THE SHEAR STRENGTH

OF

REINFORCED CONCRETE T-BEAMS

by

René Hakkenberg van GafLsbeek

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate

Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of ,Engineering.

Department of. Civil Engineering Novem be r 1966

and Applied Mechanics,
McGill University,
Montreal.

@) René Hakkenberg van Gap.sbeek 1967

TO MY PARENTS
 TABLE OF CONTENTS i

Page
List of Figures i
List of Tables . iv
Synopsis v
Acknowledgements . vi
Nomenclature • vii

CHAPTER

ONE Introduction
A. The Problem 1
B· Purpose of Investigation . 3

TWO Historical Review 5

THREE Theoretical Discussion

A. Failure Criteria for Concrete • 31
B. Ultimate Strength of T-beams • 33

FOUR Mechanisms of Failure • 45

FIVE Test Assemblies

, A. The Test Beams • 49
B. The Reinforcement 52
C. The Formwork 57

SIX Experimental Procedure. 60

SEVEN Test Materials and Materials Testing

A. Mortar . 69
B. Steel 73

EIGHT Results, Observations and Analysis

A. Crack Formation. 78
B. Failure Loads and Stresses 85
C. Dial Gauge Results .' 96
D. Strain Gauge ~esults . 108
E. Deflection of Sponge Rubber 110
F. Comparison of Results with
Existing' Theories . 121
CHAPTER

NINE Conclusions Page

A. Summary • 130
B. Future Research 134

BIBLIOGRAPHY 136
 i.·

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Page

1. Kani' s "Concrete Teeth" . 27

2. Stress-Strain Curve of Concrete 34

3. Stress and Strain Diagrams at Eventual Section

of Failure 34

4. Stress and Strain at Adjacent Sections . 38

5. Series 1 - Beam Dimensions, Shear and Bending

Moment Diagrams • 53

6. Series II - Beam Dimensions, Shear and Bending

Moment Diagrams • 54.
7. Series III - Beam Dimensions, Shear and Bending
Moment Diagrams .. • 55
8. Reinforcement Details • 56

9. Flange Reinforcing .. . • 58

10. The Formwork • 58

11. Beam Ready for Testing 58

12. Experimental Set-Up • 62

13. Steel Plates on Rubber for Rectangular Beams 66a

14. Dial Gauge Set-Up • 66a

15. Numbering and Location of Dial Gauges 67

16. Numbering and Location of Strain Gauges . 68

17. Grading Curve for Sand. 72

18. Typical Stress-Btrain Curve for Concrete Mortar .. 75

 li.
Figure No. Page

19. Typical Stress-8train Curve for #2 Bar. 77

20., Typical Mechanism of Failure for Series 1 and n
with Typical Dimensions • 79
21. Crack Pattern of Beam III - 9 x 8/4 a 83
22. Crack Pattern of Beam III - 9 x 3/4 b 83
23. Crack Pattern of Beam III - NF a 85
24. Typical Diagonal Tension Crack for Series 1 and II 87

250 Bearn II - 15 x 1 a after Failure 87

26. Beam III - 9 x 3/4 b after Failure 88

27. C rack Pattern of Beam III - NF b 88
280 Load Deflection Curves 99

29. " " " 100

30. " " " 101
31. " " " • 102
32. " " " 103

33. " " " 104

34. " " " 105

35. " " " 106

36. Experimental and Theoretical Load-DefiectiQn

Curves for Beam III - 9 x 1 b 107
37. Load-8train Curves 111

38. " " " 112

39. " " " 113

40. " " " 114

 Ui.

Figure No. Page

41. Load Strain Curves 115

42. " " " 116
43. " " " 117
44. Load Deflection Curves for Rubber 118
45. " " " Il
" 119
46. " " " " " 120
 iVe

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Page

1. Sieve Analysis of Sand 71

2. Typical Strain Gauge Results of Two Test Cylinders

for Determination of the Modulus of Elasticity and
Poisson' s Ratio 74
3. Typical Steel l'roperties 76

4. Concrete and Bearn Data 90

5. Test Results • 92

6. Evaluated Results . 94

7. Typical Dial and Strain Gauge Resulta at Center Span 109

8. Comparison of Te~t Data with Theoretical Shear

Moment Values. • 125

9. Comparison of Allowable Shear with Actual Shear

Stress • 127
 v.

SYNOPSI~

Tests on eighteen T -beams q,nd six rectangular beams are

reported. The rectangular beams have dimensions equal to the web
of the T-beams and serve on a strength comparison basis. The flange
widths and thicknesses of the T-beams are varied to study the effect
of this variation on the shear strength. AlI beams are subjected to a
uniformly distributed load by a newly devised loading system. The
end conditions of the beams vary from fully fixed to simply supported.
A study is made of the cracking patterns, the initial diagonal
cracking loads and the ultimate loads. "'oad-deflection and load-strain
curves are presented. Results are compared to code requirements
and to some recent ~heories presented by other investigators.

Ultimate loads are fairly scattered and no definite trend is

found of increasing shear strength with increasing flange dimensions.
A theoretical derivation is presented of the ultimate strength of

reinforced concrete T-beams without stirrups.

 vi.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express his appreciation and sincere

thanksfor the assistance given to him by the following:
Professor P. J. Harris, the author 's director of research.
Messrs. N. Ahmed and B. Cockayne of the Strength of
Materials Laboratory, for their assistance in the fabrication and testing
of the test specimens.
Miss Sheila Paulin who generously helped the author in
the editing ~d proof reading of this thesis.
Mr. J •. A. Pastega and Mr. H. Reichert for their moral
support.
The National Research Council of Canada, Grant No. A-2737,
who provided the funds for the prosecution of the research.
 vii.

NOMENCLATURE

A area of cross-section

Av total area of web reinforcement within distance s

a length of shear span

b width of web of rectangular section or width of flange

of T-beam

b ' width of web of T-beam

d distance from extreme compression fibre to centroid
of tension reinforcement

f c' compressive, uniaxial strength of 3 x 6 - inch cylinder

at time of test .

fv tensile stress in web reinforcement

ft tensile stress at a point

j ratio of distance between centroid of compr~ssion and
centroid of tension to the depth, d

1 general term for length

M bending mOlllent

Mu bending moment at ultimate load

flexural moment, neglecting shear

r ratio of area of stirrups and the product bs

v external shear force

external shear force at ultimate load

v nominal shear stress

w load in kips per inch of beam

 1.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

A. The Problem.

The problem of shear and diagonal tension in reinforced

concrete beams has been a major concern of engineers since the

inception of the use of concrete as a building material. Although an

extremely large number of tests has been performed over the last sixtY
years, no decisive breakthrough has occurred. Such questions as what
failure mechanism will occur; what is the initial cracking load; what is
the ultimate load have yet to be answered accurately and reliably for
any set of conditions. The main reason for this lack of knowledge is
the large number of parameters known to influence the shear strength

of a retnforced concrete beam. These include the concrete cylinder

strength (f c), the grade and percentage of reinforcing steel, as well as

its arrangement and location, the cross-sectional shape (e.g.

rectangular, T-section, L-section) and its absolute dimensions (e.g. b,
M
b', d), the Vd ratio, the type of web reinforcement (e.g. vertical or
inclined stirrups, bent-up bars), the type of loading (single or multi-

point loading, uniformly distributed, symmetrical or unsymmetrical

loading), the type of support (simply supported, semi- or fully fixed).

The problem of shear is further complicated by the redistribution of

internaI forces after cracking has occurred.
 2.

The standard code formula for the nominal shear stress:

v=~ •.. (1.1)

bd

does not take into account most of these parameters and therefore
appears to be inadequate. Moreover, it seems illogical that in the

ultimate strength design method the nominal shear stress is obtained

with the above formula which is based on elastic conditions and the
fiexural stress is obtained from formulae based on plastic conditions

in the concrete. .
The many investigations into the shear J,roblem that have

been carried out have led to numerous empirical or semi-€mpirical

formulae. These formulae usually agree quite well with the correS-
ponding test results but are not applicable for general use, as they

pertain only to one particular set of beam parameters and loading con-

ditions and do not permit a rational study of the various variables

involved. A theoretical solution involving all variables would be

ideal, but this would be very difficult to achieve due to the unknown

effect of the interaction of the large number of variables and also because
the failure criterion of concrete is not fully known.
 3.

B.Purpose of Investigation.

One of the most commonly used geometric shapes in

reinforced concrete is a t1oor- or roof slab, cast integrally with a

supporting beam, the ensemble forming a T-section. Consultation of

building codes reveals that the formula for the nominal shear stress

of T-beams is the same a.s the one used for rectangular beams

(equation 1 .1), replacing the width of the rectangular section, b, by

the width of the web of the T-beam, b'. Thus for T-beams:

v
v =b'd ... (1.2)

One notices that the capacity of the flange, if any, to resist

part of the total shear force, is neglected in this formula.

The purpose of this investigation is:

1. To determine whether the flange of a T-beam has an effect

on its shear strength and, if so, a quantitative determination thereof.

2. To provide information on initial flexural cracking-loads,

initial diagonal tension cracking-loads and ultimate loads of fully

fixed, restrained and simply supported, uniformly loaded, T-beams.

Such information is completely or almost completely lacking in the

presently available literature on concrete research.

3. To provide load-deflection information on such beams.

4. To compare the test results with building code requirements

and sorne recent work in this field.

 4.

5. A theoretlcal discussion on the ultimate strength of such

beams.

6. A comparison of the test results for T-beams with those

of rectangular beams with dimensions equal to the web of the T-beam.

 5.

CHAPTER TWO

HISTORIC AL REVIEW

Reinforced concrete members were used long before the basic

principles were understood or a. rational design theory was developed.

Patented design systems were used in those days, the design methods

of which Were not known to the public. Serious questioning of these

systems did not sta:rt until the late 1800' s. Two schools of thought

developed concerning the mechanism of shear failure in reinforced

concrete members. One school of thought considered horizontal shear,

as experïenced with web rivets in steel girders, to be the cause of shear

failures in reinforced concrete members. Concrete was thought to have
a low horizontal shearing strength and vertical stirrups were used as
shear-keys against high horizontal shear stresses.

The second school of thought considered diagonal tension

the caUSe of shear failure. Although it is not known who develo~d the

original idea, in 1899 W. Ritter plèsented the first report on diagonal

tension as a mechanism of shear failure of remforced concrete members.

He also presented the" truss analogy", in which a reinforced concrete

beam with stirrups is compared to a truss in which the concrete com-

pression zone acts as the top chord, the longitudinal reinforcing as the

bottom chord, the stirrup:; or bent-up bars as the web members in

tension and the concrete in between the compression zone and the
 6.

longitudinal reinforcing as the web members in compression. Four

assumptions were made in the development of the truss analogy:

1. The tension reinforcement carries only horizontal tensile

flexural stresses.

2. The concrete compression zone carries only horizontal

compressive flexural stresses.

3. The stïrrups or bent-up bars carry aU inclined or vertical

stresses.

4. A diagonal t.ension crack extends from the tension rein-

forcement up to a height equal to the effective moment arm jd.

The truss analogy forms the basis for several code design for mul ae 1

such as for the spacing of vertical stirrups:

. , .(2.1)

Neville and Taub (26) demonstrated that the truss analogy is not really

valide In plrticular, they showed that the use of sm aller stirrups at

smaller pitch resulted in a considerable increase in ult!mate load than

A
when larger stirruIB at larger pitch but with equivalent ; were used.
Although discussion between the two schools of thought

continued, experimental testing showed concrete shear strength to be

considerably larger than Us tensile strength,which seemed to support

the conception of di.agonal tension.

 7.

A major contribution to the undershmding of reinforced

concrete members in shear was made by Morsch between the years

1902 and 1910. He pointed out that shear failures are the result of

principal tensile stresses and that, even in a state of pure shear, with

equal horizontal and vertical shear stresses, equal tensUe stresses

exist on planes at 45 0 to the neutral axis. He also develoJl:d the equation

for the nominal shearing stress:

. . . (2.2)

The fact that this formula is still universally used today (with the minor

change of omitting "j") shows the enormous influence sorne of the early

pioneers have had on modern design practice. The importance of

equation (2.2) is such that a closer look 1s justified. At any IDint in an

isotropie, homogeneous concrete beam the principal tensUe stress cau

be related to the shear stress and flexural stress at that poïnt by the

equation:

... (2.3)

Although equation (2.3) is not an accurate failure criterion for concrete,

most texts on reinforced concrete adopt it, with an explanation of its

approximate applicability. It is then argued that in the region of high v,

ft is relatively small, and thus ft (max) or the diagonal tension stress is

 8.

approximately equal to v. Therefore the nominal sheari.ng stress as

expressed by equation (2.2) can only be llsed as an indication of the

diagonal tension stress and not as a quantity equal to it

Research in diagonal tension was also carried out in the

United States. Diagonal tension was taken as the cause of shear failure,

the horizontal shear idea being rejected by most early investigators.

In 1906 A. N. Talbot~ from the University of llUnois,published the first

report on modes of shear failures of reinforced concrete beams.

These were described as a fffailure due to yielding of the tension steel,

compression of the concrete, shearing of concrete, bond or slip of

reinforcing bars, diagonal tension of concrete and sorne miscellaneous

methods such as splitting of the bars away from the concrete." The

earliest research on T-beams was also performed by A. N. Talbot (1)

1
in 1906. Nine tests were reported on 8 x 12-in. T-beams with 3 if -in.

.
flange thickness, 16-in. to 32-in. flange width and a 10..ft. span. Flange

width varied from two, to three, to four times the web width. AU beams
1
were loaded by symmetrical cO,ncentrated loads at the 3' -points. The

object was to test the effect of the different flange widths and also to

test the efficacy of vertical stirrups in resisting flange stresses.

Unfortunately an beams failed in flexure, after considerable yielding

.,.. Source: Hognestad (9)

 9.

of the tenslle reinforcing. The author concluded that aU beams

'exhibited in a common way the characteristics of rectangular beams

falling in flexure." The vertical stirrups were thought to be very effec-

tive as the nominal shearlng stress reached 605 psi in one case. But

since no diagonal tension fallures took place, the real effectiveness of

the stirrups was not determined. Talbot suggested that the maximum

strength of T-beams to resist flexural stresses may be calculated using

the common formulae used for rectangular beams, taking the enclosing

rectangle of the T-beam to be the equivalent rectangular beam. On

the other hand, the actual width of the web should bé used in calcu-

lating the vertical shear and diagonal tension stresses.

It is interesting to note that some of the early investi-

gators in the early 1900' s, such as Ritter, Morsch and Talbot, developed

most of the basic ideas, design formulae and fallure criteria that are

nowadays universally accepted. This proves the enormously complicated

task of arriving at a complete solution to the shear and diagonal

tension problem of reinforced concrete members.

In 1907 Withey * published two reports in which formula

(2.1) was introduced into tha American literature. He found that the

equation gave too high stirrup stresses and concluded that the concrete

of the compression zone carried considerable shear stresses. He also

if Source: Hognestad (9)

 10.

pointed out the possible dowel action of the tension reinforcement.

In 1909 Talbot reported the results of tests in 188 concrete

beams and came to the following important conclusions:

"1. The nominal shearing strength v increases with cement

content.

2. v increases with the age of the concrete.

3. v increases with the amount of longitudinal reinforcing.

4. v increases with decreasing span of beam for the same

cross-section.

5. Bent-up bars were found to be most advantageous when

distributed over the region of high shear.

6. It was recommended that stirrups be dimensioned for

two-thirds of the external shear, the remaining one-third

being carried by the concrete in the compression zone."

By 1910 the horizontal shear viewlDint was virtually abandoned

in favour of the diagonal tension concept of shear fallures of reinforced

concrete beams.

In 1914 L. J. Johnson and J. R. Nichols (3) relDrted tests

on 28 T..beams. The webs were made first and only after several days

of hardening were the flanges poured. The object of the tests was to

check whether the joint between the web and flange was sufficiently

strong under load. Stirrups which extended from the web into the flange
 11.

were used and the top surface of the web was roughened in sorne caseS
to determine any difference of behaviouf or slip between flange flnd

web. The author pointed out that if "sufficient" stirrups are provided
for the an\l!horage of tne ~ange, the beam can be considered as a

regular T-beam, and designed as such. The meaning of "sufficient" was

not defined and in the discussions following the report this weakness

is pointed out.
In 1915 J. Gilchrist (2) published a report in which he

pointed out that in the design method for reinforced concrete beams

(including T-beams) that was used at the time, the increase in the

ultimate shear strength of the web due to the }resence of stirrups is

added to the increase of ultimate strength due to bent..up bars. The

shear strength due to stirrups and bent-up bars are then added to the
strength Qf plain concrete. The author concluded that tests, made by the

German Reinforced Concrete Committee, revealed that this addition

is not correct as the· shear stren~th obtained by adding the three indi-

vidual strengths were too high, thus giving unsafe designs. He alao
cop.cluded that the shear strength due to stirrups is not directly propor ..

tio~al to the stirrup-area. An empirical formula was proposed as a

means of calculating the ultimate tot~l shear strength of the web of a

T-beam. Limiting values of ultimate shear stress were suggested for

three different a~ounts of web-reinforcement, for one particular f c.

 12.

The same author published another report on T-beams in

1927 (4). Tests were done on T-beams to determine the vartation of

the limiting shear stress (as mentioned in his 1917 report) with

variations in f C. First a relationship was found between the compressive

and tensile strengths of concrete. This was found to be:

1
tensile strength = 100 + 12 compressive strength (f ~ ~ 5000 psi)

c constant (f c > 5000 psi)

lt is the t~nsile strength of the concrete that should be compared to the
calculated shear stress, as the cracks that ultimately give rise to

failure of the beam are due to the tensile strength of concrete being

exceeded by the tensUe stresses associated with shear. The method

of determination of the tensile strength was not specified in the report.
Tlte author pointed out that it was clear from the tests' on T-beams,

that the cracking and ultimate shearing stresses are not solely a

{unction of the tensilestrength of concrete. Other conclusions were:

1. tensile strength is not directly proportioned to the shear

strength;

2. tensile reinforcement has an infl~ence on the shear strength;

_ V _
3. derived equation: v = Da ; where v is the shearing stress

at the neutral axis;

4. neglecting the ten&ile strength of concrete when determining

d is suff~ciently accurate.
 13.

In 1934 Mylrea (5) published a report entitled 'Tests of

Reinforced Concrete T-beams" in which the Scott system of reinforcing

was described. In this system many small tensile reinforcing bars were

used which were bent up at points where they were no longer needed

to carry the bending moment. They crossed the neutral axis at 45 0 and

whan the flange was reached the bars were bent transversely into the

flange where they were anchored with small anchor plates. A detailed

description was presented of tests on 5 T -beams, reinforced with the

Scott system. Nominal shearing stresses of up to 1200 psi were observed
much to the surpr ise of many investigators who did not realize that

in the Scott system the reinforcing bars are highly effective because they
follow the principal tensile stress trajectories of the web.
In the period from 1910 to about 1945 relatively few contri-

butions were made towards the understanding of the shear problem.

After 1945, however, much effort was put into obtaining a rational

mathematical expression for the shear strength of reinforced concrete

beams.
ln 1951 A. P. Clark (8) tested beams of two cross-sections,

four span lengths and varying f c under different loading conditions. He

found tha~ after the yield stress was reached in one stirrup the stress
in adjacent stirrups would increase, indicating a redistribution of

internaI stresses. Resistance to failure inqreased as the loading points

 14.

were shifted front the center towards the supports. An empirical

formula was suggested that agreed closely with the test results, but
genefal application was not recommended. The formula indicates that

the shear strength of beams varies with (1) ~he percentage of longitudin~l
reinforcement, (2) the square root of the percentage of web reinforce-

ment, and (3) the compressive concrete strength, multiplied by the ratio

of the effective depth and the shear span length.

Tests on 25 T-beams were reported by P. Ferguson and
J. N. Thompson (10) in 1953. One series of tests consisted of normal

T-beams, the other of T-beams with extra web width over part of the

beam depth. Concrete strength was also a variable. Higher values of

vult. were found for higher f cvalues but ~ decreased for increasing
f c'
values of f è and the code' s unit allowable working stress of 0.03 f è

was considered too high for high f è. The authors pointed out a large
a a
variation in shear strength for different d ratios. For small d large

values for v were obtained which was attributed t9 compressive stresses

in the concrete near the support which greatly reduce diagonal tension

stresses in that area. The "shoulders" on the second series of beams

were found to increase the shear strength and it was suggested that the

area of the shoulders below the neutral axis be added to b'd for use in

the nominal shear formula.

In 1954 Moody, Viest, Elstner and Hognestad (14) publisbed

a four part report on reinforced concrete beams under different types

 15.

of loading and supports, ranging from sim ply supported to fully fixed.
a
Test results indicated that "the strength of beams with large ëi ratios

is governed by the load causing first cracking whereas the strength

of shorter beams is governed by the load causing the destruction of the

compression zone above the diagonal tension crack." A formula expressing

the ultimate shear load multiplied by the shear span (Vua) in beam

geometry-terms multiplied by f c, suggested that the ultimate strength

depended on the ultimate resisting moment (Vua = Mu) of the beam,

independent of the magnitude of the shear. This was later supported by

Brock (24) for a certain range of â- and t. The redistribution of

internaI stresses was also emphasized. Before cracking occurs the

internaI moment and shear are distributed along the beam in the same

way as the external moment and shear. Once a crack forms, however,

a redistribution of internaI stresses takes place, suddenly increasing

the stress in the steel at the location of the crack. Conclusions drawn

from the tests on restrained beams without web reinforcement were

identical to the ones from simply supported beams, namely that the

cracking load may be predicted on the basis of nominal shearing stress

and the ultimate load from the ultimate moment. Analytical expressions

were developed for the diagonal tension cracking strength and the

shear strength of simply supported and restrained reinforced concrete

beams, loaded by one or two concentrated loads. The authors pointed

 16.

out that the exprf~ssions are only vaUd for beams with a constant

maximum shear force over a part of the span and a maximum moment
occurring at the loading point(s). The writer of this thesis has doubts

on the value of the equations as the one or two point concentrated loading
system can certainly not be considered as representing a generally

practical case. The expressions derived should be compared to

expressions for distributed loadings to determine the discrepmcies in

load capacities. In 1955 A. Laupa, C. P. Siess and N. M. Newmark (12)

published an extensive analytical report. The object was to study and

correlate test results of earlier investigations in the field of shear and

diagonal tension to determine modes and characteristics of shear

failures and to derive analytical expressions for the strength of rein-

forced concrete beams failing in shear under different loading conditions.

It was pointed out that the conventional formula for the nominal shearing
V
stress, v = bjd , cannot he a true criterion of shear failure as no
transfer of stresses across cracks occurs and only the compression

area above the cracks should be used to expresS the nominal shear
stress at failure. Dowel action by the longitudinal reinforcing was
neglected. It was assumed that the ultimate unit shearing stress was a

function of f ~. Also, since no expressions for the depth of the com-

pression zone are available for shear failures, thià depth has to be

determined empirically. The factor ks , which multiplied by d gives the

 17.

depth of the compression zone, is found to be a non-linear function of

f c and p~ Using the above assumptions the following equation was obtained:

M
= kF(f c) ... (2.4)

where,
k refers to the theoretical depth of the compression

zone as ordinarily obtained from the transformed

steel area.

For beams with longitudinal steel reinforcement only:

k = - pn , .. (2.5)

also F(f~) refers to some' function of f C' related to

the limiting average compressive stress.

M
From a plot pf bdafck versus f é it was found that for f è between
1000 and 6000 psi, F(f é) can be approximated by the linear equation:

= 0.57 _ 4.5f é ,., (2.6)

10 5

Substituting equation (2.6) into equation(2.4) yieldsan equation for the

moment, called the shear compression moment, at which a reinforced

concrete beam, with tension reinforcement only will fail:

4.5f é
M = bd2f ~ k(0.57 - ) . . . (2.7)
10 5
 18.

No assumptions were made regarding the effect of shear-span to depth

ratio or the ultimate shear strength and therefore equation (2.7) seems

to be applicable to beams loaded by concentrated loads as well as

uniformly distributed loads. This formula is subsequently expanded

to include the effects of compression reinforcing and/or web reinforcing.

Equation (2.7) which applies to rectangular beams was

modified to be applicable to T-beams. It was thought that the effect of

the geometrical shape of the beam is primarily dete"rmined by its moment

of inertia. At the instant of failure the ratio of the moment of inertia

of a T -beam and a rectangular beam is unknown. This ratio was

approximated by the ratio of the average values of lof the uncracked

~nd fully cracked state. Thus the shape factor is~

. " .(2.8)

where,
It and Ir refer to the uncracked T- and rectangular

sections respectively and 1er refers to the fully

cracked section of either a rectangular- or T-beam

(with equal b) as both have nearly the same 1 in the

fully cracked state and is obtained from the "straight

line "cracked and transformed section with k given

by equation (2.5).

Replacing the compression area bkd as obtained by the conventional

straight line theory by Ac in equation (2.4) and substituting we obtain

 19.

an equation for the moment at failure of T-beams without web

reinforcement.

Thus:
M 4.5f C
' = 0.57 -
Ac df cee 10 5 .•• (2.9)

It is the opinion of the writer of this thesis that the shape factor as

defined by equation (2.8) is a very arbitrary choice. No attempt was

made to justify its use,except that in most caSeS equation (2.9) agrees

fairly well with the test results. In sorne series of tests, however,
consistently lower shear strengths were found than pTedicted. The author

concludes that "this discrepancy could mean either that the sha~ factor

is fundamentally incorrect or that there are some other considerations

besides the effect of moment of inertia which determine the compressive

strain in the concrete." No attempt was made in the report to define

the effective flange width b. The discrepancies between the test results
and equation (2.6) occur mainly when b is large and this seems to point

to the fact that only some part of b acts as an effective compressive

concrete area. Thus equation (2.6) cannot he used for practical design

purposes unless some means is found to determine the effective flange

width. The report then continues to discuss beams under distributed

loading o The difficulty with distributed loading is that unlike single or

two-point symmetrical loading where the critical section occurs where

both the bending moment· and the shear force are maximum, namely
 20.

under the loading point, the critical section is unknown. Under

M
distributed loading the Vd ranges from zero to infinity from the support
to the center of the beam. Equation (2.9) was assumed to be appicable
M M
for values of Vd between certain limits. The value of va- which limits
the region of critical diagonal cracking capable of producing shear com-

pression failures was then determined empirically. This was done by

plotting along the length of the beams the ratio of the actual moment at

failure and the moment as obtained from equat~on (2.9). It is recalled

that when this ratio reached the value of one for a beam under concentrated

loads, a shear failure would occur: From the plot it was found that the
M~~ M
ratio of Mca1c. equalled one at a value of ver about equal to 4.5. Thus
it appeared that equation (2.9) is applicable to T-beams under uniformly

distributed loading if the section at which the moment is calculated is

M
that at which va is about 4.5.
E. 1. Brown (15) compared the strength of longitudinally

reinforced concrete T-beams under combined direct shear and torsion

to the strength under shear alone. He showed that reinforced concrete

under combined shear and torsion does not adhere to any particular

failure criterion, but the maximum stress criter~on, which is the

generally accepted failure criterion, was assumed applicable. This

D

criterion offered no explanation for the 50% average increase in strength

under combined shear and torsion after cracking of the beams had
 21.

occurred. Diagonal cracks formed under combined stresses at an average

of 66% of the ultimate load. Maximum rotation seemed to be a more

important factor determining the strength than maximum stress when

torsion is large. Plastic theory seems ta give more accurate results

in predicting the cracking load than does the more widely accepted

elastic theory.

A report entitled "Diagonal Tension Strength of Reinforced

Concrete T-beams with Varying Shear Span" was published in 1956 by

AI-Alusi (19). Emphasis,was laid on the variation of the shear span

and percentage of longitudinal reinforcement on the mode of failure, the

a
'cracking and ultimate strengths. For values of CI between 4.0 and 8.0,

n;v at first diagonal cracking and at failure were found to be essen-

tially constant and thus the actual ultimate moment increased in direct
a ~ a a
proportion to d. V- decreased with increasing a for CI between
cr
2.0 and 4.0. The percentage of longitudinal reinforcement seemed to
a
have no significant effect on the cracking and ultimate loads for d

between 4.0 and 8.0. The presence of comtression reinforcement in the

web or mesh reinforcement in the flange seemed to have no effect on

either cracking or ultimate loads. Whether failure was by diagonal

a
tension or moment, was determined by the value of ëi and the ~rcentage

of longitudinal reinforcement.

Morrow, in his discussion of AI-Alusi' s report, suggests

the formula:
 22.

4
0.15 + ~M~---
(-)
V cr
+ 10
npd

for the cracking load of a T-beam, provided they are considered equivalent

to a rectangular section of dimensions equal to the web sizeof the T-beam.

Whitney, also in a discussion of the same paper suggests:

Mu \ Id
vcr = 50 + 0.26 (i1l V il ••• (2.11)

where,
Mu is the ultimate moment call1city per inch of width.

Whitney also considers the scope of AI-Alusi' s tests too limited to accept

his conclusions without further research.

G. Brock (24) published an extensive study in 1960 in an

attempt to predict the mode of failure and the ultimate load of a rein-

forced concrete rectangular beam without web reinforcement and under

any type of loading. 'rhe author pointed out that the ultimate call1city of

a beam under a uniform bending moment can be established by well-

known design formulae. '.lJhen the beam was also subjected to shear

forces,the ultimate capacity might be lower than that predicted for

bending moment al one and the beam is said to fail in shear. Thus the

hypothesis was developed that the effect of shear is sim ply to reduce the

capacity of the beam in pure flexure. He distinguished between two

modes of shear failure which were called diagonal tension and shear bond.
 23.

Diagonal tension cracks run roughly from the point of support to the

loading point, while shear bond is characterized by a breaking away of

the concrete at the level of the longitudinal reinforcemento Shear bond

failures were thought to be a transition from diagonal tension to flexural

p
failures and their occurrence for a certain Po' de pend on f è and fy.
When both these values are high there is a greater chance for a shear
bond fallure to occur. Shear failures reduce the flexural capacity, and
p M
are a function of the reinforcement index Po and the value of Vd
M a
(note Vd : d for two concentrated loads) at the section of fallure.
To predict the critical section from known shear and bending moment

diagrams two assumptions Were made:

1. "The potential capa city for r~sisting moment at any section
M
of the beam depends on the value of Vd at that section. This capacity
Mu a
can be found from the curve of f c'bd i against d for the appropriate
p
value of p;-."
2. "T he critical section of the beam will be that at which the

actual bending moment first reaches its capacity value and the ultimate

load will be that load which produced the capacity morpent at the

critical section."
The actual capacity moment of the beam at any section is found by
M
substituting the actual Vd value at that particular section onto the
curve of ~ against ultimate moment for that particular :a .
 24.

Values of this moment capacity curve are plotted along the beam. To
determine the ultimate load for a particular capacity curve one has to
superimpose the bending moment diagram which Just touches the

capacity curve. The point where the two curveS touch will be the critical
section. The drawback of this system is that curveS of ultimate moment

against à for a particular:a are not generally available in p'actice.

Two series of tests were run on the shear strength of
restrained reinforced concrete beams under concentrated loading by
J. Bower and 1. M. Viest (25). In the Ursi: series the principal variable

was the ratio of the maximum positive to the maximum negative moment
M Vcr
in the shear span. Plots of the +-M ratio against bd m
show that
the moment ratio has no effect on the magnitude of the shear at initial
diagonal tension cracking. The sarne seemed to be true for the shear
at ultimate load, but this was not shown conclusively as the variation
in ultimate load was considerable (up to 30% from the average). In the
second series of tests the main variable was the ratio of the maximum
M
moment and the external shear multiplied by the effective depth (Vd) •

It appeared that for the beams tested the shear-moment capa city was
M
inde pendent of ver. The following expression was suggested:

.•• (2.12)
bd Vfc
where,
A and B are empirical constants,
V
(-) the shear-rnoment ratio al the section of initial
M c
diagonal cracking~

The authors assume that the section of initial diagonal cracking is located

at a distapce d ~way from the section of maximum moment, but no closer

than half-way to the other end of the shear span. Then,

(M.)
V c
= a - d

The method of least squares was used to determine the values of A and
. Vc
B of equahon (2.12) from a plot of bd f é V
M
v.s. (V) c' ïid'
m
Values of A: 1.917 and B :: 2725 were found. It was ~tressed that the
capacity of beams aft.er initial diagonal tension cracking is unreliable

and that therefore the initial diagonal t~nsion cracking load should be

taken as the ultimate design load for beams without web reinforcement.

"Sorne Factors in the Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete

Beams", a report published in 1960 by A. M. Neville (27) , indicated

that with the increasing USe of ultimate strength design which is based

on the pastic theory it is illogical to use the generally accepted shear

design procedure which is based on the elastic theory and an uncracked

section. Unlike Brock, Neville distinguishes between four different types

of shear failure consequent upon the forming of a diagonal tension crack.

Two of these are similar to the oneS suggested by Brock although they
 26.

are named differentlyo The third type, which occurs when the upper

end of the diagonal tension crack exlends at a continuously decreasing

slope over the fulliength of the beam, thereby separating the beam

into 2 parts, is not discussed by Brock. The fourth type of failure in

shear occurs when a shear bond failure is prevented by action of the

stirrups which restrain the downward movement of the longitudinal

reinforcement, resulting in a yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement.

The test program consisted of beams of 3 different cross sections,

rectangular, T- and L-shapeso All beams were simpy supported and

loaded by 2-point concentrated loads. Shear span to depth ratios were

varied from 1.63 to 2.30 and to 3.41. Curves of deflection versus load

show a greater stiffness for T-beams than L- and rectangular beams,

which is to be expected due to their larger moment of inertia. Cracking

and ultimate loads are also generally higher for T-beams, "the increase

being greater the more favourable the conditions for shear failure."

Beams with compression reinforcement showed a change in

the mode of failure and the cracking pattern, but the ultimate strength

appeared to he unaltered. No attempt was made to develop an analytical

expression for the shear strength of T-beams as the flange size was

unchanged throughout the test program, leaving the actual flange-effect

unknown.
Several papers were pUblished by Dr. G. J. Kani (31), from

the University of Toronto, in which he noted that there is no such material

 27.

constant as·"shear strength" in concrete, because tensile cracks will

always introduce flexural'fa'ilure before shear fallure can be reached.

Also, be,cause the shear stress is only one component of the total stress
field, it cannot be considercd as a true measure of the stress causing

diagonal tension fallure. A completely new concept of the mechanism

of diagonal tension was developed from which the diagonal compression

idea was derived. When the load on a beam is increased flexural cracks
form as is shown in Figure 1 â.

(Cl ) (b)
Figure 1: Kani' s "concrete teeth"

Two adjacent cracks separate concrete blocks which were called

"concrete teeth." Figure 1 b shows a free body diagram of one of the

teeth. The T and T + AT forces are due to the longitudinal reinforcing,
 28.

resulting in a shear force of ë:. T at the root of the tooth. Because of

the A T forces, the force in the longitudinal reinforcement can vary

along the be am according to the bending moment. The teeth act as

unreinforced (if no stirrups) concrete cantilevers acted upon by a force

AT. If under increasing load one of the cantilevers breaks, the

A T force it carried is now taken over by the remaining teeth untH

aU teeth have br<*en off. Once that happens the beam is transformed
into a tied arch with a constant force T in the longitudinal reinforcement.

The resultant compressive force acts in a straight Une from the support
to the loading point (under 1- or 2-point loading). If sorne teeth are

still resisting load the compressive force acts in a curved line with
decreasing slope from support to loading point. The arch being in com-

pression gave rise to the term "diagonal compression."

In a second paper Kani (35) put forward the idea that the

maximum bending momentat failure, Mu, is a much better indication

of diagonal failure than the maximum shear stress at failure. Reasons

suggested are (quoting):

"1. The upper value of the flexural strength, Mfl, which depends
on few parameters necessitates only a simple calculation.
2. The lowest values of Mu for all beams tested were in the
vicinity of 0.50 Mn. Thus, all values of Mu range between
50 and 100 percent of Mfl instead of the 1500 ~rcent variation
in VU evident ;:rom test results studied from the Uterature.
::s. The prevention of premature failure by the formation of a
diagonal crack is the very problem of "shear failure."
When we obtain a diagonal failure at 70 percent of the flexural
failure load, this means that we are just 30 percent short of
our goal, i.e. the full flexural capacity of the cross-section.
 4. The purpose of the web reinforcement is to increase the
strength of the beam to 100 percent of Mn. Thlls a result
of Mu = 0.70 Mn for a beam without web reinforcement
expresses the requirement: a web reinforcement which
increases the capa city by 30 percent of Mn."
Mu a
Kani subsequently Iiots Mn against d for one particular

fe ~ Comparison of these plots for different f creveals that the shear

strength of rectangular reinforced concrete beams is independent of

the con crete compressive strength for the range of f ~ = 2500 to 5000 r ... 1 and
p = 0.50 to 2.80 percent. The percentage of longitudinal reinforcement
Mu
is found ta have a large influence on Mfl ~ For p =2.80 a value for
M
~ of 0.50 is found while for the same concrete strength with
'''~IMu
p = 0.50 a value of 1.00 is obtained for Mn ~ The author suggests a
design procedure by expressing the ultimate strength of a beam by:

••• (2.14)

where r is a reduction factor which varies between 0.50 and 1.00 and
a M
depends on the values of p and d or Vd. Values of r should he obtained
from tables or by formula. The problem of a good des ign would then

be ta determine the type and quantity of web reinforcement required to

increase -r to as close as possible to 1.

It bec orneS abundantly clear after reviewing the literature

on the shear problem in reinforced concrete members that notwith-

standing the large number of tests and their resulting emprical and
 30.

semi-empirical design formulae, very little generally applicable

material has been developed. An abundance of results on sim ply

supported beams, under two-point loading is available. The fact that

simply supported beams hardly ever occur in practice and that two-

point concentrated loading, although convenient for any theoretical

discussion due to its constant maximum shear force and bending moment,

can certaiIÙy not be considered a practical loading arrangement, does

not Seem to occur to the investigators. It has, therefore, been the

object in the tests of this thesis to approach practical conditions as

closely as possible in beam geomp.try, material properties, loading and

end conditions. It is the author' s belief that if this had been done

consistently by aU investigators concerned, a far better understanding

of shear failure in general would have resulted than is now the case.
 31.

CHAPTER THHEJ1:

THgORETICAL DISCUSSION

A. Failure Criterïa for ConcreLe

A fallure criterion of a mater'iai is an attempt. at an answer

to the question~ When does the materïal fa il ? Structural memhers

are usually subjec.t to a eomplex state of stresses. In concrete this is

further complicated by the non-homogeneity and non-isotropy of the

material and the preSence of steel reinforcement. Although the rein-

forcement is assumed to have an effect on the mechanism of failure,

i.e., the prog'ress from initïal local failure to final collapse of the

member, it is generally assumed that the initial local failure in con-

crete is the same for plain and reinfol'ced concrete. Thus, if the

failure criterion for plain concrete were known, the initiallacal failure

condition could be predicted for concrete members of any shape or

percentage of reinforcing.

Theories of failure have been praposed, such as the

maximum prilleiple stress theory (Rankine's theory), the maximum

shearing' stress theory (Coulomb's theory), the maximum strain theory

(Sto Venant' s theory) and others, but none af these seem to give reliable

resuUs far cancrete failures. Sorne emplrical failure criteria for

concrete have been developed by Mahr, Bresler and Pister, McHenry

 32,.

and Karni, and Wastlund. These empirical criteria, which were

developed from test results should only be appied to structural mem-

bers that have a similar stress distribution to that encountered in those

tests. One such criterion is that of Bresler and Pister (20), which was

developed under uniform shear and compressive stresses and should

only be used under similar conditions. This criterion expresses the

relationship between the normal stress and shear stress at a point at

which failure occurs. ':'--

h= 0.1 [0.62+7.86 (4) - 8.46 (~)J j ... (3.1)

where,
\f - longitudinal direct stress at failure
'T = shear stress at failure
f c = nominal compressive strength of 6 12-in.

cylinders.
L. L. Jones (33) used Mohr's criterion with a parabolic

envelope to the stress circles in bis theoretical solution of ultimate

strength of rectangular concrete beams:

(a) When ••• (3.2)

failure at a point occurs when

'" Coefficients used are from the conservative "straight line" theory.
 33 •

... (3.3)

(b) When
••• (3.4)

failure occurs at a point when

H.(3.5)

where,
Q"L = numerical value of the ultimate uniaxial tensUe

stress

~ =1~ f

fTXy = shear stress

= f ~ ( V(O(,;. ex.) -
'rD 0(, )

~ = longitudinal direct stress

B'. Ultimate Strength of T4>eams '1<

The following assumptions were made in the analysis below:

1. plane sections remain plane

2. longitudinal tensUe stresses in concrete are neglected

3. at failure the longitudinal reinforcement is yielding

4. no web reinforcement

'II" L. L. Jones' (33) work on rectangular beams i8 'modified and e;xtended

to be applicable to T-beams under uniformly distributed load.
 34.

5. The stress-strain curve of the concrete is parabolic with .

u ltimate values f ~ and Eu as shown in Figure 2.

po,ro/.)o{a

Figure 2. Stress-Strain 'Curve of Concrete

Figure 3 shows the assumed stress and strain diagrams at

the eventual section of failure.

.
~--T-···-·--·"-···-I--·~ =li_~~······-···--·---·-----··l·-··-·-·············-··- ~

(17;.);- li. - é7'

~._----_._-_. . _. . _......._-_._._. _.i-._. . _ ._ .. __.-_.

--"----+------------------":...-;;:...-'---------_..._ -

Figure 3. stress and Strain Diagrams at

Eventual Sp.ction of Failure
 35.

From the geometry ·of the stl'ain diagram the following

relations are obtained:

d
f:. c (fi - 1) .•• (3 .6)

and

(See Figure 3 for meani.ug' of symbols.)

From the parabolic stress strain curve with ultimate values

of f c and (;u:

.•• (3.8)

substituting (3.7) into (3.8) gives

••. (3.9)

where,
\~ ).,.= longitudinal direct. stress at y from the extreme

compressive fiber

A-Y...
''''"' - h

Note that €. c is the strain, at some load, at the extreme compressive

fiber of the eventual seetion of failure.

 ~6.

1. InternaI Compressive Force

Let C = total compressive force in concrete. C is made

up from the compressive forces of the web as well as the flange.

Thus,

C - b' ~"( <T.)" dy + (b -b' l( (lT'.j.,. dy ... (3.10)

o
..... -_._---'
web contribution
... 0
... .
flangf3 contribution

where,
b ls the effective flange width, i.e., that width of the

flange which has an internaI compressive stress

equal to. the compressive stress in the web for

any one y.

Substituting equation (3.9) into equa tion (3.10) gi Ve s

c =f~ [b' th f 2'1' (1-13) - "," (1-p..V} dy

T (b -b't f o
2't' (1 -r-+ '" ~(I-p..)' J d Y ] ... (3.11)

integrating and simplifying:

... (3.12)
 37.

A further simplification can be made by negiecting the

terms ( th'*' - -- ~
I:2._...'t'
Il .) in the R. H. S. term of equation (3.12 )
h
being small compared to Che factor 2,considering 'V.oe:::. t· and

~ L.. 1 for thin flanged T-beams.

Then:
... (3 .13)

2. InternaI Bending Moment.

The center of pressure of the web is given by

.•• (3.14)

Let Mi = internaI resisting bending moment and assuming that the

t
center of p:essure of the flange is at y = 2' , then

Mr=b' (d- g) f"(U-xh' d~ +(b-b')(d- i) it.(~)y d~ ... (3.15)

,~ _____o . 0 J

web contribution flange contribution

substituting (3.9) and (3.14) into (3.15), integrating and simpIifying:

Mi = b''fh2.{~ [4~ (3-'41)- (4-\V)] +

12-

+ f~ t 'fi (d - ~ ) (b - b') (2 - 'fi ) ••• (3.16)

where, d
~ = h·
 38.

3. InternaI Shear Force

Figure 4 shows the stress and strain diagrams of sections

A and D of a beam~ a distance dx apart. Section A is the failure section.

t
h
___L _____________________

__ _ ____------'-_-J..---_______ _
- -L-L..--.-l--
Section A Se.ction B

Fi gure 4. Stress and Strain at Adjacent Sections

let the horizontal shear stress at depth y ={<r)l.'()y « Static equilibrium

of part of the section up to a depth y gives (neglecting the effect of the

flange on the shear stress distribution):

••• (3.17)
 39.

or
.... (3.18)

now differentiating equatlon (3.9) gives:

Substituting equation(3.19) into equalion(3.18)and integrating gives:

Since the horizontal and verUcal shear stress at a point are equal, the

vertical shear stress at depth y' is also given by equation (3.20).

Therefore, if Vi ïs total shear force and assuming that tbe shear stress

in the flange is equal to that ln the web at the same depth y:

Vi .~~ \)' jlT~If)d 8 i- (b-bl)l~('T,cy) d~ ... (3.21)

'..- o --
.~"--...-. ,,- ,.' ~ o~_

web contribut.ion flange contribution

 40.

Substituting (3.20) iuto (3.21) gives

... (3.22)

Unknowns in (3.16) and (3.22) are:

'fi, h} ~~ and ~ , i.e.,4 equations are

needed for solution.

(i) As the steel is assumed to be yielding, the force in the steel at

the failure section is constant and thusC is constant:

ac
3x
= 0 ..• (3.23)

differentiating (3.13) and simplifying:

't' L' '.p) fJ0{"h + f b!l

0 ( 1 -::; 'l( . 11- '3"2 6' h~ + 2, (b - bf)
> l

••• (3.24)
 41.

(ii) Tensile foree jn st.eel = total compressive force in concrete,

from (3.13)

pb'd fy:: f(~[b'ho/(1-l)

+t·+-(2 ---'fi) (b -- br)] .,.(3.25)

(iii) from (3.16) and (3n22)

_ a
ëf for symmetrieal loading
or

=?rcf (taking a.::; ~ , see Kani (35) ) 1

for dis- '.
tributed
= 4.5 (see Laupa, Seiss and Newmark (12)) loading
3e
Not-é. that 3d = 4.5 for l = 6' 9 d = 6" as in tests.
 42.

4. Method of Solution

The u.nknowns in the expression for Mi (equation 3.16)

are 'V and h~ The problem is ta finà the lowest value of .'V whose

corresponding shear and direct: stresseS do not: violate the failure

criteria (equations 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5).

The following method of solu.tion i.s suggested:

a. assume a value of 'V ~ preferably less than its value at

failure (a value between 0.2 and 0.3 is a good choice)

b. from equation (3.25) determine the value of h for the

selected value of 'V (aU beam geometr-y and material pro-

perties should be known)

c. determine i; and ~~ from equations (3.24) and (3.26)

d. find t.he (f" and tj"y distributions trom equations (3.9)

and (3.20) respectively

e. compare the values obtained for q' l< and <T'ICV' to the failure

criteria (or a plot thereof) and adjust the initial value of

'fi. The same procedure is repeated until values of q-~

and 'T~" are obtained which just ·reach the failure value.

Note that the point of falluI'e in question is not necessarily

located at the extreme über. Whether this local failure

leads tü a fallure of the beam as a whole is not always certain.

f. calculat'e Mi from equation (3.16)

 43.

The equations required for the solution of the ultimate

strength of rectangular beams are (33) (malntaïning the original

numbering~ adding "a")

••• (3.16a)

••• (3.24a)

••• (3.25a)

••• (3.26a)

The method of solution of these equations as suggested

above is very Ume consuming and tedious unless a computer program

is written for their solution. Before this can be done, however, a

theoretical method should he developed, backed up by tests, to deter-

mine the effective wïdth of the flange. The effective width will not only

depend on the usual parameters such as f~, p~ t, etc., but also on the

boundary conditions of the flange. It will de pend on the extent to which

ficticious ïndividual st'.l'ips into which the tlange might be "cut" can
 44.

act as shaUow beams, carrying pàrt of imposed bending and shear

stresses. The problem then is to find the fl~Jlge width b over which the
bending and shear stresses are equal to these stresseS in the web for
any one y.

The failurecriteria were obtained from the literature and

M 3E
their correctneSS is assumed, as, are the Vd = 4.5 or 8d values.
The theory presented in this chapter was not used to predict

the ultimate strength of the beams in this test program because the
author considers this theoretical analysis to be only a smaU step towards

the complete theoretical solution of the ultimate strength of reinforced

cOllcrete members. Test results were too scattered to come to a definite

conclusion regarding the applicability of this theory to predict the

ultimate strength of T-beams. It is the author' s belief that a major

breakthrough in the shear problem may occur if future research is

concentrated on the determination of a reliable failure criterion fOi'

concrete and appying this to different geometric shapes as was done for

rectangular beams by Jones and as was done above for T-beams. By

continuing the present trend in reinforced concrete research, that is,

by testing great numbers of beams under one or two concentrated loads,

and varying one or two variables, not much ground will eVer be gained
towards a solution of the problem. The more basic question: When

does concrete fail? , should first be answered.

 45.

CHAPTER FOUR

MECHANISMS OF FAILUR~

Although the many investigations into the shear problem of

reinforced concrete members have not led to a universally applicable

solution, much light has been shed on the different types of failure in

general, and the mechanisms of shear failure in particular.

In general two tyPes of failure may occur. One is a

flexural failure, the other a shear fallure.

Flexural failure usually occurs in long-span beams, or

beams with a low percentage of main reinforcement. After application

of a load to such a beam, vertical cracks appear in the region of

maximum moment. As the length of th~se flexural cracks increases

under increasing load, the compression area of the concrete above the

cracks decreases until a crushing fallure occurs. This failure may

or may not have been preceded by yielding of the tansile reinforce-

ment, depending on its percentage and the con crete strength. Typical

flexural failures occur after large deflections and much yielding have

taken place. The effect of shear on this kind of' failure is negligible.

When failure of a beam occurs at a lower load than its

flexural capacity indicates, shear failure is said to have taken place.

Beams of average length, that have a normal ~rcentage of tensile

 46.

reinforcement (1.5 to 3%), usually fail in shear. These beams behave

similarly under low loads as des(;ribed above. As the load is increased,

however, an inclined crack, the diagonal tension crack, forms roughly

from the support to the loading pointo Since the tensile stresses due

to bending decrease when approaching the neutral axis, the crack in

this area is mainly due to a condition of pure shear and will cross the

neutral axis at approximately 45 0 • The diagonal tension crack

usuaUy includes the inclined tops of the flexural cracks. In sorne cases

more than one diagonal tension crack may form in a shear sPln.

Further increase of load is often possible to as much as twice or three

Umes the original diagonal tension cracking load. After the diagonal

tension crack has formed different failure mp.chanisms are possible.

Consulting the literature on t.his subject one finds much disagreement

among investigators as to the exact mechanisms of failure. Difference

in nomenclature for essentially the same tyPe of failure is widespread

and often confusing.

The writer considers A. M. Neville' s concept (27) of

failure mechanism s in shear the most appropriate and in aggreement

with the test results. Neville distinguishes between four modes of

failure after the initial diagonal crack has formed.

The first mode is called shear-compression failure and is

said to occur when the upward extension of the diagonal tension crack
reduces the compressive concrete area to such an extent that crushing

oc(:,urs due to the bending and shear stresses. When the cross-

sectional are a of the compressive zone is so large that crushing cannot

occur, as ïs the caSe in 1'-beams, the diagonal tension crack may

extend horizontally towards the support at the level of the main longi-

tudinal reinfor"cement. For this to happen the diagonal tension crack

has to widen and the splH:ting of the concrete along the reïnforcement

is due to dowel action of the reinforcing bars. This dowel force

constitutes a part of the applied shear force which is commonly neglected

in theoretical considerations of the shear problem. W. J. Kreffeld and

c. W. Thurston (32) point out that this force is considerable in many

caseS and thus should be inc1uded in any theoretical formulae. This

makes the problem indeterminate and compatibllity of deflection should

be used in addition to the equîlibrium equations of statics. Dowel action

cracking can be greatly reduced by the USe of web reinforcement such

as stirrups. The name of shear-tension fallure was suggested by Taub.

When sufficient web reinforcement. is used to prevent dowel action

cracking, fallure usually occurs by yielding of the tension steel in t.he

zone of maximum bending moment.. In t.his third mode~ fallure occurs

by extension of the diagonal tension crack through the compressive

zone of the concrete. The fourth mode occurs when the diagonal tension

crack ls continuous, with a decreasing slope towards the center of the

 48.

beam, thereby splitting the beam into a top and boUom half. Ferguson (16)

explained this mechanism in terms of principal stresses in the com-

pression zone of the concret:e. It is still not always possible to predict:

exactly which mode of fallure will occur in a particular case, nor has

it been established whether the mode of failure affects the ultimate

load, or, if it does 1 to w hat extent.

 49.

CHAPTER FlVE

A. The Test Beams

As stated before, the object. of the test series was ta

determine the effect of the flange on the shear strength of reinforced

concrete T-beamso To ensure meaningful and generally applicable

results? pI'actical conditions were simulated as closely as possibleo

This was done by using:

la test beams of typically practical dimensions? c:oncrete

strength and reinforcing percentage

2. truly uniformly distributed loading

3. end conditions as found in practice

4. column stubs ta obtain a practical stress distribution in

the beams near the supports ,.

The only variable between different beams was to be the

flange width and thickness and, of course, unavoi~able differences in f è.

The original plan called for a total of 14 beams. Each

beam was to have a companion beam, exactly similar in aU respects,

as a check on the reliability of the results. In case of dissîmilarit:y

between companion beams, a third similar beam would be made as an

additional check. The beams were to have a column t.o column span

of 23' - 8" and a web cross-section of 14" x 28". Overhangs were

 50.

to be provided to simulate fixed end moments at the columns under a

continuous loado The overhangs were to he 9 ' - 8" long. As beams

of this size would be impossible to handle in the laboratory it was

1
decided that models at '4 scale would be used. Thus, the resulting
1
cross-section of the web was 3 2' "x 7"? column to column span of

5' - 11'' and overhangs of 2' - 5".

Two different widths of flanges were used ; one of 3' ? the

other of 5' (9" and 15" respectively in model form)u This was thought

to be in the range of the average practical distance from the beam to the

point of inflection of a typical slab. Wnh eac.h width, three different

3
slab thicknesses were used: 3", 4" and 5" (model slab of 4''', 1.0"
1
and 1 4' "). Thus the effects of flange width as well as tbickness were

to be studied.

Two rectangular beams.,dimensionally similar to the web

of the T-beams,were to be made for comparison purposes of the mode

of failure, and the cracking and ult.imate strengths.

In aU cases, one of the companion beams was strain gauged

(see Chapter Six for details).

1 1
All beams Were provided with column slubs of 3 2''' x 3 2" "

cross-section and 5" long.

After the testing of eight fixed-end beams (2 rectangular,

1 1 3
2 of 9" x l '4 " flange, 2 of 15" x l '4 "flange and 2 of 9" x '4" flange)
 510

this series of tests was discontinued as no t.rend in either the cracking

or ultîmale strength was discoveredo As this was attributed to the large

negative moment over the columns, it was decided to have a second

series of test beams with ends rest.rained ïn such a way that the negative

moment over the column was equal to the positive moment at center

span. Eight beams were tested in this series (2 rectangular? 2 of 9" x 1"
3 1
flange, 2 of 15 I l x 4" I l flange and 2 of 15" x l '4 "flange)o A third

series ~ also of eight beams (2 rectangular? 2 of 9" xl" flange? 2 of

3 1
9" x '4" flange, 2 of 9" x l '4 " flallge) weI'e tested under sim ply

supported conditions.

The three series are numbered l, II, and III respectively.

Each beam is identified by Us series number 1 Us flange dimensions and

an " a" or " b", referring to companion beams, the "a" beam being

strain gauged and the" b " beam being similar.,but without strain gaugeS.
3
Thus beam II - 15 x 4' a is a beam test.ed with equal positive and
3
negative moment (series II), a flange size of 15" x 4' " and equipped

with strain gauges. The rectangular beams are identified by the symb~l

NF (no flange). Bearn III - NF a is a rectangular, strain gauged beam

of Series nI. AU beams of Series II Wel'e of the same overall length as ...
the beams of Series l, the difference in moment comïng from the düference

of loading length over the overhang. Beams of Series III had overall

length of 6' - 8"? with a simïlar column to column span length of

 52.

1
5' - Il'' as the other series and an overhang of 4 2''' on each end for
securing of the longitudinal reinforcement to pre vent bond failureo

Figures 5 to 7 give the dimensional details of aU beams, and their shear

and bending moment diagrams •

.8. The Reinforcement

Beams of Series 1 and II ha~ similar reinforcement. Five

#~ bars were used in the negative moment tension area, below (note
beams are tested in "upside down" position) the columns. Three #2 bars

were used at center span, of which two were bentï-.upand one extended
to the columns. AU #2 bars were plain and, to pre vent bond failure,

hooks were provided at the ends. The reinforcing percentage was .61%
at center span and 1.14% OVer the columns. (See Figure 8 for reinforcing

details.)
. Beams of Series lIT were reinforced by 5-#3 deformed bars,

aU positioned in one plane. Although the spacing of these bars was

smaUer than allowed by the National Building Code, this was thought

to have a negligible effect as the spacing was considerably larger than

the largest aggregate size. In this series the percentage of reinforcing

was 2.51% (see Figure 8).

1
Reinforcement of the flange consisted of 8" diameter steel
rods, spanning across th~ flange, perpendicular to the beam. The
 53.

29~----~----------- 71 11 _ _ _ _ _ _~-- 29/1

Il

î
---.~,...----
35
. i
511

,sECT/oN A-A

3SS W-

Figure 5, Series 1: Bearn Dimensions,

Sh ear and Bending Moment Diagrams
 54.

'-------1-------- 129 " --------'~II----~.......

- - - - - 71" ------...,.....dO--- 29-"-~-I

l
7 Il r t.::
{,7S
/.00
L - - J. /'1$
\-c- sr' ~~1 ~l
fo4---/5"
~rlo~

Fl.gure 6, Series II: Bearn Dimension,

Shear and Bending Moment Diagrams
 55.

_ _ _ 6b /1 - - - - - - - - - ; : l.....

i
s"

b.7S
7/1 f. ={ 1.00
l 1.25
F-=-9---"-I~1
,:SEc..TloN A -A

Figure 7, Series TIl:

Bearn Dimensions, Shear and Bending Moment Diagrams
 ~
/
/28" la /

L 45" • ,/ "'"' 45 N

i3j/ / /
.... ; / 7

L /{ 38' ~ 38" 7/
r-f!.""
ÂLL&4RS #2 ~w/
fs, ;/ /
if ~
Z- 7/" ----------~~-

R~/N;:l:}RCE.M4:Nr RNe Se,e;.êS Jo ~ .IL

4 #2 PLAIN-
Il "LCtJ6

~ ~. ;/
L
#~.
3'"
/
~'/'
, /,
e
~
r-. G\~" .a4.e.s-#3 OEFQlfiMED 3STIReLlPS
{Â IIPWIRE.I

/<.EINJ:'ORCC/tIfPV r F.o..e SL.:..eIG:.$:or

.
al
~

COil.lMN RéINj:'O~ceN'lEN T

Figure 8. Reinforcement Details

 object of the reinforcing was to prevent excessive deflection or cracking

of the flange. The rods were provided with hooks to prevent slipping.
113 1
They were spaced at l "2 ", 2" and 2 2 " for the 4 ", 1.0" and 1 4' "
flange thicknesses respectively. The rods were held in place by glueing
1
them with epoxy glue to two 8' " wires, running from end to end, parallel

to the beamo The epoxy glue was found to be sufficiently strong to hold

the flange reinforcement in position during the pouring of the concreteo

Figure 9 gives the details of the flange reinforcement.

Figure 8 also gives the details of the reinforcement of the

column stubs, consisting of four #2 bars, extending from the column into
1
the web, and three ties, made of 8''' wire.

C, Formwork

To he able to pour two beams simult~neously; two forms

were built, as shown in Figure 10. In the design of the formwork an

attempt was made to obtain a configuration that was easily put together
3
and dismounted. The main component was i" thick B. C. fir plywood.

To provide space for the column stubs the whole assembly had to he

lifted off the ground by awroximately 5 ". To accomplish this, the

assembly was supported on four pine beams, running over the full

length. To pre vent bulging of the plywood after the pouring of concrete,

wooden blocks were provided at 21" intervals along the beam. These
 58.

Figure 9.
Flange Reinforcing
Figure 10.
The Forrnwork

Figure 11. Bearn Ready for Testing

 59.

blocks also supported the plywood on which the flanges were poured.

The concret.e forming the flange was contained along the edge by two

plywood strips of equal thickness to the required flange thickness and

nailed, one on each side of the web, at a distance apart. equal to the required

flange width. To prevent the sticking of concrete to the wood and to

facilita te the stripping operation, the forms Were oiled (Shell SAE 30)
3
about 24 hours before placing the concreteo Steel chairs of 4''' height

were used to Secure the longitudinal reinforcement in p>sitiono After

pouring the flange reinforcement was inserted to such a depth that the

concrete would just cover the rodso As the depth of the flange re in-

forcement was not critical, chairs Were not used.

 60.

CHAPTER SIX

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Although third point loading is used in the vast majority of

tests described in the literature, this loading condition does not reflect

practice adequat.ely and any formulae derived are thus not generally

applicable. Uniformly distributed loading is by far the most corn mon in

practice and a method was devised to obtain a simple continuous loading

system.

The most commonly used approximation to a continuous

loading method is a multi-point load system, the accuracy never being

very great, unless a large number of point~oads are usedo Water or

sand pressureS have been used? but these are bothersome, comIiicated

and time consuming methods.

The loading system used in this investigation consisted of

a 3 "thick layer of Neoprene medium soft sponge rubber, lying on a level

floor under the testing machine. The T-beam was then put on the rubber

layer with its flange down and the web and column stubs pointing upwards.

Thus, the beams Were tested in an"upside down" position, the advantage

being that the mode of failure and the crack pattern in the web could

easily be recorded and studied. Figure 11 shows a beam ready for

testing. Steel plates were fixed on the column stubs with plaster of Paris
 61.

to ensure an even pressure distribution. To prevent eccentricity of

load, rollers were used hetween the plates and the loading beamo The

loading beam was a 6' ~ 10" long 14 WF-48 beam whlch was sufficiently

stiff to prevenl excessive deflection. A ball and soekel bearing was

used bet,ween the machine head and the loading beam~ again to prevent

eccentricity of loadlng'. AU tests were carrled out with a 400,000 Ibo

Baldwin~Tate~EmtH'Y hydraul1c testlng machlne1) Noo 512895 9 equlpped

with a Tate-=Emery load indicatol' 0 F1gure 12 shows the experimental

set-up.

As the sponge rubber was not commerclally avallable in

3" thickness, four layers of !" each were placed on top of each other.

A concrete slab 9 spanning between two parallel supporting

beams, has two points of inflection. If a free body diagram is drawn

of one beam and that part of the slab up to the point of inflection on

each side of the beam? the effect of the rest of the slab can be replaced

by a concentrated shear force, acting at the points of inflection. To

1
simulate this sheal' force in the .investigation, the sponge rubber was
1 1
made '2" wider than the flange width? thus providing a 4" overhang

of rubber on each side of the flange. This can be compared to a rigid

foundation footing on an elastïc soil ~ ha ving theoretically an infinite

1 .
pressure at the edges. The '4" overhang was thought to Il'oVlde a

shear force in the' correct range of size. A î" overhang, which was
 62.

1
i
i
r"
-l''--r
. • i
"-

.. ~!

~ 0.-
...,:r
CL>
'CIJ
......
..,
CI1
s::
(1)

.S~

~
~
~

K ~
......t
lU
~ (1)
~

Sn
•..-c
r..

r'
 63.

t. ned imtially? provided sUlh a large force at lhe flange-edge that t.he

flange cracked al the web.

During loading the beam was forced down onto the rubber '1

wtnch exerled an even pressure on the beam provided the deflection of

the rubbl..:;r was equal for aH points along the beamo Two kinds

of defledions resuUf':do The fU'st was the deflection of the total beam

with respect to the !Joor" or the amount the sponge rubber was com-

pressed. The second was the deflection of the beam itself with respect

to the columnso The defle:ction of the beam itself was so smaU compared

to the defleclion of the beam as a whole with res{p-ct to the floor (less

than 1%) that the inaccuracy in the uniformity of the distributed loading,

brought about by the slight differences of compression of the rubber, was

neglected. In fact, dial gauge measurements of the deflection of the

beam with respect. to the l'loor at different points along the beam showed

negligible differenees.

Some difhculty was encountered with the rectangular beams.

Due to the small area in contact with the rubber as compared to the

[langed beams, the possibility existed of the beams punching through

3
the rubbero 1'0 preven!. this from happening,steel plates CS" x 2 X 8")
If

were used between the rectangular beam and the rubber to provide a

large!' area to compress the rubbero This set-up was used in the

testing Di aIl r-ectangular beams and proved very successful (see

Figure 13),
 64.

Measurements of deflecUons and st.rains were taken at

2000 lbs. load intervalso As most beams failed in the neighbourhood

of 30 kips, this provided enough points for the plotting of graphs.

Whitewash was applied to the beams to facilitate the

detection of cracks. Black marking {)Emcils were used tü mark cracks

on the beam and the loads al which they formed. During' loading the

beams were carefully watched to determine the initial tlexural cracking

load and the initial diagonal tension cracking loado In many cases the

diagonal tension crack was an extension of an existing tlexural crack

and in such cases it was hard to give an exact value for the initial

diagonal tension cracking load.

Deflection Measurement.

"St.arrett" sproing dial gauges, provided with magnetic bases

and reading 0.001" belween the smallest divisions, were used for the

measurement of beam defleetions.

The compression of the rubber was measured by gauges

whose bases rested on the floor and whose measuring arms rested on

top of the webo The object was to obtain load-deflection curves for the

rubber and also to compare the deflection of the rubher at several points

along the beamo The latter values should be equal for any particular

load to ensure a uniformly distributed load on the beamo

 65.

The defleetion of the beams lhemselves was measured by

dial gauges with thei.r" measuring arm resting on top of the web and
1 1 3
their bases support€;d by a 2 2''' x 2 '2" x 8"" L" ,whieh was clamped

to the eolumns as shown lU Figure 140 Al" x l " xl" steel spaeer

was used belween t.he angle and the beam al the loeation of the clamps

to prevent: friet.lOllo When the beam as a whole deflected downward onto

the ru bb:e Y' " the angle and ils gauges defleded with il' by an equal amount

and thus the gauges measured only the deflection of the beam itself with

respect to the columns. Figure 15 gives the numbering and location of

aH dial gauges. Load-deflection curves were drawn as a means of

observing the redistribution of internaI stresses after cracking of the

concrete, and of comparing the detlections of beams with different

l'lange dimensions. Test: results are discussed elsewhere.

Str'ain MeasuremenL

In Series land U, eleetrieal strain gauges were applied to

both the reinforcing steel and the concrete. In Series III strain gauges

were applied to the steel only .

The gauges measuring the strain in the reinforcing were

a pplied to the steel before the concreting of the beams. This course of

action was followed 1:0 reduce the possibility of damaging the beams,

should they be applied after pouring. This procedure was also lime
saving. The type of gauges used was Budd C 6·~12L lt was learned

from experience Hl t.he laboratory that !,wo layers 01 wate:rproofing were

necessal'y to fully protect the gauges from damage during the placing

of the concrete" Budd GW -1 was used for the first layer of water -

proofing and Bndd GW -5 for the second. Twenty four hours or more

were required for t:he wat.erpr00fing ta seL In the third series.,deformed

bars were used and the deformatîons were removed by grinding the

bars uutU a smooth surface resulted for appUcation of the gauges. The

loss of bond area due to the waterproofing on the bars was neglected.

Gauges were applied in triplets to check the reliability and accuracy

of the readingso Figure 16 gives the locatïon of aH strain gauges.

Baldwin·-Lima-Hamilton SR 4 strain gauges were used on

the concrete. Again~ three gauges were used~ side by side, in each

location? as a check on reliability of the readings. Terminal strips

were used for aU gauges to lessen the possibility of damage.

Strajn readings of the steel as well as the con crete were

read from a Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Model 120 strain indicator.

AH gauges were appUed by standard methods as recom-

mended by the manufacturerso

 66a

Figure 13. Steel Plates

on Rubber for
Rectangular Beams

Figure 14. Dial Gauge Set-Up

 i fi " ,.,

1 2.i1 1l2l.' J{. 3

li L TI.)

~
29/1 1 1/7.l" ,-
J7~ - - ;1 f---oe 29· ---1
!
1 _~
1
!

:/il ::/J7

SE.!2IC.s l ~ JI

l " 1 1 3/1
2 2 - )(22 ~a L TO
suPPol2r 0. G.6UG€;:'

SE.R/ES .JlL LEGE.rJD

.êVA' t;~aES MGASI./Iè/NIG .{)E/:"-
())
•

® D/~
'-ECrll>N6 OF ~ Nf

~GeS M,EjJS~~/M!'2
IT.SEL.':

/).éF--
.
~
-J

lecT/OII -o,c _&;:"tlM A-S il v-/J./;ji. L

w...<2. T. ,cLüoR

i'igure 15. Number-ing and Location of Dial Gauges.

 ~.

1--21.
CDNo2E r~ G.AuGES 3TseL ~A(Jt;,E.s
1L Nf) 1f),1/ .p /~ No 1,.2 fI..3
--T---~
~--;ç- =~-.;;;;~ ---1
/
" -=- ~ -.:z:> 1-" == = _ ~_ ~_~~_.~

S7,EEL ~LJUc;,ES COllal'lErE &;&.IGe,s

1\0 4.s~ 6. No 7, S ~ 9

-SEI2IE.s .z i ..Ir

zr 0-
f"

Figure 16. Numberingand Location of Strain Gauges

 69.

CHAPTER SEVEN

T EST MA TERIALS AND MATERIALS TESTING

A. Mortar

To be able t.o exercise strict quality control and because

of the fact that fairly small quantities of concrete-mortar were needed

at a Ume, the mixing of the mortar was done in the laboratory. About

350 lbs. of mortar were needed for the placing of two beams, the exact

weight depending on the paI'tlcular flange size. Due to the limited

capacity of the concrete mixer it was decided to split the total required

amount of mortar into three batches of 140 lbs. each, which left a

sufficient quantity for the making of test cylinders.

Cement used was Type 1 normal Portland cement, obtained

from the Canada Cement Company. The mix was designed for a com-

pressive cylinder strength of 3000 psi. As no special conditions had

to be met, no admixtures were added to the mixe

Sand used was graded crushed quartz, obtained from the

Dominion Industrial Mineral Corporation. Five different grades were

mixed (using the supplier' s designation): 10%-#6, 25%-#10, 25%-#24,

25%-#35 and 15%-#70 (aU percentages are by weight). Results of a

sieve analysis performed on each grade of sand are shown in Table 1.

The grading curve of the sand is shown in Figure 17, along with the

requirements of A .S. T .M. designation C33 -61 T.

 70.

The water-cement ratio was 0.75 t.o 1.0 and the cement to

sand ratio was LO to 3.5. Thus a typical batch consisted of:

cement

sand
# 6 9.4 lbs.
# 10 23.7 "
#24 23.7 "
#35 2307 "
# 70 14.1 "
total sand 94.6 "
water 20.0 "
TOTAL 141.2 "

Curing of the beams consisted of covering the beams with

burlap and thoroughly soaking them with water several Urnes daily.

The beams were then covered with sheets of polyethelene to ensure

continuously moist conditions. After cu ring for one week the beams

were stripped of their forms and left in the atmosphere of the laboratory.

A minimum of two 3" x 6" test cylinders were made

from each batch of mortar in accordance .with ASTM specifications

C-192. This size of test cylinder was considered appropriate consi-

1
dering the web dimensions of 3 2''' x 7" and flange thicknesses in the

range of 1 ". The curing method for the cylinders was exactly the same

as that used for the beams. AU cylinders were capJEd and tested for

their compressive strength within 24 hours of the corresponding beam

 Table l

SIEVE ANALYSIS OF SAND

SAND
Canadian 1 U .S. #6 #10 #24 #35 #70 Total
Standard Standard 10% 25% 25% 25% 15% Total % Accumulative %
Screens Screens Percentage Retained: Retained 1 Retained

No • 4 No. 4 .7 .7 .7
6 6 6.9 6.9 7.6
8 8 1.9 1.9 9.5
10 12 .3 5.6 5.9 15.4
14 16 .2 12.2 .2 12.6 28.0
20 20 5.5 6.7 12.2 40.2
28 30 1.4 12.2 .4 14.0 54.2
35 40 .2 5.2 4.5 9.9 64.1
48 50 .4 11.3 .1 11.8 75.9
65 70 7.2 1.8 9.0 84.9
100 100 1.4 5.5 6.9 91.8
150 140 3.9 3.9 95.7
PAN .1 .3 .2 3.7 4.3 100.0
-~ .... __.- - ~.- --

......
-.J
 72.

--

1,.,.
~

, 1 .... ~ 1

l'
"

'.

1"
1"-

i(1

1"0..

Figure 17. Grading Curve for Sand

 73.

test. The averages of the compressive strengths of the cylinders are

given in Table 4 for each beamo Four cylinders, picked at random,

were strain gauged with two gauges placed vertically and two gauges

placed horizontally at opplsite sides of the cylinder at about mid-height.

The vertical gauges served to obtain the stress-strain relationship,

and the horizontal gauges to obtain Poisson' s ratio of the mortar.

Typical results of the gauges are given in Table 2 and Figure 18 shows

a typical stress-strain curve for the mortar.

B. Steel

Three sizes of steel reinforcing were used in this inves-

1
tigation: No. 3 deformed, No. 2 plain and 8" diameter wire for flange

reinforcement~ The purpose of the flange reinforcement was to prevent

excessive flange deflection (with respect to the web) or cracking at

the web. No tests were performed to determine the steel wire properties.

The No. 2 and No. 3 bars were made of billet steel of

intermediate structural grade conforming to ASTM requirements - A15.

The bars were 20 feet long and were eut to length and bent to shape in

the laboratory. A wooden jig held the bars in position while 3" long,
1
a" diameter wires were spot welded transversely across the bars to
ensure the correct spacing. Spot welds were made at sections of low

bending moment to prevent any change in steel properties at a critical

section.
 74.

Table 2

TYPICAL STRAIN GAUGE RESULTS OFTWO

'l'EST CYLINDERS FOR DETERMINATION OF
MODUL US OF ELASTICITY AND POISSON' S RATIO

Av. Axial Av. Hor.

Load St.ress Strain Strain Poisson's Ec 6
Ki12s Psi Micro-in/in Micro-in/in Ratio Psi x 10
Cylinder 1
0 00 00 00
2 283 60 17 0.284 4.71
4 566 152 25 0.164 3.73
6 849 240 29 0.121 3.54
8 1132 312 35 0.112 3.64
10 1415 407 39 0.096 3048
12 1698 461 51 0 0111 3.68
14 1981 552 67 0.121 4.29
16 2264 675 81 0 .. 120 3.36
18 2547 737 92 0.126 3.46
20 2830 791 110 0.139 3.58
22 3 113 889 183 0.206 3.50
24 3 396 1002 261 0.256 3.33
26 3 679 1167 372 0.319 ~.15

C ylinder 2
0 00 00 00
2 283 35 12 0.330 8.08
4 566 121 25 0.206 4.68
6 849 211 27 0.138 4.02
8 1132 297 32 0.108 3.81
10 1415 383 39 0.102 3.64
12 1698 467 52 0.111 3.68
14 1981 538 61 00f13 3033
16 2264 682 79 0.116 3.32
18 2547 821 93 0.113 3.10
20 2830 915 102 0.111 3.09
22 3113 1132 152 0.134 2.75
 75.

1/"

.
~ 1/
1

LI

11

,.,

Figure 18. Typical Stress-Strai.n Curve of Concrete Mortar

 76.

Three 2..feet long coupons were taken at random from each

of the two bar sizesn Two strain gauges were applied to each bar al

opposïte sides at midaheight. Table 3 gives the steel properties and

Figure 19 shows a typical stress--strain curve for the steel ..

Table 3

TYPICAL STEEL PROPERTIES

St rain at Modulus of Yield Ultimate

Failure ElasticitY6 Stress Stress
Cou n No. A~2% psi x 10 ksi ksi
No. 2 Reinforcing

1 14.. 8 26.6 42.0 68.0

2 12.8 29.0 44 .. 7 72.0
3 16.3 30.1 43.2 71.7

No. 3 Reinforcing

1 16.2 30.6 45.2 65.3

2 16.7 29.4 43.7 67.2
3 13.9 30.1 40.9 71..9
 77.

L.

Figure 19. Typical Stress-Strain Curve for #2 Bar

 78.

CHAPTER EIGHT

RESULTS, OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

..

Ao Crack Formation

Series 1

Except for a uniform compression of the sponge rubber,

no visible change took place in the experirnental set-up until a load of

about 10 kips was reached and tlexuI'al cracks st.arted forming. These

formed in the area of highest tensile stresses, in the extreme fïbers

of web and flange, just below the columns. These cracks formed at

equal or nearly equal loads at each end of the beam. Due to the test

arrangement, with the beams tested in an "upside-down" position,

they could only be observed after having reached a depth equal to the

thickness of .the flange. The cracks appeared in the flange perpen-

dicular to the web and under increasing load more and more would

appear, spreading at intervals of 2 to 3 inc.hes, for a distance of about

15 inches each side of the column. No flexural cracks were observed

in the concrete tension zone of the beams al. mid-span. The initial

diagonal tension crack normally started off as a flexural crack which

would curve towards the intersection point of web and column. These

cracks crossed the neutral axis at an angle of about 45 0 • In sorne

cases, the initial diagonal tension craek formed at about the neutral
 79.

axïs and extended upwards and downwards undèr increasing loado At

the ultimate load, the diagonal crack would open up and a failure

mechanism as shown in Figure 20 occurred which can he considered

to be a shear tension failure.

CANTILEveR .é.AlO
t-

Figure 20. Typical Mechanism of Failure for

Series 1 and II with Typical Dimensions

Dowel action of the longitudinal steel on the flange side forced a split

between flange and web which formed instantaneously at failure, thus

creating an " intermediate" piece of flange, cracked on each side but

held in place by the reinforcing steel. Close observation of the crack

which formed in between the flange and web showed clearly that the

crack formed in the plane of the reinforcing bars, which were embedded

inside the web at about mid'-depth of the flange. On each side of the

.. • • _ •• - • - . . . __, .~ • • • • n . __ . _
 80.

outside bars this "plane of cracking" turned up towards t.he intersection

of the flange and web~ where the crack became externaUy visible. The

addition of web reinforcement in the form of stirrups which penetrate

as deeply into the flange as possible would have acted as a Unk between

the t1ange, and web and wou.ld have prevented the cracking of the flange

away from the web. This would have greatly increased the ultimate

load. Stirrups should therefore always be used in T-beams,even when

the desïgn theory does not requïre them.

Usually a failure as shown in Figure 20 occurred in one end

of the span, the other end also showing a diagonal crack which had not

i
yet opened up or failed. Bearn 1-15 x 1 a failed on both sides
3
sîmultaneously. Bearn 1-9 x 4' failed on one side but. had a similar

diagonal tension crack at the opposïte end of the beam, in the 'canti-

lever" part. The rect.angular bearns had the same failure mechanism

as the T-beams, wïth a diagonal tension crack extending into a split of

the concrete along the longitudinal reinforcing, instead of the flange.

Although ït may apJEar that the beams in this series do not

act as T-beams as the flange is in tension due to the negative moment

below the columns, this is not necessarily true~ because the region of

tension is short (see the bending moment diagram, Figure 5). Thus the

actual critical section might well have been in the compression region

of the fla.nge. Also,the effect of dowel action of the flange could not
 81.

have been anticipated before the actual tests were performed. The point

of inflection of the beams occurred at about 16" from the column?

resulting in tension in the region of the crack close st to the column of

the "intermediate pie ce " and compression in the crack furthest from the

column. No crushing of concrete was observed in the compression

zone of the region of negative moment, where the diagonal tension crack
reached the column. This is believed to be due to the high biaxial

stresses (flexural stresses due t.o bending and compressive stresses

due to the reaction of the support). The compressive stresses due to

the support tend to decrease the effect of the fle.xural stresses and most

likely prevented crushing of the concrete in that area.

Series TI

Beams of Series II showed much the same crack formation

under load as those of Series 1. The main differences were a diagonal

tension crack which formed at a slightly shallower slOIB, thereby

extending further towards the center of the beam and the fact that due
to a larger bending moment at center span, flexural cracks formed not

only as described above, but also in the tension zone at the center of
the beam. These formed at a somewhat higher load than the flexural

cracks below the columns. They appeared over a length of about two

feet at intervals from three to six inches. The rectangular beams

 82.

3
showed more severe center cracking .. Beam n -15 x 4 b failed first

in a cantilever en d and only after increased load failed in shear tension

in the center span in the same baU of the beamo

Although with concentrated loading often several diagonal

cracks form in the shear span, of which one opens up at failure, all

beams in Series 1 and II had only one diagonal crack per shear span.

(The shear span is defined as that part of the beam extending from the

point of maximum shear to the point of zero shear or in this case from the

column to cen ter span.)

Series nI

In Series III, with simply supported beams, a different

crack formation was observed, t he main diff-erence being that in

the absence of a negative bending moment at the columns no flexural

cracking took place in that area. Flexural cracks appeared in the

tension zone in the center of the beam at approximately the same load

as the other series. Several slightly different crack patterns formed.

The simplest, as shown in Figure 21 which formed in beam III -

3
9 x 4" a is a fairly straight diagonal crack, at about 300 to the longi-

tudinal axis. Note that rather than entering into the flange, the crack

followed the flange-web intersection for several inches, the flange

remaining completely uncracked.

 83.

"If,
-"",,,
'''''''~-.,

3
Figure 21. Crack Pattern of Bearn III - 9 x 4" ao
3
Bearn TIl - 9 x 4' b showed, a different crack pattern as shown in

Figure 22"

e" ID"

--------)

3
Figure 22~: Crack Pattern of Bearn III - 9 x '4 b.
 84.

Two diagonal cracks formed in one shear span. The diagonal crack

closest to the column was thought to he the faUure crack, with' cracking
along the reinforcing bars, which ext.ended to the column. The second

diagonal crack was believed to form due to high shear stresses in the
reinforcing steel, in the region of the first diagonal crack. Due to these
high shear stresses a large force existed on the remaining part of the
..
beam, instantaneously causing the second diagonal crack. The crack
along the reinforcing steel continued on beyond the second crack for
about six inches towards the center of the beam. Although both

diagonal cracks occurred simultaneously, the one furthest away from

the co~umn was thought to form as a consequence of the one closest to
the column. Severe flange cracking was observed underneath the latter
crack while only a hairline crack formed in the flange underneath the

former diagonal crack. Beam TIl - 9 x 1 a had a crack pattern on

one side of the span as ls shown in Figure 21. When an attempt was

made to increase the load a crack pattern as shown in Figure 22 formed

on the other side of the span at a load of 3 kips below the first failure

load. AH other beams in this series failed with either one of the above
patterns or combinat.ions thereof.
The rectangular beams of this series showed slightly dif-
ferent crack patterns. Figure 23 shows the pattern of beam TIl - NF a.
 85.

1.:3 Il :/'

Figure 23. Crack Pattern of Bearn In - NF a.

Bearn III - NF b had a similar crack pattern except the second diagonal

crack, furthest from the column, did not occur.

It is clear that aU beams failed in diagonal tension which

is mainly due to the particular longitudinal steel percentages selected.

Figures 24 to 27 are photographs, iUustrating several

crack patterns.

Bo Failure Loads and Stresses

Tables 4, 5 and 6 give beam and con crete details, and the

evaluated data for shearing forces and stresses. The beam dimensions
of Table 4 refer to the average values, obtained at. a minimum of five

points along the beam. The initial flexural cracking load, P F'
 86.

Table 5, refers to the load at which flexural hairlïne cracks first became

visible. The initial diagonal tension cracking load, Pi, refers to the

load at which a diagonal tension .crack was first observed in the web.

At Urnes this load was hard to pinpoint due to diffïculty in observing il,

or due to dïffïculty in distinguishing it from flexural cracks. Values

for Pi should therefore be considered approximate. Pu is defined as

the ultimate load 9 which occurred when the diagonal tension crack opened

. up, simultaneously with a considerable decrease in the load carrying

capacity of the beam. This load was always clearly defined, which is

assumed to be due to the method of loading. In the conventionalloading

method, with beams on rigid support, loaded by a hydraulic testing

machine, the diagonal tension crack, once it has formed, will slowly open

up under inc.reasing load, without a sharp drop in load carrying

capacity. This makes it at Umes difficult to pin-point the ultimate

capacity of the beam. Such inaccurate measures have been used as

defining Pu as that load at which the diagonal tension crack opens up a

1
certain amount, say 8'''4 Utilizing the sponge rubber loading system,

however, there was no d iffi cultY in determining Pu. In. most cases the

initial diagonal tension crack would appear in the form of a hairline

crack. Under increasing load the diagonal tension crack would suddenly
1
open up, usually to about 4' ft, a breaking sound could be heard, and the

load would drop at least five kips. This load was considered to be the
 87

Figure 24.
Typical Diagonal Tension Crack for Series l and II

Figure 25.
Beam II -15 x 1 a after FaillJre
 88

Figure 26.
Bearn III - 9 x 3/4 b after Failure

-" ".: .._,. \ Q_..- -C")".

!1 ""'~-G'·/,':
.', ';<"""""'1",:,"
""""1
, ,<l,J_ " . . ,.l.. 1
!,,',
. ... ~ .
. . • : '",,~
. .~ ,
. 1 \,.... l , ,. . .t~
... ..,. . , ., . ,

,... .... ...... ~.. ' :

Figure 27.
Crack Pattern of Bearn III - NF b
 89.

ultimate loado If the load were again increased, much yielding would

occur in the steel a t the location of the cracko Deflectioll. would be

excessive and the load could no longer be considered to be uniformly

distributedo A further increase in load u.sually caused a diagonal

tension crack in the other shear span to widen and fail at loads somewhat

below the original failure loado In some other cases no initial diagonal
tension crack could be observed before the actual failure and the form-

ation of this crack and the failure of the beam took pace simultaneously.

Vi and Vu are the external shear forces at a distance d from

the center of the column.

Table 6 gives shear stresses at initial and ultimate loads.

V· V
To take into account the variation in f é, columns of TI-
c
and it
c
are
included. As the modulus of rupture of concrete is more accurately
Vi
described as being proportional to VfJ ,
columns showing Vfi and
c
~ are included.
Vi1
Comparison of values of Table 6 reveal some interesting

results .. The increase in nominal shearing stress from the initial

diagonal tension cracking load to the ultimate load, taken as an average

for the six flanged beams per series, amounts to 40% in Series I,to 7C1fo
in Series n, .but is only 5% in Series ni. This indicates a considerable

"reserve capacity "beyond the initial diagonal cracking load for Series 1

and n, which i8 an important factor in ultimate load design. The low

 Table 4

CONC~ETE"ANO "BEAM DATA

Beam No. f c' vrrc b' d t bd bdf:' bd Vi!

1 -NF a 3180 56.4 3.65 6~25 22.81 72,535 1286

r-NFb 81.80 46.4 3.62 6.25 22.63 71,963 1275

1 - 9 x 3/4 a 4070 63.8 3.64 6.25 .82 22.75 92,592 1451

1 - 9 x 3/4b 4070 63.8 3.73 6.25 .86 23.31 94,872 1487
1 - 9 x 1-1/4 a 3510 59.4 3.54 6.25 1.30 22.13 77,676 1315
1 ~.g x"I-1/4 b 3510 59.4 3.55 6.25 1.30 22.19 77,887 1318
1 -15 x 1-1/4 a 3700 60.8 3.60 6.25 1.34 22.50 83,250 1368
1 - 15 x 1-1/4 b 3700 60.8 3.55 6.25 1.30 22.19 82,103 1349

TI -NF a 2700 52.0 3.80 6.25 23.75 64 ,125 ...1235

TI -NF b 2700 52.0 3.80 6.25 23.75 65,800 1267

TI -9 x 1 a 3250 57.0 3.56 6.25 1.05 22.25 72,400 1268

il-9rl b 3250 57.0 3.68 6.25 -1.02 23.00 74,750 1311
n -15 x 3/4 a 3013 54.9 3.71 6.25 .83 23.19 69,871 1273
il ~15 x 3/4 b 3013 54 a 9 3.63 6.25 .80 22.69 68,364 1246
TI -15 x 1 a 3100 56.4 3.65 6.25 1.10 22.81 70,711 1268
TI -15 x 1 b 3100 56.4 3.65 6.25 1.10 22.81 70,711 1268

(cont'd.)

.
CQ'
0
 Table 4 (cont'd.)

CONCRETE -AND BEAM DATA

Beam No; fé Vi1 b' d t bd bdf'c bd~

rn-NF a 3000 54.8 ,3.55 6.25 22.19 66,570 1216
rn-NF b 3550 '59.6 3'.56 '6.25 21iSS '77,656 1304

In - 9x 3/4 a 2940 54.2 3.65 6.25 .80 22.81 67,061 1236

rn -9 x 3/4 b 2940 54.2 3.65 6.25 .75 22.81 67,061 1236
rn-9x1 a 3000 54.8 3.55 6.25 1.10 22.1~ 66,570 1216
rn -9 x 1 -b 3550 59.6 3.50 6.25 1.10 22.88 77,656 1304
m -9 x 1-1/4 a 3330 57.7 3.65 6.25 1.30 22.81 75,957 1316
rn -9 x 1-1/4 b 3330 57.7 3.70 6.25 1.35 23.13 76,990 1334

(0
.....

1
 Table 5

TEST RESULTS

Pf Pi Pu
Initial Flexural Initial Diagonal Ultirnate Vi Vu
Cracking Load Cracking Load Load at x = d at x = d
Bearn No. 1 kips kips kips kips kips

1 -NF a 8 14 29.5 3.18 6.70

1 -NF b 10 16 29.8 3.63 6.76

1 - 9 x 3/4 a 12 19 32.1 4.31 7.29

1 - 9 x 3/4 b 16 30 37.3 --6.81 ltï17
1 - 9 x 1-1/4 a 10 19 28.6 4.31 6.49
1 - 9 x 1-1/4 b 13 22 28.0 4.99 6.36
1 -15 x 1-1/4 a 13 25 28.0 5.68 6.36
1 - 15 x 1-1/4 b 12 29 41.6 6.58 9.45

TI-NF a 12 20 37.0 4.82 8.92

TI-NF b 12 18 52.4 4.34 11.74

TI-9xl a 10 20 32.2 4.82 7.76

ll-9xl b 10 19 32.1 4.58 7.74
il -15 x 3/4 a 8 18 32.5 4.03 7.83
II -15 x 3/4 b 10 16 31.2 3.86 7.52
II - 15 x 1 a 14 18 22.4 4.03 5.40 .
':D
llo:)

TI -15 xl b 12 18 28.6 4.03 6.89

(cont'd.)
 Table 5 (cont'd.)

.TEST.RESULTS

Pf Pi Pu
ln itiaI Flexural Initial Diagonal Ultimate V·1 Vu
Cracking Load Cracking Load Load at x = d at x = d
Bearn No. ki ki ·ki ki ki

ID-NF a 10 16 17.3 6.29 6.80

rn-NF b 8 19 19.2 7.47 7.55

ID -9 x 3/4 a 12 16 16.4 6.29 6.45

rn -9 x 3/4 b 14 19 20.4 7.47 8.02
rn -9 x1 a 10 16 16.0 6.29 6.29
ID -9 xl b 10 18 18.-0 7.07 7.07
ID -9 x 1-1/4 a 10 19 20.5 7.47 8.06
ID - 9 x 1-1/4 b 10 18 20.2 7.07 7.94

.'"
co
 Table 6

EVALUATED RESULTS

v·1 \T;
Vu
V'1 -- Da \T;
1
1
Vu = bd Vu VU Vu
Bearn No. psi. belf c' bdVf1 psi Ddf c IiIVfè Vi
I-NF a 139.4 .0438 2.47 293.7 .0924 5.21 2.11
1 -NF b 160.4 .0504 2.85 298.7 .0939 5.30 1.86

1 - 9 x 3/4 a 189.4 .0465 2.97 32004 .0787 5.02 1.69

1 - 9 x 3/4 b 292.1 .0718 4.58 363.3 .0893 5.69 1.24
1 - 9 x 1-1/4 a 189.4 .0555 3.28 320.4 .0836 4.94 1.69
1 - 9 x 1-1/4 b 194.7 .0641 3.78 293.3 .0817 4.82 1.51
1 -15 x 1-1/4 a 252.4 .0682 4.15 282.7 .0764 4.64 1.12
1 -15 x 1-1/4 b 297.1 .0802 4.88 426.1 .1153 7.00 1.43

n -NF a 202.9 .0752 3.90 375.6 .1391 7.22 1.85

II -NF b 182.7 .0660 3.42 494.3 .1784 9.27 2.70

II-9xl a 216.6 .0666 3.80 348.0 .1072 6.12 1.61

II-9x1b 199.1 .0613 3.49 336.5 .1035 5.90 1.69
II -15 x 3/4 a 173.7 .0576 3.17 337.6 .1121 6.15 1.94
II -15 x 3/4 b 170.1 .0565 3.10 331.4 .1099 6.04 1.94
II -15 x 1 a 176.6 .0569 3.18 236.7 .0764 4.26 1.34
II -15 x 1 b 176.4 .0569 3.18 302.1 .0974 5.43 1.71

(cont'd.)
.
co
~
 Table 6 (cont'd.)

EVALUATED RESULTS

V·1 V·1 Vu
V· Vu =iii Vu Vu
Vi =bd o1 Vu
Beam No. psi. bdf '
~ bdVf'c psi bdf c' bdVTè v·
rn-NF a 283.5 .0948 5.17 306.4 .1021 5.59 1008
rn-NF b 341.4 .. 0964 5.72 345.1 .0972 5.79 1.01

m - 9 x 3/4 a 275.7 .0937 5.09 282.7 .0962 5.22 1.03

m -9 x 3/4 b 327.4 .1114 6.04 351.6 .1195 6049 1.07
ID -9 x 1 a 283.4 .0945 5.17 283.4 .0945 5.17 LOO
rn -9 x 1 ob 309.0 .0910 5.42 309.0 0091"0 5042 1.00
m - 9 x 1-1/4 ~ 327.5 .0983 5.68 353.4 .1061 6.12 1.09
m - 9 x 1-1/4 b 305.7 .0918 5.30 343.3 .1031 5.95 1.12

(C
C1I
•
 96.

reserve capacity for the simply supported beams is merely an indica-

tion of Pi values which were nearly equal to those of Pu.

The same remarks are also true for the rectangular beams,
Yu
for which the average values of vi were even larger.
Series II had a 27% higher average value of vi than Series l,
while the average value of 'v i of Series III was 60% higher than that of
Series II. On. the other hand, average values of 'vu are approximately
equal in aIl three series. In comparing results from Series III, one

should keep in mind the increase in the percentage of longitudinal

reinforcing from Series 1 and Il, which was necessitated to prevent

flexural failures. One beam,with Series 1 or II' s configuration,was

tested under sim ply supported conditions and failed in flexure, after
which the percentage of steel was increased for Series III.

c. Dial Gauge Results

The dial gauge results are prE:sented in the form of load

vs .. deflection curves. (See Figures 28 to 35.) The eight curves per

figure represent the deflection of the eight beams of a series. The two
L.H.S. curves correspond to the rectangular beams, the center curves
the strain~auged or "a" beams and the R.H.S. curves the "b" beams.
Thus deflections of aIl beams of a series can he easily compared.
Table 7 gives some typical load-deflection data. Although most curves
 97.

show roughly similar deflections, considerable düferences do exist in

sorne casesG Some of these differences can be attributed to the
variation of th~ moment of inertia due to the variable flange dimensions.
Others can only be attributed to non-intentional dimensional and concrete
strength variations.
Load deflection properties are thoroughly discussed in the

literature (7L Generally, the main conclusions reached can Ile briefly
sum marized as follows:

1. Before the stress at the extreme fiber reaches the modulus

of rupture of the concrete, the beam acts as a homogeneous member,

the full cross-section of which resists flexure and shear. The effect
of the tension reinforcement is usually neglected in deflection or stiffness
calculations.
2. After the load has been reached at which the extreme fiber
stress exceeds the modulus of rupture, the beam is assumed to be
cracked, the concret~ in tension is neglected and the section resisting
bending is the elastic, transformed section. This is usually true for
loads up to the "design load" which is about one half of the ultimate load.
3. For loads above the 'tlesign load" plastic conditions in the

concrete must be assumed in calculating deflections.

Figure 36 shows the experimental load-deflection curve of

beam In - 9 x 1 bo
 98.

The two straight lines are the theoretical deflections, the one with the

greater slope being based on the initial tangent Modulus (ET = 5.3 x

106 psi.) and the moment of inertia of the gross section, the other being
6
based on the secant modulus (ES = 3.0 x 10 psio) and the effective

moment of inertia, based on a cracked section. Until flexural cracking

starts, the experimental curve follows the former theoretical curve.

At this point a graduaI decrease of slope of the experimental curve takes

place, indicating that cracking has started and that ET is decreasing

towards ES. The moment of inertia varies along the beam from the

effective for cracked sections to the gross for uncracked sections. An

average moment of inertia of these two values would give most accurate

results for this region of the experimental curve, which lies in between

the two theoretical ones. Deflections depend to a large extent on the

amount of flexural cracking.

Large deflections result from yielding of the steel, which

was particularly evident for the cantileverends of Series 1 and il,

where deflections greatly increased during loading }Briods in which

extensive cracking and yielding occurred. Comparison of the deflec-

tions of Series 1 and Il shows 'generally larger deflections of the over-

hanging ends for Series l, but smaller deflections for points in the

main span, as expected from different end conditions.

 99.

\1
J.!I Io!" 1-
"
t"
Il

N
J.,
~ rA

li

Il

LI.
r7
Il

Il

Il

'" Y
IL.

'II

Figure 28.
Load Deflection Curves
 100.

f-f-

1.. 1,.
III
--

IArr
lA
ri' V
ln

Il
"r-P- 1/",
-
'Il
1/
III
Il:

l7. 1""

Figur'e 29.
Load Deflection Curves
 101.

if-,
If' ~

L..-

Il

- ~ 1/ 1"

Il
~

., IL

J
""

1,..
~~ f"" ~ 1'"
~ -

Figure 30.
Load Deflection Curves
 102.

w
r~

'1
r..-; l.
- V 1'1''''''
l/

J<:
1- - t..;

"1'/

II'.
lA
[;.00
~
1:1

1/
Il ~
... i0oi

r;
~ r-. IL

Ilj

,..
1"
IQ r" r" ~,t

R
lJ.j R..

Figure 31.0
Load Deflection Curves
 103.

1-

""" ~ ~~I] -

1("
01/ 16U
II.
IV

} ~

1
~ Il

17

- 1""'1""

Figure 32.
Load Deflection Curves
 -

t:: IJ C-
I.., II" ~ I~
.-

:,..-
v

1/

Il
L 11'

,-~
IL

- " IL
17
tll ... 1/
IJ.~
l-"

IJ 1/'
LI
7 IL

1
Il
1.
.1
1.
J
1" li 1

'lAI

1'"

.. -
1....
.'fF
. 1'"
ti' ".1iL 1- 1111)(

Fïgure 330
Load Deflection Curves
 105.

-- -

1-. !oP
1/. 11'1 I~ I/IV. l-

ra.:

~
19, J
Il r.;4
li, li 1/
1.01

IJ
I~

Il TJ /":II
1.7 17
Il
Il

Il
Il
17 7

11/ Il

If

'8

1"
l' 1""
P
rr lA iI'J
-

Figure 34.
Load Deflection Curves
 106.

!....

if-'
_.

;1
1

i?:
,
1/ r:J
LI
Il
rJi
[;f

1/ 7 J

'fJ
1,1,

11

li rr

1""1 ~ II(

11" ~,,( -

Figure 350
Load Deflection Curves
 107.

Lill/"

1
1

1-1-0
1/
1"'"
r- I~

,
I/'r- [l'.. V
~

L;

V
i;'

t.;

~ 1-'

1/ V 1"1
~ ~ If.
t.;

..
r-
-I~
il": rJ'LI.
"'"
,~
1/.

Figure 360 Experimental and Theoretical

D eflection Curves for Bearn III - 9 x 3/4 b
 108.

D. Strain Gauge Results

Much düficulty was encowltered with the strain gauges.

Although the gauges were applied in triplets in Series 1 and II and in

twins in Series TIl, results were very oUen erratic and unreliable.

Results are presented in the form of load vs. strain curves as shown

in Figures 37 to 43. Table 7 gives sorne typical load-strai,n data as

plotted in the graphs. Average values of the strain at a point were used

for the p~otting of the curveso In case readings from one gauge differed

considerably from the other two gauges at the same point, these

readings were omitted. If readings from aU three gauges' differed from

each other, the results were considered unreliable, and were not plotted.

Thus aU curves missing mean unreliable results from the gauges in

question. AU strain gauges appied to concrete were in compression

areas, those on steel in tension zones.

ln most curves abrupt changes of slope were encountered.

Changes of slope are generaUy associated with the formation of cracks

in the concrete. Once cracking occurs a redistribution of internaI

stresses takes place resulting in a higher strain in the reinforcing in

the region of the crack. Considerable stram differences were found

for different beams at the same load. This was believed to be only

partially due to the different flange thicknesses. Unreliability of the

strain results seems a factor also. Yielding of the longitudirut.l steel

 Table 7

TYPICAL DIAL AND STRAIN* GAUGE RESULTS AT CENTER SPAN

(Steel) (Steel)
Dial Gauge Rdg. DiaI Gauge Rdg.. Strain Gauge Rdg. Strain Gauge Rdg.
Load Bearn n -NF a Bearn ID - 9 x 1-1/4 a Bearn il -NF a Bearn m - 9 x 1-1/4 a
kips in. in. o x 10-o.AoID •
lD. in. x 10 -6/1ln.

•100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2 .007 .006 32 62
4 .012 .015 70 135
6 .017 .025 88 275
8 .022 ,,040 200 436
10 .030 .058 405 -594
12 .052 .077 598 749
14 .057 .096 650 892
16 .062 .111 782 1022
18 .074 .138 900 1148
20 .093 .150 1010 1270
22 .100 1208
24 .107 1376
26 .121
28 .155
30 .190

...
o
*" Readings are average of strains rneasured at that point. ~
 110.

took place in sorne beams although it is believed that most yielding

occurred in the cantilever ends which had much larger deflections~

E. Deflection of Sponge Rubber

To obtain a uniformly distributed load on the beams, the

sponge rubber shou Id deflect equally at aU points along the beam. Dial

gauges, whose locations are shown in Figure 15, were used to measure
the deflection of the sponge rubber.

Figures 44 to 46 show typical load deflection curves of the

sponge rubber at düferent points along the beam. One typical curve

is drawn for each series. The curves start off in an alProximately

straight line, indicating linear elastic behaviour up to a load of about

10 kips, after which an up.yard curvature indicates a stüfening. Deflec-

tions of the sponge rubber are in aU cases approximately equal along

each beam. A maximum difference of deflection between center span

and support occurs in Series Il of about 60 micro-inch, corresponding

to a variation of about one kip of machine load. This düference is

neglected in aU calculations.
 113.

h
~
1:'1 III
LV ~

1
"'"
1'\
"
'\,
1....

"
1\1

1"'"

-
1'1
1"1

~
1\

l'iiô l'!r.
II1II

"
"'"
LI

" Il

.... C;
1'1"

r:;: r..
1"
Ioo!\
Il

~ l-
l'
"
10lI

Figure 390 Load Strain Curves

 If"
1\

" 1\
LI' 1:;(

.fl'oJ
1"

l'

l'

Il
Il

1\

1\'

RI..
'to.."-
~

- 1"
1..
1'::

-- - 1-
--
-1- -t---

Figure 410 Load Strain Curves

 1160

-,-~·~~~~~~~+++4~~+{~~~~~~t+~~rr++~~rr++Ti~rrTt~-HrtTt~lIltti
-~·_·II~~~~~~.~~~~++~~I~~~++~~~I\~4-~++~~4-~++~~rrtt~~rttt~-rGttt~~
1""

Ill"

I~I>

Figure 42e Load Strain Curves

 117.

""
1"'0
,~
~

"-
50

1...\

,~

11'1
IJ' '" Uè

l-

I-

'~ 17

Figure 43. Lllad Strain C'i.lrves

 118.

II(

Vi

Fi gure 44. Load Deflection Curve for Rubber

 119.

....

II( lA
"
T-
I

IJ

li

"

la

.
1 -

~!'ll
-

Figure 450 Load Deflection Curve for Rubber

 120.

ct'! ",. IL ~
1,,1:-

l' lML

I~

ri

IJI:-

l\..

JI

",

L-'
V

IV
1-1-

Figure 460 Load Deflection Curve for Rubber

 121.

F. Comparison of Results with Existing Theories

The two most significant recent theories of shear failure

are those proposed by Moody, Viest, El~tner and Hognestad (14) and

by Laupa, Siess and Newmark*(12) (see Historical Review). In the

former report it is assumed that the shear sp~n to depth ratio has an

effect on the ultimate shear strength and thus the theory seems to he

limited to concentrated loading. The latter theory is applicable to

beams subjected to concentrated as weIl as distributed loads. The majQr

equations for calculating the ultimate shear moment, Ms, with the

L.S.N. theoryare for rectangular beams with tension reinforcement

orny, under concentrated loading:

4.5f è
Ms = bd f ék (0.57..,.. 10ij )
2
••• (8.1)

where,
k = V(pn):L + 2pn - pn ••• (8.2)

fOr T-beams a shape factor oc is incorporated in the formula:

4.5f ~
Ms = Acdf ~ oc (0.57 - 10 5 ) ••• (8.3)

where,
IT + 1er ••• (8.4)
oC=
IR + 1er

* l{enceforth abbreviated L.S.N.

 122.

I T and IR refer to the uncracked section,

Icr refers to the "straight Une" cracked transformed

section of either a rectangular or T-beam since

both have nearly the same moment of inertia, and

Ac is the compressive concrete area, also determined

by the conventional straight-line theory.

At a section where maximum moment and maximum shear cOincide,

as is the case in Series 1 and II below the columns, the shear moment

of a beam under distributed loading can be directly determined by the

above equations. In regions of maximum moment and no shear, such

as at center span of Series nI, the above equations should be evaluated

M
at the section where va = 4.5.
The applicability of the shape factor for T-beams seems

rather doubtful. In the report concerned, the authors simply assume

Us form, without any proof or explanation. Theoretical values, using

the shape factor, in sorne cases did not agree with the test results of

the report. Garulnick (18) applied the above formulae ta determine

"the shear moment capacity of 24 T-beams, omitting the shape factor.

The shape factor for the T-beams, tested by the author varied between

.60 and. 75. It was not used in the actual evaluation of the formq1ae,

in most cases giving more accurate results.

 123.

Columns 2 to 4, Table 8, give the experimental values of

the distributed load, and the maximum negative and positive :&.lloments
at ultimate loado The L.NoS. formulae are directly applicable to the

beams of Series 1 and II as the maximum moment and shear coincide.

M
For Series III the formulae are applied for the section where Vd = 4.5

which is at X = 1806 ino (see colurnn 5). The values of the modular

ratio, n, column 6, are obtained from the formula:

••• {8.5)

Esteel
This formula seemed more accurate than the use of n = =---
Econcr.
because of the fact that the Young's Moduli for steel and concrete

were not determined for each beam.

Column 8 gives the ultimate shear moment as calculated

by the t;aupa, Siess, Newmark theory, omitting the shape factoro The

ratio of calculated ultimate shear moment to the eXl2rimental moment

at ultimate load is given in column 9. Except for beam II - 15 x 1 a

aU ratios are smaller th an one, indicating safe design. In the majority

of cases the value ls below 0080, which i!l a practical case would be

considered an " over-designed "beam. The scatter of the test data

makes these results hard to interpret, but it should be emphasized

again that extreme care should be taken when using empirical formulae

to have exactly similar test and loading conditions as those under which

the formulae were derived.

 124.

The allowable unit shear stresses as stipulated by the ACI

Building Code No. 318-63 were calculated by the formula:

VaU = <P (1.9 VQ + 2500 Pw Vd ) ••. (8.6)

M

and these values appear in Table 9, along with other data, such as the

concrete strength, th e percentage of longitudinal rei.nforcing and the

Vd
value of M evaluated at a distance d from th e support:

for Series l, 1
Vd 12(2" - d)d
M = 6 Id - 12 - 6d2. .•• (8.7)

for Series II, 1

Vd 48(2 - d)d
M = 4(6 Id _1 2 - 6d") +12
for Series III,
Vd (1 - 2d)
M = (1 - d) eoo{8.9)

vult' also given in Table 9, is the nominal shear stress

at ultimate load, at a distance d from the columns. The last column

gives the ratio v:~!t.. These values or "Safety Factors" vary between
2.07 and 5.21. The safety factor seems higher for the restrained beams

than for the simply supported ones. It is anticipated that uniformly

loaded beams have higher shear strengths than beams loaded by one

or several large concentrated loads, due to the fact that uniformly

loaded beams have very short high shear regions in comparison to the
 Table B

COMPARISON OF TEST DATA WITH THEORETICAL SHEAR MOMENT VALUES

Test Results Calculated Results

M·
u
Bearn M!:...
M. Ms
w (-)Mu (+)Mu at Vd ;: 4.5 n k L.S.N Theory Mu Ma1t.
kni in. kips in. kips in. kips in. kins
(l) (2) (3) (4) (5) . ·(6)" . .. (7) (8) (9)

1 -NF a .229 96.18 48.09 - 8.1 .35 65.4 " .68

1 -NF b .231 97.04 48.57 - 8.1 .35 65.4 .67

1 - 9 x 3/4 a .249 104.60 52.30 - 7.4 .34 73.8 .71

1 - 9 x 3/4 b .289 121.41 60.71 - 7.4 .34 73.8 .61
1 - 9 x 1-1/4 a
1 - 9 x 1-1/4 b
.222
.217
93.26
91.16
46.63
45.58
- 7.8 .34 66.9 .72
- 7.8 .34 66.9 .73
1 -15 x 1...1/4 a
1 -15 x 1-1/4 b
.217
.322
91.16
135.27
45.58
67.64
-- 7.7
7.7
.34
.34
68.8
68.8
.75
.51

II -NF a
II -NF b
.306
.433
96.42
136.44
96.42
136.44
-- 8.7
8.7
.35
.35
58.1
58.1
.60
.42
II-9xla .266 83.81 83.81 - 8.1 .35 .65 3 0 .77
II - 9 x-l b .266 83,,81 83.81 - 8.1 .35 65.3 .77
il -15 x 3/4 a
il -15 x 3/4 b
.269
.258
84.76 84.76 -
...,.
8.3 .35 6109 ,,73
....
81.30 81030 8.3 .35 6109 .76
il -l5-x 1 a .185 57.74 57.74 - 8.2 .35 63.8 1010 .
t\:>
c:TI

il -15 x 1 b .236 74.36 74.36 - 8.2 .35 63.8 .86

 Table 8 (cont'd.)

COMPARISON OF TEST DATA WlTH THEORETICAL SHEAR MOMENT VALUES

Test P..esults Calculated Results

Bearn MMu Ms M::

w (-)Mu (+)Mu at va ::-4.5 n k L.S.N. Theory Mu Qlal(.
kpi in.kips in. kips in. kips in. kips
(1) (2 ) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

m-NFa
m-NFb
.234
.259
--- 147.44
163.20
, 113.1
126.2
8.3
7.8
.48
.48
85.1
96.2
.58
.59

m -9 x 3/4 a .222 -~ 139.88 108.1 8.4 .38 100.0 .71

m -9 x 3/4 b .276 ..... 173.91 134.3 8.4 .38 100.0 .57

---
m-9xla .216 136.10 105.0 8.3 .37 109.1 .80
m - 9x 1 b .243 153.11 118.0 7.8 037 123.0 .80
m -9 x 1-1/4 a .277 174.54 134.2 8.0 .35 98.2 .56
m - 9 x 1-1/4 b .273 - 172.02 132.1 8.0 .35 98.2 .57

)000&

.
1:'1:1
C»
 Table 9

COMPARISON OF ALLOWABLE SHEAR WITH ACTUAL SHEAR STRESS

VaU

f c' P
Vd
M
T
AC! code vaU vult.
Vult.
v.all
Bearn psi. % cale. psi.. psi. psi. S.F.

1 -NF a 3180 1.14 .84 131.1 111.4 293.7 2.64

1 -NF b 3180 1.14 .84 lai.l 111.4 298.7 2.68

1 -9 x 3/4 a 4070 . 1.14 .84 145.1 123.3 320.4 2.59

1 .... 9 x 3/4 b 4070 1.14 .84 145.1 12303 363.3 2.94
1 - 9 x 1-1/4 a 3510 1.14 .84 136.8 116.3 320.4 2.75
1 ... 9 x·l-l/4 b 3510 1.14 .84 136.8 116.3 293.3 2.52
1 - 15 x 1-1/4 a 3700 1.14 .84 139.4 118.5 282.7 2.38
1 -15 x 1-1/4 b 3700 1.14 .84 139.4 118.5 426.1 3.59

li-NFa 2700 1.14/.92 .41 110.5 93.93 375.6 3.99

ll-NFb 2700 . 1.14/.92 .41 110.5 93.93 494.3 5.21

li-9xla 3250 1.14/.92 .41 120.0 102.0 348.0 3.41

II-1)xl b 3250 1.14/.92 .41 120.0 102.0 336.5 3.29
li ~15 x3/4 a 3013 1.14/.92 .41 116.0 98.6 337.6 3.42
li -15 x 3/4 b 3013 1.14/.92 .41 116.0 98.6 331.4 3.36
il.". 15·x 1 a 3100 1.14/.92 .41 118.9 101.1 236.7 2.34
II -15 xl b 3100 1.14/.92 .41 118.9 . 101.1 302.1 2.98 ......
tI:)

.
-J

(cont'd.)
 Table 9

COMPARISON OF ALLOWABLE SHEAR WITH ACTUAL SHEAR STRESS

VaU

f c' P
Vd
M
T
AC! code vaU vult.
Vult.
v.all
Bearn psi. % cale. psi.. psi. psi. S.F.

1 -NF a 3180 1.14 .84 131.1 111.4 293.7 2.64

1 -NF b 3180 1.14 .84 13i.l 111.4 298.7 2.68

1 - 9 x 3/4 a 4070 1.14 .84 145.1 123.3 320.4 2.59

1,.. 9 x 3/4 b 4070 1.14 .84 145.1 123.3 363.3 2.94
1 - 9 x 1-1/4 a 3510 1.14 .84 136.8 116.3 320.4 2.75
l '" 9 x-l-l/4 b 3510 1.14 .84 136.8 116.3 293.3 2.52
1 -15 x 1-1/4 a 3700 1.14 .84 139.4 118.5 282.7 2.38
1 - 15 x 1-1/4 b 3700 1.14 .84 139.4 118.5 426.1 3 .. 59

n-NFa 2700 1.14/.92 .41 110.5 93 93

0 375.6 3.99
il-NFb 2700 - 1.14/.92 .41 110.5 93.93 494.3 5.21

n ... 9xla 3250 1.14/.92 .41 120.0 102.0 348.0 3.41

II-~xl b 3250 1.14/.92 .41 120.0 102.0 336.5 3.29
II ~ 15 x 3/4 a 3013 1.14/.92 .41 116.0 98.6 337.6 3.42
il -15 x 3/4 b 3013 1.14/.92 .41 116.0 98.6 331.4 3.36
II '" 15 -x 1 a 3100 1.111/.92 .41 118.9 101.1 236.7 2.34
II -15 xl b 3100 1.1;1/'92 .41 118.9 . 101.1 302.1 2.98 .....
~
:..:J
(cont'd.)
 Table 9 (cont' d.)

vaU
Vd Vult.
f c'
JI)
p M ACI code vaU Vult. vaU
Bearn psi. % cale. pd. psi. psi. S.F.

m -NFa 3000 2.51 .903 160.7 136.6 306.4 2.24

m-NFb 3550 2.51 .903 169~8 144.3 345.1 2.39

m - 9 x 3/4 a 2940 2.51 .903 159.6 135.7 282.7 2.08

m -9 x 3/4 b 2940 2.51 .998 159.6 135.7 351.6 2.59
m -9 x 1 a 3000 2.51 .903 160.7 136.6 283.4 2.07
Ill",9x1b 3550 2.51 .903 169.8 144.3 309.0 2.14
m - 9 x 1 ..1/4 a 3330 2.51 .903 166.2 14L3 353.4 2.50
m - 9 x 1-1/4 b 3330 2.51 .903 166.2 141.3 343.3 2.42

.-
N
foC
 129.

long constant shear regions of beams under concentrated loading. Also

the high shear regions of unüormly loaded beams occur close to the
support, where the large compressive stresses due to the support
tend to decrease the effect of shear and flexural stresses. Since there

is no allowance for extra shear strength of unüormly loaded beams

in the ACI code, it would ap{Ear that higher safety factors were obtained .

in this test program than had a concentra,ted loading system been used.
 130.

CHAPTER NINE

CONCLUSIONS

A. Summary

Three series of tests were performed with the prime

purpose of studying the effect of the fUmge of T-beams on tl1eir shear
strength. Each series consisted of six: T-beams and two rectangular
beams. The end conditions of the T-beams were either fully fixed,
restrained or simply supported for Series 1 to III respectively. AU
beams had exactly similar companion beams as a check on the va lid ity

of the results. Except for some unavoidable differences in f C' the

flange dimension was the only variable among companion beams of
each series. Beam dimensions and the experimental procedure were
designed in such a way to approximate practical conditions as closely

as possible. A method was devised to obtain a truly uniformly

distributed load. This was done by testing the T-beams, flange down,

on top of a 3" thick layer of medium soft sponge rubber. The beams
were loaded through the columns, thereby compressing the rubber

which exerted a uniformly distri buted load on the beams. This loading
system proved very successful.
 131 •.

Test data included the measurement of deflections, steel

and concrete strains, the determination of the load causing initial

flexural cracking and initial diagonal tension cracking, as weIl as the

ultimate load, The findings can be summarized as follows:

1. Diagonal tension cracking loads and ultimate loads were

fairly scattered and no definite trend of increasing shear strength with

increasing flange Bize was observed. One should take into account,

however, that this research was the first of its kind and was therefo:re

too Umited in scope to generalize this conclusion and assume it to be

vaUd for any T-beam under any kjnd of loading and end condition.

2. The scatter of results complicated the issue and made it

düficult to draw definite conclusions. The compressive strength of the

beams, f C' was the average value obtained from six control cylinders.

It was not uncommon that the strength of one of the cylinders was as

much as 40% off the average~ It is therefore not reasonable to expect

a unüorm concrete strength throughout the test beams. If the concrete

strength at the section of fallure hapl2ned to be different from the

average value of the control cylinders, the cracking and ultimate load

would be different from the predicted loads. It is believed that much

of the scatter of the results can be attributed to non-uniformity of the

concrete strength of the test beams. As aU concreting was done in the

laboratory after carefully measuring the required amounts of cement,

 132.

sand and water, no cause for the non-uniformity of the concrete

strength can he fmmd.

3. In Series 1 and II the flange in the column area was in

tension. One might expect therefore that the section did not act like a

T-section. This was by no means certain however, as the section of

failure of a beam is located at some distance away from the column,

towards the center span, thereby making it uncertain whether it occurs

in a tension or compression zone. In many cases the diagonal tension

crack was found to cross from the negative moment region into the

positive moment region.

4•. T~e ultimate shear moment of the beams was calculated,

using the formulae presented recently in an extensive report by Laupa,

Siess and Newmark. Values of the calculated shear moment and the

experimental moment at ultimate load varied from .42 to 1.10, this

latter value being the only one larger than one. Most values were

below 0.80, indicating safe, but uneconomical design.

5. The nominal shear stress at ultimate load was calculated

and a comparison was made to the allowable shear stress as stipu-

Vu
lated by the ACI Building Code. Values of vaU ranged from 2.0

to about 5.0. These values, or safety factors are in the expected

range for concrete structures.

 133.

6. Load-deflection curves were presented of aU beams. Up

to the load at which initial flexural cracking took place, the deflections
agreed closely with the theoretical values, using the initial tangent

modulus and the moment of inertia based on the gross section. After
flexural cracking started, a decrease in the slope revealed a graduaI

change-over from the initial tangent modulus to the secant modulus

and from the moment of inertia based on the gross section to the

moment of inertia based on the" straight Une" transformed section.

7. In Series 1 and II the ultimate loads were very much

higher than the initial diagonal tension cracking loads, indicating a

large" reserve capacity". This was not the case for Series In, in which

the two loads closely coincided.

8. Cracking patterns and failure modes were very similar

for Series 1 and II, which were typical cases of diagonal tension failures.

Series nI also had diagonal tension failures but splitting along the
reinforcing bars was more pronounced and dowel action often caused

a second crack in the shear span, which formed at failure,and had the
appearance of a second diagonal tension crack.

9. Except for slight changes in the crack patterns, no definite

differences were encountered in the ultimate and cracking loads of

the T-beams and their corresponding rectangular beams.

10•.. Even if the design procedure does not require them,

stirrups should always be used in T-beams to act as links between

web and flange.

 134.

B. Future Research

As stated before, it is the author' s belief that the present

trend of research in reinforced concrete which consists of the testing

of large numbers of beams, mostly under concentrated loading and

simp.y supported end conditions wUI not lead to a solution of the shear

problem. Rather, the more basic and as yet unresolved questions

such as the foUowing ones should first be answered:

1. What is the true failure criterion for concrete?

2. Does the initial local fallure affect the final mode of

failure and/or ultimate load ?

3. Vice versa, does the mode of failure influence the initial

local failure and/or ultimate load?

"
4. What is the effect of the reinforcing on the initial local

failure, the mode of failure, and ultimate load?

5. What is the "reserve capacity" of a beam, once diagonal

tension cracking has started?

6. What is the effective width of the flange of a T-beam?

In trying to answer these points, one should at aU times

use practical conditions; a loading system such as developed in this

thesis is both simple and true to practice. A shrinkage prevention

mechanism should be incorporated in the test set-up and both short

 135.

and long term loading should be used to determine the effects of creep.

Only when these very basic questions have been solved

can one proceed to more complicated shapes, such as complete

frameworl{s.
 136.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following abbreviations were used:

A.S.C.E. - American Society of Civil Engineers

A .C .1. - American Concrete Institute

1. Talbot, A. N. Tests of Reinforced Concrete University of filinois,

T-beams, series 1906. l!:ngineering Experiment
Station, Bulletin No. 12,
Feb. '1907.

2. Gilchrist, J. Reinforced Concrete T"; Engineering (London),

beams: Strength of Web in Vol. 100, Sept. 1915,
Shear. pp. 293 -294.

3. Johnson, L. J. and Shearing Strength of Con- A.S.C.E. Transactions,

Nichols, J. R. struction Joints in Stems of Vol. 77, 1914, pp 1499-
Reinforced Concrete T-beams 1522.
as Shown by Tests.

4. Gilchrist, J. Experiments on Shearing Engineering (London),

Strength of Reinforced Vol. 124, Oct. 1927,
Concrete Beams. pp. 563 -566.

5. Mylrea, T. D. Tests of ReinfQrced Concrete A.C.I. Journal,Proceedings,

T-beams. Vol. 30, No. U-12, May,
June 1934, pp. 448-464.

6. McCullough, C. B. Flexural Resistance of Engineering News Record,

Shallow Concrete Beams. Sept. 19, 1935.

7. Blackey, F. A. A Theory of Deflection of Magazine of Concrete

Reinforced Concrete Beams Research, No. 7, Aug. 19510
Under Short Term Loading.

8. Clark, A. P. and Diagonal Tensio~. in Rein ... A.C.I. Journal, Prb.ceedings,

forced Concrete Beams. Oct. 1951, Vol. 48,
dis'cussion by pp. 145-155.
Ferguson, P.M.
and
Moretto, O.

~"
 137.

9. Hognestad, E. What Do We Know about University of lllinois

Diagonal Tension and Web Engineering Experiment
Reinforcement in Concrete. Station, Bulletin No. 64,
1952.

10. Ferguson, P.M. Diagonal Tension in A. C .1. Journal, P:t'o~eedings,

and T-beams without Stirrups. Volo 49, No. 7, March 1953,
Thompson, J. N. pp. 665-675.

11. Hognestad, E. Yield Line Theory for the A.C.I. Journal, Proceedings,
Ultimate Flexural Strength Vol. 49, March 1953,
of Reinforced Concrete pp. 637-664.
Slabs.

12. Laupa, A., The Shear Strength of Civil Engineering Studies,

Siess, C. P., and Simple Span Reinforced Structural Research Series
Newmark, N. M, Concrete Beams without No. 52, University of
Web Reinforcement. llUnois, April 1953.

1 3. Revesz, S. Behavior of Composite A.C .1. Journal, Proceedings,

T-beams with Prestressed Vol. 49, No. 6, Feb. 1953,
and Unprestressed Rein- pp. 585-692.
forcement.

14. Moody, K. G., Shear Strength of Reinforced

Viest, 1. M., Concrete Beams.
Eistner, R. C.
and Part 1 -Tests of Simple A.C.I. Journal, Proceedings,
Hognestad, E. Beams. Vol. 51, No. 4, Dec. 1954,
pp. 317 -332.

Part II - Tests of Restrained A.C .1. Journal, Proceedings,

Beams without Web Vol. 51, No. 5, Jan. 1955,
Reinforcement. pp. 417 -434.

Part III - Tests of A.C.I. Journal, Proceedings,

Restrained Beams with Vol. 51, No. 6, Feb. 1955,
Web Reinforcement. pp. 525-639.

Part IV - Analytical A.C.I. Journal, Proceedings,

Studies. Vol. 51, No. 7, March 1955,
pp. 697 -73 O.
 138.

15. Brown, E. 1. and Strength of Reinforced A.C.I. Journal, Proceedings,

Concrete T-beams under Vol. 51, No. 9, May 1955,
di seussion by Combined Direct Shear pp. 889-902.
Ferguson, P. M. and Torsion.

1 6. Ferguson, P. M. Sorne Implications of Recent A.C.I. Journal, Proceedings,

Diagonal Tension Tests. Vol. 53, No. 2, Aug. 1956,
pp. 157-172.

17. Jones, Ro The Ultimate Strength of Magazine of Concrete

Reinforced Concrete Beams Research, VoL. 8, No. 23,
in Shear. August 1956.

18. Garulnick, S. A. An Investigation of High Report No. TSR 4730-7146,

Strength Deformed Steel School of Civil Engineering,
Bars for Concrete Cornell University, July 195'
Reinforcement. 123 pp.

19. AI-Alusi, A. F. Diagonal Tension Strength A.C.I. Journal, Proceedings,

of Reinforced Concrete Vol. 53, No. 11, May 1957,
T-beams with Varying pp. 1067-1077.
Shear Span.

20. Bresler, B. and Strength of Concrete under A.C.I. Journal, Proceedings,

Pister, K. S. Combined Stresses. Vol. 55, No. 3, Sept. 1958,
pp .. 321--345.

21. McHenry, D. and Strength of Concrete under A.C.I. Journal, Proceedings,

Karni, J. Combined Tensile and Vol. 54, No. 10, April 1958,
Compressive Stress. pp. 829...a39.

22. Rensaa, F. M. Shear, Diagonal Tension A.C .1. Journal, Proceedings,

and Anchorage in Beams. Vol .. 55, No. 6, Dec. 1958,
pp. 695-715.

23. Garulnick, S. A. Shear Strength of Reinforced A.S.C.E. Proceedings,

Concrete Beams. Vol. 85, Jan. 1959, pp. 1-42.

24. Brock, G. Effect of Shear on Ultimate A.C.I. Journal, Proceedings,

Strength of Rectangular Vol. 56, No. 7, Jan. 1960.
Beams with Tensile Rein-
forcement.
 139.

25. Bower, J. E. and Shear Strength of Restrained A.C.I. Journal, Proceedings

Viest,l. M. Concrete Beams without Web Vol. 57, No. 1, July 1960,
Reinforcement. pp. 73 -98.

26. Taub, J. and Resistance to Shear of A. C .1. Journal, Proceedings

Neville, A. M. Reinforced Concrete Beams, Volo 57, No. 2, Aug. 1960,
Part 1: Beams without Web pp. 193 ";!20o
Reinforcement.

27. Neville, 1. M. Some Factors in the Shear Structural Engineeer

Strength of Reinforced (London), Vol. 38, No. 7,
Concrete Beams. July 1960, pp. 213 -223 .

28. Williams, D. Diagonal Tension Cracking M. Eng. Thesis,

of Reinforced Concrete McGill University, 19610
Beams.

29. Faris, A. M. Ultimate Shear in Reinforced M. Engo Thesis,

COD.crete Beams with McGill University, 1962.
Stirrups.

30. Report of A.C.I. - Shear and Diagonal Tension. A.C.I. Journal, Proceedings,
A.S.C.E. Vol. 59, 1962, pp. 3-30.
Committee 326

3 1. 'K;lni, G. J. The Mechanism of So-called Transactions Engineering

Shear Failure. Institute of Canada,
No. EIC '63-CN-5, April
1963.

32. Krefeld, W. J. and Contribution of Longitudinal A.C.I. Journal, Proceedings,

Thurston, C. W. Steel to Shear Resistance Vol. 63, No. 3, March 1966,
of Reinforced Concrete pp. 325-345.
Beams.

33. Jones, L. L. A Theoretical Solution for Paper p-esented to the

the Ultimate Strength of European Committee for
Rectangular Reinforced Concrete at Wiesbaden,
Concrete Beams without Cement and Concrete
Stirrups. Association (London).
 140.

34. Krefeld, W. J. and Studies of Shear and A.C.I. Journal, Proceedings

Thu,rston, C. W. Diagonal Tension Strength Vol. 63, No. 4, April 1966,
of Simply Supported Rein- pp. 4514770
forced Concrete Beams.

3 5. Kàni, G. J. Bauic Facts Concerning AoC.I. Journal) Proceedings:

Shear Failure. Vol. 63, No. 6, June 1966 1
ppo 675-692.