REINFORCED

CONCRETE

DEEP

BEAMS

WITH

WEB OPENINGS

by

GRAHAMS RICHARD

A thesis
submitted
Nottingham
Doctor

Department
University

of
of

for
of

SHARP,

B. Sc.

to the
University
the
degree
of
Philosophy

of

Civil
Engineering,
Nottingham

October

1977

BEST COPY
AVAILABLE
Variable print quality

PAGENUMBERING
AS FOUND IN
THE ORIGINAL
THESIS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The
R. C.

Author

Coates

Cambridge
work

of

is'most

and

for

The

experiments

their

is

members

their

co-operation

typing

of
with

Kaern,

June

J.

Heyman

to

research

for

Science

J.

Ellis,

and

Laboratory

of

the

Ruth

Conway

for

Shawcross
for

drawings;

for

for

his

valuable

and

to

Cambridge

to

the

thesis

Sincere

the

J. C.

Mr.

the

from

numerical

check-

facilities

Engineers,
the

complete

research
Research

reported
Council.

to

for
thesis

in

this

leave
in

Author

the
due

also

to
of

to

Professor

University

the

of

Cambridge,
are

due

are

Cambridge

in

prepared

was

thanks

the

thanks

sincere

to

I.

this

of

1977.

Consulting
Author

Mr.

Denmark,

extending

period;

the

and

calculations.

draft
July

Mrs.

to

student

of

the

of

advice.

Department

Nottingham,

Barlow,

research

and
the

Structures

the

due

Department,

The,
the

preparation

and

Engineering

the

the

final

in

Lomax,

thesis;

J.

of

assistance.

are

this

some

The

this

thanks

University

of

in

in

out
of

Messrs.

and

visiting

Technical

carried

Kong

the

of

encouragement

University

staff

F. K.

Dr.

and

supervision

valued

were

to

of

Sincere

ing

much

grateful

other

their

Professor

to

grateful

University

for

Engineering,

Author

help

Nottingham

of

University

Civil

sincerely

during

Allott
absence

and
to

enable

Cambridge.

thesis

was

supported

by

ii

SYNOPSIS
The
yet

design
by

covered

provisions

are

the

and

the
given

AC1318-71

design

guide
of

with

web

openings.

This

thesis

in

of

in

particular

ultimate

and

of

test

sixteen

with

single-span

and

serviceability.

specimens

comprised

weight

span/depth
a varied

ratios
range

of

web

were

studied,

forcement

was

investigated.

The

exact

with

web

openings

the

ultimate

with

was

are

The

simple

derived
design

beams

from

simple
the

method

crack

of

problems.

such

effects

ultimate

formidable
of

beams
The

two.

concrete

using

accuracy

deep

reinforced

strengths

shear

which

programme.

of

presents

reasonable

ization,

hints

analysis

lightweight

and

influence

the

and

their

deflections

modes,

beams

beams

on

to

one
on

failure

strengths

deep

concrete

openings

including

behaviour

general

openings

reinforced

loads,

cracking

widths,

web

from

CIRIA

deep

of

seventy-five

ranging

(1970)

(1977)

new

concrete
of

Some

1972.

guidance

the

reinforced
effects

normal

the

design

the

with

the

strength
The

concerned

not

Recommendations

and

for

is

beams

CP110:

comprehensive

recommendations

shear

and

Code,

more

is

Code

CEB-FIP

the

Building

contains

a number

British

current
in

deep

concrete

reinforced

of

shear
rein-

web

deep

beams
However,

can

be

predicted
ideal-

structural

results
is

explained

by

practising

of

the

test

and

design

given.

procedures

currently

used

engineers

iii

design

for

the

and

a more

the

various
In

the

information

on
on

Appendix

out
peated

to

current

reinforcement

chorage

the
2

investigate
loading

the

new

given

to

of
are

discussed,

and
CIRIA

guide

illustrate

details

is

pre-

the

use

of

of

effects

strength
details

are
the

conditions.

tests
various

crack,

and

given

behaviour

assumptions
longitudinal

the

Appendix

conservative.

necessarily
nine

design

of

requirements
are

the

the

procedures,

anchorage

1 describes

In

review

outlined

are

methods.

the

regarding

beams

examples

the

all

tension

deep

detailed
Design

sented.
of

of

carried

out

amounts

of

control
three

of
of

deep

of

deep

to
end

provide
an-

beams.

tests

carried

beams

under

re-

iv

TABLE

OF CONTENTS
Page

Acknowledgments

Synopsis

ii

List

of

Tables

Symbols

and

CHAPTER

Figures

and
Units

viii

Measurement

of

INTRODUCTION

-1

xiii

AND BACKGROUND

1.1

Introduction

1.2

Background

1.2.1

Elastic

1.2.2

Deep

beam

Introduction

2.2

Outlines

2.3

1.2.2.2

Leonhardt

1.2.2.3

Crist's

and

Walther's

tests

7
9

tests

OF R. C.
PRACTICE

design

current

CEB-FIP

2.2.2

ACI

2.2.3

Portland

and

tests

tests

DEEP

12

BEANS

17

2.2.1

CHAPTER

Siess's

Nottingham-Cambridge

of

General

Paiva

de

THE DESIGN
IN CURRENT

2.1

tests

1.2.2.1

1.2.2.4

CHAPTER

analysis

methods

Recommendations
Code

Building
Cement

17
21

association
:

25
28

comments

THE

17

EXPERIMENTAL

PROGRADL'1E

3.1

Introduction

31

3.2

Materials

33

3.2.1

Cement

3.2.2

Lightweight

33
aggregates

33

3.3

3.2.3

Normal

3.2.4

Reinforcement

Concrete

weight

34

aggregates

34
35

mixes

3.3.1

Lightweight

3.3.2

Normal

35

concrete
weight

35

concrete

3.4

Beam manufacture

36

3.4.1

Formwork

36

3.4.2

Reinforcement

3.4.3

Casting

3.5

Control

3.6

Testing

3.6.2

Test

3.6.3

Test

Test

4.2

Test

4.3

39

equipment

40

preparation

41
42

procedures

4 LIGHTWEIGHT
CONCRETE DEEP
STUDY
PILOT
WEB OPENINGS:

BEAMS

WITH

44

programme

45

results

4.2.1

Crack

patterns

4.2.2

Crack

widths

4.2.3

Ultimate

General

CHAPTER

38

curing

40
Test

4.1

and

specimens

3.6.1

CHAPTER

37

fabrication

and
and

modes

of

failure

45
48

deflection

loads

50

53

comments

LIGHTWEIGHT
CONCRETE DEEP BEVIS
FURTHER TESTS
WITH WEB OPENINGS:

5.1

Introduction

56

5.2

Test

programme

57

5.3

Test

results

59

5.3.1

Crack

patterns

and

modes

of

failure

59

vi

Page
5.3.2

Crack

5.3.3

Ultimate

CHAPTER

widths

and

63

deflection

66

loads

NORMAL
CONCRETE
WEIGHT
WEB OPENINGS
WITH

DEEP

BEAMS

6.1

Introduction

72

6.2

Test

programme

73

6.3

Test

results

74

6.3.1

Crack

patterns

6.3.2

Crack

widths

6.3.3

Ultimate

CHAPTER

7A

7.1

The

7.2

General

CHAPTER

8.1

"

and

of

modes

74

failure

75

deflection

77

loads

FOR DEEP

STRUCTURAL
IDEALIZATION
BEANS WITH WEB OPENINGS

81

idealization

structural

8A

and

88

discussion

PROPOSED
DEEP BEAMS

METHOD FOR THE DESIGN

WITH WEB OPENINGS

OF

91

Introduction

8.2

Proposed

8.3

Design

hints

94

8.4

Design

example

96

CHAPTER

9A

design

for

equations

CRITICAL.
REVIEW
OF THE
FOR DEEP BEANS
GUIDE

9.1

Introduction

9.2

CIRIA

9.3

Comparison

9.4

CIRIt

CIRIA

DESIGN

100

design

Guide:

91

shear

method:
of

design
Provisions

solid

top-loaded

loads

with
for

deep

test
beams

deep
beams

101

results

113

with
holes

114

vii

Page
CHAPTER

CONCLUSIONS
AND SUGGESTIONS
RESEARCH
FURTHER

10

10.1

Conclusions

10.2

Suggestions

APPENDIX

FOR

119
for

further

120

research

REINFORCEMENT
ANCHORAGE OF TENSION
CONCRETE DEEP BEANS
IN LIGHTWEIGHT

A1.1

Introduction

A1.2

Test

programme

123

A1.3

Test

results

125

A1.4

Deflection

A1.3.2

Crack

control

A1.3.3

Crack

patterns

A1.3.4

Ultimate

General

comments

SHEAR
BEAMS

A2.1

Introduction

A2.2

Test

A2.4

background

A1.3.1

APPENDIX

A2.3

and

125
and

modes

of

failure

loads

A2.2.2

Testing

127

DEEP
OF LIGHTWEIGHT
LOADS
TO REPEATED

STRENGTH
SUBJECTED

130

background

131
131

specimens

132
132

results

A2.3.1

Deflections

A2.3.2

Crack

A2.3.3

Ultimate

Summary

126
127

programme
Test

REFER ENCES

125

control

and

A2.2.1

Test

122

and

patterns
loads

crack

and

132

widths

modes

of

failure

133
134
135

136

viii

OF TABLES

LIST

All
end

full

the

of

tables

and

groups

as

page
in

text,

AND FIGURES

diagrams
listed

appear

at

the

below.
Page

CHAPTER
Figure

1
1.1

Effect
steel

Figure

1.2

inclined

of
and

concrete

Leonhardt

Reinforcement

Walther:

and

145

on

cracking
strains

146

arrangement
Figure

1.3

Meanings

of

Figure

1.4

Comparison

of
loads

ultimate
Figure

1.5

CHAPTER

Nottingham

147

symbols
computed

and

Details

tests:

148

measured

of

web reinforcement

149

Figure

2.1

Reinforcement

Figure

2.2

Deep

beam

Figure

2.3

Beam

designed

to

CEB-FIP

Figure

2.4

Beam

designed

to

ACI

Figure

2.5

PCA's

Design

chart

Figure

2.6

Beam

designed

CHAPTER

CEB-FIP
Recommendations

pattern:

in

design

to

150

151

examples
Recommendations
Code

Building

152
152
153

PCA

design

153

guide

Table

3.1

Sieve

analysis

of

Lytag

Table

3.2

Sieve

analysis

of

Hoveringham

Table

3.3

Tensile

of

properties

gravel
aggregates

3.1

Load

Figure

3.2

The

loading

apparatus:

general

Figure

3.3

The

loading

apparatus:

detail

extension

diagrams

155

156

reinforcements

Figure

v.

154

aggregates

for
reinforcement

157

arrangement

158

the

159

at

supports

ix

Page

CHAPTER
Table

Table

4
4.1

4.2

Properties
(Pilot

tests;

Measured
(Pilot

loads
ultimate
tests;
lightweight

of

beams
test
lightweight

concrete)

4.1

Dimensions
and reinforceme
(Pilot
tests;
lightweight

Figure

4.2

Opening
reference
in Table
to beams

Figure

4.3

Typical

crack

Figure

4.4

Typical

sequence

Figure

4.5

Typical
with

numbers:
4.1

in

4.6

Maximum

Figure

4.7

Development

of cracking

Figure

4.8

Development

of

Figure

4.9

Average

crack

Figure

4.10

Central

deflections

Figure

4.11

Load

Figure

4.12

Explanation

Table

Table

Figure

Figure

details
nt
concrete)

162

applicable

163

failure

164

the
cracks
appeared

166

beams

167

deep

of

168

widths
in
in

cracking

Beam M-0.4/4

170

0-0.4/4

171

Beam

172

widths

174

transmission

176

paths

of

177

symbols

5
5.1

5.2

5.1

5.2

5.3

test

Properties
(Further

of
tests;

Measured
(Further

ultimate
tests;

loads
lightweight

Dimensions
(Further

and
tests;

reinforcement
lightweight

Opening
lightweight
normal

Figure

which

modes

Figure

CHAPTER

at

patterns

crack

concrete)
161

Figure

failure
web openings

160

beams
lightweight

178
concrete)
180
concrete)
details
concrete)

to
nos:
applicable
reference
5.1
in Table
beams
and
6.1
Table
in
beams
weight

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

W7(A)

for

181

beams

W1(A)

182

183

x
Page

Figure

5.4

Typical

crack

patterns

Figure

5.5

Maximum

crack

widths

Figure

5.6

Central

deflections

Figure

5.7

Ultimate
with

web

5.8

Beam

W6-0.3/4

Figure

5.9

Beam

W7-0.3/4

Figure

5.10

Beam

W5-0.3/4

Table

6.1

Properties
test
beams

Table

6.2

Measured

6.3

193

after

failure

194

after

failure

195

after

failure

196

the

of

normal

weight

197

the

198

of

Comparison

the
strength
of
ultimate
weight
and lightweight
of normal
test
specimens

6.1

Dimensions

of

the

details

reinforcement

and

normal

6.2

Crack
normal

Figure

6.3

Maximum

crack

Figure

6.4

Central

deflections

at
beams

patterns
weight

failure

199

200

beams

concrete

weight

Figure

CHAPTER

beams

deep

of

loads
ultimate
beams
weight

normal

Figure

191

CHAPTER

Table

184
189

strengths
openings

Figure

failure

at

of

201

the

203

widths

204

Table

7.1

Measured

Figure

7.1

The

Figure

7.2

Explanation

of

Figure

7.3

Properties

and

computed

and

structural

loads

ultimate

205

idealization

209

symbols

210

dimensions

of

Beam

211

WW3-o.3/4
Figure

7.4

Comparison
ultimate

CHAPTER
Figure

of
loads

computed

and

measured

212

8
8.1

Design

equations:

geometrical

notation

213

Xi

Page

Figure

8.2

Design

example:

Figure

8.3

Design

example:
details

steel

CHAPTER

and

geometry
main

steel

loading

214

web

215

loads

216

and

Table

9.1

Comparison

Figure

9.1

Basic

Figure

9.2

Meanings

Figure

9.3

CIRIA

design

tables

Figure

9.4

Beam

designed

to

Figure

9.5

Assessment
CIRIA
Guide

of

Figure

9.6

CIRIA

condition
of
test
specimens

9.7

Figure

dimensions
of

applied

Guide
to

System

of

opening:
9.8

Principal

Figure

9.9

Reinforcement
CIRIA
Guide

CIRIA

symbols:

CIRIA

beams:

Guide

Guide

217
217
218

Guide

219

admissibility:

220

CIRIA

hole

beams

CIRIA

stresses:

around

Guide

an

222

222
223

openings:

around

221

admissibility

Table

A1.1

Properties

Table

A1.2

Ultimate

Figure

A1.1

Singh's

Figure

A1.2

Dimensions

of

the

test

of

beams

224

loads
test

225
226

specimens
and

details

reinforcement

test

present

Figure

A1.3

Central

deflection

Figure

A1.4

Maximum

crack

Figure

A1.5

Crack

APPENDIX

deep

of

deep
notional
CIRIA
Guide

Figure

APPENDIX

design

computed

of

specimens
curves

widths

patterns

at

226

227
228

failure

229

Table

A2.1

Properties

Table

A2.2

Measured

of
and

test
computed

specimens
loads

230
231

xii
Page

Figure

A2.1

General
of

web

arrangement
reinforcement

Figure

A2.2

Central

deflections

Figure

A2.3

Maximum

diagonal

Figure

A2.4

Comparison
test
results:

Figure

A2.5

Crack

patterns

of

and

details

232

233
crack

Singh's
central
at

failure

widths
and present
deflections

233
234

235

xiii

SYMBOLS

of
area
Eqns.
of
(7.3),
bars

AND UNITS

OF MEASUREMENT

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

are

also

bar
web
(4.2),
the

regarded

as

(for
(7.1),

the
purpose
(7.2),

longitudinal
main
bars)
web
I

As

area

of

main

Ah

area

of

horizontal

Av

area

of

vertical

Aw

area

of

web

reinforcement

Ar

used

in

Egn.

(9.4),

a1,

a2

longitudinal

distance
load
and

web

between
the
face

(breadth)

reinforcement

web

reinforcement

see

defining
(Figures
4.2

coefficients
opening

reinforcement

symbol

dimensions
the
and 5.2)

the
of

line
the

action
of
supporting

width

length
the
of

of support
measured
the
beam
span
of

empirical
(4.2),

coefficient
(7.1),
(7.2)and

of

beam

in

of

an

the
of
member

section

in

Eqns.
(7.3)

direction

the

(1.9),
for

(4.1),

normal
lightweight

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

C2

empirical
(7.1)

coefficient
(7.3)
(for

for

round

and
plain

bars,

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

(4.2),.,
300

N/mm

xiv

C1

empirical
(8.2)

c;
"
C2

(for

for

= 0.44;

empirical
(8.2)

for

(for

over-all

effective

Egn3.

lightweight

depth

depth

C2
=

beam,

of

0.36)

ang

N/j2m
195
=
)
N/mm
97.5

4.1,5.1,6.1)

(Figs.

beam

of

C1=

(8.1)

Eqns.

bars
C2

bars

round

and

concrete

in

deformed

(8.1)

concrete

weight

coefficient

plain

in

coefficient
normal

to

measured

centroid

of As
fI

(or

characteristic
compressive

cylinder
specified)
of concrete

strength

fcu

characteristic

cube

ft

characteristic
of concrete

cylinder

fy

characteristic
of
reinforcement

(or

allowable

tensile

ha

effective

height

ks

shear

k1k2

coefficients
opening

kl, k'
12
L

simple

stress

effective
2.2.2,1
of

supports

of

in

stress

beam

of

span
= clear

(Fig.

strength

reinforcement

(Fig.

9.1)

factor

defining
4.2,5.2,7.1)

beam

strength

yield

specified)

of

concrete

splitting

modifying

(Figs.

span

strength

the

(Figs.

9.1);
distance

position

of

4.1,5.1,6.1)

in
Chapter
between

faces

an

xv

10

distance
clear
(Fig.
supports

design

bending

moment

Diu

design
section

bending
(Egn.

moment
2.4)

Ps

modified

P
SS

=2v

Pt

ratio
steel
Newmark's

main

between
9.1)

Ps according

in

used
formula

steel

ratio

PmsPwh'Pwv

modified

percentage

horizontal
(Fig. 9.3)

spacing

de

Paiva

and

Siess

of

web

horizontal

sv

spacing

of

vertical

total

(Ault

design

steel

s W2/2)

measured

reinforcement

web

reinforcement

reinforcement

by

resisted

force

of

web
beam

horizontal
for
direction
horizontal

web

force

of
the

web

vertical

direction
in
and
a
inclined
and

of

capacity

and

steel;

reinforcement,

spacing

shear

main

of

strength

9h

tensile

Siess

/bd

steel;

shear

in

shear

to

of volume
= ratio
in
concrete
of the

web

a vertical
reinforcement
for
vertical

Vc

critical

ratio
that

at

Laupa,
(page
6)

web steel
to
steel

ultimate

of

bD

Pweb

Qult

faces

a beam

(Eqn.

9.6)

XV1

design
u

shear
(Eqn.

section

allowable

vc

ultimate
in
Eqn.

shear

limiting
Eqn. (2.2),

vu

at

Vmax9
Vwh'

vx'vms
Fwv

stress

critical

stress
formula

total

load

on

in

measured
(Table

ultimate
4.2)

load

W1

measured

ultimate

load

stress;
shear

stress

in
stress

stress;
shear

Laupa,

ultimate
(Table
7.1
W2 = ultimate
W?

computed
Table
9.1)

Siess

and

design

loads

distributed
length

uniformly
unit
per

clear-shear-span
5.1,6.1)

(Fig.

9.3

Eqn.
Fig.
from

(Chapter

load,

distance

clear-shear-span

beam

solid

computed
and Fig-7-4);
load
computed

effective

of

from
in

load

W2

through

2.9)

beam

xe

(Eqn.

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

W4

critical

concrete
shear
nominal
v=
section.

nominal
shear
and Newrnark's

vs

at

concrete
shear
(2.4)
v=
nominal
by
thecconcrete

carried

force
2.4)

(7.2)
(1.4)
Eqn.

(1.9)

9.3,

load

axial

(Figs.

(Eqn.

4.1,

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

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

depth

yi

sects
crack
idealized

in

Egn.

(9.4),

bar

points

interdiagonal

openings,
CB in
or

symbol

Fig.

yr

used

lever

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

al

0a

see

beam,

(7.2)

arm

of
1.2)

reinforcement

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

characteristic

(Eqns.

ratio
(Eqn.

2.6

1, 2, 3

constants

Yf

partial

safety

factor

for

loading

Ym

partial

safety

factor

for

materials

and

2.7)

and

2.7)

9.6)

(Eqns.

Fa

characteristic

ratio

Ar

between
angle
diagonal
crack

reinforcement
(Egn. 9.4)

empirical
for
web

(7.2)

coefficient,
bars
1.0
and

equal
for
main

2.6

and

to
1.5
bars

Xvlll

x1,

A2

constants

'(Egn.

9.4)

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

UNITS

The
this

OF MEASUREMENT

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

ELASTIC

1.2.2

DEEP

ANALYSIS

BEAM

TESTS

1.2.2.1

de

Paiva

1.2.2.2

Leonhardt

1.2.2.3

Crist's

1.2.2.4

Nottingham

Siess's

and
and

Walther's

tests.
tests.

tests.

Cambridge

tests.

1.

CHAPTERONE

AND

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Cambridge,

it

became

reinforced

strength

that

topics

but

the

practical

not

yet

covered

as

CP11O3

and
British

is

only

(CEB)

and

Federation

first

included

Code

for

the

deep

beams.

In

beams

major

such
U. S. A.;

Indeed,

de

for

the

guidance

5
.

These

two

documents,

published

research

carried

out

on

Europeen

du

Beton

beams

1971,

the

recommendations

known

Industry

guides

In

that

in

their

ACI

the

with

Concrete

Information

CIRIA
currently

and

Building

for

together

Research

(PIP)

Precontrainte

la

deep

solid

included

widely

been

Comite

Internationale

time

design

is

openings

practice:
4
in the

so

or

has

the

first

recently

access

little

provides

1970,

provisions

Construction

Association's
the

deep

7.
,

Association's

of

Europe.

in

decade

Recommendations

International

form

yet,

for

web

Code

Building

last

the

concrete
scale

with

found

be

may
or

codes

as

it

were

openings,

beams.

during

practical

the

1972,

web

services

major

ACI

the

deep

of

and

the

of

Recommendations

CP110:

reinforced

Cement

any

with

beams

the

particular,

Often,

deep

of

behaviour

and

in

and,

for

of

U. K.;

the

design
It

in

by

in

code

the

on

design

strength

2.

design

University

the

at

beams

openings

provide

CEB-FIP

the

in

recurred

the

deep

of

given

beams,

deep

behaviour

to

necessary

that

clear

concrete
and

Colloquium

a Mechanics

At

of

BACKGROUND

solid
Portland
ST668

Information

design
available

9
guide
in

the

(1977),
U. K.

Deep

beams

construction

modern
of

structures.

in

department

In

are

becoming

and

have

useful

hotels,

buildings

in

housing

it

is

free

of

columns.

the

use-of

on,

for

construction
buildings

so

and

in

employed

applications

building

modern

stores,

municipal

increasingly

example,
theatre,

desired

often

variety

have

to

the

lower

heavy

floors

frame

concrete
to

construction,

or

the

across
Other

them.

a deep

uses

beam

foundation;
as

deep

These
web
so

be

provided

and

in

bunkers

on

be

must
erature

which
have
that,

that

on

reinforced

In

reinforced

carried

this

supports.

may

concentrated

which

and

is

the

litdata

experimental

beams
on

without

of

surveys

deep

concrete

reported.

procedures

9-12
information

act

behaviour
design

yet,

the

pro-

been

beams

deep

into

research
have

beams
on

recent

where

walls

several

time

above

loads

post-cracking

some

little

with
the

web

effects

opening
of

out.

chapter,

a review
concrete

for

tests.

study,

was

column

their

Since

shown

experimental

vestigation,

least

at

have

an

openings,

shown

on

are

that

to

beams

cooling-water

the

where

out

simpler

engineering,

silos,

carried

in

building

column

deep

be

deep

in

found

foundation

concrete
were

the

Nottingham

of

based

available

and

may

carry

distribute

to

reinforced

projects,

complex

in

University

it
as

be

may

between

spanning

openings,

beams

of

trusses

walls
and

space

stations;

may

the

10-12

jects

power

beams
At

deep

of

instead

Vierendeel

partition

free

column

for

pumphouses

and

external

Here,

trusses,

steel

structural

even
the

utilise

span

entirely

as
of

deep

a background

selected
beams

previous
is

presented.

to

the

present

investigations

inon

web

3.

BACKGROUND

1.2

ELASTIC

1.2.1

ANALYSIS

A substantial
the

behaviour

alysis

13,

Dischinger
in

stresses
8

iation
paper

and

have
is

on

the

prediction

because

the

are

criteria

of

would

1.2.2

not

criteria

no

be

service

longer

compatible
limit

which

states.
related

with

Assoc-

to

give

methods
It

pointed

any

theoretical

deep
with

which

from

the

then
but,

invalid

increasingly
cracking,

these

current

design

the

For

this

reason,
to

primarily

were

beams

requirements;

of

out

impracticable.

i8,21
in

load

onset

Cement

have

even

methods

become
the

after

or

consistent

past,

assumptions

ultimate

research

the

the

behaviour.

beam,

forces

interal

of

concrete

methods

of

in

were,

elastic

reinforced

review

of

determine

spans

22

Hendry

by

Dischinger's

of

beam

a deep

design

other

and

done

Photoelastic

difficult

very

to

supported

deep

in

an-

was

Portland

beams.

and

PCA

design

accepted

Saad

holes

became

theory

elastic

that

field

version

investigate

to

The

this

covering
linear

elastic

The

simply

deep

of

available,

series

expanded
for

were

solution

of
in

beams.

an

note

there

where

deep

used

terms

trigonometric

design

to

in

is

work

work

solutions

been

elastic

in

used

the

pertinent

based

who

added

also

that,

pioneering

produced

for

guidance

The

continuous

have

of

beams

deep

of

13-21.

library

further

elastic

analysis

appropriate.

DEEP

BEAM

In

1964,

TESTS
in

the

Introduction

to

the'Recommendations

for

4.

an

International

it

was

Code
"the

stated,

Principles

the

of

the

single

on

Illinois,

These

cent
of

deep

actual

design

26

of

Nottingham

the

been

Cambridge

more
the

re-

knowledge
influenced

a comparatively

years,
out

the

under

24

were

the

expanded

carried

team

Stuttgart,

significantly

seven

the

Siess

and

with

have
have

of

on

deep

beams

direction

of

1,27-38.
In

the

test

and

Walther,

what

studies

previous

follows,

a brief

carried

by

and

Crist

work

by

Paiva

de

1.2.2.1

beam

was

specimens
working
which

at

the

was

made

de

University
reported

in

and

Cambridge

tests
24'

39

Illinois.

a paper

of

Leonhardt

Siess,
with

comprehensive

Paiva

details

an

outline

of

deep

team.

24,

practical

of

of

together
-

tests

earliest
on

by

Pa-va

de

presented,

Siess's

the

description

Nottingham

the

based

behaviour

out
is

and

Possibly

of

last
has

research

at

together

and

the

or

external

results
Paiva

de
25

Mexico,

behaviour

Over

by

centres,
New

forming

as

of

the

Walther

and

at

behaviour

actual

action

and

failure".

conducted

test

beam

volume

Kong

of

two

practice.

large

tests

fundamentally

conceived

the

that

considered

the

of

respectively,

Leonhardt

Crist

of

work

1966

and

be

concrete
to

to

tested

beam
and

reported.

by

1965

deep

and

Concrete

Beton

du
should

subjected
and

Reinforced

knowledge

steel

of

forces

practical

Europeen

experimental

whole.......

In

for

Recommendations

combination

internal

in

Comite

and

based

solely

Practice

of

23,

study

and

colleagues

This
by

de

concrete
40,41

reinforced

on

Paiva

work,
and

a
Siess

digest
24

in

J0

has

1965,

beam

deep

other

The
19

simply

to

was
is

the

span/depth

variables

studied
of

The
their

ratios

depths
1.8

of

consisted

of

inclined

had

inclined

the

inclined

upward

of

sections

led

cracks

resulting
arch

behaviour

ment

at

the
end

maximum

to

formation

the

causes
supports
anchorage

a
of

high

of

the

give

or

the

that
the

near

the

midspan,

flexural

the

type

from

concrete

propagation

tension
must

of

internal
(Fig.

arch'.

reinforcement.

in

plates.

deduced

of

provision

mm

L/D

bars

beams

the

that

in

610

vertical

Evidence

'tied

to

was

redistribution

stresses
hence

and

than

showed

of

toward

moment.

measurement

strain

in

behaviour

on

span

of

deep

inward

and

steel,

span/depth

steel

it

in

The

wire.

tests,

originate

influence

at
steel

that

propagate

greater

and

of

the

deformed

welded

annealed
the

6.

reinforcement

consisted

black

results

cracks,
and

cracks

positive

the

by

ends

that

tensile

main

mm,

grade

provided,

No-7

330

thitd

beams;

2 and

a constant

longitudinal

main

programme

and

mm to

178

the

at

where
of

over

test
deep

of

quantity

intermediate

two

or

stirrups

support

The

3.4.

anchored

From
the

from

reinforcement,

the

to

between

of

of

subjected

moderately

reinforcement,

varied

one

of

ratios(L/D)

were

of

consisted

the

of

object

behaviour

tested

to

layer,

single
Web

beams

The

were

projects

1965,

beams

concrete

(shear)

web

in

reported

1.1).

the

with

ratio.
and

(Fig.

investigate

quantity

were

reinforced

loading

beams

major

that

the

on

11,12,26

workers

research

tests,

influence

guiding

supported

top

point

been

since

be

forces
This

1.1).
reinforcemade

for

b.

Three
the

of

collapse
through

from

between

The

failure

modes,

the

was

found

to

of

steel

main

changed

From
Siess
shear

24

an

derived

stress
shallow

beams

where

in

not

observed

the

failure

of

occurred
failure
'strut'

'flexure-shear'
the

of

of

amount

former

web
in

significant
that
mode

the

test

from

to

modes.

reinforcethe

changing

increasing

the

flexure

de

results,

equation

that

compute

quantity

to

shear.

Paiva

and

the

ultimate

o. 6D )

(1-

Ps

(1.1)

was
as

determined
from
L/D)

with

41

Laupa's

using

derived

(large

the

of

results
small

shear

=A

200

(1

+
bD

for

formula
tests

on

span/depth

bD

which
Pt

be

was

P=2v
ss
vs

inclined

and

following

0.8

s
(vs),

proper'

the

describe

Ps:

Ps

where

'shear

either

type

analysis
the

strength,

P'

it

which

and

clearly

not

of

but

failure

cracks;

effect

provided

to

the

of

inclined
was

defined

tie;

steel

crushing

two

failure

the

where

were

'flexure'

the

of

resulted

formed

modes

beams:

rupture

which

ment

failure

shear

ordinary
ratios.

(1.2)
0.188

sina0)

f'

21,300

Pt

The
area

steel
and

quantity

a0

sinao)

a vertical

crossing

support;

(1

the

was

the

inclination

of

'total'

the

between

section

angle

to

referred

load

the

of

point

reinforc-

ment.
It
are
is

is

the

to

related

vertical

Leonhardt

their

experimental

ficant

influence

little

Walther

and
study

on

their

of

work

Rec(>m^nenda

of

CEB-FIPlis

the

included
deep

behaviour

the

deep

loaded
to

beams,

A total
tested
an

overall

spread
and

rollers.

all

beams

concentrated
j

of

the

large
1600

The
a

namely,

In

bD.

bottom;
some

in

mm,

with

uniformly,
beams
for

used

was

reinforcement

in

quantities

some

beams

others

cases

100

were

distributing

of

bars

only

applied

was

tension

ribbed
0.25%

1600

bottom

beams

concrete

longitudinal

and

of

tests.

scale

load

system

will

beam

deep

aggregate

in

aspects
thesis;

this

review

each

weight

height;

scope

study

refer

Normal

near

considered

signi-

The

2.2.1).

here

by

the

drafting

the

0.8L

to

the

and

length

bD

the

on

of

comparatively

8 mm diameter

and

Chpt.

supported

main

1966,

supported

mm.

the

in

of

indirectly

1440

of

0.125%

from

ranged

over

of

consisted

was

and

outside

the

condition;

span
over

which

of

this

under

beams)

simply

strengths.

results

Stuttgart

(7

hence

conventional

the

reported

at

strength

25

evident

and

top-loaded

the

C1g70)5

continuous,

of

ultimate

(cf.

tests

behaviour

beam

, c,, s

clearly

several

on

beams

deep

observatiozis

shear

that

tests
25

the

secondly

effect

Walther's

and

Leonhardt

that

and

test

significant

firstly,

ratio;

have

stirrups

1.2.2.2

(1.1):

x/D

two

that

noted

Eqn.

in

explicit

be

to

it

was

a proportion

which
the

main

steel

distributed
of

the

main

steel

bent

was

forcement

up

was

reinforcement
of

and

in

was

provided,

5 mm diameter

all

Anchorage

supports.

by

achieved

hooks,

zontal

the

over

the

use
the

of

either

of

beams

vertical

a nominal

consisting

of

the

of

an

reinhori-

or
amount

web

of

orthogonal

mesh

bars.
A

Analysis

of

that

considerable

confirmed
takes
the
of

in

place

deep

was

beams

found

concrete

the

at
have

might

Leonardt

from

by

caused

The

25

Walther

of

quantity

Egns.

from

summary,

and

was

the

basis

(1.3),

main

which

failure

of

the

of

that

the

tension
the

of

there

failure
the

of

action

vertical-

for

L/D

<1T=

M/O.

6L

tension

chord

support

to

support

design

following

be

should

rules:

determined

(1.3)

bending

applied

moment,

and

is

the

force.
determined

reinforcement

experience

follow

6D

maximum

test

steel

M/O.

the

the

the

longitudinal

>1T=

11 is

of

recommended

L/D

The

behaviour

action

destruction

of

thought

unfavourable

with

collapse

a result

the

for

resulting
2.

it

compared

hooks.
In

where

as

forces

mode

common
the

internal

arch

and

more
by

caused

supports:

been

anchorage

from

The

occurred

also

beams

deep

plates,

apparent.

flexural,

Failure

chord.

1.

be

of

redistribution

vertical

measurements

strain

steel

concrete

of

was

to

and

reinforced

theory

elastic

concrete

and

be

from
positively

the

above
anchored

should
using

extend

9.
4

horizontal

hooks

To

3.

limit

4.
bars,

was

not

cracks

(In

in

not

observed

in

it

is

to

be

noted

New

with

is

Crist's
tests

concrete
behavioural

and

the
in

given

the

the

dynamic

equations

It
main

be

provided

+y

wi1
the

that,

that

benefit

of

failure

shear

was

collapse

early

failure

flexural

reinfnrcam6rit

^f

failure

bearing

premature

cut-offs.

without

here

premature

shear

well

was

support

because

either

that

reinforcement

likely

failure

shear

contended

was

to

seems

at

the

supports.

26

the

work

of

de Paiva

main

basis

of
issue

current

programme
on

uniformly

the

object

of

for

reinforced

the
of

colleagues24,39-41

and

work

experimental

tests

The

horizgntal

and

that

view

mentioned

experimental

beams.

times

should

supports,

tests

26

formed

Mexico

which

or

Crist's

Illinois,

0.2

to

stirrups

the

+hempi_T_+r?

tests

Together
at

it

of

the

support
be

that

smal

at

the

Leonhardt's

Crist's

1.2.2.3

if

tests,

a result

vertical

beams.

might

as

l a+i v1 y

0.15

be

should

1.2).

from

it
beam

occurred

deep

extended

deep

reinforcement

of

reflected

occur

retrospect,

later

bottom

closely

above,

not

and

the

(Fig.

problem

would

anchored

r'

more

No.

main

mesh

reinforcement.
Rule

the

1.2).

orthogonal

arranged
web

over

(Fig.

A light

for

widths,

distributed

depth.

plates.

anchor

crack

uniformly

beam

or

deep
the

University

the

at

beam
ACI

of

top-loaded

research
concrete

design

Building

consisted

to

deep

guidance
Code

static

reinforced

was

of

develop
beams;

10.

as

especially
All

were

Normal

ment

were

to

give

and

an
the

with

There
failure

and

were

reinforcement
loaded
found

was

each
ation

reinforcement

axis

of

the

beam

failed

that

in

shear

the

beams

with
the

of

but

failure,
form-

crack

regards

tested

statically

companion

the

and

None

complete
as

collapse.

yield,

without.

similarly,
to

to

those

in

to

taken

was

behave

those

provided.

beam

to

flexure

predominantly

tested

tested

all

prior

reinforce-

steel

coincident

was

were

strength

statically

web

development,

and

the

3.8.

to

1.6

longitudinal

of

beams

to

A15

ASTM

the

of

of

compressive

of

beams

were

depths

ratios

array

and

dynamically

L/D

contained

five

loaded
beams

modes

in

and

The

mm.

of

beams

the

of

statically
no

a range

grade

orthogonal

were

2438

of

intermediate

longitudinal

The

span

mm thick

203

were

a nominal

reinforcing,

beams,

capacity.

with

All

used.

tensile

concrete

N/mm

25.9

over

varied

weight

shear

specimens

supported

beams

web

test

the

simply

of

regards

beams.

Static
derived

mentioned
The

research.
be

can

or

above

d),

vuc

the

at

critical

were

by

tests

from
it

capacity,

shear

beams

represented

seventy-three

static

deep

was

section,

nine

other
argued,
xc=

O. 2L

by
V=V+V
u

gin which
.

and

data

of

conservatively

given

xc

total

for

equations

boundary

lower

the

on

tests

behavioural

uc

concrete

=[3-5

-3vd1.9

(1.4)

us
capacity

is

f
cc

+ 2500

(i)i pa

(1.5)

11.

the

and

web

Vus

reinforcement

Av

fyd

1.5

1+L+

M=
v

Av,

Ratio
c

of
the

at

Ah-

the

d=

the

the

p=

in

the

in

a minor

capacity
number

the

centroid

to

the

area

steel.
area

steel

bxd

shear

stress

and

these

were

The

limits

nominal

were

established

found
as

were

to

control

follows:

fco

X1.7)

Vu/bd

<8

f'

(1.8)

that

concluded

in

beams

normal

ing,

which

is

is
not

the
that

with

reserve

usually

second
used

in

cracking

load

of

normal

cracking

load

is

taken

is

of

in

term
Building-Code

beams:

in

as

a measure

such
of

beams

that
in

diagonal

conveniently
4
for

the

that

beams.

normal

is

ACI

the

beyond

beam
from

but

ratios,

strength

available

bracketed

different

little
L/d

large

deep

concrete

reinforced

behaviour

there

as

to

<6

beams

term

steel

web

Vuc/bd

deep

(1.5),

force

shear

section.

cases.

inclined-cracking-load

Eqn.

main

concrete

of

measured

longitudinal

on

applied

-L

respectively.

sh

depth

calculations

Crist

observed

and

sv

of

limits

12

horizontal

and

vertical

main

the

of
Upper

of

ratio

to

/11
ld

section.

effective

of

sh

moment

critical

spacing

the

applied

area

in

Ah

12

svv

where

is

capacity

the

useful

crackin

Hence,

the
the

same

inclined

diagonal
capacity

of

12.

beam

the
term

without

a measure

gives

diagonal

beyond

The

reinforcement.

shear

the

of

cracking

reserve

and

was

of

bracketed

first

derived

deep

of

strength

beams

from

empirically

the

data.

test

The

web

reinforcement

the

capacity

capacity,

given

(1.6),

Eqn.

by

represents
ment

coincident

equation

based
blast

by

developed

on

plane,

give

shear

force.

an

to

rise

Research
four

of

based

the

on

but

the

as

evidence

that

the

fruitful

most

and
which

the

new
is

without

been

CIRIA

team
The

tests

the

on

guide
design

the

crossing
the

resist

applied

on

ongoing
past

in

the

mounting

details

sought10+43
experimental
would

contains

some
of

the

up

to

provide

results

and

27-32,

journals

technical

At

solutions

specimens

the

proposals

under

were

section

concrete
of

behav-

years.

nine

computer

was

the

on

design

guidance

Nottingham

33.

culmination

openings

the

there

published

design

been

uncracked

Many

approach.

based

Cambridge

an

forces,

normal

team

has
for

progressed,

have

which

programme,

of

practical

tests

the

Kong

research

originally

bars

web

The

tests

beams

F. K.

assumption
research

by

reinforce-

beam.

that

Nottingham-Cambridge

Dr.

the

of

assumes

forces

CAMBRIDGE

the

of

analogy

plane

crack

frictional

of
of

axis

analogy

concrete

guidance

beginning

the

of

by

reinforced

general

The

array

friction

shear

inclined

NOTTINGH01

1.2.2.4

on
42.

orthogonal

an

longitudinal

the

with

was

developed

of

was

of
the

the

research

publication

of

1972

a proposed

on

deep

formula

beams
33

13.

for
it

design

the
was

The

argued,

method

many

the

on

further
out

the

the

of

30

Nottingham

at

form:

following

which

observations.

evaluation

carried

took

beams,

test

recorded

previously
formula

proposed

deep

concrete

of

based

was

experiments

the

reinforced

solid

embodied

proposed

research
and

of

-1

Qult

C1

-w

where,

-ult
L4

the

ultimate

is

the

ultimate

is

is

is
0.1

shear

strength

shear

load,

an

empirical

an

for

1.0

and
empirical
bars

the

and

cylinder

times

the

cube
or

is

the

overall

depth

area

the

purpose

are

also

is

the

at

which

the

the

of

this

depth,

inside

tensile

in

of

as
rim,

of

web

of

the

the

the

weight

N/mm2

130

for

plain

not

in

mm.

mm.

bar,
main

or

available.

beam,
in

N/mm2,

in

2,
mm

in

for

and

longitudinal

bars

bars.
from

measured
bar

normal

bars.

is

web

equation

individual
edge

ft

beam,

the

for

1.4

strength,

if

individual

of

to

deformed

thickness

considered

an

for

strength

breadth

loading,

top

concrete.
equal

splitting

the

the

lightweight

N/mm2

300

to

equal

coefficient

is

is

from

computed

two-point

of

case

Newtons.

in

beam,

Newtons,

in

the

the

of

coefficient

i1.

(1.3):

Fig.

in

2AY

a_

sin

loading

top

two-point

to

+Cn

Qult

round
ft

ftbD

D'

formula;

above

concrete
C2

reference

is

W2

0.35X

for

with

the

C1

(1

intersects

bearing

block

the

top

line

the
at

of

the

the

beam,

joining
support

to

14.

the

outside

is

the

described

is

the

in

total

be

Using
a plot

the

of

presehted,
that

and

strengths

The

out

135

on

specimens
1524

or

top

two

point

L/D

and

x/D

to

0.7.

0.23

mm thick

depths

normal

ratio,

web

steel

to

zero

to

and
400

their

N/mm

of

0.025.

about

L/D

used

were

that

yield
respectively.

beams

It

was
be

may

the

of

seen

ultimate

deep

the
Both

from

five

as

concrete
plain

strengths

the
in
round

were
The

main

test

either

762

mm

of

the

give

a range

1 to

3;

and

the

of
beam,

and

from

x/d

arrangements
The

1.5).

ratio

of

lightweight

principal
(Fig.

considered

The

geometry

to

aggregate
and

defined

the

carried

beams.
of

spans

varied

basis

destruction

to

and

the

formed

which

varied

weight

were

pweb'

had

were

namely,

Both

computed
above)

(1.4).

Fig.

tests

the

system

ratios;

(1.9)

estimate

and

of

loading

foraement

and

76.2

the

elsewhere,

the

and

Eqn.

rectangular

supported

reinforcement

web

used,

included

concretes

aggregate
of

formula

The

mm.

in

27-32

work

were

in

beams.

deep

simply

described

and

(1)

from

a reasonable

experimental

proposed

main

sin2a

loads

here

reproduced

solid

line

the

0)

a<

the

Nottingham

from

determined

as

including

quantity

ultimate

gives

of

the

is

(1.9)

Egn.

of

(2,

(180>

above

n bars.

data

measured

the

and

JA(y/D)

the

all

test

the

loads

urtimate

for

point.

considered
of

cross

Thus,

summed

being

bars,

web

that

y.

of

bar

loading

definition
of

bars,

definition
to

the

the

at

the

number

longitudinal

is

that

of

between

angle

line
n

edge

the

web

rein-

volume

of

from

varied

deformed

bars

were

approximately

300

N/mm2

longitudinal

bars

were

15.

anchored

itemised

2.

The

more

here

for

The

ultimate

two

parts,

the

web

The

concrete

4.

the

x/D

to
it

the

the

the

important

beam

is

concrete

composed

of

that

and

of

than

a, de-

with

closely

more

to

to

related
the

cube

of

at

cot-1

bar

to

is

perpendicular

it

is

in

the

point,

horizontal.

the

the

diagonal

shear:

its

to

depth

at

it

which

crack.
ultimate
stress

longitudinal

of

the

shear

inde-

reinforcement.
forms

strength

is

strength

shear

reinforcement
the

at

loading

resisting
the

with

block
the

at

(x/D)

increases

yield

to

that

line

the

approximately
load-bearing

face

limits,

the

is
the

diagonal

the.

main

linearly

ft

of

effective

practical

of

important

an

reinforced

concrete

beams.
It

that

face

also

of

is

crack

a web

more

contribution
deep

the

strength

inclined

nearly

intersects

The

of

and

outside

effectiveness

6.

ratio,

inside

is

more

pendent

increased

diagonal

support

Within

deep

of

27-32,

cu

potential

crack,

5.

possible

reported

follows:

as

strength

splitting
f.

e.,

are

contribution

the

The

prevent

reinforcement.

joining

i.

to

observations

contribution

cylinder

The

test

brevity,

the

strength
3.

blocks

steel

important

shear

in

crease
the

to

ends

failure.

anchorage

1.

their

at

is

to

clear-shear
than

the

be

noted
span

span/depth

that
ratio

observation
x/D
ratio

is
L/D.

(2)

above

interpreted
Observation

to

means
be
(2)

more
also

16.

that

implies
the

diagonal
of

splitting

which

beams

normal

in

Study

As

interesting

tests

and

Crist

assumes
the

crossing
the

soffit.

assumes

that

the

failure

it

not.

may

(1.12)

between

/d),

and

v
and

is

Shear

the

of

Nottingham-Cambridge

the

contribution
crack
The

The
yield

Firstly,

reinforcement

given

above,
the

the

maximum
is

difference
of

Crist's

of

that

above,

(1.9),

Egn.

ordinate
Crist
develops

reinforcement
(5)

down

distributed

with

second

observation

the

uniformly

expression

strain

results

significant

team.
of

is

two

are

the

distribution

whereas

with

analogy

there

the

triangular

beam

before

and

reinforcement,

diagonal

the

at

(a

Ramakrishnan

Fig.

analogy

an

connection

ratio

by

to

akin

47).

depth.

effective

reflects

that

in

'split-cylinder'

differences
of

44,45

beams

is
test,

span/depth

deep

(1.12)

web

those

beam

Brazilian

the

(Brock's

Report

regards

and

to

Section

Group's

shear

deep

byy, Brock

small

applied
416.

Ananthanarayana
explained

described
with

subsequently

in

cylinder

first

was

in

cracking

states

that

CHAPTERTW0

THE

DESIGN

OF R. C.

2.1

INTRODUCTION

2.2

OUTLINES

DEEP

BEAMS

OF CURRENT

2.2.1

CEB-FIP

2.2.2

ACI

2.2.3

Portland

GENERAL

DESIGN

CURRENT

METHODS

Recommendations
Code

Building

Cement
+

2.3

IN

COMMENTS

Association

PRACTICE

17.

CHAPTERTW0

OF RC.

DESIGN

THE

DEEP

BEAMS

IN

CURRENT

PRACTICE

INTRODUCTION

2.1

With
1977,
of

the

form

some

reinforced

time.

of

than)

guidance
4,

visions

CEB-FIP

PCA

ST668;

and

the

for

deep

beams

this

chapter

of

each

is

which

Building
pro-

some

British

in

detailed

theACI

containing

used

currently

first

the

more

5,

design

the
for

provides

Recommendations

January

in

on

available

(but

with

ranks

guide

guidance

became

beams

deep

the

design

British

authorative,

joined

guide

CIRIA

the

of

concrete

The

Code

issue

design

practice.
In
ed

above

trate

described,

are

their

is

2.2

The

impact

on
for

provisions
in

reviewed

According
supported
uous

beams

deep

beams.

be

calculated

beams
of

detail

DESIGN

to
of

L/D
The
from

span/depth
less

ratio
area
the

of

the

largest

to

likely

contains

also

with

have

web

openings,

9.

METHODS

5.

CEB-FIP

the

beams

deep

illus-

to

given

and

practice

Chapter

in

Recommendations

CEB-FIP

The

design
of

is

which

mention-

methods

are

examples

guide,

design

design

major

design

future

the

greater

three

CIRIA

OF CURRENT

OUTLINES

2.2.1

and

usage.

significant
some

the

59

Recommendations
L/D

ratio

less

than

2.. 5

main

longitudinal

bending

are

to

moment

simply
than

or

contin-

designed

be

steel
in

the

should
span,

as

LU"

following

the

using

values

(L

0.2

z=

z=0.6

It
is
z

is

thus

independent
with
The

explained
to

the
level,
to

depth

D but

at

area

of
be

should

(0.25D

attention

0.05L),

to

the

the

form

and

development

of

the

shown

of

of

curt,

cracks

to

not

be

and

2,

the

one
Also,

ends.

of

The

CEB-FIP

the

main

equal
drew
in

steel
the

limit

to

bars

one

at

depth

over

facilitate

to

as

concentrated

(2.1).

Fig.

diameter

small

1 to

from

ailment
at

detailing

of

determined

distributed
in

trom

L/D

for

securely

is

uniformly

arm

rate.

anchored

importance

a number

beam:

without

steel

as

lever

the

reinforcement,

be

and

<1,,

the

lower

z: -

(2.1)

L/D

for
D of

arm

L/D<

extend

should

another

but

1<L/D<2

longitudinal

main

required

for

that

the

above,

support

lever

for

seen

of

increases

2D)

for

width
the

at

anchorage

supports.
The

design

0.1bDfo/Ym

where

is

the

or

beam

characteristic
partial

factor

As
that

it

mesh

consisting

near

each

regards
generally

will

face

of
and

D the

for

exceed

(whichever

depth,
of

strength,

web

not

should

O. 1bLfc/ym

width,

cylinder
safety

force

shear

the

the

is

less)

fc

span,

concrete

and

the
ym the

materials.
the

reinforcement,
besufficient

vertical
surrounding

to

stirrups
the

Recommendations

provide

and
extreme

horizontal
vertical

an

state

orthogonal
bars

placed

bars.

The

1y.

area

required
for

smooth
bar,

mesh

and

required,

beam

the

ively.

1.0%

Near

the

Design

the

is

Wall

'A'

below.

If

the

total

is

400

selfweight)
3300

kN,

beam,

a deep

design

of

geometry
(2.2b),

deep
W/2

where

web

steel

ratio
of

concrete)

bars

respect,

be

provide
(2.1).

Fig.

in

shown

the

of

should

to

required

column

free

distributed

load

give

is

in

load

the

beam

web

loading,

the

element

column

load

1.25<

plus

utilize
access

(including
C is

B and

column

each

and

structural
the

industrial

a heavy
proposed

It

problem,

equals

bars

bars
as

of

part

longitudinal

the

the

deformed

and

bond

a high

steel)/(volume

web

(2.2a).

and

main

Idealising
the

for

to

kN/m

A=0.0025ba

Recommendations

uniformly

the

web

direction,

Fig.

in

total

additional

scheme

shown

as

for'plain

CEB-FIP

A tentative
structure

0.8%

horizontal

for

example

The
of

supports,

in

particularly

and

for

between

spacing

(volume

by

given

A=0.0020bs

thickness.

as

expressed

therefore,

the

is

mesh

by

and
is

the

of

bar,

where

is

bar

one

round

deformed

is,

of

reinforcement.
properties
are
half

shown
the

and
in

Fig.

total

load.

distributed

L/D

CEB-FIP

Lever
Design
(where

Yf

dead

and

=
live

1.4,

6000/4800

Recommendations

arm

say,
loading,

(L

z=0.2

bending

apply.

moment
is

the
and

2D)

=yfx2

overall
if

9,000
=

3120

=
ff

partial
kN)

mm
2000

safety

factor

for

cl

:
-10.

Moment

of

resistance

As

=x

xz

Ym
(where

Ym,

steel,

fy

the

partial

410
=

24

No. 25

mm diameter

6000)

main

without

distributed

bars

over
900
=

depth

mm

Next,

from

curtailment

from

measured

the

required

8 rows

in

3120

to

O. 05L)

of

and

support,
(0.25

bars,

three

4800-0.05

bottom.

the

beam

2)
mm

support

(0.25D

of

mm2

arranged

are

As

1.15

(11782

bars

for

1.15

calculated)

410

11327

is

material,

mm as

2000

As=

area

for

3120

z=

103

steel

These
extended

and

Longitudinal
Use

N/mm2
9000

1.4

factor

safety

width

is

determined

from

that:

condition

Design

force

shear

bD

Yf

fc

x20.1
Ym

Taking

1.4

yf

9000

reinforcement:

Area

required

i.

0.002

e.,

and

at

at

150

for
x

each

150

an

mm centres

75 mm spacing
The

{>
.

bar

say,

Provide
bars

103

for

1.5

ym =

and

concrete

48001x522.5

0.1

xbx

875 mm
.

'. b=
1Jeb

1.4

detailing

bar
875

spacing

0.2
=

in

near
is

per

each

cent

of

mesh

of

face

(A

20

bxs

V=

mm diameter
Ah

supports.
shown

mm.

2
mm.

= 262

orthogonal

150

s=

in

Fig.

(2.3).

= 314.2

deformed
mm2/bar)

the

21.

ACI

2.2.2

Code:

Building

Special
for

deep

beams;

beams

which
critical
face

of
0.15

at
face

defined

as

follows.

section

is

located

the

face

the
of

for

out
For

to

capacity
apply

to

ratio

L/D

the

ACI

1971

less

is

section,

where

load

is

the

the

is

it
distance

span

clear

the

and
load

distributed

a uniformly,

5.

than

load,

the

and

simple

critical

between

code

resist

both

a concentrated

midway

support

the

design

given

the

supports.

First
the

for

support;

1 from

to

span/depth

carried

are

the

on

provisions

the

when

calculations
is

shear

in

given

is

emphasis

These

continuous
The

the

318-714.

are

provisions

force.

shear

ACI

nominal

from

calculated

Vu:

force

shear

stress

shear

is

vu

Yu
u-

(2.2

bd

where

is

the

of

ing

the

reduction

is

the

is

the

effective

of

the

main

The
d

capacity

beams

are

depth

should
large

0.85)

the

centroid

steel.

for

vu

dimensions

the

that

ensure

enough

to

measured

longitudinal

designer

as

beam

the

of

width

(taken

factor

not

to

2G

1/d

exceed

b
the

and
follow-

limits:
vu

1/d<

when

ifwhen
vu

where

f'

is

2/3

the

(10

concrete

1/d)

cylinder

compressive

C5

strength.

(2.3

22.

Next,
is

concrete

vc

the

nominal

calculated:

= 3.5

shear

stress

vc

by

carried

the

Mu

2.5

1.9

fc+

Vud

2500p

Vud

Ffc,
2.5

VUd

+ 2500p

.9

(2.4)

M.

u
6

where

(2.4$

Mu

is

the

design

f'

is

the

specified

bending

moment

concrete

the

at

section

critical

cylinder

compressive

strength.
p

Vu,

is

the

ratio

of

the

concrete

d are

and

Irrespective
an

orthogonal

of

the

vertical

of

the

horizontal

tal
crete
should

web

mesh

steel

section
also

of

web

the

of

bd.

as

defined

of

the

web

in

the

than

0.25

vu

exceeds

where

vc

Av

is

the

area

of

the

vertical

Ah

is

the

area

of

the

horizontal

the
0.15

of

the

web

of

(vu

web

horizon-

vertical

con-

reinforcement
-

(2.5)

steel

web

cent

v)b

area

per

the

Eqn. (2.5)below:

12

sh

calculated,

so

than

of

the

vc

that

and
cent

per

rl1/dl+Ah[11_1/dl
v

bxd

area

mandatory;

less

be
bL,

requirements

and

is

not

section

When

vu

of

values

should

less

12

the

to

(2.2)

Eqn.

reinforcement

steel

satisfy

As

steel

section.

concrete
not

main

steel

within

within
spacing

spacing
s.
v
a
sh

23.

Design

is

the

clear

is

the

beam

fy

is

the

snscified

for

ACI

example

width.

shown

in

noted

that

all

in

(2.4)

Eqn.

The
for

documents,

ACI

code

later,

be

will

not
for

for

be

only

need

used

requirements
48

In

the

is

referred

to

PCA

method

the

flexural

8.

final

Imperial

with

detailed

designer

bulletin

the

be

must

).

contain

the

use

the

of
it

code

units

flexure.

PCA

only

The
of

result

commentary
other
is

excal-

here.

given

steel

13

provided:

40

No.

mm diameter

bars

2).
mm
The

850

does

the

and

intended

ACI

Imperial

code,

as

steel.

design

the

the

using

are

beams

to

again

evaluating

the

the

of

strength

If-cf,

in

Main
(16336

(In

practice,

and

such

culations

in

to

notes

plained

(2.2).

deep
49

given

equations

designing

and

is

Fig.

However,

units.

yield

code.

Consideration
beam

distance.

span

(2000
+ 0.5

critical

0.5
x

600)

x
600

Design
(where

section
850

1130

bending
1.4

Design

A suitable

is

shear

mm from

mm from

moment
the

beam

width

the

the

Mu

partial

force

(Fig.

located

is

face

centre

1.4

safety

Vu = 1.4
b

may

x
be

2.2)
of

of

factor

chosen

support,

or

support.

9200

9000
2

0.5

at

1150
for

6300

from

= 7245
loading).

kN

Egn.

(2.3).

kNIK

IQ.

Fe
(Assuming

V=8f,

4500

d:

mm say)

Obd

(fc

= 22.5

N/rnm2=

6300
0.85

x 103
500
bx

525

b
Referring

to

vc

(See

2.5
= 2.5

3S

VdU-

fC

+ 2500

57.2

441
lbf/in2
=
But
From

=6x0.394

+ 2500

16336
525 x

3.04

N/mm2

2.36

N/mm2

500

6300 x
x 7245000

4500
lbf/in

(2.2)

Eqn.

6300 x 103
- o. 5x
525 x

the

satisfy

same

2.5

ff-c7l

Since

web

x 103
500

Vud

[1.9
x

x 7245
63oo x

2.5

ri

= 2.5

N/mm2)

(2.4)

Egn.

1.9

0.394

lbf/in2=

mm say

>
2.86
=
Use

57.2

=8x0.394

Mu

2.5

fl=

(2.4),

Eqn.

3.5

'.

lbf/in2.

3260

bars

is
(AWeb)

3.14

vc,

exceeds
of

requirement

reinforcement
size

vu

500

the

web

used

to
in

reinforcement
(2.5).

equation

acceptable
are

2
h/mm

the
a

code.

square

must

Only

orthogonal
Assuming

patter-i

at,

the
say,

'_5.

150

mm spacings,

equation

(600o - 600)/4500

1+

Aweb

(2.5)

600)/4500
(6000
11
Aweb

j+

12

150

"""
Check

10

-1

2.36)

525

Ah

0.0025
=

150mm2

minimum

12

150

(3.14

Aweb

gives

requirements

mm

x 525 x 150

A=0.0015
v
2
mm

= 178
16

(Av

vertical

The

mm diameter

is

detailing

The

1.25

exceeding

First

two

characteristic

these

are

nominally

and
span,

the

depth
E is

to

equal

ST668

the

of

results

is

design

the

ratio
the

ratio

to

out

F and

are

the

of

the

help

of

calculated;
to

For
length

not

follows.

as

support

respectively.

L/D

ratio

the

with
is

tests.

ratio
L/D

of

on

load

span/depth

procedure

as

based

is

ultimate

beams

carried

ratios

span

of

continuous

referred

to

Information

beams

Briefly,

charts.

of

to

and

mm2)

8.

supported

The

2.5.

exceeding
number

simply

on

and

(2.4).

Fig.

Association

not

and

horizontal

mm spacing

201

Concrete

PCA's

to

applies

not

shown

analysis

elastic

in

150

at
Ah

mm2,

Cement

Portland

2.2.3

It

201

bars

150

197
=

Provide

525

span

ratio

a continuous

C of

support

4. V

(for

the

example,

the

span)

and

need

simply

to

dimension

the

L,

span

beam

supported

under

simply

For

It

would

beam

supported

of

seem

span,

simple

distributed

uniformly

and

direction

the

D/L.

interpretation.

careful

in

a column
is

and

12

For

of

for

that

load,

(2.6

L
2D

load

a point

under

"

at

applied

midspan,
=

From
by

the

the

values

2L

here

in

is

the

is

left

to
As

that

regards

ineffective

are

given

for
that

suggested
exceed

that

deep

by

force
Eqn.

g b-D

is

the

allowable

the

resisted

a chart,

shear

the

steel;

PCA

the

value

of

beams

ordinary

but

reinforcement,

V applied

states

recommendations

specific

web

document

in

used

as
No

the

where

be

designer.

stirrups

of

shear

given

from

obtained

resistance,

beams.

design

the

in
the

of

vertical

the

to

(2.8

stress

shear

in

is

T/fs

judgment

conventional

are

not

allowable
the

As

force

(2.5).

Fig.

As

fs

tensile

the

steel

Then

where

2L

c and

of

longitudinal

main

reproduced

fs

and

(2.7

to

the

beam

it

is

should

(2.9).

i1

stress

LD

for

(2.

an

ordinary

beam

27.

made

of

similar

left

to

the

Design

discretion

Once
of

beam

the

based

on

factors

yf

of

To

points.

apply

point

load

beams

are

and

are

the

(Note:

the

then

loads

beam

W/2

method

is
safety

partial

the
(2.7)

Egn.

third

at
is

it

with

span

moments

maximum

Next,

from

2.5)

one

the

same.

applied

(Fig.
to

midspan;

the

the

chart

the
at

PCA

design

first
of

2L/3

in

the
ratios

characteristic
by

2L/3

writing

for

600

x31
x 6000

13.3

4800

x3=0.6
6000
x

2(2L/3)

to

Referring

(2.5)

Fig.

it

be

will

interpolate

to

curves

to

conservative

for

E=

1/13.3

and

use

the

=0.6.

interpolation

visual

0.29
=

T=0.2917

To
adopt

to

point

design

calculated

_D

By

given

again

appear).

under

C
2(2L/3)

solid

is

Therefore,

not

PCA's

approximate

having

(2.2).

Fig.

is

beam

method.

ym do

and

of

designer.

stresses.

to

necessary

in

is

value

consideration

again,

allowable

The

two

PCA

shown

the

of

for

example

the

concrete;

quality

a value

value

(see

24000

lbf/in2

As

determine
for
Section
=

the

from

kN

Eqn.

allowable

8.10.1
165

9000

N/mm2.

of

(2.8)

steel
ACI
Then

2610

it

kN

is

stress
4)

code

would

necessary

to

A reasonable

fs.
be

f=
s

L: -

28.

As

2610
s

13

the

guide

note

and
to

Provide

be

PCA

placed
Next,

Eqn.

(2.9)

using

allowable

and

the

the

beam

required

shear

(see

stress

v=1.1

Using

(2.9)

Eqn.

63

D/L

with

b=

PCA

is

GENERAL
The
of

little

work
ticity

the

1050

does

method

detailing

were

1.1

for

the
8.10.3

Sections

shown

most
8
PCA,

(1 +2x
3

)xo.

44

6000/3

(say)

for

call

web

reinforcement.

the

four

The

(2.6).

Fig.

used

widely
was

of

prepared

data

on

some.

Dischinger
assumed

13,
the

who
beam

it
used
to

be

namely,
ago

years

deep

concrete
was

the

methods,

thirty

reinforced

Consequently,

available.

and

4800

COMENTS

experimental

of

in

N/mm2

D/(2L/3)

by

i5x

mm

not

0.44

replaced

4800

xbx

that

/7%

code

lbf/in2

0.5 x 9000 x i03

2.3

from

determined

4:

ACI

steel

11.4.1).

Ffc,

The

is

of

mm2)

beam.

the

width

value

a reasonable

tensile

main

of

mm2

(16336

bars

the

bottom

15818

mm diameter

requires

to

close

40

No.

103

x
165

based

classical
homogeneous.

on

tae
theory
The

when
beams

theoretical
of

elast-

method,

'9.

therefore,

cannot

be

behaviour.

For

example,

deep

crete

beam

PCA

the

safety,
cases,

based

were

its

mainly

in

dations

concentrate

specified
which

not

steel

de

give

carried

not
is

by

ACI

covered
the

most
the

that
it

example,

that

effectiveness
the

longitudinal

code

of

Many
in

the

of
design

web

is
these

an
aspects

method

resist

in

America

shear

design

and

and

CEB-FIP's
of

CEB-FIP

depends
crack,

27-32

It

of

by

now

(which

is

for
on

part
deep

is

Recommendations)

and

integral

has

research

reinforcement

proposed

by

flexural

reinforcement

bar

a web
diagonal

critical

reinforcement

inforcement.

of

U. K.

the

the

and

to

specific

recommendations4,

volume

web

give

calculate

ACI

the

in

not

Recommen-

moments.

large

inclined

type

efficient

in-'_-rcepts

reflected

the

to

how

25,
tests

The

ACI's

emphasize

1970

Walther

areas

out

bending

beams

most

earlier

do

steel
the

of

of

in

50.

and

web

specified

deep

the

design

comparatively

on

by
Holst

on

con-

in

and

carried

publication
a

out

for

known

guidance

that

published

and

24,

as

factors

Leonhardt

contrast,

Siess

and

the

recommendations,
been

on

recommended.

tests

in

conservative

the
In

resist

Since

be

influenced

flexural

actual

same

built-in

be

Nylander

mainly

the

not

to

of

calculate

Paiva

to

the

not

been
by

specific

areas

of

tests

forces.

based

26,

Grist

to

shear
were

have

on

how

on

is

likely

the

Sweden

out

load

would

accurately

distribution

Recommendations
on

may

carried

guidance

use

CEB-FIP

they

although

is

reflect

stress

because

method

although
The

the

ultimate

However,

predicted.

do

at

to

expected

where
that
of

beam
the

deep

beams,
how

and
the

the

main
web

re-

behaviour

Nottingham

are
-

30.

Cambridge

33P34

team

method

gives

capacity

of

reinforced

forms

part

and

now

design

reasonable

by

covered
as

rather
beams
with

the

(1.9)).

This

the

ultimate

shear

beam

without

openings

given

in

of
deep

provisions

the

the

data
are

required

methods
towards

programme

was

which

presented

on

of

CIRIA

the

new

in

the

in

outlined

in

for
the

case

ultimate

behaviour

to

facilitate

the

the
such

data,

description

succeeding

CIRIA

not
chapter

openings

are

of

deep

of

shear
present

and
four

this

solid
deep

development

ultimate
the

is

openings

the

predicting

out,

web

provisions
As

9).

providing

carried

with

methods

(Chapter

previously,

are

design

shown,

restrictive

step

beams

deep

of

of

be

openings

design

any

will

reasonable
As

estimates
concrete

of

Eqn.

1.2.2.4:

guide.
The

and,

(Chapter

the

chapters.

beams
of

capacity.
experimental

results

of

CHAPTERTHREE

THE

EXPERIMENTAL

3.1

INTRODUCTION

3.2

MATERIALS

3.3

3.4

PROGRM

3.2.1

Cement

3.2.2

Lightweight

3.2.3

Normal

3.2.4

Reinforcement

CONCRETE

aggregates
weight

Lightweight

3.3.2

Normal

concrete
weight

BEAM

MANUFACTURE

3.4.1

Formwork

3.4.2

Reinforcement

3.4.3

Casting

CONTROL

3.6

TESTING

aggregates

MIXES

3.3.1

3.5

1E

and

SPECIMENS

3.6.1

Test

equipment

3.6.2

Test

preparation

3.6.3

Test

procedures

concrete

fabrication
curing

31.

CH

APT

THE

EXPERIMENTAL

Previous
reinforced

work

concrete

in

future,

the

near

mathematical
on

the

nature

to

models

the

of

codes

of

design
The

gramme
beams
has
be

was
with

like

test

widths

little
to

the
that,

possible

behaviour
the

of

investigatory

tool

complex

laboratory
available
for

committees
form

should

provide

cracking

cracking,

drafting

such

could

after

as

and

basis

the

of

one.

a topic

uses

in

deep

tests,
deflection

began

and

past,

beams.

with

specimens

Due

during
were

which
recorded,

one

to

which
of

the

was,

lack
of

tested
crack

to

the
of

in

wall
pre-

which

destruction.

development,
covered

may

necessity,

investigation

a pilot
were

earlier,

because

practice

investigation

present
It

the

mentioned

as

deep

concrete

reinforced

which,
in

of

concrete

beam

of

pro-

experimental

present

behaviour

frequently

the

data,

the

of

attention

occur

exploratory
and

the

openings;

lightweight

These

to

because

time,

emphasized,

object

study

web

a developing
24

testing,

51

post

beams

providing

recommendations.

to

geometry

vious

Such

primary

received
expected

primary

have

simulating

deep

the

is

on

techniques

method

present

of

remain

practice

practical

the

at

researcher.

of

led

It

mathematical

element

capable

behaviour

would

the

finite

but

computer;

testing

the

in

has

and

guidance.
in

tests

fruitful

proved

behaviour

advances

to

refinements

has

design

practical

laboratory

practical

beam

deep

of
of

using

specimens

appreciation

development

as

PROGRA! fl1E

INTRODUCTION

3.1

an

ERTHREE

a wide

crack
range

32.

of

opening

the

effect

as

size,

beam

of

follow

up
test

atically
pilot

shape

study

important

provide

tests

beams

39

of

broadly

and

Further

series

more

and

position

geometry.

and
the

and

investigated

two

series,

to

systemin

the

web

re-

recorded

observations
on

planned

designed

was

information

then

were

the

of

effects

inforcement.
In
were

both

in

used

be

should
would

in

normal

weight
on
deep

concrete

second

thus

repeated

deep

beams

Some

depth
that

and

series

of

and

an

wzs
effects

were

beams

with

of

of

normal

inclined

system

guidance

for

from

derived
of

ratios).

The

main

openings

located

in

of
the

on

web

of

deep

beams.

Nine

specimens
normal

investigate

were

weight
the

effect-

reinforcement.
planning
the

ordinary

conclusion
the

to

provide

lightweight

between

test

beams,

to

making

complementary

early

survey

openings

16

concrete

designed

were

openings

future,

comprised

concrete

seven

some

use"

concrete

weight

develop

enhanced

behaviour

lightweight

further

which
in

in

to

distant

too

greatly

used

which

Furthermore,

not

tests,

differences

any

research

concrete
52.

achieve

ACI

example,

elements,

lightweight

the

aggregates
lighweight

of

for

concrete

in

series

data

"experimental

that

that,
will

final

test

environments"

expect

lightweight

scarce;

of

aggregates

information

the

ability

concrete
a

because

lightweight

on

of

53,54

test

recommended

a variety

In

to

has

the

"lightweight

gramme

particularly

conducted

engineers

iveness

were

evaluate

bond

the

making

408

Committee

of

concrete

beams

concrete

these

of

of

literature
shallow

drawn

predominantly

the

from

test

pro-

appertaining
beams
the

flexural

(large
survey
regions

span/
was
do

33.

reduce

not
high

capacity,

shear

may

spans.

the

The

test

ary

to

and

a similar

the

do
tests

present
specimens

were

tests

previous

this

located

on

loading

point

of

the

to

be

shear
complementbeams,

deep

solid

the

all

reason

designed

also

regions

within

Nottingham

at

two

simple

For

so.

were

in

located

openings

significantly

in

openings

whereas

was.

configuration

normally

adopted.
In
the
of

test

in

separately

subsidiary

requirements

for

loading

deep

on

described

(9

tests),

set

and

together
test

of

with

results,

are

chapters.
were

also

investigated:

longitudinal

of

the

main

and

the

effects
tests

These

tests).
I

each

topics

anchorage

Appendices

specimens,

of

repeated

their

and

results

2 respectively.

Cement

3.2.1

Ordinary
both

for

used

cement,
for

were

successively

tainers.

Portland

the

All

Lightweight

Cement

weight

normal

to

sufficient

used

3.2.2

beam

notation

and

test

of

MATERIALS

3.2

of

(3

description

three

succeeding

end

beams
in

of

deep

reinforcement

the

of

details

experimental
The

discussion
the

Two

tension

are

series

and

general

described.

are

three

presentation

given

the

the

of

the

chapter,

programme

each

the

this

manufacture
ordered
cement

was

aggregates

and

lightweight

permit

cement

of

beams

all

and
supplied

within

by

stored
the

Blue

the

same

each
in
Circle

was
Quantities

concrete.
from

carefully

B. S. 12

to

conforming

batch

test

to

series,

airtight
Group.

con-

be

34.

Lightweight
ash

(supplied

for

the

aggregates

in

two

lightweight

Fine

concrete

test

grades
two

necessitated
results

of

between

the

were

sieve
batches

The

following

Lytag

medium

(5

used

mm down).
(13

grade
before

mm nominal

as

difference

the

significant.

aggregates
were

aggregates

in

used

weight

normal

aggregates:

Coarse

aggregates:

The

Hoveringham

River

Sand

dried

Hoveringham

River

Gravel

from

results

(5

dried

sieve

mm
nominal)

given

are

analysis

mm down)
(10

in

(3.2).

Table

Reinforcement
Deformed

bars
The

throughout.

used
batch

for

and,

the

results

3%.

The

3.3)

were

the

standard

B. S. 4449:

control,

these

tests

was

test

tests

procedures
Typical

load

on

extension

single

for

variation

approximately
(Table

reinforcement
random
in

sample,

B. S. 18: 1962

curves

for

tested

being
the

were

picked

simply
of

smaller

recommended
v.

were

satisfactory,
of

as

reinforcement

coefficient

properties
by

determined

1969.

The

tensile

typical

of

workshop

strength.

of

ordered

samples

410)

(Unisteel

steel
was

fabrication

the

tensile

ultimate

yield

reinforcement

quality

from

random

of

high

for

the

the

Fine

3.2.4

problem

by

shown

(3.1),

Table

size).

Storage

use.

but,
in

were

grade

ordered,

not

"Lytag")

name

dried

fuel

pulverized

specimens:

presented

were

weight

the

fine

being

analysis

sintered

Lytag

well

batches

Normal

concrete:

at

under

aggregates:

Both

3.2.3

grades

aggregates:

Coarse

of

using
and
20

mm

ft

35.

8 mm diameter

and
be

noted

bars
of

that

bars

0.2

the

the

cent

per

'yield

and

definite

no

in

presented

8 mm bars

the

possessed

are

was

stress

proof

for

point:

It

6 mm and

the

similarly

yield

(3.1).

Fig.

bars

these

taken

as

of

materials

is

to

10

mm

the

value
of

representative

strength'.
I

3.3

CONCRETE

MIXES

Lightweight

3.3.1

The
accordance

concrete

proportion

with

Mix

56

by

Cement

cu

per

average

wet

follows:

as

1.55

383
hardened

kg/m3

after

1810

kg/m3

Air

dry

1780

kg/m3

density

Cylinder

(28

(28

splitting

Normal
The
that

of

the

weight
mix

was
lightweight

coeff.

day)

(5.4,
2.5
(9.4;

day)

of

variation)

N/mm2

31.60

strength
(28

N/mm2

37.90

day)

strength

crushing

Cylinder

concrete

70 mm

mixing

density

strength

the

(5.4%4'

to

of

properties

Wet

Cube

3.3.2

manufacturers:

0.8

m.
and

in

was

used

the

1: 1.25:

ratio

immediately

Slump,

by

given

weight

water/cement

were

weight

recommendations

Total

produced

of

proportions

The

dry

o coeff.

of

variatiorn

of

variation

N/mm2
101coeff.

concrete
designed

for
concrete

target
and

strength
after

A series

comparable
of

trial

36.

mixes,

a mix

the

of

Mix

following
by

proportions

Total

follows:

350

for

values

the

3.25

kg/m3

the

of

properties

Wet

70 mm
density

mix

Cube

2450 kg/m3
(28

strength

day)

N/mm2

53.25

(6.0%ocoeff.
Cylinder

crushing

Cylinder

day)

splitting

BEAM

3.4.1

Formwork

stop-ends

Prior
a

to

thin

a bolted

release
heavy

expanded

accurately

openings

in

3.75

N/m2

(5.7%

coeff.

on

of

variation)

of

variation)

coated

with

liberally

were
of

sides,

softwood.

were

surfaces

application

beams.

Wisaform

mm planed

surfaces

the

cast

coated

grease

served

mould.
the

a purpose

during

75

mm x

to

mm thick

20

internal

test

These

polystyrene.

grease

100

This

grease.
the

shaped
with

coeff.

used

were
of

joint

all

and

seal

to

of
the

all

oil

moulds

assembly

a base

assembling,

The

coated

wooden

and

successfully

of

upright

was

thick

with

variation)

MANUFACTURE

Four

with

day)

of

N/mm2

(6.0%

strength
(28

3.4

41.95

strength
(28

mould

mix

Slump

Each

0.47

cu. m

per

selected:

1: 1.75:

ratio

Representative
as

was

weight

water/cement

Cement

are

proportions

specimens
blocks,

built

assembling

which
hot-wire
to

formed

were

prevent

were
cutter,
the

by

easily

blocks
and

were
ingress

of

37.

of

An

mortar.

the

sides

in

any

of

of

between
four

array

each

the

bolts

the

locations.

of

of

holes

facilitated

range

sides

lateral

of

mould

a wide

the

8 mm diameter

mould

fixing
Each

and

mm long.

150

drilled

through

block
in

secured

blocks

the

of

was

sandwiched

8 mm diameter

Those

by

compression
holes,

which

were

test

not

specimen,

were

Lateral
U-shaped

The

Bosch

external
The

bolts.

frames

to

3.4.2

Reinforcement
The

in
The
of
of
than
web

the

turn
clatter

1 No.

20

affixing

of

in

had

the

bottom.

two

12

the

top

of

made

by

rubber

pads,

each

for

two

top

by
which

vibration.

to

order
lifting
each

Science

for

beams

spacers

simplify
bolts

reinforcement

all

had

light

tack

the

the

top
ends

in
and
of

the

transportation
to

be

cast

assembly.

purpose

joints

on

the

After
the

by

mould
the

main

formwork
of

in

longer

cut

welds.

positioned

at

consisted

been

All

ends.

Faculty.

the

for

which,
blocks,

was

fabricated

was

Applied

bar

with

through

passing

mm diameter
bar

all

threaded

reinforcement

position

In

the

beams

the

anchorage

screw

were

bar

longitudinal

across

smoother

deformed
end

reinforcement

held

mountings

give

three

of

points

on

reinforcement

and

the

third

fixed

University's

mm diameter

beam

by

prevented

mounted

and

a particular

plasticine.

as

were

for

the

external

the

the

of

fabrication

longitudinal

main

was

functioned

were

reinforcement

workshop

degreasing,
and

the

reduce

mould

which

in

with

at

also

vibrators,

served

the

positioned

frames

location

opening

effectively
of

frames

outer

the

plugged

bulging

metal

mould.

for

required

were

the
fixed

at
beams,
to

38.

3.4.3

Casting
The

at

normally
the

drum

'buttered'

to

tests

were

tests

being

If

of

and

control

the

hours
of

On

(at

moulds
wet

hessian.

approximately

the
and

the

capped
day,

cured
The

for

beams

23C

and

slump

forms

with

top

surface

was

trowelled

with
the

a further
were
50%

beams
days

then

stored

R. H)

until

A
(100

deep

each

beam,
table.

beams

the
smooth

test

and

shovels

cubes

of

cement

taken.

a vibrating

neat

side

mm either

standard

on

concrete

of

vibrators.

for

compacted

factor

mm additional

a new

external

points

following

50

mm diameter)

and

loading
were

cylinders

their

(150

20

was

Slump

batches

Bosch
of

drum

compaction

than

the

in

Cumflow

mortar.

most

mixed

were

the

slumps

consisting

casting,

after
the

was

placed

moulds

steel

For

less

the

to

carefully

capacity

of

with

however,

with

cylinders

in

region

control

was

were

mix,

remixing,

specimens,

standard

Several

and

m3)

loss

batch,

following

and

first

the

random.

slump

compacted

cast

were

the

concrete

concretes

(0.085

initial

each

at

of
cement

and

ft.

obtained;

concrete

continuously

of

mm was

added

on

session

day.

to

for

consecutively

mixing

lightweight

and
cu

cast

Each

tonnes

a previous

Prior

out

or

two

a3

out

carried

The

set

in

4.

aggregates

compensate

70

of

weight

carried

of

was

water

on

mixer.

accepted.

were

tins

3 minutes

about

slump

the

normal

horizontal

load,

into

Both

groups

were

series

approximately

work

out

test

each

in

consumed

weighed

for

for

beams

intervals

weekly

spread

curing

and

and

in
the

paste.
were

under
in
tested.

the

removed
three
laboratory

from
layers

mm)

39.

3.5

CONTROL

SPECIMENS

The
determined
(150

properties

from

factured

and

exception
does

C330

of

strength,

and

cylinders

it

(ASTM)/t
by

reported

testing

of
capped

the

the

strength.
the

3 mm thick

to

be

is

on

t'"e

Similar
58.

Hanson

and

were

cured

under

control
'A'

were

used

splitting
three

plywood

to

strips

this

been
it
of

conditions.
on

three
the

was
load

the

cubes

and

crushing
from

determined
being

diametrically

tonne

120

following

The

the
along

have
reason,

tested

determine

cylinders,

in
ratio

average

cylinders

was

30

resulted

comparable

strength

on

results

control

beam.

splitting

tests

immediately

machine,
deep

tensile

the

the

that

noted

curing

For

specimens

moist

relative

cent

of

0.74.

beams

cylinder

further

is

test

grade

cylinders

per

strength
being
and

50

method

Stand-

ASTM

namely,

at

(t);

lightweight
by

adopted;

consisting
ASTM

the

corresponding

The
on

that

57

of

It

study

splitting

set

Denison

storage

conditions

found

aggregates

was

test.

separate

that

Each
capacity

Teychenne

lightweight

through

curing

the

important

tests

the

of

(B. S. 1881)

three

time

in

in

by

the

was

a reduction

was

followed

until
effect

cylinders

the

B. S. 1881-1970

and

recommended

manu-

with

concrete.
weight

procedure

lightweight

7 days

humidity

special

were

B. S. 1881-1970,

normal

were

6 cylinders

and

lightweight

between

beam

specimens

with

of

test

each

mm)

control

accordance

cylinders

the

for

for

main

the

and

cured

in

(100

The

mm).

differentiate

not

ard

300

in

concrete

3 cubes

on

cured

of

concretes

lines.

tests

mm diameter

the

of

applied
opposite

40.

3.6

TESTING

3.6.1

Test

equipment
The

beams

applied

hydraulically

testing

machine

a precision
over

The
base

scale.

test

set-up

to

beam

which

was

under

the

upper

load

upper

beam

the

on

in

Early

tested

then

the

safe

and

speedy

one-man

jigs

were

beam

(Fig-3.2).

illus-

are

which
The

were

jigs

assumed
support

reactions

and
base

All

the

support

reactions

rollers

attached

were
the

to
free

to
horizontal

the

to
axis

being

was

were

applied

through

top

surface
in

rotate
of

translation

the

planes
trolley
of

the

base

the

base

automatically
the

onto

whilst

the

and
)

in.

diameter
The

beam.

parallel
each

steel

supported
(2Z
mm

approximately

test

position.

527

and

for

support

into

A. C.
was

crane

lateral

both

an

of

by

lowered

of

by

beam

test

simply

the

special

end

each

winched

specimens

up

end

the

was

of

attention

this

temporary

provided

test

it

adjusted

a beam

to

that

position

height

particular

clamped

as

beam

be

To

travelling

into

The

mounting

ensured

alignment

travelling

of

the

on

rails

could

operation.

a correct

limited

hand

indicator

operation

beam.

programme

process

designed

along

columns

test

making

pendicular

of

mounted

was

winched

screwed

,riven

were

mode

distribution

the

rollers

its

by

measured

was
load

M. A. N.

capacity

load

applied
operating

and

be

to

the

tonne

(3.2).

beam

motor.

The

top-loading

static

a 500

of

manometer

3600

Fig.

in

under

means

frame.

pendulum

The
trated

by
and

large

tested

were

and

permitted
2 mm.

pera
The

41.

loading

to

the

through

25

mm diameter

bearing

plates:

top

The
Mercer
to

attached
base

beam

beam

the

of

a test

dial

(1

div

0.01
=

which

was

frame,
M. A. N.

brackets
Devcon

with

of

average

fixed

(Fig.

to

used

had

The

mm).

and

by

to

the

The

the

support
the

travelling

the

three

on

soffit

3.3).

were

gauges

operated

correct

steel

measured

clamped

registered

was

were

above

steel

supports
which

beam

just

the

joint.

seating

frame,

test

plastic

the

above

gauges

deflections

applied

itself

beam

spherical

gauges

was

between

distribution
a

the

right-angled

beam

test

sandwiched

upper
about

a rigid

of

the

of

rollers

the

freedom

rotational

three

surface

two

test

the

of

outer
settlements,

central

gauge

reading.
Crack
illuminated

hand

Test

3.6.2

by

cycles
4 weeks

of

that

plus

or

all

minus

crack

during

mm using

an

magnifications.

with
detection

thin
and

Each

set

week

five

of
to

prior
coat

day

had

the

days.

testing,
of

white

measurement,

week

per
of

beams

cast

similar

the

face

emulsion
and

together
with

was
the

test

age

of

each

beam

to

assist

paint
100

followed

casting

casting,

after

organised

was

programme

one

beams

a maximum

A week
painted

of

testing.

the

testing

and

4 weeks

tested

result

25

of

0.025

to

measurad

microscope

casting
of

therefore

were

preparation

The
into

widths

mm square

of

28

days

was

reference

42.

grid
x

25

marked

on

mm),

each

having
bar

reinforcement
beam
After

hardening
bar

main

installed

was
jack

to

raise
(100

blocks
at

the

and,

following
beam

by

offered

Test

3.6.3

the

advantage

for

all
of

some

tests

in

to

thin

layer

A. C.
a

on

for

bedded

were

deflection

the

beam's

test:
jigs

alignment

screw

to

gypsum

concrete

the

at

the

upper
Finally,
were

and

position

beam

the

measurement

affixed

verticality,

temporary

then

was

small

top-loading.

lateral

the

beam

bearing

steel

the

fractional

for

operating

motor

test

quick-setting

to

of

spanner.

bedded
of

end

each

using

turn,

positively

apply

in

beam

mortar.

prepared

By

were

the

using

ready

kN
were

beams.
up

to

carried
on

2).

of

support

released.

deep

loading,

which

identical,

producing

test

20

cycle

single

loading

Appendix

on

the

frame.

the

mm)

blocks

of

the

units

30

a torque

with

the

of

end

cement
on

main

procedures

The

peated

of

a check

the

testing,

end

brackets

was

to

each

beam

right-angled

up

loading

by

distribution

ed

each

threaded

nuts

the

points

points

the

mortar,

prior

to

75

the

which

high-alumina

of

into

Similar

loading

the

day

100

support

plaster.

the

through
bedded

were

layer

tighten.

were

On the

pass,

(100

blocks

anchor

hole

a central

mm)

of

Steel

pencil.

could

(3

a thin

on

the

in

was

The

out
beam

of
to

was
the

specimen

investigate

behaviour;

the
these

histories
in

incrementally

applied
test

had

adopted,

loading

simple

load

collapse

was

of

effect
tests

(Note:

are

re-

reported

43.

readings
hand

lamp

detect

After

each

were

observed

and

lens,

surface

and

the

crack

was

increment

the

development
measured

load,

of
recorded
of

formation

deflection
the

and., with

of cracks.
on

the

the

beam

was

The

width

of

its

and

gauge
aid

of

inspected
each

significant

and

position

to

extent

was

marked

on

with

the

ities

of

at

in

later

the
which

the
value

time

surface

load

increments.

After

collapse,
by

for

rig
the

the

photography.

storage
test

which

Subsequent

crack.

and

with

load

the

of

the

sketch
test

beam

data

thin
was

was

crack
The

for

a minimum

was

processed.

together

the

at

written

growth

final

line,

pencil

two

monitored

similarly

was

pattern

beam

was

of

five

then

extrem-

recorded

removed

weeks,

during

from

CHAPTERFOUR

LIGHTWEIGHT

CONCRETE

DEEP

4.1

TEST

PROGRAMME

4.2

TEST

RESULTS

4.3

4.2.1

Crack

patterns

4.2.2

Crack

widths

4.2.3

Ultimate

GENERAL

COMMENTS

BEAMS

loads

WITH

and
and

OPENINGS:

modes

deflection

of

failure

PILOT

STUDY

if If

CHAPTERF0UR

LIGHTWEIGHT

4.1

CONCRETE

TEST

DEEP

BEAMS

PILOT

OPENINGS:

WITH

STUDY

PROGRAbfE
I

The

D 750

depth

at

2,

it

because

important

is

believed
than

had

beams

test
no

web

web

bars

steel

ratio

The

longitudinal

of

0.0048

blocks

steel

at
and

support

crushings
vious
sintered
making;

which

yield

(0.0020

the

details

loading
been

observed
beams

the

concrete

web
each

openings
opening

without

were

strengths

was

are

trimmed

in

31.

with

a pre-

Lytag
in

used

concrete

in

Table

and,

in

given

rectangular

at

local

places

openings

mm
to

used

were

avoid

these

aggregates

were

to

20

one

anchored

cages
4.1)

web

of

stress,

yield

de-

horizontal).

consisted

at

had

total

a
0.0028

and

(Fig.

points

of

of

stress,

N/mm2

Group

M beams

giving

Reinforcement

lightweight

fly-ash

M beams,

of
ends.

had

of

vertical

430

a more

6 mm diameter

reinforcement

bar

investigation

All
Group

N/mm2

is

groups:

Group

whilst

reinforcement

tension

deformed

diameter

the

of

425

two

into

divided

were

constant

ratio

x/D

0.25

ratio.

reinforcement,

a rectangular-mesh
formed

L/D

the

the

clear

and

kept

was

overall

mm,

Two

0.4

of

L/D

that

1500

mm.

ratios

ratio
31

100

supported

simply

span
b

x/D

giving

span/depth

parameter
The

0 beams

used,

The

respectively.

of

(thickness)

width

were

4.. 1)

Table

and

mm and
x

spans

shear

4.1

24

of

consisted

specimens

(Fig.

beams

deep

test

one

loop

(4.1).
the

of

6 mm

diameter
and

deformed

sizes

which

the

of

The
as

shown

4.2

4.2.1

figures,

numbers,
(4.2).

Fig.

in

loading

two-point

static

have

to

Chapter

been

in

given

and

each

beam

the

beam

notation
The

kN

10

is

beam

indicate

during

the

and
the

(Note:

are

explained

numbers

mark

units,

of

as

observed.

interval.
end

beams

the

all

circled

were

laterally

the
(Fig.

crack

modes

the

which

other

extent
the

of

vertical

(Fig.

4.3)

test

preparations

served
-

of

failure

4.4),

opening

were

affected

the

extent

significant
and

opening

was

the

crack

the

size,

location

reasonably
pattern

the

at

of

such

clear
and

so

mode

and

and

position

of
of

the

as

these

interception.
above-mentioned

failure

the

'load-

support

far
an

on

ional

shape

in

only

mainly

a note

blocks
that

and

depended

intercepted

opening

the

that

revealed

patterns

loadbearing

an

'load-path'

at

of

joining

an

of

3.6).

to

point

failure

load

the

patterns

path'

in

load

seen

A study

extent

failure.

cracks

particular

support

of

(4.1).
the

the

the

Table

which

supports

Where

positions

reference

explained

details

at

where
to

in

at

steel

of

under

modes

patterns

giving

cracking

and

(4.3),

sequence

ing

by

are

experimental

crack

footnote

the

crack

which

tested

patterns

Fig.

in

shown

see

and

The

RESULTS

The

only

indicated

are

13

(ii)).

(4.1).

general

Crack

the

Note

3.

TEST

in

to
were

Fig.

The
Chapter

beams

in

4.1:

openings

from

range

(Fig.

bar

were

load-

46.

those

essentially
For

Beams

example,
had

which

of

propagation

all

the

beams

to

be

following

collapsed
cracks,

into

split

openings.

without

M-0.4/11,0-0.4/5,0-0.25/51,

diagonal

of

beam

comparable

11-0.4/5,

openings,

and

two

formation

the

which

caused

ultimately

approximately

line

along

joining

the

blocks

in

the

at

failure

inside

this

(4.5a).

Previous

failure

mode
little

containing

Mode

designated

is

typical

or

ineffective

point
is

1,

of

loadbearing
The

respectively.
diagrammatically

shown

27,28

work

the

of

edges

loading

and

support

mode,

Fig.

outside

and

has

top-load

solid

that

demonstrated

beams

deep
of

arrangements

rein-

web

forcement.
Where
in

Fig.

follows:

shown
as

(a)
beam
4.4:

(4.4),

The
and

cracks

1 and

Corners

load

remained
(b)
2 became

and

bearing

blocks.

region,

for

formation

at

which

B and

D which

intact
As

load

the

wider

and
Other

crack

of

the

beam,

and

of

the

beam,

as

5,
crack

these

the

form

might

7.

More

important

initiated

from

cracks

the

at

(Fig.

by

the

by

applied

the

applied

which

initiated

could

influence

in

load

flexural

the
was
the
from

cracks

corner
towards-the

rapidly

cracks

6,

was

opening

closed

increased

propagated

which

as

stage.

was

crack

the

opened

being

were

this

at

C of

being

were

those

were

A and

corners

2),

form

to

path

behaviour

of

sequence

cracks

the

example
of

general

first

soffit

load.

the

load

the

intercepted

opening

an

the

possible
edge

vertical
the
later

top

surface

behaviour.

47.

(c)

Upon

cracks

cracks

because

the

they
led

or

cracks

(or)

and

beam

further

and

its

crack'

These

critical

diagonal
(1)

(2)

and

they
blocks

ing

and

the

the

crack

diagonal
this

to

and

the

same

cause
without

of

either

designated

along

distinct

Similar

line

of

two

over

an

joining

its

Mode

4.5b),

or

the

prev-

critical
27928,32

openings
the

and

critical
beams

due

was

in

cracks

the

pre-

point

to

of

top

height.

In

(Fig.

4.5c),

diagonal

lower

the
in

resulted

full

of

edge

outside

failure
crack

chord

the

the

second
cracking

is

which

appearance

the

outside
the

first,

the

collapse

caused

propagation

sudden
split

the

loading

In

the

the

completely

existing

of

had

present

open-

width

properties

the

in

modes.

(Fig.

simultaneous

ing

increment

crack

loading

the

nated

two

crack

the

the

of

load-

the

between

diagonal

the

noise

from

nor

of

in

of

definite

formation

the

crack'.

openings.
final

Mode

diagonal

that

two

without

cracks

The

diagonal

upper

that

as

distinctive

characteristic
beams

diagonal

upper

(d)
in

deep

evidence

beams

vious

in

cracking

be

two

region

These

a maximum.
to

diagonal

subsequently

where

'critical

the

upper

opening

the

of

reason

as

with

the

from

blocks

observed

provided

lower

at

at

from

but

this

respectively

formed

dangerous

collapse

for

possessed

usually

diagonal

the

immediate

'critical

the

not

bearing

been

iously

They

regions,

was

to

the

were

failure;

cracks

initiated

bearing

the

caused

and

loading

These

appear.

referred

diagonal

in

eventual

were

lower

properties:

would
either

to

increase

of

the

of

a new

critical

the

above

upper

opening,

bearing-block

the
corner

or

chord
beam

being

failure
in

the

of

opening.

the
split

mode,
the

chord

wideninto
desigabove

48.

the
of

did

opening
lower

the

two,

(or

Typical
Beams

2 were
Beams

4.2.2

beam
the

was

generally

widths

under

which

depicts

the

to

found

to

grew

exceed

0.2

and

divided
For

the

cracks

It

found

into
example,

was

sub-groups
the

Group

in

Mode

(Fig.

4.3).

beams

are

shown

central

the

each

to
in

Fig.

of

The

beam

rarely

were
frequently

At

collapse.

became

the

widest

up.

closed
group

Ni:

beams

comprising
M-0.4/5

and

M-O.

by

11-0.4/4.

cracks
of

each

(4.7),

Fig.

in

corner

in

behaviour

the

of

cracks

according
M beams

close

Beam

instant

the

frequently
that

crack

given
in

region

whilst

in

beams

of
the

could

crack

maximum

(4.6a)

be

could

be

into:
Sub-group

3,

the

width

the

of
is

in

explained

a corner

observed

diagonal

corner

Mode

in

25/4

crack

maximum

load

mm before

critical

of

failed
and

as

example

mm,

1.0

the

collapse,

the

is

across

behaviour

cracks

exceed

The

increasing

in

the

of

notation

illustrative

crack

flexural

beam

recorded

An

opening.

which

0-0..

and

widths

(4.1).

Table

head

deflection

crack

the

the

4.4).

11-0.4/12,

and

lower

outside

the

at

beams

0.4/4

and

maximum

to

footnote

M-0.4/8

widths

where

(Fig.

those

of

M-0.4/13,0

The
(4.6),

6)

beam

the

hinges

a result

the

splitting
of

with

as

occurred

portion

possibly

M-0.4/3,

Crack

Fig.

that

examples

M-0.4/9,

collapse
crack

plastically

1 and

cracks

and

diagonal

whilst

deformed

opening

occur

critical

into

chord

not

14-0.4/O,
4/11,

M-0.4/1,

widths.
divided

49.

Sub-group

M2:

Beams

comprising
M-0.4/4,

M-0.4/8,

M-0.4/12,

M-0.4/3

M-0.4/2,

and

and
Sub-group

113:

4/9

M-O.

Maximum
in

the

which

which

were

widest

in

'load

conjunction

tions

on

the

beams

in

Group

top

part

type
in

of

effects

the

behaviour

0-O.

4/4

under

edge

web

corner

also

cracks.

in

Fig.

(4.6a)

It

cracks

a consequence

in

that,

openings
large

in

Figs.

load
is

equally

to

the

highly

effective

may

and

(4.8),

be

on

width

depict
and

the
the

web

load

the
of

corner
the

at
was

control

significant

the

demonstrated

11-0.4/4

effect

of

same

which

little

width

the

having

whilst

the

in

those

This

Beams

the

A com-

that,

appeared,

over

of

observa-

evident

had

over

was

(4.7)

above

with

beams

widths.

increasing

exercised
as

web

crack

predictably

the

no

reinforcement.

reinforcement

of

respectively.

subsequently
and

the

the

applied

openings

had

comparison

reinforcement
which

the

shows

maximum
a

that
resulted

that

shows

widths

(4.6b)

openings,

by

further

(4.6a)

Fig.

of

also

were

seriously

examination

loads

openings

they

path';

openings

shows

(4.6b)

which

crack

controlling

further

(4.2)

of

0,

Fig.

of

An

ultimate

Fig.

of

the

of

the

had

or

widths.

A study

parison

low

'load

the

M1,

sub-group

openings

web

which

Table

in

crack

maximum

in

path'.

with

resulted

which

M3,

in

smallest

no

of

clear

sub-group
the

had

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

M-0.4/6.

and

were

either

reasonably

interrupted
in

widths

crack

beams

Beams

comprising

cracks

horizontal

)O.

In
are

(4.9),

Fig.

For

presented.

crack

widths

it

It

found

was

widths

crack

The

were

equally

were
2

or

mm

ultimate
Fig.

with
for

each

and

average

and

beam

roughly
crack

load

(Fig.

cracking

4.2.3

Ultimate
The

the

that
maximum
crack

average

the

that
the

the

to

on

the

at

in

conjunction

cent

deflection

plot
maximum

that

shear
cracks

corner
more

the

to

prior
had

openings
of

and

significant
that

evident

stiffness

of

per

the

was

kN),

100

Fig.

order

60

of

also

in

shown

the

of

formation

was

60

as

to

less

corresponding

cracks,
It

though

indicated

and

found

beams.

the

loads

measured
in

presented

of

plots,

effect

in

was

(4.10),

revealed

load

demonstrate

span)

Fig.

diagonal

4.10:

little

relatively

the

of

deflection.

flexural

to

only

parallelled

stages,

such

beams,

the

being

small,

from

to

widths,

crack
of

widths

cracks

surprising

deflection

on

on

(4.9),

widest

beams.

openings

resulting

later

serves

the

1/750

four

concerning

applicable

Examination

(4.6)

not

average

the

corner

observations

deflections

to

the

of

four

perhaps

effect

(1/1500

deflection,

than

the

average

beams

the

of

(4.9),

Fig.

the

result

generally

load.

the

were

of

their
The

(4.10),

be

above

this

of

to

pronounced.

(4.2),

the

widths

of

therefore,

that

effect

similar

at

is,

crack

purpose
to

behaviour

symmetrical

be

the

general,

However,

widths.

in

beam.

each

average

taken

were

which,

cracks,

the

Table

ratio

ultimate
('k. 2).
(U1/1i0)

loads
In
gives

of

the
the

all

right
ratio

the
hand
of

beams,
column
the

W1,
of

ultimate

are
Table

51

load

a beam

of

without

the

It

openings.

M-0.4/11,

M-0.4/12
in

(W1/WO)

being

occurred

in

Thetest
an

opening

to

which

blocks
in

it

by

the
the

in

fact

27'

ings
'load

28.

Where
the

in

collapsed
It
the

ing

would

by

an

depend

on

whether

routed,
forces
lower

along
in
and

BC

and

upper

'load

this
paths

in

load
ABC

path
and

be

extent

the

bearing

those

beams
'load

the

to

that

path'

achieved
the

earlier,

beams

similar

and

without

open-

interrupted

the

occurred,

and
these

beams

here,

most

that

seen

beams

the

tested

If

this
in

could
AEC

in

ultimate
be
Fig

interwould

strength
re-

successfully
(4.11)
high

cracks

was

path

load-

the

from

directly

sufficiently
diagonal

of

the

of

noted

0.5.

than

4.5c).

reduction

AE reached
critical

(Fig.

may

path'.

the

opening,

the

strengths

transmitted

was

the

cepted

ultimate

that,

seem

load

along

completely

Mode

For

for

beams

effect

on

essentially

were

it

the

comparable

opening

(4.3),

Fig.

failure

applied

point

the

less

was

clear

previously

lowest
to

reference

beams

described

as

path',

with

these

of

ratio

those

points.

as

5,

reductions

joining

path'

Indeed,

openings.

the

that

reasonably
and

small,

depended

reaction

high

Type

particular

indicated

'load

were
were

without

modes

were

of

openings
loads

a beam

and

opening

serious

W1/W0
W1/WO

strength
the

loading

ultimate

failure

ultimate

interrupted

at

which

the

the

on

in

the'ratio
have

results

quite

However,

beamsand

}1-0.4/1,

Beams

with

were

beam

similar

in

beams

0.8.

where

the

of

that,

seen

load

than

6,

that

those

remaining

Type

opening

with

in

ultimate

greater
the

be

may

and

reductions

to

openings

with

would

When

values
occur.

the

the

'

52.

For

a given

the

angles

which

angles
the

and

beam

inclination

did

be

not

the

required

except

In

beams

these

iveness

Group

shows
openings
M-0.4/5
little

that

were

of

have

effect

on

Node

with

effect

on

beams

clear

ultimate

the
the
in

example)
strengths.

the
the

EE was

large.

the

effect-

on

BC

failed

diagonal

critical

in

ultimate

Group

loads

of
4.2)

(Table

openings

or

where
(as

'load-path'
web

in
had

reinforcement

However,

11

strength

ultimate
Group

without
of

and

be

would

4.5).

of

were

may
in-

EE

provided

beams

similar

for

lower

reinforcement
an

it

'strut'

the

(Fig.

Comparison

reasonably
0-0.4/5

of

diagonal

dependent

the

(4.2)

(4.11),

AE

when

and

Beam
Table

in

the

without

comparatively

between

mainly

ABC,

web

the

and

was

by

beams.

where

0d

were

a beam

force

tensile

angle

path

be

the

from

upper

Fig.

to

AEC would

propagation

to

M beams

an

path

occurred

certain

only

the

the

found

in

capacity

amount

was

beams

substantial

lower

collapse

ultimate

reference

E of

B and

example,

loads

which

of

capacity

of

lower

the

the

of

The

a
when

the

of

a result

beams

upper

crack
for

on

therefore,

different

high;

was

[lith

because

effective,

crack

those

occur.

that

seen

load

the

e.,

locations

the

little

were

diagonal

The

for

recorded

is,

corners

where

on

depended

carrying

of

depended
i.

turn,

It

locations

critical

kN).

in

load

that,

BC

horizontal,

opening.

ultimate

and

ultimate

(520

crack

of

the

the

M-0.4/12

AE and

which,

shows

angles

in

the

with

the

the

(4.2)

of

openings,

as

the

the

that

such

were

expect
on

forces

(4.11),
of

Table

opening.

made

Fig.

in

depend

to

the

location

to

reasonable

were

and
size

the

load

applied

where

the

the
Beams

53.

intercepted

openings
0-0.4/6)

and

the

the

M-0.4/6

the

lower

path

ive

(Fig.

4.3):

the

effect

of

fore

to

provide

increase

the

capacity

of

of

M-0.4/4

Beam

4.2:

340

kN)

Fig.

(4.3)

it

the

in

on

effect
were

the

(Fig.

4.5).

it

was

of

since

Further
deferred,
of

the

the
web

amount

the

growth

of

little

in

on
in

general,

the

Howhad

little

cracks,

which

failure

modes

test

the

pilot

web

reinforcement

results

strengths.

ultimate

on

likely

without.

three

of

to

important

more

provided

all

basis

the

(Table

seemed

be

diagonal

critical

collapse

effect

it

reinforcement

the

of

that,

of

loads

ultimate

beams

deep

in

ultimate

reference

Hence,
could

than

and

reinforcement

web

reinforcement

and

cause

the

the

0-0.4/4

with

and

mode.

openings

the

Beam

and

EE

hence

of

there-

was
along

and

path

that

seen

failure

Therefore,

It

have

in

type

COMMENTS

GENERAL

35,

be

capacity

result,

effect-

reinforcement

web

kN)

beams

highly

not

comparison
450

In

clearly

upper

similar

also

concluded

results

with

had

where

4.2:

of

prime

provided

4.3

(Table

may

beams
the

ever,

Again,

effects

deep

the

beam.

shows

a change

caused
that

the

was

to

was

strength.

tensile

of

M-0.4/6

Beam

in

reinforcement

the

a horizontal
capacity

web

ultimate

as

such

(as

path'

the

of

effect

increase

significantly

'load

the

is
the
and
been

noted

that

pilot

tests

that

have

in

developed

analysis
here,

until
tests

the

results
after
in

both

experimental

light
pilot

presentation
lightweight

of

else-

presented
then

deductions

of
the

been

also

the

the

of

the

of

certain

of

follow-up

discussions

reported
testing.

further
is

tests

35

of
concrete

therefore
the

results
(Chapter

5)

54.

and

normal

7a

structural

is

weight

idealization

it

the

developing

follows,

what

proposed

offered

'ult

Ault

which

of
(cf.
it
the

clear

(4.1)

is

using
lower

reinforcement

as

this

the

following

and,

previously
the

of

previously

equations

the

ultimate

beams

with

+ C2>IA

D+

C2

k2

shear
web

openings:

(4

sin2oc

AD

1)
.

(4.2)

sin2ot

an

the

of

path'

of

(4.2),
path
deep

the

which
ABC

of
could

was

beams

the

for

used

which

had

joining

the

loading

ultimate
was
the

primary

both

with

estimating

path,

proposition

path

that

and

and

without

and
an

then

the

on

that

point

might

strength

based

results,

openings

load

the

openings
test

pilot

be

results

without

beams,

intercepted

opening

estimate

basis

deep

beams

deep

of

the

from

derived

equation

(4.12).

Fig.

in

explained

equation

'load

the

in

bD

Nottingham

strength

load

list

and

deep

) ft

On

that

Eqn.

ft

the

1.2.2.4).

of

the

of

calculating

is

at

There

approximate

the

Egn.

argued

investigat4on

the

k2D

tests

support.

made

notation

ultimate

were

of

k1X

0.35

the

Chapter
was

that

D)

to

interesting

and

given.

concrete

0.35

earlier

is

means

`1

C1
=

35

analysis

reinforced

C1
=

useful
of

openings

with

data.

description

suggested

simple

beams

Chapter

in

where

test

nature

35

was

of

strength

be

would

conclusions
It

in

of

the

all

a brief

method

reported

of

6),

deep

of

a basis

However,
illustrate
in

concrete

from

argued

(Chapter

be
that

the

openings

web

55.

had

similar

which
the

estimates
factors

chord,
was

Hence,

functions.

kIx

concrete

and

k2 D to

the

whilst
left

the

the

contribution
the

give

term,

second

term

first

by

modified

lower

the

of

capacity

the

of

was

(4.1)

Egn.

contribution,

reinforcement

unchanged.

The
then

follows:

as

cepts

The

depends

loading

point

location

at

for

Where

path',

can

(v)
has

no

Web

beneficial

load

support

reaction

shear

the

the

Trimming

be
of

effect

strength

the

openings
on

blocks
and

on

the

at
the

ultimate

clear

may
(4.1)

'load

using

type
crack
is

with
shear

the
as

computed

the

calculated
the

be

of

above.

intercepts

controlling

ultimate

inter-

it

which

point

Egn.

reinforcement
in

shear

ultimate

bearing

strength

opening
may

to

reasonably

using

strength

the

occurs.
is

opening

an

effective
to

contribution

the

interception

Where

(iv)
vided

joining

openings

shear

be

were

results

on

opening
extent

ultimate

without

ultimate

test

the

on

this

which

(iii)
the

the

and

the

a beam

effect

path'

(ii)
'load

an

of

primarily

'load

the

the

(i)
strength

from

conclusions

main

not

Eqn.
amount

and

but

widths
as

path'
(4.2).

proits

important.

reinforcement
strengths.

loops

CHAPTERFIVE

LIGHTWEIGHT

CONCRETE

DEEP

BEAMS

WITH

FURTHER

OPENINGS:

TESTS.

-A

5.1

INTRODUCTION

5.2

TEST

PROGRANNE

5.3

TEST

RESULTS

5.3.1

Crack

5.3.2

Crackwidths

5.3.3

Ultimate

Patterns

and

and

loads.

modes

deflection.

of

failure

56.

CHAPTERFIVE

LIGHTWEIGHT

5.1

CONCRETE

BEAMS

WITH

OPENINGS:

that

the

TESTS

FURTHER

INTRODUCTION
Since
the

of

pilot

where
and

codes

beams

was

deep

beams

four

specific

to

in

ical

diagonal

deep

beam

a deep

with

without

the

and

k2

to

amount

to

steel.
confirmation.

provide

Fourthly,

upper)

and

for
of

of

(Egn.

the

critical

web

steel

on

the

diagonal
in

used
function

of
the

No-5

such

an

steel
design

unexpected

in

a
the

of

needed

ambiguity
on

the

dir-

Thirdly,
study

pilot

proper
was

was

crit-

one

(4.2)

Eqn.

crack.
the

two

inclusion

mere

depended

which

series

shown

only

against

of

were

be

could

into

had

had

tests

there

as

guicblinesfor
Conclusion

(4.1)

Egn.

4.2)

openings

the

therefore
modify

the

as

of

validity

using

there

openings,

provide

tests

the

39

on

to

4.2.4),

pilot

the

modes

the
check

of

size
the

particularly

value

information

provide

web

openings;

assumed
and

and

(lower

examination,

regarding

failed

beam

(Chpt.

study

Secondly,

to

was

tests

failure

and

by

was

particular

aim

position

cracks

k1

parameters

type

the

which

first

pilot

varied.

that

further

the

in

services,

covered

tests

the

of

design

beam

for

including

behaviour
and

yet

conclusions

deep

or

not

study

purpose

the

The

and
in

access

was

further

openings,

aims.

in

beams

The

establish
web

for

provided

results

applications

such

out.

systematically

ection

of

No. 1 of

beams

be

practice,

with

Conclusion

potential

to

carried

data

further

had

design
of

thought

was

had

the

since

it

study

openings

major

of

DEEP

and
of
and

the
to

failed
hence
the

web

merited

57.

5.2.

TEST

PROGRAMME

The
in

the

test

pilot

study,

lightweight
Thirty-six

to

test

depth

D 750

Similarly,

two

x/D

of

ratios

(prefix

WM;

0 beams

W1 to

ment

(Fig.

beams

web

5.1;

constant
web

steel

The

Type

in

cent

The

(0.38%

(volume

(Table

of

these

in

steel

face,

vertical

of

steel)/(volume

Pweb

single

was
of

was

very

web

calculated

types

of

reinforce-

bars

concrete)

as

weight
the

of

460

of

near

N/mm

possible
the

of
same.

mm

ratio
in

as

5.1;

reinforce-

steel

in

in-

of

horizontal);
loop

Group

the

type

as

),

respectively.

(Fig.

nearly
mesh

(30

mm

W beams

the

that

so

of

0.75%

and

"

was

giving

0.4

deformed

consisted

each

ratio

special

5.1)

beams

762

reinforcement

ratio

steel

WM contained

prefixed

web

each

web

Group

mesh

beams

three

groups:

the

web

seven

giving

manufactured

and

two

mm diameter

10

of

orthogonal
The

cent

per

76

of

1 respectively.

other

nn
(3
),

of
L

used,

were

into

of

were

mm

were

lengths

and

5.1)"

while

types

the

ratios

divided

WM reinforcement
bars

deformed

beam

1.2

x/D

were

of

and

strength
at

and

IM).

consisted

1.5

specimens

5.1),

span

The

giving

a uniform

Type

Table

of

5-1)-

duplicate

mm, with

Table

supported
Table

were

distances

reinforcement

and

and

respectively.

special

W7)

each

yield

"

L/D

5.1

ratios

notation,

), and

seven

Type

0.2

and

moulds,

no

corporated

ment

100

span

sized

test

had

L/D

giving

Beam

see

The

per

0.3

(60

mm

mm,

simply

notation;

width

those

complement

39

four

Beam

clear-shear

Imperial

1524

mm,

(Fig.

which

(see

750

mm and

from

of

to

of

beams

beams,

repeatability

overall
1125

deep

the

of

consisted

and

concrete

designed

were

specimens

diameter
1.13

of
addition,

each

face

the

ratio

of

mm

58.

diameter

deformed

itudinal

steel

deformed

bar

lightweight

The
in

a2D,

but

is

as

of

opening

of

was

to

and

16

at

17

concrete
at

the

a2

equal

the

also

tested

load

condition

(Fig.
indication

to

in

of

the
way.

common

used

whether

(5.2).
an

numbers

reference

in

Briefly,
is

opening

constant

varied

by

increments

from

(5.4).

Fig.

(5.1),

Table

mm from

mm from
the

the

Opening

the

shear

those

beam

beam

soffit.

at

to

of

top.

while
Opening

tests

of

using
18

number

reference

span

0.3

centroids

the

series

next

at

notation

the

beam;

the

of

175

the

where

by

given

kept

in

all

the

of

mid-depth.

beams

with

However.
one
for

tested

were

investigation

present

approximation
was

complemented

openings
by

(5.1).

Table

was

at
175

making;

0.25.

this

of

web

mid-depth

of

study,

5.3)

the

size

to

used

centre

is

given

specimens.

pilot

were

convenient

was

are

in

Fig.

fly-ash

a2

in

at

14,15

loading;

some

were

were

two-point

loading

10

concrete

external

factor

footnote

13

and
In

but

the

and

located
ai

al

11.12

weight

both

in

number

reference

the

clearly

explained

normal

factor

illustrated

openings

16,

height

the

breadth

to

in

in

explained

to

sintered

indicated

are

mm diameter

anchored

used

of.

and

as
0

where

the
As

those

18

referenced

by

1.5.

to

again

long-

main

20

one

Lytag

5.1).

sizes

study,

of

strength,

strengths
and

pilot
0

yield

were

The

opening.

consisted

(Fig.

ends

positions

from

openings

0.2

at

the

N/mm2

concrete

the

ranging

of

each

beam

each

430

the

of

those

around

aggregates

details

al

in

blocks

steel

bar

for

35

in

practice

deep

beams;

this
four

the

conclusions

of

the

the

of

as

and,

a crude

four-point

beams,
drawn

beams

distributed

the

condition,

for

under

to

give

from

top

59.

tests

two-point

using

the

uniformly

5.3

TEST

5.3.1

be

could

distributed

load

broadly

to

applicable

condition.

RESULTS

Crack

patterns
The

beams

loading

without

and

crack

web

patterns

failure.

of

modes

at-failure

reinforcement

the

of

are

in

shown

Group

(5.4a)

Fig.

and

(5.4b).
The
ions

in

recorded

further
of

effect
dependent
'load

opening

of

the

loading

where

mode

remained

and

0-0.3/14

was

defined

an

opening

crack
tests,
the

the

observation

the

observat-

particular

of

provided
that,

deep

blocks

the

beam

was

intercepted

opening

bearing

tests,

pilot

opening

the

was

by

mainly
the

the

support

tests

have

at

loading

point

(cf.

Chapter

intercepted

from
in

the

4:

present

4,5a;
path

of

the

tests,

that
crack
clear

failure

the

bearing

the

Where

1).

sequence

described
at
in

the

at

presence

Mode

typical

trends

beam:

plane

blocks

by

patterns

failure

0-0.3/0,0-0.3/12

failure
the

shown

deep

solid

unaffected

basically

again

study

load

the

path

beam

each

the

Fig.

load

the

was

in

was

and

beams

of

of

load

the

a comparable

of

that

positions

present

of

patterns

shows

the

the

clear

that

crack

clearly

formation
but

the

of

opening

beams

in

which

load

the

essentially

and

an

in

the

comparison

of

to

extent

and

behavioii:

the

on

the

confirmed

point.

that,

support

study

substantiate

between

As

pilot

to

an

path'

and

the

evidence

broadly

tests

present

in
failure
ultimate

the

of
pilot
of
be-

60.

haviour
Beams

of

became

now

0-0.3/1,0-0.3/2,0-0.3/3

that

shows

the

as

increased,
the

diagonal

above

and

below

corners

2,

to

which

beams

those

is,
of

large

the

4.5)

opening

beams

beam

from

support

the

of
Hence,

the

0-0.3/8,0-0.3/9,0-0.3/4
and

were

by

In

Fig.

Beams

0-0.3/28,0-0.3/38,0-0.3/48

these

beams

beams

would

not

behaviour.
the

beams

the

of

crack

patterns

it

was
pair

which

of

the

0-0.3/58

any

found

that

could

differ

by

Beam
0-0.3/7,

opening.

are

of
presented:

the

ultimate
an

etc.
two

amount

of

sets
in

differences

great
the

path

similar

0-0.3/2,0-0.3/3
for

for

failure

at

recorded

example,

Beams

sensibly

patterns

suggest

in

in

of

size

Beams

of

immediately

similar

the

and

crack

However,
in

the

duplicates

were

in

(Chapter

load

example,

were

also

the

patterns

0-0.3/10

changes

(5.4d)

for

as

crack

and

unaffected

comparison

beam,

but

that

majority

for

path,

into

encroached

the

Mode

5.2),

opening

beam:

beams

load

(Fig.

16

be

those

the

4,13*,

opening

side

5. ").

in

only

intercepted

the

which

(Fig.

0-0.3/7

not

Types

openings
in

the

occurred

was

the

In

to

in

only

the

of

found

Beam

which

which

4.11).

(Fig.

00

mode

completely

with

any

it

interior

failure
failure

occur

in

the

angle

failure

the
and

from

of

the

upper
that

and

chords
by

the

would

reinforcement

path
of

example,

the

defined

evident

Chapter

load

in

0-0.3/4

Beam

was

the

to

occurred

therefore
in

web

values

beams

the

is

typical

load

the

for

4: Fig.

is

without

intercepted

It

opening

consistently

in

described

5.4)

which

were

until

occur.

was

(Fig.

0-0.3/2

opening

the

of

patterns

(Fig-5.4a),

interception

planes

opening,

ceased

Mode

failure
the

the

of

increased

crack

0-0.3/4

dimension

an

the

of

and

horizontal

effecting

path,

plane

Examination

obvious.

loads
which

of

6t.

seemed

greater

than

the

effects

of

of

measured

differences

example,

the

(Table

more

In

in

below

the

ultimate

that

the

on

load

(Fig.

crack

lower

critical

late

a very
was

This

reached.

beam

with

pared
sive

flexural-shear

(Fig.

4.4:

crack

critical

lower

strength

of

the

0-0.3/5R

as

compared

As
how

the

The

present

point.
Group
forcement

pointed

web

Fig.

Also,

(5.4c)

W beams
as

the

earlier,

shows

(Table

that

the

an

8)

indicate

lower

corner
the
form

would

of

as

com-

an

exten-

point

formation

the

of

the

ultimate
in

example,

at

load

0-0.3/2

increase

load,

early

reaction

the

for

regions

collapse

Beam

5.2).

influence

an

the

the

diagonal

formation

yielded
the

useful
crack

which

incorporated

described

in

Fig.

most

Beam

(5.1).

not

effectively

at

this

on
failure

seven

types

The

sequence

show
arranged.

information

patterns
the

did

tests

pilot
be

should

have

50%

would

the

support

happened.

beams

rapidly,

early

hence

and

of

had

crack

inhibit

to

have

at

where

in

the

would

0-0.3/5.

with
out

to

0-0.3/4

to

results

until

the

near

reinforcement
tests

4.4:

example

This

seem

sufficiently

for

beam.

would

cracks

happened

crack

as

for

Beam

pairs

large

beams

(Fig.

likely

kN)

other

The

form

diagonal

(215

occurred

not

was

5.1):

between

crack

might

crack

(Table

susceptible

propagated

0-0.3/2R.

4)

small

very

in

crack

or

the

corner

load:

diagonal

stage,

and

as

reduced.
early

2)

crack

scatter

it
are

be

cracking

4.4

could

the

of

diagonal

the

be

diagonal

would

formation

result

the

reinforcement

if

the

0-0.3/4R
In

openings

that

and

cracking,

Beam

load

the

be

load

expected.

web

typically

strengths

ultimate

and

ultimate

without

and

concrete
in

kN)

might

experimental

in

reasonably

beams

above

normal

260

difference

which

difference

(5.2);

been

that

of

the

of
web
of

rein-

early

62.

behaviour

in

is,

2)

The
ment
fully
to

behaviour

and

in

section

discussed
here,

says

below

the

that

opening
resulted

in

only

trimming

of

an

in

web

mode

that

the

beam

outside

fairly
that

the

they

remained

crack

diagonal
the
and

web

cracking

region

the

Beam

of
was

the
an

to

the

of

that

the

in

beam
outstandingly

had

the
to

occur
high

the

and
beam

with

no
in

reinforcement
W6-0.3/4,

most

diagonal
instant

of

clearly

shows

there

web

the

of
were

This

midspan.

below

such

portion

also,

to

fact

effectively
and

control

able

critical

point;

near

above

Beam

116-0.3/4

failure

reinforcement

failure
result

for
to

of
web

up

loops

strength

the

of

narrow

cracks

inclined

final

width

reaction

support

flexural

wide

due

that

in

The

locally

being

inclined
that

pattern
was

the

the

modes

several
to

ultimate

the

above

load.

cracks

from

wholly

failure

without

different

restrained

collapse

the

low

particularly

The

collapse.

rather

wholly

with

more

Suffice

was

served

cracks

be

will

ultimate
it

diagonal

and

that

so

cracks

in

4.4).

reinforce-

Loads'.

consequent

only

corner

web

modes

or

surrounding

However,

W4-0.3/4,

effectively

the

4.4

(Fig.

of

reinforcement

'i5-0.3/4)

little

was

'Ultimate

critical
in

reinforcement.

Beam

by

the

the

of

on

increases

opening

of

failure

W1-0.3/4)

W2-0.3/4)

(Fig.

and

types

the

was

reinforcement;

web

3,4

cracks

web

Beam

moderate

resulted

failure

in

(Beam

that

trimming

mode,

Beam

propagation

control

that

(as

reinforcement

the

the

where

opening
(as

of

the

on

and

corners

different

the

of

no

the

at

by

similar,

had

cracks

followed

was

general

which

of

effect

later

on

in

was

0-0.3/4,

formation

the
1 and

cracks

beams

Beam

to

comparable
that

these

is

evidence

protected

the

opening
by

ultimate

so

different
load.

63.

The
the

commonly

used

record

these

of
failure

beams

patterns

of
it

and

again

the

openings

in

Beam

the

that

mode

clear

control

Crack

5.3.2

the

increased

widths
intercepted
trates

the

led

Some

which

shows
x/D

can

agreed

The

crack

trimming
ultimate

on

from

failure

the
effect

diagonal

on

the

cracks.

for

the

that

namely,
to
For

which

crack-

opening

(5.5a)

Fig.
in

increases

progressive

web

are

conclusion

maximum

the

example,

progressive
to

the

0 beams
the

confirm

results

extent

Group

the

the

illusextent

increases

in

maximum

presented

in

Fig.

of

width.

crack

No. 4

of

identical

effect

moderate

critical

path'.
the

28.

reinforcement

apparent

crackwidths

the

'load

typical

nearly

little

only

processing).

deflection

tests,

with

interception

lower

and

pilot

how

clearly

such

It

(5.5)

Fig.

in
from

drawn

had

and

maximum

is

in
was

were

of

had

it

and

widths

bops

0.4/4

important,

upper

The
presented

WM

photographic

elsewhere

openings

the

reinforcement

the

of

that

the

openings

reported

with

are

destroyed

without

been

beams

is

Fiore

behaviour.

have

two

(Note:

unfortunately

beam

the

of

which
the

was

with

reinforcement

(5.4e).

Fig.

beams

the

of

type

mesh

in
beans

failure

at

orthogonal

mode

similar

and

patterns

diagrammatically

shown

The

crack

z
be

the
with

the

new

crack

0.2:

Beams

seen

that

observations

are

widths

of

the

four

beams

0-0.2/0,0-0.2/4,0-0.2/13
opening

No. 16

second

widest,

followed

the

results

from

and

led
by

Beams

with

to
No. 13

the
and

widest
No. O.

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

(5.5c),

L/D:

0-0.2/16.
crack
This

width,

64.

0-0.3/0,

and

in

study

only

then

possible

would

be

and

ratio

by

have

1.5

the

that

and

used

conclusion
in

a change

shown

= 0.3.

x/D

2 was

of

whether

say

affected

tests

present

L/D

single
to

not

L/D

which

it

the

pilot

it

was

not

to

referred
L/D

the

is

In

The

ratio.
be

to

unlikely

above

affected.

so

The

tests

pilot

ratios

1,1.5

of

lies

(5.5d)

Fig.
web

reinforcement
drawn

are

curves
This

in

accepted
was

the

Beam

The

opening.
not

but

also

effectively

0.3

mm limit

was

580

kN,

as

and,
cracks

vertical

horizontal

vertical

bars

the

corner

combined

where

the

exceeded

was

noted

but

flexural

in
the

cracks

and

9),

(Fig.

the

width

crack

until

the

W7-0.3/4
lower
the

while

4.4:

crack

inclined-horizontal

at

system

in

the

four

to

Beam

W6-0.3/4,

that

load

also

Beam

the

reached
were

The

mid-span.

2).

surround

strength

cracks

horizontal
1 and

particu-

used

so

widest

upper

width

ultimate

applied

was

and

width.

and,

in
the

the

width

limiting

was

steel

of

commonly

this

increased

cracks

system

crack

W2-0.3/4

web

earlier,

types

crack-width

reinforcement

restrained
not

usually

mm unit

that

seen

W1-0.3/4,

substantially

restrained

crack

be

web

0.3

of

maximum

Beams

inclined

only

diagonal

4.4:

in

for
can

The

widths.
mesh

grid

it

W5-0.3/4

however,

(Fig.

state

exceeded

in

larly,

limit
and

ratio

different

of

effects

crack

maximum
a

design,

quickly

the

against
a

represents

L/D

the

L/D

covered

3.

shows

on

together

deep'beams

in
1 to

range

tests

present

2;

and

the

within

the

and

not

combined
the

effective;

diagonal
bars

cracks
restrained

Similarly,

the

4-0.3/4

was

with

suffix

also

effective.
Fig.

(5.5e)

also

shows

beams

"15

which

tested

were

distributed

uniformly
difference

in

111-0.3/4,

Beam

figure

'T7-0.3/4,

Beams

:: 4(A)

Beams

W1(..

hence

it

loading

in

fact,

of

the
far

of

4.1;

48,.

was

in

B-

ultimate

lo-id.

effective

in

of

of

W3-0-3/4-

and

that

the

for

beams

with
the

deduced

that,

four-point

the

loading,

as

possibly

load

the

of

effect

from

be

may

of

and

pair

concerned

form

obtained

(Fit.
0.3

was

insufficient

The

present

in

The

tesh

Dean

the

Beams
exceeded

to

)1-0.14/0
50%

'"01

make

was

crack

not

at

600,:

any

and
ultimate

of
least

at

significant
mm

limit

(Fig.

on

4.6a)

was
the

WM-0.4/18):
load.

85%

until

exceeded

in

beans

width

that

however,
widths

0.4/18

the

load

that
test

pilot

0.3

the

are

found

shown

ultimate

limit

the

have

14M)

was

control

reinforcement,
the

controlling

in

to

required

at

it

used

contain-

Type

study

pilot

tests

is

m U -M-0.4110

mm was

(Fig-5.1

reinforcement

exceeded

5.5f:

the

beams

three

the

of

reinforcement

example,

width

true

it

were

severe

In

mesh
.

For

oi'enin.

beams,

widths

reinforce"hent

effect.

limit

crack

cracks.

whereas

less

(5.5f).

amount

web

was

Judging

distribution

mesh

rig.

diagonal

this

reinforcement.

widths

better

uniform

(Table

maximum

in

shown

was

of

opening.

The
the

crack

that

important

mentioned

as

the

the

crack

latter

and

results,

less

The

W7(. t)

exceptional

other

Beam

to
on.

W3(A)

of

the

the

arran1ements

of

around

formed

from

seem

syste^i

result

1.0%

WI-0.3/4

Beam

'also

the

so

similar;
and

becomes

as

loading

the

and

3/4,

condition

of

ing

t: 4-O.

from

and

of

remarkably

and

would

results

were

w3-0-3/4,

simulate

identical

was

behaviour

the

to

apart

i/(A)

Beam

to

loading

condition;

Beam

: 15(A)
that

effective

load

lo-tding,

shows

Beam

of

four-point

under

beams

not

so
with

the

66.

The
deflection

is

illustrated

the

of

openings

effect

to

their
Fig.

with
I

behaviour

effect

on

(5.6)

shows

primarily

the

of

Examination
types

deflection

the

control

rapidly

more

until

Ultimate

5.2.3

broadly

that

ultimate

strength

of

bearing

kN:

the

web
this

this

of

crack

it

much
blocks

The

the

deduction

the

the

effect

deep

intercepts
at

loads

(5.2).

confirmed

namely,

how

inclined

that

type

shear

span.

widths

behaviour,

of

and

the

increased

beam.

the

of

different

the

had

within

beam

spans.

shear

650

(5.5)

a result

noticeable

ability

flexural

flexural

of

Fig.

was

to

up

the

ultimate

Table

results;

by

it

which

widths

the

collapse

measured
in

presented

beams

of

linear

kN,

similar

Loads

The
are

effect
and

of

from

resulting

the

study

be

were

within

W6-0.3/4,

crack

650

approximately

deflection

deflection

indication

to

reinforcement

the

central

pilot

to

deflections

cracking

Beam

the

a comparison

the

particularly

further

After

for

in

found

was

showed
on

was

provided
.

(5.6d)

plot

reinforcement,

that
of

reinforcement

As

and

by

measured

Fig-(5.6).

widths,

again

Fig.

as

deflection

on

effects

of

of

in

crack

beams

the

of

the
loading

from

made
a

web

path'

point

and

the

opening

depends

'load

Group

the

of

joining

0
test

pilot
the

on
on

primarily

the

beams

the

of

all

results

of

beam

of

where

and

load

the

reaction

support

point.

, here
example,

in

ultimate

loads

the

Beams

opening

0-0.3/12

(Table

5.2;

was

clear

and

0-0.3/14

560

kN

each)

of

load

the
(Fig-5.4b),

were

for

path,

comparable

the
to

that

67.

the

of

beam

without

openings,
the

close

examination

of

three

beams

that

regions
the

shows

which

case

of

the

of

opening

had

on

the

inclined

corner

cracks

which

that

is

the

(Fig-5.4)
behaviour

and
of

had

the

11,12

tests
of

of
has

cracking

unless,

the

result,

that

by

load

(Fig.

failure
(Table
to

then

were

5.2)

cause

which
factor
ultimate

al

ultimate
(Fig-5.2),
load

reduced

steel

Beam

ultimate

is

so

load
6

numbered

numerous

on

mode

0-0.3/14

ultimate

indicated

have

previous

that

type

this

strength,
that

small
occurs

as

similar

to

path,

the

solid

the
was

loads

the

with
amount
quite

shown
an

the

the

of

study

are

gives

beam

was

idea
opening

of

in

drack

ultimate

loads

ultimate

Fig.

against
the
size

the
way

at

patterns

interception

small.

of

longer

no

reductions

conjunction
that

load

the

deep

significant

as

developed;

the

of

in

the

reduce

crack

intercepted

result

reduction

to

on

results

failure

opening

in

(as

soffit

3 of

and

in

recorded.
5.!

(as

24

of

showed
some

the

the

as

and

main

Paiva

de

effect

type

typical

pattern

obtained

of

flexure-shear

Where
crack

little

in

cracking

effect

beams

either

effect

was

flexure-shear

deep

indeed

beam

flexure-shear

The

these

significant

only

numbered

of

inclined

where

the

beam

solid

pattern,

0-0.3/0.

proportion

reported

The

inclined

solid

the

from

crack

located

regions

secondary

the

beam,

solid

the

a similar
as

or

No. 14).

No. 14
at

in

originated

o; Ening

load

in

kN).

failure

at
were

openings

No. 12),

opening

patterns

uncracked

cracks

case

the

remained

flexure-shear

crack

(595

0-0.3/0

Beam

required
(5.7a),

opening
in

increased,

which

in

breadth
the
from

68.

type

opening
to

effect

1 through

increasing
5.4),

from

progressive
in

serve

only

behaviour

cracking
difficult

to

particular

to

indicate

of

the

in

of

be

explained

will

have

tests

and
beams

their

was

tentatively

7 after
as

proposed

the

of

the

it

the

basis

of

the

on

the

Group

0 beams

of

did

However.
a

offer

load

transfer

reasonable

The

idealization

results

of

of

4,
anal

results

the

all

Chapter

method

on

would

load.

gave

in

mentioned

development

and

post-

effect

the

strengths.

presented;

that

as
these

the

which

of

openings

Chapter

that

ultimate

found

visualization

ultimate
in

the

on

(Fig.

loads

indeed,
complex

were

beam

ultimate

particular

was

with

which

mentioning

so

the

idealization

been

idealization

was

Similarly,

the

trends:

parameters

deep

predictions

beams

the

worth

the

uniquely

understanding

mechanism

is

10,

side'of
in

(Fig-5.4),

path.

type

support

It

isolate

structural

useful

the

to

load

to

reductions

geometrical

a simple

the

8,9,4

(5.7b).

Fig.

2,3,4,5

of

types

breadth

caused

illustrated

be

through

in

figures

interception

greater

type

opening

types

opening

the
ysis

the

of

pilot

tests.

The
formation

on

tests

behaviour

the
that

circumstances

forcement.

yielded

monstrated

that

strength
web

were

The

reinforcement.

Group

the

W beams,

of

web
For

substantial.

to

825

kN

(Table

strength

of

260

kN

for

beams

with
by

which

the

Beam

0-0.3/4

as

the

of
web

contained

the

compared
which

with
had

no

de-

ultimate

inclined
of

strength

web

rein-

and
on

example,

in

openings

effects

reinforcement

ultimate

5.2),

web

information

complementary

increased

reinforcement

deep

complicated

effects

1;6-0.3/'1

ment.

not

further

be

could

of

in-

useful

provided

type

Beam

the

ultimate

web

reinforce-

69.

As
without

has

web

vulq 3erable
,
one

above

steel

details

where

(b)
lower

higher
(595

W.

(c)

'. eb

:r6

inclined

the

same

'-: 6-0.3/4
(d)

hence
fact

was

a result

Beam

measured
ion

ultimate

with

the

web

in

Fig.

patterns

(530

the
of

that

the

of

support
splitting

those

outside

onset
and
along

it

(100

upper

in

Type

of

had

each

load

much

0-0.3/0

form

W beams

the

and

were

beam

the

Beam

of

others.

1: 4-0.3/4

was

the

web

reinforcement

the

result

of

shear
was

breakdown

can

be

that

the

line

seen
of

the

result
and

span

in

not

maintaining

serious

of

kN),

'.: 6-0.3/4

solid

of

concrete
the

the

ultimate

and

shows

the

the

'"16-0.3/4

of

(5.3)

after

but

the

loads

Group

The

than

Beams

the

of

W2)

kN).

kN),

used

steel,

higher

(Pig.

load

ultimate

the

reinforcement.

capacity

shear

kN),

W5),

W1-0.3/4

both
(660

efficiently

of

(370

W4-0.3/4

most

web

Seam

protected

(Type

region

(Type

(5.2):

lower

the

only

upper

115-0.3/4

was

failure

above

than

much

achieved.

ion

two

The

opening

Table

Oeams

in

of

failure

applied

are

reinforcement:

crack

the

the

fact

amount

the

the

only

in

web

was

or

trim

low

W7-0.3/4

steel

tensile

to

kN) ;

as

higher

The

there

protected

reinforcement

and
-

J1)

used

(490
the

kN)

and

beans

web

conjunct

reinforcement

were

regions,

(825

re,

was

'here

(5.1),

Type

:T2-0.3/4

Beam

the

web

loads

ultimate

opening.
in

on

that:

the

it

by

protected
the

that

shown

studied

Fig.

in

(Fig-5.1:

region

of

below

(5.2),

Table

'..'here

be

to

one

show

(a)

have

tests

the

earlier,

reinforcement

and

in

(5.4c),

mentioned

regions

loads

or

been

the

anchorage

in

the

failure
hooks

70.

the

of

effect
it

is

was

of

maintaining

clear

that

was

loss

of

reinforcement

load

applied

failure

the

of

the

within

(5.10)

Fig.

177-0.3/4

the

and
bars

vertical
Beam

of

and

span

shear

to

the

shows

Beam

on

anchorage

system.

(5.9)

Fig.

contrast,

the

consequence

a
the

of

In

reinforcement.

115-0.3/4
1

that

shows

the
because

effective
into

web

adjacent

region

opening

due

to

(e)

web

reinforcement

The

in

shear

load

ultimate

inability

of

the

is

clearly

as

(f)

The

two

point

effects
four

or

point.

the

relative

effects

of

web

reinforcement.

of

failure

the

of

increase

a useful

the

controlling

corner

Mode

from

mode

be

would
It

was

safe

Mode

3 to

had

assumed
little

that
effect,

any,

Beam

that
the

openings
from

seem

two

and

the

the

present
the

loading

point

the

with

load

distributed

on

from

then
'.14 (A)

it
with

result

(f)

system

in
would
[team

be

in
if

it

loading
seen

'J4-0.3/4,

susceptability

beams

of

sets

above,

the

of

differences

difference

the

as

duplicate

significant

Following

load.

the

equivalent

earlier

: racking,

inforcement

compared

would

a uniformly

whether

one.

noted

diagonal

It

a statically

of

insignificant
of

is

that

condition,

positions

for

that

results,

assumption

of

a result

were

of

to

distortion

W3 effected

loading

the

of

effects

(g)

load

visible.

the

changing

the

and

the

4.5).

(Fig.

test

beam,

in-

totally

distribute

to

Type

mainly

hence

and

cracks

its

of

W5 was

Type

reinforcement

the
is

measured

had
the

comparing
and

reultimate

tentatively

condition
by

without

so

on

(Table

very
results
5-2)9

71.

that

the

web

reinforcement

and

consistent

results.

comparison

of

reliable
further

by
Beam

and
loads

14711-

0.4/4;

to

acted

as

produce

This

the

more

is

amplified

of

Beam

point
load

ultimate

mentioned

much

previously

WM-O. 4/4

their

ultimate

web

reinforcement

identical.

were

I
(h)

One
deep

on

final

point

beams

without

mentioned

previously,

provided
Beam

found

was

WI-0.4/0

thickness

the

same

costs

The
would

and

self

As

will

be

seen
of

arrangement
benefits

still.

pilot

the

of

web

reinforcement

amount

have

little

beam

ultimate

and

Beam

M-0.4/0

was

additional

as
25%

web

recorded

indicate

that

significant

additional
in
web

the

next

reinforcement

be

that

less

but

gained

quantity
Chapter,
could

for

loads.

beam

contained
(Table

both

4.1

beams
in

savings

being
concrete

by

the

provision

of

web

reinforcement.

the

use

of

result

the

of

the

reinforcement

load

might

much

as
then

on

tests
in

study,

effect

ultimate

snail,

relatively

the

present

weight

of

In

primarily

0.5%

effect

openings.

former

the

approximately
5.1).

the

differed
of

and

to

in

study

pilot

the

concerning

an
in

of

inclined

much

greater

C If

NOR}IAL

APTERSIX

WEIGHT

CONCRETE

DEEP

BEANS

WITH

WEB OPENINGS

6.1

INTRODUCTION

6.2

TEST

PROGRA}fl1E

6.3

TEST

RESULTS

6.3.1

Crack

patterns

6.3.2

Crack

widths

6.3.3

Ultimate

loads

and
and

modes

deflection

of

failure

72.

NORMAL

11

.1PTERSIX

DEEP

CONCRETE

WEIGHT

BEAMS

WITH

WEB OPENINGS

INTRODUCTION

irate

the

deep

beams

A third

test

behaviour

of

with

In

lightweight

of

sisted
bars

these

it

is

behaviour

were

normal

beams
beams

clear

due

actually

to

behaviour

the

data

deep

available

with

glair.

round
bars.

differences

reported
type

concrete

beams.
con-

deformed

with

reinforced
the

significant

concrete

weight
the

Zeneral

reinforcement.

between

reinforced

whether

the

results,

28

studies

weight

not

27'

and

concrete

web

test

reported

lightweight

of

invest-

to

out

determine

system

previous

r. ormal

nd

Hence,

been

carried
reinforced

to

and

previous

concrete
in

However,

of

was

weight

inclined

studies

have

differences

normal

openings

the

of

effectiveness

of

web

programme

to

or

in
reinforce-

type.

ment

The

effectiveness
in

reinforcement

web
strated

in

in

thesis.

this

haviour
number

Only

deep

of

weight

beams

this
concrete

chapter
deep

web

beam

tests
of

inclined

arrangement

of

was

demon-

opening

earlier

reported

opening

desirable

therefore

opening

with

type

single

with

inclined

an

deep
a

was

beans

different

In
normal

it

and
of

deep

lightweight

the

considered,

of

to

was

test

reinforcement,

then

the

be-

for

locations.

the

results

beams

are

of

the

presented,

tests

on
and

whenever

73.

their

possible
lightweight

6.2

test

TEST

beams

(Fig.

width

simply

6.1

100

single
L/D

A single

shear

x/D

and

lightweight

of

the

as

their

prefix

N to

Hence,

for

and

beam

and

web

5.1)
beam

the

beam
as
weu

and

had
in

no
Fig.

reinforcenent

diameter

were

giving

repeats
beams

designated

are
an

additional

two

types

of

concrete.

weight

normal

No. 4

both

(Fig.

types

together

no

5.2).

All

web

of
the

with
of

concrete

contained

special

above,

nine

of

given

concrete

repeated

mentioned

other
of

pattern

shown

in

the

with

used,

been

reference

opening

rein-

solid

contained

which

reinforcement.
The

clined

the

NO-0.3/4

beams

(Fig.

These

lightweight

in

lightweight

the

forcement

no

0-0.3/4

reinforcement

web
of

Be-m

example,

mm and

mm were

were

have

between

discriminate

Beam

like

but

mm and

respectively.

beams.

twins

deep

D 750

1125

of

225

of

specimens

concrete

lightweight

and

concrete
depth

overall

0.3

and

tests

the

of

complement

programmes,

weight

length

length
1.5

of

of

span

span

ratios
Nine

normal

6.1)

Table

to

test

concrete

supported

and

min.

clear

the

to

relation

designed

were

specimens
lightweight

the

16

comprised

in

test

in

used

discussed

specimens.

PROGRAM
The

those

is

performance

deformed

seven

the

openings,

in
bars

all

reinforcement;

web

(6.2b)

beams

and
each
of

others

explained
of
425

these
N/mca2

the

contained
one
each
in
beams
yield

beam

was

same
a

(5.2

consisted
stress,

control
openings

contained
Fig.

in-

).

The
of

6 mm

arranged

74.

in

face

each

horizontal

of

were

onmitted,

for

beam

varied

each

bars

of

details

experimental
the

concrete

6.2

TEST

so

and

lightweight

the

crack

by

concrete

and

crack

are

modes

type

that

the

4.4

crack

beam

of

types
similar

the

are

other

general

3.

Details

given

in

of
X6.1).

Table

the

were

near

identical.

crack

the

that
the
1 and
and

the

at

W6A

was

$. 4a

& c)

normal

that

affected
of

each
it

general
beams

weight

weight

showed

little

In

failure

inclined

that

typically

the

of

web

reinforcement

so

normal

pair
was

occurred

loads.

propagation
2),

in

patterns

normal

applied

type

bea'is

were

crack

patterns

the

and

failure

fact

the

all

(6.2).

6.2a

in

in

of

similar

(Fig.

higher

showed

controlling

was

and

failure

Fig.

in

cracking

containing

in

0.0049

failure.

at

of

slightly

ive

beam

mode

and

beams

6.2b)

ratio

steel

a range

Chapter

of

patterns

concrete

The

(Fig.

mix

each

presented

pattern

similar

beams

the

with

web

in

was

in

given
for

patterns

beams

only

line

in

total

concrete

are

A comparison

at

the

reinforcement

RESULTS

Crack

found

that

web

were

and

the

strengths

The

of

6.1:

that

slightly

Details

weight

(Fig.
mm

125

a uniform

at

and

G. O.

(Table

0.0065

6.2.1

horizontal

Reinforcement

openings

to

the

to

spacing

6A).

type

30

at

series

reinforcement
was

provided
of

the

the

corner

failure

Mode

of

2 as

effect(Fig.

cracks
mode

described

of

each
in

75.

Chapter

(Fig.

protected

the

and

to

acted

4.5).

More

control

cracks

with

achieved

in

of

the

crack

all

that

be

increased

In

Beam

to

result

0.47%

the

of

the

amount

Type

latter

the

ultimate

clear

from
a
I
NW6-0.3/4

Beams

opening

the

of

high

critical

loads

the

and

concrete

could

diagonal
(Table

failure
6.1)

beam

failure

of

1.25%
in

as

in

collapse

inclined

of

mode.

was

and,

specimens,

quantity

were

comparison

ww6A reinforcement

mentioned

a result

reinforcement

below

and

ratio

greater

as

is
of

steel

the

this

followed

It

prevent
web

web

propagation

that

of

lightweight

containing

and

failure

at

in

above

beams.

the

to

forcement

the

effectively

compared

beams

width

the

the

''W6-0.3/4

case

the

patterns

6A-0.3/4
NW,;

the

regions

vulnerable

diagonal

of

important

web
the

outside

reinshear

span.
A
two

the

It
has

forcement

two

tests,

on

'Ultimate

Loads',
27,

ations

inclined

web

Crack

web

the

be

will

crack

openings

behaviour

the

recently

effect

on

29,

beams
web

ovidence
fully

results
have

which

some

behaviour

the
more

support

deep
that

the

of

revealed
of

argued

failure

at

:, 76A-0.3/0

discussed

would
`B'

patterns

}however,

1977).

guide

the

in
of

with-

reinof

deep

of

these
Section

previous
the

reported

benefits

reinforcement.

wi(iths

It
on

been

limited

only

which

investi;

6.2.2

has

crack
and

on

(CIRIt

beams

N0-0.3/0

information

openings.

out

the

of

beams

solid

interesting

of

comparison

and

was

found

widths

in

%ras similar

deflections

that
normal
to

the

effect

weight
that

in

of
concrete
the

web

reinforcement
deep

lightweight

beams
concrete

with

76.

It

specimens.
types

of

may

the
on

behaviour,

weight

concrete,

weight

beams
the

than

went

is

that

the

500

kN

two

As
web

effectiveness

of

the

Type

in

Fig.

(6.3b).

0.3

mm limit

was

not

in

and

of

limit

state

is

was

web

The

effect
of

superior

the

lightearlier
the

W6A web

reinforce-

It

solid
that
factor

major

normal

that

was

clear

and

evidence

is

to

the
up

the

be

noted

smaller

to

approximately

load

applied

the

crack-

this

at

considerably
Beam
the
in

of

Seam

N: r6-0.3/4

to

Beam

NW6A-0.3/4

NO-0-3/0amount

of

controlling
with

1.25%
O. 47%

with

6.3b).

(Fig.

steel

performance
far

the

of

in

between

loads

cracking

also
is

provided

steel

behaviour

of
load

it

the

beams

con-

the

containing

applied

the

collapse

earlier,

beam

each
for

several

the

than

for

exceeded

behaviour:

inclined

the

clearly

in

slightly

is

concrete

The

reinforcement

inclined

of

(5.5d)

similarity

predominate.

mentioned

beam

width

reinforcement

serviceability
greater

0.3

types

demonstrated

openings

the

in

again

general

the

of

effects

in

This

was

beam

lightweight

of

significant:

beans.

widths:
until

difference

the

mm crack

exceeded

Fig.

not

weight
the

not

width
of

beams

crack

lightweight

crack

that

showed

Type

over

similar

Lxamination

special

reinforcement,

was

the

similar

reached

of

in

the

of

control

maximum

(6.3a)

was

normal

behaviour

the

between

web

limit

as

crack.
Fig.

with

that,

effective
width

and

tests

flexural

junction

k; l

6.3a)

inclined

most

crack

650

previous

fact

ing

the

mm maximum

approximately
'of

the

produced

0.3

(Fig.

seen

reinforcement

:d6 again,
the

be

of
solid

the

inclined

beam

web

NW6A-0.3/0

on

reinforcement
was

found

to

be

77.

substantial.

Vhereas

in

Beam

NO-0.3/O,

reinforcement,
0.3

ixi

0.655
of

was
web

In
beams
the
as

are

(6

Fig.

before
of

6.2.3

the

loads

the

in

observations

deduce

would
concrete

of

beams

is

the

tests

that
the
be

all
Filot

broadly
deep

little

used.

weight

beams

the
confirmed

tests

to
to

and
the

reflect

crack

control

crack

on

the
tests

observations
and

applicable
beams.

it
made

further
to

web

Fig.

tests
normal

from

details

),

resulted

(Chapters
weight

the

lightweight
to

reasonable
the

No.

ref.

from
of

of

ultimate

previously

seer-is

ultimate

type

steel

(6.2

beams

comparable
(fence,

5.3.3).

drawn

the

opening

the
in

the

measured

containing
with

have

on
by

the

of

study

those

the

openings

web

patterns
to

tests

concrete

affected

conjunction

similar

(Chapter

concrete

both

and

the

of

results

found

was

effects

in

made

(6.1)

Fig.

for

concrete

the

200%.

over

resultsagain

lightweight

weight

i: ormal

6.2),

in

these

normal

present

concrete

(Table

of

state

spans.

deep

of

of

load

recorded

reinforcement

that

shown

structural

containing

Loads
: he

behaviour

of

limit

in

web

shear

Ultimate

broadly

of

W6. -0.3/0

deflections

behaviour

type

limit

width

increase

the

deflection

each

in

widths

in

web

without

serviceability

generally,
made

the

this

the

crack
Beam

in

an

1t)

presented.

observations

ability

the

at

kN

1000

was

beam

similar

kN,

load

the

steel

cracking

350

at

reached

the

of

results
4
reinforced

and

5)

78.

In
loads
it

of

each

normal

was
in

beam

each

beam

solid

Beam

Bean

the

the

which

in

both

normal

The
type

same

of

information
It

6.1)

(Table

number

For
was
at
bean

web

the

behaviour

of

example,
that

such
the

supports
soffit.

by

that,

of

of

inclined

cylinders

I
interesting

the
the

In

is

to

it

the

in

may
two

produce
This

that

and

(6.3)

result

performance

particular

lightweight

and

load

N0-0.3/0,

Table

bond

regards

each

ultimate

comparable.

suggest

of

corresponding

Beam

of

on.

was

reinforced

was
The

i's

the
joining

intercepted

results

of

the

tests

with

inclined

0.50:
the

pattern,
in

openings

location

of
load

of

any
loads.

ultimate

the

opening
blocks

bearing

c]oye
on

openings.

web

an

ataposition

new

some

approximately

the

the

containing

of

high

achieve

path'

beams

containing

NWJ6A-0.3/15

'load

the

provision

could

Beam

beams

of

provided

deep

of

beams

locations

in

series

reinforcement

the

deep

of

the

reinforcement

web

loads

ultimate

as

higher

loads

exercise

weight

results

on
found

was

to

the

the

beams.

deep

concrete

so

this

evidence

by

that

clearly

are

reinforcement

similar

by

of

for

and

An

thus

and

result

further

provided
of

0-0.3/0

by

cube

beans

of

divided

was

recorded

ultimate

reinforcement:

figures

of

control

6.2)

and

with

concrete.

set

without

that

the

ultimate

5.2

loads

dividing-the

particular

111-0.3/4

sets

by

(Tables

inconsistent

weight

normal

NW1-0.314

seen

by

the

of

ultimate

not

were

obtained

comparison
be_, ms

higher

measured

the

of

result

be

as

similar

the

beams

tests

of

that

weight

strength

of

pair

found

was

from

general,

lightweight

to

the
beams

79.

have

that

shown

strength

such

deep

of

beams
In

reinforcement.
the

web

NW6A-0.3/15
the

similarly

which

contained

'load

path',

obtained

9
expressed

web

mentioned
the

of

beams

inclined

web
be

695

load
kN

for

the

goneAl
However.

comparable

beam

(Table

In

the

on

reported
Chapter

6.

Beam

formation
crack,

which
in

N0-0.3/O),
and

Beam

collapse

N:: 6. -0.3/0

the

to

split
examination

load
that

the

compared

little
4.

with
Beam
no

or

21-0.4,10,

Beams

0-0.3/0,0-0.2/0;

failure
of

0.65%

reinforcement,

(Chapter

beams

by

shown

shows

with

and
as

occurred

the

beam
of

the

into
crack

result
dia-

critical

single

in-

of

case

ultimate

kN

been
increase

contained

1215
web

herein

have

have

(6.2)

beams

shear

N. 16A-0.3/4,

of

the

tests

in

without

5,

that

In

was

solid

the

the

reservations

increase

progagation
at

to

which

Table

tests

Beam

reinforcement

N"J6. -0.3/0,

beam

similar

than

intercepted

present

NW6A-0.3/0

beams,

reinforce-

even

openings.

the

of

6.3).

web

of

that

greater

and

some

the

that

0-0.4/0.0-0.25/0;

of

load

without

Beam

of

reinforcement

Chapter

completely

substantial:

the

\'0-0.3/0.
web

that

ability

steel,
fact

in

ultimate

beam;

Beam

other

116A web

were

which

earlier

Beam

of

Type

solid

reinforcement,

performance

could

deep

over

strength

the

solid
As

clined

the

openings

unreinforced

the

loads

the

to

due

of

than

of

web

that

load

greater
all

and

openings

of

was

Similarly

ultimate

capacity

measured

it

of

shows

ultimate

measured

indeed,

sized

recorded

ment,

the

the

reduce

systems

(6.2)

Table

NO-0.3/0.

beam

solid

effective

contrast,

high;

was

with

without

reinforcement

drastically

could

openings

two.
pattern

8o.

at

failure

(Fig.

to

control

the

failure
'strut'-

This

crushing

failure

pression

failure
web

27,
of

mode

is

the

in

without

openings

failure.

which
-

and

larger

shown

that

have

reinforced

by

indeed,

shown

concrete
is

essentially

may

be

the

proper

two

arrangement

effective
failure

therefore,

the
that

both

beams

of

the

with

and
type

realistically
web

results

shear

splitting
even

comp-

of

a compression

confirmed

and

axial

tests
of

diagonal
-

in

as an

present

summary,

deep

apparent

observed

construed

such

and

on

diagonal

the

quantities

controlled

action

that,

the

that

such

shearing
between

be

acted

cracks

portion

web:

In

reinforcement

suggest

not

occur.

tests

present

failure

prevented

to

unlikely

also

should

the

have

beam

strut-like

openings

reinforcement

web

this

a pure

the

of

web
diagonal

the
of

would

24'

tests

with

portion

of

the

of

a result

result

previous

beams

as

like

cracks.

that

shows

propagation

occurred

the

of

6.2)

steel.

CHAPTERSEVEN

A STRUCTURAL

7.1

THE

7.2

GENERAL

IDEALIZATION

STRUCTURAL.

FOR DEEP

IDEALIZATION

DISCUSSION

BEAMS

WITii

WEB OPENINGS

81.

CHAPTERSEVEN
A STRUCTURAL
7.1

THE

of

the

4,5

6.

together
(b)

from

In

(a)

clear-shear

a2

4.2

and

opening-location

The

which

shows

mainly

by
structural

the

lower

to
ing

by

expect

'lower

idealization

to
the

at

fixed.

are
kix

and

Fig.

6.1),

normal

(f)

both

5.4a)
Table
red-iced:

beam

web

transmitted

and

partly

by

Let
a

us

fixed

the

0.

i.

e.,

kept

and

is

progressively

in
were

would
ultimate

from

to

that
t20

kN

ultimate
for

Beam

keep-

reduced

to

reasonable

test

being,

by

constant

strength.

designed

(5.2)shows

be

that

dimensions

the

is

it

of

time

the

kix,

AEC.

path'

whilst

for

consider,

support

effectiveness

if

Then.

the

an'upper

angle

level,

(7.1),

to

the

that

be

may
Fig.

of

is

reduction

in

a deep

load

constant,

dimension

0-0.3/10(Fig.

progressively

of

with

0.

occurs

W1 values

8 arrangements

suggests

with

the

the

of

(e)

of

increase

should

and

a1

combinations

idealization

ABC

path'

a progressive

0.3/7

indeed

applied

dimension

increasing

and

the

k2

and

factors

k2;

strength

that

path

0.4;

and

concrete.
shear

opening

the

5.1

structural

upper

k,, D
6.

Fig.

using

path

the

that

4.1,

the

The

of

and

ultimate

calculated

the

kI

lightweight

and

weight

factors

2;

and

0.2,0.25,0.3

of

22

beams,

1,1.5

of

opening-size

(d)

5.2);

(Fig.

reinforcement

the

of

L/D

x/D

Chapters

79

of

total

sum
in

reported

ratios

ratios

the

on

a total

span/depth

combinations
Fig.

tests

tests,

span/depth

13
(Fig.

the

based

are

the

of

summary,

covered:

(c)

all

61I111 WE OPENINGS

BEAMS

%TION
follow

that

arguments

evidence

and

IUEALIZ

STRUCTURAL

The

FOR DEEP

IDEALIZATION

Beams
this

0-

argument,
loads

were

0-0.3/7

`Tn

82.

through

380

On the

other
0 was

again,

the

In
in

paths
joining
it
be

been

has

33

shown

notation

is

small

with

the

indeed

W2 values

marked

Egn.

(7.1)

and

close

to

unity.
If

the

ultimate

with

be

D)

bD

C1

(1

the

as

'

to

not

the

notation

obtainable
test

could

results;

these

interrupts
takes

kIx 0

) ft

explained

in

(%. 1)

sin2a

beams

the

modified

AC2

(7.2b).

of

(7.1).
(7.1)

are

the

This
the
using

calculated

natural

Fig.

signifi-

Table

been

Df

the

estimate

the

k2

if

interfere

in

is

beam,

Qult

that

Egn.

from

W2/2
s
where

path'

solid

a reasonable

path,

equation

+ C2

suggests

for

0.35

strength

:
Qult

load

(7.2a).

Fig.

in

ratios

opening

strength

ft

have

the

lower

and

such

shear

asyrnbol

W1/W`

upper

for

(+)

the

general

'natural

the

ultimate

located

load

supported

is

points;

0.35

so

by

the

the

idealization

should

that

opening,

explained

natural

reduced;

below

is

or

progressively

the

load.

which

the

structural

strength

ultimate

(1

is

the

0-0.3/10.

(Fis-5.4a),

confirm

reaction

(7.1)

Egn.

was

ultimate

one,

that

C1

The

was

of

and

by

the

cantly

absence

loading

Quit

opening

the

become

predicted

where

in

(7.1)

Fig.
the

the

Beam

for

0-0.3/6

to

(5.2)

Table

kN

210

0-0.3/1

constant

a reduction

to

while

W1 valuesin

was

kN,

Beams

in

kept

260

kN,

280

hand

angle

trend

kN,

reasonably

load

path,

form:

Yk
A pl

sin2ai

(7.2)

83.

It
which
the

of

typical

case
the

path

be,

is

al

now

intersects

'strut'
the

is

yl

bar

the

or

and

EA

strut

that

noted

reinforcement

upper
may

be

should

CB

between

angle

depth

the

'strut'

lower

the

of

the

the

at
EA

path

the

as

typical

bar

and

EB.

or

The
based

was

which
4.2),

has

equation

on

thus

been

took

the

Quit

in

anomoly
the

the

previously

pilot

test

study
in

corrected:

proposed

the

(Chapter

data

pilot

equation,
4;

the

study

Eqn.

proposed

form:

II C1

1-0.35

) ft

kD
I-

>A
+ C2

b k2D

(7-3)

sin2a

where

a and

path,

which

often

gonal

cracks

in

were

In
quantity

the

load-carrying

in

CB

the

this

capacity

mode

(hence

formation

represents

(s

where

of

ft

for

is

splitting

The

second

the

contribution

'strut'
ft

tern

on
of

of

the

fails

the

right-hand
reinforcement

path

for

load

the

capacity
'strut'

the

a semi-

lower
in

when

path;
a

splitting
in

resulting

used)

of

lower

the

of
therefore

is

a measure

the

is

(7.2),

Eqn.

of

allows

which

diagonal
the

is

CB of

inclination

capacity

critical

so-called

0)

sin

in

term

strength

side

kix/k`D)

way

first

the

Ci

'strut'

the

the

reached,

the

the

The

horizontal.

dia-

critical

right-hand

(1-0.35

0,

the

C2

of

of

is

on

the

factor

the

expression

empirical

term

b k2

the

to

load

natural

openings.

observation
cot

with

to

ft

and

experimental
varied

first

the

to

reference
relation

with

capacity

(7.1),

Fig.

a beam

the

with

little

bears

C1

the

measured

crack
side

CB.

along
of
to

the

Egn.
the

(7.2)
shear

71

84.

strength
the

the

of

and
2)

1 and
Hence,

would

'strut'

EA

itself

in

the

found

was
'
0(say

to

(7.2)

Eqn.
by

has
lower

the

implicitly

been

propagation

such
in

the

which

EA and

along

is

CD.

The

diagonal

cracks

the

quantity

of

It

crack.
the

diagonal

moving
loading
why
ation

the

outwards

shown

also

cracks
in

point.
ability

of
with

seem
could

two

failure

by

the

by

the

test

in

that

given

and

on

the

propagation

result

in

the

term,
the

(F19-4-5),

cracks
to

depend

to
the

restrain

angle

to

diagonal
widening

of

the

beam

of

portion

about

motion

and

restrain
similarly

on

with

(Fig-7.1)

idealization

of
arrested,

and

rotational

web

widening

a critical

end

is

path

of

results

that

yl

better

diagonal

crosses

distance

of

Mode

reinforcement

bar

values

Unless

the

a reinforcement
the

CD.

bar

structural

path

upper

and

of

predominantly

upper

function

to

provided

reinforcement

The

increases

into

(7.2)

contribution

EA and

leads

ability

the

of

propagation

along

reinforcement

would

to

important
the

of

Eqn.

then

be

to

contribution

reinforcement

second

split

was

typical

the

the

widening

beam

the

which

in

cracks

and

is

concrete

contribution

restrain

diagonal

critical

any

the

load

in

large

beam

4.5).

capacity

the

the

of

(Fig.

the

included

very

types

crack

Mode

the

conservatively,
the

The
to

for

Hence,

for

is

been

behaviour

while

later.

However,

the

controls

of

reinforcement,

restricted,

allowed

reinforcement

AEC.

web

in

that

shown

4.4;

proportion

except

(7.1).

path,

explained

of

the

Eqn.

explicitly

ineffective

when

by

not

absence

be

750),

described

has

(Fig.

failure

cause

path'

it

cracks

enables

'upper

the

along

Firstly,

corner

otherwise

reinforcement

carried

because,

of

has

observation

functions.

two

propagation

which

the

experimental

has

reinforcement

widening

as

beam;

the

explains
such
y

in

rotEgns.

I -, a

(7.2)

(7.1)

and

respectively.

It
difference
in
In

is

between

acceptable,

than

1.5).
lower

fections

such

also,

in

any

as

noted

earlier,

factor
to

order

load

path

into

to

experimentally

observed

that

both

the
it
allow

protected

By

opening.
was

found
for

that
tl: e

(4.

for

for
the

for

experimental

the

the

types

empirical

process
factor
observations:

EE

above

as

rein-

7.1).
further
Egn.

7.3)

the

upper

which

was

reinforcements

above

of

inspection

and

below
and

trial

reasonably

could
the

path

web

(Fig.

strength

regions

upper

of

web

reinopenings

the

the
imper-

web

of

introduce

in
of

upper

with

contribution

increase

greater

to

of

in-

than

of

beams

(repeated

vulnerable

systematic
the

i)

the

effect

along
to

required

is

loads

provision

capacity

allow
allow

the

on

this

sensitive

deep

in

soffit;

the

openings

steel

beam

(L/D

beams

more

the
web

that

effectiveness

tensile

Eqn.

implicitly

and

the

the

near

The

pronounced

the

shown

above

with

carrying

are

cracks.

therefore

was

in

region

mentioned

detail

with

efficient
and

As

deeper

beam

dependent

provide

It

in

largely

to

has

the

openings.

increases

band

spaced

diagonal
more

to

empirical

way

beam,

hence

case

forcement

one

deep

solid

is

forcement

that

with

vu l%nerable

it.

(7.1)

for

less

as

D/3from

32,

reinforcement

the

Egn.

significant

a beam

27,33,

closely

in

of

25,27'

are
of

that

one

web

in

especially

paths
path

is

However,

natural

and

in

experience

deed

and

suggests
it

arrange

the

about

sin`a/D

this

previous

and

and

AY

y;

and

out

of

openings

soffit

C2

term

to

without

the

distance
is

openings

beam

point

function

the

without

deep

to

appropriate

between

a beam

the

is

factor

distin-

between

guishes
web

steel

the
for

proper;

proper,
opening.

that

is

A=

1.5.
The

longitudinal

main
the

main

use

detailed

General

for

above

Discussion

(7.2)

Egn.

of

X=1;

steel

reinforcement
(See

reinforcement
the

and

the

web

steel
the

below

and

Item

below:

is

perhaps

and

for

this

purpose

3/4

will

be

calculated.

best

1).

illustrated

by

a simple

worked

capacity

shear

EXA`tl'LE

W3-O.

the

ultimate

:
properties

(5.1)

Table

and

W3-0.3/4

Beam

the

of

(5.1)

Fig.

from

extracted

and

have
are

been
in

shown

(7.3)"
. %'ith

the

then
by

Beam

of

The

Fig.

example,

the

ft

= 2.87

k1x

= 225

k2D

= 300

shear
first

', /mm2

1.35

on

(1

and

750

mm

mm

b=

100

mm

mm

C1=

1.35

contribution
the

0.35

of
hand

right

k1X

ft

the

k2

is

concrete
Egn.

of

side

(7.3)

Fig.

D=

strength
term

(7.2)

Fig.

to

reference

(7.2)as

given
follows

k2D

= 1.35

85.7
The
calculated

Egn.

(7.2).

contribution

(1 - 0.35

the

Referring
is

x 100 x 300 x 10-3

kti.
shear

usin,;

5
300 )x2.87

given

3tren;

th

term

second

to
by

contribution

Fig.

on

(7.2)and

of
the

right

Fig.

the
hand

(7.3)"the

steel
side

steel

is
of

kN

300

Xx

xAx
(314.2

300

=1x

y1/D

sin2a1

71 0x0.64)

main
+

1.5

300

1557
0

(57.1
This

computed

ultimate

85.7
=

+ 57.1

+ 135.6

278.4

From
the
ment
the

Table

Deam

final

of

the

identical

are
ultimate

W2

..
W1 of

Beam

520

term;

shear

load

total

applied

560)x

+
X-

0.64

1.5

of

kN

the

(5.2)

560

was

load

2.69

Beam

is

2,

web

ultimate

reinforcement.

0-0.4/O,

described

as

qf
$6

ultimate

the

and

longitudinal

main

W3-0.4/0

strength

without
Beam

for

the

and

measured

consider

us

beam

N/mm2

the

kN.

let

replica

beam

85.7

275
ith

to

shear

steel

illustration
for

ft

Qult

load

W3-0.3/4

(5.1)

geometry

web

Table

to

reference

predicted

strength

1
3

480

270

A=

kN

With

As

W2 is

where

557

W1 of

term;

steel

kN

= W2/2

112

load

kN

4ult

230

+ 135.6)

gives

Qult

(190

10-3

since

reinforcein

Fig.

(7.3),

follows,

37.1

kN.

reference
0-0.3/4

to
was

Table
260

kN.

(5.2)

the

measured

ultimate

x10

In
beams,

the

from

apart
This
be

the

with

agreement
that

seen

it

the

agreement

further

W1 = W`

line

as

and

exhibited

the

(7.1)

Egn.

loads

ultimate

values

exceptions
is

computed

or

measured

few

the

(7.2)

Cgn.

using

compared

(7.1)

Table

be

can

represents

that

seen

good.

generally
(7.4)

Fig.

all
are

appropriate,

is

in

for

it

where

a reasonable

can

mean

profile.

7.2

GENERAL

1. )

In

(7.1).

Table

ti: b'1-0.3/4,

Beam

the

of

2.

upper

beam

the

the
of

In

Egn.

first
lower

circumst.

weak

could

path

(7.2)

term

the

than

region

arises

(Fig.

6.1:

and

hence

is

be

over

800

from

the

fact

W1)

Type
the

applied

kN;

this
the

that

was

such

as

to

capacity

potential
the

before

be realized

not

(7.2)

of

collapse

of

occurred.

on

inces,
the

0-0.3/16

upper
and

the

concrete

the

right-hand

which

path,
is

reinforcement

ural

detailing

lower

the

load

beams

similar
Eqn.

example,

Beams

against

the

and

W2 will

computed

computed

reinforcement

leave

for

shown

not

W1(A)

If,

the

high

artificially

are

W5-0.3/4,

concrete.

weight

normal

web

W2 values

'2-0.3/4,

W1-0.3/4,

to

DISCUSSION

in

Table

(7.1)

these

the
This

path.
0-0.2/16

which
It

idealization.

laths

the

however,

beams
shows

that

is
were
for

is

side,

without

normally

as

contribution,

primary

happened,
were
clear
weak
such

for

to

relative
beam

(5.4)

Fig.

Eqn.

the
(7.2)

special
weaker

in

beams

the

test

to

web

much

example,

designed
from

be

might

capacity
the

of
Under

path.
path

the

on

detailing

proper

lower

based

by

represented

that
upper
is

structthe

lower

paths;
grossly

09.

In

conservative.
a beam
0

(a

is

likely
(klx/k2

cot-1
is

attention
hence,

and

by

be
D);
to

given
the

If

ified.

to

becomes

see

Fig.

the
(7.1)

is

the

of

the

angle

reinforcement;
(7.2)

Eqn.

is

just-

then,

as

an

such

loc-

opening

NW6A-0.3/15

Beam

for

shown

load

ultimate

predicted
for

special

unless

provided,

W1/W2

ratio

strength
and

web

from

conservative

(7.1)

low,
the

of

the

k2

of

are

reinforcement
6.1),

shear

values

estimate

less

Table

the

detailing

(Fig.

reasonably

ation:

if

the

web

proper

in

low

conservative

N'16A-0.3/15

eam

however,

event,

any

is

2.0.
3. )

neams

W1(A),
loading

four-point
as

in

shown

Egn.

(7.2)

Eqn.

(7.2),

loading

may

strut

for

that,

of

tests,

forcement

the
used

have
of

scale
in

the

of
limit

deep

beans

(7.2)

loading

and

k2D

are

all

the

yi

under
condition,

Table

in

with

(7.2),

that

show

In

condition.
independent
ai

and

line

was

an

how

much

not

reached

represented

to

the

of
it

values,

is

the

represent

is

reasonable

upper

limit

web

shear
In

used.

web

ratio

steel

heavy

rather

expect,

the

to
is

steel
at

to

web

rein-

beam.

normal

span/depth

that

sheer

the

test

specimens.
test

programme

The

recent

proportions,

beh. iviour

shown

present

it
is

there

already

for
In

testy

beam.

given

which

distributed-load

reasonable

Egn.

to

that

1.2%,

the

tested

were

(7.2).

Fig.

irrespective

strength,
the

define
a

117(A)

this

kix

choose

and

results
for

used

To
to

The

dimensions

reference

-pith

simulate

be

condition.

in

44(A)

(5.3).

also

the

EA

4. )

to

Fig.

necessary

only

w3(-A),

be

could
size
was

of
chosen

by

influenced

the

test
to

be

specimens
as

large

as

practicable

in

consideration

to

be

At

the

tested.
large

using
in

deep

normal

weight

thickness

250
the

across
(Fig.
forced

of

mm and

by

of

reported
ultimate

of

was
2530

kN

to
good

kN;
was

calculated
and

but

given
by

using

of
Eqn.

obtained.
ultimate

comparable

to

(7.2)
effect.

scale
openings

web

in

reinforcement
a

predicted

Hence

as

seen

load,

1.18,

the

results

by
the
of

are

rein-

arrangeat

the

not

likely

The

measured
above

ultimate

load

agreement
present

be

to

orthogonal

ratio

present,

prediction

an

the

the

beam

has,

described

as

(7.2)

opening

type

inclined

is

mm,

openings

that

are

1800

contain

the

of

result

single

Eqn.

by

to

by

both

depth

of

mm and

or

indications

the

containing
1.34%

approximately
3000

Only

affected
beam,

mesh

programme

specimens

are

webs

parameters

test

test

similar
The
-

orthogonal

strength

3,500

tests.

reinforcement.

significantly
load

an

length

of

range

concretes

mid-depth

present

the

commenced;

span
at

wide

Cambridge

of

lightweight

span

the

either

ments
been

of

has

and

shear

5.2)

University

beams

the

of

of
was
tests.

ultimate
and
mesh,
of
measured
reasonably

CHAPTEREIGHT

PROPOSED

METHOD

FOR THE

3.1

INTRODUCTION

8.2

PROPOSED

8.3

DESIGN

HINTS

8.4

DESIGN

EXAMPLE

DESIGN

DZSIGN

OF DEEP

EQU%TIONS

BEAMS

FOR SHEAR

WITH

WEB OPENINGS

510

C If

A PROPOSED

8.1

APTEREIGHT

FOR THE

METHOD

DESIGN

DEANS

OF DEEP

WED OFENINGS

WITH

INTRODUCTION.
1

The

design

openings

is

In

Britain,

Great

not

Information

very

behaviour

of

results

the

The

severe.

prove

should

web

with

In

strengths.
of
are

deep

beams

ease

with

PI OPO. iCD
It

-should

of

the

is

openings
with

of

their

design

simple

method

for

suggested,
example

and
to

be

EqUATIONS

noted

that

FOR
Egn3.

both

for

deep

beams

design

the

hints

design
illustrate

(7.3)

the

ultimate

the

SITE\1t
(7.1)and

be

Chapter

use.

DE..3IGN

thesis
not

in

in

mechanism

the

this

need

designer,

the

prediction
a

in

openings

beams

but

presented

to

chapter.

together

given

method's

8.2

this

web

transfer

for

deep

presented

on

tool

load

load

problems

idealization

and

openings

ultimate

liter-

the

36,

restrictions

the

of

visualization

the

concrete

research

powerful

are
6.7,9,

surveys
in

reinforced

formidable

structural

for

beams.

experimental
the

openings

available
on

and
guide

web

extensive
is

3-5.

practice

design

a
for

openings

of

presents

that

indicates

deep

of

web

with

Research

issued

because

analysis

openings

Industry

provisions

web

beams

codes

major

just

the

of

concrete

exact

the

information

effects

of
The

so

but

little

the

on

with

has

restrictive

that

shown

by

Construction

the

deep

concrete

covered

engineers,

necessarily

ature.

yet

reinforced

Association,

practising

have

of

are

intended

predict

built-in

no
a

to

actual

factor

certain

of

amount

of

strengths.

Therefore,

appropriate

for

empirical
bound.

lower

0.75.

factor

of

lower

bound

loads

by

is

the

ing

strength

may

not

the

relationship

In

addition,

C2

by

to

is

of

is

the

partial

the

characteristic

by

a
the

relate
design

state

safety

safe

reason-

given
to

limit

obtain
that

necessary

ultimate

the

to

showed

be

to

multiply

results

it

actual

and
equations

factor

(7.4),

Fig.

the

the

be

to

predicted

modify

experimental

to

is

factor

for

cube

strength

out

again,

the

the
the

that

wa3

the

CIRIA

For
is
and

splitting
control

obtained.

splitting

normal

be

(It

is

stren.

is

pertinent
th

of

experi-

adopted

from
a

this

and

weight

this

strength:
specimens

guide

the

however,

concrete,

which

splitting

within
will

splitt-

and

design

cylinder

and

tests

concrete.
the

and

estim-

cylinder

(7.2)

(7.1)

jfcu.

0.52

present

estimates

cube

the

design

an

substitute
for

relationship

aggregate

ht

In

the

this

of

Eqn.

available.

ft

to

strength,
in

used

as

of

fcu
lijhtwei,;

cube

in

adopted

parameter

appropriate

between

testing

for

the

be

lightweight

ft-0.44

is

is

concrete

over

strength

on

taken

range

that

it

which

aggregate

the

the

hence

normally

strength

of

and

to

noted

based

value

ship

C1

concrete

and

practice,

For

necessary

application

also

usually

mental

is

likely

is

is

there

Y"

It

ated

it

of

strengths

the

material,

is

to

design.

Lound

comparing

order

in

Examination

lower

able

in

scatter

Hence,

there

also

and

safety

coefficients

loads.

collapse

here.

relationthe

results

relationship

the

value
to

lightweight

adopted
point
concrete

93.

is

dependent

for

on

curing

lightweight

A3TM

330

factor

of
for

1.5

for

safety

the

obtain:

3.5).

Taking

material,

which

concrete

derived

are

1cu

ft

fcu
0,1}4

ym

The

"-u

design

it

for

(1-0.35

the

where

Ff
u

ultimate

is

0.44

for

normal

C1

0.36

for

lightweight

1 95

',,'/mm

A
A
f
A

cu

85

bD

notation

is

with

accordance

into

the

account

partial

CP1103

in

given

as
design

for

parameters

for

normal

for

lightweight

weight

concrete

concrete

then

strength

shear

j1'cu

kix/k2D)

geometrical

in

become:

Ap

(8.1)

sin2a

Y1

C1

--,d

ft

tests

present

>C2

ffcu

x/D)

""
(1-0.35
C1
=

Quit

42

0.36

equations

C1

if-

i.

the

follows:

as

0.52

in

strength

EC-U5

ft

and

was

Chapter

concrete,

purposes

concrete
see

conditions:

N/mm2

1.0

for

1.5

for

char

acteristic

area
be

of

main
web

main

for
for

bk2D

longitudinal

cube
steel

y
(f

bars

(A

strength
or

8.1

y
)near

N/mm2)

beam

soffit

)
N

of
web

N/mm2)

= 250

s
(A

proper

bar

410
=

(f

bars

reinforcement

Fig.

concrete

bars
round

in

a1(8.2)

concrete

aggregate

plain

sin

again

aggregate

deformed

Ap

explained

as

weight

xc2

bar

concrete
as

the

case

may

7 `t 0

8.3

uE5ISh
The

HINTS
following

observations,
(8.1)

(1)

Equations

with

span/depth

qualify

and

<

the

on
to

experimental
the

aid

use

of

and

those

of

0.4.

The

intended

are

and

clear

the

test

to

ratios
1L/D<2

namely,

specimens:
be

should

to

only

applied
loads

static

conditions;

beams

to

apply

shear-span/depth

equations

loading

top

under

(8.2)

only

covered.

are
(2)

'. henever

the

possible,
'load

natural
If

points.
load

path,

from

Egzi.

(3)

In

the

(4)

If

desi;

ner

be

the

be

(3)

In

from

the
)

might

the

kept

loading

be

of

reaction

the

of

may

strength

clear

and

clear

reasonably

shear

(8.1),

less

should

than

ited

usin;

Eqn.

natural

calculated

20;:

found

of

from
(S.

The

design

the

natural

factor

it

shear
load
is

not

(kix/k2D)

cot-1

shear

steel

equation,
force

(Ault

path.

the

less
not

than
less

strength

may

(8.2).

is

to,; ether
be

the
the

of

k2

ultimate

Eqn.

2),

to

the

angle

8.1).

term

second

the

the

and

that

recommended

the

that

term

concrete

is

intercepts

(Fi;.

calcul.

be

by

ensure
0.2

300

it

given

opening

approximately

then

is

ultimate

as

about

joining

opening

Egn.

using

than

openin;

be

should

(8.1).

not

should

web

path'

the

contribution.

(A

to

ratios

x/D

beams

deep

(8.1)

to

0.2<

and

based

(8.2).

and

comparable

hints

given

are

Eqns.

design

sufficient

that

possible

with

that
to

of
meet

the

contribution

the

main

the

design

steel
shear

95.

loads,
the

However,

it

the

is

of

the

is

bution

be

web

steel

(6)

It

Aw

is

worth
(5)

in

given

is

provided

that
the

the

so-called
beams

deep

in

steel

purpose

contri-

steel
),

(A

proper

the

meeting

be

CPI103

nominal

web

the

and

recommendation

of

reinforcement

web

than

greater

significantly
required
(Clause

5.5)

the

for

temperature

and

may

Recommendations

less

be
for

required

reinforcement

OED-FIP

the

protect

contribution
the

of

quantity

by

by

this

steel

25%

web

unreinforced
to

For

total

reinforcement

effects

the

ensure

properly.

to

of

of

to

reinforcement

least

total

unlikely

shrinkage

solid

noting

quantity

mandatory

than

detailed

that

opening.

the

the

be

above,

the

at

by

made

must

web

provide

then

shown

capacity

where

Qult,

of

should

and

that

recommended
20`:

potential

below

and

above

has

experience

to

advisable

regions

exceeds

so

test

mobilisation

web,

it

the

(see

Charter
(7)

The

ultimate
by

creased
In

the
both

that

:Veb

protected.
be

should

Inclined

is

particularly

to

bend

strictions

the

regions

for

for
web

and

fix
on

crack

designer

above

and

below

not

meeting

reinforcement
than

the

others.

overall

is

6.1:

again

opehing

are

requirement

see

Chpts.

likely

to
where
of

the

W6A)

W6 and

Type
the

However,
dimensions

the
this

increasing
-

should

(8.2).

Egn.

control

reinforcement.

web

of

(Fig.

in-

substantially

the

using

reinforcement
effective

of

may

reinforcenent

web

(and
type

reinforcement

when

be

quantities

web

disregarded

(8)

strength

strength
designed

providing

detailing

ensure

This

shear

shear

ultimate
5.2.2
be

and
more

there
beam,

6.2.2).

expensive
are
and

rean

96.

adequate

ultimate

W6 may
(9)

be

Trimming
has

ment
and

any

(10)

deep

shear

for

deep

beams

only

where

is

it

openings,
for

(see

5.2.2

Chpts.
that

suggested
positive

are

very

cautious

the

main

longitudinal

code

blocks

(see

also

8.4

ILi:

;:

example

Ch }ter

2.

located

is

It
shown

majority
to

of
consider

the

design

also

be

of
an

limit

be

should

is

state

data

the

CE-FIP

main

the

on

end

available,

are

In

applied

for

provided

beams

both

and

Recommendations
of

the

anchored

at

their

measured

against

point.

FOR

A DEEP

geometry

and

siri1r

to

the

of

the

may

equations

were

(8.2).

all

tests,

present
to

ends
load

failure

1).

_`i

aro

illustration

this

crack

6.2.2).

and

the

strengths

for

In

only.

serviceability

deep

reinforce-

necessary

the

precautionary

VPLE

The

of

shear

bars

as

and

however,

and

on

%ppendix

-iI'i\

Eqn.

using

experimental

in

of

shear

in

state

Little

Building

Type

then

ultimate
locally

%CI

loops

on

anchorage

requirements

the

with

usually

the

end

steel.

anchorage

concern,

provided

is

limit

consideration

longitudinal

this

31,32

with

main

beams

shallow

ultimate

cracking
It

of

beams

important

(11)

disregarded

design

the

is

that
be

the

solid

steel

effect

reinforcement

In

locally

openings
beneficial

should

the

choice.

web

little

control

of

best

the

is

strength

is

design
required

in

I).: ki i ,: ITii

properties
those

of
used

of

solid

to

include

Of i; ": INGS

design

the

beam

in

previously

deep

beans

an

opening,

the

i ain

used

as

the
in

given
in

steel

for

the
and

beam
web

yi.

steel.

Examination
intercepts

the

is

and

normal

distribution

the
shear

is

First,

to

imate

estimate
In

longitudinal
follows:

only

this

the

compute

the

necessary

main

ultimate

the

of

made

a simple

(cf.

Chpt.

su;

gested

it

is

be

conservatively

example

also

provided

strength,

is

required

steel

amount

shear

reinforcement

be

should

of

and

ultimate

is

within

stresses

required.

proportion

small
the

estimate

steel

the

relatively

contributes

an

bending

the

disrupt

and
to

support

and

(8.2).

Eqn.

Because

forces

opening

load

the

seriously

necessary

though.

main

normally

internal

therefore

using

to

the

that

shows
joining

likely

of

strength

necessary

loadpath

therefore

It

bean.

of

notional

reaction

(8.2)

Fig.

approx-

9.2).
that

the

main

calculated

as

f
Design

bending

': ith
safety

factor

moment

are

then

1.4
as

Design

bending

1:gn.

loading,

follows:

shtr

kD
2S

(8.2)

and

.m

a partial

using

design

the

(8.3)

force

shear

and

V=1.4

force

(8.3)

Fig.

to

for

)esi-n

Using

moment

reference
of

M=0.75

moment

with

M=1.41

y=1.15

4500
x

6300
=
4500

for

steel

kN
2.0

12600

kNm

95.

a 0.75

12600

As

Next,

we

The

concrete

mm bars

consider

(8.2)

(1-0.35
b

Dimension
55

may
cent

per

From

of

the

a1

The

went

total

6300
steel

-6

the

20: " `pult

ment

is

2888

= 722 kN.

required:

and

the

resists

concrete

shear

force,

shear

resistance

then

195

400

18792

sin2(z

6166
-

+ 2754)

beam

the

but

kN,
(6300

by

it
-

is

3412

therefore

a minimum

web

proper

steel

sin2al

10-3

1a0.82)

kN

required

134

(say)

65;
=

kix/k2D

of

is

contribution

than

that

design

contribution

166

b kN

30 x 2600 xb=5.25
so

only

0 cot-i

(3412
.

first

the

(8.2)

Eqn.

(where

by

given

mm say

6501
f1x
x

5.25

b0.462

kIx/k2D

x 0.55

(As)

bars

main

chosen

650

bs

as

be

is

shear

x 0.462)

6300
-

5.25b

with

to

(8.2)

Fig.

2)
mm

(18792

mm bars

From

shear.

10-6

= 0.58%)

No. 32

14

resistance

0.44

say

(As/bD

Equation

in

term

18124

6 No. 40

Use

2600

410
As x
1.15

the

web

noted
=

2888

amount

should

reinforce-

the

that
kN)

of

contribute

is

web

required
greater

reinforce25::

From

(R. 2)

Lqn.

Y
81

1.5
722

103

lssuminq

to

uNed

are

horizontal

the

protect

0.82

as

0.72.

For

design

average

value

sin`a1

of

(say

yi

From

of
yi

it

purposes
and

at

above

sin

and

sin2ai

stirrups

regions

before

A.

''`

= sin

is

sufficient

sin2aI

spacing

the
1

(cot-

opening:

750/1200)
take

to

an

and

uniform

below

and

al

sin2a1

an

value

average

1800).

above,

R548

Aw :

Use

195

No.

18

25

mm

These
regions

above

and

Fig.

(8.3).

shown

in

ment,

which

might

temperature
forcE"mrnt
adequite

and
at
bearing

the

(%w/bD

mm2

diameter

must

below
(Note:
be

be

the

mm

"

to

arranged

secondary

effects.

in

and

supports

and

loading

capacity

has

been

reinforce-

reinto

points
for

for

beam

the

additional

omitted

is

detailing

nominal

elsewhere

both

protect

The

opening.

provided

shrinkage

2)

(8836

bars

bars

)
0.271,:
=

provide
clarity).

CHAPTERNINE

A CRITICAL

REVIEW

OF THE

CIRIA

DESIGN

GUIDE

FOR DEEP

BEANS

9.1

INTRODUCTION

9.2

CIRIA

9.3

COMP.%RISON

9.4

CIRIA

DESIGN

GUIDE:

METHOD:

OF DESIGN

SOLID

TOP-LOADED

LOADS

WITH

PROVISIONS

TEST

FOR DEEP

DEEP

BEAMS

RESULTS

BE. VIS

WITH

HOLES

100.

CHAPTERNINE

A CRITICAL

REVIEW

OF THE

CIRIA

DESIGN

GUIDE

FOR DEEP

HEMS

I`. TRODUCTION

9.1

A
The
beams

deep

in

design

Guide

impact

on
of

codes
in

reinforced

future

Guide

deep

complex

cases,

elastic

instability,

the

design

those

what
beams

loaded
follows,
are

in

is

'The

is

the

design

most

likely

its

of

future

on

of

comprehensive

Because

reviewed

the

revisions

of

discussed

and

here

supports
for

bear's

it
Guide

the

research

of

this

the
explained

and

recommendations
and

illustrated

contains

cover

the

be

affected

more
by

concentrated

are

Guide

The

is
for

provisions

openings.

be

will

are

simply

with

for

web

with

simple

the

ex-

supported
In

openings.

design

the

examine
to

relevant

namely,

beams

to

appropriate

which

thesis;
deep

It

to

some

27-35

reinforced

indirect.
time

it

and

Kong

of

loads

first

web

here

may

are

the

with

of

beacas

rules'

pub-

beams,

5".

forms

applied

of

25,

Leonhardt

of

capacity

the

where
the

deep

on

simpler

load

the

which

study

Recommendations
the

sections

deep

exhaustive

'supplementary

and

review

an

reports

work

designing

including

the

on

research

to

where

deep

of

based

or

in

unique

perimental
top

and

International

beams

or

In
only

practice

of

much

for

rules'

indirect,

is

and

concrete

also

CEB-FIP

the

'simple

or

(1977)"

Guide

the

"owes

stated.

and

date

to

design

literature

to

Guide

detail.

The

is

CIRIA

concrete'

published

practice,

some

lished

issued

recently

of

solid
design

deep
example

101,

in

(9.2);

section

the

measured
and

to

CIRIA

design

the

design
Guide

methods

the

CIRIA

are

examined.

9.2

CIRIA

flat

DESIGN

tially

to

with

no

for

(9.1)

Equation

from

(solid)

would

obtain

both

three

currently

the

in

finally
beams

of

TOP-LOADED
9

Guide
satisfies

significant

the

beams

design

the

conditions

tension

reported
according
used
(9.4)

openings

BEAMS

may

be

being

rules'
of

to

subjected
Then,

essen-

the

using
is

required

steel

between

section

DEEP

'simple

loading.

main

drawn

with

the

openings,

distributed

bonding

test

and

SOLID

the

is

to

2);
the

comparison

the

according

which

uniformly

rules

which

?METHOD:

a beam

plate,

loads

for

provisions

to

of

Chapter

According
applied

loads

and

(cf.

(9.3)

section

ultimate

herein
the

in

simple

calculated

follows:

as

An >M
0 . 87

where

is

design

the

yz

moment

at

arm

and

is

the

lever

is

the

effective

ha

is

If

1/h

the

( 9.1 )

the

it

M<0.12

to

be

in

concrete

is

fcu

The

reinforcement

curtailed

ha

in

due

the

be

(Fig.

9.1)

to

to

the

confirm

bending

and

strength

the

condition

satisfied.
by

calculated
span

+ 0.3

z=0.21

9.1)

required

compression
n
" must

(Fig.

state

spans

single

height

n>1.5

of

for

span

effective

limit

ultimate

and

may

be

Eqn.

distributed

(9.1)

is

above
over

not

depth

a v'.

of

0.2

maximum
205

the

maximum

support,

the
force

ultimate

or

support

whichever

of

at

beyond

at

or

the

the

of

and

support,

face

far

the

0.2

a point

beyond

or

80%

develop

face

(Fig.

less

is

to

anchored

beyond

the

of

be

must

force

face

the

the

bars

ultimate

of

from

The

ha.

of

9.1).

11
It
design

are

bution

which

for

in

(9.1)

owing

from

able

reasons

good
a

of

Vie

occur:

collapse

" teel

re

in

n*1

rior:

in

; aired
be. ir.;

nor-nal
is

rel
and

of

collapse:

however,

of

t1&e

relatively

of
deep

the

context
it

foll-

the

that
equation

is

is

accept-

of

the

view
large

due
the
bear. is

small
whet'ier

main

steel

is

crushing
will

therefore
the

compared
the

size

flexural

to

:Secondly,

beams.

hc"nce,

the

why

say,

ratios)

in

point

t'ie'd
of

ttively

to,

irrational

to

failure

to

flexuril

as

that

span/depth

team

of

33,34,51.

flexural

trm

of

found

because

j, rior

than

be
design

concrete

problem

state

(1)

Compared

Nottingham/Cambridge

practical

lever

seem

limit

may

Firstly,
internal

therefore

on

safety

beams

test

(large

beams

of

be

might

as

Appendix

some

mode).

normal

the

of

of

failure

of

of

philosophy

philosophy

description

would

(Note:

beams.

distri-

stress

factor

factors

arm

hence,

and

the

to

lever

elastic

in-built

substantial

Recommen-

related
The

the

flexural

CEB-FIP

the

therefore

are

cracking

supported

design

Equation

the

flexural

the

flexural

the

is

in

upon
to

for

provisions

1.2.2.2).

based
prior

includes

collapsed

the

fact

simply

thesis

and

Chapter

obtains
there

collapse
this

in

the

contained

2.2.1)
(cf.

are

expected.

those

to

Chapter

bending

for

that

noting

Leonhardt

of

work

worth

similar

(cf.

dations

of

is

lever

proportion
to
arm

rarely

that

lesser
of

required
is

nominally

main

av).

taken

0.6D

as

or

O. 8D,

say.

would

not

make

differences

significant

/
to

the

intersects

that
an

integral

all

the

as

Thirdly,

cost.

laws

the
part

bars;

of

elled

'shear

the

to

that

ment

might

be

high

compressive

of

the

as

of

webs;

to

yet

these

the

regards

are

shear

to

V<

2 bh

V<

bh

au

be

2vk
acae

act

also
34

"the

discrimination
lab-

bars

and

the

of

span

main

which

the

the

beam

as

steel

However,

the

tension

increased

in

the

presence

the

that

Appendix
37

anchorage

the

'simple

the

capacity

satisfied

out
main

rules'

of
as

/x

in

describes

carried
of

beams

follows:

reinforceof

to

evidence
the

current

the

details

investigate

steel).

specify

with

the
Kong,

experimental

a relaxation

the

it

although

regions,

support

in

approximates

of

the

stem

stress

1.2.2.2).

and

recommend

shear,

the

Therefore,

Sharp

and

form

will

(9.1)

capacity

tests

end

34.

designer's

in

1.2.2.1

(Note:

for

for

conditions

manner

exploratory

requirements
As

the

commented

recommendations.
series

anchorage

in

stresses
have

27

reinforcement'

for

significantly

Sharp

9.2)

".

anchorage

37

(Fig.

Eqn.

Robins

bar

reinforcement

with

the

'flexural

within

the

insufficient

prudent

of

'Chapter

seem

is

unaware

of

uniform

does

and

Kong,

requirements

a'tied-arch'(cf.

Singh

quote

as

understanding

crack

accordance

reinforcement'

becomes

steel

in

are

any

reinforcement

shear

to

labelled

The
from

is,

equilibrium

as

diagonal

provided

that

bars

between

the

important,

more

critical

of

bars

main

web

and

two

unreinforced

(9.2)

(9.3)

1U4.

V is

where

the

applied

is

xe

taken

(a)

L/4

for

(b)

the

clear

butes

(c)

be

to

of
distributed

shear

for

span
5O

than

more

the

least

the

uniformly

the

at

force

shear

11

to

load.
load

total

the

contri-

which

force

shear

support.

weighted

average

clear

of

where

more

than

one

load

butes

more

than

50%

to

acts
the

spans

shear
and

contri-

none
force

shear

the

at

support.
is

vc

the

ultimate

CP1IO

Tables

is

the

types

of

= 1.0

for

ha/b

for

hA/b

(9.2)

of

design
3.3.6.2)

Clause

The

factor

included
increased

shear

in

corresponds

Ci'110's

provisions

shear

span/depth

capacity

(a

/d

v%

from

taken

for

respectively,

the

two

>4

be

recognised

shear

in

being

to

47

59

an
(cf.

in

made

factor

normal

For

such

beams.

of

d/aw,

was

which
for

allow

beams

to

attempt

types

all

extension
CF1103:

an

beamsto

normal
by

being

beams

for
the

for

exhibited

ratios

as

normal

provision

ha/xe

respectively.

<4

modifications

continuous

single

produce

for

with

aggregate

stress

shear

from

concrete.

may

equation

weight

concretes,

26,

and

taken

stress

normal

for

value

Tables

Equation

for

25

and

maximum

0.6

shear

aggregate

CPI1O

ks

the

lightweight

and
vu

concrete

with

beans

small

it

the

Lv>.

has

been

reported

respects
in

resembles

both

types

There

beams

effect

The

explanation
60
and

Kani

exceeding
dicted

how

clear
the

as

will

of

of

bore

little

ever.

the

reduction

of

the

nominal

comparing

tests

For

example,

measured
with
x

k5

nn

NO-O.
nominal

allowable

ultimate

N/mm2.
k3

becomes

2.05.

The
given

These
z

1.23/ka

upper
in

Egn.

(9.3).

attention

to

the

pro-

capacity
beam

against

that
It

of

imply

taking

k8

shear

stress
worth

4.5
from

factor

at

its

is

the

factor.

of
value

a
compares

which

(9.2)

Egn.

mentioning

present

achieved

N/mm2

fixed

how-

necessary

ks

the

6.2)

Table

and

mode.

for

obtained

6:

was

ratios

certainly

without

beams,

tests

failure

be

to

seen

prenot

deep

to

(av/d)

beam

deep

is

Taylor's

and

stress

is

ratios

theory.

large

would

It

aspect

extended

stress

for

with

shear

shear

which,

limit

drawn

(9.2)

shear

figures

that

stresses

(Chapter

40%.

is

be

values

by

Guide,

with

Equation

3/0

ultimate

4.5/3.66

dition

feam

shear

by

given

may

of

the

Kani's

to

minumum

4,

in

directly

beams

deep

given

both

resemblance

that

with

CP110

shallow

in

4O:

the

shear

be

shallow

hence

by

normal

mode

greater

the

points
(9.1),

As

ha/b.

than

reduce

of

Equation

in

included

failure

support

and

ratio

for

can

failure
that

of

have

reduced

results

shear

typical

6i

as

formation

the

aspect

to

ks.

exhibit

these

is

unreinforced

basis

the

on

ka

Taylor

beams

the

ratios

regarding

that

bability

k8

certain

that

namely,

loading

the

in

shear

mode;
by

factor

factor

later

failure

initiated

on

in

mode

between

aspect

the

of

be

may

depends

have

the

beam

further

which

usually

deep

cracks
is

of

value

the

beam

of

(splitting)

diagonal

the

failure

that

3.66

of

of

safety
of

by
that

0.6

the

then

conthe

use

I'D.

of

this

as

the

limit

in

limit

has

of

strength

on

(9.2)

that

commends
0.4

f.

nominal

simple

temperature

both

horizontally

is

it

which

that

is

less

than

where
is

the

un-! er

and

vertically.

the

of

fy

unreinforced

limit
renot

should

the

the

given

the

The

minimum

for

shrinkage

yield

is

area

less

be

to

support

local

the

amount
and

Clauses
steel)

the

of

and

or

0.3%

(for

be

provided
the

regions

in

concrete

of

Jr

0.52

than

3.11

'/0.87

f;

Y
a tensile
for

concrete:
N 'mm2

resistance

of

not

taking

example,

the

percentage

required

to

concentrated

loads

in

0.8.

is

subjected
shear

nominal

capacity
web

by

given

reinforcement
to

supplementary

with

provision

concrete

provide

rules'

by.

the

under

high

not

X10

'supplementary

wall

recommendations

specific

In

uncracked
:

give

of

to

web

then

is

rules

Giiide

support

stipulate

to

equal

beam

not

(for

should

would

the

shear

simple

The

the

reinforcement

related

N; csm2 and

Under

capacity

volume

steel

that

exceeded.

9.

at

shear

conservative

govern

for

the

embedded,

',: here

the

0.25%

steel,

direction

each

the
of

the

rather

reinforcement.

required

sufficient

= 30

the

but

web

namely,

of

proportion

do

than

times

steel)

for

quantities

pressures

steel

of

effects

mild

fcu

web

less

03'110:

of

appropriate,

limit

under

will

rules

of

be

not

not

upper

practice,

usually

bearing

quantities

should

more

an

designed

with
in

strictly

cu

design

the

as

pressures

the

The

5.5

or

bearing

support

for

derived

beams

is

rules

However,

Eqn.

exceed

simple

been

normal

reinforcement.
either

the

improve
9

rules

reference

to

may
the

the

Fig.

top

ultimate

(9.2):

Egn.

or
(9.2)

be

augmented

load

capacity.

shear

al(i-o.

where

35

normal

0.32

for

lightweight

1.95

N/mm2

for

deformed

0.85

N/mm2

for

plain

(9.4)

tended
depth

X2

and

in

to

apply

to

beams

under

(1.9

Equation
to

give

),

the

empirical

of

The

<

on

varied
(mainly

iveness

the

of

0.7;

this

coefficients

C1
by

results,

inspan/

shear
being

coefficients

34

in

the
Al

and

factor

C2

by

of
0.75

of

and

the

is

subject

the

to

condition

or

may

be

how

well

the

over
about

the

web

the

27-32

Nottingham-Cambridge

is

reinforced

the

measured

cross-sectional

4 `: /mm`

to
sp.

7 N/mm`

n/depth

reinforcement.

depending,

conservative

very

beam

the

tests

c1e. ar-shear-

the

not

(9.5)

rcu

Al

from

In

failure.

from

clear

is,

materials.

judging

may

example,

acting

with

the

is

equation

The

capacity

1.3

limit,

`7-3`,

stress

to

it

of

follows:

This

ing

loads

modified

for

The

1.

experimental

shear

V/bha

for

been

safety

ultimate

as

expressed

on

27-32:

tests

27-32

tests

3304

analysis

0.23

range

the

to

the

on

top

in

bound

bars

Chapter

the

having

lower

factor

partial

tests

given

based

concrete
concrete

Cambridge

as

are

(9.4)

bars
round

(1.9)

considered

aggregate

based

is

(ze/h$)in

ar

aggregate

Egn.

ratios

range

weight

Nottingham

the

sin
a

for

of

fact,

Wabh

0.44

Equation

Ar yr

+ A2

results

Jfcu
)

"e

depending
ratio)

The

and

limit

nominal
(width

area

bear-

against

on
on

given

shear
x

depth)

geometry
the

effect-

by

Egn.

(9.5),

for

example,
of

inclined

web

shear

stress

Table

(6.2)

that

As

limit

in

found,
supported

the

that

beams

is

beam.

the

limits

that

been

(cf.

it

tine

effect

ary
zones:

by

diagonal
is
es

also
to

eine-film

of

the

of

also

reinforcement

web

in
at

the
the

load

and

to

an

lab-

by

be
into

points

secondsupport

control

be

simple

Leonhardt

the

to

therefore

25

indicated

have

cracks

in

importance

might

support

9,

thought

tests

tests

present

design

under

reinforcement
might

simply

pressures

reported

failure

to

generally

for

bearing

great

diagonal

that

be

the

is

32,

failures

that

too

the

zones

will

achieved

failures

of

from

reasonable

it

that

the

support
It

on

achieved,

of

be. iring

cracking,

the

pressures

propagation

nominal

provided

present

at

bearing

that

and

governing

Nottingham

arrangement

proper

notable

%t

N/mm2

stipulation

placed

bearing

the

kN

1215

permits

concrete.

is

be

likely

1.2.2.2).
of

it

be

not

seems

attlched

Chapter
the

may

is

fcu,

to

factor

bearing

0.3/0

increased

0.6

to

capacity

to

the

be

added

bearing

.r'hil4t

6:

Guide

to

the

limiting

the

conditions

practice

is

the

8.1

the

rules

to

Chapter

N/mm2).

support

simple

confinement

reason

oratory

ct",

the

conservative

expect

the

at

ultimate
(cf.

NW6A
of

capacity,

reinforcement

fact,

of

capacity

has

in

lateral

provide

for

fcu

binding

suitable

of

at

stress

60.8

possible

least

beam

of

shear

bearing
stress

0.4

of

load

ultimate

of

herein

reported

the

factor

effective

with

tests

present

aggregate

weight
beams

restricts

pressures

bearing

maximum

limit
by

regards

a normal
For

the

a nominal

bearing

support

It

the

for

strength.

the

potential

represents

which

cube

reinforcement,

indicate

would

by

N/mm2

30

concrete

N/mm2

3.12

equals

avoidable.

confining
helped

to

fv

the

prevent

occurrence

Two
illustrate
and

application

support

illustration
beam.

Hence,

such

a beam

will

to

aid

braically

the
of

the

help

ions

and

Tables

Chapter

design

the

main

The

It

in

of

that

noted

be

may

These
used

design

as

re-arranged

design

the

and

be

are

Tables.

CIRIA

is

used

web

again

alge-

carried

out

re-arranged

equat-

the

example.

that

which

(2.2)

Fig.

to

(f ig.

?;

ai

1.4

steel

it

is

was

given
to

required

CIRIA

the

using

1/ha

the

conform

therefore,

'2.2):

the

ultimate

Recommen-

the

with
design

ultimate
V are

force

shear

limit

state
bending
determined

.4XX2a

1.4

is

procedures

design

the

6300

x2

1*800/6000

k.\m

12600

partial

an

Guide.

reference

CF11O39

and

fo1loW3

where

that

problem

design

of

principles

as

and

of

and

(9.4)

the

of

to

specific

top-loaded

supported

is

of

are

9.

dations

moment

(9.3)

presented

steel

It

the

to

range

examples
for

example

Guide

wide

These

simply

here.

a number

With

the

the

over

suitable

worked

so

the

so

failure.
in

given

rules

not

simple

Guide,

design

2.

the

of

-ns.

for

example

are

given

are

The
in

be

in

with

Design

designer

the

are

type

covered.

design

the

deep

examples
of

and

of

bearing

conditions

comprehensive

rather

single

design

worked

the

loading

of

factor

of
1.25

kN

safety
<

1.5

on

the

loading.

7"

live

hence

is

there

bending)

in

no

the

The

to

need

check

the

compression

steel

(A

required

(from

stresses

concrete.

area

of

main

s)

is

by

given

Eqn.

(9.1)
s
0.87

fyz

6000
+ 0.4
x

z=0.2
As=

24

Provide

12600
x 106
410
0.87
x
x

No. 25

wm diameter

4800
3120
x
mm.
=
11322

3120

(11782

bars

2.
mm

cunt;

As

p=

bh

This
a

reinforcement

0.2

height

Next,
the

might

and

and

extend

a band
be

over

fully

span.
is

consideration

to

given

the

shear

capacity

of

beam.
The

for

complete

in

distributed

(say)
mm

1000

the

across

anchored

4800

be

will

0.497,
=

'simple
loads,

concentrated
be

rules'

the

of
therefore,

Guide
the

9
are

not

applicable

supplementary

rules

used,
Equations
in

re-arranged

v c=A

the

(9.2)

and

Guide

as

vX

"

bh

(l

(9.3)
follows:

vms

have

been

algebraically

+ 2

vwh

+ 3 vwv

(9.6)

yc
bh

Amax
a

(9.7)

111,

Vc

where

is

x1
01

The

0.44

the

for

etc.,

vx,

ms

is

the

terms

and

0.4

series

in

given

to
In
the

brackets

bars.

with

(9.6),

plain.

of
in
orthogonal
term

first

the

to

contribution

concrete
the

contribution

from

the

and

the

web

bars

give

web

beams

Eqn.

for

here

reproduced

applicable

horizontal

the

are

represents

in

bars

deformed

only.

side

(9.2).

Eqn.

in

beam.

the

of

4,5,6,7.8)

(9.6)

hand

right

steel,

main

a1

as

arrangements

and

shear

Eqn.

reinforcement
on

or

0.32

Tables

(9.3).

(Fig.

capacity

shear

values

(CIRIA

Tables

the

vertical

respectively.
Using
Eqn.
be

(9.7).

first

width

given

in

not

Guide

the

less

than

From

Fig.

500

and

300

500

Choose

The
is

given

by

concrete

cover

the

minimum

thickness

Guide
by

Table

5;

>

<

vmax
in

substitution

103
4800
x

a
to

width

practical

minimum

steel,
will

may

is

etc.,
normally

0.44

x 7.12

3.13

i.

e.,

= 7.12
Egn.

N/mm2:

(9.7)"

condition

satisfied.

mm.

contribution
the

beam

the

choosing

the

500

for

by

given

mm).

(9.3)

2.63

on

as

stress

shear

value

guidance

Mm then

6300

maximum

reasonable

considering

b-

say,

on

(Note:

determined.

beam

be

limit

the

terms

of
Al

the
vx

concrete
and

01

vm'

and

main

bars

of

Egn.

(9.6),

only
namely:

IIC.

(0.44

Where

(9.3);

Fi3.

f1x

vx

Table

x/h

1400/4800

vas

(2.156

0.86)

Hence.
is

the

main

significant

for

The
a nominal

'! ith
(Fig.

9.3)

i.

of

the

the

be

of
had

Eqn.

horizontal
the

CIZIA

web

loss

the

to

Guide

web

the

main

it

bars

bars

steel
if,

would
the

above

bars

main

strength:

then

only
contri-

for

from

have

been

main

steel

example,

more
necessary
to

capacity.

in

cases

all

the

provision
hori-

0.25%10 both

reinforcement;

vertically.
reference

(9.6)

Eqn.

to

contribution

given

+ 0)

500 x 4800

. Qt2l1

7238

V /V

The

= 0.29,

x/h

kN.

and

determined

shear

(0.22

e..

N/mm2

and

7238

shear

requires

of

concrete

been

9.1)

4.9

0.4959

10-3

that

noted

bending

quantity

and

zontally

(than

extra

compensate

of

for

steel

provide

4800

proportion

equation

rigorous

500

may

and

N/mm

vx

N/mm2

= 30

p=
ms

0.86
=

capacity

It

sufficient.

bute

to

the

fcu

for

4800

= 0.29,

Table

500

4 for

Guide

Guide

then

vag)

detailing

528

by

Guide

Tables

nominal

mesh

and
the

x 10"3

7766
a

7
is

528 k.N.

'C.N

1.2

of

the

reinforcement

is

shown

in

and

(Note

that

CIZIA

the
of

percentage

fy

where

410
=

NIMM

xbx

s)

(0.8%

equals

quired

is

in

the

beam

the

fcu

both

as

N/mm2

= 30

vertically

mentioned

the

re-

area

horizontally,

and

s bar

and

minimum

zones;

support

and

thickness

increased

an

requires

reinforcement

for

previously

Suide

Note

spacings.

also
I

is

it

that

full

the

across

vided

The
herein

design

without

three

comzaonly
2;

Chapter
Building

used

design

Guides

and

CED-FIP

design

ultimate

load

(W

in-built

ratios

(W1/W4

the

of

safety

for

each

of

to

Table

of

reference

on
The

vative

for

imply,

since

ment
design

is

the

the
in

described

were

5,

and

load

with

and

the

ACI
(1977)

new

the

with

is

web
heavy

a relatively
that
load

it

load

may

the
be

possible

W1/W7)

design

above

shear

be

average

over

collapse.
factors

the

respectively.

seen

that

the

PCA

value

for

the

factor

also

rather

reinforcement,
percentage

significantly

the

estimate

6.

are

minimum

correspond-

represent

methods

may

Recommendations

beams

mandatory,

to

the
to

against

safety

(9.1),

working

CUB-FIP

those

ultimate

the

conservative;

very

safety

tested

using

ST668)

is

it

of

(9.1)

method

(which

shear

factor

Table

is

beams

those

of

calculated

document

the

In

With

PCA

the

RESULTS

Recommendations

comparing

measured

effective

pro-

so

Guide.

By
ing

been

have

the

TEST

loads

shear

openings

code
design

CIRIA

WITH

LOADS

web

bars

span).

ultimate

namely,

horizontal

the

continue

OF DESI N

COMPARISON

9.3

to

preferable

factor

conser-

which
of

nominal

of

safety

greater

would
reinforceon

than

the
2.

The

ACI

and

and

are

more

may

be

consistent;

seen
As

the

on

the

on

the

calculate
ACI's
test

the

the

shear

the

the

on

by

authored

gives

by
detail

considered
the

literature

effects

of

web

in
35.

Author

Guide

CIRIA

As

a result

is

likely

WITH

HOLES
CIRIA

by
find

failed

to

on

deep

beams.

is

a paper

openings

the

beams.

conducted

9,

centred

which

deep

BEAMS

study

the

quoted

Guide
the

sufficient
Indeed,
co-

recommendations

restrictive.
opening,

which
that

'inadmissible'

derived

FOR DEEP

the

and
of

to

based

are

Siess,

concrete

how
forces.

shear

both

respectively,

centre

on

recommendations

reinforced

of

guidance

and

based

are

Walther,

and

specified

Paiva

de

which

Leonhardt

resist

method,

Dischinger's

of

specific

as

concentrated

PCA

the

and

CIRIA's

PROVISIONS

exhaustive

pattern

stress

deemed

be

of

the

%ny

which

behaviour

the

to

Crist,
team

workers

results

by

Guide
design.

earlier

give

and

Cambridge

necessarily

the

not

area

of

reference

only

are

steel

CIRIA

the

Recommendations,
out

do

compilation

data

test

. reb

GUIDE:
The

during

carried

studies

CIRIA

9.4

CEB-FIP

and

the

the

conservative

satisfactory

beams,

on

recommendations

Nottingham
on

tests

2,

based

two,

more

deep

of

The

the

the

Chapter

less

reasonably

of

in

is

design

flexural

on

in

work.

mainly

The

stated

1946,

theoretical

on

result

analysis

in

are

and

would

elastic

published

Guides

CIRIA

the

would
under

elastic
the

analysis

Iadmissible
conditions

for

in

obtain
the

rules.

are

given
be

to

conditions

to

'.

As

top-loaded

an

disturb

significantly
a

Typical
in

example,
beam

stress

is

is

patterns
diagrams

of

series

satisfied

beam,

deep

solid

for

an

the

diagram

to

opening

reproduced

which
here

Li

in

(9.5).

Fig.

two

The

loading

point

examination

to

in

s'"o", en
for

the

(9.5)

OpeninZs,

that

assumed

by

the

Guide

haviour

of

the

beam.

forcement

excessive

field

of

stress,

be

determined

to

act

forces

deep
to

assumed

number
duced
tional

of

in

deep

on

is

by
notional
as

is

have

would
the

described

is

then
earlier.

This
The

on

directly

the

pair

each

in

the

principal

of

nogiven
each
beam

solid

the
stresses

repro-

in

loading
to

of

is

the

force

the

according

use

diagram

total

region

the

system

from

established

Where

of

either

such

resolved

system

by

to

considered
the

load

or

the

reinforced

con-

is

is
to

calculating,

that

crossed

is
biaxial,

opening

derived

opening,

prevent

opening

subjected

acting

by

Having

opening.
beam

load

the

the

One

rein-

required

beam.

diagrams.
The

of

possibly

loading

primary

determined

centre

that

occupied

(9.8).

to

uniform,

is

be-

that

provided

(9.7).

beam

notional

are

overall

the

of

Fi-.

in

the

the

purpose,

deep

'inadmissible

requires

beam,

primary

stress

Fig.

the

deep

shown

each

side

openings

rules,

reinforcement

of

Each

of

beams

at

direction

rules'

beams

principal

here

sensibly

that,

other

disturb

be

of
similar

9.6)

the

an

spirit

deemed

o.re

therefore,

this

the

the

under

only

the
from

but

(Fig.
of

5.2)

for

restrictions

seen

to

amount

the

within

act

supported

consideration

stresses

each

simply
up

set

notional

from

as

be

and

need

follows.

as

4.2

For

the

. -id

in

all

Guide,

in

that

may

opening,

located

deduced

unlikely

cracking.

be

to

sidered

tests,

a'rnissible

be

The

the

around

are
to

present

(Fig-5.2),

Fig.

a diagram

result

It

11

(cf.

tests

be

would

type

opening

the

may

(9.6).

Fig.

in

present

local

it

include

not
if

recommendations

that

except

does

condition
Fig.

of

iuide's

the

Guide

system
'simple
are

not

to

orthogonal

from

consideration
also

which

CIRIA

similarly

and

opening
for

obtained

from

forces,
be

deep

which

the

factors;
study

elastic

To
the

that

results

are

which

for

th

stren,;
it

of

the

hence,

by

definition,
by

'admissible'
of
the

the
beam

beam

depends

the

'admissible'

rather

over

elaborate

attempt

to

load

point

and

has
ht-nce
for

of

design

the

it

it
is

serviceability

opening

stress

a photofields.

CIRIA

proIt

the

the

point':

overall

limit

As

state.

reinforcement
that

seem

these
their

that
limit

bearing

considered

ultimate

considered

ulti-

extent

reaction

on

the

the

load

the

opening

does

by

on
on

support

of

would

designs.

effect
the

tensile

openings,
the

joining

small

little
on

an

the

design

concluded

with

primarily

at

opening;
when

satisfy

and

broadly

that

of

patterns

stress

beams

path

type

wide

provisions

the

to

deep

the

around

is

effect

stress

uniform

serviceable

'the

loading

at

regards

produce

on

from

indicate

would

acting

forces

be

may

deep

on

that

intercepts

blocks

behaviour

tests

should

on

it

section,

the

openings

stated

which

this

holes

of

was

derived

been

method

reinforcement

notional

having

effects

herein,

35

been

mate

of

reported

visions
has

up

sum

these

the

of

the

the

of

in

founded

elastic

determine

the

of

forces

the

amounts

modified

be

Ulhmann's

notional

of

To

required

pattern.
basis

to

(9.9),

Fig.

reinforcement

1952.

use

determined
in

shown

appear

in

beams.

Uhlmann

as

elastic

of

made

solid

concentration

13

a calculation

similarly

calculated,

local

would

Uhlmann

by
on

hole

theoretical

openings

is

reinforcement

equivalent

the

of
for

based

an

recommended

origins

described

method

an

the

provisions

the

opening,

of

shows
; he

to

the

state

are
purpose

conditions.

117.

Indeed,

the

elastic

provisions

based,

are
load

service

the

of

absence

of

local

cracking

that
at

which

provision

The

servatively

based

for

ing

direction

of
x

(a))
x

(ft)

would
(a)

(b).

ensure

an

effective

(5.1)

not

and

include

could
be

is

length

(6.

the

one

web

recom-,

is

the

the

tests
of

ended

the

beam

N/mm`

open-

thick(or
For

the

percentage

(size

(a)

of

reported

detailed

preferably

the

tensile

100

bars

and

(a)

say

(b)

that

CIIIIA

con-

opening;

of

to

opening,
into

forces

the

demon-

herein

reinforcement(for

by

be

concrete).

reinforcement

rein-

concrete

opening

side

by

the

the

the

30
=

each

a system
i):

of

here,

of

(Note:

Fig.

capacity

anchored

(a)

2x

local

might

410)

fully

distribution

too

required

weight

recommended
be

nominal

dimension

the

of

/0.87

concrete.
that

side

possible

of

(b)

fcu

and

be

present

simply

of

the

on

solved

the

normal

N/mm`

should

is

strength

each

It

of

considered;

(0.52

opening
least

(a)

fcufor

along

at

Fig.

tensile

tensile

410

problem

gnntity

reinforcement

where

the

be

could

'lost'

(ft)

the

fy

extend

strated

of

= 0.52

be

surrounding

the

may reasonably

from

gained

a minimum

being

is

(ft)

the

trim

to

evidence

it

serviceability

the

reinforcement

0.44o:
to

(b)

taking

example,

best,

test

openings,

openings

on

the

say

assume

the

amount

and

ness;

reinforcement

at

specific

experience

such

(a)

is

the

which

applicable

any

specified

forcement.

that

of

broad

the

tests,

range

only

'admissible'

small

from

inferred

are

on

condition.

In
behaviour

assumptions

example

Type

5)

(Fig.

9.9)

and
-

this

might

satisfactory).
'here

the

location

or

size

of

a particular

opening

is

118.

the

has

be

to

the

because

the
in

ization

deep
ultimate

simple
this
should

the

visualization

beams

with
strengths.

method
The

respect.
prove

Chapter

for

easy

of

the

to

thesis
8

Chapter

the

transfer
the

prediction

proposed

this

are

ideal-

structural

tool

and

not

that

in

proposed

to

is

experience

presented

load

is

sufficient

in

on

effect

then

this

suggested

the

consider-

reported

thing

is

powerful
of

openings

it
given

design

but

have

yet

then

tests

best

the

the

satisfy

possible
The

mode,

However,

idealization

useful

for

not

to

Guide,

the

capacity.
that

do

fails

opening's

failure

actual

beams.

structural
and

state

engineers
deep

with

in

the

demonstrated

have

consider

to

given

it

that

such
given

limit

ultimate

herein

is

criteria

admissibility
ation

it

and

unavoidable

designer.
mechanism
of

both
in
their

C11

CONCLUSIONS

APTERTEN

AND SUGGESTIONS

10.1

CONCLUSIONS

10.2

SUGGESTIONS

FOR

FOR FURTUER

FURTHER

RESE'1RCH

RESEARCH

li9.

CHAPTERTEN

CONCLUSIONS

AND SUGGESTIONS

The
web

openings

practice,

design

of"reinforcod

is

yet

stich

not

RESEARCH

literature

the

web

openings

ily

restrictive.

as

is

in
it

that

this

will

of
in

assist

CIRIA

reinforced

the

are

the

to

engineers

research

design
this

of

with
necessar-

of

concrete

advancement

beams

guide

use

as

and

deep

of

direct

available

openings,

web

conclusions
of

of
CED-FIP

the
is

with

and

aspect

of

science.
It

is

experimental

be

to

noted

that

discussions

have

already

been

results

35,6;

The
total

sum

be

beams

codes

and

design

(new)

the

will

branch

of

the

the

that

here

engineering

in

given

hoped

presented

engaged

for

major

information

effects

provisions

It
work

the

the

AC1318-71,

Little

on

the

a result

by

1972,

(1970).

deep

concrete

covered

CP1IO:

as

Recommendations

to

FURTHER

CONCLUSIONS

10.1

in

FOR

of

destruction

following
the

list

of

carried

out

is

herein,
79

on

elsewhere
based

on

included

which

reinforced

the

of

some

presented

conclusions

reported

work

of

the
tests

deep

concrete

beams:
(i)

The

on

strength,
arily
natural

effect

on

of
crick

the

extent

'load

path'

web

opening

widths,
to

on

and
which

joining

on
the

the

the

deflection
opening

loadbearing

ultimate

shear
depends

prim-

intercepts
blocks

the
at

the

120.

loading

point

location

at

(ii)

the

'load

be

shear
intercepts
be

the
(iv)

The

concrete

differences

in

be

may
tensile

capacity

that

of

(v)

The

prove

10.2
(i)

the

size

of

load
of

prediction

SUGrFSTIONS
The

the

FOR
the

is

type
width

bars

of

trimming

shear

strength.

concrete

and

and

ultimate

the

any
strengths

shear

between

potential

concrete

weight

in

applicable

proposed
to

and

their

to

the

wide

range

idealization

designer,

both
in

mechanism
ultimate

is

thesis

this

structural

transfer

FUItT)IER
test

crack

similar,

suggested

tool

powerful
of

visualization
for

import-

concrete.

method

The

in

but

effective

weight

normal

and

locations.

opening

and

structural

design

form

very

ult-

openings,

ultimate

is

lightweight

simple

may

the

most

difference

the

satisfactory

should

and

by

of

strength

and

normal

beams
loads

the

the

on
of

deep

structural

reasonably
of

in
effect

for

shear

opening

critically

strength

shear

cracking

accounted

ultimate
the

is
is

behaviour

lightweight

of

Where

web

with

reinforcement

little

general

the

increases

beams

reinforcement

has

openings

ultimate

reinforcement

ultimate

Local

control.

the

web
both

regards

deep

of
of

Inclined

ant.

the

clear

(i),

substantially

capacity

the

on

(7.2).

Eqn.

detailing

reasonably

(7.1).

Egn.

path'

reinforcement

load

proper

as

from

Web

imate

'load

or
paragraph

from

and

point,
occurs.

clear
in

estimated

estimated

(iii)

is

mentioned

the

reaction

interception

opening

path'

may

support

this

which

Where

the

the

and

for

deep

strengths.

RESEARCH

specimens

used

in

the

present

the
beams

121.

investigation
of

was

results

(ii)

Inclined
fix

than

but

the

performance

inclined

all

and

some
the

of

Parallel

tests

deep

of

Concrete

of

the

the

lead

may

in

relative

such

parameters,

and

has

beams

shallow
about

action,

beams

practice.

Association

ordinary

shear

dowel

current

percentage

deductions

various

interlock,

aggregate

on

useful

signifi-

valuable.
and

tests

special

made

significance

Cement

the

is

optimum

be

bend

to

reinforcement

in

used

the

would
of

some

shear,

types

the

expensive

mesh

61

Taylor

conducted

more

reinforcement

other

reinforcement

(iii)

orthogonal

investigate

to

scale.

range
using

that

confirm

by

reinforcement

than

tests

inclined

affected

of

tests

selective
to

the

with

compatible

required

conventional

better

Further

not

web

and

cantly

are

are

was

Further

specimens

scale

present

as

investigated.

variables

large

large

as

as

zone.

compression
interesting

to

some

tests

on

observations.
(iv)
of

The
the

main

tests

are

The

desirable

deep

and

which

design

of

deep

procedure.

deep

data

would

beam

1)

design

by

to

be

further
might

end

anchorage

that

further
for

criteria

an-

beams.

collected

seem

indicated

have

establish
in

justify

would

re-evaluation,
standing

to

beam

team

exploratory

(Appendix

steel

Cambridge
date

the

of

requirements

chorage
(v)

results

the

the
most

detailed
well

behaviour

to
a

yet
yet

to

comprehensive
and

examination

lead
and

Nottingham

a
more

better
efficient

under-

AP

I'

ENDIXONE

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

A1.1

INTRODUCTION

Al .2

TEST PROGRAMOME

41.3

TEST

%1.4

IN

AND BACKGROUND

RESULTS

A1.3.1

Deflection

x1.3.2

Crack

4,1.3.3

Crack

GENERAL

COMMENTS

control
control
patterns

and

modes

of

failure

122.

APPENDIXONE

ANCHORAGE

OF TENSION

LIGHTWEIGHT

INTRODUCTION

A1.1

It
assumptions

because
few

provide

strength

many
in

tests

or

which

by

using

In
force
of

be

must
the

arch

the

24 "5.

bond

square

out

was
the

of

At
carried

were

strength
root

by

the

anchorage

the
Singh

For

beams.

based

were

by

precluded

11,12,24

blocks

steel

beams,

is

to
66

in
to

subjected
to

range

increase

in

at

occur

that

reported

may

tests

tensile
because

have

reinforcement

strength:

full

the

supports,

thought
Henry

and

tension

the

at

which

found

to

concrete

Untrauer

bond

on
which

specimens,

reinforced

to

bars

end

64

`6,

in

of

reported
been

to

out

deep

of

had

that

confirmed

amounts

previously

tension

conser-

carried

various

failure

behaviour

action

influenc*

cant

deep

been

control

crack

conclusions

devices

normal

pressures

of

effects
and

developed

loads

ultimate

the

have

the

of

rather

have

surveys

end-anchorage

other

remain

must

design

the

yet,

requirements

6,7,9-12

longitudinal

the

anchoring

the

of

time

some

anchorage

investigations

the

example,

end

extensive

on

BEVIS.

-for

reinforcement

information
on

that,

seem
the

systematic

anchorage

on

would

DEEP

IN

BACKGROUND

AND

tension

vative,
very

CONCRETE

regarding

longitudinal

REINFORCEMENT

made

on

of

normal

have
37

proportion

signifipull-out
pressures,
to

the

66
applied

normal

University
12

have

pressure

of

Nottingham.

indicated

that

tests
the

usual

recently
design

1'23.

assumptions.

regarding

beams,

be

might

consisting
end

anchorage

was

varied

anchorage

unnecessarily

24

of

end

for

systematically

'twenty-five

times

force-nent

was

bar

mesh

orthogonal

steel

In

a test

main

longitudinal

from

zero

to

In

all

Section

web

11.9.6

steel

length

beams

the

of
rein-

web

reinforcement

or
4.

AC1318-71

of

of

amount

tension

embedment

of

inclined

either

satisfying

an

deep

programme

the

beams,

the

diameter.

provided;

deep

concrete

in

main

conservative.

lightweight

provided

the

of

an

(Fig.

A1.1).
Singh's
on

beam

deep

behaviour

of

provision

web

that

showed

as

further

with

much

tests

on
In

follow-up

tests
the

%1.A

TEST

I AOC R a?C! r.
The

ary

test
it

12

Singh's

I. rogramme
ble,

British

%CI318-71
Code

CP110:

as

1972

used
;

does

as

the
not

test

programme

without

web

results

of
are

observations
tests.

designed

a code
main
yet

hive

could
strength.

and

general

12

previously

to

but

details

were

reference
was

be_t. ns

thirty-three

all

and

flexural
Singh's

the
and

specimens

tests

where
4

given,
of

test

tble

strengths

provided

ultimate

deep

for

flexural

the

of

the

effects

requirements

reinforcement

%ppendix,

evidence

the

on

supplement

compar:

are

from

had

the

to

what

clear

analysis

web

50: & of

this

drawn

to

of
as

not

was

as

desirable

reinforcement.
nine

it

information

valuable

some

had

quantity

therefore

was

but

reinforcement

the

contributed
It

provided

particularly

anchorage,

end

tests

of

be

in

planning

practice

guide
cover

to

(the
deep

complement-

was
current
beams).

the

des-

124.

The

test

lightweight

sintered-fly-ash
Table

%1.1)"
beams

the

of

width

L were

Imperial

with

an

x/D

ratio

The
ment

properties

same

as

those
in

given

are

of

consisted

anchorage

7.1.1.1)4

or

diameter

bar
+
the

anchorage

length

or

two

dia.

computed

Hence

all

the
beam

one

which

is

305

bars

In

were
line

those

either

an

six

reinforcedetails

of

%CI

the

were

concrete

strengths

following

db,

20

db,

15

lengths

embedment
25

with

db+

1d
(12

Details

used

hook)

were
by

specified

in),

of

i.

the

an

e.,

test

38.1

x/D

ratio

of

db

the

db

for

procedures

a
is

standard
db.

17.25

for
than

the

ACI318-71,

12.5

of

diameter

and

db

0.55.

less

can

(25

of

(except

tests

substantially
Section

times

embedment

of

1CI318-71,
,
in

25

plus

10

or

the

Section

one

length

of

0.3,

of

lengths:
nil,

hook

12.3.2

(Table

(: \C1318-71:

or

with

embedment

ratio

embedment
db,

reinforcement

reaction

hook

10

beam

each

different

x/D

an

embedment

iection

web

support

with

standard

equivalent

from

by

the

beams

those

either
The

db.

in

no

anchored

standard

the

In

bars;

bears

of

mm

with

rum in

reinforcement

of

one

length

development

different

proportions,

Details

deformed

centre

was

hook.

the

aim

the

nil.

952

experimental
3"

longitudinal

hook).

standard

Chapter

main

4).

was

(Note:
mm

beams

three

and

(A1.1).

These

Column

A1.1.

iwo

and

and

general

The

beyond

lengths

in

Table

provided.

was

materials

other

given

D 762

A1.2

0.30..

of

concrete
and

depth

in

0.55

of

supported

(Fig.

moulds).

mm span

x/D

ratio

simply

beams

overall

sized

1524

used:

clear-shear-span/depth
beams

mm and

of
deep

concrete
102

in

cast

were

lengths

span

consisted

specimens

equipment

bars.

have

1'25

been

given

in

(Fig.

A1.2)

were

89

29

quick
was

Chapter

for

of

range

with

a hand

A1.3

TEST

each

(A1.3)
of

of

the

did

ment

of

the

load

the

tension

the

0-0.55(0)

the

beans

A1.5,

assemblies

freedom

give

for

deflections

were

being

compensation

0-0.3(0)

Beam

see

widths

with

concrete

reaction

to

crack

were

for

made
measured

magnifications.

yielded

of

ratio,

of

the

tension

by

significantly

first

end

flexural
at

failed

of

large
in

Apart
end

deflections

as
from

Beams

was

of

result

beams,

two

these
not

at
that

load.

anchorage

amounts.

indicating

crack,

prematurely

anchorage.

amount

reinforce-

first-cracking

the

series
progressive

increase

a marked

0-0.30(0)

the

x/D

deflections

bars

of

same

length

exhibited

individual

the

within

the

with

embedment

the

loss

effect

beams

producing

and

complete

the

-Central

that

shows

increase

not

Ui
.

102

and

control

group

reduction

25

reactions

RESULTS

Fig.
of

to

support

gauges,

of

and

rollers

(Fig.

measured;

microscope

loads

rollers

support)..

as

Deflection

A1.3.1

the

of

steel

mm dial

settlements

support

bedded

translation

hand

0.01

with

measured

blocks

on

axial

left

example,

circular

One

mounted

the

through

bearing
plaster.

specially

larger

applied

mm steel

setting

Briefly,

3"

clearly

observable.

A1.3.2

Crack
The

soffit

at

control
flexural

formation,

cracks
but

after

were
a

usually
few

more

widest
load

at

the

increments

beam
the

b.

widest
300

mm up

Fig.

(A1.4).

as

the

control,

did

0-0.55(0)
failed

and

Crack

(Fig.

and

0-0.30(0)

patterns

the

node
preceded

all

by

yielding

for

(0.125'

in

tension

about

10

case

of

deflection

tine

mm

tension

refor

except
lengths

embedment

with

like
25
to

and

diagonal

those
and

reinforcement

solid

beans

not

did

provided

reported

(see

Chpt.

web

without
In

occur.
was

those

O. 42%.

com-

crushing
flexural

Similar

been

cracks

inclined
the

cause

tension

of

type

splitting

single
and

to

top
point.

amounts

Walther

penetrated

loading

have

collapse

flexural

beam

the

of

the

small

and

tributaries,

mm

The

flexure:

in

was

other

all

end

0-0.30(0)

and

reinforcement

which

tests)

present

the

4.5

to

of

reinforcement.

beams

the

amount

0-0.55(0)

tension

other

were

Leonhardt

in

the

the

failure

and

pattern

by

the

of

within

crack

beams

two

adjacent

the

that

Chpts.

of

beams

example,

failure
in

to

the

of

crack,

concrete

failures

noted

the

cracks

pression

for

to

effect
zero

wide

as

failure.

influenced

not

that

in

zone

the

the
of

had

of

modes

pulling-out

flexure-shear

of

in

observable

which

length.

usually
up

anchorage

clearly

showed

were

flexural

central

the

and

tests

except
by

was

As

that

have

(A1.4)

anchorage,

failure

opened

occurred.

not

The

failed

cracks

were

to

mm

embedment

widths

crack
the

shows

the

of

150

about

prematurely.

A1.3.3

mode

the
and

(A1.4)

inforcement
Beams

that

collapse

Fig.

always

irrespective

formation,

ultimate

was

crack

soffit,
shows

mm at

before

flexural

of

part

reinforcement
by

others,
It

1.2.2.2).
caused

which

reported

reinforcement
beams

is

the

amount

of

127.

AI-3-4

Ultimate

loads
(A1.2)

Table
and,

again,

for

except

observable

effects

Beams
the

of

knalysils
the

collapse
tensile

stress

beams,

in

the

the

of

usual
steel

requirements

for

the

internal

lever

overall

the

lever

amount

depth.
arm

are

factor

of
of

x/D

11. t

In

Column

to

safety

*1 iL

Singh
desirable
firm

1.

to

2.3

for

the
L+0.3D

z=0.2
is

of

it

load

according

may

beams

be

the
to
that

seen

of

approximately

of

x, -D

D is
9

design
the

guide

required

by

Chapter

(A1.2)

value

where

and

given

Table

calculate

assumed

CIRIA

new

deep

9: Eqn.

ratios

of

the

equation

there
3

to

equal

9.1)

is
for

measured
given

an

beam

in-built
with

0.55.

\T3
tests

here

It

reported

together
in

exploratory
the

sumadrise

progressive

in

ultimate

of
to

0.6D.

(see

collapse

necessarily

conclusions.

The

and

CO

were

an

at

the

is

of

evident.

that

design

approximately

fyz

were

showed

flexural

basis

As

design

the

on

The
12

Al
0. H7

anchorage

practice

the

reinforcement

and

as

no

approached

the

example,

taken

pregccnted,

0.3,

of

0-0.3(0).

loads

current
on

arm

As

load

ultimate
above

is

tension

of

In
in

For

end

reinforcement

procedure

main

of

loads

ultimate

and

ultimate

steel.

the

the

the

the

measured

0-0.55(0)

amount

of

stress

the

shows

was

reduction

main

that:

of

the

end

those
hence

nature;

observations

observed

with

it

than

rather

of
is
draw

37

anchorage

of

the

tension

1 28.

down

reinforcement
did

not

produce
loads,

ultimate

2.

Within

ten

bar

each

to

an

length

embedment

detrimental

clearly

observable

maximum

crack

widths,

test

beams,

series

diameters

of

was

less

not

ten

of

effects

on

deflections

or

an

diameters

bar

length

embedment
than

efficient

ACI

an

of

standard

hook.

3.

The

in

Singh's

tests

present
beams

strength.

The

ion

11.9.6

of

web

reinforcement

could

which

are

"flexural

between

2 was

the

assumptions
the

of

ments

for
the

practice,
is

virtually

from
for

called
ment
ACI
little

in

double

the

one

further

439

experimental

web

a proper
However,

test

has

also

research

1 indicates

system
not

The
research

structural
pointed
on

on

bond

that

in

and,

web

reinforcement

prudent

to

bond

"there

strength

recommend
the

on
408

Committee

elements
out

the

conservative,

requirements
ACI

that

requiretoo

of

end-anchorage

experimental
concrete

reinforcement".

reinforcement

is

of

distinction

possibly

it

programme.

laws

end-anchorage

are

inclined

load.

the

Observation
the

with

current

"shear

Sect-

of

ultimate

designer's

and

flexural

satisfying

from

the

of

and

of

the

provided

the

amount

follows

above

beams

mesh

equivalent

reinforcement

deep

lightweight

Committee

an

regarding

provision

of

evidence

of

unaware

mandatory).

a relaxation

or

unexpected,

tension

particularly

orthogonal

reinforcement"

Observation
current

an

to

significantly

almost

Observation

as

reinforcement

of

318-71
could

equilibrium,

web

contribute

provision
ACI

that

showed

and
52

developand

has
of

has

the
been

reinforcing

i-19

bars
(60

with

a minimum
65.

ksi)

tests

stimulate

seem

that

ment

might

deep

high

be

anchorage

test

to

greater
together

that.

results
on

presented
beam

deep

of

capacity

increased
stresses

with

414

herein,

behaviour,

in

the

tension

the
in

the

support

N/mm2

Singh's

It

investigations.

further

significantly

compressive

beams.

hoped
the

others

the

strength

information

providing

will

the

is

Nottingham,

at

besides

It

yield

than

does

reinforcepresence
regions

of
of

APPENDIXTWO

SHEAR

STRENGTH
SUBJECTED

A2.1

INTRODUCTION

A2.2

TEST

A2.3

A2.4

PAOGR. t

A2.2.1

Test

X2.2.2

Testing

TEST

DEEP

OF LIGHTWEIGHT
TO

REPEATED

BEAMS

LOADS

!E
specimens

RESULTS

A2.3.1

Deflection

A21.3.2

Crack

A2.3.3

Ultimate

SUMMARY

and
patterns
loads

cracl:
and

widths
modes

of

failure

130.

APPENDIX2

SHEAR

STRENGTH

OF LIGHTWEIGHT

SUBJECTED

TO REPEATED

INTRODUCTION

A2.1

teat

beams

has

members

the

may

number

factor
is

failure

be

to

of

programme
i8

strength

compare
forcement
of

the

appreciable

investigate

which

relative

tests,

progressive

Nottingham

of
tests

was

deep

beams.

67

Crockett

designed
conditions

be

important

as

cracking

for
had

deep

it
over-all

was

repeated
observed
effects

an

and

The

of
loading

on

the

Singh

aims

of

the

be

types

the

loadeyelings

ultimate

of
From

condition.

shear

pro-

to

applied

history,
three

12932

shear

static

could

a repeated-load

that

by

various

beams

exploratory

out

carried

the

effectiveness
the

under

if

whether

proposed

beams
the

load
concrete

formulas

lightweight

but

considered,

loading

fatigue
should

University

the

repeated

to

were

practice:

structures

applications

magnitude

of

opinion.

concrete

under

concrete

avoided.

lightweight

gramme

load

load

general

reinforced

collapse
of

as

At

on

that

of

effect

codes
be

should

to

the

from

vibrations

deep

reinforced

structural

consideration

Contrary

how.

codes

design

that

claimed

current
that

scant

mention

recently

and
a

received

of

that

shown

concrete

Indeed,

loadings.
types

have

lightweight

on

repeated
all

9111

surveys

available

on

stating

without

to

to

merely

codes

literature

are

loading

repeated

has

data

subjected

LOADS.

AND BACKGROUND

Recent
little

BEAMS

DEEP

and

to

web

rein-

the

had

results
no

strengths.

ijl.

However,

it

investigate
of

was

suggested

the

effect

it

that
of

would

desirable

seem

to

increasing

substantially

the

number

cycles.
In

further
are

tests

this

carried

to

each

beam

the

results

the

previous

was

tests

Fig.

(A2.1).

of

bar

of

stress

(A)
of
(E3)

An

more
.system,

test

programme
history

Singh's

cycles;

in

load

cycles.

Whenever

by

three

of

520,000

in

discussed

are

tests
possible
to

relation

Singh.

of

were
web

the

was

for

all

spaced

near

had

previously

were

in
the

20

which

identical

the

beam

soffit,

been

found

bars

as

steel

given

here

and
be

one

reindeformed
yield

of

The
Fig.

(A2.1)

shown

in

ratio

requirements

in

horizontal

to

shown
to

mm diameter

used
the

(as

as

reinforcement.

web

satisfying

ACI318-71

system

one

constant

of

tension

6 mm deformed

reinforcement

of

be

to

of

are

longitudinal

of

N/mm2

used

beams

dimensions

designed
The

consisted

deep

other

consisted

system

A2.1)

concrete
mm;

4iO

orthogonal

which

76

beam

11.9.6

closely

specimens

beam

stress
N/mm

(Table

specimens.

orthogonal

Section
An

test
each

types

three

out

Each

yield
445

carried

to

equal

in

forcement

tests

lightweight

32

Singh's

present

test

fly-ash

thickness
in

Singh's

repeated-loading

45,000

to

results

specimens
The

sintered

of

and

PROGR? CIE

Test

A2.2.1

the

consisted

the

details

supplement

tests

subjected

of

TEST

A2.2

these

beam

each

the

to

out

In

presented.

given

Appendix,

Chpt.

2.2.2);

stirrups
(C)
highly

An

inclined
effective

were

J"

for

loading

static

pweb

for

the

condition
beams

the

all

minimum

value

the

same

strengths

in

Two-point
was

blocks

first

was

(see

of

loaded,

Vu

where

is

frequency

of

120,000

load

was

and

Stage

Table

(A2.1).

Chapter

31

being

of

AC1318-71.

of

beam

Details

between

the

1.25

beams
statically

A-2/0.4

and

times

manufacture

of

concrete

loading

to
1.5

TEST

ACI

was

then

per

minute.

ACI

to

ACI

load

and

Beam

C-2/0.4,

collapsed
third

load

Stage
and

0.5

3
ACI

and

crack

widths

in

the

load

stage
consisted

was
of

load.

The

the

ACI

of

300,000

the

first

was

then

For

at

1 consisted

ACI

times

For

2 Vu,

stages

Stage
0.5

beam

AC1318-71

consisted
ACI.

load.

load,

from

occurred.

ltr: SU'LTS

Deflection

0.5

cycling

collapse;

1.25

this

applied;

and

loadEach

design

cycled

load

A2.5)

steel

used.

computed

was

until

mm were
ACI

Fig.

and

jacks;

the

statically

tested,

8-2/0.4

29

force

load

cycles

2 cycling

x
to

10

increased

next

76

The

A2.1

pulsatable

shear

about

cycles

creased

between

design

of

three

89

size

(Fig.

loading

hydraulic

2.2.2).

between

cycles

A2.3.1

in

statically,

the

Chapter

A2.3

details

given

top

through

applied

bearing

to

11.9.6

ratio

steel

Testing

A2.2.2

the

Section

web

0.012,

at

experimental

those

given

The

constant

by

general

as

are

kept

was

specified

The
were

28,29,31

load

of
in-

Beams

introduced
100,000

prior
cycles

1 i>.

In
and

the

Beam

In

in

previous
behaviour

of

both

had

also

poor

that

the
being

small,

The

(Fig.
at

the

generally

the

web

1CI

would

seem

web

about

patterns

and

load.
during

reinforcement

and

patterns
.%nd
a

In
the

modes

at

B-2/04.

each

modified

mesh

cracks

formed

tests

the
It
the

effect-

was

observable,

was

in

any

times

in

shown

are
contained.

case

the

of

system
before

web
the

the

diagonal

load

cycling

and

the

the

(A2.5).

Fig.

respectively,

C-0.2/01

controlling

the

4').
in

(1/500

Beam

in

in

failure

of

failure
which

deflection

repeated-

C-2/O.

collapse
beam

smaller

deflection

difference

to

for

(excluding

reinforcement

prior

C-2/0.4,

previous

beam

iingh's

appreciable

of

Beam

in

overall

effect

overall

for

much

increased

the

25%

observed

the

that

comparable

corresponding

of

no

type

(A2.4)

and

little

that

diagonal

%2.1).

present

only

system

mesh

Fig.

in

for

increases

increases

Stage

about

3 produced

These

the

than

3 mm in

%-2, '0.11

Beams

In

6?.

just

crack

by

Stage

deflection

Crack

%2.3.2

increased

20':.

performance

each

was

deflections

During

about

very

noted

between

iveness
and

be

to

cycling.

was

about

it

load

-deflection

the

and

that

in

being

plotted

shows

increase

however,

inexplicably
is

the

history

loading

(A2.2)

less

greater

compared,

are

Figure

respectively,

substantially

deflection,

tests:

significantly

were

are,

but

deflections

mid-span

widths

of

stage

-2/0.4,

beams,

increases

the

deflection

and

Stage

three

all

each

central

1-2/0.4
.

13%.

loads.

applied

initial

the

cracks

during

increased

(A2.3).

and

diagonal

maximum

against

(. 12.2)

Fig.

reinforcement
Stage
cracks

cycling
occurred

effectiveness

growth

of

and

span).

134 .

propagation
of

the

crack

remained

just

to

up

4 and

A-2/O.
diagonal

maximum

to

prior

those

be

to

seem

were
concrete

diagonal

zones

that

mentioning

worth

and

supports
the

pressures

cube
were

(Table

A2.1).

t2.3.3

Ultimate

loading

ACI

at

52

beam

N/mm2

to

the

in
the

be

all

of

compared

with

that

into

Beam

A-2/O.

loading

is
at

bearing
of

strengths

43

loads

design

measured
loads

ultimate
and

the

loads
measured

together
diagonal

the

greater

were

average

4,

and
It

two.

pressures

beams

cube

crush-

such

In

into

the

although

cracks

the

bearing

would

mode

supports,

at

the

the

extensive

failure

32.

split

concrete;

an

diagonal

blocks

In

into

showed
of

beams

collapse.

cause

the

crushings

collapse

of

mm

to

the

of
at

the

at

bearing

points

have

by

all

to

failure

penetration

the

0.4

similar

penetrated

B-2/O.

tests

the

strength

The
computed

the

caused

the

exceeded

occurred

point

Beam

accompanied

points,

reinforcements

were

In

cracks

type

near

cracking,

support

In

by

preceded

Singh

Singh's

of

cracks

and

beams

32.

loading

bearing

pure

records

cine-film

than

diagonal

web

beams

the

of

concrete

the

there.

relatively

efficient;

these

flexural

below

failure

crushing

the

A2.5)

zone

compression

ings

(Fig.

so

of

these

of

appearance

A2.3).

by

of

the

number

the

not

for

modes

observed
crushing

C-2/O.

Beam

widths

whereas

(Fig.

failure

previously

substantial

The

widths

collapse

large

4 were

B-2/O.

from

evident

shows

collapse,

crack

The

the

which
cracks.

small

Beam

is

cracks

pattern,

discontinuous

small

in

diagonal

of

with

the

cracking

N/mm2

15).

loads

are

shown

different

significantly
Singh's
increased

repeated

strengths.

In
be

do
in

however,
bution

types

of

the

same

was

thought

SUI

A2.4

reinforcement

type

of

more

tests

The

observations

previously

be

should

normally

flection

as

deformed

both

approach
any

web

testing

of

reinforcement

the

were
on
of

reinforced

These

sensitivity
concrete

would

be

have

valuable.

to
deep

steel

and
the

blocks
two

de-

and

tests,

bearing

may

the
However,

between

steel

the

reinforced

present

used.
bond,

by

cracking

of

occurs

to

inchored

lack

in

increase

and

that

cycles.

failure

failure

influence
overall

of

gradual

bars

indicate

loading

at

out

affected

not

were

previous

carried

would

fatigue

bond
the

tests

tests

number

that

was

substantial

observed

the

the

follows

reinforcement

steel

be

to

specifically

were

previous

recorded
in

reinforcement

Further

contri-

assumed

neglecting

herein

of

progressive
In

concrete.

mild

results

mentioned

concrete

the

the

This

Co

and

%CI318-71.

similar

increase

substantial

than

reported

supplement

Nottingham.

have

by

here,
was

of
D.,

types

reinforcement.

reasonable

covered

three

to

designed

steel

A web

it

%RY
.

The

it

C web

ultimate

11.9.6

and

load

ACI

the

the

computations,

reinforcement

web

D and

not

reinforcement

the

load

that
on

effect

11.9.5

of

be

to

ons

Sect

in

indicate

would

ACI

tho

not

loads

ultimate

little

computation

that

as

that

cover

the

had

with

out

5),

history

being

results.

measured

Column

connection

not

The

the

%2.2:
load

pointed

ACI318-71
.

to

(Table

tests

should

(\2.2).

Table

in

main
and

factors,

which
to

contributed
loading.

repeated
beams

with

plain

136.

REFERENCES

1.

KONG,

F. K.,

beams

with

web

STEVENS,

3.

4.

Arup

BRITISH
The

structural

ACI

COMMITTEE

INSTITUTION.

use

of

318.

Building
ACI
.

concrete:
for

provision

1971.

COMITE

LUltOPEEN

DU BETON

PRECONTRAINT.
design

the

80.
pp.

Appendix

design
and

Concrete

%NON.

Concrete
No.

Ch.

Detroit,

American

INTERNATIONALE

of

concrete

structures.
for

recommendations
deep

deep

recommendations

pp.

beams.

1969.

8.
pp.

of

literature

Cement

London,

beans.

the

17-24.
Cement

London,

Library

and

Bibliography

71.
G. E.

ALRITTON.
analysis

for

11.9

International

1970.

8ssociation,

154.

pp.

AND FEDEI ATION

of

on

1972.

pp. 78.

tssociation,

Bibliography

1:

requirements

beams.

construction

construction

and

Part

110:

Section

International

3:

9)"

reference

London.

318-71.

CE-FIP

and

CP

code

deep

for

supervision,
also

concrete.

Institute.

for

(see

1973"

guidance

CIRIA's

1975

Cambridge

at

8 November

Design

under

Concrete

DE LA

al.

STANDARDS

Special

6.

(Draft)

deep

concrete

presented

Colloquium,

Partners,

and

Reinforced

Paper

Prepared

reinforced

5.

et

beams.

deep
Ova

A.,

G. R.

openings.

Mechanics

University

2.

SHARP,

and

of

deep

'daterways

Experiment

Technical

Report

Review
beams.

Vicksburg,

Station,
No.

1-701.

November

to

pertaining
U. S.

Army

1965.

Engineer
pp-80

the

137.

8.

PORTLAND
ST66:

9.

CEMENT

design

OVE

ARUP

of

10.

and

131.

CIRIA

COLE,

11.

ROBINS,

15-

P. J.

fleinforced

in

Industry
January

reinforced

University

by

and

1977,

concrete
Nottingham,

of

Static

%.

deep

und

des

and

Structural

element

1968.

111

pp.

COULL,

A.

Stress

loads

lightweight

on

of

Halbscheibe

der

Int.

Assn.

for

Publications,

analysis
22,

pp.

University

Theorie

Balken.

Vol.

method.

pp.

Engineers

69-93.

studied

1971.258

thesis,

fleitragzur

1932.

beams

Nottingham,

MPhil.

wandartigen

Engineer.

finite

repeated

beams.

F.

deep

of

and

DISCNINGER,

concrete
the

University

1972-

of
No.

5744.

Bridge
Vol.

Zurich,

deep

beams

walls.

and

February

1966.

310-312.

SCI. L'LM RELLA.

reinforced

with
at

beams

Construction

deep

of

thesis,

Nottingham.

pp.

deep

of

Association,

Behaviour

thesis.

SINGU,

The

1946.

2.

M. Sc.

concrete

i4.

design

Information

pp.

PhD.

13.

The
London,

Guide

experimentally

12.

Chicago

girders.

Information

D. F.

beams.
325

deep

concrete.

Research
pp

Concrete

P%RTNERS.

and

reinforced

%SSOCIATION.

the

December

University
1963.

C. %.

Effect

vertical
of

of

holes

deep

Engineering

edges.
Florida.

in

Vol.

l'7.

;: 0.12.

beams
Progress

1,

1.

16.

S.,

SA%D,
in

deep

No. 6.
17.

beams.
June

F. E..

in

beams.

deep

in

deep

Civil

Engineer.

KITCHEN,

CONi; %Y,

E. M.

Vol.

and

February

1960.

FI. D.,

Vol.

Stress

Engineering

39"

Public

Paper

Works
230-234.

pp.
G.

American

118.

distribution

WINTER,

and

Transactions

Engineers.

stresses

185-194.

No. 643.

beams.

Gravitational

Structural

Civil
55,

L. E..

A. W.

pp.

and

Vol.

CHOU,

The

1961.

ARCHER,

Review.
18.

HENDRY,

and

Stresses
Society

2557.1953.

of

pp.

686

708.
19.

SAVIN,

G. N.

Pergamon

Press.

deep

beams

UtILAIANN.

IL. L. .

172-181

S&

D.

S..
with

F. J.

The

of

Engineer.

1230-1236.

pp.

girder

reinforced

walls

30.

August

with
design.

concrete

Vol.

in

thirdpoint

Vol-59.1959.

theory

to

Stresses

and

central

%. S. T. bi..
.

Structural

beam

23.

to

references

pp.

holes.

around

McCOtU1ICK,

subjected
rroc.

The

22.

and

loading.

special

concentrations

1961.

M. E..

20.1AVILLE,

21.

Stress

1952.

.
}iENURY,

and
a

central

6.

June

'o1.1.

No.

: 11 MITE

EL'ROPEEN

International
(English

Institute

and

Stresses

1961.

pp.

DU BETON.

ed.
Cement

).
and

deep
Mech.,

Exp.

192-198.

Recommendations

Practice

of

in
load.

concentrated

Code

Concrete

A. W.

London.
Concrete

for

for

an

Reinforced

American
Association.

Concrete
1')64.

159,

24.

25.

DE PAIVA,

II. A. R.,

behaviour

of

A. S. C. E.,

Vol.
F..

LEONIWARDT.
(Deep

beams

in

91.

No.

ST5.

and

WALTHER,

deep

Beams).

SIESS,

and

Deutscher

C-1-

Strength

and

Proceedings

shear.
October
R.

1965"pp"19-41.
Trger

Wandartige

Ausschuss

Stahlebeton.

fur
I

Bulletin

178.1966,

CIRIA
26.

27.

Translation,

CRIST.
of

R. A.
ly

uniform

Ph. D.

thesis,

KONG,

F. K..

29.

tmerican

Vol.

67,

University

of

Y. J.,

Concrete

F. A..

effects

on

lightweight

Journal

of

the

ROBINS,

and

68,

Proceedings

Vol.

KONG,

ROBINS,

F. K..
U. R.

Deep
Journal

Institute.

Proceedings

pp.

P. J.

Web

reinforcement

deep

beams.

Institute.

July

1971"

KIRBY,

pp"514-520.

D. F.,

inclined

with
the

of

web

American

Vol.

69,

and
rein-

Concrete
No.

March

1972.

172-176.

KONG.

F. K.,

reinforced
No. 3.

1010-1017.

No. 7.

of

Journal

pp.

P. J.,

forcement.

Web

1970.

Concrete

beams

D. F.

Proceedings

concrete

American

1971"

beams.

Institute.

December

12.

Mexico,

COLE,

deep

beams.

deep

New

and

on

behaviour

shear

concrete

KONG,

SIIOrtT,

30.

!o.

1970.

reinforced

: tOBINS,

(Berlin).

Sohn

und

dynamic

and

effects

the

Ernst

January
Static

reinforcement

28.

%Jilholm

and

ROBINS,
deep

concrete
March

1972.

F. J.

pp.

beams.

3'*-36.

Shear

strength

Concrete.

of
Vol.

6,

1 'I O

31.

F. K.,

KONG,

loads

ultimate
Journal

32.

Vol.

KONG,

and

weight

concrete

loads.

Shear

Shear

analysis

The

The

current

of

1975"

KONG,

F. K.,

and

Collapse
by

Vol.
37.

P.

of

and

No. 10.

G. R.

SHARP,

and

in

beams

deep

Engineer.

Shear

G. R.

Vol-53,

Structural

of

strength
beams

deep

concrete

Engineer.

KUBIK9

L. A.

deep

reinforced

Magazine

No. 98.

tension

Vol-50,

with

Vol-5,

267-275.

of

KUMAR.

F. K.,

concrete

173-180.

SHARP,

pp.

load

29,

KONG,

pp.

The

F. K.,

Special

SHARP, G. R.

and

Engineer.

Structural

reinforced

openings.

KONG,

ACI-ASCE

reinforced

of

concrete

The

April

1973.

Detroit,

A.,

SING!!,

P. J.,

practice.

August

repeated

461-476.

2. pp.

reinforced

No. 4.

web

light-

of

to

1974.

Structural

ROBINS,

lightweight

pp. 513-527"

pp. 405-409.

1972.

design

strength

concrete.

design

and

F. K.,

Shear
subjected

P. J.,

beams.

Institute.
1972.

Institute,

F. K. 9 ROBINS,

KONG,

beams

Vol.

deep

August

reinforced

SP-42.

October

36.

in

A.

and

cracking

concrete

No. 8.

deep

beams.

Diagonal

Concrete

SINGH,

KONG,

deep

35"

69,

Concrete

Publication

34.

American

Proceedings
F. K.,

A.

lightweight

of

the

of

American

33"

SINGH,

and

March

SINGH,
reinforcement

of

pp.

in

beams

Research.

42-43.

SHARP,

and

of:

concrete

Concrete

1977.
A.,

Discussion

G. R.

lightweight

Anchorage
concrete

No. 8.

1111.

deep
Dept.,
38.

Cambridge

beams.
Technical

STEVENS,
deep

A.,

beams

and

DE PAIVA,
of

40.

dynamic

UNTRAUER,

R. E.

deep

dynamic

LAUPA,

concrete
Paper

guide.
Mechanics

1975.
Strength

in

behaviour

and
deep

beams

Ph. D.

thesis,

under

University

beams

concrete

shear

static

in

behaviour

and

loading.

A.,

of

flexure

static

under

University

Ph. D. thesis,

SIESS,

in

C. P.,

shear

No. 428.

Illinois.

1955.
D. R.

precast

of

Eng.
P.

Design

1966.

rIOFFET,

D. R.

studied

experimentally

method.

Nottingham,

Station,

of

auxiliary

1969.

University

of

A. S. C. E.

and

strain

and

by

thesis,

in

reinforcement

Miami

Stresses

(lions.

beams.

59.

connections.

January

deep

concrete

Expt.

Conference,

B. Sc.

NEWANARK, N. M.

and

reinforced

of

concrete

Engineering

43.

University

Strength

Bulletin

MAST.

preparation).

1961.

Strengh

42.

design

reinforced

Illinois,
41.

draft

loading.

1961.

and

Reinforced

concrete

Illinois,

of

F. K.

H. A. R.

reinforced

and

KONG,

8 May

Colloquium,
39"

(in

Cambridge

at

Engineering

Report

CIRIA's

and

presented

University

Beach,

Florida,

in

the

Structural

deep

beams

finite-difference

University

of

Ti2

44.

BROCK,

G.

Effect

strength

45.

Journal.

PP.

619-637.

BROCK,

RAMAKRISIINAN,

V.,

pp.

SHEAR

STUDY

318.

H.,

beams

method
Civil
November

in

shear.
February

and

P. J.,

and

applied

to

Engineering
1973.

H.
Royal

Swedish;

Arup

and

KONG,

F. K.

reinforced

963.

Public

Structural

building

Notes

HOLST,

and
pp.

DEPT.

Reinforced
Technical
English
Partners,
Modified
concrete
Works

rein-

pp.

Institute,

Association,

(In
Ove

on

Cement

slabs.

1946.
of

1969.170

Concrete

of
of

concrete

SERVICES

and

courtesy

ROBINS,

Y.

No. 2.

Institution

reinforced

Portland

Stockholm,

51.

December

strength

Commentary

American

NYLANDER.

shear

January

for

Chicago,

by

shear
ACI

beqms

Vo1.65.

The

London.

ENGINEERING

deep

KANI.

No. 12.

deep

of

beams.

concrete

Detroit,

50.

of

AN ANATHANARAYANA,

and

GROUP.

COMMITTEE

PCA

1960.

87-98.

requirements

49.

riddle

61,

Vol.

Proceedings

1968.

ACI

January

N. J.

by

strength

Journal.

Engineers,
48.

The

of:

solution

shear

forced

reinforcement.

1587-1590.

Pp.

Ultimate

ultimate

Vol-56.

Proceedings

1964.

47.

its

and

the

on

tensile

with

Discussion

Journal.

ACI

shear

Proceedings

G.

failure

46.

beams

of

ACI

of

code

(AC1318-71).
1971.
on

AC1318-71..

1972.

concrete
University,
translation
London).
finite
deep
Review,

element
beams.
Vol.

68

1'3"

52.

ACI

COMMITTEE

408.

ACI

Journal.

Proceedings

197053.

67,

Vol.

bond

research.

No. 11.

November

article.

NCE,

pp"857-867.
Lightweight

ANON.
Magazine

54.

in

Opportunities

concrete.
Institution

the

of

Thomas

Telford

ANON.

Lightweight

Civil

of

June

Ltd.,

Engineers.

1974.
News

Construction

concrete.

Northwood

Supplement.

News

6th.

Ltd.,

Publications

May

1976.
55.

56.

COMMITTEE.

ACI

BOARD

ACI

Journal.

pp.

581-589.

Proceedings

The

ANON.
Lytag

Concrete

information

2000.

No. 8.

68,

Vol.

lightweight

all-round

general

Year

August

1971.

aggregate.
September

brochure.

1967-

8 pp.
57.

TEYCHENNE.

D. C.

lightweight
April
58.

ACI
59.

Journal.

ACI

lightweight

structural

and

EVANS,

ournal.

R. H.

How

safe

Proceedings

are

tensile

concrete.
July

Vol-58.

Nelson,

concrete.

G. N. J.

NANI,

No. 4

1,

diagonal

and

strength

Proceedings

F. K.,

KONG,
stressed

60.

Tensile

of

resistance

Vol.

Concrete.

111-122.

pp.

J. A.

with

made

concrete

aggregates.
1967.

HANSON,

Structural

1961.

Reinforced
London,

our

large

Vol.

65.

and
1975.229

prepp.

concrete
rlarch,

1-37.

pp.

beams?

1967"pp.

124-141.

I 44.

61.

62.

H. P. J.

TAYLOR,
A. S. C. E.,

Vol.

BEAUMONT,

C. J.

Strength
98,

reinforced

concrete

University

of

of

the

of
M. A.

beams.

Cambridge,

pp. 2473-2490"

1972.

investigation
deep

Proceedings

beams.

November

ST11.
An

large

behaviour

of

thesis,

1975"

I
63.

KONG,

F. K.,

beams

deep

for

Concrete
64.

K. N.

SMITH,

UNTRAUER,

Vol.

67.

Civil
(a

No. 5.

May

fatigue

Engineers.
paper

for

ACI

ICE

1973"

1965.
-

Magazine

evidence
of
Telford

in

preparation).

441-460.

pp.
high

Proceed-

Journal.
pp"70-104.

pp.

Thomas
is

of

of

the

normal

Proceed-

Journal.

ACI

deep

reinforced

Influence

R. L.

strength.

NCE,

article.

limitations

and

of

1974,

Uses

HENRY

loading

in

Shear

81-91.

pp.

strength

shear

Institute,

and

of

1977.
of

Concrete

February

and

Concrete

ANON.
News

No. 2.

R. E.

62,

the

reinforcement.

on bond

pressure
ings

72,

June

Effect

SP42:

439.

steel
Vol.

ings

S. M.
on

American

strength

Magazine

No. 99.

29s

FEREIG,

idealization

Structural

openings.

Publication

ACI

COMMITTEE

ACI

Vol.

and

concrete.

G. R.

web

conditions

beams.

66.

with

Research.

supporting

65.

SHARP,

and

577-586.
of

failure

revealed.

Institution
Ltd.,

25

of
August

1977.

1It5.

"'

Cracked

Uncracked

CONCRETE STRAIN
y

Cracked

Uncracked

`.

STEEL STRAIN

FIG.

1.1

EFFECT
STEEL

OF

INCLINED

AND CONCRETE

CRACKING
STRAINS

ON

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
N

a)
N
O

100

Computed

FIG.

1.4

300

200

ultimate

loads

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

400

OF COMPUTED
LOADS
ULTIMATE

COMPARISON

500

AND MEASURED

700

149.

E
E

In N
QJ t0
C1

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

General

2.1(a)

layout

Zone in which additional

vertical reinforcement
is needed
A=0.2Dor0.2L
A
whichever
is smaller

I-T0.5D or 0.5L

Zone in which additional

horizontal reinforcement
is needed
Zone of principal normal
reinforcement

whichever
is smaller

0.3D
or 0.3L
whichever
is smaller
Detail

2.1(b)

FIG.

2.1

at

support

REINFORCEMENT

PATTERN:

CEB-FIP

RECOMMEND XTIONS

3300kN

151

3300kN

11
COLUMN
BC

COLUMN

EFFECTIVE

WALL A

HT.

4800mm

SUPPORT LENGTH
600 mm

2.2(a)

l
ag

5400mm

General

arrangement

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

FIG.

deep

Structural

2.2(b)

2.2

DEEP

BEM's

IN

beam

DESIGN

element

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

FIG.

2.3

BEAM

24 NO. 25mm DIA. MAIN

BARS (IN THREES)

DESIGNED

TO

CEB-FIP

RECOMENDATIONS

16mm DIA. BARS

AT 150 CTS.

16mm DIA. BARS

AT 150 CTS.

WIDTH = 525 mm
FIG.

2.4

BEAM

BARS (3+5 PAIRS)

DESIGNED

TO

ACI

BUILDING

CODE

153.

06
Iy

LOAD AT
BOTTOM

0.5
\1/2O

0-4-0
c=

0.3

1o
1/s

Zj

_ho

0.2

L0TOPAT
01-0'

'"1yt

0.2

0.6

0.4

0.8

1.0

8
FIG.

2.5

PCA's

DESIGN

CHART

IJ

WIDTH =1050 mm
FIG.

2.6

BEAM

DESIGNED

1V V.

yV111111

LJIM.

IJP

(3+5 PAIRS)

TO PC

DESIGN

GUIDE

1%J

(A)

LYTAG

BATCH

MEDIUM

No. 1

FINE

GRADE

GRADE

Cumulative
B. S. Sieve

Size

Cumulative

B. S. Sieve

% retained

Size

3/16

11.8

15.4

3/16

97.4

14

34.7

98.3

25

48.4

52

55.8

100

63.2

Pan
Fineness

100.0
modulus

6.075
=

Pan
Fineness

(B)

BATCH

LYTAG

GRADE

MEDIUM

B. S. Sieve

Size

100.0
modulus

2.175

No. 2
FINE

Cumulative

GRADE
Cumulative

% retained

B. S. Sieve

Size

a, retained
,o

3/16

10.0

27.8

3/16

96.0

14

47.4

98.0

25

51.3

52

55.2

100

59.9

Fan
Fineness

100.0
modulus

6.030
=

Pan

Fineness

TABLE

; retained

3.1

SIEVE

ANALYSIS

OF LYTAG

AGGREGATES.

100.0

modulus

= 2.696

COARSE

GRADE

FINE

GRADE
Cumulative

Cumulative
D. S. Sieve

Size

B. S. Sieve

Size
% retained

% retained

3/16

48.0

3/16

97.6

14

32.1

99.6

25

49.3

100.0

52

89.2

100

99.6

Pan

Fineness

modulus

3.2

SIEVE

6.452
=

ANALYSIS

19.3

Pan

Fineness

TABLE

4.1

OF HOVE

INGHi

100.0

modulus

GRAVEL

= 2.936

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

0.7

0.8

0.9

05
"/.

FIG.

3.1

LOAD

v.

i XTi;

NSION

DIS\GR kNS

Extension

FOR REINFORCEMENT

158.

ed
I

otor
gating

Load
beam

irary

Test

rt

Travell i
beam

Winch

J4

FIG.

3.2

TUE

LOWING

&1PA: ZATUS:
.

GLNER %L %RRANGEMENT

jig

159.

Test

Dial

Specimen

Gauge

a0 III
Steel
Bracket

Bearing
Block

Anchor

Reaction
Assembly

FIG-3.3

TIIE

LOADING

APP aR. TUS :

.

DETAIL

AT TILE

SUPPORTS

Block

"

Beam

Ref.

No.

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

ri-o. 4/4

++
++

Web

XX

Web

Nimm

2
2
2
2

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

0
1
2
3

0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48

0.4

0.48

xx

fc

cu

Steel
i

opening
R ef. No .

11

ft""

N/mm

N/mm2

39.6
39.5
38.9
41.5

31.6
26.5
30.1
32.5

2.84
2.90
2.50
2.18

36.4

29.3

2.16

2
2
2
2

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

5
6
8
'9

0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48

40.9
33.2
35.3
35.8

31.3
32.4
30.4
29.2

2.30
2.84
2.74
2.60

0.4

10

0.48

34.0

2
2
2

0.4
0.4
0.4

38.7
38.1
38.7

33.8
32.0
33.8

2.78

11
12
13

0.48
0.48
0.48

35.8

0-0.4/0
0-0.4/2

2
2

0.4
0.4

0
2

0
0

37.1
38.1

32.6
32.4

2.50
2.45

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

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

0.25

38.4

34.0

2.68

36.4

2.80

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

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

0-0.25/2

0.25

42.6

2.62
2.60
2.62

0-0.25/4

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

Beam

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

fcu

cube

cylinder

xx
xxfc

ft

T. OLE

web

openings

strength

are

(100

compressive

cylinder
splitting
in
accordance
with

4.1

in

given

Figs.

4.2

(300

mm x

4.3

and

mm).

strength

tensile
ASTM

strength
Standard

PROPERTIES
OF TEST BEAMS
(Pilot
tests;
lightweight

(300
C330.

concrete).

150

mm).

mm x

150

mm)

Beam

Ref.

No.

Measured

w1

W1

W0

M-o. 4/o

660

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

580
360
445
450
600
270
340
240
300

0.88
0.55
0.67
0.68
0.91
0.41
0.52
0.36
0.45

M-0.4/11
N-0.4/12
M-0.4/13

600
520
130

0.91
0.79
0.20

0-0.4/0

660

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

1.0

370
340
540
190
420

0.56
0.52
0.82
0.29
0.64

0-0.25/0

660

1.0

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

360
460
560

0.55
0.70
0.85

280

0.42

0-0.25/6

"

kN

st

1.0

4.1

Beam

notation

W1/W0

is
beam
deep

ratio
of
with
openings
beam.

4.2

ME%SUIRED ULTIMATE
LOADS
(Pilot
tests;
lightweight

a
of
solid

TABLE

as

the

in

Table

the
to

measured
that
of

load
ultimate
the
corresponding

concrete)

162.
x
300mm
or 188 mm '
,

925 mm forxD=0.25
X/D=
700 mm for
0.40

100x100mm
Bearing blocks

170mm
6mm DIA.

6mm DIA.

Square stirrups
6mm DIA. bars

D
750

20mm. DIA Bar

I-

L 1500 mm

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

a2 D

C)
U,
tn

..
kl-

k2 DI

REF
NO.

FIG.

492

POSITION
k,
k2

SIZE
a1
a2
NO WEB
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

OPENING
0.8
1.0
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.75
0.4
1.0
0.12

0
1
2
3
4
5

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

6
7

0.5
0.5

0.2
0.2

0.5
0.5

0.12
0.6

8
9
10
11
12
13

0.25
1.0
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.0

0.4
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.4

1.0
1.0
0.63
1.0
0.63
1.0

0.3
0.45
0.3
0.45
0.45
0.3

OPENING

REFERENCE
TO BEAMS IN

NUMBERS:
4.1
TABLE

:IPPLIC?

1BLE

FIG.

1&. 3e

(The

164.
TYPICAL.
- GROUP

CRACK
PATT
M BEAM

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

show
the

; INS

XT FAILURE

the

unitq,

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

H_

M-0.4/9

M--(j 4/ iU

1V"

FIG.

4.3b

TYPICAL
GROUP
-

CRACK
PATTERNS
0 BEAMS

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

sham
the

AT

FAILURE

the*,

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/

FIG.
I
7

4.4

TYPICAL

SEQUENCE
APPEARED

(1

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

0 300
J

2 00

00

"2s

M'

peam

FIG.

4.6(a)

notation

MAXIMUM

as

in

CRACK

Table

WIDTHS

mm

(4.1)

GROUP M BEANS

169.

. -.
Z
0

(a) Group

X/D
0.4
with
=

beams

600
500
Z
400
0
300
J

200
100

(b) Group 0 beams

Beam

FIG.

4.6(b)

notation

MAXIMUM

with

as

in

CRACK

X/ D=0.25

Table(4.1)

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

-200 kN

16

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-.

00
00
4 00

00

Z
v

00

00

mm

zY
0

Beam

}IG.

.9

(a)

notation

as

AVERAGE

CRACK

in

(4.1)

Table

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

Beam

FIG.

4.9(b)

notation

AVERAGE

with

X/D

as

CRACK

25
=0 .

in

(4.1)

Table

WIDTHS

GROUP 0 BEAMS

174.

6
,5
z
0
3
J

600
500
z
400
300
J200

M 0413

100

Beam

F'IG.

4.1O(a)

notation

CENTRAL

as

in

Table

DEFELECTIONS

0.4
mm

(4.1)

GROUP M BEAMS

175.

14-

6 DO
-.
z

500
II

Y4 00

0r

3 00
J

oo.

2 00

u
O. 4

00

mm

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

600
500
z
0

400

C)300
200

o'

100

0.4

mm

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

Beam

FIG.

4.1O(b)

notation

CENTRAL

as

in

(4.1)

Table

DEFLECTIONS

GROUP

0 BEANS

176.

-1

WW
22

E1r-P=2-

0'
----

---

B'

--#-r-

i/i

k2D

k1 x

22

FIG.

4.11

E
4

LOAD-TRANSMISSION

PATHS

177.

QI

Qult

. 14

-1

k2 D

Qult

Qult (=W2/2)

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

FIG.

4.12

EXPLANATION

OF

strength

SYMBOLS

in
accordance
-

in

178.

Beam

L
D

*
Ref.

++
++

'. eb
opening
No.
ief.

x
D

No.

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

0-0.3/5

1.5

0.3

0-0.3/6
0-0.3/7
0-0.3/8
0-0.3/9
0-0.3/10

1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

6
7
8
9
10

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

1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

fc

steel

cu
N/mm2

N/mm2

0-0.3/16

1.5

0.3

16

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

0
4
13
16

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

H
+J
M

r.
b

E
a
.0
0
a
0

12

13
i4
15

ft
N/ium2

O h
ci

M
0
+)
M

11

Oxx

Beb

o
>-

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

**

0
a
0

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

39.2

35.0

2.74

33.4
43.7
33.0
45.0
36.0

33.3
39.2
31.8
38.1
33.6

2.89
3.04
2.61
2.80
2.85

30.8
36.7
41.3
33.2
35.2

33.3
33.1
37.8
30.2
33.6

2.78
3.11
2.92
2.76
2.92

37.6

3.07

37.4
39.6
39.5
38.9

2.93
3.19
2.85
2.76

43.4

39.6
42.0
38.5
40.4

CD

(continued

on

next

page)

s
Beare

notation:
web
no
reinforcement,
of
web
presence

letter

hyphen,
followed
the
t1-0.3/4
to
refers

Type

W1

web

(see

Fig.
3.1),
4.
type

opening

whilst
reinforcement;

after
Thus

having

an

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.
beams

four

Beam 0-0.3/28
identical
to
+,
-+F

with

was
Beam

reference
reinforcement

to
and

tests;

were

repeat

Beam

0-0.3/2,

so

on.

xx

5.1

PROP
(Further

see
RTIr'

continuation
S OF TLST
tests;

0.3

of

ratio

x/D

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

suffix

identical
0-0.3/3

x/D

x#

99
TABLE

letter
the

hyphen
indicates
1; indicates
the
is
ratio
given

by web-opening
web
a beam with

+The

X
XThe

the

before

next

page.

BEAMS

lightweight

concrete)

Beam

number.,
and

4was
to
Beam

viz.,

0-0.3/38

i(9.

xx

Beam
s

Web

opening
Ref.

No.

Ref.

++

71

Web

steel

No.

+)

fc

fcu

ss

xx

ft

N/mm2

N/mm

N/mm2

4
i
C-U

x
x
O-0.3/2R

1.5

0.3

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

1.5

0.3

37.3

31.7

3.03

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

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

4
4
4
4
4
4
4

1
W2
w3
w4
115
w6
a7

1.19
1.19
1.19
1.24
1.25
1.13

39.5
40.5
40.9
39.1
36.8
37.8
37.4

34.2
34.6
33.7
33.3
35.3
31.9
33.0

2.93
2.96
2.87
2.89
2.93
2.91
3.03

W1 (A)+

1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

4
4
4
4

111
113
4
W7

1.19
1.19
1.24
1.13

34.5
34.3
35.2
37.7

31.8
33.6
32.5
31.9

2.82
3.04
2.89
3.04

0.4

'1711.13

30.6

26.4

3.03

0.4

18

35.1
31.6

26.1
26.1

3.16
3.16

W3 (A)
114 (A(
117 (A)
::rri-0 . 4/0

WMi-0.4/18
4/18

wii-o.

0.4

1.11

1Yfi11.13

VIM 1 13
.

18

v
+xx

see

,9
++
++

Details

P(fcu

XXfc

of

= cube

TABLE

are

(100

compressive

cylinder
splitting
in
accordance
-

5.1

page.

openings

web

strength

= cylinder

ft

previous

PROPERTIES

with

given

Figs-5.2

in

5.4

and

mm)

(300

strength

tensile
ASTM

OF TEST

strength
C330.

BEAMS

mm x

(300

(Continued).

150

mm)

mm x

150

mm)

Beam

Ref.

No.

Measured

Beam

Ref.

Measured

W1 kN

No.

0-0.3/0
0-0.3/1

595
460

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

260
400

0-0.3/2

390

0-0.3/3
0-0.3/4

280
260

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

215
330

0-0.3/5

200

111-013/4

400

1;2-0-3/4

490

W1 kN

280
210

113-0.3/4
w4-0.3/4
,r5-0.3/4
w6-o. 3/4
W7-0.3/4

560
660
370
825
630

360

wl(A)

475

+W3(A)

500

0-0.3/13

300

A(A)

650

0-0.3/14

560

W7(A)

670

0
lal-0.4/
10,1-0. 4/18
irrt'-o . 4/18

660
500
500

0-0.3/6
0-0.3/7

250
420

0-0.3/8

380

0-0.3/9
0-0.3/10

0-0.3/11
0-0.3/12

560

0-0.3/15
0-0.3i16

260
195

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

655
360
500
340

0-0.2/16

*Beam

TABLE

notation

5.2

as

in

MEASURED
(Further

Table

5.1

ULTIMATE
LOADS
lightweight
tests;

concrete).

181.

1
6 mm

Beam

Dia

Geometry
LDxb
750 750

*10.2

For

""

s O. 3
-6 it 0.4

tAlckneac

Beam

j_.
1 16

1125 750
1524

762

(mm)
150

00

225 100
304

76

nu h

20 mm Dia

--T-100X100 mm.

blocks

bearing

i
s

TYPE
W1

TYPE

TYPE
QQ

W2

TYPE
ED

W4

QO

W7

NOTES:
(1)
Reinforcement

as
(2)

(3)

TYPE

TYPE

W5

we

shown

in

top

reinforcement.
(web
stirrups

diagrau

weh reinforcement
(web
stirrups

Tyre
steel

ratio

Learns

(no

web

C,

reinforcement)

above.
W;

to
:

ratio

Tyres
steel

Group

of

W7
1.2S)

WH and ti? t
- 1.13%)

AND
DIMENSIONS
(Further
tests

consisted

consisted

REINFORCEMENT
in
lightweight

[]

QQ

TYPE
WM'

details

Web

FIG-5.1

lw

TYPE
WM

TYPE

13

W3

10

of

of

mm diameter

6 mm diamuter

DETAILS
concrete)

182.

btx
tx=150 mm
=225mm
=304mm

for x/D =02

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

ai-x
750m

a2 D
kx

k2D

5.2

POSITION
ki
k2

al

0.30

0.20

1.00

0.40

0.50
0.70

0.20
0.20

1.00
1.00

1.00

0.20

1.00

0.40
0.40
0.40

1.20

0.20

1.00

0.40

1.50 0.20

1.00

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.20

0.50

0.40

0.70

0.20

0.70

0.40

10

1.30 0.20

1.30

0.40

11
12

0.30

0.20

1.00 0.666

0.30

0.20

0.30

13

1.00 0.20

14

0.20

1.00

0.134

15

0.30
0.30

0.20

0.30

0.134

16

1.00

0.20

1.00 0.134

17
18

0.30
0.25

0.20
0.25

0.65

0.40

0.622

0.375

.3
4

FIG.

SIZE

REF
No.
0

a2
NO OPENING

0.666

1.00 0.666

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

TO

183.

Five at 225 mm

750mm

FIG-5.3

1125mm

i
,o

FOUR

0i

POINT

LOADING

W1(A), w3(A),

FOR

BEANS

w4(A) and W7(A)

,
r

._
:.

0-0310

0-0-3/2

0-03/1

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

0-u-3/1U

0-0.3/11

FIG.

(The

5.4n

TYPICAL
CRACK
ROUP
r.
0
-

t' 1T'I',. RN .) AT FAILURK

(First
twelve)

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

0-0.3/15

0-0.2/4

FIG.

5 . 4b

(The

0-0.3/13

0-0.3/14

0-0.3/16

0-0.2/0

0-0.2/13

0-0.2/16

CRACK
TYPICAL
(The
remaining

PATTERNS
AT FAILURE
Group
0 beams)

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

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

in

which

numerical
at
which
marked.

1i

W1-0.3/4

W2-0.3/4

\& 4-03/4

W5-0.3/4

W3-0.3/4

W6-03/4

W1 (A)

W7-0.3/4

W3 (A)
FI(.

(The

W7 (A)

W4(A)
5 . 'tc

TYiIC. L CRACK 1
-iTT.
GROUP
BEMIS
W
-

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

show
other

the

.;

ir

I: tILUiiE

in
sequence
figures
numerical

the
cracks
which
load
the
show
.rere

L%, -

0-0-3/2R

0-0-3/3R

Beam
(The

circled
cracks
were
load,
in
10

cracks

FIrs.

0-0.3/5R

0-0.3/4R

were

3.4d

notation

as

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

TYPICAL

CRACK
(continued

Table

in

5.1

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

the

1 1TT-, i(N.;
)

AT

F. \ILUilE

188.

51
6

/166

60

`0

-i

40

\\

\\.

30

Ob
t

3O1

b1

80
to
t,

`O1

40 to

I
It/o-

BEAIM WINo.

y
44

44

54

50

2e
@t8
a

+a
so "

So

48
40

Ov9,

42

26
30

22
O

OOOa
i

24

34

la

44

34
22

+a

It

fat
to

48

BEAN WN-0.4/18

se
'

30 Ky`

ss
se
36

Oso
4

22'

r4

3O
2f

`$
!4
`
yo

40

TYPICAL

44

20
J`.

.9O

BEAM WM -

FIG-5.4e

36
22
30

44

)0

so

co

20

22

0.4/18

CRACK
(continued)

PATTERNS

AT

FAILURE

20
'- so

189.

600
Z 500
Y

-400

IZF

300

0'
0"0'

200

100

p'3

steel ; x/D=O. 3; openings

p-0
p-0'

3 (5

(a) No web

500-

400

O
J

300

Vll
0

0-6

.o
0 03

200

0'

311

0- '3

'
.

0.3

100

mm

(b) No Web steel; X%D

7-73
openings
=0.3;

0
0
J

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

Beam

FIG.

5.5

notation

MAXIMUM

as

in

CRACK

Table

WIDTHS

(5.1)

6
mm

600Z

5R

190,

70
60 0o
150
z
40

3l

030 0

4
31
w5_

20
0.3
mm

10
(d) Web steel

as

in

fig5.1;

x/D=0.3;

opening

No. 4

600
Z 500
400
%"
300
200

0.3

100

mm

(e) Web steel

as

in fig 5.1; 4pt. loading;

opening

Z
4

0
Q

O
J

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

NO.18

MAXIMUM

(continued)

FIG-5-5

CRACK

iiIDTH3

No. 4

191.

60(
50(1
40(

30(
201
10(

O4
mm

O.

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

600500.
40
300

0/1

-'

.1mI

200
100

mm

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

600500400

Po

.
ry

30020

04

10

mm

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

Beam

FIG.

5.6

notation

CENTRAL

as

DEFLECTIONS

in

Table

5.1

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;

FIG-5.6

CENTRAL

18
No.
0
x/ =0.4; opening

DEFLECTIONS

(continued)

193.

-']

500

-sr -

"

-,

a1

- 400

ai varies

from

zero to 1.5
0

300

20011

Opening

12345g

ref nos.

0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9

1.1 1.3 1.5

al
(a)

towards
a1 W 1)

increased
breadth
Opening
(For
to
breadth
x,
equal

support

X
i

%7r

50 0
Z

40

k1 varies from
zero to 1.3

0
J

30 0

201
7894
0.3

(b)

0.5

Opening
point

FIG.

5.7

ULTIP1ATL

10
0.7

0.9
kj

1.1

1.3

increased
breadth
(For
breadth
equal

STRENGTHS

OF DEEP

Opening
ref nos.

BEANS

towards
kl
to x,

WITH

loading
= i)

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

No.

Ref.

Web

opening

Web
No.

lef.

Ty p e

fcu
%

N/mm2

fcxx

ft

N/mm2

N/mm2

1.5
1.5

0.3
0.3

0
4

0
0

0
0

50.4
57.9

44.8
43.7

3.71
4.09

NW1-0.3/4
NW2-0.3/4
N113-0.3/4

0.3
0.3
0.3

4
4
4

NW4-0.3/4

1.5
1.5
1.5

1.19
1.19
1.19

51.7
51.1
60.0

36.8
43.4
46.2

1.5

0.3

Ill
W2
W3
w4

NW5-0.3/4
NW6-o. 3/4
NW7-0.3/4

1.5
1.5
1.5

0.3
0.3
0.3

4
4
4

W5
w6
'W7
.

1.24
1.11

45.3
50.9

3.94
3.43
3.80

39.5
43.5

3. 'i4
4.03

1.25
1.13

56.9
53.1

42.7
42.9

4.00
3.74

NW+T6A-0.3/0

1.5

0.3

w6A

0.65

40.8

1.5

0.3

W6A

55.2

0.57

3.58

50.2

39.4

3.41

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

3/1

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

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

++
++ Details

of

f=
Cu
xx
XX

cube

web

openings

strength

(100

are

given

Figs-5.2

in

and

6.2

150

mm)

150nm)

mm)

fc
s"

is

N0-0.3/0
N0-0.3/4

NW6A-o.

xx

ft

= cylinder

TABLE

compressive

cylinder
splitting
in
accordance
with

6.1

PROPERTIES

strength

tensile
[IS
1881

OF THE

(300

strength

NORMAL

mm x

(300

WEIGHT

CONCRETE TEST
BEAMS.

l,

Beam
No.

Ref.
"

load

Ult.

Measured

W1 kN

N0-0.3/0

680

No-0.3/4

240

NW1-0.3/4

420

NW2-0.3/4

580
620

NW3-0.3/4

NW4-0.3/4
N115-0.3/4
NW6-o. 3/4
NW7-0.3/4

780
370
1o6o
720

NW6A-0.3/0
Nw6A-0.3/1

1215
1015

Ntit6 A-0.3/4

620

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

840
930

NW6A-0.3/11

880

Nw6 A-0.3/15

820

Beam

in

notation

as

TABLE

6.2

MEASURED
NORM'1L

Table

6.1

ULTIM \TE LOADS

BE. ANS.
WEIGHT

OF THE

C)

L)9.

Beam

Normal

Ref.

Lightweight

weight

Beam

+
No.

NW6-0.3/4

'"

++
No.

concrete++

concrete+

Ref.

NQ-0-3/4

1.56

1.39

1-15

1.11

114-0.3/4

N`tiT7-o. 3/4

1.06

1.06

W7-0.3/4

N0-0.3/0
NW3-0.3/4

1.00
0.91

1.00
0.94

0-0.3/0
W3-0.3/4

N12-0.3/4

0.85

0.82

112-0.3/4

NR1-0.3/4
NW5-0.3/4
N0-0.3/4

0.62
0.54
0.35

0.67
0.62
0.36

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

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

1.79
1.49
0.91

NW6A-0.3/17

1.24

WA-0-3/7

1.37

NI,T6.A-0.3/11
NW6 A-0.3/15

1.29
1.21

Beam

notation

Deam

notation

+ Measured

++ Measured

TU3LE

ultimate

ultimate

6.3

16-0.3/4

as

in

Table

6.1

as

in

Table

5.1

loads

loads

= ult.

load

of

Beam

NO-0.3/O

ult.

load

of

Beam

0-0.3/0

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

200.

h-'7
f mrn_-

6 mmdi a

D
750mrn

Beam thickness
b 100mm

1
.1
TYPE
W1

20 mm dia

4-4

TYPE
W2

OD

TYPE
W5

W4,

J1111

Hill

00
1=
4:

100000
Bearing blocks

L 1125 mm

TYPE

TYPE
W7

-=-DD

TYPE
W3

TYPE
W6

C1,

Cl

TYPE

TYPE
W6A

W6A

Hill

II

NOTES:
(1")

Reinforcement
in
as shown

(2)

Web reinforcement
(web
stirrups

(j)

details
of Group
tot,
diagram
above
Type
steel

ratio

W1 to

0 beams

W7 consisted
1.13%)

(no

web

of

reinforcement)

10 mn, dinmeter

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

6.2a

(The

NW 7-0.3/4

NW6-0-3/4

NW 5-0.3/4

FIG.

.4

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

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

Beam

circled
cracks

notation

as

in

Table

6.1)

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

64-

10

Z6+
00

NW6A-0.3/0

NW6A-0-3/4

NW6A-0.3/17

NW6A-0.3/7

*Q

64

NW6A-0-3/1

NW6A-0.3/11

NW6A-0.3/15
not

FIG.

6.2b

CRACK

PATTERNS

NO, &IAL

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

I,
0

400

(',/1.-711Z1
--

%1%.

2,

300
200

5 p

Lio

0.3 m

N"

100
n

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

No 4.

1200
1100
1000
900
800

"Ali

700
600
'

500

400

0
300
200

0.3

100
0
(b) Web steel Type W6A(Fig 6.1);x/D=0.3; opening varies
Beam

FIG

6.3

notation

MAXIMUM

as

in

Table

CR %CK WIDTHS

6.1

204.

1000
900
800
700
h

600
v

500
0

400

300

"41m

200
100
0
(a) Web steel as in Fig 6.1; x/D=0.3; opening No. 4
1200
1100
1000
9 00
I

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

FIG.

.4

notation

CENTR \L

as

in

DEFLECTIONS

Table

6.1

Beam
Ref.

Ultimate
Measured
W1 kN

,
No.

Loads
Computed
W2 kN

11
`_

M-o. 4/0
M-o. 4/1

660

+695

0.95

580

0.98

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

360
445

590
406
231

1.93

M-0.4/4

450

1.66

M-o. 4/5

600

270
+
+6oo

M-o. 4/6
M-o. 4/8

270

102

2.64

340

193

1.76

M-o. 4/9

240

268

0.89

M-0.4/1o

300
600

241
+
+657

1.25

M-0.4/12

520

+653

0.80

M-0.4/13

130

163

0.79

0-0.4/0

660

0-0.4/2

370

352

1.05

0-0.4/4

340

1.22

0-0.4/5

540

277
+
+550

0.98

0-0.4/6

74

2.56

0-0.4/7

190
420

423

0.99

0-0.25/0

660

$662

0-0.25/2

441

0.81

0-0.25/4

360
460

0-0.25/5

560

337
$689

1.36
0.81

0-0.25/6

280

M-0.4/11

0.88

1.00

0.91

+590

1.12

1.00

125

2.23

Continued
a

Beam

notation

+Equation

TABLE

(7.1)

7.1

as

in

used

MEASURED

Table
for

AND

next

page

4.1
these

COMPUTED

beams;

Egn. (7.2)used
for
others.

ULTIM%TE

LOADS

Beam
Ref.

Ultimate
Measured
x,11 kN

,
No.

w1

Loads
Computed
W2 kN

if

0.91

0-0.3/1

595
460

+651
+637

0.72

0-0.3/2

390

295

1.32

0-0.3/3

280

275

0-0.3/4

260

275

1.02
0.95

0-0.3/5

200

278

0.72

0-0.3/6

287

0.87

0-0,3/7

250
420

396

1.06

0-0.3/8

380

341

0-0.3/9

280

325

1.11
o. 86

0-0.3/10

210

243

0.86

0-0.3/11

360

0.77

0-0.3/12

560

467
+
+707

0-0.3/13

300

0.62

0-0.3/14

560

483
+
+664

0-0.3/15

260

0-0.3/16

195

183
48

1.42
4.00

0-0.2/0

655

0-0.2/4

360

356

1.01

0-0.2/13

500

507

0.99

0-0.2/16

340

92

3.70

0-0.3/0

Beam

Notation

+Equation

TABLE

as

(7.1)

7.1

in

used

Continued.

0.84

+720

Continued
s

0.79

Table
for

0.90

next

page

(5.1)
these

beams;

equations
for
used

(7.2)
the

others

k)7"
.

Beam
Ref.

Ultimate
No.

"

Measured

Computed

W
2

W2 k

W1 kN

0-0.3/2R

Wi

Loads

284

0.92

0-0.3/3R

260
400

266

1.50

0-0.3/48

215

294

0.73

0-0.3/5

330

295

1.12

WI-0-3/4

400

"'

W2-0.3/4

490

""

W3-0.3/4

560
660

557

1.01

791

0.83

..

6-0.3/4

370
825

798

1.03

W7-0.3/4

630

536

1.18

w1(A)

475

'

W3(A)

552

0.91

w4(A)

500
650

797

0.82

W7(A)

670

542

1.24

WN-o. 4/o
pari-o. 4/i8

660

+667

0.99

500

356

1.4

WM`-o. 4/18

500

356

1.4

w4-o. 3/4
W5-0.3/4

Continued

next

page

Beam

notation

+Equation

TABLE

as

(7.1)

7.1

in

used

Continued.

Table

for

(5.2)

these

beams;

equations
for
used

(7.2)
the

others.

1)8.

Beata
Ref.

Ultimate
Measured
w1 kN

"
h'o.

Loads
Computed
W2 kN

W1
W
2

No-0.3/0

680

+861

No-0.3/4

, 240

367

0.65

NW1-0.3/4

420

NW2-0.3/4
NW3-0.3/4

580
620

, ""
651

0.95

NW4-o. 3/4

780

867

0.90

NW5-0.3/4

370

NW6-0.3/4

1060

907

1.17

720

591

1.22

1215

+991

1.22

1015
620

+944
542

1.14

NW6.%-0.3/17

840

1.4

NW6A-0.3/7

930
880

593
652

1.4

845

1.04

402

NW7-0.3/4

Nw6A-0.3/0
Nw6A-0.3/1
NW6A-0.3/4

NW6A-0.3/11
NW6A

820

0.3/15

0.79

1.07

"

Beam

notation

+Equation

TABLE

as

(7.1)

7.1

in

used

Table

for

(6.2)

these

beams;

Continued.

equation
for
used

(7.2)
the

others.

209.

kw
Ix -

k2 D

E`
f
F4

/B

}L
`2
. D

Upper Path
Lower Path

w
2

FIG. 7.1

THE STRUCTURAL

IDEALIZATION

lU.
.
Quit

Beam thickness
b

y
C

Aw

As
I

FIG 7.2(a)

lt

Y
Y

y1

Aw

k2D

FIG 72 (b)

As

,o

K1X

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

C2

is
an empirical
130 N/mm
for

to
equal
and plain

coefficient
bars
deformed

300

N/mm"
and
bars,
round

respectively
A

is
coefficient
an empirical
(: 1 ) near
longitudinal
bars
(k
web reinforcement
prooper

is
of

to
the
equal
the
web bars

area
(A
w)

ft,

is

the

splitting

FIG-7.2

cylinder

EXPL %N.%TION

of
as

the
the

equal
beam

1.0

bars
may

(1
be

for
and

main
1.5
for

W)
main
case

strength

OF

to
soffit

SYMBOLS

of

concrete

or

the

area

211.

225

cxl=53'

10 mm
Stirrups

Dia.

O
O

` = 53

k, x1
225

ft

FIG.

7.3

2-87

b=

100

All

dimensions

PROPERTIES

20 mm

1125

r-

N /Tnm2
mm
in

mm.

%ND DIMENSIONS

OF BEAM

W3_O. 3/4

212.

O
a)
v

W2kN (Computed)
Data

FIG-7.4

taken

from

Table

7.1

OF COMPUTED
COMPARISON
LOADS
ULTIDIATE

\ND

MEASURED

213

v,
0

FIG.

8.1

DESIGN

EQUATIONS:

GEOMETRIC%L

NOTATION

214.

Symetrical
about

All dimensions
in millimetres

4500kN
x-1400
Qx 750

1,

a2 D=1000

kx
1200
,,.,r

D= 4800
k2 D= 2600

or
.

L6

L_

Normal wt. concrete.

fc = 22.5 N/mm2
fcu = 30.0 N /mm2
ft = 3.0 N/mm2

FIG.

8.2

DESIGN

Deformed bars
fy = 410.0 N/mm2

EX\1PLE:

GEOMETRY

AND LOADING

215.

threes)__

Bea
b=E

FIG.

8.3

DESIGN

EXNNPLE:

DETAILS

MAIN

STEEL

AND WED STEEL

=1O.

Beam

Ref.

ACI
w /W5

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

2.09
2.02

1.62
2.44

0-0.25/0

1.94

2.28

6.0

0-0.3/0
0-0.2/0

1.61
1.75

2.04
2.07

5.1
3.7

3.29

2.13

N0-0.3/0

1.52

1.70'

NW6a-0.3/0

2.98
2.38

No.

Wh_. 0

Average

4/0

values

CIRIA
J1/lJ7

PCA
W1 W

CEF3
by /W4

6.2
6.1

1.66
1.87
1.72

1.57
1.66
1.75

10.1

4.2

1.41

2.37

7.9

2.24

2.08

6.2

1.73

Beam
W1
in

notation

is
the
Tables

as

measured
4.2,5.2

given

ultimate
6.2
and

of

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

TABLE

9.1

COMPARISON

'*.

Tables,

in

the

195.1

beams

6.1

and

as

given

design
computed
Recommendations.
Information
Concrete

OF COMPUTED

DESIGN

LOADS

217.
= 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

Effective span (/)

=( 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 )

Clear shear spantheight

(0 1)

Concrete grade U)

-.
15

20

25

30

40

1.0

2.52

2.91

3.25

3.56

4.11

0.8
0.6

2.79
3.06

3.22
3.53

3.60
3.95

3.94
4.33

4.55
5.00

0.4
0.2

3.33
3.60

3.85
4.16

4.30
4.65

4.71
5.09

5.44
5.88

3.87

4.47

5.00

5.48

6.32

TABLE 5

Maximum shear stress parameter, v,,,,

Concrete grade (%u)

'mrx

15

5.03

20

5.81

25

6.50

30
40

7.12
8.22

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

TABLE 6

%main (sagging) steel (p,,,, )

Clear shear span/lieight

(x/h)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

0.20
0.24
0.29
0.34
0.38

0.39
0.48
0.57
0.67
0.75

0.59
0.71
0.86
1.01
1.13

0.78
0.95
1.15
1.34
1.50

0.98
1.19
1.43
1.68
1.88

0.39

0.78

1.17

1.56

1.95

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

,

TABLE 7

%horizontal web reinforcement (p. h)

Clear shear span/height

(x/11)

TABLE 8

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.0
0.8

0.12
0.15

0.15
0.18

0.17
0.21

0.20
0.24

0.29
0.36

0.30
0.48

0.40
0.60

0.6

0.18

0.22

0.25

0.29

0.43

0.57

0.72

0.4
0.2

0.21
0.23

0.25
0.28

0.29
0.33

0.34
0.37

0.50
0.56

0.67
0.75

0.84
0.94

0.24

0.29

0.34

0.39

0.59

0.78

0.98

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

FIG. 9.3

(N/mm2)

CIRIA

0.15

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.0

0.07
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00

0.10
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00

0.15
0.09
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.00

0.20
0.12
0.06
0.02
0.00
0.00

0.29
0.18
0.10
0.03
0.00
0.00

0.39
0.24
0.12
0.04
0.01
0.00

0.49
0.30
0.16
0.05
0.01
0.01

4 to

8)9

DESIGN

TABLES

(Nos.

219.

12mm &a. bars

each face

at 75. cts.

I,

12mm dia bars at 150 cts.

each face

II I'
12m
at 1

ia. sti rr
C

12mm dia. stirrups

at 150 cts.

Required beam
width = 500 mm

FIG.

9.4

BEAM

4 No. 25 mm dia main

ars (in threes)

DESIGNED

TO CIRI,

\ GUIDE

220,

it
iiiii_

Width of applied kad

- Centreof compression
M
0

Compression
band widths for
assessing hole
admissibility

Actual stress trajectory

loser to this bne

Compression band

Lt
M
O

N
O

L
Tensionband
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

FIG. 9,5

of opening
given
above

0.2

times

ASSESSMENT OF HOLE ADMISSIDILITY:

CIRIA
GUIDE (FIG. 19)9

width

of

notional

221.

-1
re

of

Con prc:, tion

Compression
bond widths
for assessing

odmissibihty

BI

'--

Tension
band
width

Condition

-- -ifik`i\--

admissibility:

of

Dimension

O. 2 x

hole

of

width
band

force
of notional
consideration.
under

Examples:
Hole
Holes

Hole

FIG. 9.6

A-

Il, C, I)

E-

(cf.

adm: issible
5.4)
and

not
and

max.
the

type

11,

Fig.

(cf.

opening

type

5.2
for

admissible
sizes
opening
bands
force
considered

admissible
5.4)

CIRIA
GUIDE'S
HOLES APPLIED

opening

14, Fig.

CONDITION
OF ADMISSIBILITY
TO TEST SPECIMENS

OF

5.2

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

o"zst
-0.79

DEANS

AROUND

AN OPENING:

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)

FIG.

9.8

TYPICAL

/ 1-9

0 OSl

PRINCIPAL

0-45L

STRESSES:

CIRIA

GUIDE

(FIG.

51)9

223.

Steel fully anchored

-1

Equivalent hole

Actual hole

Sarre area of steel used

to reinforce actual We
as equivalent hole

Notional
simply
deep
beam

FIG.

9.9

REINFORCEMENT

AROUND

supported

AN OPENING:

CIRIA

GUIDE

(FIG.

24)9

_24

'+

Beam
Ref.

Embedment

+Lx

DD

No.

0-0.3(25fh)

1.25

0.3

mm

200+Std.

hook

fcu

rc

ft

N/mm2

N/mm2

N/mm2

37.6

31.3
35.5
32.7
31.5
32.3

2.53
2.63
2.77
2.48
2.83

0-0.3

(25)

1.25

0-0.3
0-0.3
0-0.3
0-0.3

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

0.3

1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25

0.3

0.3
0.3
0.3

120
, 80
0

36.7
39.0
37.2

33.0

3.10

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.55
0.55
0.55

Std. hook
80
0

39.6
39.8
40.0

36.7
37.2
37.7

2.50
2.50
2.45

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

"

Length,

""

36.2

200
Std.

41.2

hook

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

+fc

ft

= cube

= cylinder

strength

compressive

splitting
= cylinder
in
accordance
-

TABLE

A1.1

(100

mm)

strength

tensile
ASTM
with

PROPERTIES

OF TEST

(300

mm x

strength
0330.

SPECIMENS.

(300

150

mm)

mm x

150

mm

Beam

Computed

Measured
Ultimate
Loads
pult

Reference
R
No.

pp
ult/

flex

kN

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

3.37
3.37

0-0.3

(h)

320
320
300

3.16

0-0.3

(15)

320

3.37

0-0.3

(io)

300

3.16

0-0.3

(o)

i8o

1.89
2.52
2.52

1.86

0-0.55(h)
0-0.55

(10)

190
i90

0-0.55

( o)

140

Beam

notation

as

given

in

Table

A1.1

ii

Ratio
flexural

TABLE

of

Al.

measured
design

ultimate
(Pflex
load

ULTIMATE

(Pult)
load
) using

LOADS

to
computed
Eqn. (9.1).

,.: 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

2 No 8 mm dia bars

Varies

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

SPECIMENS

details

given

are

in

lzef.

12)

317mm or, 508 mm

No web reinforcement
E
E

2 No 8 mm dia bars

N
i:Rl
-L

38 mm i r.
952mm or 1524
Varie s

FIG.

A1.2

DIMENSIONS
DETAILS

AND REINFORCEMENT
OF THE

PRESENT

TEST

SPECIMENS

227.

200,
Z
Y

(10

(0)
55
p-O.

-0.55
O-O. 55 (h1

ioo

O. 4mm

300

200

OO

FIG.

Beam

notation

A1.3

CENTRAL

as

r`
O

in

O
Table

D:. FLi, CTION

0.4 mm

F
(A1.1)

CURVES

goo9

228.

II

III-(1O

[---

h0
i

-o-5

200

0_0.55

5 Ol

IOO Q

O_ 0.551h;
O.5 mm

300
Z

200
O

]
N
LA

`9
p

Beam

FIG.

notation

A1.4

0
p

D
p

as

in

MAXIMUM

IT

?
O

Table

(Al.!

CRACK

WIDTHS

I00

0.5 mm

0-0-3(0)

0-0-305)

ream

0-0-5500)

0-0-55(h)

0-0 3(h)

UU AMA

0-0 3 (25)

U-U 3(25+h)

notation

in

as

Table

'. 1.1

The

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

Cit. \CK

FIG. ' 11.5

4I
t

"1YC

gyn.

-i+'i

sR

Y
1Y

1flit
''F t$

Tyf,

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

fS.

'7414

ti

i' \TTt; KN: i

'ik`ttl
L'

t''..

"

\T

F1IlAJU

N-..
`,

A, r

ife.
,

'1

"i4
1.
t

Beam
Ref.

L
D

Web

x
D

No.

fo

steel
%

Type

fo

N/mm

N/mm2

ft++

Test

N/mm

age

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

PI fcu

fc

= cube

= cylinder

++f
t=

The
the

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

strength

(100

compressive

cylinder
splitting
in
accordance
-

Age

in
days
on the
same
approximately

at
completion
day
and the
41 days.

TABLE

PROPERTIES

A2.1

mm)

completion

at

(300

strength

tensile
ASTri
with

test
of
duration

OF

TEST

strength
Standard

of

(Fig.
is

given

of

mm x

(300
C330.

beams
all
test
each

SPECIMENS

A2.1)

test.

150

mm)

mm x

were
was

150

cast

mm)

Ref.

ACI

Measured

Beam
No.

ult.

1A-2/0.4

load

load

kN

kN

Diagonal
cracking

load

Singh's

test

beams

kN

283

157

646

B-2/0.4

687

294

216

685

C-2/0.4

726

274

274

724

Beam

706

notation

Measured
further

TABLE

as

ultimate
details

A2.2

in

Table

load
of
given
are

MEASURED

A2.1

test
Singh's
in Reference

AND COMPUTED

LOADS

beams;
32.

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

E
ON

L 15 24mm

38 mm

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
0.4 1mm

200
100

FIG.

CENTRAL

A2.2

DEFLECTIONS

B-2/b-4. -2i

600
500
LJ
400
300

0.1

Cl

200

100

FIG.

Beam
The
by
and

M kXIMUM

A2.3

notation

beginning
(.
),
dot
a
that

of

as

DI 4GONAL

in

Table

CRACK

WIDTHS

A2.1

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

is
(x)

indicated

500
400
`L
.

Y 30C

10

.u

//

0.4 mm

200I
O

J 100

Beam

notation

as

Singh's

beams

further

details

FIG

1 2.4

in

Table

-t2.1
by

indicated

are
are

given

in

an asterisk
Reference
32.

COMP URISON OF SINGIH' S AND PRESENT

CENTRAL
DEFLECTIONS
RESULTS:

(");

TEST

235.

A-2/ 0.4

C-2/ 0.4

B-2/0.4

learn
Numerical
each
crack
load,
The
load
during
y ea rn

1-t,

B-2/0-4

notation

as

in

Table

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

. -k

Cl = 120,000
C2 = 100,000
200,000
,3:
C4 - 300,000
(; 5 a 100,000

Qyclee,
cycles,
cycles,
cycles,
cycle.,

Stage
hege
Stage
itage
stage

1
2
2
2
3

3/004
Seam 0Cl = 120,000
C2 s 150,000
C3 = 300,000
C4 : 100,000

cyclsP
cycles,
cycles,
cycles#

Stave
Stage
4tae
Stage

1
2
2
3

FIG.

A2.1

A2"5

CROCK IIATT61LNS

.: e <im

Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5

v=

2/0

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

AT VAILURE;

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

at which
at that
cracking

Stage
.itage
Stage
Stage
stage

1
1
2
2
2