This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

Title no. 105-S65

TECHNICAL PAPER

**Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams under Uniformly Distributed Loads
**

by Prodromos D. Zararis and Ioannis P. Zararis

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

Keywords: beam; reinforced concrete; shear; strength; uniform load.

shear reinforcement must satisfy to restrain the growth of diagonal cracking and prevent brittle failure. In this study, the previously referred theories are adapted for the case of beams under uniformly distributed loads and the following was determined: 1. The ultimate shear capacity of reinforced concrete slender beams under a uniform load, where the size effect is taken into account and a criterion for the minimum shear reinforcement is considered; and 2. The ultimate shear capacity of reinforced concrete deep beams under a uniform load. It is shown that the theoretical results can explain, in a rigorous and consistent way, the experimentally observed behavior of slender as well as of deep beams failing in shear. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Reinforced concrete beams subjected to uniformly distributed loads are the most common case in practice. The study of shear resistance of these beams, however, is very limited. The proposed theory explains the mechanism of shear failure in slender and deep beams subjected to uniform loading. The theory results in simple and easy-touse expressions, which predict the ultimate shear force within 4.5% and 4.3% of experimental observations of slender and deep beams, respectively. SHEAR STRENGTH OF BEAMS UNDER CONCENTRATED LOADS—AN OVERVIEW Slender beams without shear reinforcement10 In slender beams (that is, beams with a shear span-to-depth ratio [a/d] > 2.5) without shear reinforcement under twopoint loading (or one-point loading at midspan), the critical crack, leading to collapse, typically involves two branches (Fig. l(a)). The first branch is a slightly inclined shear crack, the height of which is approximately that of the flexural cracks. The second branch initiates from the tip of the first branch and propagates toward the load point crossing the compression zone, with its line meeting the support point. Failure occurs by the formation of this second branch. The second branch of the critical diagonal crack is caused by a type of splitting of concrete in the compressive zone. The stress distribution along the line of splitting, however, is not similar to that occurring in the common split cylinder test (Fig. 2). The theory10 results in a simple expression Vcr = (c/d)fct bwd, where bw is the width of the beam. The nominal shear stress

ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2008. MS No. S-2007-142 received April 20, 2007, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2008, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the September-October 2009 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by May 1, 2009.

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

711

d⎞ -.2 -. 1). An essential condition for the shear failure of beams is the yielding of stirrups at the critical crack. can be calculated from fct = 0.2(a/d)d < 0. is not sufficient. Up to the formation of the second branch of the critical crack. Moreover. and (b) with stirrups. (1). Taking into account that a = (a/d)d. By the cracking of the second branch of the critical crack. 1).9 fits well with the results of the common split cylinder test. The shear force Vcr in Eq. using this expression in Eq. Shear failure of a slender beam occurs only when the shear force Vd developed in the longitudinal steel bars (Fig. Moreover.10.5 + 0.2 -. Ioannis P. 2—Distribution of normal stresses along line of second branch of critical diagonal crack (+ = tension. again as the beam without stirrups.65. the correction factor is still taken as 0.25 --⎞ ρv f yv b w d ⎝ d⎠ (5) Fig. the stirrups take action and the strength of the beam increases. and Vcr is the shear strength at diagonal tension cracking. He received his MSc and DIC in concrete structures and technology from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. The depth c of the compression zone in Eq.-. consequently. 1—Final crack pattern of slender test beams: (a) without stirrups2. which are formed in the same region. — = compression). Zararis is a Chartered Civil Engineer. Zararis is a Professor of civil engineering at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. according to this analysis.ACI member Prodromos D. (1) is given by the positive root of the following equation11 ρ + ρ′ c c 2 ρ + ρ′ ( d′ ⁄ d ) ⎛ --⎞ + 600 -------------. as is commonly believed. 712 where ρv is the ratio of shear reinforcement = Av/bws. MPa. 2) causes a horizontal splitting of the concrete cover along the longitudinal reinforcement (Fig. however. from Eq. cited in Eurocode 2. Thessaloniki. Moreover. This condition. UK. but also on the a/d.– 600 ------------------------------.= 0 ⎝ d⎠ fc ′ d fc ′ (3) where fc′ is the compressive strength of concrete. when not known from experiments. the size effect in beams appears to depend not only on the depth d. London. Av is the area of vertical stirrups within a distance s. (1). Finally.2 – 0. By analyzing the way that horizontal splitting occurs along the longitudinal reinforcement. The critical crack.2 – 0. ρ′ is the ratio of compression reinforcement = As′/bwd. and his PhD from Aristotle University. (vcr = Vcr /bwd) at the diagonal tension cracking (formation of the second branch of the critical crack) is a product of the ratio of neutral axis depth c to effective depth d of the beam and the splitting tensile strength of concrete fct.15 This expression. It is rational to consider that the cause of the formation of the second branch of the critical diagonal crack and the corresponding cracking load is identical in both cases.f ct b w d ⎝ d ⎠d where a 1.2 – 0. the obtained predictions for the shear strength of beams without stirrups are in very good agreement with the experimental results. the expression becomes a c . typically involves two branches. shear strength of beam without stirrups. the failure of beam.65. the problem of size effect on the shear strength of beams reduces to a problem of size effect on the splitting tensile strength of concrete. He is a PhD candidate at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. This involves a superposition of the shear strength of beams without shear reinforcement and the shear strength provided by shear reinforcement.11 to avoid an undesirable widening of the critical diagonal crack (as well ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008 .V cr = ⎛ 1.or two-point loads acting at a distance a (shear span) from the support. fyv is the yield strength of shear reinforcement. This splitting results in the loss of the shear force Vd and.11 the following simple expression of shear strength of slender beams is derived.30fc′ 2/3 (MPa) (4) Fig. ρ is the ratio of main tension reinforcement = As /bwd. Introducing a correction factor to account for the size effect in slender beams. the splitting tensile strength of concrete fct . that is. His research interests include the study of behavior of reinforced concrete structural elements under various loading conditions. and d′ is the effective depth to compression reinforcement.d ≥ 0. the effect of stirrups can be considered negligible.65 (d in m) d (2) (1) For values of 1. (1) represents the ultimate shear force of a slender beam without shear reinforcement subjected to one. His research interests include the study of behavior of reinforced concrete structural elements under various loading conditions.11 Slender beams with stirrups11 The crack pattern of slender beams with stirrups is similar to that of beams without stirrups (Fig. a V u = V cr + ⎛ 0. Greece.

3—Final crack pattern of deep test beam: (a) front side. whereas 713 (7) where R = 1 + (ρv/ρ)(a/d)2 (8) Equation (7) shows that the depth cs is a portion of the depth c above the flexural cracks. 4(b)).5). This splitting occurs in the most diagonally compressed area. 4—Forces on free-body diagram of a deep beam: (a) by formation of critical diagonal crack: and (b) at failure. The critical diagonal crack also has two branches. beams with a shear span depth ratio a/d < 2. 4(a)) increases significantly. This depth cs is much smaller than the depth c of the compression zone above the tip of the flexural cracks (Fig. and (b) detail of critical diagonal crack. longitudinal reinforcement (Fig.= ---------------------------------------. the normal and shear forces in the concrete compression zone above the critical diagonal crack increase excessively.75(a/d) (6) Fig. resulting in a horizontal cleavage of concrete cover along the main reinforcement that eventually causes the loss of force Vd. 3). the depth cs is given by the simple expression 2 cs 1 + 0. After that. The stirrups yield upon higher loading after the formation of the critical diagonal crack. eventually resulting in concrete crushing in this zone. 3).5 (approximately). 5(a)). 3). this area is near the support reaction. (3). According to the analysis12 of the equilibrium of forces acting on a free-body diagram of a deep beam at failure (Fig. In beams under two-point loading (Fig. the critical diagonal crack is governed by shear rather than by bending. The critical diagonal crack in slender beams under a uniform load always occurs near the support and not near a quarter point of beam.0 < a/d < 2.-2 d 1 + R(a ⁄ d) d (9) which is valid for deep beams with and/or without web reinforcement.⎝ a⁄d d⎝ d⎠ d ⎠ ⎝ d⎠ Equation (6) constitutes the criterion for minimum shear reinforcement.5 ---s⎞ f c ′ + 0. the shear failure is mainly caused by concrete crushing in the compression zone at the top of the critical diagonal crack (Fig. where failure occurs. In this case. providing an increased ductility and preventing a sudden shear failure. According to analysis. the ultimate shear force is given by c 2 a 2 bw d c c V u = --------. but in beams under a uniform load. 4(a)). an arch action exists. 1). This type of failure is known as shear compression failure. Then the shear force Vd of the ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008 . in relation to the ratio ρ of main tension reinforcement. Deep beams12 In deep beams (that is. SHEAR STRENGTH OF BEAMS UNDER UNIFORM LOAD Slender beams As previously discussed. The height of the first branch is approximately that of the flexural cracks.16 as that of the horizontal splitting crack).c --.5ρv f yv ⎛ 1 – ---s⎞ ⎛ --⎞ . A determining factor in shear compression failure of deep beams is the depth cs of the compression zone above the critical diagonal crack.27R ( a ⁄ d ) . the ratio ρv of shear reinforcement.12 taking into account the forces acting on the critical diagonal crack (Fig. the shear failure of slender beams is caused by a type of concrete splitting along the line of the second branch of the critical diagonal crack. because it initiates very close to the support (Fig.Fig. must satisfy (approximately) the following equation ρ/ρv ≤ 1. this area is near a point load. This is clearly observed in the patterns of cracking of test beams (Fig. found by Eq.---s ⎛ 1 – 0. Especially for 1.

2 – 0.5d) ≥ 0. (3). in the area closest to the support area. has been formed (diagonal shear failure). 7(a)). in Eq. (b) ideal shear span determination. 5(b)). 5.65 (d in m) (12) (11) Fig. (14) can be obtained by substituting. Experimental evidence1-3 indicates that behavior of test beams with approximately l/d > 10 is different from that of beams with l/d < 10. one can conclude that under a uniform load. For slender beams under a uniform load. respectively.5 d where the size effect factor in this case is (1.--2 d 1 + R ( l ⁄ d ) ⁄ 16 d (14) where R = 1 + (ρv /ρ)(l/d)2/16 (15) It can be seen that Eq. The stress state in this area is similar to that in a slender beam under two-point loading (Fig. an ideal shear span ai must be determined by analogy to point-loaded beams. the ratio a/d with the ratio l/(4d). a failure occurs due to concrete crushing in a reduced compression zone above the tip of the critical diagonal crack (shear compression failure). in test beams with l/d < 10. and (c) statically equivalent loading arrangement. (3) and (4). 2).2. where the concrete crushing occurs. (10).2ρv f yv d -. q force per unit length.3 the line of the second branch is meeting the support point (Fig. the uniform load qu under which the shear failure occurs in slender beams with or without stirrups can be obtained by 2b w c q u = --------------. and in the case of uniform load.f ct + 1.5 (10) Substituting the force 0. the depth cs is obtained 2 cs 1 + 0. each having a value of 0. possibly occurs at the most stressed area. ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008 . a determining factor in shear compression failure of deep beams is the depth cs of the compression zone above the tip of the critical diagonal crack.17 Then.5). may be substituted by a statically equivalent loading arrangement of two concentrated loads at the ends of the ideal shear span. As in the case of deep beams under concentrated loads. Furthermore. (1) and (5) with Eq. 5(c)). which results in the formation of the second branch of the critical diagonal crack. Thus. as it has been suggested in previous analytical studies.5q(l – ai). The uniformly distributed load. that is. it is shown that the span length to depth ratio (l/d) of a deep beam is less than 10. 6). The depth c of the compression zone and the splitting tensile strength fct in Eq.2 –0. Equation (14) shows that the depth cs is a portion of the depth c above the flexural cracks given by Eq. Failure occurs at approximately the quarter points of the beam span (Fig. 5(a) and (b)). (6) and (10).– 2. It is the distance from the support to the tip of the critical diagonal crack (Fig. and (b) with stirrups. over the ideal shear span. the derived equations for the case of slender beams under two-point loading are also valid for slender beams under a uniform load. Under this point loading arrangement. an ideal shear span ai = l/4 can be considered. Following the considerations made by a previous analysis of deep beams under two-point loading12 and the forces that act on the critical diagonal crack (Fig. the ideal shear span to depth ratio is approximately ai/d = 2.5qai (Fig. where is the span length of the beam.= ------------------------------------------------. (11) can be taken from Eq. taking into account that a/d < 2.5q(l – ai). by Eq. where the total shear force V in these equations is equal to 0. Also. as it is shown in Fig.( 1. By contrast. the shear force over the ideal shear span has a constant value of 0. 5—Slender beams under uniform load: (a) final crack pattern of test beam2.27R ( l ⁄ d ) ⁄ 16 c --. In test beams with l/d > 10. a failure occurs after a critical diagonal crack consisting of two branches. 6—Final crack pattern of deep test beams under uniform load: (a) without stirrups2. and 2) for a slender beam (a/d > 714 Deep (short) beams For a deep beam under a uniform load. the criterion for minimum shear reinforcement is approximately ρ/ρv ≤ 4. length ai.5q( – ai) for the force V in Eq.5.5d ) -. taking into account that: 1) in slender beams under a uniform load. (7).4 (13) Fig. concrete splitting.

Shear compression failure in a deep beam under a uniformly distributed load occurs similar to failure in deep beams under two-point loading. it is shown how the ACI predictions deviate when l/d is decreased. whereas in the other two sets. 7—Forces on free-body diagram of a deep beam under uniform load: (a) by formation of critical diagonal crack.5 in Table 1. as well as in Fig. (11) and Eq.75 ( l ⁄ d ) (16) Fig. (5) to predict the shear capacity of slender beams under a uniform load and under a two-point loading. (11) and (16)). Tables 1 and 2 include the test results of Bernaert and Siess. Concrete crushing occurs with a combination of the concrete forces C and Vc in the compression zone. respectively. The corresponding shear capacities are shown in Column (11) of Tables 1 and 2 for slender and deep beams. (5) for slender beams and Eq. 70%. the expression of code is used ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008 The splitting tensile strength fct of concrete used in Eq.4 and Iguro et al. As shown from the tests of Iguro et al. the stirrup force at failure is Vs = ρv fyvbwd(1 – cs/d)tanϕ. 8 and 9.166 f c ′ + ρ v f yv )b w d (17) Equation (16) is valid for deep beams with and/or without web reinforcement subjected to a uniform load. and also in Fig. respectively. tanϕ ≈ ai/d.10-12 Moreover. the ratio of observed shear capacity to the calculated ACI shear capacity goes up to 3.5 ---s⎞ f c ′ + 0. The experimental and the theoretical results are in very good agreement for all tests. It is shown that the shear strength of both slender and deep beams under a uniform load is 40 to 50% and. from the equilibrium of moments of forces acting on the free-body diagram of Fig. Considering that the failure occurs when the concrete compressive stress exceeds the concrete strength fc′ over the entire depth cs of the compression zone. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION AND DISCUSSION The theory presented is applied for the prediction of the ultimate shear strength of reinforced concrete beams subjected to uniformly distributed load. (17)) seems to be unrealistic. The ACI 318 Code does not address the size effect in estimating the shear strength of beams. without including any factor of safety. extracted from the literature.0 for slender beams and 6.12 The stirrups yield upon higher loading after the formation of a critical diagonal crack.2 Rüsch et al. 7(a)). for ACI Code predictions (in SI units) V u = ( 0. (9) for deep beams are used. with 45 test results of slender beams (l/d > 10) and 60 of deep beams (l/d < 10).5 The seven sets of test data in Tables 1 and 2 have been obtained on slender beams as well as deep beams with various strengths of concrete. (4) in the absence of experimental data. In Fig. the ACI Code predictions for shear strength of beams under a uniform load are inaccurate. taken a shear span a = l/4) is a very conservative approximation. which eventually causes the loss of force Vd. and T = C. and (b) at failure. The forces acting on a free-body diagram of a deep beam at failure are shown in Fig. Subsequently. Predicted shear capacities according to a point loading arrangement of two-point loads at the quarter points are also presented in Tables 1 and 2 to compare the ultimate shear strength of beams under a point loading arrangement to experimental results from a uniformly distributed load.---s ⎛ 1 – 0. eventually resulting in concrete crushing in this zone. and geometrical sizes. Also. Then. Considering that for deep beams. Thus. In preparing the values of Tables 1 and 2. the predicted shear capacities according to ACI 318-028 are also presented in Tables 1 and 2. the ratio 715 .5ρv f yv ⎛ 1 – ---s⎞ ⎛ --⎞ ⁄ 16 2 d⎝ ⎠ ⎝ d d ⎠ ⎝ d⎠ 0. the normal and shear forces in the concrete compression zone above the critical diagonal crack increase excessively. For the predictions under the two-point loading arrangement. Eq. an increase in loading results in a significant increase of the shear force Vd of the longitudinal reinforcement (Fig. l/d. The ACI 318-02 expression for shear strength (Eq. it can be seen that replacement of the uniform load with two-point loads at the quarter points (that is.3 Krefeld and Thurston. By comparison of the observed shear capacities with the predictions according to a two-point loading arrangement in Tables 1 and 2. As shown in Tables 1 and 2. longitudinal steel ratios.5 for short beams. fct is calculated from Eq. Moreover. higher than the shear strength of beams under a loading arrangement of two-point loads at the quarter points. 7(b) at the point of application of force C. the concrete compressive force at failure is C = csbw fc′. (Eq. All tests beams had adequate longitudinal reinforcement so that flexural failure can be avoided.5 fct is taken from the experiments.. This results in a horizontal cleavage of the concrete cover along the main reinforcement. the ultimate uniform load of the beam can be obtained c 8b w c c 2 l 2 q u = -------------------------. in some cases. is shown in Column (3) of Table 1. It must be pointed out that these equations predict with accuracy the shear strength of test beams under concentrated loads. 9. Tables 1 and 2 show comparisons of the theoretical results according to the proposed formulas. respectively. For the last set of tests in Table 1. 10. shear reinforcement ratios. 7(b).1 Leonhardt and Walther.

2 25.6 25.00 48.8 22.4 1772.4 22.802 2.4 1.2 15.3 29.5 17.143 1.6 25.5 72.2 25.0 14.0 1890.5 72.81 2.426 1. (11) Vu .119 1.606 2.622 2.0 18.225 kips.63 57.th (14) (13) 48.5 49.300 1. MPa fct.2 25.891 1.2 12.8 30.6 73.1 17-2 31.5 48.0 52.087 Theory Eq.4 3.7 46.1 12.6 50.091 1.5 890.85 1.7 21.0 85.3 3.1 17-1 31.6 64.04 107.84 1.2 5JU 21.0 11.9 51.125 1.40 0.1 36.4 14.9 67.149 1.2 1.048 1.2 29.9 d.5 84.3 25.2 15.881 2.3 54.486 1.9 2.9 18.5 36.25 2.6 3 EU 17.0 50.8 3GU9 13.5 4.680 0.4 25.8 27.0 68.816 1.1 28.0 47.4 25.970 1.35 48.165 1.97 Leonhardt and Walter2 2.8 16.9 74.325 1.2 15.406 0.439 1. (5) Vu.99 61.2 29.2 11.810 0.162 1.0 12.0 12.30 2.0 61.4 6 CU 20.5 7 24.282 1.0 2.99 59.1 12.22 2.3 5EU9 15.116 1.12 3.146 0.379 1.8 14-2 31.037 1.0 19.63 72.4 3682.4 25.13 2.0 0.05 87.40 0. kN Vu.3 30.2 29.1 12.4 98.456 1.887 2.0 2 CU 20.0 12.04 107.0 276.2 15.2 15.2 24.6 58.8 44.4 111.2 3.5 92.3 12.8 1721. 1 MPa = 145 psi.36 2.956 0.30 71.2 3.0 12.63 79.9 12.3 56.8 50.878 0.2 432.008 2.448 1.2 25.338 1.99 47.3 2.497 1.889 2.434 1.8 54.2 11.125 1.6 25.63 70.5 4CU8 32.021 0.9 12.5 232.exp /Vu.590 1.145 1.1 25.2 15.086 1.2 48.0 12.7 23.054 1.5 14.0 200. % (7) Experimental Vu.224 1.0 10.05 101.2 15.326 1.6 78.6 16.714 2.2 4EU9 14.1 29.8 3 CU 20.2 15.6 4 EU 20.63 44.2 15.6 25.40 Iguro et al.7 27.0 20.97 2.3 1.30 2.Table 1—Comparison of experimental and theoretical results of slender beams Beam no.0 79.2 5 21.029 1.2 15.966 1.40 2.50 15.044 0.6 4 GU 22.7 46.2 15.7 28.094 1.5 2.277 2.9 39.24 2.1 25.2 25.3 27.30 61.3 52.32 3.2 15.064 0.2 15.034 1.210 1.37 2.77 1.280 2.64 1.4 27.5 3.35 82.123 1.36 50.0 50.4 l/d (6) 11.0 12.398 1.1 2.05 95.316 1.16 2.051 0.7 63.4 25.096 0.946 0.27 2.452 2.400 1.2 12.922 3.6 16.5 24.6 16-1 33.30 107.2 15.098 1.473 1.4 36.090 1.04 3.0 300.1 2.7 61.4 25.9 Krefeld and Thurston4 1.3 6 EU 20.043 0.117 1.25 2.83 1.042 1.2 15.8 41.0 85.357 0.049 1.492 1.2 4CU9 17.7 28.3 27.452 1.867 0.0 264.412 2.010 1.3 53.0 63.87 1.4 14.3 14.070 0.0 19.3 18.2 14.exp /Vu.828 0.936 1.9 76.7 64.356 0.4 25.5 26.35 77.19 15.0 12.376 1.2 15. and 1 kN = 0.99 1.30 68.2 15.3 25. kN Vu.4 41.7 3 21.99 54.5 4 CU 20.4 25.390 1.3 Total of all 45 test data 716 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008 .25 2.0 4.5 47.192 1.1 4.136 1.0 100.4 92.0 105.1 28.2 Mean Standard deviation 1 20.935 1.1 2.152 1.088 1.480 1.1 55.513 0.8 89.405 1.5 14.7 14.59 1.9 19.860 2.0 18.830 1.495 1.402 1.2 15.095 1.2 50..0 25.9 388.547 0.8 15-1 33.70 1.2 27.715 2.1 16-2 33.9 44.7 48.342 1.3 27.0 12.2 15.0 16.2 15.774 2.7 30.0 2104.36 64.2 15.2 15.0 1.6 48.5 4GU9 11.593 1.3 14.1 1.04 3.036 0.8 2.992 1.6 35.6 62.106 1.428 1.6 1.7 63.3 5CU8 32.7 72.9 ρ.8 56.99 71.521 0.35 66.6 49.898 0.1 1.6 63.249 2.35 65.0 170.80 0.2 15.3 66.130 1.9 39.023 1.8 48.3 137.073 1.0 100.665 2.exp /Vu.0 65.6 1.th (10) (9) 1.5 3.72 1.348 1.6 18.0 150.134 1.0 2.720 1. kN Vu.650 3.12 3.8 15.092 1.7 16.30 77.01 3.239 1.9 64.0 2.1 4 27.0 3.1 5CU9 14.224 1.2 15.5 23.0 25.8 3CU9 12.63 97.2 15.1 Mean Standard deviation 1CU 19.471 1.04 87.3 58.241 1.6 56.296 0.1 3 GU 22.531 2.6 25.4 25.1 50.001 1.1 25.5 25.09 2.63 70.6 2 19.6 5 CU 20.2 5 EU 19.6 38.7 16.23 2.2 40.0 2.993 0.5 203.8 2.32 1.668 2.420 1.123 ACI Code Vu.516 1.5 52.3 6 GU 21.9 2.1 6EU9 12.2 14. fc′.201 2.8 59.73 2.3 27.920 2.0 2.7 6CU9 13.987 0.9 72.081 1. cm (5) 27.01 3.7 49.4 67.40 0.318 1.386 1.80 1.2 72. b.0 98.35 95.9 2.118 1.0 12.6 5GU9 11.9 6 28.2 4JU 22.0 4.519 0.297 1.7 24.2 3.394 in.580 2.th (12) (11) 74.1 56.9 28. cm (4) 19.208 1.0 2.9 4.7 48.3 Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation Notes: 1 cm = 0.2 15.0 100.0 1116.2 237.109 0.2 24.2 22.4 25.0 12.0 4.632 2.2 15.078 2.2 25.349 2.22 2.5 68.021 1.05 2.6 2.0 12.7 3EU9 15.722 2.4 25.8 16.0 11.142 1.6 49.148 1.945 1.2 32. kN (8) Theory Eq.0 52.6 95.0 30.03 2.6 15-2 33.0 60.3 1.54 1.04 96.9 23.027 1.80 0.023 2.2 19.952 0.394 1.8 47.35 71.32 54.9 17.0 25.7 68.3 27.05 95.247 2.294 2.99 58.8 21. MPa (2) (3) (1) 14-1 31.3 89.30 75.3 6CU8 36.0 924.1 38.0 21.0 19.09 3.7 49.9 18.0 60.900 0.1 5 GU 21.2 29.40 0.2 15.2 15.430 0.6 25.

746 0.8 93.2 81.9 87.2 15.77 3.31 0.7 27.1 60.9 13.2 81. kN Vu.000 4.257 5.2 15.958 217.8 109.8 130.5 3.77 3.2 7.8 105.362 4.090 0.2 29.2 22.77 3.024 0.682 4.3 112.2 31. cm (4) 25.2 130.04 2.47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 202.4 64.580 1.6 20.2 7.8 78.885 0.1 89.0 174.0 62.77 3.0 25.0 27.2 15. kN (11) 98.008 0.156 3.0 27.854 4.4 98.Table 2—Comparison of experimental and theoretical results of deep beams Beam no.77 3. A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 BO1 BO2 BO3 BO4 BO5 BO6 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Mean Standard deviation Krefeld and Thurston4 11A1 12A1 13A1 14A1 15A1 16A1 1AU 27.31 0.2 7.2 15.36 3.0 139.75 3.7 89.401 4.331 0.8 84.051 4.8 3 fc′.31 0.2 15.77 0.4 22.04 2.31 0.0 108.664 4.4 127. (16) Experimental ρv fyv.927 0.2 15.9 82.3 7.313 1.1 40.073 1.0 118.174 1.2 22.4 22.9 19.511 3.207 4.361 1. MPa (2) 35.8 15.01 Theory Eq.4 22.31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.488 1.534 1.4 21.527 1.2 33.0 18.9 19.2 7.exp /Vu.31 0.89 2.5 81.9 23.185 1.219 1.31 0.524 1.160 1.255 1.7 15.7 37.2 15.1 13.7 34.084 0.0 51.420 1.8 118.0 120.145 1.5 78.0 196.7 37.1 22.998 1.0 71.9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 28 28 28 28 28 28 7.0 7.36 1.6 118.50 0.3 27.2 7.9 22.880 0.3 9.2 7.9 161.0 116.377 1.923 1.2 l/d (5) 8.740 1.601 1.2 60.6 72.0 134.2 7.0 140.6 19.th (13) (12) (14) 1.77 0.300 1.6 5.2 25.0 18.2 6.1 60.0 27.6 1.527 2.8 21.77 3.992 1.369 1.2 7.512 48.75 3.4 89.4 75.31 0.1 22.31 0.3 20.872 4.3 34.9 8.0 30.4 13.497 0.8 21.8 77.0 19.7 15.1 22. % (6) 2.4 7.195 0.974 4.2 78.75 3.7 89.2 119.5 31.2 7.4 117.913 1.0 85.1 40.0 88.2 31.312 1.926 0.9 ρ.75 3.8 30.4 22.2 130.01 1.31 0.6 60.2 7.092 1.77 3.9 30.0 55.75 3.9 8.99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 267.484 4.2 7.1 89.0 117.140 4.31 0.091 35.544 0.0 96.567 3.9 31.8 136.exp /Vu.110 1.055 4.2 25.0 61.0 47.8 133.390 32.2 7.468 1.2 7.833 0.2 7.087 1.212 1.3 1.511 1.9 48.5 89. kN Vu.31 60.1 19.1 21.490 5.5 160.2 78.244 1.4 23.75 3.136 22.4 60.8 72.0 51.444 1.0 0.4 57.4 2.953 1.75 3.252 1.9 21.6 15.31 0.21 3.2 7.018 0.2 48.8 19.343 4.285 1.280 41.3 86.9 8.4 38.668 1. (1) D-4 D-9 D-10 D-14 D-15 D-16 Mean Standard deviation Leonhardt and Walther2 12-1 12-2 13-1 13-2 GA1 GA2 G6 Mean Standard deviation Rusch et al.5 30.108 1.77 3.75 3.4 31.794 3.9 8.204 1.089 1.214 4.6 15.0 157.435 3.1 12.41 4.285 1.4 98.580 4.9 21.740 1.2 15.05 1.9 35.2 22.228 4.5 81.4 61.890 1.31 0.2 7.0 107.300 4.277 1.4 ACI Code Vu.082 37.0 150.6 23.9 32.316 2.235 0.3 31.2 7.958 1.682 4.0 102.31 0.795 4.4 22.4 43.6 24.4 22.0 84.0 27.2 3.848 3.040 1.079 0.7 95.506 1.2 d.4 33.4 72.988 0.3 89.1 63.9 8.2 15.6 22.7 215.2 78.7 15.8 7.1 21.th (7) (8) (9) (10) Bernaest and Siess1 0 0 0 0 0 0 119.75 3.7 28.7 82.80 1.028 0.1 1.1 22.3 26.293 4.136 1.1 21.970 5.6 31.77 3.8 88.0 81.433 1.8 84.2 25.0 150. kN Vu.3 0.6 87.2 7.7 5.987 1.0 62.3 b.9 24.8 112.2 78.exp /Vu.75 3.142 1.791 2.6 24. MPa Vu.5 86.2 24.997 0.412 1.5 120.7 20.2 15.1 23.083 0.5 289.2 92.8 7.6 110.896 0.31 0.06 2.2 7. cm (3) 15.300 1.271 3.5 139.401 4.2 7.9 15.9 23.9 4.2 7.5 78.0 148.1 22.2 7.115 48.660 2.31 0.085 163.594 1.9 27.6 9.0 19.057 1.0 125.440 3.6 119.350 1.4 49.118 1.141 3.5 81.8 31.230 1.2 50.0 200.89 1.9 0.8 74.77 3.7 89.562 1.4 1.2 25.77 3.0 92.4 180.4 4.4 61.4 154.7 62.5 170.184 1.135 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008 717 .2 7.06 1.9 21.8 147.8 39.2 36.2 25.31 0.2 116.177 1.4 7.9 12.507 4.412 1.2 47.459 1.487 0.528 1.401 1.5 5.2 27.8 7.941 0.255 3.2 21.7 32.129 1.8 9.2 32.9 67.34 1.2 15.75 3.7 7.1 24.161 1.2 27.75 3.th Vu.984 0.056 Theory Eq.825 2.2 32.152 1.01 1.116 0. (9) Vu.9 34.5 218.414 1.678 3.4 3.613 13.2 48.2 133.0 158.722 2.7 36.4 60.

5 164.7 102.947 1.130 1.63 3. factors affecting the shear strength of beams under a uniform load are rationally considered.99 2.th (11) (13) (10) (12) (14) 1.7 34.398 1.8 118.395 0.6 9.8 250.8 7.0 90.025 1.7 156.446 1.8 29.2 22.6 l/d (5) 9.0 209.1 181.9 33. MPa Vu.0 370.4 29.7 131.7 17.Table 2 (cont.394 in.0 153.010 1.377 1.736 5.0 144.007 1.30 3.3 64. It is worth noting that the existing number of tests on such large beams under uniform loads is limited and more experimental studies could further justify the proposed theory.2 15.6 154.2 15.7 123.695 1.30 2.050 4.184 2.7 34.078 1.57 1.237 1.5 67.935 1.0 64.985 21.214 2.3 200.068 1. kN Vu.9 37. These equations have been derived via the presented theory. The theory results in simple and easy-to-use expressions for the ultimate shear force (or ultimate uniform load) of slender beams as well as deep beams under a uniform load.2 2.(16)).161 1.41 3.2 15.926 0.6 116.41 3.63 3.8 350. ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008 . 1 MPa = 145 psi.0 176. kN (7) (8) Krefeld and Thurston4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.237 3.0 196.2 15.8 37.445 1.440 1. (9) ACI Code Vu. cm (4) 25.851 3.4 25. 8 though 10 clearly demonstrate that limitations of the ACI Code.35%).2 131.1 Fig.7 7.516 1. The impact of size effect in the shear strength of slender beams is taken into account.57 1.4 31.170 1.1 35. and 1 kN = 0.5 9.2 15.225 kips. 8—Effect of l/d on shear strength of slender beams with different steel ratios.22 Experimental ρv fyv.)—Comparison of experimental and theoretical results of deep beams Beam no.8 Theory Eq.6 9.2 77.1 25.356 1.9 117.exp /Vu.8 8.7 27.4 45.35 4.35 4.2 7.2 1.7 248.134 1.th Vu .077 1.2 25. are effectively overcome by the proposed simple formulas (Eq. The comparisons in Tables 1 and 2 and Fig. b.7 220.154 29.792 3.4 25.042 0.1 31.67 0. of observed shear capacity to calculated ACI shear capacity goes down to 0.2 7.737 4.347 3. fc′.428 1.024 0. MPa (2) (1) 2AU 3AU 4AU 5AU 3AAU 4AAU 5AAU 6AAU 4AU8 5AU8 6AU8 6A1 6B1 9A1 9B1 B-2 Mean Standard deviation Total of all 60 test data Mean Standard deviation Notes: 1 cm = 0.2 15.0 117.1 29.8 9.580 3.6 7.1 28.1 183.8 344.50 for beams with a depth d ≥ 1.2 d.0 90.8 29.9 20.704 4.99 2. kN (9) 71.1 93. or those resulting from a consideration of a two-point loading arrangement.940 0.29 76.870 0.577 1.249 1. % (6) 1.7 91.8 Theory Eq. CONCLUSIONS A theory has been presented about the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams under a uniformly distributed load.6 9.2 185.6 36.32 1.7 466.2 15.2 15.030 3.150 1.3 30.087 1.7 31.1 136.0 177.2 7.6 34.7 5.2 15. cm (3) 15.0 m.5 123. in which all the 718 Fig.2 15.8 146.2 25.41 2.2 15.th Vu.2 25.2 461.263 3.112 53.2 37.120 1.6 214.7 108.2 15.8 206. kN Vu.4 25.647 2.41 3.exp /Vu.074 1.608 1.252 3.339 4.2 86.4 31.2 15.exp /Vu.4 203.63 3.7 9.3 9.5 25.4 31. 9—Effect of /d on shear strength of deep beams under uniform load and under two-point loading (steel ratio ρ = 3.5 242.3 57.67 1. (11) and Eq.376 0.865 5.369 1.5 30.8 123.8 255. (16) Vu.1 36.4 132..200 0.9 87.0 ρ.2 15.2 15.4 25.5 25.6 30.522 1.35 1.027 0.4 31.

-Apr. Zararis. 9. the predictions are higher. Heft 151. Germany. No. longitudinal steel ratios. No. pp.” Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton. SP-118. N. Rüsch.” ACI JOURNAL. pp.. 100.” ACI Structural Journal. 6.. 2001. Apr. June 1956. pp. pp. (in German) 4. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02). 68.” American Concrete Institute. 1962. No. Mar. (in Greek). T. 11. 10. “Diagonal Shear Failure and Size Effect in RC Beams without Web Reinforcement.” ACI Structural Journal. 259-279. “Studies of the Shear and Diagonal Tension Strength of Simply Supported Reinforced Concrete Beams. Y. Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. ASCE. M. P. and Okada. Krefeld. 129.. and Tsalcatides. G. V. 1971. Shioya.. Akiyama. Nojiri. No.. O. ASCE. 7. ASCE. pp. R. 12. T. P. and Mayer.. S. ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008 719 . Sohn. Concrete Library. Greece. R. H. it has been shown that the ACI Code predictions for the ultimate shear force of beams under a uniform load are much lower for the cases of small size beams (either slender or deep). 2004. American Concrete Institute. H. and Regan. P. D. and Akiyama. 733-742. Zararis. Farmington Hills.” Journal of Structural Engineering.... 159-170. Bažant. “Shear Strength of Large Reinforced Concrete Beams. Zararis. Farmington Hills. Heft 145. F. 553-574. Bernaert. Placas.. Ernst u.” Fracture Mechanics: Application to Concrete. 2002. ACI Committee 318.. V. Apr. and Thurston. MI. Germany. Dec. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Fig. July 2001. “Strength in Shear of Reinforced Concrete Beams under Uniform Load. D. 544-553. P.” Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE). “Failure Mechanisms in RC Plates Carrying In-Plane Forces. 1972.. 5. (in German) 3. under a uniform load is much higher than the shear strength of beams under a loading arrangement of two concentrated loads at the quarter points. 225 pp.” The Structural Engineer.” Journal of Structural Engineering. Eurocode No.” Commission of the European Communities.” ACI JOURNAL. June 1966. In this paper. Proceedings V. whereas for the larger beams. J. 114. 3. 451-476. MI. and geometrical sizes. “Aggregate Interlock and Steel Shear Forces in the Analysis of RC Membrane Elements. Zararis. H. P. Kani. Leonhardt... 1988. Li and Z..” ACI JOURNAL.. C. 16. M. 763-773. No. Haugli. eds. 63. Mellis. No. 50. Singh. 94. Oct. Berlin. E. V.. W. 1966.. Aug. and Sharp. 1997. and Walther.. Iguro. J. “Schubversuche an Einfeldrigen Stahlbetonbalken mit und ohne Schubbewehrung zur Ermittlung der Schubtragfähigkeit und der Oberen Schubspannungsgrenze. 7. pp. 8. pp. “Schubversuche an Stahlbeton— Rechteckbalken mit Gleischmässig Verteilter Belastung. Mar. 14. “Shear Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams. Y. Urbana. 63. V. REFERENCES 1. S. F. “Shear Strength of Beams under Changing Reversal Loading. Iguro. “Design of Concrete Structures. either slender or deep. Oct.” University of Illinois. “Shear Failure of Reinforced Concrete Beams.. Kong. A. Robins. W. 2. Thessaloniki. No. pp. 2. No. 1962. ENV 1992-1-1.. 13. A. C. “Shear Strength and Minimum Shear Reinforcement of Reinforced Concrete Slender Beams. 10—Size effect on shear stress at failure of slender beams under uniform load (tests of Iguro et al. F. 2003. Proceedings V. R. shear reinforcement ratios. 137-154. Ernst u. 4. 15... IL. 4. P. P. 10. Shioya. 345/V-1. 2003. (translation from Proceedings of JSCE. W. “Basic Facts Concerning Shear Failure. T. 10. pp. V. Zararis. No. 2. 2.. 203-214.” Deutcher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton. Aug. pp. It is shown that the shear strength of beams.5). The proposed theory accurately predicts capacities corresponding to the experimental observations of ultimate shear force of a well-grounded test series of slender beams as well as deep beams under uniform load with various strengths of concrete.-Apr. “Experimental Studies on Shear Strength of Large Reinforced Concrete Beams under Uniformly Distributed Load.. and Papadakis. 30 pp. 443 pp. T. and Siess. D. 1989.. D. Proceedings V. K. J. P. l/d. 1984) 6. 127. G. V.. No... D. 68 pp. 405-409.. H. V. No.” MSc dissertation.. Nojiri. 675-692. G.. Sohn.. 1985..” Journal of Structural Engineering. 139 pp. Department of Civil Engineering. “Shear Compression Failure in Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams. 17. 5. Mar. Berlin. W. pp.

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

- Shear Carbon
- "Brgplt9" --- Beam Bearing Plate Design
- Chap-9-1-Shear
- Analysis and Design of Shear Wall - Transfer Beam Structure
- CHANNEL SHEAR CONNECTOR.pdf
- Simply Supported Primary Composite Beam
- Shear in Reinforced Concrete Beams
- C StrucDesign Voigt Aug13
- DISEÑO PARA CONTROLAR EL CORTE-MONTESIONS
- MNL-133-97_ch8_10
- AJDBD-4 fardis
- Sanghavi_uta_2502M_11914
- Frp Laminates -Bridge Strengthing
- The Torsional Restraint of Sandwich Panels To
- Composite Slab Hicks 2008 XXXXX
- Alternative Solutions for Slab
- L11 Multi Storey 1
- S-FireTemp-StructuralSteel
- Shearwalls & Boundary Elements
- BEHAVIOUR OF RC BEAMS PRESTRESSED WITH CFRP laminate
- Structures. UpTech3
- Architectural Structures - Package
- courseEC2-Chap11
- Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Four-Pile Caps Supporting Columns Subjected to Generic Loading 04 July.pdf
- Analisis Estructural
- (www.entrance-exam.net)-SSC paper for Mechanical Engineering.pdf
- Iraqi Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (1987)_3
- Staad Pro-serie 14.1rayleigh Freqency Method
- Pages From Boresi & Schmidt - Advanced Mechanics of Materials (J Para Secciones Rectangulares) (1)
- Lineas de Influencia

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd