.5
4C3-28 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0045 0.0077 430.9 437.3 437.3 19.2
4C4-25 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0068 0.0077 430.9 437.3 437.3 18.5
4C6-26 1016.0 355.6 304.8 101.6 457.2 101.6 355.6 0.0194 0.0091 0.0077 430.9 437.3 437.3 21.2

65
Table 4.2.2 Parameters of Beams tested by Kong, Robins and Cole (1970)

Ileam L" 11 d b a c x r" 1 h l' , j y j h j, j,

Mark mill mm mm mm mm 111m mm N/mm N/mm N/mm 2
NJmm1
1-30 685.8 762 723.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0052 0.0000 0.0245 286.8 0.0 279.9 21.5
2-30 685.8 762 723.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0052 0.0000 0.0086 286.8 0.0 303.4 19.2
3-30 685.8 762 723.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0052 0.0245 0.0000 286.8 279.9 0.0 22.5
4-30 685.8 762 723.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0052 0.0086 0.0000 286.8 303.4 0.0 22.0
5-30 685.8 762 723.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0052 0.0061 0.0061 286.8 279.9 279.9 18.5
6-30 685.8 762 723.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0052 0.0051 0.0000 286.8 303.4 0.0 26.1
7-30A 685.8 762 723.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0052 0.0000 0.0000 286.8 0.0 0.0 25.1
7-308 685.8 762 723.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0052 0.0017 0.0000 286.8 303.4 0.0 26.1
7-30C 685.8 762 723.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0052 0.0034 0.0000 286.8 303.4 0.0 25.1
7-30D 685.8 762 723.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0052 0.0068 0.0000 286.8 303.4 0.0 21.3
7-30E 685.8 762 723.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0052 0.0085 0.0000 286.8 303.4 0.0 21.3
1-25 685.8 635 596.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0063 0.0000 0.0245 286.8 0.0 279.9 24.5
2-25 685.8 635 596.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0063 0.0000 0.0086 286.8 0.0 303.4 18.6
3-25 685.8 635 596.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0063 0.0245 0.0000 286.8 279.9 0.0 21.0
4-25 685.8 635 596.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.3 0.0063 0.0086 0.0000 286.8 303.4 0.0 21.0
5-25 685.8 635 596.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0063 0.0061 0.0061 286.8 279.9 279.9 19.2
6-25 685.8 635 596.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0063 0.0061 0.0000 286.8 303.4 0.0 25.1
1-20 685.8 508 469.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0080 0.0000 0.0245 286.8 0.0 279.9 21.2
2-20 685.8 508 469.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0080 0.0000 0.0086 286.8 0.0 303.4 19.9
3-20 685.8 508 469.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0080 0.0245 0.0000 286.8 279.9 0.0 19.2
4-20 685.8 508 469.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0080 0.0086 0.0000 286.8 303.4 0.0 20.1
5-20 685.8 508 469.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0080 0.0061 0.0061 286.8 279.9 279.9 20.1
6-20 685.8 508 469.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0080 0.0077 0.0000 286.8 303.4 0.0 26.1
1-15 685.8 381 342.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0109 0.0000 0.0245 286.8 0.0 279.9 21.2
2-15 685.8 381 342.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0109 0.0000 0.0086 286.8 0.0 303.4 22.8
3-15 685.8 381 342.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0109 0.0245 0.0000 286.8 279.9 0.0 21.9
4-15 685.8 381 342.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0109 0.0086 0.0000 286.8 303.4 0.0 22.0
5-15 685.8 381 342.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0109 0.0061 0.0061 286.8 279.9 279.9 21.9
6-15 685.8 381 342.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0109 0.0102 0.0000 286.8 303.4 0.0 26.1
1-10 685.8 254 215.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0173 0.0000 0.0245 286.8 0.0 279.9 21.6
2-10 685.8 254 215.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0173 0.0000 0.0086 286.8 0.0 303.4 20.1
3-10 685.8 254 215.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0173 0.0245 0.0000 286.8 279.9 0.0 22.6
4-10 685.8 254 215.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0173 0.0086 0.0000 286.8 303.4 0.0 22.6
5-10 685.8 254 215.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0173 0.0061 0.0061 286.8 279.9 279.9 22.5
6-10 685.8 254 215.9 76.2 254 76.2 177.8 0.0173 0.0153 0.0000 286.8 303.4 0.0 25.1

Table 4.2.3 Parameters of Beams tested by Manuel, Slight and Suter (1971)

tlcam L" n d b a c x 1'" ]. h 1', jy j h j, j,

Mark 111m mill mm mm ITIm mm mm N/mm N/mm N/mm2 N/mm
,

8M1 330.2 457.2 406.4 101.6 121.9 76.2 45.7 0.0097 0 0 409.6 0 0 33.8
8M2 533.4 457.2 406.4 101.6 121.9 76.2 45.7 0.0097 0 0 409.6 0 0 35.2
8M3 736.6 457.2 406.4 101.6 121.9 76.2 45.7 0.0097 0 0 391.6 0 0 30.1
BM4 939.8 457.2 406.4 101.6 121.9 76.2 45.7 0.0097 0 0 409.6 0 0 31.9
BM5 736.6 457.2 406.4 101.6 264.2 76.2 188.0 0.0097 0 0 409.6 0 0 34.3
BM6 939.8 457.2 406.4 101.6 264.2 76.2 188.0 0.0097 0 0 409.6 0 0 37.4
BM7 1143.0 457.2 406.4 101.6 264.2 76.2 188.0 0.0097 0 0 409.6 0 0 32.0
BM8 1346.2 457.2 406.4 101.6 264.2 76.2 188.0 0.0097 0 0 409.6 0 0 38.9
BM9 939.8 457.2 406.4 101.6 406.4 76.2 330.2 0.0097 0 0 409.6 0 0 37.6
8MI0 1143.0 457.2 406.4 101.6 406.4 76.2 330.2 0.0097 0 0 409.6 0 0 44.8
BMII 1346.2 457.2 406.4 101.6 406.4 76.2 330.2 0.0097 0 0 391.6 0 0 37.2
BMI2 1549.4 457.2 406.4 101.6 406.4 76.2 330.2 0.0097 0 0 409.6 0 0 33.7

66
Table 4.2.4 Parameters of Beams tested by Pavia and Siess (1965)

Beam L, h d b a c x Pw Ph P, iy ih i, f,
2 2
Mark mm mm mm mm mm mm mm N/mm N/mm N/mm2 N/mrn1

G23S-11 508 330.2 304.8 50.8 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0083 0.0000 0.0000 315.1 0 0 24.5
G23S21 508 330.2 304.8 50.8 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0046 0.0000 0.0000 354.4 0 0 23.6
G24S-11 508 330.2 304.8 50.8 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0083 0.0000 0.0000 315.1 0 0 38.6
G24S-21 508 330.2 304.8 50.8 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0046 0.0000 0.0000 354.4 0 0 36.1
F2S1 508 330.2 304.8 50.8 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0083 0.0000 0.0142 317.2 0 220.6 33.9
F2S2 508 330.2 304.8 50.8 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0129 0.0000 0.0142 308.9 0 220.6 31.7
G33S-11 508 228.6 203.2 76.2 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0167 0.0000 0.0000 326.1 0 0 23.3
G33S-12 508 228.6 203.2 76.2 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0167 0.0000 0.0109 326.1 0 220.6 19.9
G33S-21 508 228.6 203.2 76.2 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0083 0.0000 0.0000 311.6 0 0 21.0
G33S-31 508 228.6 203.2 76.2 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0258 0.0000 0.0000 311.6 0 0 19.9
G33S-32 508 228.6 203.2 76.2 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0258 0.0000 0.0109 304.8 0 220.6 20.1
G34S-11 508 228.6 203.2 76.2 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0167 0.0000 0.0000 325.4 0 0 35.2
G34S-21 508 228.6 203.2 76.2 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0083 0.0000 0.0000 324.1 0 0 34.2
F3S2 508 228.6 203.2 76.2 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0083 0.0000 0.0094 326.8 0 220.6 24.3
F3S3 508 228.6 203.2 76.2 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0167 0.0000 0.0131 326.8 0 220.6 34.3
G43S-11 508 177.8 152.4 101.6 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0167 0.0000 0.0000 304.1 0 0 24.2
G44S-11 508 177.8 152.4 101.6 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0167 0.0000 0.0000 330.3 0 0 37.0
F4S1 508 177.8 152.4 101.6 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0083 0.0000 0.0070 322.0 0 220.6 34.3
F4S22 508 177.8 152.4 101.6 203.2 101.6 101.6 0.0167 0.0000 0.0098 335.1 0 220.6 34.7

Table 4.2.5 Parameters of13eams tested by Subedi, Vardy and Kubota (1986,1988)

Beam L, h d b a c x Pw Ph P, iy !h i, f,
N/nu112 N/mm1
2
Mark mm mm 111111 mm mm mm mm N/mm N/mm2

IAI 350 500 450 100 190.0 150 65.0 0.0022 0.0051 0.0024 382 454 454 26.0
IA2 350 500 450 100 190.0 150 65.0 0.0089 0.0051 0.0024 493 454 454 29.6
2AI 350 500 450 100 190.0 150 65.0 0.0022 0.0051 0.0024 378 438 438 26.0
2A2 350 500 450 100 190.0 150 65.0 0.0089 0.0051 0.0024 322 438 438 22.7
ICI 750 900 850 100 390.0 150 265.0 0.0027 0.0035 0.0021 326 454 454 24.8
IC2 750 900 850 100 390.0 150 265.0 0.0116 0.0035 0.0021 330 454 454 28.4
2CI 750 900 850 100 390.0 150 265.0 0.0027 0.0035 0.0021 334 438 438 27.9
401 750 900 850 50 390.0 150 265.0 0.0116 0.0035 0.0021 484 450 450 41.6
403 750 900 850 100 390.0 150 265.0 0.0148 0.0101 0.0059 490 444 444 43.2
3EI 930 500 470 100 333.5 70 263.5 0.003 0.0055 0.0073 479 211 211 41.6
402 1650 900 850 100 840.0 150 715.0 0.0116 0.0101 0.0063 484 444 444 43.2
404 1650 900 850 100 840.0 150 715.0 0.0148 0.0034 0.0022 490 450 450 41.6
IDI 2550 900 850 100 1290.0 150 1165.0 0.0027 0.0035 0.002 326 454 454 36.0
1D2 2550 900 850 100 1290.0 150 1165.0 0.0116 0.0035 0.002 330 454 454 33.2
2DI 2550 900 850 100 1290.0 150 1165.0 0.0027 0.0035 0.002 334 438 438 34.7
2D2 2550 900 850 100 1290.0 150 1165.0 0.0116 0.0035 0.002 303 438 438 31.5
1131 1350 500 450 100 690.0 150 565.0 0.0022 0.0051 0.0022 382 454 454 24.8
1132 1350 500 450 100 690.0 150 565.0 0.0089 0.0051 0.0022 493 454 454 29.6
2132 1350 500 450 100 690.0 150 565.0 0.0089 0.0051 0.0022 322 438 438 26.0

67
Table 4.2.6 Parameters of Beams tested by Rogowsky, MacGregor and Ong (1986)

Beam L" h d b a c x Pw Ph P, f, fh f, 1',

2 2
Mark mm 111m mm mm mm 111m mm N/mm N/mm N/mm2 N/mm2

BMIII.ON 1800 1000 950 200 1000 200 750 0.0094 0.0000 0.0015 381.7 573.0 573.0 26.1
BMIIl.OS 1800 1000 950 200 1000 200 750 0.0094 0.0000 0.0000 381.7 573.0 573.0 26.1
BM2J1.0N 1800 1000 950 200 1000 200 750 0.0094 0.0009 0.0015 381.7 573.0 573.0 26.8
BM2/1.0S 1800 1000 950 200 1000 200 750 0.0094 0.0009 0.0000 381.7 573.0 573.0 26.8
IlMIAI\ ON 1800 1000 950 200 1000 200 750 0.0094 0.0000 0.0038 368.3 573.0 573.0 26.4
BM3/1.0 1800 1000 950 200 1100 300 750 0.0063 0.0000 0.0015 381.7 573.0 573.0 28.9
BM4/1.0 1800 1000 950 200 1100 300 750 0.0063 0.0009 0.0000 381.7 573.0 573.0 28.9
I3M5/1.0 1800 1000 950 200 1100 300 750 0.0063 0.0000 0.0060 405.2 573.0 573.0 36.9
IlM6/1.0 1800 1000 950 200 1100 300 750 0.0063 0.0021 0.0000 405.2 573.0 573.0 35.8
IlM7/1.0 1800 1000 950 200 1100 300 750 0.0063 0.0000 0.0000 405.2 573.0 573.0 34.5
BM1/1.5N 1800 600 535 200 1000 200 750 0.0113 0.0000 0.0019 452.6 573.0 573.0 42.4
OM 1/1.55 1800 600 535 200 1000 200 750 0.0113 0.0000 0.0000 452.6 573.0 573.0 42.4
BM2/J.5N 1800 600 535 200 1000 200 750 0.0113 0.0017 0.0019 452.6 573.0 573.0 42.4
BM2/I.5S 1800 600 535 200 1000 200 750 0.0113 0.0017 0.0000 452.6 573.0 573.0 42.4
BM3/1.5 1800 600 535 200 1100 300 750 0.0113 0.0000 0.0019 452.6 573.0 573.0 41.5
IlM4/1.5 1800 600 535 200 1100 300 750 0.0113 0.0018 0.0000 452.6 573.0 573.0 32.5
I3M5/1.5 1800 600 535 200 1100 300 750 0.0113 0.0000 0.0060 452.6 573.0 573.0 39.6
IlM6/1.5 1800 600 535 200 1100 300 750 0.0113 0.0041 0.0000 452.6 573.0 573.0 45.0
IlM7/1.5 1800 600 535 200 1100 300 750 0.0113 0.0000 0.0000 452.6 573.0 573.0 30.4
IlM8/l.5 1800 600 535 200 1100 300 750 0.0113 0.0018 0.0019 452.6 573.0 573.0 37.2
BM1/2.0N 1800 500 455 200 1000 200 800 0.0088 00000 0.0014 452.6 573.0 573.0 43.2
ilMII2.0S 1800 500 455 200 1000 200 800 0.0088 0.0000 0.0000 452.6 573.0 573.0 43.2
BM2/2.0N 1800 500 455 200 1000 200 800 0.0088 0.0020 0.0014 452.6 573.0 573.0 43.2
BM2!2.0S 1800 500 455 200 1000 200 800 0.0088 0.0020 0.0000 452.6 573.0 573.0 43.2
IlM3/2.0 1800 500 445 200 1100 200 800 0.0113 0.0000 0.0014 457.8 573.0 573.0 42.5
IlM4/2.0 1800 500 445 200 1100 200 800 0.0113 0.0022 0.0000 453.8 573.0 573.0 38.3
IlM5/2.0 1800 500 445 200 1100 200 800 0.0113 0.0000 0.0057 457.8 573.0 573.0 41.1
IlM6/2.0 1800 500 445 200 1100 200 800 0.0113 0.0051 0.0000 453.8 573.0 573.0 37.4
IlM7/2.0 1800 500 445 200 1100 200 800 0.0113 0.0000 0.0000 457.8 573.0 573.0 46.8
llM5/2.0 1800 400 355 200 1100 200 800 0.0113 0.0000 0.0057 452.6 573.0 573.0 34.0

Table 4.2.7 Parameters of Beams tested by Mansur and Ong (1991)

Beam L" h d b a c x Pw Ph P, f, fh f, 1',

2 2
Mark mm mm mm mm mm mm mm N/mm N/mm N/mm2 N/mm2

B1 390 500 450 90 145 100 45 0.01986 0.0057 0.0050 440.0 375.0 375.0 35.7
B2 670 500 450 90 285 100 185 0.01986 0.0057 0.0050 440.0 375.0 375.0 35.7
B3 960 500 450 90 430 100 330 0.01986 0.0057 0.0050 440.0 375.0 375.0 35.5
134 1240 500 450 90 570 100 470 0.01986 0.0057 0.0050 440.0 375.0 375.0 31.1
B6 1240 500 450 90 570 100 470 0.01986 0.0057 0.0050 440.0 375.0 375.0 34.4
B7 1240 500 450 90 570 100 470 0.01986 0.0057 0.0050 440.0 375.0 375.0 33.8
B8 1240 500 450 90 570 100 470 0.01986 0.0057 0.0050 440.0 375.0 375.0 33.2
B9 1500 500 450 90 700 100 600 0.01986 0.0126 0.0050 440.0 375.0 375.0 29.5
1310 1500 500 450 90 700 100 600 0.01986 0.0057 0.0126 440.0 375.0 375.0 30.1
B5 1810 500 450 90 855 100 755 0.01986 0.0057 0.0050 440.0 375.0 375.0 31.5

68
4.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN PREDICTED AND EXPERIMENTAL SHEAR STRENGTH

The available test results have been analysed and compared with various traditional as well as new
design methods. The findings have been summerised in Tables 4.3.1 - 4.3.7. Various parameters have
been explained in notation.

Table 4.3.1 Smith and Vantsiotis. Source: from Mau and Hsu (1987, 1989)
Beam L,Id aid xjh, Voxp (kN) V "IbM 0.'
" , VIV"p VAC,IVoxp VcFp/V"p V CIRIA/V cxp

IAI-IO 2.33 1.00 0.57 161.2 1.20 1.16 0.57 0.85 0.91
IA3-11 2.33 1.00 0.57 148.3 l.I3 1.24 0.60 0.89 1.01
IM-12 2.33 1.00 0.57 141.2 1.14 1.24 0.60 0.83 1.07
1M-51 2.33 1.00 0.57 170.9 1.22 l.I3 0.56 0.88 0.92
1A6-37 2.33 1.00 0.57 184.1 1.30 1.06 0.53 0.83 0.89
2A 1-38 2.33 1.00 0.57 174.5 1.21 l.I3 0.56 0.91 0.90
2A3-39 2.33 1.00 0.57 170.6 1.24 1.12 0.55 0.85 0.93
2M-40 2.33 1.00 0.57 171.9 1.23 l.I2 0.55 0.86 0.95
2A6-61 2.33 1.00 0.57 161.9 1.20 1.16 0.57 0.86 1.03
3A 1-42 2.33 1.00 0.57 161.0 1.21 1.15 0.56 0.83 1.02
3A3-43 2.33 1.00 0.57 172.7 1.27 1.09 0.54 0.81 0.98
3M-45 2.33 1.00 0.57 178.5 1.26 1.09 0.54 0.85 0.99
3A6-46 2.33 1.00 0.57 168.1 1.22 1.14 0.56 0.86 1.07
181-04 2.75 1.21 0.75 147.5 1.0 I 1.11 0.67 1.13 0.91
1133-29 2.75 1.21 0.75 143.6 1.03 l.IO 0.68 1.12 0.93
1134-40 2.75 1.21 0.75 140.3 0.99 1.14 0.71 1.16 0.99
186-31 2.75 1.21 0.75 153.3 1.12 1.02 0.63 1.04 0.92
2131-05 2.75 1.21 0.75 129.0 0.95 1.21 0.74 1.35 1.03
2133-06 2.75 1.21 0.75 131.2 0.97 1.18 0.73 1.32 1.03
2134-07 2.75 1.21 0.75 126.1 0.97 1.19 0.72 1.34 1.09
2134-52 2.75 1.21 0.75 149.9 1.04 1.09 0.68 1.20 0.96
286-32 2.75 1.21 0.75 145.2 1.05 1.09 0.67 1.21 0.99
3131-08 2.75 1.21 0.75 130.8 1.05 1.11 0.67 1.39 1.00
3131-36 2.75 1.21 0.75 158.9 1.14 1.00 0.62 1.29 0.88
383-33 2.75 1.21 0.75 158.3 l.I7 0.98 0.60 1.28 0.89
3134-34 2.75 1.21 0.75 155.0 1.14 1.01 0.62 1.31 0.94
3136-35 2.75 1.21 0.75 161.7 l.I5 0.99 0.61 1.27 0.93
4lll-09 2.75 1.21 0.75 153.5 1.20 0.97 0.59 1.53 0.93
ICI-14 3.33 1.50 1.00 119.0 0.88 1.06 0.64 0.94 0.89
IC3-02 3.33 1.50 1.00 123.4 0.85 1.06 0.79 0.95 0.91
IC4-15 3.33 1.50 1.00 131.0 0.89 1.0 I 0.83 0.90 0.88
IC6-16 3.33 1.50 1.00 122.3 0.85 1.07 0.87 0.95 0.95
2CI-17 3.33 1.50 1.00 124.1 0.90 1.03 0.67 1.02 0.88
2C3-03 3.33 1.50 1.00 103.6 0.76 1.21 0.97 1.21 1.07
2C3-27 3.33 1.50 1.00 115.3 0.85 1.09 0.87 1.09 0.96
2C4-18 3.33 1.50 1.00 124.5 0.89 1.03 0.83 1.02 0.92
2C6-19 3.33 1.50 1.00 124.1 0.88 1.04 0.84 1.03 0.94
3CI-20 3.33 1.50 1.00 140.8 0.99 0.92 0.69 1.09 0.81
3C3-21 3.33 1.50 1.00 125.0 0.99 0.94 0.74 1.16 0.88
3C4-22 3.33 1.50 1.00 127.7 0.96 0.97 0.76 l.I7 0.90
3C6-23 3.33 1.50 1.00 137.2 1.02 0.91 0.73 1.10 0.85
4CI-24 3.33 1.50 1.00 146.6 1.07 0.86 0.69 1.18 0.77
4C3-04 3.33 1.50 1.00 124.5 0.93 0.99 0.79 1.26 0.91
4C3-28 3.33 1.50 1.00 152.3 1.12 0.82 0.66 l.I3 0.75
4C4-25 3.33 1.50 1.00 152.6 1.15 0.81 0.64 1.12 0.76
4C6-26 3.33 1.50 1.00 159.5 1.12 0.82 0.66 1.10 0.76

Average (aid - 1.0 to 1.0) - 1.22 l.I4 0.56 0.85 0.97

S.d. T T - 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.06
Average (aid - 1.21 to 1.50) - 1.00 1.03 0.72 1.16 0.92
S.d. I 1 - 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.14 0.08

69
Table 4.3.2 Comparison of Beams tested by Kong, Robins and Cole (1970)
Beam L"/d aid xjh, V"p (kN) V ex/bdf c0.5 V,iV"p V AclV"p V CFp/V"p V CIRIA/V exp

1-30 0.9 0.35 0.23 238.9 0.93 0.94 0.71 0.55 0.60
2-30 0.9 0.35 0.23 249.1 1.03 0.90 0.58 0.47 0.54
3-30 0.9 0.35 0.23 276.2 1.06 0.81 0.63 0.50 0.86
4-30 0.9 0.35 0.23 242.0 0.94 0.93 0.71 0.55 0.73
5-30 0.9 0.35 0.23 239.3 1.0 I 0.93 0.66 0.47 0.65
6-30 0.9 0.35 0.23 307.8 1.09 0.73 0.61 0.52 0.56
7-30A 0.9 0.35 0.23 252.6 0.91 0.89 0.54 0.60 0.60
7-3013 0.9 0.35 0.23 299.8 1.06 0.75 0.55 0.53 0.53
7-30C 0.9 0.35 0.23 259.3 0.94 0.87 0.71 0.59 0.63
7-30D 0.9 0.35 0.23 263.8 1.04 0.85 0.64 0.49 0.63
7-30E 0.9 0.35 0.23 297.1 1.I7 0.75 0.57 0.44 0.58
1-25 1.1 0.43 0.28 224.2 1.00 0.82 0.67 0.65 0.57
2-25 1.1 0.43 0.28 224.2 1.14 0.81 0.53 0.49 0.50
3-25 1.1 0.43 0.28 225.5 1.08 0.81 0.61 0.55 0.86
4-25 1.1 0.43 0.28 201.0 0.96 0.91 0.69 0.62 0.72
5-25 1.1 0.43 0.28 208.2 1.04 0.87 0.64 0.55 0.64
6-25 1.1 0.43 0.28 266.0 1.17 0.69 0.57 0.56 0.55
1-20 1.5 0.54 0.35 189.5 I. I5 0.75 0.58 0.63 0.51
2-20 1.5 0.54 0.35 215.3 1.35 0.66 0.46 0.52 0.44
3-20 1.5 0.54 0.35 207.7 1.32 0.68 0.50 0.52 0.72
4-20 1.5 0.54 0.35 180.6 1.13 0.78 0.59 0.63 0.63
5-20 1.5 0.54 0.35 172.6 1.08 0.82 0.62 0.66 0.62
6-20 1.5 0.54 0.35 244.6 1.34 0.59 0.50 0.61 0.50
\-15 2.0 0.74 0.47 164.1 1.36 0.61 0.49 0.67 0.46
2-15 2.0 0.74 0.47 139.7 1.12 0.72 0.57 0.85 0.53
3-15 2.0 0.74 0.47 158.6 1.30 0.63 0.51 0.72 0.71
4-15 2.0 0.74 0.47 109.4 0.89 0.92 0.74 1.04 0.79
5-15 2.0 0.74 0.47 127.2 1.04 0.79 0.64 0.89 0.65
6-15 2.0 0.74 0.47 172.6 1.29 0.59 0.51 0.78 0.54
1-10 3.2 1.18 0.70 89.4 1.17 0.66 0.62 1.37 0.60
2-10 3.2 1.18 0.70 99.6 1.35 0.59 0.49 0.81 0.48
3-10 3.2 1.18 0.70 86.3 1.10 0.69 0.66 0.65 0.80
4-10 3.2 1.18 0.70 95.6 1.22 0.63 0.60 0.59 0.57
5-10 3.2 1.18 0.70 77.8 1.00 0.77 0.73 0.93 0.70
6-10 3.2 1.18 0.70 98.3 1.19 0.62 0.61 0.58 0.64

Average (aid - 0.35 to 0.74) - 1.10 0.79 0.60 0.61 0.62

S.d. T T - 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.14 0.11
Average (aid - 1.18 to 1.18) - 1.17 0.66 0.62 0.82 0.63
S.d. T T - 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.30 0.11

Table 4.3.3 Comparison of Beams tested by Manuel, Slight and Suter (1971)
Beum L"/d aid xjha VOXI'(kN) V ex ,fbdr c0.5 V,IV", VAclV"p VCFl'/Voxp V C1RIA/V cxp
BMI 0.81 0.30 0.12 444.8 1.85 1.14 0.27 0.30 0.42
13M2 1.31 0.30 0.\0 444.8 1.82 1.14 0.27 0.31 0.45
13M3 1.81 0.30 0.10 367.0 1.62 1.31 0.3 I 0.32 0.51
BM4 2.31 0.30 0.10 400.3 1.72 1.26 0.29 0.32 0.48
BM5 1.8 I 0.65 0.41 284.7 1.18 0.82 0.42 0.90 0.61
BM6 2.31 0.65 0.41 269.1 1.07 0.88 0.47 1.04 0.67
I3M7 2.81 0.65 0.41 300.2 1.29 0.78 0.39 0.80 0.57
I3M8 3.31 0.65 0.41 280.2 1.09 0.84 0.46 1.04 0.65
I3M9 2.31 1.00 0.72 189.0 0.75 0.81 0.59 1.94 0.80
BMIO 2.81 1.00 0.72 164.6 0.60 0.94 0.73 2.65 0.99
BMl1 3.31 1.00 0.72 171.2 0.68 0.86 0.65 2.1 I 0.88
BM12 3.81 1.00 0.72 171.2 0.71 0.89 0.63 1.92 0.85

70
 Beam L"Idl aid T x.,lh, V"p (kN) Ve~/bdf c°.s Y,N". V AC'/V"p V crr/V"p V CIRIA/V exp
Average (aid - 0.30 to aid - 1.0) - 1.20 0.97 0.46 1.14 0.66
S.d. I I - 0.46 0.19 0.16 0.82 0.19

Table 4.3.4 Comparison of Beams tested by Pavia and Siess (1965)

Beam L"/d aid xjh, V"p (kN) Y ""fbdr ,0.5 Y,N". VAclV"p V cFr/V,.,p V CIRIA/V exp
G23S-11 1.67 0.67 0.31 89.8 1.17 0.63 0.42 0.78 0.64
023S21 1.67 0.67 0.31 53.4 0.71 0.68 0.68 1.27 0.89
G24S-11 1.67 0.67 0.31 90.7 0.94 0.64 0.53 1.22 0.74
G24S-21 1.67 0.67 0.31 50.3 0.54 0.73 0.86 2.05 1.11
F2S1 1.67 0.67 0.31 96.3 1.07 0.60 0.58 1.0 I 0.67
F2S2 1.67 0.67 0.31 122.5 1.41 0.70 0.44 0.74 0.61
G33S-11 2.50 1.00 0.44 85.4 1.14 0.84 0.43 1.00 0.85
G33S-12 2.50 1.00 0.44 84.5 1.22 0.83 0.54 0.86 0.84
G33S-21 2.50 1.00 0.44 54.5 0.77 0.68 0.52 1.41 0.96
G33S-31 2.50 1.00 0.44 107.0 1.55 0.87 0.32 0.68 0.85
G33S-32 2.50 1.00 0.44 101.4 1.46 0.91 0.45 0.72 0.90
G34S-11 2.50 1.00 0.44 109.9 1.20 0.69 0.38 1.17 0.73
G34S-21 2.50 1.00 0.44 56.0 0.62 0.71 0.62 2.23 1.10
F3S2 2.50 1.00 0.44 61.4 0.80 0.64 0.64 1.44 0.90
F3S3 2.50 1.00 0.44 121.4 1.34 0.63 0.45 1.03 0.67
G43S-11 3.33 1.33 0.57 77.0 1.01 0.67 0.32 0.59 0.88
G44S-11 3.33 1.33 0.57 83.6 0.89 0.69 0.34 0.61 0.91
F4S1 3.33 1.33 0.57 47.1 0.52 0.63 0.69 0.95 1.26
F4S22 3.33 1.33 0.57 91.2 1.00 0.64 0.44 0.80 0.84

Average (aid - 0.67 to 1.0) - 1.06 0.72 0.52 1.17 0.83

S.d. I - 0.32 0.10 0.14 0.46 0.15
Average (aid -1.33 to 1.33) - 0.85 0.66 0.45 0.74 0.97
S.d. I I - 0.23 0.03 0.17 0.17 0.19

Table 4.3.5 Comparison of Beams tested by Subedi, Vardy and Kubota (1986, 1988)

Beam L"Id aid xjh, V"p (kN) Y ex "fbdr c0.5 Y,N"p V ACt/V"p V eFr/V"p VClRIANexp
IAI 0.78 0.42 0.15 239.5 1.04 0.37 0.64 0.63 0.56
IA2 0.78 0.42 0.15 375.0 1.53 1.13 0.43 0.46 0.54
2AI 0.78 0.42 0.15 180.0 0.78 0.48 0.85 0.84 0.74
2A2 0.78 0.42 0.15 307.5 1.43 0.91 0.46 0.43 0.61
ICI 0.88 0.46 0.29 292.5 0.69 0.55 0.96 1.00 0.88
IC2 0.88 0.46 0.29 485.0 1.07 1.34 0.62 0.69 0.82
2CI 0.88 0.46 0.29 303.0 0.67 0.54 0.98 1.09 0.88
4GI 0.88 0.46 0.29 648.0 2.36 0.73 0.28 0.38 0.34
4G3 0.88 0.46 0.29 797.5 1.43 1.51 0.46 0.64 0.67
3EI 1.98 0.71 0.53 90.0 0.30 1.03 2.15 4.19 1.89
4G2 1.94 0.99 0.79 560.5 1.00 0.79 0.66 1.53 0.67
4G4 1.94 0.99 0.79 461.0 0.84 1.21 0.79 1.80 0.80
IDI 3.00 1.52 1.29 123.5 0.24 0.39 1.97 1.11 1.45
ID2 3.00 1.52 1.29 211.0 0.43 0.94 1.24 1.10 1.04
2DI 3.00 1.52 1.29 90.0 0.18 0.55 2.63 1.51 1.96
202 3.00 1.52 1.29 199.0 0.42 0.92 1.28 1.1 I 1.09
1131 3.00 1.53 1.13 78.0 0.35 0.31 1.74 0.97 1.21
182 3.00 1.53 1.13 149.5 0.61 0.78 0.99 0.89 0.83
2132 3.00 1.53 1.13 87.5 0.38 0.89 1.63 1.23 1.35

Average (aid 0.42 to .99) 1.10 0.88 0.77 1.14 0.78

S.d. I I - 0.54 0.37 0.49 1.06 0.38
Average (ald-1.52to 1.53) - 0.37 0.68 1.64 1.13 1.27
S.d. I I 0.14 0.26 0.55 0.20 0.36

71
Table 4.3.6 Comparison of Beams tested by Rogowsky, MacGregor and Ong (1986)

Beam Ln/d aid x"lh, V"p (kN) V e.~lbdrcO.5 V,IV"p V AC,IVoxp V cFr/V"p V CIRIA/V cxp

13M1/1.0N 1.89 1.05 0.75 602.0 0.62 0.98 0.77 1.12 0.98
BMI/1.0S 1.89 1.05 0.75 699.0 0.72 0.85 0.61 0.84 0.83
BM2/1.0N 1.89 1.05 0.75 750.0 0.76 0.79 0.72 0.90 0.80
13M2/1.0S 1.89 1.05 0.75 750.0 0.76 0.79 0.67 0.78 0.79
llMIA/I.ON 1.89 1.05 0.75 600.0 0.61 0.96 0.87 1.31 1.00
13M3/1.0 1.89 1.16 0.75 685.0 0.67 0.55 0.58 0.69 0.78
13M4/1.0 1.89 1.16 0.75 663.0 0.65 0.56 0.65 0.57 0.81
BM5/1.0 1.89 1.16 0.75 875.0 0.76 0.46 0.63 0.89 0.69
13M6/1.0 1.89 1.16 0.75 635.0 0.56 0.63 0.89 0.63 0.94
13M7/1.0 1.89 1.16 0.75 418.0 0.37 0.96 0.92 0.95 1.36
BMI/1.5N 3.36 1.87 1.25 354.0 0.51 0.76 0.46 0.84 0.87
13M1/1.5S 3.36 1.87 1.25 303.0 0.43 0.89 0.40 0.62 0.98
BM2/I.5N 3.36 1.87 1.25 348.0 0.50 0.78 0.65 0.85 0.90
13M2/1.5S 3.36 1.87 1.25 226.0 0.32 1.20 0.82 0.83 1.33
BM3/1.5 3.36 2.06 1.25 242.0 0.35 1.02 0.48 1.13 1.27
BM4/1.5 3.36 2.06 1.25 206.0 0.34 1.16 0.66 0.73 1.31
13M5/1.5 3.36 2.06 1.25 565.0 0.84 0.43 0.36 0.94 0.57
BM6/1.5 3.36 2.06 1.25 256.0 0.36 0.97 0.92 0.61 1.24
BM7/1.5 3.36 2.06 1.25 222.0 0.38 1.07 0.29 0.67 1.17
BM8/1.5 3.36 2.06 1.25 339.0 0.52 0.72 0.53 0.80 0.87
llM 1/2.0N 3.96 2.20 1.60 199.0 0.33 0.78 0.41 0.94 0.90
BMII2.0S 3.96 2.20 1.60 177.0 0.30 0.88 0.29 0.61 0.97
13M2/2.0N 3.96 2.20 1.60 204.0 0.34 0.76 0.69 0.92 0.88
13M212.0S 3.96 2.20 1.60 185.0 0.31 0.84 0.60 0.58 0.93
BM312.0 4.04 2.47 1.60 261.0 0.45 0.66 0.17 0.65 0.70
BM4/2.0 4.04 2.47 1.60 195.0 0.35 0.87 0.39 0.42 0.86
BM5/2.0 4.04 2.47 1.60 453.0 0.79 0.38 0.30 0.97 0.47
BM6/2.0 4.04 2.47 1.60 256.0 0.47 0.66 0.63 0.32 0.67
BM7/2.0 4.04 2.47 1.60 185.0 0.30 0.94 0.08 0.45 0.99
BM5/2.0 5.07 3.10 2.00 330.0 0.80 0.32 0.19 1.17 0.35

Average (aid - 1.05 to 1.87) - 0.59 0.80 0.69 0.84 0.93

S.d. - 0.14 0.20 0.16 0.20 0.20
Average (aid - 2.06 to 2.47) - 0.43 0.81 0.45 0.72 0.92
S.d. I - 0.17 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.25

Table 4.3.7 Comparison of Beams tested by Mansur and Ong (1991)

Beam Ln/d aid x/h, V"p (kN) V pibdf

" ,0.5 V,IV"p VAc/V"p V cFr/V"p V CIRI!JV cxp

131 0.87 0.32 0.10 375.0 1.55 2.48 0.43 0.39 0.76
132 1.49 0.63 0.37 360.0 1.49 1.31 0.45 0.72 0.71
133 2.13 0.96 0.66 291.0 1.21 1.08 0.56 1.14 0.74
134 2.76 1.27 0.94 228.0 1.0 I 1.0 I 0.70 1.09 0.77
136 2.76 1.27 0.94 205.0 0.86 1.15 0.82 1.23 0.88
137 2.76 1.27 0.94 220.0 0.93 1.06 0.75 1.14 0.81
88 2.76 1.27 0.94 260.0 1.11 0.90 0.63 0.96 0.69
139 3.33 1.56 1.20 224.0 1.02 0.83 0.72 0.86 0.65
1310 3.33 1.56 1.20 290.0 1.31 0.64 0.56 0.97 0.55
135 4.02 1.90 1.51 183.0 0.81 0.84 0.72 0.85 0.61

Average (aid - 0.32 to aid -0.96) - 1.41 1.62 0.48 0.75 0.74
S.d. - 0.18 0.75 0.07 0.37 0.02
Average (aid - 1.27 to aid - 1.90) = 1.0 I 0.92 0.70 1.02 0.71
S.d. = 0.17 0.17 0.08 0.14 0.12

72
4.4 ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS

4.4.1 Effcct of flcxural stccl ratio

Figure 4: I illustrate the effect of the flexural steel ratio on the shear strength of deep beams.
The figure is a plot ofV,,/bd-Vf, versus flexural steel ratio, P" for the beams tested by Manuel
et al. (1971), Pavia and Siess (1965), Subedi et al. (1986, 1988). For a particular curve in the
figure, shear span-to-effective depth ratio (aid), horizontal web steel ratio (Ph) and vertical web
steel ratio (pJ are same. But for different curves, these con'esponding values are different,
which has been illustrated in the legend. It is clear from the figure that the shear strength of
deep beams increase by increasing the flexural steel ratio; increasing of flexural steel ratio
yields a better effectiveness of tension tie and improves the shear capacity of deep beams.

4.4.2 Effect of horizontal web stecl

The effect of horizontal web steel can be illustrated from the Fig. 4.2 (a and b). The figure has
been drown with v,,/bd-Vf, against Ph' For a particular curve in the figure, aid, p" and Pv are
constant but for different curves these parameters are different which have been illustrated in
the legend of the figure. The data have been extracted from the beams tested by Kong et. al.
(1970) and Smith and Vantsiotis (source: Mau and Hsu, 1987). Figure 4.2(a) has been drawn
for the beams having ald:o; 1.0 and Fig. 4.2(b) for the beams having aid > 1.0. From Fig. 4.2 it
is obvious that for a constant aid ratio, p" and p" shear strengths of deep beams do not vary
with increasing horizontal web steel ratio. This is contradictory with the ACI code concept.
ACI code assumed that for low L,/d ratio (i.e. low aid ratio), horizontal web steel is more
effective than vertical web steel. For low value of aid, deep beams do not achieve their flexural
capacity (column 7 of Tables 4.3.1 to 4.3.7). Existence of sufficient amount of flexural steel,
leading to an eventual crushing of the arch rib in the shear span before flexural capacity was
attained. Actually load transfer through the compressive strut, which is highly depends on the
compressive strength of concrete like a vertical column of a building. The ties in the column
confine the concrete and thus increase the capacity of the column. In deep beam, the horizontal
and vertical web steel can not confine this compressive strut because they are straight. The
shear capacity may be increased by increasing the strength of the stmt. This can be done by
designing the compressive strut as a column. The load is directly transferred to the support and

73
 Variation of flexural steel ratio P w
0 0.0025 0.005 0.0075 0.01 0.0125 0.015 0.0175 0.02 0.0225 0.025 0.0275
2.50

2.25

2.00

1.75
")
<:>

••••"
1.50

->
"0
..Q
Co .x
""
•••0 1.25
<:

-
.S:
'"
.;: 1.00

>'" • a/d=0.67, Ph=O%, Pv=O%, Pavia

0.75 • a/d=1.0, Ph=O%, Pv=O%, Pavia and Manuel
- - .• - - a/d= 1.0, Ph=O%, Pv= 1.09%, Pavia
- -)( - a/d=0.67, Ph=O%, Pv=I,42%, Pavia
0.50 a a/d=0,46, Ph=.35%, PV=.21%, Subedi
--e--a/d=1.52, Ph=.35%, Pv=.20%, Subedi

0.25 -~-a1d=1.53, Ph=.51%, PV=.22%, Subedi

A a/d=0,42, Ph=.51 %, PV=.24%, Subedi

0.00

Fig. 4.1 Effect of Flexural Steel Ratio, P w on the Shear Strength of Deep Beams

74
 1.40

1.30
--- -- -- _-x
--- ---
1.20
--- ---
1.10
• •• . .'
)I
" x-
0.0' •

.'
0.0'00'0.00' 0

1.00 -- .. ---
'" .... --- .. - .. ....
Q
••••• 0.
" 0.90
••••
'0
..Q
-c. 0.80
"
>" 0.70
'-0
=
.S
"
.;:-" 0.60

0.50

> 0.40 o 0 • 0 0 pw~0.52% aid ~ 0.35, pv = 0.0%, Kong

- oX - pw~0.8% aid ~ 0.54, pv = 0.0%, Kong
0.30
(a) e pw=1.94 aid = 1.0, pv = 0.28%, Mau
0.20 8 pw=1.94 aid = 1.0, pv = 0.63%, Mau and Mansur
e pw~1.94 aid ~ 1.0, pv = 1.25%, Mau
0.10

0.00
0.0010 0.0035 0.0060 0.0085 0.0 II 0 0.0135 0.0160 0.0185 0.0210 0.0235

Variation of horizontal web steel ratio, Ph

0.001 0.0035 0.006 0.0085 0.011 0.0135 0.016 0.0185 0.021 0.0235
1.40 ,...---------------------------------,

1.30

1.20

1.10
or.
o Col 1.00
••••
] 0.90
-c.
>~0.80
'-o 0.70
.S =
_ 0.60
_ pw= 1.73 aid ~ 1.18, pv ~ 0.0%, Kong
-;:"
" 0.50 --+--pw=1.94 aid = 1.21, pv = 0.24%, Mau
>
0.40 .0'" 0 °pw~1.94 aid ~ 1.21, pv = 0.42%, Mau
0.30 (b) -e--pw~1.94 aid ~ 1.21, pv = 0.77%, Mall
0.20 e pw=1.94 aid = 1.50, pv ~ 0.18%, Mau

0.10 A -ow 1.94 aid 1.50,Ov 0.31 %. Mau

0.00 L ---l

Fig. 4.2 Effect of Horizontal Web Steel Ratio, Ph on the Shear Strength of Deep Beams

75
the horizontal component of this force is resisted by the main longitudinal (Tension) steel,
forms an arch rib. Because of this arch rib deep beam is highly stressed at the support which
may causes bond failure of the main steel if end plate is not applied. Horizontal web steel
would be effective if the compressive strut (Fig. 4.4) of this arch rib deflect outward. But this
type of arch rib with two point loading, the strut would deflect inward, causing the horizontal
steel ineffective as Fig. 4.4. Generally the beam with horizontal web reinforcement, the lower
chord would reach yield first. The additional deformations required for the upper layer of the
steel to yield so that the upper layer of the steel can reach its capacity, will generally be large
enough to destroy the bottom chord and this large capacity does not resist by upper layer and
ultimately the beam fails. So shear capacity of a deep beam does not increase with increasing
the horizontal web steel. But minimum amount of web steel should be incorporated to
minimise the unknown effect i.e. to minimise the local effect or local weakness.

4.4.3 Effect of vertical web steel

The effect of vettical web steel can be visualised from Fig. 4.3 (a and b). The figure has been
drawn with non-dimensional parameters such as v,,/bd,if\ versus p,. For a particular curve in
the figure, aid, P" and Ph are constant but for different curves these paranleters are different
which have been illustrated in the legend of the figure. The data have been extracted from the
beams tested by Kong et. al. (1970), Pavia and Siess (1965), Smith and Vantsiotis (source:
Mau and Hsu, 1987) and Rogowsky and MacGregor (1986). Figure 4.3(a) has been plotted for
the beams having ald:o; 1.0 and Fig. 4.3(b) for the beams having aid > 1.0. From Fig. 4.3(a) it
is clear that for aid :0; 1.0, the effect of vertical web steel is insignificant. But increasing of aid
ratio, the effect of veltica! web steel on the shear strength of deep beams is increased (Fig.
4.3b). For ald:o; 1.0, the 45° line form load intersects with the support and transfer load to the
suPPOtt through the strut without the help of stirrup. But aid :2: 1.0, the load first travels
through the concrete strut inclined at 45°, then by the stimlp to the top of the beam and again
travels through the 45° inclined strut as Fig. 4.5. So the shear capacity would decrease without
stirrups of these type of beams. But for aid :0; 1.0, load is not needed to transfer upward
because, it directly resist by the support. These types of beam always fail with sudden thud,
diagonal splitting and eventually failure with brittle manner. For aid> 1.0, the beam may fails
with either diagonal splitting mode of failure or flexural mode of failure or combined mode of
failure. Diagonal splitting may cause in the beams with small or no stimlps but the beam with

76
 2.00

1.80

1.60
,
-+-, .
.,;'n lAO f- ,
, .-
<;." ~ ••••
..",
->
,Q

,
Co

"
1.20 ~-..l>-.
<r .
• ~

•••0 1.00

.::=
,

-
"
.;:
0.80 'i.
___ pw-O.52% aid - 0.35, Ph - 0.0%, Kong

>" 0.60 --+--p\\=O.83% aid = 0.67. Ph = 0.0%, Pavia

--* - -p\\= 1.67% aid =1.0, Ph = 0.0%. Pavia

0040 - .[J - pw=I.94% aid = 1.0, Ph = 0.23%. Mau

(a) ---+-pw=I.94%a!d = 1.0, Ph =0.45%, Mati
-A-pw=I.94%a1d = 1.0, Ph = 0.68%, Mall
0.20
____.__pw=I.94% aid = 1.0, Ph = 0.91%, Mau

0.00
o 0.0025 0.005 0.0075 0.0\ 0.0125 0.015 0.0\75 0.02 0.0225 0.025

Variation of vertical web steel ratio, P v

0 0.0013 0.0025 0.0038 0.005 0.0063 0.0075 0.0088 0.0\ 0.0\13 0.0\25 0.0\38 0.0\5
lAO

1.30

--- --------""
1.20

1.10

1.00
.,;
v.

<;." 0.90
..",
,Q

~ 0.80
> "
••• 0.70
0
___ pw=O.94% aid 1.05, Ph 0.0%, Rogowsky
.::=
"
'C
- 0.60

0.50
,+' '"
'"
'"
'"
'"

".
".
.. + . 'pw=O.63%
~pw=1.94%a1d=
aid = 1.16, Ph = 0.0%, Rogowsky
- -:6..- pw=1.94%a1d= 1.21, Ph =0.23%, Mau
1.21,Ph = 0.45%, Mau

>" --S-pw=I.94%a1d:: 1.21,Ph = 0.68%, Mall

0040 ".
; '" -----<{ . ". •• -0- - .pw=1.94%,
-.b--pw=1.94%,
aid = 1.21, Ph
aid =
= 0.91%, Mati
1.50,Ph = 0.23%. Mau
0.30 ••. ::t:••• pvv=1.94%. aid = LSD, Ph = 0.45%, Mau
(b) -X-pw=1.94%, aid = 1.50,Ph::::0.68%, Mati
0.20
--9-pw=1.94%. aid = 1.50,Ph = 0.91%, Mau
- -<> - pv.=1.I3%. aid = 2.06, Ph = 0.0%, Rogowsky
0.\0
- -+ - pVv""1.I3%. aid = 2.47. Ph = 0.0%. Rogowsky

0.00

Fig. 4.3 Effect of Vertical Web Steel Ratio, P v on the Shear Strength of Deep Beams

77
 v

Web stee

Main steel

Fi g. 44: Deformation response of concrete compression strut model causing

the horizontal web reinforcement ineffective

•
-1 a>d I-v V

,
\

/
,
/
l
/,Q.
()

\
\
\
\
\
" \
/ \

Fig. 4.5 Load transfer mechanism from loading point to support for beam
with old >1.0

78
large amount of stirrups, the beam become more ductile and fails with high strength capacity
and more ductile manner. For aid ::; 1.0, load is transferred by compressive strut, control of
crack widths by the web steel does not affect the beam capacity but for aid > 1.0, the control of
crack width by the stirrup affect the modes of failure, the beam strength and also deflections.
The shear capacity of this type of beams, with minimum vertical stirrups, decrease with
increasing aid ratios but do not affect for the beams with maximum vertical stirrup with
increasing aid ratios. The beams where vertical stirrups are not needed, minimum stiITup
should be provided to minimise the uncertainties causes due to local weakness of the beam.

4.4.4 , Effect of clear span-to-cffective depth ratio, L/d

Figure 4.6 is a plot of non-dimensional parameters v,,/bd-Yf, against L/d for test result
conducted by Manuel et al. (Table 4.3.3) and Rogowsky et al. (Table 4.3.6). For a particular
curve in the figure aid, Pw' Ph and Pv are constant but for different curve these parameters are
different. The parametric values for individual curves are shown in the legend. From Fig. 4.6,
it can be said that the clear span-depth ratio, L,,/d, is not so important in increasing the shear
strength of deep beams. But increasing of L/d with constant aid may have a marked tendency
to increase the deflection and crack width.

4.4.5 Effeet of Shear Span-to-Effective Dcpth Ratio (a/d)

Figure 4.7 (a and b) have been drawn with v,jbd-Yf, versus aid ratio. Fig 4.7(a) has been
drawn with the test results those have been done without web reinforcement (Table 4.3.3,
4.3.4, and 4.3.6) and Fig. 4.7(b) has been drawn with the test result conducted by varying the
web reinforcement (Table 4.3.6, 4.3.5, 4.3.7 and 4.3.2). The legend in the figure describes the
parameters of individual curves. From Fig. 4.7(a and b) it is obvious that aid is the governing
parameter of the shear strength of deep beams. From Fig. 4.7(a) it can be concluded that there
is a definite relationship between V,,/bd-Yf, and ald. For an individual curve in Fig. 4.7 (a),
the different parameters such as L"Id, Pw' Ph and Pv are constant and only aid is varied.
Flexural steel ratio, Pw' for an individual curve in Fig. 4.7(b), was different (neglecting the
effect of L"Id as previously discussed). There is also a marked tendency to decrease the shear
strength capacity with increasing the aid ratio. Therefore, the shear strength capacity of deep
beams increased with decreasing the aid ratio. This occurs because as aid is reduced form 1.0,

79
 Variation of span-to-depth ratio, Ln/d
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25
2.00

1.75

1.50

~
0
0

•••• 1.25

--
"'0
..Q
Co
0

;;..
1.00
'-0
=
-"
.S:
'C 0.75
"
;;..

0.50
____ a/d~O.3, Pw~0.97%, Ph~O.O%, Pv=O.O%, Manuel

-+-a/d=0.65, Pw=0.97%, Ph=O.O%, Pv=O.O%, Maunel

0.25
-'-a/d=1.0, Pw=O.97%, Ph~O.O%, Pv~O.O%, Rogowsky and Manuel

0.00

Fig. 4.6 Effect of Span-to-Depth Ratio, Ln/d on the Shear Strength of Deep Beams

80
 o Ln/d=1.81,pw = 0.97%,Ph ~ 0, Pv ~ 0, Manuel
...•... Ln/d~2.3l ,pw ~ 0.97%,Ph = 0, Pv ~ 0, Manuel
A Ln/d=2.81,pw = 0.97%,Ph ~ 0, Pv = 0, Manuel
e Ln/d=3.3I,pw = 0.97%,Ph ~ 0, Pv ~ 0, manuel
)( Ln/d~3.36,pw ~ 1.13%,Ph = 0, Pv = 0, Rogowsky

~"
~
~ 1.20
-
.,
>"
'- 1.00

_
=
.S 0.80
"
.;:
>" 0.60

0.40
(a)
0.20

0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25

Variation of aId

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50
1.80
_ Pw~varied, piFO, pv~0.15%, Pavia
-)E- Pw=varied, ph=0.35%, pv~0.21 %, Rogowsky
1.60 --+- Pw=varied, ph=0.57%, pv~0.50%, Pavia
.. 0. 'Pw=varied, ph=0.61%, pv=0.61%, Rogowsky
e Pw=varied, ph=2.45%, pv=O, Subedi
1.40 - .• - Pw~0.83%, ph=O.O%, pv=O.O%, Mansur
- -<) - Pw=1. 13%, pIFO.O%, pv~O.O%, Kong
'"
o
:;1.20
.::.
-c.
, •• -b •• Pw=1.67%, ph=O.O%, pv~O.O%, Kong

0 ... :.'0 ...

>~.OO O' I 0 'f>

'- ., •• f>

-
.~0.80

"
.;:
,,0.60
>
0.40
(b) "-"-<)

0.20

0.00

Fig. 4.7 Effect of aId ratio on the shear strength of deep beams

81
the compressive strut becomes steeper, increasing the vertical component and reducing the
horizontal component of the strut force. As aid decreases, concrete compressive strength will
be more effective due to deduction of moment in the strut model. When aid is decreased, the
width of the compressive strut is increased. The width of the compressive strut would also be
affected by the width of the loading and supporting plate. So the bearing plate should be such
that the concrete would not be overstressed of their bearing stress capacity. But this decreasing
tendency could be reduced with increasing the vertical web steel becoming more ductile of the'
beam. In the range of aid more than 1.0 and low amount of web steel, beams would be brittle
in nature and diagonal splitting occurs but the beam could be made ductile by incorporating
large amount of vertical web steel. It has been found from Table 4.3.5 and 4.3.6, beams
without stirrups, beams with minimum or maximum horizontal web reinforcements, and
beams with minimum vertical web reinforcements, all dropped (shear strength) with
increasing aid ratio. On the other hand, beams having maximum vertical stirrups, little effect
of aid ratio has been found. This is because the load transfer mechanisms as illustrated in Fig.
4.5. If zero or minimum web steel is provided, concrete experience high amount of tensile
stress (weak in concrete) due to transfer of load from bottom to top of the beam, the beam
diagonally crack and ultimately fails with low capacity influencing ald. But when large
amount of stirrups is provided, most of the tensile force taken by the stirrups, diagonal crack
can not form or propagate and the beam fails with flexural mode of failure with high capacity
whatever the value of ald.

4.4.6 Effect of concrete strength, t',

Figure 4.8 (a and b) are showing the effect of concrete strength on the failure load of deep
beams. Figure 4.8(a) has been plotted for aid ~ 1.0 and 4.8(b) for aid > 1.0. The data have been
extracted from the test results conducted by Manuel et al. (Table 4.3.3), Kong et al. (Table
4.3.2), Smith and Vantsiotis (Table 4.3.1). For an individual curves in the figure, the
parameters such as aid, Pw' and Pv are constant. Since for deep beams Ph and L/d ratio have
no effect in increasing the shear strength of deep beams, as previously discussed, the effect of
r, could be understood by overlooking the dissimilarities of Ph and L/d ratio due to sorting of
data. For aid ~ 1.0 the curves are steeper than the curves with aid > 1.0 indicates that f\ is
more effective for aid ~ 1.0. So for aid ~ 1.0, r, is the another governing factor of deep beams.
Therefore, whatever the values of aid, shear stresses were increased with r,. But for better

82
 7.0

6.5

-c 5.5
e..
-
:;;-" 5.0
;;.
<i:

-
~ 4.5
l.

rJ1
l. -e-a1d~ 0.35, pw~0.52%, pv~O.O%, Manuel
~ 4.0 -*-a1d= 0.43, pw=0.63%, pv~O.O%, Kong
..c: (a)
rJ1 __ a1d~ 0.54, pw~0.80%, pv=O.O%, Kong
__ a1d= 1.0, pw=1.94%, pv~0.28%, Kong
3.5
"""*""a1d~ 1.0, pw~I.94%, pv~0.63%, Mau
-.!r-a1d= 1.0, pw=1.94%, pv~1.25%, Mau
3.0
16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0

Concrete Cylinder Strcnl(th r, (N/mm2)

16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0
5.5

..•~
~ 5.0

Z
~
"tl
2
~4.5

>'II"
;;.

"""*""a1d~l.2l, pw~1.94%, pv=0.42%, Mau

(b) -e-a1d~1.21, pw~1.94%, pv=O.77%, Mau
3.5
-.!r-a1d~1.50, pw~1.94%, pv=0.18%, Mau
--+-a1d=1.50, pw=1.94%, pv~0.31%, Mau
__ a1d=1.50, pw=1.94%, pv~0.56%, Mau
-+--a1d=1.50, pw~1.94%, pv=O.77%, Mau
3.0

Fig. 4.8 Effect of concrete strength r, on the shear strength of deep beams

83
effectiveness of the concrete strength, Illll1lIllUm web steel would be required due to
nonhomoginity of concrete. Therefore, from the close investigation of the other variable it can
be said that if the other parameters are same then the shear capacity would increase with
increasing the concrete strength. This increasing trend of the shear strength of deep beams is
due to the mechanisms of the load transfer fornl the loading point to the support. Most of the
beams having low web steel, failed in diagonal splitting, becoming more responsible of the
concrete strength on the failure load. Therefore concrete strength is more effective for deep
beams with aid :0; 1.0 and comparatively less effective for aid > 1.0. For aid > 2.0 (slender
beam) concrete strength has no matter for underreinforced beam if sufficient stirrups are
presents (Table 4.2.6 and 4.3.6).

4.5 COMPARISON OF STRENGTH PREDICTED BY ACI, CFP AND

CIRIA GUIDE WITH THE EXPERIMENTAL SHEAR STRENGTH

Deep beam is an important element of many stmctural systems. The load transfer mechanism
of deep beams is different from the slender beams. To understand the mechanism and to
obtain a rational design method many researchers tested a large number of deep beams with
varying paranleters and published the results in different journals. Some of those have been
collected (Table 4.2.1 to 4.2.7) and their shear strengths are predicted by ACI, CFP and CIRIA
Guide 2 (Table 4.3.1 to 4.3.7) methods by using the parameters given by them. The ratios of
predicted shear strength to experimental shear strength have been calculated. The data have
been sorted into two groups. The first group is for the beams having aid :0; 1.0 and the second
group is for the beams having aid > 1.0. Average values and standard deviation have been
calculated for each of the groups. With these collected data (Table 4.3.1 to 4.3.7), the
trend lines of predicted shear strength against experimental shear strength of the selected
methods (ACI, CFP and CIRIA Guide 2) have been plotted and shown in Fig. 4.9a, Fig. 4.9b
and Fig. 4.9c.

Figure 4.9a is for beams having aid < 1.0, Fig. 4.9b is for beams having aid = 1.0 and Fig. 4.9c
is for beams having aid > 1.0. From the observation of these trendlines and from the statistics
of these test data, it has been found that for beams having aid < 1.0, ACI, CFP and CIRlA
Guide methods underestimate the shear strength. For any range of aid, AC[ code considerably

84
underestimates the shear strength of deep beams. For aid < 1.0, CFP, CHUA also
underestimate the strength but CFP predicts comparatively beller results. For aid = 1.0, CFI'
predicts wcll and for CIRlA Guide 2, the underestimation is reduced. For aid > 1.0, crp and
CIRlA underestimate slightly, whereas for ACI, this underestimation is considerable.

The prediction of ACI method becomes limited due to limitation of shear strength taken by
concrete as well as the limitation of ultimate shear strength. For aid ,.:;1.0, CFP assumes that
the load is transferred directly from the loading point to the support through an inclined
compression strut and the width of this strut is al3. In fact the width of this compression strut
would increase with decreasing aid ratio. For very small value of aid, CFP method
underestimates the shear strength considerably due to fixing the widtll of this compression
strut. So the width of the inclined strut of the crp model for aid ,.:;1.0 could be reconsider,
relating aid ratio, to minimise the underestimation. For aid > 1.0, the predicted shear strength
by the CFI' method is fairly good because CFI' method can effectively use the flexural
capacity of the beam. Moreover, CFP comes out from the analysis of exact failure mechanism
of deep beams. CFP assumes that all stirrups in the shear span (aid> 1.0) yield at failure, some
of these stirrups may not yield at failure. So CFP may predicts some higher strength than
experimental result. It predicts well for beam with low stirrups. From the test result of Kong,
et al. (group 6 and 7 of Table 4.3.2) it has shown that if the horizontal web steel is closely
distributed at the bOllom, the shear capacity was increased. In fact, closing of this steel,
effectively acts as main tensile steel, i.e., if flexural capacity is increased, ultimately the shear
capacity is increased. As previously discussed that the aid ratio is the effective parameter for
controlling the beam strength, not the L,/d ratio, CFP method could use this parameter
effectively. In ACI method, the goveming parameter of all formulae is L,/d (clear span-to-
effective depth) ratio, which has a negligible effect on deep beams. Again those formulae,
which are used for the slender beam, modified for deep beams. But the failure mechanism of
deep beams is totally different from that of slender beams. The formulae developed from one
mechanism may not be used for another mechanism. On the other hand whatever the shear
resisted by the concrete and the amount of reinforcement provided, the nominal shear strength
has been limited in ACI Code. But there have no limitations for the moment resisted by
concrete as well as the nominal shear strength in CFI' method.

In the context of the CIRlA Guide 2, the method has been proposed to predict the shear

85
strength of deep beams having L/h < 2.0 (i.e. aid < 1.0), the different shear stress parameters in
Eqn. 3.19(b), out of the existing range were calculated by linear interpolation. From the
tabulated and graphical interpretation it can be shown that the CIRIA Guide 2 underestimates
the shear strength of deep beams having aid < 1.0 (Fig. 4.9a). This underestimation is reduced
for aid = 1.0 (Fig. 4.9b) and for aid > 1.0 (Fig. 4.9c).

Therefore, when these three methods are compared, CFP comes out on the basis on of exact
failure mechanism of deep beams and predicts the best results of all other methods but for aid
> 1.0, sometimes the method overestimate the shear strength. Thus further investigation is
required in this respect.

86
 900

~ Shear force predicted by ACI method

800 o Shear force predicted by CFP method
A Shear force predicted by CIRIA method
- • - - Linear (Shear force predicted by ACI method)
700
- - - - - • Linear (Shear force predicted by CFP method)
- - - Linear (Shear force predicted by CIRIA method)
~ 600
~

500

400
o

300

o
A
200
~

100

a
a 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Experimental Shear Force (kN)

Fig. 4.9a Comperative study between the shear strength predicted by ACI, CFP and CIRIA Guide 2 between aid =0.30-0.74

87
900

o
X Shear force predicted by ACI method o
800 o Shear force predicted by CFP method o
.6. Shear force predicted by CIRIA method
- - . - Linear (Shear force predicted by ACI method)
700
---Linear (Shear force predicted by CFP method)
- - - Linear (Shear force predicted by CIRIA method)

600

500
x ... •..
400 •.. •.. x
..... ~

300 ... ...

... •..
•..
200
•..
... x
o
100

o
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Experimental Shear Foree (kN)
Fig. 4.9b Comperative study between the shear strength predicted by ACI, CFP and CIRIA Guide 2 for aId =1.0

88
 900

X Shear force predicted by ACI method

800 o Shear force predicted by CFP method
A Shear force predicted by CIRIA method
- - - Linear (Shear force predicted by ACI method)
700
--- Linear (Shear force predicted by CFP method)
•••••• Linear (Shear force predicted by CIRIA method)
~ 600
~
~
<:> •.•....•..
X
<.I h. ..•..
•••
0
.•••. .•••.
0

'"•..
500
0
..............................
F= O.6371XI
"<:>
..c 0 ..•..
x.- .....
..•..
rFJ
400
..•.. .....
...0 x

:a-
""<:><.I ..•.. ..•.. 0
..•.. ..•.. ..•..
..•.. ..•.. h.
...
<:>
300 h. h. h. ..•.. ..•..
~ •.•.. •.•..
..•.. ..•..
X
~O ..•.. ..•..
..•..
X I:i & -!( X.....
..•.. ..•.. h.
200 X
h. ~ ..........
6
Xx
,... X
X
X
100
0
X
X
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Experimental Shear Force (kN)

Fig. 4.ge Comperative study between the shear strength predicted by ACI, CFP and CIRIA Guide 2 between aId =1.16-2.47

89
 CHAPTER FIVE
LABORA TORY INVESTIGATION

5.1 GENERAL
The present study involved design, fabrication, casting, moist curing and testing of a total of
ten deep beams. The experimental part may be divided into three phases:

(a) Determination of physical properties: Physical properties of both fine and coarse
aggregates such as specific gravity, absorption, unit weight, fineness modulus, etc. were
determined in the laboratory. Yield and ultimate strengths and percentage elongation of
both flexural and web reinforcements were also determined.

(b) Formation of formwork, fabrication and casting of test beams: This phase includes
the cutting, welding and making holes of 1/4" steel plates, making of formwork by
wooden plank for casting the test beams. Cutting of reinforcements, welding of anchor
plates to the main steel bars ends, making of stirrups and horizontal web reinforcements
and binding of reinforcement for making the required cage and casting of beams along
with associated cylinders and finally curing of these specimens.

(c) Testing of beams: A total of 5 simply supported and 5 two span continuous deep beams
were tested after they gained design strength as ascertained from the associated
cylinders. The beams were of 400 mm depth and 130 mm width. Shear span-to-effective
depth ratio was varied from 0.60 to 1.48. Clear span-to-effective depth ratio for simply
supported beams was constant but for continuous beams, this ratio was varied. Two
equal point loads were applied on each simply supported beam and a'single point load
was applied at the middle of each span of the continuous beams. The model simply
supported deep beams have been designated as DBS, whereas the continuous deep
beams have been given the name DBC.

5.2 AGGREGATE PROPERTIES

Stone aggregates from boulders were used as coarse aggregate. The boulders were crushed
to 13 mm down size because of small size of the model of the actual deep beams. Ordinary

90
Sylhet sand passing NO.4 were used as the fine aggregate. The absorption, specific gravity,
unit weight and fineness modulus of the aggregates were determined as per ASTM
recommendations. The grading and other physical properties of the coarse and fine
aggregates are shown in Table 5.1 and 5.2.

Table 5.1 Grading of aggregates

Cumulative percentage retained for
Sieve size
Coarse aggregate (Stone chips) Fine aggregate (Sylhet sand)
11/2 inch 0
I "
0
:y. 0
"
1, 14.34
"
3/8 43.8
"
'Ii" 85.84
#4 97.36 0
#8 99.02 2.4
#16 99.44 13.2
#30 99.94 43.3
#50 100.00 83.3
#100 100.00 97.5
Fineness Modulus 6.40 2.40

Table 5.2 Physical properties of aggregates

Property Stone chips Sylhet sand
Fineness Modulus 6.40 2.40
Unit weight (loose) (Ib/cft) 86 89.5
Unit weight (SSD, Compacted) 96.2 98.4
Bulk sp. gravity 2.70 2.14
Bulk sp. gravity (SSD Condition) 2.73 2.16
Absorption (% of dry weight) 1.11 1.21

5.3 REINFORCEMENT

Mild steel deform bars of 20 mm, 16 mm and 12 mm nominal diameter were used as the
main flexural reinforcement. End plates of 130 mm x 75 m x 6 mm were used for both
simply supported and continuous deep beams. The bars were bought from local market and
the actual diameters were calculated by measuring the weight and length of a deformed bar
sample. Again, 6 mm diameter plain bars were used as web reinforcements. Two such 6 mm

91
bars were used in the compression zone to hold the stirrup in the simply supported beams. A
number of specimens from each size of bars were tested in order to determine yield strength,
ultimate strength and percentage of elongation. A summery of test results is given in Table
5.3.

Table 5.3 Physical properties of reinforcements, which are used in the test beams
Nominal Actual Actual Yield strength Ultimate Percentage
diameter diameter Area (N/mm2) strength elongation 111 2"
(mm) (mm) (mm2) (N/mm2) gauge length
19.27 291.50 394.14 540.17 30
20 19.36 294.25 392.27 540.11 29
19.32 293.18 390.82 537.07 28
Average 19.32 292.98 392.41 539.12 29
15.59 190.78 338.07 458.37 25
16 15.50 188.77 336.94 445.33 24
15.55 189.91 337.45 451.85 26
Average 15.55 189.82 337.49 451.85 25
11.73 108.12 279.74 423.73 26
12 11.72 107.97 292.49 424.32 27
11.79 109.19 281.07 419.57 26
Average 11.75 108.43 284.43 422.54 26
7.08 39.37 395.44 485.83 26
6 6.96 38.00 351. I7 444.81 26
7.14 40.05 377.58 466.43 25

Average 7.06 39.14 374.73 465.69 26

5.4 DESIGN OF CONCRETE MIX

There are some standard methods for concrete mix design. Most of the time the ingredients
remain in field condition and to bring it at required condition as per recommendation is a
difficult job. Here a trial mix method for proportioning for the required cylinder strength has
been followed. On the basis of the test results of the trial mix, the ratio of cement, sand and
aggregate were finally selected. Ordinary Portland cement was used throughout the test
programme. The mix was designed to attain a nominal cylinder crushing strength of 28
N/mm' at 28 days of curing. Mix details are given below:

Designed strength: 28 N/mm'

Mix proportion (by weight)
Cement: Sand: Stone aggregate: I: 1.5 : 2.70
Water cement ratio = 0.49

92
The slump of the fresh concrete was maintained to 50 mm. The mix contents of each batch
for the two series of beams (including 6 cylinder specimens for each test beam) are given in
Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Contents of Concrete-mix Batch

Beam Quantity (by weight) Water-Cement
senes Cement (kg) Sand (kg) Stone chips (kg) Water (kg) ratio, w/c

DBS 233.9 350.8 631.4 114.6 0.49

DBC 253.1 379.6 683.3 124.0 0.49

5.5 THE TEST BEAMS

Five simply supported and five two-span continuous deep beams were designed as per
compressive force path (CFP) method. Nominal cross-sections of the beams were 130 mm
by 400 mm. The lengths of all the simply supported beams were 1600 mm and they were
loaded by two point loads with varying aid ratios. Therefore, L,/d ratios of all the simply
supported deep beams were constant. On the other hand, the length of all the five
continuous deep beams were varied and loaded by single point load at the middle of each
span. Thus, both aid ratio and L,/d ratio were varied for two span beams. The main
longitudinal reinforcements were provided following the design moment of each beam.
Here, 20 mm, 16 mm and 12 mm diameter mild steel deform bars were used for this
purpose. Two 6 mm thick and 130 mm by 75 mm mild steel plates were welded to either
end of the tension bars to prevent any premature bond failure. The centre of each outer
support was 150 mm inside from the end of the beam. The centroid of the tensile steel was
maintained at 35 mm from the surface of tension side. The vertical and horizontal web steels
were provided by 6 mm plain bars. Closed stirrups were provided as vertical web steels and
the straight bars hooked at both ends were provided as horizontal web steel and placed at
both the faces of the beam. Typical design of some test beams are shown in Appendix - A.
The beams were designed in order to ascertain the shear eapacity of deep beams with
varying aid ratio and to assess the amount of web reinforcement required in CFP method.
For this purpose the following has been done:

•••

93
(i) To prevent crushing of the concrete at flexural compression zone, main steel ratio
was kept well below the balanced steel ratio. But the designed flexural capacity for
each of the beams was such that the shear strength developed for this flexural
capacity can not be resisted by concrete alone and, thus, that the role of shear steel
could be understood.

(ii) Anchor plates were provided to prevent any premature failure due to arch action and
to develop a well-defined mechanism before failure of the beam. All the beams were
designed for expected loads, i.e. first designed for flexural capacity, and then
designed for expected shear capacity. The minimum steels were provided as per ACI
recommendation.

(iii) Some extra V-shaped distribution stirrups were provided at both loading and support
location to prevent any premature bearing failure. Lifting hooks were provided at
both ends of each beam.

5.6 FABRICA TION AND CASTING OF TEST BEAMS

Five simply supported and five two span continuous deep beams were designed, fabricated
and cast. Five wooden moulds, made of I inch thick plank, were used to cast the test beams
(photoplate 5.2). Three cylinders of 152.4 mm diameter and 304.8 mm height, were cast
along with each test beam from the same batch of concrete of each test beam. Minimum
horizontal and vertical web reinforcements, where necessary, were provided for the test
beams as per ACI code recommendations for deep beams. A 20 mm clear concrete cover
was provided at top and bottom of the beam. The clear covers on two sides of the beam
were 17 mm. Horizontal web steels were placed inside the vertical web steels. The bars
were tied to every junction by GI wires. In addition to web reinforcement a number short
bars were placed at the loading and support point to distribute the load i.e. to prevent the
bearing failure of the beam. Welding of steel plates, formation of stirrups and horizontal
web steels and their arrangements of each test beam have been shown in figure 5.1 (a) to
5.1(j) and their photographs have been shown in the photoplates 5.I(a) to 5.1(j). After
fabrication of steel, the cages have been placed in the formwork properly (photoplate 5.3).
The designed concrete mix was prepared by mixing machine.

94
 r 130 r -t 150 270 760 270
I 150 r
Jm ~

~ 6 I@ 73

~ 6 iIiII20
o
o
<T
3-~ 16

T (bloBS2 -F+ t
Fig. 5.' Reinforcement arrangement of beam (a) DSSI (b) DSS2
95
 130 150 , 365 , 570 I 365 , 150 ,
! f- I T
I
I
I

~ a
-

t
N
~ 16 ,OJ 73
'"
Q
-
a
ilJ6rQ) 120 ~
-

r
a
3-ilJ 20 ~
--
""'i::ua
(c)OBS3
ft-
• '"'"

_I 130 f. I 150 I 455 . 390 455 r 150 ,

r T I I

~6'Q)73
Jm ~~

'"
Q

~6 ~ 120
'"'"
'"

" ~ ~

T (d) OBS4 f4-

Fig. 5.1 Reinforcementarrangementof beam (e) DBS3 (d) DBS4
96
 545 I 150 I
545 210
I 150 I T
1 I 1
t 130 -, m, P7/ ~
""
"'
Q
~ 6 <Q) 73 -

$ 6'Ol 120 "'

<0
-
"' F
- a
3-<1> 20 ~
~-
~- "'"'
I
T
t- i:{L 0:1 \73

(.l DBS5

220 I 220 220 I 150 I

I 150 I 220
T I
T
T
T
I 130 I
,m -= 0'77=
"'"'
a
£!
"'
<0

"'

"'"'
"'"' ~ ~

T -P+ t \Il DBCI

Fig _ 5 _I : Reinforcement arrangement of beam l e 1 DBS5 (f) DBC 1

97

•
 150 , 270 270 , 270 I 270 I 150 1
I
-T 1 [ [
I 130
I I
~
,
'"'" ~ I\V
o 3-$12
£!
'"'"
'"
-3
o A::..
'" ,., '"
'" ~ ~
.~
~
~ 01
{3
I
( g) DBC2

365 365 I 150 l

365 365 I 130
I 150 I
T
T T T I 1 2-$12+HIl16
T
f7} m 1'77 m
J
o
£!

o
'" :>l
=;= 3-1>12
~ 0l
-F+ T (h) DBC3

Fig. 5.1 Reinforcement arrangement of beam (g) DBC2 (h) DBC3

98

•
 I 150 455 455 I 455 455 , 150 ,
I 1 r T T

~
= 77.:l
-
"''"
o
~
-
o
~
= -
o

-
~ Ol
~
~ ~ -- "'
'"' """ (i) DBC4
~
""" = '"
~

f~ 54_5 I 5_4_5 _
, 545 545 f 150

~ ~

o
I ~

o
~

o
Ol

2-$16+1 -~'2 T (jl DBC5

r.cL ~
+4-
~

Fig .. 5~ : Reinforcement arrangement of beam (i) DBC4 ( j ) DBC5

99
Photoplate 5.1 Reinforcement assembly of model test specimens (a) DBSI, (b) DBS2,
(c) DBS3, (d) DBS4, (e) DBS5

100
Photoplate 5.1 Reinforcement assembly of model test specimens (f) DBCI, (g) DBC2,
(h) DBC3, (i) DBC4, G) DBC5

101
•

Photoplate 5.2 Formwork of model test specimens

Photoplate 5.3 Casting of model test specimen

Photoplate 5.4 Loading of model test specimen

102
Compaction of concrete was achieved by vibrating the fresh concrete, with the mechanical
vibrator, pouring into the mould and the associated cylinder specimens were cast in the
same manner. After 24 hours, the beams were stripped off and the beams were lifted off by
hooks provided at both ends of each beam. The beams were cured for 21 days by wrapping
the beams with moist gunny bags. These gunny bags were moisten twice daily

5.7 TESTING OF BEAMS

All the specimens were moist cured for 21 days. The specimens were white washed on
either sides to facilitate visual observation of the propagation of cracks on the beam surface.
A 50 mm square grid mesh was drawn on the white washed face between the supports only
to establish the relative locations of cracks with ease. The specimens were tested using a
universal testing machine of 100 tonnes capacity. Each of the loading jacks was calibratcd
by proving column of 1600 kN capacity. The calibrated results are shown in Appendix - C.
The simply supported beams were tested with two 'point loading' and double span beams
were tested with single 'point loading' at the middle of each span (photoplate 5.4). The loads
ware applied on the top surface through a 50 mm thick, 130 mm by 100 mm steel plate and
the reactions were supported by the same size of plates at the bottom of the beam. Both the
reaction plates were supported on 16 mm diameter steel rollers to give an ideal support
conditions. The centre lines of the loading and support regions of each beam were clearly
marked on both sides of the beam. The centrelines of each loading and reaction plate were
also marked on both sides of the plates and the locations of the support plates and loading
plates were adjusted by this centrelines.

One deflectometer graduated in 0.00 I in./division were employed to measure the central
deflection of each span. One deflectometer was also placed at each support to account for
the support settlement, if any. All deflectometer readings were recorded at each load
increment. Before loading, each deflectometer readings were set to zero. Each test beam was
initially loaded upto 2 tonnes and then released. This operation was done twice before the
deflectometer dials were set to zero to achieve a uniform and better setting of the beam
specimen with the loading system. The beam was then loaded and deflections were recorded
at regular intervals of load increment. An increment of 2 tonnes of load in each of the jacks
was applied within one minute and then the load was kept constant for another minute.
Cracks were searched by a magnifying glass and were deeply marked with a soft pencil

103
upon their formation and propagation on the beam surface and the load intensity at which it
was formed was noted by the side of the crack. The results will be reported in chapter 6.

5.8 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF ASSOCIATED CYLINDERS

Three cylinders, which were cast along with the beams, were tested under axial compression
to determine the ultimate compressive strength (f,) of concrete. The associated cylinders
were tested at the time of testing the beam. The test results are shown in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5 Compressive strength of the associated cylinders

Beam Depth Width rcl rc2 rc3 rcAv~.

mm mm N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
DBS1 402.7 131.5 27.1 30.0 28.7 28.6
DBS2 403.3 132.0 28.7 28.2 26.7 27.9
DBS3 403.0 129.7 24.6 24.0 24.3 24.3
D13S4 403.7 130.8 22.5 26.3 26.7 25.2
D13S5 403.3 130.8 21.7 27.3 24.5 24.5
DBCI 402.3 130.8 23.5 27.6 25.6 25.6
DBC2 402.3 130.7 23.5 27.2 28.2 26.3
D13C3 403.7 131.2 27.8 25.8 26.8 26.8
DBC4 401.0 130.5 26.9 23.9 26.3 25.7
DBC5 402.3 130.2 26.5 27.1 26.1 26.6

104
 CHAPTER SIX
TEST RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND INTERPRET ATION

6.1 GENERAL
A total of 10 reinforced concrete deep beams - 5 simply supported and 5 continuous over
two span - were tested under concentrated loading as previously discussed. Length, breadth,
overall depth, steel arrangements, loading conditions etc. were discussed in the previous
chapter. The investigation was conducted to find out the role of web reinforcement with
changing shear span-to-effective depth ratio (aid), crack width and crack pattern, deflections
and mode of failure. The special interest of this investigation was to ascertain the validity of
the conccpt of compressive force path in the design of simply supported and continuous
deep beams. The results of the tests have been presented in this chapter. The results have
been analysed in order to further investigate and understand the behaviour of deep bcams.

6.2 THE MAIN OBSERV AnONS AND RECORDING DURING TEST

The load at flexural cracking, the load at initial diagonal tension cracking, the ultimate load.
and the deflections at each supports, midpoint of each span, and out of plane deflection at
mid-depth of each beam, the propagation of cracks under different load intensities had all
been noted in a systematic manner during each test. For easy understanding, the overall
performance of the beams, test results have been presented in this chapter in a tabular form.
A general description of the contents of the different tables containing various test data,
which arc necessary, are furnished below:

In Table 6.1, the typical beam properties of all the model deep beams have been providcd.
The table contains the actual overall depth, beam width, clear span, effective depth, shear
span, support width, clear shear span, flexural steel ratio, horizontal and vertical web steel
ratio, steel strength and concrete cylinder strength. The different steel ratios were computed
on the basis of actual area of steel provided and mean of the measured width and effective
depth after casting. Each jack load at which flexural cracking (Pf), diagonal tension cracking
(P,,), and the ultimate load (P,,) were recorded (Table 6.2). The table also contains the ratio
of flexural cracking load to the ultimate load and the diagonal tension cracking load to the
ultimate load, span of failure and mode of failure.

105
Table-6.1 Properties of all simply supported and two span model deep beam test specimens
Flexural steel ratio,
Har. web steel Vert. web Yield strength of Concrete
Clear Total Effective Beam Shear Support Clear shear p\\I =As/bd %
Beam ratio, cylinder
span, Ln span, a width, c steel ratio,
height. h depth, d width, b span, x flexural steel, Horizontal Vertical web strength,
Mark Ph =Ashlbsh Pv =Asv/bsv
(mm) (mm) (mOl) (Olm) (Olm) (mOl) (mOl) +ve -ve f y (N/m0l2) web steel, steel, f v fc
% %
+ve/-vc fh (N/mm2) (N/m0l2) (N/Olm2)

DBSI \200 402.7 367.7 \31.5 220 100 120 1.01 374.7 374.7
0.496 0.8\5 325.7 28.6
-

DBS2 \200 403.3 368.3 132.0 270 100 170 1.17 374.7 374.7
0.494 0.8\2 337.5 27.9
-

DBS3 1200 403.0 368.0 129,7 365 \00 265 1.84 0,503 374.7 374.7
-
0,827 392.4 24.3

DBS4 1200 403,7 368.7 130.8 455 100 355 1.82 374.7 374.7
0.499 0.820 392.4 25.2
-
DBS5 \200 403.3 368.3 130.8 545 100 445 374,7 374,7
1.82 -
0.499 0,820 392.4 24.5

OBCI 340 402.3 367.3 130,8 220 100 284.4/ 374.7 374.7
120 0.45 0.45 0.499 0.820 25.6
284.4
OBC2 440 402.3 367.3 130.7 270 0,68 284.4/ 374.7 374,7
\00 170 0.68 0.499 0.820 26.3
284.4
DBC3 630 403,7 368.7 131.2 365 0,67 284.4/ 374,7 374,7
100 265 0.84 0.497 0.817 26.8
309.2
DBC4 810 401.0 366,0 130,5 309.2/ 374.7 374.7
455 \00 355 0.85 1.02 0.500 0,822 25.7
325.7
DBC5 990 402.3 367.3 130.2 545 325.7/ 374.7 374.7
\00 445 1.02 1.\9 0.501 0.824 26.6
337.5

106
Table 6.2 Flexural cracking load, Diagonal tension cracking load and Ultimate load at
failure
Beam Concrete Flexural Diagonal Ultimat Ratio of Ratio of Span and Mode of
Mark strength, f c cracking tension cracking e load, Pp'Pu PcrlPu failure
(N/mm2) load, load, Per (kN) I'u (kN)
Pf(kN)
DBSI 28.6 143.97 145.0 344.7 0.42 0.42 Right shear span
and Shear failure
DBS2 27.9 96.05 115.2 325.8 0.29 0.35 Left shear span
and Shear failure
24.3 76.82 96.1 288.9 0.27 0.33 Right shear span
DBS3
and Shear failure
76.82 96.0 260.6 0.29 0.37 Right shear span
DBS4 25.2
and Shear failure
57.59 76.8 241.6 0.24 0.32 Right shear span
DBS5 24.5
and Shear failure
DBCI 25.6 211.23 192.0 480.1 0.44 0.40 Right inner shear span
and Shear failure
192.00 192.0 451.4 0.43 0.43 Right inner shear span
DBC2 26.3
and Shear failure
153.64 192.0 441.7 0.35 0.43 Right inner shear span
DBC3 26.8
and Shear failure
115.\8 172.8 401.5 0.29 0.43 Right inner shear span
DBC4 25.7
and Shear failure
153.5 393.1 0.24 0.39 Right inner shear span
DBC5 26.6 96.05
and Shear failure

Table 6.3 shows the squire root of concrete cylinder strength (1\), shear forces in the failure
span (V" and V,,), nominal shear stresses (v" and v,,) and maximum moment (M" and M,,) at
diagonal cracking load and at ultimate load, respectively. Shear strengths of the two span
beams were calculated by elastic analysis. From this analysis it was found that the shear
force in the inner shear span is 2.2 times larger than that of in the outer shear span and the
negative moment at the inner support is 1.2 times of the positive moment at the middle of
each span. Table 6.4 shows the clear span-to-effective depth ratio (L,/d), shear span-to-
effective depth ratio (aid), effective clear shear span-to-active height (xjh,), experimental
ultimate shear strength (V"p), values of V"/bd"if,, ratios of shear strength at the beam's
flexural capacity to experimental ultimate shear strength of the failure span, ratios of
predicted ultimate shear strength by ACI Code, CFr and CIRIA Guide 2 to experimental
ultimate shear strength. Typical calculations of beam DBS 1 by different shear strength
prediction methods are shown in Appendix - B.

Supports deflections, mid-span deflection and out-of-plane deflection were recorded by

deflectometers, graduated in 0.00 I inch per division, at regular interval of load increment.
Appendix - D shows the mid-span deflections of different test specimen at every 2 tonnes

107
loading reading increment. Figure 6.1 and 6.2 show the load-deflection response of the test
specImens.
The formation of cracks had been searched at each interval of loading and the intensity of
loading dial reading was marked by the side of the crack. The behaviour of beam under two
'point loading' of simply supported and one 'point loading' at the middle of each span of
continuous deep beams, and the crack pattern with the intensity of loading dial reading has
been shown in Fig. 6.3(a) to Fig. 6.30) and in Photoplates 6.I(a) to 6.10). Two types of
cracks were observed in this test program: (i) Flexural cracks were first observed in the zone
of maximum bending moment. Starting from the bottom, these cracks propagated vertically
towards the compression side; (ii) Shear or diagonal cracks were observed in the shear span
as inclined cracks. These cracks originated at about mid-depth of the beam section, located
approximately half way between the support and the loading block and propagated inclindly
in both the directions. The inclination of these shear cracks, formed by principal tension in
the shear span, were approximately parallel to the line joining the inner edge of the support
and the edge of the loading block. Well-developed shear cracks were observed in all the test
beams and all the beams failed in shear. The ultimate shear strength decrease with
increasing aid ratio (Fig. 6.4). The efficiency of different methods in predicting the shear
strength of deep beams have been shown in Fig. 6.5 (a and b).

Table 6.3 Shear forces, shear stresses of the failure span and maximum bending
moment at initial diagonal cracking load and at ultimate load, respectively.
Shear force at Nominal shear stress at Ma.ximum bending moment at
Ultimate Initial diagonal
Beam Diagonal Initial diagonal Ultimate ultimate load. Mu
-il'c load for the cracking load, Mer
Mark cracking cracking load, load. Vu (kN-mm)
failure span (kN-mm)
(kN) vcr (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
(kN) -ve +vc -vc +ve

DESI 5.35 144.97 344.74 3.00 7.13 - 31893 - 75842

DBS2 5.28 115.18 325.81 2.37 6.70 - 31098 - 87968
DBS3 4.93 96.05 288.94 2.01 6.05 - 35058 - 105464
DBS4 5.02 95.95 260.55 1.99 5.40 - 43657 - 118548
DBS5 4.95 76.82 241.62 1.59 5.02 - 41866 - 131680
DECI 5.06 132.00 330.10 2.75 6.87 15840 13200 39612 33010
DBC2 5.13 132.00 310.30 2.75 6.46 19440 16200 45699 38082
DBC3 5.18 132.00 303.66 2.73 6.28 26280 21900 60455 50379

DI3C4 5.07 118.78 276.05 2.49 5.78 29478 24565 68511 57093
DBC5 5.16 105.56 270.23 2.21 5.65 31379 26149 80332 66943

108
Table 6.4 Ratio of different parameters, and predicted shear strength to experimental
shear strength of the test specimens.
Beam L/d aid x/h, V",(kN) V",Ibd'Jf, V,IV", V Ac/Vex;p VCFIJVew V CIRIA/V exp

DBSI 3.26 0.60 0.30 344.7 1.33 0.72 0.55 0.69 0.64

DBS2 3.26 0.73 0.42 325.8 1.27 0.73 0.58 0.82 0.68

DBS3 3.26 0.99 0.66 288.9 1.23 0.98 0.60 0.94 0.78

DBS4 3.25 1.23 0.88 260.5 1.08 0.88 0.68 1.14 0.77

DBS5 3.26 1.48 1.10 241.6 1.01 0.79 0.72 1.07 0.73

DBC1 0.93 0.60 0.30 330.1 1.36 0.55 0.49 0.64 0.52

DBC2 1.20 0.74 0.42 310.3 1.26 0.71 0.53 0.80 0.58

DBC3 1.71 0.99 0.66 303.7 1.21 0.72 0.55 1.00 0.57

DBC4 2.21 1.24 0.89 276.1 1.14 0.78 0.59 1.35 0.58

DBC5 2.70 1.48 1.11 270.2 1.10 0.80 0.64 1.44 0.56

6.3 DISCUSSION AND INTERPRET AnON OF THE TEST RESULTS

Five simply supported and five two-span deep beams were designed in compliance with the
concept of Compressive Force Path. The main longitudinal reinforcements were provided,
as that required for the design moment of each beam. Minimum amounts of web
reinforcements were provided as recommended by current ACI code for the beams having
aid S 1.0. For the beams having aid > 1.0, web reinforcements were designed using the
concept of Compressive Force Path. Moments and shear forces for two span beams were
obtained by elastic analysis. All the flexural reinforcements were anchored by 6 mm thick
steel plates to prevent premature failure. The reinforcement arrangements have been shown
in Chapter 5 (Fig. 5.Ia to Fig. 5.1j). Loads were applied by controlling the interval of time
with a definite load increment. The test results were presented in tabular form in the
previous sections. The discussion and interpretation of the test results are as follows:

BEAM nBS): This simply supported beam was tested with aid ratio equal to 0.60. Clear
span length (L,), shear span (a), Effective depth (d), and width of the beam were 1200 mm,
220 mm, 367.7 mm and 131.5 mm respectively. Flexural steel ratio, horizontal web steel
ratio (minimum), and vertical web steel ratio (minimum) were l.01 %, 0.496% and 0.815%

109
respectively. Concrete cylinder strength of this beam was 28.6 N/mm' at the time of testing.
Both flexural cracking load and diagonal cracking load were observed at 42% of the
ultimate load. The beam failed in shear and the ultimate load was found to be 344.7 kN.
The failure was observed along the plane joining the load to inner face of support. From the
load-deflection curve (Fig. 6.1), it was clear that initially the beam behaves elastically and
then inelastic behaviour was observed. The load, up to which this elastic behaviour was
observed, was the highest of all simply supported beams. Initial diagonal cracking has no
significant influence on the rate of increment of deflection because there is no significant
change of slope at that load (Fig. 6. I). Flexural crack first formed but did not penetrate deep
into the compression zone (Fig. 6.3a). Well-developed inclined crack was formed with the
flexural crack. After certain load increment, another inclined crack was formed above the
existing one, behaved essentially as tied arches. From Table 6.4, the flexural capacity of the
beam is 72% of the ultimate load. Thus the notion that the flexurally weaken beams, even
deep beams, would fail in flexure, is not true. Deep beams, even weak in flexure, would fail
in shear because of load transfer mechanism (compressive force path). Table 6.4 indicates
that both ACI and CIRIA Guide significantly underestimate the shear strength (only 55%
and 64% respectively). CFP also underestimate the shear strength (69%) due to
underestimating the width of the compressive strut for aid::; 1.0 at al3.

BEAM DBS2: This simply supported beam was tested with aid ratio equal to 0.73. Clear
span length (L"), shear span (a), Effective depth (d), and width of the beam were 1200 mm,
270 mm, 368.3 mm and 132.0 mm respectively. Flexural steel ratio, horizontal web steel
ratio (minimum), and vertical web steel ratio (minimum) were 1.17%, 0.494% and 0.812%
respectively. Concrete cylinder strength of this beam was 27.9 N/mm'. Flexural cracking
load was 29% and diagonal cracking load was 35% of the ultimate load. The beam failed in
shear and the ultimate load was found to be 325.8 kN. The failure was observed along the
plane joining the load to inner face of support. From Fig. 6.1, initially the beam behaves
elastically and then inelastically. The rate of increment of deflection was more than those of
beam DBS I but the deflection at which both the curves changes its slope is same. This
behaviour could be useful for describing the deep beam behaviour. The ultimate load was
smaller than that of beam DBS I. Initial diagonal cracking has no significant influence on
the rate of increment of deflection because there is no significant change of slope at the
cracking load. Flexural crack first formed and penetrate deeper into the compression zone

110
than that of beam DBSI (Fig. 6.3(b)). Well-developed inclined crack was formed after
formation of the flexural crack and then the formation of diagonal cracks is more
pronounced than the flexural cracks. From Table 6.4, the flexural capacity of the beam is
73% of the experimental ultimate load i.e., the beam failed in shear after exceeding the
flexural capacity by about 27% of the ultimate load. Therefore, the beam DBS2, flexurally
under-reinforced beam, failed in shear by developing well-developed inclined cracks as
shown in figure 6.3(b). Table 6.4 indicates that both ACI and CIRIA Guide significantly
underestimate the shear strength (58% and 68% respectively). CFP also underestimate the
shear strength (82%) but the underestimation is less than that of beam DBSI.

BEAM DBS3: This simply supported beam was tested with aid ratio equal to 0.99. Clear
span length (L,), shear span (a), Effective depth (d), and width of the beam were 1200 mm,
365 mm, 368.0 mm and 129.7 mm, respectively. Flexural steel ratio, horizontal web steel
ratio (minimum), and vertical web steel ratio (minimum) were 1.84%, 0.503% and 0:827%
respectively. Concrete cylinder strength of this beam was 24.3 N/mm'. Flexural cracking
load was 27% and diagonal cracking load was 33% of the ultimate load. The beam failed in
shear and the ultimate load was found to be 288.9 kN. The failure was observed along the
plane joining the load to inner face of support. Initially the beam behaves elastically and
then inelastically (Fig. 6.1). Initial rate of increment of deflection was more or less same as
those of beam DBS I. The deflection at which the curve changes its slope is approximately,
once again, same as those of beam DBS I and DBS2. The ultimate load was smaller than
that of beam DBS2 because aid ratio of this beam is less than that of beam DBS2. There is
no significant change of slope at the cracking load. Flexural cracks first formed and
penetrate deeper into the compression zone than that of beam DBS2 (Fig. 6.3(c)). Well-
developed inclined cracks were formed after formation of flexural cracks and then the
formation of inclined cracks is more pronounced than the flexural cracks. From Table 6.4,
the llexural capacity of the beam is 98% of the experimental ultimate load i.e., the beam
failed in shear by developing significant inclined cracks (Fig. 6.3) at its llexural capacity.
Both ACI and CIRlA Guide underestimate (Table 6.4) the shear strength (60% and 78%
respectively). Comprerssive Force Path method could predict the experimentally observed
shear strength (94%) well.

BEAM DBS4: This simply supported beam was tested with aid ratio equal to 1.23. Clear

III
span length (L,,), shear span (a), Effective depth (d), and width of the beam were 1200 mm,
455 nll11,368.7 mm and 130.8 mm respectively. Flexural steel ratio, horizontal web steel
ratio (minimum), and vertical web steel ratio (minimum) were 1.82%, 0.499% and 0.82%
respectively. Concrete cylinder strength of this beam was 25.2 N/mm'. Flexural cracking
load was 29% and diagonal cracking load was 37% of the ultimate load. The beam failed in
shear and the ultimate load was found to be 260.6 kN. The failure was observed along the
plane joining the load to inner face of support. Initially the rate of deflection was similar to
beam DBS3 up to 50% of the ultimate shear strength then the rate of deflection was
increased gradually up to failure of the beam (Fig. 6.1). The deflection at which the curve
rapidly changes its slope is approximately same as those of beam DBS3. The ultimate load
was smaller than that of beam DES3 because aid ratio of this beam is greater than that of
beam DES3. There is no significant change of slope at the cracking load. Flexural cracks
first formed and penetrate deeper into the compression zone than that of beam DBS3 (Fig.
6.3(d)). Well-developed inclined cracks were formed after formation of flexural cracks,
which controls the ultimate strength of the beam. From Table 6.4, the flexural capacity of
the beam is 88% of the experimental ultimate strength i.e., the beam failed by crushing of an
arch rib after developing significant inclined cracks (Fig. 6.3d). Both ACI and CIRIA Guide
underestimate (Table 6.4) the shear strength (68% and 77% respectively). Compressive
Force Path (CFP) method slightly overestimate the shear strength (114%) of the beam.

BEAM DBSS: This simply supported beam was tested with aid ratio equal to 1.48. Clear
span length (L,,), shear span (a), Effective depth (d), and width of the beam was 1200 mm,
545 mm, 368.3 mm and 130.8 mm respectively. Flexural steel ratio, horizontal web steel
ratio (minimum), and vertical web steel ratio (minimum) were 1.82%, 0.499% and 0.82%
respectively. Concrete cylinder strength of this beam was 24.5 N/mm'. Flexural cracking
load was 24% and diagonal cracking load was 32% of the ultimate load. The beam failed in
shear and the ultimate load was found to be 241.6 kN, which is less than that of beam
DES4. The failure was observed along the plane joining the load to inner face of support. At
the start of loading the rate of deflection rapidly increased in comparison to those of all
other beams (Fig. 6.1) and there was no rapid change of slope of the load-deflection curve
before failure of the beam. The ultimate load was smaller than that of beam DBS4 because
aid ratio of this beam is greater than that of beam DES4. Diagonal crack have some
influence on the load-deflection curve i.e. on the behaviour of this beam. Flexural cracks

112
penetrated deeper towards the npper compression zone than that of beam DBS4 (Fig. 6.3e).
Well-developed inclined cracks were formed which controls the ultimate strength. A
horizontal compression strut at the top of the beam between the two concentrated loads and
with the inclined compression strut from the load to the support, exhibits a comb like
appearance of all the simply supported deep beams which definitely describes the
mechanism of compressive force path and supports the proposed model as shown in Fig. 3.8
and 3.9(b). Flexural capacity of the beam is 79% of the experimental ultimate strength but
the beam failed by crushing of an arch rib after developing significant inclined cracks (Fig.
6.3e). Both ACI code and CIRIA Guide underestimate (Table-6.4) the shear strength (72%
and 73% respectively). Compressive Force Path (CFP) method perfectly estimate the shear
strength (107%) of this deep beam.

BEAM DBCI: This continuous beam was tested with aid ratio equal to 0.60. Clear span
length (L,,), shear span (a), Effective depth (d), and width of the beam were 340 mm, 220
m111,367.3 mm and 130.8 mm respectively. Both positive and negative flexural steel ratio
were 0.45%, horizontal (minimum) and vertical web steel ratio (minimum) were 0.499%
and 0.82%, respectively. Concrete cylinder strength of this beam was 25.6 N/mm'. Flexural
cracking load and diagonal eracking load were observed at 44% and 40% of the ultimate
load. Shear failure was observed in the inner shear span at 480. I kN ultimate shear force.
The failure was observed along the plane joining the load to the edge of the inner support.
From the load-deflection curve (Fig. 6.1), it was clear that initially the beam behaves
elastically and then inelastic behaviour was observed. The load, up to which this elastic
behaviour was observed, was the highest of all continuous beams. Initial diagonal cracking
has no notable influence on the rate of increment of deflection (Fig. 6.2). Substantial
flexural cracks was not observed due to small length of shear span (Fig. 6.3f). Well-
developed diagonal cracks were formed before failure of the inner span ereating a cracking
fan, which is resemblance of the proposed model given by Kotsovos (Fig. 3.10). From Table
6.4, the flexural capacity of the beam was only 55% of the ultimate load. So some of the
researchers recommended that the flexurally weaken beams, even deep beams, would fail in
flexure, is not true. Deep beams, even weak in flexure, would fail in shear because of tied
arch mechanism (compressive force path). The values of V"/bd,,if\ for both OBSI and
OBC I are approximately same (1.33 and 1.36 respeetively) indicates that the load transfer
model for simply supported deep beams could be valid for continuous deep beams having

I 13
low aid ratio. Table 6.4 indicates that both ACI and CIRIA Guide notably underestimate the
Shear strength (only 55% and 52% respectively). CFP also underestimate the shear strength
(64%) due to fixing the width of the compressive strut for aid::; 1.0.

BEAM DBC2: This continuous beam was tested with aid ratio equal to 0.74. Clear span
length (L,,), shear span (a), Effective depth (d), and width of the beam were 440 nun, 270
mm, 367.3 mm and 130.7 mm respectively. Both positive and negative flexural steel ratios
were 0.68%, horizontal (minimum) and vertical web steel ratio (minimum) were 0.499%
and 0.82% respectively. Concrete cylinder strength of this beam was 26.3 N/mm'. Both
flexural cracking load and diagonal cracking loads were observed at 44% of the ultimate
load. Shear failure was observed in the inner shear span at 451.4 kN ultimate shear force.
The failure was observed along the plane joining the load to the edge of the inner support.
Initially the beam behaves elastically and then inelasticlly (Fig. 6.2). The rate of increment
of deflection is higher than that of beam DBC I and the deflection at which the beam change
its behaviour from elastic to inelastic is larger than that of beam DBC I. Initial diagonal
cracking has no notable influence on the rate of increment of deflection (Fig. 6.2).
Substantial flexural cracks was not observed due to small length of shear span (Fig. 6.3g).
Well-developed diagonal cracks were formed before failure of the inner span creating a
cracking fan, which is resemblance of the proposed model given by Kotsovos (Fig. 3.10).
From Table 6.4, the flexural capacity of the beam was only 71% of the ultimate load. The
values of V"/bd,,if\ for both DBS2 and DBC2 are approximately the same (1.27 and 1.26
respectively) indicating again that the load transfer model for simply supported deep beams
could be valid for continuous deep beams having low aid ratio. Table 6.4 also indicates that
both ACI and CIRIA Guide notably underestimate the shear strength (only 53% and 58%
respectively). CFP slightly underestimated the shear strength (80%).

BEAM DBC3: This continuous beam was tested with aid ratio equal to 0.99. Clear span
length (L,,), shear span (a), Effective depth (d), and width of the beam were 630 mm, 365
mm, 368.7 mm and 131.2 mm respectively. Positive and negative flexural steel ratios were
0.67% and 0.84% horizontal (minimum) and vertical web steel ratio (minimum) were
0.497% and 0.817% respectively. Concrete cylinder strength of this beam was 26.8 N/mm'.
Flexural cracking load and diagonal cracking load were observed at 35% and 43% of the
ultimate load. Shear failure was observed in the inner shear span at 441.7 kN ultimate shear

114
force. The failure was observed along the plane joining the load to the right edge of the
inner supp0l1. Load-deflection curve (Fig. 6.2) was similar to that of beam DBCI and
DBC2. The load, up to which the elastic behaviour was observed, was smaller than that of
beam DBC2. Initial diagonal cracking has no notable influence on the rate of increment of
deflection (Fig. 6.2). The rate of increment of deflection is larger than that of beam DBC2.
Considerable flexural cracks were observed (Fig. 6.3h). Well-developed diagonal cracks
were formed before failure of the inner span creating a cracking fan, which supports again
the proposed model given by Kotsovos (Fig. 3.10). From Table 6.4, the flexural capacity of
the beam was 72% of the ultimate failure load. The values of V,,/bd.yP, for both DBS3 and
DBC3 are approximately the same (1.23 and 1.21, respectively) indicating that the load
transfer model for simply supported deep beams is valid for continuous deep beams having
aid :'> 1.0. Table 6.4 indicates that both ACI and CIRIA Guide notably underestimate the
shear strength (only 55% and 57%, respectively). Here the CFP method predicts the shear
strength accurately (100%).

BEAM DBC4: This continuous beam was tested with aid ratio equal to 1.24. Clear span
length (L"), shear span (a), Effective depth (d), and width of the beam were 810 mm, 455
mm, 366.0 mm and 130.5 mm, respectively. Positive and negative flexural steel ratios were
0.85% and 1.02%, horizontal (minimum) and vertical web steel ratio (minimum) were
0.50% and 0.822% respectively. Concrete cylinder strength of this beam was 25.7 N/mm'.
I'lexural cracking load and diagonal cracking loads were observed at 29% and 43% of the
ultimate load, respectively. Shear failure was observed in the inner shear span at 401.5 kN
ultimate shear force. The failure was observed along the plane joining the load to the right
edge of the inner supp0l1. Initially the beam behaves elastically and then inelasticlly (Fig.
6.2). The rate of increment of det1ection is higher than that of beam DBC3 and the
det1ection at which the beam change its behaviour from elastic to inelastic is larger than that
of beam DBC3. Initial diagonal cracking has no notable int1uence on the rate of increment
of deflection (Fig. 6.2). Well-developed diagonal cracks with t1exural cracks were formed
before failure creating a cracking fan, which is resemblance of the proposed model given by
Kotsovos (Fig. 3.10). From Table 6.4, the t1exural capacity of the beam was only 78% of
the ultimate load. The values of V,,/bd.yP, for DBS4 and DBC4 differed markedly (1.08
and 1.14 respectively) indicating that the load transfer model for simply supported deep
beams could not be valid for continuous deep beams having aid > 1.0. Table 6.4 also

115
indicates that both ACI and CIRIA Guide notably underestimated the shear strength (only
59% and 58%, respectively). CFP highly overestimated the shear strength (135%).

BEAM DBCS: This continuous beam was tested with aid ratio equal to 1.48. Clear span
length (L,), shear span (a), Effective depth (d), and width of the beam were 990 mm, 545
mm, 367.3 mm and 130.2 mm respectively. Positive and negative flexural steel ratios were
1.02% and 1.19%, horizontal (minimum) and vertical web steel ratio (minimum) were
0.501 % and 0.824%, respectively. Concrete cylinder strength of this beam was 26.6 N/mm'.
Flexural cracking load and diagonal cracking loads were observed at 24% and 39% of the
ultimate load, respectively. Shear failure was observed in the inner shear span at 153.5 kN
ultimate shear force. The failure was observed along the plane joining the load to the edge
of the inner support. Initially the beam behaves elastically and then inelasticlly (Fig. 6.2).
The rate of increment of deflection is higher than that of beam DBC4 and the deflection at
which the beam change its behaviour from elastic to inelastic is larger than that of beam
DBC4. Initial diagonal cracking has no notable influence on the rate of increment of
deflection (Fig. 6.2). Well-developed diagonal cracks with flexural cracks were formed
before failure creating a cracking fan. From Table 6.4, the flexural capacity of the beam was
only 80% of the ultimate load. The values of V",/bd-Yt\ for DBS5 and DBC5 are not the
same (1.0 I and l.l 0 respectively) indicating that the recommendation for simply supported
and continuous deep beams should not be same. Table 6.4 also indicates that both ACI and
CIRIA Guide underestimated the Shear strength (only 64% and 56%, respectively). CFP
overestimated the shear strength (144%) considerably.

116
 380

360 --DES] --DBS2

--DES3 --DBS4
340 --DBS5

320

300

280

260

~240
.5
~
.••.
220
C.
II
l:::
~
200
.:.:
..,'"" 180
-=
'~" 160
'-0
"0
g 140
...J
120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

Deflection at the middle of model beam span (mm)

Fig. 6.1 Load Deflection Characteristics of Simply Supported Model Deep Beams

117
 520

500
---- DBC] -- DBC2
480 -- DBC3 -- DBC4
----DBC5
460

440

420

400

380

360

~ 340

.5320
..•.
~
~ 300
II
~ 280
~
~ 260
...,••
-=••• 240
••
~ 220
o
-0
••200
o
....l
180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

o
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Deflection at the middle of the failure span (mm)

Fig. 6.2 Load Deflection Characteristics of the failure span of the two Span Model Deep Beams

liS
 860

\ ~"l
~
DBSI , \\ 0~
~ =0.60
7

/ ? (~ \ ~
.
\\~
~8 32 34
1 ~
(0 ) / / 28 22 \28 \32 13(
')it'"
\ ~
/ ,he 28 \ 15
26

/ 22 \ \ \ 3C "2f
"" 0

/ \ \ \:~
T 1300 t T
T
, -

-
I
P3 760

28 \
DBS2 ~4
~
~=0.73
(2< 3]' r3
"
d

(b)
26 /r
/
/16
32.
I

2
30
/ /
30
3
14 ,I

\
/ /
1/;2 "' Ie30
30 \
16 16 12
'"
"-
301
/V 1/3 ~
I) '16
(I: 12 1,,\430 12 10 16\
,\
I I~u
126 10 30
1/ ,l2 3 ( ~ '\\
I ) \
~ /300 ~
,
Fig. &3: Crock pattern and individual jock load intensities ( P 3 = P 4) in tonnes of beam (0) DBSI (b) DBS2
119
 :_"

570 ; P4

.... ....;
08S3
~~
/' I
I 20'-
~
a
d""0-99 20( /'J 20
,. "- "r-e
,."
24

(C)
1/; 20 X 12
,a\
J,~ 1/,/
-(
\
7 /' 12 12
i ,,\ ,
.4 h , la •
,
20
~
f 2 7 t~1 22
20
• ,a
"
'0
\ ~,

-.-
:;10 ,a. ,Ia
la
/ ~
(, / ~ ( ,a(~ '\ ;0-
•, 1300
r

1 I
P3' 390 t P4

'/2.
08S4
/,
• 2.

.2.:1-23
d 2. Y/ /~ ,.' ~
-/la
/. ", ~2 "~
l
(d
f 1/.0 22
2.
22 10
""
,a
/ V JIC 20
\,
"-

•.
\.20
'"
22 J V 1/ - 1a 10 10
\' '\' ,!a ,a ~,a

---
.e::--
k: . ;(' "
22 ",a
,
20

"
-.-
12
20
1\ ~ ~
V...(. / (/ ( ( ,. )
." \/ '0 \ i 12
"( "" I~

+ /300

Fig_ 6-3: Crack pattern and individual jack load intensities (P3 = P 4) in tonr18Sof beam (cl D853 (d) D854
120
_ L-
 210 ; P4

08S5
I~
20
I~~ > I

,.
I
~= 1.48
d
,- ~
./
I~f\-. I.

(e)
I)" "
L!" \ K ~

V 10 10'"
• ~
i'...
.
I.

/
V-

/'
/
I.
./

• •
:'--, ,.
"-
." '" ~ )-....,
1\
'-,
/ • f\.- ~t'-

..-
/
•
1/ lO.V
\' II \p 1(' ,. !r---... '"
1300
1 T

,
440
DBCI
a
rO>6Q
~
38

., J yA
2.
1\
--
•• 38

'0

\ /
'0

(f)
I 38 /.. \
I
I \ 2'
/ , '-
V \ r" \
, If
/ 22
r-.
1,0 22, 1"0 2. "/
2.
34

\
/ 1('°
1\
2. (
i \ •• roo

440. --+~~440~~_t_
Fig. 6;3: Crack pattern and individual jack load intensities (P3= P 4) in tonnes of beam (e) DBS5 (f) DBCI
121
.'

.'

540 ~ P4

~ ~. ~ 30' /,
I <~ 1 22
•
DeC2
'\ 30
(, I..
1:0.74 / ~
/40 \.. 22)
/ I;"~ ,40

\
(g ) 2. /
32
/ "
31'"
2'
3'"-
'\.30

I ,. I
/
l/ 1'-7 \ .h' \
-< 1/
~U

3.r I;;.'
II
' [24
r
161
\.22
22L
~
?/
' ". \
"- \.
I

3'
.
•i 54C
t 540
--t-
,
+ P3 ,
730 t P4

3. 2'
"- \ h. .0 30
01,.
DeC3
~:O.99 3Y " 'l f;.z 34
d 34
V' /"
21
'x
" ~
2<\
~ 2~ 20

( h) 2./ ~ V2'28 \ 22 f7 •• '\ y.

V
/

2.

/
f
/

20 I••\28
,
1\.40
~
1"\ 2~/

Z4
/
,.
~.
2.
20
j'"
'"< ).,
•• 2."- 2.
'\ ""'"

1\
I-
I

\'
f
/
S
~.
(

(\. ,.
\ \ 20
,. ~ ""
, /.
((" \2.
1\2 1\ )
"- "-
20
~

730 ~ 7_30 t-
4Fig. 6.3 : Crack pattern and individual jack load intensities ( P 3 = P 4 ) in tonnes of beam (9) DBC2 (hl DBC3
122
 .. '- .

, I

Tp3 910 t?4

., I~ ,. (, 1\'. ,.' I ~. 1,,( ~ :;.

'2
R' 1'2 k(. ". ,
.. I'-:' "
D8C4 7"
/'2

~. ,.
20
~=r'28
d
/'. / ~ ,,,,,- 12{ W 20 ""-

20 V /1 '\
[7 ~ \
,. 11,.
r
.•
2.
( i)

/
/' ./
I•
}2
,. ,
20 ~-"-
,
\
~ / /
~
12
I.
~. \
'\
'\- 2.
\"- "-

./ II \.. ~2
"- 18
/ '-
II ,J
+
T
17 20 12 I
910
A 2.\ 1/
910 " +

I
,

.1..i": 1090

D8C5
a
40 I;,
"Ji
2.

~ l<l- ~. '-. ,
I' j~

"-
~

~
\ , (>
\,..
Th2•

\
2.
2. ,. 27
...- ,t /
~
~ I/:
')

,.
30 1\'0
20 ,38
cr=1'41 8 20
,. " ,. " ,;, h \ ~ ~
(j) ,. 22
2. /
/
I~.

,.
I.

2. \ ,.
2.

"'-
2. 30
'i 1/
20

'" 38 ,.
:---
~.3. {.
., 2. ••••

,.
2.
•• 1- /' /C\

",.
V
/'
20
,. 10 ,.
,. \
~
£- /l!, / ,. 22 "- ~2.
V
/
.,... 172
20
J-A ,. , \ ".
2. "
'\
2.
~ ~~ '0 i" \ ...•. ~

1090 ~ 1090 T T
T 1

Fig, 6-3 Crack pattern and individual jack load intensities(P 3 = P 4) in tonnes of beam (j) DBC4 (j) DBC5

123

.<',-;
._" .. .•.... .
~"
-_:.::..-
 lAO

-e- Beam DBS 1 to DBS5

1.30
-- Beam DBCI to DBC5

1.20
~
d
v

••••
->
"0
.c
Co
•
v

.•.. 1.10
=c
-••••
.s
.;:
> 1.00

0.90

0.80
0.50 0.63 0.75 0.88 1.00 1.13 1.25 1.38 1.50 1.63 1.75
Variation of aId
Fig. 6.4 Effect of aId ratio on the shear strength of decp beams

124
 400

OAC!
350 .CFP
ll.MCFP
.ClRIA
~
~
300
•
~
~ 250
•
...e
~
... • • ••
:i 200
.= • 0 0
(fJ
-::l
~ 150
• 0 0

.::
-::l
~...
OJ

- 100

50 (a)

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Experimental Shear Foree (kN)
400
••
350 OACl
.CFP
ll. MCFP
~ 300
Z .ClRIA
.:.:
~
~ 250
...e •
~
...
:i 200 •
.=
(fJ
-::l
~ 150
0
.i
e~ ~
.::
-::l
...
OJ

::..
100

50
(b)

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Experimental Shear Force (kN)

Fig. 6.5 Comparison of experimental and predicted shear strength for

(a) Simply Supported model deep beams (b) Two span model deep beams

125
 •
(a) I) I{:-.I •

.'"
..
)

(b) I) I{ '" ~ .;;

. .
oj
/ / ~ , I
'. •,
i
, • 1
I I

".

~ II ;

DB

.. -- ----.---------
(e) I )H",~

Photoplate 6.1 Crack pattern of beam (a) DBSI (b) DBS2 (c) DBS3 (d) DBS4 (e) DBS5

126
 (f) J) He I

~.
'.

~--~~_._----
•

•
(g) I )HC2
•

.. '.
>-,. .
.

nIll- •••--
,.
:-~_=.l
(h) I>IH".~ ,

..
(i) I >IH .j

• . •••
.•
•I
•
(j)
illH') ••
",
.
", • I
•• ~. • .,
,,' \0
,. ~ ~ W
" .,
• • f
f "

f'
JI, ( .,' ,- .. \

.. .. .'
., . ." l
,
, "
,•
- ~ • ,I

Photoplate 6.1 Crack pattern of beam (f) DBCl (g) DBC2 (h) DBC3 (i) DBC4 (j) DBCS

127
 CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions are based on the analysis of the test results obtained by various researchers
who conducted extensive testing on about 175 deep beams, as well as test results of five
simply supported and five two span continuous deep beams, having aid ratio of 0.60 to 1.48,
as conducted by the investigator. The clear span-to effective depth ratios (Ln/d), of all the
simply supported model deep beams were 3.26 and for two span model deep beams those
were varied from 0.93 to 2.70. Results were obtained by testing the simply supported deep
beams under two point loading and two span deep beams under one point loading at the
middle of each span. From the present limited study, the following conclusions, albeit
tentative, could be drawn:

I. The shear strength of deep beams increases with flexural steel ratio. An increase in the
flexural steel ratio yields better effectiveness of tension tie and improves the shear capacity
of deep beams. In slender beams, flexural steel is stressed and yields in the region of
maximum moment whereas the other portions remain lmderstressed. But in deep beams,
due to arch action, stress is distributed uniformly throughout the length of the tension steel,
local stress is reduced, flexural cracks develop uniformly along the beam length and,
consequently, the flexural steel does not yield.
2. Effect of horizontal web reinforcements may be insignificant on the shear strength of
deep beams. But minimum amount of steel should be incorporated to minimise the local
effect or local weakness. Closely distributed horizontal web steels at the bottom increase
the shear strength capacity of deep beams. In fact, closing of these steels, effectively act as
main tensile steel, i.e. the flexural capacity is increased, and ultimately the shear capacity is
increased.
3. For aid ::; 1.0, the effect of vertical web steel is insignificant. But as the aid ratio increases
from 1.0, the effectiveness of vertical web steel also increases.
4. Deep beam fails in shear due to crushing of an arch rib, which is common in all cases.
Although this type of failure is sudden and catastrophic, it occurs even in the flexurally
underreinforced beams (all the beams in the present test program was underreinforced
and failed in shear). Actually deep beams can take a significant amount of load even

128
 after flexural and/or diagonal cracks are formed. Thus, it is not justified to design a deep
beam as largely underreinforced so that the beam fails in flexure. On the other hand,
shear failure can not be prevented by incorporating large amount of web reinforcement
as they have insignificant influence on resisting the shear crack as well as shear failure.
5. For deep beams, for all values of aid, shear strength increases with increasing values of re•
But for better effectiveness of the concrete strength, minimum web reinforcements is
required due to nonhomoginity of concrete. However, concrete strength has more influence
for deep beams with aid ~ 1.0 and comparatively less influence for aid > 1.0.
6. The load transfer through the compressive strut depends heavily on the compressive
strength of concrete as the strut acts like an inclined column. The ties in the column confine
the concrete and, thus, increase the capacity of the column. In deep beam, the horizontal
and vertical web steel can not confine this compressive strut because they are straight.
Increasing the strength of the strut may increase the shear capacity. Designing the
compressive strut as a column may also achieve this.
7. Clear span-to-effective depth ratio, L,/d, is not very important 111 increasing the shear
strength of deep bean1s but may have a marked tendency to increase the deflection and
crack width.
8. Shear span-to-effective depth ratio (aid) is the governing parameter of the shear strength of
deep beams. Shear strength of deep beams increases with decreasing values of aid ratio.
9. ACI code underestimates the shear strength of deep beams as it limits the shear strength
of concrete as well as the ultimate strength of the beam. Moreover, the code
recommendations are not based on rational failure mechanism.
10. For very small values of aid, CFr method underestimates the shear strength. For aid ;:>: 1.0,
the predicted shear strength by the CFr method is fairly good because CFr method can
effectively use the flexural capacity of the beam. Moreover, CFr is based on more accurate
failure mechanism of deep beams. CFr assumes that all stirrups in the shear span (aid>
1.0) yield at failure, some of these stirrups may not yield at failure. Thus, CFr may
sometimes become unconservative if the amount of web steel is very large.
11. Although CIRIA Guide 2 was proposed to predict the shear strength of deep beams having
Llh < 2.0 (i.e. aid < 1.0), the Guide underestimates the shear strength of deep beams having
aid < 1.0. This underestimation is reduced for aid ;:>: 1.0.
12. In slender beam without web reinforcement, inclined cracking strength is very near to
ultimate strength. So for slender beams inclined cracking shear stress is a significant
parameter for predicting the ultimate shear strength as the inclined cracking eliminates the
129
 principal tensile stresses which is required for beam action. But for deep beams, the
difference of inclined cracking strength and the ultimate strength is large enough which
SUPPOltS the disagreement of load transfer mechanism between slender beam and deep
beam. Thus, inclined cracking strength has insignificant effect on the ultimate shear
strength but has significant influence on the formation of tied arch mechanism of deep
beams.
13. For simply supported deep beams, there is a change of behaviour for beams having aid ~
1.0 to aid > 1.0. Shear strength capacity would decrease rapidly with increasing aid ratio
from 1.0. But for continuous deep beanls, this decrease in strength with increasing aid ratio
is gradual, in contrast to their simply supported counterparts.
14. In general, it was observed, albeit tentatively, that designing of deep beams in accordance
with the concept of compressive force path method, may lead to economic as well as more
rational design of both simply supported and continuous deep beams.

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY

From the investigation it was found that the shear strength of deep beams is a complex
phenomenon. Although load transfer mechanism of this type of beams could be understood,
further study in this field is deemed essential to understand it further. In this regard the following
studies may be undertaken in the future:

I. Effect of vertical web reinforcement on the shear strength of deep beams keeping other
parameters constant.
2. Effect of horizontal web reinforcement on the shear strength of deep beams keeping other
parameters constant.
3. Effect of L,/d ratio on the shear strength of continuous deep beams having aid ratio and
other parameters constant.
4. Effect of beam width on the shear strength remaining all other parameters constant.
5. Effect of web opening.
6. Influence of different types of loading (uniformly distributed/point) on the shear strength of
deep beams
7. Contribution of different types of end anchorage on the shear strength of deep beams
8. Effect of compressive strut by designing the strut as an inclined tied column and horizontal
reinforced beam.

130
 LIST OF REFERENCES

ACI-ASCE Committee 326 (1962), "Shear and Diagonal Tension", Part 2, ACI Journal, V.
59, pp. 277.

ACI-ASCE Committee 426 (1973), "Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members".

Proc. ASCE, V. 99, No. ST6, pp. 1091.

Ali M.G. and Habib A. (1992a), " Deflection and Stress Distribution in Deep Beams under
Uniformly Distributed loads "Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 15, No.4,
pp. 415-426.

Ali M.G. and Habib A. (1992b), " Strength of Deep Reinforced Concrete Beams under
Uniformly Distributed Loads". Proc. Nath. Sci. Counc. ROC (A) Sept., V. 16, NO.5, pp.
393-402.

Barry J.E. and Heino Ainso (1983), "Single Span Deep Beams", ASCE Journal, Vol. 109
NO.3, pp. 646-663

British Standard Institution (1985), "The structural use of concrete, BS81! 0, British
Standard Institution, London, Part 1, and 2.

, Chow L., Conway H. D. and Morgan G. W. (1951), "Analysis of Deep Beams", Journal of
the Applied Mechanics, ASCE, V. 18, No.2, pp. 163-172.

Chow L. Conway H.D. and Winter G. (1953), "Stresses in Deep Beams" Transactions
ASCE, V. 118, pp. 686-708.

Clark L.A. and Thorogrod P. (1985) "Shear Strength of Concrete Beams 111 Loading
Regions" Proc. ICE (Part 2), pp. 315-326.

Construction Industry Research and Information Association (1977), "The design of deep
beams in reinforced concrete", CIRIA Guide 2, ave Arup and Partners and CIRIA, London.

Dischinger F. (1932), " Beitragzur Therefore der Halbscheibe unddes Wandartigen Tregers"
Publication International Association for Bridge and Structural engineer, Zwich,
Switzerland, Vol., pp. 69-93.

Elzanaty A.H., Nilson A.I'I. and State P.O. (1986), "Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete
Beams Using High Strength" Proc. ACI, V. 83, No.2, pp. 290-296.

Evans R.H. and Kong, F.K. (1967), "Shear Design and British Code CP 114. The Structural
Engineer, V. 45, No.4, pp. 153-158.

Geer E. (1960), "Stresses in Deep Beams" ACI Journal, V. 31, No.7, pp. 651-661.

Holmes. M. and Mason P.M. (1972), "Stresses in Deep Beams", Building Science, V. 7, pp.
225-232.

131
Hsu T. C. C. (1982), "Is the Staggering Concept of Shear Design State?", Proc. ACI V. 79
NO.6, pp. 435-443.

Hsu T.T.C. (1988), "Softened Truss Model Theory for Shear and Torsion" ACI Structural
Journal, Nov. V. 85, NO.6, pp. 624-635.

Kitchen E.M. and Archer F.A. (1956), "Stresses in Single Span Deep Beams", Australian
Journal of Applied Science, V. 7, No.4, pp. 314-326.

Kong F.K. (1987), "Shear Resistance of Bend-up Bars. The Structural Engineer, V. 65A,
No.11,pp.417.

Kong F.K., Sharp G.R., Appleton S.C., Beaumont CJ. and Kubik L.A. (1978), "Structural
Idealization for Deep Beams with Web Openings. Further Evidence". Mag. Con. Res. V.
30, No. 103, pp. 89-95.

Kong F.K., Robins, PJ. and Cole D.F. (1970), "Web Reinforcement Effects on Deep
Beams", ACI Journal, V. 67, No. 12, pp. 1010-1017.

Kong F.K., Robins P.J., and Sharp G.R. (1975), "The Design of Reinforced Concrete Deep
Beams in Current Practice", The structural Engineer, V. 53, No.4, pp. 173-180.

Kotsovos M.D. and Bobrowski J. (1993), "Design Model for Structural Concrete Based on
the Concept of the Compressive Force Path" ACI structural Journal, V. 90, No. I, pp. 12-
20.

Kotsovos M.D. (I 988a), "Compressive Force Path Concept: Basis for Reinforced Concrete
Ultimate Limit State Design" ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, pp. 68-75.

Kotsovos M.D. (l988b), "Design of Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams" The Structural
Engineer, V. 66, NO.2, pp. 28-32.

Kotsovos M.D. (1983), "Mechanism of Shear Failure" Mag. of Con. Res. V. 35, No. 123,
pp.99-106.

Kotsovos M.D. and Lefas D.1. (1990), "Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beams Designed
in Compliance with the Concept of Compressive Force Path" ACI Structural Journal, V. 87,
No.2, pp. 127-137.

Kotsovos M.D., Bobrowski J. and Eibl 1. (1987), "Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete T-

beams in Shear", The Structural Engineer, 658 No.1, pp. 1-10.

Kotsovos M.D. (1982), "A Fundamental Explanation of the Behaviour of Reinforced

Concrete Beams in Flexure based on the Properties of Concrete under Multiaxial Stress,"
Materials and Structure, Research and Testing (RILEM, Paris) V.15, No. 90, pp-529-537.

Kotsovos M.D. (1984), "Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beams with a Shear Span to
Depth Ratio between 1.0 and 2.5", ACI Journal, Proceedings, V.81, NO.3, pp. 279-286.

Kotsovos M.D. (1981), and Newman J.B., "Fracture Mechanics and Concrete Behaviour",
Mag. of Con. Res. (London) V. 33, No., 115, pp. 103-112.

132
MacGregor J.G. and Peter G. (1977), "Suggested Revision to ACI Building Code Clauses
Dealing with Shear in Beams", ACI Journal, V. 74, pp. 493.

Mansur M.A., Lee Y.F., Tan K.H. and Lee S.L. (1991), "Test on R.C. Continuous Beams
with Openings" ASCE, V. No. pp. 1593-1605.

Mansur M.A. and Ong K.C.G. (1991), " Behaviour of Reinforced Fibre Concrete Deep
Beams in Shear". ACI structural Journal, V. 88, No.1, pp. 98-105.

Manuel R.F, Slight B.W. and Suter GT. (1971), "Deep Beam Behaviour Affectcd by
Length and Shear Span Variations" ACI Journal, V.68, No., pp. 954-958.

Mau S.T. and Hsu T.T.C. (1989), " Formula for the Shear Strength of Deep Beams", ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 86, No 5, PP. 516-523.

Mau S.T. and Hsu T.T.C. (1987), "Shear Strength Prediction for Deep Beams with Web
Reinforcement", ACI Structural journal, Vol. 84 No 6, PP 512-523.

Narayanan R. and Darwish l.Y.S. (1988), "Fibre Concrete Deep Beams in Shear". ACI
Structural Journal, V. 85, No.2, pp. 141-149.

Pavia !-l.A. and Siess C.P. (1965), "Strength and Behaviour of Deep Beams in Shear", Proc.
ASCE, V. 91, ST. 5, pp. 1941.

Portland Cement Association, "Design of Deep Girders" Pamphlet No. ST 66, Concrete
Information Structural Bureau, Chicago, III.

Rogowsky D.M., MacGregor J.G. and Ong S.Y. (l986b), "Test of Reinforced Concrete
Deep Beams", ACI Journal, V. 83, NO.4, pp. 614-623.

Rogowsky D.M. and MacGregor J.G. (I 986a), " Design of Reinforced Concrete Deep
Beams", Concrete International, V. 8, No.8, pp. 49-58.

Seraj S.M., Kotsovos M.D., and Pavlovic M.N. (1993), "Behaviour of High-Strength Mix
Reinforced Concrete Beams" Archives of Civil Engineering, XLI, 1, pp. 29-65.

Seraj S.M., Kotsovos M.D. and Pavlovic M.N. (1993), "Compressive Force Path and
Behaviour of Prestressed Concrete Beams" Materials and Structure, V. 26, pp. 74-89.

Suhedi N.K. (1988), "Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams: A Method of Analysis" Proc. Ins!.
ofCiv. Engrs. Part 2, V. 85, pp. 1-3.

Subedi N.K, Vardy A.E, Kubota N. (1986), "Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams - Some test
results", Mag. Of Con. Res. v. 38, No. 137, pp. 206-219.

Taylor H.P.J. (1973), "The Fundamental Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beams 111
Bending and Shear", Proceedings ACI-ASCE shear symposium, Ottawa, pp. 43 - 77.

Winter G., and Nilson A.H. (1981), "Design of Concrete Structures", McGrow Hill Book
Company, 12th Edition, pp. 185-193.

133
 Appel/dix - A

Design of beam DBSt

Total length of the beam: 1600 mm
Total depth of the beam: 402.7 mm
Length of the clear span: 1200 mm
Effective depth of the beam: 367.7
Width of the beam: 131.5
Shear span of the beam: 220 mm
Area of main tension steel: 488.4 mm2
Area of horizontal web steel: 78.3 mm2
Area of vertical web steel: 78.3 mm2
Spacing of horizontal web steel: 120 mm
Spacing of vertical web steel: 73 mm
Yield strength of main tension steel: 325.7 N/mm2
Yield strength of web steel: 374.7 N/mm2
Cylinder strength of concrete: 28.6 N/mm2

Design of Shear capacity

VcrI' = ab/3 fc sin$ = ab/3 fc d/>l(a2 + d2) = (220 x 131.5)/3 x 28.6 x 0.8575 = 236.5 KN

Design of Flexural steel

Mr= VcrI' x a = 236.5 x 220 = 52030 KN-mm

Mr = As fy (d- x/2), assuming x = 50.5 mm
As = Mrl fy (d- x/2) = 52030 x 1000/(325.7 x (367.7 - 50.512) = 466.5 mm2
Therefore, x = A,fyl 0.8fc x b = (466.5 x 325.7)/(0.8x28.6x 131.5) = 50.5 mm
Using 2 #5 (16 mm) and I #4 (12 mm) deform bars = 488.4 mm2

Design of Stirrups

CFP recommended that minimum web steel is required for deep beams having aid s; 1.0.
Current code of practice for minimum web steel requirement could be used for this purpose.
Shear span-to-effective depth ratio, aid of this beam = 0.60
Vertical web steel, AsYmin.= 0.0015bsy, therefore, Sy= 78.3/(0.0015 x 131.5) = 397 mm

or d/5 = 367.7/5 = 73.5", 73 mm or 18" = 457.2 mm

Therefore, Sy= 73 mm has been selected
Horizontal web steel, Ash = 0.0025bsh, therefore, Sh= 78.3/(0.0025 x 131.5) = 238.2 mm

or Sh= d/3 = 367.7/3 = 122.4 '" 120 mm; or 18" = 457.2mm

Therefore, Sh = 120 mm has been selected

134
.,
 Appelldix - A

Design of beam DBSS

Total length of the beam: 1600 mm
Total depth of the beam: 403.3 mm
Length of the clear span: 1200 mm
Effective depth of the beam: 368.3
Width of the beam: 130.8
Shear span of the beam: 545 mm
Area of main tension steel: 876.8 mm2
Cylinder strength of concrete: 24.5 N/mm2
Area of horizontal web steel: 78.3 mm2
Area of vertical web steel: 78.3 mm2
Spacing of horizontal web steel: 120 mm
Spacing of vertical web steel: 73 mm
Yield strength of main tension steel: 392.4 N/mm2
Yield strength of web steel: 374.7 N/mm2

Design Flexural capacity

Mf= As f~(d- x/2)

Where x = Asfyl 0.8fc x b = (876.8 x 392.4)/(0.8x24.5x 130.8) = 134.2 mm

Mr = 876.8 x 392.4 (368.3 - 134.2/2) = 103629.8 KN-mm
Vf= Mila = 103629.8/545 = 190.15 KN

Design of Stirrups
Mc oIdo2= 0.875 sd (0.432 b + 0.3 x (Mr'd2) x -V( zls)) x (l6.66/(Pwfy))o25
=0.875x2x(368.3)2(0.432x 130.8+0.3x(l 03629.8x 1000)/(368.3)2d(30 1.2/(2x368.3)
)) x (16.661 (.0 I 82x392.4))o 25= 59572.5 KN-mm
Mcold.j =Mr= 103629.5 KN-mm
Mcaldol.48= Mcoldol- (Mcoldol- Mcoldo2)x (aid -I) = 103629.8 - (103629.8 - 59572.5) x 0.48
= 82482.3 KN-mm
Asvtot.1= 2 x (M. - Mc)/afy = 2x(l03629.8 - 82482.3)/(545x374.7) = 207.11 mm2
No of vertical stirrups = AsvtotalI Asv = 2.65
Sv = aI no. of stirrups = 545 12.65 = 205.7 mm
But minimum web reinforcement as per current code recommendation
Vertical web steel, Asvmin.= 0.0015bsv, therefore, Sv= 78.3/(0.0015 x 131.5) = 397 mm
or d/5 = 367.7/5 = 73.5", 73 mm or 18" = 457.2 mm
Therefore, Sv= 73 mm has been selected
Horizontal web steel, Ash= 0.0025bsh, therefore, Sh= 78.3/(0.0025 x 131.5) = 238.2 mm

or Sh= d/3 = 367.7/3 = 122.4 '" 120 mm; or 18" = 457.2 mm

Therefore, Sh = 120 mm has been selected

135
 Appel/dix - A

Design of beam DBC3

Total length of the beam: 1760 mm
Total depth of the beam: 403.7 mm
Length of the clear span: 630 mm
Effective depth of the beam: 368.7
Width of the beam: 131.2 mm
Shear span of the beam: 365 mm
Area of main tension steel: 406.3 mm2
Cylinder strength of concrete: 26.8 N/mm2
Area of horizontal web steel: 78.3 mm2
Area of vertical web steel: 78.3 mm2
Spacing of horizontal web steel: 120 mm
Spacing of vertical web steel: 73 mm
Yield strength of main tension steel: 309.2 N/mm2
Yield strength of web steel: 374.7 N/mm2

Design of Shear capacity

VCFP = ab/3 f'c sin~ = ab/3 f'c d/Y(a2 + d2) = (365 x 131.2)/3 x 26.8 x 0.7107 = 304.04 KN
Shear force for the inner = 0.6875 P = 304.04 KN (P = Individual jack load)
Therefore, P = 304.04/0.6875 = 442.2 KN

Design of Flexural stccl

Mr= Ma (at the inner support) = 0.375 Pa = 0.375 x 442.2 x 365 = 60526.1 KN-mm
Mr= As fy (d- x/2)
Where x = Asfyl (0.8f' c x b), assuming x = 64 mm
As = Mrl fy (d- x/2) = 60526.1 x 1000/309.2 (368.7 - 64/2) = 581.4 mm2
Checking ofx = (581.4 x 309.7)/(0.8x26.8x131.2) = 64.0 mm
Using 2 #4 (12 mm) and 1 #5 (16 mm) deform bars = 406.4 mm2

Design of stirrups
CFP recommended that minimum web steel is required for deep beams having aid :s;1.0.
Current code of practice for minimum web steel requirement could be used for this purpose.
Shear span-to-effective depth ratio, aid of this beam = 0.99
Vertical web steel, Asvmin.= 0.0015bsv, therefore, Sv= 78.3/(0.0015 x 131.5) = 397 mm

or d/5 = 367.7/5 = 73.5 '" 73 mm or 18" = 457.2mm

Therefore, Sv= 73 mm has been selected
Horizontal web steel, Ash= 0.0025bslh therefore, Sh= 78.3/(0.0025 x 131.5) = 238.2 mm

or Sh= d/3 = 367.7/3 = 122.4 '" 120 mm; or 18" = 457.2 mm

Therefore, Sh = 120 mm has been selected

136
 Appel/dix - A

Design of beam DBC5

Total length of the beam: 2480 mm
Total depth of the beam: 402.3 mm
Length of the clear span: 990 mm
Effective depth of the beam: 367.3
Width of the beam: 130.2
Shear span of the beam: 545 mm
Area of main tension steel: 569.1 mm2
Cylinder strength of concrete: 26.6 N/mm2
Area of horizontal web steel: 78.3 mm2
Area of vertical web steel: 78.3 mm2
Spacing of horizontal web steel: 120 mm
Spacing of vertical web steel: 73 mm
Yield strength of main tension steel: 337.5 N/mm2
Yield strength of web steel: 374.7 N/mm2

Design Flexural capacity

Mr= A, fy (d- x/2), where x = A,fyl 0.8fe x b = (569.1 x 337.5)/(0.8x26.6x130.2) = 69.3 mm
Mr= 569.1 x 337.5 (367.3 - 69.3/2)/1000 = 63892.5 KN-mm
Mr= 0.375Pa = 63892.5, therefore, P = 63892.5/(0.375x545) = 312.6 KN
Shear force in the inner shear span = 0.6875P = 0.6875x312.6 = 214.9 KN

Design of stirrups
Me",d~2= 0.875 sd (0.432 b + 0.3 x (Mr'd2) x.y( z/s)) x (16.66 I(Pwfy))o25
=

0.875x2x(367 .3)2(0.432x 130.2+0.3x(63892.5x I000)/(367 .3)2d(332. 7/(2x367.3))

) x (16.66/(.01 19x337.5))o25 = 51167.2 KN-mm
Me",d~1= Mr= 63892.5 KN-mm
Me ",d'148= Me ",d'l - (Me ",d'l - Me ",d'2) x (aid -1) = 63892.5 - (63892.5 - 51 167.2) x 0.48
= 57784.3 KN-mm
A,y total= 2 x (Ma - Me)! a fy = 2x(63892.5 - 57784.3)1 (545x374.7) = 59.8 mm2
No of vertical stirrups = Asylotal1 Asy= 59.8/78.3 = 0.76
Sy = aI no of stirrups = 545 10.76 = 717 mm
But minimum web reinforcement as per current code recommendation
Vertical web steel, A,ymin.= 0.0015bsy, therefore, Sy= 78.3/(0.0015 x 131.5) = 397 mm

or dl5 = 367.7/5 = 73.5 '" 73 mm or 18" = 457.2 mm

Therefore, Sy= 73 mm has been selected
Horizontal web steel, Ash= 0.0025bsl" therefore, Sh= 78.3/(0.0025 x 131.5) = 238.2 mm
or Sh= d/3 = 367.7/3 = 122.4 '" 120 mm; or 18" = 457.2 mm
Therefore, Sh = 120 mm has been selected

137
 Appendix - B

PREDICTION OF SHEAR STRENGTH BY CURRENT DESIGN METHODS

FOR THE BEAM DBSI

ACI CODE METHOD

Shear strength taken by concrete, Vc = (3.5 - 2.5 Mil )(1.9

V"d
Jf'c + 2500pw liz/d) bd
Mil

Vc = (3.5 -2.5x220/(2x367.7))( 1.9,1(28.6x145)+ 2500xO.0I0 I x2x367. 7/220) x 131.5x367.7/(25.4)2

= 2.75 (122.35 + 84.4) x74.95
But according to code recommendation the first term should not be greater than 2.5
Therefore, V, = 2.5 (122.35 + 84.4) x74.95 = 38739.8 lb.
The limit imposed for V, = 6-vr,bd = 6,1(28.6 x145) x 74.95 = 28959.4 lb.

Shear strength taken by the web steel, V, = [~[I

s
+ ;]
12
+ A,." [11-
s, 12
~]]fy"d

V, = 0.1214/2.87 x«l + 1200/367.7)/12) + 0.1214/4.72«11 - 1200/367.7)/12) x374.7xI45xI4.48

=24849.4 lb.
Therefore, V" = V, + V, = 28959.4 + 24849.4 = 53808.8 lb.

But V" is not to be taken greater than 8 -vr,bd when l,/d is less than 2 and is not to be greater

than 11" = %(10 + ; )~f',bd when lid is between 2 and 5.

For this beam L,/d = 3.26. Therefore V" = 2/3(10 + 3.26)-vC28.6xI45) x 74.95 =42666.9 lb.
Therefore, V"ACI = 42666.9 lb. = 189.8 KN

CIRIA Guide 2 method

CIRIA Guide imposed limit on the shear strength of a beam by the equation -

-
v
bh"
< A, [I- 0.35~]~
h"
./,.."+ A, I I OOA,Y, :in'
bh"
B, described in chapter 3. The Guide

138
 Appe/ldix - B

also simplified the equation as - < A1Vx + f3(v"" + v"." + v ••.•.) where A, = 0.44 for

normal weight concrete. The parameters v" von,'Vwh and v,wcould be obtain from tables 4, 6, 7
and 8 respectively, which are given in CIRlA Guide 2. For the beam DBS I, the main flexural
steels were deform. So ~ for main steel is 1.0. Plain round bars forming a mesh were used in
the web reinforcement. So ~ for web reinforcement is 0.7. Therefore the equation becomes-

v = 0.44 v, + von,+ 0.7 vwh + 0.7 v,w

From table 4 with x/h" = 0.30 and (" = 35.8 N/mm', v, = 5.34 N/mm'
From table 6 with x/h, = 0.30 and percentage of main steel = 0.84% von,= 1.49 N/mm'
From table 7 with x/h, = 0.30 and percentage ofhor. web steel = 0.496% Vwh = 0.44 N/mm'
From table 8 with x/h, = 0.30 and percentage of ver. web steel = 0.815% Vwv = 0.03 N/mm'
Therefore, VCIR1A = (0.44x5.34 + 1.49 + 0.7(0.44 + 0.03)) x131.5x402.7/1000 = 220.7 KN

Therefore, V CIRIAN "P = 0.64

Compressive Force path method

Compressive Force Path method (CFP) assumes that the web reinforcements have no
contribution on the shear resistance of deep beams having aid ratio ~ 1.0 and the shear
strength could be predicted by the equation -

= ab f'c sin ql
3
= 220x 131.5/3x28.6x367.7/-Y(220' + 367.7')/1 000
= 236.7 KN

Therefore, V CFp/V"P = 0.69

139
 DIAL READING (Tonne)
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
50
48
I
I I I I I I
,/'
46
o Jack 3 ly-O.9633xl ,/'
44
42 - Linear (Jack 3) V
40
V
38
V
,/'
36
,/'
34
~ .,/
c
c" 32
V
,..~
0 30
28
./
V
Q ,/
/
<
0
26 •....
24
./
..l
..l 22
../ "
< "
,..
;;l 20
/"
>t'
./
U 18 •....
< /"
16
14
./'
12
./
10
./
8
./
/"
6
/"
4
2
./"
0
./"
Fig.-C.t CALIBRATION OF JACK 3

140 Appendix - C
 DIAL READING (Tonne)
a 2 4 6 8 to 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
50
48
46
/'
o JACK4 V
44 Ily = O.9637x l
II' I
Linear (JACK 4) ./
42
./
40
./
~ 38
••• ,/
c
c 36 ,/
0
Eo-
~ 34 ,/
Q 32
<
0 30
./
,./

...l ,./
...l 28 .., ./

<
~ 26 .., ~
Eo- ./
U 24 ..,
< 22
./
20
../
18
./
16
./
/'
14
12
./
10
./
8
/'
6
/'
4
/'
2
/'
a
/'
Fig.-C.2 CALIBRATION OF JACK 4

141 Appendix - C