REINFORCED

CONCRETE

DEEP

BEAMS
I

WITH

WEB OPENINGS

by

GRAHAMS RICHARD

SHARP,

B. Sc.

A thesis submitted Nottingham Doctor

for of

to the University the degree of Philosophy

of

Department University

of of

Civil Engineering, Nottingham

October

1977

BEST COPY
AVAILABLE
Variable print quality

PAGENUMBERING AS FOUND IN THE ORIGINAL THESIS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The R. C.

Author of

is'most Nottingham for much were

sincerely University their valued carried

grateful and Dr.

to

Professor Kong of

Coates

F. K. of the and

Cambridge work and The of Civil is

University for their

supervision encouragement out of J. in the

research advice.

experiments Engineering, grateful of to staff

Department and Ellis, the and for

University Messrs. in the

Nottingham, J.

Author other their

Barlow,

members co-operation
Sincere

Structures

Laboratory

and
are

assistance.
due to Mr. of to I. the student Denmark, for Mrs. Ruth for Shawcross his and Cambridge the numerical for valuable to Mr. J. C. the checkthe

thanks this the thesis; preparation

typing help Kaern, Technical ing of The in J. June with

of

Conway drawings; to

visiting University

research of

from

some final and for

of

the

calculations. this Sincere the facilities to also leave in thesis thanks in to Cambridge

draft July 1977.

of

was

prepared are of the due the Author to of Allott absence

Professor

Heyman

extending Department, sincere

University during and to enable

Engineering this Lomax, the period;

Cambridge, thanks are for thesis

due

Consulting Author to

Engineers, complete the

Cambridge.

The, the Science

research Research

reported Council.

in

this

thesis

was

supported

by

ii

SYNOPSIS The yet covered design by are AC1318-71 guide of contains recommendations deep beams 1972. is

of the given

reinforced current in the

concrete British CEB-FIP Code, and Code

not Some (1970) CIRIA

CP110:

provisions and design a number with web This in and shear in the

Recommendations the new (1977)

Building more

comprehensive for the design

guidance of deep

including beams

openings. thesis of is concerned reinforced effects serviceability. comprised reinforced ranging web openings failure and the from on modes, influence seventy-five concrete one to two. lightweight deep beams The , effects of with the general deep on behaviour beams their

single-span the and specimens normal weight ratios range of loads, studied, investigated.
analysis presents strengths accuracy was A simple derived

concrete web openings

particular strength

ultimate The and with of sixteen

test

span/depth a varied

deflections and ultimate of web

crack shear

widths, strengths forcement

The with the with ization, programme. hints are web ultimate

cracking were was

exact openings shear

rein-

of

reinforced formidable of such a simple the is

concrete problems. beams can

deep

beams However,

be

predicted ideal-

reasonable which

using from

structural of the and

results explained

test design

design

method

given.

The

procedures

currently

used

by

practising

engineers

iii

for and

the

design

of

deep

beams of are

are the given

outlined new to CIRIA

and

discussed, is the preuse

a more

detailed Design

review examples

guide

sented. of the In regarding tension 1 describes information

chorage In out peated Appendix to

illustrate

various all the the

methods. current anchorage are details the effects

and are the conditions.

procedures, requirements necessarily of nine of tests various

the of

design the

assumptions longitudinal Appendix out of

deep

reinforcement the on
on the 2

conservative. carried amounts

control of tests beams

to end

provide an-

strength details

crack, given of of

beams.

three deep

carried under re-

investigate loading

behaviour

iv

TABLE

OF CONTENTS Page

Acknowledgments Synopsis List Symbols of Tables and Units and Figures of Measurement -1

i
ii viii xiii

CHAPTER 1.1
1.2

INTRODUCTION

AND BACKGROUND

Introduction
Background

1 3
Elastic Deep
1.2.2.1 1.2.2.2 1.2.2.3 1.2.2.4

1.2.1 1.2.2

analysis beam tests

de Paiva and and tests tests Siess's Walther's tests tests

3 3 4 7 9
12

Leonhardt Crist's

Nottingham-Cambridge

CHAPTER

THE DESIGN IN CURRENT

OF R. C. PRACTICE

DEEP

BEANS

2.1 2.2

Introduction Outlines 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 of CEB-FIP ACI current design methods

17 17 17 21
association :

Recommendations Code Cement

Building

Portland comments

25 28

2.3

General

CHAPTER 3.1
3.2

THE

EXPERIMENTAL

PROGRADL'1E

Introduction
Materials 3.2.1 Cement

31 33 33
aggregates

3.2.2

Lightweight

33

3.2.3

Normal

weight

aggregates

34

3.2.4
3.3 Concrete 3.3.1 3.3.2
1

Reinforcement
mixes Lightweight Normal weight concrete concrete

34
35

35
35

3.4

Beam manufacture 3.4.1

3.4.2 3.4.3

36
36
fabrication curing 37

Formwork
Reinforcement Casting and

38
39
40

3.5
3.6

Control
Testing 3.6.1 3.6.2
3.6.3

specimens

Test Test
Test

equipment preparation
procedures

40 41
42

CHAPTER

4 LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE DEEP STUDY PILOT WEB OPENINGS: programme results

Crack Crack Ultimate patterns widths loads and and modes deflection

BEAMS

WITH

4.1 4.2

Test Test
4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3

44 45
of failure 45 48 50

4.3

General

comments

53

CHAPTER

LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE DEEP BEVIS FURTHER TESTS WITH WEB OPENINGS: 56 57 59 patterns and modes of failure 59

5.1 5.2 5.3

Introduction Test Test 5.3.1 programme results Crack

vi

Page 5.3.2 5.3.3 Crack Ultimate widths loads and deflection 63 66

CHAPTER

NORMAL CONCRETE WEIGHT WEB OPENINGS WITH

DEEP

BEAMS

6.1 6.2 6.3

Introduction Test Test 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 programme results Crack Crack Ultimate patterns widths loads and and modes of failure

72 73 74 74 75 77

deflection

CHAPTER

7A

STRUCTURAL IDEALIZATION BEANS WITH WEB OPENINGS

idealization

FOR DEEP

7.1 7.2

The

structural discussion

81 88

General

CHAPTER

8A

PROPOSED DEEP BEAMS

METHOD FOR THE DESIGN WITH WEB OPENINGS

OF

8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

"

Introduction Proposed Design Design design hints example equations for shear

91 91 94 96

CHAPTER

9A

CRITICAL. REVIEW OF THE FOR DEEP BEANS GUIDE

CIRIA

DESIGN

9.1

Introduction

100

9.2 9.3 9.4

CIRIA

design

method: of design Provisions

solid loads for

top-loaded test beams

deep beams results with holes

101 113 114

Comparison CIRIt Guide:

with deep

vii

Page CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS RESEARCH FURTHER FOR

10.1 10.2

Conclusions Suggestions for further research

119 120

APPENDIX

REINFORCEMENT ANCHORAGE OF TENSION CONCRETE DEEP BEANS IN LIGHTWEIGHT and background 122 123 125
control control patterns loads and modes of failure 125 125 126 127

A1.1 A1.2 A1.3

Introduction Test Test

A1.3.1 A1.3.2 A1.3.3 A1.3.4

programme results
Deflection Crack Crack Ultimate

A1.4

General

comments

127

APPENDIX

SHEAR BEAMS

STRENGTH SUBJECTED and

DEEP OF LIGHTWEIGHT LOADS TO REPEATED 130 131

A2.1 A2.2

Introduction Test A2.2.1 A2.2.2 programme Test Testing results

background

specimens

131 132 132

and crack widths 132

A2.3

Test
A2.3.1

Deflections

A2.3.2 A2.3.3 A2.4 Summary

Crack Ultimate

patterns loads

and

modes

of

failure

133 134 135

REFER ENCES

136

viii

LIST

OF TABLES

AND FIGURES

All end of the

full text,

page in

tables groups

and as

diagrams listed

appear below.

at

the

Page CHAPTER Figure 1 1.1 Effect steel Figure 1.2 Leonhardt arrangement Figure Figure 1.3 1.4 Meanings Comparison ultimate Figure 1.5 Nottingham of symbols computed and measured 147 148 of and inclined concrete and Walther: cracking strains on 145

Reinforcement

146

of loads

tests:

Details

of

web reinforcement

149

CHAPTER Figure

2 2.1 Reinforcement pattern: CEB-FIP Recommendations examples CEB-FIP ACI Recommendations Code 150

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Deep Beam Beam PCA's Beam

beam

in

design to to chart to PCA

151 152 152 153

designed designed Design designed

Building

design

guide

153

CHAPTER
Table Table 3.1 3.2

3
Sieve Sieve analysis analysis of of Lytag aggregates gravel aggregates 154 155

Hoveringham

Table Figure

3.3 3.1

Tensile Load v.

properties extension

of

reinforcements for reinforcement arrangement at the supports

156 157 158

diagrams

Figure

3.2

The

loading

apparatus:

general

Figure

3.3

The

loading

apparatus:

detail

159

ix

Page

CHAPTER Table

4 4.1 Properties (Pilot Measured (Pilot beams test lightweight

of tests;

160 concrete) 161 concrete) details nt concrete) applicable 162

Table

4.2

loads ultimate tests; lightweight

Figure

4.1

Dimensions and reinforceme (Pilot tests; lightweight Opening reference in Table to beams Typical Typical crack sequence numbers: 4.1 at which

Figure

4.2

163

Figure Figure

4.3 4.4

patterns in

failure the cracks appeared deep beams

164 166 167

Figure

4.5

Typical with

failure web openings crack

modes

of

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

Figure

4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10

4.11

Maximum Development Development Average Central

Load

widths of cracking of cracking widths in in

168

Beam M-0.4/4
Beam 0-0.4/4

170 171 172 174

crack

deflections
transmission paths

176

Figure

4.12

Explanation

of

symbols

177

CHAPTER Table

5 5.1 Properties (Further Measured (Further Dimensions (Further Opening lightweight normal of tests; ultimate tests; and tests; test beams lightweight loads lightweight reinforcement lightweight 178 concrete) 180 concrete) details concrete) 182 181

Table

5.2

Figure

5.1

Figure

5.2

to nos: applicable reference 5.1 in Table beams and 6.1 Table in beams weight W7(A) for beams W1(A)

Figure

5.3

Four loading point 113(A), w4(A) and

183

x Page

Figure Figure Figure Figure

5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

Typical Maximum Central Ultimate with web

crack crack

patterns widths

at

failure

184 189 191

deflections strengths openings after after after of deep beams

193

Figure Figure Figure

5.8 5.9 5.10

Beam Beam Beam

W6-0.3/4 W7-0.3/4 W5-0.3/4

failure failure failure

194 195 196

CHAPTER Table

6 6.1 Properties test beams

Measured normal

of

the

normal

weight

197

Table

6.2

loads ultimate beams weight

of

the

198

Table

6.3

Comparison

the strength of ultimate weight and lightweight of normal test specimens

and reinforcement details

199

Figure

6.1

Dimensions

200

of Figure 6.2

the

normal patterns weight crack

weight at beams widths

concrete failure of

beams the 201

Crack normal Maximum Central

Figure Figure

6.3 6.4

203 204

deflections

CHAPTER Table Figure

Figure

7 7.1 7.1
7.2

Measured The

and

computed idealization
of symbols

ultimate

loads

205 209
210

structural

Explanation

Figure

7.3

Properties

and

dimensions

of

Beam

211

WW3-o. 3/4
Figure 7.4 Comparison ultimate CHAPTER Figure 8 8.1 Design equations: geometrical notation 213 of loads computed and measured 212

Xi

Page

Figure Figure

8.2 8.3

Design Design steel

example: example: details

geometry main steel

and and

loading web

214 215

CHAPTER

Table Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

9.1 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5

Comparison Basic Meanings CIRIA Beam

of

computed of deep

design beams:

loads CIRIA Guide

216 217 217 218

dimensions of design designed of

symbols: tables to hole CIRIA

CIRIA

Guide

Guide

219 220

Assessment CIRIA Guide CIRIA applied Guide to of

admissibility:

Figure

9.6

condition of test specimens

admissibility

221

Figure

9.7

System opening:

deep notional CIRIA Guide stresses: around CIRIA

beams

around

an

222

Figure Figure

9.8 9.9

Principal Reinforcement CIRIA Guide

Guide

222 223

openings:

APPENDIX Table Table Figure

Figure

1 Properties Ultimate Singh's

Dimensions

A1.1 A1.2 A1.1

A1.2

of loads test
and

test

beams

224 225

specimens
reinforcement details

226
226

of Figure Figure Figure A1.3 A1.4 A1.5

the

present deflection crack patterns

test

specimens curves 227 228 failure 229

Central Maximum Crack

widths at

APPENDIX Table
Table

2 A2.1
A2.2

Properties
Measured and

of

test
computed

specimens
loads

230
231

xii Page

Figure

A2.1

General of web

arrangement reinforcement deflections diagonal of

and

details

232

Figure Figure Figure

A2.2 A2.3 A2.4

Central Maximum

233 crack widths and present deflections 233 234

Comparison test results: Crack patterns

Singh's central at failure

Figure

A2.5

235

xiii

SYMBOLS

AND UNITS

OF MEASUREMENT

of area Eqns. of (7.3), bars are

individual an (1.9), (4.1), (8.1) (8.2), and also regarded

bar web (4.2), the as

(for (7.1),

the purpose (7.2),

longitudinal main bars) web

I

As

area

of

main

longitudinal

reinforcement

Ah

area

of

horizontal

web

reinforcement

Av

area

of

vertical

web

reinforcement

Aw

area

of

web

reinforcement

Ar

used

in

Egn.

(9.4),

see

symbol

a1,

a2

coefficients opening

defining (Figures 4.2

dimensions the and 5.2)

of

an

distance load and

between the face

the of

line the

action of supporting

the of member

width

(breadth)

of

beam

section

length the of

of support measured the beam span of

in

the

direction

empirical (4.2),

coefficient (7.1), (7.2)and

in

Eqns. (7.3)

(1.9), for

(4.1),

C=1.40; for weight concrete, C=1.31 the concrete, where cylinderft is determined in splitting strength accord1STM Standard C330, C1 = 1.0 with ance where ft is determined in BS 1881) accordance with

normal lightweight

C2

empirical (7.1) for

and plain

coefficient (7.3) (for round bars,

(1.9), (4.1), in Eqn. deformed bars, = 2C2 ) C2 = 130 N/mm

(4.2),., 300 N/mm ;

xiv

C1

empirical (8.2)

(for

coefficient normal

in weight

Egn3.

(8.1)

and

concrete

c; " C2

= 0.44;

for

lightweight

concrete (8.1)

C1=

0.36)

empirical
(8.2) for

(for

coefficient
deformed round bars

in
bars C2 =

Eqns.
C2

ang
;

plain

N/j2m 195 = ) N/mm 97.5

over-all

depth

of

beam

(Figs.

4.1,5.1,6.1)

effective

depth

of

beam,

measured

to

centroid

of As
fI characteristic compressive (or strength cylinder specified) of concrete

fcu

characteristic

cube

strength

of

concrete

ft

characteristic of concrete

cylinder

splitting

strength

fy

characteristic of reinforcement

(or

specified)

yield

strength

allowable

tensile

stress

in

reinforcement

ha

effective

height

of

beam

(Fig.

9.1)

ks

shear

stress

modifying

factor

k1k2 kl, k' 12 L

coefficients opening

(Figs.

defining 4.2,5.2,7.1)

the

position

of

an

simple

span

of

beam

(Figs.

4.1,5.1,6.1)

effective 2.2.2,1 of supports

span = clear

(Fig.

9.1); distance

in Chapter between

faces

xv

10

distance clear (Fig. supports

between 9.1)

faces

of

design

bending

moment

Diu

design section

bending (Egn.

moment 2.4)

at

critical

Ps

modified

Ps according

to

de

Paiva

and

Siess

P SS Pt

=2v

bD

ratio steel Newmark's

used formula

in

Laupa, (page 6)

Siess

and

main

steel

ratio

A s

/bd

Pweb

web steel to steel

ratio that

of volume = ratio in concrete of the

of the

web beam

PmsPwh'Pwv

modified

percentage

of

main

steel;

horizontal (Fig. 9.3)

web

steel;

vertical

web

steel

Qult

ultimate

shear

strength

(Ault

s W2/2)

spacing
in

of

web

reinforcement,

measured

a vertical reinforcement for vertical

direction in and a inclined and

horizontal for direction horizontal reinforcement

9h

spacing

of

horizontal

web

reinforcement

sv

spacing

of

vertical

web

reinforcement

total

tensile

force

resisted

by

A s

design

shear

force

Vc

shear

capacity

of

a beam

(Eqn.

9.6)

XV1

design u section

shear (Eqn.

force 2.4)

at

critical

allowable

shear

stress

(Eqn.

2.9)

vc 1

ultimate in Eqn. carried

concrete shear (2.4) v= nominal by thecconcrete

stress; shear

stress

vu

limiting Eqn. (2.2), at critical

concrete shear nominal v= section.

stress; shear

in stress

vs

nominal shear and Newrnark's

stress formula

in

Laupa,

Siess

Vmax9 Vwh'

vx'vms Fwv

concrete parameters shear stress steel shear stress parameters Eqn. 9.6) and

and (Fig. 9.3

total

load

on

beam

measured (Table

ultimate 4.2)

load

of

solid

beam

W1

measured

ultimate

load

W2

ultimate (Table 7.1 W2 = ultimate

through W?

load

computed and Fig-7-4); load computed

from in

Eqn. Fig. from

(7.2) (1.4) Eqn.

(1.9)

W4

computed Table 9.1)

design

loads

(Chapter

9.3,

uniformly unit per

distributed length

load,

axial

load

clear-shear-span 5.1,6.1)

distance

(Figs.

4.1,

xe

effective

clear-shear-span

(Eqn.

9.2)

xvii

depth bar at which a typical intersects the potential critical in diagonal deep crack a solid is line the which approximately loading joining the and reaction

beam, points

yi

depth sects crack idealized

which a typical at critical a potential beam in a deep with EA line the as

bar

interdiagonal Fig. (7.2)

openings, CB in or

yr

used

in

Egn.

(9.4),

see

symbol

lever

arm

between intersection angle of a typical the bar and critical potential diagonal described in the defincrack ition 0 of y above

inclination angle of (Eqn. to horizontal

of 1.2)

reinforcement

al

between intersection a typical angle of diagonal bar critical and a potential beam in with openings, crack a deep CB in Fig. EA line idealized the or as

(7.2)

0a

characteristic (Eqn.

ratio

(Eqns.

2.6

and

2.7)

1, 2, 3

constants

9.6)

Yf

partial

safety

factor

for

loading

Ym

partial

safety

factor

for

materials

Fa

characteristic

ratio

(Eqns.

2.6

and

2.7)

Ar

between angle diagonal crack

reinforcement (Egn. 9.4)

and

empirical for web

coefficient, bars 1.0 and

equal for main

to 1.5 bars

Xvlll

x1,

A2

constants

'(Egn.

9.4)

defining the directions angles of the diagonal potential critical (lines EA and CB in Fig-7.2); cracks 0= Chapter in 2.2.2 capacity (Eqn. factor 2.2) reduction
7

UNITS

OF MEASUREMENT

The this

SI system thesis,

of measurement unless otherwise

is

used stated.

throughout

CHAPTERONE

INTRODUCTION

AND

BACKGROUND -1

1.1

INTRODUCTION

1.2

BACKGROUND 1.2.1 1.2.2 ELASTIC DEEP

1.2.2.1 1.2.2.2 1.2.2.3

ANALYSIS TESTS
de Paiva and and tests. Siess's Walther's tests. tests.

BEAM

Leonhardt Crist's

1.2.2.4

Nottingham

Cambridge

tests.

1.

CHAPTERONE

INTRODUCTION

AND

BACKGROUND

1.1

INTRODUCTION At a Mechanics it became concrete and that to practical covered in the by behaviour recurred provide in Colloquium clear deep of that 1 the University and particular, web it or with of Code Europe. little openings, may for be found behaviour the were of

given the

at

Cambridge, of reinforced

strength and, with Often, services in

beams, deep beams 2. for deep

strength topics necessary but not as and British on the It in the yet CP11O3 the

design

openings design any of the of the ACI

access openings is such U. S. A.; the

beams

web

major Building 5 in

codes

U. K.;

practice: 4 in the Indeed,

CEB-FIP code design is only

Recommendations 1972, as yet,

CP110: of

provides

guidance

deep during

beams. the deep In last beams the decade has or been so that research out du on Beton (PIP) their Building solid Portland ST668 a

reinforced scale and

concrete 6 7. ,

carried Europeen

practical (CEB) first

1970,

Comite de la

Federation provisions

Internationale for solid 5 . In

Precontrainte beams the in ACI for the

included

deep 1971,

International Code deep Cement and the for the

Recommendations first These time two included documents,

recommendations together Concrete and design available with

beams.

Association's Construction recently major design

widely Industry

known

Information Information 9 guide in the

Research CIRIA currently

Association's form the

published guides

(1977), U. K.

Deep modern of in construction

beams

are and

becoming have useful

increasingly applications construction buildings housing often

employed in for a a

in variety

structures. department

In stores, buildings

modern hotels, and

I

building

example, theatre, to have

municipal

so

on,

it

is

desired

the heavy

lower frame

floors

entirely

free the

of use-of

columns. Vierendeel trusses, walls and carry found it

Here,

instead trusses in simpler beams

of

construction, even the the uses for may and structural external column of

concrete to span them. utilise across

or

steel and free partition space beams

may as the in

be

deep

to above

building cooling-water

Other

deep stations;

may in

be

pumphouses a deep foundation; as deep beam

power be in

foundation

engineering, column loads walls into may

where the act

provided bunkers

to and

distribute silos, column Nottingham deep out where

the

beams At the on

spanning University reinforced which have

between of

supports. several beams on deep have beams research been proreported.

jects These web so must erature are

an

10-12 projects, openings, complex be

concrete were carried that for Since little their some recent

without is

shown at least

post-cracking time yet, surveys and beams

on the

behaviour design 9-12 procedures of the lit-

that, based have on shown on

tests. that reinforced

study,

information concrete deep

experimental with web

data opening
of web

available
experimental

which

concentrated

effects

openings,

was In

carried chapter,

out. as of deep a background previous is presented. to the present inon

this

vestigation, reinforced

a review concrete

selected beams

investigations

3.

1.2

BACKGROUND

1.2.1

ELASTIC

ANALYSIS library beams in of work of in is

A substantial the alysis Dischinger stresses iation paper guidance have is that, elastic also pertinent where 8 in have added for been to there the behaviour 13-21. 13, of deep

available, elastic field to linear was

covering andone by the Assoc-

terms work

The who

pioneering used

this series

trigonometric deep an beams. expanded for of deep simply beams. deep and in

determine Cement

continuous produced solutions design used note were became $ and to

The version

Portland of

Dischinger's spans to give

and

supported Photoelastic beam 22

methods It out

investigate Saad

behaviour. have any pointed theoretical

that holes

Hendry

a deep

beam, or even

solution

very

difficult

impracticable.

The based elastic accepted because in on the theory design the

PCA

other of in the of

design interal past, service

methods forces consistent load in

i8,21 deep with requirements;

which beams the

were from then but,

prediction were, criteria

elastic concrete

assumptions after the

become onset with For primarily

increasingly of the this to cracking, current reason, elastic

invalid these design further analysis

reinforced are of of not

methods criteria review would

no

longer

compatible limit states. related

ultimate

research be

which

appropriate.

1.2.2

DEEP In

BEAM 1964,

TESTS in the Introduction to the'Recommendations for

4.

an it the

International was stated,

Code "the and on

of Comite

Practice Europeen

for du

Reinforced Beton be of the

Concrete considered fundamentally actual as external

23, that and

Principles based

Recommendations knowledge and

should

solely of a the single

experimental of steel subjected and and tested 1966 tests to

behaviour forming or

combination whole....... forces In 1965

concrete to the

conceived action of

internal

failure". the by de 25 results Paiva at and the 24

respectively, conducted and centres, New Mexico, and last has been have Walther

of

practical in Illinois,

deep

beam and

Siess

Leonhardt two 26 test at

Stuttgart, with the the

were more re-

reported. cent of work actual

These of deep practice. volume of Crist

together have

expanded

knowledge influenced

beam

behaviour the

significantly years, out

design large

Over research

seven carried

a comparatively on deep beams

by

the

Nottingham 1,27-38.
In

Cambridge

team

under

the

direction

of

Kong

what

follows, carried Crist by the is

a brief out by de

description Pa-va and

of Siess, with

details

of

the and of

test Walther, previous

studies and work

Leonhardt an outline

presented, -

together Cambridge

Nottingham

team.

1.2.2.1

de

Paiva Possibly

and the based made

Siess's earliest on by de

tests

24, comprehensive tests 24' 39 on and study reinforced colleagues work, and a Siess digest 24 in of deep concrete 40,41

beam

behaviour was at the

practical Paiva of

specimens working of which

University reported in

Illinois. by de

This Paiva

was

a paper

J0

1965, other

has deep

since beam

been research

guiding workers

influence 11,12,26

on

the

projects

of

The 19 point was is to beams simply top

tests,

that

were

reported concrete The object of

in

1965,

consisted subjected to

of thitd

supported loading

reinforced (Fig. the 1.1). behaviour ratios(L/D) were (shear) tested from The two at the

beams of the

test deep

programme beams; 6. that The steel,

investigate with

moderately of between of

span/depth studied of beams web

2 and main the span tensile

major the ratio. and ratios consisted single Web

variables quantity The their of

quantity

reinforcement, over 178 main a constant mm to longitudinal grade by welded 330

and

span/depth of give 610 L/D mm

were varied

depths 1.8 of layer, to one

mm,

to

3.4. or

reinforcement deformed steel of wire. it

deep toward

intermediate the ends

bars plates.

in

anchored where of the

cracks,

reinforcement, stirrups From

provided, black of the

consisted annealed tests,

in inward than

vertical

or

inclined

No-7

results
that upward on of

was

deduced
near

that
the

the support had cracks and the

inclined and a greater at steel inclined in behaviour at the end

originate and behaviour moment. showed to a of redistribution a 'tied

beams the flexural

propagate influence sections

midspan, type concrete of forces 1.1). reinforcemade for This

the

maximum

Evidence that the

from propagation of internal (Fig.

strain cracks the

measurement led formation causes high and of

resulting arch ment positive

arch'. in the

stresses hence the provision

tension must be

supports anchorage

reinforcement.

b.

Three collapse through which formed where of rupture resulted between the failure the

failure beams: of from two the

modes 'flexure' steel

were

defined failure

to

describe occurred failure 'strut'

the

which proper'

tie; of the

'shear inclined and either

crushing inclined was not

that

cracks; clearly

'flexure-shear' of the former modes.

The ment failure of main provided modes, steel

effect was but changed

of found it

the to was the

type be not

and

amount

of

web in

reinforcechanging the to the quantity shear.

significant that mode increasing from

observed failure

flexure

From Siess shear 24 derived

an

analysis the Ps: following

of

the

test equation

results, to

de compute

Paiva the

and ultimate

strength,

Ps =

0.8

(1-

o. 6D )

Ps

(1.1)
41

where stress shallow

s (vs), beams

P'

was as

determined derived L/D) from

using the

Laupa's results small shear

formula tests span/depth on

for

shear

of

ordinary ratios.

(large

with

P=2v ss where vs = 200 +

bD 0.188 f' + 21,300 Pt

(1.2)

in

which Pt =A

(1

+ bD

sina0)

The steel and ment. It are is explicit related to is area support;

quantity

(1

sinao) section of

referred between

to

the the

'total' load point

crossing a0 was

a vertical the angle

inclination

of

the

reinforc-

to in the

be

noted (1.1): ratio; little

that firstly, and

two

significant that the that ultimate

test shear

observatiozis strength

Eqn. x/D have

secondly on

conventional strengths.

vertical

stirrups

effect

1.2.2.2

Leonhardt Leonhardt

and and study

Walther's Walther on deep at 25

tests reported beams Stuttgart (cf. which scope

25 the in 1966, on 2.2.1). of the signi-

results and the

their ficant of the

experimental influence CEB-FIPlis several beam behaviour deep behaviour of beams, of

their

Rec(>m^nenda

work
, c,, s

drafting The aspects study of

C1g70)5

clearly tests (7 outside continuous, and simply of 5

evident beams) the

Chpt.

included deep the loaded to the

considered of this supported here beam scale x 1600 was of x will tests. thesis;

namely, and refer bottom only

indirectly the review deep large 1600 load

hence

top-loaded A total

supported

comparatively each mm. by a The

beams 100

were mm, with

tested an overall

under

this span L length

condition; of 1440 0.8L weight

applied

uniformly, beams used for

spread and all

over

system

distributing was

rollers. beams and of from concentrated j of the

Normal the main

aggregate

concrete tension bars in some

longitudinal ribbed 0.25% bottom; in some bD. in

reinforcement quantities beams it was the which main steel

consisted ranged was over

8 mm diameter 0.125% bD near height; to the and

In

others

distributed of the main

cases

a proportion

steel forcement zontal

was

bent was

up

over

the by all

supports. the of the use of

Anchorage either vertical

of

the or

reinhoriof web

achieved and was in

hooks,

beams

a nominal of an

amount orthogonal

reinforcement of 5 mm diameter Analysis confirmed takes the of was chord. concrete might have place elastic deep found beams to Failure at the been hooks. In Leonardt and that in

provided, bars.

consisting

mesh

of

concrete

and

steel

strain of

measurements internal compared action of of destruction the failure of the forces with behaviour failure the tension of the there vertical-

considerable reinforced of vertical

redistribution concrete plates, The caused more by the deep

beams and common collapse of that arch

theory was be

apparent.

mode

flexural, also

occurred it by the

as was

a result thought

supports: caused

unfavourable

action

anchorage

summary, Walther

from 25

the

basis

of the

the

test

experience design rules:

recommended

following

1. from

The Egns.

quantity (1.3),

of which

main

longitudinal follow

steel

should

be

determined

for for

L/D L/D

>1T= <1T=

M/O. M/O.

6D 6L (1.3)

where resulting 2. from

11 is

the tension

maximum chord

applied force. determined

bending

moment,

and

is

the

The

reinforcement to support

from positively

the

above anchored

should using

extend

support

and

be

9.
4

horizontal 3. To limit

hooks crack
distributed

or

anchor widths,
over

plates. the
the

main
bottom

reinforcement
0.15 to 0.2

should
times

be
the

uniformly

beam 4. bars,
for

depth. A light arranged

web

(Fig.

1.2). mesh closely

(Fig.

orthogonal more

of at
1.2).

vertical the

stirrups supports, should

and

horizgntal be provided

reinforcement. Rule No. problem not 4

above, in occur deep if

reflected beams. the main

the It

view was

that contended

shear that was without

failure shear

was cracks

not

a would

reinforcement to support here that that,

well cut-offs. benefit of was

anchored (In later not

and

extended it might

from be it

support mentioned likely

retrospect, deep observed beam in

wi1 the

tests, Leonhardt's

seems tests

shear early

failure collapse

because

occurred
it is to

as
be

a result
noted that

of

either
+hempi_T_+r?

premature
+y ^f

flexural
reinfnrcam6rit

failure

r'

l a+i v1 y

smal

or

premature

bearing

failure

at

the

supports.

1.2.2.3

Crist's

tests

26

Together
at Illinois,

with
Crist's

the 26

work

of

de Paiva
work

and
at

colleagues24,39-41
the University of

experimental

New
which

Mexico
is

formed
given in

the
the

main
current

basis
issue

of

the
of

deep
the

beam
ACI

design

guidance
Code 4

Building

Crist's
tests and 3

experimental
dynamic tests on

programme
uniformly

consisted
top-loaded

of

static

reinforced

concrete
behavioural

beams.

The

object
for

of

the

research
concrete

was

to

develop
beams;

equations

reinforced

deep

10.

especially All simply beams Normal of ment tensile beams, with the The
There failure web were

as the supported were weight N/mm 2

regards test

shear

capacity. were of 203 2438 of mm thick mm. L/D The ratios and were of 1.6 strength steel reinforcethe to 3.8.

specimens over to a give with span

depths of

varied

a range

concrete and

a nominal grade beams five of of web the

compressive ASTM A15

25.9 were

intermediate All of and array axis loaded the in

used. reinforcing,

contained of the

longitudinal statically tested coincident provided. tested

beam in yield, those None failure, crack formtested

an

orthogonal longitudinal

reinforcement beam were was all

to

statically
no beams were

beams
failed

to

collapse.
and the with the but

that

prior flexure in those taken to as companion

modes reinforcement

predominantly and shear was

beams of

without. complete regards statically

dynamically each ation beams. was and found

loaded to

beams behave to

similarly, the

development,

Static
derived tests research. can be given on the

behavioural
lower above total conservatively boundary and static

equations
of seventy-three shear at a data

for

deep

beams
by from

were
nine

represented tests

mentioned The

other argued, xc= O. 2L

capacity, critical

it section,

was

or

xc

d),

by V=V+V u

uc

us capacity is

(1.4)

gin which .

the

concrete

vuc

=[3-5

-3vd1.9

f
cc

+ 2500

(i)i pa

(1.5)

11.

and

the

web

reinforcement

capacity

is

Vus

1.5

fyd

Av svv

1+L+ 12 d

Ah sh

1 12 /11 ld -L

where

M= v

Ratio c at the in the

of

applied

moment section.

to

applied

shear

force

critical of vertical sv

Av,

Ah-

area spacing effective the ratio the

and sh

horizontal

web

steel

and depth

respectively. measured steel. area to the area bxd to the centroid

d=

the of

main of concrete on

longitudinal main steel section. shear these limits

p=

the of Upper

limits

nominal and The

stress were were

were found as

established to control

in in

the

capacity number

calculations of <6 cases.

a minor

follows:

Vuc/bd

fco

X1.7)

Vu/bd

<8

f'

(1.8)

Crist inclined-cracking-load observed

deep ing, beams which

concluded

that behaviour

reinforced is large
of

concrete little L/d different ratios,

beyond normal

deep

beam from that in

crackHence, in

in

normal
there is not is

beams
a usually

with

but

that

reserve

strength in

diagonal beams.

available

Eqn. term

(1.5), as that

the

second used of is in normal taken

bracketed the ACI beams: as

term Building-Code in

is

conveniently 4 for beams the the

the the

same

inclined

cracking cracking

load load

such of

diagonal capacity of

a measure

useful

12.

the term

beam gives

without

shear of

reinforcement. the and reserve was of derived

The

first

bracketed of deep from beams the

a measure cracking

strength empirically

beyond
test

diagonal
data.

The
A

web the

reinforcement capacity
with the

capacity, of an orthogonal

given array
axis of

by

Eqn. of

(1.6),

represents
ment coincident

reinforceThe

longitudinal

beam.

equation developed developed plane, shear

was by on give force.

based blast an rise

on 42.

shear The

friction

analogy assumes by web that bars resist

originally normal crossing the forces, the applied

analogy plane forces

inclined to frictional

crack

which

1.2.2.4

NOTTINGH01 Research by

the

CAMBRIDGE

tests team been the ongoing past nine on the under years. solutions were sought10+43 experimental would
and results

Nottingham-Cambridge beams Kong has for

behavthe At

four general the based but

of

reinforced guidance of of the

concrete Dr. F. K.

beginning on as the the

research of progressed, tests an

programme, uncracked there on

Many

computer section was mounting specimens

details

assumption research

evidence
the most

that
fruitful

practical
approach.

concrete
of the

provide

of and
which

the the
is

tests new

have CIRIA
on

been design
the

published guide
design

in contains
proposals

technical some
of the

journals design
Nottingham

27-32, guidance
-

based

Cambridge The without

team

33.

culmination was the

of

the

research of

up

to

1972

on

deep

beams 33

openings

publication

a proposed

formula

13.

for it The

the was

design argued,

of

solid

reinforced many based of on the a

concrete recorded further out

deep test

beams,

which

embodied method was

observations. of the 30

proposed

evaluation at Nottingham -

research and the

experiments proposed

previously formula took the

carried following

form:

-1

Qult

C1

(1

0.35X D'

ftbD

+Cn

2AY

sin

a_

i1.

-w

for

two-point

top

loading

where, is is the W2 C1 is

with the the

reference ultimate ultimate formula;

to shear shear in

Fig.

(1.3): the beam, in Newtons. from loading,

-ult L4

strength load, the in case

of

Newtons, of two-point

computed top

above Qult an

empirical and empirical bars and 1.0

coefficient for lightweight

equal

to

1.4

for

normal

weight

concrete C2 is an

concrete. equal to 130 bars. in available. in mm. N/mm2, or N/mm2 for plain

coefficient 300 N/mm2 for

round ft is 0.1 b D A is is is the are y is at the the

deformed

cylinder the

splitting cube or strength thickness of the

tensile if of ft the

strength, is not

times the the the

breadth overall area of of

beam, in bar, main mm. in

depth the this

beam, web the bars. from intersects block

individual equation as rim, web

2, mm

and

for bars

purpose also the which inside

longitudinal

considered depth, an in

measured bar the

the

top the at the

of line

the

beam,

individual edge of

joining support to

bearing

14.

the a is line n is

outside the angle described the total

edge

of

that the

at bar

the being

loading

point. and (180> the described JA(y/D) main in sin2a the the a< 0)

between in number bars, of y. for test the

considered of y above

definition of web bars, the quantity

including line

longitudinal definition is to be

that Thus, all data ultimate

cross the

summed the

n bars. from Nottingham loads from in Fig. (1) Eqn. and and (1.9) It the the elsewhere, computed above) may ultimate was be seen

Using a plot urtimate presehted, that Egn. of the loads and (1.9) of The of out the on proposed 135 simply were mm. top x/D 0.7. is

measured (2, as

determined here

reproduced gives

(1.4). of

a reasonable deep beams.

estimate

strengths

solid

experimental formula supported 76.2 The mm thick of

work included

27-32 tests

which to

formed destruction beams. of the to either

the

basis carried The 762 of test mm the of from

rectangular and the had

deep spans and

specimens or two L/D 0.23 1524 point and to

depths

beams were

geometry give 1 to and

loading ratios; Both

system namely, normal were were

varied varied aggregate

a range 3; x/d

L/D weight used

from

lightweight arrangements The the varied web reinof

aggregate of web

concretes reinforcement ratio, to about their 2 that 0.025. yield

and

five

principal (Fig. 1.5). of beam, and

considered as the in round were The main

foraement web zero used, and steel to

pweb' of the

defined concrete plain

ratio the

volume from bars 300 bars

Both

deformed

were N/mm2 were

and 400

strengths

approximately longitudinal

N/mm

respectively.

15.

anchored anchorage

at

their

ends

to

steel

blocks

to

prevent

possible

failure. The important brevity, test are as 27-32,

more for

observations follows: beam

reported

itemised

here

1.

The two the

ultimate parts, web the

shear

strength

of of

a the

deep

is

composed and that of

of

contribution

concrete

reinforcement. contribution the x/D splitting f. cu diagonal inside the face crack of face at bar cot-1 is it the of is approximately load-bearing that (x/D) perpendicular is with in resisting the depth at to the the the block loading horizontal. to the shear: at which diagonal its it line at the ratio, increased and strength is more ft linearly closely than to the with related cube a, deto

2.

The crease the

concrete in cylinder

strength 3. The joining support i. 4. e., it more the potential

the to is

outside

point,

inclined a web effective also the.

The crack,

nearly more

effectiveness intersects 5. Within pendent 6. The main

increases crack.

diagonal limits, yield

practical of the

ultimate stress of the

shear

strength

is

inde-

reinforcement. forms of an important concrete

longitudinal to the

reinforcement shear strength

contribution deep beams. It that the is to

reinforced

be

noted span

that ratio

observation x/D ratio is L/D.

(2) interpreted

above to

means be (2) more also

clear-shear than the

important

span/depth

Observation

16.

implies the which normal

that

diagonal of a

cracking cylinder in

in the

deep Brazilian 44,45

beam

is test,

akin an

to analogy with and

splitting was first

described with small to

by y, Brock shear deep

in ratio

connection (a v and analogy is /d),

beams

span/depth beams by

subsequently Ananthanarayana explained Study in Group's

As and tests Crist crossing the reflects at the effective a beam that failure not. regards

applied 416. Section Report

web

Ramakrishnan

(Brock's (1.12) 47). and

'split-cylinder' Fig. (1.12) of

the

Shear

reinforcement, between Nottingham-Cambridge contribution crack The is

there the

are results

two of team.

significant Crist's Firstly,

interesting and those that

differences of the the

assumes the

of uniformly

the

reinforcement distributed down Egn. (1.9),

diagonal depth. triangular soffit. the yield whereas

expression with

given the

above, maximum is that

distribution The second strain observation of

ordinate Crist develops

difference the (5)

assumes before it may

reinforcement above, states

that

CHAPTERTW0

THE

DESIGN

OF R. C.

DEEP

BEAMS

IN

CURRENT

PRACTICE

2.1

INTRODUCTION

2.2

OUTLINES 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3

OF CURRENT CEB-FIP ACI

DESIGN

METHODS

Recommendations Code Cement + Association

Building

Portland

2.3

GENERAL

COMMENTS

17.

CHAPTERTW0

THE

DESIGN

OF RC.

DEEP

BEAMS

IN

CURRENT

PRACTICE

2.1

INTRODUCTION With the of concrete guide the the deep PCA joined issue the CIRIA British beams with became (but design 9 on in the for more theACI January design the detailed Building some design profirst

of

guide

1977, of time. guidance Code visions practice.

some

form

authorative, deep ranks

guidance available provides 5,

reinforced The

than) and for

CEB-FIP ST668; is

Recommendations each currently of which used

4,

containing in British

beams

In ed trate significant some is provisions above their are

this

chapter

the and

three design guide, design of in

major examples which practice deep Chapter

design are is

methods given likely and with also web to to

mentionillushave a

described, usage. impact for in greater The on the

CIRIA

future design detail

contains openings,

beams 9.

reviewed

2.2

OUTLINES

OF CURRENT

DESIGN

METHODS

2.2.1

The

CEB-FIP According

Recommendations to of the CEB-FIP ratio than main

5. 59 simply than be 2 or continas

Recommendations L/D 2.. 5 are less to

supported uous deep be beams beams. calculated

beams of L/D The

span/depth ratio less of the

designed steel should span,

area the

longitudinal moment

from

largest

bending

in

the

LU"

using

the

following

values

for

lever

arm

z: -

z= z=0.6

0.2

(L L

2D)

for for

1<L/D<2 L/D< 1

(2.1)

It is z independent increases The explained support the level, to to

is

thus of the

seen

that

for D of

L/D the rate.

<1,, beam:

the for

lever L/D

arm trom

z 1 to 2,

depth at a

with main

D but

lower

longitudinal should and of be the extend be

reinforcement, without curt, securely not distributed in of Fig. detailing diameter to facilitate (2.1). of bars to be

determined ailment at the from ends.

as one Also, at one

above, another area should to of 0.05L), the

anchored steel is

required but (0.25D

concentrated over The the to a depth

uniformly as shown

equal drew

CEB-FIP main limit steel the at

attention the and form

importance of cracks small

in width the

a number of

development

and

anchorage

supports. The design shear or force should not exceed is less)

0.1bDfo/Ym

O. 1bLfc/ym

(whichever

where

is

the

beam cylinder

width,

D the strength,

depth, of the

the

span, and

fc

the ym the

characteristic partial safety As that mesh near it will

concrete

factor regards generally of and

for web

materials. reinforcement, the to and extreme Recommendations an orthogonal bars bars. placed The state

besufficient vertical surrounding stirrups the

provide horizontal vertical

consisting each face

1y.

required for a

area smooth bar, b is

of round

one

bar

of and

the by

mesh

is

given for

by

A=0.0025ba a high bars steel of bars be in Fig. bond of the

bar, s beam as and is

A=0.0020bs between The of web total

deformed mesh required, is, ively. particularly and

where the

the thickness. (volume 0.8%

spacing

the web

ratio concrete) respect, provide (2.1). cl

expressed 1.0% the in

steel)/(volume and web deformed bars as should shown

therefore, Near

for'plain additional direction,

supports, the horizontal

Design

example

for

CEB-FIP

Recommendations for (2.2a). to give a heavy proposed column load each web industrial to free w utilize access

A tentative structure Wall below. selfweight) 3300 kN, 'A' If is as shown a deep the is design Idealising geometry (2.2b), distributed of where the deep W/2 load. total 400 the in

scheme Fig.

part It

of is

beam,

required distributed

uniformly kN/m main the and the

(including B and C is

load

in

column

longitudinal the

and loading, element load

reinforcement. properties are half shown the in total and Fig.

problem, structural the

beam

equals

column

plus

L/D
CEB-FIP

6000/4800
Recommendations

1.25<
apply.

Lever Design (where dead Yf and 1.4,

arm

z=0.2

(L

2D)

= ff

3120 x

mm 2000 factor for

bending is

moment the and if

=yfx2

= live

say, loading,

overall 9,000 =

partial kN)

safety

: -10.

Moment
(where steel, Ym, fy the 410 =

of
partial

resistance
safety and
103

=x Ym
factor 3120

As

xz
material, calculated)
As x x

for mm as
410 1.15

is

1.15

for

N/mm2
9000 2 x

z=

1.4

2000

3120

Longitudinal Use 24 No. 25 These extended distributed x 6000) without

steel

area

As= bars

11327 (11782

mm2 2) mm in 8 rows to = of three and x 4800-0.05 bars,

mm diameter main bars

are

arranged from

curtailment a depth measured required of

support O. 05L) bottom. b is

support, (0.25

over 900 = Next, mm the

(0.25D from beam the

width

determined

from

the

condition

that: bD x20.1 Ym Taking yf 1.4 ym = 1.5 for concrete fc

Design

shear

force

Yf

and

1.4

9000

103

{> .

0.1

48001x522.5 xbx

'. b=
1Jeb reinforcement:

875 mm .
say, bar spacing s= 150 mm.

Area i. e.,

required 0.002 x

for 150

each x

bar 875

0.2 = = 262

per 2 mm. mesh

cent

of

bxs

Provide bars at 150

an

orthogonal in each

of (A

20 V=

mm diameter Ah = 314.2

deformed mm2/bar)

mm centres

face

and

at

75 mm spacing
The detailing

near
is

supports.
shown in Fig. (2.3).

21.

2.2.2

ACI

Building

Code:

ACI

318-714. in the 1971 to both is ACI 4 code

Special for shear deep beams;

provisions the These emphasis shear the carried follows. located for support

are is provisions

given on the

capacity apply to L/D critical

resist simple less section, load, the and load it distance the is than and 5.

force.

continuous The which critical face at face of 0.15 to calculations is

beams

when are as is

span/depth out For midway a uniformly, where 1 for

ratio the

defined section the support; the of

a concentrated between the

load

distributed is the clear

1 from face First

span

supports. the nominal shear force shear Vu: stress vu is calculated from

the

given

design

Yu u-

V
bd

(2.2

where

is b d

the is is of

capacity the the the width effective main

reduction of the beam

factor

(taken

as

0.85)

depth longitudinal

measured steel. that

vu not

to

the

centroid

The
d of the beams

designer
are large

should
enough

ensure
for

the
to

dimensions
exceed the

and
follow-

ing

limits: vu J

8 2/3 (10

when + 1/d)

1/d< ifwhen

2 2G 1/d C5

vu

(2.3

where

f'

is

the

concrete

cylinder

compressive

strength.

22.

Next, concrete is

the calculated:

nominal -

shear

stress

vc

carried

by

the

vc

= 3.5

2.5

Mu Vud

1.9

fc+

2500p

Vud M u

Ffc, 2.5 .9 + 2500p

VUd M.

(2.4)
(2.4$

u 6

where

Mu f'

is is

the the

design

bending

moment

at

the

critical compressive

section

specified

concrete

cylinder

strength. p is of Vu, b the the and ratio concrete d are as of the main steel As to the area bxd

section. defined in Eqn. (2.2)

Irrespective an of of tal crete should orthogonal the the web vertical horizontal steel not bd. satisfy mesh web of

of web

the

values

of

vu is

and

vc

so

calculated, the area cent

reinforcement should section not bL, per vc be

mandatory; than that of web the of 0.15 the

steel

less and

per

concrete less When the than vu

horizoncon-

0.25 exceeds

cent the of

vertical

section also

reinforcement -

requirements

Eqn. (2.5)below:

rl1/dl+Ah[11_1/dl
v 12 sh 12

(vu

f Y

v)b

(2.5)

where

Av

is

the

area

of

the

vertical

web

steel

within

spacing s. v a sh

Ah

is

the

area

of

the

horizontal

web

steel

within spacing

23.

1 b fy

is is is

the the the

clear beam

span width.

distance.

snscified

yield

strength

of

the

steel.

Design

example

for

ACI

code.

Consideration beam noted units. in Eqn. shown that in all Fig. (2.2).

is

given (In are

again using the

to

the ACI

design code with need it

of must

the be

equations in in practice,

intended Imperial If-cf, ).

for units

use

Imperial only be used

However, (2.4) and

evaluating

The for and designing 49 notes documents, plained culations later, will Main (16336 2). mm The x 850 (2000 + 0.5 0.5 x

ACI deep to

code

does for

not

contain flexure. designer 8.

detailed In is the

requirements 48 commentary to method flexural other is excal-

beams code, the only given

the as and be

the

referred PCA the

such

PCA the here.

bulletin final

The of

result

steel

provided:

13

No.

40

mm diameter

bars

critical x 600 600) = 1130 =

section 850

is mm from the

located the centre

(Fig. face of of

2.2)

at

0.5 or

support,

mm from

support.

Design (where

bending 1.4 is the

moment partial

Mu

1.4

9200 x factor

1150 for

= 7245 loading).

kNIK

safety

Design

shear

force

Vu = 1.4
b may

x
be

9000 2
chosen

6300

kN
(2.3).

A suitable

beam

width

from

Egn.

IQ.

Fe V=8f, Obd (Assuming d: 4500 mm say)

(fc

= 22.5

N/rnm2=

3260

lbf/in2.

'.

fl=

57.2

lbf/in2=

0.394

N/mm2)

6300 0.85

x 103 500 bx

=8x0.394

b
Referring to Eqn.

525
(2.4),

mm say

3.5

2.5

Mu VdU3S _

2.5

x 7245 63oo x

x 103 500

> 2.86 =
Use vc 2.5 = 2.5 (See 1.9 Egn. fC (2.4) + 2500 Vud p ri

2.5

u 500 6300 x x 7245000 4500 lbf/in 2

[1.9 = 2.5 x 57.2 + 2500 x

16336 525 x

441 lbf/in2 = But

From

= =

3.04 2.36

N/mm2 N/mm2

ff-c7l =6x0.394
Eqn. (2.2)

6300 x 103 - o. 5x 525 x

500

3.14

2 h/mm

Since satisfy web same the reinforcement size bars

vu

exceeds of

vc,

the

web

reinforcement (2.5). Only

must orthogonal Assuming the say,

requirement is (AWeb)

equation to in a

acceptable are used

the

code.

square

patter-i

at,

'_5.

150

mm spacings,

equation

(2.5)

gives

Aweb
150

1+

(600o - 600)/4500
12

j+
x

600)/4500 (6000 11 Aweb

150 12

(3.14

10

2.36)

-1

525

""" Check

Aweb

150mm2

minimum

requirements

Ah

0.0025 =

525

150

197 =

mm

A=0.0015 v
= 178
Provide vertical 16 mm diameter = 201 bars mm2, Ah at = 150 201

x 525 x 150
2 mm
mm spacing mm2) horizontal and

(Av

The

detailing

is

shown

in

Fig.

(2.4).

2.2.3

Portland The

Cement PCA's
and simply 1.25 and

Association Information
on the

8.

Concrete
not

ST668
of of

is

based
load ratio

on
tests. L/D not of a

elastic It not applies

analysis to

results beams

ultimate

supported to

span/depth of with is as L/D the

exceeding 2.5. of charts.

continuous is the carried

beams out

ratio help

exceeding number

The

design Briefly,

procedure

follows.

First these and span, the

two are

characteristic nominally referred span to the ratio

ratios to

F and as the

are support For

calculated; to span ratio

depth E is

to

respectively. of the length

a continuous a support

equal

ratio

C of

4. V

"

(for the and simply

example, span) need to

the the

dimension span L, and

of

a column is D/L. It

in For would

the a

direction simple seem that load, span, for

of C a

careful

interpretation. beam under uniformly

supported

distributed

12

and

L 2D

(2.6

For

simply

supported

beam

under

a point

load

applied

at

midspan, = and 2L (2.7

2L

From by the

the

values main

of

c and

, steel

the

tensile As is

force obtained

to

be

resisted

longitudinal here in Fig.

from

a chart,

reproduced

(2.5).

Then

As

T/fs

(2.8

where fs is

fs left

is

the to the

allowable judgment shear vertical in deep design shear by

stress of the

in

the

steel;

the

value

of

designer. the as No web used PCA in document ordinary 8 states beams

As that are are

regards

resistance, stirrups beams. of force Eqn. the

conventional ineffective given for that that the the

specific

recommendations but beam it should is

reinforcement, to the

suggested not exceed

V applied (2.9).

given

3 g b-D

i1

LD

(2.

where

is

the

allowable

shear

stress

for

an

ordinary

beam

27.

made left

of to

similar the

quality discretion

concrete; of the

the designer.

value

of

is

again

Design

example Once

for again, shown

PCA

method. is (Note: Therefore, appear). point loads chart

beam to the Next, Egn. (2.7)

consideration in Fig. (2.2).

given the the

to PCA

the

design is safety

of

the

beam on

method

based factors

allowable of The yf and beam apply

stresses. ym do is not

partial

under

W/2 (Fig.
one

applied 2.5) it
a

at is
span

third first
of in 2L/3 the ratios

points.
necessary having two F a beams and

To
to point are are

PCA's

design
the

approximate load then calculated at the

with

midspan; same. from

maximum the

moments

characteristic by writing 2L/3

for

L: -

C 2(2L/3)

600

x31 x 6000

13.3

_D

4800 2(2L/3)

x3=0.6 6000 x

Referring solid By curves visual

to

Fig. to

(2.5) interpolate

it

will T

be for

conservative E= 1/13.3

to and

use =0.6.

the

interpolation

T=0.2917

0.29 =

9000

kN

2610

kN

To adopt value 24000 a value (see lbf/in2

determine for Section = the

As

from

Eqn.

(2.8)

it stress 4)

is

necessary fs. be

to

allowable of ACI Then

steel code

A reasonable f= s

8.10.1 165 N/mm2.

would

28.

As

T s

2610

x 165

103

15818

mm2

Provide and to note be the PCA close the

13

No.

40

mm diameter the of width of code main the

bars

(16336

mm2) steel

guide to

requires the bottom beam value (see

tensile beam. is determined /7% 4: c Sections for

placed Next,

required

from the 8.10.3

Eqn.

(2.9)

using shear

a reasonable stress v

1.1

allowable

ACI

and

11.4.1).

Ffc, v=1.1 =

63

lbf/in2

0.44

N/mm2

Using

Eqn.

(2.9)

with

D/L

replaced

by

D/(2L/3)

0.5 x 9000 x i03

xbx 4800

(1 +2x 3

i5x

4800
6000/3

)xo.

44

b=

1050

mm

(say)

The

PCA

method is

does shown

not in

call Fig.

for (2.6).

web

reinforcement.

The

detailing

2.3

GENERAL The

COMENTS most 8 PCA, widely was used prepared on of the four thirty methods, years concrete was the be based on namely, ago deep tae theory The when beams theoretical of elast-

that little were work ticity

of

the

some. reinforced it

experimental available. of Dischinger and assumed

data Consequently, 13, the

who beam

used to

classical homogeneous.

method,

'9.

therefore, behaviour. crete predicted. safety, cases, the deep

cannot For beam

be

expected the

to stress load of

reflect

accurately in same factors as

actual a con-

example, at ultimate

distribution is not built-in be the

that of in most

However, PCA method its CEB-FIP on have

because is likely

the to

conservative

although The

use

would

not

be

recommended. 5 , published and the 50. do in Walther 1970 25, tests Recommenspecific

Recommendations the tests been by on of

were although carried dations

based

mainly they may in

Leonhardt by and Holst and steel the carried emphasize how to

influenced

earlier The not give to

out

Sweden

Nylander

concentrate on how to

flexural the In on Siess

design web

guidance specified which Grist do steel not were 26,

calculate

areas ACI's out in shear calculate moments.

resist

shear based de

forces. mainly and

contrast, tests 24, on

recommendations4, America design flexural by and

Paiva specific to resist the a out on

give areas

guidance specified publication comparatively deep that ACI beams inclined code type of critical

bending the large in the web the

Since recommendations, been known not is that it carried for covered the the most

of

ACI

and

CEB-FIP's of research It is has now is

volume U. K.

27-32

example, by the

reinforcement CEB-FIP

(which

and of

Recommendations) for on and part where that of the deep and the beams, how main web reare -

efficient

web bar

reinforcement depends crack, integral of deep by

effectiveness the

a web diagonal is an

in-'_-rcepts

longitudinal inforcement. reflected in

reinforcement Many the of design these

aspects

beam the

behaviour

method

proposed

Nottingham

30.

Cambridge method capacity and design now

team gives of forms guide. The

33P34

(Chapter

1.2.2.4: of deep

Eqn. the beam given

(1.9)). ultimate without in the

This shear openings new CIRIA

reasonable reinforced part of

estimates concrete the provisions

design of the

of

deep design the

beams methods CIRIA 9). the to

with

web outlined

openings in for this

is

not chapter are deep beams of

covered and, rather beams with as

by will

any be

shown,

provisions As in the

openings of of solid deep

restrictive previously, openings are methods towards was carried

(Chapter data required of on

case

ultimate facilitate the such data,

behaviour the ultimate the

development shear present

reasonable As a step

predicting

capacity. experimental

providing out, in the a

programme which are

description four

and

the

results

of

presented

succeeding

chapters.

CHAPTERTHREE

THE

EXPERIMENTAL

PROGRM

1E

3.1

INTRODUCTION

3.2

MATERIALS 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 Cement Lightweight Normal weight aggregates aggregates

Reinforcement

3.3

CONCRETE 3.3.1 3.3.2

MIXES concrete weight concrete

Lightweight Normal

3.4

BEAM 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3

MANUFACTURE Formwork Reinforcement Casting and fabrication curing

3.5

CONTROL

SPECIMENS

3.6

TESTING 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 Test Test Test equipment preparation procedures

31.

CH

APT

ERTHREE

THE

EXPERIMENTAL

PROGRA! fl1E

3.1

INTRODUCTION Previous work using practical has proved laboratory fruitful and has It is led tests in to possible on providing the that, such provide behaviour the complex

reinforced an appreciation

concrete of of

specimens deep beam design advances the finite capable at the of the Such have

behaviour guidance. in

development in as the near

practical

future, to models but behaviour remain

mathematical method

techniques 51 could cracking of

refinements

element of simulating

mathematical on the computer; of the

post because

present deep beams

time, after

nature testing to the

cracking, tool

laboratory available for of

would researcher. of practice design The

primary testing, emphasized,

investigatory as drafting form

committees the basis

codes practical

should

recommendations. object the of the present of which, in the in past, practice Due reinforced as experimental concrete mentioned and one prodeep earlier, which of lack of the of may wall pre-

primary study

gramme beams has be like vious

was with

to web

behaviour a topic

openings; attention

received expected geometry test

little to occur and data, one.

frequently of present It began deep

because to was, the

uses the

beams. investigation

necessity, in which

a developing 24 lightweight exploratory and

with

a pilot were which recorded,

investigation tested crack to

concrete tests, deflection

specimens during were

destruction. crack range

These widths

development, covered a wide

beam

32.

of the as

opening effect a follow

size, of up test

shape beam and the

and

position Further of 39

and

broadly were

investigated then planned to systemin web the re-

geometry. a more series

tests was

beams

designed recorded effects of

atically pilot

important information

observations on the

study

and

provide

inforcement. In were concrete Committee should would bond be used in beams 408 both these making particularly recommended on ability of expect lightweight of that two test because lightweight data for of

of

series, test

aggregates lighweight ACI

concrete were has

scarce;

example, research elements,

"experimental concrete

conducted the

which to develop some future, use" 16 to beams, provide

evaluate in a variety 53,54

lightweight 52.

concrete Furthermore, too distant enhanced comprised making between deep test

environments" that, will series in achieve of were tests, used in in the not greatly which

engineers "lightweight

concrete In a final

normal information concrete of thus deep iveness the

weight on deep second repeated beams of with an

aggregates any beams series and a

concrete

differences and of further were system for a the survey on normal lightweight

behaviour concrete concrete complementary to

lightweight beams. specimens Nine were

weight

seven

normal

weight the effect-

openings inclined guidance from openings main in

designed of web

investigate

reinforcement. planning the literature shallow drawn from beams the of the test pro-

Some gramme to the wzs effects ratios). openings

early of ordinary

derived of

appertaining (large survey regions span/ was do

depth that

The located

conclusion the

predominantly

flexural

33.

not high

reduce shear in The to the

capacity, may the test previous simple

whereas

openings do so.

located For located designed on solid this

in

regions all the be deep

of the

significantly present specimens tests two tests

reason

openings spans. ary and

were were also

within to

shear complementbeams, was. normally

at point

Nottingham loading

a similar

configuration

adopted. In the of the given test each this chapter, are the described. series discussion the succeeding deep end (9 beams in (3 beam of the of general The test each three topics of and These and the the experimental description specimens, set of test details and of notation with are

programme of the three

together results,

presentation separately Two

and in subsidiary for

chapters. were main effects tests and also investigated:

the

requirements reinforcement on deep

anchorage tests), tests). I

longitudinal of their repeated results

tension loading are

described

Appendices

2 respectively.

3.2 3.2.1

MATERIALS Cement Ordinary Portland normal weight to Cement and permit of all conforming lightweight cement beams carefully by the from within stored Blue to B. S. 12 was Quantities batch series, conto be

used of used were tainers.

for cement, for

both

concrete. the each in Circle same test airtight

sufficient the manufacture

successively All

ordered cement was

and supplied

Group.

3.2.2

Lightweight

aggregates

34.

Lightweight ash for (supplied the Fine Coarse Both necessitated results between of the in two

aggregates grades concrete Lytag Lytag under test

of

sintered the name

pulverized "Lytag") (5 mm down). (13 were

fuel used

lightweight aggregates: aggregates: grades two sieve batches

specimens: grade grade before but, in Table

fine medium dried ordered,

mm nominal Storage shown the by

size). problem the

were

well being

use. as

batches analysis were

presented not significant.

(3.1),

difference

ft

3.2.3

Normal The

weight following

aggregates aggregates were used in normal weight

concrete: Fine Coarse

aggregates: aggregates: dried dried Hoveringham Hoveringham River River Sand Gravel (5 mm down) (10 mm nominal) (3.2).

The

results

from

sieve

analysis

are

given

in

Table

3.2.4

Reinforcement Deformed bars The quality the of high (Unisteel ordered of were as a 410) single picked tested for for were

yield

steel was

used batch at

throughout. and, for from tensile of typical determined test 1969.

reinforcement control,

samples workshop The coefficient satisfactory, of a

reinforcement simply of variation

random

fabrication strength.

ultimate the 3%. 3.3) the results The were

these tensile

tests

was properties

being the reinforcement random in

approximately (Table using and 20 mm

by

tests

on

smaller

sample,

standard

procedures Typical load

recommended v. extension

B. S. 18: 1962 for the

B. S. 4449:

curves

35.

and be bars of the

8 mm diameter noted that the no cent

bars

are

presented and yield stress similarly point: was

in

Fig. the for

(3.1).

It

is 10 the

to mm value of

8 mm bars definite proof

6 mm and these bars

possessed the 0.2 per

taken

as

representative

'yield

strength'.
I

3.3

CONCRETE

MIXES

3.3.1

Lightweight The proportion

concrete of dry weight 56 of given materials by the used was in

accordance

with

recommendations

manufacturers:

Mix Total

proportions water/cement per cu wet m.

by

weight ratio

1: 1.25: 0.8 383

1.55

Cement The produced were Slump, Wet Air Cube

kg/m3 of the concrete

average as

and -

hardened

properties

follows: immediately

after

mixing

70 mm 1810
1780

density dry density (28 day)

kg/m3
kg/m3

strength

37.90
(5.4%4'

N/mm2
coeff. N/mm2 of variation)

Cylinder

crushing (28

strength day) strength (28 day)

31.60 (5.4, 2.5 (9.4;

o coeff. N/mm2 101 coeff.

of

variatiorn

Cylinder

splitting

of

variation

3.3.2

Normal The

weight mix was lightweight

concrete designed for concrete a target and after strength A series comparable of trial

to

that

of

the

36.

mixes,

a mix Mix Total

of

the

following by

proportions weight ratio

was 1: 1.75: 0.47 350

selected: 3.25

proportions water/cement per cu. m

Cement

kg/m3

Representative are as follows: Slump Wet Cube mix density -

values

for

the

properties

of

the

mix

70 mm

2450 kg/m3
(28 day)

strength

53.25

N/mm2 of variation)

(6.0%ocoeff.
Cylinder crushing (28 Cylinder splitting (28 strength day) strength day)

41.95 (6.0% 3.75

(5.7%

N/mm2 coeff. N/m2

coeff. of variation)

of

variation)

3.4 3.4.1

BEAM

MANUFACTURE

Formwork Four upright a bolted and a base all and grease. seal the in all wooden used mm thick 75 mm planed were liberally grease served to cast Wisaform softwood. coated with coated the beams. sides,

moulds of

were 20

Each with Prior a thin

mould stop-ends to

was

assembly of the 100

mm x

assembling, oil

internal joint surfaces application

surfaces were of

release thick heavy to The

with

This mould. the

successfully

openings polystyrene.

test

specimens blocks, which hot-wire to

were were

formed easily

by

blocks and

of

expanded

These a purpose

accurately coated with

shaped grease

on

built

cutter, the

were ingress of

during

assembling

prevent

37.

of the in

mortar. sides any of the lateral were of

An

array

of

8 mm diameter facilitated of locations. mould mm long. for the and the

holes fixing Each secured

drilled of the was

through blocks sandwiched by

each

mould range of the 150

1

a wide sides bolts not

block in

between four which test

compression holes,

Those opening

8 mm diameter location with was of plasticine.

required were

a particular

specimen, Lateral

plugged of positioned also

effectively the mould at functioned were mounted give fixed the

bulging frames frames

prevented points mountings across the

by of

three each two by which

U-shaped mould. Bosch bolts. served

metal The external The to outer

third as

for top

vibrators, frames the in turn clatter

which were and

on

rubber

pads, vibration.

reduce

smoother

3.4.2

Reinforcement The

fabrication for University's reinforcement deformed end had were anchorage threaded with was spacers through to lifting simplify bolts at the light bar all the beams was Science beams for had All welds. in and of the the by the the been joints After mould main at beams, to fabricated Faculty. consisted purpose cut longer on the

reinforcement of the

in The of of than web

the main

workshop longitudinal 20

Applied for all

1 No. affixing the

mm diameter external

which, blocks, ends. tack

beam

and

screw made

reinforcement the in

degreasing, and held

reinforcement by passing order

positioned the top ends

position bar In

longitudinal the two the bottom. 12 top

formwork of the fixed

transportation to be cast in

mm diameter bar of each

were

reinforcement

assembly.

38.

3.4.3

Casting
The

and
beams

curing
for in each groups test of series 3 two aggregates a previous and cu ft. to initial batch, or 4. were cast consecutively session and carefully to

at

weekly

intervals consumed the out Both work into

Each of cement

mixing concrete were

normally spread weighed

approximately load, tins the on weight in a3 Prior for on at each

tonnes and day.

normal

lightweight (0.085 the first loss with For most m3)

concretes capacity the

were

mixed

for

about

3 minutes drum to mixer.

Cumflow drum was

horizontal 'buttered' tests tests a slump were being of

mix, of

compensate out out

mortar.

Slump factor of concrete side

carried carried 70

compaction batches 20

random.

mm was If and the

obtained; slump

however, was less

slumps than 50

mm either

were water

accepted. was added The

mm additional slump with taken. shovels and A (100 beam, table. beams and in the mm)

following was with

remixing, placed the consisting (150 and in the

a new forms Bosch of 3

concrete compacted specimens, cylinders steel after the

continuously set and were Several the control region of 6 control standard cast in hours of cylinders On their of (at wet moulds hessian.

external

vibrators. cubes each deep

standard for

mm diameter) compacted the top was with the on surface trowelled

moulds casting, loading were following cured The for

a vibrating of the smooth paste. were under in tested. the

points capped day,

neat test 6

cement beams days

the and

removed three laboratory

from layers

a further were 50% then R. H)

beams and

stored until

approximately

23C

39.

3.5

CONTROL The

SPECIMENS the in mm) test beam

properties tests x cured the 300 in on

of

concrete (100 control with lightweight normal

each and

were

determined (150 factured exception does not

from

3 cubes The

6 cylinders were with manuthe

mm diameter and of

mm). accordance of between

specimens B. S. 1881-1970, concrete. weight and

cylinders

B. S. 1881-1970 lightweight by ASTM Standmoist

differentiate and for the special

concretes ard cured humidity main strength, cylinders a reduction (ASTM)/t t reported was effect C330 for

procedure cylinders by of storage It

recommended was at is is consisting ASTM method (t); Similar 58. For control adopted; 50 to on per be t'"e of curing the

lightweight followed the of the in was in the a time curing separate

namely, cent noted tensile tests

7 days until

relative that the splitting on resulted 30 in ratio have reason, of been it

test. conditions study the

and it

found

that

splitting being 57 and the test were control 'A'

strength 0.74. Hanson beams cured

average

(B. S. 1881) by Teychenne that aggregates Each set of grade corresponding cylinders The cylinder three plywood

results this

important

and under

cylinders

lightweight

comparable was tested

conditions. on a 120 tonne the and

specimens machine, deep used

capacity testing three strength. tests through lines. on

Denison of capped the

immediately beam. to The three the was load

following cubes crushing

were

determine

splitting cylinders, strips

strength the along

determined being applied

from

the

further

3 mm thick

diametrically

opposite

40.

3.6

TESTING

3.6.1

Test

equipment
The beams were by and frame. manometer scale. set-up and its mode of operation are illustested means The under of static tonne load a top-loading capacity was load measured indicator M. A. N. by hand

applied testing a precision over a

hydraulically machine

a 500

applied operating

pendulum 3600 test (3.2). beam to

large The

trated

in

Fig. The

be then

tested winched

was

mounted rails

on

the into height

travelling position of by the an A. C. was test steel the base a

base under upper motor. riven , safe jigs beam

beam the beam

which upper on the in

was load

along beam. could

distribution columns programme of

The be

screwed the the test process

adjusted attention up

Early to and were making speedy

particular a beam this to the lowered lateral into each test end

mounting To clamped that it was

for

one-man which The jigs

operation. were

special of

designed

end

(Fig-3.2). a correct reactions

ensured as

beam by crane

automatically onto the

assumed support the

alignment and base provided was

temporary being were through surface in planes trolley of of winched simply

support position. and in. )

whilst

travelling All the

beam

test were to the

specimens applied top

supported (2Z mm base parallel each

the

support rollers rollers pendicular limited

reactions attached were to horizontal free the

527 the both and

diameter The

beam. and

to axis

rotate of the

pera The

permitted 2 mm.

translation

approximately

41.

loading through bearing rotational

to 25

the

top

surface rollers upper about a of (1

of

the

test

beam

was

applied the steel had

mm diameter the

sandwiched distribution spherical a test div which

between beam itself joint. measured The to

plates: freedom The

seating beam were mm). clamped and above

deflections dial a rigid the gauges frame, M. A. N.

by were

three attached base

Mercer to beam of

0.01 = was

gauges the on of

travelling three the test

test

frame, just

operated the soffit The support the central

right-angled beam gauges the with

brackets Devcon the of plastic supports which

fixed steel

(Fig.

3.3). the

two

outer settlements, gauge

above

registered used to correct

average

was

reading. Crack illuminated hand widths were measurad of 25 to 0.025 mm using an

microscope

magnifications.

3.6.2

Test
The

preparation
casting of of tested 4 weeks testing. during the beams of to coat and of testing one day set five the days. the face each to beam assist reference was programme per of week beams was casting cast casting, test organised followed together with age of the 28 days was

into by

cycles 4 weeks

Each week had 2

therefore result plus or that

after similar

all

minus A week

a maximum prior thin and

testing, of white

of paint

painted crack

with detection

emulsion and a 100

measurement,

mm square

42.

grid x 25

was mm),

marked each

on having bar

in

pencil. a central pass, layer mortar, ed to loading of mm) on a the were thin up of

Steel hole were

anchor through bedded to

blocks which each cement on each

(100 the end

x main of

75

reinforcement beam After the on a thin

could mm) the tighten. day prior the end x 30

the

(3 of were

high-alumina nuts with threaded a torque the By in turn,

mortar. end of

hardening main bar

spanner. test a small bearing to the beam gypsum at the beam screw

On the was jack blocks at the installed to raise (100 support Similar points x

testing, frame. beam

prepared using steel bedded

into each 100

positively layer bedded of to

points blocks by beam using to

quick-setting the concrete the

plaster. loading distribution the and, the

were the

A. C. a for

motor

operating top-loading. measurement position and

upper Finally, were affixed

apply

fractional deflection beam's the was lateral then

right-angled following beam was by the

brackets a check ready for on test:

the

verticality, support

temporary released.

offered

alignment

jigs

3.6.3

Test
The

procedures
single of test kN were up cycle producing beams. to of loading, which simple was the applied test was adopted, had

the for units some peated in

advantage all of tests the 20

identical, The load of to

loading

histories in (Note: of are re-

incrementally .

collapse out beam

specimen the effect tests

carried on deep

investigate these

loading 2).

behaviour;

reported

Appendix

43.

After readings hand detect crack marked with ities at later the of lamp the was on were and

each observed lens,

increment and

of recorded of

load,

the and., with

deflection the was of aid inspected each and line, at similarly the

gauge of a to

the

surface of cracks.

the The

beam width

development measured the value the load After beam of crack. increments. collapse, and rig the for test by on

significant extent
A

formation with which

and a

its

position pencil

was

surface the load

thin was

together two extrem-

written was

Subsequent

growth

monitored

the

final

crack The beam of

pattern was five then

was

recorded from

in the

sketch test time

photography. for was

removed during

storage data

a minimum processed.

weeks,

which

CHAPTERFOUR

LIGHTWEIGHT

CONCRETE

DEEP

BEAMS

WITH

OPENINGS:

PILOT

STUDY

4.1

TEST

PROGRAMME

4.2

TEST 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3

RESULTS Crack Crack Ultimate and and modes of failure

patterns widths loads

deflection

4.3

GENERAL

COMMENTS

if If

CHAPTERF0UR

LIGHTWEIGHT

CONCRETE

DEEP

BEAMS

WITH

OPENINGS:

PILOT

STUDY

4.1

TEST

PROGRAbfE
I

The deep depth shear beams D 750 spans x

test (Fig. 4.1

specimens and width used, Table

consisted 4.. 1) of b

of span

24 L

simply 1500

supported mm, overall

mm and were The it is

(thickness) giving x/D ratio 31 the were L/D that ratio.

100

mm. of 0.4 kept ratio

Two and

clear 0.25

ratios L/D the

respectively. at 2, because

span/depth believed than beams

was x/D

constant is a more

important

parameter The test no web

divided

into whilst of

two Group

groups: M beams

Group had deweb

0 beams

had

reinforcement, web reinforcement yield

a rectangular-mesh formed steel The bars ratio longitudinal deformed blocks support at and which investigation fly-ash details All Group M beams, the the of of 425

6 mm diameter giving and a 0.0028 total

N/mm2

stress, vertical

0.0048 tension bar

(0.0020

horizontal). of one 20 mm to at

reinforcement of 430 N/mm2 yield

consisted stress, cages 4.1) at these openings were are rectangular with to

diameter steel the

anchored were used local in a pre-

ends.

Reinforcement points observed (Fig.

loading had been of

avoid places 31. used in

crushings vious sintered making;

beams

without aggregates strengths were was

Lytag in concrete (4.1). the of 6 mm

lightweight of concrete openings opening

given

Table in

web each

and, one loop

trimmed

diameter and which sizes

deformed of the from

beams Fig.

bar openings 0 to
were (4.1).

(Fig.

4.1: are and

Note indicated

(ii)). by

The reference in

positions numbers, Fig. (4.2).

range
The

13

which
under

are
static

explained
two-point

tested

loading

as

shown

in

The Chapter 3.

general

experimental

details

have

been

given

in

4.2

TEST

RESULTS

4.2.1

Crack
The

patterns
crack (4.3), to in which the particular seen the 3.6). at

and
patterns where Table the load in

modes
at the (4.1). cracks 10

of
failure beam

failure.
of notation all is the as numbers and the the 4.3) beams explained indicate the extent vertical served other of are

shown in the figures, cracking steel only see to the

in

Fig. footnote

The were kN units,

circled observed. mark (Note: a beam (Fig. test

sequence giving at supports support a

load each end

interval. of

beam

laterally

during

preparations

Chapter

A study crack extent path' ing of patterns to joining point an (Fig. which the

of and the

the modes

crack of

patterns failure intercepted blocks

revealed depended a note at size, in such of of the shape so far an the

that mainly ional

the on the

opening loadbearing and significant and that

'loadand position load-

support and as

4.4), were extent was crack

the only

opening the an

these

affected Where

location

of clear and

interception. above-mentioned were

opening the

reasonably pattern

'load-path'

mode

failure

46.

essentially For which and the example, had

those Beams openings, of be

of

comparable

beam

without

openings.

11-0.4/5, all diagonal into collapsed

M-0.4/11,0-0.4/5,0-0.25/51, following which approximately the ultimately along a formation caused line

propagation beams to

cracks, two 7

split

joining blocks failure in this Fig.

the at the

inside support

and

outside and loading Mode work

edges point is

of

the

loadbearing The

respectively. diagrammatically demonstrated deep of web

mode, (4.5a).

designated Previous mode is or typical

1,

shown has

27,28 of solid

that beams rein-

failure

top-load

containing forcement.

little

ineffective

arrangements

Where shown as in Fig. (a) beam 4.4: load. load soffit cracks Corners remained (b) and 2 became blocks. for of beam, beam,

an (4.4),

opening the

intercepted general sequence

the

load of

path

as was

behaviour

follows:

The and at

first the 2),

cracks corners which D which at load this was

to

form

were C of

those the

at

the (Fig. applied applied

A and were were stage. increased being being

opening by by the the

1 and

opened closed

B and intact As wider the

the

corner towards-the in the was the from

cracks load

and Other

propagated cracks 7. might More initiated which

rapidly form important from

bearing region, formation of of the the

flexural the possible edge top surface

example crack and as

crack 5, crack which 6, cracks

vertical the later

initiated influence

these

could

behaviour.

47.

(c) cracks cracks the cracks lower These 8 and

Upon (or) they led 9 to

further 9 would either its

increase appear. caused

in

loading were

the the

diagonal dangerous of

These the failure;

because beam 8 or and

immediate for

collapse this as the reason

eventual referred and the to

were crack' diagonal

respectively upper two a

'critical crack'.

diagonal critical (1) they blocks the

'critical possessed formed with

diagonal distinctive definite nor from

cracks usually not but blocks from from where

properties: and bearing ing the iously diagonal this lower to vious the and crack been (2)

They

noise the the width had loadopenof prev-

initiated regions, bearing

the the

opening region

between the

subsequently two properties of

was

at

a maximum. to in deep that be

These characteristic beams the

observed

the

critical 27928,32 critical beams in was the due preand

cracking provided and upper cause without The of two 2 crack

without formation in the

openings of present cracks the

evidence diagonal as

cracks that of the

same beams (d)

diagonal

openings. final distinct (Fig. or increment modes. 4.5b), the the sudden split the to outside the outside of resulted In diagonal the the in the edge top lower the in In loading the first, of of above the corner chord beam failure in the caused collapse is critical upper

in

either

which the

designated upper diagonal along at the a diagonal

Mode

propagation appearance chord of

a new the

crack line loading

completely joining point

opening,

bearing-block of or being the the split opening. wideninto desigabove

Similar ing two nated of over

simultaneous an existing its 3 full (Fig.

failure crack height. 4.5c),

second cracking

mode, chord

Mode

48.

the of

opening the lower into

did

not

occur

and

collapse crack

occurred splitting of the at beam the

as the

a result lower the of

critical two, whilst

diagonal that

chord opening cracks

portion with 6) those and 0.4/4 (Fig.

outside head

deformed 1 and Typical 5 (or

plastically possibly of M-0.4/8

hinges 4.4). beams 11-0.4/12, and 0-0..

examples M-0.4/3, M-0.4/13,0

which

failed and in

in Mode 4.3).

Mode 3,

2 were Beams

Beams M-0.4/9,

25/4

(Fig.

4.2.2

Crack The

widths maximum where the

and crack

deflection widths notation The of is the as beams are shown in in close the each by of (4.7), The rarely in

Fig.

(4.6), to was opening. widths depicts

beam

explained width crack the

footnote beam the crack which flexural found grew collapse, and the to to

Table

(4.1). recorded illustrative increasing behaviour in 0.2 the mm,

maximum

crack

generally An under the

across example load observed region the the

a corner of is in of corner instant cracks closed

behaviour in Fig.

given Beam the

11-0.4/4. beam were frequently

cracks exceed exceed the corner It was

central whilst

cracks of became up.

1.0 critical cracks found

mm before diagonal frequently that each

collapse. the widest

At

group to in Fig.

of the

beams

could

be widths. divided

divided For into:

into example,

sub-groups the Group

according M beams

maximum could

crack be

(4.6a)

Sub-group

Ni:

comprising M-0.4/5 and

beams M-O.

14-0.4/O, 4/11,

M-0.4/1,

49.

Sub-group

M2:

comprising M-0.4/4, and

Beams M-0.4/3

M-0.4/12, and M-0.4/2,

M-0.4/8,

Sub-group

113:

comprising M-O. 4/9 and

Beams M-0.4/6.

M-0.4/13,11-0.4/10,

Maximum in which were in the

crack

widths had

were no the

smallest web openings 'load the

in

sub-group or had they seriously of Fig. (4.6a)

M1, openings were

beams reasonably

either clear M3, in

which widest

of which

path';

sub-group the 'load with in widths. of low

openings

interrupted in conjunction resulted crack

path'. Table (4.2)

An

examination shows further also

that resulted

openings in large

which maximum

ultimate

loads

A study tions beams parison top type in part of on in the Group of of the Fig.

Fig. of which

(4.6b) the had

shows openings no in web Fig. that,

that

the

above equally

observato A comthe

effects 0,

applied reinforcement. (4.6a) in beams was This and of with

crack (4.6b) the maximum

widths shows web

those the

in

the same

having highly may (4.8), be

openings,

reinforcement widths. Figs. (4.7) load is had evident little

effective demonstrated which depict and the web at was cracks

controlling by behaviour 4/4 a

crack of

further the 0-O.

comparison under

increasing It

Beams

11-0.4/4

respectively. predictably corner cracks

that, effect significant

whilst on the control the of corner the

reinforcement which the

load

appeared, over the over

subsequently and edge also as

exercised a consequence

width the width

of

horizontal

cracks.

)O.

In are crack cracks, each it

Fig.

(4.9), For were in It is, that were

the the taken general,

average purpose to be were

crack of the the perhaps observations

widths Fig. (4.9), of

of

the the

beams average four widest in that maximum crack the

presented. widths which, beam. was found widths

average four not

the

corner surprising concerning

cracks

therefore, the above

crack widths.

equally this

applicable result serves beams.

to to

such

average

However, behaviour

demonstrate

symmetrical The
be similar

of the
effect

the

effect
to

of
their The

openings
on

on
crack of the

deflection
widths, beams, only span) (4.10), that the the at of

was
though as the 60 in per shown

found
less in of

to

pronounced. (4.10), 1 or 2 were mm

deflections small, to 1/750 of of

Fig.

generally

being the Fig.

order cent

(1/1500 load.

ultimate with for and Fig. each average

Examination and roughly crack resulting widths from diagonal It load effect 60 on (4.9),

conjunction deflection plot maximum that shear cracks significant that openings prior had beams. to and

(4.6) beam

revealed parallelled plots, the and

corresponding indicated of was evident the of

deflection, at than cracking relatively later flexural (Fig. load

formation cracks, was also kN),

corner more

stages, deflection. 4.10:

to the

100

little

stiffness

the

4.2.3

Ultimate The measured in the

loads ultimate ('k. 2). (U1/1i0) loads In gives the the of all the hand of beams, column the W1, of are Table

presented (4.2),

Table

right ratio

ratio

ultimate

51

'

load without

of

a beam openings. M-0.4/12

with It

openings may in be

to seen

that that, beams were

of

the in

similar Beams opening small, serious

beam }1-0.4/1, Type the 5, ratio

M-0.4/11, the reductions

and in ultimate

those load 0.8.

with quite

(W1/WO) occurred with

being in the

greater remaining 6,

than

However, in

reductions those less than beams 0.5.

beamsand the'ratio have

particular W1/W0 W1/WO that was the on

opening

Type

where

Thetest an to opening which at it the the on the

results ultimate

indicated

effect the the extent

of

strength the 'load reaction reasonably and

depended path' points. clear joining

interrupted loading openings loads without of as were openings. these described the

bearing beams 'load path'

blocks in the by which

and were

For of to noted

those the that earlier, similar without

ultimate a beam

high

comparable as

achieved the and openthe and

Indeed, were

failure were ings 'load with in 27'

modes fact 28.

beams

essentially for completely strengths beams

previously opening ultimate (4.3), it 3 (Fig. in

Where the to failure would load the opening, this

interrupted occurred, seen that these

path', reference in It

lowest Fig.

may

be

beams

collapsed

Mode seem was 'load the load that,

4.5c). the beams directly If this in could AEC in path tested from was here, the interwould reWhen the the

most load-

of ing

the point

applied along by on an

transmitted path'. reduction path and

cepted depend routed, forces lower

ultimate be Fig

strength

whether the and

successfully (4.11) high values occur.

along in and BC

paths

ABC

AE reached critical

sufficiently diagonal cracks

upper

would

52.

For the angles the

a given angles

applied which and 0 were in

load

the

forces with the which, opening.

in

AE and

BC i.

depended e., the on

on

made

horizontal, in It load of
where little

Fig. of the on

(4.11), the

turn, is,

depended therefore, capacity B and

locations

size

and to to

location expect

reasonable the beam

ultimate locations
that, 0 were

carrying corners
the

of E of
were

depend
(4.2) angles

the
shows 0 and

the

opening. such that

Table the

different

from

the

inclination openings, M-0.4/12 were crack be seen the (520

of

the ultimate kN). for occur.

critical load The those lower beams [lith path substantial the capacity path propagation by

diagonal was high;

crack for

of

a beam

without

example, in

Beam Table diagonal it may inwould EE was on the BC be large. effectfailed (4.2)

ultimate in which to

loads an

recorded did not that

upper (4.11),

reference AEC would tensile 0d

Fig.

the because

upper a when the lower the

be

comparatively force AE EE and

effective, required In these

except beams of the of

angle was ABC,

between

mainly and of when the (Fig.

dependent the lower 4.5). 'strut' critical

iveness as

a result collapse

diagonal

crack

occurred

Node

The
beams of the shows openings M-0.4/5 little only Group that was

amount
found to

of

web

reinforcement
an effect on of beams were clear without of the the in the

provided
ultimate ultimate Group openings 'load-path' web reinforcement 0

in

Group
strength loads

11

have

certain M beams where were and effect

beams. with the

Comparison similar beams

the

of 4.2)

(Table or (as where in

the Beams

reasonably 0-0.4/5 on for ultimate

example) strengths.

had the

However,

where

53.

openings and 0-0.4/6)

intercepted the effect

the of the lower effect

'load the

path' web

(as

in

Beam

M-0.4/6 was to

reinforcement strength. clearly web not In

significantly such ive fore increase capacity of 4.2: Fig. caused that in ever, effect were (Fig. it the 4.5). was the deep the on Beam 340 (4.3) as (Fig. to M-0.4/6 4.3): provide the of

increase the the

ultimate path of was the tensile the upper

beams effectwas there, and

highly

reinforcement capacity along hence the

a horizontal capacity of

EE the

path

and of Beam with

ultimate loads (Table to

the

beam. (Table

Again, 4.2: similar be seen

comparison 450 kN) and and the

ultimate

M-0.4/4 kN) it

0-0.4/4 reference

shows may

a also

result, that mode.

web Hence, could

reinforcement it be seemed more without. had likely

a change effects beams type the prime

in of with and growth cause

the web

failure

reinforcement than of the in

important Howlittle

openings amount of of

deep

beams

reinforcement critical in basis diagonal all of the

provided cracks, failure pilot test

which modes results

collapse on in the

three the web

Therefore, that, little

concluded had

general, on ultimate

reinforcement

provided

effect

strengths.

4.3

GENERAL It is the and

COMMENTS noted pilot that that tests certain in results after in the both discussions have of the the also of been the experimental elsereported testing. is of concrete the therefore results (Chapter 5) 35

results where have Further deferred, of the 35, since

of

presented then further tests

deductions light of pilot of

been analysis here,

developed of until tests the

presentation lightweight

follow-up

54.

and 7a is

normal structural argued

weight

concrete idealization

(Chapter of of all be nature description 35 is and a deep the useful of

6), beams test

where with

in

Chapter

openings

from However,

a basis it

data. and interesting investigat4on the of previously the previously to and,

would

illustrate in what

the follows, method

developing a brief of analysis 35

the of list

proposed reported

conclusions It was simple of

given. that the following the beams equations ultimate with web shear openings: -

suggested means of

offered strength

calculating deep

reinforced

concrete

'ult

C1 =

`1

0.35

D)

ft

bD

+ C2>IA

sin2oc

(4

1) .

Ault

C1 =

0.35

k1X k2D

) ft

k2

D+

C2

AD

sin2ot

(4.2)

in

which

the

notation (4.1) at

is

as

explained

in

Fig.

(4.12).

Egn. of (cf. it the were support. approximate made the using lower earlier Chapter was argued

is

the

equation of basis

derived deep of could beams the be which the the strength on the path and

from

the

results openings

tests 1.2.2.4). that

Nottingham On this of 'load the

without pilot test for

results, estimating that and an then be that the web

equation deep path'

used had loading load

ultimate clear of

strength the an

beams, joining

openings point path, might

There

opening of the

intercepted ultimate was the both based primary with

estimate Eqn. load (4.2), path in deep

which ABC was

proposition and that

reinforcement

beams

without

openings

55.

had which the chord, was

similar estimates factors whilst left

7

functions. the kIx the and

Hence, concrete k2 D to

the

first

term was

of

Egn.

(4.1) by lower

contribution give the the capacity

modified of the

second

term,

reinforcement

contribution,

unchanged. The main The the to bearing point occurs. is reasonably may (4.1) clear be above. the using and widths as 'load Eqn. amount but important. loops path' (4.2). of the as conclusions from the test results were

then

as

follows:

(i) strength cepts loading location the depends 'load point at (ii) 'load for path', a beam

effect primarily

of

an on

opening the the extent load

on

ultimate which it

shear interat the the

path' and the this

joining support interception an opening shear

blocks and on

reaction

which

Where the without

ultimate openings Where the

strength Egn.

computed

using opening may be

(iii) the ultimate (iv) vided can be

intercepts calculated the type crack is with shear not

shear Web effective to (v) the

strength reinforcement in ultimate the on

of

proits

controlling strength openings ultimate

contribution

Trimming effect

reinforcement strengths.

has

no

beneficial

CHAPTERFIVE

LIGHTWEIGHT

CONCRETE

DEEP

BEAMS

WITH

OPENINGS:

FURTHER

TESTS.

-A

5.1

INTRODUCTION

5.2

TEST

PROGRANNE

5.3

TEST 5.3.1

RESULTS Crack Patterns and modes of failure

5.3.2

Crackwidths

and

deflection.

5.3.3

Ultimate

loads.

56.

CHAPTERFIVE

LIGHTWEIGHT

CONCRETE

DEEP

BEAMS

WITH

OPENINGS:

FURTHER

TESTS

5.1

INTRODUCTION Since it thought potential be of provided such a The the beams further purpose behaviour and in that the

was had to

results in or yet including the and tests failure the check 4.2.4), of the tests could against mere into was depended crack.

and deep for covered

conclusions beam services, by the on 39 design

of

the

pilot openings

study had design of carried to with

applications for was study of access not

where and major beams further deep four

since codes was

the

practice, out. establish web aims.

tests was to modes tests validity a

provide of had of series were shown

data beams specific

openings, The the first

particular was (Chpt. size the to

aim study and

the

Conclusion of beams in

No. 1 of which

pilot position

using openings had be only inclusion Eqn. an (4.2)

the

systematically that ical deep in a deep

varied. beam cracks without k1 and with

Secondly, web

pilot there as the

openings, and upper)

two one

critin the a

diagonal beam

(lower openings; k2 to modify

therefore Egn. (4.1) as 4.2)

of

parameters further regarding ection type provide failed steel. confirmation.

needed

examination, the assumed and amount information to provide value for of

particularly of the web on a (Egn.

there

ambiguity on the dirthe to

which

critical steel the used function

diagonal in the of the No-5

Thirdly, study failed hence the

pilot such steel design

and of and

guicblinesfor Conclusion

proper was

web

Fourthly,

unexpected

merited

57.

5.2.

TEST
The

PROGRAMME
test designed of (Fig. four 39 5.1 to those

specimens study, and deep beams,

were consisted beams of which

complement supported Table duplicate 5-1)-

in

the

pilot

simply and were

lightweight Thirty-six

concrete of the

specimens

to

test

repeatability depth D 750 750 two of WM; mm,

(see mm, giving width

Beam b L/D span

notation; 100 ratios distances mm, with of

Table span and were

5.1), lengths

were L

of of

overall 1125

mm and

1.5 x

1 respectively. used, three giving beams

Similarly, x/D (prefix

from L 1524

clear-shear 0.3 and Beam 0.2 notation,

moulds, L/D and

ratios

respectively. Table
giving x/D divided ratios into b

The 5.1)"
76 mm of two 2

other

see

were
nn (3 ), and

manufactured
D 0.4 762 mm (30 ),

Imperial mm The (60 n

sized ), and beams

respectively. the Group

test

were

groups:

0 beams corporated Type ment ment

yield constant web The steel Type

had

no seven W7)

web

reinforcement types of

while web

the

Group

W beams (Fig. of of

in5.1;

special and Type

reinforcement mesh type types bars

as the near

W1 to (Fig. each

a uniform IM). of
the cent of these

orthogonal The seven

reinforcereinforceof
as

5.1;

special deformed
" so very of a web a was that

consisted
and 1.2 in each per

10
web

mm diameter
steel (Table beams consisted ratio 5.1) was

460

N/mm

strength at

possible of the

weight the

nearly mesh steel of

same. mm diameter of addition, 1.13

WM reinforcement bars (0.38% in each vertical WM contained face,

6 ratio in

deformed per beam cent

giving and a 0.75% single

horizontal); loop in each

prefixed

face

of

mm

"

The

web

steel of

ratio steel)/(volume

Pweb

was of

calculated concrete)

as

the

ratio

(volume

58.

diameter itudinal deformed steel

deformed steel bar blocks of at in

bar each

around beam

each consisted

opening. of one

The 20

main

long-

mm diameter to external

430 the

N/mm2 ends

yield (Fig.

strength, 5.1). Lytag used are of. are the in given web

anchored sintered concrete in Table

fly-ash making; (5.1).

lightweight details of The those ranging openings al 0.2 1.5. is of as x by but As in the from

aggregates the concrete

were

again

strengths and sizes and explained 16, the

positions pilot 0 to

openings by (5.2). an opening kept

complemented numbers in given at 0.3 to by

study, 18 0 the as to

indicated in size Fig. of a2 by (5.4). Table of

reference Briefly, is constant from the the

referenced a2D, the where breadth

height al

factor varied in Fig. to

was

factor clearly

increments where (5.1), the beam; the beam series

illustrated in to 10 and and 17 the

notation centroids

explained I 11.12 of 14,15 number weight

footnote at were at

opening

were 13 16 was

mid-depth at 175 175

those top.

of while Opening

openings those reference normal was both

mm from the next Opening

beam soffit. of

mm from in the

used

tests

using 18 with

concrete at a2 the equal pilot centre to

specimens. of 0.25. all present However. one for for the for of the

reference at

number

located ai and In the

shear

span

mid-depth.

study, in this the way. common

the

beams

were

tested 35 the and, of the

under beams

two-point were load but also

loading; tested is

investigation in deep this four of practice beams; condition, the beams, drawn

distributed as a crude top

condition convenient (Fig. indication

approximation 5.3) of was used

four-point to give

loading some

whether

conclusions

from

59.

tests the

using uniformly

two-point distributed

loading load

could

be

broadly

applicable

to

condition.

5.3

TEST

RESULTS

5.3.1

Crack

patterns The crack

and patterns

modes

of at-failure

failure. of the Group 0

beams (5.4b).

without

web

reinforcement

are

shown

in

Fig.

(5.4a)

and

The
ions further effect dependent 'load and path' loading of recorded evidence an of in

present
the to

tests
pilot substantiate on the to load

broadly
study and the behavioii: which bearing the r

confirmed in particular

the

observatprovided that, the

was mainly the support

observation
of a deep

opening the between point. extent

beam

opening blocks at

intercepted the

the

As that, mode a where remained of the

in

the opening

pilot was

tests, clear of

the of

present the load

tests path solid

have the

shown failure

essentially the crack shows positions point Chapter the again of

that patterns that of and 4:

a comparable of beams beam

deep

beam:

comparison 0-0.3/14 defined and opening

0-0.3/0,0-0.3/12 the failure blocks the Mode plane at the

and was

clearly by the

in the

each load

bearing by

support of an an

loading (cf. intercepted was a

was Fig.

unaffected 4,5a; failure the that typical

presence 1). Where of pilot of be-

opening

load basically the

path

sequence in failure ultimate the

crack tests, the

formation but beams from in the

described at in

study present

crack clear

patterns trends

tests,

60.

haviour of Beams

now

became

obvious.

Examination and dimension increased planes

were in is in

of 0-0.3/4 of the

the

crack (Fig-5.4a), opening to the in

defined the that upper

patterns

0-0.3/1,0-0.3/2,0-0.3/3 as the horizontal an failure

the opening, to was 5.4) the large without load values the and it failure occurred occur. described is a typical web path of opening until It

shows increased, path,

above corners plane Mode 0-0.3/2 those intercepted is, of for the 2,

that

was load the

by

effecting the diagonal

below of the

interception which
consistently Beam 0-0.3/4 evident 4 and would interior (Fig. found in 4.11). to those be in of

occurred

chords
the failure

and

ceased which (Fig. beams

therefore Chapter example,

failure Beam only the beam: in opening that

which occur

reinforcement from the 00 was only

which of In Mode beams the the

angle mode not

majority 3 in (Chapter which

beams 4.5)

4: Fig.

the beams any from 0-0.3/7

opening with beam the in

completely openings which the side

intercepted Types 4,13*, 16

the (Fig.

load 5.2), into for patterns were size

path, but the

for also load in Beams

example, for path Beam 0-0.3/7, similar

opening of Hence, the the and by changes the

encroached beam, crack 0-0.3/10 in crack the as

support (Fig. 5. ").

example, of sensibly of at the

0-0.3/8,0-0.3/9,0-0.3/4 and were unaffected In

Beams these comparison beams behaviour. the beams in would

opening. of
presented: etc. A of in loads which of

Fig.

(5.4d)

patterns
and 0-0.3/58

failure
are

0-0.3/28,0-0.3/38,0-0.3/48 beams were of not the duplicates crack immediately it was pair of patterns suggest found could Beams

0-0.3/2,0-0.3/3 for great the by the two

recorded any that differ

sets

differences ultimate

However, a similar

an

amount

6t.

seemed of the

greater effects

than of

that normal in

which

might

typically scatter

be and (Table

the the 5.1): Beam would of 50% that to

result small for 0-0.3/4 have beams (Table the diagonal early indicate influence corner the form load as of an point of ultimate the comextenat load, the 5.2). regions

experimental concrete in and ultimate Beam 0-0.3/4R In could the be it are very crack

measured example, (Table been

differences the (5.2); difference 260 kN)

strengths load

between (215 other kN) pairs as seem

more

reasonably in without below and ultimate web the that load formation if

expected. load

difference In beams and

as

large

reinforcement openings a diagonal be the reduced. early load: 2) propagated crack might not for Also, near likely crack This with to to and happened. 0-0.3/5. the should yielded the be useful crack (Fig. form

would

above cracking, the that on crack critical a very was pared sive (Fig. critical strength 0-0.3/5R the

susceptible occurred The results had the at

an

ultimate the

would of cracking

would an

corner in beams

cracks where

diagonal (Fig. 4.4 lower late

lower

crack diagonal or

sufficiently 4.4: until in early support the increase for example, crack the Beam 8)

rapidly, would

stage, This beam

collapse 0-0.3/2

reached. with

happened

example the the inhibit hence

0-0.3/2R. crack 4) was

formation reaction formation the in

flexural-shear 4.4: crack lower of as As the

diagonal beam.

Beam

compared out

pointed

earlier,

pilot most

tests effectively

did

not

show arranged.

how The point. Group

the

web

reinforcement tests (5.4c) which described have shows

present Fig.

information at failure

on

this of web the rein-

patterns the seven The

W beams as

incorporated in Fig.

types sequence

of

forcement

(5.1).

of

early

62.

behaviour comparable that cracks is,

in to the 1 and

these Beam formation 2) was effect

beams 0-0.3/4, of followed of

was

in which

general had at cracks the no

similar, web corners 3,4 types and of modes Loads'.

and

was

reinforcement; (Fig. 7 (Fig. 4.4 4.4).

cracks by the

The ment fully to says the (as in of on later

different on the on web failure

web will

reinforcebe more

behaviour in that the where (as Beam in

and section the

discussed here,

'Ultimate reinforcement or

Suffice wholly above the

was wholly failure

below opening resulted trimming

of the control trimming failure web Beam

opening in only an

Beam

W1-0.3/4) the

W2-0.3/4)

consequent in it
only

modes The loops

control to such and beam with the no in most

moderate opening
(Beam of the

increases by surrounding

ultimate with
to being in

load. several
locally able fact

reinforcement propagation that resulted mode reinforcement. W4-0.3/4, and restrained so that The the outside wide the collapse the flexural they was of

'i5-0.3/4) corner

served without cracks

cracks diagonal low

the in little

critical a rather different However, particularly the remained pattern was due to

ultimate from that

strength of web a

the

inclined that in the up Beam to

reinforcement W6-0.3/4, diagonal instant clearly portion there This of were is evidence the so of shows the

Beam critical the

effectively cracks collapse. that beam fairly that diagonal that mode, the and

width narrow for failure

of

crack

116-0.3/4 of that also, midspan. effectively

support cracks web region failure of was

reaction near

point; the

inclined cracking final the

reinforcement above the an and beam outstandingly

protected web opening by a

below had to

the occur high

different load.

result

ultimate

63.

The the shown record The similar patterns and the again openings commonly

crack

patterns

at mesh

failure type

of

the

beams

with are

used

orthogonal in beans of the have beams that WM was Fig.

reinforcement (Note: the

diagrammatically of failure beams of it the is in Fiore the of the these mode

(5.4e).

photographic in processing). of The identical trimming on the ultimate crack

unfortunately without reported openings bops had is of

destroyed openings elsewhere were nearly was

beam been with the

typical 28.

which two clear Beam

reinforcement effect from

0.4/4 it had

little

behaviour. mode control that

important,

apparent only moderate

failure on the

reinforcement upper and

effect

lower

critical

diagonal

cracks.

5.3.2

Crack

widths The

and

deflection crackwidths and the results that to For which for the Group the maximum web 0 beams

maximum (5.5)

are

presented drawn widths intercepted trates such crack from

in the

Fig.

confirm the the Fig. in

conclusion crack-

pilot with 'load how the led

tests, the path'.

namely, extent

increased the clearly interception width.

Some

opening illusextent maximum of

example, increases increases

(5.5a) the in

progressive to progressive

new

observations

are

presented

in

Fig.

(5.5c),

which and It x/D can

shows z be

the 0.2: seen

crack Beams that widest, results

widths

of

the

four

beams

with and

L/D: 0-0.2/16. crack This

0-0.2/0,0-0.2/4,0-0.2/13 opening No. 16 led by Beams to No. 13 the and

widest No. O.

width,

No. 4 agreed

the with

second the

followed from

0-0.3/16,0-0.3/4,0-0.3/13

64.

and study then would

0-0.3/0, only possible not be tests tests of within 1,1.5 a

in

which L/D say

L/D

1.5 of the

and

x/D

= 0.3. used and

In it

the was to

pilot not above

single to

ratio

2 was

whether by shown the 2;

conclusion in is tests the unlikely together the L/D

referred ratio. to
I

affected have and and range (5.5d)

on against a design, exceeded limit and in

a change that present in it

The be so affected. L/D usually

present The ratios lies pilot

covered ratio

deep'beams 3. the
crack grid for can be mesh

L/D

the Fig.

1 to shows
maximum a state it

effects
widths. of

of

different
The crack

types
width width.

of

web curves This

reinforcement are represents in drawn

0.3

mm unit crack-width this

maximum seen that

commonly limiting and, used particuto surround width

accepted was larly, quickly in

Beams where

W1-0.3/4, the web

W2-0.3/4 steel was

Beam

W5-0.3/4

the

opening. not

The only

inclined substantially restrained not exceeded noted flexural system the 9), 4.4:

web

reinforcement increased the until crack the the at the width applied widest mid-span. was upper

in

Beam

W6-0.3/4, strength

however, but 0.3 580 also

ultimate so load cracks The effective; that

effectively was as

the

mm limit kN, and, cracks

reached were not

was but

earlier, cracks in

diagonal vertical vertical (Fig. the 4.4: corner

combined the cracks

horizontal bars crack cracks restrained 8

W7-0.3/4 lower the and

also

diagonal bars Similarly, 4-0.3/4

and (Fig.

while crack

horizontal 1 and in 2). Beam

restrained the was also

combined effective.

inclined-horizontal

system

Fig.

(5.5e)

also

shows

the

four

beams

with

suffix

"15

which uniformly difference 111-0.3/4, figure Beam Beams Beams hence of

were

tested distributed in Beam

under

four-point load Beam condition; i/(A) w3-0-3/4, of similar; and formed the other less reinforcement. 'also the

loading apart was

to

simulate from the to on. and was

lo-tding, : 15(A) that were the to

identical and so

Beam The

Beam

shows 'T7-0.3/4, :: 4(A) W1(.. it ) would

behaviour remarkably 3/4,

Beam

W7(. t) this

that true

of of

and and

t: 4-O. WI-0.3/4 seem

of

W3(A) exceptional

and

W3-0-3/4pair and effect with the that,

from

results, important

that for Judging it may be the

the beams from

loading

condition arran1ements of as syste^i of the the opening. the far latter as was better

becomes of

effective results in fact,

mentioned crack a less widths severe

beams, were form of

deduced four-point possibly obtained

concerned of the loading, load

loading a result

as

distribution

around

The ing shown the (Table diagonal 1.0% effect. crack whereas ultimate effective oi'enin. limit of s width in web the in amount 4.1;

maximum

crack mesh

widths reinforcement In the

of

the

three

beams Type it was pilot the that

contain14M) found test width at are that beans of least

uniform rig. of . cracks.

(Fig-5.1 pilot study used to tests in

(5.5f). mesh 48,. )

reinforcement was The insufficient present is in

the

control shown any 0.3 load not

have to make the

reinforce"hent For example, was Blo-id. in (Fit. 0.3 exceeded

required Dean at the )1-0.14/0 50% limit

significant mm (Fig. limit 4.6a) until was the beams not with the 85% so on

ultimate was

m U -M-0.4110 The controlling 5.5f: mm was Beams exceeded tesh

exceeded

reinforcement, the '"01 crack at 0.4/18 600,: widths and ultimate

however, in

WM-0.4/18): load.

66.

The deflection the to with I primarily Examination types the of effect their Fig. is of effect (5.6) of the of

behaviour illustrated openings on shows effects Fig. (5.6d) on for crack again on

of in

the

beams

as

measured As in the to

by

central study

Fig-(5.6). was and the

pilot be of similar Fig.

deflection widths, that of

found

a comparison deflections within the of it was had to 650 of the

(5.5)

were shear the

a result spans.

cracking the

showed deflection

effect and

different that web this type of

reinforcement plot was a further to

noticeable inclined kN: this shear widths

deflection

Beam

W6-0.3/4, linear of the

which up ability within crack

reinforcement, provided . reinforcement After deflection more rapidly approximately

particularly indication

control 650 from collapse

crack kN, the flexural of

widths flexural

span. and the

resulting until

beam the beam.

behaviour,

increased

5.2.3

Ultimate The

Loads measured
in Table

ultimate
(5.2). the the a deep the loading The deduction effect beam 'load point

loads
results

of

all
of from

of
the

the

beams
0 test

are beams results; ultimate by

presented broadly namely, strength much blocks it

Group the on on the pilot the

confirmed that of intercepts at the

made of a web

opening primarily joining the support

depends path' and

where load

and

how

bearing point.

reaction

, here example, ultimate in Beams

the

opening

was and 560

clear

of

the (Fig-5.4b),

load

path, the to

for

0-0.3/12 5.2;

0-0.3/14 kN each)

loads

(Table

were

comparable

that

67.

of close three

the

beam

without of

openings, the the crack

Beam

0-0.3/0 at were

(595 failure

kN). of either beam (as

A these in in

examination beams which of shows

patterns

that

openings in in

located solid where beam

regions the case

remained opening cracks

uncracked No. 12), originated No. 14). The or

the

regions from only the

inclined soffit (as effect in

flexure-shear the case of

o; Ening had the corner on

significant was to

opening load that (Fig-5.4) and of tests of at is

No. 14 which the

the

crack

pattern,

reduce

the

inclined cracks

flexure-shear numbered secondary I and

cracking 3 of on the crack of indicated on is ultimate so small occurs numerous Beam

developed; 0-0.3/14 load 6

had

a similar as beam, of solid indeed the

effect flexure-shear

ultimate numbered

behaviour the solid 11,12 cracking the a reported

inclined 0-0.3/0. deep little of main

The beams

results have

previous this type

that

has

effect steel failure . intercepted

solid deep

strength, that similar as a to

unless, result, that

proportion flexure-shear by Where de the

type Paiva opening

of result a

mode

24

the
beam reductions was

load
no in

path,
longer ultimate

the

crack obtained load failure (Table to

pattern and were then (Fig. 5.2) some

typical as a

significant A conjunction study of with amount quite of

recorded. 5.! ) in that

the the

drack ultimate

patterns loads required (5.7a), in

at

showed reduction

the was

interception Fig.

cause

small.

which factor ultimate

the al

ultimate (Fig-5.2), load reduced

loads gives as

are an the

shown idea opening

against of the size

the way

opening in which

breadth the from

increased,

68.

opening to effect

type a type in

1 through greater 7 through breadth progressive in Fig. only (5.7b). to of isolate

opening interception types from the reductions It

types of 8,9,4 support

2,3,4,5 the to load type side'of in the

to path. 10,

(Fig-5.4), Similarly,

opening increasing 5.4), illustrated figures cracking be difficult

which the

were (Fig. as these postwould of However. offer a

beam loads that the it

caused

ultimate

is the

worth trends: so

mentioning indeed, complex that

serve

indicate the beams uniquely parameters

behaviour to

was the on was

particular the found of and ultimate which the gave The the results in method the results Chapter of

effect load. did

particular a simple useful mechanism predictions will tests be

geometrical structural understanding in deep of explained been was their in

idealization and beams visualization with

load

transfer

openings strengths. 7 after as mentioned of basis the of

reasonable idealization of all 4, anal of the ysis the pilot the

ultimate Chapter

have

presented; a development on the

idealization tentatively tests.

proposed

The
formation circumstances reinforcement. forcement. monstrated strength web yielded that could on the

tests

on

the

Group
of deep

0 beams
beams

provided
with web

useful
openings of web rein-

inin web

behaviour were Group further the be effects substantial. increased not

that The

complicated W beams, which

by

the

effects

contained information on the

complementary of web For the 5.2), Beam 0-0.3/4

and ultimate

de-

reinforcement example,

inclined of the web Beam ultimate

type

reinforcement to of 825 260 kN kN

ultimate as compared which

strength with had no

1;6-0.3/'1 strength
ment.

(Table for

reinforce-

69.

As without

has

been

mentioned have be

earlier, shown by

the that web The conjunct

tests there

on are

beans two

web

reinforcement regions to below

vulq 3erable , one loads steel (5.4c), above in

protected the opening. in and

reinforcement: measured ion with ultimate the in web Fig.

and Table

one

(5.2), in that: Fig.

studied (5.1),

details show

the

crack

patterns

(a) region or

'here '..

the

web

reinforcement J1) to low kN) ; or only the

protected the opening (5.2): upper

only region

the

lower (Type the (100 kN), W2)

(Fig-5.1: it was

Type used were (490

where

trim -

(Type Seam (370 both

W5),

ultimate Beam (b) lower (825 higher (595

(c) :r6 the

loads :T2-0.3/4 the

Table

W1-0.3/4 kN). the upper '.: 6-0.3/4 loads

Beam

115-0.3/4

'here regions, kN) W.

reinforcement as in Oeams (530 fact than

protected W4-0.3/4 kN), that the of (660

and

kN),

and higher

W7-0.3/4 in

ultimate the solid

were 0-0.3/0

much

beam

'. eb inclined same

steel web amount was

was

most

efficiently The but those the

used Group

in

the

form each of

of

Type had Beam

reinforcement. of web higher steel, than

W beams load others.

ultimate of the

'-: 6-0.3/4 (d) of The tensile the

much

failure failure shear

of

Beams of the

'"16-0.3/4 concrete of the shows web the

and outside

1: 4-0.3/4 the

was shear was maintaining

the span not

result and in

hence fact

capacity (Pig. (5.3)

reinforcement result of

achieved.

the re, was

applied ion above

load the of

after support splitting

the

onset and along it

of can the

serious be line seen of

breakdown that the

in failure

the

a result

anchorage

hooks

70.

of

the

reinforcement. of clear maintaining that the of

In the failure loss system.

contrast, applied was of

Fig. load within

(5.9) on the to the of Beam

shows

the and and bars

effect it was of is a the

177-0.3/4 span

shear vertical Beam totally

consequence reinforcement that the because adjacent due to region web

anchorage Fig. (5.10) Type to and visible.

115-0.3/4
1

shows effective into opening

reinforcement of its of is inability the clearly beam,

W5 was distribute the

inthe load of the

distortion

shear

(e) in

The ultimate

web

reinforcement load hence mainly changing as

Type

W3 effected of

a useful controlling

increase the corner 3 to Mode

a result the failure

cracks 2 (Fig.

and 4.5).

mode

from

Mode

(f) two effects effects test

The point

effects or of of the web four

of

the point.

loading were positions

condition, insignificant of It the

that

is

whether with and the load loading the present the system the

compared openings seem from

relative reinforcement. that for

would

results, of a safe

a uniformly equivalent

distributed two point

assumption would (g) to It be

a statically one. earlier the

was

noted

that

as

result sets

of of in

the beams the

susceptability without reultimate

diagonal

: racking, had significant on the

duplicate differences (f) above, in loading seen

inforcement load. assumed little of any,

measured tentatively had the on (Table very

Following that effect, Beam

from

if

it

is

difference then it with would [team

condition by comparing and so

be

results 5-2)9

'.14 (A)

'J4-0.3/4,

71.

that reliable further and loads

the

web and by a

reinforcement consistent comparison 0.4/4; as

acted results. of the

to

produce point load

much is of their

more amplified Beam WM-O. 4/4

This ultimate

Beam were

14711 -

mentioned

previously

ultimate

identical. I

(h) on

One deep

final beams

point without

concerning openings. the to the have present primarily former beam amount little

the In of

effect the web

of pilot

web

reinforcement as then loads. of beam the

study,

mentioned provided Beam pilot thickness approximately and the costs relatively As will be 5.1). same and

previously, was found in differed of the 0.5% The would self snail, seen of still. in web

reinforcement on Beam ultimate M-0.4/0 the

effect and as 25%

WI-0.4/0 study

tests in was web

much less

that but

contained (Table 4.1 being concrete of a

additional load that might

reinforcement for both savings by of the could the web use result

ultimate indicate weight

recorded significant be gained

beams in

provision reinforcement. of in an

additional the next

quantity Chapter,

inclined greater

arrangement benefits

reinforcement

much

C If

APTERSIX

NOR}IAL

WEIGHT

CONCRETE

DEEP I

BEANS

WITH

WEB OPENINGS

6.1

INTRODUCTION

6.2

TEST

PROGRA}fl1E

6.3

TEST 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3

RESULTS Crack Crack Ultimate failure

patterns widths loads

and and

modes

of

deflection

72.

11

.1PTERSIX

NORMAL

WEIGHT

CONCRETE

DEEP

BEAMS

WITH

WEB OPENINGS

INTRODUCTION A third irate deep the beams behaviour with of web the test of to concrete the Zeneral invest-

programme normal weight and

was

carried reinforced

out

openings inclined

to

determine of web

effectiveness

system

reinforcement.

In differences
of lightweight in of nd it

studies been
concrete

of

previous 27'
normal studies beams

test 28

results, between the

significant behaviour
deep beams. conround bars. in reinforce-

have

reported
and

weight the data

concrete available glair.

However, sisted bars Hence, behaviour ment type.

these

previous weight

r. ormal lightweight is were not

reinforced with reported

with

beams clear actually whether due

reinforced the to

deformed differences type or to

concrete

The
web strated in this reinforcement in the

effectiveness
in lightweight Only a deep

of
beams deep single

an
with beam type

inclined
web tests of

arrangement
opening reported was was

of
demonearlier

thesis.

opening

then

considered, haviour
number

and of
of

it

was

therefore with inclined

desirable

to

test

the for

bea

deep
different

beans

reinforcement,

opening

locations.

In normal weight

this concrete

chapter deep

the

results are

of

the

tests and

on whenever

beams

presented,

73.

possible lightweight

their test

performance specimens.

is

discussed

in

relation

to

the

6.2

TEST

PROGRAM The

E specimens lightweight supported Table 6.1) span length 1.5 tests and were designed test weight to complement and deep mm and a giving

test the

those comprised beams width single L/D

used

in 16

concrete normal of overall L 225

programmes, concrete

simply and

(Fig. b 100 clear and x/D

6.1 min.

depth of 1125

D 750

A single span of of the

length x 0.3 of

mm and used,

shear ratios Nine

mm were

respectively. were These been two normal repeats beams given types are an of of nine

specimens beams. but have the in

of as

the their

lightweight lightweight N to for Beam discriminate example, 0-0.3/4

concrete twins

designated additional concrete. concrete no All rein-

prefix Hence, like

between Be-m in NO-0.3/4 lightweight opening with

weight -

concrete reference the special together both of No. 4

contained (Fig. of the 5.2). web solid

web of

reinforcement the lightweight (Fig. the 5.1) beam

and

beams were mentioned

types with which

forcement beam no and

repeated above,

contained

web

reinforcement. The other of no Fig. web openings, (6.2b) in bars and each of seven beams all contained one each in beams yield beam the was a same control openings ). of The 6 mm in-

clined beam as weu

pattern and had in

reinforcement; the others

contained Fig. (5.2

shown

explained of 425 these N/mca2

reinforcenent deformed

consisted stress,

diameter

arranged

74.

in

each

face

at spacing

30

to of

the 125

horizontal (Fig. mm bars that the and 6.1: were

and web in

at

a uniform

horizontal type 6A).

reinforcement line web with steel the ratio 0.0049

Reinforcement were beam (Table Details onmitted, varied G. O. the are for

openings for to each 0.0065

so slightly

that

total was in

a range

of

concrete given each in

mix Chapter are

and

other 3.

general of X6.1).

experimental the concrete

details strengths

Details in Table

beam

given

6.2

TEST

RESULTS

6.2.1

Crack

patterns The crack

and

modes

of at

failure. failure (6.2). bea'is and $. 4a were patterns In weight in & c) little of general beams of all the normal

patterns in the (Fig. mode fact near in of the

weight

beams

are

presented of

Fig.

A comparison and the by of lightweight crack concrete similar that pattern type beams the concrete and in

similar 6.2a failure crack

normal showed affected each it

weight that

pair was

were cracking higher

crack

identical. the normal loads.

at failure

found at only

occurred

slightly
The

applied
patterns

of

the

series

of

beams (Fig. ive 4.4 beam

containing 6.2b) in showed

the that the 1 and and

type the

W6A

inclined

web

reinforcement was cracks mode described of effect(Fig. each in

reinforcement of the the

provided corner

controlling types similar

propagation 2), was so that

crack was

failure 2 as

typically

Mode

75.

Chapter protected and acted

(Fig. the to cracks in all

4.5). vulnerable control with of the

More

important regions above and that It is of Type

the

web and

reinforcement the of the opening critical were

below

the the

width result

propagation high clear Beams ultimate

diagonal achieved of the

loads comparison and could failure

beams. at failure of

crack

patterns that to the

from a I NW6-0.3/4

6A-0.3/4 NW,; be In increased Beam

amount

ww6A reinforcement the diagonal (Table 6.1) beam and,

effectively the in web the

prevent steel latter ratio

mode. 1.25% in in reinshear

''W6-0.3/4 to of 0.47% the

was as

compared the beams forcement span. case

mentioned concrete quantity of failure

lightweight this as greater a result

specimens, of inclined outside

collapse web the

containing followed

A the two solid

comparison beams information It has

of N0-0.3/0 on been

the

crack and

patterns

at revealed

failure some beams web of of the reindeep these Section

of

:, 76A-0.3/0 of

interesting out openings. has (CIRIt tests, 'Ultimate ations

the argued effect

behaviour recently on the the more results have

deep that

with-

forcement beams two on

only guide

limited 9 1977). be would `B' 29,

behaviour ovidence fully of in

}however, discussed support which

which Loads', 27,

will

previous the benefits

investi; of inclined

reported

web

reinforcement.

6.2.2

Crack

wi(iths

and

deflections

It on web the crack

was widths

found in

that normal to

the

effect

of concrete the

web

reinforcement deep beams concrete with

weight that in

openings

%ras similar

lightweight

76.

specimens. types of

It

may

be

seen the

(Fig. inclined effective

6.3a)

that, web

of

the

special Type crack widths: until beam

again in in and the lightearlier the the in concracknormal

reinforcement produced mm maximum 650 the

reinforcement, over not

:d6 again, the 0.3

most

control was similar

crack of that the of in width similarity is width Fig.

crack k; l and
the crack.

width as in

limit the

exceeded lightweight
was (5.5d)

approximately
'of fact junction ing weight weight than behaviour effects of the the on previous a flexural with

tests

maximum Lxamination showed

Fig.

(6.3a)

difference lightweight general slightly between evidence

behaviour, concrete, beams normal of the the

between was reached weight two not the

similar significant: 0.3 beans. types of

beams

mm crack This concrete predominate.

that

reinforcement

The went that is the

effectiveness clearly for each for the of load

it provided the was performance far (Fig. superior 6.3b). is is

of in

the Fig. beam

Type (6.3b).

W6A web It

reinforceis to be noted

demonstrated 0.3 was and in mm limit not

containing loads the applied was solid

that factor Seam Beam

the up to load

smaller approximately at this

openings 500 kN

exceeded of state

applied beams cracking of the

clear major of to

several limit

serviceability greater
As web beam inclined inclined

considerably Beam
the in

than

the
earlier,

collapse

NO-0-3/0amount controlling with with 1.25% O. 47% of

mentioned reinforcement behaviour: steel web

also a

N: r6-0.3/4 NW6A-0.3/4

steel

The
the behaviour

effect
of the

of
solid

the

inclined

web

reinforcement
was found to

on
be

beam

NW6A-0.3/0

77.

substantial. reinforcement,
0.3 0.655 of ixi was web cracking

Vhereas Beam
reached steel was the 1000

in

the

similar the

beam crack
Beam

without limit

web of

NO-0.3/O,
at 350 load kN kN, at an this

width
W6. -0.3/0

in

containing limit state 200%.

serviceability in load of

increase

over

In beams the as are

Fig.

(6

1t)

the

deflections these lightweight was

recorded resultsagain concrete found to to

for

the confirmed

presented. made deflection type shear

generally, in the

observations before of in the each the

tests reflect

and the crack

behaviour of spans. web

ability widths

reinforcement

control

6.2.3

Ultimate : he

Loads present
that deep the beams used. weight in the similar the tests on 5.3.3). the tests observations and further to conjunction crack to the patterns those

normal
effects is little A

weight
of web

concrete
openings by

tests
on the the

have
ultimate of

broadly behaviour structural loads (Table in in Fig. of

shown of

affected of the

type ultimate ref.

concrete the 6.2), (6.1) i: ormal made and

study

measured opening web (6.2 steel ),

beams

containing with in drawn the Fig.

No.

details resulted from the

observations of

previously beams of

results concrete deduce both would concrete the be

comparable (fence, it made tests normal

lightweight to of and 5)

(Chapter that Filot broadly deep all

seer-is from

reasonable the results 4 reinforced

(Chapters weight

applicable beams.

78.

In loads
it was

general, pair
that beams

from of similar
higher were by weight by not the

comparison be_, ms
ultimate inconsistent control concrete. cube

of

the 5.2

ultimate and 6.2)

for higher the

of

each

(Tables
loads

found weight of was in each as the

the

recorded with and the

normal strength tests result beam solid

measured normal

cylinders

An ultimate

I interesting loads of each

obtained particular without

dividing-the set of beans

by

the the

corresponding ultimate load

beam

reinforcement:

thus

of Bean be sets

Beam

NW1-0.314 by the

was 0-0.3/0 result which

divided and of are this clearly to as

by so

that on. exercise

of In

Beam Table is to

N0-0.3/0, (6.3) produce This it

and may two result

111-0.3/4 seen of that figures further

comparable. that bond in the

provided of the

evidence normal beams. results

suggest

performance was

reinforcement in both

regards and

particular reinforced

similar concrete

weight

lightweight

deep The

of
web behaviour by the

the

series

of

beams
provided

containing
some web new openings. 0.50: pattern, in any loads.

the

same

type

of

inclined on the

reinforcement of provision i's containing achieve high deep

information It was found 6.1) loads of

beams of an

with

that, of web of locations

approximately inclined openings ultimate

(Table ultimate a number

reinforcement deep beams could

the of

For was at bean

example, such the that supports soffit.

in the

Beam 'load was The

NWJ6A-0.3/15 path'

the joining

location the load

of

the

opening blocks the beams

bearing to

intercepted of the

ataposition tests on

c]oye lightweight

results

79.

have strength

shown of

that deep

such beams In

openings without

could effective Table

drastically systems shows load than the

reduce of that of web due

the

reinforcement. the web reinforcement was beam

contrast, the

(6.2) ultimate was

to

measured it

Beam of beams,

NW6A-0.3/15 the with ment, measured which 'load A solid similarly recorded

high; NO-0.3/0. sized ultimate of

indeed,

greater all of

that

Similarly openings loads the solid that a load beam earlier ability without the of and which beam;

other reinforcethan Beam

Type were

116A web greater even

the

capacity contained path',

and

N. 16A-0.3/4, the

openings obtained solid deep

completely comparable (Table 6.3).

intercepted to that of the

unreinforced As 9 expressed the clined the strength web

mentioned the beams

some web

reservations reinforcement In tests which in

(6.2)

have to the have case shown

been increase of inby

over of

openings. present

reinforcement, of steel,
fact of

performance web
be in load kN for the In

Beam that

N"J6. -0.3/0, the increase

Table was

contained ultimate
shows kN that

0.65% load
the with Beam or no

inclined
could ultimate 695

substantial: Beam similar the tests reported Chapter NW6A-0.3/0 beam on

1215 web

compared

without solid herein 5, beams

reinforcement, with 4. little Beams

\'0-0.3/0. web reinforcement

beams (Chapter

21-0.4,10, and as a result diatwo. pattern

0-0.4/0.0-0.25/0; Chapter of the 6. Beam

0-0.3/0,0-0.2/0; occurred single the beam of the critical into crack

N0-0.3/O), and

shear

failure of split a

formation crack, in which Beam

progagation at collapse

goneAl However.

N:: 6. -0.3/0

examination

8o.

at to

failure control

(Fig. the occurred

6.2)

shows

that of the of the also strut-like

the

web diagonal

reinforcement cracks shearing such action two the observed as an tests of effective diagonal

acted that on

propagation as a result of

failure the cracks. crushing previous pression beams web mode of the 'strut'-

a pure beam suggest

like This failure tests failure 24' result

portion would of this 27, of the

between that,

apparent in axial of comp-

portion be construed the quantities such

should web: and shown

not indeed, larger that In

present

with

web

openings have to tests

reinforcement is unlikely present in

a compression therefore, that both with the

failure results

occur. have

summary, and deep a -

shown

confirmed beams

shear and type

failure without failure. prevented

reinforced is may the

concrete essentially be controlled

openings which by

diagonal and even of the

splitting realistically web steel.

proper

arrangement

CHAPTERSEVEN

A STRUCTURAL

IDEALIZATION

FOR DEEP

BEAMS

WITii

WEB OPENINGS

7.1

THE

STRUCTURAL.

IDEALIZATION

7.2

GENERAL

DISCUSSION

81.

CHAPTERSEVEN A STRUCTURAL 7.1 THE The of 4,5 the and IDEALIZATION IUEALIZ that all FOR DEEP %TION follow of the the tests, are tests based on the in of L/D of of 79 sum total BEAMS 61I111 WE OPENINGS

STRUCTURAL arguments from

evidence 6. In

reported a total

Chapters beams, and and a1 of the of web 2; 0.4;

summary, (a)

together (b) (c) a2 (Fig.

covered:

span/depth ratios of (d) kI Fig. and 5.1 the

ratios x/D

1,1.5

clear-shear 13 4.2

span/depth combinations and Fig. 5.2);

0.2,0.25,0.3 factors

opening-size 22 k2; and (e) Fig.

and

combinations 8 arrangements 6.1), (f)

opening-location reinforcement weight and The calculated which mainly The the of that
to ing

factors (Fig. lightweight ultimate using the the shear 4.1,

both

normal

concrete. strength of a deep beam of may Fig. to be (7.1), the path' support AEC. of that time dimensions
by keep-

structural applied path' ABC load and

idealization is partly that the transmitted by

shows by structural lower a

that 'lower

an'upper the

idealization path should path with occurs

D are kix fixed. constant,

suggests increase 0. at a Let fixed

if and

effectiveness 0. for whilst the the

constant

with us

angle

the the
k,, D 6. the

upper

consider, level,
0 0 is is

being,

opening
and k2

i.
kept

e.,

Then.

dimension

progressively

reduced

by

increasing

the

dimension reduction 5.4a) in Table red-iced:

kix, in were

it

would ultimate

be

reasonable Beams this

to 0-

expect 0.3/7 and indeed the

a progressive to 0-0.3/10(Fig. W1 values progressively

strength. to test

designed that t20 kN

argument, loads were

(5.2)shows from

ultimate for Beam

0-0.3/7

`Tn

82.

through On the angle again, trend

380 other 0 was the was

kN, hand kept

280 in

kN,

260

kN, 0-0.3/1

to

210 to

kN

for

Beam

0-0.3/10. the reduced;

Beams

0-0.3/6

(Fis-5.4a),

constant

while Table in the of one, reaction the below (5.2)

was

progressively that the

W1 valuesin a reduction In the (7.1) loading shown by 33 Egn.

confirm load.

general

ultimate the opening, which points; ultimate is

absence become and that (7.1)

the the for shear

upper 'natural such strength a

and load solid

lower path' beam, could

paths joining it be has

in

Fig. the

been

Qult

predicted

Quit

C1

(1

0.35

D)

ft

bD

+ C2

sin2a

(%. 1)

where

the

notation The

is structural or natural should is

explained

in

Fig.

(7.2a). that if the signifiof This (7.1) the using reasonably the

idealization so located path, obtainable test (+) for results; have these as not

suggests to

opening cantly ultimate was indeed

is with

small the

interfere estimate Egn. (7.1).

load be the

a reasonable from in been beams

strength supported marked and unity. If the strength the

by with W1/W`

Table calculated are

W2 values Egn. close (7.1) to

asyrnbol ratios

opening

interrupts takes

the the

natural modified

load form:

path,

the

ultimate

equation

: Qult C1 (1 ' 0.35 kIx 0

2

) ft

k2

Df

AC2

Yk A pl

sin2ai

(7.2)

W2/2 s
where the notation is explained in Fig. (7.2b).

83.

It which of case the the a typical upper may strut be, EA

should

be

noted

that bar

yl

is

now

the the

depth 'strut' path

at EA as bar the and

reinforcement path and or al EB. or is the the 'strut'

intersects CB of the the

lower typical

angle

between

The which 4.2), equation was has based thus took

anomoly on been the the

in pilot

the

previously study in the test pilot

proposed data

equation, 4; Eqn.

(Chapter study the

corrected: form:

proposed

Quit

II C1

1-0.35

kD IV

) ft

b k2D

+ C2

>A

sin2a

(7-3)

where path, gonal

a and which cracks

were

measured bears little with term D (s

with

reference relation to

to the

the

natural

load dia-

often in In the C1 ft

critical

a beam first b k2 capacity

openings. on C2 the (1-0.35 the is first the way the ft b right-hand Ci sin 0) CB of side is the of Eqn. (7.2), of path the

the the in

quantity load-carrying Fig. (7.1),

a measure lower for

of

'strut' kix/k`D) in

and

the

factor of 0 The for the the

allows the of load the

experimental varied CB to with the

observation cot horizontal. expression is the of a 0, where

which

capacity 'strut'

inclination term is of C ft is

therefore the fails used) crack side lower in a

a semipath; splitting in CB. Egn. the (7.2) shear the when

empirical this mode capacity (hence

capacity 'strut'

reached, splitting so-called second contribution tern

strength critical on of the the

resulting along of to

formation

diagonal

The represents the

right-hand reinforcement

71

84.

strength the

of

the

beam; has

experimental two functions. of otherwise enables path' not of explicitly web corner cause a AEC.

observation Firstly, cracks failure proportion However, been reinforcement, for of the the very beam (Fig. in

has it 4.4;

shown controls crack 3

that the types (Fig. to of (7.2) 4.5). be

reinforcement and 2) the which

widening 1 and Hence, carried 'strut' because, was ' 0(say described Eqn. by (7.2) the found

propagation would

Mode the

reinforcement the 'upper has absence ineffective the (7.1). restricted, while for in The to restrain

of the

load

along EA in to 750), by has lower itself the

capacity in upper values then better Eqn.

included the large is

path of

be

except behaviour Hence,

when Eqn. been path, allowed later. is

concrete

contribution to of the that upper given path

in

conservatively, the the second the along leads into of by two the the contribution reinforcement important propagation EA and to by CD.

is

implicitly as explained

contribution function and of widening the

term, web of arrested, 2 (F19-4-5),

reinforcement any such in critical propagation which the

diagonal and beam CD. cracks of typical It would cracks in The of with a is The

cracks widening split ability shown

Unless Mode

failure the

diagonal

cracks to to restrain depend with diagonal widening of the of beam the on

along the the which crack. the

EA and diagonal quantity the

reinforcement test and crosses propagation the end portion motion (Fig-7.1) to and restrain similarly results on the

was

reinforcement reinforcement also seem could that result

provided bar the in

angle

a critical and

diagonal outwards point. ability increases

moving loading why ation the

predominantly structural

rotational idealization bar yl

about explains such y in rot-

a reinforcement the distance

Egns.

I -, a

(7.2)

and

(7.1) It is

respectively. appropriate the function and to point of that 27,33, D/3from Egn.
one spaced 32,

out the of web

one

significant

difference in In is the a beam a deep

between without beam the C2

y; arrange this it

reinforcement with openings. region above the

web beam this (L/D the loads sensitive steel soffit; is greater upper than to of web the imperreinopenings upper path in-

openings without soffit AY

a beam the it.

openings and sin`a/D about in

that closely 25,27'

vu l% nerable As mentioned with

the the that

between term

(7.1)
way to

increases
detail near shown

distance is and deed than and natural fections forcement and also, to

suggests in a

band has deeper with in

previous acceptable, 1.5). lower

experience especially However, paths are of such is as a as in less solid diagonal more earlier,

for a deep efficient beam, and cracks. pronounced the

the beam

beams openings

carrying more The

path -

are

effect beams of

hence noted

in

deep

with the

effectiveness

is

in

any

case to It

largely provide was a

dependent tensile

on capacity

the

provision along EE

of (Fig.

web 7.1). further

Egn. the which

rein-

forcement

therefore
into Eqn. allow allow for for the

required
(4. i) for the the

to
(repeated the

introduce
above

a
as of

empirical in load order path

factor to and implicitly to

7.3) upper was

contribution in of regions web strength

increase types

experimentally that the it allow protected opening. was found for tl: e

observed both By that a

reinforcements and below and reasonably factor A distintrial

vulnerable process factor observations:

above inspection A could the

systematic the empirical

of

experimental

guishes web proper, opening. steel

between proper; that A= is 1.5.

The

the for

main the

longitudinal main steel detailed Discussion

is

reinforcement X=1; above below:

best

and the web

the steel the

for and

reinforcement (See General

Egn. (7.2)

below Item
illustrated

1).

use

of

perhaps

by
shear

a simple
capacity

worked
of

example,
Beam W3-O.

and
3/4

for
will

this
be

purpose
calculated.

the

ultimate

EXA`tl'LE

: The properties Fig. (5.1) of and the Table Beam (5.1) W3-0.3/4 and are have been in

extracted

from

shown

Fig.

(7.3)"
. %'ith reference to Fig. (7.2) and Fig. (7.3)

ft k1x k2D

= 2.87 = 225 = 300

', /mm2 mm mm

D= b= C1=

750 100 1.35

mm mm

then by the

the

shear first

strength term on the

contribution right hand

of side

the of

concrete Egn. (7.2)as

is

given follows

1.35

(1

0.35

k1X k2D

ft

k2

= 1.35

(1 - 0.35

5 300 )x2.87

x 100 x 300 x 10-3

kN

85.7
The calculated usin,;

kti.
shear the 3tren; second th contribution term on the right of the hand steel side is of

Egn.

(7.2).

Referring
is given

to
by

Fig.

(7.2)and

Fig.

(7.3)"the

steel

contribution

Xx

300 300

xAx (314.2

y1/D x

sin2a1 x main steel

+ 480 +

=1x

71 0x0.64)

10-3 term;
520

A=
+ X-

1
3 0.64 x10

1.5

300

1557 0

(190

230

270 web

560)x 1.5

steel

term;

(57.1
This gives a

+ 135.6)
computed

kN
ultimate shear load of

Qult

85.7 =
278.4

+ 57.1
kN

+ 135.6

kN

4ult 112

= W2/2 557
With

where kN
reference W3-0.3/4

W2 is

the

total

applied

load

to was

Table 560

(5.2) kN.

the

measured

ultimate

load

W1 of

Deam

As strength From
the ment the

final for ft
the

illustration a 2.69
and

let beam for

main

us without Beam

consider web

the

ultimate

predicted Table (5.1)

of identical shear

replica N/mm2
the W3-0.4/0 is as

reinforcement. and since

0-0.4/O,

geometry are ultimate

beam to Beam

longitudinal described in Fig.

reinforce(7.3),

strength

follows,

Qult

85.7

2,

qf $6

37.1

W2 ith

275

kN. to was Table 260 kN. (5.2) the

.. load W1 of

reference 0-0.3/4

measured

ultimate

Beam

In the beams,

Table Cgn. the few is the

(7.1) (7.2)

the or

computed Egn. (7.1) and it

ultimate as

loads

for are that

all

using with a

appropriate, be seen

compared apart This be from

measured exceptions exhibited line

values the further

can is Fig.

agreement in

generally (7.4) where

good. it mean can

agreement seen that

W1 = W`

represents

a reasonable

profile.

7.2 1. )

GENERAL In Table

DISCUSSION (7.1). W2 values W5-0.3/4, If, computed load (Fig. weak not and shown the against similar Eqn. be from Type the over the W1) potential the (7.2) 800 fact was Beams beams is kN; that such as of

are W1(A) for

not and

W1-0.3/4, normal to Beam

'2-0.3/4, weight concrete.

example, W2 will arises 6.1: hence

applied this the to

ti: b'1-0.3/4, high

the

artificially web leave of the the reinforcement the

computed detailing region could

upper path

capacity collapse of

lower

be realized

before

beam

occurred.

2. the of

In first the

Egn.

(7.2) on path, is

the the which normally however, path.

concrete right-hand without the the This which It is were for

contribution, side, proper primary lower happened, were path for designed from relative beam Eqn. Fig. to is

as based detailing path. might

represented on the of the special weaker beams structthe lower capacity web

by

term lower

reinforcement circumst. than 0-0.3/16 ural laths Table the inces, upper and idealization. in (7.1) these

Under be much

example, to (5.4) the (7.2) test that upper is

in the

0-0.2/16

clear weak such

beams shows that

paths; grossly

09.

conservative. a beam 0 (a is likely (klx/k2 is the If eam proper

In

any to be D); to

event, low see the if

however, the (7.1) values

the

shear of low, k2

strength and unless the

of angle special

cot-1

Fig. detailing

are of the

attention and ified. by hence,

given

web Eqn.

reinforcement; (7.2) then, is justas load locis shown

conservative web

estimate is the

from

reinforcement 6.1),

provided,

N'16A-0.3/15 reasonably in Table (7.1)

(Fig. less the

predicted for such

ultimate an opening

becomes ation: 2.0. 3. )

conservative ratio W1/W2

for

Beam

NW6A-0.3/15

neams

W1(A), loading in Fig.

w3(-A), to (5.3). be

44(A)

and the

117(A)

were

tested

under condition,

four-point as Egn. Eqn. shown (7.2) (7.2),

simulate The used

distributed-load in Table (7.2) condition. independent and to ai

results for this and all reasonable

show

that In

may the condition.

also

loading k2D the are yi line

dimensions To to choose (7.2).

to beam. of limit already a deep was Egn.

kix define a

of it

the is

loading only strut

4. ) that, strength, the of tests, 1.2%,

values,

necessary EA in Fig.

represent

the

-pith for

reference a given

(7.2), is much

it an

is upper web at a

reasonable limit steel a web heavy is to used. steel

to the

expect, shear In ratio

there how not

irrespective that which for In

reached

represented beam.

rather

web

rein-

forcement

beans shown of the the

with that test

normal sheer

span/depth beh. iviour The

proportions, could size was of chosen be the to

recent influenced test be by specimens as large

testy the used

have scale in

specimens. test programme

present

as to

practicable be tested. large deep weight 250 the 5.2) of

in At

consideration the beams and University has

of of

the

wide

range a

of test

parameters programme both 1800 openings type are 4 reinmm,

Cambridge the test are mm and to of

using in

commenced;

specimens of depth

normal

lightweight span at length mid-depth tests.

concretes 3,500 similar The mesh a single are

(7.2) effect. as is

thickness across (Fig. forced ments been

of

mm and span

contain opening the beam

shear the by

present an

webs or by

either of

orthogonal Only the

given by a

inclined has, the

likely

arrangeat present,

reinforcement. `
strength affected a beam, containing 1.34% kN; was using obtained. ultimate comparable to of Eqn.

result that
not The described in an

reported
ultimate

but

indications
by Eqn.

prediction
to be ultimate and mesh, of measured reasonably

significantly load of

scale openings

measured above orthogonal load of was tests.

approximately was 2530 to good 3000 kN

web (7.2) Hence load, the

reinforcement a as 1.18, results predicted seen the of by

ultimate the ratio

calculated and

agreement the present

CHAPTEREIGHT

PROPOSED

METHOD

FOR THE

DZSIGN

OF DEEP

BEAMS

WITH

WEB OPENINGS

3.1

INTRODUCTION

8.2

PROPOSED

DESIGN

EQU%TIONS

FOR SHEAR

8.3

DESIGN

HINTS

8.4

DESIGN

EXAMPLE

510

C If

APTEREIGHT

A PROPOSED

METHOD

FOR THE

DESIGN

OF DEEP

DEANS

WITH

WED OFENINGS

8.1

INTRODUCTION.
1

The openings In Great is

design not yet

of

reinforced covered by

concrete the major Industry issued

deep codes

beams of

with practice and guide 9

web 3-5.

Britain,

the

Construction has but the just

Research a for design web

Information practising necessarily have ature. behaviour

The with results indicates so 7 severe. should prove openings of

Association, engineers, very that the of

for

provisions because

openings

are 6.7,9, liter-

restrictive little

extensive is available on the

surveys in ultimate the

shown on

information of deep web openings

effects concrete
analysis presents

load

beams.
of reinforced problems presented web openings presented the designer, in of method and to their for in concrete 36, deep but this not beams the thesis be

exact

formidable research on idealization tool transfer the a is a design to

the that The

experimental the restrictions

need in both deep

structural a of powerful the and this load for chapter. openings with use.

Chapter for beams the

visualization with web openings In beams

mechanism prediction simple suggested, example

ultimate the design hints the

strengths. of are deep given

with

design illustrate

together ease of

method's

8.2

PI OPO. iCD
It

DE..3IGN
be

EqUATIONS
that

FOR
Egn3.

SITE\1t
(7.1)and (7.3)

-should

noted

are

intended no
a

to

predict factor

actual of
of

collapse and
in order it is and of

loads. also there

Hence, is
predicted the to

there to
and

is be

built-in
certain

safety

likely

amount

scatter in

comparing to modify

actual to be

strengths. appropriate empirical lower able factor lower loads material, bound. lower of bound by the Y"

Therefore, for coefficients Examination Lound 0.75. strengths application to In the design.

equations the obtain that is to state factor given relate design for a a

necessary C2 Fig. by (7.4), a

multiply to

C1

factor showed results

safe

reasonby a the

experimental it the of ultimate the partial is

addition, to

necessary limit safety

It is usually

is

also the and

noted concrete

that

the

characteristic parameter to for (7.1) the and and CIRIA cylinder

For is and will within be normal

cube adopted substitute the (7.2) design splitting cylinder

strength in an design estimsplittwhich

strength it the is appropriate

practice, ated ing may the value strength not

hence on is be

based which

cube used in

strength, Eqn. In cube

jfcu.

and

normally

available. the
0.52

guide

relationship
is taken concrete range lightweight over the estimates of of

between
as this the present ft

strength aggregate mental For ship of

weight the experihere.

relationship tests concrete, splitting control

adopted this

aggregate the the

however, strength:

relationthe results

from a relationship

testing

specimens

ft-0.44 for out lijhtwei,; again,

fcu ht that

wa3

obtained.

and (It is

this

is

the

value to point

adopted

concrete. the splitting

pertinent th of

stren.

lightweight

concrete

93.

is for

dependent lightweight 330

of for

on

curing concrete

conditions: was 3.5).

material, concrete as follows:

in d --,

the in into
is

present accordance account

given parameters in

tests with the

CP1103 for

ft

obtain: Taking
which

A3TM
factor 1.5

see
safety

Chapter
for the

partial
as design

concrete, are derived

strength

purposes

ft =

EC-U5 0.52 0

y
ft

1cu
fcu 0,1}4 i. )

42

if-

for

normal

weight

concrete

0.36

Ff u

for

lightweight

concrete

ym

The

design

equations

for

ultimate

shear

strength

then

become:

"-u

it

C1

(1-0.35

x/D)

ffcu

>C2 bD + Ap sin2a (8.1)

Quit

"" (1-0.35 C1 =

Y1 kix/k2D) cu j1' bk2D + xc2 Ap sin

a1(8.2)

where

the

geometrical

notation

is

as

explained

again

in

Fig.

8.1

and

C1 C1 C C 2 `

= =

0.44 0.36 1 95

for for ',, '/mm

normal lightweight for for

weight

aggregate aggregate bars round (f y bars bars proper strength of web bar

concrete concrete 410 = (f (A y )near s (A N concrete as the case may ) N/mm2) N/mm2) soffit

deformed plain longitudinal

_ = a a =

85 1.0 1.5 char area be

N/mm2 for for main web

= 250

A A f A

beam

reinforcement cube steel

cu

acteristic of main

bar

or

7 `t 0

8.3

uE5ISh
The

HINTS
following are and design given to hints qualify based and on to the aid experimental the use of

observations, Eqns. (8.1)

(8.2).

(1) with

Equations span/depth to x/D < under

(8.1) ratios those 0.4. top

and and of The the

(8.2) clear test

are

intended shear-span/depth

to

apply ratios

to

beams

comparable and deep are (2) the points. load from (3) path, Egzi. 0.2< beams covered. '. henever natural If

specimens: should be

namely, applied loads

1L/D<2 only only to

equations

loading

conditions;

static

possible, 'load the the path' opening ultimate

web

openin; joining

s the

should loading clear may

be

kept and

clear reaction natural

of

is shear

reasonably strength

of be

the

calculated

(8.1).

In

using

Egn. as

(8.1), given than by

it the

is

recommended second term design of

that the

the

steel

contribution. should (4) desi; If ner not the be

equation, force (Ault

less

20;:

of

the

shear load k2 is not

opening ensure 0.2 300 (Fi;. ited Eqn. and

intercepts that the 8.1). from (S. the angle The Eqn.

the

natural

path. less not

the than less may

should

factor cot-1 ultimate

approximately than then (3) about be

(kix/k2D) shear

strength

calcul.

(8.2).

In

usin;

2),

it

is

possible

that

the

contribution

from
(A )

the
might

concrete
be found

term
to

to,; ether
be sufficient

with

that
to

of
meet

the
the

main
design

steel
shear

95.

loads, the web, the it

However, mobilisation it is

the of

test the to and that

experience potential provide the the least

web

has capacity web

shown of

that the

to

ensure

unreinforced to protect

advisable above

reinforcement For steel of the this

regions is

below where then

by detailed

opening. total 25%

steel

purpose

recommended 20`:
should steel Aw

contribution steel
(A w ),

exceeds
bution web

of

Qult,
be made be

at
the

contriand the

proper

must

properly.

(6) given so

It in

is

worth (5)

noting the

that total to

in

meeting quantity

the of

recommendation web reinforcement than temperature

may be for (see less

above, is unlikely

provided

be

significantly required
(Clause reinforcement Recommendations 5.5)

greater for
and

the

mandatory
and than solid shrinkage the deep

quantity
effects

of

reinforcement
by CPI103 web OED-FIP

so-called beams by

nominal the

required 5

Charter
(7) The ultimate by providing the both :Veb be web the shear strength designed reinforcement regions above not using may quantities the and meeting Egn. (8.2). be substantially of designer below this the web inreinforcement. should opehing requirement again are

creased In detailing

ensure protected. should

that

reinforcenent when

disregarded

(8) is

Inclined particularly (and type bend of and

web

reinforcement effective for control

(Fig. increasing is

6.1:

Type the

W6 and ultimate 5.2.2 be more and

W6A) shear 6.2.2).

strength This to

for web fix

crack

see likely

Chpts. to where of the

reinforcement than others.

expensive are and rean

However, dimensions

there beam,

strictions

on

the

overall

96.

adequate W6 may (9) ment

and control

ultimate be the best web

strength choice. openings beneficial

that be disregarded

is

the

main

concern,

then

Type

Trimming has
any

locally effect
is

with on

loops ultimate
locally Eqn.

of

reinforceshear
for

little
reinforcement should

strengths
crack

provided in using

(8.2).

(10) solid shear deep

In

the

design beams the with

of 31,32

shallow it limit is

beams usually state

and

of

the

majority to the also

of consider of an state

deep for beams

necessary only. shear In may

ultimate openings,

design be limit

however, for 5.2.2 the and

the anchorage

important of
(11) only

consideration (see
is

serviceability 6.2.2).

cracking
It where

Chpts.
that end

suggested positive steel. requirements

equations is

should provided data are available,

be for on

applied the the main end and both 5

longitudinal anchorage the are the steel (see %CI very main blocks also

Little in 4 code on this bars a precautionary 1). and

experimental deep the point. were beams CE-FIP In anchored measured all

Building cautious longitudinal as %ppendix

Recommendations of at the their present ends load

tests, to failure

against

8.4

ILi:

-iI'i\

;:

_`i

VPLE

FOR

A DEEP

I).: ki i ,: ITii

Of i; ": INGS

The
this example aro of 2. is It shown

geometry
siri1r the is in design required

and
to

properties
those of to solid include design used deep

of

the

beam

used
in the

for

previously beans opening, i ain as in steel

illustration Ch }ter located

given the and

in beam web

an the

yi.

steel.

Examination
intercepts the notional

of

Fig.
loadpath

(8.2)

shows
joining

that
the

the
load

opening
and support

reaction I normal the shear

and

is

therefore of is therefore Eqn. though. bending

the

likely internal

to forces

seriously and to

disrupt stresses the

the within ultimate

distribution bean. strength First, It

necessary (8.2).

compute

using

an steel
proportion

estimate required.
of

should

be

made

of

the

necessary

main

Because

main

steel

required

is

normally contributes imate

relatively to the is In this

small ultimate only

and

the

amount strength, (cf. Chpt.

provided a simple 9.2). that the

also approx-

shear

estimate

necessary it be is

example

su;

gested

main as

longitudinal follows: -

reinforcement

conservatively

calculated

f Design bending moment M=0.75 kD 2S A .m (8.3)

': ith safety

moment

reference of 1.4
as

to

Fig.

(8.2) the

and design

using shear

a partial force and

factor
are then

for
follows:

loading,
-

)esi-n
Design

shtr
bending

force

V=1.4
M=1.41

4500
x

6300 =
4500 x 2.0

kN
= 12600 kNm

moment

Using

1:gn.

(8.3)

with

y=1.15

for

steel

95.

12600

a 0.75

2600

410 As x 1.15

10-6

As

18124

(As/bD

= 0.58%) 2) mm b0.462 first

Use Next, The term

6 No. 40 we concrete in

mm bars

+ shear.

14

No. 32 From to shear -

mm bars Fig. is (8.2) given

(18792 kIx/k2D by

consider

resistance (8.2)

the

Equation

as

0.44
Dimension say 55 per b

(1-0.35
be of

x 0.462)
chosen the so

30 x 2600 xb=5.25
that shear the concrete force, then

b kN
resists

may cent

design

5.25b
bs

6300 650
Eqn. (As)

x 0.55
mm say
(8.2) only is the shear resistance of the beam

From with main bars

5.25

6501 f1x x

195

18792

400 x

(say)

sin2al

10-3

(where

a1

0 cot-i

kix/k2D

65; =

sin2(z

1a0.82)

(3412 .
The

+ 2754)

6166 required

kN
by the web reinforce-

contribution

went
total

6300
steel

-6

166

134

kN,
(6300

but
-

it
3412

is
=

noted
2888

that
kN) is

the

required
greater

contribution

than ment

20: " `pult is required:

and

therefore web steel

a minimum proper

amount

of

web

reinforce25:: x

should

contribute

2888

= 722 kN.

From

Lqn.

(R. 2)

1.5 722 x 103 x 195 x A. x

Y 81

sin2a1

lssuminq

horizontal

stirrups

at

uniform

spacing

are sin`a1

uNed

to 0.82 For value

protect as design of yi a

the before

regions and sin it sin2aI 2

above al is

and '' `

below (cotto average 1

the

opening:

= sin

750/1200) take an

0.72. average of yi

purposes sin2ai and

sufficient and an

value

(say

1800).

From

above,

Aw :

R548

mm2

(%w/bD

) 0.271,: =
2) mm "

Use

18

No.

25

mm

diameter

bars

(8836

These
regions shown ment, in which above Fig. and (8.3). might and at bearing the

bars
below

must
the

be

arranged

to
The nominal in

protect
detailing reinforcethe beam

both
is

opening. secondary elsewhere effects. and has loading been and

(Note: be provided

for rein-

temperature forcE"mrnt adequite

shrinkage supports capacity

additional points to for

provide clarity).

omitted

CHAPTERNINE

A CRITICAL

REVIEW

OF THE

CIRIA

DESIGN

GUIDE

FOR DEEP

BEANS

9.1

INTRODUCTION

9.2

CIRIA

DESIGN

METHOD:

SOLID

TOP-LOADED

DEEP

BEAMS

9.3

COMP.%RISON

OF DESIGN

LOADS

WITH

TEST

RESULTS

9.4

CIRIA

GUIDE:

PROVISIONS

FOR DEEP

BE. VIS

WITH

HOLES

100.

CHAPTERNINE

A CRITICAL

REVIEW

OF THE

CIRIA

DESIGN

GUIDE

FOR DEEP

HEMS

9.1

I`. TRODUCTION A The recently reinforced

published design the to

issued

CIRIA

Guide 9 is the

'The most

design

of

deep
design impact codes in

beams
Guide on of

in

concrete'
date (1977)" and is

comprehensive
of its likely of here

Because on future and

future practice,

practice Guide

revisions discussed

reviewed

some

detail. 9

The lished is and 'simple concrete complex elastic or also the indirect, unique design of stated. to the rules' deep cases, literature

Guide

is of to

based research the

on

an

exhaustive on

study deep 25, 5".

of beams, Kong It

puband 27-35 it

and much

reports of

"owes CEB-FIP for

work

Leonhardt

International designing and which or where the the 'supplementary the where load the

Recommendations simpler forms rules' capacity applied are first openings. may loads indirect. time some of to be

contains

reinforced cover affected the more by

beams in

instability, or in

are The

concentrated Guide is for

supports for with the web

including deep bear's

provisions

In only those

the sections research deep the

review of of beacas

here the this and

it Guide

will which

be

appropriate are relevant simply web design a simple openings. of

to to

examine the ex-

perimental top what beams loaded follows, are

thesis; deep beams for

namely, with the with

supported In solid design deep example

recommendations and illustrated

explained

101,

in the

section measured and CIRIA

(9.2); ultimate the

in

section loads loads of

(9.3) the

comparison test would to and the finally of beams beams obtain three in

is

drawn

between reported

(solid) both currently section

herein to the

design Guide (cf. and

which

according used (9.4)

according 2); the

design the are

methods CIRIA examined.

Chapter for

provisions

design

with

openings

9.2

CIRIA

DESIGN According

?METHOD: to which no the

SOLID Guide

TOP-LOADED 9 the the openings, loading. 'simple

DEEP

BEAMS be a

rules' of

may being to the is

applied flat tially rules from plate,

to

a beam with

satisfies

conditions subjected Then,

significant

essensimple

uniformly for bonding (9.1)

distributed the as main

using

tension

steel

required

calculated

Equation

follows:

An >M
0 . 87 f yz ( 9.1 )

where

is z 1 ha
If

the is is is
1/h

design the the the lever

moment arm

at and span

ultimate for (Fig. single 9.1) (Fig.

to

limit

state z=0.21 + 0.3 h

spans

effective effective
it is

height
required

9.1)
confirm the strength

n>1.5

of

the

concrete fcu The b

in ha

compression n " must be

due satisfied. calculated

to

bending

and

the

condition

M<0.12

reinforcement
in the span

by
be

Eqn.

(9.1)

above
over a

is

not

to

be

curtailed

and

may

distributed

depth

a v'.

of

0.2

ha.

The

bars force

must

be

anchored the force or at (Fig. the face at or

to

develop of the

80% support, a point

of

the and 0.2 1 0 of

maximum 205 from the of the

ultimate the maximum face of

beyond

ultimate the support is noting

to those 2.2.1) (cf. Chapter based prior a substantial supported a flexural

or

beyond the

beyond

far

face

support, It

whichever is
similar Chapter

less 11 that

9.1). provisions
in therefore The elastic and hence, factor (Note: of mode). some test Compared the

worth

for
CEB-FIP related lever stress as of Appendix beams

flexural
Recommento arm the factors distrimight safety (1) that say, of be on

design dations work for bution expected. collapse this collapsed of

are (cf.

contained and are 1.2.2.2). upon to cracking in-built beams. the

Leonhardt are in

bending which

fact

obtains there is simply includes in the

for thesis

description failure

to,

the

flexural (9.1)

design would of of reasons

a practical

of

normal

beams seem state of

(large irrational collapse:

span/depth in the

ratios) context it the is is follaccept-

Equation of the owing

able

therefore limit

the

philosophy

however, team that equation

philosophy good
from

the may

Nottingham/Cambridge be
design

found
point of t1&e failure t'ie'd of deep of

as

to
of

why
view

the

33,34,51.

Firstly, internal of Vie lever concrete flexuril than re rior: n*1 ; aired be. ir.; in trm

because flexural to

relatively due the bear. is to main is

large flexural steel therefore the

size

of

the

crushing will a rarely lesser of required is nominally main

j, rior collapse nor-nal is and rel

occur: problem " teel in

beams. ttively hc"nce,

:Secondly, small whet'ier compared the

proportion to arm that

lever

av).

taken / to that an all as laws between elled the

as

0.6D

or

say.

O. 8D, and critical the shear

would more

not important,

make

significant any reinforcement 9.2) 34. Eqn. and (9.1)

differences bar form

cost. intersects

Thirdly, the part of

diagonal reinforcement accordance Kong, of the

crack

(Fig. 27

will

integral the web of main bars;

Therefore, also 34 "the act

bars that

provided is, are as to

in quote unaware 'flexural

with Robins

Sharp

equilibrium bars labelled

designer's

discrimination and bars lab-

reinforcement' ".

as

'shear The

reinforcement' requirements of within 'Chapter the anchorage for the

anchorage manner the 1.2.2.1 capacity increased span in as and of in

of

the

main the beam

steel stress

stem in the

from steel to does ment high Singh is

the

understanding uniform

which the 1.2.2.2). the the regions, the

becomes a'tied-arch'(cf. seem might that be

approximates However, it

tension presence

reinforceof the Kong, evidence the the current details

significantly stresses 37 as have yet in

compressive and Sharp

the

support that

although

commented to recommend (Note: tests

anchorage the

experimental in

insufficient

a relaxation I describes out

main

prudent of
the

recommendations. series of exploratory

for end

Appendix 37
of 'simple

carried
the

to
steel).

investigate

requirements As regards

shear,

rules'

specify

two

conditions
webs; these

for
are

the
to

shear
be

capacity
as

of

beams

with
-

unreinforced

satisfied

follows:

V<

2 bh

2vk
acae

/x

(9.2)

V<

bh

au

(9.3)

1U4.

where

V is

the

applied

shear

force

xe

is (a) (b)

taken L/4 the butes at the

to for clear

be

the

least

of distributed load. a the load total which shear contriforce

uniformly shear than span 5O

for to

11

more

support. average than than one 50% of load to the clear acts shear and spans none force contriat the

(c)

the where butes

weighted more more

shear

support. vc is the ultimate Tables lightweight

the maximum

concrete 5 and 25 for

shear normal

stress weight

taken

from

CP1IO and
vu is

aggregate

aggregate
value for

concretes,
shear stress

respectively.
taken from

CPI1O types

Tables of

and

26,

respectively,

for

the

two

concrete.

ks

= 1.0
0.6

for
for

ha/b
hA/b

<4
>4

Equation of the design 3.3.6.2) a single 2 in ha/xe Ci'110's

(9.2) equation with

may for

be shear

recognised in normal being

as

being (cf. an

an

extension CF1103:

beams made in types 2 beamsto beams

Clause produce The factor

modifications provision to for

attempt of beams.

to

continuous corresponds provisions

for the factor

all

d/aw, allow

which for small

was the

included increased

normal by normal

shear

capacity

exhibited

with

shear

span/depth

(a

v%

/d

ratios

47

59

For

such

beans

it

Lv>.

has

been

reported resembles types of

4 a beam

that deep may cracks

the beam be

failure failure

mode mode; by the k8

aspect

in

shear namely, formation and in

ha/b.

in

certain failure of

respects in both

that

initiated between factor

the

diagonal

(splitting) There is
which

loading included
ratio

support

points (9.1),
deep

further
depends

Equation
As

the

value

of

on

the

beams the The Kani

bability exceeding dicted clear as the

usually effect explanation 60 and

that 4 on how shear of bore the that little the these will

have of the

aspect factor

ratios ka ks. 6i is to as have

greater reduce given drawn

for shear shallow

than the in the

the CP110 Guide,

minumum values is the

of by that pro-

4, 40%.

regarding later
beams

Taylor

attention
shear with

to
aspect against

unreinforced reduced normal can mode shallow resemblance of 4O: may in be

ratios that It is not beams, was and howpre-

exhibit basis results of

capacity beam theory.

directly Kani's with a deep seen

extended and large beam to be Taylor's (av/d) failure

to

deep tests ratios mode.

failure of

both beams to be

typical hence ever. by tests

reduction the that

certainly for the ks the

necessary present

comparing with

nominal given by

shear Equation

stresses (9.2)

obtained without

factor.

For

example,

feam

NO-O.
nominal ultimate

3/0

(Chapter
shear shear would taking

6:
stress stress imply k8

Table
of 4.5 from a at

6.2)

achieved
which of

a
compares 3.66 of 0.6 then

measured with x k5 nn

ultimate allowable These z

N/mm2 Egn. of value (9.2)

N/mm2. k3 2.05.

figures which,

factor its

safety of

4.5/3.66 becomes

1.23/ka

The dition given

upper in Egn.

limit (9.3).

for It

shear is

stress worth

is

fixed

by that

the the

conuse

mentioning

I'D.

of as

this the

limit limit of

in has normal

the been

simple derived with in

rules as

is an

strictly upper limit

not for

appropriate, the of simple shear

strength reinforcement. either on

beams However,

designed practice, the will

quantities under rather 9. the the

shear rules limit renot

Eqn.

(9.2) bearing

or

more pressures

usually

conservative The support Giiide should

support

govern at

commends exceed 0.4

that f. cu The

the

bearing

pressures

simple
of web of less

rules
steel web the

do

not
but

give
stipulate

specific
the The for under yield concrete

recommendations
provision minimum shrinkage Clauses steel) is to or be regions of 0.52 concrete Jr '/0.87 of amount and 3.11 0.3% provided the in f; and (for

for nominal should

the

design quantities not be

reinforcement. reinforcement for (for of a wall

than

temperature 5.5 mild both of 03'110: steel) horizontally of it is

effects namely, times the and steel, embedded,

required 0.25% volume vertically. related should

high the

In to not the be

the local less

support area than

proportion which

Y a tensile for percentage resistance example, required of taking in not

that less fcu each

is than = 30

sufficient that of

steel the fy

to uncracked : X10

provide

concrete: N 'mm2 the

N; csm2 and would

a

direction
',: here

equal
is web

0.8.
subjected shear web to to capacity reinforcement improve 9 the loads by may top Egn. be load

beam

concentrated given

or (9.2) augmented capacity.

where is

the

unreinforced then 'supplementary the

exceeded. the

nominal rules'

un-! er

Under

the

supplementary

rules

the

ultimate

shear

capacity

is

given

by.

with

reference

to

Fig.

(9.2):

al(i-o.

35

"e

Wabh

Jfcu )

+ A2

Ar yr
a

sin
2

ar

(9.4)

where

s
.

0.44
0.32

for
for

normal
lightweight

weight

aggregate
aggregate

concrete
concrete

1.95 : 0.85

N/mm2 N/mm2 (9.4)

for for is

deformed plain based in

bars round on bars the analysis tests 1. loads 0.23 to The coefficients 34 by a The with 0.7; 27-32: equation clear this 3304 it is shear being Al and C2 of by the of 0.75 the in inspan/ the 9

Equation results fact, tended depth range and X2 of Egn. to ratios considered are based (1.9 a lower
of

of is,

the (1.9) apply

Nottingham as to (ze/h$)in in on the the given beams the

Cambridge Chapter top

under range

tests empirical been to

27-32

coefficients C1 factor and

Equation to give

),

having bound
safety

modified

experimental
for materials. is

results,

partial

factor

The

ultimate

shear

capacity

subject

to

the

condition

expressed

as

follows:

V/bha

<

1.3

Al

rcu

(9.5)
the Nottingham-Cambridge
conservative depending,

This
tests `7-3`,

limit,
may or

judging
may not

from
be

very

for ing stress varied

(mainly

example, failure. acting from

the

on In

how the

well tests the

the

beam 27-32

is the

reinforced measured area depending

ratio) and

against nominal (width on

on

bearshear

over about

cross-sectional to
sp.

depth)

4 `: /mm`

7 N/mm`

geometry
the effect-

c1e. ar-shear-

n/depth

iveness

of

the

web

reinforcement.

The

limit

given

by

Egn.

(9.5),

for

example, of web indicate stress (6.2) represents bearing ,

equals 30 N/mm2

3.12 cube

N/mm2 strength. the limit by a

for

a normal For

weight beams with reported possible 2 -

aggregate effective herein ultimate (cf. Chapter is and 1215 6: kN

concrete inclined would shear Table which support

reinforcement, that potential the ultimate a nominal pressures the

present restricts

tests the

factor load shear of

of

at

least NW6A of 8.1

beam

0.3/0 N/mm2

stress N/mm2).

nominal

of

60.8

As maximum limit suitable provide found, supported capacity expect in of bearing 0.4

regards stress fcu in

bearing at the the simple

capacity, support rules is to bearing the to added

the to

Guide be 0.6 to

permits

the from the that zones be for to

increased fcu, the It provided support will

binding lateral fact, beams of the

reinforcement confinement that is the the

concrete. capacity

generally simply

stipulation governing the reasonable bearing

limiting .r'hil4t it to be

factor is at

design to -

beam. limits

present on

conservative

placed

pressures

for oratory

the

reason conditions it

that

the may

bearing not be likely

bearing %t that

pressures achieved, that

failures 32,

achieved it is great
reported tests might cracks have

under 9,

labin

thought an

practice
has (cf. by ary zones: diagonal It ct", is es the effect by been

also
to 1.2.2.2).

seems
the

too

importance
by Leonhardt indicated be into to be a the control avoidable. secondsupport 25

attlched

Chapter tine of of

Nottingham bearing of of failures

eine-film the propagation arrangement be. iring also that at

failure diagonal

proper cracking,

web

reinforcement might therefore tests and support simple

notable of

in

the the

present load

confining helped to

reinforcement

points

fv

7"

prevent

the Two

occurrence worked

of design

single examples of the

bearing

type given over These in the

failure. the wide examples Guide range are specific to of

are rules

illustrate loading rather illustration deep such aid beam. a beam to the and

the

application conditions and the a be design simple given -ns. Guide, a number are presented are

support

covered. not of a so simply suitable

comprehensive of Hence, will designer in the and help Tables the of

for

the

supported of be the noted

top-loaded design that of as algeout equatan

worked here. It and that of the

example is (9.4) design These used in to are

(9.3) so

re-arranged may be carried

braically with ions

Tables. and

re-arranged the example.

Design

example The

for design With steel

the

CIRIA

Guide. used to is Fig. that it the

problem reference and

again (2.2) using

which is

was

given to

in

Chapter the 9.

2. main

required

design dations

web

steel

CIRIA

Recommen-

The principles moment as It of and

design CF11O39 the (f ig.

procedures therefore, ultimate -

conform the shear

with design force

the

limit

state bending determined

ultimate V are

design '2.2):

fo1loW3

?;

ai

.4XX2a

12600

k.\m

1.4

x2

6300

kN

where

1.4

is 1/ha

the

partial 1*800/6000

factor

of 1.25

safety < 1.5

on

the

loading.

live

hence bending)

there in The

is the

no

need

to

check

the

compression

stresses

(from

concrete. of main steel (A s) required is given by Eqn.

area

(9.1)
s 0.87 fyz

z=0.2
As=

6000 + 0.4 x
12600 x 106 410 0.87 x x

4800 3120 x mm. =

11322 2. mm

3120

Provide

24

No. 25

wm diameter

bars

(11782

cunt;

p=

As bh

0.497, =

a
over

This a height 0.2 across Next, the beam. The for might concentrated be used, x

reinforcement 4800 the = 1000

will

be

distributed and extend

in and

a band be fully

(say) mm span. is given

anchored

complete

consideration

to

the

shear

capacity

of

'simple loads,

rules'

of therefore,

the

Guide the

9 are not applicable rules 9

supplementary

Equations re-arranged in the

(9.2) Guide

and as

(9.3) follows:

have -

been

algebraically

v c=A
bh

vX

"

(l

vms

+ 2

vwh

+ 3 vwv

(9.6)

yc bh

Amax a

(9.7)

111,

where

Vc x1 01

is

the 0.44 2

shear or = 3 0.32

capacity as for in

of Eqn.

the (9.2).

beam.

: a

a1

deformed

bars

and

0.4

for

plain.

The Tables (Fig.

values Tables Eqn.

vx,

ms

etc.,

are

given

in

series here with the in

of

(CIRIA (9.3).

4,5,6,7.8) is applicable only. represents brackets web In the give bars.

reproduced to Eqn. beams (9.6),

(9.6)

orthogonal first term to from web the bars

reinforcement on the right and steel, the the

arrangements hand terms side in

concrete the and

contribution

shear main

contribution the vertical

horizontal

respectively.
Using Eqn. be beam given (9.7). determined. width in the first the limit a (Note: considering Guide and on maximum value on concrete minimum shear for choosing cover thickness stress the a to beam as given width b by may

reasonable guidance the the

practical steel, will etc., normally

minimum is

be

not

less

than

300

mm).

From say, b500

Fig.

(9.3)

Guide by

Table

5;

vmax in

= 7.12 Egn. (9.7)"

N/mm2:

Mm then

substitution

6300 500

103 4800 x x
2.63

>

0.44

x 7.12

<

3.13

i.

e.,

condition

satisfied.

Choose

b The

500

mm. of Al the vx concrete and 01 vm' and of main Egn. bars (9.6), only namely:

contribution the terms

is

given

by

IIC.

(0.44

vx

f1x

vag)

500

4800

Where

Fi3.

(9.3);

Guide

Table

4 for

fcu = 0.29,

= 30 vx =

N/mm2 4.9 and

and N/mm2 x/h = 0.29,

x/h Guide

1400/4800 Table 6 for

p= ms

0.4959

vas

0.86 =

N/mm

then

(2.156

0.86)

500

4800

10-3

7238

kN.

Hence. is
bute the

the It

capacity may be

of noted
of had

the that
shear

concrete the main

strength: determined it above capacity. would the

and steel

main

bars bars

only contriexample,

sufficient.
a main significant steel equation extra for

proportion for bending (than horizontal the loss to Eqn.

if, from have main a

for more

been then bars shear

rigorous to provide

9.1) web the

been steel

necessary to

compensate

The of a nominal and '! ith (Fig. 9.3) the

CIZIA quantity vertically.

Guide of

requires web

in

all

cases

the

provision hori-

reinforcement;

0.25%10 both

zontally

reference contribution

to

Eqn. given

(9.6) by

and the

Guide nominal

Tables mesh is

and

(0.22

+ 0)

500 x 4800

x 10"3

528 k.N.

. Qt2l1

7238

528

7766 a

'C.N

i.

e..

V /V

1.2

The

detailing

of

the

reinforcement

is

shown

in

(Note

that

the of for

CIZIA

Suide

requires in the and both and

an

increased zones; N/mm2 and spacings. horizontal

minimum as the mentioned area re-

percentage previously quired where that vided it b equals is is across

reinforcement fy (0.8% 410 = xbx thickness to full NIMM s)

support fcu = 30

vertically s bar the

horizontally, Note bars so also

I

the

beam

preferable the

continue

pro-

span).

9.3

COMPARISON The

OF DESI N ultimate openings design the and the

LOADS

WITH

TEST

RESULTS of those beams using described 5, the and tested the in ACI (1977)

design web used

shear have Guides

loads been (which

herein three Chapter Building CIRIA

without comzaonly 2;

calculated were

namely, 4

CED-FIP PCA

Recommendations ST668) and

code design By

document

new

Guide. comparing ultimate in-built the load factor the each to ratios of Table the of design (W it safety to design it
the

shear is

load possible

with to shear represent

the

correspondthe

ing

measured

estimate collapse. the

effective In of With
method

against W1/W7)

Table safety

(9.1) for

(W1/W4 above (9.1),

factors

methods be seen
value

respectively. that
for

reference
is very

may
average

the
the

PCA
factor

conservative;

of

safety

on The

the

working

load

is

over

6. conserwould reinforceon than the 2.

CUB-FIP beams

Recommendations with web heavy the be

are reinforcement, percentage factor

also

rather which

vative imply, ment design is

for since

those

a relatively that load may

of of

nominal safety

mandatory, ultimate

minimum significantly

greater

The and may

ACI are be

and more seen As

the

CIRIA

Guides and in Chapter of based CEB-FIP

are of the 2, deep on

reasonably the more the beams, the results two, the

less CIRIA

conservative Guide design. as

consistent; would stated result in

satisfactory earlier and the of workers PCA

concentrated method,

on

the

elastic in

analysis 1946, work. is The

published theoretical mainly on on

Dischinger's which and Walther, on are based centre how forces. are and of deep which beams. the centred based to

Recommendations, out by give to resist Leonhardt specific

the

tests design

carried and steel do not

flexural the

guidance shear

calculate The on ACI's the test

. reb

area and Crist, team of

specified recommendations and Siess, both concrete

recommendations studies Cambridge behaviour of

CIRIA's de Paiva

Nottingham on the shear

respectively, reinforced

9.4

CIRIA

GUIDE: The

PROVISIONS literature of the of in 35.

FOR DEEP

BEAMS

WITH

HOLES by find beams. CIRIA sufficient Indeed, co-

exhaustive

study Guide 9,

conducted failed on Guide the to deep is

during test the

the data only

compilation on the effects quoted Author restrictive.

opening, that

web the As

openings CIRIA a result

reference by the

a paper

authored are

recommendations

necessarily
%ny

which would under analysis

is

likely obtain in

to a

significantly solid deep stress of an

disturb beam, is

the

stress

pattern 'inadmissible' by elastic the

deemed derived which be gives

the are to '. As

rules. given be an in

Typical a series for the is

patterns diagrams

detail considered the

conditions

satisfied example, beam

opening which

to

Iadmissible conditions for

diagram reproduced

top-loaded

here

Li

in two

Fig. point

(9.5). loading of

The

Guide condition

does if it

not the be

include present deduced result may be

a diagram tests, that in seen the but

for

the from an of similar that, openings

examination the to iuide's that

Fig.

(9.5)

may would It

spirit

recommendations s'"o", en in Fig. (9.6). 11 Fig.

are to The opening, be

restrictions (Fig. 9.6) other

except in the

for

opening tests

type (cf.
that

(Fig-5.2), 4.2 and

all 5.2)
under to therefore,

of o.re

the

present
OpeninZs,

deemed
the the rules,

'inadmissible

a'rnissible unlikely Guide, need For this

are bereinprevent is biaxial, is considered the resolved of to con-

assumed haviour forcement local sidered field be to of

by of

the the around

Guide beam. the cracking. located . -id as follows.

disturb

overall that to opening

requires be provided the

only

excessive to be stress,

purpose, uniform,

in the

sensibly of side

possibly required opening to is

amount Each deep primary shown notional in

reinforcement of the

determined act as set a

simply up within beams on

supported the is each of stress (9.8). is centre

beam, deep Fi-. beam

subjected beam. This The derived or such on

forces notional assumed from number duced tional stresses direction occupied each rules' a

system load either system

deep to act

(9.7). is loading One acting calculating, the region

directly use is of the in solid of repronogiven each beam system 'simple are a

consideration of here deep at that by the principal in Fig. beams the

the

primary diagrams. The load by opening, that

by

the

diagram each pair from

determined of have the crossed Having then earlier.

total in the to

force the loading the stresses

would opening. beam is

established according the principal

notional as

reinforced Where

described

not from which

orthogonal consideration also shows ; he

to

the of the

opening, an equivalent

the

reinforcement hole local as shown

is in

determined Fig. (9.9),

recommended of the

reinforcement elastic appear to be basis

pattern. of the in a

origins for by on

theoretical would 13 in of use To of

CIRIA method similarly an

provisions described based and for from

openings Uhlmann a calculation made beams. required modified these effects

this the herein, should that deep 'the beam the point the section, tests would

founded method acting stress

1952. notional the

Ulhmann's forces elastic the

was on patterns tensile would

opening

similarly deep the

obtained forces, be

solid which

determine of notional been on

may

design

amounts the having of holes

it on deep indicate

reinforcement forces from stress by

calculated,

Uhlmann factors;

stress

concentration elastic study

To that which visions has mate to been stren,; which at by it the the are for

derived uniform
be broadly with that the

a photofields.

of
sum

the
up of

concluded openings, CIRIA proIt the ulti-

results reported openings

beams

produce effect depends load and type has of little on the path at

serviceable of an opening

designs. on on the the load reaction considered the limit overall state.

35 stated th of a

primarily joining the small effect ultimate of does the seem that limit support opening on

extent bearing point':

intercepts loading

blocks hence, 'admissible' behaviour regards around rather is to

definition, by of a the beam

wide and

ht-nce for the

As

the the over attempt

provisions 'admissible' elaborate to satisfy

design it is

reinforcement that these their state are purpose conditions.

opening; when it

considered

serviceability

117.

Indeed, provisions service

the

elastic are based, condition. the small the

assumptions are only

on

which

the at

reinforcement best, to the

applicable

load In

absence

of

any

specific openings, gained

test it from problem be gnntity solved

evidence

on

the be

behaviour inferred range local provision forcement. servatively that ing ness; assume example, of x is for (a) the and say of

of from tests,

'admissible' broad that the experience

may reasonably the of present possible by reinbe the of beam a

serviceability openings could

cracking which The

at

such specified

simply nominal might of

a minimum of reinforcement 'lost' where being tensile (a) is

of required capacity

amount on x the (ft)

con-

based x (b)

opening; the thick(or For percentage say x (a) 100 open-

the (b) of

dimension is the the concrete concrete). N/mm` the (size x (b)

direction (ft) (ft) is the = 0.52 fy a

considered; strength normal and of x fcu the 410) here,

tensile fcufor 410 N/mm`

weight 30 =

taking

reinforcement (a)) x would (a) the at an x be (b). opening least effective a 1

along (0.52 It is

each

side /0.87

opening x (a) that and of the

0.44o: to

recommended be 2x fully (a) each of the of

bars

detailed

trim

should length

anchored side the

preferably opening, forces herein into to the

extend ensure surrounding strated Fig. could not be (5.1)

distribution (Note: a system i): web

tensile reported

concrete. that and too Fig. the local (6. one

tests

demonexample

reinforcement(for Type CIIIIA (Fig. 5) 9.9) -

reinforcement ended by

and -

this

include

recom-,

might

satisfactory). 'here the location or size of a particular opening is

118.

unavoidable admissibility ation the herein consider because with structural and useful ization for deep ultimate the the in deep has ultimate have the to

and

it criteria

is

such given to the

that in

it the

fails Guide,

to

satisfy then

the considereffect on

be limit

given state

opening's The the mode, best but

possible tests thing this is

capacity. that

reported then not is easy to

demonstrated actual do failure not

engineers beams. idealization simple this should visualization with strengths.

yet it given

have is in

sufficient suggested Chapter in 7 that of

experience the this 8 proposed thesis are

However,

design respect. prove a

method The powerful of the and

presented proposed tool load for to transfer the

Chapter

structural the designer. mechanism of

idealboth in their

beams

openings

prediction

C11

APTERTEN

CONCLUSIONS

AND SUGGESTIONS

FOR

FURTHER

RESEARCH

10.1

CONCLUSIONS

10.2

SUGGESTIONS

FOR FURTUER

RESE'1RCH

li9.

CHAPTERTEN

CONCLUSIONS

AND SUGGESTIONS

FOR

FURTHER

RESEARCH

10.1

CONCLUSIONS The design is stich not as deep major and is openings, of deep guide beams of CED-FIP available and beams are as with necessar-

of"reinforcod yet CP1IO: covered 1972, Little the effects for in the the by

concrete the

with

web

openings

codes the

practice,

AC1318-71, information of design CIRIA web

Recommendations in the literature the

(1970). on provisions as given

a result web ily

openings restrictive.
It is

(new)

hoped here

that will of in the

the be of

conclusions direct use concrete of

of to

the

research

work engaged that

presented in it will this

engineers design and of

branch assist

reinforced advancement

this

aspect

engineering It experimental 35,6; The total destruction of

science. is to results following the work carried be

noted have list reported out

that already of

discussions been conclusions herein, which

of presented is

some

of

the

elsewhere based included on the tests deep

sum to

on

79

reinforced

concrete

beams: (i) strength, arily natural on The effect on the 'load crick extent path' of a web opening and which the the on on the ultimate shear depends intercepts blocks at primthe the

widths, to

deflection opening

joining

loadbearing

120.

loading location (ii) the shear intercepts be (iii) imate proper ant. as

point at Where

and which the

the this

support interception is clear in from path'

reaction

point, occurs.

and

on

the

opening mentioned estimated 'load from Eqn.

or paragraph

reasonably (i), Where shear the

clear

of

'load may

path' be the

ultimate the opening may

Egn. the

(7.1). ultimate

strength

estimated Web load

(7.2). substantially increases with web is is strength in effect of beams loads by the on the form the openings, the ultbut importtype width trimming strength. and any strengths potential and

reinforcement capacity of web both Local has general concrete in cracking for of of the

deep

beams

detailing Inclined

reinforcement

critically most and of effective crack bars

reinforcement shear

regards

ultimate reinforcement little behaviour deep

control. the (iv) openings The

ultimate weight very in

shear

normal is and

concrete and shear the concrete

lightweight differences may tensile that

(v)

similar,

ultimate between weight

be

accounted capacity

difference normal concrete.

suggested is applicable

structural lightweight

of
The

structural
simple

design

method and The tool load of

in

this to a

thesis wide range

is

reasonably of opening prove

satisfactory locations. a of the prediction powerful the

proposed to transfer their the

structural designer, mechanism ultimate

idealization both in strengths. deep for the beams

should visualization and for

10.2 (i)

SUGrFSTIONS The of

FOR the

FUItT)IER test

RESEARCH in the

size

specimens

used

present

121.

investigation of large present (ii) and but cantly Further inclined

(iii) conducted shear, significance and

was

as

large

as

was

compatible selective to by s confirm scale. more mesh

with tests that

the

range using

variables scale results Inclined fix the than

investigated. specimens are web not are

Further required affected

the

reinforcement orthogonal inclined other

expensive reinforcement is in current

to

bend

conventional of all

performance better tests than to

reinforcement types the be used optimum valuable.

and on Concrete

signifipractice. of

investigate would
of the Cement tests useful various

percentage

reinforcement
Taylor some made of 61

Association shallow beams the such relative as

has in

special some the

ordinary

deductions shear

about parameters,

aggregate Parallel observations.

(iv) of tests chorage (v) The the The main are

interlock, tests of deep

dowel beams

action, may

and lead

the to

compression some interesting

zone.

results steel desirable requirements deep team would beam would

of

the

exploratory 1) have

tests indicated

on

end that

anchorage further for an-

(Appendix to in establish deep

design beams.

criteria

data seem

collected to be the

by

the most

Nottingham comprehensive examination

to and under-

Cambridge date and

justify which

further might well

detailed lead and a to yet

re-evaluation, standing design of deep

yet

a more

better efficient

beam

behaviour

procedure.

AP

I'

ENDIXONE

REINFORCEMENT ANCHOR %GE OF TENSION LI! 'i}{TW'EICG}IT CONCRETE DEEP BEANS

IN

A1.1

INTRODUCTION

AND BACKGROUND

Al .2
41.3

TEST PROGRAMOME
TEST A1.3.1 x1.3.2 4,1.3.3 RESULTS Deflection Crack Crack control patterns and modes of failure control

%1.4

GENERAL

COMMENTS

122.

APPENDIXONE

ANCHORAGE

OF TENSION

REINFORCEMENT DEEP BEVIS.

IN

LIGHTWEIGHT

CONCRETE

A1.1

INTRODUCTION It

AND would

BACKGROUND that, end time design the

seem the

-for anchorage

some

yet,

the of

assumptions longitudinal vative, very provide anchorage example, on tests few

regarding tension because systematic information on many in the the of

requirements remain have been various of rather

reinforcement surveys

must 6,7,9-12

conserthat to end For based by 11,12,24

extensive

confirmed out of beams. were precluded blocks

investigations on strength the the effects and crack

have of

carried amounts deep

control

conclusions

previously failure had to

reported been steel

which

end-anchorage tension `6, 64

anchoring or by using

longitudinal other In devices deep

bars

reinforced
in

concrete
anchorage which and is at

beams,
the thought

the

full

tensile
because

force of the

must arch

be

developed behaviour 24 "5. to on the

supports, to 66 have may made of on normal occur

action

at that signifipull-out pressures, to the

ultimate pressures cant

loads normal

Untrauer tension strength: subjected found to normal

Henry

reported have 37

reinforcement in to a tests range in

influenc* which strength root of

bond were was

specimens, the square bond

increase pressure

proportion 66

the

applied

At carried out by

the Singh

University 12 have

of

Nottingham. that the

tests usual

recently design

indicated

1'23.

assumptions. beams, consisting end was anchorage varied might of

regarding be 24

end

anchorage

of

the

main In

steel a test the tension

in

deep

unnecessarily lightweight for the from diameter. either

conservative. concrete main zero In inclined 11.9.6 deep longitudinal to all an of web of

programme amount steel of reinor 4. (Fig. an of

beams,

provided systematically times bar

embedment the beams

length web

'twenty-five force-nent orthogonal A1.1).

was

provided; satisfying

reinforcement AC1318-71

mesh

Section

Singh's
on deep beam of behaviour web

tests
but

provided
it was had as of web the not

some
clear on

valuable
what the the

information
effects the for strengths could strength. test without and results programme web of are hive

provision end showed contributed It with was anchorage, that

reinforcement

had

requirements flexural provided

particularly the as quantity much as

analysis reinforcement ultimate

of

50: & of to compar:

flexural Singh's be_t. ns details but

therefore further tests

desirable on In tests this are of

supplement tble deep the and

reinforcement. nine drawn follow-up from the

%ppendix, given, all

general

observations tests.

evidence

thirty-three

%1.A

TEST

I AOC R a?C! r. The

test 12 tests

specimens and as

were previously

designed 12 ,

to in

be

complementthe

ary

to

Singh's

planning

test it

I. rogramme ble, %CI318-71 Code

where 4

reference was 1972 used ; does as

to the not

a code main yet

of

practice (the deep

was current beams).

des-

guide cover

British

CP110:

124.

The sintered-fly-ash Table the span %1.1)" beams lengths were of

test

specimens

consisted concrete deep overall

of

simply (Fig. D 762

iwo

supported A1.2 and

lightweight width cast L were in b 102 Imperial

beams depth

mm and

(Note: mm

sized mm span of

moulds). in three 952

different with I a

used: ratio

1524 x/D 0.30.. materials general

beams

clear-shear-span/depth beams with an x/D The ment same are properties as given those in ratio concrete and given Table The
consisted was lengths A1.1. anchorage provided. beyond Column was 4). either of two

0.55

and

rum in

six

of

and

proportions, details of concrete

reinforcewere the

other in

experimental 3" Details

Chapter

strengths

(A1.1). longitudinal
dia. bars centre In those an %CI deformed were line bears standard anchored of the with

main
8 aim

reinforcement
bars; by support an hook x/D no web

in

each

beam

reinforcement embedment (Table of 0.3, Section the

These the

different reaction ratio

(: \C1318-71:

7.1.1.1)4 bar +
the length hook. Hence the one

or

one db,

of 20

the db, In

following 15 those
a

embedment 10 db, with

hook

lengths: nil, x/D

or 10

25 one of of

times (25 db

diameter standard
anchorage or nil.

db.

or an

plus ratio
db of is

hook).
was

beams
standard

0.55.

either The

embedment a standard 17.25 (except less than db. for the

equivalent iection lengths db+ hook)

embedment 12.3.2 used were by e., 38.1 of in

length 1CI318-71, , the tests

computed all the beam

from

embedment with length 25 1d (12 in),

substantially Section db for 12.5 8 can of

development which is 305

specified i.

ACI318-71, bars.

mm

diameter

Details

of

the

test

procedures

and

equipment

have

1'25

been (Fig. 89 x

given A1.2) 29

in were

Chapter applied bearing plaster. mounted of left 0.01 axial hand

3"

Briefly, through blocks One of

the circular bedded the rollers (Fig. -Central

loads rollers to the

and

reactions and 102 x

mm steel

concrete

with assemblies for 0-0.3(0) were made measured for a

quick was larger for

setting specially range example, with

support to A1.5,

reaction give freedom see deflections being were

on

steel

translation support).. gauges,

Beam

measured support with

mm dial as

compensation crack widths

settlements a hand microscope

measured; of 25

magnifications.

A1.3

TEST

RESULTS

A1.3.1

Deflection Fig. (A1.3) of the

control shows beams with that the length within same of by the x/D the individual ratio, tension series progressive reinforcelarge in deflections
that Beams of beams,

of

each

group of not the

reduction ment Ui .
the the

embedment

did of
load tension

increase beans

deflections a marked
first at failed anchorage. of end flexural the

significantly increase
crack,

amounts. at

exhibited
the yielded

producing bars and loss of

indicating load. as a result two clearly

first-cracking prematurely Apart anchorage from was

0-0.55(0) complete the effect

0-0.30(0) of the end

these not

amount

observable.

A1.3.2

Crack The

control flexural cracks but after were a usually few more widest load at the beam the

soffit

at

formation,

increments

b.

widest 300 Fig. as I

part mm up (A1.4). mm at ultimate Fig. the

of

a soffit, shows

flexural

crack irrespective

was

always of the

about embedment were up the of

150

mm length. as

to

that and

the the

crack cracks

widths

usually to case tine effect about of

wide 10 mm

formation, collapse (A1.4) did not and prematurely.

opened As in

before control, inforcement Beams and

occurred. that a the clearly which

deflection refor

shows have 0-0.30(0)

anchorage observable had zero

tension except lengths

0-0.55(0) failed

embedment

A1.3.3

Crack

patterns The tests

were that

and

modes the

of

failure. pattern
the amount and

showed
not the of of the of to were 25 to small tests) and

crack
by

and

failure
of end

mode

(Fig.

(A1.4) except

influenced two the other the which like mm the of beams tension beams

anchorage, failed failure was central flexure-shear pression of the by

0-0.55(0)

0-0.30(0) The collapse a single and inclined the com-

the

pulling-out in by all yielding crack, cracks

reinforcement. was in flexure: and flexural penetrated beam top point. of tension reported Chpt. cracks web to cause Similar

node preceded flexural

reinforcement all tributaries, the loading amounts have been (see type other

zone concrete for in the

to

within adjacent

crushing flexural

failures (0.125' for noted failure in Chpts.

beams present Leonhardt the

with

reinforcement by 1.2.2.2). which caused reported the amount of others, It is

example, that in 4.5

Walther

diagonal solid 6 did

splitting beans not provided without occur. was

those and

reinforcement beams

In

those

tension

reinforcement

O. 42%.

127.

AI-3-4

Ultimate Table

loads (A1.2) for of the

shows Beams

measured and end

ultimate 0-0.3(0). were that

the of to

loads no evident. at
ultimate deep

and,

again,

except effects knalysils

0-0.55(0) of

observable

the of

amount the

anchorage showed

ultimate
reinforcement In in on the

loads

collapse tensile beams, the main

the stress the

stress of the

in

the steel.

approached flexural practice basis of an design is

usual steel

procedure requirements

current the

calculate value

assumed

for
the the amount

the
overall lever of

internal
depth. arm tension z is

lever
For taken

arm

of

approximately
in the L+0.3D As is given new

0.6D.
CIRIA and by

where
design the

D is
9 guide

example, as z=0.2

required

reinforcement

As

Al 0. H7

fyz

(see

Chapter

9: Eqn.

9.1)

In ultimate above factor x/D of are of 0.3, load to

Column the

2 design and

of

Table load

(A1.2) according be seen

the to that

ratios the there 3 for

of equation is

measured given in-built with

pregccnted, safety and 2.3 on

it

may of of

an

collapse for beams

approximately x, -D equal to

beam

0.55.

11. t

*1 iL

CO The

\T3 tests here reported exploratory the It was main observed together in nature; rather 37 with those hence than it of is draw

Singh desirable firm

12

were to

necessarily sumadrise

observations that:

conclusions.

1.

The

progressive

reduction

of

the

end

anchorage

of

the

tension

1 28.

reinforcement did not produce loads,

down

to

an

embedment observable crack widths,

length detrimental or

of

ten

bar effects

diameters on

clearly maximum

ultimate

deflections

2. ten

Within bar

each diameters

series was

of not

test less

beams, efficient

an

embedment than an

length ACI

of

standard

hook.

3. in

The

present beams The of

tests could provision ACI

showed

that

web

reinforcement to mesh

as the

provided flexural Sectinclined

Singh's

contribute of or almost an of

significantly orthogonal an equivalent the

strength. ion web 11.9.6

satisfying of load.

318-71 could

amount ultimate

reinforcement

double

Observation equilibrium, between Observation the ments current of the "flexural 2 was which are

above of

follows the and

from designer's "shear

the

laws distinction

of

unaware

reinforcement" unexpected, regarding reinforcement beams of with a proper However, current test and

reinforcement". 1 indicates requiretoo ( web prudent conservative, and, in that

Observation the are web

assumptions tension for the deep

end-anchorage possibly reinforcement system of not

particularly practice, is virtually

provision mandatory). of the

reinforcement to recommend on 408 the has

it

is

a relaxation evidence called ment ACI little in for from

end-anchorage The research structural pointed on the out bond ACI

requirements Committee bond and 52 elements that "there and has of

one

programme.

further

experimental concrete has also

on

developthe been

lightweight 439

Committee

experimental

research

strength

reinforcing

i-19

bars (60 tests besides will seem ment the deep

with ksi) at

a minimum 65. It is

yield hoped the information

strength that. test

greater together

than with

414 Singh's herein,

N/mm2

Nottingham, providing

results on deep

presented beam

behaviour, It does

stimulate that might high the be

others anchorage significantly

to

further capacity

investigations. of the in tension the

reinforcepresence regions of of

increased stresses in the

compressive

support

beams.

APPENDIXTWO

SHEAR

STRENGTH SUBJECTED

OF LIGHTWEIGHT TO REPEATED

DEEP LOADS

BEAMS

A2.1

INTRODUCTION

A2.2

TEST A2.2.1 X2.2.2

PAOGR. t Test Testing

!E specimens

A2.3

TEST A2.3.1 A21.3.2 A2.3.3

RESULTS Deflection Crack Ultimate patterns loads and cracl: and widths modes of failure

A2.4

SUMMARY

130.

APPENDIX2

SHEAR

STRENGTH

OF LIGHTWEIGHT TO REPEATED

DEEP

BEAMS

SUBJECTED

LOADS.

A2.1

INTRODUCTION

AND BACKGROUND 9111

Recent little beams repeated members codes without has to and a teat subjected loading has merely stating recently current that the factor is to be At programme on i8 of received mention how. claimed codes may data are to on

literature available repeated all types

surveys on loadings. of structural

have

shown

that deep

lightweight Indeed,

concrete the reinforced from codes be opinion. of effect

of concrete practice: but 67 designed

scant that

consideration vibrations to should general

considered, Crockett

Contrary that collapse of load load

reinforced under applications if

concrete fatigue should progressive

structures loading be as

conditions important and

number as

design

magnitude

cracking

failure

avoided. the University load concrete tests deep whether for had deep of Nottingham was beams. the carried The various could an out aims exploratory by of static be Singh the 12932 proshear applied and of From web the no to reinresults to

repeated

lightweight were to

gramme strength lightweight compare forcement of the

investigate proposed which

formulas beams the relative under tests, it over-all the

beams

a repeated-load of loading that on the the three condition.

history, types

effectiveness repeated observed effects

was

loadeyelings shear

had

appreciable

ultimate

strengths.

ijl.

However, investigate of cycles.

it

was the

suggested effect of

that

it

would

seem

desirable the

to number

substantially

increasing

In further are given each the the tests presented. to beam results previous each was of

this

Appendix, out these consisted to to tests of

the

details

and Singh's

results test

of

three

carried In beam

supplement the

programme history

repeated-loading cycles; cycles. discussed in

520,000 load are by

Singh's

tests possible to

subjected the present carried

45,000 tests out

Whenever in relation

tests

Singh.

A2.2

TEST

PROGR? CIE

A2.2.1

Test

specimens The test specimens (Table concrete mm; the other designed The of A2.1) deep consisted beams of are identical tension mm diameter bars of of constant as shown to one 3

sintered thickness in of Fig. Singh's

fly-ash b (A2.1). 32 in yield 445 types equal

lightweight to Each test each stress 76

dimensions to be

beam specimens.

was

longitudinal one 20

reindeformed yield The in Fig. (A2.1)

forcement bar stress three (A) of (E3) more system, . An of

beam 4iO were

consisted N/mm2 for

6 mm deformed all web were the (as given the soffit, found to

N/mm of

used

reinforcement. used steel here as shown ratio in

web

reinforcement system of satisfying

orthogonal 11.9.6

requirements Chpt. stirrups 2.2.2); were

Section An

ACI318-71 in the

orthogonal spaced had

system near previously

which beam been

horizontal and be (C)

closely which

An

inclined effective

highly

J"

for pweb the

static for all

loading the value The

condition beams was

28,29,31 kept by

The at 11.9.6 details 31

web

steel being AC1318-71. beam of

ratio 3 times

constant Section

0.012, of of Details

minimum

specified general those in

experimental given Table in Chapter

manufacture concrete

were

the

same are

as

strengths

given

(A2.1).

A2.2.2

Testing Two-point (Fig.

top hydraulic

loading

A2.1 jacks;

and

Fig. steel

A2.5) load-

was

applied blocks

through of

pulsatable x 76 x to force was per ACI 29 the

bearing was where (see a of load and cycles

the three

size

89

mm were ACI computed then minute. cycled

used. load,

Each

beam 2 Vu,

first Vu is

loaded, the

statically, design shear The 10 load

design from

AC1318-71 in stages at

Chapter

2.2.2). of cycles about

frequency 120,000 was Stage

cycles the statically

Stage 0.5 times ACI

1 consisted load. ACI 300,000 first

then Beams prior cycles

between

load to this

and 1.25

The load

next

increased was ACI

the of the
was

2 cycling 1.25
tested,

applied; load
Beam

consisted ACI.
the

between
beams statically and

and

0.5

For
load

of
in-

C-2/0.4,

creased A-2/0.4 to loading

until a third

collapsed cycling Stage 3 ACI

occurred. stage consisted load. was of

For

8-2/0.4 to collapse; load

introduced 100,000

between

1.5

ACI

and

0.5

A2.3

TEST

ltr: SU'LTS

A2.3.1

Deflection

and

crack

widths

1 i>.

In and maximum the

Fig.

(. 12.2)

and cracks loads.

(A2.3). widths Figure of

the

mid-span are, (A2.2) cycling. increased

deflections plotted that During by less was about for deflections Stage 25% Beam 1 for C-2/0.4, for smaller

diagonal applied during central and 2 each

respectively, shows

against increased the Beam 13%. all initial

stage deflection

load was

1-2/0.4 . In three Stage

-2/0.4, the being

but

substantially in 20':. 6?. the (A2.4) -deflection Stage These increases the

increase about about greater than in present would very

comparable much in

beams, in

3 produced increases observed overall

increases were previous behaviour are

deflection,

deflection in the

significantly tests: of both and

however, the it

Fig. and seem

deflection previous repeated(excluding the It the effecttests

corresponding that overall the increased effect beam difference

compared, history

loading inexplicably is also

had poor

little of

performance that type no of just

iingh's

C-2/O.

4'). in

to

be

noted each deflection only

appreciable web prior each

iveness and small, that

between the being

reinforcement to collapse beam (1/500

was was

observable, in any the case span).

about

3 mm in

times

%2.3.2

Crack

patterns

and

modes

of

failure

The
In a Beams mesh

crack
%-2, '0.11

patterns
.%nd a B-2/04. modified cracks In the Beam load

at

failure
which mesh formed

are
contained. system before the and

shown

in

Fig.

(A2.5).

respectively, of the web reinforcement Stage cracks 1 cycling occurred of

system %2.1).

and diagonal load.

(Fig. at the

1CI

C-0.2/01 cycling

diagonal the

generally

during

effectiveness

the

web

reinforcement

in

controlling

the

growth

and

134 .

propagation of the crack

of

diagonal

cracks which cracks.

is shows The

evident a large of the so

from number these web

the of

appearance relatively cracks

pattern,

small remained in

discontinuous small A-2/O. diagonal to up to

widths

diagonal reinforcements and the 0.4

collapse, B-2/O. 4 were

whereas not

Beam

4 and

efficient; beams

maximum just prior

crack collapse The failure observed

widths (Fig.

for A2.3). of Singh concrete

these

exceeded

mm

modes by the

the 32.

beams In occurred

were all of at

similar the

to beams In the

those

previously crushing 4 (Fig. zone failure to be a pure

substantial Beam C-2/O.

of A2.5) below there. bearing of by near

collapse. into an

flexural the In loading Beam

cracks point B-2/O. 4

penetrated to the the cause failure

compression crushing seem cine-film ings the were concrete

extensive mode would

type

failure tests have

at

supports, that such cracks In the into Beam loading two. It

although crushinto A-2/O. and is at greater bearing of 43 N/mm2 the 4,

records preceded zones cracking, points, mentioning and the cube were A2.1).

Singh's the the

showed of diagonal 32.

penetration bearing by beam collapse in the all

blocks crushings

diagonal support worth supports than

accompanied caused that the at points of

at

to

be the of

split bearing the the cube

pressures were

loading strength 52

beams

concrete; with

average strengths

pressures (Table

N/mm2

compared

t2.3.3

Ultimate

loads

The
computed ACI design

measured
loads

ultimate
and the

loads
measured

together
diagonal

with

the

cracking

15).

loads

are

shown

in different

Table to %2.2: load

(\2.2). the

The measured 5), had tho ons

results. ultimate would little

being loads

not in that the

significantly Singh's increased strengths. should ACI318-71 . however, bution the was of same thought be tests

(Table

Column

indicate effect on

repeated In pointed do in not the

history with that the Sect web of

ultimate it of

connection out cover computation D and of be not

ACI

load

computations, and 11.9.6 D., the

11.9.5

reinforcement the ACI load

types here, was

and contrito be

Co

types as that to

C web

reinforcement reinforcement. than

assumed This

type

A web reasonable by

approach any web

more covered

neglecting

reinforcement

%CI318-71.

A2.4

SUI The

%RY . three tests reported similar of the herein previous tests were
of

were tests would not

loading failure

specifically carried indicate affected

cycles. in of reinforced cracking steel the and deand main and which to loading. with plain

designed Nottingham. observations

substantial it should

to

supplement The results

out that by the

at the

previously
increase be mentioned follows in

recorded
the that number fatigue gradual bond the was previous inchored bars influence were on of failure

However,

concrete flection concrete. steel deformed have the Further mild steel 4

normally as progressive In reinforcement reinforcement substantial overall of both

increase occurs the steel

between tests,

and to used. bond,

present bearing These may have to deep two

blocks factors,

contributed

observed testing

lack reinforced

sensitivity concrete

repeated beams

reinforcement

would

be

valuable.

136.

REFERENCES

1.

KONG, beams University

F. K., with

and web

SHARP, openings.

G. R.

Reinforced presented

concrete at

deep Cambridge

Paper Colloquium,

Mechanics

8 November

1973"

2.

STEVENS, deep Ova beams. Arup

A.,

et

al.

(Draft) under 1975

Design CIRIA's (see also CP

guidance supervision, reference Part pp.

for

Prepared Partners,

and

9)" 1: 1972.

3.

BRITISH The

STANDARDS use 318.

INSTITUTION. of concrete. code 318-71. beams. pp. 78.

110:

structural COMMITTEE

London.

154. for American

4.

ACI

Building ACI . for deep 1971.

requirements Section Detroit, 11.9

reinforced Special Concrete 5. COMITE DE LA for the

concrete: provision Institute. LUltOPEEN

DU BETON CE-FIP

AND FEDEI ATION International of concrete

INTERNATIONALE recommendations structures. for the

PRECONTRAINT. design Appendix

and

and 3:

construction International
of deep 1970. deep beams.

80. pp.
design and 6.

recommendations
beans. pp. 17-24. London, Cement London,

construction tssociation,

Cement

Concrete

%NON.

Bibliography

on

and

Concrete No. . Ch.

8ssociation, 71. G. E. of deep Review beams.

1969.

8. pp.

Library

Bibliography

ALRITTON. analysis 'daterways

Technical

of

literature

pertaining U. S. Army

to Engineer pp-80

the

Vicksburg, November

Experiment
Report No.

Station,
1-701.

1965.

137.

8.

PORTLAND ST66:

CEMENT of

%SSOCIATION. deep girders. The London,

Concrete Chicago design

Information 1946.

design ARUP

9.

OVE

and

P%RTNERS.

of

deep

beams Industry

in

reinforced Research pp 10. 131.

concrete. and CIRIA D. F. M. Sc. Information Guide Behaviour thesis, 2.

Construction January

Association,

1977,

COLE, beams. 325 pp.

of

deep

reinforced of

concrete Nottingham, 1968.

University

11.

ROBINS,

P. J.

fleinforced and University Static and by the

concrete finite of repeated MPhil. pp. Theorie Int. Publications,

deep element

beams

studied

experimentally PhD. 12. SINGU, concrete Nottingham. 13. DISCNINGER, und and des thesis. %.

method. 1971.258 pp.

Nottingham, loads thesis, on

lightweight of

deep

beams. 1972F. 111

University

fleitragzur Balken. Engineers

der Assn.

Halbscheibe for Zurich, Bridge Vol. 1,

wandartigen

Structural

1932.
i4. COULL, The pp.

pp.
A.

69-93.
Stress Vol. analysis 22, No. of 5744. deep beams and 1966. walls.

Engineer. 310-312.

February

15-

SCI. L'LM RELLA. with at the reinforced University 1963.

C. %. vertical of

Effect

of edges.

holes

in

deep

beams Progress

Engineering Vol. l'7. ;: 0.12.

Florida.

December

1.

16.

SA%D, in deep

S.,

and beams.

HENDRY, The pp.

A. W. Structural 185-194.

Gravitational Engineer.

stresses Vol. 39"

No. 6. 17. ARCHER, in deep

June

1961. and

F. E.. beams. Vol. L. E.. 55,

KITCHEN,

E. M.

Stress and 1960.

distribution Public pp. G. Works 230-234. Stresses Society pp. of 686 -

Civil No. 643.

Engineering February

Review. 18. CHOU, in Civil 708.

19. SAVIN, Pergamon

CONi; %Y,

FI. D.,

and Paper

WINTER, American

deep

beams. Engineers.

Transactions Vol. 118.

2557.1953.

G. N. Press.

Stress 1961.

concentrations

around

holes.

20.1AVILLE, deep loading. 21. UtILAIANN. special The pp.

22. S& beam 'o1.1.

M. E.. beams

and

McCOtU1ICK, to central

F. J. and

Stresses thirdpoint pp. walls

in

subjected rroc. IL. L. .

%. S. T. bi.. . The to Engineer. theory

Vol-59.1959. of girder

1230-1236. with design. 1952.

references Structural

reinforced Vol. 30.

concrete August

172-181
D. S.. with No.

.
and a 6. }iENURY, central June A. W. concentrated 1961. pp. 192-198. Stresses load. in a deep Mech.,

Exp.

23.

: 11 MITE
International Concrete Institute

EL'ROPEEN

DU BETON.
of ed. ). and Practice

Recommendations
for Reinforced

for

an

Code (English and Cement

London. Concrete

American Association.

Concrete 1')64.

159,

24.

DE PAIVA, behaviour A. S. C. E.,

II. A. R., of Vol. F.. deep 91.

and beams No.

SIESS, in ST5.

C-1shear. October R.

Strength Proceedings

and

1965"pp"19-41. Trger Stahlebeton. Sohn (Berlin).

25.

LEONIWARDT. (Deep Bulletin CIRIA Beams).

and

WALTHER,

Wandartige fur I und

Deutscher

Ausschuss Ernst 1970. dynamic concrete of New

178.1966, Translation, R. A. ly Static reinforced University

%Jilholm January

26.

CRIST. of

and

shear deep Mexico,

behaviour beams. 1971"

uniform thesis,

Ph. D.

27.

KONG,

F. K..

: tOBINS, effects Concrete 12.

Y. J., on

and deep

COLE, beams.

D. F. Journal Proceedings

Web of

reinforcement the Vol. tmerican 67, !o.

Institute. 1970. pp.

December

1010-1017.

28.

KONG, effects Journal

F. A.. on of

and

ROBINS,

P. J. concrete Concrete

Web

reinforcement beams.

lightweight the Vol.

ROBINS, Deep Journal Proceedings

deep

American 68,

Institute. 1971"
D. F.,

Proceedings
29. KONG, SIIOrtT, forcement. Institute. pp. 172-176. F. K.. U. R.

No. 7.
P. J.,

July
KIRBY,

pp"514-520.
and web Concrete rein-

beams of

with the Vol.

inclined American 69, No.

March

1972.

30.

KONG. reinforced No. 3.

F. K.,

and concrete

ROBINS, deep pp.

F. J. beams.

Shear

strength

of Vol. 6,

Concrete.

March

1972.

3'*-36.

1 'I O

31.

KONG, ultimate Journal

F. K.,

and

SINGH, of

A.

Diagonal concrete

cracking deep

and beams.

loads of the Vol.

lightweight Concrete No. 8. A. beams

American 69, SINGH, deep in

Institute. 1972. strength to pp. 513-527" of repeated light-

Proceedings 32. KONG, weight loads. American Publication 33" KONG, Shear deep October 34. KONG, The current No. 4. 35" KONG, F. K.,

August Shear subjected concrete. 1974.

and

concrete Shear

reinforced Institute, Vol. 2. pp.

Detroit, ACI-ASCE Special

Concrete SP-42.

461-476. A., SHARP, G. R. concrete Vol-50, No. 10.

F. K. 9 ROBINS, analysis beams. 1972. F. K., and The

P. J., design

SING!!, of

and

reinforced Engineer.

Structural

pp. 405-409. ROBINS, P. J., and concrete Structural 173-180. G. R. concrete Shear deep strength beams of with SHARP, deep G. R. beams in Vol-53,

design

of practice.

reinforced The pp. SHARP,

Engineer.

April F. K.,

1975" and

lightweight

reinforced

web

openings. 1973.
F. K., load KUMAR.

The pp.
and of

Structural

Engineer.

Vol-5,

No. 8.

August
36. KONG, Collapse by P.

267-275.
KUBIK9 deep L. A. reinforced of Concrete Discussion concrete Research. of: beams

Magazine

Vol.
37.

29,

No. 98.
F. K.,

March
A.,

1977.
and in

pp.

42-43.
G. R. Anchorage concrete

KONG, of

SINGH, reinforcement

SHARP,

tension

lightweight

1111.

deep Dept., 38.

beams. Technical A.,

Cambridge Report KONG,

University (in F. K. draft University

Engineering

preparation). Reinforced design guide. Mechanics concrete Paper

STEVENS, deep beams

and and

CIRIA's

presented Colloquium, 39" DE PAIVA, of and reinforced dynamic

at

Cambridge 8 May 1975. Strength

H. A. R.

and deep

behaviour under

in static

shear

concrete loading.

beams thesis,

Ph. D.

University

of

Illinois,
40. UNTRAUER, of and Illinois, 41. LAUPA, Strengh Bulletin Illinois. 42. MAST. precast Engineering January
43. rIOFFET,

1961.
R. E. reinforced loading. 1961. A., in SIESS, shear C. P., of Eng. P. 59. of auxiliary reinforcement A. S. C. E. Beach, Structural in and NEWANARK, N. M. concrete Station, deep University beams. of Strength concrete and behaviour beams under in flexure

deep

static of

dynamic

Ph. D. thesis,

University

reinforced Expt.

No. 428. 1955. D. R. Design

concrete

connections. Miami

Conference, 1966.
D. R. Stresses

Florida,

and

strain

in

deep

beams

studied method.

experimentally B. Sc. (lions. )

and thesis,

by

the

finite-difference of

University

Nottingham,

1969.

Ti2

44.

BROCK, strength ACI PP.

G. of

Effect beams

of with

shear tensile

on

the

ultimate

reinforcement. January 1960.

Journal. 619-637. G. and

Proceedings

Vol-56.

45.

BROCK, failure Journal. 1964.

Discussion its solution

of: by Vol.

The

riddle KANI.

of

shear ACI

N. J.

Proceedings Pp. 1587-1590. V., and

61,

No. 12.

December

46.

RAMAKRISIINAN, Ultimate ACI 1968. Journal. pp. 87-98. shear

AN ANATHANARAYANA, of deep Vo1.65. beqms in

Y. shear. February

strength Proceedings

No. 2.

47.

SHEAR forced

STUDY

GROUP.

The

shear Institution

strength of

of

rein-

concrete London.

beams. January

Structural pp.

Engineers, 48. ACI

1969.170 on concrete Institute, DEPT. Notes

COMMITTEE

318. for

Commentary reinforced Concrete

building

code

requirements Detroit, 49. PCA

(AC1318-71). 1971. on AC1318-71..

American ENGINEERING Portland H., and 1946. of P. J., applied Engineering 1973. pp. Ove and to

SERVICES Cement HOLST,

Chicago, 50. NYLANDER. deep beams

Association, H. Royal Reinforced Technical English Partners, Modified concrete Works

1972.

and

concrete University, translation London). finite deep Review, element beams. Vol. 68

slabs. (In Arup KONG,

Stockholm, by 51. courtesy

Swedish; and F. K.

ROBINS, method Civil November

reinforced and 963. Public

1'3"

52.

ACI ACI 1970-

COMMITTEE Journal. pp"857-867. Lightweight of Telford Lightweight the

408.

Opportunities Vol. 67,

in

bond

research. November

Proceedings

No. 11.

53.

ANON. Magazine Thomas

concrete. Institution Ltd., June concrete. Publications of 1974.

News Civil

article. Engineers.

NCE,

54.

ANON.

Construction Ltd.,

News 6th. May

Supplement. 1976. 55. ACI BOARD

Northwood

COMMITTEE.

Concrete

Year

2000.

ACI pp.
56.

Journal. 581-589.
The general

Proceedings

Vol.

68,

No. 8.

August

1971.

ANON. Lytag 8 pp.

all-round information

lightweight brochure.

aggregate. September 1967-

57.

TEYCHENNE. lightweight April 1967.

D. C.

Structural

concrete Concrete.

made Vol. 1,

with No. 4

aggregates. pp. 111-122. Tensile structural Proceedings

and EVANS,

58.

HANSON, resistance ACI

J. A. of

strength

and

diagonal concrete. July 1961.

and 1975.229

tensile

lightweight Vol-58.
R. H.

Journal.
F. K.,

pp.
pre-

1-37.

59.

KONG, stressed

Reinforced London,

concrete.

Nelson,

pp.

60.

NANI, ACI J

G. N. J. ournal.

How

safe

are

our Vol.

large 65.

concrete rlarch,

beams? 124-141.

Proceedings

1967"pp.

I 44.

61.

TAYLOR, A. S. C. E.,

H. P. J. Vol. C. J. concrete of I F. K., 98,

Strength ST11. An

of

large

beams. 1972. of M. A. the

Proceedings pp. 2473-2490" behaviour of

November

62.

BEAUMONT, reinforced University

investigation deep beams. 1975" G. R.

thesis,

Cambridge, SHARP, with web Vol. FEREIG, on

63.

KONG, for

and

Structural

idealization Magazine of pp. 81-91.

deep

beams Research. K. N.

openings. 29s No. 99. Effect shear Shear Institute,

Concrete 64. SMITH, supporting beams. concrete. 65. ACI

June of

1977.

and

S. M. the SP42:

loading of reinforced 1974, of pp. high

and deep

conditions ACI Publication American 439.

strength in

Concrete Uses and

441-460.

COMMITTEE steel Vol. 72,

limitations ACI 1973" Journal. pp"70-104.

strength ings 66.

reinforcement. No. 2. and February HENRY R. L.

Proceed-

UNTRAUER,

R. E.

Influence

of

normal

pressure ings
67. ANON. News Civil (a

on bond 62,

strength. May 1965.

-

ACI pp.

Journal. 577-586.
of failure

Proceed-

Vol.

No. 5.
fatigue NCE,

Concrete article. Engineers.

evidence of Telford the

revealed. of August 1977.

Magazine Thomas

Institution Ltd., 25

paper

for

ICE

is

in

preparation).

1It5.

Cracked

"'

Uncracked

CONCRETE STRAIN
y

Cracked

`.

Uncracked

STEEL STRAIN

FIG.

1.1

EFFECT STEEL

OF

INCLINED

CRACKING STRAINS

ON

AND CONCRETE

146.

-1

0.15 D to 0.20D

&Main steel

:::::::::::::::: O2
Web steel

FIG.

1.2

LEONH)RDT

LND WALTh ER:

REINFORCEHENT ARR aNGEMENT

1-: 7.

r'--I

FIG.

1 .3

MEANINGS

OF

SYMBOLS

X48.

Z
1

.-

'v cl
O
r

a) N O

100

200

300 loads

400

Computed

ultimate

600 W2 (k N) : E%n. (1.9) 500

700

FIG.

1.4

COMPARISON

OF COMPUTED LOADS ULTIMATE

AND MEASURED

149.

In N QJ t0 C1

E E

E E U, N

FIG.

1.5

NOTTINGHAM (Further 31) to

TESTS: details

DETAILS are given

OF WEB REINFO; in references

tCi11ENT 27

150.

0-25D -0-05L .-L . -r

2.1(a)

General

layout

Zone in which additional vertical reinforcement is needed A=0.2Dor0.2L A whichever is smaller

Zone in which additional horizontal reinforcement is needed Zone of principal normal reinforcement 0.3D or 0.3L whichever is smaller
2.1(b) Detail at support

I-T0.5D or 0.5L
whichever is smaller

FIG.

2.1

REINFORCEMENT

PATTERN:

CEB-FIP

RECOMMEND XTIONS

3300kN

3300kN COLUMN

151

11
COLUMN BC

WALL A

EFFECTIVE

HT.

4800mm

SUPPORT LENGTH 600 mm

2.2(a)

l ag

5400mm
arrangement

General

4500kN

4500kN

16,, OOmm

NORMAL WT. CONCRETE fc = 22.5 N/mm2 fcu= 30 N/mm2

ft= fy= 3NI mm2 410N/mm2

D= 4800mm

L= 6000mm
2.2(b) Structural deep beam element

FIG.

2.2

DEEP

BEM's

IN

DESIGN

EXAMPLES

20mm DIA. BARS AT 75 CTS. EACH FACE

20mm DIA. BARS AT 150 CTS. EACH FACE

20mm DIA. STIRRUPS AT 150 CTS.

20mm DIA. STIRRUP AT 150 CTS.

REQUIRED BEAM WIDTH = 875 mm

24 NO. 25mm DIA. MAIN BARS (IN THREES)

FIG.

2.3

BEAM

DESIGNED

TO

CEB-FIP

RECOMENDATIONS

16mm DIA. BARS AT 150 CTS.

16mm DIA. BARS AT 150 CTS.

WIDTH = 525 mm
FIG. 2.4 BEAM DESIGNED

BARS (3+5 PAIRS)

TO

ACI

BUILDING

CODE

153.

06
Iy 0.5 \1/2O LOAD AT BOTTOM

0-4-0
w Zj 0.2

0.3

c=
1o 1/s _ho

L0TOPAT 01-0'

'"1yt

0.2
DESIGN

0.4 8
CHART

0.6

0.8

1.0

FIG.

2.5

PCA's

IJ

1V V.

yV111111

LJIM.

IJP

1%J

WIDTH =1050 mm
FIG. BEAM DESIGNED

(3+5 PAIRS)

2.6

TO PC

DESIGN

GUIDE

(A)

LYTAG

BATCH

No. 1

MEDIUM
B. S. Sieve

GRADE
Cumulative Size % retained

FINE

GRADE Cumulative

B. S. Sieve 3/16 7

Size

; retained 0 15.4

0
11.8

3/16 7
Pan Fineness modulus

97.4 98.3
100.0 6.075 =

14 25 52

34.7 48.4 55.8

100
Pan
Fineness modulus

63.2
100.0
2.175

(B)

LYTAG

BATCH

No. 2 Cumulative % retained FINE

B. S. Sieve

MEDIUM

GRADE

GRADE
Cumulative Size a, retained ,o

B. S. Sieve

Size

0
10.0

3/16
7 14 25 52 100
Pan

0
27.8 47.4 51.3 55.2 59.9
100.0

3/16 7
Fan Fineness modulus

96.0 98.0
100.0 6.030 =

Fineness

modulus

= 2.696

TABLE

3.1

SIEVE

ANALYSIS

OF LYTAG

AGGREGATES.

.'>.

COARSE

GRADE

FINE Cumulative

GRADE Cumulative

B. S. Sieve

Size % retained

D. S. Sieve

Size % retained

3/16 7
14

4.1 19.3
32.1

I
3/16
7
Pan

48.0 97.6 99.6

25 52 100

49.3 89.2 99.6

100.0

100.0

Fineness

modulus

6.452 =

Pan

Fineness

modulus

= 2.936

TABLE

3.2

SIEVE

ANALYSIS

OF HOVE

INGHi

GRAVEL

AGGREGATES.

/ t

ULTIMATE BAR DIAMETER YIELD STRESS TENSILE STRESS

mm

N/mm2

N/mm2

425

614

441

643

10

452

634

20

432

602

TABLE

3.3

TENSILE

PROPERTIES

OF REINFORCEMENTS.

157.

200

0 J

150

100

Sc

0
01. Extension

90 0 J0

20

10

0.1

02

0.3

0.4

0.6 05

0.7

0.8

0.9 "/.

0 Extension

FIG.

3.1

LOAD

v.

i XTi;

NSION

DIS\GR kNS

FOR REINFORCEMENT

158.

ed I

otor
Load beam

gating

Test

irary
rt

jig

Travell i beam

Winch

J4

FIG.

3.2

TUE

LOWING

&1PA: ZATUS: .

GLNER %L %RRANGEMENT

159.

Test

Specimen

Dial

Gauge

a0 III
Bearing Block

Steel Bracket

Anchor

Block

Reaction Assembly

FIG-3.3

TIIE

LOADING

APP aR. TUS : .

DETAIL

AT TILE

SUPPORTS

Beam

"

Web

++ ++

XX

Web

11

Ref.

No.

opening R ef. No .

Steel i

cu Nimm 2

fc

xx

ft""

N/mm

N/mm2

M-0.4/0 rs-o. 4/1 M-0.4/2 M-o. 4/3

ri-o. 4/4
M-0.4/5 . i-o. 4/6 ri-o. 4/8 r1-o. 4/9

2 2 2 2

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0 1 2 3

0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48

39.6 39.5 38.9 41.5 40.9 33.2 35.3 35.8

2
2 2 2 2

0.4
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

4
5 6 8 '9

31.6 26.5 30.1 32.5 31.3 32.4 30.4 29.2

0.48
0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48

2.84 2.90 2.50 2.18

36.4

29.3

2.16
2.30 2.84 2.74 2.60

ri-o. 4/10
rs-o. 4/11 ri-o. 4/12 M-0.4/13
0-0.4/0 0-0.4/2

2
2 2 2
2 2

0.4
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.4 0.4

10
11 12 13
0 2

0.48
0.48 0.48 0.48
0 0

35.8
38.7 38.1 38.7
37.1 38.1

34.0
33.8 32.0 33.8
32.6 32.4

2.78
2.62 2.60 2.62
2.50 2.45

0-0.4/4 0-0.4/5 0-0.4/6 0-0.4/7

0-0.25/2

2 2 2 2

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

4 5 6 7

0 0 0 0

39.8 39.3 39.9 38.0

32.2 32.7 34.7 31.0

2.72 2.28 2.63 2.46

0-0.25/0
0-0.25/4

2
2

0.25
0.25

0
2

0
0

38.4
42.6

34.0
36.4

2.68
2.80

0.25

37.5

34.1

2.80

0-0.25/5 0-0.25/6

2 2

0.25 0.25

5 6

0 0

41.4 41.8

35.8 37.2

2.83 2.58

A letter indicates M before hyphen the notation: 0 rectangular mesh web reinforcement, a letter whilst indicates is given the no web reinforcement; ratio x/D the hyphen, followed by the after reference web-opening Thus 0-0.4/2 to number. no web reinrefers a beam with forcement, having and a web opening an x/D ratio of 0.4 type 2.
%++ Details of web openings in Figs. 4.2 4.3

Beam

are

given

and

fcu

cube

strength

(100

mm).

xx xxfc

cylinder

compressive

strength

(300

mm x

150

mm).

ft

cylinder splitting in accordance with

tensile ASTM

strength Standard

(300 C330.

mm x

150

mm)

T. OLE

4.1

PROPERTIES OF TEST BEAMS (Pilot tests; lightweight

concrete).

Beam

Measured

w1 W0

st

Ref.

No.

W1

kN

M-o. 4/o
M-0.4/1 M-0.4/2 M-0.4/3 N-0.4/4 m-0.4/5 ri-o. 4/6 m-o. 4/8 M-o. 4/9 N-0.4/10
M-0.4/11 N-0.4/12 M-0.4/13

660
580 360 445 450 600 270 340 240 300
600 520 130

0.88 0.55 0.67 0.68 0.91 0.41 0.52 0.36 0.45

0.91 0.79 0.20

1.0

0-0.4/0
0-0.4/2 0-0.4/4 0-0.4/5 0-0.4/6 0-0.4/7
0-0.25/0

660
370 340 540 190 420
660

0.56 0.52 0.82 0.29 0.64

1.0

1.0

0-0.25/2 0-0.25/4 0-0.25/5

0-0.25/6

360 460 560

280

0.55 0.70 0.85

0.42

"

Beam

notation

as

in

Table

4.1

W1/W0 a of solid

is beam deep

ratio of with openings beam.

the

the to

measured that of

load ultimate the corresponding

TABLE

4.2

ME%SUIRED ULTIMATE LOADS (Pilot tests; lightweight

concrete)

162. x 300mm or 188 mm ' , 6mm DIA. 925 mm forxD=0.25 X/D= 700 mm for 0.40 100x100mm Bearing blocks

170mm
6mm DIA.

Square stirrups
D 750 6mm DIA. bars

20mm. DIA Bar

L 1500 mm

I-

NOTES: I. Reinforcement details of group 0 beams were as shown above.

2. details of group Reinforcement addition and as shown below: M beams include in

(i) A rectangular mesh of 6mm dia. bars at 100mm horizontal 140mm spacings vertical spacings and and (ii) A 6mm dia. rectangular loop to trim each opening.

FIG.

4.1

DIMENSIONS (Pilot tests;

AND REINFORCEMENT lightweight

DETAILS concrete)

163.

X 1

x/D 300mm for 0.4 x= = x/D 188 for 0.25 mm . = a1x

i

C) U, tn
0

a2 D I
kli k2 DI

..
i

REF NO. 0 1 2 3 4 5

SIZE a1 a2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 NO WEB 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

POSITION k, k2 OPENI NG 0.8 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.75 0.4 1.0 0.12

6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13

0.5 0.5
0.25 1.0 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.0

0.2 0.2
0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4

0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0 0.63 1.0 0.63 1.0

0.12 0.6
0.3 0.45 0.3 0.45 0.45 0.3

FIG.

492

OPENING

REFERENCE TO BEAMS IN

NUMBERS: 4.1 TABLE

:IPPLIC?

1BLE

FIG.

1&. 3e

164.
TYPICAL. - GROUP CRACK PATT M BEAM show the unitq, ; INS XT FAILURE

(The

circled numbers cracks were observed; the in 10 kN _losd,

the

in the which sequence figures other numerical show the the of et which extent

M-0.4/1

M-U 4/2

M-0 4/3

M-0.4/4

NI u 4i J

1'M1 u 4i b

M-0.4/8

M-0.4/9

M--(j 4/ iU

H_

1V"

FIG.

4.3b

TYPICAL GROUP -

CRACK PATTERNS 0 BEAMS sham the the*,

AT

FAILURE

(Tue circled numbers; craucks were observed; in the for d, 1

the in which sequence numerical figures o"tther show the the whic' of it extent

0-0-4/5

0-0.4/6

U-U-4/7

0-0.25/0

0-0.2512

0-0.25/4

ie6.

-1

'/2 f'////

.I
i'ij/

(1

FIG. I 7

4.4

TYPICAL

SEQUENCE APPEARED

IN

WHICH

THE

CRACKS

167.

(a) FAILURE MODE 1

'

(b) FAILURE MODE 2

-$ K

(c) FAILURE MODE 3

JI

FIG.

4.5

TYPICAL WITH

FAILURE MODES WEB OPENINGS

OF DEED

BE. \NS

168.

Z
a 0 J

00 -. z 500

64 00 0
J

0 300
2 00

00

M'

mm

"2s

peam

notation

as

in

Table

(4.1)

FIG.

4.6(a)

MAXIMUM

CRACK

WIDTHS

GROUP M BEANS

169.

. -. Z 0

(a) Group

beams

X/D 0.4 with =

600 500 Z 400 0 300

J

200 100 (b) Group 0 beams with X/ D=0.25

m

Beam

notation

as

in

Table(4.1)

FIG.

4.6(b)

MAXIMUM

CRACK

WIDTHS

GROUP 0 DEANS

170.

lOOkN
12

1/2

-1

200kN
6 1L4 1/4

3
3/4

400kN 22 8 5 3 46 10 24

After

Collapse (0kN)

The numbers give the width of each crack in units of 0.05mm.

FIG.

4.7

DEVELOPMENT

OF CRACKING

IN

BEAN

N-0.4/4

171.

$
100kN
14

14

16

-200 kN

10 2 26 2 15

al
300kN

After collapse (OkN)

The numbers give the width of each crack in unit of 0.05mm

FIG.

4.8

DEVELOPMENT

OF CRACKING

IN

BEAM

0-0.4/4

" 172-.

Z
v

00 00 4 00
00 00 00 0 \ v
mm

0
J

z Y
0

Beam

notation

as

in

Table

(4.1)

}IG.

.9

(a)

AVERAGE

CRACK

WIDTHS

GROUP M BE %MS

173.

Z
Q'

O
J

X/D 0.4 (a) Group 0 beams with =

60, 50 z . 401
0

0 J

30 20 10
(b) Group 0 beams with X/D 25 =0 .
m

Beam

notation

as

in

Table

(4.1)

FIG.

4.9(b)

AVERAGE

CRACK

WIDTHS

GROUP 0 BEAMS

174.

6
,5 z 0 3
J

600
500 z 400 300 J200
100

M 0413

0.4 mm

Beam

notation

as

in

Table

(4.1)

F'IG.

4.1O(a)

CENTRAL

DEFELECTIONS

GROUP M BEAMS

175.

14-

6 DO -. z
0

500 II 0r oo. u u
0

Y4 00

3 00
J

2 00
00

O. 4

mm

(a) Group 0 beams with X/D = 0.4

600 500 z
0

400

C)300 200
100

o'

0.4
mm

(b) Group 0 beams with x/0=0-25

Beam in Table (4.1)

notation

as

FIG.

4.1O(b)

CENTRAL

DEFLECTIONS

GROUP

0 BEANS

176.

-1

WW 22

r-P=2E1

0' -------#-r-

E 4

B'

i/i

k2D

k1 x

22

FIG.

4.11

LOAD-TRANSMISSION

PATHS

177.

QI . 14

Qult

-1

k2 D

Qult (=W2/2)

Qult

for equations (4.1) and (4.2) 1. Geometrical notation as shown above; all dimensions millimetres. 2. C, and C2 are empirical coefficients, being equal, respectively, to 1.35 and 300 N/mm? Notatation
a tt is the cylinder splitting tensile C 330. with A. STM. standard strength in accordance -

in

FIG.

4.12

EXPLANATION

OF

SYMBOLS

178.

Beam * Ref. No.

L D

x D

'. eb opening No. ief.

++ ++

Beb steel o >-

f cu N/mm2

fc

Oxx

**

ft N/ium2

N/mm2

O h ci

0-0.3/0 0-0.3/1 0-0.3/2 0-0-3/3 0-0.3/4

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

0 1 2 3 4

M 0 +) M

H +J M

39.0 40.4 41.3 41.7 40.8

37.0 35.6 36.9 35.5 34.7

2.69 2.61 3.06 2.69 2.69

0-0.3/5
0-0.3/6 0-0.3/7 0-0.3/8 0-0.3/9 0-0.3/10 0-0.3/11 0-0.3/12 0-0.3/13 0-0.3/14 0-0.3/15
0-0.3/16

1.5
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
1.5

0.3
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.3

5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12

39.2
0 r. b 33.4 43.7 33.0 45.0 36.0 30.8 36.7 41.3 33.2 35.2
43.4

35.0
33.3 39.2 31.8 38.1 33.6 33.3 33.1 37.8 30.2 33.6
37.6

2.74
2.89 3.04 2.61 2.80 2.85 2.78 3.11 2.92 2.76 2.92
3.07

E a .0 0 a 0 W 0 a 0

13 i4 15
16

0-0.2/0 0-0.2/4 0-0.2/13

0-0.2/16
s

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0 4 13 16

CD

39.6 42.0 38.5 40.4

on

37.4 39.6 39.5 38.9

next

2.93 3.19 2.85 2.76

page)

(continued
notation: web no reinforcement, of web presence Beare A letter 0 before a letter the the x/D

whilst reinforcement;

hyphen indicates 1; indicates the is ratio given

after Thus
Type a web

hyphen, followed the t1-0.3/4 to refers

W1 (see opening Fig. 3.1), 4. type

by web-opening web a beam with

having an x/D ratio

reference reinforcement
of 0.3

number.,
and

+The

four beams with a suffix (see loading Fig-5-3); point identical to Beam '41-0.3/4. X13-0.3/4 and so on.
four beams with a suffix

tested A were under Beam ZJ1(A) otherwise identical Beam W3(A)

4was to Beam

X XThe

were

repeat

tests;

viz.,

Beam 0-0.3/28 identical to

+, -+F x# xx

was Beam

identical 0-0.3/3

to and

Beam so on.

0-0.3/2,

Beam

0-0.3/38

99 TABLE 5.1 PROP

(Further

see RTIr'

continuation S OF TLST
tests;

next BEAMS

page.

lightweight

concrete)

i(9.

xx

Beam s
Ref. No.

Web

++ No.

Web

71 fcu
+) N/mm2

opening
Ref.

fc

xx

ss

ft
2 N/mm2

steel
N/mm 4 i C-U

x x O-0.3/2R 1.5 0.3 2 34.2 32.1 2.84

0-0.3/3R 0-0.3/4R

1.5 1.5

0.3 0.3

3 4

40.7 45.0

35.9 35.3

2.54 3.03

0-0.3/5R W1-0.3/4 W2-0.3/4 W3-0.3/4 A-0.3/4 W5-0.3/4 w6-o. 3/4 117-0.3/4

W1 (A)+

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2
2

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4

5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 1 W2 w3 w4 115 w6 a7 111 113 4 W7 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.24

1.11

37.3 39.5 40.5 40.9 39.1 36.8 37.8 37.4 34.5 34.3 35.2 37.7 30.6
35.1 31.6

31.7 34.2 34.6 33.7 33.3 35.3 31.9 33.0 31.8 33.6 32.5 31.9 26.4
26.1 26.1

3.03 2.93 2.96 2.87 2.89 2.93 2.91 3.03 2.82 3.04 2.89 3.04 3.03
3.16 3.16 v

1.25 1.13 1.19 1.19 1.24 1.13

W3 (A) 114 (A( 117 (A)

wii-o.

WMi-0.4/18
4/18

::rri-0 . 4/0

0.4
0.4

18
18

1.13 1Yfi1

'171 1.13

VIM 1 13 .

+xx

,9 ++ ++

see

previous

page.

Details

of

web

openings

are

given

in

Figs-5.2

and

5.4

P(fcu

= cube

strength

(100

mm)

XXfc

= cylinder

compressive

strength

(300

mm x

150

mm)

ft

cylinder splitting in accordance -

with

tensile ASTM

strength C330.

(300

mm x

150

mm)

TABLE

5.1

PROPERTIES

OF TEST

BEAMS

(Continued).

Beam No.

Ref.

Measured W1 kN

Beam

Ref.

Measured W1 kN

No.

0-0.3/0 0-0.3/1
0-0.3/2

595 460
390

0-0.3/2R 0-0.3/3R

260 400

0-0.3/3 0-0.3/4
0-0.3/5 0-0.3/6 0-0.3/7

280 260
200 250 420

0-o. 3/4R 0-0.3/58

111-013/4

215 330
400

1;2-0-3/4
0-0.3/8
0-0.3/9 0-0.3/10

490
560 660 370 825 630 475
500

380
280 210

113-0.3/4 w4-0.3/4 ,r5-0.3/4 w6-o. 3/4 W7-0.3/4 wl(A)

+W3(A)

0-0.3/11 0-0.3/12
0-0.3/13 0-0.3/15 0-0.3i16 0-0.2/0 0-0.2/4 0-0.2/13
0-0.2/16

360

560
300

A(A)

650

0-0.3/14

560
260 195 655 360 500
340

W7(A)
0 lal-0.4/ 10,1-0. 4/18 irrt'-o . 4/18

670
660 500 500

*Beam

notation

as

in

Table

5.1

TABLE

5.2

MEASURED (Further

ULTIMATE LOADS lightweight tests;

concrete).

181.

l
6 mm
D Beam tAlckneac

1
Dia
For

Beam *10.2 s O. 3 -6 it 0.4 ""

Geometry LDxb 750 750 1125 750 1524 762

(mm) 150 00

225 100 304 76

j_.
1 16
TYPE W1 QQ TYPE W4 ED 0

H i 20 mm Dia
L

nu h
--T-100X100 mm.

bearing

blocks

i s

TYPE

TYPE

W2

W3

13

[]

TYPE W5

TYPE we QQ

TYPE

W7

QO
NOTES: (1) Reinforcement

TYPE WM

lw D

TYPE WM'

C,

details

of Tyre

Group

Learns

(no

web

reinforcement) 10 mm diameter

as
(2) Web

shown

in

top

diagrau
steel ratio

above.
W; : to W7 1.2S) consisted of

reinforcement. (web stirrups

(3)

weh reinforcement (web stirrups

Tyres steel ratio

WH and ti? t - 1.13%)

consisted

of

6 mm diamuter

FIG-5.1

AND DIMENSIONS (Further tests

REINFORCEMENT in lightweight

DETAILS concrete)

182.

btx tx=150 mm =225mm =304mm ai- x

750m

for x/D =02 for X/D = 0.3 for x/D = 0.4

D
kx

a2 D

k2D

REF No. 0

SIZE al

a2 NO OPENING

POSITION ki k2

1
2 .3 4 5

0.30
0.50 0.70 1.00 1.20

0.20
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.40
0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

6
7 8

1.50 0.20
0.30 0.50 0.20 0.20

1.00
0.30 0.50

0.40
0.40 0.40

9 10
11 12

0.70

0.20

0.70 1.30

0.40 0.40

1.30 0.20
0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

1.00 0.666 0.30 1.00 0.30 0.65 0.622 0.666 0.134 0.134 0.40 0.375
TO

13
14 15

1.00 0.20

1.00 0.666

16
17 18
FIG. 5.2

1.00
0.30 0.25

0.20
0.20 0.25

1.00 0.134

OPENING REFERE14CE NUMBERS: APPLICABLE LIGHTWEIGHT BE. * IS IN TABLE 5.1 AND NO. UL L WEIGHT 6.1 BEAMS IN TABLE

183.

Five at 225 mm

1125mm

750mm

i ,o

0i

FIG-5.3

FOUR

POINT

LOADING

W1(A), w3(A),

w4(A) and W7(A)

FOR

BEANS

, r ._ :.

0-0310

0-03/1

0-0-3/2

Ll

0-0-3/3

0-0 3/4

0-0-3/5

0-0.3/6

0-03/7

0-0.3/6

0-0.3/9
FIG. 5.4n

0-u-3/1U
TYPICAL CRACK ROUP r. 0 t' 1T'I',. RN .) AT FAILURK (First twelve)

0-0.3/11

(The

the circled numbers in which show the sequence erac>; the were observed; load figures other numerical the show in 10 kN units, the at which extent the were of cracks ; earn notation . mirked. Table as in 5.1)

Z '4

0-0.3/12

0-0.3/13

0-0.3/14

0-0.3/15

0-0.3/16

0-0.2/0

0-0.2/4

0-0.2/13

0-0.2/16

FIG.

5 . 4b

CRACK TYPICAL (The remaining

PATTERNS AT FAILURE Group 0 beams)

the sequence the other 10 kN units, were as j. 1) in which

(The

numbers show the observed; were load in the figures show the the extent cracks of `seam notation in Table as circled cracks

numerical at which marked.

1i

W1-0.3/4

W2-0.3/4

W3-0.3/4

\& 4-03/4

W5-0.3/4

W6-03/4

W7-0.3/4

W1 (A)

W3 (A)
FI(. 5 . 'tc

W4(A)
TYiIC. L CRACK 1 -iTT. GROUP BEMIS W show other the .; ir I: tILUiiE

W7 (A)

(The

circled numbers the ,.,, er(, observed;

in sequence figures numerical

the cracks which load the show

rere .

L%, -

0-0-3/2R

0-0-3/3R

0-0.3/4R

0-0.3/5R

Beam (The circled cracks were load, in 10 were

notation

as

in the

Table

5.1

cracks

numbers show the observed; kN units, it as marke(I)

in the which sequence figures the show other tho the extent of ihi. cli :

FIrs.

3.4d

TYPICAL

CRACK (continued

1 1TT-, i(N.; )

AT

F. \ILUilE

188.

51
6 6 60 6 40

N -i
\\ 1

/166 Q b1 `O1 3O1

`0 t

30

\\.
Ob 80 p t,

to 40 to

I BEAIM WINo. It/o-

y 44

44

50

54

+a so "

2e @t8 a

44

48 Ov9, 40 la
OOOa i 48

So

26 22 30 O

42 24 It 34 +a 22 fat
to

34

BEAN WN-0.4/18

ss se
36

Oso 4

se ' 30 Ky`
22' e so

co 36 22 30 2f !4 ` yo O 40 O .9O 44 20 J`. \ 20 '- so

20 O `$ 22 )0 r4 3O

44

BEAM WM -

0.4/18

FIG-5.4e

TYPICAL

CRACK (continued)

PATTERNS

AT

FAILURE

189.

600 Z 500
Y

-400 300 200

IZF E
0

0' 3 p 0 0"0' a p'3 3 (5

p-0 p-0'

5R 6 mm

100

(a) No web

steel ; x/D=O. 3; openings

0-6

600Z 0 O J

500400 300
200

Vll 0 .o

0 03 0' 311 ' .

mm

0- '3

100
(b) No Web steel; X%D 7-73 openings =0.3;

0.3

0 0 J

(c) No web steel; x/0 = 0.3 or 0-2; opening 0,4,13-16

Beam notation as in Table (5.1)

FIG.

5.5

MAXIMUM

CRACK

WIDTHS

190,

70 60 0o 150 z 40 030 0 20 10
(d) Web steel as in fig5.1; x/D=0.3; opening No. 4
0.3 mm

3l

4 31 w5_

600 Z 500 400 %" 300 200

100
(e) Web steel as

0.3
mm

in fig 5.1; 4pt. loading;

opening

No. 4

Z 4

O
J

0 Q

(f) Type WM web steel ; X/D =0 .4; opening

NO.18

FIG-5-5

MAXIMUM

CRACK

iiIDTH3

(continued)

191.

60( 50(1 40( 30( 201 10(

O. O4 mm

(a) No web steel-, x/0 - 0.3; opening 0-6

600500. 40 300
200 100 mm

-'

0/1

.1mI

(b) No web steel; X/D -0 .3; opening 7 -13

600500400 30020 10
mm

Po o

. ry

04

(a) No web steel ; X/ D=0 .3 or 0 .2; openings 0,4,13 -16

Beam notation as in Table 5.1

FIG.

5.6

CENTRAL

DEFLECTIONS

192.

Z Y v

01
Q

O
J

(d) Web

0-3. Fig 5.1; in opening x/D steel as =

No. 4.

Z Y v

0
Q

O
J

(e)Web steel as in Fig 5.1; 4pt

loading;

opening

No. 4.

60 Z 500 Y. 400 o300J

200100.0.4 mm

(f) Type WM web steel;

18 No. 0 x/ =0.4; opening

FIG-5.6

CENTRAL

DEFLECTIONS

(continued)

193.

500
"

-sr -

-']

a1

-,
ai varies from

- 400
0

zero to 1.5
J

300

20011

12345g 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5

Opening
ref nos.

al
(a) increased breadth Opening (For to breadth x, equal towards a1 W 1) support

X
i %7r

50 0
Z

40
0 J

0 30 0

k1 varies from zero to 1.3

201
7894 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 kj

I
10 1.1 1.3
Opening point increased breadth (For breadth equal

Opening ref nos.

(b)

towards kl to x,

loading = i)

FIG.

5.7

ULTIP1ATL

STRENGTHS

OF DEEP

BEANS

WITH

WEB OPENINGS

194.

FIG.

5.8

i3I APi 46. o. 3/4

, FTI t FAILUW

195.

/1--

1Q"1

rIG.

5.9

t3;: \ii

7".

0.3/4

F`1..... it 1ILUIZL

196.

NIG. 5.10

BEAN

W5-0.3/4

AFTER

FAILURE

I.

++

Beam
Ref.

s No.

xx

is

L
D

x
D

Web
opening

Web No. Ty p e %

fcu N/mm2

fcxx N/mm2

ft N/mm2

lef.

N0-0.3/0 N0-0.3/4 NW1-0.3/4 NW2-0.3/4 N113-0.3/4

NW4-0.3/4

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

1.5

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

0.3

0 4 4 4 4
4

0 0 Ill W2 W3
w4

0 0 1.19 1.19 1.19

1.24 1.11

50.4 57.9 51.7 51.1 60.0

45.3 50.9

44.8 43.7 36.8 43.4 46.2

39.5 43.5

3.71 4.09 3.94 3.43 3.80

NW5-0.3/4 NW6-o. 3/4 NW7-0.3/4 NW+T6A-0.3/0

NW6A-o. 3/1

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

1.5

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

0.3

4 4 4 0
1

W5 w6 'W7 . w6A
W6A

3. 'i4 4.03

1.25 1.13 0.65

0.57

56.9 53.1 55.2

50.2

42.7 42.9 40.8

39.4

4.00 3.74 3.58

3.41

Nw6A-0.3/4 Nw6A-0.3/17 N116. A-0.3/7 NW6AA-0.3/11 N W6, A-0.3/15

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

4 17 7 11 15

IT6A w61 W6A W6: A w6A

0.47 0.49 0.49 0.58 o. 61

52.7 54.2 55.0 51.2 56.2

41.2 40.7 40.7 41.7 40.7

3.74 3.60 3.72 3.79 3.92

Beam The letter N signifies notation: normal weight concrete; 0 before the hyphen indicates a letter no web reinforcement W indicates the whilst a letter presence of web reinforcement; the is the hyphen, followed by x/D the ratio given after webThus N'W1-0.3/4 opening to reference number. refers a beam of Type W1 (see normal weight concrete with web reinforcement 6.1 ), Fig. having 4. 0.3 type an x/D ratio a web of and opening

++ ++ Details

of

web

openings

are

given

in

Figs-5.2

and

6.2

f= Cu
xx XX

cube

strength

(100

mm)

fc
s"

= cylinder

compressive

strength

(300

mm x

150

mm)

ft

cylinder splitting in accordance with

tensile [IS 1881

strength

(300

150nm)

TABLE

6.1

PROPERTIES

OF THE

NORMAL

WEIGHT

CONCRETE TEST BEAMS.

l,

C)

Beam No.

Ref. "

Measured

Ult.

load

W1 kN

N0-0.3/0

680

No-0.3/4 NW1-0.3/4
NW2-0.3/4
NW3-0.3/4

240 420
580
620

NW4-0.3/4 N115-0.3/4 NW6-o. 3/4 NW7-0.3/4 NW6A-0.3/0 Nw6A-0.3/1

Ntit6 A-0.3/4

780 370 1o6o 720 1215 1015

620

Nw6A-0.3/17 NW6A-o. 3/7

NW6A-0.3/11

840 930
880

Nw6 A-0.3/15

820

Beam

notation

as

in

Table

6.1

TABLE

6.2

MEASURED NORM'1L

ULTIM \TE LOADS BE. ANS. WEIGHT

OF THE

L)9.

Beam No.

Ref.

Normal

weight +

Lightweight ++ concrete++

Beam '" No.

Ref.

concrete+

NW6-0.3/4
NQ-0-3/4

1.56
1-15

1.39
1.11

16-0.3/4
114-0.3/4

N`tiT7-o. 3/4 N0-0.3/0 NW3-0.3/4

N12-0.3/4

1.06 1.00 0.91

0.85

1.06 1.00 0.94

0.82

W7-0.3/4 0-0.3/0 W3-0.3/4

112-0.3/4

NR1-0.3/4 NW5-0.3/4 N0-0.3/4 NW6A-0.3/0 W: -0.3,1 Y 76A-0-3/4

NW6A-0.3/17

0.62 0.54 0.35 1.79 1.49 0.91

1.24

0.67 0.62 0.36

W1-0.3/4 W5-0.3/4 0-0.3/4

WA-0-3/7
NI,T6.A-0.3/11 NW6 A-0.3/15

1.37
1.29 1.21

Beam

notation

as

in

Table

6.1

Deam

notation

as

in

Table

5.1

+ Measured

ultimate

loads

= ult.

load

of

Beam

NO-0.3/O

++ Measured

ultimate

loads

ult.

load

of

Beam

0-0.3/0

TU3LE

6.3

COMPARISON OF THE ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF NORMAL WEIGHT AND LIGHTWEIGHT TEST SI, ECIMENS.

200.

h-'7 f mrn_-

D 750mrn

6 mmdi a Beam thickness b 100mm H

u

1 1 .1
TYPE W1 OD

4-4

20 mm dia L 1125 mm

100000 Bearing blocks

TYPE W2

-=-DD

TYPE W3

Cl

TYPE
W4,

TYPE W5

C1,

TYPE W6

TYPE W7

J1111 00 1= 4:
NOTES: (1")

Hill Hill

TYPE W6A

TYPE
W6A

II

Reinforcement in as shown

details of Group tot, diagram above Type steel ratio W1 to

0 beams

(no

web

reinforcement)

(2)

Web reinforcement (web stirrups

W7 consisted 1.13%)

of

10 mn, dinmeter

(j)

Web reinforcement Type W6% consisted stirrups of 6 mm diameter 125 mm horizontal in beam at Reinforcement shown spacing. (enm M6. beam with without openings and typical -0.3/0) (cnm openings 5i6A-0.3/15)

FIG.

6.1

DIMENSIONS AND REINFORCEMENT DETAILS OF THE NORMAL WEIGHT CONCRETE BEAMS

___.

1 11 z

N0-0.3/0

N0-0314

NW1-0 314

NW2-0.3/4

NW3-0.3/4

NW4-0-3/4

.4

NW 5-0.3/4

NW6-0-3/4

NW 7-0.3/4

FIG.

6.2a

CRACK PATTERNS AT FAILU 2E OF THE' (First NO1tMAL WEIGHT BEAMS nine)

circled cracks in sequence which other numerical kN units, at which as marked.

(The

the numbers show the the observed; were figures the load, in 10 show the the extent of cracks were

Beam

notation

as

in

Table

6.1)

10

64-

*Q

Z6+ 00
64

NW6A-0.3/0

NW6A-0-3/4

NW6A-0-3/1

NW6A-0.3/17

NW6A-0.3/7

NW6A-0.3/11

NW6A-0.3/15
not

FIG.

6.2b

CRACK
NO, &IAL

PATTERNS
WEIGHT

AT FAILURE
BE. VIS ('The

OF TIIG
remaining beams)

(The in which numbers show the circled sequence the the cracks observed; were other numerical figures load, in 10 kN units, show the at which the extent of the cracks were as marked. Beam notation 6.1) as in Table

203.

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200

J

2,

I, 0
Lio

%1%.

(', /1. -711Z1 --

5 p

N"

0.3 m No 4.

100 n
1200 1100 1000 900 800

(a) Web steel as in Fig 6.1;x/D= 0.3; opening

"Ali

700 600 500 0 300 200 100 0 (b) Web steel Type W6A(Fig 6.1);x/D=0.3; opening varies
Beam notation as in Table 6.1

'

400

0.3

FIG

6.3

MAXIMUM

CR %CK WIDTHS

204.

1000 900 800

700 600 500 0 400
"41m v h

300 200 100 0

(a) Web steel as in Fig 6.1; x/D=0.3; opening No. 4 1200 1100 1000 9 00 800 700 2600 - 500 0 <400 300 200 100 0 (a) Web steel Type W6A(Fig 6.1);x/D=0.3; opening varies
Beam in Table 6.1 I

notation

as

FIG.

.4

CENTR \L

DEFLECTIONS

Beam Ref. No.

Ultimate Measured W1 kN

Loads Computed W2 kN

11
`_ 2

M-o. 4/0 M-o. 4/1 M-0.4/2 M-o. 4/3 M-0.4/4

660 580 360 445 450

+695 590 406 231 270 + +6oo 102 193 268 241 + +657 +653 163
+590

0.95 0.98 0.88 1.93 1.66

1

M-o. 4/5
M-o. 4/6 M-o. 4/8 M-o. 4/9 M-0.4/1o M-0.4/11 M-0.4/12 M-0.4/13
0-0.4/0

600
270 340 240 300 600 520 130
660

1.00
2.64 1.76 0.89 1.25 0.91 0.80 0.79
1.12

0-0.4/2 0-0.4/4 0-0.4/5 0-0.4/6 0-0.4/7

370 340 540 190 420

352 277 + +550 74 423

1.05 1.22 0.98 2.56 0.99

0-0.25/0

660
360 460 560
280

$662
441 337 $689
125
Continued next

1.00
0.81 1.36 0.81
2.23
page

0-0.25/2
0-0.25/4 0-0.25/5
0-0.25/6

Beam

notation (7.1)

as

in

Table for

4.1 these beams; Egn. (7.2)used for others.

+Equation

used

TABLE

7.1

MEASURED

AND

COMPUTED

ULTIM%TE

LOADS

Beam Ref. No.

Ultimate Measured x, 11 kN

Loads Computed W2 kN

w1 if 2

0-0.3/0 0-0.3/1
0-0.3/2

595 460
390

+651 +637
295

0.91 0.72
1.32

0-0.3/3 0-0.3/4
0-0.3/5

280 260
200

275 275
278

1.02 0.95
0.72

0-0.3/6 0-0,3/7 0-0.3/8 0-0.3/9

0-0.3/10

250 420 380 280

210

287 396 341 325

243

0.87 1.06 1.11 o. 86

0.86

0-0.3/11 0-0.3/12 0-0.3/13 0-0.3/14 0-0.3/15 0-0.3/16

0-0.2/0

360 560 300 560 260 195

655

467 + +707 483 + +664 183 48

+720

0.77 0.79 0.62 0.84 1.42 4.00

0.90

0-0.2/4 0-0.2/13 0-0.2/16

360 500 340

356 507 92
Continued next

1.01 0.99 3.70

page

s t

Beam

Notation
(7.1)

as

in

Table
for

(5.1)
these beams; (7.2) the others

+Equation

used

equations for used

TABLE

7.1

Continued.

k)7" .

Beam Ref. No. "

Ultimate
Measured

Loads
Computed

Wi W 2

W1 kN

W2 k

0-0.3/2R 0-0.3/3R 0-0.3/48 0-0.3/5 WI-0-3/4 W2-0.3/4 W3-0.3/4 w4-o. 3/4 W5-0.3/4 6-0.3/4
W7-0.3/4

260 400 215 330 400 490 560 660 370 825
630

284 266 294 295 "' "" 557 791 .. 798

536

0.92 1.50 0.73 1.12

1.01 0.83 1.03

1.18

w1(A) W3(A) w4(A) W7(A) WN-o. 4/o pari-o. 4/i8

475 500 650 670 660 500

' 552 797 542 +667 356 0.91 0.82 1.24 0.99 1.4

WM`-o. 4/18

500

356
Continued next

1.4
page

Beam

notation

as

in

Table

(5.2)

+Equation

(7.1)

used

for

these

beams;

equations for used

(7.2) the others.

TABLE

7.1

Continued.

1)8.

Beata Ref. h'o.

"

Ultimate Measured w1 kN

Loads Computed W2 kN

W1 W 2

No-0.3/0 No-0.3/4
NW1-0.3/4

680 , 240
420

+861 367

0.79 0.65

NW2-0.3/4 NW3-0.3/4 NW4-o. 3/4 NW5-0.3/4

580 620 780 370

, "" 651 867

0.95 0.90

NW6-0.3/4
NW7-0.3/4

1060
720 1215 1015 620 840 930 880
820

907
591 +991 +944 542 593 652 845
402

1.17
1.22 1.22 1.07 1.14 1.4 1.4 1.04
2

Nw6A-0.3/0 Nw6A-0.3/1 NW6A-0.3/4 NW6. %-0.3/17 NW6A-0.3/7

NW6A-0.3/11
NW6A 0.3/15

"

Beam

notation

as

in

Table

(6.2)

+Equation

(7.1)

used

for

these

beams;

equation for used

(7.2) the others.

TABLE

7.1

Continued.

209.

kw Ix -

k2 D

E`
f
F4 }L `2 . D C

/B
Upper Path Lower Path

w 2

FIG. 7.1

THE STRUCTURAL

IDEALIZATION

lU. . Quit

Beam thickness b

y
C D Aw

As
I

FIG 7.2(a) X

lt

Y
Y

y1

Aw

k2D

C 1

,o K1X

As

FIG 72 (b)
C1

For is normal coefficient. an empirical weight C=1.4. For lightweight C=1.35 concrete concrete, f the is determined strength where cylinder splitting tC C330; Standard in 1STM with accordance where = 1.0 in DS 181 ft is determined with accordance is an empirical 130 N/mm for respectively coefficient bars deformed to equal and plain 300 N/mm" and bars, round

C2

is coefficient an empirical (: 1 ) near longitudinal bars (k web reinforcement prooper is of is to the equal the web bars the cylinder area (A w) splitting of as the the

equal beam W) main case

to soffit

1.0

for and

main 1.5 for

bars may of

(1 be concrete

or

the

area

ft,

strength

FIG-7.2

EXPL %N. %TION

OF

SYMBOLS

211.

225

cxl=53'

0 0

10 mm Stirrups i
O O

Dia.

` = 53

20 mm

k, x1 225

1125

r-

ft b= All

2-87 100 dimensions

N /Tnm2 mm in mm.

FIG.

7.3

PROPERTIES

%ND DIMENSIONS

OF BEAM

W3_O. 3/4

212.

O a)
v

W2kN (Computed)
Data taken from Table 7.1

FIG-7.4

OF COMPUTED COMPARISON LOADS ULTIDIATE

\ND

MEASURED

213

v,
0

FIG.

8.1

DESIGN

EQUATIONS:

GEOMETRIC%L

NOTATION

214.

Symetrical about

4500kN x-1400 Qx 750

All dimensions in millimetres

1,

a2 D=1000 D= 4800 k2 D= 2600

kx 1200 r ,,.,

or
L6
. L_

Normal wt. concrete. fc = 22.5 N/mm2 fcu = 30.0 N /mm2 ft = 3.0 N/mm2

Deformed bars fy = 410.0 N/mm2

FIG.

8.2

DESIGN

EX\1PLE:

GEOMETRY

AND LOADING

215.

Bea b=E

threes)__

FIG.

8.3

DESIGN

EXNNPLE:

MAIN

STEEL

AND WED STEEL

DETAILS

=1O.

Beam No.

Ref.

CEF3 by /W4

ACI w /W5

PCA W1 W

CIRIA J1/lJ7

M-o. 4/O 0-0.4/0

0-0.25/0

2.09 2.02
1.94

1.62 2.44
2.28

6.2 6.1
6.0

1.66 1.87
1.72

0-0.3/0 0-0.2/0
Wh_. 0

N0-0.3/0

4/0

1.61 1.75
3.29

2.04 2.07
2.13

5.1 3.7
, 10.1

1.57 1.66
1.75

1.52

1.70'

4.2

1.41

NW6a-0.3/0
Average values

2.98
2.38

2.37
2.08

7.9
6.2

2.24
1.73

Beam W1 in

notation

as

given

in

Tables,

'*.

195.1

and

6.1

is the Tables

measured 4.2,5.2

ultimate 6.2 and

of

the

beams

as

given

the W w4 to are, respectively, CEB-FIP loads to the acording I'C. \ ACI Building Code, the the CIRIA Guide. 3T66 the and

design computed Recommendations. Information Concrete

TABLE

9.1

COMPARISON

OF COMPUTED

DESIGN

LOADS

217.
Effective span (/) = to + (the lesser of c, /2 or 0.1/0) + (the lesser of c2/2 or 0.110) Active height (h. ) =h when I>h

=( whenh>1

-A

FIG.

9.1

BASIC

DIMENSIONS

OF DEEP

BEA}IS:

CIRIA

GUIDE

(FIG.

5)9

oncentrated top load

ine

FIG.

9,2

MEANING

OF SYMBOLS:

CIRIA

GUIDE

(FIG.

14)9

218
TABLE 4 Concrete shear stress parameter, vx (N/mm2 )
-. 15 2.52 20 2.91 Concrete grade U) 25 3.25 30 3.56 40 4.11

Clear shear spantheight (0 1) 1.0

0.8 0.6
0.4 0.2

2.79 3.06
3.33 3.60

3.22 3.53
3.85 4.16

3.60 3.95
4.30 4.65

3.94 4.33
4.71 5.09

4.55 5.00
5.44 5.88

3.87

4.47

5.00

5.48

6.32

TABLE 5

Maximum shear stress parameter, v,,,,

'mrx

(N/mm2)

Concrete grade (%u)

15
20

5.03
5.81

25
30 40

6.50
7.12 8.22

TABLE 6

Main (sagging) steel shear stress parameter, v,,,, (N/mm2)

%main (sagging) steel (p,,,, ) 0.2 0.20 0.24 0.29 0.34 0.38 0.4 0.39 0.48 0.57 0.67 0.75 0.6 0.59 0.71 0.86 1.01 1.13 0.8 0.78 0.95 1.15 1.34 1.50 1.0 0.98 1.19 1.43 1.68 1.88

Clear shear span/lieight (x/h) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

0 TABLE 7

0.39

0.78

1.17

1.56

1.95

Horizontal web steel shear parameter, v, h (N/mm2 ) ,

%horizontal web reinforcement (p. h)

Clear shear span/height

(x/11) 1.0 0.8

0.6

0.25 0.12 0.15

0.18

0.30 0.15 0.18

0.22

0.35 0.17 0.21

0.25

0.4 0.20 0.24

0.29

0.6 0.29 0.36

0.43

0.8 0.30 0.48

0.57

1.0 0.40 0.60

0.72

0.4 0.2
0

0.21 0.23
0.24

0.25 0.28
0.29

0.29 0.33
0.34

0.34 0.37
0.39

0.50 0.56
0.59

0.67 0.75
0.78

0.84 0.94
0.98

TABLE 8

Vertical web steel shear parameter, v,,,,,,(N/mm2 )

% vertical web reinforcement (pN )

Clear shear span/height

Wh') 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

0.15 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00

0.20 0.10 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00

0.30 0.15 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00

0.40 0.20 0.12 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00

0.60 0.29 0.18 0.10 0.03 0.00 0.00

0.80 0.39 0.24 0.12 0.04 0.01 0.00

1.0 0.49 0.30 0.16 0.05 0.01 0.01

FIG. 9.3

CIRIA

DESIGN

TABLES

(Nos.

4 to

8)9

219.

12mm &a. bars each face

at 75. cts.

12mm dia bars at 150 cts. each face

I,

II I'
12m at 1

ia. sti rr
C

12mm dia. stirrups at 150 cts.

Required beam width = 500 mm

4 No. 25 mm dia main ars (in threes)

FIG.

9.4

BEAM

DESIGNED

TO CIRI,

\ GUIDE

220,

I iiiii_

it

Width of applied kad

- Centreof compression
M 0

Compression band widths for assessing hole admissibility

Lt M O

Actual stress trajectory loser to this bne

N O

Compression band

J Tensionband

L
Approx to direction of principal stresses Micateo thus ----+-

Effective support length is actual column width, c, or 0 2la whichever is the less

Dimensions bands force

of opening given above

0.2

times

width

of

notional

FIG. 9,5

ASSESSMENT OF HOLE ADMISSIDILITY: CIRIA GUIDE (FIG. 19)9

221.

-1
re of Con prc:, tion

Compression bond widths for assessing

odmissibihty

p 0
e

BI

I I

Tension band width

a .

'--

-- -ifik`i\--

Condition Dimension

of

admissibility: of hole O. 2 x width band force of notional consideration. under

Examples: Hole
Holes

A-

adm: issible 5.4) and max. the

(cf.

opening

type

11,

Fig.

5.2
for

Il, C, I)

admissible sizes opening bands force considered

Hole

E-

not and

admissible 5.4)

(cf.

opening

type

14, Fig.

5.2

FIG. 9.6

CIRIA GUIDE'S HOLES APPLIED

CONDITION OF ADMISSIBILITY TO TEST SPECIMENS

OF

222.

Notional simply supported deep beams sutou d ig hole

Loads derived from

A1c$Pai stresses at centre of hole

FIG.

9.7

DEEP SYSTEM OF NOTIONAL (FIG. 22)9 CIRIA GUIDE

DEANS

AROUND

AN OPENING:

o"zst
-0.79

unitload/2
-1.15 -0.73

-071

-0.36

Single span H/L = 2/3 C/L = 1120 Two top point loads at 1/4 span (Stresses proportional to unit load/span)

/ 1-9

0 OSl

0-45L

FIG.

9.8

TYPICAL

PRINCIPAL

STRESSES:

CIRIA

GUIDE

(FIG.

51)9

223.

-1

Steel fully anchored

Equivalent hole

Actual hole

Sarre area of steel used to reinforce actual We as equivalent hole

Notional simply deep beam

supported

FIG.

9.9

REINFORCEMENT

AROUND

AN OPENING:

CIRIA

GUIDE

(FIG.

24)9

_24

'+

""

Beam Ref. No.

+Lx

Embedment DD Length, mm

fcu N/mm2

rc N/mm2

ft N/mm2

0-0.3(25fh)
0-0.3 (25)

1.25
1.25

0.3

200+Std.

hook

37.6

0-0.3 0-0.3 0-0.3 0-0.3 0-0.55(h) 0-0.55(10) 0-0.55(0)

(h) (15) (10) ( 0)

0.3
0.3 Std.

200
hook

36.2
41.2

1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 2.0 2.0 2.0

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.55 0.55 0.55

120 , 80 0 Std. hook 80 0

36.7 39.0 37.2 39.6 39.8 40.0

31.3 35.5 32.7 31.5 32.3

33.0

2.53 2.63 2.77 2.48 2.83

3.10

36.7 37.2 37.7

2.50 2.50 2.45

"

the hyphen indicates The 0 before Beam notation: no is the the ratio x/D given after web reinforcement; length followed by the in brackets. hyphen, embedment 0-0.3(10) to For a beam having refers an x/D example: length 0.30 diameters. 10 bar of and an embedment of ratio

it fcu

= cube

strength

(100

mm)

+fc

= cylinder

compressive

strength

(300

mm x

150

mm)

ft

splitting = cylinder in accordance -

tensile ASTM with

strength 0330.

(300

mm x

150

mm

TABLE

A1.1

PROPERTIES

OF TEST

SPECIMENS.

Beam Reference R No.

Measured Ultimate Loads pult kN

Computed pp ult/ flex

0-0.3(25+h) (25) 0-0.3

0-0.3 (h)

320 320
300

3.37 3.37
3.16

0-0.3
0-0.3

(15)
(io)

320
300

3.37
3.16

0-0.3
0-0.55(h) 0-0.55

(o)
(10)

i8o
190 i90

1.89
2.52 2.52

0-0.55

( o)

140

1.86

Beam

notation

as

given

in

Table

A1.1

ii

Ratio flexural

of

measured design

ultimate (Pflex load

(Pult) load ) using

to computed Eqn. (9.1).

TABLE

Al.

ULTIMATE

LOADS

,.: 6

317mm or 508mm 6 mm dia at 89 mm centres horizontally Stirrups in Series A Single bars in Series B

E
E
N P,
4--

mr 38

Varies

2 No 8 mm dia bars

6 mm dia Horizontal spacing 152mm Vertical spacing 76 mm Stirrups in Series C Single bars in Series D 2 No 8 mm dia bars

FIG.

A1.1

SINGH'S (Further

TEST details

SPECIMENS are given in lzef. 12)

317mm or, 508 mm No web reinforcement

E E
N i:Rl -L

2 No 8 mm dia bars

38 mm i r. 952mm or 1524 Varie s

FIG.

A1.2

DIMENSIONS DETAILS

AND REINFORCEMENT OF THE PRESENT TEST SPECIMENS

227.

200,
Z

(0) 55 p-O.

-0.55 O-O. 55 (h1

(10

ioo

O. 4mm

300

200

OO

r` O

0.4 mm

goo9

O
Table

F
(A1.1)

Beam

notation

as

in

FIG.

A1.3

CENTRAL

D:. FLi, CTION

CURVES

228.

II

h0
i

[--5 Ol

0_0.55

III-(1O
O_ 0.551h; O.5 mm

200

z IOO Q

-o-5

300
Z

200
] N LA

O I00

O p

`9
0

D p

0 p

p
p

IT
O
(Al.!

0.5 mm

Beam

notation

as

in

Table

FIG.

A1.4

MAXIMUM

CRACK

WIDTHS

0-0-5500)

0-0-55(h)

0-0-3(0)

0-0 3(h)

UU AMA

0-0-305)

0-0 3 (25)

U-U 3(25+h)

ream
The

notation

as

in

Table

'. 1.1

circled the numbers in show which mmquence ti; e cr- cl. ' wec( t'. it i, bvt'rvedq other numerical the load, fi.; ures in 10 kN units, show at which the the of cracks extent were as marked.

FIG. ' 11.5

Cit. \CK

i' \TTt; KN: i

\T

F1IlAJU

4I
t "1YC gyn. _

-i+'i sR

Y
1Y

1flit ''F t$

Tyf,

', N"1'i' 7"Tn,

'7414

ti L'

'ik`ttl
t t''.. "

N-..
`, ife. , . A, r

'1

"i4
1. t

fS.

Beam Ref. No.

L D

x D

Web Type

steel %

fo N/mm

fo

ft++ N/mm

Test age

N/mm2

A-2/0.4

0.4

1.2

37.4

29.82

2.44

111

B-2/0.4

0.4

1.2

45.0

36.26

2.53

1119

C-2/0.4

0.4

1.2

46.6

37.0

2.63

69

Beam notation: is before given the hyphen, after

The the

type reinforcement web L/D hyphen; the ratio followed by the x/D ratio.

(Fig. is given

A2.1)

PI fcu

= cube

strength

(100

mm)

at

completion

of

test.

fc

= cylinder

compressive

strength

(300

mm x

150

mm)

++f t=

cylinder splitting in accordance -

tensile ASTri with

strength Standard

(300 C330.

mm x

150

mm)

in days on the same approximately

Age

at completion day and the 41 days.

test of duration

of

beams all test each

were was

cast

TABLE

A2.1

PROPERTIES

OF

TEST

SPECIMENS

Beam Ref. No.

Measured ult. load kN

ACI kN

load

Diagonal cracking load

Singh's beams

test kN

1A-2/0.4

706

283

157

646

B-2/0.4
C-2/0.4

687
726

294
274

216
274

685
724

Beam

notation

as

in

Table

A2.1

Measured further

ultimate details

load of given are

test Singh's in Reference

beams; 32.

TABLE

A2.2

MEASURED

AND COMPUTED

LOADS

E
ON

6 mm dia stirrups Horizontal spacing 152 mm 76 mm Vertical spacing

38 mm

L 15 24mm TYPE A
I

6 mm dia stirrups Horizontal spacing 152 mm 38 mm Vertical spacing 108 mm and

TYPE B

6 mm dia inclined stirrups 45'to horizontal at 76 mm spacing horizontally

TYPE C

FIG.

42.1

GENER 1L

ARRANGEMENT

AND DETAILS

OF WED REINFORCEMENT

V0J"

-2/b"4 600 500

z 400
0 300
J

0.4 1mm 200 100

FIG.

A2.2

CENTRAL

DEFLECTIONS

600 500 LJ 400 300

Cl

B-2/b-4 . -2i

200
100

0.1

FIG.

A2.3

M kXIMUM

DI 4GONAL

CRACK

WIDTHS

Beam The by and

notation

as

in

Table

A2.1 is (x) indicated

beginning (. ), dot a that of

Stage 1 cycling of that Stage 2 by of (0) Stage 3 by

500 400 Y 30C 200 I

O

`L .

10

.u

//

0.4 mm

J 100

Beam Singh's further

notation beams details

as are

in

Table indicated

-t2.1 by in an asterisk Reference 32. (");

are

given

FIG

1 2.4

COMP URISON OF SINGIH' S AND PRESENT CENTRAL DEFLECTIONS RESULTS:

TEST

235.

A-2/ 0.4

C-2/ 0.4

B-2/0.4

B-2/0-4

learn Numerical each crack load, The load during

y ea rn

notation

as

in

Table

A2.1 at which at that cracking

figures in load, 10 kn units, show the was observed and the extont of the crack Cl to C5 indicate the symbols extent of cycling as follows:
'J . -k
.: e <im

1-t,

v=

2/0

Cl = 120,000 C2 = 100,000 200,000 ,3: C4 - 300,000 (; 5 a 100,000 3/004 Seam 0Cl = 120,000 C2 s 150,000 C3 = 300,000 C4 : 100,000

Qyclee, cycles, cycles, cycles, cycle.,

Stage hege Stage itage stage

1 2 2 2 3

Cl C2 C3 C4 C5

45,000 a = 120,000 11,000 = 113x000 - 300,000

.4 cycles, cyclo: 3, Cycles, cycle;: i, cycle.,

Stage .itage Stage Stage stage

1 1 2 2 2

cyclsP cycles, cycles, cycles#

Stave Stage 4tae Stage

1 2 2 3

FIG.

A2"5

CROCK IIATT61LNS

AT VAILURE;