You are on page 1of 10

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 105-S65

TECHNICAL PAPER

Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams under Uniformly Distributed Loads


by Prodromos D. Zararis and Ioannis P. Zararis
An analytical theory for shear resistance of reinforced concrete beams subjected to uniformly distributed loads is presented. Slender beams with a span length-to-depth ratio (l/d) greater than 10, as well as deep beams in which l/d < 10, are examined; and simple expressions are derived for the ultimate shear capacity. The impact of size effect in the shear strength of slender beams is taken into account. A criterion for minimum shear reinforcement is also considered. The derived formulas are verified by comparisons to wellgrounded experimental data from the literature. Data were obtained on slender beams and deep beams with various strengths of concrete, longitudinal steel ratios, shear reinforcement ratios, l/d, and geometrical sizes. The shear strength of beams, both slender and deep, under a uniform load is found to be much higher than the shear strength of beams under a loading arrangement of two concentrated loads at the quarter points.
Keywords: beam; reinforced concrete; shear; strength; uniform load.

shear reinforcement must satisfy to restrain the growth of diagonal cracking and prevent brittle failure. In this study, the previously referred theories are adapted for the case of beams under uniformly distributed loads and the following was determined: 1. The ultimate shear capacity of reinforced concrete slender beams under a uniform load, where the size effect is taken into account and a criterion for the minimum shear reinforcement is considered; and 2. The ultimate shear capacity of reinforced concrete deep beams under a uniform load. It is shown that the theoretical results can explain, in a rigorous and consistent way, the experimentally observed behavior of slender as well as of deep beams failing in shear. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Reinforced concrete beams subjected to uniformly distributed loads are the most common case in practice. The study of shear resistance of these beams, however, is very limited. The proposed theory explains the mechanism of shear failure in slender and deep beams subjected to uniform loading. The theory results in simple and easy-touse expressions, which predict the ultimate shear force within 4.5% and 4.3% of experimental observations of slender and deep beams, respectively. SHEAR STRENGTH OF BEAMS UNDER CONCENTRATED LOADSAN OVERVIEW Slender beams without shear reinforcement10 In slender beams (that is, beams with a shear span-to-depth ratio [a/d] > 2.5) without shear reinforcement under twopoint loading (or one-point loading at midspan), the critical crack, leading to collapse, typically involves two branches (Fig. l(a)). The first branch is a slightly inclined shear crack, the height of which is approximately that of the flexural cracks. The second branch initiates from the tip of the first branch and propagates toward the load point crossing the compression zone, with its line meeting the support point. Failure occurs by the formation of this second branch. The second branch of the critical diagonal crack is caused by a type of splitting of concrete in the compressive zone. The stress distribution along the line of splitting, however, is not similar to that occurring in the common split cylinder test (Fig. 2). The theory10 results in a simple expression Vcr = (c/d)fct bwd, where bw is the width of the beam. The nominal shear stress
ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2008. MS No. S-2007-142 received April 20, 2007, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2008, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the September-October 2009 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by May 1, 2009.

INTRODUCTION Shear resistance of reinforced concrete beams has been studied extensively over the last few decades. Nevertheless, the study of shear resistance of beams subjected to uniformly distributed loads is limited.1-6 One of the reasons is the difficulty to achieve a uniformly distributed load in experiments. Another reason is that the mechanism of shear failure was difficult to be found, as most of the research has concentrated on the simpler case of two-point loading. The shear behavior of beams under a uniformly distributed load has been examined in earlier studies5,7 to be essentially the same as the behavior under a point loading arrangement of two-point loads at the quarter points. Thus, the shear span of a beam with uniform load has been defined as a = /4, where is the span length of beam. This is probably why this particular type of loading is not mentioned in the current provisions for shear in international codes, such as the ACI 3188 or Eurocode 2.9 As a result, the shear strength of beams is calculated using the known empirical formulas that apply to any type of loading. Such a consideration, however, is not correct. Tests show that the shear strength of beams under a uniform load is considerably higher than the strength under a one- or two-point loading arrangement. Theories have been proposed in previous works10-12 that use the internal forces at diagonal shear cracks13-14 to describe the diagonal shear failure in slender beams as well as the shear compression failure in deep beams under concentrated loads. These theories determine:1) the ultimate shear capacity of slender beams with or without stirrups under concentrated loads; 2) the ultimate shear capacity of deep beams with or without stirrups under concentrated loads; 3) the impact of size effect and how it relates to diagonal shear failure; and 4) a criterion that the minimum amount of ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008

711

ACI member Prodromos D. Zararis is a Professor of civil engineering at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. He received his MSc and DIC in concrete structures and technology from the Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, UK, and his PhD from Aristotle University. His research interests include the study of behavior of reinforced concrete structural elements under various loading conditions. Ioannis P. Zararis is a Chartered Civil Engineer. He is a PhD candidate at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. His research interests include the study of behavior of reinforced concrete structural elements under various loading conditions.

The shear force Vcr in Eq. (1) represents the ultimate shear force of a slender beam without shear reinforcement subjected to one- or two-point loads acting at a distance a (shear span) from the support. The depth c of the compression zone in Eq. (1) is given by the positive root of the following equation11 + c c 2 + ( d d ) -- + 600 -------------- -- 600 ------------------------------- = 0 d fc d fc (3)

where fc is the compressive strength of concrete, MPa; is the ratio of main tension reinforcement = As /bwd; is the ratio of compression reinforcement = As/bwd; and d is the effective depth to compression reinforcement. Finally, the splitting tensile strength of concrete fct , when not known from experiments, can be calculated from fct = 0.30fc 2/3 (MPa) (4)

Fig. 1Final crack pattern of slender test beams: (a) without stirrups2; and (b) with stirrups.15

This expression, cited in Eurocode 2,9 fits well with the results of the common split cylinder test. Moreover, using this expression in Eq. (1), the obtained predictions for the shear strength of beams without stirrups are in very good agreement with the experimental results.10,11 Slender beams with stirrups11 The crack pattern of slender beams with stirrups is similar to that of beams without stirrups (Fig. 1). The critical crack, again as the beam without stirrups, typically involves two branches, which are formed in the same region. It is rational to consider that the cause of the formation of the second branch of the critical diagonal crack and the corresponding cracking load is identical in both cases. Up to the formation of the second branch of the critical crack, the effect of stirrups can be considered negligible. By the cracking of the second branch of the critical crack, the stirrups take action and the strength of the beam increases. An essential condition for the shear failure of beams is the yielding of stirrups at the critical crack. This condition, however, is not sufficient. Shear failure of a slender beam occurs only when the shear force Vd developed in the longitudinal steel bars (Fig. 2) causes a horizontal splitting of the concrete cover along the longitudinal reinforcement (Fig. 1). This splitting results in the loss of the shear force Vd and, consequently, the failure of beam. By analyzing the way that horizontal splitting occurs along the longitudinal reinforcement,11 the following simple expression of shear strength of slender beams is derived. This involves a superposition of the shear strength of beams without shear reinforcement and the shear strength provided by shear reinforcement. a V u = V cr + 0.5 + 0.25 -- v f yv b w d d (5)

Fig. 2Distribution of normal stresses along line of second branch of critical diagonal crack (+ = tension, = compression). (vcr = Vcr /bwd) at the diagonal tension cracking (formation of the second branch of the critical crack) is a product of the ratio of neutral axis depth c to effective depth d of the beam and the splitting tensile strength of concrete fct. Moreover, the problem of size effect on the shear strength of beams reduces to a problem of size effect on the splitting tensile strength of concrete. Introducing a correction factor to account for the size effect in slender beams, the expression becomes a c - V cr = 1.2 0.2 -- d -- f ct b w d d d where a 1.2 0.2 -- d 0.65 (d in m) d (2) (1)

For values of 1.2 0.2(a/d)d < 0.65, the correction factor is still taken as 0.65. Taking into account that a = (a/d)d, the size effect in beams appears to depend not only on the depth d, as is commonly believed, but also on the a/d. 712

where v is the ratio of shear reinforcement = Av/bws; Av is the area of vertical stirrups within a distance s; fyv is the yield strength of shear reinforcement; and Vcr is the shear strength at diagonal tension cracking, that is, shear strength of beam without stirrups, from Eq. (1). Moreover, according to this analysis,11 to avoid an undesirable widening of the critical diagonal crack (as well ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008

Fig. 3Final crack pattern of deep test beam: (a) front side; and (b) detail of critical diagonal crack.16 as that of the horizontal splitting crack), providing an increased ductility and preventing a sudden shear failure, the ratio v of shear reinforcement, in relation to the ratio of main tension reinforcement, must satisfy (approximately) the following equation /v 1.75(a/d) (6) Fig. 4Forces on free-body diagram of a deep beam: (a) by formation of critical diagonal crack: and (b) at failure. longitudinal reinforcement (Fig. 4(a)) increases significantly, resulting in a horizontal cleavage of concrete cover along the main reinforcement that eventually causes the loss of force Vd. After that, the normal and shear forces in the concrete compression zone above the critical diagonal crack increase excessively, eventually resulting in concrete crushing in this zone. According to the analysis12 of the equilibrium of forces acting on a free-body diagram of a deep beam at failure (Fig. 4(b)), the ultimate shear force is given by c 2 a 2 bw d c c V u = --------- ---s 1 0.5 ---s f c + 0.5v f yv 1 ---s -- - ad d d d d

Equation (6) constitutes the criterion for minimum shear reinforcement. Deep beams12 In deep beams (that is, beams with a shear span depth ratio a/d < 2.5), the critical diagonal crack is governed by shear rather than by bending, because it initiates very close to the support (Fig. 3). In this case, an arch action exists. Especially for 1.0 < a/d < 2.5 (approximately), the shear failure is mainly caused by concrete crushing in the compression zone at the top of the critical diagonal crack (Fig. 3). This type of failure is known as shear compression failure. A determining factor in shear compression failure of deep beams is the depth cs of the compression zone above the critical diagonal crack, where failure occurs. This depth cs is much smaller than the depth c of the compression zone above the tip of the flexural cracks (Fig. 3). According to analysis,12 taking into account the forces acting on the critical diagonal crack (Fig. 4(a)), the depth cs is given by the simple expression
2 cs 1 + 0.27R ( a d ) - c --- = ---------------------------------------- -2 d 1 + R(a d) d

(9)

which is valid for deep beams with and/or without web reinforcement. SHEAR STRENGTH OF BEAMS UNDER UNIFORM LOAD Slender beams As previously discussed, the shear failure of slender beams is caused by a type of concrete splitting along the line of the second branch of the critical diagonal crack. This splitting occurs in the most diagonally compressed area. In beams under two-point loading (Fig. 1), this area is near a point load; but in beams under a uniform load, this area is near the support reaction. The critical diagonal crack in slender beams under a uniform load always occurs near the support and not near a quarter point of beam. This is clearly observed in the patterns of cracking of test beams (Fig. 5(a)). The critical diagonal crack also has two branches. The height of the first branch is approximately that of the flexural cracks, whereas 713

(7)

where R = 1 + (v/)(a/d)2 (8)

Equation (7) shows that the depth cs is a portion of the depth c above the flexural cracks, found by Eq. (3). The stirrups yield upon higher loading after the formation of the critical diagonal crack. Then the shear force Vd of the ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008

2.5), one can conclude that under a uniform load, the ideal shear span to depth ratio is approximately ai/d = 2.5 (10)

Substituting the force 0.5q( ai) for the force V in Eq. (1) and (5) with Eq. (10), the uniform load qu under which the shear failure occurs in slender beams with or without stirrups can be obtained by 2b w c q u = --------------- ( 1.2 0.5d ) -- f ct + 1.2v f yv d -- 2.5 d where the size effect factor in this case is (1.2 0.5d) 0.65 (d in m) (12) (11)

Fig. 5Slender beams under uniform load: (a) final crack pattern of test beam2; (b) ideal shear span determination; and (c) statically equivalent loading arrangement.

The depth c of the compression zone and the splitting tensile strength fct in Eq. (11) can be taken from Eq. (3) and (4), respectively. Also, by Eq. (6) and (10), the criterion for minimum shear reinforcement is approximately /v 4.4 (13)

Fig. 6Final crack pattern of deep test beams under uniform load: (a) without stirrups2; and (b) with stirrups.3 the line of the second branch is meeting the support point (Fig. 5(a) and (b)). For slender beams under a uniform load, an ideal shear span ai must be determined by analogy to point-loaded beams. It is the distance from the support to the tip of the critical diagonal crack (Fig. 5(b)). The uniformly distributed load, q force per unit length, over the ideal shear span, length ai, may be substituted by a statically equivalent loading arrangement of two concentrated loads at the ends of the ideal shear span, each having a value of 0.5qai (Fig. 5(c)). Under this point loading arrangement, the shear force over the ideal shear span has a constant value of 0.5q(l ai), where is the span length of the beam. The stress state in this area is similar to that in a slender beam under two-point loading (Fig. 2). Thus, the derived equations for the case of slender beams under two-point loading are also valid for slender beams under a uniform load, where the total shear force V in these equations is equal to 0.5q(l ai). Furthermore, taking into account that: 1) in slender beams under a uniform load, concrete splitting, which results in the formation of the second branch of the critical diagonal crack, possibly occurs at the most stressed area, that is, in the area closest to the support area; and 2) for a slender beam (a/d > 714

Deep (short) beams For a deep beam under a uniform load, an ideal shear span ai = l/4 can be considered, as it has been suggested in previous analytical studies.17 Then, taking into account that a/d < 2.5, it is shown that the span length to depth ratio (l/d) of a deep beam is less than 10. Experimental evidence1-3 indicates that behavior of test beams with approximately l/d > 10 is different from that of beams with l/d < 10. In test beams with l/d > 10, a failure occurs after a critical diagonal crack consisting of two branches, as it is shown in Fig. 5, has been formed (diagonal shear failure). By contrast, in test beams with l/d < 10, a failure occurs due to concrete crushing in a reduced compression zone above the tip of the critical diagonal crack (shear compression failure). Failure occurs at approximately the quarter points of the beam span (Fig. 6). As in the case of deep beams under concentrated loads, and in the case of uniform load, a determining factor in shear compression failure of deep beams is the depth cs of the compression zone above the tip of the critical diagonal crack, where the concrete crushing occurs. Following the considerations made by a previous analysis of deep beams under two-point loading12 and the forces that act on the critical diagonal crack (Fig. 7(a)), the depth cs is obtained
2 cs 1 + 0.27R ( l d ) 16 c --- = ------------------------------------------------- --2 d 1 + R ( l d ) 16 d

(14)

where R = 1 + (v /)(l/d)2/16 (15)

It can be seen that Eq. (14) can be obtained by substituting, in Eq. (7), the ratio a/d with the ratio l/(4d). Equation (14) shows that the depth cs is a portion of the depth c above the flexural cracks given by Eq. (3). ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008

Shear compression failure in a deep beam under a uniformly distributed load occurs similar to failure in deep beams under two-point loading.12 The stirrups yield upon higher loading after the formation of a critical diagonal crack. Subsequently, an increase in loading results in a significant increase of the shear force Vd of the longitudinal reinforcement (Fig. 7(a)). This results in a horizontal cleavage of the concrete cover along the main reinforcement, which eventually causes the loss of force Vd. Then, the normal and shear forces in the concrete compression zone above the critical diagonal crack increase excessively, eventually resulting in concrete crushing in this zone. The forces acting on a free-body diagram of a deep beam at failure are shown in Fig. 7(b). Concrete crushing occurs with a combination of the concrete forces C and Vc in the compression zone. Considering that the failure occurs when the concrete compressive stress exceeds the concrete strength fc over the entire depth cs of the compression zone, the concrete compressive force at failure is C = csbw fc. Also, the stirrup force at failure is Vs = v fyvbwd(1 cs/d)tan. Considering that for deep beams, tan ai/d, and T = C, from the equilibrium of moments of forces acting on the free-body diagram of Fig. 7(b) at the point of application of force C, the ultimate uniform load of the beam can be obtained
c 8b w c c 2 l 2 q u = -------------------------- ---s 1 0.5 ---s f c + 0.5v f yv 1 ---s -- 16 2 d d d d 0.75 ( l d )

(16) Fig. 7Forces on free-body diagram of a deep beam under uniform load: (a) by formation of critical diagonal crack; and (b) at failure. without including any factor of safety. Thus, for ACI Code predictions (in SI units) V u = ( 0.166 f c + v f yv )b w d (17)

Equation (16) is valid for deep beams with and/or without web reinforcement subjected to a uniform load. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION AND DISCUSSION The theory presented is applied for the prediction of the ultimate shear strength of reinforced concrete beams subjected to uniformly distributed load. Tables 1 and 2 show comparisons of the theoretical results according to the proposed formulas, (Eq. (11) and (16)), with 45 test results of slender beams (l/d > 10) and 60 of deep beams (l/d < 10), respectively, extracted from the literature. Tables 1 and 2 include the test results of Bernaert and Siess,1 Leonhardt and Walther,2 Rsch et al.,3 Krefeld and Thurston,4 and Iguro et al.5 The seven sets of test data in Tables 1 and 2 have been obtained on slender beams as well as deep beams with various strengths of concrete, longitudinal steel ratios, shear reinforcement ratios, l/d, and geometrical sizes. All tests beams had adequate longitudinal reinforcement so that flexural failure can be avoided. The experimental and the theoretical results are in very good agreement for all tests. Predicted shear capacities according to a point loading arrangement of two-point loads at the quarter points are also presented in Tables 1 and 2 to compare the ultimate shear strength of beams under a point loading arrangement to experimental results from a uniformly distributed load. For the predictions under the two-point loading arrangement, Eq. (5) for slender beams and Eq. (9) for deep beams are used. The corresponding shear capacities are shown in Column (11) of Tables 1 and 2 for slender and deep beams, respectively. It must be pointed out that these equations predict with accuracy the shear strength of test beams under concentrated loads.10-12 Moreover, the predicted shear capacities according to ACI 318-028 are also presented in Tables 1 and 2. In preparing the values of Tables 1 and 2, the expression of code is used ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008

The splitting tensile strength fct of concrete used in Eq. (11) and Eq. (5) to predict the shear capacity of slender beams under a uniform load and under a two-point loading, respectively, is shown in Column (3) of Table 1. For the last set of tests in Table 1,5 fct is taken from the experiments, whereas in the other two sets, fct is calculated from Eq. (4) in the absence of experimental data. By comparison of the observed shear capacities with the predictions according to a two-point loading arrangement in Tables 1 and 2, it can be seen that replacement of the uniform load with two-point loads at the quarter points (that is, taken a shear span a = l/4) is a very conservative approximation. It is shown that the shear strength of both slender and deep beams under a uniform load is 40 to 50% and, in some cases, 70%, higher than the shear strength of beams under a loading arrangement of two-point loads at the quarter points. Moreover, the ACI Code predictions for shear strength of beams under a uniform load are inaccurate. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, as well as in Fig. 8 and 9, the ratio of observed shear capacity to the calculated ACI shear capacity goes up to 3.0 for slender beams and 6.5 for short beams. In Fig. 9, it is shown how the ACI predictions deviate when l/d is decreased. The ACI 318-02 expression for shear strength (Eq. (17)) seems to be unrealistic. The ACI 318 Code does not address the size effect in estimating the shear strength of beams. As shown from the tests of Iguro et al.5 in Table 1, and also in Fig. 10, the ratio 715

Table 1Comparison of experimental and theoretical results of slender beams


Beam no. fc, MPa fct, MPa (2) (3) (1) 14-1 31.8 14-2 31.8 15-1 33.6 15-2 33.6 16-1 33.1 16-2 33.1 17-1 31.1 17-2 31.1 Mean Standard deviation 1CU 19.0 2 CU 20.8 3 CU 20.5 4 CU 20.6 5 CU 20.4 6 CU 20.6 3 EU 17.6 4 EU 20.2 5 EU 19.3 6 EU 20.1 3 GU 22.6 4 GU 22.1 5 GU 21.3 6 GU 21.2 4JU 22.2 5JU 21.5 4CU8 32.3 5CU8 32.3 6CU8 36.8 3CU9 12.2 4CU9 17.1 5CU9 14.7 6CU9 13.7 3EU9 15.2 4EU9 14.3 5EU9 15.1 6EU9 12.8 3GU9 13.5 4GU9 11.6 5GU9 11.2 Mean Standard deviation 1 20.6 2 19.7 3 21.1 4 27.2 5 21.9 6 28.5 7 24.3 Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation
Notes: 1 cm = 0.394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi; and 1 kN = 0.225 kips.

b, cm (4) 19.0 19.0 19.0 18.9 19.0 18.9 18.9 18.9

d, cm (5) 27.3 27.3 27.2 27.3 27.3 27.4 27.3 27.4

l/d (6) 11.0 11.0 14.7 14.6 18.3 18.2 22.0 21.9

, % (7)

Experimental Vu, kN (8)

Theory Eq. (11) Vu , kN Vu,exp /Vu,th (10) (9) 1.090 1.094 1.027 1.092 1.081 1.073 1.034 1.023 1.064 0.029 1.010 1.001 1.145 1.162 1.148 1.021 1.088 1.130 1.146 0.946 0.966 1.096 0.970 1.043 0.900 0.992 1.224 1.116 1.125 1.134 1.118 1.136 1.117 1.070 0.891 1.049 1.036 0.952 0.878 0.936 1.051 0.091 1.086 1.106 1.054 1.021 0.956 0.828 0.898 0.993 0.095 1.044 0.087

Theory Eq. (5) Vu, kN Vu,exp /Vu,th (12) (11) 74.9 74.9 72.5 72.5 68.7 68.7 63.6 58.1 1.428 1.434 1.316 1.400 1.402 1.394 1.376 1.497 1.406 0.048 1.318 1.300 1.492 1.516 1.495 1.325 1.398 1.149 1.471 1.208 1.239 1.405 1.241 1.338 1.165 1.282 1.590 1.448 1.456 1.486 1.452 1.473 1.119 1.379 1.143 1.342 1.326 1.224 1.125 1.192 1.357 0.123 1.386 1.439 1.426 1.390 1.297 1.037 1.098 1.296 0.152 1.356 0.123

ACI Code Vu, kN Vu,exp /Vu,th (14) (13) 48.6 48.6 49.7 49.7 49.5 49.5 47.8 47.9 2.201 2.210 1.920 2.042 1.945 1.935 1.830 1.816 1.987 0.142 1.720 1.860 2.452 2.715 2.881 2.714 2.280 2.531 2.774 2.420 1.889 2.349 2.249 2.593 1.887 2.247 2.665 2.632 2.802 2.622 2.668 2.922 3.606 2.294 2.078 2.580 2.722 2.008 2.023 2.277 2.430 0.348 1.480 1.519 0.810 0.547 0.680 0.521 0.513 0.867 0.412 2.109 0.650

3.01 3.01 3.12 3.12 3.09 3.09 2.97 2.97

Leonhardt and Walter2 2.04 107.0 98.1 2.04 107.4 98.1 2.05 95.4 92.9 2.05 101.5 92.9 2.04 96.3 89.0 2.05 95.8 89.3 2.05 87.5 84.6 2.04 87.0 85.0

2.13 2.27 2.25 2.25 2.24 2.25 2.03 2.22 2.16 2.22 2.40 2.36 2.30 2.30 2.37 2.32 3.04 3.04 3.32 1.59 1.99 1.80 1.72 1.84 1.77 1.83 1.64 1.70 1.54 1.50

15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2

25.6 25.4 25.6 25.4 25.2 25.1 25.6 25.4 25.2 25.0 25.6 25.4 25.2 25.0 25.4 25.2 25.4 25.2 25.1 25.5 25.4 25.3 25.0 25.6 25.4 25.3 25.1 25.6 25.4 25.2

11.9 12.0 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 16.7 16.8 16.9 17.0 19.2 19.3 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.2 12.0 12.1 12.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 16.7 16.8 16.9

Krefeld and Thurston4 1.00 48.5 48.0 1.32 54.3 54.2 1.99 71.6 62.5 2.63 79.0 68.0 3.35 82.7 72.0 4.30 77.9 76.3 1.99 61.8 56.8 2.63 72.9 64.5 3.35 77.4 67.5 4.30 68.5 72.4 1.99 58.0 60.0 2.63 70.7 64.5 3.35 65.9 67.9 4.30 75.2 72.1 2.63 57.0 63.3 3.35 66.3 66.8 2.63 97.0 79.2 3.35 95.0 85.1 4.30 107.6 95.6 1.99 59.0 52.0 2.63 70.7 63.2 3.35 71.6 63.0 4.30 71.6 64.1 1.99 54.8 54.0 2.36 50.3 56.4 3.36 64.0 61.0 4.30 61.8 59.6 1.99 47.6 50.0 2.63 44.1 50.2 3.35 48.5 52.1

36.8 41.8 48.0 52.1 55.3 58.8 44.2 50.3 52.6 56.7 46.8 50.3 53.1 56.2 48.9 51.7 61.0 65.6 73.9 39.7 48.7 48.6 49.4 41.9 44.0 47.7 46.6 38.9 39.2 40.7

28.2 29.2 29.2 29.1 28.7 28.7 27.1 28.8 27.9 28.3 30.7 30.1 29.3 29.0 30.2 29.5 36.4 36.1 38.4 22.5 26.5 24.5 23.4 25.2 24.2 24.8 22.7 23.7 21.8 21.3

1.85 1.87 1.81 2.05 2.23 2.73 2.19

15.8 15.8 30.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 150.0

10.0 20.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 200.0 300.0

12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0

0.80 0.80 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

Iguro et al.5 17.6 35.4 111.2 237.0 264.0 924.0 1890.0

16.2 32.0 105.5 232.0 276.0 1116.0 2104.0

12.7 24.6 78.0 170.5 203.5 890.8 1721.2

11.9 23.3 137.2 432.9 388.4 1772.4 3682.3

Total of all 45 test data

716

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008

Table 2Comparison of experimental and theoretical results of deep beams


Beam no. (1) D-4 D-9 D-10 D-14 D-15 D-16 Mean Standard deviation Leonhardt and Walther2 12-1 12-2 13-1 13-2 GA1 GA2 G6 Mean Standard deviation Rusch et al. A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 BO1 BO2 BO3 BO4 BO5 BO6 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Mean Standard deviation Krefeld and Thurston4 11A1 12A1 13A1 14A1 15A1 16A1 1AU 27.0 30.6 20.2 22.8 19.2 21.1 21.9 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 31.4 23.8 31.9 24.3 31.6 24.0 25.6 5.8 7.7 5.7 7.5 5.8 7.6 9.5 3.41 4.50 0.80 1.05 1.34 1.77 0.99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 267.4 180.6 118.4 89.4 154.8 105.4 64.5 289.5 170.8 109.7 95.0 174.0 102.9 67.3 0.923 1.057 1.079 0.941 0.890 1.024 0.958 217.4 127.7 82.0 71.2 133.4 75.2 50.4 1.230 1.414 1.444 1.255 1.161 1.401 1.280 41.2 33.2 36.2 29.3 34.9 27.8 30.2 6.490 5.440 3.271 3.051 4.435 3.791 2.136 22.1 22.1 21.1 21.1 23.6 23.6 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.1 22.1 22.1 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.2 22.2 22.2 24.1 24.1 22.9 22.9 23.9 23.9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 28 28 28 28 28 28 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.77 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 60.0 55.2 60.4 60.4 57.6 60.4 98.8 84.8 88.8 93.6 87.2 92.8 84.8 78.0 84.8 77.6 72.8 74.8 136.8 133.2 130.0 134.8 130.0 140.8
3

fc, MPa (2) 35.1 19.6 24.9 32.7 27.1 40.3

b, cm (3) 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2

d, cm (4) 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2

l/d (5) 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9

, % (6) 2.21 3.36 3.36 1.01 1.01 1.01

Theory Eq. (16) Experimental v fyv, MPa Vu, kN Vu, kN Vu,exp /Vu,th (7) (8) (9) (10) Bernaest and Siess1 0 0 0 0 0 0 119.0 107.0 118.0 92.0 88.0 108.2 130.4 98.0 117.0 96.0 85.6 110.0 0.913 1.092 1.008 0.958 1.028 0.984 0.997 0.056

Theory Eq. (9) Vu, kN (11) 98.8 72.9 87.4 72.1 63.9 82.4

ACI Code

Vu,exp /Vu,th Vu, kN Vu,exp /Vu,th (13) (12) (14) 1.204 1.468 1.350 1.277 1.377 1.313 1.331 0.082 37.7 28.2 31.7 36.4 33.1 40.4 3.156 3.794 3.722 2.527 2.660 2.678 3.090 0.512 48.9 48.4 49.2 48.8 39.4 38.4 43.9 4.141 3.316 2.825 2.848 3.255 3.854 4.567 3.544 0.613 13.1 13.1 12.9 12.9 13.4 13.4 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.8 21.8 21.8 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.6 15.6 15.6 31.5 31.5 30.9 30.9 31.4 31.4 4.580 4.214 4.682 4.682 4.300 4.507 4.511 3.872 4.055 4.293 4.000 4.257 5.401 4.970 5.401 4.974 4.664 4.795 4.343 4.228 4.207 4.362 4.140 4.484 4.497 0.390

32.2 32.2 32.7 32.7 20.3 20.3 26.6

19.0 18.9 19.0 18.9 19.0 19.0 19.0

27.0 27.2 27.3 27.2 27.0 27.0 27.0

7.3 7.3 9.8 9.8 7.4 7.4 7.4

2.04 2.06 2.04 2.06 1.89 1.89 2.47

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

202.5 160.5 139.0 139.0 125.0 148.0 200.5

218.7 215.0 158.0 157.0 150.0 150.0 196.9

0.926 0.746 0.880 0.885 0.833 0.987 1.018 0.896 0.085

163.9 161.8 118.4 117.3 112.8 112.8 147.3

1.235 0.992 1.174 1.185 1.108 1.312 1.361 1.195 0.115

48.2 48.2 47.0 47.0 51.0 51.0 81.5 81.5 81.5 81.2 81.2 81.2 78.2 78.2 78.2 78.5 78.5 78.5 120.0 120.0 116.2 116.2 119.6 119.6

1.244 1.145 1.285 1.285 1.129 1.184 1.212 1.040 1.089 1.152 1.073 1.142 1.083 0.998 1.084 0.988 0.927 0.953 1.136 1.110 1.118 1.160 1.087 1.177 1.116 0.091

35.9 35.9 34.7 34.7 37.7 37.7 62.0 62.0 62.0 61.4 61.4 61.4 60.1 60.1 60.1 89.7 89.7 89.7 89.5 89.5 86.3 86.3 89.1 89.1

1.668 1.534 1.740 1.740 1.527 1.601 1.594 1.369 1.433 1.524 1.420 1.511 1.412 1.300 1.412 1.300 1.219 1.252 1.528 1.488 1.506 1.562 1.459 1.580 1.487 0.135

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008

717

Table 2 (cont.)Comparison of experimental and theoretical results of deep beams


Beam no. fc, MPa (2) (1) 2AU 3AU 4AU 5AU 3AAU 4AAU 5AAU 6AAU 4AU8 5AU8 6AU8 6A1 6B1 9A1 9B1 B-2 Mean Standard deviation Total of all 60 test data Mean Standard deviation
Notes: 1 cm = 0.394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi; and 1 kN = 0.225 kips.

b, cm (3) 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2

d, cm (4) 25.4 25.5 25.4 25.2 25.5 25.4 25.2 25.1 25.4 25.2 25.1 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 45.6

l/d (5) 9.6 9.5 9.6 9.6 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.3 9.6 9.7 9.7 7.8 7.8 9.7 5.8 8.0

, % (6) 1.32 1.99 2.63 3.35 1.99 2.63 3.35 4.30 2.63 3.35 4.30 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 2.22

Experimental v fyv, MPa Vu, kN (7) (8) Krefeld and Thurston4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.57 1.57 1.67 1.67 0.29 76.1 93.0 90.7 108.0 153.1 183.3 200.6 214.9 117.4 132.6 154.8 206.8 255.4 203.8 350.7 466.8

Theory Eq. (16) Vu, kN (9) 71.2 86.2 77.0 90.0 176.0 196.0 177.0 209.6 116.5 123.1 136.5 242.7 248.7 220.0 370.2 461.8

Theory Eq. (9)

ACI Code

Vu,exp /Vu,th Vu , kN Vu,exp /Vu,th Vu, kN Vu,exp /Vu,th (11) (13) (10) (12) (14) 1.068 1.078 1.170 1.200 0.870 0.935 1.130 1.025 1.007 1.077 1.134 1.074 1.027 0.926 0.947 1.010 1.024 0.087 1.042 0.112 53.3 64.3 57.5 67.2 131.8 146.7 131.7 156.9 87.7 91.7 102.1 181.2 185.5 164.8 250.8 344.2 1.428 1.445 1.577 1.608 1.161 1.249 1.522 1.369 1.339 4.446 1.516 1.440 1.377 1.237 1.398 1.356 1.376 0.120 1.395 0.154 29.5 30.7 27.1 28.9 37.8 29.7 34.2 37.1 36.1 35.8 37.0 117.8 118.8 123.7 123.0 144.2 2.580 3.030 3.347 3.737 4.050 4.736 5.865 5.792 3.252 3.704 4.184 2.214 2.150 1.647 2.851 3.237 3.695 1.263 3.940 0.985

21.2 22.7 17.9 20.6 34.6 36.4 29.0 64.4 31.7 31.7 34.1 29.3 30.6 30.8 29.9 33.1

Fig. 8Effect of l/d on shear strength of slender beams with different steel ratios. of observed shear capacity to calculated ACI shear capacity goes down to 0.50 for beams with a depth d 1.0 m. It is worth noting that the existing number of tests on such large beams under uniform loads is limited and more experimental studies could further justify the proposed theory. The comparisons in Tables 1 and 2 and Fig. 8 though 10 clearly demonstrate that limitations of the ACI Code, or those resulting from a consideration of a two-point loading arrangement, are effectively overcome by the proposed simple formulas (Eq. (11) and Eq.(16)). These equations have been derived via the presented theory, in which all the 718

Fig. 9Effect of /d on shear strength of deep beams under uniform load and under two-point loading (steel ratio = 3.35%). factors affecting the shear strength of beams under a uniform load are rationally considered. CONCLUSIONS A theory has been presented about the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams under a uniformly distributed load. The theory results in simple and easy-to-use expressions for the ultimate shear force (or ultimate uniform load) of slender beams as well as deep beams under a uniform load. The impact of size effect in the shear strength of slender beams is taken into account. ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008

Fig. 10Size effect on shear stress at failure of slender beams under uniform load (tests of Iguro et al.5). The proposed theory accurately predicts capacities corresponding to the experimental observations of ultimate shear force of a well-grounded test series of slender beams as well as deep beams under uniform load with various strengths of concrete, longitudinal steel ratios, shear reinforcement ratios, l/d, and geometrical sizes. It is shown that the shear strength of beams, either slender or deep, under a uniform load is much higher than the shear strength of beams under a loading arrangement of two concentrated loads at the quarter points. In this paper, it has been shown that the ACI Code predictions for the ultimate shear force of beams under a uniform load are much lower for the cases of small size beams (either slender or deep), whereas for the larger beams, the predictions are higher. REFERENCES
1. Bernaert, S., and Siess, O., Strength in Shear of Reinforced Concrete Beams under Uniform Load, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, June 1956. 2. Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R., Schubversuche an Einfeldrigen Stahlbetonbalken mit und ohne Schubbewehrung zur Ermittlung der Schubtragfhigkeit und der Oberen Schubspannungsgrenze, Deutcher

Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton, Heft 151, W. Ernst u. Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 1962, 68 pp. (in German) 3. Rsch, H.; Haugli, F. R.; and Mayer, H., Schubversuche an Stahlbeton Rechteckbalken mit Gleischmssig Verteilter Belastung, Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton, Heft 145, W. Ernst u. Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 1962, 30 pp. (in German) 4. Krefeld, W. J., and Thurston, C. W., Studies of the Shear and Diagonal Tension Strength of Simply Supported Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 63, No. 4, Apr. 1966, pp. 451-476. 5. Iguro, M.; Shioya, T.; Nojiri, Y.; and Akiyama, H., Experimental Studies on Shear Strength of Large Reinforced Concrete Beams under Uniformly Distributed Load, Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), Concrete Library, No. 5, Aug. 1985, pp. 137-154. (translation from Proceedings of JSCE, No. 345/V-1, Aug. 1984) 6. Shioya, T.; Iguro, M.; Nojiri, Y.; Akiyama, H.; and Okada, T., Shear Strength of Large Reinforced Concrete Beams, Fracture Mechanics: Application to Concrete, SP-118, V. C. Li and Z. P. Baant, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1989, pp. 259-279. 7. Kani, G. N., J, Basic Facts Concerning Shear Failure, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 63, No. 6, June 1966, pp. 675-692. 8. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002, 443 pp. 9. Eurocode No. 2, Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, Commission of the European Communities, ENV 1992-1-1, Dec. 2004, 225 pp. 10. Zararis, P. D., and Papadakis, G., Diagonal Shear Failure and Size Effect in RC Beams without Web Reinforcement, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 127, No. 7, July 2001, pp. 733-742. 11. Zararis, P. D., Shear Strength and Minimum Shear Reinforcement of Reinforced Concrete Slender Beams, ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2003, pp. 203-214. 12. Zararis, P. D., Shear Compression Failure in Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 129, No. 4, Apr. 2003, pp. 544-553. 13. Zararis, P. D., Failure Mechanisms in RC Plates Carrying In-Plane Forces, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 114, No. 3, Mar. 1988, pp. 553-574. 14. Zararis, P. D., Aggregate Interlock and Steel Shear Forces in the Analysis of RC Membrane Elements, ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1997, pp. 159-170. 15. Placas, A., and Regan, P. E., Shear Failure of Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 68, No. 10, Oct. 1971, pp. 763-773. 16. Mellis, S., and Tsalcatides, T., Shear Strength of Beams under Changing Reversal Loading, MSc dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2001, 139 pp. (in Greek). 17. Kong, F. K.; Robins, P. J.; Singh, A.; and Sharp, G. R., Shear Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams, The Structural Engineer, V. 50, No. 10, Oct. 1972, pp. 405-409.

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008

719

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

You might also like